CHEST Physician

The study covered in this summary was published in medRxiv.org as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaways

• Right ventricular (RV) dilation or dysfunction in patients hospitalized with acute COVID-19 is associated with an elevated risk for in-hospital death.
• The impact of RV dilation or dysfunction on in-hospital mortality is similar for patients with acute COVID-19 and those with influenza, pneumonia, or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but COVID-19 patients have greater absolute in-hospital mortality.
• RV dilatation or dysfunction in patients with acute COVID-19 is associated with a diagnosis of venous thromboembolism and subsequent intubation and mechanical ventilation.

Why this matters

• Right ventricular dysfunction increases mortality risk in acute COVID-19, and this study shows that RV dilation and dysfunction among such hospitalized patients has a similar impact on risk for in-hospital death in acute COVID-19 and in other respiratory illnesses.
• The findings suggest that abnormal RV findings should be considered a mortality risk marker in patients with acute respiratory illness, especially COVID-19.

Study design

• The retrospective study involved 225 consecutive patients admitted for acute COVID-19 from March 2020 to February 2021 at four major hospitals in the same metropolitan region and a control group of 6,150 adults admitted to the hospital for influenza, pneumonia, or ARDS; mean age in the study cohort was 63 years.
• All participants underwent echocardiography during their hospitalization, including evaluation of any RV dilation or dysfunction.
• Associations between RV measurements and in-hospital mortality, the primary outcome, were adjusted for potential confounders.

Key results

• Patients in the COVID-19 group were more likely than were those in the control group to be male (66% vs. 54%; P < .001), to identify as Hispanic (38% vs. 15%; P < .001), and to have a higher mean body mass index (29.4 vs. 27.9 kg/m²; P = .008).
• Compared with the control group, patients in the COVID-19 group more often required admission to the intensive care unit (75% vs. 54%; P < .001), mechanical ventilation (P < .001), and initiation of renal replacement therapy (P = .002), and more often were diagnosed with deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (25% vs. 14%; P < .001). The median length of hospital stay was 20 days in the COVID-19 group, compared with 10 days in the control group (P < .001).
• In-hospital mortality was 21.3% in the COVID-19 group and 11.8% in the control group (P = .001). Those hospitalized with COVID-19 had an adjusted relative risk (RR) of 1.54 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-2.24; P = .02) for in-hospital mortality, compared with those hospitalized for other respiratory illnesses.
• Mild RV dilation was associated with an adjusted RR of 1.4 (95% CI, 1.17-1.69; P = .0003) for in-hospital death, and moderate to severe RV dilation was associated with an adjusted RR of 2.0 (95% CI, 1.62-2.47; P < .0001).
• The corresponding adjusted risks for mild RV dysfunction and greater-than-mild RV dysfunction were, respectively, 1.39 (95% CI, 1.10-1.77; P = .007) and 1.68 (95% CI, 1.17-2.42; P = .005).
• The RR for in-hospital mortality associated with RV dilation and dysfunction was similar in those with COVID-19 and those with other respiratory illness, but the former had a higher baseline risk that yielded a greater absolute risk in the COVID-19 group.

Limitations

• The study was based primarily on a retrospective review of electronic health records, which poses a risk for misclassification. 
• Echocardiography was performed without blinding operators to patient clinical status, and echocardiograms were interpreted in a single university hospital system, so were not externally validated.
• Because echocardiograms obtained during hospitalization could not be compared with previous echocardiograms, it could not be determined whether any of the patients had preexisting RV dilation or dysfunction.
• Strain imaging was not feasible in many cases.

Disclosures

• The study received no commercial funding.
• The authors disclosed no financial relationships.

This is a summary of a preprint research study, Association of Right Ventricular Dilation and Dysfunction on Echocardiogram With In-Hospital Mortality Among Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19 Compared With Other Acute Respiratory Illness, written by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, department of medicine, and Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, division of cardiology. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The study covered in this summary was published in medRxiv.org as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaways

• Right ventricular (RV) dilation or dysfunction in patients hospitalized with acute COVID-19 is associated with an elevated risk for in-hospital death.
• The impact of RV dilation or dysfunction on in-hospital mortality is similar for patients with acute COVID-19 and those with influenza, pneumonia, or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but COVID-19 patients have greater absolute in-hospital mortality.
• RV dilatation or dysfunction in patients with acute COVID-19 is associated with a diagnosis of venous thromboembolism and subsequent intubation and mechanical ventilation.

Why this matters

• Right ventricular dysfunction increases mortality risk in acute COVID-19, and this study shows that RV dilation and dysfunction among such hospitalized patients has a similar impact on risk for in-hospital death in acute COVID-19 and in other respiratory illnesses.
• The findings suggest that abnormal RV findings should be considered a mortality risk marker in patients with acute respiratory illness, especially COVID-19.

Study design

• The retrospective study involved 225 consecutive patients admitted for acute COVID-19 from March 2020 to February 2021 at four major hospitals in the same metropolitan region and a control group of 6,150 adults admitted to the hospital for influenza, pneumonia, or ARDS; mean age in the study cohort was 63 years.
• All participants underwent echocardiography during their hospitalization, including evaluation of any RV dilation or dysfunction.
• Associations between RV measurements and in-hospital mortality, the primary outcome, were adjusted for potential confounders.

Key results

• Patients in the COVID-19 group were more likely than were those in the control group to be male (66% vs. 54%; P < .001), to identify as Hispanic (38% vs. 15%; P < .001), and to have a higher mean body mass index (29.4 vs. 27.9 kg/m²; P = .008).
• Compared with the control group, patients in the COVID-19 group more often required admission to the intensive care unit (75% vs. 54%; P < .001), mechanical ventilation (P < .001), and initiation of renal replacement therapy (P = .002), and more often were diagnosed with deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (25% vs. 14%; P < .001). The median length of hospital stay was 20 days in the COVID-19 group, compared with 10 days in the control group (P < .001).
• In-hospital mortality was 21.3% in the COVID-19 group and 11.8% in the control group (P = .001). Those hospitalized with COVID-19 had an adjusted relative risk (RR) of 1.54 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-2.24; P = .02) for in-hospital mortality, compared with those hospitalized for other respiratory illnesses.
• Mild RV dilation was associated with an adjusted RR of 1.4 (95% CI, 1.17-1.69; P = .0003) for in-hospital death, and moderate to severe RV dilation was associated with an adjusted RR of 2.0 (95% CI, 1.62-2.47; P < .0001).
• The corresponding adjusted risks for mild RV dysfunction and greater-than-mild RV dysfunction were, respectively, 1.39 (95% CI, 1.10-1.77; P = .007) and 1.68 (95% CI, 1.17-2.42; P = .005).
• The RR for in-hospital mortality associated with RV dilation and dysfunction was similar in those with COVID-19 and those with other respiratory illness, but the former had a higher baseline risk that yielded a greater absolute risk in the COVID-19 group.

Limitations

• The study was based primarily on a retrospective review of electronic health records, which poses a risk for misclassification. 
• Echocardiography was performed without blinding operators to patient clinical status, and echocardiograms were interpreted in a single university hospital system, so were not externally validated.
• Because echocardiograms obtained during hospitalization could not be compared with previous echocardiograms, it could not be determined whether any of the patients had preexisting RV dilation or dysfunction.
• Strain imaging was not feasible in many cases.

Disclosures

• The study received no commercial funding.
• The authors disclosed no financial relationships.

This is a summary of a preprint research study, Association of Right Ventricular Dilation and Dysfunction on Echocardiogram With In-Hospital Mortality Among Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19 Compared With Other Acute Respiratory Illness, written by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, department of medicine, and Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, division of cardiology. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The study covered in this summary was published in medRxiv.org as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaways

• Right ventricular (RV) dilation or dysfunction in patients hospitalized with acute COVID-19 is associated with an elevated risk for in-hospital death.
• The impact of RV dilation or dysfunction on in-hospital mortality is similar for patients with acute COVID-19 and those with influenza, pneumonia, or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but COVID-19 patients have greater absolute in-hospital mortality.
• RV dilatation or dysfunction in patients with acute COVID-19 is associated with a diagnosis of venous thromboembolism and subsequent intubation and mechanical ventilation.

Why this matters

• Right ventricular dysfunction increases mortality risk in acute COVID-19, and this study shows that RV dilation and dysfunction among such hospitalized patients has a similar impact on risk for in-hospital death in acute COVID-19 and in other respiratory illnesses.
• The findings suggest that abnormal RV findings should be considered a mortality risk marker in patients with acute respiratory illness, especially COVID-19.

Study design

• The retrospective study involved 225 consecutive patients admitted for acute COVID-19 from March 2020 to February 2021 at four major hospitals in the same metropolitan region and a control group of 6,150 adults admitted to the hospital for influenza, pneumonia, or ARDS; mean age in the study cohort was 63 years.
• All participants underwent echocardiography during their hospitalization, including evaluation of any RV dilation or dysfunction.
• Associations between RV measurements and in-hospital mortality, the primary outcome, were adjusted for potential confounders.

Key results

• Patients in the COVID-19 group were more likely than were those in the control group to be male (66% vs. 54%; P < .001), to identify as Hispanic (38% vs. 15%; P < .001), and to have a higher mean body mass index (29.4 vs. 27.9 kg/m²; P = .008).
• Compared with the control group, patients in the COVID-19 group more often required admission to the intensive care unit (75% vs. 54%; P < .001), mechanical ventilation (P < .001), and initiation of renal replacement therapy (P = .002), and more often were diagnosed with deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (25% vs. 14%; P < .001). The median length of hospital stay was 20 days in the COVID-19 group, compared with 10 days in the control group (P < .001).
• In-hospital mortality was 21.3% in the COVID-19 group and 11.8% in the control group (P = .001). Those hospitalized with COVID-19 had an adjusted relative risk (RR) of 1.54 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-2.24; P = .02) for in-hospital mortality, compared with those hospitalized for other respiratory illnesses.
• Mild RV dilation was associated with an adjusted RR of 1.4 (95% CI, 1.17-1.69; P = .0003) for in-hospital death, and moderate to severe RV dilation was associated with an adjusted RR of 2.0 (95% CI, 1.62-2.47; P < .0001).
• The corresponding adjusted risks for mild RV dysfunction and greater-than-mild RV dysfunction were, respectively, 1.39 (95% CI, 1.10-1.77; P = .007) and 1.68 (95% CI, 1.17-2.42; P = .005).
• The RR for in-hospital mortality associated with RV dilation and dysfunction was similar in those with COVID-19 and those with other respiratory illness, but the former had a higher baseline risk that yielded a greater absolute risk in the COVID-19 group.

Limitations

• The study was based primarily on a retrospective review of electronic health records, which poses a risk for misclassification. 
• Echocardiography was performed without blinding operators to patient clinical status, and echocardiograms were interpreted in a single university hospital system, so were not externally validated.
• Because echocardiograms obtained during hospitalization could not be compared with previous echocardiograms, it could not be determined whether any of the patients had preexisting RV dilation or dysfunction.
• Strain imaging was not feasible in many cases.

Disclosures

• The study received no commercial funding.
• The authors disclosed no financial relationships.

This is a summary of a preprint research study, Association of Right Ventricular Dilation and Dysfunction on Echocardiogram With In-Hospital Mortality Among Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19 Compared With Other Acute Respiratory Illness, written by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, department of medicine, and Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, division of cardiology. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two drugs have emerged as the optimal medications for treating insomnia based on the “best-available evidence,” but there are caveats.

In a comprehensive comparative-effectiveness analysis, lemborexant and eszopiclone showed the best efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability for acute and long-term insomnia treatment.

However, eszopiclone may cause substantial side effects – and safety data on lemborexant were inconclusive, the researchers note.

Not surprisingly, short-acting, intermediate-acting, and long-acting benzodiazepines were effective in the acute treatment of insomnia, but they have unfavorable tolerability and safety profiles, and there are no long-term data on these issues.

For many insomnia medications, there is a “striking” and “appalling” lack of long-term data, study investigator Andrea Cipriani, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, noted during a press briefing.

“This is a call for regulators to raise the bar and ask for long-term data when companies submit an application for licensing insomnia drugs,” Dr. Cipriani said.

The findings were published online  in The Lancet.
 

Prevalent, debilitating

Insomnia is highly prevalent, affecting up to 1 in 5 adults, and can have a profound impact on health, well-being, and productivity.

Sleep hygiene and cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) are recommended first-line treatments, but they are often unavailable, which often leads patients and clinicians to turn to medications.

However, “insomnia drugs are not all created equal. Even within the same drug class there are differences,” Dr. Cipriani said.

In a large-scale systematic review and network meta-analysis, the researchers analyzed data from 154 double-blind, randomized controlled trials of medications (licensed or not) used for acute and long-term treatment of insomnia in 44,089 adults (mean age, 51.7 years; 63% women).

Results showed, for the acute treatment of insomnia, benzodiazepines, doxylamine, eszopiclone, lemborexant, seltorexant, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more effective than placebo (standardized mean difference range, 0.36-0.83; high-to-moderate certainty of evidence).

In addition, benzodiazepines, eszopiclone, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more effective than melatonin, ramelteon, and zaleplon (SMD, 0.27-0.71; moderate-to-very low certainty of evidence).

“Our results show that the melatonergic drugs melatonin and ramelteon are not really effective. The data do not support the regular use of these drugs,” co-investigator Phil Cowen, PhD, professor of psychopharmacology, University of Oxford, said at the briefing.
 

Best available evidence

What little long-term data is available suggest eszopiclone and lemborexant are more effective than placebo. Plus, eszopiclone is more effective than ramelteon and zolpidem but with “very low” certainty of evidence, the researchers report.

“There was insufficient evidence to support the prescription of benzodiazepines and zolpidem in long-term treatment,” they write.

Another problem was lack of data on other important outcomes, they add.  

“We wanted to look at hangover effects, daytime sleepiness, [and] rebound effect, but often there was no data reported in trials. We need to collect data about these outcomes because they matter to clinicians and patients,” Dr. Cipriani said.

Summing up, the researchers note the current findings represent the “best available evidence base to guide the choice about pharmacological treatment for insomnia disorder in adults and will assist in shared decisionmaking between patients, carers, and their clinicians, as well as policy makers.”

They caution, however, that all statements comparing the merits of one drug with another “should be tempered by the potential limitations of the current analysis, the quality of the available evidence, the characteristics of the patient populations, and the uncertainties that might result from choice of dose or treatment setting.”

In addition, it is important to also consider nonpharmacologic treatments for insomnia disorder, as they are supported by “high-quality evidence and recommended as first-line treatment by guidelines,” the investigator write.
 

Shared decisionmaking

In an accompanying editorial, Myrto Samara, MD, University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece, agrees with the researchers that discussion with patients is key.  

“For insomnia treatment, patient-physician shared decisionmaking is crucial to decide when a pharmacological intervention is deemed necessary and which drug [is] to be given by considering the trade-offs for efficacy and side effects,” Dr. Samara writes.  

The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Health Biomedical Research Center. Dr. Cipriani has received research and consultancy fees from the Italian Network for Pediatric Trials, CARIPLO Foundation, and Angelini Pharma, and is the chief and principal investigator of two trials of seltorexant in depression that are sponsored by Janssen. Dr. Samara has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two drugs have emerged as the optimal medications for treating insomnia based on the “best-available evidence,” but there are caveats.

In a comprehensive comparative-effectiveness analysis, lemborexant and eszopiclone showed the best efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability for acute and long-term insomnia treatment.

However, eszopiclone may cause substantial side effects – and safety data on lemborexant were inconclusive, the researchers note.

Not surprisingly, short-acting, intermediate-acting, and long-acting benzodiazepines were effective in the acute treatment of insomnia, but they have unfavorable tolerability and safety profiles, and there are no long-term data on these issues.

For many insomnia medications, there is a “striking” and “appalling” lack of long-term data, study investigator Andrea Cipriani, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, noted during a press briefing.

“This is a call for regulators to raise the bar and ask for long-term data when companies submit an application for licensing insomnia drugs,” Dr. Cipriani said.

The findings were published online  in The Lancet.
 

Prevalent, debilitating

Insomnia is highly prevalent, affecting up to 1 in 5 adults, and can have a profound impact on health, well-being, and productivity.

Sleep hygiene and cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) are recommended first-line treatments, but they are often unavailable, which often leads patients and clinicians to turn to medications.

However, “insomnia drugs are not all created equal. Even within the same drug class there are differences,” Dr. Cipriani said.

In a large-scale systematic review and network meta-analysis, the researchers analyzed data from 154 double-blind, randomized controlled trials of medications (licensed or not) used for acute and long-term treatment of insomnia in 44,089 adults (mean age, 51.7 years; 63% women).

Results showed, for the acute treatment of insomnia, benzodiazepines, doxylamine, eszopiclone, lemborexant, seltorexant, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more effective than placebo (standardized mean difference range, 0.36-0.83; high-to-moderate certainty of evidence).

In addition, benzodiazepines, eszopiclone, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more effective than melatonin, ramelteon, and zaleplon (SMD, 0.27-0.71; moderate-to-very low certainty of evidence).

“Our results show that the melatonergic drugs melatonin and ramelteon are not really effective. The data do not support the regular use of these drugs,” co-investigator Phil Cowen, PhD, professor of psychopharmacology, University of Oxford, said at the briefing.
 

Best available evidence

What little long-term data is available suggest eszopiclone and lemborexant are more effective than placebo. Plus, eszopiclone is more effective than ramelteon and zolpidem but with “very low” certainty of evidence, the researchers report.

“There was insufficient evidence to support the prescription of benzodiazepines and zolpidem in long-term treatment,” they write.

Another problem was lack of data on other important outcomes, they add.  

“We wanted to look at hangover effects, daytime sleepiness, [and] rebound effect, but often there was no data reported in trials. We need to collect data about these outcomes because they matter to clinicians and patients,” Dr. Cipriani said.

Summing up, the researchers note the current findings represent the “best available evidence base to guide the choice about pharmacological treatment for insomnia disorder in adults and will assist in shared decisionmaking between patients, carers, and their clinicians, as well as policy makers.”

