News

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

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

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

Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia have similar outcomes following cardiac operations as patients without CLL, but commonly require more blood transfusions, according to the results of retrospective cohort study using the 2010-2017 Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD).

The researchers assessed all adult patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass grafting, valve repair, or valve replacement as identified using the NRD.

Patients were stratified by history of CLL and the incidence of in-hospital mortality, perioperative complications, blood transfusions, and readmission within 90 days were examined. A 3:1 nearest-neighbor matching was performed between patients with and without CLL for all primary and secondary outcomes of interest, according to the report, published online in Annals of Thoracic Surgery.
 

Comparable results

A total of 1,250,882 patients in the database were found who underwent cardiac operations. Of these, 0.23% had a diagnosis of CLL. Among 11,237 propensity-matched patients, those with CLL had similar rates of in-hospital mortality (3.8% vs. 2.6%, P = .08) and perioperative complications (33.4% vs. 33.6%, P = .92), compared with their non-CLL counterparts. However, the incidence of infection was comparable (8.5% vs. 9.4%, P = .38).

However, patients with CLL required blood transfusions more frequently (33.7% vs. 28.4%, P = .003) than did patients without CLL. In addition, patients with CLL were more likely to be readmitted within 90 days of discharge, compared with their counterparts, and “respiratory reasons, including pneumonia, contributed significantly to the readmission burden in this cohort,” the researchers, led by Josef Madrigal, BS, of the University of California, Los Angeles, stated.

“The inherent risk of transfusion and the possible benefits of blood conservation interventions must be considered in this patient population. Increased risk of rehospitalization in patients with CLL suggests the need for measures aimed at mitigating the risk of respiratory complications,” the researchers concluded.

There were no conflicts of interest reported in the article.

mlesney@mdedge.com

Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia have similar outcomes following cardiac operations as patients without CLL, but commonly require more blood transfusions, according to the results of retrospective cohort study using the 2010-2017 Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD).

The researchers assessed all adult patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass grafting, valve repair, or valve replacement as identified using the NRD.

Patients were stratified by history of CLL and the incidence of in-hospital mortality, perioperative complications, blood transfusions, and readmission within 90 days were examined. A 3:1 nearest-neighbor matching was performed between patients with and without CLL for all primary and secondary outcomes of interest, according to the report, published online in Annals of Thoracic Surgery.
 

Comparable results

A total of 1,250,882 patients in the database were found who underwent cardiac operations. Of these, 0.23% had a diagnosis of CLL. Among 11,237 propensity-matched patients, those with CLL had similar rates of in-hospital mortality (3.8% vs. 2.6%, P = .08) and perioperative complications (33.4% vs. 33.6%, P = .92), compared with their non-CLL counterparts. However, the incidence of infection was comparable (8.5% vs. 9.4%, P = .38).

However, patients with CLL required blood transfusions more frequently (33.7% vs. 28.4%, P = .003) than did patients without CLL. In addition, patients with CLL were more likely to be readmitted within 90 days of discharge, compared with their counterparts, and “respiratory reasons, including pneumonia, contributed significantly to the readmission burden in this cohort,” the researchers, led by Josef Madrigal, BS, of the University of California, Los Angeles, stated.

“The inherent risk of transfusion and the possible benefits of blood conservation interventions must be considered in this patient population. Increased risk of rehospitalization in patients with CLL suggests the need for measures aimed at mitigating the risk of respiratory complications,” the researchers concluded.

There were no conflicts of interest reported in the article.

mlesney@mdedge.com

Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia have similar outcomes following cardiac operations as patients without CLL, but commonly require more blood transfusions, according to the results of retrospective cohort study using the 2010-2017 Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD).

The researchers assessed all adult patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass grafting, valve repair, or valve replacement as identified using the NRD.

Patients were stratified by history of CLL and the incidence of in-hospital mortality, perioperative complications, blood transfusions, and readmission within 90 days were examined. A 3:1 nearest-neighbor matching was performed between patients with and without CLL for all primary and secondary outcomes of interest, according to the report, published online in Annals of Thoracic Surgery.
 

Comparable results

A total of 1,250,882 patients in the database were found who underwent cardiac operations. Of these, 0.23% had a diagnosis of CLL. Among 11,237 propensity-matched patients, those with CLL had similar rates of in-hospital mortality (3.8% vs. 2.6%, P = .08) and perioperative complications (33.4% vs. 33.6%, P = .92), compared with their non-CLL counterparts. However, the incidence of infection was comparable (8.5% vs. 9.4%, P = .38).

However, patients with CLL required blood transfusions more frequently (33.7% vs. 28.4%, P = .003) than did patients without CLL. In addition, patients with CLL were more likely to be readmitted within 90 days of discharge, compared with their counterparts, and “respiratory reasons, including pneumonia, contributed significantly to the readmission burden in this cohort,” the researchers, led by Josef Madrigal, BS, of the University of California, Los Angeles, stated.

“The inherent risk of transfusion and the possible benefits of blood conservation interventions must be considered in this patient population. Increased risk of rehospitalization in patients with CLL suggests the need for measures aimed at mitigating the risk of respiratory complications,” the researchers concluded.

There were no conflicts of interest reported in the article.

mlesney@mdedge.com

The new standard of care for women with persistent, recurrent, or perhaps primary metastatic cervical cancer should be pembrolizumab added to chemotherapy with bevacizumab in [the] biomarker-positive population.

That declaration was made by Raza Mirza, MD, chief oncologist at Copenhagen University Hospital in Denmark, who was invited to discuss the pros and cons of the KEYNOTE-826 trial at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2021.

The trial showed that adding the checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to standard chemotherapy — with or without bevacizumab — resulted in about a one third reduction in the risk for both disease progression and death compared with chemotherapy alone.

The benefit of adding pembrolizumab was seen both in the overall study population and in patients with higher levels of programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1), but not in those with biomarker-negative tumors, reported investigator Nicoletta Colombo, MD, PhD, from the University of Milan-Bicocca, Italy.

