COVID-19

When COVID-19 emerged in March 2020, physicians were forced to evaluate the potential impacts of the pandemic on our patients and the conditions that we treat. For dermatologists, psoriasis came into particular focus, as many patients were being treated with biologic therapies. The initial concern was that these biologics might render our patients more susceptible to both COVID-19 infection and/or a more severe disease course.

In early 2020, the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) presented its own recommendations for treating patients with psoriatic disease during the pandemic.¹ Some highlights included the following¹:

• At the time, it was stipulated that patients with COVID-19 infection should stop taking a biologic.

• Psoriasis patients in high-risk groups (eg, concomitant systemic disease) should discuss with their dermatologist if their therapeutic regimen should be continued or altered.

• Patients taking oral immunosuppressive therapy may be at greater risk for COVID-19 infection, though there is no strong COVID-19–related evidence to provide specific guidelines or risk level.

In May 2020, the NPF COVID-19 Task Force was formed. This group—chaired by dermatologist Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), and rheumatologist Christopher T. Ritchlin, MD, MPH (Rochester, New York)—was comprised of members from both the NPF Medical Board and Scientific Advisory Committee in dermatology, rheumatology, infectious disease, and critical care. The NPF COVID-19 Task Force has been critical in keeping the dermatology community apprised of the latest scientific thinking related to COVID-19 and publishing guidance statements that are updated and amended on a regular basis as new data becomes available.² Key recommendations most relevant to the daily care of patients with psoriatic disease included the following²:

• Patients with psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis have similar rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 outcomes as the general population based on existing data, with some exceptions.

• Therapies for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis do not meaningfully alter the risk for acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection or having worse COVID-19 outcomes.

• Patients should continue their biologic or oral therapies for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis in most cases, unless they become infected with SARS-CoV-2.

• Chronic systemic steroid use for psoriatic disease in the setting of acute infection with COVID-19 may be associated with worse outcomes; however, steroids may improve outcomes for COVID-19 when initiated in hospitalized patients who require oxygen therapy.

• When local restrictions or pandemic conditions limit the ability for in-person visits, offer telemedicine to manage patients.

• Patients with psoriatic disease who do not have contraindications to vaccination should receive a messenger RNA (mRNA)–based COVID-19 vaccine and boosters, based on federal, state, and local guidance. Systemic medications for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis are not a contraindication to the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine. 

• Patients who are to receive an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine should continue their biologic or oral therapies for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis in most cases.

• The use of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and ivermectin is not suggested for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 disease.

These guidelines have been critical in addressing some of the most pressing issues in psoriasis patient care, particularly the susceptibility to COVID-19, the role of psoriasis therapies in initial infection and health outcomes, and issues related to the administration of vaccines in those on systemic therapies. Based on these recommendations, we have been given a solid foundation that our current standard of care can (for the most part) continue with the continued presence of COVID-19 in our society. I encourage all providers to familiarize themselves with the NPF COVID-19 Task Force guidelines and keep abreast of updates as they become available (https://www.psoriasis.org/covid-19-task-force-guidance-statements/).

When COVID-19 emerged in March 2020, physicians were forced to evaluate the potential impacts of the pandemic on our patients and the conditions that we treat. For dermatologists, psoriasis came into particular focus, as many patients were being treated with biologic therapies. The initial concern was that these biologics might render our patients more susceptible to both COVID-19 infection and/or a more severe disease course.

In early 2020, the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) presented its own recommendations for treating patients with psoriatic disease during the pandemic.¹ Some highlights included the following¹:

• At the time, it was stipulated that patients with COVID-19 infection should stop taking a biologic.

• Psoriasis patients in high-risk groups (eg, concomitant systemic disease) should discuss with their dermatologist if their therapeutic regimen should be continued or altered.

• Patients taking oral immunosuppressive therapy may be at greater risk for COVID-19 infection, though there is no strong COVID-19–related evidence to provide specific guidelines or risk level.

In May 2020, the NPF COVID-19 Task Force was formed. This group—chaired by dermatologist Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), and rheumatologist Christopher T. Ritchlin, MD, MPH (Rochester, New York)—was comprised of members from both the NPF Medical Board and Scientific Advisory Committee in dermatology, rheumatology, infectious disease, and critical care. The NPF COVID-19 Task Force has been critical in keeping the dermatology community apprised of the latest scientific thinking related to COVID-19 and publishing guidance statements that are updated and amended on a regular basis as new data becomes available.² Key recommendations most relevant to the daily care of patients with psoriatic disease included the following²:

• Patients with psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis have similar rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 outcomes as the general population based on existing data, with some exceptions.

• Therapies for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis do not meaningfully alter the risk for acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection or having worse COVID-19 outcomes.

• Patients should continue their biologic or oral therapies for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis in most cases, unless they become infected with SARS-CoV-2.

• Chronic systemic steroid use for psoriatic disease in the setting of acute infection with COVID-19 may be associated with worse outcomes; however, steroids may improve outcomes for COVID-19 when initiated in hospitalized patients who require oxygen therapy.

• When local restrictions or pandemic conditions limit the ability for in-person visits, offer telemedicine to manage patients.

• Patients with psoriatic disease who do not have contraindications to vaccination should receive a messenger RNA (mRNA)–based COVID-19 vaccine and boosters, based on federal, state, and local guidance. Systemic medications for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis are not a contraindication to the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine. 

• Patients who are to receive an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine should continue their biologic or oral therapies for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis in most cases.

• The use of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and ivermectin is not suggested for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 disease.

These guidelines have been critical in addressing some of the most pressing issues in psoriasis patient care, particularly the susceptibility to COVID-19, the role of psoriasis therapies in initial infection and health outcomes, and issues related to the administration of vaccines in those on systemic therapies. Based on these recommendations, we have been given a solid foundation that our current standard of care can (for the most part) continue with the continued presence of COVID-19 in our society. I encourage all providers to familiarize themselves with the NPF COVID-19 Task Force guidelines and keep abreast of updates as they become available (https://www.psoriasis.org/covid-19-task-force-guidance-statements/).

When COVID-19 emerged in March 2020, physicians were forced to evaluate the potential impacts of the pandemic on our patients and the conditions that we treat. For dermatologists, psoriasis came into particular focus, as many patients were being treated with biologic therapies. The initial concern was that these biologics might render our patients more susceptible to both COVID-19 infection and/or a more severe disease course.

In early 2020, the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) presented its own recommendations for treating patients with psoriatic disease during the pandemic.¹ Some highlights included the following¹:

• At the time, it was stipulated that patients with COVID-19 infection should stop taking a biologic.

• Psoriasis patients in high-risk groups (eg, concomitant systemic disease) should discuss with their dermatologist if their therapeutic regimen should be continued or altered.

• Patients taking oral immunosuppressive therapy may be at greater risk for COVID-19 infection, though there is no strong COVID-19–related evidence to provide specific guidelines or risk level.

In May 2020, the NPF COVID-19 Task Force was formed. This group—chaired by dermatologist Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), and rheumatologist Christopher T. Ritchlin, MD, MPH (Rochester, New York)—was comprised of members from both the NPF Medical Board and Scientific Advisory Committee in dermatology, rheumatology, infectious disease, and critical care. The NPF COVID-19 Task Force has been critical in keeping the dermatology community apprised of the latest scientific thinking related to COVID-19 and publishing guidance statements that are updated and amended on a regular basis as new data becomes available.² Key recommendations most relevant to the daily care of patients with psoriatic disease included the following²:

• Patients with psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis have similar rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 outcomes as the general population based on existing data, with some exceptions.

• Therapies for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis do not meaningfully alter the risk for acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection or having worse COVID-19 outcomes.

• Patients should continue their biologic or oral therapies for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis in most cases, unless they become infected with SARS-CoV-2.

• Chronic systemic steroid use for psoriatic disease in the setting of acute infection with COVID-19 may be associated with worse outcomes; however, steroids may improve outcomes for COVID-19 when initiated in hospitalized patients who require oxygen therapy.

• When local restrictions or pandemic conditions limit the ability for in-person visits, offer telemedicine to manage patients.

• Patients with psoriatic disease who do not have contraindications to vaccination should receive a messenger RNA (mRNA)–based COVID-19 vaccine and boosters, based on federal, state, and local guidance. Systemic medications for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis are not a contraindication to the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine. 

• Patients who are to receive an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine should continue their biologic or oral therapies for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis in most cases.

• The use of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and ivermectin is not suggested for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 disease.

These guidelines have been critical in addressing some of the most pressing issues in psoriasis patient care, particularly the susceptibility to COVID-19, the role of psoriasis therapies in initial infection and health outcomes, and issues related to the administration of vaccines in those on systemic therapies. Based on these recommendations, we have been given a solid foundation that our current standard of care can (for the most part) continue with the continued presence of COVID-19 in our society. I encourage all providers to familiarize themselves with the NPF COVID-19 Task Force guidelines and keep abreast of updates as they become available (https://www.psoriasis.org/covid-19-task-force-guidance-statements/).

An AI-guided analysis of more than 1,000 human lung transcriptomic datasets found that COVID-19 resembles idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) at a fundamental level, according to a study published in eBiomedicine, part of The Lancet Discovery Science.

In the aftermath of COVID-19, a significant number of patients develop a fibrotic lung disease, for which insights into pathogenesis, disease models, or treatment options are lacking, according to researchers Dr. Sinha and colleagues. This long-haul form of the disease culminates in a fibrotic type of interstitial lung disease (ILD). While the actual prevalence of post–COVID-19 ILD (PCLD) is still emerging, early analysis indicates that more than a third of COVID-19 survivors develop fibrotic abnormalities, according to the authors.

Previous research has shown that one of the important determinants for PCLD is the duration of disease. Among patients who developed fibrosis, approximately 4% of patients had a disease duration of less than 1 week; approximately 24% had a disease duration between 1 and 3 weeks; and around 61% had a disease duration longer than 3 weeks, the authors stated.

The lung transcriptomic datasets compared in their study were associated with various lung conditions. The researchers used two viral pandemic signatures (ViP and sViP) and one COVID lung-derived signature. They found that the resemblances included that COVID-19 recapitulates the gene expression patterns (ViP and IPF signatures), cytokine storm (IL15-centric), and the AT2 cytopathic changes, for example, injury, DNA damage, arrest in a transient, damage-induced progenitor state, and senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP).

In laboratory experiments, Dr. Sinha and colleagues were able to induce these same immunocytopathic features in preclinical COVID-19 models (human adult lung organoid and hamster) and to reverse them in the hamster model with effective anti–CoV-2 therapeutics.

PPI-network analyses pinpointed endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress as one of the shared early triggers of both IPF and COVID-19, and immunohistochemistry studies validated the same in the lungs of deceased subjects with COVID-19 and the SARS-CoV-2–challenged hamster lungs. Additionally, lungs from transgenic mice, in which ER stress was induced specifically in the AT2 cells, faithfully recapitulated the host immune response and alveolar cytopathic changes that are induced by SARS-CoV-2.

“In this work, we found that a blood-based gene expression biomarker, which works for prognostication in COVID, also works for IPF,” stated corresponding author Pradipta Ghosh, MD, professor in the departments of medicine and cellular and molecular medicine, University of California, San Diego. “If proven in prospective studies, this biomarker could indicate who is at greatest risk for progressive fibrosis and may require lung transplantation,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Ghosh stated further, “When it comes to therapeutics in COVID lung or IPF, we also found that shared fundamental pathogenic mechanisms present excellent opportunities for developing therapeutics that can arrest the fibrogenic drivers in both diseases. One clue that emerged is a specific cytokine that is at the heart of the smoldering inflammation which is invariably associated with fibrosis. That is interleukin 15 [IL-15] and its receptor.” Dr. Ghosh observed that there are two Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs for IPF. “None are very effective in arresting this invariably fatal disease. Hence, finding better options to treat IPF is an urgent and an unmet need.”

Preclinical testing of hypotheses, Dr. Ghosh said, is next on the path to clinical trials. “We have the advantage of using human lung organoids (mini-lungs grown using stem cells) in a dish, adding additional cells to the system (like fibroblasts and immune cells), infecting them with the virus, or subjecting them to the IL-15 cytokine and monitoring lung fibrosis progression in a dish. Anti–IL-15 therapy can then be initiated to observe reversal of the fibrogenic cascade.” Hamsters have also been shown to provide appropriate models for mimicking lung fibrosis, Dr. Ghosh said. 

“The report by Sinha and colleagues describes the fascinating similarities between drivers of post-COVID lung disease and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis,” stated David Bowton, MD, professor emeritus, section on critical care, department of anesthesiology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., in an interview. He added that, “Central to the mechanisms of induction of fibrosis in both disorders appears to be endoplasmic reticulum stress in alveolar type II cells (AT2). ER stress induces the unfolded protein response (UPR) that halts protein translation and promotes the degradation of misfolded proteins. Prolonged UPR can reprogram the cell or trigger apoptosis pathways. ER stress in the lung has been reported in a variety of cell lines including AT2 in IPF, bronchial and alveolar epithelial cells in asthma and [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease], and endothelial cells in pulmonary hypertension.”

Dr. Bowton commented further, including a caution, “Sinha and colleagues suggest that the identification of these gene signatures and mechanisms will be a fruitful avenue for developing effective therapeutics for IPF and other fibrotic lung diseases. I am hopeful that these data may offer clues that expedite this process.  However, the redundancy of triggers for effector pathways in biologic systems argues that, even if successful, this will be [a] long and fraught process.”

The research study was supported by National Institutes of Health grants and funding from the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program.

Dr. Sinha, Dr. Ghosh, and Dr. Bowton reported no relevant disclosures.

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

An AI-guided analysis of more than 1,000 human lung transcriptomic datasets found that COVID-19 resembles idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) at a fundamental level, according to a study published in eBiomedicine, part of The Lancet Discovery Science.

In the aftermath of COVID-19, a significant number of patients develop a fibrotic lung disease, for which insights into pathogenesis, disease models, or treatment options are lacking, according to researchers Dr. Sinha and colleagues. This long-haul form of the disease culminates in a fibrotic type of interstitial lung disease (ILD). While the actual prevalence of post–COVID-19 ILD (PCLD) is still emerging, early analysis indicates that more than a third of COVID-19 survivors develop fibrotic abnormalities, according to the authors.

Previous research has shown that one of the important determinants for PCLD is the duration of disease. Among patients who developed fibrosis, approximately 4% of patients had a disease duration of less than 1 week; approximately 24% had a disease duration between 1 and 3 weeks; and around 61% had a disease duration longer than 3 weeks, the authors stated.

The lung transcriptomic datasets compared in their study were associated with various lung conditions. The researchers used two viral pandemic signatures (ViP and sViP) and one COVID lung-derived signature. They found that the resemblances included that COVID-19 recapitulates the gene expression patterns (ViP and IPF signatures), cytokine storm (IL15-centric), and the AT2 cytopathic changes, for example, injury, DNA damage, arrest in a transient, damage-induced progenitor state, and senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP).

In laboratory experiments, Dr. Sinha and colleagues were able to induce these same immunocytopathic features in preclinical COVID-19 models (human adult lung organoid and hamster) and to reverse them in the hamster model with effective anti–CoV-2 therapeutics.

PPI-network analyses pinpointed endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress as one of the shared early triggers of both IPF and COVID-19, and immunohistochemistry studies validated the same in the lungs of deceased subjects with COVID-19 and the SARS-CoV-2–challenged hamster lungs. Additionally, lungs from transgenic mice, in which ER stress was induced specifically in the AT2 cells, faithfully recapitulated the host immune response and alveolar cytopathic changes that are induced by SARS-CoV-2.

“In this work, we found that a blood-based gene expression biomarker, which works for prognostication in COVID, also works for IPF,” stated corresponding author Pradipta Ghosh, MD, professor in the departments of medicine and cellular and molecular medicine, University of California, San Diego. “If proven in prospective studies, this biomarker could indicate who is at greatest risk for progressive fibrosis and may require lung transplantation,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Ghosh stated further, “When it comes to therapeutics in COVID lung or IPF, we also found that shared fundamental pathogenic mechanisms present excellent opportunities for developing therapeutics that can arrest the fibrogenic drivers in both diseases. One clue that emerged is a specific cytokine that is at the heart of the smoldering inflammation which is invariably associated with fibrosis. That is interleukin 15 [IL-15] and its receptor.” Dr. Ghosh observed that there are two Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs for IPF. “None are very effective in arresting this invariably fatal disease. Hence, finding better options to treat IPF is an urgent and an unmet need.”

Preclinical testing of hypotheses, Dr. Ghosh said, is next on the path to clinical trials. “We have the advantage of using human lung organoids (mini-lungs grown using stem cells) in a dish, adding additional cells to the system (like fibroblasts and immune cells), infecting them with the virus, or subjecting them to the IL-15 cytokine and monitoring lung fibrosis progression in a dish. Anti–IL-15 therapy can then be initiated to observe reversal of the fibrogenic cascade.” Hamsters have also been shown to provide appropriate models for mimicking lung fibrosis, Dr. Ghosh said. 

“The report by Sinha and colleagues describes the fascinating similarities between drivers of post-COVID lung disease and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis,” stated David Bowton, MD, professor emeritus, section on critical care, department of anesthesiology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., in an interview. He added that, “Central to the mechanisms of induction of fibrosis in both disorders appears to be endoplasmic reticulum stress in alveolar type II cells (AT2). ER stress induces the unfolded protein response (UPR) that halts protein translation and promotes the degradation of misfolded proteins. Prolonged UPR can reprogram the cell or trigger apoptosis pathways. ER stress in the lung has been reported in a variety of cell lines including AT2 in IPF, bronchial and alveolar epithelial cells in asthma and [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease], and endothelial cells in pulmonary hypertension.”

Dr. Bowton commented further, including a caution, “Sinha and colleagues suggest that the identification of these gene signatures and mechanisms will be a fruitful avenue for developing effective therapeutics for IPF and other fibrotic lung diseases. I am hopeful that these data may offer clues that expedite this process.  However, the redundancy of triggers for effector pathways in biologic systems argues that, even if successful, this will be [a] long and fraught process.”

The research study was supported by National Institutes of Health grants and funding from the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program.

Dr. Sinha, Dr. Ghosh, and Dr. Bowton reported no relevant disclosures.

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

An AI-guided analysis of more than 1,000 human lung transcriptomic datasets found that COVID-19 resembles idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) at a fundamental level, according to a study published in eBiomedicine, part of The Lancet Discovery Science.

In the aftermath of COVID-19, a significant number of patients develop a fibrotic lung disease, for which insights into pathogenesis, disease models, or treatment options are lacking, according to researchers Dr. Sinha and colleagues. This long-haul form of the disease culminates in a fibrotic type of interstitial lung disease (ILD). While the actual prevalence of post–COVID-19 ILD (PCLD) is still emerging, early analysis indicates that more than a third of COVID-19 survivors develop fibrotic abnormalities, according to the authors.

Previous research has shown that one of the important determinants for PCLD is the duration of disease. Among patients who developed fibrosis, approximately 4% of patients had a disease duration of less than 1 week; approximately 24% had a disease duration between 1 and 3 weeks; and around 61% had a disease duration longer than 3 weeks, the authors stated.

