CHEST Physician

Groundbreaking results from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial did more than establish for the first time that a drug, empagliflozin, has clearly proven efficacy for treating patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The results also helped catalyze a paradigm shift in how heart failure thought leaders think about the role of ejection fraction for making important distinctions among patients with heart failure.

Mitchel L. Zoler, MDedge News

EMPEROR-Preserved may also be the final nail in the coffin for defining patients with heart failure as having HFpEF or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

This new consensus essentially throws out left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) as the key metric for matching patients to heart failure treatments. Experts have instead begun suggesting a more unified treatment approach for all heart failure patients regardless of their EF.
 

‘Forget about ejection fraction’

“We encourage you to forget about ejection fraction,” declared Milton Packer, MD, during discussion at a session of the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America. “We certainly encourage you to forget about an ejection fraction of less than 40%” as having special significance,” added Dr. Packer, a lead investigator for both the EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved trials (which researchers combined in a unified analysis with a total of 9,718 patients with heart failure called EMPEROR-Pooled), and a heart failure researcher at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas.

“The 40% ejection fraction divide is artificial. It was created in 2003 as part of a trial design, but it has no physiological significance,” Dr. Packer explained. A much better way to distinguish systolic and diastolic heart failure is by strain assessment rather than by ejection fraction. “Strain is a measure of myocardial shortening, a measure of what the heart does. Ejection fraction is a measure of volume,” said Dr. Packer. “Sign me up to get rid of ejection fraction,” he added.

“Ejection fraction is not as valuable as we thought for distinguishing the therapeutic benefit” of heart failure drugs, agreed Marvin A. Konstam, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University and chief physician executive of the CardioVascular Center of Tufts Medical Center, both in Boston, who spoke during a different session at the meeting.

“It would easier if we didn’t spend time parsing this number,” ejection fraction, commented Clyde W. Yancy, MD, professor of medicine and chief of cardiology at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago. “Wouldn’t it be easier if we said that every patient with heart failure needs to receive one agent from each of the four [pillar] drug classes, and put them in a polypill” at reduced dosages, he proposed, envisioning one potential consequence of jettisoning ejection fraction.

The four pillar drug classes, recently identified as essential for patients with HFrEF but until now not endorsed for patients with HFpEF, are the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, such as empagliflozin (Jardiance); an angiotensin receptor blocker neprilysin inhibitor compound such as sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto); beta-blockers; and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists such as spironolactone and eplerenone.
 

An opportunity for ‘simpler and easier’ treatments

“This is an opportunity to disrupt the way we’ve been doing things and think about something that is simpler and easier,” said Dr. Yancy, who chaired some of the panels serially formed by the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology to write guidelines for treating heart failure. “An approach that would be easier to implement without worrying about staggering the start of each drug class and an incessant focus on titrating individual elements and taking 6 months to get to a certain place.”

Results from EMPEROR-Preserved and the combined EMPEROR-Pooled analysis triggered these paradigm-shifting sentiments by showing clear evidence that treatment with empagliflozin exerts consistent benefit – and is consistently safe – for patients with heart failure across a spectrum of EFs, from less than 25% to 64%, though its performance in patients with HFpEF and EFs of 65% or greater in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial remains unclear.

The consequence is that clinicians should feel comfortable prescribing empagliflozin to most patients with heart failure without regard to EF, even patients with EF values in the mid-60% range.

The EMPEROR-Preserved results showed a clear signal of attenuated benefit among patients with an EF of 65% or greater “on a population basis,” stressed Dr. Packer. “But on an individual basis, ejection fraction is not that reproducible, so measuring ejection fraction will not help you determine whom to treat or not treat. “

“There is significant variability” measuring EF using the most common modality, echocardiography, noted Javed Butler, MD, an EMPEROR coinvestigator who also spoke at the meeting session. A person with a measured EF of 65% could actually have a value that may be as low as 58% or as high as about 72%, noted Dr. Butler, who is professor and chair of medicine at the University of Mississippi, Jackson. The upshot is that any patient diagnosed with heart failure should receive an SGLT2 inhibitor “irrespective of their ejection fraction,” Dr. Butler advised.

“Ejection fraction is very crude, and probably not sufficient to identify a phenotype,” for treatment, said Dr. Yancy. “The real takeaway may be that we need to revisit what we call HFrEF, and then let that be the new standard for treatment.”

“Is [an EF of] 60% the new 40%?” asked Dr. Packer, implying that the answer was yes.
 

Results from several trials suggest redefining HFrEF

The idea that patients without traditionally defined HFrEF – an EF of 40% or less – could also benefit from other classes of heart failure drugs has been gestating for a while, and then rose to a new level with the August 2021 report of results from EMPEROR-Preserved. Two years ago, in September 2019, Dr. Butler, Dr. Packer, and a third colleague advanced the notion of redefining HFrEF by raising the ejection fraction ceiling in a published commentary.

They cited the experience with the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan in a post hoc analysis of data collected in the CHARM-Preserved trial, which showed a strong signal of benefit in the subgroup of patients with EFs of 41%-49%, but not in those with an EF of 50% or higher. This finding prompted Dr. Konstam to express doubts about relying on EF to define heart failure subgroups in trials and guide management in a commentary published more than 3 years ago.

Another crack in the traditional EF framework came from analysis of results from the TOPCAT trial that tested spironolactone as a treatment for patients with HFpEF, according to the 2019 opinion published by Dr. Butler and Dr. Packer. Once again a post hoc analysis, this time using data from TOPCAT, suggested a benefit from the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist spironolactone in patients with heart failure and an EF of 45%-49% (45% was the minimum EF for enrollment into the study).

Recently, data from a third trial that tested sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFpEF, PARAGON-HF, showed benefit among patients with EFs below the study median of 57%. This finding led the Food and Drug Administration in February 2021 to amend its initial approval for sacubitril/valsartan by removing a specific EF ceiling from the drug’s indication and instead saying that patient’s receiving the drug should have a “below normal” EF.

Writing in a recent commentary, Dr. Yancy called the FDA’s action on sacubitril/valsartan “reasonable,” and that the subgroup assessment of data from the PARAGON-HF trial creates a “new, reasonably evidence-based therapy for HFpEF.” He also predicted that guideline-writing panels will “likely align with a permissive statement of indication” for sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFpEF, especially those with EFs of less than 57%.

The idea of using an SGLT2 inhibitor like empagliflozin on all heart failure patients, and also adding agents like sacubitril/valsartan and spironolactone in patients with HFpEF and EFs in the mid-50% range or lower may take some time to catch on, but it already has one influential advocate.

“If a patient has HFpEF with an EF of less than 55%, use quadruple-class therapy,” summed up Dr. Butler during the HFSA session, while also suggesting prescribing an SGLT2 inhibitor to essentially all patients with heart failure regardless of their EF.

The EMPEROR-Preserved and EMPEROR-Reduced trials and the EMPEROR-Pooled analysis were sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Packer has had financial relationships with BI and Lilly and numerous other companies. Dr. Konstam has served on data monitoring committees for trials funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and by Amgen, Luitpold, and Pfizer, and has been a consultant to Arena, LivaNova, Merck, SC Pharma, and Takeda. Dr. Yancy had no disclosures. Dr. Butler has had financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim and numerous other companies.

[email protected]

Groundbreaking results from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial did more than establish for the first time that a drug, empagliflozin, has clearly proven efficacy for treating patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The results also helped catalyze a paradigm shift in how heart failure thought leaders think about the role of ejection fraction for making important distinctions among patients with heart failure.

Mitchel L. Zoler, MDedge News

EMPEROR-Preserved may also be the final nail in the coffin for defining patients with heart failure as having HFpEF or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

This new consensus essentially throws out left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) as the key metric for matching patients to heart failure treatments. Experts have instead begun suggesting a more unified treatment approach for all heart failure patients regardless of their EF.
 

‘Forget about ejection fraction’

“We encourage you to forget about ejection fraction,” declared Milton Packer, MD, during discussion at a session of the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America. “We certainly encourage you to forget about an ejection fraction of less than 40%” as having special significance,” added Dr. Packer, a lead investigator for both the EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved trials (which researchers combined in a unified analysis with a total of 9,718 patients with heart failure called EMPEROR-Pooled), and a heart failure researcher at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas.

“The 40% ejection fraction divide is artificial. It was created in 2003 as part of a trial design, but it has no physiological significance,” Dr. Packer explained. A much better way to distinguish systolic and diastolic heart failure is by strain assessment rather than by ejection fraction. “Strain is a measure of myocardial shortening, a measure of what the heart does. Ejection fraction is a measure of volume,” said Dr. Packer. “Sign me up to get rid of ejection fraction,” he added.

“Ejection fraction is not as valuable as we thought for distinguishing the therapeutic benefit” of heart failure drugs, agreed Marvin A. Konstam, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University and chief physician executive of the CardioVascular Center of Tufts Medical Center, both in Boston, who spoke during a different session at the meeting.

“It would easier if we didn’t spend time parsing this number,” ejection fraction, commented Clyde W. Yancy, MD, professor of medicine and chief of cardiology at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago. “Wouldn’t it be easier if we said that every patient with heart failure needs to receive one agent from each of the four [pillar] drug classes, and put them in a polypill” at reduced dosages, he proposed, envisioning one potential consequence of jettisoning ejection fraction.

The four pillar drug classes, recently identified as essential for patients with HFrEF but until now not endorsed for patients with HFpEF, are the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, such as empagliflozin (Jardiance); an angiotensin receptor blocker neprilysin inhibitor compound such as sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto); beta-blockers; and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists such as spironolactone and eplerenone.
 

An opportunity for ‘simpler and easier’ treatments

“This is an opportunity to disrupt the way we’ve been doing things and think about something that is simpler and easier,” said Dr. Yancy, who chaired some of the panels serially formed by the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology to write guidelines for treating heart failure. “An approach that would be easier to implement without worrying about staggering the start of each drug class and an incessant focus on titrating individual elements and taking 6 months to get to a certain place.”

Results from EMPEROR-Preserved and the combined EMPEROR-Pooled analysis triggered these paradigm-shifting sentiments by showing clear evidence that treatment with empagliflozin exerts consistent benefit – and is consistently safe – for patients with heart failure across a spectrum of EFs, from less than 25% to 64%, though its performance in patients with HFpEF and EFs of 65% or greater in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial remains unclear.

The consequence is that clinicians should feel comfortable prescribing empagliflozin to most patients with heart failure without regard to EF, even patients with EF values in the mid-60% range.

The EMPEROR-Preserved results showed a clear signal of attenuated benefit among patients with an EF of 65% or greater “on a population basis,” stressed Dr. Packer. “But on an individual basis, ejection fraction is not that reproducible, so measuring ejection fraction will not help you determine whom to treat or not treat. “

“There is significant variability” measuring EF using the most common modality, echocardiography, noted Javed Butler, MD, an EMPEROR coinvestigator who also spoke at the meeting session. A person with a measured EF of 65% could actually have a value that may be as low as 58% or as high as about 72%, noted Dr. Butler, who is professor and chair of medicine at the University of Mississippi, Jackson. The upshot is that any patient diagnosed with heart failure should receive an SGLT2 inhibitor “irrespective of their ejection fraction,” Dr. Butler advised.

