Immigration and Customs Enforcement will no longer detain most migrant women who are pregnant, postpartum, or nursing for deportation. This reverses the policy previously put in place by the Trump administration.

Under the new directive, ICE officials generally will not detain or arrest women who are pregnant or nursing, or who have given birth within the previous year. In a July 1 memo signed by ICE Acting Director Tae Johnson, ICE officers are directed to house women in “an appropriate facility to manage their care.”

The memo goes on to state that “generally ICE should not detain, arrest, or take into custody for an administrative violation of the immigration laws individuals known to be pregnant, post partum, or nursing unless release is prohibited by law or exceptional circumstances exist.”

In addition, ICE is also required to evaluate those individuals who are already in custody “to determine if continued detention is appropriate.”

During the Obama administration, pregnant women were generally not detained except under extraordinary circumstances. However, these policies were reversed after Donald Trump took office, and there was an 80% increase in the number of times ICE detained pregnant women in the year that followed implementation of the new directive – from 1,160 in 2017 to 2,097 in 2018.

The new guidance now goes even further than the directive issued under President Obama as it also includes women who are nursing and the 1-year postpartum period.

This policy stems from the Biden-Harris administration’s plan to reform the immigration system, part of which was to create a more humane asylum system. In a statement released early in February 2021, the White House stated that the “Trump administration’s policies at the border have caused chaos, cruelty, and confusion,” and that they will now “begin to roll back the most damaging policies adopted by the prior administration, while taking effective action to manage migration across the region.” After migrant women are taken into custody, pregnancy tests are administered as part of regular health screenings. If women are found to be pregnant, the new ICE policy states that they “generally” should be released from detention.

However, there will still be circumstances when pregnant and postpartum women may be detained, such as when there is a high risk that the individual is violent or a national security concern. In these cases, a field office director must approve the arrest and detention as well as making sure that the women receive appropriate medical care.

“The harmful consequences of immigration detention have been documented for years,” said Rebekah Wolf, JD, staff attorney with the American Immigration Council. “Our 2017 joint complaint urging a thorough investigation into the increasing numbers of pregnant women facing harm in detention, illustrated the disturbing practice of detaining pregnant women and the lack of quality medical care provided to these women.”

She added that the “federal government should not be in the business of detaining pregnant or nursing individuals, and it’s good to see the Biden administration directing ICE to finally take meaningful steps to limit enforcement activities in this manner. We are hopeful that this announcement is an indication of a broader shift on detention policy.”

There are currently 13 pregnant women in ICE custody, and they are being considered for release under the new policy.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement will no longer detain most migrant women who are pregnant, postpartum, or nursing for deportation. This reverses the policy previously put in place by the Trump administration.

Under the new directive, ICE officials generally will not detain or arrest women who are pregnant or nursing, or who have given birth within the previous year. In a July 1 memo signed by ICE Acting Director Tae Johnson, ICE officers are directed to house women in “an appropriate facility to manage their care.”

The memo goes on to state that “generally ICE should not detain, arrest, or take into custody for an administrative violation of the immigration laws individuals known to be pregnant, post partum, or nursing unless release is prohibited by law or exceptional circumstances exist.”

In addition, ICE is also required to evaluate those individuals who are already in custody “to determine if continued detention is appropriate.”

During the Obama administration, pregnant women were generally not detained except under extraordinary circumstances. However, these policies were reversed after Donald Trump took office, and there was an 80% increase in the number of times ICE detained pregnant women in the year that followed implementation of the new directive – from 1,160 in 2017 to 2,097 in 2018.

The new guidance now goes even further than the directive issued under President Obama as it also includes women who are nursing and the 1-year postpartum period.

This policy stems from the Biden-Harris administration’s plan to reform the immigration system, part of which was to create a more humane asylum system. In a statement released early in February 2021, the White House stated that the “Trump administration’s policies at the border have caused chaos, cruelty, and confusion,” and that they will now “begin to roll back the most damaging policies adopted by the prior administration, while taking effective action to manage migration across the region.” After migrant women are taken into custody, pregnancy tests are administered as part of regular health screenings. If women are found to be pregnant, the new ICE policy states that they “generally” should be released from detention.

However, there will still be circumstances when pregnant and postpartum women may be detained, such as when there is a high risk that the individual is violent or a national security concern. In these cases, a field office director must approve the arrest and detention as well as making sure that the women receive appropriate medical care.

“The harmful consequences of immigration detention have been documented for years,” said Rebekah Wolf, JD, staff attorney with the American Immigration Council. “Our 2017 joint complaint urging a thorough investigation into the increasing numbers of pregnant women facing harm in detention, illustrated the disturbing practice of detaining pregnant women and the lack of quality medical care provided to these women.”

She added that the “federal government should not be in the business of detaining pregnant or nursing individuals, and it’s good to see the Biden administration directing ICE to finally take meaningful steps to limit enforcement activities in this manner. We are hopeful that this announcement is an indication of a broader shift on detention policy.”

There are currently 13 pregnant women in ICE custody, and they are being considered for release under the new policy.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement will no longer detain most migrant women who are pregnant, postpartum, or nursing for deportation. This reverses the policy previously put in place by the Trump administration.

Under the new directive, ICE officials generally will not detain or arrest women who are pregnant or nursing, or who have given birth within the previous year. In a July 1 memo signed by ICE Acting Director Tae Johnson, ICE officers are directed to house women in “an appropriate facility to manage their care.”

The memo goes on to state that “generally ICE should not detain, arrest, or take into custody for an administrative violation of the immigration laws individuals known to be pregnant, post partum, or nursing unless release is prohibited by law or exceptional circumstances exist.”

In addition, ICE is also required to evaluate those individuals who are already in custody “to determine if continued detention is appropriate.”

During the Obama administration, pregnant women were generally not detained except under extraordinary circumstances. However, these policies were reversed after Donald Trump took office, and there was an 80% increase in the number of times ICE detained pregnant women in the year that followed implementation of the new directive – from 1,160 in 2017 to 2,097 in 2018.

The new guidance now goes even further than the directive issued under President Obama as it also includes women who are nursing and the 1-year postpartum period.

This policy stems from the Biden-Harris administration’s plan to reform the immigration system, part of which was to create a more humane asylum system. In a statement released early in February 2021, the White House stated that the “Trump administration’s policies at the border have caused chaos, cruelty, and confusion,” and that they will now “begin to roll back the most damaging policies adopted by the prior administration, while taking effective action to manage migration across the region.” After migrant women are taken into custody, pregnancy tests are administered as part of regular health screenings. If women are found to be pregnant, the new ICE policy states that they “generally” should be released from detention.

However, there will still be circumstances when pregnant and postpartum women may be detained, such as when there is a high risk that the individual is violent or a national security concern. In these cases, a field office director must approve the arrest and detention as well as making sure that the women receive appropriate medical care.

“The harmful consequences of immigration detention have been documented for years,” said Rebekah Wolf, JD, staff attorney with the American Immigration Council. “Our 2017 joint complaint urging a thorough investigation into the increasing numbers of pregnant women facing harm in detention, illustrated the disturbing practice of detaining pregnant women and the lack of quality medical care provided to these women.”

She added that the “federal government should not be in the business of detaining pregnant or nursing individuals, and it’s good to see the Biden administration directing ICE to finally take meaningful steps to limit enforcement activities in this manner. We are hopeful that this announcement is an indication of a broader shift on detention policy.”

There are currently 13 pregnant women in ICE custody, and they are being considered for release under the new policy.

Editor’s note: This article has been provided by The Doctors Company, the exclusively endorsed medical malpractice carrier for the Society of Hospital Medicine.

The pandemic has raised pressing questions around preventive measures, vaccines, and safe treatment, but it has also obscured one key lingering uncertainty for medical professionals: Where are all the medical malpractice claims?

A variety of factors create a cloud of uncertainty around when, if ever, we will see the claims we expected from care provided just before the pandemic, much less claims deriving from care during the pandemic of both COVID-19 and non–COVID-19 patients.
 

Malpractice claims take time to surface

We won’t know until 2022 or later whether there will be an increase in claims related to the pandemic. When a medical error occurs, it’s not like an automobile accident. Everybody nearby knows when there’s been an automobile accident because they hear screeching tires, a loud crash, and then sirens. But when a medical error occurs, generally speaking, neither the doctor nor the patient immediately knows that something is amiss. It can take months or years for people to realize that something untoward has occurred.

Claims from medical errors that occurred before the pandemic bring additional uncertainties. In 2020, we saw fewer than expected overall claims filed from events occurring 18-24 months before the pandemic. In total, 20% fewer claims were filed than in 2019. This may have had to do with courts shutting down, people being reluctant to meet with attorneys to discuss a claim, and/or lawyers working from home. We may see these claims filed later than expected, or maybe we won’t see them at all.

But without a doubt, pandemic-related claims will be filed. The pandemic’s impact on physicians increases the risk of claims. Burnout is a major cause of medical errors, and a recent study found that out of 60 countries, U.S. health care providers showed the highest rates of burnout. We’re concerned about the stress affecting physicians’ performance – not just the physical stress of the demands put on them while treating COVID-19 patients, but all of the worry. For instance, a lot of doctors at the start of this pandemic stayed at hotels because they didn’t want to bring the virus home to their families – if they got exposed. Those sorts of stressors from life disruptions, on top of the stress of treating COVID-19 patients and the stress of treating non–COVID-19 patients within overtaxed health care systems, contribute to the possibilities for error.
 

Immunity protections are not fail-safe

And while health care providers have medical liability protections during the pandemic, these protections may not prevent claims. Health care provider pandemic-related liability laws vary from state to state, and they will be tested in the courts as to whether they’re constitutional. For example, there is pending legislation in New York state that would repeal the provider protections created there at the start of the pandemic. Further, some expert witnesses will couch their statements in terms of what it takes to get around one of these statutes. Therefore, physicians do have reason for concern, even in states with strong liability protections.

The following case example, which is one of about 40 COVID-19–related claims made against our members so far, is a poster child for why these protections are necessary: A quadriplegic patient with COVID-19 had reached the point of organ failure before he reached the ED. There was really nothing medical science could do for him at that point, in terms of a chance at recovery. Therefore, the patient’s physician and conservator placed him in assisted living for palliative care. This was a sad but reasonable decision during a pandemic, with hospital beds needed for patients with a shot at surviving. Following that patient’s death, the physician is being sued.
 

Defending claims regarding treatment vs. regarding infection control

We are very confident in our ability to protect our members against claims where they are being sued over the treatment of the disease. Claims arising out of treatment are not concerning to us because there is no cure for COVID-19 – one can only treat the symptoms as the virus runs its course.

On the other hand, suits harder to defend would be those that revolve around transmitting the disease because providers didn’t follow guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or there wasn’t enough personal protective equipment. That’s why we stress the importance of following CDC guidelines, and why we’ve taken proactive steps to communicate with the entire medical community throughout the pandemic as part of our commitment to serve those who provide care.

Mr. White is chief operating officer at The Doctors Company. The guidelines suggested here are not rules, do not constitute legal advice, and do not ensure a successful outcome. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any treatment must be made by each health care provider considering the circumstances of the individual situation and in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction in which the care is rendered.

Editor’s note: This article has been provided by The Doctors Company, the exclusively endorsed medical malpractice carrier for the Society of Hospital Medicine.

The pandemic has raised pressing questions around preventive measures, vaccines, and safe treatment, but it has also obscured one key lingering uncertainty for medical professionals: Where are all the medical malpractice claims?

A variety of factors create a cloud of uncertainty around when, if ever, we will see the claims we expected from care provided just before the pandemic, much less claims deriving from care during the pandemic of both COVID-19 and non–COVID-19 patients.
 

Malpractice claims take time to surface

We won’t know until 2022 or later whether there will be an increase in claims related to the pandemic. When a medical error occurs, it’s not like an automobile accident. Everybody nearby knows when there’s been an automobile accident because they hear screeching tires, a loud crash, and then sirens. But when a medical error occurs, generally speaking, neither the doctor nor the patient immediately knows that something is amiss. It can take months or years for people to realize that something untoward has occurred.

Claims from medical errors that occurred before the pandemic bring additional uncertainties. In 2020, we saw fewer than expected overall claims filed from events occurring 18-24 months before the pandemic. In total, 20% fewer claims were filed than in 2019. This may have had to do with courts shutting down, people being reluctant to meet with attorneys to discuss a claim, and/or lawyers working from home. We may see these claims filed later than expected, or maybe we won’t see them at all.

But without a doubt, pandemic-related claims will be filed. The pandemic’s impact on physicians increases the risk of claims. Burnout is a major cause of medical errors, and a recent study found that out of 60 countries, U.S. health care providers showed the highest rates of burnout. We’re concerned about the stress affecting physicians’ performance – not just the physical stress of the demands put on them while treating COVID-19 patients, but all of the worry. For instance, a lot of doctors at the start of this pandemic stayed at hotels because they didn’t want to bring the virus home to their families – if they got exposed. Those sorts of stressors from life disruptions, on top of the stress of treating COVID-19 patients and the stress of treating non–COVID-19 patients within overtaxed health care systems, contribute to the possibilities for error.
 

