Feature

Intake of salt is a biological necessity, inextricably woven into physiologic systems. However, excessive salt intake is associated with high blood pressure. Hypertension is linked to increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, and it is estimated that excessive salt intake causes approximately 5 million deaths per year worldwide. Reducing salt intake lowers blood pressure, but processed foods contain “hidden” salt, which makes dietary control of salt difficult. This problem is compounded by growing inequalities in food systems, which present another hurdle to sustaining individual dietary control of salt intake.

Krisana Antharith / EyeEm / Getty Images

Of the 87 risk factors included in the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2019, high systolic blood pressure was identified as the leading risk factor for disease burden at the global level and for its effect on human health. A range of strategies, including primary care management and reduction in sodium intake, are known to reduce the burden of this critical risk factor. Two questions remain unanswered: “What is the relationship between mortality and adding salt to foods?” and “How much does a reduction in salt intake influence people’s health?”
 

Cardiovascular disease and death

Because dietary sodium intake has been identified as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease and premature death, high sodium intake can be expected to curtail life span. A study tested this hypothesis by analyzing the relationship between sodium intake and life expectancy and survival in 181 countries. Sodium intake correlated positively with life expectancy and inversely with all-cause mortality worldwide and in high-income countries, which argues against dietary sodium intake curtailing life span or a being risk factor for premature death. These results help fuel a scientific debate about sodium intake, life expectancy, and mortality. The debate requires interpreting composite data of positive linear, J-shaped, or inverse linear correlations, which underscores the uncertainty regarding this issue.

In a prospective study of 501,379 participants from the UK Biobank, researchers found that higher frequency of adding salt to foods was significantly associated with a higher risk of premature mortality and lower life expectancy independently of diet, lifestyle, socioeconomic level, and preexisting diseases. They found that the positive association appeared to be attenuated with increasing intake of high-potassium foods (vegetables and fruits).

In addition, the researchers made the following observations:

• For cause-specific premature mortality, they found that higher frequency of adding salt to foods was significantly associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease mortality and cancer mortality (P-trend < .001 and P-trend < .001, respectively).
• Always adding salt to foods was associated with the lower life expectancy at the age of 50 years by 1.50 (95% confidence interval, 0.72-2.30) and 2.28 (95% CI, 1.66-2.90) years for women and men, respectively, compared with participants who never or rarely added salt to foods.

The researchers noted that adding salt to foods (usually at the table) is common and is directly related to an individual’s long-term preference for salty foods and habitual salt intake. Indeed, in the Western diet, adding salt at the table accounts for 6%-20% of total salt intake. In addition, commonly used table salt contains 97%-99% sodium chloride, minimizing the potential confounding effects of other dietary factors, including potassium. Therefore, adding salt to foods provides a way to evaluate the association between habitual sodium intake and mortality – something that is relevant, given that it has been estimated that in 2010, a total of 1.65 million deaths from cardiovascular causes were attributable to consumption of more than 2.0 g of sodium per day.
 

Salt sensitivity

Current evidence supports a recommendation for moderate sodium intake in the general population (3-5 g/day). Persons with hypertension should consume salt at the lower end of that range. Some dietary guidelines recommend consuming less than 2,300 mg dietary sodium per day for persons aged 14 years or older and less for persons aged 2-13 years. Although low sodium intake (< 2.0 g/day) has been achieved in short-term clinical trials, sustained low sodium intake has not been achieved in any of the longer-term clinical trials (duration > 6 months).

The controversy continues as to the relationship between low sodium intake and blood pressure or cardiovascular diseases. Most studies show that both in individuals with hypertension and those without, blood pressure is reduced by consuming less sodium. However, it is not necessarily lowered by reducing sodium intake (< 3-5 g/day). With a sodium-rich diet, most normotensive individuals experienced a minimal change in mean arterial pressure; for many individuals with hypertension, the values increased by about 4 mm Hg. In addition, among individuals with hypertension who are “salt sensitive,” arterial pressure can increase by > 10 mm Hg in response to high sodium intake.
 

The effect of potassium

Replacing some of the sodium chloride in regular salt with potassium chloride may mitigate some of salt’s harmful cardiovascular effects. Indeed, salt substitutes that have reduced sodium levels and increased potassium levels have been shown to lower blood pressure.

In one trial, researchers enrolled over 20,000 persons from 600 villages in rural China and compared the use of regular salt (100% sodium chloride) with the use of a salt substitute (75% sodium chloride and 25% potassium chloride by mass).

The participants were at high risk for stroke, cardiovascular events, and death. The mean duration of follow-up was 4.74 years. The results were surprising. The rate of stroke was lower with the salt substitute than with regular salt (29.14 events vs. 33.65 events per 1,000 person-years; rate ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.96; P = .006), as were the rates of major cardiovascular events and death from any cause. The rate of serious adverse events attributed to hyperkalemia was not significantly higher with the salt substitute than with regular salt.

Although there is an ongoing debate about the extent of salt’s effects on the cardiovascular system, there is no doubt that in most places in the world, people are consuming more salt than the body needs.

A lot depends upon the kind of diet consumed by a particular population. Processed food is rarely used in rural areas, such as those involved in the above-mentioned trial, with dietary sodium chloride being added while preparing food at home. This is a determining factor with regard to cardiovascular outcomes, but it cannot be generalized to other social-environmental settings.

In much of the world, commercial food preservation introduces a lot of sodium chloride into the diet, and most salt intake could not be fully attributed to the use of salt substitutes. Indeed, by comparing the sodium content of cereal-based products currently sold on the Italian market with the respective benchmarks proposed by the World Health Organization, researchers found that for most items, the sodium content is much higher than the benchmarks, especially with flatbreads, leavened breads, and crackers/savory biscuits. This shows that there is work to be done to achieve the World Health Organization/United Nations objective of a 30% global reduction in sodium intake by 2025.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Intake of salt is a biological necessity, inextricably woven into physiologic systems. However, excessive salt intake is associated with high blood pressure. Hypertension is linked to increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, and it is estimated that excessive salt intake causes approximately 5 million deaths per year worldwide. Reducing salt intake lowers blood pressure, but processed foods contain “hidden” salt, which makes dietary control of salt difficult. This problem is compounded by growing inequalities in food systems, which present another hurdle to sustaining individual dietary control of salt intake.

Krisana Antharith / EyeEm / Getty Images

Of the 87 risk factors included in the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2019, high systolic blood pressure was identified as the leading risk factor for disease burden at the global level and for its effect on human health. A range of strategies, including primary care management and reduction in sodium intake, are known to reduce the burden of this critical risk factor. Two questions remain unanswered: “What is the relationship between mortality and adding salt to foods?” and “How much does a reduction in salt intake influence people’s health?”
 

Cardiovascular disease and death

Because dietary sodium intake has been identified as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease and premature death, high sodium intake can be expected to curtail life span. A study tested this hypothesis by analyzing the relationship between sodium intake and life expectancy and survival in 181 countries. Sodium intake correlated positively with life expectancy and inversely with all-cause mortality worldwide and in high-income countries, which argues against dietary sodium intake curtailing life span or a being risk factor for premature death. These results help fuel a scientific debate about sodium intake, life expectancy, and mortality. The debate requires interpreting composite data of positive linear, J-shaped, or inverse linear correlations, which underscores the uncertainty regarding this issue.

In a prospective study of 501,379 participants from the UK Biobank, researchers found that higher frequency of adding salt to foods was significantly associated with a higher risk of premature mortality and lower life expectancy independently of diet, lifestyle, socioeconomic level, and preexisting diseases. They found that the positive association appeared to be attenuated with increasing intake of high-potassium foods (vegetables and fruits).

In addition, the researchers made the following observations:

• For cause-specific premature mortality, they found that higher frequency of adding salt to foods was significantly associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease mortality and cancer mortality (P-trend < .001 and P-trend < .001, respectively).
• Always adding salt to foods was associated with the lower life expectancy at the age of 50 years by 1.50 (95% confidence interval, 0.72-2.30) and 2.28 (95% CI, 1.66-2.90) years for women and men, respectively, compared with participants who never or rarely added salt to foods.

The researchers noted that adding salt to foods (usually at the table) is common and is directly related to an individual’s long-term preference for salty foods and habitual salt intake. Indeed, in the Western diet, adding salt at the table accounts for 6%-20% of total salt intake. In addition, commonly used table salt contains 97%-99% sodium chloride, minimizing the potential confounding effects of other dietary factors, including potassium. Therefore, adding salt to foods provides a way to evaluate the association between habitual sodium intake and mortality – something that is relevant, given that it has been estimated that in 2010, a total of 1.65 million deaths from cardiovascular causes were attributable to consumption of more than 2.0 g of sodium per day.
 

Salt sensitivity

Current evidence supports a recommendation for moderate sodium intake in the general population (3-5 g/day). Persons with hypertension should consume salt at the lower end of that range. Some dietary guidelines recommend consuming less than 2,300 mg dietary sodium per day for persons aged 14 years or older and less for persons aged 2-13 years. Although low sodium intake (< 2.0 g/day) has been achieved in short-term clinical trials, sustained low sodium intake has not been achieved in any of the longer-term clinical trials (duration > 6 months).

The controversy continues as to the relationship between low sodium intake and blood pressure or cardiovascular diseases. Most studies show that both in individuals with hypertension and those without, blood pressure is reduced by consuming less sodium. However, it is not necessarily lowered by reducing sodium intake (< 3-5 g/day). With a sodium-rich diet, most normotensive individuals experienced a minimal change in mean arterial pressure; for many individuals with hypertension, the values increased by about 4 mm Hg. In addition, among individuals with hypertension who are “salt sensitive,” arterial pressure can increase by > 10 mm Hg in response to high sodium intake.
 

The effect of potassium

Replacing some of the sodium chloride in regular salt with potassium chloride may mitigate some of salt’s harmful cardiovascular effects. Indeed, salt substitutes that have reduced sodium levels and increased potassium levels have been shown to lower blood pressure.

In one trial, researchers enrolled over 20,000 persons from 600 villages in rural China and compared the use of regular salt (100% sodium chloride) with the use of a salt substitute (75% sodium chloride and 25% potassium chloride by mass).

The participants were at high risk for stroke, cardiovascular events, and death. The mean duration of follow-up was 4.74 years. The results were surprising. The rate of stroke was lower with the salt substitute than with regular salt (29.14 events vs. 33.65 events per 1,000 person-years; rate ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.96; P = .006), as were the rates of major cardiovascular events and death from any cause. The rate of serious adverse events attributed to hyperkalemia was not significantly higher with the salt substitute than with regular salt.

Although there is an ongoing debate about the extent of salt’s effects on the cardiovascular system, there is no doubt that in most places in the world, people are consuming more salt than the body needs.

A lot depends upon the kind of diet consumed by a particular population. Processed food is rarely used in rural areas, such as those involved in the above-mentioned trial, with dietary sodium chloride being added while preparing food at home. This is a determining factor with regard to cardiovascular outcomes, but it cannot be generalized to other social-environmental settings.

In much of the world, commercial food preservation introduces a lot of sodium chloride into the diet, and most salt intake could not be fully attributed to the use of salt substitutes. Indeed, by comparing the sodium content of cereal-based products currently sold on the Italian market with the respective benchmarks proposed by the World Health Organization, researchers found that for most items, the sodium content is much higher than the benchmarks, especially with flatbreads, leavened breads, and crackers/savory biscuits. This shows that there is work to be done to achieve the World Health Organization/United Nations objective of a 30% global reduction in sodium intake by 2025.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Intake of salt is a biological necessity, inextricably woven into physiologic systems. However, excessive salt intake is associated with high blood pressure. Hypertension is linked to increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, and it is estimated that excessive salt intake causes approximately 5 million deaths per year worldwide. Reducing salt intake lowers blood pressure, but processed foods contain “hidden” salt, which makes dietary control of salt difficult. This problem is compounded by growing inequalities in food systems, which present another hurdle to sustaining individual dietary control of salt intake.

Krisana Antharith / EyeEm / Getty Images

Of the 87 risk factors included in the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2019, high systolic blood pressure was identified as the leading risk factor for disease burden at the global level and for its effect on human health. A range of strategies, including primary care management and reduction in sodium intake, are known to reduce the burden of this critical risk factor. Two questions remain unanswered: “What is the relationship between mortality and adding salt to foods?” and “How much does a reduction in salt intake influence people’s health?”
 

Cardiovascular disease and death

Because dietary sodium intake has been identified as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease and premature death, high sodium intake can be expected to curtail life span. A study tested this hypothesis by analyzing the relationship between sodium intake and life expectancy and survival in 181 countries. Sodium intake correlated positively with life expectancy and inversely with all-cause mortality worldwide and in high-income countries, which argues against dietary sodium intake curtailing life span or a being risk factor for premature death. These results help fuel a scientific debate about sodium intake, life expectancy, and mortality. The debate requires interpreting composite data of positive linear, J-shaped, or inverse linear correlations, which underscores the uncertainty regarding this issue.

In a prospective study of 501,379 participants from the UK Biobank, researchers found that higher frequency of adding salt to foods was significantly associated with a higher risk of premature mortality and lower life expectancy independently of diet, lifestyle, socioeconomic level, and preexisting diseases. They found that the positive association appeared to be attenuated with increasing intake of high-potassium foods (vegetables and fruits).

In addition, the researchers made the following observations:

• For cause-specific premature mortality, they found that higher frequency of adding salt to foods was significantly associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease mortality and cancer mortality (P-trend < .001 and P-trend < .001, respectively).
• Always adding salt to foods was associated with the lower life expectancy at the age of 50 years by 1.50 (95% confidence interval, 0.72-2.30) and 2.28 (95% CI, 1.66-2.90) years for women and men, respectively, compared with participants who never or rarely added salt to foods.

The researchers noted that adding salt to foods (usually at the table) is common and is directly related to an individual’s long-term preference for salty foods and habitual salt intake. Indeed, in the Western diet, adding salt at the table accounts for 6%-20% of total salt intake. In addition, commonly used table salt contains 97%-99% sodium chloride, minimizing the potential confounding effects of other dietary factors, including potassium. Therefore, adding salt to foods provides a way to evaluate the association between habitual sodium intake and mortality – something that is relevant, given that it has been estimated that in 2010, a total of 1.65 million deaths from cardiovascular causes were attributable to consumption of more than 2.0 g of sodium per day.
 

Salt sensitivity

Current evidence supports a recommendation for moderate sodium intake in the general population (3-5 g/day). Persons with hypertension should consume salt at the lower end of that range. Some dietary guidelines recommend consuming less than 2,300 mg dietary sodium per day for persons aged 14 years or older and less for persons aged 2-13 years. Although low sodium intake (< 2.0 g/day) has been achieved in short-term clinical trials, sustained low sodium intake has not been achieved in any of the longer-term clinical trials (duration > 6 months).

The controversy continues as to the relationship between low sodium intake and blood pressure or cardiovascular diseases. Most studies show that both in individuals with hypertension and those without, blood pressure is reduced by consuming less sodium. However, it is not necessarily lowered by reducing sodium intake (< 3-5 g/day). With a sodium-rich diet, most normotensive individuals experienced a minimal change in mean arterial pressure; for many individuals with hypertension, the values increased by about 4 mm Hg. In addition, among individuals with hypertension who are “salt sensitive,” arterial pressure can increase by > 10 mm Hg in response to high sodium intake.
 

The effect of potassium

Replacing some of the sodium chloride in regular salt with potassium chloride may mitigate some of salt’s harmful cardiovascular effects. Indeed, salt substitutes that have reduced sodium levels and increased potassium levels have been shown to lower blood pressure.

In one trial, researchers enrolled over 20,000 persons from 600 villages in rural China and compared the use of regular salt (100% sodium chloride) with the use of a salt substitute (75% sodium chloride and 25% potassium chloride by mass).

The participants were at high risk for stroke, cardiovascular events, and death. The mean duration of follow-up was 4.74 years. The results were surprising. The rate of stroke was lower with the salt substitute than with regular salt (29.14 events vs. 33.65 events per 1,000 person-years; rate ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.96; P = .006), as were the rates of major cardiovascular events and death from any cause. The rate of serious adverse events attributed to hyperkalemia was not significantly higher with the salt substitute than with regular salt.

Although there is an ongoing debate about the extent of salt’s effects on the cardiovascular system, there is no doubt that in most places in the world, people are consuming more salt than the body needs.

A lot depends upon the kind of diet consumed by a particular population. Processed food is rarely used in rural areas, such as those involved in the above-mentioned trial, with dietary sodium chloride being added while preparing food at home. This is a determining factor with regard to cardiovascular outcomes, but it cannot be generalized to other social-environmental settings.

In much of the world, commercial food preservation introduces a lot of sodium chloride into the diet, and most salt intake could not be fully attributed to the use of salt substitutes. Indeed, by comparing the sodium content of cereal-based products currently sold on the Italian market with the respective benchmarks proposed by the World Health Organization, researchers found that for most items, the sodium content is much higher than the benchmarks, especially with flatbreads, leavened breads, and crackers/savory biscuits. This shows that there is work to be done to achieve the World Health Organization/United Nations objective of a 30% global reduction in sodium intake by 2025.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Comments from the White House this week suggesting a once-a-year COVID-19 shot for most Americans, “just like your annual flu shot,” were met with backlash from many who say COVID and influenza come from different viruses and need different schedules.

Remarks, from “capitulation” to too few data, hit the airwaves and social media.

Some, however, agree with the White House vision and say that asking people to get one shot in the fall instead of periodic pushes for boosters will raise public confidence and buy-in and reduce consumer confusion.  

