MDedge Emergency Medicine

If you smoke, vape, or ingest cannabis, your anesthesiologist should know before you undergo a surgical procedure, according to new medical guidelines.

All patients who undergo procedures that require regional or general anesthesia should be asked if, how often, and in what forms they use the drug, according to recommendations from the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine.

One reason: Patients who regularly use cannabis may experience worse pain and nausea after surgery and may require more opioid analgesia, the group said.

The society’s recommendations – published in Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine – are the first guidelines in the United States to cover cannabis use as it relates to surgery, the group said.
 

Possible interactions

Use of cannabis has increased in recent years, and researchers have been concerned that the drug may interact with anesthesia and complicate pain management. Few studies have evaluated interactions between cannabis and anesthetic agents, however, according to the authors of the new guidelines.

“With the rising prevalence of both medical and recreational cannabis use in the general population, anesthesiologists, surgeons, and perioperative physicians must have an understanding of the effects of cannabis on physiology in order to provide safe perioperative care,” the guideline said.

“Before surgery, anesthesiologists should ask patients if they use cannabis – whether medicinally or recreationally – and be prepared to possibly change the anesthesia plan or delay the procedure in certain situations,” Samer Narouze, MD, PhD, ASRA president and senior author of the guidelines, said in a news release about the recommendations.

Although some patients may use cannabis to relieve pain, research shows that “regular users may have more pain and nausea after surgery, not less, and may need more medications, including opioids, to manage the discomfort,” said Dr. Narouze, chairman of the Center for Pain Medicine at Western Reserve Hospital in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio.
 

Risks for vomiting, heart attack

The new recommendations were created by a committee of 13 experts, including anesthesiologists, chronic pain physicians, and a patient advocate. Shalini Shah, MD, vice chair of anesthesiology at the University of California, Irvine, was lead author of the document.

Four of 21 recommendations were classified as grade A, meaning that following them would be expected to provide substantial benefits. Those recommendations are to screen all patients before surgery; postpone elective surgery for patients who have altered mental status or impaired decision-making capacity at the time of surgery; counsel frequent, heavy users about the potential for cannabis use to impair postoperative pain control; and counsel pregnant patients about the risks of cannabis use to unborn children.

The authors cited studies to support their recommendations, including one showing that long-term cannabis use was associated with a 20% increase in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, a leading complaint of surgery patients. Other research has shown that cannabis use is linked to more pain and use of opioids after surgery.

Other recommendations include delaying elective surgery for at least 2 hours after a patient has smoked cannabis, owing to an increased risk for heart attack, and considering adjustment of ventilation settings during surgery for regular smokers of cannabis. Research has shown that smoking cannabis may be a rare trigger for myocardial infarction and is associated with airway inflammation and self-reported respiratory symptoms.

Nevertheless, doctors should not conduct universal toxicology screening, given a lack of evidence supporting this practice, the guideline stated.

The authors did not have enough information to make recommendations about reducing cannabis use before surgery or adjusting opioid prescriptions after surgery for patients who use cannabis, they said.

Kenneth Finn, MD, president of the American Board of Pain Medicine, welcomed the publication of the new guidelines. Dr. Finn, who practices at Springs Rehabilitation in Colorado Springs, has edited a textbook about cannabis in medicine and founded the International Academy on the Science and Impact of Cannabis.

“The vast majority of medical providers really have no idea about cannabis and what its impacts are on the human body,” Dr. Finn said.

For one, it can interact with numerous other drugs, including warfarin.

Guideline coauthor Eugene R. Viscusi, MD, professor of anesthesiology at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, emphasized that, while cannabis may be perceived as “natural,” it should not be considered differently from manufactured drugs.

Cannabis and cannabinoids represent “a class of very potent and pharmacologically active compounds,” Dr. Viscusi said in an interview. While researchers continue to assess possible medically beneficial effects of cannabis compounds, clinicians also need to be aware of the risks.

“The literature continues to emerge, and while we are always hopeful for good news, as physicians, we need to be very well versed on potential risks, especially in a high-risk situation like surgery,” he said.

Dr. Shah has consulted for companies that develop medical devices and drugs. Dr. Finn is the editor of the textbook, “Cannabis in Medicine: An Evidence-Based Approach” (Springer: New York, 2020), for which he receives royalties.

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

If you smoke, vape, or ingest cannabis, your anesthesiologist should know before you undergo a surgical procedure, according to new medical guidelines.

All patients who undergo procedures that require regional or general anesthesia should be asked if, how often, and in what forms they use the drug, according to recommendations from the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine.

One reason: Patients who regularly use cannabis may experience worse pain and nausea after surgery and may require more opioid analgesia, the group said.

The society’s recommendations – published in Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine – are the first guidelines in the United States to cover cannabis use as it relates to surgery, the group said.
 

Possible interactions

Use of cannabis has increased in recent years, and researchers have been concerned that the drug may interact with anesthesia and complicate pain management. Few studies have evaluated interactions between cannabis and anesthetic agents, however, according to the authors of the new guidelines.

“With the rising prevalence of both medical and recreational cannabis use in the general population, anesthesiologists, surgeons, and perioperative physicians must have an understanding of the effects of cannabis on physiology in order to provide safe perioperative care,” the guideline said.

“Before surgery, anesthesiologists should ask patients if they use cannabis – whether medicinally or recreationally – and be prepared to possibly change the anesthesia plan or delay the procedure in certain situations,” Samer Narouze, MD, PhD, ASRA president and senior author of the guidelines, said in a news release about the recommendations.

Although some patients may use cannabis to relieve pain, research shows that “regular users may have more pain and nausea after surgery, not less, and may need more medications, including opioids, to manage the discomfort,” said Dr. Narouze, chairman of the Center for Pain Medicine at Western Reserve Hospital in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio.
 

Risks for vomiting, heart attack

The new recommendations were created by a committee of 13 experts, including anesthesiologists, chronic pain physicians, and a patient advocate. Shalini Shah, MD, vice chair of anesthesiology at the University of California, Irvine, was lead author of the document.

Four of 21 recommendations were classified as grade A, meaning that following them would be expected to provide substantial benefits. Those recommendations are to screen all patients before surgery; postpone elective surgery for patients who have altered mental status or impaired decision-making capacity at the time of surgery; counsel frequent, heavy users about the potential for cannabis use to impair postoperative pain control; and counsel pregnant patients about the risks of cannabis use to unborn children.

The authors cited studies to support their recommendations, including one showing that long-term cannabis use was associated with a 20% increase in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, a leading complaint of surgery patients. Other research has shown that cannabis use is linked to more pain and use of opioids after surgery.

Other recommendations include delaying elective surgery for at least 2 hours after a patient has smoked cannabis, owing to an increased risk for heart attack, and considering adjustment of ventilation settings during surgery for regular smokers of cannabis. Research has shown that smoking cannabis may be a rare trigger for myocardial infarction and is associated with airway inflammation and self-reported respiratory symptoms.

Nevertheless, doctors should not conduct universal toxicology screening, given a lack of evidence supporting this practice, the guideline stated.

The authors did not have enough information to make recommendations about reducing cannabis use before surgery or adjusting opioid prescriptions after surgery for patients who use cannabis, they said.

Kenneth Finn, MD, president of the American Board of Pain Medicine, welcomed the publication of the new guidelines. Dr. Finn, who practices at Springs Rehabilitation in Colorado Springs, has edited a textbook about cannabis in medicine and founded the International Academy on the Science and Impact of Cannabis.

“The vast majority of medical providers really have no idea about cannabis and what its impacts are on the human body,” Dr. Finn said.

For one, it can interact with numerous other drugs, including warfarin.

Guideline coauthor Eugene R. Viscusi, MD, professor of anesthesiology at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, emphasized that, while cannabis may be perceived as “natural,” it should not be considered differently from manufactured drugs.

Cannabis and cannabinoids represent “a class of very potent and pharmacologically active compounds,” Dr. Viscusi said in an interview. While researchers continue to assess possible medically beneficial effects of cannabis compounds, clinicians also need to be aware of the risks.

“The literature continues to emerge, and while we are always hopeful for good news, as physicians, we need to be very well versed on potential risks, especially in a high-risk situation like surgery,” he said.

Dr. Shah has consulted for companies that develop medical devices and drugs. Dr. Finn is the editor of the textbook, “Cannabis in Medicine: An Evidence-Based Approach” (Springer: New York, 2020), for which he receives royalties.

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

If you smoke, vape, or ingest cannabis, your anesthesiologist should know before you undergo a surgical procedure, according to new medical guidelines.

All patients who undergo procedures that require regional or general anesthesia should be asked if, how often, and in what forms they use the drug, according to recommendations from the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine.

One reason: Patients who regularly use cannabis may experience worse pain and nausea after surgery and may require more opioid analgesia, the group said.

The society’s recommendations – published in Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine – are the first guidelines in the United States to cover cannabis use as it relates to surgery, the group said.
 

Possible interactions

Use of cannabis has increased in recent years, and researchers have been concerned that the drug may interact with anesthesia and complicate pain management. Few studies have evaluated interactions between cannabis and anesthetic agents, however, according to the authors of the new guidelines.

“With the rising prevalence of both medical and recreational cannabis use in the general population, anesthesiologists, surgeons, and perioperative physicians must have an understanding of the effects of cannabis on physiology in order to provide safe perioperative care,” the guideline said.

“Before surgery, anesthesiologists should ask patients if they use cannabis – whether medicinally or recreationally – and be prepared to possibly change the anesthesia plan or delay the procedure in certain situations,” Samer Narouze, MD, PhD, ASRA president and senior author of the guidelines, said in a news release about the recommendations.

Although some patients may use cannabis to relieve pain, research shows that “regular users may have more pain and nausea after surgery, not less, and may need more medications, including opioids, to manage the discomfort,” said Dr. Narouze, chairman of the Center for Pain Medicine at Western Reserve Hospital in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio.
 

Risks for vomiting, heart attack

The new recommendations were created by a committee of 13 experts, including anesthesiologists, chronic pain physicians, and a patient advocate. Shalini Shah, MD, vice chair of anesthesiology at the University of California, Irvine, was lead author of the document.

Four of 21 recommendations were classified as grade A, meaning that following them would be expected to provide substantial benefits. Those recommendations are to screen all patients before surgery; postpone elective surgery for patients who have altered mental status or impaired decision-making capacity at the time of surgery; counsel frequent, heavy users about the potential for cannabis use to impair postoperative pain control; and counsel pregnant patients about the risks of cannabis use to unborn children.

The authors cited studies to support their recommendations, including one showing that long-term cannabis use was associated with a 20% increase in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, a leading complaint of surgery patients. Other research has shown that cannabis use is linked to more pain and use of opioids after surgery.

Other recommendations include delaying elective surgery for at least 2 hours after a patient has smoked cannabis, owing to an increased risk for heart attack, and considering adjustment of ventilation settings during surgery for regular smokers of cannabis. Research has shown that smoking cannabis may be a rare trigger for myocardial infarction and is associated with airway inflammation and self-reported respiratory symptoms.

Nevertheless, doctors should not conduct universal toxicology screening, given a lack of evidence supporting this practice, the guideline stated.

The authors did not have enough information to make recommendations about reducing cannabis use before surgery or adjusting opioid prescriptions after surgery for patients who use cannabis, they said.

Kenneth Finn, MD, president of the American Board of Pain Medicine, welcomed the publication of the new guidelines. Dr. Finn, who practices at Springs Rehabilitation in Colorado Springs, has edited a textbook about cannabis in medicine and founded the International Academy on the Science and Impact of Cannabis.

“The vast majority of medical providers really have no idea about cannabis and what its impacts are on the human body,” Dr. Finn said.

For one, it can interact with numerous other drugs, including warfarin.

Guideline coauthor Eugene R. Viscusi, MD, professor of anesthesiology at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, emphasized that, while cannabis may be perceived as “natural,” it should not be considered differently from manufactured drugs.

Cannabis and cannabinoids represent “a class of very potent and pharmacologically active compounds,” Dr. Viscusi said in an interview. While researchers continue to assess possible medically beneficial effects of cannabis compounds, clinicians also need to be aware of the risks.

“The literature continues to emerge, and while we are always hopeful for good news, as physicians, we need to be very well versed on potential risks, especially in a high-risk situation like surgery,” he said.

Dr. Shah has consulted for companies that develop medical devices and drugs. Dr. Finn is the editor of the textbook, “Cannabis in Medicine: An Evidence-Based Approach” (Springer: New York, 2020), for which he receives royalties.

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

Readjudication of mortality data from the FOURIER trial suggests a higher risk for cardiovascular death with evolocumab (Repatha) among patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease than originally reported for the first-in-class PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor.

The Restoring Invisible and Abandoned Trials (RIAT) investigators launched this review in 2018, citing “significant inconsistencies and misreporting” between information in death narratives in the trial’s clinical study report (CSR) and the 2017 New England Journal of Medicine publication of the primary trial results.

“After readjudication, deaths of cardiac origin were numerically higher in the evolocumab group than in the placebo group in the FOURIER trial, suggesting possible cardiac harm,” the researchers conclude in the new report published online in BMJ Open. “At the time the trial was terminated early, a non-significantly higher risk of cardiovascular mortality was observed with evolocumab, which was numerically greater in our adjudication.

“Our findings indicate that complete restoration of all clinical outcomes from the FOURIER trial is required,” they wrote. “Meanwhile, clinicians should be skeptical about benefits vs harms of prescribing evolocumab for patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.”

Asked to comment on the reanalysis, FOURIER lead investigator Marc Sabatine, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and the Lewis Dexter distinguished chair in cardiovascular medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said: “It’s hard to call this science. I think it lacks all scientific rigor and is fundamentally flawed and, because their process was flawed, it has led them to erroneous conclusions.”

Reached for comment, Sanjay Kaul, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, who was not involved with either study, said: “If I were to describe this in one sentence, I would say much ado about nothing. A tempest in a teapot.”
 

Evaluating hard outcomes

The Food and Drug Administration approved evolocumab in 2015 for lowering LDL cholesterol levels, but without results from any trial evaluating hard outcomes.

As previously reported in 2017, FOURIER showed that adding evolocumab to high-intensity statins slashed LDL cholesterol by 59% and was associated with a 15% reduction in the primary composite cardiovascular events endpoint, compared with placebo, but numerically more all-cause and CV mortality.

The NEJM data analysis reported the risk for cardiovascular mortality was 5% (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-1.25), whereas the new review found a still nonsignificant 20% relative risk (R95% CI, 0.95-1.51).

Cardiac deaths were also numerically higher in the evolocumab group (113 vs. 88), corresponding to a 28% higher relative risk (95% CI, 0.97-1.69). Vascular deaths were similar at 37 in both groups (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.63-1.58).

For 360 of the 870 deaths, the cause of death adjudicated by the FOURIER clinical events committee differs from that identified by the local clinical investigators in the CSR death narrative, the authors said.

The RIAT investigators found 11 more deaths from myocardial infarction in the evolocumab group (36 vs. 25 in NEJM) and 3 fewer deaths in the placebo group (27 vs. 30). In addition, their review indicated that deaths as a result of cardiac failure in the evolocumab group were almost double those in the placebo group, at 31 versus 16, respectively.
 

An ‘obvious disconnect’

Thomas L. Perry, MD, a coauthor of the BMJ Open paper and a general internist in the department of anesthesiology, pharmacology, and therapeutics at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said in an interview that the team repeatedly sought information from the FOURIER investigators but never received a response.

They petitioned and received the FOURIER CSR from the European Medicines Agency and Health Canada and made a similar request with the FDA but were told in October 2019 it would take up to 7 years to release the information. Case report forms were also requested but not received from all three agencies.

Dr. Perry noted that no autopsies were performed in the trial, a claim Dr. Sabatine rejected, and that their review of the death narratives in the CSR found 91 deaths classified by the local investigator as “undetermined” but subsequently adjudicated by the FOURIER clinical events committee as “sudden cardiac” deaths without any documented evidence to support the change.

At his request, Dr. Perry said they included two case examples (figures 1 and 2) in the BMJ Open paper of the “obvious disconnect” in death endpoints. Both of these were identified by the local investigator as a myocardial infarction but later “misreported” according to Dr. Perry, as a sudden cardiac death and noncardiovascular death (trauma), respectively.

“What’s so important about this is not only that it throws into doubt the reliability of what the people at Harvard and elsewhere reported in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2017, but also raises a question about any other large study like this where you rely on supposedly ethical local investigators to run the trial well and to report accurately what happens to people,” Dr. Perry said in an interview.

Although he never prescribed evolocumab after the initial results were published, Dr. Perry said he’s even less convinced of a benefit now. “Basically, I don’t believe that they are telling us the facts. I have no reason to say there’s an element of deliberately misleading us. I think it’s sloppiness, incompetence, laziness.”

Dr. Perry also favors readjudication of the mortality data in the ODYSSEY trial, which showed an all-cause mortality benefit with the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab (Praluent).
 

The ‘full picture’

Dr. Sabatine explained that when a patient had a cardiovascular event, including a death, it triggered the collection of a full dossier containing all available source documents, such as discharge summaries, laboratory and imaging data, and autopsy reports, that were independently reviewed by two board certified physicians blinded to treatment. To suggest, as the RIAT investigators have, that no autopsies were performed is “obviously ridiculous and wrong.”

In contrast, he said the new analysis was post hoc, involved unblinded individuals, and relied on serious adverse event narratives, which include a small text box that must be filled out with the site’s initial impression of the case and sent within 24 hours of the event.

Further, when the FOURIER investigators pulled the dossiers for the two more egregious examples cited in the paper, they found that the first patient died in his sleep at home. “The investigator then just said, ‘oh, I assume it’s an MI,’ but there’s no biochemical data, there’s no ECGs, there’s nothing to make the diagnosis of MI. So that’s why that is a sudden cardiac death per the FDA definition,” Dr. Sabatine said.

When the FOURIER investigators reviewed the full dossier for the second case example, they found the patient had slipped in his kitchen at home, sustained a serious head trauma, was brought into the emergency department, and died.

“That’s why we rely on the source documents. That gives the full picture,” he said. The FDA also reviewed the death narratives.

“They comment, ironically, that they were surprised at the inconsistencies between the investigator-reported causes of death and the central events committee-adjudicated ones, making it sound like something nefarious has happened. But that’s the whole point of adjudication, right? That you have a central events committee that reviews and then classifies based on all the data,” Dr. Sabatine said.

Dr. Sabatine said he sees no reason to reevaluate the ODYSSEY mortality data and that the RIAT analysis should not change the overall interpretation of FOURIER.

“I think this is in fact a disservice to the medical community because it’s not real science,” he said. “It’s just sensationalism and sends the wrong message. But I completely stand by the results that we published, as the FDA has.”

Dr. Kaul also thought the new analysis doesn’t materially change the overall benefit–risk balance. He observed that there isn’t a major difference between the reanalysis and the original evaluation. Total mortality was similar and, for cardiovascular deaths, the original NEJM paper lists 251 for evolocumab versus 240 for placebo and the reanalysis lists 150 versus 125, respectively.

Undetermined deaths were 144 for evolocumab and 164 for placebo in the reanalysis. “The conservative approach is to count them as presumed cardiovascular deaths,” Dr. Kaul said. “So, if you do the math and add those undetermined as cardiovascular deaths, we get a total of 294 (150 + 144) versus 289 (125 + 164). That’s five excess deaths with evolocumab.”
 

Open access

Although the RIAT group has called for the public release of the FOURIER data, commercial and legal issues will complicate that process, Steven Grover, MD, professor of medicine and director of the comprehensive health improvement program at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview. Amgen is back in court over patent protection, filing an appeal with the Supreme Court after losing in the lower courts in a protracted battle, Reuters reported.

“One thing that’s for sure after they’ve raised questions about the results of this study [is that] somebody needs to take a good hard look at the adjudicated results,” said Dr. Grover, who coauthored several iterations of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society dyslipidemia guidelines, including the latest in 2021.

“I think the thing that got so many of us back in 2017 when the study was first published is the mortality data stuck out like a sore thumb,” he said in an interview. “It didn’t have to be statistically significant, but it did need to move in the same direction as the nonfatal coronary events. That’s what we’ve seen happen time and again and, in this case, it was going in the opposite direction.”

Dr. Sabatine said he doesn’t know whether the data will be released but that the FOURIER trialists plan to submit a rebuttal to BMJ Open to the RIAT analysis, which has caused a stir on CardioTwitter. “Now that people live with tweets of information, it necessitates then dispelling the misinformation that comes out. So yes, we will draft a rebuttal pointing out all the flaws in this analysis.”

Dr. Kaul commented that the FDA’s response not to provide the data was “rather curious” and that Dr. Sabatine and colleagues had the opportunity to address the RIAT group’s concerns, but the paper notes they did not even bother to respond. “You can’t be holier than thou in medicine. You have to treat every question with respect and humility and can’t be dismissive. ... He could have nipped the evil in the bud, so to speak.”

The study was funded by a grant from the University of Maryland, Baltimore. The authors, Dr. Kaul, and Dr. Grover reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Readjudication of mortality data from the FOURIER trial suggests a higher risk for cardiovascular death with evolocumab (Repatha) among patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease than originally reported for the first-in-class PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor.

The Restoring Invisible and Abandoned Trials (RIAT) investigators launched this review in 2018, citing “significant inconsistencies and misreporting” between information in death narratives in the trial’s clinical study report (CSR) and the 2017 New England Journal of Medicine publication of the primary trial results.

