News

Sickle cell disease (SCD) was associated with a greater than fourfold excess risk for COVID-19–related hospitalization and a greater than twofold risk for COVID-19–related death, according to a big-data analysis from the United Kingdom.

SCD was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 4.11 (95% confidence interval, 2.98-5.66) for admission to hospital and an HR of 2.55 (95% CI, 1.36-4.75) for death, report Ashley K. Clift, MBBS, a clinical research fellow at the University of Oxford, and colleagues. The results were published online July 20 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Even those who carry just one copy of the sickle cell gene – the carrier status for sickle cell disease – appeared to be at heightened risk for these outcomes (HR for hospitalization, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.12-1.70; HR for death, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.13-2.00).

“Given the well-known ethnic patterning of sickle cell disorders, the predisposition they pose to other infections, and early evidence from smaller registries, we thought this would be an important analysis to run at the population level,” Dr. Clift said in an interview.

“Our data suggest that people living with sickle cell disorders are a group at higher risk from this infection, and this is important from a public health perspective in terms of vaccination strategies and advice on nonpharmacological interventions,” he said.

“The best course of action for managing risk in this group is vaccination,” said Enrico M. Novelli, MD, director of the adult sickle cell program at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Dr. Novelli, who is also section chief of benign hematology in the university’s School of Medicine, was not involved in the study. “To date, there are no specific studies of the effect of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with SCD, but there is no reason to believe it would be less effective or more risky in this patient population,” he said.

In addition, common-sense measures, such as masking and physical distancing, particularly at large, indoor gatherings, should be encouraged, Dr. Novelli added. Keeping SCD under good control with available treatments is also important. “Any patient with SCD who contracts COVID-19 should undergo close, outpatient monitoring with pulse oxygen measurements. If sick, they should be hospitalized in a center familiar with the care of SCD patients.”

The U.K. results are in line with and expand on earlier evidence from specialist centers and registries, but the association with sickle cell trait has been unclear and is notable in these findings, Dr. Clift said.

“The finding of the association with sickle cell trait is somewhat unexpected,” pediatric hematologist/oncologist Rabi Hanna, MD, director of pediatric bone marrow transplantation at Cleveland Clinic Children’s, told this news organization. “But I would question the accuracy of the numbers, since not all people with the trait realize they have it. In other respects, the study confirms earlier hypotheses and data from single-center studies.” Dr. Hanna did not participate in the U.K. study.
 

Study details

The SCD cohort consisted of 5,059 persons with SCD and 25,682 carriers, those with just one copy of the trait. Data were drawn from the United Kingdom’s large primary-care QResearch database. Follow-up for hospitalizations was conducted from Jan. 24, 2020 to Sept. 30, 2020; follow-up for deaths was conducted from Jan. 24, 2020 to Jan. 18, 2021. Among adults with SCD, there were 40 hospitalizations and 10 deaths. Among those with sickle cell trait, there were 98 hospitalizations and 50 deaths. No children died, and only a few (<5) required hospitalization.

Previous registry research showed similarly elevated risks for severe disease and fatality among patients with SCD who were infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Because SCD affects 8 to 12 million people globally – 100,000 in the United States – the authors say their results are important for policymakers and for prioritizing vaccination. They also note that trait carriers may be underdiagnosed.

“While SCD is part of newborn screening, there may be undiagnosed older people with the trait in the general population, but it’s difficult to quantify how much this is undiagnosed,” Dr. Clift said. “But now we have these results, it’s not that surprising that sickle cell trait is also associated with increased risk, albeit to a lower extent. This could suggest an almost dose-like effect of the sickle mutations on COVID hospitalization risk.”

Neonatal screening for the most common form of SCD is currently mandatory in the United States, but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has no clear data on how many people are aware they are carriers, Dr. Hanna said. “The states didn’t all begin screening at the same time – some started in the 1990s, others started in the 2000s – so many young adults may be unaware they have the trait,” he said.

Dr. Clift said the multiorgan complications of SCD, such as cardiac and immune problems, may be contributing to the heightened risk in individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2. “For example, we know that people with sickle cell disease are more susceptible to other viral infections. There is also some pathophysiological overlap between SCD disease and severe COVID, such as clotting dysfunction, so that may be worth further exploration,” he said.

The overlapping clotting problems associated with both COVID-19 and SCD could increase the risk for severe venous thromboembolism. In addition, experts noted that patients with SCD often have pre-COVID endothelial damage and baseline inflammation and are very sensitive to hypoxia; as well, a sizable proportion have lung disease.

The message to patients and physicians counseling patients is twofold, said Dr. Hanna: “SCD patients are at higher risk of COVID complications, and these are preventable with vaccination.”

The study was supported by the UK Medical Research Council. Dr. Clift is supported by Cancer Research UK. Coauthor Dr. Hippisley-Cox has received fees from ClinRisk and nonfinancial support from QResearch outside of the submitted work. Dr. Hanna has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Novelli is a consultant for Novartis.

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

Sickle cell disease (SCD) was associated with a greater than fourfold excess risk for COVID-19–related hospitalization and a greater than twofold risk for COVID-19–related death, according to a big-data analysis from the United Kingdom.

SCD was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 4.11 (95% confidence interval, 2.98-5.66) for admission to hospital and an HR of 2.55 (95% CI, 1.36-4.75) for death, report Ashley K. Clift, MBBS, a clinical research fellow at the University of Oxford, and colleagues. The results were published online July 20 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Even those who carry just one copy of the sickle cell gene – the carrier status for sickle cell disease – appeared to be at heightened risk for these outcomes (HR for hospitalization, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.12-1.70; HR for death, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.13-2.00).

“Given the well-known ethnic patterning of sickle cell disorders, the predisposition they pose to other infections, and early evidence from smaller registries, we thought this would be an important analysis to run at the population level,” Dr. Clift said in an interview.

“Our data suggest that people living with sickle cell disorders are a group at higher risk from this infection, and this is important from a public health perspective in terms of vaccination strategies and advice on nonpharmacological interventions,” he said.

“The best course of action for managing risk in this group is vaccination,” said Enrico M. Novelli, MD, director of the adult sickle cell program at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Dr. Novelli, who is also section chief of benign hematology in the university’s School of Medicine, was not involved in the study. “To date, there are no specific studies of the effect of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with SCD, but there is no reason to believe it would be less effective or more risky in this patient population,” he said.

In addition, common-sense measures, such as masking and physical distancing, particularly at large, indoor gatherings, should be encouraged, Dr. Novelli added. Keeping SCD under good control with available treatments is also important. “Any patient with SCD who contracts COVID-19 should undergo close, outpatient monitoring with pulse oxygen measurements. If sick, they should be hospitalized in a center familiar with the care of SCD patients.”

The U.K. results are in line with and expand on earlier evidence from specialist centers and registries, but the association with sickle cell trait has been unclear and is notable in these findings, Dr. Clift said.

“The finding of the association with sickle cell trait is somewhat unexpected,” pediatric hematologist/oncologist Rabi Hanna, MD, director of pediatric bone marrow transplantation at Cleveland Clinic Children’s, told this news organization. “But I would question the accuracy of the numbers, since not all people with the trait realize they have it. In other respects, the study confirms earlier hypotheses and data from single-center studies.” Dr. Hanna did not participate in the U.K. study.
 

Study details

The SCD cohort consisted of 5,059 persons with SCD and 25,682 carriers, those with just one copy of the trait. Data were drawn from the United Kingdom’s large primary-care QResearch database. Follow-up for hospitalizations was conducted from Jan. 24, 2020 to Sept. 30, 2020; follow-up for deaths was conducted from Jan. 24, 2020 to Jan. 18, 2021. Among adults with SCD, there were 40 hospitalizations and 10 deaths. Among those with sickle cell trait, there were 98 hospitalizations and 50 deaths. No children died, and only a few (<5) required hospitalization.

Previous registry research showed similarly elevated risks for severe disease and fatality among patients with SCD who were infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Because SCD affects 8 to 12 million people globally – 100,000 in the United States – the authors say their results are important for policymakers and for prioritizing vaccination. They also note that trait carriers may be underdiagnosed.

“While SCD is part of newborn screening, there may be undiagnosed older people with the trait in the general population, but it’s difficult to quantify how much this is undiagnosed,” Dr. Clift said. “But now we have these results, it’s not that surprising that sickle cell trait is also associated with increased risk, albeit to a lower extent. This could suggest an almost dose-like effect of the sickle mutations on COVID hospitalization risk.”

Neonatal screening for the most common form of SCD is currently mandatory in the United States, but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has no clear data on how many people are aware they are carriers, Dr. Hanna said. “The states didn’t all begin screening at the same time – some started in the 1990s, others started in the 2000s – so many young adults may be unaware they have the trait,” he said.

Dr. Clift said the multiorgan complications of SCD, such as cardiac and immune problems, may be contributing to the heightened risk in individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2. “For example, we know that people with sickle cell disease are more susceptible to other viral infections. There is also some pathophysiological overlap between SCD disease and severe COVID, such as clotting dysfunction, so that may be worth further exploration,” he said.

The overlapping clotting problems associated with both COVID-19 and SCD could increase the risk for severe venous thromboembolism. In addition, experts noted that patients with SCD often have pre-COVID endothelial damage and baseline inflammation and are very sensitive to hypoxia; as well, a sizable proportion have lung disease.

The message to patients and physicians counseling patients is twofold, said Dr. Hanna: “SCD patients are at higher risk of COVID complications, and these are preventable with vaccination.”

The study was supported by the UK Medical Research Council. Dr. Clift is supported by Cancer Research UK. Coauthor Dr. Hippisley-Cox has received fees from ClinRisk and nonfinancial support from QResearch outside of the submitted work. Dr. Hanna has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Novelli is a consultant for Novartis.

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

Sickle cell disease (SCD) was associated with a greater than fourfold excess risk for COVID-19–related hospitalization and a greater than twofold risk for COVID-19–related death, according to a big-data analysis from the United Kingdom.

SCD was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 4.11 (95% confidence interval, 2.98-5.66) for admission to hospital and an HR of 2.55 (95% CI, 1.36-4.75) for death, report Ashley K. Clift, MBBS, a clinical research fellow at the University of Oxford, and colleagues. The results were published online July 20 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Even those who carry just one copy of the sickle cell gene – the carrier status for sickle cell disease – appeared to be at heightened risk for these outcomes (HR for hospitalization, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.12-1.70; HR for death, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.13-2.00).

“Given the well-known ethnic patterning of sickle cell disorders, the predisposition they pose to other infections, and early evidence from smaller registries, we thought this would be an important analysis to run at the population level,” Dr. Clift said in an interview.

“Our data suggest that people living with sickle cell disorders are a group at higher risk from this infection, and this is important from a public health perspective in terms of vaccination strategies and advice on nonpharmacological interventions,” he said.

“The best course of action for managing risk in this group is vaccination,” said Enrico M. Novelli, MD, director of the adult sickle cell program at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Dr. Novelli, who is also section chief of benign hematology in the university’s School of Medicine, was not involved in the study. “To date, there are no specific studies of the effect of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with SCD, but there is no reason to believe it would be less effective or more risky in this patient population,” he said.

In addition, common-sense measures, such as masking and physical distancing, particularly at large, indoor gatherings, should be encouraged, Dr. Novelli added. Keeping SCD under good control with available treatments is also important. “Any patient with SCD who contracts COVID-19 should undergo close, outpatient monitoring with pulse oxygen measurements. If sick, they should be hospitalized in a center familiar with the care of SCD patients.”

The U.K. results are in line with and expand on earlier evidence from specialist centers and registries, but the association with sickle cell trait has been unclear and is notable in these findings, Dr. Clift said.

“The finding of the association with sickle cell trait is somewhat unexpected,” pediatric hematologist/oncologist Rabi Hanna, MD, director of pediatric bone marrow transplantation at Cleveland Clinic Children’s, told this news organization. “But I would question the accuracy of the numbers, since not all people with the trait realize they have it. In other respects, the study confirms earlier hypotheses and data from single-center studies.” Dr. Hanna did not participate in the U.K. study.
 

Study details

The SCD cohort consisted of 5,059 persons with SCD and 25,682 carriers, those with just one copy of the trait. Data were drawn from the United Kingdom’s large primary-care QResearch database. Follow-up for hospitalizations was conducted from Jan. 24, 2020 to Sept. 30, 2020; follow-up for deaths was conducted from Jan. 24, 2020 to Jan. 18, 2021. Among adults with SCD, there were 40 hospitalizations and 10 deaths. Among those with sickle cell trait, there were 98 hospitalizations and 50 deaths. No children died, and only a few (<5) required hospitalization.

Previous registry research showed similarly elevated risks for severe disease and fatality among patients with SCD who were infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Because SCD affects 8 to 12 million people globally – 100,000 in the United States – the authors say their results are important for policymakers and for prioritizing vaccination. They also note that trait carriers may be underdiagnosed.

“While SCD is part of newborn screening, there may be undiagnosed older people with the trait in the general population, but it’s difficult to quantify how much this is undiagnosed,” Dr. Clift said. “But now we have these results, it’s not that surprising that sickle cell trait is also associated with increased risk, albeit to a lower extent. This could suggest an almost dose-like effect of the sickle mutations on COVID hospitalization risk.”

Neonatal screening for the most common form of SCD is currently mandatory in the United States, but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has no clear data on how many people are aware they are carriers, Dr. Hanna said. “The states didn’t all begin screening at the same time – some started in the 1990s, others started in the 2000s – so many young adults may be unaware they have the trait,” he said.

Dr. Clift said the multiorgan complications of SCD, such as cardiac and immune problems, may be contributing to the heightened risk in individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2. “For example, we know that people with sickle cell disease are more susceptible to other viral infections. There is also some pathophysiological overlap between SCD disease and severe COVID, such as clotting dysfunction, so that may be worth further exploration,” he said.

The overlapping clotting problems associated with both COVID-19 and SCD could increase the risk for severe venous thromboembolism. In addition, experts noted that patients with SCD often have pre-COVID endothelial damage and baseline inflammation and are very sensitive to hypoxia; as well, a sizable proportion have lung disease.

The message to patients and physicians counseling patients is twofold, said Dr. Hanna: “SCD patients are at higher risk of COVID complications, and these are preventable with vaccination.”

The study was supported by the UK Medical Research Council. Dr. Clift is supported by Cancer Research UK. Coauthor Dr. Hippisley-Cox has received fees from ClinRisk and nonfinancial support from QResearch outside of the submitted work. Dr. Hanna has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Novelli is a consultant for Novartis.

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

Among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, those who had been taking statins had a substantially lower risk of death in a new large observational study.

Results showed that use of statins prior to admission was linked to a greater than 40% reduction in mortality and a greater than 25% reduction in risk of developing a severe outcome.

The findings come an analysis of data from the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry on more than 10,000 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at 104 hospitals across the United States published in PLoS One.

While several other studies have suggested benefits of statins in COVID-19, this is by far the largest study so far on this topic.

“I would say this is the most reliable study on statins in COVID-19 to date, with the results adjusted for many confounders, including socioeconomic factors and insurance type,” lead author Lori B. Daniels, MD, told this news organization. “However, it still an observational study and therefore falls short of a randomized study. But I would think a randomized study of statins in COVID-19 is probably not feasible, so this study provides excellent data at an observational level.”

After propensity matching for cardiovascular disease, results showed that most of the benefit of statins occurred in patients with known cardiovascular disease.

“While most patients taking statins will have cardiovascular disease, there are also many patients who take these drugs who don’t have heart disease but do have cardiovascular risk factors, such as those with raised cholesterol, or a family history of cardiovascular disease. For [such patients], the effect of statins was also in the same direction but it was not significant. This doesn’t exclude an effect,” noted Dr. Daniels, who is professor of medicine and director of cardiovascular intensive care at the University of California, San Diego.

“We are not saying that everyone should rush out and take a statin if they do not have risk factors for cardiovascular in order to lower their risk of dying from COVID. But if individuals do have an indication for a statin and are not taking one of these dugs this is another good reason to start taking them now,” she added.

The investigators embarked on the study because, although previous observational studies have found that statins may reduce the severity of COVID-19 infection, these studies have been limited in size with mostly single-center or regional studies, and some results have been conflicting. They therefore conducted the current, much larger analysis, in the AHA COVID-19 CVD Registry which systematically collected hospitalized patient–level data in a broad and diverse hospital and patient population across the United States.

For the analysis, the researchers analyzed data from 10,541 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 through September 2020 at 104 U.S. hospitals enrolled in the AHA registry to evaluate the associations between statin use and outcomes.

Most patients (71%) had either cardiovascular disease, hypertension, or both. Prior to admission, 42% of subjects used statins, with 7% being on statins alone and 35% on statins plus antihypertensives. Death (or discharge to hospice) occurred in 2,212 subjects (21%).

Results showed that outpatient use of statins, either alone or with antihypertensives, was associated with a 41% reduced risk of death (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.69), after adjusting for demographic characteristics, underlying conditions, insurance status, hospital site, and concurrent medications. Statin use was also associated with a roughly 25% lower adjusted odds of developing severe disease.

Noting that patients on statins are also likely to be on antihypertensive medication, the researchers found that the statin benefit on mortality was seen in both patients taking a statin alone (OR, 0.54) and in those taking statins with an antihypertensive medication (OR, 0.60).

Use of antihypertensive drugs was associated with a smaller, albeit still substantial, 27% lower odds of death (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.87).

In propensity-matched analyses, use of statins and/or antihypertensives was tied to a 32% reduced risk of death among those with a history of CVD and/or hypertension (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.58-0.81). An observed 16% reduction in odds of death with statins and/or antihypertensive drugs among those without cardiovascular disease and/or hypertension was not statistically significant (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.58-1.22).
 

Stabilizing the underlying disease

The researchers pointed out that the results of the propensity matching analysis are consistent with the hypothesis that the major benefit of these medications accrues from treating and/or stabilizing underlying disease.

“Although it is well known that statins improve long-term outcomes among patients with or at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease, the association with a large short-term benefit which accrues in the setting of hospitalization for COVID-19 is a new and intriguing finding,” they said.

They cited several “plausible mechanisms whereby statins could directly mitigate outcomes in COVID-19 beyond treating underlying disease conditions,” including anti-inflammatory effects and a direct inhibitory effect on the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Dr. Daniels elaborated more on the potential mechanism at play in an interview: “I think what is happening is that the statin is stabilizing the coronary disease so patients are less likely to die from MI or stroke, and this gives them more time and strength to recover from COVID-19.”

She added: “Statins may also have some direct anti-COVID effects such as an anti-inflammatory actions, but I would guess that this is probably not the primary effect behind what we’re seeing here.”
 

‘Important clinical implications’

The authors say their findings have “important clinical implications.”

They noted that early in the pandemic there was speculation that certain medications, including statins, and the ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) classes of antihypertensives may confer an increased susceptibility to COVID-19 positivity and/or severity.

“Our study reinforces the AHA and others’ recommendations that not only is it safe to remain on these medications, but they may substantially reduce risk of severe COVID-19 and especially death from COVID-19, particularly statins, and particularly among those with associated underlying conditions,” the authors stressed.

Dr. Daniels added that, although statins are very safe drugs, there are always some patients who prefer not to take medication even if indicated, and others who may have borderline indications and decide not to take a statin at present.

“This study may persuade these patients that taking a statin is the right thing to do. It may give those patients on the cusp of thinking about taking one of these drugs a reason to go ahead,” she said.
 