Immunity protections are not fail-safe

And while health care providers have medical liability protections during the pandemic, these protections may not prevent claims. Health care provider pandemic-related liability laws vary from state to state, and they will be tested in the courts as to whether they’re constitutional. For example, there is pending legislation in New York state that would repeal the provider protections created there at the start of the pandemic. Further, some expert witnesses will couch their statements in terms of what it takes to get around one of these statutes. Therefore, physicians do have reason for concern, even in states with strong liability protections.

The following case example, which is one of about 40 COVID-19–related claims made against our members so far, is a poster child for why these protections are necessary: A quadriplegic patient with COVID-19 had reached the point of organ failure before he reached the ED. There was really nothing medical science could do for him at that point, in terms of a chance at recovery. Therefore, the patient’s physician and conservator placed him in assisted living for palliative care. This was a sad but reasonable decision during a pandemic, with hospital beds needed for patients with a shot at surviving. Following that patient’s death, the physician is being sued.
 

Defending claims regarding treatment vs. regarding infection control

We are very confident in our ability to protect our members against claims where they are being sued over the treatment of the disease. Claims arising out of treatment are not concerning to us because there is no cure for COVID-19 – one can only treat the symptoms as the virus runs its course.

On the other hand, suits harder to defend would be those that revolve around transmitting the disease because providers didn’t follow guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or there wasn’t enough personal protective equipment. That’s why we stress the importance of following CDC guidelines, and why we’ve taken proactive steps to communicate with the entire medical community throughout the pandemic as part of our commitment to serve those who provide care.

Mr. White is chief operating officer at The Doctors Company. The guidelines suggested here are not rules, do not constitute legal advice, and do not ensure a successful outcome. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any treatment must be made by each health care provider considering the circumstances of the individual situation and in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction in which the care is rendered.

Editor’s note: This article has been provided by The Doctors Company, the exclusively endorsed medical malpractice carrier for the Society of Hospital Medicine.

The pandemic has raised pressing questions around preventive measures, vaccines, and safe treatment, but it has also obscured one key lingering uncertainty for medical professionals: Where are all the medical malpractice claims?

A variety of factors create a cloud of uncertainty around when, if ever, we will see the claims we expected from care provided just before the pandemic, much less claims deriving from care during the pandemic of both COVID-19 and non–COVID-19 patients.
 

Malpractice claims take time to surface

We won’t know until 2022 or later whether there will be an increase in claims related to the pandemic. When a medical error occurs, it’s not like an automobile accident. Everybody nearby knows when there’s been an automobile accident because they hear screeching tires, a loud crash, and then sirens. But when a medical error occurs, generally speaking, neither the doctor nor the patient immediately knows that something is amiss. It can take months or years for people to realize that something untoward has occurred.

Claims from medical errors that occurred before the pandemic bring additional uncertainties. In 2020, we saw fewer than expected overall claims filed from events occurring 18-24 months before the pandemic. In total, 20% fewer claims were filed than in 2019. This may have had to do with courts shutting down, people being reluctant to meet with attorneys to discuss a claim, and/or lawyers working from home. We may see these claims filed later than expected, or maybe we won’t see them at all.

But without a doubt, pandemic-related claims will be filed. The pandemic’s impact on physicians increases the risk of claims. Burnout is a major cause of medical errors, and a recent study found that out of 60 countries, U.S. health care providers showed the highest rates of burnout. We’re concerned about the stress affecting physicians’ performance – not just the physical stress of the demands put on them while treating COVID-19 patients, but all of the worry. For instance, a lot of doctors at the start of this pandemic stayed at hotels because they didn’t want to bring the virus home to their families – if they got exposed. Those sorts of stressors from life disruptions, on top of the stress of treating COVID-19 patients and the stress of treating non–COVID-19 patients within overtaxed health care systems, contribute to the possibilities for error.
 

Immunity protections are not fail-safe

And while health care providers have medical liability protections during the pandemic, these protections may not prevent claims. Health care provider pandemic-related liability laws vary from state to state, and they will be tested in the courts as to whether they’re constitutional. For example, there is pending legislation in New York state that would repeal the provider protections created there at the start of the pandemic. Further, some expert witnesses will couch their statements in terms of what it takes to get around one of these statutes. Therefore, physicians do have reason for concern, even in states with strong liability protections.

The following case example, which is one of about 40 COVID-19–related claims made against our members so far, is a poster child for why these protections are necessary: A quadriplegic patient with COVID-19 had reached the point of organ failure before he reached the ED. There was really nothing medical science could do for him at that point, in terms of a chance at recovery. Therefore, the patient’s physician and conservator placed him in assisted living for palliative care. This was a sad but reasonable decision during a pandemic, with hospital beds needed for patients with a shot at surviving. Following that patient’s death, the physician is being sued.
 

Defending claims regarding treatment vs. regarding infection control

We are very confident in our ability to protect our members against claims where they are being sued over the treatment of the disease. Claims arising out of treatment are not concerning to us because there is no cure for COVID-19 – one can only treat the symptoms as the virus runs its course.

On the other hand, suits harder to defend would be those that revolve around transmitting the disease because providers didn’t follow guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or there wasn’t enough personal protective equipment. That’s why we stress the importance of following CDC guidelines, and why we’ve taken proactive steps to communicate with the entire medical community throughout the pandemic as part of our commitment to serve those who provide care.

Mr. White is chief operating officer at The Doctors Company. The guidelines suggested here are not rules, do not constitute legal advice, and do not ensure a successful outcome. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any treatment must be made by each health care provider considering the circumstances of the individual situation and in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction in which the care is rendered.

Acne & Rosacea

• Rosacea phenotypes
• Erythema and flushing
• Aggressive treatment of acne
• Energy-based rosacea therapy
• Diet and acne

Acne & Rosacea

• Rosacea phenotypes
• Erythema and flushing
• Aggressive treatment of acne
• Energy-based rosacea therapy
• Diet and acne

Acne & Rosacea

• Rosacea phenotypes
• Erythema and flushing
• Aggressive treatment of acne
• Energy-based rosacea therapy
• Diet and acne

In a real-world test, tofacitinib had a similar safety profile to what was seen in clinical trials. The majority of adverse events seen were infections, and few were serious; however, the study did find evidence of rare venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with preexisting risk factors, which suggests that precaution is warranted in this group.

Tofacitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for adults with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC). Three phase 3 clinical trials and an open-label, long-term extension trial found that the drug was associated with increased infection rates and higher lipid levels.

In rheumatoid arthritis patients, an interim analysis of a safety clinical trial of twice-daily doses of 10 mg tofacitinib showed increased rates of pulmonary embolism and all-cause mortality, compared to treatment with a dose of 5 mg or a tumor necrosis factor antagonist. That finding led to a black box label warning against thrombosis.

The current study, published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, included patients from six centers in the United States.

The findings suggest that patients should be counseled about the potential risk for herpes zoster (HZ) reactivation, especially older patients taking corticosteroids. The authors also recommended vaccination with an inactivated HZ vaccine. “Our data suggest a careful risk-benefit discussion before starting tofacitinib, especially in patients with preexisting risk factors for VTE, dose deescalation to the lowest clinically feasible dose, and monitoring for clinical signs of VTE, especially among those who continue on a dose of 10 mg twice a day,” the authors wrote.

The researchers followed 260 patients over a median of 6 months (median age, 38 years; 58.1% male; 71.9% non-Hispanic). Overall, 88.5% had previously received treatment with a biologic, most often an anti–TNF-alpha agent (76.5%). During follow-up, 15.7% experienced adverse events, most commonly infections (5.0%) and rash (3.5%). Joint pain (1.5%) and anemia (1.5%) also occurred. The incidence rate for any adverse event was 27.2 per 100 person-years. Adverse events occurred more often in older patients (mean age, 42 vs. 37 years; P = .02) and those who had not undergone previous anti-TNF therapy (63.4% vs 79.8%; P = .03). There was no association between concomitant steroid use and adverse events on univariate analysis. Of the overall cohort, 5.8% experienced a severe adverse event, with the most common being herpes zoster rash (26.7% of severe adverse events). Therapy was discontinued by 4.6%.

Five patients developed herpes zoster (3.29 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 1.37-7.90). Risk factors for VTE were seen in 31.2% of the cohort, and two cases of VTE occurred during follow-up (1.32 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 0.33-5.28), both in patients with extensive UC. There was no increased risk of complications following abdominal surgery.

At baseline, 38.4% had an abnormal lipid profile, and this increased to 48.3% following 8 weeks of treatment.

Overall, 45% of patients were anemic at baseline. Females experienced a significant improvement by week 26 (median hemoglobin level, 13.0 g/dL; interquartile range, 12.5-13.8), while a similar improvement occurred by week 52 in males (median hemoglobin level, 13.6 g/dL; IQR, 12.57-14.0). At 52 weeks, the mean increase in hemoglobin was 5% (IQR, 0%-11.1%). The increase was greater in females (7.7%; IQR, 4.2%-11.7%) than in males (2.1%; IQR, –0.5% to 11.3%).

Limitations of the study include its retrospective nature and that the tools by which data were collected could have missed some adverse events because they were not adequately captured in the treating clinician’s notes. However, the data trend similarly to a prospective study.

“In summary, we report safety signals on a real-world cohort of patients with UC initiated on tofacitinib in whom increasing age is a risk factor for AEs and consistent with recent reports of a dose-dependent risk of HZ reactivation and VTE events in patients with a risk factor for VTE on the 10-mg twice-daily dosing,” the authors concluded.

The study was funded by the American College of Gastroenterology, the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation, the Givin’ it all for Guts Foundation, and the Lawrence C. Pakula, MD, Inflammatory Bowel Disease Research Innovation and Education Fund. The authors have financial ties with various pharmaceutical companies.

This article was updated July 19, 2021.

In a real-world test, tofacitinib had a similar safety profile to what was seen in clinical trials. The majority of adverse events seen were infections, and few were serious; however, the study did find evidence of rare venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with preexisting risk factors, which suggests that precaution is warranted in this group.

Tofacitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for adults with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC). Three phase 3 clinical trials and an open-label, long-term extension trial found that the drug was associated with increased infection rates and higher lipid levels.

In rheumatoid arthritis patients, an interim analysis of a safety clinical trial of twice-daily doses of 10 mg tofacitinib showed increased rates of pulmonary embolism and all-cause mortality, compared to treatment with a dose of 5 mg or a tumor necrosis factor antagonist. That finding led to a black box label warning against thrombosis.

The current study, published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, included patients from six centers in the United States.

The findings suggest that patients should be counseled about the potential risk for herpes zoster (HZ) reactivation, especially older patients taking corticosteroids. The authors also recommended vaccination with an inactivated HZ vaccine. “Our data suggest a careful risk-benefit discussion before starting tofacitinib, especially in patients with preexisting risk factors for VTE, dose deescalation to the lowest clinically feasible dose, and monitoring for clinical signs of VTE, especially among those who continue on a dose of 10 mg twice a day,” the authors wrote.

The researchers followed 260 patients over a median of 6 months (median age, 38 years; 58.1% male; 71.9% non-Hispanic). Overall, 88.5% had previously received treatment with a biologic, most often an anti–TNF-alpha agent (76.5%). During follow-up, 15.7% experienced adverse events, most commonly infections (5.0%) and rash (3.5%). Joint pain (1.5%) and anemia (1.5%) also occurred. The incidence rate for any adverse event was 27.2 per 100 person-years. Adverse events occurred more often in older patients (mean age, 42 vs. 37 years; P = .02) and those who had not undergone previous anti-TNF therapy (63.4% vs 79.8%; P = .03). There was no association between concomitant steroid use and adverse events on univariate analysis. Of the overall cohort, 5.8% experienced a severe adverse event, with the most common being herpes zoster rash (26.7% of severe adverse events). Therapy was discontinued by 4.6%.

Five patients developed herpes zoster (3.29 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 1.37-7.90). Risk factors for VTE were seen in 31.2% of the cohort, and two cases of VTE occurred during follow-up (1.32 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 0.33-5.28), both in patients with extensive UC. There was no increased risk of complications following abdominal surgery.

At baseline, 38.4% had an abnormal lipid profile, and this increased to 48.3% following 8 weeks of treatment.

Overall, 45% of patients were anemic at baseline. Females experienced a significant improvement by week 26 (median hemoglobin level, 13.0 g/dL; interquartile range, 12.5-13.8), while a similar improvement occurred by week 52 in males (median hemoglobin level, 13.6 g/dL; IQR, 12.57-14.0). At 52 weeks, the mean increase in hemoglobin was 5% (IQR, 0%-11.1%). The increase was greater in females (7.7%; IQR, 4.2%-11.7%) than in males (2.1%; IQR, –0.5% to 11.3%).

Limitations of the study include its retrospective nature and that the tools by which data were collected could have missed some adverse events because they were not adequately captured in the treating clinician’s notes. However, the data trend similarly to a prospective study.

“In summary, we report safety signals on a real-world cohort of patients with UC initiated on tofacitinib in whom increasing age is a risk factor for AEs and consistent with recent reports of a dose-dependent risk of HZ reactivation and VTE events in patients with a risk factor for VTE on the 10-mg twice-daily dosing,” the authors concluded.

The study was funded by the American College of Gastroenterology, the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation, the Givin’ it all for Guts Foundation, and the Lawrence C. Pakula, MD, Inflammatory Bowel Disease Research Innovation and Education Fund. The authors have financial ties with various pharmaceutical companies.

This article was updated July 19, 2021.

