Covid ICYMI

In early January, Ohio not only set a state record for COVID-19 hospitalizations—it had the fourth highest rate in the country, with 6,747 hospitalized coronavirus patients on January 10, a 40% increase over the previous 21 days. Most were unvaccinated. To help overwhelmed hospitals cope, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine turned to the National Guard. Unfortunately, nearly half of the Ohio National Guard also were unvaccinated.

By US Department of Defense (DoD) directive, National Guard members must have a COVID-19 vaccination to be deployed on hospital missions. Thus, in COVID hotspots across the nation, governors are on the horns of a dilemma. They want and need to deploy the National Guard to give medical and nonclinical support but aren’t sure whether they will be able to or, indeed, whether they should.

So far, vaccinated teams are already on the ground in a number of states. In Indiana, where hospitalizations jumped 50% over 2 weeks in December, the National Guard sent 6-person teams, all fully vaccinated. In New Hampshire, 70 guards are being deployed to help hospitals with food service, clerical work, and other nonmedical functions. New York Governor Kathy Hochul has deployed guard members for help to ease the strain on nursing homes. Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker has activated up to 500 guard members; some will be supporting 55 acute care hospital and 12 ambulance services. In Maine, where cases have peaked, Governor Janet Mills activated guard members to support nursing facilities and administer monoclonal antibodies. The Louisiana National Guard has administered more than 542,000 COVID-19 tests and 206,300 vaccines. As many as 1,000 Maryland Air and Army National Guardsmen are being activated to help with testing and other missions.

However, as in Ohio, other states are facing problematic scenarios. For instance, about 40% of the more than 20,000 Texas National Guard are refusing to get vaccinated, challenging the Biden Administration vaccine requirement for all military.

And a court showdown over federal vaccine mandates, started by Governor Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma and joined by the Republican governors of Wyoming, Iowa, Alaska, Nebraska, and Mississippi, came to a head in December. Last November, Stitt asked Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to exempt Oklahoma’s National Guard from the vaccine mandate. He claimed the requirement violated the personal freedoms of many Oklahomans and could cause them to “potentially sacrifice their personal beliefs.” But in a memo to the Joint Chiefs chairmen, the service secretaries and the head of the National Guard Bureau, Austin wrote that Pentagon funds could not be used to pay for duties performed under Title 32 for members of the Guard who do not comply with the military’s vaccine requirement. (Title 32 refers to Guard operations under state orders.) Austin also said National Guard members must be vaccinated to participate in drills, training, and other duty conducted under Title 32.

Stitt, maintaining that he is commander in chief of the Oklahoma National Guard as long as it operates under Title 32 orders, put out his own memo stipulating that no Guard member was required to get vaccinated. He also ordered Brig. Gen. Thomas Mancino, newly appointed commander of the Oklahoma National Guard, to not enforce the mandate. Subsequently, Mancino issued a statement pointing out that current state law is limited in protecting troops who opt out of the shot. Moreover, if the Guard were called up under federal orders, he said, he would enforce the mandate. Training events, schools, and mobilizations were going to “eventually force you out of that safe harbor,” he wrote, “…This is reality.”

In late December, a federal judge denied Oklahoma’s motion to enjoin the mandate. The Oklahoma Attorney General’s office responded, “We will not be surprised if the President’s vaccine mandate actually reduces the nation’s military readiness instead of promoting it.”

In a press briefing, Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said, “The Secretary has the authorities he needs to require this vaccine across the force, including the National Guard. …[E]ven when they’re in a Title 32 status.” He added, “It is a lawful order for National Guardsmen to receive the COVID vaccine. It’s a lawful order, and refusing to do that, absent of an improved exemption, puts them in the same potential [position] as active-duty members who refuse the vaccine.” That could mean, for instance, loss of pay and membership in the National Guard.

A core rationale for the mandate, according to Secretary Austin, is the need for military readiness—meaning Guard members must be healthy and fit for duty. And that extends to being healthy and fit for missions like transporting at-risk patients. Ohio National Guard Adjutant General Major General John Harris Jr. said, “I would never put a soldier or airman in harm’s way without the best protection we could put on them—body armor, helmets. And this medical readiness is the exact same thing. We’re putting folks into harm’s way.” He has moved the deadline from the Pentagon’s June 30 date to March 31—a move that boosted the vaccination rate from 53% to 56% in one week.

Ohio Governor DeWine has expressed frustration that almost half of the Ohio Army National Guard personnel can’t be deployed on this mission because they’re unvaccinated. “In some of our testing places, 40 to 50% of the people are testing positive,” he said. “So this is a high-risk operation. You need to be protected. The best way for you to be protected is to get the vaccination.”

As of December 2021, according to the National Guard Bureau, the National Guard as a whole was 66% fully vaccinated. The percentages vary according to service; for instance, nearly 90% of airmen have been vaccinated, compared with only 40% of Army Guardsmen. Among the states challenging the mandate, the vaccinated rates have been moving upward: In Alaska, about 92% of the Air National Guard have been vaccinated—leaving roughly 11,000 troops who had not met the December 2 deadline. In Iowa, as of Nov. 30, 91% of Air National Guard and 80% of Army National Guard members had been vaccinated, but about 9,000 soldiers had been directed to get the vaccination or risk disciplinary action. Almost 2,200 of the more than 2,800-strong Wyoming National Guard (77%) have received at least 1 dose. Nebraska Air National Guard’s force of 1,000 was 94% fully vaccinated as of December 1. (Maj Scott Ingalsbe, public affairs officer, said, “Vaccinations are tied to individual medical readiness. They provide service members with the best protection available so they can perform missions across the globe.”).

In most states, Army National Guard members have until June 30, 2022, to comply. “Our soldiers …have until [the DoD’s deadline], and some of them are just going to wait close to the deadline,” John Goheen of the National Guard Association of the United States said in a discussion on NPR. “That’s human nature.”

Earlier this month, Texas Governor Greg Abbott told National Guard members they can ignore the Pentagon’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate: “President Biden is not your commander-in-chief.” He has also sued the Biden administration over the requirement.

In the meantime, the hospitals at breaking point must hope for the best and take as much help as they can get. 

In early January, Ohio not only set a state record for COVID-19 hospitalizations—it had the fourth highest rate in the country, with 6,747 hospitalized coronavirus patients on January 10, a 40% increase over the previous 21 days. Most were unvaccinated. To help overwhelmed hospitals cope, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine turned to the National Guard. Unfortunately, nearly half of the Ohio National Guard also were unvaccinated.

By US Department of Defense (DoD) directive, National Guard members must have a COVID-19 vaccination to be deployed on hospital missions. Thus, in COVID hotspots across the nation, governors are on the horns of a dilemma. They want and need to deploy the National Guard to give medical and nonclinical support but aren’t sure whether they will be able to or, indeed, whether they should.

So far, vaccinated teams are already on the ground in a number of states. In Indiana, where hospitalizations jumped 50% over 2 weeks in December, the National Guard sent 6-person teams, all fully vaccinated. In New Hampshire, 70 guards are being deployed to help hospitals with food service, clerical work, and other nonmedical functions. New York Governor Kathy Hochul has deployed guard members for help to ease the strain on nursing homes. Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker has activated up to 500 guard members; some will be supporting 55 acute care hospital and 12 ambulance services. In Maine, where cases have peaked, Governor Janet Mills activated guard members to support nursing facilities and administer monoclonal antibodies. The Louisiana National Guard has administered more than 542,000 COVID-19 tests and 206,300 vaccines. As many as 1,000 Maryland Air and Army National Guardsmen are being activated to help with testing and other missions.

However, as in Ohio, other states are facing problematic scenarios. For instance, about 40% of the more than 20,000 Texas National Guard are refusing to get vaccinated, challenging the Biden Administration vaccine requirement for all military.

And a court showdown over federal vaccine mandates, started by Governor Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma and joined by the Republican governors of Wyoming, Iowa, Alaska, Nebraska, and Mississippi, came to a head in December. Last November, Stitt asked Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to exempt Oklahoma’s National Guard from the vaccine mandate. He claimed the requirement violated the personal freedoms of many Oklahomans and could cause them to “potentially sacrifice their personal beliefs.” But in a memo to the Joint Chiefs chairmen, the service secretaries and the head of the National Guard Bureau, Austin wrote that Pentagon funds could not be used to pay for duties performed under Title 32 for members of the Guard who do not comply with the military’s vaccine requirement. (Title 32 refers to Guard operations under state orders.) Austin also said National Guard members must be vaccinated to participate in drills, training, and other duty conducted under Title 32.

Stitt, maintaining that he is commander in chief of the Oklahoma National Guard as long as it operates under Title 32 orders, put out his own memo stipulating that no Guard member was required to get vaccinated. He also ordered Brig. Gen. Thomas Mancino, newly appointed commander of the Oklahoma National Guard, to not enforce the mandate. Subsequently, Mancino issued a statement pointing out that current state law is limited in protecting troops who opt out of the shot. Moreover, if the Guard were called up under federal orders, he said, he would enforce the mandate. Training events, schools, and mobilizations were going to “eventually force you out of that safe harbor,” he wrote, “…This is reality.”

In late December, a federal judge denied Oklahoma’s motion to enjoin the mandate. The Oklahoma Attorney General’s office responded, “We will not be surprised if the President’s vaccine mandate actually reduces the nation’s military readiness instead of promoting it.”

In a press briefing, Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said, “The Secretary has the authorities he needs to require this vaccine across the force, including the National Guard. …[E]ven when they’re in a Title 32 status.” He added, “It is a lawful order for National Guardsmen to receive the COVID vaccine. It’s a lawful order, and refusing to do that, absent of an improved exemption, puts them in the same potential [position] as active-duty members who refuse the vaccine.” That could mean, for instance, loss of pay and membership in the National Guard.

