MDedge Infectious Disease

Variability in antimicrobial prescribing among hospital-based physicians is not associated with patient characteristics or clinical outcomes, data suggest. The lowest level of such prescribing within each hospital could be considered a target for antimicrobial stewardship, according to the researchers.

In a multicenter study of 124 physicians responsible for more than 124,000 hospitalized patients, the difference in mean prescribing between the highest and lowest quartiles of prescription volume was 15.8 days of treatment per 100 patient-days.

Baseline patient characteristics were similar across the quartiles, and there were no differences in patient outcomes, including in-hospital deaths, hospital length of stay, intensive care unit transfer, and hospital readmission.

Although the investigators expected variation in prescribing, “what surprised us most was the limited association with any differences in clinical outcomes, particularly when it came to the amount of antimicrobials used,” study author Mark T. McIntyre, PharmD, pharmacotherapy specialist at the Sinai Health System in Toronto, told this news organization.

“Importantly, this is not a study that defines quality of care,” he said. “We looked at natural variation in practice and association with outcomes. So, I don’t want clinicians to think, ‘Well, I’m high, therefore I’m bad,’ or, ‘I’m low, therefore I’m good.’

“This is an early explanatory analysis that asks whether this is an opportunity to optimize prescribing in ways we hadn’t thought of before,” he said. “Now that we don’t have an association with higher or lower prescribing and outcomes, we can look at what else is driving that antimicrobial prescribing and what we can do about it. Comfort level, risk tolerance, and social, cultural, and contextual factors all likely play a role.”

The study was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

Antimicrobial reductions possible

The investigators conducted a retrospective cohort study using the General Medicine Inpatient Initiative database to assess physician-level volume and spectrum of antimicrobial prescribing in adult general medical wards. Four academic hospitals in Toronto were evaluated for the period 2010 to 2019.

The investigators stratified physicians into quartiles by hospital site on the basis of volume of antimicrobial prescribing (specifically, days of therapy per 100 patient-days and antimicrobial-free days) and antibacterial spectrum (modified spectrum score, which assigns a value to each antibacterial agent on the basis of its breadth of coverage).

They also examined potential differences between physician quartiles in patient characteristics, such as age, sex, the Laboratory-Based Acute Physiology Score, discharge diagnosis, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index.

Multilevel modeling allowed the investigators to evaluate the association between clinical outcomes and antimicrobial volume and spectrum.

The primary measure was days of therapy per 100 patient-days.

As noted, the cohort included 124 physicians who were responsible for 124,158 hospital admissions. The median physician-level volume of antimicrobial prescribing was 56.1 days of therapy per 100 patient-days. Patient characteristics were balanced across the quartiles of physician prescribing.

The difference in mean prescribing between physician quartile 4 and quartile 1 was 15.8 days of therapy per 100 patient-days, meaning the median physician in quartile 4 prescribed antimicrobials at a volume that was 30% higher than that of the median physician in quartile 1.

No significant differences were noted for any clinical outcome with regard to quartile of days of therapy, antimicrobial-free days, or modified spectrum score after adjustment for patient-level characteristics.

In addition, no significant differences in the case mix between quartile 4 and quartile 1 were found when the cohort was restricted to patients admitted and discharged by the same most responsible person, nor were differences found in an analysis that was restricted to those without a discharge diagnosis code of palliative care.

In-hospital mortality was higher among patients cared for by prescribers with higher modified spectrum scores (odds ratio, 1.13). “We still can’t fully explain this finding,” Dr. McIntyre acknowledged. “We only saw that in our primary analysis. When we did several sensitivity analyses, that finding didn’t appear.”

The authors concluded, “Ultimately, without discernible benefit in outcomes of patients of physicians who prescribe more frequently, less antimicrobial exposure may be possible, leading to lower risk of antimicrobial resistance.”
 

Decision-making support

Commenting on the study, Lawrence I. Kaplan, MD, section chief of general internal medicine and associate dean for interprofessional education at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia, said, “Trying to get to the lowest quartile would be a goal, and given that physician characteristics are involved, I think there needs to be much better training in clinical management decision-making: how you come about making a decision based on a diagnosis for a particular patient, in or out of the hospital.” Dr. Kaplan was not involved in the research.

“Clinical decision-making tools that can be plugged into the electronic health record can help,” he suggested. “The tools basically ask if a patient meets certain criteria and then might give a prompt that says, for example, ‘These symptoms are not consistent with bacterial sinusitis. The patient should be treated with decongestants, nasal steroids, et cetera, because antibiotics aren’t appropriate.’

“It’s a bit like checkbox medicine, which a lot of physicians bridle at,” he said. “But if it’s really based on evidence, I think that’s an appropriate use of evidence-based medicine.”

Dr. Kaplan said that more research is needed into the best way to get a physician or any provider to step back and say, “Is this the right decision?” or, “I’m doing this but I’m really on shaky ground. What am I missing?’” He noted that the Society for Medical Decision Making publishes research and resources in this area.

“I love the fact that the paper was authored by an interdisciplinary group,” Dr. Kaplan added. “A pharmacist embedded in the team can, for example, help with treatment decision-making and point out potential drug interactions that prescribers might not be aware of.

“We need to stop practicing medicine siloed, which is what we do a lot of ways, both in the hospital and out of the hospital, because it’s the path of least resistance,” Dr. Kaplan added. “But when we can say, ‘Hey, I have a question about this,’ be it to a computer or a colleague, I would argue that we come up with better care.”

No funding was provided for the study. Dr. McIntyre and Dr. Kaplan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Variability in antimicrobial prescribing among hospital-based physicians is not associated with patient characteristics or clinical outcomes, data suggest. The lowest level of such prescribing within each hospital could be considered a target for antimicrobial stewardship, according to the researchers.

In a multicenter study of 124 physicians responsible for more than 124,000 hospitalized patients, the difference in mean prescribing between the highest and lowest quartiles of prescription volume was 15.8 days of treatment per 100 patient-days.

Baseline patient characteristics were similar across the quartiles, and there were no differences in patient outcomes, including in-hospital deaths, hospital length of stay, intensive care unit transfer, and hospital readmission.

Although the investigators expected variation in prescribing, “what surprised us most was the limited association with any differences in clinical outcomes, particularly when it came to the amount of antimicrobials used,” study author Mark T. McIntyre, PharmD, pharmacotherapy specialist at the Sinai Health System in Toronto, told this news organization.

“Importantly, this is not a study that defines quality of care,” he said. “We looked at natural variation in practice and association with outcomes. So, I don’t want clinicians to think, ‘Well, I’m high, therefore I’m bad,’ or, ‘I’m low, therefore I’m good.’

“This is an early explanatory analysis that asks whether this is an opportunity to optimize prescribing in ways we hadn’t thought of before,” he said. “Now that we don’t have an association with higher or lower prescribing and outcomes, we can look at what else is driving that antimicrobial prescribing and what we can do about it. Comfort level, risk tolerance, and social, cultural, and contextual factors all likely play a role.”

The study was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

Antimicrobial reductions possible

The investigators conducted a retrospective cohort study using the General Medicine Inpatient Initiative database to assess physician-level volume and spectrum of antimicrobial prescribing in adult general medical wards. Four academic hospitals in Toronto were evaluated for the period 2010 to 2019.

The investigators stratified physicians into quartiles by hospital site on the basis of volume of antimicrobial prescribing (specifically, days of therapy per 100 patient-days and antimicrobial-free days) and antibacterial spectrum (modified spectrum score, which assigns a value to each antibacterial agent on the basis of its breadth of coverage).

They also examined potential differences between physician quartiles in patient characteristics, such as age, sex, the Laboratory-Based Acute Physiology Score, discharge diagnosis, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index.

Multilevel modeling allowed the investigators to evaluate the association between clinical outcomes and antimicrobial volume and spectrum.

The primary measure was days of therapy per 100 patient-days.

As noted, the cohort included 124 physicians who were responsible for 124,158 hospital admissions. The median physician-level volume of antimicrobial prescribing was 56.1 days of therapy per 100 patient-days. Patient characteristics were balanced across the quartiles of physician prescribing.

The difference in mean prescribing between physician quartile 4 and quartile 1 was 15.8 days of therapy per 100 patient-days, meaning the median physician in quartile 4 prescribed antimicrobials at a volume that was 30% higher than that of the median physician in quartile 1.

No significant differences were noted for any clinical outcome with regard to quartile of days of therapy, antimicrobial-free days, or modified spectrum score after adjustment for patient-level characteristics.

In addition, no significant differences in the case mix between quartile 4 and quartile 1 were found when the cohort was restricted to patients admitted and discharged by the same most responsible person, nor were differences found in an analysis that was restricted to those without a discharge diagnosis code of palliative care.

In-hospital mortality was higher among patients cared for by prescribers with higher modified spectrum scores (odds ratio, 1.13). “We still can’t fully explain this finding,” Dr. McIntyre acknowledged. “We only saw that in our primary analysis. When we did several sensitivity analyses, that finding didn’t appear.”

The authors concluded, “Ultimately, without discernible benefit in outcomes of patients of physicians who prescribe more frequently, less antimicrobial exposure may be possible, leading to lower risk of antimicrobial resistance.”
 

Decision-making support

Commenting on the study, Lawrence I. Kaplan, MD, section chief of general internal medicine and associate dean for interprofessional education at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia, said, “Trying to get to the lowest quartile would be a goal, and given that physician characteristics are involved, I think there needs to be much better training in clinical management decision-making: how you come about making a decision based on a diagnosis for a particular patient, in or out of the hospital.” Dr. Kaplan was not involved in the research.

“Clinical decision-making tools that can be plugged into the electronic health record can help,” he suggested. “The tools basically ask if a patient meets certain criteria and then might give a prompt that says, for example, ‘These symptoms are not consistent with bacterial sinusitis. The patient should be treated with decongestants, nasal steroids, et cetera, because antibiotics aren’t appropriate.’

“It’s a bit like checkbox medicine, which a lot of physicians bridle at,” he said. “But if it’s really based on evidence, I think that’s an appropriate use of evidence-based medicine.”

Dr. Kaplan said that more research is needed into the best way to get a physician or any provider to step back and say, “Is this the right decision?” or, “I’m doing this but I’m really on shaky ground. What am I missing?’” He noted that the Society for Medical Decision Making publishes research and resources in this area.

“I love the fact that the paper was authored by an interdisciplinary group,” Dr. Kaplan added. “A pharmacist embedded in the team can, for example, help with treatment decision-making and point out potential drug interactions that prescribers might not be aware of.

“We need to stop practicing medicine siloed, which is what we do a lot of ways, both in the hospital and out of the hospital, because it’s the path of least resistance,” Dr. Kaplan added. “But when we can say, ‘Hey, I have a question about this,’ be it to a computer or a colleague, I would argue that we come up with better care.”

No funding was provided for the study. Dr. McIntyre and Dr. Kaplan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Variability in antimicrobial prescribing among hospital-based physicians is not associated with patient characteristics or clinical outcomes, data suggest. The lowest level of such prescribing within each hospital could be considered a target for antimicrobial stewardship, according to the researchers.

In a multicenter study of 124 physicians responsible for more than 124,000 hospitalized patients, the difference in mean prescribing between the highest and lowest quartiles of prescription volume was 15.8 days of treatment per 100 patient-days.

Baseline patient characteristics were similar across the quartiles, and there were no differences in patient outcomes, including in-hospital deaths, hospital length of stay, intensive care unit transfer, and hospital readmission.

Although the investigators expected variation in prescribing, “what surprised us most was the limited association with any differences in clinical outcomes, particularly when it came to the amount of antimicrobials used,” study author Mark T. McIntyre, PharmD, pharmacotherapy specialist at the Sinai Health System in Toronto, told this news organization.

“Importantly, this is not a study that defines quality of care,” he said. “We looked at natural variation in practice and association with outcomes. So, I don’t want clinicians to think, ‘Well, I’m high, therefore I’m bad,’ or, ‘I’m low, therefore I’m good.’

“This is an early explanatory analysis that asks whether this is an opportunity to optimize prescribing in ways we hadn’t thought of before,” he said. “Now that we don’t have an association with higher or lower prescribing and outcomes, we can look at what else is driving that antimicrobial prescribing and what we can do about it. Comfort level, risk tolerance, and social, cultural, and contextual factors all likely play a role.”

The study was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

Antimicrobial reductions possible

The investigators conducted a retrospective cohort study using the General Medicine Inpatient Initiative database to assess physician-level volume and spectrum of antimicrobial prescribing in adult general medical wards. Four academic hospitals in Toronto were evaluated for the period 2010 to 2019.

The investigators stratified physicians into quartiles by hospital site on the basis of volume of antimicrobial prescribing (specifically, days of therapy per 100 patient-days and antimicrobial-free days) and antibacterial spectrum (modified spectrum score, which assigns a value to each antibacterial agent on the basis of its breadth of coverage).

They also examined potential differences between physician quartiles in patient characteristics, such as age, sex, the Laboratory-Based Acute Physiology Score, discharge diagnosis, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index.

