Feature

Nursing shortages are the biggest safety risk for patients in labor and delivery units, according to a recent survey of obstetricians.

Just over 58% of the 1,130 respondents put nursing shortages ahead of physician support and backup (39.0%), inconsistent standards of care (38.5%), and nursing education (31.1%) as the most important challenge to patient safety, the Ob Hospitalist Group (OBHG) said in a new report.

“The survey reveals some startling gaps in physician and patient support all along the care continuum in obstetrics and OB hospitalist programs filling them,” said Lenny Castiglione, the CEO of OBHG, a national network of over 1,000 obstetric hospitalists. “As pressure builds on ob. units to improve care and reduce costs, and as clinical resources are stretched in the continuing battle against COVID-19 and its variants, health systems need to take serious measures to fill these gaps through staff recruitment, retention, and training.”

The national shortage of nurses is expected to get worse over the coming years as Baby Boomers’ need for health care increases and the large population (over 1 million) of older registered nurses retires by 2030, the OBHG said based on projections from the American Association of Colleges of Nursing.

Ob. hospitalists were somewhat more likely to see the nursing shortage as a major problem, compared with community-based Obs (58% vs. 48%), but the biggest difference in perception of safety risk between the two groups (53% for hospitalists vs. 22% for community physicians) involved inconsistent standards of care. “This is likely due to the ob. hospitalists’ 24/7 presence on the unit, and their visibility into the care provided across the unit,” the report noted.
 

Priorities for the future

Participants also were asked to rank each of seven focus areas on a scale of 0 (lowest priority) to 3 (highest) by its importance in the next 5 years. Maternal mortality was identified as the highest priority by 59.2% of physicians, followed by gaps in access to care between patient populations (38.0%), rural health care (26.5%), and ob.gyn. shortage (26.4%), the OBHG said.

A number of respondents noted the increase in high-risk patients, many of whom are obese and/or older and have comorbidities. “We know that the risk of C-sections increases relative to maternal weight. We need to focus on maternal morbidity and mortality,” one physician wrote in the open-ended response section.

When compared with the community obs., the hospitalists were much more likely to assign top priority over the next 5 years to maternal mortality (73% vs. 50%) and to gaps in access between patient populations (51% vs. 30%), according to the OBHG survey, which was conducted in January of 2021.
 

How will practice change in 5 years?

As for changes coming to obstetrical care over the next 5 years, respondents gave their strongest prediction to increased use of telemedicine, with 81.2% saying it would increase and just 14.4% predicting no change. The focus on subspecialization is expected to increase by 79.4% of participants (16.5% said no change), and 75.7% said that use of mid-level providers would rise (20.6% said no change), the survey data show.

The move toward mid-level providers was noted in many of the open-ended responses. “There is nothing mid-level about the midwifery care my colleagues provide our patients. They are experts in their field,” one physician wrote, but another said, “just because I foresee a shift toward increasing utilization of mid-levels and primary care practitioners for women’s health does not mean I endorse this trend.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

Nursing shortages are the biggest safety risk for patients in labor and delivery units, according to a recent survey of obstetricians.

Just over 58% of the 1,130 respondents put nursing shortages ahead of physician support and backup (39.0%), inconsistent standards of care (38.5%), and nursing education (31.1%) as the most important challenge to patient safety, the Ob Hospitalist Group (OBHG) said in a new report.

“The survey reveals some startling gaps in physician and patient support all along the care continuum in obstetrics and OB hospitalist programs filling them,” said Lenny Castiglione, the CEO of OBHG, a national network of over 1,000 obstetric hospitalists. “As pressure builds on ob. units to improve care and reduce costs, and as clinical resources are stretched in the continuing battle against COVID-19 and its variants, health systems need to take serious measures to fill these gaps through staff recruitment, retention, and training.”

The national shortage of nurses is expected to get worse over the coming years as Baby Boomers’ need for health care increases and the large population (over 1 million) of older registered nurses retires by 2030, the OBHG said based on projections from the American Association of Colleges of Nursing.

Ob. hospitalists were somewhat more likely to see the nursing shortage as a major problem, compared with community-based Obs (58% vs. 48%), but the biggest difference in perception of safety risk between the two groups (53% for hospitalists vs. 22% for community physicians) involved inconsistent standards of care. “This is likely due to the ob. hospitalists’ 24/7 presence on the unit, and their visibility into the care provided across the unit,” the report noted.
 

Priorities for the future

Participants also were asked to rank each of seven focus areas on a scale of 0 (lowest priority) to 3 (highest) by its importance in the next 5 years. Maternal mortality was identified as the highest priority by 59.2% of physicians, followed by gaps in access to care between patient populations (38.0%), rural health care (26.5%), and ob.gyn. shortage (26.4%), the OBHG said.

A number of respondents noted the increase in high-risk patients, many of whom are obese and/or older and have comorbidities. “We know that the risk of C-sections increases relative to maternal weight. We need to focus on maternal morbidity and mortality,” one physician wrote in the open-ended response section.

When compared with the community obs., the hospitalists were much more likely to assign top priority over the next 5 years to maternal mortality (73% vs. 50%) and to gaps in access between patient populations (51% vs. 30%), according to the OBHG survey, which was conducted in January of 2021.
 

How will practice change in 5 years?

As for changes coming to obstetrical care over the next 5 years, respondents gave their strongest prediction to increased use of telemedicine, with 81.2% saying it would increase and just 14.4% predicting no change. The focus on subspecialization is expected to increase by 79.4% of participants (16.5% said no change), and 75.7% said that use of mid-level providers would rise (20.6% said no change), the survey data show.

The move toward mid-level providers was noted in many of the open-ended responses. “There is nothing mid-level about the midwifery care my colleagues provide our patients. They are experts in their field,” one physician wrote, but another said, “just because I foresee a shift toward increasing utilization of mid-levels and primary care practitioners for women’s health does not mean I endorse this trend.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

Nursing shortages are the biggest safety risk for patients in labor and delivery units, according to a recent survey of obstetricians.

Just over 58% of the 1,130 respondents put nursing shortages ahead of physician support and backup (39.0%), inconsistent standards of care (38.5%), and nursing education (31.1%) as the most important challenge to patient safety, the Ob Hospitalist Group (OBHG) said in a new report.

“The survey reveals some startling gaps in physician and patient support all along the care continuum in obstetrics and OB hospitalist programs filling them,” said Lenny Castiglione, the CEO of OBHG, a national network of over 1,000 obstetric hospitalists. “As pressure builds on ob. units to improve care and reduce costs, and as clinical resources are stretched in the continuing battle against COVID-19 and its variants, health systems need to take serious measures to fill these gaps through staff recruitment, retention, and training.”

The national shortage of nurses is expected to get worse over the coming years as Baby Boomers’ need for health care increases and the large population (over 1 million) of older registered nurses retires by 2030, the OBHG said based on projections from the American Association of Colleges of Nursing.

Ob. hospitalists were somewhat more likely to see the nursing shortage as a major problem, compared with community-based Obs (58% vs. 48%), but the biggest difference in perception of safety risk between the two groups (53% for hospitalists vs. 22% for community physicians) involved inconsistent standards of care. “This is likely due to the ob. hospitalists’ 24/7 presence on the unit, and their visibility into the care provided across the unit,” the report noted.
 

Priorities for the future

Participants also were asked to rank each of seven focus areas on a scale of 0 (lowest priority) to 3 (highest) by its importance in the next 5 years. Maternal mortality was identified as the highest priority by 59.2% of physicians, followed by gaps in access to care between patient populations (38.0%), rural health care (26.5%), and ob.gyn. shortage (26.4%), the OBHG said.

A number of respondents noted the increase in high-risk patients, many of whom are obese and/or older and have comorbidities. “We know that the risk of C-sections increases relative to maternal weight. We need to focus on maternal morbidity and mortality,” one physician wrote in the open-ended response section.

When compared with the community obs., the hospitalists were much more likely to assign top priority over the next 5 years to maternal mortality (73% vs. 50%) and to gaps in access between patient populations (51% vs. 30%), according to the OBHG survey, which was conducted in January of 2021.
 

How will practice change in 5 years?

As for changes coming to obstetrical care over the next 5 years, respondents gave their strongest prediction to increased use of telemedicine, with 81.2% saying it would increase and just 14.4% predicting no change. The focus on subspecialization is expected to increase by 79.4% of participants (16.5% said no change), and 75.7% said that use of mid-level providers would rise (20.6% said no change), the survey data show.

The move toward mid-level providers was noted in many of the open-ended responses. “There is nothing mid-level about the midwifery care my colleagues provide our patients. They are experts in their field,” one physician wrote, but another said, “just because I foresee a shift toward increasing utilization of mid-levels and primary care practitioners for women’s health does not mean I endorse this trend.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

One-year-olds who received a parent-led intervention targeting early signs of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) had significantly reduced symptoms and chances of an autism diagnosis at age 3 years, in a new study.

These findings, which were published in JAMA Pediatrics, were the first evidence worldwide that a preemptive intervention during infancy could lead to such a significant improvement in children’s social development, resulting in “three times fewer diagnoses of autism at age 3,” said lead author Andrew Whitehouse, PhD, in a statement.

“No trial of a preemptive infant intervention, applied prior to diagnosis, has to date shown such an effect to impact diagnostic outcomes – until now,” he said.
 

Study intervention is a nontraditonal approach

Dr. Whitehouse, who is professor of Autism Research at Telethon Kids and University of Western Australia, and Director of CliniKids in Perth, said the intervention is a departure from traditional approaches. “Traditionally, therapy seeks to train children to learn ‘typical’ behaviors,” he said in an email. “The difference of this therapy is that we help parents understand the unique abilities of their baby, and to use these strengths as a foundation for future development.”

Dr. Whitehouse’s study included 103 children (aged approximately 12 months), who displayed at least three of five behaviors indicating a high likelihood of ASD as defined by the Social Attention and Communication Surveillance–Revised (SACS-R) 12-month checklist. The infants were randomized to receive either usual care or the intervention, which is called the iBASIS–Video Interaction to Promote Positive Parenting (iBASIS-VIPP). Usual care was delivered by community physicians, whereas the intervention involved 10 sessions delivered at home by a trained therapist.

“The iBASIS-VIPP uses video-feedback as a means of helping parents recognize their baby’s communication cues so they can respond in a way that builds their social communication development,” Dr. Whitehouse explained in an interview. “The therapist then provides guidance to the parent as to how their baby is communicating with them, and they can communicate back to have back-and-forth conversations.”

“We know these back-and-forth conversations are crucial to support early social communication development, and are a precursor to more complex skills, such as verbal language,” he added.

Reassessment of the children at age 3 years showed a “small but enduring” benefit of the intervention, noted the authors. Children in the intervention group had a reduction in ASD symptom severity (P = .04), and reduced odds of ASD classification, compared with children receiving usual care (6.7% vs. 20.5%; odds ratio, 0.18; P = .02).

The findings provide “initial evidence of efficacy for a new clinical model that uses a specific developmentally focused intervention,” noted the authors. “The children falling below the diagnostic threshold still had developmental difficulties, but by working with each child’s unique differences, rather than trying to counter them, the therapy has effectively supported their development through the early childhood years,” noted Dr. Whitehouse in a statement.
 

Other research has shown benefits of new study approach

This is a “solid” study, “but, as acknowledged by the authors, the main effects are small in magnitude, and longer-term outcomes will be important to capture,” said Jessica Brian, PhD, C Psych, associate professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Toronto, colead at the Autism Research Centre, and psychologist and clinician-investigator at Holland Bloorview Kids Rehab Hospital in Toronto.

Dr. Brian said she and her coauthors of a paper published in Autism Research and others have shown that the kind of approach used in the new study can be helpful for enhancing different areas of toddler development, but “the specific finding of reduced likelihood of a clinical ASD diagnosis is a bit different.”

The goal of reducing the likelihood of an ASD diagnosis “needs to be considered carefully, from the perspective of autism acceptance,” she added. “From an acceptance lens, the primary objective of early intervention in ASD might be better positioned as aiming to enhance or support a young child’s development, help them make developmental progress, build on their strengths, optimize outcomes, or reduce impairment. … I think the authors do a good job of balancing this perspective.”
 

New study shows value of parent-mediated interventions

Overall, Dr. Brian, who coauthored the Canadian Paediatric Society’s position statement on ASD diagnosis, lauded the findings as good news.

“It shows the value of using parent-mediated interventions, which are far less costly and are more resource-efficient than most therapist-delivered models.”

“In cases where parent-mediated approaches are made available to families prior to diagnosis, there is potential for strong effects, when the brain is most amenable to learning. Such models may also be an ideal fit before diagnosis, since they are less resource-intensive than therapist-delivered models, which may only be funded by governments once a diagnosis is confirmed,” she said.

“Finally, parent-mediated programs have the potential to support parents during what, for many families, is a particularly challenging time as they identify their child’s developmental differences or receive a diagnosis. Such programs have potential to increase parents’ confidence in parenting a young child with unique learning needs.”

What Dr. Brian thought was missing from the paper was acknowledgment that, “despite early developmental gains from parent-mediated interventions, it is likely that most children with ASD will need additional supports throughout development.”

This study was sponsored by the Telethon Kids Institute. Dr. Whitehouse reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Brian codeveloped a parent-mediated intervention for toddlers with probable or confirmed ASD (the Social ABCs), for which she does not receive any royalties.

One-year-olds who received a parent-led intervention targeting early signs of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) had significantly reduced symptoms and chances of an autism diagnosis at age 3 years, in a new study.

These findings, which were published in JAMA Pediatrics, were the first evidence worldwide that a preemptive intervention during infancy could lead to such a significant improvement in children’s social development, resulting in “three times fewer diagnoses of autism at age 3,” said lead author Andrew Whitehouse, PhD, in a statement.

“No trial of a preemptive infant intervention, applied prior to diagnosis, has to date shown such an effect to impact diagnostic outcomes – until now,” he said.
 

Study intervention is a nontraditonal approach

Dr. Whitehouse, who is professor of Autism Research at Telethon Kids and University of Western Australia, and Director of CliniKids in Perth, said the intervention is a departure from traditional approaches. “Traditionally, therapy seeks to train children to learn ‘typical’ behaviors,” he said in an email. “The difference of this therapy is that we help parents understand the unique abilities of their baby, and to use these strengths as a foundation for future development.”

Dr. Whitehouse’s study included 103 children (aged approximately 12 months), who displayed at least three of five behaviors indicating a high likelihood of ASD as defined by the Social Attention and Communication Surveillance–Revised (SACS-R) 12-month checklist. The infants were randomized to receive either usual care or the intervention, which is called the iBASIS–Video Interaction to Promote Positive Parenting (iBASIS-VIPP). Usual care was delivered by community physicians, whereas the intervention involved 10 sessions delivered at home by a trained therapist.

“The iBASIS-VIPP uses video-feedback as a means of helping parents recognize their baby’s communication cues so they can respond in a way that builds their social communication development,” Dr. Whitehouse explained in an interview. “The therapist then provides guidance to the parent as to how their baby is communicating with them, and they can communicate back to have back-and-forth conversations.”

“We know these back-and-forth conversations are crucial to support early social communication development, and are a precursor to more complex skills, such as verbal language,” he added.

Reassessment of the children at age 3 years showed a “small but enduring” benefit of the intervention, noted the authors. Children in the intervention group had a reduction in ASD symptom severity (P = .04), and reduced odds of ASD classification, compared with children receiving usual care (6.7% vs. 20.5%; odds ratio, 0.18; P = .02).

The findings provide “initial evidence of efficacy for a new clinical model that uses a specific developmentally focused intervention,” noted the authors. “The children falling below the diagnostic threshold still had developmental difficulties, but by working with each child’s unique differences, rather than trying to counter them, the therapy has effectively supported their development through the early childhood years,” noted Dr. Whitehouse in a statement.
 

Other research has shown benefits of new study approach

This is a “solid” study, “but, as acknowledged by the authors, the main effects are small in magnitude, and longer-term outcomes will be important to capture,” said Jessica Brian, PhD, C Psych, associate professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Toronto, colead at the Autism Research Centre, and psychologist and clinician-investigator at Holland Bloorview Kids Rehab Hospital in Toronto.

Dr. Brian said she and her coauthors of a paper published in Autism Research and others have shown that the kind of approach used in the new study can be helpful for enhancing different areas of toddler development, but “the specific finding of reduced likelihood of a clinical ASD diagnosis is a bit different.”

The goal of reducing the likelihood of an ASD diagnosis “needs to be considered carefully, from the perspective of autism acceptance,” she added. “From an acceptance lens, the primary objective of early intervention in ASD might be better positioned as aiming to enhance or support a young child’s development, help them make developmental progress, build on their strengths, optimize outcomes, or reduce impairment. … I think the authors do a good job of balancing this perspective.”
 

New study shows value of parent-mediated interventions

Overall, Dr. Brian, who coauthored the Canadian Paediatric Society’s position statement on ASD diagnosis, lauded the findings as good news.

“It shows the value of using parent-mediated interventions, which are far less costly and are more resource-efficient than most therapist-delivered models.”

“In cases where parent-mediated approaches are made available to families prior to diagnosis, there is potential for strong effects, when the brain is most amenable to learning. Such models may also be an ideal fit before diagnosis, since they are less resource-intensive than therapist-delivered models, which may only be funded by governments once a diagnosis is confirmed,” she said.

“Finally, parent-mediated programs have the potential to support parents during what, for many families, is a particularly challenging time as they identify their child’s developmental differences or receive a diagnosis. Such programs have potential to increase parents’ confidence in parenting a young child with unique learning needs.”

What Dr. Brian thought was missing from the paper was acknowledgment that, “despite early developmental gains from parent-mediated interventions, it is likely that most children with ASD will need additional supports throughout development.”

This study was sponsored by the Telethon Kids Institute. Dr. Whitehouse reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Brian codeveloped a parent-mediated intervention for toddlers with probable or confirmed ASD (the Social ABCs), for which she does not receive any royalties.

One-year-olds who received a parent-led intervention targeting early signs of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) had significantly reduced symptoms and chances of an autism diagnosis at age 3 years, in a new study.

These findings, which were published in JAMA Pediatrics, were the first evidence worldwide that a preemptive intervention during infancy could lead to such a significant improvement in children’s social development, resulting in “three times fewer diagnoses of autism at age 3,” said lead author Andrew Whitehouse, PhD, in a statement.

“No trial of a preemptive infant intervention, applied prior to diagnosis, has to date shown such an effect to impact diagnostic outcomes – until now,” he said.
 

Study intervention is a nontraditonal approach

Dr. Whitehouse, who is professor of Autism Research at Telethon Kids and University of Western Australia, and Director of CliniKids in Perth, said the intervention is a departure from traditional approaches. “Traditionally, therapy seeks to train children to learn ‘typical’ behaviors,” he said in an email. “The difference of this therapy is that we help parents understand the unique abilities of their baby, and to use these strengths as a foundation for future development.”

Dr. Whitehouse’s study included 103 children (aged approximately 12 months), who displayed at least three of five behaviors indicating a high likelihood of ASD as defined by the Social Attention and Communication Surveillance–Revised (SACS-R) 12-month checklist. The infants were randomized to receive either usual care or the intervention, which is called the iBASIS–Video Interaction to Promote Positive Parenting (iBASIS-VIPP). Usual care was delivered by community physicians, whereas the intervention involved 10 sessions delivered at home by a trained therapist.

“The iBASIS-VIPP uses video-feedback as a means of helping parents recognize their baby’s communication cues so they can respond in a way that builds their social communication development,” Dr. Whitehouse explained in an interview. “The therapist then provides guidance to the parent as to how their baby is communicating with them, and they can communicate back to have back-and-forth conversations.”

“We know these back-and-forth conversations are crucial to support early social communication development, and are a precursor to more complex skills, such as verbal language,” he added.

Reassessment of the children at age 3 years showed a “small but enduring” benefit of the intervention, noted the authors. Children in the intervention group had a reduction in ASD symptom severity (P = .04), and reduced odds of ASD classification, compared with children receiving usual care (6.7% vs. 20.5%; odds ratio, 0.18; P = .02).

The findings provide “initial evidence of efficacy for a new clinical model that uses a specific developmentally focused intervention,” noted the authors. “The children falling below the diagnostic threshold still had developmental difficulties, but by working with each child’s unique differences, rather than trying to counter them, the therapy has effectively supported their development through the early childhood years,” noted Dr. Whitehouse in a statement.
 

Other research has shown benefits of new study approach

This is a “solid” study, “but, as acknowledged by the authors, the main effects are small in magnitude, and longer-term outcomes will be important to capture,” said Jessica Brian, PhD, C Psych, associate professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Toronto, colead at the Autism Research Centre, and psychologist and clinician-investigator at Holland Bloorview Kids Rehab Hospital in Toronto.

Dr. Brian said she and her coauthors of a paper published in Autism Research and others have shown that the kind of approach used in the new study can be helpful for enhancing different areas of toddler development, but “the specific finding of reduced likelihood of a clinical ASD diagnosis is a bit different.”

The goal of reducing the likelihood of an ASD diagnosis “needs to be considered carefully, from the perspective of autism acceptance,” she added. “From an acceptance lens, the primary objective of early intervention in ASD might be better positioned as aiming to enhance or support a young child’s development, help them make developmental progress, build on their strengths, optimize outcomes, or reduce impairment. … I think the authors do a good job of balancing this perspective.”
 

New study shows value of parent-mediated interventions

Overall, Dr. Brian, who coauthored the Canadian Paediatric Society’s position statement on ASD diagnosis, lauded the findings as good news.

“It shows the value of using parent-mediated interventions, which are far less costly and are more resource-efficient than most therapist-delivered models.”

“In cases where parent-mediated approaches are made available to families prior to diagnosis, there is potential for strong effects, when the brain is most amenable to learning. Such models may also be an ideal fit before diagnosis, since they are less resource-intensive than therapist-delivered models, which may only be funded by governments once a diagnosis is confirmed,” she said.

“Finally, parent-mediated programs have the potential to support parents during what, for many families, is a particularly challenging time as they identify their child’s developmental differences or receive a diagnosis. Such programs have potential to increase parents’ confidence in parenting a young child with unique learning needs.”

What Dr. Brian thought was missing from the paper was acknowledgment that, “despite early developmental gains from parent-mediated interventions, it is likely that most children with ASD will need additional supports throughout development.”

