MDedge Emergency Medicine

New research hints at the possibility that cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA), a cause of spontaneous brain hemorrhage, can be transmitted via blood transfusion, raising the risk for spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) in transfusion recipients.

In an exploratory analysis, patients receiving red blood cell transfusions from donors who later developed multiple spontaneous ICHs, and were assumed to have CAA, were at a significantly increased risk of developing spontaneous ICH themselves.

“This may suggest a transfusion-transmissible agent associated with some types of spontaneous ICH, although the findings may be susceptible to selection bias and residual confounding, and further research is needed to investigate if transfusion transmission of CAA might explain this association,” the investigators noted.

“We do not think that the findings motivate a change in practice, and we should not let these results discourage otherwise indicated blood transfusion,” said lead author Jingcheng Zhao, MD, PhD, with Karolinska University Hospital Solna, Stockholm.

The study was published online  in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
 

Novel finding

Recent evidence suggests that CAA exhibits “prion-like” transmissivity, with reports of transmission through cadaveric pituitary hormone contaminated with amyloid-beta and tau protein, dura mater grafts, and possibly neurosurgical instruments.

CAA, which is characterized by the deposition of amyloid protein in the brain, is the second most common cause of spontaneous ICH. 

The researchers hypothesized that transfusion transmission of CAA may manifest through an increased risk for spontaneous ICH among transfusion recipients given blood from a donor with spontaneous ICH. To explore this hypothesis, they analyzed national registry data from Sweden and Denmark for ICH in recipients of red blood cell transfusion from donors who themselves had ICH over the years after their blood donations, with the assumption that donors with two or more ICHs would likely have CAA.

The cohort included nearly 760,000 individuals in Sweden (median age, 65 years; 59% women) and 330,000 in Denmark (median age, 64 years; 58% women), with a median follow-up of 5.8 and 6.1 years, respectively.

Receiving red blood cell transfusions from donors who later developed multiple spontaneous ICHs was associated with a greater than twofold increased risk of developing spontaneous ICH, compared with receiving a transfusion from donors without subsequent ICH (hazard ratio, 2.73; P < .001 in the Swedish cohort and HR, 2.32; P = .04 in the Danish cohort).

“The observed increased risk of spontaneous ICH associated with receiving a red blood cell transfusion from a donor who later developed multiple spontaneous ICHs, corresponding to a 30-year cumulative incidence difference of 2.3%, is a novel finding,” the researchers wrote.

There was no increase in post-transfusion ICH risk among recipients whose donors had a single post–blood-donation ICH.

The findings were robust to several of the sensitivity analyses.

A “negative” control analysis of post-transfusion ischemic stroke (instead of ICH) found no increased risk among recipients of blood from donors who had single or multiple ICHs.

This study provides “exploratory evidence of possible transfusion-transmission of a factor that causes ICHs, but more research is needed to confirm and to understand the mechanism,” said Dr. Zhao.

The researchers noted that they did not directly assess CAA but expect it would be more common among donors who develop multiple spontaneous ICHs, “as CAA-related ICH has been reported to have a 7-fold increase for recurrent ICHs, compared with non–CAA-related ICH.”
 

Worrisome finding or false alarm?

In an accompanying editorial, Steven Greenberg, MD, PhD, with the department of neurology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said there are “good reasons to treat the possibility of CAA transmission via blood transfusion seriously – and good reasons to remain skeptical, at least for the present.”

“Powerful” arguments in support of the findings include the robust study methodology and the “striking” similarity in results from the two registries, which argues against a chance finding. Another is the negative control with ischemic stroke as the outcome, which argues against unsuspected confounding-causing associations with all types of stroke, Dr. Greenberg noted.

Arguments for remaining “unconvinced” of the association center on the weakness of evidence for a plausible biological mechanism for the finding, he points out. Another is the short-time course of ICHs after blood transfusion, which is “quite challenging to explain,” Dr. Greenberg said. Nearly half of the ICHs among blood recipients occurred within 5 years of transfusion, which is “dramatically” faster than the 30- to 40-year interval reported between neurosurgical exposure to cadaveric tissue and first ICH, he added.

Another related “mechanistic reservation” is the plausibility that a transmissible species of amyloid-beta could travel from blood to brain in sufficient quantities to trigger advanced CAA or Alzheimer disease pathology, he wrote.

He added the current study leaves him “squarely at the corner of anxiety and skepticism.”

With more than 10 million units of blood transfused in the United States each year, even a modest increase in risk for future brain hemorrhages or dementia conferred by “an uncommon – but as of now undetectable – donor trait would represent a substantial public health concern,” Dr. Greenberg wrote.

“From the standpoint of scientific plausibility, however, even this well-conducted analysis is at risk of representing a false alarm,” he cautioned.

Looking ahead, Dr. Greenberg said one clear direction is independent replication, ideally with datasets in which donor and recipient dementia can be reliably ascertained to assess the possibility of Alzheimer’s disease as well as CAA transmissibility.

“The other challenge is for experimental biologists to consider the alternative possibility of transfusion-related acceleration of downstream steps in the CAA-ICH pathway, such as the vessel remodeling by which amyloid beta–laden vessels proceed to rupture and bleed.”

“The current study is not yet a reason for alarm, certainly not a reason to avoid otherwise indicated blood transfusion, but it is a strong call for more scientific digging,” Dr. Greenberg concluded.

The study was funded by grants from the Karolinska Institute, the Swedish Research Council, and Region Stockholm. Dr. Zhao and Dr. Greenberg report no relevant financial relationships.

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

New research hints at the possibility that cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA), a cause of spontaneous brain hemorrhage, can be transmitted via blood transfusion, raising the risk for spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) in transfusion recipients.

In an exploratory analysis, patients receiving red blood cell transfusions from donors who later developed multiple spontaneous ICHs, and were assumed to have CAA, were at a significantly increased risk of developing spontaneous ICH themselves.

“This may suggest a transfusion-transmissible agent associated with some types of spontaneous ICH, although the findings may be susceptible to selection bias and residual confounding, and further research is needed to investigate if transfusion transmission of CAA might explain this association,” the investigators noted.

“We do not think that the findings motivate a change in practice, and we should not let these results discourage otherwise indicated blood transfusion,” said lead author Jingcheng Zhao, MD, PhD, with Karolinska University Hospital Solna, Stockholm.

The study was published online  in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
 

Novel finding

Recent evidence suggests that CAA exhibits “prion-like” transmissivity, with reports of transmission through cadaveric pituitary hormone contaminated with amyloid-beta and tau protein, dura mater grafts, and possibly neurosurgical instruments.

CAA, which is characterized by the deposition of amyloid protein in the brain, is the second most common cause of spontaneous ICH. 

The researchers hypothesized that transfusion transmission of CAA may manifest through an increased risk for spontaneous ICH among transfusion recipients given blood from a donor with spontaneous ICH. To explore this hypothesis, they analyzed national registry data from Sweden and Denmark for ICH in recipients of red blood cell transfusion from donors who themselves had ICH over the years after their blood donations, with the assumption that donors with two or more ICHs would likely have CAA.

The cohort included nearly 760,000 individuals in Sweden (median age, 65 years; 59% women) and 330,000 in Denmark (median age, 64 years; 58% women), with a median follow-up of 5.8 and 6.1 years, respectively.

Receiving red blood cell transfusions from donors who later developed multiple spontaneous ICHs was associated with a greater than twofold increased risk of developing spontaneous ICH, compared with receiving a transfusion from donors without subsequent ICH (hazard ratio, 2.73; P < .001 in the Swedish cohort and HR, 2.32; P = .04 in the Danish cohort).

“The observed increased risk of spontaneous ICH associated with receiving a red blood cell transfusion from a donor who later developed multiple spontaneous ICHs, corresponding to a 30-year cumulative incidence difference of 2.3%, is a novel finding,” the researchers wrote.

There was no increase in post-transfusion ICH risk among recipients whose donors had a single post–blood-donation ICH.

The findings were robust to several of the sensitivity analyses.

A “negative” control analysis of post-transfusion ischemic stroke (instead of ICH) found no increased risk among recipients of blood from donors who had single or multiple ICHs.

This study provides “exploratory evidence of possible transfusion-transmission of a factor that causes ICHs, but more research is needed to confirm and to understand the mechanism,” said Dr. Zhao.

The researchers noted that they did not directly assess CAA but expect it would be more common among donors who develop multiple spontaneous ICHs, “as CAA-related ICH has been reported to have a 7-fold increase for recurrent ICHs, compared with non–CAA-related ICH.”
 

Worrisome finding or false alarm?

In an accompanying editorial, Steven Greenberg, MD, PhD, with the department of neurology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said there are “good reasons to treat the possibility of CAA transmission via blood transfusion seriously – and good reasons to remain skeptical, at least for the present.”

“Powerful” arguments in support of the findings include the robust study methodology and the “striking” similarity in results from the two registries, which argues against a chance finding. Another is the negative control with ischemic stroke as the outcome, which argues against unsuspected confounding-causing associations with all types of stroke, Dr. Greenberg noted.

Arguments for remaining “unconvinced” of the association center on the weakness of evidence for a plausible biological mechanism for the finding, he points out. Another is the short-time course of ICHs after blood transfusion, which is “quite challenging to explain,” Dr. Greenberg said. Nearly half of the ICHs among blood recipients occurred within 5 years of transfusion, which is “dramatically” faster than the 30- to 40-year interval reported between neurosurgical exposure to cadaveric tissue and first ICH, he added.

Another related “mechanistic reservation” is the plausibility that a transmissible species of amyloid-beta could travel from blood to brain in sufficient quantities to trigger advanced CAA or Alzheimer disease pathology, he wrote.

He added the current study leaves him “squarely at the corner of anxiety and skepticism.”

With more than 10 million units of blood transfused in the United States each year, even a modest increase in risk for future brain hemorrhages or dementia conferred by “an uncommon – but as of now undetectable – donor trait would represent a substantial public health concern,” Dr. Greenberg wrote.

“From the standpoint of scientific plausibility, however, even this well-conducted analysis is at risk of representing a false alarm,” he cautioned.

Looking ahead, Dr. Greenberg said one clear direction is independent replication, ideally with datasets in which donor and recipient dementia can be reliably ascertained to assess the possibility of Alzheimer’s disease as well as CAA transmissibility.

“The other challenge is for experimental biologists to consider the alternative possibility of transfusion-related acceleration of downstream steps in the CAA-ICH pathway, such as the vessel remodeling by which amyloid beta–laden vessels proceed to rupture and bleed.”

“The current study is not yet a reason for alarm, certainly not a reason to avoid otherwise indicated blood transfusion, but it is a strong call for more scientific digging,” Dr. Greenberg concluded.

The study was funded by grants from the Karolinska Institute, the Swedish Research Council, and Region Stockholm. Dr. Zhao and Dr. Greenberg report no relevant financial relationships.

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

New research hints at the possibility that cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA), a cause of spontaneous brain hemorrhage, can be transmitted via blood transfusion, raising the risk for spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) in transfusion recipients.

In an exploratory analysis, patients receiving red blood cell transfusions from donors who later developed multiple spontaneous ICHs, and were assumed to have CAA, were at a significantly increased risk of developing spontaneous ICH themselves.

“This may suggest a transfusion-transmissible agent associated with some types of spontaneous ICH, although the findings may be susceptible to selection bias and residual confounding, and further research is needed to investigate if transfusion transmission of CAA might explain this association,” the investigators noted.

“We do not think that the findings motivate a change in practice, and we should not let these results discourage otherwise indicated blood transfusion,” said lead author Jingcheng Zhao, MD, PhD, with Karolinska University Hospital Solna, Stockholm.

The study was published online  in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
 

Novel finding

Recent evidence suggests that CAA exhibits “prion-like” transmissivity, with reports of transmission through cadaveric pituitary hormone contaminated with amyloid-beta and tau protein, dura mater grafts, and possibly neurosurgical instruments.

CAA, which is characterized by the deposition of amyloid protein in the brain, is the second most common cause of spontaneous ICH. 

The researchers hypothesized that transfusion transmission of CAA may manifest through an increased risk for spontaneous ICH among transfusion recipients given blood from a donor with spontaneous ICH. To explore this hypothesis, they analyzed national registry data from Sweden and Denmark for ICH in recipients of red blood cell transfusion from donors who themselves had ICH over the years after their blood donations, with the assumption that donors with two or more ICHs would likely have CAA.

The cohort included nearly 760,000 individuals in Sweden (median age, 65 years; 59% women) and 330,000 in Denmark (median age, 64 years; 58% women), with a median follow-up of 5.8 and 6.1 years, respectively.

Receiving red blood cell transfusions from donors who later developed multiple spontaneous ICHs was associated with a greater than twofold increased risk of developing spontaneous ICH, compared with receiving a transfusion from donors without subsequent ICH (hazard ratio, 2.73; P < .001 in the Swedish cohort and HR, 2.32; P = .04 in the Danish cohort).

“The observed increased risk of spontaneous ICH associated with receiving a red blood cell transfusion from a donor who later developed multiple spontaneous ICHs, corresponding to a 30-year cumulative incidence difference of 2.3%, is a novel finding,” the researchers wrote.

There was no increase in post-transfusion ICH risk among recipients whose donors had a single post–blood-donation ICH.

The findings were robust to several of the sensitivity analyses.

A “negative” control analysis of post-transfusion ischemic stroke (instead of ICH) found no increased risk among recipients of blood from donors who had single or multiple ICHs.

This study provides “exploratory evidence of possible transfusion-transmission of a factor that causes ICHs, but more research is needed to confirm and to understand the mechanism,” said Dr. Zhao.

The researchers noted that they did not directly assess CAA but expect it would be more common among donors who develop multiple spontaneous ICHs, “as CAA-related ICH has been reported to have a 7-fold increase for recurrent ICHs, compared with non–CAA-related ICH.”
 

Worrisome finding or false alarm?

In an accompanying editorial, Steven Greenberg, MD, PhD, with the department of neurology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said there are “good reasons to treat the possibility of CAA transmission via blood transfusion seriously – and good reasons to remain skeptical, at least for the present.”

“Powerful” arguments in support of the findings include the robust study methodology and the “striking” similarity in results from the two registries, which argues against a chance finding. Another is the negative control with ischemic stroke as the outcome, which argues against unsuspected confounding-causing associations with all types of stroke, Dr. Greenberg noted.

