Clinician Reviews

The risk of myocarditis after immunization with mRNA-based vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 raised concerns when it came to light in early 2021. But as report after report showed such cases to be rare and usually mild and self-limited, focus has turned to the “how and why.”  

The mechanism linking the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and especially mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccines to the occurrence of myocarditis is unclear for now, but one potential driver may be tied to a peculiarity that became apparent early: It occurs overwhelmingly in younger males, from 16 to perhaps 40 or 50 years of age. Excess risk has not been consistently seen among women, girls, and older men.

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

That observation has led to speculation that higher testosterone levels in adolescent boys and young men may somehow promote the adverse vaccine effect, whereas greater levels of estrogen among girls and women in the same age range may be cardioprotective.
 

Unlikely, brief, and ‘benign’

“Most of the myocarditis is benign, by which I mean that maybe the patients are admitted due to chest pain, but without reduction in ventricular function,” Enrico Ammirati, MD, PhD, a myocarditis expert at De Gasperis Cardio Center and Transplant Center, Niguarda Hospital, Milan, said in an interview.

In a Nov. 14 address on this topic at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association, Dror Mevorach, MD, described the typical case presentation as “mild” and one that clears in fairly short order based on resolution of “clinical symptoms, inflammatory markers and troponin decline, EKG normalization, echo normalization, and a relatively short length of hospital stay.”

Dr. Mevorach, of Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, subsequently published the findings in a report in the New England Journal of Medicine that described 136 confirmed myocarditis cases among more than 5 million people in Israel immunized with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Myocarditis was considered “mild” in 129 cases, or 95%.

And the risk is tiny, compared with myocarditis from infection by SARS-CoV-2, not to mention the possibility of nasty clinical COVID-19 complications such as pneumonia and pulmonary embolism, Dr. Mevorach observed.

Many other reports agree that the incidence is minimal, especially given the rewards of vaccination. In a separate NEJM publication in September 2021 – from Noam Barda, MD, Clalit (Israel) Research Institute, and colleagues on 1.7 million people in that country, about half unvaccinated and half given the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine – there were an estimated 2.7 cases of  myocarditis per 100,000 vaccinated persons. There were also 11 cases of myocarditis per 100,000 persons who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

And in a recent case series of vaccinated people aged 16 or older, the myocarditis rate after a first or second Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna injection was estimated at 1 or fewer per 100,000. The corresponding estimate was 4 such cases per 100,000 after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test among the same population, notes a report published Dec.14, 2021, in Nature Medicine.

In general, “the risk of any kind of cardiac injury is vastly lower with a vaccine than it is with the actual viral infection,” Leslie T. Cooper Jr., MD, a myocarditis expert and clinical trialist at the Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview. With the mRNA-based vaccines, “we do not have any conceivable danger signal that would outweigh the benefit of vaccination.”
 

Males of a certain age

Evidence that such myocarditis predominates in young adult men and adolescent boys, especially following a second vaccine dose, is remarkably consistent.

The risk was elevated only among mRNA-based vaccine recipients who were younger than 40 in the recent Nature Medicine analysis. Among that group, estimates after a second dose numbered fewer than 1 case per 100,000 for Pfizer-BioNTech and 1.5 per 100,000 for Moderna.

In a third analysis from Israel – also in NEJM, from Guy Witberg, MD, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, and colleagues, based on 2.5 million people aged 16 and older with at least one Pfizer-BioNTech injection – 2.1 cases per 100,000 were estimated overall, but the number rose to 10.7 per 100,000 among those aged 16-29 years.

In Dr. Mevorach’s NEJM report, estimates after a second Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine dose were 1 per 26,000 males versus 1 in 218,000 females, compared with 1 myocarditis case in 10,857 persons among “the general unvaccinated population.”

Most recipients of a first vaccine dose were younger than 50, and 16- to 29-year-olds accounted for most who completed two doses, noted Dr. Mevorach. Younger males bore the brunt of any myocarditis: the estimated prevalence after a second dose among males aged 16-19 was 1 per 6,637, compared with 1 per 99,853 females in the same age range, the group reported.

In the BMJ report, based on about 5 million people 12 years of age or older in Denmark, the estimated rates of myocarditis or pericarditis associated with Moderna immunization were 2 per 100,000 among women but 6.3 per 100,000 for men. The incidence and sex difference was much lower among those getting the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine: 1.3 per 100,000 and 1.5 per 100,000 in women and men, respectively.
 

Sex hormones may be key

The predominance of vaccine-associated myocarditis among adolescent and young adult males is probably more about the myocarditis itself than the vaccines, observed Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, who has been studying COVID-related myocarditis at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

Male sex historically is associated in both epidemiologic studies and experimental models with a greater propensity for most any form of myocarditis, Dr. Bozkurt said in an interview. Given that males aged 16-19 or so appear to be at highest risk of myocarditis as a complication of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, the mechanism may well be related to sex hormones.  

“Therefore, testosterone is implicated as a player in their higher risk of inflammation and injury and lack of adaptive response in terms of healing, and in terms of prevention of injury,” Dr. Bozkurt said. For its part, estrogen inhibits proinflammatory processes and, in particular, “blunts cell-mediated immune responses.”

“We don’t know the mechanism, but a theory that attributes a protective role to estrogen, or a risk associated with testosterone, is reasonable. It makes sense, at least based on epidemiological data,” Dr. Ammirati agreed. Still, “we do not have any direct evidence in human beings.”

Sex-associated differences in experimental myocarditis have been reported in the journals for at least 70 years, but “the testosterone literature and the estrogen literature have not been evaluated in detail in vaccine-associated myocarditis,” Dr. Cooper said.

Most myocarditis in the laboratory is viral, Dr. Cooper observed, and “the links between testosterone, viruses, and inflammation have been pretty well worked out, I would say, if you’re a mouse. If you’re a human, I think it’s still a bit uncertain.”

Were it to apply in humans, greater testosterone levels might independently promote myocarditis, “and if estrogen is cardioprotective, it would be another mechanism,” Dr. Cooper said. “That would translate to slight male predominance in most kinds of myocarditis.”

In males, compared with females, “the heart can be more vulnerable to events such as arrhythmias or to immune-mediated phenomena. So, probably there is also higher vulnerability to myocarditis in men,” Dr. Ammirati noted.

Male predominance in vaccine-related myocarditis is provocative, so it’s worth considering whether testosterone is part of the mechanism as well as the possibility of estrogen cardioprotection, Dr. Ammirati said. But given limitations of the animal models, “we don’t really have robust data to support any part of that.”

Although myocarditis is in some way immune mediated, “and hormones can modulate the response,” the mechanism has to be more than just sex hormones, he said. “They probably cannot explain the specificity for the heart. It’s not a systemic response, it’s an organ-specific response.”
 

Modulation of immune responses

Details about the immune processes underlying mRNA-vaccine myocarditis, hormone modulated or not, have been elusive. The complication doesn’t resemble serum sickness, nor does it seem to be a reaction to infection by other cardiotropic viruses, such as coxsackie virus B, a cause of viral myocarditis, Dr. Bozkurt said. The latter had been a compelling possibility because such hypersensitivity to smallpox vaccination is well recognized.

“We don’t know the mechanism, that’s the short answer. But there are many hypotheses,” she said. One candidate widely proposed in the literature: autoantibodies driven by molecular mimicry between the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein targeted by the mRNA vaccines and a structurally similar myocardial protein, possibly alpha-myosin, noted Dr. Bozkurt and colleagues in a recent publication.

But elevations in specific “antiheart antibodies” have not been documented in recipients of the two mRNA-based vaccines, said Dr. Cooper. “So, I would say that – although molecular mimicry is a well-established mechanism of, for example, rheumatic carditis after a streptococcal A infection – that has not been demonstrated yet for COVID-19 mRNA vaccination–related myocarditis.”

“We probably won’t know, ever, with a huge level of certainty, the exact mechanisms,” Dr. Cooper added. There is no animal model for vaccine-induced myocarditis, and “We’re still talking very, very small numbers of patients. The vast majority of them recover,” and so don’t generally provide mechanistic clues.  
 

Prospects for younger children

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 has now been authorized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for kids as young as 5-11 years, using the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Experience so far suggests the immunization is safe in that age group with negligible risk of myocarditis or other complications. But with prospects of possible authorization in children younger than 5, should myocarditis be a concern for them?

Probably not, if the complication is driven primarily by sex hormones, Dr. Cooper proposed. “One would predict that before puberty you would have a lower – much, much lower – rate of myocarditis in males than you would in the 16- to 19-year-old range, and that it would be roughly equal to females.” Dr. Ammirati and Dr. Bozkurt largely agreed.

It remains to be seen whether the vaccine-related myocarditis risk applies to children younger than 12, “but I doubt it. I think it’s going to be puberty-related,” Dr. Bozkurt said. Still, “I don’t want to hypothesize without data.”

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

The risk of myocarditis after immunization with mRNA-based vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 raised concerns when it came to light in early 2021. But as report after report showed such cases to be rare and usually mild and self-limited, focus has turned to the “how and why.”  

The mechanism linking the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and especially mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccines to the occurrence of myocarditis is unclear for now, but one potential driver may be tied to a peculiarity that became apparent early: It occurs overwhelmingly in younger males, from 16 to perhaps 40 or 50 years of age. Excess risk has not been consistently seen among women, girls, and older men.

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

That observation has led to speculation that higher testosterone levels in adolescent boys and young men may somehow promote the adverse vaccine effect, whereas greater levels of estrogen among girls and women in the same age range may be cardioprotective.
 

Unlikely, brief, and ‘benign’

“Most of the myocarditis is benign, by which I mean that maybe the patients are admitted due to chest pain, but without reduction in ventricular function,” Enrico Ammirati, MD, PhD, a myocarditis expert at De Gasperis Cardio Center and Transplant Center, Niguarda Hospital, Milan, said in an interview.

In a Nov. 14 address on this topic at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association, Dror Mevorach, MD, described the typical case presentation as “mild” and one that clears in fairly short order based on resolution of “clinical symptoms, inflammatory markers and troponin decline, EKG normalization, echo normalization, and a relatively short length of hospital stay.”

Dr. Mevorach, of Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, subsequently published the findings in a report in the New England Journal of Medicine that described 136 confirmed myocarditis cases among more than 5 million people in Israel immunized with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Myocarditis was considered “mild” in 129 cases, or 95%.

And the risk is tiny, compared with myocarditis from infection by SARS-CoV-2, not to mention the possibility of nasty clinical COVID-19 complications such as pneumonia and pulmonary embolism, Dr. Mevorach observed.

Many other reports agree that the incidence is minimal, especially given the rewards of vaccination. In a separate NEJM publication in September 2021 – from Noam Barda, MD, Clalit (Israel) Research Institute, and colleagues on 1.7 million people in that country, about half unvaccinated and half given the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine – there were an estimated 2.7 cases of  myocarditis per 100,000 vaccinated persons. There were also 11 cases of myocarditis per 100,000 persons who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

And in a recent case series of vaccinated people aged 16 or older, the myocarditis rate after a first or second Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna injection was estimated at 1 or fewer per 100,000. The corresponding estimate was 4 such cases per 100,000 after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test among the same population, notes a report published Dec.14, 2021, in Nature Medicine.

In general, “the risk of any kind of cardiac injury is vastly lower with a vaccine than it is with the actual viral infection,” Leslie T. Cooper Jr., MD, a myocarditis expert and clinical trialist at the Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview. With the mRNA-based vaccines, “we do not have any conceivable danger signal that would outweigh the benefit of vaccination.”
 

Males of a certain age

Evidence that such myocarditis predominates in young adult men and adolescent boys, especially following a second vaccine dose, is remarkably consistent.

The risk was elevated only among mRNA-based vaccine recipients who were younger than 40 in the recent Nature Medicine analysis. Among that group, estimates after a second dose numbered fewer than 1 case per 100,000 for Pfizer-BioNTech and 1.5 per 100,000 for Moderna.

In a third analysis from Israel – also in NEJM, from Guy Witberg, MD, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, and colleagues, based on 2.5 million people aged 16 and older with at least one Pfizer-BioNTech injection – 2.1 cases per 100,000 were estimated overall, but the number rose to 10.7 per 100,000 among those aged 16-29 years.

In Dr. Mevorach’s NEJM report, estimates after a second Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine dose were 1 per 26,000 males versus 1 in 218,000 females, compared with 1 myocarditis case in 10,857 persons among “the general unvaccinated population.”

Most recipients of a first vaccine dose were younger than 50, and 16- to 29-year-olds accounted for most who completed two doses, noted Dr. Mevorach. Younger males bore the brunt of any myocarditis: the estimated prevalence after a second dose among males aged 16-19 was 1 per 6,637, compared with 1 per 99,853 females in the same age range, the group reported.

In the BMJ report, based on about 5 million people 12 years of age or older in Denmark, the estimated rates of myocarditis or pericarditis associated with Moderna immunization were 2 per 100,000 among women but 6.3 per 100,000 for men. The incidence and sex difference was much lower among those getting the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine: 1.3 per 100,000 and 1.5 per 100,000 in women and men, respectively.
 

Sex hormones may be key

The predominance of vaccine-associated myocarditis among adolescent and young adult males is probably more about the myocarditis itself than the vaccines, observed Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, who has been studying COVID-related myocarditis at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

Male sex historically is associated in both epidemiologic studies and experimental models with a greater propensity for most any form of myocarditis, Dr. Bozkurt said in an interview. Given that males aged 16-19 or so appear to be at highest risk of myocarditis as a complication of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, the mechanism may well be related to sex hormones.  

“Therefore, testosterone is implicated as a player in their higher risk of inflammation and injury and lack of adaptive response in terms of healing, and in terms of prevention of injury,” Dr. Bozkurt said. For its part, estrogen inhibits proinflammatory processes and, in particular, “blunts cell-mediated immune responses.”

“We don’t know the mechanism, but a theory that attributes a protective role to estrogen, or a risk associated with testosterone, is reasonable. It makes sense, at least based on epidemiological data,” Dr. Ammirati agreed. Still, “we do not have any direct evidence in human beings.”

Sex-associated differences in experimental myocarditis have been reported in the journals for at least 70 years, but “the testosterone literature and the estrogen literature have not been evaluated in detail in vaccine-associated myocarditis,” Dr. Cooper said.

Most myocarditis in the laboratory is viral, Dr. Cooper observed, and “the links between testosterone, viruses, and inflammation have been pretty well worked out, I would say, if you’re a mouse. If you’re a human, I think it’s still a bit uncertain.”

Were it to apply in humans, greater testosterone levels might independently promote myocarditis, “and if estrogen is cardioprotective, it would be another mechanism,” Dr. Cooper said. “That would translate to slight male predominance in most kinds of myocarditis.”

In males, compared with females, “the heart can be more vulnerable to events such as arrhythmias or to immune-mediated phenomena. So, probably there is also higher vulnerability to myocarditis in men,” Dr. Ammirati noted.

Male predominance in vaccine-related myocarditis is provocative, so it’s worth considering whether testosterone is part of the mechanism as well as the possibility of estrogen cardioprotection, Dr. Ammirati said. But given limitations of the animal models, “we don’t really have robust data to support any part of that.”

Although myocarditis is in some way immune mediated, “and hormones can modulate the response,” the mechanism has to be more than just sex hormones, he said. “They probably cannot explain the specificity for the heart. It’s not a systemic response, it’s an organ-specific response.”
 

Modulation of immune responses

Details about the immune processes underlying mRNA-vaccine myocarditis, hormone modulated or not, have been elusive. The complication doesn’t resemble serum sickness, nor does it seem to be a reaction to infection by other cardiotropic viruses, such as coxsackie virus B, a cause of viral myocarditis, Dr. Bozkurt said. The latter had been a compelling possibility because such hypersensitivity to smallpox vaccination is well recognized.

“We don’t know the mechanism, that’s the short answer. But there are many hypotheses,” she said. One candidate widely proposed in the literature: autoantibodies driven by molecular mimicry between the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein targeted by the mRNA vaccines and a structurally similar myocardial protein, possibly alpha-myosin, noted Dr. Bozkurt and colleagues in a recent publication.

But elevations in specific “antiheart antibodies” have not been documented in recipients of the two mRNA-based vaccines, said Dr. Cooper. “So, I would say that – although molecular mimicry is a well-established mechanism of, for example, rheumatic carditis after a streptococcal A infection – that has not been demonstrated yet for COVID-19 mRNA vaccination–related myocarditis.”

“We probably won’t know, ever, with a huge level of certainty, the exact mechanisms,” Dr. Cooper added. There is no animal model for vaccine-induced myocarditis, and “We’re still talking very, very small numbers of patients. The vast majority of them recover,” and so don’t generally provide mechanistic clues.  
 

Prospects for younger children

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 has now been authorized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for kids as young as 5-11 years, using the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Experience so far suggests the immunization is safe in that age group with negligible risk of myocarditis or other complications. But with prospects of possible authorization in children younger than 5, should myocarditis be a concern for them?

Probably not, if the complication is driven primarily by sex hormones, Dr. Cooper proposed. “One would predict that before puberty you would have a lower – much, much lower – rate of myocarditis in males than you would in the 16- to 19-year-old range, and that it would be roughly equal to females.” Dr. Ammirati and Dr. Bozkurt largely agreed.

It remains to be seen whether the vaccine-related myocarditis risk applies to children younger than 12, “but I doubt it. I think it’s going to be puberty-related,” Dr. Bozkurt said. Still, “I don’t want to hypothesize without data.”

