Rheumatology News

Further details from multiple cases of myocarditis linked to the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID vaccines have been described in recent papers in the medical literature.

The cases appear to occur almost exclusively in males and most often in younger age groups. While symptoms and signs of myocarditis mostly resolved with a few days of supportive care, long-term effects are unknown at present.

The authors of all the reports and of two accompanying editorials in JAMA Cardiology are unanimous in their opinion that the benefits of vaccination still outweigh the risks.  

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices met June 23 to discuss this issue. At that meeting, it was reported that 323 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis in individuals aged 29 years and younger have been confirmed, but committee members delivered a strong endorsement for continuing to vaccinate young people with the mRNA vaccines.

The current case reports are published in two papers in JAMA Cardiology and in three in Circulation.
 

U.S. military reports 23 cases

In one report in JAMA Cardiology, authors led by Jay Montgomery, MD, from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., described 23 cases from the U.S. Military Health System of individuals with acute myocarditis who presented within 4 days after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination (7 Pfizer and 16 Moderna).

All patients were male, 22 of 23 were on active duty, and the median age was 25 years (range, 20-51); 20 of the 23 cases occurred after receipt of a second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

The patients all presented with acute onset of marked chest pain. All patients had significantly elevated cardiac troponin levels. Among eight patients who underwent cardiac MRI (cMRI), all had findings consistent with the clinical diagnosis of myocarditis.

Additional testing did not identify other possible causes of myocarditis. All patients received brief supportive care and were recovered or recovering.

The authors reported that the military administered more than 2.8 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in this period, and while the observed number of myocarditis cases was small, the number was “substantially higher” than expected among male military members after a second vaccine dose.

They noted that, based on historical data, among the 544,000 second doses to military members there may have been 0-10 expected myocarditis cases, but they observed 19 cases.  

“All patients in this series reflect substantial similarities in demographic characteristics, proximate vaccine dose, onset interval, and character of vaccine-associated myocarditis. The consistent pattern of clinical presentation, rapid recovery, and absence of evidence of other causes support the diagnosis of hypersensitivity myocarditis,” they stated.

They added that presentation after a second vaccine dose or, in three patients, when vaccination followed SARS-CoV-2 infection, suggests that prior exposure was relevant in the hypersensitivity response.

“The spectrum of clinical presentation and reliance on patients seeking health care and on health care professionals recognizing a rare vaccine-associated adverse event limits determination of the true incidence of this condition,” the authors wrote.

They stressed that recognition of vaccine-associated myocarditis is clinically important because diagnosis impacts management, recommendations for exercise, and monitoring for cardiomyopathy.

But the authors also acknowledged that it is important to frame concerns about potential vaccine-associated myocarditis within the context of the current pandemic.

“Infection with SARS-CoV-2 is a clear cause of serious cardiac injury in many patients. ... Prevalence of cardiac injury may be as high as 60% in seriously ill patients. Notably, nearly 1% of highly fit athletes with mild COVID-19 infection have evidence of myocarditis on cMRI,” they wrote.

“Given that COVID-19 vaccines are remarkably effective at preventing infection, any risk of rare adverse events following immunization must be carefully weighed against the very substantial benefit of vaccination,” they concluded.
 

Four cases at Duke

In the second paper in JAMA Cardiology, a group led by Han W. Kim, MD, reported four patients with acute myocarditis occurring within days of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (two Pfizer and two Moderna) in patients treated at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. The hospital courses of the four patients with myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination were uneventful, and they were discharged within 2-4 days.

The authors said that, although a causal relationship cannot be established, none of the patients had a viral prodrome or had coincident testing that revealed an alternative explanation.

They stated that these four patients represent the majority of patients with acute myocarditis identified in the past 3 months at their institution, and this led to the highest total number of patients with acute myocarditis, compared with the same 3-month period for the past 5 years. 

“Additionally, we identified only those patients with severe unremitting chest pain who sought medical attention. Those with mild or moderate chest pain might not seek medical attention, and it is possible that subclinical myocarditis may occur and could be detected by active surveillance, as has been described with smallpox vaccination,” they wrote.
 

Further case reports

In one of the papers in Circulation, a group led by Kathryn F. Larson, MD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., described eight patients hospitalized with chest pain who were diagnosed with myocarditis within 2-4 days of receiving either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.

Two of the patients had previously been infected by SARS-CoV-2 without need for hospitalization. All individuals were otherwise healthy males between the ages of 21 and 56 years. All but one patient developed symptoms after their second dose, and the one patient who developed myocarditis after the first vaccine dose had previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2.  

Systemic symptoms began within 24 hours after vaccine administration in five of eight patients, with chest pain presenting between 48 and 96 hours later. Troponin values were elevated in all individuals and appeared to peak the day after admission, whereas none had eosinophilia.

Cardiac MRI revealed findings consistent with myocarditis in all patients. All patients had resolution of their chest pain and were discharged from the hospital in stable condition.

“The patients presented here demonstrated typical signs, symptoms, and diagnostic features of acute myocarditis. The temporal association between receiving an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine and the development of myocarditis is notable,” the authors said.  

They added that they would consider the use of corticosteroids in these patients but cautioned that this could reduce the specific immune response against SARS-COV-2 triggered by the vaccine. “Thus, the duration of corticosteroid administration should be limited to the resolution of the symptoms or ventricular arrhythmias or the recovery of the left ventricular ejection fraction.”

Pending publication of long-term outcome data after SARS-CoV-2 vaccine–related myocarditis, they suggest adherence to the current consensus recommendation to abstain from competitive sports for a period of 3-6 months with reevaluation prior to sports participation. 

In another of the Circulation papers, a group led by Carolyn M. Rosner, MSN,  presented a case series of seven patients hospitalized for acute myocarditis-like illness following COVID-19 vaccination, from two U.S. medical centers, in Falls Church, Va., and Dallas. All patients were males below the age of 40 years and of White or Hispanic race/ethnicity. Only one patient reported prior history of COVID-19 infection. Six patients received mRNA (Moderna or Pfizer) and one received the adenovirus (Johnson & Johnson) vaccine. All patients presented 3-7 days post vaccination with acute onset chest pain and biochemical evidence of myocardial injury.

Hospital length of stay was 3 days, and all patients’ symptoms resolved by hospital discharge.

And finally, the third paper in Circulation reported a detailed description of one patient – a 52-year-old, previously healthy male who presented with acute myocarditis 3 days after the administration of the second dose of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine. The symptoms resolved, and there was a gradual improvement in cMRI findings. Ischemic injury and other potential causes of acute myocardial injury were excluded, as were other potential infectious causes of myocarditis, and there was no evidence of systemic autoimmune disease.

“Clinicians should be aware that myocarditis may be present in patients exhibiting cardiac signs and symptoms 2-4 days after COVID-19 vaccination,” the authors said.

They added that additional surveillance of such adverse events post–COVID-19 vaccination will help identify subgroups at higher risk for this vaccine-related effect, and whether additional precautions are necessary.
 

‘Benefits outweigh risk’

In an accompanying editorial in JAMA Cardiology, three doctors from the CDC cite several other reports of myocarditis after mRNA COVID vaccination. These include a case report published in Pediatrics of seven male adolescents aged 14-19 years who presented with myocarditis or myopericarditis within 4 days after receipt of a second dose of the Pfizer vaccine.

But the editorialists noted that the most comprehensive data about the risk for myocarditis following immunization with mRNA vaccines comes from Israel.

The Israeli Ministry of Health recently posted data describing 121 myocarditis cases occurring within 30 days of a second dose of mRNA vaccine among 5,049,424 persons, suggesting a crude incidence rate of approximately 24 cases per million.

On the current case reports, the CDC doctors wrote: “The striking clinical similarities in the presentations of these patients, their recent vaccination with an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine, and the lack of any alternative etiologies for acute myocarditis suggest an association with immunization.”

They said that acute onset of chest pain 3-5 days after vaccine administration, usually after a second dose, is a typical feature of reported cases and suggests an immune-mediated mechanism.

But SARS-CoV-2 infection also causes cardiac injury which may result in severe outcomes, and based on currently available data, myocarditis following immunization with current mRNA-based vaccines is rare.

“At present, the benefits of immunization in preventing severe morbidity favors continued COVID-19 vaccination, particularly considering the increasing COVID-19 hospitalization rates among adolescents reported during spring 2021,” the editorialists stated.

But they added that many questions remain. These include whether modifications are needed to the vaccine schedule among persons with a history of possible or confirmed myocarditis after COVID vaccine, how should postvaccine myocarditis be managed, how often should follow-up assessments be performed, how might follow-up assessments affect recommendations to avoid vigorous physical activity following the diagnosis of myocarditis, and do all likely cases of acute myocarditis that appear to be uncomplicated require cardiac MRI for more definitive diagnosis?

“While the data needed to answer such questions are being collected, there is an opportunity for researchers with expertise in myocarditis to develop a comprehensive, national assessment of the natural history, pathogenesis, and treatment of acute myocarditis associated with receipt of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines,” they concluded.

In a second editorial in JAMA Cardiology, a group of editors from the journal acknowledged that publication of the current case reports may contribute to additional public concern regarding immunization. But they added that clinicians discussing immunization with patients should recognize that these case series suggest that the symptomatic events consistent with myocarditis are still very rare and appear to be self-limiting.

“Given the risks of COVID-19, including the risk of myocarditis from COVID-19 infection, the editors do not believe these case reports are sufficient to interrupt the march toward maximal vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 as expeditiously as possible,” they said.

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

Further details from multiple cases of myocarditis linked to the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID vaccines have been described in recent papers in the medical literature.

The cases appear to occur almost exclusively in males and most often in younger age groups. While symptoms and signs of myocarditis mostly resolved with a few days of supportive care, long-term effects are unknown at present.

The authors of all the reports and of two accompanying editorials in JAMA Cardiology are unanimous in their opinion that the benefits of vaccination still outweigh the risks.  

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices met June 23 to discuss this issue. At that meeting, it was reported that 323 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis in individuals aged 29 years and younger have been confirmed, but committee members delivered a strong endorsement for continuing to vaccinate young people with the mRNA vaccines.

The current case reports are published in two papers in JAMA Cardiology and in three in Circulation.
 

U.S. military reports 23 cases

In one report in JAMA Cardiology, authors led by Jay Montgomery, MD, from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., described 23 cases from the U.S. Military Health System of individuals with acute myocarditis who presented within 4 days after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination (7 Pfizer and 16 Moderna).

All patients were male, 22 of 23 were on active duty, and the median age was 25 years (range, 20-51); 20 of the 23 cases occurred after receipt of a second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

The patients all presented with acute onset of marked chest pain. All patients had significantly elevated cardiac troponin levels. Among eight patients who underwent cardiac MRI (cMRI), all had findings consistent with the clinical diagnosis of myocarditis.

Additional testing did not identify other possible causes of myocarditis. All patients received brief supportive care and were recovered or recovering.

The authors reported that the military administered more than 2.8 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in this period, and while the observed number of myocarditis cases was small, the number was “substantially higher” than expected among male military members after a second vaccine dose.

They noted that, based on historical data, among the 544,000 second doses to military members there may have been 0-10 expected myocarditis cases, but they observed 19 cases.  

“All patients in this series reflect substantial similarities in demographic characteristics, proximate vaccine dose, onset interval, and character of vaccine-associated myocarditis. The consistent pattern of clinical presentation, rapid recovery, and absence of evidence of other causes support the diagnosis of hypersensitivity myocarditis,” they stated.

They added that presentation after a second vaccine dose or, in three patients, when vaccination followed SARS-CoV-2 infection, suggests that prior exposure was relevant in the hypersensitivity response.

“The spectrum of clinical presentation and reliance on patients seeking health care and on health care professionals recognizing a rare vaccine-associated adverse event limits determination of the true incidence of this condition,” the authors wrote.

They stressed that recognition of vaccine-associated myocarditis is clinically important because diagnosis impacts management, recommendations for exercise, and monitoring for cardiomyopathy.

But the authors also acknowledged that it is important to frame concerns about potential vaccine-associated myocarditis within the context of the current pandemic.

“Infection with SARS-CoV-2 is a clear cause of serious cardiac injury in many patients. ... Prevalence of cardiac injury may be as high as 60% in seriously ill patients. Notably, nearly 1% of highly fit athletes with mild COVID-19 infection have evidence of myocarditis on cMRI,” they wrote.

“Given that COVID-19 vaccines are remarkably effective at preventing infection, any risk of rare adverse events following immunization must be carefully weighed against the very substantial benefit of vaccination,” they concluded.
 

Four cases at Duke

In the second paper in JAMA Cardiology, a group led by Han W. Kim, MD, reported four patients with acute myocarditis occurring within days of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (two Pfizer and two Moderna) in patients treated at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. The hospital courses of the four patients with myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination were uneventful, and they were discharged within 2-4 days.

The authors said that, although a causal relationship cannot be established, none of the patients had a viral prodrome or had coincident testing that revealed an alternative explanation.

They stated that these four patients represent the majority of patients with acute myocarditis identified in the past 3 months at their institution, and this led to the highest total number of patients with acute myocarditis, compared with the same 3-month period for the past 5 years. 

“Additionally, we identified only those patients with severe unremitting chest pain who sought medical attention. Those with mild or moderate chest pain might not seek medical attention, and it is possible that subclinical myocarditis may occur and could be detected by active surveillance, as has been described with smallpox vaccination,” they wrote.
 

Further case reports

In one of the papers in Circulation, a group led by Kathryn F. Larson, MD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., described eight patients hospitalized with chest pain who were diagnosed with myocarditis within 2-4 days of receiving either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.

Two of the patients had previously been infected by SARS-CoV-2 without need for hospitalization. All individuals were otherwise healthy males between the ages of 21 and 56 years. All but one patient developed symptoms after their second dose, and the one patient who developed myocarditis after the first vaccine dose had previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2.  

Systemic symptoms began within 24 hours after vaccine administration in five of eight patients, with chest pain presenting between 48 and 96 hours later. Troponin values were elevated in all individuals and appeared to peak the day after admission, whereas none had eosinophilia.

Cardiac MRI revealed findings consistent with myocarditis in all patients. All patients had resolution of their chest pain and were discharged from the hospital in stable condition.

“The patients presented here demonstrated typical signs, symptoms, and diagnostic features of acute myocarditis. The temporal association between receiving an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine and the development of myocarditis is notable,” the authors said.  

They added that they would consider the use of corticosteroids in these patients but cautioned that this could reduce the specific immune response against SARS-COV-2 triggered by the vaccine. “Thus, the duration of corticosteroid administration should be limited to the resolution of the symptoms or ventricular arrhythmias or the recovery of the left ventricular ejection fraction.”

Pending publication of long-term outcome data after SARS-CoV-2 vaccine–related myocarditis, they suggest adherence to the current consensus recommendation to abstain from competitive sports for a period of 3-6 months with reevaluation prior to sports participation. 

In another of the Circulation papers, a group led by Carolyn M. Rosner, MSN,  presented a case series of seven patients hospitalized for acute myocarditis-like illness following COVID-19 vaccination, from two U.S. medical centers, in Falls Church, Va., and Dallas. All patients were males below the age of 40 years and of White or Hispanic race/ethnicity. Only one patient reported prior history of COVID-19 infection. Six patients received mRNA (Moderna or Pfizer) and one received the adenovirus (Johnson & Johnson) vaccine. All patients presented 3-7 days post vaccination with acute onset chest pain and biochemical evidence of myocardial injury.

Hospital length of stay was 3 days, and all patients’ symptoms resolved by hospital discharge.

And finally, the third paper in Circulation reported a detailed description of one patient – a 52-year-old, previously healthy male who presented with acute myocarditis 3 days after the administration of the second dose of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine. The symptoms resolved, and there was a gradual improvement in cMRI findings. Ischemic injury and other potential causes of acute myocardial injury were excluded, as were other potential infectious causes of myocarditis, and there was no evidence of systemic autoimmune disease.