In a real-world test, tofacitinib had a similar safety profile to what was seen in clinical trials. The majority of adverse events seen were infections, and few were serious; however, the study did find evidence of rare venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with preexisting risk factors, which suggests that precaution is warranted in this group.

Tofacitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for adults with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC). Three phase 3 clinical trials and an open-label, long-term extension trial found that the drug was associated with increased infection rates and higher lipid levels.

In rheumatoid arthritis patients, an interim analysis of a safety clinical trial of twice-daily doses of 10 mg tofacitinib showed increased rates of pulmonary embolism and all-cause mortality, compared to treatment with a dose of 5 mg or a tumor necrosis factor antagonist. That finding led to a black box label warning against thrombosis.

The current study, published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, included patients from six centers in the United States.

The findings suggest that patients should be counseled about the potential risk for herpes zoster (HZ) reactivation, especially older patients taking corticosteroids. The authors also recommended vaccination with an inactivated HZ vaccine. “Our data suggest a careful risk-benefit discussion before starting tofacitinib, especially in patients with preexisting risk factors for VTE, dose deescalation to the lowest clinically feasible dose, and monitoring for clinical signs of VTE, especially among those who continue on a dose of 10 mg twice a day,” the authors wrote.

The researchers followed 260 patients over a median of 6 months (median age, 38 years; 58.1% male; 71.9% non-Hispanic). Overall, 88.5% had previously received treatment with a biologic, most often an anti–TNF-alpha agent (76.5%). During follow-up, 15.7% experienced adverse events, most commonly infections (5.0%) and rash (3.5%). Joint pain (1.5%) and anemia (1.5%) also occurred. The incidence rate for any adverse event was 27.2 per 100 person-years. Adverse events occurred more often in older patients (mean age, 42 vs. 37 years; P = .02) and those who had not undergone previous anti-TNF therapy (63.4% vs 79.8%; P = .03). There was no association between concomitant steroid use and adverse events on univariate analysis. Of the overall cohort, 5.8% experienced a severe adverse event, with the most common being herpes zoster rash (26.7% of severe adverse events). Therapy was discontinued by 4.6%.

Five patients developed herpes zoster (3.29 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 1.37-7.90). Risk factors for VTE were seen in 31.2% of the cohort, and two cases of VTE occurred during follow-up (1.32 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 0.33-5.28), both in patients with extensive UC. There was no increased risk of complications following abdominal surgery.

At baseline, 38.4% had an abnormal lipid profile, and this increased to 48.3% following 8 weeks of treatment.

Overall, 45% of patients were anemic at baseline. Females experienced a significant improvement by week 26 (median hemoglobin level, 13.0 g/dL; interquartile range, 12.5-13.8), while a similar improvement occurred by week 52 in males (median hemoglobin level, 13.6 g/dL; IQR, 12.57-14.0). At 52 weeks, the mean increase in hemoglobin was 5% (IQR, 0%-11.1%). The increase was greater in females (7.7%; IQR, 4.2%-11.7%) than in males (2.1%; IQR, –0.5% to 11.3%).

Limitations of the study include its retrospective nature and that the tools by which data were collected could have missed some adverse events because they were not adequately captured in the treating clinician’s notes. However, the data trend similarly to a prospective study.

“In summary, we report safety signals on a real-world cohort of patients with UC initiated on tofacitinib in whom increasing age is a risk factor for AEs and consistent with recent reports of a dose-dependent risk of HZ reactivation and VTE events in patients with a risk factor for VTE on the 10-mg twice-daily dosing,” the authors concluded.

The study was funded by the American College of Gastroenterology, the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation, the Givin’ it all for Guts Foundation, and the Lawrence C. Pakula, MD, Inflammatory Bowel Disease Research Innovation and Education Fund. The authors have financial ties with various pharmaceutical companies.

This article was updated July 19, 2021.

Albuquerque oncologist Barbara McAneny, MD, has a patient in his 30s who experienced rectal bleeding for 6 months in 2020 but didn’t see a physician because he was afraid of catching COVID-19. He hoped it was just hemorrhoids.

When he finally came in to see her recently, Dr. McAneny diagnosed a large colon cancer. She fears the delay could prove fatal. “We’ll do our best to cure him, but I don’t know if he’ll be treatable,” she said. “Six months absolutely can make a difference.”

She and other oncologists around the country are seeing many patients in the past few months with advanced breast, colon, lung, and other cancers who were not diagnosed and treated during the COVID-19 pandemic because the patients didn’t want to come in, or because medical facilities weren’t taking nonemergency or non-COVID patients.

Given that failure to diagnose cancer is among the most common medical malpractice allegations, should oncologists be worried that they are at legal risk?
 

Pandemic provides ‘safe harbor’

In a March survey done by medical malpractice insurer The Doctors Company, one-third of physicians said they were very concerned or somewhat concerned that malpractice claims related to care during the pandemic will rise.

But in most of these cases, physicians and hospitals have little to worry about in terms of medical malpractice liability, according to veteran plaintiff and defense attorneys and the head of a large medical liability insurer.

“You had people with diseases like cancer not getting care because health care systems were overwhelmed,” said Sean Domnick, JD, a malpractice plaintiff attorney in Boca Raton, Fla. “Will those lead to successful malpractice lawsuits? Most likely not.”

“The risks will be low because it’s hard to pin it on the doctor if the patient didn’t want to come in or facilities weren’t scheduling appointments because of the public health emergency,” said Richard Roberts, MD, JD, a professor of family medicine at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who is also a malpractice defense attorney.

In addition, liability protections enacted in more than 30 states because of the COVID-19 pandemic will help shield clinicians from lawsuits. Those laws generally require allegations of gross negligence or reckless conduct far beyond ordinary negligence, which are hard to prove. But the immunity provisions remain largely untested in the courts, and it’s unclear how they will affect cases involving care for conditions other than COVID-19.

Another helpful factor is the widespread public appreciation of the valiant work by health care professionals throughout the pandemic, though that halo effect could fade over the next several years as malpractice claims from the pandemic period are filed and tried.

“In many circumstances, the pandemic will prove to be a safe harbor for providers,” said Steven Wigrizer, JD, a malpractice plaintiff attorney in Philadelphia. “Jurors will be reluctant to impose liability on providers who were doing their best in a global pandemic the world hadn’t seen in 100 years.”
 

Risky situations

These predictions from liability experts should reassure physicians who are anxious over reports that many cancer diagnoses were missed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Still, there are situations where physicians and hospitals could be vulnerable to malpractice claims despite the pandemic conditions. The highest-risk cases are those where patients recognized a potential cancer symptom like a breast lump or rectal bleeding, and tried to visit a doctor’s office or hospital, but were told they couldn’t be seen.

“Those kinds of cases lend themselves to delayed diagnosis claims,” said Richard Anderson, MD, an oncologist who is chairman and CEO of The Doctors Company. “My guess is we will see claims,” though he expects a reduced number arising from 2020 care scenarios, compared with previous years.

So far, his company has seen 20% fewer claims in 2020, which he said isn’t surprising given that the volume of physician and hospital visits plummeted.

Another risky situation is where physicians – particularly primary care physicians but also specialists like gynecologists and urologists – did not inform patients about concerning test results and order a follow-up test or visit. That is dangerous even if the physician did try to schedule a visit but the patient canceled the appointment.

“The jury will ask, ‘What did you do to get the patient back?’ ” said Sean Byrne, JD, a malpractice defense attorney in Richmond, Va. “The provider will say: ‘I’m sure we called.’ But it’s a difficult defense to say the patient didn’t return the call. I need written proof.”

Mr. Domnick said failures to follow up on suspicious test results could produce viable malpractice claims, pandemic or not. “The question becomes to what extent doctors will try to hide behind COVID to explain otherwise run-of-the-mill negligence,” he said. “We’ll have to see how that plays out.”

There are also worries about missed cancer diagnoses during telemedicine visits. “On telemedicine, I can’t feel a lymph node, I can’t palpate a breast mass, and I can’t see if someone’s liver is enlarged,” Dr. McAneny fretted. “I think you’ll get suits because you’ll miss stuff.”

One other area of exposure cited by the experts: Radiologists and pathologists could be sued for missing tumors in reading imaging tests. “The COVID-19 demand on resources has been immense,” Mr. Byrne said. “If that production pressure resulted in any quality loss in testing services, we could see claims.”
 

Patient protocols provide protection

There’s no question that cancer screenings dropped sharply during the pandemic. In June 2020, the National Cancer Institute estimated there was a 75% decrease in mammograms and colonoscopies during the first few months of the pandemic. It projected that delays in screenings, diagnoses, and treatment likely would result in 10,000 more breast and colorectal cancer deaths than otherwise expected over the next decade.

Delays of even 1 month in treatment for seven common forms of cancer can increase mortality risk by 6%-13%, according to a BMJ study.

While many medical facilities stopped doing preventive screening tests during the height of the pandemic last year, health care professionals still found ways to bring in patients with diagnosed cancers or who were at heightened cancer risk for tests and treatment.

Most facilities convened multidisciplinary tumor boards to decide which patients could wait for treatment, which patients could be maintained on drug therapy, and which ones needed immediate surgery, said Carla Fisher, MD, director of breast surgery at Indiana University, Indianapolis. For breast cancer, they used guidelines from her professional group, the American Society of Breast Surgeons.

Following such protocols for prioritizing patients for treatment during the pandemic should help protect against liability, experts said.

Even if it can be shown that a clinician’s negligence led to delayed diagnosis or treatment of a patient’s cancer, plaintiff attorneys will be wary about filing such claims. That is because it is difficult in most cases to prove that the delay significantly worsened the course of the patient’s disease or the odds of survival. Showing harm may be more possible with certain cancers known to be particularly aggressive.

“The plaintiff attorney will have to get an expert to say that the 3-month delay in getting the patient a mammogram caused her great harm,” said Dr. Roberts. “But it’s hard to calculate that scientifically, and it’s really hard to lay that all on the doctor or health system, because they were supposed to lock down during the pandemic.”
 

Playing catch-up

With patients now feeling more comfortable about coming in for physician visits, Mr. Byrne urges clinicians to make a special effort to mitigate potential liability arising from the past year. Physicians should carefully review patients’ charts and make sure to catch them up on preventive screenings. Some health systems, like Kaiser Permanente, have been doing proactive patient outreach for cancer screening throughout the pandemic.

“Providers may need to be extra diligent, and consider expanding the exam into a wellness visit and remind patients about cancer surveillance,” he said.

Overall, however, the expert consensus is that physicians should focus on providing the best quality care going forward, and not worry excessively about the care they wish they could have delivered over the past year during the extraordinary pandemic conditions.

“Liability risks will be decreased, because state laws have changed and doctors will be cut some slack, not just by judges and juries but by patients themselves,” Dr. Roberts said. “As you are running down the hall to take care of the next person, don’t be looking over your shoulder or you’ll run into the wall.”

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

Albuquerque oncologist Barbara McAneny, MD, has a patient in his 30s who experienced rectal bleeding for 6 months in 2020 but didn’t see a physician because he was afraid of catching COVID-19. He hoped it was just hemorrhoids.

When he finally came in to see her recently, Dr. McAneny diagnosed a large colon cancer. She fears the delay could prove fatal. “We’ll do our best to cure him, but I don’t know if he’ll be treatable,” she said. “Six months absolutely can make a difference.”

She and other oncologists around the country are seeing many patients in the past few months with advanced breast, colon, lung, and other cancers who were not diagnosed and treated during the COVID-19 pandemic because the patients didn’t want to come in, or because medical facilities weren’t taking nonemergency or non-COVID patients.

Given that failure to diagnose cancer is among the most common medical malpractice allegations, should oncologists be worried that they are at legal risk?
 

Pandemic provides ‘safe harbor’

In a March survey done by medical malpractice insurer The Doctors Company, one-third of physicians said they were very concerned or somewhat concerned that malpractice claims related to care during the pandemic will rise.

But in most of these cases, physicians and hospitals have little to worry about in terms of medical malpractice liability, according to veteran plaintiff and defense attorneys and the head of a large medical liability insurer.

“You had people with diseases like cancer not getting care because health care systems were overwhelmed,” said Sean Domnick, JD, a malpractice plaintiff attorney in Boca Raton, Fla. “Will those lead to successful malpractice lawsuits? Most likely not.”

“The risks will be low because it’s hard to pin it on the doctor if the patient didn’t want to come in or facilities weren’t scheduling appointments because of the public health emergency,” said Richard Roberts, MD, JD, a professor of family medicine at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who is also a malpractice defense attorney.

In addition, liability protections enacted in more than 30 states because of the COVID-19 pandemic will help shield clinicians from lawsuits. Those laws generally require allegations of gross negligence or reckless conduct far beyond ordinary negligence, which are hard to prove. But the immunity provisions remain largely untested in the courts, and it’s unclear how they will affect cases involving care for conditions other than COVID-19.

Another helpful factor is the widespread public appreciation of the valiant work by health care professionals throughout the pandemic, though that halo effect could fade over the next several years as malpractice claims from the pandemic period are filed and tried.

“In many circumstances, the pandemic will prove to be a safe harbor for providers,” said Steven Wigrizer, JD, a malpractice plaintiff attorney in Philadelphia. “Jurors will be reluctant to impose liability on providers who were doing their best in a global pandemic the world hadn’t seen in 100 years.”
 