A core rationale for the mandate, according to Secretary Austin, is the need for military readiness—meaning Guard members must be healthy and fit for duty. And that extends to being healthy and fit for missions like transporting at-risk patients. Ohio National Guard Adjutant General Major General John Harris Jr. said, “I would never put a soldier or airman in harm’s way without the best protection we could put on them—body armor, helmets. And this medical readiness is the exact same thing. We’re putting folks into harm’s way.” He has moved the deadline from the Pentagon’s June 30 date to March 31—a move that boosted the vaccination rate from 53% to 56% in one week.

Ohio Governor DeWine has expressed frustration that almost half of the Ohio Army National Guard personnel can’t be deployed on this mission because they’re unvaccinated. “In some of our testing places, 40 to 50% of the people are testing positive,” he said. “So this is a high-risk operation. You need to be protected. The best way for you to be protected is to get the vaccination.”

As of December 2021, according to the National Guard Bureau, the National Guard as a whole was 66% fully vaccinated. The percentages vary according to service; for instance, nearly 90% of airmen have been vaccinated, compared with only 40% of Army Guardsmen. Among the states challenging the mandate, the vaccinated rates have been moving upward: In Alaska, about 92% of the Air National Guard have been vaccinated—leaving roughly 11,000 troops who had not met the December 2 deadline. In Iowa, as of Nov. 30, 91% of Air National Guard and 80% of Army National Guard members had been vaccinated, but about 9,000 soldiers had been directed to get the vaccination or risk disciplinary action. Almost 2,200 of the more than 2,800-strong Wyoming National Guard (77%) have received at least 1 dose. Nebraska Air National Guard’s force of 1,000 was 94% fully vaccinated as of December 1. (Maj Scott Ingalsbe, public affairs officer, said, “Vaccinations are tied to individual medical readiness. They provide service members with the best protection available so they can perform missions across the globe.”).

In most states, Army National Guard members have until June 30, 2022, to comply. “Our soldiers …have until [the DoD’s deadline], and some of them are just going to wait close to the deadline,” John Goheen of the National Guard Association of the United States said in a discussion on NPR. “That’s human nature.”

Earlier this month, Texas Governor Greg Abbott told National Guard members they can ignore the Pentagon’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate: “President Biden is not your commander-in-chief.” He has also sued the Biden administration over the requirement.

In the meantime, the hospitals at breaking point must hope for the best and take as much help as they can get. 

In early January, Ohio not only set a state record for COVID-19 hospitalizations—it had the fourth highest rate in the country, with 6,747 hospitalized coronavirus patients on January 10, a 40% increase over the previous 21 days. Most were unvaccinated. To help overwhelmed hospitals cope, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine turned to the National Guard. Unfortunately, nearly half of the Ohio National Guard also were unvaccinated.

By US Department of Defense (DoD) directive, National Guard members must have a COVID-19 vaccination to be deployed on hospital missions. Thus, in COVID hotspots across the nation, governors are on the horns of a dilemma. They want and need to deploy the National Guard to give medical and nonclinical support but aren’t sure whether they will be able to or, indeed, whether they should.

So far, vaccinated teams are already on the ground in a number of states. In Indiana, where hospitalizations jumped 50% over 2 weeks in December, the National Guard sent 6-person teams, all fully vaccinated. In New Hampshire, 70 guards are being deployed to help hospitals with food service, clerical work, and other nonmedical functions. New York Governor Kathy Hochul has deployed guard members for help to ease the strain on nursing homes. Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker has activated up to 500 guard members; some will be supporting 55 acute care hospital and 12 ambulance services. In Maine, where cases have peaked, Governor Janet Mills activated guard members to support nursing facilities and administer monoclonal antibodies. The Louisiana National Guard has administered more than 542,000 COVID-19 tests and 206,300 vaccines. As many as 1,000 Maryland Air and Army National Guardsmen are being activated to help with testing and other missions.

However, as in Ohio, other states are facing problematic scenarios. For instance, about 40% of the more than 20,000 Texas National Guard are refusing to get vaccinated, challenging the Biden Administration vaccine requirement for all military.

And a court showdown over federal vaccine mandates, started by Governor Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma and joined by the Republican governors of Wyoming, Iowa, Alaska, Nebraska, and Mississippi, came to a head in December. Last November, Stitt asked Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to exempt Oklahoma’s National Guard from the vaccine mandate. He claimed the requirement violated the personal freedoms of many Oklahomans and could cause them to “potentially sacrifice their personal beliefs.” But in a memo to the Joint Chiefs chairmen, the service secretaries and the head of the National Guard Bureau, Austin wrote that Pentagon funds could not be used to pay for duties performed under Title 32 for members of the Guard who do not comply with the military’s vaccine requirement. (Title 32 refers to Guard operations under state orders.) Austin also said National Guard members must be vaccinated to participate in drills, training, and other duty conducted under Title 32.

Stitt, maintaining that he is commander in chief of the Oklahoma National Guard as long as it operates under Title 32 orders, put out his own memo stipulating that no Guard member was required to get vaccinated. He also ordered Brig. Gen. Thomas Mancino, newly appointed commander of the Oklahoma National Guard, to not enforce the mandate. Subsequently, Mancino issued a statement pointing out that current state law is limited in protecting troops who opt out of the shot. Moreover, if the Guard were called up under federal orders, he said, he would enforce the mandate. Training events, schools, and mobilizations were going to “eventually force you out of that safe harbor,” he wrote, “…This is reality.”

In late December, a federal judge denied Oklahoma’s motion to enjoin the mandate. The Oklahoma Attorney General’s office responded, “We will not be surprised if the President’s vaccine mandate actually reduces the nation’s military readiness instead of promoting it.”

In a press briefing, Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said, “The Secretary has the authorities he needs to require this vaccine across the force, including the National Guard. …[E]ven when they’re in a Title 32 status.” He added, “It is a lawful order for National Guardsmen to receive the COVID vaccine. It’s a lawful order, and refusing to do that, absent of an improved exemption, puts them in the same potential [position] as active-duty members who refuse the vaccine.” That could mean, for instance, loss of pay and membership in the National Guard.

A core rationale for the mandate, according to Secretary Austin, is the need for military readiness—meaning Guard members must be healthy and fit for duty. And that extends to being healthy and fit for missions like transporting at-risk patients. Ohio National Guard Adjutant General Major General John Harris Jr. said, “I would never put a soldier or airman in harm’s way without the best protection we could put on them—body armor, helmets. And this medical readiness is the exact same thing. We’re putting folks into harm’s way.” He has moved the deadline from the Pentagon’s June 30 date to March 31—a move that boosted the vaccination rate from 53% to 56% in one week.

Ohio Governor DeWine has expressed frustration that almost half of the Ohio Army National Guard personnel can’t be deployed on this mission because they’re unvaccinated. “In some of our testing places, 40 to 50% of the people are testing positive,” he said. “So this is a high-risk operation. You need to be protected. The best way for you to be protected is to get the vaccination.”

As of December 2021, according to the National Guard Bureau, the National Guard as a whole was 66% fully vaccinated. The percentages vary according to service; for instance, nearly 90% of airmen have been vaccinated, compared with only 40% of Army Guardsmen. Among the states challenging the mandate, the vaccinated rates have been moving upward: In Alaska, about 92% of the Air National Guard have been vaccinated—leaving roughly 11,000 troops who had not met the December 2 deadline. In Iowa, as of Nov. 30, 91% of Air National Guard and 80% of Army National Guard members had been vaccinated, but about 9,000 soldiers had been directed to get the vaccination or risk disciplinary action. Almost 2,200 of the more than 2,800-strong Wyoming National Guard (77%) have received at least 1 dose. Nebraska Air National Guard’s force of 1,000 was 94% fully vaccinated as of December 1. (Maj Scott Ingalsbe, public affairs officer, said, “Vaccinations are tied to individual medical readiness. They provide service members with the best protection available so they can perform missions across the globe.”).

In most states, Army National Guard members have until June 30, 2022, to comply. “Our soldiers …have until [the DoD’s deadline], and some of them are just going to wait close to the deadline,” John Goheen of the National Guard Association of the United States said in a discussion on NPR. “That’s human nature.”

Earlier this month, Texas Governor Greg Abbott told National Guard members they can ignore the Pentagon’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate: “President Biden is not your commander-in-chief.” He has also sued the Biden administration over the requirement.

In the meantime, the hospitals at breaking point must hope for the best and take as much help as they can get. 

Hospital admissions of U.S. children younger than 5 – the only group ineligible for vaccination – have reached their peak since the start of the pandemic, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said the higher numbers show the importance of vaccination for all eligible groups.

“This is the highest number of pediatric hospitalizations we’ve seen throughout the pandemic, which we said about Delta until now,” she said at a CDC briefing Friday. “This very well may be that there are just more cases out there, and our children are more vulnerable when they have more cases surrounding them.”

Despite the skyrocketing admissions, hospitalizations are still relatively low for children, she said. The hospitalization rate for children under 5 is 4 in 100,000, and it’s about 1 in 100,000 in children 5-17.

Dr. Walensky said not all children are being hospitalized for COVID-19 – some are admitted for unrelated issues and test positive but don’t have symptoms.

“We are still learning more about the severity of Omicron in children,” she said, noting that just over 50% of children 12-18 are fully vaccinated, while only 16% of those ages 5-11 are fully vaccinated.

Friday’s teleconference was the first CDC briefing in several months and comes on the heels of recent guideline updates for testing and isolation that have left the American public dumbfounded. When asked why the briefing was held, Dr. Walensky said there had been interest in hearing more from the CDC, saying, “I anticipate this will be the first of many briefings.”

She also defended the confusing guideline changes, saying, “We’re in an unprecedented time with the speed of Omicron cases rising. … This is hard, and I am committed to continuing to improve as we learn more about the science and communicate that to you.”

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

Hospital admissions of U.S. children younger than 5 – the only group ineligible for vaccination – have reached their peak since the start of the pandemic, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said the higher numbers show the importance of vaccination for all eligible groups.