“Clinicians should be aware that myocarditis may be present in patients exhibiting cardiac signs and symptoms 2-4 days after COVID-19 vaccination,” the authors said.

They added that additional surveillance of such adverse events post–COVID-19 vaccination will help identify subgroups at higher risk for this vaccine-related effect, and whether additional precautions are necessary.
 

‘Benefits outweigh risk’

In an accompanying editorial in JAMA Cardiology, three doctors from the CDC cite several other reports of myocarditis after mRNA COVID vaccination. These include a case report published in Pediatrics of seven male adolescents aged 14-19 years who presented with myocarditis or myopericarditis within 4 days after receipt of a second dose of the Pfizer vaccine.

But the editorialists noted that the most comprehensive data about the risk for myocarditis following immunization with mRNA vaccines comes from Israel.

The Israeli Ministry of Health recently posted data describing 121 myocarditis cases occurring within 30 days of a second dose of mRNA vaccine among 5,049,424 persons, suggesting a crude incidence rate of approximately 24 cases per million.

On the current case reports, the CDC doctors wrote: “The striking clinical similarities in the presentations of these patients, their recent vaccination with an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine, and the lack of any alternative etiologies for acute myocarditis suggest an association with immunization.”

They said that acute onset of chest pain 3-5 days after vaccine administration, usually after a second dose, is a typical feature of reported cases and suggests an immune-mediated mechanism.

But SARS-CoV-2 infection also causes cardiac injury which may result in severe outcomes, and based on currently available data, myocarditis following immunization with current mRNA-based vaccines is rare.

“At present, the benefits of immunization in preventing severe morbidity favors continued COVID-19 vaccination, particularly considering the increasing COVID-19 hospitalization rates among adolescents reported during spring 2021,” the editorialists stated.

But they added that many questions remain. These include whether modifications are needed to the vaccine schedule among persons with a history of possible or confirmed myocarditis after COVID vaccine, how should postvaccine myocarditis be managed, how often should follow-up assessments be performed, how might follow-up assessments affect recommendations to avoid vigorous physical activity following the diagnosis of myocarditis, and do all likely cases of acute myocarditis that appear to be uncomplicated require cardiac MRI for more definitive diagnosis?

“While the data needed to answer such questions are being collected, there is an opportunity for researchers with expertise in myocarditis to develop a comprehensive, national assessment of the natural history, pathogenesis, and treatment of acute myocarditis associated with receipt of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines,” they concluded.

In a second editorial in JAMA Cardiology, a group of editors from the journal acknowledged that publication of the current case reports may contribute to additional public concern regarding immunization. But they added that clinicians discussing immunization with patients should recognize that these case series suggest that the symptomatic events consistent with myocarditis are still very rare and appear to be self-limiting.

“Given the risks of COVID-19, including the risk of myocarditis from COVID-19 infection, the editors do not believe these case reports are sufficient to interrupt the march toward maximal vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 as expeditiously as possible,” they said.

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

Further details from multiple cases of myocarditis linked to the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID vaccines have been described in recent papers in the medical literature.

The cases appear to occur almost exclusively in males and most often in younger age groups. While symptoms and signs of myocarditis mostly resolved with a few days of supportive care, long-term effects are unknown at present.

The authors of all the reports and of two accompanying editorials in JAMA Cardiology are unanimous in their opinion that the benefits of vaccination still outweigh the risks.  

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices met June 23 to discuss this issue. At that meeting, it was reported that 323 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis in individuals aged 29 years and younger have been confirmed, but committee members delivered a strong endorsement for continuing to vaccinate young people with the mRNA vaccines.

The current case reports are published in two papers in JAMA Cardiology and in three in Circulation.
 

U.S. military reports 23 cases

In one report in JAMA Cardiology, authors led by Jay Montgomery, MD, from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., described 23 cases from the U.S. Military Health System of individuals with acute myocarditis who presented within 4 days after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination (7 Pfizer and 16 Moderna).

All patients were male, 22 of 23 were on active duty, and the median age was 25 years (range, 20-51); 20 of the 23 cases occurred after receipt of a second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

The patients all presented with acute onset of marked chest pain. All patients had significantly elevated cardiac troponin levels. Among eight patients who underwent cardiac MRI (cMRI), all had findings consistent with the clinical diagnosis of myocarditis.

Additional testing did not identify other possible causes of myocarditis. All patients received brief supportive care and were recovered or recovering.

The authors reported that the military administered more than 2.8 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in this period, and while the observed number of myocarditis cases was small, the number was “substantially higher” than expected among male military members after a second vaccine dose.

They noted that, based on historical data, among the 544,000 second doses to military members there may have been 0-10 expected myocarditis cases, but they observed 19 cases.  

“All patients in this series reflect substantial similarities in demographic characteristics, proximate vaccine dose, onset interval, and character of vaccine-associated myocarditis. The consistent pattern of clinical presentation, rapid recovery, and absence of evidence of other causes support the diagnosis of hypersensitivity myocarditis,” they stated.

They added that presentation after a second vaccine dose or, in three patients, when vaccination followed SARS-CoV-2 infection, suggests that prior exposure was relevant in the hypersensitivity response.

“The spectrum of clinical presentation and reliance on patients seeking health care and on health care professionals recognizing a rare vaccine-associated adverse event limits determination of the true incidence of this condition,” the authors wrote.

They stressed that recognition of vaccine-associated myocarditis is clinically important because diagnosis impacts management, recommendations for exercise, and monitoring for cardiomyopathy.

But the authors also acknowledged that it is important to frame concerns about potential vaccine-associated myocarditis within the context of the current pandemic.

“Infection with SARS-CoV-2 is a clear cause of serious cardiac injury in many patients. ... Prevalence of cardiac injury may be as high as 60% in seriously ill patients. Notably, nearly 1% of highly fit athletes with mild COVID-19 infection have evidence of myocarditis on cMRI,” they wrote.

“Given that COVID-19 vaccines are remarkably effective at preventing infection, any risk of rare adverse events following immunization must be carefully weighed against the very substantial benefit of vaccination,” they concluded.
 

Four cases at Duke

In the second paper in JAMA Cardiology, a group led by Han W. Kim, MD, reported four patients with acute myocarditis occurring within days of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (two Pfizer and two Moderna) in patients treated at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. The hospital courses of the four patients with myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination were uneventful, and they were discharged within 2-4 days.

The authors said that, although a causal relationship cannot be established, none of the patients had a viral prodrome or had coincident testing that revealed an alternative explanation.

They stated that these four patients represent the majority of patients with acute myocarditis identified in the past 3 months at their institution, and this led to the highest total number of patients with acute myocarditis, compared with the same 3-month period for the past 5 years. 

“Additionally, we identified only those patients with severe unremitting chest pain who sought medical attention. Those with mild or moderate chest pain might not seek medical attention, and it is possible that subclinical myocarditis may occur and could be detected by active surveillance, as has been described with smallpox vaccination,” they wrote.
 

Further case reports

In one of the papers in Circulation, a group led by Kathryn F. Larson, MD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., described eight patients hospitalized with chest pain who were diagnosed with myocarditis within 2-4 days of receiving either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.

Two of the patients had previously been infected by SARS-CoV-2 without need for hospitalization. All individuals were otherwise healthy males between the ages of 21 and 56 years. All but one patient developed symptoms after their second dose, and the one patient who developed myocarditis after the first vaccine dose had previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2.  

Systemic symptoms began within 24 hours after vaccine administration in five of eight patients, with chest pain presenting between 48 and 96 hours later. Troponin values were elevated in all individuals and appeared to peak the day after admission, whereas none had eosinophilia.

Cardiac MRI revealed findings consistent with myocarditis in all patients. All patients had resolution of their chest pain and were discharged from the hospital in stable condition.

“The patients presented here demonstrated typical signs, symptoms, and diagnostic features of acute myocarditis. The temporal association between receiving an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine and the development of myocarditis is notable,” the authors said.  

They added that they would consider the use of corticosteroids in these patients but cautioned that this could reduce the specific immune response against SARS-COV-2 triggered by the vaccine. “Thus, the duration of corticosteroid administration should be limited to the resolution of the symptoms or ventricular arrhythmias or the recovery of the left ventricular ejection fraction.”

Pending publication of long-term outcome data after SARS-CoV-2 vaccine–related myocarditis, they suggest adherence to the current consensus recommendation to abstain from competitive sports for a period of 3-6 months with reevaluation prior to sports participation. 

In another of the Circulation papers, a group led by Carolyn M. Rosner, MSN,  presented a case series of seven patients hospitalized for acute myocarditis-like illness following COVID-19 vaccination, from two U.S. medical centers, in Falls Church, Va., and Dallas. All patients were males below the age of 40 years and of White or Hispanic race/ethnicity. Only one patient reported prior history of COVID-19 infection. Six patients received mRNA (Moderna or Pfizer) and one received the adenovirus (Johnson & Johnson) vaccine. All patients presented 3-7 days post vaccination with acute onset chest pain and biochemical evidence of myocardial injury.

Hospital length of stay was 3 days, and all patients’ symptoms resolved by hospital discharge.

And finally, the third paper in Circulation reported a detailed description of one patient – a 52-year-old, previously healthy male who presented with acute myocarditis 3 days after the administration of the second dose of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine. The symptoms resolved, and there was a gradual improvement in cMRI findings. Ischemic injury and other potential causes of acute myocardial injury were excluded, as were other potential infectious causes of myocarditis, and there was no evidence of systemic autoimmune disease.

“Clinicians should be aware that myocarditis may be present in patients exhibiting cardiac signs and symptoms 2-4 days after COVID-19 vaccination,” the authors said.

They added that additional surveillance of such adverse events post–COVID-19 vaccination will help identify subgroups at higher risk for this vaccine-related effect, and whether additional precautions are necessary.
 

‘Benefits outweigh risk’

In an accompanying editorial in JAMA Cardiology, three doctors from the CDC cite several other reports of myocarditis after mRNA COVID vaccination. These include a case report published in Pediatrics of seven male adolescents aged 14-19 years who presented with myocarditis or myopericarditis within 4 days after receipt of a second dose of the Pfizer vaccine.

But the editorialists noted that the most comprehensive data about the risk for myocarditis following immunization with mRNA vaccines comes from Israel.

The Israeli Ministry of Health recently posted data describing 121 myocarditis cases occurring within 30 days of a second dose of mRNA vaccine among 5,049,424 persons, suggesting a crude incidence rate of approximately 24 cases per million.

On the current case reports, the CDC doctors wrote: “The striking clinical similarities in the presentations of these patients, their recent vaccination with an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine, and the lack of any alternative etiologies for acute myocarditis suggest an association with immunization.”

They said that acute onset of chest pain 3-5 days after vaccine administration, usually after a second dose, is a typical feature of reported cases and suggests an immune-mediated mechanism.

But SARS-CoV-2 infection also causes cardiac injury which may result in severe outcomes, and based on currently available data, myocarditis following immunization with current mRNA-based vaccines is rare.

“At present, the benefits of immunization in preventing severe morbidity favors continued COVID-19 vaccination, particularly considering the increasing COVID-19 hospitalization rates among adolescents reported during spring 2021,” the editorialists stated.

But they added that many questions remain. These include whether modifications are needed to the vaccine schedule among persons with a history of possible or confirmed myocarditis after COVID vaccine, how should postvaccine myocarditis be managed, how often should follow-up assessments be performed, how might follow-up assessments affect recommendations to avoid vigorous physical activity following the diagnosis of myocarditis, and do all likely cases of acute myocarditis that appear to be uncomplicated require cardiac MRI for more definitive diagnosis?

“While the data needed to answer such questions are being collected, there is an opportunity for researchers with expertise in myocarditis to develop a comprehensive, national assessment of the natural history, pathogenesis, and treatment of acute myocarditis associated with receipt of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines,” they concluded.

In a second editorial in JAMA Cardiology, a group of editors from the journal acknowledged that publication of the current case reports may contribute to additional public concern regarding immunization. But they added that clinicians discussing immunization with patients should recognize that these case series suggest that the symptomatic events consistent with myocarditis are still very rare and appear to be self-limiting.

“Given the risks of COVID-19, including the risk of myocarditis from COVID-19 infection, the editors do not believe these case reports are sufficient to interrupt the march toward maximal vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 as expeditiously as possible,” they said.

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

With vaccination rates increasing and new infections declining, we all hope the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic is over (fingers crossed really tight). Regardless, the post–COVID-19 syndrome pandemic has already begun. What is post–COVID-19 syndrome (or long-haulers or long-COVID)? Is it standard postviral fatigue? Prolonged deconditioning following debilitating illness? Permanent lung or vascular injury? Common sense and past experience say it’s all of these.

In theory, the burden of actual lung injury post COVID-19 should be the easiest to quantify, so let’s discuss what we think we know. I’ve heard experts break post–COVID-19 lung injury into three broad categories:

• Preexisting lung disease that is exacerbated by acute COVID-19 infection.
• Acute COVID-19 infection that causes acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) or other acute lung injury (ALI).
• Non–critically ill acute COVID-19 with residual lung damage and abnormal repair.

These categories are necessarily imprecise, making it challenging to fit some patients neatly into a single definition.

For patients in the first category, management will be dictated largely by the nature of the preexisting lung disease. For those in category two, we already know a lot about what their recovery from ARDS will look like. There’s no longer reason to believe that COVID-19–related ARDS is particularly unique, and all things being equal, lung recovery should mimic that seen with non–COVID-19 ARDS.

It’s going to take patience and time, and beyond targeted rehabilitation it’s not clear that we have anything available to expedite the process.

The third category of patients is the most intriguing. Is there a group of patients who have residual lung injury but didn’t have evident ARDS/ALI during their acute COVID-19 infection? Anecdotally we think so, but we know little about prevalence and less about management. A recent study published in Annals of the American Thoracic Society addresses both issues. In an observational report on patients recovering after being hospitalized with COVID-19 infection, the authors found that 3.6% of patients had residual lung injury that improved with 3 weeks of corticosteroid treatment.

The report is timely and helpful but hardly definitive. It’s observational, and patients required extensive screening and identification by a multidisciplinary committee of experts in interstitial lung disease. Patients were diagnosed as having organizing pneumonia (OP) as their “lung injury” if certain radiographic criteria were met. There were no biopsies. Last, there was no control group. Still, this report is critically important. It tells us that at 6 weeks post discharge, about 3.6% of patients who were hospitalized for COVID-19 will have persistent symptoms, radiographic abnormalities, and a plateau in their recovery.

Beyond that, it tells us little. Did these patients really have OP? It’s impossible to know. The CT findings used to establish the diagnosis are nonspecific. Response to steroids is consistent with OP, but the treatment course was quite short. If truly OP, one would expect a high relapse rate after steroid withdrawal. Patients weren’t followed long enough to monitor recurrence rates. Also, as appropriately discussed in the accompanying editorial, there’s no control group so we can’t know whether the patients treated with steroids would have recovered without treatment. There was objective improvement in lung function for the two to three patients they followed who did not receive steroids. However, it was of lesser magnitude than in the steroid group.

Post–COVID-19 symptoms will remain a challenge for the foreseeable future. More than 30 million patients have been diagnosed with COVID-19 in the United States and close to half will experience persistent dyspnea. Putting the numbers together, I conclude that the vast majority will not have identifiable lung injury that will benefit from steroids. I wish I could prescribe patience to both physicians and patients.

Dr. Holley is associate professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University and program director of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. He covers a wide range of topics in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine.
 

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

With vaccination rates increasing and new infections declining, we all hope the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic is over (fingers crossed really tight). Regardless, the post–COVID-19 syndrome pandemic has already begun. What is post–COVID-19 syndrome (or long-haulers or long-COVID)? Is it standard postviral fatigue? Prolonged deconditioning following debilitating illness? Permanent lung or vascular injury? Common sense and past experience say it’s all of these.