“Ejection fraction is very crude, and probably not sufficient to identify a phenotype,” for treatment, said Dr. Yancy. “The real takeaway may be that we need to revisit what we call HFrEF, and then let that be the new standard for treatment.”

“Is [an EF of] 60% the new 40%?” asked Dr. Packer, implying that the answer was yes.
 

Results from several trials suggest redefining HFrEF

The idea that patients without traditionally defined HFrEF – an EF of 40% or less – could also benefit from other classes of heart failure drugs has been gestating for a while, and then rose to a new level with the August 2021 report of results from EMPEROR-Preserved. Two years ago, in September 2019, Dr. Butler, Dr. Packer, and a third colleague advanced the notion of redefining HFrEF by raising the ejection fraction ceiling in a published commentary.

They cited the experience with the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan in a post hoc analysis of data collected in the CHARM-Preserved trial, which showed a strong signal of benefit in the subgroup of patients with EFs of 41%-49%, but not in those with an EF of 50% or higher. This finding prompted Dr. Konstam to express doubts about relying on EF to define heart failure subgroups in trials and guide management in a commentary published more than 3 years ago.

Another crack in the traditional EF framework came from analysis of results from the TOPCAT trial that tested spironolactone as a treatment for patients with HFpEF, according to the 2019 opinion published by Dr. Butler and Dr. Packer. Once again a post hoc analysis, this time using data from TOPCAT, suggested a benefit from the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist spironolactone in patients with heart failure and an EF of 45%-49% (45% was the minimum EF for enrollment into the study).

Recently, data from a third trial that tested sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFpEF, PARAGON-HF, showed benefit among patients with EFs below the study median of 57%. This finding led the Food and Drug Administration in February 2021 to amend its initial approval for sacubitril/valsartan by removing a specific EF ceiling from the drug’s indication and instead saying that patient’s receiving the drug should have a “below normal” EF.

Writing in a recent commentary, Dr. Yancy called the FDA’s action on sacubitril/valsartan “reasonable,” and that the subgroup assessment of data from the PARAGON-HF trial creates a “new, reasonably evidence-based therapy for HFpEF.” He also predicted that guideline-writing panels will “likely align with a permissive statement of indication” for sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFpEF, especially those with EFs of less than 57%.

The idea of using an SGLT2 inhibitor like empagliflozin on all heart failure patients, and also adding agents like sacubitril/valsartan and spironolactone in patients with HFpEF and EFs in the mid-50% range or lower may take some time to catch on, but it already has one influential advocate.

“If a patient has HFpEF with an EF of less than 55%, use quadruple-class therapy,” summed up Dr. Butler during the HFSA session, while also suggesting prescribing an SGLT2 inhibitor to essentially all patients with heart failure regardless of their EF.

The EMPEROR-Preserved and EMPEROR-Reduced trials and the EMPEROR-Pooled analysis were sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Packer has had financial relationships with BI and Lilly and numerous other companies. Dr. Konstam has served on data monitoring committees for trials funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and by Amgen, Luitpold, and Pfizer, and has been a consultant to Arena, LivaNova, Merck, SC Pharma, and Takeda. Dr. Yancy had no disclosures. Dr. Butler has had financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim and numerous other companies.

[email protected]

Groundbreaking results from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial did more than establish for the first time that a drug, empagliflozin, has clearly proven efficacy for treating patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The results also helped catalyze a paradigm shift in how heart failure thought leaders think about the role of ejection fraction for making important distinctions among patients with heart failure.

Mitchel L. Zoler, MDedge News

EMPEROR-Preserved may also be the final nail in the coffin for defining patients with heart failure as having HFpEF or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

This new consensus essentially throws out left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) as the key metric for matching patients to heart failure treatments. Experts have instead begun suggesting a more unified treatment approach for all heart failure patients regardless of their EF.
 

‘Forget about ejection fraction’

“We encourage you to forget about ejection fraction,” declared Milton Packer, MD, during discussion at a session of the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America. “We certainly encourage you to forget about an ejection fraction of less than 40%” as having special significance,” added Dr. Packer, a lead investigator for both the EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved trials (which researchers combined in a unified analysis with a total of 9,718 patients with heart failure called EMPEROR-Pooled), and a heart failure researcher at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas.

“The 40% ejection fraction divide is artificial. It was created in 2003 as part of a trial design, but it has no physiological significance,” Dr. Packer explained. A much better way to distinguish systolic and diastolic heart failure is by strain assessment rather than by ejection fraction. “Strain is a measure of myocardial shortening, a measure of what the heart does. Ejection fraction is a measure of volume,” said Dr. Packer. “Sign me up to get rid of ejection fraction,” he added.

“Ejection fraction is not as valuable as we thought for distinguishing the therapeutic benefit” of heart failure drugs, agreed Marvin A. Konstam, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University and chief physician executive of the CardioVascular Center of Tufts Medical Center, both in Boston, who spoke during a different session at the meeting.

“It would easier if we didn’t spend time parsing this number,” ejection fraction, commented Clyde W. Yancy, MD, professor of medicine and chief of cardiology at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago. “Wouldn’t it be easier if we said that every patient with heart failure needs to receive one agent from each of the four [pillar] drug classes, and put them in a polypill” at reduced dosages, he proposed, envisioning one potential consequence of jettisoning ejection fraction.

The four pillar drug classes, recently identified as essential for patients with HFrEF but until now not endorsed for patients with HFpEF, are the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, such as empagliflozin (Jardiance); an angiotensin receptor blocker neprilysin inhibitor compound such as sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto); beta-blockers; and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists such as spironolactone and eplerenone.
 

An opportunity for ‘simpler and easier’ treatments

“This is an opportunity to disrupt the way we’ve been doing things and think about something that is simpler and easier,” said Dr. Yancy, who chaired some of the panels serially formed by the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology to write guidelines for treating heart failure. “An approach that would be easier to implement without worrying about staggering the start of each drug class and an incessant focus on titrating individual elements and taking 6 months to get to a certain place.”

Results from EMPEROR-Preserved and the combined EMPEROR-Pooled analysis triggered these paradigm-shifting sentiments by showing clear evidence that treatment with empagliflozin exerts consistent benefit – and is consistently safe – for patients with heart failure across a spectrum of EFs, from less than 25% to 64%, though its performance in patients with HFpEF and EFs of 65% or greater in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial remains unclear.

The consequence is that clinicians should feel comfortable prescribing empagliflozin to most patients with heart failure without regard to EF, even patients with EF values in the mid-60% range.

The EMPEROR-Preserved results showed a clear signal of attenuated benefit among patients with an EF of 65% or greater “on a population basis,” stressed Dr. Packer. “But on an individual basis, ejection fraction is not that reproducible, so measuring ejection fraction will not help you determine whom to treat or not treat. “

“There is significant variability” measuring EF using the most common modality, echocardiography, noted Javed Butler, MD, an EMPEROR coinvestigator who also spoke at the meeting session. A person with a measured EF of 65% could actually have a value that may be as low as 58% or as high as about 72%, noted Dr. Butler, who is professor and chair of medicine at the University of Mississippi, Jackson. The upshot is that any patient diagnosed with heart failure should receive an SGLT2 inhibitor “irrespective of their ejection fraction,” Dr. Butler advised.

“Ejection fraction is very crude, and probably not sufficient to identify a phenotype,” for treatment, said Dr. Yancy. “The real takeaway may be that we need to revisit what we call HFrEF, and then let that be the new standard for treatment.”

“Is [an EF of] 60% the new 40%?” asked Dr. Packer, implying that the answer was yes.
 

Results from several trials suggest redefining HFrEF

The idea that patients without traditionally defined HFrEF – an EF of 40% or less – could also benefit from other classes of heart failure drugs has been gestating for a while, and then rose to a new level with the August 2021 report of results from EMPEROR-Preserved. Two years ago, in September 2019, Dr. Butler, Dr. Packer, and a third colleague advanced the notion of redefining HFrEF by raising the ejection fraction ceiling in a published commentary.

They cited the experience with the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan in a post hoc analysis of data collected in the CHARM-Preserved trial, which showed a strong signal of benefit in the subgroup of patients with EFs of 41%-49%, but not in those with an EF of 50% or higher. This finding prompted Dr. Konstam to express doubts about relying on EF to define heart failure subgroups in trials and guide management in a commentary published more than 3 years ago.

Another crack in the traditional EF framework came from analysis of results from the TOPCAT trial that tested spironolactone as a treatment for patients with HFpEF, according to the 2019 opinion published by Dr. Butler and Dr. Packer. Once again a post hoc analysis, this time using data from TOPCAT, suggested a benefit from the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist spironolactone in patients with heart failure and an EF of 45%-49% (45% was the minimum EF for enrollment into the study).

Recently, data from a third trial that tested sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFpEF, PARAGON-HF, showed benefit among patients with EFs below the study median of 57%. This finding led the Food and Drug Administration in February 2021 to amend its initial approval for sacubitril/valsartan by removing a specific EF ceiling from the drug’s indication and instead saying that patient’s receiving the drug should have a “below normal” EF.

Writing in a recent commentary, Dr. Yancy called the FDA’s action on sacubitril/valsartan “reasonable,” and that the subgroup assessment of data from the PARAGON-HF trial creates a “new, reasonably evidence-based therapy for HFpEF.” He also predicted that guideline-writing panels will “likely align with a permissive statement of indication” for sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFpEF, especially those with EFs of less than 57%.

The idea of using an SGLT2 inhibitor like empagliflozin on all heart failure patients, and also adding agents like sacubitril/valsartan and spironolactone in patients with HFpEF and EFs in the mid-50% range or lower may take some time to catch on, but it already has one influential advocate.

“If a patient has HFpEF with an EF of less than 55%, use quadruple-class therapy,” summed up Dr. Butler during the HFSA session, while also suggesting prescribing an SGLT2 inhibitor to essentially all patients with heart failure regardless of their EF.

The EMPEROR-Preserved and EMPEROR-Reduced trials and the EMPEROR-Pooled analysis were sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Packer has had financial relationships with BI and Lilly and numerous other companies. Dr. Konstam has served on data monitoring committees for trials funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and by Amgen, Luitpold, and Pfizer, and has been a consultant to Arena, LivaNova, Merck, SC Pharma, and Takeda. Dr. Yancy had no disclosures. Dr. Butler has had financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim and numerous other companies.

[email protected]

A nationwide study of more than 3,600 adults found the Moderna vaccine does a better job at preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations than the two other vaccines being used in the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Protection has said.

“Among U.S. adults without immunocompromising conditions, vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalization during March 11–Aug. 15, 2021, was higher for the Moderna vaccine (93%) than the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (88%) and the Janssen vaccine (71%),” the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report said. Janssen refers to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

The CDC said the data could help people make informed decisions.

“Understanding differences in VE [vaccine effectiveness] by vaccine product can guide individual choices and policy recommendations regarding vaccine boosters. All Food and Drug Administration–approved or authorized COVID-19 vaccines provide substantial protection against COVID-19 hospitalization,” the report said.

The study also broke down effectiveness for longer periods. Moderna came out on top again.

After 120 days, the Moderna vaccine provided 92% effectiveness against hospitalization, whereas the Pfizer vaccine’s effectiveness dropped to 77%, the CDC said. There was no similar calculation for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

The CDC studied 3,689 adults at 21 hospitals in 18 states who got the two-shot Pfizer or Moderna vaccine or the one-shot Johnson & Johnson vaccine between March and August.