“This is the highest number of pediatric hospitalizations we’ve seen throughout the pandemic, which we said about Delta until now,” she said at a CDC briefing Friday. “This very well may be that there are just more cases out there, and our children are more vulnerable when they have more cases surrounding them.”

Despite the skyrocketing admissions, hospitalizations are still relatively low for children, she said. The hospitalization rate for children under 5 is 4 in 100,000, and it’s about 1 in 100,000 in children 5-17.

Dr. Walensky said not all children are being hospitalized for COVID-19 – some are admitted for unrelated issues and test positive but don’t have symptoms.

“We are still learning more about the severity of Omicron in children,” she said, noting that just over 50% of children 12-18 are fully vaccinated, while only 16% of those ages 5-11 are fully vaccinated.

Friday’s teleconference was the first CDC briefing in several months and comes on the heels of recent guideline updates for testing and isolation that have left the American public dumbfounded. When asked why the briefing was held, Dr. Walensky said there had been interest in hearing more from the CDC, saying, “I anticipate this will be the first of many briefings.”

She also defended the confusing guideline changes, saying, “We’re in an unprecedented time with the speed of Omicron cases rising. … This is hard, and I am committed to continuing to improve as we learn more about the science and communicate that to you.”

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

Hospital admissions of U.S. children younger than 5 – the only group ineligible for vaccination – have reached their peak since the start of the pandemic, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said the higher numbers show the importance of vaccination for all eligible groups.

“This is the highest number of pediatric hospitalizations we’ve seen throughout the pandemic, which we said about Delta until now,” she said at a CDC briefing Friday. “This very well may be that there are just more cases out there, and our children are more vulnerable when they have more cases surrounding them.”

Despite the skyrocketing admissions, hospitalizations are still relatively low for children, she said. The hospitalization rate for children under 5 is 4 in 100,000, and it’s about 1 in 100,000 in children 5-17.

Dr. Walensky said not all children are being hospitalized for COVID-19 – some are admitted for unrelated issues and test positive but don’t have symptoms.

“We are still learning more about the severity of Omicron in children,” she said, noting that just over 50% of children 12-18 are fully vaccinated, while only 16% of those ages 5-11 are fully vaccinated.

Friday’s teleconference was the first CDC briefing in several months and comes on the heels of recent guideline updates for testing and isolation that have left the American public dumbfounded. When asked why the briefing was held, Dr. Walensky said there had been interest in hearing more from the CDC, saying, “I anticipate this will be the first of many briefings.”

She also defended the confusing guideline changes, saying, “We’re in an unprecedented time with the speed of Omicron cases rising. … This is hard, and I am committed to continuing to improve as we learn more about the science and communicate that to you.”

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

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

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

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

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

Unlikely, brief, and ‘benign’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Males of a certain age

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sex hormones may be key

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modulation of immune responses

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

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

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

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

Prospects for younger children

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

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

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

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

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

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

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

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

Unlikely, brief, and ‘benign’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Males of a certain age

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sex hormones may be key

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modulation of immune responses

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

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

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

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

Prospects for younger children

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

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

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

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

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

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

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

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

Unlikely, brief, and ‘benign’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Males of a certain age

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sex hormones may be key

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modulation of immune responses

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

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

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

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

Prospects for younger children

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coverage mandates and payment parity

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

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

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

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

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

Telemedicine across state lines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coverage mandates and payment parity

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

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

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

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

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

Telemedicine across state lines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coverage mandates and payment parity

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

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

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

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

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

Telemedicine across state lines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Mayo Clinic fired 700 employees this week who didn’t comply with its COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The medical center, which is Minnesota’s largest employer, has major campuses in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota and operates hospitals in Iowa and Wisconsin.

Employees had until Jan. 3 to get vaccinated or receive approval for an exemption. On Jan. 4, the hospital fired those who didn’t meet the requirement, according to Action News Jax, a CBS affiliate in Florida.

The 700 employees make up about 1% of Mayo Clinic’s 73,000-person workforce. So far, none of the employees at the campus in Jacksonville, Fla., have been affected, the news outlet reported.

“Florida staff who are not in compliance with our vaccination program remain employed pending the outcome of litigation related to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requirements,” a Mayo Clinic spokesperson told Action News Jax.

The federal government and Florida remain at odds over vaccine mandates, and several lawsuits are winding through the court system. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation in November that bans private Florida employers from requiring all employees to get vaccinated and calls for various exemption options, according to The Florida Times-Union. The state law clashes with a federal rule that requires vaccinations for all health care workers at hospitals that receive Medicare and Medicaid funding.

The Mayo Clinic mandate required employees to receive at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose and not be “overdue” for a second dose, according to the statement. Only medical and religious exemptions were allowed, and most medical and religious exemptions were approved.

“While Mayo Clinic is saddened to lose valuable employees, we need to take all steps necessary to keep our patients, workforce, visitors, and communities safe,” Mayo Clinic wrote in its statement. “If individuals released from employment choose to get vaccinated at a later date, the opportunity exists for them to apply and return to Mayo Clinic for future job openings.”

With the latest surge in COVID-19 cases from the Omicron variant, the Mayo Clinic also encouraged unvaccinated people to get a shot and those who are eligible for a booster to get one “as soon as possible.”

“Based on science and data, it’s clear that vaccination keeps people out of the hospital and saves lives,” according to the statement. “That’s true for everyone in our communities – and it’s especially true for the many patients with serious or complex diseases who seek care at Mayo Clinic each day.”

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

The Mayo Clinic fired 700 employees this week who didn’t comply with its COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The medical center, which is Minnesota’s largest employer, has major campuses in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota and operates hospitals in Iowa and Wisconsin.

Employees had until Jan. 3 to get vaccinated or receive approval for an exemption. On Jan. 4, the hospital fired those who didn’t meet the requirement, according to Action News Jax, a CBS affiliate in Florida.

The 700 employees make up about 1% of Mayo Clinic’s 73,000-person workforce. So far, none of the employees at the campus in Jacksonville, Fla., have been affected, the news outlet reported.

“Florida staff who are not in compliance with our vaccination program remain employed pending the outcome of litigation related to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requirements,” a Mayo Clinic spokesperson told Action News Jax.

The federal government and Florida remain at odds over vaccine mandates, and several lawsuits are winding through the court system. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation in November that bans private Florida employers from requiring all employees to get vaccinated and calls for various exemption options, according to The Florida Times-Union. The state law clashes with a federal rule that requires vaccinations for all health care workers at hospitals that receive Medicare and Medicaid funding.

The Mayo Clinic mandate required employees to receive at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose and not be “overdue” for a second dose, according to the statement. Only medical and religious exemptions were allowed, and most medical and religious exemptions were approved.

“While Mayo Clinic is saddened to lose valuable employees, we need to take all steps necessary to keep our patients, workforce, visitors, and communities safe,” Mayo Clinic wrote in its statement. “If individuals released from employment choose to get vaccinated at a later date, the opportunity exists for them to apply and return to Mayo Clinic for future job openings.”

With the latest surge in COVID-19 cases from the Omicron variant, the Mayo Clinic also encouraged unvaccinated people to get a shot and those who are eligible for a booster to get one “as soon as possible.”

“Based on science and data, it’s clear that vaccination keeps people out of the hospital and saves lives,” according to the statement. “That’s true for everyone in our communities – and it’s especially true for the many patients with serious or complex diseases who seek care at Mayo Clinic each day.”

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

The Mayo Clinic fired 700 employees this week who didn’t comply with its COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The medical center, which is Minnesota’s largest employer, has major campuses in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota and operates hospitals in Iowa and Wisconsin.

Employees had until Jan. 3 to get vaccinated or receive approval for an exemption. On Jan. 4, the hospital fired those who didn’t meet the requirement, according to Action News Jax, a CBS affiliate in Florida.

The 700 employees make up about 1% of Mayo Clinic’s 73,000-person workforce. So far, none of the employees at the campus in Jacksonville, Fla., have been affected, the news outlet reported.

“Florida staff who are not in compliance with our vaccination program remain employed pending the outcome of litigation related to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requirements,” a Mayo Clinic spokesperson told Action News Jax.

The federal government and Florida remain at odds over vaccine mandates, and several lawsuits are winding through the court system. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation in November that bans private Florida employers from requiring all employees to get vaccinated and calls for various exemption options, according to The Florida Times-Union. The state law clashes with a federal rule that requires vaccinations for all health care workers at hospitals that receive Medicare and Medicaid funding.

The Mayo Clinic mandate required employees to receive at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose and not be “overdue” for a second dose, according to the statement. Only medical and religious exemptions were allowed, and most medical and religious exemptions were approved.

“While Mayo Clinic is saddened to lose valuable employees, we need to take all steps necessary to keep our patients, workforce, visitors, and communities safe,” Mayo Clinic wrote in its statement. “If individuals released from employment choose to get vaccinated at a later date, the opportunity exists for them to apply and return to Mayo Clinic for future job openings.”

With the latest surge in COVID-19 cases from the Omicron variant, the Mayo Clinic also encouraged unvaccinated people to get a shot and those who are eligible for a booster to get one “as soon as possible.”

“Based on science and data, it’s clear that vaccination keeps people out of the hospital and saves lives,” according to the statement. “That’s true for everyone in our communities – and it’s especially true for the many patients with serious or complex diseases who seek care at Mayo Clinic each day.”

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

Women may rest a bit easier thanks to results from a study showing that vaccination against the SARS-CoV-2 virus has almost no impact on a woman’s menstrual cycle. The issue is significant, as regular menstruation is a sign of health and fertility, and fears of disturbances might increase vaccination hesitancy as COVID-19 cases continue to surge.

Alison Edelman, MD, MPH, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, led a group studying prospective data on almost 24,000 menstrual cycles reported by almost 4,000 U.S. women.

The investigators found that COVID-19 vaccination was associated with a less than 1-day change in cycle length for the menstrual cycles after the first and second inoculations, compared with prevaccine cycles. Vaccination had no effect on the actual number of days menstrual bleeding lasted.