In theory, the burden of actual lung injury post COVID-19 should be the easiest to quantify, so let’s discuss what we think we know. I’ve heard experts break post–COVID-19 lung injury into three broad categories:

• Preexisting lung disease that is exacerbated by acute COVID-19 infection.
• Acute COVID-19 infection that causes acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) or other acute lung injury (ALI).
• Non–critically ill acute COVID-19 with residual lung damage and abnormal repair.

These categories are necessarily imprecise, making it challenging to fit some patients neatly into a single definition.

For patients in the first category, management will be dictated largely by the nature of the preexisting lung disease. For those in category two, we already know a lot about what their recovery from ARDS will look like. There’s no longer reason to believe that COVID-19–related ARDS is particularly unique, and all things being equal, lung recovery should mimic that seen with non–COVID-19 ARDS.

It’s going to take patience and time, and beyond targeted rehabilitation it’s not clear that we have anything available to expedite the process.

The third category of patients is the most intriguing. Is there a group of patients who have residual lung injury but didn’t have evident ARDS/ALI during their acute COVID-19 infection? Anecdotally we think so, but we know little about prevalence and less about management. A recent study published in Annals of the American Thoracic Society addresses both issues. In an observational report on patients recovering after being hospitalized with COVID-19 infection, the authors found that 3.6% of patients had residual lung injury that improved with 3 weeks of corticosteroid treatment.

The report is timely and helpful but hardly definitive. It’s observational, and patients required extensive screening and identification by a multidisciplinary committee of experts in interstitial lung disease. Patients were diagnosed as having organizing pneumonia (OP) as their “lung injury” if certain radiographic criteria were met. There were no biopsies. Last, there was no control group. Still, this report is critically important. It tells us that at 6 weeks post discharge, about 3.6% of patients who were hospitalized for COVID-19 will have persistent symptoms, radiographic abnormalities, and a plateau in their recovery.

Beyond that, it tells us little. Did these patients really have OP? It’s impossible to know. The CT findings used to establish the diagnosis are nonspecific. Response to steroids is consistent with OP, but the treatment course was quite short. If truly OP, one would expect a high relapse rate after steroid withdrawal. Patients weren’t followed long enough to monitor recurrence rates. Also, as appropriately discussed in the accompanying editorial, there’s no control group so we can’t know whether the patients treated with steroids would have recovered without treatment. There was objective improvement in lung function for the two to three patients they followed who did not receive steroids. However, it was of lesser magnitude than in the steroid group.

Post–COVID-19 symptoms will remain a challenge for the foreseeable future. More than 30 million patients have been diagnosed with COVID-19 in the United States and close to half will experience persistent dyspnea. Putting the numbers together, I conclude that the vast majority will not have identifiable lung injury that will benefit from steroids. I wish I could prescribe patience to both physicians and patients.

Dr. Holley is associate professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University and program director of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. He covers a wide range of topics in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine.
 

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

With vaccination rates increasing and new infections declining, we all hope the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic is over (fingers crossed really tight). Regardless, the post–COVID-19 syndrome pandemic has already begun. What is post–COVID-19 syndrome (or long-haulers or long-COVID)? Is it standard postviral fatigue? Prolonged deconditioning following debilitating illness? Permanent lung or vascular injury? Common sense and past experience say it’s all of these.

In theory, the burden of actual lung injury post COVID-19 should be the easiest to quantify, so let’s discuss what we think we know. I’ve heard experts break post–COVID-19 lung injury into three broad categories:

• Preexisting lung disease that is exacerbated by acute COVID-19 infection.
• Acute COVID-19 infection that causes acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) or other acute lung injury (ALI).
• Non–critically ill acute COVID-19 with residual lung damage and abnormal repair.

These categories are necessarily imprecise, making it challenging to fit some patients neatly into a single definition.

For patients in the first category, management will be dictated largely by the nature of the preexisting lung disease. For those in category two, we already know a lot about what their recovery from ARDS will look like. There’s no longer reason to believe that COVID-19–related ARDS is particularly unique, and all things being equal, lung recovery should mimic that seen with non–COVID-19 ARDS.

It’s going to take patience and time, and beyond targeted rehabilitation it’s not clear that we have anything available to expedite the process.

The third category of patients is the most intriguing. Is there a group of patients who have residual lung injury but didn’t have evident ARDS/ALI during their acute COVID-19 infection? Anecdotally we think so, but we know little about prevalence and less about management. A recent study published in Annals of the American Thoracic Society addresses both issues. In an observational report on patients recovering after being hospitalized with COVID-19 infection, the authors found that 3.6% of patients had residual lung injury that improved with 3 weeks of corticosteroid treatment.

The report is timely and helpful but hardly definitive. It’s observational, and patients required extensive screening and identification by a multidisciplinary committee of experts in interstitial lung disease. Patients were diagnosed as having organizing pneumonia (OP) as their “lung injury” if certain radiographic criteria were met. There were no biopsies. Last, there was no control group. Still, this report is critically important. It tells us that at 6 weeks post discharge, about 3.6% of patients who were hospitalized for COVID-19 will have persistent symptoms, radiographic abnormalities, and a plateau in their recovery.

Beyond that, it tells us little. Did these patients really have OP? It’s impossible to know. The CT findings used to establish the diagnosis are nonspecific. Response to steroids is consistent with OP, but the treatment course was quite short. If truly OP, one would expect a high relapse rate after steroid withdrawal. Patients weren’t followed long enough to monitor recurrence rates. Also, as appropriately discussed in the accompanying editorial, there’s no control group so we can’t know whether the patients treated with steroids would have recovered without treatment. There was objective improvement in lung function for the two to three patients they followed who did not receive steroids. However, it was of lesser magnitude than in the steroid group.

Post–COVID-19 symptoms will remain a challenge for the foreseeable future. More than 30 million patients have been diagnosed with COVID-19 in the United States and close to half will experience persistent dyspnea. Putting the numbers together, I conclude that the vast majority will not have identifiable lung injury that will benefit from steroids. I wish I could prescribe patience to both physicians and patients.

Dr. Holley is associate professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University and program director of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. He covers a wide range of topics in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine.
 

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

Malignancy rates were low in patients with psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and ankylosing spondylitis who were treated with secukinumab, for up to 5 years, based on data from a safety analysis that included 49 clinical trials.

Secukinumab (Cosentyx), an interleukin-17A antagonist, is approved for several conditions: moderate to severe psoriasis in children and adults, PsA, ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis.

Although secukinumab has demonstrated safety and tolerability, data on long-term malignancy rates are limited, wrote Mark Lebwohl, MD, professor of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and coauthors.

In a study published in the British Journal of Dermatology, they analyzed the combined safety data from clinical trials and postmarketing surveillance. The study population included 10,685 patients with psoriasis, 2,523 patients with PsA, and 1,311 patients with ankylosing spondylitis who received at least one approved dose of secukinumab (300 mg or 150 mg). The maximum follow-up was 5 years. The exposure-adjusted incidence rate was defined as the incidence rates per 100 patient treatment-years (PTY). The cumulative exposure for patients with psoriasis, PsA, and AS was 16,482, 4,944, and 2,668 PTY, respectively, with average follow-up times of 1.54, 1.96, and 2.03 years, respectively.

The observed and the expected number of malignancies were comparable, with a standardized incidence ratio (SIR) for malignancy of 0.99 across all treatment indications, the researchers said. In further analysis of malignancy by indication, the SIR was 0.87, 1.16, and 1.61 for psoriasis, PsA, and AS, respectively.

Data from postmarketing surveillance showed similar results: The estimated crude cumulative incidence reporting rate per 100 PTY was 0.27 for malignancy across all indications. The cumulative exposure was 285,811 PTY.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the post hoc design, differences in clinical trial methodologies, and lack of controlling for confounding variables, such as smoking status and previous exposure to systemic and biologic treatments, the researchers noted. In addition, the analysis did not include postexposure follow-up data, or data on patients who discontinued clinical trials, they said.

Overall, the analysis is the largest to date and supports the low risk of malignancy in patients with psoriasis, PsA, and AS treated with secukinumab, the researchers noted.

However, “while this assessment provides a broader understanding of the safety of secukinumab and supports its long-term use in these chronic systemic inflammatory conditions, registry data are further warranted to fully understand the real-world effect of biologics on malignancy risk,” they concluded.

“Secukinumab is a relatively newer biologic, approved in 2015, and there is currently a lack of longer-term data on the incidence of malignancy in secukinumab-treated patients, so it’s important to look at the data we have so far on this topic so we can better understand the long-term risks and counsel our psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis patients,” Flavia Fedeles, MD, of the department of dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

Dr. Fedeles, who was not involved with the study, said that she was not surprised by the study results. “Data reported in the past from phase 3 clinical trials of secukinumab compared with placebo did not show an increase in risk of malignancy, though at that time no long-term safety data or data from patients with history of malignancy was available,” she said. “This study is reassuring in that there wasn’t a signal of increased malignancy events up to 5 years of secukinumab treatment,” said Dr. Fedeles.

Malignancy rates were low in patients with psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and ankylosing spondylitis who were treated with secukinumab, for up to 5 years, based on data from a safety analysis that included 49 clinical trials.

Secukinumab (Cosentyx), an interleukin-17A antagonist, is approved for several conditions: moderate to severe psoriasis in children and adults, PsA, ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis.

Although secukinumab has demonstrated safety and tolerability, data on long-term malignancy rates are limited, wrote Mark Lebwohl, MD, professor of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and coauthors.

In a study published in the British Journal of Dermatology, they analyzed the combined safety data from clinical trials and postmarketing surveillance. The study population included 10,685 patients with psoriasis, 2,523 patients with PsA, and 1,311 patients with ankylosing spondylitis who received at least one approved dose of secukinumab (300 mg or 150 mg). The maximum follow-up was 5 years. The exposure-adjusted incidence rate was defined as the incidence rates per 100 patient treatment-years (PTY). The cumulative exposure for patients with psoriasis, PsA, and AS was 16,482, 4,944, and 2,668 PTY, respectively, with average follow-up times of 1.54, 1.96, and 2.03 years, respectively.

The observed and the expected number of malignancies were comparable, with a standardized incidence ratio (SIR) for malignancy of 0.99 across all treatment indications, the researchers said. In further analysis of malignancy by indication, the SIR was 0.87, 1.16, and 1.61 for psoriasis, PsA, and AS, respectively.

Data from postmarketing surveillance showed similar results: The estimated crude cumulative incidence reporting rate per 100 PTY was 0.27 for malignancy across all indications. The cumulative exposure was 285,811 PTY.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the post hoc design, differences in clinical trial methodologies, and lack of controlling for confounding variables, such as smoking status and previous exposure to systemic and biologic treatments, the researchers noted. In addition, the analysis did not include postexposure follow-up data, or data on patients who discontinued clinical trials, they said.

Overall, the analysis is the largest to date and supports the low risk of malignancy in patients with psoriasis, PsA, and AS treated with secukinumab, the researchers noted.

However, “while this assessment provides a broader understanding of the safety of secukinumab and supports its long-term use in these chronic systemic inflammatory conditions, registry data are further warranted to fully understand the real-world effect of biologics on malignancy risk,” they concluded.

“Secukinumab is a relatively newer biologic, approved in 2015, and there is currently a lack of longer-term data on the incidence of malignancy in secukinumab-treated patients, so it’s important to look at the data we have so far on this topic so we can better understand the long-term risks and counsel our psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis patients,” Flavia Fedeles, MD, of the department of dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

Dr. Fedeles, who was not involved with the study, said that she was not surprised by the study results. “Data reported in the past from phase 3 clinical trials of secukinumab compared with placebo did not show an increase in risk of malignancy, though at that time no long-term safety data or data from patients with history of malignancy was available,” she said. “This study is reassuring in that there wasn’t a signal of increased malignancy events up to 5 years of secukinumab treatment,” said Dr. Fedeles.

Malignancy rates were low in patients with psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and ankylosing spondylitis who were treated with secukinumab, for up to 5 years, based on data from a safety analysis that included 49 clinical trials.

Secukinumab (Cosentyx), an interleukin-17A antagonist, is approved for several conditions: moderate to severe psoriasis in children and adults, PsA, ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis.

Although secukinumab has demonstrated safety and tolerability, data on long-term malignancy rates are limited, wrote Mark Lebwohl, MD, professor of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and coauthors.

In a study published in the British Journal of Dermatology, they analyzed the combined safety data from clinical trials and postmarketing surveillance. The study population included 10,685 patients with psoriasis, 2,523 patients with PsA, and 1,311 patients with ankylosing spondylitis who received at least one approved dose of secukinumab (300 mg or 150 mg). The maximum follow-up was 5 years. The exposure-adjusted incidence rate was defined as the incidence rates per 100 patient treatment-years (PTY). The cumulative exposure for patients with psoriasis, PsA, and AS was 16,482, 4,944, and 2,668 PTY, respectively, with average follow-up times of 1.54, 1.96, and 2.03 years, respectively.

The observed and the expected number of malignancies were comparable, with a standardized incidence ratio (SIR) for malignancy of 0.99 across all treatment indications, the researchers said. In further analysis of malignancy by indication, the SIR was 0.87, 1.16, and 1.61 for psoriasis, PsA, and AS, respectively.

Data from postmarketing surveillance showed similar results: The estimated crude cumulative incidence reporting rate per 100 PTY was 0.27 for malignancy across all indications. The cumulative exposure was 285,811 PTY.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the post hoc design, differences in clinical trial methodologies, and lack of controlling for confounding variables, such as smoking status and previous exposure to systemic and biologic treatments, the researchers noted. In addition, the analysis did not include postexposure follow-up data, or data on patients who discontinued clinical trials, they said.

Overall, the analysis is the largest to date and supports the low risk of malignancy in patients with psoriasis, PsA, and AS treated with secukinumab, the researchers noted.

However, “while this assessment provides a broader understanding of the safety of secukinumab and supports its long-term use in these chronic systemic inflammatory conditions, registry data are further warranted to fully understand the real-world effect of biologics on malignancy risk,” they concluded.

“Secukinumab is a relatively newer biologic, approved in 2015, and there is currently a lack of longer-term data on the incidence of malignancy in secukinumab-treated patients, so it’s important to look at the data we have so far on this topic so we can better understand the long-term risks and counsel our psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis patients,” Flavia Fedeles, MD, of the department of dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

Dr. Fedeles, who was not involved with the study, said that she was not surprised by the study results. “Data reported in the past from phase 3 clinical trials of secukinumab compared with placebo did not show an increase in risk of malignancy, though at that time no long-term safety data or data from patients with history of malignancy was available,” she said. “This study is reassuring in that there wasn’t a signal of increased malignancy events up to 5 years of secukinumab treatment,” said Dr. Fedeles.

Ignore this pacemaker and it will go away

At some point – and now seems to be that point – we have to say enough is enough. The throwaway culture that produces phones, TVs, and computers that get tossed in the trash because they can’t be repaired has gone too far. That’s right, we’re looking at you, medical science!

This time, it’s a pacemaker that just disappears when it’s no longer needed. Some lazy heart surgeon decided that it was way too much trouble to do another surgery to remove the leads when a temporary pacemaker was no longer needed. You know the type: “It sure would be nice if the pacemaker components were biocompatible and were naturally absorbed by the body over the course of a few weeks and wouldn’t need to be surgically extracted.” Slacker.

Well, get a load of this. Researchers at Northwestern and George Washington universities say that they have come up with a transient pacemaker that “harvests energy from an external, remote antenna using near-field communication protocols – the same technology used in smartphones for electronic payments and in RFID tags.”

Northwestern University/George Washington University

It’s a mask! No, it’s a COVID-19 test!

Mask wearing has gotten more lax as people get vaccinated for COVID-19, but as wearing masks for virus prevention is becoming more normalized in western society, some saw an opportunity to make them work for diagnosis.

Researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University have found a way to do just that with their wearable freeze-dried cell-free (wFDCF) technology. A single push of a button releases water from a reservoir in the mask that sequentially activates three different freeze-dried biological reactions, which detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the wearer’s breath.