The agency noted some factors that could have come into play.

“Differences in vaccine effectiveness between the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine might be due to higher mRNA content in the Moderna vaccine, differences in timing between doses (3 weeks for Pfizer-BioNTech vs. 4 weeks for Moderna), or possible differences between groups that received each vaccine that were not accounted for in the analysis,” the report said.

The CDC noted limitations in the findings. Children, immunocompromised adults, and vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 that did not result in hospitalization were not studied.

Other studies have shown all three U.S. vaccines provide a high rate of protection against coronavirus.

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

A nationwide study of more than 3,600 adults found the Moderna vaccine does a better job at preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations than the two other vaccines being used in the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Protection has said.

“Among U.S. adults without immunocompromising conditions, vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalization during March 11–Aug. 15, 2021, was higher for the Moderna vaccine (93%) than the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (88%) and the Janssen vaccine (71%),” the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report said. Janssen refers to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

The CDC said the data could help people make informed decisions.

“Understanding differences in VE [vaccine effectiveness] by vaccine product can guide individual choices and policy recommendations regarding vaccine boosters. All Food and Drug Administration–approved or authorized COVID-19 vaccines provide substantial protection against COVID-19 hospitalization,” the report said.

The study also broke down effectiveness for longer periods. Moderna came out on top again.

After 120 days, the Moderna vaccine provided 92% effectiveness against hospitalization, whereas the Pfizer vaccine’s effectiveness dropped to 77%, the CDC said. There was no similar calculation for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

The CDC studied 3,689 adults at 21 hospitals in 18 states who got the two-shot Pfizer or Moderna vaccine or the one-shot Johnson & Johnson vaccine between March and August.

The agency noted some factors that could have come into play.

“Differences in vaccine effectiveness between the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine might be due to higher mRNA content in the Moderna vaccine, differences in timing between doses (3 weeks for Pfizer-BioNTech vs. 4 weeks for Moderna), or possible differences between groups that received each vaccine that were not accounted for in the analysis,” the report said.

The CDC noted limitations in the findings. Children, immunocompromised adults, and vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 that did not result in hospitalization were not studied.

Other studies have shown all three U.S. vaccines provide a high rate of protection against coronavirus.

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

A nationwide study of more than 3,600 adults found the Moderna vaccine does a better job at preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations than the two other vaccines being used in the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Protection has said.

“Among U.S. adults without immunocompromising conditions, vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalization during March 11–Aug. 15, 2021, was higher for the Moderna vaccine (93%) than the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (88%) and the Janssen vaccine (71%),” the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report said. Janssen refers to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

The CDC said the data could help people make informed decisions.

“Understanding differences in VE [vaccine effectiveness] by vaccine product can guide individual choices and policy recommendations regarding vaccine boosters. All Food and Drug Administration–approved or authorized COVID-19 vaccines provide substantial protection against COVID-19 hospitalization,” the report said.

The study also broke down effectiveness for longer periods. Moderna came out on top again.

After 120 days, the Moderna vaccine provided 92% effectiveness against hospitalization, whereas the Pfizer vaccine’s effectiveness dropped to 77%, the CDC said. There was no similar calculation for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

The CDC studied 3,689 adults at 21 hospitals in 18 states who got the two-shot Pfizer or Moderna vaccine or the one-shot Johnson & Johnson vaccine between March and August.

The agency noted some factors that could have come into play.

“Differences in vaccine effectiveness between the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine might be due to higher mRNA content in the Moderna vaccine, differences in timing between doses (3 weeks for Pfizer-BioNTech vs. 4 weeks for Moderna), or possible differences between groups that received each vaccine that were not accounted for in the analysis,” the report said.

The CDC noted limitations in the findings. Children, immunocompromised adults, and vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 that did not result in hospitalization were not studied.

Other studies have shown all three U.S. vaccines provide a high rate of protection against coronavirus.

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

Nothing about sarcoidosis is easy. First identified in 1877, it is quite common. In the United States, lifetime risk is 2.4% and 0.85% for African American persons and White persons, respectively. Still, it remains an enigma. Despite study of its genetics and immunopathology, we don’t know its cause. Diagnosis is challenging because noncaseating granulomas, the tissue finding associated with sarcoidosis, aren’t specific for the disease. With the exception of Löfgren syndrome, a well-described sarcoid presentation that portends an excellent prognosis, initial signs and symptoms are variable and disease course is unpredictable. Alas, because sarcoid affects the lungs in more than 90% of patients, the general pulmonologist is left carrying the bag as the “sarcoidologist.”

The inherent heterogeneity of sarcoid makes it challenging to study. In the modern era of evidence-based medicine, it’s hard to say much about it with certainty. The American Thoracic Society (ATS) is one of just a few, premier organizations that creates respiratory medicine guidelines. In 1999, they published a sarcoid consensus statement with the European Respiratory Society (ERS), another outstanding and influential respiratory medicine organization, and the World Association of Sarcoidosis and other Granulomatous Disorders (WASOG). For the past 20 years, I’ve been referring trainees to this document for guidance on managing their patients with sarcoid.

Twenty years later, sarcoid remains frustrating and mysterious, but much has changed. Our methods for evaluating evidence and creating guidelines are now based on the GRADE criteria. Now that we have easy access to advanced technologies such as endobronchial ultrasound, obtaining tissue for diagnosis is easier. Our study of sarcoid itself has advanced, with large cohorts providing data on phenotyping, new immunosuppressants being used for treatment, and an improved understanding of cardiac sarcoidosis. In short, we’re in need of a sarcoidosis guideline for the 21st century.

Within in the past 18 months, the ATS and ERS have delivered updated guidelines for diagnosis and treatment. Despite the advancements cited above, sarcoid remains difficult to study. So predictably, neither document issues earth-shattering conclusions. Truth be told, well-done guidelines rarely do. They do provide several important updates that physicians managing patients with sarcoid should note.

The guideline on diagnosis provides recommendations for routine monitoring after diagnosis. Many practicing clinicians took from the 1999 ATS/ERS/WASOG consensus statement that all patients with sarcoid needed to be seen annually. At pulmonary clinics where I’ve worked, we’ve defaulted to annual follow-up for everyone, usually with chest radiography, lab testing, electrocardiography, and referral to ophthalmology. Because a majority of patients with sarcoid will remain asymptomatic or experience spontaneous remission, this practice never really seemed cost-effective or clinically efficient. The new guidelines are far more proscriptive on what monitoring is required and grade requirements at specific levels of certainty and often advise symptom-based assessments in lieu of reflexive annual testing.

The ERS guideline on treatment provides a thoughtful discussion of corticosteroid indications and dosing, broken down by underlying disease severity (assessed by lung function abnormalities and imaging). It also recognizes that two of the most common sarcoid symptoms are fatigue and dyspnea, which are both inherently nonspecific. In practice, proving these symptoms are directly attributable to sarcoid is challenging. The treatment guideline allows for flexibility in these cases, with shared decision-making and trials of low-dose steroids recommended. This seems an excellent hedge against overtreatment with immunosuppressive medications that have harmful side effects.

The ATS and ERS guidelines are not without controversy. Their approach to cardiac sarcoid differs slightly from that recommended by a commonly cited Heart Rhythm Society consensus statement, and despite discussing treatment options, the section on fatigue is quite limited. These two facts and other limitations largely reflect differing interpretations of the limited data; they do not detract from the overall importance of the ATS and ERS guidelines. Sarcoid remains an enigma, but little by little the outstanding academic physicians at the ATS and ERS are providing clarity.

Dr. Holley is an associate professor, department of medicine, Uniformed Services University (USU); program director, pulmonary and critical care medical fellowship, department of medicine, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland. He has received a research grant from Fisher-Paykel and income from the American College of Chest Physicians.

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

Nothing about sarcoidosis is easy. First identified in 1877, it is quite common. In the United States, lifetime risk is 2.4% and 0.85% for African American persons and White persons, respectively. Still, it remains an enigma. Despite study of its genetics and immunopathology, we don’t know its cause. Diagnosis is challenging because noncaseating granulomas, the tissue finding associated with sarcoidosis, aren’t specific for the disease. With the exception of Löfgren syndrome, a well-described sarcoid presentation that portends an excellent prognosis, initial signs and symptoms are variable and disease course is unpredictable. Alas, because sarcoid affects the lungs in more than 90% of patients, the general pulmonologist is left carrying the bag as the “sarcoidologist.”

The inherent heterogeneity of sarcoid makes it challenging to study. In the modern era of evidence-based medicine, it’s hard to say much about it with certainty. The American Thoracic Society (ATS) is one of just a few, premier organizations that creates respiratory medicine guidelines. In 1999, they published a sarcoid consensus statement with the European Respiratory Society (ERS), another outstanding and influential respiratory medicine organization, and the World Association of Sarcoidosis and other Granulomatous Disorders (WASOG). For the past 20 years, I’ve been referring trainees to this document for guidance on managing their patients with sarcoid.

Twenty years later, sarcoid remains frustrating and mysterious, but much has changed. Our methods for evaluating evidence and creating guidelines are now based on the GRADE criteria. Now that we have easy access to advanced technologies such as endobronchial ultrasound, obtaining tissue for diagnosis is easier. Our study of sarcoid itself has advanced, with large cohorts providing data on phenotyping, new immunosuppressants being used for treatment, and an improved understanding of cardiac sarcoidosis. In short, we’re in need of a sarcoidosis guideline for the 21st century.

Within in the past 18 months, the ATS and ERS have delivered updated guidelines for diagnosis and treatment. Despite the advancements cited above, sarcoid remains difficult to study. So predictably, neither document issues earth-shattering conclusions. Truth be told, well-done guidelines rarely do. They do provide several important updates that physicians managing patients with sarcoid should note.

The guideline on diagnosis provides recommendations for routine monitoring after diagnosis. Many practicing clinicians took from the 1999 ATS/ERS/WASOG consensus statement that all patients with sarcoid needed to be seen annually. At pulmonary clinics where I’ve worked, we’ve defaulted to annual follow-up for everyone, usually with chest radiography, lab testing, electrocardiography, and referral to ophthalmology. Because a majority of patients with sarcoid will remain asymptomatic or experience spontaneous remission, this practice never really seemed cost-effective or clinically efficient. The new guidelines are far more proscriptive on what monitoring is required and grade requirements at specific levels of certainty and often advise symptom-based assessments in lieu of reflexive annual testing.

The ERS guideline on treatment provides a thoughtful discussion of corticosteroid indications and dosing, broken down by underlying disease severity (assessed by lung function abnormalities and imaging). It also recognizes that two of the most common sarcoid symptoms are fatigue and dyspnea, which are both inherently nonspecific. In practice, proving these symptoms are directly attributable to sarcoid is challenging. The treatment guideline allows for flexibility in these cases, with shared decision-making and trials of low-dose steroids recommended. This seems an excellent hedge against overtreatment with immunosuppressive medications that have harmful side effects.

The ATS and ERS guidelines are not without controversy. Their approach to cardiac sarcoid differs slightly from that recommended by a commonly cited Heart Rhythm Society consensus statement, and despite discussing treatment options, the section on fatigue is quite limited. These two facts and other limitations largely reflect differing interpretations of the limited data; they do not detract from the overall importance of the ATS and ERS guidelines. Sarcoid remains an enigma, but little by little the outstanding academic physicians at the ATS and ERS are providing clarity.