“Overall, data from KEYNOTE-826 suggest that pembrolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab may be a new first-line standard of care,” she said in a late-breaking oral abstract presentation. The study was also simultaneously published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Since 2014, the standard of care for treating patients with recurrent, persistent, or metastatic cervical cancer has been chemotherapy with a platinum compound, paclitaxel, plus bevacizumab, based on the results of the GOG 240 study.

Immunotherapy with PD-1 inhibitors have shown efficacy as monotherapy in second- or later-line therapy for women with cervical cancer, but until now no data about the addition of these agents to chemotherapy were available, Dr. Colombo noted.

Dr. Mirza noted that there is sound rationale for using checkpoint inhibitors targeted against PD-1 in patients with cervical cancer, because PD-L1 has been shown to be a consistent biomarker for infection of the cervix with human papillomavirus (HPV), which is responsible for more than 90% of cervical cancers.

“PD-L1 is significantly upregulated in cervical cancer and detectable by immunohistochemistry,” he said. “PD-L1 expression reduces the immune response since it is able to bind to PD-1 on T-cell lymphocytes, thereby inhibiting their function. These findings suggest that targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway may be therapeutically effective and should be considered in the treatment of cervical cancer.”

KEYNOTE-826 details

This was a double-blind trial conducted in 617 patients stratified by metastatic disease status at diagnosis; PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) either < 1, 1 to < 10, or ≥ 10. They were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus platinum-based chemotherapy, with bevacizumab added at the investigator’s discretion.

The dual primary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were each tested sequentially in patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1 in both the intention-to-treat (ITT) or “all-comers” population, and in patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10.

Patient characteristics were generally well balanced between the treatment groups, except for a slightly higher proportion of patients with squamous cell histology in the pembrolizumab versus the placebo group (76.3% vs 68.3%).

PFS and OS results

The addition of pembrolizumab was associated with improved PFS across most protocol-specified subgroups, Dr. Colombo and colleagues noted.

After a median follow-up of 22 months, the 12-month PFS rate in the biomarker-selected population (all patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1) was 45.5% for patients in the pembrolizumab group versus 34.1% in the placebo group. This translated into a hazard ratio (HR) for progression on pembrolizumab of 0.62 (P < .001).

The respective PFS rates in the ITT population were 44.7% and 33.5%, with an HR for progression of 0.65 (P < .001) with the checkpoint inhibitor.

In patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10, the respective rates of PFS and the HR were 44.6%, 33.5%, and 0.58 (P < .001).

OS rates were also significantly improved, he noted.

The 12-month and 24-month OS rates in all patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1 were 75.3% and 53%, respectively, for patients assigned to pembrolizumab versus 63.1% and 41.7% in patients assigned to placebo, translating to an HR for death with pembrolizumab in this group of 0.64 (P < .001).

In the all-comers (ITT) population, respective 12- and 24-month OS rates were 74.8% and 50.4% with pembrolizumab versus 63.6% and 40.4% with placebo. This difference translated into an HR for death with anti-PD-1 of 0.67 (P < .001).

Among patients with the higher PD-L1 levels (≥ CPS 10), the respective OS rates were 75.7% and 54.4% with pembrolizumab versus 61.5% and 44.6% with placebo (HR 0.61, P < .001).

Dr. Mirza emphasized that “we did not see any efficacy of pembrolizumab in the biomarker-negative population,” with an HR for PFS of 0.94 and HR for OS of 1.0 in this subgroup.

The most common grade ≥ 3 adverse events were anemia, which occurred in 30.3% of patients assigned to pembrolizumab compared with 26.9% in the placebo group, and neutropenias, which occurred in 12.4% and 9.7% of patients, respectively. One patient in the pembrolizumab group died from an immune-related event, encephalitis.

Despite his enthusiasm for the regimen, Dr. Mirza tempered it by pointing out that there was an imbalance in the sample sizes regarding histology, and a potential bias introduced by the failure to stratify by tumor histology.

He noted that in other studies checkpoint inhibitors have had only modest activity against adenocarcinomas, which were more frequent in the placebo group in KEYNOTE-826, resulting in a potential positive bias in favor of pembrolizumab.

KEYNOTE-826 is funded by MSD. Dr. Colombo has disclosed consultant, research, and promotional speaking activities for multiple companies. Dr. Mirza has disclosed personal financial interests with Merck and other companies.


A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

The new standard of care for women with persistent, recurrent, or perhaps primary metastatic cervical cancer should be pembrolizumab added to chemotherapy with bevacizumab in [the] biomarker-positive population.

That declaration was made by Raza Mirza, MD, chief oncologist at Copenhagen University Hospital in Denmark, who was invited to discuss the pros and cons of the KEYNOTE-826 trial at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2021.

The trial showed that adding the checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to standard chemotherapy — with or without bevacizumab — resulted in about a one third reduction in the risk for both disease progression and death compared with chemotherapy alone.

The benefit of adding pembrolizumab was seen both in the overall study population and in patients with higher levels of programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1), but not in those with biomarker-negative tumors, reported investigator Nicoletta Colombo, MD, PhD, from the University of Milan-Bicocca, Italy.

“Overall, data from KEYNOTE-826 suggest that pembrolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab may be a new first-line standard of care,” she said in a late-breaking oral abstract presentation. The study was also simultaneously published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Since 2014, the standard of care for treating patients with recurrent, persistent, or metastatic cervical cancer has been chemotherapy with a platinum compound, paclitaxel, plus bevacizumab, based on the results of the GOG 240 study.

Immunotherapy with PD-1 inhibitors have shown efficacy as monotherapy in second- or later-line therapy for women with cervical cancer, but until now no data about the addition of these agents to chemotherapy were available, Dr. Colombo noted.