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

The risk of myocarditis after immunization with mRNA-based vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 raised concerns when it came to light in early 2021. But as report after report showed such cases to be rare and usually mild and self-limited, focus has turned to the “how and why.”  

The mechanism linking the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and especially mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccines to the occurrence of myocarditis is unclear for now, but one potential driver may be tied to a peculiarity that became apparent early: It occurs overwhelmingly in younger males, from 16 to perhaps 40 or 50 years of age. Excess risk has not been consistently seen among women, girls, and older men.

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

That observation has led to speculation that higher testosterone levels in adolescent boys and young men may somehow promote the adverse vaccine effect, whereas greater levels of estrogen among girls and women in the same age range may be cardioprotective.
 

Unlikely, brief, and ‘benign’

“Most of the myocarditis is benign, by which I mean that maybe the patients are admitted due to chest pain, but without reduction in ventricular function,” Enrico Ammirati, MD, PhD, a myocarditis expert at De Gasperis Cardio Center and Transplant Center, Niguarda Hospital, Milan, said in an interview.

In a Nov. 14 address on this topic at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association, Dror Mevorach, MD, described the typical case presentation as “mild” and one that clears in fairly short order based on resolution of “clinical symptoms, inflammatory markers and troponin decline, EKG normalization, echo normalization, and a relatively short length of hospital stay.”

Dr. Mevorach, of Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, subsequently published the findings in a report in the New England Journal of Medicine that described 136 confirmed myocarditis cases among more than 5 million people in Israel immunized with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Myocarditis was considered “mild” in 129 cases, or 95%.

And the risk is tiny, compared with myocarditis from infection by SARS-CoV-2, not to mention the possibility of nasty clinical COVID-19 complications such as pneumonia and pulmonary embolism, Dr. Mevorach observed.

Many other reports agree that the incidence is minimal, especially given the rewards of vaccination. In a separate NEJM publication in September 2021 – from Noam Barda, MD, Clalit (Israel) Research Institute, and colleagues on 1.7 million people in that country, about half unvaccinated and half given the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine – there were an estimated 2.7 cases of  myocarditis per 100,000 vaccinated persons. There were also 11 cases of myocarditis per 100,000 persons who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

And in a recent case series of vaccinated people aged 16 or older, the myocarditis rate after a first or second Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna injection was estimated at 1 or fewer per 100,000. The corresponding estimate was 4 such cases per 100,000 after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test among the same population, notes a report published Dec.14, 2021, in Nature Medicine.

In general, “the risk of any kind of cardiac injury is vastly lower with a vaccine than it is with the actual viral infection,” Leslie T. Cooper Jr., MD, a myocarditis expert and clinical trialist at the Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview. With the mRNA-based vaccines, “we do not have any conceivable danger signal that would outweigh the benefit of vaccination.”
 

Males of a certain age

Evidence that such myocarditis predominates in young adult men and adolescent boys, especially following a second vaccine dose, is remarkably consistent.

The risk was elevated only among mRNA-based vaccine recipients who were younger than 40 in the recent Nature Medicine analysis. Among that group, estimates after a second dose numbered fewer than 1 case per 100,000 for Pfizer-BioNTech and 1.5 per 100,000 for Moderna.

In a third analysis from Israel – also in NEJM, from Guy Witberg, MD, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, and colleagues, based on 2.5 million people aged 16 and older with at least one Pfizer-BioNTech injection – 2.1 cases per 100,000 were estimated overall, but the number rose to 10.7 per 100,000 among those aged 16-29 years.

In Dr. Mevorach’s NEJM report, estimates after a second Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine dose were 1 per 26,000 males versus 1 in 218,000 females, compared with 1 myocarditis case in 10,857 persons among “the general unvaccinated population.”

Most recipients of a first vaccine dose were younger than 50, and 16- to 29-year-olds accounted for most who completed two doses, noted Dr. Mevorach. Younger males bore the brunt of any myocarditis: the estimated prevalence after a second dose among males aged 16-19 was 1 per 6,637, compared with 1 per 99,853 females in the same age range, the group reported.

In the BMJ report, based on about 5 million people 12 years of age or older in Denmark, the estimated rates of myocarditis or pericarditis associated with Moderna immunization were 2 per 100,000 among women but 6.3 per 100,000 for men. The incidence and sex difference was much lower among those getting the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine: 1.3 per 100,000 and 1.5 per 100,000 in women and men, respectively.
 

Sex hormones may be key

The predominance of vaccine-associated myocarditis among adolescent and young adult males is probably more about the myocarditis itself than the vaccines, observed Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, who has been studying COVID-related myocarditis at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

Male sex historically is associated in both epidemiologic studies and experimental models with a greater propensity for most any form of myocarditis, Dr. Bozkurt said in an interview. Given that males aged 16-19 or so appear to be at highest risk of myocarditis as a complication of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, the mechanism may well be related to sex hormones.  

“Therefore, testosterone is implicated as a player in their higher risk of inflammation and injury and lack of adaptive response in terms of healing, and in terms of prevention of injury,” Dr. Bozkurt said. For its part, estrogen inhibits proinflammatory processes and, in particular, “blunts cell-mediated immune responses.”

“We don’t know the mechanism, but a theory that attributes a protective role to estrogen, or a risk associated with testosterone, is reasonable. It makes sense, at least based on epidemiological data,” Dr. Ammirati agreed. Still, “we do not have any direct evidence in human beings.”

Sex-associated differences in experimental myocarditis have been reported in the journals for at least 70 years, but “the testosterone literature and the estrogen literature have not been evaluated in detail in vaccine-associated myocarditis,” Dr. Cooper said.

Most myocarditis in the laboratory is viral, Dr. Cooper observed, and “the links between testosterone, viruses, and inflammation have been pretty well worked out, I would say, if you’re a mouse. If you’re a human, I think it’s still a bit uncertain.”

Were it to apply in humans, greater testosterone levels might independently promote myocarditis, “and if estrogen is cardioprotective, it would be another mechanism,” Dr. Cooper said. “That would translate to slight male predominance in most kinds of myocarditis.”

In males, compared with females, “the heart can be more vulnerable to events such as arrhythmias or to immune-mediated phenomena. So, probably there is also higher vulnerability to myocarditis in men,” Dr. Ammirati noted.

Male predominance in vaccine-related myocarditis is provocative, so it’s worth considering whether testosterone is part of the mechanism as well as the possibility of estrogen cardioprotection, Dr. Ammirati said. But given limitations of the animal models, “we don’t really have robust data to support any part of that.”

Although myocarditis is in some way immune mediated, “and hormones can modulate the response,” the mechanism has to be more than just sex hormones, he said. “They probably cannot explain the specificity for the heart. It’s not a systemic response, it’s an organ-specific response.”
 

Modulation of immune responses

Details about the immune processes underlying mRNA-vaccine myocarditis, hormone modulated or not, have been elusive. The complication doesn’t resemble serum sickness, nor does it seem to be a reaction to infection by other cardiotropic viruses, such as coxsackie virus B, a cause of viral myocarditis, Dr. Bozkurt said. The latter had been a compelling possibility because such hypersensitivity to smallpox vaccination is well recognized.

“We don’t know the mechanism, that’s the short answer. But there are many hypotheses,” she said. One candidate widely proposed in the literature: autoantibodies driven by molecular mimicry between the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein targeted by the mRNA vaccines and a structurally similar myocardial protein, possibly alpha-myosin, noted Dr. Bozkurt and colleagues in a recent publication.

But elevations in specific “antiheart antibodies” have not been documented in recipients of the two mRNA-based vaccines, said Dr. Cooper. “So, I would say that – although molecular mimicry is a well-established mechanism of, for example, rheumatic carditis after a streptococcal A infection – that has not been demonstrated yet for COVID-19 mRNA vaccination–related myocarditis.”

“We probably won’t know, ever, with a huge level of certainty, the exact mechanisms,” Dr. Cooper added. There is no animal model for vaccine-induced myocarditis, and “We’re still talking very, very small numbers of patients. The vast majority of them recover,” and so don’t generally provide mechanistic clues.  
 

Prospects for younger children

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 has now been authorized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for kids as young as 5-11 years, using the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Experience so far suggests the immunization is safe in that age group with negligible risk of myocarditis or other complications. But with prospects of possible authorization in children younger than 5, should myocarditis be a concern for them?

Probably not, if the complication is driven primarily by sex hormones, Dr. Cooper proposed. “One would predict that before puberty you would have a lower – much, much lower – rate of myocarditis in males than you would in the 16- to 19-year-old range, and that it would be roughly equal to females.” Dr. Ammirati and Dr. Bozkurt largely agreed.

It remains to be seen whether the vaccine-related myocarditis risk applies to children younger than 12, “but I doubt it. I think it’s going to be puberty-related,” Dr. Bozkurt said. Still, “I don’t want to hypothesize without data.”

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

Physician assistants (PAs) are angry with me, and with good reason. I had the audacity to lump them together with nurse practitioners (NPs) in my book “Patients at Risk,” an act which one highly placed PA leader called “distasteful” in a private conversation with me.

I will admit that PAs have reason to be upset. With competitive acceptance rates including a requirement for extensive health care experience before PA school, standardized training, and at least 2,000 hours of clinical experience before graduation, the profession is a stark contrast to the haphazard training and 500 clinical hours required of NPs today. Further, unlike NPs, who have sought independent practice since the 1980s, PAs have traditionally been close allies with physicians, generally working in a 1:1 supervision model.

The truth is that it hurt to include PAs with NPs in my book. I’ve had my own close relationships with PAs over the years and found the PAs I worked with to be outstanding clinicians. Unfortunately, the profession has given me no choice. Following a model set by the NP profession, PA leaders have elected to forgo the traditional physician relationship model, instead seeking the right to practice independently without physician involvement.

Their efforts began with a change in terminology. “Optimal team practice” (OTP) was supposed to give PAs more flexibility, allowing them to work for hospitals or physician groups rather than under the responsibility of one physician. Not surprisingly, corporations and even academic centers have been quick to take advantage, hiring PAs and placing them in positions without adequate physician support. OTP paved the way for independent practice, as PAs sought and gained independence from any physician supervision in North Dakota, the first state to grant them that right.

Most recently, PAs have determined to change their name entirely, calling themselves physician associates. This move by the American Academy of Physician Assistants is the culmination of a years-long marketing study on how to increase the relevance and improve patient perception of the PA profession. The AAPA decision is expected to galvanize state and local PA organizations to lobby legislators for legal and regulatory changes that allow the use of the “physician associate” title, which is not currently a legal representation of PA licensure.

PAs’ latest attempt at title and branding reform follows years of advocacy to not be referred to as physician extenders or midlevel providers. For example, to gain more public acceptance of the PA model, the profession launched the public relations campaign “Your PA Can,” closely mirroring the “We Choose NPs” media blitz. PAs have also followed other dangerous precedents set by NPs, including 100% online training and a new “Doctor of Medical Science” degree, allowing PAs, as well as NPs, to now be called “doctors.”

I can understand PA reasoning even if I don’t agree with it. PAs are frustrated to be treated as second-class citizens compared with NPs, who have been granted independent practice in half the states in the union despite having a fraction of PA training. Frankly, it’s unfair that NPs are being hired preferentially over PAs simply because of looser legal requirements for physician oversight. The bottom line is that NPs have been more successful at persuading legislators to allow them independence – but that doesn’t make it right for either group.

While PAs have more clinical training upon graduation than NPs, they still have far less than physicians. PAs generally attend a 2-year master’s degree program after college which includes 2,000 hours of hands-on clinical work. By comparison, the average medical student spends 4 years and receives 5,000-6,000 hours of supervised clinical training upon graduation. But this isn’t considered enough for a graduate medical student to practice medicine independently.

Physicians must complete at least 3 years of postgraduate residency training in most states to receive a medical license, and by the time a physician is permitted to practice medicine unsupervised, they will have attained no fewer than 15,000-20,000 hours of supervised clinical practice, with years of specialty-specific training.

Patients want and deserve access to truly physician-led care, but in many parts of the country, physicians are being replaced by nonphysician practitioners to boost corporate profits. In many cases, patients are kept in the dark about the differences in training between the medical professionals now in charge of their care. The American Medical Association and other critics have expressed concern that the proposed title of “physician associate” is likely to further obscure the training and roles of medical professionals, already a source of confusion to patients.

One specific criticism is that a physician associate has historically referred to a physician (MD or DO) in a private practice group who has not yet achieved the status of partner. These physician associates are fully licensed medical doctors who have completed medical school and residency training and are in the process of completing a partnership track with their group to participate fully in financial and administrative processes. This nomenclature is similar to that of attorneys on a partnership track. Thus, the use of the term “physician associate” for someone other than a medical doctor is seen as misleading, particularly to patients who cannot be expected to have familiarity with the differences in training.

Efforts to separate the PA profession from a close-working relationship with a physician are bad not only for patients but for PAs as well. Many PAs who desire physician involvement may find themselves hung out to dry, hired by companies and expected to perform outside of their comfort level. The profession also risks ostracizing physician allies, many of whom have preferentially sought to work with PAs.

My sincere hope is that the PA profession will return to its traditional roots of a physician-PA relationship, a model that has been demonstrated to result in high-quality patient care. When that day comes, I will happily re-title my book. But as long as the AAPA continues to work to remove physicians from the equation, patients are indeed at risk.
 

Rebekah Bernard, MD, is a family physician in Fort Myers, Florida, and president of Physicians for Patient Protection. She is the coauthor of Patients at Risk: The Rise of the Nurse Practitioner and Physician Assistant in Healthcare (Irvine, Calif.: Universal Publishers, 2020). She had no relevant financial disclosures. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Physician assistants (PAs) are angry with me, and with good reason. I had the audacity to lump them together with nurse practitioners (NPs) in my book “Patients at Risk,” an act which one highly placed PA leader called “distasteful” in a private conversation with me.

I will admit that PAs have reason to be upset. With competitive acceptance rates including a requirement for extensive health care experience before PA school, standardized training, and at least 2,000 hours of clinical experience before graduation, the profession is a stark contrast to the haphazard training and 500 clinical hours required of NPs today. Further, unlike NPs, who have sought independent practice since the 1980s, PAs have traditionally been close allies with physicians, generally working in a 1:1 supervision model.

The truth is that it hurt to include PAs with NPs in my book. I’ve had my own close relationships with PAs over the years and found the PAs I worked with to be outstanding clinicians. Unfortunately, the profession has given me no choice. Following a model set by the NP profession, PA leaders have elected to forgo the traditional physician relationship model, instead seeking the right to practice independently without physician involvement.

Their efforts began with a change in terminology. “Optimal team practice” (OTP) was supposed to give PAs more flexibility, allowing them to work for hospitals or physician groups rather than under the responsibility of one physician. Not surprisingly, corporations and even academic centers have been quick to take advantage, hiring PAs and placing them in positions without adequate physician support. OTP paved the way for independent practice, as PAs sought and gained independence from any physician supervision in North Dakota, the first state to grant them that right.

Most recently, PAs have determined to change their name entirely, calling themselves physician associates. This move by the American Academy of Physician Assistants is the culmination of a years-long marketing study on how to increase the relevance and improve patient perception of the PA profession. The AAPA decision is expected to galvanize state and local PA organizations to lobby legislators for legal and regulatory changes that allow the use of the “physician associate” title, which is not currently a legal representation of PA licensure.

PAs’ latest attempt at title and branding reform follows years of advocacy to not be referred to as physician extenders or midlevel providers. For example, to gain more public acceptance of the PA model, the profession launched the public relations campaign “Your PA Can,” closely mirroring the “We Choose NPs” media blitz. PAs have also followed other dangerous precedents set by NPs, including 100% online training and a new “Doctor of Medical Science” degree, allowing PAs, as well as NPs, to now be called “doctors.”

I can understand PA reasoning even if I don’t agree with it. PAs are frustrated to be treated as second-class citizens compared with NPs, who have been granted independent practice in half the states in the union despite having a fraction of PA training. Frankly, it’s unfair that NPs are being hired preferentially over PAs simply because of looser legal requirements for physician oversight. The bottom line is that NPs have been more successful at persuading legislators to allow them independence – but that doesn’t make it right for either group.

While PAs have more clinical training upon graduation than NPs, they still have far less than physicians. PAs generally attend a 2-year master’s degree program after college which includes 2,000 hours of hands-on clinical work. By comparison, the average medical student spends 4 years and receives 5,000-6,000 hours of supervised clinical training upon graduation. But this isn’t considered enough for a graduate medical student to practice medicine independently.

Physicians must complete at least 3 years of postgraduate residency training in most states to receive a medical license, and by the time a physician is permitted to practice medicine unsupervised, they will have attained no fewer than 15,000-20,000 hours of supervised clinical practice, with years of specialty-specific training.

Patients want and deserve access to truly physician-led care, but in many parts of the country, physicians are being replaced by nonphysician practitioners to boost corporate profits. In many cases, patients are kept in the dark about the differences in training between the medical professionals now in charge of their care. The American Medical Association and other critics have expressed concern that the proposed title of “physician associate” is likely to further obscure the training and roles of medical professionals, already a source of confusion to patients.

One specific criticism is that a physician associate has historically referred to a physician (MD or DO) in a private practice group who has not yet achieved the status of partner. These physician associates are fully licensed medical doctors who have completed medical school and residency training and are in the process of completing a partnership track with their group to participate fully in financial and administrative processes. This nomenclature is similar to that of attorneys on a partnership track. Thus, the use of the term “physician associate” for someone other than a medical doctor is seen as misleading, particularly to patients who cannot be expected to have familiarity with the differences in training.