This study was sponsored by the Telethon Kids Institute. Dr. Whitehouse reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Brian codeveloped a parent-mediated intervention for toddlers with probable or confirmed ASD (the Social ABCs), for which she does not receive any royalties.

Top-line results from a phase 2 study suggest vixotrigine (BIIB074, Biogen), a nonopioid investigational oral pain medication, reduces chronic neuropathic pain caused by small fiber neuropathy (SFN) and is generally well tolerated.

“We are encouraged by the overall results of the CONVEY study, especially given the significant unmet medical need for additional agents to treat chronic painful neuropathy,” Katherine Dawson, MD, senior vice president and head of the therapeutics development unit at Biogen, said in a news release.

Vixotrigine (BIIB074) is a peripherally and centrally acting, orally administered, voltage- and use-dependent voltage-gated sodium channel blocker.

CONVEY was a phase 2, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized withdrawal study of 265 patients experiencing pain from confirmed idiopathic or diabetes-associated SFN.

Following a 4-week open-label run-in period, 123 responders to vixotrigine were randomly allocated to 200 mg or 350 mg vixotrigine or placebo twice daily for 12 weeks in the double-blind portion of the study.

At week 12, vixotrigine 200 mg twice daily met the primary endpoint of a statistically significant reduction from baseline in the mean average daily pain (ADP) score versus placebo (P = .0501).

A subgroup analysis showed a treatment effect in patients with diabetes-associated SFN but not in the smaller subgroup of patients with idiopathic SFN.

The 200-mg dose also led to a significant improvement over placebo in mean worst daily pain score at 12 weeks (P = .0455).

A numeric advantage of 200 mg vixotrigine over placebo was observed in additional secondary endpoints, including the proportion of patients with at least a 2-point improvement in ADP score and the proportion with at least a 30% reduction in ADP at week 12, but these failed to reach statistical significance.

Vixotrigine 350 mg twice daily did not meet the primary endpoint of mean change in ADP at 12 weeks.

However, treatment at the higher dose led to a significant increase in the proportion of patients who reported being “very much improved” or “much improved” over baseline (P = .0580), Biogen reported.

In addition, a numeric advantage of 350 mg over placebo was observed in the proportion of patients with a 2-point or greater improvement in ADP score and the proportion with at least a 30% reduction in ADP at 12 weeks, but these also did not reach statistical significance.

Both doses of vixotrigine were “generally well tolerated and the safety profile was consistent with previous studies of vixotrigine with no evidence of abuse potential,” the company said.

In the open-label period, common adverse events seen in at least 2.5% of patients were dizziness, headache, vertigo, and nausea; adverse events led 5.3% of patients to discontinue the open-label portion of the study. Across the entire study, most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity.

“The totality of data from the vixotrigine program will inform potential doses for study in future phase 3 clinical trials,” the company said.

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

Top-line results from a phase 2 study suggest vixotrigine (BIIB074, Biogen), a nonopioid investigational oral pain medication, reduces chronic neuropathic pain caused by small fiber neuropathy (SFN) and is generally well tolerated.

“We are encouraged by the overall results of the CONVEY study, especially given the significant unmet medical need for additional agents to treat chronic painful neuropathy,” Katherine Dawson, MD, senior vice president and head of the therapeutics development unit at Biogen, said in a news release.

Vixotrigine (BIIB074) is a peripherally and centrally acting, orally administered, voltage- and use-dependent voltage-gated sodium channel blocker.

CONVEY was a phase 2, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized withdrawal study of 265 patients experiencing pain from confirmed idiopathic or diabetes-associated SFN.

Following a 4-week open-label run-in period, 123 responders to vixotrigine were randomly allocated to 200 mg or 350 mg vixotrigine or placebo twice daily for 12 weeks in the double-blind portion of the study.

At week 12, vixotrigine 200 mg twice daily met the primary endpoint of a statistically significant reduction from baseline in the mean average daily pain (ADP) score versus placebo (P = .0501).

A subgroup analysis showed a treatment effect in patients with diabetes-associated SFN but not in the smaller subgroup of patients with idiopathic SFN.

The 200-mg dose also led to a significant improvement over placebo in mean worst daily pain score at 12 weeks (P = .0455).

A numeric advantage of 200 mg vixotrigine over placebo was observed in additional secondary endpoints, including the proportion of patients with at least a 2-point improvement in ADP score and the proportion with at least a 30% reduction in ADP at week 12, but these failed to reach statistical significance.

Vixotrigine 350 mg twice daily did not meet the primary endpoint of mean change in ADP at 12 weeks.

However, treatment at the higher dose led to a significant increase in the proportion of patients who reported being “very much improved” or “much improved” over baseline (P = .0580), Biogen reported.

In addition, a numeric advantage of 350 mg over placebo was observed in the proportion of patients with a 2-point or greater improvement in ADP score and the proportion with at least a 30% reduction in ADP at 12 weeks, but these also did not reach statistical significance.

Both doses of vixotrigine were “generally well tolerated and the safety profile was consistent with previous studies of vixotrigine with no evidence of abuse potential,” the company said.

In the open-label period, common adverse events seen in at least 2.5% of patients were dizziness, headache, vertigo, and nausea; adverse events led 5.3% of patients to discontinue the open-label portion of the study. Across the entire study, most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity.

“The totality of data from the vixotrigine program will inform potential doses for study in future phase 3 clinical trials,” the company said.

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

Top-line results from a phase 2 study suggest vixotrigine (BIIB074, Biogen), a nonopioid investigational oral pain medication, reduces chronic neuropathic pain caused by small fiber neuropathy (SFN) and is generally well tolerated.

“We are encouraged by the overall results of the CONVEY study, especially given the significant unmet medical need for additional agents to treat chronic painful neuropathy,” Katherine Dawson, MD, senior vice president and head of the therapeutics development unit at Biogen, said in a news release.

Vixotrigine (BIIB074) is a peripherally and centrally acting, orally administered, voltage- and use-dependent voltage-gated sodium channel blocker.

CONVEY was a phase 2, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized withdrawal study of 265 patients experiencing pain from confirmed idiopathic or diabetes-associated SFN.

Following a 4-week open-label run-in period, 123 responders to vixotrigine were randomly allocated to 200 mg or 350 mg vixotrigine or placebo twice daily for 12 weeks in the double-blind portion of the study.

At week 12, vixotrigine 200 mg twice daily met the primary endpoint of a statistically significant reduction from baseline in the mean average daily pain (ADP) score versus placebo (P = .0501).

A subgroup analysis showed a treatment effect in patients with diabetes-associated SFN but not in the smaller subgroup of patients with idiopathic SFN.

The 200-mg dose also led to a significant improvement over placebo in mean worst daily pain score at 12 weeks (P = .0455).

A numeric advantage of 200 mg vixotrigine over placebo was observed in additional secondary endpoints, including the proportion of patients with at least a 2-point improvement in ADP score and the proportion with at least a 30% reduction in ADP at week 12, but these failed to reach statistical significance.

Vixotrigine 350 mg twice daily did not meet the primary endpoint of mean change in ADP at 12 weeks.

However, treatment at the higher dose led to a significant increase in the proportion of patients who reported being “very much improved” or “much improved” over baseline (P = .0580), Biogen reported.

In addition, a numeric advantage of 350 mg over placebo was observed in the proportion of patients with a 2-point or greater improvement in ADP score and the proportion with at least a 30% reduction in ADP at 12 weeks, but these also did not reach statistical significance.

Both doses of vixotrigine were “generally well tolerated and the safety profile was consistent with previous studies of vixotrigine with no evidence of abuse potential,” the company said.

In the open-label period, common adverse events seen in at least 2.5% of patients were dizziness, headache, vertigo, and nausea; adverse events led 5.3% of patients to discontinue the open-label portion of the study. Across the entire study, most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity.

“The totality of data from the vixotrigine program will inform potential doses for study in future phase 3 clinical trials,” the company said.

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

Opioid-related drug overdose deaths in the United States exploded to an estimated record high of 69,031 people in 2020, topping the 49,860 deaths logged in 2019, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most of the deaths involved synthetic opioids such as fentanyl.

President Joe Biden has pledged more than $10 billion to expand access to prevention, treatment, and recovery services. The money is important as people receiving treatment for opioid use disorder have a high risk for relapse, and that means a high risk for opioid overdose.

Now, researchers are studying a possible bridge to successful recovery: A vaccine that could blunt the drugs’ ability to cause harm.

The first such vaccines are now entering clinical trials, raising hopes of adding another tool to the antiaddiction armamentarium. But even if the vaccines prove safe and effective, their success could generate some new problems to solve.

An advantage of vaccines is that their effects can last for several months, said trial investigator Sandra Comer, PhD, professor of neurobiology and psychiatry at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York. Dropout rates for existing medical therapies for opioid use disorder are as high as 50% at 6 months, and a vaccine could protect people from overdose and give them time to re-enter treatment.

“It serves as a bit of a safety net,” she said.

The first vaccine to enter a trial targets oxycodone. Volunteers are being recruited who have a diagnosis of opioid use disorder but are not being medically treated and are still using opioids. A third of them will receive a placebo vaccine, a third will receive a low-dose injection of vaccine, and the other third will receive a high-dose vaccine.
 

A shot against oxycodone

Researchers are primarily tracking the safety of the shot, but they’re also looking at whether vaccination prevents the euphoria that opioids usually produce. They expect to enroll 24 people initially but expand to 45 if results look promising.

In response to the shot, the body produces antibodies, proteins that tag oxycodone and keep it from reaching the brain. If the drug can’t reach brain cells, it can’t produce euphoria. And more important for lifesaving effects, it can’t block the brain’s signals to the body to breathe. The vaccine has already performed well in animal studies.

Previous trials of vaccines for cocaine and nicotine failed. Those vaccines made it to the last clinical trial stage, but didn’t prove effective overall. So this time, investigators plan to track antibody levels in participants, examining blood samples for signs of a good immune response to the vaccine.

But even though earlier cocaine and nicotine vaccines didn’t work for everybody, there were some people they seemed to help. This is why investigators involved in opioid vaccine trials want to track immune responses, said Marco Pravetoni, PhD, associate professor of pharmacology and medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, whose team will be assessing the blood samples. Ultimately, a doctor might even be able to use this information to tailor vaccine selection to a specific person.

Dr. Pravetoni also said that oxycodone is one of three vaccine targets – the other two are heroin and fentanyl – that researchers hope to combine into a single shot. Recipients might need to have one shot a month for the first 3 to 4 months and then receive annual boosters.
 

Stopping the pain

The vaccines also raise some issues that need attention, said Cody Wenthur, PharmD, PhD, assistant professor of pharmacy at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, who is not involved in the vaccine trials.

“If you’re vaccinated against oxycodone, you might not have access to adequate pain control if you get into a car accident, for example,” he said.

Clinicians could use other opioids for pain management, but limiting the opioids that the vaccine targets is a “double-edged sword,” said Dr. Wenthur, because vaccinated people could just switch their opioid of choice to one that a vaccine does not inhibit.

Although these issues need to be addressed, vaccines, if successful, will have an important role. Dr. Wenthur noted a survey of pharmacists and pharmacy students that he and his group conducted showing that respondents “overwhelmingly” viewed a potential vaccine as helpful.

If the vaccines do become available, their application could extend beyond people who have opioid use disorder, said Dr. Pravetoni. He mentioned the 2002 incident when terrorists took over a theater in Moscow and Russian special forces are thought to have used an aerosolized form of fentanyl to incapacitate everyone in the room. More than 100 of the hostages died, and the episode raised the specter of opioids being used in chemical attacks.

Dr. Pravetoni said vaccination could offer protection for first responders, law enforcement or other people whose professions place them at risk for inhalation, either accidentally or through such attacks.

These or other real-world applications for people at risk for exposure are several years away. Dr. Pravetoni said it took 10 years to get to this phase and estimates that, in about 5 years, a vaccine that targets multiple opioid drugs might enter the first clinical trial.

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

Opioid-related drug overdose deaths in the United States exploded to an estimated record high of 69,031 people in 2020, topping the 49,860 deaths logged in 2019, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most of the deaths involved synthetic opioids such as fentanyl.

President Joe Biden has pledged more than $10 billion to expand access to prevention, treatment, and recovery services. The money is important as people receiving treatment for opioid use disorder have a high risk for relapse, and that means a high risk for opioid overdose.

Now, researchers are studying a possible bridge to successful recovery: A vaccine that could blunt the drugs’ ability to cause harm.

The first such vaccines are now entering clinical trials, raising hopes of adding another tool to the antiaddiction armamentarium. But even if the vaccines prove safe and effective, their success could generate some new problems to solve.

An advantage of vaccines is that their effects can last for several months, said trial investigator Sandra Comer, PhD, professor of neurobiology and psychiatry at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York. Dropout rates for existing medical therapies for opioid use disorder are as high as 50% at 6 months, and a vaccine could protect people from overdose and give them time to re-enter treatment.

“It serves as a bit of a safety net,” she said.

The first vaccine to enter a trial targets oxycodone. Volunteers are being recruited who have a diagnosis of opioid use disorder but are not being medically treated and are still using opioids. A third of them will receive a placebo vaccine, a third will receive a low-dose injection of vaccine, and the other third will receive a high-dose vaccine.
 

A shot against oxycodone

Researchers are primarily tracking the safety of the shot, but they’re also looking at whether vaccination prevents the euphoria that opioids usually produce. They expect to enroll 24 people initially but expand to 45 if results look promising.

In response to the shot, the body produces antibodies, proteins that tag oxycodone and keep it from reaching the brain. If the drug can’t reach brain cells, it can’t produce euphoria. And more important for lifesaving effects, it can’t block the brain’s signals to the body to breathe. The vaccine has already performed well in animal studies.

Previous trials of vaccines for cocaine and nicotine failed. Those vaccines made it to the last clinical trial stage, but didn’t prove effective overall. So this time, investigators plan to track antibody levels in participants, examining blood samples for signs of a good immune response to the vaccine.

But even though earlier cocaine and nicotine vaccines didn’t work for everybody, there were some people they seemed to help. This is why investigators involved in opioid vaccine trials want to track immune responses, said Marco Pravetoni, PhD, associate professor of pharmacology and medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, whose team will be assessing the blood samples. Ultimately, a doctor might even be able to use this information to tailor vaccine selection to a specific person.

Dr. Pravetoni also said that oxycodone is one of three vaccine targets – the other two are heroin and fentanyl – that researchers hope to combine into a single shot. Recipients might need to have one shot a month for the first 3 to 4 months and then receive annual boosters.
 

Stopping the pain

The vaccines also raise some issues that need attention, said Cody Wenthur, PharmD, PhD, assistant professor of pharmacy at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, who is not involved in the vaccine trials.

“If you’re vaccinated against oxycodone, you might not have access to adequate pain control if you get into a car accident, for example,” he said.

Clinicians could use other opioids for pain management, but limiting the opioids that the vaccine targets is a “double-edged sword,” said Dr. Wenthur, because vaccinated people could just switch their opioid of choice to one that a vaccine does not inhibit.

Although these issues need to be addressed, vaccines, if successful, will have an important role. Dr. Wenthur noted a survey of pharmacists and pharmacy students that he and his group conducted showing that respondents “overwhelmingly” viewed a potential vaccine as helpful.

If the vaccines do become available, their application could extend beyond people who have opioid use disorder, said Dr. Pravetoni. He mentioned the 2002 incident when terrorists took over a theater in Moscow and Russian special forces are thought to have used an aerosolized form of fentanyl to incapacitate everyone in the room. More than 100 of the hostages died, and the episode raised the specter of opioids being used in chemical attacks.

Dr. Pravetoni said vaccination could offer protection for first responders, law enforcement or other people whose professions place them at risk for inhalation, either accidentally or through such attacks.

These or other real-world applications for people at risk for exposure are several years away. Dr. Pravetoni said it took 10 years to get to this phase and estimates that, in about 5 years, a vaccine that targets multiple opioid drugs might enter the first clinical trial.

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

Opioid-related drug overdose deaths in the United States exploded to an estimated record high of 69,031 people in 2020, topping the 49,860 deaths logged in 2019, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most of the deaths involved synthetic opioids such as fentanyl.

President Joe Biden has pledged more than $10 billion to expand access to prevention, treatment, and recovery services. The money is important as people receiving treatment for opioid use disorder have a high risk for relapse, and that means a high risk for opioid overdose.

Now, researchers are studying a possible bridge to successful recovery: A vaccine that could blunt the drugs’ ability to cause harm.

The first such vaccines are now entering clinical trials, raising hopes of adding another tool to the antiaddiction armamentarium. But even if the vaccines prove safe and effective, their success could generate some new problems to solve.

An advantage of vaccines is that their effects can last for several months, said trial investigator Sandra Comer, PhD, professor of neurobiology and psychiatry at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York. Dropout rates for existing medical therapies for opioid use disorder are as high as 50% at 6 months, and a vaccine could protect people from overdose and give them time to re-enter treatment.

“It serves as a bit of a safety net,” she said.

The first vaccine to enter a trial targets oxycodone. Volunteers are being recruited who have a diagnosis of opioid use disorder but are not being medically treated and are still using opioids. A third of them will receive a placebo vaccine, a third will receive a low-dose injection of vaccine, and the other third will receive a high-dose vaccine.
 

A shot against oxycodone

Researchers are primarily tracking the safety of the shot, but they’re also looking at whether vaccination prevents the euphoria that opioids usually produce. They expect to enroll 24 people initially but expand to 45 if results look promising.

In response to the shot, the body produces antibodies, proteins that tag oxycodone and keep it from reaching the brain. If the drug can’t reach brain cells, it can’t produce euphoria. And more important for lifesaving effects, it can’t block the brain’s signals to the body to breathe. The vaccine has already performed well in animal studies.

Previous trials of vaccines for cocaine and nicotine failed. Those vaccines made it to the last clinical trial stage, but didn’t prove effective overall. So this time, investigators plan to track antibody levels in participants, examining blood samples for signs of a good immune response to the vaccine.

But even though earlier cocaine and nicotine vaccines didn’t work for everybody, there were some people they seemed to help. This is why investigators involved in opioid vaccine trials want to track immune responses, said Marco Pravetoni, PhD, associate professor of pharmacology and medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, whose team will be assessing the blood samples. Ultimately, a doctor might even be able to use this information to tailor vaccine selection to a specific person.

Dr. Pravetoni also said that oxycodone is one of three vaccine targets – the other two are heroin and fentanyl – that researchers hope to combine into a single shot. Recipients might need to have one shot a month for the first 3 to 4 months and then receive annual boosters.
 

Stopping the pain

The vaccines also raise some issues that need attention, said Cody Wenthur, PharmD, PhD, assistant professor of pharmacy at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, who is not involved in the vaccine trials.

“If you’re vaccinated against oxycodone, you might not have access to adequate pain control if you get into a car accident, for example,” he said.

Clinicians could use other opioids for pain management, but limiting the opioids that the vaccine targets is a “double-edged sword,” said Dr. Wenthur, because vaccinated people could just switch their opioid of choice to one that a vaccine does not inhibit.

Although these issues need to be addressed, vaccines, if successful, will have an important role. Dr. Wenthur noted a survey of pharmacists and pharmacy students that he and his group conducted showing that respondents “overwhelmingly” viewed a potential vaccine as helpful.

If the vaccines do become available, their application could extend beyond people who have opioid use disorder, said Dr. Pravetoni. He mentioned the 2002 incident when terrorists took over a theater in Moscow and Russian special forces are thought to have used an aerosolized form of fentanyl to incapacitate everyone in the room. More than 100 of the hostages died, and the episode raised the specter of opioids being used in chemical attacks.

Dr. Pravetoni said vaccination could offer protection for first responders, law enforcement or other people whose professions place them at risk for inhalation, either accidentally or through such attacks.

These or other real-world applications for people at risk for exposure are several years away. Dr. Pravetoni said it took 10 years to get to this phase and estimates that, in about 5 years, a vaccine that targets multiple opioid drugs might enter the first clinical trial.

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

The largest nonprofit health system in Texas has secured a temporary restraining order against cardiologist Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, a COVID-19 vaccine skeptic who allegedly continued to claim an affiliation with Baylor Scott & White Health months after he entered into a confidential separation agreement in which he agreed to stop mentioning his prior leadership and academic appointments.

Baylor was the first institution to cut ties with Dr. McCullough, who has promoted the use of therapies seen as unproven for the treatment of COVID-19 and has questioned the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. Since the Baylor suit, the Texas A&M College of Medicine, and the Texas Christian University (TCU) and University of North Texas Health Science Center (UNTHSC) School of Medicine have both removed Dr. McCullough from their faculties.

Granted by the 191st District Court in Dallas County, Tex., the Baylor restraining order – which is in effect at least until a hearing on the case on September 30 – was sought as part of Baylor Scott & White’s breach of contract suit against McCullough, who had previously been known as a well-respected expert in cardiorenal issues. The suit is seeking $1 million in damages, as well as attorneys’ fees.

The suit seeks to “enforce the terms” of the confidential employment separation agreement signed by Dr. McCullough in February and prevent Dr. McCullough from continuing “improper use of titles and claimed affiliations that have already confused the media, the medical community and the public,” it reads.

“This ongoing confusion regarding [Dr.] McCullough’s affiliations, and whether Plaintiffs support his opinions, is exactly what Plaintiffs bargained to avoid in the Separation Agreement,” and is likely to cause “irreparable reputational and business harm that is incapable of remedy by money damages alone,” the suit states.

One of Dr. McCullough’s attorneys, Clinton Mikel, maintains that all the times the physician was identified in the “thousands of hours of media interviews and countless publications since his departure from Baylor” were “said/printed by a third party with no encouragement from Dr. McCullough,” and that the doctor “does not and cannot control third parties.”

Mr. Mikel said in a statement emailed to this news organization by Dr. McCullough that the suit is “a politically motivated attempt to silence Dr. McCullough,” because it was filed on the same day the organization mandated COVID-19 vaccination for employees.

Dr. McCullough “intends to vigorously defend against Baylor’s unfounded lawsuit,” will seek to dissolve the restraining order, and recover “all payments due him from Baylor under the terms of the settlement agreement,” wrote Mr. Mikel.

The cardiologist’s legal team filed a motion to dismiss the suit on Aug. 9, essentially arguing that Baylor Scott & White’s action restricted Dr. McCullough’s right to free speech under the Texas Citizen’s Participation Act.
 

COVID-19 vaccines = bioterrorism?

