Infectious Disease Practitioner

For physicians who are just starting out or thinking about moving, the “Land of 10,000 Lakes” could be the land of opportunity, according to a recent Medscape analysis.

In a ranking of the 50 states, Minnesota “claimed top marks for livability, low incidence of adverse actions against doctors, and the performance of its health system,” Shelly Reese wrote in Medscape’s “Best & Worst Places to Practice 2021.”

Minnesota is below average where it’s good to be below average – share of physicians reporting burnout and/or depression – but above average in the share of physicians who say they’re “very happy” outside of work, Medscape said in the annual report.

Second on this year’s list is Wisconsin, which benefits from low levels of malpractice payouts and adverse actions and a high level of livability. Third place went to Washington (called the most livable state in the country by U.S. News and World Report), fourth to Colorado (physicians happy at and outside of work, high retention rate for residents), and fifth to Utah (low crime rate, high quality of life), Medscape said.

At the bottom of the list for 2021 is West Virginia, where physicians “may confront a bevy of challenges” in the form of low livability, a high rate of adverse actions, and relatively high malpractice payouts, Ms. Reese noted in the report.

State number 49 is Louisiana, where livability is low, malpractice payouts are high, and more than half of physicians say that they’re burned out and/or depressed. New Mexico is 48th (very high rate of adverse actions, poor resident retention), Nevada is 47th (low marks for avoidable hospital use and disparity in care), and Rhode Island is 46th (high malpractice payouts, low physician compensation), Medscape said.

Continuing with the group-of-five theme, America’s three most populous states finished in the top half of the ranking – California 16th, Texas 11th, and Florida 21st – but New York and Pennsylvania, numbers four and five by population size, did not.

The rankings are based on states’ performance in 10 different measures, three of which were sourced from Medscape surveys – happiness at work, happiness outside of work, and burnout/depression – and seven from other organizations: adverse actions against physicians, malpractice payouts, compensation (adjusted for cost of living), overall health, health system performance, overall livability, resident retention.
 

[email protected]

For physicians who are just starting out or thinking about moving, the “Land of 10,000 Lakes” could be the land of opportunity, according to a recent Medscape analysis.

In a ranking of the 50 states, Minnesota “claimed top marks for livability, low incidence of adverse actions against doctors, and the performance of its health system,” Shelly Reese wrote in Medscape’s “Best & Worst Places to Practice 2021.”

Minnesota is below average where it’s good to be below average – share of physicians reporting burnout and/or depression – but above average in the share of physicians who say they’re “very happy” outside of work, Medscape said in the annual report.

Second on this year’s list is Wisconsin, which benefits from low levels of malpractice payouts and adverse actions and a high level of livability. Third place went to Washington (called the most livable state in the country by U.S. News and World Report), fourth to Colorado (physicians happy at and outside of work, high retention rate for residents), and fifth to Utah (low crime rate, high quality of life), Medscape said.

At the bottom of the list for 2021 is West Virginia, where physicians “may confront a bevy of challenges” in the form of low livability, a high rate of adverse actions, and relatively high malpractice payouts, Ms. Reese noted in the report.

State number 49 is Louisiana, where livability is low, malpractice payouts are high, and more than half of physicians say that they’re burned out and/or depressed. New Mexico is 48th (very high rate of adverse actions, poor resident retention), Nevada is 47th (low marks for avoidable hospital use and disparity in care), and Rhode Island is 46th (high malpractice payouts, low physician compensation), Medscape said.

Continuing with the group-of-five theme, America’s three most populous states finished in the top half of the ranking – California 16th, Texas 11th, and Florida 21st – but New York and Pennsylvania, numbers four and five by population size, did not.

The rankings are based on states’ performance in 10 different measures, three of which were sourced from Medscape surveys – happiness at work, happiness outside of work, and burnout/depression – and seven from other organizations: adverse actions against physicians, malpractice payouts, compensation (adjusted for cost of living), overall health, health system performance, overall livability, resident retention.
 

[email protected]

For physicians who are just starting out or thinking about moving, the “Land of 10,000 Lakes” could be the land of opportunity, according to a recent Medscape analysis.

In a ranking of the 50 states, Minnesota “claimed top marks for livability, low incidence of adverse actions against doctors, and the performance of its health system,” Shelly Reese wrote in Medscape’s “Best & Worst Places to Practice 2021.”

Minnesota is below average where it’s good to be below average – share of physicians reporting burnout and/or depression – but above average in the share of physicians who say they’re “very happy” outside of work, Medscape said in the annual report.

Second on this year’s list is Wisconsin, which benefits from low levels of malpractice payouts and adverse actions and a high level of livability. Third place went to Washington (called the most livable state in the country by U.S. News and World Report), fourth to Colorado (physicians happy at and outside of work, high retention rate for residents), and fifth to Utah (low crime rate, high quality of life), Medscape said.

At the bottom of the list for 2021 is West Virginia, where physicians “may confront a bevy of challenges” in the form of low livability, a high rate of adverse actions, and relatively high malpractice payouts, Ms. Reese noted in the report.

State number 49 is Louisiana, where livability is low, malpractice payouts are high, and more than half of physicians say that they’re burned out and/or depressed. New Mexico is 48th (very high rate of adverse actions, poor resident retention), Nevada is 47th (low marks for avoidable hospital use and disparity in care), and Rhode Island is 46th (high malpractice payouts, low physician compensation), Medscape said.

Continuing with the group-of-five theme, America’s three most populous states finished in the top half of the ranking – California 16th, Texas 11th, and Florida 21st – but New York and Pennsylvania, numbers four and five by population size, did not.

The rankings are based on states’ performance in 10 different measures, three of which were sourced from Medscape surveys – happiness at work, happiness outside of work, and burnout/depression – and seven from other organizations: adverse actions against physicians, malpractice payouts, compensation (adjusted for cost of living), overall health, health system performance, overall livability, resident retention.
 

[email protected]

A third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine can boost antibody levels in people who previously received a solid organ transplant and had an unsatisfactory response to their first two mRNA shots, according to data from a newly published 30-patient case series.

All of those with low titers before the third dose had high titers after receiving the additional shot, but only about 33% of those with negative initial responses had detectable antibodies after the third dose, according to the paper, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Researchers at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, who keep a COVID-19 vaccine registry, perform antibody tests on all registry subjects and inform them of their results. Registry participants were asked to inform the research team if they received a third dose, and, the research team tracked the immune responses of those who did.

The participants in this case series had low antibody levels and received a third dose of the vaccine on their own between March 20 and May 10 of 2021.
 

Third dose results

In this cases series – thought to be the first to look at third vaccine shots in this type of patient group – all six of those who had low antibody titers before the third dose had high-positive titers after the third dose.

Of the 24 individuals who had negative antibody titers before the third dose, just 6 had high titers after the third dose.

Two of the participants had low-positive titers, and 16 were negative.

“Several of those boosted very nicely into ranges seen, using these assays, in healthy persons,” said William Werbel, MD, a fellow in infectious disease at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, who helped lead the study. Those with negative levels, even if they responded, tended to have lower titers, he said.

“The benefits at least from an antibody perspective were not the same for everybody and so this is obviously something that needs to be considered when thinking about selecting patients” for a COVID-19 prevention strategy, he said.

Reactions to the vaccine were low to moderate, such as some arm pain and fatigue.

“Showing that something is safe in that special, vulnerable population is important,” Dr. Werbel said. “We’re all wanting to make sure that we’re doing no harm.”

Dr. Werbel noted that there was no pattern in the small series based on the organ transplanted or in the vaccines used. As their third shot, 15 of the patients received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine; 9 received Moderna; and 6 received Pfizer-BioNTech.
 

Welcome news, but larger studies needed

“To think that a third dose could confer protection for a significant number of people is of course extremely welcome news,” said Christian Larsen, MD, DPhil, professor of surgery in the transplantation division at Emory University, Atlanta, who was not involved in the study. “It’s the easiest conceivable next intervention.”

He added, “We just want studies to confirm that – larger studies.”

Dr. Werbel stressed the importance of looking at third doses in these patients in a more controlled fashion in a randomized trial, to more carefully monitor safety and how patients fare when starting with one type of vaccine and switching to another, for example.

Richard Wender, MD, chair of family medicine and community health at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the findings are a reminder that there is still a lot that is unknown about COVID-19 and vaccination.

“We still don’t know who will or will not benefit from a third dose,” he said. “And our knowledge is evolving.  For example, a recent study suggested that people with previous infection and who are vaccinated may have better and longer protection than people with vaccination alone. We’re still learning.”

He added that specialists, not primary care clinicians, should be relied upon to respond to this emerging vaccination data. Primary care doctors are very busy in other ways – such as in getting children caught up on vaccinations and helping adults return to managing their chronic diseases, Dr. Wender noted.

“Their focus needs to be on helping to overcome hesitancy, mistrust, lack of information, or antivaccination sentiment to help more people feel comfortable being vaccinated – this is a lot of work and needs constant focus. In short, primary care clinicians need to focus chiefly on the unvaccinated,” he said.

“Monitoring immunization recommendations for unique at-risk populations should be the chief responsibility of teams providing subspecialty care, [such as for] transplant patients, people with chronic kidney disease, cancer patients, and people with other chronic illnesses.  This will allow primary care clinicians to tackle their many complex jobs.”
 

Possible solutions for those with low antibody responses

Dr. Larsen said that those with ongoing low antibody responses might still have other immune responses, such as a T-cell response. Such patients also could consider changing their vaccine type, he said.

“At the more significant intervention level, there may be circumstances where one could change the immunosuppressive drugs in a controlled way that might allow a better response,” suggested Dr. Larsen. “That’s obviously going to be something that requires a lot more thought and careful study.”

Dr. Werbel said that other options might need to be considered for those having no response following a third dose. One possibility is trying a vaccine with an adjuvant, such as the Novavax version, which might be more widely available soon.

“If you’re given a third dose of a very immunogenic vaccine – something that should work – and you just have no antibody development, it seems relatively unlikely that doing the same thing again is going to help you from that perspective, and for all we know might expose you to more risk,” Dr. Werbel noted.
 

Participant details

None of the 30 patients were thought to have ever had COVID-19. On average, patients had received their transplant 4.5 years before their original vaccination. In 25 patients, maintenance immunosuppression included tacrolimus or cyclosporine along with mycophenolate. Corticosteroids were also used for 24 patients, sirolimus was used for one patient, and belatacept was used for another patient.

Fifty-seven percent of patients had received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine originally, and 43% the Moderna vaccine. Most of the patients were kidney recipients, with two heart, three liver, one lung, one pancreas and one kidney-pancreas.

Dr. Werbel, Dr. Wender, and Dr. Larsen reported no relevant disclosures.

A third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine can boost antibody levels in people who previously received a solid organ transplant and had an unsatisfactory response to their first two mRNA shots, according to data from a newly published 30-patient case series.

All of those with low titers before the third dose had high titers after receiving the additional shot, but only about 33% of those with negative initial responses had detectable antibodies after the third dose, according to the paper, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Researchers at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, who keep a COVID-19 vaccine registry, perform antibody tests on all registry subjects and inform them of their results. Registry participants were asked to inform the research team if they received a third dose, and, the research team tracked the immune responses of those who did.

The participants in this case series had low antibody levels and received a third dose of the vaccine on their own between March 20 and May 10 of 2021.
 

Third dose results

In this cases series – thought to be the first to look at third vaccine shots in this type of patient group – all six of those who had low antibody titers before the third dose had high-positive titers after the third dose.

Of the 24 individuals who had negative antibody titers before the third dose, just 6 had high titers after the third dose.

Two of the participants had low-positive titers, and 16 were negative.

“Several of those boosted very nicely into ranges seen, using these assays, in healthy persons,” said William Werbel, MD, a fellow in infectious disease at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, who helped lead the study. Those with negative levels, even if they responded, tended to have lower titers, he said.

“The benefits at least from an antibody perspective were not the same for everybody and so this is obviously something that needs to be considered when thinking about selecting patients” for a COVID-19 prevention strategy, he said.

Reactions to the vaccine were low to moderate, such as some arm pain and fatigue.

“Showing that something is safe in that special, vulnerable population is important,” Dr. Werbel said. “We’re all wanting to make sure that we’re doing no harm.”

Dr. Werbel noted that there was no pattern in the small series based on the organ transplanted or in the vaccines used. As their third shot, 15 of the patients received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine; 9 received Moderna; and 6 received Pfizer-BioNTech.
 

Welcome news, but larger studies needed

“To think that a third dose could confer protection for a significant number of people is of course extremely welcome news,” said Christian Larsen, MD, DPhil, professor of surgery in the transplantation division at Emory University, Atlanta, who was not involved in the study. “It’s the easiest conceivable next intervention.”

He added, “We just want studies to confirm that – larger studies.”

Dr. Werbel stressed the importance of looking at third doses in these patients in a more controlled fashion in a randomized trial, to more carefully monitor safety and how patients fare when starting with one type of vaccine and switching to another, for example.

Richard Wender, MD, chair of family medicine and community health at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the findings are a reminder that there is still a lot that is unknown about COVID-19 and vaccination.

“We still don’t know who will or will not benefit from a third dose,” he said. “And our knowledge is evolving.  For example, a recent study suggested that people with previous infection and who are vaccinated may have better and longer protection than people with vaccination alone. We’re still learning.”

He added that specialists, not primary care clinicians, should be relied upon to respond to this emerging vaccination data. Primary care doctors are very busy in other ways – such as in getting children caught up on vaccinations and helping adults return to managing their chronic diseases, Dr. Wender noted.

“Their focus needs to be on helping to overcome hesitancy, mistrust, lack of information, or antivaccination sentiment to help more people feel comfortable being vaccinated – this is a lot of work and needs constant focus. In short, primary care clinicians need to focus chiefly on the unvaccinated,” he said.

“Monitoring immunization recommendations for unique at-risk populations should be the chief responsibility of teams providing subspecialty care, [such as for] transplant patients, people with chronic kidney disease, cancer patients, and people with other chronic illnesses.  This will allow primary care clinicians to tackle their many complex jobs.”
 

Possible solutions for those with low antibody responses

Dr. Larsen said that those with ongoing low antibody responses might still have other immune responses, such as a T-cell response. Such patients also could consider changing their vaccine type, he said.

“At the more significant intervention level, there may be circumstances where one could change the immunosuppressive drugs in a controlled way that might allow a better response,” suggested Dr. Larsen. “That’s obviously going to be something that requires a lot more thought and careful study.”

Dr. Werbel said that other options might need to be considered for those having no response following a third dose. One possibility is trying a vaccine with an adjuvant, such as the Novavax version, which might be more widely available soon.

“If you’re given a third dose of a very immunogenic vaccine – something that should work – and you just have no antibody development, it seems relatively unlikely that doing the same thing again is going to help you from that perspective, and for all we know might expose you to more risk,” Dr. Werbel noted.
 

Participant details

None of the 30 patients were thought to have ever had COVID-19. On average, patients had received their transplant 4.5 years before their original vaccination. In 25 patients, maintenance immunosuppression included tacrolimus or cyclosporine along with mycophenolate. Corticosteroids were also used for 24 patients, sirolimus was used for one patient, and belatacept was used for another patient.

Fifty-seven percent of patients had received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine originally, and 43% the Moderna vaccine. Most of the patients were kidney recipients, with two heart, three liver, one lung, one pancreas and one kidney-pancreas.

Dr. Werbel, Dr. Wender, and Dr. Larsen reported no relevant disclosures.