Efforts to separate the PA profession from a close-working relationship with a physician are bad not only for patients but for PAs as well. Many PAs who desire physician involvement may find themselves hung out to dry, hired by companies and expected to perform outside of their comfort level. The profession also risks ostracizing physician allies, many of whom have preferentially sought to work with PAs.

My sincere hope is that the PA profession will return to its traditional roots of a physician-PA relationship, a model that has been demonstrated to result in high-quality patient care. When that day comes, I will happily re-title my book. But as long as the AAPA continues to work to remove physicians from the equation, patients are indeed at risk.
 

Rebekah Bernard, MD, is a family physician in Fort Myers, Florida, and president of Physicians for Patient Protection. She is the coauthor of Patients at Risk: The Rise of the Nurse Practitioner and Physician Assistant in Healthcare (Irvine, Calif.: Universal Publishers, 2020). She had no relevant financial disclosures. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Physician assistants (PAs) are angry with me, and with good reason. I had the audacity to lump them together with nurse practitioners (NPs) in my book “Patients at Risk,” an act which one highly placed PA leader called “distasteful” in a private conversation with me.

I will admit that PAs have reason to be upset. With competitive acceptance rates including a requirement for extensive health care experience before PA school, standardized training, and at least 2,000 hours of clinical experience before graduation, the profession is a stark contrast to the haphazard training and 500 clinical hours required of NPs today. Further, unlike NPs, who have sought independent practice since the 1980s, PAs have traditionally been close allies with physicians, generally working in a 1:1 supervision model.

The truth is that it hurt to include PAs with NPs in my book. I’ve had my own close relationships with PAs over the years and found the PAs I worked with to be outstanding clinicians. Unfortunately, the profession has given me no choice. Following a model set by the NP profession, PA leaders have elected to forgo the traditional physician relationship model, instead seeking the right to practice independently without physician involvement.

Their efforts began with a change in terminology. “Optimal team practice” (OTP) was supposed to give PAs more flexibility, allowing them to work for hospitals or physician groups rather than under the responsibility of one physician. Not surprisingly, corporations and even academic centers have been quick to take advantage, hiring PAs and placing them in positions without adequate physician support. OTP paved the way for independent practice, as PAs sought and gained independence from any physician supervision in North Dakota, the first state to grant them that right.

Most recently, PAs have determined to change their name entirely, calling themselves physician associates. This move by the American Academy of Physician Assistants is the culmination of a years-long marketing study on how to increase the relevance and improve patient perception of the PA profession. The AAPA decision is expected to galvanize state and local PA organizations to lobby legislators for legal and regulatory changes that allow the use of the “physician associate” title, which is not currently a legal representation of PA licensure.

PAs’ latest attempt at title and branding reform follows years of advocacy to not be referred to as physician extenders or midlevel providers. For example, to gain more public acceptance of the PA model, the profession launched the public relations campaign “Your PA Can,” closely mirroring the “We Choose NPs” media blitz. PAs have also followed other dangerous precedents set by NPs, including 100% online training and a new “Doctor of Medical Science” degree, allowing PAs, as well as NPs, to now be called “doctors.”

I can understand PA reasoning even if I don’t agree with it. PAs are frustrated to be treated as second-class citizens compared with NPs, who have been granted independent practice in half the states in the union despite having a fraction of PA training. Frankly, it’s unfair that NPs are being hired preferentially over PAs simply because of looser legal requirements for physician oversight. The bottom line is that NPs have been more successful at persuading legislators to allow them independence – but that doesn’t make it right for either group.

While PAs have more clinical training upon graduation than NPs, they still have far less than physicians. PAs generally attend a 2-year master’s degree program after college which includes 2,000 hours of hands-on clinical work. By comparison, the average medical student spends 4 years and receives 5,000-6,000 hours of supervised clinical training upon graduation. But this isn’t considered enough for a graduate medical student to practice medicine independently.

Physicians must complete at least 3 years of postgraduate residency training in most states to receive a medical license, and by the time a physician is permitted to practice medicine unsupervised, they will have attained no fewer than 15,000-20,000 hours of supervised clinical practice, with years of specialty-specific training.

Patients want and deserve access to truly physician-led care, but in many parts of the country, physicians are being replaced by nonphysician practitioners to boost corporate profits. In many cases, patients are kept in the dark about the differences in training between the medical professionals now in charge of their care. The American Medical Association and other critics have expressed concern that the proposed title of “physician associate” is likely to further obscure the training and roles of medical professionals, already a source of confusion to patients.

One specific criticism is that a physician associate has historically referred to a physician (MD or DO) in a private practice group who has not yet achieved the status of partner. These physician associates are fully licensed medical doctors who have completed medical school and residency training and are in the process of completing a partnership track with their group to participate fully in financial and administrative processes. This nomenclature is similar to that of attorneys on a partnership track. Thus, the use of the term “physician associate” for someone other than a medical doctor is seen as misleading, particularly to patients who cannot be expected to have familiarity with the differences in training.

Efforts to separate the PA profession from a close-working relationship with a physician are bad not only for patients but for PAs as well. Many PAs who desire physician involvement may find themselves hung out to dry, hired by companies and expected to perform outside of their comfort level. The profession also risks ostracizing physician allies, many of whom have preferentially sought to work with PAs.

My sincere hope is that the PA profession will return to its traditional roots of a physician-PA relationship, a model that has been demonstrated to result in high-quality patient care. When that day comes, I will happily re-title my book. But as long as the AAPA continues to work to remove physicians from the equation, patients are indeed at risk.
 

Rebekah Bernard, MD, is a family physician in Fort Myers, Florida, and president of Physicians for Patient Protection. She is the coauthor of Patients at Risk: The Rise of the Nurse Practitioner and Physician Assistant in Healthcare (Irvine, Calif.: Universal Publishers, 2020). She had no relevant financial disclosures. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Some Americans with a weakened immune system who face high risks for severe COVID-19 become eligible this week to receive a fourth dose of a coronavirus vaccine.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention endorsed a third dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines  for moderately and severely immunocompromised people on Aug. 13, which is considered part of their first immunization series rather than a booster shot.

In October, the CDC said moderately and severely immunocompromised people could receive a booster shot, or a fourth dose of the vaccine , 6 months after their third dose.

But the CDC last week shortened the timeline to 5 months for a booster shot of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines. That means immunocompromised people could begin signing up for a fourth shot later this week, the New York Times reported.

About 2.7% of U.S. adults, or about 7 million adults, are considered immunocompromised, according to the CDC. They’re more likely to contract severe COVID-19, have a higher risk for long COVID, have lower antibody levels after vaccination, and develop serious breakthrough infections. About 40% of hospitalized breakthrough cases are among immunocompromised people.

According to  CDC guidance, people are considered to be “moderately or severely immunocompromised” if they have:

• Active cancer treatment for tumors or cancers of the blood
• Had an organ transplant and are taking medicine to suppress the immune system
• Had a stem cell transplant in the last 2 years and are taking medicine to suppress the immune system
• Advanced or untreated HIV infection
• Moderate or severe primary immunodeficiency, such as DiGeorge syndrome or Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome
• Active treatment with high-dose corticosteroids or other drugs that suppress the immune response

So far, only moderately and severely immunocompromised Americans are eligible for a fourth shot. Israel has begun offering fourth doses to high-risk groups, including older adults, but the Biden administration hasn’t yet said whether the United States will follow, the Times reported.

Overall, the focus remains on getting third shots to Americans who are eligible for boosters, Rochelle Walensky, MD, the CDC director, told reporters Jan. 7. U.S. officials will remain in touch with Israel to follow their data on fourth shots.

“We will be following our own data carefully as well, to see how these boosters are working in terms of waning effectiveness, not just for infection but, importantly, for severe disease,” she said.

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

Some Americans with a weakened immune system who face high risks for severe COVID-19 become eligible this week to receive a fourth dose of a coronavirus vaccine.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention endorsed a third dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines  for moderately and severely immunocompromised people on Aug. 13, which is considered part of their first immunization series rather than a booster shot.

In October, the CDC said moderately and severely immunocompromised people could receive a booster shot, or a fourth dose of the vaccine , 6 months after their third dose.

But the CDC last week shortened the timeline to 5 months for a booster shot of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines. That means immunocompromised people could begin signing up for a fourth shot later this week, the New York Times reported.

About 2.7% of U.S. adults, or about 7 million adults, are considered immunocompromised, according to the CDC. They’re more likely to contract severe COVID-19, have a higher risk for long COVID, have lower antibody levels after vaccination, and develop serious breakthrough infections. About 40% of hospitalized breakthrough cases are among immunocompromised people.

According to  CDC guidance, people are considered to be “moderately or severely immunocompromised” if they have:

• Active cancer treatment for tumors or cancers of the blood
• Had an organ transplant and are taking medicine to suppress the immune system
• Had a stem cell transplant in the last 2 years and are taking medicine to suppress the immune system
• Advanced or untreated HIV infection
• Moderate or severe primary immunodeficiency, such as DiGeorge syndrome or Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome
• Active treatment with high-dose corticosteroids or other drugs that suppress the immune response

So far, only moderately and severely immunocompromised Americans are eligible for a fourth shot. Israel has begun offering fourth doses to high-risk groups, including older adults, but the Biden administration hasn’t yet said whether the United States will follow, the Times reported.

Overall, the focus remains on getting third shots to Americans who are eligible for boosters, Rochelle Walensky, MD, the CDC director, told reporters Jan. 7. U.S. officials will remain in touch with Israel to follow their data on fourth shots.

“We will be following our own data carefully as well, to see how these boosters are working in terms of waning effectiveness, not just for infection but, importantly, for severe disease,” she said.

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

Some Americans with a weakened immune system who face high risks for severe COVID-19 become eligible this week to receive a fourth dose of a coronavirus vaccine.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention endorsed a third dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines  for moderately and severely immunocompromised people on Aug. 13, which is considered part of their first immunization series rather than a booster shot.

In October, the CDC said moderately and severely immunocompromised people could receive a booster shot, or a fourth dose of the vaccine , 6 months after their third dose.

But the CDC last week shortened the timeline to 5 months for a booster shot of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines. That means immunocompromised people could begin signing up for a fourth shot later this week, the New York Times reported.

About 2.7% of U.S. adults, or about 7 million adults, are considered immunocompromised, according to the CDC. They’re more likely to contract severe COVID-19, have a higher risk for long COVID, have lower antibody levels after vaccination, and develop serious breakthrough infections. About 40% of hospitalized breakthrough cases are among immunocompromised people.

According to  CDC guidance, people are considered to be “moderately or severely immunocompromised” if they have:

• Active cancer treatment for tumors or cancers of the blood
• Had an organ transplant and are taking medicine to suppress the immune system
• Had a stem cell transplant in the last 2 years and are taking medicine to suppress the immune system
• Advanced or untreated HIV infection
• Moderate or severe primary immunodeficiency, such as DiGeorge syndrome or Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome
• Active treatment with high-dose corticosteroids or other drugs that suppress the immune response

So far, only moderately and severely immunocompromised Americans are eligible for a fourth shot. Israel has begun offering fourth doses to high-risk groups, including older adults, but the Biden administration hasn’t yet said whether the United States will follow, the Times reported.

Overall, the focus remains on getting third shots to Americans who are eligible for boosters, Rochelle Walensky, MD, the CDC director, told reporters Jan. 7. U.S. officials will remain in touch with Israel to follow their data on fourth shots.

“We will be following our own data carefully as well, to see how these boosters are working in terms of waning effectiveness, not just for infection but, importantly, for severe disease,” she said.

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

SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an increased risk for diabetes among youth, whereas other acute respiratory infections were not, new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate.

The results from two large U.S. health claims databases were published in an early release in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report by Catherine E. Barrett, PhD, and colleagues of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response Team and Division of Diabetes Translation.

Clinicians should monitor individuals younger than 18 years in the months following a SARS-CoV-2 infection for new diabetes onset, they advise.

The findings, which are supported by independent studies in adults, “underscore the importance of COVID-19 prevention among all age groups, including vaccination for all eligible children and adolescents, and chronic disease prevention and treatment,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

Diabetes type couldn’t be reliably distinguished from the databases, which is noted as an important study limitation.

“SARS-CoV-2 infection might lead to type 1 or type 2 diabetes through complex and differing mechanisms,” they say.

Emerging evidence began to suggest, in mid-2020, that COVID-19 may trigger the onset of diabetes in healthy people. A new global registry was subsequently established to collect data on patients with COVID-19–related diabetes, called the CoviDiab registry.
 

Not clear if diabetes after COVID-19 is transient or permanent

From one of the databases used in the new study, known as IQVIA, 80,893 individuals aged younger than 18 years diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 2020 to February 26, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched people during that period who did not have COVID-19 and to prepandemic groups with and without a diagnosis of acute respiratory illness during March 1, 2017, to February 26, 2018.

From the second database, HealthVerity, 439,439 youth diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 1, 2020, to June 28, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched youth without COVID-19. Here, there was no prepandemic comparison group.

Diabetes diagnoses were coded in 0.08% with COVID-19 vs. 0.03% without COVID-19 in IQVIA and in 0.25% vs. 0.19% in HealthVerity.

Thus, new diabetes diagnoses were 166% and 31% more likely to occur in those with COVID-19 in IQVIA and HealthVerity, respectively. And in IQVIA, those with COVID-19 were 116% more likely to develop diabetes than were those with prepandemic acute respiratory illnesses. Those differences were all significant, whereas non–SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infections were not associated with diabetes, Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

In both databases, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was more common at diabetes onset among those with, vs. without, COVID-19: 48.5% vs. 13.6% in IQVIA and 40.2% vs. 29.7% in HealthVerity. In IQVIA, 22.0% with prepandemic acute respiratory illness presented with DKA.

Dr. Barrett and colleagues offer several potential explanations for the observed association between COVID-19 and diabetes, including a direct attack on pancreatic beta cells expressing angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, or via stress hyperglycemia resulting from cytokine storm and alterations in glucose metabolism.

Another possibility is the precipitation to diabetes from prediabetes; the latter is a condition present in one in five U.S. adolescents.

Steroid treatment during hospitalization might have led to transient hyperglycemia, but only 1.5% to 2.2% of diabetes codes were for drug- or chemical-induced diabetes. The majority were for type 1 or 2.

Alternatively, pandemic-associated weight gain might have also contributed to risks for both severe COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes.

“Although this study can provide information on the risk for diabetes following SARS-CoV-2 infection, additional data are needed to understand underlying pathogenic mechanisms, either those caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection itself or resulting from treatments, and whether a COVID-19–associated diabetes diagnosis is transient or leads to a chronic condition,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues conclude.

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

SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an increased risk for diabetes among youth, whereas other acute respiratory infections were not, new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate.

The results from two large U.S. health claims databases were published in an early release in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report by Catherine E. Barrett, PhD, and colleagues of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response Team and Division of Diabetes Translation.

Clinicians should monitor individuals younger than 18 years in the months following a SARS-CoV-2 infection for new diabetes onset, they advise.

The findings, which are supported by independent studies in adults, “underscore the importance of COVID-19 prevention among all age groups, including vaccination for all eligible children and adolescents, and chronic disease prevention and treatment,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

Diabetes type couldn’t be reliably distinguished from the databases, which is noted as an important study limitation.

“SARS-CoV-2 infection might lead to type 1 or type 2 diabetes through complex and differing mechanisms,” they say.

Emerging evidence began to suggest, in mid-2020, that COVID-19 may trigger the onset of diabetes in healthy people. A new global registry was subsequently established to collect data on patients with COVID-19–related diabetes, called the CoviDiab registry.
 

Not clear if diabetes after COVID-19 is transient or permanent

From one of the databases used in the new study, known as IQVIA, 80,893 individuals aged younger than 18 years diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 2020 to February 26, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched people during that period who did not have COVID-19 and to prepandemic groups with and without a diagnosis of acute respiratory illness during March 1, 2017, to February 26, 2018.

From the second database, HealthVerity, 439,439 youth diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 1, 2020, to June 28, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched youth without COVID-19. Here, there was no prepandemic comparison group.

Diabetes diagnoses were coded in 0.08% with COVID-19 vs. 0.03% without COVID-19 in IQVIA and in 0.25% vs. 0.19% in HealthVerity.

Thus, new diabetes diagnoses were 166% and 31% more likely to occur in those with COVID-19 in IQVIA and HealthVerity, respectively. And in IQVIA, those with COVID-19 were 116% more likely to develop diabetes than were those with prepandemic acute respiratory illnesses. Those differences were all significant, whereas non–SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infections were not associated with diabetes, Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

In both databases, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was more common at diabetes onset among those with, vs. without, COVID-19: 48.5% vs. 13.6% in IQVIA and 40.2% vs. 29.7% in HealthVerity. In IQVIA, 22.0% with prepandemic acute respiratory illness presented with DKA.

Dr. Barrett and colleagues offer several potential explanations for the observed association between COVID-19 and diabetes, including a direct attack on pancreatic beta cells expressing angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, or via stress hyperglycemia resulting from cytokine storm and alterations in glucose metabolism.

Another possibility is the precipitation to diabetes from prediabetes; the latter is a condition present in one in five U.S. adolescents.