Arguments for remaining “unconvinced” of the association center on the weakness of evidence for a plausible biological mechanism for the finding, he points out. Another is the short-time course of ICHs after blood transfusion, which is “quite challenging to explain,” Dr. Greenberg said. Nearly half of the ICHs among blood recipients occurred within 5 years of transfusion, which is “dramatically” faster than the 30- to 40-year interval reported between neurosurgical exposure to cadaveric tissue and first ICH, he added.

Another related “mechanistic reservation” is the plausibility that a transmissible species of amyloid-beta could travel from blood to brain in sufficient quantities to trigger advanced CAA or Alzheimer disease pathology, he wrote.

He added the current study leaves him “squarely at the corner of anxiety and skepticism.”

With more than 10 million units of blood transfused in the United States each year, even a modest increase in risk for future brain hemorrhages or dementia conferred by “an uncommon – but as of now undetectable – donor trait would represent a substantial public health concern,” Dr. Greenberg wrote.

“From the standpoint of scientific plausibility, however, even this well-conducted analysis is at risk of representing a false alarm,” he cautioned.

Looking ahead, Dr. Greenberg said one clear direction is independent replication, ideally with datasets in which donor and recipient dementia can be reliably ascertained to assess the possibility of Alzheimer’s disease as well as CAA transmissibility.

“The other challenge is for experimental biologists to consider the alternative possibility of transfusion-related acceleration of downstream steps in the CAA-ICH pathway, such as the vessel remodeling by which amyloid beta–laden vessels proceed to rupture and bleed.”

“The current study is not yet a reason for alarm, certainly not a reason to avoid otherwise indicated blood transfusion, but it is a strong call for more scientific digging,” Dr. Greenberg concluded.

The study was funded by grants from the Karolinska Institute, the Swedish Research Council, and Region Stockholm. Dr. Zhao and Dr. Greenberg report no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

The COVID-19 booster vaccine typically causes transient, clinically insignificant elevations in glucose levels in people with type 1 diabetes, but some individuals may develop more pronounced hyperglycemia.

METHODOLOGY:

• In a single-center prospective cohort study of 21 adults with type 1 diabetes, patients were given a blinded Dexcom G6 Pro continuous glucose monitor (CGM) at the first research clinic visit.
• After 3-4 days, participants received a COVID-19 booster vaccine.
• They returned to the clinic 10 days after the initial visit (5-6 days after booster vaccination) to have the CGM removed and glycemia assessed.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with baseline, the mean daily glucose level was significantly increased at day 2 (162.9 mg/dL vs. 172.8 mg/dL; P = .04) and day 3 (173.1 mg/dL; P = .02) post vaccination.
• Glucose excursions at day 0 (173.2 mg/dL; P = .058) and day 1 (173.1 mg/dL; P = .078) didn’t quite reach statistical significance.
• One participant experienced increases in glucose of 36%, 69%, 35%, 26%, 22%, and 19% on days 0-5, respectively, compared with baseline.
• Glucose excursions of at least 25% above baseline occurred in four participants on day 0 and day 1 and in three participants on days 2 and 5.
• Insulin resistance, as measured by Total Daily Insulin Resistance (a metric that integrates daily mean glucose concentration with total daily insulin dose), was also significantly increased from baseline to day 2 post vaccination (7,171 mg/dL vs. 8,070 mg/dL units; P = .03).
• No other measures of glycemia differed significantly, compared with baseline.
• Outcomes didn’t differ significantly by sex, age, or vaccine manufacturer.

IN PRACTICE:

• “To our knowledge this is the first study investigating the effect of the COVID-19 booster vaccine on glycemia specifically in people with type 1 diabetes,” say the authors.
• “Clinicians, pharmacists, and other health care providers may need to counsel people with T1D to be more vigilant with glucose testing and insulin dosing for the first 5 days after vaccination. Most importantly, insulin, required to control glycemia, may need to be transiently increased.”
• “Further studies are warranted to investigate whether other vaccines have similar glycemic effects, and which individuals are at highest risk for profound glucose perturbations post vaccination.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Mihail Zilbermint, MD, of the division of hospital medicine, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Bethesda, Md., and colleagues. It was published in Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

• The sample size was small.
• There were no measurements of inflammatory markers, dietary intake, physical activity, or survey patient symptomatology to adjust for variables that may have influenced glycemic control.
• In the study cohort, glycemia was moderately well controlled at baseline.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by an investigator-initiated study grant from DexCom Inc. Dr. Zilbermint has consulted for EMD Serono.

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

TOPLINE:

The COVID-19 booster vaccine typically causes transient, clinically insignificant elevations in glucose levels in people with type 1 diabetes, but some individuals may develop more pronounced hyperglycemia.

METHODOLOGY:

• In a single-center prospective cohort study of 21 adults with type 1 diabetes, patients were given a blinded Dexcom G6 Pro continuous glucose monitor (CGM) at the first research clinic visit.
• After 3-4 days, participants received a COVID-19 booster vaccine.
• They returned to the clinic 10 days after the initial visit (5-6 days after booster vaccination) to have the CGM removed and glycemia assessed.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with baseline, the mean daily glucose level was significantly increased at day 2 (162.9 mg/dL vs. 172.8 mg/dL; P = .04) and day 3 (173.1 mg/dL; P = .02) post vaccination.
• Glucose excursions at day 0 (173.2 mg/dL; P = .058) and day 1 (173.1 mg/dL; P = .078) didn’t quite reach statistical significance.
• One participant experienced increases in glucose of 36%, 69%, 35%, 26%, 22%, and 19% on days 0-5, respectively, compared with baseline.
• Glucose excursions of at least 25% above baseline occurred in four participants on day 0 and day 1 and in three participants on days 2 and 5.
• Insulin resistance, as measured by Total Daily Insulin Resistance (a metric that integrates daily mean glucose concentration with total daily insulin dose), was also significantly increased from baseline to day 2 post vaccination (7,171 mg/dL vs. 8,070 mg/dL units; P = .03).
• No other measures of glycemia differed significantly, compared with baseline.
• Outcomes didn’t differ significantly by sex, age, or vaccine manufacturer.

IN PRACTICE:

• “To our knowledge this is the first study investigating the effect of the COVID-19 booster vaccine on glycemia specifically in people with type 1 diabetes,” say the authors.
• “Clinicians, pharmacists, and other health care providers may need to counsel people with T1D to be more vigilant with glucose testing and insulin dosing for the first 5 days after vaccination. Most importantly, insulin, required to control glycemia, may need to be transiently increased.”
• “Further studies are warranted to investigate whether other vaccines have similar glycemic effects, and which individuals are at highest risk for profound glucose perturbations post vaccination.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Mihail Zilbermint, MD, of the division of hospital medicine, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Bethesda, Md., and colleagues. It was published in Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

• The sample size was small.
• There were no measurements of inflammatory markers, dietary intake, physical activity, or survey patient symptomatology to adjust for variables that may have influenced glycemic control.
• In the study cohort, glycemia was moderately well controlled at baseline.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by an investigator-initiated study grant from DexCom Inc. Dr. Zilbermint has consulted for EMD Serono.

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

TOPLINE:

The COVID-19 booster vaccine typically causes transient, clinically insignificant elevations in glucose levels in people with type 1 diabetes, but some individuals may develop more pronounced hyperglycemia.

METHODOLOGY:

• In a single-center prospective cohort study of 21 adults with type 1 diabetes, patients were given a blinded Dexcom G6 Pro continuous glucose monitor (CGM) at the first research clinic visit.
• After 3-4 days, participants received a COVID-19 booster vaccine.
• They returned to the clinic 10 days after the initial visit (5-6 days after booster vaccination) to have the CGM removed and glycemia assessed.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with baseline, the mean daily glucose level was significantly increased at day 2 (162.9 mg/dL vs. 172.8 mg/dL; P = .04) and day 3 (173.1 mg/dL; P = .02) post vaccination.
• Glucose excursions at day 0 (173.2 mg/dL; P = .058) and day 1 (173.1 mg/dL; P = .078) didn’t quite reach statistical significance.
• One participant experienced increases in glucose of 36%, 69%, 35%, 26%, 22%, and 19% on days 0-5, respectively, compared with baseline.
• Glucose excursions of at least 25% above baseline occurred in four participants on day 0 and day 1 and in three participants on days 2 and 5.
• Insulin resistance, as measured by Total Daily Insulin Resistance (a metric that integrates daily mean glucose concentration with total daily insulin dose), was also significantly increased from baseline to day 2 post vaccination (7,171 mg/dL vs. 8,070 mg/dL units; P = .03).
• No other measures of glycemia differed significantly, compared with baseline.
• Outcomes didn’t differ significantly by sex, age, or vaccine manufacturer.

IN PRACTICE:

• “To our knowledge this is the first study investigating the effect of the COVID-19 booster vaccine on glycemia specifically in people with type 1 diabetes,” say the authors.
• “Clinicians, pharmacists, and other health care providers may need to counsel people with T1D to be more vigilant with glucose testing and insulin dosing for the first 5 days after vaccination. Most importantly, insulin, required to control glycemia, may need to be transiently increased.”
• “Further studies are warranted to investigate whether other vaccines have similar glycemic effects, and which individuals are at highest risk for profound glucose perturbations post vaccination.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Mihail Zilbermint, MD, of the division of hospital medicine, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Bethesda, Md., and colleagues. It was published in Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

• The sample size was small.
• There were no measurements of inflammatory markers, dietary intake, physical activity, or survey patient symptomatology to adjust for variables that may have influenced glycemic control.
• In the study cohort, glycemia was moderately well controlled at baseline.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by an investigator-initiated study grant from DexCom Inc. Dr. Zilbermint has consulted for EMD Serono.

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

A new meta-analysis has shown that SGLT2 inhibitors do not lead to lower 28-day all-cause mortality, compared with usual care or placebo, in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

However, no major safety issues were identified with the use of SGLT2 inhibitors in these acutely ill patients, the researchers report.

“While these findings do not support the use of SGLT2-inhibitors as standard of care for patients hospitalized with COVID-19, I think the most important take home message here is that the use of these medications appears to be safe even in really acutely ill hospitalized patients,” lead investigator of the meta-analysis, Mikhail Kosiborod, MD, Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., concluded.

He said this was important because the list of indications for SGLT2 inhibitors is rapidly growing.

“These medications are being used in more and more patients. And we know that when we discontinue medications in the hospital they frequently don’t get restarted, which can lead to real risks if SGLT2 inhibitors are stopped in patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, or diabetes. So, the bottom line is that there is no compelling reason to stop these medications in the hospital,” he added.

The new meta-analysis was presented at the recent annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, held in Amsterdam.

Discussant of the presentation at the ESC Hotline session, Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, agreed with Dr. Kosiborod’s interpretation.

“Until today we have had very limited information on the safety of SGLT2-inhibitors in acute illness, as the pivotal trials which established the use of these drugs in diabetes and chronic kidney disease largely excluded patients who were hospitalized,” Dr. Vaduganathan said.

“While the overall results of this meta-analysis are neutral and SGLT2 inhibitors will not be added as drugs to be used in the primary care of patients with COVID-19, it certainly sends a strong message of safety in acutely ill patients,” he added.

Dr. Vaduganathan explained that from the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was great interest in repurposing established therapies for alternative indications for their use in the management of COVID-19.

“Conditions that strongly predispose to adverse COVID outcomes strongly overlap with established indications for SGLT2-inhibitors. So many wondered whether these drugs may be an ideal treatment candidate for the management of COVID-19. However, there have been many safety concerns about the use of SGLT2-inhibitors in this acute setting, with worries that they may induce hemodynamic changes such an excessive lowering of blood pressure, or metabolic changes such as ketoacidosis in acutely ill patients,” he noted.

The initial DARE-19 study investigating SGLT2-inhibitors in COVID-19, with 1,250 participants, found a 20% reduction in the primary outcome of organ dysfunction or death, but this did not reach statistical significance, and no safety issues were seen. This “intriguing” result led to two further larger trials – the ACTIV-4a and RECOVERY trials, Dr. Vaduganathan reported.

“Those early signals of benefit seen in DARE-19 were largely not substantiated in the ACTIV-4A and RECOVERY trials, or in this new meta-analysis, and now we have this much larger body of evidence and more stable estimates about the efficacy of these drugs in acutely ill COVID-19 patients,” he said.

“But the story that we will all take forward is one of safety. This set of trials was arguably conducted in some of the sickest patients we’ve seen who have been exposed to SGLT2-inhibitors, and they strongly affirm that these agents can be safely continued in the setting of acute illness, with very low rates of ketoacidosis and kidney injury, and there was no prolongation of hospital stay,” he commented.

In his presentation, Dr. Kosiborod explained that treatments targeting COVID-19 pathobiology such as dysregulated immune responses, endothelial damage, microvascular thrombosis, and inflammation have been shown to improve the key outcomes in this patient group.

SGLT2 inhibitors, which modulate similar pathobiology, provide cardiovascular protection and prevent the progression of kidney disease in patients at risk for these events, including those with type 2 diabetes, heart failure, and kidney disease, and may also lead to organ protection in a setting of acute illness such as COVID-19, he noted. However, the role of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 remains uncertain.

To address the need for more definitive efficacy data, the World Health Organization Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group conducted a prospective meta-analysis using data from the three randomized controlled trials, DARE-19, RECOVERY, and ACTIV-4a, evaluating SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Overall, these trials randomized 6,096 participants: 3,025 to SGLT2 inhibitors and 3,071 to usual care or placebo. The average age of participants ranged between 62 and 73 years across the trials, 39% were women, and 25% had type 2 diabetes.

By 28 days after randomization, all-cause mortality, the primary endpoint, had occurred in 11.6% of the SGLT2-inhibitor patients, compared with 12.4% of those randomized to usual care or placebo, giving an odds ratio of 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.08; P = .33) for SGLT2 inhibitors, with consistency across trials.

Data on in-hospital and 90-day all-cause mortality were only available for two out of three trials (DARE-19 and ACTIV-4a), but the results were similar to the primary endpoint showing nonsignificant trends toward a possible benefit in the SGLT2-inhibitor group.

The results were also similar for the secondary outcomes of progression to acute kidney injury or requirement for dialysis or death, and progression to invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or death, both assessed at 28 days.