They caution, however, that all statements comparing the merits of one drug with another “should be tempered by the potential limitations of the current analysis, the quality of the available evidence, the characteristics of the patient populations, and the uncertainties that might result from choice of dose or treatment setting.”

In addition, it is important to also consider nonpharmacologic treatments for insomnia disorder, as they are supported by “high-quality evidence and recommended as first-line treatment by guidelines,” the investigator write.
 

Shared decisionmaking

In an accompanying editorial, Myrto Samara, MD, University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece, agrees with the researchers that discussion with patients is key.  

“For insomnia treatment, patient-physician shared decisionmaking is crucial to decide when a pharmacological intervention is deemed necessary and which drug [is] to be given by considering the trade-offs for efficacy and side effects,” Dr. Samara writes.  

The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Health Biomedical Research Center. Dr. Cipriani has received research and consultancy fees from the Italian Network for Pediatric Trials, CARIPLO Foundation, and Angelini Pharma, and is the chief and principal investigator of two trials of seltorexant in depression that are sponsored by Janssen. Dr. Samara has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two drugs have emerged as the optimal medications for treating insomnia based on the “best-available evidence,” but there are caveats.

In a comprehensive comparative-effectiveness analysis, lemborexant and eszopiclone showed the best efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability for acute and long-term insomnia treatment.

However, eszopiclone may cause substantial side effects – and safety data on lemborexant were inconclusive, the researchers note.

Not surprisingly, short-acting, intermediate-acting, and long-acting benzodiazepines were effective in the acute treatment of insomnia, but they have unfavorable tolerability and safety profiles, and there are no long-term data on these issues.

For many insomnia medications, there is a “striking” and “appalling” lack of long-term data, study investigator Andrea Cipriani, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, noted during a press briefing.

“This is a call for regulators to raise the bar and ask for long-term data when companies submit an application for licensing insomnia drugs,” Dr. Cipriani said.

The findings were published online  in The Lancet.
 

Prevalent, debilitating

Insomnia is highly prevalent, affecting up to 1 in 5 adults, and can have a profound impact on health, well-being, and productivity.

Sleep hygiene and cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) are recommended first-line treatments, but they are often unavailable, which often leads patients and clinicians to turn to medications.

However, “insomnia drugs are not all created equal. Even within the same drug class there are differences,” Dr. Cipriani said.

In a large-scale systematic review and network meta-analysis, the researchers analyzed data from 154 double-blind, randomized controlled trials of medications (licensed or not) used for acute and long-term treatment of insomnia in 44,089 adults (mean age, 51.7 years; 63% women).

Results showed, for the acute treatment of insomnia, benzodiazepines, doxylamine, eszopiclone, lemborexant, seltorexant, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more effective than placebo (standardized mean difference range, 0.36-0.83; high-to-moderate certainty of evidence).

In addition, benzodiazepines, eszopiclone, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more effective than melatonin, ramelteon, and zaleplon (SMD, 0.27-0.71; moderate-to-very low certainty of evidence).

“Our results show that the melatonergic drugs melatonin and ramelteon are not really effective. The data do not support the regular use of these drugs,” co-investigator Phil Cowen, PhD, professor of psychopharmacology, University of Oxford, said at the briefing.
 

Best available evidence

What little long-term data is available suggest eszopiclone and lemborexant are more effective than placebo. Plus, eszopiclone is more effective than ramelteon and zolpidem but with “very low” certainty of evidence, the researchers report.

“There was insufficient evidence to support the prescription of benzodiazepines and zolpidem in long-term treatment,” they write.

Another problem was lack of data on other important outcomes, they add.  

“We wanted to look at hangover effects, daytime sleepiness, [and] rebound effect, but often there was no data reported in trials. We need to collect data about these outcomes because they matter to clinicians and patients,” Dr. Cipriani said.

Summing up, the researchers note the current findings represent the “best available evidence base to guide the choice about pharmacological treatment for insomnia disorder in adults and will assist in shared decisionmaking between patients, carers, and their clinicians, as well as policy makers.”

They caution, however, that all statements comparing the merits of one drug with another “should be tempered by the potential limitations of the current analysis, the quality of the available evidence, the characteristics of the patient populations, and the uncertainties that might result from choice of dose or treatment setting.”

In addition, it is important to also consider nonpharmacologic treatments for insomnia disorder, as they are supported by “high-quality evidence and recommended as first-line treatment by guidelines,” the investigator write.
 

Shared decisionmaking

In an accompanying editorial, Myrto Samara, MD, University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece, agrees with the researchers that discussion with patients is key.  

“For insomnia treatment, patient-physician shared decisionmaking is crucial to decide when a pharmacological intervention is deemed necessary and which drug [is] to be given by considering the trade-offs for efficacy and side effects,” Dr. Samara writes.  

The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Health Biomedical Research Center. Dr. Cipriani has received research and consultancy fees from the Italian Network for Pediatric Trials, CARIPLO Foundation, and Angelini Pharma, and is the chief and principal investigator of two trials of seltorexant in depression that are sponsored by Janssen. Dr. Samara has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

When the COVID-19 pandemic first began, the general thought was that once people were infected, they were then protected from the virus.

But a new analysis by ABC News shows that more and more Americans are getting the virus again.

It’s hard to say how many. The ABC News analysis found at least 1.6 million reinfections in 24 states, but the actual number is probably a lot higher.

“These are not the real numbers because many people are not reporting cases,” Ali Mokdad, MD, an epidemiologist with the University of Washington, Seattle, told ABC.

The latest variant, BA.5, has become the dominant strain in the United States, making up more than 65% of all COVID-19 cases as of July 13, according to data from the CDC.

Prior infections and vaccines aren’t providing as much protection against the newly dominant BA.5 strain as they did against earlier variants.

But evidence doesn’t show this subvariant of Omicron to be more harmful than earlier, less transmissible versions.

Several factors are contributing to rising reinfections, experts say. For example, fewer people are wearing masks than in the first year or so of the pandemic. Dr. Mokdad said just 18% of Americans reported always wearing a mask in public at the end of May, down from 44% the year before.

The emergence of the Omicron variant, of which BA.5 is a subvariant, is indicating that less protection is being offered by prior infections.

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

When the COVID-19 pandemic first began, the general thought was that once people were infected, they were then protected from the virus.

But a new analysis by ABC News shows that more and more Americans are getting the virus again.

It’s hard to say how many. The ABC News analysis found at least 1.6 million reinfections in 24 states, but the actual number is probably a lot higher.

“These are not the real numbers because many people are not reporting cases,” Ali Mokdad, MD, an epidemiologist with the University of Washington, Seattle, told ABC.

The latest variant, BA.5, has become the dominant strain in the United States, making up more than 65% of all COVID-19 cases as of July 13, according to data from the CDC.

Prior infections and vaccines aren’t providing as much protection against the newly dominant BA.5 strain as they did against earlier variants.

But evidence doesn’t show this subvariant of Omicron to be more harmful than earlier, less transmissible versions.

Several factors are contributing to rising reinfections, experts say. For example, fewer people are wearing masks than in the first year or so of the pandemic. Dr. Mokdad said just 18% of Americans reported always wearing a mask in public at the end of May, down from 44% the year before.

The emergence of the Omicron variant, of which BA.5 is a subvariant, is indicating that less protection is being offered by prior infections.

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

When the COVID-19 pandemic first began, the general thought was that once people were infected, they were then protected from the virus.

But a new analysis by ABC News shows that more and more Americans are getting the virus again.

It’s hard to say how many. The ABC News analysis found at least 1.6 million reinfections in 24 states, but the actual number is probably a lot higher.

“These are not the real numbers because many people are not reporting cases,” Ali Mokdad, MD, an epidemiologist with the University of Washington, Seattle, told ABC.

The latest variant, BA.5, has become the dominant strain in the United States, making up more than 65% of all COVID-19 cases as of July 13, according to data from the CDC.

Prior infections and vaccines aren’t providing as much protection against the newly dominant BA.5 strain as they did against earlier variants.

But evidence doesn’t show this subvariant of Omicron to be more harmful than earlier, less transmissible versions.

Several factors are contributing to rising reinfections, experts say. For example, fewer people are wearing masks than in the first year or so of the pandemic. Dr. Mokdad said just 18% of Americans reported always wearing a mask in public at the end of May, down from 44% the year before.

The emergence of the Omicron variant, of which BA.5 is a subvariant, is indicating that less protection is being offered by prior infections.

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

Ralph Newman, MD, got a taste of how dangerous medicine could be at age 10, when he witnessed a physician being shot by a patient.

“I was visiting a friend whose father was a psychiatrist,” Dr. Newman recalled. “We were playing in the living room when the doorbell rang. My friend went to the door and opened it. Then I heard a shot. I ran to the front hall and saw my friend’s father slumped at the bottom of the stairs. He had come down the stairs to see who was there. It was a patient armed with a shotgun.”

As a result of the shooting, a large portion of the psychiatrist’s intestines was removed. In spite of this traumatic incident, Dr. Newman went on to become a psychiatrist – who treated many violent prisoners. “I knew it was dangerous,” he said, “but I rationalized that I wouldn’t be attacked because I would be nicer.”

That attitude seemed to work until 2002, when a prisoner threw boiling oil on him. Dr. Newman was working at the Federal Medical Center Butner, a facility for prisoners in North Carolina. “A prisoner I had been treating was denied parole, based on my recommendation,” he said. “From then on, he was looking for a way to exact revenge.”

“One day I was sitting in the nursing station, typing up notes,” Dr. Newman said. “Two new nurses, who were also there, had forgotten to lock the door, and the prisoner noticed that. He heated up some baby oil in a microwave, which was available to prisoners at the time. Then he walked into the office, threw the oil on my back, and came at me with a sharp pencil.”

Dr. Newman said the nurses fled to an adjoining office, locked the door, and wouldn’t let him in. He went into another office and collapsed in exhaustion. He was saved by an inmate who came on the scene, fended off the attacker, and called for help.

“I was taken to the burn unit,” Dr. Newman recalled. “I had second- and third-degree burns on 9% of my body. It was extremely painful. It took me 45 days to recover enough to get back to work.” The two nurses were fired.
 

Doctors take threats by patients more seriously now

It is rare that patients murder their doctors, but when it happens, the news tears through the whole medical community. When orthopedic surgeon Preston Phillips, MD, was killed by a patient in Tulsa, Okla., on June 1, Jennifer M. Weiss, MD, recognized the potential danger to physicians.

“The news left me feeling very shaken,” said Dr. Weiss, a pediatric orthopedic surgeon at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Los Angeles. “Every orthopedic surgeon I talked to about it felt shaken.”

Dr. Weiss said the impact of that event prompted her to take a patient’s abuse more seriously than she might have previously. “Before the killing, my colleagues and I might have swept the incident under the rug, but we reported it to the authorities,” she said.

“What happened was I told a parent of a school-aged child that the child wasn’t ready to go back to sports,” Dr. Weiss says. “This parent was incredibly triggered – screaming and making verbal threats. The parent was standing between me and the door, so I couldn’t get out.”

Coworkers down the hall heard the yelling and helped Dr. Weiss get out of the room. “The parent was escorted out of the building, and the incident was reported to our risk management team,” she said.
 

Shooters/killers vs. agitated patients

Patients who shoot to kill are very different from agitated patients seen by many doctors on a regular basis – particularly in emergency departments (EDs), psychiatric units, and pain clinics, said Scott Zeller, MD, a psychiatrist who is vice president of Acute Psychiatric Medicine at Vituity, a multistate physician partnership based in Emeryville, California.

“Agitated patients have trouble communicating their needs and can become physically and verbally aggressive,” Dr. Zeller said. He reports that there are 1.7 million such incidents a year in this country, but most of the incidents of verbal aggression can be kept from exploding into physical violence.

Shooters, however, are very hard to stop because they usually plan the action in advance, Dr. Zeller said. He recalled the 2017 murder of Todd Graham, MD, a friend from medical school. Dr. Graham, an orthopedic surgeon in South Bend, Ind., was gunned down by the husband of one of his patients after Dr. Graham declined to prescribe opioids for her.
 

Playing down the risk of violence

Doctors may play down the risk of violence, even after they have experienced it personally. “Patients can get angry and may make threatening comments,” Dr. Weiss said. “A lot of doctors just brush it off.”

Simple remarks can set off violence-prone patients, as happened to James P. Phillips, MD, director of disaster and operational medicine at George Washington University, Washington. He recalled asking a prisoner who was visiting his hospital to “lower the volume,” and the man exploded. “Even though he was handcuffed to the bed, he heaved an oxygen tank into a window,” Dr. Phillips said. “He said he would be coming back to kill me.”

Sometimes threats or other types of verbal abuse can be as destructive as physical violence. Diann Krywko, MD, an emergency physician at the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) Health, Charleston, has had some tough assignments. She worked in EDs in Detroit and Flint, Mich., for a decade before coming to MUSC, where she serves as director of wellness, health, and resilience. One of the incidents that has bothered her the most involved a threat.

It happened when Dr. Krywko denied a patient’s request for narcotics. “She was very angry and said she’d come to my home and cut my children’s heads off,” Dr. Krywko said. “To this day, what she said horrifies me. I still see her smile as she said that.”

Dr. Krywko considered filing for a restraining order against the patient but didn’t because the patient could have learned her address. Dr. Phillips said fear of retaliation is one reason many doctors don’t report threats from patients. “The patient you report knows where you work and may come there to take revenge,” he said. “Also, you may have to continue caring for the person who punched you.”

Online threats also may cause a great deal of angst. Dr. Phillips said he received many online threats when was a medical analyst for CNN in 2020. “Someone sent my address to his Twitter followers, and they shared it with others, so now the whole world knows where I live,” he said. “I had to upgrade security at my home.”
 

How to deal with volatile patients

Being nice may not always work, but in many cases, it can keep a volatile situation from exploding, according to Dr. Krywko.

“When patients begin to show signs of agitation or are already there, we always try to verbally deescalate the situation, which involves listening,” Dr. Krywko said. “They want someone to hear them out.”

Doctors speak to patients from a position of authority, but Dr. Krywko advises that they should not be too blunt. “Don’t tell patients they’re wrong,” she said. “Even if they may be incorrect, they feel their viewpoint is valid. Encourage a dialogue with words like, ‘Tell me more,’ ” Dr. Krywko said.
 

Defending yourself

Doctors may have little warning of an impending attack because a patient’s mood can change quickly. This happened several years ago to Jennifer Casaletto, MD, an emergency physician in Charlotte, N.C.

“A man was brought into my ED by ambulance,” she said. “He seemed very calm for a long while, but then he became completely unhinged. A male nurse placed himself between the patient and others and was attacked. He got hurt but was able to continue working.”

Dr. Zeller said health care teams sometimes overreact when patients lash out. “The old-fashioned way to deal with an agitated patient is to call in the cavalry – everyone does a group takedown,” he said. “The patient is put in restraints and heavily sedated. This is not good for anybody. Not only is it likely to injure and traumatize the patient, it can also injure the care team.”

Many hospital EDs have security guards. “I feel safer when a hospital has armed security guards, but they need to be well trained,” Dr. Casaletto said. “Many small hospitals and freestanding EDs do not have security officers at all, or the guards are undertrained or told not to touch anybody.”

In many electronic health record systems, doctors can flag violent patients so future caregivers can be forewarned. However, Dr. Zeller advises against writing about patients’ violence or rudeness in the medical record, because patients can have access to it and might take revenge.
 

Rising violence from patients

“It feels like it has become much more dangerous to work in the ED,” said Hasan Gokal, MD, an emergency physician working in EDs at the Texas Medical Center. “Just last week, a woman pulled out a gun and fired it in an ED near Houston.”

The statistics back up Dr. Gokal’s assessment. Injuries caused by violent attacks against medical professionals grew by 67% from 2011 to 2018, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Those levels rose even more during the COVID-19 pandemic – the assault rate in hospitals rose 23% just in 2020.

Dr. Krywko said she had “a patient who said she wanted to hurt the next person who irritated her, and that happened to me. She jumped out of her bed swinging and punching, and I wasn’t ready for it. I yelled for help and the care team came.”

“The rise in violence has to do with a decline in respect for authority,” Dr. Phillips said. “Some people now believe doctors are lying to them about the need for COVID precautions because they are taking money from the vaccine companies. The pandemic has exacerbated violence in every way.”

Dr. Phillips said that a growing lack of resources had led to more anger among patients. “There are fewer nurses and reduced physician coverage,” he said. “That means longer wait times for patients, which increases patients’ frustrations.”

Dr. Weiss said patients have higher expectations. “In sports medicine, the expectations are incredible,” she said. “Parents want their kids to get back to playing as soon as possible.”

“Hospitals in particular are soft targets for violence,” Dr. Phillips said. “People know you can’t assault a flight attendant, because it’s a federal offense, but there is no such federal offense for violence against health care personnel.”

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

Ralph Newman, MD, got a taste of how dangerous medicine could be at age 10, when he witnessed a physician being shot by a patient.

“I was visiting a friend whose father was a psychiatrist,” Dr. Newman recalled. “We were playing in the living room when the doorbell rang. My friend went to the door and opened it. Then I heard a shot. I ran to the front hall and saw my friend’s father slumped at the bottom of the stairs. He had come down the stairs to see who was there. It was a patient armed with a shotgun.”

As a result of the shooting, a large portion of the psychiatrist’s intestines was removed. In spite of this traumatic incident, Dr. Newman went on to become a psychiatrist – who treated many violent prisoners. “I knew it was dangerous,” he said, “but I rationalized that I wouldn’t be attacked because I would be nicer.”

That attitude seemed to work until 2002, when a prisoner threw boiling oil on him. Dr. Newman was working at the Federal Medical Center Butner, a facility for prisoners in North Carolina. “A prisoner I had been treating was denied parole, based on my recommendation,” he said. “From then on, he was looking for a way to exact revenge.”

