Infectious Disease Practitioner

In December, in what’s known as the “Take Care of Maya” case, a Florida jury returned a record $261 million verdict against Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital, St. Petersburg, Florida, for its treatment of a young patient and her family after an emergency room visit.

A month earlier, in New York, a jury ordered Westchester Medical Center Health Network to pay $120 million to a patient and his family following delayed stroke care that resulted in brain damage.

Mega malpractice awards like these are rising against physicians and hospitals around the country, according to new data from TransRe, an international reinsurance company that tracks large verdicts.

“2023 blew away every record previously set among high medical malpractice verdicts,” said Richard Henderson, senior vice president for TransRe. “If we look at the 50 largest verdicts in 2023 and average them out, we have a higher monetary amount than any other year.”

In 2023, there were 57 medical malpractice verdicts of $10 million or more in the United States, the data showed. Slightly more than half of those reached $25 million or more.

From 2012 to 2022, verdicts of $10 million or more ranged from 34 in 2013 to 52 in 2022, TransRe research found.

While New York, Illinois, and Florida typically saw the highest dollar verdicts in previous years, so-called “nuclear” verdicts now occur in states like Utah and Georgia where they once were uncommon, said Robert E. White Jr., president of TDC Group and The Doctors Company, a national medical liability insurer for physicians.

A rollback of tort reforms across the country is one contributor, he said. For example, Georgia’s cap on noneconomic damages is among those that have been ruled unconstitutional by courts. Utah’s cap on noneconomic damages still stands, but the limit was deemed unconstitutional in wrongful death cases. In 2019, a portion of Utah›s pre-litigation panel process was also struck down by the state’s Supreme Court.

“We used to be able to predict where these high verdicts would occur,” Mr. White said. “We can’t predict it anymore.”

Research shows a majority of malpractice cases are dropped or settled before trial, and claims that go before juries usually end in doctors’ favor. Plaintiffs’ attorneys cite large jury verdicts in similar cases to induce settlements and higher payouts, Mr. White said.

And while mega verdicts rarely stick, they can have lasting effects on future claims. The awards lead to larger settlement demands from plaintiffs and drive up the cost to resolve claims, according to Mr. Henderson and Mr. White.

“Verdicts are the yardstick by which all settlements are measured,” Mr. White said. “That’s where the damage is done.” The prospect of a mega verdict can make insurers leery of fighting some malpractice cases and motivate them to offer bigger settlements to stay out of the courtroom, he added.

Why Are Juries Awarding Higher Verdicts?

There’s no single reason for the rise in nuclear verdicts, Mr. Henderson said.

One theory is that plaintiffs’ attorneys held back on resolving high-dollar cases during the COVID pandemic and let loose with high-demand claims when courts returned to normal, he said.

Another theory is that people emerged from the pandemic angrier.

“Whether it was political dynamics, masking [mandates], or differences in opinions, people came out of it angry, and generally speaking, you don’t want an angry jury,” Mr. Henderson said. “For a while, there was the halo effect, where health professionals were seen as heroes. That went away, and all of a sudden [they] became ‘the bad guys.’ ”

“People are angry at the healthcare system, and this anger manifests itself in [liability] suits,” added Bill Burns, vice president of research for the Medical Professional Liability Association, an industry group for medical liability insurers.

Hospital and medical group consolidation also reduces the personal connection juries may have with healthcare providers, Mr. Burns said.

“Healthcare has become a big business, and the corporatization of medicine now puts companies on the stand and not your local community hospital or your family doctor that you have known since birth,” he said.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys also deploy tactics that can prompt higher verdicts, Mr. White said. They may tell a jury that the provider or hospital is a threat to the community and that awarding a large verdict will deter others in the healthcare community from repeating the same actions.

Juries may then want to punish the defendant in addition to assessing damages for economic harm or pain and suffering, Mr. White said.

“I am concerned that jurors are trying to right social wrongs rather than judging cases on the facts presented to them,” added Mike Stinson, vice president for policy and legal affairs for the Medical Professional Liability Association.

Third-party litigation financing also can lead to mega verdicts. That’s an emerging practice in which companies unrelated to a lawsuit provide capital to plaintiffs in return for a portion of any financial award. The firms essentially “invest” in the litigation.

“What this does is provide an additional financial backdrop for plaintiffs,” Mr. Henderson said. “It allows them to dig in harder on cases. They can hold out for higher numbers, and if nothing else, it can prolong litigation.”

Do High Awards Actually Stick?

Multimillion-dollar verdicts may grab headlines, but do plaintiffs actually receive them?

Rarely, said TransRe, which tracks the final outcomes of verdicts. In many cases, large verdicts are reduced on appeal.

In the Maya case, which involved child protection authorities, a judge later lowered the damages against Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital by $47.5 million.

A federal judge in October, for example, rejected a record $110 million medical malpractice award in Minnesota, reducing it to $10 million. The district judge ruled the award was “shockingly excessive” and that the plaintiff should either accept the $10 million award or retry the case.

After a verdict is awarded, the defendant typically challenges the award, and the case goes through the appellate pipeline, Mr. Henderson explained. A judge may reduce some elements of the verdict, he said, but more often, the plaintiff and defendant agree on a compromised figure.

Seattle medical liability defense attorney Jennifer Crisera has experienced this firsthand. She recalled a recent case where a plaintiff’s attorney demanded what she describes as an unreasonable amount to settle a claim. Ms. Crisera did not want to give exact numbers but said the plaintiff made an 8-figure demand and the defense offered a low 7-figure range.

“My impression was that plaintiff’s counsel believed that they could get a nuclear verdict from the jury, so they kept their settlement demand artificially high,” she said. “The division between the numbers was way too high. Ultimately, we had to let a jury decide the value.”

The plaintiff won the case, and the verdict was much less than the settlement demand, she said. Even so, the defense incurred trial costs, and the health provider was forced to endure the emotional stress of a trial that could have been avoided, Ms. Crisera said.

Higher medical malpractice premiums are another consequence of massive awards.

Premium rates are associated with how much insurers pay on average for cases and how frequently they are making payouts, Mr. White said.

Medical liability insurance premiums for physicians have steadily increased since 2019, according to data from the Medical Liability Monitor, a national publication that analyzes liability insurance premiums. The Monitor studies insurance premium data from insurers that cover internists, general surgeons, and obstetrician-gynecologists.

From 2019 to 2023, average premium rates for physicians increased between 1.1% and 3% each year in states without patient compensation funds, according to Monitor data.

“Nuclear verdicts are a real driver of the industry’s underwriting losses and remain top of mind for every malpractice insurance company,” said Michael Matray, editor for the Medical Liability Monitor. “Responses to this year’s rate survey questionnaire indicate that most responding companies have experienced an increase in claims greater than $1 million and claims greater than $5 million during the past 2 years.”

However, increases vary widely by region and among counties. In Montgomery County, Alabama, for instance, premiums for internists rose by 24% from 2022 to 2023, from $8,231 to $10,240. Premiums for Montgomery County general surgeons rose by 11.9% from 2022 to 2023, from $30,761 to $34,426, according to survey data.

In several counties in Illinois (Adams, Knox, Peoria, and Rock Island), premiums for some internists rose by 15% from $24,041 to $27,783, and premiums for some surgeons increased by 27% from $60,202 to $76,461, according to survey data. Some internists in Catoosa County, Georgia, meanwhile, paid $17,831 in 2023, up from $16,313 in 2022. Some surgeons in Catoosa County paid $65,616 in 2023, up from $60,032 in 2022. Inflation could be one factor behind higher liability premium rates. Claim severity is a key driver of higher premium rates, Mr. White added.

“We have not seen stability in claims severity,” he said. “It is continuing to go up and, in all likelihood, it will drive [premium] rates up further from this point.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In December, in what’s known as the “Take Care of Maya” case, a Florida jury returned a record $261 million verdict against Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital, St. Petersburg, Florida, for its treatment of a young patient and her family after an emergency room visit.

A month earlier, in New York, a jury ordered Westchester Medical Center Health Network to pay $120 million to a patient and his family following delayed stroke care that resulted in brain damage.

Mega malpractice awards like these are rising against physicians and hospitals around the country, according to new data from TransRe, an international reinsurance company that tracks large verdicts.

“2023 blew away every record previously set among high medical malpractice verdicts,” said Richard Henderson, senior vice president for TransRe. “If we look at the 50 largest verdicts in 2023 and average them out, we have a higher monetary amount than any other year.”

In 2023, there were 57 medical malpractice verdicts of $10 million or more in the United States, the data showed. Slightly more than half of those reached $25 million or more.

From 2012 to 2022, verdicts of $10 million or more ranged from 34 in 2013 to 52 in 2022, TransRe research found.

While New York, Illinois, and Florida typically saw the highest dollar verdicts in previous years, so-called “nuclear” verdicts now occur in states like Utah and Georgia where they once were uncommon, said Robert E. White Jr., president of TDC Group and The Doctors Company, a national medical liability insurer for physicians.

A rollback of tort reforms across the country is one contributor, he said. For example, Georgia’s cap on noneconomic damages is among those that have been ruled unconstitutional by courts. Utah’s cap on noneconomic damages still stands, but the limit was deemed unconstitutional in wrongful death cases. In 2019, a portion of Utah›s pre-litigation panel process was also struck down by the state’s Supreme Court.

“We used to be able to predict where these high verdicts would occur,” Mr. White said. “We can’t predict it anymore.”

Research shows a majority of malpractice cases are dropped or settled before trial, and claims that go before juries usually end in doctors’ favor. Plaintiffs’ attorneys cite large jury verdicts in similar cases to induce settlements and higher payouts, Mr. White said.

And while mega verdicts rarely stick, they can have lasting effects on future claims. The awards lead to larger settlement demands from plaintiffs and drive up the cost to resolve claims, according to Mr. Henderson and Mr. White.

“Verdicts are the yardstick by which all settlements are measured,” Mr. White said. “That’s where the damage is done.” The prospect of a mega verdict can make insurers leery of fighting some malpractice cases and motivate them to offer bigger settlements to stay out of the courtroom, he added.

Why Are Juries Awarding Higher Verdicts?

There’s no single reason for the rise in nuclear verdicts, Mr. Henderson said.

One theory is that plaintiffs’ attorneys held back on resolving high-dollar cases during the COVID pandemic and let loose with high-demand claims when courts returned to normal, he said.

Another theory is that people emerged from the pandemic angrier.

“Whether it was political dynamics, masking [mandates], or differences in opinions, people came out of it angry, and generally speaking, you don’t want an angry jury,” Mr. Henderson said. “For a while, there was the halo effect, where health professionals were seen as heroes. That went away, and all of a sudden [they] became ‘the bad guys.’ ”

“People are angry at the healthcare system, and this anger manifests itself in [liability] suits,” added Bill Burns, vice president of research for the Medical Professional Liability Association, an industry group for medical liability insurers.

Hospital and medical group consolidation also reduces the personal connection juries may have with healthcare providers, Mr. Burns said.

“Healthcare has become a big business, and the corporatization of medicine now puts companies on the stand and not your local community hospital or your family doctor that you have known since birth,” he said.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys also deploy tactics that can prompt higher verdicts, Mr. White said. They may tell a jury that the provider or hospital is a threat to the community and that awarding a large verdict will deter others in the healthcare community from repeating the same actions.

Juries may then want to punish the defendant in addition to assessing damages for economic harm or pain and suffering, Mr. White said.

“I am concerned that jurors are trying to right social wrongs rather than judging cases on the facts presented to them,” added Mike Stinson, vice president for policy and legal affairs for the Medical Professional Liability Association.

Third-party litigation financing also can lead to mega verdicts. That’s an emerging practice in which companies unrelated to a lawsuit provide capital to plaintiffs in return for a portion of any financial award. The firms essentially “invest” in the litigation.

“What this does is provide an additional financial backdrop for plaintiffs,” Mr. Henderson said. “It allows them to dig in harder on cases. They can hold out for higher numbers, and if nothing else, it can prolong litigation.”

Do High Awards Actually Stick?

Multimillion-dollar verdicts may grab headlines, but do plaintiffs actually receive them?

Rarely, said TransRe, which tracks the final outcomes of verdicts. In many cases, large verdicts are reduced on appeal.

In the Maya case, which involved child protection authorities, a judge later lowered the damages against Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital by $47.5 million.

A federal judge in October, for example, rejected a record $110 million medical malpractice award in Minnesota, reducing it to $10 million. The district judge ruled the award was “shockingly excessive” and that the plaintiff should either accept the $10 million award or retry the case.

After a verdict is awarded, the defendant typically challenges the award, and the case goes through the appellate pipeline, Mr. Henderson explained. A judge may reduce some elements of the verdict, he said, but more often, the plaintiff and defendant agree on a compromised figure.

Seattle medical liability defense attorney Jennifer Crisera has experienced this firsthand. She recalled a recent case where a plaintiff’s attorney demanded what she describes as an unreasonable amount to settle a claim. Ms. Crisera did not want to give exact numbers but said the plaintiff made an 8-figure demand and the defense offered a low 7-figure range.

“My impression was that plaintiff’s counsel believed that they could get a nuclear verdict from the jury, so they kept their settlement demand artificially high,” she said. “The division between the numbers was way too high. Ultimately, we had to let a jury decide the value.”

The plaintiff won the case, and the verdict was much less than the settlement demand, she said. Even so, the defense incurred trial costs, and the health provider was forced to endure the emotional stress of a trial that could have been avoided, Ms. Crisera said.

Higher medical malpractice premiums are another consequence of massive awards.

Premium rates are associated with how much insurers pay on average for cases and how frequently they are making payouts, Mr. White said.

Medical liability insurance premiums for physicians have steadily increased since 2019, according to data from the Medical Liability Monitor, a national publication that analyzes liability insurance premiums. The Monitor studies insurance premium data from insurers that cover internists, general surgeons, and obstetrician-gynecologists.

From 2019 to 2023, average premium rates for physicians increased between 1.1% and 3% each year in states without patient compensation funds, according to Monitor data.

“Nuclear verdicts are a real driver of the industry’s underwriting losses and remain top of mind for every malpractice insurance company,” said Michael Matray, editor for the Medical Liability Monitor. “Responses to this year’s rate survey questionnaire indicate that most responding companies have experienced an increase in claims greater than $1 million and claims greater than $5 million during the past 2 years.”

However, increases vary widely by region and among counties. In Montgomery County, Alabama, for instance, premiums for internists rose by 24% from 2022 to 2023, from $8,231 to $10,240. Premiums for Montgomery County general surgeons rose by 11.9% from 2022 to 2023, from $30,761 to $34,426, according to survey data.

In several counties in Illinois (Adams, Knox, Peoria, and Rock Island), premiums for some internists rose by 15% from $24,041 to $27,783, and premiums for some surgeons increased by 27% from $60,202 to $76,461, according to survey data. Some internists in Catoosa County, Georgia, meanwhile, paid $17,831 in 2023, up from $16,313 in 2022. Some surgeons in Catoosa County paid $65,616 in 2023, up from $60,032 in 2022. Inflation could be one factor behind higher liability premium rates. Claim severity is a key driver of higher premium rates, Mr. White added.

“We have not seen stability in claims severity,” he said. “It is continuing to go up and, in all likelihood, it will drive [premium] rates up further from this point.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In December, in what’s known as the “Take Care of Maya” case, a Florida jury returned a record $261 million verdict against Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital, St. Petersburg, Florida, for its treatment of a young patient and her family after an emergency room visit.

A month earlier, in New York, a jury ordered Westchester Medical Center Health Network to pay $120 million to a patient and his family following delayed stroke care that resulted in brain damage.

Mega malpractice awards like these are rising against physicians and hospitals around the country, according to new data from TransRe, an international reinsurance company that tracks large verdicts.

“2023 blew away every record previously set among high medical malpractice verdicts,” said Richard Henderson, senior vice president for TransRe. “If we look at the 50 largest verdicts in 2023 and average them out, we have a higher monetary amount than any other year.”

In 2023, there were 57 medical malpractice verdicts of $10 million or more in the United States, the data showed. Slightly more than half of those reached $25 million or more.

From 2012 to 2022, verdicts of $10 million or more ranged from 34 in 2013 to 52 in 2022, TransRe research found.

While New York, Illinois, and Florida typically saw the highest dollar verdicts in previous years, so-called “nuclear” verdicts now occur in states like Utah and Georgia where they once were uncommon, said Robert E. White Jr., president of TDC Group and The Doctors Company, a national medical liability insurer for physicians.

A rollback of tort reforms across the country is one contributor, he said. For example, Georgia’s cap on noneconomic damages is among those that have been ruled unconstitutional by courts. Utah’s cap on noneconomic damages still stands, but the limit was deemed unconstitutional in wrongful death cases. In 2019, a portion of Utah›s pre-litigation panel process was also struck down by the state’s Supreme Court.

“We used to be able to predict where these high verdicts would occur,” Mr. White said. “We can’t predict it anymore.”

Research shows a majority of malpractice cases are dropped or settled before trial, and claims that go before juries usually end in doctors’ favor. Plaintiffs’ attorneys cite large jury verdicts in similar cases to induce settlements and higher payouts, Mr. White said.

And while mega verdicts rarely stick, they can have lasting effects on future claims. The awards lead to larger settlement demands from plaintiffs and drive up the cost to resolve claims, according to Mr. Henderson and Mr. White.

“Verdicts are the yardstick by which all settlements are measured,” Mr. White said. “That’s where the damage is done.” The prospect of a mega verdict can make insurers leery of fighting some malpractice cases and motivate them to offer bigger settlements to stay out of the courtroom, he added.

Why Are Juries Awarding Higher Verdicts?

There’s no single reason for the rise in nuclear verdicts, Mr. Henderson said.

One theory is that plaintiffs’ attorneys held back on resolving high-dollar cases during the COVID pandemic and let loose with high-demand claims when courts returned to normal, he said.

Another theory is that people emerged from the pandemic angrier.

“Whether it was political dynamics, masking [mandates], or differences in opinions, people came out of it angry, and generally speaking, you don’t want an angry jury,” Mr. Henderson said. “For a while, there was the halo effect, where health professionals were seen as heroes. That went away, and all of a sudden [they] became ‘the bad guys.’ ”

“People are angry at the healthcare system, and this anger manifests itself in [liability] suits,” added Bill Burns, vice president of research for the Medical Professional Liability Association, an industry group for medical liability insurers.

Hospital and medical group consolidation also reduces the personal connection juries may have with healthcare providers, Mr. Burns said.

“Healthcare has become a big business, and the corporatization of medicine now puts companies on the stand and not your local community hospital or your family doctor that you have known since birth,” he said.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys also deploy tactics that can prompt higher verdicts, Mr. White said. They may tell a jury that the provider or hospital is a threat to the community and that awarding a large verdict will deter others in the healthcare community from repeating the same actions.

Juries may then want to punish the defendant in addition to assessing damages for economic harm or pain and suffering, Mr. White said.

“I am concerned that jurors are trying to right social wrongs rather than judging cases on the facts presented to them,” added Mike Stinson, vice president for policy and legal affairs for the Medical Professional Liability Association.

Third-party litigation financing also can lead to mega verdicts. That’s an emerging practice in which companies unrelated to a lawsuit provide capital to plaintiffs in return for a portion of any financial award. The firms essentially “invest” in the litigation.

“What this does is provide an additional financial backdrop for plaintiffs,” Mr. Henderson said. “It allows them to dig in harder on cases. They can hold out for higher numbers, and if nothing else, it can prolong litigation.”

Do High Awards Actually Stick?

Multimillion-dollar verdicts may grab headlines, but do plaintiffs actually receive them?

Rarely, said TransRe, which tracks the final outcomes of verdicts. In many cases, large verdicts are reduced on appeal.

In the Maya case, which involved child protection authorities, a judge later lowered the damages against Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital by $47.5 million.

A federal judge in October, for example, rejected a record $110 million medical malpractice award in Minnesota, reducing it to $10 million. The district judge ruled the award was “shockingly excessive” and that the plaintiff should either accept the $10 million award or retry the case.

After a verdict is awarded, the defendant typically challenges the award, and the case goes through the appellate pipeline, Mr. Henderson explained. A judge may reduce some elements of the verdict, he said, but more often, the plaintiff and defendant agree on a compromised figure.

Seattle medical liability defense attorney Jennifer Crisera has experienced this firsthand. She recalled a recent case where a plaintiff’s attorney demanded what she describes as an unreasonable amount to settle a claim. Ms. Crisera did not want to give exact numbers but said the plaintiff made an 8-figure demand and the defense offered a low 7-figure range.

“My impression was that plaintiff’s counsel believed that they could get a nuclear verdict from the jury, so they kept their settlement demand artificially high,” she said. “The division between the numbers was way too high. Ultimately, we had to let a jury decide the value.”