“After readjudication, deaths of cardiac origin were numerically higher in the evolocumab group than in the placebo group in the FOURIER trial, suggesting possible cardiac harm,” the researchers conclude in the new report published online in BMJ Open. “At the time the trial was terminated early, a non-significantly higher risk of cardiovascular mortality was observed with evolocumab, which was numerically greater in our adjudication.

“Our findings indicate that complete restoration of all clinical outcomes from the FOURIER trial is required,” they wrote. “Meanwhile, clinicians should be skeptical about benefits vs harms of prescribing evolocumab for patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.”

Asked to comment on the reanalysis, FOURIER lead investigator Marc Sabatine, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and the Lewis Dexter distinguished chair in cardiovascular medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said: “It’s hard to call this science. I think it lacks all scientific rigor and is fundamentally flawed and, because their process was flawed, it has led them to erroneous conclusions.”

Reached for comment, Sanjay Kaul, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, who was not involved with either study, said: “If I were to describe this in one sentence, I would say much ado about nothing. A tempest in a teapot.”
 

Evaluating hard outcomes

The Food and Drug Administration approved evolocumab in 2015 for lowering LDL cholesterol levels, but without results from any trial evaluating hard outcomes.

As previously reported in 2017, FOURIER showed that adding evolocumab to high-intensity statins slashed LDL cholesterol by 59% and was associated with a 15% reduction in the primary composite cardiovascular events endpoint, compared with placebo, but numerically more all-cause and CV mortality.

The NEJM data analysis reported the risk for cardiovascular mortality was 5% (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-1.25), whereas the new review found a still nonsignificant 20% relative risk (R95% CI, 0.95-1.51).

Cardiac deaths were also numerically higher in the evolocumab group (113 vs. 88), corresponding to a 28% higher relative risk (95% CI, 0.97-1.69). Vascular deaths were similar at 37 in both groups (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.63-1.58).

For 360 of the 870 deaths, the cause of death adjudicated by the FOURIER clinical events committee differs from that identified by the local clinical investigators in the CSR death narrative, the authors said.

The RIAT investigators found 11 more deaths from myocardial infarction in the evolocumab group (36 vs. 25 in NEJM) and 3 fewer deaths in the placebo group (27 vs. 30). In addition, their review indicated that deaths as a result of cardiac failure in the evolocumab group were almost double those in the placebo group, at 31 versus 16, respectively.
 

An ‘obvious disconnect’

Thomas L. Perry, MD, a coauthor of the BMJ Open paper and a general internist in the department of anesthesiology, pharmacology, and therapeutics at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said in an interview that the team repeatedly sought information from the FOURIER investigators but never received a response.

They petitioned and received the FOURIER CSR from the European Medicines Agency and Health Canada and made a similar request with the FDA but were told in October 2019 it would take up to 7 years to release the information. Case report forms were also requested but not received from all three agencies.

Dr. Perry noted that no autopsies were performed in the trial, a claim Dr. Sabatine rejected, and that their review of the death narratives in the CSR found 91 deaths classified by the local investigator as “undetermined” but subsequently adjudicated by the FOURIER clinical events committee as “sudden cardiac” deaths without any documented evidence to support the change.

At his request, Dr. Perry said they included two case examples (figures 1 and 2) in the BMJ Open paper of the “obvious disconnect” in death endpoints. Both of these were identified by the local investigator as a myocardial infarction but later “misreported” according to Dr. Perry, as a sudden cardiac death and noncardiovascular death (trauma), respectively.

“What’s so important about this is not only that it throws into doubt the reliability of what the people at Harvard and elsewhere reported in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2017, but also raises a question about any other large study like this where you rely on supposedly ethical local investigators to run the trial well and to report accurately what happens to people,” Dr. Perry said in an interview.

Although he never prescribed evolocumab after the initial results were published, Dr. Perry said he’s even less convinced of a benefit now. “Basically, I don’t believe that they are telling us the facts. I have no reason to say there’s an element of deliberately misleading us. I think it’s sloppiness, incompetence, laziness.”

Dr. Perry also favors readjudication of the mortality data in the ODYSSEY trial, which showed an all-cause mortality benefit with the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab (Praluent).
 

The ‘full picture’

Dr. Sabatine explained that when a patient had a cardiovascular event, including a death, it triggered the collection of a full dossier containing all available source documents, such as discharge summaries, laboratory and imaging data, and autopsy reports, that were independently reviewed by two board certified physicians blinded to treatment. To suggest, as the RIAT investigators have, that no autopsies were performed is “obviously ridiculous and wrong.”

In contrast, he said the new analysis was post hoc, involved unblinded individuals, and relied on serious adverse event narratives, which include a small text box that must be filled out with the site’s initial impression of the case and sent within 24 hours of the event.

Further, when the FOURIER investigators pulled the dossiers for the two more egregious examples cited in the paper, they found that the first patient died in his sleep at home. “The investigator then just said, ‘oh, I assume it’s an MI,’ but there’s no biochemical data, there’s no ECGs, there’s nothing to make the diagnosis of MI. So that’s why that is a sudden cardiac death per the FDA definition,” Dr. Sabatine said.

When the FOURIER investigators reviewed the full dossier for the second case example, they found the patient had slipped in his kitchen at home, sustained a serious head trauma, was brought into the emergency department, and died.

“That’s why we rely on the source documents. That gives the full picture,” he said. The FDA also reviewed the death narratives.

“They comment, ironically, that they were surprised at the inconsistencies between the investigator-reported causes of death and the central events committee-adjudicated ones, making it sound like something nefarious has happened. But that’s the whole point of adjudication, right? That you have a central events committee that reviews and then classifies based on all the data,” Dr. Sabatine said.

Dr. Sabatine said he sees no reason to reevaluate the ODYSSEY mortality data and that the RIAT analysis should not change the overall interpretation of FOURIER.

“I think this is in fact a disservice to the medical community because it’s not real science,” he said. “It’s just sensationalism and sends the wrong message. But I completely stand by the results that we published, as the FDA has.”

Dr. Kaul also thought the new analysis doesn’t materially change the overall benefit–risk balance. He observed that there isn’t a major difference between the reanalysis and the original evaluation. Total mortality was similar and, for cardiovascular deaths, the original NEJM paper lists 251 for evolocumab versus 240 for placebo and the reanalysis lists 150 versus 125, respectively.

Undetermined deaths were 144 for evolocumab and 164 for placebo in the reanalysis. “The conservative approach is to count them as presumed cardiovascular deaths,” Dr. Kaul said. “So, if you do the math and add those undetermined as cardiovascular deaths, we get a total of 294 (150 + 144) versus 289 (125 + 164). That’s five excess deaths with evolocumab.”
 

Open access

Although the RIAT group has called for the public release of the FOURIER data, commercial and legal issues will complicate that process, Steven Grover, MD, professor of medicine and director of the comprehensive health improvement program at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview. Amgen is back in court over patent protection, filing an appeal with the Supreme Court after losing in the lower courts in a protracted battle, Reuters reported.

“One thing that’s for sure after they’ve raised questions about the results of this study [is that] somebody needs to take a good hard look at the adjudicated results,” said Dr. Grover, who coauthored several iterations of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society dyslipidemia guidelines, including the latest in 2021.

“I think the thing that got so many of us back in 2017 when the study was first published is the mortality data stuck out like a sore thumb,” he said in an interview. “It didn’t have to be statistically significant, but it did need to move in the same direction as the nonfatal coronary events. That’s what we’ve seen happen time and again and, in this case, it was going in the opposite direction.”

Dr. Sabatine said he doesn’t know whether the data will be released but that the FOURIER trialists plan to submit a rebuttal to BMJ Open to the RIAT analysis, which has caused a stir on CardioTwitter. “Now that people live with tweets of information, it necessitates then dispelling the misinformation that comes out. So yes, we will draft a rebuttal pointing out all the flaws in this analysis.”

Dr. Kaul commented that the FDA’s response not to provide the data was “rather curious” and that Dr. Sabatine and colleagues had the opportunity to address the RIAT group’s concerns, but the paper notes they did not even bother to respond. “You can’t be holier than thou in medicine. You have to treat every question with respect and humility and can’t be dismissive. ... He could have nipped the evil in the bud, so to speak.”

The study was funded by a grant from the University of Maryland, Baltimore. The authors, Dr. Kaul, and Dr. Grover reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Readjudication of mortality data from the FOURIER trial suggests a higher risk for cardiovascular death with evolocumab (Repatha) among patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease than originally reported for the first-in-class PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor.

The Restoring Invisible and Abandoned Trials (RIAT) investigators launched this review in 2018, citing “significant inconsistencies and misreporting” between information in death narratives in the trial’s clinical study report (CSR) and the 2017 New England Journal of Medicine publication of the primary trial results.

“After readjudication, deaths of cardiac origin were numerically higher in the evolocumab group than in the placebo group in the FOURIER trial, suggesting possible cardiac harm,” the researchers conclude in the new report published online in BMJ Open. “At the time the trial was terminated early, a non-significantly higher risk of cardiovascular mortality was observed with evolocumab, which was numerically greater in our adjudication.

“Our findings indicate that complete restoration of all clinical outcomes from the FOURIER trial is required,” they wrote. “Meanwhile, clinicians should be skeptical about benefits vs harms of prescribing evolocumab for patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.”

Asked to comment on the reanalysis, FOURIER lead investigator Marc Sabatine, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and the Lewis Dexter distinguished chair in cardiovascular medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said: “It’s hard to call this science. I think it lacks all scientific rigor and is fundamentally flawed and, because their process was flawed, it has led them to erroneous conclusions.”

Reached for comment, Sanjay Kaul, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, who was not involved with either study, said: “If I were to describe this in one sentence, I would say much ado about nothing. A tempest in a teapot.”
 

Evaluating hard outcomes

The Food and Drug Administration approved evolocumab in 2015 for lowering LDL cholesterol levels, but without results from any trial evaluating hard outcomes.

As previously reported in 2017, FOURIER showed that adding evolocumab to high-intensity statins slashed LDL cholesterol by 59% and was associated with a 15% reduction in the primary composite cardiovascular events endpoint, compared with placebo, but numerically more all-cause and CV mortality.

The NEJM data analysis reported the risk for cardiovascular mortality was 5% (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-1.25), whereas the new review found a still nonsignificant 20% relative risk (R95% CI, 0.95-1.51).

Cardiac deaths were also numerically higher in the evolocumab group (113 vs. 88), corresponding to a 28% higher relative risk (95% CI, 0.97-1.69). Vascular deaths were similar at 37 in both groups (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.63-1.58).

For 360 of the 870 deaths, the cause of death adjudicated by the FOURIER clinical events committee differs from that identified by the local clinical investigators in the CSR death narrative, the authors said.

The RIAT investigators found 11 more deaths from myocardial infarction in the evolocumab group (36 vs. 25 in NEJM) and 3 fewer deaths in the placebo group (27 vs. 30). In addition, their review indicated that deaths as a result of cardiac failure in the evolocumab group were almost double those in the placebo group, at 31 versus 16, respectively.
 

An ‘obvious disconnect’

Thomas L. Perry, MD, a coauthor of the BMJ Open paper and a general internist in the department of anesthesiology, pharmacology, and therapeutics at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said in an interview that the team repeatedly sought information from the FOURIER investigators but never received a response.

They petitioned and received the FOURIER CSR from the European Medicines Agency and Health Canada and made a similar request with the FDA but were told in October 2019 it would take up to 7 years to release the information. Case report forms were also requested but not received from all three agencies.

Dr. Perry noted that no autopsies were performed in the trial, a claim Dr. Sabatine rejected, and that their review of the death narratives in the CSR found 91 deaths classified by the local investigator as “undetermined” but subsequently adjudicated by the FOURIER clinical events committee as “sudden cardiac” deaths without any documented evidence to support the change.

At his request, Dr. Perry said they included two case examples (figures 1 and 2) in the BMJ Open paper of the “obvious disconnect” in death endpoints. Both of these were identified by the local investigator as a myocardial infarction but later “misreported” according to Dr. Perry, as a sudden cardiac death and noncardiovascular death (trauma), respectively.

“What’s so important about this is not only that it throws into doubt the reliability of what the people at Harvard and elsewhere reported in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2017, but also raises a question about any other large study like this where you rely on supposedly ethical local investigators to run the trial well and to report accurately what happens to people,” Dr. Perry said in an interview.

Although he never prescribed evolocumab after the initial results were published, Dr. Perry said he’s even less convinced of a benefit now. “Basically, I don’t believe that they are telling us the facts. I have no reason to say there’s an element of deliberately misleading us. I think it’s sloppiness, incompetence, laziness.”

Dr. Perry also favors readjudication of the mortality data in the ODYSSEY trial, which showed an all-cause mortality benefit with the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab (Praluent).
 

The ‘full picture’

Dr. Sabatine explained that when a patient had a cardiovascular event, including a death, it triggered the collection of a full dossier containing all available source documents, such as discharge summaries, laboratory and imaging data, and autopsy reports, that were independently reviewed by two board certified physicians blinded to treatment. To suggest, as the RIAT investigators have, that no autopsies were performed is “obviously ridiculous and wrong.”

In contrast, he said the new analysis was post hoc, involved unblinded individuals, and relied on serious adverse event narratives, which include a small text box that must be filled out with the site’s initial impression of the case and sent within 24 hours of the event.

Further, when the FOURIER investigators pulled the dossiers for the two more egregious examples cited in the paper, they found that the first patient died in his sleep at home. “The investigator then just said, ‘oh, I assume it’s an MI,’ but there’s no biochemical data, there’s no ECGs, there’s nothing to make the diagnosis of MI. So that’s why that is a sudden cardiac death per the FDA definition,” Dr. Sabatine said.

When the FOURIER investigators reviewed the full dossier for the second case example, they found the patient had slipped in his kitchen at home, sustained a serious head trauma, was brought into the emergency department, and died.

“That’s why we rely on the source documents. That gives the full picture,” he said. The FDA also reviewed the death narratives.

“They comment, ironically, that they were surprised at the inconsistencies between the investigator-reported causes of death and the central events committee-adjudicated ones, making it sound like something nefarious has happened. But that’s the whole point of adjudication, right? That you have a central events committee that reviews and then classifies based on all the data,” Dr. Sabatine said.

Dr. Sabatine said he sees no reason to reevaluate the ODYSSEY mortality data and that the RIAT analysis should not change the overall interpretation of FOURIER.

“I think this is in fact a disservice to the medical community because it’s not real science,” he said. “It’s just sensationalism and sends the wrong message. But I completely stand by the results that we published, as the FDA has.”

Dr. Kaul also thought the new analysis doesn’t materially change the overall benefit–risk balance. He observed that there isn’t a major difference between the reanalysis and the original evaluation. Total mortality was similar and, for cardiovascular deaths, the original NEJM paper lists 251 for evolocumab versus 240 for placebo and the reanalysis lists 150 versus 125, respectively.

Undetermined deaths were 144 for evolocumab and 164 for placebo in the reanalysis. “The conservative approach is to count them as presumed cardiovascular deaths,” Dr. Kaul said. “So, if you do the math and add those undetermined as cardiovascular deaths, we get a total of 294 (150 + 144) versus 289 (125 + 164). That’s five excess deaths with evolocumab.”
 

Open access

Although the RIAT group has called for the public release of the FOURIER data, commercial and legal issues will complicate that process, Steven Grover, MD, professor of medicine and director of the comprehensive health improvement program at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview. Amgen is back in court over patent protection, filing an appeal with the Supreme Court after losing in the lower courts in a protracted battle, Reuters reported.

“One thing that’s for sure after they’ve raised questions about the results of this study [is that] somebody needs to take a good hard look at the adjudicated results,” said Dr. Grover, who coauthored several iterations of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society dyslipidemia guidelines, including the latest in 2021.

“I think the thing that got so many of us back in 2017 when the study was first published is the mortality data stuck out like a sore thumb,” he said in an interview. “It didn’t have to be statistically significant, but it did need to move in the same direction as the nonfatal coronary events. That’s what we’ve seen happen time and again and, in this case, it was going in the opposite direction.”

Dr. Sabatine said he doesn’t know whether the data will be released but that the FOURIER trialists plan to submit a rebuttal to BMJ Open to the RIAT analysis, which has caused a stir on CardioTwitter. “Now that people live with tweets of information, it necessitates then dispelling the misinformation that comes out. So yes, we will draft a rebuttal pointing out all the flaws in this analysis.”

Dr. Kaul commented that the FDA’s response not to provide the data was “rather curious” and that Dr. Sabatine and colleagues had the opportunity to address the RIAT group’s concerns, but the paper notes they did not even bother to respond. “You can’t be holier than thou in medicine. You have to treat every question with respect and humility and can’t be dismissive. ... He could have nipped the evil in the bud, so to speak.”

The study was funded by a grant from the University of Maryland, Baltimore. The authors, Dr. Kaul, and Dr. Grover reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Participation in the first 2 years of Maryland’s Advanced Primary Care Program (MDPCP) was associated with better COVID-19 outcomes compared with a matched group not involved with the program, new data indicate.

The better outcomes were seen in higher vaccination rates and fewer infections, hospitalizations, and deaths from the disease, according to study authors, led by Emily Gruber, MBA, MPH, with the Maryland Primary Care Program, Maryland Department of Health in Baltimore.

The results were published online in JAMA Network Open.

The study population was divided into MDPCP participants (n = 208,146) and a matched cohort (n = 37,203) of beneficiaries not attributed to MDPCP practices but who met eligibility criteria for study participation from Jan. 1, 2020, through Dec. 31, 2021.
 

More vaccinations, more antibody treatments

Researchers broke down the comparisons of better outcomes: 84.47% of MDPCP beneficiaries were fully vaccinated vs. 77.93% of nonparticipating beneficiaries (P less than .001). COVID-19–positive program beneficiaries also received monoclonal antibody treatment more often (8.45% vs. 6.11%; P less than .001).

Plus, program participants received more care via telehealth (62.95% vs. 54.53%; P less than .001) compared with those not participating.

Regarding secondary outcomes, MDPCP beneficiaries had lower rates of COVID cases (6.55% vs. 7.09%; P less than .001), lower rates of COVID-19 hospitalizations (1.81% vs. 2.06%; P = .001), and lower rates of death due to COVID-19 (0.56% vs. 0.77%; P less than .001).
 

Program components

Enrollment in the MDPCP is voluntary, and primary care practices can apply each year to be part of the program.

The model integrates primary care and public health in the pandemic response. It was created by the Maryland Department of Health (MDH) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

It expands the role of primary care to include services such as expanded care management, integrated behavioral health, data-driven care, and screenings and referrals to address social needs.

Coauthor Howard Haft, MD, MMM, with the Maryland Department of Public Health, said in an interview that among the most important factors in the program’s success were giving providers vaccines to distribute and then giving providers data on how many patients are vaccinated, and who’s not vaccinated but at high risk, and how those rates compare to other practices.

As to whether this could be a widespread model, Dr. Haft said, “It’s highly replicable.”

“Every state in the nation overall has all of these resources. It’s a matter of having the operational and political will to put those resources together. Almost every state has the technological ability to use their health information exchange to help tie pieces together.”
 

Vaccines and testing made available to providers

Making ample vaccines and testing available to providers in their offices helped patients get those services in a place they trust, Dr. Haft said.

The model also included a payment system for providers that included a significant amount of non–visit-based payments when many locations were closed in the height of the pandemic.

“That helped financially,” as did providing free telehealth platforms to practices with training on how to use them, Dr. Haft said.
 

‘Innovative and important’

Renu Tipirneni, MD, an assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan and at the Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation in Ann Arbor, said Maryland is out front putting into practice what practices nationwide aspire to do – coordinating physical and mental health and social needs and integrating primary and public health. Dr. Tipirneni, who was not involved with the study, said she was impressed the researchers were able to show statistically significant improvement with COVID-19 outcomes in the first 2 years.

“In terms of health outcomes, we often have to wait longer to see good outcomes,” she said. “It’s a really innovative and important model.”

She said states can learn from each other and this model is an example.

Integrating primary care and public health and addressing social needs may be the biggest challenges for states, she said, as those realms typically have been siloed.

“But they may be the key components to achieving these outcomes,” she said.
 

Take-home message

The most important benefit of the program is that data suggest it saves lives, according to Dr. Haft. While the actual difference between COVID deaths in the program and nonprogram groups was small, multiplying that savings across the nation shows substantial potential benefit, he explained.

“At a time when we were losing lives at an unconscionable rate, we were able to make a difference in saving lives,” Dr. Haft said.

Authors report no relevant financial disclosures.

The study received financial support from the Maryland Department of Health.

Dr. Tiperneni is helping evaluate Michigan’s Medicaid contract.
 

Participation in the first 2 years of Maryland’s Advanced Primary Care Program (MDPCP) was associated with better COVID-19 outcomes compared with a matched group not involved with the program, new data indicate.

The better outcomes were seen in higher vaccination rates and fewer infections, hospitalizations, and deaths from the disease, according to study authors, led by Emily Gruber, MBA, MPH, with the Maryland Primary Care Program, Maryland Department of Health in Baltimore.

The results were published online in JAMA Network Open.

The study population was divided into MDPCP participants (n = 208,146) and a matched cohort (n = 37,203) of beneficiaries not attributed to MDPCP practices but who met eligibility criteria for study participation from Jan. 1, 2020, through Dec. 31, 2021.
 