The lung transcriptomic datasets compared in their study were associated with various lung conditions. The researchers used two viral pandemic signatures (ViP and sViP) and one COVID lung-derived signature. They found that the resemblances included that COVID-19 recapitulates the gene expression patterns (ViP and IPF signatures), cytokine storm (IL15-centric), and the AT2 cytopathic changes, for example, injury, DNA damage, arrest in a transient, damage-induced progenitor state, and senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP).

In laboratory experiments, Dr. Sinha and colleagues were able to induce these same immunocytopathic features in preclinical COVID-19 models (human adult lung organoid and hamster) and to reverse them in the hamster model with effective anti–CoV-2 therapeutics.

PPI-network analyses pinpointed endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress as one of the shared early triggers of both IPF and COVID-19, and immunohistochemistry studies validated the same in the lungs of deceased subjects with COVID-19 and the SARS-CoV-2–challenged hamster lungs. Additionally, lungs from transgenic mice, in which ER stress was induced specifically in the AT2 cells, faithfully recapitulated the host immune response and alveolar cytopathic changes that are induced by SARS-CoV-2.

“In this work, we found that a blood-based gene expression biomarker, which works for prognostication in COVID, also works for IPF,” stated corresponding author Pradipta Ghosh, MD, professor in the departments of medicine and cellular and molecular medicine, University of California, San Diego. “If proven in prospective studies, this biomarker could indicate who is at greatest risk for progressive fibrosis and may require lung transplantation,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Ghosh stated further, “When it comes to therapeutics in COVID lung or IPF, we also found that shared fundamental pathogenic mechanisms present excellent opportunities for developing therapeutics that can arrest the fibrogenic drivers in both diseases. One clue that emerged is a specific cytokine that is at the heart of the smoldering inflammation which is invariably associated with fibrosis. That is interleukin 15 [IL-15] and its receptor.” Dr. Ghosh observed that there are two Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs for IPF. “None are very effective in arresting this invariably fatal disease. Hence, finding better options to treat IPF is an urgent and an unmet need.”

Preclinical testing of hypotheses, Dr. Ghosh said, is next on the path to clinical trials. “We have the advantage of using human lung organoids (mini-lungs grown using stem cells) in a dish, adding additional cells to the system (like fibroblasts and immune cells), infecting them with the virus, or subjecting them to the IL-15 cytokine and monitoring lung fibrosis progression in a dish. Anti–IL-15 therapy can then be initiated to observe reversal of the fibrogenic cascade.” Hamsters have also been shown to provide appropriate models for mimicking lung fibrosis, Dr. Ghosh said. 

“The report by Sinha and colleagues describes the fascinating similarities between drivers of post-COVID lung disease and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis,” stated David Bowton, MD, professor emeritus, section on critical care, department of anesthesiology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., in an interview. He added that, “Central to the mechanisms of induction of fibrosis in both disorders appears to be endoplasmic reticulum stress in alveolar type II cells (AT2). ER stress induces the unfolded protein response (UPR) that halts protein translation and promotes the degradation of misfolded proteins. Prolonged UPR can reprogram the cell or trigger apoptosis pathways. ER stress in the lung has been reported in a variety of cell lines including AT2 in IPF, bronchial and alveolar epithelial cells in asthma and [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease], and endothelial cells in pulmonary hypertension.”

Dr. Bowton commented further, including a caution, “Sinha and colleagues suggest that the identification of these gene signatures and mechanisms will be a fruitful avenue for developing effective therapeutics for IPF and other fibrotic lung diseases. I am hopeful that these data may offer clues that expedite this process.  However, the redundancy of triggers for effector pathways in biologic systems argues that, even if successful, this will be [a] long and fraught process.”

The research study was supported by National Institutes of Health grants and funding from the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program.

Dr. Sinha, Dr. Ghosh, and Dr. Bowton reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Pre-endoscopy viral testing may not be necessary to prevent coronavirus transmission from patients to endoscopy staff members, according to a new study published in Gut.

Instead, using personal protective equipment (PPE) and ensuring up-to-date COVID-19 vaccination among the medical team was found to be enough to substantially reduce the risk of spreading SARS-CoV-2, wrote Alexander Hann, Dr.med., gastroenterologist at University Hospital Würzburg in Germany, and colleagues.

“We suggest that pre-selection of patients using respective questionnaires, vaccination, and particularly PPE appears to be sufficient for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in GI endoscopy,” they wrote.

Dr. Hann and colleagues analyzed 15,750 endoscopies performed by 29 staff members during the period between May 2020 and December 2021. The researchers looked at three test approaches: No testing (4,543 patients), rapid antigen testing (682 patients), and real-time PCR testing (10,465 patients). In addition, 60 endoscopies were performed in patients with known COVID-19. Overall, no staff members became infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the study period. In all three scenarios, staff used PPE, and the vaccination rate of the team was 97%.

University Hospital Würzburg, with a tertiary endoscopy unit, is located in an area that had medium COVID-19 incidence during the study period. The hospital, which is spatially divided into a center for operative medicine and a center for internal medicine, required a negative PCR test for all endoscopies in the operative medicine center. In the internal medicine center, a PCR test was required only for in-patient procedures. Starting in January 2021 a negative rapid antigen test was required for patients scheduled for complex procedures with overnight surveillance; outpatient endoscopy procedures did not require a test.

All patients were interviewed before admission for COVID-19 symptoms, close contact with infected people, and recent travel to high-risk countries. Moreover, some endoscopies were performed even if a patient had positive markers for COVID-19.

The clinical team wore recommended PPE, including a high-filter FFP2 mask, one pair of gloves, protective eyewear, and disposable gowns. For patients with known COVID-19, staff wore two pairs of gloves, a disposable hairnet, and a water-resistant disposable gown. In addition, endoscopies were performed in negative pressure intervention rooms.

Among the 29 staff members involved, 16 physicians and 13 assistants worked in the endoscopy unit for at least 2 days per week for at least 6 months. The hospital’s internal policy required medical staff to undergo PCR testing if a rapid antigen test was positive or symptoms developed. Staff were vaccinated with two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in January and February 2021. A single booster dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine was administered in November and December 2021.

The clinical team was not tested routinely, so asymptomatic infections may have existed. Moreover, the relatively low COVID-19 incidence in the local area might have influenced the risk of transmission. “However, even at the end of 2021, when the incidence was increasing, we did not see any higher risk of transmission,” the researchers explained.

“An important limitation of our study relates to the new variant Omicron that was dominant in our local area after the analyzed time frame.” Additional studies may be needed to understand the risk of transmission with the latest Omicron variants, and given the additional costs and implications on routine activity, current testing guidelines may need to be reconsidered.

“Although our data were not part of a randomized prospective study, we were able to demonstrate on a fairly high number of patients that PPE measures in addition to a short interview for assessment of a patient’s individual risks appear to be highly effective to control transmission of SARS-CoV-2 during an endoscopy. ... Pre-procedural RT-PCR testing or RA testing did not show any additional benefit,” Dr. Hann and colleagues concluded.

The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Pre-endoscopy viral testing may not be necessary to prevent coronavirus transmission from patients to endoscopy staff members, according to a new study published in Gut.

Instead, using personal protective equipment (PPE) and ensuring up-to-date COVID-19 vaccination among the medical team was found to be enough to substantially reduce the risk of spreading SARS-CoV-2, wrote Alexander Hann, Dr.med., gastroenterologist at University Hospital Würzburg in Germany, and colleagues.

“We suggest that pre-selection of patients using respective questionnaires, vaccination, and particularly PPE appears to be sufficient for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in GI endoscopy,” they wrote.

Dr. Hann and colleagues analyzed 15,750 endoscopies performed by 29 staff members during the period between May 2020 and December 2021. The researchers looked at three test approaches: No testing (4,543 patients), rapid antigen testing (682 patients), and real-time PCR testing (10,465 patients). In addition, 60 endoscopies were performed in patients with known COVID-19. Overall, no staff members became infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the study period. In all three scenarios, staff used PPE, and the vaccination rate of the team was 97%.

University Hospital Würzburg, with a tertiary endoscopy unit, is located in an area that had medium COVID-19 incidence during the study period. The hospital, which is spatially divided into a center for operative medicine and a center for internal medicine, required a negative PCR test for all endoscopies in the operative medicine center. In the internal medicine center, a PCR test was required only for in-patient procedures. Starting in January 2021 a negative rapid antigen test was required for patients scheduled for complex procedures with overnight surveillance; outpatient endoscopy procedures did not require a test.

All patients were interviewed before admission for COVID-19 symptoms, close contact with infected people, and recent travel to high-risk countries. Moreover, some endoscopies were performed even if a patient had positive markers for COVID-19.

The clinical team wore recommended PPE, including a high-filter FFP2 mask, one pair of gloves, protective eyewear, and disposable gowns. For patients with known COVID-19, staff wore two pairs of gloves, a disposable hairnet, and a water-resistant disposable gown. In addition, endoscopies were performed in negative pressure intervention rooms.

Among the 29 staff members involved, 16 physicians and 13 assistants worked in the endoscopy unit for at least 2 days per week for at least 6 months. The hospital’s internal policy required medical staff to undergo PCR testing if a rapid antigen test was positive or symptoms developed. Staff were vaccinated with two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in January and February 2021. A single booster dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine was administered in November and December 2021.

The clinical team was not tested routinely, so asymptomatic infections may have existed. Moreover, the relatively low COVID-19 incidence in the local area might have influenced the risk of transmission. “However, even at the end of 2021, when the incidence was increasing, we did not see any higher risk of transmission,” the researchers explained.

“An important limitation of our study relates to the new variant Omicron that was dominant in our local area after the analyzed time frame.” Additional studies may be needed to understand the risk of transmission with the latest Omicron variants, and given the additional costs and implications on routine activity, current testing guidelines may need to be reconsidered.

“Although our data were not part of a randomized prospective study, we were able to demonstrate on a fairly high number of patients that PPE measures in addition to a short interview for assessment of a patient’s individual risks appear to be highly effective to control transmission of SARS-CoV-2 during an endoscopy. ... Pre-procedural RT-PCR testing or RA testing did not show any additional benefit,” Dr. Hann and colleagues concluded.

The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Pre-endoscopy viral testing may not be necessary to prevent coronavirus transmission from patients to endoscopy staff members, according to a new study published in Gut.

Instead, using personal protective equipment (PPE) and ensuring up-to-date COVID-19 vaccination among the medical team was found to be enough to substantially reduce the risk of spreading SARS-CoV-2, wrote Alexander Hann, Dr.med., gastroenterologist at University Hospital Würzburg in Germany, and colleagues.

“We suggest that pre-selection of patients using respective questionnaires, vaccination, and particularly PPE appears to be sufficient for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in GI endoscopy,” they wrote.

Dr. Hann and colleagues analyzed 15,750 endoscopies performed by 29 staff members during the period between May 2020 and December 2021. The researchers looked at three test approaches: No testing (4,543 patients), rapid antigen testing (682 patients), and real-time PCR testing (10,465 patients). In addition, 60 endoscopies were performed in patients with known COVID-19. Overall, no staff members became infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the study period. In all three scenarios, staff used PPE, and the vaccination rate of the team was 97%.

University Hospital Würzburg, with a tertiary endoscopy unit, is located in an area that had medium COVID-19 incidence during the study period. The hospital, which is spatially divided into a center for operative medicine and a center for internal medicine, required a negative PCR test for all endoscopies in the operative medicine center. In the internal medicine center, a PCR test was required only for in-patient procedures. Starting in January 2021 a negative rapid antigen test was required for patients scheduled for complex procedures with overnight surveillance; outpatient endoscopy procedures did not require a test.

All patients were interviewed before admission for COVID-19 symptoms, close contact with infected people, and recent travel to high-risk countries. Moreover, some endoscopies were performed even if a patient had positive markers for COVID-19.

The clinical team wore recommended PPE, including a high-filter FFP2 mask, one pair of gloves, protective eyewear, and disposable gowns. For patients with known COVID-19, staff wore two pairs of gloves, a disposable hairnet, and a water-resistant disposable gown. In addition, endoscopies were performed in negative pressure intervention rooms.

Among the 29 staff members involved, 16 physicians and 13 assistants worked in the endoscopy unit for at least 2 days per week for at least 6 months. The hospital’s internal policy required medical staff to undergo PCR testing if a rapid antigen test was positive or symptoms developed. Staff were vaccinated with two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in January and February 2021. A single booster dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine was administered in November and December 2021.

The clinical team was not tested routinely, so asymptomatic infections may have existed. Moreover, the relatively low COVID-19 incidence in the local area might have influenced the risk of transmission. “However, even at the end of 2021, when the incidence was increasing, we did not see any higher risk of transmission,” the researchers explained.

“An important limitation of our study relates to the new variant Omicron that was dominant in our local area after the analyzed time frame.” Additional studies may be needed to understand the risk of transmission with the latest Omicron variants, and given the additional costs and implications on routine activity, current testing guidelines may need to be reconsidered.

“Although our data were not part of a randomized prospective study, we were able to demonstrate on a fairly high number of patients that PPE measures in addition to a short interview for assessment of a patient’s individual risks appear to be highly effective to control transmission of SARS-CoV-2 during an endoscopy. ... Pre-procedural RT-PCR testing or RA testing did not show any additional benefit,” Dr. Hann and colleagues concluded.

The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

The picture around the BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants of Omicron has been really confusing in that the pair is driving up cases but global COVID-19 deaths remain at their lowest level since the beginning of the pandemic. I wanted to explain what is happening with these subvariants, in that the picture seems to be one of antibody evasion without the dodging of cellular immunity. Explaining the two components of the immune response – antibodies versus cellular immune responses – can help us understand where we are in the pandemic and future booster options.

These two subvariants of Omicron, as of July 5, make up more than half of the COVID-19 strains in the United States and are expected to keep increasing. One of two reasons can lead to a variant or subvariant becoming dominant strain: increased transmissibility or evasion of antibodies.

Although BA.4 and BA.5 could be more transmissible than other subvariants of Omicron (which is already very transmissible), this has not yet been established in experiments showing increased affinity for the human receptor or in animal models. What we do know is that BA.4 and BA.5 seem to evade neutralizing antibodies conferred by the vaccines or even prior BA.1 infection (an earlier subvariant of Omicron), which could be the reason we are seeing so many reinfections now. Of note, BA.1 infection conferred antibodies that protected against subsequent BA.2 infection, so we did not see the same spike in cases in the United States with BA.2 (after a large BA.1 spike over the winter) earlier this spring.

Okay, so isn’t evasion of antibodies a bad thing? Of course it is but, luckily, our immune system is “redundant” and doesn›t just rely on antibodies to protect us from infection. In fact, antibodies (such as IgA, which is the mucosal antibody most prevalent in the nose and mouth, and IgG, which is the most prevalent antibody in the bloodstream) are our first line of COVID-19 defense in the nasal mucosa. Therefore, mild upper respiratory infections will be common as BA.4/BA.5 evade our nasal antibodies. Luckily, the rate of severe disease is remaining low throughout the world, probably because of the high amounts of cellular immunity to the virus. B and T cells are our protectors from severe disease.

For instance, two-dose vaccines are still conferring high rates of protection from severe disease with the BA.4 and BA.5 variants, with 87% protection against hospitalization per South Africa data. This is probably attributable to the fact that T-cell immunity from the vaccines remains protective across variants “from Alpha to Omicron,” as described by a recent and elegant paper.

Data from Qatar show that natural infection (even occurring up to 14 months ago) remains very protective (97.3%) against severe disease with the current circulating subvariants, including BA.4 and BA.5. Again, this is probably attributable to T cells which specifically amplify in response to a piece of the virus and help recruit cells to attack the pathogen directly.

The original BA.1 subvariant of Omicron has 26-32 mutations along its spike protein that differ from the “ancestral strain,” and BA.4 and BA.5 variants have a few more. Our T-cell response, even across a mutated spike protein, is so robust that we have not seen Omicron yet able to evade the many T cells (which we produce from the vaccines or infection) that descend upon the mutated virus to fight severe disease. Antibody-producing memory B cells, generated by the vaccines (or prior infection), have been shown to actually adapt their immune response to the variant to which they are exposed.

Therefore, the story of the BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants seems to remain about antibodies vs. cellular immunity. Our immunity in the United States is growing and is from both vaccination and natural infection, with 78.3% of the population having had at least one dose of the vaccine and at least 60% of adults (and 75% of children 0-18) having been exposed to the virus by February 2022, per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (with exposure probably much higher now in July 2022 after subsequent Omicron subvariants waves).

So, what about Omicron-specific boosters? A booster shot will just raise antibodies temporarily, but their effectiveness wanes several months later. Moreover, a booster shot against the ancestral strain is not very effective in neutralizing BA.4 and BA.5 (with a prior BA.1 Omicron infection being more effective than a booster). Luckily, Pfizer has promised a BA.4/BA.5-specific mRNA vaccine by October, and Moderna has promised a bivalent vaccine containing BA.4/BA.5 mRNA sequences around the same time. A vaccine that specifically increases antibodies against the most prevalent circulating strain should be important as a booster for those who are predisposed to severe breakthrough infections (for example, those with immunocompromise or older individuals with multiple comorbidities). Moreover, BA.4/BA.5–specific booster vaccines may help prevent mild infections for many individuals. Finally, any booster (or exposure) should diversify and broaden T-cell responses to the virus, and a booster shot will also expand the potency of B cells, making them better able to respond to the newest subvariants as we continue to live with COVID-19.
 

Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, is an infectious diseases doctor, professor of medicine, and associate chief in the division of HIV, infectious diseases, and global medicine at the University of California, San Francisco.

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

The picture around the BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants of Omicron has been really confusing in that the pair is driving up cases but global COVID-19 deaths remain at their lowest level since the beginning of the pandemic. I wanted to explain what is happening with these subvariants, in that the picture seems to be one of antibody evasion without the dodging of cellular immunity. Explaining the two components of the immune response – antibodies versus cellular immune responses – can help us understand where we are in the pandemic and future booster options.

These two subvariants of Omicron, as of July 5, make up more than half of the COVID-19 strains in the United States and are expected to keep increasing. One of two reasons can lead to a variant or subvariant becoming dominant strain: increased transmissibility or evasion of antibodies.

Although BA.4 and BA.5 could be more transmissible than other subvariants of Omicron (which is already very transmissible), this has not yet been established in experiments showing increased affinity for the human receptor or in animal models. What we do know is that BA.4 and BA.5 seem to evade neutralizing antibodies conferred by the vaccines or even prior BA.1 infection (an earlier subvariant of Omicron), which could be the reason we are seeing so many reinfections now. Of note, BA.1 infection conferred antibodies that protected against subsequent BA.2 infection, so we did not see the same spike in cases in the United States with BA.2 (after a large BA.1 spike over the winter) earlier this spring.

Okay, so isn’t evasion of antibodies a bad thing? Of course it is but, luckily, our immune system is “redundant” and doesn›t just rely on antibodies to protect us from infection. In fact, antibodies (such as IgA, which is the mucosal antibody most prevalent in the nose and mouth, and IgG, which is the most prevalent antibody in the bloodstream) are our first line of COVID-19 defense in the nasal mucosa. Therefore, mild upper respiratory infections will be common as BA.4/BA.5 evade our nasal antibodies. Luckily, the rate of severe disease is remaining low throughout the world, probably because of the high amounts of cellular immunity to the virus. B and T cells are our protectors from severe disease.