The study looked at the menstrual patterns of women aged 18-45 years with normal cycle lengths of 24-38 days for the three consecutive cycles before the first vaccine dose and for three consecutive postvaccine cycles. The final sample included 2,403 vaccinated and 1,556 unvaccinated individuals.

In vaccinated women, the study initially found a slight average increase in cycle length after dose one of 71% of a day and 91% of a day after dose two. Following adjustments, those increases dropped to 64% of a day after the first dose and 79% of a day after the second dose.

In unvaccinated women, the study looked at six cycles over a similar time period and found no significant changes from baseline.

“Coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination is associated with a small change in cycle length but not menses length,” Dr. Edelman’s group concluded in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

In the rare instance that a woman received two vaccine doses within the same menstrual cycle, the change in length could increase to 2 days. These variations appear to resolve quickly, possibly as soon as the next cycle after vaccination and do not indicate any cause for long-term physical or reproductive health concern, according to the authors.

Reports by women on social media, however, have suggested that postvaccine menstrual disruptions are more common with, for example, heavier and breakthrough bleeding. But it appears such changes are temporary and resolve quickly.

“These findings are reassuring and validating,” Dr. Edelman said in an interview. On a population level, the changes indicate no cause for concern for long-term physical or reproductive health and no reason to avoid vaccination. “On a personal level, people want this information so they know what to expect when they get vaccinated, and not worry about a pregnancy scare or be disappointed if they were trying for pregnancy.”

Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research

According to the International Federation of Gynecologists and Obstetricians, variations in cycle length of fewer than 8 days are considered normal, said Christine Metz, PhD, a research biologist and a professor of molecular medicine at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset, N.Y. “Thus, the extra 17 hours added to the menstrual cycle length in the vaccination group in this study is well within the ‘normal’ range.”

In a group of about 1,600 menstruating women being studied at Dr. Metz’s center, some have anecdotally reported transient cycle changes post vaccination for COVID-19, including delays in menstruation onset and changes in bleeding patterns.

Exactly how vaccination might alter menstrual cycle length is not known and has not been studied with vaccination against other infections such as influenza and meningococcal disease.

“Many factors are known to affect menstrual cycle length including changes in diet, sleep, and exercise, as well as sickness, travel, and stress,” Dr. Metz said. The COVID-19 vaccines have affected people in different ways, with side effects ranging from injection-site pain to nausea, aches, fever, and fatigue. “Vaccination side effects, particularly if severe, could lead to changes in diet, exercise, and sleep, and feelings of sickness and/or stress.”

These stressors can alter hormone production and stability, as well as the body’s response to hormones such as estrogen, progesterone, follicle-stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone, and other hormones associated with female reproduction. “Because these hormones regulate the menstrual cycle, variations in these hormones can either shorten or lengthen the cycle,” Dr. Metz explained.

More research needs to be done at the global level, according to the authors. “Questions remain about other possible changes in menstrual cycles, such as menstrual symptoms, unscheduled bleeding, and changes in the quality and quantity of menstrual bleeding.”

This research was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institutes of Health’s Office of Research on Women’s Health. Dr. Edelman reported support from the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the World Health Organization, Gynuity, and the Karolinska Institute as well as royalties from UpToDate. Other study authors reported similar relationships with not-for-profit and private-sector companies. Three coauthors are employees of Natural Cycles, a fertility tracking device that was used in the study. Dr. Metz disclosed no conflicts of interest with regard to her comments.
 

Women may rest a bit easier thanks to results from a study showing that vaccination against the SARS-CoV-2 virus has almost no impact on a woman’s menstrual cycle. The issue is significant, as regular menstruation is a sign of health and fertility, and fears of disturbances might increase vaccination hesitancy as COVID-19 cases continue to surge.

Alison Edelman, MD, MPH, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, led a group studying prospective data on almost 24,000 menstrual cycles reported by almost 4,000 U.S. women.

The investigators found that COVID-19 vaccination was associated with a less than 1-day change in cycle length for the menstrual cycles after the first and second inoculations, compared with prevaccine cycles. Vaccination had no effect on the actual number of days menstrual bleeding lasted.

The study looked at the menstrual patterns of women aged 18-45 years with normal cycle lengths of 24-38 days for the three consecutive cycles before the first vaccine dose and for three consecutive postvaccine cycles. The final sample included 2,403 vaccinated and 1,556 unvaccinated individuals.

In vaccinated women, the study initially found a slight average increase in cycle length after dose one of 71% of a day and 91% of a day after dose two. Following adjustments, those increases dropped to 64% of a day after the first dose and 79% of a day after the second dose.

In unvaccinated women, the study looked at six cycles over a similar time period and found no significant changes from baseline.

“Coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination is associated with a small change in cycle length but not menses length,” Dr. Edelman’s group concluded in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

In the rare instance that a woman received two vaccine doses within the same menstrual cycle, the change in length could increase to 2 days. These variations appear to resolve quickly, possibly as soon as the next cycle after vaccination and do not indicate any cause for long-term physical or reproductive health concern, according to the authors.

Reports by women on social media, however, have suggested that postvaccine menstrual disruptions are more common with, for example, heavier and breakthrough bleeding. But it appears such changes are temporary and resolve quickly.

“These findings are reassuring and validating,” Dr. Edelman said in an interview. On a population level, the changes indicate no cause for concern for long-term physical or reproductive health and no reason to avoid vaccination. “On a personal level, people want this information so they know what to expect when they get vaccinated, and not worry about a pregnancy scare or be disappointed if they were trying for pregnancy.”

Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research

According to the International Federation of Gynecologists and Obstetricians, variations in cycle length of fewer than 8 days are considered normal, said Christine Metz, PhD, a research biologist and a professor of molecular medicine at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset, N.Y. “Thus, the extra 17 hours added to the menstrual cycle length in the vaccination group in this study is well within the ‘normal’ range.”

In a group of about 1,600 menstruating women being studied at Dr. Metz’s center, some have anecdotally reported transient cycle changes post vaccination for COVID-19, including delays in menstruation onset and changes in bleeding patterns.

Exactly how vaccination might alter menstrual cycle length is not known and has not been studied with vaccination against other infections such as influenza and meningococcal disease.

“Many factors are known to affect menstrual cycle length including changes in diet, sleep, and exercise, as well as sickness, travel, and stress,” Dr. Metz said. The COVID-19 vaccines have affected people in different ways, with side effects ranging from injection-site pain to nausea, aches, fever, and fatigue. “Vaccination side effects, particularly if severe, could lead to changes in diet, exercise, and sleep, and feelings of sickness and/or stress.”

These stressors can alter hormone production and stability, as well as the body’s response to hormones such as estrogen, progesterone, follicle-stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone, and other hormones associated with female reproduction. “Because these hormones regulate the menstrual cycle, variations in these hormones can either shorten or lengthen the cycle,” Dr. Metz explained.

More research needs to be done at the global level, according to the authors. “Questions remain about other possible changes in menstrual cycles, such as menstrual symptoms, unscheduled bleeding, and changes in the quality and quantity of menstrual bleeding.”

This research was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institutes of Health’s Office of Research on Women’s Health. Dr. Edelman reported support from the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the World Health Organization, Gynuity, and the Karolinska Institute as well as royalties from UpToDate. Other study authors reported similar relationships with not-for-profit and private-sector companies. Three coauthors are employees of Natural Cycles, a fertility tracking device that was used in the study. Dr. Metz disclosed no conflicts of interest with regard to her comments.
 

Women may rest a bit easier thanks to results from a study showing that vaccination against the SARS-CoV-2 virus has almost no impact on a woman’s menstrual cycle. The issue is significant, as regular menstruation is a sign of health and fertility, and fears of disturbances might increase vaccination hesitancy as COVID-19 cases continue to surge.

Alison Edelman, MD, MPH, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, led a group studying prospective data on almost 24,000 menstrual cycles reported by almost 4,000 U.S. women.

The investigators found that COVID-19 vaccination was associated with a less than 1-day change in cycle length for the menstrual cycles after the first and second inoculations, compared with prevaccine cycles. Vaccination had no effect on the actual number of days menstrual bleeding lasted.

The study looked at the menstrual patterns of women aged 18-45 years with normal cycle lengths of 24-38 days for the three consecutive cycles before the first vaccine dose and for three consecutive postvaccine cycles. The final sample included 2,403 vaccinated and 1,556 unvaccinated individuals.

In vaccinated women, the study initially found a slight average increase in cycle length after dose one of 71% of a day and 91% of a day after dose two. Following adjustments, those increases dropped to 64% of a day after the first dose and 79% of a day after the second dose.

In unvaccinated women, the study looked at six cycles over a similar time period and found no significant changes from baseline.

“Coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination is associated with a small change in cycle length but not menses length,” Dr. Edelman’s group concluded in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

In the rare instance that a woman received two vaccine doses within the same menstrual cycle, the change in length could increase to 2 days. These variations appear to resolve quickly, possibly as soon as the next cycle after vaccination and do not indicate any cause for long-term physical or reproductive health concern, according to the authors.

Reports by women on social media, however, have suggested that postvaccine menstrual disruptions are more common with, for example, heavier and breakthrough bleeding. But it appears such changes are temporary and resolve quickly.

“These findings are reassuring and validating,” Dr. Edelman said in an interview. On a population level, the changes indicate no cause for concern for long-term physical or reproductive health and no reason to avoid vaccination. “On a personal level, people want this information so they know what to expect when they get vaccinated, and not worry about a pregnancy scare or be disappointed if they were trying for pregnancy.”

Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research

According to the International Federation of Gynecologists and Obstetricians, variations in cycle length of fewer than 8 days are considered normal, said Christine Metz, PhD, a research biologist and a professor of molecular medicine at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset, N.Y. “Thus, the extra 17 hours added to the menstrual cycle length in the vaccination group in this study is well within the ‘normal’ range.”