Dr. Mirza noted that there is sound rationale for using checkpoint inhibitors targeted against PD-1 in patients with cervical cancer, because PD-L1 has been shown to be a consistent biomarker for infection of the cervix with human papillomavirus (HPV), which is responsible for more than 90% of cervical cancers.

“PD-L1 is significantly upregulated in cervical cancer and detectable by immunohistochemistry,” he said. “PD-L1 expression reduces the immune response since it is able to bind to PD-1 on T-cell lymphocytes, thereby inhibiting their function. These findings suggest that targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway may be therapeutically effective and should be considered in the treatment of cervical cancer.”

KEYNOTE-826 details

This was a double-blind trial conducted in 617 patients stratified by metastatic disease status at diagnosis; PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) either < 1, 1 to < 10, or ≥ 10. They were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus platinum-based chemotherapy, with bevacizumab added at the investigator’s discretion.

The dual primary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were each tested sequentially in patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1 in both the intention-to-treat (ITT) or “all-comers” population, and in patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10.

Patient characteristics were generally well balanced between the treatment groups, except for a slightly higher proportion of patients with squamous cell histology in the pembrolizumab versus the placebo group (76.3% vs 68.3%).

PFS and OS results

The addition of pembrolizumab was associated with improved PFS across most protocol-specified subgroups, Dr. Colombo and colleagues noted.

After a median follow-up of 22 months, the 12-month PFS rate in the biomarker-selected population (all patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1) was 45.5% for patients in the pembrolizumab group versus 34.1% in the placebo group. This translated into a hazard ratio (HR) for progression on pembrolizumab of 0.62 (P < .001).

The respective PFS rates in the ITT population were 44.7% and 33.5%, with an HR for progression of 0.65 (P < .001) with the checkpoint inhibitor.

In patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10, the respective rates of PFS and the HR were 44.6%, 33.5%, and 0.58 (P < .001).

OS rates were also significantly improved, he noted.

The 12-month and 24-month OS rates in all patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1 were 75.3% and 53%, respectively, for patients assigned to pembrolizumab versus 63.1% and 41.7% in patients assigned to placebo, translating to an HR for death with pembrolizumab in this group of 0.64 (P < .001).

In the all-comers (ITT) population, respective 12- and 24-month OS rates were 74.8% and 50.4% with pembrolizumab versus 63.6% and 40.4% with placebo. This difference translated into an HR for death with anti-PD-1 of 0.67 (P < .001).

Among patients with the higher PD-L1 levels (≥ CPS 10), the respective OS rates were 75.7% and 54.4% with pembrolizumab versus 61.5% and 44.6% with placebo (HR 0.61, P < .001).

Dr. Mirza emphasized that “we did not see any efficacy of pembrolizumab in the biomarker-negative population,” with an HR for PFS of 0.94 and HR for OS of 1.0 in this subgroup.

The most common grade ≥ 3 adverse events were anemia, which occurred in 30.3% of patients assigned to pembrolizumab compared with 26.9% in the placebo group, and neutropenias, which occurred in 12.4% and 9.7% of patients, respectively. One patient in the pembrolizumab group died from an immune-related event, encephalitis.

Despite his enthusiasm for the regimen, Dr. Mirza tempered it by pointing out that there was an imbalance in the sample sizes regarding histology, and a potential bias introduced by the failure to stratify by tumor histology.

He noted that in other studies checkpoint inhibitors have had only modest activity against adenocarcinomas, which were more frequent in the placebo group in KEYNOTE-826, resulting in a potential positive bias in favor of pembrolizumab.

KEYNOTE-826 is funded by MSD. Dr. Colombo has disclosed consultant, research, and promotional speaking activities for multiple companies. Dr. Mirza has disclosed personal financial interests with Merck and other companies.


A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

The new standard of care for women with persistent, recurrent, or perhaps primary metastatic cervical cancer should be pembrolizumab added to chemotherapy with bevacizumab in [the] biomarker-positive population.

That declaration was made by Raza Mirza, MD, chief oncologist at Copenhagen University Hospital in Denmark, who was invited to discuss the pros and cons of the KEYNOTE-826 trial at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2021.

The trial showed that adding the checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to standard chemotherapy — with or without bevacizumab — resulted in about a one third reduction in the risk for both disease progression and death compared with chemotherapy alone.

The benefit of adding pembrolizumab was seen both in the overall study population and in patients with higher levels of programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1), but not in those with biomarker-negative tumors, reported investigator Nicoletta Colombo, MD, PhD, from the University of Milan-Bicocca, Italy.

“Overall, data from KEYNOTE-826 suggest that pembrolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab may be a new first-line standard of care,” she said in a late-breaking oral abstract presentation. The study was also simultaneously published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Since 2014, the standard of care for treating patients with recurrent, persistent, or metastatic cervical cancer has been chemotherapy with a platinum compound, paclitaxel, plus bevacizumab, based on the results of the GOG 240 study.

Immunotherapy with PD-1 inhibitors have shown efficacy as monotherapy in second- or later-line therapy for women with cervical cancer, but until now no data about the addition of these agents to chemotherapy were available, Dr. Colombo noted.

Dr. Mirza noted that there is sound rationale for using checkpoint inhibitors targeted against PD-1 in patients with cervical cancer, because PD-L1 has been shown to be a consistent biomarker for infection of the cervix with human papillomavirus (HPV), which is responsible for more than 90% of cervical cancers.

“PD-L1 is significantly upregulated in cervical cancer and detectable by immunohistochemistry,” he said. “PD-L1 expression reduces the immune response since it is able to bind to PD-1 on T-cell lymphocytes, thereby inhibiting their function. These findings suggest that targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway may be therapeutically effective and should be considered in the treatment of cervical cancer.”

KEYNOTE-826 details

This was a double-blind trial conducted in 617 patients stratified by metastatic disease status at diagnosis; PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) either < 1, 1 to < 10, or ≥ 10. They were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus platinum-based chemotherapy, with bevacizumab added at the investigator’s discretion.