“One day I was sitting in the nursing station, typing up notes,” Dr. Newman said. “Two new nurses, who were also there, had forgotten to lock the door, and the prisoner noticed that. He heated up some baby oil in a microwave, which was available to prisoners at the time. Then he walked into the office, threw the oil on my back, and came at me with a sharp pencil.”

Dr. Newman said the nurses fled to an adjoining office, locked the door, and wouldn’t let him in. He went into another office and collapsed in exhaustion. He was saved by an inmate who came on the scene, fended off the attacker, and called for help.

“I was taken to the burn unit,” Dr. Newman recalled. “I had second- and third-degree burns on 9% of my body. It was extremely painful. It took me 45 days to recover enough to get back to work.” The two nurses were fired.
 

Doctors take threats by patients more seriously now

It is rare that patients murder their doctors, but when it happens, the news tears through the whole medical community. When orthopedic surgeon Preston Phillips, MD, was killed by a patient in Tulsa, Okla., on June 1, Jennifer M. Weiss, MD, recognized the potential danger to physicians.

“The news left me feeling very shaken,” said Dr. Weiss, a pediatric orthopedic surgeon at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Los Angeles. “Every orthopedic surgeon I talked to about it felt shaken.”

Dr. Weiss said the impact of that event prompted her to take a patient’s abuse more seriously than she might have previously. “Before the killing, my colleagues and I might have swept the incident under the rug, but we reported it to the authorities,” she said.

“What happened was I told a parent of a school-aged child that the child wasn’t ready to go back to sports,” Dr. Weiss says. “This parent was incredibly triggered – screaming and making verbal threats. The parent was standing between me and the door, so I couldn’t get out.”

Coworkers down the hall heard the yelling and helped Dr. Weiss get out of the room. “The parent was escorted out of the building, and the incident was reported to our risk management team,” she said.
 

Shooters/killers vs. agitated patients

Patients who shoot to kill are very different from agitated patients seen by many doctors on a regular basis – particularly in emergency departments (EDs), psychiatric units, and pain clinics, said Scott Zeller, MD, a psychiatrist who is vice president of Acute Psychiatric Medicine at Vituity, a multistate physician partnership based in Emeryville, California.

“Agitated patients have trouble communicating their needs and can become physically and verbally aggressive,” Dr. Zeller said. He reports that there are 1.7 million such incidents a year in this country, but most of the incidents of verbal aggression can be kept from exploding into physical violence.

Shooters, however, are very hard to stop because they usually plan the action in advance, Dr. Zeller said. He recalled the 2017 murder of Todd Graham, MD, a friend from medical school. Dr. Graham, an orthopedic surgeon in South Bend, Ind., was gunned down by the husband of one of his patients after Dr. Graham declined to prescribe opioids for her.
 

Playing down the risk of violence

Doctors may play down the risk of violence, even after they have experienced it personally. “Patients can get angry and may make threatening comments,” Dr. Weiss said. “A lot of doctors just brush it off.”

Simple remarks can set off violence-prone patients, as happened to James P. Phillips, MD, director of disaster and operational medicine at George Washington University, Washington. He recalled asking a prisoner who was visiting his hospital to “lower the volume,” and the man exploded. “Even though he was handcuffed to the bed, he heaved an oxygen tank into a window,” Dr. Phillips said. “He said he would be coming back to kill me.”

Sometimes threats or other types of verbal abuse can be as destructive as physical violence. Diann Krywko, MD, an emergency physician at the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) Health, Charleston, has had some tough assignments. She worked in EDs in Detroit and Flint, Mich., for a decade before coming to MUSC, where she serves as director of wellness, health, and resilience. One of the incidents that has bothered her the most involved a threat.

It happened when Dr. Krywko denied a patient’s request for narcotics. “She was very angry and said she’d come to my home and cut my children’s heads off,” Dr. Krywko said. “To this day, what she said horrifies me. I still see her smile as she said that.”

Dr. Krywko considered filing for a restraining order against the patient but didn’t because the patient could have learned her address. Dr. Phillips said fear of retaliation is one reason many doctors don’t report threats from patients. “The patient you report knows where you work and may come there to take revenge,” he said. “Also, you may have to continue caring for the person who punched you.”

Online threats also may cause a great deal of angst. Dr. Phillips said he received many online threats when was a medical analyst for CNN in 2020. “Someone sent my address to his Twitter followers, and they shared it with others, so now the whole world knows where I live,” he said. “I had to upgrade security at my home.”
 

How to deal with volatile patients

Being nice may not always work, but in many cases, it can keep a volatile situation from exploding, according to Dr. Krywko.

“When patients begin to show signs of agitation or are already there, we always try to verbally deescalate the situation, which involves listening,” Dr. Krywko said. “They want someone to hear them out.”

Doctors speak to patients from a position of authority, but Dr. Krywko advises that they should not be too blunt. “Don’t tell patients they’re wrong,” she said. “Even if they may be incorrect, they feel their viewpoint is valid. Encourage a dialogue with words like, ‘Tell me more,’ ” Dr. Krywko said.
 

Defending yourself

Doctors may have little warning of an impending attack because a patient’s mood can change quickly. This happened several years ago to Jennifer Casaletto, MD, an emergency physician in Charlotte, N.C.

“A man was brought into my ED by ambulance,” she said. “He seemed very calm for a long while, but then he became completely unhinged. A male nurse placed himself between the patient and others and was attacked. He got hurt but was able to continue working.”

Dr. Zeller said health care teams sometimes overreact when patients lash out. “The old-fashioned way to deal with an agitated patient is to call in the cavalry – everyone does a group takedown,” he said. “The patient is put in restraints and heavily sedated. This is not good for anybody. Not only is it likely to injure and traumatize the patient, it can also injure the care team.”

Many hospital EDs have security guards. “I feel safer when a hospital has armed security guards, but they need to be well trained,” Dr. Casaletto said. “Many small hospitals and freestanding EDs do not have security officers at all, or the guards are undertrained or told not to touch anybody.”

In many electronic health record systems, doctors can flag violent patients so future caregivers can be forewarned. However, Dr. Zeller advises against writing about patients’ violence or rudeness in the medical record, because patients can have access to it and might take revenge.
 

Rising violence from patients

“It feels like it has become much more dangerous to work in the ED,” said Hasan Gokal, MD, an emergency physician working in EDs at the Texas Medical Center. “Just last week, a woman pulled out a gun and fired it in an ED near Houston.”

The statistics back up Dr. Gokal’s assessment. Injuries caused by violent attacks against medical professionals grew by 67% from 2011 to 2018, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Those levels rose even more during the COVID-19 pandemic – the assault rate in hospitals rose 23% just in 2020.

Dr. Krywko said she had “a patient who said she wanted to hurt the next person who irritated her, and that happened to me. She jumped out of her bed swinging and punching, and I wasn’t ready for it. I yelled for help and the care team came.”

“The rise in violence has to do with a decline in respect for authority,” Dr. Phillips said. “Some people now believe doctors are lying to them about the need for COVID precautions because they are taking money from the vaccine companies. The pandemic has exacerbated violence in every way.”

Dr. Phillips said that a growing lack of resources had led to more anger among patients. “There are fewer nurses and reduced physician coverage,” he said. “That means longer wait times for patients, which increases patients’ frustrations.”

Dr. Weiss said patients have higher expectations. “In sports medicine, the expectations are incredible,” she said. “Parents want their kids to get back to playing as soon as possible.”

“Hospitals in particular are soft targets for violence,” Dr. Phillips said. “People know you can’t assault a flight attendant, because it’s a federal offense, but there is no such federal offense for violence against health care personnel.”

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

Ralph Newman, MD, got a taste of how dangerous medicine could be at age 10, when he witnessed a physician being shot by a patient.

“I was visiting a friend whose father was a psychiatrist,” Dr. Newman recalled. “We were playing in the living room when the doorbell rang. My friend went to the door and opened it. Then I heard a shot. I ran to the front hall and saw my friend’s father slumped at the bottom of the stairs. He had come down the stairs to see who was there. It was a patient armed with a shotgun.”

As a result of the shooting, a large portion of the psychiatrist’s intestines was removed. In spite of this traumatic incident, Dr. Newman went on to become a psychiatrist – who treated many violent prisoners. “I knew it was dangerous,” he said, “but I rationalized that I wouldn’t be attacked because I would be nicer.”

That attitude seemed to work until 2002, when a prisoner threw boiling oil on him. Dr. Newman was working at the Federal Medical Center Butner, a facility for prisoners in North Carolina. “A prisoner I had been treating was denied parole, based on my recommendation,” he said. “From then on, he was looking for a way to exact revenge.”

“One day I was sitting in the nursing station, typing up notes,” Dr. Newman said. “Two new nurses, who were also there, had forgotten to lock the door, and the prisoner noticed that. He heated up some baby oil in a microwave, which was available to prisoners at the time. Then he walked into the office, threw the oil on my back, and came at me with a sharp pencil.”

Dr. Newman said the nurses fled to an adjoining office, locked the door, and wouldn’t let him in. He went into another office and collapsed in exhaustion. He was saved by an inmate who came on the scene, fended off the attacker, and called for help.

“I was taken to the burn unit,” Dr. Newman recalled. “I had second- and third-degree burns on 9% of my body. It was extremely painful. It took me 45 days to recover enough to get back to work.” The two nurses were fired.
 

Doctors take threats by patients more seriously now

It is rare that patients murder their doctors, but when it happens, the news tears through the whole medical community. When orthopedic surgeon Preston Phillips, MD, was killed by a patient in Tulsa, Okla., on June 1, Jennifer M. Weiss, MD, recognized the potential danger to physicians.

“The news left me feeling very shaken,” said Dr. Weiss, a pediatric orthopedic surgeon at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Los Angeles. “Every orthopedic surgeon I talked to about it felt shaken.”

Dr. Weiss said the impact of that event prompted her to take a patient’s abuse more seriously than she might have previously. “Before the killing, my colleagues and I might have swept the incident under the rug, but we reported it to the authorities,” she said.

“What happened was I told a parent of a school-aged child that the child wasn’t ready to go back to sports,” Dr. Weiss says. “This parent was incredibly triggered – screaming and making verbal threats. The parent was standing between me and the door, so I couldn’t get out.”

Coworkers down the hall heard the yelling and helped Dr. Weiss get out of the room. “The parent was escorted out of the building, and the incident was reported to our risk management team,” she said.
 

Shooters/killers vs. agitated patients

Patients who shoot to kill are very different from agitated patients seen by many doctors on a regular basis – particularly in emergency departments (EDs), psychiatric units, and pain clinics, said Scott Zeller, MD, a psychiatrist who is vice president of Acute Psychiatric Medicine at Vituity, a multistate physician partnership based in Emeryville, California.

“Agitated patients have trouble communicating their needs and can become physically and verbally aggressive,” Dr. Zeller said. He reports that there are 1.7 million such incidents a year in this country, but most of the incidents of verbal aggression can be kept from exploding into physical violence.

Shooters, however, are very hard to stop because they usually plan the action in advance, Dr. Zeller said. He recalled the 2017 murder of Todd Graham, MD, a friend from medical school. Dr. Graham, an orthopedic surgeon in South Bend, Ind., was gunned down by the husband of one of his patients after Dr. Graham declined to prescribe opioids for her.
 

Playing down the risk of violence

Doctors may play down the risk of violence, even after they have experienced it personally. “Patients can get angry and may make threatening comments,” Dr. Weiss said. “A lot of doctors just brush it off.”

Simple remarks can set off violence-prone patients, as happened to James P. Phillips, MD, director of disaster and operational medicine at George Washington University, Washington. He recalled asking a prisoner who was visiting his hospital to “lower the volume,” and the man exploded. “Even though he was handcuffed to the bed, he heaved an oxygen tank into a window,” Dr. Phillips said. “He said he would be coming back to kill me.”

Sometimes threats or other types of verbal abuse can be as destructive as physical violence. Diann Krywko, MD, an emergency physician at the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) Health, Charleston, has had some tough assignments. She worked in EDs in Detroit and Flint, Mich., for a decade before coming to MUSC, where she serves as director of wellness, health, and resilience. One of the incidents that has bothered her the most involved a threat.

It happened when Dr. Krywko denied a patient’s request for narcotics. “She was very angry and said she’d come to my home and cut my children’s heads off,” Dr. Krywko said. “To this day, what she said horrifies me. I still see her smile as she said that.”

Dr. Krywko considered filing for a restraining order against the patient but didn’t because the patient could have learned her address. Dr. Phillips said fear of retaliation is one reason many doctors don’t report threats from patients. “The patient you report knows where you work and may come there to take revenge,” he said. “Also, you may have to continue caring for the person who punched you.”

Online threats also may cause a great deal of angst. Dr. Phillips said he received many online threats when was a medical analyst for CNN in 2020. “Someone sent my address to his Twitter followers, and they shared it with others, so now the whole world knows where I live,” he said. “I had to upgrade security at my home.”
 

How to deal with volatile patients

Being nice may not always work, but in many cases, it can keep a volatile situation from exploding, according to Dr. Krywko.

“When patients begin to show signs of agitation or are already there, we always try to verbally deescalate the situation, which involves listening,” Dr. Krywko said. “They want someone to hear them out.”

Doctors speak to patients from a position of authority, but Dr. Krywko advises that they should not be too blunt. “Don’t tell patients they’re wrong,” she said. “Even if they may be incorrect, they feel their viewpoint is valid. Encourage a dialogue with words like, ‘Tell me more,’ ” Dr. Krywko said.
 

Defending yourself

Doctors may have little warning of an impending attack because a patient’s mood can change quickly. This happened several years ago to Jennifer Casaletto, MD, an emergency physician in Charlotte, N.C.

“A man was brought into my ED by ambulance,” she said. “He seemed very calm for a long while, but then he became completely unhinged. A male nurse placed himself between the patient and others and was attacked. He got hurt but was able to continue working.”

Dr. Zeller said health care teams sometimes overreact when patients lash out. “The old-fashioned way to deal with an agitated patient is to call in the cavalry – everyone does a group takedown,” he said. “The patient is put in restraints and heavily sedated. This is not good for anybody. Not only is it likely to injure and traumatize the patient, it can also injure the care team.”

Many hospital EDs have security guards. “I feel safer when a hospital has armed security guards, but they need to be well trained,” Dr. Casaletto said. “Many small hospitals and freestanding EDs do not have security officers at all, or the guards are undertrained or told not to touch anybody.”

In many electronic health record systems, doctors can flag violent patients so future caregivers can be forewarned. However, Dr. Zeller advises against writing about patients’ violence or rudeness in the medical record, because patients can have access to it and might take revenge.
 

Rising violence from patients

“It feels like it has become much more dangerous to work in the ED,” said Hasan Gokal, MD, an emergency physician working in EDs at the Texas Medical Center. “Just last week, a woman pulled out a gun and fired it in an ED near Houston.”

The statistics back up Dr. Gokal’s assessment. Injuries caused by violent attacks against medical professionals grew by 67% from 2011 to 2018, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Those levels rose even more during the COVID-19 pandemic – the assault rate in hospitals rose 23% just in 2020.

Dr. Krywko said she had “a patient who said she wanted to hurt the next person who irritated her, and that happened to me. She jumped out of her bed swinging and punching, and I wasn’t ready for it. I yelled for help and the care team came.”

“The rise in violence has to do with a decline in respect for authority,” Dr. Phillips said. “Some people now believe doctors are lying to them about the need for COVID precautions because they are taking money from the vaccine companies. The pandemic has exacerbated violence in every way.”

Dr. Phillips said that a growing lack of resources had led to more anger among patients. “There are fewer nurses and reduced physician coverage,” he said. “That means longer wait times for patients, which increases patients’ frustrations.”

Dr. Weiss said patients have higher expectations. “In sports medicine, the expectations are incredible,” she said. “Parents want their kids to get back to playing as soon as possible.”

“Hospitals in particular are soft targets for violence,” Dr. Phillips said. “People know you can’t assault a flight attendant, because it’s a federal offense, but there is no such federal offense for violence against health care personnel.”

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

The No. 1 issue I have dealt with in my over 40 years of practicing medicine is racism.

As a Black man who grew up in this country, I can tell you first-hand what it does to you. The scars never go away, and your status is always in question, no matter your title or uniforms of respect. Eventually it wears you down.

I was born into poverty and the segregation of southwest Louisiana. I experienced the dehumanization intended for me: separate drinking fountains and poor foundational education. I was lucky to attend a historically Black college or university (Southern University, Baton Rouge, La.), that gave me my bearings. I then went to some of the very best, predominantly White institutions.

When I looked for a job after training, there were few integrated medical groups, so I started my own. It included practitioners who were White, Black, Jewish, Asian, Middle Eastern, Muslim, Christian, etc. We cross covered and treated patients from every corner of the globe.

In medicine, we treat human beings with disease. The disease should be the only difference that sets us apart. There is absolutely no place for racism.

It is difficult to be called a racist, and I have met only a handful of people in health care whom I would label as such. But racism is structural and institutionalized so that it is often hidden.

One way to overcome this is to make every effort possible to get to know people as individuals. Only then can we see that there are few real differences between us. I would often seek out a colleague from a different culture or race to have lunch with so I could learn more about them.

We all strive for the same things – validation, happiness, love, family, and a future. We all grieve over the same things.

What some caregivers may not realize is that, just as clinicians have been trained to recognize subtle signs and symptoms of disease, minorities can recognize racism immediately during a medical encounter. Our past experiences make us skilled at picking up a lack of eye contact or body language and tone of voice that are dismissive and disrespectful.

A patient who has felt racism may still return for care because of insurance coverage limitations, location, or a lack of alternatives. But trust and loyalty will never develop on the part of this patient, and empathy will be absent on the part of their caregiver.

To counter this in my own practice, I developed the Francis Commitment to avoid any hint of racism or bias toward my patients.