Health leaders, including Bob Wachter, MD, chair of the department of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, say they like the framing of the concept – that people who are not high-risk should plan each year for a COVID shot and a flu shot.

“Doesn’t mean we KNOW shot will prevent transmission for a year. DOES mean it’ll likely lower odds of SEVERE case for a year & we need strategy to bump uptake,” Dr. Wachter tweeted this week.

But the numbers of Americans seeking boosters remain low. Only one-third of all eligible people 50 years and older have gotten a second COVID booster, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About half of those who got the original two shots got a first booster.

Meanwhile, the United States is still averaging about 70,000 new COVID cases and more than 300 deaths every day.

The suggested change in approach comes as Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna roll out their new boosters that target Omicron subvariants BA.4 and BA.5 after the CDC recommended their use and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved emergency use authorization. 

“As the virus continues to change, we will now be able to update our vaccines annually to target the dominant variant,” President Joe Biden said in a statement promoting the yearly approach.
 

Some say annual shot premature

Other experts say it’s too soon to tell whether an annual approach will work.

“We have no data to support that current vaccines, including the new BA.5 booster, will provide durable protection beyond 4-6 months. It would be good to aspire to this objective, and much longer duration or protection, but that will likely require next generation and nasal vaccines,” said Eric Topol, MD, Medscape’s editor-in-chief and founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute.

A report in Nature Reviews Immunology states, “Mucosal vaccines offer the potential to trigger robust protective immune responses at the predominant sites of pathogen infection” and potentially “can prevent an infection from becoming established in the first place, rather than only curtailing infection and protecting against the development of disease symptoms.”

Dr. Topol tweeted after the White House statements, “[An annual vaccine] has the ring of Covid capitulation.”

William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization that he cautions against interpreting the White House comments as official policy.

“This is the difficulty of having public health announcements come out of Washington,” he said. “They ought to come out of the CDC.”

He says there is a reasonable analogy between COVID and influenza, but warns, “don’t push the analogy.”

They are both serious respiratory viruses that can cause much illness and death in essentially the same populations, he notes. These are the older, frail people, people who have underlying illnesses or are immunocompromised.

Both viruses also mutate. But there the paths diverge.

“We’ve gotten into a pattern of annually updating the influenza vaccine because it is such a singularly seasonal virus,” Dr. Schaffner said. “Basically it disappears during the summer. We’ve had plenty of COVID during the summers.”

For COVID, he said, “We will need a periodic booster. Could this be annually? That would certainly make it easier.” But it’s too soon to tell, he said.

Dr. Schaffner noted that several manufacturers are working on a combined flu/COVID vaccine.
 

Just a ‘first step’ toward annual shot

The currently updated COVID vaccine may be the first step toward an annual vaccine, but it’s only the first step, Dr. Schaffner said. “We haven’t committed to further steps yet because we’re watching this virus.”

Syra Madad, DHSc, MSc, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Cambridge, Mass., and the New York City hospital system, told this news organization that arguments on both sides make sense.

Having a single message once a year can help eliminate the considerable confusion involving people on individual timelines with different levels of immunity and separate campaigns for COVID and flu shots coming at different times of the year.

“Communication around vaccines is very muddled and that shows in our overall vaccination rates, particularly booster rates,” she says. “The overall strategy is hopeful and makes sense if we’re going to progress that way based on data.”

However, she said that the data are just not there yet to show it’s time for an annual vaccine. First, scientists will need to see how long protection lasts with the Omicron-specific vaccine and how well and how long it protects against severe disease and death as well as infection.

COVID is less predictable than influenza and the influenza vaccine has been around for decades, Dr. Madad noted. With influenza, the patterns are more easily anticipated with their “ladder-like pattern,” she said. “COVID-19 is not like that.”

What is hopeful, she said, “is that we’ve been in the Omicron dynasty since November of 2021. I’m hopeful that we’ll stick with that particular variant.”

Dr. Topol, Dr. Schaffner, and Dr. Madad declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Comments from the White House this week suggesting a once-a-year COVID-19 shot for most Americans, “just like your annual flu shot,” were met with backlash from many who say COVID and influenza come from different viruses and need different schedules.

Remarks, from “capitulation” to too few data, hit the airwaves and social media.

Some, however, agree with the White House vision and say that asking people to get one shot in the fall instead of periodic pushes for boosters will raise public confidence and buy-in and reduce consumer confusion.  

Health leaders, including Bob Wachter, MD, chair of the department of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, say they like the framing of the concept – that people who are not high-risk should plan each year for a COVID shot and a flu shot.

“Doesn’t mean we KNOW shot will prevent transmission for a year. DOES mean it’ll likely lower odds of SEVERE case for a year & we need strategy to bump uptake,” Dr. Wachter tweeted this week.

But the numbers of Americans seeking boosters remain low. Only one-third of all eligible people 50 years and older have gotten a second COVID booster, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About half of those who got the original two shots got a first booster.

Meanwhile, the United States is still averaging about 70,000 new COVID cases and more than 300 deaths every day.

The suggested change in approach comes as Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna roll out their new boosters that target Omicron subvariants BA.4 and BA.5 after the CDC recommended their use and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved emergency use authorization. 

“As the virus continues to change, we will now be able to update our vaccines annually to target the dominant variant,” President Joe Biden said in a statement promoting the yearly approach.
 

Some say annual shot premature

Other experts say it’s too soon to tell whether an annual approach will work.

“We have no data to support that current vaccines, including the new BA.5 booster, will provide durable protection beyond 4-6 months. It would be good to aspire to this objective, and much longer duration or protection, but that will likely require next generation and nasal vaccines,” said Eric Topol, MD, Medscape’s editor-in-chief and founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute.

A report in Nature Reviews Immunology states, “Mucosal vaccines offer the potential to trigger robust protective immune responses at the predominant sites of pathogen infection” and potentially “can prevent an infection from becoming established in the first place, rather than only curtailing infection and protecting against the development of disease symptoms.”

Dr. Topol tweeted after the White House statements, “[An annual vaccine] has the ring of Covid capitulation.”

William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization that he cautions against interpreting the White House comments as official policy.

“This is the difficulty of having public health announcements come out of Washington,” he said. “They ought to come out of the CDC.”

He says there is a reasonable analogy between COVID and influenza, but warns, “don’t push the analogy.”

They are both serious respiratory viruses that can cause much illness and death in essentially the same populations, he notes. These are the older, frail people, people who have underlying illnesses or are immunocompromised.

Both viruses also mutate. But there the paths diverge.

“We’ve gotten into a pattern of annually updating the influenza vaccine because it is such a singularly seasonal virus,” Dr. Schaffner said. “Basically it disappears during the summer. We’ve had plenty of COVID during the summers.”

For COVID, he said, “We will need a periodic booster. Could this be annually? That would certainly make it easier.” But it’s too soon to tell, he said.

Dr. Schaffner noted that several manufacturers are working on a combined flu/COVID vaccine.
 

Just a ‘first step’ toward annual shot

The currently updated COVID vaccine may be the first step toward an annual vaccine, but it’s only the first step, Dr. Schaffner said. “We haven’t committed to further steps yet because we’re watching this virus.”

Syra Madad, DHSc, MSc, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Cambridge, Mass., and the New York City hospital system, told this news organization that arguments on both sides make sense.

Having a single message once a year can help eliminate the considerable confusion involving people on individual timelines with different levels of immunity and separate campaigns for COVID and flu shots coming at different times of the year.

“Communication around vaccines is very muddled and that shows in our overall vaccination rates, particularly booster rates,” she says. “The overall strategy is hopeful and makes sense if we’re going to progress that way based on data.”

However, she said that the data are just not there yet to show it’s time for an annual vaccine. First, scientists will need to see how long protection lasts with the Omicron-specific vaccine and how well and how long it protects against severe disease and death as well as infection.

COVID is less predictable than influenza and the influenza vaccine has been around for decades, Dr. Madad noted. With influenza, the patterns are more easily anticipated with their “ladder-like pattern,” she said. “COVID-19 is not like that.”

What is hopeful, she said, “is that we’ve been in the Omicron dynasty since November of 2021. I’m hopeful that we’ll stick with that particular variant.”

Dr. Topol, Dr. Schaffner, and Dr. Madad declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Comments from the White House this week suggesting a once-a-year COVID-19 shot for most Americans, “just like your annual flu shot,” were met with backlash from many who say COVID and influenza come from different viruses and need different schedules.

Remarks, from “capitulation” to too few data, hit the airwaves and social media.

Some, however, agree with the White House vision and say that asking people to get one shot in the fall instead of periodic pushes for boosters will raise public confidence and buy-in and reduce consumer confusion.  

Health leaders, including Bob Wachter, MD, chair of the department of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, say they like the framing of the concept – that people who are not high-risk should plan each year for a COVID shot and a flu shot.

“Doesn’t mean we KNOW shot will prevent transmission for a year. DOES mean it’ll likely lower odds of SEVERE case for a year & we need strategy to bump uptake,” Dr. Wachter tweeted this week.

But the numbers of Americans seeking boosters remain low. Only one-third of all eligible people 50 years and older have gotten a second COVID booster, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About half of those who got the original two shots got a first booster.

Meanwhile, the United States is still averaging about 70,000 new COVID cases and more than 300 deaths every day.

The suggested change in approach comes as Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna roll out their new boosters that target Omicron subvariants BA.4 and BA.5 after the CDC recommended their use and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved emergency use authorization. 

“As the virus continues to change, we will now be able to update our vaccines annually to target the dominant variant,” President Joe Biden said in a statement promoting the yearly approach.
 

Some say annual shot premature

Other experts say it’s too soon to tell whether an annual approach will work.

“We have no data to support that current vaccines, including the new BA.5 booster, will provide durable protection beyond 4-6 months. It would be good to aspire to this objective, and much longer duration or protection, but that will likely require next generation and nasal vaccines,” said Eric Topol, MD, Medscape’s editor-in-chief and founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute.

A report in Nature Reviews Immunology states, “Mucosal vaccines offer the potential to trigger robust protective immune responses at the predominant sites of pathogen infection” and potentially “can prevent an infection from becoming established in the first place, rather than only curtailing infection and protecting against the development of disease symptoms.”

Dr. Topol tweeted after the White House statements, “[An annual vaccine] has the ring of Covid capitulation.”

William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization that he cautions against interpreting the White House comments as official policy.

“This is the difficulty of having public health announcements come out of Washington,” he said. “They ought to come out of the CDC.”

He says there is a reasonable analogy between COVID and influenza, but warns, “don’t push the analogy.”

They are both serious respiratory viruses that can cause much illness and death in essentially the same populations, he notes. These are the older, frail people, people who have underlying illnesses or are immunocompromised.

Both viruses also mutate. But there the paths diverge.

“We’ve gotten into a pattern of annually updating the influenza vaccine because it is such a singularly seasonal virus,” Dr. Schaffner said. “Basically it disappears during the summer. We’ve had plenty of COVID during the summers.”

For COVID, he said, “We will need a periodic booster. Could this be annually? That would certainly make it easier.” But it’s too soon to tell, he said.

Dr. Schaffner noted that several manufacturers are working on a combined flu/COVID vaccine.
 

Just a ‘first step’ toward annual shot

The currently updated COVID vaccine may be the first step toward an annual vaccine, but it’s only the first step, Dr. Schaffner said. “We haven’t committed to further steps yet because we’re watching this virus.”

Syra Madad, DHSc, MSc, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Cambridge, Mass., and the New York City hospital system, told this news organization that arguments on both sides make sense.

Having a single message once a year can help eliminate the considerable confusion involving people on individual timelines with different levels of immunity and separate campaigns for COVID and flu shots coming at different times of the year.

“Communication around vaccines is very muddled and that shows in our overall vaccination rates, particularly booster rates,” she says. “The overall strategy is hopeful and makes sense if we’re going to progress that way based on data.”

However, she said that the data are just not there yet to show it’s time for an annual vaccine. First, scientists will need to see how long protection lasts with the Omicron-specific vaccine and how well and how long it protects against severe disease and death as well as infection.

COVID is less predictable than influenza and the influenza vaccine has been around for decades, Dr. Madad noted. With influenza, the patterns are more easily anticipated with their “ladder-like pattern,” she said. “COVID-19 is not like that.”

What is hopeful, she said, “is that we’ve been in the Omicron dynasty since November of 2021. I’m hopeful that we’ll stick with that particular variant.”

Dr. Topol, Dr. Schaffner, and Dr. Madad declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

During a medical malpractice trial in New Jersey, jurors waited nearly 4 hours for the physician defendant to show up. When he did arrive, the body-building surgeon was sporting two thick gold chains and a diamond pinky ring, and had the top buttons of his shirt open enough to reveal his chest hair.

“This trial was in a very rural, farming community,” recalls medical liability defense attorney Catherine Flynn, of Flynn Watts LLC, based in Parsippany, N.J. “Many of the jurors were wearing flannel shirts and jeans. The doctor’s wife walked in wearing a five-carat diamond ring and other jewelry.”

Ms. Flynn took the couple aside and asked them to remove the jewelry. She explained that the opulent accessories could damage the jury’s view of the physician. The surgeon and his wife, however, refused to remove their jewelry, she said. They didn’t think it was a big deal.

The case against the surgeon involved intraoperative damage to a patient when the physician inadvertently removed a portion of nerve in the area of the procedure. After repair of the nerve, the patient had a positive result. However, the patient alleged the surgeon’s negligence resulted in permanent damage despite the successful repair.

Jurors ultimately found the physician negligent in the case and awarded the plaintiff $1.2 million. Ms. Flynn believes that physician’s flamboyant attire and arrogant nature tainted the jury’s decision.

“In certain counties in New Jersey, his attire would not have been a problem,” she said. “In this rural, farming county, it was a huge problem. You have to know your audience. There are a lot of other things that come into play in a medical malpractice case, but when it comes to damages in a case, you don’t want to be sending the message that supports what somebody’s bias may already be telling them about a doctor.”

The surgeon appealed the verdict, and the case ultimately settled for a lesser amount, according to Ms. Flynn.

An over-the-top wardrobe is just one way that physicians can negatively influence jurors during legal trials. From subtle facial expressions to sudden outbursts to downright rudeness, attorneys have witnessed countless examples of physicians sabotaging their own trials. Legal experts say the cringeworthy experiences are good reminders that jurors are often judging more than just evidence.  

“The minute you enter the courthouse, jurors or potential jurors are sizing you up,” says health law attorney Michael Clark, of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, based in Houston. “The same phenomenon occurs in a deposition. Awareness of how you are being assessed at all times, and the image that is needed, is important since a negative impression by jurors can have a detrimental effect on a physician’s case.”
 

Juror: We didn’t like the doctor’s shoes

In another case, attorneys warned a physician defendant against dressing in his signature wardrobe during his trial. Against their advice, the doctor showed up daily to his trial in bright pastel, monochromatic suits with matching Gucci-brand shoes, said medical liability defense attorney Meredith C. Lander, of Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP, based in Connecticut. On the witness stand, the doctor was long-winded and wasn’t “terribly likable,” Ms. Lander said.

However, the evidence weighed in the physician’s favor, and there was strong testimony by defense experts. The physician won the case, Ms. Lander said, but after the verdict, the jury foreperson approached the trial attorney and made some disparaging remarks about the defendant.

“The foreperson said the jury didn’t like the doctor or his ‘Gucci suits and shoes,’ but they believed the experts,” Ms. Lander said.

Disruptive behavior can also harm jurors’ perception of physicians, Ms. Flynn adds. During one instance, a surgeon insisted on sitting next to Ms. Flynn, although she generally requests clients sit in the first row so that jurors are not so focused on their reactions during testimony. The surgeon loudly peppered Ms. Flynn with questions as witnesses testified, prompting a reprimand from the judge.

“The judge admonished the doctor several times and said, ‘Doctor, you’re raising your voice. You’ll get a chance to speak with your attorney during the break,’ ” Ms. Flynn recalled. “The doctor refused to stop talking, and the judge told him in front of the jury to go sit in the back of the courtroom. His reaction was, ‘Why do I have to move?! I need to sit here!’ ”

The surgeon eventually moved to the back of the courtroom and a sheriff’s deputy stood next to him. Testimony continued until a note in the form of a paper airplane landed on the table in front of Ms. Flynn. She carefully crumpled the note and tossed it in the wastebasket. Luckily, this drew a laugh from jurors, she said. 

But things got worse when the surgeon testified. Rather than answer the questions, he interrupted and started telling jurors his own version of events.

“The judge finally said, ‘Doctor, if you don’t listen to your attorney and answer her questions, I’m going to make you get off the stand,’ ” Ms. Flynn said. “That was the most unbelievable, egregious self-sabotage trial moment I’ve ever experienced.”

Fortunately, the physician’s legal case was strong, and the experts who testified drove the defense’s side home, Ms. Flynn said. The surgeon won the case.
 

Attorney: Watch what you say in the elevator

Other, more subtle behaviors – while often unintentional – can also be damaging.

Physicians often let their guard down while outside the courtroom and can unknowingly wind up next to a juror in an elevator or standing in a hallway, said Laura Postilion, a partner at Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., based in Chicago.

“For instance, a doctor is in an elevator and feels that some witness on the stand was lying,” Ms. Postilion said. “They might be very upset about it and start ranting about a witness lying, not realizing there is a juror is in the elevator with you.”

Physicians should also be cautious when speaking on the phone to their family or friends during a trial break.

“At the Daley Center in downtown Chicago, there are these long corridors and long line of windows; a lot of people will stand there during breaks. A doctor may be talking to his or her spouse and saying, ‘Yeah, this juror is sleeping!’ Jurors are [often] looking for drama. They’re looking for somebody letting their guard down. Hearing a doctor speak badly about them would certainly give them a reason to dislike the physician.”