Risky situations

These predictions from liability experts should reassure physicians who are anxious over reports that many cancer diagnoses were missed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Still, there are situations where physicians and hospitals could be vulnerable to malpractice claims despite the pandemic conditions. The highest-risk cases are those where patients recognized a potential cancer symptom like a breast lump or rectal bleeding, and tried to visit a doctor’s office or hospital, but were told they couldn’t be seen.

“Those kinds of cases lend themselves to delayed diagnosis claims,” said Richard Anderson, MD, an oncologist who is chairman and CEO of The Doctors Company. “My guess is we will see claims,” though he expects a reduced number arising from 2020 care scenarios, compared with previous years.

So far, his company has seen 20% fewer claims in 2020, which he said isn’t surprising given that the volume of physician and hospital visits plummeted.

Another risky situation is where physicians – particularly primary care physicians but also specialists like gynecologists and urologists – did not inform patients about concerning test results and order a follow-up test or visit. That is dangerous even if the physician did try to schedule a visit but the patient canceled the appointment.

“The jury will ask, ‘What did you do to get the patient back?’ ” said Sean Byrne, JD, a malpractice defense attorney in Richmond, Va. “The provider will say: ‘I’m sure we called.’ But it’s a difficult defense to say the patient didn’t return the call. I need written proof.”

Mr. Domnick said failures to follow up on suspicious test results could produce viable malpractice claims, pandemic or not. “The question becomes to what extent doctors will try to hide behind COVID to explain otherwise run-of-the-mill negligence,” he said. “We’ll have to see how that plays out.”

There are also worries about missed cancer diagnoses during telemedicine visits. “On telemedicine, I can’t feel a lymph node, I can’t palpate a breast mass, and I can’t see if someone’s liver is enlarged,” Dr. McAneny fretted. “I think you’ll get suits because you’ll miss stuff.”

One other area of exposure cited by the experts: Radiologists and pathologists could be sued for missing tumors in reading imaging tests. “The COVID-19 demand on resources has been immense,” Mr. Byrne said. “If that production pressure resulted in any quality loss in testing services, we could see claims.”
 

Patient protocols provide protection

There’s no question that cancer screenings dropped sharply during the pandemic. In June 2020, the National Cancer Institute estimated there was a 75% decrease in mammograms and colonoscopies during the first few months of the pandemic. It projected that delays in screenings, diagnoses, and treatment likely would result in 10,000 more breast and colorectal cancer deaths than otherwise expected over the next decade.

Delays of even 1 month in treatment for seven common forms of cancer can increase mortality risk by 6%-13%, according to a BMJ study.

While many medical facilities stopped doing preventive screening tests during the height of the pandemic last year, health care professionals still found ways to bring in patients with diagnosed cancers or who were at heightened cancer risk for tests and treatment.

Most facilities convened multidisciplinary tumor boards to decide which patients could wait for treatment, which patients could be maintained on drug therapy, and which ones needed immediate surgery, said Carla Fisher, MD, director of breast surgery at Indiana University, Indianapolis. For breast cancer, they used guidelines from her professional group, the American Society of Breast Surgeons.

Following such protocols for prioritizing patients for treatment during the pandemic should help protect against liability, experts said.

Even if it can be shown that a clinician’s negligence led to delayed diagnosis or treatment of a patient’s cancer, plaintiff attorneys will be wary about filing such claims. That is because it is difficult in most cases to prove that the delay significantly worsened the course of the patient’s disease or the odds of survival. Showing harm may be more possible with certain cancers known to be particularly aggressive.

“The plaintiff attorney will have to get an expert to say that the 3-month delay in getting the patient a mammogram caused her great harm,” said Dr. Roberts. “But it’s hard to calculate that scientifically, and it’s really hard to lay that all on the doctor or health system, because they were supposed to lock down during the pandemic.”
 

Playing catch-up

With patients now feeling more comfortable about coming in for physician visits, Mr. Byrne urges clinicians to make a special effort to mitigate potential liability arising from the past year. Physicians should carefully review patients’ charts and make sure to catch them up on preventive screenings. Some health systems, like Kaiser Permanente, have been doing proactive patient outreach for cancer screening throughout the pandemic.

“Providers may need to be extra diligent, and consider expanding the exam into a wellness visit and remind patients about cancer surveillance,” he said.

Overall, however, the expert consensus is that physicians should focus on providing the best quality care going forward, and not worry excessively about the care they wish they could have delivered over the past year during the extraordinary pandemic conditions.

“Liability risks will be decreased, because state laws have changed and doctors will be cut some slack, not just by judges and juries but by patients themselves,” Dr. Roberts said. “As you are running down the hall to take care of the next person, don’t be looking over your shoulder or you’ll run into the wall.”

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

Albuquerque oncologist Barbara McAneny, MD, has a patient in his 30s who experienced rectal bleeding for 6 months in 2020 but didn’t see a physician because he was afraid of catching COVID-19. He hoped it was just hemorrhoids.

When he finally came in to see her recently, Dr. McAneny diagnosed a large colon cancer. She fears the delay could prove fatal. “We’ll do our best to cure him, but I don’t know if he’ll be treatable,” she said. “Six months absolutely can make a difference.”

She and other oncologists around the country are seeing many patients in the past few months with advanced breast, colon, lung, and other cancers who were not diagnosed and treated during the COVID-19 pandemic because the patients didn’t want to come in, or because medical facilities weren’t taking nonemergency or non-COVID patients.

Given that failure to diagnose cancer is among the most common medical malpractice allegations, should oncologists be worried that they are at legal risk?
 

Pandemic provides ‘safe harbor’

In a March survey done by medical malpractice insurer The Doctors Company, one-third of physicians said they were very concerned or somewhat concerned that malpractice claims related to care during the pandemic will rise.

But in most of these cases, physicians and hospitals have little to worry about in terms of medical malpractice liability, according to veteran plaintiff and defense attorneys and the head of a large medical liability insurer.

“You had people with diseases like cancer not getting care because health care systems were overwhelmed,” said Sean Domnick, JD, a malpractice plaintiff attorney in Boca Raton, Fla. “Will those lead to successful malpractice lawsuits? Most likely not.”

“The risks will be low because it’s hard to pin it on the doctor if the patient didn’t want to come in or facilities weren’t scheduling appointments because of the public health emergency,” said Richard Roberts, MD, JD, a professor of family medicine at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who is also a malpractice defense attorney.

In addition, liability protections enacted in more than 30 states because of the COVID-19 pandemic will help shield clinicians from lawsuits. Those laws generally require allegations of gross negligence or reckless conduct far beyond ordinary negligence, which are hard to prove. But the immunity provisions remain largely untested in the courts, and it’s unclear how they will affect cases involving care for conditions other than COVID-19.

Another helpful factor is the widespread public appreciation of the valiant work by health care professionals throughout the pandemic, though that halo effect could fade over the next several years as malpractice claims from the pandemic period are filed and tried.

“In many circumstances, the pandemic will prove to be a safe harbor for providers,” said Steven Wigrizer, JD, a malpractice plaintiff attorney in Philadelphia. “Jurors will be reluctant to impose liability on providers who were doing their best in a global pandemic the world hadn’t seen in 100 years.”
 

Risky situations

These predictions from liability experts should reassure physicians who are anxious over reports that many cancer diagnoses were missed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Still, there are situations where physicians and hospitals could be vulnerable to malpractice claims despite the pandemic conditions. The highest-risk cases are those where patients recognized a potential cancer symptom like a breast lump or rectal bleeding, and tried to visit a doctor’s office or hospital, but were told they couldn’t be seen.

“Those kinds of cases lend themselves to delayed diagnosis claims,” said Richard Anderson, MD, an oncologist who is chairman and CEO of The Doctors Company. “My guess is we will see claims,” though he expects a reduced number arising from 2020 care scenarios, compared with previous years.

So far, his company has seen 20% fewer claims in 2020, which he said isn’t surprising given that the volume of physician and hospital visits plummeted.

Another risky situation is where physicians – particularly primary care physicians but also specialists like gynecologists and urologists – did not inform patients about concerning test results and order a follow-up test or visit. That is dangerous even if the physician did try to schedule a visit but the patient canceled the appointment.

“The jury will ask, ‘What did you do to get the patient back?’ ” said Sean Byrne, JD, a malpractice defense attorney in Richmond, Va. “The provider will say: ‘I’m sure we called.’ But it’s a difficult defense to say the patient didn’t return the call. I need written proof.”

Mr. Domnick said failures to follow up on suspicious test results could produce viable malpractice claims, pandemic or not. “The question becomes to what extent doctors will try to hide behind COVID to explain otherwise run-of-the-mill negligence,” he said. “We’ll have to see how that plays out.”

There are also worries about missed cancer diagnoses during telemedicine visits. “On telemedicine, I can’t feel a lymph node, I can’t palpate a breast mass, and I can’t see if someone’s liver is enlarged,” Dr. McAneny fretted. “I think you’ll get suits because you’ll miss stuff.”

One other area of exposure cited by the experts: Radiologists and pathologists could be sued for missing tumors in reading imaging tests. “The COVID-19 demand on resources has been immense,” Mr. Byrne said. “If that production pressure resulted in any quality loss in testing services, we could see claims.”
 

Patient protocols provide protection

There’s no question that cancer screenings dropped sharply during the pandemic. In June 2020, the National Cancer Institute estimated there was a 75% decrease in mammograms and colonoscopies during the first few months of the pandemic. It projected that delays in screenings, diagnoses, and treatment likely would result in 10,000 more breast and colorectal cancer deaths than otherwise expected over the next decade.

Delays of even 1 month in treatment for seven common forms of cancer can increase mortality risk by 6%-13%, according to a BMJ study.

While many medical facilities stopped doing preventive screening tests during the height of the pandemic last year, health care professionals still found ways to bring in patients with diagnosed cancers or who were at heightened cancer risk for tests and treatment.

Most facilities convened multidisciplinary tumor boards to decide which patients could wait for treatment, which patients could be maintained on drug therapy, and which ones needed immediate surgery, said Carla Fisher, MD, director of breast surgery at Indiana University, Indianapolis. For breast cancer, they used guidelines from her professional group, the American Society of Breast Surgeons.

Following such protocols for prioritizing patients for treatment during the pandemic should help protect against liability, experts said.

Even if it can be shown that a clinician’s negligence led to delayed diagnosis or treatment of a patient’s cancer, plaintiff attorneys will be wary about filing such claims. That is because it is difficult in most cases to prove that the delay significantly worsened the course of the patient’s disease or the odds of survival. Showing harm may be more possible with certain cancers known to be particularly aggressive.

“The plaintiff attorney will have to get an expert to say that the 3-month delay in getting the patient a mammogram caused her great harm,” said Dr. Roberts. “But it’s hard to calculate that scientifically, and it’s really hard to lay that all on the doctor or health system, because they were supposed to lock down during the pandemic.”
 

Playing catch-up

With patients now feeling more comfortable about coming in for physician visits, Mr. Byrne urges clinicians to make a special effort to mitigate potential liability arising from the past year. Physicians should carefully review patients’ charts and make sure to catch them up on preventive screenings. Some health systems, like Kaiser Permanente, have been doing proactive patient outreach for cancer screening throughout the pandemic.

“Providers may need to be extra diligent, and consider expanding the exam into a wellness visit and remind patients about cancer surveillance,” he said.

Overall, however, the expert consensus is that physicians should focus on providing the best quality care going forward, and not worry excessively about the care they wish they could have delivered over the past year during the extraordinary pandemic conditions.

“Liability risks will be decreased, because state laws have changed and doctors will be cut some slack, not just by judges and juries but by patients themselves,” Dr. Roberts said. “As you are running down the hall to take care of the next person, don’t be looking over your shoulder or you’ll run into the wall.”

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

A network meta-analysis of current first-line dual, triple, and quadruple therapies for Helicobacter pylori infection found that vonoprazan triple therapy was most effective, while standard triple therapy of a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), amoxicillin, and clarithromycin was least effective. Levofloxacin-containing triple therapy performed best in Western countries and West Asia, while reverse hybrid therapy was most effective in East Asia.

The results “[suggest that] a new approach concerning H. pylori treatment is now needed and that the time for transitioning from trial and error to antimicrobial stewardship [of H. pylori infection] has arrived,” wrote Theodore Rokkas, PhD, MD, of the European University of Cyprus in Engomi, and colleagues. Their study was published in Gastroenterology.

H. pylori infection is the primary cause of gastritis, peptic ulcer disease, gastric mucosa–associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma, and gastric cancer.

Since H. pylori infection was first recognized, physicians have employed a range of drugs in double, triple, and quadruple combinations to combat it.

Despite those efforts, treatment success is lower than with many other infectious diseases. A newcomer is the potassium-competing acid blocker vonoprazan, which increases efficacy of amoxicillin combination therapies and has, thereby, generated renewed interest in all combination therapies, according to the study authors. Vonoprazan is currently available in some Asian countries, but not the United States or Europe.

Current guidelines for H. pylori treatment relied on randomized controlled trials and relevant pair-wise meta-analyses, but no previous pairwise analysis has included all currently available medications, the authors noted. Network meta-analyses can help fill this evidence gap: They incorporate both direct and indirect evidence from a collection of randomized controlled trials to estimate the comparative effectiveness of three or more regimens.