Dr. McCullough accumulated a following in 2020 by promoting early at-home multidrug treatment of COVID-19 in interviews with conservative websites and at a U.S. Senate hearing in November.

Although Dr. McCullough does not appear to have any personal social media accounts, his broadcast and podcast interviews are tweeted by thousands daily around the world and featured on Facebook pages like “Pandemic Debate.”

Some Facebook posts with Dr. McCullough’s pronouncements have been labeled as misinformation or removed. Some of his videos remain on YouTube, where they are posted by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a group that believes Dr. McCullough is “under fierce attack for speaking out about COVID-19 early treatment and vaccine safety.”

Dr. McCullough’s March 2021 testimony to the Texas Senate’s Health and Human Services Committee – in which he claimed that COVID-19 patients are being denied what he called proven treatments like hydroxychloroquine – has been viewed more than 3.7 million times on YouTube. The appearance has also been tweeted repeatedly.

Most of Dr. McCullough’s interviews and presentations are aggregated on Rumble, an alternative to YouTube.

In interviews, Dr. McCullough promotes the use of zinc, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, doxycycline, favipiravir, prednisone, and ivermectin as COVID-19 treatments – based on an outpatient treatment algorithm published in August 2020 in the American Journal of Medicine. The cardiologist was the lead author of that paper, which proposed treating people with COVID-like symptoms whether or not they had confirmed infection.

Dr. McCullough and colleagues published a follow-up paper that added colchicine to the mix in Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine. Dr. McCullough is editor-in-chief of the journal, but this was not noted in the disclosures.

Similarly, Dr. McCullough has not disclosed in his COVID-19 publications or any interviews that he has received consulting fees from a host of pharmaceutical manufacturers that produce COVID-19 drugs and vaccines, including AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ Open Payments database, Dr. McCullough was paid about $300,000 annually by drug companies from 2014 to 2019, mostly for consulting on cardiovascular and diabetes medications. His payments dropped to $169,406.06 in 2020.

Dr. McCullough appeared on “The Ingraham Angle” on Fox News in December 2020, claiming that sequential, early treatment with “anti-infectives, corticosteroids, and then antithrombotics” could “reduce [COVID-19] hospitalizations by 85% and cut mortality in half.”

He repeated the claim on the Ingraham show in July and agreed with host Laura Ingraham that the vast majority of healthy people would do fine if they got COVID. He also made the claim that 84% of the COVID-19 cases in Israel were in people who had been vaccinated. “So it’s clear, we can’t vaccinate our way out of this,” he said. An Associated Press “fact check” report has pushed back on similar assertions about vaccine data from Israel. 

In a separate interview posted in June, Dr. McCullough called the pandemic the first phase of a bioterrorism event, which was “all about keeping the population in fear and in isolation and preparing them to accept the vaccine, which appears to be phase two of a bioterrorism operation.”

In addition, he said, “good doctors are doing unthinkable things like injecting biologically active messenger RNA that produces this pathogenic spike protein into pregnant women.”

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the vaccines teach the body to produce the spike protein, which then triggers an immune response that creates antibodies that will attack the virus.

A PolitiFact review debunks the notion that the mRNA vaccines are toxic, cytotoxic, or introduce live, active virus proteins into the body.

FactCheck.org also disputed Dr. McCullough’s claim in a July 13 Ingraham Angle appearance that the mRNA vaccines are ineffective against the Delta variant.

In the FactCheck article, Frederic Bushman, codirector of the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Research on Coronaviruses and Other Emerging Pathogens, said that people were much better off being vaccinated than not,” adding, “the Delta variant may reduce the effectiveness [of the vaccines] a little, but still, they’re so effective that you get a lot of benefit.”

“The vaccines are failing,” Dr. McCullough asserted in an Aug. 3 video interview posted on Odysee. “As we sit here today, we have 11,000 Americans that the CDC has certified have died after the vaccine,” he said, citing two analyses – one by Jessica Rose, PhD, and another by British researchers.

Similar figures reportedly based on cases reported to the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) were forwarded to this news organization by Dr. McCullough.  

The CDC website notes that the agency has received reports of 7,653 deaths in people who received a vaccine as of Sept. 13 (0.0020% of vaccine doses given since Dec. 14, 2020), but it cautions that those deaths do not mean the vaccine was the cause.

Dr. McCullough repeatedly claimed in the Aug. 3 interview that the government has not been transparent on vaccine safety. Since June 2020, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has held 16 public meetings on the COVID-19 vaccines.

To date, the agency has advised clinicians to monitor for rare side effects including Guillain-Barré syndrome and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome after the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and myocarditis after mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) vaccines.
 

Med schools distance themselves

According to the Baylor Scott & White suit, Dr. McCullough agreed on Feb. 24 in a confidential separation agreement that he would no longer use his academic or leadership titles nor hold himself out to be affiliated with Baylor University Medical Center, Baylor Heart and Vascular Institute, the Baylor Research Institute, or any other related institutions.

However, as of August, according to a Baylor spokesperson, McCullough continued to have privileges at Baylor University Medical Center and Baylor Scott & White Heart and Vascular Hospital, Dallas.

The lawsuit points to three interviews posted in June and July where Dr. McCullough is identified as a “vice chief of medicine” or a “vice chief of internal medicine,” both at Baylor University. It also cites a profile at the Cardiometabolic Health Congress website – which this news organization had also viewed – that was still active in late July with a similar title. The profile was later scrubbed from the site.

Social media posts and other media continue to refer to Dr. McCullough’s Baylor credentials. An episode of the Faith and Freedom podcast posted on Aug. 2 identified McCullough as a “professor of medicine at Baylor University Medical Center.”

As of Sept. 16, Dr. McCullough’s bio page at his current practice, Heart Place, lists him as a professor of medicine at Texas A&M College of Medicine. A spokesperson for Texas A&M told this news organization that McCullough is no longer affiliated with the school.

Dr. McCullough acknowledged in the Aug. 3 interview that his Texas A&M title had been “stripped away” at “around the same time this lawsuit was filed.”

He was still a professor of medicine at the TCU and UNTHSC School of Medicine in Fort Worth, but a school spokesperson notified this news organization on Aug. 19 that Dr. McCullough was no longer with the school.

Dr. McCullough has portrayed himself as both a victim and a truth-teller, a “concerned physician” warning the world about the dangers of COVID-19 vaccines. The Baylor Scott & White lawsuit “is really a strong-armed tactic,” he said in the Aug. 3 interview. “I’m just a little guy, so I have to hire my legal teams, and in a sense be drained dry on legal fees,” he said.

But Dr. McCullough apparently has a plan for helping to defray his legal costs. In the Aug. 3 interview, he said a foundation he helped start, Truth for Health, has a “donation side to it,” adding “some of that may be used for legal expense.”  

Cheryl Jones, an attorney with PK Law in Towson, Md., said that might draw interest from the Internal Revenue Service. “I would expect IRS scrutiny if contributions to the Medical Censorship Defense Fund are used to defend Dr McCullough in his personal breach of contract lawsuit,” she told this news organization.

The IRS generally recognizes defending “human and civil rights secured by law” as a legitimate charitable purpose for a legal defense fund, she said, adding that such a fund “must serve only public, rather than private, interests.”
 

Misinformation from a physician more damaging?

Some in the medical field have refuted Dr. McCullough’s pronouncements on how to treat COVID-19, including two infectious disease specialists with Monash University, Melbourne, who responded to the cardiologist’s original paper in the American Journal of Medicine.

Tony Korman, MBBS, a professor at the Centre for Inflammatory Diseases at Monash, told this news organization, “we had concerns that reputable medical journals would accept and publish papers proposing treatment of COVID-19 which was not supported by evidence.”

The website Healthfeedback.org has also challenged McCullough’s and his supporters’ claims, including that the American Journal of Medicine endorsed the use of hydroxychloroquine and that the COVID-19 vaccines have caused thousands of deaths.

David Broniatowski, PhD, associate director for the Institute for Data, Democracy and Politics at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview that Dr. McCullough’s casting himself as a “rebel doctor” is a well-known trope in the vaccine misinformation universe.

Although he was not familiar with Dr. McCullough, Dr. Broniatowski said the cardiologist’s claims are not unique – they’ve been circulating among antivaccine and conspiracy-oriented groups for months.

For instance, Dr. McCullough has claimed in interviews that a whistleblower within the CDC knows of 50,000 vaccine-related deaths. Using data from the supposed whistleblower, the group America’s Frontline Doctors sued the federal government in July to stop the administration of COVID-19 vaccines to those under 18, people who have already had COVID, and individuals who the group said have not been adequately informed about the risks.

The idea of a whistleblower inside the CDC is recycled from antivaccine claims from decades ago, Dr. Broniatowski said.

But, he added, “somebody who speaks with the credibility of a major institution will be more likely to be listened to by some people.” That vulnerable group is “being taken advantage of by a relatively small number of disinformation purveyors, who, in some cases, profit from that disinformation,” said Dr. Broniatowski.

“We rely on our doctors because we trust them,” he said. “And we trust them because we believe that as physicians, their value system places the patient’s best interests first. That’s why it’s so much of a disappointment when you have a physician that appears to be exercising this sort of bad judgment.”

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, also said that he was not familiar with Dr. McCullough. But apprised of his claims, Dr. Offit told this news organization, “Peter McCullough is a friend of the virus.”

“The kind of information he promotes allows the virus to continue to spread, continue to do an enormous amount of harm, and continue to mutate and create variants that have become more contagious and more resistant to vaccine-induced immunity,” said Dr. Offit, the Maurice R. Hilleman professor of vaccinology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Offit added that the war should be against SARS-CoV-2, but “because this virus has so many supporters, the war in essence becomes a war against ourselves, which is much harder.”

Dr. McCullough maintains he is doing a service to his patients. “I’m just giving and trying to help America understand the pandemic,” he told Ms. Ingraham on Fox News on July 29.

But he acknowledged concern about the Federation of State Medical Board’s announcement that physicians who spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation risk suspension or revocation of their license.

“I have to tell you I’m worried – that no matter what I do and how careful I am to cite the scientific studies, I’m still gonna be hunted down for quote, misinformation,” he said in the Aug. 3 interview.

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

The largest nonprofit health system in Texas has secured a temporary restraining order against cardiologist Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, a COVID-19 vaccine skeptic who allegedly continued to claim an affiliation with Baylor Scott & White Health months after he entered into a confidential separation agreement in which he agreed to stop mentioning his prior leadership and academic appointments.

Baylor was the first institution to cut ties with Dr. McCullough, who has promoted the use of therapies seen as unproven for the treatment of COVID-19 and has questioned the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. Since the Baylor suit, the Texas A&M College of Medicine, and the Texas Christian University (TCU) and University of North Texas Health Science Center (UNTHSC) School of Medicine have both removed Dr. McCullough from their faculties.

Granted by the 191st District Court in Dallas County, Tex., the Baylor restraining order – which is in effect at least until a hearing on the case on September 30 – was sought as part of Baylor Scott & White’s breach of contract suit against McCullough, who had previously been known as a well-respected expert in cardiorenal issues. The suit is seeking $1 million in damages, as well as attorneys’ fees.

The suit seeks to “enforce the terms” of the confidential employment separation agreement signed by Dr. McCullough in February and prevent Dr. McCullough from continuing “improper use of titles and claimed affiliations that have already confused the media, the medical community and the public,” it reads.

“This ongoing confusion regarding [Dr.] McCullough’s affiliations, and whether Plaintiffs support his opinions, is exactly what Plaintiffs bargained to avoid in the Separation Agreement,” and is likely to cause “irreparable reputational and business harm that is incapable of remedy by money damages alone,” the suit states.

One of Dr. McCullough’s attorneys, Clinton Mikel, maintains that all the times the physician was identified in the “thousands of hours of media interviews and countless publications since his departure from Baylor” were “said/printed by a third party with no encouragement from Dr. McCullough,” and that the doctor “does not and cannot control third parties.”

Mr. Mikel said in a statement emailed to this news organization by Dr. McCullough that the suit is “a politically motivated attempt to silence Dr. McCullough,” because it was filed on the same day the organization mandated COVID-19 vaccination for employees.

Dr. McCullough “intends to vigorously defend against Baylor’s unfounded lawsuit,” will seek to dissolve the restraining order, and recover “all payments due him from Baylor under the terms of the settlement agreement,” wrote Mr. Mikel.

The cardiologist’s legal team filed a motion to dismiss the suit on Aug. 9, essentially arguing that Baylor Scott & White’s action restricted Dr. McCullough’s right to free speech under the Texas Citizen’s Participation Act.
 

COVID-19 vaccines = bioterrorism?

Dr. McCullough accumulated a following in 2020 by promoting early at-home multidrug treatment of COVID-19 in interviews with conservative websites and at a U.S. Senate hearing in November.

Although Dr. McCullough does not appear to have any personal social media accounts, his broadcast and podcast interviews are tweeted by thousands daily around the world and featured on Facebook pages like “Pandemic Debate.”

Some Facebook posts with Dr. McCullough’s pronouncements have been labeled as misinformation or removed. Some of his videos remain on YouTube, where they are posted by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a group that believes Dr. McCullough is “under fierce attack for speaking out about COVID-19 early treatment and vaccine safety.”

Dr. McCullough’s March 2021 testimony to the Texas Senate’s Health and Human Services Committee – in which he claimed that COVID-19 patients are being denied what he called proven treatments like hydroxychloroquine – has been viewed more than 3.7 million times on YouTube. The appearance has also been tweeted repeatedly.

Most of Dr. McCullough’s interviews and presentations are aggregated on Rumble, an alternative to YouTube.

In interviews, Dr. McCullough promotes the use of zinc, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, doxycycline, favipiravir, prednisone, and ivermectin as COVID-19 treatments – based on an outpatient treatment algorithm published in August 2020 in the American Journal of Medicine. The cardiologist was the lead author of that paper, which proposed treating people with COVID-like symptoms whether or not they had confirmed infection.

Dr. McCullough and colleagues published a follow-up paper that added colchicine to the mix in Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine. Dr. McCullough is editor-in-chief of the journal, but this was not noted in the disclosures.

Similarly, Dr. McCullough has not disclosed in his COVID-19 publications or any interviews that he has received consulting fees from a host of pharmaceutical manufacturers that produce COVID-19 drugs and vaccines, including AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ Open Payments database, Dr. McCullough was paid about $300,000 annually by drug companies from 2014 to 2019, mostly for consulting on cardiovascular and diabetes medications. His payments dropped to $169,406.06 in 2020.

Dr. McCullough appeared on “The Ingraham Angle” on Fox News in December 2020, claiming that sequential, early treatment with “anti-infectives, corticosteroids, and then antithrombotics” could “reduce [COVID-19] hospitalizations by 85% and cut mortality in half.”

He repeated the claim on the Ingraham show in July and agreed with host Laura Ingraham that the vast majority of healthy people would do fine if they got COVID. He also made the claim that 84% of the COVID-19 cases in Israel were in people who had been vaccinated. “So it’s clear, we can’t vaccinate our way out of this,” he said. An Associated Press “fact check” report has pushed back on similar assertions about vaccine data from Israel. 

In a separate interview posted in June, Dr. McCullough called the pandemic the first phase of a bioterrorism event, which was “all about keeping the population in fear and in isolation and preparing them to accept the vaccine, which appears to be phase two of a bioterrorism operation.”

In addition, he said, “good doctors are doing unthinkable things like injecting biologically active messenger RNA that produces this pathogenic spike protein into pregnant women.”

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the vaccines teach the body to produce the spike protein, which then triggers an immune response that creates antibodies that will attack the virus.

A PolitiFact review debunks the notion that the mRNA vaccines are toxic, cytotoxic, or introduce live, active virus proteins into the body.

FactCheck.org also disputed Dr. McCullough’s claim in a July 13 Ingraham Angle appearance that the mRNA vaccines are ineffective against the Delta variant.

In the FactCheck article, Frederic Bushman, codirector of the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Research on Coronaviruses and Other Emerging Pathogens, said that people were much better off being vaccinated than not,” adding, “the Delta variant may reduce the effectiveness [of the vaccines] a little, but still, they’re so effective that you get a lot of benefit.”

“The vaccines are failing,” Dr. McCullough asserted in an Aug. 3 video interview posted on Odysee. “As we sit here today, we have 11,000 Americans that the CDC has certified have died after the vaccine,” he said, citing two analyses – one by Jessica Rose, PhD, and another by British researchers.

Similar figures reportedly based on cases reported to the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) were forwarded to this news organization by Dr. McCullough.  

The CDC website notes that the agency has received reports of 7,653 deaths in people who received a vaccine as of Sept. 13 (0.0020% of vaccine doses given since Dec. 14, 2020), but it cautions that those deaths do not mean the vaccine was the cause.

Dr. McCullough repeatedly claimed in the Aug. 3 interview that the government has not been transparent on vaccine safety. Since June 2020, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has held 16 public meetings on the COVID-19 vaccines.

To date, the agency has advised clinicians to monitor for rare side effects including Guillain-Barré syndrome and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome after the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and myocarditis after mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) vaccines.
 

Med schools distance themselves

According to the Baylor Scott & White suit, Dr. McCullough agreed on Feb. 24 in a confidential separation agreement that he would no longer use his academic or leadership titles nor hold himself out to be affiliated with Baylor University Medical Center, Baylor Heart and Vascular Institute, the Baylor Research Institute, or any other related institutions.

However, as of August, according to a Baylor spokesperson, McCullough continued to have privileges at Baylor University Medical Center and Baylor Scott & White Heart and Vascular Hospital, Dallas.

The lawsuit points to three interviews posted in June and July where Dr. McCullough is identified as a “vice chief of medicine” or a “vice chief of internal medicine,” both at Baylor University. It also cites a profile at the Cardiometabolic Health Congress website – which this news organization had also viewed – that was still active in late July with a similar title. The profile was later scrubbed from the site.

Social media posts and other media continue to refer to Dr. McCullough’s Baylor credentials. An episode of the Faith and Freedom podcast posted on Aug. 2 identified McCullough as a “professor of medicine at Baylor University Medical Center.”

As of Sept. 16, Dr. McCullough’s bio page at his current practice, Heart Place, lists him as a professor of medicine at Texas A&M College of Medicine. A spokesperson for Texas A&M told this news organization that McCullough is no longer affiliated with the school.

Dr. McCullough acknowledged in the Aug. 3 interview that his Texas A&M title had been “stripped away” at “around the same time this lawsuit was filed.”

He was still a professor of medicine at the TCU and UNTHSC School of Medicine in Fort Worth, but a school spokesperson notified this news organization on Aug. 19 that Dr. McCullough was no longer with the school.

Dr. McCullough has portrayed himself as both a victim and a truth-teller, a “concerned physician” warning the world about the dangers of COVID-19 vaccines. The Baylor Scott & White lawsuit “is really a strong-armed tactic,” he said in the Aug. 3 interview. “I’m just a little guy, so I have to hire my legal teams, and in a sense be drained dry on legal fees,” he said.

But Dr. McCullough apparently has a plan for helping to defray his legal costs. In the Aug. 3 interview, he said a foundation he helped start, Truth for Health, has a “donation side to it,” adding “some of that may be used for legal expense.”  

Cheryl Jones, an attorney with PK Law in Towson, Md., said that might draw interest from the Internal Revenue Service. “I would expect IRS scrutiny if contributions to the Medical Censorship Defense Fund are used to defend Dr McCullough in his personal breach of contract lawsuit,” she told this news organization.

The IRS generally recognizes defending “human and civil rights secured by law” as a legitimate charitable purpose for a legal defense fund, she said, adding that such a fund “must serve only public, rather than private, interests.”
 

Misinformation from a physician more damaging?

Some in the medical field have refuted Dr. McCullough’s pronouncements on how to treat COVID-19, including two infectious disease specialists with Monash University, Melbourne, who responded to the cardiologist’s original paper in the American Journal of Medicine.

Tony Korman, MBBS, a professor at the Centre for Inflammatory Diseases at Monash, told this news organization, “we had concerns that reputable medical journals would accept and publish papers proposing treatment of COVID-19 which was not supported by evidence.”

The website Healthfeedback.org has also challenged McCullough’s and his supporters’ claims, including that the American Journal of Medicine endorsed the use of hydroxychloroquine and that the COVID-19 vaccines have caused thousands of deaths.

David Broniatowski, PhD, associate director for the Institute for Data, Democracy and Politics at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview that Dr. McCullough’s casting himself as a “rebel doctor” is a well-known trope in the vaccine misinformation universe.

Although he was not familiar with Dr. McCullough, Dr. Broniatowski said the cardiologist’s claims are not unique – they’ve been circulating among antivaccine and conspiracy-oriented groups for months.

For instance, Dr. McCullough has claimed in interviews that a whistleblower within the CDC knows of 50,000 vaccine-related deaths. Using data from the supposed whistleblower, the group America’s Frontline Doctors sued the federal government in July to stop the administration of COVID-19 vaccines to those under 18, people who have already had COVID, and individuals who the group said have not been adequately informed about the risks.

The idea of a whistleblower inside the CDC is recycled from antivaccine claims from decades ago, Dr. Broniatowski said.

But, he added, “somebody who speaks with the credibility of a major institution will be more likely to be listened to by some people.” That vulnerable group is “being taken advantage of by a relatively small number of disinformation purveyors, who, in some cases, profit from that disinformation,” said Dr. Broniatowski.

“We rely on our doctors because we trust them,” he said. “And we trust them because we believe that as physicians, their value system places the patient’s best interests first. That’s why it’s so much of a disappointment when you have a physician that appears to be exercising this sort of bad judgment.”

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, also said that he was not familiar with Dr. McCullough. But apprised of his claims, Dr. Offit told this news organization, “Peter McCullough is a friend of the virus.”

“The kind of information he promotes allows the virus to continue to spread, continue to do an enormous amount of harm, and continue to mutate and create variants that have become more contagious and more resistant to vaccine-induced immunity,” said Dr. Offit, the Maurice R. Hilleman professor of vaccinology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Offit added that the war should be against SARS-CoV-2, but “because this virus has so many supporters, the war in essence becomes a war against ourselves, which is much harder.”

Dr. McCullough maintains he is doing a service to his patients. “I’m just giving and trying to help America understand the pandemic,” he told Ms. Ingraham on Fox News on July 29.

But he acknowledged concern about the Federation of State Medical Board’s announcement that physicians who spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation risk suspension or revocation of their license.