Ms. Postilion warns against talking about jurors in or outside of the courtroom. This includes parking structures, she said.

Physicians can take additional steps to save themselves from negative judgment from jurors, attorneys say. Even before the trial starts, Ms. Postilion advises clients to make their social media accounts private. Some curious jurors may look up a physician’s social media accounts to learn more about their personal life, political leanings, or social beliefs, which could prejudice them against the doctor, she said.

Once on the stand, the words and tone used are key. The last thing a physician defendant wants is to come across as arrogant or condescending to jurors, said medical liability defense attorney Michael Moroney, of Flynn Watts LLC.

“For instance, a defendant might say, ‘Well, let me make this simple for you,’ as if they’re talking to a bunch of schoolchildren,” he said. “You don’t know who’s on the jury. That type of language can be offensive.”

Ms. Lander counsels her clients to refrain from using the common phrase, “honestly,” before answering questions on the stand.

“Everything you’re saying on the stand is presumed to be honest,” she said. “When you start an answer with, ‘Honestly…’ out of habit, it really does undercut everything that follows and everything else that’s already been said. It suggests that you were not being honest in your other answers.”
 

Attitude, body language speak volumes

Keep in mind that plaintiffs’ attorneys will try their best to rattle physicians on the stand and get them to appear unlikeable, says Mr. Clark, the Houston-based health law attorney. Physicians who lose their cool and begin arguing with attorneys play into their strategy.

“Plaintiffs’ attorneys have been trained in ways to get under their skin,” he said. “Righteous indignation and annoyance are best left for a rare occasion. Think about how you feel in a social setting when people are bickering in front of you. It’s uncomfortable at best. That’s how a jury feels too.”

Body language is also important, Mr. Clark notes. Physicians should avoid crossed arms, leaning back and rocking, or putting a hand on their mouth while testifying, he said. Many attorneys have practice sessions with their clients and record the interaction so that doctors can watch it and see how they look.

“Know your strengths and weaknesses,” he said. “Get help from your lawyer and perhaps consultants about how to improve these skills. Practice and preparation are important.”

Ms. Postilion goes over courtroom clothing with physician clients before trial. Anything “too flashy, too high-end, or too dumpy” should be avoided, she said. Getting accustomed to the courtroom and practicing in an empty courtroom are good ways to ensure that a physician’s voice is loud enough and projecting far enough in the courtroom, she adds.

“The doctor should try to be the best version of him- or herself to jurors,” she said. “A jury can pick up someone who’s trying to be something they’re not. A good attorney can help the doctor find the best version of themselves and capitalize on it. What is it that you want the jury to know about your care of the patient? Take that overall feeling and make sure it’s clearly expressed to the jury.”

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

During a medical malpractice trial in New Jersey, jurors waited nearly 4 hours for the physician defendant to show up. When he did arrive, the body-building surgeon was sporting two thick gold chains and a diamond pinky ring, and had the top buttons of his shirt open enough to reveal his chest hair.

“This trial was in a very rural, farming community,” recalls medical liability defense attorney Catherine Flynn, of Flynn Watts LLC, based in Parsippany, N.J. “Many of the jurors were wearing flannel shirts and jeans. The doctor’s wife walked in wearing a five-carat diamond ring and other jewelry.”

Ms. Flynn took the couple aside and asked them to remove the jewelry. She explained that the opulent accessories could damage the jury’s view of the physician. The surgeon and his wife, however, refused to remove their jewelry, she said. They didn’t think it was a big deal.

The case against the surgeon involved intraoperative damage to a patient when the physician inadvertently removed a portion of nerve in the area of the procedure. After repair of the nerve, the patient had a positive result. However, the patient alleged the surgeon’s negligence resulted in permanent damage despite the successful repair.

Jurors ultimately found the physician negligent in the case and awarded the plaintiff $1.2 million. Ms. Flynn believes that physician’s flamboyant attire and arrogant nature tainted the jury’s decision.

“In certain counties in New Jersey, his attire would not have been a problem,” she said. “In this rural, farming county, it was a huge problem. You have to know your audience. There are a lot of other things that come into play in a medical malpractice case, but when it comes to damages in a case, you don’t want to be sending the message that supports what somebody’s bias may already be telling them about a doctor.”

The surgeon appealed the verdict, and the case ultimately settled for a lesser amount, according to Ms. Flynn.

An over-the-top wardrobe is just one way that physicians can negatively influence jurors during legal trials. From subtle facial expressions to sudden outbursts to downright rudeness, attorneys have witnessed countless examples of physicians sabotaging their own trials. Legal experts say the cringeworthy experiences are good reminders that jurors are often judging more than just evidence.  

“The minute you enter the courthouse, jurors or potential jurors are sizing you up,” says health law attorney Michael Clark, of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, based in Houston. “The same phenomenon occurs in a deposition. Awareness of how you are being assessed at all times, and the image that is needed, is important since a negative impression by jurors can have a detrimental effect on a physician’s case.”
 

Juror: We didn’t like the doctor’s shoes

In another case, attorneys warned a physician defendant against dressing in his signature wardrobe during his trial. Against their advice, the doctor showed up daily to his trial in bright pastel, monochromatic suits with matching Gucci-brand shoes, said medical liability defense attorney Meredith C. Lander, of Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP, based in Connecticut. On the witness stand, the doctor was long-winded and wasn’t “terribly likable,” Ms. Lander said.

However, the evidence weighed in the physician’s favor, and there was strong testimony by defense experts. The physician won the case, Ms. Lander said, but after the verdict, the jury foreperson approached the trial attorney and made some disparaging remarks about the defendant.

“The foreperson said the jury didn’t like the doctor or his ‘Gucci suits and shoes,’ but they believed the experts,” Ms. Lander said.

Disruptive behavior can also harm jurors’ perception of physicians, Ms. Flynn adds. During one instance, a surgeon insisted on sitting next to Ms. Flynn, although she generally requests clients sit in the first row so that jurors are not so focused on their reactions during testimony. The surgeon loudly peppered Ms. Flynn with questions as witnesses testified, prompting a reprimand from the judge.

“The judge admonished the doctor several times and said, ‘Doctor, you’re raising your voice. You’ll get a chance to speak with your attorney during the break,’ ” Ms. Flynn recalled. “The doctor refused to stop talking, and the judge told him in front of the jury to go sit in the back of the courtroom. His reaction was, ‘Why do I have to move?! I need to sit here!’ ”

The surgeon eventually moved to the back of the courtroom and a sheriff’s deputy stood next to him. Testimony continued until a note in the form of a paper airplane landed on the table in front of Ms. Flynn. She carefully crumpled the note and tossed it in the wastebasket. Luckily, this drew a laugh from jurors, she said. 

But things got worse when the surgeon testified. Rather than answer the questions, he interrupted and started telling jurors his own version of events.

“The judge finally said, ‘Doctor, if you don’t listen to your attorney and answer her questions, I’m going to make you get off the stand,’ ” Ms. Flynn said. “That was the most unbelievable, egregious self-sabotage trial moment I’ve ever experienced.”

Fortunately, the physician’s legal case was strong, and the experts who testified drove the defense’s side home, Ms. Flynn said. The surgeon won the case.
 

Attorney: Watch what you say in the elevator

Other, more subtle behaviors – while often unintentional – can also be damaging.

Physicians often let their guard down while outside the courtroom and can unknowingly wind up next to a juror in an elevator or standing in a hallway, said Laura Postilion, a partner at Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., based in Chicago.

“For instance, a doctor is in an elevator and feels that some witness on the stand was lying,” Ms. Postilion said. “They might be very upset about it and start ranting about a witness lying, not realizing there is a juror is in the elevator with you.”

Physicians should also be cautious when speaking on the phone to their family or friends during a trial break.

“At the Daley Center in downtown Chicago, there are these long corridors and long line of windows; a lot of people will stand there during breaks. A doctor may be talking to his or her spouse and saying, ‘Yeah, this juror is sleeping!’ Jurors are [often] looking for drama. They’re looking for somebody letting their guard down. Hearing a doctor speak badly about them would certainly give them a reason to dislike the physician.”

Ms. Postilion warns against talking about jurors in or outside of the courtroom. This includes parking structures, she said.

Physicians can take additional steps to save themselves from negative judgment from jurors, attorneys say. Even before the trial starts, Ms. Postilion advises clients to make their social media accounts private. Some curious jurors may look up a physician’s social media accounts to learn more about their personal life, political leanings, or social beliefs, which could prejudice them against the doctor, she said.

Once on the stand, the words and tone used are key. The last thing a physician defendant wants is to come across as arrogant or condescending to jurors, said medical liability defense attorney Michael Moroney, of Flynn Watts LLC.

“For instance, a defendant might say, ‘Well, let me make this simple for you,’ as if they’re talking to a bunch of schoolchildren,” he said. “You don’t know who’s on the jury. That type of language can be offensive.”

Ms. Lander counsels her clients to refrain from using the common phrase, “honestly,” before answering questions on the stand.

“Everything you’re saying on the stand is presumed to be honest,” she said. “When you start an answer with, ‘Honestly…’ out of habit, it really does undercut everything that follows and everything else that’s already been said. It suggests that you were not being honest in your other answers.”
 

Attitude, body language speak volumes

Keep in mind that plaintiffs’ attorneys will try their best to rattle physicians on the stand and get them to appear unlikeable, says Mr. Clark, the Houston-based health law attorney. Physicians who lose their cool and begin arguing with attorneys play into their strategy.

“Plaintiffs’ attorneys have been trained in ways to get under their skin,” he said. “Righteous indignation and annoyance are best left for a rare occasion. Think about how you feel in a social setting when people are bickering in front of you. It’s uncomfortable at best. That’s how a jury feels too.”

Body language is also important, Mr. Clark notes. Physicians should avoid crossed arms, leaning back and rocking, or putting a hand on their mouth while testifying, he said. Many attorneys have practice sessions with their clients and record the interaction so that doctors can watch it and see how they look.

“Know your strengths and weaknesses,” he said. “Get help from your lawyer and perhaps consultants about how to improve these skills. Practice and preparation are important.”

Ms. Postilion goes over courtroom clothing with physician clients before trial. Anything “too flashy, too high-end, or too dumpy” should be avoided, she said. Getting accustomed to the courtroom and practicing in an empty courtroom are good ways to ensure that a physician’s voice is loud enough and projecting far enough in the courtroom, she adds.

“The doctor should try to be the best version of him- or herself to jurors,” she said. “A jury can pick up someone who’s trying to be something they’re not. A good attorney can help the doctor find the best version of themselves and capitalize on it. What is it that you want the jury to know about your care of the patient? Take that overall feeling and make sure it’s clearly expressed to the jury.”

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

During a medical malpractice trial in New Jersey, jurors waited nearly 4 hours for the physician defendant to show up. When he did arrive, the body-building surgeon was sporting two thick gold chains and a diamond pinky ring, and had the top buttons of his shirt open enough to reveal his chest hair.

“This trial was in a very rural, farming community,” recalls medical liability defense attorney Catherine Flynn, of Flynn Watts LLC, based in Parsippany, N.J. “Many of the jurors were wearing flannel shirts and jeans. The doctor’s wife walked in wearing a five-carat diamond ring and other jewelry.”

Ms. Flynn took the couple aside and asked them to remove the jewelry. She explained that the opulent accessories could damage the jury’s view of the physician. The surgeon and his wife, however, refused to remove their jewelry, she said. They didn’t think it was a big deal.

The case against the surgeon involved intraoperative damage to a patient when the physician inadvertently removed a portion of nerve in the area of the procedure. After repair of the nerve, the patient had a positive result. However, the patient alleged the surgeon’s negligence resulted in permanent damage despite the successful repair.

Jurors ultimately found the physician negligent in the case and awarded the plaintiff $1.2 million. Ms. Flynn believes that physician’s flamboyant attire and arrogant nature tainted the jury’s decision.

“In certain counties in New Jersey, his attire would not have been a problem,” she said. “In this rural, farming county, it was a huge problem. You have to know your audience. There are a lot of other things that come into play in a medical malpractice case, but when it comes to damages in a case, you don’t want to be sending the message that supports what somebody’s bias may already be telling them about a doctor.”

The surgeon appealed the verdict, and the case ultimately settled for a lesser amount, according to Ms. Flynn.

An over-the-top wardrobe is just one way that physicians can negatively influence jurors during legal trials. From subtle facial expressions to sudden outbursts to downright rudeness, attorneys have witnessed countless examples of physicians sabotaging their own trials. Legal experts say the cringeworthy experiences are good reminders that jurors are often judging more than just evidence.  

“The minute you enter the courthouse, jurors or potential jurors are sizing you up,” says health law attorney Michael Clark, of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, based in Houston. “The same phenomenon occurs in a deposition. Awareness of how you are being assessed at all times, and the image that is needed, is important since a negative impression by jurors can have a detrimental effect on a physician’s case.”
 

Juror: We didn’t like the doctor’s shoes

In another case, attorneys warned a physician defendant against dressing in his signature wardrobe during his trial. Against their advice, the doctor showed up daily to his trial in bright pastel, monochromatic suits with matching Gucci-brand shoes, said medical liability defense attorney Meredith C. Lander, of Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP, based in Connecticut. On the witness stand, the doctor was long-winded and wasn’t “terribly likable,” Ms. Lander said.

However, the evidence weighed in the physician’s favor, and there was strong testimony by defense experts. The physician won the case, Ms. Lander said, but after the verdict, the jury foreperson approached the trial attorney and made some disparaging remarks about the defendant.

“The foreperson said the jury didn’t like the doctor or his ‘Gucci suits and shoes,’ but they believed the experts,” Ms. Lander said.

Disruptive behavior can also harm jurors’ perception of physicians, Ms. Flynn adds. During one instance, a surgeon insisted on sitting next to Ms. Flynn, although she generally requests clients sit in the first row so that jurors are not so focused on their reactions during testimony. The surgeon loudly peppered Ms. Flynn with questions as witnesses testified, prompting a reprimand from the judge.

“The judge admonished the doctor several times and said, ‘Doctor, you’re raising your voice. You’ll get a chance to speak with your attorney during the break,’ ” Ms. Flynn recalled. “The doctor refused to stop talking, and the judge told him in front of the jury to go sit in the back of the courtroom. His reaction was, ‘Why do I have to move?! I need to sit here!’ ”

The surgeon eventually moved to the back of the courtroom and a sheriff’s deputy stood next to him. Testimony continued until a note in the form of a paper airplane landed on the table in front of Ms. Flynn. She carefully crumpled the note and tossed it in the wastebasket. Luckily, this drew a laugh from jurors, she said. 

But things got worse when the surgeon testified. Rather than answer the questions, he interrupted and started telling jurors his own version of events.

“The judge finally said, ‘Doctor, if you don’t listen to your attorney and answer her questions, I’m going to make you get off the stand,’ ” Ms. Flynn said. “That was the most unbelievable, egregious self-sabotage trial moment I’ve ever experienced.”

Fortunately, the physician’s legal case was strong, and the experts who testified drove the defense’s side home, Ms. Flynn said. The surgeon won the case.
 

Attorney: Watch what you say in the elevator

Other, more subtle behaviors – while often unintentional – can also be damaging.

Physicians often let their guard down while outside the courtroom and can unknowingly wind up next to a juror in an elevator or standing in a hallway, said Laura Postilion, a partner at Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., based in Chicago.

“For instance, a doctor is in an elevator and feels that some witness on the stand was lying,” Ms. Postilion said. “They might be very upset about it and start ranting about a witness lying, not realizing there is a juror is in the elevator with you.”

Physicians should also be cautious when speaking on the phone to their family or friends during a trial break.

“At the Daley Center in downtown Chicago, there are these long corridors and long line of windows; a lot of people will stand there during breaks. A doctor may be talking to his or her spouse and saying, ‘Yeah, this juror is sleeping!’ Jurors are [often] looking for drama. They’re looking for somebody letting their guard down. Hearing a doctor speak badly about them would certainly give them a reason to dislike the physician.”

Ms. Postilion warns against talking about jurors in or outside of the courtroom. This includes parking structures, she said.

Physicians can take additional steps to save themselves from negative judgment from jurors, attorneys say. Even before the trial starts, Ms. Postilion advises clients to make their social media accounts private. Some curious jurors may look up a physician’s social media accounts to learn more about their personal life, political leanings, or social beliefs, which could prejudice them against the doctor, she said.

Once on the stand, the words and tone used are key. The last thing a physician defendant wants is to come across as arrogant or condescending to jurors, said medical liability defense attorney Michael Moroney, of Flynn Watts LLC.

“For instance, a defendant might say, ‘Well, let me make this simple for you,’ as if they’re talking to a bunch of schoolchildren,” he said. “You don’t know who’s on the jury. That type of language can be offensive.”

Ms. Lander counsels her clients to refrain from using the common phrase, “honestly,” before answering questions on the stand.

“Everything you’re saying on the stand is presumed to be honest,” she said. “When you start an answer with, ‘Honestly…’ out of habit, it really does undercut everything that follows and everything else that’s already been said. It suggests that you were not being honest in your other answers.”
 

Attitude, body language speak volumes

Keep in mind that plaintiffs’ attorneys will try their best to rattle physicians on the stand and get them to appear unlikeable, says Mr. Clark, the Houston-based health law attorney. Physicians who lose their cool and begin arguing with attorneys play into their strategy.

“Plaintiffs’ attorneys have been trained in ways to get under their skin,” he said. “Righteous indignation and annoyance are best left for a rare occasion. Think about how you feel in a social setting when people are bickering in front of you. It’s uncomfortable at best. That’s how a jury feels too.”