Initially meant as a tool for the Zika outbreak in 2015, the team made a quick pivot in May 2020. But this isn’t just some run-of-the-mill, at-home test. The data prove that the wFDCF mask is comparable to polymerase chain reactions tests, the standard in COVID-19 detection. Plus there aren’t any extra factors to deal with, like room or instrument temperature to ensure accuracy. In just 90 minutes, the mask gives results on a readout in a way similar to that of a pregnancy test. Voilà! To have COVID-19 or not to have COVID-19 is an easily answered question.

UerDomwet/PxHere

Finally, an excuse for the all-beer diet

Weight loss is hard work. Extremely hard work, and, as evidenced by the constant inundation and advertisement of quick fixes, crash diets, and expensive gym memberships, there’s not really a solid, 100% solution to the issue. Until now, thanks to a team of doctors from New Zealand, who’ve decided that the best way to combat obesity is to leave you in constant agony.

The DentalSlim Diet Control device is certainly a radical yet comically logical attempt to combat obesity. The creators say that the biggest problem with dieting is compliance, and, well, it’s difficult to eat too much if you can’t actually open your mouth. The metal contraption is mounted onto your teeth and uses magnetic locks to prevent the user from opening their mouths more than 2 mm. That’s less than a tenth of an inch. Which is not a lot. So not a lot that essentially all you can consume is liquid.

University of Otago

Ignore this pacemaker and it will go away

At some point – and now seems to be that point – we have to say enough is enough. The throwaway culture that produces phones, TVs, and computers that get tossed in the trash because they can’t be repaired has gone too far. That’s right, we’re looking at you, medical science!

This time, it’s a pacemaker that just disappears when it’s no longer needed. Some lazy heart surgeon decided that it was way too much trouble to do another surgery to remove the leads when a temporary pacemaker was no longer needed. You know the type: “It sure would be nice if the pacemaker components were biocompatible and were naturally absorbed by the body over the course of a few weeks and wouldn’t need to be surgically extracted.” Slacker.

Well, get a load of this. Researchers at Northwestern and George Washington universities say that they have come up with a transient pacemaker that “harvests energy from an external, remote antenna using near-field communication protocols – the same technology used in smartphones for electronic payments and in RFID tags.”

Northwestern University/George Washington University

It’s a mask! No, it’s a COVID-19 test!

Mask wearing has gotten more lax as people get vaccinated for COVID-19, but as wearing masks for virus prevention is becoming more normalized in western society, some saw an opportunity to make them work for diagnosis.

Researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University have found a way to do just that with their wearable freeze-dried cell-free (wFDCF) technology. A single push of a button releases water from a reservoir in the mask that sequentially activates three different freeze-dried biological reactions, which detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the wearer’s breath.

Initially meant as a tool for the Zika outbreak in 2015, the team made a quick pivot in May 2020. But this isn’t just some run-of-the-mill, at-home test. The data prove that the wFDCF mask is comparable to polymerase chain reactions tests, the standard in COVID-19 detection. Plus there aren’t any extra factors to deal with, like room or instrument temperature to ensure accuracy. In just 90 minutes, the mask gives results on a readout in a way similar to that of a pregnancy test. Voilà! To have COVID-19 or not to have COVID-19 is an easily answered question.

UerDomwet/PxHere

Finally, an excuse for the all-beer diet

Weight loss is hard work. Extremely hard work, and, as evidenced by the constant inundation and advertisement of quick fixes, crash diets, and expensive gym memberships, there’s not really a solid, 100% solution to the issue. Until now, thanks to a team of doctors from New Zealand, who’ve decided that the best way to combat obesity is to leave you in constant agony.

The DentalSlim Diet Control device is certainly a radical yet comically logical attempt to combat obesity. The creators say that the biggest problem with dieting is compliance, and, well, it’s difficult to eat too much if you can’t actually open your mouth. The metal contraption is mounted onto your teeth and uses magnetic locks to prevent the user from opening their mouths more than 2 mm. That’s less than a tenth of an inch. Which is not a lot. So not a lot that essentially all you can consume is liquid.

University of Otago

Ignore this pacemaker and it will go away

At some point – and now seems to be that point – we have to say enough is enough. The throwaway culture that produces phones, TVs, and computers that get tossed in the trash because they can’t be repaired has gone too far. That’s right, we’re looking at you, medical science!

This time, it’s a pacemaker that just disappears when it’s no longer needed. Some lazy heart surgeon decided that it was way too much trouble to do another surgery to remove the leads when a temporary pacemaker was no longer needed. You know the type: “It sure would be nice if the pacemaker components were biocompatible and were naturally absorbed by the body over the course of a few weeks and wouldn’t need to be surgically extracted.” Slacker.

Well, get a load of this. Researchers at Northwestern and George Washington universities say that they have come up with a transient pacemaker that “harvests energy from an external, remote antenna using near-field communication protocols – the same technology used in smartphones for electronic payments and in RFID tags.”

Northwestern University/George Washington University

It’s a mask! No, it’s a COVID-19 test!

Mask wearing has gotten more lax as people get vaccinated for COVID-19, but as wearing masks for virus prevention is becoming more normalized in western society, some saw an opportunity to make them work for diagnosis.

Researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University have found a way to do just that with their wearable freeze-dried cell-free (wFDCF) technology. A single push of a button releases water from a reservoir in the mask that sequentially activates three different freeze-dried biological reactions, which detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the wearer’s breath.

Initially meant as a tool for the Zika outbreak in 2015, the team made a quick pivot in May 2020. But this isn’t just some run-of-the-mill, at-home test. The data prove that the wFDCF mask is comparable to polymerase chain reactions tests, the standard in COVID-19 detection. Plus there aren’t any extra factors to deal with, like room or instrument temperature to ensure accuracy. In just 90 minutes, the mask gives results on a readout in a way similar to that of a pregnancy test. Voilà! To have COVID-19 or not to have COVID-19 is an easily answered question.

UerDomwet/PxHere

Finally, an excuse for the all-beer diet

Weight loss is hard work. Extremely hard work, and, as evidenced by the constant inundation and advertisement of quick fixes, crash diets, and expensive gym memberships, there’s not really a solid, 100% solution to the issue. Until now, thanks to a team of doctors from New Zealand, who’ve decided that the best way to combat obesity is to leave you in constant agony.

The DentalSlim Diet Control device is certainly a radical yet comically logical attempt to combat obesity. The creators say that the biggest problem with dieting is compliance, and, well, it’s difficult to eat too much if you can’t actually open your mouth. The metal contraption is mounted onto your teeth and uses magnetic locks to prevent the user from opening their mouths more than 2 mm. That’s less than a tenth of an inch. Which is not a lot. So not a lot that essentially all you can consume is liquid.

University of Otago

If you, a friend, or a loved one remain unvaccinated against COVID-19 at this point – for whatever reason – you are at higher risk of dying if you become infected.

That’s the conclusion of a new report released by the Associated Press looking at COVID-19 deaths during May 2021.

Of more than 18,000 people who died from COVID-19, for example, only about 150 were fully vaccinated. That’s less than 1%.

“Recently, I was working in the emergency room [and] I saw a 21-year-old African American who came in with shortness of breath,” said Vino K. Palli, MD, MPH, a physician specializing in emergency medicine, internal medicine, and urgent care.

The patient rapidly deteriorated and required intubation and ventilation. She was transferred to a specialized hospital for possible extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) treatment.

“This patient was unvaccinated, along with her entire family. This would have been easily preventable,” added Dr. Palli, who is also founder and CEO of MiDoctor Urgent Care in New York City.

“Vaccine misinformation, compounded with vaccine inertia and vaccine access, have contributed to this,” he added. “Even though we have a surplus amount of vaccines at this time, we are only seeing 50% to 55% of completely vaccinated patients.”

Authors of the Associated Press report also acknowledge that some people who are fully vaccinated can get a breakthrough infection. These occurred in fewer than 1,200 of more than 853,000 people hospitalized for COVID-19 in May, or about 0.1%.

The Associated Press came up with these numbers using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC tracks the numbers of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths but does not breakdown rates by vaccination status.  
 

Stronger argument for vaccination?

“The fact that only 0.8% of COVID-19 deaths are in the fully vaccinated should persuade those people still hesitant about vaccination,” said Hugh Cassiere, MD, medical director of Respiratory Therapy Services at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, New York.

Stuart C. Ray, MD, professor of medicine and oncology in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, agreed. “It seems compelling, even for skeptics, that unvaccinated people represent 99% of those now dying from COVID-19 when they represent less than 50% of the adult population in the United States.”

The findings from the study could be more persuasive than previous arguments made in favor of immunization, Dr. Ray said. “These recent findings of striking reductions in risk of death in the vaccinated are more directly attributable and harder to ignore or dismiss.”

Brian Labus, PhD, MPH, of the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV) is less convinced. “While this might change some peoples’ minds, it probably won’t make a major difference. People have many different reasons for not getting vaccinated, and this is only one of the things they consider.”

The study adds information that was not available before, said Dr. Labus, assistant professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the UNLV School of Public Health. “We study the vaccine under tightly controlled, ideal conditions. This is the evidence that it works as well in the real world as it did in the trials, and that is what is most important in implementing a vaccination program,” added Dr. Labus.

“The scientific data has honed in on one thing: Vaccines are effective in preventing hospitalizations, ICU admissions, ventilations, and deaths,” agreed Dr. Palli.

“We now know that almost all deaths occurred in patients who were not vaccinated. We also know that all vaccines are effective against various strains that are in circulation right now, including the Delta variant, which is rapidly spreading,” Dr. Palli said.

Dr. Cassiere pointed out that the unvaccinated are not only at higher risk of developing COVID-19 but also of spreading, being hospitalized for, and dying from the infection. Avoiding “long hauler” symptoms is another argument in favor of immunization, he added.

As of June 28, the CDC reports that 63% of Americans 12 years and older have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, and 54% are fully vaccinated.
 

Worldwide worry?

Although overall rates of U.S. COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths are down, the outlook may not remain as encouraging. “I hope I’m wrong about this, but I anticipate that the coming fall and winter will bring increasingly localized versions of similar findings – severe disease and death due to SARS-CoV-2 infection in regions or groups with lower vaccination rates,” Dr. Ray said.

There could be a silver lining, he added: “If this unfortunate surge occurs, the health and economic consequences seem likely to erode much of the remaining hesitancy regarding vaccination.”

The rise of more infectious SARS-CoV-2 variants, such as the Delta variant, could also throw a wrench in controlling COVID-19. “This isn’t just a domestic issue,” Dr. Ray said. “We have learned that the world is a small place in pandemic times.”

The Associated Press investigators state that their findings support the high efficacy of the vaccine. Also, given the current widespread availability of COVID-19 vaccines in the United States, they believe many of the COVID-19 deaths now occurring are preventable.

Public health measures should have continued longer to protect unvaccinated individuals, especially Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, and other minorities, Dr. Palli said. “Only time will tell if re-opening and abandoning all public health measures by the CDC was premature.”

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

If you, a friend, or a loved one remain unvaccinated against COVID-19 at this point – for whatever reason – you are at higher risk of dying if you become infected.

That’s the conclusion of a new report released by the Associated Press looking at COVID-19 deaths during May 2021.

Of more than 18,000 people who died from COVID-19, for example, only about 150 were fully vaccinated. That’s less than 1%.

“Recently, I was working in the emergency room [and] I saw a 21-year-old African American who came in with shortness of breath,” said Vino K. Palli, MD, MPH, a physician specializing in emergency medicine, internal medicine, and urgent care.

The patient rapidly deteriorated and required intubation and ventilation. She was transferred to a specialized hospital for possible extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) treatment.

“This patient was unvaccinated, along with her entire family. This would have been easily preventable,” added Dr. Palli, who is also founder and CEO of MiDoctor Urgent Care in New York City.

“Vaccine misinformation, compounded with vaccine inertia and vaccine access, have contributed to this,” he added. “Even though we have a surplus amount of vaccines at this time, we are only seeing 50% to 55% of completely vaccinated patients.”

Authors of the Associated Press report also acknowledge that some people who are fully vaccinated can get a breakthrough infection. These occurred in fewer than 1,200 of more than 853,000 people hospitalized for COVID-19 in May, or about 0.1%.

The Associated Press came up with these numbers using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC tracks the numbers of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths but does not breakdown rates by vaccination status.  
 

Stronger argument for vaccination?

“The fact that only 0.8% of COVID-19 deaths are in the fully vaccinated should persuade those people still hesitant about vaccination,” said Hugh Cassiere, MD, medical director of Respiratory Therapy Services at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, New York.

Stuart C. Ray, MD, professor of medicine and oncology in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, agreed. “It seems compelling, even for skeptics, that unvaccinated people represent 99% of those now dying from COVID-19 when they represent less than 50% of the adult population in the United States.”

The findings from the study could be more persuasive than previous arguments made in favor of immunization, Dr. Ray said. “These recent findings of striking reductions in risk of death in the vaccinated are more directly attributable and harder to ignore or dismiss.”

Brian Labus, PhD, MPH, of the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV) is less convinced. “While this might change some peoples’ minds, it probably won’t make a major difference. People have many different reasons for not getting vaccinated, and this is only one of the things they consider.”

The study adds information that was not available before, said Dr. Labus, assistant professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the UNLV School of Public Health. “We study the vaccine under tightly controlled, ideal conditions. This is the evidence that it works as well in the real world as it did in the trials, and that is what is most important in implementing a vaccination program,” added Dr. Labus.

“The scientific data has honed in on one thing: Vaccines are effective in preventing hospitalizations, ICU admissions, ventilations, and deaths,” agreed Dr. Palli.

“We now know that almost all deaths occurred in patients who were not vaccinated. We also know that all vaccines are effective against various strains that are in circulation right now, including the Delta variant, which is rapidly spreading,” Dr. Palli said.

Dr. Cassiere pointed out that the unvaccinated are not only at higher risk of developing COVID-19 but also of spreading, being hospitalized for, and dying from the infection. Avoiding “long hauler” symptoms is another argument in favor of immunization, he added.

As of June 28, the CDC reports that 63% of Americans 12 years and older have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, and 54% are fully vaccinated.
 

Worldwide worry?

Although overall rates of U.S. COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths are down, the outlook may not remain as encouraging. “I hope I’m wrong about this, but I anticipate that the coming fall and winter will bring increasingly localized versions of similar findings – severe disease and death due to SARS-CoV-2 infection in regions or groups with lower vaccination rates,” Dr. Ray said.

There could be a silver lining, he added: “If this unfortunate surge occurs, the health and economic consequences seem likely to erode much of the remaining hesitancy regarding vaccination.”

The rise of more infectious SARS-CoV-2 variants, such as the Delta variant, could also throw a wrench in controlling COVID-19. “This isn’t just a domestic issue,” Dr. Ray said. “We have learned that the world is a small place in pandemic times.”

The Associated Press investigators state that their findings support the high efficacy of the vaccine. Also, given the current widespread availability of COVID-19 vaccines in the United States, they believe many of the COVID-19 deaths now occurring are preventable.

Public health measures should have continued longer to protect unvaccinated individuals, especially Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, and other minorities, Dr. Palli said. “Only time will tell if re-opening and abandoning all public health measures by the CDC was premature.”

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

If you, a friend, or a loved one remain unvaccinated against COVID-19 at this point – for whatever reason – you are at higher risk of dying if you become infected.

That’s the conclusion of a new report released by the Associated Press looking at COVID-19 deaths during May 2021.

Of more than 18,000 people who died from COVID-19, for example, only about 150 were fully vaccinated. That’s less than 1%.

“Recently, I was working in the emergency room [and] I saw a 21-year-old African American who came in with shortness of breath,” said Vino K. Palli, MD, MPH, a physician specializing in emergency medicine, internal medicine, and urgent care.

The patient rapidly deteriorated and required intubation and ventilation. She was transferred to a specialized hospital for possible extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) treatment.