A third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine can boost antibody levels in people who previously received a solid organ transplant and had an unsatisfactory response to their first two mRNA shots, according to data from a newly published 30-patient case series.

All of those with low titers before the third dose had high titers after receiving the additional shot, but only about 33% of those with negative initial responses had detectable antibodies after the third dose, according to the paper, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Researchers at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, who keep a COVID-19 vaccine registry, perform antibody tests on all registry subjects and inform them of their results. Registry participants were asked to inform the research team if they received a third dose, and, the research team tracked the immune responses of those who did.

The participants in this case series had low antibody levels and received a third dose of the vaccine on their own between March 20 and May 10 of 2021.
 

Third dose results

In this cases series – thought to be the first to look at third vaccine shots in this type of patient group – all six of those who had low antibody titers before the third dose had high-positive titers after the third dose.

Of the 24 individuals who had negative antibody titers before the third dose, just 6 had high titers after the third dose.

Two of the participants had low-positive titers, and 16 were negative.

“Several of those boosted very nicely into ranges seen, using these assays, in healthy persons,” said William Werbel, MD, a fellow in infectious disease at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, who helped lead the study. Those with negative levels, even if they responded, tended to have lower titers, he said.

“The benefits at least from an antibody perspective were not the same for everybody and so this is obviously something that needs to be considered when thinking about selecting patients” for a COVID-19 prevention strategy, he said.

Reactions to the vaccine were low to moderate, such as some arm pain and fatigue.

“Showing that something is safe in that special, vulnerable population is important,” Dr. Werbel said. “We’re all wanting to make sure that we’re doing no harm.”

Dr. Werbel noted that there was no pattern in the small series based on the organ transplanted or in the vaccines used. As their third shot, 15 of the patients received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine; 9 received Moderna; and 6 received Pfizer-BioNTech.
 

Welcome news, but larger studies needed

“To think that a third dose could confer protection for a significant number of people is of course extremely welcome news,” said Christian Larsen, MD, DPhil, professor of surgery in the transplantation division at Emory University, Atlanta, who was not involved in the study. “It’s the easiest conceivable next intervention.”

He added, “We just want studies to confirm that – larger studies.”

Dr. Werbel stressed the importance of looking at third doses in these patients in a more controlled fashion in a randomized trial, to more carefully monitor safety and how patients fare when starting with one type of vaccine and switching to another, for example.

Richard Wender, MD, chair of family medicine and community health at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the findings are a reminder that there is still a lot that is unknown about COVID-19 and vaccination.

“We still don’t know who will or will not benefit from a third dose,” he said. “And our knowledge is evolving.  For example, a recent study suggested that people with previous infection and who are vaccinated may have better and longer protection than people with vaccination alone. We’re still learning.”

He added that specialists, not primary care clinicians, should be relied upon to respond to this emerging vaccination data. Primary care doctors are very busy in other ways – such as in getting children caught up on vaccinations and helping adults return to managing their chronic diseases, Dr. Wender noted.

“Their focus needs to be on helping to overcome hesitancy, mistrust, lack of information, or antivaccination sentiment to help more people feel comfortable being vaccinated – this is a lot of work and needs constant focus. In short, primary care clinicians need to focus chiefly on the unvaccinated,” he said.

“Monitoring immunization recommendations for unique at-risk populations should be the chief responsibility of teams providing subspecialty care, [such as for] transplant patients, people with chronic kidney disease, cancer patients, and people with other chronic illnesses.  This will allow primary care clinicians to tackle their many complex jobs.”
 

Possible solutions for those with low antibody responses

Dr. Larsen said that those with ongoing low antibody responses might still have other immune responses, such as a T-cell response. Such patients also could consider changing their vaccine type, he said.

“At the more significant intervention level, there may be circumstances where one could change the immunosuppressive drugs in a controlled way that might allow a better response,” suggested Dr. Larsen. “That’s obviously going to be something that requires a lot more thought and careful study.”

Dr. Werbel said that other options might need to be considered for those having no response following a third dose. One possibility is trying a vaccine with an adjuvant, such as the Novavax version, which might be more widely available soon.

“If you’re given a third dose of a very immunogenic vaccine – something that should work – and you just have no antibody development, it seems relatively unlikely that doing the same thing again is going to help you from that perspective, and for all we know might expose you to more risk,” Dr. Werbel noted.
 

Participant details

None of the 30 patients were thought to have ever had COVID-19. On average, patients had received their transplant 4.5 years before their original vaccination. In 25 patients, maintenance immunosuppression included tacrolimus or cyclosporine along with mycophenolate. Corticosteroids were also used for 24 patients, sirolimus was used for one patient, and belatacept was used for another patient.

Fifty-seven percent of patients had received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine originally, and 43% the Moderna vaccine. Most of the patients were kidney recipients, with two heart, three liver, one lung, one pancreas and one kidney-pancreas.

Dr. Werbel, Dr. Wender, and Dr. Larsen reported no relevant disclosures.

Imagine this scenario: You are seated at the dinner table with your family when your smartphone buzzes; you look over, and the push notification reads “new biopsy results!”

PxHere

There is a sudden spill of icy anxiety down your spine as you pick up your phone in your shaking hands. It’s 6 p.m.; your doctor’s office is closed. You open the message, and your worst fears are confirmed ... the cancer is back.

Or is it? You’re not sure. The biopsy sure sounds bad. But you’re an English teacher, not a doctor, and you spend the rest of the night Googling words like “tubulovillous” and “high-grade dysplasia.” You sit awake, terrified in front of the computer screen desperately trying to make sense of the possibly life-changing results. You wish you knew someone who could help you understand; you consider calling your doctor’s emergency line, or your cousin who is an ophthalmologist – anybody who can help you make sense of the results.

Or imagine another scenario: you’re a trans teen who has asked your doctor to refer to you by your preferred pronouns. You’re still presenting as your birth sex, in part because your family would disown you if they knew, and you’re not financially or emotionally ready for that step. You feel proud of yourself for advocating for your needs to your long-time physician, and excited about the resources they’ve included in your after visit summary and the referrals they’d made to gender-confirming specialists.

When you get home, you are confronted with a terrible reality that your doctor’s notes, orders, and recommendations are immediately viewable to anybody with your MyChart login – your parents knew the second your doctor signed the note. They received the notification, logged on as your guardians, and you have effectively been “outed” by the physician who took and oath to care for you and who you trusted implicitly.
 

How the Cures Act is affecting patients

While these examples may sound extreme, they are becoming more and more commonplace thanks to a recently enacted 21st Century Cures Act. The act was originally written to improve communication between physicians and patients. Part of the act stipulates that nearly all medical information – from notes to biopsies to lab results – must be available within 24 hours, published to a patient portal and a notification be sent to the patient by phone.

Oftentimes, this occurs before the ordering physician has even seen the results, much less interpreted them and made a plan for the patient. What happens now, not long after its enactment date, when it has become clear that the Cures Act is causing extreme harm to our patients?

Take, for example, the real example of a physician whose patient found out about her own intrauterine fetal demise by way of an EMR text message alert of “new imaging results!” sent directly to her phone. Or a physician colleague who witnessed firsthand the intrusive unhelpfulness of the Cures Act when she was informed via patient portal releasing her imaging information that she had a large, possibly malignant breast mass. “No phone call,” she said. “No human being for questions or comfort. Just a notification on my phone.”

The stories about the impact of the Cures Act across the medical community are an endless stream of anxiety, hurt, and broken trust. The relationship between a physician and a patient should be sacred, bolstered by communication and mutual respect.

In many ways, the new act feels like a third party to the patient-physician relationship – a digital imposter, oftentimes blurting out personal and life-altering medical information without any of the finesse, context, and perspective of an experienced physician.
 

Breaking ‘bad news’ to a patient

In training, some residents are taught how to “break bad news” to a patient. Some good practices for doing this are to have information available for the patient, provide emotional support, have a plan for their next steps already formulated, and call the appropriate specialist ahead of time if you can.

Above all, it’s most important to let the patient be the one to direct their own care. Give them time to ask questions and answer them honestly and clearly. Ask them how much they want to know and help them to understand the complex change in their usual state of health.

Now, unless physicians are keeping a very close eye on their inbox, results are slipping out to patients in a void. The bad news conversations aren’t happening at all, or if they are, they’re happening at 8 p.m. on a phone call after an exhausted physician ends their shift but has to slog through their results bin, calling all the patients who shouldn’t have to find out their results in solitude.

Reaching out to these patients immediately is an honorable, kind thing to, but for a physician, knowing they need to beat the patient to opening an email creates anxiety. Plus, making these calls at whatever hour the results are released to a patient is another burden added to doctors’ already-full plates.
 

Interpreting results

None of us want to harm our patients. All of us want to be there for them. But this act stands in the way of delivering quality, humanizing medical care.

It is true that patients have a right to access their own medical information. It is also true that waiting anxiously on results can cause undue harm to a patient. But the across-the-board, breakneck speed of information release mandated in this act causes irreparable harm not only to patients, but to the patient-physician relationship.

No patient should find out their cancer recurred while checking their emails at their desk. No patient should first learn of a life-altering diagnosis by way of scrolling through their smartphone in bed. The role of a physician is more than just a healer – we should also be educators, interpreters, partners and, first and foremost, advocates for our patients’ needs.

Our patients are depending on us to stand up and speak out about necessary changes to this act. Result releases should be delayed until they are viewed by a physician. Our patients deserve the dignity and opportunity of a conversation with their medical provider about their test results, and physicians deserve the chance to interpret results and frame the conversation in a way which is conducive to patient understanding and healing.

Dr. Persampiere is a first-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. You can contact them at [email protected].

Imagine this scenario: You are seated at the dinner table with your family when your smartphone buzzes; you look over, and the push notification reads “new biopsy results!”

PxHere

There is a sudden spill of icy anxiety down your spine as you pick up your phone in your shaking hands. It’s 6 p.m.; your doctor’s office is closed. You open the message, and your worst fears are confirmed ... the cancer is back.

Or is it? You’re not sure. The biopsy sure sounds bad. But you’re an English teacher, not a doctor, and you spend the rest of the night Googling words like “tubulovillous” and “high-grade dysplasia.” You sit awake, terrified in front of the computer screen desperately trying to make sense of the possibly life-changing results. You wish you knew someone who could help you understand; you consider calling your doctor’s emergency line, or your cousin who is an ophthalmologist – anybody who can help you make sense of the results.

Or imagine another scenario: you’re a trans teen who has asked your doctor to refer to you by your preferred pronouns. You’re still presenting as your birth sex, in part because your family would disown you if they knew, and you’re not financially or emotionally ready for that step. You feel proud of yourself for advocating for your needs to your long-time physician, and excited about the resources they’ve included in your after visit summary and the referrals they’d made to gender-confirming specialists.

When you get home, you are confronted with a terrible reality that your doctor’s notes, orders, and recommendations are immediately viewable to anybody with your MyChart login – your parents knew the second your doctor signed the note. They received the notification, logged on as your guardians, and you have effectively been “outed” by the physician who took and oath to care for you and who you trusted implicitly.
 

How the Cures Act is affecting patients

While these examples may sound extreme, they are becoming more and more commonplace thanks to a recently enacted 21st Century Cures Act. The act was originally written to improve communication between physicians and patients. Part of the act stipulates that nearly all medical information – from notes to biopsies to lab results – must be available within 24 hours, published to a patient portal and a notification be sent to the patient by phone.

Oftentimes, this occurs before the ordering physician has even seen the results, much less interpreted them and made a plan for the patient. What happens now, not long after its enactment date, when it has become clear that the Cures Act is causing extreme harm to our patients?

Take, for example, the real example of a physician whose patient found out about her own intrauterine fetal demise by way of an EMR text message alert of “new imaging results!” sent directly to her phone. Or a physician colleague who witnessed firsthand the intrusive unhelpfulness of the Cures Act when she was informed via patient portal releasing her imaging information that she had a large, possibly malignant breast mass. “No phone call,” she said. “No human being for questions or comfort. Just a notification on my phone.”

The stories about the impact of the Cures Act across the medical community are an endless stream of anxiety, hurt, and broken trust. The relationship between a physician and a patient should be sacred, bolstered by communication and mutual respect.

In many ways, the new act feels like a third party to the patient-physician relationship – a digital imposter, oftentimes blurting out personal and life-altering medical information without any of the finesse, context, and perspective of an experienced physician.
 

Breaking ‘bad news’ to a patient

In training, some residents are taught how to “break bad news” to a patient. Some good practices for doing this are to have information available for the patient, provide emotional support, have a plan for their next steps already formulated, and call the appropriate specialist ahead of time if you can.

Above all, it’s most important to let the patient be the one to direct their own care. Give them time to ask questions and answer them honestly and clearly. Ask them how much they want to know and help them to understand the complex change in their usual state of health.

Now, unless physicians are keeping a very close eye on their inbox, results are slipping out to patients in a void. The bad news conversations aren’t happening at all, or if they are, they’re happening at 8 p.m. on a phone call after an exhausted physician ends their shift but has to slog through their results bin, calling all the patients who shouldn’t have to find out their results in solitude.

Reaching out to these patients immediately is an honorable, kind thing to, but for a physician, knowing they need to beat the patient to opening an email creates anxiety. Plus, making these calls at whatever hour the results are released to a patient is another burden added to doctors’ already-full plates.
 

Interpreting results

None of us want to harm our patients. All of us want to be there for them. But this act stands in the way of delivering quality, humanizing medical care.

It is true that patients have a right to access their own medical information. It is also true that waiting anxiously on results can cause undue harm to a patient. But the across-the-board, breakneck speed of information release mandated in this act causes irreparable harm not only to patients, but to the patient-physician relationship.

No patient should find out their cancer recurred while checking their emails at their desk. No patient should first learn of a life-altering diagnosis by way of scrolling through their smartphone in bed. The role of a physician is more than just a healer – we should also be educators, interpreters, partners and, first and foremost, advocates for our patients’ needs.

Our patients are depending on us to stand up and speak out about necessary changes to this act. Result releases should be delayed until they are viewed by a physician. Our patients deserve the dignity and opportunity of a conversation with their medical provider about their test results, and physicians deserve the chance to interpret results and frame the conversation in a way which is conducive to patient understanding and healing.

Dr. Persampiere is a first-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. You can contact them at [email protected].

Imagine this scenario: You are seated at the dinner table with your family when your smartphone buzzes; you look over, and the push notification reads “new biopsy results!”

PxHere

There is a sudden spill of icy anxiety down your spine as you pick up your phone in your shaking hands. It’s 6 p.m.; your doctor’s office is closed. You open the message, and your worst fears are confirmed ... the cancer is back.

Or is it? You’re not sure. The biopsy sure sounds bad. But you’re an English teacher, not a doctor, and you spend the rest of the night Googling words like “tubulovillous” and “high-grade dysplasia.” You sit awake, terrified in front of the computer screen desperately trying to make sense of the possibly life-changing results. You wish you knew someone who could help you understand; you consider calling your doctor’s emergency line, or your cousin who is an ophthalmologist – anybody who can help you make sense of the results.

Or imagine another scenario: you’re a trans teen who has asked your doctor to refer to you by your preferred pronouns. You’re still presenting as your birth sex, in part because your family would disown you if they knew, and you’re not financially or emotionally ready for that step. You feel proud of yourself for advocating for your needs to your long-time physician, and excited about the resources they’ve included in your after visit summary and the referrals they’d made to gender-confirming specialists.