“I have to tell you I’m worried – that no matter what I do and how careful I am to cite the scientific studies, I’m still gonna be hunted down for quote, misinformation,” he said in the Aug. 3 interview.

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

The largest nonprofit health system in Texas has secured a temporary restraining order against cardiologist Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, a COVID-19 vaccine skeptic who allegedly continued to claim an affiliation with Baylor Scott & White Health months after he entered into a confidential separation agreement in which he agreed to stop mentioning his prior leadership and academic appointments.

Baylor was the first institution to cut ties with Dr. McCullough, who has promoted the use of therapies seen as unproven for the treatment of COVID-19 and has questioned the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. Since the Baylor suit, the Texas A&M College of Medicine, and the Texas Christian University (TCU) and University of North Texas Health Science Center (UNTHSC) School of Medicine have both removed Dr. McCullough from their faculties.

Granted by the 191st District Court in Dallas County, Tex., the Baylor restraining order – which is in effect at least until a hearing on the case on September 30 – was sought as part of Baylor Scott & White’s breach of contract suit against McCullough, who had previously been known as a well-respected expert in cardiorenal issues. The suit is seeking $1 million in damages, as well as attorneys’ fees.

The suit seeks to “enforce the terms” of the confidential employment separation agreement signed by Dr. McCullough in February and prevent Dr. McCullough from continuing “improper use of titles and claimed affiliations that have already confused the media, the medical community and the public,” it reads.

“This ongoing confusion regarding [Dr.] McCullough’s affiliations, and whether Plaintiffs support his opinions, is exactly what Plaintiffs bargained to avoid in the Separation Agreement,” and is likely to cause “irreparable reputational and business harm that is incapable of remedy by money damages alone,” the suit states.

One of Dr. McCullough’s attorneys, Clinton Mikel, maintains that all the times the physician was identified in the “thousands of hours of media interviews and countless publications since his departure from Baylor” were “said/printed by a third party with no encouragement from Dr. McCullough,” and that the doctor “does not and cannot control third parties.”

Mr. Mikel said in a statement emailed to this news organization by Dr. McCullough that the suit is “a politically motivated attempt to silence Dr. McCullough,” because it was filed on the same day the organization mandated COVID-19 vaccination for employees.

Dr. McCullough “intends to vigorously defend against Baylor’s unfounded lawsuit,” will seek to dissolve the restraining order, and recover “all payments due him from Baylor under the terms of the settlement agreement,” wrote Mr. Mikel.

The cardiologist’s legal team filed a motion to dismiss the suit on Aug. 9, essentially arguing that Baylor Scott & White’s action restricted Dr. McCullough’s right to free speech under the Texas Citizen’s Participation Act.
 

COVID-19 vaccines = bioterrorism?

Dr. McCullough accumulated a following in 2020 by promoting early at-home multidrug treatment of COVID-19 in interviews with conservative websites and at a U.S. Senate hearing in November.

Although Dr. McCullough does not appear to have any personal social media accounts, his broadcast and podcast interviews are tweeted by thousands daily around the world and featured on Facebook pages like “Pandemic Debate.”

Some Facebook posts with Dr. McCullough’s pronouncements have been labeled as misinformation or removed. Some of his videos remain on YouTube, where they are posted by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a group that believes Dr. McCullough is “under fierce attack for speaking out about COVID-19 early treatment and vaccine safety.”

Dr. McCullough’s March 2021 testimony to the Texas Senate’s Health and Human Services Committee – in which he claimed that COVID-19 patients are being denied what he called proven treatments like hydroxychloroquine – has been viewed more than 3.7 million times on YouTube. The appearance has also been tweeted repeatedly.

Most of Dr. McCullough’s interviews and presentations are aggregated on Rumble, an alternative to YouTube.

In interviews, Dr. McCullough promotes the use of zinc, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, doxycycline, favipiravir, prednisone, and ivermectin as COVID-19 treatments – based on an outpatient treatment algorithm published in August 2020 in the American Journal of Medicine. The cardiologist was the lead author of that paper, which proposed treating people with COVID-like symptoms whether or not they had confirmed infection.

Dr. McCullough and colleagues published a follow-up paper that added colchicine to the mix in Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine. Dr. McCullough is editor-in-chief of the journal, but this was not noted in the disclosures.

Similarly, Dr. McCullough has not disclosed in his COVID-19 publications or any interviews that he has received consulting fees from a host of pharmaceutical manufacturers that produce COVID-19 drugs and vaccines, including AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ Open Payments database, Dr. McCullough was paid about $300,000 annually by drug companies from 2014 to 2019, mostly for consulting on cardiovascular and diabetes medications. His payments dropped to $169,406.06 in 2020.

Dr. McCullough appeared on “The Ingraham Angle” on Fox News in December 2020, claiming that sequential, early treatment with “anti-infectives, corticosteroids, and then antithrombotics” could “reduce [COVID-19] hospitalizations by 85% and cut mortality in half.”

He repeated the claim on the Ingraham show in July and agreed with host Laura Ingraham that the vast majority of healthy people would do fine if they got COVID. He also made the claim that 84% of the COVID-19 cases in Israel were in people who had been vaccinated. “So it’s clear, we can’t vaccinate our way out of this,” he said. An Associated Press “fact check” report has pushed back on similar assertions about vaccine data from Israel. 

In a separate interview posted in June, Dr. McCullough called the pandemic the first phase of a bioterrorism event, which was “all about keeping the population in fear and in isolation and preparing them to accept the vaccine, which appears to be phase two of a bioterrorism operation.”

In addition, he said, “good doctors are doing unthinkable things like injecting biologically active messenger RNA that produces this pathogenic spike protein into pregnant women.”

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the vaccines teach the body to produce the spike protein, which then triggers an immune response that creates antibodies that will attack the virus.

A PolitiFact review debunks the notion that the mRNA vaccines are toxic, cytotoxic, or introduce live, active virus proteins into the body.

FactCheck.org also disputed Dr. McCullough’s claim in a July 13 Ingraham Angle appearance that the mRNA vaccines are ineffective against the Delta variant.

In the FactCheck article, Frederic Bushman, codirector of the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Research on Coronaviruses and Other Emerging Pathogens, said that people were much better off being vaccinated than not,” adding, “the Delta variant may reduce the effectiveness [of the vaccines] a little, but still, they’re so effective that you get a lot of benefit.”

“The vaccines are failing,” Dr. McCullough asserted in an Aug. 3 video interview posted on Odysee. “As we sit here today, we have 11,000 Americans that the CDC has certified have died after the vaccine,” he said, citing two analyses – one by Jessica Rose, PhD, and another by British researchers.

Similar figures reportedly based on cases reported to the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) were forwarded to this news organization by Dr. McCullough.  

The CDC website notes that the agency has received reports of 7,653 deaths in people who received a vaccine as of Sept. 13 (0.0020% of vaccine doses given since Dec. 14, 2020), but it cautions that those deaths do not mean the vaccine was the cause.

Dr. McCullough repeatedly claimed in the Aug. 3 interview that the government has not been transparent on vaccine safety. Since June 2020, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has held 16 public meetings on the COVID-19 vaccines.

To date, the agency has advised clinicians to monitor for rare side effects including Guillain-Barré syndrome and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome after the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and myocarditis after mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) vaccines.
 

Med schools distance themselves

According to the Baylor Scott & White suit, Dr. McCullough agreed on Feb. 24 in a confidential separation agreement that he would no longer use his academic or leadership titles nor hold himself out to be affiliated with Baylor University Medical Center, Baylor Heart and Vascular Institute, the Baylor Research Institute, or any other related institutions.

However, as of August, according to a Baylor spokesperson, McCullough continued to have privileges at Baylor University Medical Center and Baylor Scott & White Heart and Vascular Hospital, Dallas.

The lawsuit points to three interviews posted in June and July where Dr. McCullough is identified as a “vice chief of medicine” or a “vice chief of internal medicine,” both at Baylor University. It also cites a profile at the Cardiometabolic Health Congress website – which this news organization had also viewed – that was still active in late July with a similar title. The profile was later scrubbed from the site.

Social media posts and other media continue to refer to Dr. McCullough’s Baylor credentials. An episode of the Faith and Freedom podcast posted on Aug. 2 identified McCullough as a “professor of medicine at Baylor University Medical Center.”

As of Sept. 16, Dr. McCullough’s bio page at his current practice, Heart Place, lists him as a professor of medicine at Texas A&M College of Medicine. A spokesperson for Texas A&M told this news organization that McCullough is no longer affiliated with the school.

Dr. McCullough acknowledged in the Aug. 3 interview that his Texas A&M title had been “stripped away” at “around the same time this lawsuit was filed.”

He was still a professor of medicine at the TCU and UNTHSC School of Medicine in Fort Worth, but a school spokesperson notified this news organization on Aug. 19 that Dr. McCullough was no longer with the school.

Dr. McCullough has portrayed himself as both a victim and a truth-teller, a “concerned physician” warning the world about the dangers of COVID-19 vaccines. The Baylor Scott & White lawsuit “is really a strong-armed tactic,” he said in the Aug. 3 interview. “I’m just a little guy, so I have to hire my legal teams, and in a sense be drained dry on legal fees,” he said.

But Dr. McCullough apparently has a plan for helping to defray his legal costs. In the Aug. 3 interview, he said a foundation he helped start, Truth for Health, has a “donation side to it,” adding “some of that may be used for legal expense.”  

Cheryl Jones, an attorney with PK Law in Towson, Md., said that might draw interest from the Internal Revenue Service. “I would expect IRS scrutiny if contributions to the Medical Censorship Defense Fund are used to defend Dr McCullough in his personal breach of contract lawsuit,” she told this news organization.

The IRS generally recognizes defending “human and civil rights secured by law” as a legitimate charitable purpose for a legal defense fund, she said, adding that such a fund “must serve only public, rather than private, interests.”
 

Misinformation from a physician more damaging?

Some in the medical field have refuted Dr. McCullough’s pronouncements on how to treat COVID-19, including two infectious disease specialists with Monash University, Melbourne, who responded to the cardiologist’s original paper in the American Journal of Medicine.

Tony Korman, MBBS, a professor at the Centre for Inflammatory Diseases at Monash, told this news organization, “we had concerns that reputable medical journals would accept and publish papers proposing treatment of COVID-19 which was not supported by evidence.”

The website Healthfeedback.org has also challenged McCullough’s and his supporters’ claims, including that the American Journal of Medicine endorsed the use of hydroxychloroquine and that the COVID-19 vaccines have caused thousands of deaths.

David Broniatowski, PhD, associate director for the Institute for Data, Democracy and Politics at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview that Dr. McCullough’s casting himself as a “rebel doctor” is a well-known trope in the vaccine misinformation universe.

Although he was not familiar with Dr. McCullough, Dr. Broniatowski said the cardiologist’s claims are not unique – they’ve been circulating among antivaccine and conspiracy-oriented groups for months.

For instance, Dr. McCullough has claimed in interviews that a whistleblower within the CDC knows of 50,000 vaccine-related deaths. Using data from the supposed whistleblower, the group America’s Frontline Doctors sued the federal government in July to stop the administration of COVID-19 vaccines to those under 18, people who have already had COVID, and individuals who the group said have not been adequately informed about the risks.

The idea of a whistleblower inside the CDC is recycled from antivaccine claims from decades ago, Dr. Broniatowski said.

But, he added, “somebody who speaks with the credibility of a major institution will be more likely to be listened to by some people.” That vulnerable group is “being taken advantage of by a relatively small number of disinformation purveyors, who, in some cases, profit from that disinformation,” said Dr. Broniatowski.

“We rely on our doctors because we trust them,” he said. “And we trust them because we believe that as physicians, their value system places the patient’s best interests first. That’s why it’s so much of a disappointment when you have a physician that appears to be exercising this sort of bad judgment.”

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, also said that he was not familiar with Dr. McCullough. But apprised of his claims, Dr. Offit told this news organization, “Peter McCullough is a friend of the virus.”

“The kind of information he promotes allows the virus to continue to spread, continue to do an enormous amount of harm, and continue to mutate and create variants that have become more contagious and more resistant to vaccine-induced immunity,” said Dr. Offit, the Maurice R. Hilleman professor of vaccinology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Offit added that the war should be against SARS-CoV-2, but “because this virus has so many supporters, the war in essence becomes a war against ourselves, which is much harder.”

Dr. McCullough maintains he is doing a service to his patients. “I’m just giving and trying to help America understand the pandemic,” he told Ms. Ingraham on Fox News on July 29.

But he acknowledged concern about the Federation of State Medical Board’s announcement that physicians who spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation risk suspension or revocation of their license.

“I have to tell you I’m worried – that no matter what I do and how careful I am to cite the scientific studies, I’m still gonna be hunted down for quote, misinformation,” he said in the Aug. 3 interview.

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

Heidi Erickson, MD, is tired. As a pulmonary and critical care physician at Hennepin Healthcare in Minneapolis, she has been providing care for patients with COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic.

rclassenlayouts/Getty Images

It was exhausting from the beginning, as she and her colleagues scrambled to understand how to deal with this new disease. But lately, she has noticed a different kind of exhaustion arising from the knowledge that with vaccines widely available, the latest surge was preventable.

Her intensive care unit is currently as full as it has ever been with COVID-19 patients, many of them young adults and most of them unvaccinated. After the recent death of one patient, an unvaccinated man with teenage children, she had to face his family’s questions about why ivermectin, an antiparasitic medication that was falsely promoted as a COVID-19 treatment, was not administered.

“I’m fatigued because I’m working more than ever, but more people don’t have to die,” Dr. Erickson said in an interview . “It’s been very hard physically, mentally, emotionally.”

Amid yet another surge in COVID-19 cases around the United States, clinicians are speaking out about their growing frustration with this preventable crisis.

Some are using the terms “empathy fatigue” and “compassion fatigue” – a sense that they are losing empathy for unvaccinated individuals who are fueling the pandemic.

Dr. Erickson says she is frustrated not by individual patients but by a system that has allowed disinformation to proliferate. Experts say these types of feelings fit into a widespread pattern of physician burnout that has taken a new turn at this stage of the pandemic.

Paradoxical choices

Empathy is a cornerstone of what clinicians do, and the ability to understand and share a patient’s feelings is an essential skill for providing effective care, says Kaz Nelson, MD, a psychiatrist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Practitioners face paradoxical situations all the time, she notes. These include individuals who break bones and go skydiving again, people who have high cholesterol but continue to eat fried foods, and those with advanced lung cancer who continue to smoke.

To treat patients with compassion, practitioners learn to set aside judgment by acknowledging the complexity of human behavior. They may lament the addictive nature of nicotine and advertising that targets children, for example, while still listening and caring.

Empathy requires high-level brain function, but as stress levels rise, brain function that drives empathy tends to shut down. It’s a survival mechanism, Dr. Nelson says.

When health care workers feel overwhelmed, trapped, or threatened by patients demanding unproven treatments or by ICUs with more patients than ventilators, they may experience a fight-or-flight response that makes them defensive, frustrated, angry, or uncaring, notes Mona Masood, DO, a Philadelphia-area psychiatrist and founder of Physician Support Line, a free mental health hotline for doctors.

Some clinicians have taken to Twitter and other social media platforms to post about these types of experiences.

These feelings, which have been brewing for months, have been exacerbated by the complexity of the current situation. Clinicians see a disconnect between what is and what could be, Dr. Nelson notes.

“Prior to vaccines, there weren’t other options, and so we had toxic stress and we had fatigue, but we could still maintain little bits of empathy by saying, ‘You know, people didn’t choose to get infected, and we are in a pandemic.’ We could kind of hate the virus. Now with access to vaccines, that last connection to empathy is removed for many people,” she says.

Self-preservation vs. empathy

Compassion fatigue or empathy fatigue is just one reaction to feeling completely maxed out and overstressed, Dr. Nelson says. Anger at society, such as what Dr. Erickson experienced, is another response.

Practitioners may also feel as if they are just going through the motions of their job, or they might disassociate, ceasing to feel that their patients are human. Plenty of doctors and nurses have cried in their cars after shifts and have posted tearful videos on social media.

Early in the pandemic, Dr. Masood says, physicians who called the support hotline expressed sadness and grief. Now, she had her colleagues hear frustration and anger, along with guilt and shame for having feelings they believe they shouldn’t be having, especially toward patients. They may feel unprofessional or worse – unworthy of being physicians, she says.

One recent caller to the hotline was a long-time ICU physician who had been told so many times by patients that ivermectin was the only medicine that would cure them that he began to doubt himself, says Dr. Masood. This caller needed to be reassured by another physician that he was doing the right thing.

Another emergency department physician told Dr. Masood about a young child who had arrived at the hospital with COVID-19 symptoms. When asked whether the family had been exposed to anyone with COVID-19, the child’s parent lied so that they could be triaged faster.

The physician, who needed to step away from the situation, reached out to Dr. Masood to express her frustration so that she wouldn’t “let it out” on the patient.

“It’s hard to have empathy for people who, for all intents and purposes, are very self-centered,” Dr. Masood says. “We’re at a place where we’re having to choose between self-preservation and empathy.”
 

How to cope

To help practitioners cope, Dr. Masood offers words that describe what they’re experiencing. She often hears clinicians say things such as, “This is a type of burnout that I feel to my bones,” or “This makes me want to quit,” or “I feel like I’m at the end of my rope.”

She encourages them to consider the terms “empathy fatigue,” and “moral injury” in order to reconcile how their sense of responsibility to take care of people is compromised by factors outside of their control.

It is not shameful to acknowledge that they experience emotions, including difficult ones such as frustration, anger, sadness, and anxiety, Dr. Masood adds.

Being frustrated with a patient doesn’t make someone a bad doctor, and admitting those emotions is the first step toward dealing with them, she says.

Dr. Nelson adds that taking breaks from work can help. She also recommends setting boundaries, seeking therapy, and acknowledging feelings early before they cause a sense of callousness or other consequences that become harder to heal from as time goes on.

“We’re trained to just go, go, go and sometimes not pause and check in,” she says. Clinicians who open up are likely to find they are not the only ones feeling tired or frustrated right now, she adds.

“Connect with peers and colleagues, because chances are, they can relate,” Dr. Nelson says.

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

Heidi Erickson, MD, is tired. As a pulmonary and critical care physician at Hennepin Healthcare in Minneapolis, she has been providing care for patients with COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic.

rclassenlayouts/Getty Images

It was exhausting from the beginning, as she and her colleagues scrambled to understand how to deal with this new disease. But lately, she has noticed a different kind of exhaustion arising from the knowledge that with vaccines widely available, the latest surge was preventable.

Her intensive care unit is currently as full as it has ever been with COVID-19 patients, many of them young adults and most of them unvaccinated. After the recent death of one patient, an unvaccinated man with teenage children, she had to face his family’s questions about why ivermectin, an antiparasitic medication that was falsely promoted as a COVID-19 treatment, was not administered.

“I’m fatigued because I’m working more than ever, but more people don’t have to die,” Dr. Erickson said in an interview . “It’s been very hard physically, mentally, emotionally.”

Amid yet another surge in COVID-19 cases around the United States, clinicians are speaking out about their growing frustration with this preventable crisis.

Some are using the terms “empathy fatigue” and “compassion fatigue” – a sense that they are losing empathy for unvaccinated individuals who are fueling the pandemic.

Dr. Erickson says she is frustrated not by individual patients but by a system that has allowed disinformation to proliferate. Experts say these types of feelings fit into a widespread pattern of physician burnout that has taken a new turn at this stage of the pandemic.

Paradoxical choices

Empathy is a cornerstone of what clinicians do, and the ability to understand and share a patient’s feelings is an essential skill for providing effective care, says Kaz Nelson, MD, a psychiatrist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Practitioners face paradoxical situations all the time, she notes. These include individuals who break bones and go skydiving again, people who have high cholesterol but continue to eat fried foods, and those with advanced lung cancer who continue to smoke.

To treat patients with compassion, practitioners learn to set aside judgment by acknowledging the complexity of human behavior. They may lament the addictive nature of nicotine and advertising that targets children, for example, while still listening and caring.

Empathy requires high-level brain function, but as stress levels rise, brain function that drives empathy tends to shut down. It’s a survival mechanism, Dr. Nelson says.

When health care workers feel overwhelmed, trapped, or threatened by patients demanding unproven treatments or by ICUs with more patients than ventilators, they may experience a fight-or-flight response that makes them defensive, frustrated, angry, or uncaring, notes Mona Masood, DO, a Philadelphia-area psychiatrist and founder of Physician Support Line, a free mental health hotline for doctors.

Some clinicians have taken to Twitter and other social media platforms to post about these types of experiences.

These feelings, which have been brewing for months, have been exacerbated by the complexity of the current situation. Clinicians see a disconnect between what is and what could be, Dr. Nelson notes.

“Prior to vaccines, there weren’t other options, and so we had toxic stress and we had fatigue, but we could still maintain little bits of empathy by saying, ‘You know, people didn’t choose to get infected, and we are in a pandemic.’ We could kind of hate the virus. Now with access to vaccines, that last connection to empathy is removed for many people,” she says.

Self-preservation vs. empathy

Compassion fatigue or empathy fatigue is just one reaction to feeling completely maxed out and overstressed, Dr. Nelson says. Anger at society, such as what Dr. Erickson experienced, is another response.

Practitioners may also feel as if they are just going through the motions of their job, or they might disassociate, ceasing to feel that their patients are human. Plenty of doctors and nurses have cried in their cars after shifts and have posted tearful videos on social media.

Early in the pandemic, Dr. Masood says, physicians who called the support hotline expressed sadness and grief. Now, she had her colleagues hear frustration and anger, along with guilt and shame for having feelings they believe they shouldn’t be having, especially toward patients. They may feel unprofessional or worse – unworthy of being physicians, she says.

One recent caller to the hotline was a long-time ICU physician who had been told so many times by patients that ivermectin was the only medicine that would cure them that he began to doubt himself, says Dr. Masood. This caller needed to be reassured by another physician that he was doing the right thing.

Another emergency department physician told Dr. Masood about a young child who had arrived at the hospital with COVID-19 symptoms. When asked whether the family had been exposed to anyone with COVID-19, the child’s parent lied so that they could be triaged faster.

The physician, who needed to step away from the situation, reached out to Dr. Masood to express her frustration so that she wouldn’t “let it out” on the patient.

“It’s hard to have empathy for people who, for all intents and purposes, are very self-centered,” Dr. Masood says. “We’re at a place where we’re having to choose between self-preservation and empathy.”
 