The researchers conducted a network meta-analysis that included 68 randomized, controlled trials totaling 22,975 patients. The following regimens were included in the analysis: Concomitant quadruple bismuth treatment (bismuth quadruple therapy), concomitant quadruple nonbismuth treatment (nonbismuth quadruple therapy), high-dose amoxicillin double treatment (Amox-dual therapy), levofloxacin-containing treatment (Levo-therapy), reverse hybrid therapy (R-hybrid therapy), sequential quadruple treatment (sequential therapy), standard triple treatment (triple therapy), and vonoprazan-containing therapy (Vono-triple therapy).

Statistically significant results were found with Vono-triple therapy versus triple therapy (odds ratio, 3.80; 95% confidence interval, 1.62-8.94), sequential therapy versus triple therapy (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.26-2.53), nonbismuth quadruple therapy versus triple therapy (OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.45-2.98), bismuth quadruple therapy versus triple therapy (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.02-2.11), and Levo-therapy versus triple therapy (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.26-2.53).

In the overall data, mean cure rates greater than 90% were seen only in Vono-triple therapy (91.4%; 95% CI, 88.5-93.5%) and R-hybrid therapy (93.6%; 95% CI, 90.4-96.8%). Cure rates were lower for Nonbismuth quadruple therapy (84.3%; 95% CI, 82.7-85.8%), Levo-therapy (83.8%; 95% CI, 82.1-85.4%), Sequential therapy (83.7%; 95% CI, 82.7-84.7%), bismuth quadruple therapy (81.3%; 95% CI, 79.5-83.1%), Amox-dual therapy (80.2%; 75.3%-84.4%), and triple therapy (75.7%; 95% CI, 74.9-76.4%). Levo-therapy performed best in Western countries (88.5%; 95% CI, 86.5-90.5%) and West Asia (88.4%; 95% CI, 84.6-91.1%). R-hybrid therapy performed best in East Asia (93.6%; 95% CI, 90.4-96.8%).

A surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) value, which represents the efficacy of the intervention compared to an ideal intervention, was 92.4% for Vono-triple therapy. The second highest SUCRA value was for 68.8% for nonbismuth quadruple therapy. The SUCRA value of standard triple therapy was 4.7%.

A key limitation to the study is that Vono-triple therapy was tested only in Japan, and requires additional study in other geographic regions.

The study received support from the Department of Veteran Affairs. The authors have consulted for and received research funding from various pharmaceutical companies.

A network meta-analysis of current first-line dual, triple, and quadruple therapies for Helicobacter pylori infection found that vonoprazan triple therapy was most effective, while standard triple therapy of a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), amoxicillin, and clarithromycin was least effective. Levofloxacin-containing triple therapy performed best in Western countries and West Asia, while reverse hybrid therapy was most effective in East Asia.

The results “[suggest that] a new approach concerning H. pylori treatment is now needed and that the time for transitioning from trial and error to antimicrobial stewardship [of H. pylori infection] has arrived,” wrote Theodore Rokkas, PhD, MD, of the European University of Cyprus in Engomi, and colleagues. Their study was published in Gastroenterology.

H. pylori infection is the primary cause of gastritis, peptic ulcer disease, gastric mucosa–associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma, and gastric cancer.

Since H. pylori infection was first recognized, physicians have employed a range of drugs in double, triple, and quadruple combinations to combat it.

Despite those efforts, treatment success is lower than with many other infectious diseases. A newcomer is the potassium-competing acid blocker vonoprazan, which increases efficacy of amoxicillin combination therapies and has, thereby, generated renewed interest in all combination therapies, according to the study authors. Vonoprazan is currently available in some Asian countries, but not the United States or Europe.

Current guidelines for H. pylori treatment relied on randomized controlled trials and relevant pair-wise meta-analyses, but no previous pairwise analysis has included all currently available medications, the authors noted. Network meta-analyses can help fill this evidence gap: They incorporate both direct and indirect evidence from a collection of randomized controlled trials to estimate the comparative effectiveness of three or more regimens.

The researchers conducted a network meta-analysis that included 68 randomized, controlled trials totaling 22,975 patients. The following regimens were included in the analysis: Concomitant quadruple bismuth treatment (bismuth quadruple therapy), concomitant quadruple nonbismuth treatment (nonbismuth quadruple therapy), high-dose amoxicillin double treatment (Amox-dual therapy), levofloxacin-containing treatment (Levo-therapy), reverse hybrid therapy (R-hybrid therapy), sequential quadruple treatment (sequential therapy), standard triple treatment (triple therapy), and vonoprazan-containing therapy (Vono-triple therapy).

Statistically significant results were found with Vono-triple therapy versus triple therapy (odds ratio, 3.80; 95% confidence interval, 1.62-8.94), sequential therapy versus triple therapy (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.26-2.53), nonbismuth quadruple therapy versus triple therapy (OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.45-2.98), bismuth quadruple therapy versus triple therapy (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.02-2.11), and Levo-therapy versus triple therapy (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.26-2.53).

In the overall data, mean cure rates greater than 90% were seen only in Vono-triple therapy (91.4%; 95% CI, 88.5-93.5%) and R-hybrid therapy (93.6%; 95% CI, 90.4-96.8%). Cure rates were lower for Nonbismuth quadruple therapy (84.3%; 95% CI, 82.7-85.8%), Levo-therapy (83.8%; 95% CI, 82.1-85.4%), Sequential therapy (83.7%; 95% CI, 82.7-84.7%), bismuth quadruple therapy (81.3%; 95% CI, 79.5-83.1%), Amox-dual therapy (80.2%; 75.3%-84.4%), and triple therapy (75.7%; 95% CI, 74.9-76.4%). Levo-therapy performed best in Western countries (88.5%; 95% CI, 86.5-90.5%) and West Asia (88.4%; 95% CI, 84.6-91.1%). R-hybrid therapy performed best in East Asia (93.6%; 95% CI, 90.4-96.8%).

A surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) value, which represents the efficacy of the intervention compared to an ideal intervention, was 92.4% for Vono-triple therapy. The second highest SUCRA value was for 68.8% for nonbismuth quadruple therapy. The SUCRA value of standard triple therapy was 4.7%.

A key limitation to the study is that Vono-triple therapy was tested only in Japan, and requires additional study in other geographic regions.

The study received support from the Department of Veteran Affairs. The authors have consulted for and received research funding from various pharmaceutical companies.

A network meta-analysis of current first-line dual, triple, and quadruple therapies for Helicobacter pylori infection found that vonoprazan triple therapy was most effective, while standard triple therapy of a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), amoxicillin, and clarithromycin was least effective. Levofloxacin-containing triple therapy performed best in Western countries and West Asia, while reverse hybrid therapy was most effective in East Asia.

The results “[suggest that] a new approach concerning H. pylori treatment is now needed and that the time for transitioning from trial and error to antimicrobial stewardship [of H. pylori infection] has arrived,” wrote Theodore Rokkas, PhD, MD, of the European University of Cyprus in Engomi, and colleagues. Their study was published in Gastroenterology.

H. pylori infection is the primary cause of gastritis, peptic ulcer disease, gastric mucosa–associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma, and gastric cancer.

Since H. pylori infection was first recognized, physicians have employed a range of drugs in double, triple, and quadruple combinations to combat it.

Despite those efforts, treatment success is lower than with many other infectious diseases. A newcomer is the potassium-competing acid blocker vonoprazan, which increases efficacy of amoxicillin combination therapies and has, thereby, generated renewed interest in all combination therapies, according to the study authors. Vonoprazan is currently available in some Asian countries, but not the United States or Europe.

Current guidelines for H. pylori treatment relied on randomized controlled trials and relevant pair-wise meta-analyses, but no previous pairwise analysis has included all currently available medications, the authors noted. Network meta-analyses can help fill this evidence gap: They incorporate both direct and indirect evidence from a collection of randomized controlled trials to estimate the comparative effectiveness of three or more regimens.

The researchers conducted a network meta-analysis that included 68 randomized, controlled trials totaling 22,975 patients. The following regimens were included in the analysis: Concomitant quadruple bismuth treatment (bismuth quadruple therapy), concomitant quadruple nonbismuth treatment (nonbismuth quadruple therapy), high-dose amoxicillin double treatment (Amox-dual therapy), levofloxacin-containing treatment (Levo-therapy), reverse hybrid therapy (R-hybrid therapy), sequential quadruple treatment (sequential therapy), standard triple treatment (triple therapy), and vonoprazan-containing therapy (Vono-triple therapy).

Statistically significant results were found with Vono-triple therapy versus triple therapy (odds ratio, 3.80; 95% confidence interval, 1.62-8.94), sequential therapy versus triple therapy (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.26-2.53), nonbismuth quadruple therapy versus triple therapy (OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.45-2.98), bismuth quadruple therapy versus triple therapy (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.02-2.11), and Levo-therapy versus triple therapy (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.26-2.53).

In the overall data, mean cure rates greater than 90% were seen only in Vono-triple therapy (91.4%; 95% CI, 88.5-93.5%) and R-hybrid therapy (93.6%; 95% CI, 90.4-96.8%). Cure rates were lower for Nonbismuth quadruple therapy (84.3%; 95% CI, 82.7-85.8%), Levo-therapy (83.8%; 95% CI, 82.1-85.4%), Sequential therapy (83.7%; 95% CI, 82.7-84.7%), bismuth quadruple therapy (81.3%; 95% CI, 79.5-83.1%), Amox-dual therapy (80.2%; 75.3%-84.4%), and triple therapy (75.7%; 95% CI, 74.9-76.4%). Levo-therapy performed best in Western countries (88.5%; 95% CI, 86.5-90.5%) and West Asia (88.4%; 95% CI, 84.6-91.1%). R-hybrid therapy performed best in East Asia (93.6%; 95% CI, 90.4-96.8%).

A surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) value, which represents the efficacy of the intervention compared to an ideal intervention, was 92.4% for Vono-triple therapy. The second highest SUCRA value was for 68.8% for nonbismuth quadruple therapy. The SUCRA value of standard triple therapy was 4.7%.

A key limitation to the study is that Vono-triple therapy was tested only in Japan, and requires additional study in other geographic regions.

The study received support from the Department of Veteran Affairs. The authors have consulted for and received research funding from various pharmaceutical companies.

In a small study of Hirschsprung’s disease (HSCR) patients, those with a low-fiber colonic mucosal acetylcholinesterase-positive (AChE+) innervation phenotype were more likely to suffer from postoperative enterocolitis, which can be life-threatening.

The study lends insight into crosstalk between the human enteric nervous and immune systems. It suggests a role for acetylcholine-secreting (cholinergic) nerve fibers in aganglionic sections of colon in patients with HSCR, which is a congenital disorder marked by the absence of enteric neuronal cells in the distal part of the gut.

There are also potential clinical implications. “These observations suggest that HSCR patients with low-fiber phenotype might have a higher risk of developing postoperative enterocolitis and that the fiber phenotype could serve as a predictive marker for development of prophylactic therapy,” wrote Simone Keck of the University of Basel (Switzerland) and colleagues in a study published in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

HSCR is a multigenetic congenital condition that includes a lack of enteric ganglia cells (aganglionosis) in the distal part of the colon, leading to intestinal obstruction and prestenotic megacolon. Treatment consists of pull-through surgery to remove the aganglionic portion of the bowel, but 20%-50% of patients develop life-threatening HSCR-associated enterocolitis before or after surgery. Although the mechanism of the complication is uncertain, immune cells, intestinal barrier function, and the microbiome may play a role.

Mouse models have shown connections between the immune and nervous system, but it has been challenging to study the effects of specific neurotransmitters in humans. There are more than 30 separate neurotransmitters in the enteric nervous system, making it difficult to tease apart individual functions. But there are comparatively few enteric nervous system neurotransmitters in patients with HSCR and the aganglionic colon in these patients contains enlarged AChE+ nerve fibers, “neuronal cholinergic function can be examined particularly well” among these patients. .

The researchers of the current study from analyzed tissue from 44 pediatric HSCR patients who underwent pull-through surgery, along with 6 non-HSCR controls who had surgery for various other reasons. Tissue samples were semiquantitatively categorized according to the extent of colonic mucosal AChE+ innervation: Low-fiber rectosigmoid tissue lacked intrinsic nerve cell bodies and mucosal ACHe+ innervation, while high-fiber tissue lacked nerve cell bodies but had mucosal AChE+ innervation. The researchers also determined tissue cytokine profile and immune cell frequencies, and used confocal immunofluorescence microscopy to determine proximity of macrophages to nerve fibers and 16S-rDNA sequencing to determine microbial populations.

They found that aganglionic low-fiber samples had higher levels of inflammatory cytokines such as interleukin-17, IL-1-beta, and IL6. Levels of these cytokines were lower in both ganglionic sections of the colon and in high-fiber samples with mucosal AChE+ nerve fibers. Low-fiber samples also had elevated Th17 T cells, compared with high-fiber, aganglionic, and ganglionic distal colon samples. Regulatory T cells were highest in cholinergic high-fiber segments.

Out of 42 patients, 9 developed enterocolitis within 1 year of surgery; 7 had a low-fiber phenotype, while 2 were high-fiber. This difference was not statistically significant, but the researchers then performed a retrospective analysis of 29 HSCR patients to validate the findings. Of these, 14 developed enterocolitis after surgery, with 12 of the cases occurring among children with the low-fiber phenotype, and 2 cases occurred among those with the high-fiber phenotype.