When you get home, you are confronted with a terrible reality that your doctor’s notes, orders, and recommendations are immediately viewable to anybody with your MyChart login – your parents knew the second your doctor signed the note. They received the notification, logged on as your guardians, and you have effectively been “outed” by the physician who took and oath to care for you and who you trusted implicitly.
 

How the Cures Act is affecting patients

While these examples may sound extreme, they are becoming more and more commonplace thanks to a recently enacted 21st Century Cures Act. The act was originally written to improve communication between physicians and patients. Part of the act stipulates that nearly all medical information – from notes to biopsies to lab results – must be available within 24 hours, published to a patient portal and a notification be sent to the patient by phone.

Oftentimes, this occurs before the ordering physician has even seen the results, much less interpreted them and made a plan for the patient. What happens now, not long after its enactment date, when it has become clear that the Cures Act is causing extreme harm to our patients?

Take, for example, the real example of a physician whose patient found out about her own intrauterine fetal demise by way of an EMR text message alert of “new imaging results!” sent directly to her phone. Or a physician colleague who witnessed firsthand the intrusive unhelpfulness of the Cures Act when she was informed via patient portal releasing her imaging information that she had a large, possibly malignant breast mass. “No phone call,” she said. “No human being for questions or comfort. Just a notification on my phone.”

The stories about the impact of the Cures Act across the medical community are an endless stream of anxiety, hurt, and broken trust. The relationship between a physician and a patient should be sacred, bolstered by communication and mutual respect.

In many ways, the new act feels like a third party to the patient-physician relationship – a digital imposter, oftentimes blurting out personal and life-altering medical information without any of the finesse, context, and perspective of an experienced physician.
 

Breaking ‘bad news’ to a patient

In training, some residents are taught how to “break bad news” to a patient. Some good practices for doing this are to have information available for the patient, provide emotional support, have a plan for their next steps already formulated, and call the appropriate specialist ahead of time if you can.

Above all, it’s most important to let the patient be the one to direct their own care. Give them time to ask questions and answer them honestly and clearly. Ask them how much they want to know and help them to understand the complex change in their usual state of health.

Now, unless physicians are keeping a very close eye on their inbox, results are slipping out to patients in a void. The bad news conversations aren’t happening at all, or if they are, they’re happening at 8 p.m. on a phone call after an exhausted physician ends their shift but has to slog through their results bin, calling all the patients who shouldn’t have to find out their results in solitude.

Reaching out to these patients immediately is an honorable, kind thing to, but for a physician, knowing they need to beat the patient to opening an email creates anxiety. Plus, making these calls at whatever hour the results are released to a patient is another burden added to doctors’ already-full plates.
 

Interpreting results

None of us want to harm our patients. All of us want to be there for them. But this act stands in the way of delivering quality, humanizing medical care.

It is true that patients have a right to access their own medical information. It is also true that waiting anxiously on results can cause undue harm to a patient. But the across-the-board, breakneck speed of information release mandated in this act causes irreparable harm not only to patients, but to the patient-physician relationship.

No patient should find out their cancer recurred while checking their emails at their desk. No patient should first learn of a life-altering diagnosis by way of scrolling through their smartphone in bed. The role of a physician is more than just a healer – we should also be educators, interpreters, partners and, first and foremost, advocates for our patients’ needs.

Our patients are depending on us to stand up and speak out about necessary changes to this act. Result releases should be delayed until they are viewed by a physician. Our patients deserve the dignity and opportunity of a conversation with their medical provider about their test results, and physicians deserve the chance to interpret results and frame the conversation in a way which is conducive to patient understanding and healing.

Dr. Persampiere is a first-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. You can contact them at [email protected].

A federal judge in Texas has dismissed a lawsuit from 117 Houston Methodist Hospital workers who refused to get a COVID-19 vaccine and said it was illegal to require them to do so.

In the ruling issued June 12, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes upheld the hospital’s policy and said the vaccination requirement didn’t break any federal laws.

“This is not coercion,” Judge Hughes wrote in the ruling.

“Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID-19 virus,” he wrote. “It is a choice made to keep staff, patients, and their families safer.”

In April, the Houston Methodist Hospital system announced a policy that required employees to be vaccinated by June 7 or request an exemption. After the deadline, 178 of 26,000 employees refused to get inoculated and were placed on suspension without pay. The employees said the vaccine was unsafe and “experimental.” In his ruling, Judge Hughes said their claim was false and irrelevant.

“Texas law only protects employees from being terminated for refusing to commit an act carrying criminal penalties to the worker,” he wrote. “Receiving a COVID-19 vaccination is not an illegal act, and it carries no criminal penalties.”

He denounced the “press-release style of the complaint” and the comparison of the hospital’s vaccine policy to forced experimentation by the Nazis against Jewish people during the Holocaust.

“Equating the injection requirement to medical experimentation in concentration camps is reprehensible,” he wrote. “Nazi doctors conducted medical experiments on victims that caused pain, mutilation, permanent disability, and in many cases, death.”

Judge Hughes also said that employees can “freely choose” to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine. If they refuse, they “simply need to work somewhere else,” he wrote.

“If a worker refuses an assignment, changed office, earlier start time, or other directive, he may be properly fired,” Judge Hughes said. “Every employment includes limits on the worker’s behavior in exchange for his remuneration. This is all part of the bargain.”

The ruling could set a precedent for similar COVID-19 vaccine lawsuits across the country, NPR reported. Houston Methodist was one of the first hospitals to require staff to be vaccinated. After the ruling on June 12, the hospital system wrote in a statement that it was “pleased and reassured” that Judge Hughes dismissed a “frivolous lawsuit.”

The hospital system will begin to terminate the 178 employees who were suspended if they don’t get a vaccine by June 21.

Jennifer Bridges, a nurse who has led the campaign against the vaccine policy, said she and the other plaintiffs will appeal the decision, according to KHOU.

“We’re OK with this decision. We are appealing. This will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court,” she told the news station. “This is far from over. This is literally only the beginning.”

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

A federal judge in Texas has dismissed a lawsuit from 117 Houston Methodist Hospital workers who refused to get a COVID-19 vaccine and said it was illegal to require them to do so.

In the ruling issued June 12, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes upheld the hospital’s policy and said the vaccination requirement didn’t break any federal laws.

“This is not coercion,” Judge Hughes wrote in the ruling.

“Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID-19 virus,” he wrote. “It is a choice made to keep staff, patients, and their families safer.”

In April, the Houston Methodist Hospital system announced a policy that required employees to be vaccinated by June 7 or request an exemption. After the deadline, 178 of 26,000 employees refused to get inoculated and were placed on suspension without pay. The employees said the vaccine was unsafe and “experimental.” In his ruling, Judge Hughes said their claim was false and irrelevant.

“Texas law only protects employees from being terminated for refusing to commit an act carrying criminal penalties to the worker,” he wrote. “Receiving a COVID-19 vaccination is not an illegal act, and it carries no criminal penalties.”

He denounced the “press-release style of the complaint” and the comparison of the hospital’s vaccine policy to forced experimentation by the Nazis against Jewish people during the Holocaust.

“Equating the injection requirement to medical experimentation in concentration camps is reprehensible,” he wrote. “Nazi doctors conducted medical experiments on victims that caused pain, mutilation, permanent disability, and in many cases, death.”

Judge Hughes also said that employees can “freely choose” to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine. If they refuse, they “simply need to work somewhere else,” he wrote.

“If a worker refuses an assignment, changed office, earlier start time, or other directive, he may be properly fired,” Judge Hughes said. “Every employment includes limits on the worker’s behavior in exchange for his remuneration. This is all part of the bargain.”

The ruling could set a precedent for similar COVID-19 vaccine lawsuits across the country, NPR reported. Houston Methodist was one of the first hospitals to require staff to be vaccinated. After the ruling on June 12, the hospital system wrote in a statement that it was “pleased and reassured” that Judge Hughes dismissed a “frivolous lawsuit.”

The hospital system will begin to terminate the 178 employees who were suspended if they don’t get a vaccine by June 21.

Jennifer Bridges, a nurse who has led the campaign against the vaccine policy, said she and the other plaintiffs will appeal the decision, according to KHOU.

“We’re OK with this decision. We are appealing. This will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court,” she told the news station. “This is far from over. This is literally only the beginning.”

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

A federal judge in Texas has dismissed a lawsuit from 117 Houston Methodist Hospital workers who refused to get a COVID-19 vaccine and said it was illegal to require them to do so.

In the ruling issued June 12, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes upheld the hospital’s policy and said the vaccination requirement didn’t break any federal laws.

“This is not coercion,” Judge Hughes wrote in the ruling.

“Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID-19 virus,” he wrote. “It is a choice made to keep staff, patients, and their families safer.”

In April, the Houston Methodist Hospital system announced a policy that required employees to be vaccinated by June 7 or request an exemption. After the deadline, 178 of 26,000 employees refused to get inoculated and were placed on suspension without pay. The employees said the vaccine was unsafe and “experimental.” In his ruling, Judge Hughes said their claim was false and irrelevant.

“Texas law only protects employees from being terminated for refusing to commit an act carrying criminal penalties to the worker,” he wrote. “Receiving a COVID-19 vaccination is not an illegal act, and it carries no criminal penalties.”

He denounced the “press-release style of the complaint” and the comparison of the hospital’s vaccine policy to forced experimentation by the Nazis against Jewish people during the Holocaust.

“Equating the injection requirement to medical experimentation in concentration camps is reprehensible,” he wrote. “Nazi doctors conducted medical experiments on victims that caused pain, mutilation, permanent disability, and in many cases, death.”

Judge Hughes also said that employees can “freely choose” to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine. If they refuse, they “simply need to work somewhere else,” he wrote.

“If a worker refuses an assignment, changed office, earlier start time, or other directive, he may be properly fired,” Judge Hughes said. “Every employment includes limits on the worker’s behavior in exchange for his remuneration. This is all part of the bargain.”

The ruling could set a precedent for similar COVID-19 vaccine lawsuits across the country, NPR reported. Houston Methodist was one of the first hospitals to require staff to be vaccinated. After the ruling on June 12, the hospital system wrote in a statement that it was “pleased and reassured” that Judge Hughes dismissed a “frivolous lawsuit.”

The hospital system will begin to terminate the 178 employees who were suspended if they don’t get a vaccine by June 21.

Jennifer Bridges, a nurse who has led the campaign against the vaccine policy, said she and the other plaintiffs will appeal the decision, according to KHOU.

“We’re OK with this decision. We are appealing. This will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court,” she told the news station. “This is far from over. This is literally only the beginning.”

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

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued its long-awaited Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for COVID-19 June 10, surprising many by including only health care workers in the new emergency workplace safety rules.

“The ETS is an overdue step toward protecting health care workers, especially those working in long-term care facilities and home health care who are at greatly increased risk of infection,” said George Washington University, Washington, professor and former Obama administration Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels, PhD, MPH. “OSHA’s failure to issue a COVID-specific standard in other high-risk industries, like meat and poultry processing, corrections, homeless shelters, and retail establishments is disappointing. If exposure is not controlled in these workplaces, they will continue to be important drivers of infections.”

With the new regulations in place, about 10.3 million health care workers at hospitals, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities, as well as emergency responders and home health care workers, should be guaranteed protection standards that replace former guidance.

The new protections include supplying personal protective equipment and ensuring proper usage (for example, mandatory seal checks on respirators); screening everyone who enters the facility for COVID-19; ensuring proper ventilation; and establishing physical distancing requirements (6 feet) for unvaccinated workers. It also requires employers to give workers time off for vaccination. An antiretaliation clause could shield workers who complain about unsafe conditions.

“The science tells us that health care workers, particularly those who come into regular contact with the virus, are most at risk at this point in the pandemic,” Labor Secretary Marty Walsh said on a press call. “So following an extensive review of the science and data, OSHA determined that a health care–specific safety requirement will make the biggest impact.”

But questions remain, said James Brudney, JD, a professor at Fordham Law School in New York and former chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor. The standard doesn’t amplify or address existing rules regarding a right to refuse unsafe work, for example, so employees may still feel they are risking their jobs to complain, despite the antiretaliation clause.

And although vaccinated employees don’t have to adhere to the same distancing and masking standards in many instances, the standard doesn’t spell out how employers should determine their workers’ vaccination status – instead leaving that determination to employers through their own policies and procedures. (California’s state OSHA office rules specify the mechanism for documentation of vaccination.)

The Trump administration did not issue an ETS, saying OSHA’s general duty clause sufficed. President Joe Biden took the opposite approach, calling for an investigation into an ETS on his first day in office. But the process took months longer than promised.

“I know it’s been a long time coming,” Mr. Walsh acknowledged. “Our health care workers from the very beginning have been put at risk.

While health care unions had asked for mandated safety standards sooner, National Nurses United, the country’s largest labor union for registered nurses, still welcomed the rules.

“An ETS is a major step toward requiring accountability for hospitals who consistently put their budget goals and profits over our health and safety,” Zenei Triunfo-Cortez, RN, one of NNU’s three presidents, said in a statement June 9 anticipating the publication of the rules.

The rules do not apply to retail pharmacies, ambulatory care settings that screen nonemployees for COVID-19, or certain other settings in which all employees are vaccinated and people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cannot enter.

The agency said it will work with states that have already issued local regulations, including two states that issued temporary standards of their own, Virginia and California.

Employers will have 2 weeks to comply with most of the regulations after they’re published in the Federal Register. The standards will expire in 6 months but could then become permanent, as Virginia’s did in January.

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

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued its long-awaited Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for COVID-19 June 10, surprising many by including only health care workers in the new emergency workplace safety rules.

“The ETS is an overdue step toward protecting health care workers, especially those working in long-term care facilities and home health care who are at greatly increased risk of infection,” said George Washington University, Washington, professor and former Obama administration Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels, PhD, MPH. “OSHA’s failure to issue a COVID-specific standard in other high-risk industries, like meat and poultry processing, corrections, homeless shelters, and retail establishments is disappointing. If exposure is not controlled in these workplaces, they will continue to be important drivers of infections.”

With the new regulations in place, about 10.3 million health care workers at hospitals, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities, as well as emergency responders and home health care workers, should be guaranteed protection standards that replace former guidance.

The new protections include supplying personal protective equipment and ensuring proper usage (for example, mandatory seal checks on respirators); screening everyone who enters the facility for COVID-19; ensuring proper ventilation; and establishing physical distancing requirements (6 feet) for unvaccinated workers. It also requires employers to give workers time off for vaccination. An antiretaliation clause could shield workers who complain about unsafe conditions.

“The science tells us that health care workers, particularly those who come into regular contact with the virus, are most at risk at this point in the pandemic,” Labor Secretary Marty Walsh said on a press call. “So following an extensive review of the science and data, OSHA determined that a health care–specific safety requirement will make the biggest impact.”

But questions remain, said James Brudney, JD, a professor at Fordham Law School in New York and former chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor. The standard doesn’t amplify or address existing rules regarding a right to refuse unsafe work, for example, so employees may still feel they are risking their jobs to complain, despite the antiretaliation clause.

And although vaccinated employees don’t have to adhere to the same distancing and masking standards in many instances, the standard doesn’t spell out how employers should determine their workers’ vaccination status – instead leaving that determination to employers through their own policies and procedures. (California’s state OSHA office rules specify the mechanism for documentation of vaccination.)

The Trump administration did not issue an ETS, saying OSHA’s general duty clause sufficed. President Joe Biden took the opposite approach, calling for an investigation into an ETS on his first day in office. But the process took months longer than promised.