The dual primary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were each tested sequentially in patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1 in both the intention-to-treat (ITT) or “all-comers” population, and in patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10.

Patient characteristics were generally well balanced between the treatment groups, except for a slightly higher proportion of patients with squamous cell histology in the pembrolizumab versus the placebo group (76.3% vs 68.3%).

PFS and OS results

The addition of pembrolizumab was associated with improved PFS across most protocol-specified subgroups, Dr. Colombo and colleagues noted.

After a median follow-up of 22 months, the 12-month PFS rate in the biomarker-selected population (all patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1) was 45.5% for patients in the pembrolizumab group versus 34.1% in the placebo group. This translated into a hazard ratio (HR) for progression on pembrolizumab of 0.62 (P < .001).

The respective PFS rates in the ITT population were 44.7% and 33.5%, with an HR for progression of 0.65 (P < .001) with the checkpoint inhibitor.

In patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10, the respective rates of PFS and the HR were 44.6%, 33.5%, and 0.58 (P < .001).

OS rates were also significantly improved, he noted.

The 12-month and 24-month OS rates in all patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1 were 75.3% and 53%, respectively, for patients assigned to pembrolizumab versus 63.1% and 41.7% in patients assigned to placebo, translating to an HR for death with pembrolizumab in this group of 0.64 (P < .001).

In the all-comers (ITT) population, respective 12- and 24-month OS rates were 74.8% and 50.4% with pembrolizumab versus 63.6% and 40.4% with placebo. This difference translated into an HR for death with anti-PD-1 of 0.67 (P < .001).

Among patients with the higher PD-L1 levels (≥ CPS 10), the respective OS rates were 75.7% and 54.4% with pembrolizumab versus 61.5% and 44.6% with placebo (HR 0.61, P < .001).

Dr. Mirza emphasized that “we did not see any efficacy of pembrolizumab in the biomarker-negative population,” with an HR for PFS of 0.94 and HR for OS of 1.0 in this subgroup.

The most common grade ≥ 3 adverse events were anemia, which occurred in 30.3% of patients assigned to pembrolizumab compared with 26.9% in the placebo group, and neutropenias, which occurred in 12.4% and 9.7% of patients, respectively. One patient in the pembrolizumab group died from an immune-related event, encephalitis.

Despite his enthusiasm for the regimen, Dr. Mirza tempered it by pointing out that there was an imbalance in the sample sizes regarding histology, and a potential bias introduced by the failure to stratify by tumor histology.

He noted that in other studies checkpoint inhibitors have had only modest activity against adenocarcinomas, which were more frequent in the placebo group in KEYNOTE-826, resulting in a potential positive bias in favor of pembrolizumab.

KEYNOTE-826 is funded by MSD. Dr. Colombo has disclosed consultant, research, and promotional speaking activities for multiple companies. Dr. Mirza has disclosed personal financial interests with Merck and other companies.


A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

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

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

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.

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.

Premature menopause is well known to be linked to cardiovascular disease in women, but it may not carry as much weight as more traditional cardiovascular risk factors in determining a patient’s 10-year risk of having a heart attack or stroke in this population, a cohort study that evaluated the veracity of premature menopause found.

Premature menopause can serve as a “marker or warning sign” that cardiologists should pay closer attention to traditional atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk factors, lead study author Sadiya S. Khan, MD, MS, said in an interview. “When we looked at the addition of premature menopause into the risk-prediction equation, we did not see that it meaningfully improved the ability of the risk predictions of pooled cohort equations [PCEs] to identify who developed cardiovascular disease,” said Dr. Khan, a cardiologist at Northwestern University, Chicago.

The cohort study included 5,466 Black women and 10,584 White women from seven U.S. population-based cohorts, including the Women’s Health Initiative, of whom 951 and 1,039, respectively, self-reported early menopause. The cohort study researchers noted that the 2019 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline for prevention of CVD acknowledged premature menopause as risk-enhancing factor in the CVD assessment in women younger than 40.

The cohort study found that Black women had almost twice the rate of premature menopause than White women, 17.4% and 9.8%, respectively. And it found that premature menopause was significantly linked with ASCVD in both populations independent of traditional risk factors – a 24% greater risk for Black women and 28% greater risk for White women.
 

‘Surprising’ finding

However, when premature menopause was added to the pooled cohort equations per the 2013 ACC/AHA guideline, the researchers found no incremental benefit, a finding Dr. Khan called “really surprising to us.”

She added, “If we look at the differences in the characteristics of women who have premature menopause, compared with those who didn’t, there were slight differences in terms of higher blood pressure, higher body mass index, and slightly higher glucose. So maybe what we’re seeing – and this is more speculative – is that risk factors are developing after early menopause, and the focus should be earlier in the patient’s life course to try to prevent hypertension, diabetes, and obesity.”

Dr. Khan emphasized that the findings don’t obviate the value of premature menopause in assessing ASCVD risk in women. “We still know that this is an important marker for women and their risk for heart disease, and it should be a warning sign to pay close attention to those other risk factors and what other preventive measures can be taken,” she said.

Christie Ballantyne, MD, said it’s important to note that the study did not dismiss the relevance of premature menopause in shared decision-making for postmenopausal women. “It certainly doesn’t mean that premature menopause is not a risk,” Dr. Ballantyne said in an interview. “Premature menopause may cause a worsening of traditional CVD risk factors, so that’s one possible explanation for it. The other possible explanation is that women with worse ASCVD risk factors – who are more overweight, have higher blood pressure, and have more diabetes and insulin resistance – are more likely to have earlier menopause.” Dr. Ballantyne is chief of cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine and director of cardiovascular disease prevention at Methodist DeBakey Heart Center, both in Houston.