For instance, two-dose vaccines are still conferring high rates of protection from severe disease with the BA.4 and BA.5 variants, with 87% protection against hospitalization per South Africa data. This is probably attributable to the fact that T-cell immunity from the vaccines remains protective across variants “from Alpha to Omicron,” as described by a recent and elegant paper.

Data from Qatar show that natural infection (even occurring up to 14 months ago) remains very protective (97.3%) against severe disease with the current circulating subvariants, including BA.4 and BA.5. Again, this is probably attributable to T cells which specifically amplify in response to a piece of the virus and help recruit cells to attack the pathogen directly.

The original BA.1 subvariant of Omicron has 26-32 mutations along its spike protein that differ from the “ancestral strain,” and BA.4 and BA.5 variants have a few more. Our T-cell response, even across a mutated spike protein, is so robust that we have not seen Omicron yet able to evade the many T cells (which we produce from the vaccines or infection) that descend upon the mutated virus to fight severe disease. Antibody-producing memory B cells, generated by the vaccines (or prior infection), have been shown to actually adapt their immune response to the variant to which they are exposed.

Therefore, the story of the BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants seems to remain about antibodies vs. cellular immunity. Our immunity in the United States is growing and is from both vaccination and natural infection, with 78.3% of the population having had at least one dose of the vaccine and at least 60% of adults (and 75% of children 0-18) having been exposed to the virus by February 2022, per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (with exposure probably much higher now in July 2022 after subsequent Omicron subvariants waves).

So, what about Omicron-specific boosters? A booster shot will just raise antibodies temporarily, but their effectiveness wanes several months later. Moreover, a booster shot against the ancestral strain is not very effective in neutralizing BA.4 and BA.5 (with a prior BA.1 Omicron infection being more effective than a booster). Luckily, Pfizer has promised a BA.4/BA.5-specific mRNA vaccine by October, and Moderna has promised a bivalent vaccine containing BA.4/BA.5 mRNA sequences around the same time. A vaccine that specifically increases antibodies against the most prevalent circulating strain should be important as a booster for those who are predisposed to severe breakthrough infections (for example, those with immunocompromise or older individuals with multiple comorbidities). Moreover, BA.4/BA.5–specific booster vaccines may help prevent mild infections for many individuals. Finally, any booster (or exposure) should diversify and broaden T-cell responses to the virus, and a booster shot will also expand the potency of B cells, making them better able to respond to the newest subvariants as we continue to live with COVID-19.
 

Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, is an infectious diseases doctor, professor of medicine, and associate chief in the division of HIV, infectious diseases, and global medicine at the University of California, San Francisco.

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

The picture around the BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants of Omicron has been really confusing in that the pair is driving up cases but global COVID-19 deaths remain at their lowest level since the beginning of the pandemic. I wanted to explain what is happening with these subvariants, in that the picture seems to be one of antibody evasion without the dodging of cellular immunity. Explaining the two components of the immune response – antibodies versus cellular immune responses – can help us understand where we are in the pandemic and future booster options.

These two subvariants of Omicron, as of July 5, make up more than half of the COVID-19 strains in the United States and are expected to keep increasing. One of two reasons can lead to a variant or subvariant becoming dominant strain: increased transmissibility or evasion of antibodies.

Although BA.4 and BA.5 could be more transmissible than other subvariants of Omicron (which is already very transmissible), this has not yet been established in experiments showing increased affinity for the human receptor or in animal models. What we do know is that BA.4 and BA.5 seem to evade neutralizing antibodies conferred by the vaccines or even prior BA.1 infection (an earlier subvariant of Omicron), which could be the reason we are seeing so many reinfections now. Of note, BA.1 infection conferred antibodies that protected against subsequent BA.2 infection, so we did not see the same spike in cases in the United States with BA.2 (after a large BA.1 spike over the winter) earlier this spring.

Okay, so isn’t evasion of antibodies a bad thing? Of course it is but, luckily, our immune system is “redundant” and doesn›t just rely on antibodies to protect us from infection. In fact, antibodies (such as IgA, which is the mucosal antibody most prevalent in the nose and mouth, and IgG, which is the most prevalent antibody in the bloodstream) are our first line of COVID-19 defense in the nasal mucosa. Therefore, mild upper respiratory infections will be common as BA.4/BA.5 evade our nasal antibodies. Luckily, the rate of severe disease is remaining low throughout the world, probably because of the high amounts of cellular immunity to the virus. B and T cells are our protectors from severe disease.

For instance, two-dose vaccines are still conferring high rates of protection from severe disease with the BA.4 and BA.5 variants, with 87% protection against hospitalization per South Africa data. This is probably attributable to the fact that T-cell immunity from the vaccines remains protective across variants “from Alpha to Omicron,” as described by a recent and elegant paper.

Data from Qatar show that natural infection (even occurring up to 14 months ago) remains very protective (97.3%) against severe disease with the current circulating subvariants, including BA.4 and BA.5. Again, this is probably attributable to T cells which specifically amplify in response to a piece of the virus and help recruit cells to attack the pathogen directly.

The original BA.1 subvariant of Omicron has 26-32 mutations along its spike protein that differ from the “ancestral strain,” and BA.4 and BA.5 variants have a few more. Our T-cell response, even across a mutated spike protein, is so robust that we have not seen Omicron yet able to evade the many T cells (which we produce from the vaccines or infection) that descend upon the mutated virus to fight severe disease. Antibody-producing memory B cells, generated by the vaccines (or prior infection), have been shown to actually adapt their immune response to the variant to which they are exposed.

Therefore, the story of the BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants seems to remain about antibodies vs. cellular immunity. Our immunity in the United States is growing and is from both vaccination and natural infection, with 78.3% of the population having had at least one dose of the vaccine and at least 60% of adults (and 75% of children 0-18) having been exposed to the virus by February 2022, per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (with exposure probably much higher now in July 2022 after subsequent Omicron subvariants waves).

So, what about Omicron-specific boosters? A booster shot will just raise antibodies temporarily, but their effectiveness wanes several months later. Moreover, a booster shot against the ancestral strain is not very effective in neutralizing BA.4 and BA.5 (with a prior BA.1 Omicron infection being more effective than a booster). Luckily, Pfizer has promised a BA.4/BA.5-specific mRNA vaccine by October, and Moderna has promised a bivalent vaccine containing BA.4/BA.5 mRNA sequences around the same time. A vaccine that specifically increases antibodies against the most prevalent circulating strain should be important as a booster for those who are predisposed to severe breakthrough infections (for example, those with immunocompromise or older individuals with multiple comorbidities). Moreover, BA.4/BA.5–specific booster vaccines may help prevent mild infections for many individuals. Finally, any booster (or exposure) should diversify and broaden T-cell responses to the virus, and a booster shot will also expand the potency of B cells, making them better able to respond to the newest subvariants as we continue to live with COVID-19.
 

Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, is an infectious diseases doctor, professor of medicine, and associate chief in the division of HIV, infectious diseases, and global medicine at the University of California, San Francisco.

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

The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association have jointly issued a comprehensive set of data standards to help clarify definitions of the cardiovascular (CV) and non-CV complications of COVID-19.

It’s the work of the ACC/AHA Task Force on Clinical Data Standards and has been endorsed by the Heart Failure Society of America and Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions.

There is increased importance to understanding the acute and long-term impact of COVID-19 on CV health, the writing group notes. Until now, however, there has not been “clarity or consensus” on definitions of CV conditions related to COVID-19, with different diagnostic terminologies being used for overlapping conditions, such as “myocardial injury,” “myocarditis,” “type Il myocardial infarction,” “stress cardiomyopathy,” and “inflammatory cardiomyopathy,” they point out.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“We, as a research community, did some things right and some things wrong surrounding the COVID pandemic,” Sandeep Das, MD, MPH, vice chair of the writing group, noted in an interview with this news organization.

“The things that we really did right is that everybody responded with enthusiasm, kind of all hands on deck with a massive crisis response, and that was fantastic,” Dr. Das said.

“However, because of the need to hurry, we didn’t structure and organize in the way that we typically would for something that was sort of a slow burn kind of problem rather than an emergency. One of the consequences of that was fragmentation of how things are collected, reported, et cetera, and that leads to confusion,” he added.

The report was published simultaneously June 23 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
 

A necessary but not glamorous project

The new data standards for COVID-19 will help standardize definitions and set the framework to capture and better understand how COVID-19 affects CV health.

“It wasn’t exactly a glamorous-type project but, at the same time, it’s super necessary to kind of get everybody on the same page and working together,” Dr. Das said. 

Broad agreement on common vocabulary and definitions will help with efforts to pool or compare data from electronic health records, clinical registries, administrative datasets, and other databases, and determine whether these data apply to clinical practice and research endeavors, the writing group says.

They considered data elements relevant to the full range of care provided to COVID-19 patients in all care settings. Among the key items included in the document are:

• Case definitions for confirmed, probable, and suspected acute COVID-19, as well as postacute sequelae of COVID-19.
• Definitions for acute CV complications related to COVID-19, including acute myocardial injury, heart failure, shock, arrhythmia, thromboembolic complications, and .
• Data elements related to COVID-19 vaccination status, comorbidities, and preexisting CV conditions.
• Definitions for postacute CV sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection and long-term CV complications of COVID-19.
• Data elements for CV mortality during acute COVID-19.
• Data elements for non-CV complications to help document severity of illness and other competing diagnoses and complications that might affect CV outcomes.
• A list of symptoms and signs related to COVID-19 and CV complications.
• Data elements for diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for COVID-19 and CV conditions.
• A discussion of advanced therapies, including , extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and end-of-life management strategies.

These data standards will be useful for researchers, registry developers, and clinicians, and they are proposed as a framework for ICD-10 code development of COVID-19–related CV conditions, the writing group says.

The standards are also of “great importance” to patients, clinicians, investigators, scientists, administrators, public health officials, policymakers, and payers, the group says.

Dr. Das said that, although there is no formal plan in place to update the document, he could see sections that might be refined.

“For example, there’s a nice long list of all the various variants, and unfortunately, I suspect that that is going to change and evolve over time,” Dr. Das told this news organization.

“We tried very hard not to include things like specifying specific treatments so we didn’t get proscriptive. We wanted to make it descriptive, so hopefully it will stand the test of time pretty well,” he added.

This research had no commercial funding. The writing group has no relevant disclosures.

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

The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association have jointly issued a comprehensive set of data standards to help clarify definitions of the cardiovascular (CV) and non-CV complications of COVID-19.

It’s the work of the ACC/AHA Task Force on Clinical Data Standards and has been endorsed by the Heart Failure Society of America and Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions.

There is increased importance to understanding the acute and long-term impact of COVID-19 on CV health, the writing group notes. Until now, however, there has not been “clarity or consensus” on definitions of CV conditions related to COVID-19, with different diagnostic terminologies being used for overlapping conditions, such as “myocardial injury,” “myocarditis,” “type Il myocardial infarction,” “stress cardiomyopathy,” and “inflammatory cardiomyopathy,” they point out.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“We, as a research community, did some things right and some things wrong surrounding the COVID pandemic,” Sandeep Das, MD, MPH, vice chair of the writing group, noted in an interview with this news organization.

“The things that we really did right is that everybody responded with enthusiasm, kind of all hands on deck with a massive crisis response, and that was fantastic,” Dr. Das said.

“However, because of the need to hurry, we didn’t structure and organize in the way that we typically would for something that was sort of a slow burn kind of problem rather than an emergency. One of the consequences of that was fragmentation of how things are collected, reported, et cetera, and that leads to confusion,” he added.

The report was published simultaneously June 23 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
 

A necessary but not glamorous project

The new data standards for COVID-19 will help standardize definitions and set the framework to capture and better understand how COVID-19 affects CV health.

“It wasn’t exactly a glamorous-type project but, at the same time, it’s super necessary to kind of get everybody on the same page and working together,” Dr. Das said. 

Broad agreement on common vocabulary and definitions will help with efforts to pool or compare data from electronic health records, clinical registries, administrative datasets, and other databases, and determine whether these data apply to clinical practice and research endeavors, the writing group says.

They considered data elements relevant to the full range of care provided to COVID-19 patients in all care settings. Among the key items included in the document are:

• Case definitions for confirmed, probable, and suspected acute COVID-19, as well as postacute sequelae of COVID-19.
• Definitions for acute CV complications related to COVID-19, including acute myocardial injury, heart failure, shock, arrhythmia, thromboembolic complications, and .
• Data elements related to COVID-19 vaccination status, comorbidities, and preexisting CV conditions.
• Definitions for postacute CV sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection and long-term CV complications of COVID-19.
• Data elements for CV mortality during acute COVID-19.
• Data elements for non-CV complications to help document severity of illness and other competing diagnoses and complications that might affect CV outcomes.
• A list of symptoms and signs related to COVID-19 and CV complications.
• Data elements for diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for COVID-19 and CV conditions.
• A discussion of advanced therapies, including , extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and end-of-life management strategies.

These data standards will be useful for researchers, registry developers, and clinicians, and they are proposed as a framework for ICD-10 code development of COVID-19–related CV conditions, the writing group says.

The standards are also of “great importance” to patients, clinicians, investigators, scientists, administrators, public health officials, policymakers, and payers, the group says.

Dr. Das said that, although there is no formal plan in place to update the document, he could see sections that might be refined.

“For example, there’s a nice long list of all the various variants, and unfortunately, I suspect that that is going to change and evolve over time,” Dr. Das told this news organization.

“We tried very hard not to include things like specifying specific treatments so we didn’t get proscriptive. We wanted to make it descriptive, so hopefully it will stand the test of time pretty well,” he added.

This research had no commercial funding. The writing group has no relevant disclosures.

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

The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association have jointly issued a comprehensive set of data standards to help clarify definitions of the cardiovascular (CV) and non-CV complications of COVID-19.

It’s the work of the ACC/AHA Task Force on Clinical Data Standards and has been endorsed by the Heart Failure Society of America and Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions.

There is increased importance to understanding the acute and long-term impact of COVID-19 on CV health, the writing group notes. Until now, however, there has not been “clarity or consensus” on definitions of CV conditions related to COVID-19, with different diagnostic terminologies being used for overlapping conditions, such as “myocardial injury,” “myocarditis,” “type Il myocardial infarction,” “stress cardiomyopathy,” and “inflammatory cardiomyopathy,” they point out.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“We, as a research community, did some things right and some things wrong surrounding the COVID pandemic,” Sandeep Das, MD, MPH, vice chair of the writing group, noted in an interview with this news organization.

“The things that we really did right is that everybody responded with enthusiasm, kind of all hands on deck with a massive crisis response, and that was fantastic,” Dr. Das said.

“However, because of the need to hurry, we didn’t structure and organize in the way that we typically would for something that was sort of a slow burn kind of problem rather than an emergency. One of the consequences of that was fragmentation of how things are collected, reported, et cetera, and that leads to confusion,” he added.

The report was published simultaneously June 23 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
 

A necessary but not glamorous project

The new data standards for COVID-19 will help standardize definitions and set the framework to capture and better understand how COVID-19 affects CV health.

“It wasn’t exactly a glamorous-type project but, at the same time, it’s super necessary to kind of get everybody on the same page and working together,” Dr. Das said. 

Broad agreement on common vocabulary and definitions will help with efforts to pool or compare data from electronic health records, clinical registries, administrative datasets, and other databases, and determine whether these data apply to clinical practice and research endeavors, the writing group says.

They considered data elements relevant to the full range of care provided to COVID-19 patients in all care settings. Among the key items included in the document are:

• Case definitions for confirmed, probable, and suspected acute COVID-19, as well as postacute sequelae of COVID-19.
• Definitions for acute CV complications related to COVID-19, including acute myocardial injury, heart failure, shock, arrhythmia, thromboembolic complications, and .
• Data elements related to COVID-19 vaccination status, comorbidities, and preexisting CV conditions.
• Definitions for postacute CV sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection and long-term CV complications of COVID-19.
• Data elements for CV mortality during acute COVID-19.
• Data elements for non-CV complications to help document severity of illness and other competing diagnoses and complications that might affect CV outcomes.
• A list of symptoms and signs related to COVID-19 and CV complications.
• Data elements for diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for COVID-19 and CV conditions.
• A discussion of advanced therapies, including , extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and end-of-life management strategies.

These data standards will be useful for researchers, registry developers, and clinicians, and they are proposed as a framework for ICD-10 code development of COVID-19–related CV conditions, the writing group says.

The standards are also of “great importance” to patients, clinicians, investigators, scientists, administrators, public health officials, policymakers, and payers, the group says.

Dr. Das said that, although there is no formal plan in place to update the document, he could see sections that might be refined.

“For example, there’s a nice long list of all the various variants, and unfortunately, I suspect that that is going to change and evolve over time,” Dr. Das told this news organization.

“We tried very hard not to include things like specifying specific treatments so we didn’t get proscriptive. We wanted to make it descriptive, so hopefully it will stand the test of time pretty well,” he added.

This research had no commercial funding. The writing group has no relevant disclosures.

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

ATLANTA – Disturbances in ovulation that didn’t produce any actual changes in the menstrual cycle of women were extremely common during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and were linked to emotional stress, according to the findings of an “experiment of nature” that allowed for comparison with women a decade earlier.

Findings from two studies of reproductive-age women, one conducted in 2006-2008 and the other in 2020-2021, were presented by Jerilynn C. Prior, MD, at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

The comparison of the two time periods yielded several novel findings. “I was taught in medical school that when women don’t eat enough they lose their period. But what we now understand is there’s a graded response to various stressors, acting through the hypothalamus in a common pathway. There is a gradation of disturbances, some of which are subclinical or not obvious,” said Dr. Prior, professor of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

Moreover, women’s menstrual cycle lengths didn’t differ across the two time periods, despite a dramatic 63% decrement in normal ovulatory function related to increased depression, anxiety, and outside stresses that the women reported in diaries.

“Assuming that regular cycles need normal ovulation is something we should just get out of our minds. It changes our concept about what’s normal if we only know about the cycle length,” she observed.

It will be critical going forward to see whether the ovulatory disturbances have resolved as the pandemic has shifted “because there’s strong evidence that ovulatory disturbances, even with normal cycle length, are related to bone loss and some evidence it’s related to early heart attacks, breast and endometrial cancers,” Dr. Prior said during a press conference.

Lisa Nainggolan/MDedge News

Asked to comment, session moderator Genevieve Neal-Perry, MD, PhD, told this news organization: “I think what we can take away is that stress itself is a modifier of the way the brain and the gonads communicate with each other, and that then has an impact on ovulatory function.”

Dr. Neal-Perry noted that the association of stress and ovulatory disruption has been reported in various ways previously, but “clearly it doesn’t affect everyone. What we don’t know is who is most susceptible. There have been some studies showing a genetic predisposition and a genetic anomaly that actually makes them more susceptible to the impact of stress on the reproductive system.”

But the lack of data on weight change in the study cohorts is a limitation. “To me one of the more important questions was what was going on with weight. Just looking at a static number doesn’t tell you whether there were changes. We know that weight gain or weight loss can stress the reproductive axis,” noted Dr. Neal-Parry of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
 

‘Experiment of nature’ revealed invisible effect of pandemic stress

The women in both cohorts of the Menstruation Ovulation Study (MOS) were healthy volunteers aged 19-35 years recruited from the metropolitan Vancouver region. All were menstruating monthly and none were taking hormonal birth control. Recruitment for the second cohort had begun just prior to the March 2020 COVID-19 pandemic lockdown.