How to cope

To help practitioners cope, Dr. Masood offers words that describe what they’re experiencing. She often hears clinicians say things such as, “This is a type of burnout that I feel to my bones,” or “This makes me want to quit,” or “I feel like I’m at the end of my rope.”

She encourages them to consider the terms “empathy fatigue,” and “moral injury” in order to reconcile how their sense of responsibility to take care of people is compromised by factors outside of their control.

It is not shameful to acknowledge that they experience emotions, including difficult ones such as frustration, anger, sadness, and anxiety, Dr. Masood adds.

Being frustrated with a patient doesn’t make someone a bad doctor, and admitting those emotions is the first step toward dealing with them, she says.

Dr. Nelson adds that taking breaks from work can help. She also recommends setting boundaries, seeking therapy, and acknowledging feelings early before they cause a sense of callousness or other consequences that become harder to heal from as time goes on.

“We’re trained to just go, go, go and sometimes not pause and check in,” she says. Clinicians who open up are likely to find they are not the only ones feeling tired or frustrated right now, she adds.

“Connect with peers and colleagues, because chances are, they can relate,” Dr. Nelson says.

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

Heidi Erickson, MD, is tired. As a pulmonary and critical care physician at Hennepin Healthcare in Minneapolis, she has been providing care for patients with COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic.

rclassenlayouts/Getty Images

It was exhausting from the beginning, as she and her colleagues scrambled to understand how to deal with this new disease. But lately, she has noticed a different kind of exhaustion arising from the knowledge that with vaccines widely available, the latest surge was preventable.

Her intensive care unit is currently as full as it has ever been with COVID-19 patients, many of them young adults and most of them unvaccinated. After the recent death of one patient, an unvaccinated man with teenage children, she had to face his family’s questions about why ivermectin, an antiparasitic medication that was falsely promoted as a COVID-19 treatment, was not administered.

“I’m fatigued because I’m working more than ever, but more people don’t have to die,” Dr. Erickson said in an interview . “It’s been very hard physically, mentally, emotionally.”

Amid yet another surge in COVID-19 cases around the United States, clinicians are speaking out about their growing frustration with this preventable crisis.

Some are using the terms “empathy fatigue” and “compassion fatigue” – a sense that they are losing empathy for unvaccinated individuals who are fueling the pandemic.

Dr. Erickson says she is frustrated not by individual patients but by a system that has allowed disinformation to proliferate. Experts say these types of feelings fit into a widespread pattern of physician burnout that has taken a new turn at this stage of the pandemic.

Paradoxical choices

Empathy is a cornerstone of what clinicians do, and the ability to understand and share a patient’s feelings is an essential skill for providing effective care, says Kaz Nelson, MD, a psychiatrist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Practitioners face paradoxical situations all the time, she notes. These include individuals who break bones and go skydiving again, people who have high cholesterol but continue to eat fried foods, and those with advanced lung cancer who continue to smoke.

To treat patients with compassion, practitioners learn to set aside judgment by acknowledging the complexity of human behavior. They may lament the addictive nature of nicotine and advertising that targets children, for example, while still listening and caring.

Empathy requires high-level brain function, but as stress levels rise, brain function that drives empathy tends to shut down. It’s a survival mechanism, Dr. Nelson says.

When health care workers feel overwhelmed, trapped, or threatened by patients demanding unproven treatments or by ICUs with more patients than ventilators, they may experience a fight-or-flight response that makes them defensive, frustrated, angry, or uncaring, notes Mona Masood, DO, a Philadelphia-area psychiatrist and founder of Physician Support Line, a free mental health hotline for doctors.

Some clinicians have taken to Twitter and other social media platforms to post about these types of experiences.

These feelings, which have been brewing for months, have been exacerbated by the complexity of the current situation. Clinicians see a disconnect between what is and what could be, Dr. Nelson notes.

“Prior to vaccines, there weren’t other options, and so we had toxic stress and we had fatigue, but we could still maintain little bits of empathy by saying, ‘You know, people didn’t choose to get infected, and we are in a pandemic.’ We could kind of hate the virus. Now with access to vaccines, that last connection to empathy is removed for many people,” she says.

Self-preservation vs. empathy

Compassion fatigue or empathy fatigue is just one reaction to feeling completely maxed out and overstressed, Dr. Nelson says. Anger at society, such as what Dr. Erickson experienced, is another response.

Practitioners may also feel as if they are just going through the motions of their job, or they might disassociate, ceasing to feel that their patients are human. Plenty of doctors and nurses have cried in their cars after shifts and have posted tearful videos on social media.

Early in the pandemic, Dr. Masood says, physicians who called the support hotline expressed sadness and grief. Now, she had her colleagues hear frustration and anger, along with guilt and shame for having feelings they believe they shouldn’t be having, especially toward patients. They may feel unprofessional or worse – unworthy of being physicians, she says.

One recent caller to the hotline was a long-time ICU physician who had been told so many times by patients that ivermectin was the only medicine that would cure them that he began to doubt himself, says Dr. Masood. This caller needed to be reassured by another physician that he was doing the right thing.

Another emergency department physician told Dr. Masood about a young child who had arrived at the hospital with COVID-19 symptoms. When asked whether the family had been exposed to anyone with COVID-19, the child’s parent lied so that they could be triaged faster.

The physician, who needed to step away from the situation, reached out to Dr. Masood to express her frustration so that she wouldn’t “let it out” on the patient.

“It’s hard to have empathy for people who, for all intents and purposes, are very self-centered,” Dr. Masood says. “We’re at a place where we’re having to choose between self-preservation and empathy.”
 

How to cope

To help practitioners cope, Dr. Masood offers words that describe what they’re experiencing. She often hears clinicians say things such as, “This is a type of burnout that I feel to my bones,” or “This makes me want to quit,” or “I feel like I’m at the end of my rope.”

She encourages them to consider the terms “empathy fatigue,” and “moral injury” in order to reconcile how their sense of responsibility to take care of people is compromised by factors outside of their control.

It is not shameful to acknowledge that they experience emotions, including difficult ones such as frustration, anger, sadness, and anxiety, Dr. Masood adds.

Being frustrated with a patient doesn’t make someone a bad doctor, and admitting those emotions is the first step toward dealing with them, she says.

Dr. Nelson adds that taking breaks from work can help. She also recommends setting boundaries, seeking therapy, and acknowledging feelings early before they cause a sense of callousness or other consequences that become harder to heal from as time goes on.

“We’re trained to just go, go, go and sometimes not pause and check in,” she says. Clinicians who open up are likely to find they are not the only ones feeling tired or frustrated right now, she adds.

“Connect with peers and colleagues, because chances are, they can relate,” Dr. Nelson says.

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

In 1950, at Staten Island’s Sea View Hospital, a group of patients with terminal tuberculosis were given a new antibiotic called isoniazid, which caused some unexpected side effects. The patients reported euphoria, mental stimulation, and improved sleep, and even began socializing with more vigor. The press was all over the case, writing about the sick “dancing in the halls tho’ they had holes in their lungs.” Soon doctors started prescribing isoniazid as the first-ever antidepressant.

ChrisChrisW/iStock/Getty Images

The Sea View Hospital experiment was an early hint that changing the composition of the gut microbiome – in this case, via antibiotics – might affect our mental health. Yet only in the last 2 decades has research into connections between what we ingest and psychiatric disorders really taken off. In 2004, a landmark study showed that germ-free mice (born in such sterile conditions that they lacked a microbiome) had an exaggerated stress response. The effects were reversed, however, if the mice were fed a bacterial strain, Bifidobacterium infantis, a probiotic. This sparked academic interest, and thousands of research papers followed.

According to Stephen Ilardi, PhD, a clinical psychologist at the University of Kansas, Lawrence, focusing on the etiology and treatment of depression, now is the “time of exciting discovery” in the field of probiotics and psychiatric disorders, although, admittedly, a lot still remains unknown.
 

Gut microbiome profiles in mental health disorders

We humans have about 100 trillion microbes residing in our guts. Some of these are archaea, some fungi, some protozoans and even viruses, but most are bacteria. Things like diet, sleep, and stress can all impact the composition of our gut microbiome. When the microbiome differs considerably from the typical, doctors and researchers describe it as dysbiosis, or imbalance. Studies have uncovered dysbiosis in patients with depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder.

“I think there is now pretty good evidence that the gut microbiome is actually an important factor in a number of psychiatric disorders,” says Allan Young, MBChB, clinical psychiatrist at King’s College London. The gut microbiome composition does seem to differ between psychiatric patients and the healthy. In depression, for example, a recent review of nine studies found an increase on the genus level in Streptococcus and Oscillibacter and low abundance of Lactobacillus and Coprococcus, among others. In generalized anxiety disorder, meanwhile, there appears to be an increase in Fusobacteria and Escherichia/Shigella .

For Dr. Ilardi, the next important question is whether there are plausible mechanisms that could explain how gut microbiota may influence brain function. And, it appears there are.

“The microbes in the gut can release neurotransmitters into blood that cross into the brain and influence brain function. They can release hormones into the blood that again cross into the brain. They’ve got a lot of tricks up their sleeve,” he says.

One particularly important pathway runs through the vagus nerve – the longest nerve that emerges directly from the brain, connecting it to the gut. Another is the immune pathway. Gut bacteria can interact with immune cells and reduce cytokine production, which in turn can reduce systemic inflammation. Inflammatory processes have been implicated in both depression and bipolar disorder. What’s more, gut microbes can upregulate the expression of a protein called BDNF – brain-derived neurotrophic factor – which helps the development and survival of nerve cells in the brain.
 

Probiotics’ promise varies for different conditions

As the pathways by which gut dysbiosis may influence psychiatric disorders become clearer, the next logical step is to try to influence the composition of the microbiome to prevent and treat depression, anxiety, or schizophrenia. That’s where probiotics come in.

The evidence for the effects of probiotics – live microorganisms which, when ingested in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit – so far is the strongest for depression, says Viktoriya Nikolova, MRes, MSc, a PhD student and researcher at King’s College London. In their 2021 meta-analysis of seven trials, Mr. Nikolova and colleagues revealed that probiotics can significantly reduce depressive symptoms after just 8 weeks. There was a caveat, however – the probiotics only worked when used in addition to an approved antidepressant. Another meta-analysis, published in 2018, also showed that probiotics, when compared with placebo, improve mood in people with depressive symptoms (here, no antidepressant treatment was necessary).

Roumen Milev, MD, PhD, a neuroscientist at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., and coauthor of a review on probiotics and depression published in the Annals of General Psychiatry, warns, however, that the research is still in its infancy. “Currently, the probiotics should be used concomitant with antidepressant treatment,” he says.

When it comes to using probiotics to relieve anxiety, “the evidence in the animal literature is really compelling,” says Dr. Ilardi. Human studies are less convincing, however, which Dr. Dr. Ilardi showed in his 2018 review and meta-analysis involving 743 animals and 1,527 humans. “Studies are small for the most part, and some of them aren’t terribly well conducted, and they often use very low doses of probiotics,” he says. One of the larger double-blind and placebo-controlled trials showed that supplementation with Lactobacillus plantarum helps reduce stress and anxiety, while the levels of proinflammatory cytokines go down. Another meta-analysis, published in June, revealed that, when it comes to reducing stress and anxiety in youth, the results are mixed.

Evidence of probiotics’ efficiency in schizophrenia is emerging, yet also limited. A 2019 review concluded that currently available results only “hint” at a possibility that probiotics could make a difference in schizophrenia. Similarly, a 2020 review summed up that the role of probiotics in bipolar disorder “remains unclear and underexplored.”
 

Better studies, remaining questions

Apart from small samples, one issue with research on probiotics is that they generally tend to use varied doses of different strains of bacteria, or even multistrain mixtures, making it tough to compare results. Although there are hundreds of species of bacteria in the human gut, only a few have been evaluated for their antidepressant or antianxiety effects.

“To make it even worse, it’s almost certainly the case that depending on a person’s actual genetics or maybe their epigenetics, a strain that is helpful for one person may not be helpful for another. There is almost certainly no one-size-fits-all probiotic formulation,” says Dr. Ilardi.

Another critical question that remains to be answered is that of potential side effects.

“Probiotics are often seen as food supplements, so they don’t follow under the same regulations as drugs would,” says Mr. Nikolova. “They don’t necessarily have to follow the pattern of drug trials in many countries, which means that the monitoring of side effects is not the requirement.”

That’s something that worries King’s College psychiatrist Young too. “If you are giving it to modulate how the brain works, you could potentially induce psychiatric symptoms or a psychiatric disorder. There could be allergic reactions. There could be lots of different things,” he says.

When you search the web for “probiotics,” chances are you will come across sites boasting amazing effects that such products can have on cardiovascular heath, the immune system, and yes, mental well-being. Many also sell various probiotic supplements “formulated” for your gut health or improved moods. However, many such commercially available strains have never been actually tested in clinical trials. What’s more, according to Kathrin Cohen Kadosh, PhD, a neuroscientist at University of Surrey (England), “it is not always clear whether the different strains actually reach the gut intact.”

For now, considering the limited research evidence, a safer bet is to try to improve gut health through consumption of fermented foods that naturally contain probiotics, such as miso, kefir, or sauerkraut. Alternatively, you could reach for prebiotics, such as foods containing fiber (prebiotics enhance the growth of beneficial gut microbes). This, Dr. Kadosh says, could be “a gentler way of improving gut health” than popping a pill. Whether an improved mental well-being might follow still remains to be seen.

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

In 1950, at Staten Island’s Sea View Hospital, a group of patients with terminal tuberculosis were given a new antibiotic called isoniazid, which caused some unexpected side effects. The patients reported euphoria, mental stimulation, and improved sleep, and even began socializing with more vigor. The press was all over the case, writing about the sick “dancing in the halls tho’ they had holes in their lungs.” Soon doctors started prescribing isoniazid as the first-ever antidepressant.

ChrisChrisW/iStock/Getty Images

The Sea View Hospital experiment was an early hint that changing the composition of the gut microbiome – in this case, via antibiotics – might affect our mental health. Yet only in the last 2 decades has research into connections between what we ingest and psychiatric disorders really taken off. In 2004, a landmark study showed that germ-free mice (born in such sterile conditions that they lacked a microbiome) had an exaggerated stress response. The effects were reversed, however, if the mice were fed a bacterial strain, Bifidobacterium infantis, a probiotic. This sparked academic interest, and thousands of research papers followed.

According to Stephen Ilardi, PhD, a clinical psychologist at the University of Kansas, Lawrence, focusing on the etiology and treatment of depression, now is the “time of exciting discovery” in the field of probiotics and psychiatric disorders, although, admittedly, a lot still remains unknown.
 

Gut microbiome profiles in mental health disorders

We humans have about 100 trillion microbes residing in our guts. Some of these are archaea, some fungi, some protozoans and even viruses, but most are bacteria. Things like diet, sleep, and stress can all impact the composition of our gut microbiome. When the microbiome differs considerably from the typical, doctors and researchers describe it as dysbiosis, or imbalance. Studies have uncovered dysbiosis in patients with depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder.

“I think there is now pretty good evidence that the gut microbiome is actually an important factor in a number of psychiatric disorders,” says Allan Young, MBChB, clinical psychiatrist at King’s College London. The gut microbiome composition does seem to differ between psychiatric patients and the healthy. In depression, for example, a recent review of nine studies found an increase on the genus level in Streptococcus and Oscillibacter and low abundance of Lactobacillus and Coprococcus, among others. In generalized anxiety disorder, meanwhile, there appears to be an increase in Fusobacteria and Escherichia/Shigella .

For Dr. Ilardi, the next important question is whether there are plausible mechanisms that could explain how gut microbiota may influence brain function. And, it appears there are.

“The microbes in the gut can release neurotransmitters into blood that cross into the brain and influence brain function. They can release hormones into the blood that again cross into the brain. They’ve got a lot of tricks up their sleeve,” he says.

One particularly important pathway runs through the vagus nerve – the longest nerve that emerges directly from the brain, connecting it to the gut. Another is the immune pathway. Gut bacteria can interact with immune cells and reduce cytokine production, which in turn can reduce systemic inflammation. Inflammatory processes have been implicated in both depression and bipolar disorder. What’s more, gut microbes can upregulate the expression of a protein called BDNF – brain-derived neurotrophic factor – which helps the development and survival of nerve cells in the brain.
 

Probiotics’ promise varies for different conditions

As the pathways by which gut dysbiosis may influence psychiatric disorders become clearer, the next logical step is to try to influence the composition of the microbiome to prevent and treat depression, anxiety, or schizophrenia. That’s where probiotics come in.

The evidence for the effects of probiotics – live microorganisms which, when ingested in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit – so far is the strongest for depression, says Viktoriya Nikolova, MRes, MSc, a PhD student and researcher at King’s College London. In their 2021 meta-analysis of seven trials, Mr. Nikolova and colleagues revealed that probiotics can significantly reduce depressive symptoms after just 8 weeks. There was a caveat, however – the probiotics only worked when used in addition to an approved antidepressant. Another meta-analysis, published in 2018, also showed that probiotics, when compared with placebo, improve mood in people with depressive symptoms (here, no antidepressant treatment was necessary).

Roumen Milev, MD, PhD, a neuroscientist at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., and coauthor of a review on probiotics and depression published in the Annals of General Psychiatry, warns, however, that the research is still in its infancy. “Currently, the probiotics should be used concomitant with antidepressant treatment,” he says.

When it comes to using probiotics to relieve anxiety, “the evidence in the animal literature is really compelling,” says Dr. Ilardi. Human studies are less convincing, however, which Dr. Dr. Ilardi showed in his 2018 review and meta-analysis involving 743 animals and 1,527 humans. “Studies are small for the most part, and some of them aren’t terribly well conducted, and they often use very low doses of probiotics,” he says. One of the larger double-blind and placebo-controlled trials showed that supplementation with Lactobacillus plantarum helps reduce stress and anxiety, while the levels of proinflammatory cytokines go down. Another meta-analysis, published in June, revealed that, when it comes to reducing stress and anxiety in youth, the results are mixed.

Evidence of probiotics’ efficiency in schizophrenia is emerging, yet also limited. A 2019 review concluded that currently available results only “hint” at a possibility that probiotics could make a difference in schizophrenia. Similarly, a 2020 review summed up that the role of probiotics in bipolar disorder “remains unclear and underexplored.”
 

Better studies, remaining questions

Apart from small samples, one issue with research on probiotics is that they generally tend to use varied doses of different strains of bacteria, or even multistrain mixtures, making it tough to compare results. Although there are hundreds of species of bacteria in the human gut, only a few have been evaluated for their antidepressant or antianxiety effects.

“To make it even worse, it’s almost certainly the case that depending on a person’s actual genetics or maybe their epigenetics, a strain that is helpful for one person may not be helpful for another. There is almost certainly no one-size-fits-all probiotic formulation,” says Dr. Ilardi.

Another critical question that remains to be answered is that of potential side effects.

“Probiotics are often seen as food supplements, so they don’t follow under the same regulations as drugs would,” says Mr. Nikolova. “They don’t necessarily have to follow the pattern of drug trials in many countries, which means that the monitoring of side effects is not the requirement.”

That’s something that worries King’s College psychiatrist Young too. “If you are giving it to modulate how the brain works, you could potentially induce psychiatric symptoms or a psychiatric disorder. There could be allergic reactions. There could be lots of different things,” he says.

When you search the web for “probiotics,” chances are you will come across sites boasting amazing effects that such products can have on cardiovascular heath, the immune system, and yes, mental well-being. Many also sell various probiotic supplements “formulated” for your gut health or improved moods. However, many such commercially available strains have never been actually tested in clinical trials. What’s more, according to Kathrin Cohen Kadosh, PhD, a neuroscientist at University of Surrey (England), “it is not always clear whether the different strains actually reach the gut intact.”

For now, considering the limited research evidence, a safer bet is to try to improve gut health through consumption of fermented foods that naturally contain probiotics, such as miso, kefir, or sauerkraut. Alternatively, you could reach for prebiotics, such as foods containing fiber (prebiotics enhance the growth of beneficial gut microbes). This, Dr. Kadosh says, could be “a gentler way of improving gut health” than popping a pill. Whether an improved mental well-being might follow still remains to be seen.

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

In 1950, at Staten Island’s Sea View Hospital, a group of patients with terminal tuberculosis were given a new antibiotic called isoniazid, which caused some unexpected side effects. The patients reported euphoria, mental stimulation, and improved sleep, and even began socializing with more vigor. The press was all over the case, writing about the sick “dancing in the halls tho’ they had holes in their lungs.” Soon doctors started prescribing isoniazid as the first-ever antidepressant.

ChrisChrisW/iStock/Getty Images

The Sea View Hospital experiment was an early hint that changing the composition of the gut microbiome – in this case, via antibiotics – might affect our mental health. Yet only in the last 2 decades has research into connections between what we ingest and psychiatric disorders really taken off. In 2004, a landmark study showed that germ-free mice (born in such sterile conditions that they lacked a microbiome) had an exaggerated stress response. The effects were reversed, however, if the mice were fed a bacterial strain, Bifidobacterium infantis, a probiotic. This sparked academic interest, and thousands of research papers followed.

According to Stephen Ilardi, PhD, a clinical psychologist at the University of Kansas, Lawrence, focusing on the etiology and treatment of depression, now is the “time of exciting discovery” in the field of probiotics and psychiatric disorders, although, admittedly, a lot still remains unknown.
 

Gut microbiome profiles in mental health disorders

We humans have about 100 trillion microbes residing in our guts. Some of these are archaea, some fungi, some protozoans and even viruses, but most are bacteria. Things like diet, sleep, and stress can all impact the composition of our gut microbiome. When the microbiome differs considerably from the typical, doctors and researchers describe it as dysbiosis, or imbalance. Studies have uncovered dysbiosis in patients with depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder.

“I think there is now pretty good evidence that the gut microbiome is actually an important factor in a number of psychiatric disorders,” says Allan Young, MBChB, clinical psychiatrist at King’s College London. The gut microbiome composition does seem to differ between psychiatric patients and the healthy. In depression, for example, a recent review of nine studies found an increase on the genus level in Streptococcus and Oscillibacter and low abundance of Lactobacillus and Coprococcus, among others. In generalized anxiety disorder, meanwhile, there appears to be an increase in Fusobacteria and Escherichia/Shigella .