“You should still look very carefully at the patient’s risk factors, calculate the pooled cohort equations, and make sure you get a recommendation,” he said. “If their risks are up, give recommendations on how to improve diet and exercise. Consider if you need to treat lipids or treat blood pressure with more than diet and exercise because there’s nothing magical about 7.5%”, the threshold for lipid-lowering therapy in the ASCVD risk calculator.

Dr. Khan and coauthors disclosed receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and the American Heart Association. One coauthor reported a financial relationship with HGM Biopharmaceuticals. Dr. Ballantyne is a lead investigator of the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study, one of the population-based cohorts used in the cohort study. He has no other relevant relationships to disclose.

Premature menopause is well known to be linked to cardiovascular disease in women, but it may not carry as much weight as more traditional cardiovascular risk factors in determining a patient’s 10-year risk of having a heart attack or stroke in this population, a cohort study that evaluated the veracity of premature menopause found.

Premature menopause can serve as a “marker or warning sign” that cardiologists should pay closer attention to traditional atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk factors, lead study author Sadiya S. Khan, MD, MS, said in an interview. “When we looked at the addition of premature menopause into the risk-prediction equation, we did not see that it meaningfully improved the ability of the risk predictions of pooled cohort equations [PCEs] to identify who developed cardiovascular disease,” said Dr. Khan, a cardiologist at Northwestern University, Chicago.

The cohort study included 5,466 Black women and 10,584 White women from seven U.S. population-based cohorts, including the Women’s Health Initiative, of whom 951 and 1,039, respectively, self-reported early menopause. The cohort study researchers noted that the 2019 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline for prevention of CVD acknowledged premature menopause as risk-enhancing factor in the CVD assessment in women younger than 40.

The cohort study found that Black women had almost twice the rate of premature menopause than White women, 17.4% and 9.8%, respectively. And it found that premature menopause was significantly linked with ASCVD in both populations independent of traditional risk factors – a 24% greater risk for Black women and 28% greater risk for White women.
 

‘Surprising’ finding

However, when premature menopause was added to the pooled cohort equations per the 2013 ACC/AHA guideline, the researchers found no incremental benefit, a finding Dr. Khan called “really surprising to us.”

She added, “If we look at the differences in the characteristics of women who have premature menopause, compared with those who didn’t, there were slight differences in terms of higher blood pressure, higher body mass index, and slightly higher glucose. So maybe what we’re seeing – and this is more speculative – is that risk factors are developing after early menopause, and the focus should be earlier in the patient’s life course to try to prevent hypertension, diabetes, and obesity.”

Dr. Khan emphasized that the findings don’t obviate the value of premature menopause in assessing ASCVD risk in women. “We still know that this is an important marker for women and their risk for heart disease, and it should be a warning sign to pay close attention to those other risk factors and what other preventive measures can be taken,” she said.

Christie Ballantyne, MD, said it’s important to note that the study did not dismiss the relevance of premature menopause in shared decision-making for postmenopausal women. “It certainly doesn’t mean that premature menopause is not a risk,” Dr. Ballantyne said in an interview. “Premature menopause may cause a worsening of traditional CVD risk factors, so that’s one possible explanation for it. The other possible explanation is that women with worse ASCVD risk factors – who are more overweight, have higher blood pressure, and have more diabetes and insulin resistance – are more likely to have earlier menopause.” Dr. Ballantyne is chief of cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine and director of cardiovascular disease prevention at Methodist DeBakey Heart Center, both in Houston.

“You should still look very carefully at the patient’s risk factors, calculate the pooled cohort equations, and make sure you get a recommendation,” he said. “If their risks are up, give recommendations on how to improve diet and exercise. Consider if you need to treat lipids or treat blood pressure with more than diet and exercise because there’s nothing magical about 7.5%”, the threshold for lipid-lowering therapy in the ASCVD risk calculator.

Dr. Khan and coauthors disclosed receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and the American Heart Association. One coauthor reported a financial relationship with HGM Biopharmaceuticals. Dr. Ballantyne is a lead investigator of the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study, one of the population-based cohorts used in the cohort study. He has no other relevant relationships to disclose.

Premature menopause is well known to be linked to cardiovascular disease in women, but it may not carry as much weight as more traditional cardiovascular risk factors in determining a patient’s 10-year risk of having a heart attack or stroke in this population, a cohort study that evaluated the veracity of premature menopause found.

Premature menopause can serve as a “marker or warning sign” that cardiologists should pay closer attention to traditional atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk factors, lead study author Sadiya S. Khan, MD, MS, said in an interview. “When we looked at the addition of premature menopause into the risk-prediction equation, we did not see that it meaningfully improved the ability of the risk predictions of pooled cohort equations [PCEs] to identify who developed cardiovascular disease,” said Dr. Khan, a cardiologist at Northwestern University, Chicago.

The cohort study included 5,466 Black women and 10,584 White women from seven U.S. population-based cohorts, including the Women’s Health Initiative, of whom 951 and 1,039, respectively, self-reported early menopause. The cohort study researchers noted that the 2019 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline for prevention of CVD acknowledged premature menopause as risk-enhancing factor in the CVD assessment in women younger than 40.

The cohort study found that Black women had almost twice the rate of premature menopause than White women, 17.4% and 9.8%, respectively. And it found that premature menopause was significantly linked with ASCVD in both populations independent of traditional risk factors – a 24% greater risk for Black women and 28% greater risk for White women.
 

‘Surprising’ finding

However, when premature menopause was added to the pooled cohort equations per the 2013 ACC/AHA guideline, the researchers found no incremental benefit, a finding Dr. Khan called “really surprising to us.”

She added, “If we look at the differences in the characteristics of women who have premature menopause, compared with those who didn’t, there were slight differences in terms of higher blood pressure, higher body mass index, and slightly higher glucose. So maybe what we’re seeing – and this is more speculative – is that risk factors are developing after early menopause, and the focus should be earlier in the patient’s life course to try to prevent hypertension, diabetes, and obesity.”