Multilevel modeling allowed the investigators to evaluate the association between clinical outcomes and antimicrobial volume and spectrum.

The primary measure was days of therapy per 100 patient-days.

As noted, the cohort included 124 physicians who were responsible for 124,158 hospital admissions. The median physician-level volume of antimicrobial prescribing was 56.1 days of therapy per 100 patient-days. Patient characteristics were balanced across the quartiles of physician prescribing.

The difference in mean prescribing between physician quartile 4 and quartile 1 was 15.8 days of therapy per 100 patient-days, meaning the median physician in quartile 4 prescribed antimicrobials at a volume that was 30% higher than that of the median physician in quartile 1.

No significant differences were noted for any clinical outcome with regard to quartile of days of therapy, antimicrobial-free days, or modified spectrum score after adjustment for patient-level characteristics.

In addition, no significant differences in the case mix between quartile 4 and quartile 1 were found when the cohort was restricted to patients admitted and discharged by the same most responsible person, nor were differences found in an analysis that was restricted to those without a discharge diagnosis code of palliative care.

In-hospital mortality was higher among patients cared for by prescribers with higher modified spectrum scores (odds ratio, 1.13). “We still can’t fully explain this finding,” Dr. McIntyre acknowledged. “We only saw that in our primary analysis. When we did several sensitivity analyses, that finding didn’t appear.”

The authors concluded, “Ultimately, without discernible benefit in outcomes of patients of physicians who prescribe more frequently, less antimicrobial exposure may be possible, leading to lower risk of antimicrobial resistance.”
 

Decision-making support

Commenting on the study, Lawrence I. Kaplan, MD, section chief of general internal medicine and associate dean for interprofessional education at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia, said, “Trying to get to the lowest quartile would be a goal, and given that physician characteristics are involved, I think there needs to be much better training in clinical management decision-making: how you come about making a decision based on a diagnosis for a particular patient, in or out of the hospital.” Dr. Kaplan was not involved in the research.

“Clinical decision-making tools that can be plugged into the electronic health record can help,” he suggested. “The tools basically ask if a patient meets certain criteria and then might give a prompt that says, for example, ‘These symptoms are not consistent with bacterial sinusitis. The patient should be treated with decongestants, nasal steroids, et cetera, because antibiotics aren’t appropriate.’

“It’s a bit like checkbox medicine, which a lot of physicians bridle at,” he said. “But if it’s really based on evidence, I think that’s an appropriate use of evidence-based medicine.”

Dr. Kaplan said that more research is needed into the best way to get a physician or any provider to step back and say, “Is this the right decision?” or, “I’m doing this but I’m really on shaky ground. What am I missing?’” He noted that the Society for Medical Decision Making publishes research and resources in this area.

“I love the fact that the paper was authored by an interdisciplinary group,” Dr. Kaplan added. “A pharmacist embedded in the team can, for example, help with treatment decision-making and point out potential drug interactions that prescribers might not be aware of.

“We need to stop practicing medicine siloed, which is what we do a lot of ways, both in the hospital and out of the hospital, because it’s the path of least resistance,” Dr. Kaplan added. “But when we can say, ‘Hey, I have a question about this,’ be it to a computer or a colleague, I would argue that we come up with better care.”

No funding was provided for the study. Dr. McIntyre and Dr. Kaplan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The understanding that human papillomavirus (HPV) causes oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) has been linked with increased likelihood of adults having been vaccinated for HPV, new research indicates.

In a study published online in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, most of the 288 adults surveyed with validated questions were not aware that HPV causes OPSCC and had not been told of the relationship by their health care provider.

Researchers found that when participants knew about the relationship between HPV infection and OPSCC they were more than three times as likely to be vaccinated (odds ratio, 3.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.8-7.6) as those without the knowledge.

The survey was paired with a novel point-of-care adult vaccination program within an otolaryngology clinic. 

“Targeted education aimed at unvaccinated adults establishing the relationship between HPV infection and OPSCC, paired with point-of-care vaccination, may be an innovative strategy for increasing HPV vaccination rates in adults,” write the authors, led by Jacob C. Bloom, MD, with the department of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery at Boston Medical Center.

Current HPV vaccination recommendations include three parts:

• Routine vaccination at age 11 or 12 years
• Catch-up vaccination at ages 13-26 years if not adequately vaccinated
• Shared clinical decision-making in adults aged 27-45 years if the vaccine series has not been completed.

Despite proven efficacy and safety of the HPV vaccine, vaccination rates are low for adults. Although 75% of adolescents aged 13-17 years have initiated the HPV vaccine, recent studies show only 16% of U.S. men aged 18-21 years have received at least 1 dose of the HPV vaccine, the authors write.

Christiana Zhang, MD, with the division of internal medicine at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, who was not part of the study, said she was not surprised by the lack of knowledge about the HPV-OPSCC link.

Patients are often counseled on the relationship between HPV and genital warts or anogenital cancers like cervical cancer, she says, but there is less patient education surrounding the relationship between HPV and oropharyngeal cancers.

She says she does counsel patients on the link with OPSCC, but not all providers do and provider knowledge in general surrounding HPV is low.

“Research has shown that knowledge and confidence among health care providers surrounding HPV vaccination is generally low, and this corresponds with a low vaccination recommendation rate,” she says.

She adds, “Patient education on HPV infection and its relationship with OPSCC, paired with point-of-care vaccination for qualifying patients, is a great approach.”

But the education needs to go beyond patients, she says.

“Given the important role that health care providers play in vaccine uptake, I think further efforts are needed to educate providers on HPV vaccination as well,” she says.

The study included patients aged 18-45 years who sought routine outpatient care at the otolaryngology clinic at Boston Medical Center from Sept. 1, 2020, to May 19, 2021.

Limitations of this study include studying a population from a single otolaryngology clinic in an urban, academic medical center. The population was more racially and ethnically diverse than the U.S. population with 60.3% identifying as racial and ethnic minorities. Gender and educational levels were also not reflective of U.S. demographics as half (50.8%) of the participants had a college degree or higher and 58.3% were women.

Dr. Bloom reports grants from the American Head and Neck Cancer Society during the conduct of the study. Coauthor Dr. Faden reports personal fees from Merck, Neotic, Focus, BMS, Chrystalis Biomedical Advisors, and Guidepoint; receiving nonfinancial support from BostonGene and Predicine; and receiving grants from Calico outside the submitted work. Dr. Zhang reports no relevant financial relationships.

The understanding that human papillomavirus (HPV) causes oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) has been linked with increased likelihood of adults having been vaccinated for HPV, new research indicates.

In a study published online in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, most of the 288 adults surveyed with validated questions were not aware that HPV causes OPSCC and had not been told of the relationship by their health care provider.

Researchers found that when participants knew about the relationship between HPV infection and OPSCC they were more than three times as likely to be vaccinated (odds ratio, 3.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.8-7.6) as those without the knowledge.

The survey was paired with a novel point-of-care adult vaccination program within an otolaryngology clinic. 

“Targeted education aimed at unvaccinated adults establishing the relationship between HPV infection and OPSCC, paired with point-of-care vaccination, may be an innovative strategy for increasing HPV vaccination rates in adults,” write the authors, led by Jacob C. Bloom, MD, with the department of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery at Boston Medical Center.

Current HPV vaccination recommendations include three parts:

• Routine vaccination at age 11 or 12 years
• Catch-up vaccination at ages 13-26 years if not adequately vaccinated
• Shared clinical decision-making in adults aged 27-45 years if the vaccine series has not been completed.

Despite proven efficacy and safety of the HPV vaccine, vaccination rates are low for adults. Although 75% of adolescents aged 13-17 years have initiated the HPV vaccine, recent studies show only 16% of U.S. men aged 18-21 years have received at least 1 dose of the HPV vaccine, the authors write.

Christiana Zhang, MD, with the division of internal medicine at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, who was not part of the study, said she was not surprised by the lack of knowledge about the HPV-OPSCC link.

Patients are often counseled on the relationship between HPV and genital warts or anogenital cancers like cervical cancer, she says, but there is less patient education surrounding the relationship between HPV and oropharyngeal cancers.

She says she does counsel patients on the link with OPSCC, but not all providers do and provider knowledge in general surrounding HPV is low.

“Research has shown that knowledge and confidence among health care providers surrounding HPV vaccination is generally low, and this corresponds with a low vaccination recommendation rate,” she says.

She adds, “Patient education on HPV infection and its relationship with OPSCC, paired with point-of-care vaccination for qualifying patients, is a great approach.”

But the education needs to go beyond patients, she says.

“Given the important role that health care providers play in vaccine uptake, I think further efforts are needed to educate providers on HPV vaccination as well,” she says.

The study included patients aged 18-45 years who sought routine outpatient care at the otolaryngology clinic at Boston Medical Center from Sept. 1, 2020, to May 19, 2021.

Limitations of this study include studying a population from a single otolaryngology clinic in an urban, academic medical center. The population was more racially and ethnically diverse than the U.S. population with 60.3% identifying as racial and ethnic minorities. Gender and educational levels were also not reflective of U.S. demographics as half (50.8%) of the participants had a college degree or higher and 58.3% were women.

Dr. Bloom reports grants from the American Head and Neck Cancer Society during the conduct of the study. Coauthor Dr. Faden reports personal fees from Merck, Neotic, Focus, BMS, Chrystalis Biomedical Advisors, and Guidepoint; receiving nonfinancial support from BostonGene and Predicine; and receiving grants from Calico outside the submitted work. Dr. Zhang reports no relevant financial relationships.

The understanding that human papillomavirus (HPV) causes oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) has been linked with increased likelihood of adults having been vaccinated for HPV, new research indicates.

In a study published online in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, most of the 288 adults surveyed with validated questions were not aware that HPV causes OPSCC and had not been told of the relationship by their health care provider.

Researchers found that when participants knew about the relationship between HPV infection and OPSCC they were more than three times as likely to be vaccinated (odds ratio, 3.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.8-7.6) as those without the knowledge.

The survey was paired with a novel point-of-care adult vaccination program within an otolaryngology clinic. 

“Targeted education aimed at unvaccinated adults establishing the relationship between HPV infection and OPSCC, paired with point-of-care vaccination, may be an innovative strategy for increasing HPV vaccination rates in adults,” write the authors, led by Jacob C. Bloom, MD, with the department of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery at Boston Medical Center.

Current HPV vaccination recommendations include three parts:

• Routine vaccination at age 11 or 12 years
• Catch-up vaccination at ages 13-26 years if not adequately vaccinated
• Shared clinical decision-making in adults aged 27-45 years if the vaccine series has not been completed.

Despite proven efficacy and safety of the HPV vaccine, vaccination rates are low for adults. Although 75% of adolescents aged 13-17 years have initiated the HPV vaccine, recent studies show only 16% of U.S. men aged 18-21 years have received at least 1 dose of the HPV vaccine, the authors write.

Christiana Zhang, MD, with the division of internal medicine at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, who was not part of the study, said she was not surprised by the lack of knowledge about the HPV-OPSCC link.

Patients are often counseled on the relationship between HPV and genital warts or anogenital cancers like cervical cancer, she says, but there is less patient education surrounding the relationship between HPV and oropharyngeal cancers.

She says she does counsel patients on the link with OPSCC, but not all providers do and provider knowledge in general surrounding HPV is low.

“Research has shown that knowledge and confidence among health care providers surrounding HPV vaccination is generally low, and this corresponds with a low vaccination recommendation rate,” she says.

She adds, “Patient education on HPV infection and its relationship with OPSCC, paired with point-of-care vaccination for qualifying patients, is a great approach.”

But the education needs to go beyond patients, she says.

“Given the important role that health care providers play in vaccine uptake, I think further efforts are needed to educate providers on HPV vaccination as well,” she says.

The study included patients aged 18-45 years who sought routine outpatient care at the otolaryngology clinic at Boston Medical Center from Sept. 1, 2020, to May 19, 2021.

Limitations of this study include studying a population from a single otolaryngology clinic in an urban, academic medical center. The population was more racially and ethnically diverse than the U.S. population with 60.3% identifying as racial and ethnic minorities. Gender and educational levels were also not reflective of U.S. demographics as half (50.8%) of the participants had a college degree or higher and 58.3% were women.

Dr. Bloom reports grants from the American Head and Neck Cancer Society during the conduct of the study. Coauthor Dr. Faden reports personal fees from Merck, Neotic, Focus, BMS, Chrystalis Biomedical Advisors, and Guidepoint; receiving nonfinancial support from BostonGene and Predicine; and receiving grants from Calico outside the submitted work. Dr. Zhang reports no relevant financial relationships.

A new strain of COVID-19 that was identified only a week ago in the United States has prompted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to take the rare step of issuing a formal message that it could evade vaccines or the protection of natural immunity. 

The strain is called BA.2.86 and is of particular concern because of its more than 30 mutations, which means it may behave very differently than previous versions of the virus. That number of mutations is on par with the difference between variants so serious that they were formally named, such as between Delta and Omicron, the CDC explained in the risk assessment issued Aug. 23.