“I know it’s been a long time coming,” Mr. Walsh acknowledged. “Our health care workers from the very beginning have been put at risk.

While health care unions had asked for mandated safety standards sooner, National Nurses United, the country’s largest labor union for registered nurses, still welcomed the rules.

“An ETS is a major step toward requiring accountability for hospitals who consistently put their budget goals and profits over our health and safety,” Zenei Triunfo-Cortez, RN, one of NNU’s three presidents, said in a statement June 9 anticipating the publication of the rules.

The rules do not apply to retail pharmacies, ambulatory care settings that screen nonemployees for COVID-19, or certain other settings in which all employees are vaccinated and people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cannot enter.

The agency said it will work with states that have already issued local regulations, including two states that issued temporary standards of their own, Virginia and California.

Employers will have 2 weeks to comply with most of the regulations after they’re published in the Federal Register. The standards will expire in 6 months but could then become permanent, as Virginia’s did in January.

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

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued its long-awaited Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for COVID-19 June 10, surprising many by including only health care workers in the new emergency workplace safety rules.

“The ETS is an overdue step toward protecting health care workers, especially those working in long-term care facilities and home health care who are at greatly increased risk of infection,” said George Washington University, Washington, professor and former Obama administration Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels, PhD, MPH. “OSHA’s failure to issue a COVID-specific standard in other high-risk industries, like meat and poultry processing, corrections, homeless shelters, and retail establishments is disappointing. If exposure is not controlled in these workplaces, they will continue to be important drivers of infections.”

With the new regulations in place, about 10.3 million health care workers at hospitals, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities, as well as emergency responders and home health care workers, should be guaranteed protection standards that replace former guidance.

The new protections include supplying personal protective equipment and ensuring proper usage (for example, mandatory seal checks on respirators); screening everyone who enters the facility for COVID-19; ensuring proper ventilation; and establishing physical distancing requirements (6 feet) for unvaccinated workers. It also requires employers to give workers time off for vaccination. An antiretaliation clause could shield workers who complain about unsafe conditions.

“The science tells us that health care workers, particularly those who come into regular contact with the virus, are most at risk at this point in the pandemic,” Labor Secretary Marty Walsh said on a press call. “So following an extensive review of the science and data, OSHA determined that a health care–specific safety requirement will make the biggest impact.”

But questions remain, said James Brudney, JD, a professor at Fordham Law School in New York and former chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor. The standard doesn’t amplify or address existing rules regarding a right to refuse unsafe work, for example, so employees may still feel they are risking their jobs to complain, despite the antiretaliation clause.

And although vaccinated employees don’t have to adhere to the same distancing and masking standards in many instances, the standard doesn’t spell out how employers should determine their workers’ vaccination status – instead leaving that determination to employers through their own policies and procedures. (California’s state OSHA office rules specify the mechanism for documentation of vaccination.)

The Trump administration did not issue an ETS, saying OSHA’s general duty clause sufficed. President Joe Biden took the opposite approach, calling for an investigation into an ETS on his first day in office. But the process took months longer than promised.

“I know it’s been a long time coming,” Mr. Walsh acknowledged. “Our health care workers from the very beginning have been put at risk.

While health care unions had asked for mandated safety standards sooner, National Nurses United, the country’s largest labor union for registered nurses, still welcomed the rules.

“An ETS is a major step toward requiring accountability for hospitals who consistently put their budget goals and profits over our health and safety,” Zenei Triunfo-Cortez, RN, one of NNU’s three presidents, said in a statement June 9 anticipating the publication of the rules.

The rules do not apply to retail pharmacies, ambulatory care settings that screen nonemployees for COVID-19, or certain other settings in which all employees are vaccinated and people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cannot enter.

The agency said it will work with states that have already issued local regulations, including two states that issued temporary standards of their own, Virginia and California.

Employers will have 2 weeks to comply with most of the regulations after they’re published in the Federal Register. The standards will expire in 6 months but could then become permanent, as Virginia’s did in January.

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

Graduates of international medical schools died from COVID-19 in disproportionate numbers in the United States in 2020, researchers report.

“I’ve always felt that international medical graduates [IMGs] in America are largely invisible,” said senior author Abraham Verghese, MD, MFA, an infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University. “Everyone is aware that there are foreign doctors, but very few are aware of how many there are and also how vital they are to providing health care in America.”

IMGs made up 25% of all U.S. physicians in 2020 but accounted for 45% of those whose deaths had been attributed to COVID-19 through Nov. 23, 2020, Deendayal Dinakarpandian, MD, PhD, clinical associate professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues report in JAMA Network Open.

IMGs are more likely to work in places where the incidence of COVID-19 is high and in facilities with fewer resources, Dr. Verghese said in an interview. “So, it’s not surprising that they were on the front lines when this thing came along,” he said.

To see whether their vulnerability affected their risk for death, Dr. Dinakarpandian and colleagues collected data from Nov. 23, 2020, from three sources of information regarding deaths among physicians: MedPage Today, which used investigative and voluntary reporting; Medscape, which used voluntary reporting of verifiable information; and a collaboration of The Guardian and Kaiser Health News, which used investigative reporting.

The Medscape project was launched on April 1, 2020. The MedPage Today and The Guardian/Kaiser Health News projects were launched on April 8, 2020.

Dr. Verghese and colleagues researched obituaries and news articles referenced by the three projects to verify their data. They used DocInfo to ascertain the deceased physicians’ medical schools.

After eliminating duplications from the lists, the researchers counted 132 physician deaths in 28 states. Of these, 59 physicians had graduated from medical schools outside the United States, a death toll 1.8 times higher than the proportion of IMGs among U.S. physicians (95% confidence interval, 1.52-2.21; P < .001).

New York, New Jersey, and Florida accounted for 66% of the deaths among IMGs but for only 45% of the deaths among U.S. medical school graduates.

Within each state, the proportion of IMGs among deceased physicians was not statistically different from their proportion among physicians in those states, with the exception of New York.

Two-thirds of the physicians’ deaths occurred in states where IMGs make up a larger proportion of physicians than in the nation as a whole. In these states, the incidence of COVID-19 was high at the start of the pandemic.

In New York, IMGs accounted for 60% of physician deaths, which was 1.62 times higher (95% CI, 1.26-2.09; P = .005) than the 37% among New York physicians overall.

Physicians who were trained abroad frequently can’t get into the most prestigious residency programs or into the highest paid specialties and are more likely to serve in primary care, Dr. Verghese said. Overall, 60% of the physicians who died of COVID-19 worked in primary care.

IMGs often staff hospitals serving low-income communities and communities of color, which were hardest hit by the pandemic and where personal protective equipment was hard to obtain, said Dr. Verghese.

In addition to these risks, IMGs sometimes endure racism, said Dr. Verghese, who obtained his medical degree at Madras Medical College, Chennai, India. “We’ve actually seen in the COVID era, in keeping with the sort of political tone that was set in Washington, that there’s been a lot more abuses of both foreign physicians and foreign looking physicians – even if they’re not foreign trained – and nurses by patients who have been given license. And I want to acknowledge the heroism of all these physicians.”

The study was partially funded by the Presence Center at Stanford. Dr. Verghese is a regular contributor to Medscape. He served on the advisory board for Gilead Sciences, serves as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Leigh Bureau, and receives royalties from Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster.

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

Graduates of international medical schools died from COVID-19 in disproportionate numbers in the United States in 2020, researchers report.

“I’ve always felt that international medical graduates [IMGs] in America are largely invisible,” said senior author Abraham Verghese, MD, MFA, an infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University. “Everyone is aware that there are foreign doctors, but very few are aware of how many there are and also how vital they are to providing health care in America.”

IMGs made up 25% of all U.S. physicians in 2020 but accounted for 45% of those whose deaths had been attributed to COVID-19 through Nov. 23, 2020, Deendayal Dinakarpandian, MD, PhD, clinical associate professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues report in JAMA Network Open.

IMGs are more likely to work in places where the incidence of COVID-19 is high and in facilities with fewer resources, Dr. Verghese said in an interview. “So, it’s not surprising that they were on the front lines when this thing came along,” he said.

To see whether their vulnerability affected their risk for death, Dr. Dinakarpandian and colleagues collected data from Nov. 23, 2020, from three sources of information regarding deaths among physicians: MedPage Today, which used investigative and voluntary reporting; Medscape, which used voluntary reporting of verifiable information; and a collaboration of The Guardian and Kaiser Health News, which used investigative reporting.

The Medscape project was launched on April 1, 2020. The MedPage Today and The Guardian/Kaiser Health News projects were launched on April 8, 2020.

Dr. Verghese and colleagues researched obituaries and news articles referenced by the three projects to verify their data. They used DocInfo to ascertain the deceased physicians’ medical schools.

After eliminating duplications from the lists, the researchers counted 132 physician deaths in 28 states. Of these, 59 physicians had graduated from medical schools outside the United States, a death toll 1.8 times higher than the proportion of IMGs among U.S. physicians (95% confidence interval, 1.52-2.21; P < .001).

New York, New Jersey, and Florida accounted for 66% of the deaths among IMGs but for only 45% of the deaths among U.S. medical school graduates.

Within each state, the proportion of IMGs among deceased physicians was not statistically different from their proportion among physicians in those states, with the exception of New York.

Two-thirds of the physicians’ deaths occurred in states where IMGs make up a larger proportion of physicians than in the nation as a whole. In these states, the incidence of COVID-19 was high at the start of the pandemic.

In New York, IMGs accounted for 60% of physician deaths, which was 1.62 times higher (95% CI, 1.26-2.09; P = .005) than the 37% among New York physicians overall.

Physicians who were trained abroad frequently can’t get into the most prestigious residency programs or into the highest paid specialties and are more likely to serve in primary care, Dr. Verghese said. Overall, 60% of the physicians who died of COVID-19 worked in primary care.

IMGs often staff hospitals serving low-income communities and communities of color, which were hardest hit by the pandemic and where personal protective equipment was hard to obtain, said Dr. Verghese.

In addition to these risks, IMGs sometimes endure racism, said Dr. Verghese, who obtained his medical degree at Madras Medical College, Chennai, India. “We’ve actually seen in the COVID era, in keeping with the sort of political tone that was set in Washington, that there’s been a lot more abuses of both foreign physicians and foreign looking physicians – even if they’re not foreign trained – and nurses by patients who have been given license. And I want to acknowledge the heroism of all these physicians.”

The study was partially funded by the Presence Center at Stanford. Dr. Verghese is a regular contributor to Medscape. He served on the advisory board for Gilead Sciences, serves as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Leigh Bureau, and receives royalties from Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster.

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

Graduates of international medical schools died from COVID-19 in disproportionate numbers in the United States in 2020, researchers report.

“I’ve always felt that international medical graduates [IMGs] in America are largely invisible,” said senior author Abraham Verghese, MD, MFA, an infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University. “Everyone is aware that there are foreign doctors, but very few are aware of how many there are and also how vital they are to providing health care in America.”

IMGs made up 25% of all U.S. physicians in 2020 but accounted for 45% of those whose deaths had been attributed to COVID-19 through Nov. 23, 2020, Deendayal Dinakarpandian, MD, PhD, clinical associate professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues report in JAMA Network Open.

IMGs are more likely to work in places where the incidence of COVID-19 is high and in facilities with fewer resources, Dr. Verghese said in an interview. “So, it’s not surprising that they were on the front lines when this thing came along,” he said.

To see whether their vulnerability affected their risk for death, Dr. Dinakarpandian and colleagues collected data from Nov. 23, 2020, from three sources of information regarding deaths among physicians: MedPage Today, which used investigative and voluntary reporting; Medscape, which used voluntary reporting of verifiable information; and a collaboration of The Guardian and Kaiser Health News, which used investigative reporting.

The Medscape project was launched on April 1, 2020. The MedPage Today and The Guardian/Kaiser Health News projects were launched on April 8, 2020.

Dr. Verghese and colleagues researched obituaries and news articles referenced by the three projects to verify their data. They used DocInfo to ascertain the deceased physicians’ medical schools.

After eliminating duplications from the lists, the researchers counted 132 physician deaths in 28 states. Of these, 59 physicians had graduated from medical schools outside the United States, a death toll 1.8 times higher than the proportion of IMGs among U.S. physicians (95% confidence interval, 1.52-2.21; P < .001).

New York, New Jersey, and Florida accounted for 66% of the deaths among IMGs but for only 45% of the deaths among U.S. medical school graduates.

Within each state, the proportion of IMGs among deceased physicians was not statistically different from their proportion among physicians in those states, with the exception of New York.

Two-thirds of the physicians’ deaths occurred in states where IMGs make up a larger proportion of physicians than in the nation as a whole. In these states, the incidence of COVID-19 was high at the start of the pandemic.

In New York, IMGs accounted for 60% of physician deaths, which was 1.62 times higher (95% CI, 1.26-2.09; P = .005) than the 37% among New York physicians overall.

Physicians who were trained abroad frequently can’t get into the most prestigious residency programs or into the highest paid specialties and are more likely to serve in primary care, Dr. Verghese said. Overall, 60% of the physicians who died of COVID-19 worked in primary care.

IMGs often staff hospitals serving low-income communities and communities of color, which were hardest hit by the pandemic and where personal protective equipment was hard to obtain, said Dr. Verghese.

In addition to these risks, IMGs sometimes endure racism, said Dr. Verghese, who obtained his medical degree at Madras Medical College, Chennai, India. “We’ve actually seen in the COVID era, in keeping with the sort of political tone that was set in Washington, that there’s been a lot more abuses of both foreign physicians and foreign looking physicians – even if they’re not foreign trained – and nurses by patients who have been given license. And I want to acknowledge the heroism of all these physicians.”

The study was partially funded by the Presence Center at Stanford. Dr. Verghese is a regular contributor to Medscape. He served on the advisory board for Gilead Sciences, serves as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Leigh Bureau, and receives royalties from Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster.

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

For many people, being told that they are HIV positive is no longer a death sentence. But for Robert Suttle, a Black gay man and social justice educator, it is a life sentence.

Unexpectedly caught up in the HIV criminalization web at the age of 30, Mr. Suttle spent 6 months in a Louisiana state prison for a consensual sexual relationship with an adult partner. The crime? Not disclosing his HIV-positive status, a charge that Mr. Suttle says is untrue.

“I did disclose my status to my partner; however, I can’t really answer how they might have received it,” he said.

Today, at the age of 42, Mr. Suttle still carries the indelible stain of a conviction and of being a registered sex offender. “After their diagnosis, criminal charge, and/or conviction, many people think they’re done – either ‘I’ve gotten out of prison’ or ‘I’m still on probation’ – whatever the case may be,” he explained. “But we’re still living out these collateral consequences, be it with housing, moving to another state, or finding a job.”

The same is true for HIV-positive people who are charged and tried but manage to dodge prison for one reason or another. Monique Howell, a straight, 40-year-old former army soldier and single mother of five children, said that she was afraid to disclose her HIV status to a sexual partner but did advise him to wear a condom.* She points to her DD14 discharge papers (i.e., forms that verify that someone served in the military) that were issued when her military duty was rescinded following the dismissal of her court case.

“I was going to reenlist, but I got in trouble,” she said. She explained that although a DD14 separation helps to ensure that she can receive benefits and care, the papers were issued with a caveat stating “serious offense,” an indelible stain that, like Mr. Suttle’s, will follow her for the rest of her life.
 