Dr. Khan emphasized that the findings don’t obviate the value of premature menopause in assessing ASCVD risk in women. “We still know that this is an important marker for women and their risk for heart disease, and it should be a warning sign to pay close attention to those other risk factors and what other preventive measures can be taken,” she said.

Christie Ballantyne, MD, said it’s important to note that the study did not dismiss the relevance of premature menopause in shared decision-making for postmenopausal women. “It certainly doesn’t mean that premature menopause is not a risk,” Dr. Ballantyne said in an interview. “Premature menopause may cause a worsening of traditional CVD risk factors, so that’s one possible explanation for it. The other possible explanation is that women with worse ASCVD risk factors – who are more overweight, have higher blood pressure, and have more diabetes and insulin resistance – are more likely to have earlier menopause.” Dr. Ballantyne is chief of cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine and director of cardiovascular disease prevention at Methodist DeBakey Heart Center, both in Houston.

“You should still look very carefully at the patient’s risk factors, calculate the pooled cohort equations, and make sure you get a recommendation,” he said. “If their risks are up, give recommendations on how to improve diet and exercise. Consider if you need to treat lipids or treat blood pressure with more than diet and exercise because there’s nothing magical about 7.5%”, the threshold for lipid-lowering therapy in the ASCVD risk calculator.

Dr. Khan and coauthors disclosed receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and the American Heart Association. One coauthor reported a financial relationship with HGM Biopharmaceuticals. Dr. Ballantyne is a lead investigator of the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study, one of the population-based cohorts used in the cohort study. He has no other relevant relationships to disclose.

Subclinical or preclinical interstitial lung disease in patients with connective tissue diseases is not a benign entity, and many patients may experience progression of lung fibrosis before a diagnosis of ILD is made, investigators caution.

Among patients with connective tissue disease assessed with baseline and follow-up high-resolution CT scans for ILD, nearly one-fourth had evidence of ILD progression over a median of 4.5 years, reported Anna-Maria Hoffmann-Vold, MD, PhD, from Oslo University Hospital.

“Subclinical ILD is frequently present across all connective tissue diseases. It progresses over time in a substantial subgroup of people comparable to patients with clinical ILD, and our findings really question the terms ‘subclinical/preclinical ILD,’ which may potentially lead to a suboptimal watchful waiting management,” she said in an oral abstract presentation during the European Respiratory Society International Congress.

Jesse Roman, MD, CEO at the Jane & Leonard Korman Respiratory Institute at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study, commented that the findings regarding subclinical disease come as no surprise.

“The connective tissue disorders are linked to interstitial lung disease, and we believe that they are the primary causes of interstitial lung diseases in most countries,” he said in an interview.

“Basically, what you’re detecting is that if you can identify these people early, then you can see that they behave like any other patients with interstitial lung disease with progression, so most experts recommend that patients with any kind of connective tissue disorder be followed with either CT scans or pulmonary function tests, or carefully interviewed every time they come to identify any kind of very early interstitial lung disease – particularly in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, in patients with systemic sclerosis, and in patients with dermatomyositis,” Dr. Roman said.

He noted that when patients present with an idiopathic or undiagnosed condition suggestive of ILD, clinicians at his center will order serology tests to detect potential cases of subclinical connective tissue disorders.

Observational study

Dr. Hoffmann-Vold and colleagues looked at 525 patients with connective tissue diseases assessed for ILD at their center, including 296 with systemic sclerosis, 94 with anti-synthetase syndrome, and 135 with mixed connective tissue disease.

­­They used semiquantitative assessment to determine the prevalence of ILD, defining subclinical disease as ILD extent of less than 5% on high-resolution CT, preserved lung function with forced vital capacity (FVC) greater than 80% of predicted, and no respiratory symptoms.

Clinical ILD was defined as either ILD extent greater than 5%, or ILD extent below 5% but with respiratory symptoms and FVC below 80% of predicted.

They found that 44% of the patients had ILD on high-resolution CT, 43% had no evidence of ILD, and 13% had subclinical ILD.

In a comparison of patients without ILD and those with either clinical or subclinical ILD, they found that, while the mean patient age was about 51 in all three groups, men were more likely than women to have clinical ILD. A higher proportion of patients with clinical ILD (39%) died during the total observation period of about 13 years, compared with 22% of patients without ILD, and 18% of those with subclinical ILD.

As noted before, of 395 patients with baseline and follow-up high-resolution CT, 95 (24%) had evidence of lung fibrosis progression, with 38% of patients with subclinical ILD and 51% of patients with clinical ILD having progression during follow-up.

“In our connective tissue disease patients with ILD, the symptoms-define-disease argument would clearly lead to [the idea] that ILD is not a disease until patients become symptomatic, which we all know is frequently appearing in advanced stages of ILD,” Dr. Hoffmann-Vold said.

The study was funded by Oslo University Hospital. Dr. Hoffmann-Vold and Dr. Roman reported no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

Subclinical or preclinical interstitial lung disease in patients with connective tissue diseases is not a benign entity, and many patients may experience progression of lung fibrosis before a diagnosis of ILD is made, investigators caution.

Among patients with connective tissue disease assessed with baseline and follow-up high-resolution CT scans for ILD, nearly one-fourth had evidence of ILD progression over a median of 4.5 years, reported Anna-Maria Hoffmann-Vold, MD, PhD, from Oslo University Hospital.

“Subclinical ILD is frequently present across all connective tissue diseases. It progresses over time in a substantial subgroup of people comparable to patients with clinical ILD, and our findings really question the terms ‘subclinical/preclinical ILD,’ which may potentially lead to a suboptimal watchful waiting management,” she said in an oral abstract presentation during the European Respiratory Society International Congress.

Jesse Roman, MD, CEO at the Jane & Leonard Korman Respiratory Institute at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study, commented that the findings regarding subclinical disease come as no surprise.

“The connective tissue disorders are linked to interstitial lung disease, and we believe that they are the primary causes of interstitial lung diseases in most countries,” he said in an interview.

“Basically, what you’re detecting is that if you can identify these people early, then you can see that they behave like any other patients with interstitial lung disease with progression, so most experts recommend that patients with any kind of connective tissue disorder be followed with either CT scans or pulmonary function tests, or carefully interviewed every time they come to identify any kind of very early interstitial lung disease – particularly in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, in patients with systemic sclerosis, and in patients with dermatomyositis,” Dr. Roman said.

He noted that when patients present with an idiopathic or undiagnosed condition suggestive of ILD, clinicians at his center will order serology tests to detect potential cases of subclinical connective tissue disorders.

Observational study

Dr. Hoffmann-Vold and colleagues looked at 525 patients with connective tissue diseases assessed for ILD at their center, including 296 with systemic sclerosis, 94 with anti-synthetase syndrome, and 135 with mixed connective tissue disease.

­­They used semiquantitative assessment to determine the prevalence of ILD, defining subclinical disease as ILD extent of less than 5% on high-resolution CT, preserved lung function with forced vital capacity (FVC) greater than 80% of predicted, and no respiratory symptoms.

Clinical ILD was defined as either ILD extent greater than 5%, or ILD extent below 5% but with respiratory symptoms and FVC below 80% of predicted.

They found that 44% of the patients had ILD on high-resolution CT, 43% had no evidence of ILD, and 13% had subclinical ILD.

In a comparison of patients without ILD and those with either clinical or subclinical ILD, they found that, while the mean patient age was about 51 in all three groups, men were more likely than women to have clinical ILD. A higher proportion of patients with clinical ILD (39%) died during the total observation period of about 13 years, compared with 22% of patients without ILD, and 18% of those with subclinical ILD.

As noted before, of 395 patients with baseline and follow-up high-resolution CT, 95 (24%) had evidence of lung fibrosis progression, with 38% of patients with subclinical ILD and 51% of patients with clinical ILD having progression during follow-up.

“In our connective tissue disease patients with ILD, the symptoms-define-disease argument would clearly lead to [the idea] that ILD is not a disease until patients become symptomatic, which we all know is frequently appearing in advanced stages of ILD,” Dr. Hoffmann-Vold said.

The study was funded by Oslo University Hospital. Dr. Hoffmann-Vold and Dr. Roman reported no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

Subclinical or preclinical interstitial lung disease in patients with connective tissue diseases is not a benign entity, and many patients may experience progression of lung fibrosis before a diagnosis of ILD is made, investigators caution.

Among patients with connective tissue disease assessed with baseline and follow-up high-resolution CT scans for ILD, nearly one-fourth had evidence of ILD progression over a median of 4.5 years, reported Anna-Maria Hoffmann-Vold, MD, PhD, from Oslo University Hospital.

“Subclinical ILD is frequently present across all connective tissue diseases. It progresses over time in a substantial subgroup of people comparable to patients with clinical ILD, and our findings really question the terms ‘subclinical/preclinical ILD,’ which may potentially lead to a suboptimal watchful waiting management,” she said in an oral abstract presentation during the European Respiratory Society International Congress.

Jesse Roman, MD, CEO at the Jane & Leonard Korman Respiratory Institute at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study, commented that the findings regarding subclinical disease come as no surprise.

“The connective tissue disorders are linked to interstitial lung disease, and we believe that they are the primary causes of interstitial lung diseases in most countries,” he said in an interview.

“Basically, what you’re detecting is that if you can identify these people early, then you can see that they behave like any other patients with interstitial lung disease with progression, so most experts recommend that patients with any kind of connective tissue disorder be followed with either CT scans or pulmonary function tests, or carefully interviewed every time they come to identify any kind of very early interstitial lung disease – particularly in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, in patients with systemic sclerosis, and in patients with dermatomyositis,” Dr. Roman said.

He noted that when patients present with an idiopathic or undiagnosed condition suggestive of ILD, clinicians at his center will order serology tests to detect potential cases of subclinical connective tissue disorders.

Observational study

Dr. Hoffmann-Vold and colleagues looked at 525 patients with connective tissue diseases assessed for ILD at their center, including 296 with systemic sclerosis, 94 with anti-synthetase syndrome, and 135 with mixed connective tissue disease.

­­They used semiquantitative assessment to determine the prevalence of ILD, defining subclinical disease as ILD extent of less than 5% on high-resolution CT, preserved lung function with forced vital capacity (FVC) greater than 80% of predicted, and no respiratory symptoms.

Clinical ILD was defined as either ILD extent greater than 5%, or ILD extent below 5% but with respiratory symptoms and FVC below 80% of predicted.

They found that 44% of the patients had ILD on high-resolution CT, 43% had no evidence of ILD, and 13% had subclinical ILD.

In a comparison of patients without ILD and those with either clinical or subclinical ILD, they found that, while the mean patient age was about 51 in all three groups, men were more likely than women to have clinical ILD. A higher proportion of patients with clinical ILD (39%) died during the total observation period of about 13 years, compared with 22% of patients without ILD, and 18% of those with subclinical ILD.

As noted before, of 395 patients with baseline and follow-up high-resolution CT, 95 (24%) had evidence of lung fibrosis progression, with 38% of patients with subclinical ILD and 51% of patients with clinical ILD having progression during follow-up.

“In our connective tissue disease patients with ILD, the symptoms-define-disease argument would clearly lead to [the idea] that ILD is not a disease until patients become symptomatic, which we all know is frequently appearing in advanced stages of ILD,” Dr. Hoffmann-Vold said.

The study was funded by Oslo University Hospital. Dr. Hoffmann-Vold and Dr. Roman reported no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

Moderna has released new data that it said support the argument for COVID-19 booster shots – specifically showing that people who received a first shot of their mRNA vaccine a median of 13 months ago are more likely to experience a breakthrough infection compared to individuals who received a first shot a median of 8 months ago.

Geber86/Getty Images

The findings come from the ongoing phase 3 COVE clinical trial, the results of which the Food and Drug Administration considered in granting emergency use authorization for the vaccine. In the initial stage of the trial, people were randomly assigned to receive the company’s mRNA vaccine or placebo.

Participants in COVE who were immunized more recently were 36% less likely to experience a breakthrough infection, according to the analysis of the open-label extension of the study during which placebo participants could cross over and get immunized as well.  

The updated COVE trial data show that 88 breakthrough cases of COVID-19 occurred among 11,431 participants vaccinated between December 2020 and March 2021 (49.0 cases per 1,000 person-years).

In contrast, there were 162 breakthrough cases among 14,746 people vaccinated between July and October 2020 (77.1 cases per 1,000 person-years).

The breakthrough infections include 19 severe cases. Although not statically different, there was a trend toward fewer severe cases among the more recently vaccinated, at a rate of 3.3 per 1,000 person-years, compared with 6.2 per 1,000 person-years in the group vaccinated in 2020

The findings were posted as a preprint to the medRxiv server and have not yet been peer reviewed.

“The increased risk of breakthrough infections in COVE study participants who were vaccinated last year compared to more recently illustrates the impact of waning immunity and supports the need for a booster to maintain high levels of protection,” Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel said in a company statement.

An FDA advisory committee is meeting Sept. 17 to look at the available evidence on boosters to help the agency decide whether the additional shots are warranted.

There is still a lot of debate in the medical community about the need for boosters. U.S. physicians and nurses are divided about the need for them and about how the country should prioritize its vaccine supplies, according to a Medscape poll of more than 1,700 clinicians that collected responses from Aug. 25 to Sept. 6, 2020.

The research was funded by Moderna, and also supported by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, and by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

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

Moderna has released new data that it said support the argument for COVID-19 booster shots – specifically showing that people who received a first shot of their mRNA vaccine a median of 13 months ago are more likely to experience a breakthrough infection compared to individuals who received a first shot a median of 8 months ago.

Geber86/Getty Images

The findings come from the ongoing phase 3 COVE clinical trial, the results of which the Food and Drug Administration considered in granting emergency use authorization for the vaccine. In the initial stage of the trial, people were randomly assigned to receive the company’s mRNA vaccine or placebo.

Participants in COVE who were immunized more recently were 36% less likely to experience a breakthrough infection, according to the analysis of the open-label extension of the study during which placebo participants could cross over and get immunized as well.  

The updated COVE trial data show that 88 breakthrough cases of COVID-19 occurred among 11,431 participants vaccinated between December 2020 and March 2021 (49.0 cases per 1,000 person-years).

In contrast, there were 162 breakthrough cases among 14,746 people vaccinated between July and October 2020 (77.1 cases per 1,000 person-years).

The breakthrough infections include 19 severe cases. Although not statically different, there was a trend toward fewer severe cases among the more recently vaccinated, at a rate of 3.3 per 1,000 person-years, compared with 6.2 per 1,000 person-years in the group vaccinated in 2020

The findings were posted as a preprint to the medRxiv server and have not yet been peer reviewed.

“The increased risk of breakthrough infections in COVE study participants who were vaccinated last year compared to more recently illustrates the impact of waning immunity and supports the need for a booster to maintain high levels of protection,” Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel said in a company statement.

An FDA advisory committee is meeting Sept. 17 to look at the available evidence on boosters to help the agency decide whether the additional shots are warranted.

There is still a lot of debate in the medical community about the need for boosters. U.S. physicians and nurses are divided about the need for them and about how the country should prioritize its vaccine supplies, according to a Medscape poll of more than 1,700 clinicians that collected responses from Aug. 25 to Sept. 6, 2020.

The research was funded by Moderna, and also supported by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, and by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

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

Moderna has released new data that it said support the argument for COVID-19 booster shots – specifically showing that people who received a first shot of their mRNA vaccine a median of 13 months ago are more likely to experience a breakthrough infection compared to individuals who received a first shot a median of 8 months ago.

Geber86/Getty Images

The findings come from the ongoing phase 3 COVE clinical trial, the results of which the Food and Drug Administration considered in granting emergency use authorization for the vaccine. In the initial stage of the trial, people were randomly assigned to receive the company’s mRNA vaccine or placebo.

Participants in COVE who were immunized more recently were 36% less likely to experience a breakthrough infection, according to the analysis of the open-label extension of the study during which placebo participants could cross over and get immunized as well.  

The updated COVE trial data show that 88 breakthrough cases of COVID-19 occurred among 11,431 participants vaccinated between December 2020 and March 2021 (49.0 cases per 1,000 person-years).

In contrast, there were 162 breakthrough cases among 14,746 people vaccinated between July and October 2020 (77.1 cases per 1,000 person-years).

The breakthrough infections include 19 severe cases. Although not statically different, there was a trend toward fewer severe cases among the more recently vaccinated, at a rate of 3.3 per 1,000 person-years, compared with 6.2 per 1,000 person-years in the group vaccinated in 2020

The findings were posted as a preprint to the medRxiv server and have not yet been peer reviewed.

“The increased risk of breakthrough infections in COVE study participants who were vaccinated last year compared to more recently illustrates the impact of waning immunity and supports the need for a booster to maintain high levels of protection,” Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel said in a company statement.

An FDA advisory committee is meeting Sept. 17 to look at the available evidence on boosters to help the agency decide whether the additional shots are warranted.

There is still a lot of debate in the medical community about the need for boosters. U.S. physicians and nurses are divided about the need for them and about how the country should prioritize its vaccine supplies, according to a Medscape poll of more than 1,700 clinicians that collected responses from Aug. 25 to Sept. 6, 2020.

The research was funded by Moderna, and also supported by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, and by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

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.