Interviewer-administered questionnaires (CaMos) covering demographics, socioeconomic status, and reproductive history, and daily diaries kept by the women (menstrual cycle diary) were identical for both cohorts.

Assessments of ovulation differed for the two studies but were cross-validated. For the earlier time period, ovulation was assessed by a threefold increase in follicular-to-luteal urinary progesterone (PdG). For the pandemic-era study, the validated quantitative basal temperature (QBT) method was used.

There were 301 women in the earlier cohort and 125 during the pandemic. Both were an average age of about 29 years and had a body mass index of about 24.3 kg/m² (within the normal range). The pandemic cohort was more racially/ethnically diverse than the earlier one and more in-line with recent census data.

More of the women were nulliparous during the pandemic than earlier (92.7% vs. 80.4%; P = .002).

The distribution of menstrual cycle lengths didn’t differ, with both cohorts averaging about 30 days (P = .893). However, while 90% of the women in the earlier cohort ovulated normally, only 37% did during the pandemic, a highly significant difference (P < .0001).

Thus, during the pandemic, 63% of women had “silent ovulatory disturbances,” either with short luteal phases after ovulation or no ovulation, compared with just 10% in the earlier cohort, “which is remarkable, unbelievable actually,” Dr. Prior remarked.  

The difference wasn’t explained by any of the demographic information collected either, including socioeconomic status, lifestyle, or reproductive history variables.

And it wasn’t because of COVID-19 vaccination, as the vaccine wasn’t available when most of the women were recruited, and of the 79 who were recruited during vaccine availability, only two received a COVID-19 vaccine during the study (and both had normal ovulation).

Employment changes, caring responsibilities, and worry likely causes

The information from the diaries was more revealing. Several diary components were far more common during the pandemic, including negative mood (feeling depressed or anxious, sleep problems, and outside stresses), self-worth, interest in sex, energy level, and appetite. All were significantly different between the two cohorts (P < .001) and between those with and without ovulatory disturbances.

“So menstrual cycle lengths and long cycles didn’t differ, but there was a much higher prevalence of silent or subclinical ovulatory disturbances, and these were related to the increased stresses that women recorded in their diaries. This means that the estrogen levels were pretty close to normal but the progesterone levels were remarkably decreased,” Dr. Prior said.

Interestingly, reported menstrual cramps were also significantly more common during the pandemic and associated with ovulatory disruption.

“That is a new observation because previously we’ve always thought that you needed to ovulate in order to even have cramps,” she commented.

Asked whether COVID-19 itself might have played a role, Dr. Prior said no woman in the study tested positive for the virus or had long COVID.

“As far as I’m aware, it was the changes in employment … and caring for elders and worry about illness in somebody you loved that was related,” she said.

Asked what she thinks the result would be if the study were conducted now, she said: “I don’t know. We’re still in a stressful time with inflation and not complete recovery, so probably the issue is still very present.”

Dr. Prior and Dr. Neal-Perry have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

ATLANTA – Disturbances in ovulation that didn’t produce any actual changes in the menstrual cycle of women were extremely common during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and were linked to emotional stress, according to the findings of an “experiment of nature” that allowed for comparison with women a decade earlier.

Findings from two studies of reproductive-age women, one conducted in 2006-2008 and the other in 2020-2021, were presented by Jerilynn C. Prior, MD, at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

The comparison of the two time periods yielded several novel findings. “I was taught in medical school that when women don’t eat enough they lose their period. But what we now understand is there’s a graded response to various stressors, acting through the hypothalamus in a common pathway. There is a gradation of disturbances, some of which are subclinical or not obvious,” said Dr. Prior, professor of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

Moreover, women’s menstrual cycle lengths didn’t differ across the two time periods, despite a dramatic 63% decrement in normal ovulatory function related to increased depression, anxiety, and outside stresses that the women reported in diaries.

“Assuming that regular cycles need normal ovulation is something we should just get out of our minds. It changes our concept about what’s normal if we only know about the cycle length,” she observed.

It will be critical going forward to see whether the ovulatory disturbances have resolved as the pandemic has shifted “because there’s strong evidence that ovulatory disturbances, even with normal cycle length, are related to bone loss and some evidence it’s related to early heart attacks, breast and endometrial cancers,” Dr. Prior said during a press conference.

Lisa Nainggolan/MDedge News

Asked to comment, session moderator Genevieve Neal-Perry, MD, PhD, told this news organization: “I think what we can take away is that stress itself is a modifier of the way the brain and the gonads communicate with each other, and that then has an impact on ovulatory function.”

Dr. Neal-Perry noted that the association of stress and ovulatory disruption has been reported in various ways previously, but “clearly it doesn’t affect everyone. What we don’t know is who is most susceptible. There have been some studies showing a genetic predisposition and a genetic anomaly that actually makes them more susceptible to the impact of stress on the reproductive system.”

But the lack of data on weight change in the study cohorts is a limitation. “To me one of the more important questions was what was going on with weight. Just looking at a static number doesn’t tell you whether there were changes. We know that weight gain or weight loss can stress the reproductive axis,” noted Dr. Neal-Parry of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
 

‘Experiment of nature’ revealed invisible effect of pandemic stress

The women in both cohorts of the Menstruation Ovulation Study (MOS) were healthy volunteers aged 19-35 years recruited from the metropolitan Vancouver region. All were menstruating monthly and none were taking hormonal birth control. Recruitment for the second cohort had begun just prior to the March 2020 COVID-19 pandemic lockdown.

Interviewer-administered questionnaires (CaMos) covering demographics, socioeconomic status, and reproductive history, and daily diaries kept by the women (menstrual cycle diary) were identical for both cohorts.

Assessments of ovulation differed for the two studies but were cross-validated. For the earlier time period, ovulation was assessed by a threefold increase in follicular-to-luteal urinary progesterone (PdG). For the pandemic-era study, the validated quantitative basal temperature (QBT) method was used.

There were 301 women in the earlier cohort and 125 during the pandemic. Both were an average age of about 29 years and had a body mass index of about 24.3 kg/m² (within the normal range). The pandemic cohort was more racially/ethnically diverse than the earlier one and more in-line with recent census data.

More of the women were nulliparous during the pandemic than earlier (92.7% vs. 80.4%; P = .002).

The distribution of menstrual cycle lengths didn’t differ, with both cohorts averaging about 30 days (P = .893). However, while 90% of the women in the earlier cohort ovulated normally, only 37% did during the pandemic, a highly significant difference (P < .0001).

Thus, during the pandemic, 63% of women had “silent ovulatory disturbances,” either with short luteal phases after ovulation or no ovulation, compared with just 10% in the earlier cohort, “which is remarkable, unbelievable actually,” Dr. Prior remarked.  

The difference wasn’t explained by any of the demographic information collected either, including socioeconomic status, lifestyle, or reproductive history variables.

And it wasn’t because of COVID-19 vaccination, as the vaccine wasn’t available when most of the women were recruited, and of the 79 who were recruited during vaccine availability, only two received a COVID-19 vaccine during the study (and both had normal ovulation).

Employment changes, caring responsibilities, and worry likely causes

The information from the diaries was more revealing. Several diary components were far more common during the pandemic, including negative mood (feeling depressed or anxious, sleep problems, and outside stresses), self-worth, interest in sex, energy level, and appetite. All were significantly different between the two cohorts (P < .001) and between those with and without ovulatory disturbances.

“So menstrual cycle lengths and long cycles didn’t differ, but there was a much higher prevalence of silent or subclinical ovulatory disturbances, and these were related to the increased stresses that women recorded in their diaries. This means that the estrogen levels were pretty close to normal but the progesterone levels were remarkably decreased,” Dr. Prior said.

Interestingly, reported menstrual cramps were also significantly more common during the pandemic and associated with ovulatory disruption.

“That is a new observation because previously we’ve always thought that you needed to ovulate in order to even have cramps,” she commented.

Asked whether COVID-19 itself might have played a role, Dr. Prior said no woman in the study tested positive for the virus or had long COVID.

“As far as I’m aware, it was the changes in employment … and caring for elders and worry about illness in somebody you loved that was related,” she said.

Asked what she thinks the result would be if the study were conducted now, she said: “I don’t know. We’re still in a stressful time with inflation and not complete recovery, so probably the issue is still very present.”

Dr. Prior and Dr. Neal-Perry have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

ATLANTA – Disturbances in ovulation that didn’t produce any actual changes in the menstrual cycle of women were extremely common during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and were linked to emotional stress, according to the findings of an “experiment of nature” that allowed for comparison with women a decade earlier.

Findings from two studies of reproductive-age women, one conducted in 2006-2008 and the other in 2020-2021, were presented by Jerilynn C. Prior, MD, at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

The comparison of the two time periods yielded several novel findings. “I was taught in medical school that when women don’t eat enough they lose their period. But what we now understand is there’s a graded response to various stressors, acting through the hypothalamus in a common pathway. There is a gradation of disturbances, some of which are subclinical or not obvious,” said Dr. Prior, professor of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

Moreover, women’s menstrual cycle lengths didn’t differ across the two time periods, despite a dramatic 63% decrement in normal ovulatory function related to increased depression, anxiety, and outside stresses that the women reported in diaries.

“Assuming that regular cycles need normal ovulation is something we should just get out of our minds. It changes our concept about what’s normal if we only know about the cycle length,” she observed.

It will be critical going forward to see whether the ovulatory disturbances have resolved as the pandemic has shifted “because there’s strong evidence that ovulatory disturbances, even with normal cycle length, are related to bone loss and some evidence it’s related to early heart attacks, breast and endometrial cancers,” Dr. Prior said during a press conference.

Lisa Nainggolan/MDedge News

Asked to comment, session moderator Genevieve Neal-Perry, MD, PhD, told this news organization: “I think what we can take away is that stress itself is a modifier of the way the brain and the gonads communicate with each other, and that then has an impact on ovulatory function.”

Dr. Neal-Perry noted that the association of stress and ovulatory disruption has been reported in various ways previously, but “clearly it doesn’t affect everyone. What we don’t know is who is most susceptible. There have been some studies showing a genetic predisposition and a genetic anomaly that actually makes them more susceptible to the impact of stress on the reproductive system.”

But the lack of data on weight change in the study cohorts is a limitation. “To me one of the more important questions was what was going on with weight. Just looking at a static number doesn’t tell you whether there were changes. We know that weight gain or weight loss can stress the reproductive axis,” noted Dr. Neal-Parry of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
 

‘Experiment of nature’ revealed invisible effect of pandemic stress

The women in both cohorts of the Menstruation Ovulation Study (MOS) were healthy volunteers aged 19-35 years recruited from the metropolitan Vancouver region. All were menstruating monthly and none were taking hormonal birth control. Recruitment for the second cohort had begun just prior to the March 2020 COVID-19 pandemic lockdown.

Interviewer-administered questionnaires (CaMos) covering demographics, socioeconomic status, and reproductive history, and daily diaries kept by the women (menstrual cycle diary) were identical for both cohorts.

Assessments of ovulation differed for the two studies but were cross-validated. For the earlier time period, ovulation was assessed by a threefold increase in follicular-to-luteal urinary progesterone (PdG). For the pandemic-era study, the validated quantitative basal temperature (QBT) method was used.

There were 301 women in the earlier cohort and 125 during the pandemic. Both were an average age of about 29 years and had a body mass index of about 24.3 kg/m² (within the normal range). The pandemic cohort was more racially/ethnically diverse than the earlier one and more in-line with recent census data.

More of the women were nulliparous during the pandemic than earlier (92.7% vs. 80.4%; P = .002).

The distribution of menstrual cycle lengths didn’t differ, with both cohorts averaging about 30 days (P = .893). However, while 90% of the women in the earlier cohort ovulated normally, only 37% did during the pandemic, a highly significant difference (P < .0001).

Thus, during the pandemic, 63% of women had “silent ovulatory disturbances,” either with short luteal phases after ovulation or no ovulation, compared with just 10% in the earlier cohort, “which is remarkable, unbelievable actually,” Dr. Prior remarked.  

The difference wasn’t explained by any of the demographic information collected either, including socioeconomic status, lifestyle, or reproductive history variables.

And it wasn’t because of COVID-19 vaccination, as the vaccine wasn’t available when most of the women were recruited, and of the 79 who were recruited during vaccine availability, only two received a COVID-19 vaccine during the study (and both had normal ovulation).

Employment changes, caring responsibilities, and worry likely causes

The information from the diaries was more revealing. Several diary components were far more common during the pandemic, including negative mood (feeling depressed or anxious, sleep problems, and outside stresses), self-worth, interest in sex, energy level, and appetite. All were significantly different between the two cohorts (P < .001) and between those with and without ovulatory disturbances.

“So menstrual cycle lengths and long cycles didn’t differ, but there was a much higher prevalence of silent or subclinical ovulatory disturbances, and these were related to the increased stresses that women recorded in their diaries. This means that the estrogen levels were pretty close to normal but the progesterone levels were remarkably decreased,” Dr. Prior said.

Interestingly, reported menstrual cramps were also significantly more common during the pandemic and associated with ovulatory disruption.

“That is a new observation because previously we’ve always thought that you needed to ovulate in order to even have cramps,” she commented.

Asked whether COVID-19 itself might have played a role, Dr. Prior said no woman in the study tested positive for the virus or had long COVID.

“As far as I’m aware, it was the changes in employment … and caring for elders and worry about illness in somebody you loved that was related,” she said.

Asked what she thinks the result would be if the study were conducted now, she said: “I don’t know. We’re still in a stressful time with inflation and not complete recovery, so probably the issue is still very present.”

Dr. Prior and Dr. Neal-Perry have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – The COVID pandemic left hospitalist Ngozi Nwankwo, MD, with the most difficult patient interactions she had ever experienced.

“At my hospital, it was such a big thing to make sure that families are called,” said Dr. Nwankwo, in an interview following a session on compassionate communication at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians. “So you have 19 patients, and you have to call almost every family to update them. And then you call, and they say, ‘Call this person as well.’ You feel like you’re at your wit’s end a lot of times.”

Sometimes, she has had to dig deep to find the empathy for patients that she knows her patients deserve.

“You really want to care by thinking about where is this patient coming from? What’s going on in their lives? And not just label them a difficult patient,” she said.

Become curious

Auguste Fortin, MD, MPH, offered advice for handling patient interactions under these kinds of circumstances, while serving as a moderator during the session.

“When the going gets tough, turn to wonder.” Become curious about why a patient might be feeling the way they are, he said.

Dr. Fortin, professor of internal medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said using the ADOBE acronym, has helped him more effectively communicate with his patients. This tool cues him to keep the following in mind: acknowledge, discover, opportunity, boundary setting, and extend.

He went on to explain to the audience why thinking about these terms is useful when interacting with patients.

First, acknowledge the feelings of the patient. Noting that a patient is angry, perhaps counterintuitively, helps, he said. In fact, not acknowledging the anger “throws gasoline on the fire.”

Then, discover the cause of their emotion. Saying "tell me more" and "help me understand" can be powerful tools, he noted.

Next, take this as an opportunity for empathy – especially important to remember when you’re being verbally attacked.

Boundary setting is important, because it lets the patient know that the conversation won’t continue unless they show the same respect the physician is showing, he said.

Finally, physicians can extend the system of support by asking others – such as colleagues or security – for help.

Use the NURS guide to show empathy

Dr. Fortin said he uses the “NURS” guide or calling to mind “name, express, respect, and support” to show empathy:

This involves naming a patient’s emotion; expressing understanding, with phrases like "I can see how you could be …"; showing respect, acknowledging a patient is going through a lot; and offering support, by saying something like, "Let’s see what we can do together to get to the bottom of this," he explained.

“My lived experience in using [these] in this order is that by the end of it, the patient cannot stay mad at me,” Dr. Fortin said.

“It’s really quite remarkable,” he added.

Steps for nonviolent communication

Rebecca Andrews, MD, MS, another moderator for the session, offered these steps for “nonviolent communication”:

• Observing the situation without blame or judgment.
• Telling the person how this situation makes you feel.
• Connecting with a need of the other person.
• Making a request that is specific and based on action, rather than a request not to do something, such as "Would you be willing to … ?"

Dr. Andrews, who is professor of medicine at the University of Connecticut, Farmington, said this approach has worked well for her, both in interactions with patients and in her personal life.

“It is evidence based that compassion actually makes care better,” she noted.

Varun Jain, MD, a member of the audience, expressed gratitude to the session’s speakers for teaching him something that he had not learned in medical school or residency.

“Every week you will have one or two people who will be labeled as ‘difficult,’ ” and it was nice to have some proven advice on how to handle these tough interactions, said the hospitalist at St. Francis Hospital in Hartford, Conn.

“We never got any actual training on this, and we were expected to know this because we are just physicians, and physicians are expected to be compassionate,” Dr. Jain said. “No one taught us how to have compassion.”

Dr. Fortin and Dr. Andrews disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

CHICAGO – The COVID pandemic left hospitalist Ngozi Nwankwo, MD, with the most difficult patient interactions she had ever experienced.

“At my hospital, it was such a big thing to make sure that families are called,” said Dr. Nwankwo, in an interview following a session on compassionate communication at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians. “So you have 19 patients, and you have to call almost every family to update them. And then you call, and they say, ‘Call this person as well.’ You feel like you’re at your wit’s end a lot of times.”

Sometimes, she has had to dig deep to find the empathy for patients that she knows her patients deserve.

“You really want to care by thinking about where is this patient coming from? What’s going on in their lives? And not just label them a difficult patient,” she said.

Become curious

Auguste Fortin, MD, MPH, offered advice for handling patient interactions under these kinds of circumstances, while serving as a moderator during the session.

“When the going gets tough, turn to wonder.” Become curious about why a patient might be feeling the way they are, he said.

Dr. Fortin, professor of internal medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said using the ADOBE acronym, has helped him more effectively communicate with his patients. This tool cues him to keep the following in mind: acknowledge, discover, opportunity, boundary setting, and extend.

He went on to explain to the audience why thinking about these terms is useful when interacting with patients.

First, acknowledge the feelings of the patient. Noting that a patient is angry, perhaps counterintuitively, helps, he said. In fact, not acknowledging the anger “throws gasoline on the fire.”

Then, discover the cause of their emotion. Saying "tell me more" and "help me understand" can be powerful tools, he noted.

Next, take this as an opportunity for empathy – especially important to remember when you’re being verbally attacked.

Boundary setting is important, because it lets the patient know that the conversation won’t continue unless they show the same respect the physician is showing, he said.

Finally, physicians can extend the system of support by asking others – such as colleagues or security – for help.

Use the NURS guide to show empathy

Dr. Fortin said he uses the “NURS” guide or calling to mind “name, express, respect, and support” to show empathy:

This involves naming a patient’s emotion; expressing understanding, with phrases like "I can see how you could be …"; showing respect, acknowledging a patient is going through a lot; and offering support, by saying something like, "Let’s see what we can do together to get to the bottom of this," he explained.

“My lived experience in using [these] in this order is that by the end of it, the patient cannot stay mad at me,” Dr. Fortin said.

“It’s really quite remarkable,” he added.