Laws criminalize myths and misconceptions

HIV criminalization laws subject persons whose behaviors may expose others to HIV to felony or misdemeanor charges. Depending on the state, they can carry prison terms ranging from less than 10 years to life, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Originally enacted at the height of the AIDS epidemic in 1986, when fear was rampant and hundreds were dying, the laws were intended to reduce HIV transmission. But they’ve had unintended consequences: Amplifying stigmatization and discrimination and perpetuating HIV myths and misconceptions, including how HIV is transmitted.

Decades of scientific advances challenge the most basic reasoning behind laws (for example, that transmission is possible via biting or spitting or through a single sexual act, which studies have shown poses a risk as low as 0%-1.4%). In addition, few laws reflect one of the most important HIV research findings of the past decade: undetectable equals untransmittable, meaning that the virus cannot be sexually transmitted by people who are taking antiretroviral therapy and whose viral loads are undetectable.

In most of these cases, individuals who are positive for HIV are charged and punished for unintentional exposure, not deliberate intent to harm. Moreover, for the charge to stick, sexual partners don’t need to have acquired the virus or prove the transmission source if they do become HIV positive.

Ms. Howell noted that it was the Army that brought the charges against her, not her sexual partner at that time (who, incidentally, tested negative). He even testified on her behalf at the trial. “I’ll never forget it,” she said. “He said, ‘I don’t want anything to happen to Monique; even if you put her behind bars, she’s still HIV-positive and she’s still got those children. She told me to get a condom, and I chose not to.’ ”
 

Criminal vs. clinical fallout

In 2018, 20 scientists across the world issued a consensus statement underscoring the fact that HIV criminalization laws are based on fallacies and faulty science. The statement (which remains one of the most accessed in the Journal of the International AIDS Society) also points out that 33 countries (including the United States) use general criminal statutes such as attempted murder or reckless endangerment to lengthen sentences when people with HIV commit crimes.

When the laws were created, “many were the equivalent [to general criminal laws], because HIV was seen as a death sentence,” explained Chris Beyrer MD, MPH, professor of public health and human rights at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore. “So, failure to disclose your status, to wear a condom was seen as risking someone else’s life, which is no longer the case,” he added.

In fact, “from the perspective of the kinds of impact that these laws have had on transmission, or risk, or behavior, what you find is that they really have no public health benefit and they have real public harms,” said Dr. Beyrer.

Claire Farel, MD, assistant professor and medical director of the UNC Infectious Diseases Clinic at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, concurs. “Because of the criminalization undercurrent, there are people who don’t get tested, meaning that they are at risk for worse health outcomes, such as cancer, vascular disease, and of course HIV-related poor outcomes, including progression to AIDS.”

Farel also points to the residual stigma associated with HIV. “Much of this is inextricable from that surrounding homophobia, especially among young men of color who have sex with men. It opens up a larger conversation that a lot of people don’t want to engage in,” she said.
 

Laws broaden existing disparities even further

The CDC released a study June 4 showing substantial declines in the overall incidence of HIV in the United States, with an important caveat: There’s been a worsening disparity in cases. Access to care and engagement with care remain poor among certain populations. For example, Black individuals accounted for 41% of new HIV infections in 2019, but they represent only 12% of the U.S. population; Hispanic/Latinx persons accounted for 29% of new infections, although they represent only 17% of the entire population.

The same is true for HIV criminalization: In 2020, more than 50% of defendants were people of color, according to U.S. case data collated by the HIV Justice Network.

Still, the momentum to change these antiquated laws is gaining speed. In May, the Illinois State Senate passed a bill repealing HIV criminalization, and this past March, Virginia’s Governor Ralph Northam signed a bill lowering HIV-related criminalization charges from a felony to a misdemeanor and changing the wording of its law to include both intent and transmission.** California, Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, and North Carolina have also modernized or repealed their laws.
 

Ending the U.S. HIV epidemic: Patients first

Without true HIV criminalization reform, efforts to change the public and clinical mindset regarding HIV from its being a highly stigmatized disease to a preventable, treatable infection are likely to fall short. Dr. Beyrer emphasized that the onus lies with the scientific and activist communities working together. “I don’t know how you can end the epidemic if you are still stigmatizing the people who are actually acquiring these infections,” he said.

There are steps that patients can take while these forces push for change.

“As people first process their diagnosis, they need to learn as much about HIV and the science behind it as possible,” advised Mr. Suttle. He said that to protect oneself, it’s essential to learn about HIV criminalization and the laws in one’s state.

“Find someone you can trust, starting with your medical provider if possible, and if you have a significant other, bring that person to your appointments so they can see that you are in care and doing all that you can do to lower viral loads and protect others,” he added.

Ms. Howell said that although people should be in treatment and care, attitudes also need to change on the clinician side. “We’re just given these meds, told to take them, and are sent on our merry ways, but they don’t tell us how to live our lives properly; nobody grabs us and says, hey, these are the laws and you need to know this or that.”

When a person who is HIV positive does get caught up in the system, if possible, that person should consult an attorney who understands these laws. Mr. Suttle suggested reaching out to organizations in the movement to end HIV criminalization (e.g., the Sero Project, the Center for HIV Law and Policy, or the Positive Women’s Network) for further support, help with cases (including providing experts to testify), social services, and other resources. Mr. Suttle also encourages people who need help and direction to reach out to him directly at [email protected].

Forty years ago, the CDC published its first report of an illness in five healthy gay men living in Los Angeles. The first cases in women were reported shortly thereafter. Over the years, there have been many scientific advances in prevention and treatment. But as Dr. Beyrer aptly noted in an editorial published January 2021 in The Lancet HIV, “time has not lessened the sting of the early decades of AIDS.”

“We should not have to be afraid of who we are because we are HIV positive,” said Ms. Howell.

Dr. Farel, Mr. Suttle, and Ms. Howell report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Beyrer has a consulting agreement with Merck.
 

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

*Correction, 6/14/2021: An earlier version of this story misstated Ms. Howell's age. She is 40.

**Correction, 6/14/2021: An earlier version of this story misspelled Gov. Northam's name.

For many people, being told that they are HIV positive is no longer a death sentence. But for Robert Suttle, a Black gay man and social justice educator, it is a life sentence.

Unexpectedly caught up in the HIV criminalization web at the age of 30, Mr. Suttle spent 6 months in a Louisiana state prison for a consensual sexual relationship with an adult partner. The crime? Not disclosing his HIV-positive status, a charge that Mr. Suttle says is untrue.

“I did disclose my status to my partner; however, I can’t really answer how they might have received it,” he said.

Today, at the age of 42, Mr. Suttle still carries the indelible stain of a conviction and of being a registered sex offender. “After their diagnosis, criminal charge, and/or conviction, many people think they’re done – either ‘I’ve gotten out of prison’ or ‘I’m still on probation’ – whatever the case may be,” he explained. “But we’re still living out these collateral consequences, be it with housing, moving to another state, or finding a job.”

The same is true for HIV-positive people who are charged and tried but manage to dodge prison for one reason or another. Monique Howell, a straight, 40-year-old former army soldier and single mother of five children, said that she was afraid to disclose her HIV status to a sexual partner but did advise him to wear a condom.* She points to her DD14 discharge papers (i.e., forms that verify that someone served in the military) that were issued when her military duty was rescinded following the dismissal of her court case.

“I was going to reenlist, but I got in trouble,” she said. She explained that although a DD14 separation helps to ensure that she can receive benefits and care, the papers were issued with a caveat stating “serious offense,” an indelible stain that, like Mr. Suttle’s, will follow her for the rest of her life.
 

Laws criminalize myths and misconceptions

HIV criminalization laws subject persons whose behaviors may expose others to HIV to felony or misdemeanor charges. Depending on the state, they can carry prison terms ranging from less than 10 years to life, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Originally enacted at the height of the AIDS epidemic in 1986, when fear was rampant and hundreds were dying, the laws were intended to reduce HIV transmission. But they’ve had unintended consequences: Amplifying stigmatization and discrimination and perpetuating HIV myths and misconceptions, including how HIV is transmitted.

Decades of scientific advances challenge the most basic reasoning behind laws (for example, that transmission is possible via biting or spitting or through a single sexual act, which studies have shown poses a risk as low as 0%-1.4%). In addition, few laws reflect one of the most important HIV research findings of the past decade: undetectable equals untransmittable, meaning that the virus cannot be sexually transmitted by people who are taking antiretroviral therapy and whose viral loads are undetectable.

In most of these cases, individuals who are positive for HIV are charged and punished for unintentional exposure, not deliberate intent to harm. Moreover, for the charge to stick, sexual partners don’t need to have acquired the virus or prove the transmission source if they do become HIV positive.

Ms. Howell noted that it was the Army that brought the charges against her, not her sexual partner at that time (who, incidentally, tested negative). He even testified on her behalf at the trial. “I’ll never forget it,” she said. “He said, ‘I don’t want anything to happen to Monique; even if you put her behind bars, she’s still HIV-positive and she’s still got those children. She told me to get a condom, and I chose not to.’ ”
 

Criminal vs. clinical fallout

In 2018, 20 scientists across the world issued a consensus statement underscoring the fact that HIV criminalization laws are based on fallacies and faulty science. The statement (which remains one of the most accessed in the Journal of the International AIDS Society) also points out that 33 countries (including the United States) use general criminal statutes such as attempted murder or reckless endangerment to lengthen sentences when people with HIV commit crimes.

When the laws were created, “many were the equivalent [to general criminal laws], because HIV was seen as a death sentence,” explained Chris Beyrer MD, MPH, professor of public health and human rights at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore. “So, failure to disclose your status, to wear a condom was seen as risking someone else’s life, which is no longer the case,” he added.

In fact, “from the perspective of the kinds of impact that these laws have had on transmission, or risk, or behavior, what you find is that they really have no public health benefit and they have real public harms,” said Dr. Beyrer.

Claire Farel, MD, assistant professor and medical director of the UNC Infectious Diseases Clinic at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, concurs. “Because of the criminalization undercurrent, there are people who don’t get tested, meaning that they are at risk for worse health outcomes, such as cancer, vascular disease, and of course HIV-related poor outcomes, including progression to AIDS.”

Farel also points to the residual stigma associated with HIV. “Much of this is inextricable from that surrounding homophobia, especially among young men of color who have sex with men. It opens up a larger conversation that a lot of people don’t want to engage in,” she said.
 

Laws broaden existing disparities even further

The CDC released a study June 4 showing substantial declines in the overall incidence of HIV in the United States, with an important caveat: There’s been a worsening disparity in cases. Access to care and engagement with care remain poor among certain populations. For example, Black individuals accounted for 41% of new HIV infections in 2019, but they represent only 12% of the U.S. population; Hispanic/Latinx persons accounted for 29% of new infections, although they represent only 17% of the entire population.

The same is true for HIV criminalization: In 2020, more than 50% of defendants were people of color, according to U.S. case data collated by the HIV Justice Network.

Still, the momentum to change these antiquated laws is gaining speed. In May, the Illinois State Senate passed a bill repealing HIV criminalization, and this past March, Virginia’s Governor Ralph Northam signed a bill lowering HIV-related criminalization charges from a felony to a misdemeanor and changing the wording of its law to include both intent and transmission.** California, Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, and North Carolina have also modernized or repealed their laws.
 

Ending the U.S. HIV epidemic: Patients first

Without true HIV criminalization reform, efforts to change the public and clinical mindset regarding HIV from its being a highly stigmatized disease to a preventable, treatable infection are likely to fall short. Dr. Beyrer emphasized that the onus lies with the scientific and activist communities working together. “I don’t know how you can end the epidemic if you are still stigmatizing the people who are actually acquiring these infections,” he said.

There are steps that patients can take while these forces push for change.

“As people first process their diagnosis, they need to learn as much about HIV and the science behind it as possible,” advised Mr. Suttle. He said that to protect oneself, it’s essential to learn about HIV criminalization and the laws in one’s state.

“Find someone you can trust, starting with your medical provider if possible, and if you have a significant other, bring that person to your appointments so they can see that you are in care and doing all that you can do to lower viral loads and protect others,” he added.

Ms. Howell said that although people should be in treatment and care, attitudes also need to change on the clinician side. “We’re just given these meds, told to take them, and are sent on our merry ways, but they don’t tell us how to live our lives properly; nobody grabs us and says, hey, these are the laws and you need to know this or that.”

When a person who is HIV positive does get caught up in the system, if possible, that person should consult an attorney who understands these laws. Mr. Suttle suggested reaching out to organizations in the movement to end HIV criminalization (e.g., the Sero Project, the Center for HIV Law and Policy, or the Positive Women’s Network) for further support, help with cases (including providing experts to testify), social services, and other resources. Mr. Suttle also encourages people who need help and direction to reach out to him directly at [email protected].

Forty years ago, the CDC published its first report of an illness in five healthy gay men living in Los Angeles. The first cases in women were reported shortly thereafter. Over the years, there have been many scientific advances in prevention and treatment. But as Dr. Beyrer aptly noted in an editorial published January 2021 in The Lancet HIV, “time has not lessened the sting of the early decades of AIDS.”

“We should not have to be afraid of who we are because we are HIV positive,” said Ms. Howell.

Dr. Farel, Mr. Suttle, and Ms. Howell report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Beyrer has a consulting agreement with Merck.
 

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

*Correction, 6/14/2021: An earlier version of this story misstated Ms. Howell's age. She is 40.

**Correction, 6/14/2021: An earlier version of this story misspelled Gov. Northam's name.

For many people, being told that they are HIV positive is no longer a death sentence. But for Robert Suttle, a Black gay man and social justice educator, it is a life sentence.

Unexpectedly caught up in the HIV criminalization web at the age of 30, Mr. Suttle spent 6 months in a Louisiana state prison for a consensual sexual relationship with an adult partner. The crime? Not disclosing his HIV-positive status, a charge that Mr. Suttle says is untrue.

“I did disclose my status to my partner; however, I can’t really answer how they might have received it,” he said.

Today, at the age of 42, Mr. Suttle still carries the indelible stain of a conviction and of being a registered sex offender. “After their diagnosis, criminal charge, and/or conviction, many people think they’re done – either ‘I’ve gotten out of prison’ or ‘I’m still on probation’ – whatever the case may be,” he explained. “But we’re still living out these collateral consequences, be it with housing, moving to another state, or finding a job.”

The same is true for HIV-positive people who are charged and tried but manage to dodge prison for one reason or another. Monique Howell, a straight, 40-year-old former army soldier and single mother of five children, said that she was afraid to disclose her HIV status to a sexual partner but did advise him to wear a condom.* She points to her DD14 discharge papers (i.e., forms that verify that someone served in the military) that were issued when her military duty was rescinded following the dismissal of her court case.

“I was going to reenlist, but I got in trouble,” she said. She explained that although a DD14 separation helps to ensure that she can receive benefits and care, the papers were issued with a caveat stating “serious offense,” an indelible stain that, like Mr. Suttle’s, will follow her for the rest of her life.
 

Laws criminalize myths and misconceptions

HIV criminalization laws subject persons whose behaviors may expose others to HIV to felony or misdemeanor charges. Depending on the state, they can carry prison terms ranging from less than 10 years to life, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Originally enacted at the height of the AIDS epidemic in 1986, when fear was rampant and hundreds were dying, the laws were intended to reduce HIV transmission. But they’ve had unintended consequences: Amplifying stigmatization and discrimination and perpetuating HIV myths and misconceptions, including how HIV is transmitted.