The primary safety outcome of ketoacidosis by 28 days was observed in seven and two patients allocated to SGLT2 inhibitors and usual care or placebo, respectively, and overall, the incidence of reported serious adverse events was balanced between treatment groups.

The RECOVERY trial was supported by grants to the University of Oxford from UK Research and Innovation, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and Wellcome. The ACTIV-4a platform was sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. DARE-19 was an investigator-initiated collaborative trial supported by AstraZeneca. Dr. Kosiborod reported numerous conflicts of interest.

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

A new meta-analysis has shown that SGLT2 inhibitors do not lead to lower 28-day all-cause mortality, compared with usual care or placebo, in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

However, no major safety issues were identified with the use of SGLT2 inhibitors in these acutely ill patients, the researchers report.

“While these findings do not support the use of SGLT2-inhibitors as standard of care for patients hospitalized with COVID-19, I think the most important take home message here is that the use of these medications appears to be safe even in really acutely ill hospitalized patients,” lead investigator of the meta-analysis, Mikhail Kosiborod, MD, Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., concluded.

He said this was important because the list of indications for SGLT2 inhibitors is rapidly growing.

“These medications are being used in more and more patients. And we know that when we discontinue medications in the hospital they frequently don’t get restarted, which can lead to real risks if SGLT2 inhibitors are stopped in patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, or diabetes. So, the bottom line is that there is no compelling reason to stop these medications in the hospital,” he added.

The new meta-analysis was presented at the recent annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, held in Amsterdam.

Discussant of the presentation at the ESC Hotline session, Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, agreed with Dr. Kosiborod’s interpretation.

“Until today we have had very limited information on the safety of SGLT2-inhibitors in acute illness, as the pivotal trials which established the use of these drugs in diabetes and chronic kidney disease largely excluded patients who were hospitalized,” Dr. Vaduganathan said.

“While the overall results of this meta-analysis are neutral and SGLT2 inhibitors will not be added as drugs to be used in the primary care of patients with COVID-19, it certainly sends a strong message of safety in acutely ill patients,” he added.

Dr. Vaduganathan explained that from the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was great interest in repurposing established therapies for alternative indications for their use in the management of COVID-19.

“Conditions that strongly predispose to adverse COVID outcomes strongly overlap with established indications for SGLT2-inhibitors. So many wondered whether these drugs may be an ideal treatment candidate for the management of COVID-19. However, there have been many safety concerns about the use of SGLT2-inhibitors in this acute setting, with worries that they may induce hemodynamic changes such an excessive lowering of blood pressure, or metabolic changes such as ketoacidosis in acutely ill patients,” he noted.

The initial DARE-19 study investigating SGLT2-inhibitors in COVID-19, with 1,250 participants, found a 20% reduction in the primary outcome of organ dysfunction or death, but this did not reach statistical significance, and no safety issues were seen. This “intriguing” result led to two further larger trials – the ACTIV-4a and RECOVERY trials, Dr. Vaduganathan reported.

“Those early signals of benefit seen in DARE-19 were largely not substantiated in the ACTIV-4A and RECOVERY trials, or in this new meta-analysis, and now we have this much larger body of evidence and more stable estimates about the efficacy of these drugs in acutely ill COVID-19 patients,” he said.

“But the story that we will all take forward is one of safety. This set of trials was arguably conducted in some of the sickest patients we’ve seen who have been exposed to SGLT2-inhibitors, and they strongly affirm that these agents can be safely continued in the setting of acute illness, with very low rates of ketoacidosis and kidney injury, and there was no prolongation of hospital stay,” he commented.

In his presentation, Dr. Kosiborod explained that treatments targeting COVID-19 pathobiology such as dysregulated immune responses, endothelial damage, microvascular thrombosis, and inflammation have been shown to improve the key outcomes in this patient group.

SGLT2 inhibitors, which modulate similar pathobiology, provide cardiovascular protection and prevent the progression of kidney disease in patients at risk for these events, including those with type 2 diabetes, heart failure, and kidney disease, and may also lead to organ protection in a setting of acute illness such as COVID-19, he noted. However, the role of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 remains uncertain.

To address the need for more definitive efficacy data, the World Health Organization Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group conducted a prospective meta-analysis using data from the three randomized controlled trials, DARE-19, RECOVERY, and ACTIV-4a, evaluating SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Overall, these trials randomized 6,096 participants: 3,025 to SGLT2 inhibitors and 3,071 to usual care or placebo. The average age of participants ranged between 62 and 73 years across the trials, 39% were women, and 25% had type 2 diabetes.

By 28 days after randomization, all-cause mortality, the primary endpoint, had occurred in 11.6% of the SGLT2-inhibitor patients, compared with 12.4% of those randomized to usual care or placebo, giving an odds ratio of 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.08; P = .33) for SGLT2 inhibitors, with consistency across trials.

Data on in-hospital and 90-day all-cause mortality were only available for two out of three trials (DARE-19 and ACTIV-4a), but the results were similar to the primary endpoint showing nonsignificant trends toward a possible benefit in the SGLT2-inhibitor group.

The results were also similar for the secondary outcomes of progression to acute kidney injury or requirement for dialysis or death, and progression to invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or death, both assessed at 28 days.

The primary safety outcome of ketoacidosis by 28 days was observed in seven and two patients allocated to SGLT2 inhibitors and usual care or placebo, respectively, and overall, the incidence of reported serious adverse events was balanced between treatment groups.

The RECOVERY trial was supported by grants to the University of Oxford from UK Research and Innovation, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and Wellcome. The ACTIV-4a platform was sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. DARE-19 was an investigator-initiated collaborative trial supported by AstraZeneca. Dr. Kosiborod reported numerous conflicts of interest.

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

A new meta-analysis has shown that SGLT2 inhibitors do not lead to lower 28-day all-cause mortality, compared with usual care or placebo, in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

However, no major safety issues were identified with the use of SGLT2 inhibitors in these acutely ill patients, the researchers report.

“While these findings do not support the use of SGLT2-inhibitors as standard of care for patients hospitalized with COVID-19, I think the most important take home message here is that the use of these medications appears to be safe even in really acutely ill hospitalized patients,” lead investigator of the meta-analysis, Mikhail Kosiborod, MD, Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., concluded.

He said this was important because the list of indications for SGLT2 inhibitors is rapidly growing.

“These medications are being used in more and more patients. And we know that when we discontinue medications in the hospital they frequently don’t get restarted, which can lead to real risks if SGLT2 inhibitors are stopped in patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, or diabetes. So, the bottom line is that there is no compelling reason to stop these medications in the hospital,” he added.

The new meta-analysis was presented at the recent annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, held in Amsterdam.

Discussant of the presentation at the ESC Hotline session, Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, agreed with Dr. Kosiborod’s interpretation.

“Until today we have had very limited information on the safety of SGLT2-inhibitors in acute illness, as the pivotal trials which established the use of these drugs in diabetes and chronic kidney disease largely excluded patients who were hospitalized,” Dr. Vaduganathan said.

“While the overall results of this meta-analysis are neutral and SGLT2 inhibitors will not be added as drugs to be used in the primary care of patients with COVID-19, it certainly sends a strong message of safety in acutely ill patients,” he added.

Dr. Vaduganathan explained that from the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was great interest in repurposing established therapies for alternative indications for their use in the management of COVID-19.

“Conditions that strongly predispose to adverse COVID outcomes strongly overlap with established indications for SGLT2-inhibitors. So many wondered whether these drugs may be an ideal treatment candidate for the management of COVID-19. However, there have been many safety concerns about the use of SGLT2-inhibitors in this acute setting, with worries that they may induce hemodynamic changes such an excessive lowering of blood pressure, or metabolic changes such as ketoacidosis in acutely ill patients,” he noted.

The initial DARE-19 study investigating SGLT2-inhibitors in COVID-19, with 1,250 participants, found a 20% reduction in the primary outcome of organ dysfunction or death, but this did not reach statistical significance, and no safety issues were seen. This “intriguing” result led to two further larger trials – the ACTIV-4a and RECOVERY trials, Dr. Vaduganathan reported.

“Those early signals of benefit seen in DARE-19 were largely not substantiated in the ACTIV-4A and RECOVERY trials, or in this new meta-analysis, and now we have this much larger body of evidence and more stable estimates about the efficacy of these drugs in acutely ill COVID-19 patients,” he said.

“But the story that we will all take forward is one of safety. This set of trials was arguably conducted in some of the sickest patients we’ve seen who have been exposed to SGLT2-inhibitors, and they strongly affirm that these agents can be safely continued in the setting of acute illness, with very low rates of ketoacidosis and kidney injury, and there was no prolongation of hospital stay,” he commented.

In his presentation, Dr. Kosiborod explained that treatments targeting COVID-19 pathobiology such as dysregulated immune responses, endothelial damage, microvascular thrombosis, and inflammation have been shown to improve the key outcomes in this patient group.

SGLT2 inhibitors, which modulate similar pathobiology, provide cardiovascular protection and prevent the progression of kidney disease in patients at risk for these events, including those with type 2 diabetes, heart failure, and kidney disease, and may also lead to organ protection in a setting of acute illness such as COVID-19, he noted. However, the role of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 remains uncertain.

To address the need for more definitive efficacy data, the World Health Organization Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group conducted a prospective meta-analysis using data from the three randomized controlled trials, DARE-19, RECOVERY, and ACTIV-4a, evaluating SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Overall, these trials randomized 6,096 participants: 3,025 to SGLT2 inhibitors and 3,071 to usual care or placebo. The average age of participants ranged between 62 and 73 years across the trials, 39% were women, and 25% had type 2 diabetes.

By 28 days after randomization, all-cause mortality, the primary endpoint, had occurred in 11.6% of the SGLT2-inhibitor patients, compared with 12.4% of those randomized to usual care or placebo, giving an odds ratio of 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.08; P = .33) for SGLT2 inhibitors, with consistency across trials.

Data on in-hospital and 90-day all-cause mortality were only available for two out of three trials (DARE-19 and ACTIV-4a), but the results were similar to the primary endpoint showing nonsignificant trends toward a possible benefit in the SGLT2-inhibitor group.

The results were also similar for the secondary outcomes of progression to acute kidney injury or requirement for dialysis or death, and progression to invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or death, both assessed at 28 days.

The primary safety outcome of ketoacidosis by 28 days was observed in seven and two patients allocated to SGLT2 inhibitors and usual care or placebo, respectively, and overall, the incidence of reported serious adverse events was balanced between treatment groups.

The RECOVERY trial was supported by grants to the University of Oxford from UK Research and Innovation, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and Wellcome. The ACTIV-4a platform was sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. DARE-19 was an investigator-initiated collaborative trial supported by AstraZeneca. Dr. Kosiborod reported numerous conflicts of interest.

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

What happens to grief when those around you don’t understand it? Where does it go? How do you process it?

Disenfranchised grief, when someone or society more generally doesn’t see a loss as worthy of mourning, can deprive people of experiencing or processing their sadness. This grief, which may be triggered by the death of an ex-spouse, a pet, a failed adoption, can be painful and long-lasting.

Here, we reflect as physicians on our own experiences and memories of this phenomenon.
 

Suzanne Cole, MD: ‘I didn’t feel the right to grieve’

During the COVID-19 pandemic, my little sister unexpectedly died. Though she was not one of the nearly 7 million people who died of the virus, in 2021 she became another type of statistic: one of the 109,699 people in the United State who died from a drug overdose. Hers was from fentanyl laced with methamphetamines.

Her death unraveled me. I felt deep guilt that I could not pull her from the sweeping current that had wrenched her from mainstream society into the underbelly of sex work and toward the solace of mind-altering drugs.

But I did not feel the right to grieve for her as I have grieved for other loved ones who were not blamed for their exit from this world. My sister was living a sordid life on the fringes of society. My grief felt invalid, undeserved. Yet, in the eyes of other “upstanding citizens,” her life was not as worth grieving – or so I thought. I tucked my sorrow into a small corner of my soul so no one would see, and I carried on.

To this day, the shame I feel robbed me of the ability to freely talk about her or share the searing pain I feel. Tears still prick my eyes when I think of her, but I have become adept at swallowing them, shaking off the waves of grief as though nothing happened. Even now, I cannot shake the pervasive feeling that my silent tears don’t deserve to be wept.
 

Don S. Dizon, MD: Working through tragedy

As a medical student, I worked with an outpatient physician as part of a third-year rotation. When we met, the first thing that struck me was how disheveled he looked. His clothes were wrinkled, and his pants were baggy. He took cigarette breaks, which I found disturbing.

But I quickly came to admire him. Despite my first impression, he was the type of doctor I aspired to be. He didn’t need to look at a patient’s chart to recall who they were. He just knew them. He greeted patients warmly, asked about their family. He even remembered the special occasions his patients had mentioned since their past visit. He epitomized empathy and connectedness.

Spending one day in clinic brought to light the challenges of forming such bonds with patients. A man came into the cancer clinic reporting chest pain and was triaged to an exam room. Soon after, the patient was found unresponsive on the floor. Nurses were yelling for help, and the doctor ran in and started CPR while minutes ticked by waiting for an ambulance that could take him to the ED.

By the time help arrived, the patient was blue.

He had died in the clinic in the middle of the day, as the waiting room filled. After the body was taken away, the doctor went into the bathroom. About 20 minutes later, he came out, eyes bloodshot, and continued with the rest of his day, ensuring each patient was seen and cared for.

As a medical student, it hit me how hard it must be to see something so tragic like the end of a life and then continue with your day as if nothing had happened. This is an experience of grief I later came to know well after nearly 30 years treating patients with advanced cancers: compartmentalizing it and carrying on.
 

A space for grieving: The Schwartz Center Rounds

Disenfranchised grief, the grief that is hard to share and often seems wrong to feel in the first place, can be triggered in many situations. Losing a person others don’t believe deserve to be grieved, such as an abusive partner or someone who committed a crime; losing someone you cared for in a professional role; a loss experienced in a breakup or same-sex partnership, if that relationship was not accepted by one’s family; loss from infertility, miscarriage, stillbirth, or failed adoption; loss that may be taboo or stigmatized, such as deaths via suicide or abortion; and loss of a job, home, or possession that you treasure.

Many of us have had similar situations or will, and the feeling that no one understands the need to mourn can be paralyzing and alienating. In the early days, intense, crushing feelings can cause intrusive, distracting thoughts, and over time, that grief can linger and find a permanent place in our minds.