The plaintiff won the case, and the verdict was much less than the settlement demand, she said. Even so, the defense incurred trial costs, and the health provider was forced to endure the emotional stress of a trial that could have been avoided, Ms. Crisera said.

Higher medical malpractice premiums are another consequence of massive awards.

Premium rates are associated with how much insurers pay on average for cases and how frequently they are making payouts, Mr. White said.

Medical liability insurance premiums for physicians have steadily increased since 2019, according to data from the Medical Liability Monitor, a national publication that analyzes liability insurance premiums. The Monitor studies insurance premium data from insurers that cover internists, general surgeons, and obstetrician-gynecologists.

From 2019 to 2023, average premium rates for physicians increased between 1.1% and 3% each year in states without patient compensation funds, according to Monitor data.

“Nuclear verdicts are a real driver of the industry’s underwriting losses and remain top of mind for every malpractice insurance company,” said Michael Matray, editor for the Medical Liability Monitor. “Responses to this year’s rate survey questionnaire indicate that most responding companies have experienced an increase in claims greater than $1 million and claims greater than $5 million during the past 2 years.”

However, increases vary widely by region and among counties. In Montgomery County, Alabama, for instance, premiums for internists rose by 24% from 2022 to 2023, from $8,231 to $10,240. Premiums for Montgomery County general surgeons rose by 11.9% from 2022 to 2023, from $30,761 to $34,426, according to survey data.

In several counties in Illinois (Adams, Knox, Peoria, and Rock Island), premiums for some internists rose by 15% from $24,041 to $27,783, and premiums for some surgeons increased by 27% from $60,202 to $76,461, according to survey data. Some internists in Catoosa County, Georgia, meanwhile, paid $17,831 in 2023, up from $16,313 in 2022. Some surgeons in Catoosa County paid $65,616 in 2023, up from $60,032 in 2022. Inflation could be one factor behind higher liability premium rates. Claim severity is a key driver of higher premium rates, Mr. White added.

“We have not seen stability in claims severity,” he said. “It is continuing to go up and, in all likelihood, it will drive [premium] rates up further from this point.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) program is invalidating scores attained by some examinees after an investigation revealed a pattern of anomalous exam performance associated with test-takers from Nepal. 

In a January 31 announcement, the USMLE program said that officials are in the process of notifying examinees with results in question and that the examinees will be required to take validation exams. The program did not offer further details about its investigation or how the questionable performance was identified. 

“The USMLE program regularly monitors and analyzes examinees’ test performances for unusual score patterns or variations, and other information that could raise questions about the validity of an examinee’s results,” the program said in a statement. “Highly irregular patterns can be indicative of prior unauthorized access to secure exam content.”

Some medical graduates say the action against students cheating on the USMLE is long overdue. 

The selling and buying of USMLE questions online have become rampant in recent years, particularly by groups within the international medical graduate (IMG) community, according to multiple IMGs who shared their concerns with this news organization. Sellers operate under pseudonyms across social media platforms and charge anywhere from $300 to $2000 for questions, Medscape research shows. 

Facebook posts often advertise questions for sale, said Saqib Gul, MD, an IMG from Pakistan who has voiced concerns about the practice on social media. 

“People make up fake profiles and tell others to [direct message] them for recalls,” he told this news organization. “There was a dedicated Facebook page that was doing this. In other cases, a couple of friends that took the exam remember a certain number of questions and write them down after the test.”

Ahmad Ozair, MD, an IMG from Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India, said that he has come across many groups online sharing or selling USMLE recalls. He first became suspicious when he saw several students, all from a few medical schools in Nepal, posting on social media about scoring in the 270 and 280-plus range. 

“The statistical probability that you would have three or more candidates in the same year, scoring in the 99th percentile worldwide, belonging to a small geographical area is extremely low.” 

Dr. Ozair, who now is studying public health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, said that the issue is important for “all stakeholders” who care about patient safety: “Would you want a doctor who has cheated on the medical licensing exam to take care of you?” 

In an interview, USMLE program spokesman Joe Knickrehm said that the program relies on multiple processes to detect and respond to claims that exam integrity is being compromised. The process includes monitoring performance data, an anonymous tip line for reporting suspicious behavior, and a thorough investigative process. 

“The USMLE program regularly monitors social media channels for comments relating to exam security and irregular behavior and will initiate an investigation if warranted,” Mr. Knickrehm told this news organization. “ The covert nature of this activity does not lend itself to a definitive statement regarding whether the problem has increased or decreased in recent years.” 

Mr. Knickrehm said that the program’s STOPit app allows people to report suspicious behavior electronically to the USMLE program. Since its launch in 2021, the program has received more than 80 tips per year through the app, according to Mr. Knickrehm. Security violations are investigated by USMLE staff and reviewed by the USMLE Committee for Individualized Review (CIR). Anyone found to have engaged in irregular behavior by the CIR for activities undermining exam integrity are typically barred from access to the USMLE for multiple years. 
 

How Easy Is It to Buy Recalls?

Two years ago, Dr B was approached by a former study partner who had just completed Step 2 of the USMLE. She asked whether Dr B wanted to buy recalled questions to help her pass. 

“She paid this guy almost $2000 for recalls and told me if I pay this money, he’ll give me the recalls,” said Dr B, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of being associated with students cheating on the USMLE. “I told her I was not interested, and she said the guy would lower the price. I broke contact with her.”

Dr B, an IMG from Pakistan, was appalled. But she said that the episode was not the first time she has come across groups selling USMLE recalls or heard peers brag about having access to exam content. 

“I am baffled at how many [groups] post on social media and brazenly advertise their ‘services,’” she told this news organization. “No one arrests them, their customers go on to score abnormally high on the boards, making it unachievable for people who take the honest route, plus giving IMGs a bad rep.” 

Groups offering recalls are easily findable on sites such as Telegram and Signal. Telegram is a cloud-based messaging app that focuses on security, and Signal is an encrypted messaging service. 

The website recallmastery.com purports to offer a range of USMLE recall packages, from a free, unsorted version to Step 1 and Step 2 packages that include “fresh updates,” and sections with “mostly repeated topics. Prices range from the free version to the $799 VIP package. 

Another site called MedPox.com boasts 2024 Step 2 recalls, advertising “ actual exam questions to get HIGH scores.” The website’s owner states that the recalls were collected “by my friends,” and to message the them to be added to the “recalls group.”

A reporter was able to easily download a free version of alleged USMLE questions and answers from recallmastery.com. The document was a combination of typed and handwritten notes about medical questions, with red circles around recalled answers. 

J. Bryan Carmody, MD, who blogs about medical education, reviewed a copy of the document. He said that the content appeared “credible” and was in fact recalled USMLE questions. However, the extent of which the question stem was recalled was incomplete at best, and there was little production value to the document, said Dr. Carmody, a nephrologist and associate professor of pediatrics at the Eastern Virgina Medical School in Norfolk. 

The person selling the recall packages states on the website that the free version is not organized or sorted, but it allows viewers to “see how this works before paying for premium recalls.” 

Mr. Knickrehm said that the program could not comment on the document, but that “whenever the USMLE program receives or locates information about a potential security violation, we investigate and take necessary action.” 

When asked about the specific websites noted above, Knickrehm said that the program routinely monitors a wide array of websites, message boards, and chat rooms for USMLE-related materials. Though many sites advertise having USMLE recalls for sale, it’s more likely they are selling non-USMLE content, he said. 

Using past content to cheat on medical exams is an old problem. In 2010, for example, the American Board of Internal Medicine suspended 139 physicians after they were caught cheating on the board exams. The scandal involved a vast cheating ring that included physicians memorizing questions and reproducing them after the tests. The board later sued a gastroenterologist for her part in the scandal. 

In 2012, a CNN investigation exposed doctors who were memorizing test questions and creating sophisticated recall banks to cheat on radiology boards. The Association of American Medical Colleges sued a medical student in 2017 for attempting to secretly record content on the MCAT using spyglasses. 

In recent years, Dr. Carmody said that he has received multiple messages and screenshots from concerned students and residents who were offered or encountered recalls. 

“One thing that’s unclear is how legitimate the claims are,” he said. “Many of these recalls may be faulty or outdated. It could be someone who took the exam yesterday and has a photographic memory or it could be some sparsely recalled or mis-recalled information. Unless you’re willing to pay these people, you can’t inspect the quality, or even if you did, you wouldn’t know if the information was current or not.”
 

‘As an IMG, There Is So Much at Stake’

Whether recall sellers — and those buying them — are more frequently IMGs has fostered heated debate on social media. 

On a Reddit thread devoted to IMG issues, posters expressed frustration about being bombarded with recall advertisements and unwanted messages about buying USMLE questions while trying to find study materials. One poster called the practices a “huge slap to all those IMGs who are struggling day and night, just to get a good score.”

In an X thread about the same subject, however, some self-described IMGs took offense to claims that IMGs might score higher because they have access to recalls. The allegations are “incendiary” and “malign hardworking IMGs,” posters wrote.

When Dr. Gul spoke out online about the “biopsy” culture, he received multiple private messages from fellow IMGs telling him to remove his comments, he said. 

“I received a lot of backlash on social media,” he told this news organization. “Some IMGs asked me to take down my posts because they thought I was making IMGs look bad, and it might prompt authorities to take action or shut down international examination centers for IMGs.”

Most of the IMGs who spoke to this news organization were afraid to be publicly identified. Several IMG advocates and IMG associations contacted for the story did not respond. One medical education expert said that his institution advised him to “steer clear” of commenting because the issue was “controversial.” 

“As an IMG, there is so much at stake,” Dr B said. “Any association with shady operations like these is an absolute suicide. I’m personally afraid of any repercussions of the sort.”

USMLE officials declined to comment on whether the buying or selling of recalls appears to be more prevalent among the IMG community, saying it is “difficult to generalize this behavior as ‘prevalent’ simply due to the clandestine nature of this activity.”
 

Cheat-Proofing the USMLE

The USMLE program has taken several steps intended to prevent cheating, but more needs to be done, medical education advocates say. 

For example, Dr. Carmody called the recent change in the attempt limit for taking USMLE exams from six to four times a good move. 

“The reality is, if you’re taking a USMLE exam five-plus times, you’re far more likely to be memorizing questions and selling them for shady test prep operations than you are to be legitimately pursuing U.S. residency training or licensure,” he wrote on X. 

The 2022 move to make USMLE Step 1 pass or fail is another positive change, said Dr. Gul, who added that US programs should also put less weight on test scores and focus more on clinical experience. 

“Many programs in the US prioritize scores rather than clinical experiences in home countries,” he said. “If program directors would remove these criteria, probably the cheating practices would stop. Clinical practice matters. When a doctor gets matched, they have to be good at seeing and treating patients, not just good at sitting in front of a screen and taking an exam.”

Turning over questions more rapidly would help curb the practices, Dr. Carmody said. Another strategy is using math techniques to identify unusual deviations that suggest cheating, he said. 

A blueprint for the strategy was created after a cheating scandal involving Canada’s Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Examination (MCCQE) in 2004. After learning which questions were circulated, MCCQE administrators evaluated exams by comparing answers of compromised questions with the answers of noncompromised questions. 

“For a person who was not cheating, the error of performance should be pretty similar on those two groups of questions,” Dr. Carmody said. “But if you were given the questions in advance, you might have very poor performance on questions that had not been compromised, and very high performance on those that had been compromised. That disparity is very unlikely to occur just by chance alone.” 

Based on his research, Dr. Ozair is working on an academic review paper about cheating on the USMLE and on the Medical Council of Canada Qualification Examination. He said that he hopes the paper will raise more awareness about the problem and drive more action. 

He and others interviewed for this story shared that the websites they’ve reported to the USMLE program are still active and offering recalls to buyers. 

“Even if they are not actually offering something tangible or true, appearance matters,” Dr. Ozair said. “I think it’s worth the USMLE sending cease and desist letters and getting these websites taken down. This would restore faith in the process and underscore that this issue is being taken seriously.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) program is invalidating scores attained by some examinees after an investigation revealed a pattern of anomalous exam performance associated with test-takers from Nepal. 

In a January 31 announcement, the USMLE program said that officials are in the process of notifying examinees with results in question and that the examinees will be required to take validation exams. The program did not offer further details about its investigation or how the questionable performance was identified. 

“The USMLE program regularly monitors and analyzes examinees’ test performances for unusual score patterns or variations, and other information that could raise questions about the validity of an examinee’s results,” the program said in a statement. “Highly irregular patterns can be indicative of prior unauthorized access to secure exam content.”

Some medical graduates say the action against students cheating on the USMLE is long overdue. 

The selling and buying of USMLE questions online have become rampant in recent years, particularly by groups within the international medical graduate (IMG) community, according to multiple IMGs who shared their concerns with this news organization. Sellers operate under pseudonyms across social media platforms and charge anywhere from $300 to $2000 for questions, Medscape research shows. 

Facebook posts often advertise questions for sale, said Saqib Gul, MD, an IMG from Pakistan who has voiced concerns about the practice on social media. 

“People make up fake profiles and tell others to [direct message] them for recalls,” he told this news organization. “There was a dedicated Facebook page that was doing this. In other cases, a couple of friends that took the exam remember a certain number of questions and write them down after the test.”

Ahmad Ozair, MD, an IMG from Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India, said that he has come across many groups online sharing or selling USMLE recalls. He first became suspicious when he saw several students, all from a few medical schools in Nepal, posting on social media about scoring in the 270 and 280-plus range. 

“The statistical probability that you would have three or more candidates in the same year, scoring in the 99th percentile worldwide, belonging to a small geographical area is extremely low.” 

Dr. Ozair, who now is studying public health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, said that the issue is important for “all stakeholders” who care about patient safety: “Would you want a doctor who has cheated on the medical licensing exam to take care of you?” 

In an interview, USMLE program spokesman Joe Knickrehm said that the program relies on multiple processes to detect and respond to claims that exam integrity is being compromised. The process includes monitoring performance data, an anonymous tip line for reporting suspicious behavior, and a thorough investigative process. 

“The USMLE program regularly monitors social media channels for comments relating to exam security and irregular behavior and will initiate an investigation if warranted,” Mr. Knickrehm told this news organization. “ The covert nature of this activity does not lend itself to a definitive statement regarding whether the problem has increased or decreased in recent years.” 

Mr. Knickrehm said that the program’s STOPit app allows people to report suspicious behavior electronically to the USMLE program. Since its launch in 2021, the program has received more than 80 tips per year through the app, according to Mr. Knickrehm. Security violations are investigated by USMLE staff and reviewed by the USMLE Committee for Individualized Review (CIR). Anyone found to have engaged in irregular behavior by the CIR for activities undermining exam integrity are typically barred from access to the USMLE for multiple years. 
 

How Easy Is It to Buy Recalls?

Two years ago, Dr B was approached by a former study partner who had just completed Step 2 of the USMLE. She asked whether Dr B wanted to buy recalled questions to help her pass. 

“She paid this guy almost $2000 for recalls and told me if I pay this money, he’ll give me the recalls,” said Dr B, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of being associated with students cheating on the USMLE. “I told her I was not interested, and she said the guy would lower the price. I broke contact with her.”

Dr B, an IMG from Pakistan, was appalled. But she said that the episode was not the first time she has come across groups selling USMLE recalls or heard peers brag about having access to exam content. 

“I am baffled at how many [groups] post on social media and brazenly advertise their ‘services,’” she told this news organization. “No one arrests them, their customers go on to score abnormally high on the boards, making it unachievable for people who take the honest route, plus giving IMGs a bad rep.” 

Groups offering recalls are easily findable on sites such as Telegram and Signal. Telegram is a cloud-based messaging app that focuses on security, and Signal is an encrypted messaging service. 

The website recallmastery.com purports to offer a range of USMLE recall packages, from a free, unsorted version to Step 1 and Step 2 packages that include “fresh updates,” and sections with “mostly repeated topics. Prices range from the free version to the $799 VIP package. 

Another site called MedPox.com boasts 2024 Step 2 recalls, advertising “ actual exam questions to get HIGH scores.” The website’s owner states that the recalls were collected “by my friends,” and to message the them to be added to the “recalls group.”

A reporter was able to easily download a free version of alleged USMLE questions and answers from recallmastery.com. The document was a combination of typed and handwritten notes about medical questions, with red circles around recalled answers. 

J. Bryan Carmody, MD, who blogs about medical education, reviewed a copy of the document. He said that the content appeared “credible” and was in fact recalled USMLE questions. However, the extent of which the question stem was recalled was incomplete at best, and there was little production value to the document, said Dr. Carmody, a nephrologist and associate professor of pediatrics at the Eastern Virgina Medical School in Norfolk. 

The person selling the recall packages states on the website that the free version is not organized or sorted, but it allows viewers to “see how this works before paying for premium recalls.” 

Mr. Knickrehm said that the program could not comment on the document, but that “whenever the USMLE program receives or locates information about a potential security violation, we investigate and take necessary action.” 

When asked about the specific websites noted above, Knickrehm said that the program routinely monitors a wide array of websites, message boards, and chat rooms for USMLE-related materials. Though many sites advertise having USMLE recalls for sale, it’s more likely they are selling non-USMLE content, he said. 

Using past content to cheat on medical exams is an old problem. In 2010, for example, the American Board of Internal Medicine suspended 139 physicians after they were caught cheating on the board exams. The scandal involved a vast cheating ring that included physicians memorizing questions and reproducing them after the tests. The board later sued a gastroenterologist for her part in the scandal. 

In 2012, a CNN investigation exposed doctors who were memorizing test questions and creating sophisticated recall banks to cheat on radiology boards. The Association of American Medical Colleges sued a medical student in 2017 for attempting to secretly record content on the MCAT using spyglasses. 

In recent years, Dr. Carmody said that he has received multiple messages and screenshots from concerned students and residents who were offered or encountered recalls. 

“One thing that’s unclear is how legitimate the claims are,” he said. “Many of these recalls may be faulty or outdated. It could be someone who took the exam yesterday and has a photographic memory or it could be some sparsely recalled or mis-recalled information. Unless you’re willing to pay these people, you can’t inspect the quality, or even if you did, you wouldn’t know if the information was current or not.”
 

‘As an IMG, There Is So Much at Stake’

Whether recall sellers — and those buying them — are more frequently IMGs has fostered heated debate on social media. 

On a Reddit thread devoted to IMG issues, posters expressed frustration about being bombarded with recall advertisements and unwanted messages about buying USMLE questions while trying to find study materials. One poster called the practices a “huge slap to all those IMGs who are struggling day and night, just to get a good score.”

In an X thread about the same subject, however, some self-described IMGs took offense to claims that IMGs might score higher because they have access to recalls. The allegations are “incendiary” and “malign hardworking IMGs,” posters wrote.

When Dr. Gul spoke out online about the “biopsy” culture, he received multiple private messages from fellow IMGs telling him to remove his comments, he said. 

“I received a lot of backlash on social media,” he told this news organization. “Some IMGs asked me to take down my posts because they thought I was making IMGs look bad, and it might prompt authorities to take action or shut down international examination centers for IMGs.”

Most of the IMGs who spoke to this news organization were afraid to be publicly identified. Several IMG advocates and IMG associations contacted for the story did not respond. One medical education expert said that his institution advised him to “steer clear” of commenting because the issue was “controversial.” 

“As an IMG, there is so much at stake,” Dr B said. “Any association with shady operations like these is an absolute suicide. I’m personally afraid of any repercussions of the sort.”

USMLE officials declined to comment on whether the buying or selling of recalls appears to be more prevalent among the IMG community, saying it is “difficult to generalize this behavior as ‘prevalent’ simply due to the clandestine nature of this activity.”
 

Cheat-Proofing the USMLE

The USMLE program has taken several steps intended to prevent cheating, but more needs to be done, medical education advocates say. 

For example, Dr. Carmody called the recent change in the attempt limit for taking USMLE exams from six to four times a good move. 

“The reality is, if you’re taking a USMLE exam five-plus times, you’re far more likely to be memorizing questions and selling them for shady test prep operations than you are to be legitimately pursuing U.S. residency training or licensure,” he wrote on X. 

The 2022 move to make USMLE Step 1 pass or fail is another positive change, said Dr. Gul, who added that US programs should also put less weight on test scores and focus more on clinical experience. 

“Many programs in the US prioritize scores rather than clinical experiences in home countries,” he said. “If program directors would remove these criteria, probably the cheating practices would stop. Clinical practice matters. When a doctor gets matched, they have to be good at seeing and treating patients, not just good at sitting in front of a screen and taking an exam.”

Turning over questions more rapidly would help curb the practices, Dr. Carmody said. Another strategy is using math techniques to identify unusual deviations that suggest cheating, he said. 

A blueprint for the strategy was created after a cheating scandal involving Canada’s Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Examination (MCCQE) in 2004. After learning which questions were circulated, MCCQE administrators evaluated exams by comparing answers of compromised questions with the answers of noncompromised questions. 