I commit to the following:

1. I see you.

2. I hear you.

3. I accept who you are.

4. I will try to understand how you must feel (empathy).

5. Treating you is very important to me.

6. I would like to gain your trust that I will do my very best to make you better.

7. I value you as a human being and will treat you as if you are family.

8. I care about what happens to you.

9. I want us to work together to fight this disease.

10. I am grateful that you chose me as your caregiver.

The INOVA health care system where I work has undertaken an initiative called What Matters Most to better understand the needs of every patient. We are currently working on a strategy of patient personalization to not only learn about their medical needs but also to discover who they are as a person. We incorporate Social Determinants of Health in our dealings with patients. We also have participated in a program called “A Long Talk”, where we learned that those of us who remain silent when we see or hear racism are responsible for its persistence and growth.

But we must do more. Racism will propagate if we live in silos surrounded by people whose ideas reflect our own. As long as we have nondiversified board rooms, departments, and staff, the problem will persist.

A lot of the biases that we unconsciously carry in our heads and hearts have no basis in reality and were placed there without our permission by parents, society, and friends. But we can replace these divisive thoughts and impulses.

What’s in your heart can only be known and controlled by you. How tolerant we are of racism is up to us: Do you call out racism; do you challenge any inkling of racism from friends or acquaintances; do you put pressure on institutions where you work to diversify in recruiting and hiring?

Think of all the advances in medicine that were achieved by people from different cultures and races. Racism has no place in what we have all devoted our lives to do – take care of our fellow humans.

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

The No. 1 issue I have dealt with in my over 40 years of practicing medicine is racism.

As a Black man who grew up in this country, I can tell you first-hand what it does to you. The scars never go away, and your status is always in question, no matter your title or uniforms of respect. Eventually it wears you down.

I was born into poverty and the segregation of southwest Louisiana. I experienced the dehumanization intended for me: separate drinking fountains and poor foundational education. I was lucky to attend a historically Black college or university (Southern University, Baton Rouge, La.), that gave me my bearings. I then went to some of the very best, predominantly White institutions.

When I looked for a job after training, there were few integrated medical groups, so I started my own. It included practitioners who were White, Black, Jewish, Asian, Middle Eastern, Muslim, Christian, etc. We cross covered and treated patients from every corner of the globe.

In medicine, we treat human beings with disease. The disease should be the only difference that sets us apart. There is absolutely no place for racism.

It is difficult to be called a racist, and I have met only a handful of people in health care whom I would label as such. But racism is structural and institutionalized so that it is often hidden.

One way to overcome this is to make every effort possible to get to know people as individuals. Only then can we see that there are few real differences between us. I would often seek out a colleague from a different culture or race to have lunch with so I could learn more about them.

We all strive for the same things – validation, happiness, love, family, and a future. We all grieve over the same things.

What some caregivers may not realize is that, just as clinicians have been trained to recognize subtle signs and symptoms of disease, minorities can recognize racism immediately during a medical encounter. Our past experiences make us skilled at picking up a lack of eye contact or body language and tone of voice that are dismissive and disrespectful.

A patient who has felt racism may still return for care because of insurance coverage limitations, location, or a lack of alternatives. But trust and loyalty will never develop on the part of this patient, and empathy will be absent on the part of their caregiver.

To counter this in my own practice, I developed the Francis Commitment to avoid any hint of racism or bias toward my patients.

I commit to the following:

1. I see you.

2. I hear you.

3. I accept who you are.

4. I will try to understand how you must feel (empathy).

5. Treating you is very important to me.

6. I would like to gain your trust that I will do my very best to make you better.

7. I value you as a human being and will treat you as if you are family.

8. I care about what happens to you.

9. I want us to work together to fight this disease.

10. I am grateful that you chose me as your caregiver.

The INOVA health care system where I work has undertaken an initiative called What Matters Most to better understand the needs of every patient. We are currently working on a strategy of patient personalization to not only learn about their medical needs but also to discover who they are as a person. We incorporate Social Determinants of Health in our dealings with patients. We also have participated in a program called “A Long Talk”, where we learned that those of us who remain silent when we see or hear racism are responsible for its persistence and growth.

But we must do more. Racism will propagate if we live in silos surrounded by people whose ideas reflect our own. As long as we have nondiversified board rooms, departments, and staff, the problem will persist.

A lot of the biases that we unconsciously carry in our heads and hearts have no basis in reality and were placed there without our permission by parents, society, and friends. But we can replace these divisive thoughts and impulses.

What’s in your heart can only be known and controlled by you. How tolerant we are of racism is up to us: Do you call out racism; do you challenge any inkling of racism from friends or acquaintances; do you put pressure on institutions where you work to diversify in recruiting and hiring?

Think of all the advances in medicine that were achieved by people from different cultures and races. Racism has no place in what we have all devoted our lives to do – take care of our fellow humans.

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

The No. 1 issue I have dealt with in my over 40 years of practicing medicine is racism.

As a Black man who grew up in this country, I can tell you first-hand what it does to you. The scars never go away, and your status is always in question, no matter your title or uniforms of respect. Eventually it wears you down.

I was born into poverty and the segregation of southwest Louisiana. I experienced the dehumanization intended for me: separate drinking fountains and poor foundational education. I was lucky to attend a historically Black college or university (Southern University, Baton Rouge, La.), that gave me my bearings. I then went to some of the very best, predominantly White institutions.

When I looked for a job after training, there were few integrated medical groups, so I started my own. It included practitioners who were White, Black, Jewish, Asian, Middle Eastern, Muslim, Christian, etc. We cross covered and treated patients from every corner of the globe.

In medicine, we treat human beings with disease. The disease should be the only difference that sets us apart. There is absolutely no place for racism.

It is difficult to be called a racist, and I have met only a handful of people in health care whom I would label as such. But racism is structural and institutionalized so that it is often hidden.

One way to overcome this is to make every effort possible to get to know people as individuals. Only then can we see that there are few real differences between us. I would often seek out a colleague from a different culture or race to have lunch with so I could learn more about them.

We all strive for the same things – validation, happiness, love, family, and a future. We all grieve over the same things.

What some caregivers may not realize is that, just as clinicians have been trained to recognize subtle signs and symptoms of disease, minorities can recognize racism immediately during a medical encounter. Our past experiences make us skilled at picking up a lack of eye contact or body language and tone of voice that are dismissive and disrespectful.

A patient who has felt racism may still return for care because of insurance coverage limitations, location, or a lack of alternatives. But trust and loyalty will never develop on the part of this patient, and empathy will be absent on the part of their caregiver.

To counter this in my own practice, I developed the Francis Commitment to avoid any hint of racism or bias toward my patients.

I commit to the following:

1. I see you.

2. I hear you.

3. I accept who you are.

4. I will try to understand how you must feel (empathy).

5. Treating you is very important to me.

6. I would like to gain your trust that I will do my very best to make you better.

7. I value you as a human being and will treat you as if you are family.

8. I care about what happens to you.

9. I want us to work together to fight this disease.

10. I am grateful that you chose me as your caregiver.

The INOVA health care system where I work has undertaken an initiative called What Matters Most to better understand the needs of every patient. We are currently working on a strategy of patient personalization to not only learn about their medical needs but also to discover who they are as a person. We incorporate Social Determinants of Health in our dealings with patients. We also have participated in a program called “A Long Talk”, where we learned that those of us who remain silent when we see or hear racism are responsible for its persistence and growth.

But we must do more. Racism will propagate if we live in silos surrounded by people whose ideas reflect our own. As long as we have nondiversified board rooms, departments, and staff, the problem will persist.

A lot of the biases that we unconsciously carry in our heads and hearts have no basis in reality and were placed there without our permission by parents, society, and friends. But we can replace these divisive thoughts and impulses.

What’s in your heart can only be known and controlled by you. How tolerant we are of racism is up to us: Do you call out racism; do you challenge any inkling of racism from friends or acquaintances; do you put pressure on institutions where you work to diversify in recruiting and hiring?

Think of all the advances in medicine that were achieved by people from different cultures and races. Racism has no place in what we have all devoted our lives to do – take care of our fellow humans.

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

An analysis of trends in lung cancer screening since March 2021 when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) expanded the eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening, shows that significantly more Black men have been screened for lung cancer, but not women or undereducated people.

The eligibility for lung cancer screening was expanded in 2021 to include men and women under 50 years old and people who smoke at least one pack of cigarettes a day for the last 20 years. “

“Expansion of screening criteria is a critical first step to achieving equity in lung cancer screening for all high-risk populations, but myriad challenges remain before individuals enter the door for screening,” wrote the authors, led by Julie A. Barta, MD, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. “Health policy changes must occur simultaneously with efforts to expand community outreach, overcome logistical barriers, and facilitate screening adherence. Only after comprehensive strategies to dismantle screening barriers are identified, validated, and implemented can there be a truly equitable landscape for lung cancer screening.”

For the study, published in JAMA Open Network, researchers examined rates of centralized lung cancer screening in the Baltimore area. In addition to expanding lung cancer screening generally, there was hope that the expanded criteria might increase uptake of screening in populations that are traditionally underserved, such as African American, Hispanic, and female patients. Of 815 people screened during the study period (March-December 2021), 161 were newly eligible for screening under the 2021 criteria.

“There’s been quite a bit of work in the field demonstrating that Black men and women develop lung cancer at more advanced stages of disease, and they often are diagnosed at younger ages and have fewer pack-years of smoking. So the hypothesis was that this would reduce some of the disparities seen in lung cancer screening by making more people eligible,” Dr. Barta said in an interview.

The researchers categorized participants as those who would have been eligible for screening under the USPSTF 2013 guideline (age 55 or older, 30 or more pack-years, quit within the past 15 years), and those who would be eligible under the 2021 guideline (age 50 or older, 20 or more pack-years, quit within the past 15 years). Of the 2021 cohort, 54.5% were African American, versus 39.5% of the 2013 cohort (P = .002). There were no differences between the cohorts with respect to education level or gender.

“Although we’ve seen some encouraging improvement in terms of getting more eligible patients into our screening program, there’s still a lot of work to be done in the field,” Dr. Barta said. “Diagnosing lung cancer at earlier stages of disease is more cost effective in general for the health care system than fighting lung cancer at advanced stages, which requires more complex and multimodal and prolonged therapies.”
 

New evidence: Chest CTs for lung cancer screening reduces incidence of advanced lung cancer

In an analysis of the SEER database presented in June at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the adoption of low-dose chest computed tomography (LDCT) led to fewer diagnoses of advanced lung cancer, although these declines varied significantly by race and ethnicity. Non-Hispanic Blacks seemed to benefit the most with a 55% decline (P < .01), while Hispanics had the lowest rate of decline at 41% (P < .01). The change was recommended by USPSTF in 2013 after the National Lung Screening Trial revealed a 20% relative reduction in mortality when CT scans were used instead of chest radiography. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services approved coverage of the screen in 2015.

The SEER study looked at data from 400,343 individuals from 2004-2014 (preintervention) and 2015-2018 (postintervention). The age-adjusted incidence of advanced lung cancer declined during both periods, but the decline was sharper between 2015 and 2018, with three fewer cases per 100,000 people than 2004-2014 (P < .01). Similar patterns were seen in subanalyses of males and females, non-Hispanic Whites, non-Hispanic Blacks, and Hispanics. The relative declines were largest in women, non-Hispanic Blacks, and people who lived outside of Metropolitan areas.

During a Q&A session that followed the presentation, Robert Smith, PhD, pointed out that the bar for eligibility of lung cancer risk has been set quite high, following the eligibility criteria for clinical trials. He noted that many patients who could be eligible for screening are still missed because of a lack of clinical routines designed to identify eligible patients. “We are missing opportunities to prevent avertable lung cancer deaths,” said Dr. Smith, senior vice president of cancer screening at the American Cancer Society.

On the other hand, screening-prompted biopsies have the potential to cause harm, particularly in patients who already have lung disease, said Douglas Allen Arenberg, MD, professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “I think that’s what scares most people is the potential downside, which is very hard to measure outside of a clinical trial,” said Dr. Arenberg, who served as a discussant for the presentation.

One way to reduce that risk is to identify biomarkers, either for screens or for incidentally-detected nodules, that have good negative predictive value. “If I had a blood test that is as good as a negative PET scan, I’m going to be much more likely to say, ‘Yeah, you’re 40 and your grandfather had lung cancer. Maybe you should get a CT. If we had that, we could screen a lot more people. Right now, I would discourage anybody who is at low risk from getting screened because when they come to me, the biggest opportunity I have to do harm is when I do a biopsy, and you always remember the ones that go wrong,” he said.

Dr. Arenberg also called for improvements in electronic medical records to better flag at-risk patients. “I think we as physicians have to demand more of the software developers that create these EMRs for us,” he said.

Another study in the same session used data from 1,391,088 patients drawn from the National Cancer Database between 2010 and 2017 to examine trends in diagnosis of stage I cancer. In 2010, 23.5% of patients were diagnosed as stage I, versus 29.1% in 2017. Stage I incidence increased from 25.8% to 31.7% in non–small cell lung cancer, but there was no statistically significant change in small cell lung cancer. As with the SEER database study, the researchers noted that the shift toward stage I diagnoses predated the recommendation of LDCT.

Dr. Arenberg suggested that the trend may come down to increased frequency of CT scans, which often collect incidental images of the lungs. He added that better access to care may also be helping to drive the change. “How much of that might have had something to do with the introduction 5 or 10 years earlier of the Affordable Care Act and people just simply having access to care and taking advantage of that?” Dr. Arenberg said.

But Dr. Arenberg said that not even screening can explain all the data. He referenced a stage shift in patients of all age groups in the National Cancer Database study, even those too young to be eligible for screening. “There’s something else going on here. It would be nice for us to understand what caused these trends, so perhaps we could accentuate that trend even more, but stage shifts are clearly occurring in lung cancer,” Dr. Arenberg said.

Dr. Barta has received grants from Genentech Health Equity Innovations Fund. Dr. Arenberg has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Smith’s potential disclosures could not be ascertained.

An analysis of trends in lung cancer screening since March 2021 when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) expanded the eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening, shows that significantly more Black men have been screened for lung cancer, but not women or undereducated people.

The eligibility for lung cancer screening was expanded in 2021 to include men and women under 50 years old and people who smoke at least one pack of cigarettes a day for the last 20 years. “

“Expansion of screening criteria is a critical first step to achieving equity in lung cancer screening for all high-risk populations, but myriad challenges remain before individuals enter the door for screening,” wrote the authors, led by Julie A. Barta, MD, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. “Health policy changes must occur simultaneously with efforts to expand community outreach, overcome logistical barriers, and facilitate screening adherence. Only after comprehensive strategies to dismantle screening barriers are identified, validated, and implemented can there be a truly equitable landscape for lung cancer screening.”

For the study, published in JAMA Open Network, researchers examined rates of centralized lung cancer screening in the Baltimore area. In addition to expanding lung cancer screening generally, there was hope that the expanded criteria might increase uptake of screening in populations that are traditionally underserved, such as African American, Hispanic, and female patients. Of 815 people screened during the study period (March-December 2021), 161 were newly eligible for screening under the 2021 criteria.

“There’s been quite a bit of work in the field demonstrating that Black men and women develop lung cancer at more advanced stages of disease, and they often are diagnosed at younger ages and have fewer pack-years of smoking. So the hypothesis was that this would reduce some of the disparities seen in lung cancer screening by making more people eligible,” Dr. Barta said in an interview.

The researchers categorized participants as those who would have been eligible for screening under the USPSTF 2013 guideline (age 55 or older, 30 or more pack-years, quit within the past 15 years), and those who would be eligible under the 2021 guideline (age 50 or older, 20 or more pack-years, quit within the past 15 years). Of the 2021 cohort, 54.5% were African American, versus 39.5% of the 2013 cohort (P = .002). There were no differences between the cohorts with respect to education level or gender.

“Although we’ve seen some encouraging improvement in terms of getting more eligible patients into our screening program, there’s still a lot of work to be done in the field,” Dr. Barta said. “Diagnosing lung cancer at earlier stages of disease is more cost effective in general for the health care system than fighting lung cancer at advanced stages, which requires more complex and multimodal and prolonged therapies.”
 

New evidence: Chest CTs for lung cancer screening reduces incidence of advanced lung cancer

In an analysis of the SEER database presented in June at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the adoption of low-dose chest computed tomography (LDCT) led to fewer diagnoses of advanced lung cancer, although these declines varied significantly by race and ethnicity. Non-Hispanic Blacks seemed to benefit the most with a 55% decline (P < .01), while Hispanics had the lowest rate of decline at 41% (P < .01). The change was recommended by USPSTF in 2013 after the National Lung Screening Trial revealed a 20% relative reduction in mortality when CT scans were used instead of chest radiography. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services approved coverage of the screen in 2015.

The SEER study looked at data from 400,343 individuals from 2004-2014 (preintervention) and 2015-2018 (postintervention). The age-adjusted incidence of advanced lung cancer declined during both periods, but the decline was sharper between 2015 and 2018, with three fewer cases per 100,000 people than 2004-2014 (P < .01). Similar patterns were seen in subanalyses of males and females, non-Hispanic Whites, non-Hispanic Blacks, and Hispanics. The relative declines were largest in women, non-Hispanic Blacks, and people who lived outside of Metropolitan areas.

During a Q&A session that followed the presentation, Robert Smith, PhD, pointed out that the bar for eligibility of lung cancer risk has been set quite high, following the eligibility criteria for clinical trials. He noted that many patients who could be eligible for screening are still missed because of a lack of clinical routines designed to identify eligible patients. “We are missing opportunities to prevent avertable lung cancer deaths,” said Dr. Smith, senior vice president of cancer screening at the American Cancer Society.

On the other hand, screening-prompted biopsies have the potential to cause harm, particularly in patients who already have lung disease, said Douglas Allen Arenberg, MD, professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “I think that’s what scares most people is the potential downside, which is very hard to measure outside of a clinical trial,” said Dr. Arenberg, who served as a discussant for the presentation.