Worldwide, health agencies are issuing a flurry of updates on BA.2.86. The strain only recently landed on the World Health Organization’s radar when it was named a “variant under monitoring” on Aug. 17. The CDC announced the same day that it had been detected in the United States.

Among the characteristics the CDC monitors for are how contagious a strain is, how well it responds to treatment, and how severely it affects people.

“BA.2.86 may be more capable of causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19 or who have received COVID-19 vaccines,” the CDC risk assessment stated.

The agency is evaluating how well the forthcoming updated vaccine, due out in September, performs against BA.2.86.

A new forecast also released this week by the CDC predicts hospitalizations due to the virus will continue their upward trend through at least mid-September. Currently, about 1,800 people are hospitalized daily with COVID-19. The new prediction shows that number has a small potential to drop as low as 1,100 daily, but it could also increase by as many as 7,500 per day. The most likely scenario lands somewhere in the middle of that range, with daily hospital admissions of between 2,000 and 4,000 people by Sept. 18.

The CDC said there is “no evidence” that BA.2.86 is causing more severe illness but said that could change as more information becomes available. Health experts typically gauge severity by the rate of COVID hospitalizations.

The journal Nature reported that many scientists see similarities between the emergence of BA.2.86 and that of Omicron, which rapidly spread around the world in late 2021.

“There’s a little bit of déjà vu all over again,” University of Michigan virologist Adam Lauring, MD, PhD, whose lab detected one of the first U.S. cases of BA.2.86, told Nature.

Dr. Lauring, as well as the CDC and the WHO, all caution that more data is needed to truly understand the threat posed by BA.2.86.

“There’s good reason to think it won’t be like the Omicron wave, but it’s early days,” Dr. Lauring said.

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

A new strain of COVID-19 that was identified only a week ago in the United States has prompted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to take the rare step of issuing a formal message that it could evade vaccines or the protection of natural immunity. 

The strain is called BA.2.86 and is of particular concern because of its more than 30 mutations, which means it may behave very differently than previous versions of the virus. That number of mutations is on par with the difference between variants so serious that they were formally named, such as between Delta and Omicron, the CDC explained in the risk assessment issued Aug. 23.

Worldwide, health agencies are issuing a flurry of updates on BA.2.86. The strain only recently landed on the World Health Organization’s radar when it was named a “variant under monitoring” on Aug. 17. The CDC announced the same day that it had been detected in the United States.

Among the characteristics the CDC monitors for are how contagious a strain is, how well it responds to treatment, and how severely it affects people.

“BA.2.86 may be more capable of causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19 or who have received COVID-19 vaccines,” the CDC risk assessment stated.

The agency is evaluating how well the forthcoming updated vaccine, due out in September, performs against BA.2.86.

A new forecast also released this week by the CDC predicts hospitalizations due to the virus will continue their upward trend through at least mid-September. Currently, about 1,800 people are hospitalized daily with COVID-19. The new prediction shows that number has a small potential to drop as low as 1,100 daily, but it could also increase by as many as 7,500 per day. The most likely scenario lands somewhere in the middle of that range, with daily hospital admissions of between 2,000 and 4,000 people by Sept. 18.

The CDC said there is “no evidence” that BA.2.86 is causing more severe illness but said that could change as more information becomes available. Health experts typically gauge severity by the rate of COVID hospitalizations.

The journal Nature reported that many scientists see similarities between the emergence of BA.2.86 and that of Omicron, which rapidly spread around the world in late 2021.

“There’s a little bit of déjà vu all over again,” University of Michigan virologist Adam Lauring, MD, PhD, whose lab detected one of the first U.S. cases of BA.2.86, told Nature.

Dr. Lauring, as well as the CDC and the WHO, all caution that more data is needed to truly understand the threat posed by BA.2.86.

“There’s good reason to think it won’t be like the Omicron wave, but it’s early days,” Dr. Lauring said.

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

A new strain of COVID-19 that was identified only a week ago in the United States has prompted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to take the rare step of issuing a formal message that it could evade vaccines or the protection of natural immunity. 

The strain is called BA.2.86 and is of particular concern because of its more than 30 mutations, which means it may behave very differently than previous versions of the virus. That number of mutations is on par with the difference between variants so serious that they were formally named, such as between Delta and Omicron, the CDC explained in the risk assessment issued Aug. 23.

Worldwide, health agencies are issuing a flurry of updates on BA.2.86. The strain only recently landed on the World Health Organization’s radar when it was named a “variant under monitoring” on Aug. 17. The CDC announced the same day that it had been detected in the United States.

Among the characteristics the CDC monitors for are how contagious a strain is, how well it responds to treatment, and how severely it affects people.

“BA.2.86 may be more capable of causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19 or who have received COVID-19 vaccines,” the CDC risk assessment stated.

The agency is evaluating how well the forthcoming updated vaccine, due out in September, performs against BA.2.86.

A new forecast also released this week by the CDC predicts hospitalizations due to the virus will continue their upward trend through at least mid-September. Currently, about 1,800 people are hospitalized daily with COVID-19. The new prediction shows that number has a small potential to drop as low as 1,100 daily, but it could also increase by as many as 7,500 per day. The most likely scenario lands somewhere in the middle of that range, with daily hospital admissions of between 2,000 and 4,000 people by Sept. 18.

The CDC said there is “no evidence” that BA.2.86 is causing more severe illness but said that could change as more information becomes available. Health experts typically gauge severity by the rate of COVID hospitalizations.

The journal Nature reported that many scientists see similarities between the emergence of BA.2.86 and that of Omicron, which rapidly spread around the world in late 2021.

“There’s a little bit of déjà vu all over again,” University of Michigan virologist Adam Lauring, MD, PhD, whose lab detected one of the first U.S. cases of BA.2.86, told Nature.

Dr. Lauring, as well as the CDC and the WHO, all caution that more data is needed to truly understand the threat posed by BA.2.86.

“There’s good reason to think it won’t be like the Omicron wave, but it’s early days,” Dr. Lauring said.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is expanding its recommendation for antiretrovirals in HIV now that more options are available on the market.

“With these new options we could potentially extend pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to a wider population,” says James Stevermer, MD, a member of the task force and a professor of family and community medicine at the University of Missouri–Columbia.

The guidance, published in JAMA, updates the group’s previous recommendation from 2019 to take into account the new options that have become available since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approvals that included a long-acting injectable form.

In the original report, daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate with emtricitabine was the only approved medication available and the task force recommended it. Since then, two new regimens have been approved: daily oral tenofovir alafenamide with emtricitabine and the long-acting injectable cabotegravir.

The task force is backing all three options and is recommending that clinicians use whichever formulation is most appropriate for their patients at risk for HIV infection.
 

Task force in primary and preventive care

The USPSTF is a volunteer group of experts in primary and preventive care who make recommendations on the best preventative interventions clinicians should take on everything from cancer screening, to preventive aspirin use, to behavioral counseling. The group is convened and supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Recommendations from this group are particularly helpful for clinicians who may not see HIV as their area of expertise, says Carolyn Chu, MD, chief medical officer of the American Academy of HIV Medicine. “Hopefully, this will catch the eye of people who are not tracking all of the HIV updates,” she says.

A person’s risk for infection is mostly based on their behavior, Dr. Stevermer says. Those who use injectable drugs, particularly if they share needles, those who use condoms inconsistently and do not know their partner’s HIV status, and those who have recently had bacterial sexually transmitted infections like gonorrhea and syphilis are all at higher risk.

The efficacy of each of the three options is close enough to equal that it doesn’t usually matter which is prescribed, according to the task force. However, daily oral tenofovir alafenamide with emtricitabine is not approved for use by people engaging in receptive vaginal sex. For most people, the best medication option is the one they are most likely able to integrate into their routine. Cabotegravir, for example, which requires injections every 2 months, is an easier method for some people, particularly those who don’t think they could successfully take a daily pill.
 

Reducing risk

“The evidence is very clear that being able to adhere to taking the medication daily was very closely associated with the effectiveness of PrEP,” Dr. Stevermer says. “So, everything that we can do to make sure that the person who wants to prevent HIV is getting their PrEP as it is supposed to be taken makes it that much more effective.”

Expanding access to antiretrovirals among at-risk groups is an important part of the Ending the HIV Epidemic in the United States initiative that aims to reduce new HIV cases by 90% by 2030.

But an editorial published alongside the recommendation in JAMA notes that uptake of PrEP has been disproportionately low among populations most heavily affected by HIV.

In 2021, 78% of White people expected to benefit from PrEP received it, compared with just 11% of Black people and 21% of Hispanic people, despite both of those populations having a higher incidence of HIV than Whites. PrEP use is also substantially lower among cisgender and transgender women, youth, and people who inject drugs.

“We have an intervention that can markedly reduce people’s risk of getting HIV and so we want to make sure we get this out to all those populations at increased risk,” Dr. Stevermer says.

Having multiple options when it comes to PrEP is a big part of expanding access to the treatment for underserved groups, Dr. Chu says. “Even though oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate with emtricitabine has been out for a while, we know it’s not getting to everyone, and there may be clinical circumstances that means it’s not the right option,” she says. “Making sure we are supporting choices so people can make the decision for themselves is important.”

But doctors also need to be willing to have an open conversation with their patients and bring up the topic of PrEP in a way that doesn’t feel judgmental or stigmatizing, Dr. Chu says.

It is also important not to make assumptions about who would want to talk about medication, she adds. “How can we change the narrative around PrEP?” she asks. “The evidence is there, these medications are effective and safe; weave PrEP into your preventive care portfolio to at least start the conversation.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is expanding its recommendation for antiretrovirals in HIV now that more options are available on the market.

“With these new options we could potentially extend pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to a wider population,” says James Stevermer, MD, a member of the task force and a professor of family and community medicine at the University of Missouri–Columbia.

The guidance, published in JAMA, updates the group’s previous recommendation from 2019 to take into account the new options that have become available since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approvals that included a long-acting injectable form.

In the original report, daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate with emtricitabine was the only approved medication available and the task force recommended it. Since then, two new regimens have been approved: daily oral tenofovir alafenamide with emtricitabine and the long-acting injectable cabotegravir.

The task force is backing all three options and is recommending that clinicians use whichever formulation is most appropriate for their patients at risk for HIV infection.
 

Task force in primary and preventive care

The USPSTF is a volunteer group of experts in primary and preventive care who make recommendations on the best preventative interventions clinicians should take on everything from cancer screening, to preventive aspirin use, to behavioral counseling. The group is convened and supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Recommendations from this group are particularly helpful for clinicians who may not see HIV as their area of expertise, says Carolyn Chu, MD, chief medical officer of the American Academy of HIV Medicine. “Hopefully, this will catch the eye of people who are not tracking all of the HIV updates,” she says.

A person’s risk for infection is mostly based on their behavior, Dr. Stevermer says. Those who use injectable drugs, particularly if they share needles, those who use condoms inconsistently and do not know their partner’s HIV status, and those who have recently had bacterial sexually transmitted infections like gonorrhea and syphilis are all at higher risk.

The efficacy of each of the three options is close enough to equal that it doesn’t usually matter which is prescribed, according to the task force. However, daily oral tenofovir alafenamide with emtricitabine is not approved for use by people engaging in receptive vaginal sex. For most people, the best medication option is the one they are most likely able to integrate into their routine. Cabotegravir, for example, which requires injections every 2 months, is an easier method for some people, particularly those who don’t think they could successfully take a daily pill.
 

Reducing risk

“The evidence is very clear that being able to adhere to taking the medication daily was very closely associated with the effectiveness of PrEP,” Dr. Stevermer says. “So, everything that we can do to make sure that the person who wants to prevent HIV is getting their PrEP as it is supposed to be taken makes it that much more effective.”

Expanding access to antiretrovirals among at-risk groups is an important part of the Ending the HIV Epidemic in the United States initiative that aims to reduce new HIV cases by 90% by 2030.

But an editorial published alongside the recommendation in JAMA notes that uptake of PrEP has been disproportionately low among populations most heavily affected by HIV.

In 2021, 78% of White people expected to benefit from PrEP received it, compared with just 11% of Black people and 21% of Hispanic people, despite both of those populations having a higher incidence of HIV than Whites. PrEP use is also substantially lower among cisgender and transgender women, youth, and people who inject drugs.

“We have an intervention that can markedly reduce people’s risk of getting HIV and so we want to make sure we get this out to all those populations at increased risk,” Dr. Stevermer says.

Having multiple options when it comes to PrEP is a big part of expanding access to the treatment for underserved groups, Dr. Chu says. “Even though oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate with emtricitabine has been out for a while, we know it’s not getting to everyone, and there may be clinical circumstances that means it’s not the right option,” she says. “Making sure we are supporting choices so people can make the decision for themselves is important.”

But doctors also need to be willing to have an open conversation with their patients and bring up the topic of PrEP in a way that doesn’t feel judgmental or stigmatizing, Dr. Chu says.