For Dr. Ilardi, the next important question is whether there are plausible mechanisms that could explain how gut microbiota may influence brain function. And, it appears there are.

“The microbes in the gut can release neurotransmitters into blood that cross into the brain and influence brain function. They can release hormones into the blood that again cross into the brain. They’ve got a lot of tricks up their sleeve,” he says.

One particularly important pathway runs through the vagus nerve – the longest nerve that emerges directly from the brain, connecting it to the gut. Another is the immune pathway. Gut bacteria can interact with immune cells and reduce cytokine production, which in turn can reduce systemic inflammation. Inflammatory processes have been implicated in both depression and bipolar disorder. What’s more, gut microbes can upregulate the expression of a protein called BDNF – brain-derived neurotrophic factor – which helps the development and survival of nerve cells in the brain.
 

Probiotics’ promise varies for different conditions

As the pathways by which gut dysbiosis may influence psychiatric disorders become clearer, the next logical step is to try to influence the composition of the microbiome to prevent and treat depression, anxiety, or schizophrenia. That’s where probiotics come in.

The evidence for the effects of probiotics – live microorganisms which, when ingested in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit – so far is the strongest for depression, says Viktoriya Nikolova, MRes, MSc, a PhD student and researcher at King’s College London. In their 2021 meta-analysis of seven trials, Mr. Nikolova and colleagues revealed that probiotics can significantly reduce depressive symptoms after just 8 weeks. There was a caveat, however – the probiotics only worked when used in addition to an approved antidepressant. Another meta-analysis, published in 2018, also showed that probiotics, when compared with placebo, improve mood in people with depressive symptoms (here, no antidepressant treatment was necessary).

Roumen Milev, MD, PhD, a neuroscientist at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., and coauthor of a review on probiotics and depression published in the Annals of General Psychiatry, warns, however, that the research is still in its infancy. “Currently, the probiotics should be used concomitant with antidepressant treatment,” he says.

When it comes to using probiotics to relieve anxiety, “the evidence in the animal literature is really compelling,” says Dr. Ilardi. Human studies are less convincing, however, which Dr. Dr. Ilardi showed in his 2018 review and meta-analysis involving 743 animals and 1,527 humans. “Studies are small for the most part, and some of them aren’t terribly well conducted, and they often use very low doses of probiotics,” he says. One of the larger double-blind and placebo-controlled trials showed that supplementation with Lactobacillus plantarum helps reduce stress and anxiety, while the levels of proinflammatory cytokines go down. Another meta-analysis, published in June, revealed that, when it comes to reducing stress and anxiety in youth, the results are mixed.

Evidence of probiotics’ efficiency in schizophrenia is emerging, yet also limited. A 2019 review concluded that currently available results only “hint” at a possibility that probiotics could make a difference in schizophrenia. Similarly, a 2020 review summed up that the role of probiotics in bipolar disorder “remains unclear and underexplored.”
 

Better studies, remaining questions

Apart from small samples, one issue with research on probiotics is that they generally tend to use varied doses of different strains of bacteria, or even multistrain mixtures, making it tough to compare results. Although there are hundreds of species of bacteria in the human gut, only a few have been evaluated for their antidepressant or antianxiety effects.

“To make it even worse, it’s almost certainly the case that depending on a person’s actual genetics or maybe their epigenetics, a strain that is helpful for one person may not be helpful for another. There is almost certainly no one-size-fits-all probiotic formulation,” says Dr. Ilardi.

Another critical question that remains to be answered is that of potential side effects.

“Probiotics are often seen as food supplements, so they don’t follow under the same regulations as drugs would,” says Mr. Nikolova. “They don’t necessarily have to follow the pattern of drug trials in many countries, which means that the monitoring of side effects is not the requirement.”

That’s something that worries King’s College psychiatrist Young too. “If you are giving it to modulate how the brain works, you could potentially induce psychiatric symptoms or a psychiatric disorder. There could be allergic reactions. There could be lots of different things,” he says.

When you search the web for “probiotics,” chances are you will come across sites boasting amazing effects that such products can have on cardiovascular heath, the immune system, and yes, mental well-being. Many also sell various probiotic supplements “formulated” for your gut health or improved moods. However, many such commercially available strains have never been actually tested in clinical trials. What’s more, according to Kathrin Cohen Kadosh, PhD, a neuroscientist at University of Surrey (England), “it is not always clear whether the different strains actually reach the gut intact.”

For now, considering the limited research evidence, a safer bet is to try to improve gut health through consumption of fermented foods that naturally contain probiotics, such as miso, kefir, or sauerkraut. Alternatively, you could reach for prebiotics, such as foods containing fiber (prebiotics enhance the growth of beneficial gut microbes). This, Dr. Kadosh says, could be “a gentler way of improving gut health” than popping a pill. Whether an improved mental well-being might follow still remains to be seen.

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

A preprint study finding that the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID vaccine is associated with an increased risk for cardiac adverse events in teenage boys has elicited a firestorm on Twitter. Although some people issued thoughtful critiques, others lobbed insults against the authors, and still others accused them of either being antivaccine or stoking the fires of the vaccine skeptic movement.

The controversy began soon after the study was posted online September 8 on medRxiv. The authors conclude that for boys, the risk for a cardiac adverse event or hospitalization after the second dose of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine was “considerably higher” than the 120-day risk for hospitalization for COVID-19, “even at times of peak disease prevalence.” This was especially true for those aged 12 to 15 years and even those with no underlying health conditions.

The conclusion – as well as the paper’s source, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and its methodology, modeled after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention assessment of the database – did not sit well with many.

“Your methodology hugely overestimates risk, which many commentators who are specialists in the field have highlighted,” tweeted Deepti Gurdasani, senior lecturer in epidemiology at Queen Mary University of London. “Why make this claim when you must know it’s wrong?”

“The authors don’t know what they are doing and they are following their own ideology,” tweeted Boback Ziaeian, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, in the cardiology division. Dr. Ziaeian also tweeted, “I believe the CDC is doing honest work and not dredging slop like you are.”

“Holy shit. Truly terrible methods in that paper,” tweeted Michael Mina, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and immunologist at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, more bluntly.

Some pointed out that VAERS is often used by vaccine skeptics to spread misinformation. “‘Dumpster diving’ describes studies using #VAERS by authors (almost always antivaxxers) who don’t understand its limitations,” tweeted David Gorski, MD, PhD, the editor of Science-Based Medicine, who says in his Twitter bio that he “exposes quackery.”

Added Dr. Gorski: “Doctors fell into this trap with their study suggesting #CovidVaccine is more dangerous to children than #COVID19.”

Dr. Gorski said he did not think that the authors were antivaccine. But, he tweeted, “I’d argue that at least one of the authors (Stevenson) is grossly unqualified to analyze the data. Mandrola? Marginal. The other two *might* be qualified in public health/epi, but they clearly either had no clue about #VAERS limitations or didn’t take them seriously enough.” 

Two of the authors, John Mandrola, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist who is also a columnist for Medscape, and Tracy Beth Hoeg, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and sports medicine specialist, told this news organization that their estimates are not definitive, owing to the nature of the VAERS database.

“I want to emphasize that our signal is hypothesis-generating,” said Dr. Mandrola. “There’s obviously more research that needs to be done.” 

“I don’t think it should be used to establish a for-certain rate,” said Dr. Hoeg, about the study. “It’s not a perfect way of establishing what the rate of cardiac adverse events was, but it gives you an estimate, and generally with VAERS, it’s a significant underestimate.”

Both Dr. Hoeg and Dr. Mandrola said their analysis showed enough of a signal that it warranted a rush to publish. “We felt that it was super time-sensitive,” Dr. Mandrola said.
 

Vaccine risks versus COVID harm

The authors searched the VAERS system for children aged 12 to 17 years who had received one or two doses of an mRNA vaccine and had symptoms of myocarditis, pericarditis, myopericarditis, or chest pain, and also troponin levels available in the lab data.

Of the 257 patients they examined, 211 had peak troponin values available for analysis. All but one received the Pfizer vaccine. Results were stratified by age and sex.

The authors found that the rates of cardiac adverse events (CAEs) after dose 1 were 12.0 per million for 12- to 15-year-old boys and 8.2 per million for 16- and 17-year-old boys, compared with 0.0 per million and 2.0 per million for girls the same ages.

The estimates for the 12- to 15-year-old boys were 22% to 150% higher than what the CDC had previously reported.

After the second dose, the rate of CAEs for boys 12 to 15 years was 162.2 per million (143% to 280% higher than the CDC estimate) and for boys 16 and 17 years, it was 94.0 per million, or 30% to 40% higher than CDC estimate.

Dr. Mandrola said he and his colleagues found potentially more cases by using slightly broader search terms than those employed by the CDC but agreed with some critics that a limitation was that they did not call the reporting physicians, as is typical with CDC follow-up on VAERS reports.

The authors point to troponin levels as valid indicators of myocardial damage. Peak troponin levels exceeded 2 ng/mL in 71% of the 12- to 15-year-olds and 82% of 16- and 17-year-olds.

The study shows that for boys 12 to 15 years with no comorbidities, the risk for a CAE after the second dose would be 22.8 times higher than the risk for hospitalization for COVID-19 during periods of low disease burden, 6.0 times higher during periods of moderate transmission, and 4.3 times higher during periods of high transmission.

The authors acknowledge in the paper that their analysis “does not take into account any benefits the vaccine provides against transmission to others, long-term COVID-19 disease risk, or protection from nonsevere COVID-19 symptoms.”

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg told this news organization that they are currently recalculating their estimates because of the rising numbers of pediatric hospitalizations from the Delta variant surge.
 

Paper rejected by journals

Dr. Hoeg said in an interview that the paper went through peer-review at three journals but was rejected by all three, for reasons that were not made clear.

She and the other authors incorporated the reviewers’ feedback at each turn and included all of their suggestions in the paper that was ultimately uploaded to medRxiv, said Dr. Hoeg.

They decided to put it out as a preprint after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued its data and then a warning on June 25 about myocarditis with use of the Pfizer vaccine in children 12 to 15 years of age.

The preprint study was picked up by some media outlets, including The Telegraph and The Guardian newspapers, and tweeted out by vaccine skeptics like Robert W. Malone, MD. 

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia), an outspoken vaccine skeptic, tweeted out the Guardian story saying that the findings mean “there is every reason to stop the covid vaccine mandates.”

Dr. Gorski noted in tweets and in a blog post that one of the paper’s coauthors, Josh Stevenson, is part of Rational Ground, a group that supports the Great Barrington Declaration and is against lockdowns and mask mandates.

Mr. Stevenson did not disclose his affiliation in the paper, and Dr. Hoeg said in an interview that she was unaware of the group and Mr. Stevenson’s association with it and that she did not have the impression that he was altering the data to show any bias.

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg said they are provaccine and that they were dismayed to find their work being used to support any agenda. “It’s very frustrating,” said Dr. Hoeg, adding that she understands that “when you publish research on a controversial topic, people are going to take it and use it for their agendas.”

Some on Twitter blamed the open and free-wheeling nature of preprints.

Harlan Krumholz, MD, SM, the Harold H. Hines, junior professor of medicine and public health at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., which oversees medRxiv, tweeted, “Do you get that the discussion about the preprint is exactly the purpose of #preprints. So that way when someone claims something, you can look at the source and experts can comment.”

But Dr. Ziaeian tweeted back, “Preprints like this one can be weaponized to stir anti-vaccine lies and damage public health.”

In turn, the Yale physician replied, “Unfortunately these days, almost anything can be weaponized, distorted, misunderstood.” Dr. Krumholz added: “There is no question that this preprint is worthy of deep vetting and discussion. But there is a #preprint artifact to examine.”
 

Measured support

Some clinicians signaled their support for open debate and the preprint’s findings.

“I’ve been very critical of preprints that are too quickly disseminated in the media, and this one is no exception,” tweeted Walid Gellad, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh. “On the other hand, I think the vitriol directed at these authors is wrong,” he added.

“Like it or not, the issue of myocarditis in kids is an issue. Other countries have made vaccination decisions because of this issue, not because they’re driven by some ideology,” he tweeted.

Dr. Gellad also notes that the FDA has estimated the risk could be as high as one in 5,000 and that the preprint numbers could actually be underestimates.

In a long thread, Frank Han, MD, an adult congenital and pediatric cardiologist at the University of Illinois, tweets that relying on the VAERS reports might be faulty and that advanced cardiac imaging – guided by strict criteria – is the best way to determine myocarditis. And, he tweeted, “Physician review of VAERS reports really matters.”

Dr. Han concluded that vaccination “trades in a significant risk with a much smaller risk. That’s what counts in the end.”

In a response, Dr. Mandrola called Han’s tweets “reasoned criticism of our analysis.” He adds that his and Dr. Hoeg’s study have limits, but “our point is not to avoid protecting kids, but how to do so most safely.”

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg said they welcomed critiques, but they felt blindsided by the vehemence of some of the Twitter debate.

“Some of the vitriol was surprising,” Dr. Mandrola said. “I kind of have this naive notion that people would assume that we’re not bad people,” he added.

However, Dr. Mandrola is known on Twitter for sometimes being highly critical of other researchers’ work, referring to some studies as “howlers,” and has in the past called out others for citing those papers.

Dr. Hoeg said she found critiques about weaknesses in the methods to be helpful. But she said many tweets were “attacking us as people, or not really attacking anything about our study, but just attacking the finding,” which does not help anyone “figure out what we should do about the safety signal or how we can research it further.”

Said Dr. Mandrola: “Why would we just ignore that and go forward with two-shot vaccination as a mandate when other countries are looking at other strategies?”

He noted that the United Kingdom has announced that children 12 to 15 years of age should receive just one shot of the mRNA vaccines instead of two because of the risk for myocarditis. Sixteen- to 18-year-olds have already been advised to get only one dose.

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

A preprint study finding that the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID vaccine is associated with an increased risk for cardiac adverse events in teenage boys has elicited a firestorm on Twitter. Although some people issued thoughtful critiques, others lobbed insults against the authors, and still others accused them of either being antivaccine or stoking the fires of the vaccine skeptic movement.

The controversy began soon after the study was posted online September 8 on medRxiv. The authors conclude that for boys, the risk for a cardiac adverse event or hospitalization after the second dose of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine was “considerably higher” than the 120-day risk for hospitalization for COVID-19, “even at times of peak disease prevalence.” This was especially true for those aged 12 to 15 years and even those with no underlying health conditions.

The conclusion – as well as the paper’s source, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and its methodology, modeled after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention assessment of the database – did not sit well with many.

“Your methodology hugely overestimates risk, which many commentators who are specialists in the field have highlighted,” tweeted Deepti Gurdasani, senior lecturer in epidemiology at Queen Mary University of London. “Why make this claim when you must know it’s wrong?”

“The authors don’t know what they are doing and they are following their own ideology,” tweeted Boback Ziaeian, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, in the cardiology division. Dr. Ziaeian also tweeted, “I believe the CDC is doing honest work and not dredging slop like you are.”

“Holy shit. Truly terrible methods in that paper,” tweeted Michael Mina, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and immunologist at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, more bluntly.

Some pointed out that VAERS is often used by vaccine skeptics to spread misinformation. “‘Dumpster diving’ describes studies using #VAERS by authors (almost always antivaxxers) who don’t understand its limitations,” tweeted David Gorski, MD, PhD, the editor of Science-Based Medicine, who says in his Twitter bio that he “exposes quackery.”

Added Dr. Gorski: “Doctors fell into this trap with their study suggesting #CovidVaccine is more dangerous to children than #COVID19.”

Dr. Gorski said he did not think that the authors were antivaccine. But, he tweeted, “I’d argue that at least one of the authors (Stevenson) is grossly unqualified to analyze the data. Mandrola? Marginal. The other two *might* be qualified in public health/epi, but they clearly either had no clue about #VAERS limitations or didn’t take them seriously enough.” 

Two of the authors, John Mandrola, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist who is also a columnist for Medscape, and Tracy Beth Hoeg, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and sports medicine specialist, told this news organization that their estimates are not definitive, owing to the nature of the VAERS database.

“I want to emphasize that our signal is hypothesis-generating,” said Dr. Mandrola. “There’s obviously more research that needs to be done.” 

“I don’t think it should be used to establish a for-certain rate,” said Dr. Hoeg, about the study. “It’s not a perfect way of establishing what the rate of cardiac adverse events was, but it gives you an estimate, and generally with VAERS, it’s a significant underestimate.”

Both Dr. Hoeg and Dr. Mandrola said their analysis showed enough of a signal that it warranted a rush to publish. “We felt that it was super time-sensitive,” Dr. Mandrola said.
 

Vaccine risks versus COVID harm

The authors searched the VAERS system for children aged 12 to 17 years who had received one or two doses of an mRNA vaccine and had symptoms of myocarditis, pericarditis, myopericarditis, or chest pain, and also troponin levels available in the lab data.

Of the 257 patients they examined, 211 had peak troponin values available for analysis. All but one received the Pfizer vaccine. Results were stratified by age and sex.

The authors found that the rates of cardiac adverse events (CAEs) after dose 1 were 12.0 per million for 12- to 15-year-old boys and 8.2 per million for 16- and 17-year-old boys, compared with 0.0 per million and 2.0 per million for girls the same ages.

The estimates for the 12- to 15-year-old boys were 22% to 150% higher than what the CDC had previously reported.

After the second dose, the rate of CAEs for boys 12 to 15 years was 162.2 per million (143% to 280% higher than the CDC estimate) and for boys 16 and 17 years, it was 94.0 per million, or 30% to 40% higher than CDC estimate.

Dr. Mandrola said he and his colleagues found potentially more cases by using slightly broader search terms than those employed by the CDC but agreed with some critics that a limitation was that they did not call the reporting physicians, as is typical with CDC follow-up on VAERS reports.

The authors point to troponin levels as valid indicators of myocardial damage. Peak troponin levels exceeded 2 ng/mL in 71% of the 12- to 15-year-olds and 82% of 16- and 17-year-olds.

The study shows that for boys 12 to 15 years with no comorbidities, the risk for a CAE after the second dose would be 22.8 times higher than the risk for hospitalization for COVID-19 during periods of low disease burden, 6.0 times higher during periods of moderate transmission, and 4.3 times higher during periods of high transmission.

The authors acknowledge in the paper that their analysis “does not take into account any benefits the vaccine provides against transmission to others, long-term COVID-19 disease risk, or protection from nonsevere COVID-19 symptoms.”

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg told this news organization that they are currently recalculating their estimates because of the rising numbers of pediatric hospitalizations from the Delta variant surge.
 

Paper rejected by journals

Dr. Hoeg said in an interview that the paper went through peer-review at three journals but was rejected by all three, for reasons that were not made clear.

She and the other authors incorporated the reviewers’ feedback at each turn and included all of their suggestions in the paper that was ultimately uploaded to medRxiv, said Dr. Hoeg.

They decided to put it out as a preprint after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued its data and then a warning on June 25 about myocarditis with use of the Pfizer vaccine in children 12 to 15 years of age.

The preprint study was picked up by some media outlets, including The Telegraph and The Guardian newspapers, and tweeted out by vaccine skeptics like Robert W. Malone, MD. 

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia), an outspoken vaccine skeptic, tweeted out the Guardian story saying that the findings mean “there is every reason to stop the covid vaccine mandates.”

Dr. Gorski noted in tweets and in a blog post that one of the paper’s coauthors, Josh Stevenson, is part of Rational Ground, a group that supports the Great Barrington Declaration and is against lockdowns and mask mandates.

Mr. Stevenson did not disclose his affiliation in the paper, and Dr. Hoeg said in an interview that she was unaware of the group and Mr. Stevenson’s association with it and that she did not have the impression that he was altering the data to show any bias.

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg said they are provaccine and that they were dismayed to find their work being used to support any agenda. “It’s very frustrating,” said Dr. Hoeg, adding that she understands that “when you publish research on a controversial topic, people are going to take it and use it for their agendas.”

Some on Twitter blamed the open and free-wheeling nature of preprints.

Harlan Krumholz, MD, SM, the Harold H. Hines, junior professor of medicine and public health at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., which oversees medRxiv, tweeted, “Do you get that the discussion about the preprint is exactly the purpose of #preprints. So that way when someone claims something, you can look at the source and experts can comment.”

But Dr. Ziaeian tweeted back, “Preprints like this one can be weaponized to stir anti-vaccine lies and damage public health.”

In turn, the Yale physician replied, “Unfortunately these days, almost anything can be weaponized, distorted, misunderstood.” Dr. Krumholz added: “There is no question that this preprint is worthy of deep vetting and discussion. But there is a #preprint artifact to examine.”
 

Measured support

Some clinicians signaled their support for open debate and the preprint’s findings.

“I’ve been very critical of preprints that are too quickly disseminated in the media, and this one is no exception,” tweeted Walid Gellad, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh. “On the other hand, I think the vitriol directed at these authors is wrong,” he added.

“Like it or not, the issue of myocarditis in kids is an issue. Other countries have made vaccination decisions because of this issue, not because they’re driven by some ideology,” he tweeted.

Dr. Gellad also notes that the FDA has estimated the risk could be as high as one in 5,000 and that the preprint numbers could actually be underestimates.

In a long thread, Frank Han, MD, an adult congenital and pediatric cardiologist at the University of Illinois, tweets that relying on the VAERS reports might be faulty and that advanced cardiac imaging – guided by strict criteria – is the best way to determine myocarditis. And, he tweeted, “Physician review of VAERS reports really matters.”

Dr. Han concluded that vaccination “trades in a significant risk with a much smaller risk. That’s what counts in the end.”

In a response, Dr. Mandrola called Han’s tweets “reasoned criticism of our analysis.” He adds that his and Dr. Hoeg’s study have limits, but “our point is not to avoid protecting kids, but how to do so most safely.”

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg said they welcomed critiques, but they felt blindsided by the vehemence of some of the Twitter debate.

“Some of the vitriol was surprising,” Dr. Mandrola said. “I kind of have this naive notion that people would assume that we’re not bad people,” he added.

However, Dr. Mandrola is known on Twitter for sometimes being highly critical of other researchers’ work, referring to some studies as “howlers,” and has in the past called out others for citing those papers.

Dr. Hoeg said she found critiques about weaknesses in the methods to be helpful. But she said many tweets were “attacking us as people, or not really attacking anything about our study, but just attacking the finding,” which does not help anyone “figure out what we should do about the safety signal or how we can research it further.”