Steroid treatment during hospitalization might have led to transient hyperglycemia, but only 1.5% to 2.2% of diabetes codes were for drug- or chemical-induced diabetes. The majority were for type 1 or 2.

Alternatively, pandemic-associated weight gain might have also contributed to risks for both severe COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes.

“Although this study can provide information on the risk for diabetes following SARS-CoV-2 infection, additional data are needed to understand underlying pathogenic mechanisms, either those caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection itself or resulting from treatments, and whether a COVID-19–associated diabetes diagnosis is transient or leads to a chronic condition,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues conclude.

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

SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an increased risk for diabetes among youth, whereas other acute respiratory infections were not, new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate.

The results from two large U.S. health claims databases were published in an early release in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report by Catherine E. Barrett, PhD, and colleagues of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response Team and Division of Diabetes Translation.

Clinicians should monitor individuals younger than 18 years in the months following a SARS-CoV-2 infection for new diabetes onset, they advise.

The findings, which are supported by independent studies in adults, “underscore the importance of COVID-19 prevention among all age groups, including vaccination for all eligible children and adolescents, and chronic disease prevention and treatment,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

Diabetes type couldn’t be reliably distinguished from the databases, which is noted as an important study limitation.

“SARS-CoV-2 infection might lead to type 1 or type 2 diabetes through complex and differing mechanisms,” they say.

Emerging evidence began to suggest, in mid-2020, that COVID-19 may trigger the onset of diabetes in healthy people. A new global registry was subsequently established to collect data on patients with COVID-19–related diabetes, called the CoviDiab registry.
 

Not clear if diabetes after COVID-19 is transient or permanent

From one of the databases used in the new study, known as IQVIA, 80,893 individuals aged younger than 18 years diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 2020 to February 26, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched people during that period who did not have COVID-19 and to prepandemic groups with and without a diagnosis of acute respiratory illness during March 1, 2017, to February 26, 2018.

From the second database, HealthVerity, 439,439 youth diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 1, 2020, to June 28, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched youth without COVID-19. Here, there was no prepandemic comparison group.

Diabetes diagnoses were coded in 0.08% with COVID-19 vs. 0.03% without COVID-19 in IQVIA and in 0.25% vs. 0.19% in HealthVerity.

Thus, new diabetes diagnoses were 166% and 31% more likely to occur in those with COVID-19 in IQVIA and HealthVerity, respectively. And in IQVIA, those with COVID-19 were 116% more likely to develop diabetes than were those with prepandemic acute respiratory illnesses. Those differences were all significant, whereas non–SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infections were not associated with diabetes, Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

In both databases, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was more common at diabetes onset among those with, vs. without, COVID-19: 48.5% vs. 13.6% in IQVIA and 40.2% vs. 29.7% in HealthVerity. In IQVIA, 22.0% with prepandemic acute respiratory illness presented with DKA.

Dr. Barrett and colleagues offer several potential explanations for the observed association between COVID-19 and diabetes, including a direct attack on pancreatic beta cells expressing angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, or via stress hyperglycemia resulting from cytokine storm and alterations in glucose metabolism.

Another possibility is the precipitation to diabetes from prediabetes; the latter is a condition present in one in five U.S. adolescents.

Steroid treatment during hospitalization might have led to transient hyperglycemia, but only 1.5% to 2.2% of diabetes codes were for drug- or chemical-induced diabetes. The majority were for type 1 or 2.

Alternatively, pandemic-associated weight gain might have also contributed to risks for both severe COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes.

“Although this study can provide information on the risk for diabetes following SARS-CoV-2 infection, additional data are needed to understand underlying pathogenic mechanisms, either those caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection itself or resulting from treatments, and whether a COVID-19–associated diabetes diagnosis is transient or leads to a chronic condition,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues conclude.

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

Many states have restored restrictions on telehealth use that they suspended earlier in the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new report jointly prepared by the Reason Institute, the Pioneer Institute, and the Cicero Institute.

Among the most important restrictions that have been reinstated in some states are those barring requirements for insurers to cover telehealth and regulations that prohibit telehealth visits across state lines, unless the physician is licensed in both states.

“Only three states – Arizona, Florida, and Indiana – allow all health care providers to easily practice telehealth across state lines,” says a news release on the think tanks’ report. “Forty-seven others have arbitrary barriers in place that limit patients’ access to specialists and available appointments based purely on residency.”

“Once the [state-based] public health emergency declarations started to end or executive orders were withdrawn, many of the new flexibilities for providers, insurers, and patients were lost overnight,” Vittorio Nastasi, a policy analyst at Reason Foundation and a co-author of the report, says in the news release. “States need to adopt a number of telehealth reforms to provide their residents better access to this safe and effective virtual care.”

On a positive note, the report says, most states have removed the requirement that a patient must first see a provider in person before they can use telehealth services. The exceptions are Tennessee, Alaska, and West Virginia, which require an in-person visit before certain telehealth services can be provided.

In addition, 20 states allow nurse practitioners to conduct telehealth visits without being under the supervision of a physician. Prior to the pandemic, some states allowed only doctors to use telehealth, the report says, but, during the COVID crisis, “the acute shortage of providers in many counties adds to the need for more kinds of providers to be able to use it.”

A number of states place restrictions on the telehealth modalities that can be utilized. Under the definition by the American Telemedicine Association, telehealth includes audio-video visits, remote patient monitoring, and “store and forward” telemedicine, which entails collecting clinical information and sending it to another site for evaluation. The latter method is particularly useful for consultations with specialists, the report notes.
 

Coverage mandates and payment parity

The report also examines other parameters of telehealth regulations in each state, including whether they have telehealth coverage mandates and whether they require physicians to be paid the same amount for similar types of in-person and telehealth visits.

The report views insurance mandates as beneficial, but not if they require coverage of all virtual services. While telehealth can be a game changer for post-stroke care and for other “treatment-intensive conditions,” the report says, the evidence of better outcomes for other conditions treated through telehealth is far less certain. Therefore, it advises states to “protect flexibility so that new innovative models can emerge.”

Ateev Mehrotra, MD, a professor at Harvard Medical School who studies telehealth, agrees that it offers more value in some clinical situations than in others. “High value is improving quality or outcomes at a reasonable cost,” he told this news organization. “If a telemedicine visit for stroke can save a person’s life and prevent disability, let’s pay for it. A telemedicine visit for a cold may not be necessary. Mom’s chicken soup is fine.”

A little over half of the states still require payment parity, according to the report. While these regulations are intended to promote the use of telehealth, the authors note, they can increase the growth of health care costs. Moreover, they argue, it’s hard to defend equal payments for virtual visits when the overhead required to deliver them – such as office rental, utility, and labor costs – is much lower than that for in-person visits. Also, it makes no sense for health systems to charge facility fees for telehealth visits when these visits can be initiated from anywhere, they say.

Dr. Mehrotra concurs with this view. “If you see someone in your office, your fee includes all the overhead for your office, and it’s a substantial cost,” he says. “For many procedures, it’s more than half of the cost. If you have a telemedicine visit and you’re at home, why would you pay the same amount? The visit may take the same amount of time, but all the money that goes for overhead is not accounted for.”
 

Telemedicine across state lines

The report’s contention about the difficulty of conducting telehealth encounters across most state lines seems to be at odds with the growth in the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, which makes it easier for physicians in one compact member state to get licensed in others. Currently, 35 states belong to the compact, Joe Knickrehm, vice president of communications for the Federation of State Medical Boards, told this news organization.

In addition, he says, “12 state boards issue a special purpose license, telemedicine license or certificate, or license to practice medicine across state lines to allow for the practice of telemedicine.”

The catch, Dr. Mehrotra says, is that, despite the streamlining of license applications in compact member states, the fees charged by the state boards are still very high – a point that the report also makes. “If I want to have broad scope of practice, I’d have to pay thousands of dollars to many states. The license fees start to add up. Also, I have to keep track of each state’s CME requirements, which are all different. Keeping up with all of that is an administration burden, and it’s a pain.”

Mr. Knickrehm contends that obtaining multiple licenses via the compact “is generally less expensive for physicians than the cost of requesting transcripts, fingerprints, and other necessary paperwork each time they apply for licensure in a new state. Physicians are seeing the benefits of an expedited process that allows them to begin practicing more quickly [in other states].”

Dr. Mehrotra says he has seen the same retrenchment in state telehealth regulations that the report references. However, he says, “CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] has signaled that at least through 2022 and maybe into 2023, they’ll continue their extensions of telemedicine [pandemic regulations].” After that, Congress would have to decide whether to make the changes permanent.

“Right now, it’s hard for me to see how a payer is going to pull back on telehealth, unless there’s ample evidence of overuse of telehealth,” he argues. “With the public and providers liking telehealth, it’s hard to say on theoretical grounds that we should stop using it. That’s why Medicare and others have extended it and why Congress will too.”

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

Many states have restored restrictions on telehealth use that they suspended earlier in the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new report jointly prepared by the Reason Institute, the Pioneer Institute, and the Cicero Institute.

Among the most important restrictions that have been reinstated in some states are those barring requirements for insurers to cover telehealth and regulations that prohibit telehealth visits across state lines, unless the physician is licensed in both states.

“Only three states – Arizona, Florida, and Indiana – allow all health care providers to easily practice telehealth across state lines,” says a news release on the think tanks’ report. “Forty-seven others have arbitrary barriers in place that limit patients’ access to specialists and available appointments based purely on residency.”

“Once the [state-based] public health emergency declarations started to end or executive orders were withdrawn, many of the new flexibilities for providers, insurers, and patients were lost overnight,” Vittorio Nastasi, a policy analyst at Reason Foundation and a co-author of the report, says in the news release. “States need to adopt a number of telehealth reforms to provide their residents better access to this safe and effective virtual care.”

On a positive note, the report says, most states have removed the requirement that a patient must first see a provider in person before they can use telehealth services. The exceptions are Tennessee, Alaska, and West Virginia, which require an in-person visit before certain telehealth services can be provided.

In addition, 20 states allow nurse practitioners to conduct telehealth visits without being under the supervision of a physician. Prior to the pandemic, some states allowed only doctors to use telehealth, the report says, but, during the COVID crisis, “the acute shortage of providers in many counties adds to the need for more kinds of providers to be able to use it.”

A number of states place restrictions on the telehealth modalities that can be utilized. Under the definition by the American Telemedicine Association, telehealth includes audio-video visits, remote patient monitoring, and “store and forward” telemedicine, which entails collecting clinical information and sending it to another site for evaluation. The latter method is particularly useful for consultations with specialists, the report notes.
 

Coverage mandates and payment parity

The report also examines other parameters of telehealth regulations in each state, including whether they have telehealth coverage mandates and whether they require physicians to be paid the same amount for similar types of in-person and telehealth visits.

The report views insurance mandates as beneficial, but not if they require coverage of all virtual services. While telehealth can be a game changer for post-stroke care and for other “treatment-intensive conditions,” the report says, the evidence of better outcomes for other conditions treated through telehealth is far less certain. Therefore, it advises states to “protect flexibility so that new innovative models can emerge.”

Ateev Mehrotra, MD, a professor at Harvard Medical School who studies telehealth, agrees that it offers more value in some clinical situations than in others. “High value is improving quality or outcomes at a reasonable cost,” he told this news organization. “If a telemedicine visit for stroke can save a person’s life and prevent disability, let’s pay for it. A telemedicine visit for a cold may not be necessary. Mom’s chicken soup is fine.”

A little over half of the states still require payment parity, according to the report. While these regulations are intended to promote the use of telehealth, the authors note, they can increase the growth of health care costs. Moreover, they argue, it’s hard to defend equal payments for virtual visits when the overhead required to deliver them – such as office rental, utility, and labor costs – is much lower than that for in-person visits. Also, it makes no sense for health systems to charge facility fees for telehealth visits when these visits can be initiated from anywhere, they say.

Dr. Mehrotra concurs with this view. “If you see someone in your office, your fee includes all the overhead for your office, and it’s a substantial cost,” he says. “For many procedures, it’s more than half of the cost. If you have a telemedicine visit and you’re at home, why would you pay the same amount? The visit may take the same amount of time, but all the money that goes for overhead is not accounted for.”
 

Telemedicine across state lines

The report’s contention about the difficulty of conducting telehealth encounters across most state lines seems to be at odds with the growth in the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, which makes it easier for physicians in one compact member state to get licensed in others. Currently, 35 states belong to the compact, Joe Knickrehm, vice president of communications for the Federation of State Medical Boards, told this news organization.

In addition, he says, “12 state boards issue a special purpose license, telemedicine license or certificate, or license to practice medicine across state lines to allow for the practice of telemedicine.”

The catch, Dr. Mehrotra says, is that, despite the streamlining of license applications in compact member states, the fees charged by the state boards are still very high – a point that the report also makes. “If I want to have broad scope of practice, I’d have to pay thousands of dollars to many states. The license fees start to add up. Also, I have to keep track of each state’s CME requirements, which are all different. Keeping up with all of that is an administration burden, and it’s a pain.”

Mr. Knickrehm contends that obtaining multiple licenses via the compact “is generally less expensive for physicians than the cost of requesting transcripts, fingerprints, and other necessary paperwork each time they apply for licensure in a new state. Physicians are seeing the benefits of an expedited process that allows them to begin practicing more quickly [in other states].”

Dr. Mehrotra says he has seen the same retrenchment in state telehealth regulations that the report references. However, he says, “CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] has signaled that at least through 2022 and maybe into 2023, they’ll continue their extensions of telemedicine [pandemic regulations].” After that, Congress would have to decide whether to make the changes permanent.

“Right now, it’s hard for me to see how a payer is going to pull back on telehealth, unless there’s ample evidence of overuse of telehealth,” he argues. “With the public and providers liking telehealth, it’s hard to say on theoretical grounds that we should stop using it. That’s why Medicare and others have extended it and why Congress will too.”

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

Many states have restored restrictions on telehealth use that they suspended earlier in the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new report jointly prepared by the Reason Institute, the Pioneer Institute, and the Cicero Institute.

Among the most important restrictions that have been reinstated in some states are those barring requirements for insurers to cover telehealth and regulations that prohibit telehealth visits across state lines, unless the physician is licensed in both states.

“Only three states – Arizona, Florida, and Indiana – allow all health care providers to easily practice telehealth across state lines,” says a news release on the think tanks’ report. “Forty-seven others have arbitrary barriers in place that limit patients’ access to specialists and available appointments based purely on residency.”

“Once the [state-based] public health emergency declarations started to end or executive orders were withdrawn, many of the new flexibilities for providers, insurers, and patients were lost overnight,” Vittorio Nastasi, a policy analyst at Reason Foundation and a co-author of the report, says in the news release. “States need to adopt a number of telehealth reforms to provide their residents better access to this safe and effective virtual care.”

On a positive note, the report says, most states have removed the requirement that a patient must first see a provider in person before they can use telehealth services. The exceptions are Tennessee, Alaska, and West Virginia, which require an in-person visit before certain telehealth services can be provided.

In addition, 20 states allow nurse practitioners to conduct telehealth visits without being under the supervision of a physician. Prior to the pandemic, some states allowed only doctors to use telehealth, the report says, but, during the COVID crisis, “the acute shortage of providers in many counties adds to the need for more kinds of providers to be able to use it.”

A number of states place restrictions on the telehealth modalities that can be utilized. Under the definition by the American Telemedicine Association, telehealth includes audio-video visits, remote patient monitoring, and “store and forward” telemedicine, which entails collecting clinical information and sending it to another site for evaluation. The latter method is particularly useful for consultations with specialists, the report notes.
 

Coverage mandates and payment parity

The report also examines other parameters of telehealth regulations in each state, including whether they have telehealth coverage mandates and whether they require physicians to be paid the same amount for similar types of in-person and telehealth visits.

The report views insurance mandates as beneficial, but not if they require coverage of all virtual services. While telehealth can be a game changer for post-stroke care and for other “treatment-intensive conditions,” the report says, the evidence of better outcomes for other conditions treated through telehealth is far less certain. Therefore, it advises states to “protect flexibility so that new innovative models can emerge.”

Ateev Mehrotra, MD, a professor at Harvard Medical School who studies telehealth, agrees that it offers more value in some clinical situations than in others. “High value is improving quality or outcomes at a reasonable cost,” he told this news organization. “If a telemedicine visit for stroke can save a person’s life and prevent disability, let’s pay for it. A telemedicine visit for a cold may not be necessary. Mom’s chicken soup is fine.”

A little over half of the states still require payment parity, according to the report. While these regulations are intended to promote the use of telehealth, the authors note, they can increase the growth of health care costs. Moreover, they argue, it’s hard to defend equal payments for virtual visits when the overhead required to deliver them – such as office rental, utility, and labor costs – is much lower than that for in-person visits. Also, it makes no sense for health systems to charge facility fees for telehealth visits when these visits can be initiated from anywhere, they say.

Dr. Mehrotra concurs with this view. “If you see someone in your office, your fee includes all the overhead for your office, and it’s a substantial cost,” he says. “For many procedures, it’s more than half of the cost. If you have a telemedicine visit and you’re at home, why would you pay the same amount? The visit may take the same amount of time, but all the money that goes for overhead is not accounted for.”
 

Telemedicine across state lines

The report’s contention about the difficulty of conducting telehealth encounters across most state lines seems to be at odds with the growth in the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, which makes it easier for physicians in one compact member state to get licensed in others. Currently, 35 states belong to the compact, Joe Knickrehm, vice president of communications for the Federation of State Medical Boards, told this news organization.