The findings could help guide postsurgical management of HSCR by allowing clinicians to employ preventive measures against enterocolitis, such as high-volume enemas, antibiotics, prebiotics, probiotics, or dietary changes. Th17 cells are known to migrate to nearby mesenteric lymph nodes, where they may promote enterocolitis, and this site is usually not removed during HSCR surgery. Fiber phenotype could prompt a surgeon to also remove mesenteric lymph nodes to reduce enterocolitis risk. A potential therapeutic strategy is to target IL-17 or IL-23.

The study was funded by the University of Basel. The authors have no relevant financial disclosures.

In a small study of Hirschsprung’s disease (HSCR) patients, those with a low-fiber colonic mucosal acetylcholinesterase-positive (AChE+) innervation phenotype were more likely to suffer from postoperative enterocolitis, which can be life-threatening.

The study lends insight into crosstalk between the human enteric nervous and immune systems. It suggests a role for acetylcholine-secreting (cholinergic) nerve fibers in aganglionic sections of colon in patients with HSCR, which is a congenital disorder marked by the absence of enteric neuronal cells in the distal part of the gut.

There are also potential clinical implications. “These observations suggest that HSCR patients with low-fiber phenotype might have a higher risk of developing postoperative enterocolitis and that the fiber phenotype could serve as a predictive marker for development of prophylactic therapy,” wrote Simone Keck of the University of Basel (Switzerland) and colleagues in a study published in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

HSCR is a multigenetic congenital condition that includes a lack of enteric ganglia cells (aganglionosis) in the distal part of the colon, leading to intestinal obstruction and prestenotic megacolon. Treatment consists of pull-through surgery to remove the aganglionic portion of the bowel, but 20%-50% of patients develop life-threatening HSCR-associated enterocolitis before or after surgery. Although the mechanism of the complication is uncertain, immune cells, intestinal barrier function, and the microbiome may play a role.

Mouse models have shown connections between the immune and nervous system, but it has been challenging to study the effects of specific neurotransmitters in humans. There are more than 30 separate neurotransmitters in the enteric nervous system, making it difficult to tease apart individual functions. But there are comparatively few enteric nervous system neurotransmitters in patients with HSCR and the aganglionic colon in these patients contains enlarged AChE+ nerve fibers, “neuronal cholinergic function can be examined particularly well” among these patients. .

The researchers of the current study from analyzed tissue from 44 pediatric HSCR patients who underwent pull-through surgery, along with 6 non-HSCR controls who had surgery for various other reasons. Tissue samples were semiquantitatively categorized according to the extent of colonic mucosal AChE+ innervation: Low-fiber rectosigmoid tissue lacked intrinsic nerve cell bodies and mucosal ACHe+ innervation, while high-fiber tissue lacked nerve cell bodies but had mucosal AChE+ innervation. The researchers also determined tissue cytokine profile and immune cell frequencies, and used confocal immunofluorescence microscopy to determine proximity of macrophages to nerve fibers and 16S-rDNA sequencing to determine microbial populations.

They found that aganglionic low-fiber samples had higher levels of inflammatory cytokines such as interleukin-17, IL-1-beta, and IL6. Levels of these cytokines were lower in both ganglionic sections of the colon and in high-fiber samples with mucosal AChE+ nerve fibers. Low-fiber samples also had elevated Th17 T cells, compared with high-fiber, aganglionic, and ganglionic distal colon samples. Regulatory T cells were highest in cholinergic high-fiber segments.

Out of 42 patients, 9 developed enterocolitis within 1 year of surgery; 7 had a low-fiber phenotype, while 2 were high-fiber. This difference was not statistically significant, but the researchers then performed a retrospective analysis of 29 HSCR patients to validate the findings. Of these, 14 developed enterocolitis after surgery, with 12 of the cases occurring among children with the low-fiber phenotype, and 2 cases occurred among those with the high-fiber phenotype.

The findings could help guide postsurgical management of HSCR by allowing clinicians to employ preventive measures against enterocolitis, such as high-volume enemas, antibiotics, prebiotics, probiotics, or dietary changes. Th17 cells are known to migrate to nearby mesenteric lymph nodes, where they may promote enterocolitis, and this site is usually not removed during HSCR surgery. Fiber phenotype could prompt a surgeon to also remove mesenteric lymph nodes to reduce enterocolitis risk. A potential therapeutic strategy is to target IL-17 or IL-23.

The study was funded by the University of Basel. The authors have no relevant financial disclosures.

In a small study of Hirschsprung’s disease (HSCR) patients, those with a low-fiber colonic mucosal acetylcholinesterase-positive (AChE+) innervation phenotype were more likely to suffer from postoperative enterocolitis, which can be life-threatening.

The study lends insight into crosstalk between the human enteric nervous and immune systems. It suggests a role for acetylcholine-secreting (cholinergic) nerve fibers in aganglionic sections of colon in patients with HSCR, which is a congenital disorder marked by the absence of enteric neuronal cells in the distal part of the gut.

There are also potential clinical implications. “These observations suggest that HSCR patients with low-fiber phenotype might have a higher risk of developing postoperative enterocolitis and that the fiber phenotype could serve as a predictive marker for development of prophylactic therapy,” wrote Simone Keck of the University of Basel (Switzerland) and colleagues in a study published in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

HSCR is a multigenetic congenital condition that includes a lack of enteric ganglia cells (aganglionosis) in the distal part of the colon, leading to intestinal obstruction and prestenotic megacolon. Treatment consists of pull-through surgery to remove the aganglionic portion of the bowel, but 20%-50% of patients develop life-threatening HSCR-associated enterocolitis before or after surgery. Although the mechanism of the complication is uncertain, immune cells, intestinal barrier function, and the microbiome may play a role.

Mouse models have shown connections between the immune and nervous system, but it has been challenging to study the effects of specific neurotransmitters in humans. There are more than 30 separate neurotransmitters in the enteric nervous system, making it difficult to tease apart individual functions. But there are comparatively few enteric nervous system neurotransmitters in patients with HSCR and the aganglionic colon in these patients contains enlarged AChE+ nerve fibers, “neuronal cholinergic function can be examined particularly well” among these patients. .

The researchers of the current study from analyzed tissue from 44 pediatric HSCR patients who underwent pull-through surgery, along with 6 non-HSCR controls who had surgery for various other reasons. Tissue samples were semiquantitatively categorized according to the extent of colonic mucosal AChE+ innervation: Low-fiber rectosigmoid tissue lacked intrinsic nerve cell bodies and mucosal ACHe+ innervation, while high-fiber tissue lacked nerve cell bodies but had mucosal AChE+ innervation. The researchers also determined tissue cytokine profile and immune cell frequencies, and used confocal immunofluorescence microscopy to determine proximity of macrophages to nerve fibers and 16S-rDNA sequencing to determine microbial populations.

They found that aganglionic low-fiber samples had higher levels of inflammatory cytokines such as interleukin-17, IL-1-beta, and IL6. Levels of these cytokines were lower in both ganglionic sections of the colon and in high-fiber samples with mucosal AChE+ nerve fibers. Low-fiber samples also had elevated Th17 T cells, compared with high-fiber, aganglionic, and ganglionic distal colon samples. Regulatory T cells were highest in cholinergic high-fiber segments.

Out of 42 patients, 9 developed enterocolitis within 1 year of surgery; 7 had a low-fiber phenotype, while 2 were high-fiber. This difference was not statistically significant, but the researchers then performed a retrospective analysis of 29 HSCR patients to validate the findings. Of these, 14 developed enterocolitis after surgery, with 12 of the cases occurring among children with the low-fiber phenotype, and 2 cases occurred among those with the high-fiber phenotype.

The findings could help guide postsurgical management of HSCR by allowing clinicians to employ preventive measures against enterocolitis, such as high-volume enemas, antibiotics, prebiotics, probiotics, or dietary changes. Th17 cells are known to migrate to nearby mesenteric lymph nodes, where they may promote enterocolitis, and this site is usually not removed during HSCR surgery. Fiber phenotype could prompt a surgeon to also remove mesenteric lymph nodes to reduce enterocolitis risk. A potential therapeutic strategy is to target IL-17 or IL-23.

The study was funded by the University of Basel. The authors have no relevant financial disclosures.

People infected with SARS-CoV-2 can experience lingering physiologic effects after they recover, according to early data from an ongoing study that is harnessing the power of Fitbits and other wearable trackers to gauge long-term effects of COVID-19.

“To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine longer duration wearable sensor data. We found a prolonged physiological impact of COVID-19 infection, lasting approximately 2-3 months, on average, but with substantial intra-individual variability,” report Jennifer Radin, PhD, MPH, and colleagues with the Scripps Research Translational Institute, San Diego.

The study was published online July 7 in JAMA Network Open.

The DETECT study is enrolling adults from all over the United States and is collecting their health data from different wearable devices to better understand changes associated with viral illness, including COVID-19.

The current analysis focuses on a subset of 875 device wearers who reported symptoms of an acute respiratory illness and underwent testing for SARS-CoV-2. A total of 234 individuals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2; 641 were presumed to have other viral infections (COVID-19-negative symptomatic individuals).

The investigators found that among people with COVID-19, it took longer to return to baseline status with respect to resting heart rate (RHR), sleep, and activity compared with those who had symptoms of viral illness but who did not have COVID-19.

“This difference was most marked for RHR, with COVID-19-positive individuals initially experiencing a transient bradycardia followed by a prolonged relative tachycardia that did not return to baseline, on average, until 79 days after symptom onset,” Dr. Radin and colleagues reported.

Step count and sleep quantity returned to baseline values sooner than RHR, at 32 days and 24 days, respectively.

Among people with COVID-19, during recovery, trajectories differed with respect to return of RHR to normal in comparison with persons who did not have COVID-19.

The RHR of 32 COVID-19–positive participants (13.7%) remained 5 beats/min greater than their baseline RHR for more than 133 days, on average. During the acute phase of COVID-19, these individuals were more apt to report cough, body ache, and shortness of breath compared with other groups.
 

Limitation

The researchers say a limitation of this analysis is that symptom data were collected only during the acute phase of infection, which limits the ability to compare long-term physiologic and behavioral changes with long-term symptoms.

“In the future, with larger sample sizes and more comprehensive participant-reported outcomes, it will be possible to better understand factors associated with inter-individualized variability in COVID-19 recovery,” they concluded.

Earlier data from the DETECT study showed that pairing wearable tracker data with self-reported symptoms can improve COVID-19 prediction.

As previously reported by this news organization, DETECT investigators found that associating participant-reported symptoms with personal sensor data, such as deviation from normal sleep duration and RHR, resulted in an area under the curve of 0.80 for differentiating between symptomatic individuals who were positive and those who were negative for COVID-19.

Funding for the current study was provided by a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People infected with SARS-CoV-2 can experience lingering physiologic effects after they recover, according to early data from an ongoing study that is harnessing the power of Fitbits and other wearable trackers to gauge long-term effects of COVID-19.

“To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine longer duration wearable sensor data. We found a prolonged physiological impact of COVID-19 infection, lasting approximately 2-3 months, on average, but with substantial intra-individual variability,” report Jennifer Radin, PhD, MPH, and colleagues with the Scripps Research Translational Institute, San Diego.

The study was published online July 7 in JAMA Network Open.

The DETECT study is enrolling adults from all over the United States and is collecting their health data from different wearable devices to better understand changes associated with viral illness, including COVID-19.

The current analysis focuses on a subset of 875 device wearers who reported symptoms of an acute respiratory illness and underwent testing for SARS-CoV-2. A total of 234 individuals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2; 641 were presumed to have other viral infections (COVID-19-negative symptomatic individuals).

The investigators found that among people with COVID-19, it took longer to return to baseline status with respect to resting heart rate (RHR), sleep, and activity compared with those who had symptoms of viral illness but who did not have COVID-19.

“This difference was most marked for RHR, with COVID-19-positive individuals initially experiencing a transient bradycardia followed by a prolonged relative tachycardia that did not return to baseline, on average, until 79 days after symptom onset,” Dr. Radin and colleagues reported.

Step count and sleep quantity returned to baseline values sooner than RHR, at 32 days and 24 days, respectively.

Among people with COVID-19, during recovery, trajectories differed with respect to return of RHR to normal in comparison with persons who did not have COVID-19.

The RHR of 32 COVID-19–positive participants (13.7%) remained 5 beats/min greater than their baseline RHR for more than 133 days, on average. During the acute phase of COVID-19, these individuals were more apt to report cough, body ache, and shortness of breath compared with other groups.
 

Limitation

The researchers say a limitation of this analysis is that symptom data were collected only during the acute phase of infection, which limits the ability to compare long-term physiologic and behavioral changes with long-term symptoms.

“In the future, with larger sample sizes and more comprehensive participant-reported outcomes, it will be possible to better understand factors associated with inter-individualized variability in COVID-19 recovery,” they concluded.

Earlier data from the DETECT study showed that pairing wearable tracker data with self-reported symptoms can improve COVID-19 prediction.

As previously reported by this news organization, DETECT investigators found that associating participant-reported symptoms with personal sensor data, such as deviation from normal sleep duration and RHR, resulted in an area under the curve of 0.80 for differentiating between symptomatic individuals who were positive and those who were negative for COVID-19.