Body language is also important, Mr. Clark notes. Physicians should avoid crossed arms, leaning back and rocking, or putting a hand on their mouth while testifying, he said. Many attorneys have practice sessions with their clients and record the interaction so that doctors can watch it and see how they look.

“Know your strengths and weaknesses,” he said. “Get help from your lawyer and perhaps consultants about how to improve these skills. Practice and preparation are important.”

Ms. Postilion goes over courtroom clothing with physician clients before trial. Anything “too flashy, too high-end, or too dumpy” should be avoided, she said. Getting accustomed to the courtroom and practicing in an empty courtroom are good ways to ensure that a physician’s voice is loud enough and projecting far enough in the courtroom, she adds.

“The doctor should try to be the best version of him- or herself to jurors,” she said. “A jury can pick up someone who’s trying to be something they’re not. A good attorney can help the doctor find the best version of themselves and capitalize on it. What is it that you want the jury to know about your care of the patient? Take that overall feeling and make sure it’s clearly expressed to the jury.”

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

A panel of infectious disease experts shared their take recently on the importance of the newly approved bivalent COVID-19 vaccines, why authorization without human data is not for them a cause for alarm, and what they are most optimistic about at this stage of the pandemic.

“I’m very encouraged by this new development,” Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, said during a media briefing sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).

It makes sense to develop a vaccine that targets both the original SARS-CoV-2 strain and Omicron BA.4 and BA.5, she said. “It does seem that if you have a circulating strain BA.4 and BA.5, hitting it with the appropriate vaccine targeted for that is most immunogenic, certainly. We will hopefully see that in terms of effectiveness.”

Changing the vaccines at this point is appropriate, Walter A. Orenstein, MD, said. “One of our challenges is that this virus mutates. Our immune response is focused on an area of the virus that can change and be evaded,” said Dr. Orenstein, professor and associate director of the Emory Vaccine Center at Emory University, Atlanta.

“This is different than measles or polio,” he said. “But for influenza and now with SARS-CoV-2 ... we have to update our vaccines, because the virus changes.”
 

Man versus mouse

Dr. Edwards addressed the controversy over a lack of human data specific to these next-generation Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. “I do not want people to be unhappy or worried that the bivalent vaccine will act in a different way than the ones that we have been administering for the past 2 years.”

The Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization may have relied primarily on animal studies, she said, but mice given a vaccine specific to BA.4 and BA.5 “have a much more robust immune response,” compared with those given a BA.1 vaccine.

Also, “over and over and over again we have seen with these SARS-CoV-2 vaccines that the mouse responses mirror the human responses,” said Dr. Edwards, scientific director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and an IDSA fellow.

“Human data will be coming very soon to look at the immunogenicity,” she said.
 

A ‘glass half full’ perspective

When asked what they are most optimistic about at this point in the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Orenstein said, “I’m really positive in the sense that the vaccines we have are already very effective against severe disease, death, and hospitalization. I feel really good about that. And we have great tools.

“The bottom line for me is, I want to get it myself,” he said regarding the bivalent vaccine.

“There are a lot of things to be happy with,” Dr. Edwards said. “I’m kind of a glass-half-full kind of person.”

Dr. Edwards is confident that the surveillance systems now in place can accurately detect major changes in the virus, including new variants. She is also optimistic about the mRNA technology that allows rapid updates to COVID-19 vaccines.

Furthermore, “I’m happy that we’re beginning to open up – that we can go do different things that we have done in the past and feel much more comfortable,” she said.
 

More motivational messaging needed

Now is also a good time to renew efforts to get people vaccinated.

“We invested a lot into developing these vaccines, but I think we also need to invest in what I call ‘implementation science research,’ ” Dr. Orenstein said, the goal being to convince people to get vaccinated.

He pointed out that it’s vaccinations, not vaccines, that saves lives. “Vaccine doses that remain in the vial are 0% effective.

“When I was director of the United States’ immunization program at the CDC,” Dr. Orenstein said, “my director of communications used to say that you need the right message delivered by the right messenger through the right communications channel.”

Dr. Edwards agreed that listening to people’s concerns and respecting their questions are important. “We also need to make sure that we use the proper messenger, just as Walt said. Maybe the proper messenger isn’t an old gray-haired lady,” she said, referring to herself, “but it’s someone that lives in your community or is your primary care doctor who has taken care of you or your children for many years.”

Research on how to better motivate people to get vaccinated is warranted, Dr. Edwards said, as well as on “how to make sure that this is really a medical issue and not a political issue. That’s been a really big problem.”

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

A panel of infectious disease experts shared their take recently on the importance of the newly approved bivalent COVID-19 vaccines, why authorization without human data is not for them a cause for alarm, and what they are most optimistic about at this stage of the pandemic.

“I’m very encouraged by this new development,” Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, said during a media briefing sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).

It makes sense to develop a vaccine that targets both the original SARS-CoV-2 strain and Omicron BA.4 and BA.5, she said. “It does seem that if you have a circulating strain BA.4 and BA.5, hitting it with the appropriate vaccine targeted for that is most immunogenic, certainly. We will hopefully see that in terms of effectiveness.”

Changing the vaccines at this point is appropriate, Walter A. Orenstein, MD, said. “One of our challenges is that this virus mutates. Our immune response is focused on an area of the virus that can change and be evaded,” said Dr. Orenstein, professor and associate director of the Emory Vaccine Center at Emory University, Atlanta.

“This is different than measles or polio,” he said. “But for influenza and now with SARS-CoV-2 ... we have to update our vaccines, because the virus changes.”
 

Man versus mouse

Dr. Edwards addressed the controversy over a lack of human data specific to these next-generation Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. “I do not want people to be unhappy or worried that the bivalent vaccine will act in a different way than the ones that we have been administering for the past 2 years.”

The Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization may have relied primarily on animal studies, she said, but mice given a vaccine specific to BA.4 and BA.5 “have a much more robust immune response,” compared with those given a BA.1 vaccine.

Also, “over and over and over again we have seen with these SARS-CoV-2 vaccines that the mouse responses mirror the human responses,” said Dr. Edwards, scientific director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and an IDSA fellow.

“Human data will be coming very soon to look at the immunogenicity,” she said.
 

A ‘glass half full’ perspective

When asked what they are most optimistic about at this point in the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Orenstein said, “I’m really positive in the sense that the vaccines we have are already very effective against severe disease, death, and hospitalization. I feel really good about that. And we have great tools.

“The bottom line for me is, I want to get it myself,” he said regarding the bivalent vaccine.

“There are a lot of things to be happy with,” Dr. Edwards said. “I’m kind of a glass-half-full kind of person.”

Dr. Edwards is confident that the surveillance systems now in place can accurately detect major changes in the virus, including new variants. She is also optimistic about the mRNA technology that allows rapid updates to COVID-19 vaccines.

Furthermore, “I’m happy that we’re beginning to open up – that we can go do different things that we have done in the past and feel much more comfortable,” she said.
 

More motivational messaging needed

Now is also a good time to renew efforts to get people vaccinated.

“We invested a lot into developing these vaccines, but I think we also need to invest in what I call ‘implementation science research,’ ” Dr. Orenstein said, the goal being to convince people to get vaccinated.

He pointed out that it’s vaccinations, not vaccines, that saves lives. “Vaccine doses that remain in the vial are 0% effective.

“When I was director of the United States’ immunization program at the CDC,” Dr. Orenstein said, “my director of communications used to say that you need the right message delivered by the right messenger through the right communications channel.”

Dr. Edwards agreed that listening to people’s concerns and respecting their questions are important. “We also need to make sure that we use the proper messenger, just as Walt said. Maybe the proper messenger isn’t an old gray-haired lady,” she said, referring to herself, “but it’s someone that lives in your community or is your primary care doctor who has taken care of you or your children for many years.”

Research on how to better motivate people to get vaccinated is warranted, Dr. Edwards said, as well as on “how to make sure that this is really a medical issue and not a political issue. That’s been a really big problem.”

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

A panel of infectious disease experts shared their take recently on the importance of the newly approved bivalent COVID-19 vaccines, why authorization without human data is not for them a cause for alarm, and what they are most optimistic about at this stage of the pandemic.

“I’m very encouraged by this new development,” Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, said during a media briefing sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).

It makes sense to develop a vaccine that targets both the original SARS-CoV-2 strain and Omicron BA.4 and BA.5, she said. “It does seem that if you have a circulating strain BA.4 and BA.5, hitting it with the appropriate vaccine targeted for that is most immunogenic, certainly. We will hopefully see that in terms of effectiveness.”

Changing the vaccines at this point is appropriate, Walter A. Orenstein, MD, said. “One of our challenges is that this virus mutates. Our immune response is focused on an area of the virus that can change and be evaded,” said Dr. Orenstein, professor and associate director of the Emory Vaccine Center at Emory University, Atlanta.

“This is different than measles or polio,” he said. “But for influenza and now with SARS-CoV-2 ... we have to update our vaccines, because the virus changes.”
 

Man versus mouse

Dr. Edwards addressed the controversy over a lack of human data specific to these next-generation Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. “I do not want people to be unhappy or worried that the bivalent vaccine will act in a different way than the ones that we have been administering for the past 2 years.”

The Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization may have relied primarily on animal studies, she said, but mice given a vaccine specific to BA.4 and BA.5 “have a much more robust immune response,” compared with those given a BA.1 vaccine.

Also, “over and over and over again we have seen with these SARS-CoV-2 vaccines that the mouse responses mirror the human responses,” said Dr. Edwards, scientific director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and an IDSA fellow.

“Human data will be coming very soon to look at the immunogenicity,” she said.
 

A ‘glass half full’ perspective

When asked what they are most optimistic about at this point in the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Orenstein said, “I’m really positive in the sense that the vaccines we have are already very effective against severe disease, death, and hospitalization. I feel really good about that. And we have great tools.

“The bottom line for me is, I want to get it myself,” he said regarding the bivalent vaccine.

“There are a lot of things to be happy with,” Dr. Edwards said. “I’m kind of a glass-half-full kind of person.”

Dr. Edwards is confident that the surveillance systems now in place can accurately detect major changes in the virus, including new variants. She is also optimistic about the mRNA technology that allows rapid updates to COVID-19 vaccines.

Furthermore, “I’m happy that we’re beginning to open up – that we can go do different things that we have done in the past and feel much more comfortable,” she said.
 

More motivational messaging needed

Now is also a good time to renew efforts to get people vaccinated.

“We invested a lot into developing these vaccines, but I think we also need to invest in what I call ‘implementation science research,’ ” Dr. Orenstein said, the goal being to convince people to get vaccinated.

He pointed out that it’s vaccinations, not vaccines, that saves lives. “Vaccine doses that remain in the vial are 0% effective.

“When I was director of the United States’ immunization program at the CDC,” Dr. Orenstein said, “my director of communications used to say that you need the right message delivered by the right messenger through the right communications channel.”

Dr. Edwards agreed that listening to people’s concerns and respecting their questions are important. “We also need to make sure that we use the proper messenger, just as Walt said. Maybe the proper messenger isn’t an old gray-haired lady,” she said, referring to herself, “but it’s someone that lives in your community or is your primary care doctor who has taken care of you or your children for many years.”

Research on how to better motivate people to get vaccinated is warranted, Dr. Edwards said, as well as on “how to make sure that this is really a medical issue and not a political issue. That’s been a really big problem.”

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

There’s strong evidence that training parents to guide the development of children with autism reaps consistent benefits, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis of more than 50 high-quality studies.

“Referrals for parent training should now be considered the expected standard for medical practice,” said a member of the research team, Timothy B. Smith, PhD, a professor of psychology at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

Methods and results

The meta-analysis included 54 papers based on randomized clinical trials involving 2,895 children, which compared the effects of various parent interventions with professional treatment, treatment as usual, or being on a wait-list to receive an intervention.

Overall the research team reported “moderately strong” average benefits from the parent-mediated interventions (Hedges’ g, 0.553), indicating a medium effect size. Parent interventions had the greatest effect on outcomes involving positive behavior and social skills (0.603), followed by language and communication (0.545), maladaptive behavior (0.519), and life skills (0.239).

Similar benefits were observed regardless of a child’s age or sex or which parent or parents implemented an intervention. The effects also appeared to be consistent regardless of intervention characteristics, such as the number of training sessions parents received, although the researchers noted that many studies did not provide data on such details.

Paul Carbone, MD, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who was not involved in the review, said it demonstrates that such parental engagement is “vitally important” and pediatricians “should not hesitate to refer interested families.”

Overcoming limitations, future research needs

The research team attempted to overcome limitations with previous reviews by using comprehensive search terms and other methods to identify relevant studies, including some that had not been published. They included only studies that reflect common practice of training multiple parents simultaneously, they wrote.

Dr. Smith noted that long-term outcomes data and further study to compare effects on children with mild, moderate, and severe autism are needed.

Although logic would suggest greater benefits for children with severe disease, there are no data to demonstrate that, he said.

The authors of the study and Dr. Carbone reported no relevant competing interests.

There’s strong evidence that training parents to guide the development of children with autism reaps consistent benefits, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis of more than 50 high-quality studies.

“Referrals for parent training should now be considered the expected standard for medical practice,” said a member of the research team, Timothy B. Smith, PhD, a professor of psychology at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

Methods and results

The meta-analysis included 54 papers based on randomized clinical trials involving 2,895 children, which compared the effects of various parent interventions with professional treatment, treatment as usual, or being on a wait-list to receive an intervention.

Overall the research team reported “moderately strong” average benefits from the parent-mediated interventions (Hedges’ g, 0.553), indicating a medium effect size. Parent interventions had the greatest effect on outcomes involving positive behavior and social skills (0.603), followed by language and communication (0.545), maladaptive behavior (0.519), and life skills (0.239).

Similar benefits were observed regardless of a child’s age or sex or which parent or parents implemented an intervention. The effects also appeared to be consistent regardless of intervention characteristics, such as the number of training sessions parents received, although the researchers noted that many studies did not provide data on such details.

Paul Carbone, MD, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who was not involved in the review, said it demonstrates that such parental engagement is “vitally important” and pediatricians “should not hesitate to refer interested families.”

Overcoming limitations, future research needs

The research team attempted to overcome limitations with previous reviews by using comprehensive search terms and other methods to identify relevant studies, including some that had not been published. They included only studies that reflect common practice of training multiple parents simultaneously, they wrote.

Dr. Smith noted that long-term outcomes data and further study to compare effects on children with mild, moderate, and severe autism are needed.

Although logic would suggest greater benefits for children with severe disease, there are no data to demonstrate that, he said.

The authors of the study and Dr. Carbone reported no relevant competing interests.

There’s strong evidence that training parents to guide the development of children with autism reaps consistent benefits, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis of more than 50 high-quality studies.

“Referrals for parent training should now be considered the expected standard for medical practice,” said a member of the research team, Timothy B. Smith, PhD, a professor of psychology at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

Methods and results

The meta-analysis included 54 papers based on randomized clinical trials involving 2,895 children, which compared the effects of various parent interventions with professional treatment, treatment as usual, or being on a wait-list to receive an intervention.

Overall the research team reported “moderately strong” average benefits from the parent-mediated interventions (Hedges’ g, 0.553), indicating a medium effect size. Parent interventions had the greatest effect on outcomes involving positive behavior and social skills (0.603), followed by language and communication (0.545), maladaptive behavior (0.519), and life skills (0.239).

Similar benefits were observed regardless of a child’s age or sex or which parent or parents implemented an intervention. The effects also appeared to be consistent regardless of intervention characteristics, such as the number of training sessions parents received, although the researchers noted that many studies did not provide data on such details.

Paul Carbone, MD, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who was not involved in the review, said it demonstrates that such parental engagement is “vitally important” and pediatricians “should not hesitate to refer interested families.”

Overcoming limitations, future research needs

The research team attempted to overcome limitations with previous reviews by using comprehensive search terms and other methods to identify relevant studies, including some that had not been published. They included only studies that reflect common practice of training multiple parents simultaneously, they wrote.

Dr. Smith noted that long-term outcomes data and further study to compare effects on children with mild, moderate, and severe autism are needed.

Although logic would suggest greater benefits for children with severe disease, there are no data to demonstrate that, he said.

The authors of the study and Dr. Carbone reported no relevant competing interests.

The number of doctors of osteopathic medicine (DOs) is enjoying a significant growth pattern. This year alone, 7,300 osteopathic physicians are entering the workforce, and they make up more than 25% of the medical student population. The pipeline of future DOs is at an all-time high of 36,500 students, according to the American Osteopathic Association.

All 50 states plus Washington, D.C., have DO practices, and Florida ranks third in terms of states with the most practicing DOs, topped by California in the No. 1 spot and Pennsylvania in second. New York and Michigan round out the top 5.

The pipeline to the profession is in a growth mode, too. For the upcoming academic year, the AOA’s Commission on Osteopathic College Accreditation will accredit 38 colleges of osteopathic medicine in about 60 different locations.

Although DOs have existed for more than 100 years, historically they have sat somewhat in the shadow of their MD peers. That tide has turned, for a variety of reasons – one of which is recognition via several high-profile DOs. Look no further than the White House, for instance, where President Biden’s physician is Kevin O’Connor, DO – the second DO to hold the position.

“The misrepresentation of osteopathic physicians has been a recent issue outside the nation’s health care delivery system,” says the American Medical Association’s Robert Mills. “To combat this mischaracterization, the AMA and the AOA issued a joint statement [in 2020] highlighting the fact that DOs are licensed physicians who practice in every specialty area and have equivalent training and practice rights to their MD peers.”
 