More and more, though, we are being given opportunities to reflect on these sad moments.

The Schwartz Rounds are an example of such an opportunity. In these rounds, we gather to talk about the experience of caring for people, not the science of medicine.

During one particularly powerful rounds, I spoke to my colleagues about my initial meeting with a patient who was very sick. I detailed the experience of telling her children and her at that initial consult how I thought she was dying and that I did not recommend therapy. I remember how they cried. And I remembered how powerless I felt.

As I recalled that memory during Schwartz Rounds, I could not stop from crying. The unfairness of being a physician meeting someone for the first time and having to tell them such bad news overwhelmed me.

Even more poignant, I had the chance to reconnect with this woman’s children, who were present that day, not as audience members but as participants. Their presence may have brought my emotions to the surface more strongly. In that moment, I could show them the feelings I had bottled up for the sake of professionalism. Ultimately, I felt relieved, freer somehow, as if this burden my soul was carrying had been lifted.

Although we are both grateful for forums like this, these opportunities to share and express the grief we may have hidden away are not as common as they should be.

As physicians, we may express grief by shedding tears at the bedside of a patient nearing the end of life or through the anxiety we feel when our patient suffers a severe reaction to treatment. But we tend to put it away, to go on with our day, because there are others to be seen and cared for and more work to be done. Somehow, we move forward, shedding tears in one room and celebrating victories in another.

We need to create more spaces to express and feel grief, so we don’t get lost in it. Because understanding how grief impacts us, as people and as providers, is one of the most important realizations we can make as we go about our time-honored profession as healers.

Dr. Dizon is the director of women’s cancers at Lifespan Cancer Institute, director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, and a professor of medicine at Brown University, all in Providence. He reported conflicts of interest with Regeneron, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Kazia.

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

What happens to grief when those around you don’t understand it? Where does it go? How do you process it?

Disenfranchised grief, when someone or society more generally doesn’t see a loss as worthy of mourning, can deprive people of experiencing or processing their sadness. This grief, which may be triggered by the death of an ex-spouse, a pet, a failed adoption, can be painful and long-lasting.

Here, we reflect as physicians on our own experiences and memories of this phenomenon.
 

Suzanne Cole, MD: ‘I didn’t feel the right to grieve’

During the COVID-19 pandemic, my little sister unexpectedly died. Though she was not one of the nearly 7 million people who died of the virus, in 2021 she became another type of statistic: one of the 109,699 people in the United State who died from a drug overdose. Hers was from fentanyl laced with methamphetamines.

Her death unraveled me. I felt deep guilt that I could not pull her from the sweeping current that had wrenched her from mainstream society into the underbelly of sex work and toward the solace of mind-altering drugs.

But I did not feel the right to grieve for her as I have grieved for other loved ones who were not blamed for their exit from this world. My sister was living a sordid life on the fringes of society. My grief felt invalid, undeserved. Yet, in the eyes of other “upstanding citizens,” her life was not as worth grieving – or so I thought. I tucked my sorrow into a small corner of my soul so no one would see, and I carried on.

To this day, the shame I feel robbed me of the ability to freely talk about her or share the searing pain I feel. Tears still prick my eyes when I think of her, but I have become adept at swallowing them, shaking off the waves of grief as though nothing happened. Even now, I cannot shake the pervasive feeling that my silent tears don’t deserve to be wept.
 

Don S. Dizon, MD: Working through tragedy

As a medical student, I worked with an outpatient physician as part of a third-year rotation. When we met, the first thing that struck me was how disheveled he looked. His clothes were wrinkled, and his pants were baggy. He took cigarette breaks, which I found disturbing.

But I quickly came to admire him. Despite my first impression, he was the type of doctor I aspired to be. He didn’t need to look at a patient’s chart to recall who they were. He just knew them. He greeted patients warmly, asked about their family. He even remembered the special occasions his patients had mentioned since their past visit. He epitomized empathy and connectedness.

Spending one day in clinic brought to light the challenges of forming such bonds with patients. A man came into the cancer clinic reporting chest pain and was triaged to an exam room. Soon after, the patient was found unresponsive on the floor. Nurses were yelling for help, and the doctor ran in and started CPR while minutes ticked by waiting for an ambulance that could take him to the ED.

By the time help arrived, the patient was blue.

He had died in the clinic in the middle of the day, as the waiting room filled. After the body was taken away, the doctor went into the bathroom. About 20 minutes later, he came out, eyes bloodshot, and continued with the rest of his day, ensuring each patient was seen and cared for.

As a medical student, it hit me how hard it must be to see something so tragic like the end of a life and then continue with your day as if nothing had happened. This is an experience of grief I later came to know well after nearly 30 years treating patients with advanced cancers: compartmentalizing it and carrying on.
 

A space for grieving: The Schwartz Center Rounds

Disenfranchised grief, the grief that is hard to share and often seems wrong to feel in the first place, can be triggered in many situations. Losing a person others don’t believe deserve to be grieved, such as an abusive partner or someone who committed a crime; losing someone you cared for in a professional role; a loss experienced in a breakup or same-sex partnership, if that relationship was not accepted by one’s family; loss from infertility, miscarriage, stillbirth, or failed adoption; loss that may be taboo or stigmatized, such as deaths via suicide or abortion; and loss of a job, home, or possession that you treasure.

Many of us have had similar situations or will, and the feeling that no one understands the need to mourn can be paralyzing and alienating. In the early days, intense, crushing feelings can cause intrusive, distracting thoughts, and over time, that grief can linger and find a permanent place in our minds.

More and more, though, we are being given opportunities to reflect on these sad moments.

The Schwartz Rounds are an example of such an opportunity. In these rounds, we gather to talk about the experience of caring for people, not the science of medicine.

During one particularly powerful rounds, I spoke to my colleagues about my initial meeting with a patient who was very sick. I detailed the experience of telling her children and her at that initial consult how I thought she was dying and that I did not recommend therapy. I remember how they cried. And I remembered how powerless I felt.

As I recalled that memory during Schwartz Rounds, I could not stop from crying. The unfairness of being a physician meeting someone for the first time and having to tell them such bad news overwhelmed me.

Even more poignant, I had the chance to reconnect with this woman’s children, who were present that day, not as audience members but as participants. Their presence may have brought my emotions to the surface more strongly. In that moment, I could show them the feelings I had bottled up for the sake of professionalism. Ultimately, I felt relieved, freer somehow, as if this burden my soul was carrying had been lifted.

Although we are both grateful for forums like this, these opportunities to share and express the grief we may have hidden away are not as common as they should be.

As physicians, we may express grief by shedding tears at the bedside of a patient nearing the end of life or through the anxiety we feel when our patient suffers a severe reaction to treatment. But we tend to put it away, to go on with our day, because there are others to be seen and cared for and more work to be done. Somehow, we move forward, shedding tears in one room and celebrating victories in another.

We need to create more spaces to express and feel grief, so we don’t get lost in it. Because understanding how grief impacts us, as people and as providers, is one of the most important realizations we can make as we go about our time-honored profession as healers.

Dr. Dizon is the director of women’s cancers at Lifespan Cancer Institute, director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, and a professor of medicine at Brown University, all in Providence. He reported conflicts of interest with Regeneron, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Kazia.

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

What happens to grief when those around you don’t understand it? Where does it go? How do you process it?

Disenfranchised grief, when someone or society more generally doesn’t see a loss as worthy of mourning, can deprive people of experiencing or processing their sadness. This grief, which may be triggered by the death of an ex-spouse, a pet, a failed adoption, can be painful and long-lasting.

Here, we reflect as physicians on our own experiences and memories of this phenomenon.
 

Suzanne Cole, MD: ‘I didn’t feel the right to grieve’

During the COVID-19 pandemic, my little sister unexpectedly died. Though she was not one of the nearly 7 million people who died of the virus, in 2021 she became another type of statistic: one of the 109,699 people in the United State who died from a drug overdose. Hers was from fentanyl laced with methamphetamines.

Her death unraveled me. I felt deep guilt that I could not pull her from the sweeping current that had wrenched her from mainstream society into the underbelly of sex work and toward the solace of mind-altering drugs.

But I did not feel the right to grieve for her as I have grieved for other loved ones who were not blamed for their exit from this world. My sister was living a sordid life on the fringes of society. My grief felt invalid, undeserved. Yet, in the eyes of other “upstanding citizens,” her life was not as worth grieving – or so I thought. I tucked my sorrow into a small corner of my soul so no one would see, and I carried on.

To this day, the shame I feel robbed me of the ability to freely talk about her or share the searing pain I feel. Tears still prick my eyes when I think of her, but I have become adept at swallowing them, shaking off the waves of grief as though nothing happened. Even now, I cannot shake the pervasive feeling that my silent tears don’t deserve to be wept.
 

Don S. Dizon, MD: Working through tragedy

As a medical student, I worked with an outpatient physician as part of a third-year rotation. When we met, the first thing that struck me was how disheveled he looked. His clothes were wrinkled, and his pants were baggy. He took cigarette breaks, which I found disturbing.

But I quickly came to admire him. Despite my first impression, he was the type of doctor I aspired to be. He didn’t need to look at a patient’s chart to recall who they were. He just knew them. He greeted patients warmly, asked about their family. He even remembered the special occasions his patients had mentioned since their past visit. He epitomized empathy and connectedness.

Spending one day in clinic brought to light the challenges of forming such bonds with patients. A man came into the cancer clinic reporting chest pain and was triaged to an exam room. Soon after, the patient was found unresponsive on the floor. Nurses were yelling for help, and the doctor ran in and started CPR while minutes ticked by waiting for an ambulance that could take him to the ED.

By the time help arrived, the patient was blue.

He had died in the clinic in the middle of the day, as the waiting room filled. After the body was taken away, the doctor went into the bathroom. About 20 minutes later, he came out, eyes bloodshot, and continued with the rest of his day, ensuring each patient was seen and cared for.

As a medical student, it hit me how hard it must be to see something so tragic like the end of a life and then continue with your day as if nothing had happened. This is an experience of grief I later came to know well after nearly 30 years treating patients with advanced cancers: compartmentalizing it and carrying on.
 

A space for grieving: The Schwartz Center Rounds

Disenfranchised grief, the grief that is hard to share and often seems wrong to feel in the first place, can be triggered in many situations. Losing a person others don’t believe deserve to be grieved, such as an abusive partner or someone who committed a crime; losing someone you cared for in a professional role; a loss experienced in a breakup or same-sex partnership, if that relationship was not accepted by one’s family; loss from infertility, miscarriage, stillbirth, or failed adoption; loss that may be taboo or stigmatized, such as deaths via suicide or abortion; and loss of a job, home, or possession that you treasure.

Many of us have had similar situations or will, and the feeling that no one understands the need to mourn can be paralyzing and alienating. In the early days, intense, crushing feelings can cause intrusive, distracting thoughts, and over time, that grief can linger and find a permanent place in our minds.

More and more, though, we are being given opportunities to reflect on these sad moments.

The Schwartz Rounds are an example of such an opportunity. In these rounds, we gather to talk about the experience of caring for people, not the science of medicine.

During one particularly powerful rounds, I spoke to my colleagues about my initial meeting with a patient who was very sick. I detailed the experience of telling her children and her at that initial consult how I thought she was dying and that I did not recommend therapy. I remember how they cried. And I remembered how powerless I felt.

As I recalled that memory during Schwartz Rounds, I could not stop from crying. The unfairness of being a physician meeting someone for the first time and having to tell them such bad news overwhelmed me.

Even more poignant, I had the chance to reconnect with this woman’s children, who were present that day, not as audience members but as participants. Their presence may have brought my emotions to the surface more strongly. In that moment, I could show them the feelings I had bottled up for the sake of professionalism. Ultimately, I felt relieved, freer somehow, as if this burden my soul was carrying had been lifted.

Although we are both grateful for forums like this, these opportunities to share and express the grief we may have hidden away are not as common as they should be.

As physicians, we may express grief by shedding tears at the bedside of a patient nearing the end of life or through the anxiety we feel when our patient suffers a severe reaction to treatment. But we tend to put it away, to go on with our day, because there are others to be seen and cared for and more work to be done. Somehow, we move forward, shedding tears in one room and celebrating victories in another.

We need to create more spaces to express and feel grief, so we don’t get lost in it. Because understanding how grief impacts us, as people and as providers, is one of the most important realizations we can make as we go about our time-honored profession as healers.

Dr. Dizon is the director of women’s cancers at Lifespan Cancer Institute, director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, and a professor of medicine at Brown University, all in Providence. He reported conflicts of interest with Regeneron, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Kazia.

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

COVID vaccines will have a new formulation in 2023, according to a decision announced by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, that will focus efforts on circulating variants. The move pushes last year’s bivalent vaccines out of circulation because they will no longer be authorized for use in the United States.

The updated mRNA vaccines for 2023-2024 are being revised to include a single component that corresponds to the Omicron variant XBB.1.5. Like the bivalents offered before, the new monovalents are being manufactured by Moderna and Pfizer.

The new vaccines are authorized for use in individuals age 6 months and older.  And the new options are being developed using a similar process as previous formulations, according to the FDA.
 

Targeting circulating variants

In recent studies, regulators point out the extent of neutralization observed by the updated vaccines against currently circulating viral variants causing COVID-19, including EG.5, BA.2.86, appears to be of a similar magnitude to the extent of neutralization observed with previous versions of the vaccines against corresponding prior variants.

“This suggests that the vaccines are a good match for protecting against the currently circulating COVID-19 variants,” according to the report.

Hundreds of millions of people in the United States have already received previously approved mRNA COVID vaccines, according to regulators who say the benefit-to-risk profile is well understood as they move forward with new formulations.

“Vaccination remains critical to public health and continued protection against serious consequences of COVID-19, including hospitalization and death,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a statement. “The public can be assured that these updated vaccines have met the agency’s rigorous scientific standards for safety, effectiveness, and manufacturing quality. We very much encourage those who are eligible to consider getting vaccinated.”
 

Timing the effort

On Sept. 12 the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that everyone 6 months and older get an updated COVID-19 vaccine. Updated vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna will be available later this week, according to the agency.

This article was updated 9/14/23.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID vaccines will have a new formulation in 2023, according to a decision announced by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, that will focus efforts on circulating variants. The move pushes last year’s bivalent vaccines out of circulation because they will no longer be authorized for use in the United States.