“For a person who was not cheating, the error of performance should be pretty similar on those two groups of questions,” Dr. Carmody said. “But if you were given the questions in advance, you might have very poor performance on questions that had not been compromised, and very high performance on those that had been compromised. That disparity is very unlikely to occur just by chance alone.” 

Based on his research, Dr. Ozair is working on an academic review paper about cheating on the USMLE and on the Medical Council of Canada Qualification Examination. He said that he hopes the paper will raise more awareness about the problem and drive more action. 

He and others interviewed for this story shared that the websites they’ve reported to the USMLE program are still active and offering recalls to buyers. 

“Even if they are not actually offering something tangible or true, appearance matters,” Dr. Ozair said. “I think it’s worth the USMLE sending cease and desist letters and getting these websites taken down. This would restore faith in the process and underscore that this issue is being taken seriously.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) program is invalidating scores attained by some examinees after an investigation revealed a pattern of anomalous exam performance associated with test-takers from Nepal. 

In a January 31 announcement, the USMLE program said that officials are in the process of notifying examinees with results in question and that the examinees will be required to take validation exams. The program did not offer further details about its investigation or how the questionable performance was identified. 

“The USMLE program regularly monitors and analyzes examinees’ test performances for unusual score patterns or variations, and other information that could raise questions about the validity of an examinee’s results,” the program said in a statement. “Highly irregular patterns can be indicative of prior unauthorized access to secure exam content.”

Some medical graduates say the action against students cheating on the USMLE is long overdue. 

The selling and buying of USMLE questions online have become rampant in recent years, particularly by groups within the international medical graduate (IMG) community, according to multiple IMGs who shared their concerns with this news organization. Sellers operate under pseudonyms across social media platforms and charge anywhere from $300 to $2000 for questions, Medscape research shows. 

Facebook posts often advertise questions for sale, said Saqib Gul, MD, an IMG from Pakistan who has voiced concerns about the practice on social media. 

“People make up fake profiles and tell others to [direct message] them for recalls,” he told this news organization. “There was a dedicated Facebook page that was doing this. In other cases, a couple of friends that took the exam remember a certain number of questions and write them down after the test.”

Ahmad Ozair, MD, an IMG from Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India, said that he has come across many groups online sharing or selling USMLE recalls. He first became suspicious when he saw several students, all from a few medical schools in Nepal, posting on social media about scoring in the 270 and 280-plus range. 

“The statistical probability that you would have three or more candidates in the same year, scoring in the 99th percentile worldwide, belonging to a small geographical area is extremely low.” 

Dr. Ozair, who now is studying public health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, said that the issue is important for “all stakeholders” who care about patient safety: “Would you want a doctor who has cheated on the medical licensing exam to take care of you?” 

In an interview, USMLE program spokesman Joe Knickrehm said that the program relies on multiple processes to detect and respond to claims that exam integrity is being compromised. The process includes monitoring performance data, an anonymous tip line for reporting suspicious behavior, and a thorough investigative process. 

“The USMLE program regularly monitors social media channels for comments relating to exam security and irregular behavior and will initiate an investigation if warranted,” Mr. Knickrehm told this news organization. “ The covert nature of this activity does not lend itself to a definitive statement regarding whether the problem has increased or decreased in recent years.” 

Mr. Knickrehm said that the program’s STOPit app allows people to report suspicious behavior electronically to the USMLE program. Since its launch in 2021, the program has received more than 80 tips per year through the app, according to Mr. Knickrehm. Security violations are investigated by USMLE staff and reviewed by the USMLE Committee for Individualized Review (CIR). Anyone found to have engaged in irregular behavior by the CIR for activities undermining exam integrity are typically barred from access to the USMLE for multiple years. 
 

How Easy Is It to Buy Recalls?

Two years ago, Dr B was approached by a former study partner who had just completed Step 2 of the USMLE. She asked whether Dr B wanted to buy recalled questions to help her pass. 

“She paid this guy almost $2000 for recalls and told me if I pay this money, he’ll give me the recalls,” said Dr B, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of being associated with students cheating on the USMLE. “I told her I was not interested, and she said the guy would lower the price. I broke contact with her.”

Dr B, an IMG from Pakistan, was appalled. But she said that the episode was not the first time she has come across groups selling USMLE recalls or heard peers brag about having access to exam content. 

“I am baffled at how many [groups] post on social media and brazenly advertise their ‘services,’” she told this news organization. “No one arrests them, their customers go on to score abnormally high on the boards, making it unachievable for people who take the honest route, plus giving IMGs a bad rep.” 

Groups offering recalls are easily findable on sites such as Telegram and Signal. Telegram is a cloud-based messaging app that focuses on security, and Signal is an encrypted messaging service. 

The website recallmastery.com purports to offer a range of USMLE recall packages, from a free, unsorted version to Step 1 and Step 2 packages that include “fresh updates,” and sections with “mostly repeated topics. Prices range from the free version to the $799 VIP package. 

Another site called MedPox.com boasts 2024 Step 2 recalls, advertising “ actual exam questions to get HIGH scores.” The website’s owner states that the recalls were collected “by my friends,” and to message the them to be added to the “recalls group.”

A reporter was able to easily download a free version of alleged USMLE questions and answers from recallmastery.com. The document was a combination of typed and handwritten notes about medical questions, with red circles around recalled answers. 

J. Bryan Carmody, MD, who blogs about medical education, reviewed a copy of the document. He said that the content appeared “credible” and was in fact recalled USMLE questions. However, the extent of which the question stem was recalled was incomplete at best, and there was little production value to the document, said Dr. Carmody, a nephrologist and associate professor of pediatrics at the Eastern Virgina Medical School in Norfolk. 

The person selling the recall packages states on the website that the free version is not organized or sorted, but it allows viewers to “see how this works before paying for premium recalls.” 

Mr. Knickrehm said that the program could not comment on the document, but that “whenever the USMLE program receives or locates information about a potential security violation, we investigate and take necessary action.” 

When asked about the specific websites noted above, Knickrehm said that the program routinely monitors a wide array of websites, message boards, and chat rooms for USMLE-related materials. Though many sites advertise having USMLE recalls for sale, it’s more likely they are selling non-USMLE content, he said. 

Using past content to cheat on medical exams is an old problem. In 2010, for example, the American Board of Internal Medicine suspended 139 physicians after they were caught cheating on the board exams. The scandal involved a vast cheating ring that included physicians memorizing questions and reproducing them after the tests. The board later sued a gastroenterologist for her part in the scandal. 

In 2012, a CNN investigation exposed doctors who were memorizing test questions and creating sophisticated recall banks to cheat on radiology boards. The Association of American Medical Colleges sued a medical student in 2017 for attempting to secretly record content on the MCAT using spyglasses. 

In recent years, Dr. Carmody said that he has received multiple messages and screenshots from concerned students and residents who were offered or encountered recalls. 

“One thing that’s unclear is how legitimate the claims are,” he said. “Many of these recalls may be faulty or outdated. It could be someone who took the exam yesterday and has a photographic memory or it could be some sparsely recalled or mis-recalled information. Unless you’re willing to pay these people, you can’t inspect the quality, or even if you did, you wouldn’t know if the information was current or not.”
 

‘As an IMG, There Is So Much at Stake’

Whether recall sellers — and those buying them — are more frequently IMGs has fostered heated debate on social media. 

On a Reddit thread devoted to IMG issues, posters expressed frustration about being bombarded with recall advertisements and unwanted messages about buying USMLE questions while trying to find study materials. One poster called the practices a “huge slap to all those IMGs who are struggling day and night, just to get a good score.”

In an X thread about the same subject, however, some self-described IMGs took offense to claims that IMGs might score higher because they have access to recalls. The allegations are “incendiary” and “malign hardworking IMGs,” posters wrote.

When Dr. Gul spoke out online about the “biopsy” culture, he received multiple private messages from fellow IMGs telling him to remove his comments, he said. 

“I received a lot of backlash on social media,” he told this news organization. “Some IMGs asked me to take down my posts because they thought I was making IMGs look bad, and it might prompt authorities to take action or shut down international examination centers for IMGs.”

Most of the IMGs who spoke to this news organization were afraid to be publicly identified. Several IMG advocates and IMG associations contacted for the story did not respond. One medical education expert said that his institution advised him to “steer clear” of commenting because the issue was “controversial.” 

“As an IMG, there is so much at stake,” Dr B said. “Any association with shady operations like these is an absolute suicide. I’m personally afraid of any repercussions of the sort.”

USMLE officials declined to comment on whether the buying or selling of recalls appears to be more prevalent among the IMG community, saying it is “difficult to generalize this behavior as ‘prevalent’ simply due to the clandestine nature of this activity.”
 

Cheat-Proofing the USMLE

The USMLE program has taken several steps intended to prevent cheating, but more needs to be done, medical education advocates say. 

For example, Dr. Carmody called the recent change in the attempt limit for taking USMLE exams from six to four times a good move. 

“The reality is, if you’re taking a USMLE exam five-plus times, you’re far more likely to be memorizing questions and selling them for shady test prep operations than you are to be legitimately pursuing U.S. residency training or licensure,” he wrote on X. 

The 2022 move to make USMLE Step 1 pass or fail is another positive change, said Dr. Gul, who added that US programs should also put less weight on test scores and focus more on clinical experience. 

“Many programs in the US prioritize scores rather than clinical experiences in home countries,” he said. “If program directors would remove these criteria, probably the cheating practices would stop. Clinical practice matters. When a doctor gets matched, they have to be good at seeing and treating patients, not just good at sitting in front of a screen and taking an exam.”

Turning over questions more rapidly would help curb the practices, Dr. Carmody said. Another strategy is using math techniques to identify unusual deviations that suggest cheating, he said. 

A blueprint for the strategy was created after a cheating scandal involving Canada’s Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Examination (MCCQE) in 2004. After learning which questions were circulated, MCCQE administrators evaluated exams by comparing answers of compromised questions with the answers of noncompromised questions. 

“For a person who was not cheating, the error of performance should be pretty similar on those two groups of questions,” Dr. Carmody said. “But if you were given the questions in advance, you might have very poor performance on questions that had not been compromised, and very high performance on those that had been compromised. That disparity is very unlikely to occur just by chance alone.” 

Based on his research, Dr. Ozair is working on an academic review paper about cheating on the USMLE and on the Medical Council of Canada Qualification Examination. He said that he hopes the paper will raise more awareness about the problem and drive more action. 

He and others interviewed for this story shared that the websites they’ve reported to the USMLE program are still active and offering recalls to buyers. 

“Even if they are not actually offering something tangible or true, appearance matters,” Dr. Ozair said. “I think it’s worth the USMLE sending cease and desist letters and getting these websites taken down. This would restore faith in the process and underscore that this issue is being taken seriously.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Amid the current wave of winter respiratory virus cases, influenza (types A and B) leads the way with the highest number of emergency room visits, followed closely by COVID-19, thanks to the JN.1 variant, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). With various similarities and differences in disease presentations, how challenging is it for physician’s to distinguish between, diagnose, and treat COVID-19 vs RSV and influenza? 

While these three respiratory viruses often have similar presentations, you may often find that patients with COVID-19 experience more fever, dry cough, and labored breathing, according to Cyrus Munguti, MD, assistant professor of medicine at KU Medical Center and hospitalist at Wesley Medical Center, Wichita, Kansas. 

“COVID-19 patients tend to have trouble breathing because the alveoli are affected and get inflammation and fluid accumulating in the lungs, and they end up having little to no oxygen,” said Dr. Munguti. “When we check their vital signs, patients with COVID tend to have hypoxemia [meaning saturations are less than 88% or 90% depending on the guidelines you follow].”

Patients with RSV and influenza tend to have more upper respiratory symptoms, like runny nose, sternutation — which later can progress to a cough in the upper airways, Dr. Munguti said. Unlike with COVID-19, patients with RSV and influenza — generally until they are very sick — often do not experience hypoxemia.

Inflammation in the airways can form as a result of all three viruses. Furthermore, bacteria that live in these airways could lead to a secondary bacterial infection in the upper respiratory and lower respiratory tracts — which could then cause pneumonia, Dr. Munguti said.

Another note: Changes in COVID-19 variants over the years have made it increasingly difficult to differentiate COVID-19 symptoms from those of RSV and influenza, according to Panagis Galiatsatos, MD, pulmonologist and associate professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine. “The Alpha through Delta variants really were a lot more lung tissue invading,” Dr. Galiatsatos said. “With the COVID-19 Omicron family — its capabilities are similar to what flu and RSV have done over the years. It’s more airway-invading.”

It’s critical to understand that diagnosing these diseases based on symptoms alone can be quite fickle, according to Dr. Galiatsatos. Objective tests, either at home or in a laboratory, are preferred. This is largely because disease presentation can depend on the host factor that the virus enters into, said Dr. Galiatsatos. For example, virus symptoms may look different for a patient with asthma and for someone with heart disease.

With children being among the most vulnerable for severe respiratory illness, testing and treatment are paramount and can be quite accurate in seasons where respiratory viruses thrive, according to Stan Spinner, MD, chief medical officer at Texas Children’s Pediatrics and Urgent Care. “When individuals are tested for either of these conditions when the prevalence in the community is low, we tend to see false positive results.” 

Texas Children’s Pediatrics and Urgent Care’s 12 sites offer COVID-19 and influenza antigen tests that have results ready in around 10 minutes. RSV testing, on the other hand, is limited to around half of the Texas Children’s Pediatrics and none of the urgent care locations, as the test can only be administered through a nasal swab conducted by a physician. As there is no specific treatment or therapy for RSV, the benefits of RSV testing can actually be quite low — often leading to frustrated parents regarding next steps after diagnosis.

“There are a number of respiratory viruses that may present with similar symptoms as RSV, and some of these viruses may even lead to much of the same adverse outcomes as the RSV virus,” Dr. Galiatsatos said. “Consequently, our physicians need to help parents understand this and give them guidance as to when to seek medical attention for worsening symptoms.”

There are two new RSV immunizations to treat certain demographics of patients, Dr. Spinner added. One is an RSV vaccine for infants under 8 months old, though there is limited supply. There is also an RSV vaccine available for pregnant women (between 32 and 36 weeks gestation) that has proved to be effective in fending off RSV infections in newborns up to 6 months old. 

Physicians should remain diligent in stressing to patients that vaccinations against COVID-19 and influenza play a key role in keeping their families safe during seasons of staggering respiratory infections.

“These vaccines are extremely safe, and while they may not always prevent infection, these vaccines are extremely effective in preventing more serious consequences, such as hospitalization or death,” Dr. Galiatsatos said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Amid the current wave of winter respiratory virus cases, influenza (types A and B) leads the way with the highest number of emergency room visits, followed closely by COVID-19, thanks to the JN.1 variant, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). With various similarities and differences in disease presentations, how challenging is it for physician’s to distinguish between, diagnose, and treat COVID-19 vs RSV and influenza? 

While these three respiratory viruses often have similar presentations, you may often find that patients with COVID-19 experience more fever, dry cough, and labored breathing, according to Cyrus Munguti, MD, assistant professor of medicine at KU Medical Center and hospitalist at Wesley Medical Center, Wichita, Kansas. 

“COVID-19 patients tend to have trouble breathing because the alveoli are affected and get inflammation and fluid accumulating in the lungs, and they end up having little to no oxygen,” said Dr. Munguti. “When we check their vital signs, patients with COVID tend to have hypoxemia [meaning saturations are less than 88% or 90% depending on the guidelines you follow].”

Patients with RSV and influenza tend to have more upper respiratory symptoms, like runny nose, sternutation — which later can progress to a cough in the upper airways, Dr. Munguti said. Unlike with COVID-19, patients with RSV and influenza — generally until they are very sick — often do not experience hypoxemia.

Inflammation in the airways can form as a result of all three viruses. Furthermore, bacteria that live in these airways could lead to a secondary bacterial infection in the upper respiratory and lower respiratory tracts — which could then cause pneumonia, Dr. Munguti said.

Another note: Changes in COVID-19 variants over the years have made it increasingly difficult to differentiate COVID-19 symptoms from those of RSV and influenza, according to Panagis Galiatsatos, MD, pulmonologist and associate professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine. “The Alpha through Delta variants really were a lot more lung tissue invading,” Dr. Galiatsatos said. “With the COVID-19 Omicron family — its capabilities are similar to what flu and RSV have done over the years. It’s more airway-invading.”

It’s critical to understand that diagnosing these diseases based on symptoms alone can be quite fickle, according to Dr. Galiatsatos. Objective tests, either at home or in a laboratory, are preferred. This is largely because disease presentation can depend on the host factor that the virus enters into, said Dr. Galiatsatos. For example, virus symptoms may look different for a patient with asthma and for someone with heart disease.

With children being among the most vulnerable for severe respiratory illness, testing and treatment are paramount and can be quite accurate in seasons where respiratory viruses thrive, according to Stan Spinner, MD, chief medical officer at Texas Children’s Pediatrics and Urgent Care. “When individuals are tested for either of these conditions when the prevalence in the community is low, we tend to see false positive results.” 

Texas Children’s Pediatrics and Urgent Care’s 12 sites offer COVID-19 and influenza antigen tests that have results ready in around 10 minutes. RSV testing, on the other hand, is limited to around half of the Texas Children’s Pediatrics and none of the urgent care locations, as the test can only be administered through a nasal swab conducted by a physician. As there is no specific treatment or therapy for RSV, the benefits of RSV testing can actually be quite low — often leading to frustrated parents regarding next steps after diagnosis.

“There are a number of respiratory viruses that may present with similar symptoms as RSV, and some of these viruses may even lead to much of the same adverse outcomes as the RSV virus,” Dr. Galiatsatos said. “Consequently, our physicians need to help parents understand this and give them guidance as to when to seek medical attention for worsening symptoms.”

There are two new RSV immunizations to treat certain demographics of patients, Dr. Spinner added. One is an RSV vaccine for infants under 8 months old, though there is limited supply. There is also an RSV vaccine available for pregnant women (between 32 and 36 weeks gestation) that has proved to be effective in fending off RSV infections in newborns up to 6 months old. 

Physicians should remain diligent in stressing to patients that vaccinations against COVID-19 and influenza play a key role in keeping their families safe during seasons of staggering respiratory infections.

“These vaccines are extremely safe, and while they may not always prevent infection, these vaccines are extremely effective in preventing more serious consequences, such as hospitalization or death,” Dr. Galiatsatos said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Amid the current wave of winter respiratory virus cases, influenza (types A and B) leads the way with the highest number of emergency room visits, followed closely by COVID-19, thanks to the JN.1 variant, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). With various similarities and differences in disease presentations, how challenging is it for physician’s to distinguish between, diagnose, and treat COVID-19 vs RSV and influenza? 

While these three respiratory viruses often have similar presentations, you may often find that patients with COVID-19 experience more fever, dry cough, and labored breathing, according to Cyrus Munguti, MD, assistant professor of medicine at KU Medical Center and hospitalist at Wesley Medical Center, Wichita, Kansas. 

“COVID-19 patients tend to have trouble breathing because the alveoli are affected and get inflammation and fluid accumulating in the lungs, and they end up having little to no oxygen,” said Dr. Munguti. “When we check their vital signs, patients with COVID tend to have hypoxemia [meaning saturations are less than 88% or 90% depending on the guidelines you follow].”

Patients with RSV and influenza tend to have more upper respiratory symptoms, like runny nose, sternutation — which later can progress to a cough in the upper airways, Dr. Munguti said. Unlike with COVID-19, patients with RSV and influenza — generally until they are very sick — often do not experience hypoxemia.

Inflammation in the airways can form as a result of all three viruses. Furthermore, bacteria that live in these airways could lead to a secondary bacterial infection in the upper respiratory and lower respiratory tracts — which could then cause pneumonia, Dr. Munguti said.

Another note: Changes in COVID-19 variants over the years have made it increasingly difficult to differentiate COVID-19 symptoms from those of RSV and influenza, according to Panagis Galiatsatos, MD, pulmonologist and associate professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine. “The Alpha through Delta variants really were a lot more lung tissue invading,” Dr. Galiatsatos said. “With the COVID-19 Omicron family — its capabilities are similar to what flu and RSV have done over the years. It’s more airway-invading.”

It’s critical to understand that diagnosing these diseases based on symptoms alone can be quite fickle, according to Dr. Galiatsatos. Objective tests, either at home or in a laboratory, are preferred. This is largely because disease presentation can depend on the host factor that the virus enters into, said Dr. Galiatsatos. For example, virus symptoms may look different for a patient with asthma and for someone with heart disease.

With children being among the most vulnerable for severe respiratory illness, testing and treatment are paramount and can be quite accurate in seasons where respiratory viruses thrive, according to Stan Spinner, MD, chief medical officer at Texas Children’s Pediatrics and Urgent Care. “When individuals are tested for either of these conditions when the prevalence in the community is low, we tend to see false positive results.” 