One way to reduce that risk is to identify biomarkers, either for screens or for incidentally-detected nodules, that have good negative predictive value. “If I had a blood test that is as good as a negative PET scan, I’m going to be much more likely to say, ‘Yeah, you’re 40 and your grandfather had lung cancer. Maybe you should get a CT. If we had that, we could screen a lot more people. Right now, I would discourage anybody who is at low risk from getting screened because when they come to me, the biggest opportunity I have to do harm is when I do a biopsy, and you always remember the ones that go wrong,” he said.

Dr. Arenberg also called for improvements in electronic medical records to better flag at-risk patients. “I think we as physicians have to demand more of the software developers that create these EMRs for us,” he said.

Another study in the same session used data from 1,391,088 patients drawn from the National Cancer Database between 2010 and 2017 to examine trends in diagnosis of stage I cancer. In 2010, 23.5% of patients were diagnosed as stage I, versus 29.1% in 2017. Stage I incidence increased from 25.8% to 31.7% in non–small cell lung cancer, but there was no statistically significant change in small cell lung cancer. As with the SEER database study, the researchers noted that the shift toward stage I diagnoses predated the recommendation of LDCT.

Dr. Arenberg suggested that the trend may come down to increased frequency of CT scans, which often collect incidental images of the lungs. He added that better access to care may also be helping to drive the change. “How much of that might have had something to do with the introduction 5 or 10 years earlier of the Affordable Care Act and people just simply having access to care and taking advantage of that?” Dr. Arenberg said.

But Dr. Arenberg said that not even screening can explain all the data. He referenced a stage shift in patients of all age groups in the National Cancer Database study, even those too young to be eligible for screening. “There’s something else going on here. It would be nice for us to understand what caused these trends, so perhaps we could accentuate that trend even more, but stage shifts are clearly occurring in lung cancer,” Dr. Arenberg said.

Dr. Barta has received grants from Genentech Health Equity Innovations Fund. Dr. Arenberg has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Smith’s potential disclosures could not be ascertained.

An analysis of trends in lung cancer screening since March 2021 when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) expanded the eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening, shows that significantly more Black men have been screened for lung cancer, but not women or undereducated people.

The eligibility for lung cancer screening was expanded in 2021 to include men and women under 50 years old and people who smoke at least one pack of cigarettes a day for the last 20 years. “

“Expansion of screening criteria is a critical first step to achieving equity in lung cancer screening for all high-risk populations, but myriad challenges remain before individuals enter the door for screening,” wrote the authors, led by Julie A. Barta, MD, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. “Health policy changes must occur simultaneously with efforts to expand community outreach, overcome logistical barriers, and facilitate screening adherence. Only after comprehensive strategies to dismantle screening barriers are identified, validated, and implemented can there be a truly equitable landscape for lung cancer screening.”

For the study, published in JAMA Open Network, researchers examined rates of centralized lung cancer screening in the Baltimore area. In addition to expanding lung cancer screening generally, there was hope that the expanded criteria might increase uptake of screening in populations that are traditionally underserved, such as African American, Hispanic, and female patients. Of 815 people screened during the study period (March-December 2021), 161 were newly eligible for screening under the 2021 criteria.

“There’s been quite a bit of work in the field demonstrating that Black men and women develop lung cancer at more advanced stages of disease, and they often are diagnosed at younger ages and have fewer pack-years of smoking. So the hypothesis was that this would reduce some of the disparities seen in lung cancer screening by making more people eligible,” Dr. Barta said in an interview.

The researchers categorized participants as those who would have been eligible for screening under the USPSTF 2013 guideline (age 55 or older, 30 or more pack-years, quit within the past 15 years), and those who would be eligible under the 2021 guideline (age 50 or older, 20 or more pack-years, quit within the past 15 years). Of the 2021 cohort, 54.5% were African American, versus 39.5% of the 2013 cohort (P = .002). There were no differences between the cohorts with respect to education level or gender.

“Although we’ve seen some encouraging improvement in terms of getting more eligible patients into our screening program, there’s still a lot of work to be done in the field,” Dr. Barta said. “Diagnosing lung cancer at earlier stages of disease is more cost effective in general for the health care system than fighting lung cancer at advanced stages, which requires more complex and multimodal and prolonged therapies.”
 

New evidence: Chest CTs for lung cancer screening reduces incidence of advanced lung cancer

In an analysis of the SEER database presented in June at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the adoption of low-dose chest computed tomography (LDCT) led to fewer diagnoses of advanced lung cancer, although these declines varied significantly by race and ethnicity. Non-Hispanic Blacks seemed to benefit the most with a 55% decline (P < .01), while Hispanics had the lowest rate of decline at 41% (P < .01). The change was recommended by USPSTF in 2013 after the National Lung Screening Trial revealed a 20% relative reduction in mortality when CT scans were used instead of chest radiography. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services approved coverage of the screen in 2015.

The SEER study looked at data from 400,343 individuals from 2004-2014 (preintervention) and 2015-2018 (postintervention). The age-adjusted incidence of advanced lung cancer declined during both periods, but the decline was sharper between 2015 and 2018, with three fewer cases per 100,000 people than 2004-2014 (P < .01). Similar patterns were seen in subanalyses of males and females, non-Hispanic Whites, non-Hispanic Blacks, and Hispanics. The relative declines were largest in women, non-Hispanic Blacks, and people who lived outside of Metropolitan areas.

During a Q&A session that followed the presentation, Robert Smith, PhD, pointed out that the bar for eligibility of lung cancer risk has been set quite high, following the eligibility criteria for clinical trials. He noted that many patients who could be eligible for screening are still missed because of a lack of clinical routines designed to identify eligible patients. “We are missing opportunities to prevent avertable lung cancer deaths,” said Dr. Smith, senior vice president of cancer screening at the American Cancer Society.

On the other hand, screening-prompted biopsies have the potential to cause harm, particularly in patients who already have lung disease, said Douglas Allen Arenberg, MD, professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “I think that’s what scares most people is the potential downside, which is very hard to measure outside of a clinical trial,” said Dr. Arenberg, who served as a discussant for the presentation.

One way to reduce that risk is to identify biomarkers, either for screens or for incidentally-detected nodules, that have good negative predictive value. “If I had a blood test that is as good as a negative PET scan, I’m going to be much more likely to say, ‘Yeah, you’re 40 and your grandfather had lung cancer. Maybe you should get a CT. If we had that, we could screen a lot more people. Right now, I would discourage anybody who is at low risk from getting screened because when they come to me, the biggest opportunity I have to do harm is when I do a biopsy, and you always remember the ones that go wrong,” he said.

Dr. Arenberg also called for improvements in electronic medical records to better flag at-risk patients. “I think we as physicians have to demand more of the software developers that create these EMRs for us,” he said.

Another study in the same session used data from 1,391,088 patients drawn from the National Cancer Database between 2010 and 2017 to examine trends in diagnosis of stage I cancer. In 2010, 23.5% of patients were diagnosed as stage I, versus 29.1% in 2017. Stage I incidence increased from 25.8% to 31.7% in non–small cell lung cancer, but there was no statistically significant change in small cell lung cancer. As with the SEER database study, the researchers noted that the shift toward stage I diagnoses predated the recommendation of LDCT.

Dr. Arenberg suggested that the trend may come down to increased frequency of CT scans, which often collect incidental images of the lungs. He added that better access to care may also be helping to drive the change. “How much of that might have had something to do with the introduction 5 or 10 years earlier of the Affordable Care Act and people just simply having access to care and taking advantage of that?” Dr. Arenberg said.

But Dr. Arenberg said that not even screening can explain all the data. He referenced a stage shift in patients of all age groups in the National Cancer Database study, even those too young to be eligible for screening. “There’s something else going on here. It would be nice for us to understand what caused these trends, so perhaps we could accentuate that trend even more, but stage shifts are clearly occurring in lung cancer,” Dr. Arenberg said.

Dr. Barta has received grants from Genentech Health Equity Innovations Fund. Dr. Arenberg has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Smith’s potential disclosures could not be ascertained.

Barbara L. McAneny, MD, CEO of New Mexico Oncology Hematology Consultants, experienced a data breach about 10 years ago, when a laptop was stolen from her large practice.   

She and the other physicians were upset and worried that the individual would attempt to log in to the computer system and hack their patients’ private health information.

Dr. McAneny was also worried that the practice would have to pay a hefty fine to the government for having unsecured private health information on a laptop. She could have paid from $50,000 to more than $1.9 million for lost and stolen devices (although that didn’t happen).

Dr. McAneny had a standard cyber liability benefit in her med-mal policy that covered up to $50,000 of the data breach costs. That covered the legal advice The Doctors Company provided about state and federal reporting requirements when a data breach occurs and the costs the practice incurred from mailing letters to all of its patients notifying them of the data breach, says Dr. McAneny.

“The data breach taught me a lot. Our practice spent a lot of money on increasing our internal controls, cybersecurity, and monitoring. Our IT department started testing our computer firewalls periodically, and that’s how we discovered that cybercriminals were attempting to break into our computer system at least 100 times daily,” says Dr. McAneny.

That discovery changed how she thought about insurance. “I decided the med-mal benefit wasn’t enough. I bought the best cybersecurity policy we could afford to protect against future breaches, especially malware or ransomware attacks.” 

Her practice also had to make its electronic health records (EHRs) more secure to comply with the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights standards for protected health information. The cost of increased security wasn’t covered by her cyber benefit.
 

Cyberattacks increasing in health care

Despite having comprehensive coverage, Dr. McAneny worries that the cybercriminals are a step ahead of the cybersecurity experts and her practice will eventually have another data breach.

“The policy only covers things that we know about today. As we upgrade our defenses, criminals are finding new ways to breach firewalls and work around our defenses,” she says.

Cybercriminals – whether from foreign countries or just plain, homegrown thugs – have stepped up their attacks on health care organizations. So far this year, nearly 200 medical groups have reported cyberattacks involving 500 or more of their patients’ medical records to the federal government.

EHRs are valuable targets to cybercriminals because of the protected health information they contain. Cybercriminals grab information such as Social Security numbers, dates of birth, medical procedures and results, and in some cases billing and financial information and sell it on the dark web.

They typically bundle the information and sell it to other criminals who later use it for various kinds of fraud and extortion such as banking and credit fraud, health care fraud, identity theft, and ransom extortion.
 

What do most doctors have?

The vast majority (82%) of doctors polled by the Medical Group Management Association last year said they had cyber insurance, compared with 54% in 2018.

For those who answered “yes,” many said they have coverage through their malpractice insurance carrier.

David Zetter, president of Zetter HealthCare Management Consultants, recommends that physicians speak with their malpractice carrier to determine what coverage they have, if any, within their malpractice policy. 

A typical cybersecurity benefit is limited to what is needed to fix and resolve the hacking incident, says Raj Shah, senior regulatory attorney and policyholder advisor at MagMutual, which insures medical practices for malpractice and cyber liability.

That usually covers investigating the cause of the breach and the extent of the damage, legal advice about federal and state reporting requirements, whether to pay a ransom, and a public relations professional to handle patient communication, says Mr. Shah.

The benefit doesn’t cover lost patient revenue when practices have to shut down their operations, the cost of replacing damaged computers, or the ransom payment, he says.

Mr. Zetter advises doctors to consider buying cybersecurity coverage. “I recommend that they speak with an insurance broker who is experienced with cybersecurity policies sold to health care professionals to determine what type of coverage and how much coverage they may need. Their malpractice carrier may also be able to provide some answers,” says Mr. Zetter.

The physician will need to be able to answer questions about their network and how many staff they have and may need to involve their IT vendor too, he adds.
 

How does comprehensive coverage compare?

Ransomware attacks continue to be one of the most frequent types of attacks, and the amount criminals are demanding has risen significantly. The median ransom payment was $5,000 in the fourth quarter of 2018, compared with over $300,000 during the  fourth quarter of 2021.

Cybercriminals now engage in “double extortion” – demanding a ransom payment to hand over the code that will unlock their encrypted data – and then another ransom payment to not post patients’ sensitive medical information they copied onto the dark web.

Comprehensive cybersecurity insurance will cover “double extortion” payments, legal costs that may arise from defending against patient lawsuits, and the costs of meeting federal and state privacy requirements, including notifying patients of the data breach and regulatory investigations, says Michael Carr, head of risk engineering for North America for Coalition, a cyber insurance firm.  

Cyber insurers also contract with vendors who sell bitcoin, which is the currency cybercriminals typically demand for ransom payments, and work with ransom negotiators.

For example, once Coalition decided to pay the ransom on behalf of a health care client, it negotiated the ransom demand down by nearly 75% from $750,000 to $200,000, and proceeded to help the company restore all of its data.

The costs to respond to the incident, to recover lost data, and to pay the extortion, together with the lost business income resulting from the incident, were covered by Coalition’s cyber insurance policy.

Other clients have had their funds retrieved before a fraudulent wire transfer was completed. “Medical practices have vendors they pay regularly. A cybercriminal may compromise your email or take over a bank account and then impersonate a vendor asking to be paid for services they didn’t provide,” says Mr. Carr.
 

How much coverage do you need? Cost?

Dr. McAneny has increased her cybersecurity coverage every year. “It’s expensive, but I think it’s worth it. But you can never buy enough protection due to the coverage limits.”

She worries that the costs could exceed the limits if a ransomware attack disrupts her practice for days, weeks, or longer, or if the Office for Civil Rights fines her practice $10,000 per patient chart – the practice has 100,000 health records. “That can run several millions of dollars and ruin a practice,” she says.

Health systems and hospitals need massive amounts of coverage, which often runs from $20 million to $30 million, says Mr. Shah. However, practices insured through MagMutual have lower coverage limits that range from $1 million to $5 million, he says.

“A large practice does not necessarily need more than $1,000,000 in coverage if they have limited loss in this area and strong internal processes and controls. Most large practices also have a dedicated information security director, which reduces their risk, so they may be comfortable with $1,000,000 in coverage,” says Mr. Shah.

Premiums are based on the number of patient health records per practice, which translates into higher premiums for larger practices.

Other factors that come into play include the underlying coverage, risk controls the practice has implemented, and its claims history, says Mr. Shah.

However, the cost for cyber liability insurance has increased, and practices can expect to pay higher premiums and deductibles. For example, a practice that paid $10,000 in premiums for a new policy last year will have to pay $20,000 this year, says Dan Hanson, senior vice president of management liability and client experience at Marsh & McLennon Agency, a risk management firm that sells cyber insurance policies.

“We saw 71% of our self-insured clients experience higher deductibles over last year due to increased claim activity and the lack of capacity in the market. The carriers are saying they will set limits, but you are going to pay a lot more, and you are going to participate more in losses through the higher deductibles,” says Mr. Hanson.
 

Are you eligible?

Cyber insurance companies have a vested interest in avoiding claims. With increasing cyberattacks and larger payouts, many insurers are requiring practices to implement some defensive measures before they insure them. Some insurers, such as Coalition, say they may still insure small practices for comprehensive coverage, but it may impact the pricing or what’s covered, says Mr. Carr.  

Here are some of the security measures that cyber insurers are looking for:

• Multifactorial authentication (MFA) requires an extra layer of security to access the system. For example, when logging into your organization’s EHR platform, instead of just using a username and password to access the platform, MFA would require you to input an additional unique login credential before you can access the EHR. A secondary login credential may include security questions, a one-time PIN, or biometrics.
• Removing a terminated employee’s login credentials quickly from the computer system. “One of the most damaging and expensive types of attacks are by disgruntled employees who still have their login credentials and take revenge by logging back into the system and planting malware,” says Mr. Shah.
• Automatic system updates (patches). “Phishing email compromises usually result from a failure to fix vulnerabilities. When a system needs to restart, it should be set to automatically update any potential security loopholes within programs or products,” says Mr. Carr. The firewall settings should also be updated.
• Prior hacking incidents: Are the attackers out of your system? Once criminals hack into the system, your practice is vulnerable to repeat attacks. “If a cyberattack is not completely addressed, threat actors will maintain access to or a presence on the compromised network. In general, we will work with the insured to ensure that the initial point of compromise has been addressed and that any threat actor presence in the network has been removed,” says Mr. Carr.

When doctors compare cybersecurity policies, experts recommend avoiding companies that may offer lower prices but lack a proven track record of handling claims and do not offer resources that can detect a threat, such as ongoing network monitoring and employee training with simulated exercises.

“Practices tend to think, ‘It won’t happen to me.’ Every practice needs to take this seriously,” says Dr. McAneny.

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

Barbara L. McAneny, MD, CEO of New Mexico Oncology Hematology Consultants, experienced a data breach about 10 years ago, when a laptop was stolen from her large practice.   

She and the other physicians were upset and worried that the individual would attempt to log in to the computer system and hack their patients’ private health information.

Dr. McAneny was also worried that the practice would have to pay a hefty fine to the government for having unsecured private health information on a laptop. She could have paid from $50,000 to more than $1.9 million for lost and stolen devices (although that didn’t happen).

Dr. McAneny had a standard cyber liability benefit in her med-mal policy that covered up to $50,000 of the data breach costs. That covered the legal advice The Doctors Company provided about state and federal reporting requirements when a data breach occurs and the costs the practice incurred from mailing letters to all of its patients notifying them of the data breach, says Dr. McAneny.

“The data breach taught me a lot. Our practice spent a lot of money on increasing our internal controls, cybersecurity, and monitoring. Our IT department started testing our computer firewalls periodically, and that’s how we discovered that cybercriminals were attempting to break into our computer system at least 100 times daily,” says Dr. McAneny.

That discovery changed how she thought about insurance. “I decided the med-mal benefit wasn’t enough. I bought the best cybersecurity policy we could afford to protect against future breaches, especially malware or ransomware attacks.” 

Her practice also had to make its electronic health records (EHRs) more secure to comply with the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights standards for protected health information. The cost of increased security wasn’t covered by her cyber benefit.
 

Cyberattacks increasing in health care

Despite having comprehensive coverage, Dr. McAneny worries that the cybercriminals are a step ahead of the cybersecurity experts and her practice will eventually have another data breach.