In addition, he says, “12 state boards issue a special purpose license, telemedicine license or certificate, or license to practice medicine across state lines to allow for the practice of telemedicine.”

The catch, Dr. Mehrotra says, is that, despite the streamlining of license applications in compact member states, the fees charged by the state boards are still very high – a point that the report also makes. “If I want to have broad scope of practice, I’d have to pay thousands of dollars to many states. The license fees start to add up. Also, I have to keep track of each state’s CME requirements, which are all different. Keeping up with all of that is an administration burden, and it’s a pain.”

Mr. Knickrehm contends that obtaining multiple licenses via the compact “is generally less expensive for physicians than the cost of requesting transcripts, fingerprints, and other necessary paperwork each time they apply for licensure in a new state. Physicians are seeing the benefits of an expedited process that allows them to begin practicing more quickly [in other states].”

Dr. Mehrotra says he has seen the same retrenchment in state telehealth regulations that the report references. However, he says, “CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] has signaled that at least through 2022 and maybe into 2023, they’ll continue their extensions of telemedicine [pandemic regulations].” After that, Congress would have to decide whether to make the changes permanent.

“Right now, it’s hard for me to see how a payer is going to pull back on telehealth, unless there’s ample evidence of overuse of telehealth,” he argues. “With the public and providers liking telehealth, it’s hard to say on theoretical grounds that we should stop using it. That’s why Medicare and others have extended it and why Congress will too.”

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. The transcript and an accompanying video first appeared on Medscape.com.

Justin L. Berk, MD, MPH, MBA: Welcome back to The Cribsiders, our video recap of our pediatric medicine podcast. We interview leading experts in the field to bring clinical pearls and practice-changing knowledge, and answer lingering questions about core topics in pediatric medicine. Chris, what is our topic today?

Christopher J. Chiu, MD: I was really happy to be able to talk about our recent episode with Dr. Carissa Baker-Smith, a pediatric cardiologist and director of the Nemours preventive cardiology program. She helped us review the pediatric screening guidelines for blood pressure, including initial workup and treatment.

Dr. Berk: This was a really great episode that a lot of people found really helpful. What were some of the key takeaway pearls that you think listeners would be interested in?

Dr. Chiu: We talked about when and how we should be checking blood pressures in children. Blood pressure should be checked at every well-child visit starting at age 3. But if they have other risk factors like kidney disease or a condition such as coarctation of the aorta, then blood pressure should be checked at every visit.

Dr. Berk: One thing she spoke about was how blood pressures should be measured. How should we be checking blood pressures in the clinic?

Dr. Chiu: Clinic blood pressures are usually checked with oscillometric devices. They can differ by manufacturer, but basically they find a mean arterial pressure and then each device has a method of calculating systolic and diastolic pressures. Now after that, if the child’s blood pressure is maybe abnormal, you want to double-check a manual blood pressure using Korotkoff sounds to confirm the blood pressure.

She reminded us that blood pressure should be measured with the child sitting with their back supported, feet flat on the floor, and arm at the level of the heart. Make sure you use the right size cuff. The bladder of the cuff should be 40% of the width of the arm, and about 80%-100% of the arm circumference. She recommends sizing up if you have to.

Dr. Berk: Accuracy of blood pressure management was a really important point, especially for diagnosis at this stage. Can you walk us through what we learned about diagnosis of hypertension?

Dr. Chiu: The definitions of hypertension come from the Fourth Report on the Diagnosis, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure in Children and Adolescents. Up until the age of 13, they define prehypertension as systolic and diastolic blood pressures between the 90th and 95th percentile, or if the blood pressure exceeds 120/80 mm Hg. Hypertension is defined when blood pressure reaches the 95th percentile. Now age 13 is when it gets a little hazy. Many changes in the guidelines happen at age 13, when hypertension starts being defined by adult guidelines. The 2017 adult hypertension guidelines define stage 1 hypertension as 130/89 to 139/89, and stage 2 hypertension as greater than 140/90.

Dr. Berk: How about workup of hypertension? The work of pediatric hypertension is always a little bit complex. What are some of the pearls you took away?

Dr. Chui: She talked about tailoring the workup to the child. So when we’re doing our workup, obviously physical exam should be the first thing we do. You have to assess and compare pulses, which is one of the most important parts of the initial evaluation. Obviously, looking at coarctation of the aorta, but also looking for things like a cushingoid appearance. If the child is less than 6 years of age, she recommends a referral to nephrology for more comprehensive renovascular workup, which probably will include renal ultrasound, urinalysis, metabolic panel, and thyroid studies.

We have to be cognizant of secondary causes of hypertension, such as endocrine tumors, hyperthyroidism, aortic disease, or even medication-induced hypertension. She told us that in the majority of these cases, especially with our obese older children, primary hypertension or essential hypertension is the most likely cause.

Dr. Berk: That was my big takeaway. If they’re really young, they need a big workup, but otherwise it is likely primary hypertension. What did we learn about treatment?

Dr. Chui: Just as we tailor our assessment to the child, we also have to tailor treatment. We know that lifestyle modification is usually the first line of treatment, especially for primary hypertension, and Dr. Baker-Smith tells us that we really need to perform counseling that meets the patient where they are. So if they like dancing to the newest TikTok trends or music videos, maybe we can encourage them to move more that way. Using our motivational interviewing skills is really key here.

If you want to start medication, Dr. Baker-Smith uses things like low-dose ACE inhibitors or calcium channel blockers, but obviously it’ll be tailored to the patient and any underlying conditions.

Dr. Berk: That’s great – a lot of wonderful pearls on the diagnosis and management of pediatric hypertension. Thank you for joining us for another video recap of The Cribsiders pediatric podcast. You can download the full podcast, Off the Cuff: Managing Pediatric Hypertension in Your Primary Care Clinic, on any podcast player, or check out our website at www.theCribsiders.com.

Christopher J. Chiu, MD, is assistant professor, department of internal medicine, division of general internal medicine, Ohio State University, Columbus; lead physician, general internal medicine, OSU Outpatient Care East; department of internal medicine, division of general internal medicine, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. Dr. Chiu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Justin L. Berk, MD, MPH, MBA, is assistant professor, department of medicine; assistant professor, department of pediatrics, Brown University, Providence, R.I.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. The transcript and an accompanying video first appeared on Medscape.com.

Justin L. Berk, MD, MPH, MBA: Welcome back to The Cribsiders, our video recap of our pediatric medicine podcast. We interview leading experts in the field to bring clinical pearls and practice-changing knowledge, and answer lingering questions about core topics in pediatric medicine. Chris, what is our topic today?

Christopher J. Chiu, MD: I was really happy to be able to talk about our recent episode with Dr. Carissa Baker-Smith, a pediatric cardiologist and director of the Nemours preventive cardiology program. She helped us review the pediatric screening guidelines for blood pressure, including initial workup and treatment.

Dr. Berk: This was a really great episode that a lot of people found really helpful. What were some of the key takeaway pearls that you think listeners would be interested in?

Dr. Chiu: We talked about when and how we should be checking blood pressures in children. Blood pressure should be checked at every well-child visit starting at age 3. But if they have other risk factors like kidney disease or a condition such as coarctation of the aorta, then blood pressure should be checked at every visit.

Dr. Berk: One thing she spoke about was how blood pressures should be measured. How should we be checking blood pressures in the clinic?

Dr. Chiu: Clinic blood pressures are usually checked with oscillometric devices. They can differ by manufacturer, but basically they find a mean arterial pressure and then each device has a method of calculating systolic and diastolic pressures. Now after that, if the child’s blood pressure is maybe abnormal, you want to double-check a manual blood pressure using Korotkoff sounds to confirm the blood pressure.

She reminded us that blood pressure should be measured with the child sitting with their back supported, feet flat on the floor, and arm at the level of the heart. Make sure you use the right size cuff. The bladder of the cuff should be 40% of the width of the arm, and about 80%-100% of the arm circumference. She recommends sizing up if you have to.

Dr. Berk: Accuracy of blood pressure management was a really important point, especially for diagnosis at this stage. Can you walk us through what we learned about diagnosis of hypertension?

Dr. Chiu: The definitions of hypertension come from the Fourth Report on the Diagnosis, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure in Children and Adolescents. Up until the age of 13, they define prehypertension as systolic and diastolic blood pressures between the 90th and 95th percentile, or if the blood pressure exceeds 120/80 mm Hg. Hypertension is defined when blood pressure reaches the 95th percentile. Now age 13 is when it gets a little hazy. Many changes in the guidelines happen at age 13, when hypertension starts being defined by adult guidelines. The 2017 adult hypertension guidelines define stage 1 hypertension as 130/89 to 139/89, and stage 2 hypertension as greater than 140/90.

Dr. Berk: How about workup of hypertension? The work of pediatric hypertension is always a little bit complex. What are some of the pearls you took away?

Dr. Chui: She talked about tailoring the workup to the child. So when we’re doing our workup, obviously physical exam should be the first thing we do. You have to assess and compare pulses, which is one of the most important parts of the initial evaluation. Obviously, looking at coarctation of the aorta, but also looking for things like a cushingoid appearance. If the child is less than 6 years of age, she recommends a referral to nephrology for more comprehensive renovascular workup, which probably will include renal ultrasound, urinalysis, metabolic panel, and thyroid studies.

We have to be cognizant of secondary causes of hypertension, such as endocrine tumors, hyperthyroidism, aortic disease, or even medication-induced hypertension. She told us that in the majority of these cases, especially with our obese older children, primary hypertension or essential hypertension is the most likely cause.

Dr. Berk: That was my big takeaway. If they’re really young, they need a big workup, but otherwise it is likely primary hypertension. What did we learn about treatment?

Dr. Chui: Just as we tailor our assessment to the child, we also have to tailor treatment. We know that lifestyle modification is usually the first line of treatment, especially for primary hypertension, and Dr. Baker-Smith tells us that we really need to perform counseling that meets the patient where they are. So if they like dancing to the newest TikTok trends or music videos, maybe we can encourage them to move more that way. Using our motivational interviewing skills is really key here.

If you want to start medication, Dr. Baker-Smith uses things like low-dose ACE inhibitors or calcium channel blockers, but obviously it’ll be tailored to the patient and any underlying conditions.

Dr. Berk: That’s great – a lot of wonderful pearls on the diagnosis and management of pediatric hypertension. Thank you for joining us for another video recap of The Cribsiders pediatric podcast. You can download the full podcast, Off the Cuff: Managing Pediatric Hypertension in Your Primary Care Clinic, on any podcast player, or check out our website at www.theCribsiders.com.

Christopher J. Chiu, MD, is assistant professor, department of internal medicine, division of general internal medicine, Ohio State University, Columbus; lead physician, general internal medicine, OSU Outpatient Care East; department of internal medicine, division of general internal medicine, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. Dr. Chiu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Justin L. Berk, MD, MPH, MBA, is assistant professor, department of medicine; assistant professor, department of pediatrics, Brown University, Providence, R.I.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. The transcript and an accompanying video first appeared on Medscape.com.

Justin L. Berk, MD, MPH, MBA: Welcome back to The Cribsiders, our video recap of our pediatric medicine podcast. We interview leading experts in the field to bring clinical pearls and practice-changing knowledge, and answer lingering questions about core topics in pediatric medicine. Chris, what is our topic today?

Christopher J. Chiu, MD: I was really happy to be able to talk about our recent episode with Dr. Carissa Baker-Smith, a pediatric cardiologist and director of the Nemours preventive cardiology program. She helped us review the pediatric screening guidelines for blood pressure, including initial workup and treatment.

Dr. Berk: This was a really great episode that a lot of people found really helpful. What were some of the key takeaway pearls that you think listeners would be interested in?

Dr. Chiu: We talked about when and how we should be checking blood pressures in children. Blood pressure should be checked at every well-child visit starting at age 3. But if they have other risk factors like kidney disease or a condition such as coarctation of the aorta, then blood pressure should be checked at every visit.

Dr. Berk: One thing she spoke about was how blood pressures should be measured. How should we be checking blood pressures in the clinic?

Dr. Chiu: Clinic blood pressures are usually checked with oscillometric devices. They can differ by manufacturer, but basically they find a mean arterial pressure and then each device has a method of calculating systolic and diastolic pressures. Now after that, if the child’s blood pressure is maybe abnormal, you want to double-check a manual blood pressure using Korotkoff sounds to confirm the blood pressure.

She reminded us that blood pressure should be measured with the child sitting with their back supported, feet flat on the floor, and arm at the level of the heart. Make sure you use the right size cuff. The bladder of the cuff should be 40% of the width of the arm, and about 80%-100% of the arm circumference. She recommends sizing up if you have to.

Dr. Berk: Accuracy of blood pressure management was a really important point, especially for diagnosis at this stage. Can you walk us through what we learned about diagnosis of hypertension?

Dr. Chiu: The definitions of hypertension come from the Fourth Report on the Diagnosis, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure in Children and Adolescents. Up until the age of 13, they define prehypertension as systolic and diastolic blood pressures between the 90th and 95th percentile, or if the blood pressure exceeds 120/80 mm Hg. Hypertension is defined when blood pressure reaches the 95th percentile. Now age 13 is when it gets a little hazy. Many changes in the guidelines happen at age 13, when hypertension starts being defined by adult guidelines. The 2017 adult hypertension guidelines define stage 1 hypertension as 130/89 to 139/89, and stage 2 hypertension as greater than 140/90.

Dr. Berk: How about workup of hypertension? The work of pediatric hypertension is always a little bit complex. What are some of the pearls you took away?

Dr. Chui: She talked about tailoring the workup to the child. So when we’re doing our workup, obviously physical exam should be the first thing we do. You have to assess and compare pulses, which is one of the most important parts of the initial evaluation. Obviously, looking at coarctation of the aorta, but also looking for things like a cushingoid appearance. If the child is less than 6 years of age, she recommends a referral to nephrology for more comprehensive renovascular workup, which probably will include renal ultrasound, urinalysis, metabolic panel, and thyroid studies.

We have to be cognizant of secondary causes of hypertension, such as endocrine tumors, hyperthyroidism, aortic disease, or even medication-induced hypertension. She told us that in the majority of these cases, especially with our obese older children, primary hypertension or essential hypertension is the most likely cause.

Dr. Berk: That was my big takeaway. If they’re really young, they need a big workup, but otherwise it is likely primary hypertension. What did we learn about treatment?

Dr. Chui: Just as we tailor our assessment to the child, we also have to tailor treatment. We know that lifestyle modification is usually the first line of treatment, especially for primary hypertension, and Dr. Baker-Smith tells us that we really need to perform counseling that meets the patient where they are. So if they like dancing to the newest TikTok trends or music videos, maybe we can encourage them to move more that way. Using our motivational interviewing skills is really key here.

If you want to start medication, Dr. Baker-Smith uses things like low-dose ACE inhibitors or calcium channel blockers, but obviously it’ll be tailored to the patient and any underlying conditions.

Dr. Berk: That’s great – a lot of wonderful pearls on the diagnosis and management of pediatric hypertension. Thank you for joining us for another video recap of The Cribsiders pediatric podcast. You can download the full podcast, Off the Cuff: Managing Pediatric Hypertension in Your Primary Care Clinic, on any podcast player, or check out our website at www.theCribsiders.com.

Christopher J. Chiu, MD, is assistant professor, department of internal medicine, division of general internal medicine, Ohio State University, Columbus; lead physician, general internal medicine, OSU Outpatient Care East; department of internal medicine, division of general internal medicine, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. Dr. Chiu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Justin L. Berk, MD, MPH, MBA, is assistant professor, department of medicine; assistant professor, department of pediatrics, Brown University, Providence, R.I.

SACRAMENTO, CALIF. – California has become the first state to require health insurance plans to cover at-home tests for sexually transmitted infections such as HIV, chlamydia, and syphilis – which could help quell the STI epidemic that has raged nearly unchecked as public health departments have focused on COVID-19.

The rule, part of a broader law addressing the STI epidemic, took effect Jan. 1 for people with state-regulated private insurance plans and will kick in sometime later for the millions of low-income Californians enrolled in the state’s Medicaid program.

By making it easier and cheaper for Californians to self-administer tests in the privacy of their homes, the provision could bring better disease monitoring to rural and underserved parts of the state, reduce the stigma patients experience when seeking care, and give them more control over their health, say experts on infectious diseases.

“This is the first law of its kind, and I’d say it’s kind of cutting-edge,” said Stephanie Arnold Pang, senior director of policy and government relations for the National Coalition of STD Directors. “We want to bring down every single barrier for someone to get STI testing, and out-of-pocket cost is a huge factor.”

But being first has its downsides. Because the concept of insurance coverage for home STI tests is so new, the state’s Medicaid program, Medi-Cal, could not establish by Jan. 1 the billing codes it needs to start paying for tests. Federal regulators also haven’t approved the tests for home use, which could make labs reluctant to process them. And a state analysis predicts most in-network health care providers won’t start prescribing home tests for at least a year until they adjust their billing and other practices.

Nevertheless, the situation is urgent and requires action, said state Sen. Richard Pan (D-Sacramento), a pediatrician who wrote the law.

“We have children born in California with syphilis,” Dr. Pan said. “You’d think that went away in the Victorian era.”

Even before COVID, sexually transmitted infections hit all-time highs in the United States and California for 6 years in a row, according to 2019 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Rates of congenital syphilis, which babies contract from their mothers, illustrate the severity of the STI epidemic: Cases were up 279% from 2015 to 2019 nationally and 232% in California. Of the 445 cases of congenital syphilis in California in 2019, 37 were stillbirths.