Said Dr. Mandrola: “Why would we just ignore that and go forward with two-shot vaccination as a mandate when other countries are looking at other strategies?”

He noted that the United Kingdom has announced that children 12 to 15 years of age should receive just one shot of the mRNA vaccines instead of two because of the risk for myocarditis. Sixteen- to 18-year-olds have already been advised to get only one dose.

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

A preprint study finding that the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID vaccine is associated with an increased risk for cardiac adverse events in teenage boys has elicited a firestorm on Twitter. Although some people issued thoughtful critiques, others lobbed insults against the authors, and still others accused them of either being antivaccine or stoking the fires of the vaccine skeptic movement.

The controversy began soon after the study was posted online September 8 on medRxiv. The authors conclude that for boys, the risk for a cardiac adverse event or hospitalization after the second dose of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine was “considerably higher” than the 120-day risk for hospitalization for COVID-19, “even at times of peak disease prevalence.” This was especially true for those aged 12 to 15 years and even those with no underlying health conditions.

The conclusion – as well as the paper’s source, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and its methodology, modeled after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention assessment of the database – did not sit well with many.

“Your methodology hugely overestimates risk, which many commentators who are specialists in the field have highlighted,” tweeted Deepti Gurdasani, senior lecturer in epidemiology at Queen Mary University of London. “Why make this claim when you must know it’s wrong?”

“The authors don’t know what they are doing and they are following their own ideology,” tweeted Boback Ziaeian, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, in the cardiology division. Dr. Ziaeian also tweeted, “I believe the CDC is doing honest work and not dredging slop like you are.”

“Holy shit. Truly terrible methods in that paper,” tweeted Michael Mina, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and immunologist at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, more bluntly.

Some pointed out that VAERS is often used by vaccine skeptics to spread misinformation. “‘Dumpster diving’ describes studies using #VAERS by authors (almost always antivaxxers) who don’t understand its limitations,” tweeted David Gorski, MD, PhD, the editor of Science-Based Medicine, who says in his Twitter bio that he “exposes quackery.”

Added Dr. Gorski: “Doctors fell into this trap with their study suggesting #CovidVaccine is more dangerous to children than #COVID19.”

Dr. Gorski said he did not think that the authors were antivaccine. But, he tweeted, “I’d argue that at least one of the authors (Stevenson) is grossly unqualified to analyze the data. Mandrola? Marginal. The other two *might* be qualified in public health/epi, but they clearly either had no clue about #VAERS limitations or didn’t take them seriously enough.” 

Two of the authors, John Mandrola, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist who is also a columnist for Medscape, and Tracy Beth Hoeg, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and sports medicine specialist, told this news organization that their estimates are not definitive, owing to the nature of the VAERS database.

“I want to emphasize that our signal is hypothesis-generating,” said Dr. Mandrola. “There’s obviously more research that needs to be done.” 

“I don’t think it should be used to establish a for-certain rate,” said Dr. Hoeg, about the study. “It’s not a perfect way of establishing what the rate of cardiac adverse events was, but it gives you an estimate, and generally with VAERS, it’s a significant underestimate.”

Both Dr. Hoeg and Dr. Mandrola said their analysis showed enough of a signal that it warranted a rush to publish. “We felt that it was super time-sensitive,” Dr. Mandrola said.
 

Vaccine risks versus COVID harm

The authors searched the VAERS system for children aged 12 to 17 years who had received one or two doses of an mRNA vaccine and had symptoms of myocarditis, pericarditis, myopericarditis, or chest pain, and also troponin levels available in the lab data.

Of the 257 patients they examined, 211 had peak troponin values available for analysis. All but one received the Pfizer vaccine. Results were stratified by age and sex.

The authors found that the rates of cardiac adverse events (CAEs) after dose 1 were 12.0 per million for 12- to 15-year-old boys and 8.2 per million for 16- and 17-year-old boys, compared with 0.0 per million and 2.0 per million for girls the same ages.

The estimates for the 12- to 15-year-old boys were 22% to 150% higher than what the CDC had previously reported.

After the second dose, the rate of CAEs for boys 12 to 15 years was 162.2 per million (143% to 280% higher than the CDC estimate) and for boys 16 and 17 years, it was 94.0 per million, or 30% to 40% higher than CDC estimate.

Dr. Mandrola said he and his colleagues found potentially more cases by using slightly broader search terms than those employed by the CDC but agreed with some critics that a limitation was that they did not call the reporting physicians, as is typical with CDC follow-up on VAERS reports.

The authors point to troponin levels as valid indicators of myocardial damage. Peak troponin levels exceeded 2 ng/mL in 71% of the 12- to 15-year-olds and 82% of 16- and 17-year-olds.

The study shows that for boys 12 to 15 years with no comorbidities, the risk for a CAE after the second dose would be 22.8 times higher than the risk for hospitalization for COVID-19 during periods of low disease burden, 6.0 times higher during periods of moderate transmission, and 4.3 times higher during periods of high transmission.

The authors acknowledge in the paper that their analysis “does not take into account any benefits the vaccine provides against transmission to others, long-term COVID-19 disease risk, or protection from nonsevere COVID-19 symptoms.”

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg told this news organization that they are currently recalculating their estimates because of the rising numbers of pediatric hospitalizations from the Delta variant surge.
 

Paper rejected by journals

Dr. Hoeg said in an interview that the paper went through peer-review at three journals but was rejected by all three, for reasons that were not made clear.

She and the other authors incorporated the reviewers’ feedback at each turn and included all of their suggestions in the paper that was ultimately uploaded to medRxiv, said Dr. Hoeg.

They decided to put it out as a preprint after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued its data and then a warning on June 25 about myocarditis with use of the Pfizer vaccine in children 12 to 15 years of age.

The preprint study was picked up by some media outlets, including The Telegraph and The Guardian newspapers, and tweeted out by vaccine skeptics like Robert W. Malone, MD. 

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia), an outspoken vaccine skeptic, tweeted out the Guardian story saying that the findings mean “there is every reason to stop the covid vaccine mandates.”

Dr. Gorski noted in tweets and in a blog post that one of the paper’s coauthors, Josh Stevenson, is part of Rational Ground, a group that supports the Great Barrington Declaration and is against lockdowns and mask mandates.

Mr. Stevenson did not disclose his affiliation in the paper, and Dr. Hoeg said in an interview that she was unaware of the group and Mr. Stevenson’s association with it and that she did not have the impression that he was altering the data to show any bias.

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg said they are provaccine and that they were dismayed to find their work being used to support any agenda. “It’s very frustrating,” said Dr. Hoeg, adding that she understands that “when you publish research on a controversial topic, people are going to take it and use it for their agendas.”

Some on Twitter blamed the open and free-wheeling nature of preprints.

Harlan Krumholz, MD, SM, the Harold H. Hines, junior professor of medicine and public health at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., which oversees medRxiv, tweeted, “Do you get that the discussion about the preprint is exactly the purpose of #preprints. So that way when someone claims something, you can look at the source and experts can comment.”

But Dr. Ziaeian tweeted back, “Preprints like this one can be weaponized to stir anti-vaccine lies and damage public health.”

In turn, the Yale physician replied, “Unfortunately these days, almost anything can be weaponized, distorted, misunderstood.” Dr. Krumholz added: “There is no question that this preprint is worthy of deep vetting and discussion. But there is a #preprint artifact to examine.”
 

Measured support

Some clinicians signaled their support for open debate and the preprint’s findings.

“I’ve been very critical of preprints that are too quickly disseminated in the media, and this one is no exception,” tweeted Walid Gellad, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh. “On the other hand, I think the vitriol directed at these authors is wrong,” he added.

“Like it or not, the issue of myocarditis in kids is an issue. Other countries have made vaccination decisions because of this issue, not because they’re driven by some ideology,” he tweeted.

Dr. Gellad also notes that the FDA has estimated the risk could be as high as one in 5,000 and that the preprint numbers could actually be underestimates.

In a long thread, Frank Han, MD, an adult congenital and pediatric cardiologist at the University of Illinois, tweets that relying on the VAERS reports might be faulty and that advanced cardiac imaging – guided by strict criteria – is the best way to determine myocarditis. And, he tweeted, “Physician review of VAERS reports really matters.”

Dr. Han concluded that vaccination “trades in a significant risk with a much smaller risk. That’s what counts in the end.”

In a response, Dr. Mandrola called Han’s tweets “reasoned criticism of our analysis.” He adds that his and Dr. Hoeg’s study have limits, but “our point is not to avoid protecting kids, but how to do so most safely.”

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg said they welcomed critiques, but they felt blindsided by the vehemence of some of the Twitter debate.

“Some of the vitriol was surprising,” Dr. Mandrola said. “I kind of have this naive notion that people would assume that we’re not bad people,” he added.

However, Dr. Mandrola is known on Twitter for sometimes being highly critical of other researchers’ work, referring to some studies as “howlers,” and has in the past called out others for citing those papers.

Dr. Hoeg said she found critiques about weaknesses in the methods to be helpful. But she said many tweets were “attacking us as people, or not really attacking anything about our study, but just attacking the finding,” which does not help anyone “figure out what we should do about the safety signal or how we can research it further.”

Said Dr. Mandrola: “Why would we just ignore that and go forward with two-shot vaccination as a mandate when other countries are looking at other strategies?”

He noted that the United Kingdom has announced that children 12 to 15 years of age should receive just one shot of the mRNA vaccines instead of two because of the risk for myocarditis. Sixteen- to 18-year-olds have already been advised to get only one dose.

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

Seth was finally diagnosed with appendicitis more than six hours after arriving at Cleveland Clinic Martin Health North Hospital in late July. Around midnight, he was taken by ambulance to a sister hospital about a half-hour away that was better equipped to perform pediatric emergency surgery, his father said.

But by the time the doctor operated in the early morning hours, Seth’s appendix had burst – a potentially fatal complication.

As the nation’s hospitals fill and emergency rooms overflow with critically ill COVID-19 patients, it is the non–COVID-19 patients, like Seth, who have become collateral damage. They, too, need emergency care, but the sheer number of COVID-19 cases is crowding them out. Treatment has often been delayed as ERs scramble to find a bed that may be hundreds of miles away.

Some health officials now worry about looming ethical decisions. Last week, Idaho activated a “crisis standard of care,” which one official described as a “last resort.” It allows overwhelmed hospitals to ration care, including “in rare cases, ventilator (breathing machines) or intensive care unit (ICU) beds may need to be used for those who are most likely to survive, while patients who are not likely to survive may not be able to receive one,” the state’s website said.

The federal government’s latest data shows Alabama is at 100% of its intensive care unit capacity, with Texas, Georgia, Mississippi and Arkansas at more than 90% ICU capacity. Florida is just under 90%.

It’s the COVID-19 cases that are dominating. In Georgia, 62% of the ICU beds are now filled with just COVID-19 patients. In Texas, the percentage is nearly half.

To have so many ICU beds pressed into service for a single diagnosis is “unheard of,” said Dr. Hasan Kakli, an emergency room physician at Bellville Medical Center in Bellville, Texas, about an hour from Houston. “It’s approaching apocalyptic.”

In Texas, state data released Monday showed there were only 319 adult and 104 pediatric staffed ICU beds available across a state of 29 million people.

Hospitals need to hold some ICU beds for other patients, such as those recovering from major surgery or other critical conditions such as stroke, trauma or heart failure.

“This is not just a COVID issue,” said Dr. Normaliz Rodriguez, pediatric emergency physician at Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital in St. Petersburg, Florida. “This is an everyone issue.”

While the latest hospital crisis echoes previous pandemic spikes, there are troubling differences this time around.

Before, localized COVID-19 hot spots led to bed shortages, but there were usually hospitals in the region not as affected that could accept a transfer.

Now, as the highly contagious delta variant envelops swaths of low-vaccination states all at once, it becomes harder to find nearby hospitals that are not slammed.

“Wait times can now be measured in days,” said Darrell Pile, CEO of the SouthEast Texas Regional Advisory Council, which helps coordinate patient transfers across a 25-county region.

Recently, Dr. Cedric Dark, a Houston emergency physician and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, said he saw a critically ill COVID-19 patient waiting in the emergency room for an ICU bed to open. The doctor worked eight hours, went home and came in the next day. The patient was still waiting.

Holding a seriously ill patient in an emergency room while waiting for an in-patient bed to open is known as boarding. The longer the wait, the more dangerous it can be for the patient, studies have found.

Not only do patients ultimately end up staying in the hospital or the ICU longer, some research suggests that long waits for a bed will worsen their condition and may increase the risk of in-hospital death.

That’s what happened last month in Texas.

On Aug. 21, around 11:30 a.m., Michelle Puget took her adult son, Daniel Wilkinson, to the Bellville Medical Center’s emergency room as a pain in his abdomen became unbearable. “Mama,” he said, “take me to the hospital.”

Wilkinson, a 46-year-old decorated Army veteran who did two tours of duty in Afghanistan, was ushered into an exam room about half an hour later. Kakli, the emergency room physician there, diagnosed gallstone pancreatitis, a serious but treatable condition that required a specialist to perform a surgical procedure and an ICU bed.

In other times, the transfer to a larger facility would be easy. But soon Kakli found himself on a frantic, six-hour quest to find a bed for his patient. Not only did he call hospitals across Texas, but he also tried Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma and Colorado. It was like throwing darts at a map and hoping to get lucky, he told ProPublica. But no one could or would take the transfer.

By 2:30 p.m., Wilkinson’s condition was deteriorating. Kakli told Puget to come back to the hospital. “I have to tell you,” she said he told her, “Your son is a very, very sick man. If he doesn’t get this procedure he will die.” She began to weep.

Two hours later, Wilkinson’s blood pressure was dropping, signaling his organs were failing, she said.

Kakli went on Facebook and posted an all-caps plea to physician groups around the nation: “GETTING REJECTED BY ALL HOSPITALS IN TEXAS DUE TO NO ICU BEDS. PLEASE HELP. MESSAGE ME IF YOU HAVE A BED. PATIENT IS IN ER NOW. I AM THE ER DOC. WILL FLY ANYWHERE.”

The doctor tried Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center in Houston for a second time. This time he found a bed.

Around 7 p.m., Wilkinson, still conscious but in grave condition, was flown by helicopter to the hospital. He was put in a medically induced coma. Through the night and into the next morning, medical teams worked to stabilize him enough to perform the procedure. They could not.

Doctors told his family the internal damage was catastrophic. “We made the decision we had to let him go,” Puget said.

Time of death: 1:37 p.m. Aug. 22 – 26 hours after he first arrived in the emergency room.

The story was first reported by CBS News. Kakli told ProPublica last week he still sometimes does the math in his head: It should have been 40 minutes from diagnosis in Bellville to transfer to the ICU in Houston. “If he had 40 minutes to wait instead of six hours, I strongly believe he would have had a different outcome.”

Another difference with the latest surge is how it’s affecting children.

Last year, schools were closed, and children were more protected because they were mostly isolated at home. In fact, children’s hospitals were often so empty during previous spikes they opened beds to adult patients.

Now, families are out more. Schools have reopened, some with mask mandates, some without. Vaccines are not yet available to those under 12. Suddenly the numbers of hospitalized children are on the rise, setting up the same type of competition for resources between young COVID-19 patients and those with other illnesses such as new onset diabetes, trauma, pneumonia or appendicitis.

Dr. Rafael Santiago, a pediatric emergency physician in Central Florida, said at Lakeland Regional Health Medical Center, the average number of children coming into the emergency room is around 130 per day. During the lockdown last spring, that number dropped to 33. Last month – “the busiest month ever” – the average daily number of children in the emergency room was 160.

Pediatric transfers are not yet as fraught as adult ones, Santiago said, but it does take more calls than it once did to secure a bed.

Seth Osborn, the 12-year-old whose appendix burst after a long wait, spent five days and four nights in the hospital as doctors pumped his body full of antibiotics to stave off infection from the rupture. The typical hospitalization for a routine appendectomy is about 24 hours.

The initial hospital bill for the stay came to more than $48,000, Nathaniel Osborn said. Although insurance paid for most of it, he said the family still borrowed against its house to cover the more than $5,000 in out-of-pocket costs so far.

While the hospital system where Seth was treated declined to comment about his case because of patient privacy laws, it did email a statement about the strain the pandemic is creating.

“Since July 2021, we have seen a tremendous spike in COVID-19 patients needing care and hospitalization. In mid-August, we saw the highest number of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 across the Cleveland Clinic Florida region, a total of 395 COVID-19 patients in four hospitals. Those hospitals have approximately 1,000 total beds,” the email to ProPublica said. “We strongly encourage vaccination. Approximately 90% of our patients hospitalized due to COVID-19 are unvaccinated.”

On Sunday, The Washington Post reported that a hospital in Alabama called 43 others across three states before finding a bed for Ray DeMonia, a critically ill heart patient who later died. In his obituary his family wrote: “In honor of Ray, please get vaccinated if you have not, in an effort to free up resources for non COVID related emergencies. ... He would not want any other family to go through what his did.”

Today, Seth is mostly recovered. “Twelve-year-old boys bounce back,” his father said. Still, the experience has left Nathaniel Osborn shaken.

The high school history teacher said he likes to stay upbeat and apolitical in his social media musings, posting about Florida wildlife preservation and favorite books. But on Sept. 7, he tweeted: “My 12-year-old had appendicitis. The ER was overwhelmed with unvaccinated Covid patients and we had to wait 6+ hours. While waiting, his appendix ruptured and had to spend 5 days in hospital. ... So yeah, your decision to not vaccinate does affect others.”

It was retweeted 34,700 times, with 143,000 likes. Most comments were sympathetic and wished his child a speedy recovery. Some, though, went straight to hate, apparently triggered by his last line. He was attacked personally and accused of making up the story: “Good try with the guilt, jerk.”

Osborn, who is vaccinated, as are his wife and son, told ProPublica he only shared Seth’s story on Twitter to encourage vaccinations.

“I have no ill will towards the hospitals or the care received at either hospital,” he said this week, “but had these hospitals not been so crowded with COVID patients, we wouldn’t have had to wait so long and perhaps my son’s appendix would not have burst.”

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

Seth was finally diagnosed with appendicitis more than six hours after arriving at Cleveland Clinic Martin Health North Hospital in late July. Around midnight, he was taken by ambulance to a sister hospital about a half-hour away that was better equipped to perform pediatric emergency surgery, his father said.

But by the time the doctor operated in the early morning hours, Seth’s appendix had burst – a potentially fatal complication.

As the nation’s hospitals fill and emergency rooms overflow with critically ill COVID-19 patients, it is the non–COVID-19 patients, like Seth, who have become collateral damage. They, too, need emergency care, but the sheer number of COVID-19 cases is crowding them out. Treatment has often been delayed as ERs scramble to find a bed that may be hundreds of miles away.

Some health officials now worry about looming ethical decisions. Last week, Idaho activated a “crisis standard of care,” which one official described as a “last resort.” It allows overwhelmed hospitals to ration care, including “in rare cases, ventilator (breathing machines) or intensive care unit (ICU) beds may need to be used for those who are most likely to survive, while patients who are not likely to survive may not be able to receive one,” the state’s website said.

The federal government’s latest data shows Alabama is at 100% of its intensive care unit capacity, with Texas, Georgia, Mississippi and Arkansas at more than 90% ICU capacity. Florida is just under 90%.

It’s the COVID-19 cases that are dominating. In Georgia, 62% of the ICU beds are now filled with just COVID-19 patients. In Texas, the percentage is nearly half.

To have so many ICU beds pressed into service for a single diagnosis is “unheard of,” said Dr. Hasan Kakli, an emergency room physician at Bellville Medical Center in Bellville, Texas, about an hour from Houston. “It’s approaching apocalyptic.”

In Texas, state data released Monday showed there were only 319 adult and 104 pediatric staffed ICU beds available across a state of 29 million people.

Hospitals need to hold some ICU beds for other patients, such as those recovering from major surgery or other critical conditions such as stroke, trauma or heart failure.

“This is not just a COVID issue,” said Dr. Normaliz Rodriguez, pediatric emergency physician at Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital in St. Petersburg, Florida. “This is an everyone issue.”

While the latest hospital crisis echoes previous pandemic spikes, there are troubling differences this time around.

Before, localized COVID-19 hot spots led to bed shortages, but there were usually hospitals in the region not as affected that could accept a transfer.

Now, as the highly contagious delta variant envelops swaths of low-vaccination states all at once, it becomes harder to find nearby hospitals that are not slammed.

“Wait times can now be measured in days,” said Darrell Pile, CEO of the SouthEast Texas Regional Advisory Council, which helps coordinate patient transfers across a 25-county region.

Recently, Dr. Cedric Dark, a Houston emergency physician and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, said he saw a critically ill COVID-19 patient waiting in the emergency room for an ICU bed to open. The doctor worked eight hours, went home and came in the next day. The patient was still waiting.

Holding a seriously ill patient in an emergency room while waiting for an in-patient bed to open is known as boarding. The longer the wait, the more dangerous it can be for the patient, studies have found.

Not only do patients ultimately end up staying in the hospital or the ICU longer, some research suggests that long waits for a bed will worsen their condition and may increase the risk of in-hospital death.

That’s what happened last month in Texas.

On Aug. 21, around 11:30 a.m., Michelle Puget took her adult son, Daniel Wilkinson, to the Bellville Medical Center’s emergency room as a pain in his abdomen became unbearable. “Mama,” he said, “take me to the hospital.”

Wilkinson, a 46-year-old decorated Army veteran who did two tours of duty in Afghanistan, was ushered into an exam room about half an hour later. Kakli, the emergency room physician there, diagnosed gallstone pancreatitis, a serious but treatable condition that required a specialist to perform a surgical procedure and an ICU bed.

In other times, the transfer to a larger facility would be easy. But soon Kakli found himself on a frantic, six-hour quest to find a bed for his patient. Not only did he call hospitals across Texas, but he also tried Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma and Colorado. It was like throwing darts at a map and hoping to get lucky, he told ProPublica. But no one could or would take the transfer.

By 2:30 p.m., Wilkinson’s condition was deteriorating. Kakli told Puget to come back to the hospital. “I have to tell you,” she said he told her, “Your son is a very, very sick man. If he doesn’t get this procedure he will die.” She began to weep.

Two hours later, Wilkinson’s blood pressure was dropping, signaling his organs were failing, she said.