Dr. Holley is an associate professor, department of medicine, Uniformed Services University (USU); program director, pulmonary and critical care medical fellowship, department of medicine, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland. He has received a research grant from Fisher-Paykel and income from the American College of Chest Physicians.

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

Nothing about sarcoidosis is easy. First identified in 1877, it is quite common. In the United States, lifetime risk is 2.4% and 0.85% for African American persons and White persons, respectively. Still, it remains an enigma. Despite study of its genetics and immunopathology, we don’t know its cause. Diagnosis is challenging because noncaseating granulomas, the tissue finding associated with sarcoidosis, aren’t specific for the disease. With the exception of Löfgren syndrome, a well-described sarcoid presentation that portends an excellent prognosis, initial signs and symptoms are variable and disease course is unpredictable. Alas, because sarcoid affects the lungs in more than 90% of patients, the general pulmonologist is left carrying the bag as the “sarcoidologist.”

The inherent heterogeneity of sarcoid makes it challenging to study. In the modern era of evidence-based medicine, it’s hard to say much about it with certainty. The American Thoracic Society (ATS) is one of just a few, premier organizations that creates respiratory medicine guidelines. In 1999, they published a sarcoid consensus statement with the European Respiratory Society (ERS), another outstanding and influential respiratory medicine organization, and the World Association of Sarcoidosis and other Granulomatous Disorders (WASOG). For the past 20 years, I’ve been referring trainees to this document for guidance on managing their patients with sarcoid.

Twenty years later, sarcoid remains frustrating and mysterious, but much has changed. Our methods for evaluating evidence and creating guidelines are now based on the GRADE criteria. Now that we have easy access to advanced technologies such as endobronchial ultrasound, obtaining tissue for diagnosis is easier. Our study of sarcoid itself has advanced, with large cohorts providing data on phenotyping, new immunosuppressants being used for treatment, and an improved understanding of cardiac sarcoidosis. In short, we’re in need of a sarcoidosis guideline for the 21st century.

Within in the past 18 months, the ATS and ERS have delivered updated guidelines for diagnosis and treatment. Despite the advancements cited above, sarcoid remains difficult to study. So predictably, neither document issues earth-shattering conclusions. Truth be told, well-done guidelines rarely do. They do provide several important updates that physicians managing patients with sarcoid should note.

The guideline on diagnosis provides recommendations for routine monitoring after diagnosis. Many practicing clinicians took from the 1999 ATS/ERS/WASOG consensus statement that all patients with sarcoid needed to be seen annually. At pulmonary clinics where I’ve worked, we’ve defaulted to annual follow-up for everyone, usually with chest radiography, lab testing, electrocardiography, and referral to ophthalmology. Because a majority of patients with sarcoid will remain asymptomatic or experience spontaneous remission, this practice never really seemed cost-effective or clinically efficient. The new guidelines are far more proscriptive on what monitoring is required and grade requirements at specific levels of certainty and often advise symptom-based assessments in lieu of reflexive annual testing.

The ERS guideline on treatment provides a thoughtful discussion of corticosteroid indications and dosing, broken down by underlying disease severity (assessed by lung function abnormalities and imaging). It also recognizes that two of the most common sarcoid symptoms are fatigue and dyspnea, which are both inherently nonspecific. In practice, proving these symptoms are directly attributable to sarcoid is challenging. The treatment guideline allows for flexibility in these cases, with shared decision-making and trials of low-dose steroids recommended. This seems an excellent hedge against overtreatment with immunosuppressive medications that have harmful side effects.

The ATS and ERS guidelines are not without controversy. Their approach to cardiac sarcoid differs slightly from that recommended by a commonly cited Heart Rhythm Society consensus statement, and despite discussing treatment options, the section on fatigue is quite limited. These two facts and other limitations largely reflect differing interpretations of the limited data; they do not detract from the overall importance of the ATS and ERS guidelines. Sarcoid remains an enigma, but little by little the outstanding academic physicians at the ATS and ERS are providing clarity.

Dr. Holley is an associate professor, department of medicine, Uniformed Services University (USU); program director, pulmonary and critical care medical fellowship, department of medicine, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland. He has received a research grant from Fisher-Paykel and income from the American College of Chest Physicians.

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

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

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

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

Older adults in the United States – particularly among Black and Latino/Hispanic populations – experienced worse access to health care for chronic conditions during the pandemic than older adults in 10 other wealthy countries, according to findings from The Commonwealth Fund’s 2021 International Health Policy Survey of Older Adults released today.

David Blumenthal, MD, president of The Commonwealth Fund, said during a press briefing that surveying the senior population in the United States is particularly insightful because it is the only group with the universal coverage of Medicare, which offers a more direct comparison with other countries’ universal health care coverage.

More than one-third (37%) of older U.S. adults with multiple chronic conditions reported pandemic-related disruptions in their care – higher than rates in Canada, the Netherlands, and U.K. In Germany, only 11% had canceled or postponed appointments.

The survey was conducted between March and June 2021 and included responses from 18,477 adults age 65 and older in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and U.K., and U.S. adults age 60 and older.

Among older adults who need help with daily activities, those in the United States, Canada, U.K., and Australia were the most likely to say they did not receive needed services from professionals or family members.

In the United States, 23% of people who said they needed help with activities such as housework, meal preparation, and medication management experienced a disruption in care because services were canceled or very limited during the pandemic. For comparison, only 8% of seniors in Germany and 11% of seniors in the Netherlands did not receive help with basic daily activities.
 

Many U.S. seniors used up savings

“Nearly one in five older adults report that they used up their savings or lost their main source of income because of the pandemic. We see much lower rates in other countries like Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Sweden,” Reginald D. Williams, vice president for international health policy and practice innovations at The Commonwealth Fund, said during a briefing.

Older U.S. adults reported economic difficulties related to the pandemic at a rate of up to six times that of other countries, he said.

The differences by race were stark. While 19% of U.S. seniors overall experienced financial hardships related to the pandemic, 32% of Black seniors and 39% of Latino/Hispanic seniors in the United States experienced hardships. Germany had the lowest rate, at 3% overall.

“As the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States continues to evolve,” Mr. Williams said, “finding ways to reduce care barriers – affordability and connecting adults to usual sources of primary care, enhancing access to economic supports and social services – can help narrow the gaps.”

Dr. Blumenthal said that even though “Medicare is a critical lifeline,” it has flaws.

“Medicare plans have significant gaps that leave beneficiaries vulnerable to sizable out-of-pocket expenses,” he said.

Placing caps on out-of-pocket costs and covering more health services, such as dental, vision, and hearing care, could help make the population less vulnerable, Dr. Blumenthal said. “The chronic lack of security facing U.S. seniors, especially those who are Black or Hispanic, is exacerbating the pandemic’s devastating toll,” he added.

Dr. Blumenthal and Mr. Williams have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Older adults in the United States – particularly among Black and Latino/Hispanic populations – experienced worse access to health care for chronic conditions during the pandemic than older adults in 10 other wealthy countries, according to findings from The Commonwealth Fund’s 2021 International Health Policy Survey of Older Adults released today.

David Blumenthal, MD, president of The Commonwealth Fund, said during a press briefing that surveying the senior population in the United States is particularly insightful because it is the only group with the universal coverage of Medicare, which offers a more direct comparison with other countries’ universal health care coverage.

More than one-third (37%) of older U.S. adults with multiple chronic conditions reported pandemic-related disruptions in their care – higher than rates in Canada, the Netherlands, and U.K. In Germany, only 11% had canceled or postponed appointments.

The survey was conducted between March and June 2021 and included responses from 18,477 adults age 65 and older in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and U.K., and U.S. adults age 60 and older.

Among older adults who need help with daily activities, those in the United States, Canada, U.K., and Australia were the most likely to say they did not receive needed services from professionals or family members.

In the United States, 23% of people who said they needed help with activities such as housework, meal preparation, and medication management experienced a disruption in care because services were canceled or very limited during the pandemic. For comparison, only 8% of seniors in Germany and 11% of seniors in the Netherlands did not receive help with basic daily activities.
 

Many U.S. seniors used up savings

“Nearly one in five older adults report that they used up their savings or lost their main source of income because of the pandemic. We see much lower rates in other countries like Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Sweden,” Reginald D. Williams, vice president for international health policy and practice innovations at The Commonwealth Fund, said during a briefing.

Older U.S. adults reported economic difficulties related to the pandemic at a rate of up to six times that of other countries, he said.

The differences by race were stark. While 19% of U.S. seniors overall experienced financial hardships related to the pandemic, 32% of Black seniors and 39% of Latino/Hispanic seniors in the United States experienced hardships. Germany had the lowest rate, at 3% overall.

“As the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States continues to evolve,” Mr. Williams said, “finding ways to reduce care barriers – affordability and connecting adults to usual sources of primary care, enhancing access to economic supports and social services – can help narrow the gaps.”

Dr. Blumenthal said that even though “Medicare is a critical lifeline,” it has flaws.

“Medicare plans have significant gaps that leave beneficiaries vulnerable to sizable out-of-pocket expenses,” he said.

Placing caps on out-of-pocket costs and covering more health services, such as dental, vision, and hearing care, could help make the population less vulnerable, Dr. Blumenthal said. “The chronic lack of security facing U.S. seniors, especially those who are Black or Hispanic, is exacerbating the pandemic’s devastating toll,” he added.

Dr. Blumenthal and Mr. Williams have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Older adults in the United States – particularly among Black and Latino/Hispanic populations – experienced worse access to health care for chronic conditions during the pandemic than older adults in 10 other wealthy countries, according to findings from The Commonwealth Fund’s 2021 International Health Policy Survey of Older Adults released today.

David Blumenthal, MD, president of The Commonwealth Fund, said during a press briefing that surveying the senior population in the United States is particularly insightful because it is the only group with the universal coverage of Medicare, which offers a more direct comparison with other countries’ universal health care coverage.

More than one-third (37%) of older U.S. adults with multiple chronic conditions reported pandemic-related disruptions in their care – higher than rates in Canada, the Netherlands, and U.K. In Germany, only 11% had canceled or postponed appointments.

The survey was conducted between March and June 2021 and included responses from 18,477 adults age 65 and older in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and U.K., and U.S. adults age 60 and older.

Among older adults who need help with daily activities, those in the United States, Canada, U.K., and Australia were the most likely to say they did not receive needed services from professionals or family members.

In the United States, 23% of people who said they needed help with activities such as housework, meal preparation, and medication management experienced a disruption in care because services were canceled or very limited during the pandemic. For comparison, only 8% of seniors in Germany and 11% of seniors in the Netherlands did not receive help with basic daily activities.
 

Many U.S. seniors used up savings

“Nearly one in five older adults report that they used up their savings or lost their main source of income because of the pandemic. We see much lower rates in other countries like Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Sweden,” Reginald D. Williams, vice president for international health policy and practice innovations at The Commonwealth Fund, said during a briefing.

Older U.S. adults reported economic difficulties related to the pandemic at a rate of up to six times that of other countries, he said.

The differences by race were stark. While 19% of U.S. seniors overall experienced financial hardships related to the pandemic, 32% of Black seniors and 39% of Latino/Hispanic seniors in the United States experienced hardships. Germany had the lowest rate, at 3% overall.

“As the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States continues to evolve,” Mr. Williams said, “finding ways to reduce care barriers – affordability and connecting adults to usual sources of primary care, enhancing access to economic supports and social services – can help narrow the gaps.”