The pandemic only worsened the problem because health departments were overwhelmed responding to the COVID emergency, and stay-at-home orders kept people away from clinics.

In surveys of public health programs across the country since May 2020, the National Coalition of STD Directors found that most respondents – up to 78% in one survey – have diverted some of their STI workforces to test and monitor COVID. A report that accompanied the most recent survey found that some STIs were “completely unchecked” because of reductions in clinic hours, diversion of resources, shortages of testing kits and staff burnout.

Some at-home STI tests screen for a single disease but other kits can collect and send samples to check for a variety of infections. Depending on the test, patients collect a drop of blood with a lancet, or swab their mouth, vagina, anus, or penis.

Some tests require patients to send samples to a lab for analysis, while some oral HIV tests give results at home in a few minutes.

Ivan Beas, a 25-year-old graduate student at University of California, Los Angeles, was getting tested frequently as part of a 2-year research study. When clinics closed during the pandemic, researchers sent him a home kit.

The kit, which tests for HIV, hepatitis C, herpes, syphilis, chlamydia, gonorrhea, and trichomoniasis, was packaged discreetly and came with easy instructions. It took Mr. Beas about 10 minutes to prick his finger, swab his mouth and send the samples to the lab.

Mr. Beas wanted to continue screening himself every few months after the study ended, he said, but the kit he used retails for $289, which is out of reach for him.

The last time he went to a clinic in person, “I spent 2 hours waiting to even be seen by a doctor because of how busy they are,” he said. Until Medi-Cal begins covering home tests, he said, he will have to find time to get tested for free at a Planned Parenthood clinic.

“If insurance were to cover it, I’d definitely do it more,” he said.

Under California’s new law, plans regulated by the state must cover home STI tests when ordered by a health care provider.  

Privately insured Californians can take advantage of the coverage immediately. How much they will owe out-of-pocket for the tests – if anything – depends on the type of plan they have, whether their provider is in-network, and whether they fall into a category the federal government has designated for free screening.

Medi-Cal patients almost never face out-of-pocket expenses, but they will have to wait for coverage because the Department of Health Care Services, which administers Medi-Cal, is working with the American Medical Association and the federal government to create billing codes. The reimbursement rates for those codes will then need federal approval.

The state doesn’t know how long that process will take, according to department spokesperson Anthony Cava.

The rule does not apply to the millions of Californians whose job-based health insurance plans are regulated by the federal government.

Other states and organizations have experimented with at-home STI tests. The public health departments in Alabama and the District of Columbia send free kits to residents who request them, but neither jurisdiction requires insurance coverage for them. The National Coalition of STD Directors is sending free kits to people through health departments in Philadelphia; Iowa; Virginia; Indiana; Puerto Rico; and Navajo County, Arizona. The list of recipients is expected to grow this month.

Iwantthekit.org, a project of Johns Hopkins University, has been sending free kits to Maryland residents since 2004, and to Alaskans since 2011. The program is funded by grants and works with local health departments.

Charlotte Gaydos, cofounder of the project, said that requests for test kits during the pandemic nearly tripled – and that she would expand to every state if she could bill insurance the way the California law mandates.

The tests fall into a murky regulatory area. While they have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, none have been cleared for use at home. Patients are supposed to collect their own samples within the walls of a health facility, and some labs may not analyze samples collected at home.

Public health officials cited other potential challenges: Patients may not have the same access to counseling, treatment, or referrals to other services such as food banks that they would receive at clinics. And although patients are supposed to self-report the results of their tests to public health authorities, some people won’t follow through.

Vlad Carrillo, 31, experienced such trade-offs recently. Mr. Carrillo used to get tested at a San Francisco clinic, where they could get counseling and other services. But Carrillo lost their apartment during the pandemic and moved about 7 hours away to Bishop, the only incorporated city in rural Inyo County.

“Being away from the city, it took me a whole year to find a way to get tested,” Carrillo said.

Carrillo eventually got the kit through the mail, avoiding the stigma of going to the clinic in Bishop, which is “more focused on straight stuff,” like preventing pregnancy. Without the test, Carrillo couldn’t get PrEP, a medication to prevent HIV.

“Going without it for so long was really hard on me,” Carrillo said.

This story was produced by Kaiser Health News (KHN), which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. KHN is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

SACRAMENTO, CALIF. – California has become the first state to require health insurance plans to cover at-home tests for sexually transmitted infections such as HIV, chlamydia, and syphilis – which could help quell the STI epidemic that has raged nearly unchecked as public health departments have focused on COVID-19.

The rule, part of a broader law addressing the STI epidemic, took effect Jan. 1 for people with state-regulated private insurance plans and will kick in sometime later for the millions of low-income Californians enrolled in the state’s Medicaid program.

By making it easier and cheaper for Californians to self-administer tests in the privacy of their homes, the provision could bring better disease monitoring to rural and underserved parts of the state, reduce the stigma patients experience when seeking care, and give them more control over their health, say experts on infectious diseases.

“This is the first law of its kind, and I’d say it’s kind of cutting-edge,” said Stephanie Arnold Pang, senior director of policy and government relations for the National Coalition of STD Directors. “We want to bring down every single barrier for someone to get STI testing, and out-of-pocket cost is a huge factor.”

But being first has its downsides. Because the concept of insurance coverage for home STI tests is so new, the state’s Medicaid program, Medi-Cal, could not establish by Jan. 1 the billing codes it needs to start paying for tests. Federal regulators also haven’t approved the tests for home use, which could make labs reluctant to process them. And a state analysis predicts most in-network health care providers won’t start prescribing home tests for at least a year until they adjust their billing and other practices.

Nevertheless, the situation is urgent and requires action, said state Sen. Richard Pan (D-Sacramento), a pediatrician who wrote the law.

“We have children born in California with syphilis,” Dr. Pan said. “You’d think that went away in the Victorian era.”

Even before COVID, sexually transmitted infections hit all-time highs in the United States and California for 6 years in a row, according to 2019 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Rates of congenital syphilis, which babies contract from their mothers, illustrate the severity of the STI epidemic: Cases were up 279% from 2015 to 2019 nationally and 232% in California. Of the 445 cases of congenital syphilis in California in 2019, 37 were stillbirths.

The pandemic only worsened the problem because health departments were overwhelmed responding to the COVID emergency, and stay-at-home orders kept people away from clinics.

In surveys of public health programs across the country since May 2020, the National Coalition of STD Directors found that most respondents – up to 78% in one survey – have diverted some of their STI workforces to test and monitor COVID. A report that accompanied the most recent survey found that some STIs were “completely unchecked” because of reductions in clinic hours, diversion of resources, shortages of testing kits and staff burnout.

Some at-home STI tests screen for a single disease but other kits can collect and send samples to check for a variety of infections. Depending on the test, patients collect a drop of blood with a lancet, or swab their mouth, vagina, anus, or penis.

Some tests require patients to send samples to a lab for analysis, while some oral HIV tests give results at home in a few minutes.

Ivan Beas, a 25-year-old graduate student at University of California, Los Angeles, was getting tested frequently as part of a 2-year research study. When clinics closed during the pandemic, researchers sent him a home kit.

The kit, which tests for HIV, hepatitis C, herpes, syphilis, chlamydia, gonorrhea, and trichomoniasis, was packaged discreetly and came with easy instructions. It took Mr. Beas about 10 minutes to prick his finger, swab his mouth and send the samples to the lab.

Mr. Beas wanted to continue screening himself every few months after the study ended, he said, but the kit he used retails for $289, which is out of reach for him.

The last time he went to a clinic in person, “I spent 2 hours waiting to even be seen by a doctor because of how busy they are,” he said. Until Medi-Cal begins covering home tests, he said, he will have to find time to get tested for free at a Planned Parenthood clinic.

“If insurance were to cover it, I’d definitely do it more,” he said.

Under California’s new law, plans regulated by the state must cover home STI tests when ordered by a health care provider.  

Privately insured Californians can take advantage of the coverage immediately. How much they will owe out-of-pocket for the tests – if anything – depends on the type of plan they have, whether their provider is in-network, and whether they fall into a category the federal government has designated for free screening.

Medi-Cal patients almost never face out-of-pocket expenses, but they will have to wait for coverage because the Department of Health Care Services, which administers Medi-Cal, is working with the American Medical Association and the federal government to create billing codes. The reimbursement rates for those codes will then need federal approval.

The state doesn’t know how long that process will take, according to department spokesperson Anthony Cava.

The rule does not apply to the millions of Californians whose job-based health insurance plans are regulated by the federal government.

Other states and organizations have experimented with at-home STI tests. The public health departments in Alabama and the District of Columbia send free kits to residents who request them, but neither jurisdiction requires insurance coverage for them. The National Coalition of STD Directors is sending free kits to people through health departments in Philadelphia; Iowa; Virginia; Indiana; Puerto Rico; and Navajo County, Arizona. The list of recipients is expected to grow this month.

Iwantthekit.org, a project of Johns Hopkins University, has been sending free kits to Maryland residents since 2004, and to Alaskans since 2011. The program is funded by grants and works with local health departments.

Charlotte Gaydos, cofounder of the project, said that requests for test kits during the pandemic nearly tripled – and that she would expand to every state if she could bill insurance the way the California law mandates.

The tests fall into a murky regulatory area. While they have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, none have been cleared for use at home. Patients are supposed to collect their own samples within the walls of a health facility, and some labs may not analyze samples collected at home.

Public health officials cited other potential challenges: Patients may not have the same access to counseling, treatment, or referrals to other services such as food banks that they would receive at clinics. And although patients are supposed to self-report the results of their tests to public health authorities, some people won’t follow through.

Vlad Carrillo, 31, experienced such trade-offs recently. Mr. Carrillo used to get tested at a San Francisco clinic, where they could get counseling and other services. But Carrillo lost their apartment during the pandemic and moved about 7 hours away to Bishop, the only incorporated city in rural Inyo County.

“Being away from the city, it took me a whole year to find a way to get tested,” Carrillo said.

Carrillo eventually got the kit through the mail, avoiding the stigma of going to the clinic in Bishop, which is “more focused on straight stuff,” like preventing pregnancy. Without the test, Carrillo couldn’t get PrEP, a medication to prevent HIV.

“Going without it for so long was really hard on me,” Carrillo said.

This story was produced by Kaiser Health News (KHN), which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. KHN is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

SACRAMENTO, CALIF. – California has become the first state to require health insurance plans to cover at-home tests for sexually transmitted infections such as HIV, chlamydia, and syphilis – which could help quell the STI epidemic that has raged nearly unchecked as public health departments have focused on COVID-19.

The rule, part of a broader law addressing the STI epidemic, took effect Jan. 1 for people with state-regulated private insurance plans and will kick in sometime later for the millions of low-income Californians enrolled in the state’s Medicaid program.

By making it easier and cheaper for Californians to self-administer tests in the privacy of their homes, the provision could bring better disease monitoring to rural and underserved parts of the state, reduce the stigma patients experience when seeking care, and give them more control over their health, say experts on infectious diseases.

“This is the first law of its kind, and I’d say it’s kind of cutting-edge,” said Stephanie Arnold Pang, senior director of policy and government relations for the National Coalition of STD Directors. “We want to bring down every single barrier for someone to get STI testing, and out-of-pocket cost is a huge factor.”

But being first has its downsides. Because the concept of insurance coverage for home STI tests is so new, the state’s Medicaid program, Medi-Cal, could not establish by Jan. 1 the billing codes it needs to start paying for tests. Federal regulators also haven’t approved the tests for home use, which could make labs reluctant to process them. And a state analysis predicts most in-network health care providers won’t start prescribing home tests for at least a year until they adjust their billing and other practices.

Nevertheless, the situation is urgent and requires action, said state Sen. Richard Pan (D-Sacramento), a pediatrician who wrote the law.

“We have children born in California with syphilis,” Dr. Pan said. “You’d think that went away in the Victorian era.”

Even before COVID, sexually transmitted infections hit all-time highs in the United States and California for 6 years in a row, according to 2019 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Rates of congenital syphilis, which babies contract from their mothers, illustrate the severity of the STI epidemic: Cases were up 279% from 2015 to 2019 nationally and 232% in California. Of the 445 cases of congenital syphilis in California in 2019, 37 were stillbirths.

The pandemic only worsened the problem because health departments were overwhelmed responding to the COVID emergency, and stay-at-home orders kept people away from clinics.

In surveys of public health programs across the country since May 2020, the National Coalition of STD Directors found that most respondents – up to 78% in one survey – have diverted some of their STI workforces to test and monitor COVID. A report that accompanied the most recent survey found that some STIs were “completely unchecked” because of reductions in clinic hours, diversion of resources, shortages of testing kits and staff burnout.

Some at-home STI tests screen for a single disease but other kits can collect and send samples to check for a variety of infections. Depending on the test, patients collect a drop of blood with a lancet, or swab their mouth, vagina, anus, or penis.

Some tests require patients to send samples to a lab for analysis, while some oral HIV tests give results at home in a few minutes.

Ivan Beas, a 25-year-old graduate student at University of California, Los Angeles, was getting tested frequently as part of a 2-year research study. When clinics closed during the pandemic, researchers sent him a home kit.

The kit, which tests for HIV, hepatitis C, herpes, syphilis, chlamydia, gonorrhea, and trichomoniasis, was packaged discreetly and came with easy instructions. It took Mr. Beas about 10 minutes to prick his finger, swab his mouth and send the samples to the lab.

Mr. Beas wanted to continue screening himself every few months after the study ended, he said, but the kit he used retails for $289, which is out of reach for him.

The last time he went to a clinic in person, “I spent 2 hours waiting to even be seen by a doctor because of how busy they are,” he said. Until Medi-Cal begins covering home tests, he said, he will have to find time to get tested for free at a Planned Parenthood clinic.

“If insurance were to cover it, I’d definitely do it more,” he said.

Under California’s new law, plans regulated by the state must cover home STI tests when ordered by a health care provider.  

Privately insured Californians can take advantage of the coverage immediately. How much they will owe out-of-pocket for the tests – if anything – depends on the type of plan they have, whether their provider is in-network, and whether they fall into a category the federal government has designated for free screening.

Medi-Cal patients almost never face out-of-pocket expenses, but they will have to wait for coverage because the Department of Health Care Services, which administers Medi-Cal, is working with the American Medical Association and the federal government to create billing codes. The reimbursement rates for those codes will then need federal approval.

The state doesn’t know how long that process will take, according to department spokesperson Anthony Cava.

The rule does not apply to the millions of Californians whose job-based health insurance plans are regulated by the federal government.

Other states and organizations have experimented with at-home STI tests. The public health departments in Alabama and the District of Columbia send free kits to residents who request them, but neither jurisdiction requires insurance coverage for them. The National Coalition of STD Directors is sending free kits to people through health departments in Philadelphia; Iowa; Virginia; Indiana; Puerto Rico; and Navajo County, Arizona. The list of recipients is expected to grow this month.

Iwantthekit.org, a project of Johns Hopkins University, has been sending free kits to Maryland residents since 2004, and to Alaskans since 2011. The program is funded by grants and works with local health departments.

Charlotte Gaydos, cofounder of the project, said that requests for test kits during the pandemic nearly tripled – and that she would expand to every state if she could bill insurance the way the California law mandates.

The tests fall into a murky regulatory area. While they have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, none have been cleared for use at home. Patients are supposed to collect their own samples within the walls of a health facility, and some labs may not analyze samples collected at home.

Public health officials cited other potential challenges: Patients may not have the same access to counseling, treatment, or referrals to other services such as food banks that they would receive at clinics. And although patients are supposed to self-report the results of their tests to public health authorities, some people won’t follow through.

Vlad Carrillo, 31, experienced such trade-offs recently. Mr. Carrillo used to get tested at a San Francisco clinic, where they could get counseling and other services. But Carrillo lost their apartment during the pandemic and moved about 7 hours away to Bishop, the only incorporated city in rural Inyo County.

“Being away from the city, it took me a whole year to find a way to get tested,” Carrillo said.

Carrillo eventually got the kit through the mail, avoiding the stigma of going to the clinic in Bishop, which is “more focused on straight stuff,” like preventing pregnancy. Without the test, Carrillo couldn’t get PrEP, a medication to prevent HIV.

“Going without it for so long was really hard on me,” Carrillo said.

This story was produced by Kaiser Health News (KHN), which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. KHN is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

If you don’t think it’s important to assess for sleep disorders in your patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), think again.

According to Sabra M. Abbott, MD, PhD, professor of neurology at Northwestern University, Chicago, AD is associated with difficulty falling asleep, nighttime awakenings, early morning awakenings, increased daytime sleepiness, decreased sleep efficiency, increased arousals, awakenings, and sleep fragmentation, as well as increased night kicks and nocturnal leg cramps, and a more than twofold increased risk for insomnia.

During the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium, she offered key questions to ask AD patients who present with sleep complaints:

When do you go to bed? “This does not refer to when you get into bed, but when do you actually go to bed with an intention to go to sleep, outside of watching television or answering emails?” Dr. Abbott said.

How long does it take for you to fall asleep?

Do you wake up in the middle of the night, and for how long? What do you do if you wake up?

When do you wake up in the morning? Is it on your own, or with an alarm clock?

Does this schedule change on nonworkdays?

Do you have daytime impairment? Meaning, do your sleep complaints impact how you function during the daytime?

Do you snore? Meaning, is there concern for sleep apnea?