It is also important not to make assumptions about who would want to talk about medication, she adds. “How can we change the narrative around PrEP?” she asks. “The evidence is there, these medications are effective and safe; weave PrEP into your preventive care portfolio to at least start the conversation.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is expanding its recommendation for antiretrovirals in HIV now that more options are available on the market.

“With these new options we could potentially extend pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to a wider population,” says James Stevermer, MD, a member of the task force and a professor of family and community medicine at the University of Missouri–Columbia.

The guidance, published in JAMA, updates the group’s previous recommendation from 2019 to take into account the new options that have become available since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approvals that included a long-acting injectable form.

In the original report, daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate with emtricitabine was the only approved medication available and the task force recommended it. Since then, two new regimens have been approved: daily oral tenofovir alafenamide with emtricitabine and the long-acting injectable cabotegravir.

The task force is backing all three options and is recommending that clinicians use whichever formulation is most appropriate for their patients at risk for HIV infection.
 

Task force in primary and preventive care

The USPSTF is a volunteer group of experts in primary and preventive care who make recommendations on the best preventative interventions clinicians should take on everything from cancer screening, to preventive aspirin use, to behavioral counseling. The group is convened and supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Recommendations from this group are particularly helpful for clinicians who may not see HIV as their area of expertise, says Carolyn Chu, MD, chief medical officer of the American Academy of HIV Medicine. “Hopefully, this will catch the eye of people who are not tracking all of the HIV updates,” she says.

A person’s risk for infection is mostly based on their behavior, Dr. Stevermer says. Those who use injectable drugs, particularly if they share needles, those who use condoms inconsistently and do not know their partner’s HIV status, and those who have recently had bacterial sexually transmitted infections like gonorrhea and syphilis are all at higher risk.

The efficacy of each of the three options is close enough to equal that it doesn’t usually matter which is prescribed, according to the task force. However, daily oral tenofovir alafenamide with emtricitabine is not approved for use by people engaging in receptive vaginal sex. For most people, the best medication option is the one they are most likely able to integrate into their routine. Cabotegravir, for example, which requires injections every 2 months, is an easier method for some people, particularly those who don’t think they could successfully take a daily pill.
 

Reducing risk

“The evidence is very clear that being able to adhere to taking the medication daily was very closely associated with the effectiveness of PrEP,” Dr. Stevermer says. “So, everything that we can do to make sure that the person who wants to prevent HIV is getting their PrEP as it is supposed to be taken makes it that much more effective.”

Expanding access to antiretrovirals among at-risk groups is an important part of the Ending the HIV Epidemic in the United States initiative that aims to reduce new HIV cases by 90% by 2030.

But an editorial published alongside the recommendation in JAMA notes that uptake of PrEP has been disproportionately low among populations most heavily affected by HIV.

In 2021, 78% of White people expected to benefit from PrEP received it, compared with just 11% of Black people and 21% of Hispanic people, despite both of those populations having a higher incidence of HIV than Whites. PrEP use is also substantially lower among cisgender and transgender women, youth, and people who inject drugs.

“We have an intervention that can markedly reduce people’s risk of getting HIV and so we want to make sure we get this out to all those populations at increased risk,” Dr. Stevermer says.

Having multiple options when it comes to PrEP is a big part of expanding access to the treatment for underserved groups, Dr. Chu says. “Even though oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate with emtricitabine has been out for a while, we know it’s not getting to everyone, and there may be clinical circumstances that means it’s not the right option,” she says. “Making sure we are supporting choices so people can make the decision for themselves is important.”

But doctors also need to be willing to have an open conversation with their patients and bring up the topic of PrEP in a way that doesn’t feel judgmental or stigmatizing, Dr. Chu says.

It is also important not to make assumptions about who would want to talk about medication, she adds. “How can we change the narrative around PrEP?” she asks. “The evidence is there, these medications are effective and safe; weave PrEP into your preventive care portfolio to at least start the conversation.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People who have been infected with the COVID-19 virus have a greater risk of many long-term health conditions, including diabetes, lung problems, fatigue, blood clots, and disorders affecting the gastrointestinal and musculoskeletal systems.

That is the finding of a new study from Washington University in St. Louis. The school distributed a press release about the study, which was published in the journal Nature Medicine.

“Some estimates show more than 90% of the U.S. population has been infected with COVID-19,” Ziyad Al-Aly, chief of research and development at Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System and clinical epidemiologist at Washington University, told the St. Louis Post–Dispatch. “Doctors need to realize that their patients could be at risk of these conditions, be it heart disease or lung problems or brain problems – they’re at risk.”

The researchers compared the health records for 138,000 patients who had been infected with those of 6 million who had not. They followed 80 health conditions associated with long COVID for 2 years. They used unnamed records from the VA.

“There was really nothing at all looking at what happens to people at two years after the infection,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “So we decided to take a look.”

Patients who hadn’t been hospitalized within 30 days of infection had a higher risk of death 6 months after recovery, and a higher risk of hospitalization within 18 months. They had higher risk of diabetes, fatigue, joint pain, and other problems compared with people who had not been infected.

“In the nonhospitalized group, risks remained elevated for several problems, for several organ systems,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “For the people who were hospitalized, the risk was ubiquitous across all organ systems. It really spans the gamut with respect to the organ systems that are affected.”

People who had been hospitalized had a 65% greater risk of illnesses after 2 years. Nonhospitalized patients had just a 35% greater risk.

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

People who have been infected with the COVID-19 virus have a greater risk of many long-term health conditions, including diabetes, lung problems, fatigue, blood clots, and disorders affecting the gastrointestinal and musculoskeletal systems.

That is the finding of a new study from Washington University in St. Louis. The school distributed a press release about the study, which was published in the journal Nature Medicine.

“Some estimates show more than 90% of the U.S. population has been infected with COVID-19,” Ziyad Al-Aly, chief of research and development at Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System and clinical epidemiologist at Washington University, told the St. Louis Post–Dispatch. “Doctors need to realize that their patients could be at risk of these conditions, be it heart disease or lung problems or brain problems – they’re at risk.”

The researchers compared the health records for 138,000 patients who had been infected with those of 6 million who had not. They followed 80 health conditions associated with long COVID for 2 years. They used unnamed records from the VA.

“There was really nothing at all looking at what happens to people at two years after the infection,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “So we decided to take a look.”

Patients who hadn’t been hospitalized within 30 days of infection had a higher risk of death 6 months after recovery, and a higher risk of hospitalization within 18 months. They had higher risk of diabetes, fatigue, joint pain, and other problems compared with people who had not been infected.

“In the nonhospitalized group, risks remained elevated for several problems, for several organ systems,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “For the people who were hospitalized, the risk was ubiquitous across all organ systems. It really spans the gamut with respect to the organ systems that are affected.”

People who had been hospitalized had a 65% greater risk of illnesses after 2 years. Nonhospitalized patients had just a 35% greater risk.

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

People who have been infected with the COVID-19 virus have a greater risk of many long-term health conditions, including diabetes, lung problems, fatigue, blood clots, and disorders affecting the gastrointestinal and musculoskeletal systems.

That is the finding of a new study from Washington University in St. Louis. The school distributed a press release about the study, which was published in the journal Nature Medicine.

“Some estimates show more than 90% of the U.S. population has been infected with COVID-19,” Ziyad Al-Aly, chief of research and development at Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System and clinical epidemiologist at Washington University, told the St. Louis Post–Dispatch. “Doctors need to realize that their patients could be at risk of these conditions, be it heart disease or lung problems or brain problems – they’re at risk.”

The researchers compared the health records for 138,000 patients who had been infected with those of 6 million who had not. They followed 80 health conditions associated with long COVID for 2 years. They used unnamed records from the VA.

“There was really nothing at all looking at what happens to people at two years after the infection,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “So we decided to take a look.”

Patients who hadn’t been hospitalized within 30 days of infection had a higher risk of death 6 months after recovery, and a higher risk of hospitalization within 18 months. They had higher risk of diabetes, fatigue, joint pain, and other problems compared with people who had not been infected.

“In the nonhospitalized group, risks remained elevated for several problems, for several organ systems,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “For the people who were hospitalized, the risk was ubiquitous across all organ systems. It really spans the gamut with respect to the organ systems that are affected.”

People who had been hospitalized had a 65% greater risk of illnesses after 2 years. Nonhospitalized patients had just a 35% greater risk.

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

For the first time in the fall of 2023, families will be offered season-long protection for infants and some children against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

The Food and Drug Administration in July approved a prevention called nirsevimab (Beyfortus, AstraZeneca/Sanofi) and it is expected to be widely rolled out in the coming weeks as the RSV season begins.

It’s not a vaccine, but a monoclonal antibody used for prevention. That may cause confusion because a vaccine for RSV was approved just 3 months ago for adults aged 60 and older. And monoclonal antibodies are often used for treatment rather than prevention.

Adding to potential confusion is the fact the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has included nirsevimab in the Vaccines for Children program, which covers the costs for uninsured kids and makes it more accessible.

Nirsevimab is approved for infants (up to 8 months old) born during or entering their first RSV season, and in children up to 2 years of age who are still vulnerable to severe RSV through their second season.

It’s recommended that all infants get one injection in their first 8 months for prevention instead of the previous monthly shots used to help prevent kids at high risk from getting severe RSV.

If monoclonal antibodies can be used for preventing disease in infants, could they become a viable vaccine alternative for adults?

Specialists say no.

That’s partly because of the difference in body size. Although an injection is an option for a newborn, pediatricians suggest, it would take far too much of the treatment to work as a shot for adults.

Ruth Karron, MD, an expert in pediatric infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, said that, while vaccines come in small amounts and activate immune cells, monoclonal antibodies are more like a drug, with the dose based on weight.

“You’d have to give it intravenously,” for larger doses, she explained, which has never been studied before and would also be very expensive. “It really couldn’t be an option for adults.”
 

What’s the difference between vaccines and antibodies?

Monoclonal antibodies are proteins made in a lab to mimic the immune system’s ability to fight pathogens such as viruses.

Dr. Karron explained that a wide variety of monoclonal antibodies have long been used to treat diseases such as cancers and autoimmune disease. In recent years, the antibodies have been used to treat COVID.

Monoclonal antibodies have also been used to treat RSV in children, but the effects don’t last long – they confer passive immunity and “when it’s gone, it’s gone,” Dr. Karron said.

That means kids at high risk for severe RSV have had to get monthly injections.

But with nirsevimab, the mutated antibodies stay in circulation longer so they can last 5 or 6 months, enough to cover the RSV season, Dr. Karron explained. “It’s highly, highly effective.”
 

Vaccines train the body

“The idea with vaccines is that you engage the individual’s immune system. You teach it to make antibodies,” Dr. Karron said. Conversely, “you give an antibody and it’s good for as long as the antibody lasts. It’s not teaching your body anything.”

Frank Esper, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Cleveland Clinic Children’s Hospital, said monoclonal antibody protection for RSV is particularly welcome. “We’ve been trying to make an RSV vaccine since the 1960s and have done nothing but fail miserably.”

“The best thing is always a vaccine,” Dr. Esper said, explaining that vaccines teach the body to make its own antibodies and confer long-term protection and are “probably more efficacious than anything that’s ever manmade.

“But since we’ve really not done very well for pediatric RSV vaccines, nirsevimab is certainly something I’m looking forward to,” he said.
 

Fast-acting monoclonal antibodies

An advantage for monoclonal antibodies is that they start working almost immediately.

Children can get sick with RSV in the first few months of life so the speed of the monoclonal antibodies to begin protection is important, Dr. Esper said, adding that RSV “is the worst during the first year of life.”

The peak age for babies getting infected enough to require hospitalization is about 2 months, he said.

By 14 months, he said, kids’ immune systems and airways have matured enough “that it’s not nearly as bad.”

To get protection from a vaccine, he added, “usually takes 2-4 weeks from the time you get your shot to the time you see some benefit. With an antibody, you’re bypassing the processing that the body has to do, and it goes straight to ‘protection’ mode,” Dr. Esper said. “You get protected pretty much as soon as you get the antibody.”

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

For the first time in the fall of 2023, families will be offered season-long protection for infants and some children against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

The Food and Drug Administration in July approved a prevention called nirsevimab (Beyfortus, AstraZeneca/Sanofi) and it is expected to be widely rolled out in the coming weeks as the RSV season begins.

It’s not a vaccine, but a monoclonal antibody used for prevention. That may cause confusion because a vaccine for RSV was approved just 3 months ago for adults aged 60 and older. And monoclonal antibodies are often used for treatment rather than prevention.

Adding to potential confusion is the fact the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has included nirsevimab in the Vaccines for Children program, which covers the costs for uninsured kids and makes it more accessible.

Nirsevimab is approved for infants (up to 8 months old) born during or entering their first RSV season, and in children up to 2 years of age who are still vulnerable to severe RSV through their second season.

It’s recommended that all infants get one injection in their first 8 months for prevention instead of the previous monthly shots used to help prevent kids at high risk from getting severe RSV.