Funding for the current study was provided by a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People infected with SARS-CoV-2 can experience lingering physiologic effects after they recover, according to early data from an ongoing study that is harnessing the power of Fitbits and other wearable trackers to gauge long-term effects of COVID-19.

“To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine longer duration wearable sensor data. We found a prolonged physiological impact of COVID-19 infection, lasting approximately 2-3 months, on average, but with substantial intra-individual variability,” report Jennifer Radin, PhD, MPH, and colleagues with the Scripps Research Translational Institute, San Diego.

The study was published online July 7 in JAMA Network Open.

The DETECT study is enrolling adults from all over the United States and is collecting their health data from different wearable devices to better understand changes associated with viral illness, including COVID-19.

The current analysis focuses on a subset of 875 device wearers who reported symptoms of an acute respiratory illness and underwent testing for SARS-CoV-2. A total of 234 individuals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2; 641 were presumed to have other viral infections (COVID-19-negative symptomatic individuals).

The investigators found that among people with COVID-19, it took longer to return to baseline status with respect to resting heart rate (RHR), sleep, and activity compared with those who had symptoms of viral illness but who did not have COVID-19.

“This difference was most marked for RHR, with COVID-19-positive individuals initially experiencing a transient bradycardia followed by a prolonged relative tachycardia that did not return to baseline, on average, until 79 days after symptom onset,” Dr. Radin and colleagues reported.

Step count and sleep quantity returned to baseline values sooner than RHR, at 32 days and 24 days, respectively.

Among people with COVID-19, during recovery, trajectories differed with respect to return of RHR to normal in comparison with persons who did not have COVID-19.

The RHR of 32 COVID-19–positive participants (13.7%) remained 5 beats/min greater than their baseline RHR for more than 133 days, on average. During the acute phase of COVID-19, these individuals were more apt to report cough, body ache, and shortness of breath compared with other groups.
 

Limitation

The researchers say a limitation of this analysis is that symptom data were collected only during the acute phase of infection, which limits the ability to compare long-term physiologic and behavioral changes with long-term symptoms.

“In the future, with larger sample sizes and more comprehensive participant-reported outcomes, it will be possible to better understand factors associated with inter-individualized variability in COVID-19 recovery,” they concluded.

Earlier data from the DETECT study showed that pairing wearable tracker data with self-reported symptoms can improve COVID-19 prediction.

As previously reported by this news organization, DETECT investigators found that associating participant-reported symptoms with personal sensor data, such as deviation from normal sleep duration and RHR, resulted in an area under the curve of 0.80 for differentiating between symptomatic individuals who were positive and those who were negative for COVID-19.

Funding for the current study was provided by a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Different kinds of neuropsychiatric (NP) events in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) have substantial variability in their occurrence, resolution, and recurrence over time, as well as in their predictors, according to new research from a large, prospective, international, inception cohort study.

Because “multiple NP events due to different causes may present concurrently in individual patients, the findings emphasize the importance of recognizing attribution of NP events as a determinant of clinical outcome,” John G. Hanly, MD, of Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre and Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., and colleagues wrote in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

In a previous study of the same group of 1,827 patients with SLE, NP events occurred in about half and approximately one-third of these events were deemed disease related. They also “occurred most frequently around the diagnosis of SLE and had a significant negative impact on health-related quality of life,” the researchers wrote.

Researchers involved with the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics recruited the 1,827 adults with SLE over an 11-year period during 1999-2011 from a total of 31 sites in Europe, Asia, and North America. The average age of the patients at study enrollment was 35 years, 89% were women, and 49% were White. The mean disease duration was 5.6 months, and 70% of patients were taking corticosteroids at enrollment.

Over an average follow-up period of 7.6 years, 955 patients (52.3%) experienced a single neuropsychiatric event, and 493 (27.0%) experienced two or more events; the total number of unique NP events was 1,910. Most of these unique events (92%) involved the central nervous system, and 8.4% involved the peripheral nervous system.

The researchers used multistate models to attribute NP events to SLE based on factors that included the temporal onset of NP events in relation to SLE diagnosis, concurrent non-SLE factors, and NP events that are common in healthy controls. The four states in the multistate models were no NP events, no current NP event but a history of at least one event, new or ongoing NP events, and death. The results included a multivariate analysis of a model involving 492 observed transitions into new or ongoing NP events.

In the multivariate analysis, factors positively associated with SLE-attributed NP events included male sex (hazard ratio, 1.35; P = .028), concurrent non-SLE NP events excluding headache (HR, 1.83; P < .001), active SLE based on the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (HR, 1.19; P = .012), and corticosteroid use (HR, 1.59; P = .008). The researchers also found that SLE-attributed NP events were negatively associated with Asian race/ethnicity, postsecondary education, and use of immunosuppressive drugs.

Another multivariate analysis found that non-SLE NP events were positively associated with only concurrent SLE-attributed NP events excluding headache (HR, 2.31; P < .001), but negative associations were seen with non-U.S. African race/ethnicity and Asian race/ethnicity.

The researchers found that SLE-attributed NP events had higher rates of resolution, compared with non-SLE NP events, with the exception of headache, which had similar resolution for both event groups.

“Resolution of SLE events was more likely in patients with Asian race/ethnicity and those with Central/Focal nervous system disease with no effect seen for age at diagnosis,” the researchers noted. “For non-SLE NP events, African race/ethnicity at non-U.S. sites and younger age at diagnosis was associated with a better outcome.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the predominantly White patient population and the clustering of NP events into limited categories, which may have reduced the identification of more specific associations, the researchers noted. Also, the assessment of NP event outcomes did not include patient perceptions, and the relatively short follow-up period does not allow for assessment of later NP events such as cerebrovascular disease. However, “despite these limitations the current study provides valuable data on the presentation, outcome and predictors of NP disease in SLE patients enrolled in a long-term, international, disease inception cohort,” the researchers concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Hanly was supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research but had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors received grant support from various institutions, but not from industry, and had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Different kinds of neuropsychiatric (NP) events in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) have substantial variability in their occurrence, resolution, and recurrence over time, as well as in their predictors, according to new research from a large, prospective, international, inception cohort study.

Because “multiple NP events due to different causes may present concurrently in individual patients, the findings emphasize the importance of recognizing attribution of NP events as a determinant of clinical outcome,” John G. Hanly, MD, of Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre and Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., and colleagues wrote in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

In a previous study of the same group of 1,827 patients with SLE, NP events occurred in about half and approximately one-third of these events were deemed disease related. They also “occurred most frequently around the diagnosis of SLE and had a significant negative impact on health-related quality of life,” the researchers wrote.

Researchers involved with the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics recruited the 1,827 adults with SLE over an 11-year period during 1999-2011 from a total of 31 sites in Europe, Asia, and North America. The average age of the patients at study enrollment was 35 years, 89% were women, and 49% were White. The mean disease duration was 5.6 months, and 70% of patients were taking corticosteroids at enrollment.

Over an average follow-up period of 7.6 years, 955 patients (52.3%) experienced a single neuropsychiatric event, and 493 (27.0%) experienced two or more events; the total number of unique NP events was 1,910. Most of these unique events (92%) involved the central nervous system, and 8.4% involved the peripheral nervous system.

The researchers used multistate models to attribute NP events to SLE based on factors that included the temporal onset of NP events in relation to SLE diagnosis, concurrent non-SLE factors, and NP events that are common in healthy controls. The four states in the multistate models were no NP events, no current NP event but a history of at least one event, new or ongoing NP events, and death. The results included a multivariate analysis of a model involving 492 observed transitions into new or ongoing NP events.

In the multivariate analysis, factors positively associated with SLE-attributed NP events included male sex (hazard ratio, 1.35; P = .028), concurrent non-SLE NP events excluding headache (HR, 1.83; P < .001), active SLE based on the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (HR, 1.19; P = .012), and corticosteroid use (HR, 1.59; P = .008). The researchers also found that SLE-attributed NP events were negatively associated with Asian race/ethnicity, postsecondary education, and use of immunosuppressive drugs.

Another multivariate analysis found that non-SLE NP events were positively associated with only concurrent SLE-attributed NP events excluding headache (HR, 2.31; P < .001), but negative associations were seen with non-U.S. African race/ethnicity and Asian race/ethnicity.

The researchers found that SLE-attributed NP events had higher rates of resolution, compared with non-SLE NP events, with the exception of headache, which had similar resolution for both event groups.

“Resolution of SLE events was more likely in patients with Asian race/ethnicity and those with Central/Focal nervous system disease with no effect seen for age at diagnosis,” the researchers noted. “For non-SLE NP events, African race/ethnicity at non-U.S. sites and younger age at diagnosis was associated with a better outcome.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the predominantly White patient population and the clustering of NP events into limited categories, which may have reduced the identification of more specific associations, the researchers noted. Also, the assessment of NP event outcomes did not include patient perceptions, and the relatively short follow-up period does not allow for assessment of later NP events such as cerebrovascular disease. However, “despite these limitations the current study provides valuable data on the presentation, outcome and predictors of NP disease in SLE patients enrolled in a long-term, international, disease inception cohort,” the researchers concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Hanly was supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research but had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors received grant support from various institutions, but not from industry, and had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Different kinds of neuropsychiatric (NP) events in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) have substantial variability in their occurrence, resolution, and recurrence over time, as well as in their predictors, according to new research from a large, prospective, international, inception cohort study.

Because “multiple NP events due to different causes may present concurrently in individual patients, the findings emphasize the importance of recognizing attribution of NP events as a determinant of clinical outcome,” John G. Hanly, MD, of Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre and Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., and colleagues wrote in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

In a previous study of the same group of 1,827 patients with SLE, NP events occurred in about half and approximately one-third of these events were deemed disease related. They also “occurred most frequently around the diagnosis of SLE and had a significant negative impact on health-related quality of life,” the researchers wrote.

Researchers involved with the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics recruited the 1,827 adults with SLE over an 11-year period during 1999-2011 from a total of 31 sites in Europe, Asia, and North America. The average age of the patients at study enrollment was 35 years, 89% were women, and 49% were White. The mean disease duration was 5.6 months, and 70% of patients were taking corticosteroids at enrollment.

Over an average follow-up period of 7.6 years, 955 patients (52.3%) experienced a single neuropsychiatric event, and 493 (27.0%) experienced two or more events; the total number of unique NP events was 1,910. Most of these unique events (92%) involved the central nervous system, and 8.4% involved the peripheral nervous system.

The researchers used multistate models to attribute NP events to SLE based on factors that included the temporal onset of NP events in relation to SLE diagnosis, concurrent non-SLE factors, and NP events that are common in healthy controls. The four states in the multistate models were no NP events, no current NP event but a history of at least one event, new or ongoing NP events, and death. The results included a multivariate analysis of a model involving 492 observed transitions into new or ongoing NP events.

In the multivariate analysis, factors positively associated with SLE-attributed NP events included male sex (hazard ratio, 1.35; P = .028), concurrent non-SLE NP events excluding headache (HR, 1.83; P < .001), active SLE based on the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (HR, 1.19; P = .012), and corticosteroid use (HR, 1.59; P = .008). The researchers also found that SLE-attributed NP events were negatively associated with Asian race/ethnicity, postsecondary education, and use of immunosuppressive drugs.

Another multivariate analysis found that non-SLE NP events were positively associated with only concurrent SLE-attributed NP events excluding headache (HR, 2.31; P < .001), but negative associations were seen with non-U.S. African race/ethnicity and Asian race/ethnicity.

The researchers found that SLE-attributed NP events had higher rates of resolution, compared with non-SLE NP events, with the exception of headache, which had similar resolution for both event groups.

“Resolution of SLE events was more likely in patients with Asian race/ethnicity and those with Central/Focal nervous system disease with no effect seen for age at diagnosis,” the researchers noted. “For non-SLE NP events, African race/ethnicity at non-U.S. sites and younger age at diagnosis was associated with a better outcome.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the predominantly White patient population and the clustering of NP events into limited categories, which may have reduced the identification of more specific associations, the researchers noted. Also, the assessment of NP event outcomes did not include patient perceptions, and the relatively short follow-up period does not allow for assessment of later NP events such as cerebrovascular disease. However, “despite these limitations the current study provides valuable data on the presentation, outcome and predictors of NP disease in SLE patients enrolled in a long-term, international, disease inception cohort,” the researchers concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Hanly was supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research but had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors received grant support from various institutions, but not from industry, and had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults with limited English skills receive far less health care than do those proficient in English, according to a new study in Health Affairs.

Jessica Himmelstein, MD, a Harvard research fellow and primary care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance in Cambridge, Mass., led a study of more than 120,000 adults published July 6, 2021. The study population included 17,776 Hispanic adults with limited English proficiency, 14,936 Hispanic adults proficient in English and 87,834 non-Hispanic, English-proficient adults.

Researchers compared several measures of care usage from information in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Medical Expenditure Panel Survey from 1998 to 2018.

They found that, in adjusted analyses, total use of care per capita from 2014-2018, measured by health care expenditures, was $1,463 lower (98% confidence interval, $1,030-$1,897), or 35% lower for primary-Spanish speakers than for Hispanic adults who were English proficient and $2,802 lower (98% CI, $2,356-$3,247), or 42% lower versus non-Hispanic adults who were English proficient.