Do you have uncomfortable sensations in your legs? Are they worse in the evening and improve with movement? These are signs of possible restless legs syndrome.

The Epworth Sleepiness Scale is one self-administered questionnaire to consider using for AD patients with sleep complaints. “This provides patients with several examples of typical scenarios they might encounter during the day and queries whether or not they feel that they could deal with any of those scenarios,” Dr. Abbott said. “A score of greater than 10 indicates that they are sleepy; it’s not just an overall sense of fatigue and decreased energy.”

Other brief self-assessment tools she recommended are the Insomnia Severity Index and the STOP-Bang questionnaire.

Dr. Abbott reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

If you don’t think it’s important to assess for sleep disorders in your patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), think again.

According to Sabra M. Abbott, MD, PhD, professor of neurology at Northwestern University, Chicago, AD is associated with difficulty falling asleep, nighttime awakenings, early morning awakenings, increased daytime sleepiness, decreased sleep efficiency, increased arousals, awakenings, and sleep fragmentation, as well as increased night kicks and nocturnal leg cramps, and a more than twofold increased risk for insomnia.

During the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium, she offered key questions to ask AD patients who present with sleep complaints:

When do you go to bed? “This does not refer to when you get into bed, but when do you actually go to bed with an intention to go to sleep, outside of watching television or answering emails?” Dr. Abbott said.

How long does it take for you to fall asleep?

Do you wake up in the middle of the night, and for how long? What do you do if you wake up?

When do you wake up in the morning? Is it on your own, or with an alarm clock?

Does this schedule change on nonworkdays?

Do you have daytime impairment? Meaning, do your sleep complaints impact how you function during the daytime?

Do you snore? Meaning, is there concern for sleep apnea?

Do you have uncomfortable sensations in your legs? Are they worse in the evening and improve with movement? These are signs of possible restless legs syndrome.

The Epworth Sleepiness Scale is one self-administered questionnaire to consider using for AD patients with sleep complaints. “This provides patients with several examples of typical scenarios they might encounter during the day and queries whether or not they feel that they could deal with any of those scenarios,” Dr. Abbott said. “A score of greater than 10 indicates that they are sleepy; it’s not just an overall sense of fatigue and decreased energy.”

Other brief self-assessment tools she recommended are the Insomnia Severity Index and the STOP-Bang questionnaire.

Dr. Abbott reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

If you don’t think it’s important to assess for sleep disorders in your patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), think again.

According to Sabra M. Abbott, MD, PhD, professor of neurology at Northwestern University, Chicago, AD is associated with difficulty falling asleep, nighttime awakenings, early morning awakenings, increased daytime sleepiness, decreased sleep efficiency, increased arousals, awakenings, and sleep fragmentation, as well as increased night kicks and nocturnal leg cramps, and a more than twofold increased risk for insomnia.

During the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium, she offered key questions to ask AD patients who present with sleep complaints:

When do you go to bed? “This does not refer to when you get into bed, but when do you actually go to bed with an intention to go to sleep, outside of watching television or answering emails?” Dr. Abbott said.

How long does it take for you to fall asleep?

Do you wake up in the middle of the night, and for how long? What do you do if you wake up?

When do you wake up in the morning? Is it on your own, or with an alarm clock?

Does this schedule change on nonworkdays?

Do you have daytime impairment? Meaning, do your sleep complaints impact how you function during the daytime?

Do you snore? Meaning, is there concern for sleep apnea?

Do you have uncomfortable sensations in your legs? Are they worse in the evening and improve with movement? These are signs of possible restless legs syndrome.

The Epworth Sleepiness Scale is one self-administered questionnaire to consider using for AD patients with sleep complaints. “This provides patients with several examples of typical scenarios they might encounter during the day and queries whether or not they feel that they could deal with any of those scenarios,” Dr. Abbott said. “A score of greater than 10 indicates that they are sleepy; it’s not just an overall sense of fatigue and decreased energy.”

Other brief self-assessment tools she recommended are the Insomnia Severity Index and the STOP-Bang questionnaire.

Dr. Abbott reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Patients with chronic low back pain who participated in therapeutic aquatic exercise had superior improvement in function, pain, quality of life, sleep quality, and mental state, compared with those who received physical therapy, in a new study.

“This is the first study to compare the efficacy of therapeutic aquatic exercise and physical therapy modalities in the treatment of chronic low back pain,” senior coauthors Pei-Jie Chen, PhD and Xue-Qiang Wang, PhD, both of the department of sport rehabilitation, Shanghai (China) University of Sport, wrote in JAMA Network Open. “Therapeutic aquatic exercise is a safe treatment for chronic low back pain and most participants who received it were willing to recommend it to other patients with chronic low back pain.”

As compared with individuals in the physical therapy modalities arm, the therapeutic aquatic exercise experienced greater relief of disability at all time points assessed: after the 3-month intervention, at the 6-month follow-up, and at the 12-month follow-up.

Commenting on the study, Linda Girgis, MD, FAAFP, a family physician in private practice in South River, N.J., agreed that aquatic therapy is a great tool for many chronic low back patients. “It helps them get active for one and do things that may exacerbate their symptoms doing the same exercises on land,” noted Dr. Girgis, who also is a clinical assistant professor at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick.

She pointed out that access to a pool can be a problem. “But I have found a few physical therapy places in my area that do have access to a pool, and I refer appropriate patients there,” added Dr. Girgis, who was not involved with the study. “I have also found it works well for other types of pain, such as knee and hip pain. It is not for everyone but I have seen some patients get great benefit from it when they didn’t get any with traditional physical therapy.”
 

Aquatic therapy was more beneficial

Low back pain is a common condition, and clinical practice guidelines currently recommend therapeutic exercise and physical therapy modalities. Among the modalities that are available, therapeutic aquatic exercise is often prescribed for chronic low back pain, and it is becoming increasingly popular for treatment of chronic low back pain, the authors stated in their paper. The authors noted that water is an ideal environment for conducting an exercise program given its various properties, including buoyancy pressure, density, thermal capacity, and conductivity.

Two previously published systematic reviews have suggested that therapeutic aquatic exercise may be able to reduce the intensity of back pain and improve function in this population. But to date, evidence regarding long-term benefits in patients with chronic low back pain is very limited and there haven’t been any studies comparing the efficacy of therapeutic aquatic exercise and physical therapy modalities for chronic low back pain, according to the authors.

In this study, 113 individuals with chronic low back pain were randomized to either therapeutic aquatic exercise or to physical therapy, with an endpoint of efficacy regarding disability. This was measured using the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire.

Scores ranged from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating more severe disability. Secondary endpoints included pain intensity, quality of life, sleep quality, and recommendation of intervention, and these were rated using various standardized tools.

Those randomized to the therapeutic aquatic exercise group had about an hour of therapy, beginning with a 10-minute active warm-up session to enhance neuromuscular activation, then an exercise session for 40 minutes followed by a 10-minute cooldown.

The physical therapy group received transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and infrared ray thermal therapy, also for 60 minutes. Both groups received these interventions twice a week for 3 months.

The overall mean age of the cohort was 31.0 years, and they were almost evenly divided by gender; 54 were men (47.8%), and 59 were women (52.2%).

As compared with the physical therapy group, individuals participating in therapeutic aquatic exercise group showed improvement in disability by an additional −1.77 points (95% confidence interval, −3.02 to −0.51) at the end of the 3-month intervention; at 6 months it was −2.42 points (95% CI, −4.13 to −0.70) and −3.61 points (95% CI, −5.63 to −1.58) at the 12-month follow-up (P < .001 for overall group x time interaction).

Functional improvement did not appear to be significantly affected by confounders that included age, sex, body mass index, low back pain duration, educational level, or pain level.

For secondary outcomes, those in the therapeutic aquatic exercise group demonstrated improvement in the most severe pain by an additional −0.79 points (95% CI, −1.31 to −0.27) after the 3-month intervention, −1.34 points (95% CI, −2.06 to −0.62) at 6 months, and −2.04 points (95% CI, −2.75 to −1.34) at the 12-month follow-up (P < .001 for overall group x time interaction), as compared with the physical therapy group. All pain scores differed significantly between the two groups at every time point.

In addition, individuals in the therapeutic aquatic exercise group showed more improvements on the 36-item Short-form Health Survey (overall group x time interaction, P = .003), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (overall group x time interaction, P = .02), Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (overall group x time interaction, P < .001), and Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (physical activity subscale overall group x time interaction, P = .04), as compared with the physical therapy group. These improvements were also not influenced by confounders.

Finally, at the 12-month follow-up point, those in the aquatic therapy group had significantly greater improvements in the number of participants who met the minimal clinically important difference in pain (at least a 2-point improvement on the numeric rating scale).
 

More outside experts’ takes

“The current research evidence does suggest indeed that aquatic exercise therapy is suitable and often better than land exercise, passive relaxation, or other treatments for many people with low back pain,” commented Stelios Psycharakis PhD, senior lecturer in biomechanics, Institute for Sport, Physical Education and Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh.

He also noted that since low back pain is an issue affecting about 80% of all people at some stage of their life, it is “improbable that one could identify a single type of treatment or exercise therapy that would be suitable for every person with this problem.”

Dr. Psycharakis pointed out that there are also some contraindications for aquatic therapy, such as incontinence and skin conditions. “Other than that though, clinicians should definitely consider aquatic exercise therapy when advising people with chronic low back pain,” he said.

Justin M. Lantz, DPT, agreed that the study showed therapeutic aquatic exercise appears to be safe and beneficial in some patients with chronic low back pain, but he also shared limitations of the new research.

“The study has notable limitations as it did not include patients above 65 years old, pain levels were generally low for the subjects involved, and it did not include a treatment group with land therapeutic exercise – so it is difficult to determine if the beneficial effects reported were due to active exercise or because the exercises were performed in water,” said Dr. Lantz, director of the spine physical therapy fellowship program at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and an assistant professor of clinical physical therapy.

He also pointed out that, since active exercise has been shown to be beneficial and is advocated in multiple clinical practice guidelines for chronic low back pain, “it would be helpful to determine if the true effects on pain and disability were due to the water environment or the effect of active exercise itself.”

“Due to the significant positive long-term effects and limited adverse events reported, I believe this study supports the use of therapeutic aquatic exercise in select patient populations with chronic low back pain and should be considered as a part of a rehabilitation treatment plan if accessibility is feasible,” Dr. Lantz said.

The authors of the paper, Dr. Girgis, and Dr. Psycharakis had no conflicts of interest. Justin Lantz is a physical therapy consultant to SI-Bone.

Patients with chronic low back pain who participated in therapeutic aquatic exercise had superior improvement in function, pain, quality of life, sleep quality, and mental state, compared with those who received physical therapy, in a new study.

“This is the first study to compare the efficacy of therapeutic aquatic exercise and physical therapy modalities in the treatment of chronic low back pain,” senior coauthors Pei-Jie Chen, PhD and Xue-Qiang Wang, PhD, both of the department of sport rehabilitation, Shanghai (China) University of Sport, wrote in JAMA Network Open. “Therapeutic aquatic exercise is a safe treatment for chronic low back pain and most participants who received it were willing to recommend it to other patients with chronic low back pain.”

As compared with individuals in the physical therapy modalities arm, the therapeutic aquatic exercise experienced greater relief of disability at all time points assessed: after the 3-month intervention, at the 6-month follow-up, and at the 12-month follow-up.

Commenting on the study, Linda Girgis, MD, FAAFP, a family physician in private practice in South River, N.J., agreed that aquatic therapy is a great tool for many chronic low back patients. “It helps them get active for one and do things that may exacerbate their symptoms doing the same exercises on land,” noted Dr. Girgis, who also is a clinical assistant professor at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick.

She pointed out that access to a pool can be a problem. “But I have found a few physical therapy places in my area that do have access to a pool, and I refer appropriate patients there,” added Dr. Girgis, who was not involved with the study. “I have also found it works well for other types of pain, such as knee and hip pain. It is not for everyone but I have seen some patients get great benefit from it when they didn’t get any with traditional physical therapy.”
 

Aquatic therapy was more beneficial

Low back pain is a common condition, and clinical practice guidelines currently recommend therapeutic exercise and physical therapy modalities. Among the modalities that are available, therapeutic aquatic exercise is often prescribed for chronic low back pain, and it is becoming increasingly popular for treatment of chronic low back pain, the authors stated in their paper. The authors noted that water is an ideal environment for conducting an exercise program given its various properties, including buoyancy pressure, density, thermal capacity, and conductivity.

Two previously published systematic reviews have suggested that therapeutic aquatic exercise may be able to reduce the intensity of back pain and improve function in this population. But to date, evidence regarding long-term benefits in patients with chronic low back pain is very limited and there haven’t been any studies comparing the efficacy of therapeutic aquatic exercise and physical therapy modalities for chronic low back pain, according to the authors.

In this study, 113 individuals with chronic low back pain were randomized to either therapeutic aquatic exercise or to physical therapy, with an endpoint of efficacy regarding disability. This was measured using the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire.

Scores ranged from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating more severe disability. Secondary endpoints included pain intensity, quality of life, sleep quality, and recommendation of intervention, and these were rated using various standardized tools.

Those randomized to the therapeutic aquatic exercise group had about an hour of therapy, beginning with a 10-minute active warm-up session to enhance neuromuscular activation, then an exercise session for 40 minutes followed by a 10-minute cooldown.

The physical therapy group received transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and infrared ray thermal therapy, also for 60 minutes. Both groups received these interventions twice a week for 3 months.

The overall mean age of the cohort was 31.0 years, and they were almost evenly divided by gender; 54 were men (47.8%), and 59 were women (52.2%).

As compared with the physical therapy group, individuals participating in therapeutic aquatic exercise group showed improvement in disability by an additional −1.77 points (95% confidence interval, −3.02 to −0.51) at the end of the 3-month intervention; at 6 months it was −2.42 points (95% CI, −4.13 to −0.70) and −3.61 points (95% CI, −5.63 to −1.58) at the 12-month follow-up (P < .001 for overall group x time interaction).

Functional improvement did not appear to be significantly affected by confounders that included age, sex, body mass index, low back pain duration, educational level, or pain level.

For secondary outcomes, those in the therapeutic aquatic exercise group demonstrated improvement in the most severe pain by an additional −0.79 points (95% CI, −1.31 to −0.27) after the 3-month intervention, −1.34 points (95% CI, −2.06 to −0.62) at 6 months, and −2.04 points (95% CI, −2.75 to −1.34) at the 12-month follow-up (P < .001 for overall group x time interaction), as compared with the physical therapy group. All pain scores differed significantly between the two groups at every time point.

In addition, individuals in the therapeutic aquatic exercise group showed more improvements on the 36-item Short-form Health Survey (overall group x time interaction, P = .003), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (overall group x time interaction, P = .02), Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (overall group x time interaction, P < .001), and Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (physical activity subscale overall group x time interaction, P = .04), as compared with the physical therapy group. These improvements were also not influenced by confounders.

Finally, at the 12-month follow-up point, those in the aquatic therapy group had significantly greater improvements in the number of participants who met the minimal clinically important difference in pain (at least a 2-point improvement on the numeric rating scale).
 

More outside experts’ takes

“The current research evidence does suggest indeed that aquatic exercise therapy is suitable and often better than land exercise, passive relaxation, or other treatments for many people with low back pain,” commented Stelios Psycharakis PhD, senior lecturer in biomechanics, Institute for Sport, Physical Education and Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh.

He also noted that since low back pain is an issue affecting about 80% of all people at some stage of their life, it is “improbable that one could identify a single type of treatment or exercise therapy that would be suitable for every person with this problem.”

Dr. Psycharakis pointed out that there are also some contraindications for aquatic therapy, such as incontinence and skin conditions. “Other than that though, clinicians should definitely consider aquatic exercise therapy when advising people with chronic low back pain,” he said.

Justin M. Lantz, DPT, agreed that the study showed therapeutic aquatic exercise appears to be safe and beneficial in some patients with chronic low back pain, but he also shared limitations of the new research.

“The study has notable limitations as it did not include patients above 65 years old, pain levels were generally low for the subjects involved, and it did not include a treatment group with land therapeutic exercise – so it is difficult to determine if the beneficial effects reported were due to active exercise or because the exercises were performed in water,” said Dr. Lantz, director of the spine physical therapy fellowship program at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and an assistant professor of clinical physical therapy.

He also pointed out that, since active exercise has been shown to be beneficial and is advocated in multiple clinical practice guidelines for chronic low back pain, “it would be helpful to determine if the true effects on pain and disability were due to the water environment or the effect of active exercise itself.”

“Due to the significant positive long-term effects and limited adverse events reported, I believe this study supports the use of therapeutic aquatic exercise in select patient populations with chronic low back pain and should be considered as a part of a rehabilitation treatment plan if accessibility is feasible,” Dr. Lantz said.

The authors of the paper, Dr. Girgis, and Dr. Psycharakis had no conflicts of interest. Justin Lantz is a physical therapy consultant to SI-Bone.

Patients with chronic low back pain who participated in therapeutic aquatic exercise had superior improvement in function, pain, quality of life, sleep quality, and mental state, compared with those who received physical therapy, in a new study.

“This is the first study to compare the efficacy of therapeutic aquatic exercise and physical therapy modalities in the treatment of chronic low back pain,” senior coauthors Pei-Jie Chen, PhD and Xue-Qiang Wang, PhD, both of the department of sport rehabilitation, Shanghai (China) University of Sport, wrote in JAMA Network Open. “Therapeutic aquatic exercise is a safe treatment for chronic low back pain and most participants who received it were willing to recommend it to other patients with chronic low back pain.”