More vaccinations, more antibody treatments

Researchers broke down the comparisons of better outcomes: 84.47% of MDPCP beneficiaries were fully vaccinated vs. 77.93% of nonparticipating beneficiaries (P less than .001). COVID-19–positive program beneficiaries also received monoclonal antibody treatment more often (8.45% vs. 6.11%; P less than .001).

Plus, program participants received more care via telehealth (62.95% vs. 54.53%; P less than .001) compared with those not participating.

Regarding secondary outcomes, MDPCP beneficiaries had lower rates of COVID cases (6.55% vs. 7.09%; P less than .001), lower rates of COVID-19 hospitalizations (1.81% vs. 2.06%; P = .001), and lower rates of death due to COVID-19 (0.56% vs. 0.77%; P less than .001).
 

Program components

Enrollment in the MDPCP is voluntary, and primary care practices can apply each year to be part of the program.

The model integrates primary care and public health in the pandemic response. It was created by the Maryland Department of Health (MDH) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

It expands the role of primary care to include services such as expanded care management, integrated behavioral health, data-driven care, and screenings and referrals to address social needs.

Coauthor Howard Haft, MD, MMM, with the Maryland Department of Public Health, said in an interview that among the most important factors in the program’s success were giving providers vaccines to distribute and then giving providers data on how many patients are vaccinated, and who’s not vaccinated but at high risk, and how those rates compare to other practices.

As to whether this could be a widespread model, Dr. Haft said, “It’s highly replicable.”

“Every state in the nation overall has all of these resources. It’s a matter of having the operational and political will to put those resources together. Almost every state has the technological ability to use their health information exchange to help tie pieces together.”
 

Vaccines and testing made available to providers

Making ample vaccines and testing available to providers in their offices helped patients get those services in a place they trust, Dr. Haft said.

The model also included a payment system for providers that included a significant amount of non–visit-based payments when many locations were closed in the height of the pandemic.

“That helped financially,” as did providing free telehealth platforms to practices with training on how to use them, Dr. Haft said.
 

‘Innovative and important’

Renu Tipirneni, MD, an assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan and at the Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation in Ann Arbor, said Maryland is out front putting into practice what practices nationwide aspire to do – coordinating physical and mental health and social needs and integrating primary and public health. Dr. Tipirneni, who was not involved with the study, said she was impressed the researchers were able to show statistically significant improvement with COVID-19 outcomes in the first 2 years.

“In terms of health outcomes, we often have to wait longer to see good outcomes,” she said. “It’s a really innovative and important model.”

She said states can learn from each other and this model is an example.

Integrating primary care and public health and addressing social needs may be the biggest challenges for states, she said, as those realms typically have been siloed.

“But they may be the key components to achieving these outcomes,” she said.
 

Take-home message

The most important benefit of the program is that data suggest it saves lives, according to Dr. Haft. While the actual difference between COVID deaths in the program and nonprogram groups was small, multiplying that savings across the nation shows substantial potential benefit, he explained.

“At a time when we were losing lives at an unconscionable rate, we were able to make a difference in saving lives,” Dr. Haft said.

Authors report no relevant financial disclosures.

The study received financial support from the Maryland Department of Health.

Dr. Tiperneni is helping evaluate Michigan’s Medicaid contract.
 

Participation in the first 2 years of Maryland’s Advanced Primary Care Program (MDPCP) was associated with better COVID-19 outcomes compared with a matched group not involved with the program, new data indicate.

The better outcomes were seen in higher vaccination rates and fewer infections, hospitalizations, and deaths from the disease, according to study authors, led by Emily Gruber, MBA, MPH, with the Maryland Primary Care Program, Maryland Department of Health in Baltimore.

The results were published online in JAMA Network Open.

The study population was divided into MDPCP participants (n = 208,146) and a matched cohort (n = 37,203) of beneficiaries not attributed to MDPCP practices but who met eligibility criteria for study participation from Jan. 1, 2020, through Dec. 31, 2021.
 

More vaccinations, more antibody treatments

Researchers broke down the comparisons of better outcomes: 84.47% of MDPCP beneficiaries were fully vaccinated vs. 77.93% of nonparticipating beneficiaries (P less than .001). COVID-19–positive program beneficiaries also received monoclonal antibody treatment more often (8.45% vs. 6.11%; P less than .001).

Plus, program participants received more care via telehealth (62.95% vs. 54.53%; P less than .001) compared with those not participating.

Regarding secondary outcomes, MDPCP beneficiaries had lower rates of COVID cases (6.55% vs. 7.09%; P less than .001), lower rates of COVID-19 hospitalizations (1.81% vs. 2.06%; P = .001), and lower rates of death due to COVID-19 (0.56% vs. 0.77%; P less than .001).
 

Program components

Enrollment in the MDPCP is voluntary, and primary care practices can apply each year to be part of the program.

The model integrates primary care and public health in the pandemic response. It was created by the Maryland Department of Health (MDH) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

It expands the role of primary care to include services such as expanded care management, integrated behavioral health, data-driven care, and screenings and referrals to address social needs.

Coauthor Howard Haft, MD, MMM, with the Maryland Department of Public Health, said in an interview that among the most important factors in the program’s success were giving providers vaccines to distribute and then giving providers data on how many patients are vaccinated, and who’s not vaccinated but at high risk, and how those rates compare to other practices.

As to whether this could be a widespread model, Dr. Haft said, “It’s highly replicable.”

“Every state in the nation overall has all of these resources. It’s a matter of having the operational and political will to put those resources together. Almost every state has the technological ability to use their health information exchange to help tie pieces together.”
 

Vaccines and testing made available to providers

Making ample vaccines and testing available to providers in their offices helped patients get those services in a place they trust, Dr. Haft said.

The model also included a payment system for providers that included a significant amount of non–visit-based payments when many locations were closed in the height of the pandemic.

“That helped financially,” as did providing free telehealth platforms to practices with training on how to use them, Dr. Haft said.
 

‘Innovative and important’

Renu Tipirneni, MD, an assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan and at the Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation in Ann Arbor, said Maryland is out front putting into practice what practices nationwide aspire to do – coordinating physical and mental health and social needs and integrating primary and public health. Dr. Tipirneni, who was not involved with the study, said she was impressed the researchers were able to show statistically significant improvement with COVID-19 outcomes in the first 2 years.

“In terms of health outcomes, we often have to wait longer to see good outcomes,” she said. “It’s a really innovative and important model.”

She said states can learn from each other and this model is an example.

Integrating primary care and public health and addressing social needs may be the biggest challenges for states, she said, as those realms typically have been siloed.

“But they may be the key components to achieving these outcomes,” she said.
 

Take-home message

The most important benefit of the program is that data suggest it saves lives, according to Dr. Haft. While the actual difference between COVID deaths in the program and nonprogram groups was small, multiplying that savings across the nation shows substantial potential benefit, he explained.

“At a time when we were losing lives at an unconscionable rate, we were able to make a difference in saving lives,” Dr. Haft said.

Authors report no relevant financial disclosures.

The study received financial support from the Maryland Department of Health.

Dr. Tiperneni is helping evaluate Michigan’s Medicaid contract.
 

The oral antibiotic linezolid does not increase risk for serotonin syndrome in patients taking antidepressants, new research suggests – contradicting a U.S. Food and Drug Administration 2020 warning.

Results from a study that included more than 1,100 patients who were prescribed linezolid, about 20% of whom were also taking antidepressants, showed that serotonin syndrome occurred in fewer than 0.5% of participants – and that the percentage was actually lower among those who took antidepressants, compared with those who did not.

A comparison of participants who took antidepressants to propensity-matched patients who did not take antidepressants showed similar rates of altered mental status, hospitalization, and death between the two groups.

“In this cohort study of older patients who were prescribed linezolid, serotonin syndrome occurred rarely [and] concurrent antidepressants did not significantly increase the risk of serotonin syndrome,” Anthony Bai, MD, division of infectious diseases, department of medicine, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., and colleagues write.

“These findings suggested that linezolid is likely safe for patients receiving antidepressants. Nevertheless, prescribers should remain vigilant for this potential drug interaction,” they warn.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Scarce data

Linezolid, a synthetic oxazolidinone antibiotic active against resistant gram-positive bacteria, has bioavailability of 100%, “making it ideal as first-line or step-down oral antibiotic therapy for bacteremia and pneumonia as well as skin and soft tissue infections,” the researchers write.

However, they note its use has been “limited because of concerns of drug interactions,” since it can reversibly inhibit monoamine oxidase (MAO).

Thus, “coadministration with antidepressants, such as nonselective MAO inhibitors, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), and bupropion, may precipitate serotonin syndrome,” they write.

The investigators note that many patients who were taking antidepressants and who also needed linezolid for an infection “could not receive it because of this relative contraindication.” They add that data on the risk of serotonin syndrome associated with linezolid are “scarce” and are based largely on case reports or case series from passive surveillance.

Although a previous review of linezolid trials found “no conclusive evidence” that it increased risk for serotonin syndrome in patients taking serotonergic medication, data on patients outside of trials “are lacking.” In addition, an observational study suggested that an increased risk had a small sample size that “likely led to imprecise estimates with a wide CI and inconclusive results,” the researchers write.

Therefore, they sought to fill the knowledge gap by retrospectively analyzing data drawn from the ICES database, an independent nonprofit research institute funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health. This was done in order to “estimate the incidence of serotonin syndrome and how this risk changes because of concomitant antidepressant use in patients receiving linezolid treatment,” they write.

The study included a convenience sample of Ontario-based adults (n = 1,134, 52.5% men) who were dispensed oral linezolid 600 mg twice daily between Oct. 1, 2014, and Jan. 1, 2021. All patients were followed for 30 days.

Of these participants, 19% were also taking antidepressants. Close to half (47.9%) were taking an SSRI, 16.7% were taking an SNRI, 7% were taking a tricyclic antidepressant, and 3.3% were taking a norepinephrine and dopamine reuptake inhibitor.

Patients were divided into groups on the basis of age: 66-69 years (19.8%), 70-79 years (41.7%), and 80 years or older (38.4%).
 

Reassuring findings

Serotonin syndrome occurred in fewer than six patients (< .5%), although the exact numbers were not reported, owing to patient privacy concerns. However, on the basis of fewer than six events, the investigators calculated the risk difference for serotonin syndrome as ranging from −0.5% to 2.3%.

Fewer patients who were taking antidepressants experienced serotonin syndrome, compared with those who were not taking antidepressants.

The investigators estimated a propensity score for antidepressant use that incorporated several patient baseline characteristics, including age, sex, rural home address, Charlson Comorbidity Index, estimated glomerular filtration rate, history of substance use disorder, and days of use of linezolid and other serotonergic medications. They then matched patients who were not taking antidepressants with those who were taking antidepressants (n = 166 each).

The adjusted risk difference for serotonin syndrome was lower in the antidepressant group than in the no-antidepressant group (−1.2%; 95% confidence interval, −2.9% to 0.5%).

“Within this 95% CI, the worst-case scenario would be a 0.5% increase in the risk of serotonin syndrome due to antidepressants, which is equivalent to a number needed to harm of 200,” the researchers write.

For secondary outcomes, they found “similar rates” of altered mental status or confusion, hospitalization, and death within 30 days between the two propensity score–matched groups.

The investigators note that their findings have “limitations, due to the nature of retrospective observational studies.” Moreover, these types of studies are “not efficient because they often focus on a particular adverse event.”

Future research should move beyond observational studies to phase 4 studies, which would “prospectively monitor for all types of adverse events,” they write.

Still, “while waiting for higher-quality evidence, our study adds to the existing evidence for the safety of linezolid even in the context of concomitant antidepressants,” the researchers note.

“Based on the existing evidence, clinicians should be reassured that it appears safe to prescribe oral linezolid to patients taking antidepressants, especially if there are limited antibiotic options or alternative antibiotic options would be inferior,” they add.
 

‘Consequential relevance’

Commenting on the study, Ipsit Vahia, MD, associate chief of geriatric psychiatry and director of digital psychiatry translation at McLean Hospital, Boston, noted that although studies of drug interactions across age groups “may not accurately reflect the rates of risk for older adults,” the current study focused on linezolid use among older patients.

“One may expect higher rates of serotonin syndrome in older adults, who generally tend to be more sensitive to adverse reactions,” said Dr. Vahia, who is also director of the Technology and Aging Lab at McLean and was not involved with the current research.

“However, the study finds the risk to be low with a number needed to harm of 200,” Dr. Vahia said.

“This retrospective epidemiologic study does not shed light on why this number may be lower than expected, but it has consequential relevance in clinical practice for the management of severe infections among older adults using antidepressants,” he added.

The study was funded by a Queen’s University Research Initiation Grant. Dr. Bai and three of the four other investigators report no relevant financial relationships. Coinvestigator Mark Loeb, MD, reports having received personal fees from the Paladin Labs Advisory Committee, the International Centre for Professional Development in Health and Medicine Advisory Committee, and the Sunovion Advisory Committee outside the submitted work. Dr. Vahia serves as a consultant for Otsuka, has a research collaboration with Emerald Innovations, and receives honorarium as editor for The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.

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

The oral antibiotic linezolid does not increase risk for serotonin syndrome in patients taking antidepressants, new research suggests – contradicting a U.S. Food and Drug Administration 2020 warning.

Results from a study that included more than 1,100 patients who were prescribed linezolid, about 20% of whom were also taking antidepressants, showed that serotonin syndrome occurred in fewer than 0.5% of participants – and that the percentage was actually lower among those who took antidepressants, compared with those who did not.

A comparison of participants who took antidepressants to propensity-matched patients who did not take antidepressants showed similar rates of altered mental status, hospitalization, and death between the two groups.

“In this cohort study of older patients who were prescribed linezolid, serotonin syndrome occurred rarely [and] concurrent antidepressants did not significantly increase the risk of serotonin syndrome,” Anthony Bai, MD, division of infectious diseases, department of medicine, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., and colleagues write.

“These findings suggested that linezolid is likely safe for patients receiving antidepressants. Nevertheless, prescribers should remain vigilant for this potential drug interaction,” they warn.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Scarce data

Linezolid, a synthetic oxazolidinone antibiotic active against resistant gram-positive bacteria, has bioavailability of 100%, “making it ideal as first-line or step-down oral antibiotic therapy for bacteremia and pneumonia as well as skin and soft tissue infections,” the researchers write.

However, they note its use has been “limited because of concerns of drug interactions,” since it can reversibly inhibit monoamine oxidase (MAO).

Thus, “coadministration with antidepressants, such as nonselective MAO inhibitors, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), and bupropion, may precipitate serotonin syndrome,” they write.

The investigators note that many patients who were taking antidepressants and who also needed linezolid for an infection “could not receive it because of this relative contraindication.” They add that data on the risk of serotonin syndrome associated with linezolid are “scarce” and are based largely on case reports or case series from passive surveillance.

Although a previous review of linezolid trials found “no conclusive evidence” that it increased risk for serotonin syndrome in patients taking serotonergic medication, data on patients outside of trials “are lacking.” In addition, an observational study suggested that an increased risk had a small sample size that “likely led to imprecise estimates with a wide CI and inconclusive results,” the researchers write.

Therefore, they sought to fill the knowledge gap by retrospectively analyzing data drawn from the ICES database, an independent nonprofit research institute funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health. This was done in order to “estimate the incidence of serotonin syndrome and how this risk changes because of concomitant antidepressant use in patients receiving linezolid treatment,” they write.

The study included a convenience sample of Ontario-based adults (n = 1,134, 52.5% men) who were dispensed oral linezolid 600 mg twice daily between Oct. 1, 2014, and Jan. 1, 2021. All patients were followed for 30 days.

Of these participants, 19% were also taking antidepressants. Close to half (47.9%) were taking an SSRI, 16.7% were taking an SNRI, 7% were taking a tricyclic antidepressant, and 3.3% were taking a norepinephrine and dopamine reuptake inhibitor.

Patients were divided into groups on the basis of age: 66-69 years (19.8%), 70-79 years (41.7%), and 80 years or older (38.4%).
 

Reassuring findings

Serotonin syndrome occurred in fewer than six patients (< .5%), although the exact numbers were not reported, owing to patient privacy concerns. However, on the basis of fewer than six events, the investigators calculated the risk difference for serotonin syndrome as ranging from −0.5% to 2.3%.

Fewer patients who were taking antidepressants experienced serotonin syndrome, compared with those who were not taking antidepressants.

The investigators estimated a propensity score for antidepressant use that incorporated several patient baseline characteristics, including age, sex, rural home address, Charlson Comorbidity Index, estimated glomerular filtration rate, history of substance use disorder, and days of use of linezolid and other serotonergic medications. They then matched patients who were not taking antidepressants with those who were taking antidepressants (n = 166 each).

The adjusted risk difference for serotonin syndrome was lower in the antidepressant group than in the no-antidepressant group (−1.2%; 95% confidence interval, −2.9% to 0.5%).

“Within this 95% CI, the worst-case scenario would be a 0.5% increase in the risk of serotonin syndrome due to antidepressants, which is equivalent to a number needed to harm of 200,” the researchers write.

For secondary outcomes, they found “similar rates” of altered mental status or confusion, hospitalization, and death within 30 days between the two propensity score–matched groups.

The investigators note that their findings have “limitations, due to the nature of retrospective observational studies.” Moreover, these types of studies are “not efficient because they often focus on a particular adverse event.”

Future research should move beyond observational studies to phase 4 studies, which would “prospectively monitor for all types of adverse events,” they write.

Still, “while waiting for higher-quality evidence, our study adds to the existing evidence for the safety of linezolid even in the context of concomitant antidepressants,” the researchers note.

“Based on the existing evidence, clinicians should be reassured that it appears safe to prescribe oral linezolid to patients taking antidepressants, especially if there are limited antibiotic options or alternative antibiotic options would be inferior,” they add.
 

‘Consequential relevance’

Commenting on the study, Ipsit Vahia, MD, associate chief of geriatric psychiatry and director of digital psychiatry translation at McLean Hospital, Boston, noted that although studies of drug interactions across age groups “may not accurately reflect the rates of risk for older adults,” the current study focused on linezolid use among older patients.

“One may expect higher rates of serotonin syndrome in older adults, who generally tend to be more sensitive to adverse reactions,” said Dr. Vahia, who is also director of the Technology and Aging Lab at McLean and was not involved with the current research.

“However, the study finds the risk to be low with a number needed to harm of 200,” Dr. Vahia said.

“This retrospective epidemiologic study does not shed light on why this number may be lower than expected, but it has consequential relevance in clinical practice for the management of severe infections among older adults using antidepressants,” he added.

The study was funded by a Queen’s University Research Initiation Grant. Dr. Bai and three of the four other investigators report no relevant financial relationships. Coinvestigator Mark Loeb, MD, reports having received personal fees from the Paladin Labs Advisory Committee, the International Centre for Professional Development in Health and Medicine Advisory Committee, and the Sunovion Advisory Committee outside the submitted work. Dr. Vahia serves as a consultant for Otsuka, has a research collaboration with Emerald Innovations, and receives honorarium as editor for The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.

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

The oral antibiotic linezolid does not increase risk for serotonin syndrome in patients taking antidepressants, new research suggests – contradicting a U.S. Food and Drug Administration 2020 warning.

Results from a study that included more than 1,100 patients who were prescribed linezolid, about 20% of whom were also taking antidepressants, showed that serotonin syndrome occurred in fewer than 0.5% of participants – and that the percentage was actually lower among those who took antidepressants, compared with those who did not.

A comparison of participants who took antidepressants to propensity-matched patients who did not take antidepressants showed similar rates of altered mental status, hospitalization, and death between the two groups.

“In this cohort study of older patients who were prescribed linezolid, serotonin syndrome occurred rarely [and] concurrent antidepressants did not significantly increase the risk of serotonin syndrome,” Anthony Bai, MD, division of infectious diseases, department of medicine, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., and colleagues write.

“These findings suggested that linezolid is likely safe for patients receiving antidepressants. Nevertheless, prescribers should remain vigilant for this potential drug interaction,” they warn.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Scarce data

Linezolid, a synthetic oxazolidinone antibiotic active against resistant gram-positive bacteria, has bioavailability of 100%, “making it ideal as first-line or step-down oral antibiotic therapy for bacteremia and pneumonia as well as skin and soft tissue infections,” the researchers write.

However, they note its use has been “limited because of concerns of drug interactions,” since it can reversibly inhibit monoamine oxidase (MAO).

Thus, “coadministration with antidepressants, such as nonselective MAO inhibitors, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), and bupropion, may precipitate serotonin syndrome,” they write.

The investigators note that many patients who were taking antidepressants and who also needed linezolid for an infection “could not receive it because of this relative contraindication.” They add that data on the risk of serotonin syndrome associated with linezolid are “scarce” and are based largely on case reports or case series from passive surveillance.

Although a previous review of linezolid trials found “no conclusive evidence” that it increased risk for serotonin syndrome in patients taking serotonergic medication, data on patients outside of trials “are lacking.” In addition, an observational study suggested that an increased risk had a small sample size that “likely led to imprecise estimates with a wide CI and inconclusive results,” the researchers write.

Therefore, they sought to fill the knowledge gap by retrospectively analyzing data drawn from the ICES database, an independent nonprofit research institute funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health. This was done in order to “estimate the incidence of serotonin syndrome and how this risk changes because of concomitant antidepressant use in patients receiving linezolid treatment,” they write.