If monoclonal antibodies can be used for preventing disease in infants, could they become a viable vaccine alternative for adults?

Specialists say no.

That’s partly because of the difference in body size. Although an injection is an option for a newborn, pediatricians suggest, it would take far too much of the treatment to work as a shot for adults.

Ruth Karron, MD, an expert in pediatric infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, said that, while vaccines come in small amounts and activate immune cells, monoclonal antibodies are more like a drug, with the dose based on weight.

“You’d have to give it intravenously,” for larger doses, she explained, which has never been studied before and would also be very expensive. “It really couldn’t be an option for adults.”
 

What’s the difference between vaccines and antibodies?

Monoclonal antibodies are proteins made in a lab to mimic the immune system’s ability to fight pathogens such as viruses.

Dr. Karron explained that a wide variety of monoclonal antibodies have long been used to treat diseases such as cancers and autoimmune disease. In recent years, the antibodies have been used to treat COVID.

Monoclonal antibodies have also been used to treat RSV in children, but the effects don’t last long – they confer passive immunity and “when it’s gone, it’s gone,” Dr. Karron said.

That means kids at high risk for severe RSV have had to get monthly injections.

But with nirsevimab, the mutated antibodies stay in circulation longer so they can last 5 or 6 months, enough to cover the RSV season, Dr. Karron explained. “It’s highly, highly effective.”
 

Vaccines train the body

“The idea with vaccines is that you engage the individual’s immune system. You teach it to make antibodies,” Dr. Karron said. Conversely, “you give an antibody and it’s good for as long as the antibody lasts. It’s not teaching your body anything.”

Frank Esper, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Cleveland Clinic Children’s Hospital, said monoclonal antibody protection for RSV is particularly welcome. “We’ve been trying to make an RSV vaccine since the 1960s and have done nothing but fail miserably.”

“The best thing is always a vaccine,” Dr. Esper said, explaining that vaccines teach the body to make its own antibodies and confer long-term protection and are “probably more efficacious than anything that’s ever manmade.

“But since we’ve really not done very well for pediatric RSV vaccines, nirsevimab is certainly something I’m looking forward to,” he said.
 

Fast-acting monoclonal antibodies

An advantage for monoclonal antibodies is that they start working almost immediately.

Children can get sick with RSV in the first few months of life so the speed of the monoclonal antibodies to begin protection is important, Dr. Esper said, adding that RSV “is the worst during the first year of life.”

The peak age for babies getting infected enough to require hospitalization is about 2 months, he said.

By 14 months, he said, kids’ immune systems and airways have matured enough “that it’s not nearly as bad.”

To get protection from a vaccine, he added, “usually takes 2-4 weeks from the time you get your shot to the time you see some benefit. With an antibody, you’re bypassing the processing that the body has to do, and it goes straight to ‘protection’ mode,” Dr. Esper said. “You get protected pretty much as soon as you get the antibody.”

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

For the first time in the fall of 2023, families will be offered season-long protection for infants and some children against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

The Food and Drug Administration in July approved a prevention called nirsevimab (Beyfortus, AstraZeneca/Sanofi) and it is expected to be widely rolled out in the coming weeks as the RSV season begins.

It’s not a vaccine, but a monoclonal antibody used for prevention. That may cause confusion because a vaccine for RSV was approved just 3 months ago for adults aged 60 and older. And monoclonal antibodies are often used for treatment rather than prevention.

Adding to potential confusion is the fact the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has included nirsevimab in the Vaccines for Children program, which covers the costs for uninsured kids and makes it more accessible.

Nirsevimab is approved for infants (up to 8 months old) born during or entering their first RSV season, and in children up to 2 years of age who are still vulnerable to severe RSV through their second season.

It’s recommended that all infants get one injection in their first 8 months for prevention instead of the previous monthly shots used to help prevent kids at high risk from getting severe RSV.

If monoclonal antibodies can be used for preventing disease in infants, could they become a viable vaccine alternative for adults?

Specialists say no.

That’s partly because of the difference in body size. Although an injection is an option for a newborn, pediatricians suggest, it would take far too much of the treatment to work as a shot for adults.

Ruth Karron, MD, an expert in pediatric infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, said that, while vaccines come in small amounts and activate immune cells, monoclonal antibodies are more like a drug, with the dose based on weight.

“You’d have to give it intravenously,” for larger doses, she explained, which has never been studied before and would also be very expensive. “It really couldn’t be an option for adults.”
 

What’s the difference between vaccines and antibodies?

Monoclonal antibodies are proteins made in a lab to mimic the immune system’s ability to fight pathogens such as viruses.

Dr. Karron explained that a wide variety of monoclonal antibodies have long been used to treat diseases such as cancers and autoimmune disease. In recent years, the antibodies have been used to treat COVID.

Monoclonal antibodies have also been used to treat RSV in children, but the effects don’t last long – they confer passive immunity and “when it’s gone, it’s gone,” Dr. Karron said.

That means kids at high risk for severe RSV have had to get monthly injections.

But with nirsevimab, the mutated antibodies stay in circulation longer so they can last 5 or 6 months, enough to cover the RSV season, Dr. Karron explained. “It’s highly, highly effective.”
 

Vaccines train the body

“The idea with vaccines is that you engage the individual’s immune system. You teach it to make antibodies,” Dr. Karron said. Conversely, “you give an antibody and it’s good for as long as the antibody lasts. It’s not teaching your body anything.”

Frank Esper, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Cleveland Clinic Children’s Hospital, said monoclonal antibody protection for RSV is particularly welcome. “We’ve been trying to make an RSV vaccine since the 1960s and have done nothing but fail miserably.”

“The best thing is always a vaccine,” Dr. Esper said, explaining that vaccines teach the body to make its own antibodies and confer long-term protection and are “probably more efficacious than anything that’s ever manmade.

“But since we’ve really not done very well for pediatric RSV vaccines, nirsevimab is certainly something I’m looking forward to,” he said.
 

Fast-acting monoclonal antibodies

An advantage for monoclonal antibodies is that they start working almost immediately.

Children can get sick with RSV in the first few months of life so the speed of the monoclonal antibodies to begin protection is important, Dr. Esper said, adding that RSV “is the worst during the first year of life.”

The peak age for babies getting infected enough to require hospitalization is about 2 months, he said.

By 14 months, he said, kids’ immune systems and airways have matured enough “that it’s not nearly as bad.”

To get protection from a vaccine, he added, “usually takes 2-4 weeks from the time you get your shot to the time you see some benefit. With an antibody, you’re bypassing the processing that the body has to do, and it goes straight to ‘protection’ mode,” Dr. Esper said. “You get protected pretty much as soon as you get the antibody.”

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

People may get more protection against COVID-19 if they get their vaccinations and boosters in the same arm, a new study says.

Scientists in Germany looked at health data for 303 people who got the mRNA vaccine and then a booster shot. Their antibody levels were measured two weeks after the second shot. None of the people had had COVID before the vaccinations.

Scientists found that the number of protective “killer T cells” was higher in the 147 study participants who got both shots in the same arm, said the study published in EBioMedicine.

The killer cells were found in 67% of cases in which both shots went into the same arm, compared with 43% of cases with different arms.

“That may suggest that that ipsilateral vaccination (in the same arm) is more likely to provide better protection should the vaccinated person become infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” Laura Ziegler, a doctoral student at Saarland University, Germany, said in a news release.

William Schaffner, MD, a professor in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., told CBS News that same-arm vaccinations may work better because the cells that provide the immune response are in local lymph nodes.

There’s greater immunological response if the immune cells in the lymph nodes are restimulated in the same place, said Dr. Schaffner, who was not involved in the German study.

The scientists from Saarland University said more research is needed before they can be certain that having vaccinations in the same arm is actually more effective for COVID shots and sequential vaccinations against diseases such as the flu.

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

People may get more protection against COVID-19 if they get their vaccinations and boosters in the same arm, a new study says.

Scientists in Germany looked at health data for 303 people who got the mRNA vaccine and then a booster shot. Their antibody levels were measured two weeks after the second shot. None of the people had had COVID before the vaccinations.

Scientists found that the number of protective “killer T cells” was higher in the 147 study participants who got both shots in the same arm, said the study published in EBioMedicine.

The killer cells were found in 67% of cases in which both shots went into the same arm, compared with 43% of cases with different arms.

“That may suggest that that ipsilateral vaccination (in the same arm) is more likely to provide better protection should the vaccinated person become infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” Laura Ziegler, a doctoral student at Saarland University, Germany, said in a news release.

William Schaffner, MD, a professor in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., told CBS News that same-arm vaccinations may work better because the cells that provide the immune response are in local lymph nodes.

There’s greater immunological response if the immune cells in the lymph nodes are restimulated in the same place, said Dr. Schaffner, who was not involved in the German study.

The scientists from Saarland University said more research is needed before they can be certain that having vaccinations in the same arm is actually more effective for COVID shots and sequential vaccinations against diseases such as the flu.

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

People may get more protection against COVID-19 if they get their vaccinations and boosters in the same arm, a new study says.

Scientists in Germany looked at health data for 303 people who got the mRNA vaccine and then a booster shot. Their antibody levels were measured two weeks after the second shot. None of the people had had COVID before the vaccinations.

Scientists found that the number of protective “killer T cells” was higher in the 147 study participants who got both shots in the same arm, said the study published in EBioMedicine.

The killer cells were found in 67% of cases in which both shots went into the same arm, compared with 43% of cases with different arms.

“That may suggest that that ipsilateral vaccination (in the same arm) is more likely to provide better protection should the vaccinated person become infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” Laura Ziegler, a doctoral student at Saarland University, Germany, said in a news release.

William Schaffner, MD, a professor in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., told CBS News that same-arm vaccinations may work better because the cells that provide the immune response are in local lymph nodes.

There’s greater immunological response if the immune cells in the lymph nodes are restimulated in the same place, said Dr. Schaffner, who was not involved in the German study.

The scientists from Saarland University said more research is needed before they can be certain that having vaccinations in the same arm is actually more effective for COVID shots and sequential vaccinations against diseases such as the flu.

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

The long-awaited vaccine for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) that can be given during pregnancy has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

The vaccine, known as Abrysvo, can be given between weeks 32 and 36 of pregnancy and is designed to protect infants from the virus from birth to 6 months of age.

Administered as a single-dose, intramuscular injection, the FDA approved Abrysvo at the end of May for the prevention of lower respiratory tract illness caused by RSV in people aged 60 years and older.

However, “RSV is a common cause of illness in children, and infants are among those at highest risk for severe disease, which can lead to hospitalization,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, pointed out in a news release. “This approval provides an option for health care providers and pregnant individuals to protect infants from this potentially life-threatening disease.”

Most children are infected with the contagious virus at least once by the time they reach age 2 years. Very young children are at particular risk of severe complications, such as pneumonia or bronchitis, and in clinical trials, the new vaccine reduced that risk by up to 82%.

Before the vaccine became available, up to 3% of infants infected with RSV needed to be hospitalized, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In the hospital, treatment typically includes oxygen, intravenous fluids, and mechanical ventilation.

RSV often causes common cold symptoms, but the virus poses the risk of severe complications that can lead to death among young children and older people. The CDC estimates 100-300 deaths of children younger than 5 years and 6,000-10,000 deaths of people aged 65 years and older are linked to RSV annually.

This is also the first year that an antibody shot is available to be given after birth to prevent severe RSV in infants younger than 1 year.

In its approval announcement, the FDA pointed out that preeclampsia occurred in 1.8% of pregnancies after Abrysvo, compared with 1.4% of those who received placebo. The FDA also reported that, in infants, low birth weight and jaundice occurred at a higher rate among the pregnant Abrysvo recipients, compared with the placebo group.

Studies have also shown that pregnant vaccine recipients experienced preterm birth at a rate of 5.7%, compared with a rate of 4.7% among those who received placebo. The FDA called the difference “a numerical imbalance” but said in the approval announcement that a “causal relationship” could not be established.

The FDA also noted that people already at high risk of preterm birth were excluded from clinical trials and that Pfizer must conduct ongoing studies to monitor the risk of preeclampsia as well as preterm birth.

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

The long-awaited vaccine for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) that can be given during pregnancy has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

The vaccine, known as Abrysvo, can be given between weeks 32 and 36 of pregnancy and is designed to protect infants from the virus from birth to 6 months of age.

Administered as a single-dose, intramuscular injection, the FDA approved Abrysvo at the end of May for the prevention of lower respiratory tract illness caused by RSV in people aged 60 years and older.

However, “RSV is a common cause of illness in children, and infants are among those at highest risk for severe disease, which can lead to hospitalization,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, pointed out in a news release. “This approval provides an option for health care providers and pregnant individuals to protect infants from this potentially life-threatening disease.”

Most children are infected with the contagious virus at least once by the time they reach age 2 years. Very young children are at particular risk of severe complications, such as pneumonia or bronchitis, and in clinical trials, the new vaccine reduced that risk by up to 82%.