‘Provocative but not definitive’

Commenting on the study, Robert Harrington, MD, professor of medicine and chair of the department of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, said: “These are interesting observational data but as such have all the limitations of nonrandomized comparisons despite the best attempts to adjust for a variety of potential confounders. For example, is this an effect of statins (perhaps through some anti-inflammatory mechanism) or is it more an effect that can be attributed to the patients who are prescribed and taking a statin, compared with those who are not?”

He added: “The primary clinical benefit of statins, based on many large randomized clinical trials, seems to be derived from their LDL lowering effect. Observational studies have suggested potential benefits from anti-inflammatory effects of statins, but the randomized trials have not confirmed these observations. So, the current data are interesting, even provocative, but ultimately hypothesis generating rather than definitive.”

Also commenting on the study, Steven Nissen, MD, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said: “While statins have many established benefits, their role in preventing COVID-19 complications is very speculative. Like all observational studies, the current study must be viewed as hypothesis generating, not definitive evidence of benefit. There are many potential confounders. I’m skeptical.”

The authors of this study received no specific funding for this work and report no competing interests. Dr. Harrington was AHA president when the COVID registry was created and he is still a member of the AHA board, which has oversight over the project.

Among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, those who had been taking statins had a substantially lower risk of death in a new large observational study.

Results showed that use of statins prior to admission was linked to a greater than 40% reduction in mortality and a greater than 25% reduction in risk of developing a severe outcome.

The findings come an analysis of data from the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry on more than 10,000 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at 104 hospitals across the United States published in PLoS One.

While several other studies have suggested benefits of statins in COVID-19, this is by far the largest study so far on this topic.

“I would say this is the most reliable study on statins in COVID-19 to date, with the results adjusted for many confounders, including socioeconomic factors and insurance type,” lead author Lori B. Daniels, MD, told this news organization. “However, it still an observational study and therefore falls short of a randomized study. But I would think a randomized study of statins in COVID-19 is probably not feasible, so this study provides excellent data at an observational level.”

After propensity matching for cardiovascular disease, results showed that most of the benefit of statins occurred in patients with known cardiovascular disease.

“While most patients taking statins will have cardiovascular disease, there are also many patients who take these drugs who don’t have heart disease but do have cardiovascular risk factors, such as those with raised cholesterol, or a family history of cardiovascular disease. For [such patients], the effect of statins was also in the same direction but it was not significant. This doesn’t exclude an effect,” noted Dr. Daniels, who is professor of medicine and director of cardiovascular intensive care at the University of California, San Diego.

“We are not saying that everyone should rush out and take a statin if they do not have risk factors for cardiovascular in order to lower their risk of dying from COVID. But if individuals do have an indication for a statin and are not taking one of these dugs this is another good reason to start taking them now,” she added.

The investigators embarked on the study because, although previous observational studies have found that statins may reduce the severity of COVID-19 infection, these studies have been limited in size with mostly single-center or regional studies, and some results have been conflicting. They therefore conducted the current, much larger analysis, in the AHA COVID-19 CVD Registry which systematically collected hospitalized patient–level data in a broad and diverse hospital and patient population across the United States.

For the analysis, the researchers analyzed data from 10,541 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 through September 2020 at 104 U.S. hospitals enrolled in the AHA registry to evaluate the associations between statin use and outcomes.

Most patients (71%) had either cardiovascular disease, hypertension, or both. Prior to admission, 42% of subjects used statins, with 7% being on statins alone and 35% on statins plus antihypertensives. Death (or discharge to hospice) occurred in 2,212 subjects (21%).

Results showed that outpatient use of statins, either alone or with antihypertensives, was associated with a 41% reduced risk of death (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.69), after adjusting for demographic characteristics, underlying conditions, insurance status, hospital site, and concurrent medications. Statin use was also associated with a roughly 25% lower adjusted odds of developing severe disease.

Noting that patients on statins are also likely to be on antihypertensive medication, the researchers found that the statin benefit on mortality was seen in both patients taking a statin alone (OR, 0.54) and in those taking statins with an antihypertensive medication (OR, 0.60).

Use of antihypertensive drugs was associated with a smaller, albeit still substantial, 27% lower odds of death (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.87).

In propensity-matched analyses, use of statins and/or antihypertensives was tied to a 32% reduced risk of death among those with a history of CVD and/or hypertension (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.58-0.81). An observed 16% reduction in odds of death with statins and/or antihypertensive drugs among those without cardiovascular disease and/or hypertension was not statistically significant (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.58-1.22).
 

Stabilizing the underlying disease

The researchers pointed out that the results of the propensity matching analysis are consistent with the hypothesis that the major benefit of these medications accrues from treating and/or stabilizing underlying disease.

“Although it is well known that statins improve long-term outcomes among patients with or at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease, the association with a large short-term benefit which accrues in the setting of hospitalization for COVID-19 is a new and intriguing finding,” they said.

They cited several “plausible mechanisms whereby statins could directly mitigate outcomes in COVID-19 beyond treating underlying disease conditions,” including anti-inflammatory effects and a direct inhibitory effect on the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Dr. Daniels elaborated more on the potential mechanism at play in an interview: “I think what is happening is that the statin is stabilizing the coronary disease so patients are less likely to die from MI or stroke, and this gives them more time and strength to recover from COVID-19.”

She added: “Statins may also have some direct anti-COVID effects such as an anti-inflammatory actions, but I would guess that this is probably not the primary effect behind what we’re seeing here.”
 

‘Important clinical implications’

The authors say their findings have “important clinical implications.”

They noted that early in the pandemic there was speculation that certain medications, including statins, and the ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) classes of antihypertensives may confer an increased susceptibility to COVID-19 positivity and/or severity.

“Our study reinforces the AHA and others’ recommendations that not only is it safe to remain on these medications, but they may substantially reduce risk of severe COVID-19 and especially death from COVID-19, particularly statins, and particularly among those with associated underlying conditions,” the authors stressed.

Dr. Daniels added that, although statins are very safe drugs, there are always some patients who prefer not to take medication even if indicated, and others who may have borderline indications and decide not to take a statin at present.

“This study may persuade these patients that taking a statin is the right thing to do. It may give those patients on the cusp of thinking about taking one of these drugs a reason to go ahead,” she said.
 

‘Provocative but not definitive’

Commenting on the study, Robert Harrington, MD, professor of medicine and chair of the department of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, said: “These are interesting observational data but as such have all the limitations of nonrandomized comparisons despite the best attempts to adjust for a variety of potential confounders. For example, is this an effect of statins (perhaps through some anti-inflammatory mechanism) or is it more an effect that can be attributed to the patients who are prescribed and taking a statin, compared with those who are not?”

He added: “The primary clinical benefit of statins, based on many large randomized clinical trials, seems to be derived from their LDL lowering effect. Observational studies have suggested potential benefits from anti-inflammatory effects of statins, but the randomized trials have not confirmed these observations. So, the current data are interesting, even provocative, but ultimately hypothesis generating rather than definitive.”

Also commenting on the study, Steven Nissen, MD, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said: “While statins have many established benefits, their role in preventing COVID-19 complications is very speculative. Like all observational studies, the current study must be viewed as hypothesis generating, not definitive evidence of benefit. There are many potential confounders. I’m skeptical.”

The authors of this study received no specific funding for this work and report no competing interests. Dr. Harrington was AHA president when the COVID registry was created and he is still a member of the AHA board, which has oversight over the project.

Among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, those who had been taking statins had a substantially lower risk of death in a new large observational study.

Results showed that use of statins prior to admission was linked to a greater than 40% reduction in mortality and a greater than 25% reduction in risk of developing a severe outcome.

The findings come an analysis of data from the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry on more than 10,000 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at 104 hospitals across the United States published in PLoS One.

While several other studies have suggested benefits of statins in COVID-19, this is by far the largest study so far on this topic.

“I would say this is the most reliable study on statins in COVID-19 to date, with the results adjusted for many confounders, including socioeconomic factors and insurance type,” lead author Lori B. Daniels, MD, told this news organization. “However, it still an observational study and therefore falls short of a randomized study. But I would think a randomized study of statins in COVID-19 is probably not feasible, so this study provides excellent data at an observational level.”

After propensity matching for cardiovascular disease, results showed that most of the benefit of statins occurred in patients with known cardiovascular disease.

“While most patients taking statins will have cardiovascular disease, there are also many patients who take these drugs who don’t have heart disease but do have cardiovascular risk factors, such as those with raised cholesterol, or a family history of cardiovascular disease. For [such patients], the effect of statins was also in the same direction but it was not significant. This doesn’t exclude an effect,” noted Dr. Daniels, who is professor of medicine and director of cardiovascular intensive care at the University of California, San Diego.

“We are not saying that everyone should rush out and take a statin if they do not have risk factors for cardiovascular in order to lower their risk of dying from COVID. But if individuals do have an indication for a statin and are not taking one of these dugs this is another good reason to start taking them now,” she added.

The investigators embarked on the study because, although previous observational studies have found that statins may reduce the severity of COVID-19 infection, these studies have been limited in size with mostly single-center or regional studies, and some results have been conflicting. They therefore conducted the current, much larger analysis, in the AHA COVID-19 CVD Registry which systematically collected hospitalized patient–level data in a broad and diverse hospital and patient population across the United States.

For the analysis, the researchers analyzed data from 10,541 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 through September 2020 at 104 U.S. hospitals enrolled in the AHA registry to evaluate the associations between statin use and outcomes.

Most patients (71%) had either cardiovascular disease, hypertension, or both. Prior to admission, 42% of subjects used statins, with 7% being on statins alone and 35% on statins plus antihypertensives. Death (or discharge to hospice) occurred in 2,212 subjects (21%).

Results showed that outpatient use of statins, either alone or with antihypertensives, was associated with a 41% reduced risk of death (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.69), after adjusting for demographic characteristics, underlying conditions, insurance status, hospital site, and concurrent medications. Statin use was also associated with a roughly 25% lower adjusted odds of developing severe disease.

Noting that patients on statins are also likely to be on antihypertensive medication, the researchers found that the statin benefit on mortality was seen in both patients taking a statin alone (OR, 0.54) and in those taking statins with an antihypertensive medication (OR, 0.60).

Use of antihypertensive drugs was associated with a smaller, albeit still substantial, 27% lower odds of death (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.87).

In propensity-matched analyses, use of statins and/or antihypertensives was tied to a 32% reduced risk of death among those with a history of CVD and/or hypertension (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.58-0.81). An observed 16% reduction in odds of death with statins and/or antihypertensive drugs among those without cardiovascular disease and/or hypertension was not statistically significant (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.58-1.22).
 

Stabilizing the underlying disease

The researchers pointed out that the results of the propensity matching analysis are consistent with the hypothesis that the major benefit of these medications accrues from treating and/or stabilizing underlying disease.

“Although it is well known that statins improve long-term outcomes among patients with or at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease, the association with a large short-term benefit which accrues in the setting of hospitalization for COVID-19 is a new and intriguing finding,” they said.

They cited several “plausible mechanisms whereby statins could directly mitigate outcomes in COVID-19 beyond treating underlying disease conditions,” including anti-inflammatory effects and a direct inhibitory effect on the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Dr. Daniels elaborated more on the potential mechanism at play in an interview: “I think what is happening is that the statin is stabilizing the coronary disease so patients are less likely to die from MI or stroke, and this gives them more time and strength to recover from COVID-19.”

She added: “Statins may also have some direct anti-COVID effects such as an anti-inflammatory actions, but I would guess that this is probably not the primary effect behind what we’re seeing here.”
 

‘Important clinical implications’

The authors say their findings have “important clinical implications.”

They noted that early in the pandemic there was speculation that certain medications, including statins, and the ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) classes of antihypertensives may confer an increased susceptibility to COVID-19 positivity and/or severity.

“Our study reinforces the AHA and others’ recommendations that not only is it safe to remain on these medications, but they may substantially reduce risk of severe COVID-19 and especially death from COVID-19, particularly statins, and particularly among those with associated underlying conditions,” the authors stressed.

Dr. Daniels added that, although statins are very safe drugs, there are always some patients who prefer not to take medication even if indicated, and others who may have borderline indications and decide not to take a statin at present.

“This study may persuade these patients that taking a statin is the right thing to do. It may give those patients on the cusp of thinking about taking one of these drugs a reason to go ahead,” she said.
 

‘Provocative but not definitive’

Commenting on the study, Robert Harrington, MD, professor of medicine and chair of the department of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, said: “These are interesting observational data but as such have all the limitations of nonrandomized comparisons despite the best attempts to adjust for a variety of potential confounders. For example, is this an effect of statins (perhaps through some anti-inflammatory mechanism) or is it more an effect that can be attributed to the patients who are prescribed and taking a statin, compared with those who are not?”

He added: “The primary clinical benefit of statins, based on many large randomized clinical trials, seems to be derived from their LDL lowering effect. Observational studies have suggested potential benefits from anti-inflammatory effects of statins, but the randomized trials have not confirmed these observations. So, the current data are interesting, even provocative, but ultimately hypothesis generating rather than definitive.”

Also commenting on the study, Steven Nissen, MD, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said: “While statins have many established benefits, their role in preventing COVID-19 complications is very speculative. Like all observational studies, the current study must be viewed as hypothesis generating, not definitive evidence of benefit. There are many potential confounders. I’m skeptical.”

The authors of this study received no specific funding for this work and report no competing interests. Dr. Harrington was AHA president when the COVID registry was created and he is still a member of the AHA board, which has oversight over the project.

Catherine O’Neal, MD, an infectious disease physician, took to the podium of the Louisiana governor’s press conference recently and did not mince words.

“The Delta variant is not last year’s virus, and it’s become incredibly apparent to healthcare workers that we are dealing with a different beast,” she said.

Louisiana is one of the least vaccinated states in the country. In the United States as a whole, 48.6% of the population is fully vaccinated. In Louisiana, it’s just 36%, and Delta is bearing down.

Dr. O’Neal spoke about the pressure that rising COVID cases were already putting on her hospital, Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center in Baton Rouge. She talked about watching her peers, 30- and 40-year-olds, become severely ill with the latest iteration of the new coronavirus — the Delta variant — which is sweeping through the United States with astonishing speed, causing new cases, hospitalizations, and deaths to rise again. 

Dr. O’Neal talked about parents who might not be alive to see their children go off to college in a few weeks. She talked about increasing hospital admissions for infected kids and pregnant women on ventilators.

“I want to be clear after seeing what we’ve seen the last two weeks. We only have two choices: We are either going to get vaccinated and end the pandemic, or we’re going to accept death and a lot of it,” Dr. O’Neal said, her voice choked by emotion.

Where Delta goes, death follows

Delta was first identified in India, where it caused a devastating surge in the spring. In a population that was largely unvaccinated, researchers think it may have caused as many as three million deaths. In just a few months’ time, it has sped across the globe.

Research from the United Kingdom shows that Delta is highly contagious. It’s about 60% more easily passed from person to person than the Alpha version (or B.1.1.7, which was first identified in the United Kingdom). 

Where a single infected person might have spread older versions of the virus to two or three others, mathematician and epidemiologist Adam Kucharski, PhD, an associate professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, thinks that number — called the basic reproduction number — might be around six for Delta, meaning that, on average, each infected person spreads the virus to six others.

“The Delta variant is the most able and fastest and fittest of those viruses,” said Mike Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organization’s Health Emergencies Programme, in a recent press briefing.

Early evidence suggests it may also cause more severe disease in people who are not vaccinated. 

“There’s clearly increased risk of ICU admission, hospitalization, and death,” said Ashleigh Tuite, PhD, MPH, an infectious disease epidemiologist at the University of Toronto in Ontario.

In a study published ahead of peer review, Dr. Tuite and her coauthor, David Fisman, MD, MPH, reviewed the health outcomes for more than 200,000 people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in Ontario between February and June of 2021. Starting in February, Ontario began screening all positive COVID tests for mutations in the N501Y region for signs of mutation.

Compared with versions of the coronavirus that circulated in 2020, having an Alpha, Beta, or Gamma variant modestly increased the odds that an infected person would become sicker. The Delta variant raised the risk even higher, more than doubling the odds that an infected person would need to be hospitalized or could die from their infection.

Emerging evidence from England and Scotland, analyzed by Public Health England, also shows an increased risk for hospitalization with Delta. The increases are in line with the Canadian data. Experts caution that the picture may change over time as more evidence is gathered.

“What is causing that? We don’t know,” Dr. Tuite said.

Enhanced virus

The Delta variants (there’s actually more than one in the same viral family) have about 15 different mutations compared with the original virus. Two of these, L452R and E484Q, are mutations to the spike protein that were first flagged as problematic in other variants because they appear to help the virus escape the antibodies we make to fight it.

It has another mutation away from its binding site that’s also getting researchers’ attention — P681R.

This mutation appears to enhance the “springiness” of the parts of the virus that dock onto our cells, said Alexander Greninger, MD, PhD, assistant director of the UW Medicine Clinical Virology Laboratory at the University of Washington in Seattle. So it’s more likely to be in the right position to infect our cells if we come into contact with it.

Another theory is that P681R may also enhance the virus’s ability to fuse cells together into clumps that have several different nuclei. These balls of fused cells are called syncytia.

“So it turns into a big factory for making viruses,” said Kamran Kadkhoda, PhD, medical director of immunopathology at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.

This capability is not unique to Delta or even to the new coronavirus. Earlier versions and other viruses can do the same thing, but according to a recent paper in Nature, the syncytia that Delta creates are larger than the ones created by previous variants.

Scientists aren’t sure what these supersized syncytia mean, exactly, but they have some theories. They may help the virus copy itself more quickly, so a person’s viral load builds up quickly. That may enhance the ability of the virus to transmit from person to person.

And at least one recent study from China supports this idea. That study, which was posted ahead of peer review on the website Virological.org, tracked 167 people infected with Delta back to a single index case. 

China has used extensive contact tracing to identify people that may have been exposed to the virus and sequester them quickly to tamp down its spread. Once a person is isolated or quarantined, they are tested daily with gold-standard PCR testing to determine whether or not they were infected. 

Researchers compared the characteristics of Delta cases with those of people infected in 2020 with previous versions of the virus.

This study found that people infected by Delta tested positive more quickly than their predecessors did. In 2020, it took an average of 6 days for someone to test positive after an exposure. With Delta, it took an average of about 4 days. 

When people tested positive, they had more than 1,000 times more virus in their bodies, suggesting that the Delta variant has a higher growth rate in the body.

This gives Delta a big advantage. According to Angie Rasmussen, PhD, a virologist at the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada, who posted a thread about the study on Twitter, if people are shedding 1,000 times more virus, it is much more likely that close contacts will be exposed to enough of it to become infected themselves.

And if they’re shedding earlier in the course of their infections, the virus has more opportunity to spread.

This may help explain why Delta is so much more contagious.

Beyond transmission, Delta’s ability to form syncytia may have two other important consequences. It may help the virus hide from our immune system, and it may make the virus more damaging to the body.

Commonly, when a virus infects a cell, it will corrupt the cell’s protein-making machinery to crank out more copies of itself. When the cell dies, these new copies are released into the plasma outside the cell where they can float over and infect new cells. It’s in this extracellular space where a virus can also be attacked by the neutralizing antibodies our immune system makes to fight it off.

“Antibodies don’t penetrate inside the cell. If these viruses are going from one cell to another by just fusing to each other, antibodies become less useful,” Dr. Kadkhoda said.

Escape artist

Recent studies show that Delta is also able to escape antibodies made in response to vaccination more effectively than the Alpha, or B.1.1.7 strain. The effect was more pronounced in older adults, who tend to have weaker responses to vaccines in general.