In a group of about 1,600 menstruating women being studied at Dr. Metz’s center, some have anecdotally reported transient cycle changes post vaccination for COVID-19, including delays in menstruation onset and changes in bleeding patterns.

Exactly how vaccination might alter menstrual cycle length is not known and has not been studied with vaccination against other infections such as influenza and meningococcal disease.

“Many factors are known to affect menstrual cycle length including changes in diet, sleep, and exercise, as well as sickness, travel, and stress,” Dr. Metz said. The COVID-19 vaccines have affected people in different ways, with side effects ranging from injection-site pain to nausea, aches, fever, and fatigue. “Vaccination side effects, particularly if severe, could lead to changes in diet, exercise, and sleep, and feelings of sickness and/or stress.”

These stressors can alter hormone production and stability, as well as the body’s response to hormones such as estrogen, progesterone, follicle-stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone, and other hormones associated with female reproduction. “Because these hormones regulate the menstrual cycle, variations in these hormones can either shorten or lengthen the cycle,” Dr. Metz explained.

More research needs to be done at the global level, according to the authors. “Questions remain about other possible changes in menstrual cycles, such as menstrual symptoms, unscheduled bleeding, and changes in the quality and quantity of menstrual bleeding.”

This research was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institutes of Health’s Office of Research on Women’s Health. Dr. Edelman reported support from the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the World Health Organization, Gynuity, and the Karolinska Institute as well as royalties from UpToDate. Other study authors reported similar relationships with not-for-profit and private-sector companies. Three coauthors are employees of Natural Cycles, a fertility tracking device that was used in the study. Dr. Metz disclosed no conflicts of interest with regard to her comments.
 

Although teledermatology utilization in the United States traditionally has lagged behind other countries,^1,2 the COVID-19 pandemic upended this trend by creating the need for a massive teledermatology experiment. Recently reported survey results from a large representative sample of US dermatologists (5000 participants) on perceptions of teledermatology during COVID-19 indicated that only 14.1% of participants used teledermatology prior to the COVID-19 pandemic vs 54.1% of dermatologists in Europe.^2,3 Since the pandemic started, 97% of US dermatologists reported teledermatology use,³ demonstrating a huge shift in utilization. This trend is notable, as teledermatology has been shown to increase access to dermatology in underserved areas, reduce patient travel times, improve patient triage, and even reduce carbon footprints.^1,4 Thus, to sustain the momentum, insights from the recent teledermatology experience during the pandemic should inform future development.

Notably, the COVID-19 pandemic led to a rapid shift in focus from store-and-forward teledermatology to live video–based models.^1,2 Logistically, live video visits are challenging, require more time and resources, and often are diagnostically limited, with concerns regarding technology, connectivity, reimbursement, and appropriate use.³ Prior to COVID-19, formal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant teledermatology platforms often were costly to establish and maintain, largely relegating use to academic centers and Veterans Affairs hospitals. Thus, many fewer private practice dermatologists had used teledermatology compared to academic dermatologists in the United States (11.4% vs 27.6%).³ Government regulations—a key barrier to the adoption of teledermatology in private practice before COVID-19—were greatly relaxed during the pandemic. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services removed restrictions on where patients could be seen, improved reimbursement for video visits, and allowed the use of platforms that are not Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant. Many states also relaxed medical licensing rules.

Overall, the general outlook on telehealth seems positive. Reimbursement has been found to be a primary factor in dermatologists’ willingness to use teledermatology.³ Thus, sustainable use of teledermatology likely will depend on continued reimbursement parity for live video as well as store-and-forward consultations, which have several advantages but currently are de-incentivized by low reimbursement. The survey also found that 70% of respondents felt that teledermatology use will continue after COVID-19, while 58% intended to continue use—nearly 5-fold more than before the pandemic.³ We suspect the discrepancy between participants’ predictions regarding future use of teledermatology and their personal intent to use it highlights perceived barriers and limitations of the long-term success of teledermatology. Aside from reimbursement, connectivity and functionality were common concerns, emphasizing the need for innovative technological solutions.³ Moving forward, we anticipate that dermatologists will need to establish consistent workflows to establish consistent triage for the most appropriate visit—in-person visits vs teledermatology, which may include augmented, intelligence-enhanced solutions. Similar to prior clinician perspectives about which types of visits are conducive to teledermatology,² most survey participants believed virtual visits were effective for acne, routine follow-ups, medication monitoring, and some inflammatory conditions.³

Importantly, we must be mindful of patients who may be left behind by the digital divide, such as those with lack of access to a smartphone or the internet, language barriers, or limited telehealth experience.⁵ Systems should be designed to provide these patients with technologic and health literacy aid or alternate modalities to access care. For example, structured methods could be introduced to provide training and instructions on how to access phone applications, computer-based programs, and more. Likewise, for those with hearing or vision deficits, it will be important to improve sound amplification and accessibility for headphones or hearing aid connectivity, as well as appropriate font size, button size, and application navigation. In remote areas, existing clinics may be used to help field specialty consultation teleconferences. Certainly, applications and platforms devised for teledermatology must be designed to serve diverse patient groups, with special consideration for the elderly, those who speak languages other than English, and those with disabilities that may make telehealth use more challenging.

Large-scale regulatory changes and reimbursement parity can have a substantial impact on future teledermatology use. Advocacy efforts continue to push for fair valuation of telemedicine, coverage of store-and-forward teledermatology codes, and coverage for all models of care. It is imperative for the dermatology community to continue discussions on implementation and methodology to best leverage this technology for the most patient benefit.

Although teledermatology utilization in the United States traditionally has lagged behind other countries,^1,2 the COVID-19 pandemic upended this trend by creating the need for a massive teledermatology experiment. Recently reported survey results from a large representative sample of US dermatologists (5000 participants) on perceptions of teledermatology during COVID-19 indicated that only 14.1% of participants used teledermatology prior to the COVID-19 pandemic vs 54.1% of dermatologists in Europe.^2,3 Since the pandemic started, 97% of US dermatologists reported teledermatology use,³ demonstrating a huge shift in utilization. This trend is notable, as teledermatology has been shown to increase access to dermatology in underserved areas, reduce patient travel times, improve patient triage, and even reduce carbon footprints.^1,4 Thus, to sustain the momentum, insights from the recent teledermatology experience during the pandemic should inform future development.

Notably, the COVID-19 pandemic led to a rapid shift in focus from store-and-forward teledermatology to live video–based models.^1,2 Logistically, live video visits are challenging, require more time and resources, and often are diagnostically limited, with concerns regarding technology, connectivity, reimbursement, and appropriate use.³ Prior to COVID-19, formal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant teledermatology platforms often were costly to establish and maintain, largely relegating use to academic centers and Veterans Affairs hospitals. Thus, many fewer private practice dermatologists had used teledermatology compared to academic dermatologists in the United States (11.4% vs 27.6%).³ Government regulations—a key barrier to the adoption of teledermatology in private practice before COVID-19—were greatly relaxed during the pandemic. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services removed restrictions on where patients could be seen, improved reimbursement for video visits, and allowed the use of platforms that are not Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant. Many states also relaxed medical licensing rules.

Overall, the general outlook on telehealth seems positive. Reimbursement has been found to be a primary factor in dermatologists’ willingness to use teledermatology.³ Thus, sustainable use of teledermatology likely will depend on continued reimbursement parity for live video as well as store-and-forward consultations, which have several advantages but currently are de-incentivized by low reimbursement. The survey also found that 70% of respondents felt that teledermatology use will continue after COVID-19, while 58% intended to continue use—nearly 5-fold more than before the pandemic.³ We suspect the discrepancy between participants’ predictions regarding future use of teledermatology and their personal intent to use it highlights perceived barriers and limitations of the long-term success of teledermatology. Aside from reimbursement, connectivity and functionality were common concerns, emphasizing the need for innovative technological solutions.³ Moving forward, we anticipate that dermatologists will need to establish consistent workflows to establish consistent triage for the most appropriate visit—in-person visits vs teledermatology, which may include augmented, intelligence-enhanced solutions. Similar to prior clinician perspectives about which types of visits are conducive to teledermatology,² most survey participants believed virtual visits were effective for acne, routine follow-ups, medication monitoring, and some inflammatory conditions.³

Importantly, we must be mindful of patients who may be left behind by the digital divide, such as those with lack of access to a smartphone or the internet, language barriers, or limited telehealth experience.⁵ Systems should be designed to provide these patients with technologic and health literacy aid or alternate modalities to access care. For example, structured methods could be introduced to provide training and instructions on how to access phone applications, computer-based programs, and more. Likewise, for those with hearing or vision deficits, it will be important to improve sound amplification and accessibility for headphones or hearing aid connectivity, as well as appropriate font size, button size, and application navigation. In remote areas, existing clinics may be used to help field specialty consultation teleconferences. Certainly, applications and platforms devised for teledermatology must be designed to serve diverse patient groups, with special consideration for the elderly, those who speak languages other than English, and those with disabilities that may make telehealth use more challenging.

Large-scale regulatory changes and reimbursement parity can have a substantial impact on future teledermatology use. Advocacy efforts continue to push for fair valuation of telemedicine, coverage of store-and-forward teledermatology codes, and coverage for all models of care. It is imperative for the dermatology community to continue discussions on implementation and methodology to best leverage this technology for the most patient benefit.

Although teledermatology utilization in the United States traditionally has lagged behind other countries,^1,2 the COVID-19 pandemic upended this trend by creating the need for a massive teledermatology experiment. Recently reported survey results from a large representative sample of US dermatologists (5000 participants) on perceptions of teledermatology during COVID-19 indicated that only 14.1% of participants used teledermatology prior to the COVID-19 pandemic vs 54.1% of dermatologists in Europe.^2,3 Since the pandemic started, 97% of US dermatologists reported teledermatology use,³ demonstrating a huge shift in utilization. This trend is notable, as teledermatology has been shown to increase access to dermatology in underserved areas, reduce patient travel times, improve patient triage, and even reduce carbon footprints.^1,4 Thus, to sustain the momentum, insights from the recent teledermatology experience during the pandemic should inform future development.