Texas Children’s Pediatrics and Urgent Care’s 12 sites offer COVID-19 and influenza antigen tests that have results ready in around 10 minutes. RSV testing, on the other hand, is limited to around half of the Texas Children’s Pediatrics and none of the urgent care locations, as the test can only be administered through a nasal swab conducted by a physician. As there is no specific treatment or therapy for RSV, the benefits of RSV testing can actually be quite low — often leading to frustrated parents regarding next steps after diagnosis.

“There are a number of respiratory viruses that may present with similar symptoms as RSV, and some of these viruses may even lead to much of the same adverse outcomes as the RSV virus,” Dr. Galiatsatos said. “Consequently, our physicians need to help parents understand this and give them guidance as to when to seek medical attention for worsening symptoms.”

There are two new RSV immunizations to treat certain demographics of patients, Dr. Spinner added. One is an RSV vaccine for infants under 8 months old, though there is limited supply. There is also an RSV vaccine available for pregnant women (between 32 and 36 weeks gestation) that has proved to be effective in fending off RSV infections in newborns up to 6 months old. 

Physicians should remain diligent in stressing to patients that vaccinations against COVID-19 and influenza play a key role in keeping their families safe during seasons of staggering respiratory infections.

“These vaccines are extremely safe, and while they may not always prevent infection, these vaccines are extremely effective in preventing more serious consequences, such as hospitalization or death,” Dr. Galiatsatos said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New criteria for pediatric sepsis, based on a novel score that predicts mortality in children with suspected or confirmed infection, perform better than existing organ dysfunction scores and criteria and have the potential to improve clinical care globally, researchers say.

Current pediatric-specific criteria for sepsis were published in 2005, based on expert opinion. In 2016, sepsis was redefined for adults as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection, as opposed to an earlier focus on systemic inflammation. But the paradigm-shifting changes were not extended to children (< 18 years, but not newborns), setting the stage for the new initiative.

The new criteria, and their development and validation, were published in JAMA and presented the same day at the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s 2024 Critical Care Congress in Phoenix, Arizona.
 

International Consensus

“The new criteria we derived are based on data from electronic health records and analysis of more than 3 million pediatric healthcare encounters from 10 hospitals around the world, including in low-resource settings,” L. Nelson Sanchez-Pinto, MD, MBI, a critical care physician at the Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, told this news organization.

Dr. Sanchez-Pinto co-led the data group of the international expert task force convened by the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) to develop and validate the criteria, which are based on evidence from an international survey, systematic review and meta-analysis, a newly created organ dysfunction score (Phoenix Sepsis Score), and sites on four continents.

Based on the findings, the task force now suggests that pediatric sepsis be defined by a Phoenix Sepsis Score of at least 2 points in children with suspected infection, which indicates potentially life-threatening dysfunction of the respiratory, cardiovascular, coagulation, and/or neurological systems. Septic shock is defined as sepsis with at least 1 cardiovascular point in the score.
 

Disparities Across Settings

To derive and validate the new criteria across differently resourced settings, the researchers conducted a multicenter, international, retrospective cohort study involving 10 health systems in the United States, Colombia, Bangladesh, China, and Kenya, 3 of which were used as external validation sites.

Data were collected from pediatric emergency and inpatient encounters from 2010 to 2019. The development set comprised 3,049,699 children, and the external validation set included 581,317.

Stacked regression models to predict mortality in children with suspected infection were derived and validated using the best-performing organ dysfunction subscores from eight existing scores.

The final model was then translated into the integer-based Phoenix Sepsis Score and used to establish binary criteria for sepsis and septic shock.

Among 172,984 children with suspected infection in the first 24 hours (development set; 1.2% mortality), a four-organ-system model performed best. The Phoenix Sepsis Score — the integer version of the model — had areas under the precision recall curve of 0.23 to 0.38, and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.71 to 0.92 to predict mortality in the validation sets.

A Phoenix Sepsis Score of 2 points or higher in children with suspected infection as criteria for sepsis, plus 1 or more cardiovascular points as criteria for septic shock, resulted in a higher positive predictive value and higher or similar sensitivity compared with the 2005 International Pediatric Sepsis Consensus Conference criteria across differently resourced settings.

Specifically, children with a Phoenix Sepsis Score of at least 2 points had in-hospital mortality of 7.1% in higher-resource settings and 28.5% in lower-resource settings — more than 8 times that of children with suspected infection not meeting these criteria.

Mortality also was higher in children who had organ dysfunction in at least one of four organ systems — respiratory, cardiovascular, coagulation, and/or neurological — that was not the primary site of infection.

Children with septic shock, indicated by at least 1 cardiovascular point in the Phoenix Sepsis Score, had severe hypotension for age, blood lactate exceeding 5 mmol/L, or need for vasoactive medication. These children had an in-hospital mortality rate of 10.8% in higher-resource settings and 33.5% in lower-resource settings.
 

A Better Score

Given the findings, the task force recommends that “the former criteria based on systemic inflammatory response syndrome should not be used to diagnose sepsis in children [and] the former term severe sepsis should no longer be used because sepsis is life-threatening organ dysfunction associated with infection and is thus indicative of a severe disease state.”

The task force cautions that although the four organs in the Phoenix Sepsis Score are most commonly involved in sepsis, “this does not diminish the crucial importance of the assessment and management of other organ dysfunction.”

Furthermore, they emphasize that the Phoenix score was designed to identify sepsis in children, not to screen children at risk for developing sepsis or early identification of children with suspected sepsis.
 

Additional Considerations

In related editorials, commentators noted some caveats and concerns with regard to the study design and the new criteria.

Roberto Jabornisky, MD, PhD, of National University of the Northeast, Corrientes, Argentina, and colleagues pointed out that “all the low-resource validation sites were institutions with electronic health records and most had PICUs [pediatric intensive care units], which does not adequately reflect conditions in most low-resource settings. These factors introduce a distinct bias favoring a ‘PICU-based consensus,’ potentially limiting the generalizability and adoption of the new criteria by health care practitioners in non-PICU and nonhospital settings responsible for recognizing and managing children with sepsis.” The editorialists called for additional prospective validation in differently resourced settings, especially those with the highest disease burdens.

“Until then,” they wrote, “it is essential to refrain from considering these criteria as an inflexible directive governing medical interventions for pediatric sepsis. No definition can fully substitute for the clinical judgment of an experienced, vigilant clinician caring for an unwell child.”

Erin F. Carlton, MD, MSc of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues added in a separate editorial, “The Phoenix criteria identify a sicker subset of patients than prior SIRS [systemic inflammatory response syndrome]-based criteria. Some may worry this higher threshold could delay management of patients not meeting sepsis criteria. Just as patients with chest pain and a troponin leak warrant monitoring and treatment (but are not prioritized for immediate heart catheterization), patients with infection need monitoring and treatment. Improvements in care should thus be judged not only by improved outcomes among patients with sepsis but also by decreased progression to sepsis among patients with infection.”

The International Consensus Criteria paper was supported by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to Tellen C. Bennett, MD, MS, and Nelson Sanchez-Pinto, MD. Data for the Kenya site were collected with support of the Wellcome Trust to the Kenya Major Overseas Programme. Dr. Jabornisky reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Carlton reported serving on the Pediatric Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guideline committee and receiving grant support from the NIH.

New criteria for pediatric sepsis, based on a novel score that predicts mortality in children with suspected or confirmed infection, perform better than existing organ dysfunction scores and criteria and have the potential to improve clinical care globally, researchers say.

Current pediatric-specific criteria for sepsis were published in 2005, based on expert opinion. In 2016, sepsis was redefined for adults as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection, as opposed to an earlier focus on systemic inflammation. But the paradigm-shifting changes were not extended to children (< 18 years, but not newborns), setting the stage for the new initiative.

The new criteria, and their development and validation, were published in JAMA and presented the same day at the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s 2024 Critical Care Congress in Phoenix, Arizona.
 

International Consensus

“The new criteria we derived are based on data from electronic health records and analysis of more than 3 million pediatric healthcare encounters from 10 hospitals around the world, including in low-resource settings,” L. Nelson Sanchez-Pinto, MD, MBI, a critical care physician at the Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, told this news organization.

Dr. Sanchez-Pinto co-led the data group of the international expert task force convened by the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) to develop and validate the criteria, which are based on evidence from an international survey, systematic review and meta-analysis, a newly created organ dysfunction score (Phoenix Sepsis Score), and sites on four continents.

Based on the findings, the task force now suggests that pediatric sepsis be defined by a Phoenix Sepsis Score of at least 2 points in children with suspected infection, which indicates potentially life-threatening dysfunction of the respiratory, cardiovascular, coagulation, and/or neurological systems. Septic shock is defined as sepsis with at least 1 cardiovascular point in the score.
 

Disparities Across Settings

To derive and validate the new criteria across differently resourced settings, the researchers conducted a multicenter, international, retrospective cohort study involving 10 health systems in the United States, Colombia, Bangladesh, China, and Kenya, 3 of which were used as external validation sites.

Data were collected from pediatric emergency and inpatient encounters from 2010 to 2019. The development set comprised 3,049,699 children, and the external validation set included 581,317.

Stacked regression models to predict mortality in children with suspected infection were derived and validated using the best-performing organ dysfunction subscores from eight existing scores.

The final model was then translated into the integer-based Phoenix Sepsis Score and used to establish binary criteria for sepsis and septic shock.

Among 172,984 children with suspected infection in the first 24 hours (development set; 1.2% mortality), a four-organ-system model performed best. The Phoenix Sepsis Score — the integer version of the model — had areas under the precision recall curve of 0.23 to 0.38, and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.71 to 0.92 to predict mortality in the validation sets.

A Phoenix Sepsis Score of 2 points or higher in children with suspected infection as criteria for sepsis, plus 1 or more cardiovascular points as criteria for septic shock, resulted in a higher positive predictive value and higher or similar sensitivity compared with the 2005 International Pediatric Sepsis Consensus Conference criteria across differently resourced settings.

Specifically, children with a Phoenix Sepsis Score of at least 2 points had in-hospital mortality of 7.1% in higher-resource settings and 28.5% in lower-resource settings — more than 8 times that of children with suspected infection not meeting these criteria.

Mortality also was higher in children who had organ dysfunction in at least one of four organ systems — respiratory, cardiovascular, coagulation, and/or neurological — that was not the primary site of infection.

Children with septic shock, indicated by at least 1 cardiovascular point in the Phoenix Sepsis Score, had severe hypotension for age, blood lactate exceeding 5 mmol/L, or need for vasoactive medication. These children had an in-hospital mortality rate of 10.8% in higher-resource settings and 33.5% in lower-resource settings.
 

A Better Score

Given the findings, the task force recommends that “the former criteria based on systemic inflammatory response syndrome should not be used to diagnose sepsis in children [and] the former term severe sepsis should no longer be used because sepsis is life-threatening organ dysfunction associated with infection and is thus indicative of a severe disease state.”

The task force cautions that although the four organs in the Phoenix Sepsis Score are most commonly involved in sepsis, “this does not diminish the crucial importance of the assessment and management of other organ dysfunction.”

Furthermore, they emphasize that the Phoenix score was designed to identify sepsis in children, not to screen children at risk for developing sepsis or early identification of children with suspected sepsis.
 

Additional Considerations

In related editorials, commentators noted some caveats and concerns with regard to the study design and the new criteria.

Roberto Jabornisky, MD, PhD, of National University of the Northeast, Corrientes, Argentina, and colleagues pointed out that “all the low-resource validation sites were institutions with electronic health records and most had PICUs [pediatric intensive care units], which does not adequately reflect conditions in most low-resource settings. These factors introduce a distinct bias favoring a ‘PICU-based consensus,’ potentially limiting the generalizability and adoption of the new criteria by health care practitioners in non-PICU and nonhospital settings responsible for recognizing and managing children with sepsis.” The editorialists called for additional prospective validation in differently resourced settings, especially those with the highest disease burdens.

“Until then,” they wrote, “it is essential to refrain from considering these criteria as an inflexible directive governing medical interventions for pediatric sepsis. No definition can fully substitute for the clinical judgment of an experienced, vigilant clinician caring for an unwell child.”

Erin F. Carlton, MD, MSc of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues added in a separate editorial, “The Phoenix criteria identify a sicker subset of patients than prior SIRS [systemic inflammatory response syndrome]-based criteria. Some may worry this higher threshold could delay management of patients not meeting sepsis criteria. Just as patients with chest pain and a troponin leak warrant monitoring and treatment (but are not prioritized for immediate heart catheterization), patients with infection need monitoring and treatment. Improvements in care should thus be judged not only by improved outcomes among patients with sepsis but also by decreased progression to sepsis among patients with infection.”

The International Consensus Criteria paper was supported by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to Tellen C. Bennett, MD, MS, and Nelson Sanchez-Pinto, MD. Data for the Kenya site were collected with support of the Wellcome Trust to the Kenya Major Overseas Programme. Dr. Jabornisky reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Carlton reported serving on the Pediatric Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guideline committee and receiving grant support from the NIH.

New criteria for pediatric sepsis, based on a novel score that predicts mortality in children with suspected or confirmed infection, perform better than existing organ dysfunction scores and criteria and have the potential to improve clinical care globally, researchers say.

Current pediatric-specific criteria for sepsis were published in 2005, based on expert opinion. In 2016, sepsis was redefined for adults as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection, as opposed to an earlier focus on systemic inflammation. But the paradigm-shifting changes were not extended to children (< 18 years, but not newborns), setting the stage for the new initiative.

The new criteria, and their development and validation, were published in JAMA and presented the same day at the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s 2024 Critical Care Congress in Phoenix, Arizona.
 

International Consensus

“The new criteria we derived are based on data from electronic health records and analysis of more than 3 million pediatric healthcare encounters from 10 hospitals around the world, including in low-resource settings,” L. Nelson Sanchez-Pinto, MD, MBI, a critical care physician at the Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, told this news organization.

Dr. Sanchez-Pinto co-led the data group of the international expert task force convened by the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) to develop and validate the criteria, which are based on evidence from an international survey, systematic review and meta-analysis, a newly created organ dysfunction score (Phoenix Sepsis Score), and sites on four continents.

Based on the findings, the task force now suggests that pediatric sepsis be defined by a Phoenix Sepsis Score of at least 2 points in children with suspected infection, which indicates potentially life-threatening dysfunction of the respiratory, cardiovascular, coagulation, and/or neurological systems. Septic shock is defined as sepsis with at least 1 cardiovascular point in the score.
 

Disparities Across Settings

To derive and validate the new criteria across differently resourced settings, the researchers conducted a multicenter, international, retrospective cohort study involving 10 health systems in the United States, Colombia, Bangladesh, China, and Kenya, 3 of which were used as external validation sites.

Data were collected from pediatric emergency and inpatient encounters from 2010 to 2019. The development set comprised 3,049,699 children, and the external validation set included 581,317.

Stacked regression models to predict mortality in children with suspected infection were derived and validated using the best-performing organ dysfunction subscores from eight existing scores.

The final model was then translated into the integer-based Phoenix Sepsis Score and used to establish binary criteria for sepsis and septic shock.

Among 172,984 children with suspected infection in the first 24 hours (development set; 1.2% mortality), a four-organ-system model performed best. The Phoenix Sepsis Score — the integer version of the model — had areas under the precision recall curve of 0.23 to 0.38, and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.71 to 0.92 to predict mortality in the validation sets.

A Phoenix Sepsis Score of 2 points or higher in children with suspected infection as criteria for sepsis, plus 1 or more cardiovascular points as criteria for septic shock, resulted in a higher positive predictive value and higher or similar sensitivity compared with the 2005 International Pediatric Sepsis Consensus Conference criteria across differently resourced settings.

Specifically, children with a Phoenix Sepsis Score of at least 2 points had in-hospital mortality of 7.1% in higher-resource settings and 28.5% in lower-resource settings — more than 8 times that of children with suspected infection not meeting these criteria.

Mortality also was higher in children who had organ dysfunction in at least one of four organ systems — respiratory, cardiovascular, coagulation, and/or neurological — that was not the primary site of infection.

Children with septic shock, indicated by at least 1 cardiovascular point in the Phoenix Sepsis Score, had severe hypotension for age, blood lactate exceeding 5 mmol/L, or need for vasoactive medication. These children had an in-hospital mortality rate of 10.8% in higher-resource settings and 33.5% in lower-resource settings.
 

A Better Score

Given the findings, the task force recommends that “the former criteria based on systemic inflammatory response syndrome should not be used to diagnose sepsis in children [and] the former term severe sepsis should no longer be used because sepsis is life-threatening organ dysfunction associated with infection and is thus indicative of a severe disease state.”

The task force cautions that although the four organs in the Phoenix Sepsis Score are most commonly involved in sepsis, “this does not diminish the crucial importance of the assessment and management of other organ dysfunction.”

Furthermore, they emphasize that the Phoenix score was designed to identify sepsis in children, not to screen children at risk for developing sepsis or early identification of children with suspected sepsis.
 

Additional Considerations

In related editorials, commentators noted some caveats and concerns with regard to the study design and the new criteria.

Roberto Jabornisky, MD, PhD, of National University of the Northeast, Corrientes, Argentina, and colleagues pointed out that “all the low-resource validation sites were institutions with electronic health records and most had PICUs [pediatric intensive care units], which does not adequately reflect conditions in most low-resource settings. These factors introduce a distinct bias favoring a ‘PICU-based consensus,’ potentially limiting the generalizability and adoption of the new criteria by health care practitioners in non-PICU and nonhospital settings responsible for recognizing and managing children with sepsis.” The editorialists called for additional prospective validation in differently resourced settings, especially those with the highest disease burdens.

“Until then,” they wrote, “it is essential to refrain from considering these criteria as an inflexible directive governing medical interventions for pediatric sepsis. No definition can fully substitute for the clinical judgment of an experienced, vigilant clinician caring for an unwell child.”

Erin F. Carlton, MD, MSc of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues added in a separate editorial, “The Phoenix criteria identify a sicker subset of patients than prior SIRS [systemic inflammatory response syndrome]-based criteria. Some may worry this higher threshold could delay management of patients not meeting sepsis criteria. Just as patients with chest pain and a troponin leak warrant monitoring and treatment (but are not prioritized for immediate heart catheterization), patients with infection need monitoring and treatment. Improvements in care should thus be judged not only by improved outcomes among patients with sepsis but also by decreased progression to sepsis among patients with infection.”

The International Consensus Criteria paper was supported by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to Tellen C. Bennett, MD, MS, and Nelson Sanchez-Pinto, MD. Data for the Kenya site were collected with support of the Wellcome Trust to the Kenya Major Overseas Programme. Dr. Jabornisky reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Carlton reported serving on the Pediatric Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guideline committee and receiving grant support from the NIH.

When infants are born, they have nearly a clean slate with regard to their immune systems. Virtually all their immune cells are naive. They have no immunity memory. Vaccines at birth, and in the first 2 years of life, elicit variable antibody levels and cellular immune responses. Sometimes, this leaves fully vaccinated children unprotected against vaccine-preventable infectious diseases.

Newborns are bombarded at birth with microbes and other antigenic stimuli from the environment; food in the form of breast milk, formula, water; and vaccines, such as hepatitis B and, in other countries, with BCG. At birth, to avoid immunologically-induced injury, immune responses favor immunologic tolerance. However, adaptation must be rapid to avoid life-threatening infections. To navigate the gauntlet of microbe and environmental exposures and vaccines, the neonatal immune system moves through a gradual maturation process toward immune responsivity. The maturation occurs at different rates in different children. A major factor affecting immune development is the microbiome of the newborn and the first 100 days of life.
 

Reassessing Vaccine Responsiveness

Vaccine responsiveness is usually assessed by measuring antibody levels in blood. Until recently, it was thought to be “bad luck” when a child failed to develop protective immunity following vaccination. The bad luck was suggested to involve illness at the time of vaccination, especially illness occurring with fever, and especially common viral infections. But studies proved that notion incorrect. About 10 years ago I became more interested in variability in vaccine responses in the first 2 years of life. In 2016, my laboratory described a specific population of children with specific cellular immune deficiencies that we classified as low vaccine responders (LVRs).¹ To preclude the suggestion that low vaccine responses were to be considered normal biological variation, we chose an a priori definition of LVR as those with sub-protective IgG antibody levels to four (≥ 66 %) of six tested vaccines in DTaP-Hib (diphtheria toxoid, tetanus toxoid, pertussis toxoid, pertactin, and filamentous hemagglutinin [DTaP] and Haemophilus influenzae type b polysaccharide capsule [Hib]). Antibody levels were measured at 1 year of age following primary vaccinations at child age 2, 4, and 6 months old. The remaining 89% of children we termed normal vaccine responders (NVRs). We additionally tested antibody responses to viral protein and pneumococcal polysaccharide conjugated antigens (polio serotypes 1, 2, and 3, hepatitis B, and Streptococcus pneumoniae capsular polysaccharides serotypes 6B, 14, and 23F). Responses to these vaccine antigens were similar to the six vaccines (DTaP/Hib) used to define LVR. We and other groups have used alternative definitions of low vaccine responses that rely on statistics.