The study included a convenience sample of Ontario-based adults (n = 1,134, 52.5% men) who were dispensed oral linezolid 600 mg twice daily between Oct. 1, 2014, and Jan. 1, 2021. All patients were followed for 30 days.

Of these participants, 19% were also taking antidepressants. Close to half (47.9%) were taking an SSRI, 16.7% were taking an SNRI, 7% were taking a tricyclic antidepressant, and 3.3% were taking a norepinephrine and dopamine reuptake inhibitor.

Patients were divided into groups on the basis of age: 66-69 years (19.8%), 70-79 years (41.7%), and 80 years or older (38.4%).
 

Reassuring findings

Serotonin syndrome occurred in fewer than six patients (< .5%), although the exact numbers were not reported, owing to patient privacy concerns. However, on the basis of fewer than six events, the investigators calculated the risk difference for serotonin syndrome as ranging from −0.5% to 2.3%.

Fewer patients who were taking antidepressants experienced serotonin syndrome, compared with those who were not taking antidepressants.

The investigators estimated a propensity score for antidepressant use that incorporated several patient baseline characteristics, including age, sex, rural home address, Charlson Comorbidity Index, estimated glomerular filtration rate, history of substance use disorder, and days of use of linezolid and other serotonergic medications. They then matched patients who were not taking antidepressants with those who were taking antidepressants (n = 166 each).

The adjusted risk difference for serotonin syndrome was lower in the antidepressant group than in the no-antidepressant group (−1.2%; 95% confidence interval, −2.9% to 0.5%).

“Within this 95% CI, the worst-case scenario would be a 0.5% increase in the risk of serotonin syndrome due to antidepressants, which is equivalent to a number needed to harm of 200,” the researchers write.

For secondary outcomes, they found “similar rates” of altered mental status or confusion, hospitalization, and death within 30 days between the two propensity score–matched groups.

The investigators note that their findings have “limitations, due to the nature of retrospective observational studies.” Moreover, these types of studies are “not efficient because they often focus on a particular adverse event.”

Future research should move beyond observational studies to phase 4 studies, which would “prospectively monitor for all types of adverse events,” they write.

Still, “while waiting for higher-quality evidence, our study adds to the existing evidence for the safety of linezolid even in the context of concomitant antidepressants,” the researchers note.

“Based on the existing evidence, clinicians should be reassured that it appears safe to prescribe oral linezolid to patients taking antidepressants, especially if there are limited antibiotic options or alternative antibiotic options would be inferior,” they add.
 

‘Consequential relevance’

Commenting on the study, Ipsit Vahia, MD, associate chief of geriatric psychiatry and director of digital psychiatry translation at McLean Hospital, Boston, noted that although studies of drug interactions across age groups “may not accurately reflect the rates of risk for older adults,” the current study focused on linezolid use among older patients.

“One may expect higher rates of serotonin syndrome in older adults, who generally tend to be more sensitive to adverse reactions,” said Dr. Vahia, who is also director of the Technology and Aging Lab at McLean and was not involved with the current research.

“However, the study finds the risk to be low with a number needed to harm of 200,” Dr. Vahia said.

“This retrospective epidemiologic study does not shed light on why this number may be lower than expected, but it has consequential relevance in clinical practice for the management of severe infections among older adults using antidepressants,” he added.

The study was funded by a Queen’s University Research Initiation Grant. Dr. Bai and three of the four other investigators report no relevant financial relationships. Coinvestigator Mark Loeb, MD, reports having received personal fees from the Paladin Labs Advisory Committee, the International Centre for Professional Development in Health and Medicine Advisory Committee, and the Sunovion Advisory Committee outside the submitted work. Dr. Vahia serves as a consultant for Otsuka, has a research collaboration with Emerald Innovations, and receives honorarium as editor for The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.

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

Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is significantly linked to comorbid psychiatric conditions and a higher risk for mortality and can take more than a year to be diagnosed, new research shows.

In a population study of more than 145,000 patients, participants with TRD used outpatient resources and missed work at twice the rate as patients with treatment-responsive depression. They also had a threefold higher number of days spent in hospital.

Patients with TRD also had a 23% higher risk of dying during the time they were observed, compared with their matched counterparts with non-TRD depression, and their self-harm rates were twice as high.

In addition, it took an average of 1.5 years for patients with TRD to undergo two unsuccessful treatment attempts and reach their third treatment trial, which is several months longer than is recommended for assessing the efficacy of a treatment for depression.

“It seemed like ineffective treatments were allowed to continue for longer than should be needed and what is recommended in current guidelines,” lead investigator Johan Lundberg, MD, PhD, adjunct professor of psychiatry in the department of clinical neuroscience and head of the mood disorder section at the Northern Stockholm Psychiatry Clinic, told this news organization.

“If this is true, patients would most likely benefit from a more frequent evaluation of treatment effect and, when needed, optimization of ineffective treatments,” Dr. Lundberg said.

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

More anxiety, sleep disorders, substance use

Using data from the Region Stockholm’s administrative health care database and the Swedish social insurance agency, the investigators identified nearly 160,000 unipolar major depressive disorder (MDD) episodes in 145,577 patients who sought treatment between January 2012 and December 2017.

Of those episodes, 12,800 fulfilled criteria for TRD, which meant there were three or more treatment trials with antidepressants, add-on medication (aripiprazole, lithium, olanzapine, quetiapine, and/or risperidone), electroshock therapy, or repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Each new treatment had to be initiated within the MDD episode more than 28 days after previous treatment initiation.

Investigators matched each TRD episode with up to five non-TRD episodes and found that patients with TRD were more likely to have comorbid psychiatric conditions than were their non-TRD counterparts.

This included anxiety (60% vs. 44%, respectively), sleep disorders (28% vs. 19%), substance use (15% vs. 11%) or alcohol use (10% vs. 7%) disorders, and personality disorders (6% vs. 3%). Rates of intentional self-harm were also higher in the TRD group (5% vs. 2%).

Perhaps in part because of the comorbid problems, patients with TRD had a more than 50% higher mean number of outpatient physician visits 1 year before and after the index date, defined as the date of the initiation of the third treatment trial.

The most important predictor of TRD depression was the severity of depression at diagnosis on the self-rated Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, the researchers report.
 

Not generalizable?

Patients with TRD also had three times the number of inpatient bed days as did those with depression that responded to treatment (mean, 3.9 days vs. 1.3 days, respectively) and significantly more lost workdays (132.3 days vs. 58.7 days).

Most notably, patients with TRD episodes had a 23% higher risk of dying during the time they were observed than did their non-TRD counterparts.

“This finding in itself could be a reason to focus on how to avoid putting a patient on the TRD path. This could be done through prospective studies comparing different treatment options and their risk of leading to TRD,” Dr. Lundberg said.

Interestingly, he noted that the study results may not be generalizable to other populations, such as the United States.

“The biggest difference between Stockholm and the U.S. may not be the demographics, but the access to health care,” Dr. Lundberg said.

“In Stockholm, there is a universal access health care system, meaning that these results are what you can expect if you are able to get care. In the U.S., this is not the case, meaning that people outside the health care system may fare worse than what our study suggests,” he added.
 

Quality over quantity

In a comment, Sidney Zisook, MD, distinguished professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, said that the findings “highlight the need for our field to develop better-tolerated, more effective, and sustainable treatments for major depressive disorder and for better education of clinicians so they can employ up-to-date, evidence-based treatments and integrate sound clinical guidelines into clinical practice.”

Dr. Zisook has independently researched TRD but was not involved with the current study.

He noted that it was “striking how long patients remained on the same antidepressant, apparently despite suboptimal outcomes, without taking next steps.”

However, Dr. Zisook expressed concern that the diagnosis of TRD in the study was solely on the basis of the number of treatment trials for an episode.

“Somebody might have had three different antidepressant trials because they had had three episodes with interepisode periods of recovery followed by recurrent episodes. That would not be considered treatment-resistant depression,” he said.

Dr. Zisook also noted that patients might be given a new antidepressant for reasons other than treatment resistance. “For example, they lost an initial good response – this used to be called Prozac poop out, were nonadherent, or had troublesome side effects,” he said.

“We usually define treatment-resistant depression not only on the basis of number of trials but also the quality of the trial, taking both dose and duration into account,” Dr. Zisook added.

The study was funded by Region Stockholm. Dr. Zisook reports receiving research funding from COMPASS Pathways.

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

Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is significantly linked to comorbid psychiatric conditions and a higher risk for mortality and can take more than a year to be diagnosed, new research shows.

In a population study of more than 145,000 patients, participants with TRD used outpatient resources and missed work at twice the rate as patients with treatment-responsive depression. They also had a threefold higher number of days spent in hospital.

Patients with TRD also had a 23% higher risk of dying during the time they were observed, compared with their matched counterparts with non-TRD depression, and their self-harm rates were twice as high.

In addition, it took an average of 1.5 years for patients with TRD to undergo two unsuccessful treatment attempts and reach their third treatment trial, which is several months longer than is recommended for assessing the efficacy of a treatment for depression.

“It seemed like ineffective treatments were allowed to continue for longer than should be needed and what is recommended in current guidelines,” lead investigator Johan Lundberg, MD, PhD, adjunct professor of psychiatry in the department of clinical neuroscience and head of the mood disorder section at the Northern Stockholm Psychiatry Clinic, told this news organization.

“If this is true, patients would most likely benefit from a more frequent evaluation of treatment effect and, when needed, optimization of ineffective treatments,” Dr. Lundberg said.

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

More anxiety, sleep disorders, substance use

Using data from the Region Stockholm’s administrative health care database and the Swedish social insurance agency, the investigators identified nearly 160,000 unipolar major depressive disorder (MDD) episodes in 145,577 patients who sought treatment between January 2012 and December 2017.

Of those episodes, 12,800 fulfilled criteria for TRD, which meant there were three or more treatment trials with antidepressants, add-on medication (aripiprazole, lithium, olanzapine, quetiapine, and/or risperidone), electroshock therapy, or repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Each new treatment had to be initiated within the MDD episode more than 28 days after previous treatment initiation.

Investigators matched each TRD episode with up to five non-TRD episodes and found that patients with TRD were more likely to have comorbid psychiatric conditions than were their non-TRD counterparts.

This included anxiety (60% vs. 44%, respectively), sleep disorders (28% vs. 19%), substance use (15% vs. 11%) or alcohol use (10% vs. 7%) disorders, and personality disorders (6% vs. 3%). Rates of intentional self-harm were also higher in the TRD group (5% vs. 2%).

Perhaps in part because of the comorbid problems, patients with TRD had a more than 50% higher mean number of outpatient physician visits 1 year before and after the index date, defined as the date of the initiation of the third treatment trial.

The most important predictor of TRD depression was the severity of depression at diagnosis on the self-rated Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, the researchers report.
 

Not generalizable?

Patients with TRD also had three times the number of inpatient bed days as did those with depression that responded to treatment (mean, 3.9 days vs. 1.3 days, respectively) and significantly more lost workdays (132.3 days vs. 58.7 days).

Most notably, patients with TRD episodes had a 23% higher risk of dying during the time they were observed than did their non-TRD counterparts.

“This finding in itself could be a reason to focus on how to avoid putting a patient on the TRD path. This could be done through prospective studies comparing different treatment options and their risk of leading to TRD,” Dr. Lundberg said.

Interestingly, he noted that the study results may not be generalizable to other populations, such as the United States.

“The biggest difference between Stockholm and the U.S. may not be the demographics, but the access to health care,” Dr. Lundberg said.

“In Stockholm, there is a universal access health care system, meaning that these results are what you can expect if you are able to get care. In the U.S., this is not the case, meaning that people outside the health care system may fare worse than what our study suggests,” he added.
 

Quality over quantity

In a comment, Sidney Zisook, MD, distinguished professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, said that the findings “highlight the need for our field to develop better-tolerated, more effective, and sustainable treatments for major depressive disorder and for better education of clinicians so they can employ up-to-date, evidence-based treatments and integrate sound clinical guidelines into clinical practice.”

Dr. Zisook has independently researched TRD but was not involved with the current study.

He noted that it was “striking how long patients remained on the same antidepressant, apparently despite suboptimal outcomes, without taking next steps.”

However, Dr. Zisook expressed concern that the diagnosis of TRD in the study was solely on the basis of the number of treatment trials for an episode.

“Somebody might have had three different antidepressant trials because they had had three episodes with interepisode periods of recovery followed by recurrent episodes. That would not be considered treatment-resistant depression,” he said.

Dr. Zisook also noted that patients might be given a new antidepressant for reasons other than treatment resistance. “For example, they lost an initial good response – this used to be called Prozac poop out, were nonadherent, or had troublesome side effects,” he said.

“We usually define treatment-resistant depression not only on the basis of number of trials but also the quality of the trial, taking both dose and duration into account,” Dr. Zisook added.

The study was funded by Region Stockholm. Dr. Zisook reports receiving research funding from COMPASS Pathways.

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

Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is significantly linked to comorbid psychiatric conditions and a higher risk for mortality and can take more than a year to be diagnosed, new research shows.

In a population study of more than 145,000 patients, participants with TRD used outpatient resources and missed work at twice the rate as patients with treatment-responsive depression. They also had a threefold higher number of days spent in hospital.

Patients with TRD also had a 23% higher risk of dying during the time they were observed, compared with their matched counterparts with non-TRD depression, and their self-harm rates were twice as high.

In addition, it took an average of 1.5 years for patients with TRD to undergo two unsuccessful treatment attempts and reach their third treatment trial, which is several months longer than is recommended for assessing the efficacy of a treatment for depression.

“It seemed like ineffective treatments were allowed to continue for longer than should be needed and what is recommended in current guidelines,” lead investigator Johan Lundberg, MD, PhD, adjunct professor of psychiatry in the department of clinical neuroscience and head of the mood disorder section at the Northern Stockholm Psychiatry Clinic, told this news organization.

“If this is true, patients would most likely benefit from a more frequent evaluation of treatment effect and, when needed, optimization of ineffective treatments,” Dr. Lundberg said.

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

More anxiety, sleep disorders, substance use

Using data from the Region Stockholm’s administrative health care database and the Swedish social insurance agency, the investigators identified nearly 160,000 unipolar major depressive disorder (MDD) episodes in 145,577 patients who sought treatment between January 2012 and December 2017.

Of those episodes, 12,800 fulfilled criteria for TRD, which meant there were three or more treatment trials with antidepressants, add-on medication (aripiprazole, lithium, olanzapine, quetiapine, and/or risperidone), electroshock therapy, or repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Each new treatment had to be initiated within the MDD episode more than 28 days after previous treatment initiation.

Investigators matched each TRD episode with up to five non-TRD episodes and found that patients with TRD were more likely to have comorbid psychiatric conditions than were their non-TRD counterparts.

This included anxiety (60% vs. 44%, respectively), sleep disorders (28% vs. 19%), substance use (15% vs. 11%) or alcohol use (10% vs. 7%) disorders, and personality disorders (6% vs. 3%). Rates of intentional self-harm were also higher in the TRD group (5% vs. 2%).

Perhaps in part because of the comorbid problems, patients with TRD had a more than 50% higher mean number of outpatient physician visits 1 year before and after the index date, defined as the date of the initiation of the third treatment trial.

The most important predictor of TRD depression was the severity of depression at diagnosis on the self-rated Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, the researchers report.
 

Not generalizable?

Patients with TRD also had three times the number of inpatient bed days as did those with depression that responded to treatment (mean, 3.9 days vs. 1.3 days, respectively) and significantly more lost workdays (132.3 days vs. 58.7 days).

Most notably, patients with TRD episodes had a 23% higher risk of dying during the time they were observed than did their non-TRD counterparts.

“This finding in itself could be a reason to focus on how to avoid putting a patient on the TRD path. This could be done through prospective studies comparing different treatment options and their risk of leading to TRD,” Dr. Lundberg said.

Interestingly, he noted that the study results may not be generalizable to other populations, such as the United States.

“The biggest difference between Stockholm and the U.S. may not be the demographics, but the access to health care,” Dr. Lundberg said.

“In Stockholm, there is a universal access health care system, meaning that these results are what you can expect if you are able to get care. In the U.S., this is not the case, meaning that people outside the health care system may fare worse than what our study suggests,” he added.
 

Quality over quantity

In a comment, Sidney Zisook, MD, distinguished professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, said that the findings “highlight the need for our field to develop better-tolerated, more effective, and sustainable treatments for major depressive disorder and for better education of clinicians so they can employ up-to-date, evidence-based treatments and integrate sound clinical guidelines into clinical practice.”

Dr. Zisook has independently researched TRD but was not involved with the current study.

He noted that it was “striking how long patients remained on the same antidepressant, apparently despite suboptimal outcomes, without taking next steps.”

However, Dr. Zisook expressed concern that the diagnosis of TRD in the study was solely on the basis of the number of treatment trials for an episode.

“Somebody might have had three different antidepressant trials because they had had three episodes with interepisode periods of recovery followed by recurrent episodes. That would not be considered treatment-resistant depression,” he said.

Dr. Zisook also noted that patients might be given a new antidepressant for reasons other than treatment resistance. “For example, they lost an initial good response – this used to be called Prozac poop out, were nonadherent, or had troublesome side effects,” he said.

“We usually define treatment-resistant depression not only on the basis of number of trials but also the quality of the trial, taking both dose and duration into account,” Dr. Zisook added.

The study was funded by Region Stockholm. Dr. Zisook reports receiving research funding from COMPASS Pathways.

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

The obvious first statement is that it’s neither wise nor appropriate to speculate on the specifics of Damar Hamlin’s cardiac event during a football game on Jan. 2 (including the possibility of commotio cordis) or his ongoing care. The public nature of his collapse induces intense curiosity but people with illness deserve privacy. Privacy in health care is in short supply. I disagree strongly with those who say his doctors ought to be giving public updates. That’s up to the family.

But there are important general concepts to consider about this incident. These include ...

Cardiac arrest can happen to anyone

People with structural heart disease or other chronic illnesses have a higher risk of arrhythmia, but the notion that athletes are immune from cardiac arrest is wrong. This sentence almost seems too obvious to write, but to this day, I hear clinicians express surprise that an athletic person has heart disease.

Survival turns on rapid and effective intervention

In the old days of electrophysiology, we used to test implantable cardioverter-defibrillators during an implant procedure by inducing ventricular fibrillation (VF) and watching the device convert it. Thankfully, trials have shown that this is no longer necessary for most implants.

When you induce VF In the EP lab, you learn quickly that a) it causes loss of consciousness in a matter of seconds, b) rapid defibrillation restores consciousness, often without the patients knowing or remembering they passed out, and c) the failure of the shock to terminate VF results in deterioration in a matter of 1-2 minutes. Even 1 minute in VF feels so long.

Need is an appropriate word in VF treatment

Clinicians often use the verb need. As in, this patient needs this pill or this procedure. It’s rarely appropriate.

But in the case of treating VF, patients truly need rapid defibrillation. Survival of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is low because there just aren’t enough automated external defibrillators (AEDs) or people trained to use them. A study of patients who had out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Denmark found that 30-day survival almost doubled (28.8% vs. 16.4%), when the nearest AED was accessible.

Bystanders must act

The public messages are simple: If a person loses consciousness in front of you, and is not breathing normally, assume it is a cardiac arrest, call 911 to get professional help, and start hands-only chest compressions. Don’t spend time checking for a pulse or trying to wake the person. If this is not a cardiac arrest, they will soon tell you to stop compressing their chest. Seconds matter.

Chest compressions are important but what is really needed is defibrillation. A crucial step in CPR is to send someone to get an AED and get the pads attached. If this is a shockable rhythm, deliver the shock. Hamlin’s collapse emphasizes the importance of the AED; without it, his survival to the hospital would have been unlikely.

Widespread preparticipation screening of young athletes remains a bad idea

Whenever cardiac arrest occurs in an athlete, in such a public way, people think about prevention. Surely it is better to prevent such an event than react to it, goes the thinking. The argument against this idea has four prongs:

The incidence of cardiac disease in a young athlete is extremely low, which sets up a situation where most “positive” tests are false positive. A false positive screening ECG or echocardiogram can create harm in multiple ways. One is the risk from downstream procedures, but worse is the inappropriate disqualification from sport. Healthwise, few harms could be greater than creating long-term fear of exercise in someone.

There is also the problem of false-negative screening tests. An ECG may be normal in the setting of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. And a normal echocardiogram does not exclude arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy or other genetic causes of cardiac arrest. In a 2018 study from a major sports cardiology center in London, 6 of the 8 sudden cardiac deaths in their series were in athletes who had no detectable abnormalities on screening.

Even when disease is found, it’s not clear that prohibiting participation in sports prevents sudden death. Many previous class III recommendations against participation in sport now carry class II – may be considered – designations.

Finally, screening for any disease loses value as treatments improve. Public education regarding rapid intervention with CPR and AED use is the best treatment option. A great example is the case of Christian Erikson, a Danish soccer player who suffered cardiac arrest during a match at the European Championships in 2021 and was rapidly defibrillated on the field. Therapy was so effective that he was conscious and able to wave to fans on his way out of the stadium. He has now returned to elite competition.

Proponents of screening might oppose my take by saying that National Football League players are intensely screened. But this is different from widespread screening of high school and college athletes. It might sound harsh to say, but professional teams have dualities of interests in the health of their athletes given the million-dollar contracts.