Steps for nonviolent communication

Rebecca Andrews, MD, MS, another moderator for the session, offered these steps for “nonviolent communication”:

• Observing the situation without blame or judgment.
• Telling the person how this situation makes you feel.
• Connecting with a need of the other person.
• Making a request that is specific and based on action, rather than a request not to do something, such as "Would you be willing to … ?"

Dr. Andrews, who is professor of medicine at the University of Connecticut, Farmington, said this approach has worked well for her, both in interactions with patients and in her personal life.

“It is evidence based that compassion actually makes care better,” she noted.

Varun Jain, MD, a member of the audience, expressed gratitude to the session’s speakers for teaching him something that he had not learned in medical school or residency.

“Every week you will have one or two people who will be labeled as ‘difficult,’ ” and it was nice to have some proven advice on how to handle these tough interactions, said the hospitalist at St. Francis Hospital in Hartford, Conn.

“We never got any actual training on this, and we were expected to know this because we are just physicians, and physicians are expected to be compassionate,” Dr. Jain said. “No one taught us how to have compassion.”

Dr. Fortin and Dr. Andrews disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

CHICAGO – The COVID pandemic left hospitalist Ngozi Nwankwo, MD, with the most difficult patient interactions she had ever experienced.

“At my hospital, it was such a big thing to make sure that families are called,” said Dr. Nwankwo, in an interview following a session on compassionate communication at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians. “So you have 19 patients, and you have to call almost every family to update them. And then you call, and they say, ‘Call this person as well.’ You feel like you’re at your wit’s end a lot of times.”

Sometimes, she has had to dig deep to find the empathy for patients that she knows her patients deserve.

“You really want to care by thinking about where is this patient coming from? What’s going on in their lives? And not just label them a difficult patient,” she said.

Become curious

Auguste Fortin, MD, MPH, offered advice for handling patient interactions under these kinds of circumstances, while serving as a moderator during the session.

“When the going gets tough, turn to wonder.” Become curious about why a patient might be feeling the way they are, he said.

Dr. Fortin, professor of internal medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said using the ADOBE acronym, has helped him more effectively communicate with his patients. This tool cues him to keep the following in mind: acknowledge, discover, opportunity, boundary setting, and extend.

He went on to explain to the audience why thinking about these terms is useful when interacting with patients.

First, acknowledge the feelings of the patient. Noting that a patient is angry, perhaps counterintuitively, helps, he said. In fact, not acknowledging the anger “throws gasoline on the fire.”

Then, discover the cause of their emotion. Saying "tell me more" and "help me understand" can be powerful tools, he noted.

Next, take this as an opportunity for empathy – especially important to remember when you’re being verbally attacked.

Boundary setting is important, because it lets the patient know that the conversation won’t continue unless they show the same respect the physician is showing, he said.

Finally, physicians can extend the system of support by asking others – such as colleagues or security – for help.

Use the NURS guide to show empathy

Dr. Fortin said he uses the “NURS” guide or calling to mind “name, express, respect, and support” to show empathy:

This involves naming a patient’s emotion; expressing understanding, with phrases like "I can see how you could be …"; showing respect, acknowledging a patient is going through a lot; and offering support, by saying something like, "Let’s see what we can do together to get to the bottom of this," he explained.

“My lived experience in using [these] in this order is that by the end of it, the patient cannot stay mad at me,” Dr. Fortin said.

“It’s really quite remarkable,” he added.

Steps for nonviolent communication

Rebecca Andrews, MD, MS, another moderator for the session, offered these steps for “nonviolent communication”:

• Observing the situation without blame or judgment.
• Telling the person how this situation makes you feel.
• Connecting with a need of the other person.
• Making a request that is specific and based on action, rather than a request not to do something, such as "Would you be willing to … ?"

Dr. Andrews, who is professor of medicine at the University of Connecticut, Farmington, said this approach has worked well for her, both in interactions with patients and in her personal life.

“It is evidence based that compassion actually makes care better,” she noted.

Varun Jain, MD, a member of the audience, expressed gratitude to the session’s speakers for teaching him something that he had not learned in medical school or residency.

“Every week you will have one or two people who will be labeled as ‘difficult,’ ” and it was nice to have some proven advice on how to handle these tough interactions, said the hospitalist at St. Francis Hospital in Hartford, Conn.

“We never got any actual training on this, and we were expected to know this because we are just physicians, and physicians are expected to be compassionate,” Dr. Jain said. “No one taught us how to have compassion.”

Dr. Fortin and Dr. Andrews disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

West Virginia will use the U.S. Postal Service and an online account in the summer of 2022 to connect with Medicaid enrollees about the expected end of the COVID public health emergency, which will put many recipients at risk of losing their coverage.

What West Virginia won’t do is use a form of communication that’s ubiquitous worldwide: text messaging.

“West Virginia isn’t set up to text its members,” Allison Adler, the state’s Medicaid spokesperson, wrote to KHN in an email.

Indeed, most states’ Medicaid programs won’t text enrollees despite the urgency to reach them about renewing their coverage. A KFF report published in March found just 11 states said they would use texting to alert Medicaid recipients about the end of the COVID public health emergency. In contrast, 33 states plan to use snail mail and at least 20 will reach out with individual or automated phone calls.

“It doesn’t make any sense when texting is how most people communicate today,” said Kinda Serafi, a partner with the consulting firm Manatt Health.

State Medicaid agencies for months have been preparing for the end of the public health emergency. As part of a COVID relief law approved in March 2020, Congress prohibited states from dropping anyone from Medicaid coverage unless they moved out of state during the public health emergency. When the emergency ends, state Medicaid officials must reevaluate each enrollee’s eligibility. Millions of people could lose their coverage if they earn too much or fail to provide the information needed to verify income or residency.

As of November, about 86 million people were enrolled in Medicaid, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. That’s up from 71 million in February 2020, before COVID began to ravage the nation.

West Virginia has more than 600,000 Medicaid enrollees. Adler said about 100,000 of them could lose their eligibility at the end of the public health emergency because either the state has determined they’re ineligible or they’ve failed to respond to requests that they update their income information.

“It’s frustrating that texting is a means to meet people where they are and that this has not been picked up more by states,” said Jennifer Wagner, director of Medicaid eligibility and enrollment for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington-based research group.

The problem with relying on the Postal Service is that a letter can get hidden in “junk” mail or can fail to reach people who have moved or are homeless, Ms. Serafi said. And email, if people have an account, can end up in spam folders.

In contrast, surveys show lower-income Americans are just as likely to have smartphones and cellphones as the general population. And most people regularly use texting.

In Michigan, Medicaid officials started using text messaging to communicate with enrollees in 2020 after building a system with the help of federal COVID relief funding. They said texting is an economical way to reach enrollees.

“It costs us 2 cents per text message, which is incredibly cheap,” said Steph White, an enrollment coordinator for the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. “It’s a great return on investment.”

CMS officials have told states they should consider texting, along with other communication methods, when trying to reach enrollees when the public health emergency ends. But many states don’t have the technology or information about enrollees to do it.

Efforts to add texting also face legal barriers, including a federal law that bars texting people without their consent. The Federal Communications Commission ruled in 2021 that state agencies are exempt from the law, but whether counties that handle Medicaid duties for some states and Medicaid managed-care organizations that work in more than 40 states are exempt as well is unclear, said Matt Salo, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors.

CMS spokesperson Beth Lynk said the agency is trying to figure out how Medicaid agencies, counties, and health plans can text enrollees within the constraints of federal law.

Several states told KHN that Medicaid health plans will be helping connect with enrollees and that they expect the plans to use text messaging. But the requirement to get consent from enrollees before texting could limit that effort.

That’s the situation in Virginia, where only about 30,000 Medicaid enrollees – out of more than a million – have agreed to receive text messages directly from the state, said spokesperson Christina Nuckols.

In an effort to boost that number, the state plans to ask enrollees if they want to opt out of receiving text messages, rather than ask them to opt in, she said. This way enrollees would contact the state only if they don’t want to be texted. The state is reviewing its legal options to make that happen.

Meanwhile, Ms. Nuckols added, the state expects Medicaid health plans to contact enrollees about updating their contact information. Four of Virginia’s six Medicaid plans, which serve the bulk of the state’s enrollees, have permission to text about 316,000.

Craig Kennedy, CEO of Medicaid Health Plans of America, a trade group, said that most plans are using texting and that Medicaid officials will use multiple strategies to connect with enrollees. “I do not see this as a detriment, that states are not texting information about reenrollment,” he said. “I know we will be helping with that.”

California officials in March directed Medicaid health plans to use a variety of communication methods, including texting, to ensure that members can retain coverage if they remain eligible. The officials told health plans they could ask for consent through an initial text.

California officials say they also plan to ask enrollees for consent to be texted on the enrollment application, although federal approval for the change is not expected until the fall.

A few state Medicaid programs have experimented in recent years with pilot programs that included texting enrollees.

In 2019, Louisiana worked with the nonprofit group Code for America to send text messages that reminded people about renewing coverage and providing income information for verification. Compared with traditional communication methods, the texts led to a 67% increase in enrollees being renewed for coverage and a 56% increase in enrollees verifying their income in response to inquiries, said Medicaid spokesperson Alyson Neel.

Nonetheless, the state isn’t planning to text Medicaid enrollees about the end of the public health emergency because it hasn’t set up a system for that. “Medicaid has not yet been able to implement a text messaging system of its own due to other agency priorities,” Ms. Neel said.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

West Virginia will use the U.S. Postal Service and an online account in the summer of 2022 to connect with Medicaid enrollees about the expected end of the COVID public health emergency, which will put many recipients at risk of losing their coverage.

What West Virginia won’t do is use a form of communication that’s ubiquitous worldwide: text messaging.

“West Virginia isn’t set up to text its members,” Allison Adler, the state’s Medicaid spokesperson, wrote to KHN in an email.

Indeed, most states’ Medicaid programs won’t text enrollees despite the urgency to reach them about renewing their coverage. A KFF report published in March found just 11 states said they would use texting to alert Medicaid recipients about the end of the COVID public health emergency. In contrast, 33 states plan to use snail mail and at least 20 will reach out with individual or automated phone calls.

“It doesn’t make any sense when texting is how most people communicate today,” said Kinda Serafi, a partner with the consulting firm Manatt Health.

State Medicaid agencies for months have been preparing for the end of the public health emergency. As part of a COVID relief law approved in March 2020, Congress prohibited states from dropping anyone from Medicaid coverage unless they moved out of state during the public health emergency. When the emergency ends, state Medicaid officials must reevaluate each enrollee’s eligibility. Millions of people could lose their coverage if they earn too much or fail to provide the information needed to verify income or residency.

As of November, about 86 million people were enrolled in Medicaid, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. That’s up from 71 million in February 2020, before COVID began to ravage the nation.

West Virginia has more than 600,000 Medicaid enrollees. Adler said about 100,000 of them could lose their eligibility at the end of the public health emergency because either the state has determined they’re ineligible or they’ve failed to respond to requests that they update their income information.

“It’s frustrating that texting is a means to meet people where they are and that this has not been picked up more by states,” said Jennifer Wagner, director of Medicaid eligibility and enrollment for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington-based research group.

The problem with relying on the Postal Service is that a letter can get hidden in “junk” mail or can fail to reach people who have moved or are homeless, Ms. Serafi said. And email, if people have an account, can end up in spam folders.

In contrast, surveys show lower-income Americans are just as likely to have smartphones and cellphones as the general population. And most people regularly use texting.

In Michigan, Medicaid officials started using text messaging to communicate with enrollees in 2020 after building a system with the help of federal COVID relief funding. They said texting is an economical way to reach enrollees.

“It costs us 2 cents per text message, which is incredibly cheap,” said Steph White, an enrollment coordinator for the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. “It’s a great return on investment.”

CMS officials have told states they should consider texting, along with other communication methods, when trying to reach enrollees when the public health emergency ends. But many states don’t have the technology or information about enrollees to do it.

Efforts to add texting also face legal barriers, including a federal law that bars texting people without their consent. The Federal Communications Commission ruled in 2021 that state agencies are exempt from the law, but whether counties that handle Medicaid duties for some states and Medicaid managed-care organizations that work in more than 40 states are exempt as well is unclear, said Matt Salo, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors.

CMS spokesperson Beth Lynk said the agency is trying to figure out how Medicaid agencies, counties, and health plans can text enrollees within the constraints of federal law.

Several states told KHN that Medicaid health plans will be helping connect with enrollees and that they expect the plans to use text messaging. But the requirement to get consent from enrollees before texting could limit that effort.

That’s the situation in Virginia, where only about 30,000 Medicaid enrollees – out of more than a million – have agreed to receive text messages directly from the state, said spokesperson Christina Nuckols.

In an effort to boost that number, the state plans to ask enrollees if they want to opt out of receiving text messages, rather than ask them to opt in, she said. This way enrollees would contact the state only if they don’t want to be texted. The state is reviewing its legal options to make that happen.

Meanwhile, Ms. Nuckols added, the state expects Medicaid health plans to contact enrollees about updating their contact information. Four of Virginia’s six Medicaid plans, which serve the bulk of the state’s enrollees, have permission to text about 316,000.

Craig Kennedy, CEO of Medicaid Health Plans of America, a trade group, said that most plans are using texting and that Medicaid officials will use multiple strategies to connect with enrollees. “I do not see this as a detriment, that states are not texting information about reenrollment,” he said. “I know we will be helping with that.”

California officials in March directed Medicaid health plans to use a variety of communication methods, including texting, to ensure that members can retain coverage if they remain eligible. The officials told health plans they could ask for consent through an initial text.

California officials say they also plan to ask enrollees for consent to be texted on the enrollment application, although federal approval for the change is not expected until the fall.

A few state Medicaid programs have experimented in recent years with pilot programs that included texting enrollees.

In 2019, Louisiana worked with the nonprofit group Code for America to send text messages that reminded people about renewing coverage and providing income information for verification. Compared with traditional communication methods, the texts led to a 67% increase in enrollees being renewed for coverage and a 56% increase in enrollees verifying their income in response to inquiries, said Medicaid spokesperson Alyson Neel.

Nonetheless, the state isn’t planning to text Medicaid enrollees about the end of the public health emergency because it hasn’t set up a system for that. “Medicaid has not yet been able to implement a text messaging system of its own due to other agency priorities,” Ms. Neel said.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

West Virginia will use the U.S. Postal Service and an online account in the summer of 2022 to connect with Medicaid enrollees about the expected end of the COVID public health emergency, which will put many recipients at risk of losing their coverage.

What West Virginia won’t do is use a form of communication that’s ubiquitous worldwide: text messaging.

“West Virginia isn’t set up to text its members,” Allison Adler, the state’s Medicaid spokesperson, wrote to KHN in an email.

Indeed, most states’ Medicaid programs won’t text enrollees despite the urgency to reach them about renewing their coverage. A KFF report published in March found just 11 states said they would use texting to alert Medicaid recipients about the end of the COVID public health emergency. In contrast, 33 states plan to use snail mail and at least 20 will reach out with individual or automated phone calls.

“It doesn’t make any sense when texting is how most people communicate today,” said Kinda Serafi, a partner with the consulting firm Manatt Health.

State Medicaid agencies for months have been preparing for the end of the public health emergency. As part of a COVID relief law approved in March 2020, Congress prohibited states from dropping anyone from Medicaid coverage unless they moved out of state during the public health emergency. When the emergency ends, state Medicaid officials must reevaluate each enrollee’s eligibility. Millions of people could lose their coverage if they earn too much or fail to provide the information needed to verify income or residency.

As of November, about 86 million people were enrolled in Medicaid, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. That’s up from 71 million in February 2020, before COVID began to ravage the nation.

West Virginia has more than 600,000 Medicaid enrollees. Adler said about 100,000 of them could lose their eligibility at the end of the public health emergency because either the state has determined they’re ineligible or they’ve failed to respond to requests that they update their income information.

“It’s frustrating that texting is a means to meet people where they are and that this has not been picked up more by states,” said Jennifer Wagner, director of Medicaid eligibility and enrollment for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington-based research group.

The problem with relying on the Postal Service is that a letter can get hidden in “junk” mail or can fail to reach people who have moved or are homeless, Ms. Serafi said. And email, if people have an account, can end up in spam folders.

In contrast, surveys show lower-income Americans are just as likely to have smartphones and cellphones as the general population. And most people regularly use texting.

In Michigan, Medicaid officials started using text messaging to communicate with enrollees in 2020 after building a system with the help of federal COVID relief funding. They said texting is an economical way to reach enrollees.

“It costs us 2 cents per text message, which is incredibly cheap,” said Steph White, an enrollment coordinator for the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. “It’s a great return on investment.”

CMS officials have told states they should consider texting, along with other communication methods, when trying to reach enrollees when the public health emergency ends. But many states don’t have the technology or information about enrollees to do it.

Efforts to add texting also face legal barriers, including a federal law that bars texting people without their consent. The Federal Communications Commission ruled in 2021 that state agencies are exempt from the law, but whether counties that handle Medicaid duties for some states and Medicaid managed-care organizations that work in more than 40 states are exempt as well is unclear, said Matt Salo, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors.

CMS spokesperson Beth Lynk said the agency is trying to figure out how Medicaid agencies, counties, and health plans can text enrollees within the constraints of federal law.

Several states told KHN that Medicaid health plans will be helping connect with enrollees and that they expect the plans to use text messaging. But the requirement to get consent from enrollees before texting could limit that effort.

That’s the situation in Virginia, where only about 30,000 Medicaid enrollees – out of more than a million – have agreed to receive text messages directly from the state, said spokesperson Christina Nuckols.

In an effort to boost that number, the state plans to ask enrollees if they want to opt out of receiving text messages, rather than ask them to opt in, she said. This way enrollees would contact the state only if they don’t want to be texted. The state is reviewing its legal options to make that happen.

Meanwhile, Ms. Nuckols added, the state expects Medicaid health plans to contact enrollees about updating their contact information. Four of Virginia’s six Medicaid plans, which serve the bulk of the state’s enrollees, have permission to text about 316,000.

Craig Kennedy, CEO of Medicaid Health Plans of America, a trade group, said that most plans are using texting and that Medicaid officials will use multiple strategies to connect with enrollees. “I do not see this as a detriment, that states are not texting information about reenrollment,” he said. “I know we will be helping with that.”

California officials in March directed Medicaid health plans to use a variety of communication methods, including texting, to ensure that members can retain coverage if they remain eligible. The officials told health plans they could ask for consent through an initial text.

California officials say they also plan to ask enrollees for consent to be texted on the enrollment application, although federal approval for the change is not expected until the fall.

A few state Medicaid programs have experimented in recent years with pilot programs that included texting enrollees.

In 2019, Louisiana worked with the nonprofit group Code for America to send text messages that reminded people about renewing coverage and providing income information for verification. Compared with traditional communication methods, the texts led to a 67% increase in enrollees being renewed for coverage and a 56% increase in enrollees verifying their income in response to inquiries, said Medicaid spokesperson Alyson Neel.