Decades of scientific advances challenge the most basic reasoning behind laws (for example, that transmission is possible via biting or spitting or through a single sexual act, which studies have shown poses a risk as low as 0%-1.4%). In addition, few laws reflect one of the most important HIV research findings of the past decade: undetectable equals untransmittable, meaning that the virus cannot be sexually transmitted by people who are taking antiretroviral therapy and whose viral loads are undetectable.

In most of these cases, individuals who are positive for HIV are charged and punished for unintentional exposure, not deliberate intent to harm. Moreover, for the charge to stick, sexual partners don’t need to have acquired the virus or prove the transmission source if they do become HIV positive.

Ms. Howell noted that it was the Army that brought the charges against her, not her sexual partner at that time (who, incidentally, tested negative). He even testified on her behalf at the trial. “I’ll never forget it,” she said. “He said, ‘I don’t want anything to happen to Monique; even if you put her behind bars, she’s still HIV-positive and she’s still got those children. She told me to get a condom, and I chose not to.’ ”
 

Criminal vs. clinical fallout

In 2018, 20 scientists across the world issued a consensus statement underscoring the fact that HIV criminalization laws are based on fallacies and faulty science. The statement (which remains one of the most accessed in the Journal of the International AIDS Society) also points out that 33 countries (including the United States) use general criminal statutes such as attempted murder or reckless endangerment to lengthen sentences when people with HIV commit crimes.

When the laws were created, “many were the equivalent [to general criminal laws], because HIV was seen as a death sentence,” explained Chris Beyrer MD, MPH, professor of public health and human rights at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore. “So, failure to disclose your status, to wear a condom was seen as risking someone else’s life, which is no longer the case,” he added.

In fact, “from the perspective of the kinds of impact that these laws have had on transmission, or risk, or behavior, what you find is that they really have no public health benefit and they have real public harms,” said Dr. Beyrer.

Claire Farel, MD, assistant professor and medical director of the UNC Infectious Diseases Clinic at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, concurs. “Because of the criminalization undercurrent, there are people who don’t get tested, meaning that they are at risk for worse health outcomes, such as cancer, vascular disease, and of course HIV-related poor outcomes, including progression to AIDS.”

Farel also points to the residual stigma associated with HIV. “Much of this is inextricable from that surrounding homophobia, especially among young men of color who have sex with men. It opens up a larger conversation that a lot of people don’t want to engage in,” she said.
 

Laws broaden existing disparities even further

The CDC released a study June 4 showing substantial declines in the overall incidence of HIV in the United States, with an important caveat: There’s been a worsening disparity in cases. Access to care and engagement with care remain poor among certain populations. For example, Black individuals accounted for 41% of new HIV infections in 2019, but they represent only 12% of the U.S. population; Hispanic/Latinx persons accounted for 29% of new infections, although they represent only 17% of the entire population.

The same is true for HIV criminalization: In 2020, more than 50% of defendants were people of color, according to U.S. case data collated by the HIV Justice Network.

Still, the momentum to change these antiquated laws is gaining speed. In May, the Illinois State Senate passed a bill repealing HIV criminalization, and this past March, Virginia’s Governor Ralph Northam signed a bill lowering HIV-related criminalization charges from a felony to a misdemeanor and changing the wording of its law to include both intent and transmission.** California, Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, and North Carolina have also modernized or repealed their laws.
 

Ending the U.S. HIV epidemic: Patients first

Without true HIV criminalization reform, efforts to change the public and clinical mindset regarding HIV from its being a highly stigmatized disease to a preventable, treatable infection are likely to fall short. Dr. Beyrer emphasized that the onus lies with the scientific and activist communities working together. “I don’t know how you can end the epidemic if you are still stigmatizing the people who are actually acquiring these infections,” he said.

There are steps that patients can take while these forces push for change.

“As people first process their diagnosis, they need to learn as much about HIV and the science behind it as possible,” advised Mr. Suttle. He said that to protect oneself, it’s essential to learn about HIV criminalization and the laws in one’s state.

“Find someone you can trust, starting with your medical provider if possible, and if you have a significant other, bring that person to your appointments so they can see that you are in care and doing all that you can do to lower viral loads and protect others,” he added.

Ms. Howell said that although people should be in treatment and care, attitudes also need to change on the clinician side. “We’re just given these meds, told to take them, and are sent on our merry ways, but they don’t tell us how to live our lives properly; nobody grabs us and says, hey, these are the laws and you need to know this or that.”

When a person who is HIV positive does get caught up in the system, if possible, that person should consult an attorney who understands these laws. Mr. Suttle suggested reaching out to organizations in the movement to end HIV criminalization (e.g., the Sero Project, the Center for HIV Law and Policy, or the Positive Women’s Network) for further support, help with cases (including providing experts to testify), social services, and other resources. Mr. Suttle also encourages people who need help and direction to reach out to him directly at [email protected].

Forty years ago, the CDC published its first report of an illness in five healthy gay men living in Los Angeles. The first cases in women were reported shortly thereafter. Over the years, there have been many scientific advances in prevention and treatment. But as Dr. Beyrer aptly noted in an editorial published January 2021 in The Lancet HIV, “time has not lessened the sting of the early decades of AIDS.”

“We should not have to be afraid of who we are because we are HIV positive,” said Ms. Howell.

Dr. Farel, Mr. Suttle, and Ms. Howell report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Beyrer has a consulting agreement with Merck.
 

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

*Correction, 6/14/2021: An earlier version of this story misstated Ms. Howell's age. She is 40.

**Correction, 6/14/2021: An earlier version of this story misspelled Gov. Northam's name.

People with migraines appeared to have a higher likelihood of COVID-19 infection and subsequent symptoms of the disease, but they were less likely to receive health care, according to a study presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.

“These data suggest that people with migraine are either more susceptible to contracting COVID-19, or that they may be more sensitive to the development of symptoms once COVID-19 has been contracted, or both,” Robert Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor of neurological science at the University of Vermont, Burlington. “Further, once COVID-19 has been contracted, people with migraine may be less likely to develop serious COVID-19 outcomes, or they may be less likely to seek health care for COVID-19, or both.”

In providing background information, Dr. Shapiro noted previous research showing that headache is associated with a positive prognosis in COVID-19 inpatients, including lower IL-6 levels throughout the disease course, a 1-week shorter disease course, and a 2.2 times greater relative risk of survival.

Yet in a study across 171 countries, a higher population prevalence of migraine is associated with higher COVID-19 mortality rates. It’s unclear what conclusions can be drawn from that association, however, said Deborah I. Friedman, MD, MPH, professor of neurology and ophthalmology at University of Texas, Dallas, who was not involved in the research.

Dr. Shapiro suggested a theoretical possibility, noting that two genes linked to migraine susceptibility – SCN1A and IFNAR2 – are among 15 host loci also associated with COVID-19 outcomes. Further, Dr. Shapiro noted in his background information, COVID-19 is linked to lower serum calcitonin gene-related peptide levels.

For the study, Dr. Shapiro and colleagues analyzed data from U.S. adults who responded to the National Health and Wellness Survey from April to July 2020. The researchers limited their analysis to the 41,155 participants who had not received the flu vaccine in 2020 since previous research has suggested reduced morbidity among those with COVID-19 who had been vaccinated against the flu. In this group, 4,550 participants had ever been diagnosed by a doctor with migraine (11%) and 36,605 participants had not (89%).

The majority of those with a history of migraine were female (78%), compared with the overall sample (50% female), and tended to be younger, with an average age of 39 compared with 45 for those without migraine (P < .001).

Among those with a previous migraine diagnosis, 3.8% self-reported having had a COVID-19 infection, compared with infection in 2.4% of those without a history of migraine (P < .001). That translated to a 58% increased risk of COVID-19 infection in those with migraine history, with a similar rate of test positivity in both groups (33.7% with migraine history vs. 34.5% without). Test negativity was also similar in both groups (15.9% vs. 17.8%).

Of 360 respondents who had tested positive for COVID-19, the 60 with a history of migraine reported more frequent symptoms than those without migraine. The increased frequency was statistically significant (P < .001 unless otherwise indicated) for the following symptoms:

• Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath (P = .005).
• Fever.
• Headache, sore throat, and/or congestion.
• Fatigue.
• Loss of smell and taste.
• Chills and body aches.
• Persistent pain or pressure in the chest.
• Confusion or inability to arouse.
• Digestive issues (P = .005).
• Bluish lips or face.

For several of these symptoms – such as headache/sore throat/congestion, persistent pain or pressure in the chest, confusion/inability to arouse, and digestive issues – more than twice as many respondents with migraine reported the symptom, vs. those without migraine.
 

Changes in health care utilization

“I think that people with migraine are aware of their bodies and aware of their symptoms more than the average person,” Dr. Friedman said. Yet those with migraine were less likely to use health care while diagnosed with COVID-19 than were those without migraine. Migraine sufferers with a COVID-19 infection were 1.2 times more likely to visit a health care provider than were those without an infection, but the similar relative risk was 1.35 greater for those with COVID-19 infections and no migraines.

Similarly, those with a migraine history were more than twice as likely to visit the emergency department when they had a COVID-19 vaccine infection than were those without an infection (RR = 2.6), but among those without a history of migraine, respondents were nearly five times more likely to visit the emergency department when they had a COVID-19 infection than when they didn’t (RR = 4.9).

Dr. Friedman suggested that the lower utilization rate may have to do with the nature of migraine itself. “There are people with migraine who go to the emergency room all the time, but then there’s most of the people with migraine, who would rather die than go to the emergency room because with the light and the noise, it’s just a horrible place to be if you have migraine,” Dr. Friedman said. “I think the majority of people would prefer not to go to the emergency room if given the choice.”

Increased likelihood of hospitalization among those with migraine and a COVID-19 infection was 4.6 compared with those with a migraine and no infection; the corresponding hospitalization risk for COVID-19 among those without migraine was 7.6 times greater than for those with no infection. All these risk ratios were statistically significant.

Dr. Shapiro then speculated on what it might mean that headache is a positive prognostic indicator for COVID-19 inpatients and that migraine population prevalence is linked to higher COVID-19 mortality.

“A hypothesis emerges that headache as a symptom, and migraine as a disease, may reflect adaptive processes associated with host defenses against viruses,” Dr. Shapiro said. “For example, migraine-driven behaviors, such as social distancing due to photophobia, in the setting of viral illness may play adaptive roles in reducing viral spread.”

The researchers did not receive external funding. Dr. Shapiro has consulted for Eli Lilly and Lundbeck. Dr. Friedman reports grant support and/or advisory board participation for Allergan, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Impel NeuroPharma, Invex, Lundbeck, Merck, Revance Therapeutics, Satsuma Pharmaceuticals, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Theranica, and Zosano Pharma.

People with migraines appeared to have a higher likelihood of COVID-19 infection and subsequent symptoms of the disease, but they were less likely to receive health care, according to a study presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.

“These data suggest that people with migraine are either more susceptible to contracting COVID-19, or that they may be more sensitive to the development of symptoms once COVID-19 has been contracted, or both,” Robert Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor of neurological science at the University of Vermont, Burlington. “Further, once COVID-19 has been contracted, people with migraine may be less likely to develop serious COVID-19 outcomes, or they may be less likely to seek health care for COVID-19, or both.”

In providing background information, Dr. Shapiro noted previous research showing that headache is associated with a positive prognosis in COVID-19 inpatients, including lower IL-6 levels throughout the disease course, a 1-week shorter disease course, and a 2.2 times greater relative risk of survival.

Yet in a study across 171 countries, a higher population prevalence of migraine is associated with higher COVID-19 mortality rates. It’s unclear what conclusions can be drawn from that association, however, said Deborah I. Friedman, MD, MPH, professor of neurology and ophthalmology at University of Texas, Dallas, who was not involved in the research.

Dr. Shapiro suggested a theoretical possibility, noting that two genes linked to migraine susceptibility – SCN1A and IFNAR2 – are among 15 host loci also associated with COVID-19 outcomes. Further, Dr. Shapiro noted in his background information, COVID-19 is linked to lower serum calcitonin gene-related peptide levels.

For the study, Dr. Shapiro and colleagues analyzed data from U.S. adults who responded to the National Health and Wellness Survey from April to July 2020. The researchers limited their analysis to the 41,155 participants who had not received the flu vaccine in 2020 since previous research has suggested reduced morbidity among those with COVID-19 who had been vaccinated against the flu. In this group, 4,550 participants had ever been diagnosed by a doctor with migraine (11%) and 36,605 participants had not (89%).

The majority of those with a history of migraine were female (78%), compared with the overall sample (50% female), and tended to be younger, with an average age of 39 compared with 45 for those without migraine (P < .001).

Among those with a previous migraine diagnosis, 3.8% self-reported having had a COVID-19 infection, compared with infection in 2.4% of those without a history of migraine (P < .001). That translated to a 58% increased risk of COVID-19 infection in those with migraine history, with a similar rate of test positivity in both groups (33.7% with migraine history vs. 34.5% without). Test negativity was also similar in both groups (15.9% vs. 17.8%).

Of 360 respondents who had tested positive for COVID-19, the 60 with a history of migraine reported more frequent symptoms than those without migraine. The increased frequency was statistically significant (P < .001 unless otherwise indicated) for the following symptoms:

• Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath (P = .005).
• Fever.
• Headache, sore throat, and/or congestion.
• Fatigue.
• Loss of smell and taste.
• Chills and body aches.
• Persistent pain or pressure in the chest.
• Confusion or inability to arouse.
• Digestive issues (P = .005).
• Bluish lips or face.

For several of these symptoms – such as headache/sore throat/congestion, persistent pain or pressure in the chest, confusion/inability to arouse, and digestive issues – more than twice as many respondents with migraine reported the symptom, vs. those without migraine.
 

Changes in health care utilization

“I think that people with migraine are aware of their bodies and aware of their symptoms more than the average person,” Dr. Friedman said. Yet those with migraine were less likely to use health care while diagnosed with COVID-19 than were those without migraine. Migraine sufferers with a COVID-19 infection were 1.2 times more likely to visit a health care provider than were those without an infection, but the similar relative risk was 1.35 greater for those with COVID-19 infections and no migraines.

Similarly, those with a migraine history were more than twice as likely to visit the emergency department when they had a COVID-19 vaccine infection than were those without an infection (RR = 2.6), but among those without a history of migraine, respondents were nearly five times more likely to visit the emergency department when they had a COVID-19 infection than when they didn’t (RR = 4.9).

Dr. Friedman suggested that the lower utilization rate may have to do with the nature of migraine itself. “There are people with migraine who go to the emergency room all the time, but then there’s most of the people with migraine, who would rather die than go to the emergency room because with the light and the noise, it’s just a horrible place to be if you have migraine,” Dr. Friedman said. “I think the majority of people would prefer not to go to the emergency room if given the choice.”

Increased likelihood of hospitalization among those with migraine and a COVID-19 infection was 4.6 compared with those with a migraine and no infection; the corresponding hospitalization risk for COVID-19 among those without migraine was 7.6 times greater than for those with no infection. All these risk ratios were statistically significant.

Dr. Shapiro then speculated on what it might mean that headache is a positive prognostic indicator for COVID-19 inpatients and that migraine population prevalence is linked to higher COVID-19 mortality.

“A hypothesis emerges that headache as a symptom, and migraine as a disease, may reflect adaptive processes associated with host defenses against viruses,” Dr. Shapiro said. “For example, migraine-driven behaviors, such as social distancing due to photophobia, in the setting of viral illness may play adaptive roles in reducing viral spread.”