Notably, the COVID-19 pandemic led to a rapid shift in focus from store-and-forward teledermatology to live video–based models.^1,2 Logistically, live video visits are challenging, require more time and resources, and often are diagnostically limited, with concerns regarding technology, connectivity, reimbursement, and appropriate use.³ Prior to COVID-19, formal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant teledermatology platforms often were costly to establish and maintain, largely relegating use to academic centers and Veterans Affairs hospitals. Thus, many fewer private practice dermatologists had used teledermatology compared to academic dermatologists in the United States (11.4% vs 27.6%).³ Government regulations—a key barrier to the adoption of teledermatology in private practice before COVID-19—were greatly relaxed during the pandemic. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services removed restrictions on where patients could be seen, improved reimbursement for video visits, and allowed the use of platforms that are not Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant. Many states also relaxed medical licensing rules.

Overall, the general outlook on telehealth seems positive. Reimbursement has been found to be a primary factor in dermatologists’ willingness to use teledermatology.³ Thus, sustainable use of teledermatology likely will depend on continued reimbursement parity for live video as well as store-and-forward consultations, which have several advantages but currently are de-incentivized by low reimbursement. The survey also found that 70% of respondents felt that teledermatology use will continue after COVID-19, while 58% intended to continue use—nearly 5-fold more than before the pandemic.³ We suspect the discrepancy between participants’ predictions regarding future use of teledermatology and their personal intent to use it highlights perceived barriers and limitations of the long-term success of teledermatology. Aside from reimbursement, connectivity and functionality were common concerns, emphasizing the need for innovative technological solutions.³ Moving forward, we anticipate that dermatologists will need to establish consistent workflows to establish consistent triage for the most appropriate visit—in-person visits vs teledermatology, which may include augmented, intelligence-enhanced solutions. Similar to prior clinician perspectives about which types of visits are conducive to teledermatology,² most survey participants believed virtual visits were effective for acne, routine follow-ups, medication monitoring, and some inflammatory conditions.³

Importantly, we must be mindful of patients who may be left behind by the digital divide, such as those with lack of access to a smartphone or the internet, language barriers, or limited telehealth experience.⁵ Systems should be designed to provide these patients with technologic and health literacy aid or alternate modalities to access care. For example, structured methods could be introduced to provide training and instructions on how to access phone applications, computer-based programs, and more. Likewise, for those with hearing or vision deficits, it will be important to improve sound amplification and accessibility for headphones or hearing aid connectivity, as well as appropriate font size, button size, and application navigation. In remote areas, existing clinics may be used to help field specialty consultation teleconferences. Certainly, applications and platforms devised for teledermatology must be designed to serve diverse patient groups, with special consideration for the elderly, those who speak languages other than English, and those with disabilities that may make telehealth use more challenging.

Large-scale regulatory changes and reimbursement parity can have a substantial impact on future teledermatology use. Advocacy efforts continue to push for fair valuation of telemedicine, coverage of store-and-forward teledermatology codes, and coverage for all models of care. It is imperative for the dermatology community to continue discussions on implementation and methodology to best leverage this technology for the most patient benefit.

Health authorities in California, Texas, and Kansas have reported cases of “flurona,” in which people have seasonal flu and COVID-19 at the same time.

The first known case was detected in Israel, but until the first week of January no cases had been reported in the United States.

In Los Angeles, a teenaged boy tested positive for both illnesses at a COVID testing site in Brentwood, the Los Angeles Times reported. The child’s mother tested positive for COVID the next day.

“This is the first one that we’re aware of,” Steve Farzam, chief operating officer of 911 COVID Testing, told the LA Times. “In and of itself, it’s not overly concerning; however, it is concerning and can be problematic for someone who has pre-existing medical conditions, anyone who is immunocompromised.”

The teen and his family of five had just returned from vacation in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico. All said they tested negative before the trip, but they tested again when they got home because one of the children had a runny nose, Mr. Farzam said.

The boy, who had not been vaccinated for COVID or the flu, doesn’t have serious symptoms and is recovering at home.

In Houston, a 17-year-old boy, his siblings, and his father felt sick a few days before Christmas and went in for testing, TV station KTRK reported. The teen tested positive for both the flu and COVID.

“I ended up getting tested the day before Christmas for strep throat, flu and COVID,” the teenager, Alec Zierlein, told KTRK. “I didn’t think I had any of the three. It felt like a mild cold.”

Health officials reported Jan. 5 that a flurona case was detected in Hays, Kan., TV station WIBW reported. The patient was being treated in the ICU. No other details were provided. In Israel, flurona was first found in an unvaccinated pregnant woman at Rabin Medical Center in Petach Tikva, according to the Times of Israel. She tested positive for both viruses when she arrived at the medical center, and doctors double-checked to confirm her diagnosis. The woman had mild symptoms and was released in good condition, the news outlet reported.

Public health officials in Israel said they are concerned that an increase in both viruses at the same time could lead to many hospitalizations.

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

Health authorities in California, Texas, and Kansas have reported cases of “flurona,” in which people have seasonal flu and COVID-19 at the same time.

The first known case was detected in Israel, but until the first week of January no cases had been reported in the United States.

In Los Angeles, a teenaged boy tested positive for both illnesses at a COVID testing site in Brentwood, the Los Angeles Times reported. The child’s mother tested positive for COVID the next day.

“This is the first one that we’re aware of,” Steve Farzam, chief operating officer of 911 COVID Testing, told the LA Times. “In and of itself, it’s not overly concerning; however, it is concerning and can be problematic for someone who has pre-existing medical conditions, anyone who is immunocompromised.”

The teen and his family of five had just returned from vacation in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico. All said they tested negative before the trip, but they tested again when they got home because one of the children had a runny nose, Mr. Farzam said.

The boy, who had not been vaccinated for COVID or the flu, doesn’t have serious symptoms and is recovering at home.

In Houston, a 17-year-old boy, his siblings, and his father felt sick a few days before Christmas and went in for testing, TV station KTRK reported. The teen tested positive for both the flu and COVID.

“I ended up getting tested the day before Christmas for strep throat, flu and COVID,” the teenager, Alec Zierlein, told KTRK. “I didn’t think I had any of the three. It felt like a mild cold.”

Health officials reported Jan. 5 that a flurona case was detected in Hays, Kan., TV station WIBW reported. The patient was being treated in the ICU. No other details were provided. In Israel, flurona was first found in an unvaccinated pregnant woman at Rabin Medical Center in Petach Tikva, according to the Times of Israel. She tested positive for both viruses when she arrived at the medical center, and doctors double-checked to confirm her diagnosis. The woman had mild symptoms and was released in good condition, the news outlet reported.

Public health officials in Israel said they are concerned that an increase in both viruses at the same time could lead to many hospitalizations.

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

Health authorities in California, Texas, and Kansas have reported cases of “flurona,” in which people have seasonal flu and COVID-19 at the same time.

The first known case was detected in Israel, but until the first week of January no cases had been reported in the United States.

In Los Angeles, a teenaged boy tested positive for both illnesses at a COVID testing site in Brentwood, the Los Angeles Times reported. The child’s mother tested positive for COVID the next day.

“This is the first one that we’re aware of,” Steve Farzam, chief operating officer of 911 COVID Testing, told the LA Times. “In and of itself, it’s not overly concerning; however, it is concerning and can be problematic for someone who has pre-existing medical conditions, anyone who is immunocompromised.”

The teen and his family of five had just returned from vacation in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico. All said they tested negative before the trip, but they tested again when they got home because one of the children had a runny nose, Mr. Farzam said.

The boy, who had not been vaccinated for COVID or the flu, doesn’t have serious symptoms and is recovering at home.

In Houston, a 17-year-old boy, his siblings, and his father felt sick a few days before Christmas and went in for testing, TV station KTRK reported. The teen tested positive for both the flu and COVID.

“I ended up getting tested the day before Christmas for strep throat, flu and COVID,” the teenager, Alec Zierlein, told KTRK. “I didn’t think I had any of the three. It felt like a mild cold.”

Health officials reported Jan. 5 that a flurona case was detected in Hays, Kan., TV station WIBW reported. The patient was being treated in the ICU. No other details were provided. In Israel, flurona was first found in an unvaccinated pregnant woman at Rabin Medical Center in Petach Tikva, according to the Times of Israel. She tested positive for both viruses when she arrived at the medical center, and doctors double-checked to confirm her diagnosis. The woman had mild symptoms and was released in good condition, the news outlet reported.

Public health officials in Israel said they are concerned that an increase in both viruses at the same time could lead to many hospitalizations.

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

Older adults who avoided hospital admission with at-home geriatric assessment and home-based care incurred significantly lower costs compared with those hospitalized, in a new study.

The comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is an established strategy for guiding care of older adults in a hospital setting, but its use in other settings has not been well studied, Surya Singh, PhD, of the University of Oxford (England), and colleagues wrote in their paper published in Age and Ageing. Hospital at home is active treatment by health care professionals in the patient’s home for a condition that otherwise would require acute hospital inpatient care, for a limited time period.

Interest in providing health care in the home as an alternative to hospitalization is on the rise as a way to improve patient outcomes and reduce costs, but actual cost-effectiveness data on HAH interventions are limited, the authors said. “Wide scale implementation of such services has also been constrained by the practical difficulties of designing and delivering services that cut across primary and secondary care, might involve social care and require different workforce and funding arrangements.”