“The policy only covers things that we know about today. As we upgrade our defenses, criminals are finding new ways to breach firewalls and work around our defenses,” she says.

Cybercriminals – whether from foreign countries or just plain, homegrown thugs – have stepped up their attacks on health care organizations. So far this year, nearly 200 medical groups have reported cyberattacks involving 500 or more of their patients’ medical records to the federal government.

EHRs are valuable targets to cybercriminals because of the protected health information they contain. Cybercriminals grab information such as Social Security numbers, dates of birth, medical procedures and results, and in some cases billing and financial information and sell it on the dark web.

They typically bundle the information and sell it to other criminals who later use it for various kinds of fraud and extortion such as banking and credit fraud, health care fraud, identity theft, and ransom extortion.
 

What do most doctors have?

The vast majority (82%) of doctors polled by the Medical Group Management Association last year said they had cyber insurance, compared with 54% in 2018.

For those who answered “yes,” many said they have coverage through their malpractice insurance carrier.

David Zetter, president of Zetter HealthCare Management Consultants, recommends that physicians speak with their malpractice carrier to determine what coverage they have, if any, within their malpractice policy. 

A typical cybersecurity benefit is limited to what is needed to fix and resolve the hacking incident, says Raj Shah, senior regulatory attorney and policyholder advisor at MagMutual, which insures medical practices for malpractice and cyber liability.

That usually covers investigating the cause of the breach and the extent of the damage, legal advice about federal and state reporting requirements, whether to pay a ransom, and a public relations professional to handle patient communication, says Mr. Shah.

The benefit doesn’t cover lost patient revenue when practices have to shut down their operations, the cost of replacing damaged computers, or the ransom payment, he says.

Mr. Zetter advises doctors to consider buying cybersecurity coverage. “I recommend that they speak with an insurance broker who is experienced with cybersecurity policies sold to health care professionals to determine what type of coverage and how much coverage they may need. Their malpractice carrier may also be able to provide some answers,” says Mr. Zetter.

The physician will need to be able to answer questions about their network and how many staff they have and may need to involve their IT vendor too, he adds.
 

How does comprehensive coverage compare?

Ransomware attacks continue to be one of the most frequent types of attacks, and the amount criminals are demanding has risen significantly. The median ransom payment was $5,000 in the fourth quarter of 2018, compared with over $300,000 during the  fourth quarter of 2021.

Cybercriminals now engage in “double extortion” – demanding a ransom payment to hand over the code that will unlock their encrypted data – and then another ransom payment to not post patients’ sensitive medical information they copied onto the dark web.

Comprehensive cybersecurity insurance will cover “double extortion” payments, legal costs that may arise from defending against patient lawsuits, and the costs of meeting federal and state privacy requirements, including notifying patients of the data breach and regulatory investigations, says Michael Carr, head of risk engineering for North America for Coalition, a cyber insurance firm.  

Cyber insurers also contract with vendors who sell bitcoin, which is the currency cybercriminals typically demand for ransom payments, and work with ransom negotiators.

For example, once Coalition decided to pay the ransom on behalf of a health care client, it negotiated the ransom demand down by nearly 75% from $750,000 to $200,000, and proceeded to help the company restore all of its data.

The costs to respond to the incident, to recover lost data, and to pay the extortion, together with the lost business income resulting from the incident, were covered by Coalition’s cyber insurance policy.

Other clients have had their funds retrieved before a fraudulent wire transfer was completed. “Medical practices have vendors they pay regularly. A cybercriminal may compromise your email or take over a bank account and then impersonate a vendor asking to be paid for services they didn’t provide,” says Mr. Carr.
 

How much coverage do you need? Cost?

Dr. McAneny has increased her cybersecurity coverage every year. “It’s expensive, but I think it’s worth it. But you can never buy enough protection due to the coverage limits.”

She worries that the costs could exceed the limits if a ransomware attack disrupts her practice for days, weeks, or longer, or if the Office for Civil Rights fines her practice $10,000 per patient chart – the practice has 100,000 health records. “That can run several millions of dollars and ruin a practice,” she says.

Health systems and hospitals need massive amounts of coverage, which often runs from $20 million to $30 million, says Mr. Shah. However, practices insured through MagMutual have lower coverage limits that range from $1 million to $5 million, he says.

“A large practice does not necessarily need more than $1,000,000 in coverage if they have limited loss in this area and strong internal processes and controls. Most large practices also have a dedicated information security director, which reduces their risk, so they may be comfortable with $1,000,000 in coverage,” says Mr. Shah.

Premiums are based on the number of patient health records per practice, which translates into higher premiums for larger practices.

Other factors that come into play include the underlying coverage, risk controls the practice has implemented, and its claims history, says Mr. Shah.

However, the cost for cyber liability insurance has increased, and practices can expect to pay higher premiums and deductibles. For example, a practice that paid $10,000 in premiums for a new policy last year will have to pay $20,000 this year, says Dan Hanson, senior vice president of management liability and client experience at Marsh & McLennon Agency, a risk management firm that sells cyber insurance policies.

“We saw 71% of our self-insured clients experience higher deductibles over last year due to increased claim activity and the lack of capacity in the market. The carriers are saying they will set limits, but you are going to pay a lot more, and you are going to participate more in losses through the higher deductibles,” says Mr. Hanson.
 

Are you eligible?

Cyber insurance companies have a vested interest in avoiding claims. With increasing cyberattacks and larger payouts, many insurers are requiring practices to implement some defensive measures before they insure them. Some insurers, such as Coalition, say they may still insure small practices for comprehensive coverage, but it may impact the pricing or what’s covered, says Mr. Carr.  

Here are some of the security measures that cyber insurers are looking for:

• Multifactorial authentication (MFA) requires an extra layer of security to access the system. For example, when logging into your organization’s EHR platform, instead of just using a username and password to access the platform, MFA would require you to input an additional unique login credential before you can access the EHR. A secondary login credential may include security questions, a one-time PIN, or biometrics.
• Removing a terminated employee’s login credentials quickly from the computer system. “One of the most damaging and expensive types of attacks are by disgruntled employees who still have their login credentials and take revenge by logging back into the system and planting malware,” says Mr. Shah.
• Automatic system updates (patches). “Phishing email compromises usually result from a failure to fix vulnerabilities. When a system needs to restart, it should be set to automatically update any potential security loopholes within programs or products,” says Mr. Carr. The firewall settings should also be updated.
• Prior hacking incidents: Are the attackers out of your system? Once criminals hack into the system, your practice is vulnerable to repeat attacks. “If a cyberattack is not completely addressed, threat actors will maintain access to or a presence on the compromised network. In general, we will work with the insured to ensure that the initial point of compromise has been addressed and that any threat actor presence in the network has been removed,” says Mr. Carr.

When doctors compare cybersecurity policies, experts recommend avoiding companies that may offer lower prices but lack a proven track record of handling claims and do not offer resources that can detect a threat, such as ongoing network monitoring and employee training with simulated exercises.

“Practices tend to think, ‘It won’t happen to me.’ Every practice needs to take this seriously,” says Dr. McAneny.

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

Barbara L. McAneny, MD, CEO of New Mexico Oncology Hematology Consultants, experienced a data breach about 10 years ago, when a laptop was stolen from her large practice.   

She and the other physicians were upset and worried that the individual would attempt to log in to the computer system and hack their patients’ private health information.

Dr. McAneny was also worried that the practice would have to pay a hefty fine to the government for having unsecured private health information on a laptop. She could have paid from $50,000 to more than $1.9 million for lost and stolen devices (although that didn’t happen).

Dr. McAneny had a standard cyber liability benefit in her med-mal policy that covered up to $50,000 of the data breach costs. That covered the legal advice The Doctors Company provided about state and federal reporting requirements when a data breach occurs and the costs the practice incurred from mailing letters to all of its patients notifying them of the data breach, says Dr. McAneny.

“The data breach taught me a lot. Our practice spent a lot of money on increasing our internal controls, cybersecurity, and monitoring. Our IT department started testing our computer firewalls periodically, and that’s how we discovered that cybercriminals were attempting to break into our computer system at least 100 times daily,” says Dr. McAneny.

That discovery changed how she thought about insurance. “I decided the med-mal benefit wasn’t enough. I bought the best cybersecurity policy we could afford to protect against future breaches, especially malware or ransomware attacks.” 

Her practice also had to make its electronic health records (EHRs) more secure to comply with the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights standards for protected health information. The cost of increased security wasn’t covered by her cyber benefit.
 

Cyberattacks increasing in health care

Despite having comprehensive coverage, Dr. McAneny worries that the cybercriminals are a step ahead of the cybersecurity experts and her practice will eventually have another data breach.

“The policy only covers things that we know about today. As we upgrade our defenses, criminals are finding new ways to breach firewalls and work around our defenses,” she says.

Cybercriminals – whether from foreign countries or just plain, homegrown thugs – have stepped up their attacks on health care organizations. So far this year, nearly 200 medical groups have reported cyberattacks involving 500 or more of their patients’ medical records to the federal government.

EHRs are valuable targets to cybercriminals because of the protected health information they contain. Cybercriminals grab information such as Social Security numbers, dates of birth, medical procedures and results, and in some cases billing and financial information and sell it on the dark web.

They typically bundle the information and sell it to other criminals who later use it for various kinds of fraud and extortion such as banking and credit fraud, health care fraud, identity theft, and ransom extortion.
 

What do most doctors have?

The vast majority (82%) of doctors polled by the Medical Group Management Association last year said they had cyber insurance, compared with 54% in 2018.

For those who answered “yes,” many said they have coverage through their malpractice insurance carrier.

David Zetter, president of Zetter HealthCare Management Consultants, recommends that physicians speak with their malpractice carrier to determine what coverage they have, if any, within their malpractice policy. 

A typical cybersecurity benefit is limited to what is needed to fix and resolve the hacking incident, says Raj Shah, senior regulatory attorney and policyholder advisor at MagMutual, which insures medical practices for malpractice and cyber liability.

That usually covers investigating the cause of the breach and the extent of the damage, legal advice about federal and state reporting requirements, whether to pay a ransom, and a public relations professional to handle patient communication, says Mr. Shah.

The benefit doesn’t cover lost patient revenue when practices have to shut down their operations, the cost of replacing damaged computers, or the ransom payment, he says.

Mr. Zetter advises doctors to consider buying cybersecurity coverage. “I recommend that they speak with an insurance broker who is experienced with cybersecurity policies sold to health care professionals to determine what type of coverage and how much coverage they may need. Their malpractice carrier may also be able to provide some answers,” says Mr. Zetter.

The physician will need to be able to answer questions about their network and how many staff they have and may need to involve their IT vendor too, he adds.
 

How does comprehensive coverage compare?

Ransomware attacks continue to be one of the most frequent types of attacks, and the amount criminals are demanding has risen significantly. The median ransom payment was $5,000 in the fourth quarter of 2018, compared with over $300,000 during the  fourth quarter of 2021.

Cybercriminals now engage in “double extortion” – demanding a ransom payment to hand over the code that will unlock their encrypted data – and then another ransom payment to not post patients’ sensitive medical information they copied onto the dark web.

Comprehensive cybersecurity insurance will cover “double extortion” payments, legal costs that may arise from defending against patient lawsuits, and the costs of meeting federal and state privacy requirements, including notifying patients of the data breach and regulatory investigations, says Michael Carr, head of risk engineering for North America for Coalition, a cyber insurance firm.  

Cyber insurers also contract with vendors who sell bitcoin, which is the currency cybercriminals typically demand for ransom payments, and work with ransom negotiators.

For example, once Coalition decided to pay the ransom on behalf of a health care client, it negotiated the ransom demand down by nearly 75% from $750,000 to $200,000, and proceeded to help the company restore all of its data.

The costs to respond to the incident, to recover lost data, and to pay the extortion, together with the lost business income resulting from the incident, were covered by Coalition’s cyber insurance policy.

Other clients have had their funds retrieved before a fraudulent wire transfer was completed. “Medical practices have vendors they pay regularly. A cybercriminal may compromise your email or take over a bank account and then impersonate a vendor asking to be paid for services they didn’t provide,” says Mr. Carr.
 

How much coverage do you need? Cost?

Dr. McAneny has increased her cybersecurity coverage every year. “It’s expensive, but I think it’s worth it. But you can never buy enough protection due to the coverage limits.”

She worries that the costs could exceed the limits if a ransomware attack disrupts her practice for days, weeks, or longer, or if the Office for Civil Rights fines her practice $10,000 per patient chart – the practice has 100,000 health records. “That can run several millions of dollars and ruin a practice,” she says.

Health systems and hospitals need massive amounts of coverage, which often runs from $20 million to $30 million, says Mr. Shah. However, practices insured through MagMutual have lower coverage limits that range from $1 million to $5 million, he says.

“A large practice does not necessarily need more than $1,000,000 in coverage if they have limited loss in this area and strong internal processes and controls. Most large practices also have a dedicated information security director, which reduces their risk, so they may be comfortable with $1,000,000 in coverage,” says Mr. Shah.

Premiums are based on the number of patient health records per practice, which translates into higher premiums for larger practices.

Other factors that come into play include the underlying coverage, risk controls the practice has implemented, and its claims history, says Mr. Shah.

However, the cost for cyber liability insurance has increased, and practices can expect to pay higher premiums and deductibles. For example, a practice that paid $10,000 in premiums for a new policy last year will have to pay $20,000 this year, says Dan Hanson, senior vice president of management liability and client experience at Marsh & McLennon Agency, a risk management firm that sells cyber insurance policies.

“We saw 71% of our self-insured clients experience higher deductibles over last year due to increased claim activity and the lack of capacity in the market. The carriers are saying they will set limits, but you are going to pay a lot more, and you are going to participate more in losses through the higher deductibles,” says Mr. Hanson.
 

Are you eligible?

Cyber insurance companies have a vested interest in avoiding claims. With increasing cyberattacks and larger payouts, many insurers are requiring practices to implement some defensive measures before they insure them. Some insurers, such as Coalition, say they may still insure small practices for comprehensive coverage, but it may impact the pricing or what’s covered, says Mr. Carr.  

Here are some of the security measures that cyber insurers are looking for:

• Multifactorial authentication (MFA) requires an extra layer of security to access the system. For example, when logging into your organization’s EHR platform, instead of just using a username and password to access the platform, MFA would require you to input an additional unique login credential before you can access the EHR. A secondary login credential may include security questions, a one-time PIN, or biometrics.
• Removing a terminated employee’s login credentials quickly from the computer system. “One of the most damaging and expensive types of attacks are by disgruntled employees who still have their login credentials and take revenge by logging back into the system and planting malware,” says Mr. Shah.
• Automatic system updates (patches). “Phishing email compromises usually result from a failure to fix vulnerabilities. When a system needs to restart, it should be set to automatically update any potential security loopholes within programs or products,” says Mr. Carr. The firewall settings should also be updated.
• Prior hacking incidents: Are the attackers out of your system? Once criminals hack into the system, your practice is vulnerable to repeat attacks. “If a cyberattack is not completely addressed, threat actors will maintain access to or a presence on the compromised network. In general, we will work with the insured to ensure that the initial point of compromise has been addressed and that any threat actor presence in the network has been removed,” says Mr. Carr.

When doctors compare cybersecurity policies, experts recommend avoiding companies that may offer lower prices but lack a proven track record of handling claims and do not offer resources that can detect a threat, such as ongoing network monitoring and employee training with simulated exercises.

“Practices tend to think, ‘It won’t happen to me.’ Every practice needs to take this seriously,” says Dr. McAneny.

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

Treatment with oral sabizabulin (Veru Pharmaceuticals) cut the risk for death by more than 55% in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, an interim analysis of a phase 3 placebo-controlled trial found.

Sabizabulin treatment consistently and significantly reduced deaths across patient subgroups “regardless of standard of care treatment received, baseline World Health Organization scores, age, comorbidities, vaccination status, COVID-19 variant, or geography,” study investigator Mitchell Steiner, MD, chairman, president, and CEO of Veru, said in a news release.

The company has submitted an emergency use authorization request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to use sabizabulin to treat COVID-19.

The analysis was published online in NEJM Evidence.

Sabizabulin, originally developed to treat metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, is a novel, investigational, oral microtubule disruptor with dual antiviral and anti-inflammatory activities. Given the drug’s mechanism, researchers at Veru thought that sabizabulin could help treat lung inflammation in patients with COVID-19 as well.

Findings of the interim analysis are based on 150 adults hospitalized with moderate to severe COVID-19 at high risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome and death. The patients were randomly allocated to receive 9 mg oral sabizabulin (n = 98) or placebo (n = 52) once daily for up to 21 days.

Overall, the mortality rate was 20.2% in the sabizabulin group vs. 45.1% in the placebo group. Compared with placebo, treatment with sabizabulin led to a 24.9–percentage point absolute reduction and a 55.2% relative reduction in death (odds ratio, 3.23; P = .0042).

The key secondary endpoint of mortality through day 29 also favored sabizabulin over placebo, with a mortality rate of 17% vs. 35.3%. In this scenario, treatment with sabizabulin resulted in an absolute reduction in deaths of 18.3 percentage points and a relative reduction of 51.8%.

Sabizabulin led to a significant 43% relative reduction in ICU days, a 49% relative reduction in days on mechanical ventilation, and a 26% relative reduction in days in the hospital, compared with placebo.

Adverse and serious adverse events were also lower in the sabizabulin group (61.5%) than the placebo group (78.3%).

The data are “pretty impressive and in a group of patients that we really have limited things to offer,” Aaron Glatt, MD, a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America and chief of infectious diseases and hospital epidemiologist at Mount Sinai South Nassau in Oceanside, N.Y., said in an interview. “This is an interim analysis and obviously we’d like to see more data, but it certainly is something that is novel and quite interesting.”

David Boulware, MD, MPH, an infectious disease expert at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the New York Times that the large number of deaths in the placebo group seemed “rather high” and that the final analysis might reveal a more modest benefit for sabizabulin.

