User login
Cardiology News is an independent news source that provides cardiologists with timely and relevant news and commentary about clinical developments and the impact of health care policy on cardiology and the cardiologist's practice. Cardiology News Digital Network is the online destination and multimedia properties of Cardiology News, the independent news publication for cardiologists. Cardiology news is the leading source of news and commentary about clinical developments in cardiology as well as health care policy and regulations that affect the cardiologist's practice. Cardiology News Digital Network is owned by Frontline Medical Communications.
How to make resident mental health care stigma free
Sarah Sofka, MD, FACP, noticed a pattern. As program director for the internal medicine (IM) residency at West Virginia University, Morgantown, she was informed when residents were sent to counseling because they were affected by burnout, depression, or anxiety. When trainees returned from these visits, many told her the same thing: They wished they had sought help sooner.
IM residents and their families had access to free counseling at WVU, but few used the resource, says Dr. Sofka. “So, we thought, let’s just schedule all of our residents for a therapy visit so they can go and see what it’s like,” she said. “This will hopefully decrease the stigma for seeking mental health care. If everybody’s going, it’s not a big deal.”
In July 2015, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues launched a universal well-being assessment program for the IM residents at WVU. The program leaders automatically scheduled first- and second-year residents for a visit to the faculty staff assistance program counselors. The visits were not mandatory, and residents could choose not to go; but if they did go, they received the entire day of their visit off from work.
Five and a half years after launching their program, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues conducted one of the first studies of the efficacy of an opt-out approach for resident mental wellness. They found that , suggesting that residents were seeking help proactively after having to at least consider it.
Opt-out counseling is a recent concept in residency programs – one that’s attracting interest from training programs across the country. Brown University, Providence, R.I.; the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; and the University of California, San Francisco have at least one residency program that uses the approach.
Lisa Meeks, PhD, an assistant professor of family medicine at Michigan Medicine, in Ann Arbor, and other experts also believe opt-out counseling could decrease stigma and help normalize seeking care for mental health problems in the medical community while lowering the barriers for trainees who need help.
No time, no access, plenty of stigma
Burnout and mental health are known to be major concerns for health care workers, especially trainees. College graduates starting medical education have lower rates of burnout and depression, compared with demographically matched peers; however, once they’ve started training, medical students, residents, and fellows are more likely to be burned out and exhibit symptoms of depression. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is further fraying the well-being of overworked and traumatized health care professionals, and experts predict a mental health crisis will follow the viral crisis.
The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education recently mandated that programs offer wellness services to trainees. Yet this doesn’t mean they are always used; well-known barriers stand between residents, medical students, and physicians and their receiving effective mental health treatment.
Two of the most obvious are access and time, given the grueling and often inflexible schedules of most trainees, says Jessica Gold, MD, a psychiatrist at Washington University, St. Louis, who specializes in treating medical professionals. Dr. Gold also points out that, to be done correctly, these programs require institutional support and investment – resources that aren’t always adequate.
“A lack of transparency and clear messaging around what is available, who provides the services, and how to access these services can be a major barrier,” says Erene Stergiopoulos, MD, a second-year psychiatry resident at the University of Toronto. In addition, there can be considerable lag between when a resident realizes they need help and when they manage to find a provider and schedule an appointment, says Dr. Meeks.
Even when these logistical barriers are overcome, trainees and physicians have to contend with the persistent stigma associated with mental health treatment in the culture of medicine, says Dr. Gold. A recent survey by the American College of Emergency Physicians found that 73% of surveyed physicians feel there is stigma in their workplace about seeking mental health treatment. Many state medical licensing boards still require physicians to disclose mental health treatment, which discourages many trainees and providers from seeking proactive care, says Mary Moffit, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and director of the resident and faculty wellness program at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
How the opt-out approach works
“The idea is by making it opt-out, you really normalize it,” says Maneesh Batra, MD, MPH, associate director of the University of Washington, Seattle, Children’s Hospital residency program. Similar approaches have proven effective at shaping human behavior in other health care settings, including boosting testing rates for HIV and increasing immunization rates for childhood vaccines, Dr. Batra says.
In general, opt-out programs acknowledge that people are busy and won’t take that extra step or click that extra button if they don’t have to, says Oana Tomescu, MD, PhD, associate professor of clinical medicine and pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
In 2018, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues at WVU conducted a survey that showed that a majority of residents thought favorably of their opt-out program and said they would return to counseling for follow-up care. In their most recent study, published in the Journal of Graduate Medical Education in 2021, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues found that residents did just that – only 8 of 239 opted out of universally scheduled visits. Resident-initiated visits increased significantly from zero during the 2014-2015 academic year to 23 in 2018-2019. Between those periods, program-mandated visits decreased significantly from 12 to 3.
The initiative has succeeded in creating a culture of openness and caring at WVU, says 2nd-year internal medicine resident Nistha Modi, MD. “It sets the tone for the program – we talk about mental health openly,” says Dr. Modi.
Crucially, the counselors work out of a different building than the hospital where Dr. Modi and her fellow residents work and use a separate electronic medical record system to protect resident privacy. This is hugely important for medical trainees, note Dr. Tomescu, Dr. Gold, and many other experts. The therapists understand residency and medical education, and there is no limit to the number of visits a resident or fellow can make with the program counselors, says Dr. Modi.
Opt-out programs offer a counterbalance to many negative tendencies in residency, says Dr. Meeks. “We’ve normalized so many things that are not healthy and productive. ... We need to counterbalance that with normalizing help seeking. And it’s really difficult to normalize something that’s not part of a system.”
Costs, concerns, and systematic support
Providing unlimited, free counseling for trainees can be very beneficial, but it requires adequate funding and personnel resources. Offering unlimited access means that an institution has to follow through in making this degree of care available while also ensuring that the system doesn’t get overwhelmed or is unable to accommodate very sick individuals, says Dr. Gold.
Another concern that experts like Dr. Batra, Dr. Moffit, and Dr. Gold share is that residents who go to their scheduled appointments may not completely buy into the experience because it wasn’t their idea in the first place. Participation alone doesn’t necessarily indicate full acceptance. Program personnel don’t intend for these appointments to be thought of as mandatory, yet residents may still experience them that way. Several leading resident well-being programs instead emphasize outreach to trainees, institutional support, and accessible mental health resources that are – and feel – entirely voluntary.
“If I tell someone that they have to do something, it’s very different than if they arrive at that conclusion for themselves,” says Dr. Batra. “That’s how life works.”
When it comes to cost, a recent study published in Academic Medicine provides encouraging data. At the University of Colorado, an opt-out pilot program for IM and pediatrics interns during the 2017-2018 academic year cost just $940 total, equal to $11.75 per intern. As in West Virginia, the program in Colorado covered the cost of the visit, interns were provided a half day off (whether they attended their appointment or not), and the visits and surveys were entirely optional and confidential. During the 1-year pilot program, 29% of 80 interns attended the scheduled appointment, 56% opted out in advance, and 15% didn’t show up. The majority of interns who were surveyed (85%), however, thought the program should continue and that it had a positive effect on their wellness even if they didn’t attend their appointment.
In West Virginia, program costs are higher. The program has $20,000 in annual funding to cover the opt-out program and unlimited counseling visits for residents and fellows. With that funding, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues were also able to expand the program slightly last year to schedule all the critical care faculty for counseling visits. Cost is a barrier to expanding these services to the entire institution, which Dr. Sofka says she hopes to do one day.
Research in this area is still preliminary. The WVU and Colorado studies provide some of the first evidence in support of an opt-out approach. Eventually, it would be beneficial for multicenter studies and longitudinal research to track the effects of such programs over time, say Dr. Sofka and Ajay Major, MD, MBA, one of the study’s coauthors and a hematology/oncology fellow at the University of Chicago.
Whether a program goes with an opt-out approach or not, the systematic supports – protecting resident privacy, providing flexible scheduling, and more – are crucial.
As Dr. Tomescu notes, wellness shouldn’t be just something trainees have to do. “The key with really working on burnout at a huge level is for all programs and schools to recognize that it’s a shared responsibility.”
“I felt very fortunate that I was able to get some help throughout residency,” says Dr. Modi. “About how to be a better daughter. How to be content with things I have in life. How to be happy, and grateful. With the kind of job we have, I think we sometimes forget to be grateful.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Sarah Sofka, MD, FACP, noticed a pattern. As program director for the internal medicine (IM) residency at West Virginia University, Morgantown, she was informed when residents were sent to counseling because they were affected by burnout, depression, or anxiety. When trainees returned from these visits, many told her the same thing: They wished they had sought help sooner.
IM residents and their families had access to free counseling at WVU, but few used the resource, says Dr. Sofka. “So, we thought, let’s just schedule all of our residents for a therapy visit so they can go and see what it’s like,” she said. “This will hopefully decrease the stigma for seeking mental health care. If everybody’s going, it’s not a big deal.”
In July 2015, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues launched a universal well-being assessment program for the IM residents at WVU. The program leaders automatically scheduled first- and second-year residents for a visit to the faculty staff assistance program counselors. The visits were not mandatory, and residents could choose not to go; but if they did go, they received the entire day of their visit off from work.
Five and a half years after launching their program, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues conducted one of the first studies of the efficacy of an opt-out approach for resident mental wellness. They found that , suggesting that residents were seeking help proactively after having to at least consider it.
Opt-out counseling is a recent concept in residency programs – one that’s attracting interest from training programs across the country. Brown University, Providence, R.I.; the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; and the University of California, San Francisco have at least one residency program that uses the approach.
Lisa Meeks, PhD, an assistant professor of family medicine at Michigan Medicine, in Ann Arbor, and other experts also believe opt-out counseling could decrease stigma and help normalize seeking care for mental health problems in the medical community while lowering the barriers for trainees who need help.
No time, no access, plenty of stigma
Burnout and mental health are known to be major concerns for health care workers, especially trainees. College graduates starting medical education have lower rates of burnout and depression, compared with demographically matched peers; however, once they’ve started training, medical students, residents, and fellows are more likely to be burned out and exhibit symptoms of depression. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is further fraying the well-being of overworked and traumatized health care professionals, and experts predict a mental health crisis will follow the viral crisis.
The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education recently mandated that programs offer wellness services to trainees. Yet this doesn’t mean they are always used; well-known barriers stand between residents, medical students, and physicians and their receiving effective mental health treatment.
Two of the most obvious are access and time, given the grueling and often inflexible schedules of most trainees, says Jessica Gold, MD, a psychiatrist at Washington University, St. Louis, who specializes in treating medical professionals. Dr. Gold also points out that, to be done correctly, these programs require institutional support and investment – resources that aren’t always adequate.
“A lack of transparency and clear messaging around what is available, who provides the services, and how to access these services can be a major barrier,” says Erene Stergiopoulos, MD, a second-year psychiatry resident at the University of Toronto. In addition, there can be considerable lag between when a resident realizes they need help and when they manage to find a provider and schedule an appointment, says Dr. Meeks.
Even when these logistical barriers are overcome, trainees and physicians have to contend with the persistent stigma associated with mental health treatment in the culture of medicine, says Dr. Gold. A recent survey by the American College of Emergency Physicians found that 73% of surveyed physicians feel there is stigma in their workplace about seeking mental health treatment. Many state medical licensing boards still require physicians to disclose mental health treatment, which discourages many trainees and providers from seeking proactive care, says Mary Moffit, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and director of the resident and faculty wellness program at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
How the opt-out approach works
“The idea is by making it opt-out, you really normalize it,” says Maneesh Batra, MD, MPH, associate director of the University of Washington, Seattle, Children’s Hospital residency program. Similar approaches have proven effective at shaping human behavior in other health care settings, including boosting testing rates for HIV and increasing immunization rates for childhood vaccines, Dr. Batra says.
In general, opt-out programs acknowledge that people are busy and won’t take that extra step or click that extra button if they don’t have to, says Oana Tomescu, MD, PhD, associate professor of clinical medicine and pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
In 2018, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues at WVU conducted a survey that showed that a majority of residents thought favorably of their opt-out program and said they would return to counseling for follow-up care. In their most recent study, published in the Journal of Graduate Medical Education in 2021, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues found that residents did just that – only 8 of 239 opted out of universally scheduled visits. Resident-initiated visits increased significantly from zero during the 2014-2015 academic year to 23 in 2018-2019. Between those periods, program-mandated visits decreased significantly from 12 to 3.
The initiative has succeeded in creating a culture of openness and caring at WVU, says 2nd-year internal medicine resident Nistha Modi, MD. “It sets the tone for the program – we talk about mental health openly,” says Dr. Modi.
Crucially, the counselors work out of a different building than the hospital where Dr. Modi and her fellow residents work and use a separate electronic medical record system to protect resident privacy. This is hugely important for medical trainees, note Dr. Tomescu, Dr. Gold, and many other experts. The therapists understand residency and medical education, and there is no limit to the number of visits a resident or fellow can make with the program counselors, says Dr. Modi.
Opt-out programs offer a counterbalance to many negative tendencies in residency, says Dr. Meeks. “We’ve normalized so many things that are not healthy and productive. ... We need to counterbalance that with normalizing help seeking. And it’s really difficult to normalize something that’s not part of a system.”
Costs, concerns, and systematic support
Providing unlimited, free counseling for trainees can be very beneficial, but it requires adequate funding and personnel resources. Offering unlimited access means that an institution has to follow through in making this degree of care available while also ensuring that the system doesn’t get overwhelmed or is unable to accommodate very sick individuals, says Dr. Gold.
Another concern that experts like Dr. Batra, Dr. Moffit, and Dr. Gold share is that residents who go to their scheduled appointments may not completely buy into the experience because it wasn’t their idea in the first place. Participation alone doesn’t necessarily indicate full acceptance. Program personnel don’t intend for these appointments to be thought of as mandatory, yet residents may still experience them that way. Several leading resident well-being programs instead emphasize outreach to trainees, institutional support, and accessible mental health resources that are – and feel – entirely voluntary.
“If I tell someone that they have to do something, it’s very different than if they arrive at that conclusion for themselves,” says Dr. Batra. “That’s how life works.”
When it comes to cost, a recent study published in Academic Medicine provides encouraging data. At the University of Colorado, an opt-out pilot program for IM and pediatrics interns during the 2017-2018 academic year cost just $940 total, equal to $11.75 per intern. As in West Virginia, the program in Colorado covered the cost of the visit, interns were provided a half day off (whether they attended their appointment or not), and the visits and surveys were entirely optional and confidential. During the 1-year pilot program, 29% of 80 interns attended the scheduled appointment, 56% opted out in advance, and 15% didn’t show up. The majority of interns who were surveyed (85%), however, thought the program should continue and that it had a positive effect on their wellness even if they didn’t attend their appointment.
In West Virginia, program costs are higher. The program has $20,000 in annual funding to cover the opt-out program and unlimited counseling visits for residents and fellows. With that funding, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues were also able to expand the program slightly last year to schedule all the critical care faculty for counseling visits. Cost is a barrier to expanding these services to the entire institution, which Dr. Sofka says she hopes to do one day.
Research in this area is still preliminary. The WVU and Colorado studies provide some of the first evidence in support of an opt-out approach. Eventually, it would be beneficial for multicenter studies and longitudinal research to track the effects of such programs over time, say Dr. Sofka and Ajay Major, MD, MBA, one of the study’s coauthors and a hematology/oncology fellow at the University of Chicago.
Whether a program goes with an opt-out approach or not, the systematic supports – protecting resident privacy, providing flexible scheduling, and more – are crucial.
As Dr. Tomescu notes, wellness shouldn’t be just something trainees have to do. “The key with really working on burnout at a huge level is for all programs and schools to recognize that it’s a shared responsibility.”
“I felt very fortunate that I was able to get some help throughout residency,” says Dr. Modi. “About how to be a better daughter. How to be content with things I have in life. How to be happy, and grateful. With the kind of job we have, I think we sometimes forget to be grateful.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Sarah Sofka, MD, FACP, noticed a pattern. As program director for the internal medicine (IM) residency at West Virginia University, Morgantown, she was informed when residents were sent to counseling because they were affected by burnout, depression, or anxiety. When trainees returned from these visits, many told her the same thing: They wished they had sought help sooner.
IM residents and their families had access to free counseling at WVU, but few used the resource, says Dr. Sofka. “So, we thought, let’s just schedule all of our residents for a therapy visit so they can go and see what it’s like,” she said. “This will hopefully decrease the stigma for seeking mental health care. If everybody’s going, it’s not a big deal.”
In July 2015, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues launched a universal well-being assessment program for the IM residents at WVU. The program leaders automatically scheduled first- and second-year residents for a visit to the faculty staff assistance program counselors. The visits were not mandatory, and residents could choose not to go; but if they did go, they received the entire day of their visit off from work.
Five and a half years after launching their program, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues conducted one of the first studies of the efficacy of an opt-out approach for resident mental wellness. They found that , suggesting that residents were seeking help proactively after having to at least consider it.
Opt-out counseling is a recent concept in residency programs – one that’s attracting interest from training programs across the country. Brown University, Providence, R.I.; the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; and the University of California, San Francisco have at least one residency program that uses the approach.
Lisa Meeks, PhD, an assistant professor of family medicine at Michigan Medicine, in Ann Arbor, and other experts also believe opt-out counseling could decrease stigma and help normalize seeking care for mental health problems in the medical community while lowering the barriers for trainees who need help.
No time, no access, plenty of stigma
Burnout and mental health are known to be major concerns for health care workers, especially trainees. College graduates starting medical education have lower rates of burnout and depression, compared with demographically matched peers; however, once they’ve started training, medical students, residents, and fellows are more likely to be burned out and exhibit symptoms of depression. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is further fraying the well-being of overworked and traumatized health care professionals, and experts predict a mental health crisis will follow the viral crisis.
The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education recently mandated that programs offer wellness services to trainees. Yet this doesn’t mean they are always used; well-known barriers stand between residents, medical students, and physicians and their receiving effective mental health treatment.
Two of the most obvious are access and time, given the grueling and often inflexible schedules of most trainees, says Jessica Gold, MD, a psychiatrist at Washington University, St. Louis, who specializes in treating medical professionals. Dr. Gold also points out that, to be done correctly, these programs require institutional support and investment – resources that aren’t always adequate.
“A lack of transparency and clear messaging around what is available, who provides the services, and how to access these services can be a major barrier,” says Erene Stergiopoulos, MD, a second-year psychiatry resident at the University of Toronto. In addition, there can be considerable lag between when a resident realizes they need help and when they manage to find a provider and schedule an appointment, says Dr. Meeks.
Even when these logistical barriers are overcome, trainees and physicians have to contend with the persistent stigma associated with mental health treatment in the culture of medicine, says Dr. Gold. A recent survey by the American College of Emergency Physicians found that 73% of surveyed physicians feel there is stigma in their workplace about seeking mental health treatment. Many state medical licensing boards still require physicians to disclose mental health treatment, which discourages many trainees and providers from seeking proactive care, says Mary Moffit, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and director of the resident and faculty wellness program at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
How the opt-out approach works
“The idea is by making it opt-out, you really normalize it,” says Maneesh Batra, MD, MPH, associate director of the University of Washington, Seattle, Children’s Hospital residency program. Similar approaches have proven effective at shaping human behavior in other health care settings, including boosting testing rates for HIV and increasing immunization rates for childhood vaccines, Dr. Batra says.
In general, opt-out programs acknowledge that people are busy and won’t take that extra step or click that extra button if they don’t have to, says Oana Tomescu, MD, PhD, associate professor of clinical medicine and pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
In 2018, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues at WVU conducted a survey that showed that a majority of residents thought favorably of their opt-out program and said they would return to counseling for follow-up care. In their most recent study, published in the Journal of Graduate Medical Education in 2021, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues found that residents did just that – only 8 of 239 opted out of universally scheduled visits. Resident-initiated visits increased significantly from zero during the 2014-2015 academic year to 23 in 2018-2019. Between those periods, program-mandated visits decreased significantly from 12 to 3.
The initiative has succeeded in creating a culture of openness and caring at WVU, says 2nd-year internal medicine resident Nistha Modi, MD. “It sets the tone for the program – we talk about mental health openly,” says Dr. Modi.
Crucially, the counselors work out of a different building than the hospital where Dr. Modi and her fellow residents work and use a separate electronic medical record system to protect resident privacy. This is hugely important for medical trainees, note Dr. Tomescu, Dr. Gold, and many other experts. The therapists understand residency and medical education, and there is no limit to the number of visits a resident or fellow can make with the program counselors, says Dr. Modi.
Opt-out programs offer a counterbalance to many negative tendencies in residency, says Dr. Meeks. “We’ve normalized so many things that are not healthy and productive. ... We need to counterbalance that with normalizing help seeking. And it’s really difficult to normalize something that’s not part of a system.”
Costs, concerns, and systematic support
Providing unlimited, free counseling for trainees can be very beneficial, but it requires adequate funding and personnel resources. Offering unlimited access means that an institution has to follow through in making this degree of care available while also ensuring that the system doesn’t get overwhelmed or is unable to accommodate very sick individuals, says Dr. Gold.
Another concern that experts like Dr. Batra, Dr. Moffit, and Dr. Gold share is that residents who go to their scheduled appointments may not completely buy into the experience because it wasn’t their idea in the first place. Participation alone doesn’t necessarily indicate full acceptance. Program personnel don’t intend for these appointments to be thought of as mandatory, yet residents may still experience them that way. Several leading resident well-being programs instead emphasize outreach to trainees, institutional support, and accessible mental health resources that are – and feel – entirely voluntary.
“If I tell someone that they have to do something, it’s very different than if they arrive at that conclusion for themselves,” says Dr. Batra. “That’s how life works.”