This evasion of the immune system is particularly problematic for people who are only partially vaccinated. Data from the United Kingdom show that a single dose of vaccine is only about 31% effective at preventing illness with Delta, and 75% effective at preventing hospitalization. 

After two doses, the vaccines are still highly effective — even against Delta — reaching 80% protection for illness, and 94% for hospitalization, which is why U.S. officials are begging people to get both doses of their shots, and do it as quickly as possible.

Finally, the virus’s ability to form syncytia may leave greater damage behind in the body’s tissues and organs.

“Especially in the lungs,” Dr. Kadkhoda said. The lungs are very fragile tissues. Their tiny air sacs — the alveoli — are only a single-cell thick. They have to be very thin to exchange oxygen in the blood.

“Any damage like that can severely affect any oxygen exchange and the normal housekeeping activities of that tissue,” he said. “In those vital organs, it may be very problematic.”

The research is still early, but studies in animals and cell lines are backing up what doctors say they are seeing in hospitalized patients.

A recent preprint study from researchers in Japan found that hamsters infected with Delta lost more weight — a proxy for how sick they were — compared with hamsters infected with an older version of the virus. The researchers attribute this to the viruses› ability to fuse cells together to form syncytia.

Another investigation, from researchers in India, infected two groups of hamsters — one with the original “wild type” strain of the virus, the other with the Delta variant of the new coronavirus. 

As in the Japanese study, the hamsters infected with Delta lost more weight. When the researchers performed necropsies on the animals, they found more lung damage and bleeding in hamsters infected with Delta. This study was also posted as a preprint ahead of peer review.

German researchers working with pseudotyped versions of the new coronavirus — viruses that have been genetically changed to make them safer to work with — watched what happened after they used these pseudoviruses to infect lung, colon, and kidney cells in the lab.

They, too, found that cells infected with the Delta variant formed more and larger syncytia compared with cells infected with the wild type strain of the virus. The authors write that their findings suggest Delta could “cause more tissue damage, and thus be more pathogenic, than previous variants.”Researchers say it’s important to remember that, while interesting, this research isn’t conclusive. Hamsters and cells aren’t humans. More studies are needed to prove these theories.

Scientists say that what we already know about Delta makes vaccination more important than ever.

“The net effect is really that, you know, this is worrisome in people who are unvaccinated and then people who have breakthrough infections, but it’s not…a reason to panic or to throw up our hands and say you know, this pandemic is never going to end,” Dr. Tuite said, “[b]ecause what we do see is that the vaccines continue to be highly protective.”

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

Catherine O’Neal, MD, an infectious disease physician, took to the podium of the Louisiana governor’s press conference recently and did not mince words.

“The Delta variant is not last year’s virus, and it’s become incredibly apparent to healthcare workers that we are dealing with a different beast,” she said.

Louisiana is one of the least vaccinated states in the country. In the United States as a whole, 48.6% of the population is fully vaccinated. In Louisiana, it’s just 36%, and Delta is bearing down.

Dr. O’Neal spoke about the pressure that rising COVID cases were already putting on her hospital, Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center in Baton Rouge. She talked about watching her peers, 30- and 40-year-olds, become severely ill with the latest iteration of the new coronavirus — the Delta variant — which is sweeping through the United States with astonishing speed, causing new cases, hospitalizations, and deaths to rise again. 

Dr. O’Neal talked about parents who might not be alive to see their children go off to college in a few weeks. She talked about increasing hospital admissions for infected kids and pregnant women on ventilators.

“I want to be clear after seeing what we’ve seen the last two weeks. We only have two choices: We are either going to get vaccinated and end the pandemic, or we’re going to accept death and a lot of it,” Dr. O’Neal said, her voice choked by emotion.

Where Delta goes, death follows

Delta was first identified in India, where it caused a devastating surge in the spring. In a population that was largely unvaccinated, researchers think it may have caused as many as three million deaths. In just a few months’ time, it has sped across the globe.

Research from the United Kingdom shows that Delta is highly contagious. It’s about 60% more easily passed from person to person than the Alpha version (or B.1.1.7, which was first identified in the United Kingdom). 

Where a single infected person might have spread older versions of the virus to two or three others, mathematician and epidemiologist Adam Kucharski, PhD, an associate professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, thinks that number — called the basic reproduction number — might be around six for Delta, meaning that, on average, each infected person spreads the virus to six others.

“The Delta variant is the most able and fastest and fittest of those viruses,” said Mike Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organization’s Health Emergencies Programme, in a recent press briefing.

Early evidence suggests it may also cause more severe disease in people who are not vaccinated. 

“There’s clearly increased risk of ICU admission, hospitalization, and death,” said Ashleigh Tuite, PhD, MPH, an infectious disease epidemiologist at the University of Toronto in Ontario.

In a study published ahead of peer review, Dr. Tuite and her coauthor, David Fisman, MD, MPH, reviewed the health outcomes for more than 200,000 people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in Ontario between February and June of 2021. Starting in February, Ontario began screening all positive COVID tests for mutations in the N501Y region for signs of mutation.

Compared with versions of the coronavirus that circulated in 2020, having an Alpha, Beta, or Gamma variant modestly increased the odds that an infected person would become sicker. The Delta variant raised the risk even higher, more than doubling the odds that an infected person would need to be hospitalized or could die from their infection.

Emerging evidence from England and Scotland, analyzed by Public Health England, also shows an increased risk for hospitalization with Delta. The increases are in line with the Canadian data. Experts caution that the picture may change over time as more evidence is gathered.

“What is causing that? We don’t know,” Dr. Tuite said.

Enhanced virus

The Delta variants (there’s actually more than one in the same viral family) have about 15 different mutations compared with the original virus. Two of these, L452R and E484Q, are mutations to the spike protein that were first flagged as problematic in other variants because they appear to help the virus escape the antibodies we make to fight it.

It has another mutation away from its binding site that’s also getting researchers’ attention — P681R.

This mutation appears to enhance the “springiness” of the parts of the virus that dock onto our cells, said Alexander Greninger, MD, PhD, assistant director of the UW Medicine Clinical Virology Laboratory at the University of Washington in Seattle. So it’s more likely to be in the right position to infect our cells if we come into contact with it.

Another theory is that P681R may also enhance the virus’s ability to fuse cells together into clumps that have several different nuclei. These balls of fused cells are called syncytia.

“So it turns into a big factory for making viruses,” said Kamran Kadkhoda, PhD, medical director of immunopathology at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.

This capability is not unique to Delta or even to the new coronavirus. Earlier versions and other viruses can do the same thing, but according to a recent paper in Nature, the syncytia that Delta creates are larger than the ones created by previous variants.

Scientists aren’t sure what these supersized syncytia mean, exactly, but they have some theories. They may help the virus copy itself more quickly, so a person’s viral load builds up quickly. That may enhance the ability of the virus to transmit from person to person.

And at least one recent study from China supports this idea. That study, which was posted ahead of peer review on the website Virological.org, tracked 167 people infected with Delta back to a single index case. 

China has used extensive contact tracing to identify people that may have been exposed to the virus and sequester them quickly to tamp down its spread. Once a person is isolated or quarantined, they are tested daily with gold-standard PCR testing to determine whether or not they were infected. 

Researchers compared the characteristics of Delta cases with those of people infected in 2020 with previous versions of the virus.

This study found that people infected by Delta tested positive more quickly than their predecessors did. In 2020, it took an average of 6 days for someone to test positive after an exposure. With Delta, it took an average of about 4 days. 

When people tested positive, they had more than 1,000 times more virus in their bodies, suggesting that the Delta variant has a higher growth rate in the body.

This gives Delta a big advantage. According to Angie Rasmussen, PhD, a virologist at the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada, who posted a thread about the study on Twitter, if people are shedding 1,000 times more virus, it is much more likely that close contacts will be exposed to enough of it to become infected themselves.

And if they’re shedding earlier in the course of their infections, the virus has more opportunity to spread.

This may help explain why Delta is so much more contagious.

Beyond transmission, Delta’s ability to form syncytia may have two other important consequences. It may help the virus hide from our immune system, and it may make the virus more damaging to the body.

Commonly, when a virus infects a cell, it will corrupt the cell’s protein-making machinery to crank out more copies of itself. When the cell dies, these new copies are released into the plasma outside the cell where they can float over and infect new cells. It’s in this extracellular space where a virus can also be attacked by the neutralizing antibodies our immune system makes to fight it off.

“Antibodies don’t penetrate inside the cell. If these viruses are going from one cell to another by just fusing to each other, antibodies become less useful,” Dr. Kadkhoda said.

Escape artist

Recent studies show that Delta is also able to escape antibodies made in response to vaccination more effectively than the Alpha, or B.1.1.7 strain. The effect was more pronounced in older adults, who tend to have weaker responses to vaccines in general.

This evasion of the immune system is particularly problematic for people who are only partially vaccinated. Data from the United Kingdom show that a single dose of vaccine is only about 31% effective at preventing illness with Delta, and 75% effective at preventing hospitalization. 

After two doses, the vaccines are still highly effective — even against Delta — reaching 80% protection for illness, and 94% for hospitalization, which is why U.S. officials are begging people to get both doses of their shots, and do it as quickly as possible.

Finally, the virus’s ability to form syncytia may leave greater damage behind in the body’s tissues and organs.

“Especially in the lungs,” Dr. Kadkhoda said. The lungs are very fragile tissues. Their tiny air sacs — the alveoli — are only a single-cell thick. They have to be very thin to exchange oxygen in the blood.

“Any damage like that can severely affect any oxygen exchange and the normal housekeeping activities of that tissue,” he said. “In those vital organs, it may be very problematic.”

The research is still early, but studies in animals and cell lines are backing up what doctors say they are seeing in hospitalized patients.

A recent preprint study from researchers in Japan found that hamsters infected with Delta lost more weight — a proxy for how sick they were — compared with hamsters infected with an older version of the virus. The researchers attribute this to the viruses› ability to fuse cells together to form syncytia.

Another investigation, from researchers in India, infected two groups of hamsters — one with the original “wild type” strain of the virus, the other with the Delta variant of the new coronavirus. 

As in the Japanese study, the hamsters infected with Delta lost more weight. When the researchers performed necropsies on the animals, they found more lung damage and bleeding in hamsters infected with Delta. This study was also posted as a preprint ahead of peer review.

German researchers working with pseudotyped versions of the new coronavirus — viruses that have been genetically changed to make them safer to work with — watched what happened after they used these pseudoviruses to infect lung, colon, and kidney cells in the lab.

They, too, found that cells infected with the Delta variant formed more and larger syncytia compared with cells infected with the wild type strain of the virus. The authors write that their findings suggest Delta could “cause more tissue damage, and thus be more pathogenic, than previous variants.”Researchers say it’s important to remember that, while interesting, this research isn’t conclusive. Hamsters and cells aren’t humans. More studies are needed to prove these theories.

Scientists say that what we already know about Delta makes vaccination more important than ever.

“The net effect is really that, you know, this is worrisome in people who are unvaccinated and then people who have breakthrough infections, but it’s not…a reason to panic or to throw up our hands and say you know, this pandemic is never going to end,” Dr. Tuite said, “[b]ecause what we do see is that the vaccines continue to be highly protective.”

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

Catherine O’Neal, MD, an infectious disease physician, took to the podium of the Louisiana governor’s press conference recently and did not mince words.

“The Delta variant is not last year’s virus, and it’s become incredibly apparent to healthcare workers that we are dealing with a different beast,” she said.

Louisiana is one of the least vaccinated states in the country. In the United States as a whole, 48.6% of the population is fully vaccinated. In Louisiana, it’s just 36%, and Delta is bearing down.

Dr. O’Neal spoke about the pressure that rising COVID cases were already putting on her hospital, Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center in Baton Rouge. She talked about watching her peers, 30- and 40-year-olds, become severely ill with the latest iteration of the new coronavirus — the Delta variant — which is sweeping through the United States with astonishing speed, causing new cases, hospitalizations, and deaths to rise again. 

Dr. O’Neal talked about parents who might not be alive to see their children go off to college in a few weeks. She talked about increasing hospital admissions for infected kids and pregnant women on ventilators.

“I want to be clear after seeing what we’ve seen the last two weeks. We only have two choices: We are either going to get vaccinated and end the pandemic, or we’re going to accept death and a lot of it,” Dr. O’Neal said, her voice choked by emotion.

Where Delta goes, death follows

Delta was first identified in India, where it caused a devastating surge in the spring. In a population that was largely unvaccinated, researchers think it may have caused as many as three million deaths. In just a few months’ time, it has sped across the globe.

Research from the United Kingdom shows that Delta is highly contagious. It’s about 60% more easily passed from person to person than the Alpha version (or B.1.1.7, which was first identified in the United Kingdom). 

Where a single infected person might have spread older versions of the virus to two or three others, mathematician and epidemiologist Adam Kucharski, PhD, an associate professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, thinks that number — called the basic reproduction number — might be around six for Delta, meaning that, on average, each infected person spreads the virus to six others.

“The Delta variant is the most able and fastest and fittest of those viruses,” said Mike Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organization’s Health Emergencies Programme, in a recent press briefing.

Early evidence suggests it may also cause more severe disease in people who are not vaccinated. 

“There’s clearly increased risk of ICU admission, hospitalization, and death,” said Ashleigh Tuite, PhD, MPH, an infectious disease epidemiologist at the University of Toronto in Ontario.

In a study published ahead of peer review, Dr. Tuite and her coauthor, David Fisman, MD, MPH, reviewed the health outcomes for more than 200,000 people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in Ontario between February and June of 2021. Starting in February, Ontario began screening all positive COVID tests for mutations in the N501Y region for signs of mutation.

Compared with versions of the coronavirus that circulated in 2020, having an Alpha, Beta, or Gamma variant modestly increased the odds that an infected person would become sicker. The Delta variant raised the risk even higher, more than doubling the odds that an infected person would need to be hospitalized or could die from their infection.

Emerging evidence from England and Scotland, analyzed by Public Health England, also shows an increased risk for hospitalization with Delta. The increases are in line with the Canadian data. Experts caution that the picture may change over time as more evidence is gathered.

“What is causing that? We don’t know,” Dr. Tuite said.

Enhanced virus

The Delta variants (there’s actually more than one in the same viral family) have about 15 different mutations compared with the original virus. Two of these, L452R and E484Q, are mutations to the spike protein that were first flagged as problematic in other variants because they appear to help the virus escape the antibodies we make to fight it.

It has another mutation away from its binding site that’s also getting researchers’ attention — P681R.

This mutation appears to enhance the “springiness” of the parts of the virus that dock onto our cells, said Alexander Greninger, MD, PhD, assistant director of the UW Medicine Clinical Virology Laboratory at the University of Washington in Seattle. So it’s more likely to be in the right position to infect our cells if we come into contact with it.

Another theory is that P681R may also enhance the virus’s ability to fuse cells together into clumps that have several different nuclei. These balls of fused cells are called syncytia.

“So it turns into a big factory for making viruses,” said Kamran Kadkhoda, PhD, medical director of immunopathology at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.

This capability is not unique to Delta or even to the new coronavirus. Earlier versions and other viruses can do the same thing, but according to a recent paper in Nature, the syncytia that Delta creates are larger than the ones created by previous variants.

Scientists aren’t sure what these supersized syncytia mean, exactly, but they have some theories. They may help the virus copy itself more quickly, so a person’s viral load builds up quickly. That may enhance the ability of the virus to transmit from person to person.

And at least one recent study from China supports this idea. That study, which was posted ahead of peer review on the website Virological.org, tracked 167 people infected with Delta back to a single index case. 

China has used extensive contact tracing to identify people that may have been exposed to the virus and sequester them quickly to tamp down its spread. Once a person is isolated or quarantined, they are tested daily with gold-standard PCR testing to determine whether or not they were infected. 

Researchers compared the characteristics of Delta cases with those of people infected in 2020 with previous versions of the virus.

This study found that people infected by Delta tested positive more quickly than their predecessors did. In 2020, it took an average of 6 days for someone to test positive after an exposure. With Delta, it took an average of about 4 days. 

When people tested positive, they had more than 1,000 times more virus in their bodies, suggesting that the Delta variant has a higher growth rate in the body.

This gives Delta a big advantage. According to Angie Rasmussen, PhD, a virologist at the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada, who posted a thread about the study on Twitter, if people are shedding 1,000 times more virus, it is much more likely that close contacts will be exposed to enough of it to become infected themselves.

And if they’re shedding earlier in the course of their infections, the virus has more opportunity to spread.

This may help explain why Delta is so much more contagious.

Beyond transmission, Delta’s ability to form syncytia may have two other important consequences. It may help the virus hide from our immune system, and it may make the virus more damaging to the body.

Commonly, when a virus infects a cell, it will corrupt the cell’s protein-making machinery to crank out more copies of itself. When the cell dies, these new copies are released into the plasma outside the cell where they can float over and infect new cells. It’s in this extracellular space where a virus can also be attacked by the neutralizing antibodies our immune system makes to fight it off.

“Antibodies don’t penetrate inside the cell. If these viruses are going from one cell to another by just fusing to each other, antibodies become less useful,” Dr. Kadkhoda said.

Escape artist

Recent studies show that Delta is also able to escape antibodies made in response to vaccination more effectively than the Alpha, or B.1.1.7 strain. The effect was more pronounced in older adults, who tend to have weaker responses to vaccines in general.

This evasion of the immune system is particularly problematic for people who are only partially vaccinated. Data from the United Kingdom show that a single dose of vaccine is only about 31% effective at preventing illness with Delta, and 75% effective at preventing hospitalization. 

After two doses, the vaccines are still highly effective — even against Delta — reaching 80% protection for illness, and 94% for hospitalization, which is why U.S. officials are begging people to get both doses of their shots, and do it as quickly as possible.

Finally, the virus’s ability to form syncytia may leave greater damage behind in the body’s tissues and organs.

“Especially in the lungs,” Dr. Kadkhoda said. The lungs are very fragile tissues. Their tiny air sacs — the alveoli — are only a single-cell thick. They have to be very thin to exchange oxygen in the blood.

“Any damage like that can severely affect any oxygen exchange and the normal housekeeping activities of that tissue,” he said. “In those vital organs, it may be very problematic.”

The research is still early, but studies in animals and cell lines are backing up what doctors say they are seeing in hospitalized patients.

A recent preprint study from researchers in Japan found that hamsters infected with Delta lost more weight — a proxy for how sick they were — compared with hamsters infected with an older version of the virus. The researchers attribute this to the viruses› ability to fuse cells together to form syncytia.

Another investigation, from researchers in India, infected two groups of hamsters — one with the original “wild type” strain of the virus, the other with the Delta variant of the new coronavirus. 

As in the Japanese study, the hamsters infected with Delta lost more weight. When the researchers performed necropsies on the animals, they found more lung damage and bleeding in hamsters infected with Delta. This study was also posted as a preprint ahead of peer review.

German researchers working with pseudotyped versions of the new coronavirus — viruses that have been genetically changed to make them safer to work with — watched what happened after they used these pseudoviruses to infect lung, colon, and kidney cells in the lab.

They, too, found that cells infected with the Delta variant formed more and larger syncytia compared with cells infected with the wild type strain of the virus. The authors write that their findings suggest Delta could “cause more tissue damage, and thus be more pathogenic, than previous variants.”Researchers say it’s important to remember that, while interesting, this research isn’t conclusive. Hamsters and cells aren’t humans. More studies are needed to prove these theories.

Scientists say that what we already know about Delta makes vaccination more important than ever.