What’s more, professional teams can afford to hire expert cardiologists to perform the testing. This would likely reduce the rate of false-positive findings, compared with screening in the community setting. I often have young people referred to me because of asymptomatic bradycardia found during athletic screening – an obviously normal finding.

Conclusions

As long as there are sports, there will be athletes who suffer cardiac arrest.

We can both hope for Hamlin’s full recovery and learn lessons to help reduce the rate of death from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. This mostly involves education on how to help fellow humans and a public health commitment to access to AEDs.

John Mandrola, MD, practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Ky. and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The obvious first statement is that it’s neither wise nor appropriate to speculate on the specifics of Damar Hamlin’s cardiac event during a football game on Jan. 2 (including the possibility of commotio cordis) or his ongoing care. The public nature of his collapse induces intense curiosity but people with illness deserve privacy. Privacy in health care is in short supply. I disagree strongly with those who say his doctors ought to be giving public updates. That’s up to the family.

But there are important general concepts to consider about this incident. These include ...

Cardiac arrest can happen to anyone

People with structural heart disease or other chronic illnesses have a higher risk of arrhythmia, but the notion that athletes are immune from cardiac arrest is wrong. This sentence almost seems too obvious to write, but to this day, I hear clinicians express surprise that an athletic person has heart disease.

Survival turns on rapid and effective intervention

In the old days of electrophysiology, we used to test implantable cardioverter-defibrillators during an implant procedure by inducing ventricular fibrillation (VF) and watching the device convert it. Thankfully, trials have shown that this is no longer necessary for most implants.

When you induce VF In the EP lab, you learn quickly that a) it causes loss of consciousness in a matter of seconds, b) rapid defibrillation restores consciousness, often without the patients knowing or remembering they passed out, and c) the failure of the shock to terminate VF results in deterioration in a matter of 1-2 minutes. Even 1 minute in VF feels so long.

Need is an appropriate word in VF treatment

Clinicians often use the verb need. As in, this patient needs this pill or this procedure. It’s rarely appropriate.

But in the case of treating VF, patients truly need rapid defibrillation. Survival of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is low because there just aren’t enough automated external defibrillators (AEDs) or people trained to use them. A study of patients who had out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Denmark found that 30-day survival almost doubled (28.8% vs. 16.4%), when the nearest AED was accessible.

Bystanders must act

The public messages are simple: If a person loses consciousness in front of you, and is not breathing normally, assume it is a cardiac arrest, call 911 to get professional help, and start hands-only chest compressions. Don’t spend time checking for a pulse or trying to wake the person. If this is not a cardiac arrest, they will soon tell you to stop compressing their chest. Seconds matter.

Chest compressions are important but what is really needed is defibrillation. A crucial step in CPR is to send someone to get an AED and get the pads attached. If this is a shockable rhythm, deliver the shock. Hamlin’s collapse emphasizes the importance of the AED; without it, his survival to the hospital would have been unlikely.

Widespread preparticipation screening of young athletes remains a bad idea

Whenever cardiac arrest occurs in an athlete, in such a public way, people think about prevention. Surely it is better to prevent such an event than react to it, goes the thinking. The argument against this idea has four prongs:

The incidence of cardiac disease in a young athlete is extremely low, which sets up a situation where most “positive” tests are false positive. A false positive screening ECG or echocardiogram can create harm in multiple ways. One is the risk from downstream procedures, but worse is the inappropriate disqualification from sport. Healthwise, few harms could be greater than creating long-term fear of exercise in someone.

There is also the problem of false-negative screening tests. An ECG may be normal in the setting of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. And a normal echocardiogram does not exclude arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy or other genetic causes of cardiac arrest. In a 2018 study from a major sports cardiology center in London, 6 of the 8 sudden cardiac deaths in their series were in athletes who had no detectable abnormalities on screening.

Even when disease is found, it’s not clear that prohibiting participation in sports prevents sudden death. Many previous class III recommendations against participation in sport now carry class II – may be considered – designations.

Finally, screening for any disease loses value as treatments improve. Public education regarding rapid intervention with CPR and AED use is the best treatment option. A great example is the case of Christian Erikson, a Danish soccer player who suffered cardiac arrest during a match at the European Championships in 2021 and was rapidly defibrillated on the field. Therapy was so effective that he was conscious and able to wave to fans on his way out of the stadium. He has now returned to elite competition.

Proponents of screening might oppose my take by saying that National Football League players are intensely screened. But this is different from widespread screening of high school and college athletes. It might sound harsh to say, but professional teams have dualities of interests in the health of their athletes given the million-dollar contracts.

What’s more, professional teams can afford to hire expert cardiologists to perform the testing. This would likely reduce the rate of false-positive findings, compared with screening in the community setting. I often have young people referred to me because of asymptomatic bradycardia found during athletic screening – an obviously normal finding.

Conclusions

As long as there are sports, there will be athletes who suffer cardiac arrest.

We can both hope for Hamlin’s full recovery and learn lessons to help reduce the rate of death from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. This mostly involves education on how to help fellow humans and a public health commitment to access to AEDs.

John Mandrola, MD, practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Ky. and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The obvious first statement is that it’s neither wise nor appropriate to speculate on the specifics of Damar Hamlin’s cardiac event during a football game on Jan. 2 (including the possibility of commotio cordis) or his ongoing care. The public nature of his collapse induces intense curiosity but people with illness deserve privacy. Privacy in health care is in short supply. I disagree strongly with those who say his doctors ought to be giving public updates. That’s up to the family.

But there are important general concepts to consider about this incident. These include ...

Cardiac arrest can happen to anyone

People with structural heart disease or other chronic illnesses have a higher risk of arrhythmia, but the notion that athletes are immune from cardiac arrest is wrong. This sentence almost seems too obvious to write, but to this day, I hear clinicians express surprise that an athletic person has heart disease.

Survival turns on rapid and effective intervention

In the old days of electrophysiology, we used to test implantable cardioverter-defibrillators during an implant procedure by inducing ventricular fibrillation (VF) and watching the device convert it. Thankfully, trials have shown that this is no longer necessary for most implants.

When you induce VF In the EP lab, you learn quickly that a) it causes loss of consciousness in a matter of seconds, b) rapid defibrillation restores consciousness, often without the patients knowing or remembering they passed out, and c) the failure of the shock to terminate VF results in deterioration in a matter of 1-2 minutes. Even 1 minute in VF feels so long.

Need is an appropriate word in VF treatment

Clinicians often use the verb need. As in, this patient needs this pill or this procedure. It’s rarely appropriate.

But in the case of treating VF, patients truly need rapid defibrillation. Survival of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is low because there just aren’t enough automated external defibrillators (AEDs) or people trained to use them. A study of patients who had out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Denmark found that 30-day survival almost doubled (28.8% vs. 16.4%), when the nearest AED was accessible.

Bystanders must act

The public messages are simple: If a person loses consciousness in front of you, and is not breathing normally, assume it is a cardiac arrest, call 911 to get professional help, and start hands-only chest compressions. Don’t spend time checking for a pulse or trying to wake the person. If this is not a cardiac arrest, they will soon tell you to stop compressing their chest. Seconds matter.

Chest compressions are important but what is really needed is defibrillation. A crucial step in CPR is to send someone to get an AED and get the pads attached. If this is a shockable rhythm, deliver the shock. Hamlin’s collapse emphasizes the importance of the AED; without it, his survival to the hospital would have been unlikely.

Widespread preparticipation screening of young athletes remains a bad idea

Whenever cardiac arrest occurs in an athlete, in such a public way, people think about prevention. Surely it is better to prevent such an event than react to it, goes the thinking. The argument against this idea has four prongs:

The incidence of cardiac disease in a young athlete is extremely low, which sets up a situation where most “positive” tests are false positive. A false positive screening ECG or echocardiogram can create harm in multiple ways. One is the risk from downstream procedures, but worse is the inappropriate disqualification from sport. Healthwise, few harms could be greater than creating long-term fear of exercise in someone.

There is also the problem of false-negative screening tests. An ECG may be normal in the setting of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. And a normal echocardiogram does not exclude arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy or other genetic causes of cardiac arrest. In a 2018 study from a major sports cardiology center in London, 6 of the 8 sudden cardiac deaths in their series were in athletes who had no detectable abnormalities on screening.

Even when disease is found, it’s not clear that prohibiting participation in sports prevents sudden death. Many previous class III recommendations against participation in sport now carry class II – may be considered – designations.

Finally, screening for any disease loses value as treatments improve. Public education regarding rapid intervention with CPR and AED use is the best treatment option. A great example is the case of Christian Erikson, a Danish soccer player who suffered cardiac arrest during a match at the European Championships in 2021 and was rapidly defibrillated on the field. Therapy was so effective that he was conscious and able to wave to fans on his way out of the stadium. He has now returned to elite competition.

Proponents of screening might oppose my take by saying that National Football League players are intensely screened. But this is different from widespread screening of high school and college athletes. It might sound harsh to say, but professional teams have dualities of interests in the health of their athletes given the million-dollar contracts.

What’s more, professional teams can afford to hire expert cardiologists to perform the testing. This would likely reduce the rate of false-positive findings, compared with screening in the community setting. I often have young people referred to me because of asymptomatic bradycardia found during athletic screening – an obviously normal finding.

Conclusions

As long as there are sports, there will be athletes who suffer cardiac arrest.

We can both hope for Hamlin’s full recovery and learn lessons to help reduce the rate of death from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. This mostly involves education on how to help fellow humans and a public health commitment to access to AEDs.

John Mandrola, MD, practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Ky. and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nine top professional emergency medicine organizations in the United States jointly issued a letter expressing concerns about the misleading and incomplete nature of a systematic review issued by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality on diagnostic errors in the emergency department.

The AHRQ review, issued on Dec. 15, 2022, stated that the findings of their study translate “to about 1 in 18 emergency department patients receiving an incorrect diagnosis, 1 in 50 suffering an adverse event, and 1 in 350 suffering permanent disability or death.” The authors describe these rates as similar to those seen in primary care and inpatient hospital settings.

The review was conducted through an Evidence-Based Practice Center as part of AHRQ’s Effective Health Care Program. The authors included data from 279 studies in the review. They identified the five most frequently misdiagnosed conditions in the ED as stroke, MI, aortic aneurysm and dissection, spinal cord compression and injury, and venous thromboembolism.

The authors noted that, given an estimated 130 million ED visits in the United States each year, the overall rate of incorrect diagnoses in the ED is approximately 5.7% and that 2.0% of the patients whose conditions were misdiagnosed suffer an adverse event as a result. On a local level, the authors estimate that an average ED with approximately 25,000 visits per year could experience 1,400 diagnostic errors, 500 diagnostic adverse events, and 75 serious harms, including 50 deaths. However, the authors noted that the overall error and harm rates were based on three studies from outside the United States (Canada, Spain, and Switzerland) and that only two of these were used to estimate harms.

“It’s imperative that we, as emergency physicians, inform the public that the AHRQ report used flawed methodology and statistics that extrapolated – and therefore overstated – the potential for harm when receiving care in US emergency departments,” Robert Glatter, MD, an emergency medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital at Northwell Health and an assistant professor at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., said in an interview.
 

Emergency medicine organizations express concerns for accuracy

The American College of Emergency Physicians and eight other medical organizations representing emergency medicine in the United States sent a letter to the AHRQ on Dec. 14, 2022, spelling out their concerns. The review was conducted as part of the AHRQ’s ongoing Effective Health Care Program, and the organizations had the opportunity to review a draft before it was published. On reading the review, they asked that the publication of the review be delayed. “After reviewing the executive summary and initial draft, we believe that the report makes misleading, incomplete, and erroneous conclusions from the literature reviewed and conveys a tone that inaccurately characterizes and unnecessarily disparages the practice of emergency medicine in the United States,” the organizations wrote in their letter.

The concerns of the emergency medicine organizations fell into four categories: misrepresentation of the practice and nature of emergency medicine; applicability of references cited; inaccurate interpretation of malpractice data; and the reporting of a single overall diagnostic error rate of 5.7% in EDs.

The practice of emergency medicine is variable and unique among specialties in that the focus is less about the final diagnosis and more about immediate identification and treatment of life-threatening conditions, according to the letter.

Notably, many of the studies cited did not mention whether the patient’s final diagnosis was apparent on admission to the ED. “Without this knowledge, it is completely inappropriate to label such discrepancies as ‘ED diagnostic error,’ ” the organizations wrote.

All medical specialties have room for improvement, but the current AHRQ review appears not to identify these opportunities, and instead of contributing to a discussion of improving patient care in the ED, it may cause harm by presenting misinformation, they said.
 

Misleading and inadequate evidence

“I strongly agree with the concerns mentioned from ACEP and other key organizations about the problems and conclusions reached in the AHRQ report,” Dr. Glatter said in an interview.

“The methodology used to arrive at the conclusions [in the review] was flawed and does not provide an accurate estimate of diagnostic error and, consequently, misdiagnosis and deaths occurring in emergency departments in the U.S.,” he said. “The startling headline that 250,000 people die annually in U.S. EDs was extrapolated from a single study based on one death that occurred in a Canadian ED in 2004,” Dr. Glatter noted. “Clearly, this is not only poor methodology but flawed science.”

The AHRQ report misused one death from this single study to estimate the death rate across the United States, Dr. Glatter explained, and this overestimate improperly inflated and magnified the number of potential patients that may have been harmed by physician error.

“This flawed evidence would actually place ED misdiagnoses in the top five causes of death in the United States, with 1 in every 500 ED patients dying as a result of an error by a physician. Simply put, there is just no evidence to support such a claim,” said Dr. Glatter.

The repercussions of the AHRQ review could be harmful to patients by instilling fear and doubt about the ability of emergency physicians to diagnose those who present with life-threatening conditions, Dr. Glatter said.

“This more balanced and accurate picture of the role of emergency physicians in diagnosing and managing such emergencies needs to be communicated to the public in order to reassure and instill confidence in our role in the sequence of emergency care in relation to continuity of care in patients presenting to the ED,” he said.

“While our primary role as emergency medicine physicians is to stabilize and evaluate patients, arriving at a particular diagnosis is not always possible for some conditions,” and additional diagnostic testing is often needed to identify more specific causes of symptoms, Dr. Glatter added.

Additional research is needed for a more accurate representation of diagnostic errors in the ED, said Dr. Glatter. New prospective studies are needed to address outcomes in U.S. EDs that account for the latest advances and diagnostic modalities in emergency medicine, “particularly advances in bedside ultrasound that can expedite critical decision-making, which can be lifesaving.

“The AHRQ report is simply not an accurate reflection of the technology and skill set that current emergency medicine practice offers our patients in 2023.”

Dr. Glatter disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nine top professional emergency medicine organizations in the United States jointly issued a letter expressing concerns about the misleading and incomplete nature of a systematic review issued by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality on diagnostic errors in the emergency department.

The AHRQ review, issued on Dec. 15, 2022, stated that the findings of their study translate “to about 1 in 18 emergency department patients receiving an incorrect diagnosis, 1 in 50 suffering an adverse event, and 1 in 350 suffering permanent disability or death.” The authors describe these rates as similar to those seen in primary care and inpatient hospital settings.

The review was conducted through an Evidence-Based Practice Center as part of AHRQ’s Effective Health Care Program. The authors included data from 279 studies in the review. They identified the five most frequently misdiagnosed conditions in the ED as stroke, MI, aortic aneurysm and dissection, spinal cord compression and injury, and venous thromboembolism.

The authors noted that, given an estimated 130 million ED visits in the United States each year, the overall rate of incorrect diagnoses in the ED is approximately 5.7% and that 2.0% of the patients whose conditions were misdiagnosed suffer an adverse event as a result. On a local level, the authors estimate that an average ED with approximately 25,000 visits per year could experience 1,400 diagnostic errors, 500 diagnostic adverse events, and 75 serious harms, including 50 deaths. However, the authors noted that the overall error and harm rates were based on three studies from outside the United States (Canada, Spain, and Switzerland) and that only two of these were used to estimate harms.

“It’s imperative that we, as emergency physicians, inform the public that the AHRQ report used flawed methodology and statistics that extrapolated – and therefore overstated – the potential for harm when receiving care in US emergency departments,” Robert Glatter, MD, an emergency medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital at Northwell Health and an assistant professor at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., said in an interview.
 

Emergency medicine organizations express concerns for accuracy

The American College of Emergency Physicians and eight other medical organizations representing emergency medicine in the United States sent a letter to the AHRQ on Dec. 14, 2022, spelling out their concerns. The review was conducted as part of the AHRQ’s ongoing Effective Health Care Program, and the organizations had the opportunity to review a draft before it was published. On reading the review, they asked that the publication of the review be delayed. “After reviewing the executive summary and initial draft, we believe that the report makes misleading, incomplete, and erroneous conclusions from the literature reviewed and conveys a tone that inaccurately characterizes and unnecessarily disparages the practice of emergency medicine in the United States,” the organizations wrote in their letter.

The concerns of the emergency medicine organizations fell into four categories: misrepresentation of the practice and nature of emergency medicine; applicability of references cited; inaccurate interpretation of malpractice data; and the reporting of a single overall diagnostic error rate of 5.7% in EDs.

The practice of emergency medicine is variable and unique among specialties in that the focus is less about the final diagnosis and more about immediate identification and treatment of life-threatening conditions, according to the letter.

Notably, many of the studies cited did not mention whether the patient’s final diagnosis was apparent on admission to the ED. “Without this knowledge, it is completely inappropriate to label such discrepancies as ‘ED diagnostic error,’ ” the organizations wrote.

All medical specialties have room for improvement, but the current AHRQ review appears not to identify these opportunities, and instead of contributing to a discussion of improving patient care in the ED, it may cause harm by presenting misinformation, they said.
 

Misleading and inadequate evidence

“I strongly agree with the concerns mentioned from ACEP and other key organizations about the problems and conclusions reached in the AHRQ report,” Dr. Glatter said in an interview.

“The methodology used to arrive at the conclusions [in the review] was flawed and does not provide an accurate estimate of diagnostic error and, consequently, misdiagnosis and deaths occurring in emergency departments in the U.S.,” he said. “The startling headline that 250,000 people die annually in U.S. EDs was extrapolated from a single study based on one death that occurred in a Canadian ED in 2004,” Dr. Glatter noted. “Clearly, this is not only poor methodology but flawed science.”

The AHRQ report misused one death from this single study to estimate the death rate across the United States, Dr. Glatter explained, and this overestimate improperly inflated and magnified the number of potential patients that may have been harmed by physician error.

“This flawed evidence would actually place ED misdiagnoses in the top five causes of death in the United States, with 1 in every 500 ED patients dying as a result of an error by a physician. Simply put, there is just no evidence to support such a claim,” said Dr. Glatter.

The repercussions of the AHRQ review could be harmful to patients by instilling fear and doubt about the ability of emergency physicians to diagnose those who present with life-threatening conditions, Dr. Glatter said.

“This more balanced and accurate picture of the role of emergency physicians in diagnosing and managing such emergencies needs to be communicated to the public in order to reassure and instill confidence in our role in the sequence of emergency care in relation to continuity of care in patients presenting to the ED,” he said.

“While our primary role as emergency medicine physicians is to stabilize and evaluate patients, arriving at a particular diagnosis is not always possible for some conditions,” and additional diagnostic testing is often needed to identify more specific causes of symptoms, Dr. Glatter added.

Additional research is needed for a more accurate representation of diagnostic errors in the ED, said Dr. Glatter. New prospective studies are needed to address outcomes in U.S. EDs that account for the latest advances and diagnostic modalities in emergency medicine, “particularly advances in bedside ultrasound that can expedite critical decision-making, which can be lifesaving.

“The AHRQ report is simply not an accurate reflection of the technology and skill set that current emergency medicine practice offers our patients in 2023.”

Dr. Glatter disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nine top professional emergency medicine organizations in the United States jointly issued a letter expressing concerns about the misleading and incomplete nature of a systematic review issued by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality on diagnostic errors in the emergency department.

The AHRQ review, issued on Dec. 15, 2022, stated that the findings of their study translate “to about 1 in 18 emergency department patients receiving an incorrect diagnosis, 1 in 50 suffering an adverse event, and 1 in 350 suffering permanent disability or death.” The authors describe these rates as similar to those seen in primary care and inpatient hospital settings.

The review was conducted through an Evidence-Based Practice Center as part of AHRQ’s Effective Health Care Program. The authors included data from 279 studies in the review. They identified the five most frequently misdiagnosed conditions in the ED as stroke, MI, aortic aneurysm and dissection, spinal cord compression and injury, and venous thromboembolism.

The authors noted that, given an estimated 130 million ED visits in the United States each year, the overall rate of incorrect diagnoses in the ED is approximately 5.7% and that 2.0% of the patients whose conditions were misdiagnosed suffer an adverse event as a result. On a local level, the authors estimate that an average ED with approximately 25,000 visits per year could experience 1,400 diagnostic errors, 500 diagnostic adverse events, and 75 serious harms, including 50 deaths. However, the authors noted that the overall error and harm rates were based on three studies from outside the United States (Canada, Spain, and Switzerland) and that only two of these were used to estimate harms.

“It’s imperative that we, as emergency physicians, inform the public that the AHRQ report used flawed methodology and statistics that extrapolated – and therefore overstated – the potential for harm when receiving care in US emergency departments,” Robert Glatter, MD, an emergency medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital at Northwell Health and an assistant professor at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., said in an interview.
 