“I would be skeptical” that the reduced risk for death remains 55%, he noted.

The study was funded by Veru Pharmaceuticals. Several authors are employed by the company or have financial relationships with the company.

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

Treatment with oral sabizabulin (Veru Pharmaceuticals) cut the risk for death by more than 55% in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, an interim analysis of a phase 3 placebo-controlled trial found.

Sabizabulin treatment consistently and significantly reduced deaths across patient subgroups “regardless of standard of care treatment received, baseline World Health Organization scores, age, comorbidities, vaccination status, COVID-19 variant, or geography,” study investigator Mitchell Steiner, MD, chairman, president, and CEO of Veru, said in a news release.

The company has submitted an emergency use authorization request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to use sabizabulin to treat COVID-19.

The analysis was published online in NEJM Evidence.

Sabizabulin, originally developed to treat metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, is a novel, investigational, oral microtubule disruptor with dual antiviral and anti-inflammatory activities. Given the drug’s mechanism, researchers at Veru thought that sabizabulin could help treat lung inflammation in patients with COVID-19 as well.

Findings of the interim analysis are based on 150 adults hospitalized with moderate to severe COVID-19 at high risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome and death. The patients were randomly allocated to receive 9 mg oral sabizabulin (n = 98) or placebo (n = 52) once daily for up to 21 days.

Overall, the mortality rate was 20.2% in the sabizabulin group vs. 45.1% in the placebo group. Compared with placebo, treatment with sabizabulin led to a 24.9–percentage point absolute reduction and a 55.2% relative reduction in death (odds ratio, 3.23; P = .0042).

The key secondary endpoint of mortality through day 29 also favored sabizabulin over placebo, with a mortality rate of 17% vs. 35.3%. In this scenario, treatment with sabizabulin resulted in an absolute reduction in deaths of 18.3 percentage points and a relative reduction of 51.8%.

Sabizabulin led to a significant 43% relative reduction in ICU days, a 49% relative reduction in days on mechanical ventilation, and a 26% relative reduction in days in the hospital, compared with placebo.

Adverse and serious adverse events were also lower in the sabizabulin group (61.5%) than the placebo group (78.3%).

The data are “pretty impressive and in a group of patients that we really have limited things to offer,” Aaron Glatt, MD, a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America and chief of infectious diseases and hospital epidemiologist at Mount Sinai South Nassau in Oceanside, N.Y., said in an interview. “This is an interim analysis and obviously we’d like to see more data, but it certainly is something that is novel and quite interesting.”

David Boulware, MD, MPH, an infectious disease expert at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the New York Times that the large number of deaths in the placebo group seemed “rather high” and that the final analysis might reveal a more modest benefit for sabizabulin.

“I would be skeptical” that the reduced risk for death remains 55%, he noted.

The study was funded by Veru Pharmaceuticals. Several authors are employed by the company or have financial relationships with the company.

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

Treatment with oral sabizabulin (Veru Pharmaceuticals) cut the risk for death by more than 55% in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, an interim analysis of a phase 3 placebo-controlled trial found.

Sabizabulin treatment consistently and significantly reduced deaths across patient subgroups “regardless of standard of care treatment received, baseline World Health Organization scores, age, comorbidities, vaccination status, COVID-19 variant, or geography,” study investigator Mitchell Steiner, MD, chairman, president, and CEO of Veru, said in a news release.

The company has submitted an emergency use authorization request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to use sabizabulin to treat COVID-19.

The analysis was published online in NEJM Evidence.

Sabizabulin, originally developed to treat metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, is a novel, investigational, oral microtubule disruptor with dual antiviral and anti-inflammatory activities. Given the drug’s mechanism, researchers at Veru thought that sabizabulin could help treat lung inflammation in patients with COVID-19 as well.

Findings of the interim analysis are based on 150 adults hospitalized with moderate to severe COVID-19 at high risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome and death. The patients were randomly allocated to receive 9 mg oral sabizabulin (n = 98) or placebo (n = 52) once daily for up to 21 days.

Overall, the mortality rate was 20.2% in the sabizabulin group vs. 45.1% in the placebo group. Compared with placebo, treatment with sabizabulin led to a 24.9–percentage point absolute reduction and a 55.2% relative reduction in death (odds ratio, 3.23; P = .0042).

The key secondary endpoint of mortality through day 29 also favored sabizabulin over placebo, with a mortality rate of 17% vs. 35.3%. In this scenario, treatment with sabizabulin resulted in an absolute reduction in deaths of 18.3 percentage points and a relative reduction of 51.8%.

Sabizabulin led to a significant 43% relative reduction in ICU days, a 49% relative reduction in days on mechanical ventilation, and a 26% relative reduction in days in the hospital, compared with placebo.

Adverse and serious adverse events were also lower in the sabizabulin group (61.5%) than the placebo group (78.3%).

The data are “pretty impressive and in a group of patients that we really have limited things to offer,” Aaron Glatt, MD, a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America and chief of infectious diseases and hospital epidemiologist at Mount Sinai South Nassau in Oceanside, N.Y., said in an interview. “This is an interim analysis and obviously we’d like to see more data, but it certainly is something that is novel and quite interesting.”

David Boulware, MD, MPH, an infectious disease expert at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the New York Times that the large number of deaths in the placebo group seemed “rather high” and that the final analysis might reveal a more modest benefit for sabizabulin.

“I would be skeptical” that the reduced risk for death remains 55%, he noted.

The study was funded by Veru Pharmaceuticals. Several authors are employed by the company or have financial relationships with the company.

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

Body clocks and the shifting risks of stroke

Health care professionals, we’re sure, are no strangers to rotating shifts. And, as practitioners of the shiftly arts, you should know new research shows that working those kinds of hours can have lasting effects on your health. And it’s all based on your sleep-wake cycle.

Wildpixel/thinkstockphotos.com

In a study published in Neurobiology of Sleep and Circadian Rhythms, investigators at Texas A&M University looked at the effects of working these kinds of shifts for a long period of time and then returning to a regular 24-hour cycle later in life. The study piggybacks on a previous study, which showed that rats on shift schedules had more severe stroke outcomes than those who were on a 24-hour cycle.

The current study demonstrates that working rotating shifts does have a lasting effect, by way of messing with the sleep-wake cycle. Based on the research, the rats that performed those kinds of shifts never got back to a normal schedule. When strokes occurred, outcomes were much worse, and the females had a higher mortality rate and more severe functional deficits than the males.

Now for the “good” news: Even if you’re among those who haven’t worked a rotating shift, you may not be safe either.

People who have regular working hours have a tendency to take work home and stay up late, especially with so many moving to a remote-work model. And if you’re staying up late on the weekends you’re producing what lead author David J. Earnest, PhD, called “social jet lag,” which messes with your circadian rhythm to wind you down for sleep. All of these things can lead to the same kind of effects that working rotating shifts has on your health, he said in a written statement.

How do you combat this? Dr. Earnest recommended creating a sleep schedule and setting regular mealtimes. Also ease up on high-fat foods, drinking, and smoking. The connection between your brain and gut also could play a part in how severe a stroke can be.

So continue to work hard, but not too hard.

Got 3 minutes? You got time for culture

Much like a Krabby Patty, art is good for your soul. Seriously, staring at a 500-year-old painting may not seem like much, but research has proven time and again that going to a museum and looking at paintings by long-dead artists you probably know better as pizza-eating superhero turtles improves mood, stress, and well-being.

National Gallery of Art/rawpixel

A couple of years ago, however, museums and art galleries ran into a big virus-shaped problem. You may have heard of it. All of a sudden it became a very bad idea for people to gather together in one building and huddle around the Mona Lisa, which, by the way, is a lot smaller in person than you might expect. But, rather than sit around with a bunch of priceless art for an indeterminate amount of time, museums brought their exhibits to the Internet so that people from all over the world could see great works from their couches.

This is absolutely a good thing for public access, but do these virtual art exhibits provide the same health benefits as going to a museum in person? That’s what a group of European researchers aimed to find out, and in a study published in Frontiers of Psychology, that’s exactly what they found.

Their directive to the 84 study participants was simple: Take a well-being survey, engage with either of a pair of online exhibits (a Monet painting and a display of Japanese culinary traditions) for just 3 minutes, then take another well-being assessment. The results were quite clear: Even just a couple of minutes of viewing art online improved all the well-being categories on the survey, such as lowering anxiety, negative mood, and loneliness, as well as increasing subjective well-being. Also, the more beautiful or meaningful a person found the art, the more their mood and well-being improved.

The researchers noted that these results could help access in places where access to art is limited, such as waiting rooms, hospitals, and rural areas. Let’s just hope it sticks to that, and that big businesses don’t take notice. Just imagine them plastering ads with classic Renaissance artworks. After all, art makes you feel good, and you know what else feels good on a hot summer day? An ice-cold Coca-Cola! By the way, we’re taking offers, advertising agencies. The LOTME staff can absolutely be bought.

Appetite for etymology

Today on “It’s a Thing,” we examine various states of hunger and what they should be called. Our first guest is that historically hungry royal person, King Henry VIII of England. Your majesty, have you ever been “hangry?”

PxHere

KH8: First, let me thank you for inviting me on the show, Maurice. I’m a huge fan. A recent study done in the United Kingdom and Austria showed that “hunger is associated with greater levels of anger and irritability, as well as lower levels of pleasure,” according to a Eurekalert statement. So, yes, I have been “hangry.”

Maurice: Now to our next guest. Martha Stewart, can you add anything about that study?

Martha: Happy to, Maurice. The 64 participants used a smartphone app to record their hunger levels and emotional states five times a day for 21 days. It’s the first time that “hanger” was studied outside a lab, and it showed that hunger “was associated with 37% of the variance in irritability, 34% of the variance in anger, and 38% of the variance in pleasure recorded by the participants,” the investigators said in that statement.

Maurice: It’s official, then. Hangry is a thing, and we don’t need to put it in quotes anymore. Now let’s meet our third and final guest, Betty Crocker. Betty, I’m told you have a study to plug.

Betty: That’s right, Mo. Researchers at Tel Aviv University looked at survey data from almost 3,000 men and women and found that men ate 17% more food during the warmer months (March to September) than they did the rest of the year. Among women, however, caloric intake did not change.

KH8: I saw that study. Didn’t they put 27 people out in the sun and then take blood samples?

Betty: Indeed they did, Hank. After 25 minutes of sun exposure, the 13 men felt hungrier than before, but the 14 women did not. The men also had higher levels of ghrelin, an appetite-stimulating hormone, than the women.

Maurice: To sum all this up, then, we’ve got angry and hungry officially combining to make hangry, and now it looks like the sun is causing hunger in men, which makes them … sungry?

Martha: It’s a thing.

Chicken cutlets with a side of COVID

You stopped at the drive through at McDonald’s on the way home from work, and while you’re looking for something sweet in the refrigerator for dessert, you see that chicken breast that expires today.

Richard Franki/MDedge News

Freezing meat that’s about to expire might be your go-to so it doesn’t go to waste, but it’s been found that SARS-CoV-2 can live in meat that’s been in the refrigerator or freezer for more than a month.

Researchers exposed chicken, beef, pork, and salmon to surrogate viruses that are similar to COVID but not as harmful and stored them in freezers at –4° F and in the refrigerator at 39.2° F. “We even found that the viruses could be cultured after [being frozen for] that length of time,” lead author Emily Bailey, PhD, of Campbell University in Buies Creek, N.C., said in Study Finds.

The team began its research after hearing of COVID-19 outbreaks where there were no reports of community transmission, such as in Southeast Asia. Tracing eventually led to packaged meats as the culprits in those cases. SARS-CoV-2 is able to replicate in the gut, as well as the respiratory tract, so it could affect the gut before respiratory symptoms start. It is crucial to ensure cross contamination doesn’t occur, and inadequate sanitation prior to packaging needs to be addressed, the investigators said.

Honestly, we didn’t think anything could survive in a freezer for that long, but SARS-CoV-2 is a fighter.

Body clocks and the shifting risks of stroke

Health care professionals, we’re sure, are no strangers to rotating shifts. And, as practitioners of the shiftly arts, you should know new research shows that working those kinds of hours can have lasting effects on your health. And it’s all based on your sleep-wake cycle.

Wildpixel/thinkstockphotos.com

In a study published in Neurobiology of Sleep and Circadian Rhythms, investigators at Texas A&M University looked at the effects of working these kinds of shifts for a long period of time and then returning to a regular 24-hour cycle later in life. The study piggybacks on a previous study, which showed that rats on shift schedules had more severe stroke outcomes than those who were on a 24-hour cycle.

The current study demonstrates that working rotating shifts does have a lasting effect, by way of messing with the sleep-wake cycle. Based on the research, the rats that performed those kinds of shifts never got back to a normal schedule. When strokes occurred, outcomes were much worse, and the females had a higher mortality rate and more severe functional deficits than the males.

Now for the “good” news: Even if you’re among those who haven’t worked a rotating shift, you may not be safe either.

People who have regular working hours have a tendency to take work home and stay up late, especially with so many moving to a remote-work model. And if you’re staying up late on the weekends you’re producing what lead author David J. Earnest, PhD, called “social jet lag,” which messes with your circadian rhythm to wind you down for sleep. All of these things can lead to the same kind of effects that working rotating shifts has on your health, he said in a written statement.

How do you combat this? Dr. Earnest recommended creating a sleep schedule and setting regular mealtimes. Also ease up on high-fat foods, drinking, and smoking. The connection between your brain and gut also could play a part in how severe a stroke can be.

So continue to work hard, but not too hard.

Got 3 minutes? You got time for culture

Much like a Krabby Patty, art is good for your soul. Seriously, staring at a 500-year-old painting may not seem like much, but research has proven time and again that going to a museum and looking at paintings by long-dead artists you probably know better as pizza-eating superhero turtles improves mood, stress, and well-being.

National Gallery of Art/rawpixel

A couple of years ago, however, museums and art galleries ran into a big virus-shaped problem. You may have heard of it. All of a sudden it became a very bad idea for people to gather together in one building and huddle around the Mona Lisa, which, by the way, is a lot smaller in person than you might expect. But, rather than sit around with a bunch of priceless art for an indeterminate amount of time, museums brought their exhibits to the Internet so that people from all over the world could see great works from their couches.

This is absolutely a good thing for public access, but do these virtual art exhibits provide the same health benefits as going to a museum in person? That’s what a group of European researchers aimed to find out, and in a study published in Frontiers of Psychology, that’s exactly what they found.

Their directive to the 84 study participants was simple: Take a well-being survey, engage with either of a pair of online exhibits (a Monet painting and a display of Japanese culinary traditions) for just 3 minutes, then take another well-being assessment. The results were quite clear: Even just a couple of minutes of viewing art online improved all the well-being categories on the survey, such as lowering anxiety, negative mood, and loneliness, as well as increasing subjective well-being. Also, the more beautiful or meaningful a person found the art, the more their mood and well-being improved.

The researchers noted that these results could help access in places where access to art is limited, such as waiting rooms, hospitals, and rural areas. Let’s just hope it sticks to that, and that big businesses don’t take notice. Just imagine them plastering ads with classic Renaissance artworks. After all, art makes you feel good, and you know what else feels good on a hot summer day? An ice-cold Coca-Cola! By the way, we’re taking offers, advertising agencies. The LOTME staff can absolutely be bought.

Appetite for etymology

Today on “It’s a Thing,” we examine various states of hunger and what they should be called. Our first guest is that historically hungry royal person, King Henry VIII of England. Your majesty, have you ever been “hangry?”

PxHere

KH8: First, let me thank you for inviting me on the show, Maurice. I’m a huge fan. A recent study done in the United Kingdom and Austria showed that “hunger is associated with greater levels of anger and irritability, as well as lower levels of pleasure,” according to a Eurekalert statement. So, yes, I have been “hangry.”

Maurice: Now to our next guest. Martha Stewart, can you add anything about that study?

Martha: Happy to, Maurice. The 64 participants used a smartphone app to record their hunger levels and emotional states five times a day for 21 days. It’s the first time that “hanger” was studied outside a lab, and it showed that hunger “was associated with 37% of the variance in irritability, 34% of the variance in anger, and 38% of the variance in pleasure recorded by the participants,” the investigators said in that statement.

Maurice: It’s official, then. Hangry is a thing, and we don’t need to put it in quotes anymore. Now let’s meet our third and final guest, Betty Crocker. Betty, I’m told you have a study to plug.

Betty: That’s right, Mo. Researchers at Tel Aviv University looked at survey data from almost 3,000 men and women and found that men ate 17% more food during the warmer months (March to September) than they did the rest of the year. Among women, however, caloric intake did not change.

KH8: I saw that study. Didn’t they put 27 people out in the sun and then take blood samples?

Betty: Indeed they did, Hank. After 25 minutes of sun exposure, the 13 men felt hungrier than before, but the 14 women did not. The men also had higher levels of ghrelin, an appetite-stimulating hormone, than the women.

Maurice: To sum all this up, then, we’ve got angry and hungry officially combining to make hangry, and now it looks like the sun is causing hunger in men, which makes them … sungry?

Martha: It’s a thing.

Chicken cutlets with a side of COVID

You stopped at the drive through at McDonald’s on the way home from work, and while you’re looking for something sweet in the refrigerator for dessert, you see that chicken breast that expires today.

Richard Franki/MDedge News

Freezing meat that’s about to expire might be your go-to so it doesn’t go to waste, but it’s been found that SARS-CoV-2 can live in meat that’s been in the refrigerator or freezer for more than a month.

Researchers exposed chicken, beef, pork, and salmon to surrogate viruses that are similar to COVID but not as harmful and stored them in freezers at –4° F and in the refrigerator at 39.2° F. “We even found that the viruses could be cultured after [being frozen for] that length of time,” lead author Emily Bailey, PhD, of Campbell University in Buies Creek, N.C., said in Study Finds.