Attraction to the DO philosophy

For many DOs, the path to osteopathic medicine was always a clear one. “I wanted to go into osteopathic medicine from the age of 17,” says Nehal Gheewala, DO, national director of growth at ChenMed, a national primary care medical center.

Dr. Gheewala, who graduated from medical school in 2014, says he first spent time learning about the DO’s holistic philosophy, which appealed to him. “I liked how they were invested in their patient’s care, and that they first tried to treat musculoskeletal pain with manipulation. The result were quick, sometimes on the spot.”

While in medical school, Dr. Gheewala was joined by 250 peers seeking a DO rather than an MD. “I never felt like I was in the minority,” he says, “and today, as a practicing physician in Florida, we have a good number of DOs.”

Like Dr. Gheewala, Samuel Werner, a New Jersey–based DO, was inspired by his father, a DO who has served as a small-town general practitioner. “Growing up, I saw how well-respected my dad was in the community and watched his connection with patients,” Dr. Werner says. “He had the ability to pick up on small details others didn’t.”

Today, Dr. Werner sees the recognition and respect of DOs growing beyond where it was several decades ago.

One factor that is helping raise the DO profile is that residencies fall under the same umbrella for matching. In most states, medical licensing is the same, as well. Choosing to pursue a DO career requires additional training in wellness and manipulation. “In every specialty of medicine, DO students train alongside MD students,” Dr. Werner says. “In practice, most patients are unaware if they’re treated by a DO or an MD.”

That has sometimes been Dr. Gheewala’s experience. “Plenty of patients don’t ask whether I’m an MD or a DO,” he says, “and it doesn’t matter. We’re all board-certified doctors and as long as we’re taking care of, and spending time with, our patients, that’s what they want.”

Joseph A. Giaimo, a DO in Florida who has practiced for more than 30 years and is a past president of the AOA, says that some patients will seek out a DO instead of an MD. “Many patients see me because they specifically want to work with a DO; many of them are snowbirds who come to Florida during the winter,” he explains.

In his long career as a DO, Dr. Giaimo has witnessed the profession’s growth alongside a fading stigma that it’s somehow less “authentic” than allopathic medicine. “There are still people who need to be educated on osteopathic medicine, but much of that has simply been a lack of understanding,” he says. “That’s changing, and it’s our role to continue to educate people on what we’re about.”

Dr. Giaimo says that osteopathic medicine is striking the right tone in the moment, which is helpful to recognition and growth. “Coming out of the pandemic, people are more focused on staying healthy, and osteopathy offers an appealing approach,” he says. “There’s no better time for the two houses of medicine to come together, and it’s a great time to be in osteopathy.”
 

Moving forward

One of the biggest places the physician shortage is problematic is in rural America. The federal government estimates that by 2025, there will be a physician shortage of 25,000 primary care doctors in these areas. This is another way in which the growing osteopathic field is having an impact.

“We have a number of schools in underserved areas, such as Oklahoma and on indigenous lands,” says Dr. Giaimo. “There is a concerted effort to reach these communities, and we’re getting some recognition for those efforts, too.”

Dr. Gheewala also sees a greater emphasis on primary care physicians today, something that he believes has led more people to explore becoming or seeing a DO instead of an MD.

A full 57% of DOs focus on primary care, such as family practice, pediatrics, and internal medicine, with the others in specialized care. If those focused on primary care can fill some of the physician shortages, Dr. Gheewala says, it can help keep patients out of hospitals for their first line of care, reducing health care costs.

The tides are turning in the medical profession, as well, when it comes to respecting the osteopathy field. Students who graduate from osteopathic programs also have a high acceptance rate into residencies, which Dr. Giaimo credits to several factors.

He also doesn’t discount the fact that DOs are talking more about their practice approaches these days. “It hits the right note for modern medicine, and it’s also what the consumer is looking for today,” he adds.
 

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

The number of doctors of osteopathic medicine (DOs) is enjoying a significant growth pattern. This year alone, 7,300 osteopathic physicians are entering the workforce, and they make up more than 25% of the medical student population. The pipeline of future DOs is at an all-time high of 36,500 students, according to the American Osteopathic Association.

All 50 states plus Washington, D.C., have DO practices, and Florida ranks third in terms of states with the most practicing DOs, topped by California in the No. 1 spot and Pennsylvania in second. New York and Michigan round out the top 5.

The pipeline to the profession is in a growth mode, too. For the upcoming academic year, the AOA’s Commission on Osteopathic College Accreditation will accredit 38 colleges of osteopathic medicine in about 60 different locations.

Although DOs have existed for more than 100 years, historically they have sat somewhat in the shadow of their MD peers. That tide has turned, for a variety of reasons – one of which is recognition via several high-profile DOs. Look no further than the White House, for instance, where President Biden’s physician is Kevin O’Connor, DO – the second DO to hold the position.

“The misrepresentation of osteopathic physicians has been a recent issue outside the nation’s health care delivery system,” says the American Medical Association’s Robert Mills. “To combat this mischaracterization, the AMA and the AOA issued a joint statement [in 2020] highlighting the fact that DOs are licensed physicians who practice in every specialty area and have equivalent training and practice rights to their MD peers.”
 

Attraction to the DO philosophy

For many DOs, the path to osteopathic medicine was always a clear one. “I wanted to go into osteopathic medicine from the age of 17,” says Nehal Gheewala, DO, national director of growth at ChenMed, a national primary care medical center.

Dr. Gheewala, who graduated from medical school in 2014, says he first spent time learning about the DO’s holistic philosophy, which appealed to him. “I liked how they were invested in their patient’s care, and that they first tried to treat musculoskeletal pain with manipulation. The result were quick, sometimes on the spot.”

While in medical school, Dr. Gheewala was joined by 250 peers seeking a DO rather than an MD. “I never felt like I was in the minority,” he says, “and today, as a practicing physician in Florida, we have a good number of DOs.”

Like Dr. Gheewala, Samuel Werner, a New Jersey–based DO, was inspired by his father, a DO who has served as a small-town general practitioner. “Growing up, I saw how well-respected my dad was in the community and watched his connection with patients,” Dr. Werner says. “He had the ability to pick up on small details others didn’t.”

Today, Dr. Werner sees the recognition and respect of DOs growing beyond where it was several decades ago.

One factor that is helping raise the DO profile is that residencies fall under the same umbrella for matching. In most states, medical licensing is the same, as well. Choosing to pursue a DO career requires additional training in wellness and manipulation. “In every specialty of medicine, DO students train alongside MD students,” Dr. Werner says. “In practice, most patients are unaware if they’re treated by a DO or an MD.”

That has sometimes been Dr. Gheewala’s experience. “Plenty of patients don’t ask whether I’m an MD or a DO,” he says, “and it doesn’t matter. We’re all board-certified doctors and as long as we’re taking care of, and spending time with, our patients, that’s what they want.”

Joseph A. Giaimo, a DO in Florida who has practiced for more than 30 years and is a past president of the AOA, says that some patients will seek out a DO instead of an MD. “Many patients see me because they specifically want to work with a DO; many of them are snowbirds who come to Florida during the winter,” he explains.

In his long career as a DO, Dr. Giaimo has witnessed the profession’s growth alongside a fading stigma that it’s somehow less “authentic” than allopathic medicine. “There are still people who need to be educated on osteopathic medicine, but much of that has simply been a lack of understanding,” he says. “That’s changing, and it’s our role to continue to educate people on what we’re about.”

Dr. Giaimo says that osteopathic medicine is striking the right tone in the moment, which is helpful to recognition and growth. “Coming out of the pandemic, people are more focused on staying healthy, and osteopathy offers an appealing approach,” he says. “There’s no better time for the two houses of medicine to come together, and it’s a great time to be in osteopathy.”
 

Moving forward

One of the biggest places the physician shortage is problematic is in rural America. The federal government estimates that by 2025, there will be a physician shortage of 25,000 primary care doctors in these areas. This is another way in which the growing osteopathic field is having an impact.

“We have a number of schools in underserved areas, such as Oklahoma and on indigenous lands,” says Dr. Giaimo. “There is a concerted effort to reach these communities, and we’re getting some recognition for those efforts, too.”

Dr. Gheewala also sees a greater emphasis on primary care physicians today, something that he believes has led more people to explore becoming or seeing a DO instead of an MD.

A full 57% of DOs focus on primary care, such as family practice, pediatrics, and internal medicine, with the others in specialized care. If those focused on primary care can fill some of the physician shortages, Dr. Gheewala says, it can help keep patients out of hospitals for their first line of care, reducing health care costs.

The tides are turning in the medical profession, as well, when it comes to respecting the osteopathy field. Students who graduate from osteopathic programs also have a high acceptance rate into residencies, which Dr. Giaimo credits to several factors.

He also doesn’t discount the fact that DOs are talking more about their practice approaches these days. “It hits the right note for modern medicine, and it’s also what the consumer is looking for today,” he adds.
 

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

The number of doctors of osteopathic medicine (DOs) is enjoying a significant growth pattern. This year alone, 7,300 osteopathic physicians are entering the workforce, and they make up more than 25% of the medical student population. The pipeline of future DOs is at an all-time high of 36,500 students, according to the American Osteopathic Association.

All 50 states plus Washington, D.C., have DO practices, and Florida ranks third in terms of states with the most practicing DOs, topped by California in the No. 1 spot and Pennsylvania in second. New York and Michigan round out the top 5.

The pipeline to the profession is in a growth mode, too. For the upcoming academic year, the AOA’s Commission on Osteopathic College Accreditation will accredit 38 colleges of osteopathic medicine in about 60 different locations.

Although DOs have existed for more than 100 years, historically they have sat somewhat in the shadow of their MD peers. That tide has turned, for a variety of reasons – one of which is recognition via several high-profile DOs. Look no further than the White House, for instance, where President Biden’s physician is Kevin O’Connor, DO – the second DO to hold the position.

“The misrepresentation of osteopathic physicians has been a recent issue outside the nation’s health care delivery system,” says the American Medical Association’s Robert Mills. “To combat this mischaracterization, the AMA and the AOA issued a joint statement [in 2020] highlighting the fact that DOs are licensed physicians who practice in every specialty area and have equivalent training and practice rights to their MD peers.”
 

Attraction to the DO philosophy

For many DOs, the path to osteopathic medicine was always a clear one. “I wanted to go into osteopathic medicine from the age of 17,” says Nehal Gheewala, DO, national director of growth at ChenMed, a national primary care medical center.

Dr. Gheewala, who graduated from medical school in 2014, says he first spent time learning about the DO’s holistic philosophy, which appealed to him. “I liked how they were invested in their patient’s care, and that they first tried to treat musculoskeletal pain with manipulation. The result were quick, sometimes on the spot.”

While in medical school, Dr. Gheewala was joined by 250 peers seeking a DO rather than an MD. “I never felt like I was in the minority,” he says, “and today, as a practicing physician in Florida, we have a good number of DOs.”

Like Dr. Gheewala, Samuel Werner, a New Jersey–based DO, was inspired by his father, a DO who has served as a small-town general practitioner. “Growing up, I saw how well-respected my dad was in the community and watched his connection with patients,” Dr. Werner says. “He had the ability to pick up on small details others didn’t.”

Today, Dr. Werner sees the recognition and respect of DOs growing beyond where it was several decades ago.

One factor that is helping raise the DO profile is that residencies fall under the same umbrella for matching. In most states, medical licensing is the same, as well. Choosing to pursue a DO career requires additional training in wellness and manipulation. “In every specialty of medicine, DO students train alongside MD students,” Dr. Werner says. “In practice, most patients are unaware if they’re treated by a DO or an MD.”

That has sometimes been Dr. Gheewala’s experience. “Plenty of patients don’t ask whether I’m an MD or a DO,” he says, “and it doesn’t matter. We’re all board-certified doctors and as long as we’re taking care of, and spending time with, our patients, that’s what they want.”

Joseph A. Giaimo, a DO in Florida who has practiced for more than 30 years and is a past president of the AOA, says that some patients will seek out a DO instead of an MD. “Many patients see me because they specifically want to work with a DO; many of them are snowbirds who come to Florida during the winter,” he explains.

In his long career as a DO, Dr. Giaimo has witnessed the profession’s growth alongside a fading stigma that it’s somehow less “authentic” than allopathic medicine. “There are still people who need to be educated on osteopathic medicine, but much of that has simply been a lack of understanding,” he says. “That’s changing, and it’s our role to continue to educate people on what we’re about.”

Dr. Giaimo says that osteopathic medicine is striking the right tone in the moment, which is helpful to recognition and growth. “Coming out of the pandemic, people are more focused on staying healthy, and osteopathy offers an appealing approach,” he says. “There’s no better time for the two houses of medicine to come together, and it’s a great time to be in osteopathy.”
 

Moving forward

One of the biggest places the physician shortage is problematic is in rural America. The federal government estimates that by 2025, there will be a physician shortage of 25,000 primary care doctors in these areas. This is another way in which the growing osteopathic field is having an impact.

“We have a number of schools in underserved areas, such as Oklahoma and on indigenous lands,” says Dr. Giaimo. “There is a concerted effort to reach these communities, and we’re getting some recognition for those efforts, too.”

Dr. Gheewala also sees a greater emphasis on primary care physicians today, something that he believes has led more people to explore becoming or seeing a DO instead of an MD.

A full 57% of DOs focus on primary care, such as family practice, pediatrics, and internal medicine, with the others in specialized care. If those focused on primary care can fill some of the physician shortages, Dr. Gheewala says, it can help keep patients out of hospitals for their first line of care, reducing health care costs.

The tides are turning in the medical profession, as well, when it comes to respecting the osteopathy field. Students who graduate from osteopathic programs also have a high acceptance rate into residencies, which Dr. Giaimo credits to several factors.

He also doesn’t discount the fact that DOs are talking more about their practice approaches these days. “It hits the right note for modern medicine, and it’s also what the consumer is looking for today,” he adds.
 

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

Imagine that instead of a patient visiting their doctor for blood tests, they could rely on a noninvasive at-home test to predict their risk of diabetes, a disease that affects nearly 15% of U.S. adults (23% of whom are undiagnosed), according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

This technology could become a reality thanks to a research team that developed a machine learning algorithm to predict whether people had type 2 diabetes, prediabetes, or no diabetes. In an article published in BMJ Innovations, the researchers describe how their algorithm sorted people into these three categories with 97% accuracy on the basis of measurements of the heart’s electrical activity, determined from an electrocardiogram.

To develop and train their machine learning model – a type of artificial intelligence (AI) that keeps getting smarter over time – researchers used ECG measurements from 1,262 people in Central India. The study participants were part of the Sindhi population, an ethnic group that has been shown in past studies to be at elevated risk for type 2 diabetes.

Why ECG data? Because “cardiovascular abnormalities and diabetes, they go hand in hand,” says study author Manju Mamtani, MD, general manager of M&H Research, San Antonio, and treasurer of the Lata Medical Research Foundation. Subtle cardiovascular changes can occur even early in the development of diabetes.

“ECG has the power to detect these fluctuations, at least in theory, but those fluctuations are so tiny that many times we as humans looking at that might miss it,” says study author Hemant Kulkarni, MD, chief executive officer of M&H Research and president of the Lata Medical Research Foundation. “But the AI, which is powered to detect such specific fluctuations or subtle features, we hypothesized for the study that the AI algorithm might be able to pick those things up. And it did.”

Although this isn’t the first AI algorithm developed to predict diabetes risk, it outperforms previous models, the researchers say.

The team hopes to test and validate the algorithm in a variety of populations so that it can eventually be developed into an accessible, user-friendly technology. They envision that someday their algorithm could be used in smartwatches or other smart devices and could be integrated into telehealth so that people could be screened for diabetes even if they weren’t able to travel to a health care facility for blood testing.

The team is also studying other noninvasive methods of early disease detection and predictive models for adverse outcomes using AI.

“The fact that these algorithms are able to pick up the things of interest and learn on their own and keep learning in the future also adds excitement to their use in these settings,” says Dr. Kulkarni.

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

Imagine that instead of a patient visiting their doctor for blood tests, they could rely on a noninvasive at-home test to predict their risk of diabetes, a disease that affects nearly 15% of U.S. adults (23% of whom are undiagnosed), according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

This technology could become a reality thanks to a research team that developed a machine learning algorithm to predict whether people had type 2 diabetes, prediabetes, or no diabetes. In an article published in BMJ Innovations, the researchers describe how their algorithm sorted people into these three categories with 97% accuracy on the basis of measurements of the heart’s electrical activity, determined from an electrocardiogram.

To develop and train their machine learning model – a type of artificial intelligence (AI) that keeps getting smarter over time – researchers used ECG measurements from 1,262 people in Central India. The study participants were part of the Sindhi population, an ethnic group that has been shown in past studies to be at elevated risk for type 2 diabetes.

Why ECG data? Because “cardiovascular abnormalities and diabetes, they go hand in hand,” says study author Manju Mamtani, MD, general manager of M&H Research, San Antonio, and treasurer of the Lata Medical Research Foundation. Subtle cardiovascular changes can occur even early in the development of diabetes.

“ECG has the power to detect these fluctuations, at least in theory, but those fluctuations are so tiny that many times we as humans looking at that might miss it,” says study author Hemant Kulkarni, MD, chief executive officer of M&H Research and president of the Lata Medical Research Foundation. “But the AI, which is powered to detect such specific fluctuations or subtle features, we hypothesized for the study that the AI algorithm might be able to pick those things up. And it did.”

Although this isn’t the first AI algorithm developed to predict diabetes risk, it outperforms previous models, the researchers say.