Emergency medicine organizations express concerns for accuracy

The American College of Emergency Physicians and eight other medical organizations representing emergency medicine in the United States sent a letter to the AHRQ on Dec. 14, 2022, spelling out their concerns. The review was conducted as part of the AHRQ’s ongoing Effective Health Care Program, and the organizations had the opportunity to review a draft before it was published. On reading the review, they asked that the publication of the review be delayed. “After reviewing the executive summary and initial draft, we believe that the report makes misleading, incomplete, and erroneous conclusions from the literature reviewed and conveys a tone that inaccurately characterizes and unnecessarily disparages the practice of emergency medicine in the United States,” the organizations wrote in their letter.

The concerns of the emergency medicine organizations fell into four categories: misrepresentation of the practice and nature of emergency medicine; applicability of references cited; inaccurate interpretation of malpractice data; and the reporting of a single overall diagnostic error rate of 5.7% in EDs.

The practice of emergency medicine is variable and unique among specialties in that the focus is less about the final diagnosis and more about immediate identification and treatment of life-threatening conditions, according to the letter.

Notably, many of the studies cited did not mention whether the patient’s final diagnosis was apparent on admission to the ED. “Without this knowledge, it is completely inappropriate to label such discrepancies as ‘ED diagnostic error,’ ” the organizations wrote.

All medical specialties have room for improvement, but the current AHRQ review appears not to identify these opportunities, and instead of contributing to a discussion of improving patient care in the ED, it may cause harm by presenting misinformation, they said.
 

Misleading and inadequate evidence

“I strongly agree with the concerns mentioned from ACEP and other key organizations about the problems and conclusions reached in the AHRQ report,” Dr. Glatter said in an interview.

“The methodology used to arrive at the conclusions [in the review] was flawed and does not provide an accurate estimate of diagnostic error and, consequently, misdiagnosis and deaths occurring in emergency departments in the U.S.,” he said. “The startling headline that 250,000 people die annually in U.S. EDs was extrapolated from a single study based on one death that occurred in a Canadian ED in 2004,” Dr. Glatter noted. “Clearly, this is not only poor methodology but flawed science.”

The AHRQ report misused one death from this single study to estimate the death rate across the United States, Dr. Glatter explained, and this overestimate improperly inflated and magnified the number of potential patients that may have been harmed by physician error.

“This flawed evidence would actually place ED misdiagnoses in the top five causes of death in the United States, with 1 in every 500 ED patients dying as a result of an error by a physician. Simply put, there is just no evidence to support such a claim,” said Dr. Glatter.

The repercussions of the AHRQ review could be harmful to patients by instilling fear and doubt about the ability of emergency physicians to diagnose those who present with life-threatening conditions, Dr. Glatter said.

“This more balanced and accurate picture of the role of emergency physicians in diagnosing and managing such emergencies needs to be communicated to the public in order to reassure and instill confidence in our role in the sequence of emergency care in relation to continuity of care in patients presenting to the ED,” he said.

“While our primary role as emergency medicine physicians is to stabilize and evaluate patients, arriving at a particular diagnosis is not always possible for some conditions,” and additional diagnostic testing is often needed to identify more specific causes of symptoms, Dr. Glatter added.

Additional research is needed for a more accurate representation of diagnostic errors in the ED, said Dr. Glatter. New prospective studies are needed to address outcomes in U.S. EDs that account for the latest advances and diagnostic modalities in emergency medicine, “particularly advances in bedside ultrasound that can expedite critical decision-making, which can be lifesaving.

“The AHRQ report is simply not an accurate reflection of the technology and skill set that current emergency medicine practice offers our patients in 2023.”

Dr. Glatter disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A group of emergency physicians and consumer advocates in multiple states is pushing for stiffer enforcement of decades-old statutes that prohibit the ownership of medical practices by corporations not owned by licensed doctors.

Thirty-three states plus the District of Columbia have rules on their books against the so-called corporate practice of medicine. But over the years, critics say, companies have successfully sidestepped bans on owning medical practices by buying or establishing local staffing groups that are nominally owned by doctors and restricting the physicians’ authority so they have no direct control.

These laws and regulations, which started appearing nearly a century ago, were meant to fight the commercialization of medicine, maintain the independence and authority of physicians, and prioritize the doctor-patient relationship over the interests of investors and shareholders.

Those campaigning for stiffer enforcement of the laws say that physician-staffing firms owned by private equity investors are the most egregious offenders. Private equity-backed staffing companies manage a quarter of the nation’s emergency departments, according to a Raleigh, N.C.–based doctor who runs a job site for ED physicians. The two largest are Nashville, Tenn.–based Envision Healthcare, owned by investment giant KKR & Co., and Knoxville, Tenn.–based TeamHealth, owned by Blackstone.

Court filings in multiple states, including California, Missouri, Texas, and Tennessee, have called out Envision and TeamHealth for allegedly using doctor groups as straw men to sidestep corporate practice laws. But those filings have typically been in financial cases involving wrongful termination, breach of contract, and overbilling.

Now, physicians and consumer advocates around the country are anticipating a California lawsuit against Envision, scheduled to start in January 2024 in federal court. The plaintiff in the case, Milwaukee-based American Academy of Emergency Medicine Physician Group, alleges that Envision uses shell business structures to retain de facto ownership of ED staffing groups, and it is asking the court to declare them illegal.

“We’re not asking them to pay money, and we will not accept being paid to drop the case,” said David Millstein, lead attorney for the plaintiff. “We are simply asking the court to ban this practice model.”
 

‘Possibility to reverberate throughout the country’

The physician group believes a victory would lead to a prohibition of the practice across California – and not just in ERs, but for other staff provided by Envision and TeamHealth, including in anesthesiology and hospital medicine. The California Medical Association supports the lawsuit, saying it “will shape the boundaries of California’s prohibition on the corporate practice of medicine.”

The plaintiff – along with many doctors, nurses, and consumer advocates, as well as some lawmakers – hopes that success in the case will spur regulators and prosecutors in other states to take corporate medicine prohibitions more seriously. “Any decision anywhere in the country that says the corporate ownership of a medical practice is illegal has the possibility to reverberate throughout the country, absolutely – and I hope that it would,” said Julie Mayfield, a state senator in North Carolina.

But the push to reinvigorate laws restricting the corporate practice of medicine has plenty of skeptics, who view it as an effort to return to a golden era in medicine that is long gone or may never have existed to begin with. The genie is out of the bottle, they say, noting that the profit motive has penetrated every corner of health care and that nearly 70% of physicians in the United States are now employed by corporations and hospitals.

The corporate practice of medicine doctrine has “a very interesting and not a very flattering history,” said Barak Richman, a law professor at Duke University. “The medical profession was trying to assert its professional dominance that accrued a lot of benefits to itself in ways that were not terribly beneficial to patients or to the market.”

The California case involves Placentia-Linda Hospital in Orange County, where the plaintiff physician group lost its ED management contract to Envision. The complaint alleges that Envision uses the same business model at numerous hospitals around the state.

“Envision exercises profound and pervasive direct and indirect control and/or influence over the medical practice, making decisions which bear directly and indirectly on the practice of medicine, rendering physicians as mere employees, and diminishing physician independence and freedom from commercial interests,” according to the complaint.

Envision said the company is compliant with state laws and that its operating structure is common in the health care industry. “Legal challenges to that structure have proved meritless,” Envision wrote in an email. It added that “care decisions have and always will be between clinicians and patients.”

TeamHealth, an indirect target in the case, said its “world-class operating team” provides management services that “allow clinicians to focus on the practice of medicine and patient care through a structure commonly utilized by hospitals, health systems, and other providers across the country.”
 

State rules vary widely

State laws and regulations governing the corporate practice of medicine vary widely on multiple factors, including whether there are exceptions for nonprofit organizations, how much of doctors’ revenue outside management firms can keep, who can own the equipment, and how violations are punished. New York, Texas, and California are considered to have among the toughest restrictions, while Florida and 16 other states have none.

Kirk Ogrosky, a partner at the law firm Goodwin Procter, said this kind of management structure predates the arrival of private equity in the industry. “I would be surprised if a company that is interested in investing in this space screwed up the formation documents; it would shock me,” Mr. Ogrosky said.

Private equity–backed firms have been attracted to EDs in recent years because they are profitable and because they have been able to charge inflated amounts for out-of-network care – at least until a federal law cracked down on surprise billing. Envision and TeamHealth prioritize profits, critics say, by maximizing revenue, cutting costs, and consolidating smaller practices into ever-larger groups – to the point of regional dominance.

Envision and TeamHealth are privately owned, which makes it difficult to find reliable data on their finances and the extent of their market penetration.

Leon Adelman, MD, cofounder and CEO of Ivy Clinicians, a Raleigh, N.C.–based startup job site for emergency physicians, has spent 18 months piecing together data and found that private equity–backed staffing firms run 25% of the nation’s EDs. TeamHealth and Envision have the two largest shares, with 8.6% and 8.3%, respectively, Dr. Adelman said.

Other estimates put private equity’s penetration of ERs at closer to 40%.
 

Doctors push for investigations

So far, efforts by emergency physicians and others to challenge private equity staffing firms over their alleged violations have yielded frustrating results.

An advocacy group called Take Medicine Back, formed last year by a handful of ED physicians, sent a letter in July to North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein, asking him to investigate violations of the ban on the corporate practice of medicine. And because Mr. Stein holds a senior position at the National Association of Attorneys General, the letter also asked him to take the lead in persuading his fellow AGs to “launch a multi-state investigation into the widespread lack of enforcement” of corporate practice of medicine laws.

The group’s leader, Mitchell Li, MD, said he was initially disappointed by the response he received from Mr. Stein’s office, which promised to review his request, saying it raised complex legal issues about the corporate practice of medicine in the state. But Dr. Li is now more hopeful, since he has secured a January appointment with officials in Mr. Stein’s office.

Robert McNamara, MD, a cofounder of Dr. Li’s group and chair of emergency medicine at Temple University’s Lewis Katz School of Medicine, drafted complaints to the Texas Medical Board, along with Houston physician David Hoyer, MD, asking the board to intervene against two doctors accused of fronting for professional entities controlled by Envision and TeamHealth. In both cases, the board declined to intervene.

Dr. McNamara, who serves as the chief medical officer of the physicians’ group in the California Envision case, also filed a complaint with Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, alleging that a group called Emergency Care Services of Pennsylvania PC, which was trying to contract with ED physicians of the Crozer Keystone Health System, was wholly owned by TeamHealth and serving as a shell to avoid scrutiny.

A senior official in Mr. Shapiro’s office responded, saying the complaint had been referred to two state agencies, but Dr. McNamara said he has heard nothing back in more than 3 years.
 

Differing views on private equity’s role

Proponents of private equity ownership say it has brought a lot of good to health care. Jamal Hagler, vice president of research at the American Investment Council, said private equity brings expertise to hospital systems, “whether it’s to hire new staff, grow and open up to new markets, integrate new technologies, or develop new technologies.”

But many physicians who have worked for private equity companies say their mission is not compatible with the best practice of medicine. They cite an emphasis on speed and high patient volume over safety; a preference for lesser-trained, cheaper medical providers; and treatment protocols unsuitable for certain patients.

Sean Jones, MD, an emergency physician in Asheville, N.C., said his first full-time job was at a Florida hospital, where EmCare, a subsidiary of Envision, ran the ED. Dr. Jones said EmCare, in collaboration with the hospital’s owner, pushed doctors to meet performance goals related to wait times and treatments, which were not always good for patients.

For example, if a patient came in with abnormally high heart and respiratory rates – signs of sepsis – doctors were expected to give them large amounts of fluids and antibiotics within an hour, Dr. Jones said. But those symptoms could also be caused by a panic attack or heart failure.

“You don’t want to give a patient with heart failure 2 or 3 liters of fluid, and I would get emails saying, ‘You didn’t do this,’ ” he said. “Well, no, I didn’t, because the reason they couldn’t breathe was they had too much fluid in their lungs.”

Envision said the company’s 25,000 clinicians, “like all clinicians, exercise their independent judgment to provide quality, compassionate, clinically appropriate care.”

Dr. Jones felt otherwise. “We don’t need some MBAs telling us what to do,” he said.
 

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

A group of emergency physicians and consumer advocates in multiple states is pushing for stiffer enforcement of decades-old statutes that prohibit the ownership of medical practices by corporations not owned by licensed doctors.

Thirty-three states plus the District of Columbia have rules on their books against the so-called corporate practice of medicine. But over the years, critics say, companies have successfully sidestepped bans on owning medical practices by buying or establishing local staffing groups that are nominally owned by doctors and restricting the physicians’ authority so they have no direct control.

These laws and regulations, which started appearing nearly a century ago, were meant to fight the commercialization of medicine, maintain the independence and authority of physicians, and prioritize the doctor-patient relationship over the interests of investors and shareholders.

Those campaigning for stiffer enforcement of the laws say that physician-staffing firms owned by private equity investors are the most egregious offenders. Private equity-backed staffing companies manage a quarter of the nation’s emergency departments, according to a Raleigh, N.C.–based doctor who runs a job site for ED physicians. The two largest are Nashville, Tenn.–based Envision Healthcare, owned by investment giant KKR & Co., and Knoxville, Tenn.–based TeamHealth, owned by Blackstone.

Court filings in multiple states, including California, Missouri, Texas, and Tennessee, have called out Envision and TeamHealth for allegedly using doctor groups as straw men to sidestep corporate practice laws. But those filings have typically been in financial cases involving wrongful termination, breach of contract, and overbilling.

Now, physicians and consumer advocates around the country are anticipating a California lawsuit against Envision, scheduled to start in January 2024 in federal court. The plaintiff in the case, Milwaukee-based American Academy of Emergency Medicine Physician Group, alleges that Envision uses shell business structures to retain de facto ownership of ED staffing groups, and it is asking the court to declare them illegal.

“We’re not asking them to pay money, and we will not accept being paid to drop the case,” said David Millstein, lead attorney for the plaintiff. “We are simply asking the court to ban this practice model.”
 

‘Possibility to reverberate throughout the country’

The physician group believes a victory would lead to a prohibition of the practice across California – and not just in ERs, but for other staff provided by Envision and TeamHealth, including in anesthesiology and hospital medicine. The California Medical Association supports the lawsuit, saying it “will shape the boundaries of California’s prohibition on the corporate practice of medicine.”

The plaintiff – along with many doctors, nurses, and consumer advocates, as well as some lawmakers – hopes that success in the case will spur regulators and prosecutors in other states to take corporate medicine prohibitions more seriously. “Any decision anywhere in the country that says the corporate ownership of a medical practice is illegal has the possibility to reverberate throughout the country, absolutely – and I hope that it would,” said Julie Mayfield, a state senator in North Carolina.

But the push to reinvigorate laws restricting the corporate practice of medicine has plenty of skeptics, who view it as an effort to return to a golden era in medicine that is long gone or may never have existed to begin with. The genie is out of the bottle, they say, noting that the profit motive has penetrated every corner of health care and that nearly 70% of physicians in the United States are now employed by corporations and hospitals.

The corporate practice of medicine doctrine has “a very interesting and not a very flattering history,” said Barak Richman, a law professor at Duke University. “The medical profession was trying to assert its professional dominance that accrued a lot of benefits to itself in ways that were not terribly beneficial to patients or to the market.”

The California case involves Placentia-Linda Hospital in Orange County, where the plaintiff physician group lost its ED management contract to Envision. The complaint alleges that Envision uses the same business model at numerous hospitals around the state.

“Envision exercises profound and pervasive direct and indirect control and/or influence over the medical practice, making decisions which bear directly and indirectly on the practice of medicine, rendering physicians as mere employees, and diminishing physician independence and freedom from commercial interests,” according to the complaint.

Envision said the company is compliant with state laws and that its operating structure is common in the health care industry. “Legal challenges to that structure have proved meritless,” Envision wrote in an email. It added that “care decisions have and always will be between clinicians and patients.”

TeamHealth, an indirect target in the case, said its “world-class operating team” provides management services that “allow clinicians to focus on the practice of medicine and patient care through a structure commonly utilized by hospitals, health systems, and other providers across the country.”
 

State rules vary widely

State laws and regulations governing the corporate practice of medicine vary widely on multiple factors, including whether there are exceptions for nonprofit organizations, how much of doctors’ revenue outside management firms can keep, who can own the equipment, and how violations are punished. New York, Texas, and California are considered to have among the toughest restrictions, while Florida and 16 other states have none.

Kirk Ogrosky, a partner at the law firm Goodwin Procter, said this kind of management structure predates the arrival of private equity in the industry. “I would be surprised if a company that is interested in investing in this space screwed up the formation documents; it would shock me,” Mr. Ogrosky said.

Private equity–backed firms have been attracted to EDs in recent years because they are profitable and because they have been able to charge inflated amounts for out-of-network care – at least until a federal law cracked down on surprise billing. Envision and TeamHealth prioritize profits, critics say, by maximizing revenue, cutting costs, and consolidating smaller practices into ever-larger groups – to the point of regional dominance.

Envision and TeamHealth are privately owned, which makes it difficult to find reliable data on their finances and the extent of their market penetration.

Leon Adelman, MD, cofounder and CEO of Ivy Clinicians, a Raleigh, N.C.–based startup job site for emergency physicians, has spent 18 months piecing together data and found that private equity–backed staffing firms run 25% of the nation’s EDs. TeamHealth and Envision have the two largest shares, with 8.6% and 8.3%, respectively, Dr. Adelman said.

Other estimates put private equity’s penetration of ERs at closer to 40%.
 

Doctors push for investigations

So far, efforts by emergency physicians and others to challenge private equity staffing firms over their alleged violations have yielded frustrating results.

An advocacy group called Take Medicine Back, formed last year by a handful of ED physicians, sent a letter in July to North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein, asking him to investigate violations of the ban on the corporate practice of medicine. And because Mr. Stein holds a senior position at the National Association of Attorneys General, the letter also asked him to take the lead in persuading his fellow AGs to “launch a multi-state investigation into the widespread lack of enforcement” of corporate practice of medicine laws.

The group’s leader, Mitchell Li, MD, said he was initially disappointed by the response he received from Mr. Stein’s office, which promised to review his request, saying it raised complex legal issues about the corporate practice of medicine in the state. But Dr. Li is now more hopeful, since he has secured a January appointment with officials in Mr. Stein’s office.

Robert McNamara, MD, a cofounder of Dr. Li’s group and chair of emergency medicine at Temple University’s Lewis Katz School of Medicine, drafted complaints to the Texas Medical Board, along with Houston physician David Hoyer, MD, asking the board to intervene against two doctors accused of fronting for professional entities controlled by Envision and TeamHealth. In both cases, the board declined to intervene.

Dr. McNamara, who serves as the chief medical officer of the physicians’ group in the California Envision case, also filed a complaint with Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, alleging that a group called Emergency Care Services of Pennsylvania PC, which was trying to contract with ED physicians of the Crozer Keystone Health System, was wholly owned by TeamHealth and serving as a shell to avoid scrutiny.

A senior official in Mr. Shapiro’s office responded, saying the complaint had been referred to two state agencies, but Dr. McNamara said he has heard nothing back in more than 3 years.
 

Differing views on private equity’s role

Proponents of private equity ownership say it has brought a lot of good to health care. Jamal Hagler, vice president of research at the American Investment Council, said private equity brings expertise to hospital systems, “whether it’s to hire new staff, grow and open up to new markets, integrate new technologies, or develop new technologies.”

But many physicians who have worked for private equity companies say their mission is not compatible with the best practice of medicine. They cite an emphasis on speed and high patient volume over safety; a preference for lesser-trained, cheaper medical providers; and treatment protocols unsuitable for certain patients.

Sean Jones, MD, an emergency physician in Asheville, N.C., said his first full-time job was at a Florida hospital, where EmCare, a subsidiary of Envision, ran the ED. Dr. Jones said EmCare, in collaboration with the hospital’s owner, pushed doctors to meet performance goals related to wait times and treatments, which were not always good for patients.

For example, if a patient came in with abnormally high heart and respiratory rates – signs of sepsis – doctors were expected to give them large amounts of fluids and antibiotics within an hour, Dr. Jones said. But those symptoms could also be caused by a panic attack or heart failure.

“You don’t want to give a patient with heart failure 2 or 3 liters of fluid, and I would get emails saying, ‘You didn’t do this,’ ” he said. “Well, no, I didn’t, because the reason they couldn’t breathe was they had too much fluid in their lungs.”

Envision said the company’s 25,000 clinicians, “like all clinicians, exercise their independent judgment to provide quality, compassionate, clinically appropriate care.”

Dr. Jones felt otherwise. “We don’t need some MBAs telling us what to do,” he said.
 

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

A group of emergency physicians and consumer advocates in multiple states is pushing for stiffer enforcement of decades-old statutes that prohibit the ownership of medical practices by corporations not owned by licensed doctors.

Thirty-three states plus the District of Columbia have rules on their books against the so-called corporate practice of medicine. But over the years, critics say, companies have successfully sidestepped bans on owning medical practices by buying or establishing local staffing groups that are nominally owned by doctors and restricting the physicians’ authority so they have no direct control.

These laws and regulations, which started appearing nearly a century ago, were meant to fight the commercialization of medicine, maintain the independence and authority of physicians, and prioritize the doctor-patient relationship over the interests of investors and shareholders.