The updated mRNA vaccines for 2023-2024 are being revised to include a single component that corresponds to the Omicron variant XBB.1.5. Like the bivalents offered before, the new monovalents are being manufactured by Moderna and Pfizer.

The new vaccines are authorized for use in individuals age 6 months and older.  And the new options are being developed using a similar process as previous formulations, according to the FDA.
 

Targeting circulating variants

In recent studies, regulators point out the extent of neutralization observed by the updated vaccines against currently circulating viral variants causing COVID-19, including EG.5, BA.2.86, appears to be of a similar magnitude to the extent of neutralization observed with previous versions of the vaccines against corresponding prior variants.

“This suggests that the vaccines are a good match for protecting against the currently circulating COVID-19 variants,” according to the report.

Hundreds of millions of people in the United States have already received previously approved mRNA COVID vaccines, according to regulators who say the benefit-to-risk profile is well understood as they move forward with new formulations.

“Vaccination remains critical to public health and continued protection against serious consequences of COVID-19, including hospitalization and death,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a statement. “The public can be assured that these updated vaccines have met the agency’s rigorous scientific standards for safety, effectiveness, and manufacturing quality. We very much encourage those who are eligible to consider getting vaccinated.”
 

Timing the effort

On Sept. 12 the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that everyone 6 months and older get an updated COVID-19 vaccine. Updated vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna will be available later this week, according to the agency.

This article was updated 9/14/23.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID vaccines will have a new formulation in 2023, according to a decision announced by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, that will focus efforts on circulating variants. The move pushes last year’s bivalent vaccines out of circulation because they will no longer be authorized for use in the United States.

The updated mRNA vaccines for 2023-2024 are being revised to include a single component that corresponds to the Omicron variant XBB.1.5. Like the bivalents offered before, the new monovalents are being manufactured by Moderna and Pfizer.

The new vaccines are authorized for use in individuals age 6 months and older.  And the new options are being developed using a similar process as previous formulations, according to the FDA.
 

Targeting circulating variants

In recent studies, regulators point out the extent of neutralization observed by the updated vaccines against currently circulating viral variants causing COVID-19, including EG.5, BA.2.86, appears to be of a similar magnitude to the extent of neutralization observed with previous versions of the vaccines against corresponding prior variants.

“This suggests that the vaccines are a good match for protecting against the currently circulating COVID-19 variants,” according to the report.

Hundreds of millions of people in the United States have already received previously approved mRNA COVID vaccines, according to regulators who say the benefit-to-risk profile is well understood as they move forward with new formulations.

“Vaccination remains critical to public health and continued protection against serious consequences of COVID-19, including hospitalization and death,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a statement. “The public can be assured that these updated vaccines have met the agency’s rigorous scientific standards for safety, effectiveness, and manufacturing quality. We very much encourage those who are eligible to consider getting vaccinated.”
 

Timing the effort

On Sept. 12 the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that everyone 6 months and older get an updated COVID-19 vaccine. Updated vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna will be available later this week, according to the agency.

This article was updated 9/14/23.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization have dubbed the BA 2.86 variant of COVID-19 as a variant to watch. 

So far, only 26 cases of “Pirola,” as the new variant is being called, have been identified: 10 in Denmark, four each in Sweden and the United States, three in South Africa, two in Portugal, and one each the United Kingdom, Israel, and Canada. BA 2.86 is a subvariant of Omicron, but according to reports from the CDC, the strain has many more mutations than the ones that came before it. 

With so many facts still unknown about this new variant, this news organization asked experts what people need to be aware of as it continues to spread.
 

What is unique about the BA 2.86 variant? 

“It is unique in that it has more than three mutations on the spike protein,” said Purvi S. Parikh, MD, an infectious disease expert at New York University’s Langone Health. The virus uses the spike proteins to enter our cells. 

This “may mean it will be more transmissible, cause more severe disease, and/or our vaccines and treatments may not work as well, as compared to other variants,” she said.
 

What do we need to watch with BA 2.86 going forward? 

“We don’t know if this variant will be associated with a change in the disease severity. We currently see increased numbers of cases in general, even though we don’t yet see the BA.2.86 in our system,” said Heba Mostafa, PhD, director of the molecular virology laboratory at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. 

“It is important to monitor BA.2.86 (and other variants) and understand how its evolution impacts the number of cases and disease outcomes,” she said. “We should all be aware of the current increase in cases, though, and try to get tested and be treated as soon as possible, as antivirals should be effective against the circulating variants.” 
 

What should doctors know?

Dr. Parikh said doctors should generally expect more COVID cases in their clinics and make sure to screen patients even if their symptoms are mild.

“We have tools that can be used – antivirals like Paxlovid are still efficacious with current dominant strains such as EG.5,” she said. “And encourage your patients to get their boosters, mask, wash hands, and social distance.”
 

How well can our vaccines fight BA 2.86?

“Vaccine coverage for the BA.2.86 is an area of uncertainty right now,” said Dr. Mostafa. 

In its report, the CDC said scientists are still figuring out how well the updated COVID vaccine works. It’s expected to be available in the fall, and for now, they believe the new shot will still make infections less severe, new variants and all. 

Prior vaccinations and infections have created antibodies in many people, and that will likely provide some protection, Dr. Mostafa said. “When we experienced the Omicron wave in December 2021, even though the variant was distant from what circulated before its emergence and was associated with a very large increase in the number of cases, vaccinations were still protective against severe disease.” 
 

What is the most important thing to keep track of when it comes to this variant?

According to Dr. Parikh, “it’s most important to monitor how transmissible [BA 2.86] is, how severe it is, and if our current treatments and vaccines work.” 

Dr. Mostafa said how well the new variants escape existing antibody protection should also be studied and watched closely. 
 

What does this stage of the virus mutation tell us about where we are in the pandemic?

The history of the coronavirus over the past few years shows that variants with many changes evolve and can spread very quickly, Dr. Mostafa said. “Now that the virus is endemic, it is essential to monitor, update vaccinations if necessary, diagnose, treat, and implement infection control measures when necessary.”

With the limited data we have so far, experts seem to agree that while the variant’s makeup raises some red flags, it is too soon to jump to any conclusions about how easy it is to catch it and the ways it may change how the virus impacts those who contract it.
 

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization have dubbed the BA 2.86 variant of COVID-19 as a variant to watch. 

So far, only 26 cases of “Pirola,” as the new variant is being called, have been identified: 10 in Denmark, four each in Sweden and the United States, three in South Africa, two in Portugal, and one each the United Kingdom, Israel, and Canada. BA 2.86 is a subvariant of Omicron, but according to reports from the CDC, the strain has many more mutations than the ones that came before it. 

With so many facts still unknown about this new variant, this news organization asked experts what people need to be aware of as it continues to spread.
 

What is unique about the BA 2.86 variant? 

“It is unique in that it has more than three mutations on the spike protein,” said Purvi S. Parikh, MD, an infectious disease expert at New York University’s Langone Health. The virus uses the spike proteins to enter our cells. 

This “may mean it will be more transmissible, cause more severe disease, and/or our vaccines and treatments may not work as well, as compared to other variants,” she said.
 

What do we need to watch with BA 2.86 going forward? 

“We don’t know if this variant will be associated with a change in the disease severity. We currently see increased numbers of cases in general, even though we don’t yet see the BA.2.86 in our system,” said Heba Mostafa, PhD, director of the molecular virology laboratory at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. 

“It is important to monitor BA.2.86 (and other variants) and understand how its evolution impacts the number of cases and disease outcomes,” she said. “We should all be aware of the current increase in cases, though, and try to get tested and be treated as soon as possible, as antivirals should be effective against the circulating variants.” 
 

What should doctors know?

Dr. Parikh said doctors should generally expect more COVID cases in their clinics and make sure to screen patients even if their symptoms are mild.

“We have tools that can be used – antivirals like Paxlovid are still efficacious with current dominant strains such as EG.5,” she said. “And encourage your patients to get their boosters, mask, wash hands, and social distance.”
 

How well can our vaccines fight BA 2.86?

“Vaccine coverage for the BA.2.86 is an area of uncertainty right now,” said Dr. Mostafa. 

In its report, the CDC said scientists are still figuring out how well the updated COVID vaccine works. It’s expected to be available in the fall, and for now, they believe the new shot will still make infections less severe, new variants and all. 

Prior vaccinations and infections have created antibodies in many people, and that will likely provide some protection, Dr. Mostafa said. “When we experienced the Omicron wave in December 2021, even though the variant was distant from what circulated before its emergence and was associated with a very large increase in the number of cases, vaccinations were still protective against severe disease.” 
 

What is the most important thing to keep track of when it comes to this variant?

According to Dr. Parikh, “it’s most important to monitor how transmissible [BA 2.86] is, how severe it is, and if our current treatments and vaccines work.” 

Dr. Mostafa said how well the new variants escape existing antibody protection should also be studied and watched closely. 
 

What does this stage of the virus mutation tell us about where we are in the pandemic?

The history of the coronavirus over the past few years shows that variants with many changes evolve and can spread very quickly, Dr. Mostafa said. “Now that the virus is endemic, it is essential to monitor, update vaccinations if necessary, diagnose, treat, and implement infection control measures when necessary.”

With the limited data we have so far, experts seem to agree that while the variant’s makeup raises some red flags, it is too soon to jump to any conclusions about how easy it is to catch it and the ways it may change how the virus impacts those who contract it.
 

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization have dubbed the BA 2.86 variant of COVID-19 as a variant to watch. 

So far, only 26 cases of “Pirola,” as the new variant is being called, have been identified: 10 in Denmark, four each in Sweden and the United States, three in South Africa, two in Portugal, and one each the United Kingdom, Israel, and Canada. BA 2.86 is a subvariant of Omicron, but according to reports from the CDC, the strain has many more mutations than the ones that came before it. 

With so many facts still unknown about this new variant, this news organization asked experts what people need to be aware of as it continues to spread.
 

What is unique about the BA 2.86 variant? 

“It is unique in that it has more than three mutations on the spike protein,” said Purvi S. Parikh, MD, an infectious disease expert at New York University’s Langone Health. The virus uses the spike proteins to enter our cells. 

This “may mean it will be more transmissible, cause more severe disease, and/or our vaccines and treatments may not work as well, as compared to other variants,” she said.
 

What do we need to watch with BA 2.86 going forward? 

“We don’t know if this variant will be associated with a change in the disease severity. We currently see increased numbers of cases in general, even though we don’t yet see the BA.2.86 in our system,” said Heba Mostafa, PhD, director of the molecular virology laboratory at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. 

“It is important to monitor BA.2.86 (and other variants) and understand how its evolution impacts the number of cases and disease outcomes,” she said. “We should all be aware of the current increase in cases, though, and try to get tested and be treated as soon as possible, as antivirals should be effective against the circulating variants.” 
 

What should doctors know?

Dr. Parikh said doctors should generally expect more COVID cases in their clinics and make sure to screen patients even if their symptoms are mild.

“We have tools that can be used – antivirals like Paxlovid are still efficacious with current dominant strains such as EG.5,” she said. “And encourage your patients to get their boosters, mask, wash hands, and social distance.”
 

How well can our vaccines fight BA 2.86?

“Vaccine coverage for the BA.2.86 is an area of uncertainty right now,” said Dr. Mostafa. 

In its report, the CDC said scientists are still figuring out how well the updated COVID vaccine works. It’s expected to be available in the fall, and for now, they believe the new shot will still make infections less severe, new variants and all. 

Prior vaccinations and infections have created antibodies in many people, and that will likely provide some protection, Dr. Mostafa said. “When we experienced the Omicron wave in December 2021, even though the variant was distant from what circulated before its emergence and was associated with a very large increase in the number of cases, vaccinations were still protective against severe disease.” 
 

What is the most important thing to keep track of when it comes to this variant?

According to Dr. Parikh, “it’s most important to monitor how transmissible [BA 2.86] is, how severe it is, and if our current treatments and vaccines work.” 

Dr. Mostafa said how well the new variants escape existing antibody protection should also be studied and watched closely. 
 

What does this stage of the virus mutation tell us about where we are in the pandemic?

The history of the coronavirus over the past few years shows that variants with many changes evolve and can spread very quickly, Dr. Mostafa said. “Now that the virus is endemic, it is essential to monitor, update vaccinations if necessary, diagnose, treat, and implement infection control measures when necessary.”

With the limited data we have so far, experts seem to agree that while the variant’s makeup raises some red flags, it is too soon to jump to any conclusions about how easy it is to catch it and the ways it may change how the virus impacts those who contract it.
 

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

Advanced practice providers (APPs) such as nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) have long been at odds with doctor groups over scope of practice issues. But in a rare alliance, more than 500 physicians, NPs, and PAs at Allina Health primary care and urgent care clinics in Minneapolis recently filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board to hold a union election in late September. If successful, the Allina group will join the Doctors Council SEIU, Local 10MD.

The Allina health care providers share concerns about their working conditions, such as understaffing and inadequate resources, limited decision-making authority, and health systems valuing productivity and profit over patient care.

Although doctors and APPs have said that they generally work well together, the relationship has been strained in recent years as APPs argue for greater scope of practice. Meanwhile, physician groups, such as the American Medical Association, believe that APPs need more oversight.

An Allina union organizer, Britta V. Kasmarik, CNP, acknowledges the tension between physicians and APPs. But she said in an interview that the union effort helped bond this group of health care providers. “We share common goals of providing high-quality care for patients in a safe way, and we see the same things day in and day out with our patients.”

Matt Hoffman, MD, a primary care physician at Allina, told this news organization that APPs in his specialty perform the same job as doctors “and the working conditions are really identical. In our view, that means we should be unionizing together.”

The decision to hold a union vote follows similar action by nearly 150 Allina Mercy Hospital physicians in March. Allina Health appealed the vote.

In response to a New York Times investigation, the Minnesota Attorney General’s office began reviewing reports of aggressive billing practices and denied care at Allina Health.

The Allina Health system, which reports $4 billion in annual revenue, cut off nonemergency services to patients, including children, if their medical debt exceeded $4,500, according to the New York Times article. For Allina’s physicians and APPs, that meant leaving patients’ illnesses untreated.

Less than a week after the attorney general announced its investigation, the health system ended this practice.

In a prepared statement to this news organization, Allina Health said that its providers are “critical members of our teams. … We deeply value and share their commitment to providing high-quality care to our patients.”