In this study, the researchers conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized trial of an admission avoidance CGA hospital at home (CGAHAH) service as an alternative to hospital admission. They identified individuals aged 65 years and older who were living in the community but being considered for an unplanned hospital admission in the United Kingdom. A total of 700 individuals were randomized to CGAHAH and 355 to hospital care using a 2:1 ratio. Patients were assessed at baseline in the community or in an acute care setting before being transferred to CGAHAH service. These services included access to social workers, home care, district nursing, community rehabilitation, community mental health services and acute hospital services, such as diagnostic tests and transfer to hospital. The core workforce usually included consultant geriatricians, junior doctors, nurse practitioners, health care assistants or support workers, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, and community pharmacists. There were at least daily virtual ward rounds
 

Comparison between HAH and in-hospital groups

Patients in the CGAHAH group had a mean of 7.17 days of care, and those in hospital had a mean of 4.92 hospital days. At 6 months’ follow-up, the mean number of care days was 9.47 in the CGAHAH group and 10.58 in the hospital group, which was a nonsignificant difference.

“For complete cases, we found that allocation to CGAHAH resulted in 3 fewer days in hospital, a difference that was reduced to 1 day at 6 months follow-up,” the researchers wrote.

Overall, after adjusting for baseline variables, the health and social care costs after 6 months were less for CGAHAH than admission to hospital. The average cost differences between the two were approximately $3,000 or 2,265 pounds. The cost difference remained and increased to a mean difference of 2,840 pounds in favor of HAH after adding informal care/societal costs.

In addition, patients randomized to CGAHAH were less likely to have been admitted to long-term residential care at 6 months follow-up, compared with the hospital group; the mean days in residential care at 6 months were 3.43 and 6.14, respectively.

Both groups showed an approximate 15% decrease in measures of quality of life from baseline to 6 months, and no differences were noted in quality-adjusted survival between the groups.
 

Pandemic ‘has accelerated interest’ in HAH

“Health systems around the world are exploring alternatives to hospital admission, such as hospital at home, to act as a buffer to the increasing demand for hospital care,” corresponding author Sasha Shepperd, MSc, DPhil, said in an interview. “This is partly due to a growing older population with increased health needs, but also an emphasis on providing health care that limits a decline in capacity for the older population. Inevitably, the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated interest in hospital at home to create additional acute health care capacity.”

The take home-message supports the home service option. “If you can access a hospital-at-home service, consider this as an option for older people who would otherwise be admitted to hospital and are eligible for hospital at home care. However, is important that the provision of hospital at home is adequately resourced, and that families and caregivers are supported,” she said.

“Barriers include delivering a different type of service that requires easy access to hospital services, including admission if required; a trained workforce to provide multidisciplinary care in a patient’s home; and ensuring a good fit with existing health and social care services,” Dr. Shepperd said.

Future research areas include the demands placed on caregivers from hospital-at-home services, and how the provision of hospital at home impacts hospital and community services, she added.

Findings support use of HAH

The data from the current study support the use of a hospital at home concept, especially in the geriatric age population, for acute health conditions that could be managed at home rather than acutely in a hospital-based environment,” Noel Deep, MD, emphasized in an interview.

Dr. Deep, who is a general internist in group practice in Antigo, Wisc., said he was not surprised by the study findings.

“I am a big proponent of the hospital at home approach to taking care of patients who can be safely and appropriately managed in the familiarity and comfort of their own home environment with help from physicians, nurses, and other home health care services,” he said. “It is a valuable option for appropriately screened and selected patients to be provided this approach to management of their acute health care situations.”

Primary care physicians should explore using HAH when faced with the decision of admitting an elderly individual to the hospital for management of an acute worsening of a chronic medical condition or a reversible acute illness, said Dr. Deep, who serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

The current study reinforces previous studies and data showing the benefits of managing acute health problems of elderly individuals in their home environment. These benefits include “an opportunity to free up the emergency rooms and hospitals for providing care to those individuals who truly would be best served by being admitted to the hospital,” Dr. Deep explained. Home care for the elderly “would also lead to decreased utilization of the personal protective equipment and limit exposure of the vulnerable elderly individuals to the coronavirus. Primary care physicians should always explore this possibility of providing care to the patients in their homes if it is a viable option.

“While our practice environment [in the United States] is slightly different than that referenced in this article, many, if not almost all, of our primary care physicians provide care to the geriatric age population and provide assessment and management which would be comparable to this comprehensive geriatric assessment that is discussed in the article,” and many primary care physicians have seen similar results in outcomes that the study shows, said Dr. Deep. The available research and expert opinions are quite similar and agree upon the positive outcomes in terms of providing the CGAHAH approach.
 

Study is important but raises questions

The study is important because patient-centered, effective care should be the goal of any health system, William Golden, MD, of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, said in an interview. 

Dr. Golden also noted that the study raised a number of questions. How each patient entered the treatment protocol was not clear. “Similarly, it is not clear whether admission criteria and resource costs in England cross to the United States experience.”

“Having close follow up of patients at home as opposed to an ‘observation status’ could be a nice innovation, but more details are needed to consider implementation in a specific community setting,” he emphasized.

As for the clinical value of the study for primary care, “primary care professionals should welcome well-staffed alternatives to inpatient care for select patient presentations,” said Dr. Golden, who is also a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

The current study does not identify the conditions that were treated at home and the logistics of delivering such services, which limits comparison with what experts have seen in practice in terms of outcomes using the CGAHAH, he said. “Interested practitioners would benefit from literature detailing the staffing and decision support tools that form the core framework of this innovation.”
 

Limitations and strengths of study, according to authors

The study findings were limited by several factors including the calculation of CGAHAH based on service budgets, rather than from collecting information on the actual resources used; potential errors in patients’ estimation of their informal care; and lack of data on a differential impact of CGAHAH for underserved communities, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large study population and randomized design, and support the value of CGAHAH, which addresses the need for management of multiple long-term conditions and the potential decline in functional and cognitive ability in older adults, they said. Providing CGAHAH as an alternative to admission to hospital for older people, with a focus on multidimensional assessment, is one option that might reduce reliance on hospitalization and residential care and at a lower cost.

The study was supported by the National Institute for Health Research, and several coauthors received individual grants from the NIHR, with no other financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Golden and Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Older adults who avoided hospital admission with at-home geriatric assessment and home-based care incurred significantly lower costs compared with those hospitalized, in a new study.

The comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is an established strategy for guiding care of older adults in a hospital setting, but its use in other settings has not been well studied, Surya Singh, PhD, of the University of Oxford (England), and colleagues wrote in their paper published in Age and Ageing. Hospital at home is active treatment by health care professionals in the patient’s home for a condition that otherwise would require acute hospital inpatient care, for a limited time period.

Interest in providing health care in the home as an alternative to hospitalization is on the rise as a way to improve patient outcomes and reduce costs, but actual cost-effectiveness data on HAH interventions are limited, the authors said. “Wide scale implementation of such services has also been constrained by the practical difficulties of designing and delivering services that cut across primary and secondary care, might involve social care and require different workforce and funding arrangements.”

In this study, the researchers conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized trial of an admission avoidance CGA hospital at home (CGAHAH) service as an alternative to hospital admission. They identified individuals aged 65 years and older who were living in the community but being considered for an unplanned hospital admission in the United Kingdom. A total of 700 individuals were randomized to CGAHAH and 355 to hospital care using a 2:1 ratio. Patients were assessed at baseline in the community or in an acute care setting before being transferred to CGAHAH service. These services included access to social workers, home care, district nursing, community rehabilitation, community mental health services and acute hospital services, such as diagnostic tests and transfer to hospital. The core workforce usually included consultant geriatricians, junior doctors, nurse practitioners, health care assistants or support workers, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, and community pharmacists. There were at least daily virtual ward rounds
 

Comparison between HAH and in-hospital groups

Patients in the CGAHAH group had a mean of 7.17 days of care, and those in hospital had a mean of 4.92 hospital days. At 6 months’ follow-up, the mean number of care days was 9.47 in the CGAHAH group and 10.58 in the hospital group, which was a nonsignificant difference.

“For complete cases, we found that allocation to CGAHAH resulted in 3 fewer days in hospital, a difference that was reduced to 1 day at 6 months follow-up,” the researchers wrote.

Overall, after adjusting for baseline variables, the health and social care costs after 6 months were less for CGAHAH than admission to hospital. The average cost differences between the two were approximately $3,000 or 2,265 pounds. The cost difference remained and increased to a mean difference of 2,840 pounds in favor of HAH after adding informal care/societal costs.

In addition, patients randomized to CGAHAH were less likely to have been admitted to long-term residential care at 6 months follow-up, compared with the hospital group; the mean days in residential care at 6 months were 3.43 and 6.14, respectively.

Both groups showed an approximate 15% decrease in measures of quality of life from baseline to 6 months, and no differences were noted in quality-adjusted survival between the groups.
 

Pandemic ‘has accelerated interest’ in HAH

“Health systems around the world are exploring alternatives to hospital admission, such as hospital at home, to act as a buffer to the increasing demand for hospital care,” corresponding author Sasha Shepperd, MSc, DPhil, said in an interview. “This is partly due to a growing older population with increased health needs, but also an emphasis on providing health care that limits a decline in capacity for the older population. Inevitably, the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated interest in hospital at home to create additional acute health care capacity.”

The take home-message supports the home service option. “If you can access a hospital-at-home service, consider this as an option for older people who would otherwise be admitted to hospital and are eligible for hospital at home care. However, is important that the provision of hospital at home is adequately resourced, and that families and caregivers are supported,” she said.

“Barriers include delivering a different type of service that requires easy access to hospital services, including admission if required; a trained workforce to provide multidisciplinary care in a patient’s home; and ensuring a good fit with existing health and social care services,” Dr. Shepperd said.

Future research areas include the demands placed on caregivers from hospital-at-home services, and how the provision of hospital at home impacts hospital and community services, she added.

Findings support use of HAH

The data from the current study support the use of a hospital at home concept, especially in the geriatric age population, for acute health conditions that could be managed at home rather than acutely in a hospital-based environment,” Noel Deep, MD, emphasized in an interview.

Dr. Deep, who is a general internist in group practice in Antigo, Wisc., said he was not surprised by the study findings.