The researchers did not receive external funding. Dr. Shapiro has consulted for Eli Lilly and Lundbeck. Dr. Friedman reports grant support and/or advisory board participation for Allergan, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Impel NeuroPharma, Invex, Lundbeck, Merck, Revance Therapeutics, Satsuma Pharmaceuticals, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Theranica, and Zosano Pharma.

People with migraines appeared to have a higher likelihood of COVID-19 infection and subsequent symptoms of the disease, but they were less likely to receive health care, according to a study presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.

“These data suggest that people with migraine are either more susceptible to contracting COVID-19, or that they may be more sensitive to the development of symptoms once COVID-19 has been contracted, or both,” Robert Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor of neurological science at the University of Vermont, Burlington. “Further, once COVID-19 has been contracted, people with migraine may be less likely to develop serious COVID-19 outcomes, or they may be less likely to seek health care for COVID-19, or both.”

In providing background information, Dr. Shapiro noted previous research showing that headache is associated with a positive prognosis in COVID-19 inpatients, including lower IL-6 levels throughout the disease course, a 1-week shorter disease course, and a 2.2 times greater relative risk of survival.

Yet in a study across 171 countries, a higher population prevalence of migraine is associated with higher COVID-19 mortality rates. It’s unclear what conclusions can be drawn from that association, however, said Deborah I. Friedman, MD, MPH, professor of neurology and ophthalmology at University of Texas, Dallas, who was not involved in the research.

Dr. Shapiro suggested a theoretical possibility, noting that two genes linked to migraine susceptibility – SCN1A and IFNAR2 – are among 15 host loci also associated with COVID-19 outcomes. Further, Dr. Shapiro noted in his background information, COVID-19 is linked to lower serum calcitonin gene-related peptide levels.

For the study, Dr. Shapiro and colleagues analyzed data from U.S. adults who responded to the National Health and Wellness Survey from April to July 2020. The researchers limited their analysis to the 41,155 participants who had not received the flu vaccine in 2020 since previous research has suggested reduced morbidity among those with COVID-19 who had been vaccinated against the flu. In this group, 4,550 participants had ever been diagnosed by a doctor with migraine (11%) and 36,605 participants had not (89%).

The majority of those with a history of migraine were female (78%), compared with the overall sample (50% female), and tended to be younger, with an average age of 39 compared with 45 for those without migraine (P < .001).

Among those with a previous migraine diagnosis, 3.8% self-reported having had a COVID-19 infection, compared with infection in 2.4% of those without a history of migraine (P < .001). That translated to a 58% increased risk of COVID-19 infection in those with migraine history, with a similar rate of test positivity in both groups (33.7% with migraine history vs. 34.5% without). Test negativity was also similar in both groups (15.9% vs. 17.8%).

Of 360 respondents who had tested positive for COVID-19, the 60 with a history of migraine reported more frequent symptoms than those without migraine. The increased frequency was statistically significant (P < .001 unless otherwise indicated) for the following symptoms:

• Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath (P = .005).
• Fever.
• Headache, sore throat, and/or congestion.
• Fatigue.
• Loss of smell and taste.
• Chills and body aches.
• Persistent pain or pressure in the chest.
• Confusion or inability to arouse.
• Digestive issues (P = .005).
• Bluish lips or face.

For several of these symptoms – such as headache/sore throat/congestion, persistent pain or pressure in the chest, confusion/inability to arouse, and digestive issues – more than twice as many respondents with migraine reported the symptom, vs. those without migraine.
 

Changes in health care utilization

“I think that people with migraine are aware of their bodies and aware of their symptoms more than the average person,” Dr. Friedman said. Yet those with migraine were less likely to use health care while diagnosed with COVID-19 than were those without migraine. Migraine sufferers with a COVID-19 infection were 1.2 times more likely to visit a health care provider than were those without an infection, but the similar relative risk was 1.35 greater for those with COVID-19 infections and no migraines.

Similarly, those with a migraine history were more than twice as likely to visit the emergency department when they had a COVID-19 vaccine infection than were those without an infection (RR = 2.6), but among those without a history of migraine, respondents were nearly five times more likely to visit the emergency department when they had a COVID-19 infection than when they didn’t (RR = 4.9).

Dr. Friedman suggested that the lower utilization rate may have to do with the nature of migraine itself. “There are people with migraine who go to the emergency room all the time, but then there’s most of the people with migraine, who would rather die than go to the emergency room because with the light and the noise, it’s just a horrible place to be if you have migraine,” Dr. Friedman said. “I think the majority of people would prefer not to go to the emergency room if given the choice.”

Increased likelihood of hospitalization among those with migraine and a COVID-19 infection was 4.6 compared with those with a migraine and no infection; the corresponding hospitalization risk for COVID-19 among those without migraine was 7.6 times greater than for those with no infection. All these risk ratios were statistically significant.

Dr. Shapiro then speculated on what it might mean that headache is a positive prognostic indicator for COVID-19 inpatients and that migraine population prevalence is linked to higher COVID-19 mortality.

“A hypothesis emerges that headache as a symptom, and migraine as a disease, may reflect adaptive processes associated with host defenses against viruses,” Dr. Shapiro said. “For example, migraine-driven behaviors, such as social distancing due to photophobia, in the setting of viral illness may play adaptive roles in reducing viral spread.”

The researchers did not receive external funding. Dr. Shapiro has consulted for Eli Lilly and Lundbeck. Dr. Friedman reports grant support and/or advisory board participation for Allergan, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Impel NeuroPharma, Invex, Lundbeck, Merck, Revance Therapeutics, Satsuma Pharmaceuticals, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Theranica, and Zosano Pharma.

As summer approaches, so does the risk of Lyme disease.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Lyme disease is the fastest growing vector-borne disease, affecting approximately 300,000 Americans every year. It is caused by the spirochete, Borrelia burgdorferi which is transmitted to humans by the deer tick. Lyme disease is often an overlooked diagnosis for myriad reasons, including inaccurate test results.

Infection prevention

We all know that the best way to treat any disease is by preventing it. The following measures are recommended as tools to prevent infection: personal protective wear, repellents, and removal of the attached tick. Recommended repellents include DEET, picaridin, IR3535, oil of lemon, eucalyptus, para-Menthane-3,8-diol (PMD), 2-undecanone, and permethrin. If a tick is found, it should be removed promptly by mechanical measures, such as with tweezers. The tweezers should be inserted between the tick body and skin to ensure removal of the entire tick. Burning an attached tick or applying a noxious chemical to the tick is not recommended.

Diagnosis

Diagnosing Lyme disease is often difficult given that tests can be negative for some time after a tick bite, even when the infection is present. There is good evidence to show that submitting the removed tick for identification is good practice. However, there is no evidence supporting testing the removed tick for the presence of Borrelia burgdorferi as it does not reliably predict infection in humans. It also is recommended to avoid testing asymptomatic people following a tick bite.

Following a high-risk tick bite, adults and children can be given prophylactic antibiotics within 72 hours. It is not helpful for low-risk bites. If the risk level is uncertain, it is better to observe before giving antibiotics. For adults, a single 200-mg dose of doxycycline can be given. In children, 4.4 mg per kg of body weight, up to 200 mg max, can be used for those under 45 kg.

For patients with a tick exposure and erythema migrans, a clinical diagnosis of Lyme disease can be made without further testing. If the clinical presentation is not typical, it is recommended to do an antibody test on an acute phase serum sample followed by a convalescent serum sample in 2-3 weeks if the initial test is negative. Recommended antibiotics for treatment include doxycycline for 10 days or amoxicillin or cefuroxime for 14 days. If a patient is unable to take these, azithromycin may be used for 7 days.

The guidelines also make recommendations regarding testing for Lyme neuroborreliosis, for which neurologic presentations, for adults with psychiatric illnesses, and for children with developmental/behavioral/psychiatric disorders. They further make recommendations for treatment of Lyme disease involving the brain or spinal column, facial nerve palsy, carditis, cardiomyopathy, and arthritis, which are beyond the scope of this discussion.

As family doctors, we are often the first ones patients call upon after a tick bite. We are the ones who diagnosis and treat Lyme disease, so it is imperative that we stay up to date with current clinical guidelines and practice evidence-based medicine. These most recent guidelines from several specialty societies can provide the answers to many of our patients’ questions. They also serve as a great tool to help with our clinical decision-making regarding tick bites. Lyme disease can be a scary infection for patients but, if we offer them the recommended measures, it doesn’t have to be.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

As summer approaches, so does the risk of Lyme disease.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Lyme disease is the fastest growing vector-borne disease, affecting approximately 300,000 Americans every year. It is caused by the spirochete, Borrelia burgdorferi which is transmitted to humans by the deer tick. Lyme disease is often an overlooked diagnosis for myriad reasons, including inaccurate test results.

Infection prevention

We all know that the best way to treat any disease is by preventing it. The following measures are recommended as tools to prevent infection: personal protective wear, repellents, and removal of the attached tick. Recommended repellents include DEET, picaridin, IR3535, oil of lemon, eucalyptus, para-Menthane-3,8-diol (PMD), 2-undecanone, and permethrin. If a tick is found, it should be removed promptly by mechanical measures, such as with tweezers. The tweezers should be inserted between the tick body and skin to ensure removal of the entire tick. Burning an attached tick or applying a noxious chemical to the tick is not recommended.

Diagnosis

Diagnosing Lyme disease is often difficult given that tests can be negative for some time after a tick bite, even when the infection is present. There is good evidence to show that submitting the removed tick for identification is good practice. However, there is no evidence supporting testing the removed tick for the presence of Borrelia burgdorferi as it does not reliably predict infection in humans. It also is recommended to avoid testing asymptomatic people following a tick bite.

Following a high-risk tick bite, adults and children can be given prophylactic antibiotics within 72 hours. It is not helpful for low-risk bites. If the risk level is uncertain, it is better to observe before giving antibiotics. For adults, a single 200-mg dose of doxycycline can be given. In children, 4.4 mg per kg of body weight, up to 200 mg max, can be used for those under 45 kg.

For patients with a tick exposure and erythema migrans, a clinical diagnosis of Lyme disease can be made without further testing. If the clinical presentation is not typical, it is recommended to do an antibody test on an acute phase serum sample followed by a convalescent serum sample in 2-3 weeks if the initial test is negative. Recommended antibiotics for treatment include doxycycline for 10 days or amoxicillin or cefuroxime for 14 days. If a patient is unable to take these, azithromycin may be used for 7 days.

The guidelines also make recommendations regarding testing for Lyme neuroborreliosis, for which neurologic presentations, for adults with psychiatric illnesses, and for children with developmental/behavioral/psychiatric disorders. They further make recommendations for treatment of Lyme disease involving the brain or spinal column, facial nerve palsy, carditis, cardiomyopathy, and arthritis, which are beyond the scope of this discussion.

As family doctors, we are often the first ones patients call upon after a tick bite. We are the ones who diagnosis and treat Lyme disease, so it is imperative that we stay up to date with current clinical guidelines and practice evidence-based medicine. These most recent guidelines from several specialty societies can provide the answers to many of our patients’ questions. They also serve as a great tool to help with our clinical decision-making regarding tick bites. Lyme disease can be a scary infection for patients but, if we offer them the recommended measures, it doesn’t have to be.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

As summer approaches, so does the risk of Lyme disease.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Lyme disease is the fastest growing vector-borne disease, affecting approximately 300,000 Americans every year. It is caused by the spirochete, Borrelia burgdorferi which is transmitted to humans by the deer tick. Lyme disease is often an overlooked diagnosis for myriad reasons, including inaccurate test results.

Infection prevention

We all know that the best way to treat any disease is by preventing it. The following measures are recommended as tools to prevent infection: personal protective wear, repellents, and removal of the attached tick. Recommended repellents include DEET, picaridin, IR3535, oil of lemon, eucalyptus, para-Menthane-3,8-diol (PMD), 2-undecanone, and permethrin. If a tick is found, it should be removed promptly by mechanical measures, such as with tweezers. The tweezers should be inserted between the tick body and skin to ensure removal of the entire tick. Burning an attached tick or applying a noxious chemical to the tick is not recommended.

Diagnosis

Diagnosing Lyme disease is often difficult given that tests can be negative for some time after a tick bite, even when the infection is present. There is good evidence to show that submitting the removed tick for identification is good practice. However, there is no evidence supporting testing the removed tick for the presence of Borrelia burgdorferi as it does not reliably predict infection in humans. It also is recommended to avoid testing asymptomatic people following a tick bite.

Following a high-risk tick bite, adults and children can be given prophylactic antibiotics within 72 hours. It is not helpful for low-risk bites. If the risk level is uncertain, it is better to observe before giving antibiotics. For adults, a single 200-mg dose of doxycycline can be given. In children, 4.4 mg per kg of body weight, up to 200 mg max, can be used for those under 45 kg.

For patients with a tick exposure and erythema migrans, a clinical diagnosis of Lyme disease can be made without further testing. If the clinical presentation is not typical, it is recommended to do an antibody test on an acute phase serum sample followed by a convalescent serum sample in 2-3 weeks if the initial test is negative. Recommended antibiotics for treatment include doxycycline for 10 days or amoxicillin or cefuroxime for 14 days. If a patient is unable to take these, azithromycin may be used for 7 days.

The guidelines also make recommendations regarding testing for Lyme neuroborreliosis, for which neurologic presentations, for adults with psychiatric illnesses, and for children with developmental/behavioral/psychiatric disorders. They further make recommendations for treatment of Lyme disease involving the brain or spinal column, facial nerve palsy, carditis, cardiomyopathy, and arthritis, which are beyond the scope of this discussion.

As family doctors, we are often the first ones patients call upon after a tick bite. We are the ones who diagnosis and treat Lyme disease, so it is imperative that we stay up to date with current clinical guidelines and practice evidence-based medicine. These most recent guidelines from several specialty societies can provide the answers to many of our patients’ questions. They also serve as a great tool to help with our clinical decision-making regarding tick bites. Lyme disease can be a scary infection for patients but, if we offer them the recommended measures, it doesn’t have to be.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

Inhibiting granulocyte/macrophage–colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) with mavrilimumab prevented some patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and hyperinflammation from needing mechanical ventilation and reduced their risk of dying versus placebo in a phase 2 study.

There was no difference in outcomes between the two doses of mavrilimumab used in the trial (6 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg) and combined data showed a higher percentage of patients achieving the primary endpoint of being alive and free of mechanical ventilation at 29 days, at 87%, versus placebo, at 74%.

The P value was 0.12, “which achieved the prespecified evidentiary standard of 0.2,” according to Lara Pupim, MD, vice president of clinical research and development at Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals in Lexington, Mass.

Importantly, there was a 61% reduction in the risk of dying if patients had received mavrilimumab rather than placebo, she reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. Mortality at day 29 was 21% in the placebo arm but just 8% in the combined mavrilimumab arms (P = .07).

Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, called it a “surprising study” and that “the outcome is very spectacular” in his short appraisal of the study during the Clinical Highlights session on the final day of the congress.

Mavrilimumab was “a compound that we would not have thought that would have such an impact on the outcome of COVID-19 infected patients,” Dr. Schulze-Koops of Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich added.

In this small study, “there was a consistent suggestion of a biological effect across key endpoints,” Richard Conway, MBChB, PhD, a consultant rheumatologist at St. James’s Hospital in Dublin, pointed out in an interview.

“Similar to tocilizumab, the benefits with mavrilimumab appear to be in addition to those seen with glucocorticoids, as 96% of patients received dexamethasone,” Dr. Conway observed. Furthermore, nearly one-third received antiviral or remdesivir treatment.