Before the vaccine became available, up to 3% of infants infected with RSV needed to be hospitalized, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In the hospital, treatment typically includes oxygen, intravenous fluids, and mechanical ventilation.

RSV often causes common cold symptoms, but the virus poses the risk of severe complications that can lead to death among young children and older people. The CDC estimates 100-300 deaths of children younger than 5 years and 6,000-10,000 deaths of people aged 65 years and older are linked to RSV annually.

This is also the first year that an antibody shot is available to be given after birth to prevent severe RSV in infants younger than 1 year.

In its approval announcement, the FDA pointed out that preeclampsia occurred in 1.8% of pregnancies after Abrysvo, compared with 1.4% of those who received placebo. The FDA also reported that, in infants, low birth weight and jaundice occurred at a higher rate among the pregnant Abrysvo recipients, compared with the placebo group.

Studies have also shown that pregnant vaccine recipients experienced preterm birth at a rate of 5.7%, compared with a rate of 4.7% among those who received placebo. The FDA called the difference “a numerical imbalance” but said in the approval announcement that a “causal relationship” could not be established.

The FDA also noted that people already at high risk of preterm birth were excluded from clinical trials and that Pfizer must conduct ongoing studies to monitor the risk of preeclampsia as well as preterm birth.

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

The long-awaited vaccine for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) that can be given during pregnancy has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

The vaccine, known as Abrysvo, can be given between weeks 32 and 36 of pregnancy and is designed to protect infants from the virus from birth to 6 months of age.

Administered as a single-dose, intramuscular injection, the FDA approved Abrysvo at the end of May for the prevention of lower respiratory tract illness caused by RSV in people aged 60 years and older.

However, “RSV is a common cause of illness in children, and infants are among those at highest risk for severe disease, which can lead to hospitalization,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, pointed out in a news release. “This approval provides an option for health care providers and pregnant individuals to protect infants from this potentially life-threatening disease.”

Most children are infected with the contagious virus at least once by the time they reach age 2 years. Very young children are at particular risk of severe complications, such as pneumonia or bronchitis, and in clinical trials, the new vaccine reduced that risk by up to 82%.

Before the vaccine became available, up to 3% of infants infected with RSV needed to be hospitalized, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In the hospital, treatment typically includes oxygen, intravenous fluids, and mechanical ventilation.

RSV often causes common cold symptoms, but the virus poses the risk of severe complications that can lead to death among young children and older people. The CDC estimates 100-300 deaths of children younger than 5 years and 6,000-10,000 deaths of people aged 65 years and older are linked to RSV annually.

This is also the first year that an antibody shot is available to be given after birth to prevent severe RSV in infants younger than 1 year.

In its approval announcement, the FDA pointed out that preeclampsia occurred in 1.8% of pregnancies after Abrysvo, compared with 1.4% of those who received placebo. The FDA also reported that, in infants, low birth weight and jaundice occurred at a higher rate among the pregnant Abrysvo recipients, compared with the placebo group.

Studies have also shown that pregnant vaccine recipients experienced preterm birth at a rate of 5.7%, compared with a rate of 4.7% among those who received placebo. The FDA called the difference “a numerical imbalance” but said in the approval announcement that a “causal relationship” could not be established.

The FDA also noted that people already at high risk of preterm birth were excluded from clinical trials and that Pfizer must conduct ongoing studies to monitor the risk of preeclampsia as well as preterm birth.

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

By now, concerns about COVID-related lawsuits have faded into the rear view mirror for most physicians.

But just when COVID lawsuits appear to be dwindling out, legal experts see a new lawsuit risk on the horizon – long COVID claims. While some say it’s doubtful the claims will succeed, the lawsuits could still create legal headaches for doctors in the form of time and money.

Long COVID claims are defined as complaints that allege that a diagnosis of long COVID was missed or delayed and that caused harm or injury. Lawsuits may also include claims in which patients allege that they were misdiagnosed as having long COVID when they were really suffering from another condition.

So far, a handful of long COVID claims have come down the pipeline, said Peter A. Kolbert, JD, senior vice president of claims and litigation services for Healthcare Risk Advisors, part of TDC Group.

“This is an area that is emerging as we speak,” Mr. Kolbert said. “We are starting to see these claims trickle in.”

In a recent case, for example, a patient sued her primary care physician for negligence, alleging her original SARS-CoV-2 infection was mismanaged and that this led to permanent neuropathy from long COVID. Had the patient been treated appropriately, the patient contends, she would not have developed long COVID or the resulting neuropathy, said Mr. Kolbert. An outcome in the case has not yet been reached, added Mr. Kolbert, who heard about the claim from a colleague.

The increase in the number of lawsuits raises concerns about how courts and juries might decide long COVID claims when so much about the condition is still unknown and best treatment practices are still developing. Research shows that long COVID occurs in at least 10% of cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and more than 200 symptoms have been identified. A Kaiser Family Foundation study found that 15% of the U.S. population believe they have experienced the symptoms of long COVID at some point, and 6% of people believe they currently have long COVID.

The risk of long COVID lawsuits underscores the importance of physicians taking proactive steps to protect themselves from liability when treating patients who might have the condition, say legal experts.

“There are legal standards that say new, unestablished scientific principles shouldn’t be first tested by a jury, they should be recognized and established within their [professional] area,” Mr. Kolbert said. “While we are seeing lawsuits related to long COVID, I think it is truly putting the cart before the horse, because there needs to be societal recognition that we’re still learning how to define and treat long COVID.”
 

What are patients alleging?

In the few long COVID claims that have arisen, some complaints have alleged delay in the recognition and treatment of long COVID, according to Mr. Kolbert. There have also been claims that physicians failed to refer a patient with long COVID to a specialist in a timely way and that this results in the patient’s experiencing chronic fatigue or a neuropathy.

Fatigue is one of the most common symptoms associated with long COVID, according to recent studies. Other symptoms include postexertional malaise, brain fog, and gastrointestinal problems.

Another rising legal theme is failure to adequately communicate with patients about what long COVID is and what it entails.

Whether plaintiffs who bring long COVID claims will be successful in court remains a question.

Andrew D. DeSimone, JD, a Lexington, Ky.–based medical malpractice defense attorney, said he has not seen any claims involving long COVID. He added that a long COVID claim would be challenging to prove, considering the standard of care for treating the condition is still evolving. Plaintiffs in a medical malpractice action must prove that physicians owed a duty of care to the patient, that the doctor breached that duty by failing to conform to the standard of care, and that the breach caused an injury that harmed the patient.

Mr. DeSimone also doubts whether juries would be very sympathetic to such plaintiffs.

“There’s a lot of fatigue around COVID still,” he said. “I don’t know if a jury would buy into someone claiming long COVID. I think the claim would have a hard time gaining traction. Not that it’s impossible.”

Another unanswered question is whether legal protections enacted by states during the pandemic might apply to long COVID claims.

Shortly after the pandemic started, most states enacted laws or executive orders that shielded physicians from liability claims relating to the prevention and treatment of COVID-19, unless gross negligence or willful misconduct is proved. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services published a declaration under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) that provided liability immunity to health care professionals for any activity related to medical countermeasures against COVID-19.

Some of these state immunities have since expired. Other states have extended their legal protections for short periods. In Indiana, for example, physicians and businesses are protected until Dec. 31, 2024, from civil tort actions that allege damages arising from COVID-19.

It’s possible that in long COVID lawsuits, physicians would be protected by the immunities unless the cases come after the protections expire, said J. Richard Moore, a medical liability defense attorney based in Indianapolis.

“I could foresee long COVID claims that don’t accrue until after December 2024, meaning it only becomes clear that a patient is struggling with long COVID–related symptoms after that date,” he said. “That could result in COVID claims that do not fall under the immunities.”

Mr. Moore said that if long COVID claims become truly problematic, the legislature could extend the immunities.

Other states, such as Washington, have statutes in place that increase the burden of proof for plaintiffs in cases in which care is affected by COVID and/or the treating of COVID. Elizabeth A. Leedom, a Seattle-based medical liability defense attorney, said the law would likely encompass long COVID claims if the care and treatment at issue occurred during the COVID state of emergency.

Compliance with current treatment guidelines is likely to be a good defense against any claim of delay/failure to diagnose COVID, including long COVID, she said.

Mr. Kolbert, however, doubts that the state immunities would protect against the claims.

“Courts are enforcing qualified immunities as to [traditional] COVID claims. However, I suspect that long COVID claims will fall into a category of traditional medical malpractice claim, such as delay in or failure to diagnose,” he said. In such cases, physicians “may not be able to take advantage of state-qualified immunities. Of course, this will depend upon the language of each state’s qualified immunity provisions.”

As for the statute of limitations, the clock generally starts running either when the alleged negligent conduct occurred or when the patient knew or, in the exercise of ordinary diligence, should have known, that they had been harmed by the alleged negligence, Mr. Moore said. Statutes of limitations are state specific, but the majority of states mandate a 2- to 3-year limit between the injury and the filing of a claim.

So, while the statute of limitations may be soon expiring for alleged harm that occurred during the pandemic, for patients newly diagnosed with long COVID or who have just discovered associated injuries, the clock may have just started ticking.
 

How to protect yourself against suits

Avoiding liability associated with long COVID involves the traditional legal guidance physicians are used to hearing, but with an added factor, Mr. Kolbert said.

There always needs to be communication with patients regarding the disease process, but in this area, there needs to be strong communication as to whether patients have had COVID in the past and what symptoms they are experiencing, he said. Physicians should ensure that patients know that long COVID may present in a variety of ways and that there is no definitive test for long COVID.

Physicians should document when the patient has been instructed to follow up and should take necessary steps to ensure the patient returns for follow-up care, he added.

On the opposite side of the spectrum is making sure not to assume a condition or symptom is the result of long COVID, he said. Care should be taken not to diagnose long COVID without excluding traditional causes.

“Ensure that patients know that COVID is not over, per se, and that science supports vaccination,” Mr. Kolbert said. “The best defense here is a strong communicative offense, engaging with the patient and thoughtfully charting about this.”

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

By now, concerns about COVID-related lawsuits have faded into the rear view mirror for most physicians.

But just when COVID lawsuits appear to be dwindling out, legal experts see a new lawsuit risk on the horizon – long COVID claims. While some say it’s doubtful the claims will succeed, the lawsuits could still create legal headaches for doctors in the form of time and money.

Long COVID claims are defined as complaints that allege that a diagnosis of long COVID was missed or delayed and that caused harm or injury. Lawsuits may also include claims in which patients allege that they were misdiagnosed as having long COVID when they were really suffering from another condition.

So far, a handful of long COVID claims have come down the pipeline, said Peter A. Kolbert, JD, senior vice president of claims and litigation services for Healthcare Risk Advisors, part of TDC Group.

“This is an area that is emerging as we speak,” Mr. Kolbert said. “We are starting to see these claims trickle in.”

In a recent case, for example, a patient sued her primary care physician for negligence, alleging her original SARS-CoV-2 infection was mismanaged and that this led to permanent neuropathy from long COVID. Had the patient been treated appropriately, the patient contends, she would not have developed long COVID or the resulting neuropathy, said Mr. Kolbert. An outcome in the case has not yet been reached, added Mr. Kolbert, who heard about the claim from a colleague.

The increase in the number of lawsuits raises concerns about how courts and juries might decide long COVID claims when so much about the condition is still unknown and best treatment practices are still developing. Research shows that long COVID occurs in at least 10% of cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and more than 200 symptoms have been identified. A Kaiser Family Foundation study found that 15% of the U.S. population believe they have experienced the symptoms of long COVID at some point, and 6% of people believe they currently have long COVID.

The risk of long COVID lawsuits underscores the importance of physicians taking proactive steps to protect themselves from liability when treating patients who might have the condition, say legal experts.

“There are legal standards that say new, unestablished scientific principles shouldn’t be first tested by a jury, they should be recognized and established within their [professional] area,” Mr. Kolbert said. “While we are seeing lawsuits related to long COVID, I think it is truly putting the cart before the horse, because there needs to be societal recognition that we’re still learning how to define and treat long COVID.”
 

What are patients alleging?

In the few long COVID claims that have arisen, some complaints have alleged delay in the recognition and treatment of long COVID, according to Mr. Kolbert. There have also been claims that physicians failed to refer a patient with long COVID to a specialist in a timely way and that this results in the patient’s experiencing chronic fatigue or a neuropathy.

Fatigue is one of the most common symptoms associated with long COVID, according to recent studies. Other symptoms include postexertional malaise, brain fog, and gastrointestinal problems.

Another rising legal theme is failure to adequately communicate with patients about what long COVID is and what it entails.

Whether plaintiffs who bring long COVID claims will be successful in court remains a question.

Andrew D. DeSimone, JD, a Lexington, Ky.–based medical malpractice defense attorney, said he has not seen any claims involving long COVID. He added that a long COVID claim would be challenging to prove, considering the standard of care for treating the condition is still evolving. Plaintiffs in a medical malpractice action must prove that physicians owed a duty of care to the patient, that the doctor breached that duty by failing to conform to the standard of care, and that the breach caused an injury that harmed the patient.