“This patient was unvaccinated, along with her entire family. This would have been easily preventable,” added Dr. Palli, who is also founder and CEO of MiDoctor Urgent Care in New York City.

“Vaccine misinformation, compounded with vaccine inertia and vaccine access, have contributed to this,” he added. “Even though we have a surplus amount of vaccines at this time, we are only seeing 50% to 55% of completely vaccinated patients.”

Authors of the Associated Press report also acknowledge that some people who are fully vaccinated can get a breakthrough infection. These occurred in fewer than 1,200 of more than 853,000 people hospitalized for COVID-19 in May, or about 0.1%.

The Associated Press came up with these numbers using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC tracks the numbers of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths but does not breakdown rates by vaccination status.  
 

Stronger argument for vaccination?

“The fact that only 0.8% of COVID-19 deaths are in the fully vaccinated should persuade those people still hesitant about vaccination,” said Hugh Cassiere, MD, medical director of Respiratory Therapy Services at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, New York.

Stuart C. Ray, MD, professor of medicine and oncology in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, agreed. “It seems compelling, even for skeptics, that unvaccinated people represent 99% of those now dying from COVID-19 when they represent less than 50% of the adult population in the United States.”

The findings from the study could be more persuasive than previous arguments made in favor of immunization, Dr. Ray said. “These recent findings of striking reductions in risk of death in the vaccinated are more directly attributable and harder to ignore or dismiss.”

Brian Labus, PhD, MPH, of the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV) is less convinced. “While this might change some peoples’ minds, it probably won’t make a major difference. People have many different reasons for not getting vaccinated, and this is only one of the things they consider.”

The study adds information that was not available before, said Dr. Labus, assistant professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the UNLV School of Public Health. “We study the vaccine under tightly controlled, ideal conditions. This is the evidence that it works as well in the real world as it did in the trials, and that is what is most important in implementing a vaccination program,” added Dr. Labus.

“The scientific data has honed in on one thing: Vaccines are effective in preventing hospitalizations, ICU admissions, ventilations, and deaths,” agreed Dr. Palli.

“We now know that almost all deaths occurred in patients who were not vaccinated. We also know that all vaccines are effective against various strains that are in circulation right now, including the Delta variant, which is rapidly spreading,” Dr. Palli said.

Dr. Cassiere pointed out that the unvaccinated are not only at higher risk of developing COVID-19 but also of spreading, being hospitalized for, and dying from the infection. Avoiding “long hauler” symptoms is another argument in favor of immunization, he added.

As of June 28, the CDC reports that 63% of Americans 12 years and older have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, and 54% are fully vaccinated.
 

Worldwide worry?

Although overall rates of U.S. COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths are down, the outlook may not remain as encouraging. “I hope I’m wrong about this, but I anticipate that the coming fall and winter will bring increasingly localized versions of similar findings – severe disease and death due to SARS-CoV-2 infection in regions or groups with lower vaccination rates,” Dr. Ray said.

There could be a silver lining, he added: “If this unfortunate surge occurs, the health and economic consequences seem likely to erode much of the remaining hesitancy regarding vaccination.”

The rise of more infectious SARS-CoV-2 variants, such as the Delta variant, could also throw a wrench in controlling COVID-19. “This isn’t just a domestic issue,” Dr. Ray said. “We have learned that the world is a small place in pandemic times.”

The Associated Press investigators state that their findings support the high efficacy of the vaccine. Also, given the current widespread availability of COVID-19 vaccines in the United States, they believe many of the COVID-19 deaths now occurring are preventable.

Public health measures should have continued longer to protect unvaccinated individuals, especially Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, and other minorities, Dr. Palli said. “Only time will tell if re-opening and abandoning all public health measures by the CDC was premature.”

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

It was a 95° F day in July 2015, and emergency physician Martin Maag, MD, was driving down Bee Ridge Road, a busy seven-lane thoroughfare in Sarasota, Fla., on his way home from a family dinner. To distance himself from a truck blowing black smoke, Dr. Maag says he had just passed some vehicles, when a motorcycle flew past him in the turning lane and the passenger flipped him off.

“I started laughing because I knew we were coming up to a red light,” said Dr. Maag. “When we pulled up to the light, I put my window down and said: ‘Hey, you ought to be a little more careful about who you’re flipping off! You never know who it might be and what they might do.’ ”

The female passenger cursed at Dr. Maag, and the two traded profanities. The male driver then told Dr. Maag: “Get out of the car, old man,” according to Dr. Maag. Fuming, Dr. Maag got out of his black Tesla, and the two men met in the middle of the street.

“As soon as I got close enough to see him, I could tell he really looked young,” Dr. Maag recalls. “I said: ‘You’re like 12 years old. I’m going to end up beating your ass and then I’m going to go to jail. Go get on your bike, and ride home to your mom.’ I don’t remember what he said to me, but I spun around and said: ‘If you want to act like a man, meet me up the street in a parking lot and let’s have at it like men.’ ”

The motorcyclist got back on his white Suzuki and sped off, and Dr. Maag followed. Both vehicles went racing down the road, swerving between cars, and reaching speeds of 100 miles per hour, Dr. Maag said. At one point, Dr. Maag says he drove in front of the motorcyclist to slow him down, and the motorcycle clipped the back of his car. No one was seriously hurt, but soon Dr. Maag was in the back of a police cruiser headed to jail.

Dr. Maag wishes he could take back his actions that summer day 6 years ago. Those few minutes of fury have had lasting effects on the doctor’s life. The incident resulted in criminal charges, a jail sentence, thousands of dollars in legal fees, and a 3-year departure from emergency medicine. Although Dr. Maag did not lose his medical license as a result of the incident, the physician’s Medicare billing privileges were suspended because of a federal provision that ties some felonies to enrollment revocations.

Dr. Maag, 61, shared his story with this news organization to warn other physicians about the wide-ranging career ramifications that can happen as a result of offenses unrelated to medicine. 

“Every doctor, every health professional needs to know that there are a lot of consequences that go with our actions outside of work,” he said. “In my situation, what happened had nothing to do with medicine, it had nothing to do with patients, it had nothing to do my professional demeanor. But yet it affected my entire career, and I lost the ability to practice emergency medicine for 3 years. Three years for any doctor is a long time. Three years for emergency medicine is a lifetime.”
 

The physician ends up in jail

After the collision, Dr. Maag pulled over in a parking lot and dialed 911. Several passing motorists did the same. It appeared the biker was trying to get away, and Dr. Maag was concerned about the damage to his Tesla, he said. 

When police arrived, they heard very different accounts of what happened. The motorcyclist and his girlfriend claimed Dr. Maag was the aggressor during the altercation, and that he deliberately tried to hit them with his vehicle. Two witnesses at the scene said they had watched Dr. Maag pursue the motorcycle in his vehicle, and that they believed he crossed into their lane intentionally to strike the motorcycle, according to police reports.

“[The motorcyclist] stated that the vehicle struck his right foot when it hit the motorcycle and that he was able to keep his balance and not lay the bike down,” Sarasota County Deputy C. Moore wrote in his report. “The motorcycle was damaged on the right side near [his] foot, verifying his story. Both victims were adamant that the defendant actually and intentionally struck the motorcycle with his car due to the previous altercation.”

Dr. Maag told officers the motorcyclist had initiated the confrontation. He acknowledged racing after the biker, but said it was the motorcyclist who hit his vehicle. In an interview, Dr. Maag disputed the witnesses’ accounts, saying that one of the witnesses was without a car and made claims to police that were impossible from her distance. 

In the end, the officer believed the motorcyclist, writing in his report that the damage to the Tesla was consistent with the biker’s version of events. Dr. Maag was handcuffed and taken to the Sarasota County Jail.

“I was in shock,” he said. “When we got to the jail, they got me booked in and fingerprinted. I sat down and said [to an officer]: ‘So, when do I get to bond out?’ The guy started laughing and said: ‘You’re not going anywhere. You’re spending the night in jail, my friend.’ He said: ‘Your charge is one step below murder.’”
 

‘I like to drive fast’

Aside from speeding tickets, Dr. Maag said he had never been in serious trouble with the law before.

The husband and father of two has practiced emergency medicine for more 15 years, and his license has remained in good standing. Florida Department of Health records show Dr. Maag’s medical license as clear and active with no discipline cases or public complaints on file.

“I did my best for every patient that came through that door,” he said. “There were a lot of people who didn’t like my personality. I’ve said many times: ‘I’m not here to be liked. I’m here to take care of people and provide the best care possible.’ ” 

Sarasota County records show that Dr. Maag has received traffic citations in the past for careless driving, unlawful speed, and failure to stop at a red light, among others. He admits to having a “lead foot,” but says he had never before been involved in a road rage incident.

“I’m not going to lie, I like to drive fast,” he said. “I like that feeling. It just seems to slow everything down for me, the faster I’m going.”

After being booked into jail that July evening in 2015, Dr. Maag called his wife to explain what happened.

“She said, ‘I can’t believe you’ve done this. I’ve told you a million times, don’t worry about how other people drive. Keep your mouth shut,’” he recalled. “I asked her to call my work and let them know I wouldn’t be coming in the next day. Until that happened, I had never missed a day of work since becoming a physician.”

After an anxious night in his jail cell, Dr. Maag lined up with the other inmates the next morning for his bond hearing. His charges included felony, aggravated battery, and felony aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. A prosecutor recommended Dr. Maag’s bond be set at $1 million, which a judge lowered to $500,000.

Michael Fayard, a criminal defense attorney who represented Dr. Maag in the case, said even with the reduction, $500,000 was an outrageous bond for such a case.

“The prosecutor’s arguments to the judge were that he was a physician driving a Tesla,” Mr. Fayard said. “That was his exact argument for charging him a higher bond. It shouldn’t have been that high. I argued he was not a flight risk. He didn’t even have a passport.”

The Florida State Attorney’s Office did not return messages seeking comment about the case.

Dr. Maag spent 2 more nights in jail while he and his wife came up with $50,000 in cash, in accordance with the 10% bond rule. In the meantime, the government put a lien on their house. A circuit court judge later agreed the bond was excessive, according to Mr. Fayard, but by that time, the $50,000 was paid and Dr. Maag was released.
 

New evidence lowers charges 

Dr. Maag ultimately accepted a plea deal from the prosecutor’s office and pled no contest to one count of felony criminal mischief and one count of misdemeanor reckless driving. In return, the state dropped the two more serious felonies. A no-contest plea is not considered an admission of guilt.

Mr. Fayard said his investigation into the road rage victim unearthed evidence that poked holes in the motorcyclist’s credibility, and that contributed to the plea offer.

“We found tons of evidence about the kid being a hot-rodding rider on his motorcycle, videos of him traveling 140 miles an hour, popping wheelies, and darting in and out of traffic,” he said. “There was a lot of mitigation that came up during the course of the investigation.”

The plea deal was a favorable result for Dr. Maag considering his original charges, Mr. Fayard said. He added that the criminal case could have ended much differently.

“Given the facts of this case and given the fact that there were no serious injuries, we supported the state’s decision to accept our mitigation and come out with the sentence that they did,” Mr. Fayard said. “If there would have been injuries, the outcome would have likely been much worse for Dr. Maag.”

With the plea agreement reached, Dr. Maag faced his next consequence – jail time. He was sentenced to 60 days in jail, a $1,000 fine, 12 months of probation, and 8 months of house arrest. Unlike his first jail stay, Dr. Maag said the second, longer stint behind bars was more relaxing. 

“It was the first time since I had become an emergency physician that I remember my dreams,” he recalled. “I had nothing to worry about, nothing to do. All I had to do was get up and eat. Every now and then, I would mop the floors because I’m kind of a clean freak, and I would talk to guys and that was it. It wasn’t bad at all.”

Dr. Maag told no one that he was a doctor because he didn’t want to be treated differently. The anonymity led to interesting tidbits from other inmates about the best pill mills in the area for example, how to make crack cocaine, and selling items for drugs. On his last day in jail, the other inmates learned from his discharge paperwork that Dr. Maag was a physician.

“One of the corrections officers said: ‘You’re a doctor? We’ve never had a doctor in here before!’” Dr. Maag remembers. “He said: ‘What did a doctor do to get into jail?’ I said: ‘Do you really want to know?’ ”

About the time that Dr. Maag was released from jail, the Florida Board of Medicine learned of his charges and began reviewing his case. Mr. Fayard presented the same facts to the board and argued for Dr. Maag to keep his license, emphasizing the offenses in which he was convicted were significantly less severe than the original felonies charged. The board agreed to dismiss the case. 

“The probable cause panel for the board of medicine considered the complaint that has been filed against your client in the above referenced case,” Peter Delia, then-assistant general counsel for the Florida Department of Health, wrote in a letter dated April 27, 2016. “After careful review of all information and evidence obtained in this case, the panel determined that probable cause of a violation does not exist and directed this case to be closed.”
 

A short-lived celebration

Once home, Dr. Maag was on house arrest, but he was granted permission to travel for work. He continued to practice emergency medicine. After several months, authorities dropped the house arrest, and a judge canceled his probation early. It appeared the road rage incident was finally behind him. 

But a year later, in 2018, the doctor received a letter from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services informing him that because of his charges, his Medicare number had been revoked in November 2015.

“It took them 3 years to find me and tell me, even though I never moved,” he said. “Medicare said because I never reported this, they were hitting me up with falsification of documentation because I had signed other Medicare paperwork saying I had never been barred from Medicare, because I didn’t know that I was.”

Dr. Maag hired a different attorney to help him fight the 3-year enrollment ban. He requested reconsideration from CMS, but a hearing officer in October 2017 upheld the revocation. Because his privileges had been revoked in 2015, Dr. Maag’s practice group had to return all money billed by Dr. Maag to Medicare over the 3-year period, which totaled about $190,000.

A CMS spokeswoman declined to comment about Dr. Maag’s case, referring a reporter for this news organization to an administrative law judge’s decision that summarizes the agency’s findings.

According to the summary, in separate reconsidered determinations, the CMS hearing officer concluded that the revocation was proper under section 424.535(a)(3). The regulation, enacted in 2011, allows CMS to revoke billing privileges if a provider was convicted of a federal or state felony within the preceding 10 years that the agency determines is detrimental to the Medicare program and its beneficiaries.

The hearing officer reasoned that Dr. Maag “had been convicted of a felony that is akin to assault and, even if it were not, his actions showed a reckless disregard for the safety of others.” She concluded also that CMS could appropriately revoke Dr. Maag’s Medicare enrollment because he did not report his felony conviction within 30 days as required.

Dr. Maag went through several phases of fighting the revocation, including an appeal to the Department of Health & Human Services Departmental Appeals Board. He argued that his plea was a no-contest plea, which is not considered an admission of guilt. Dr. Maag and his attorney provided CMS a 15-page paper about his background, education, career accomplishments, and patient care history. They emphasized that Dr. Maag had never harmed or threatened a patient, and that his offense had nothing to do with his practice.

In February 2021, Judge Carolyn Cozad Hughes, an administrative law judge with CMS, upheld the 3-year revocation. In her decision, she wrote that for purposes of revocation under CMS law, “convicted” means that a judgment of conviction has been entered by a federal, state, or local court regardless of whether the judgment of conviction has been expunged or otherwise removed. She disagreed with Dr. Maag’s contention that his was a crime against property and, therefore, not akin to any of the felony offenses enumerated under the revocation section, which are crimes against persons.

“Even disregarding the allegations contained in the probable cause affidavit, Petitioner cannot escape the undisputed fact, established by his conviction and his own admissions, that the ‘property’ he so ‘willfully and maliciously’ damaged was a motorcycle traveling at a high rate of speed, and, that two young people were sitting atop that motorcycle,” Judge Hughes wrote. “Moreover, as part of the same conduct, he was charged – and convicted – of misdemeanor reckless driving with ‘willful and wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.’ Thus, even accepting Petitioner’s description of the events, he unquestionably showed no regard for the safety of the young people on that motorcycle.”