I recently reviewed the topic of the determinants of vaccine responses in early life, with a focus on the infant microbiome and metabolome: a.) cesarean section versus vaginal delivery, b.) breast versus formula feeding and c.) antibiotic exposure, that impact the immune response² (Figure). In the review I also discussed how microbiome may serve as natural adjuvants for vaccine responses, how microbiota-derived metabolites influence vaccine responses, and how low vaccine responses in early life may be linked to increased infection susceptibility (Figure).

Courtesy Dr. Pichichero

Multiple studies strongly support the notion that breastfeeding has a favorable impact on immune development in early life associated with better vaccine responses, mediated by the microbiome. The mechanism of favorable immune responses to vaccines largely relates to the presence of a specific bacteria species, Bifidobacterium infantis. Breast milk contains human milk oligosaccharides that are not digestible by newborns. B. infantis is a strain of bacteria that utilizes these non-digestible oligosaccharides. Thereby, infants fed breast milk provides B. infantis the essential source of nutrition for its growth and predominance in the newborn gut. Studies have shown that Bifidobacterium spp. abundance in early life is correlated with better immune responses to multiple vaccines. Bifidobacterium spp. abundance has been positively correlated with antibody responses measured after 2 years, linking the microbiome composition to the durability of vaccine-induced immune responses.

Antibiotic exposure in early life may disproportionately damage the newborn and infant microbiome compared with later childhood. The average child receives about three antibiotic courses by the age of 2 years. My lab was among the first to describe the adverse effects of antibiotics on vaccine responses in early life.³ We found that broader spectrum antibiotics had a greater adverse effect on vaccine-induced antibody levels than narrower spectrum antibiotics. Ten-day versus five-day treatment courses had a greater negative effect. Multiple antibiotic courses over time (cumulative antibiotic exposure) was negatively associated with vaccine-induced antibody levels.

Over 11 % of live births worldwide occur preterm. Because bacterial infections are frequent complications of preterm birth, 79 % of very low birthweight and 87 % of extremely low birthweight infants in US NICUs receive antibiotics within 3 days of birth. Recently, my group studied full-term infants at birth and found that exposure to parenteral antibiotics at birth or during the first days of life had an adverse effect on vaccine responses.⁴
 

Microbiome Impacts Immunity

How does the microbiome affect immunity, and specifically vaccine responses? Microbial-derived metabolites affect host immunity. Gut bacteria produce short chain fatty acids (SCFAs: acetate, propionate, butyrate) [115]. SCFAs positively influence immunity cells. Vitamin D metabolites are generated by intestinal bacteria and those metabolites positively influence immunity. Secondary bile acids produced by Clostridium spp. are involved in favorable immune responses. Increased levels of phenylpyruvic acid produced by gut and/or nasopharyngeal microbiota correlate with reduced vaccine responses and upregulated metabolome genes that encode for oxidative phosphorylation correlate with increased vaccine responses.

In summary, immune development commences at birth. Impairment in responses to vaccination in children have been linked to disturbance in the microbiome. Cesarean section and absence of breastfeeding are associated with adverse microbiota composition. Antibiotics perturb healthy microbiota development. The microbiota affect immunity in several ways, among them are effects by metabolites generated by the commensals that inhabit the child host. A child who responds poorly to vaccines and has specific immune cell dysfunction caused by problems with the microbiome also displays increased infection proneness. But that is a story for another column, later.

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute, at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

1. Pichichero ME et al. J Infect Dis. 2016 Jun 15;213(12):2014-2019. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiw053.

2. Pichichero ME. Cell Immunol. 2023 Nov-Dec:393-394:104777. doi: 10.1016/j.cellimm.2023.104777.

3. Chapman TJ et al. Pediatrics. 2022 May 1;149(5):e2021052061. doi: 10.1542/peds.2021-052061.

4. Shaffer M et al. mSystems. 2023 Oct 26;8(5):e0066123. doi: 10.1128/msystems.00661-23.

When infants are born, they have nearly a clean slate with regard to their immune systems. Virtually all their immune cells are naive. They have no immunity memory. Vaccines at birth, and in the first 2 years of life, elicit variable antibody levels and cellular immune responses. Sometimes, this leaves fully vaccinated children unprotected against vaccine-preventable infectious diseases.

Newborns are bombarded at birth with microbes and other antigenic stimuli from the environment; food in the form of breast milk, formula, water; and vaccines, such as hepatitis B and, in other countries, with BCG. At birth, to avoid immunologically-induced injury, immune responses favor immunologic tolerance. However, adaptation must be rapid to avoid life-threatening infections. To navigate the gauntlet of microbe and environmental exposures and vaccines, the neonatal immune system moves through a gradual maturation process toward immune responsivity. The maturation occurs at different rates in different children. A major factor affecting immune development is the microbiome of the newborn and the first 100 days of life.
 

Reassessing Vaccine Responsiveness

Vaccine responsiveness is usually assessed by measuring antibody levels in blood. Until recently, it was thought to be “bad luck” when a child failed to develop protective immunity following vaccination. The bad luck was suggested to involve illness at the time of vaccination, especially illness occurring with fever, and especially common viral infections. But studies proved that notion incorrect. About 10 years ago I became more interested in variability in vaccine responses in the first 2 years of life. In 2016, my laboratory described a specific population of children with specific cellular immune deficiencies that we classified as low vaccine responders (LVRs).¹ To preclude the suggestion that low vaccine responses were to be considered normal biological variation, we chose an a priori definition of LVR as those with sub-protective IgG antibody levels to four (≥ 66 %) of six tested vaccines in DTaP-Hib (diphtheria toxoid, tetanus toxoid, pertussis toxoid, pertactin, and filamentous hemagglutinin [DTaP] and Haemophilus influenzae type b polysaccharide capsule [Hib]). Antibody levels were measured at 1 year of age following primary vaccinations at child age 2, 4, and 6 months old. The remaining 89% of children we termed normal vaccine responders (NVRs). We additionally tested antibody responses to viral protein and pneumococcal polysaccharide conjugated antigens (polio serotypes 1, 2, and 3, hepatitis B, and Streptococcus pneumoniae capsular polysaccharides serotypes 6B, 14, and 23F). Responses to these vaccine antigens were similar to the six vaccines (DTaP/Hib) used to define LVR. We and other groups have used alternative definitions of low vaccine responses that rely on statistics.

I recently reviewed the topic of the determinants of vaccine responses in early life, with a focus on the infant microbiome and metabolome: a.) cesarean section versus vaginal delivery, b.) breast versus formula feeding and c.) antibiotic exposure, that impact the immune response² (Figure). In the review I also discussed how microbiome may serve as natural adjuvants for vaccine responses, how microbiota-derived metabolites influence vaccine responses, and how low vaccine responses in early life may be linked to increased infection susceptibility (Figure).

Courtesy Dr. Pichichero

Multiple studies strongly support the notion that breastfeeding has a favorable impact on immune development in early life associated with better vaccine responses, mediated by the microbiome. The mechanism of favorable immune responses to vaccines largely relates to the presence of a specific bacteria species, Bifidobacterium infantis. Breast milk contains human milk oligosaccharides that are not digestible by newborns. B. infantis is a strain of bacteria that utilizes these non-digestible oligosaccharides. Thereby, infants fed breast milk provides B. infantis the essential source of nutrition for its growth and predominance in the newborn gut. Studies have shown that Bifidobacterium spp. abundance in early life is correlated with better immune responses to multiple vaccines. Bifidobacterium spp. abundance has been positively correlated with antibody responses measured after 2 years, linking the microbiome composition to the durability of vaccine-induced immune responses.

Antibiotic exposure in early life may disproportionately damage the newborn and infant microbiome compared with later childhood. The average child receives about three antibiotic courses by the age of 2 years. My lab was among the first to describe the adverse effects of antibiotics on vaccine responses in early life.³ We found that broader spectrum antibiotics had a greater adverse effect on vaccine-induced antibody levels than narrower spectrum antibiotics. Ten-day versus five-day treatment courses had a greater negative effect. Multiple antibiotic courses over time (cumulative antibiotic exposure) was negatively associated with vaccine-induced antibody levels.

Over 11 % of live births worldwide occur preterm. Because bacterial infections are frequent complications of preterm birth, 79 % of very low birthweight and 87 % of extremely low birthweight infants in US NICUs receive antibiotics within 3 days of birth. Recently, my group studied full-term infants at birth and found that exposure to parenteral antibiotics at birth or during the first days of life had an adverse effect on vaccine responses.⁴
 

Microbiome Impacts Immunity

How does the microbiome affect immunity, and specifically vaccine responses? Microbial-derived metabolites affect host immunity. Gut bacteria produce short chain fatty acids (SCFAs: acetate, propionate, butyrate) [115]. SCFAs positively influence immunity cells. Vitamin D metabolites are generated by intestinal bacteria and those metabolites positively influence immunity. Secondary bile acids produced by Clostridium spp. are involved in favorable immune responses. Increased levels of phenylpyruvic acid produced by gut and/or nasopharyngeal microbiota correlate with reduced vaccine responses and upregulated metabolome genes that encode for oxidative phosphorylation correlate with increased vaccine responses.

In summary, immune development commences at birth. Impairment in responses to vaccination in children have been linked to disturbance in the microbiome. Cesarean section and absence of breastfeeding are associated with adverse microbiota composition. Antibiotics perturb healthy microbiota development. The microbiota affect immunity in several ways, among them are effects by metabolites generated by the commensals that inhabit the child host. A child who responds poorly to vaccines and has specific immune cell dysfunction caused by problems with the microbiome also displays increased infection proneness. But that is a story for another column, later.

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute, at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

1. Pichichero ME et al. J Infect Dis. 2016 Jun 15;213(12):2014-2019. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiw053.

2. Pichichero ME. Cell Immunol. 2023 Nov-Dec:393-394:104777. doi: 10.1016/j.cellimm.2023.104777.

3. Chapman TJ et al. Pediatrics. 2022 May 1;149(5):e2021052061. doi: 10.1542/peds.2021-052061.

4. Shaffer M et al. mSystems. 2023 Oct 26;8(5):e0066123. doi: 10.1128/msystems.00661-23.

When infants are born, they have nearly a clean slate with regard to their immune systems. Virtually all their immune cells are naive. They have no immunity memory. Vaccines at birth, and in the first 2 years of life, elicit variable antibody levels and cellular immune responses. Sometimes, this leaves fully vaccinated children unprotected against vaccine-preventable infectious diseases.

Newborns are bombarded at birth with microbes and other antigenic stimuli from the environment; food in the form of breast milk, formula, water; and vaccines, such as hepatitis B and, in other countries, with BCG. At birth, to avoid immunologically-induced injury, immune responses favor immunologic tolerance. However, adaptation must be rapid to avoid life-threatening infections. To navigate the gauntlet of microbe and environmental exposures and vaccines, the neonatal immune system moves through a gradual maturation process toward immune responsivity. The maturation occurs at different rates in different children. A major factor affecting immune development is the microbiome of the newborn and the first 100 days of life.
 

Reassessing Vaccine Responsiveness

Vaccine responsiveness is usually assessed by measuring antibody levels in blood. Until recently, it was thought to be “bad luck” when a child failed to develop protective immunity following vaccination. The bad luck was suggested to involve illness at the time of vaccination, especially illness occurring with fever, and especially common viral infections. But studies proved that notion incorrect. About 10 years ago I became more interested in variability in vaccine responses in the first 2 years of life. In 2016, my laboratory described a specific population of children with specific cellular immune deficiencies that we classified as low vaccine responders (LVRs).¹ To preclude the suggestion that low vaccine responses were to be considered normal biological variation, we chose an a priori definition of LVR as those with sub-protective IgG antibody levels to four (≥ 66 %) of six tested vaccines in DTaP-Hib (diphtheria toxoid, tetanus toxoid, pertussis toxoid, pertactin, and filamentous hemagglutinin [DTaP] and Haemophilus influenzae type b polysaccharide capsule [Hib]). Antibody levels were measured at 1 year of age following primary vaccinations at child age 2, 4, and 6 months old. The remaining 89% of children we termed normal vaccine responders (NVRs). We additionally tested antibody responses to viral protein and pneumococcal polysaccharide conjugated antigens (polio serotypes 1, 2, and 3, hepatitis B, and Streptococcus pneumoniae capsular polysaccharides serotypes 6B, 14, and 23F). Responses to these vaccine antigens were similar to the six vaccines (DTaP/Hib) used to define LVR. We and other groups have used alternative definitions of low vaccine responses that rely on statistics.

I recently reviewed the topic of the determinants of vaccine responses in early life, with a focus on the infant microbiome and metabolome: a.) cesarean section versus vaginal delivery, b.) breast versus formula feeding and c.) antibiotic exposure, that impact the immune response² (Figure). In the review I also discussed how microbiome may serve as natural adjuvants for vaccine responses, how microbiota-derived metabolites influence vaccine responses, and how low vaccine responses in early life may be linked to increased infection susceptibility (Figure).

Courtesy Dr. Pichichero

Multiple studies strongly support the notion that breastfeeding has a favorable impact on immune development in early life associated with better vaccine responses, mediated by the microbiome. The mechanism of favorable immune responses to vaccines largely relates to the presence of a specific bacteria species, Bifidobacterium infantis. Breast milk contains human milk oligosaccharides that are not digestible by newborns. B. infantis is a strain of bacteria that utilizes these non-digestible oligosaccharides. Thereby, infants fed breast milk provides B. infantis the essential source of nutrition for its growth and predominance in the newborn gut. Studies have shown that Bifidobacterium spp. abundance in early life is correlated with better immune responses to multiple vaccines. Bifidobacterium spp. abundance has been positively correlated with antibody responses measured after 2 years, linking the microbiome composition to the durability of vaccine-induced immune responses.

Antibiotic exposure in early life may disproportionately damage the newborn and infant microbiome compared with later childhood. The average child receives about three antibiotic courses by the age of 2 years. My lab was among the first to describe the adverse effects of antibiotics on vaccine responses in early life.³ We found that broader spectrum antibiotics had a greater adverse effect on vaccine-induced antibody levels than narrower spectrum antibiotics. Ten-day versus five-day treatment courses had a greater negative effect. Multiple antibiotic courses over time (cumulative antibiotic exposure) was negatively associated with vaccine-induced antibody levels.

Over 11 % of live births worldwide occur preterm. Because bacterial infections are frequent complications of preterm birth, 79 % of very low birthweight and 87 % of extremely low birthweight infants in US NICUs receive antibiotics within 3 days of birth. Recently, my group studied full-term infants at birth and found that exposure to parenteral antibiotics at birth or during the first days of life had an adverse effect on vaccine responses.⁴
 

Microbiome Impacts Immunity

How does the microbiome affect immunity, and specifically vaccine responses? Microbial-derived metabolites affect host immunity. Gut bacteria produce short chain fatty acids (SCFAs: acetate, propionate, butyrate) [115]. SCFAs positively influence immunity cells. Vitamin D metabolites are generated by intestinal bacteria and those metabolites positively influence immunity. Secondary bile acids produced by Clostridium spp. are involved in favorable immune responses. Increased levels of phenylpyruvic acid produced by gut and/or nasopharyngeal microbiota correlate with reduced vaccine responses and upregulated metabolome genes that encode for oxidative phosphorylation correlate with increased vaccine responses.

In summary, immune development commences at birth. Impairment in responses to vaccination in children have been linked to disturbance in the microbiome. Cesarean section and absence of breastfeeding are associated with adverse microbiota composition. Antibiotics perturb healthy microbiota development. The microbiota affect immunity in several ways, among them are effects by metabolites generated by the commensals that inhabit the child host. A child who responds poorly to vaccines and has specific immune cell dysfunction caused by problems with the microbiome also displays increased infection proneness. But that is a story for another column, later.

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute, at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

1. Pichichero ME et al. J Infect Dis. 2016 Jun 15;213(12):2014-2019. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiw053.

2. Pichichero ME. Cell Immunol. 2023 Nov-Dec:393-394:104777. doi: 10.1016/j.cellimm.2023.104777.

3. Chapman TJ et al. Pediatrics. 2022 May 1;149(5):e2021052061. doi: 10.1542/peds.2021-052061.

4. Shaffer M et al. mSystems. 2023 Oct 26;8(5):e0066123. doi: 10.1128/msystems.00661-23.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. There has been an explosion of interest recently in bills that propose to extend medical assistance in dying to more Americans as states begin to contemplate legalization.

Right now, there are 10 states and the District of Columbia that have had some version of medical assistance in dying approved and on the books. That basically means that about 20% of Americans have access where they live to a physician who can prescribe a lethal dose of medication to them if they’re terminally ill and can ingest the medication themselves. That leaves many Americans not covered by this kind of access to this kind of service.

Many of you watching this may live in states where it is legal, like Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, Colorado, and Hawaii. I know many doctors say, “I’m not going to do that.” It’s not something that anyone is compelling a doctor to do. For some Americans, access is not just about where they live but whether there is a doctor willing to participate with them in bringing about their accelerated death, knowing that they’re inevitably going to die.

There’s not much we can do about that. It’s up to the conscience of each physician as to what they’re comfortable with. Certainly, there are other things that can be done to extend the possibility of having this available.

One thing that’s taking place is that, after lawsuits were filed, Vermont and Oregon have given up on their residency requirement, so you don’t have to be there 6 months or a year in order to use this opportunity. It’s legal now to move to the state or visit the state, and as soon as you get there, sign up for this kind of end-of-life intervention.

New Jersey is also being sued. I’ll predict that every state that has a residency requirement, when sued in court, is going to lose because we’ve long recognized the right of Americans to seek out healthcare in the United States, wherever they want to go.

If some states have made this a legitimate medical procedure, courts are going to say you can’t restrict it only to state residents. If someone wants to use a service, they’re entitled to show up from another state or another place and use it. I’m not sure about foreign nationals, but I’m very sure that Americans can go state to state in search of legitimate medical procedures.

The other bills that are out there, however, are basically saying they want to emulate Oregon, Washington, and the other states and say that the terminally ill, with severe restrictions, are going to be able to get this service without going anywhere.

The restrictions include a diagnosis of terminal illness and that you have to be deemed mentally competent. You can’t use this if you have Alzheimer’s or severe depression. You have to make a request twice with a week or two in between to make sure that your request is authentic. And obviously, everyone is on board to make sure that you’re not being coerced or pushed somehow into requesting a somewhat earlier death than you would have experienced without having the availability of the pills.

You also have to take the pills yourself or be able to pull a switch so that you could use a feeding tube–type administration. If you can’t do that, say due to ALS, you’re not eligible to use medical aid in dying. It’s a pretty restricted intervention.

Many people who get pills after going through these restrictions in the states that permit it don’t use it. As many as one third say they like having it there as a safety valve or a parachute, but once they know they could end their life sooner, then they’re going to stick it out.

Should states make this legal? New York, Massachusetts, Florida, and many other states have bills that are moving through. I’m going to say yes. We’ve had Oregon and Washington since the late 1990s with medical aid in dying on the books. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of pushing people to use this, of bias against the disabled, or bigotry against particular ethnic or racial groups being used to encourage people to end their life sooner.

I think it is an option that Americans want. I think it’s an option that makes some sense. I’m well aware that we also have to make sure that people know about hospice. In some of these states, medical aid in dying is offered as a part of hospice — not all, but a few. Not everybody wants hospice once they realize that they’re dying and that it is coming relatively soon. They may want to leave with family present, with a ceremony, or with a quality of life that they desire.

Past experience says let’s continue to expand availability in each state. Let’s also realize that we have to keep the restrictions in place on how it’s used because they have protected us against abuse. Let’s understand that every doctor has an option to do this or not do this. It’s a matter of conscience and a matter of comfort.

I think legalization is the direction we’re going to be going in. Getting rid of the residency requirements that have been around, as I think courts are going to overturn them, also gives a push to the idea that once the service is in this many states, it’s something that should be available if there are doctors willing to do it.

I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine. New York, NY. Thank you for watching.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position)
• Serves as a contributing author and adviser for: Medscape

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. There has been an explosion of interest recently in bills that propose to extend medical assistance in dying to more Americans as states begin to contemplate legalization.

Right now, there are 10 states and the District of Columbia that have had some version of medical assistance in dying approved and on the books. That basically means that about 20% of Americans have access where they live to a physician who can prescribe a lethal dose of medication to them if they’re terminally ill and can ingest the medication themselves. That leaves many Americans not covered by this kind of access to this kind of service.