“The net effect is really that, you know, this is worrisome in people who are unvaccinated and then people who have breakthrough infections, but it’s not…a reason to panic or to throw up our hands and say you know, this pandemic is never going to end,” Dr. Tuite said, “[b]ecause what we do see is that the vaccines continue to be highly protective.”

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

New COVID-19 cases in children rose for the third consecutive week, but first vaccinations among adolescents made a slight recovery after several weeks of mostly steady decline, new data show.

Children aged 12-15 years represented 13.5% of all first vaccinations received during the 2 weeks ending July 19, compared with 11.5% for the 2 weeks ending July 12, marking the first increase since the end of May. First vaccinations in 16- and 17-year-olds, who make up a much smaller share of the U.S. population, also went up, topping 5%, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in its COVID Data Tracker.

The total number of vaccine initiations was almost 250,000 for the week ending July 19, after dropping to a low of 201,000 the previous week. Before that, first vaccinations had fallen in 5 of the previous 6 weeks, going from 1.4 million on May 24 to 307,000 on July 5, the CDC said.

New cases of COVID-19, unfortunately, continued to follow the trend among the larger population: As of July 15, weekly cases in children were up by 179% since dropping to 8,400 on June 24, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in a joint report. The 23,551 new cases in children for the week ending July 15 were 15.9% of all cases reported.

With those new cases, the total number of children infected with COVID-19 comes to almost 4.1 million since the start of the pandemic, the AAP and CHA said. The CDC data indicate that just over 5.35 million children aged 12-15 years and 3.53 million 16- and 17-year-olds have received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine and that 6.8 million children aged 12-17 are fully vaccinated.

Fully vaccinated children represent 26.4% of all 12- to 15-year-olds and 38.3% of the 16- 17-year-olds as of July 19. The corresponding numbers for those who have received at least one dose are 35.2% (ages 12-15) and 46.8% (16-17), the CDC said.

The AAP recently recommended in-person learning with universal masking in schools this fall “because a significant portion of the student population is not yet eligible for vaccines. ... Many schools will not have a system to monitor vaccine status of students, teachers and staff, and some communities overall have low vaccination uptake where the virus may be circulating more prominently.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

New COVID-19 cases in children rose for the third consecutive week, but first vaccinations among adolescents made a slight recovery after several weeks of mostly steady decline, new data show.

Children aged 12-15 years represented 13.5% of all first vaccinations received during the 2 weeks ending July 19, compared with 11.5% for the 2 weeks ending July 12, marking the first increase since the end of May. First vaccinations in 16- and 17-year-olds, who make up a much smaller share of the U.S. population, also went up, topping 5%, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in its COVID Data Tracker.

The total number of vaccine initiations was almost 250,000 for the week ending July 19, after dropping to a low of 201,000 the previous week. Before that, first vaccinations had fallen in 5 of the previous 6 weeks, going from 1.4 million on May 24 to 307,000 on July 5, the CDC said.

New cases of COVID-19, unfortunately, continued to follow the trend among the larger population: As of July 15, weekly cases in children were up by 179% since dropping to 8,400 on June 24, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in a joint report. The 23,551 new cases in children for the week ending July 15 were 15.9% of all cases reported.

With those new cases, the total number of children infected with COVID-19 comes to almost 4.1 million since the start of the pandemic, the AAP and CHA said. The CDC data indicate that just over 5.35 million children aged 12-15 years and 3.53 million 16- and 17-year-olds have received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine and that 6.8 million children aged 12-17 are fully vaccinated.

Fully vaccinated children represent 26.4% of all 12- to 15-year-olds and 38.3% of the 16- 17-year-olds as of July 19. The corresponding numbers for those who have received at least one dose are 35.2% (ages 12-15) and 46.8% (16-17), the CDC said.

The AAP recently recommended in-person learning with universal masking in schools this fall “because a significant portion of the student population is not yet eligible for vaccines. ... Many schools will not have a system to monitor vaccine status of students, teachers and staff, and some communities overall have low vaccination uptake where the virus may be circulating more prominently.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

New COVID-19 cases in children rose for the third consecutive week, but first vaccinations among adolescents made a slight recovery after several weeks of mostly steady decline, new data show.

Children aged 12-15 years represented 13.5% of all first vaccinations received during the 2 weeks ending July 19, compared with 11.5% for the 2 weeks ending July 12, marking the first increase since the end of May. First vaccinations in 16- and 17-year-olds, who make up a much smaller share of the U.S. population, also went up, topping 5%, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in its COVID Data Tracker.

The total number of vaccine initiations was almost 250,000 for the week ending July 19, after dropping to a low of 201,000 the previous week. Before that, first vaccinations had fallen in 5 of the previous 6 weeks, going from 1.4 million on May 24 to 307,000 on July 5, the CDC said.

New cases of COVID-19, unfortunately, continued to follow the trend among the larger population: As of July 15, weekly cases in children were up by 179% since dropping to 8,400 on June 24, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in a joint report. The 23,551 new cases in children for the week ending July 15 were 15.9% of all cases reported.

With those new cases, the total number of children infected with COVID-19 comes to almost 4.1 million since the start of the pandemic, the AAP and CHA said. The CDC data indicate that just over 5.35 million children aged 12-15 years and 3.53 million 16- and 17-year-olds have received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine and that 6.8 million children aged 12-17 are fully vaccinated.

Fully vaccinated children represent 26.4% of all 12- to 15-year-olds and 38.3% of the 16- 17-year-olds as of July 19. The corresponding numbers for those who have received at least one dose are 35.2% (ages 12-15) and 46.8% (16-17), the CDC said.

The AAP recently recommended in-person learning with universal masking in schools this fall “because a significant portion of the student population is not yet eligible for vaccines. ... Many schools will not have a system to monitor vaccine status of students, teachers and staff, and some communities overall have low vaccination uptake where the virus may be circulating more prominently.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

HIV increases the risk for severe COVID-19 by 6% and the risk of dying of COVID-19 in the hospital by 30%, according to a report from the World Health Organization on COVID-19 outcomes among people living with HIV. The study primarily included people from South Africa but also some data from other parts of the world, including the United States.

However, the report, presented at the 11th IAS Conference on HIV Science (IAS 2021), couldn’t answer some crucial questions clinicians have been wondering about since the COVID-19 pandemic began. For example, was the increase in COVID risk a result of the presence of HIV or because of the immune compromise caused by untreated HIV?

The report didn’t include data on viral load or CD counts, both used to evaluate the health of a person’s immune system. On effective treatment, people living with HIV have a lifespan close to their HIV-negative peers. And effective treatment causes undetectable viral loads which, when maintained for 6 months or more, eliminates transmission of HIV to sexual partners.

What’s clear is that in people with HIV, as in people without HIV, older people, men, and people with diabetes, hypertension, or obesity had the worst outcomes and were most likely to die from COVID-19.

For David Malebranche, MD, MPH, an internal medicine doctor who provides primary care for people in Atlanta, and who was not involved in the study, the WHO study didn’t add anything new. He already recommends the COVID-19 vaccine for all of his patients, HIV-positive or not.

“We don’t have any information from this about the T-cell counts [or] the rates of viral suppression, which I think is tremendously important,” he told this news organization. “To bypass that and not include that in any of the discussion puts the results in a questionable place for me.”

The results come from the WHO Clinical Platform, which culls data from WHO member country surveillance as well as manual case reports from all over the world. By April 29, data on 268,412 people hospitalized with COVID-19 from 37 countries were reported to the platform. Of those, 22,640 people are from the U.S.

A total of 15,522 participants worldwide were living with HIV, 664 in the United States. All U.S. cases were reported from the New York City Health and Hospitals system, Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, and BronxCare Health System in New York City. Almost all of the remaining participants lived in South Africa – 14,682 of the 15,522, or 94.5%.

Of the 15,522 people living with HIV in the overall group, 37.1% of participants were male, and their median age was 45 years. More than 1 in 3 (36.2%) were admitted with severe or critical COVID-19, and nearly one quarter – 23.1% – with a known outcome died. More than half had one or more chronic conditions, including those that themselves are associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes, such as hypertension (in 33.2% of the participants), diabetes (22.7%), and BMIs above 30 (16.9%). In addition, 8.9% were smokers, 6.6% had chronic pulmonary disease, and 4.3% had chronic heart disease.

After adjusting for those chronic conditions, age, and sex, people living with HIV had a 6% higher rate of severe or critical COVID-19 illness. When investigators adjusted the analysis additionally to differentiate outcomes based on not just the presence of comorbid conditions but the number of them a person had, that increased risk rose to 13%. HIV itself is a comorbid condition, though it wasn’t counted as one in this adjusted analysis.

It didn’t matter whether researchers looked at risk for severe outcomes or deaths after removing the significant co-occurring conditions or if they looked at number of chronic illnesses (aside from HIV), said Silvia Bertagnolio, MD, medical officer at the World Health Organization and co-author of the analysis.

“Both models show almost identical [adjusted odds ratios], meaning that HIV was independently significantly associated with severe/critical presentation,” she told this news organization.

As for death, the analysis showed that, overall, people living with HIV were 30% more likely to die of COVID-19 compared with those not living with HIV. And while this held true even when they adjusted the data for comorbidities, people with HIV were more likely to die if they were over age 65 (risk increased by 82%), male (risk increased by 21%), had diabetes (risk increased by 50%), or had hypertension (risk increased by 26%).

When they broke down the data by WHO region – Africa, Europe, the Americas – investigators found that the increased risk for death held true in Africa. But there were not enough data from the other regions to model mortality risk. What’s more, when they broke the data down by country and excluded South Africa, they found that the elevated risk for death in people living with HIV did not reach statistical significance. Dr. Bertagnolio said she suspects that the small sample sizes from other regions made it impossible to detect a difference, but one could still be present.

One thing conspicuously absent from the analysis was information on viral load, CD4 T-cell count, progression of HIV to AIDS, and whether individuals were in HIV care. The first three factors were not reported in the platform, and the fourth was available for 60% of participants but was not included in the analysis. Dr. Bertagnolio pointed out that, for those 60% of participants, 91.8% were on antiretroviral treatment (ART).

“The majority of patients come from South Africa, and we know that in South Africa, over 90% of people receiving ART are virologically suppressed,” she told this news organization. “So we could speculate that this effect persists despite the use of ART, in a population likely to be virally suppressed, although we cannot assess this with certainty through the data set we had.”

A much smaller study of 749 people living with HIV and diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2, also presented at the conference, found that detectable HIV viral load was significantly associated with a slightly higher risk of severe outcomes (P < .039), but CD4 counts less than 200 cells/mm³ was not (P = .15).

And although both Dr. Bertagnolio and conference organizers presented this data as proof that HIV increases the risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes, Dr. Malebranche isn’t so sure. He estimates that only about half his patients have received the COVID-19 vaccine. But this study is unlikely to make him forcefully recommend a COVID-19 vaccination with young, otherwise healthy, and undetectable people in his care who express particular concern about long-term effects of the vaccine. He also manages a lot of people with HIV who have undetectable viral loads and CD4 counts of up to 1,200 but are older, with diabetes, obesity, and high blood pressure. Those are the people he will target with stronger messages regarding the vaccine.

“The young patients who are healthy, virally suppressed, and doing well may very much argue with me, ‘I’m not going to push it,’ but I will bring it up on the next visit,” he said. The analysis “just helps reinforce in me that I need to have these conversations and be a little bit more persuasive to my older patients with comorbid conditions.”

Dr. Bertagnolio has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Malebranche serves on the pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) speakers bureau for Gilead Sciences and has consulted and advised for ViiV Healthcare. This study was funded by the World Health Organization.

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

HIV increases the risk for severe COVID-19 by 6% and the risk of dying of COVID-19 in the hospital by 30%, according to a report from the World Health Organization on COVID-19 outcomes among people living with HIV. The study primarily included people from South Africa but also some data from other parts of the world, including the United States.

However, the report, presented at the 11th IAS Conference on HIV Science (IAS 2021), couldn’t answer some crucial questions clinicians have been wondering about since the COVID-19 pandemic began. For example, was the increase in COVID risk a result of the presence of HIV or because of the immune compromise caused by untreated HIV?

The report didn’t include data on viral load or CD counts, both used to evaluate the health of a person’s immune system. On effective treatment, people living with HIV have a lifespan close to their HIV-negative peers. And effective treatment causes undetectable viral loads which, when maintained for 6 months or more, eliminates transmission of HIV to sexual partners.

What’s clear is that in people with HIV, as in people without HIV, older people, men, and people with diabetes, hypertension, or obesity had the worst outcomes and were most likely to die from COVID-19.

For David Malebranche, MD, MPH, an internal medicine doctor who provides primary care for people in Atlanta, and who was not involved in the study, the WHO study didn’t add anything new. He already recommends the COVID-19 vaccine for all of his patients, HIV-positive or not.

“We don’t have any information from this about the T-cell counts [or] the rates of viral suppression, which I think is tremendously important,” he told this news organization. “To bypass that and not include that in any of the discussion puts the results in a questionable place for me.”

The results come from the WHO Clinical Platform, which culls data from WHO member country surveillance as well as manual case reports from all over the world. By April 29, data on 268,412 people hospitalized with COVID-19 from 37 countries were reported to the platform. Of those, 22,640 people are from the U.S.

A total of 15,522 participants worldwide were living with HIV, 664 in the United States. All U.S. cases were reported from the New York City Health and Hospitals system, Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, and BronxCare Health System in New York City. Almost all of the remaining participants lived in South Africa – 14,682 of the 15,522, or 94.5%.

Of the 15,522 people living with HIV in the overall group, 37.1% of participants were male, and their median age was 45 years. More than 1 in 3 (36.2%) were admitted with severe or critical COVID-19, and nearly one quarter – 23.1% – with a known outcome died. More than half had one or more chronic conditions, including those that themselves are associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes, such as hypertension (in 33.2% of the participants), diabetes (22.7%), and BMIs above 30 (16.9%). In addition, 8.9% were smokers, 6.6% had chronic pulmonary disease, and 4.3% had chronic heart disease.

After adjusting for those chronic conditions, age, and sex, people living with HIV had a 6% higher rate of severe or critical COVID-19 illness. When investigators adjusted the analysis additionally to differentiate outcomes based on not just the presence of comorbid conditions but the number of them a person had, that increased risk rose to 13%. HIV itself is a comorbid condition, though it wasn’t counted as one in this adjusted analysis.

It didn’t matter whether researchers looked at risk for severe outcomes or deaths after removing the significant co-occurring conditions or if they looked at number of chronic illnesses (aside from HIV), said Silvia Bertagnolio, MD, medical officer at the World Health Organization and co-author of the analysis.

“Both models show almost identical [adjusted odds ratios], meaning that HIV was independently significantly associated with severe/critical presentation,” she told this news organization.

As for death, the analysis showed that, overall, people living with HIV were 30% more likely to die of COVID-19 compared with those not living with HIV. And while this held true even when they adjusted the data for comorbidities, people with HIV were more likely to die if they were over age 65 (risk increased by 82%), male (risk increased by 21%), had diabetes (risk increased by 50%), or had hypertension (risk increased by 26%).

When they broke down the data by WHO region – Africa, Europe, the Americas – investigators found that the increased risk for death held true in Africa. But there were not enough data from the other regions to model mortality risk. What’s more, when they broke the data down by country and excluded South Africa, they found that the elevated risk for death in people living with HIV did not reach statistical significance. Dr. Bertagnolio said she suspects that the small sample sizes from other regions made it impossible to detect a difference, but one could still be present.

One thing conspicuously absent from the analysis was information on viral load, CD4 T-cell count, progression of HIV to AIDS, and whether individuals were in HIV care. The first three factors were not reported in the platform, and the fourth was available for 60% of participants but was not included in the analysis. Dr. Bertagnolio pointed out that, for those 60% of participants, 91.8% were on antiretroviral treatment (ART).

“The majority of patients come from South Africa, and we know that in South Africa, over 90% of people receiving ART are virologically suppressed,” she told this news organization. “So we could speculate that this effect persists despite the use of ART, in a population likely to be virally suppressed, although we cannot assess this with certainty through the data set we had.”

A much smaller study of 749 people living with HIV and diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2, also presented at the conference, found that detectable HIV viral load was significantly associated with a slightly higher risk of severe outcomes (P < .039), but CD4 counts less than 200 cells/mm³ was not (P = .15).

And although both Dr. Bertagnolio and conference organizers presented this data as proof that HIV increases the risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes, Dr. Malebranche isn’t so sure. He estimates that only about half his patients have received the COVID-19 vaccine. But this study is unlikely to make him forcefully recommend a COVID-19 vaccination with young, otherwise healthy, and undetectable people in his care who express particular concern about long-term effects of the vaccine. He also manages a lot of people with HIV who have undetectable viral loads and CD4 counts of up to 1,200 but are older, with diabetes, obesity, and high blood pressure. Those are the people he will target with stronger messages regarding the vaccine.

“The young patients who are healthy, virally suppressed, and doing well may very much argue with me, ‘I’m not going to push it,’ but I will bring it up on the next visit,” he said. The analysis “just helps reinforce in me that I need to have these conversations and be a little bit more persuasive to my older patients with comorbid conditions.”

Dr. Bertagnolio has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Malebranche serves on the pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) speakers bureau for Gilead Sciences and has consulted and advised for ViiV Healthcare. This study was funded by the World Health Organization.

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

HIV increases the risk for severe COVID-19 by 6% and the risk of dying of COVID-19 in the hospital by 30%, according to a report from the World Health Organization on COVID-19 outcomes among people living with HIV. The study primarily included people from South Africa but also some data from other parts of the world, including the United States.

However, the report, presented at the 11th IAS Conference on HIV Science (IAS 2021), couldn’t answer some crucial questions clinicians have been wondering about since the COVID-19 pandemic began. For example, was the increase in COVID risk a result of the presence of HIV or because of the immune compromise caused by untreated HIV?

The report didn’t include data on viral load or CD counts, both used to evaluate the health of a person’s immune system. On effective treatment, people living with HIV have a lifespan close to their HIV-negative peers. And effective treatment causes undetectable viral loads which, when maintained for 6 months or more, eliminates transmission of HIV to sexual partners.

What’s clear is that in people with HIV, as in people without HIV, older people, men, and people with diabetes, hypertension, or obesity had the worst outcomes and were most likely to die from COVID-19.

For David Malebranche, MD, MPH, an internal medicine doctor who provides primary care for people in Atlanta, and who was not involved in the study, the WHO study didn’t add anything new. He already recommends the COVID-19 vaccine for all of his patients, HIV-positive or not.

“We don’t have any information from this about the T-cell counts [or] the rates of viral suppression, which I think is tremendously important,” he told this news organization. “To bypass that and not include that in any of the discussion puts the results in a questionable place for me.”

The results come from the WHO Clinical Platform, which culls data from WHO member country surveillance as well as manual case reports from all over the world. By April 29, data on 268,412 people hospitalized with COVID-19 from 37 countries were reported to the platform. Of those, 22,640 people are from the U.S.

A total of 15,522 participants worldwide were living with HIV, 664 in the United States. All U.S. cases were reported from the New York City Health and Hospitals system, Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, and BronxCare Health System in New York City. Almost all of the remaining participants lived in South Africa – 14,682 of the 15,522, or 94.5%.