Judge Hughes noted that, although Dr. Maag’s crimes may not be among those specified in the regulation, CMS has broad authority to determine which felonies are detrimental to the best interests of the program and its beneficiaries.
 

A new career path

Unable to practice emergency medicine and beset with debt, Dr. Maag spiraled into a dark depression. His family had to start using retirement money that he was saving for the future care of his son, who has autism.

“I was suicidal,” he said. “There were two times that I came very close to going out to the woods by my house and hanging myself. All I wanted was to have everything go away. My wife saved my life.”

Slowly, Dr. Maag climbed out of the despondency and began considering new career options. After working and training briefly in hair restoration, Dr. Maag became a hair transplant specialist and opened his own hair restoration practice. It was a way to practice and help patients without having to accept Medicare. Today, he is the founder of Honest Hair Restoration in Bradenton, Fla.

Hair restoration is not the type of medicine that he “was designed to do,” Dr. Maag said, but he has embraced its advantages, such as learning about the business aspects of medicine and having a slower-paced work life. The business, which opened in 2019, is doing well and growing steadily.

Earlier this month, Dr. Maag learned CMS had reinstated his Medicare billing privileges. If an opportunity arises to go back into emergency medicine or urgent care, he is open to the possibilities, he said, but he plans to continue hair restoration for now. He hopes the lessons learned from his road rage incident may help others in similar circumstances.

“If I could go back to that very moment, I would’ve just kept my window up and I wouldn’t have said anything,” Dr. Maag said. “I would’ve kept my mouth shut and gone on about my day. Would I have loved it to have never happened? Yeah, and I’d probably be starting my retirement now. Am I stronger now? Well, I’m probably a hell of a lot wiser. But when all is said and done, I don’t want anybody feeling sorry for me. It was all my doing and I have to live with the consequences.”

Mr. Fayard, the attorney, says the case is a cautionary tale for doctors.

“No one is really above the law,” he said. “There aren’t two legal systems. You can’t just pay a little money and be done. At every level, serious charges have serious ramifications for everyone involved. Law enforcement and judges are not going to care of you’re a physician and you commit a crime. But physicians have a lot more on the line than many others. They can lose their ability to practice.”

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

It was a 95° F day in July 2015, and emergency physician Martin Maag, MD, was driving down Bee Ridge Road, a busy seven-lane thoroughfare in Sarasota, Fla., on his way home from a family dinner. To distance himself from a truck blowing black smoke, Dr. Maag says he had just passed some vehicles, when a motorcycle flew past him in the turning lane and the passenger flipped him off.

“I started laughing because I knew we were coming up to a red light,” said Dr. Maag. “When we pulled up to the light, I put my window down and said: ‘Hey, you ought to be a little more careful about who you’re flipping off! You never know who it might be and what they might do.’ ”

The female passenger cursed at Dr. Maag, and the two traded profanities. The male driver then told Dr. Maag: “Get out of the car, old man,” according to Dr. Maag. Fuming, Dr. Maag got out of his black Tesla, and the two men met in the middle of the street.

“As soon as I got close enough to see him, I could tell he really looked young,” Dr. Maag recalls. “I said: ‘You’re like 12 years old. I’m going to end up beating your ass and then I’m going to go to jail. Go get on your bike, and ride home to your mom.’ I don’t remember what he said to me, but I spun around and said: ‘If you want to act like a man, meet me up the street in a parking lot and let’s have at it like men.’ ”

The motorcyclist got back on his white Suzuki and sped off, and Dr. Maag followed. Both vehicles went racing down the road, swerving between cars, and reaching speeds of 100 miles per hour, Dr. Maag said. At one point, Dr. Maag says he drove in front of the motorcyclist to slow him down, and the motorcycle clipped the back of his car. No one was seriously hurt, but soon Dr. Maag was in the back of a police cruiser headed to jail.

Dr. Maag wishes he could take back his actions that summer day 6 years ago. Those few minutes of fury have had lasting effects on the doctor’s life. The incident resulted in criminal charges, a jail sentence, thousands of dollars in legal fees, and a 3-year departure from emergency medicine. Although Dr. Maag did not lose his medical license as a result of the incident, the physician’s Medicare billing privileges were suspended because of a federal provision that ties some felonies to enrollment revocations.

Dr. Maag, 61, shared his story with this news organization to warn other physicians about the wide-ranging career ramifications that can happen as a result of offenses unrelated to medicine. 

“Every doctor, every health professional needs to know that there are a lot of consequences that go with our actions outside of work,” he said. “In my situation, what happened had nothing to do with medicine, it had nothing to do with patients, it had nothing to do my professional demeanor. But yet it affected my entire career, and I lost the ability to practice emergency medicine for 3 years. Three years for any doctor is a long time. Three years for emergency medicine is a lifetime.”
 

The physician ends up in jail

After the collision, Dr. Maag pulled over in a parking lot and dialed 911. Several passing motorists did the same. It appeared the biker was trying to get away, and Dr. Maag was concerned about the damage to his Tesla, he said. 

When police arrived, they heard very different accounts of what happened. The motorcyclist and his girlfriend claimed Dr. Maag was the aggressor during the altercation, and that he deliberately tried to hit them with his vehicle. Two witnesses at the scene said they had watched Dr. Maag pursue the motorcycle in his vehicle, and that they believed he crossed into their lane intentionally to strike the motorcycle, according to police reports.

“[The motorcyclist] stated that the vehicle struck his right foot when it hit the motorcycle and that he was able to keep his balance and not lay the bike down,” Sarasota County Deputy C. Moore wrote in his report. “The motorcycle was damaged on the right side near [his] foot, verifying his story. Both victims were adamant that the defendant actually and intentionally struck the motorcycle with his car due to the previous altercation.”

Dr. Maag told officers the motorcyclist had initiated the confrontation. He acknowledged racing after the biker, but said it was the motorcyclist who hit his vehicle. In an interview, Dr. Maag disputed the witnesses’ accounts, saying that one of the witnesses was without a car and made claims to police that were impossible from her distance. 

In the end, the officer believed the motorcyclist, writing in his report that the damage to the Tesla was consistent with the biker’s version of events. Dr. Maag was handcuffed and taken to the Sarasota County Jail.

“I was in shock,” he said. “When we got to the jail, they got me booked in and fingerprinted. I sat down and said [to an officer]: ‘So, when do I get to bond out?’ The guy started laughing and said: ‘You’re not going anywhere. You’re spending the night in jail, my friend.’ He said: ‘Your charge is one step below murder.’”
 

‘I like to drive fast’

Aside from speeding tickets, Dr. Maag said he had never been in serious trouble with the law before.

The husband and father of two has practiced emergency medicine for more 15 years, and his license has remained in good standing. Florida Department of Health records show Dr. Maag’s medical license as clear and active with no discipline cases or public complaints on file.

“I did my best for every patient that came through that door,” he said. “There were a lot of people who didn’t like my personality. I’ve said many times: ‘I’m not here to be liked. I’m here to take care of people and provide the best care possible.’ ” 

Sarasota County records show that Dr. Maag has received traffic citations in the past for careless driving, unlawful speed, and failure to stop at a red light, among others. He admits to having a “lead foot,” but says he had never before been involved in a road rage incident.

“I’m not going to lie, I like to drive fast,” he said. “I like that feeling. It just seems to slow everything down for me, the faster I’m going.”

After being booked into jail that July evening in 2015, Dr. Maag called his wife to explain what happened.

“She said, ‘I can’t believe you’ve done this. I’ve told you a million times, don’t worry about how other people drive. Keep your mouth shut,’” he recalled. “I asked her to call my work and let them know I wouldn’t be coming in the next day. Until that happened, I had never missed a day of work since becoming a physician.”

After an anxious night in his jail cell, Dr. Maag lined up with the other inmates the next morning for his bond hearing. His charges included felony, aggravated battery, and felony aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. A prosecutor recommended Dr. Maag’s bond be set at $1 million, which a judge lowered to $500,000.

Michael Fayard, a criminal defense attorney who represented Dr. Maag in the case, said even with the reduction, $500,000 was an outrageous bond for such a case.

“The prosecutor’s arguments to the judge were that he was a physician driving a Tesla,” Mr. Fayard said. “That was his exact argument for charging him a higher bond. It shouldn’t have been that high. I argued he was not a flight risk. He didn’t even have a passport.”

The Florida State Attorney’s Office did not return messages seeking comment about the case.

Dr. Maag spent 2 more nights in jail while he and his wife came up with $50,000 in cash, in accordance with the 10% bond rule. In the meantime, the government put a lien on their house. A circuit court judge later agreed the bond was excessive, according to Mr. Fayard, but by that time, the $50,000 was paid and Dr. Maag was released.
 

New evidence lowers charges 

Dr. Maag ultimately accepted a plea deal from the prosecutor’s office and pled no contest to one count of felony criminal mischief and one count of misdemeanor reckless driving. In return, the state dropped the two more serious felonies. A no-contest plea is not considered an admission of guilt.

Mr. Fayard said his investigation into the road rage victim unearthed evidence that poked holes in the motorcyclist’s credibility, and that contributed to the plea offer.

“We found tons of evidence about the kid being a hot-rodding rider on his motorcycle, videos of him traveling 140 miles an hour, popping wheelies, and darting in and out of traffic,” he said. “There was a lot of mitigation that came up during the course of the investigation.”

The plea deal was a favorable result for Dr. Maag considering his original charges, Mr. Fayard said. He added that the criminal case could have ended much differently.

“Given the facts of this case and given the fact that there were no serious injuries, we supported the state’s decision to accept our mitigation and come out with the sentence that they did,” Mr. Fayard said. “If there would have been injuries, the outcome would have likely been much worse for Dr. Maag.”

With the plea agreement reached, Dr. Maag faced his next consequence – jail time. He was sentenced to 60 days in jail, a $1,000 fine, 12 months of probation, and 8 months of house arrest. Unlike his first jail stay, Dr. Maag said the second, longer stint behind bars was more relaxing. 

“It was the first time since I had become an emergency physician that I remember my dreams,” he recalled. “I had nothing to worry about, nothing to do. All I had to do was get up and eat. Every now and then, I would mop the floors because I’m kind of a clean freak, and I would talk to guys and that was it. It wasn’t bad at all.”

Dr. Maag told no one that he was a doctor because he didn’t want to be treated differently. The anonymity led to interesting tidbits from other inmates about the best pill mills in the area for example, how to make crack cocaine, and selling items for drugs. On his last day in jail, the other inmates learned from his discharge paperwork that Dr. Maag was a physician.

“One of the corrections officers said: ‘You’re a doctor? We’ve never had a doctor in here before!’” Dr. Maag remembers. “He said: ‘What did a doctor do to get into jail?’ I said: ‘Do you really want to know?’ ”

About the time that Dr. Maag was released from jail, the Florida Board of Medicine learned of his charges and began reviewing his case. Mr. Fayard presented the same facts to the board and argued for Dr. Maag to keep his license, emphasizing the offenses in which he was convicted were significantly less severe than the original felonies charged. The board agreed to dismiss the case. 

“The probable cause panel for the board of medicine considered the complaint that has been filed against your client in the above referenced case,” Peter Delia, then-assistant general counsel for the Florida Department of Health, wrote in a letter dated April 27, 2016. “After careful review of all information and evidence obtained in this case, the panel determined that probable cause of a violation does not exist and directed this case to be closed.”
 

A short-lived celebration

Once home, Dr. Maag was on house arrest, but he was granted permission to travel for work. He continued to practice emergency medicine. After several months, authorities dropped the house arrest, and a judge canceled his probation early. It appeared the road rage incident was finally behind him. 

But a year later, in 2018, the doctor received a letter from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services informing him that because of his charges, his Medicare number had been revoked in November 2015.

“It took them 3 years to find me and tell me, even though I never moved,” he said. “Medicare said because I never reported this, they were hitting me up with falsification of documentation because I had signed other Medicare paperwork saying I had never been barred from Medicare, because I didn’t know that I was.”

Dr. Maag hired a different attorney to help him fight the 3-year enrollment ban. He requested reconsideration from CMS, but a hearing officer in October 2017 upheld the revocation. Because his privileges had been revoked in 2015, Dr. Maag’s practice group had to return all money billed by Dr. Maag to Medicare over the 3-year period, which totaled about $190,000.

A CMS spokeswoman declined to comment about Dr. Maag’s case, referring a reporter for this news organization to an administrative law judge’s decision that summarizes the agency’s findings.

According to the summary, in separate reconsidered determinations, the CMS hearing officer concluded that the revocation was proper under section 424.535(a)(3). The regulation, enacted in 2011, allows CMS to revoke billing privileges if a provider was convicted of a federal or state felony within the preceding 10 years that the agency determines is detrimental to the Medicare program and its beneficiaries.

The hearing officer reasoned that Dr. Maag “had been convicted of a felony that is akin to assault and, even if it were not, his actions showed a reckless disregard for the safety of others.” She concluded also that CMS could appropriately revoke Dr. Maag’s Medicare enrollment because he did not report his felony conviction within 30 days as required.

Dr. Maag went through several phases of fighting the revocation, including an appeal to the Department of Health & Human Services Departmental Appeals Board. He argued that his plea was a no-contest plea, which is not considered an admission of guilt. Dr. Maag and his attorney provided CMS a 15-page paper about his background, education, career accomplishments, and patient care history. They emphasized that Dr. Maag had never harmed or threatened a patient, and that his offense had nothing to do with his practice.

In February 2021, Judge Carolyn Cozad Hughes, an administrative law judge with CMS, upheld the 3-year revocation. In her decision, she wrote that for purposes of revocation under CMS law, “convicted” means that a judgment of conviction has been entered by a federal, state, or local court regardless of whether the judgment of conviction has been expunged or otherwise removed. She disagreed with Dr. Maag’s contention that his was a crime against property and, therefore, not akin to any of the felony offenses enumerated under the revocation section, which are crimes against persons.

“Even disregarding the allegations contained in the probable cause affidavit, Petitioner cannot escape the undisputed fact, established by his conviction and his own admissions, that the ‘property’ he so ‘willfully and maliciously’ damaged was a motorcycle traveling at a high rate of speed, and, that two young people were sitting atop that motorcycle,” Judge Hughes wrote. “Moreover, as part of the same conduct, he was charged – and convicted – of misdemeanor reckless driving with ‘willful and wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.’ Thus, even accepting Petitioner’s description of the events, he unquestionably showed no regard for the safety of the young people on that motorcycle.”

Judge Hughes noted that, although Dr. Maag’s crimes may not be among those specified in the regulation, CMS has broad authority to determine which felonies are detrimental to the best interests of the program and its beneficiaries.
 

A new career path

Unable to practice emergency medicine and beset with debt, Dr. Maag spiraled into a dark depression. His family had to start using retirement money that he was saving for the future care of his son, who has autism.

“I was suicidal,” he said. “There were two times that I came very close to going out to the woods by my house and hanging myself. All I wanted was to have everything go away. My wife saved my life.”

Slowly, Dr. Maag climbed out of the despondency and began considering new career options. After working and training briefly in hair restoration, Dr. Maag became a hair transplant specialist and opened his own hair restoration practice. It was a way to practice and help patients without having to accept Medicare. Today, he is the founder of Honest Hair Restoration in Bradenton, Fla.

Hair restoration is not the type of medicine that he “was designed to do,” Dr. Maag said, but he has embraced its advantages, such as learning about the business aspects of medicine and having a slower-paced work life. The business, which opened in 2019, is doing well and growing steadily.

Earlier this month, Dr. Maag learned CMS had reinstated his Medicare billing privileges. If an opportunity arises to go back into emergency medicine or urgent care, he is open to the possibilities, he said, but he plans to continue hair restoration for now. He hopes the lessons learned from his road rage incident may help others in similar circumstances.