Dr. Blumenthal said that even though “Medicare is a critical lifeline,” it has flaws.

“Medicare plans have significant gaps that leave beneficiaries vulnerable to sizable out-of-pocket expenses,” he said.

Placing caps on out-of-pocket costs and covering more health services, such as dental, vision, and hearing care, could help make the population less vulnerable, Dr. Blumenthal said. “The chronic lack of security facing U.S. seniors, especially those who are Black or Hispanic, is exacerbating the pandemic’s devastating toll,” he added.

Dr. Blumenthal and Mr. Williams have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

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

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

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

Heidi Erickson, MD, is tired. As a pulmonary and critical care physician at Hennepin Healthcare in Minneapolis, she has been providing care for patients with COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic.

rclassenlayouts/Getty Images

It was exhausting from the beginning, as she and her colleagues scrambled to understand how to deal with this new disease. But lately, she has noticed a different kind of exhaustion arising from the knowledge that with vaccines widely available, the latest surge was preventable.

Her intensive care unit is currently as full as it has ever been with COVID-19 patients, many of them young adults and most of them unvaccinated. After the recent death of one patient, an unvaccinated man with teenage children, she had to face his family’s questions about why ivermectin, an antiparasitic medication that was falsely promoted as a COVID-19 treatment, was not administered.

“I’m fatigued because I’m working more than ever, but more people don’t have to die,” Dr. Erickson said in an interview . “It’s been very hard physically, mentally, emotionally.”

Amid yet another surge in COVID-19 cases around the United States, clinicians are speaking out about their growing frustration with this preventable crisis.

Some are using the terms “empathy fatigue” and “compassion fatigue” – a sense that they are losing empathy for unvaccinated individuals who are fueling the pandemic.

Dr. Erickson says she is frustrated not by individual patients but by a system that has allowed disinformation to proliferate. Experts say these types of feelings fit into a widespread pattern of physician burnout that has taken a new turn at this stage of the pandemic.

Paradoxical choices

Empathy is a cornerstone of what clinicians do, and the ability to understand and share a patient’s feelings is an essential skill for providing effective care, says Kaz Nelson, MD, a psychiatrist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Practitioners face paradoxical situations all the time, she notes. These include individuals who break bones and go skydiving again, people who have high cholesterol but continue to eat fried foods, and those with advanced lung cancer who continue to smoke.

To treat patients with compassion, practitioners learn to set aside judgment by acknowledging the complexity of human behavior. They may lament the addictive nature of nicotine and advertising that targets children, for example, while still listening and caring.

Empathy requires high-level brain function, but as stress levels rise, brain function that drives empathy tends to shut down. It’s a survival mechanism, Dr. Nelson says.

When health care workers feel overwhelmed, trapped, or threatened by patients demanding unproven treatments or by ICUs with more patients than ventilators, they may experience a fight-or-flight response that makes them defensive, frustrated, angry, or uncaring, notes Mona Masood, DO, a Philadelphia-area psychiatrist and founder of Physician Support Line, a free mental health hotline for doctors.

Some clinicians have taken to Twitter and other social media platforms to post about these types of experiences.

These feelings, which have been brewing for months, have been exacerbated by the complexity of the current situation. Clinicians see a disconnect between what is and what could be, Dr. Nelson notes.

“Prior to vaccines, there weren’t other options, and so we had toxic stress and we had fatigue, but we could still maintain little bits of empathy by saying, ‘You know, people didn’t choose to get infected, and we are in a pandemic.’ We could kind of hate the virus. Now with access to vaccines, that last connection to empathy is removed for many people,” she says.

Self-preservation vs. empathy

Compassion fatigue or empathy fatigue is just one reaction to feeling completely maxed out and overstressed, Dr. Nelson says. Anger at society, such as what Dr. Erickson experienced, is another response.

Practitioners may also feel as if they are just going through the motions of their job, or they might disassociate, ceasing to feel that their patients are human. Plenty of doctors and nurses have cried in their cars after shifts and have posted tearful videos on social media.

Early in the pandemic, Dr. Masood says, physicians who called the support hotline expressed sadness and grief. Now, she had her colleagues hear frustration and anger, along with guilt and shame for having feelings they believe they shouldn’t be having, especially toward patients. They may feel unprofessional or worse – unworthy of being physicians, she says.

One recent caller to the hotline was a long-time ICU physician who had been told so many times by patients that ivermectin was the only medicine that would cure them that he began to doubt himself, says Dr. Masood. This caller needed to be reassured by another physician that he was doing the right thing.

Another emergency department physician told Dr. Masood about a young child who had arrived at the hospital with COVID-19 symptoms. When asked whether the family had been exposed to anyone with COVID-19, the child’s parent lied so that they could be triaged faster.

The physician, who needed to step away from the situation, reached out to Dr. Masood to express her frustration so that she wouldn’t “let it out” on the patient.

“It’s hard to have empathy for people who, for all intents and purposes, are very self-centered,” Dr. Masood says. “We’re at a place where we’re having to choose between self-preservation and empathy.”
 

How to cope

To help practitioners cope, Dr. Masood offers words that describe what they’re experiencing. She often hears clinicians say things such as, “This is a type of burnout that I feel to my bones,” or “This makes me want to quit,” or “I feel like I’m at the end of my rope.”

She encourages them to consider the terms “empathy fatigue,” and “moral injury” in order to reconcile how their sense of responsibility to take care of people is compromised by factors outside of their control.

It is not shameful to acknowledge that they experience emotions, including difficult ones such as frustration, anger, sadness, and anxiety, Dr. Masood adds.

Being frustrated with a patient doesn’t make someone a bad doctor, and admitting those emotions is the first step toward dealing with them, she says.

Dr. Nelson adds that taking breaks from work can help. She also recommends setting boundaries, seeking therapy, and acknowledging feelings early before they cause a sense of callousness or other consequences that become harder to heal from as time goes on.

“We’re trained to just go, go, go and sometimes not pause and check in,” she says. Clinicians who open up are likely to find they are not the only ones feeling tired or frustrated right now, she adds.

“Connect with peers and colleagues, because chances are, they can relate,” Dr. Nelson says.

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

Heidi Erickson, MD, is tired. As a pulmonary and critical care physician at Hennepin Healthcare in Minneapolis, she has been providing care for patients with COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic.

rclassenlayouts/Getty Images

It was exhausting from the beginning, as she and her colleagues scrambled to understand how to deal with this new disease. But lately, she has noticed a different kind of exhaustion arising from the knowledge that with vaccines widely available, the latest surge was preventable.

Her intensive care unit is currently as full as it has ever been with COVID-19 patients, many of them young adults and most of them unvaccinated. After the recent death of one patient, an unvaccinated man with teenage children, she had to face his family’s questions about why ivermectin, an antiparasitic medication that was falsely promoted as a COVID-19 treatment, was not administered.

“I’m fatigued because I’m working more than ever, but more people don’t have to die,” Dr. Erickson said in an interview . “It’s been very hard physically, mentally, emotionally.”

Amid yet another surge in COVID-19 cases around the United States, clinicians are speaking out about their growing frustration with this preventable crisis.

Some are using the terms “empathy fatigue” and “compassion fatigue” – a sense that they are losing empathy for unvaccinated individuals who are fueling the pandemic.

Dr. Erickson says she is frustrated not by individual patients but by a system that has allowed disinformation to proliferate. Experts say these types of feelings fit into a widespread pattern of physician burnout that has taken a new turn at this stage of the pandemic.

Paradoxical choices

Empathy is a cornerstone of what clinicians do, and the ability to understand and share a patient’s feelings is an essential skill for providing effective care, says Kaz Nelson, MD, a psychiatrist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Practitioners face paradoxical situations all the time, she notes. These include individuals who break bones and go skydiving again, people who have high cholesterol but continue to eat fried foods, and those with advanced lung cancer who continue to smoke.

To treat patients with compassion, practitioners learn to set aside judgment by acknowledging the complexity of human behavior. They may lament the addictive nature of nicotine and advertising that targets children, for example, while still listening and caring.

Empathy requires high-level brain function, but as stress levels rise, brain function that drives empathy tends to shut down. It’s a survival mechanism, Dr. Nelson says.

When health care workers feel overwhelmed, trapped, or threatened by patients demanding unproven treatments or by ICUs with more patients than ventilators, they may experience a fight-or-flight response that makes them defensive, frustrated, angry, or uncaring, notes Mona Masood, DO, a Philadelphia-area psychiatrist and founder of Physician Support Line, a free mental health hotline for doctors.

Some clinicians have taken to Twitter and other social media platforms to post about these types of experiences.

These feelings, which have been brewing for months, have been exacerbated by the complexity of the current situation. Clinicians see a disconnect between what is and what could be, Dr. Nelson notes.

“Prior to vaccines, there weren’t other options, and so we had toxic stress and we had fatigue, but we could still maintain little bits of empathy by saying, ‘You know, people didn’t choose to get infected, and we are in a pandemic.’ We could kind of hate the virus. Now with access to vaccines, that last connection to empathy is removed for many people,” she says.

Self-preservation vs. empathy

Compassion fatigue or empathy fatigue is just one reaction to feeling completely maxed out and overstressed, Dr. Nelson says. Anger at society, such as what Dr. Erickson experienced, is another response.

Practitioners may also feel as if they are just going through the motions of their job, or they might disassociate, ceasing to feel that their patients are human. Plenty of doctors and nurses have cried in their cars after shifts and have posted tearful videos on social media.

Early in the pandemic, Dr. Masood says, physicians who called the support hotline expressed sadness and grief. Now, she had her colleagues hear frustration and anger, along with guilt and shame for having feelings they believe they shouldn’t be having, especially toward patients. They may feel unprofessional or worse – unworthy of being physicians, she says.

One recent caller to the hotline was a long-time ICU physician who had been told so many times by patients that ivermectin was the only medicine that would cure them that he began to doubt himself, says Dr. Masood. This caller needed to be reassured by another physician that he was doing the right thing.

Another emergency department physician told Dr. Masood about a young child who had arrived at the hospital with COVID-19 symptoms. When asked whether the family had been exposed to anyone with COVID-19, the child’s parent lied so that they could be triaged faster.

The physician, who needed to step away from the situation, reached out to Dr. Masood to express her frustration so that she wouldn’t “let it out” on the patient.

“It’s hard to have empathy for people who, for all intents and purposes, are very self-centered,” Dr. Masood says. “We’re at a place where we’re having to choose between self-preservation and empathy.”
 

How to cope

To help practitioners cope, Dr. Masood offers words that describe what they’re experiencing. She often hears clinicians say things such as, “This is a type of burnout that I feel to my bones,” or “This makes me want to quit,” or “I feel like I’m at the end of my rope.”

She encourages them to consider the terms “empathy fatigue,” and “moral injury” in order to reconcile how their sense of responsibility to take care of people is compromised by factors outside of their control.

It is not shameful to acknowledge that they experience emotions, including difficult ones such as frustration, anger, sadness, and anxiety, Dr. Masood adds.

Being frustrated with a patient doesn’t make someone a bad doctor, and admitting those emotions is the first step toward dealing with them, she says.

Dr. Nelson adds that taking breaks from work can help. She also recommends setting boundaries, seeking therapy, and acknowledging feelings early before they cause a sense of callousness or other consequences that become harder to heal from as time goes on.