Many of you watching this may live in states where it is legal, like Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, Colorado, and Hawaii. I know many doctors say, “I’m not going to do that.” It’s not something that anyone is compelling a doctor to do. For some Americans, access is not just about where they live but whether there is a doctor willing to participate with them in bringing about their accelerated death, knowing that they’re inevitably going to die.

There’s not much we can do about that. It’s up to the conscience of each physician as to what they’re comfortable with. Certainly, there are other things that can be done to extend the possibility of having this available.

One thing that’s taking place is that, after lawsuits were filed, Vermont and Oregon have given up on their residency requirement, so you don’t have to be there 6 months or a year in order to use this opportunity. It’s legal now to move to the state or visit the state, and as soon as you get there, sign up for this kind of end-of-life intervention.

New Jersey is also being sued. I’ll predict that every state that has a residency requirement, when sued in court, is going to lose because we’ve long recognized the right of Americans to seek out healthcare in the United States, wherever they want to go.

If some states have made this a legitimate medical procedure, courts are going to say you can’t restrict it only to state residents. If someone wants to use a service, they’re entitled to show up from another state or another place and use it. I’m not sure about foreign nationals, but I’m very sure that Americans can go state to state in search of legitimate medical procedures.

The other bills that are out there, however, are basically saying they want to emulate Oregon, Washington, and the other states and say that the terminally ill, with severe restrictions, are going to be able to get this service without going anywhere.

The restrictions include a diagnosis of terminal illness and that you have to be deemed mentally competent. You can’t use this if you have Alzheimer’s or severe depression. You have to make a request twice with a week or two in between to make sure that your request is authentic. And obviously, everyone is on board to make sure that you’re not being coerced or pushed somehow into requesting a somewhat earlier death than you would have experienced without having the availability of the pills.

You also have to take the pills yourself or be able to pull a switch so that you could use a feeding tube–type administration. If you can’t do that, say due to ALS, you’re not eligible to use medical aid in dying. It’s a pretty restricted intervention.

Many people who get pills after going through these restrictions in the states that permit it don’t use it. As many as one third say they like having it there as a safety valve or a parachute, but once they know they could end their life sooner, then they’re going to stick it out.

Should states make this legal? New York, Massachusetts, Florida, and many other states have bills that are moving through. I’m going to say yes. We’ve had Oregon and Washington since the late 1990s with medical aid in dying on the books. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of pushing people to use this, of bias against the disabled, or bigotry against particular ethnic or racial groups being used to encourage people to end their life sooner.

I think it is an option that Americans want. I think it’s an option that makes some sense. I’m well aware that we also have to make sure that people know about hospice. In some of these states, medical aid in dying is offered as a part of hospice — not all, but a few. Not everybody wants hospice once they realize that they’re dying and that it is coming relatively soon. They may want to leave with family present, with a ceremony, or with a quality of life that they desire.

Past experience says let’s continue to expand availability in each state. Let’s also realize that we have to keep the restrictions in place on how it’s used because they have protected us against abuse. Let’s understand that every doctor has an option to do this or not do this. It’s a matter of conscience and a matter of comfort.

I think legalization is the direction we’re going to be going in. Getting rid of the residency requirements that have been around, as I think courts are going to overturn them, also gives a push to the idea that once the service is in this many states, it’s something that should be available if there are doctors willing to do it.

I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine. New York, NY. Thank you for watching.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position)
• Serves as a contributing author and adviser for: Medscape

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. There has been an explosion of interest recently in bills that propose to extend medical assistance in dying to more Americans as states begin to contemplate legalization.

Right now, there are 10 states and the District of Columbia that have had some version of medical assistance in dying approved and on the books. That basically means that about 20% of Americans have access where they live to a physician who can prescribe a lethal dose of medication to them if they’re terminally ill and can ingest the medication themselves. That leaves many Americans not covered by this kind of access to this kind of service.

Many of you watching this may live in states where it is legal, like Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, Colorado, and Hawaii. I know many doctors say, “I’m not going to do that.” It’s not something that anyone is compelling a doctor to do. For some Americans, access is not just about where they live but whether there is a doctor willing to participate with them in bringing about their accelerated death, knowing that they’re inevitably going to die.

There’s not much we can do about that. It’s up to the conscience of each physician as to what they’re comfortable with. Certainly, there are other things that can be done to extend the possibility of having this available.

One thing that’s taking place is that, after lawsuits were filed, Vermont and Oregon have given up on their residency requirement, so you don’t have to be there 6 months or a year in order to use this opportunity. It’s legal now to move to the state or visit the state, and as soon as you get there, sign up for this kind of end-of-life intervention.

New Jersey is also being sued. I’ll predict that every state that has a residency requirement, when sued in court, is going to lose because we’ve long recognized the right of Americans to seek out healthcare in the United States, wherever they want to go.

If some states have made this a legitimate medical procedure, courts are going to say you can’t restrict it only to state residents. If someone wants to use a service, they’re entitled to show up from another state or another place and use it. I’m not sure about foreign nationals, but I’m very sure that Americans can go state to state in search of legitimate medical procedures.

The other bills that are out there, however, are basically saying they want to emulate Oregon, Washington, and the other states and say that the terminally ill, with severe restrictions, are going to be able to get this service without going anywhere.

The restrictions include a diagnosis of terminal illness and that you have to be deemed mentally competent. You can’t use this if you have Alzheimer’s or severe depression. You have to make a request twice with a week or two in between to make sure that your request is authentic. And obviously, everyone is on board to make sure that you’re not being coerced or pushed somehow into requesting a somewhat earlier death than you would have experienced without having the availability of the pills.

You also have to take the pills yourself or be able to pull a switch so that you could use a feeding tube–type administration. If you can’t do that, say due to ALS, you’re not eligible to use medical aid in dying. It’s a pretty restricted intervention.

Many people who get pills after going through these restrictions in the states that permit it don’t use it. As many as one third say they like having it there as a safety valve or a parachute, but once they know they could end their life sooner, then they’re going to stick it out.

Should states make this legal? New York, Massachusetts, Florida, and many other states have bills that are moving through. I’m going to say yes. We’ve had Oregon and Washington since the late 1990s with medical aid in dying on the books. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of pushing people to use this, of bias against the disabled, or bigotry against particular ethnic or racial groups being used to encourage people to end their life sooner.

I think it is an option that Americans want. I think it’s an option that makes some sense. I’m well aware that we also have to make sure that people know about hospice. In some of these states, medical aid in dying is offered as a part of hospice — not all, but a few. Not everybody wants hospice once they realize that they’re dying and that it is coming relatively soon. They may want to leave with family present, with a ceremony, or with a quality of life that they desire.

Past experience says let’s continue to expand availability in each state. Let’s also realize that we have to keep the restrictions in place on how it’s used because they have protected us against abuse. Let’s understand that every doctor has an option to do this or not do this. It’s a matter of conscience and a matter of comfort.

I think legalization is the direction we’re going to be going in. Getting rid of the residency requirements that have been around, as I think courts are going to overturn them, also gives a push to the idea that once the service is in this many states, it’s something that should be available if there are doctors willing to do it.

I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine. New York, NY. Thank you for watching.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position)
• Serves as a contributing author and adviser for: Medscape

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent reporting has shown that the number of physician-scientists — doctors who both practice medicine and perform scientific research — in the United States is dropping rapidly. That’s a problem, because physician-scientists are uniquely equipped to make scientific discoveries in the laboratory and translate them to the clinic. Indeed, many of the discoveries that have transformed medicine for the better were made by physician-scientists. For example, Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine, Timothy Ley sequenced the first cancer genome, and Anthony Fauci coordinated public health responses to both the HIV/AIDS and COVID-19 pandemics. Indicative of their sheer impact, at least a third and as many as half of all Nobel Prizes and Lasker Awards in physiology/medicine have gone to physician-scientists.

So why is the supply of physician-scientists shrinking so precipitously at a time when medical discoveries are being made at a record-high rate? Immunotherapy and proton therapy are transforming cancer care; RNA technology led to COVID vaccines; CRISPR is facilitating gene editing and treatment of diseases like sickle cell anemia. Yet, as exciting as medical science has become, only 1.5% of American doctors work as physician-scientists, more than a threefold drop compared with 30 years ago when the figure was a more robust 4.7%. What’s going on?

Residency training programs at prestigious academic medical centers have standard infolded research years; for example, neurosurgery residents at academic medical centers will often get 2 years of protected research time. And the National Institutes of Health has training grants dedicated to physician-scientists, such as the K08 award program. Several foundations are also dedicated to supporting early-career physician-scientists. Yet, the number of physicians deciding to become physician-scientists remains low, and, more troubling, the attrition rate of those who do decide to go this route is quite high.

The underlying issue is multifold. First, funding rates from the federal government for grants have become competitive to the point of being unrealistic. For example, the current funding rate for the flagship R01 program from the National Cancer Institute is only 12%. Promotions are typically tied to these grant awards, which means physician-scientists who are unable to acquire substantial grant funding are unable to pay for their research or win promotion — and often exit the physician-scientist track altogether.

Compounding this issue is a lack of mentorship for early-career physician-scientists. With the rise of “careerism” in medicine, senior-level physician-scientists may have less incentive to mentor those who are earlier in their careers. Rather, there seems to be greater reward to “managing up” — that is, spending time to please hospital administrators and departmental leadership. Being involved in countless committees appears to carry more value in advancing an established investigator’s career than does mentorship.

Finally, physician-scientists typically earn less than their clinician colleagues, despite juggling both scientific and clinical responsibilities. While many are comfortable with this arrangement when embarking on this track, the disparity may become untenable after a while, especially as departmental leadership will often turn to physician-scientists to fill clinical coverage gaps when faculty leave the department, or as the medical center expands to satellite centers outside the primary hospital. Indeed, physician-scientists get pulled in several directions, which can lead to burnout and attrition, with many who are highly equipped for this track ultimately hanging up their cleats and seeking more clinical or private industry–oriented opportunities.

Every academic medical center operates differently. Some clearly have done a better job than others promoting and fostering physician-scientists. What we find in the centers that manage to retain physician-scientists is leadership plays a major role: If a medical center values the importance of physician-scientists, they will do things to foster the success of those people, such as assembling mentorship committees, establishing clear criteria for promotion and career advancement, protecting research time while maintaining some level of pay equity, advocating for team science approaches, and supporting investigators in cases of gaps in federal funding. Different countries also have different models for physician-scientist training, with Germany, for example, allowing medical residents to have 3 years of protected time to engage in research after their second year of residency.

The stakes here are high. If we can’t address the physician-scientist recruitment and retention crisis in America now, we risk falling behind other countries in our ability to innovate and deliver world-class care.

Dr Chaudhuri is a tenure-track physician-scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, a Paul and Daisy Soros Fellow, and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project.

Aadel Chaudhuri, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent reporting has shown that the number of physician-scientists — doctors who both practice medicine and perform scientific research — in the United States is dropping rapidly. That’s a problem, because physician-scientists are uniquely equipped to make scientific discoveries in the laboratory and translate them to the clinic. Indeed, many of the discoveries that have transformed medicine for the better were made by physician-scientists. For example, Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine, Timothy Ley sequenced the first cancer genome, and Anthony Fauci coordinated public health responses to both the HIV/AIDS and COVID-19 pandemics. Indicative of their sheer impact, at least a third and as many as half of all Nobel Prizes and Lasker Awards in physiology/medicine have gone to physician-scientists.

So why is the supply of physician-scientists shrinking so precipitously at a time when medical discoveries are being made at a record-high rate? Immunotherapy and proton therapy are transforming cancer care; RNA technology led to COVID vaccines; CRISPR is facilitating gene editing and treatment of diseases like sickle cell anemia. Yet, as exciting as medical science has become, only 1.5% of American doctors work as physician-scientists, more than a threefold drop compared with 30 years ago when the figure was a more robust 4.7%. What’s going on?

Residency training programs at prestigious academic medical centers have standard infolded research years; for example, neurosurgery residents at academic medical centers will often get 2 years of protected research time. And the National Institutes of Health has training grants dedicated to physician-scientists, such as the K08 award program. Several foundations are also dedicated to supporting early-career physician-scientists. Yet, the number of physicians deciding to become physician-scientists remains low, and, more troubling, the attrition rate of those who do decide to go this route is quite high.

The underlying issue is multifold. First, funding rates from the federal government for grants have become competitive to the point of being unrealistic. For example, the current funding rate for the flagship R01 program from the National Cancer Institute is only 12%. Promotions are typically tied to these grant awards, which means physician-scientists who are unable to acquire substantial grant funding are unable to pay for their research or win promotion — and often exit the physician-scientist track altogether.

Compounding this issue is a lack of mentorship for early-career physician-scientists. With the rise of “careerism” in medicine, senior-level physician-scientists may have less incentive to mentor those who are earlier in their careers. Rather, there seems to be greater reward to “managing up” — that is, spending time to please hospital administrators and departmental leadership. Being involved in countless committees appears to carry more value in advancing an established investigator’s career than does mentorship.

Finally, physician-scientists typically earn less than their clinician colleagues, despite juggling both scientific and clinical responsibilities. While many are comfortable with this arrangement when embarking on this track, the disparity may become untenable after a while, especially as departmental leadership will often turn to physician-scientists to fill clinical coverage gaps when faculty leave the department, or as the medical center expands to satellite centers outside the primary hospital. Indeed, physician-scientists get pulled in several directions, which can lead to burnout and attrition, with many who are highly equipped for this track ultimately hanging up their cleats and seeking more clinical or private industry–oriented opportunities.

Every academic medical center operates differently. Some clearly have done a better job than others promoting and fostering physician-scientists. What we find in the centers that manage to retain physician-scientists is leadership plays a major role: If a medical center values the importance of physician-scientists, they will do things to foster the success of those people, such as assembling mentorship committees, establishing clear criteria for promotion and career advancement, protecting research time while maintaining some level of pay equity, advocating for team science approaches, and supporting investigators in cases of gaps in federal funding. Different countries also have different models for physician-scientist training, with Germany, for example, allowing medical residents to have 3 years of protected time to engage in research after their second year of residency.

The stakes here are high. If we can’t address the physician-scientist recruitment and retention crisis in America now, we risk falling behind other countries in our ability to innovate and deliver world-class care.

Dr Chaudhuri is a tenure-track physician-scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, a Paul and Daisy Soros Fellow, and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project.

Aadel Chaudhuri, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent reporting has shown that the number of physician-scientists — doctors who both practice medicine and perform scientific research — in the United States is dropping rapidly. That’s a problem, because physician-scientists are uniquely equipped to make scientific discoveries in the laboratory and translate them to the clinic. Indeed, many of the discoveries that have transformed medicine for the better were made by physician-scientists. For example, Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine, Timothy Ley sequenced the first cancer genome, and Anthony Fauci coordinated public health responses to both the HIV/AIDS and COVID-19 pandemics. Indicative of their sheer impact, at least a third and as many as half of all Nobel Prizes and Lasker Awards in physiology/medicine have gone to physician-scientists.

So why is the supply of physician-scientists shrinking so precipitously at a time when medical discoveries are being made at a record-high rate? Immunotherapy and proton therapy are transforming cancer care; RNA technology led to COVID vaccines; CRISPR is facilitating gene editing and treatment of diseases like sickle cell anemia. Yet, as exciting as medical science has become, only 1.5% of American doctors work as physician-scientists, more than a threefold drop compared with 30 years ago when the figure was a more robust 4.7%. What’s going on?

Residency training programs at prestigious academic medical centers have standard infolded research years; for example, neurosurgery residents at academic medical centers will often get 2 years of protected research time. And the National Institutes of Health has training grants dedicated to physician-scientists, such as the K08 award program. Several foundations are also dedicated to supporting early-career physician-scientists. Yet, the number of physicians deciding to become physician-scientists remains low, and, more troubling, the attrition rate of those who do decide to go this route is quite high.

The underlying issue is multifold. First, funding rates from the federal government for grants have become competitive to the point of being unrealistic. For example, the current funding rate for the flagship R01 program from the National Cancer Institute is only 12%. Promotions are typically tied to these grant awards, which means physician-scientists who are unable to acquire substantial grant funding are unable to pay for their research or win promotion — and often exit the physician-scientist track altogether.

Compounding this issue is a lack of mentorship for early-career physician-scientists. With the rise of “careerism” in medicine, senior-level physician-scientists may have less incentive to mentor those who are earlier in their careers. Rather, there seems to be greater reward to “managing up” — that is, spending time to please hospital administrators and departmental leadership. Being involved in countless committees appears to carry more value in advancing an established investigator’s career than does mentorship.

Finally, physician-scientists typically earn less than their clinician colleagues, despite juggling both scientific and clinical responsibilities. While many are comfortable with this arrangement when embarking on this track, the disparity may become untenable after a while, especially as departmental leadership will often turn to physician-scientists to fill clinical coverage gaps when faculty leave the department, or as the medical center expands to satellite centers outside the primary hospital. Indeed, physician-scientists get pulled in several directions, which can lead to burnout and attrition, with many who are highly equipped for this track ultimately hanging up their cleats and seeking more clinical or private industry–oriented opportunities.

Every academic medical center operates differently. Some clearly have done a better job than others promoting and fostering physician-scientists. What we find in the centers that manage to retain physician-scientists is leadership plays a major role: If a medical center values the importance of physician-scientists, they will do things to foster the success of those people, such as assembling mentorship committees, establishing clear criteria for promotion and career advancement, protecting research time while maintaining some level of pay equity, advocating for team science approaches, and supporting investigators in cases of gaps in federal funding. Different countries also have different models for physician-scientist training, with Germany, for example, allowing medical residents to have 3 years of protected time to engage in research after their second year of residency.

The stakes here are high. If we can’t address the physician-scientist recruitment and retention crisis in America now, we risk falling behind other countries in our ability to innovate and deliver world-class care.

Dr Chaudhuri is a tenure-track physician-scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, a Paul and Daisy Soros Fellow, and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project.

Aadel Chaudhuri, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Officials at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute are moving to retract at least six published research papers and correct 31 others amid allegations of data manipulation.

News of the investigation follows a blog post by British molecular biologist Sholto David, MD, who flagged almost 60 papers published between 1997 and 2017 that contained image manipulation and other errors. Some of the papers were published by Dana-Farber’s chief executive officer, Laurie Glimcher, MD, and chief operating officer, William Hahn, MD, on topics including multiple myeloma and immune cells.

Mr. David, who blogs about research integrity, highlighted numerous errors and irregularities, including copying and pasting images across multiple experiments to represent different days within the same experiment, sometimes rotating or stretching images.

In one case, Mr. David equated the manipulation with tactics used by “hapless Chinese papermills” and concluded that “a swathe of research coming out of [Dana-Farber] authored by the most senior researchers and managers appears to be hopelessly corrupt with errors that are obvious from just a cursory reading the papers.” 

“Imagine what mistakes might be found in the raw data if anyone was allowed to look!” he wrote.

Barrett Rollins, MD, PhD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s research integrity officer, declined to comment on whether the errors represent scientific misconduct, according to STAT. Rollins told ScienceInsider that the “presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author’s intent to deceive.” 

Access to new artificial intelligence tools is making it easier for data sleuths, like Mr. David, to unearth data manipulation and errors. 

The current investigation closely follows two other investigations into the published work of Harvard University’s former president, Claudine Gay, and Stanford University’s former president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, which led both to resign their posts. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Officials at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute are moving to retract at least six published research papers and correct 31 others amid allegations of data manipulation.

News of the investigation follows a blog post by British molecular biologist Sholto David, MD, who flagged almost 60 papers published between 1997 and 2017 that contained image manipulation and other errors. Some of the papers were published by Dana-Farber’s chief executive officer, Laurie Glimcher, MD, and chief operating officer, William Hahn, MD, on topics including multiple myeloma and immune cells.

Mr. David, who blogs about research integrity, highlighted numerous errors and irregularities, including copying and pasting images across multiple experiments to represent different days within the same experiment, sometimes rotating or stretching images.

In one case, Mr. David equated the manipulation with tactics used by “hapless Chinese papermills” and concluded that “a swathe of research coming out of [Dana-Farber] authored by the most senior researchers and managers appears to be hopelessly corrupt with errors that are obvious from just a cursory reading the papers.” 

“Imagine what mistakes might be found in the raw data if anyone was allowed to look!” he wrote.

Barrett Rollins, MD, PhD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s research integrity officer, declined to comment on whether the errors represent scientific misconduct, according to STAT. Rollins told ScienceInsider that the “presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author’s intent to deceive.” 

Access to new artificial intelligence tools is making it easier for data sleuths, like Mr. David, to unearth data manipulation and errors. 

The current investigation closely follows two other investigations into the published work of Harvard University’s former president, Claudine Gay, and Stanford University’s former president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, which led both to resign their posts. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Officials at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute are moving to retract at least six published research papers and correct 31 others amid allegations of data manipulation.