Nonetheless, the state isn’t planning to text Medicaid enrollees about the end of the public health emergency because it hasn’t set up a system for that. “Medicaid has not yet been able to implement a text messaging system of its own due to other agency priorities,” Ms. Neel said.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

In recent years, direct-to-consumer (DTC) teledermatology platforms have gained popularity as telehealth business models, allowing patients to directly initiate visits with physicians and purchase medications from single platforms. A shortage of dermatologists, improved technology, drug patent expirations, and rising health care costs accelerated the growth of DTC dermatology.¹ During the COVID-19 pandemic, teledermatology adoption surged due to the need to provide care while social distancing and minimizing viral exposure. These needs prompted additional federal funding and loosened regulatory provisions.² As the userbase of these companies has grown, so have their valuations.³ Although the DTC model has attracted the attention of patients and investors, its rise provokes many questions about patients acting as consumers in health care. Indeed, DTC telemedicine offers greater autonomy and convenience for patients, but it may impact the quality of care and the nature of physician-patient relationships, perhaps making them more transactional.

Evolution of DTC in Health Care

The DTC model emphasizes individual choice and accessible health care. Although the definition has evolved, the core idea is not new.⁴ Over decades, pharmaceutical companies have spent billions of dollars on DTC advertising, circumventing physicians by directly reaching patients with campaigns on prescription drugs and laboratory tests and shaping public definitions of diseases.⁵

The DTC model of care is fundamentally different from traditional care models in that it changes the roles of the patient and physician. Whereas early telehealth models required a health care provider to initiate teleconsultations with specialists, DTC telemedicine bypasses this step (eg, the patient can consult a dermatologist without needing a primary care provider’s input first). This care can then be provided by dermatologists with whom patients may or may not have pre-established relationships.^4,6

Dermatology was an early adopter of DTC telemedicine. The shortage of dermatologists in the United States created demand for increasing accessibility to dermatologic care. Additionally, the visual nature of diagnosing dermatologic disease was ideal for platforms supporting image sharing.⁷ Early DTC providers were primarily individual companies offering teledermatology. However, many dermatologists can now offer DTC capabilities via companies such as Amwell and Teladoc Health.⁸

Over the last 2 decades, start-ups such as Warby Parker (eyeglasses) and Casper (mattresses) defined the DTC industry using borrowed supply chains, cohesive branding, heavy social media marketing, and web-only retail. Scalability, lack of competition, and abundant venture capital created competition across numerous markets.⁹ Health care capitalized on this DTC model, creating a $700 billion market for products ranging from hearing aids to over-the-counter medications.¹⁰

Borrowing from this DTC playbook, platforms were created to offer delivery of generic prescription drugs to patients’ doorsteps. However, unlike with other products bought online, a consumer cannot simply add prescription drugs to their shopping cart and check out. In all models of American medical practice, physicians still serve as gatekeepers, providing a safeguard for patients to ensure appropriate prescription and avoid negative consequences of unnecessary drug use. This new model effectively streamlines diagnosis, prescription, and drug delivery without the patient ever having to leave home. Combining the prescribing and selling of medications (2 tasks that traditionally have been separated) potentially creates financial conflicts of interest (COIs). Additionally, high utilization of health care, including more prescriptions and visits, does not necessarily equal high quality of care. The companies stand to benefit from extra care regardless of need, and thus these models must be scrutinized for any incentives driving unnecessary care and prescriptions.

Ultimately, DTC has evolved to encompass multiple definitions in health care (Table 1). Although all models provide health care, each offers a different modality of delivery. The primary service may be the sale of prescription drugs or simply telemedicine visits. This review primarily discusses DTC pharmaceutical telemedicine platforms that sell private-label drugs and also offer telemedicine services to streamline care. However, the history, risks, and benefits discussed may apply to all models.

The DTC Landscape

Most DTC companies employ variations on a model with the same 3 main components: a triage questionnaire, telehealth services, and prescription/drug delivery (Figure). The triage questionnaire elicits a history of the patient’s presentation and medical history. Some companies may use artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms to tailor questions to patient needs. There are 2 modalities for patient-provider communication: synchronous and asynchronous. Synchronous communication entails real-time patient-physician conversations via audio only or video call. Asynchronous (or store-and-forward) communication refers to consultations provided via messaging or text-based modality, where a provider may respond to a patient within 24 hours.⁶ Direct-to-consumer platforms primarily use asynchronous visits (Table 2). However, some also use synchronous modalities if the provider deems it necessary or if state laws require it.

Once a provider has consulted with the patient, they can prescribe medication as needed. In certain cases, with adequate history, a prescription may be issued without a full physician visit. Furthermore, DTC companies require purchase of their custom-branded generic drugs. Prescriptions are fulfilled by the company’s pharmacy network and directly shipped to patients; few will allow patients to transfer a prescription to a pharmacy of their choice. Some platforms also sell supplements and over-the-counter medications.

Payment models vary among these companies, and most do not accept insurance (Table 2). Select models may provide free consultations and only require payment for pharmaceuticals. Others charge for consultations but reallocate payment to the cost of medication if prescribed. Another model involves flat rates for consultations and additional charges for drugs but unlimited messaging with providers for the duration of the prescription. Moreover, patients can subscribe to monthly deliveries of their medications.

Foundation of DTC

Technological advances have enabled patients to receive remote treatment from a single platform offering video calls, AI, electronic medical record interoperability, and integration of drug supply chains. Even in its simplest form, AI is increasingly used, as it allows for programs and chatbots to screen and triage patients.¹¹ Technology also has improved at targeted mass marketing through social media platforms and search engines (eg, companies can use age, interests, location, and other parameters to target individuals likely needing acne treatment).

Drug patent expirations are a key catalyst for the rise of DTC companies, creating an attractive business model with generic drugs as the core product. Since 2008, patents for medications treating chronic conditions, such as erectile dysfunction, have expired. These patent expirations are responsible for $198 billion in projected prescription sales between 2019 and 2024.¹ Thus, it follows that DTC companies have seized this opportunity to act as middlemen, taking advantage of these generic medications’ lower costs to create platforms focused on personalization and accessibility.

Rising deductibles have led patients to consider cheaper out-of-pocket alternatives that are not covered by insurance.¹ For example, insurers typically do not cover finasteride treatment for conditions deemed cosmetic, such as androgenetic alopecia.¹² The low cost of generic drugs creates an attractive business model for patients and investors. According to GoodRx, the average retail price for a 30-day supply of brand-name finasteride (Propecia [Merck]) is $135.92, whereas generic finasteride is $75.24.¹³ Direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical companies offer a 30-day supply of generic finasteride ranging from $8.33 to $30.¹⁴ The average wholesale cost for retailers is an estimated $2.31 for 30 days.¹⁵ Although profit margins on generic medications may be lower, more affordable drugs increase the size of the total market. These prescriptions are available as subscription plans, resulting in recurring revenue.

Lax US pharmaceutical marketing regulations allow direct advertising to the general public.¹⁶ In 1997, the US Food and Drug Administration allowed DTC advertisements to replace summaries of serious and common adverse effects with short statements covering important risks or referrals to other sources for complete information. In 2015, the US Food and Drug Administration guidelines preventing encouragement of self-diagnosis and self-treatment were withdrawn.⁵ These changes enable DTC companies to launch large advertising campaigns and to accelerate customer acquisition, as the industry often describes it, with ease.

Rapid Growth and Implications

Increasing generic drug availability and improving telemedicine capabilities have the potential to reduce costs and barriers but also have the potential for financial gain. Venture capital funds have recognized this opportunity, reflected by millions of dollars of investments, and accelerated the growth of DTC health care start-ups. For example, Ro has raised $376 million from venture capital, valuing the company at $1.5 billion.³

Direct-to-consumer companies require a heavy focus on marketing campaigns for customer acquisition. Their aesthetically pleasing websites and aggressive campaigns target specific audiences based on demographics, digital use habits, and purchasing behavior.⁴ Some campaigns celebrate the ease of obtaining prescriptions.¹⁷ Companies have been effective in recruiting so-called millennial and Generation Z patients, known to search the internet for remedies prior to seeking physician consultations.¹⁸ Recognizing these needs, some platforms offer guides on diseases they treat, creating effective customer-acquisition funnels. Recruitment of these technology-friendly patients has proven effective, especially given the largely positive media coverage of DTC platforms––potentially serving as a surrogate for medical credibility for patients.¹⁸

Some DTC companies also market physically; skin care ads may be strategically placed in social media feeds, or even found near mirrors in public bathrooms.¹⁹ Marketing campaigns also involve disease awareness; such efforts serve to increase diagnoses and prescribed treatments while destigmatizing diseases. Although DTC companies argue this strategy empowers patients, these marketing habits have the potential to take advantage of uninformed patients. Campaigns could potentially medicalize normal experiences and expand disease definitions resulting in overdiagnosis, overtreatment, and wasted resources.⁵ For example, off-label propranolol use has been advertised to attract patients who might have “nerves that come creeping before an important presentation.”¹⁷ Disease awareness campaigns also may lead people to falsely believe unproven drug benefits.⁵ According to studies, DTC pharmaceutical advertisements are low in informational quality and result in increased patient visits and prescriptions despite cost-effective alternatives.^5,20-22

Fragmentation of the health care system is another possible complication of DTC teledermatology. These companies operate as for-profit organizations separated from the rest of the health care system, raising concerns about care coordination.⁸ Vital health data may not be conveyed as patients move among different providers and pharmacies. One study found DTC teledermatology rarely offered to provide medical records or facilitate a referral to a local physician.²³ Such a lack of communication is concerning, as medication errors are the leading cause of avoidable harm in health care.²⁴

Direct-to-consumer care models also seemingly redefine the physician-patient relationship by turning patients into consumers. Patient interactions may seem transactional and streamlined toward sales. For these platforms, a visit often is set up as an evaluation of a patient’s suitability for a prescription, not necessarily for the best treatment modality for the problem. These companies primarily make money through the sale of prescription drugs, creating a potential COI that may undermine the patient-physician relationship. Although some companies have made it clear that medical care and pharmaceutical sales are provided by legally separate business entities and that they do not pay physicians on commission, a conflict may still exist given the financial importance of physicians prescribing medication to the success of the business.¹⁶

Even as DTC models advertise upon expanded access and choice, the companies largely prohibit patients from choosing their own pharmacy. Instead, they encourage patients to fill prescriptions with the company’s pharmacy network by claiming lower costs compared with competitors. One DTC company, Hims, is launching a prescription-fulfillment center to further consolidate their business.^17,19,25 The inherent COI of issuing and fulfilling prescriptions raises concerns of patient harm.²⁶ For example, when Dermatology.com launched as a DTC prescription skin medication shop backed by Bausch Health Companies Inc, its model included telemedicine consultation. Although consultations were provided by RxDefine, a third party, only Dermatology.com drugs were prescribed. Given the poor quality of care and obvious financial COI, an uproar in the dermatology community and advocacy by the American Academy of Dermatology led to the shutdown of Dermatology.com’s online prescription services.²⁶

The quality of care among DTC telemedicine platforms has been equivocal. Some studies have reported equivalent care in person and online, while others have reported poor adherence to guidelines, overuse of antibiotics, and misdiagnosis.^8,23 A vital portion of the DTC experience is the history questionnaire, which is geared to diagnosis and risk assessment.²⁵ Resneck et al²³ found diagnostic quality to be adequate for simple dermatologic clinical scenarios but poor for scenarios requiring more than basic histories. Although Ro has reported leveraging data from millions of interactions to ask the right questions and streamline visits, it is still unclear whether history questionnaires are adequate.^17,27 Additionally, consultations may lack sufficient counseling on adverse effects, risks, or pregnancy warnings, as well as discussions on alternative treatments and preventative care.^17,23 Finally, patients often are limited in their choice of dermatologist; the lack of a fully developed relationship increases concerns of follow-up and monitoring practices. Although some DTC platforms offer unlimited interactions with physicians for the duration of a prescription, it is unknown how often these services are utilized or how adequate the quality of these interactions is. This potential for lax follow-up is especially concerning for prescriptions that autorenew on a monthly basis and could result in unnecessary overtreatment.

Postpandemic and Future Outlook

The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically impacted the use of telemedicine. To minimize COVID-19 transmission, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and private payers expanded telehealth coverage and eliminated reimbursement and licensing barriers.²⁸ A decade’s worth of regulatory changes and consumer adoption was accelerated to weeks, resulting in telemedicine companies reaching record-high visit numbers.²⁹ McKinsey & Company estimated that telehealth visit numbers surged 50- to 175-fold compared with pre–COVID-19 numbers. Additionally, 76% of patients were interested in future telehealth use, and 64% of providers were more comfortable using telehealth than before the pandemic.³⁰ For their part, US dermatologists reported an increase in telemedicine use from 14.1% to 96.9% since COVID-19.³¹

Exactly how much DTC pharmaceutical telemedicine companies are growing is unclear, but private investments may be an indication. A record $14.7 billion was invested in the digital health sector in the first half of 2021; the majority went to telehealth companies.³⁰ Ro, which reported $230 million in revenue in 2020 and has served 6 million visits, raised $200 milllion in July 2020 and $500 million in March 2021.³² Although post–COVID-19 health care will certainly involve increased telemedicine, the extent remains unclear, as telehealth vendors saw decreased usage upon reopening of state economies. Ultimately, the postpandemic regulatory landscape is hard to predict.³⁰

Although COVID-19 appears to have caused rapid growth for DTC platforms, it also may have spurred competition. Telemedicine providers have given independent dermatologists and health care systems the infrastructure to implement custom DTC services.³³ Although systems do not directly sell prescription drugs, the target market is essentially the same: patients looking for instant virtual dermatologic care. Therefore, sustained telemedicine services offered by traditional practices and systems may prove detrimental to DTC companies. However, unlike most telemedicine services, DTC models are less affected by certain changes in regulation since they do not rely on insurance. If regulations are tightened and reimbursements for telehealth are not attractive for dermatologists, teledermatology services may see an overall decrease. If so, patients who appreciate teledermatology may shift to using DTC platforms, even if their insurance does not cover them. Still, a nationwide survey found 56% of respondents felt an established relationship with a physician prior to a telemedicine visit is important, which may create a barrier for DTC adoption.³⁴

Conclusion

Direct-to-consumer teledermatology represents a growing for-profit model of health care that provides patients with seemingly affordable and convenient care. However, there is potential for overtreatment, misdiagnosis, and fragmentation of health care. It will be important to monitor and evaluate the quality of care that DTC teledermatology offers and advocate for appropriate regulations and oversight. Eventually, more patients will have medications prescribed and dermatologic care administered through DTC companies. Dermatologists will benefit from this knowledge of DTC models to properly counsel patients on the risks and benefits of their use.

In recent years, direct-to-consumer (DTC) teledermatology platforms have gained popularity as telehealth business models, allowing patients to directly initiate visits with physicians and purchase medications from single platforms. A shortage of dermatologists, improved technology, drug patent expirations, and rising health care costs accelerated the growth of DTC dermatology.¹ During the COVID-19 pandemic, teledermatology adoption surged due to the need to provide care while social distancing and minimizing viral exposure. These needs prompted additional federal funding and loosened regulatory provisions.² As the userbase of these companies has grown, so have their valuations.³ Although the DTC model has attracted the attention of patients and investors, its rise provokes many questions about patients acting as consumers in health care. Indeed, DTC telemedicine offers greater autonomy and convenience for patients, but it may impact the quality of care and the nature of physician-patient relationships, perhaps making them more transactional.

Evolution of DTC in Health Care

The DTC model emphasizes individual choice and accessible health care. Although the definition has evolved, the core idea is not new.⁴ Over decades, pharmaceutical companies have spent billions of dollars on DTC advertising, circumventing physicians by directly reaching patients with campaigns on prescription drugs and laboratory tests and shaping public definitions of diseases.⁵

The DTC model of care is fundamentally different from traditional care models in that it changes the roles of the patient and physician. Whereas early telehealth models required a health care provider to initiate teleconsultations with specialists, DTC telemedicine bypasses this step (eg, the patient can consult a dermatologist without needing a primary care provider’s input first). This care can then be provided by dermatologists with whom patients may or may not have pre-established relationships.^4,6

Dermatology was an early adopter of DTC telemedicine. The shortage of dermatologists in the United States created demand for increasing accessibility to dermatologic care. Additionally, the visual nature of diagnosing dermatologic disease was ideal for platforms supporting image sharing.⁷ Early DTC providers were primarily individual companies offering teledermatology. However, many dermatologists can now offer DTC capabilities via companies such as Amwell and Teladoc Health.⁸

Over the last 2 decades, start-ups such as Warby Parker (eyeglasses) and Casper (mattresses) defined the DTC industry using borrowed supply chains, cohesive branding, heavy social media marketing, and web-only retail. Scalability, lack of competition, and abundant venture capital created competition across numerous markets.⁹ Health care capitalized on this DTC model, creating a $700 billion market for products ranging from hearing aids to over-the-counter medications.¹⁰

Borrowing from this DTC playbook, platforms were created to offer delivery of generic prescription drugs to patients’ doorsteps. However, unlike with other products bought online, a consumer cannot simply add prescription drugs to their shopping cart and check out. In all models of American medical practice, physicians still serve as gatekeepers, providing a safeguard for patients to ensure appropriate prescription and avoid negative consequences of unnecessary drug use. This new model effectively streamlines diagnosis, prescription, and drug delivery without the patient ever having to leave home. Combining the prescribing and selling of medications (2 tasks that traditionally have been separated) potentially creates financial conflicts of interest (COIs). Additionally, high utilization of health care, including more prescriptions and visits, does not necessarily equal high quality of care. The companies stand to benefit from extra care regardless of need, and thus these models must be scrutinized for any incentives driving unnecessary care and prescriptions.

Ultimately, DTC has evolved to encompass multiple definitions in health care (Table 1). Although all models provide health care, each offers a different modality of delivery. The primary service may be the sale of prescription drugs or simply telemedicine visits. This review primarily discusses DTC pharmaceutical telemedicine platforms that sell private-label drugs and also offer telemedicine services to streamline care. However, the history, risks, and benefits discussed may apply to all models.

The DTC Landscape

Most DTC companies employ variations on a model with the same 3 main components: a triage questionnaire, telehealth services, and prescription/drug delivery (Figure). The triage questionnaire elicits a history of the patient’s presentation and medical history. Some companies may use artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms to tailor questions to patient needs. There are 2 modalities for patient-provider communication: synchronous and asynchronous. Synchronous communication entails real-time patient-physician conversations via audio only or video call. Asynchronous (or store-and-forward) communication refers to consultations provided via messaging or text-based modality, where a provider may respond to a patient within 24 hours.⁶ Direct-to-consumer platforms primarily use asynchronous visits (Table 2). However, some also use synchronous modalities if the provider deems it necessary or if state laws require it.

Once a provider has consulted with the patient, they can prescribe medication as needed. In certain cases, with adequate history, a prescription may be issued without a full physician visit. Furthermore, DTC companies require purchase of their custom-branded generic drugs. Prescriptions are fulfilled by the company’s pharmacy network and directly shipped to patients; few will allow patients to transfer a prescription to a pharmacy of their choice. Some platforms also sell supplements and over-the-counter medications.

Payment models vary among these companies, and most do not accept insurance (Table 2). Select models may provide free consultations and only require payment for pharmaceuticals. Others charge for consultations but reallocate payment to the cost of medication if prescribed. Another model involves flat rates for consultations and additional charges for drugs but unlimited messaging with providers for the duration of the prescription. Moreover, patients can subscribe to monthly deliveries of their medications.