“I am a big proponent of the hospital at home approach to taking care of patients who can be safely and appropriately managed in the familiarity and comfort of their own home environment with help from physicians, nurses, and other home health care services,” he said. “It is a valuable option for appropriately screened and selected patients to be provided this approach to management of their acute health care situations.”

Primary care physicians should explore using HAH when faced with the decision of admitting an elderly individual to the hospital for management of an acute worsening of a chronic medical condition or a reversible acute illness, said Dr. Deep, who serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

The current study reinforces previous studies and data showing the benefits of managing acute health problems of elderly individuals in their home environment. These benefits include “an opportunity to free up the emergency rooms and hospitals for providing care to those individuals who truly would be best served by being admitted to the hospital,” Dr. Deep explained. Home care for the elderly “would also lead to decreased utilization of the personal protective equipment and limit exposure of the vulnerable elderly individuals to the coronavirus. Primary care physicians should always explore this possibility of providing care to the patients in their homes if it is a viable option.

“While our practice environment [in the United States] is slightly different than that referenced in this article, many, if not almost all, of our primary care physicians provide care to the geriatric age population and provide assessment and management which would be comparable to this comprehensive geriatric assessment that is discussed in the article,” and many primary care physicians have seen similar results in outcomes that the study shows, said Dr. Deep. The available research and expert opinions are quite similar and agree upon the positive outcomes in terms of providing the CGAHAH approach.
 

Study is important but raises questions

The study is important because patient-centered, effective care should be the goal of any health system, William Golden, MD, of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, said in an interview. 

Dr. Golden also noted that the study raised a number of questions. How each patient entered the treatment protocol was not clear. “Similarly, it is not clear whether admission criteria and resource costs in England cross to the United States experience.”

“Having close follow up of patients at home as opposed to an ‘observation status’ could be a nice innovation, but more details are needed to consider implementation in a specific community setting,” he emphasized.

As for the clinical value of the study for primary care, “primary care professionals should welcome well-staffed alternatives to inpatient care for select patient presentations,” said Dr. Golden, who is also a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

The current study does not identify the conditions that were treated at home and the logistics of delivering such services, which limits comparison with what experts have seen in practice in terms of outcomes using the CGAHAH, he said. “Interested practitioners would benefit from literature detailing the staffing and decision support tools that form the core framework of this innovation.”
 

Limitations and strengths of study, according to authors

The study findings were limited by several factors including the calculation of CGAHAH based on service budgets, rather than from collecting information on the actual resources used; potential errors in patients’ estimation of their informal care; and lack of data on a differential impact of CGAHAH for underserved communities, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large study population and randomized design, and support the value of CGAHAH, which addresses the need for management of multiple long-term conditions and the potential decline in functional and cognitive ability in older adults, they said. Providing CGAHAH as an alternative to admission to hospital for older people, with a focus on multidimensional assessment, is one option that might reduce reliance on hospitalization and residential care and at a lower cost.

The study was supported by the National Institute for Health Research, and several coauthors received individual grants from the NIHR, with no other financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Golden and Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Older adults who avoided hospital admission with at-home geriatric assessment and home-based care incurred significantly lower costs compared with those hospitalized, in a new study.

The comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is an established strategy for guiding care of older adults in a hospital setting, but its use in other settings has not been well studied, Surya Singh, PhD, of the University of Oxford (England), and colleagues wrote in their paper published in Age and Ageing. Hospital at home is active treatment by health care professionals in the patient’s home for a condition that otherwise would require acute hospital inpatient care, for a limited time period.

Interest in providing health care in the home as an alternative to hospitalization is on the rise as a way to improve patient outcomes and reduce costs, but actual cost-effectiveness data on HAH interventions are limited, the authors said. “Wide scale implementation of such services has also been constrained by the practical difficulties of designing and delivering services that cut across primary and secondary care, might involve social care and require different workforce and funding arrangements.”

In this study, the researchers conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized trial of an admission avoidance CGA hospital at home (CGAHAH) service as an alternative to hospital admission. They identified individuals aged 65 years and older who were living in the community but being considered for an unplanned hospital admission in the United Kingdom. A total of 700 individuals were randomized to CGAHAH and 355 to hospital care using a 2:1 ratio. Patients were assessed at baseline in the community or in an acute care setting before being transferred to CGAHAH service. These services included access to social workers, home care, district nursing, community rehabilitation, community mental health services and acute hospital services, such as diagnostic tests and transfer to hospital. The core workforce usually included consultant geriatricians, junior doctors, nurse practitioners, health care assistants or support workers, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, and community pharmacists. There were at least daily virtual ward rounds
 

Comparison between HAH and in-hospital groups

Patients in the CGAHAH group had a mean of 7.17 days of care, and those in hospital had a mean of 4.92 hospital days. At 6 months’ follow-up, the mean number of care days was 9.47 in the CGAHAH group and 10.58 in the hospital group, which was a nonsignificant difference.

“For complete cases, we found that allocation to CGAHAH resulted in 3 fewer days in hospital, a difference that was reduced to 1 day at 6 months follow-up,” the researchers wrote.

Overall, after adjusting for baseline variables, the health and social care costs after 6 months were less for CGAHAH than admission to hospital. The average cost differences between the two were approximately $3,000 or 2,265 pounds. The cost difference remained and increased to a mean difference of 2,840 pounds in favor of HAH after adding informal care/societal costs.

In addition, patients randomized to CGAHAH were less likely to have been admitted to long-term residential care at 6 months follow-up, compared with the hospital group; the mean days in residential care at 6 months were 3.43 and 6.14, respectively.

Both groups showed an approximate 15% decrease in measures of quality of life from baseline to 6 months, and no differences were noted in quality-adjusted survival between the groups.
 

Pandemic ‘has accelerated interest’ in HAH

“Health systems around the world are exploring alternatives to hospital admission, such as hospital at home, to act as a buffer to the increasing demand for hospital care,” corresponding author Sasha Shepperd, MSc, DPhil, said in an interview. “This is partly due to a growing older population with increased health needs, but also an emphasis on providing health care that limits a decline in capacity for the older population. Inevitably, the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated interest in hospital at home to create additional acute health care capacity.”

The take home-message supports the home service option. “If you can access a hospital-at-home service, consider this as an option for older people who would otherwise be admitted to hospital and are eligible for hospital at home care. However, is important that the provision of hospital at home is adequately resourced, and that families and caregivers are supported,” she said.

“Barriers include delivering a different type of service that requires easy access to hospital services, including admission if required; a trained workforce to provide multidisciplinary care in a patient’s home; and ensuring a good fit with existing health and social care services,” Dr. Shepperd said.

Future research areas include the demands placed on caregivers from hospital-at-home services, and how the provision of hospital at home impacts hospital and community services, she added.

Findings support use of HAH

The data from the current study support the use of a hospital at home concept, especially in the geriatric age population, for acute health conditions that could be managed at home rather than acutely in a hospital-based environment,” Noel Deep, MD, emphasized in an interview.

Dr. Deep, who is a general internist in group practice in Antigo, Wisc., said he was not surprised by the study findings.

“I am a big proponent of the hospital at home approach to taking care of patients who can be safely and appropriately managed in the familiarity and comfort of their own home environment with help from physicians, nurses, and other home health care services,” he said. “It is a valuable option for appropriately screened and selected patients to be provided this approach to management of their acute health care situations.”

Primary care physicians should explore using HAH when faced with the decision of admitting an elderly individual to the hospital for management of an acute worsening of a chronic medical condition or a reversible acute illness, said Dr. Deep, who serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

The current study reinforces previous studies and data showing the benefits of managing acute health problems of elderly individuals in their home environment. These benefits include “an opportunity to free up the emergency rooms and hospitals for providing care to those individuals who truly would be best served by being admitted to the hospital,” Dr. Deep explained. Home care for the elderly “would also lead to decreased utilization of the personal protective equipment and limit exposure of the vulnerable elderly individuals to the coronavirus. Primary care physicians should always explore this possibility of providing care to the patients in their homes if it is a viable option.

“While our practice environment [in the United States] is slightly different than that referenced in this article, many, if not almost all, of our primary care physicians provide care to the geriatric age population and provide assessment and management which would be comparable to this comprehensive geriatric assessment that is discussed in the article,” and many primary care physicians have seen similar results in outcomes that the study shows, said Dr. Deep. The available research and expert opinions are quite similar and agree upon the positive outcomes in terms of providing the CGAHAH approach.
 

Study is important but raises questions

The study is important because patient-centered, effective care should be the goal of any health system, William Golden, MD, of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, said in an interview. 

Dr. Golden also noted that the study raised a number of questions. How each patient entered the treatment protocol was not clear. “Similarly, it is not clear whether admission criteria and resource costs in England cross to the United States experience.”

“Having close follow up of patients at home as opposed to an ‘observation status’ could be a nice innovation, but more details are needed to consider implementation in a specific community setting,” he emphasized.

As for the clinical value of the study for primary care, “primary care professionals should welcome well-staffed alternatives to inpatient care for select patient presentations,” said Dr. Golden, who is also a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

The current study does not identify the conditions that were treated at home and the logistics of delivering such services, which limits comparison with what experts have seen in practice in terms of outcomes using the CGAHAH, he said. “Interested practitioners would benefit from literature detailing the staffing and decision support tools that form the core framework of this innovation.”
 

Limitations and strengths of study, according to authors

The study findings were limited by several factors including the calculation of CGAHAH based on service budgets, rather than from collecting information on the actual resources used; potential errors in patients’ estimation of their informal care; and lack of data on a differential impact of CGAHAH for underserved communities, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large study population and randomized design, and support the value of CGAHAH, which addresses the need for management of multiple long-term conditions and the potential decline in functional and cognitive ability in older adults, they said. Providing CGAHAH as an alternative to admission to hospital for older people, with a focus on multidimensional assessment, is one option that might reduce reliance on hospitalization and residential care and at a lower cost.

The study was supported by the National Institute for Health Research, and several coauthors received individual grants from the NIHR, with no other financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Golden and Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose.