MDedge Emergency Medicine

Pregnant women who get infected with SARS-CoV-2 in their third trimester are almost three times as likely to have a preterm birth, while infection after 34 weeks’ gestation raises this risk sevenfold, based on the largest matched population-based cohort study published to date.

These findings support previous studies, underscoring the need for pregnant women and their families to take preventive measures against infection, lead author Noga Fallach, MA, of the Kahn-Sagol-Maccabi Research and Innovation Center, Tel Aviv, and colleagues reported.

ArtMarie/E+/Getty Images

Past research has suggested that COVID-19 may cause low birth weights and preterm birth in pregnant women, but those studies didn’t report outcomes for each trimester, the investigators wrote in PLoS ONE, noting that “timing of viral infection during fetal development may affect birth and other health outcomes.”

To address this knowledge gap, the investigators looked back at data from 2,703 pregnant women in Israel who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 from Feb. 21, 2020, to July 2, 2021. Pregnancy outcomes in these women were compared with outcomes in an equal number of uninfected pregnant women. Vaccination status was not reported.

Comparing the two groups showed that catching COVID-19 in the third trimester was linked with nearly triple the risk of preterm birth (odds ratio, 2.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.63-4.67), and more than quadruple the risk if COVID-19 symptoms were present (OR, 4.28; 95% CI, 1.94-9.41). Women who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 after 34 weeks’ gestation were seven times more likely than uninfected women to deliver early (OR, 7.10; 95% CI, 2.44-20.61).

Pregnant women who caught COVID-19 in the first two trimesters were not significantly more likely to have a preterm birth. Infection was not associated with abnormally low birth rates, or pregnancy loss, in any trimester.

Tal Patalon, MD, coauthor and head of the Kahn-Sagol-Maccabi Research and Innovation Center, focused on these more optimistic findings in an interview.

“The results are encouraging, and reassuring that COVID-19 infection during pregnancy is not associated with any type of pregnancy loss,” Dr. Patalon said.

She also pointed out that the women in the study were infected with SARS-CoV-2 variants that are no longer common.

“It should be remembered that the research group tested the COVID-19 pre-Delta variants, and does not refer to the dominant variant today, which is Omicron,” Dr. Patalon said.

Still, the investigators concluded that the “results underline the importance of preventive measures taken against SARS-CoV-2 infection among pregnant women and their families.”

Sonja A. Rasmussen, MD, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, said that the issue with out-of-date variants in published research has been one of the “real challenges” in studying the ever-evolving COVID-19 pandemic; however, it’s not a good enough reason to dismiss this study.

“I think at this point, we need to assume that it applies to Omicron too,” Dr. Rasmussen said, noting that other respiratory viruses, like influenza, have also been shown to increase the risk of preterm birth when contracted in late pregnancy.

While the present findings highlight the risk of infection in the third trimester, Dr. Rasmussen advised women in all stages of pregnancy to protect themselves against COVID-19, based on the knowledge that illness in a mother can affect normal growth and development in a fetus, even if it doesn’t lead to preterm birth.

“A mom getting sick during pregnancy is not good for the baby,” Dr. Rasmussen said. “The baby’s really dependent on the mom. So you want that baby to have good nutrition throughout the pregnancy. It’s just as important earlier on as later. And you want that baby to get good oxygenation no matter what time [in the pregnancy]. I know that people want a little bit of a break [from preventive measures]. But I would emphasize that if you’re pregnant, we do all sorts of things during pregnancy to make sure that our babies are safe and healthy, and I would continue that for the whole pregnancy.”

Specifically, Dr. Rasmussen advised social distancing, use of an N95 mask, and vaccination. Getting vaccinated during pregnancy helps newborns fight off infection until 6 months of age, she added, when they become eligible for vaccination themselves. This added benefit was recently reported in a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine , for which Dr. Rasmussen cowrote an editorial .

“Vaccines have been approved for 6 months and older,” Dr. Rasmussen said. “But what do you do in those first 6 months of life? That’s a high-risk time for kids.”

Despite these risks, convincing pregnant women to get vaccinated remains a key challenge for health care providers, according to Dr. Rasmussen, even with an abundance of safety data. “Early on [in the pandemic], we said we didn’t know a lot about risks. We knew that other vaccines were safe during pregnancy, but we didn’t have a lot of information about a COVID-19 vaccine. But now we have a lot of data on safety during pregnancy, and these vaccines appear to be completely safe, based on the information we have. There have been many, many pregnant women vaccinated in the United States and in other countries.”

For reluctant expecting mothers, Dr. Rasmussen offered some words of advice: “I know that you worry about anything you do when you’re pregnant. But this is something that you can do to help your baby – now, to make a preterm birth less likely, and later, after the baby is born.

“The most important thing is for the pregnant person to hear this [vaccine recommendation] from their doctor,” she added. “If they’re going to listen to anybody, they’re going to listen to their physician. That’s what the data have shown for a long time.”

The investigators and Dr. Rasmussen disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Pregnant women who get infected with SARS-CoV-2 in their third trimester are almost three times as likely to have a preterm birth, while infection after 34 weeks’ gestation raises this risk sevenfold, based on the largest matched population-based cohort study published to date.

These findings support previous studies, underscoring the need for pregnant women and their families to take preventive measures against infection, lead author Noga Fallach, MA, of the Kahn-Sagol-Maccabi Research and Innovation Center, Tel Aviv, and colleagues reported.

ArtMarie/E+/Getty Images

Past research has suggested that COVID-19 may cause low birth weights and preterm birth in pregnant women, but those studies didn’t report outcomes for each trimester, the investigators wrote in PLoS ONE, noting that “timing of viral infection during fetal development may affect birth and other health outcomes.”

To address this knowledge gap, the investigators looked back at data from 2,703 pregnant women in Israel who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 from Feb. 21, 2020, to July 2, 2021. Pregnancy outcomes in these women were compared with outcomes in an equal number of uninfected pregnant women. Vaccination status was not reported.

Comparing the two groups showed that catching COVID-19 in the third trimester was linked with nearly triple the risk of preterm birth (odds ratio, 2.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.63-4.67), and more than quadruple the risk if COVID-19 symptoms were present (OR, 4.28; 95% CI, 1.94-9.41). Women who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 after 34 weeks’ gestation were seven times more likely than uninfected women to deliver early (OR, 7.10; 95% CI, 2.44-20.61).

Pregnant women who caught COVID-19 in the first two trimesters were not significantly more likely to have a preterm birth. Infection was not associated with abnormally low birth rates, or pregnancy loss, in any trimester.

Tal Patalon, MD, coauthor and head of the Kahn-Sagol-Maccabi Research and Innovation Center, focused on these more optimistic findings in an interview.

“The results are encouraging, and reassuring that COVID-19 infection during pregnancy is not associated with any type of pregnancy loss,” Dr. Patalon said.

She also pointed out that the women in the study were infected with SARS-CoV-2 variants that are no longer common.

“It should be remembered that the research group tested the COVID-19 pre-Delta variants, and does not refer to the dominant variant today, which is Omicron,” Dr. Patalon said.

Still, the investigators concluded that the “results underline the importance of preventive measures taken against SARS-CoV-2 infection among pregnant women and their families.”

Sonja A. Rasmussen, MD, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, said that the issue with out-of-date variants in published research has been one of the “real challenges” in studying the ever-evolving COVID-19 pandemic; however, it’s not a good enough reason to dismiss this study.

“I think at this point, we need to assume that it applies to Omicron too,” Dr. Rasmussen said, noting that other respiratory viruses, like influenza, have also been shown to increase the risk of preterm birth when contracted in late pregnancy.

While the present findings highlight the risk of infection in the third trimester, Dr. Rasmussen advised women in all stages of pregnancy to protect themselves against COVID-19, based on the knowledge that illness in a mother can affect normal growth and development in a fetus, even if it doesn’t lead to preterm birth.

“A mom getting sick during pregnancy is not good for the baby,” Dr. Rasmussen said. “The baby’s really dependent on the mom. So you want that baby to have good nutrition throughout the pregnancy. It’s just as important earlier on as later. And you want that baby to get good oxygenation no matter what time [in the pregnancy]. I know that people want a little bit of a break [from preventive measures]. But I would emphasize that if you’re pregnant, we do all sorts of things during pregnancy to make sure that our babies are safe and healthy, and I would continue that for the whole pregnancy.”