The health system said it planned to make operational improvements, implement new communication tools, and provide additional well-being resources and enhanced employee benefits “to improve the provider experience.” In addition, it hoped to continue to “foster a culture of collaboration with all our employees.”

Having a union will allow health care providers to advocate for their patients and give health care providers more decision-making power instead of corporate leaders maintaining full authority, Ms. Kasmarik told this news organization.

Union organizers are also concerned with changes to the daily practice of medicine. “We don’t want to be spending our time doing paperwork and calling insurance companies and filling out forms,” said Dr. Hoffman. “We want to be in the exam room with a patient.”

The Allina providers organized after multiple requests to corporate managers failed to address their concerns. Their demands include increased staffing and help with nonclinical work so that clinicians can spend more time with their patients.

“What I’m really excited about is that we will be able to work with the other unionized groups to make change ... by being involved in health care policy at a state or national level,” Dr. Hoffman said. For example, that involvement might include challenging insurance company decisions.

Doctors Council bills itself as the largest union for attending physicians in the country, with 3,500 members, according to Joe Crane, national organizing director.

Despite an increase in union efforts since the pandemic, health care workers – particularly doctors – have been slow to join unions. Mr. Crane estimated that only about 3% of U.S. physicians are currently union members. He cited union campaigns in Massachusetts, New York, and Washington, DC. For comparison, a minority of advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) (9%) report union membership, according to Medscape’s APRN compensation report last year.

Dr. Hoffman is confident the Allina health care providers will have enough votes to win the election to join the union. “We should have done this years ago.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Advanced practice providers (APPs) such as nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) have long been at odds with doctor groups over scope of practice issues. But in a rare alliance, more than 500 physicians, NPs, and PAs at Allina Health primary care and urgent care clinics in Minneapolis recently filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board to hold a union election in late September. If successful, the Allina group will join the Doctors Council SEIU, Local 10MD.

The Allina health care providers share concerns about their working conditions, such as understaffing and inadequate resources, limited decision-making authority, and health systems valuing productivity and profit over patient care.

Although doctors and APPs have said that they generally work well together, the relationship has been strained in recent years as APPs argue for greater scope of practice. Meanwhile, physician groups, such as the American Medical Association, believe that APPs need more oversight.

An Allina union organizer, Britta V. Kasmarik, CNP, acknowledges the tension between physicians and APPs. But she said in an interview that the union effort helped bond this group of health care providers. “We share common goals of providing high-quality care for patients in a safe way, and we see the same things day in and day out with our patients.”

Matt Hoffman, MD, a primary care physician at Allina, told this news organization that APPs in his specialty perform the same job as doctors “and the working conditions are really identical. In our view, that means we should be unionizing together.”

The decision to hold a union vote follows similar action by nearly 150 Allina Mercy Hospital physicians in March. Allina Health appealed the vote.

In response to a New York Times investigation, the Minnesota Attorney General’s office began reviewing reports of aggressive billing practices and denied care at Allina Health.

The Allina Health system, which reports $4 billion in annual revenue, cut off nonemergency services to patients, including children, if their medical debt exceeded $4,500, according to the New York Times article. For Allina’s physicians and APPs, that meant leaving patients’ illnesses untreated.

Less than a week after the attorney general announced its investigation, the health system ended this practice.

In a prepared statement to this news organization, Allina Health said that its providers are “critical members of our teams. … We deeply value and share their commitment to providing high-quality care to our patients.”

The health system said it planned to make operational improvements, implement new communication tools, and provide additional well-being resources and enhanced employee benefits “to improve the provider experience.” In addition, it hoped to continue to “foster a culture of collaboration with all our employees.”

Having a union will allow health care providers to advocate for their patients and give health care providers more decision-making power instead of corporate leaders maintaining full authority, Ms. Kasmarik told this news organization.

Union organizers are also concerned with changes to the daily practice of medicine. “We don’t want to be spending our time doing paperwork and calling insurance companies and filling out forms,” said Dr. Hoffman. “We want to be in the exam room with a patient.”

The Allina providers organized after multiple requests to corporate managers failed to address their concerns. Their demands include increased staffing and help with nonclinical work so that clinicians can spend more time with their patients.

“What I’m really excited about is that we will be able to work with the other unionized groups to make change ... by being involved in health care policy at a state or national level,” Dr. Hoffman said. For example, that involvement might include challenging insurance company decisions.

Doctors Council bills itself as the largest union for attending physicians in the country, with 3,500 members, according to Joe Crane, national organizing director.

Despite an increase in union efforts since the pandemic, health care workers – particularly doctors – have been slow to join unions. Mr. Crane estimated that only about 3% of U.S. physicians are currently union members. He cited union campaigns in Massachusetts, New York, and Washington, DC. For comparison, a minority of advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) (9%) report union membership, according to Medscape’s APRN compensation report last year.

Dr. Hoffman is confident the Allina health care providers will have enough votes to win the election to join the union. “We should have done this years ago.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Advanced practice providers (APPs) such as nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) have long been at odds with doctor groups over scope of practice issues. But in a rare alliance, more than 500 physicians, NPs, and PAs at Allina Health primary care and urgent care clinics in Minneapolis recently filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board to hold a union election in late September. If successful, the Allina group will join the Doctors Council SEIU, Local 10MD.

The Allina health care providers share concerns about their working conditions, such as understaffing and inadequate resources, limited decision-making authority, and health systems valuing productivity and profit over patient care.

Although doctors and APPs have said that they generally work well together, the relationship has been strained in recent years as APPs argue for greater scope of practice. Meanwhile, physician groups, such as the American Medical Association, believe that APPs need more oversight.

An Allina union organizer, Britta V. Kasmarik, CNP, acknowledges the tension between physicians and APPs. But she said in an interview that the union effort helped bond this group of health care providers. “We share common goals of providing high-quality care for patients in a safe way, and we see the same things day in and day out with our patients.”

Matt Hoffman, MD, a primary care physician at Allina, told this news organization that APPs in his specialty perform the same job as doctors “and the working conditions are really identical. In our view, that means we should be unionizing together.”

The decision to hold a union vote follows similar action by nearly 150 Allina Mercy Hospital physicians in March. Allina Health appealed the vote.

In response to a New York Times investigation, the Minnesota Attorney General’s office began reviewing reports of aggressive billing practices and denied care at Allina Health.

The Allina Health system, which reports $4 billion in annual revenue, cut off nonemergency services to patients, including children, if their medical debt exceeded $4,500, according to the New York Times article. For Allina’s physicians and APPs, that meant leaving patients’ illnesses untreated.

Less than a week after the attorney general announced its investigation, the health system ended this practice.

In a prepared statement to this news organization, Allina Health said that its providers are “critical members of our teams. … We deeply value and share their commitment to providing high-quality care to our patients.”

The health system said it planned to make operational improvements, implement new communication tools, and provide additional well-being resources and enhanced employee benefits “to improve the provider experience.” In addition, it hoped to continue to “foster a culture of collaboration with all our employees.”

Having a union will allow health care providers to advocate for their patients and give health care providers more decision-making power instead of corporate leaders maintaining full authority, Ms. Kasmarik told this news organization.

Union organizers are also concerned with changes to the daily practice of medicine. “We don’t want to be spending our time doing paperwork and calling insurance companies and filling out forms,” said Dr. Hoffman. “We want to be in the exam room with a patient.”

The Allina providers organized after multiple requests to corporate managers failed to address their concerns. Their demands include increased staffing and help with nonclinical work so that clinicians can spend more time with their patients.

“What I’m really excited about is that we will be able to work with the other unionized groups to make change ... by being involved in health care policy at a state or national level,” Dr. Hoffman said. For example, that involvement might include challenging insurance company decisions.

Doctors Council bills itself as the largest union for attending physicians in the country, with 3,500 members, according to Joe Crane, national organizing director.

Despite an increase in union efforts since the pandemic, health care workers – particularly doctors – have been slow to join unions. Mr. Crane estimated that only about 3% of U.S. physicians are currently union members. He cited union campaigns in Massachusetts, New York, and Washington, DC. For comparison, a minority of advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) (9%) report union membership, according to Medscape’s APRN compensation report last year.

Dr. Hoffman is confident the Allina health care providers will have enough votes to win the election to join the union. “We should have done this years ago.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID-19 hospitalizations have been on the rise for weeks as summer nears its end, but how concerned should you be? SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID, continues to evolve and surprise us. So COVID transmission, hospitalization, and death rates can be difficult to predict. 

This news organization turned to the experts for their take on the current circulating virus, asking them to predict if we’ll be masking up again anytime soon, and what this fall and winter might look like, especially now that testing and vaccinations are no longer free of charge.
 

Question 1: Are you expecting an end-of-summer COVID wave to be substantial?

Eric Topol, MD: “This wave won’t likely be substantial and could be more of a ‘wavelet.’ I’m not thinking that physicians are too concerned,” said Dr. Topol, founder and director of Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif. 

Thomas Gut, DO: “It’s always impossible to predict the severity of COVID waves. Although the virus has generally mutated in ways that favor easier transmission and milder illness, there have been a handful of surprising mutations that were more dangerous and deadly than the preceding strain,” said Dr. Gut, associate chair of medicine at Staten Island University Hospital/Northwell Health in New York.

Robert Atmar, MD: “I’ll start with the caveat that prognosticating for SARS-CoV-2 is a bit hazardous as we remain in unknown territory for some aspects of its epidemiology and evolution,” said Dr. Atmar, a professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. “It depends on your definition of substantial. We, at least in Houston, are already in the midst of a substantial surge in the burden of infection, at least as monitored through wastewater surveillance. The amount of virus in the wastewater already exceeds the peak level we saw last winter. That said, the increased infection burden has not translated into large increases in hospitalizations for COVID-19. Most persons hospitalized in our hospital are admitted with infection, not for the consequences of infection.”

Stuart Campbell Ray, MD: “It looks like there is a rise in infections, but the proportional rise in hospitalizations from severe cases is lower than in the past, suggesting that folks are protected by the immunity we’ve gained over the past few years through vaccination and prior infections. Of course, we should be thinking about how that applies to each of us – how recently we had a vaccine or COVID-19, and whether we might see more severe infections as immunity wanes,” said Dr. Ray, who is a professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. 

Question 2: Is a return to masks or mask mandates coming this fall or winter?

Dr. Topol: “Mandating masks doesn’t work very well, but we may see wide use again if a descendant of [variant] BA.2.86 takes off.”

Dr. Gut: “It’s difficult to predict if there are any mask mandates returning at any point. Ever since the Omicron strains emerged, COVID has been relatively mild, compared to previous strains, so there probably won’t be any plan to start masking in public unless a more deadly strain appears.”

Dr. Atmar: “I do not think we will see a return to mask mandates this fall or winter for a variety of reasons. The primary one is that I don’t think the public will accept mask mandates. However, I think masking can continue to be an adjunctive measure to enhance protection from infection, along with booster vaccination.”

Dr. Ray: “Some people will choose to wear masks during a surge, particularly in situations like commuting where they don’t interfere with what they’re doing. They will wear masks particularly if they want to avoid infection due to concerns about others they care about, disruption of work or travel plans, or concerns about long-term consequences of repeated COVID-19.”

Question 3: Now that COVID testing and vaccinations are no longer free of charge, how might that affect their use?

Dr. Topol: “It was already low, and this will undoubtedly further compromise their uptake.”

Dr. Gut: “I do expect that testing will become less common now that tests are no longer free. I’m sure there will be a lower amount of detection in patients with milder or asymptomatic disease compared to what we had previously.”

Dr. Atmar: “If there are out-of-pocket costs for the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, or if the administrative paperwork attached to getting a vaccine is increased, the uptake of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines will likely decrease. It will be important to communicate to the populations targeted for vaccination the potential benefits of such vaccination.”

Dr. Ray: “A challenge with COVID-19, all along, has been disparities in access to care, and this will be worse without public support for prevention and testing. This applies to everyone but is especially burdensome for those who are often marginalized in our health care system and society in general. I hope that we’ll find ways to ensure that people who need tests and vaccinations are able to access them, as good health is in everyone’s interest.”

Question 4: Will the new vaccines against COVID work for the currently circulating variants?

Dr. Topol: “The XBB.1.5 boosters will be out Sept. 14. They should help versus EG.5.1 and FL.1.5.1. The FL.1.5.1 variant is gaining now.”

Dr. Gut: “In the next several weeks, we expect the newer monovalent XBB-based vaccines to be offered that offer good protection against current circulating COVID variants along with the new Eris variant.”

Dr. Atmar: “The vaccines are expected to induce immune responses to the currently circulating variants, most of which are strains that evolved from the vaccine strain. The vaccine is expected to be most effective in preventing severe illness and will likely be less effective in preventing infection and mild illness.”

Dr. Ray: “Yes, the updated vaccine design has a spike antigen (XBB.1.5) nearly identical to the current dominant variant (EG.5). Even as variants change, the boosters stimulate B cells and T cells to help protect in a way that is safer than getting COVID-19 infection.”

Question 5: Is there anything we should watch out for regarding the BA.2.86 variant in particular?

Dr. Topol: “The scenario could change if there are new functional mutations added to it.”

Dr. Gut: “BA.2.86 is still fairly uncommon and does not have much data to directly make any informed guesses. However, in general, people that have been exposed to more recent mutations of the COVID virus have been shown to have more protection from newer upcoming mutations. It’s fair to guess that people that have not had recent infection from COVID, or have not had a recent booster, are at higher risk for being infected by any XBB- or BA.2-based strains.”

Dr. Atmar: BA.2.86 has been designated as a variant under monitoring. We will want to see whether it becomes more common and if there are any unexpected characteristics associated with infection by this variant.”

Dr. Ray: “It’s still rare, but it’s been seen in geographically dispersed places, so it’s got legs. The question is how effectively it will bypass some of the immunity we’ve gained. T cells are likely to remain protective, because they target so many parts of the virus that change more slowly, but antibodies from B cells to spike protein may have more trouble recognizing BA.2.86, whether those antibodies were made to a vaccine or a prior variant.”

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

COVID-19 hospitalizations have been on the rise for weeks as summer nears its end, but how concerned should you be? SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID, continues to evolve and surprise us. So COVID transmission, hospitalization, and death rates can be difficult to predict. 