“We’re trained to just go, go, go and sometimes not pause and check in,” she says. Clinicians who open up are likely to find they are not the only ones feeling tired or frustrated right now, she adds.

“Connect with peers and colleagues, because chances are, they can relate,” Dr. Nelson says.

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

Heidi Erickson, MD, is tired. As a pulmonary and critical care physician at Hennepin Healthcare in Minneapolis, she has been providing care for patients with COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic.

rclassenlayouts/Getty Images

It was exhausting from the beginning, as she and her colleagues scrambled to understand how to deal with this new disease. But lately, she has noticed a different kind of exhaustion arising from the knowledge that with vaccines widely available, the latest surge was preventable.

Her intensive care unit is currently as full as it has ever been with COVID-19 patients, many of them young adults and most of them unvaccinated. After the recent death of one patient, an unvaccinated man with teenage children, she had to face his family’s questions about why ivermectin, an antiparasitic medication that was falsely promoted as a COVID-19 treatment, was not administered.

“I’m fatigued because I’m working more than ever, but more people don’t have to die,” Dr. Erickson said in an interview . “It’s been very hard physically, mentally, emotionally.”

Amid yet another surge in COVID-19 cases around the United States, clinicians are speaking out about their growing frustration with this preventable crisis.

Some are using the terms “empathy fatigue” and “compassion fatigue” – a sense that they are losing empathy for unvaccinated individuals who are fueling the pandemic.

Dr. Erickson says she is frustrated not by individual patients but by a system that has allowed disinformation to proliferate. Experts say these types of feelings fit into a widespread pattern of physician burnout that has taken a new turn at this stage of the pandemic.

Paradoxical choices

Empathy is a cornerstone of what clinicians do, and the ability to understand and share a patient’s feelings is an essential skill for providing effective care, says Kaz Nelson, MD, a psychiatrist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Practitioners face paradoxical situations all the time, she notes. These include individuals who break bones and go skydiving again, people who have high cholesterol but continue to eat fried foods, and those with advanced lung cancer who continue to smoke.

To treat patients with compassion, practitioners learn to set aside judgment by acknowledging the complexity of human behavior. They may lament the addictive nature of nicotine and advertising that targets children, for example, while still listening and caring.

Empathy requires high-level brain function, but as stress levels rise, brain function that drives empathy tends to shut down. It’s a survival mechanism, Dr. Nelson says.

When health care workers feel overwhelmed, trapped, or threatened by patients demanding unproven treatments or by ICUs with more patients than ventilators, they may experience a fight-or-flight response that makes them defensive, frustrated, angry, or uncaring, notes Mona Masood, DO, a Philadelphia-area psychiatrist and founder of Physician Support Line, a free mental health hotline for doctors.

Some clinicians have taken to Twitter and other social media platforms to post about these types of experiences.

These feelings, which have been brewing for months, have been exacerbated by the complexity of the current situation. Clinicians see a disconnect between what is and what could be, Dr. Nelson notes.

“Prior to vaccines, there weren’t other options, and so we had toxic stress and we had fatigue, but we could still maintain little bits of empathy by saying, ‘You know, people didn’t choose to get infected, and we are in a pandemic.’ We could kind of hate the virus. Now with access to vaccines, that last connection to empathy is removed for many people,” she says.

Self-preservation vs. empathy

Compassion fatigue or empathy fatigue is just one reaction to feeling completely maxed out and overstressed, Dr. Nelson says. Anger at society, such as what Dr. Erickson experienced, is another response.

Practitioners may also feel as if they are just going through the motions of their job, or they might disassociate, ceasing to feel that their patients are human. Plenty of doctors and nurses have cried in their cars after shifts and have posted tearful videos on social media.

Early in the pandemic, Dr. Masood says, physicians who called the support hotline expressed sadness and grief. Now, she had her colleagues hear frustration and anger, along with guilt and shame for having feelings they believe they shouldn’t be having, especially toward patients. They may feel unprofessional or worse – unworthy of being physicians, she says.

One recent caller to the hotline was a long-time ICU physician who had been told so many times by patients that ivermectin was the only medicine that would cure them that he began to doubt himself, says Dr. Masood. This caller needed to be reassured by another physician that he was doing the right thing.

Another emergency department physician told Dr. Masood about a young child who had arrived at the hospital with COVID-19 symptoms. When asked whether the family had been exposed to anyone with COVID-19, the child’s parent lied so that they could be triaged faster.

The physician, who needed to step away from the situation, reached out to Dr. Masood to express her frustration so that she wouldn’t “let it out” on the patient.

“It’s hard to have empathy for people who, for all intents and purposes, are very self-centered,” Dr. Masood says. “We’re at a place where we’re having to choose between self-preservation and empathy.”
 

How to cope

To help practitioners cope, Dr. Masood offers words that describe what they’re experiencing. She often hears clinicians say things such as, “This is a type of burnout that I feel to my bones,” or “This makes me want to quit,” or “I feel like I’m at the end of my rope.”

She encourages them to consider the terms “empathy fatigue,” and “moral injury” in order to reconcile how their sense of responsibility to take care of people is compromised by factors outside of their control.

It is not shameful to acknowledge that they experience emotions, including difficult ones such as frustration, anger, sadness, and anxiety, Dr. Masood adds.

Being frustrated with a patient doesn’t make someone a bad doctor, and admitting those emotions is the first step toward dealing with them, she says.

Dr. Nelson adds that taking breaks from work can help. She also recommends setting boundaries, seeking therapy, and acknowledging feelings early before they cause a sense of callousness or other consequences that become harder to heal from as time goes on.

“We’re trained to just go, go, go and sometimes not pause and check in,” she says. Clinicians who open up are likely to find they are not the only ones feeling tired or frustrated right now, she adds.

“Connect with peers and colleagues, because chances are, they can relate,” Dr. Nelson says.

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

As private practices try to recover and rebuild in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, many have faced an unexpected challenge: a paucity of employees.

My own office is prime example: I have had job listings for both front- and back-office positions posted on all the major job boards and other employment portals for months, with a disappointing response. Of the few who do respond, many, incredibly, do not show up for their interviews!

It turns out that this is a widespread problem, and not just in medicine. A recent survey by the National Federation of Independent Business found that 42% of business owners, in all walks of life, had job openings that could not be filled, a record high. Over 90% of those hiring reported few or no qualified applicants and an increase in interview no-shows.

Clearly, this is a huge obstacle to growth – and even to conducting normal operations – for my practice and many others.

Reasons for the situation vary, but a big one has been the unfortunate fact that many open job positions actually pay less than the expanded unemployment benefits that many people have received under the March 2020 CARES Act. By one estimate, almost 70% of unemployed workers have been collecting more on unemployment than they earned while working. The CARES benefits expired in early September, but many potential workers continue to receive payments through a newer FEMA program, and some states have their own ongoing benefit programs.

Other reasons have been offered: Some candidates are unvaccinated (an immediate deal-breaker in my office), and some working parents continue to face a lack of childcare or in-person schooling for their children. Some applicants – regardless of vaccination status – have said they are hesitant to work in a medical office setting and risk getting COVID-19, despite all the precautions we have in place. Others have said they are waiting until the job market improves.

There are no easy solutions to this complicated problem, but here are a few suggestions culled from my research and conversations with HR professionals and others.

One obvious option is to offer higher wages, and perhaps even signing bonuses. “Whenever anyone says they can’t find the workers they need,” a consultant told me, “they are really saying they can’t find them at the wages they want to pay.” There are limits to the wages and benefits a private office with a very finite salary budget can offer, of course – but a few higher-paid employees may be preferable to no new workers at all.

For job candidates who fear COVID-19 exposure, assure them that their health and safety is a priority by spelling out the procedures your office is following (social distancing, reduced patient capacity, interaction barriers, face masks, avoidance of handshakes, enhanced cleaning procedures, symptom questionnaires, temperature checks, etc.) to minimize the risk of exposure.

You also may need to rework your interview process. In the Zoom era, most preliminary interviews can be conducted remotely. For on-site interviews, explain how you’re maintaining a safe interview environment by applying the same office safety policies to interactions with interviewees.

If a promising candidate doesn’t show up for an interview, the applicant could be making a token effort to obtain a job in order to perpetuate unemployment payments, but don’t jump to that conclusion. There may be extenuating circumstances, such as an emergency, illness, or traffic issues. Also, consider the possibility that it was your fault. If you waited too long to schedule the interview, another office could have lured them away. Or you may not have adequately explained your COVID-19 exposure safeguards. At the very least, a drawn-out process or a lack of transparency can make applicants apprehensive about accepting a job with you, particularly if other employers are pursuing them.

To counter the shortsighted appeal of collecting unemployment benefits, it may help to highlight the long-term growth opportunities available at your office. Consider outlining typical career tracks, or providing specific examples of how people have advanced their careers at your facility. I frequently cite the example of my current office manager, who began as an assistant receptionist almost 30 years ago.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

As private practices try to recover and rebuild in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, many have faced an unexpected challenge: a paucity of employees.

My own office is prime example: I have had job listings for both front- and back-office positions posted on all the major job boards and other employment portals for months, with a disappointing response. Of the few who do respond, many, incredibly, do not show up for their interviews!

It turns out that this is a widespread problem, and not just in medicine. A recent survey by the National Federation of Independent Business found that 42% of business owners, in all walks of life, had job openings that could not be filled, a record high. Over 90% of those hiring reported few or no qualified applicants and an increase in interview no-shows.

Clearly, this is a huge obstacle to growth – and even to conducting normal operations – for my practice and many others.

Reasons for the situation vary, but a big one has been the unfortunate fact that many open job positions actually pay less than the expanded unemployment benefits that many people have received under the March 2020 CARES Act. By one estimate, almost 70% of unemployed workers have been collecting more on unemployment than they earned while working. The CARES benefits expired in early September, but many potential workers continue to receive payments through a newer FEMA program, and some states have their own ongoing benefit programs.

Other reasons have been offered: Some candidates are unvaccinated (an immediate deal-breaker in my office), and some working parents continue to face a lack of childcare or in-person schooling for their children. Some applicants – regardless of vaccination status – have said they are hesitant to work in a medical office setting and risk getting COVID-19, despite all the precautions we have in place. Others have said they are waiting until the job market improves.

There are no easy solutions to this complicated problem, but here are a few suggestions culled from my research and conversations with HR professionals and others.

One obvious option is to offer higher wages, and perhaps even signing bonuses. “Whenever anyone says they can’t find the workers they need,” a consultant told me, “they are really saying they can’t find them at the wages they want to pay.” There are limits to the wages and benefits a private office with a very finite salary budget can offer, of course – but a few higher-paid employees may be preferable to no new workers at all.

For job candidates who fear COVID-19 exposure, assure them that their health and safety is a priority by spelling out the procedures your office is following (social distancing, reduced patient capacity, interaction barriers, face masks, avoidance of handshakes, enhanced cleaning procedures, symptom questionnaires, temperature checks, etc.) to minimize the risk of exposure.

You also may need to rework your interview process. In the Zoom era, most preliminary interviews can be conducted remotely. For on-site interviews, explain how you’re maintaining a safe interview environment by applying the same office safety policies to interactions with interviewees.