Foundation of DTC

Technological advances have enabled patients to receive remote treatment from a single platform offering video calls, AI, electronic medical record interoperability, and integration of drug supply chains. Even in its simplest form, AI is increasingly used, as it allows for programs and chatbots to screen and triage patients.¹¹ Technology also has improved at targeted mass marketing through social media platforms and search engines (eg, companies can use age, interests, location, and other parameters to target individuals likely needing acne treatment).

Drug patent expirations are a key catalyst for the rise of DTC companies, creating an attractive business model with generic drugs as the core product. Since 2008, patents for medications treating chronic conditions, such as erectile dysfunction, have expired. These patent expirations are responsible for $198 billion in projected prescription sales between 2019 and 2024.¹ Thus, it follows that DTC companies have seized this opportunity to act as middlemen, taking advantage of these generic medications’ lower costs to create platforms focused on personalization and accessibility.

Rising deductibles have led patients to consider cheaper out-of-pocket alternatives that are not covered by insurance.¹ For example, insurers typically do not cover finasteride treatment for conditions deemed cosmetic, such as androgenetic alopecia.¹² The low cost of generic drugs creates an attractive business model for patients and investors. According to GoodRx, the average retail price for a 30-day supply of brand-name finasteride (Propecia [Merck]) is $135.92, whereas generic finasteride is $75.24.¹³ Direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical companies offer a 30-day supply of generic finasteride ranging from $8.33 to $30.¹⁴ The average wholesale cost for retailers is an estimated $2.31 for 30 days.¹⁵ Although profit margins on generic medications may be lower, more affordable drugs increase the size of the total market. These prescriptions are available as subscription plans, resulting in recurring revenue.

Lax US pharmaceutical marketing regulations allow direct advertising to the general public.¹⁶ In 1997, the US Food and Drug Administration allowed DTC advertisements to replace summaries of serious and common adverse effects with short statements covering important risks or referrals to other sources for complete information. In 2015, the US Food and Drug Administration guidelines preventing encouragement of self-diagnosis and self-treatment were withdrawn.⁵ These changes enable DTC companies to launch large advertising campaigns and to accelerate customer acquisition, as the industry often describes it, with ease.

Rapid Growth and Implications

Increasing generic drug availability and improving telemedicine capabilities have the potential to reduce costs and barriers but also have the potential for financial gain. Venture capital funds have recognized this opportunity, reflected by millions of dollars of investments, and accelerated the growth of DTC health care start-ups. For example, Ro has raised $376 million from venture capital, valuing the company at $1.5 billion.³

Direct-to-consumer companies require a heavy focus on marketing campaigns for customer acquisition. Their aesthetically pleasing websites and aggressive campaigns target specific audiences based on demographics, digital use habits, and purchasing behavior.⁴ Some campaigns celebrate the ease of obtaining prescriptions.¹⁷ Companies have been effective in recruiting so-called millennial and Generation Z patients, known to search the internet for remedies prior to seeking physician consultations.¹⁸ Recognizing these needs, some platforms offer guides on diseases they treat, creating effective customer-acquisition funnels. Recruitment of these technology-friendly patients has proven effective, especially given the largely positive media coverage of DTC platforms––potentially serving as a surrogate for medical credibility for patients.¹⁸

Some DTC companies also market physically; skin care ads may be strategically placed in social media feeds, or even found near mirrors in public bathrooms.¹⁹ Marketing campaigns also involve disease awareness; such efforts serve to increase diagnoses and prescribed treatments while destigmatizing diseases. Although DTC companies argue this strategy empowers patients, these marketing habits have the potential to take advantage of uninformed patients. Campaigns could potentially medicalize normal experiences and expand disease definitions resulting in overdiagnosis, overtreatment, and wasted resources.⁵ For example, off-label propranolol use has been advertised to attract patients who might have “nerves that come creeping before an important presentation.”¹⁷ Disease awareness campaigns also may lead people to falsely believe unproven drug benefits.⁵ According to studies, DTC pharmaceutical advertisements are low in informational quality and result in increased patient visits and prescriptions despite cost-effective alternatives.^5,20-22

Fragmentation of the health care system is another possible complication of DTC teledermatology. These companies operate as for-profit organizations separated from the rest of the health care system, raising concerns about care coordination.⁸ Vital health data may not be conveyed as patients move among different providers and pharmacies. One study found DTC teledermatology rarely offered to provide medical records or facilitate a referral to a local physician.²³ Such a lack of communication is concerning, as medication errors are the leading cause of avoidable harm in health care.²⁴

Direct-to-consumer care models also seemingly redefine the physician-patient relationship by turning patients into consumers. Patient interactions may seem transactional and streamlined toward sales. For these platforms, a visit often is set up as an evaluation of a patient’s suitability for a prescription, not necessarily for the best treatment modality for the problem. These companies primarily make money through the sale of prescription drugs, creating a potential COI that may undermine the patient-physician relationship. Although some companies have made it clear that medical care and pharmaceutical sales are provided by legally separate business entities and that they do not pay physicians on commission, a conflict may still exist given the financial importance of physicians prescribing medication to the success of the business.¹⁶

Even as DTC models advertise upon expanded access and choice, the companies largely prohibit patients from choosing their own pharmacy. Instead, they encourage patients to fill prescriptions with the company’s pharmacy network by claiming lower costs compared with competitors. One DTC company, Hims, is launching a prescription-fulfillment center to further consolidate their business.^17,19,25 The inherent COI of issuing and fulfilling prescriptions raises concerns of patient harm.²⁶ For example, when Dermatology.com launched as a DTC prescription skin medication shop backed by Bausch Health Companies Inc, its model included telemedicine consultation. Although consultations were provided by RxDefine, a third party, only Dermatology.com drugs were prescribed. Given the poor quality of care and obvious financial COI, an uproar in the dermatology community and advocacy by the American Academy of Dermatology led to the shutdown of Dermatology.com’s online prescription services.²⁶

The quality of care among DTC telemedicine platforms has been equivocal. Some studies have reported equivalent care in person and online, while others have reported poor adherence to guidelines, overuse of antibiotics, and misdiagnosis.^8,23 A vital portion of the DTC experience is the history questionnaire, which is geared to diagnosis and risk assessment.²⁵ Resneck et al²³ found diagnostic quality to be adequate for simple dermatologic clinical scenarios but poor for scenarios requiring more than basic histories. Although Ro has reported leveraging data from millions of interactions to ask the right questions and streamline visits, it is still unclear whether history questionnaires are adequate.^17,27 Additionally, consultations may lack sufficient counseling on adverse effects, risks, or pregnancy warnings, as well as discussions on alternative treatments and preventative care.^17,23 Finally, patients often are limited in their choice of dermatologist; the lack of a fully developed relationship increases concerns of follow-up and monitoring practices. Although some DTC platforms offer unlimited interactions with physicians for the duration of a prescription, it is unknown how often these services are utilized or how adequate the quality of these interactions is. This potential for lax follow-up is especially concerning for prescriptions that autorenew on a monthly basis and could result in unnecessary overtreatment.

Postpandemic and Future Outlook

The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically impacted the use of telemedicine. To minimize COVID-19 transmission, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and private payers expanded telehealth coverage and eliminated reimbursement and licensing barriers.²⁸ A decade’s worth of regulatory changes and consumer adoption was accelerated to weeks, resulting in telemedicine companies reaching record-high visit numbers.²⁹ McKinsey & Company estimated that telehealth visit numbers surged 50- to 175-fold compared with pre–COVID-19 numbers. Additionally, 76% of patients were interested in future telehealth use, and 64% of providers were more comfortable using telehealth than before the pandemic.³⁰ For their part, US dermatologists reported an increase in telemedicine use from 14.1% to 96.9% since COVID-19.³¹

Exactly how much DTC pharmaceutical telemedicine companies are growing is unclear, but private investments may be an indication. A record $14.7 billion was invested in the digital health sector in the first half of 2021; the majority went to telehealth companies.³⁰ Ro, which reported $230 million in revenue in 2020 and has served 6 million visits, raised $200 milllion in July 2020 and $500 million in March 2021.³² Although post–COVID-19 health care will certainly involve increased telemedicine, the extent remains unclear, as telehealth vendors saw decreased usage upon reopening of state economies. Ultimately, the postpandemic regulatory landscape is hard to predict.³⁰

Although COVID-19 appears to have caused rapid growth for DTC platforms, it also may have spurred competition. Telemedicine providers have given independent dermatologists and health care systems the infrastructure to implement custom DTC services.³³ Although systems do not directly sell prescription drugs, the target market is essentially the same: patients looking for instant virtual dermatologic care. Therefore, sustained telemedicine services offered by traditional practices and systems may prove detrimental to DTC companies. However, unlike most telemedicine services, DTC models are less affected by certain changes in regulation since they do not rely on insurance. If regulations are tightened and reimbursements for telehealth are not attractive for dermatologists, teledermatology services may see an overall decrease. If so, patients who appreciate teledermatology may shift to using DTC platforms, even if their insurance does not cover them. Still, a nationwide survey found 56% of respondents felt an established relationship with a physician prior to a telemedicine visit is important, which may create a barrier for DTC adoption.³⁴

Conclusion

Direct-to-consumer teledermatology represents a growing for-profit model of health care that provides patients with seemingly affordable and convenient care. However, there is potential for overtreatment, misdiagnosis, and fragmentation of health care. It will be important to monitor and evaluate the quality of care that DTC teledermatology offers and advocate for appropriate regulations and oversight. Eventually, more patients will have medications prescribed and dermatologic care administered through DTC companies. Dermatologists will benefit from this knowledge of DTC models to properly counsel patients on the risks and benefits of their use.

In recent years, direct-to-consumer (DTC) teledermatology platforms have gained popularity as telehealth business models, allowing patients to directly initiate visits with physicians and purchase medications from single platforms. A shortage of dermatologists, improved technology, drug patent expirations, and rising health care costs accelerated the growth of DTC dermatology.¹ During the COVID-19 pandemic, teledermatology adoption surged due to the need to provide care while social distancing and minimizing viral exposure. These needs prompted additional federal funding and loosened regulatory provisions.² As the userbase of these companies has grown, so have their valuations.³ Although the DTC model has attracted the attention of patients and investors, its rise provokes many questions about patients acting as consumers in health care. Indeed, DTC telemedicine offers greater autonomy and convenience for patients, but it may impact the quality of care and the nature of physician-patient relationships, perhaps making them more transactional.

Evolution of DTC in Health Care

The DTC model emphasizes individual choice and accessible health care. Although the definition has evolved, the core idea is not new.⁴ Over decades, pharmaceutical companies have spent billions of dollars on DTC advertising, circumventing physicians by directly reaching patients with campaigns on prescription drugs and laboratory tests and shaping public definitions of diseases.⁵

The DTC model of care is fundamentally different from traditional care models in that it changes the roles of the patient and physician. Whereas early telehealth models required a health care provider to initiate teleconsultations with specialists, DTC telemedicine bypasses this step (eg, the patient can consult a dermatologist without needing a primary care provider’s input first). This care can then be provided by dermatologists with whom patients may or may not have pre-established relationships.^4,6

Dermatology was an early adopter of DTC telemedicine. The shortage of dermatologists in the United States created demand for increasing accessibility to dermatologic care. Additionally, the visual nature of diagnosing dermatologic disease was ideal for platforms supporting image sharing.⁷ Early DTC providers were primarily individual companies offering teledermatology. However, many dermatologists can now offer DTC capabilities via companies such as Amwell and Teladoc Health.⁸

Over the last 2 decades, start-ups such as Warby Parker (eyeglasses) and Casper (mattresses) defined the DTC industry using borrowed supply chains, cohesive branding, heavy social media marketing, and web-only retail. Scalability, lack of competition, and abundant venture capital created competition across numerous markets.⁹ Health care capitalized on this DTC model, creating a $700 billion market for products ranging from hearing aids to over-the-counter medications.¹⁰

Borrowing from this DTC playbook, platforms were created to offer delivery of generic prescription drugs to patients’ doorsteps. However, unlike with other products bought online, a consumer cannot simply add prescription drugs to their shopping cart and check out. In all models of American medical practice, physicians still serve as gatekeepers, providing a safeguard for patients to ensure appropriate prescription and avoid negative consequences of unnecessary drug use. This new model effectively streamlines diagnosis, prescription, and drug delivery without the patient ever having to leave home. Combining the prescribing and selling of medications (2 tasks that traditionally have been separated) potentially creates financial conflicts of interest (COIs). Additionally, high utilization of health care, including more prescriptions and visits, does not necessarily equal high quality of care. The companies stand to benefit from extra care regardless of need, and thus these models must be scrutinized for any incentives driving unnecessary care and prescriptions.

Ultimately, DTC has evolved to encompass multiple definitions in health care (Table 1). Although all models provide health care, each offers a different modality of delivery. The primary service may be the sale of prescription drugs or simply telemedicine visits. This review primarily discusses DTC pharmaceutical telemedicine platforms that sell private-label drugs and also offer telemedicine services to streamline care. However, the history, risks, and benefits discussed may apply to all models.

The DTC Landscape

Most DTC companies employ variations on a model with the same 3 main components: a triage questionnaire, telehealth services, and prescription/drug delivery (Figure). The triage questionnaire elicits a history of the patient’s presentation and medical history. Some companies may use artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms to tailor questions to patient needs. There are 2 modalities for patient-provider communication: synchronous and asynchronous. Synchronous communication entails real-time patient-physician conversations via audio only or video call. Asynchronous (or store-and-forward) communication refers to consultations provided via messaging or text-based modality, where a provider may respond to a patient within 24 hours.⁶ Direct-to-consumer platforms primarily use asynchronous visits (Table 2). However, some also use synchronous modalities if the provider deems it necessary or if state laws require it.

Once a provider has consulted with the patient, they can prescribe medication as needed. In certain cases, with adequate history, a prescription may be issued without a full physician visit. Furthermore, DTC companies require purchase of their custom-branded generic drugs. Prescriptions are fulfilled by the company’s pharmacy network and directly shipped to patients; few will allow patients to transfer a prescription to a pharmacy of their choice. Some platforms also sell supplements and over-the-counter medications.

Payment models vary among these companies, and most do not accept insurance (Table 2). Select models may provide free consultations and only require payment for pharmaceuticals. Others charge for consultations but reallocate payment to the cost of medication if prescribed. Another model involves flat rates for consultations and additional charges for drugs but unlimited messaging with providers for the duration of the prescription. Moreover, patients can subscribe to monthly deliveries of their medications.

Foundation of DTC

Technological advances have enabled patients to receive remote treatment from a single platform offering video calls, AI, electronic medical record interoperability, and integration of drug supply chains. Even in its simplest form, AI is increasingly used, as it allows for programs and chatbots to screen and triage patients.¹¹ Technology also has improved at targeted mass marketing through social media platforms and search engines (eg, companies can use age, interests, location, and other parameters to target individuals likely needing acne treatment).

Drug patent expirations are a key catalyst for the rise of DTC companies, creating an attractive business model with generic drugs as the core product. Since 2008, patents for medications treating chronic conditions, such as erectile dysfunction, have expired. These patent expirations are responsible for $198 billion in projected prescription sales between 2019 and 2024.¹ Thus, it follows that DTC companies have seized this opportunity to act as middlemen, taking advantage of these generic medications’ lower costs to create platforms focused on personalization and accessibility.

Rising deductibles have led patients to consider cheaper out-of-pocket alternatives that are not covered by insurance.¹ For example, insurers typically do not cover finasteride treatment for conditions deemed cosmetic, such as androgenetic alopecia.¹² The low cost of generic drugs creates an attractive business model for patients and investors. According to GoodRx, the average retail price for a 30-day supply of brand-name finasteride (Propecia [Merck]) is $135.92, whereas generic finasteride is $75.24.¹³ Direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical companies offer a 30-day supply of generic finasteride ranging from $8.33 to $30.¹⁴ The average wholesale cost for retailers is an estimated $2.31 for 30 days.¹⁵ Although profit margins on generic medications may be lower, more affordable drugs increase the size of the total market. These prescriptions are available as subscription plans, resulting in recurring revenue.

Lax US pharmaceutical marketing regulations allow direct advertising to the general public.¹⁶ In 1997, the US Food and Drug Administration allowed DTC advertisements to replace summaries of serious and common adverse effects with short statements covering important risks or referrals to other sources for complete information. In 2015, the US Food and Drug Administration guidelines preventing encouragement of self-diagnosis and self-treatment were withdrawn.⁵ These changes enable DTC companies to launch large advertising campaigns and to accelerate customer acquisition, as the industry often describes it, with ease.

Rapid Growth and Implications

Increasing generic drug availability and improving telemedicine capabilities have the potential to reduce costs and barriers but also have the potential for financial gain. Venture capital funds have recognized this opportunity, reflected by millions of dollars of investments, and accelerated the growth of DTC health care start-ups. For example, Ro has raised $376 million from venture capital, valuing the company at $1.5 billion.³

Direct-to-consumer companies require a heavy focus on marketing campaigns for customer acquisition. Their aesthetically pleasing websites and aggressive campaigns target specific audiences based on demographics, digital use habits, and purchasing behavior.⁴ Some campaigns celebrate the ease of obtaining prescriptions.¹⁷ Companies have been effective in recruiting so-called millennial and Generation Z patients, known to search the internet for remedies prior to seeking physician consultations.¹⁸ Recognizing these needs, some platforms offer guides on diseases they treat, creating effective customer-acquisition funnels. Recruitment of these technology-friendly patients has proven effective, especially given the largely positive media coverage of DTC platforms––potentially serving as a surrogate for medical credibility for patients.¹⁸

Some DTC companies also market physically; skin care ads may be strategically placed in social media feeds, or even found near mirrors in public bathrooms.¹⁹ Marketing campaigns also involve disease awareness; such efforts serve to increase diagnoses and prescribed treatments while destigmatizing diseases. Although DTC companies argue this strategy empowers patients, these marketing habits have the potential to take advantage of uninformed patients. Campaigns could potentially medicalize normal experiences and expand disease definitions resulting in overdiagnosis, overtreatment, and wasted resources.⁵ For example, off-label propranolol use has been advertised to attract patients who might have “nerves that come creeping before an important presentation.”¹⁷ Disease awareness campaigns also may lead people to falsely believe unproven drug benefits.⁵ According to studies, DTC pharmaceutical advertisements are low in informational quality and result in increased patient visits and prescriptions despite cost-effective alternatives.^5,20-22

Fragmentation of the health care system is another possible complication of DTC teledermatology. These companies operate as for-profit organizations separated from the rest of the health care system, raising concerns about care coordination.⁸ Vital health data may not be conveyed as patients move among different providers and pharmacies. One study found DTC teledermatology rarely offered to provide medical records or facilitate a referral to a local physician.²³ Such a lack of communication is concerning, as medication errors are the leading cause of avoidable harm in health care.²⁴

Direct-to-consumer care models also seemingly redefine the physician-patient relationship by turning patients into consumers. Patient interactions may seem transactional and streamlined toward sales. For these platforms, a visit often is set up as an evaluation of a patient’s suitability for a prescription, not necessarily for the best treatment modality for the problem. These companies primarily make money through the sale of prescription drugs, creating a potential COI that may undermine the patient-physician relationship. Although some companies have made it clear that medical care and pharmaceutical sales are provided by legally separate business entities and that they do not pay physicians on commission, a conflict may still exist given the financial importance of physicians prescribing medication to the success of the business.¹⁶

Even as DTC models advertise upon expanded access and choice, the companies largely prohibit patients from choosing their own pharmacy. Instead, they encourage patients to fill prescriptions with the company’s pharmacy network by claiming lower costs compared with competitors. One DTC company, Hims, is launching a prescription-fulfillment center to further consolidate their business.^17,19,25 The inherent COI of issuing and fulfilling prescriptions raises concerns of patient harm.²⁶ For example, when Dermatology.com launched as a DTC prescription skin medication shop backed by Bausch Health Companies Inc, its model included telemedicine consultation. Although consultations were provided by RxDefine, a third party, only Dermatology.com drugs were prescribed. Given the poor quality of care and obvious financial COI, an uproar in the dermatology community and advocacy by the American Academy of Dermatology led to the shutdown of Dermatology.com’s online prescription services.²⁶

The quality of care among DTC telemedicine platforms has been equivocal. Some studies have reported equivalent care in person and online, while others have reported poor adherence to guidelines, overuse of antibiotics, and misdiagnosis.^8,23 A vital portion of the DTC experience is the history questionnaire, which is geared to diagnosis and risk assessment.²⁵ Resneck et al²³ found diagnostic quality to be adequate for simple dermatologic clinical scenarios but poor for scenarios requiring more than basic histories. Although Ro has reported leveraging data from millions of interactions to ask the right questions and streamline visits, it is still unclear whether history questionnaires are adequate.^17,27 Additionally, consultations may lack sufficient counseling on adverse effects, risks, or pregnancy warnings, as well as discussions on alternative treatments and preventative care.^17,23 Finally, patients often are limited in their choice of dermatologist; the lack of a fully developed relationship increases concerns of follow-up and monitoring practices. Although some DTC platforms offer unlimited interactions with physicians for the duration of a prescription, it is unknown how often these services are utilized or how adequate the quality of these interactions is. This potential for lax follow-up is especially concerning for prescriptions that autorenew on a monthly basis and could result in unnecessary overtreatment.