The team hopes to test and validate the algorithm in a variety of populations so that it can eventually be developed into an accessible, user-friendly technology. They envision that someday their algorithm could be used in smartwatches or other smart devices and could be integrated into telehealth so that people could be screened for diabetes even if they weren’t able to travel to a health care facility for blood testing.

The team is also studying other noninvasive methods of early disease detection and predictive models for adverse outcomes using AI.

“The fact that these algorithms are able to pick up the things of interest and learn on their own and keep learning in the future also adds excitement to their use in these settings,” says Dr. Kulkarni.

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

Imagine that instead of a patient visiting their doctor for blood tests, they could rely on a noninvasive at-home test to predict their risk of diabetes, a disease that affects nearly 15% of U.S. adults (23% of whom are undiagnosed), according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

This technology could become a reality thanks to a research team that developed a machine learning algorithm to predict whether people had type 2 diabetes, prediabetes, or no diabetes. In an article published in BMJ Innovations, the researchers describe how their algorithm sorted people into these three categories with 97% accuracy on the basis of measurements of the heart’s electrical activity, determined from an electrocardiogram.

To develop and train their machine learning model – a type of artificial intelligence (AI) that keeps getting smarter over time – researchers used ECG measurements from 1,262 people in Central India. The study participants were part of the Sindhi population, an ethnic group that has been shown in past studies to be at elevated risk for type 2 diabetes.

Why ECG data? Because “cardiovascular abnormalities and diabetes, they go hand in hand,” says study author Manju Mamtani, MD, general manager of M&H Research, San Antonio, and treasurer of the Lata Medical Research Foundation. Subtle cardiovascular changes can occur even early in the development of diabetes.

“ECG has the power to detect these fluctuations, at least in theory, but those fluctuations are so tiny that many times we as humans looking at that might miss it,” says study author Hemant Kulkarni, MD, chief executive officer of M&H Research and president of the Lata Medical Research Foundation. “But the AI, which is powered to detect such specific fluctuations or subtle features, we hypothesized for the study that the AI algorithm might be able to pick those things up. And it did.”

Although this isn’t the first AI algorithm developed to predict diabetes risk, it outperforms previous models, the researchers say.

The team hopes to test and validate the algorithm in a variety of populations so that it can eventually be developed into an accessible, user-friendly technology. They envision that someday their algorithm could be used in smartwatches or other smart devices and could be integrated into telehealth so that people could be screened for diabetes even if they weren’t able to travel to a health care facility for blood testing.

The team is also studying other noninvasive methods of early disease detection and predictive models for adverse outcomes using AI.

“The fact that these algorithms are able to pick up the things of interest and learn on their own and keep learning in the future also adds excitement to their use in these settings,” says Dr. Kulkarni.

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

The largest-ever independent study into the effects of cannabis on the brain is being carried out in the United Kingdom.

Even though cannabis is the most commonly used illegal drug in the United Kingdom and medicinal cannabis has been legal there since 2018 little is known about why some people react badly to it and others seem to benefit from it.

According to Home Office figures on drug use from 2019, 7.6% of adults aged 16-59 used cannabis in the previous year.

Medicinal cannabis in the United Kingdom can only be prescribed if no other licensed medicine could help the patient. At the moment, GPs can’t prescribe it, only specialist hospital doctors can. The National Health Service says it can only be used in three circumstances: in rare, severe epilepsy; to deal with chemotherapy side effects such as nausea; or to help with multiple sclerosis.

So, with cannabis being used both recreationally and medicinally, King’s College London is carrying out a wide-reaching scientific study into its effect on the human brain.

As part of the Cannabis&Me study, KCL needs to get 3,000 current cannabis users and 3,000 non–cannabis users to take part in an online survey, with a third of those survey respondents then taking part in a face-to-face assessment that includes virtual reality (VR) and psychological analysis. The study also aims to determine how the DNA of cannabis users and their endocannabinoid system impacts their experiences, both negative and positive, with the drug. 

The study is spearheaded by Marta Di Forti, MD, PhD, and has been allocated over £2.5 million in funding by the Medical Research Council. 

This news organization asked Dr. Di Forti about the study.
 

Question: How do you describe the study? 

Answer: “It’s a really unique study. We are aiming to see what’s happening to people using cannabis in the privacy of their homes for medicinal, recreational reasons, or whatever other reason.

“The debate on cannabis has always been quite polarized. There have been people who experience adversities with cannabis use, especially psychosis, whose families may perhaps like cannabis to be abolished if possible. Then there are other people who are saying they get positive benefits from using cannabis.”
 

Q: So where does the study come in?

A: “The study wants to bring the two sides of the argument together and understand what’s really happening. The group I see as a clinician comes to severe harm when they use cannabis regularly. We want to find out who they are and whether we can identify them. While we need to make sure they never come to harm when using cannabis, we need to consider others who won’t come to harm from using cannabis and give them a chance to use it in a way that’s beneficial.”

Q: How does the study work?

A: “The first step of the study is to use an online questionnaire that can be filled in by anyone aged 18-45 who lives in the London area or can travel here if selected. The first set of questions are a general idea of their cannabis use: ‘Why do they use it?’ ‘What are its benefits?’ Then, general questions on what their life has been like up to that point: ‘Did they have any adversities in childhood?’ ‘How is their mood and anxiety levels?’ ‘Do they experience any paranoid responses in everyday life?’ It probably takes between 30 and 40 minutes to fill out the questionnaire.”

Q: Can you explain about paranoid responses?

A: “We go through the questionnaires looking at people’s paranoid response to everyday life, not in a clinical disorder term, just in terms of the differences in how we respond to certain circumstances. For example: ‘How do you feel if someone’s staring at you on the Tube?’ Some people are afraid, some feel uncomfortable, some people don’t notice, and others think a person is staring at them as they look good or another such positive feeling. So, we give people a paranoia score and will invite some at the top and some at the bottom of that score for a face-to-face assessment. We want to select those people who are using cannabis daily and they are getting either no paranoia or high paranoia.”

Q: What happens at the face-to-face assessments?

A: “We do two things which are very novel. We ask them to take part in a virtual reality experience. They are in a lovely shop and within this experience they come across challenges, which may or may not induce a benign paranoia response. We will ask them to donate a sample of blood before they go into the VR set. We will test for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). We will also look at the metabolites of the two. People don’t take into account how differently individuals metabolize cannabis, which could be one of the reasons why some people can tolerate it and others can’t.”

Q: There’s also a genetic aspect of the study?

A: “From the same sample, we will extract DNA to look at the genetics across the genome and compare genetic variations between high and low paranoia in the context of cannabis use. Also, we will look at the epigenetics, as we have learned from neuroscience, and also cancer, that sometimes a substance we ingest has an effect on our health. It’s perhaps an interaction with the way our DNA is written but also with the changes to the way our DNA is read and translated into biology if exposed to that substance. We know that smoking tobacco does have an impact at an epigenetic level on the DNA. We do know that in people who stop smoking, these impacts on the epigenetics are partially reversed. This work hasn’t been done properly for cannabis.

“There have been four published studies that have looked at the effect of cannabis use on epigenetics but they have been quite inconclusive, and they haven’t looked at large numbers of current users taking into account how much they are using. Moreover, we do know that when THC and CBD get into our bodies, they interact with something that is already embedded in our biology which is the endocannabinoid system. Therefore, in the blood samples we also aim to measures the levels of the endocannabinoids we naturally produce.

“All of this data will then be analyzed to see if we can get close to understanding what makes some cannabis users susceptible to paranoia while others who are using cannabis get some benefits, even in the domain of mental health.”
 

Q: Who are you looking for to take part in your study?

A: “What we don’t want is to get only people who are the classic friends and family of academics to do the study. We want a representative sample of people out there who are using cannabis. My ideal candidate would be someone who hates me and usually sends me abusive emails saying I’m against cannabis, which is wrong. All I want to find out is who is susceptible to harm which will keep everybody else safe. We are not trying to demonize cannabis; it’s exactly the opposite. We would like people from all ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds to join to give voice to everyone out there using cannabis, the reasons why, and the effects they experience.”

Q: Will this study perhaps give more information of when it’s appropriate to prescribe medicinal cannabis, as it’s still quite unusual for it to be prescribed in the United Kingdom isn’t it?

A: “Absolutely spot on. That’s exactly the point. We want to hear from people who are receiving medicinal cannabis as a prescription, as they are likely to take it on a daily basis and daily use is what epidemiological studies have linked to the highest risk of psychosis. There will be people taking THC everyday for pain, nausea, for Crohn’s disease, and more.

“Normally when you receive a prescription for a medication the physician in charge will tell you the potential side effects which will be monitored to make sure it’s safe, and you may have to swap to a different medication. Now this isn’t really happening with medicinal cannabis, which is one of the reasons clinicians are anxious about prescribing it, and they have been criticized for not prescribing it very much. There’s much less structure and guidance about ‘psychosis-related’ side effects monitoring. If we can really identify those people who are likely to develop psychosis or disabling paranoia when they use cannabis, physicians might be more prepared to prescribe more widely when indicated.

“You could even have a virtual reality scenario available as a screening tool when you get prescribed medicinal cannabis, to see if there are changes in your perception of the world, which is ultimately what psychosis is about. Could this be a way of implementing safe prescribing which will encourage physicians to use safe cannabis compounds and make some people less anxious about it?

“This study is not here to highlight the negativity of cannabis, on the contrary it’s to understand how it can be used recreationally, but even more important, medicinally in a safe way so people that are coming to no harm can continue to do so and people who are at risk can be kept safe, or at least monitored adequately.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

The largest-ever independent study into the effects of cannabis on the brain is being carried out in the United Kingdom.

Even though cannabis is the most commonly used illegal drug in the United Kingdom and medicinal cannabis has been legal there since 2018 little is known about why some people react badly to it and others seem to benefit from it.

According to Home Office figures on drug use from 2019, 7.6% of adults aged 16-59 used cannabis in the previous year.

Medicinal cannabis in the United Kingdom can only be prescribed if no other licensed medicine could help the patient. At the moment, GPs can’t prescribe it, only specialist hospital doctors can. The National Health Service says it can only be used in three circumstances: in rare, severe epilepsy; to deal with chemotherapy side effects such as nausea; or to help with multiple sclerosis.

So, with cannabis being used both recreationally and medicinally, King’s College London is carrying out a wide-reaching scientific study into its effect on the human brain.

As part of the Cannabis&Me study, KCL needs to get 3,000 current cannabis users and 3,000 non–cannabis users to take part in an online survey, with a third of those survey respondents then taking part in a face-to-face assessment that includes virtual reality (VR) and psychological analysis. The study also aims to determine how the DNA of cannabis users and their endocannabinoid system impacts their experiences, both negative and positive, with the drug. 

The study is spearheaded by Marta Di Forti, MD, PhD, and has been allocated over £2.5 million in funding by the Medical Research Council. 

This news organization asked Dr. Di Forti about the study.
 

Question: How do you describe the study? 

Answer: “It’s a really unique study. We are aiming to see what’s happening to people using cannabis in the privacy of their homes for medicinal, recreational reasons, or whatever other reason.

“The debate on cannabis has always been quite polarized. There have been people who experience adversities with cannabis use, especially psychosis, whose families may perhaps like cannabis to be abolished if possible. Then there are other people who are saying they get positive benefits from using cannabis.”
 

Q: So where does the study come in?

A: “The study wants to bring the two sides of the argument together and understand what’s really happening. The group I see as a clinician comes to severe harm when they use cannabis regularly. We want to find out who they are and whether we can identify them. While we need to make sure they never come to harm when using cannabis, we need to consider others who won’t come to harm from using cannabis and give them a chance to use it in a way that’s beneficial.”

Q: How does the study work?

A: “The first step of the study is to use an online questionnaire that can be filled in by anyone aged 18-45 who lives in the London area or can travel here if selected. The first set of questions are a general idea of their cannabis use: ‘Why do they use it?’ ‘What are its benefits?’ Then, general questions on what their life has been like up to that point: ‘Did they have any adversities in childhood?’ ‘How is their mood and anxiety levels?’ ‘Do they experience any paranoid responses in everyday life?’ It probably takes between 30 and 40 minutes to fill out the questionnaire.”

Q: Can you explain about paranoid responses?

A: “We go through the questionnaires looking at people’s paranoid response to everyday life, not in a clinical disorder term, just in terms of the differences in how we respond to certain circumstances. For example: ‘How do you feel if someone’s staring at you on the Tube?’ Some people are afraid, some feel uncomfortable, some people don’t notice, and others think a person is staring at them as they look good or another such positive feeling. So, we give people a paranoia score and will invite some at the top and some at the bottom of that score for a face-to-face assessment. We want to select those people who are using cannabis daily and they are getting either no paranoia or high paranoia.”

Q: What happens at the face-to-face assessments?

A: “We do two things which are very novel. We ask them to take part in a virtual reality experience. They are in a lovely shop and within this experience they come across challenges, which may or may not induce a benign paranoia response. We will ask them to donate a sample of blood before they go into the VR set. We will test for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). We will also look at the metabolites of the two. People don’t take into account how differently individuals metabolize cannabis, which could be one of the reasons why some people can tolerate it and others can’t.”

Q: There’s also a genetic aspect of the study?

A: “From the same sample, we will extract DNA to look at the genetics across the genome and compare genetic variations between high and low paranoia in the context of cannabis use. Also, we will look at the epigenetics, as we have learned from neuroscience, and also cancer, that sometimes a substance we ingest has an effect on our health. It’s perhaps an interaction with the way our DNA is written but also with the changes to the way our DNA is read and translated into biology if exposed to that substance. We know that smoking tobacco does have an impact at an epigenetic level on the DNA. We do know that in people who stop smoking, these impacts on the epigenetics are partially reversed. This work hasn’t been done properly for cannabis.

“There have been four published studies that have looked at the effect of cannabis use on epigenetics but they have been quite inconclusive, and they haven’t looked at large numbers of current users taking into account how much they are using. Moreover, we do know that when THC and CBD get into our bodies, they interact with something that is already embedded in our biology which is the endocannabinoid system. Therefore, in the blood samples we also aim to measures the levels of the endocannabinoids we naturally produce.

“All of this data will then be analyzed to see if we can get close to understanding what makes some cannabis users susceptible to paranoia while others who are using cannabis get some benefits, even in the domain of mental health.”
 

Q: Who are you looking for to take part in your study?

A: “What we don’t want is to get only people who are the classic friends and family of academics to do the study. We want a representative sample of people out there who are using cannabis. My ideal candidate would be someone who hates me and usually sends me abusive emails saying I’m against cannabis, which is wrong. All I want to find out is who is susceptible to harm which will keep everybody else safe. We are not trying to demonize cannabis; it’s exactly the opposite. We would like people from all ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds to join to give voice to everyone out there using cannabis, the reasons why, and the effects they experience.”

Q: Will this study perhaps give more information of when it’s appropriate to prescribe medicinal cannabis, as it’s still quite unusual for it to be prescribed in the United Kingdom isn’t it?

A: “Absolutely spot on. That’s exactly the point. We want to hear from people who are receiving medicinal cannabis as a prescription, as they are likely to take it on a daily basis and daily use is what epidemiological studies have linked to the highest risk of psychosis. There will be people taking THC everyday for pain, nausea, for Crohn’s disease, and more.

“Normally when you receive a prescription for a medication the physician in charge will tell you the potential side effects which will be monitored to make sure it’s safe, and you may have to swap to a different medication. Now this isn’t really happening with medicinal cannabis, which is one of the reasons clinicians are anxious about prescribing it, and they have been criticized for not prescribing it very much. There’s much less structure and guidance about ‘psychosis-related’ side effects monitoring. If we can really identify those people who are likely to develop psychosis or disabling paranoia when they use cannabis, physicians might be more prepared to prescribe more widely when indicated.

“You could even have a virtual reality scenario available as a screening tool when you get prescribed medicinal cannabis, to see if there are changes in your perception of the world, which is ultimately what psychosis is about. Could this be a way of implementing safe prescribing which will encourage physicians to use safe cannabis compounds and make some people less anxious about it?

“This study is not here to highlight the negativity of cannabis, on the contrary it’s to understand how it can be used recreationally, but even more important, medicinally in a safe way so people that are coming to no harm can continue to do so and people who are at risk can be kept safe, or at least monitored adequately.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

The largest-ever independent study into the effects of cannabis on the brain is being carried out in the United Kingdom.

Even though cannabis is the most commonly used illegal drug in the United Kingdom and medicinal cannabis has been legal there since 2018 little is known about why some people react badly to it and others seem to benefit from it.

According to Home Office figures on drug use from 2019, 7.6% of adults aged 16-59 used cannabis in the previous year.

Medicinal cannabis in the United Kingdom can only be prescribed if no other licensed medicine could help the patient. At the moment, GPs can’t prescribe it, only specialist hospital doctors can. The National Health Service says it can only be used in three circumstances: in rare, severe epilepsy; to deal with chemotherapy side effects such as nausea; or to help with multiple sclerosis.

So, with cannabis being used both recreationally and medicinally, King’s College London is carrying out a wide-reaching scientific study into its effect on the human brain.

As part of the Cannabis&Me study, KCL needs to get 3,000 current cannabis users and 3,000 non–cannabis users to take part in an online survey, with a third of those survey respondents then taking part in a face-to-face assessment that includes virtual reality (VR) and psychological analysis. The study also aims to determine how the DNA of cannabis users and their endocannabinoid system impacts their experiences, both negative and positive, with the drug. 

The study is spearheaded by Marta Di Forti, MD, PhD, and has been allocated over £2.5 million in funding by the Medical Research Council. 

This news organization asked Dr. Di Forti about the study.
 

Question: How do you describe the study? 