Those campaigning for stiffer enforcement of the laws say that physician-staffing firms owned by private equity investors are the most egregious offenders. Private equity-backed staffing companies manage a quarter of the nation’s emergency departments, according to a Raleigh, N.C.–based doctor who runs a job site for ED physicians. The two largest are Nashville, Tenn.–based Envision Healthcare, owned by investment giant KKR & Co., and Knoxville, Tenn.–based TeamHealth, owned by Blackstone.

Court filings in multiple states, including California, Missouri, Texas, and Tennessee, have called out Envision and TeamHealth for allegedly using doctor groups as straw men to sidestep corporate practice laws. But those filings have typically been in financial cases involving wrongful termination, breach of contract, and overbilling.

Now, physicians and consumer advocates around the country are anticipating a California lawsuit against Envision, scheduled to start in January 2024 in federal court. The plaintiff in the case, Milwaukee-based American Academy of Emergency Medicine Physician Group, alleges that Envision uses shell business structures to retain de facto ownership of ED staffing groups, and it is asking the court to declare them illegal.

“We’re not asking them to pay money, and we will not accept being paid to drop the case,” said David Millstein, lead attorney for the plaintiff. “We are simply asking the court to ban this practice model.”
 

‘Possibility to reverberate throughout the country’

The physician group believes a victory would lead to a prohibition of the practice across California – and not just in ERs, but for other staff provided by Envision and TeamHealth, including in anesthesiology and hospital medicine. The California Medical Association supports the lawsuit, saying it “will shape the boundaries of California’s prohibition on the corporate practice of medicine.”

The plaintiff – along with many doctors, nurses, and consumer advocates, as well as some lawmakers – hopes that success in the case will spur regulators and prosecutors in other states to take corporate medicine prohibitions more seriously. “Any decision anywhere in the country that says the corporate ownership of a medical practice is illegal has the possibility to reverberate throughout the country, absolutely – and I hope that it would,” said Julie Mayfield, a state senator in North Carolina.

But the push to reinvigorate laws restricting the corporate practice of medicine has plenty of skeptics, who view it as an effort to return to a golden era in medicine that is long gone or may never have existed to begin with. The genie is out of the bottle, they say, noting that the profit motive has penetrated every corner of health care and that nearly 70% of physicians in the United States are now employed by corporations and hospitals.

The corporate practice of medicine doctrine has “a very interesting and not a very flattering history,” said Barak Richman, a law professor at Duke University. “The medical profession was trying to assert its professional dominance that accrued a lot of benefits to itself in ways that were not terribly beneficial to patients or to the market.”

The California case involves Placentia-Linda Hospital in Orange County, where the plaintiff physician group lost its ED management contract to Envision. The complaint alleges that Envision uses the same business model at numerous hospitals around the state.

“Envision exercises profound and pervasive direct and indirect control and/or influence over the medical practice, making decisions which bear directly and indirectly on the practice of medicine, rendering physicians as mere employees, and diminishing physician independence and freedom from commercial interests,” according to the complaint.

Envision said the company is compliant with state laws and that its operating structure is common in the health care industry. “Legal challenges to that structure have proved meritless,” Envision wrote in an email. It added that “care decisions have and always will be between clinicians and patients.”

TeamHealth, an indirect target in the case, said its “world-class operating team” provides management services that “allow clinicians to focus on the practice of medicine and patient care through a structure commonly utilized by hospitals, health systems, and other providers across the country.”
 

State rules vary widely

State laws and regulations governing the corporate practice of medicine vary widely on multiple factors, including whether there are exceptions for nonprofit organizations, how much of doctors’ revenue outside management firms can keep, who can own the equipment, and how violations are punished. New York, Texas, and California are considered to have among the toughest restrictions, while Florida and 16 other states have none.

Kirk Ogrosky, a partner at the law firm Goodwin Procter, said this kind of management structure predates the arrival of private equity in the industry. “I would be surprised if a company that is interested in investing in this space screwed up the formation documents; it would shock me,” Mr. Ogrosky said.

Private equity–backed firms have been attracted to EDs in recent years because they are profitable and because they have been able to charge inflated amounts for out-of-network care – at least until a federal law cracked down on surprise billing. Envision and TeamHealth prioritize profits, critics say, by maximizing revenue, cutting costs, and consolidating smaller practices into ever-larger groups – to the point of regional dominance.

Envision and TeamHealth are privately owned, which makes it difficult to find reliable data on their finances and the extent of their market penetration.

Leon Adelman, MD, cofounder and CEO of Ivy Clinicians, a Raleigh, N.C.–based startup job site for emergency physicians, has spent 18 months piecing together data and found that private equity–backed staffing firms run 25% of the nation’s EDs. TeamHealth and Envision have the two largest shares, with 8.6% and 8.3%, respectively, Dr. Adelman said.

Other estimates put private equity’s penetration of ERs at closer to 40%.
 

Doctors push for investigations

So far, efforts by emergency physicians and others to challenge private equity staffing firms over their alleged violations have yielded frustrating results.

An advocacy group called Take Medicine Back, formed last year by a handful of ED physicians, sent a letter in July to North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein, asking him to investigate violations of the ban on the corporate practice of medicine. And because Mr. Stein holds a senior position at the National Association of Attorneys General, the letter also asked him to take the lead in persuading his fellow AGs to “launch a multi-state investigation into the widespread lack of enforcement” of corporate practice of medicine laws.

The group’s leader, Mitchell Li, MD, said he was initially disappointed by the response he received from Mr. Stein’s office, which promised to review his request, saying it raised complex legal issues about the corporate practice of medicine in the state. But Dr. Li is now more hopeful, since he has secured a January appointment with officials in Mr. Stein’s office.

Robert McNamara, MD, a cofounder of Dr. Li’s group and chair of emergency medicine at Temple University’s Lewis Katz School of Medicine, drafted complaints to the Texas Medical Board, along with Houston physician David Hoyer, MD, asking the board to intervene against two doctors accused of fronting for professional entities controlled by Envision and TeamHealth. In both cases, the board declined to intervene.

Dr. McNamara, who serves as the chief medical officer of the physicians’ group in the California Envision case, also filed a complaint with Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, alleging that a group called Emergency Care Services of Pennsylvania PC, which was trying to contract with ED physicians of the Crozer Keystone Health System, was wholly owned by TeamHealth and serving as a shell to avoid scrutiny.

A senior official in Mr. Shapiro’s office responded, saying the complaint had been referred to two state agencies, but Dr. McNamara said he has heard nothing back in more than 3 years.
 

Differing views on private equity’s role

Proponents of private equity ownership say it has brought a lot of good to health care. Jamal Hagler, vice president of research at the American Investment Council, said private equity brings expertise to hospital systems, “whether it’s to hire new staff, grow and open up to new markets, integrate new technologies, or develop new technologies.”

But many physicians who have worked for private equity companies say their mission is not compatible with the best practice of medicine. They cite an emphasis on speed and high patient volume over safety; a preference for lesser-trained, cheaper medical providers; and treatment protocols unsuitable for certain patients.

Sean Jones, MD, an emergency physician in Asheville, N.C., said his first full-time job was at a Florida hospital, where EmCare, a subsidiary of Envision, ran the ED. Dr. Jones said EmCare, in collaboration with the hospital’s owner, pushed doctors to meet performance goals related to wait times and treatments, which were not always good for patients.

For example, if a patient came in with abnormally high heart and respiratory rates – signs of sepsis – doctors were expected to give them large amounts of fluids and antibiotics within an hour, Dr. Jones said. But those symptoms could also be caused by a panic attack or heart failure.

“You don’t want to give a patient with heart failure 2 or 3 liters of fluid, and I would get emails saying, ‘You didn’t do this,’ ” he said. “Well, no, I didn’t, because the reason they couldn’t breathe was they had too much fluid in their lungs.”

Envision said the company’s 25,000 clinicians, “like all clinicians, exercise their independent judgment to provide quality, compassionate, clinically appropriate care.”

Dr. Jones felt otherwise. “We don’t need some MBAs telling us what to do,” he said.
 

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

As holiday celebrations wind down in the United States, COVID is on the rise.

While many would like to take a vacation from even thinking about COVID, the question of what’s next with the virus is always looming. Will there be another winter surge? If so, can we minimize it? How big a role might the boosters play in that? Are more mandates coming, along with a return to closed offices and businesses? Read on for a look at the latest info. 
 

Cases, hospitalizations, deaths

As of Dec. 27, the latest statistics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports more than 487,000 weekly cases, compared to about 265,000 for the week ending Oct. 12. On average, 4,938 people were admitted to the hospital daily from Dec. 19 to 25, down about 6% from the 5,257 admitted daily the week before. 

Deaths totaled 2,952 weekly as of Dec. 21, up from 2,699 on Dec. 14.  

“What’s sobering overall is still seeing about 400 deaths a day in the U.S.,” said Peter Chin-Hong, MD, professor of medicine and infectious disease specialist at the University of California, San Francisco. “It’s still very high.”

As of Dec. 17, the variants predominating are BQ.1, BQ.1.1, and XBB. Experts said they are paying close attention to XBB, which is increasing quickly in the Northeast. 
 

Predicting a winter surge

Experts tracking the pandemic agree there will be a surge. 

“We are in the midst of it now,” said Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape (MDedge’s sister site). “It’s not nearly like what we’ve had in Omicron or other waves; it’s not as severe. But it’s being particularly felt by seniors.”  

One bit of good news: “Outside of that group it doesn’t look like – so far – it is going to be as bad a wave [as in the past],” Dr. Topol said. 

Predicting the extent of the post-holiday surge “is the billion-dollar question right now,” said Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, a San Diego epidemiologist and author of the newsletter Your Local Epidemiologist.

“Much of these waves are not being driven by subvariants of concern but rather behavior,” she said. 

People are opening up their social networks to gather for celebrations and family time. That’s unique to this winter, she said.

“I think our numbers will continue to go up, but certainly not like 2021 or 2020,” Dr. Chin-Hong said.

Others point out that the surge doesn’t involve just COVID. 

“We are expecting a Christmas surge and we are concerned it might be a triple surge,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., referring to the rising cases of flu and RSV (respiratory syncytial virus). 

Dr. Jetelina shares that concern, worrying that those illnesses may be what overwhelms hospital capacity.

Another wild card is the situation in China. With the easing of China’s “zero COVID” policies, cases there are rising dramatically. Some models are predicting up to 1 million COVID deaths could occur in China in 2023. (The United States is now requiring travelers from China to show a negative COVID test before entering. Italy and Japan have taken similar measures.) 

“The suffering that is going to occur in China is not good news at all,” Dr. Topol said. “We are going to be seeing that for many weeks if not months ahead.” 

Theoretically, uncontained spread such as what is expected there could generate a whole new family of variants, he said. But “the main hit is going to be in China,” he predicted. “But it’s hard to project with accuracy.”

“China is 20% of the global population, so we can’t ignore it,” Dr. Jetelina said. “The question is, what’s the probability of a subvariant of concern coming from China? I think the probability is pretty low, but the possibility is there.”

What happens with cases in China may “throw a wrench” in the transition from pandemic to endemic, Dr. Chin-Hong said. But even if the rising cases in China do result in a new variant, “there’s so much T cell and B cell immunity [here], your average person is still not going to get seriously ill, even if the variant looks really scary.”


 

Minimizing the damage

Experts echo the same advice on stemming the surge, especially for adults who are 65 or older: Get the bivalent booster, and get it now. 

“The same with the influenza vaccine,” Dr. Schaffner said. 

Both the booster vaccine and the flu vaccine have been underused this year, he said. “It’s part of the general vaccine fatigue.”

The low uptake of the booster vaccine is concerning, Dr. Topol said, especially among adults aged 65 and older, the age group most vulnerable to severe disease. Just 35.7% of U.S. adults 65 and older have gotten the booster, according to the CDC. Dr. Topol calls that a tragedy.

Younger people have not taken to the booster, either. Overall, only 14.1% of people aged 5 and up have gotten an updated booster dose, according to the CDC. 

Recent studies find value in the boosters. One study looked only at adults age 65 or older, finding that the bivalent booster reduced the risk of hospitalization by 84% compared to someone not vaccinated, and 73% compared to someone who had received only the monovalent vaccine. Another study of adults found those who had gotten the bivalent were less likely to need COVID-related emergency room care or urgent care.  

In a Dec. 21 report in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers took plasma samples from people who had gotten either one or two monovalent boosters or the bivalent to determine how well they worked against the circulating Omicron subvariants BA.1, BA.5, BA.2.75.2, BQ.1.1, and XBB. The bivalent worked better than the monovalent against all the Omicron subvariants, but especially against BA.2.75.2, BQ.1.1, and XBB.

Rapid testing can help minimize transmission. On Dec. 15, the Biden administration announced its Winter Preparedness Plan, urging Americans to test before and after travel as well as indoor visiting with vulnerable individuals, providing another round of free at-home tests, continuing to make community testing available and continuing to provide vaccines. 

Besides the general precautions, Dr. Schaffner suggested: “Look at yourself. Who are you? If you are older than 65, or have underlying illness or are immunocompromised, or are pregnant, please put your mask back on. And think about social distancing. It might be time to worship at home and stream a movie,” instead of going to the theaters, he said. 
 

Back to mandates?

On Dec. 9, the New York City Commissioner of Health and Mental Hygiene urged a return to masking indoors, saying people “should” mask up, including in schools, stores, offices, and when in crowded outdoor settings.

On the same date, the County of Los Angeles Public Health urged a return to masking for everyone aged 2 and older when indoors, including at schools, in transit, or in work sites when around others.

While the CDC order requiring masks on public transportation is no longer in effect,  the agency continues to recommend that those using public transportation do so.

But some are taking that further. In Philadelphia, for example, School Superintendent Tony B. Watlington Sr., EdD, announced before the winter break that indoor masking would be required for all students and staff for the first 2 weeks of school return, through Jan. 13, citing guidance from the Philadelphia Department of Public Health.

Universal masking in schools does reduce COVID transmission, as a study published in late November suggests. After Massachusetts dropped the statewide universal masking policy in public schools in February 2022, researchers compared the incidence of COVID in 70 school districts there that dropped the mandate with two school districts that kept it. In the 15 weeks after the policy was rescinded, the lifting of the mandate was linked with an additional 44.9 cases of COVID per 1,000 students and staff. That corresponded to an estimated 11,901 cases and to nearly 30% of the cases in all districts during that time.

That said, experts see mandates as the exception rather than the rule, at least for now, citing public backlash against mandates to mask or follow other restrictions. 

“Mandating, we know, it shuts people off,” Dr. Topol said. “It’s unenforceable. If you have a very strong recommendation, that’s probably as good as you’re going to be able to do right now.”

There may be communities where mandates go over better than others, Dr. Schaffner said, such as communities where people have confidence in their public health authorities.
 

Glimmers of hope

Despite uncertainties, experts offered some not-so-dismal perspectives as well. 

“I think our numbers will continue to go up, but certainly not like 2021 or 2020,” Dr. Chin-Hong said.

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

As holiday celebrations wind down in the United States, COVID is on the rise.

While many would like to take a vacation from even thinking about COVID, the question of what’s next with the virus is always looming. Will there be another winter surge? If so, can we minimize it? How big a role might the boosters play in that? Are more mandates coming, along with a return to closed offices and businesses? Read on for a look at the latest info. 
 

Cases, hospitalizations, deaths

As of Dec. 27, the latest statistics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports more than 487,000 weekly cases, compared to about 265,000 for the week ending Oct. 12. On average, 4,938 people were admitted to the hospital daily from Dec. 19 to 25, down about 6% from the 5,257 admitted daily the week before. 

Deaths totaled 2,952 weekly as of Dec. 21, up from 2,699 on Dec. 14.  

“What’s sobering overall is still seeing about 400 deaths a day in the U.S.,” said Peter Chin-Hong, MD, professor of medicine and infectious disease specialist at the University of California, San Francisco. “It’s still very high.”

As of Dec. 17, the variants predominating are BQ.1, BQ.1.1, and XBB. Experts said they are paying close attention to XBB, which is increasing quickly in the Northeast. 
 

Predicting a winter surge

Experts tracking the pandemic agree there will be a surge. 

“We are in the midst of it now,” said Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape (MDedge’s sister site). “It’s not nearly like what we’ve had in Omicron or other waves; it’s not as severe. But it’s being particularly felt by seniors.”  

One bit of good news: “Outside of that group it doesn’t look like – so far – it is going to be as bad a wave [as in the past],” Dr. Topol said. 

Predicting the extent of the post-holiday surge “is the billion-dollar question right now,” said Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, a San Diego epidemiologist and author of the newsletter Your Local Epidemiologist.

“Much of these waves are not being driven by subvariants of concern but rather behavior,” she said. 

People are opening up their social networks to gather for celebrations and family time. That’s unique to this winter, she said.

“I think our numbers will continue to go up, but certainly not like 2021 or 2020,” Dr. Chin-Hong said.

Others point out that the surge doesn’t involve just COVID. 

“We are expecting a Christmas surge and we are concerned it might be a triple surge,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., referring to the rising cases of flu and RSV (respiratory syncytial virus). 

Dr. Jetelina shares that concern, worrying that those illnesses may be what overwhelms hospital capacity.

Another wild card is the situation in China. With the easing of China’s “zero COVID” policies, cases there are rising dramatically. Some models are predicting up to 1 million COVID deaths could occur in China in 2023. (The United States is now requiring travelers from China to show a negative COVID test before entering. Italy and Japan have taken similar measures.) 

“The suffering that is going to occur in China is not good news at all,” Dr. Topol said. “We are going to be seeing that for many weeks if not months ahead.” 

Theoretically, uncontained spread such as what is expected there could generate a whole new family of variants, he said. But “the main hit is going to be in China,” he predicted. “But it’s hard to project with accuracy.”

“China is 20% of the global population, so we can’t ignore it,” Dr. Jetelina said. “The question is, what’s the probability of a subvariant of concern coming from China? I think the probability is pretty low, but the possibility is there.”

What happens with cases in China may “throw a wrench” in the transition from pandemic to endemic, Dr. Chin-Hong said. But even if the rising cases in China do result in a new variant, “there’s so much T cell and B cell immunity [here], your average person is still not going to get seriously ill, even if the variant looks really scary.”


 

Minimizing the damage

Experts echo the same advice on stemming the surge, especially for adults who are 65 or older: Get the bivalent booster, and get it now. 

“The same with the influenza vaccine,” Dr. Schaffner said. 

Both the booster vaccine and the flu vaccine have been underused this year, he said. “It’s part of the general vaccine fatigue.”

The low uptake of the booster vaccine is concerning, Dr. Topol said, especially among adults aged 65 and older, the age group most vulnerable to severe disease. Just 35.7% of U.S. adults 65 and older have gotten the booster, according to the CDC. Dr. Topol calls that a tragedy.

Younger people have not taken to the booster, either. Overall, only 14.1% of people aged 5 and up have gotten an updated booster dose, according to the CDC. 

Recent studies find value in the boosters. One study looked only at adults age 65 or older, finding that the bivalent booster reduced the risk of hospitalization by 84% compared to someone not vaccinated, and 73% compared to someone who had received only the monovalent vaccine. Another study of adults found those who had gotten the bivalent were less likely to need COVID-related emergency room care or urgent care.  

In a Dec. 21 report in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers took plasma samples from people who had gotten either one or two monovalent boosters or the bivalent to determine how well they worked against the circulating Omicron subvariants BA.1, BA.5, BA.2.75.2, BQ.1.1, and XBB. The bivalent worked better than the monovalent against all the Omicron subvariants, but especially against BA.2.75.2, BQ.1.1, and XBB.

Rapid testing can help minimize transmission. On Dec. 15, the Biden administration announced its Winter Preparedness Plan, urging Americans to test before and after travel as well as indoor visiting with vulnerable individuals, providing another round of free at-home tests, continuing to make community testing available and continuing to provide vaccines. 

Besides the general precautions, Dr. Schaffner suggested: “Look at yourself. Who are you? If you are older than 65, or have underlying illness or are immunocompromised, or are pregnant, please put your mask back on. And think about social distancing. It might be time to worship at home and stream a movie,” instead of going to the theaters, he said. 
 

Back to mandates?

On Dec. 9, the New York City Commissioner of Health and Mental Hygiene urged a return to masking indoors, saying people “should” mask up, including in schools, stores, offices, and when in crowded outdoor settings.

On the same date, the County of Los Angeles Public Health urged a return to masking for everyone aged 2 and older when indoors, including at schools, in transit, or in work sites when around others.

While the CDC order requiring masks on public transportation is no longer in effect,  the agency continues to recommend that those using public transportation do so.

But some are taking that further. In Philadelphia, for example, School Superintendent Tony B. Watlington Sr., EdD, announced before the winter break that indoor masking would be required for all students and staff for the first 2 weeks of school return, through Jan. 13, citing guidance from the Philadelphia Department of Public Health.

Universal masking in schools does reduce COVID transmission, as a study published in late November suggests. After Massachusetts dropped the statewide universal masking policy in public schools in February 2022, researchers compared the incidence of COVID in 70 school districts there that dropped the mandate with two school districts that kept it. In the 15 weeks after the policy was rescinded, the lifting of the mandate was linked with an additional 44.9 cases of COVID per 1,000 students and staff. That corresponded to an estimated 11,901 cases and to nearly 30% of the cases in all districts during that time.

That said, experts see mandates as the exception rather than the rule, at least for now, citing public backlash against mandates to mask or follow other restrictions. 