News of the investigation follows a blog post by British molecular biologist Sholto David, MD, who flagged almost 60 papers published between 1997 and 2017 that contained image manipulation and other errors. Some of the papers were published by Dana-Farber’s chief executive officer, Laurie Glimcher, MD, and chief operating officer, William Hahn, MD, on topics including multiple myeloma and immune cells.

Mr. David, who blogs about research integrity, highlighted numerous errors and irregularities, including copying and pasting images across multiple experiments to represent different days within the same experiment, sometimes rotating or stretching images.

In one case, Mr. David equated the manipulation with tactics used by “hapless Chinese papermills” and concluded that “a swathe of research coming out of [Dana-Farber] authored by the most senior researchers and managers appears to be hopelessly corrupt with errors that are obvious from just a cursory reading the papers.” 

“Imagine what mistakes might be found in the raw data if anyone was allowed to look!” he wrote.

Barrett Rollins, MD, PhD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s research integrity officer, declined to comment on whether the errors represent scientific misconduct, according to STAT. Rollins told ScienceInsider that the “presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author’s intent to deceive.” 

Access to new artificial intelligence tools is making it easier for data sleuths, like Mr. David, to unearth data manipulation and errors. 

The current investigation closely follows two other investigations into the published work of Harvard University’s former president, Claudine Gay, and Stanford University’s former president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, which led both to resign their posts. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Annette Gillaspie, a nurse in a small Oregon hospital, hoped she would be back working with patients by now. She contracted COVID-19 on the job early in the pandemic and ended up with long COVID.

After recovering a bit, her fatigue and dizziness returned, and today she is still working a desk job. She has also experienced more severe menstrual periods than before she had COVID.

“Being a female with long COVID definitely does add to the roller-coaster effect of symptoms,” Ms. Gillaspie said.

Long COVID affects nearly twice as many women as men, with 6.6% of women reporting long COVID compared with 4% of men, according to a recent Census Bureau survey reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Researchers are trying to determine why, what causes the gender disparity, and how best to treat it.

Scientists are also starting to look at the impact of long COVID on female reproductive health, including menstruation, pregnancy, and menopause.

Sex differences are common in infection-associated illnesses, said Beth Pollack, MS, a research scientist specializing in long COVID in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Department of Biological Engineering, Cambridge, Massachusetts. “It informs research priorities and the lens with which we understand long COVID.”

For example, reproductive health issues for women, such as puberty, pregnancy, and menopause, can alter the course of illness in a subset of women in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), a condition that can cause dizziness and worse.

“This suggests that sex hormones may play key roles in immune responses to infections,” Ms. Pollack said.

ME/CFS and a Possible Link to Long COVID in Women

Some of the research into long COVID is being led by teams studying infection-associated chronic illnesses like ME/CFS.

The problem: Advocates say ME/CFS has been under-researched. Poorly understood for years, the condition is one of a handful of chronic illnesses linked to infections, including Lyme disease and now long COVID. Perhaps not coincidently, they are more likely to affect women.

Many of the research findings about long COVID mirror data that emerged in past ME/CFS research, said Jaime Seltzer, the scientific director at #MEAction, Santa Monica, California, an advocacy group. One point in particular: ME/CFS strikes women about twice as much as men, according to the CDC.

Ms. Seltzer said the response to long COVID could be much further ahead if the research community acknowledged the work done over the years on ME/CFS. Many of the potential biomarkers and risk factors emerging for long COVID were also suspected in ME/CFS, but not thoroughly studied, she said.

She also said not enough work has been done to unravel the links between gender and these chronic conditions.

“We’re stuck in this Groundhog Day situation,” she said. “There isn’t any research, so we can’t say anything definitively.”

Some New Research, Some New Clues

Scientists like Ms. Pollack are slowly making inroads. She was lead author on a 2023 review investigating the impact of long COVID on female reproductive health. The paper highlights long COVID links to ME/CFS, POTS, and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS), as well as a resulting laundry list of female reproductive health issues. The hope is physicians will examine how the menstrual cycle, pregnancy, and menopause affect symptoms and illness progression of long COVID.

The Tal Research group at MIT (where Ms. Pollack works) has also added long COVID to the list of infection-associated illnesses it studies. The lab is conducting a large study looking into both Lyme disease and long COVID. The goals are to identify biomarkers that can predict who will not recover and to advance available treatments.

Another MIT program, “SEXX + Immunity” holds seminars and networking sessions for scientists looking into the role of female and male biology in immune responses to infection.

Barriers to Progress Remain

On the clinical side, female patients with long COVID also have to deal with a historical bias that still lurks in medicine when it comes to women’s health, said Alba Azola, MD, an assistant professor of physical medicine at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.

Dr. Azola said she has discovered clinical descriptions of ME/CFE in the literature archives that describe it as “neurasthenia” and dismiss it as psychological.

Patients say that it is still happening, and while it may not be so blunt, “you can read between the lines,” Dr. Azola said.

Dr. Azola, who has worked with long COVID patients and is now seeing people with ME/CFS, said the symptoms of infection-associated chronic illness can mimic menopause, and many of her patients received that misdiagnosis. She recommends that doctors rule out long COVID for women with multiple symptoms before attributing symptoms to menopause.

Seeing that some long COVID patients were developing ME/CFS, staff at the Bateman Horne Center in Salt Lake City, Utah, set up a program for the condition in 2021. They were already treating patients with ME/CFS and what they call “multi-symptom chronic complex diseases.”

Jennifer Bell, a certified nurse practitioner at the center, said she has not seen any patients with ovarian failure but plenty with reproductive health issues.

“There definitely is a hormonal connection, but I don’t think there’s a good understanding about what is happening,” she said.

Most of her patients are female, and the more serious patients tend to go through a worsening of their symptoms in the week prior to getting a period, she said.

One thing Ms. Bell said she’s noticed in the past year is an increase in patients with EDS, which is also more common in women.

Like long COVID, many of the conditions traditionally treated at the center have no cure. But Ms. Bell said the center has developed an expertise in treating post-exertional malaise, a common symptom of long COVID, and keeps up with the literature for treatments to try, like the combination of guanfacine and the antioxidant N-acetyl cysteine to treat brain fog, an approach developed at Yale.

“It’s a very challenging illness to treat,” Ms. Bell said.

Since the emergence of long COVID, researchers have warned that symptoms vary so much from person to person that treatment will need to be targeted.

Ms. Pollack of MIT agrees and sees a big role for personalized medicine.

We need to “identify phenotypes within and across these overlapping and co-occurring illnesses so that we can identify the right therapeutics for each person,” she said.

As for Annette Gillaspie, she still hopes her long COVID will subside so she can get out from behind the desk and return to her normal nursing duties.

“I just got to a point where I realized I’m likely never going to be able to do my job,” she said. “It was incredibly heart breaking, but it’s the reality of long COVID, and I know I’m not the only one to have to step away from a job I loved.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Annette Gillaspie, a nurse in a small Oregon hospital, hoped she would be back working with patients by now. She contracted COVID-19 on the job early in the pandemic and ended up with long COVID.

After recovering a bit, her fatigue and dizziness returned, and today she is still working a desk job. She has also experienced more severe menstrual periods than before she had COVID.

“Being a female with long COVID definitely does add to the roller-coaster effect of symptoms,” Ms. Gillaspie said.

Long COVID affects nearly twice as many women as men, with 6.6% of women reporting long COVID compared with 4% of men, according to a recent Census Bureau survey reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Researchers are trying to determine why, what causes the gender disparity, and how best to treat it.

Scientists are also starting to look at the impact of long COVID on female reproductive health, including menstruation, pregnancy, and menopause.

Sex differences are common in infection-associated illnesses, said Beth Pollack, MS, a research scientist specializing in long COVID in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Department of Biological Engineering, Cambridge, Massachusetts. “It informs research priorities and the lens with which we understand long COVID.”

For example, reproductive health issues for women, such as puberty, pregnancy, and menopause, can alter the course of illness in a subset of women in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), a condition that can cause dizziness and worse.

“This suggests that sex hormones may play key roles in immune responses to infections,” Ms. Pollack said.

ME/CFS and a Possible Link to Long COVID in Women

Some of the research into long COVID is being led by teams studying infection-associated chronic illnesses like ME/CFS.

The problem: Advocates say ME/CFS has been under-researched. Poorly understood for years, the condition is one of a handful of chronic illnesses linked to infections, including Lyme disease and now long COVID. Perhaps not coincidently, they are more likely to affect women.

Many of the research findings about long COVID mirror data that emerged in past ME/CFS research, said Jaime Seltzer, the scientific director at #MEAction, Santa Monica, California, an advocacy group. One point in particular: ME/CFS strikes women about twice as much as men, according to the CDC.

Ms. Seltzer said the response to long COVID could be much further ahead if the research community acknowledged the work done over the years on ME/CFS. Many of the potential biomarkers and risk factors emerging for long COVID were also suspected in ME/CFS, but not thoroughly studied, she said.

She also said not enough work has been done to unravel the links between gender and these chronic conditions.

“We’re stuck in this Groundhog Day situation,” she said. “There isn’t any research, so we can’t say anything definitively.”

Some New Research, Some New Clues

Scientists like Ms. Pollack are slowly making inroads. She was lead author on a 2023 review investigating the impact of long COVID on female reproductive health. The paper highlights long COVID links to ME/CFS, POTS, and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS), as well as a resulting laundry list of female reproductive health issues. The hope is physicians will examine how the menstrual cycle, pregnancy, and menopause affect symptoms and illness progression of long COVID.

The Tal Research group at MIT (where Ms. Pollack works) has also added long COVID to the list of infection-associated illnesses it studies. The lab is conducting a large study looking into both Lyme disease and long COVID. The goals are to identify biomarkers that can predict who will not recover and to advance available treatments.

Another MIT program, “SEXX + Immunity” holds seminars and networking sessions for scientists looking into the role of female and male biology in immune responses to infection.

Barriers to Progress Remain

On the clinical side, female patients with long COVID also have to deal with a historical bias that still lurks in medicine when it comes to women’s health, said Alba Azola, MD, an assistant professor of physical medicine at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.

Dr. Azola said she has discovered clinical descriptions of ME/CFE in the literature archives that describe it as “neurasthenia” and dismiss it as psychological.

Patients say that it is still happening, and while it may not be so blunt, “you can read between the lines,” Dr. Azola said.

Dr. Azola, who has worked with long COVID patients and is now seeing people with ME/CFS, said the symptoms of infection-associated chronic illness can mimic menopause, and many of her patients received that misdiagnosis. She recommends that doctors rule out long COVID for women with multiple symptoms before attributing symptoms to menopause.

Seeing that some long COVID patients were developing ME/CFS, staff at the Bateman Horne Center in Salt Lake City, Utah, set up a program for the condition in 2021. They were already treating patients with ME/CFS and what they call “multi-symptom chronic complex diseases.”

Jennifer Bell, a certified nurse practitioner at the center, said she has not seen any patients with ovarian failure but plenty with reproductive health issues.

“There definitely is a hormonal connection, but I don’t think there’s a good understanding about what is happening,” she said.

Most of her patients are female, and the more serious patients tend to go through a worsening of their symptoms in the week prior to getting a period, she said.

One thing Ms. Bell said she’s noticed in the past year is an increase in patients with EDS, which is also more common in women.

Like long COVID, many of the conditions traditionally treated at the center have no cure. But Ms. Bell said the center has developed an expertise in treating post-exertional malaise, a common symptom of long COVID, and keeps up with the literature for treatments to try, like the combination of guanfacine and the antioxidant N-acetyl cysteine to treat brain fog, an approach developed at Yale.

“It’s a very challenging illness to treat,” Ms. Bell said.

Since the emergence of long COVID, researchers have warned that symptoms vary so much from person to person that treatment will need to be targeted.

Ms. Pollack of MIT agrees and sees a big role for personalized medicine.

We need to “identify phenotypes within and across these overlapping and co-occurring illnesses so that we can identify the right therapeutics for each person,” she said.

As for Annette Gillaspie, she still hopes her long COVID will subside so she can get out from behind the desk and return to her normal nursing duties.

“I just got to a point where I realized I’m likely never going to be able to do my job,” she said. “It was incredibly heart breaking, but it’s the reality of long COVID, and I know I’m not the only one to have to step away from a job I loved.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Annette Gillaspie, a nurse in a small Oregon hospital, hoped she would be back working with patients by now. She contracted COVID-19 on the job early in the pandemic and ended up with long COVID.

After recovering a bit, her fatigue and dizziness returned, and today she is still working a desk job. She has also experienced more severe menstrual periods than before she had COVID.

“Being a female with long COVID definitely does add to the roller-coaster effect of symptoms,” Ms. Gillaspie said.

Long COVID affects nearly twice as many women as men, with 6.6% of women reporting long COVID compared with 4% of men, according to a recent Census Bureau survey reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Researchers are trying to determine why, what causes the gender disparity, and how best to treat it.

Scientists are also starting to look at the impact of long COVID on female reproductive health, including menstruation, pregnancy, and menopause.

Sex differences are common in infection-associated illnesses, said Beth Pollack, MS, a research scientist specializing in long COVID in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Department of Biological Engineering, Cambridge, Massachusetts. “It informs research priorities and the lens with which we understand long COVID.”

For example, reproductive health issues for women, such as puberty, pregnancy, and menopause, can alter the course of illness in a subset of women in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), a condition that can cause dizziness and worse.

“This suggests that sex hormones may play key roles in immune responses to infections,” Ms. Pollack said.

ME/CFS and a Possible Link to Long COVID in Women

Some of the research into long COVID is being led by teams studying infection-associated chronic illnesses like ME/CFS.

The problem: Advocates say ME/CFS has been under-researched. Poorly understood for years, the condition is one of a handful of chronic illnesses linked to infections, including Lyme disease and now long COVID. Perhaps not coincidently, they are more likely to affect women.

Many of the research findings about long COVID mirror data that emerged in past ME/CFS research, said Jaime Seltzer, the scientific director at #MEAction, Santa Monica, California, an advocacy group. One point in particular: ME/CFS strikes women about twice as much as men, according to the CDC.

Ms. Seltzer said the response to long COVID could be much further ahead if the research community acknowledged the work done over the years on ME/CFS. Many of the potential biomarkers and risk factors emerging for long COVID were also suspected in ME/CFS, but not thoroughly studied, she said.

She also said not enough work has been done to unravel the links between gender and these chronic conditions.

“We’re stuck in this Groundhog Day situation,” she said. “There isn’t any research, so we can’t say anything definitively.”

Some New Research, Some New Clues

Scientists like Ms. Pollack are slowly making inroads. She was lead author on a 2023 review investigating the impact of long COVID on female reproductive health. The paper highlights long COVID links to ME/CFS, POTS, and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS), as well as a resulting laundry list of female reproductive health issues. The hope is physicians will examine how the menstrual cycle, pregnancy, and menopause affect symptoms and illness progression of long COVID.

The Tal Research group at MIT (where Ms. Pollack works) has also added long COVID to the list of infection-associated illnesses it studies. The lab is conducting a large study looking into both Lyme disease and long COVID. The goals are to identify biomarkers that can predict who will not recover and to advance available treatments.

Another MIT program, “SEXX + Immunity” holds seminars and networking sessions for scientists looking into the role of female and male biology in immune responses to infection.

Barriers to Progress Remain

On the clinical side, female patients with long COVID also have to deal with a historical bias that still lurks in medicine when it comes to women’s health, said Alba Azola, MD, an assistant professor of physical medicine at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.

Dr. Azola said she has discovered clinical descriptions of ME/CFE in the literature archives that describe it as “neurasthenia” and dismiss it as psychological.

Patients say that it is still happening, and while it may not be so blunt, “you can read between the lines,” Dr. Azola said.

Dr. Azola, who has worked with long COVID patients and is now seeing people with ME/CFS, said the symptoms of infection-associated chronic illness can mimic menopause, and many of her patients received that misdiagnosis. She recommends that doctors rule out long COVID for women with multiple symptoms before attributing symptoms to menopause.

Seeing that some long COVID patients were developing ME/CFS, staff at the Bateman Horne Center in Salt Lake City, Utah, set up a program for the condition in 2021. They were already treating patients with ME/CFS and what they call “multi-symptom chronic complex diseases.”

Jennifer Bell, a certified nurse practitioner at the center, said she has not seen any patients with ovarian failure but plenty with reproductive health issues.

“There definitely is a hormonal connection, but I don’t think there’s a good understanding about what is happening,” she said.

Most of her patients are female, and the more serious patients tend to go through a worsening of their symptoms in the week prior to getting a period, she said.

One thing Ms. Bell said she’s noticed in the past year is an increase in patients with EDS, which is also more common in women.

Like long COVID, many of the conditions traditionally treated at the center have no cure. But Ms. Bell said the center has developed an expertise in treating post-exertional malaise, a common symptom of long COVID, and keeps up with the literature for treatments to try, like the combination of guanfacine and the antioxidant N-acetyl cysteine to treat brain fog, an approach developed at Yale.

“It’s a very challenging illness to treat,” Ms. Bell said.

Since the emergence of long COVID, researchers have warned that symptoms vary so much from person to person that treatment will need to be targeted.

Ms. Pollack of MIT agrees and sees a big role for personalized medicine.

We need to “identify phenotypes within and across these overlapping and co-occurring illnesses so that we can identify the right therapeutics for each person,” she said.

As for Annette Gillaspie, she still hopes her long COVID will subside so she can get out from behind the desk and return to her normal nursing duties.

“I just got to a point where I realized I’m likely never going to be able to do my job,” she said. “It was incredibly heart breaking, but it’s the reality of long COVID, and I know I’m not the only one to have to step away from a job I loved.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, oncologist John DiPersio, MD, PhD, had faced frustrating encounters with insurers that only cover medications through a process called white bagging.

Instead of the traditional buy-and-bill pathway where oncologists purchase specialty drugs, such as infusion medications, directly from the distributor or manufacturer, white bagging requires physicians to receive these drugs from a specialty pharmacy.

On its face, the differences may seem minor. However, as Dr. DiPersio knows well, the consequences for oncologists and patients are not.

White bagging, research showed, leads to higher costs for patients and lower reimbursement for oncology practices. The practice can also create safety issues for patients.

That is why Dr. DiPersio’s cancer center does not allow white bagging.

And when insurers refuse to reconsider the white bagging policy, his cancer team is left with few options.

“Sometimes, we have to redirect patients to other places,” said Dr. DiPersio, a bone marrow transplant specialist at Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University, St. Louis.

In emergency instances where patients cannot wait, Dr. DiPersio’s team will administer their own stock of a drug. In such cases, “we accept the fact that by not allowing white bagging, there may be nonpayment. We take the hit as far as cost.”

Increasingly, white bagging mandates are becoming harder for practices to avoid.

In a 2021 survey, 87% of Association of Community Cancer Centers members said white bagging has become an insurer mandate for some of their patients.

A 2023 analysis from Adam J. Fein, PhD, of Drug Channels Institute, Philadelphia, found that white bagging accounted for 17% of infused oncology product sourcing from clinics and 38% from hospital outpatient departments, up from 15% to 28% in 2019. Another practice called brown bagging, where specialty pharmacies send drugs directly to patients, creates many of the same issues but is much less prevalent than white bagging.

This change reflects “the broader battle over oncology margins” and insurers’ “attempts to shift costs to providers, patients, and manufacturers,” Dr. Fein wrote in his 2023 report.
 

White Bagging: Who Benefits?

At its core, white bagging changes how drugs are covered and reimbursed. Under buy and bill, drugs fall under a patient’s medical benefit. Oncologists purchase drugs directly from the manufacturer or distributor and receive reimbursement from the insurance company for both the cost of the drug as well as for administering it to patients.

Under white bagging, drugs fall under a patient’s pharmacy benefit. In these instances, a specialty pharmacy prepares the infusion ahead of time and ships it directly to the physician’s office or clinic. Because oncologists do not purchase the drug directly, they cannot bill insurers for it; instead, the pharmacy receives reimbursement for the drug and the provider is reimbursed for administering it.

Insurance companies argue that white bagging reduces patients’ out-of-pocket costs “by preventing hospitals and physicians from charging exorbitant fees to buy and store specialty medicines themselves,” according to advocacy group America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).

Data from AHIP suggested that hospitals mark up the price of cancer drugs considerably, charging about twice as much as a specialty pharmacy, and that physician’s offices also charge about 23% more. However, these figures highlight how much insurers are billed, not necessarily how much patients ultimately pay.

Other evidence shows that white bagging raises costs for patients while reducing reimbursement for oncologists and saving insurance companies money.

A recent analysis in JAMA Network Open, which looked at 50 cancer drugs associated with the highest total spending from the 2020 Medicare Part B, found that mean insurance payments to providers were more than $2000 lower for drugs distributed under bagging than traditional buy and bill: $7405 vs $9547 per patient per month. Investigators found the same pattern in median insurance payments: $5746 vs $6681. Patients also paid more out-of-pocket each month with bagging vs buy and bill: $315 vs $145.