Answer: “It’s a really unique study. We are aiming to see what’s happening to people using cannabis in the privacy of their homes for medicinal, recreational reasons, or whatever other reason.

“The debate on cannabis has always been quite polarized. There have been people who experience adversities with cannabis use, especially psychosis, whose families may perhaps like cannabis to be abolished if possible. Then there are other people who are saying they get positive benefits from using cannabis.”
 

Q: So where does the study come in?

A: “The study wants to bring the two sides of the argument together and understand what’s really happening. The group I see as a clinician comes to severe harm when they use cannabis regularly. We want to find out who they are and whether we can identify them. While we need to make sure they never come to harm when using cannabis, we need to consider others who won’t come to harm from using cannabis and give them a chance to use it in a way that’s beneficial.”

Q: How does the study work?

A: “The first step of the study is to use an online questionnaire that can be filled in by anyone aged 18-45 who lives in the London area or can travel here if selected. The first set of questions are a general idea of their cannabis use: ‘Why do they use it?’ ‘What are its benefits?’ Then, general questions on what their life has been like up to that point: ‘Did they have any adversities in childhood?’ ‘How is their mood and anxiety levels?’ ‘Do they experience any paranoid responses in everyday life?’ It probably takes between 30 and 40 minutes to fill out the questionnaire.”

Q: Can you explain about paranoid responses?

A: “We go through the questionnaires looking at people’s paranoid response to everyday life, not in a clinical disorder term, just in terms of the differences in how we respond to certain circumstances. For example: ‘How do you feel if someone’s staring at you on the Tube?’ Some people are afraid, some feel uncomfortable, some people don’t notice, and others think a person is staring at them as they look good or another such positive feeling. So, we give people a paranoia score and will invite some at the top and some at the bottom of that score for a face-to-face assessment. We want to select those people who are using cannabis daily and they are getting either no paranoia or high paranoia.”

Q: What happens at the face-to-face assessments?

A: “We do two things which are very novel. We ask them to take part in a virtual reality experience. They are in a lovely shop and within this experience they come across challenges, which may or may not induce a benign paranoia response. We will ask them to donate a sample of blood before they go into the VR set. We will test for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). We will also look at the metabolites of the two. People don’t take into account how differently individuals metabolize cannabis, which could be one of the reasons why some people can tolerate it and others can’t.”

Q: There’s also a genetic aspect of the study?

A: “From the same sample, we will extract DNA to look at the genetics across the genome and compare genetic variations between high and low paranoia in the context of cannabis use. Also, we will look at the epigenetics, as we have learned from neuroscience, and also cancer, that sometimes a substance we ingest has an effect on our health. It’s perhaps an interaction with the way our DNA is written but also with the changes to the way our DNA is read and translated into biology if exposed to that substance. We know that smoking tobacco does have an impact at an epigenetic level on the DNA. We do know that in people who stop smoking, these impacts on the epigenetics are partially reversed. This work hasn’t been done properly for cannabis.

“There have been four published studies that have looked at the effect of cannabis use on epigenetics but they have been quite inconclusive, and they haven’t looked at large numbers of current users taking into account how much they are using. Moreover, we do know that when THC and CBD get into our bodies, they interact with something that is already embedded in our biology which is the endocannabinoid system. Therefore, in the blood samples we also aim to measures the levels of the endocannabinoids we naturally produce.

“All of this data will then be analyzed to see if we can get close to understanding what makes some cannabis users susceptible to paranoia while others who are using cannabis get some benefits, even in the domain of mental health.”
 

Q: Who are you looking for to take part in your study?

A: “What we don’t want is to get only people who are the classic friends and family of academics to do the study. We want a representative sample of people out there who are using cannabis. My ideal candidate would be someone who hates me and usually sends me abusive emails saying I’m against cannabis, which is wrong. All I want to find out is who is susceptible to harm which will keep everybody else safe. We are not trying to demonize cannabis; it’s exactly the opposite. We would like people from all ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds to join to give voice to everyone out there using cannabis, the reasons why, and the effects they experience.”

Q: Will this study perhaps give more information of when it’s appropriate to prescribe medicinal cannabis, as it’s still quite unusual for it to be prescribed in the United Kingdom isn’t it?

A: “Absolutely spot on. That’s exactly the point. We want to hear from people who are receiving medicinal cannabis as a prescription, as they are likely to take it on a daily basis and daily use is what epidemiological studies have linked to the highest risk of psychosis. There will be people taking THC everyday for pain, nausea, for Crohn’s disease, and more.

“Normally when you receive a prescription for a medication the physician in charge will tell you the potential side effects which will be monitored to make sure it’s safe, and you may have to swap to a different medication. Now this isn’t really happening with medicinal cannabis, which is one of the reasons clinicians are anxious about prescribing it, and they have been criticized for not prescribing it very much. There’s much less structure and guidance about ‘psychosis-related’ side effects monitoring. If we can really identify those people who are likely to develop psychosis or disabling paranoia when they use cannabis, physicians might be more prepared to prescribe more widely when indicated.

“You could even have a virtual reality scenario available as a screening tool when you get prescribed medicinal cannabis, to see if there are changes in your perception of the world, which is ultimately what psychosis is about. Could this be a way of implementing safe prescribing which will encourage physicians to use safe cannabis compounds and make some people less anxious about it?

“This study is not here to highlight the negativity of cannabis, on the contrary it’s to understand how it can be used recreationally, but even more important, medicinally in a safe way so people that are coming to no harm can continue to do so and people who are at risk can be kept safe, or at least monitored adequately.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Women who are pregnant or breastfeeding showed no long-term adverse reactions after a third or booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine, according to a study of more than 17,000 individuals.

Doctors and health professionals continue to recommend COVID-19 vaccine boosters or third doses for adolescents and adults more than 5 months after their initial vaccinations with the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 or Moderna mRNA-1273 primary vaccine series or more than 2 months after receiving the Janssen JNJ-78436735 vaccine, Alisa Kachikis, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote in JAMA Network Open.

Although multiple studies have shown that the COVID-19 primary series is safe and well tolerated in pregnant and lactating women, information on the safety and tolerability of boosters are lacking, the researchers noted.

“COVID-19 will be with us for a while, and it is important to continue to provide data on COVID-19 vaccines in these groups, particularly because there still are many questions about the vaccine, and because pregnant individuals have been, understandably, more hesitant to receive COVID-19 vaccines,” Dr. Kachikis said in an interview. “The findings of this study that COVID-19 booster doses are well tolerated among pregnant and lactating individuals are especially pertinent with the new COVID-19 boosters available this fall.”

In the new study, the researchers reviewed data from 17,014 participants who were part of an ongoing online prospective study of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant and lactating individuals. Data were collected between October 2021 and April 2022 through an online survey.

The study population included 2,009 participants (11.8%) who were pregnant at the time of their booster or third dose, 10,279 (60.4%) who were lactating, and 4,726 (27.8%) who were neither pregnant nor lactating. The mean age of the participants was 33.3 years; 92.1% self-identified as White, 94.5% self-identified as non-Hispanic, and 99.7% self-identified as female.

The receipt of a booster was similar across trimesters; 26.4%, 36.5%, and 37.1% of participants received boosters or third doses in the first, second, and third trimester, respectively. The primary outcome was self-reported vaccine reactions within 24 hours of the dose.

Overall, 82.8% of the respondents reported a reaction at the site of the injection, such as redness, pain, or swelling, and 67.9% reported at least one systemic symptom, such as aches and pains, headache, chills, or fever. The most frequently reported symptoms across all groups were injection-site pain (82.2%) and fatigue (54.4%).

The pregnant women were significantly more likely than nonpregnant or nonlactating individuals to report any local reaction at the injection site (adjusted odds ratio, 1.2; P = .01), but less likely to report any systemic reaction (aOR, 0.7; P < .001).

The majority (97.6%) of the pregnant respondents and 96.0% of those lactating reported no obstetric or lactation concerns after vaccination.

Overall, a majority of the respondents reported that recommendations from public health authorities were helpful in their decision to receive a COVID-19 booster or third dose (90.0% of pregnant respondents, 89.9% of lactating respondents, and 88.1% of those neither pregnant nor lactating).

Although vaccine uptake in the current study population was high (91.1% overall and 95.0% of those pregnant), “the importance of the health care professional’s recommendation is pertinent given the ongoing increased vaccine hesitancy among pregnant individuals in the context of the COVID-19 vaccine,” the researchers emphasized.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the reliance on self-reports and a convenience sample composed mainly of health care workers because of their vaccine eligibility at the time the study started, which limits generalizability, the researchers noted. Analyses on the pregnancy outcomes of those who were pregnant when vaccinated are in progress.

The results were strengthened by the large study population that included participants from all 50 states and several territories, and ability to compare results between pregnant and lactating individuals with those who were neither pregnant nor lactating, but were of childbearing age, they said.

The results support the safety of COVID-19 boosters for pregnant and breastfeeding individuals, and these data are important to inform discussions between patients and clinicians to boost vaccine uptake and acceptance in this population, they concluded.

“Our earlier data analysis showed that pregnant and lactating individuals did very well with the initial COVID-19 vaccine series, so it was not very surprising that they also did well with COVID-19 booster or third doses,” Dr. Kachikis said in an interview.

There are two takeaway messages for clinicians, she said: “First, pregnant and lactating individuals tolerated the COVID-19 booster well. The second is that clinicians are very important when it comes to vaccine acceptance.”

“In our study, we found that, while pregnant participants were more likely to report that they were hesitant to receive the booster, they also were more likely to have discussed the COVID-19 booster with their health care provider, and to have received a recommendation to receive the booster. So, spending a little bit of extra time with patients discussing COVID-19 boosters and recommending them can make a significant difference,” she said.

The message of the study is highly reassuring for pregnant and lactating individuals, Dr. Kachikis added. “Most of the participants reported that they had fewer symptoms with the COVID-19 booster compared to the primary vaccine series, which is good news, especially since a new COVID-19 booster is being recommended for the fall.”
 

Reassuring findings for doctors and patients

The current study is especially timely, as updated COVID-19 boosters have now been recommended for most individuals by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Martina L. Badell, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

The findings support previous studies on the tolerability of COVID-19 vaccinations in pregnant and lactating persons, said Dr. Badell, who was not involved in the study.

The reassuring message for clinicians is that COVID-19 booster vaccinations are similarly well tolerated in pregnancy and lactation as they are in nonpregnant individuals, said Dr. Badell. “Given the risks of COVID infections in pregnancy and neonates, reassuring data on the tolerability and safety of vaccination in this population is very important.” Also, the researchers found that all three cohorts reported that recommendations from public or medical health authorities helped them make a decision about vaccination; “thus the more data to support these recommendations, the better,” she emphasized.

If you are pregnant or breastfeeding, the message from the study is that COVID-19 booster vaccinations are similarly well tolerated by those who are pregnant or breastfeeding and those who are not, said Dr. Badell.

“This study provides additional support for the strong recommendation to encourage not only COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy and lactation, but booster vaccinations specifically,” and pregnant and breastfeeding individuals should not be excluded from the new CDC recommendations for COVID-19 boosters, she said.
 

Future research suggestions

Next steps for research include evaluating the obstetrical and neonatal outcomes in pregnancy and lactation following COVID- 19 boosters, Dr. Badell added.

Dr. Kachikis suggested studies try to answer the remaining questions about COVID-19 vaccines and the immunity of pregnant and lactating persons, particularly since they were excluded from the early clinical trials in 2020.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, a Women’s Reproductive Health Research Award, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. \Dr. Kachikis disclosed serving as a research consultant for Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline and as an unpaid consultant for GlaxoSmithKline unrelated to the current study, as well as grant support from Merck and Pfizer unrelated to the current study. Dr. Badell had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Women who are pregnant or breastfeeding showed no long-term adverse reactions after a third or booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine, according to a study of more than 17,000 individuals.

Doctors and health professionals continue to recommend COVID-19 vaccine boosters or third doses for adolescents and adults more than 5 months after their initial vaccinations with the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 or Moderna mRNA-1273 primary vaccine series or more than 2 months after receiving the Janssen JNJ-78436735 vaccine, Alisa Kachikis, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote in JAMA Network Open.

Although multiple studies have shown that the COVID-19 primary series is safe and well tolerated in pregnant and lactating women, information on the safety and tolerability of boosters are lacking, the researchers noted.

“COVID-19 will be with us for a while, and it is important to continue to provide data on COVID-19 vaccines in these groups, particularly because there still are many questions about the vaccine, and because pregnant individuals have been, understandably, more hesitant to receive COVID-19 vaccines,” Dr. Kachikis said in an interview. “The findings of this study that COVID-19 booster doses are well tolerated among pregnant and lactating individuals are especially pertinent with the new COVID-19 boosters available this fall.”

In the new study, the researchers reviewed data from 17,014 participants who were part of an ongoing online prospective study of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant and lactating individuals. Data were collected between October 2021 and April 2022 through an online survey.

The study population included 2,009 participants (11.8%) who were pregnant at the time of their booster or third dose, 10,279 (60.4%) who were lactating, and 4,726 (27.8%) who were neither pregnant nor lactating. The mean age of the participants was 33.3 years; 92.1% self-identified as White, 94.5% self-identified as non-Hispanic, and 99.7% self-identified as female.

The receipt of a booster was similar across trimesters; 26.4%, 36.5%, and 37.1% of participants received boosters or third doses in the first, second, and third trimester, respectively. The primary outcome was self-reported vaccine reactions within 24 hours of the dose.

Overall, 82.8% of the respondents reported a reaction at the site of the injection, such as redness, pain, or swelling, and 67.9% reported at least one systemic symptom, such as aches and pains, headache, chills, or fever. The most frequently reported symptoms across all groups were injection-site pain (82.2%) and fatigue (54.4%).

The pregnant women were significantly more likely than nonpregnant or nonlactating individuals to report any local reaction at the injection site (adjusted odds ratio, 1.2; P = .01), but less likely to report any systemic reaction (aOR, 0.7; P < .001).

The majority (97.6%) of the pregnant respondents and 96.0% of those lactating reported no obstetric or lactation concerns after vaccination.

Overall, a majority of the respondents reported that recommendations from public health authorities were helpful in their decision to receive a COVID-19 booster or third dose (90.0% of pregnant respondents, 89.9% of lactating respondents, and 88.1% of those neither pregnant nor lactating).

Although vaccine uptake in the current study population was high (91.1% overall and 95.0% of those pregnant), “the importance of the health care professional’s recommendation is pertinent given the ongoing increased vaccine hesitancy among pregnant individuals in the context of the COVID-19 vaccine,” the researchers emphasized.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the reliance on self-reports and a convenience sample composed mainly of health care workers because of their vaccine eligibility at the time the study started, which limits generalizability, the researchers noted. Analyses on the pregnancy outcomes of those who were pregnant when vaccinated are in progress.

The results were strengthened by the large study population that included participants from all 50 states and several territories, and ability to compare results between pregnant and lactating individuals with those who were neither pregnant nor lactating, but were of childbearing age, they said.

The results support the safety of COVID-19 boosters for pregnant and breastfeeding individuals, and these data are important to inform discussions between patients and clinicians to boost vaccine uptake and acceptance in this population, they concluded.

“Our earlier data analysis showed that pregnant and lactating individuals did very well with the initial COVID-19 vaccine series, so it was not very surprising that they also did well with COVID-19 booster or third doses,” Dr. Kachikis said in an interview.

There are two takeaway messages for clinicians, she said: “First, pregnant and lactating individuals tolerated the COVID-19 booster well. The second is that clinicians are very important when it comes to vaccine acceptance.”

“In our study, we found that, while pregnant participants were more likely to report that they were hesitant to receive the booster, they also were more likely to have discussed the COVID-19 booster with their health care provider, and to have received a recommendation to receive the booster. So, spending a little bit of extra time with patients discussing COVID-19 boosters and recommending them can make a significant difference,” she said.

The message of the study is highly reassuring for pregnant and lactating individuals, Dr. Kachikis added. “Most of the participants reported that they had fewer symptoms with the COVID-19 booster compared to the primary vaccine series, which is good news, especially since a new COVID-19 booster is being recommended for the fall.”
 

Reassuring findings for doctors and patients

The current study is especially timely, as updated COVID-19 boosters have now been recommended for most individuals by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Martina L. Badell, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

The findings support previous studies on the tolerability of COVID-19 vaccinations in pregnant and lactating persons, said Dr. Badell, who was not involved in the study.

The reassuring message for clinicians is that COVID-19 booster vaccinations are similarly well tolerated in pregnancy and lactation as they are in nonpregnant individuals, said Dr. Badell. “Given the risks of COVID infections in pregnancy and neonates, reassuring data on the tolerability and safety of vaccination in this population is very important.” Also, the researchers found that all three cohorts reported that recommendations from public or medical health authorities helped them make a decision about vaccination; “thus the more data to support these recommendations, the better,” she emphasized.

If you are pregnant or breastfeeding, the message from the study is that COVID-19 booster vaccinations are similarly well tolerated by those who are pregnant or breastfeeding and those who are not, said Dr. Badell.

“This study provides additional support for the strong recommendation to encourage not only COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy and lactation, but booster vaccinations specifically,” and pregnant and breastfeeding individuals should not be excluded from the new CDC recommendations for COVID-19 boosters, she said.
 

Future research suggestions

Next steps for research include evaluating the obstetrical and neonatal outcomes in pregnancy and lactation following COVID- 19 boosters, Dr. Badell added.