“If I could go back to that very moment, I would’ve just kept my window up and I wouldn’t have said anything,” Dr. Maag said. “I would’ve kept my mouth shut and gone on about my day. Would I have loved it to have never happened? Yeah, and I’d probably be starting my retirement now. Am I stronger now? Well, I’m probably a hell of a lot wiser. But when all is said and done, I don’t want anybody feeling sorry for me. It was all my doing and I have to live with the consequences.”

Mr. Fayard, the attorney, says the case is a cautionary tale for doctors.

“No one is really above the law,” he said. “There aren’t two legal systems. You can’t just pay a little money and be done. At every level, serious charges have serious ramifications for everyone involved. Law enforcement and judges are not going to care of you’re a physician and you commit a crime. But physicians have a lot more on the line than many others. They can lose their ability to practice.”

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

It was a 95° F day in July 2015, and emergency physician Martin Maag, MD, was driving down Bee Ridge Road, a busy seven-lane thoroughfare in Sarasota, Fla., on his way home from a family dinner. To distance himself from a truck blowing black smoke, Dr. Maag says he had just passed some vehicles, when a motorcycle flew past him in the turning lane and the passenger flipped him off.

“I started laughing because I knew we were coming up to a red light,” said Dr. Maag. “When we pulled up to the light, I put my window down and said: ‘Hey, you ought to be a little more careful about who you’re flipping off! You never know who it might be and what they might do.’ ”

The female passenger cursed at Dr. Maag, and the two traded profanities. The male driver then told Dr. Maag: “Get out of the car, old man,” according to Dr. Maag. Fuming, Dr. Maag got out of his black Tesla, and the two men met in the middle of the street.

“As soon as I got close enough to see him, I could tell he really looked young,” Dr. Maag recalls. “I said: ‘You’re like 12 years old. I’m going to end up beating your ass and then I’m going to go to jail. Go get on your bike, and ride home to your mom.’ I don’t remember what he said to me, but I spun around and said: ‘If you want to act like a man, meet me up the street in a parking lot and let’s have at it like men.’ ”

The motorcyclist got back on his white Suzuki and sped off, and Dr. Maag followed. Both vehicles went racing down the road, swerving between cars, and reaching speeds of 100 miles per hour, Dr. Maag said. At one point, Dr. Maag says he drove in front of the motorcyclist to slow him down, and the motorcycle clipped the back of his car. No one was seriously hurt, but soon Dr. Maag was in the back of a police cruiser headed to jail.

Dr. Maag wishes he could take back his actions that summer day 6 years ago. Those few minutes of fury have had lasting effects on the doctor’s life. The incident resulted in criminal charges, a jail sentence, thousands of dollars in legal fees, and a 3-year departure from emergency medicine. Although Dr. Maag did not lose his medical license as a result of the incident, the physician’s Medicare billing privileges were suspended because of a federal provision that ties some felonies to enrollment revocations.

Dr. Maag, 61, shared his story with this news organization to warn other physicians about the wide-ranging career ramifications that can happen as a result of offenses unrelated to medicine. 

“Every doctor, every health professional needs to know that there are a lot of consequences that go with our actions outside of work,” he said. “In my situation, what happened had nothing to do with medicine, it had nothing to do with patients, it had nothing to do my professional demeanor. But yet it affected my entire career, and I lost the ability to practice emergency medicine for 3 years. Three years for any doctor is a long time. Three years for emergency medicine is a lifetime.”
 

The physician ends up in jail

After the collision, Dr. Maag pulled over in a parking lot and dialed 911. Several passing motorists did the same. It appeared the biker was trying to get away, and Dr. Maag was concerned about the damage to his Tesla, he said. 

When police arrived, they heard very different accounts of what happened. The motorcyclist and his girlfriend claimed Dr. Maag was the aggressor during the altercation, and that he deliberately tried to hit them with his vehicle. Two witnesses at the scene said they had watched Dr. Maag pursue the motorcycle in his vehicle, and that they believed he crossed into their lane intentionally to strike the motorcycle, according to police reports.

“[The motorcyclist] stated that the vehicle struck his right foot when it hit the motorcycle and that he was able to keep his balance and not lay the bike down,” Sarasota County Deputy C. Moore wrote in his report. “The motorcycle was damaged on the right side near [his] foot, verifying his story. Both victims were adamant that the defendant actually and intentionally struck the motorcycle with his car due to the previous altercation.”

Dr. Maag told officers the motorcyclist had initiated the confrontation. He acknowledged racing after the biker, but said it was the motorcyclist who hit his vehicle. In an interview, Dr. Maag disputed the witnesses’ accounts, saying that one of the witnesses was without a car and made claims to police that were impossible from her distance. 

In the end, the officer believed the motorcyclist, writing in his report that the damage to the Tesla was consistent with the biker’s version of events. Dr. Maag was handcuffed and taken to the Sarasota County Jail.

“I was in shock,” he said. “When we got to the jail, they got me booked in and fingerprinted. I sat down and said [to an officer]: ‘So, when do I get to bond out?’ The guy started laughing and said: ‘You’re not going anywhere. You’re spending the night in jail, my friend.’ He said: ‘Your charge is one step below murder.’”
 

‘I like to drive fast’

Aside from speeding tickets, Dr. Maag said he had never been in serious trouble with the law before.

The husband and father of two has practiced emergency medicine for more 15 years, and his license has remained in good standing. Florida Department of Health records show Dr. Maag’s medical license as clear and active with no discipline cases or public complaints on file.

“I did my best for every patient that came through that door,” he said. “There were a lot of people who didn’t like my personality. I’ve said many times: ‘I’m not here to be liked. I’m here to take care of people and provide the best care possible.’ ” 

Sarasota County records show that Dr. Maag has received traffic citations in the past for careless driving, unlawful speed, and failure to stop at a red light, among others. He admits to having a “lead foot,” but says he had never before been involved in a road rage incident.

“I’m not going to lie, I like to drive fast,” he said. “I like that feeling. It just seems to slow everything down for me, the faster I’m going.”

After being booked into jail that July evening in 2015, Dr. Maag called his wife to explain what happened.

“She said, ‘I can’t believe you’ve done this. I’ve told you a million times, don’t worry about how other people drive. Keep your mouth shut,’” he recalled. “I asked her to call my work and let them know I wouldn’t be coming in the next day. Until that happened, I had never missed a day of work since becoming a physician.”

After an anxious night in his jail cell, Dr. Maag lined up with the other inmates the next morning for his bond hearing. His charges included felony, aggravated battery, and felony aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. A prosecutor recommended Dr. Maag’s bond be set at $1 million, which a judge lowered to $500,000.

Michael Fayard, a criminal defense attorney who represented Dr. Maag in the case, said even with the reduction, $500,000 was an outrageous bond for such a case.

“The prosecutor’s arguments to the judge were that he was a physician driving a Tesla,” Mr. Fayard said. “That was his exact argument for charging him a higher bond. It shouldn’t have been that high. I argued he was not a flight risk. He didn’t even have a passport.”

The Florida State Attorney’s Office did not return messages seeking comment about the case.

Dr. Maag spent 2 more nights in jail while he and his wife came up with $50,000 in cash, in accordance with the 10% bond rule. In the meantime, the government put a lien on their house. A circuit court judge later agreed the bond was excessive, according to Mr. Fayard, but by that time, the $50,000 was paid and Dr. Maag was released.
 

New evidence lowers charges 

Dr. Maag ultimately accepted a plea deal from the prosecutor’s office and pled no contest to one count of felony criminal mischief and one count of misdemeanor reckless driving. In return, the state dropped the two more serious felonies. A no-contest plea is not considered an admission of guilt.

Mr. Fayard said his investigation into the road rage victim unearthed evidence that poked holes in the motorcyclist’s credibility, and that contributed to the plea offer.

“We found tons of evidence about the kid being a hot-rodding rider on his motorcycle, videos of him traveling 140 miles an hour, popping wheelies, and darting in and out of traffic,” he said. “There was a lot of mitigation that came up during the course of the investigation.”

The plea deal was a favorable result for Dr. Maag considering his original charges, Mr. Fayard said. He added that the criminal case could have ended much differently.

“Given the facts of this case and given the fact that there were no serious injuries, we supported the state’s decision to accept our mitigation and come out with the sentence that they did,” Mr. Fayard said. “If there would have been injuries, the outcome would have likely been much worse for Dr. Maag.”

With the plea agreement reached, Dr. Maag faced his next consequence – jail time. He was sentenced to 60 days in jail, a $1,000 fine, 12 months of probation, and 8 months of house arrest. Unlike his first jail stay, Dr. Maag said the second, longer stint behind bars was more relaxing. 

“It was the first time since I had become an emergency physician that I remember my dreams,” he recalled. “I had nothing to worry about, nothing to do. All I had to do was get up and eat. Every now and then, I would mop the floors because I’m kind of a clean freak, and I would talk to guys and that was it. It wasn’t bad at all.”

Dr. Maag told no one that he was a doctor because he didn’t want to be treated differently. The anonymity led to interesting tidbits from other inmates about the best pill mills in the area for example, how to make crack cocaine, and selling items for drugs. On his last day in jail, the other inmates learned from his discharge paperwork that Dr. Maag was a physician.

“One of the corrections officers said: ‘You’re a doctor? We’ve never had a doctor in here before!’” Dr. Maag remembers. “He said: ‘What did a doctor do to get into jail?’ I said: ‘Do you really want to know?’ ”

About the time that Dr. Maag was released from jail, the Florida Board of Medicine learned of his charges and began reviewing his case. Mr. Fayard presented the same facts to the board and argued for Dr. Maag to keep his license, emphasizing the offenses in which he was convicted were significantly less severe than the original felonies charged. The board agreed to dismiss the case. 

“The probable cause panel for the board of medicine considered the complaint that has been filed against your client in the above referenced case,” Peter Delia, then-assistant general counsel for the Florida Department of Health, wrote in a letter dated April 27, 2016. “After careful review of all information and evidence obtained in this case, the panel determined that probable cause of a violation does not exist and directed this case to be closed.”
 

A short-lived celebration

Once home, Dr. Maag was on house arrest, but he was granted permission to travel for work. He continued to practice emergency medicine. After several months, authorities dropped the house arrest, and a judge canceled his probation early. It appeared the road rage incident was finally behind him. 

But a year later, in 2018, the doctor received a letter from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services informing him that because of his charges, his Medicare number had been revoked in November 2015.

“It took them 3 years to find me and tell me, even though I never moved,” he said. “Medicare said because I never reported this, they were hitting me up with falsification of documentation because I had signed other Medicare paperwork saying I had never been barred from Medicare, because I didn’t know that I was.”

Dr. Maag hired a different attorney to help him fight the 3-year enrollment ban. He requested reconsideration from CMS, but a hearing officer in October 2017 upheld the revocation. Because his privileges had been revoked in 2015, Dr. Maag’s practice group had to return all money billed by Dr. Maag to Medicare over the 3-year period, which totaled about $190,000.

A CMS spokeswoman declined to comment about Dr. Maag’s case, referring a reporter for this news organization to an administrative law judge’s decision that summarizes the agency’s findings.

According to the summary, in separate reconsidered determinations, the CMS hearing officer concluded that the revocation was proper under section 424.535(a)(3). The regulation, enacted in 2011, allows CMS to revoke billing privileges if a provider was convicted of a federal or state felony within the preceding 10 years that the agency determines is detrimental to the Medicare program and its beneficiaries.

The hearing officer reasoned that Dr. Maag “had been convicted of a felony that is akin to assault and, even if it were not, his actions showed a reckless disregard for the safety of others.” She concluded also that CMS could appropriately revoke Dr. Maag’s Medicare enrollment because he did not report his felony conviction within 30 days as required.

Dr. Maag went through several phases of fighting the revocation, including an appeal to the Department of Health & Human Services Departmental Appeals Board. He argued that his plea was a no-contest plea, which is not considered an admission of guilt. Dr. Maag and his attorney provided CMS a 15-page paper about his background, education, career accomplishments, and patient care history. They emphasized that Dr. Maag had never harmed or threatened a patient, and that his offense had nothing to do with his practice.

In February 2021, Judge Carolyn Cozad Hughes, an administrative law judge with CMS, upheld the 3-year revocation. In her decision, she wrote that for purposes of revocation under CMS law, “convicted” means that a judgment of conviction has been entered by a federal, state, or local court regardless of whether the judgment of conviction has been expunged or otherwise removed. She disagreed with Dr. Maag’s contention that his was a crime against property and, therefore, not akin to any of the felony offenses enumerated under the revocation section, which are crimes against persons.

“Even disregarding the allegations contained in the probable cause affidavit, Petitioner cannot escape the undisputed fact, established by his conviction and his own admissions, that the ‘property’ he so ‘willfully and maliciously’ damaged was a motorcycle traveling at a high rate of speed, and, that two young people were sitting atop that motorcycle,” Judge Hughes wrote. “Moreover, as part of the same conduct, he was charged – and convicted – of misdemeanor reckless driving with ‘willful and wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.’ Thus, even accepting Petitioner’s description of the events, he unquestionably showed no regard for the safety of the young people on that motorcycle.”

Judge Hughes noted that, although Dr. Maag’s crimes may not be among those specified in the regulation, CMS has broad authority to determine which felonies are detrimental to the best interests of the program and its beneficiaries.
 

A new career path

Unable to practice emergency medicine and beset with debt, Dr. Maag spiraled into a dark depression. His family had to start using retirement money that he was saving for the future care of his son, who has autism.

“I was suicidal,” he said. “There were two times that I came very close to going out to the woods by my house and hanging myself. All I wanted was to have everything go away. My wife saved my life.”

Slowly, Dr. Maag climbed out of the despondency and began considering new career options. After working and training briefly in hair restoration, Dr. Maag became a hair transplant specialist and opened his own hair restoration practice. It was a way to practice and help patients without having to accept Medicare. Today, he is the founder of Honest Hair Restoration in Bradenton, Fla.

Hair restoration is not the type of medicine that he “was designed to do,” Dr. Maag said, but he has embraced its advantages, such as learning about the business aspects of medicine and having a slower-paced work life. The business, which opened in 2019, is doing well and growing steadily.

Earlier this month, Dr. Maag learned CMS had reinstated his Medicare billing privileges. If an opportunity arises to go back into emergency medicine or urgent care, he is open to the possibilities, he said, but he plans to continue hair restoration for now. He hopes the lessons learned from his road rage incident may help others in similar circumstances.

“If I could go back to that very moment, I would’ve just kept my window up and I wouldn’t have said anything,” Dr. Maag said. “I would’ve kept my mouth shut and gone on about my day. Would I have loved it to have never happened? Yeah, and I’d probably be starting my retirement now. Am I stronger now? Well, I’m probably a hell of a lot wiser. But when all is said and done, I don’t want anybody feeling sorry for me. It was all my doing and I have to live with the consequences.”

Mr. Fayard, the attorney, says the case is a cautionary tale for doctors.

“No one is really above the law,” he said. “There aren’t two legal systems. You can’t just pay a little money and be done. At every level, serious charges have serious ramifications for everyone involved. Law enforcement and judges are not going to care of you’re a physician and you commit a crime. But physicians have a lot more on the line than many others. They can lose their ability to practice.”

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

In May 2020, two major scientific journals published and subsequently retracted studies that relied on data provided by the now-disgraced data analytics company Surgisphere.

One of the studies, published in The Lancet, reported an association between the antimalarial drugs hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine and increased in-hospital mortality and cardiac arrhythmias in patients with COVID-19. The second study, which appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine, described an association between underlying cardiovascular disease, but not related drug therapy, with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients.

The retractions in June 2020 followed an open letter to each publication penned by scientists, ethicists, and clinicians who flagged serious methodological and ethical anomalies in the data used in the studies.

On the 1-year anniversary, researchers and journal editors spoke about what was learned to reduce the risk of something like this happening again.

“The Surgisphere incident served as a wake-up call for everyone involved with scientific research to make sure that data have integrity and are robust,” Sunil Rao, MD, professor of medicine, Duke University Health System, Durham, N.C., and editor-in-chief of Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions, said in an interview.