Kakli went on Facebook and posted an all-caps plea to physician groups around the nation: “GETTING REJECTED BY ALL HOSPITALS IN TEXAS DUE TO NO ICU BEDS. PLEASE HELP. MESSAGE ME IF YOU HAVE A BED. PATIENT IS IN ER NOW. I AM THE ER DOC. WILL FLY ANYWHERE.”

The doctor tried Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center in Houston for a second time. This time he found a bed.

Around 7 p.m., Wilkinson, still conscious but in grave condition, was flown by helicopter to the hospital. He was put in a medically induced coma. Through the night and into the next morning, medical teams worked to stabilize him enough to perform the procedure. They could not.

Doctors told his family the internal damage was catastrophic. “We made the decision we had to let him go,” Puget said.

Time of death: 1:37 p.m. Aug. 22 – 26 hours after he first arrived in the emergency room.

The story was first reported by CBS News. Kakli told ProPublica last week he still sometimes does the math in his head: It should have been 40 minutes from diagnosis in Bellville to transfer to the ICU in Houston. “If he had 40 minutes to wait instead of six hours, I strongly believe he would have had a different outcome.”

Another difference with the latest surge is how it’s affecting children.

Last year, schools were closed, and children were more protected because they were mostly isolated at home. In fact, children’s hospitals were often so empty during previous spikes they opened beds to adult patients.

Now, families are out more. Schools have reopened, some with mask mandates, some without. Vaccines are not yet available to those under 12. Suddenly the numbers of hospitalized children are on the rise, setting up the same type of competition for resources between young COVID-19 patients and those with other illnesses such as new onset diabetes, trauma, pneumonia or appendicitis.

Dr. Rafael Santiago, a pediatric emergency physician in Central Florida, said at Lakeland Regional Health Medical Center, the average number of children coming into the emergency room is around 130 per day. During the lockdown last spring, that number dropped to 33. Last month – “the busiest month ever” – the average daily number of children in the emergency room was 160.

Pediatric transfers are not yet as fraught as adult ones, Santiago said, but it does take more calls than it once did to secure a bed.

Seth Osborn, the 12-year-old whose appendix burst after a long wait, spent five days and four nights in the hospital as doctors pumped his body full of antibiotics to stave off infection from the rupture. The typical hospitalization for a routine appendectomy is about 24 hours.

The initial hospital bill for the stay came to more than $48,000, Nathaniel Osborn said. Although insurance paid for most of it, he said the family still borrowed against its house to cover the more than $5,000 in out-of-pocket costs so far.

While the hospital system where Seth was treated declined to comment about his case because of patient privacy laws, it did email a statement about the strain the pandemic is creating.

“Since July 2021, we have seen a tremendous spike in COVID-19 patients needing care and hospitalization. In mid-August, we saw the highest number of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 across the Cleveland Clinic Florida region, a total of 395 COVID-19 patients in four hospitals. Those hospitals have approximately 1,000 total beds,” the email to ProPublica said. “We strongly encourage vaccination. Approximately 90% of our patients hospitalized due to COVID-19 are unvaccinated.”

On Sunday, The Washington Post reported that a hospital in Alabama called 43 others across three states before finding a bed for Ray DeMonia, a critically ill heart patient who later died. In his obituary his family wrote: “In honor of Ray, please get vaccinated if you have not, in an effort to free up resources for non COVID related emergencies. ... He would not want any other family to go through what his did.”

Today, Seth is mostly recovered. “Twelve-year-old boys bounce back,” his father said. Still, the experience has left Nathaniel Osborn shaken.

The high school history teacher said he likes to stay upbeat and apolitical in his social media musings, posting about Florida wildlife preservation and favorite books. But on Sept. 7, he tweeted: “My 12-year-old had appendicitis. The ER was overwhelmed with unvaccinated Covid patients and we had to wait 6+ hours. While waiting, his appendix ruptured and had to spend 5 days in hospital. ... So yeah, your decision to not vaccinate does affect others.”

It was retweeted 34,700 times, with 143,000 likes. Most comments were sympathetic and wished his child a speedy recovery. Some, though, went straight to hate, apparently triggered by his last line. He was attacked personally and accused of making up the story: “Good try with the guilt, jerk.”

Osborn, who is vaccinated, as are his wife and son, told ProPublica he only shared Seth’s story on Twitter to encourage vaccinations.

“I have no ill will towards the hospitals or the care received at either hospital,” he said this week, “but had these hospitals not been so crowded with COVID patients, we wouldn’t have had to wait so long and perhaps my son’s appendix would not have burst.”

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

Seth was finally diagnosed with appendicitis more than six hours after arriving at Cleveland Clinic Martin Health North Hospital in late July. Around midnight, he was taken by ambulance to a sister hospital about a half-hour away that was better equipped to perform pediatric emergency surgery, his father said.

But by the time the doctor operated in the early morning hours, Seth’s appendix had burst – a potentially fatal complication.

As the nation’s hospitals fill and emergency rooms overflow with critically ill COVID-19 patients, it is the non–COVID-19 patients, like Seth, who have become collateral damage. They, too, need emergency care, but the sheer number of COVID-19 cases is crowding them out. Treatment has often been delayed as ERs scramble to find a bed that may be hundreds of miles away.

Some health officials now worry about looming ethical decisions. Last week, Idaho activated a “crisis standard of care,” which one official described as a “last resort.” It allows overwhelmed hospitals to ration care, including “in rare cases, ventilator (breathing machines) or intensive care unit (ICU) beds may need to be used for those who are most likely to survive, while patients who are not likely to survive may not be able to receive one,” the state’s website said.

The federal government’s latest data shows Alabama is at 100% of its intensive care unit capacity, with Texas, Georgia, Mississippi and Arkansas at more than 90% ICU capacity. Florida is just under 90%.

It’s the COVID-19 cases that are dominating. In Georgia, 62% of the ICU beds are now filled with just COVID-19 patients. In Texas, the percentage is nearly half.

To have so many ICU beds pressed into service for a single diagnosis is “unheard of,” said Dr. Hasan Kakli, an emergency room physician at Bellville Medical Center in Bellville, Texas, about an hour from Houston. “It’s approaching apocalyptic.”

In Texas, state data released Monday showed there were only 319 adult and 104 pediatric staffed ICU beds available across a state of 29 million people.

Hospitals need to hold some ICU beds for other patients, such as those recovering from major surgery or other critical conditions such as stroke, trauma or heart failure.

“This is not just a COVID issue,” said Dr. Normaliz Rodriguez, pediatric emergency physician at Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital in St. Petersburg, Florida. “This is an everyone issue.”

While the latest hospital crisis echoes previous pandemic spikes, there are troubling differences this time around.

Before, localized COVID-19 hot spots led to bed shortages, but there were usually hospitals in the region not as affected that could accept a transfer.

Now, as the highly contagious delta variant envelops swaths of low-vaccination states all at once, it becomes harder to find nearby hospitals that are not slammed.

“Wait times can now be measured in days,” said Darrell Pile, CEO of the SouthEast Texas Regional Advisory Council, which helps coordinate patient transfers across a 25-county region.

Recently, Dr. Cedric Dark, a Houston emergency physician and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, said he saw a critically ill COVID-19 patient waiting in the emergency room for an ICU bed to open. The doctor worked eight hours, went home and came in the next day. The patient was still waiting.

Holding a seriously ill patient in an emergency room while waiting for an in-patient bed to open is known as boarding. The longer the wait, the more dangerous it can be for the patient, studies have found.

Not only do patients ultimately end up staying in the hospital or the ICU longer, some research suggests that long waits for a bed will worsen their condition and may increase the risk of in-hospital death.

That’s what happened last month in Texas.

On Aug. 21, around 11:30 a.m., Michelle Puget took her adult son, Daniel Wilkinson, to the Bellville Medical Center’s emergency room as a pain in his abdomen became unbearable. “Mama,” he said, “take me to the hospital.”

Wilkinson, a 46-year-old decorated Army veteran who did two tours of duty in Afghanistan, was ushered into an exam room about half an hour later. Kakli, the emergency room physician there, diagnosed gallstone pancreatitis, a serious but treatable condition that required a specialist to perform a surgical procedure and an ICU bed.

In other times, the transfer to a larger facility would be easy. But soon Kakli found himself on a frantic, six-hour quest to find a bed for his patient. Not only did he call hospitals across Texas, but he also tried Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma and Colorado. It was like throwing darts at a map and hoping to get lucky, he told ProPublica. But no one could or would take the transfer.

By 2:30 p.m., Wilkinson’s condition was deteriorating. Kakli told Puget to come back to the hospital. “I have to tell you,” she said he told her, “Your son is a very, very sick man. If he doesn’t get this procedure he will die.” She began to weep.

Two hours later, Wilkinson’s blood pressure was dropping, signaling his organs were failing, she said.

Kakli went on Facebook and posted an all-caps plea to physician groups around the nation: “GETTING REJECTED BY ALL HOSPITALS IN TEXAS DUE TO NO ICU BEDS. PLEASE HELP. MESSAGE ME IF YOU HAVE A BED. PATIENT IS IN ER NOW. I AM THE ER DOC. WILL FLY ANYWHERE.”

The doctor tried Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center in Houston for a second time. This time he found a bed.

Around 7 p.m., Wilkinson, still conscious but in grave condition, was flown by helicopter to the hospital. He was put in a medically induced coma. Through the night and into the next morning, medical teams worked to stabilize him enough to perform the procedure. They could not.

Doctors told his family the internal damage was catastrophic. “We made the decision we had to let him go,” Puget said.

Time of death: 1:37 p.m. Aug. 22 – 26 hours after he first arrived in the emergency room.

The story was first reported by CBS News. Kakli told ProPublica last week he still sometimes does the math in his head: It should have been 40 minutes from diagnosis in Bellville to transfer to the ICU in Houston. “If he had 40 minutes to wait instead of six hours, I strongly believe he would have had a different outcome.”

Another difference with the latest surge is how it’s affecting children.

Last year, schools were closed, and children were more protected because they were mostly isolated at home. In fact, children’s hospitals were often so empty during previous spikes they opened beds to adult patients.

Now, families are out more. Schools have reopened, some with mask mandates, some without. Vaccines are not yet available to those under 12. Suddenly the numbers of hospitalized children are on the rise, setting up the same type of competition for resources between young COVID-19 patients and those with other illnesses such as new onset diabetes, trauma, pneumonia or appendicitis.

Dr. Rafael Santiago, a pediatric emergency physician in Central Florida, said at Lakeland Regional Health Medical Center, the average number of children coming into the emergency room is around 130 per day. During the lockdown last spring, that number dropped to 33. Last month – “the busiest month ever” – the average daily number of children in the emergency room was 160.

Pediatric transfers are not yet as fraught as adult ones, Santiago said, but it does take more calls than it once did to secure a bed.

Seth Osborn, the 12-year-old whose appendix burst after a long wait, spent five days and four nights in the hospital as doctors pumped his body full of antibiotics to stave off infection from the rupture. The typical hospitalization for a routine appendectomy is about 24 hours.

The initial hospital bill for the stay came to more than $48,000, Nathaniel Osborn said. Although insurance paid for most of it, he said the family still borrowed against its house to cover the more than $5,000 in out-of-pocket costs so far.

While the hospital system where Seth was treated declined to comment about his case because of patient privacy laws, it did email a statement about the strain the pandemic is creating.

“Since July 2021, we have seen a tremendous spike in COVID-19 patients needing care and hospitalization. In mid-August, we saw the highest number of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 across the Cleveland Clinic Florida region, a total of 395 COVID-19 patients in four hospitals. Those hospitals have approximately 1,000 total beds,” the email to ProPublica said. “We strongly encourage vaccination. Approximately 90% of our patients hospitalized due to COVID-19 are unvaccinated.”

On Sunday, The Washington Post reported that a hospital in Alabama called 43 others across three states before finding a bed for Ray DeMonia, a critically ill heart patient who later died. In his obituary his family wrote: “In honor of Ray, please get vaccinated if you have not, in an effort to free up resources for non COVID related emergencies. ... He would not want any other family to go through what his did.”

Today, Seth is mostly recovered. “Twelve-year-old boys bounce back,” his father said. Still, the experience has left Nathaniel Osborn shaken.

The high school history teacher said he likes to stay upbeat and apolitical in his social media musings, posting about Florida wildlife preservation and favorite books. But on Sept. 7, he tweeted: “My 12-year-old had appendicitis. The ER was overwhelmed with unvaccinated Covid patients and we had to wait 6+ hours. While waiting, his appendix ruptured and had to spend 5 days in hospital. ... So yeah, your decision to not vaccinate does affect others.”

It was retweeted 34,700 times, with 143,000 likes. Most comments were sympathetic and wished his child a speedy recovery. Some, though, went straight to hate, apparently triggered by his last line. He was attacked personally and accused of making up the story: “Good try with the guilt, jerk.”

Osborn, who is vaccinated, as are his wife and son, told ProPublica he only shared Seth’s story on Twitter to encourage vaccinations.

“I have no ill will towards the hospitals or the care received at either hospital,” he said this week, “but had these hospitals not been so crowded with COVID patients, we wouldn’t have had to wait so long and perhaps my son’s appendix would not have burst.”

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

Weekly cases of COVID-19 in children dropped for the first time since June, and daily hospitalizations appear to be falling, even as the pace of vaccinations continues to slow among the youngest eligible recipients, according to new data.

Despite the 3.3% decline from the previous week’s record high, the new-case count still topped 243,000 for the week of Sept. 3-9, putting the total number of cases in children at almost 5.3 million since the pandemic began. Children’s share of all COVID cases for Sept. 3-9, nearly 29%, is the highest recorded for a single week, based on a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Hospitalizations seem to have peaked on Sept. 4, when the rate for children aged 0-17 years reached 0.51 per 100,000 population. The admission rate for confirmed COVID-19 has dropped steadily since then and was down to 0.45 per 100,000 on Sept. 11, the last day for which preliminary data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were available.

On the prevention side, fully vaccinated children aged 12-17 years represented 5.5% of all Americans who had completed the vaccine regimen as of Sept. 13. Vaccine initiation, however, has dropped for 5 consecutive weeks in 12- to 15-year-olds and in 4 of the last 5 weeks among 16- and 17-year-olds, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

Just under 199,000 children aged 12-15 received their first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine during the week of Sept. 7-13. That’s down by 18.5% from the week before and by 51.6% since Aug. 9, the last week that vaccine initiation increased for the age group. Among 16- and 17-year-olds, the 83,000 new recipients that week was a decrease of 25.7% from the previous week and a decline of 47% since the summer peak of Aug. 9, the CDC data show.

Those newest recipients bring at-least-one-dose status to 52.0% of those aged 12-15 and 59.9% of the 16- and 17-year-olds, while 40.3% and 48.9% were fully vaccinated as of Sept. 13. Corresponding figures for some of the older groups are 61.6%/49.7% (age 18-24 years), 73.8%/63.1% (40-49 years), and 95.1%/84.5% (65-74 years), the CDC said.

Vaccine coverage for children at the state level deviates considerably from the national averages. The highest rates for children aged 12-17 are to be found in Vermont, where 76% have received at least one dose, the AAP reported in a separate analysis. Massachusetts is just below that but also comes in at 76% by virtue of a rounding error. The other states in the top five are Connecticut (74%), Hawaii (73%), and Rhode Island (71%).

The lowest vaccination rate for children comes from Wyoming (29%), which is preceded by North Dakota (33%), West Virginia (33%), Alabama (33%), and Mississippi (34%). the AAP said based on data from the CDC, which does not include Idaho.

In a bit of a side note, West Virginia’s Republican governor, Jim Justice, recently said this about vaccine reluctance in his state: “For God’s sakes a livin’, how difficult is this to understand? Why in the world do we have to come up with these crazy ideas – and they’re crazy ideas – that the vaccine’s got something in it and it’s tracing people wherever they go? And the same very people that are saying that are carrying their cellphones around. I mean, come on. Come on.”

Over the last 3 weeks, the District of Columbia has had the largest increase in children having received at least one dose: 10 percentage points, as it went from 58% to 68%. The next-largest improvement – 7 percentage points – occurred in Georgia (34% to 41%), New Mexico (61% to 68%), New York (55% to 62%), and Washington (57% to 64%), the AAP said in its weekly vaccination trends report.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Weekly cases of COVID-19 in children dropped for the first time since June, and daily hospitalizations appear to be falling, even as the pace of vaccinations continues to slow among the youngest eligible recipients, according to new data.

Despite the 3.3% decline from the previous week’s record high, the new-case count still topped 243,000 for the week of Sept. 3-9, putting the total number of cases in children at almost 5.3 million since the pandemic began. Children’s share of all COVID cases for Sept. 3-9, nearly 29%, is the highest recorded for a single week, based on a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Hospitalizations seem to have peaked on Sept. 4, when the rate for children aged 0-17 years reached 0.51 per 100,000 population. The admission rate for confirmed COVID-19 has dropped steadily since then and was down to 0.45 per 100,000 on Sept. 11, the last day for which preliminary data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were available.

On the prevention side, fully vaccinated children aged 12-17 years represented 5.5% of all Americans who had completed the vaccine regimen as of Sept. 13. Vaccine initiation, however, has dropped for 5 consecutive weeks in 12- to 15-year-olds and in 4 of the last 5 weeks among 16- and 17-year-olds, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

Just under 199,000 children aged 12-15 received their first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine during the week of Sept. 7-13. That’s down by 18.5% from the week before and by 51.6% since Aug. 9, the last week that vaccine initiation increased for the age group. Among 16- and 17-year-olds, the 83,000 new recipients that week was a decrease of 25.7% from the previous week and a decline of 47% since the summer peak of Aug. 9, the CDC data show.

Those newest recipients bring at-least-one-dose status to 52.0% of those aged 12-15 and 59.9% of the 16- and 17-year-olds, while 40.3% and 48.9% were fully vaccinated as of Sept. 13. Corresponding figures for some of the older groups are 61.6%/49.7% (age 18-24 years), 73.8%/63.1% (40-49 years), and 95.1%/84.5% (65-74 years), the CDC said.

Vaccine coverage for children at the state level deviates considerably from the national averages. The highest rates for children aged 12-17 are to be found in Vermont, where 76% have received at least one dose, the AAP reported in a separate analysis. Massachusetts is just below that but also comes in at 76% by virtue of a rounding error. The other states in the top five are Connecticut (74%), Hawaii (73%), and Rhode Island (71%).

The lowest vaccination rate for children comes from Wyoming (29%), which is preceded by North Dakota (33%), West Virginia (33%), Alabama (33%), and Mississippi (34%). the AAP said based on data from the CDC, which does not include Idaho.

In a bit of a side note, West Virginia’s Republican governor, Jim Justice, recently said this about vaccine reluctance in his state: “For God’s sakes a livin’, how difficult is this to understand? Why in the world do we have to come up with these crazy ideas – and they’re crazy ideas – that the vaccine’s got something in it and it’s tracing people wherever they go? And the same very people that are saying that are carrying their cellphones around. I mean, come on. Come on.”

Over the last 3 weeks, the District of Columbia has had the largest increase in children having received at least one dose: 10 percentage points, as it went from 58% to 68%. The next-largest improvement – 7 percentage points – occurred in Georgia (34% to 41%), New Mexico (61% to 68%), New York (55% to 62%), and Washington (57% to 64%), the AAP said in its weekly vaccination trends report.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Weekly cases of COVID-19 in children dropped for the first time since June, and daily hospitalizations appear to be falling, even as the pace of vaccinations continues to slow among the youngest eligible recipients, according to new data.

Despite the 3.3% decline from the previous week’s record high, the new-case count still topped 243,000 for the week of Sept. 3-9, putting the total number of cases in children at almost 5.3 million since the pandemic began. Children’s share of all COVID cases for Sept. 3-9, nearly 29%, is the highest recorded for a single week, based on a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Hospitalizations seem to have peaked on Sept. 4, when the rate for children aged 0-17 years reached 0.51 per 100,000 population. The admission rate for confirmed COVID-19 has dropped steadily since then and was down to 0.45 per 100,000 on Sept. 11, the last day for which preliminary data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were available.

On the prevention side, fully vaccinated children aged 12-17 years represented 5.5% of all Americans who had completed the vaccine regimen as of Sept. 13. Vaccine initiation, however, has dropped for 5 consecutive weeks in 12- to 15-year-olds and in 4 of the last 5 weeks among 16- and 17-year-olds, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

Just under 199,000 children aged 12-15 received their first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine during the week of Sept. 7-13. That’s down by 18.5% from the week before and by 51.6% since Aug. 9, the last week that vaccine initiation increased for the age group. Among 16- and 17-year-olds, the 83,000 new recipients that week was a decrease of 25.7% from the previous week and a decline of 47% since the summer peak of Aug. 9, the CDC data show.

Those newest recipients bring at-least-one-dose status to 52.0% of those aged 12-15 and 59.9% of the 16- and 17-year-olds, while 40.3% and 48.9% were fully vaccinated as of Sept. 13. Corresponding figures for some of the older groups are 61.6%/49.7% (age 18-24 years), 73.8%/63.1% (40-49 years), and 95.1%/84.5% (65-74 years), the CDC said.

Vaccine coverage for children at the state level deviates considerably from the national averages. The highest rates for children aged 12-17 are to be found in Vermont, where 76% have received at least one dose, the AAP reported in a separate analysis. Massachusetts is just below that but also comes in at 76% by virtue of a rounding error. The other states in the top five are Connecticut (74%), Hawaii (73%), and Rhode Island (71%).

The lowest vaccination rate for children comes from Wyoming (29%), which is preceded by North Dakota (33%), West Virginia (33%), Alabama (33%), and Mississippi (34%). the AAP said based on data from the CDC, which does not include Idaho.

In a bit of a side note, West Virginia’s Republican governor, Jim Justice, recently said this about vaccine reluctance in his state: “For God’s sakes a livin’, how difficult is this to understand? Why in the world do we have to come up with these crazy ideas – and they’re crazy ideas – that the vaccine’s got something in it and it’s tracing people wherever they go? And the same very people that are saying that are carrying their cellphones around. I mean, come on. Come on.”

Over the last 3 weeks, the District of Columbia has had the largest increase in children having received at least one dose: 10 percentage points, as it went from 58% to 68%. The next-largest improvement – 7 percentage points – occurred in Georgia (34% to 41%), New Mexico (61% to 68%), New York (55% to 62%), and Washington (57% to 64%), the AAP said in its weekly vaccination trends report.

rfranki@mdedge.com