Spanish speakers also had 36% fewer outpatient visits and 48% fewer prescription medications than non-Hispanic adults, and 35% fewer outpatient visits and 37% fewer prescription medications than English-proficient Hispanic adults.

Even when accounting for differences in health, age, sex, income and insurance, adults with language barriers fared worse.
 

Gaps span all types of care

The services that those with limited English skills are missing are “the types of care people need to lead a healthy life,” from routine visits and medications to urgent or emergency care, Dr. Himmelstein said in an interview.

She said the gaps were greater in outpatient care and in medication use, compared with emergency department visits and inpatient care, but the inequities were present in all the categories she and her coinvestigators studied.

Underlying causes for having less care may include that people who struggle with English may not feel comfortable accessing the health system or may feel unwelcome or discriminated against.

“An undercurrent of biases, including racism, could also be contributing,” she said.

The data show that, despite several federal policy changes aimed at promoting language services in hospitals and clinics, several language-based disparities have not improved over 2 decades.

Some of the changes have included an executive order in 2000 requiring interpreters to be available in federally funded health facilities. In 2010, the Affordable Care Act enhanced the definition of meaningful access to language services and setting standards for qualified interpreters.
 

Gap widened over 2 decades

The adjusted gap in annual health care expenditures per capita between adults with limited English skills and non-Hispanic, English-proficient adults widened by $1,596 (98% CI, $837-$2,356) between 1999-2000 and 2017-2018, after accounting for inflation.

Dr. Himmelstein said that though this study period predated COVID-19, its findings may help explain the disproportionate burden the pandemic placed on the Hispanic population.

“This is a community that traditionally wasn’t getting access to care and then suddenly something like COVID-19 comes and they were even more devastated,” she noted.

Telehealth, which proved an important way to access care during the pandemic, also added a degree of communication difficulty for those with fewer English skills, she said.

Many of the telehealth changes are here to stay, and it will be important to ask: “Are we ensuring equity in telehealth use for individuals who face language barriers?” Dr. Himmelstein said.

Olga Garcia-Bedoya, MD, an associate professor at University of Illinois at Chicago’s department of medicine and medical director of UIC’s Institute for Minority Health Research, said having access to interpreters with high accuracy is key to narrowing the gaps.

“The literature is very clear that access to professional medical interpreters is associated with decreased health disparities for patients with limited English proficiency,” she said.

More cultural training for clinicians is needed surrounding beliefs about illness and that some care may be declined not because of a person’s limited English proficiency, but because their beliefs may keep them from getting care, Dr. Garcia-Bedoya added. When it comes to getting a flu shot, for example, sometimes belief systems, rather than English proficiency, keep people from accessing care.
 

What can be done?

Addressing barriers caused by lack of English proficiency will likely take change in policies, including one related reimbursement for medical interpreters, Dr. Himmelstein said.

Currently, only 15 states’ Medicaid programs or Children’s Health Insurance Programs reimburse providers for language services, the paper notes, and neither Medicare nor private insurers routinely pay for those services.

Recruiting bilingual providers and staff at health care facilities and in medical and nursing schools will also be important to narrow the gaps, Dr. Himmelstein said.

Strengthening standards for interpreters also will help. “Currently such standards vary by state or by institution and are not necessarily enforced,” she explained.

It will also be important to make sure patients know that they are entitled by law to care, free of discriminatory practices and to have certain language services including qualified interpreters, Dr. Himmelstein said.

Dr. Garcia-Bedoya said changes need to come from health systems working in combination with clinicians, providing resources so that quality interpreters can be accessed and making sure that equipment supports clear communication in telehealth. Patients’ language preferences should also be noted as soon as they make the appointment.

The findings of the study may have large significance as one in seven people in the United States speak Spanish at home, and 25 million people in the United States have limited English proficiency, the authors noted.

Dr. Himmelstein receives funding support from an Institutional National Research Service Award. Dr. Garcia-Bedoya reports no relevant financial relationships.

Adults with limited English skills receive far less health care than do those proficient in English, according to a new study in Health Affairs.

Jessica Himmelstein, MD, a Harvard research fellow and primary care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance in Cambridge, Mass., led a study of more than 120,000 adults published July 6, 2021. The study population included 17,776 Hispanic adults with limited English proficiency, 14,936 Hispanic adults proficient in English and 87,834 non-Hispanic, English-proficient adults.

Researchers compared several measures of care usage from information in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Medical Expenditure Panel Survey from 1998 to 2018.

They found that, in adjusted analyses, total use of care per capita from 2014-2018, measured by health care expenditures, was $1,463 lower (98% confidence interval, $1,030-$1,897), or 35% lower for primary-Spanish speakers than for Hispanic adults who were English proficient and $2,802 lower (98% CI, $2,356-$3,247), or 42% lower versus non-Hispanic adults who were English proficient.

Spanish speakers also had 36% fewer outpatient visits and 48% fewer prescription medications than non-Hispanic adults, and 35% fewer outpatient visits and 37% fewer prescription medications than English-proficient Hispanic adults.

Even when accounting for differences in health, age, sex, income and insurance, adults with language barriers fared worse.
 

Gaps span all types of care

The services that those with limited English skills are missing are “the types of care people need to lead a healthy life,” from routine visits and medications to urgent or emergency care, Dr. Himmelstein said in an interview.

She said the gaps were greater in outpatient care and in medication use, compared with emergency department visits and inpatient care, but the inequities were present in all the categories she and her coinvestigators studied.

Underlying causes for having less care may include that people who struggle with English may not feel comfortable accessing the health system or may feel unwelcome or discriminated against.

“An undercurrent of biases, including racism, could also be contributing,” she said.

The data show that, despite several federal policy changes aimed at promoting language services in hospitals and clinics, several language-based disparities have not improved over 2 decades.

Some of the changes have included an executive order in 2000 requiring interpreters to be available in federally funded health facilities. In 2010, the Affordable Care Act enhanced the definition of meaningful access to language services and setting standards for qualified interpreters.
 

Gap widened over 2 decades

The adjusted gap in annual health care expenditures per capita between adults with limited English skills and non-Hispanic, English-proficient adults widened by $1,596 (98% CI, $837-$2,356) between 1999-2000 and 2017-2018, after accounting for inflation.

Dr. Himmelstein said that though this study period predated COVID-19, its findings may help explain the disproportionate burden the pandemic placed on the Hispanic population.

“This is a community that traditionally wasn’t getting access to care and then suddenly something like COVID-19 comes and they were even more devastated,” she noted.

Telehealth, which proved an important way to access care during the pandemic, also added a degree of communication difficulty for those with fewer English skills, she said.

Many of the telehealth changes are here to stay, and it will be important to ask: “Are we ensuring equity in telehealth use for individuals who face language barriers?” Dr. Himmelstein said.

Olga Garcia-Bedoya, MD, an associate professor at University of Illinois at Chicago’s department of medicine and medical director of UIC’s Institute for Minority Health Research, said having access to interpreters with high accuracy is key to narrowing the gaps.

“The literature is very clear that access to professional medical interpreters is associated with decreased health disparities for patients with limited English proficiency,” she said.

More cultural training for clinicians is needed surrounding beliefs about illness and that some care may be declined not because of a person’s limited English proficiency, but because their beliefs may keep them from getting care, Dr. Garcia-Bedoya added. When it comes to getting a flu shot, for example, sometimes belief systems, rather than English proficiency, keep people from accessing care.
 

What can be done?

Addressing barriers caused by lack of English proficiency will likely take change in policies, including one related reimbursement for medical interpreters, Dr. Himmelstein said.

Currently, only 15 states’ Medicaid programs or Children’s Health Insurance Programs reimburse providers for language services, the paper notes, and neither Medicare nor private insurers routinely pay for those services.

Recruiting bilingual providers and staff at health care facilities and in medical and nursing schools will also be important to narrow the gaps, Dr. Himmelstein said.

Strengthening standards for interpreters also will help. “Currently such standards vary by state or by institution and are not necessarily enforced,” she explained.

It will also be important to make sure patients know that they are entitled by law to care, free of discriminatory practices and to have certain language services including qualified interpreters, Dr. Himmelstein said.

Dr. Garcia-Bedoya said changes need to come from health systems working in combination with clinicians, providing resources so that quality interpreters can be accessed and making sure that equipment supports clear communication in telehealth. Patients’ language preferences should also be noted as soon as they make the appointment.

The findings of the study may have large significance as one in seven people in the United States speak Spanish at home, and 25 million people in the United States have limited English proficiency, the authors noted.

Dr. Himmelstein receives funding support from an Institutional National Research Service Award. Dr. Garcia-Bedoya reports no relevant financial relationships.

Adults with limited English skills receive far less health care than do those proficient in English, according to a new study in Health Affairs.

Jessica Himmelstein, MD, a Harvard research fellow and primary care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance in Cambridge, Mass., led a study of more than 120,000 adults published July 6, 2021. The study population included 17,776 Hispanic adults with limited English proficiency, 14,936 Hispanic adults proficient in English and 87,834 non-Hispanic, English-proficient adults.

Researchers compared several measures of care usage from information in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Medical Expenditure Panel Survey from 1998 to 2018.

They found that, in adjusted analyses, total use of care per capita from 2014-2018, measured by health care expenditures, was $1,463 lower (98% confidence interval, $1,030-$1,897), or 35% lower for primary-Spanish speakers than for Hispanic adults who were English proficient and $2,802 lower (98% CI, $2,356-$3,247), or 42% lower versus non-Hispanic adults who were English proficient.

Spanish speakers also had 36% fewer outpatient visits and 48% fewer prescription medications than non-Hispanic adults, and 35% fewer outpatient visits and 37% fewer prescription medications than English-proficient Hispanic adults.

Even when accounting for differences in health, age, sex, income and insurance, adults with language barriers fared worse.
 

Gaps span all types of care

The services that those with limited English skills are missing are “the types of care people need to lead a healthy life,” from routine visits and medications to urgent or emergency care, Dr. Himmelstein said in an interview.

She said the gaps were greater in outpatient care and in medication use, compared with emergency department visits and inpatient care, but the inequities were present in all the categories she and her coinvestigators studied.

Underlying causes for having less care may include that people who struggle with English may not feel comfortable accessing the health system or may feel unwelcome or discriminated against.

“An undercurrent of biases, including racism, could also be contributing,” she said.

The data show that, despite several federal policy changes aimed at promoting language services in hospitals and clinics, several language-based disparities have not improved over 2 decades.

Some of the changes have included an executive order in 2000 requiring interpreters to be available in federally funded health facilities. In 2010, the Affordable Care Act enhanced the definition of meaningful access to language services and setting standards for qualified interpreters.
 

Gap widened over 2 decades

The adjusted gap in annual health care expenditures per capita between adults with limited English skills and non-Hispanic, English-proficient adults widened by $1,596 (98% CI, $837-$2,356) between 1999-2000 and 2017-2018, after accounting for inflation.

Dr. Himmelstein said that though this study period predated COVID-19, its findings may help explain the disproportionate burden the pandemic placed on the Hispanic population.

“This is a community that traditionally wasn’t getting access to care and then suddenly something like COVID-19 comes and they were even more devastated,” she noted.

Telehealth, which proved an important way to access care during the pandemic, also added a degree of communication difficulty for those with fewer English skills, she said.

Many of the telehealth changes are here to stay, and it will be important to ask: “Are we ensuring equity in telehealth use for individuals who face language barriers?” Dr. Himmelstein said.

Olga Garcia-Bedoya, MD, an associate professor at University of Illinois at Chicago’s department of medicine and medical director of UIC’s Institute for Minority Health Research, said having access to interpreters with high accuracy is key to narrowing the gaps.

“The literature is very clear that access to professional medical interpreters is associated with decreased health disparities for patients with limited English proficiency,” she said.

More cultural training for clinicians is needed surrounding beliefs about illness and that some care may be declined not because of a person’s limited English proficiency, but because their beliefs may keep them from getting care, Dr. Garcia-Bedoya added. When it comes to getting a flu shot, for example, sometimes belief systems, rather than English proficiency, keep people from accessing care.
 

What can be done?

Addressing barriers caused by lack of English proficiency will likely take change in policies, including one related reimbursement for medical interpreters, Dr. Himmelstein said.

Currently, only 15 states’ Medicaid programs or Children’s Health Insurance Programs reimburse providers for language services, the paper notes, and neither Medicare nor private insurers routinely pay for those services.

Recruiting bilingual providers and staff at health care facilities and in medical and nursing schools will also be important to narrow the gaps, Dr. Himmelstein said.

Strengthening standards for interpreters also will help. “Currently such standards vary by state or by institution and are not necessarily enforced,” she explained.

It will also be important to make sure patients know that they are entitled by law to care, free of discriminatory practices and to have certain language services including qualified interpreters, Dr. Himmelstein said.

Dr. Garcia-Bedoya said changes need to come from health systems working in combination with clinicians, providing resources so that quality interpreters can be accessed and making sure that equipment supports clear communication in telehealth. Patients’ language preferences should also be noted as soon as they make the appointment.

The findings of the study may have large significance as one in seven people in the United States speak Spanish at home, and 25 million people in the United States have limited English proficiency, the authors noted.

Dr. Himmelstein receives funding support from an Institutional National Research Service Award. Dr. Garcia-Bedoya reports no relevant financial relationships.