If a promising candidate doesn’t show up for an interview, the applicant could be making a token effort to obtain a job in order to perpetuate unemployment payments, but don’t jump to that conclusion. There may be extenuating circumstances, such as an emergency, illness, or traffic issues. Also, consider the possibility that it was your fault. If you waited too long to schedule the interview, another office could have lured them away. Or you may not have adequately explained your COVID-19 exposure safeguards. At the very least, a drawn-out process or a lack of transparency can make applicants apprehensive about accepting a job with you, particularly if other employers are pursuing them.

To counter the shortsighted appeal of collecting unemployment benefits, it may help to highlight the long-term growth opportunities available at your office. Consider outlining typical career tracks, or providing specific examples of how people have advanced their careers at your facility. I frequently cite the example of my current office manager, who began as an assistant receptionist almost 30 years ago.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

As private practices try to recover and rebuild in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, many have faced an unexpected challenge: a paucity of employees.

My own office is prime example: I have had job listings for both front- and back-office positions posted on all the major job boards and other employment portals for months, with a disappointing response. Of the few who do respond, many, incredibly, do not show up for their interviews!

It turns out that this is a widespread problem, and not just in medicine. A recent survey by the National Federation of Independent Business found that 42% of business owners, in all walks of life, had job openings that could not be filled, a record high. Over 90% of those hiring reported few or no qualified applicants and an increase in interview no-shows.

Clearly, this is a huge obstacle to growth – and even to conducting normal operations – for my practice and many others.

Reasons for the situation vary, but a big one has been the unfortunate fact that many open job positions actually pay less than the expanded unemployment benefits that many people have received under the March 2020 CARES Act. By one estimate, almost 70% of unemployed workers have been collecting more on unemployment than they earned while working. The CARES benefits expired in early September, but many potential workers continue to receive payments through a newer FEMA program, and some states have their own ongoing benefit programs.

Other reasons have been offered: Some candidates are unvaccinated (an immediate deal-breaker in my office), and some working parents continue to face a lack of childcare or in-person schooling for their children. Some applicants – regardless of vaccination status – have said they are hesitant to work in a medical office setting and risk getting COVID-19, despite all the precautions we have in place. Others have said they are waiting until the job market improves.

There are no easy solutions to this complicated problem, but here are a few suggestions culled from my research and conversations with HR professionals and others.

One obvious option is to offer higher wages, and perhaps even signing bonuses. “Whenever anyone says they can’t find the workers they need,” a consultant told me, “they are really saying they can’t find them at the wages they want to pay.” There are limits to the wages and benefits a private office with a very finite salary budget can offer, of course – but a few higher-paid employees may be preferable to no new workers at all.

For job candidates who fear COVID-19 exposure, assure them that their health and safety is a priority by spelling out the procedures your office is following (social distancing, reduced patient capacity, interaction barriers, face masks, avoidance of handshakes, enhanced cleaning procedures, symptom questionnaires, temperature checks, etc.) to minimize the risk of exposure.

You also may need to rework your interview process. In the Zoom era, most preliminary interviews can be conducted remotely. For on-site interviews, explain how you’re maintaining a safe interview environment by applying the same office safety policies to interactions with interviewees.

If a promising candidate doesn’t show up for an interview, the applicant could be making a token effort to obtain a job in order to perpetuate unemployment payments, but don’t jump to that conclusion. There may be extenuating circumstances, such as an emergency, illness, or traffic issues. Also, consider the possibility that it was your fault. If you waited too long to schedule the interview, another office could have lured them away. Or you may not have adequately explained your COVID-19 exposure safeguards. At the very least, a drawn-out process or a lack of transparency can make applicants apprehensive about accepting a job with you, particularly if other employers are pursuing them.

To counter the shortsighted appeal of collecting unemployment benefits, it may help to highlight the long-term growth opportunities available at your office. Consider outlining typical career tracks, or providing specific examples of how people have advanced their careers at your facility. I frequently cite the example of my current office manager, who began as an assistant receptionist almost 30 years ago.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

The earliest responders to reach the site of the destroyed twin towers of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, are at highest risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma/COPD overlap (ACO) among all those who worked at the site. The 9/11 attack was the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil.

The findings come from a case-control study that included nearly 18,000 emergency responders and volunteers. The investigators found that those who arrived at the site within 48 hours had an approximately 30% higher risk of developing COPD than those who arrived later, after adjustment for smoking and obesity, reported Rafael E de la Hoz, MD, a professor of environmental medicine, public health, and medicine at Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, and colleagues.

“In this largest World Trade Center occupational cohort, spirometrically defined COPD and ACO were both modestly but significantly associated with World Trade Center exposure intensity, but the association seemed driven by the overlap,” he said in a narrated poster presentation during the European Respiratory Society 2021 International Congress.

“Around the world, we rely on our emergency workers to help when disasters occur,” commented Arzu Yorgancıoğlu, MD, professor and head of the department of pulmonology at Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkey, who was not involved in the study.

“This study shows how important it is to keep monitoring the health of workers, like those who attended the World Trade Center site 20 years ago, as occupational exposure to pollutants can lead to COPD. What we can learn from research like this is not only how best to care for emergency workers who operate in dangerous conditions but also how we can protect them in their work in the future,” she said.
 

Inconsistent findings

Fire and police personnel, emergency medical workers, construction workers, and others who labored amid the lingering pall of toxic dust and smoke at the World Trade Center site have developed asthma and other lower respiratory tract diseases over the ensuing decades.

“As the occupational cohorts age, there are concerns about chronic, longer latency, and disabling respiratory disease,” Dr. de la Hoz and colleagues wrote.

There have been inconsistent reports about the potential associations between COPD and ACO and the intensity of occupational exposure at the World Trade Center site. This prompted the investigators to further explore these associations using spirometry-defined disease.

They assessed data on 17,996 former World Trade Center site workers who had undergone at least two good-quality spirometric evaluations from 2002 to 2018.

To be classified as having COPD, workers had to have fixed airway obstruction. Those in the ACO subgroup were also required to have prebronchodilator obstruction with forced expiratory volume in 1 second of more than 400 mL in response to bronchodilation.

The patients were matched for sex and height within 5 cm using a 1:4 nested case-control design. Missing data were imputed.
 

Earliest arrivals paid the highest penalty

Of the total cohort, 85.4% were men, and 85.6% were overweight or obese. A total of 586 workers (3.3%) met the case definition for having COPD; 258 (1.4%) met the definition for having ACO.

The investigators found that the prevalence of self-reported ACO was six times higher than the prevalence of spirometry-confirmed disease. Among those who reported an onset date, 56.7% reported having asthma before COPD; the remainder reported having COPD first.

In analyses adjusted for age, sex, cohort entry period, smoking status, body mass index, metabolic syndrome parameters, and eosinophil levels, both COPD and ACO were significantly associated with early arrival at the World Trade Center site, with an adjusted odds ratio for COPD of 1.3 (95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.64), and an OR for ACO of 1.66 (95% CI, 1.1-2.49).

There was no significant interaction between early site arrival and smoking status.

The association between early exposure and COPD was no longer significant when those with ACO were excluded, the authors noted.

“We also observed that COPD more often followed asthma in these workers than the reverse, suggesting that asthma may have been on the path to COPD in most workers affected by the inhaled toxicants at the disaster site,” Dr. de la Hoz and colleagues wrote.

In addition, “our data suggest that self-reported physician diagnoses of COPD, asthma, and ACO are poorly correlated with objective data in this cohort,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The authors and Dr. Yorgancıoğlu disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The earliest responders to reach the site of the destroyed twin towers of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, are at highest risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma/COPD overlap (ACO) among all those who worked at the site. The 9/11 attack was the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil.

The findings come from a case-control study that included nearly 18,000 emergency responders and volunteers. The investigators found that those who arrived at the site within 48 hours had an approximately 30% higher risk of developing COPD than those who arrived later, after adjustment for smoking and obesity, reported Rafael E de la Hoz, MD, a professor of environmental medicine, public health, and medicine at Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, and colleagues.

“In this largest World Trade Center occupational cohort, spirometrically defined COPD and ACO were both modestly but significantly associated with World Trade Center exposure intensity, but the association seemed driven by the overlap,” he said in a narrated poster presentation during the European Respiratory Society 2021 International Congress.

“Around the world, we rely on our emergency workers to help when disasters occur,” commented Arzu Yorgancıoğlu, MD, professor and head of the department of pulmonology at Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkey, who was not involved in the study.

“This study shows how important it is to keep monitoring the health of workers, like those who attended the World Trade Center site 20 years ago, as occupational exposure to pollutants can lead to COPD. What we can learn from research like this is not only how best to care for emergency workers who operate in dangerous conditions but also how we can protect them in their work in the future,” she said.
 

Inconsistent findings

Fire and police personnel, emergency medical workers, construction workers, and others who labored amid the lingering pall of toxic dust and smoke at the World Trade Center site have developed asthma and other lower respiratory tract diseases over the ensuing decades.

“As the occupational cohorts age, there are concerns about chronic, longer latency, and disabling respiratory disease,” Dr. de la Hoz and colleagues wrote.

There have been inconsistent reports about the potential associations between COPD and ACO and the intensity of occupational exposure at the World Trade Center site. This prompted the investigators to further explore these associations using spirometry-defined disease.

They assessed data on 17,996 former World Trade Center site workers who had undergone at least two good-quality spirometric evaluations from 2002 to 2018.

To be classified as having COPD, workers had to have fixed airway obstruction. Those in the ACO subgroup were also required to have prebronchodilator obstruction with forced expiratory volume in 1 second of more than 400 mL in response to bronchodilation.

The patients were matched for sex and height within 5 cm using a 1:4 nested case-control design. Missing data were imputed.
 

Earliest arrivals paid the highest penalty

Of the total cohort, 85.4% were men, and 85.6% were overweight or obese. A total of 586 workers (3.3%) met the case definition for having COPD; 258 (1.4%) met the definition for having ACO.

The investigators found that the prevalence of self-reported ACO was six times higher than the prevalence of spirometry-confirmed disease. Among those who reported an onset date, 56.7% reported having asthma before COPD; the remainder reported having COPD first.

In analyses adjusted for age, sex, cohort entry period, smoking status, body mass index, metabolic syndrome parameters, and eosinophil levels, both COPD and ACO were significantly associated with early arrival at the World Trade Center site, with an adjusted odds ratio for COPD of 1.3 (95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.64), and an OR for ACO of 1.66 (95% CI, 1.1-2.49).

There was no significant interaction between early site arrival and smoking status.

The association between early exposure and COPD was no longer significant when those with ACO were excluded, the authors noted.

“We also observed that COPD more often followed asthma in these workers than the reverse, suggesting that asthma may have been on the path to COPD in most workers affected by the inhaled toxicants at the disaster site,” Dr. de la Hoz and colleagues wrote.

In addition, “our data suggest that self-reported physician diagnoses of COPD, asthma, and ACO are poorly correlated with objective data in this cohort,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The authors and Dr. Yorgancıoğlu disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The earliest responders to reach the site of the destroyed twin towers of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, are at highest risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma/COPD overlap (ACO) among all those who worked at the site. The 9/11 attack was the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil.

The findings come from a case-control study that included nearly 18,000 emergency responders and volunteers. The investigators found that those who arrived at the site within 48 hours had an approximately 30% higher risk of developing COPD than those who arrived later, after adjustment for smoking and obesity, reported Rafael E de la Hoz, MD, a professor of environmental medicine, public health, and medicine at Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, and colleagues.

“In this largest World Trade Center occupational cohort, spirometrically defined COPD and ACO were both modestly but significantly associated with World Trade Center exposure intensity, but the association seemed driven by the overlap,” he said in a narrated poster presentation during the European Respiratory Society 2021 International Congress.

“Around the world, we rely on our emergency workers to help when disasters occur,” commented Arzu Yorgancıoğlu, MD, professor and head of the department of pulmonology at Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkey, who was not involved in the study.

“This study shows how important it is to keep monitoring the health of workers, like those who attended the World Trade Center site 20 years ago, as occupational exposure to pollutants can lead to COPD. What we can learn from research like this is not only how best to care for emergency workers who operate in dangerous conditions but also how we can protect them in their work in the future,” she said.
 

Inconsistent findings

Fire and police personnel, emergency medical workers, construction workers, and others who labored amid the lingering pall of toxic dust and smoke at the World Trade Center site have developed asthma and other lower respiratory tract diseases over the ensuing decades.

“As the occupational cohorts age, there are concerns about chronic, longer latency, and disabling respiratory disease,” Dr. de la Hoz and colleagues wrote.

There have been inconsistent reports about the potential associations between COPD and ACO and the intensity of occupational exposure at the World Trade Center site. This prompted the investigators to further explore these associations using spirometry-defined disease.

They assessed data on 17,996 former World Trade Center site workers who had undergone at least two good-quality spirometric evaluations from 2002 to 2018.

To be classified as having COPD, workers had to have fixed airway obstruction. Those in the ACO subgroup were also required to have prebronchodilator obstruction with forced expiratory volume in 1 second of more than 400 mL in response to bronchodilation.

The patients were matched for sex and height within 5 cm using a 1:4 nested case-control design. Missing data were imputed.
 

Earliest arrivals paid the highest penalty

Of the total cohort, 85.4% were men, and 85.6% were overweight or obese. A total of 586 workers (3.3%) met the case definition for having COPD; 258 (1.4%) met the definition for having ACO.

The investigators found that the prevalence of self-reported ACO was six times higher than the prevalence of spirometry-confirmed disease. Among those who reported an onset date, 56.7% reported having asthma before COPD; the remainder reported having COPD first.

In analyses adjusted for age, sex, cohort entry period, smoking status, body mass index, metabolic syndrome parameters, and eosinophil levels, both COPD and ACO were significantly associated with early arrival at the World Trade Center site, with an adjusted odds ratio for COPD of 1.3 (95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.64), and an OR for ACO of 1.66 (95% CI, 1.1-2.49).

There was no significant interaction between early site arrival and smoking status.

The association between early exposure and COPD was no longer significant when those with ACO were excluded, the authors noted.

“We also observed that COPD more often followed asthma in these workers than the reverse, suggesting that asthma may have been on the path to COPD in most workers affected by the inhaled toxicants at the disaster site,” Dr. de la Hoz and colleagues wrote.

In addition, “our data suggest that self-reported physician diagnoses of COPD, asthma, and ACO are poorly correlated with objective data in this cohort,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The authors and Dr. Yorgancıoğlu disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Poor lung function appears to be a stronger marker of risk for sudden cardiac death than for a survivable first coronary event, results of a prospective population-based study suggest.

Among 28,584 adults with no history of acute coronary events who were followed over 4 decades, every standard deviation decrease in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) was associated with a 23% increase in risk for sudden cardiac death, reported Suneela Zaigham, PhD, a cardiovascular epidemiology fellow at the University of Lund, Sweden, and colleagues.

“Our main findings and subsequent conclusions are that low FEV₁ is associated with both sudden cardiac death and nonfatal coronary events but is consistently more strongly associated with future sudden cardiac death,” Dr. Zaigham said in a narrated poster presented at the European Respiratory Society (ERS) 2021 International Congress, which was held online.

“We propose that measurement with spirometry in early life could aid in the risk stratification of future sudden cardiac death, and our results support the use of spirometry for cardiovascular risk assessment,” she said.

Marc Humbert, MD, PhD, professor of respiratory medicine at Université Paris–Saclay, who was not involved in the study, said that “this is something we can measure fairly easily, meaning that lung function could be used as part of a screening tool.

“We need to do more research to understand the links between lung function and sudden cardiac death and to investigate whether we can use lung function tests to help prevent deaths in the future,” he said.
 

Fatal vs. nonfatal events

It is well known that poor lung function is a strong predictor of future coronary events, but it was unknown whether patterns of lung impairment differ in their ability to predict future nonfatal coronary events or sudden cardiac death, Dr. Zaigham said.

To see whether measurable differences in lung function could predict risk for both fatal and nonfatal coronary events, the investigators studied 28,584 middle-aged residents of Malmö, Sweden. Baseline spirometry test results were available for all study participants.

The patients were followed for approximately 40 years for sudden cardiac death, defined as death on the day of a coronary event, or nonfatal events, defined as survival for at least 24 hours after an event.

Dr. Zaigham and colleagues used a modified version of Lunn McNeil’s competing risks method to create Cox regression models.

Results of an analysis that was adjusted for potential confounding factors indicated that one standard deviation reduction in FEV₁ was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) for sudden cardiac death of 1.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.31). In contrast, one standard deviation in FEV₁ was associated with a lower but still significant risk for nonfatal events, with an HR of 1.08 (95% CI, 1.04-1.13; P for equal associations = .002).

The results remained significant among participants who had never smoked, with an HR for sudden cardiac death of 1.34 (95% CI, 1.15-1.55) and for nonfatal events of 1.11 (95% CI, 1.02-1.21; P for equal associations = .038).

“This study suggests a link between lung health and sudden cardiac death. It shows a higher risk of fatal than nonfatal coronary events even in people whose lung function is moderately lower but may still be within a normal range,” Dr. Humbert said.

The study was supported by the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation. Dr. Zaigham and Dr. Humbert reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Poor lung function appears to be a stronger marker of risk for sudden cardiac death than for a survivable first coronary event, results of a prospective population-based study suggest.

Among 28,584 adults with no history of acute coronary events who were followed over 4 decades, every standard deviation decrease in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) was associated with a 23% increase in risk for sudden cardiac death, reported Suneela Zaigham, PhD, a cardiovascular epidemiology fellow at the University of Lund, Sweden, and colleagues.

“Our main findings and subsequent conclusions are that low FEV₁ is associated with both sudden cardiac death and nonfatal coronary events but is consistently more strongly associated with future sudden cardiac death,” Dr. Zaigham said in a narrated poster presented at the European Respiratory Society (ERS) 2021 International Congress, which was held online.

“We propose that measurement with spirometry in early life could aid in the risk stratification of future sudden cardiac death, and our results support the use of spirometry for cardiovascular risk assessment,” she said.

Marc Humbert, MD, PhD, professor of respiratory medicine at Université Paris–Saclay, who was not involved in the study, said that “this is something we can measure fairly easily, meaning that lung function could be used as part of a screening tool.

“We need to do more research to understand the links between lung function and sudden cardiac death and to investigate whether we can use lung function tests to help prevent deaths in the future,” he said.
 

Fatal vs. nonfatal events

It is well known that poor lung function is a strong predictor of future coronary events, but it was unknown whether patterns of lung impairment differ in their ability to predict future nonfatal coronary events or sudden cardiac death, Dr. Zaigham said.

To see whether measurable differences in lung function could predict risk for both fatal and nonfatal coronary events, the investigators studied 28,584 middle-aged residents of Malmö, Sweden. Baseline spirometry test results were available for all study participants.

The patients were followed for approximately 40 years for sudden cardiac death, defined as death on the day of a coronary event, or nonfatal events, defined as survival for at least 24 hours after an event.

Dr. Zaigham and colleagues used a modified version of Lunn McNeil’s competing risks method to create Cox regression models.

Results of an analysis that was adjusted for potential confounding factors indicated that one standard deviation reduction in FEV₁ was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) for sudden cardiac death of 1.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.31). In contrast, one standard deviation in FEV₁ was associated with a lower but still significant risk for nonfatal events, with an HR of 1.08 (95% CI, 1.04-1.13; P for equal associations = .002).

The results remained significant among participants who had never smoked, with an HR for sudden cardiac death of 1.34 (95% CI, 1.15-1.55) and for nonfatal events of 1.11 (95% CI, 1.02-1.21; P for equal associations = .038).

“This study suggests a link between lung health and sudden cardiac death. It shows a higher risk of fatal than nonfatal coronary events even in people whose lung function is moderately lower but may still be within a normal range,” Dr. Humbert said.

The study was supported by the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation. Dr. Zaigham and Dr. Humbert reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Poor lung function appears to be a stronger marker of risk for sudden cardiac death than for a survivable first coronary event, results of a prospective population-based study suggest.

Among 28,584 adults with no history of acute coronary events who were followed over 4 decades, every standard deviation decrease in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) was associated with a 23% increase in risk for sudden cardiac death, reported Suneela Zaigham, PhD, a cardiovascular epidemiology fellow at the University of Lund, Sweden, and colleagues.

“Our main findings and subsequent conclusions are that low FEV₁ is associated with both sudden cardiac death and nonfatal coronary events but is consistently more strongly associated with future sudden cardiac death,” Dr. Zaigham said in a narrated poster presented at the European Respiratory Society (ERS) 2021 International Congress, which was held online.

“We propose that measurement with spirometry in early life could aid in the risk stratification of future sudden cardiac death, and our results support the use of spirometry for cardiovascular risk assessment,” she said.

Marc Humbert, MD, PhD, professor of respiratory medicine at Université Paris–Saclay, who was not involved in the study, said that “this is something we can measure fairly easily, meaning that lung function could be used as part of a screening tool.

“We need to do more research to understand the links between lung function and sudden cardiac death and to investigate whether we can use lung function tests to help prevent deaths in the future,” he said.
 

Fatal vs. nonfatal events

It is well known that poor lung function is a strong predictor of future coronary events, but it was unknown whether patterns of lung impairment differ in their ability to predict future nonfatal coronary events or sudden cardiac death, Dr. Zaigham said.

To see whether measurable differences in lung function could predict risk for both fatal and nonfatal coronary events, the investigators studied 28,584 middle-aged residents of Malmö, Sweden. Baseline spirometry test results were available for all study participants.

The patients were followed for approximately 40 years for sudden cardiac death, defined as death on the day of a coronary event, or nonfatal events, defined as survival for at least 24 hours after an event.

Dr. Zaigham and colleagues used a modified version of Lunn McNeil’s competing risks method to create Cox regression models.

Results of an analysis that was adjusted for potential confounding factors indicated that one standard deviation reduction in FEV₁ was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) for sudden cardiac death of 1.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.31). In contrast, one standard deviation in FEV₁ was associated with a lower but still significant risk for nonfatal events, with an HR of 1.08 (95% CI, 1.04-1.13; P for equal associations = .002).

The results remained significant among participants who had never smoked, with an HR for sudden cardiac death of 1.34 (95% CI, 1.15-1.55) and for nonfatal events of 1.11 (95% CI, 1.02-1.21; P for equal associations = .038).

“This study suggests a link between lung health and sudden cardiac death. It shows a higher risk of fatal than nonfatal coronary events even in people whose lung function is moderately lower but may still be within a normal range,” Dr. Humbert said.

The study was supported by the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation. Dr. Zaigham and Dr. Humbert reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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