This news organization turned to the experts for their take on the current circulating virus, asking them to predict if we’ll be masking up again anytime soon, and what this fall and winter might look like, especially now that testing and vaccinations are no longer free of charge.
 

Question 1: Are you expecting an end-of-summer COVID wave to be substantial?

Eric Topol, MD: “This wave won’t likely be substantial and could be more of a ‘wavelet.’ I’m not thinking that physicians are too concerned,” said Dr. Topol, founder and director of Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif. 

Thomas Gut, DO: “It’s always impossible to predict the severity of COVID waves. Although the virus has generally mutated in ways that favor easier transmission and milder illness, there have been a handful of surprising mutations that were more dangerous and deadly than the preceding strain,” said Dr. Gut, associate chair of medicine at Staten Island University Hospital/Northwell Health in New York.

Robert Atmar, MD: “I’ll start with the caveat that prognosticating for SARS-CoV-2 is a bit hazardous as we remain in unknown territory for some aspects of its epidemiology and evolution,” said Dr. Atmar, a professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. “It depends on your definition of substantial. We, at least in Houston, are already in the midst of a substantial surge in the burden of infection, at least as monitored through wastewater surveillance. The amount of virus in the wastewater already exceeds the peak level we saw last winter. That said, the increased infection burden has not translated into large increases in hospitalizations for COVID-19. Most persons hospitalized in our hospital are admitted with infection, not for the consequences of infection.”

Stuart Campbell Ray, MD: “It looks like there is a rise in infections, but the proportional rise in hospitalizations from severe cases is lower than in the past, suggesting that folks are protected by the immunity we’ve gained over the past few years through vaccination and prior infections. Of course, we should be thinking about how that applies to each of us – how recently we had a vaccine or COVID-19, and whether we might see more severe infections as immunity wanes,” said Dr. Ray, who is a professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. 

Question 2: Is a return to masks or mask mandates coming this fall or winter?

Dr. Topol: “Mandating masks doesn’t work very well, but we may see wide use again if a descendant of [variant] BA.2.86 takes off.”

Dr. Gut: “It’s difficult to predict if there are any mask mandates returning at any point. Ever since the Omicron strains emerged, COVID has been relatively mild, compared to previous strains, so there probably won’t be any plan to start masking in public unless a more deadly strain appears.”

Dr. Atmar: “I do not think we will see a return to mask mandates this fall or winter for a variety of reasons. The primary one is that I don’t think the public will accept mask mandates. However, I think masking can continue to be an adjunctive measure to enhance protection from infection, along with booster vaccination.”

Dr. Ray: “Some people will choose to wear masks during a surge, particularly in situations like commuting where they don’t interfere with what they’re doing. They will wear masks particularly if they want to avoid infection due to concerns about others they care about, disruption of work or travel plans, or concerns about long-term consequences of repeated COVID-19.”

Question 3: Now that COVID testing and vaccinations are no longer free of charge, how might that affect their use?

Dr. Topol: “It was already low, and this will undoubtedly further compromise their uptake.”

Dr. Gut: “I do expect that testing will become less common now that tests are no longer free. I’m sure there will be a lower amount of detection in patients with milder or asymptomatic disease compared to what we had previously.”

Dr. Atmar: “If there are out-of-pocket costs for the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, or if the administrative paperwork attached to getting a vaccine is increased, the uptake of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines will likely decrease. It will be important to communicate to the populations targeted for vaccination the potential benefits of such vaccination.”

Dr. Ray: “A challenge with COVID-19, all along, has been disparities in access to care, and this will be worse without public support for prevention and testing. This applies to everyone but is especially burdensome for those who are often marginalized in our health care system and society in general. I hope that we’ll find ways to ensure that people who need tests and vaccinations are able to access them, as good health is in everyone’s interest.”

Question 4: Will the new vaccines against COVID work for the currently circulating variants?

Dr. Topol: “The XBB.1.5 boosters will be out Sept. 14. They should help versus EG.5.1 and FL.1.5.1. The FL.1.5.1 variant is gaining now.”

Dr. Gut: “In the next several weeks, we expect the newer monovalent XBB-based vaccines to be offered that offer good protection against current circulating COVID variants along with the new Eris variant.”

Dr. Atmar: “The vaccines are expected to induce immune responses to the currently circulating variants, most of which are strains that evolved from the vaccine strain. The vaccine is expected to be most effective in preventing severe illness and will likely be less effective in preventing infection and mild illness.”

Dr. Ray: “Yes, the updated vaccine design has a spike antigen (XBB.1.5) nearly identical to the current dominant variant (EG.5). Even as variants change, the boosters stimulate B cells and T cells to help protect in a way that is safer than getting COVID-19 infection.”

Question 5: Is there anything we should watch out for regarding the BA.2.86 variant in particular?

Dr. Topol: “The scenario could change if there are new functional mutations added to it.”

Dr. Gut: “BA.2.86 is still fairly uncommon and does not have much data to directly make any informed guesses. However, in general, people that have been exposed to more recent mutations of the COVID virus have been shown to have more protection from newer upcoming mutations. It’s fair to guess that people that have not had recent infection from COVID, or have not had a recent booster, are at higher risk for being infected by any XBB- or BA.2-based strains.”

Dr. Atmar: BA.2.86 has been designated as a variant under monitoring. We will want to see whether it becomes more common and if there are any unexpected characteristics associated with infection by this variant.”

Dr. Ray: “It’s still rare, but it’s been seen in geographically dispersed places, so it’s got legs. The question is how effectively it will bypass some of the immunity we’ve gained. T cells are likely to remain protective, because they target so many parts of the virus that change more slowly, but antibodies from B cells to spike protein may have more trouble recognizing BA.2.86, whether those antibodies were made to a vaccine or a prior variant.”

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

COVID-19 hospitalizations have been on the rise for weeks as summer nears its end, but how concerned should you be? SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID, continues to evolve and surprise us. So COVID transmission, hospitalization, and death rates can be difficult to predict. 

This news organization turned to the experts for their take on the current circulating virus, asking them to predict if we’ll be masking up again anytime soon, and what this fall and winter might look like, especially now that testing and vaccinations are no longer free of charge.
 

Question 1: Are you expecting an end-of-summer COVID wave to be substantial?

Eric Topol, MD: “This wave won’t likely be substantial and could be more of a ‘wavelet.’ I’m not thinking that physicians are too concerned,” said Dr. Topol, founder and director of Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif. 

Thomas Gut, DO: “It’s always impossible to predict the severity of COVID waves. Although the virus has generally mutated in ways that favor easier transmission and milder illness, there have been a handful of surprising mutations that were more dangerous and deadly than the preceding strain,” said Dr. Gut, associate chair of medicine at Staten Island University Hospital/Northwell Health in New York.

Robert Atmar, MD: “I’ll start with the caveat that prognosticating for SARS-CoV-2 is a bit hazardous as we remain in unknown territory for some aspects of its epidemiology and evolution,” said Dr. Atmar, a professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. “It depends on your definition of substantial. We, at least in Houston, are already in the midst of a substantial surge in the burden of infection, at least as monitored through wastewater surveillance. The amount of virus in the wastewater already exceeds the peak level we saw last winter. That said, the increased infection burden has not translated into large increases in hospitalizations for COVID-19. Most persons hospitalized in our hospital are admitted with infection, not for the consequences of infection.”

Stuart Campbell Ray, MD: “It looks like there is a rise in infections, but the proportional rise in hospitalizations from severe cases is lower than in the past, suggesting that folks are protected by the immunity we’ve gained over the past few years through vaccination and prior infections. Of course, we should be thinking about how that applies to each of us – how recently we had a vaccine or COVID-19, and whether we might see more severe infections as immunity wanes,” said Dr. Ray, who is a professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. 

Question 2: Is a return to masks or mask mandates coming this fall or winter?

Dr. Topol: “Mandating masks doesn’t work very well, but we may see wide use again if a descendant of [variant] BA.2.86 takes off.”

Dr. Gut: “It’s difficult to predict if there are any mask mandates returning at any point. Ever since the Omicron strains emerged, COVID has been relatively mild, compared to previous strains, so there probably won’t be any plan to start masking in public unless a more deadly strain appears.”

Dr. Atmar: “I do not think we will see a return to mask mandates this fall or winter for a variety of reasons. The primary one is that I don’t think the public will accept mask mandates. However, I think masking can continue to be an adjunctive measure to enhance protection from infection, along with booster vaccination.”

Dr. Ray: “Some people will choose to wear masks during a surge, particularly in situations like commuting where they don’t interfere with what they’re doing. They will wear masks particularly if they want to avoid infection due to concerns about others they care about, disruption of work or travel plans, or concerns about long-term consequences of repeated COVID-19.”

Question 3: Now that COVID testing and vaccinations are no longer free of charge, how might that affect their use?

Dr. Topol: “It was already low, and this will undoubtedly further compromise their uptake.”

Dr. Gut: “I do expect that testing will become less common now that tests are no longer free. I’m sure there will be a lower amount of detection in patients with milder or asymptomatic disease compared to what we had previously.”

Dr. Atmar: “If there are out-of-pocket costs for the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, or if the administrative paperwork attached to getting a vaccine is increased, the uptake of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines will likely decrease. It will be important to communicate to the populations targeted for vaccination the potential benefits of such vaccination.”

Dr. Ray: “A challenge with COVID-19, all along, has been disparities in access to care, and this will be worse without public support for prevention and testing. This applies to everyone but is especially burdensome for those who are often marginalized in our health care system and society in general. I hope that we’ll find ways to ensure that people who need tests and vaccinations are able to access them, as good health is in everyone’s interest.”

Question 4: Will the new vaccines against COVID work for the currently circulating variants?

Dr. Topol: “The XBB.1.5 boosters will be out Sept. 14. They should help versus EG.5.1 and FL.1.5.1. The FL.1.5.1 variant is gaining now.”

Dr. Gut: “In the next several weeks, we expect the newer monovalent XBB-based vaccines to be offered that offer good protection against current circulating COVID variants along with the new Eris variant.”

Dr. Atmar: “The vaccines are expected to induce immune responses to the currently circulating variants, most of which are strains that evolved from the vaccine strain. The vaccine is expected to be most effective in preventing severe illness and will likely be less effective in preventing infection and mild illness.”

Dr. Ray: “Yes, the updated vaccine design has a spike antigen (XBB.1.5) nearly identical to the current dominant variant (EG.5). Even as variants change, the boosters stimulate B cells and T cells to help protect in a way that is safer than getting COVID-19 infection.”

Question 5: Is there anything we should watch out for regarding the BA.2.86 variant in particular?

Dr. Topol: “The scenario could change if there are new functional mutations added to it.”

Dr. Gut: “BA.2.86 is still fairly uncommon and does not have much data to directly make any informed guesses. However, in general, people that have been exposed to more recent mutations of the COVID virus have been shown to have more protection from newer upcoming mutations. It’s fair to guess that people that have not had recent infection from COVID, or have not had a recent booster, are at higher risk for being infected by any XBB- or BA.2-based strains.”

Dr. Atmar: BA.2.86 has been designated as a variant under monitoring. We will want to see whether it becomes more common and if there are any unexpected characteristics associated with infection by this variant.”

Dr. Ray: “It’s still rare, but it’s been seen in geographically dispersed places, so it’s got legs. The question is how effectively it will bypass some of the immunity we’ve gained. T cells are likely to remain protective, because they target so many parts of the virus that change more slowly, but antibodies from B cells to spike protein may have more trouble recognizing BA.2.86, whether those antibodies were made to a vaccine or a prior variant.”

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

Severe COVID infections may lead to lasting damage to the immune system, new research finds.

The small study, published in Cell and funded by the National Institutes of Health, details how immune cells were analyzed through blood samples collected from 38 patients recovering from severe COVID and other critical illnesses, and from 19 healthy people. Researchers from Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and The Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, Farmington, Conn., found through isolating hematopoietic stem cells that people recovering from severe bouts of COVID had changes to their DNA that were passed down to offspring cells.

The research team, led by Steven Josefowicz, PhD, of Weill Cornell’s pathology department, and Duygu Ucar, PhD, associate professor at The Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, discovered that this chain reaction of stem cell changes caused a boost in the production of monocytes. The authors found that, due to the innate cellular changes from a severe case of COVID, patients in recovery ended up producing a larger amount of inflammatory cytokines, rather than monocytes – distinct from samples collected from healthy patients and those recovering from other critical illnesses.

These changes to patients’ epigenetic landscapes were observed even a year after the initial COVID-19 infection. While the small participant pool meant that the research team could not establish a direct line between these innate changes and any ensuing health outcomes, the research provides us with clues as to why patients continue to struggle with inflammation and long COVID symptoms well after they recover.

While the authors reiterate the study’s limitations and hesitate to make any clear-cut associations between the results and long-term health outcomes, Wolfgang Leitner, PhD, from the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, predicts that long COVID can, at least in part, be explained by the changes in innate immune responses.

“Ideally, the authors would have had cells from each patient before they got infected, as a comparator, to see what the epigenetic landscape was before COVID changed it,” said Dr. Leitner. “Clear links between the severity of COVID and genetics were discovered already early in the pandemic and this paper should prompt follow-up studies that link mutations in immune genes with the epigenetic changes described here.”

Dr. Leitner said he had some initial predictions about the long-term impact of COVID-19, but he had not anticipated some of what the study’s findings now show.

“Unlike in the case of, for example, influenza, where the lungs go into ‘repair mode’ after the infection has been resolved – which leaves people susceptible to secondary infections for up to several months – this study shows that after severe COVID, the immune system remains in ‘emergency mode’ and in a heightened state of inflammation,” said Dr. Leitner.

“That further aggravates the problem the initial strong inflammation causes: even higher risk of autoimmune disease, but also, cancer.”

Commenting on the findings, Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape Medical News, said the study presents “evidence that a key line of immune cells are essentially irrevocably, epigenetically altered and activated.

“You do not want to have this [COVID],” he added.

The study also highlights the researchers’ novel approach to isolating hematopoietic stem cells, found largely in bone marrow. This type of research has been limited in the past because of how costly and invasive it can be to analyze cells in bone marrow. But, by isolating and enriching hematopoietic stem cells, the team can decipher the full cellular diversity of the cells’ bone marrow counterparts.