As compared with individuals in the physical therapy modalities arm, the therapeutic aquatic exercise experienced greater relief of disability at all time points assessed: after the 3-month intervention, at the 6-month follow-up, and at the 12-month follow-up.

Commenting on the study, Linda Girgis, MD, FAAFP, a family physician in private practice in South River, N.J., agreed that aquatic therapy is a great tool for many chronic low back patients. “It helps them get active for one and do things that may exacerbate their symptoms doing the same exercises on land,” noted Dr. Girgis, who also is a clinical assistant professor at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick.

She pointed out that access to a pool can be a problem. “But I have found a few physical therapy places in my area that do have access to a pool, and I refer appropriate patients there,” added Dr. Girgis, who was not involved with the study. “I have also found it works well for other types of pain, such as knee and hip pain. It is not for everyone but I have seen some patients get great benefit from it when they didn’t get any with traditional physical therapy.”
 

Aquatic therapy was more beneficial

Low back pain is a common condition, and clinical practice guidelines currently recommend therapeutic exercise and physical therapy modalities. Among the modalities that are available, therapeutic aquatic exercise is often prescribed for chronic low back pain, and it is becoming increasingly popular for treatment of chronic low back pain, the authors stated in their paper. The authors noted that water is an ideal environment for conducting an exercise program given its various properties, including buoyancy pressure, density, thermal capacity, and conductivity.

Two previously published systematic reviews have suggested that therapeutic aquatic exercise may be able to reduce the intensity of back pain and improve function in this population. But to date, evidence regarding long-term benefits in patients with chronic low back pain is very limited and there haven’t been any studies comparing the efficacy of therapeutic aquatic exercise and physical therapy modalities for chronic low back pain, according to the authors.

In this study, 113 individuals with chronic low back pain were randomized to either therapeutic aquatic exercise or to physical therapy, with an endpoint of efficacy regarding disability. This was measured using the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire.

Scores ranged from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating more severe disability. Secondary endpoints included pain intensity, quality of life, sleep quality, and recommendation of intervention, and these were rated using various standardized tools.

Those randomized to the therapeutic aquatic exercise group had about an hour of therapy, beginning with a 10-minute active warm-up session to enhance neuromuscular activation, then an exercise session for 40 minutes followed by a 10-minute cooldown.

The physical therapy group received transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and infrared ray thermal therapy, also for 60 minutes. Both groups received these interventions twice a week for 3 months.

The overall mean age of the cohort was 31.0 years, and they were almost evenly divided by gender; 54 were men (47.8%), and 59 were women (52.2%).

As compared with the physical therapy group, individuals participating in therapeutic aquatic exercise group showed improvement in disability by an additional −1.77 points (95% confidence interval, −3.02 to −0.51) at the end of the 3-month intervention; at 6 months it was −2.42 points (95% CI, −4.13 to −0.70) and −3.61 points (95% CI, −5.63 to −1.58) at the 12-month follow-up (P < .001 for overall group x time interaction).

Functional improvement did not appear to be significantly affected by confounders that included age, sex, body mass index, low back pain duration, educational level, or pain level.

For secondary outcomes, those in the therapeutic aquatic exercise group demonstrated improvement in the most severe pain by an additional −0.79 points (95% CI, −1.31 to −0.27) after the 3-month intervention, −1.34 points (95% CI, −2.06 to −0.62) at 6 months, and −2.04 points (95% CI, −2.75 to −1.34) at the 12-month follow-up (P < .001 for overall group x time interaction), as compared with the physical therapy group. All pain scores differed significantly between the two groups at every time point.

In addition, individuals in the therapeutic aquatic exercise group showed more improvements on the 36-item Short-form Health Survey (overall group x time interaction, P = .003), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (overall group x time interaction, P = .02), Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (overall group x time interaction, P < .001), and Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (physical activity subscale overall group x time interaction, P = .04), as compared with the physical therapy group. These improvements were also not influenced by confounders.

Finally, at the 12-month follow-up point, those in the aquatic therapy group had significantly greater improvements in the number of participants who met the minimal clinically important difference in pain (at least a 2-point improvement on the numeric rating scale).
 

More outside experts’ takes

“The current research evidence does suggest indeed that aquatic exercise therapy is suitable and often better than land exercise, passive relaxation, or other treatments for many people with low back pain,” commented Stelios Psycharakis PhD, senior lecturer in biomechanics, Institute for Sport, Physical Education and Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh.

He also noted that since low back pain is an issue affecting about 80% of all people at some stage of their life, it is “improbable that one could identify a single type of treatment or exercise therapy that would be suitable for every person with this problem.”

Dr. Psycharakis pointed out that there are also some contraindications for aquatic therapy, such as incontinence and skin conditions. “Other than that though, clinicians should definitely consider aquatic exercise therapy when advising people with chronic low back pain,” he said.

Justin M. Lantz, DPT, agreed that the study showed therapeutic aquatic exercise appears to be safe and beneficial in some patients with chronic low back pain, but he also shared limitations of the new research.

“The study has notable limitations as it did not include patients above 65 years old, pain levels were generally low for the subjects involved, and it did not include a treatment group with land therapeutic exercise – so it is difficult to determine if the beneficial effects reported were due to active exercise or because the exercises were performed in water,” said Dr. Lantz, director of the spine physical therapy fellowship program at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and an assistant professor of clinical physical therapy.

He also pointed out that, since active exercise has been shown to be beneficial and is advocated in multiple clinical practice guidelines for chronic low back pain, “it would be helpful to determine if the true effects on pain and disability were due to the water environment or the effect of active exercise itself.”

“Due to the significant positive long-term effects and limited adverse events reported, I believe this study supports the use of therapeutic aquatic exercise in select patient populations with chronic low back pain and should be considered as a part of a rehabilitation treatment plan if accessibility is feasible,” Dr. Lantz said.

The authors of the paper, Dr. Girgis, and Dr. Psycharakis had no conflicts of interest. Justin Lantz is a physical therapy consultant to SI-Bone.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors show “remarkable consistency of class benefit” for improving cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk people across age, sex, and race/ethnicity categories.

The findings, from a meta-analysis of 10 major randomized clinical trials, were published online Jan. 5, 2021, in JAMA Network Open by Mukul Bhattarai, MD, a cardiology fellow at Southern Illinois University, Springfield, and colleagues.

“Our meta-analysis evaluated a wide spectrum of efficacy outcomes, further characterizing the primary outcome in different subgroups from several well-designed large clinical trials. It supports that SGLT2 inhibitors have emerged as an effective class of drugs for improving cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, including the prevention of [hospitalization for heart failure] and reducing all-cause mortality in selected patients,” Dr. Bhattarai and colleagues wrote.

The cardiovascular outcomes of SGLT2 inhibitor therapy, they noted, “can be compared across all trials, and it demonstrates remarkable consistency of class benefit, despite the variations in populations enrolled.”

However, they also noted that SGLT inhibitors did not reduce the risk of acute MIn overall, and that most of the trials were short term, with a mean follow-up of just 2.3 years.
 

Ten trials, consistent cardiovascular benefits

Dr. Bhattarai and colleagues searched the literature through Jan. 10, 2021, as well as meeting presentations and other sources. They identified 10 placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials in which participants had atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or ASCVD risk factors, diabetes, or heart failure. Among a total of 71,553 high-risk patients, 39,053 received an SGLT2 inhibitor and 32,500 received a placebo.

The primary outcome of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 8.10% randomized to SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with 11.56% in the placebo group, a significant difference with odds ratio 0.67 (P < .001). Both individual outcomes were lower in the SGLT2-inhibitor group, with a number needed to treat of 5.7 (P < .001).

Patients receiving SGLT2 inhibitors also had significantly lower rates of major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as death due to cardiovascular causes, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke. Those events occurred in 9.82% versus 10.22%(OR, 0.90; P = .03).

Hospitalizations and ED visits with heart failure were also reduced with SGLT2 inhibitors (4.37% vs. 6.81%; OR, 0.67; P < .001), as was cardiovascular death (4.65% vs. 5.14%; OR, 0.87; P = .009). The reduction in heart failure is likely caused by a combination of a natriuretic effect and reduced interstitial fluid, along with inhibition of cardiac fibrosis, the authors said.

On the other hand, no reductions were seen in acute MI, evaluated in five of the studies. That event occurred in 4.66% taking SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with 4.70% of the placebo group, a nonsignificant difference with an OR of 0.95 (P = 0.22). This is likely because of the fact that SGLT2 inhibitors don’t have known antianginal properties or vasodilatory effects, they don’t reduce myocardial oxygen consumption, and they don’t prevent cardiac muscle remodeling, they noted.

All-cause mortality was significantly lower with SGLT2 inhibitors, though, at 7.09% versus 7.86% (odds ratio, 0.87; P = .004).
 

Benefits seen across age, sex, and race/ethnicity subgroups

While no differences in benefit were found between men and women when compared with placebo groups, the rates of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalizations were slightly higher in men than in women (9.01% [OR, 0.75; P < .001] vs. 5.34% [OR, 0.78; P = .002]).

By age, SGLT2 inhibitors benefited people both those younger than 65 years and those aged 65 years and older, although the primary outcome was slightly lower in the younger group (6.94% [OR, 0.79; P < 0.001] vs. 10.47% [OR, 0.78; P < .001]).

And by race, similar benefits from SGLT2 inhibitors were seen among individuals who were White, compared with those who were Asian, Black, or of other race/ethnicity, with event rates of 8.77% (OR, 0.82; P < .001) and 8.75% (OR, 0.66; P = .06), respectively.

“Owing to the short-term trial durations, future long-term prospective studies and postmarketing surveillance studies are warranted to discover the rate of cardiovascular outcomes,” Dr. Bhattarai and colleagues concluded.

The authors have no disclosures.

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

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors show “remarkable consistency of class benefit” for improving cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk people across age, sex, and race/ethnicity categories.

The findings, from a meta-analysis of 10 major randomized clinical trials, were published online Jan. 5, 2021, in JAMA Network Open by Mukul Bhattarai, MD, a cardiology fellow at Southern Illinois University, Springfield, and colleagues.

“Our meta-analysis evaluated a wide spectrum of efficacy outcomes, further characterizing the primary outcome in different subgroups from several well-designed large clinical trials. It supports that SGLT2 inhibitors have emerged as an effective class of drugs for improving cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, including the prevention of [hospitalization for heart failure] and reducing all-cause mortality in selected patients,” Dr. Bhattarai and colleagues wrote.

The cardiovascular outcomes of SGLT2 inhibitor therapy, they noted, “can be compared across all trials, and it demonstrates remarkable consistency of class benefit, despite the variations in populations enrolled.”

However, they also noted that SGLT inhibitors did not reduce the risk of acute MIn overall, and that most of the trials were short term, with a mean follow-up of just 2.3 years.
 

Ten trials, consistent cardiovascular benefits

Dr. Bhattarai and colleagues searched the literature through Jan. 10, 2021, as well as meeting presentations and other sources. They identified 10 placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials in which participants had atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or ASCVD risk factors, diabetes, or heart failure. Among a total of 71,553 high-risk patients, 39,053 received an SGLT2 inhibitor and 32,500 received a placebo.

The primary outcome of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 8.10% randomized to SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with 11.56% in the placebo group, a significant difference with odds ratio 0.67 (P < .001). Both individual outcomes were lower in the SGLT2-inhibitor group, with a number needed to treat of 5.7 (P < .001).

Patients receiving SGLT2 inhibitors also had significantly lower rates of major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as death due to cardiovascular causes, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke. Those events occurred in 9.82% versus 10.22%(OR, 0.90; P = .03).

Hospitalizations and ED visits with heart failure were also reduced with SGLT2 inhibitors (4.37% vs. 6.81%; OR, 0.67; P < .001), as was cardiovascular death (4.65% vs. 5.14%; OR, 0.87; P = .009). The reduction in heart failure is likely caused by a combination of a natriuretic effect and reduced interstitial fluid, along with inhibition of cardiac fibrosis, the authors said.

On the other hand, no reductions were seen in acute MI, evaluated in five of the studies. That event occurred in 4.66% taking SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with 4.70% of the placebo group, a nonsignificant difference with an OR of 0.95 (P = 0.22). This is likely because of the fact that SGLT2 inhibitors don’t have known antianginal properties or vasodilatory effects, they don’t reduce myocardial oxygen consumption, and they don’t prevent cardiac muscle remodeling, they noted.

All-cause mortality was significantly lower with SGLT2 inhibitors, though, at 7.09% versus 7.86% (odds ratio, 0.87; P = .004).
 

Benefits seen across age, sex, and race/ethnicity subgroups

While no differences in benefit were found between men and women when compared with placebo groups, the rates of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalizations were slightly higher in men than in women (9.01% [OR, 0.75; P < .001] vs. 5.34% [OR, 0.78; P = .002]).

By age, SGLT2 inhibitors benefited people both those younger than 65 years and those aged 65 years and older, although the primary outcome was slightly lower in the younger group (6.94% [OR, 0.79; P < 0.001] vs. 10.47% [OR, 0.78; P < .001]).

And by race, similar benefits from SGLT2 inhibitors were seen among individuals who were White, compared with those who were Asian, Black, or of other race/ethnicity, with event rates of 8.77% (OR, 0.82; P < .001) and 8.75% (OR, 0.66; P = .06), respectively.

“Owing to the short-term trial durations, future long-term prospective studies and postmarketing surveillance studies are warranted to discover the rate of cardiovascular outcomes,” Dr. Bhattarai and colleagues concluded.

The authors have no disclosures.

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

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors show “remarkable consistency of class benefit” for improving cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk people across age, sex, and race/ethnicity categories.

The findings, from a meta-analysis of 10 major randomized clinical trials, were published online Jan. 5, 2021, in JAMA Network Open by Mukul Bhattarai, MD, a cardiology fellow at Southern Illinois University, Springfield, and colleagues.

“Our meta-analysis evaluated a wide spectrum of efficacy outcomes, further characterizing the primary outcome in different subgroups from several well-designed large clinical trials. It supports that SGLT2 inhibitors have emerged as an effective class of drugs for improving cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, including the prevention of [hospitalization for heart failure] and reducing all-cause mortality in selected patients,” Dr. Bhattarai and colleagues wrote.

The cardiovascular outcomes of SGLT2 inhibitor therapy, they noted, “can be compared across all trials, and it demonstrates remarkable consistency of class benefit, despite the variations in populations enrolled.”

However, they also noted that SGLT inhibitors did not reduce the risk of acute MIn overall, and that most of the trials were short term, with a mean follow-up of just 2.3 years.
 

Ten trials, consistent cardiovascular benefits

Dr. Bhattarai and colleagues searched the literature through Jan. 10, 2021, as well as meeting presentations and other sources. They identified 10 placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials in which participants had atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or ASCVD risk factors, diabetes, or heart failure. Among a total of 71,553 high-risk patients, 39,053 received an SGLT2 inhibitor and 32,500 received a placebo.

The primary outcome of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 8.10% randomized to SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with 11.56% in the placebo group, a significant difference with odds ratio 0.67 (P < .001). Both individual outcomes were lower in the SGLT2-inhibitor group, with a number needed to treat of 5.7 (P < .001).

Patients receiving SGLT2 inhibitors also had significantly lower rates of major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as death due to cardiovascular causes, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke. Those events occurred in 9.82% versus 10.22%(OR, 0.90; P = .03).

Hospitalizations and ED visits with heart failure were also reduced with SGLT2 inhibitors (4.37% vs. 6.81%; OR, 0.67; P < .001), as was cardiovascular death (4.65% vs. 5.14%; OR, 0.87; P = .009). The reduction in heart failure is likely caused by a combination of a natriuretic effect and reduced interstitial fluid, along with inhibition of cardiac fibrosis, the authors said.

On the other hand, no reductions were seen in acute MI, evaluated in five of the studies. That event occurred in 4.66% taking SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with 4.70% of the placebo group, a nonsignificant difference with an OR of 0.95 (P = 0.22). This is likely because of the fact that SGLT2 inhibitors don’t have known antianginal properties or vasodilatory effects, they don’t reduce myocardial oxygen consumption, and they don’t prevent cardiac muscle remodeling, they noted.

All-cause mortality was significantly lower with SGLT2 inhibitors, though, at 7.09% versus 7.86% (odds ratio, 0.87; P = .004).
 

Benefits seen across age, sex, and race/ethnicity subgroups

While no differences in benefit were found between men and women when compared with placebo groups, the rates of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalizations were slightly higher in men than in women (9.01% [OR, 0.75; P < .001] vs. 5.34% [OR, 0.78; P = .002]).

By age, SGLT2 inhibitors benefited people both those younger than 65 years and those aged 65 years and older, although the primary outcome was slightly lower in the younger group (6.94% [OR, 0.79; P < 0.001] vs. 10.47% [OR, 0.78; P < .001]).

And by race, similar benefits from SGLT2 inhibitors were seen among individuals who were White, compared with those who were Asian, Black, or of other race/ethnicity, with event rates of 8.77% (OR, 0.82; P < .001) and 8.75% (OR, 0.66; P = .06), respectively.

“Owing to the short-term trial durations, future long-term prospective studies and postmarketing surveillance studies are warranted to discover the rate of cardiovascular outcomes,” Dr. Bhattarai and colleagues concluded.

The authors have no disclosures.

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