“This study was likely underpowered to assess a clinically meaningful benefit,” he said, adding that “there is insufficient evidence at present to begin using mavrilimumab as an alternative to currently available agents.” That said, “these results are promising for future studies.”

Rationale for GM-CSF inhibition with mavrilimumab in COVID-19 pneumonia

“The cytokine GM-CSF is vital to both lung homeostasis and regulation of inflammation in autoimmunity,” Dr. Pupim explained.

She added that “GM-CSF is implicated in the mechanism of aberrant immune cell infiltration and activation in the lungs, and it may contribute to respiratory failure and death in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and systemic hyperinflammation.”

The efficacy and safety of blocking GM-CSF with mavrilimumab have been shown previously in phase 2 studies in other diseases, Dr. Pupim noted. This includes patients with rheumatoid arthritis and those with giant cell arteritis.

“It was hypothesized that GM-CSF receptor–alpha blockade may reduce infiltration of pathogenic cells into the lung and may suppress inflammation in COVID-19 pneumonia in hyperinflammation,” she explained.

Study details and other outcome results

The study presented by Dr. Pupim was a phase 2/3 double-blind, placebo-controlled trial predominantly conducted in Brazil, the United States, and South Africa, with some participation in Peru and Chile.

Patients were eligible for inclusion if they had had a positive COVID-19 test within 14 days of randomization and had been hospitalized but not ventilated. Evidence of bilateral pneumonia on chest x-ray or CT scan and clinical laboratory evidence indicative of hyperinflammation were also prerequisites for study enrollment.

The ongoing study comprised two cohorts, Dr. Pupim explained: patients who have not been ventilated and those who have recently been ventilated. Dr. Pupim presented the data on the nonventilated cohort, noting that there was a total of 116 patients aged a mean of 57 years.

Patients were randomized to one of three treatment arms: two groups received a single intravenous infusion of mavrilimumab, either 6 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg, and the third group got a placebo.

“Using a time-to-event approach, looking at mechanical ventilation-free survival, mavrilimumab recipients experienced a 65% reduction in the risk of mechanical ventilation or death,” Dr. Pupim said (P = .0175).

“Separation in the Kaplan-Meier curves was evident very early after study drug administration,” she added.

There were trends toward a faster benefit with mavrilimumab than placebo in two other key secondary endpoints: the median time to achieving a two-point clinical improvement (7 vs. 11 days) and the median time to room air (7 vs. 9 days).

Timing of mavrilimumab administration and safety

Study coauthor and chief clinical development officer at Kiniksa, Arian Pano, MD, answered questions on the presentation. When asked about the timing of giving mavrilimumab, he said: “Based on these data it is before they go to ventilation, as soon as you have symptoms of hyperinflammation and a need for oxygen.”

Mavrilimumab is given as a single infusion “and has been well tolerated; virtually no interruptions occurred in this study.”

No serious adverse events related to mavrilimumab were seen, and adverse events, including secondary infections, which are known complications of COVID-19, occurred less frequently in mavrilimumab recipients, compared with placebo.

Dr. Pupim reported that there was a case of tuberculosis in one patient treated with mavrilimumab (10 mg/kg). That case had occurred in an “endemic area for tuberculosis,” and the patient had been screened before entry but only via a sputum sample.

“Prior to these events, the patient received high-dose corticosteroids, a known risk factor for reactivation of TB, and thus the potential additive contribution of mavrilimumab, if any, is uncertain.” Dr. Pupim said.

“Thrombotic events, another known complication of COVID-19, occurred in the placebo arm only,” she added.

Dr. Pano commented that the study has now “seamlessly continued to phase 3. So, basically, we did not stop the study. At the end of phase 2, we just locked the database and collected the data.” Both the 6 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg are being studied, but it’s “very likely [that] 6 mg/kg could be the dose that we may bring forward to the clinic in terms of registration, but that’s at this point in time. We will need to wait for the phase 3 data,” he observed. Those findings will hopefully be available later this year.

Kiniksa funded the study. Dr. Pupim, Dr. Pano, and multiple study coinvestigators are employees of the company.

Dr. Schulze-Koops was not involved in the study and had no specific disclosures. Dr. Conway had no financial disclosures to make in relation to his comments.

Inhibiting granulocyte/macrophage–colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) with mavrilimumab prevented some patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and hyperinflammation from needing mechanical ventilation and reduced their risk of dying versus placebo in a phase 2 study.

There was no difference in outcomes between the two doses of mavrilimumab used in the trial (6 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg) and combined data showed a higher percentage of patients achieving the primary endpoint of being alive and free of mechanical ventilation at 29 days, at 87%, versus placebo, at 74%.

The P value was 0.12, “which achieved the prespecified evidentiary standard of 0.2,” according to Lara Pupim, MD, vice president of clinical research and development at Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals in Lexington, Mass.

Importantly, there was a 61% reduction in the risk of dying if patients had received mavrilimumab rather than placebo, she reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. Mortality at day 29 was 21% in the placebo arm but just 8% in the combined mavrilimumab arms (P = .07).

Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, called it a “surprising study” and that “the outcome is very spectacular” in his short appraisal of the study during the Clinical Highlights session on the final day of the congress.

Mavrilimumab was “a compound that we would not have thought that would have such an impact on the outcome of COVID-19 infected patients,” Dr. Schulze-Koops of Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich added.

In this small study, “there was a consistent suggestion of a biological effect across key endpoints,” Richard Conway, MBChB, PhD, a consultant rheumatologist at St. James’s Hospital in Dublin, pointed out in an interview.

“Similar to tocilizumab, the benefits with mavrilimumab appear to be in addition to those seen with glucocorticoids, as 96% of patients received dexamethasone,” Dr. Conway observed. Furthermore, nearly one-third received antiviral or remdesivir treatment.

“This study was likely underpowered to assess a clinically meaningful benefit,” he said, adding that “there is insufficient evidence at present to begin using mavrilimumab as an alternative to currently available agents.” That said, “these results are promising for future studies.”

Rationale for GM-CSF inhibition with mavrilimumab in COVID-19 pneumonia

“The cytokine GM-CSF is vital to both lung homeostasis and regulation of inflammation in autoimmunity,” Dr. Pupim explained.

She added that “GM-CSF is implicated in the mechanism of aberrant immune cell infiltration and activation in the lungs, and it may contribute to respiratory failure and death in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and systemic hyperinflammation.”

The efficacy and safety of blocking GM-CSF with mavrilimumab have been shown previously in phase 2 studies in other diseases, Dr. Pupim noted. This includes patients with rheumatoid arthritis and those with giant cell arteritis.

“It was hypothesized that GM-CSF receptor–alpha blockade may reduce infiltration of pathogenic cells into the lung and may suppress inflammation in COVID-19 pneumonia in hyperinflammation,” she explained.

Study details and other outcome results

The study presented by Dr. Pupim was a phase 2/3 double-blind, placebo-controlled trial predominantly conducted in Brazil, the United States, and South Africa, with some participation in Peru and Chile.

Patients were eligible for inclusion if they had had a positive COVID-19 test within 14 days of randomization and had been hospitalized but not ventilated. Evidence of bilateral pneumonia on chest x-ray or CT scan and clinical laboratory evidence indicative of hyperinflammation were also prerequisites for study enrollment.

The ongoing study comprised two cohorts, Dr. Pupim explained: patients who have not been ventilated and those who have recently been ventilated. Dr. Pupim presented the data on the nonventilated cohort, noting that there was a total of 116 patients aged a mean of 57 years.

Patients were randomized to one of three treatment arms: two groups received a single intravenous infusion of mavrilimumab, either 6 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg, and the third group got a placebo.

“Using a time-to-event approach, looking at mechanical ventilation-free survival, mavrilimumab recipients experienced a 65% reduction in the risk of mechanical ventilation or death,” Dr. Pupim said (P = .0175).

“Separation in the Kaplan-Meier curves was evident very early after study drug administration,” she added.

There were trends toward a faster benefit with mavrilimumab than placebo in two other key secondary endpoints: the median time to achieving a two-point clinical improvement (7 vs. 11 days) and the median time to room air (7 vs. 9 days).

Timing of mavrilimumab administration and safety

Study coauthor and chief clinical development officer at Kiniksa, Arian Pano, MD, answered questions on the presentation. When asked about the timing of giving mavrilimumab, he said: “Based on these data it is before they go to ventilation, as soon as you have symptoms of hyperinflammation and a need for oxygen.”

Mavrilimumab is given as a single infusion “and has been well tolerated; virtually no interruptions occurred in this study.”

No serious adverse events related to mavrilimumab were seen, and adverse events, including secondary infections, which are known complications of COVID-19, occurred less frequently in mavrilimumab recipients, compared with placebo.

Dr. Pupim reported that there was a case of tuberculosis in one patient treated with mavrilimumab (10 mg/kg). That case had occurred in an “endemic area for tuberculosis,” and the patient had been screened before entry but only via a sputum sample.

“Prior to these events, the patient received high-dose corticosteroids, a known risk factor for reactivation of TB, and thus the potential additive contribution of mavrilimumab, if any, is uncertain.” Dr. Pupim said.

“Thrombotic events, another known complication of COVID-19, occurred in the placebo arm only,” she added.

Dr. Pano commented that the study has now “seamlessly continued to phase 3. So, basically, we did not stop the study. At the end of phase 2, we just locked the database and collected the data.” Both the 6 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg are being studied, but it’s “very likely [that] 6 mg/kg could be the dose that we may bring forward to the clinic in terms of registration, but that’s at this point in time. We will need to wait for the phase 3 data,” he observed. Those findings will hopefully be available later this year.

Kiniksa funded the study. Dr. Pupim, Dr. Pano, and multiple study coinvestigators are employees of the company.

Dr. Schulze-Koops was not involved in the study and had no specific disclosures. Dr. Conway had no financial disclosures to make in relation to his comments.

Inhibiting granulocyte/macrophage–colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) with mavrilimumab prevented some patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and hyperinflammation from needing mechanical ventilation and reduced their risk of dying versus placebo in a phase 2 study.

There was no difference in outcomes between the two doses of mavrilimumab used in the trial (6 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg) and combined data showed a higher percentage of patients achieving the primary endpoint of being alive and free of mechanical ventilation at 29 days, at 87%, versus placebo, at 74%.

The P value was 0.12, “which achieved the prespecified evidentiary standard of 0.2,” according to Lara Pupim, MD, vice president of clinical research and development at Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals in Lexington, Mass.

Importantly, there was a 61% reduction in the risk of dying if patients had received mavrilimumab rather than placebo, she reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. Mortality at day 29 was 21% in the placebo arm but just 8% in the combined mavrilimumab arms (P = .07).

Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, called it a “surprising study” and that “the outcome is very spectacular” in his short appraisal of the study during the Clinical Highlights session on the final day of the congress.

Mavrilimumab was “a compound that we would not have thought that would have such an impact on the outcome of COVID-19 infected patients,” Dr. Schulze-Koops of Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich added.

In this small study, “there was a consistent suggestion of a biological effect across key endpoints,” Richard Conway, MBChB, PhD, a consultant rheumatologist at St. James’s Hospital in Dublin, pointed out in an interview.

“Similar to tocilizumab, the benefits with mavrilimumab appear to be in addition to those seen with glucocorticoids, as 96% of patients received dexamethasone,” Dr. Conway observed. Furthermore, nearly one-third received antiviral or remdesivir treatment.

“This study was likely underpowered to assess a clinically meaningful benefit,” he said, adding that “there is insufficient evidence at present to begin using mavrilimumab as an alternative to currently available agents.” That said, “these results are promising for future studies.”

Rationale for GM-CSF inhibition with mavrilimumab in COVID-19 pneumonia

“The cytokine GM-CSF is vital to both lung homeostasis and regulation of inflammation in autoimmunity,” Dr. Pupim explained.

She added that “GM-CSF is implicated in the mechanism of aberrant immune cell infiltration and activation in the lungs, and it may contribute to respiratory failure and death in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and systemic hyperinflammation.”

The efficacy and safety of blocking GM-CSF with mavrilimumab have been shown previously in phase 2 studies in other diseases, Dr. Pupim noted. This includes patients with rheumatoid arthritis and those with giant cell arteritis.

“It was hypothesized that GM-CSF receptor–alpha blockade may reduce infiltration of pathogenic cells into the lung and may suppress inflammation in COVID-19 pneumonia in hyperinflammation,” she explained.

Study details and other outcome results

The study presented by Dr. Pupim was a phase 2/3 double-blind, placebo-controlled trial predominantly conducted in Brazil, the United States, and South Africa, with some participation in Peru and Chile.

Patients were eligible for inclusion if they had had a positive COVID-19 test within 14 days of randomization and had been hospitalized but not ventilated. Evidence of bilateral pneumonia on chest x-ray or CT scan and clinical laboratory evidence indicative of hyperinflammation were also prerequisites for study enrollment.

The ongoing study comprised two cohorts, Dr. Pupim explained: patients who have not been ventilated and those who have recently been ventilated. Dr. Pupim presented the data on the nonventilated cohort, noting that there was a total of 116 patients aged a mean of 57 years.

Patients were randomized to one of three treatment arms: two groups received a single intravenous infusion of mavrilimumab, either 6 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg, and the third group got a placebo.

“Using a time-to-event approach, looking at mechanical ventilation-free survival, mavrilimumab recipients experienced a 65% reduction in the risk of mechanical ventilation or death,” Dr. Pupim said (P = .0175).

“Separation in the Kaplan-Meier curves was evident very early after study drug administration,” she added.

There were trends toward a faster benefit with mavrilimumab than placebo in two other key secondary endpoints: the median time to achieving a two-point clinical improvement (7 vs. 11 days) and the median time to room air (7 vs. 9 days).

Timing of mavrilimumab administration and safety

Study coauthor and chief clinical development officer at Kiniksa, Arian Pano, MD, answered questions on the presentation. When asked about the timing of giving mavrilimumab, he said: “Based on these data it is before they go to ventilation, as soon as you have symptoms of hyperinflammation and a need for oxygen.”

Mavrilimumab is given as a single infusion “and has been well tolerated; virtually no interruptions occurred in this study.”

No serious adverse events related to mavrilimumab were seen, and adverse events, including secondary infections, which are known complications of COVID-19, occurred less frequently in mavrilimumab recipients, compared with placebo.

Dr. Pupim reported that there was a case of tuberculosis in one patient treated with mavrilimumab (10 mg/kg). That case had occurred in an “endemic area for tuberculosis,” and the patient had been screened before entry but only via a sputum sample.

“Prior to these events, the patient received high-dose corticosteroids, a known risk factor for reactivation of TB, and thus the potential additive contribution of mavrilimumab, if any, is uncertain.” Dr. Pupim said.

“Thrombotic events, another known complication of COVID-19, occurred in the placebo arm only,” she added.

Dr. Pano commented that the study has now “seamlessly continued to phase 3. So, basically, we did not stop the study. At the end of phase 2, we just locked the database and collected the data.” Both the 6 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg are being studied, but it’s “very likely [that] 6 mg/kg could be the dose that we may bring forward to the clinic in terms of registration, but that’s at this point in time. We will need to wait for the phase 3 data,” he observed. Those findings will hopefully be available later this year.

Kiniksa funded the study. Dr. Pupim, Dr. Pano, and multiple study coinvestigators are employees of the company.

Dr. Schulze-Koops was not involved in the study and had no specific disclosures. Dr. Conway had no financial disclosures to make in relation to his comments.