“This revelation opened the doors to study, at single-cell resolution, how stem cells are affected upon infection and vaccination with a simple blood draw,” representatives from the Jackson lab said in a press release.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Severe COVID infections may lead to lasting damage to the immune system, new research finds.

The small study, published in Cell and funded by the National Institutes of Health, details how immune cells were analyzed through blood samples collected from 38 patients recovering from severe COVID and other critical illnesses, and from 19 healthy people. Researchers from Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and The Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, Farmington, Conn., found through isolating hematopoietic stem cells that people recovering from severe bouts of COVID had changes to their DNA that were passed down to offspring cells.

The research team, led by Steven Josefowicz, PhD, of Weill Cornell’s pathology department, and Duygu Ucar, PhD, associate professor at The Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, discovered that this chain reaction of stem cell changes caused a boost in the production of monocytes. The authors found that, due to the innate cellular changes from a severe case of COVID, patients in recovery ended up producing a larger amount of inflammatory cytokines, rather than monocytes – distinct from samples collected from healthy patients and those recovering from other critical illnesses.

These changes to patients’ epigenetic landscapes were observed even a year after the initial COVID-19 infection. While the small participant pool meant that the research team could not establish a direct line between these innate changes and any ensuing health outcomes, the research provides us with clues as to why patients continue to struggle with inflammation and long COVID symptoms well after they recover.

While the authors reiterate the study’s limitations and hesitate to make any clear-cut associations between the results and long-term health outcomes, Wolfgang Leitner, PhD, from the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, predicts that long COVID can, at least in part, be explained by the changes in innate immune responses.

“Ideally, the authors would have had cells from each patient before they got infected, as a comparator, to see what the epigenetic landscape was before COVID changed it,” said Dr. Leitner. “Clear links between the severity of COVID and genetics were discovered already early in the pandemic and this paper should prompt follow-up studies that link mutations in immune genes with the epigenetic changes described here.”

Dr. Leitner said he had some initial predictions about the long-term impact of COVID-19, but he had not anticipated some of what the study’s findings now show.

“Unlike in the case of, for example, influenza, where the lungs go into ‘repair mode’ after the infection has been resolved – which leaves people susceptible to secondary infections for up to several months – this study shows that after severe COVID, the immune system remains in ‘emergency mode’ and in a heightened state of inflammation,” said Dr. Leitner.

“That further aggravates the problem the initial strong inflammation causes: even higher risk of autoimmune disease, but also, cancer.”

Commenting on the findings, Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape Medical News, said the study presents “evidence that a key line of immune cells are essentially irrevocably, epigenetically altered and activated.

“You do not want to have this [COVID],” he added.

The study also highlights the researchers’ novel approach to isolating hematopoietic stem cells, found largely in bone marrow. This type of research has been limited in the past because of how costly and invasive it can be to analyze cells in bone marrow. But, by isolating and enriching hematopoietic stem cells, the team can decipher the full cellular diversity of the cells’ bone marrow counterparts.

“This revelation opened the doors to study, at single-cell resolution, how stem cells are affected upon infection and vaccination with a simple blood draw,” representatives from the Jackson lab said in a press release.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Severe COVID infections may lead to lasting damage to the immune system, new research finds.

The small study, published in Cell and funded by the National Institutes of Health, details how immune cells were analyzed through blood samples collected from 38 patients recovering from severe COVID and other critical illnesses, and from 19 healthy people. Researchers from Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and The Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, Farmington, Conn., found through isolating hematopoietic stem cells that people recovering from severe bouts of COVID had changes to their DNA that were passed down to offspring cells.

The research team, led by Steven Josefowicz, PhD, of Weill Cornell’s pathology department, and Duygu Ucar, PhD, associate professor at The Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, discovered that this chain reaction of stem cell changes caused a boost in the production of monocytes. The authors found that, due to the innate cellular changes from a severe case of COVID, patients in recovery ended up producing a larger amount of inflammatory cytokines, rather than monocytes – distinct from samples collected from healthy patients and those recovering from other critical illnesses.

These changes to patients’ epigenetic landscapes were observed even a year after the initial COVID-19 infection. While the small participant pool meant that the research team could not establish a direct line between these innate changes and any ensuing health outcomes, the research provides us with clues as to why patients continue to struggle with inflammation and long COVID symptoms well after they recover.

While the authors reiterate the study’s limitations and hesitate to make any clear-cut associations between the results and long-term health outcomes, Wolfgang Leitner, PhD, from the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, predicts that long COVID can, at least in part, be explained by the changes in innate immune responses.

“Ideally, the authors would have had cells from each patient before they got infected, as a comparator, to see what the epigenetic landscape was before COVID changed it,” said Dr. Leitner. “Clear links between the severity of COVID and genetics were discovered already early in the pandemic and this paper should prompt follow-up studies that link mutations in immune genes with the epigenetic changes described here.”

Dr. Leitner said he had some initial predictions about the long-term impact of COVID-19, but he had not anticipated some of what the study’s findings now show.

“Unlike in the case of, for example, influenza, where the lungs go into ‘repair mode’ after the infection has been resolved – which leaves people susceptible to secondary infections for up to several months – this study shows that after severe COVID, the immune system remains in ‘emergency mode’ and in a heightened state of inflammation,” said Dr. Leitner.

“That further aggravates the problem the initial strong inflammation causes: even higher risk of autoimmune disease, but also, cancer.”

Commenting on the findings, Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape Medical News, said the study presents “evidence that a key line of immune cells are essentially irrevocably, epigenetically altered and activated.

“You do not want to have this [COVID],” he added.

The study also highlights the researchers’ novel approach to isolating hematopoietic stem cells, found largely in bone marrow. This type of research has been limited in the past because of how costly and invasive it can be to analyze cells in bone marrow. But, by isolating and enriching hematopoietic stem cells, the team can decipher the full cellular diversity of the cells’ bone marrow counterparts.

“This revelation opened the doors to study, at single-cell resolution, how stem cells are affected upon infection and vaccination with a simple blood draw,” representatives from the Jackson lab said in a press release.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

By the end of August 2022, overall use of mental health services was almost 40% higher than before the COVID-19 pandemic, while spending increased by 54%, according to a new study by researchers at the RAND Corporation.

During the early phase of the pandemic, from mid-March to mid-December 2020, before the vaccine was available, in-person visits decreased by 40%, while telehealth visits increased by 1,000%, reported Jonathan H. Cantor, PhD, and colleagues at RAND, and at Castlight Health, a benefit coordination provider, in a paper published online in JAMA Health Forum.

Between December 2020 and August 2022, telehealth visits stayed stable, but in-person visits creeped back up, eventually reaching 80% of prepandemic levels. However, “total utilization was higher than before the pandemic,” Dr. Cantor, a policy researcher at RAND, told this news organization. 

“It could be that it’s easier for individuals to receive care via telehealth, but it could also just be that there’s a greater demand or need since the pandemic,” said Dr. Cantor. “We’ll just need more research to actually unpack what’s going on,” he said.

Initial per capita spending increased by about a third and was up overall by more than half. But it’s not clear how much of that is due to utilization or to price of services, said Dr. Cantor. Spending for telehealth services remained stable in the post-vaccine period, while spending on in-person visits returned to prepandemic levels.

Dr. Cantor and his colleagues were not able to determine whether utilization was by new or existing patients, but he said that would be good data to have. “It would be really important to know whether or not folks are initiating care because telehealth is making it easier,” he said.

The authors analyzed about 1.5 million claims for anxiety disorders, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and posttraumatic stress disorder, out of claims submitted by 7 million commercially insured adults whose self-insured employers used the Castlight benefit.

Dr. Cantor noted that this is just a small subset of the U.S. population. He said he’d like to have data from Medicare and Medicaid to fully assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health and of telehealth visits.

“This is a still-burgeoning field,” he said about telehealth. “We’re still trying to get a handle on how things are operating, given that there’s been so much change so rapidly.”

Meanwhile, 152 major employers responding to a large national survey this summer said that they’ve been grappling with how COVID-19 has affected workers. The employers include 72 Fortune 100 companies and provide health coverage for more than 60 million workers, retirees, and their families.

Seventy-seven percent said they are currently seeing an increase in depression, anxiety, and substance use disorders as a result of the pandemic, according to the Business Group on Health’s survey. That’s up from 44% in 2022.

Going forward, employers will focus on increasing access to mental health services, the survey reported.

“Our survey found that in 2024 and for the near future, employers will be acutely focused on addressing employees’ mental health needs while ensuring access and lowering cost barriers,” Ellen Kelsay, president and CEO of Business Group on Health, said in a statement.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute on Aging. Coauthor Dena Bravata, MD, a Castlight employee, reported receiving personal fees from Castlight Health during the conduct of the study. Coauthor Christopher M. Whaley, a RAND employee, reported receiving personal fees from Castlight Health outside the submitted work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

By the end of August 2022, overall use of mental health services was almost 40% higher than before the COVID-19 pandemic, while spending increased by 54%, according to a new study by researchers at the RAND Corporation.

During the early phase of the pandemic, from mid-March to mid-December 2020, before the vaccine was available, in-person visits decreased by 40%, while telehealth visits increased by 1,000%, reported Jonathan H. Cantor, PhD, and colleagues at RAND, and at Castlight Health, a benefit coordination provider, in a paper published online in JAMA Health Forum.

Between December 2020 and August 2022, telehealth visits stayed stable, but in-person visits creeped back up, eventually reaching 80% of prepandemic levels. However, “total utilization was higher than before the pandemic,” Dr. Cantor, a policy researcher at RAND, told this news organization. 

“It could be that it’s easier for individuals to receive care via telehealth, but it could also just be that there’s a greater demand or need since the pandemic,” said Dr. Cantor. “We’ll just need more research to actually unpack what’s going on,” he said.

Initial per capita spending increased by about a third and was up overall by more than half. But it’s not clear how much of that is due to utilization or to price of services, said Dr. Cantor. Spending for telehealth services remained stable in the post-vaccine period, while spending on in-person visits returned to prepandemic levels.

Dr. Cantor and his colleagues were not able to determine whether utilization was by new or existing patients, but he said that would be good data to have. “It would be really important to know whether or not folks are initiating care because telehealth is making it easier,” he said.

The authors analyzed about 1.5 million claims for anxiety disorders, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and posttraumatic stress disorder, out of claims submitted by 7 million commercially insured adults whose self-insured employers used the Castlight benefit.

Dr. Cantor noted that this is just a small subset of the U.S. population. He said he’d like to have data from Medicare and Medicaid to fully assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health and of telehealth visits.

“This is a still-burgeoning field,” he said about telehealth. “We’re still trying to get a handle on how things are operating, given that there’s been so much change so rapidly.”

Meanwhile, 152 major employers responding to a large national survey this summer said that they’ve been grappling with how COVID-19 has affected workers. The employers include 72 Fortune 100 companies and provide health coverage for more than 60 million workers, retirees, and their families.

Seventy-seven percent said they are currently seeing an increase in depression, anxiety, and substance use disorders as a result of the pandemic, according to the Business Group on Health’s survey. That’s up from 44% in 2022.

Going forward, employers will focus on increasing access to mental health services, the survey reported.

“Our survey found that in 2024 and for the near future, employers will be acutely focused on addressing employees’ mental health needs while ensuring access and lowering cost barriers,” Ellen Kelsay, president and CEO of Business Group on Health, said in a statement.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute on Aging. Coauthor Dena Bravata, MD, a Castlight employee, reported receiving personal fees from Castlight Health during the conduct of the study. Coauthor Christopher M. Whaley, a RAND employee, reported receiving personal fees from Castlight Health outside the submitted work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

By the end of August 2022, overall use of mental health services was almost 40% higher than before the COVID-19 pandemic, while spending increased by 54%, according to a new study by researchers at the RAND Corporation.

During the early phase of the pandemic, from mid-March to mid-December 2020, before the vaccine was available, in-person visits decreased by 40%, while telehealth visits increased by 1,000%, reported Jonathan H. Cantor, PhD, and colleagues at RAND, and at Castlight Health, a benefit coordination provider, in a paper published online in JAMA Health Forum.

Between December 2020 and August 2022, telehealth visits stayed stable, but in-person visits creeped back up, eventually reaching 80% of prepandemic levels. However, “total utilization was higher than before the pandemic,” Dr. Cantor, a policy researcher at RAND, told this news organization. 

“It could be that it’s easier for individuals to receive care via telehealth, but it could also just be that there’s a greater demand or need since the pandemic,” said Dr. Cantor. “We’ll just need more research to actually unpack what’s going on,” he said.

Initial per capita spending increased by about a third and was up overall by more than half. But it’s not clear how much of that is due to utilization or to price of services, said Dr. Cantor. Spending for telehealth services remained stable in the post-vaccine period, while spending on in-person visits returned to prepandemic levels.

Dr. Cantor and his colleagues were not able to determine whether utilization was by new or existing patients, but he said that would be good data to have. “It would be really important to know whether or not folks are initiating care because telehealth is making it easier,” he said.

The authors analyzed about 1.5 million claims for anxiety disorders, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and posttraumatic stress disorder, out of claims submitted by 7 million commercially insured adults whose self-insured employers used the Castlight benefit.

Dr. Cantor noted that this is just a small subset of the U.S. population. He said he’d like to have data from Medicare and Medicaid to fully assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health and of telehealth visits.

“This is a still-burgeoning field,” he said about telehealth. “We’re still trying to get a handle on how things are operating, given that there’s been so much change so rapidly.”

Meanwhile, 152 major employers responding to a large national survey this summer said that they’ve been grappling with how COVID-19 has affected workers. The employers include 72 Fortune 100 companies and provide health coverage for more than 60 million workers, retirees, and their families.

Seventy-seven percent said they are currently seeing an increase in depression, anxiety, and substance use disorders as a result of the pandemic, according to the Business Group on Health’s survey. That’s up from 44% in 2022.

Going forward, employers will focus on increasing access to mental health services, the survey reported.

“Our survey found that in 2024 and for the near future, employers will be acutely focused on addressing employees’ mental health needs while ensuring access and lowering cost barriers,” Ellen Kelsay, president and CEO of Business Group on Health, said in a statement.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute on Aging. Coauthor Dena Bravata, MD, a Castlight employee, reported receiving personal fees from Castlight Health during the conduct of the study. Coauthor Christopher M. Whaley, a RAND employee, reported receiving personal fees from Castlight Health outside the submitted work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.