Mr. DeSimone also doubts whether juries would be very sympathetic to such plaintiffs.

“There’s a lot of fatigue around COVID still,” he said. “I don’t know if a jury would buy into someone claiming long COVID. I think the claim would have a hard time gaining traction. Not that it’s impossible.”

Another unanswered question is whether legal protections enacted by states during the pandemic might apply to long COVID claims.

Shortly after the pandemic started, most states enacted laws or executive orders that shielded physicians from liability claims relating to the prevention and treatment of COVID-19, unless gross negligence or willful misconduct is proved. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services published a declaration under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) that provided liability immunity to health care professionals for any activity related to medical countermeasures against COVID-19.

Some of these state immunities have since expired. Other states have extended their legal protections for short periods. In Indiana, for example, physicians and businesses are protected until Dec. 31, 2024, from civil tort actions that allege damages arising from COVID-19.

It’s possible that in long COVID lawsuits, physicians would be protected by the immunities unless the cases come after the protections expire, said J. Richard Moore, a medical liability defense attorney based in Indianapolis.

“I could foresee long COVID claims that don’t accrue until after December 2024, meaning it only becomes clear that a patient is struggling with long COVID–related symptoms after that date,” he said. “That could result in COVID claims that do not fall under the immunities.”

Mr. Moore said that if long COVID claims become truly problematic, the legislature could extend the immunities.

Other states, such as Washington, have statutes in place that increase the burden of proof for plaintiffs in cases in which care is affected by COVID and/or the treating of COVID. Elizabeth A. Leedom, a Seattle-based medical liability defense attorney, said the law would likely encompass long COVID claims if the care and treatment at issue occurred during the COVID state of emergency.

Compliance with current treatment guidelines is likely to be a good defense against any claim of delay/failure to diagnose COVID, including long COVID, she said.

Mr. Kolbert, however, doubts that the state immunities would protect against the claims.

“Courts are enforcing qualified immunities as to [traditional] COVID claims. However, I suspect that long COVID claims will fall into a category of traditional medical malpractice claim, such as delay in or failure to diagnose,” he said. In such cases, physicians “may not be able to take advantage of state-qualified immunities. Of course, this will depend upon the language of each state’s qualified immunity provisions.”

As for the statute of limitations, the clock generally starts running either when the alleged negligent conduct occurred or when the patient knew or, in the exercise of ordinary diligence, should have known, that they had been harmed by the alleged negligence, Mr. Moore said. Statutes of limitations are state specific, but the majority of states mandate a 2- to 3-year limit between the injury and the filing of a claim.

So, while the statute of limitations may be soon expiring for alleged harm that occurred during the pandemic, for patients newly diagnosed with long COVID or who have just discovered associated injuries, the clock may have just started ticking.
 

How to protect yourself against suits

Avoiding liability associated with long COVID involves the traditional legal guidance physicians are used to hearing, but with an added factor, Mr. Kolbert said.

There always needs to be communication with patients regarding the disease process, but in this area, there needs to be strong communication as to whether patients have had COVID in the past and what symptoms they are experiencing, he said. Physicians should ensure that patients know that long COVID may present in a variety of ways and that there is no definitive test for long COVID.

Physicians should document when the patient has been instructed to follow up and should take necessary steps to ensure the patient returns for follow-up care, he added.

On the opposite side of the spectrum is making sure not to assume a condition or symptom is the result of long COVID, he said. Care should be taken not to diagnose long COVID without excluding traditional causes.

“Ensure that patients know that COVID is not over, per se, and that science supports vaccination,” Mr. Kolbert said. “The best defense here is a strong communicative offense, engaging with the patient and thoughtfully charting about this.”

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

By now, concerns about COVID-related lawsuits have faded into the rear view mirror for most physicians.

But just when COVID lawsuits appear to be dwindling out, legal experts see a new lawsuit risk on the horizon – long COVID claims. While some say it’s doubtful the claims will succeed, the lawsuits could still create legal headaches for doctors in the form of time and money.

Long COVID claims are defined as complaints that allege that a diagnosis of long COVID was missed or delayed and that caused harm or injury. Lawsuits may also include claims in which patients allege that they were misdiagnosed as having long COVID when they were really suffering from another condition.

So far, a handful of long COVID claims have come down the pipeline, said Peter A. Kolbert, JD, senior vice president of claims and litigation services for Healthcare Risk Advisors, part of TDC Group.

“This is an area that is emerging as we speak,” Mr. Kolbert said. “We are starting to see these claims trickle in.”

In a recent case, for example, a patient sued her primary care physician for negligence, alleging her original SARS-CoV-2 infection was mismanaged and that this led to permanent neuropathy from long COVID. Had the patient been treated appropriately, the patient contends, she would not have developed long COVID or the resulting neuropathy, said Mr. Kolbert. An outcome in the case has not yet been reached, added Mr. Kolbert, who heard about the claim from a colleague.

The increase in the number of lawsuits raises concerns about how courts and juries might decide long COVID claims when so much about the condition is still unknown and best treatment practices are still developing. Research shows that long COVID occurs in at least 10% of cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and more than 200 symptoms have been identified. A Kaiser Family Foundation study found that 15% of the U.S. population believe they have experienced the symptoms of long COVID at some point, and 6% of people believe they currently have long COVID.

The risk of long COVID lawsuits underscores the importance of physicians taking proactive steps to protect themselves from liability when treating patients who might have the condition, say legal experts.

“There are legal standards that say new, unestablished scientific principles shouldn’t be first tested by a jury, they should be recognized and established within their [professional] area,” Mr. Kolbert said. “While we are seeing lawsuits related to long COVID, I think it is truly putting the cart before the horse, because there needs to be societal recognition that we’re still learning how to define and treat long COVID.”
 

What are patients alleging?

In the few long COVID claims that have arisen, some complaints have alleged delay in the recognition and treatment of long COVID, according to Mr. Kolbert. There have also been claims that physicians failed to refer a patient with long COVID to a specialist in a timely way and that this results in the patient’s experiencing chronic fatigue or a neuropathy.

Fatigue is one of the most common symptoms associated with long COVID, according to recent studies. Other symptoms include postexertional malaise, brain fog, and gastrointestinal problems.

Another rising legal theme is failure to adequately communicate with patients about what long COVID is and what it entails.

Whether plaintiffs who bring long COVID claims will be successful in court remains a question.

Andrew D. DeSimone, JD, a Lexington, Ky.–based medical malpractice defense attorney, said he has not seen any claims involving long COVID. He added that a long COVID claim would be challenging to prove, considering the standard of care for treating the condition is still evolving. Plaintiffs in a medical malpractice action must prove that physicians owed a duty of care to the patient, that the doctor breached that duty by failing to conform to the standard of care, and that the breach caused an injury that harmed the patient.

Mr. DeSimone also doubts whether juries would be very sympathetic to such plaintiffs.

“There’s a lot of fatigue around COVID still,” he said. “I don’t know if a jury would buy into someone claiming long COVID. I think the claim would have a hard time gaining traction. Not that it’s impossible.”

Another unanswered question is whether legal protections enacted by states during the pandemic might apply to long COVID claims.

Shortly after the pandemic started, most states enacted laws or executive orders that shielded physicians from liability claims relating to the prevention and treatment of COVID-19, unless gross negligence or willful misconduct is proved. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services published a declaration under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) that provided liability immunity to health care professionals for any activity related to medical countermeasures against COVID-19.

Some of these state immunities have since expired. Other states have extended their legal protections for short periods. In Indiana, for example, physicians and businesses are protected until Dec. 31, 2024, from civil tort actions that allege damages arising from COVID-19.

It’s possible that in long COVID lawsuits, physicians would be protected by the immunities unless the cases come after the protections expire, said J. Richard Moore, a medical liability defense attorney based in Indianapolis.

“I could foresee long COVID claims that don’t accrue until after December 2024, meaning it only becomes clear that a patient is struggling with long COVID–related symptoms after that date,” he said. “That could result in COVID claims that do not fall under the immunities.”

Mr. Moore said that if long COVID claims become truly problematic, the legislature could extend the immunities.

Other states, such as Washington, have statutes in place that increase the burden of proof for plaintiffs in cases in which care is affected by COVID and/or the treating of COVID. Elizabeth A. Leedom, a Seattle-based medical liability defense attorney, said the law would likely encompass long COVID claims if the care and treatment at issue occurred during the COVID state of emergency.

Compliance with current treatment guidelines is likely to be a good defense against any claim of delay/failure to diagnose COVID, including long COVID, she said.

Mr. Kolbert, however, doubts that the state immunities would protect against the claims.

“Courts are enforcing qualified immunities as to [traditional] COVID claims. However, I suspect that long COVID claims will fall into a category of traditional medical malpractice claim, such as delay in or failure to diagnose,” he said. In such cases, physicians “may not be able to take advantage of state-qualified immunities. Of course, this will depend upon the language of each state’s qualified immunity provisions.”

As for the statute of limitations, the clock generally starts running either when the alleged negligent conduct occurred or when the patient knew or, in the exercise of ordinary diligence, should have known, that they had been harmed by the alleged negligence, Mr. Moore said. Statutes of limitations are state specific, but the majority of states mandate a 2- to 3-year limit between the injury and the filing of a claim.

So, while the statute of limitations may be soon expiring for alleged harm that occurred during the pandemic, for patients newly diagnosed with long COVID or who have just discovered associated injuries, the clock may have just started ticking.
 

How to protect yourself against suits

Avoiding liability associated with long COVID involves the traditional legal guidance physicians are used to hearing, but with an added factor, Mr. Kolbert said.

There always needs to be communication with patients regarding the disease process, but in this area, there needs to be strong communication as to whether patients have had COVID in the past and what symptoms they are experiencing, he said. Physicians should ensure that patients know that long COVID may present in a variety of ways and that there is no definitive test for long COVID.

Physicians should document when the patient has been instructed to follow up and should take necessary steps to ensure the patient returns for follow-up care, he added.

On the opposite side of the spectrum is making sure not to assume a condition or symptom is the result of long COVID, he said. Care should be taken not to diagnose long COVID without excluding traditional causes.

“Ensure that patients know that COVID is not over, per se, and that science supports vaccination,” Mr. Kolbert said. “The best defense here is a strong communicative offense, engaging with the patient and thoughtfully charting about this.”

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

When OpenAI released ChatGPT-3 publicly last November, some doctors decided to try out the free AI tool that learns language and writes human-like text. Some physicians found the chatbot made mistakes and stopped using it, while others were happy with the results and plan to use it more often.

“We’ve played around with it. It was very early on in AI and we noticed it gave us incorrect information with regards to clinical guidance,” said Monalisa Tailor, MD, an internal medicine physician at Norton Health Care in Louisville, Ky. “We decided not to pursue it further,” she said.

Orthopedic spine surgeon Daniel Choi, MD, who owns a small medical/surgical practice in Long Island, New York, tested the chatbot’s performance with a few administrative tasks, including writing a job listing for an administrator and prior authorization letters.

He was enthusiastic. “A well-polished job posting that would usually take me 2-3 hours to write was done in 5 minutes,” Dr. Choi said. “I was blown away by the writing – it was much better than anything I could write.”

The chatbot can also automate administrative tasks in doctors’ practices from appointment scheduling and billing to clinical documentation, saving doctors time and money, experts say.

Most physicians are proceeding cautiously. About 10% of more than 500 medical group leaders, responding to a March poll by the Medical Group Management Association, said their practices regularly use AI tools.

More than half of the respondents not using AI said they first want more evidence that the technology works as intended.

“None of them work as advertised,” said one respondent.

MGMA practice management consultant Dawn Plested acknowledges that many of the physician practices she’s worked with are still wary. “I have yet to encounter a practice that is using any AI tool, even something as low-risk as appointment scheduling,” she said.

Physician groups may be concerned about the costs and logistics of integrating ChatGPT with their electronic health record systems (EHRs) and how that would work, said Ms. Plested.

Doctors may also be skeptical of AI based on their experience with EHRs, she said.

“They were promoted as a panacea to many problems; they were supposed to automate business practice, reduce staff and clinician’s work, and improve billing/coding/documentation. Unfortunately, they have become a major source of frustration for doctors,” said Ms. Plested.
 

Drawing the line at patient care

Patients are worried about their doctors relying on AI for their care, according to a Pew Research Center poll released in February. About 60% of U.S. adults say they would feel uncomfortable if their own health care professional relied on artificial intelligence to do things like diagnose disease and recommend treatments; about 40% say they would feel comfortable with this.

“We have not yet gone into using ChatGPT for clinical purposes and will be very cautious with these types of applications due to concerns about inaccuracies,” Dr. Choi said.

Practice leaders reported in the MGMA poll that the most common uses of AI were nonclinical, such as:

• Patient communications, including call center answering service to help triage calls, to sort/distribute incoming fax messages, and outreach such as appointment reminders and marketing materials.
• Capturing clinical documentation, often with natural language processing or speech recognition platforms to help virtually scribe.
• Improving billing operations and predictive analytics.