For patients with private insurance, “out-of-pocket costs were higher under bagging practice than the traditional buy-and-bill practice,” said lead author Ya-Chen Tina Shih, PhD, a professor in the department of radiation oncology at UCLA Health, Los Angeles.

White bagging is entirely for the profit of health insurers, specialty pharmacies, and pharmacy benefit managers, the middlemen who negotiate drug prices on behalf of payers.

Many people may not realize the underlying money-making strategies behind white bagging, explained Ted Okon, executive director for Community Oncology Alliance, which opposes the practice. Often, an insurer, pharmacy benefit manager, and mail order pharmacy involved in the process are all affiliated with the same corporation. In such cases, an insurer has a financial motive to control the source of medications and steer business to its affiliated pharmacies, Mr. Okon said.

When a single corporation owns numerous parts of the drug supply chain, insurers end up having “sway over what drug to use and then how the patient is going to get it,” Mr. Okon said. If the specialty pharmacy is a 340B contract pharmacy, it likely also receives a sizable discount on the drug and can make more money through white bagging.
 

Dangerous to Patients?

On the safety front, proponents of white bagging say the process is safe and efficient.

Specialty pharmacies are used only for prescription drugs that can be safely delivered, said AHIP spokesman David Allen.

In addition to having the same supply chain safety requirements as any other dispensing pharmacy, “specialty pharmacies also must meet additional safety requirements for specialty drugs” to ensure “the safe storage, handling, and dispensing of the drugs,” Mr. Allen explained.

However, oncologists argue that white bagging can be dangerous.

With white bagging, specialty pharmacies send a specified dose to practices, which does not allow practices to source and mix the drug themselves or make essential last-minute dose-related changes — something that happens every day in the clinic, said Debra Patt, MD, PhD, MBA, executive vice president for policy and strategy for Texas Oncology, Dallas.

White bagging also increases the risk for drug contamination, results in drug waste if the medication can’t be used, and can create delays in care.

Essentially, white bagging takes control away from oncologists and makes patient care more unpredictable and complex, explained Dr. Patt, president of the Texas Society of Clinical Oncology, Rockville, Maryland.

Dr. Patt, who does not allow white bagging in her practice, recalled a recent patient with metastatic breast cancer who came to the clinic for trastuzumab deruxtecan. The patient had been experiencing acute abdominal pain. After an exam and CT, Dr. Patt found the breast cancer had grown and moved into the patient’s liver.

“I had to discontinue that plan and change to a different chemotherapy,” she said. “If we had white bagged, that would have been a waste of several thousand dollars. Also, the patient would have to wait for the new medication to be white bagged, a delay that would be at least a week and the patient would have to come back at another time.”

When asked about the safety concerns associated with white bagging, Lemrey “Al” Carter, MS, PharmD, RPh, executive director of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP), said the NABP “acknowledges that all these issues exist.

“It is unfortunate if patient care or costs are negatively impacted,” Dr. Carter said, adding that “boards of pharmacy can investigate if they are made aware of safety concerns at the pharmacy level. If a violation of the pharmacy laws or rules is found, boards can take action.”
 

More Legislation to Prevent Bagging

As white bagging mandates from insurance companies ramp up, more practices and states are banning it.

In the Association of Community Cancer Centers’ 2021 survey, 59% of members said their cancer program or practice does not allow white bagging.

At least 15 states have introduced legislation that restricts and/or prohibits white and brown bagging practices, according to a 2023 report by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Some of the proposed laws would restrict mandates by stipulating that physicians are reimbursed at the contracted amount for clinician-administered drugs, whether obtained from a pharmacy or the manufacturer.

Louisiana, Vermont, and Minnesota were the first to enact anti–white bagging laws. Louisiana’s law, for example, enacted in 2021, bans white bagging and requires insurers to reimburse providers for physician-administered drugs if obtained from out-of-network pharmacies.

When the legislation passed, white bagging was just starting to enter the healthcare market in Louisiana, and the state wanted to act proactively, said Kathy W. Oubre, MS, CEO of the Pontchartrain Cancer Center, Covington, Louisiana, and president of the Coalition of Hematology and Oncology Practices, Mountain View, California.

“We recognized the growing concern around it,” Ms. Oubre said. The state legislature at the time included physicians and pharmacists who “really understood from a practice and patient perspective, the harm that policy could do.”

Ms. Oubre would like to see more legislation in other states and believes Louisiana’s law is a good model.

At the federal level, the American Hospital Association and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists have also urged the US Food and Drug Administration to take appropriate enforcement action to protect patients from white bagging.

Legislation that bars white bagging mandates is the most reasonable way to support timely and appropriate access to cancer care, Dr. Patt said. In the absence of such legislation, she said oncologists can only opt out of insurance contracts that may require the practice.

“That is a difficult position to put oncologists in,” she said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, oncologist John DiPersio, MD, PhD, had faced frustrating encounters with insurers that only cover medications through a process called white bagging.

Instead of the traditional buy-and-bill pathway where oncologists purchase specialty drugs, such as infusion medications, directly from the distributor or manufacturer, white bagging requires physicians to receive these drugs from a specialty pharmacy.

On its face, the differences may seem minor. However, as Dr. DiPersio knows well, the consequences for oncologists and patients are not.

White bagging, research showed, leads to higher costs for patients and lower reimbursement for oncology practices. The practice can also create safety issues for patients.

That is why Dr. DiPersio’s cancer center does not allow white bagging.

And when insurers refuse to reconsider the white bagging policy, his cancer team is left with few options.

“Sometimes, we have to redirect patients to other places,” said Dr. DiPersio, a bone marrow transplant specialist at Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University, St. Louis.

In emergency instances where patients cannot wait, Dr. DiPersio’s team will administer their own stock of a drug. In such cases, “we accept the fact that by not allowing white bagging, there may be nonpayment. We take the hit as far as cost.”

Increasingly, white bagging mandates are becoming harder for practices to avoid.

In a 2021 survey, 87% of Association of Community Cancer Centers members said white bagging has become an insurer mandate for some of their patients.

A 2023 analysis from Adam J. Fein, PhD, of Drug Channels Institute, Philadelphia, found that white bagging accounted for 17% of infused oncology product sourcing from clinics and 38% from hospital outpatient departments, up from 15% to 28% in 2019. Another practice called brown bagging, where specialty pharmacies send drugs directly to patients, creates many of the same issues but is much less prevalent than white bagging.

This change reflects “the broader battle over oncology margins” and insurers’ “attempts to shift costs to providers, patients, and manufacturers,” Dr. Fein wrote in his 2023 report.
 

White Bagging: Who Benefits?

At its core, white bagging changes how drugs are covered and reimbursed. Under buy and bill, drugs fall under a patient’s medical benefit. Oncologists purchase drugs directly from the manufacturer or distributor and receive reimbursement from the insurance company for both the cost of the drug as well as for administering it to patients.

Under white bagging, drugs fall under a patient’s pharmacy benefit. In these instances, a specialty pharmacy prepares the infusion ahead of time and ships it directly to the physician’s office or clinic. Because oncologists do not purchase the drug directly, they cannot bill insurers for it; instead, the pharmacy receives reimbursement for the drug and the provider is reimbursed for administering it.

Insurance companies argue that white bagging reduces patients’ out-of-pocket costs “by preventing hospitals and physicians from charging exorbitant fees to buy and store specialty medicines themselves,” according to advocacy group America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).

Data from AHIP suggested that hospitals mark up the price of cancer drugs considerably, charging about twice as much as a specialty pharmacy, and that physician’s offices also charge about 23% more. However, these figures highlight how much insurers are billed, not necessarily how much patients ultimately pay.

Other evidence shows that white bagging raises costs for patients while reducing reimbursement for oncologists and saving insurance companies money.

A recent analysis in JAMA Network Open, which looked at 50 cancer drugs associated with the highest total spending from the 2020 Medicare Part B, found that mean insurance payments to providers were more than $2000 lower for drugs distributed under bagging than traditional buy and bill: $7405 vs $9547 per patient per month. Investigators found the same pattern in median insurance payments: $5746 vs $6681. Patients also paid more out-of-pocket each month with bagging vs buy and bill: $315 vs $145.

For patients with private insurance, “out-of-pocket costs were higher under bagging practice than the traditional buy-and-bill practice,” said lead author Ya-Chen Tina Shih, PhD, a professor in the department of radiation oncology at UCLA Health, Los Angeles.

White bagging is entirely for the profit of health insurers, specialty pharmacies, and pharmacy benefit managers, the middlemen who negotiate drug prices on behalf of payers.

Many people may not realize the underlying money-making strategies behind white bagging, explained Ted Okon, executive director for Community Oncology Alliance, which opposes the practice. Often, an insurer, pharmacy benefit manager, and mail order pharmacy involved in the process are all affiliated with the same corporation. In such cases, an insurer has a financial motive to control the source of medications and steer business to its affiliated pharmacies, Mr. Okon said.

When a single corporation owns numerous parts of the drug supply chain, insurers end up having “sway over what drug to use and then how the patient is going to get it,” Mr. Okon said. If the specialty pharmacy is a 340B contract pharmacy, it likely also receives a sizable discount on the drug and can make more money through white bagging.
 

Dangerous to Patients?

On the safety front, proponents of white bagging say the process is safe and efficient.

Specialty pharmacies are used only for prescription drugs that can be safely delivered, said AHIP spokesman David Allen.

In addition to having the same supply chain safety requirements as any other dispensing pharmacy, “specialty pharmacies also must meet additional safety requirements for specialty drugs” to ensure “the safe storage, handling, and dispensing of the drugs,” Mr. Allen explained.

However, oncologists argue that white bagging can be dangerous.

With white bagging, specialty pharmacies send a specified dose to practices, which does not allow practices to source and mix the drug themselves or make essential last-minute dose-related changes — something that happens every day in the clinic, said Debra Patt, MD, PhD, MBA, executive vice president for policy and strategy for Texas Oncology, Dallas.

White bagging also increases the risk for drug contamination, results in drug waste if the medication can’t be used, and can create delays in care.

Essentially, white bagging takes control away from oncologists and makes patient care more unpredictable and complex, explained Dr. Patt, president of the Texas Society of Clinical Oncology, Rockville, Maryland.

Dr. Patt, who does not allow white bagging in her practice, recalled a recent patient with metastatic breast cancer who came to the clinic for trastuzumab deruxtecan. The patient had been experiencing acute abdominal pain. After an exam and CT, Dr. Patt found the breast cancer had grown and moved into the patient’s liver.

“I had to discontinue that plan and change to a different chemotherapy,” she said. “If we had white bagged, that would have been a waste of several thousand dollars. Also, the patient would have to wait for the new medication to be white bagged, a delay that would be at least a week and the patient would have to come back at another time.”

When asked about the safety concerns associated with white bagging, Lemrey “Al” Carter, MS, PharmD, RPh, executive director of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP), said the NABP “acknowledges that all these issues exist.

“It is unfortunate if patient care or costs are negatively impacted,” Dr. Carter said, adding that “boards of pharmacy can investigate if they are made aware of safety concerns at the pharmacy level. If a violation of the pharmacy laws or rules is found, boards can take action.”
 

More Legislation to Prevent Bagging

As white bagging mandates from insurance companies ramp up, more practices and states are banning it.

In the Association of Community Cancer Centers’ 2021 survey, 59% of members said their cancer program or practice does not allow white bagging.

At least 15 states have introduced legislation that restricts and/or prohibits white and brown bagging practices, according to a 2023 report by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Some of the proposed laws would restrict mandates by stipulating that physicians are reimbursed at the contracted amount for clinician-administered drugs, whether obtained from a pharmacy or the manufacturer.

Louisiana, Vermont, and Minnesota were the first to enact anti–white bagging laws. Louisiana’s law, for example, enacted in 2021, bans white bagging and requires insurers to reimburse providers for physician-administered drugs if obtained from out-of-network pharmacies.

When the legislation passed, white bagging was just starting to enter the healthcare market in Louisiana, and the state wanted to act proactively, said Kathy W. Oubre, MS, CEO of the Pontchartrain Cancer Center, Covington, Louisiana, and president of the Coalition of Hematology and Oncology Practices, Mountain View, California.

“We recognized the growing concern around it,” Ms. Oubre said. The state legislature at the time included physicians and pharmacists who “really understood from a practice and patient perspective, the harm that policy could do.”

Ms. Oubre would like to see more legislation in other states and believes Louisiana’s law is a good model.

At the federal level, the American Hospital Association and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists have also urged the US Food and Drug Administration to take appropriate enforcement action to protect patients from white bagging.

Legislation that bars white bagging mandates is the most reasonable way to support timely and appropriate access to cancer care, Dr. Patt said. In the absence of such legislation, she said oncologists can only opt out of insurance contracts that may require the practice.

“That is a difficult position to put oncologists in,” she said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, oncologist John DiPersio, MD, PhD, had faced frustrating encounters with insurers that only cover medications through a process called white bagging.

Instead of the traditional buy-and-bill pathway where oncologists purchase specialty drugs, such as infusion medications, directly from the distributor or manufacturer, white bagging requires physicians to receive these drugs from a specialty pharmacy.

On its face, the differences may seem minor. However, as Dr. DiPersio knows well, the consequences for oncologists and patients are not.

White bagging, research showed, leads to higher costs for patients and lower reimbursement for oncology practices. The practice can also create safety issues for patients.

That is why Dr. DiPersio’s cancer center does not allow white bagging.

And when insurers refuse to reconsider the white bagging policy, his cancer team is left with few options.

“Sometimes, we have to redirect patients to other places,” said Dr. DiPersio, a bone marrow transplant specialist at Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University, St. Louis.

In emergency instances where patients cannot wait, Dr. DiPersio’s team will administer their own stock of a drug. In such cases, “we accept the fact that by not allowing white bagging, there may be nonpayment. We take the hit as far as cost.”

Increasingly, white bagging mandates are becoming harder for practices to avoid.

In a 2021 survey, 87% of Association of Community Cancer Centers members said white bagging has become an insurer mandate for some of their patients.

A 2023 analysis from Adam J. Fein, PhD, of Drug Channels Institute, Philadelphia, found that white bagging accounted for 17% of infused oncology product sourcing from clinics and 38% from hospital outpatient departments, up from 15% to 28% in 2019. Another practice called brown bagging, where specialty pharmacies send drugs directly to patients, creates many of the same issues but is much less prevalent than white bagging.

This change reflects “the broader battle over oncology margins” and insurers’ “attempts to shift costs to providers, patients, and manufacturers,” Dr. Fein wrote in his 2023 report.
 

White Bagging: Who Benefits?

At its core, white bagging changes how drugs are covered and reimbursed. Under buy and bill, drugs fall under a patient’s medical benefit. Oncologists purchase drugs directly from the manufacturer or distributor and receive reimbursement from the insurance company for both the cost of the drug as well as for administering it to patients.

Under white bagging, drugs fall under a patient’s pharmacy benefit. In these instances, a specialty pharmacy prepares the infusion ahead of time and ships it directly to the physician’s office or clinic. Because oncologists do not purchase the drug directly, they cannot bill insurers for it; instead, the pharmacy receives reimbursement for the drug and the provider is reimbursed for administering it.

Insurance companies argue that white bagging reduces patients’ out-of-pocket costs “by preventing hospitals and physicians from charging exorbitant fees to buy and store specialty medicines themselves,” according to advocacy group America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).

Data from AHIP suggested that hospitals mark up the price of cancer drugs considerably, charging about twice as much as a specialty pharmacy, and that physician’s offices also charge about 23% more. However, these figures highlight how much insurers are billed, not necessarily how much patients ultimately pay.

Other evidence shows that white bagging raises costs for patients while reducing reimbursement for oncologists and saving insurance companies money.

A recent analysis in JAMA Network Open, which looked at 50 cancer drugs associated with the highest total spending from the 2020 Medicare Part B, found that mean insurance payments to providers were more than $2000 lower for drugs distributed under bagging than traditional buy and bill: $7405 vs $9547 per patient per month. Investigators found the same pattern in median insurance payments: $5746 vs $6681. Patients also paid more out-of-pocket each month with bagging vs buy and bill: $315 vs $145.

For patients with private insurance, “out-of-pocket costs were higher under bagging practice than the traditional buy-and-bill practice,” said lead author Ya-Chen Tina Shih, PhD, a professor in the department of radiation oncology at UCLA Health, Los Angeles.

White bagging is entirely for the profit of health insurers, specialty pharmacies, and pharmacy benefit managers, the middlemen who negotiate drug prices on behalf of payers.

Many people may not realize the underlying money-making strategies behind white bagging, explained Ted Okon, executive director for Community Oncology Alliance, which opposes the practice. Often, an insurer, pharmacy benefit manager, and mail order pharmacy involved in the process are all affiliated with the same corporation. In such cases, an insurer has a financial motive to control the source of medications and steer business to its affiliated pharmacies, Mr. Okon said.

When a single corporation owns numerous parts of the drug supply chain, insurers end up having “sway over what drug to use and then how the patient is going to get it,” Mr. Okon said. If the specialty pharmacy is a 340B contract pharmacy, it likely also receives a sizable discount on the drug and can make more money through white bagging.
 

Dangerous to Patients?

On the safety front, proponents of white bagging say the process is safe and efficient.

Specialty pharmacies are used only for prescription drugs that can be safely delivered, said AHIP spokesman David Allen.

In addition to having the same supply chain safety requirements as any other dispensing pharmacy, “specialty pharmacies also must meet additional safety requirements for specialty drugs” to ensure “the safe storage, handling, and dispensing of the drugs,” Mr. Allen explained.

However, oncologists argue that white bagging can be dangerous.

With white bagging, specialty pharmacies send a specified dose to practices, which does not allow practices to source and mix the drug themselves or make essential last-minute dose-related changes — something that happens every day in the clinic, said Debra Patt, MD, PhD, MBA, executive vice president for policy and strategy for Texas Oncology, Dallas.

White bagging also increases the risk for drug contamination, results in drug waste if the medication can’t be used, and can create delays in care.

Essentially, white bagging takes control away from oncologists and makes patient care more unpredictable and complex, explained Dr. Patt, president of the Texas Society of Clinical Oncology, Rockville, Maryland.

Dr. Patt, who does not allow white bagging in her practice, recalled a recent patient with metastatic breast cancer who came to the clinic for trastuzumab deruxtecan. The patient had been experiencing acute abdominal pain. After an exam and CT, Dr. Patt found the breast cancer had grown and moved into the patient’s liver.

“I had to discontinue that plan and change to a different chemotherapy,” she said. “If we had white bagged, that would have been a waste of several thousand dollars. Also, the patient would have to wait for the new medication to be white bagged, a delay that would be at least a week and the patient would have to come back at another time.”

When asked about the safety concerns associated with white bagging, Lemrey “Al” Carter, MS, PharmD, RPh, executive director of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP), said the NABP “acknowledges that all these issues exist.

“It is unfortunate if patient care or costs are negatively impacted,” Dr. Carter said, adding that “boards of pharmacy can investigate if they are made aware of safety concerns at the pharmacy level. If a violation of the pharmacy laws or rules is found, boards can take action.”
 

More Legislation to Prevent Bagging

As white bagging mandates from insurance companies ramp up, more practices and states are banning it.

In the Association of Community Cancer Centers’ 2021 survey, 59% of members said their cancer program or practice does not allow white bagging.

At least 15 states have introduced legislation that restricts and/or prohibits white and brown bagging practices, according to a 2023 report by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Some of the proposed laws would restrict mandates by stipulating that physicians are reimbursed at the contracted amount for clinician-administered drugs, whether obtained from a pharmacy or the manufacturer.

Louisiana, Vermont, and Minnesota were the first to enact anti–white bagging laws. Louisiana’s law, for example, enacted in 2021, bans white bagging and requires insurers to reimburse providers for physician-administered drugs if obtained from out-of-network pharmacies.

When the legislation passed, white bagging was just starting to enter the healthcare market in Louisiana, and the state wanted to act proactively, said Kathy W. Oubre, MS, CEO of the Pontchartrain Cancer Center, Covington, Louisiana, and president of the Coalition of Hematology and Oncology Practices, Mountain View, California.

“We recognized the growing concern around it,” Ms. Oubre said. The state legislature at the time included physicians and pharmacists who “really understood from a practice and patient perspective, the harm that policy could do.”

Ms. Oubre would like to see more legislation in other states and believes Louisiana’s law is a good model.

At the federal level, the American Hospital Association and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists have also urged the US Food and Drug Administration to take appropriate enforcement action to protect patients from white bagging.

Legislation that bars white bagging mandates is the most reasonable way to support timely and appropriate access to cancer care, Dr. Patt said. In the absence of such legislation, she said oncologists can only opt out of insurance contracts that may require the practice.

“That is a difficult position to put oncologists in,” she said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.