“I’m sure this isn’t going to be the last incident of this nature, and we have to be vigilant about new datasets or datasets that we haven’t heard of as having a track record of publication,” Dr. Rao said.
 

Spotlight on authors

The editors of the Lancet Group responded to the “wake-up call” with a statement, Learning From a Retraction, which announced changes to reduce the risks of research and publication misconduct.

The changes affect multiple phases of the publication process. For example, the declaration form that authors must sign “will require that more than one author has directly accessed and verified the data reported in the manuscript.” Additionally, when a research article is the result of an academic and commercial partnership – as was the case in the two retracted studies – “one of the authors named as having accessed and verified data must be from the academic team.”

This was particularly important because it appears that the academic coauthors of the retracted studies did not have access to the data provided by Surgisphere, a private commercial entity.

Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who was the lead author of both studies, declined to be interviewed for this article. In a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine editors requesting that the article be retracted, he wrote: “Because all the authors were not granted access to the raw data and the raw data could not be made available to a third-party auditor, we are unable to validate the primary data sources underlying our article.”

In a similar communication with The Lancet, Dr. Mehra wrote even more pointedly that, in light of the refusal of Surgisphere to make the data available to the third-party auditor, “we can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources.”

“It is very disturbing that the authors were willing to put their names on a paper without ever seeing and verifying the data,” Mario Malički, MD, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at METRICS at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview. “Saying that they could ‘no longer vouch’ suggests that at one point they could vouch for it. Most likely they took its existence and veracity entirely on trust.”

Dr. Malički pointed out that one of the four criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors for being an author on a study is the “agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.”

The new policies put forth by The Lancet are “encouraging,” but perhaps do not go far enough. “Every author, not only one or two authors, should personally take responsibility for the integrity of data,” he stated.

Many journals “adhere to ICMJE rules in principle and have checkboxes for authors to confirm that they guarantee the veracity of the data.” However, they “do not have the resources to verify the authors’ statements.”

Ideally, “it is the institutions where the researchers work that should guarantee the veracity of the raw data – but I do not know any university or institute that does this,” he said.
 

No ‘good-housekeeping’ seal

For articles based on large, real-world datasets, the Lancet Group will now require that editors ensure that at least one peer reviewer is “knowledgeable about the details of the dataset being reported and can understand its strengths and limitations in relation to the question being addressed.”

For studies that use “very large datasets,” the editors are now required to ensure that, in addition to a statistical peer review, a review from an “expert in data science” is obtained. Reviewers will also be explicitly asked if they have “concerns about research integrity or publication ethics regarding the manuscript they are reviewing.”

Although these changes are encouraging, Harlan Krumholz, MD, professor of medicine (cardiology), Yale University, New Haven, Conn., is not convinced that they are realistic.

Dr. Krumholz, who is also the founder and director of the Yale New Haven Hospital Center for Outcome Research and Evaluation, said in an interview that “large, real-world datasets” are of two varieties. Datasets drawn from publicly available sources, such as Medicare or Medicaid health records, are utterly transparent.

By contrast, Surgisphere was a privately owned database, and “it is not unusual for privately owned databases to have proprietary data from multiple sources that the company may choose to keep confidential,” Dr. Krumholz said.

He noted that several large datasets are widely used for research purposes, such as IBM, Optum, and Komodo – a data analytics company that recently entered into partnership with a fourth company, PicnicHealth.

These companies receive deidentified electronic health records from health systems and insurers nationwide. Komodo boasts “real-time and longitudinal data on more than 325 million patients, representing more than 65 billion clinical encounters with 15 million new encounters added daily.”

“One has to raise an eyebrow – how were these data acquired? And, given that the U.S. has a population of around 328 million people, is it really plausible that a single company has health records of almost the entire U.S. population?” Dr. Krumholz commented. (A spokesperson for Komodo said in an interview that the company has records on 325 million U.S. patients.)

This is “an issue across the board with ‘real-world evidence,’ which is that it’s like the ‘Wild West’ – the transparencies of private databases are less than optimal and there are no common standards to help us move forward,” Dr. Krumholz said, noting that there is “no external authority overseeing, validating, or auditing these databases. In the end, we are trusting the companies.”

Although the Food and Drug Administration has laid out a framework for how real-world data and real-world evidence can be used to advance scientific research, the FDA does not oversee the databases.

“Thus, there is no ‘good housekeeping seal’ that a peer reviewer or author would be in a position to evaluate,” Dr. Krumholz said. “No journal can do an audit of these types of private databases, so ultimately, it boils down to trust.”

Nevertheless, there were red flags with Surgisphere, Dr. Rao pointed out. Unlike more established and widely used databases, the Surgisphere database had been catapulted from relative obscurity onto center stage, which should have given researchers pause.
 

AI-assisted peer review

A series of investigative reports by The Guardian raised questions about Sapan Desai, the CEO of Surgisphere, including the fact that hospitals purporting to have contributed data to Surgisphere had never heard of the company.

However, peer reviewers are not expected to be investigative reporters, explained Dr. Malički.

“In an ideal world, editors and peer reviewers would have a chance to look at raw data or would have a certificate from the academic institution the authors are affiliated with that the data have been inspected by the institution, but in the real world, of course, this does not happen,” he said.

Artificial intelligence software is being developed and deployed to assist in the peer review process, Dr. Malički noted. In July 2020, Frontiers Science News debuted its Artificial Intelligence Review Assistant to help editors, reviewers, and authors evaluate the quality of a manuscript. The program can make up to 20 recommendations, including “the assessment of language quality, the detection of plagiarism, and identification of potential conflicts of interest.” The program is now in use in all 103 journals published by Frontiers. Preliminary software is also available to detect statistical errors.

Another system under development is FAIRware, an initiative of the Research on Research Institute in partnership with the Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research. The partnership’s goal is to “develop an automated online tool (or suite of tools) to help researchers ensure that the datasets they produce are ‘FAIR’ at the point of creation,” said Dr. Malički, referring to the findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability (FAIR) guiding principles for data management. The principles aim to increase the ability of machines to automatically find and use the data, as well as to support its reuse by individuals.

He added that these advanced tools cannot replace human reviewers, who will “likely always be a necessary quality check in the process.”
 

Greater transparency needed

Another limitation of peer review is the reviewers themselves, according to Dr. Malički. “It’s a step in the right direction that The Lancet is now requesting a peer reviewer with expertise in big datasets, but it does not go far enough to increase accountability of peer reviewers,” he said.

Dr. Malički is the co–editor-in-chief of the journal Research Integrity and Peer Review , which has “an open and transparent review process – meaning that we reveal the names of the reviewers to the public and we publish the full review report alongside the paper.” The publication also allows the authors to make public the original version they sent.

Dr. Malički cited several advantages to transparent peer review, particularly the increased accountability that results from placing potential conflicts of interest under the microscope.

As for the concern that identifying the reviewers might soften the review process, “there is little evidence to substantiate that concern,” he added.

Dr. Malički emphasized that making reviews public “is not a problem – people voice strong opinions at conferences and elsewhere. The question remains, who gets to decide if the criticism has been adequately addressed, so that the findings of the study still stand?”

He acknowledged that, “as in politics and on many social platforms, rage, hatred, and personal attacks divert the discussion from the topic at hand, which is why a good moderator is needed.”

A journal editor or a moderator at a scientific conference may be tasked with “stopping all talk not directly related to the topic.”
 

Widening the circle of scrutiny

Dr. Malički added: “A published paper should not be considered the ‘final word,’ even if it has gone through peer review and is published in a reputable journal. The peer-review process means that a limited number of people have seen the study.”

Once the study is published, “the whole world gets to see it and criticize it, and that widens the circle of scrutiny.”

One classic way to raise concerns about a study post publication is to write a letter to the journal editor. But there is no guarantee that the letter will be published or the authors notified of the feedback.

Dr. Malički encourages readers to use PubPeer, an online forum in which members of the public can post comments on scientific studies and articles.

Once a comment is posted, the authors are alerted. “There is no ‘police department’ that forces authors to acknowledge comments or forces journal editors to take action, but at least PubPeer guarantees that readers’ messages will reach the authors and – depending on how many people raise similar issues – the comments can lead to errata or even full retractions,” he said.

PubPeer was key in pointing out errors in a suspect study from France (which did not involve Surgisphere) that supported the use of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19.
 

A message to policy makers

High stakes are involved in ensuring the integrity of scientific publications: The French government revoked a decree that allowed hospitals to prescribe hydroxychloroquine for certain COVID-19 patients.

After the Surgisphere Lancet article, the World Health Organization temporarily halted enrollment in the hydroxychloroquine component of the Solidarity international randomized trial of medications to treat COVID-19.

Similarly, the U.K. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency instructed the organizers of COPCOV, an international trial of the use of hydroxychloroquine as prophylaxis against COVID-19, to suspend recruitment of patients. The SOLIDARITY trial briefly resumed, but that arm of the trial was ultimately suspended after a preliminary analysis suggested that hydroxychloroquine provided no benefit for patients with COVID-19.

Dr. Malički emphasized that governments and organizations should not “blindly trust journal articles” and make policy decisions based exclusively on study findings in published journals – even with the current improvements in the peer review process – without having their own experts conduct a thorough review of the data.

“If you are not willing to do your own due diligence, then at least be brave enough and say transparently why you are making this policy, or any other changes, and clearly state if your decision is based primarily or solely on the fact that ‘X’ study was published in ‘Y’ journal,” he stated.

Dr. Rao believes that the most important take-home message of the Surgisphere scandal is “that we should be skeptical and do our own due diligence about the kinds of data published – a responsibility that applies to all of us, whether we are investigators, editors at journals, the press, scientists, and readers.”

Dr. Rao reported being on the steering committee of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–sponsored MINT trial and the Bayer-sponsored PACIFIC AMI trial. Dr. Malički reports being a postdoc at METRICS Stanford in the past 3 years. Dr. Krumholz received expenses and/or personal fees from UnitedHealth, Element Science, Aetna, Facebook, the Siegfried and Jensen Law Firm, Arnold and Porter Law Firm, Martin/Baughman Law Firm, F-Prime, and the National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases in Beijing. He is an owner of Refactor Health and HugoHealth and had grants and/or contracts from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the FDA, Johnson & Johnson, and the Shenzhen Center for Health Information.

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

In May 2020, two major scientific journals published and subsequently retracted studies that relied on data provided by the now-disgraced data analytics company Surgisphere.

One of the studies, published in The Lancet, reported an association between the antimalarial drugs hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine and increased in-hospital mortality and cardiac arrhythmias in patients with COVID-19. The second study, which appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine, described an association between underlying cardiovascular disease, but not related drug therapy, with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients.

The retractions in June 2020 followed an open letter to each publication penned by scientists, ethicists, and clinicians who flagged serious methodological and ethical anomalies in the data used in the studies.

On the 1-year anniversary, researchers and journal editors spoke about what was learned to reduce the risk of something like this happening again.

“The Surgisphere incident served as a wake-up call for everyone involved with scientific research to make sure that data have integrity and are robust,” Sunil Rao, MD, professor of medicine, Duke University Health System, Durham, N.C., and editor-in-chief of Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions, said in an interview.

“I’m sure this isn’t going to be the last incident of this nature, and we have to be vigilant about new datasets or datasets that we haven’t heard of as having a track record of publication,” Dr. Rao said.
 

Spotlight on authors

The editors of the Lancet Group responded to the “wake-up call” with a statement, Learning From a Retraction, which announced changes to reduce the risks of research and publication misconduct.

The changes affect multiple phases of the publication process. For example, the declaration form that authors must sign “will require that more than one author has directly accessed and verified the data reported in the manuscript.” Additionally, when a research article is the result of an academic and commercial partnership – as was the case in the two retracted studies – “one of the authors named as having accessed and verified data must be from the academic team.”

This was particularly important because it appears that the academic coauthors of the retracted studies did not have access to the data provided by Surgisphere, a private commercial entity.

Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who was the lead author of both studies, declined to be interviewed for this article. In a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine editors requesting that the article be retracted, he wrote: “Because all the authors were not granted access to the raw data and the raw data could not be made available to a third-party auditor, we are unable to validate the primary data sources underlying our article.”

In a similar communication with The Lancet, Dr. Mehra wrote even more pointedly that, in light of the refusal of Surgisphere to make the data available to the third-party auditor, “we can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources.”

“It is very disturbing that the authors were willing to put their names on a paper without ever seeing and verifying the data,” Mario Malički, MD, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at METRICS at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview. “Saying that they could ‘no longer vouch’ suggests that at one point they could vouch for it. Most likely they took its existence and veracity entirely on trust.”

Dr. Malički pointed out that one of the four criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors for being an author on a study is the “agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.”

The new policies put forth by The Lancet are “encouraging,” but perhaps do not go far enough. “Every author, not only one or two authors, should personally take responsibility for the integrity of data,” he stated.

Many journals “adhere to ICMJE rules in principle and have checkboxes for authors to confirm that they guarantee the veracity of the data.” However, they “do not have the resources to verify the authors’ statements.”

Ideally, “it is the institutions where the researchers work that should guarantee the veracity of the raw data – but I do not know any university or institute that does this,” he said.
 

No ‘good-housekeeping’ seal

For articles based on large, real-world datasets, the Lancet Group will now require that editors ensure that at least one peer reviewer is “knowledgeable about the details of the dataset being reported and can understand its strengths and limitations in relation to the question being addressed.”

For studies that use “very large datasets,” the editors are now required to ensure that, in addition to a statistical peer review, a review from an “expert in data science” is obtained. Reviewers will also be explicitly asked if they have “concerns about research integrity or publication ethics regarding the manuscript they are reviewing.”

Although these changes are encouraging, Harlan Krumholz, MD, professor of medicine (cardiology), Yale University, New Haven, Conn., is not convinced that they are realistic.

Dr. Krumholz, who is also the founder and director of the Yale New Haven Hospital Center for Outcome Research and Evaluation, said in an interview that “large, real-world datasets” are of two varieties. Datasets drawn from publicly available sources, such as Medicare or Medicaid health records, are utterly transparent.

By contrast, Surgisphere was a privately owned database, and “it is not unusual for privately owned databases to have proprietary data from multiple sources that the company may choose to keep confidential,” Dr. Krumholz said.

He noted that several large datasets are widely used for research purposes, such as IBM, Optum, and Komodo – a data analytics company that recently entered into partnership with a fourth company, PicnicHealth.

These companies receive deidentified electronic health records from health systems and insurers nationwide. Komodo boasts “real-time and longitudinal data on more than 325 million patients, representing more than 65 billion clinical encounters with 15 million new encounters added daily.”

“One has to raise an eyebrow – how were these data acquired? And, given that the U.S. has a population of around 328 million people, is it really plausible that a single company has health records of almost the entire U.S. population?” Dr. Krumholz commented. (A spokesperson for Komodo said in an interview that the company has records on 325 million U.S. patients.)

This is “an issue across the board with ‘real-world evidence,’ which is that it’s like the ‘Wild West’ – the transparencies of private databases are less than optimal and there are no common standards to help us move forward,” Dr. Krumholz said, noting that there is “no external authority overseeing, validating, or auditing these databases. In the end, we are trusting the companies.”

Although the Food and Drug Administration has laid out a framework for how real-world data and real-world evidence can be used to advance scientific research, the FDA does not oversee the databases.

“Thus, there is no ‘good housekeeping seal’ that a peer reviewer or author would be in a position to evaluate,” Dr. Krumholz said. “No journal can do an audit of these types of private databases, so ultimately, it boils down to trust.”

Nevertheless, there were red flags with Surgisphere, Dr. Rao pointed out. Unlike more established and widely used databases, the Surgisphere database had been catapulted from relative obscurity onto center stage, which should have given researchers pause.
 

AI-assisted peer review

A series of investigative reports by The Guardian raised questions about Sapan Desai, the CEO of Surgisphere, including the fact that hospitals purporting to have contributed data to Surgisphere had never heard of the company.