“Mandating, we know, it shuts people off,” Dr. Topol said. “It’s unenforceable. If you have a very strong recommendation, that’s probably as good as you’re going to be able to do right now.”

There may be communities where mandates go over better than others, Dr. Schaffner said, such as communities where people have confidence in their public health authorities.
 

Glimmers of hope

Despite uncertainties, experts offered some not-so-dismal perspectives as well. 

“I think our numbers will continue to go up, but certainly not like 2021 or 2020,” Dr. Chin-Hong said.

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

As holiday celebrations wind down in the United States, COVID is on the rise.

While many would like to take a vacation from even thinking about COVID, the question of what’s next with the virus is always looming. Will there be another winter surge? If so, can we minimize it? How big a role might the boosters play in that? Are more mandates coming, along with a return to closed offices and businesses? Read on for a look at the latest info. 
 

Cases, hospitalizations, deaths

As of Dec. 27, the latest statistics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports more than 487,000 weekly cases, compared to about 265,000 for the week ending Oct. 12. On average, 4,938 people were admitted to the hospital daily from Dec. 19 to 25, down about 6% from the 5,257 admitted daily the week before. 

Deaths totaled 2,952 weekly as of Dec. 21, up from 2,699 on Dec. 14.  

“What’s sobering overall is still seeing about 400 deaths a day in the U.S.,” said Peter Chin-Hong, MD, professor of medicine and infectious disease specialist at the University of California, San Francisco. “It’s still very high.”

As of Dec. 17, the variants predominating are BQ.1, BQ.1.1, and XBB. Experts said they are paying close attention to XBB, which is increasing quickly in the Northeast. 
 

Predicting a winter surge

Experts tracking the pandemic agree there will be a surge. 

“We are in the midst of it now,” said Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape (MDedge’s sister site). “It’s not nearly like what we’ve had in Omicron or other waves; it’s not as severe. But it’s being particularly felt by seniors.”  

One bit of good news: “Outside of that group it doesn’t look like – so far – it is going to be as bad a wave [as in the past],” Dr. Topol said. 

Predicting the extent of the post-holiday surge “is the billion-dollar question right now,” said Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, a San Diego epidemiologist and author of the newsletter Your Local Epidemiologist.

“Much of these waves are not being driven by subvariants of concern but rather behavior,” she said. 

People are opening up their social networks to gather for celebrations and family time. That’s unique to this winter, she said.

“I think our numbers will continue to go up, but certainly not like 2021 or 2020,” Dr. Chin-Hong said.

Others point out that the surge doesn’t involve just COVID. 

“We are expecting a Christmas surge and we are concerned it might be a triple surge,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., referring to the rising cases of flu and RSV (respiratory syncytial virus). 

Dr. Jetelina shares that concern, worrying that those illnesses may be what overwhelms hospital capacity.

Another wild card is the situation in China. With the easing of China’s “zero COVID” policies, cases there are rising dramatically. Some models are predicting up to 1 million COVID deaths could occur in China in 2023. (The United States is now requiring travelers from China to show a negative COVID test before entering. Italy and Japan have taken similar measures.) 

“The suffering that is going to occur in China is not good news at all,” Dr. Topol said. “We are going to be seeing that for many weeks if not months ahead.” 

Theoretically, uncontained spread such as what is expected there could generate a whole new family of variants, he said. But “the main hit is going to be in China,” he predicted. “But it’s hard to project with accuracy.”

“China is 20% of the global population, so we can’t ignore it,” Dr. Jetelina said. “The question is, what’s the probability of a subvariant of concern coming from China? I think the probability is pretty low, but the possibility is there.”

What happens with cases in China may “throw a wrench” in the transition from pandemic to endemic, Dr. Chin-Hong said. But even if the rising cases in China do result in a new variant, “there’s so much T cell and B cell immunity [here], your average person is still not going to get seriously ill, even if the variant looks really scary.”


 

Minimizing the damage

Experts echo the same advice on stemming the surge, especially for adults who are 65 or older: Get the bivalent booster, and get it now. 

“The same with the influenza vaccine,” Dr. Schaffner said. 

Both the booster vaccine and the flu vaccine have been underused this year, he said. “It’s part of the general vaccine fatigue.”

The low uptake of the booster vaccine is concerning, Dr. Topol said, especially among adults aged 65 and older, the age group most vulnerable to severe disease. Just 35.7% of U.S. adults 65 and older have gotten the booster, according to the CDC. Dr. Topol calls that a tragedy.

Younger people have not taken to the booster, either. Overall, only 14.1% of people aged 5 and up have gotten an updated booster dose, according to the CDC. 

Recent studies find value in the boosters. One study looked only at adults age 65 or older, finding that the bivalent booster reduced the risk of hospitalization by 84% compared to someone not vaccinated, and 73% compared to someone who had received only the monovalent vaccine. Another study of adults found those who had gotten the bivalent were less likely to need COVID-related emergency room care or urgent care.  

In a Dec. 21 report in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers took plasma samples from people who had gotten either one or two monovalent boosters or the bivalent to determine how well they worked against the circulating Omicron subvariants BA.1, BA.5, BA.2.75.2, BQ.1.1, and XBB. The bivalent worked better than the monovalent against all the Omicron subvariants, but especially against BA.2.75.2, BQ.1.1, and XBB.

Rapid testing can help minimize transmission. On Dec. 15, the Biden administration announced its Winter Preparedness Plan, urging Americans to test before and after travel as well as indoor visiting with vulnerable individuals, providing another round of free at-home tests, continuing to make community testing available and continuing to provide vaccines. 

Besides the general precautions, Dr. Schaffner suggested: “Look at yourself. Who are you? If you are older than 65, or have underlying illness or are immunocompromised, or are pregnant, please put your mask back on. And think about social distancing. It might be time to worship at home and stream a movie,” instead of going to the theaters, he said. 
 

Back to mandates?

On Dec. 9, the New York City Commissioner of Health and Mental Hygiene urged a return to masking indoors, saying people “should” mask up, including in schools, stores, offices, and when in crowded outdoor settings.

On the same date, the County of Los Angeles Public Health urged a return to masking for everyone aged 2 and older when indoors, including at schools, in transit, or in work sites when around others.

While the CDC order requiring masks on public transportation is no longer in effect,  the agency continues to recommend that those using public transportation do so.

But some are taking that further. In Philadelphia, for example, School Superintendent Tony B. Watlington Sr., EdD, announced before the winter break that indoor masking would be required for all students and staff for the first 2 weeks of school return, through Jan. 13, citing guidance from the Philadelphia Department of Public Health.

Universal masking in schools does reduce COVID transmission, as a study published in late November suggests. After Massachusetts dropped the statewide universal masking policy in public schools in February 2022, researchers compared the incidence of COVID in 70 school districts there that dropped the mandate with two school districts that kept it. In the 15 weeks after the policy was rescinded, the lifting of the mandate was linked with an additional 44.9 cases of COVID per 1,000 students and staff. That corresponded to an estimated 11,901 cases and to nearly 30% of the cases in all districts during that time.

That said, experts see mandates as the exception rather than the rule, at least for now, citing public backlash against mandates to mask or follow other restrictions. 

“Mandating, we know, it shuts people off,” Dr. Topol said. “It’s unenforceable. If you have a very strong recommendation, that’s probably as good as you’re going to be able to do right now.”

There may be communities where mandates go over better than others, Dr. Schaffner said, such as communities where people have confidence in their public health authorities.
 

Glimmers of hope

Despite uncertainties, experts offered some not-so-dismal perspectives as well. 

“I think our numbers will continue to go up, but certainly not like 2021 or 2020,” Dr. Chin-Hong said.

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

A new study by researchers at the Kaiser Family Foundation finds that even for people with private insurance who are employed by large companies, the average out-of-pocket cost of an ED visit can exceed their savings.

In 2019, the study shows, patients enrolled in big companies’ health plans paid an average of $646 in copays and deductibles for each ED visit. A quarter of visits cost more than $907 out of pocket, and another quarter cost under $128.

About half of households can’t afford to pay the average deductible in an employer-sponsored insurance plan, the report notes. And more than a third of U.S. adults are unable to afford a $400 medical expense without borrowing.

While it’s not known how many people don’t go to an emergency department because of the anticipated cost, almost half of U.S. adults report that they’ve delayed care because of costs, according to a recent Kaiser survey.

One problem that people often face when deciding whether to visit an ED is that they don’t know how serious their condition is and what emergency care will cost, says Hope Schwartz, lead author of the report.

“When they go to the [ED], they don’t always know what their diagnosis will be and what their treatment costs will be. What we highlighted is that those costs could be very high or very low, and there’s no way to tell beforehand,” she says.
 

What costs so much?

Based on the paid claims data used in the study, health plans and patients paid a combined average of $2,453 for an ER visit. A quarter of visits cost $970 or less, and a quarter cost $3,043 or more.

Emergency department claims include professional fees and facility fees. The facility fees, which cover the cost of a hospital maintaining an ED 24/7, made up 80% of total costs, including a portion of doctors’ claims as well as laboratory and imaging fees.

But doctors’ claims for evaluation and management services were the largest part of costs, averaging $1,134 per visit. Procedures and treatments cost over $1,100 per visit, on average, while the average imaging claim cost $483, and the average cost for lab work was $230.

More than half of visits generated imaging claims, and about half of visits included lab claims.

The Kaiser Family Foundation report also looked at the costs of several common ED diagnoses. The most expensive diagnosis was appendicitis, which cost nearly twice as much as heart attacks, partly because it often led to surgery in the emergency department. On average, a visit for appendicitis cost $9,535, of which $1,717 was an out-of-pocket expense.

In addition, the researchers examined lower-cost diagnoses that generally do not require imaging or extensive treatment in the ED. These included upper respiratory tract infections ($1,535 total, $523 out of pocket), skin and soft tissue infections ($2,005 total, $572 out of pocket), and urinary tract infections ($2,726 total, $683 out of pocket). 

While these diagnoses can sometimes require admission to the hospital, in otherwise healthy adults they are typically evaluated with basic lab tests, and patients are discharged with prescriptions, according to the report.
 

Complexities of billing

ED visits are given codes to help show how complex the task or service was during the billing process. These codes have five levels.

Less complex visits require straightforward medical decision-making, such as rashes or medication refills. Patients with level 5 codes require highly complex decision-making and include life- or limb-threatening conditions, such as severe infections or heart attacks.

The less complex visits cost $592, on average, with patients responsible for $205 of that. For the most complex visits, the health plan covered $3,015, on average, or eight times the cost of the lowest-coded visits.

On average, patients paid $840 out of pocket for the most complex visits – four times the average costs for the less complex visits.

One reason for the rise in spending for ED visits is a national shift to higher-level ED billing codes, says Ms. Schwartz, who is a Kaiser Family Foundation health policy fellow and a medical student. “There has been good work done showing that [ED] visits are increasingly being billed as a level 4 or 5, whereas in previous years, they might have been billed as a level 3.

“Whether a hospital bills a level 4 or a level 5 code for your visit can make a really big difference in how much you pay. And if you come in not knowing what services you’re going to get, you don’t know if you’re going to get a level 3, 4, or 5 code, and the costs increase pretty quickly,” she says.
 

Costs vary by region

The report includes an analysis of emergency department costs in the 20 largest metropolitan areas in the United States. Overall, the researchers found, San Diego had the most expensive ED visits. Emergency departments in San Diego charged about twice as much per visit, on average, as those in Baltimore.

While there were expensive areas all across the country, many of the costliest places were in Texas, Florida, California, Colorado, and New York. The report noted that the most expensive regions for ED care did not align with the regions that had the most expensive health care overall.

“These comparisons suggest that our findings are not solely related to overall high health care prices in these areas and may reflect other factors, including the age and medical complexity of the population or differences in local norms and practice patterns,” the report says.
 

Healthier people

In addition to these geographical differences, the incidence of emergency department visits by those with employers’ insurance differed from that of the general population.

During the study year, the report found, 12% of the insured had at least one ED visit – a percentage that didn’t vary for any age group under 65, including children. (No patients 65 or older were included in the study.)

By comparison, a government survey shows that in 2019, 21% of all U.S. adults 18-44 had one or more emergency department visits. Among those 45-64, 20% made at least one ED visit.

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

A new study by researchers at the Kaiser Family Foundation finds that even for people with private insurance who are employed by large companies, the average out-of-pocket cost of an ED visit can exceed their savings.

In 2019, the study shows, patients enrolled in big companies’ health plans paid an average of $646 in copays and deductibles for each ED visit. A quarter of visits cost more than $907 out of pocket, and another quarter cost under $128.

About half of households can’t afford to pay the average deductible in an employer-sponsored insurance plan, the report notes. And more than a third of U.S. adults are unable to afford a $400 medical expense without borrowing.

While it’s not known how many people don’t go to an emergency department because of the anticipated cost, almost half of U.S. adults report that they’ve delayed care because of costs, according to a recent Kaiser survey.

One problem that people often face when deciding whether to visit an ED is that they don’t know how serious their condition is and what emergency care will cost, says Hope Schwartz, lead author of the report.

“When they go to the [ED], they don’t always know what their diagnosis will be and what their treatment costs will be. What we highlighted is that those costs could be very high or very low, and there’s no way to tell beforehand,” she says.
 

What costs so much?

Based on the paid claims data used in the study, health plans and patients paid a combined average of $2,453 for an ER visit. A quarter of visits cost $970 or less, and a quarter cost $3,043 or more.

Emergency department claims include professional fees and facility fees. The facility fees, which cover the cost of a hospital maintaining an ED 24/7, made up 80% of total costs, including a portion of doctors’ claims as well as laboratory and imaging fees.

But doctors’ claims for evaluation and management services were the largest part of costs, averaging $1,134 per visit. Procedures and treatments cost over $1,100 per visit, on average, while the average imaging claim cost $483, and the average cost for lab work was $230.

More than half of visits generated imaging claims, and about half of visits included lab claims.

The Kaiser Family Foundation report also looked at the costs of several common ED diagnoses. The most expensive diagnosis was appendicitis, which cost nearly twice as much as heart attacks, partly because it often led to surgery in the emergency department. On average, a visit for appendicitis cost $9,535, of which $1,717 was an out-of-pocket expense.

In addition, the researchers examined lower-cost diagnoses that generally do not require imaging or extensive treatment in the ED. These included upper respiratory tract infections ($1,535 total, $523 out of pocket), skin and soft tissue infections ($2,005 total, $572 out of pocket), and urinary tract infections ($2,726 total, $683 out of pocket). 

While these diagnoses can sometimes require admission to the hospital, in otherwise healthy adults they are typically evaluated with basic lab tests, and patients are discharged with prescriptions, according to the report.
 

Complexities of billing

ED visits are given codes to help show how complex the task or service was during the billing process. These codes have five levels.

Less complex visits require straightforward medical decision-making, such as rashes or medication refills. Patients with level 5 codes require highly complex decision-making and include life- or limb-threatening conditions, such as severe infections or heart attacks.

The less complex visits cost $592, on average, with patients responsible for $205 of that. For the most complex visits, the health plan covered $3,015, on average, or eight times the cost of the lowest-coded visits.

On average, patients paid $840 out of pocket for the most complex visits – four times the average costs for the less complex visits.

One reason for the rise in spending for ED visits is a national shift to higher-level ED billing codes, says Ms. Schwartz, who is a Kaiser Family Foundation health policy fellow and a medical student. “There has been good work done showing that [ED] visits are increasingly being billed as a level 4 or 5, whereas in previous years, they might have been billed as a level 3.

“Whether a hospital bills a level 4 or a level 5 code for your visit can make a really big difference in how much you pay. And if you come in not knowing what services you’re going to get, you don’t know if you’re going to get a level 3, 4, or 5 code, and the costs increase pretty quickly,” she says.
 

Costs vary by region

The report includes an analysis of emergency department costs in the 20 largest metropolitan areas in the United States. Overall, the researchers found, San Diego had the most expensive ED visits. Emergency departments in San Diego charged about twice as much per visit, on average, as those in Baltimore.

While there were expensive areas all across the country, many of the costliest places were in Texas, Florida, California, Colorado, and New York. The report noted that the most expensive regions for ED care did not align with the regions that had the most expensive health care overall.

“These comparisons suggest that our findings are not solely related to overall high health care prices in these areas and may reflect other factors, including the age and medical complexity of the population or differences in local norms and practice patterns,” the report says.
 

Healthier people

In addition to these geographical differences, the incidence of emergency department visits by those with employers’ insurance differed from that of the general population.

During the study year, the report found, 12% of the insured had at least one ED visit – a percentage that didn’t vary for any age group under 65, including children. (No patients 65 or older were included in the study.)

By comparison, a government survey shows that in 2019, 21% of all U.S. adults 18-44 had one or more emergency department visits. Among those 45-64, 20% made at least one ED visit.

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

A new study by researchers at the Kaiser Family Foundation finds that even for people with private insurance who are employed by large companies, the average out-of-pocket cost of an ED visit can exceed their savings.

In 2019, the study shows, patients enrolled in big companies’ health plans paid an average of $646 in copays and deductibles for each ED visit. A quarter of visits cost more than $907 out of pocket, and another quarter cost under $128.

About half of households can’t afford to pay the average deductible in an employer-sponsored insurance plan, the report notes. And more than a third of U.S. adults are unable to afford a $400 medical expense without borrowing.

While it’s not known how many people don’t go to an emergency department because of the anticipated cost, almost half of U.S. adults report that they’ve delayed care because of costs, according to a recent Kaiser survey.

One problem that people often face when deciding whether to visit an ED is that they don’t know how serious their condition is and what emergency care will cost, says Hope Schwartz, lead author of the report.

“When they go to the [ED], they don’t always know what their diagnosis will be and what their treatment costs will be. What we highlighted is that those costs could be very high or very low, and there’s no way to tell beforehand,” she says.
 

What costs so much?

Based on the paid claims data used in the study, health plans and patients paid a combined average of $2,453 for an ER visit. A quarter of visits cost $970 or less, and a quarter cost $3,043 or more.

Emergency department claims include professional fees and facility fees. The facility fees, which cover the cost of a hospital maintaining an ED 24/7, made up 80% of total costs, including a portion of doctors’ claims as well as laboratory and imaging fees.

But doctors’ claims for evaluation and management services were the largest part of costs, averaging $1,134 per visit. Procedures and treatments cost over $1,100 per visit, on average, while the average imaging claim cost $483, and the average cost for lab work was $230.

More than half of visits generated imaging claims, and about half of visits included lab claims.

The Kaiser Family Foundation report also looked at the costs of several common ED diagnoses. The most expensive diagnosis was appendicitis, which cost nearly twice as much as heart attacks, partly because it often led to surgery in the emergency department. On average, a visit for appendicitis cost $9,535, of which $1,717 was an out-of-pocket expense.

In addition, the researchers examined lower-cost diagnoses that generally do not require imaging or extensive treatment in the ED. These included upper respiratory tract infections ($1,535 total, $523 out of pocket), skin and soft tissue infections ($2,005 total, $572 out of pocket), and urinary tract infections ($2,726 total, $683 out of pocket). 

While these diagnoses can sometimes require admission to the hospital, in otherwise healthy adults they are typically evaluated with basic lab tests, and patients are discharged with prescriptions, according to the report.
 

Complexities of billing

ED visits are given codes to help show how complex the task or service was during the billing process. These codes have five levels.

Less complex visits require straightforward medical decision-making, such as rashes or medication refills. Patients with level 5 codes require highly complex decision-making and include life- or limb-threatening conditions, such as severe infections or heart attacks.

The less complex visits cost $592, on average, with patients responsible for $205 of that. For the most complex visits, the health plan covered $3,015, on average, or eight times the cost of the lowest-coded visits.

On average, patients paid $840 out of pocket for the most complex visits – four times the average costs for the less complex visits.

One reason for the rise in spending for ED visits is a national shift to higher-level ED billing codes, says Ms. Schwartz, who is a Kaiser Family Foundation health policy fellow and a medical student. “There has been good work done showing that [ED] visits are increasingly being billed as a level 4 or 5, whereas in previous years, they might have been billed as a level 3.

“Whether a hospital bills a level 4 or a level 5 code for your visit can make a really big difference in how much you pay. And if you come in not knowing what services you’re going to get, you don’t know if you’re going to get a level 3, 4, or 5 code, and the costs increase pretty quickly,” she says.
 

Costs vary by region

The report includes an analysis of emergency department costs in the 20 largest metropolitan areas in the United States. Overall, the researchers found, San Diego had the most expensive ED visits. Emergency departments in San Diego charged about twice as much per visit, on average, as those in Baltimore.

While there were expensive areas all across the country, many of the costliest places were in Texas, Florida, California, Colorado, and New York. The report noted that the most expensive regions for ED care did not align with the regions that had the most expensive health care overall.

“These comparisons suggest that our findings are not solely related to overall high health care prices in these areas and may reflect other factors, including the age and medical complexity of the population or differences in local norms and practice patterns,” the report says.
 

Healthier people

In addition to these geographical differences, the incidence of emergency department visits by those with employers’ insurance differed from that of the general population.

During the study year, the report found, 12% of the insured had at least one ED visit – a percentage that didn’t vary for any age group under 65, including children. (No patients 65 or older were included in the study.)

By comparison, a government survey shows that in 2019, 21% of all U.S. adults 18-44 had one or more emergency department visits. Among those 45-64, 20% made at least one ED visit.

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