Some doctors told The New York Times that ChatGPT helped them communicate with patients in a more compassionate way.

They used chatbots “to find words to break bad news and express concerns about a patient’s suffering, or to just more clearly explain medical recommendations,” the story noted.
 

Is regulation needed?

Some legal scholars and medical groups say that AI should be regulated to protect patients and doctors from risks, including medical errors, that could harm patients.

“It’s very important to evaluate the accuracy, safety, and privacy of language learning models (LLMs) before integrating them into the medical system. The same should be true of any new medical tool,” said Mason Marks, MD, JD, a health law professor at the Florida State University College of Law in Tallahassee.

In mid-June, the American Medical Association approved two resolutions calling for greater government oversight of AI. The AMA will develop proposed state and federal regulations and work with the federal government and other organizations to protect patients from false or misleading AI-generated medical advice.

Dr. Marks pointed to existing federal rules that apply to AI. “The Federal Trade Commission already has regulation that can potentially be used to combat unfair or deceptive trade practices associated with chatbots,” he said.

In addition, “the U.S. Food and Drug Administration can also regulate these tools, but it needs to update how it approaches risk when it comes to AI. The FDA has an outdated view of risk as physical harm, for instance, from traditional medical devices. That view of risk needs to be updated and expanded to encompass the unique harms of AI,” Dr. Marks said.

There should also be more transparency about how LLM software is used in medicine, he said. “That could be a norm implemented by the LLM developers and it could also be enforced by federal agencies. For instance, the FDA could require developers to be more transparent regarding training data and methods, and the FTC could require greater transparency regarding how consumer data might be used and opportunities to opt out of certain uses,” said Dr. Marks.
 

What should doctors do?

Dr. Marks advised doctors to be cautious when using ChatGPT and other LLMs, especially for medical advice. “The same would apply to any new medical tool, but we know that the current generation of LLMs [is] particularly prone to making things up, which could lead to medical errors if relied on in clinical settings,” he said.

There is also potential for breaches of patient confidentiality if doctors input clinical information. ChatGPT and OpenAI-enabled tools may not be compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which set national standards to protect individuals’ medical records and individually identifiable health information.

“The best approach is to use chatbots cautiously and with skepticism. Don’t input patient information, confirm the accuracy of information produced, and don’t use them as replacements for professional judgment,” Dr. Marks recommended.

Ms. Plested suggested that doctors who want to experiment with AI start with a low-risk tool such as appointment reminders that could save staff time and money. “I never recommend they start with something as high-stakes as coding/billing,” she said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When OpenAI released ChatGPT-3 publicly last November, some doctors decided to try out the free AI tool that learns language and writes human-like text. Some physicians found the chatbot made mistakes and stopped using it, while others were happy with the results and plan to use it more often.

“We’ve played around with it. It was very early on in AI and we noticed it gave us incorrect information with regards to clinical guidance,” said Monalisa Tailor, MD, an internal medicine physician at Norton Health Care in Louisville, Ky. “We decided not to pursue it further,” she said.

Orthopedic spine surgeon Daniel Choi, MD, who owns a small medical/surgical practice in Long Island, New York, tested the chatbot’s performance with a few administrative tasks, including writing a job listing for an administrator and prior authorization letters.

He was enthusiastic. “A well-polished job posting that would usually take me 2-3 hours to write was done in 5 minutes,” Dr. Choi said. “I was blown away by the writing – it was much better than anything I could write.”

The chatbot can also automate administrative tasks in doctors’ practices from appointment scheduling and billing to clinical documentation, saving doctors time and money, experts say.

Most physicians are proceeding cautiously. About 10% of more than 500 medical group leaders, responding to a March poll by the Medical Group Management Association, said their practices regularly use AI tools.

More than half of the respondents not using AI said they first want more evidence that the technology works as intended.

“None of them work as advertised,” said one respondent.

MGMA practice management consultant Dawn Plested acknowledges that many of the physician practices she’s worked with are still wary. “I have yet to encounter a practice that is using any AI tool, even something as low-risk as appointment scheduling,” she said.

Physician groups may be concerned about the costs and logistics of integrating ChatGPT with their electronic health record systems (EHRs) and how that would work, said Ms. Plested.

Doctors may also be skeptical of AI based on their experience with EHRs, she said.

“They were promoted as a panacea to many problems; they were supposed to automate business practice, reduce staff and clinician’s work, and improve billing/coding/documentation. Unfortunately, they have become a major source of frustration for doctors,” said Ms. Plested.
 

Drawing the line at patient care

Patients are worried about their doctors relying on AI for their care, according to a Pew Research Center poll released in February. About 60% of U.S. adults say they would feel uncomfortable if their own health care professional relied on artificial intelligence to do things like diagnose disease and recommend treatments; about 40% say they would feel comfortable with this.

“We have not yet gone into using ChatGPT for clinical purposes and will be very cautious with these types of applications due to concerns about inaccuracies,” Dr. Choi said.

Practice leaders reported in the MGMA poll that the most common uses of AI were nonclinical, such as:

• Patient communications, including call center answering service to help triage calls, to sort/distribute incoming fax messages, and outreach such as appointment reminders and marketing materials.
• Capturing clinical documentation, often with natural language processing or speech recognition platforms to help virtually scribe.
• Improving billing operations and predictive analytics.

Some doctors told The New York Times that ChatGPT helped them communicate with patients in a more compassionate way.

They used chatbots “to find words to break bad news and express concerns about a patient’s suffering, or to just more clearly explain medical recommendations,” the story noted.
 

Is regulation needed?

Some legal scholars and medical groups say that AI should be regulated to protect patients and doctors from risks, including medical errors, that could harm patients.

“It’s very important to evaluate the accuracy, safety, and privacy of language learning models (LLMs) before integrating them into the medical system. The same should be true of any new medical tool,” said Mason Marks, MD, JD, a health law professor at the Florida State University College of Law in Tallahassee.

In mid-June, the American Medical Association approved two resolutions calling for greater government oversight of AI. The AMA will develop proposed state and federal regulations and work with the federal government and other organizations to protect patients from false or misleading AI-generated medical advice.

Dr. Marks pointed to existing federal rules that apply to AI. “The Federal Trade Commission already has regulation that can potentially be used to combat unfair or deceptive trade practices associated with chatbots,” he said.

In addition, “the U.S. Food and Drug Administration can also regulate these tools, but it needs to update how it approaches risk when it comes to AI. The FDA has an outdated view of risk as physical harm, for instance, from traditional medical devices. That view of risk needs to be updated and expanded to encompass the unique harms of AI,” Dr. Marks said.

There should also be more transparency about how LLM software is used in medicine, he said. “That could be a norm implemented by the LLM developers and it could also be enforced by federal agencies. For instance, the FDA could require developers to be more transparent regarding training data and methods, and the FTC could require greater transparency regarding how consumer data might be used and opportunities to opt out of certain uses,” said Dr. Marks.
 

What should doctors do?

Dr. Marks advised doctors to be cautious when using ChatGPT and other LLMs, especially for medical advice. “The same would apply to any new medical tool, but we know that the current generation of LLMs [is] particularly prone to making things up, which could lead to medical errors if relied on in clinical settings,” he said.

There is also potential for breaches of patient confidentiality if doctors input clinical information. ChatGPT and OpenAI-enabled tools may not be compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which set national standards to protect individuals’ medical records and individually identifiable health information.

“The best approach is to use chatbots cautiously and with skepticism. Don’t input patient information, confirm the accuracy of information produced, and don’t use them as replacements for professional judgment,” Dr. Marks recommended.

Ms. Plested suggested that doctors who want to experiment with AI start with a low-risk tool such as appointment reminders that could save staff time and money. “I never recommend they start with something as high-stakes as coding/billing,” she said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When OpenAI released ChatGPT-3 publicly last November, some doctors decided to try out the free AI tool that learns language and writes human-like text. Some physicians found the chatbot made mistakes and stopped using it, while others were happy with the results and plan to use it more often.

“We’ve played around with it. It was very early on in AI and we noticed it gave us incorrect information with regards to clinical guidance,” said Monalisa Tailor, MD, an internal medicine physician at Norton Health Care in Louisville, Ky. “We decided not to pursue it further,” she said.

Orthopedic spine surgeon Daniel Choi, MD, who owns a small medical/surgical practice in Long Island, New York, tested the chatbot’s performance with a few administrative tasks, including writing a job listing for an administrator and prior authorization letters.

He was enthusiastic. “A well-polished job posting that would usually take me 2-3 hours to write was done in 5 minutes,” Dr. Choi said. “I was blown away by the writing – it was much better than anything I could write.”

The chatbot can also automate administrative tasks in doctors’ practices from appointment scheduling and billing to clinical documentation, saving doctors time and money, experts say.

Most physicians are proceeding cautiously. About 10% of more than 500 medical group leaders, responding to a March poll by the Medical Group Management Association, said their practices regularly use AI tools.

More than half of the respondents not using AI said they first want more evidence that the technology works as intended.

“None of them work as advertised,” said one respondent.

MGMA practice management consultant Dawn Plested acknowledges that many of the physician practices she’s worked with are still wary. “I have yet to encounter a practice that is using any AI tool, even something as low-risk as appointment scheduling,” she said.

Physician groups may be concerned about the costs and logistics of integrating ChatGPT with their electronic health record systems (EHRs) and how that would work, said Ms. Plested.

Doctors may also be skeptical of AI based on their experience with EHRs, she said.

“They were promoted as a panacea to many problems; they were supposed to automate business practice, reduce staff and clinician’s work, and improve billing/coding/documentation. Unfortunately, they have become a major source of frustration for doctors,” said Ms. Plested.
 

Drawing the line at patient care

Patients are worried about their doctors relying on AI for their care, according to a Pew Research Center poll released in February. About 60% of U.S. adults say they would feel uncomfortable if their own health care professional relied on artificial intelligence to do things like diagnose disease and recommend treatments; about 40% say they would feel comfortable with this.

“We have not yet gone into using ChatGPT for clinical purposes and will be very cautious with these types of applications due to concerns about inaccuracies,” Dr. Choi said.

Practice leaders reported in the MGMA poll that the most common uses of AI were nonclinical, such as:

• Patient communications, including call center answering service to help triage calls, to sort/distribute incoming fax messages, and outreach such as appointment reminders and marketing materials.
• Capturing clinical documentation, often with natural language processing or speech recognition platforms to help virtually scribe.
• Improving billing operations and predictive analytics.

Some doctors told The New York Times that ChatGPT helped them communicate with patients in a more compassionate way.

They used chatbots “to find words to break bad news and express concerns about a patient’s suffering, or to just more clearly explain medical recommendations,” the story noted.
 

Is regulation needed?

Some legal scholars and medical groups say that AI should be regulated to protect patients and doctors from risks, including medical errors, that could harm patients.

“It’s very important to evaluate the accuracy, safety, and privacy of language learning models (LLMs) before integrating them into the medical system. The same should be true of any new medical tool,” said Mason Marks, MD, JD, a health law professor at the Florida State University College of Law in Tallahassee.

In mid-June, the American Medical Association approved two resolutions calling for greater government oversight of AI. The AMA will develop proposed state and federal regulations and work with the federal government and other organizations to protect patients from false or misleading AI-generated medical advice.

Dr. Marks pointed to existing federal rules that apply to AI. “The Federal Trade Commission already has regulation that can potentially be used to combat unfair or deceptive trade practices associated with chatbots,” he said.

In addition, “the U.S. Food and Drug Administration can also regulate these tools, but it needs to update how it approaches risk when it comes to AI. The FDA has an outdated view of risk as physical harm, for instance, from traditional medical devices. That view of risk needs to be updated and expanded to encompass the unique harms of AI,” Dr. Marks said.

There should also be more transparency about how LLM software is used in medicine, he said. “That could be a norm implemented by the LLM developers and it could also be enforced by federal agencies. For instance, the FDA could require developers to be more transparent regarding training data and methods, and the FTC could require greater transparency regarding how consumer data might be used and opportunities to opt out of certain uses,” said Dr. Marks.
 

What should doctors do?

Dr. Marks advised doctors to be cautious when using ChatGPT and other LLMs, especially for medical advice. “The same would apply to any new medical tool, but we know that the current generation of LLMs [is] particularly prone to making things up, which could lead to medical errors if relied on in clinical settings,” he said.

There is also potential for breaches of patient confidentiality if doctors input clinical information. ChatGPT and OpenAI-enabled tools may not be compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which set national standards to protect individuals’ medical records and individually identifiable health information.

“The best approach is to use chatbots cautiously and with skepticism. Don’t input patient information, confirm the accuracy of information produced, and don’t use them as replacements for professional judgment,” Dr. Marks recommended.

Ms. Plested suggested that doctors who want to experiment with AI start with a low-risk tool such as appointment reminders that could save staff time and money. “I never recommend they start with something as high-stakes as coding/billing,” she said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.