The team began its research after hearing of COVID-19 outbreaks where there were no reports of community transmission, such as in Southeast Asia. Tracing eventually led to packaged meats as the culprits in those cases. SARS-CoV-2 is able to replicate in the gut, as well as the respiratory tract, so it could affect the gut before respiratory symptoms start. It is crucial to ensure cross contamination doesn’t occur, and inadequate sanitation prior to packaging needs to be addressed, the investigators said.

Honestly, we didn’t think anything could survive in a freezer for that long, but SARS-CoV-2 is a fighter.

Body clocks and the shifting risks of stroke

Health care professionals, we’re sure, are no strangers to rotating shifts. And, as practitioners of the shiftly arts, you should know new research shows that working those kinds of hours can have lasting effects on your health. And it’s all based on your sleep-wake cycle.

Wildpixel/thinkstockphotos.com

In a study published in Neurobiology of Sleep and Circadian Rhythms, investigators at Texas A&M University looked at the effects of working these kinds of shifts for a long period of time and then returning to a regular 24-hour cycle later in life. The study piggybacks on a previous study, which showed that rats on shift schedules had more severe stroke outcomes than those who were on a 24-hour cycle.

The current study demonstrates that working rotating shifts does have a lasting effect, by way of messing with the sleep-wake cycle. Based on the research, the rats that performed those kinds of shifts never got back to a normal schedule. When strokes occurred, outcomes were much worse, and the females had a higher mortality rate and more severe functional deficits than the males.

Now for the “good” news: Even if you’re among those who haven’t worked a rotating shift, you may not be safe either.

People who have regular working hours have a tendency to take work home and stay up late, especially with so many moving to a remote-work model. And if you’re staying up late on the weekends you’re producing what lead author David J. Earnest, PhD, called “social jet lag,” which messes with your circadian rhythm to wind you down for sleep. All of these things can lead to the same kind of effects that working rotating shifts has on your health, he said in a written statement.

How do you combat this? Dr. Earnest recommended creating a sleep schedule and setting regular mealtimes. Also ease up on high-fat foods, drinking, and smoking. The connection between your brain and gut also could play a part in how severe a stroke can be.

So continue to work hard, but not too hard.

Got 3 minutes? You got time for culture

Much like a Krabby Patty, art is good for your soul. Seriously, staring at a 500-year-old painting may not seem like much, but research has proven time and again that going to a museum and looking at paintings by long-dead artists you probably know better as pizza-eating superhero turtles improves mood, stress, and well-being.

National Gallery of Art/rawpixel

A couple of years ago, however, museums and art galleries ran into a big virus-shaped problem. You may have heard of it. All of a sudden it became a very bad idea for people to gather together in one building and huddle around the Mona Lisa, which, by the way, is a lot smaller in person than you might expect. But, rather than sit around with a bunch of priceless art for an indeterminate amount of time, museums brought their exhibits to the Internet so that people from all over the world could see great works from their couches.

This is absolutely a good thing for public access, but do these virtual art exhibits provide the same health benefits as going to a museum in person? That’s what a group of European researchers aimed to find out, and in a study published in Frontiers of Psychology, that’s exactly what they found.

Their directive to the 84 study participants was simple: Take a well-being survey, engage with either of a pair of online exhibits (a Monet painting and a display of Japanese culinary traditions) for just 3 minutes, then take another well-being assessment. The results were quite clear: Even just a couple of minutes of viewing art online improved all the well-being categories on the survey, such as lowering anxiety, negative mood, and loneliness, as well as increasing subjective well-being. Also, the more beautiful or meaningful a person found the art, the more their mood and well-being improved.

The researchers noted that these results could help access in places where access to art is limited, such as waiting rooms, hospitals, and rural areas. Let’s just hope it sticks to that, and that big businesses don’t take notice. Just imagine them plastering ads with classic Renaissance artworks. After all, art makes you feel good, and you know what else feels good on a hot summer day? An ice-cold Coca-Cola! By the way, we’re taking offers, advertising agencies. The LOTME staff can absolutely be bought.

Appetite for etymology

Today on “It’s a Thing,” we examine various states of hunger and what they should be called. Our first guest is that historically hungry royal person, King Henry VIII of England. Your majesty, have you ever been “hangry?”

PxHere

KH8: First, let me thank you for inviting me on the show, Maurice. I’m a huge fan. A recent study done in the United Kingdom and Austria showed that “hunger is associated with greater levels of anger and irritability, as well as lower levels of pleasure,” according to a Eurekalert statement. So, yes, I have been “hangry.”

Maurice: Now to our next guest. Martha Stewart, can you add anything about that study?

Martha: Happy to, Maurice. The 64 participants used a smartphone app to record their hunger levels and emotional states five times a day for 21 days. It’s the first time that “hanger” was studied outside a lab, and it showed that hunger “was associated with 37% of the variance in irritability, 34% of the variance in anger, and 38% of the variance in pleasure recorded by the participants,” the investigators said in that statement.

Maurice: It’s official, then. Hangry is a thing, and we don’t need to put it in quotes anymore. Now let’s meet our third and final guest, Betty Crocker. Betty, I’m told you have a study to plug.

Betty: That’s right, Mo. Researchers at Tel Aviv University looked at survey data from almost 3,000 men and women and found that men ate 17% more food during the warmer months (March to September) than they did the rest of the year. Among women, however, caloric intake did not change.

KH8: I saw that study. Didn’t they put 27 people out in the sun and then take blood samples?

Betty: Indeed they did, Hank. After 25 minutes of sun exposure, the 13 men felt hungrier than before, but the 14 women did not. The men also had higher levels of ghrelin, an appetite-stimulating hormone, than the women.

Maurice: To sum all this up, then, we’ve got angry and hungry officially combining to make hangry, and now it looks like the sun is causing hunger in men, which makes them … sungry?

Martha: It’s a thing.

Chicken cutlets with a side of COVID

You stopped at the drive through at McDonald’s on the way home from work, and while you’re looking for something sweet in the refrigerator for dessert, you see that chicken breast that expires today.

Richard Franki/MDedge News

Freezing meat that’s about to expire might be your go-to so it doesn’t go to waste, but it’s been found that SARS-CoV-2 can live in meat that’s been in the refrigerator or freezer for more than a month.

Researchers exposed chicken, beef, pork, and salmon to surrogate viruses that are similar to COVID but not as harmful and stored them in freezers at –4° F and in the refrigerator at 39.2° F. “We even found that the viruses could be cultured after [being frozen for] that length of time,” lead author Emily Bailey, PhD, of Campbell University in Buies Creek, N.C., said in Study Finds.

The team began its research after hearing of COVID-19 outbreaks where there were no reports of community transmission, such as in Southeast Asia. Tracing eventually led to packaged meats as the culprits in those cases. SARS-CoV-2 is able to replicate in the gut, as well as the respiratory tract, so it could affect the gut before respiratory symptoms start. It is crucial to ensure cross contamination doesn’t occur, and inadequate sanitation prior to packaging needs to be addressed, the investigators said.

Honestly, we didn’t think anything could survive in a freezer for that long, but SARS-CoV-2 is a fighter.

Differences in the safety and efficacy between the biologics approved for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma are so minimal as to not meet clinically important thresholds, a network meta-analysis shows.

“We know relatively little of the comparative effectiveness or safety of biologics approved for the treatment of asthma [but since] the number of these biologics continue to rise and their indications are increasing, the opportunities to use these biologics will only continue to increase, and we need to know more about their comparative effectiveness to optimize their use,” Ayobami Akenroye, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said in an interview.

“But the decision to use one biologic or not is complex and goes beyond comparative effectiveness, and factors such as insurance coverage, convenience of self-administration, and comorbidities all play a role in the choice of biologics,” she said, adding that all the outcomes assessed in the study contribute to or reflect a patient’s underlying asthma control.

The study was published online in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.
 

Interleukin pathways

Drugs that target various interleukin signaling pathways involved in the pathogenesis of asthma include mepolizumab (Nucala), benralizumab (Fasenra), and dupilumab (Dupixent), all of which have been shown to decrease exacerbation rates, improve lung function, and enhance quality of life for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. In a Bayesian network meta-analysis that allows for simultaneous comparisons of these three treatments, investigators analyzed eight randomized, placebo-controlled trials that compared each of the drugs with placebo. In total, the trials involved 6,461 patients; the duration of follow-up was between 24 and 56 weeks.

“In the subgroup of patients with eosinophil counts of ≥ 300 cells/mcL, all three biologics were significantly better than placebo in reducing exacerbations,” Dr. Akenroye and colleagues reported. For example, dupilumab reduced the exacerbation risk by 68% at a risk ratio of 0.32 (95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.45), while mepolizumab reduced it by almost as much at 63% (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.30-0.45).

Benralizumab was slightly less effective than the other two biologics, reducing exacerbation risk by 51% (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.43-0.55). “In patients with eosinophil counts of ≥ 300 cells/mcL, all three biologics had a probability of 1 in improving the exacerbation rate by 20% or more ... in comparison to placebo,” the authors wrote.

Regarding each drug’s effect in improving forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), the mean difference in milliliters with dupilumab before and after treatment was 230 (95% CI, 160-300), while for benralizumab, the MD was 150 (95% CI, 100-220) before and after treatment. With mepolizumab, the MD in FEV₁ before and after treatment was also 150. In the same subgroup of patients with eosinophil counts of at least300 cells/mcL, all three biologics again had a probability of 1 in improving FEV₁ by 50 mL or more above the placebo effect. A third endpoint that was analyzed was the potential reduction in asthma control questionnaire (ACQ) scores. With mepolizumab, the MD before and after treatment was –0.65 (95% CI, –0.81 to –0.45); with dupilumab, it was –0.48 (95% CI, –0.83 to –0.14); and with dupilumab, it was –0.32 (95% CI, –0.43 to –0.21).

“Dupilumab was significantly better than benralizumab in improving exacerbations,” the authors noted (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47-0.94), while mepolizumab was also better than benralizumab (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.95). On the other hand, both dupilumab and benralizumab led to greater improvements in FEV₁ than mepolizumab, although the effects of dupilumab and benralizumab on ACQ scores were not significantly different for patients whose lower eosinophil counts were between 150 and 299 cells/mcL.

As for safety outcomes, both mepolizumab and benralizumab were associated with a lower risk of serious adverse events, but dupilumab was not different from placebo in terms of overall safety, according to the authors. “The ultimate choice of biologic for each patient would ... depend on multiple factors including cost considerations and timing of administration.

“[However], these results may be helpful to clinicians as they optimize patient care,” they concluded. Limitations to the analysis include the fact that indirect comparisons cannot replace randomized trials that compare the three drugs directly.

It’s estimated that 5%-10% of the 26 million individuals with asthma in the United States have severe disease.

Dr. Akenroye disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Differences in the safety and efficacy between the biologics approved for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma are so minimal as to not meet clinically important thresholds, a network meta-analysis shows.

“We know relatively little of the comparative effectiveness or safety of biologics approved for the treatment of asthma [but since] the number of these biologics continue to rise and their indications are increasing, the opportunities to use these biologics will only continue to increase, and we need to know more about their comparative effectiveness to optimize their use,” Ayobami Akenroye, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said in an interview.

“But the decision to use one biologic or not is complex and goes beyond comparative effectiveness, and factors such as insurance coverage, convenience of self-administration, and comorbidities all play a role in the choice of biologics,” she said, adding that all the outcomes assessed in the study contribute to or reflect a patient’s underlying asthma control.

The study was published online in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.
 

Interleukin pathways

Drugs that target various interleukin signaling pathways involved in the pathogenesis of asthma include mepolizumab (Nucala), benralizumab (Fasenra), and dupilumab (Dupixent), all of which have been shown to decrease exacerbation rates, improve lung function, and enhance quality of life for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. In a Bayesian network meta-analysis that allows for simultaneous comparisons of these three treatments, investigators analyzed eight randomized, placebo-controlled trials that compared each of the drugs with placebo. In total, the trials involved 6,461 patients; the duration of follow-up was between 24 and 56 weeks.

“In the subgroup of patients with eosinophil counts of ≥ 300 cells/mcL, all three biologics were significantly better than placebo in reducing exacerbations,” Dr. Akenroye and colleagues reported. For example, dupilumab reduced the exacerbation risk by 68% at a risk ratio of 0.32 (95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.45), while mepolizumab reduced it by almost as much at 63% (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.30-0.45).

Benralizumab was slightly less effective than the other two biologics, reducing exacerbation risk by 51% (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.43-0.55). “In patients with eosinophil counts of ≥ 300 cells/mcL, all three biologics had a probability of 1 in improving the exacerbation rate by 20% or more ... in comparison to placebo,” the authors wrote.

Regarding each drug’s effect in improving forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), the mean difference in milliliters with dupilumab before and after treatment was 230 (95% CI, 160-300), while for benralizumab, the MD was 150 (95% CI, 100-220) before and after treatment. With mepolizumab, the MD in FEV₁ before and after treatment was also 150. In the same subgroup of patients with eosinophil counts of at least300 cells/mcL, all three biologics again had a probability of 1 in improving FEV₁ by 50 mL or more above the placebo effect. A third endpoint that was analyzed was the potential reduction in asthma control questionnaire (ACQ) scores. With mepolizumab, the MD before and after treatment was –0.65 (95% CI, –0.81 to –0.45); with dupilumab, it was –0.48 (95% CI, –0.83 to –0.14); and with dupilumab, it was –0.32 (95% CI, –0.43 to –0.21).

“Dupilumab was significantly better than benralizumab in improving exacerbations,” the authors noted (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47-0.94), while mepolizumab was also better than benralizumab (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.95). On the other hand, both dupilumab and benralizumab led to greater improvements in FEV₁ than mepolizumab, although the effects of dupilumab and benralizumab on ACQ scores were not significantly different for patients whose lower eosinophil counts were between 150 and 299 cells/mcL.

As for safety outcomes, both mepolizumab and benralizumab were associated with a lower risk of serious adverse events, but dupilumab was not different from placebo in terms of overall safety, according to the authors. “The ultimate choice of biologic for each patient would ... depend on multiple factors including cost considerations and timing of administration.

“[However], these results may be helpful to clinicians as they optimize patient care,” they concluded. Limitations to the analysis include the fact that indirect comparisons cannot replace randomized trials that compare the three drugs directly.

It’s estimated that 5%-10% of the 26 million individuals with asthma in the United States have severe disease.

Dr. Akenroye disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Differences in the safety and efficacy between the biologics approved for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma are so minimal as to not meet clinically important thresholds, a network meta-analysis shows.

“We know relatively little of the comparative effectiveness or safety of biologics approved for the treatment of asthma [but since] the number of these biologics continue to rise and their indications are increasing, the opportunities to use these biologics will only continue to increase, and we need to know more about their comparative effectiveness to optimize their use,” Ayobami Akenroye, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said in an interview.

“But the decision to use one biologic or not is complex and goes beyond comparative effectiveness, and factors such as insurance coverage, convenience of self-administration, and comorbidities all play a role in the choice of biologics,” she said, adding that all the outcomes assessed in the study contribute to or reflect a patient’s underlying asthma control.

The study was published online in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.
 

Interleukin pathways

Drugs that target various interleukin signaling pathways involved in the pathogenesis of asthma include mepolizumab (Nucala), benralizumab (Fasenra), and dupilumab (Dupixent), all of which have been shown to decrease exacerbation rates, improve lung function, and enhance quality of life for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. In a Bayesian network meta-analysis that allows for simultaneous comparisons of these three treatments, investigators analyzed eight randomized, placebo-controlled trials that compared each of the drugs with placebo. In total, the trials involved 6,461 patients; the duration of follow-up was between 24 and 56 weeks.

“In the subgroup of patients with eosinophil counts of ≥ 300 cells/mcL, all three biologics were significantly better than placebo in reducing exacerbations,” Dr. Akenroye and colleagues reported. For example, dupilumab reduced the exacerbation risk by 68% at a risk ratio of 0.32 (95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.45), while mepolizumab reduced it by almost as much at 63% (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.30-0.45).

Benralizumab was slightly less effective than the other two biologics, reducing exacerbation risk by 51% (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.43-0.55). “In patients with eosinophil counts of ≥ 300 cells/mcL, all three biologics had a probability of 1 in improving the exacerbation rate by 20% or more ... in comparison to placebo,” the authors wrote.

Regarding each drug’s effect in improving forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), the mean difference in milliliters with dupilumab before and after treatment was 230 (95% CI, 160-300), while for benralizumab, the MD was 150 (95% CI, 100-220) before and after treatment. With mepolizumab, the MD in FEV₁ before and after treatment was also 150. In the same subgroup of patients with eosinophil counts of at least300 cells/mcL, all three biologics again had a probability of 1 in improving FEV₁ by 50 mL or more above the placebo effect. A third endpoint that was analyzed was the potential reduction in asthma control questionnaire (ACQ) scores. With mepolizumab, the MD before and after treatment was –0.65 (95% CI, –0.81 to –0.45); with dupilumab, it was –0.48 (95% CI, –0.83 to –0.14); and with dupilumab, it was –0.32 (95% CI, –0.43 to –0.21).

“Dupilumab was significantly better than benralizumab in improving exacerbations,” the authors noted (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47-0.94), while mepolizumab was also better than benralizumab (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.95). On the other hand, both dupilumab and benralizumab led to greater improvements in FEV₁ than mepolizumab, although the effects of dupilumab and benralizumab on ACQ scores were not significantly different for patients whose lower eosinophil counts were between 150 and 299 cells/mcL.

As for safety outcomes, both mepolizumab and benralizumab were associated with a lower risk of serious adverse events, but dupilumab was not different from placebo in terms of overall safety, according to the authors. “The ultimate choice of biologic for each patient would ... depend on multiple factors including cost considerations and timing of administration.

“[However], these results may be helpful to clinicians as they optimize patient care,” they concluded. Limitations to the analysis include the fact that indirect comparisons cannot replace randomized trials that compare the three drugs directly.

It’s estimated that 5%-10% of the 26 million individuals with asthma in the United States have severe disease.

Dr. Akenroye disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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