Dr. Kachikis suggested studies try to answer the remaining questions about COVID-19 vaccines and the immunity of pregnant and lactating persons, particularly since they were excluded from the early clinical trials in 2020.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, a Women’s Reproductive Health Research Award, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. \Dr. Kachikis disclosed serving as a research consultant for Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline and as an unpaid consultant for GlaxoSmithKline unrelated to the current study, as well as grant support from Merck and Pfizer unrelated to the current study. Dr. Badell had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Women who are pregnant or breastfeeding showed no long-term adverse reactions after a third or booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine, according to a study of more than 17,000 individuals.

Doctors and health professionals continue to recommend COVID-19 vaccine boosters or third doses for adolescents and adults more than 5 months after their initial vaccinations with the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 or Moderna mRNA-1273 primary vaccine series or more than 2 months after receiving the Janssen JNJ-78436735 vaccine, Alisa Kachikis, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote in JAMA Network Open.

Although multiple studies have shown that the COVID-19 primary series is safe and well tolerated in pregnant and lactating women, information on the safety and tolerability of boosters are lacking, the researchers noted.

“COVID-19 will be with us for a while, and it is important to continue to provide data on COVID-19 vaccines in these groups, particularly because there still are many questions about the vaccine, and because pregnant individuals have been, understandably, more hesitant to receive COVID-19 vaccines,” Dr. Kachikis said in an interview. “The findings of this study that COVID-19 booster doses are well tolerated among pregnant and lactating individuals are especially pertinent with the new COVID-19 boosters available this fall.”

In the new study, the researchers reviewed data from 17,014 participants who were part of an ongoing online prospective study of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant and lactating individuals. Data were collected between October 2021 and April 2022 through an online survey.

The study population included 2,009 participants (11.8%) who were pregnant at the time of their booster or third dose, 10,279 (60.4%) who were lactating, and 4,726 (27.8%) who were neither pregnant nor lactating. The mean age of the participants was 33.3 years; 92.1% self-identified as White, 94.5% self-identified as non-Hispanic, and 99.7% self-identified as female.

The receipt of a booster was similar across trimesters; 26.4%, 36.5%, and 37.1% of participants received boosters or third doses in the first, second, and third trimester, respectively. The primary outcome was self-reported vaccine reactions within 24 hours of the dose.

Overall, 82.8% of the respondents reported a reaction at the site of the injection, such as redness, pain, or swelling, and 67.9% reported at least one systemic symptom, such as aches and pains, headache, chills, or fever. The most frequently reported symptoms across all groups were injection-site pain (82.2%) and fatigue (54.4%).

The pregnant women were significantly more likely than nonpregnant or nonlactating individuals to report any local reaction at the injection site (adjusted odds ratio, 1.2; P = .01), but less likely to report any systemic reaction (aOR, 0.7; P < .001).

The majority (97.6%) of the pregnant respondents and 96.0% of those lactating reported no obstetric or lactation concerns after vaccination.

Overall, a majority of the respondents reported that recommendations from public health authorities were helpful in their decision to receive a COVID-19 booster or third dose (90.0% of pregnant respondents, 89.9% of lactating respondents, and 88.1% of those neither pregnant nor lactating).

Although vaccine uptake in the current study population was high (91.1% overall and 95.0% of those pregnant), “the importance of the health care professional’s recommendation is pertinent given the ongoing increased vaccine hesitancy among pregnant individuals in the context of the COVID-19 vaccine,” the researchers emphasized.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the reliance on self-reports and a convenience sample composed mainly of health care workers because of their vaccine eligibility at the time the study started, which limits generalizability, the researchers noted. Analyses on the pregnancy outcomes of those who were pregnant when vaccinated are in progress.

The results were strengthened by the large study population that included participants from all 50 states and several territories, and ability to compare results between pregnant and lactating individuals with those who were neither pregnant nor lactating, but were of childbearing age, they said.

The results support the safety of COVID-19 boosters for pregnant and breastfeeding individuals, and these data are important to inform discussions between patients and clinicians to boost vaccine uptake and acceptance in this population, they concluded.

“Our earlier data analysis showed that pregnant and lactating individuals did very well with the initial COVID-19 vaccine series, so it was not very surprising that they also did well with COVID-19 booster or third doses,” Dr. Kachikis said in an interview.

There are two takeaway messages for clinicians, she said: “First, pregnant and lactating individuals tolerated the COVID-19 booster well. The second is that clinicians are very important when it comes to vaccine acceptance.”

“In our study, we found that, while pregnant participants were more likely to report that they were hesitant to receive the booster, they also were more likely to have discussed the COVID-19 booster with their health care provider, and to have received a recommendation to receive the booster. So, spending a little bit of extra time with patients discussing COVID-19 boosters and recommending them can make a significant difference,” she said.

The message of the study is highly reassuring for pregnant and lactating individuals, Dr. Kachikis added. “Most of the participants reported that they had fewer symptoms with the COVID-19 booster compared to the primary vaccine series, which is good news, especially since a new COVID-19 booster is being recommended for the fall.”
 

Reassuring findings for doctors and patients

The current study is especially timely, as updated COVID-19 boosters have now been recommended for most individuals by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Martina L. Badell, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

The findings support previous studies on the tolerability of COVID-19 vaccinations in pregnant and lactating persons, said Dr. Badell, who was not involved in the study.

The reassuring message for clinicians is that COVID-19 booster vaccinations are similarly well tolerated in pregnancy and lactation as they are in nonpregnant individuals, said Dr. Badell. “Given the risks of COVID infections in pregnancy and neonates, reassuring data on the tolerability and safety of vaccination in this population is very important.” Also, the researchers found that all three cohorts reported that recommendations from public or medical health authorities helped them make a decision about vaccination; “thus the more data to support these recommendations, the better,” she emphasized.

If you are pregnant or breastfeeding, the message from the study is that COVID-19 booster vaccinations are similarly well tolerated by those who are pregnant or breastfeeding and those who are not, said Dr. Badell.

“This study provides additional support for the strong recommendation to encourage not only COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy and lactation, but booster vaccinations specifically,” and pregnant and breastfeeding individuals should not be excluded from the new CDC recommendations for COVID-19 boosters, she said.
 

Future research suggestions

Next steps for research include evaluating the obstetrical and neonatal outcomes in pregnancy and lactation following COVID- 19 boosters, Dr. Badell added.

Dr. Kachikis suggested studies try to answer the remaining questions about COVID-19 vaccines and the immunity of pregnant and lactating persons, particularly since they were excluded from the early clinical trials in 2020.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, a Women’s Reproductive Health Research Award, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. \Dr. Kachikis disclosed serving as a research consultant for Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline and as an unpaid consultant for GlaxoSmithKline unrelated to the current study, as well as grant support from Merck and Pfizer unrelated to the current study. Dr. Badell had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Unvaccinated people may be 10 times more likely than fully vaccinated people to be hospitalized for the Omicron variant of COVID-19, suggests a large study conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The data, which included almost 200,000 COVID-19–associated hospitalizations across 13 states, also showed that vaccinated, hospitalized patients were more often older and already dealing with other health conditions, compared with unvaccinated, hospitalized patients, reported lead author Fiona P. Havers, MD, of the CDC, Atlanta.

“Unlike previously published reports and web pages … this study reports hospitalization rates by vaccination status and clinical and demographic characteristics of hospitalized patients, beginning with the period when vaccines first became available, and includes comparisons of unvaccinated persons, persons vaccinated with a primary series without a booster dose, and those vaccinated with a primary series and at least 1 booster dose,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In total, the investigators reviewed 192,509 hospitalizations involving patients 18 years and older. The study period spanned from Jan. 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022. Data were reported month by month, showing that the relative monthly hospitalization rate peaked in May 2021, when it was 17.7 times higher for unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals (with or without a booster).

To account for differences in clinical course between Delta and Omicron, the investigators also analyzed data sorted into two time periods: July-December 2021 (Delta predominant) and January-April 2022 (Omicron BA.1 predominant). These analyses revealed the greater hospitalization risk presented by Delta. Specifically, unvaccinated people were 12.2 times more likely to be hospitalized for Delta than vaccinated people, with or without a booster, versus 6.8 times for Omicron BA.1.

Study shows power of the booster

A closer look at the Omicron BA.1 data showed the power of a booster dose. From January to April 2022, individuals who were fully vaccinated with a booster dose were 10.5 times less likely than unvaccinated individuals to be hospitalized for Omicron BA.1. Plus, boosted people were 2.5 times less likely to be hospitalized for Omicron BA.1 than people who got vaccinated but skipped the booster.

“The high hospitalization rates in unvaccinated compared with vaccinated persons with and without a booster dose underscores the importance of COVID-19 vaccinations in preventing hospitalizations and suggests that increasing vaccination coverage, including booster dose coverage, can prevent hospitalizations, serious illness, and death,” the investigators wrote.

The study also revealed that vaccinated hospitalized patients were significantly older, on average, than unvaccinated hospitalized patients (median, 70 vs. 58 years; P < .001). They were also significantly more likely to have three or more underlying medical conditions (77.8% vs. 51.6%; P < .001)

“A greater proportion of hospitalized cases among vaccinated persons occurred in individuals with medical fragility who were older, more likely to reside in long-term care facilities, and have three or more underlying medical conditions, including immunosuppressive conditions,” the investigators wrote.

New variants outpacing data, vaccines remain essential

While data from April 2022 alone showed a 3.5-fold higher rate of hospitalization among unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals with or without a booster, newer data suggest that emerging strains of Omicron are putting more people in the hospital.

A recent report by the CDC showed weekly hospitalization rates climbing from March 20 to May 31, 2022, which coincided with predominance of the newer Omicron BA.2 variant. While unvaccinated people were still around 3.5 times more likely to be hospitalized than vaccinated people, overall hospitalization rates jumped 3-fold for people 65 years and older, and 1.7-fold for adults younger than 65. Adding further complexity to this constantly evolving situation is that Omicron BA.2 has since been joined by the BA.4 and BA.5 lineages, for which vaccines are now available.

In the paper published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the CDC report, and in a comment for this article, the CDC offered the same take-home message: Get vaccinated.

“These findings reinforce previous research illustrating how vaccination provides protection from hospitalization due to COVID-19,” a CDC spokesperson said. “COVID-19 vaccines are proven to help prevent serious COVID-19 illness, and everyone ages 6 months and older should stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccines.”

The study published in JAMA Internal Medicine was supported by the CDC. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Sanofi, GSK, MedImmune, and others.

Unvaccinated people may be 10 times more likely than fully vaccinated people to be hospitalized for the Omicron variant of COVID-19, suggests a large study conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The data, which included almost 200,000 COVID-19–associated hospitalizations across 13 states, also showed that vaccinated, hospitalized patients were more often older and already dealing with other health conditions, compared with unvaccinated, hospitalized patients, reported lead author Fiona P. Havers, MD, of the CDC, Atlanta.

“Unlike previously published reports and web pages … this study reports hospitalization rates by vaccination status and clinical and demographic characteristics of hospitalized patients, beginning with the period when vaccines first became available, and includes comparisons of unvaccinated persons, persons vaccinated with a primary series without a booster dose, and those vaccinated with a primary series and at least 1 booster dose,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In total, the investigators reviewed 192,509 hospitalizations involving patients 18 years and older. The study period spanned from Jan. 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022. Data were reported month by month, showing that the relative monthly hospitalization rate peaked in May 2021, when it was 17.7 times higher for unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals (with or without a booster).

To account for differences in clinical course between Delta and Omicron, the investigators also analyzed data sorted into two time periods: July-December 2021 (Delta predominant) and January-April 2022 (Omicron BA.1 predominant). These analyses revealed the greater hospitalization risk presented by Delta. Specifically, unvaccinated people were 12.2 times more likely to be hospitalized for Delta than vaccinated people, with or without a booster, versus 6.8 times for Omicron BA.1.

Study shows power of the booster

A closer look at the Omicron BA.1 data showed the power of a booster dose. From January to April 2022, individuals who were fully vaccinated with a booster dose were 10.5 times less likely than unvaccinated individuals to be hospitalized for Omicron BA.1. Plus, boosted people were 2.5 times less likely to be hospitalized for Omicron BA.1 than people who got vaccinated but skipped the booster.

“The high hospitalization rates in unvaccinated compared with vaccinated persons with and without a booster dose underscores the importance of COVID-19 vaccinations in preventing hospitalizations and suggests that increasing vaccination coverage, including booster dose coverage, can prevent hospitalizations, serious illness, and death,” the investigators wrote.

The study also revealed that vaccinated hospitalized patients were significantly older, on average, than unvaccinated hospitalized patients (median, 70 vs. 58 years; P < .001). They were also significantly more likely to have three or more underlying medical conditions (77.8% vs. 51.6%; P < .001)

“A greater proportion of hospitalized cases among vaccinated persons occurred in individuals with medical fragility who were older, more likely to reside in long-term care facilities, and have three or more underlying medical conditions, including immunosuppressive conditions,” the investigators wrote.

New variants outpacing data, vaccines remain essential

While data from April 2022 alone showed a 3.5-fold higher rate of hospitalization among unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals with or without a booster, newer data suggest that emerging strains of Omicron are putting more people in the hospital.

A recent report by the CDC showed weekly hospitalization rates climbing from March 20 to May 31, 2022, which coincided with predominance of the newer Omicron BA.2 variant. While unvaccinated people were still around 3.5 times more likely to be hospitalized than vaccinated people, overall hospitalization rates jumped 3-fold for people 65 years and older, and 1.7-fold for adults younger than 65. Adding further complexity to this constantly evolving situation is that Omicron BA.2 has since been joined by the BA.4 and BA.5 lineages, for which vaccines are now available.

In the paper published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the CDC report, and in a comment for this article, the CDC offered the same take-home message: Get vaccinated.

“These findings reinforce previous research illustrating how vaccination provides protection from hospitalization due to COVID-19,” a CDC spokesperson said. “COVID-19 vaccines are proven to help prevent serious COVID-19 illness, and everyone ages 6 months and older should stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccines.”

The study published in JAMA Internal Medicine was supported by the CDC. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Sanofi, GSK, MedImmune, and others.

Unvaccinated people may be 10 times more likely than fully vaccinated people to be hospitalized for the Omicron variant of COVID-19, suggests a large study conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The data, which included almost 200,000 COVID-19–associated hospitalizations across 13 states, also showed that vaccinated, hospitalized patients were more often older and already dealing with other health conditions, compared with unvaccinated, hospitalized patients, reported lead author Fiona P. Havers, MD, of the CDC, Atlanta.

“Unlike previously published reports and web pages … this study reports hospitalization rates by vaccination status and clinical and demographic characteristics of hospitalized patients, beginning with the period when vaccines first became available, and includes comparisons of unvaccinated persons, persons vaccinated with a primary series without a booster dose, and those vaccinated with a primary series and at least 1 booster dose,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In total, the investigators reviewed 192,509 hospitalizations involving patients 18 years and older. The study period spanned from Jan. 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022. Data were reported month by month, showing that the relative monthly hospitalization rate peaked in May 2021, when it was 17.7 times higher for unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals (with or without a booster).

To account for differences in clinical course between Delta and Omicron, the investigators also analyzed data sorted into two time periods: July-December 2021 (Delta predominant) and January-April 2022 (Omicron BA.1 predominant). These analyses revealed the greater hospitalization risk presented by Delta. Specifically, unvaccinated people were 12.2 times more likely to be hospitalized for Delta than vaccinated people, with or without a booster, versus 6.8 times for Omicron BA.1.

Study shows power of the booster

A closer look at the Omicron BA.1 data showed the power of a booster dose. From January to April 2022, individuals who were fully vaccinated with a booster dose were 10.5 times less likely than unvaccinated individuals to be hospitalized for Omicron BA.1. Plus, boosted people were 2.5 times less likely to be hospitalized for Omicron BA.1 than people who got vaccinated but skipped the booster.

“The high hospitalization rates in unvaccinated compared with vaccinated persons with and without a booster dose underscores the importance of COVID-19 vaccinations in preventing hospitalizations and suggests that increasing vaccination coverage, including booster dose coverage, can prevent hospitalizations, serious illness, and death,” the investigators wrote.

The study also revealed that vaccinated hospitalized patients were significantly older, on average, than unvaccinated hospitalized patients (median, 70 vs. 58 years; P < .001). They were also significantly more likely to have three or more underlying medical conditions (77.8% vs. 51.6%; P < .001)

“A greater proportion of hospitalized cases among vaccinated persons occurred in individuals with medical fragility who were older, more likely to reside in long-term care facilities, and have three or more underlying medical conditions, including immunosuppressive conditions,” the investigators wrote.

New variants outpacing data, vaccines remain essential

While data from April 2022 alone showed a 3.5-fold higher rate of hospitalization among unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals with or without a booster, newer data suggest that emerging strains of Omicron are putting more people in the hospital.

A recent report by the CDC showed weekly hospitalization rates climbing from March 20 to May 31, 2022, which coincided with predominance of the newer Omicron BA.2 variant. While unvaccinated people were still around 3.5 times more likely to be hospitalized than vaccinated people, overall hospitalization rates jumped 3-fold for people 65 years and older, and 1.7-fold for adults younger than 65. Adding further complexity to this constantly evolving situation is that Omicron BA.2 has since been joined by the BA.4 and BA.5 lineages, for which vaccines are now available.

In the paper published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the CDC report, and in a comment for this article, the CDC offered the same take-home message: Get vaccinated.

“These findings reinforce previous research illustrating how vaccination provides protection from hospitalization due to COVID-19,” a CDC spokesperson said. “COVID-19 vaccines are proven to help prevent serious COVID-19 illness, and everyone ages 6 months and older should stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccines.”

The study published in JAMA Internal Medicine was supported by the CDC. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Sanofi, GSK, MedImmune, and others.