When it comes to cost, a recent study published in Academic Medicine provides encouraging data. At the University of Colorado, an opt-out pilot program for IM and pediatrics interns during the 2017-2018 academic year cost just $940 total, equal to $11.75 per intern. As in West Virginia, the program in Colorado covered the cost of the visit, interns were provided a half day off (whether they attended their appointment or not), and the visits and surveys were entirely optional and confidential. During the 1-year pilot program, 29% of 80 interns attended the scheduled appointment, 56% opted out in advance, and 15% didn’t show up. The majority of interns who were surveyed (85%), however, thought the program should continue and that it had a positive effect on their wellness even if they didn’t attend their appointment.
In West Virginia, program costs are higher. The program has $20,000 in annual funding to cover the opt-out program and unlimited counseling visits for residents and fellows. With that funding, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues were also able to expand the program slightly last year to schedule all the critical care faculty for counseling visits. Cost is a barrier to expanding these services to the entire institution, which Dr. Sofka says she hopes to do one day.
Research in this area is still preliminary. The WVU and Colorado studies provide some of the first evidence in support of an opt-out approach. Eventually, it would be beneficial for multicenter studies and longitudinal research to track the effects of such programs over time, say Dr. Sofka and Ajay Major, MD, MBA, one of the study’s coauthors and a hematology/oncology fellow at the University of Chicago.
Whether a program goes with an opt-out approach or not, the systematic supports – protecting resident privacy, providing flexible scheduling, and more – are crucial.
As Dr. Tomescu notes, wellness shouldn’t be just something trainees have to do. “The key with really working on burnout at a huge level is for all programs and schools to recognize that it’s a shared responsibility.”
“I felt very fortunate that I was able to get some help throughout residency,” says Dr. Modi. “About how to be a better daughter. How to be content with things I have in life. How to be happy, and grateful. With the kind of job we have, I think we sometimes forget to be grateful.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
RECOVERY trial of COVID-19 treatments stops colchicine arm
On the advice of its independent data monitoring committee (DMC), the RECOVERY trial has stopped recruitment to the colchicine arm for lack of efficacy in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
“The DMC saw no convincing evidence that further recruitment would provide conclusive proof of worthwhile mortality benefit either overall or in any prespecified subgroup,” the British investigators announced on March 5.
“The RECOVERY trial has already identified two anti-inflammatory drugs – dexamethasone and tocilizumab – that improve the chances of survival for patients with severe COVID-19. So, it is disappointing that colchicine, which is widely used to treat gout and other inflammatory conditions, has no effect in these patients,” cochief investigator Martin Landray, MBChB, PhD, said in a statement.
“We do large, randomized trials to establish whether a drug that seems promising in theory has real benefits for patients in practice. Unfortunately, colchicine is not one of those,” said Dr. Landry, University of Oxford (England).
The RECOVERY trial is evaluating a range of potential treatments for COVID-19 at 180 hospitals in the United Kingdom, Indonesia, and Nepal, and was designed with the expectation that drugs would be added or dropped as the evidence changes. Since November 2020, the trial has included an arm comparing colchicine with usual care alone.
As part of a routine meeting March 4, the DMC reviewed data from a preliminary analysis based on 2,178 deaths among 11,162 patients, 94% of whom were being treated with a corticosteroid such as dexamethasone.
The results showed no significant difference in the primary endpoint of 28-day mortality in patients randomized to colchicine versus usual care alone (20% vs. 19%; risk ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.11; P = .63).
Follow-up is ongoing and final results will be published as soon as possible, the investigators said. Thus far, there has been no convincing evidence of an effect of colchicine on clinical outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
Recruitment will continue to all other treatment arms – aspirin, baricitinib, Regeneron’s antibody cocktail, and, in select hospitals, dimethyl fumarate – the investigators said.
Cochief investigator Peter Hornby, MD, PhD, also from the University of Oxford, noted that this has been the largest trial ever of colchicine. “Whilst we are disappointed that the overall result is negative, it is still important information for the future care of patients in the U.K. and worldwide.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
On the advice of its independent data monitoring committee (DMC), the RECOVERY trial has stopped recruitment to the colchicine arm for lack of efficacy in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
“The DMC saw no convincing evidence that further recruitment would provide conclusive proof of worthwhile mortality benefit either overall or in any prespecified subgroup,” the British investigators announced on March 5.
“The RECOVERY trial has already identified two anti-inflammatory drugs – dexamethasone and tocilizumab – that improve the chances of survival for patients with severe COVID-19. So, it is disappointing that colchicine, which is widely used to treat gout and other inflammatory conditions, has no effect in these patients,” cochief investigator Martin Landray, MBChB, PhD, said in a statement.
“We do large, randomized trials to establish whether a drug that seems promising in theory has real benefits for patients in practice. Unfortunately, colchicine is not one of those,” said Dr. Landry, University of Oxford (England).
The RECOVERY trial is evaluating a range of potential treatments for COVID-19 at 180 hospitals in the United Kingdom, Indonesia, and Nepal, and was designed with the expectation that drugs would be added or dropped as the evidence changes. Since November 2020, the trial has included an arm comparing colchicine with usual care alone.
As part of a routine meeting March 4, the DMC reviewed data from a preliminary analysis based on 2,178 deaths among 11,162 patients, 94% of whom were being treated with a corticosteroid such as dexamethasone.
The results showed no significant difference in the primary endpoint of 28-day mortality in patients randomized to colchicine versus usual care alone (20% vs. 19%; risk ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.11; P = .63).
Follow-up is ongoing and final results will be published as soon as possible, the investigators said. Thus far, there has been no convincing evidence of an effect of colchicine on clinical outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
Recruitment will continue to all other treatment arms – aspirin, baricitinib, Regeneron’s antibody cocktail, and, in select hospitals, dimethyl fumarate – the investigators said.
Cochief investigator Peter Hornby, MD, PhD, also from the University of Oxford, noted that this has been the largest trial ever of colchicine. “Whilst we are disappointed that the overall result is negative, it is still important information for the future care of patients in the U.K. and worldwide.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
On the advice of its independent data monitoring committee (DMC), the RECOVERY trial has stopped recruitment to the colchicine arm for lack of efficacy in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
“The DMC saw no convincing evidence that further recruitment would provide conclusive proof of worthwhile mortality benefit either overall or in any prespecified subgroup,” the British investigators announced on March 5.
“The RECOVERY trial has already identified two anti-inflammatory drugs – dexamethasone and tocilizumab – that improve the chances of survival for patients with severe COVID-19. So, it is disappointing that colchicine, which is widely used to treat gout and other inflammatory conditions, has no effect in these patients,” cochief investigator Martin Landray, MBChB, PhD, said in a statement.
“We do large, randomized trials to establish whether a drug that seems promising in theory has real benefits for patients in practice. Unfortunately, colchicine is not one of those,” said Dr. Landry, University of Oxford (England).
The RECOVERY trial is evaluating a range of potential treatments for COVID-19 at 180 hospitals in the United Kingdom, Indonesia, and Nepal, and was designed with the expectation that drugs would be added or dropped as the evidence changes. Since November 2020, the trial has included an arm comparing colchicine with usual care alone.
As part of a routine meeting March 4, the DMC reviewed data from a preliminary analysis based on 2,178 deaths among 11,162 patients, 94% of whom were being treated with a corticosteroid such as dexamethasone.
The results showed no significant difference in the primary endpoint of 28-day mortality in patients randomized to colchicine versus usual care alone (20% vs. 19%; risk ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.11; P = .63).
Follow-up is ongoing and final results will be published as soon as possible, the investigators said. Thus far, there has been no convincing evidence of an effect of colchicine on clinical outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
Recruitment will continue to all other treatment arms – aspirin, baricitinib, Regeneron’s antibody cocktail, and, in select hospitals, dimethyl fumarate – the investigators said.
Cochief investigator Peter Hornby, MD, PhD, also from the University of Oxford, noted that this has been the largest trial ever of colchicine. “Whilst we are disappointed that the overall result is negative, it is still important information for the future care of patients in the U.K. and worldwide.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MIS-C follow-up proves challenging across pediatric hospitals
The discovery of any novel disease or condition means a steep learning curve as physicians must develop protocols for diagnosis, management, and follow-up on the fly in the midst of admitting and treating patients. Medical society task forces and committees often release interim guidance during the learning process, but each institution ultimately has to determine what works for them based on their resources, clinical experience, and patient population.
But when the novel condition demands the involvement of multiple different specialties, the challenge of management grows even more complex – as does follow-up after patients are discharged. Such has been the story with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a complication of COVID-19 that shares some features with Kawasaki disease.
The similarities to Kawasaki provided physicians a place to start in developing appropriate treatment regimens and involved a similar interdisciplinary team from, at the least, cardiology and rheumatology, plus infectious disease since MIS-C results from COVID-19.
“It literally has it in the name – multisystem essentially hints that there are multiple specialties involved, multiple hands in the pot trying to manage the kids, and so each specialty has their own kind of unique role in the patient’s care even on the outpatient side,” said Samina S. Bhumbra, MD, an infectious disease pediatrician at Riley Hospital for Children and assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at Indiana University in Indianapolis. “This isn’t a disease that falls under one specialty.”
By July, the American College of Rheumatology had issued interim clinical guidance for management that most children’s hospitals have followed or slightly adapted. But ACR guidelines could not address how each institution should handle outpatient follow-up visits, especially since those visits required, again, at least cardiology and rheumatology if not infectious disease or other specialties as well.
“When their kids are admitted to the hospital, to be told at discharge you have to be followed up by all these specialists is a lot to handle,” Dr. Bhumbra said. But just as it’s difficult for parents to deal with the need to see several different doctors after discharge, it can be difficult at some institutions for physicians to design a follow-up schedule that can accommodate families, especially families who live far from the hospital in the first place.
“Some of our follow-up is disjointed because all of our clinics had never been on the same day just because of staff availability,” Dr. Bhumbra said. “But it can be a 2- to 3-hour drive for some of our patients, depending on how far they’re coming.”
Many of them can’t make that drive more than once in the same month, much less the same week.
“If you have multiple visits, it makes it more likely that they’re not showing up,” said Ryan M. Serrano, MD, a pediatric cardiologist at Riley and assistant professor of pediatrics at Indiana University. Riley used telehealth when possible, especially if families could get labs done near home. But pediatric echocardiograms require technicians who have experience with children, so families need to come to the hospital.
Children’s hospitals have therefore had to adapt scheduling strategies or develop pediatric specialty clinics to coordinate across the multiple departments and accommodate a complex follow-up regimen that is still evolving as physicians learn more about MIS-C.
Determining a follow-up regimen
Even before determining how to coordinate appointments, hospitals had to decide what follow-up itself should be.
“How long do we follow these patients and how often do we follow them?” said Melissa S. Oliver, MD, a rheumatologist at Riley and assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at Indiana University.
“We’re seeing that a lot of our patients rapidly respond when they get appropriate therapy, but we don’t know about long-term outcomes yet. We’re all still learning.”
At Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, infectious disease follows up 4-6 weeks post discharge. The cardiology division came up with a follow-up plan that has evolved over time, said Matthew Elias, MD, an attending cardiologist at CHOP’s Cardiac Center and clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Patients get an EKG and echocardiogram at 2 weeks and, if their condition is stable, 6 weeks after discharge. After that, it depends on the patient’s clinical situation. Patients with moderately diminished left ventricular systolic function are recommended to get an MRI scan 3 months after discharge and, if old enough, exercise stress tests. Otherwise, they are seen at 6 months, but that appointment is optional for those whose prior echos have consistently been normal.
Other institutions, including Riley, are following a similar schedule of 2-week, 6-week, and 6-month postdischarge follow-ups, and most plan to do a 1-year follow-up as well, although that 1-year mark hasn’t arrived yet for most. Most do rheumatology labs at the 2-week appointment and use that to determine steroids management and whether labs are needed at the 6-week appointment. If labs have normalized, they aren’t done at 6 months. Small variations in follow-up management exist across institutions, but all are remaining open to changes. Riley, for example, is considering MRI screening for ongoing cardiac inflammation at 6 months to a year for all patients, Dr. Serrano said.
The dedicated clinic model
The two challenges Riley needed to address were the lack of a clear consensus on what MIS-C follow-up should look like and the need for continuity of care, Dr. Serrano said.
Regular discussion in departmental meetings at Riley “progressed from how do we take care of them and what treatments do we give them to how do we follow them and manage them in outpatient,” Dr. Oliver said. In the inpatient setting, they had an interdisciplinary team, but how could they maintain that for outpatients without overwhelming the families?
“I think the main challenge is for the families to identify who is leading the care for them,” said Martha M. Rodriguez, MD, a rheumatologist at Riley and assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at Indiana University. That sometimes led to families picking which follow-up appointments they would attend and which they would skip if they could not make them all – and sometimes they skipped the more important ones. “They would go to the appointment with me and then miss the cardiology appointments and the echocardiogram, which was more important to follow any abnormalities in the heart,” Dr. Rodriguez said.
After trying to coordinate separate follow-up appointments for months, Riley ultimately decided to form a dedicated clinic for MIS-C follow-up – a “one-stop shop” single appointment at each follow-up, Dr. Bhumbra said, that covers labs, EKG, echocardiogram, and any other necessary tests.
“Our goal with the clinic is to make life easier for the families and to be able to coordinate the appointments,” Dr. Rodriguez said. “They will be able to see the three of us, and it would be easier for us to communicate with each other about their plan.”
The clinic began Feb. 11 and occurs twice a month. Though it’s just begun, Dr. Oliver said the first clinic went well, and it’s helping them figure out the role each specialty needs to play in follow-up care.
“For us with rheumatology, after lab values have returned to normal and they’re off steroids, sometimes we think there isn’t much more we can contribute to,” she said. And then there are the patients who didn’t see any rheumatologists while inpatients.
“That’s what we’re trying to figure out as well,” Dr. Oliver said. “Should we be seeing every single kid regardless of whether we were involved in their inpatient [stay] or only seeing the ones we’ve seen?” She expects the coming months will help them work that out.
Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston also uses a dedicated clinic, but they set it up before the first MIS-C patient came through the doors, said Sara Kristen Sexson Tejtel, MD, a pediatric cardiologist at Texas Children’s. The hospital already has other types of multidisciplinary clinics, and they anticipated the challenge of getting families to come to too many appointments in a short period of time.
“Getting someone to come back once is hard enough,” Dr. Sexson Tejtel said. “Getting them to come back twice is impossible.”
Infectious disease is less involved at Texas Children’s, so it’s primarily Dr. Sexson Tejtel and her rheumatologist colleague who see the patients. They hold the clinic once a week, twice if needed.
“It does make the appointment a little longer, but I think the patients appreciate that everything can be addressed with that one visit,” Dr. Sexson Tejtel said. “Being in the hospital as long as some of these kids are is so hard, so making any of that easy as possible is so helpful.” A single appointment also allows the doctors to work together on what labs are needed so that children don’t need multiple labs drawn.
At the appointment, she and the rheumatologist enter the patient’s room and take the patient’s history together.
“It’s nice because it makes the family not to have to repeat things and tell the same story over and over,” she said. “Sometimes I ask questions that then the rheumatologist jumps off of, and then sometimes he’ll ask questions, and I’ll think, ‘Ooh, I’ll ask more questions about that.’ ”
In fact, this team approach at all clinics has made her a more thoughtful, well-rounded physician, she said.
“I have learned so much going to all of my multidisciplinary clinics, and I think I’m able to better care for my patients because I’m not just thinking about it from a cardiac perspective,” she said. “It takes some work, but it’s not hard and I think it is beneficial both for the patient and for the physician. This team approach is definitely where we’re trying to live right now.”
Separate but coordinated appointments
A dedicated clinic isn’t the answer for all institutions, however. At Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, the size of the networks and all its satellites made a one-stop shop impractical.
“We talked about a consolidated clinic early on, when MIS-C was first emerging and all our groups were collaborating and coming up with our inpatient and outpatient care pathways,” said Sanjeev K. Swami, MD, an infectious disease pediatrician at CHOP and associate professor of clinical pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania. But timing varies on when each specialist wants to see the families return, and existing clinic schedules and locations varied too much.
So CHOP coordinates appointments individually for each patient, depending on where the patient lives and sometimes stacking them on the same day when possible. Sometimes infectious disease or rheumatology use telehealth, and CHOP, like the other hospitals, prioritizes cardiology, especially for the patients who had cardiac abnormalities in the hospital, Dr. Swami said.
“All three of our groups try to be as flexible as possible. We’ve had a really good collaboration between our groups,” he said, and spreading out follow-up allows specialists to ask about concerns raised at previous appointments, ensuring stronger continuity of care.
“We can make sure things are getting followed up on,” Dr. Swami said. “I think that has been beneficial to make sure things aren’t falling through the cracks.”
CHOP cardiologist Dr. Elias said that ongoing communication, among providers and with families, has been absolutely crucial.
“Everyone’s been talking so frequently about our MIS-C patients while inpatient that by the time they’re an outpatient, it seems to work smoothly, where families are hearing similar items but with a different flair, one from infectious, one from rheumatology, and one from cardiology,” he said.
Children’s Mercy in Kansas City, Mo., also has multiple satellite clinics and follows a model similar to that of CHOP. They discussed having a dedicated multidisciplinary team for each MIS-C patient, but even the logistics of that were difficult, said Emily J. Fox, MD, a rheumatologist and assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.
Instead, Children’s Mercy tries to coordinate follow-up appointments to be on the same day and often use telehealth for the rheumatology appointments. Families that live closer to the hospital’s location in Joplin, Mo., go in for their cardiology appointment there, and then Dr. Fox conducts a telehealth appointment with the help of nurses in Joplin.
“We really do try hard, especially since these kids are in the hospital for a long time, to make the coordination as easy as possible,” Dr. Fox said. “This was all was very new, especially in the beginning, but I think at least our group is getting a little bit more comfortable in managing these patients.”
Looking ahead
The biggest question that still looms is what happens to these children, if anything, down the line.
“What was unique about this was this was a new disease we were all learning about together with no baseline,” Dr. Swami said. “None of us had ever seen this condition before.”
So far, the prognosis for the vast majority of children is good. “Most of these kids survive, most of them are doing well, and they almost all recover,” Dr. Serrano said. Labs tend to normalize by 6 weeks post discharge, if not much earlier, and not much cardiac involvement is showing up at later follow-ups. But not even a year has passed, so there’s plenty to learn. “We don’t know if there’s long-term risk. I would not be surprised if 20 years down the road we’re finding out things about this that we had no idea” about, Dr. Serrano said. “Everybody wants answers, and nobody has any, and the answers we have may end up being wrong. That’s how it goes when you’re dealing with something you’ve never seen.”
Research underway will ideally begin providing those answers soon. CHOP is a participating site in an NIH-NHLBI–sponsored study, called COVID MUSIC, that is tracking long-term outcomes for MIS-C at 30 centers across the United States and Canada for 5 years.
“That will really definitely be helpful in answering some of the questions about long-term outcomes,” Dr. Elias said. “We hope this is going to be a transient issue and that patients won’t have any long-term manifestations, but we don’t know that yet.”
Meanwhile, one benefit that has come out of the pandemic is strong collaboration, Dr. Bhumbra said.
“The biggest thing we’re all eagerly waiting and hoping for is standard guidelines on how best to follow-up on these kids, but I know that’s a ways away,” Dr. Bhumbra said. So for now, each institution is doing what it can to develop protocols that they feel best serve the patients’ needs, such as Riley’s new dedicated MIS-C clinic. “It takes a village to take care of these kids, and MIS-C has proven that having a clinic with all three specialties at one clinic is going to be great for the families.”
Dr. Fox serves on a committee for Pfizer unrelated to MIS-C. No other doctors interviewed for this story had relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.
The discovery of any novel disease or condition means a steep learning curve as physicians must develop protocols for diagnosis, management, and follow-up on the fly in the midst of admitting and treating patients. Medical society task forces and committees often release interim guidance during the learning process, but each institution ultimately has to determine what works for them based on their resources, clinical experience, and patient population.
But when the novel condition demands the involvement of multiple different specialties, the challenge of management grows even more complex – as does follow-up after patients are discharged. Such has been the story with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a complication of COVID-19 that shares some features with Kawasaki disease.
The similarities to Kawasaki provided physicians a place to start in developing appropriate treatment regimens and involved a similar interdisciplinary team from, at the least, cardiology and rheumatology, plus infectious disease since MIS-C results from COVID-19.
“It literally has it in the name – multisystem essentially hints that there are multiple specialties involved, multiple hands in the pot trying to manage the kids, and so each specialty has their own kind of unique role in the patient’s care even on the outpatient side,” said Samina S. Bhumbra, MD, an infectious disease pediatrician at Riley Hospital for Children and assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at Indiana University in Indianapolis. “This isn’t a disease that falls under one specialty.”
By July, the American College of Rheumatology had issued interim clinical guidance for management that most children’s hospitals have followed or slightly adapted. But ACR guidelines could not address how each institution should handle outpatient follow-up visits, especially since those visits required, again, at least cardiology and rheumatology if not infectious disease or other specialties as well.
“When their kids are admitted to the hospital, to be told at discharge you have to be followed up by all these specialists is a lot to handle,” Dr. Bhumbra said. But just as it’s difficult for parents to deal with the need to see several different doctors after discharge, it can be difficult at some institutions for physicians to design a follow-up schedule that can accommodate families, especially families who live far from the hospital in the first place.
“Some of our follow-up is disjointed because all of our clinics had never been on the same day just because of staff availability,” Dr. Bhumbra said. “But it can be a 2- to 3-hour drive for some of our patients, depending on how far they’re coming.”
Many of them can’t make that drive more than once in the same month, much less the same week.
“If you have multiple visits, it makes it more likely that they’re not showing up,” said Ryan M. Serrano, MD, a pediatric cardiologist at Riley and assistant professor of pediatrics at Indiana University. Riley used telehealth when possible, especially if families could get labs done near home. But pediatric echocardiograms require technicians who have experience with children, so families need to come to the hospital.
Children’s hospitals have therefore had to adapt scheduling strategies or develop pediatric specialty clinics to coordinate across the multiple departments and accommodate a complex follow-up regimen that is still evolving as physicians learn more about MIS-C.
Determining a follow-up regimen
Even before determining how to coordinate appointments, hospitals had to decide what follow-up itself should be.
“How long do we follow these patients and how often do we follow them?” said Melissa S. Oliver, MD, a rheumatologist at Riley and assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at Indiana University.
“We’re seeing that a lot of our patients rapidly respond when they get appropriate therapy, but we don’t know about long-term outcomes yet. We’re all still learning.”
At Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, infectious disease follows up 4-6 weeks post discharge. The cardiology division came up with a follow-up plan that has evolved over time, said Matthew Elias, MD, an attending cardiologist at CHOP’s Cardiac Center and clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Patients get an EKG and echocardiogram at 2 weeks and, if their condition is stable, 6 weeks after discharge. After that, it depends on the patient’s clinical situation. Patients with moderately diminished left ventricular systolic function are recommended to get an MRI scan 3 months after discharge and, if old enough, exercise stress tests. Otherwise, they are seen at 6 months, but that appointment is optional for those whose prior echos have consistently been normal.
Other institutions, including Riley, are following a similar schedule of 2-week, 6-week, and 6-month postdischarge follow-ups, and most plan to do a 1-year follow-up as well, although that 1-year mark hasn’t arrived yet for most. Most do rheumatology labs at the 2-week appointment and use that to determine steroids management and whether labs are needed at the 6-week appointment. If labs have normalized, they aren’t done at 6 months. Small variations in follow-up management exist across institutions, but all are remaining open to changes. Riley, for example, is considering MRI screening for ongoing cardiac inflammation at 6 months to a year for all patients, Dr. Serrano said.
The dedicated clinic model
The two challenges Riley needed to address were the lack of a clear consensus on what MIS-C follow-up should look like and the need for continuity of care, Dr. Serrano said.
Regular discussion in departmental meetings at Riley “progressed from how do we take care of them and what treatments do we give them to how do we follow them and manage them in outpatient,” Dr. Oliver said. In the inpatient setting, they had an interdisciplinary team, but how could they maintain that for outpatients without overwhelming the families?
“I think the main challenge is for the families to identify who is leading the care for them,” said Martha M. Rodriguez, MD, a rheumatologist at Riley and assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at Indiana University. That sometimes led to families picking which follow-up appointments they would attend and which they would skip if they could not make them all – and sometimes they skipped the more important ones. “They would go to the appointment with me and then miss the cardiology appointments and the echocardiogram, which was more important to follow any abnormalities in the heart,” Dr. Rodriguez said.
After trying to coordinate separate follow-up appointments for months, Riley ultimately decided to form a dedicated clinic for MIS-C follow-up – a “one-stop shop” single appointment at each follow-up, Dr. Bhumbra said, that covers labs, EKG, echocardiogram, and any other necessary tests.
“Our goal with the clinic is to make life easier for the families and to be able to coordinate the appointments,” Dr. Rodriguez said. “They will be able to see the three of us, and it would be easier for us to communicate with each other about their plan.”
The clinic began Feb. 11 and occurs twice a month. Though it’s just begun, Dr. Oliver said the first clinic went well, and it’s helping them figure out the role each specialty needs to play in follow-up care.
“For us with rheumatology, after lab values have returned to normal and they’re off steroids, sometimes we think there isn’t much more we can contribute to,” she said. And then there are the patients who didn’t see any rheumatologists while inpatients.
“That’s what we’re trying to figure out as well,” Dr. Oliver said. “Should we be seeing every single kid regardless of whether we were involved in their inpatient [stay] or only seeing the ones we’ve seen?” She expects the coming months will help them work that out.
Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston also uses a dedicated clinic, but they set it up before the first MIS-C patient came through the doors, said Sara Kristen Sexson Tejtel, MD, a pediatric cardiologist at Texas Children’s. The hospital already has other types of multidisciplinary clinics, and they anticipated the challenge of getting families to come to too many appointments in a short period of time.
“Getting someone to come back once is hard enough,” Dr. Sexson Tejtel said. “Getting them to come back twice is impossible.”
Infectious disease is less involved at Texas Children’s, so it’s primarily Dr. Sexson Tejtel and her rheumatologist colleague who see the patients. They hold the clinic once a week, twice if needed.
“It does make the appointment a little longer, but I think the patients appreciate that everything can be addressed with that one visit,” Dr. Sexson Tejtel said. “Being in the hospital as long as some of these kids are is so hard, so making any of that easy as possible is so helpful.” A single appointment also allows the doctors to work together on what labs are needed so that children don’t need multiple labs drawn.
At the appointment, she and the rheumatologist enter the patient’s room and take the patient’s history together.
“It’s nice because it makes the family not to have to repeat things and tell the same story over and over,” she said. “Sometimes I ask questions that then the rheumatologist jumps off of, and then sometimes he’ll ask questions, and I’ll think, ‘Ooh, I’ll ask more questions about that.’ ”
In fact, this team approach at all clinics has made her a more thoughtful, well-rounded physician, she said.
“I have learned so much going to all of my multidisciplinary clinics, and I think I’m able to better care for my patients because I’m not just thinking about it from a cardiac perspective,” she said. “It takes some work, but it’s not hard and I think it is beneficial both for the patient and for the physician. This team approach is definitely where we’re trying to live right now.”
Separate but coordinated appointments
A dedicated clinic isn’t the answer for all institutions, however. At Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, the size of the networks and all its satellites made a one-stop shop impractical.
“We talked about a consolidated clinic early on, when MIS-C was first emerging and all our groups were collaborating and coming up with our inpatient and outpatient care pathways,” said Sanjeev K. Swami, MD, an infectious disease pediatrician at CHOP and associate professor of clinical pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania. But timing varies on when each specialist wants to see the families return, and existing clinic schedules and locations varied too much.
So CHOP coordinates appointments individually for each patient, depending on where the patient lives and sometimes stacking them on the same day when possible. Sometimes infectious disease or rheumatology use telehealth, and CHOP, like the other hospitals, prioritizes cardiology, especially for the patients who had cardiac abnormalities in the hospital, Dr. Swami said.
“All three of our groups try to be as flexible as possible. We’ve had a really good collaboration between our groups,” he said, and spreading out follow-up allows specialists to ask about concerns raised at previous appointments, ensuring stronger continuity of care.
“We can make sure things are getting followed up on,” Dr. Swami said. “I think that has been beneficial to make sure things aren’t falling through the cracks.”
CHOP cardiologist Dr. Elias said that ongoing communication, among providers and with families, has been absolutely crucial.
“Everyone’s been talking so frequently about our MIS-C patients while inpatient that by the time they’re an outpatient, it seems to work smoothly, where families are hearing similar items but with a different flair, one from infectious, one from rheumatology, and one from cardiology,” he said.
Children’s Mercy in Kansas City, Mo., also has multiple satellite clinics and follows a model similar to that of CHOP. They discussed having a dedicated multidisciplinary team for each MIS-C patient, but even the logistics of that were difficult, said Emily J. Fox, MD, a rheumatologist and assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.
Instead, Children’s Mercy tries to coordinate follow-up appointments to be on the same day and often use telehealth for the rheumatology appointments. Families that live closer to the hospital’s location in Joplin, Mo., go in for their cardiology appointment there, and then Dr. Fox conducts a telehealth appointment with the help of nurses in Joplin.
“We really do try hard, especially since these kids are in the hospital for a long time, to make the coordination as easy as possible,” Dr. Fox said. “This was all was very new, especially in the beginning, but I think at least our group is getting a little bit more comfortable in managing these patients.”
Looking ahead
The biggest question that still looms is what happens to these children, if anything, down the line.
“What was unique about this was this was a new disease we were all learning about together with no baseline,” Dr. Swami said. “None of us had ever seen this condition before.”
So far, the prognosis for the vast majority of children is good. “Most of these kids survive, most of them are doing well, and they almost all recover,” Dr. Serrano said. Labs tend to normalize by 6 weeks post discharge, if not much earlier, and not much cardiac involvement is showing up at later follow-ups. But not even a year has passed, so there’s plenty to learn. “We don’t know if there’s long-term risk. I would not be surprised if 20 years down the road we’re finding out things about this that we had no idea” about, Dr. Serrano said. “Everybody wants answers, and nobody has any, and the answers we have may end up being wrong. That’s how it goes when you’re dealing with something you’ve never seen.”
Research underway will ideally begin providing those answers soon. CHOP is a participating site in an NIH-NHLBI–sponsored study, called COVID MUSIC, that is tracking long-term outcomes for MIS-C at 30 centers across the United States and Canada for 5 years.
“That will really definitely be helpful in answering some of the questions about long-term outcomes,” Dr. Elias said. “We hope this is going to be a transient issue and that patients won’t have any long-term manifestations, but we don’t know that yet.”
Meanwhile, one benefit that has come out of the pandemic is strong collaboration, Dr. Bhumbra said.
“The biggest thing we’re all eagerly waiting and hoping for is standard guidelines on how best to follow-up on these kids, but I know that’s a ways away,” Dr. Bhumbra said. So for now, each institution is doing what it can to develop protocols that they feel best serve the patients’ needs, such as Riley’s new dedicated MIS-C clinic. “It takes a village to take care of these kids, and MIS-C has proven that having a clinic with all three specialties at one clinic is going to be great for the families.”
Dr. Fox serves on a committee for Pfizer unrelated to MIS-C. No other doctors interviewed for this story had relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.
The discovery of any novel disease or condition means a steep learning curve as physicians must develop protocols for diagnosis, management, and follow-up on the fly in the midst of admitting and treating patients. Medical society task forces and committees often release interim guidance during the learning process, but each institution ultimately has to determine what works for them based on their resources, clinical experience, and patient population.
But when the novel condition demands the involvement of multiple different specialties, the challenge of management grows even more complex – as does follow-up after patients are discharged. Such has been the story with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a complication of COVID-19 that shares some features with Kawasaki disease.
The similarities to Kawasaki provided physicians a place to start in developing appropriate treatment regimens and involved a similar interdisciplinary team from, at the least, cardiology and rheumatology, plus infectious disease since MIS-C results from COVID-19.
“It literally has it in the name – multisystem essentially hints that there are multiple specialties involved, multiple hands in the pot trying to manage the kids, and so each specialty has their own kind of unique role in the patient’s care even on the outpatient side,” said Samina S. Bhumbra, MD, an infectious disease pediatrician at Riley Hospital for Children and assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at Indiana University in Indianapolis. “This isn’t a disease that falls under one specialty.”
By July, the American College of Rheumatology had issued interim clinical guidance for management that most children’s hospitals have followed or slightly adapted. But ACR guidelines could not address how each institution should handle outpatient follow-up visits, especially since those visits required, again, at least cardiology and rheumatology if not infectious disease or other specialties as well.
“When their kids are admitted to the hospital, to be told at discharge you have to be followed up by all these specialists is a lot to handle,” Dr. Bhumbra said. But just as it’s difficult for parents to deal with the need to see several different doctors after discharge, it can be difficult at some institutions for physicians to design a follow-up schedule that can accommodate families, especially families who live far from the hospital in the first place.
“Some of our follow-up is disjointed because all of our clinics had never been on the same day just because of staff availability,” Dr. Bhumbra said. “But it can be a 2- to 3-hour drive for some of our patients, depending on how far they’re coming.”
Many of them can’t make that drive more than once in the same month, much less the same week.
“If you have multiple visits, it makes it more likely that they’re not showing up,” said Ryan M. Serrano, MD, a pediatric cardiologist at Riley and assistant professor of pediatrics at Indiana University. Riley used telehealth when possible, especially if families could get labs done near home. But pediatric echocardiograms require technicians who have experience with children, so families need to come to the hospital.
Children’s hospitals have therefore had to adapt scheduling strategies or develop pediatric specialty clinics to coordinate across the multiple departments and accommodate a complex follow-up regimen that is still evolving as physicians learn more about MIS-C.
Determining a follow-up regimen
Even before determining how to coordinate appointments, hospitals had to decide what follow-up itself should be.
“How long do we follow these patients and how often do we follow them?” said Melissa S. Oliver, MD, a rheumatologist at Riley and assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at Indiana University.
“We’re seeing that a lot of our patients rapidly respond when they get appropriate therapy, but we don’t know about long-term outcomes yet. We’re all still learning.”
At Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, infectious disease follows up 4-6 weeks post discharge. The cardiology division came up with a follow-up plan that has evolved over time, said Matthew Elias, MD, an attending cardiologist at CHOP’s Cardiac Center and clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Patients get an EKG and echocardiogram at 2 weeks and, if their condition is stable, 6 weeks after discharge. After that, it depends on the patient’s clinical situation. Patients with moderately diminished left ventricular systolic function are recommended to get an MRI scan 3 months after discharge and, if old enough, exercise stress tests. Otherwise, they are seen at 6 months, but that appointment is optional for those whose prior echos have consistently been normal.
Other institutions, including Riley, are following a similar schedule of 2-week, 6-week, and 6-month postdischarge follow-ups, and most plan to do a 1-year follow-up as well, although that 1-year mark hasn’t arrived yet for most. Most do rheumatology labs at the 2-week appointment and use that to determine steroids management and whether labs are needed at the 6-week appointment. If labs have normalized, they aren’t done at 6 months. Small variations in follow-up management exist across institutions, but all are remaining open to changes. Riley, for example, is considering MRI screening for ongoing cardiac inflammation at 6 months to a year for all patients, Dr. Serrano said.
The dedicated clinic model
The two challenges Riley needed to address were the lack of a clear consensus on what MIS-C follow-up should look like and the need for continuity of care, Dr. Serrano said.
Regular discussion in departmental meetings at Riley “progressed from how do we take care of them and what treatments do we give them to how do we follow them and manage them in outpatient,” Dr. Oliver said. In the inpatient setting, they had an interdisciplinary team, but how could they maintain that for outpatients without overwhelming the families?
“I think the main challenge is for the families to identify who is leading the care for them,” said Martha M. Rodriguez, MD, a rheumatologist at Riley and assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at Indiana University. That sometimes led to families picking which follow-up appointments they would attend and which they would skip if they could not make them all – and sometimes they skipped the more important ones. “They would go to the appointment with me and then miss the cardiology appointments and the echocardiogram, which was more important to follow any abnormalities in the heart,” Dr. Rodriguez said.
After trying to coordinate separate follow-up appointments for months, Riley ultimately decided to form a dedicated clinic for MIS-C follow-up – a “one-stop shop” single appointment at each follow-up, Dr. Bhumbra said, that covers labs, EKG, echocardiogram, and any other necessary tests.
“Our goal with the clinic is to make life easier for the families and to be able to coordinate the appointments,” Dr. Rodriguez said. “They will be able to see the three of us, and it would be easier for us to communicate with each other about their plan.”
The clinic began Feb. 11 and occurs twice a month. Though it’s just begun, Dr. Oliver said the first clinic went well, and it’s helping them figure out the role each specialty needs to play in follow-up care.
“For us with rheumatology, after lab values have returned to normal and they’re off steroids, sometimes we think there isn’t much more we can contribute to,” she said. And then there are the patients who didn’t see any rheumatologists while inpatients.
“That’s what we’re trying to figure out as well,” Dr. Oliver said. “Should we be seeing every single kid regardless of whether we were involved in their inpatient [stay] or only seeing the ones we’ve seen?” She expects the coming months will help them work that out.
Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston also uses a dedicated clinic, but they set it up before the first MIS-C patient came through the doors, said Sara Kristen Sexson Tejtel, MD, a pediatric cardiologist at Texas Children’s. The hospital already has other types of multidisciplinary clinics, and they anticipated the challenge of getting families to come to too many appointments in a short period of time.
“Getting someone to come back once is hard enough,” Dr. Sexson Tejtel said. “Getting them to come back twice is impossible.”
Infectious disease is less involved at Texas Children’s, so it’s primarily Dr. Sexson Tejtel and her rheumatologist colleague who see the patients. They hold the clinic once a week, twice if needed.
“It does make the appointment a little longer, but I think the patients appreciate that everything can be addressed with that one visit,” Dr. Sexson Tejtel said. “Being in the hospital as long as some of these kids are is so hard, so making any of that easy as possible is so helpful.” A single appointment also allows the doctors to work together on what labs are needed so that children don’t need multiple labs drawn.
At the appointment, she and the rheumatologist enter the patient’s room and take the patient’s history together.
“It’s nice because it makes the family not to have to repeat things and tell the same story over and over,” she said. “Sometimes I ask questions that then the rheumatologist jumps off of, and then sometimes he’ll ask questions, and I’ll think, ‘Ooh, I’ll ask more questions about that.’ ”
In fact, this team approach at all clinics has made her a more thoughtful, well-rounded physician, she said.
“I have learned so much going to all of my multidisciplinary clinics, and I think I’m able to better care for my patients because I’m not just thinking about it from a cardiac perspective,” she said. “It takes some work, but it’s not hard and I think it is beneficial both for the patient and for the physician. This team approach is definitely where we’re trying to live right now.”
Separate but coordinated appointments
A dedicated clinic isn’t the answer for all institutions, however. At Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, the size of the networks and all its satellites made a one-stop shop impractical.
“We talked about a consolidated clinic early on, when MIS-C was first emerging and all our groups were collaborating and coming up with our inpatient and outpatient care pathways,” said Sanjeev K. Swami, MD, an infectious disease pediatrician at CHOP and associate professor of clinical pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania. But timing varies on when each specialist wants to see the families return, and existing clinic schedules and locations varied too much.
So CHOP coordinates appointments individually for each patient, depending on where the patient lives and sometimes stacking them on the same day when possible. Sometimes infectious disease or rheumatology use telehealth, and CHOP, like the other hospitals, prioritizes cardiology, especially for the patients who had cardiac abnormalities in the hospital, Dr. Swami said.
“All three of our groups try to be as flexible as possible. We’ve had a really good collaboration between our groups,” he said, and spreading out follow-up allows specialists to ask about concerns raised at previous appointments, ensuring stronger continuity of care.
“We can make sure things are getting followed up on,” Dr. Swami said. “I think that has been beneficial to make sure things aren’t falling through the cracks.”
CHOP cardiologist Dr. Elias said that ongoing communication, among providers and with families, has been absolutely crucial.
“Everyone’s been talking so frequently about our MIS-C patients while inpatient that by the time they’re an outpatient, it seems to work smoothly, where families are hearing similar items but with a different flair, one from infectious, one from rheumatology, and one from cardiology,” he said.
Children’s Mercy in Kansas City, Mo., also has multiple satellite clinics and follows a model similar to that of CHOP. They discussed having a dedicated multidisciplinary team for each MIS-C patient, but even the logistics of that were difficult, said Emily J. Fox, MD, a rheumatologist and assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.
Instead, Children’s Mercy tries to coordinate follow-up appointments to be on the same day and often use telehealth for the rheumatology appointments. Families that live closer to the hospital’s location in Joplin, Mo., go in for their cardiology appointment there, and then Dr. Fox conducts a telehealth appointment with the help of nurses in Joplin.
“We really do try hard, especially since these kids are in the hospital for a long time, to make the coordination as easy as possible,” Dr. Fox said. “This was all was very new, especially in the beginning, but I think at least our group is getting a little bit more comfortable in managing these patients.”
Looking ahead
The biggest question that still looms is what happens to these children, if anything, down the line.
“What was unique about this was this was a new disease we were all learning about together with no baseline,” Dr. Swami said. “None of us had ever seen this condition before.”
So far, the prognosis for the vast majority of children is good. “Most of these kids survive, most of them are doing well, and they almost all recover,” Dr. Serrano said. Labs tend to normalize by 6 weeks post discharge, if not much earlier, and not much cardiac involvement is showing up at later follow-ups. But not even a year has passed, so there’s plenty to learn. “We don’t know if there’s long-term risk. I would not be surprised if 20 years down the road we’re finding out things about this that we had no idea” about, Dr. Serrano said. “Everybody wants answers, and nobody has any, and the answers we have may end up being wrong. That’s how it goes when you’re dealing with something you’ve never seen.”
Research underway will ideally begin providing those answers soon. CHOP is a participating site in an NIH-NHLBI–sponsored study, called COVID MUSIC, that is tracking long-term outcomes for MIS-C at 30 centers across the United States and Canada for 5 years.
“That will really definitely be helpful in answering some of the questions about long-term outcomes,” Dr. Elias said. “We hope this is going to be a transient issue and that patients won’t have any long-term manifestations, but we don’t know that yet.”
Meanwhile, one benefit that has come out of the pandemic is strong collaboration, Dr. Bhumbra said.
“The biggest thing we’re all eagerly waiting and hoping for is standard guidelines on how best to follow-up on these kids, but I know that’s a ways away,” Dr. Bhumbra said. So for now, each institution is doing what it can to develop protocols that they feel best serve the patients’ needs, such as Riley’s new dedicated MIS-C clinic. “It takes a village to take care of these kids, and MIS-C has proven that having a clinic with all three specialties at one clinic is going to be great for the families.”
Dr. Fox serves on a committee for Pfizer unrelated to MIS-C. No other doctors interviewed for this story had relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.
Heart failure redefined with new classifications, staging
The terminology and classification scheme for heart failure (HF) is changing in ways that experts hope will directly impact patient outcomes.
In a new consensus statement, a multisociety group of experts proposed a new universal definition of heart failure and made substantial revisions to the way in which the disease is staged and classified.
The authors of the statement, led by writing committee chair and immediate past president of the Heart Failure Society of America Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, hope their efforts will go far to improve standardization of terminology, but more importantly will facilitate better management of the disease in ways that keep pace with current knowledge and advances in the field.
“There is a great need for reframing and standardizing the terminology across societies and different stakeholders, and importantly for patients because a lot of the terminology we were using was understood by academicians, but were not being translated in important ways to ensure patients are being appropriately treated,” said Dr. Bozkurt, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
The consensus statement was a group effort led by the HFSA, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, and the Japanese Heart Failure Society, with endorsements from the Canadian Heart Failure Society, the Heart Failure Association of India, the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand, and the Chinese Heart Failure Association.
The article was published March 1 in the Journal of Cardiac Failure and the European Journal of Heart Failure, authored by a writing committee of 38 individuals with domain expertise in HF, cardiomyopathy, and cardiovascular disease.
“This is a very thorough and very carefully written document that I think will be helpful for clinicians because they’ve tapped into important changes in the field that have occurred over the past 10 years and that now allow us to do more for patients than we could before,” Eugene Braunwald, MD, said in an interview.
Dr. Braunwald and Elliott M. Antman, MD, both from TIMI Study Group at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, wrote an editorial that accompanied the European Journal of Heart Failure article.
A new universal definition
“[Heart failure] is a clinical syndrome with symptoms and or signs caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality and corroborated by elevated natriuretic peptide levels and/or objective evidence of pulmonary or systemic congestion.”
This proposed definition, said the authors, is designed to be contemporary and simple “but conceptually comprehensive, with near universal applicability, prognostic and therapeutic viability, and acceptable sensitivity and specificity.”
Both left and right HF qualifies under this definition, said the authors, but conditions that result in marked volume overload, such as chronic kidney disease, which may present with signs and symptoms of HF, do not.
“Although some of these patients may have concomitant HF, these patients have a primary abnormality that may require a specific treatment beyond that for HF,” said the consensus statement authors.
For his part, Douglas L. Mann, MD, is happy to see what he considers a more accurate and practical definition for heart failure.
“We’ve had some wacky definitions in heart failure that haven’t made sense for 30 years, the principal of which is the definition of heart failure that says it’s the inability of the heart to meet the metabolic demands of the body,” Dr. Mann, of Washington University, St. Louis, said in an interview.
“I think this description was developed thinking about people with end-stage heart failure, but it makes no sense in clinical practice. Does it make sense to say about someone with New York Heart Association class I heart failure that their heart can’t meet the metabolic demands of the body?” said Dr. Mann, who was not involved with the writing of the consensus statement.
Proposed revised stages of the HF continuum
Overall, minimal changes have been made to the HF stages, with tweaks intended to enhance understanding and address the evolving role of biomarkers.
The authors proposed an approach to staging of HF:
- At-risk for HF (stage A), for patients at risk for HF but without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF and without structural or biomarkers evidence of heart disease.
- Pre-HF (stage B), for patients without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF, but evidence of structural heart disease or abnormal cardiac function, or elevated natriuretic peptide levels.
- HF (stage C), for patients with current or prior symptoms and/or signs of HF caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality.
- Advanced HF (stage D), for patients with severe symptoms and/or signs of HF at rest, recurrent hospitalizations despite guideline-directed management and therapy (GDMT), refractory or intolerant to GDMT, requiring advanced therapies such as consideration for transplant, mechanical circulatory support, or palliative care.
One notable change to the staging scheme is stage B, which the authors have reframed as “pre–heart failure.”
“Pre-cancer is a term widely understood and considered actionable and we wanted to tap into this successful messaging and embrace the pre–heart failure concept as something that is treatable and preventable,” said Dr. Bozkurt.
“We want patients and clinicians to understand that there are things we can do to prevent heart failure, strategies we didn’t have before, like SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with diabetes at risk for HF,” she added.
The revision also avoids the stigma of HF before the symptoms are manifest.
“Not calling it stage A and stage B heart failure you might say is semantics, but it’s important semantics,” said Dr. Braunwald. “When you’re talking to a patient or a relative and tell them they have stage A heart failure, it’s scares them unnecessarily. They don’t hear the stage A or B part, just the heart failure part.”
New classifications according to LVEF
And finally, in what some might consider the most obviously needed modification, the document proposes a new and revised classification of HF according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Most agree on how to classify heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but although the middle range has long been understood to be a clinically relevant, it has no proper name or clear delineation.
“For standardization across practice guidelines, to recognize clinical trajectories in HF, and to facilitate the recognition of different heart failure entities in a sensitive and specific manner that can guide therapy, we want to formalize the heart failure categories according to ejection fraction,” said Dr. Bozkurt.
To this end, the authors propose the following four classifications of EF:
- HF with reduced EF (HFrEF): LVEF of up to 40%.
- HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF): LVEF of 41-49%.
- HF with preserved EF (HFpEF)HF with an LVEF of at least 50%.
- HF with improved EF (HFimpEF): HF with a baseline LVEF of 40% or less, an increase of at least 10 points from baseline LVEF, and a second measurement of LVEF of greater than 40%.
HFmrEF is usually a transition period, noted Dr. Bozkurt. “Patients with HF in this range may represent a population whose EF is likely to change, either increase or decrease over time and it’s important to be cognizant of that trajectory. Understanding where your patient is headed is crucial for prognosis and optimization of guideline-directed treatment,” she said.
Improved, not recovered, HF
The last classification of heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) represents an important change to the current classification scheme.
“We want to clarify what terms to use but also which not to use. For example, we don’t want people to use recovered heart failure or heart failure in remission, partly because we don’t want the medication to be stopped. We don’t want to give the false message that there has been full recovery,” said Dr. Bozkurt.
As seen in the TRED-HF trial, guideline-directed medical therapy should be continued in patients with HF with improved EF regardless of whether it has improved to a normal range of above 50% in subsequent measurements.
“This is a distinct group of people, and for a while the guidelines were lumping them in with HFpEF, which I think is totally wrong,” said Dr. Mann.
“I think it’s very important that we emphasize heart failure as a continuum, rather than a one-way street of [inevitable] progression. Because we do see improvements in ejection fraction and we do see that we can prevent heart failure if we do the right things, and this should be reflected in the terminology we use,” he added.
Dr. Bozkurt stressed that HFimpEF only applies if the EF improves to above 40%. A move from an EF of 10%-20% would still see the patient classified as having HFrEF, but a patient whose EF improved from, say, 30% to 45% would be classified as HFimpEF.
“The reason for this, again, is because a transition from, say an EF of 10%-20% does not change therapy, but a move upward over 40% might, especially regarding decisions for device therapies, so the trajectory as well as the absolute EF is important,” she added.
“Particularly in the early stages, people are responsive to therapy and it’s possible in some cases to reverse heart failure, so I think this change helps us understand when that’s happened,” said Dr. Braunwald.
One step toward universality
“The implementation of this terminology and nomenclature into practice will require a variety of tactics,” said Dr. Bozkurt. “For example, the current ICD 10 codes need to incorporate the at-risk and pre–heart failure categories, as well as the mid-range EF, preserved, and improved EF classifications, because the treatment differs between those three domains.”
In terms of how these proposed changes will be worked into practice guidelines, Dr. Bozkurt declined to comment on this to avoid any perception of conflict of interest as she is the cochair of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association HF guideline writing committee.
Dr. Braunwald and Dr. Antman suggest it may be premature to call the new terminology and classifications “universal.” In an interview, Dr. Braunwald lamented the absence of the World Heart Federation, the ACC, and the AHA as active participants in this effort and suggested this paper is only the first step of a multistep process that requires input from many stakeholders.
“It’s important that these organizations be involved, not just to bless it, but to contribute their expertise to the process,” he said.
For his part, Dr. Mann hopes these changes will gain widespread acceptance and clinical traction. “The problem sometimes with guidelines is that they’re so data driven that you just can’t come out and say the obvious, so making a position statement is a good first step. And they got good international representation on this, so I think these changes will be accepted in the next heart failure guidelines.”
To encourage further discussion and acceptance, Robert J. Mentz, MD, and Anuradha Lala, MD, editor-in-chief and deputy editor of the Journal of Cardiac Failure, respectively, announced a series of multidisciplinary perspective pieces to be published in the journal monthly, starting in May with editorials from Dr. Clyde W Yancy, MD, MSc, and Carolyn S.P. Lam, MBBS, PhD, both of whom were authors of the consensus statement.
Dr. Bozkurt reports being a consultant for Abbott, Amgen, Baxter, Bristol Myers Squibb, Liva Nova Relypsa/Vifor Pharma, Respicardia, and being on the registry steering committee for Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Braunwald reports research grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, and Novartis; and consulting for Amgen, Boehringer-Ingelheim/Lilly, Cardurion, MyoKardia, Novo Nordisk, and Verve. Dr. Mann has been a consultant to Novartis, is on the steering committee for the PARADISE trial, and is on the scientific advisory board for MyoKardia/Bristol Myers Squibb.
The terminology and classification scheme for heart failure (HF) is changing in ways that experts hope will directly impact patient outcomes.
In a new consensus statement, a multisociety group of experts proposed a new universal definition of heart failure and made substantial revisions to the way in which the disease is staged and classified.
The authors of the statement, led by writing committee chair and immediate past president of the Heart Failure Society of America Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, hope their efforts will go far to improve standardization of terminology, but more importantly will facilitate better management of the disease in ways that keep pace with current knowledge and advances in the field.
“There is a great need for reframing and standardizing the terminology across societies and different stakeholders, and importantly for patients because a lot of the terminology we were using was understood by academicians, but were not being translated in important ways to ensure patients are being appropriately treated,” said Dr. Bozkurt, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
The consensus statement was a group effort led by the HFSA, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, and the Japanese Heart Failure Society, with endorsements from the Canadian Heart Failure Society, the Heart Failure Association of India, the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand, and the Chinese Heart Failure Association.
The article was published March 1 in the Journal of Cardiac Failure and the European Journal of Heart Failure, authored by a writing committee of 38 individuals with domain expertise in HF, cardiomyopathy, and cardiovascular disease.
“This is a very thorough and very carefully written document that I think will be helpful for clinicians because they’ve tapped into important changes in the field that have occurred over the past 10 years and that now allow us to do more for patients than we could before,” Eugene Braunwald, MD, said in an interview.
Dr. Braunwald and Elliott M. Antman, MD, both from TIMI Study Group at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, wrote an editorial that accompanied the European Journal of Heart Failure article.
A new universal definition
“[Heart failure] is a clinical syndrome with symptoms and or signs caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality and corroborated by elevated natriuretic peptide levels and/or objective evidence of pulmonary or systemic congestion.”
This proposed definition, said the authors, is designed to be contemporary and simple “but conceptually comprehensive, with near universal applicability, prognostic and therapeutic viability, and acceptable sensitivity and specificity.”
Both left and right HF qualifies under this definition, said the authors, but conditions that result in marked volume overload, such as chronic kidney disease, which may present with signs and symptoms of HF, do not.
“Although some of these patients may have concomitant HF, these patients have a primary abnormality that may require a specific treatment beyond that for HF,” said the consensus statement authors.
For his part, Douglas L. Mann, MD, is happy to see what he considers a more accurate and practical definition for heart failure.
“We’ve had some wacky definitions in heart failure that haven’t made sense for 30 years, the principal of which is the definition of heart failure that says it’s the inability of the heart to meet the metabolic demands of the body,” Dr. Mann, of Washington University, St. Louis, said in an interview.
“I think this description was developed thinking about people with end-stage heart failure, but it makes no sense in clinical practice. Does it make sense to say about someone with New York Heart Association class I heart failure that their heart can’t meet the metabolic demands of the body?” said Dr. Mann, who was not involved with the writing of the consensus statement.
Proposed revised stages of the HF continuum
Overall, minimal changes have been made to the HF stages, with tweaks intended to enhance understanding and address the evolving role of biomarkers.
The authors proposed an approach to staging of HF:
- At-risk for HF (stage A), for patients at risk for HF but without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF and without structural or biomarkers evidence of heart disease.
- Pre-HF (stage B), for patients without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF, but evidence of structural heart disease or abnormal cardiac function, or elevated natriuretic peptide levels.
- HF (stage C), for patients with current or prior symptoms and/or signs of HF caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality.
- Advanced HF (stage D), for patients with severe symptoms and/or signs of HF at rest, recurrent hospitalizations despite guideline-directed management and therapy (GDMT), refractory or intolerant to GDMT, requiring advanced therapies such as consideration for transplant, mechanical circulatory support, or palliative care.
One notable change to the staging scheme is stage B, which the authors have reframed as “pre–heart failure.”
“Pre-cancer is a term widely understood and considered actionable and we wanted to tap into this successful messaging and embrace the pre–heart failure concept as something that is treatable and preventable,” said Dr. Bozkurt.
“We want patients and clinicians to understand that there are things we can do to prevent heart failure, strategies we didn’t have before, like SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with diabetes at risk for HF,” she added.
The revision also avoids the stigma of HF before the symptoms are manifest.
“Not calling it stage A and stage B heart failure you might say is semantics, but it’s important semantics,” said Dr. Braunwald. “When you’re talking to a patient or a relative and tell them they have stage A heart failure, it’s scares them unnecessarily. They don’t hear the stage A or B part, just the heart failure part.”
New classifications according to LVEF
And finally, in what some might consider the most obviously needed modification, the document proposes a new and revised classification of HF according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Most agree on how to classify heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but although the middle range has long been understood to be a clinically relevant, it has no proper name or clear delineation.
“For standardization across practice guidelines, to recognize clinical trajectories in HF, and to facilitate the recognition of different heart failure entities in a sensitive and specific manner that can guide therapy, we want to formalize the heart failure categories according to ejection fraction,” said Dr. Bozkurt.
To this end, the authors propose the following four classifications of EF:
- HF with reduced EF (HFrEF): LVEF of up to 40%.
- HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF): LVEF of 41-49%.
- HF with preserved EF (HFpEF)HF with an LVEF of at least 50%.
- HF with improved EF (HFimpEF): HF with a baseline LVEF of 40% or less, an increase of at least 10 points from baseline LVEF, and a second measurement of LVEF of greater than 40%.
HFmrEF is usually a transition period, noted Dr. Bozkurt. “Patients with HF in this range may represent a population whose EF is likely to change, either increase or decrease over time and it’s important to be cognizant of that trajectory. Understanding where your patient is headed is crucial for prognosis and optimization of guideline-directed treatment,” she said.
Improved, not recovered, HF
The last classification of heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) represents an important change to the current classification scheme.
“We want to clarify what terms to use but also which not to use. For example, we don’t want people to use recovered heart failure or heart failure in remission, partly because we don’t want the medication to be stopped. We don’t want to give the false message that there has been full recovery,” said Dr. Bozkurt.
As seen in the TRED-HF trial, guideline-directed medical therapy should be continued in patients with HF with improved EF regardless of whether it has improved to a normal range of above 50% in subsequent measurements.
“This is a distinct group of people, and for a while the guidelines were lumping them in with HFpEF, which I think is totally wrong,” said Dr. Mann.
“I think it’s very important that we emphasize heart failure as a continuum, rather than a one-way street of [inevitable] progression. Because we do see improvements in ejection fraction and we do see that we can prevent heart failure if we do the right things, and this should be reflected in the terminology we use,” he added.
Dr. Bozkurt stressed that HFimpEF only applies if the EF improves to above 40%. A move from an EF of 10%-20% would still see the patient classified as having HFrEF, but a patient whose EF improved from, say, 30% to 45% would be classified as HFimpEF.
“The reason for this, again, is because a transition from, say an EF of 10%-20% does not change therapy, but a move upward over 40% might, especially regarding decisions for device therapies, so the trajectory as well as the absolute EF is important,” she added.
“Particularly in the early stages, people are responsive to therapy and it’s possible in some cases to reverse heart failure, so I think this change helps us understand when that’s happened,” said Dr. Braunwald.
One step toward universality
“The implementation of this terminology and nomenclature into practice will require a variety of tactics,” said Dr. Bozkurt. “For example, the current ICD 10 codes need to incorporate the at-risk and pre–heart failure categories, as well as the mid-range EF, preserved, and improved EF classifications, because the treatment differs between those three domains.”
In terms of how these proposed changes will be worked into practice guidelines, Dr. Bozkurt declined to comment on this to avoid any perception of conflict of interest as she is the cochair of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association HF guideline writing committee.
Dr. Braunwald and Dr. Antman suggest it may be premature to call the new terminology and classifications “universal.” In an interview, Dr. Braunwald lamented the absence of the World Heart Federation, the ACC, and the AHA as active participants in this effort and suggested this paper is only the first step of a multistep process that requires input from many stakeholders.
“It’s important that these organizations be involved, not just to bless it, but to contribute their expertise to the process,” he said.
For his part, Dr. Mann hopes these changes will gain widespread acceptance and clinical traction. “The problem sometimes with guidelines is that they’re so data driven that you just can’t come out and say the obvious, so making a position statement is a good first step. And they got good international representation on this, so I think these changes will be accepted in the next heart failure guidelines.”
To encourage further discussion and acceptance, Robert J. Mentz, MD, and Anuradha Lala, MD, editor-in-chief and deputy editor of the Journal of Cardiac Failure, respectively, announced a series of multidisciplinary perspective pieces to be published in the journal monthly, starting in May with editorials from Dr. Clyde W Yancy, MD, MSc, and Carolyn S.P. Lam, MBBS, PhD, both of whom were authors of the consensus statement.
Dr. Bozkurt reports being a consultant for Abbott, Amgen, Baxter, Bristol Myers Squibb, Liva Nova Relypsa/Vifor Pharma, Respicardia, and being on the registry steering committee for Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Braunwald reports research grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, and Novartis; and consulting for Amgen, Boehringer-Ingelheim/Lilly, Cardurion, MyoKardia, Novo Nordisk, and Verve. Dr. Mann has been a consultant to Novartis, is on the steering committee for the PARADISE trial, and is on the scientific advisory board for MyoKardia/Bristol Myers Squibb.
The terminology and classification scheme for heart failure (HF) is changing in ways that experts hope will directly impact patient outcomes.
In a new consensus statement, a multisociety group of experts proposed a new universal definition of heart failure and made substantial revisions to the way in which the disease is staged and classified.
The authors of the statement, led by writing committee chair and immediate past president of the Heart Failure Society of America Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, hope their efforts will go far to improve standardization of terminology, but more importantly will facilitate better management of the disease in ways that keep pace with current knowledge and advances in the field.
“There is a great need for reframing and standardizing the terminology across societies and different stakeholders, and importantly for patients because a lot of the terminology we were using was understood by academicians, but were not being translated in important ways to ensure patients are being appropriately treated,” said Dr. Bozkurt, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
The consensus statement was a group effort led by the HFSA, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, and the Japanese Heart Failure Society, with endorsements from the Canadian Heart Failure Society, the Heart Failure Association of India, the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand, and the Chinese Heart Failure Association.
The article was published March 1 in the Journal of Cardiac Failure and the European Journal of Heart Failure, authored by a writing committee of 38 individuals with domain expertise in HF, cardiomyopathy, and cardiovascular disease.
“This is a very thorough and very carefully written document that I think will be helpful for clinicians because they’ve tapped into important changes in the field that have occurred over the past 10 years and that now allow us to do more for patients than we could before,” Eugene Braunwald, MD, said in an interview.
Dr. Braunwald and Elliott M. Antman, MD, both from TIMI Study Group at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, wrote an editorial that accompanied the European Journal of Heart Failure article.
A new universal definition
“[Heart failure] is a clinical syndrome with symptoms and or signs caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality and corroborated by elevated natriuretic peptide levels and/or objective evidence of pulmonary or systemic congestion.”
This proposed definition, said the authors, is designed to be contemporary and simple “but conceptually comprehensive, with near universal applicability, prognostic and therapeutic viability, and acceptable sensitivity and specificity.”
Both left and right HF qualifies under this definition, said the authors, but conditions that result in marked volume overload, such as chronic kidney disease, which may present with signs and symptoms of HF, do not.
“Although some of these patients may have concomitant HF, these patients have a primary abnormality that may require a specific treatment beyond that for HF,” said the consensus statement authors.
For his part, Douglas L. Mann, MD, is happy to see what he considers a more accurate and practical definition for heart failure.
“We’ve had some wacky definitions in heart failure that haven’t made sense for 30 years, the principal of which is the definition of heart failure that says it’s the inability of the heart to meet the metabolic demands of the body,” Dr. Mann, of Washington University, St. Louis, said in an interview.
“I think this description was developed thinking about people with end-stage heart failure, but it makes no sense in clinical practice. Does it make sense to say about someone with New York Heart Association class I heart failure that their heart can’t meet the metabolic demands of the body?” said Dr. Mann, who was not involved with the writing of the consensus statement.
Proposed revised stages of the HF continuum
Overall, minimal changes have been made to the HF stages, with tweaks intended to enhance understanding and address the evolving role of biomarkers.
The authors proposed an approach to staging of HF:
- At-risk for HF (stage A), for patients at risk for HF but without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF and without structural or biomarkers evidence of heart disease.
- Pre-HF (stage B), for patients without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF, but evidence of structural heart disease or abnormal cardiac function, or elevated natriuretic peptide levels.
- HF (stage C), for patients with current or prior symptoms and/or signs of HF caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality.
- Advanced HF (stage D), for patients with severe symptoms and/or signs of HF at rest, recurrent hospitalizations despite guideline-directed management and therapy (GDMT), refractory or intolerant to GDMT, requiring advanced therapies such as consideration for transplant, mechanical circulatory support, or palliative care.
One notable change to the staging scheme is stage B, which the authors have reframed as “pre–heart failure.”
“Pre-cancer is a term widely understood and considered actionable and we wanted to tap into this successful messaging and embrace the pre–heart failure concept as something that is treatable and preventable,” said Dr. Bozkurt.
“We want patients and clinicians to understand that there are things we can do to prevent heart failure, strategies we didn’t have before, like SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with diabetes at risk for HF,” she added.
The revision also avoids the stigma of HF before the symptoms are manifest.
“Not calling it stage A and stage B heart failure you might say is semantics, but it’s important semantics,” said Dr. Braunwald. “When you’re talking to a patient or a relative and tell them they have stage A heart failure, it’s scares them unnecessarily. They don’t hear the stage A or B part, just the heart failure part.”
New classifications according to LVEF
And finally, in what some might consider the most obviously needed modification, the document proposes a new and revised classification of HF according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Most agree on how to classify heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but although the middle range has long been understood to be a clinically relevant, it has no proper name or clear delineation.
“For standardization across practice guidelines, to recognize clinical trajectories in HF, and to facilitate the recognition of different heart failure entities in a sensitive and specific manner that can guide therapy, we want to formalize the heart failure categories according to ejection fraction,” said Dr. Bozkurt.
To this end, the authors propose the following four classifications of EF:
- HF with reduced EF (HFrEF): LVEF of up to 40%.
- HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF): LVEF of 41-49%.
- HF with preserved EF (HFpEF)HF with an LVEF of at least 50%.
- HF with improved EF (HFimpEF): HF with a baseline LVEF of 40% or less, an increase of at least 10 points from baseline LVEF, and a second measurement of LVEF of greater than 40%.
HFmrEF is usually a transition period, noted Dr. Bozkurt. “Patients with HF in this range may represent a population whose EF is likely to change, either increase or decrease over time and it’s important to be cognizant of that trajectory. Understanding where your patient is headed is crucial for prognosis and optimization of guideline-directed treatment,” she said.
Improved, not recovered, HF
The last classification of heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) represents an important change to the current classification scheme.
“We want to clarify what terms to use but also which not to use. For example, we don’t want people to use recovered heart failure or heart failure in remission, partly because we don’t want the medication to be stopped. We don’t want to give the false message that there has been full recovery,” said Dr. Bozkurt.
As seen in the TRED-HF trial, guideline-directed medical therapy should be continued in patients with HF with improved EF regardless of whether it has improved to a normal range of above 50% in subsequent measurements.
“This is a distinct group of people, and for a while the guidelines were lumping them in with HFpEF, which I think is totally wrong,” said Dr. Mann.
“I think it’s very important that we emphasize heart failure as a continuum, rather than a one-way street of [inevitable] progression. Because we do see improvements in ejection fraction and we do see that we can prevent heart failure if we do the right things, and this should be reflected in the terminology we use,” he added.
Dr. Bozkurt stressed that HFimpEF only applies if the EF improves to above 40%. A move from an EF of 10%-20% would still see the patient classified as having HFrEF, but a patient whose EF improved from, say, 30% to 45% would be classified as HFimpEF.
“The reason for this, again, is because a transition from, say an EF of 10%-20% does not change therapy, but a move upward over 40% might, especially regarding decisions for device therapies, so the trajectory as well as the absolute EF is important,” she added.
“Particularly in the early stages, people are responsive to therapy and it’s possible in some cases to reverse heart failure, so I think this change helps us understand when that’s happened,” said Dr. Braunwald.
One step toward universality
“The implementation of this terminology and nomenclature into practice will require a variety of tactics,” said Dr. Bozkurt. “For example, the current ICD 10 codes need to incorporate the at-risk and pre–heart failure categories, as well as the mid-range EF, preserved, and improved EF classifications, because the treatment differs between those three domains.”
In terms of how these proposed changes will be worked into practice guidelines, Dr. Bozkurt declined to comment on this to avoid any perception of conflict of interest as she is the cochair of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association HF guideline writing committee.
Dr. Braunwald and Dr. Antman suggest it may be premature to call the new terminology and classifications “universal.” In an interview, Dr. Braunwald lamented the absence of the World Heart Federation, the ACC, and the AHA as active participants in this effort and suggested this paper is only the first step of a multistep process that requires input from many stakeholders.
“It’s important that these organizations be involved, not just to bless it, but to contribute their expertise to the process,” he said.
For his part, Dr. Mann hopes these changes will gain widespread acceptance and clinical traction. “The problem sometimes with guidelines is that they’re so data driven that you just can’t come out and say the obvious, so making a position statement is a good first step. And they got good international representation on this, so I think these changes will be accepted in the next heart failure guidelines.”
To encourage further discussion and acceptance, Robert J. Mentz, MD, and Anuradha Lala, MD, editor-in-chief and deputy editor of the Journal of Cardiac Failure, respectively, announced a series of multidisciplinary perspective pieces to be published in the journal monthly, starting in May with editorials from Dr. Clyde W Yancy, MD, MSc, and Carolyn S.P. Lam, MBBS, PhD, both of whom were authors of the consensus statement.
Dr. Bozkurt reports being a consultant for Abbott, Amgen, Baxter, Bristol Myers Squibb, Liva Nova Relypsa/Vifor Pharma, Respicardia, and being on the registry steering committee for Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Braunwald reports research grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, and Novartis; and consulting for Amgen, Boehringer-Ingelheim/Lilly, Cardurion, MyoKardia, Novo Nordisk, and Verve. Dr. Mann has been a consultant to Novartis, is on the steering committee for the PARADISE trial, and is on the scientific advisory board for MyoKardia/Bristol Myers Squibb.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CARDIAC FAILURE
Dining restrictions, mask mandates tied to less illness, death, CDC reaffirms
The numbers are in to back up two policies designed to restrict the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) found that when states lifted restrictions on dining on premises at restaurants, rates of daily COVID-19 cases jumped 41-100 days later. COVID-19-related deaths also increased significantly after 60 days.
On the other hand, the same report demonstrates that state mask mandates slowed the spread of SARS-CoV-2 within a few weeks.
The study was published online March 5 in the CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
The investigators did not distinguish between outdoor and indoor restaurant dining. But they did compare COVID-19 case and death rates before and after most states banned restaurants from serving patrons on-premises in March and April 2020.
They found, for example, that COVID-19 daily cases increased by 0.9% at 41-60 days after on-premise dining was permitted. Similarly, rates jumped by 1.2% at 61-80 days, and 1.1% at 81-100 days after the restaurant restrictions were lifted.
The differences were statistically significant, with P values of .02, <.01, and .04, respectively.
COVID-19–related death rates did not increase significantly at first – but did jump 2.2% between 61 and 80 days after the return of on-premises dining, for example. Deaths also increased by 3% at 81-100 days.
Both these differences were statistically significant (P < .01).
This is not the first report where the CDC announced reservations about in-person dining. In September 2020, CDC investigators implicated the inability to wear a mask while eating and drinking as likely contributing to the heightened risk.
Masks make a difference
The CDC report also provided more evidence to back mask-wearing policies for public spaces. Between March 1 and Dec. 31, 2020, 74% of U.S. counties issued mask mandates.
Investigators found that these policies had a more immediate effect, reducing daily COVID-19 cases by 0.5% in the first 20 days. Mask mandates likewise were linked to daily cases dropping 1.1% between 21 and 40 days, 1.5% between 41 and 60 days, 1.7% between 61 and 80 days, and 1.8% between 81 and 100 days.
These decreases in daily COVID-19 cases were statistically significant (P < .01) compared with a reference period before March 1, 2020.
The CDC also linked mask mandates to lower mortality. For example, these state policies were associated with 0.7% fewer deaths at 1-20 days post implementation. The effect increased thereafter – 1.0% drop at 21-40 days, 1.4% decrease at 41-60 days, 1.6% drop between 61 and 80 days, and 1.9% fewer deaths between 81 and 100 days.
The decrease in deaths was statistically significant at 1-20 days after the mask mandate (P = .03), as well as during the other periods (each P < .01) compared with the reference period.
CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, reacted to the new findings at a White House press briefing. She cited how increases in COVID-19 cases and death rates “slowed significantly within 20 days of putting mask mandates into place. This is why I’m asking you to double down on prevention measures.
“We have seen this movie before,” Dr. Walensky added. “When prevention measures like mask-wearing mandates are lifted, cases go up.”
Recently, multiple states have announced plans to roll back restrictions related to the pandemic, including mask mandates, which prompted warnings from some public health officials.
These are not the first CDC data to show that mask mandates make a difference.
In February 2021, for example, the agency pointed out that state-wide mask mandates reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations by 5.5% among adults 18-64 years old within 3 weeks of implementation.
Restrictions regarding on-premises restaurant dining and implementation of state-wide mask mandates are two tactics within a more comprehensive CDC strategy to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. The researchers note that “such efforts are increasingly important given the emergence of highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants in the United States.”
The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The numbers are in to back up two policies designed to restrict the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) found that when states lifted restrictions on dining on premises at restaurants, rates of daily COVID-19 cases jumped 41-100 days later. COVID-19-related deaths also increased significantly after 60 days.
On the other hand, the same report demonstrates that state mask mandates slowed the spread of SARS-CoV-2 within a few weeks.
The study was published online March 5 in the CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
The investigators did not distinguish between outdoor and indoor restaurant dining. But they did compare COVID-19 case and death rates before and after most states banned restaurants from serving patrons on-premises in March and April 2020.
They found, for example, that COVID-19 daily cases increased by 0.9% at 41-60 days after on-premise dining was permitted. Similarly, rates jumped by 1.2% at 61-80 days, and 1.1% at 81-100 days after the restaurant restrictions were lifted.
The differences were statistically significant, with P values of .02, <.01, and .04, respectively.
COVID-19–related death rates did not increase significantly at first – but did jump 2.2% between 61 and 80 days after the return of on-premises dining, for example. Deaths also increased by 3% at 81-100 days.
Both these differences were statistically significant (P < .01).
This is not the first report where the CDC announced reservations about in-person dining. In September 2020, CDC investigators implicated the inability to wear a mask while eating and drinking as likely contributing to the heightened risk.
Masks make a difference
The CDC report also provided more evidence to back mask-wearing policies for public spaces. Between March 1 and Dec. 31, 2020, 74% of U.S. counties issued mask mandates.
Investigators found that these policies had a more immediate effect, reducing daily COVID-19 cases by 0.5% in the first 20 days. Mask mandates likewise were linked to daily cases dropping 1.1% between 21 and 40 days, 1.5% between 41 and 60 days, 1.7% between 61 and 80 days, and 1.8% between 81 and 100 days.
These decreases in daily COVID-19 cases were statistically significant (P < .01) compared with a reference period before March 1, 2020.
The CDC also linked mask mandates to lower mortality. For example, these state policies were associated with 0.7% fewer deaths at 1-20 days post implementation. The effect increased thereafter – 1.0% drop at 21-40 days, 1.4% decrease at 41-60 days, 1.6% drop between 61 and 80 days, and 1.9% fewer deaths between 81 and 100 days.
The decrease in deaths was statistically significant at 1-20 days after the mask mandate (P = .03), as well as during the other periods (each P < .01) compared with the reference period.
CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, reacted to the new findings at a White House press briefing. She cited how increases in COVID-19 cases and death rates “slowed significantly within 20 days of putting mask mandates into place. This is why I’m asking you to double down on prevention measures.
“We have seen this movie before,” Dr. Walensky added. “When prevention measures like mask-wearing mandates are lifted, cases go up.”
Recently, multiple states have announced plans to roll back restrictions related to the pandemic, including mask mandates, which prompted warnings from some public health officials.
These are not the first CDC data to show that mask mandates make a difference.
In February 2021, for example, the agency pointed out that state-wide mask mandates reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations by 5.5% among adults 18-64 years old within 3 weeks of implementation.
Restrictions regarding on-premises restaurant dining and implementation of state-wide mask mandates are two tactics within a more comprehensive CDC strategy to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. The researchers note that “such efforts are increasingly important given the emergence of highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants in the United States.”
The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The numbers are in to back up two policies designed to restrict the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) found that when states lifted restrictions on dining on premises at restaurants, rates of daily COVID-19 cases jumped 41-100 days later. COVID-19-related deaths also increased significantly after 60 days.
On the other hand, the same report demonstrates that state mask mandates slowed the spread of SARS-CoV-2 within a few weeks.
The study was published online March 5 in the CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
The investigators did not distinguish between outdoor and indoor restaurant dining. But they did compare COVID-19 case and death rates before and after most states banned restaurants from serving patrons on-premises in March and April 2020.
They found, for example, that COVID-19 daily cases increased by 0.9% at 41-60 days after on-premise dining was permitted. Similarly, rates jumped by 1.2% at 61-80 days, and 1.1% at 81-100 days after the restaurant restrictions were lifted.
The differences were statistically significant, with P values of .02, <.01, and .04, respectively.
COVID-19–related death rates did not increase significantly at first – but did jump 2.2% between 61 and 80 days after the return of on-premises dining, for example. Deaths also increased by 3% at 81-100 days.
Both these differences were statistically significant (P < .01).
This is not the first report where the CDC announced reservations about in-person dining. In September 2020, CDC investigators implicated the inability to wear a mask while eating and drinking as likely contributing to the heightened risk.
Masks make a difference
The CDC report also provided more evidence to back mask-wearing policies for public spaces. Between March 1 and Dec. 31, 2020, 74% of U.S. counties issued mask mandates.
Investigators found that these policies had a more immediate effect, reducing daily COVID-19 cases by 0.5% in the first 20 days. Mask mandates likewise were linked to daily cases dropping 1.1% between 21 and 40 days, 1.5% between 41 and 60 days, 1.7% between 61 and 80 days, and 1.8% between 81 and 100 days.
These decreases in daily COVID-19 cases were statistically significant (P < .01) compared with a reference period before March 1, 2020.
The CDC also linked mask mandates to lower mortality. For example, these state policies were associated with 0.7% fewer deaths at 1-20 days post implementation. The effect increased thereafter – 1.0% drop at 21-40 days, 1.4% decrease at 41-60 days, 1.6% drop between 61 and 80 days, and 1.9% fewer deaths between 81 and 100 days.
The decrease in deaths was statistically significant at 1-20 days after the mask mandate (P = .03), as well as during the other periods (each P < .01) compared with the reference period.
CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, reacted to the new findings at a White House press briefing. She cited how increases in COVID-19 cases and death rates “slowed significantly within 20 days of putting mask mandates into place. This is why I’m asking you to double down on prevention measures.
“We have seen this movie before,” Dr. Walensky added. “When prevention measures like mask-wearing mandates are lifted, cases go up.”
Recently, multiple states have announced plans to roll back restrictions related to the pandemic, including mask mandates, which prompted warnings from some public health officials.
These are not the first CDC data to show that mask mandates make a difference.
In February 2021, for example, the agency pointed out that state-wide mask mandates reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations by 5.5% among adults 18-64 years old within 3 weeks of implementation.
Restrictions regarding on-premises restaurant dining and implementation of state-wide mask mandates are two tactics within a more comprehensive CDC strategy to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. The researchers note that “such efforts are increasingly important given the emergence of highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants in the United States.”
The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Routine vaccinations missed by older adults during pandemic
Physicians are going to have to play catch-up when it comes to getting older patients their routine, but important, vaccinations missed during the pandemic.
and have recovered only partially and gradually, according to a report by Kai Hong, PhD, and colleagues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. “As the pandemic continues,” the investigators stated, “vaccination providers should continue efforts to resolve disruptions in routine adult vaccination.”
The CDC issued guidance recommending postponement of routine adult vaccination in response to the March 13, 2020, COVID-19 national emergency declaration by the U.S. government and also to state and local shelter-in-place orders. Health care facility operations were restricted because of safety concerns around exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The result was a significant drop in routine medical care including adult vaccinations.
The investigators examined Medicare enrollment and claims data to assess the change in weekly receipt of four routine adult vaccines by Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 during the pandemic: (13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine [PCV13], 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine [PPSV23], tetanus-diphtheria or tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccine [Td/Tdap], and recombinant zoster vaccine [RZV]). The comparison periods were Jan. 6–July 20, 2019, and Jan. 5–July 18, 2020.
Of the Medicare enrollees in the study sample, 85% were White, 7% Black, 2% Asian, 2% Hispanic, and 4% other racial and ethnic groups. For each of the four vaccines overall, weekly rates of vaccination declined sharply after the emergency declaration, compared with corresponding weeks in 2019. In the period prior to the emergency declaration (Jan. 5–March 14, 2020), weekly percentages of Medicare beneficiaries vaccinated with PPSV23, Td/Tdap, and RZV were consistently higher than rates during the same period in 2019.
After the March 13 declaration, while weekly vaccination rates plummeted 25% for PPSV23 and 62% for RZV in the first week, the greatest weekly declines were during April 5-11, 2020, for PCV13, PPSV23, and Td/Tdap, and during April 12-18, 2020, for RZV. The pandemic weekly vaccination rate nadirs revealed declines of 88% for PCV13, 80% for PPSV23, 70% for Td/Tdap, and 89% for RZV.
Routine vaccinations increased midyear
Vaccination rates recovered gradually. For the most recently assessed pandemic week (July 12-18, 2020), the rate for PPSV23 was 8% higher than in the corresponding period in 2019. Weekly corresponding rates for other examined vaccines, however, remained much lower than in 2019: 44% lower for RZV, 24% lower for Td/Tdap and 43% lower for PCV13. The CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted in June 2019 to stop recommending PCV13 for adults aged ≥65 years and so vaccination with PCV13 among this population declined in 2020, compared with that in 2019.
Another significant drop in the rates of adult vaccinations may have occurred because of the surge in COVID-19 infections in the fall of 2020 and subsequent closures and renewal of lockdown in many localities.
Disparities in routine vaccination trends
Dr. Hong and colleagues noted that their findings are consistent with prior reports of declines in pediatric vaccine ordering, administration, and coverage during the pandemic. While the reductions were similar across all racial and ethnic groups, the magnitudes of recovery varied, with vaccination rates lower among racial and ethnic minority adults than among White adults.
In view of the disproportionate COVID-19 pandemic effects among some racial and ethnic minorities, the investigators recommended monitoring and subsequent early intervention to mitigate similar indirect pandemic effects, such as reduced utilization of other preventive services. “Many members of racial and ethnic minority groups face barriers to routine medical care, which means they have fewer opportunities to receive preventive interventions such as vaccination,” Dr. Hong said in an interview. “When clinicians are following up with patients who have missed vaccinations, it is important for them to remember that patients may face new barriers to vaccination such as loss of income or health insurance, and to work with them to remove those barriers,” he added.
“If vaccination is deferred, older adults and adults with underlying medical conditions who subsequently become infected with a vaccine-preventable disease are at increased risk for complications,” Dr. Hong said. “The most important thing clinicians can do is identify patients who are due for or who have missed vaccinations, and contact them to schedule visits. Immunization Information Systems and electronic health records may be able to support this work. In addition, the vaccination status of all patients should be assessed at every health care visit to reduce missed opportunities for vaccination.”
Physicians are going to have to play catch-up when it comes to getting older patients their routine, but important, vaccinations missed during the pandemic.
and have recovered only partially and gradually, according to a report by Kai Hong, PhD, and colleagues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. “As the pandemic continues,” the investigators stated, “vaccination providers should continue efforts to resolve disruptions in routine adult vaccination.”
The CDC issued guidance recommending postponement of routine adult vaccination in response to the March 13, 2020, COVID-19 national emergency declaration by the U.S. government and also to state and local shelter-in-place orders. Health care facility operations were restricted because of safety concerns around exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The result was a significant drop in routine medical care including adult vaccinations.
The investigators examined Medicare enrollment and claims data to assess the change in weekly receipt of four routine adult vaccines by Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 during the pandemic: (13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine [PCV13], 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine [PPSV23], tetanus-diphtheria or tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccine [Td/Tdap], and recombinant zoster vaccine [RZV]). The comparison periods were Jan. 6–July 20, 2019, and Jan. 5–July 18, 2020.
Of the Medicare enrollees in the study sample, 85% were White, 7% Black, 2% Asian, 2% Hispanic, and 4% other racial and ethnic groups. For each of the four vaccines overall, weekly rates of vaccination declined sharply after the emergency declaration, compared with corresponding weeks in 2019. In the period prior to the emergency declaration (Jan. 5–March 14, 2020), weekly percentages of Medicare beneficiaries vaccinated with PPSV23, Td/Tdap, and RZV were consistently higher than rates during the same period in 2019.
After the March 13 declaration, while weekly vaccination rates plummeted 25% for PPSV23 and 62% for RZV in the first week, the greatest weekly declines were during April 5-11, 2020, for PCV13, PPSV23, and Td/Tdap, and during April 12-18, 2020, for RZV. The pandemic weekly vaccination rate nadirs revealed declines of 88% for PCV13, 80% for PPSV23, 70% for Td/Tdap, and 89% for RZV.
Routine vaccinations increased midyear
Vaccination rates recovered gradually. For the most recently assessed pandemic week (July 12-18, 2020), the rate for PPSV23 was 8% higher than in the corresponding period in 2019. Weekly corresponding rates for other examined vaccines, however, remained much lower than in 2019: 44% lower for RZV, 24% lower for Td/Tdap and 43% lower for PCV13. The CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted in June 2019 to stop recommending PCV13 for adults aged ≥65 years and so vaccination with PCV13 among this population declined in 2020, compared with that in 2019.
Another significant drop in the rates of adult vaccinations may have occurred because of the surge in COVID-19 infections in the fall of 2020 and subsequent closures and renewal of lockdown in many localities.
Disparities in routine vaccination trends
Dr. Hong and colleagues noted that their findings are consistent with prior reports of declines in pediatric vaccine ordering, administration, and coverage during the pandemic. While the reductions were similar across all racial and ethnic groups, the magnitudes of recovery varied, with vaccination rates lower among racial and ethnic minority adults than among White adults.
In view of the disproportionate COVID-19 pandemic effects among some racial and ethnic minorities, the investigators recommended monitoring and subsequent early intervention to mitigate similar indirect pandemic effects, such as reduced utilization of other preventive services. “Many members of racial and ethnic minority groups face barriers to routine medical care, which means they have fewer opportunities to receive preventive interventions such as vaccination,” Dr. Hong said in an interview. “When clinicians are following up with patients who have missed vaccinations, it is important for them to remember that patients may face new barriers to vaccination such as loss of income or health insurance, and to work with them to remove those barriers,” he added.
“If vaccination is deferred, older adults and adults with underlying medical conditions who subsequently become infected with a vaccine-preventable disease are at increased risk for complications,” Dr. Hong said. “The most important thing clinicians can do is identify patients who are due for or who have missed vaccinations, and contact them to schedule visits. Immunization Information Systems and electronic health records may be able to support this work. In addition, the vaccination status of all patients should be assessed at every health care visit to reduce missed opportunities for vaccination.”
Physicians are going to have to play catch-up when it comes to getting older patients their routine, but important, vaccinations missed during the pandemic.
and have recovered only partially and gradually, according to a report by Kai Hong, PhD, and colleagues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. “As the pandemic continues,” the investigators stated, “vaccination providers should continue efforts to resolve disruptions in routine adult vaccination.”
The CDC issued guidance recommending postponement of routine adult vaccination in response to the March 13, 2020, COVID-19 national emergency declaration by the U.S. government and also to state and local shelter-in-place orders. Health care facility operations were restricted because of safety concerns around exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The result was a significant drop in routine medical care including adult vaccinations.
The investigators examined Medicare enrollment and claims data to assess the change in weekly receipt of four routine adult vaccines by Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 during the pandemic: (13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine [PCV13], 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine [PPSV23], tetanus-diphtheria or tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccine [Td/Tdap], and recombinant zoster vaccine [RZV]). The comparison periods were Jan. 6–July 20, 2019, and Jan. 5–July 18, 2020.
Of the Medicare enrollees in the study sample, 85% were White, 7% Black, 2% Asian, 2% Hispanic, and 4% other racial and ethnic groups. For each of the four vaccines overall, weekly rates of vaccination declined sharply after the emergency declaration, compared with corresponding weeks in 2019. In the period prior to the emergency declaration (Jan. 5–March 14, 2020), weekly percentages of Medicare beneficiaries vaccinated with PPSV23, Td/Tdap, and RZV were consistently higher than rates during the same period in 2019.
After the March 13 declaration, while weekly vaccination rates plummeted 25% for PPSV23 and 62% for RZV in the first week, the greatest weekly declines were during April 5-11, 2020, for PCV13, PPSV23, and Td/Tdap, and during April 12-18, 2020, for RZV. The pandemic weekly vaccination rate nadirs revealed declines of 88% for PCV13, 80% for PPSV23, 70% for Td/Tdap, and 89% for RZV.
Routine vaccinations increased midyear
Vaccination rates recovered gradually. For the most recently assessed pandemic week (July 12-18, 2020), the rate for PPSV23 was 8% higher than in the corresponding period in 2019. Weekly corresponding rates for other examined vaccines, however, remained much lower than in 2019: 44% lower for RZV, 24% lower for Td/Tdap and 43% lower for PCV13. The CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted in June 2019 to stop recommending PCV13 for adults aged ≥65 years and so vaccination with PCV13 among this population declined in 2020, compared with that in 2019.
Another significant drop in the rates of adult vaccinations may have occurred because of the surge in COVID-19 infections in the fall of 2020 and subsequent closures and renewal of lockdown in many localities.
Disparities in routine vaccination trends
Dr. Hong and colleagues noted that their findings are consistent with prior reports of declines in pediatric vaccine ordering, administration, and coverage during the pandemic. While the reductions were similar across all racial and ethnic groups, the magnitudes of recovery varied, with vaccination rates lower among racial and ethnic minority adults than among White adults.
In view of the disproportionate COVID-19 pandemic effects among some racial and ethnic minorities, the investigators recommended monitoring and subsequent early intervention to mitigate similar indirect pandemic effects, such as reduced utilization of other preventive services. “Many members of racial and ethnic minority groups face barriers to routine medical care, which means they have fewer opportunities to receive preventive interventions such as vaccination,” Dr. Hong said in an interview. “When clinicians are following up with patients who have missed vaccinations, it is important for them to remember that patients may face new barriers to vaccination such as loss of income or health insurance, and to work with them to remove those barriers,” he added.
“If vaccination is deferred, older adults and adults with underlying medical conditions who subsequently become infected with a vaccine-preventable disease are at increased risk for complications,” Dr. Hong said. “The most important thing clinicians can do is identify patients who are due for or who have missed vaccinations, and contact them to schedule visits. Immunization Information Systems and electronic health records may be able to support this work. In addition, the vaccination status of all patients should be assessed at every health care visit to reduce missed opportunities for vaccination.”
FROM MMWR
Heart health in pregnancy tied to CV risk in adolescent offspring
Children born to mothers in poor cardiovascular health during pregnancy had an almost eight times higher risk for landing in the poorest cardiovascular health category in early adolescence than children born to mothers who had ideal cardiovascular health during pregnancy.
In an observational cohort study that involved 2,302 mother-child dyads, 6.0% of mothers and 2.6% of children were considered to be in the poorest category of cardiovascular health on the basis of specific risk factors.
The children of mothers with any “intermediate” cardiovascular health metrics in pregnancy – for example, being overweight but not obese – were at just more than two times higher risk for poor cardiovascular health in early adolescence.
Although acknowledging the limitations of observational data, Amanda M. Perak, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, suggested that focusing on whether or not the relationships seen in this study are causal might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
“I would suggest that it may not actually matter whether there is causality or correlation here, because if you can identify newborns at birth who have an eight times higher risk for poor cardiovascular health in childhood based on mom’s health during pregnancy, that’s valuable information either way,” said Dr. Perak.
“Even if you don’t know why their risk is elevated, you might be able to target those children for more intensive preventative efforts throughout childhood to help them hold on to their cardiovascular health for longer.”
That said, she thinks it’s possible that the intrauterine environment might actually directly affect offspring health, either through epigenetics modifications to cardiometabolic regulatory genes or possibly through actual organ development. Her group is collecting epigenetic data to study this further.
“We also need to do a study to see if intervening during pregnancy with mothers leads to better cardiovascular health in offspring, and that’s a question we can answer with a clinical trial,” said Dr. Perak.
This study was published on Feb. 16, 2021, in JAMA.
Equal footing
“We’ve always talked about cardiovascular health as if everyone is born with ideal cardiovascular health and loses it from there, and I think what this article points out is that not everybody starts on equal footing,” said Stephen R. Daniels, MD, PhD, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who wrote an editorial accompanying the study.
“We need to start upstream, working with mothers before and during pregnancy, but it’s also important to understand, from a pediatric standpoint, that with some of these kids the horse is kind of already out of the barn very early.”
Dr. Daniels is pediatrician in chief and chair of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital Colorado in Aurora.
This study is the first to examine the relevance of maternal gestational cardiovascular health to offspring cardiovascular health and an important first step toward developing new approaches to address the concept of primordial prevention, he said.
“If primary prevention is identifying risk factors and treating them, I think of primordial prevention as preventing the development of those risk factors in the first place,” said Dr. Daniels.
Future trials, he added, should focus on the various mechanistic pathways – biological effects, shared genetics, and lifestyle being the options – to better understand opportunities for intervention.
Mother-child pairs
Dr. Perak and colleagues used data from the Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes (HAPO) study and the HAPO Follow-up Study.
Participants were 2,302 mother-child pairs from nine field centers in Barbados, Canada, China, Thailand, United Kingdom, and the United States, and represented a racially and ethnically diverse cohort.
The mean ages were 29.6 years for pregnant mothers and 11.3 years for children. The pregnancies occurred between 2000 and 2006, and the children were examined from 2013 to 2016, when the children were aged 10-14 years.
Using the American Heart Association’s definition of cardiovascular health, the scientists categorized pregnancy health for mothers based on their measures of body mass index, blood pressure, total cholesterol, glucose level, and smoking status at 28 weeks’ gestation. These five metrics of gestational cardiovascular health have been significantly associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes.
They categorized cardiovascular health for offspring at age 10-14 years based on four of these five metrics: body mass index, blood pressure, cholesterol, and glucose.
Only 32.8% of mothers and 42.2% of children had ideal cardiovascular health.
In analyses adjusted for pregnancy and birth outcomes, the associations seen between poor gestational maternal health and offspring cardiovascular health persisted but were attenuated.
Dr. Perak reported receiving grants from the Woman’s Board of Northwestern Memorial Hospital; the Dixon Family; the American Heart Association; and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Daniels reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Children born to mothers in poor cardiovascular health during pregnancy had an almost eight times higher risk for landing in the poorest cardiovascular health category in early adolescence than children born to mothers who had ideal cardiovascular health during pregnancy.
In an observational cohort study that involved 2,302 mother-child dyads, 6.0% of mothers and 2.6% of children were considered to be in the poorest category of cardiovascular health on the basis of specific risk factors.
The children of mothers with any “intermediate” cardiovascular health metrics in pregnancy – for example, being overweight but not obese – were at just more than two times higher risk for poor cardiovascular health in early adolescence.
Although acknowledging the limitations of observational data, Amanda M. Perak, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, suggested that focusing on whether or not the relationships seen in this study are causal might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
“I would suggest that it may not actually matter whether there is causality or correlation here, because if you can identify newborns at birth who have an eight times higher risk for poor cardiovascular health in childhood based on mom’s health during pregnancy, that’s valuable information either way,” said Dr. Perak.
“Even if you don’t know why their risk is elevated, you might be able to target those children for more intensive preventative efforts throughout childhood to help them hold on to their cardiovascular health for longer.”
That said, she thinks it’s possible that the intrauterine environment might actually directly affect offspring health, either through epigenetics modifications to cardiometabolic regulatory genes or possibly through actual organ development. Her group is collecting epigenetic data to study this further.
“We also need to do a study to see if intervening during pregnancy with mothers leads to better cardiovascular health in offspring, and that’s a question we can answer with a clinical trial,” said Dr. Perak.
This study was published on Feb. 16, 2021, in JAMA.
Equal footing
“We’ve always talked about cardiovascular health as if everyone is born with ideal cardiovascular health and loses it from there, and I think what this article points out is that not everybody starts on equal footing,” said Stephen R. Daniels, MD, PhD, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who wrote an editorial accompanying the study.
“We need to start upstream, working with mothers before and during pregnancy, but it’s also important to understand, from a pediatric standpoint, that with some of these kids the horse is kind of already out of the barn very early.”
Dr. Daniels is pediatrician in chief and chair of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital Colorado in Aurora.
This study is the first to examine the relevance of maternal gestational cardiovascular health to offspring cardiovascular health and an important first step toward developing new approaches to address the concept of primordial prevention, he said.
“If primary prevention is identifying risk factors and treating them, I think of primordial prevention as preventing the development of those risk factors in the first place,” said Dr. Daniels.
Future trials, he added, should focus on the various mechanistic pathways – biological effects, shared genetics, and lifestyle being the options – to better understand opportunities for intervention.
Mother-child pairs
Dr. Perak and colleagues used data from the Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes (HAPO) study and the HAPO Follow-up Study.
Participants were 2,302 mother-child pairs from nine field centers in Barbados, Canada, China, Thailand, United Kingdom, and the United States, and represented a racially and ethnically diverse cohort.
The mean ages were 29.6 years for pregnant mothers and 11.3 years for children. The pregnancies occurred between 2000 and 2006, and the children were examined from 2013 to 2016, when the children were aged 10-14 years.
Using the American Heart Association’s definition of cardiovascular health, the scientists categorized pregnancy health for mothers based on their measures of body mass index, blood pressure, total cholesterol, glucose level, and smoking status at 28 weeks’ gestation. These five metrics of gestational cardiovascular health have been significantly associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes.
They categorized cardiovascular health for offspring at age 10-14 years based on four of these five metrics: body mass index, blood pressure, cholesterol, and glucose.
Only 32.8% of mothers and 42.2% of children had ideal cardiovascular health.
In analyses adjusted for pregnancy and birth outcomes, the associations seen between poor gestational maternal health and offspring cardiovascular health persisted but were attenuated.
Dr. Perak reported receiving grants from the Woman’s Board of Northwestern Memorial Hospital; the Dixon Family; the American Heart Association; and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Daniels reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Children born to mothers in poor cardiovascular health during pregnancy had an almost eight times higher risk for landing in the poorest cardiovascular health category in early adolescence than children born to mothers who had ideal cardiovascular health during pregnancy.
In an observational cohort study that involved 2,302 mother-child dyads, 6.0% of mothers and 2.6% of children were considered to be in the poorest category of cardiovascular health on the basis of specific risk factors.
The children of mothers with any “intermediate” cardiovascular health metrics in pregnancy – for example, being overweight but not obese – were at just more than two times higher risk for poor cardiovascular health in early adolescence.
Although acknowledging the limitations of observational data, Amanda M. Perak, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, suggested that focusing on whether or not the relationships seen in this study are causal might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
“I would suggest that it may not actually matter whether there is causality or correlation here, because if you can identify newborns at birth who have an eight times higher risk for poor cardiovascular health in childhood based on mom’s health during pregnancy, that’s valuable information either way,” said Dr. Perak.
“Even if you don’t know why their risk is elevated, you might be able to target those children for more intensive preventative efforts throughout childhood to help them hold on to their cardiovascular health for longer.”
That said, she thinks it’s possible that the intrauterine environment might actually directly affect offspring health, either through epigenetics modifications to cardiometabolic regulatory genes or possibly through actual organ development. Her group is collecting epigenetic data to study this further.
“We also need to do a study to see if intervening during pregnancy with mothers leads to better cardiovascular health in offspring, and that’s a question we can answer with a clinical trial,” said Dr. Perak.
This study was published on Feb. 16, 2021, in JAMA.
Equal footing
“We’ve always talked about cardiovascular health as if everyone is born with ideal cardiovascular health and loses it from there, and I think what this article points out is that not everybody starts on equal footing,” said Stephen R. Daniels, MD, PhD, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who wrote an editorial accompanying the study.
“We need to start upstream, working with mothers before and during pregnancy, but it’s also important to understand, from a pediatric standpoint, that with some of these kids the horse is kind of already out of the barn very early.”
Dr. Daniels is pediatrician in chief and chair of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital Colorado in Aurora.
This study is the first to examine the relevance of maternal gestational cardiovascular health to offspring cardiovascular health and an important first step toward developing new approaches to address the concept of primordial prevention, he said.
“If primary prevention is identifying risk factors and treating them, I think of primordial prevention as preventing the development of those risk factors in the first place,” said Dr. Daniels.
Future trials, he added, should focus on the various mechanistic pathways – biological effects, shared genetics, and lifestyle being the options – to better understand opportunities for intervention.
Mother-child pairs
Dr. Perak and colleagues used data from the Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes (HAPO) study and the HAPO Follow-up Study.
Participants were 2,302 mother-child pairs from nine field centers in Barbados, Canada, China, Thailand, United Kingdom, and the United States, and represented a racially and ethnically diverse cohort.
The mean ages were 29.6 years for pregnant mothers and 11.3 years for children. The pregnancies occurred between 2000 and 2006, and the children were examined from 2013 to 2016, when the children were aged 10-14 years.
Using the American Heart Association’s definition of cardiovascular health, the scientists categorized pregnancy health for mothers based on their measures of body mass index, blood pressure, total cholesterol, glucose level, and smoking status at 28 weeks’ gestation. These five metrics of gestational cardiovascular health have been significantly associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes.
They categorized cardiovascular health for offspring at age 10-14 years based on four of these five metrics: body mass index, blood pressure, cholesterol, and glucose.
Only 32.8% of mothers and 42.2% of children had ideal cardiovascular health.
In analyses adjusted for pregnancy and birth outcomes, the associations seen between poor gestational maternal health and offspring cardiovascular health persisted but were attenuated.
Dr. Perak reported receiving grants from the Woman’s Board of Northwestern Memorial Hospital; the Dixon Family; the American Heart Association; and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Daniels reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
BMI, age, and sex affect COVID-19 vaccine antibody response
The capacity to mount humoral immune responses to COVID-19 vaccinations may be reduced among people who are heavier, older, and male, new findings suggest.
The data pertain specifically to the mRNA vaccine, BNT162b2, developed by BioNTech and Pfizer. The study was conducted by Italian researchers and was published Feb. 26 as a preprint.
The study involved 248 health care workers who each received two doses of the vaccine. Of the participants, 99.5% developed a humoral immune response after the second dose. Those responses varied by body mass index (BMI), age, and sex.
“The findings imply that female, lean, and young people have an increased capacity to mount humoral immune responses, compared to male, overweight, and older populations,” Raul Pellini, MD, professor at the IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, and colleagues said.
“To our knowledge, this study is the first to analyze Covid-19 vaccine response in correlation to BMI,” they noted.
“Although further studies are needed, this data may have important implications to the development of vaccination strategies for COVID-19, particularly in obese people,” they wrote. If the data are confirmed by larger studies, “giving obese people an extra dose of the vaccine or a higher dose could be options to be evaluated in this population.”
Results contrast with Pfizer trials of vaccine
The BMI finding seemingly contrasts with final data from the phase 3 clinical trial of the vaccine, which were reported in a supplement to an article published Dec. 31, 2020, in the New England Journal of Medicine. In that study, vaccine efficacy did not differ by obesity status.
Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, professor of immunology at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and an investigator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., noted that, although the current Italian study showed somewhat lower levels of antibodies in people with obesity, compared with people who did not have obesity, the phase 3 trial found no difference in symptomatic infection rates.
“These results indicate that even with a slightly lower level of antibody induced in obese people, that level was sufficient to protect against symptomatic infection,” Dr. Iwasaki said in an interview.
Indeed, Dr. Pellini and colleagues pointed out that responses to vaccines against influenza, hepatitis B, and rabies are also reduced in those with obesity, compared with lean individuals.
However, they said, it was especially important to study the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in people with obesity, because obesity is a major risk factor for morbidity and mortality in COVID-19.
“The constant state of low-grade inflammation, present in overweight people, can weaken some immune responses, including those launched by T cells, which can directly kill infected cells,” the authors noted.
Findings reported in British newspapers
The findings of the Italian study were widely covered in the lay press in the United Kingdom, with headlines such as “Pfizer Vaccine May Be Less Effective in People With Obesity, Says Study” and “Pfizer Vaccine: Overweight People Might Need Bigger Dose, Italian Study Says.” In tabloid newspapers, some headlines were slightly more stigmatizing.
The reports do stress that the Italian research was published as a preprint and has not been peer reviewed, or “is yet to be scrutinized by fellow scientists.”
Most make the point that there were only 26 people with obesity among the 248 persons in the study.
“We always knew that BMI was an enormous predictor of poor immune response to vaccines, so this paper is definitely interesting, although it is based on a rather small preliminary dataset,” Danny Altmann, PhD, a professor of immunology at Imperial College London, told the Guardian.
“It confirms that having a vaccinated population isn’t synonymous with having an immune population, especially in a country with high obesity, and emphasizes the vital need for long-term immune monitoring programs,” he added.
Antibody responses differ by BMI, age, and sex
In the Italian study, the participants – 158 women and 90 men – were assigned to receive a priming BNT162b2 vaccine dose with a booster at day 21. Blood and nasopharyngeal swabs were collected at baseline and 7 days after the second vaccine dose.
After the second dose, 99.5% of participants developed a humoral immune response; one person did not respond. None tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.
Titers of SARS-CoV-2–binding antibodies were greater in younger than in older participants. There were statistically significant differences between those aged 37 years and younger (453.5 AU/mL) and those aged 47-56 years (239.8 AU/mL; P = .005), those aged 37 years and younger versus those older than 56 years (453.5 vs 182.4 AU/mL; P < .0001), and those aged 37-47 years versus those older than 56 years (330.9 vs. 182.4 AU/mL; P = .01).
Antibody response was significantly greater for women than for men (338.5 vs. 212.6 AU/mL; P = .001).
Humoral responses were greater in persons of normal-weight BMI (18.5-24.9 kg/m2; 325.8 AU/mL) and those of underweight BMI (<18.5 kg/m2; 455.4 AU/mL), compared with persons with preobesity, defined as BMI of 25-29.9 (222.4 AU/mL), and those with obesity (BMI ≥30; 167.0 AU/mL; P < .0001). This association remained after adjustment for age (P = .003).
“Our data stresses the importance of close vaccination monitoring of obese people, considering the growing list of countries with obesity problems,” the researchers noted.
Hypertension was also associated with lower antibody titers (P = .006), but that lost statistical significance after matching for age (P = .22).
“We strongly believe that our results are extremely encouraging and useful for the scientific community,” Dr. Pellini and colleagues concluded.
The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Iwasaki is a cofounder of RIGImmune and is a member of its scientific advisory board.
This article was updated on 3/8/21.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The capacity to mount humoral immune responses to COVID-19 vaccinations may be reduced among people who are heavier, older, and male, new findings suggest.
The data pertain specifically to the mRNA vaccine, BNT162b2, developed by BioNTech and Pfizer. The study was conducted by Italian researchers and was published Feb. 26 as a preprint.
The study involved 248 health care workers who each received two doses of the vaccine. Of the participants, 99.5% developed a humoral immune response after the second dose. Those responses varied by body mass index (BMI), age, and sex.
“The findings imply that female, lean, and young people have an increased capacity to mount humoral immune responses, compared to male, overweight, and older populations,” Raul Pellini, MD, professor at the IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, and colleagues said.
“To our knowledge, this study is the first to analyze Covid-19 vaccine response in correlation to BMI,” they noted.
“Although further studies are needed, this data may have important implications to the development of vaccination strategies for COVID-19, particularly in obese people,” they wrote. If the data are confirmed by larger studies, “giving obese people an extra dose of the vaccine or a higher dose could be options to be evaluated in this population.”
Results contrast with Pfizer trials of vaccine
The BMI finding seemingly contrasts with final data from the phase 3 clinical trial of the vaccine, which were reported in a supplement to an article published Dec. 31, 2020, in the New England Journal of Medicine. In that study, vaccine efficacy did not differ by obesity status.
Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, professor of immunology at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and an investigator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., noted that, although the current Italian study showed somewhat lower levels of antibodies in people with obesity, compared with people who did not have obesity, the phase 3 trial found no difference in symptomatic infection rates.
“These results indicate that even with a slightly lower level of antibody induced in obese people, that level was sufficient to protect against symptomatic infection,” Dr. Iwasaki said in an interview.
Indeed, Dr. Pellini and colleagues pointed out that responses to vaccines against influenza, hepatitis B, and rabies are also reduced in those with obesity, compared with lean individuals.
However, they said, it was especially important to study the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in people with obesity, because obesity is a major risk factor for morbidity and mortality in COVID-19.
“The constant state of low-grade inflammation, present in overweight people, can weaken some immune responses, including those launched by T cells, which can directly kill infected cells,” the authors noted.
Findings reported in British newspapers
The findings of the Italian study were widely covered in the lay press in the United Kingdom, with headlines such as “Pfizer Vaccine May Be Less Effective in People With Obesity, Says Study” and “Pfizer Vaccine: Overweight People Might Need Bigger Dose, Italian Study Says.” In tabloid newspapers, some headlines were slightly more stigmatizing.
The reports do stress that the Italian research was published as a preprint and has not been peer reviewed, or “is yet to be scrutinized by fellow scientists.”
Most make the point that there were only 26 people with obesity among the 248 persons in the study.
“We always knew that BMI was an enormous predictor of poor immune response to vaccines, so this paper is definitely interesting, although it is based on a rather small preliminary dataset,” Danny Altmann, PhD, a professor of immunology at Imperial College London, told the Guardian.
“It confirms that having a vaccinated population isn’t synonymous with having an immune population, especially in a country with high obesity, and emphasizes the vital need for long-term immune monitoring programs,” he added.
Antibody responses differ by BMI, age, and sex
In the Italian study, the participants – 158 women and 90 men – were assigned to receive a priming BNT162b2 vaccine dose with a booster at day 21. Blood and nasopharyngeal swabs were collected at baseline and 7 days after the second vaccine dose.
After the second dose, 99.5% of participants developed a humoral immune response; one person did not respond. None tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.
Titers of SARS-CoV-2–binding antibodies were greater in younger than in older participants. There were statistically significant differences between those aged 37 years and younger (453.5 AU/mL) and those aged 47-56 years (239.8 AU/mL; P = .005), those aged 37 years and younger versus those older than 56 years (453.5 vs 182.4 AU/mL; P < .0001), and those aged 37-47 years versus those older than 56 years (330.9 vs. 182.4 AU/mL; P = .01).
Antibody response was significantly greater for women than for men (338.5 vs. 212.6 AU/mL; P = .001).
Humoral responses were greater in persons of normal-weight BMI (18.5-24.9 kg/m2; 325.8 AU/mL) and those of underweight BMI (<18.5 kg/m2; 455.4 AU/mL), compared with persons with preobesity, defined as BMI of 25-29.9 (222.4 AU/mL), and those with obesity (BMI ≥30; 167.0 AU/mL; P < .0001). This association remained after adjustment for age (P = .003).
“Our data stresses the importance of close vaccination monitoring of obese people, considering the growing list of countries with obesity problems,” the researchers noted.
Hypertension was also associated with lower antibody titers (P = .006), but that lost statistical significance after matching for age (P = .22).
“We strongly believe that our results are extremely encouraging and useful for the scientific community,” Dr. Pellini and colleagues concluded.
The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Iwasaki is a cofounder of RIGImmune and is a member of its scientific advisory board.
This article was updated on 3/8/21.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The capacity to mount humoral immune responses to COVID-19 vaccinations may be reduced among people who are heavier, older, and male, new findings suggest.
The data pertain specifically to the mRNA vaccine, BNT162b2, developed by BioNTech and Pfizer. The study was conducted by Italian researchers and was published Feb. 26 as a preprint.
The study involved 248 health care workers who each received two doses of the vaccine. Of the participants, 99.5% developed a humoral immune response after the second dose. Those responses varied by body mass index (BMI), age, and sex.
“The findings imply that female, lean, and young people have an increased capacity to mount humoral immune responses, compared to male, overweight, and older populations,” Raul Pellini, MD, professor at the IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, and colleagues said.
“To our knowledge, this study is the first to analyze Covid-19 vaccine response in correlation to BMI,” they noted.
“Although further studies are needed, this data may have important implications to the development of vaccination strategies for COVID-19, particularly in obese people,” they wrote. If the data are confirmed by larger studies, “giving obese people an extra dose of the vaccine or a higher dose could be options to be evaluated in this population.”
Results contrast with Pfizer trials of vaccine
The BMI finding seemingly contrasts with final data from the phase 3 clinical trial of the vaccine, which were reported in a supplement to an article published Dec. 31, 2020, in the New England Journal of Medicine. In that study, vaccine efficacy did not differ by obesity status.
Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, professor of immunology at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and an investigator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., noted that, although the current Italian study showed somewhat lower levels of antibodies in people with obesity, compared with people who did not have obesity, the phase 3 trial found no difference in symptomatic infection rates.
“These results indicate that even with a slightly lower level of antibody induced in obese people, that level was sufficient to protect against symptomatic infection,” Dr. Iwasaki said in an interview.
Indeed, Dr. Pellini and colleagues pointed out that responses to vaccines against influenza, hepatitis B, and rabies are also reduced in those with obesity, compared with lean individuals.
However, they said, it was especially important to study the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in people with obesity, because obesity is a major risk factor for morbidity and mortality in COVID-19.
“The constant state of low-grade inflammation, present in overweight people, can weaken some immune responses, including those launched by T cells, which can directly kill infected cells,” the authors noted.
Findings reported in British newspapers
The findings of the Italian study were widely covered in the lay press in the United Kingdom, with headlines such as “Pfizer Vaccine May Be Less Effective in People With Obesity, Says Study” and “Pfizer Vaccine: Overweight People Might Need Bigger Dose, Italian Study Says.” In tabloid newspapers, some headlines were slightly more stigmatizing.
The reports do stress that the Italian research was published as a preprint and has not been peer reviewed, or “is yet to be scrutinized by fellow scientists.”
Most make the point that there were only 26 people with obesity among the 248 persons in the study.
“We always knew that BMI was an enormous predictor of poor immune response to vaccines, so this paper is definitely interesting, although it is based on a rather small preliminary dataset,” Danny Altmann, PhD, a professor of immunology at Imperial College London, told the Guardian.
“It confirms that having a vaccinated population isn’t synonymous with having an immune population, especially in a country with high obesity, and emphasizes the vital need for long-term immune monitoring programs,” he added.
Antibody responses differ by BMI, age, and sex
In the Italian study, the participants – 158 women and 90 men – were assigned to receive a priming BNT162b2 vaccine dose with a booster at day 21. Blood and nasopharyngeal swabs were collected at baseline and 7 days after the second vaccine dose.
After the second dose, 99.5% of participants developed a humoral immune response; one person did not respond. None tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.
Titers of SARS-CoV-2–binding antibodies were greater in younger than in older participants. There were statistically significant differences between those aged 37 years and younger (453.5 AU/mL) and those aged 47-56 years (239.8 AU/mL; P = .005), those aged 37 years and younger versus those older than 56 years (453.5 vs 182.4 AU/mL; P < .0001), and those aged 37-47 years versus those older than 56 years (330.9 vs. 182.4 AU/mL; P = .01).
Antibody response was significantly greater for women than for men (338.5 vs. 212.6 AU/mL; P = .001).
Humoral responses were greater in persons of normal-weight BMI (18.5-24.9 kg/m2; 325.8 AU/mL) and those of underweight BMI (<18.5 kg/m2; 455.4 AU/mL), compared with persons with preobesity, defined as BMI of 25-29.9 (222.4 AU/mL), and those with obesity (BMI ≥30; 167.0 AU/mL; P < .0001). This association remained after adjustment for age (P = .003).
“Our data stresses the importance of close vaccination monitoring of obese people, considering the growing list of countries with obesity problems,” the researchers noted.
Hypertension was also associated with lower antibody titers (P = .006), but that lost statistical significance after matching for age (P = .22).
“We strongly believe that our results are extremely encouraging and useful for the scientific community,” Dr. Pellini and colleagues concluded.
The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Iwasaki is a cofounder of RIGImmune and is a member of its scientific advisory board.
This article was updated on 3/8/21.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
JAMA podcast on racism in medicine faces backlash
Published on Feb. 23, the episode is hosted on JAMA’s learning platform for doctors and is available for continuing medical education credits.
“No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast,” JAMA wrote in a Twitter post to promote the episode. That tweet has since been deleted.
The episode features host Ed Livingston, MD, deputy editor for clinical reviews and education at JAMA, and guest Mitchell Katz, MD, president and CEO for NYC Health + Hospitals and deputy editor for JAMA Internal Medicine. Dr. Livingston approaches the episode as “structural racism for skeptics,” and Dr. Katz tries to explain how structural racism deepens health disparities and what health systems can do about it.
“Many physicians are skeptical of structural racism, the idea that economic, educational, and other societal systems preferentially disadvantage Black Americans and other communities of color,” the episode description says.
In the podcast, Dr. Livingston and Dr. Katz speak about health care disparities and racial inequality. Dr. Livingston, who says he “didn’t understand the concept” going into the episode, suggests that racism was made illegal in the 1960s and that the discussion of “structural racism” should shift away from the term “racism” and focus on socioeconomic status instead.
“What you’re talking about isn’t so much racism ... it isn’t their race, it isn’t their color, it’s their socioeconomic status,” Dr. Livingston says. “Is that a fair statement?”
But Dr. Katz says that “acknowledging structural racism can be helpful to us. Structural racism refers to a system in which policies or practices or how we look at people perpetuates racial inequality.”
Dr. Katz points to the creation of a hospital in San Francisco in the 1880s to treat patients of Chinese ethnicity separately. Outside of health care, he talks about environmental racism between neighborhoods with inequalities in hospitals, schools, and social services.
“All of those things have an impact on that minority person,” Dr. Katz says. “The big thing we can all do is move away from trying to interrogate each other’s opinions and move to a place where we are looking at the policies of our institutions and making sure that they promote equality.”
Dr. Livingston concludes the episode by reemphasizing that “racism” should be taken out of the conversation and it should instead focus on the “structural” aspect of socioeconomics.
“Minorities ... aren’t [in those neighborhoods] because they’re not allowed to buy houses or they can’t get a job because they’re Black or Hispanic. That would be illegal,” Dr. Livingston says. “But disproportionality does exist.”
Efforts to reach Dr. Livingston were unsuccessful. Dr. Katz distanced himself from Dr. Livingston in a statement released on March 4.
“Systemic and interpersonal racism both still exist in our country — they must be rooted out. I do not share the JAMA host’s belief of doing away with the word ‘racism’ will help us be more successful in ending inequities that exists across racial and ethnic lines,” Dr. Katz said. “Further, I believe that we will only produce an equitable society when social and political structures do not continue to produce and perpetuate disparate results based on social race and ethnicity.”
Dr. Katz reiterated that both interpersonal and structural racism continue to exist in the United States, “and it is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it.”
He also recommended JAMA use this controversy “as a learning opportunity for continued dialogue and create another podcast series as an open conversation that invites diverse experts in the field to have an open discussion about structural racism in healthcare.”
The podcast and JAMA’s tweet promoting it were widely criticized on Twitter. In interviews with WebMD, many doctors expressed disbelief that such a respected journal would lend its name to this podcast episode.
B. Bobby Chiong, MD, a radiologist in New York, said although JAMA’s effort to engage with its audience about racism is laudable, it missed the mark.
“I think the backlash comes from how they tried to make a podcast about the subject and somehow made themselves an example of unconscious bias and unfamiliarity with just how embedded in our system is structural racism,” he said.
Perhaps the podcast’s worst offense was its failure to address the painful history of racial bias in this country that still permeates the medical community, says Tamara Saint-Surin, MD, assistant professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
“For physicians in leadership to have the belief that structural racism does not exist in medicine, they don’t really appreciate what affects their patients and what their patients were dealing with,” Dr. Saint-Surin said in an interview. “It was a very harmful podcast and goes to show we still have so much work to do.”
Along with a flawed premise, she says, the podcast was not nearly long enough to address such a nuanced issue. And Dr. Livingston focused on interpersonal racism rather than structural racism, she said, failing to address widespread problems such as higher rates of asthma among Black populations living in areas with poor air quality.
The number of Black doctors remains low and the lack of representation adds to an environment already rife with racism, according to many medical professionals.
Shirlene Obuobi, MD, an internal medicine doctor in Chicago, said JAMA failed to live up to its own standards by publishing material that lacked research and expertise.
“I can’t submit a clinical trial to JAMA without them combing through methods with a fine-tooth comb,” Dr. Obuobi said. “They didn’t uphold the standards they normally apply to anyone else.”
Both the editor of JAMA and the head of the American Medical Association issued statements criticizing the episode and the tweet that promoted it.
JAMA Editor-in-Chief Howard Bauchner, MD, said, “The language of the tweet, and some portions of the podcast, do not reflect my commitment as editorial leader of JAMA and JAMA Network to call out and discuss the adverse effects of injustice, inequity, and racism in society and medicine as JAMA has done for many years.” He said JAMA will schedule a future podcast to address the concerns raised about the recent episode.
AMA CEO James L. Madara, MD, said, “The AMA’s House of Delegates passed policy stating that racism is structural, systemic, cultural, and interpersonal, and we are deeply disturbed – and angered – by a recent JAMA podcast that questioned the existence of structural racism and the affiliated tweet that promoted the podcast and stated ‘no physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care?’ ”
He continued: “JAMA has editorial independence from AMA, but this tweet and podcast are inconsistent with the policies and views of AMA, and I’m concerned about and acknowledge the harms they have caused. Structural racism in health care and our society exists, and it is incumbent on all of us to fix it.”
This article was updated 3/5/21.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Published on Feb. 23, the episode is hosted on JAMA’s learning platform for doctors and is available for continuing medical education credits.
“No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast,” JAMA wrote in a Twitter post to promote the episode. That tweet has since been deleted.
The episode features host Ed Livingston, MD, deputy editor for clinical reviews and education at JAMA, and guest Mitchell Katz, MD, president and CEO for NYC Health + Hospitals and deputy editor for JAMA Internal Medicine. Dr. Livingston approaches the episode as “structural racism for skeptics,” and Dr. Katz tries to explain how structural racism deepens health disparities and what health systems can do about it.
“Many physicians are skeptical of structural racism, the idea that economic, educational, and other societal systems preferentially disadvantage Black Americans and other communities of color,” the episode description says.
In the podcast, Dr. Livingston and Dr. Katz speak about health care disparities and racial inequality. Dr. Livingston, who says he “didn’t understand the concept” going into the episode, suggests that racism was made illegal in the 1960s and that the discussion of “structural racism” should shift away from the term “racism” and focus on socioeconomic status instead.
“What you’re talking about isn’t so much racism ... it isn’t their race, it isn’t their color, it’s their socioeconomic status,” Dr. Livingston says. “Is that a fair statement?”
But Dr. Katz says that “acknowledging structural racism can be helpful to us. Structural racism refers to a system in which policies or practices or how we look at people perpetuates racial inequality.”
Dr. Katz points to the creation of a hospital in San Francisco in the 1880s to treat patients of Chinese ethnicity separately. Outside of health care, he talks about environmental racism between neighborhoods with inequalities in hospitals, schools, and social services.
“All of those things have an impact on that minority person,” Dr. Katz says. “The big thing we can all do is move away from trying to interrogate each other’s opinions and move to a place where we are looking at the policies of our institutions and making sure that they promote equality.”
Dr. Livingston concludes the episode by reemphasizing that “racism” should be taken out of the conversation and it should instead focus on the “structural” aspect of socioeconomics.
“Minorities ... aren’t [in those neighborhoods] because they’re not allowed to buy houses or they can’t get a job because they’re Black or Hispanic. That would be illegal,” Dr. Livingston says. “But disproportionality does exist.”
Efforts to reach Dr. Livingston were unsuccessful. Dr. Katz distanced himself from Dr. Livingston in a statement released on March 4.
“Systemic and interpersonal racism both still exist in our country — they must be rooted out. I do not share the JAMA host’s belief of doing away with the word ‘racism’ will help us be more successful in ending inequities that exists across racial and ethnic lines,” Dr. Katz said. “Further, I believe that we will only produce an equitable society when social and political structures do not continue to produce and perpetuate disparate results based on social race and ethnicity.”
Dr. Katz reiterated that both interpersonal and structural racism continue to exist in the United States, “and it is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it.”
He also recommended JAMA use this controversy “as a learning opportunity for continued dialogue and create another podcast series as an open conversation that invites diverse experts in the field to have an open discussion about structural racism in healthcare.”
The podcast and JAMA’s tweet promoting it were widely criticized on Twitter. In interviews with WebMD, many doctors expressed disbelief that such a respected journal would lend its name to this podcast episode.
B. Bobby Chiong, MD, a radiologist in New York, said although JAMA’s effort to engage with its audience about racism is laudable, it missed the mark.
“I think the backlash comes from how they tried to make a podcast about the subject and somehow made themselves an example of unconscious bias and unfamiliarity with just how embedded in our system is structural racism,” he said.
Perhaps the podcast’s worst offense was its failure to address the painful history of racial bias in this country that still permeates the medical community, says Tamara Saint-Surin, MD, assistant professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
“For physicians in leadership to have the belief that structural racism does not exist in medicine, they don’t really appreciate what affects their patients and what their patients were dealing with,” Dr. Saint-Surin said in an interview. “It was a very harmful podcast and goes to show we still have so much work to do.”
Along with a flawed premise, she says, the podcast was not nearly long enough to address such a nuanced issue. And Dr. Livingston focused on interpersonal racism rather than structural racism, she said, failing to address widespread problems such as higher rates of asthma among Black populations living in areas with poor air quality.
The number of Black doctors remains low and the lack of representation adds to an environment already rife with racism, according to many medical professionals.
Shirlene Obuobi, MD, an internal medicine doctor in Chicago, said JAMA failed to live up to its own standards by publishing material that lacked research and expertise.
“I can’t submit a clinical trial to JAMA without them combing through methods with a fine-tooth comb,” Dr. Obuobi said. “They didn’t uphold the standards they normally apply to anyone else.”
Both the editor of JAMA and the head of the American Medical Association issued statements criticizing the episode and the tweet that promoted it.
JAMA Editor-in-Chief Howard Bauchner, MD, said, “The language of the tweet, and some portions of the podcast, do not reflect my commitment as editorial leader of JAMA and JAMA Network to call out and discuss the adverse effects of injustice, inequity, and racism in society and medicine as JAMA has done for many years.” He said JAMA will schedule a future podcast to address the concerns raised about the recent episode.
AMA CEO James L. Madara, MD, said, “The AMA’s House of Delegates passed policy stating that racism is structural, systemic, cultural, and interpersonal, and we are deeply disturbed – and angered – by a recent JAMA podcast that questioned the existence of structural racism and the affiliated tweet that promoted the podcast and stated ‘no physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care?’ ”
He continued: “JAMA has editorial independence from AMA, but this tweet and podcast are inconsistent with the policies and views of AMA, and I’m concerned about and acknowledge the harms they have caused. Structural racism in health care and our society exists, and it is incumbent on all of us to fix it.”
This article was updated 3/5/21.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Published on Feb. 23, the episode is hosted on JAMA’s learning platform for doctors and is available for continuing medical education credits.
“No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast,” JAMA wrote in a Twitter post to promote the episode. That tweet has since been deleted.
The episode features host Ed Livingston, MD, deputy editor for clinical reviews and education at JAMA, and guest Mitchell Katz, MD, president and CEO for NYC Health + Hospitals and deputy editor for JAMA Internal Medicine. Dr. Livingston approaches the episode as “structural racism for skeptics,” and Dr. Katz tries to explain how structural racism deepens health disparities and what health systems can do about it.
“Many physicians are skeptical of structural racism, the idea that economic, educational, and other societal systems preferentially disadvantage Black Americans and other communities of color,” the episode description says.
In the podcast, Dr. Livingston and Dr. Katz speak about health care disparities and racial inequality. Dr. Livingston, who says he “didn’t understand the concept” going into the episode, suggests that racism was made illegal in the 1960s and that the discussion of “structural racism” should shift away from the term “racism” and focus on socioeconomic status instead.
“What you’re talking about isn’t so much racism ... it isn’t their race, it isn’t their color, it’s their socioeconomic status,” Dr. Livingston says. “Is that a fair statement?”
But Dr. Katz says that “acknowledging structural racism can be helpful to us. Structural racism refers to a system in which policies or practices or how we look at people perpetuates racial inequality.”
Dr. Katz points to the creation of a hospital in San Francisco in the 1880s to treat patients of Chinese ethnicity separately. Outside of health care, he talks about environmental racism between neighborhoods with inequalities in hospitals, schools, and social services.
“All of those things have an impact on that minority person,” Dr. Katz says. “The big thing we can all do is move away from trying to interrogate each other’s opinions and move to a place where we are looking at the policies of our institutions and making sure that they promote equality.”
Dr. Livingston concludes the episode by reemphasizing that “racism” should be taken out of the conversation and it should instead focus on the “structural” aspect of socioeconomics.
“Minorities ... aren’t [in those neighborhoods] because they’re not allowed to buy houses or they can’t get a job because they’re Black or Hispanic. That would be illegal,” Dr. Livingston says. “But disproportionality does exist.”
Efforts to reach Dr. Livingston were unsuccessful. Dr. Katz distanced himself from Dr. Livingston in a statement released on March 4.
“Systemic and interpersonal racism both still exist in our country — they must be rooted out. I do not share the JAMA host’s belief of doing away with the word ‘racism’ will help us be more successful in ending inequities that exists across racial and ethnic lines,” Dr. Katz said. “Further, I believe that we will only produce an equitable society when social and political structures do not continue to produce and perpetuate disparate results based on social race and ethnicity.”
Dr. Katz reiterated that both interpersonal and structural racism continue to exist in the United States, “and it is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it.”
He also recommended JAMA use this controversy “as a learning opportunity for continued dialogue and create another podcast series as an open conversation that invites diverse experts in the field to have an open discussion about structural racism in healthcare.”
The podcast and JAMA’s tweet promoting it were widely criticized on Twitter. In interviews with WebMD, many doctors expressed disbelief that such a respected journal would lend its name to this podcast episode.
B. Bobby Chiong, MD, a radiologist in New York, said although JAMA’s effort to engage with its audience about racism is laudable, it missed the mark.
“I think the backlash comes from how they tried to make a podcast about the subject and somehow made themselves an example of unconscious bias and unfamiliarity with just how embedded in our system is structural racism,” he said.
Perhaps the podcast’s worst offense was its failure to address the painful history of racial bias in this country that still permeates the medical community, says Tamara Saint-Surin, MD, assistant professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
“For physicians in leadership to have the belief that structural racism does not exist in medicine, they don’t really appreciate what affects their patients and what their patients were dealing with,” Dr. Saint-Surin said in an interview. “It was a very harmful podcast and goes to show we still have so much work to do.”
Along with a flawed premise, she says, the podcast was not nearly long enough to address such a nuanced issue. And Dr. Livingston focused on interpersonal racism rather than structural racism, she said, failing to address widespread problems such as higher rates of asthma among Black populations living in areas with poor air quality.
The number of Black doctors remains low and the lack of representation adds to an environment already rife with racism, according to many medical professionals.
Shirlene Obuobi, MD, an internal medicine doctor in Chicago, said JAMA failed to live up to its own standards by publishing material that lacked research and expertise.
“I can’t submit a clinical trial to JAMA without them combing through methods with a fine-tooth comb,” Dr. Obuobi said. “They didn’t uphold the standards they normally apply to anyone else.”
Both the editor of JAMA and the head of the American Medical Association issued statements criticizing the episode and the tweet that promoted it.
JAMA Editor-in-Chief Howard Bauchner, MD, said, “The language of the tweet, and some portions of the podcast, do not reflect my commitment as editorial leader of JAMA and JAMA Network to call out and discuss the adverse effects of injustice, inequity, and racism in society and medicine as JAMA has done for many years.” He said JAMA will schedule a future podcast to address the concerns raised about the recent episode.
AMA CEO James L. Madara, MD, said, “The AMA’s House of Delegates passed policy stating that racism is structural, systemic, cultural, and interpersonal, and we are deeply disturbed – and angered – by a recent JAMA podcast that questioned the existence of structural racism and the affiliated tweet that promoted the podcast and stated ‘no physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care?’ ”
He continued: “JAMA has editorial independence from AMA, but this tweet and podcast are inconsistent with the policies and views of AMA, and I’m concerned about and acknowledge the harms they have caused. Structural racism in health care and our society exists, and it is incumbent on all of us to fix it.”
This article was updated 3/5/21.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Docs become dog groomers and warehouse workers after COVID-19 work loss
One of the biggest conundrums of the COVID-19 pandemic has been the simultaneous panic-hiring of medical professionals in hot spots and significant downsizing of staff across the country. From huge hospital systems to private practices, the stoppage of breast reductions and knee replacements, not to mention the drops in motor vehicle accidents and bar fights, have quieted operating rooms and emergency departments and put doctors’ jobs on the chopping block. A widely cited survey suggests that 21% of doctors have had a work reduction due to COVID-19.
For many American doctors, this is their first extended period of unemployment. Unlike engineers or those with MBAs who might see their fortunes rise and fall with the whims of recessions and boom times, physicians are not exactly accustomed to being laid off. However, doctors were already smarting for years due to falling salaries and decreased autonomy, punctuated by endless clicks on electronic medical records software.
Stephanie Eschenbach Morgan, MD, a breast radiologist in North Carolina, trained for 10 years after college before earning a true physician’s salary.
“Being furloughed was awful. Initially, it was only going to be 2 weeks, and then it turned into 2 months with no pay,” she reflected.
Dr. Eschenbach Morgan and her surgeon husband, who lost a full quarter’s salary, had to ask for grace periods on their credit card and mortgage payments because they had paid a large tax bill right before the pandemic began. “We couldn’t get any stimulus help, so that added insult to injury,” she said.
With her time spent waiting in a holding pattern, Dr. Eschenbach Morgan homeschooled her two young children and started putting a home gym together. She went on a home organizing spree, started a garden, and, perhaps most impressively, caught up with 5 years of photo albums.
A bonus she noted: “I didn’t set an alarm for 2 months.”
Shella Farooki, MD, a radiologist in California, was also focused on homeschooling, itself a demanding job, and veered toward retirement. When one of her work contracts furloughed her (“at one point, I made $30K a month for [their business]”), she started saving money at home, teaching the kids, and applied for a Paycheck Protection Program loan. Her husband, a hospitalist, had had his shifts cut. Dr. Farooki tried a radiology artificial intelligence firm but backed out when she was asked to read 9,200 studies for them for $2,000 per month.
Now, she thinks about leaving medicine “every day.”
Some doctors are questioning whether they should be in medicine in the first place. Family medicine physician Jonathan Polak, MD, faced with his own pink slip, turned to pink T-shirts instead. His girlfriend manages an outlet of the teen fashion retailer Justice. Dr. Polak, who finished his residency just 2 years ago, didn’t hesitate to take a $10-an-hour gig as a stock doc, once even finding himself delivering a shelving unit from the shuttering store to a physician fleeing the city for rural New Hampshire to “escape.”
There’s no escape for him – yet. Saddled with “astronomical” student loans, he had considered grocery store work as well. Dr. Polak knows he can’t work part time or go into teaching long term, as he might like.
Even so, he’s doing everything he can to not be in patient care for the long haul – it’s just not what he thought it would be.
“The culture of medicine, bureaucracy, endless paperwork and charting, and threat of litigation sucks a lot of the joy out of it to the point that I don’t see myself doing it forever when imagining myself 5-10 years into it.”
Still, he recently took an 18-month hospital contract that will force him to move to Florida, but he’s also been turning himself into a veritable Renaissance man; composing music, training for an ultramarathon, studying the latest medical findings, roadtripping, and launching a podcast about dog grooming with a master groomer. “We found parallels between medicine and dog grooming,” he says, somewhat convincingly.
Also working the ruff life is Jen Tserng, MD, a former forensic pathologist who landed on news websites in recent years for becoming a professional dogwalker and housesitter without a permanent home. Dr. Tserng knows doctors were restless and unhappy before COVID-19, their thoughts wandering where the grass might be greener.
As her profile grew, she found her inbox gathering messages from disaffected medical minions: students with a fear of failing or staring down residency application season and employed doctors sick of the constant grind. As she recounted those de facto life coach conversations (“What do you really enjoy?” “Do you really like dogs?”) by phone from New York, she said matter-of-factly, “They don’t call because of COVID. They call because they hate their lives.”
Michelle Mudge-Riley, MD, a physician in Texas, has been seeing this shift for some time as well. She recently held a virtual version of her Physicians Helping Physicians conference, where doctors hear from their peers working successfully in fields like pharmaceuticals and real estate investing.
When COVID-19 hit, Dr. Mudge-Riley quickly pivoted to a virtual platform, where the MDs and DOs huddled in breakout rooms having honest chats about their fears and tentative hopes about their new careers.
“There has been increased interest in nonclinical exploration into full- and part-time careers, as well as side hustles, since COVID began,” she said. “Many physicians have had their hours or pay cut, and some have been laid off. Others are furloughed. Some just want out of an environment where they don’t feel safe.”
An ear, nose, and throat surgeon, Maansi Doshi, MD, from central California, didn’t feel safe – so she left. She had returned from India sick with a mystery virus right as the pandemic began (she said her COVID-19 tests were all negative) and was waiting to get well enough to go back to her private practice job. However, she said she clashed with Trump-supporting colleagues she feared might not be taking the pandemic seriously enough.
Finally getting over a relapse of her mystery virus, Dr. Doshi emailed her resignation in May. Her husband, family practice doctor Mark Mangiapane, MD, gave his job notice weeks later in solidarity because he worked in the same building. Together, they have embraced gardening, a Peloton splurge, and learning business skills to open private practices – solo primary care for him; ENT with a focus on her favorite surgery, rhinoplasty, for her.
Dr. Mangiapane had considered editing medical brochures and also tried to apply for a job as a county public health officer in rural California, but he received his own shock when he learned the county intended to open schools in the midst of the pandemic despite advisement to the contrary by the former health officer.
He retreated from job listings altogether after hearing his would-be peers were getting death threats – targeting their children.
Both doctors felt COVID-19 pushed them beyond their comfort zones. “If COVID hadn’t happened, I would be working. ... Be ‘owned.’ In a weird way, COVID made me more independent and take a risk with my career.”
Obstetrician Kwandaa Roberts, MD, certainly did; she took a budding interest in decorating dollhouses straight to Instagram and national news fame, and she is now a TV-show expert on “Sell This House.”
Like Dr. Doshi and Dr. Mangiapane, Dr. Polak wants to be more in control of his future – even if selling T-shirts at a mall means a certain loss of status along the way.
“Aside from my passion to learn and to have that connection with people, I went into medicine ... because of the job security I thought existed,” he said. “I would say that my getting furloughed has changed my view of the United States in a dramatic way. I do not feel as confident in the U.S. economy and general way of life as I did a year ago. And I am taking a number of steps to put myself in a more fluid, adaptable position in case another crisis like this occurs or if the current state of things worsens.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
One of the biggest conundrums of the COVID-19 pandemic has been the simultaneous panic-hiring of medical professionals in hot spots and significant downsizing of staff across the country. From huge hospital systems to private practices, the stoppage of breast reductions and knee replacements, not to mention the drops in motor vehicle accidents and bar fights, have quieted operating rooms and emergency departments and put doctors’ jobs on the chopping block. A widely cited survey suggests that 21% of doctors have had a work reduction due to COVID-19.
For many American doctors, this is their first extended period of unemployment. Unlike engineers or those with MBAs who might see their fortunes rise and fall with the whims of recessions and boom times, physicians are not exactly accustomed to being laid off. However, doctors were already smarting for years due to falling salaries and decreased autonomy, punctuated by endless clicks on electronic medical records software.
Stephanie Eschenbach Morgan, MD, a breast radiologist in North Carolina, trained for 10 years after college before earning a true physician’s salary.
“Being furloughed was awful. Initially, it was only going to be 2 weeks, and then it turned into 2 months with no pay,” she reflected.
Dr. Eschenbach Morgan and her surgeon husband, who lost a full quarter’s salary, had to ask for grace periods on their credit card and mortgage payments because they had paid a large tax bill right before the pandemic began. “We couldn’t get any stimulus help, so that added insult to injury,” she said.
With her time spent waiting in a holding pattern, Dr. Eschenbach Morgan homeschooled her two young children and started putting a home gym together. She went on a home organizing spree, started a garden, and, perhaps most impressively, caught up with 5 years of photo albums.
A bonus she noted: “I didn’t set an alarm for 2 months.”
Shella Farooki, MD, a radiologist in California, was also focused on homeschooling, itself a demanding job, and veered toward retirement. When one of her work contracts furloughed her (“at one point, I made $30K a month for [their business]”), she started saving money at home, teaching the kids, and applied for a Paycheck Protection Program loan. Her husband, a hospitalist, had had his shifts cut. Dr. Farooki tried a radiology artificial intelligence firm but backed out when she was asked to read 9,200 studies for them for $2,000 per month.
Now, she thinks about leaving medicine “every day.”
Some doctors are questioning whether they should be in medicine in the first place. Family medicine physician Jonathan Polak, MD, faced with his own pink slip, turned to pink T-shirts instead. His girlfriend manages an outlet of the teen fashion retailer Justice. Dr. Polak, who finished his residency just 2 years ago, didn’t hesitate to take a $10-an-hour gig as a stock doc, once even finding himself delivering a shelving unit from the shuttering store to a physician fleeing the city for rural New Hampshire to “escape.”
There’s no escape for him – yet. Saddled with “astronomical” student loans, he had considered grocery store work as well. Dr. Polak knows he can’t work part time or go into teaching long term, as he might like.
Even so, he’s doing everything he can to not be in patient care for the long haul – it’s just not what he thought it would be.
“The culture of medicine, bureaucracy, endless paperwork and charting, and threat of litigation sucks a lot of the joy out of it to the point that I don’t see myself doing it forever when imagining myself 5-10 years into it.”
Still, he recently took an 18-month hospital contract that will force him to move to Florida, but he’s also been turning himself into a veritable Renaissance man; composing music, training for an ultramarathon, studying the latest medical findings, roadtripping, and launching a podcast about dog grooming with a master groomer. “We found parallels between medicine and dog grooming,” he says, somewhat convincingly.
Also working the ruff life is Jen Tserng, MD, a former forensic pathologist who landed on news websites in recent years for becoming a professional dogwalker and housesitter without a permanent home. Dr. Tserng knows doctors were restless and unhappy before COVID-19, their thoughts wandering where the grass might be greener.
As her profile grew, she found her inbox gathering messages from disaffected medical minions: students with a fear of failing or staring down residency application season and employed doctors sick of the constant grind. As she recounted those de facto life coach conversations (“What do you really enjoy?” “Do you really like dogs?”) by phone from New York, she said matter-of-factly, “They don’t call because of COVID. They call because they hate their lives.”
Michelle Mudge-Riley, MD, a physician in Texas, has been seeing this shift for some time as well. She recently held a virtual version of her Physicians Helping Physicians conference, where doctors hear from their peers working successfully in fields like pharmaceuticals and real estate investing.
When COVID-19 hit, Dr. Mudge-Riley quickly pivoted to a virtual platform, where the MDs and DOs huddled in breakout rooms having honest chats about their fears and tentative hopes about their new careers.
“There has been increased interest in nonclinical exploration into full- and part-time careers, as well as side hustles, since COVID began,” she said. “Many physicians have had their hours or pay cut, and some have been laid off. Others are furloughed. Some just want out of an environment where they don’t feel safe.”
An ear, nose, and throat surgeon, Maansi Doshi, MD, from central California, didn’t feel safe – so she left. She had returned from India sick with a mystery virus right as the pandemic began (she said her COVID-19 tests were all negative) and was waiting to get well enough to go back to her private practice job. However, she said she clashed with Trump-supporting colleagues she feared might not be taking the pandemic seriously enough.
Finally getting over a relapse of her mystery virus, Dr. Doshi emailed her resignation in May. Her husband, family practice doctor Mark Mangiapane, MD, gave his job notice weeks later in solidarity because he worked in the same building. Together, they have embraced gardening, a Peloton splurge, and learning business skills to open private practices – solo primary care for him; ENT with a focus on her favorite surgery, rhinoplasty, for her.
Dr. Mangiapane had considered editing medical brochures and also tried to apply for a job as a county public health officer in rural California, but he received his own shock when he learned the county intended to open schools in the midst of the pandemic despite advisement to the contrary by the former health officer.
He retreated from job listings altogether after hearing his would-be peers were getting death threats – targeting their children.
Both doctors felt COVID-19 pushed them beyond their comfort zones. “If COVID hadn’t happened, I would be working. ... Be ‘owned.’ In a weird way, COVID made me more independent and take a risk with my career.”
Obstetrician Kwandaa Roberts, MD, certainly did; she took a budding interest in decorating dollhouses straight to Instagram and national news fame, and she is now a TV-show expert on “Sell This House.”
Like Dr. Doshi and Dr. Mangiapane, Dr. Polak wants to be more in control of his future – even if selling T-shirts at a mall means a certain loss of status along the way.
“Aside from my passion to learn and to have that connection with people, I went into medicine ... because of the job security I thought existed,” he said. “I would say that my getting furloughed has changed my view of the United States in a dramatic way. I do not feel as confident in the U.S. economy and general way of life as I did a year ago. And I am taking a number of steps to put myself in a more fluid, adaptable position in case another crisis like this occurs or if the current state of things worsens.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
One of the biggest conundrums of the COVID-19 pandemic has been the simultaneous panic-hiring of medical professionals in hot spots and significant downsizing of staff across the country. From huge hospital systems to private practices, the stoppage of breast reductions and knee replacements, not to mention the drops in motor vehicle accidents and bar fights, have quieted operating rooms and emergency departments and put doctors’ jobs on the chopping block. A widely cited survey suggests that 21% of doctors have had a work reduction due to COVID-19.
For many American doctors, this is their first extended period of unemployment. Unlike engineers or those with MBAs who might see their fortunes rise and fall with the whims of recessions and boom times, physicians are not exactly accustomed to being laid off. However, doctors were already smarting for years due to falling salaries and decreased autonomy, punctuated by endless clicks on electronic medical records software.
Stephanie Eschenbach Morgan, MD, a breast radiologist in North Carolina, trained for 10 years after college before earning a true physician’s salary.
“Being furloughed was awful. Initially, it was only going to be 2 weeks, and then it turned into 2 months with no pay,” she reflected.
Dr. Eschenbach Morgan and her surgeon husband, who lost a full quarter’s salary, had to ask for grace periods on their credit card and mortgage payments because they had paid a large tax bill right before the pandemic began. “We couldn’t get any stimulus help, so that added insult to injury,” she said.
With her time spent waiting in a holding pattern, Dr. Eschenbach Morgan homeschooled her two young children and started putting a home gym together. She went on a home organizing spree, started a garden, and, perhaps most impressively, caught up with 5 years of photo albums.
A bonus she noted: “I didn’t set an alarm for 2 months.”
Shella Farooki, MD, a radiologist in California, was also focused on homeschooling, itself a demanding job, and veered toward retirement. When one of her work contracts furloughed her (“at one point, I made $30K a month for [their business]”), she started saving money at home, teaching the kids, and applied for a Paycheck Protection Program loan. Her husband, a hospitalist, had had his shifts cut. Dr. Farooki tried a radiology artificial intelligence firm but backed out when she was asked to read 9,200 studies for them for $2,000 per month.
Now, she thinks about leaving medicine “every day.”
Some doctors are questioning whether they should be in medicine in the first place. Family medicine physician Jonathan Polak, MD, faced with his own pink slip, turned to pink T-shirts instead. His girlfriend manages an outlet of the teen fashion retailer Justice. Dr. Polak, who finished his residency just 2 years ago, didn’t hesitate to take a $10-an-hour gig as a stock doc, once even finding himself delivering a shelving unit from the shuttering store to a physician fleeing the city for rural New Hampshire to “escape.”
There’s no escape for him – yet. Saddled with “astronomical” student loans, he had considered grocery store work as well. Dr. Polak knows he can’t work part time or go into teaching long term, as he might like.
Even so, he’s doing everything he can to not be in patient care for the long haul – it’s just not what he thought it would be.
“The culture of medicine, bureaucracy, endless paperwork and charting, and threat of litigation sucks a lot of the joy out of it to the point that I don’t see myself doing it forever when imagining myself 5-10 years into it.”
Still, he recently took an 18-month hospital contract that will force him to move to Florida, but he’s also been turning himself into a veritable Renaissance man; composing music, training for an ultramarathon, studying the latest medical findings, roadtripping, and launching a podcast about dog grooming with a master groomer. “We found parallels between medicine and dog grooming,” he says, somewhat convincingly.
Also working the ruff life is Jen Tserng, MD, a former forensic pathologist who landed on news websites in recent years for becoming a professional dogwalker and housesitter without a permanent home. Dr. Tserng knows doctors were restless and unhappy before COVID-19, their thoughts wandering where the grass might be greener.
As her profile grew, she found her inbox gathering messages from disaffected medical minions: students with a fear of failing or staring down residency application season and employed doctors sick of the constant grind. As she recounted those de facto life coach conversations (“What do you really enjoy?” “Do you really like dogs?”) by phone from New York, she said matter-of-factly, “They don’t call because of COVID. They call because they hate their lives.”
Michelle Mudge-Riley, MD, a physician in Texas, has been seeing this shift for some time as well. She recently held a virtual version of her Physicians Helping Physicians conference, where doctors hear from their peers working successfully in fields like pharmaceuticals and real estate investing.
When COVID-19 hit, Dr. Mudge-Riley quickly pivoted to a virtual platform, where the MDs and DOs huddled in breakout rooms having honest chats about their fears and tentative hopes about their new careers.
“There has been increased interest in nonclinical exploration into full- and part-time careers, as well as side hustles, since COVID began,” she said. “Many physicians have had their hours or pay cut, and some have been laid off. Others are furloughed. Some just want out of an environment where they don’t feel safe.”
An ear, nose, and throat surgeon, Maansi Doshi, MD, from central California, didn’t feel safe – so she left. She had returned from India sick with a mystery virus right as the pandemic began (she said her COVID-19 tests were all negative) and was waiting to get well enough to go back to her private practice job. However, she said she clashed with Trump-supporting colleagues she feared might not be taking the pandemic seriously enough.
Finally getting over a relapse of her mystery virus, Dr. Doshi emailed her resignation in May. Her husband, family practice doctor Mark Mangiapane, MD, gave his job notice weeks later in solidarity because he worked in the same building. Together, they have embraced gardening, a Peloton splurge, and learning business skills to open private practices – solo primary care for him; ENT with a focus on her favorite surgery, rhinoplasty, for her.
Dr. Mangiapane had considered editing medical brochures and also tried to apply for a job as a county public health officer in rural California, but he received his own shock when he learned the county intended to open schools in the midst of the pandemic despite advisement to the contrary by the former health officer.
He retreated from job listings altogether after hearing his would-be peers were getting death threats – targeting their children.
Both doctors felt COVID-19 pushed them beyond their comfort zones. “If COVID hadn’t happened, I would be working. ... Be ‘owned.’ In a weird way, COVID made me more independent and take a risk with my career.”
Obstetrician Kwandaa Roberts, MD, certainly did; she took a budding interest in decorating dollhouses straight to Instagram and national news fame, and she is now a TV-show expert on “Sell This House.”
Like Dr. Doshi and Dr. Mangiapane, Dr. Polak wants to be more in control of his future – even if selling T-shirts at a mall means a certain loss of status along the way.
“Aside from my passion to learn and to have that connection with people, I went into medicine ... because of the job security I thought existed,” he said. “I would say that my getting furloughed has changed my view of the United States in a dramatic way. I do not feel as confident in the U.S. economy and general way of life as I did a year ago. And I am taking a number of steps to put myself in a more fluid, adaptable position in case another crisis like this occurs or if the current state of things worsens.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.