Postpandemic and Future Outlook

The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically impacted the use of telemedicine. To minimize COVID-19 transmission, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and private payers expanded telehealth coverage and eliminated reimbursement and licensing barriers.²⁸ A decade’s worth of regulatory changes and consumer adoption was accelerated to weeks, resulting in telemedicine companies reaching record-high visit numbers.²⁹ McKinsey & Company estimated that telehealth visit numbers surged 50- to 175-fold compared with pre–COVID-19 numbers. Additionally, 76% of patients were interested in future telehealth use, and 64% of providers were more comfortable using telehealth than before the pandemic.³⁰ For their part, US dermatologists reported an increase in telemedicine use from 14.1% to 96.9% since COVID-19.³¹

Exactly how much DTC pharmaceutical telemedicine companies are growing is unclear, but private investments may be an indication. A record $14.7 billion was invested in the digital health sector in the first half of 2021; the majority went to telehealth companies.³⁰ Ro, which reported $230 million in revenue in 2020 and has served 6 million visits, raised $200 milllion in July 2020 and $500 million in March 2021.³² Although post–COVID-19 health care will certainly involve increased telemedicine, the extent remains unclear, as telehealth vendors saw decreased usage upon reopening of state economies. Ultimately, the postpandemic regulatory landscape is hard to predict.³⁰

Although COVID-19 appears to have caused rapid growth for DTC platforms, it also may have spurred competition. Telemedicine providers have given independent dermatologists and health care systems the infrastructure to implement custom DTC services.³³ Although systems do not directly sell prescription drugs, the target market is essentially the same: patients looking for instant virtual dermatologic care. Therefore, sustained telemedicine services offered by traditional practices and systems may prove detrimental to DTC companies. However, unlike most telemedicine services, DTC models are less affected by certain changes in regulation since they do not rely on insurance. If regulations are tightened and reimbursements for telehealth are not attractive for dermatologists, teledermatology services may see an overall decrease. If so, patients who appreciate teledermatology may shift to using DTC platforms, even if their insurance does not cover them. Still, a nationwide survey found 56% of respondents felt an established relationship with a physician prior to a telemedicine visit is important, which may create a barrier for DTC adoption.³⁴

Conclusion

Direct-to-consumer teledermatology represents a growing for-profit model of health care that provides patients with seemingly affordable and convenient care. However, there is potential for overtreatment, misdiagnosis, and fragmentation of health care. It will be important to monitor and evaluate the quality of care that DTC teledermatology offers and advocate for appropriate regulations and oversight. Eventually, more patients will have medications prescribed and dermatologic care administered through DTC companies. Dermatologists will benefit from this knowledge of DTC models to properly counsel patients on the risks and benefits of their use.

The picture of rebellious teenagers sneaking “shots” has widened beyond breaking into Mom and Dad’s liquor cabinet. For some teens now, it means getting a COVID-19 vaccination without their parents’ consent – and, unlike the cabinet raids for the booze, they have adults willing to endorse the practice.

Since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration first granted emergency use authorization to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for teenagers in mid-2021, health officials have had to deal with a small subset of vaccine hesitancy where minors want the shot over the objections of their reluctant parents. The split has buoyed groups that were formed initially to convince teenagers to get vaccinated against other diseases.

When 14-year-old Arin Parsa of San Jose, California founded Teens for Vaccines in 2019 after a measles outbreak among unvaccinated children, “hardly anyone was interested,” he said. “Many teens were into climate change and other causes. Then, when the pandemic hit, so many were suddenly aware.”
 

Heavy toll on teens

Mr. Parsa’s parents fully supported Teens for Vaccines, he said, but he quickly found out how “politicized” COVID shots had become.

“We find people who are sad, angry, and frustrated at this stage of the pandemic,” he told this news organization. “The anti-vax lobby is riding the coat-tails of other movements. It has a very severe effect on their mental health. They can’t go out with their friends and socialize.”

In the pandemic’s initial stages, children were less likely to fall sick with COVID, but the Omicron variant led to a dramatic increase in illnesses among young people. The American Academy of Pediatrics has found that 3.5 million of the 11.4 million pediatric cases of the virus in the United States were reported in January 2022 alone. Meanwhile, vaccination rates for children aged 12-17, which were only 34% in June 2021 and lagged through the fall, are now at about 61% thanks to a sharp uptick during the Omicron surge, according to polling by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

No statistics are available on how many minors have received a COVID vaccine against their parents’ wishes.

“It’s not like there’s a big movement,” said Arthur Caplan, PhD, who heads the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. He said he noticed a divide around the HPV and hepatitis B vaccines. “They were tied up with sexual behavior,” he said, but “there were also some kids whose parents were really antivaxxers.”

Mr. Parsa said his and similar teen-oriented groups, such as VaxTeen, seek to educate their teen cohort, convince family members of the vaccines’ benefits, and to connect them with resources to get a shot. They also strive to change laws to make it easier for teenagers to receive the vaccine.

Consent laws vary from state to state (and within states), and proposed changes are afoot – some to loosen the laws and some to tighten them. Currently a 14-year-old in Alabama may get a COVID shot without parental permission, according to VaxTeen. In California, minors may receive the HPV shot without parental consent but not a COVID vaccine, although groups like Teens for Vaccines are pushing to change that. A bill now before the state legislature, the Teens Choose Vaccines Act (Senate Bill 866), would allow adolescents aged 12 and older to be able receive any FDA-approved vaccine – including COVID vaccines – without parental consent.

A second bill in California, the Keep Schools Open and Safe Act, would add the COVID-19 vaccines to the required list of immunizations needed to attend school in the state as well as eliminate the “personal belief” exemption against immunization. 

California Sen. Richard Pan, MD (D-6th District), cowrote both bills with fellow Democrat Sen. Scott Wiener (D-11th District) and teen advocates from Teens for Vaccines and Generation Up, who helped draft the language in consultation with the lawmakers.  

“As a pediatrician, I have seen all manner of situations where the requirement for a signed form has prevented teens from being able to get a vaccine that otherwise they and their guardians approved of them getting,” Dr. Pan told this news organization. “As a father, I don’t want to see my kids or any teen that wishes to protect themselves from deadly diseases unable to do so, particularly as we continue to fight off the dangers of the COVID-19 pandemic. I always encourage parents or teens that have questions about vaccines to speak directly with their pediatrician.”

Lawmakers in Philadelphia passed a provision last year to allow anyone age 11 or over to get the COVID vaccine without parental permission, keeping it in line with other vaccinations like hepatitis or HPV. “People from surrounding counties have come into the city, but it hasn’t been a huge rush,” says James Garrow, MPH, a spokesman for the city’s Department of Health.
 

Strive for collaboration, but listen to the children

Experts say the best solution is to for a doctor to meet with minors and their reluctant parents to get them on board for a COVID shot.

“Physicians are still the trusted messengers,” said Emma Olivera, MD, a pediatrician in suburban Chicago who advises groups that combat COVID misinformation.

Dr. Olivera said she often finds that internet-savvy teenagers have access to more information than older people, including their parents.  

Thanks to COVID policies, office meetings are “difficult to do,” NYU’s Dr. Caplan added. In such a meeting, Dr. Caplan said he would try to convince the parents that the shots are needed for their children to stay in school or play sports. In the end, he said minors should get the shot but would also notify the parents before that happens: “My duty is to them.”

If parents take opposite stances, the pro-vaccine side is likely to prevail, even in California, said Patrick Baghdaserians, JD, a family law attorney in Pasadena. Mr. Baghdaserians said he is now representing a father who wants his teenager to get vaccinated but the mother doesn’t. “The court will fall on our side,” he predicted.

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

The picture of rebellious teenagers sneaking “shots” has widened beyond breaking into Mom and Dad’s liquor cabinet. For some teens now, it means getting a COVID-19 vaccination without their parents’ consent – and, unlike the cabinet raids for the booze, they have adults willing to endorse the practice.

Since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration first granted emergency use authorization to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for teenagers in mid-2021, health officials have had to deal with a small subset of vaccine hesitancy where minors want the shot over the objections of their reluctant parents. The split has buoyed groups that were formed initially to convince teenagers to get vaccinated against other diseases.

When 14-year-old Arin Parsa of San Jose, California founded Teens for Vaccines in 2019 after a measles outbreak among unvaccinated children, “hardly anyone was interested,” he said. “Many teens were into climate change and other causes. Then, when the pandemic hit, so many were suddenly aware.”
 

Heavy toll on teens

Mr. Parsa’s parents fully supported Teens for Vaccines, he said, but he quickly found out how “politicized” COVID shots had become.

“We find people who are sad, angry, and frustrated at this stage of the pandemic,” he told this news organization. “The anti-vax lobby is riding the coat-tails of other movements. It has a very severe effect on their mental health. They can’t go out with their friends and socialize.”

In the pandemic’s initial stages, children were less likely to fall sick with COVID, but the Omicron variant led to a dramatic increase in illnesses among young people. The American Academy of Pediatrics has found that 3.5 million of the 11.4 million pediatric cases of the virus in the United States were reported in January 2022 alone. Meanwhile, vaccination rates for children aged 12-17, which were only 34% in June 2021 and lagged through the fall, are now at about 61% thanks to a sharp uptick during the Omicron surge, according to polling by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

No statistics are available on how many minors have received a COVID vaccine against their parents’ wishes.

“It’s not like there’s a big movement,” said Arthur Caplan, PhD, who heads the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. He said he noticed a divide around the HPV and hepatitis B vaccines. “They were tied up with sexual behavior,” he said, but “there were also some kids whose parents were really antivaxxers.”

Mr. Parsa said his and similar teen-oriented groups, such as VaxTeen, seek to educate their teen cohort, convince family members of the vaccines’ benefits, and to connect them with resources to get a shot. They also strive to change laws to make it easier for teenagers to receive the vaccine.

Consent laws vary from state to state (and within states), and proposed changes are afoot – some to loosen the laws and some to tighten them. Currently a 14-year-old in Alabama may get a COVID shot without parental permission, according to VaxTeen. In California, minors may receive the HPV shot without parental consent but not a COVID vaccine, although groups like Teens for Vaccines are pushing to change that. A bill now before the state legislature, the Teens Choose Vaccines Act (Senate Bill 866), would allow adolescents aged 12 and older to be able receive any FDA-approved vaccine – including COVID vaccines – without parental consent.

A second bill in California, the Keep Schools Open and Safe Act, would add the COVID-19 vaccines to the required list of immunizations needed to attend school in the state as well as eliminate the “personal belief” exemption against immunization. 

California Sen. Richard Pan, MD (D-6th District), cowrote both bills with fellow Democrat Sen. Scott Wiener (D-11th District) and teen advocates from Teens for Vaccines and Generation Up, who helped draft the language in consultation with the lawmakers.  

“As a pediatrician, I have seen all manner of situations where the requirement for a signed form has prevented teens from being able to get a vaccine that otherwise they and their guardians approved of them getting,” Dr. Pan told this news organization. “As a father, I don’t want to see my kids or any teen that wishes to protect themselves from deadly diseases unable to do so, particularly as we continue to fight off the dangers of the COVID-19 pandemic. I always encourage parents or teens that have questions about vaccines to speak directly with their pediatrician.”

Lawmakers in Philadelphia passed a provision last year to allow anyone age 11 or over to get the COVID vaccine without parental permission, keeping it in line with other vaccinations like hepatitis or HPV. “People from surrounding counties have come into the city, but it hasn’t been a huge rush,” says James Garrow, MPH, a spokesman for the city’s Department of Health.
 

Strive for collaboration, but listen to the children

Experts say the best solution is to for a doctor to meet with minors and their reluctant parents to get them on board for a COVID shot.

“Physicians are still the trusted messengers,” said Emma Olivera, MD, a pediatrician in suburban Chicago who advises groups that combat COVID misinformation.

Dr. Olivera said she often finds that internet-savvy teenagers have access to more information than older people, including their parents.  

Thanks to COVID policies, office meetings are “difficult to do,” NYU’s Dr. Caplan added. In such a meeting, Dr. Caplan said he would try to convince the parents that the shots are needed for their children to stay in school or play sports. In the end, he said minors should get the shot but would also notify the parents before that happens: “My duty is to them.”

If parents take opposite stances, the pro-vaccine side is likely to prevail, even in California, said Patrick Baghdaserians, JD, a family law attorney in Pasadena. Mr. Baghdaserians said he is now representing a father who wants his teenager to get vaccinated but the mother doesn’t. “The court will fall on our side,” he predicted.

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

The picture of rebellious teenagers sneaking “shots” has widened beyond breaking into Mom and Dad’s liquor cabinet. For some teens now, it means getting a COVID-19 vaccination without their parents’ consent – and, unlike the cabinet raids for the booze, they have adults willing to endorse the practice.

Since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration first granted emergency use authorization to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for teenagers in mid-2021, health officials have had to deal with a small subset of vaccine hesitancy where minors want the shot over the objections of their reluctant parents. The split has buoyed groups that were formed initially to convince teenagers to get vaccinated against other diseases.

When 14-year-old Arin Parsa of San Jose, California founded Teens for Vaccines in 2019 after a measles outbreak among unvaccinated children, “hardly anyone was interested,” he said. “Many teens were into climate change and other causes. Then, when the pandemic hit, so many were suddenly aware.”
 

Heavy toll on teens

Mr. Parsa’s parents fully supported Teens for Vaccines, he said, but he quickly found out how “politicized” COVID shots had become.

“We find people who are sad, angry, and frustrated at this stage of the pandemic,” he told this news organization. “The anti-vax lobby is riding the coat-tails of other movements. It has a very severe effect on their mental health. They can’t go out with their friends and socialize.”

In the pandemic’s initial stages, children were less likely to fall sick with COVID, but the Omicron variant led to a dramatic increase in illnesses among young people. The American Academy of Pediatrics has found that 3.5 million of the 11.4 million pediatric cases of the virus in the United States were reported in January 2022 alone. Meanwhile, vaccination rates for children aged 12-17, which were only 34% in June 2021 and lagged through the fall, are now at about 61% thanks to a sharp uptick during the Omicron surge, according to polling by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

No statistics are available on how many minors have received a COVID vaccine against their parents’ wishes.

“It’s not like there’s a big movement,” said Arthur Caplan, PhD, who heads the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. He said he noticed a divide around the HPV and hepatitis B vaccines. “They were tied up with sexual behavior,” he said, but “there were also some kids whose parents were really antivaxxers.”

Mr. Parsa said his and similar teen-oriented groups, such as VaxTeen, seek to educate their teen cohort, convince family members of the vaccines’ benefits, and to connect them with resources to get a shot. They also strive to change laws to make it easier for teenagers to receive the vaccine.

Consent laws vary from state to state (and within states), and proposed changes are afoot – some to loosen the laws and some to tighten them. Currently a 14-year-old in Alabama may get a COVID shot without parental permission, according to VaxTeen. In California, minors may receive the HPV shot without parental consent but not a COVID vaccine, although groups like Teens for Vaccines are pushing to change that. A bill now before the state legislature, the Teens Choose Vaccines Act (Senate Bill 866), would allow adolescents aged 12 and older to be able receive any FDA-approved vaccine – including COVID vaccines – without parental consent.

A second bill in California, the Keep Schools Open and Safe Act, would add the COVID-19 vaccines to the required list of immunizations needed to attend school in the state as well as eliminate the “personal belief” exemption against immunization. 

California Sen. Richard Pan, MD (D-6th District), cowrote both bills with fellow Democrat Sen. Scott Wiener (D-11th District) and teen advocates from Teens for Vaccines and Generation Up, who helped draft the language in consultation with the lawmakers.  

“As a pediatrician, I have seen all manner of situations where the requirement for a signed form has prevented teens from being able to get a vaccine that otherwise they and their guardians approved of them getting,” Dr. Pan told this news organization. “As a father, I don’t want to see my kids or any teen that wishes to protect themselves from deadly diseases unable to do so, particularly as we continue to fight off the dangers of the COVID-19 pandemic. I always encourage parents or teens that have questions about vaccines to speak directly with their pediatrician.”

Lawmakers in Philadelphia passed a provision last year to allow anyone age 11 or over to get the COVID vaccine without parental permission, keeping it in line with other vaccinations like hepatitis or HPV. “People from surrounding counties have come into the city, but it hasn’t been a huge rush,” says James Garrow, MPH, a spokesman for the city’s Department of Health.
 

Strive for collaboration, but listen to the children

Experts say the best solution is to for a doctor to meet with minors and their reluctant parents to get them on board for a COVID shot.

“Physicians are still the trusted messengers,” said Emma Olivera, MD, a pediatrician in suburban Chicago who advises groups that combat COVID misinformation.

Dr. Olivera said she often finds that internet-savvy teenagers have access to more information than older people, including their parents.  

Thanks to COVID policies, office meetings are “difficult to do,” NYU’s Dr. Caplan added. In such a meeting, Dr. Caplan said he would try to convince the parents that the shots are needed for their children to stay in school or play sports. In the end, he said minors should get the shot but would also notify the parents before that happens: “My duty is to them.”

If parents take opposite stances, the pro-vaccine side is likely to prevail, even in California, said Patrick Baghdaserians, JD, a family law attorney in Pasadena. Mr. Baghdaserians said he is now representing a father who wants his teenager to get vaccinated but the mother doesn’t. “The court will fall on our side,” he predicted.

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