Of the 15,522 people living with HIV in the overall group, 37.1% of participants were male, and their median age was 45 years. More than 1 in 3 (36.2%) were admitted with severe or critical COVID-19, and nearly one quarter – 23.1% – with a known outcome died. More than half had one or more chronic conditions, including those that themselves are associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes, such as hypertension (in 33.2% of the participants), diabetes (22.7%), and BMIs above 30 (16.9%). In addition, 8.9% were smokers, 6.6% had chronic pulmonary disease, and 4.3% had chronic heart disease.

After adjusting for those chronic conditions, age, and sex, people living with HIV had a 6% higher rate of severe or critical COVID-19 illness. When investigators adjusted the analysis additionally to differentiate outcomes based on not just the presence of comorbid conditions but the number of them a person had, that increased risk rose to 13%. HIV itself is a comorbid condition, though it wasn’t counted as one in this adjusted analysis.

It didn’t matter whether researchers looked at risk for severe outcomes or deaths after removing the significant co-occurring conditions or if they looked at number of chronic illnesses (aside from HIV), said Silvia Bertagnolio, MD, medical officer at the World Health Organization and co-author of the analysis.

“Both models show almost identical [adjusted odds ratios], meaning that HIV was independently significantly associated with severe/critical presentation,” she told this news organization.

As for death, the analysis showed that, overall, people living with HIV were 30% more likely to die of COVID-19 compared with those not living with HIV. And while this held true even when they adjusted the data for comorbidities, people with HIV were more likely to die if they were over age 65 (risk increased by 82%), male (risk increased by 21%), had diabetes (risk increased by 50%), or had hypertension (risk increased by 26%).

When they broke down the data by WHO region – Africa, Europe, the Americas – investigators found that the increased risk for death held true in Africa. But there were not enough data from the other regions to model mortality risk. What’s more, when they broke the data down by country and excluded South Africa, they found that the elevated risk for death in people living with HIV did not reach statistical significance. Dr. Bertagnolio said she suspects that the small sample sizes from other regions made it impossible to detect a difference, but one could still be present.

One thing conspicuously absent from the analysis was information on viral load, CD4 T-cell count, progression of HIV to AIDS, and whether individuals were in HIV care. The first three factors were not reported in the platform, and the fourth was available for 60% of participants but was not included in the analysis. Dr. Bertagnolio pointed out that, for those 60% of participants, 91.8% were on antiretroviral treatment (ART).

“The majority of patients come from South Africa, and we know that in South Africa, over 90% of people receiving ART are virologically suppressed,” she told this news organization. “So we could speculate that this effect persists despite the use of ART, in a population likely to be virally suppressed, although we cannot assess this with certainty through the data set we had.”

A much smaller study of 749 people living with HIV and diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2, also presented at the conference, found that detectable HIV viral load was significantly associated with a slightly higher risk of severe outcomes (P < .039), but CD4 counts less than 200 cells/mm³ was not (P = .15).

And although both Dr. Bertagnolio and conference organizers presented this data as proof that HIV increases the risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes, Dr. Malebranche isn’t so sure. He estimates that only about half his patients have received the COVID-19 vaccine. But this study is unlikely to make him forcefully recommend a COVID-19 vaccination with young, otherwise healthy, and undetectable people in his care who express particular concern about long-term effects of the vaccine. He also manages a lot of people with HIV who have undetectable viral loads and CD4 counts of up to 1,200 but are older, with diabetes, obesity, and high blood pressure. Those are the people he will target with stronger messages regarding the vaccine.

“The young patients who are healthy, virally suppressed, and doing well may very much argue with me, ‘I’m not going to push it,’ but I will bring it up on the next visit,” he said. The analysis “just helps reinforce in me that I need to have these conversations and be a little bit more persuasive to my older patients with comorbid conditions.”

Dr. Bertagnolio has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Malebranche serves on the pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) speakers bureau for Gilead Sciences and has consulted and advised for ViiV Healthcare. This study was funded by the World Health Organization.

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

Lower doses of linezolid in the BPaL drug regimen (bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid) significantly reduce the adverse events associated with the treatment for patients with highly drug-resistant tuberculosis (TB) without compromising its high efficacy, new research shows.

“The ZeNix trial shows that reduced doses and/or shorter durations of linezolid appear to have high efficacy and improved safety,” said first author Francesca Conradie, MB, BCh, of the clinical HIV research unit, faculty of health sciences, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, in presenting the findings at the virtual meeting of the International AIDS Society conference.

As recently reported in the pivotal Nix-TB trial, the BPaL regimen yielded a 90% treatment success rate among people with highly drug-resistant forms of TB.

However, a 6-month regimen that included linezolid 1,200 mg resulted in toxic effects: 81% of patients in the study experienced peripheral neuropathy, and myelosuppression occurred in 48%. These effects often led to dose reductions or treatment interruption.

Adjustments in the dose of linezolid in the new ZeNix trial substantially reduced peripheral neuropathy to 13% and myelosuppression to 7%, with no significant reduction in the treatment response.

Importantly, the results were similar among patients with and those without HIV. This is of note because TB is the leading cause of death among patients with HIV.

“In the ZeNix trial, only 20% of patients were HIV infected, but in the [previous] Nix-TB trial, 30% were infected, so we have experience now in about 70 patients who were infected, and the outcomes were no different,” Dr. Conradie said in an interview.

Experts say the findings represent an important turn in the steep challenge of tackling highly resistant TB.

“In our opinion, these are exciting results that could change treatment guidelines for highly drug-resistant tuberculosis, with real benefits for the patients,” said Hendrik Streeck, MD, International AIDS Society cochair and director of the Institute of Virology and the Institute for HIV Research at the University Bonn (Germany), in a press conference.

Payam Nahid, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Tuberculosis at theUniversity of California, San Francisco, agreed.

“The results of this trial will impact global practices in treating drug-resistant TB as well as the design and conduct of future TB clinical trials,” Dr. Nahid said in an interview.
 

ZeNix trial

The phase 3 ZeNix trial included 181 patients with highly resistant TB in South Africa, Russia, Georgia, and Moldova. The mean age of the patients was 37 years; 67.4% were men, 63.5% were White, and 19.9% were HIV positive.

All patients were treated for 6 months with bedaquiline 200 mg daily for 8 weeks followed by 100 mg daily for 18 weeks, as well as pretomanid 200 mg daily.

The patients were randomly assigned to receive one of four daily doses of linezolid: 1,200 mg for 6 months (the original dose from the Nix-TB trial; n = 45) or 2 months (n = 46), or 600 mg for 6 or 2 months (45 patients each).

Percentages of patients with HIV were equal among the four groups, at about 20% each.

The primary outcomes – resolution of clinical disease and a negative culture status after 6 months – were observed across all linezolid dose groups. The success rate was 93% for those receiving 1,200 mg for 6 months, 89% for those receiving 1,200 mg for 2 months, 91% for those receiving 600 mg for 6 months, and 84% for those receiving 600 mg for 2 months.

With regard to the key adverse events of peripheral neuropathy and myelosuppression, manifested as anemia, the highest rates were among those who received linezolid 1,200 mg for 6 month, at 38% and 22%, respectively, compared with 24% and 17.4% among those who received 1,200 mg for 2 months, 24% and 2% among those who received 600 mg for 6 months, and 13% and 6.7% among those who received 600 mg for 2 months.

Four cases of optic neuropathy occurred among those who received 1,200 mg for 6 months; all cases resolved.

Patients who received 1,200 mg for 6 months required the highest number of linezolid dose modifications; 51% required changes that included reduction, interruption, or discontinuation, compared with 28% among those who received 1,200 mg for 2 months and 13% each in the other two groups.

On the basis of these results, “my personal opinion is that 600 mg at 6 months [of linezolid] is most likely the best strategy for the treatment of this highly resistant treatment population group,” Dr. Conradie told this news organization.
 

Findings represent ‘great news’ in addressing concerns

Dr. Nahid further commented that the results are highly encouraging in light of the ongoing concerns about the effects of linezolid in the BPaL regimen.

“This is great news,” he said. “The ZeNix trial addresses a key concern that providers and patients have had regarding the safety and tolerability of taking 6 months of linezolid at 1200 mg/d as part of the BPaL regimen.

“The findings that doses lower and durations shorter than the current 1,200 mg linezolid daily for 6 months will significantly expand the usability of the BPaL regimen worldwide.”

The inclusion of patients with HIV was essential in the trial, he noted.

“There are drug-drug interactions to be considered, among other factors that impact drug exposure,” Dr. Nahid said.

“Inclusion of patients living with HIV in this study means that any modifications to the BPaL regimen considered by the WHO [World Health Organization] and other policy decision makers will include data from this key population,” he said. “Of course, more data are needed on safety, tolerability, and efficacy on BPaL in general, and there are international cohorts and demonstration projects underway that will enhance our understanding of the regimen in HIV and in other special populations.”

The authors, Dr. Streeck, and Dr. Nahid have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was updated 7/21/21.

Lower doses of linezolid in the BPaL drug regimen (bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid) significantly reduce the adverse events associated with the treatment for patients with highly drug-resistant tuberculosis (TB) without compromising its high efficacy, new research shows.

“The ZeNix trial shows that reduced doses and/or shorter durations of linezolid appear to have high efficacy and improved safety,” said first author Francesca Conradie, MB, BCh, of the clinical HIV research unit, faculty of health sciences, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, in presenting the findings at the virtual meeting of the International AIDS Society conference.

As recently reported in the pivotal Nix-TB trial, the BPaL regimen yielded a 90% treatment success rate among people with highly drug-resistant forms of TB.

However, a 6-month regimen that included linezolid 1,200 mg resulted in toxic effects: 81% of patients in the study experienced peripheral neuropathy, and myelosuppression occurred in 48%. These effects often led to dose reductions or treatment interruption.

Adjustments in the dose of linezolid in the new ZeNix trial substantially reduced peripheral neuropathy to 13% and myelosuppression to 7%, with no significant reduction in the treatment response.

Importantly, the results were similar among patients with and those without HIV. This is of note because TB is the leading cause of death among patients with HIV.

“In the ZeNix trial, only 20% of patients were HIV infected, but in the [previous] Nix-TB trial, 30% were infected, so we have experience now in about 70 patients who were infected, and the outcomes were no different,” Dr. Conradie said in an interview.

Experts say the findings represent an important turn in the steep challenge of tackling highly resistant TB.

“In our opinion, these are exciting results that could change treatment guidelines for highly drug-resistant tuberculosis, with real benefits for the patients,” said Hendrik Streeck, MD, International AIDS Society cochair and director of the Institute of Virology and the Institute for HIV Research at the University Bonn (Germany), in a press conference.

Payam Nahid, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Tuberculosis at theUniversity of California, San Francisco, agreed.

“The results of this trial will impact global practices in treating drug-resistant TB as well as the design and conduct of future TB clinical trials,” Dr. Nahid said in an interview.
 

ZeNix trial

The phase 3 ZeNix trial included 181 patients with highly resistant TB in South Africa, Russia, Georgia, and Moldova. The mean age of the patients was 37 years; 67.4% were men, 63.5% were White, and 19.9% were HIV positive.

All patients were treated for 6 months with bedaquiline 200 mg daily for 8 weeks followed by 100 mg daily for 18 weeks, as well as pretomanid 200 mg daily.

The patients were randomly assigned to receive one of four daily doses of linezolid: 1,200 mg for 6 months (the original dose from the Nix-TB trial; n = 45) or 2 months (n = 46), or 600 mg for 6 or 2 months (45 patients each).

Percentages of patients with HIV were equal among the four groups, at about 20% each.

The primary outcomes – resolution of clinical disease and a negative culture status after 6 months – were observed across all linezolid dose groups. The success rate was 93% for those receiving 1,200 mg for 6 months, 89% for those receiving 1,200 mg for 2 months, 91% for those receiving 600 mg for 6 months, and 84% for those receiving 600 mg for 2 months.

With regard to the key adverse events of peripheral neuropathy and myelosuppression, manifested as anemia, the highest rates were among those who received linezolid 1,200 mg for 6 month, at 38% and 22%, respectively, compared with 24% and 17.4% among those who received 1,200 mg for 2 months, 24% and 2% among those who received 600 mg for 6 months, and 13% and 6.7% among those who received 600 mg for 2 months.

Four cases of optic neuropathy occurred among those who received 1,200 mg for 6 months; all cases resolved.

Patients who received 1,200 mg for 6 months required the highest number of linezolid dose modifications; 51% required changes that included reduction, interruption, or discontinuation, compared with 28% among those who received 1,200 mg for 2 months and 13% each in the other two groups.

On the basis of these results, “my personal opinion is that 600 mg at 6 months [of linezolid] is most likely the best strategy for the treatment of this highly resistant treatment population group,” Dr. Conradie told this news organization.
 

Findings represent ‘great news’ in addressing concerns

Dr. Nahid further commented that the results are highly encouraging in light of the ongoing concerns about the effects of linezolid in the BPaL regimen.

“This is great news,” he said. “The ZeNix trial addresses a key concern that providers and patients have had regarding the safety and tolerability of taking 6 months of linezolid at 1200 mg/d as part of the BPaL regimen.

“The findings that doses lower and durations shorter than the current 1,200 mg linezolid daily for 6 months will significantly expand the usability of the BPaL regimen worldwide.”

The inclusion of patients with HIV was essential in the trial, he noted.

“There are drug-drug interactions to be considered, among other factors that impact drug exposure,” Dr. Nahid said.

“Inclusion of patients living with HIV in this study means that any modifications to the BPaL regimen considered by the WHO [World Health Organization] and other policy decision makers will include data from this key population,” he said. “Of course, more data are needed on safety, tolerability, and efficacy on BPaL in general, and there are international cohorts and demonstration projects underway that will enhance our understanding of the regimen in HIV and in other special populations.”

The authors, Dr. Streeck, and Dr. Nahid have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was updated 7/21/21.

Lower doses of linezolid in the BPaL drug regimen (bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid) significantly reduce the adverse events associated with the treatment for patients with highly drug-resistant tuberculosis (TB) without compromising its high efficacy, new research shows.

“The ZeNix trial shows that reduced doses and/or shorter durations of linezolid appear to have high efficacy and improved safety,” said first author Francesca Conradie, MB, BCh, of the clinical HIV research unit, faculty of health sciences, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, in presenting the findings at the virtual meeting of the International AIDS Society conference.

As recently reported in the pivotal Nix-TB trial, the BPaL regimen yielded a 90% treatment success rate among people with highly drug-resistant forms of TB.

However, a 6-month regimen that included linezolid 1,200 mg resulted in toxic effects: 81% of patients in the study experienced peripheral neuropathy, and myelosuppression occurred in 48%. These effects often led to dose reductions or treatment interruption.

Adjustments in the dose of linezolid in the new ZeNix trial substantially reduced peripheral neuropathy to 13% and myelosuppression to 7%, with no significant reduction in the treatment response.

Importantly, the results were similar among patients with and those without HIV. This is of note because TB is the leading cause of death among patients with HIV.

“In the ZeNix trial, only 20% of patients were HIV infected, but in the [previous] Nix-TB trial, 30% were infected, so we have experience now in about 70 patients who were infected, and the outcomes were no different,” Dr. Conradie said in an interview.

Experts say the findings represent an important turn in the steep challenge of tackling highly resistant TB.

“In our opinion, these are exciting results that could change treatment guidelines for highly drug-resistant tuberculosis, with real benefits for the patients,” said Hendrik Streeck, MD, International AIDS Society cochair and director of the Institute of Virology and the Institute for HIV Research at the University Bonn (Germany), in a press conference.

Payam Nahid, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Tuberculosis at theUniversity of California, San Francisco, agreed.

“The results of this trial will impact global practices in treating drug-resistant TB as well as the design and conduct of future TB clinical trials,” Dr. Nahid said in an interview.
 

ZeNix trial

The phase 3 ZeNix trial included 181 patients with highly resistant TB in South Africa, Russia, Georgia, and Moldova. The mean age of the patients was 37 years; 67.4% were men, 63.5% were White, and 19.9% were HIV positive.

All patients were treated for 6 months with bedaquiline 200 mg daily for 8 weeks followed by 100 mg daily for 18 weeks, as well as pretomanid 200 mg daily.

The patients were randomly assigned to receive one of four daily doses of linezolid: 1,200 mg for 6 months (the original dose from the Nix-TB trial; n = 45) or 2 months (n = 46), or 600 mg for 6 or 2 months (45 patients each).

Percentages of patients with HIV were equal among the four groups, at about 20% each.

The primary outcomes – resolution of clinical disease and a negative culture status after 6 months – were observed across all linezolid dose groups. The success rate was 93% for those receiving 1,200 mg for 6 months, 89% for those receiving 1,200 mg for 2 months, 91% for those receiving 600 mg for 6 months, and 84% for those receiving 600 mg for 2 months.

With regard to the key adverse events of peripheral neuropathy and myelosuppression, manifested as anemia, the highest rates were among those who received linezolid 1,200 mg for 6 month, at 38% and 22%, respectively, compared with 24% and 17.4% among those who received 1,200 mg for 2 months, 24% and 2% among those who received 600 mg for 6 months, and 13% and 6.7% among those who received 600 mg for 2 months.

Four cases of optic neuropathy occurred among those who received 1,200 mg for 6 months; all cases resolved.

Patients who received 1,200 mg for 6 months required the highest number of linezolid dose modifications; 51% required changes that included reduction, interruption, or discontinuation, compared with 28% among those who received 1,200 mg for 2 months and 13% each in the other two groups.

On the basis of these results, “my personal opinion is that 600 mg at 6 months [of linezolid] is most likely the best strategy for the treatment of this highly resistant treatment population group,” Dr. Conradie told this news organization.
 

Findings represent ‘great news’ in addressing concerns

Dr. Nahid further commented that the results are highly encouraging in light of the ongoing concerns about the effects of linezolid in the BPaL regimen.

“This is great news,” he said. “The ZeNix trial addresses a key concern that providers and patients have had regarding the safety and tolerability of taking 6 months of linezolid at 1200 mg/d as part of the BPaL regimen.

“The findings that doses lower and durations shorter than the current 1,200 mg linezolid daily for 6 months will significantly expand the usability of the BPaL regimen worldwide.”

The inclusion of patients with HIV was essential in the trial, he noted.

“There are drug-drug interactions to be considered, among other factors that impact drug exposure,” Dr. Nahid said.

“Inclusion of patients living with HIV in this study means that any modifications to the BPaL regimen considered by the WHO [World Health Organization] and other policy decision makers will include data from this key population,” he said. “Of course, more data are needed on safety, tolerability, and efficacy on BPaL in general, and there are international cohorts and demonstration projects underway that will enhance our understanding of the regimen in HIV and in other special populations.”

The authors, Dr. Streeck, and Dr. Nahid have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was updated 7/21/21.

Declining trends in melanoma death rates accelerated from 2014 to 2018 in the United States, even as incidence rates increased for both males and females, according to an annual report by several national organizations.

“Death rates for cutaneous melanoma have declined rapidly in recent years following introduction of new therapies, including targeted and immune checkpoint inhibitors, the first of which was approved by the [Food and Drug Administration] in early 2011,” Farhad Islami, MD, PhD, of the American Cancer Society, and associates wrote in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The American Cancer Society, along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Cancer Institute, and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries, issue a joint report each year to update the incidence and mortality of the most common cancers and analyze short- and long-term trends since 2001.

Long-term melanoma mortality gets divided into two trends: First a slow decline over about a decade, then an accelerated decline until the end of the study period, although the timing is slightly different between males and females. For men, the death rate fell by an average of 0.9% a year from 2001 to 2009, compared with 5.7% per year in 2013-2018. For women, the average annual change went from –0.3% for 2001-2012 to –4.4% in 2012-2018.

The incidence of melanoma, however, headed in the opposite direction, rising 1.9% per year for females and 2.2% for males from 2001 to 2017, without the notable change in trend seen with death rates, Dr. Islami and associates said.

Incidence by race/ethnicity, reported for 2013-2017, shows that melanoma is much more common among white non-Hispanics: 37.4 per 100,000 standard population for males and 24.5 for females. Non-Hispanic American Indians/Alaska Natives were next at 10.8 (men) and 6.7 (women), followed by Hispanics (5.1/4.5), non-Hispanic Asians/Pacific Islanders (1.6/1.3), and non-Hispanic Blacks (1.2/1.0), they reported.

Death rates for melanoma, reported for 2014-2018, follow a similar pattern. White males (4.2 per 100,000) and females (1.8 per 100,000) had the highest mortality, then American Indians/Alaska Natives (1.0/0.5) and Hispanics (0.9/0.5), but rates were the same for Blacks and Asians/Pacific Islanders (0.4/0.3), the investigators said.

The accelerated decline in death rates in more recent years reflects “a substantial increase in survival for metastatic melanoma,” the participating organizations noted in a joint statement.

Increases in 2-year survival in distant-stage disease averaged 3.1% per year for those diagnosed during 2009-2014, which “slightly preceded the FDA approval of new therapies, likely because of the administration of these therapies through clinical trials and the FDA expanded access programs prior to the approval,” Dr. Islami and associates wrote.

The 2-year relative survival for those with nonmetastatic melanoma also improved over the study period, but the increases were much smaller: 0.4% per year for regional-stage disease and just 0.03% localized-stage cases diagnosed in 2001-2014, they reported.

The report was funded by the four participating groups. Six of the 12 investigators are employees of the American Cancer Society whose salaries are solely paid by the society; the other authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Declining trends in melanoma death rates accelerated from 2014 to 2018 in the United States, even as incidence rates increased for both males and females, according to an annual report by several national organizations.

“Death rates for cutaneous melanoma have declined rapidly in recent years following introduction of new therapies, including targeted and immune checkpoint inhibitors, the first of which was approved by the [Food and Drug Administration] in early 2011,” Farhad Islami, MD, PhD, of the American Cancer Society, and associates wrote in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The American Cancer Society, along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Cancer Institute, and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries, issue a joint report each year to update the incidence and mortality of the most common cancers and analyze short- and long-term trends since 2001.

Long-term melanoma mortality gets divided into two trends: First a slow decline over about a decade, then an accelerated decline until the end of the study period, although the timing is slightly different between males and females. For men, the death rate fell by an average of 0.9% a year from 2001 to 2009, compared with 5.7% per year in 2013-2018. For women, the average annual change went from –0.3% for 2001-2012 to –4.4% in 2012-2018.

The incidence of melanoma, however, headed in the opposite direction, rising 1.9% per year for females and 2.2% for males from 2001 to 2017, without the notable change in trend seen with death rates, Dr. Islami and associates said.

Incidence by race/ethnicity, reported for 2013-2017, shows that melanoma is much more common among white non-Hispanics: 37.4 per 100,000 standard population for males and 24.5 for females. Non-Hispanic American Indians/Alaska Natives were next at 10.8 (men) and 6.7 (women), followed by Hispanics (5.1/4.5), non-Hispanic Asians/Pacific Islanders (1.6/1.3), and non-Hispanic Blacks (1.2/1.0), they reported.

Death rates for melanoma, reported for 2014-2018, follow a similar pattern. White males (4.2 per 100,000) and females (1.8 per 100,000) had the highest mortality, then American Indians/Alaska Natives (1.0/0.5) and Hispanics (0.9/0.5), but rates were the same for Blacks and Asians/Pacific Islanders (0.4/0.3), the investigators said.

The accelerated decline in death rates in more recent years reflects “a substantial increase in survival for metastatic melanoma,” the participating organizations noted in a joint statement.

Increases in 2-year survival in distant-stage disease averaged 3.1% per year for those diagnosed during 2009-2014, which “slightly preceded the FDA approval of new therapies, likely because of the administration of these therapies through clinical trials and the FDA expanded access programs prior to the approval,” Dr. Islami and associates wrote.

The 2-year relative survival for those with nonmetastatic melanoma also improved over the study period, but the increases were much smaller: 0.4% per year for regional-stage disease and just 0.03% localized-stage cases diagnosed in 2001-2014, they reported.

The report was funded by the four participating groups. Six of the 12 investigators are employees of the American Cancer Society whose salaries are solely paid by the society; the other authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Declining trends in melanoma death rates accelerated from 2014 to 2018 in the United States, even as incidence rates increased for both males and females, according to an annual report by several national organizations.

“Death rates for cutaneous melanoma have declined rapidly in recent years following introduction of new therapies, including targeted and immune checkpoint inhibitors, the first of which was approved by the [Food and Drug Administration] in early 2011,” Farhad Islami, MD, PhD, of the American Cancer Society, and associates wrote in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The American Cancer Society, along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Cancer Institute, and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries, issue a joint report each year to update the incidence and mortality of the most common cancers and analyze short- and long-term trends since 2001.

Long-term melanoma mortality gets divided into two trends: First a slow decline over about a decade, then an accelerated decline until the end of the study period, although the timing is slightly different between males and females. For men, the death rate fell by an average of 0.9% a year from 2001 to 2009, compared with 5.7% per year in 2013-2018. For women, the average annual change went from –0.3% for 2001-2012 to –4.4% in 2012-2018.

The incidence of melanoma, however, headed in the opposite direction, rising 1.9% per year for females and 2.2% for males from 2001 to 2017, without the notable change in trend seen with death rates, Dr. Islami and associates said.

Incidence by race/ethnicity, reported for 2013-2017, shows that melanoma is much more common among white non-Hispanics: 37.4 per 100,000 standard population for males and 24.5 for females. Non-Hispanic American Indians/Alaska Natives were next at 10.8 (men) and 6.7 (women), followed by Hispanics (5.1/4.5), non-Hispanic Asians/Pacific Islanders (1.6/1.3), and non-Hispanic Blacks (1.2/1.0), they reported.

Death rates for melanoma, reported for 2014-2018, follow a similar pattern. White males (4.2 per 100,000) and females (1.8 per 100,000) had the highest mortality, then American Indians/Alaska Natives (1.0/0.5) and Hispanics (0.9/0.5), but rates were the same for Blacks and Asians/Pacific Islanders (0.4/0.3), the investigators said.

The accelerated decline in death rates in more recent years reflects “a substantial increase in survival for metastatic melanoma,” the participating organizations noted in a joint statement.

Increases in 2-year survival in distant-stage disease averaged 3.1% per year for those diagnosed during 2009-2014, which “slightly preceded the FDA approval of new therapies, likely because of the administration of these therapies through clinical trials and the FDA expanded access programs prior to the approval,” Dr. Islami and associates wrote.

The 2-year relative survival for those with nonmetastatic melanoma also improved over the study period, but the increases were much smaller: 0.4% per year for regional-stage disease and just 0.03% localized-stage cases diagnosed in 2001-2014, they reported.

The report was funded by the four participating groups. Six of the 12 investigators are employees of the American Cancer Society whose salaries are solely paid by the society; the other authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Martin D. Greenberg, MD, was sued in May for secretly using his own sperm to inseminate one of his infertility patients 38 years earlier. The patient’s daughter found out last year when she used a DNA test from 23andme to learn about her family history. The 77-year-old New York gynecologist is retired in Florida.

Dr. Greenberg is one of more than 30 U.S. physicians who have so far been identified as having used their own sperm without telling their patients, and more cases are likely. All but one of the cases took place before 1990. Most of them came to light in the past few years, when biological offspring found out from home DNA tests.

“It is a gross betrayal of the trust that a patient puts in her doctor. It is an absolute perversion of the practice of medicine,” said Dev Sethi, a plaintiff attorney who sued a Tucson, Ariz., physician who inseminated at least 10 patients with his own sperm. “The hubris of a doctor to impregnate his own patient, in some effort to either save money or populate the world with his offspring, is striking.”

Why would these physicians use their own sperm and then keep it secret? Why were there so many of them? When their offspring now try to communicate with them, do they want to have a relationship? And how do they react when they’re found out?

The doctors’ behavior mystifies Sigal Klipstein, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist in Hoffman Estates, Ill., who is chair of the ethics committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

“These doctors lived with secrets for many years. How do you live with that as a doctor?” said Dr. Klipstein, who was still in high school when most of these cases occurred. “It surprises me that anybody would do this.”
 

Lack of training and lots of secrecy

Were these physicians particularly selfish or egotistical? Or was expedience the prime motivation?

At the time, there was little training in the techniques and ethics of infertility care, said Jody Madeira, JD, PhD, a law professor at Indiana University, Bloomington, who has closely studied the doctors.

“Many of them were ob.gyns., but they did not take CME courses for this work,” she said. The subspecialty of reproductive endocrinology and infertility was just beginning in the early 1970s, according an ASRM spokesman.

Treatment of infertility was a rather hush-hush topic at that time, which made it easier to be deceptive. In 1955, an Illinois court held that artificial insemination constituted adultery. “The social stigma resulting from the practice forces the parents to keep secret the infant’s origin,” a law review article from 1955 stated.

“In the 1950s and 1960s and even into the 1970s and 1980s, infertility treatments were considered shameful, and patients were often advised to keep their treatment to themselves,” Dr. Madeira said. “With everything so secret, it was easy to be deceptive.”

The field has become more sophisticated since then, Dr. Klipstein said. “For known donors, there is a legal contract between the recipient and donor. And it is no longer possible to be an anonymous donor. People can find you through DNA tests.”

Owing to changes in the field as well as the growing likelihood of being caught through DNA tests, most experts believe that rampant infertility fraud ended long ago.
 

How they were found out

When the doctors were active, there was little risk of being exposed. In those times, paternity tests were based on broad factors such as blood type and were unreliable. More accurate DNA tests were underway, but the doctors’ offspring did not think of using them because they suspected nothing.

Most of the doctors’ deeds only came to light with the rise of a new industry – home DNA testing for people who are curious about their family background. First came 23andme in 2007, then Ancestry.com in 2015. The number of people being tested reached almost 2 million in 2016, 7 million in 2017, and 30 million in 2020.

As more people entered company databases, it became easier to pinpoint biological fathers through other relatives. This explains how doctors who had not taken a home DNA test were identified.

The home tests have been shown to be highly accurate. None of the results for doctors accused of using their own sperm have proven to be false, and courts recognize similar DNA tests as proof of paternity.

But when found out, many of the physicians disputed the results and acted as if they could still keep their secret. “I don’t deny it; I don’t admit it,” Paul Brennan Jones, MD, a Colorado doctor, said when he was accused of siring eight children through his infertility patients decades before. Asked whether he would provide a DNA sample, the 80-year-old doctor responded: “No ... because I don’t want to have any incriminating evidence against me.”
 

How often did it happen?

Donor Deceived, a website that monitors these cases, reports 32 cases of physicians surreptitiously providing sperm to their patients. Eleven of the doctors are linked to 1 known offspring, two are linked to more than 75 offspring, one to 15, one to 10, three to 9, three to 7, and two to 5.

“It’s unlikely that any of the doctors did it just once,” said Adam B. Wolf, a San Francisco attorney who is representing the plaintiff in the Greenberg case. “It’s happened before. When doctors get the idea to do something crazy, they do it multiple times.”

Mr. Wolf believes that, because most people haven’t taken a DNA test, there are many more biological children of infertility doctors who have yet to come forward.

Many of the doctors who were found out have negotiated settlements with patients, under which they pay undisclosed sums of money in exchange for the patient’s keeping silent. Mr. Wolf said that, of the two dozen victims of sperm-donor doctors his law firm has represented, all but three have settled.

“We give an opportunity to the doctor to resolve the claims without having to publicly out this person for using his own sperm in his patients,” Mr. Wolf said. “Most doctors jump at the opportunity to not be known as the kind of person who would do that.”

Cases about to go to trial have been withdrawn because of being settled. In May, a case against Gerald E. Mortimer, MD, in Idaho, was dismissed after 3 years of litigation. The judge had made some key decisions that made it less likely that Dr. Mortimer would win. Dr. Mortimer’s biological daughter filed the initial case. She alleged medical negligence, failure to obtain informed consent, fraud, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and several other causes of action.

Dr. Madeira objects to the use of confidential settlements, because other offspring cannot be alerted. But she also believes that, as more people find out about their parentage through DNA tests, it will be harder for accused doctors to make confidential settlements with all of them, and the doctors will eventually be identified.

In settlements, offspring ask for the medical histories of these doctors. So far, offspring have linked the development of Tay-Sachs disease, cystic fibrosis, and ovarian cancer with these doctors.
 

Denial: Physicians’ most frequent reaction

Once identified, most of the doctors denied the charge. When Gary Phillip Wood, MD, of Arkansas, was tracked down by his biological son, Dr. Wood insisted he had had a vasectomy years before the man was born but still would not agree to a DNA test. He died in April 2021.

None of the identified sperm doctors were interested in having a relationship with their newly identified offspring. When Gary Vandenberg, MD, of California, was contacted by his biological daughter, he abruptly ended the conversation, wishing her “good luck in life,” she recalled. “When I first found out, I was very suicidal. I did not want this existence. I still have those days. My husband had to take off work and stay home quite a bit to make sure I didn’t do anything to myself.”

When Gary Don Davis, MD, of Idaho, was asked about his paternity, he replied: “Let me check on that. Goodbye.” He could not be reached after that, and he died a few months later.

The accused doctors often have no medical records of their work. Dr. Wood said that all his records had been destroyed, and Dr. Greenberg said he did not have any records on his accuser and doubted that he had ever treated her. A 1977 survey found that more than half of infertility doctors did not keep any medical records so as to preserve the donor’s anonymity.

Many of the accused doctors said they used their own sperm because they were deeply committed to helping their patients. At one physician’s trial, his defense attorney said: “If Cecil made any mistakes, it was in losing his objectivity and trying so hard to get patients pregnant.”
 

Was it really ethically wrong?

Many of the doctors don’t accept that they did any harm, says Julie D. Cantor, MD, JD, a former adjunct professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. “These doctors seemed to be thinking: ‘The patient wanted to get pregnant and have a baby, and that’s what happened, so no harm done.’ But the entire interaction is based on a lie.”

The doctors also had the problem of having to use fresh sperm rather than frozen sperm, as is used today. Sperm had to be used within hours of being produced. If the donor did not show up at the time of the appointment, the doctor might decide to keep the appointment with the patient anyway and provide his own sperm.

However, “these doctors didn’t have to use their own sperm,” Mr. Wolf said. “They could have rescheduled the appointment until a new donor could be found.”

Some say that the doctors seemed to have had a very high opinion of themselves and their own sperm. “Some of them had savior complexes,” Dr. Madeira said. “They seemed to be thinking: ‘I’m giving the gift of life, and I’m the only one who can really do it, because I have great genes.’ ”

When Kim McMorries, MD, of Texas, was confronted with the fact that he had donated sperm 33 years before, he insisted that it was ethical at the time. “When this occurred, it was not considered wrong,” he wrote in an email to his biological daughter.

Today, doctors are bound by the doctrine of informed consent, which holds that patients should be informed about all steps taken in their care. The term was coined by a judge in 1960, and it took some time for some in the medical world to fully accept informed consent. Still, Dr. Madeira asserts it was always unethical to secretly fertilize patients.

“Even in the more paternalistic era of the 1970s and 1980s, it was not right to lie to your patients about such an important part of their lives,” she said.

Some sperm doctors insisted that they had received informed consent when the patient agreed to use an anonymous donor. “Dr. Kiken did that which he was asked to do,” wrote the attorneys for Michael S. Kiken, MD, of Virginia. “Anonymous donor meant that the patient would not know the donor’s identity, he would be anonymous to her.”

Dr. Madeira does not accept this argument either. “The doctor may have thought it was understood that he could be the anonymous person, but the patients did not see it that way,” she said. “They were not expecting the anonymous donor would be their own doctor.”

“I think what happened is a crime,” said Dr. Klipstein. “It’s an ethical violation, a fracture in the trust between doctor and patient.”

Existing laws, however, don’t make it easy to prosecute the doctors. When lawsuits are filed against these doctors, “you have to shoehorn existing statutes to fit the facts, and that may not be a terrific fit,” Dr. Cantor said.

The doctors have been charged with battery, fraud, negligence, breach of duty, unjust enrichment, and rape. But none of them have been found guilty specifically of secretly using their own sperm. Two of the doctors were convicted, but for other offenses, such as perjury for denying their involvement.

Since 2019, five states – Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, and Texas – have passed statutes specifically outlawing infertility fraud. In addition, a 1995 California law requires identifying the sperm donor.

It may be difficult, however, to apply these new laws to offenses by aging sperm doctors that happened decades ago. “Some states have inflexible limits on the amount of time in which you can sue, even if you didn’t know about the problem until recently,” Dr. Madeira said. “Texas, for example, allows civil lawsuits only up to 10 years after commission.”

Before the fertility fraud physicians can be brought to justice, many of them might just fade away.

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

Martin D. Greenberg, MD, was sued in May for secretly using his own sperm to inseminate one of his infertility patients 38 years earlier. The patient’s daughter found out last year when she used a DNA test from 23andme to learn about her family history. The 77-year-old New York gynecologist is retired in Florida.

Dr. Greenberg is one of more than 30 U.S. physicians who have so far been identified as having used their own sperm without telling their patients, and more cases are likely. All but one of the cases took place before 1990. Most of them came to light in the past few years, when biological offspring found out from home DNA tests.

“It is a gross betrayal of the trust that a patient puts in her doctor. It is an absolute perversion of the practice of medicine,” said Dev Sethi, a plaintiff attorney who sued a Tucson, Ariz., physician who inseminated at least 10 patients with his own sperm. “The hubris of a doctor to impregnate his own patient, in some effort to either save money or populate the world with his offspring, is striking.”

Why would these physicians use their own sperm and then keep it secret? Why were there so many of them? When their offspring now try to communicate with them, do they want to have a relationship? And how do they react when they’re found out?

The doctors’ behavior mystifies Sigal Klipstein, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist in Hoffman Estates, Ill., who is chair of the ethics committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

“These doctors lived with secrets for many years. How do you live with that as a doctor?” said Dr. Klipstein, who was still in high school when most of these cases occurred. “It surprises me that anybody would do this.”
 

Lack of training and lots of secrecy

Were these physicians particularly selfish or egotistical? Or was expedience the prime motivation?

At the time, there was little training in the techniques and ethics of infertility care, said Jody Madeira, JD, PhD, a law professor at Indiana University, Bloomington, who has closely studied the doctors.

“Many of them were ob.gyns., but they did not take CME courses for this work,” she said. The subspecialty of reproductive endocrinology and infertility was just beginning in the early 1970s, according an ASRM spokesman.

Treatment of infertility was a rather hush-hush topic at that time, which made it easier to be deceptive. In 1955, an Illinois court held that artificial insemination constituted adultery. “The social stigma resulting from the practice forces the parents to keep secret the infant’s origin,” a law review article from 1955 stated.

“In the 1950s and 1960s and even into the 1970s and 1980s, infertility treatments were considered shameful, and patients were often advised to keep their treatment to themselves,” Dr. Madeira said. “With everything so secret, it was easy to be deceptive.”

The field has become more sophisticated since then, Dr. Klipstein said. “For known donors, there is a legal contract between the recipient and donor. And it is no longer possible to be an anonymous donor. People can find you through DNA tests.”

Owing to changes in the field as well as the growing likelihood of being caught through DNA tests, most experts believe that rampant infertility fraud ended long ago.
 

How they were found out

When the doctors were active, there was little risk of being exposed. In those times, paternity tests were based on broad factors such as blood type and were unreliable. More accurate DNA tests were underway, but the doctors’ offspring did not think of using them because they suspected nothing.

Most of the doctors’ deeds only came to light with the rise of a new industry – home DNA testing for people who are curious about their family background. First came 23andme in 2007, then Ancestry.com in 2015. The number of people being tested reached almost 2 million in 2016, 7 million in 2017, and 30 million in 2020.

As more people entered company databases, it became easier to pinpoint biological fathers through other relatives. This explains how doctors who had not taken a home DNA test were identified.

The home tests have been shown to be highly accurate. None of the results for doctors accused of using their own sperm have proven to be false, and courts recognize similar DNA tests as proof of paternity.

But when found out, many of the physicians disputed the results and acted as if they could still keep their secret. “I don’t deny it; I don’t admit it,” Paul Brennan Jones, MD, a Colorado doctor, said when he was accused of siring eight children through his infertility patients decades before. Asked whether he would provide a DNA sample, the 80-year-old doctor responded: “No ... because I don’t want to have any incriminating evidence against me.”
 

How often did it happen?

Donor Deceived, a website that monitors these cases, reports 32 cases of physicians surreptitiously providing sperm to their patients. Eleven of the doctors are linked to 1 known offspring, two are linked to more than 75 offspring, one to 15, one to 10, three to 9, three to 7, and two to 5.

“It’s unlikely that any of the doctors did it just once,” said Adam B. Wolf, a San Francisco attorney who is representing the plaintiff in the Greenberg case. “It’s happened before. When doctors get the idea to do something crazy, they do it multiple times.”

Mr. Wolf believes that, because most people haven’t taken a DNA test, there are many more biological children of infertility doctors who have yet to come forward.

Many of the doctors who were found out have negotiated settlements with patients, under which they pay undisclosed sums of money in exchange for the patient’s keeping silent. Mr. Wolf said that, of the two dozen victims of sperm-donor doctors his law firm has represented, all but three have settled.

“We give an opportunity to the doctor to resolve the claims without having to publicly out this person for using his own sperm in his patients,” Mr. Wolf said. “Most doctors jump at the opportunity to not be known as the kind of person who would do that.”

Cases about to go to trial have been withdrawn because of being settled. In May, a case against Gerald E. Mortimer, MD, in Idaho, was dismissed after 3 years of litigation. The judge had made some key decisions that made it less likely that Dr. Mortimer would win. Dr. Mortimer’s biological daughter filed the initial case. She alleged medical negligence, failure to obtain informed consent, fraud, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and several other causes of action.

Dr. Madeira objects to the use of confidential settlements, because other offspring cannot be alerted. But she also believes that, as more people find out about their parentage through DNA tests, it will be harder for accused doctors to make confidential settlements with all of them, and the doctors will eventually be identified.

In settlements, offspring ask for the medical histories of these doctors. So far, offspring have linked the development of Tay-Sachs disease, cystic fibrosis, and ovarian cancer with these doctors.
 

Denial: Physicians’ most frequent reaction

Once identified, most of the doctors denied the charge. When Gary Phillip Wood, MD, of Arkansas, was tracked down by his biological son, Dr. Wood insisted he had had a vasectomy years before the man was born but still would not agree to a DNA test. He died in April 2021.

None of the identified sperm doctors were interested in having a relationship with their newly identified offspring. When Gary Vandenberg, MD, of California, was contacted by his biological daughter, he abruptly ended the conversation, wishing her “good luck in life,” she recalled. “When I first found out, I was very suicidal. I did not want this existence. I still have those days. My husband had to take off work and stay home quite a bit to make sure I didn’t do anything to myself.”

When Gary Don Davis, MD, of Idaho, was asked about his paternity, he replied: “Let me check on that. Goodbye.” He could not be reached after that, and he died a few months later.

The accused doctors often have no medical records of their work. Dr. Wood said that all his records had been destroyed, and Dr. Greenberg said he did not have any records on his accuser and doubted that he had ever treated her. A 1977 survey found that more than half of infertility doctors did not keep any medical records so as to preserve the donor’s anonymity.

Many of the accused doctors said they used their own sperm because they were deeply committed to helping their patients. At one physician’s trial, his defense attorney said: “If Cecil made any mistakes, it was in losing his objectivity and trying so hard to get patients pregnant.”
 

Was it really ethically wrong?

Many of the doctors don’t accept that they did any harm, says Julie D. Cantor, MD, JD, a former adjunct professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. “These doctors seemed to be thinking: ‘The patient wanted to get pregnant and have a baby, and that’s what happened, so no harm done.’ But the entire interaction is based on a lie.”

The doctors also had the problem of having to use fresh sperm rather than frozen sperm, as is used today. Sperm had to be used within hours of being produced. If the donor did not show up at the time of the appointment, the doctor might decide to keep the appointment with the patient anyway and provide his own sperm.

However, “these doctors didn’t have to use their own sperm,” Mr. Wolf said. “They could have rescheduled the appointment until a new donor could be found.”

Some say that the doctors seemed to have had a very high opinion of themselves and their own sperm. “Some of them had savior complexes,” Dr. Madeira said. “They seemed to be thinking: ‘I’m giving the gift of life, and I’m the only one who can really do it, because I have great genes.’ ”

When Kim McMorries, MD, of Texas, was confronted with the fact that he had donated sperm 33 years before, he insisted that it was ethical at the time. “When this occurred, it was not considered wrong,” he wrote in an email to his biological daughter.

Today, doctors are bound by the doctrine of informed consent, which holds that patients should be informed about all steps taken in their care. The term was coined by a judge in 1960, and it took some time for some in the medical world to fully accept informed consent. Still, Dr. Madeira asserts it was always unethical to secretly fertilize patients.

“Even in the more paternalistic era of the 1970s and 1980s, it was not right to lie to your patients about such an important part of their lives,” she said.

Some sperm doctors insisted that they had received informed consent when the patient agreed to use an anonymous donor. “Dr. Kiken did that which he was asked to do,” wrote the attorneys for Michael S. Kiken, MD, of Virginia. “Anonymous donor meant that the patient would not know the donor’s identity, he would be anonymous to her.”

Dr. Madeira does not accept this argument either. “The doctor may have thought it was understood that he could be the anonymous person, but the patients did not see it that way,” she said. “They were not expecting the anonymous donor would be their own doctor.”

“I think what happened is a crime,” said Dr. Klipstein. “It’s an ethical violation, a fracture in the trust between doctor and patient.”

Existing laws, however, don’t make it easy to prosecute the doctors. When lawsuits are filed against these doctors, “you have to shoehorn existing statutes to fit the facts, and that may not be a terrific fit,” Dr. Cantor said.

The doctors have been charged with battery, fraud, negligence, breach of duty, unjust enrichment, and rape. But none of them have been found guilty specifically of secretly using their own sperm. Two of the doctors were convicted, but for other offenses, such as perjury for denying their involvement.

Since 2019, five states – Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, and Texas – have passed statutes specifically outlawing infertility fraud. In addition, a 1995 California law requires identifying the sperm donor.

It may be difficult, however, to apply these new laws to offenses by aging sperm doctors that happened decades ago. “Some states have inflexible limits on the amount of time in which you can sue, even if you didn’t know about the problem until recently,” Dr. Madeira said. “Texas, for example, allows civil lawsuits only up to 10 years after commission.”

Before the fertility fraud physicians can be brought to justice, many of them might just fade away.

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

Martin D. Greenberg, MD, was sued in May for secretly using his own sperm to inseminate one of his infertility patients 38 years earlier. The patient’s daughter found out last year when she used a DNA test from 23andme to learn about her family history. The 77-year-old New York gynecologist is retired in Florida.

Dr. Greenberg is one of more than 30 U.S. physicians who have so far been identified as having used their own sperm without telling their patients, and more cases are likely. All but one of the cases took place before 1990. Most of them came to light in the past few years, when biological offspring found out from home DNA tests.

“It is a gross betrayal of the trust that a patient puts in her doctor. It is an absolute perversion of the practice of medicine,” said Dev Sethi, a plaintiff attorney who sued a Tucson, Ariz., physician who inseminated at least 10 patients with his own sperm. “The hubris of a doctor to impregnate his own patient, in some effort to either save money or populate the world with his offspring, is striking.”

Why would these physicians use their own sperm and then keep it secret? Why were there so many of them? When their offspring now try to communicate with them, do they want to have a relationship? And how do they react when they’re found out?

The doctors’ behavior mystifies Sigal Klipstein, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist in Hoffman Estates, Ill., who is chair of the ethics committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

“These doctors lived with secrets for many years. How do you live with that as a doctor?” said Dr. Klipstein, who was still in high school when most of these cases occurred. “It surprises me that anybody would do this.”
 

Lack of training and lots of secrecy

Were these physicians particularly selfish or egotistical? Or was expedience the prime motivation?

At the time, there was little training in the techniques and ethics of infertility care, said Jody Madeira, JD, PhD, a law professor at Indiana University, Bloomington, who has closely studied the doctors.

“Many of them were ob.gyns., but they did not take CME courses for this work,” she said. The subspecialty of reproductive endocrinology and infertility was just beginning in the early 1970s, according an ASRM spokesman.

Treatment of infertility was a rather hush-hush topic at that time, which made it easier to be deceptive. In 1955, an Illinois court held that artificial insemination constituted adultery. “The social stigma resulting from the practice forces the parents to keep secret the infant’s origin,” a law review article from 1955 stated.

“In the 1950s and 1960s and even into the 1970s and 1980s, infertility treatments were considered shameful, and patients were often advised to keep their treatment to themselves,” Dr. Madeira said. “With everything so secret, it was easy to be deceptive.”

The field has become more sophisticated since then, Dr. Klipstein said. “For known donors, there is a legal contract between the recipient and donor. And it is no longer possible to be an anonymous donor. People can find you through DNA tests.”

Owing to changes in the field as well as the growing likelihood of being caught through DNA tests, most experts believe that rampant infertility fraud ended long ago.
 

How they were found out

When the doctors were active, there was little risk of being exposed. In those times, paternity tests were based on broad factors such as blood type and were unreliable. More accurate DNA tests were underway, but the doctors’ offspring did not think of using them because they suspected nothing.

Most of the doctors’ deeds only came to light with the rise of a new industry – home DNA testing for people who are curious about their family background. First came 23andme in 2007, then Ancestry.com in 2015. The number of people being tested reached almost 2 million in 2016, 7 million in 2017, and 30 million in 2020.

As more people entered company databases, it became easier to pinpoint biological fathers through other relatives. This explains how doctors who had not taken a home DNA test were identified.

The home tests have been shown to be highly accurate. None of the results for doctors accused of using their own sperm have proven to be false, and courts recognize similar DNA tests as proof of paternity.

But when found out, many of the physicians disputed the results and acted as if they could still keep their secret. “I don’t deny it; I don’t admit it,” Paul Brennan Jones, MD, a Colorado doctor, said when he was accused of siring eight children through his infertility patients decades before. Asked whether he would provide a DNA sample, the 80-year-old doctor responded: “No ... because I don’t want to have any incriminating evidence against me.”
 

How often did it happen?

Donor Deceived, a website that monitors these cases, reports 32 cases of physicians surreptitiously providing sperm to their patients. Eleven of the doctors are linked to 1 known offspring, two are linked to more than 75 offspring, one to 15, one to 10, three to 9, three to 7, and two to 5.

“It’s unlikely that any of the doctors did it just once,” said Adam B. Wolf, a San Francisco attorney who is representing the plaintiff in the Greenberg case. “It’s happened before. When doctors get the idea to do something crazy, they do it multiple times.”

Mr. Wolf believes that, because most people haven’t taken a DNA test, there are many more biological children of infertility doctors who have yet to come forward.

Many of the doctors who were found out have negotiated settlements with patients, under which they pay undisclosed sums of money in exchange for the patient’s keeping silent. Mr. Wolf said that, of the two dozen victims of sperm-donor doctors his law firm has represented, all but three have settled.

“We give an opportunity to the doctor to resolve the claims without having to publicly out this person for using his own sperm in his patients,” Mr. Wolf said. “Most doctors jump at the opportunity to not be known as the kind of person who would do that.”

Cases about to go to trial have been withdrawn because of being settled. In May, a case against Gerald E. Mortimer, MD, in Idaho, was dismissed after 3 years of litigation. The judge had made some key decisions that made it less likely that Dr. Mortimer would win. Dr. Mortimer’s biological daughter filed the initial case. She alleged medical negligence, failure to obtain informed consent, fraud, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and several other causes of action.

Dr. Madeira objects to the use of confidential settlements, because other offspring cannot be alerted. But she also believes that, as more people find out about their parentage through DNA tests, it will be harder for accused doctors to make confidential settlements with all of them, and the doctors will eventually be identified.

In settlements, offspring ask for the medical histories of these doctors. So far, offspring have linked the development of Tay-Sachs disease, cystic fibrosis, and ovarian cancer with these doctors.
 

Denial: Physicians’ most frequent reaction

Once identified, most of the doctors denied the charge. When Gary Phillip Wood, MD, of Arkansas, was tracked down by his biological son, Dr. Wood insisted he had had a vasectomy years before the man was born but still would not agree to a DNA test. He died in April 2021.

None of the identified sperm doctors were interested in having a relationship with their newly identified offspring. When Gary Vandenberg, MD, of California, was contacted by his biological daughter, he abruptly ended the conversation, wishing her “good luck in life,” she recalled. “When I first found out, I was very suicidal. I did not want this existence. I still have those days. My husband had to take off work and stay home quite a bit to make sure I didn’t do anything to myself.”

When Gary Don Davis, MD, of Idaho, was asked about his paternity, he replied: “Let me check on that. Goodbye.” He could not be reached after that, and he died a few months later.

The accused doctors often have no medical records of their work. Dr. Wood said that all his records had been destroyed, and Dr. Greenberg said he did not have any records on his accuser and doubted that he had ever treated her. A 1977 survey found that more than half of infertility doctors did not keep any medical records so as to preserve the donor’s anonymity.

Many of the accused doctors said they used their own sperm because they were deeply committed to helping their patients. At one physician’s trial, his defense attorney said: “If Cecil made any mistakes, it was in losing his objectivity and trying so hard to get patients pregnant.”
 

Was it really ethically wrong?

Many of the doctors don’t accept that they did any harm, says Julie D. Cantor, MD, JD, a former adjunct professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. “These doctors seemed to be thinking: ‘The patient wanted to get pregnant and have a baby, and that’s what happened, so no harm done.’ But the entire interaction is based on a lie.”

The doctors also had the problem of having to use fresh sperm rather than frozen sperm, as is used today. Sperm had to be used within hours of being produced. If the donor did not show up at the time of the appointment, the doctor might decide to keep the appointment with the patient anyway and provide his own sperm.

However, “these doctors didn’t have to use their own sperm,” Mr. Wolf said. “They could have rescheduled the appointment until a new donor could be found.”

Some say that the doctors seemed to have had a very high opinion of themselves and their own sperm. “Some of them had savior complexes,” Dr. Madeira said. “They seemed to be thinking: ‘I’m giving the gift of life, and I’m the only one who can really do it, because I have great genes.’ ”

When Kim McMorries, MD, of Texas, was confronted with the fact that he had donated sperm 33 years before, he insisted that it was ethical at the time. “When this occurred, it was not considered wrong,” he wrote in an email to his biological daughter.

Today, doctors are bound by the doctrine of informed consent, which holds that patients should be informed about all steps taken in their care. The term was coined by a judge in 1960, and it took some time for some in the medical world to fully accept informed consent. Still, Dr. Madeira asserts it was always unethical to secretly fertilize patients.

“Even in the more paternalistic era of the 1970s and 1980s, it was not right to lie to your patients about such an important part of their lives,” she said.

Some sperm doctors insisted that they had received informed consent when the patient agreed to use an anonymous donor. “Dr. Kiken did that which he was asked to do,” wrote the attorneys for Michael S. Kiken, MD, of Virginia. “Anonymous donor meant that the patient would not know the donor’s identity, he would be anonymous to her.”

Dr. Madeira does not accept this argument either. “The doctor may have thought it was understood that he could be the anonymous person, but the patients did not see it that way,” she said. “They were not expecting the anonymous donor would be their own doctor.”

“I think what happened is a crime,” said Dr. Klipstein. “It’s an ethical violation, a fracture in the trust between doctor and patient.”

Existing laws, however, don’t make it easy to prosecute the doctors. When lawsuits are filed against these doctors, “you have to shoehorn existing statutes to fit the facts, and that may not be a terrific fit,” Dr. Cantor said.

The doctors have been charged with battery, fraud, negligence, breach of duty, unjust enrichment, and rape. But none of them have been found guilty specifically of secretly using their own sperm. Two of the doctors were convicted, but for other offenses, such as perjury for denying their involvement.

Since 2019, five states – Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, and Texas – have passed statutes specifically outlawing infertility fraud. In addition, a 1995 California law requires identifying the sperm donor.

It may be difficult, however, to apply these new laws to offenses by aging sperm doctors that happened decades ago. “Some states have inflexible limits on the amount of time in which you can sue, even if you didn’t know about the problem until recently,” Dr. Madeira said. “Texas, for example, allows civil lawsuits only up to 10 years after commission.”

Before the fertility fraud physicians can be brought to justice, many of them might just fade away.

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

A homeopathic doctor licensed in California was arrested July 14 and charged with a scheme to sell homeoprophylaxis immunization pellets and to falsify COVID-19 vaccination cards by making it appear that her customers had received the Moderna vaccine, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Juli A. Mazi, 41, of Napa, is charged with one count of wire fraud and one count of false statements related to health care matters. The case is the first federal criminal fraud prosecution related to homeoprophylaxis immunizations and fraudulent vaccination record cards, the DOJ said in a news release.

In April, according to federal authorities, an individual submitted a complaint to the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, stating that family members had purchased the immunization pellets from Ms. Mazi. The complainant stated that the family members had told her/him that Ms. Mazi had said the pellets contained the COVID-19 virus and would create an antibody response in the immune system.

The affidavit noted that none of the family members had received injections of any of the COVID-19 vaccines authorized by the Food and Drug Administration.

However, the complainant said, Ms. Mazi sent COVID-19 vaccination cards listing Moderna to the complainant family. Ms. Mazi allegedly instructed the family members to mark the cards to falsely state that they had received the Moderna vaccine on the date that they ingested the homeoprophylaxis immunization pellets.

She also allegedly provided instructions on how to fraudulently complete the cards to make it appear that a customer had received two doses of the Moderna vaccine. She even supplied Moderna lot numbers to enter on the cards.

In addition, Ms. Mazi allegedly offered homeoprophylaxis immunizations for childhood illnesses that she falsely claimed would satisfy the immunization requirements for California schools, and falsified immunization cards that were submitted by parents to California schools.

Ms. Mazi further stated that her customers could provide the pellets to children for COVID-19 immunity, and that “the dose is actually the same for babies,” the news release said.

Ms. Mazi is alleged to have falsely claimed that ingesting the pellets would result in full lifelong immunity from COVID-19. In addition, she exploited the disinformation and fear surrounding COVID-19 vaccination by falsely claiming that the FDA-authorized vaccines contain “toxic ingredients,” the DOJ said.
 

Homeopathic preparations

According to the DOJ, “Homeophrophylaxis involves the exposure of an individual to dilute amounts of a disease, purportedly to stimulate the immune system and confer immunity.”

According to Australia’s National Centre for Immunisation Research & Surveillance (NCIRS), a private organization funded by the Australian and New South Wales governments, there is no high-quality research showing that homeopathic preparations are effective in preventing infectious disease.

Typical homeopathic preparations dilute a disease, tissue, or plant extract in water “to the point where none of the original material is contained within the preparation by the end of the process,” an NCIRS fact sheet says.

Referring to Ms. Mazi, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco said in the news release, “This defendant allegedly defrauded and endangered the public by preying on fears and spreading misinformation about FDA-authorized vaccinations, while also peddling fake treatments that put people’s lives at risk.

“Even worse, the defendant allegedly created counterfeit COVID-19 vaccination cards and instructed her customers to falsely mark that they had received a vaccine, allowing them to circumvent efforts to contain the spread of the disease.”

The case against Ms. Mazi was brought in coordination with the DOJ Health Care Fraud Unit’s COVID-19 Interagency Working Group, which organizes efforts to address illegal activity involving health care programs during the pandemic.

The fraud unit leads the department’s Health Care Fraud Strike Force, which has existed since 2007. In May, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland established the COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force in partnership with other government agencies to combat and prevent pandemic-related fraud.

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

A homeopathic doctor licensed in California was arrested July 14 and charged with a scheme to sell homeoprophylaxis immunization pellets and to falsify COVID-19 vaccination cards by making it appear that her customers had received the Moderna vaccine, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Juli A. Mazi, 41, of Napa, is charged with one count of wire fraud and one count of false statements related to health care matters. The case is the first federal criminal fraud prosecution related to homeoprophylaxis immunizations and fraudulent vaccination record cards, the DOJ said in a news release.

In April, according to federal authorities, an individual submitted a complaint to the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, stating that family members had purchased the immunization pellets from Ms. Mazi. The complainant stated that the family members had told her/him that Ms. Mazi had said the pellets contained the COVID-19 virus and would create an antibody response in the immune system.

The affidavit noted that none of the family members had received injections of any of the COVID-19 vaccines authorized by the Food and Drug Administration.

However, the complainant said, Ms. Mazi sent COVID-19 vaccination cards listing Moderna to the complainant family. Ms. Mazi allegedly instructed the family members to mark the cards to falsely state that they had received the Moderna vaccine on the date that they ingested the homeoprophylaxis immunization pellets.

She also allegedly provided instructions on how to fraudulently complete the cards to make it appear that a customer had received two doses of the Moderna vaccine. She even supplied Moderna lot numbers to enter on the cards.

In addition, Ms. Mazi allegedly offered homeoprophylaxis immunizations for childhood illnesses that she falsely claimed would satisfy the immunization requirements for California schools, and falsified immunization cards that were submitted by parents to California schools.

Ms. Mazi further stated that her customers could provide the pellets to children for COVID-19 immunity, and that “the dose is actually the same for babies,” the news release said.

Ms. Mazi is alleged to have falsely claimed that ingesting the pellets would result in full lifelong immunity from COVID-19. In addition, she exploited the disinformation and fear surrounding COVID-19 vaccination by falsely claiming that the FDA-authorized vaccines contain “toxic ingredients,” the DOJ said.
 

Homeopathic preparations

According to the DOJ, “Homeophrophylaxis involves the exposure of an individual to dilute amounts of a disease, purportedly to stimulate the immune system and confer immunity.”

According to Australia’s National Centre for Immunisation Research & Surveillance (NCIRS), a private organization funded by the Australian and New South Wales governments, there is no high-quality research showing that homeopathic preparations are effective in preventing infectious disease.

Typical homeopathic preparations dilute a disease, tissue, or plant extract in water “to the point where none of the original material is contained within the preparation by the end of the process,” an NCIRS fact sheet says.

Referring to Ms. Mazi, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco said in the news release, “This defendant allegedly defrauded and endangered the public by preying on fears and spreading misinformation about FDA-authorized vaccinations, while also peddling fake treatments that put people’s lives at risk.

“Even worse, the defendant allegedly created counterfeit COVID-19 vaccination cards and instructed her customers to falsely mark that they had received a vaccine, allowing them to circumvent efforts to contain the spread of the disease.”

The case against Ms. Mazi was brought in coordination with the DOJ Health Care Fraud Unit’s COVID-19 Interagency Working Group, which organizes efforts to address illegal activity involving health care programs during the pandemic.

The fraud unit leads the department’s Health Care Fraud Strike Force, which has existed since 2007. In May, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland established the COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force in partnership with other government agencies to combat and prevent pandemic-related fraud.

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

A homeopathic doctor licensed in California was arrested July 14 and charged with a scheme to sell homeoprophylaxis immunization pellets and to falsify COVID-19 vaccination cards by making it appear that her customers had received the Moderna vaccine, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Juli A. Mazi, 41, of Napa, is charged with one count of wire fraud and one count of false statements related to health care matters. The case is the first federal criminal fraud prosecution related to homeoprophylaxis immunizations and fraudulent vaccination record cards, the DOJ said in a news release.

In April, according to federal authorities, an individual submitted a complaint to the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, stating that family members had purchased the immunization pellets from Ms. Mazi. The complainant stated that the family members had told her/him that Ms. Mazi had said the pellets contained the COVID-19 virus and would create an antibody response in the immune system.

The affidavit noted that none of the family members had received injections of any of the COVID-19 vaccines authorized by the Food and Drug Administration.

However, the complainant said, Ms. Mazi sent COVID-19 vaccination cards listing Moderna to the complainant family. Ms. Mazi allegedly instructed the family members to mark the cards to falsely state that they had received the Moderna vaccine on the date that they ingested the homeoprophylaxis immunization pellets.

She also allegedly provided instructions on how to fraudulently complete the cards to make it appear that a customer had received two doses of the Moderna vaccine. She even supplied Moderna lot numbers to enter on the cards.

In addition, Ms. Mazi allegedly offered homeoprophylaxis immunizations for childhood illnesses that she falsely claimed would satisfy the immunization requirements for California schools, and falsified immunization cards that were submitted by parents to California schools.

Ms. Mazi further stated that her customers could provide the pellets to children for COVID-19 immunity, and that “the dose is actually the same for babies,” the news release said.

Ms. Mazi is alleged to have falsely claimed that ingesting the pellets would result in full lifelong immunity from COVID-19. In addition, she exploited the disinformation and fear surrounding COVID-19 vaccination by falsely claiming that the FDA-authorized vaccines contain “toxic ingredients,” the DOJ said.
 

Homeopathic preparations

According to the DOJ, “Homeophrophylaxis involves the exposure of an individual to dilute amounts of a disease, purportedly to stimulate the immune system and confer immunity.”

According to Australia’s National Centre for Immunisation Research & Surveillance (NCIRS), a private organization funded by the Australian and New South Wales governments, there is no high-quality research showing that homeopathic preparations are effective in preventing infectious disease.

Typical homeopathic preparations dilute a disease, tissue, or plant extract in water “to the point where none of the original material is contained within the preparation by the end of the process,” an NCIRS fact sheet says.

Referring to Ms. Mazi, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco said in the news release, “This defendant allegedly defrauded and endangered the public by preying on fears and spreading misinformation about FDA-authorized vaccinations, while also peddling fake treatments that put people’s lives at risk.

“Even worse, the defendant allegedly created counterfeit COVID-19 vaccination cards and instructed her customers to falsely mark that they had received a vaccine, allowing them to circumvent efforts to contain the spread of the disease.”

The case against Ms. Mazi was brought in coordination with the DOJ Health Care Fraud Unit’s COVID-19 Interagency Working Group, which organizes efforts to address illegal activity involving health care programs during the pandemic.

The fraud unit leads the department’s Health Care Fraud Strike Force, which has existed since 2007. In May, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland established the COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force in partnership with other government agencies to combat and prevent pandemic-related fraud.

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

In what could be a model for other states, Texas has become the first state to exempt physicians from prior authorizations for meeting insurer benchmarks.

The law was passed in June and will take effect in September. It excuses physicians from having to obtain prior authorization if, during the previous 6 months, 90% of their treatments met medical necessity criteria by the health insurer. Through this law, doctors in the state will spend less time getting approvals for treatments for their patients.

Automatic approval of authorizations for treatments – or what the Texas Medical Association (TMA) calls a “gold card” – “allows patients to get the care they need in a more timely fashion,” says Debra Patt, MD, an Austin, Tex.–based oncologist and former chair of the council on legislation for the TMA.

Eighty-seven percent of Texas physicians reported a “drastic increase over the past five years in the burden of prior authorization on their patients and their practices,” per a 2020 survey by the TMA. Nearly half (48%) of Texas physicians have hired staff whose work focuses on processing requests for prior authorization, according to the survey.

Jack Resneck Jr., MD, a San Francisco–based dermatologist and president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), said other states have investigated ways to ease the impact of prior authorizations on physicians, but no other state has passed such a law.

Administrative burdens plague physicians around the country. The Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2021 found that physicians spend on average 15.6 hours per week on paperwork and administrative duties.
 

Better outcomes, less anxiety for patients

Dr. Patt, who testified in support of the law’s passage in the Texas legislature, says automatic approval of authorizations “is better for patients because it reduces their anxiety about whether they’re able to get the treatments they need now, and they will have better outcomes if they’re able to receive more timely care.”

Recently, a chemotherapy treatment Dr. Patt prescribed for one of her patients was not authorized by an insurer. The result is “a lot of anxiety and potentially health problems” for the patient, said Dr. Patt.

She expects that automatic approval for treatments will be based on prescribing patterns during the preceding 6 months. “It means that when I order a test today, the [health insurer] looks back at my record 6 months previously,” she said. Still, Dr. Patt awaits guidance from the Texas Department of Insurance, which regulates health insurers in the state, regarding the law.

Dr. Resneck said the pharmacy counter is where most patients encounter prior authorization delays. “That’s when the pharmacist looks at them and says, ‘Actually, this isn’t covered by your health insurer’s formulary,’ or it isn’t covered fully on their formulary.”

One of Dr. Resneck’s patients had a life-altering case of eczema that lasted many years. Because of the condition, the patient couldn’t work or maintain meaningful bonds with family members. A biologic treatment transformed his patient’s life. The patient was able to return to work and to re-engage with family, said Dr. Resneck. But a year after his patient started the treatment, the health insurer wouldn’t authorize the treatment because the patient wasn’t experiencing the same symptoms.

The patient didn’t have the same symptoms because the biologic treatment worked, said Dr. Resneck.

Kristine Grow, a spokesperson for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a national association for health insurers, said, “The use of prior authorization is relatively small – typically, less than 15% – and can help ensure safer opioid prescribing, help prevent dangerous drug interactions, and help protect patients from unnecessary exposure to potentially harmful radiation for inappropriate diagnostic imaging. Numerous studies show that Americans frequently receive inappropriate care, and 25% of unnecessary treatments are associated with complications or adverse events.”

Medical management tools, such as prior authorization, are an “an important way” to deliver “safe, high-quality care” to patients, she added.
 

State and federal efforts to curb prior authorization

In addition to efforts to curb prior authorization in other states, the AMA supports the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (HR 3173). The act includes a provision related to “gold-carding,” said Robert Mills, an AMA spokesperson.

The bill establishes requirements and standards for prior authorization processes related to Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. The requirements and standards for MA plans include the following:

• Establishing an electronic prior authorization program that meets specific standards, such as the ability to provide real-time decisions in response to requests for items and services that are routinely approved.
• Publishing on an annual basis specific prior authorization information, including the percentage of requests approved and the average response time.
• Meeting standards set by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services related to the quality and timeliness of prior authorization determinations.

The act was introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives in May, after which it was referred to two committees for consideration.

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

In what could be a model for other states, Texas has become the first state to exempt physicians from prior authorizations for meeting insurer benchmarks.

The law was passed in June and will take effect in September. It excuses physicians from having to obtain prior authorization if, during the previous 6 months, 90% of their treatments met medical necessity criteria by the health insurer. Through this law, doctors in the state will spend less time getting approvals for treatments for their patients.

Automatic approval of authorizations for treatments – or what the Texas Medical Association (TMA) calls a “gold card” – “allows patients to get the care they need in a more timely fashion,” says Debra Patt, MD, an Austin, Tex.–based oncologist and former chair of the council on legislation for the TMA.

Eighty-seven percent of Texas physicians reported a “drastic increase over the past five years in the burden of prior authorization on their patients and their practices,” per a 2020 survey by the TMA. Nearly half (48%) of Texas physicians have hired staff whose work focuses on processing requests for prior authorization, according to the survey.

Jack Resneck Jr., MD, a San Francisco–based dermatologist and president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), said other states have investigated ways to ease the impact of prior authorizations on physicians, but no other state has passed such a law.

Administrative burdens plague physicians around the country. The Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2021 found that physicians spend on average 15.6 hours per week on paperwork and administrative duties.
 

Better outcomes, less anxiety for patients

Dr. Patt, who testified in support of the law’s passage in the Texas legislature, says automatic approval of authorizations “is better for patients because it reduces their anxiety about whether they’re able to get the treatments they need now, and they will have better outcomes if they’re able to receive more timely care.”

Recently, a chemotherapy treatment Dr. Patt prescribed for one of her patients was not authorized by an insurer. The result is “a lot of anxiety and potentially health problems” for the patient, said Dr. Patt.

She expects that automatic approval for treatments will be based on prescribing patterns during the preceding 6 months. “It means that when I order a test today, the [health insurer] looks back at my record 6 months previously,” she said. Still, Dr. Patt awaits guidance from the Texas Department of Insurance, which regulates health insurers in the state, regarding the law.

Dr. Resneck said the pharmacy counter is where most patients encounter prior authorization delays. “That’s when the pharmacist looks at them and says, ‘Actually, this isn’t covered by your health insurer’s formulary,’ or it isn’t covered fully on their formulary.”

One of Dr. Resneck’s patients had a life-altering case of eczema that lasted many years. Because of the condition, the patient couldn’t work or maintain meaningful bonds with family members. A biologic treatment transformed his patient’s life. The patient was able to return to work and to re-engage with family, said Dr. Resneck. But a year after his patient started the treatment, the health insurer wouldn’t authorize the treatment because the patient wasn’t experiencing the same symptoms.

The patient didn’t have the same symptoms because the biologic treatment worked, said Dr. Resneck.

Kristine Grow, a spokesperson for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a national association for health insurers, said, “The use of prior authorization is relatively small – typically, less than 15% – and can help ensure safer opioid prescribing, help prevent dangerous drug interactions, and help protect patients from unnecessary exposure to potentially harmful radiation for inappropriate diagnostic imaging. Numerous studies show that Americans frequently receive inappropriate care, and 25% of unnecessary treatments are associated with complications or adverse events.”

Medical management tools, such as prior authorization, are an “an important way” to deliver “safe, high-quality care” to patients, she added.
 

State and federal efforts to curb prior authorization

In addition to efforts to curb prior authorization in other states, the AMA supports the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (HR 3173). The act includes a provision related to “gold-carding,” said Robert Mills, an AMA spokesperson.

The bill establishes requirements and standards for prior authorization processes related to Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. The requirements and standards for MA plans include the following:

• Establishing an electronic prior authorization program that meets specific standards, such as the ability to provide real-time decisions in response to requests for items and services that are routinely approved.
• Publishing on an annual basis specific prior authorization information, including the percentage of requests approved and the average response time.
• Meeting standards set by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services related to the quality and timeliness of prior authorization determinations.

The act was introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives in May, after which it was referred to two committees for consideration.

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

In what could be a model for other states, Texas has become the first state to exempt physicians from prior authorizations for meeting insurer benchmarks.

The law was passed in June and will take effect in September. It excuses physicians from having to obtain prior authorization if, during the previous 6 months, 90% of their treatments met medical necessity criteria by the health insurer. Through this law, doctors in the state will spend less time getting approvals for treatments for their patients.

Automatic approval of authorizations for treatments – or what the Texas Medical Association (TMA) calls a “gold card” – “allows patients to get the care they need in a more timely fashion,” says Debra Patt, MD, an Austin, Tex.–based oncologist and former chair of the council on legislation for the TMA.

Eighty-seven percent of Texas physicians reported a “drastic increase over the past five years in the burden of prior authorization on their patients and their practices,” per a 2020 survey by the TMA. Nearly half (48%) of Texas physicians have hired staff whose work focuses on processing requests for prior authorization, according to the survey.

Jack Resneck Jr., MD, a San Francisco–based dermatologist and president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), said other states have investigated ways to ease the impact of prior authorizations on physicians, but no other state has passed such a law.

Administrative burdens plague physicians around the country. The Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2021 found that physicians spend on average 15.6 hours per week on paperwork and administrative duties.
 

Better outcomes, less anxiety for patients

Dr. Patt, who testified in support of the law’s passage in the Texas legislature, says automatic approval of authorizations “is better for patients because it reduces their anxiety about whether they’re able to get the treatments they need now, and they will have better outcomes if they’re able to receive more timely care.”

Recently, a chemotherapy treatment Dr. Patt prescribed for one of her patients was not authorized by an insurer. The result is “a lot of anxiety and potentially health problems” for the patient, said Dr. Patt.

She expects that automatic approval for treatments will be based on prescribing patterns during the preceding 6 months. “It means that when I order a test today, the [health insurer] looks back at my record 6 months previously,” she said. Still, Dr. Patt awaits guidance from the Texas Department of Insurance, which regulates health insurers in the state, regarding the law.

Dr. Resneck said the pharmacy counter is where most patients encounter prior authorization delays. “That’s when the pharmacist looks at them and says, ‘Actually, this isn’t covered by your health insurer’s formulary,’ or it isn’t covered fully on their formulary.”

One of Dr. Resneck’s patients had a life-altering case of eczema that lasted many years. Because of the condition, the patient couldn’t work or maintain meaningful bonds with family members. A biologic treatment transformed his patient’s life. The patient was able to return to work and to re-engage with family, said Dr. Resneck. But a year after his patient started the treatment, the health insurer wouldn’t authorize the treatment because the patient wasn’t experiencing the same symptoms.

The patient didn’t have the same symptoms because the biologic treatment worked, said Dr. Resneck.

Kristine Grow, a spokesperson for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a national association for health insurers, said, “The use of prior authorization is relatively small – typically, less than 15% – and can help ensure safer opioid prescribing, help prevent dangerous drug interactions, and help protect patients from unnecessary exposure to potentially harmful radiation for inappropriate diagnostic imaging. Numerous studies show that Americans frequently receive inappropriate care, and 25% of unnecessary treatments are associated with complications or adverse events.”

Medical management tools, such as prior authorization, are an “an important way” to deliver “safe, high-quality care” to patients, she added.
 

State and federal efforts to curb prior authorization

In addition to efforts to curb prior authorization in other states, the AMA supports the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (HR 3173). The act includes a provision related to “gold-carding,” said Robert Mills, an AMA spokesperson.

The bill establishes requirements and standards for prior authorization processes related to Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. The requirements and standards for MA plans include the following:

• Establishing an electronic prior authorization program that meets specific standards, such as the ability to provide real-time decisions in response to requests for items and services that are routinely approved.
• Publishing on an annual basis specific prior authorization information, including the percentage of requests approved and the average response time.
• Meeting standards set by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services related to the quality and timeliness of prior authorization determinations.

The act was introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives in May, after which it was referred to two committees for consideration.

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