Specifically, Dr. Rasmussen advised social distancing, use of an N95 mask, and vaccination. Getting vaccinated during pregnancy helps newborns fight off infection until 6 months of age, she added, when they become eligible for vaccination themselves. This added benefit was recently reported in a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine , for which Dr. Rasmussen cowrote an editorial .

“Vaccines have been approved for 6 months and older,” Dr. Rasmussen said. “But what do you do in those first 6 months of life? That’s a high-risk time for kids.”

Despite these risks, convincing pregnant women to get vaccinated remains a key challenge for health care providers, according to Dr. Rasmussen, even with an abundance of safety data. “Early on [in the pandemic], we said we didn’t know a lot about risks. We knew that other vaccines were safe during pregnancy, but we didn’t have a lot of information about a COVID-19 vaccine. But now we have a lot of data on safety during pregnancy, and these vaccines appear to be completely safe, based on the information we have. There have been many, many pregnant women vaccinated in the United States and in other countries.”

For reluctant expecting mothers, Dr. Rasmussen offered some words of advice: “I know that you worry about anything you do when you’re pregnant. But this is something that you can do to help your baby – now, to make a preterm birth less likely, and later, after the baby is born.

“The most important thing is for the pregnant person to hear this [vaccine recommendation] from their doctor,” she added. “If they’re going to listen to anybody, they’re going to listen to their physician. That’s what the data have shown for a long time.”

The investigators and Dr. Rasmussen disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Pregnant women who get infected with SARS-CoV-2 in their third trimester are almost three times as likely to have a preterm birth, while infection after 34 weeks’ gestation raises this risk sevenfold, based on the largest matched population-based cohort study published to date.

These findings support previous studies, underscoring the need for pregnant women and their families to take preventive measures against infection, lead author Noga Fallach, MA, of the Kahn-Sagol-Maccabi Research and Innovation Center, Tel Aviv, and colleagues reported.

ArtMarie/E+/Getty Images

Past research has suggested that COVID-19 may cause low birth weights and preterm birth in pregnant women, but those studies didn’t report outcomes for each trimester, the investigators wrote in PLoS ONE, noting that “timing of viral infection during fetal development may affect birth and other health outcomes.”

To address this knowledge gap, the investigators looked back at data from 2,703 pregnant women in Israel who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 from Feb. 21, 2020, to July 2, 2021. Pregnancy outcomes in these women were compared with outcomes in an equal number of uninfected pregnant women. Vaccination status was not reported.

Comparing the two groups showed that catching COVID-19 in the third trimester was linked with nearly triple the risk of preterm birth (odds ratio, 2.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.63-4.67), and more than quadruple the risk if COVID-19 symptoms were present (OR, 4.28; 95% CI, 1.94-9.41). Women who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 after 34 weeks’ gestation were seven times more likely than uninfected women to deliver early (OR, 7.10; 95% CI, 2.44-20.61).

Pregnant women who caught COVID-19 in the first two trimesters were not significantly more likely to have a preterm birth. Infection was not associated with abnormally low birth rates, or pregnancy loss, in any trimester.

Tal Patalon, MD, coauthor and head of the Kahn-Sagol-Maccabi Research and Innovation Center, focused on these more optimistic findings in an interview.

“The results are encouraging, and reassuring that COVID-19 infection during pregnancy is not associated with any type of pregnancy loss,” Dr. Patalon said.

She also pointed out that the women in the study were infected with SARS-CoV-2 variants that are no longer common.

“It should be remembered that the research group tested the COVID-19 pre-Delta variants, and does not refer to the dominant variant today, which is Omicron,” Dr. Patalon said.

Still, the investigators concluded that the “results underline the importance of preventive measures taken against SARS-CoV-2 infection among pregnant women and their families.”

Sonja A. Rasmussen, MD, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, said that the issue with out-of-date variants in published research has been one of the “real challenges” in studying the ever-evolving COVID-19 pandemic; however, it’s not a good enough reason to dismiss this study.

“I think at this point, we need to assume that it applies to Omicron too,” Dr. Rasmussen said, noting that other respiratory viruses, like influenza, have also been shown to increase the risk of preterm birth when contracted in late pregnancy.

While the present findings highlight the risk of infection in the third trimester, Dr. Rasmussen advised women in all stages of pregnancy to protect themselves against COVID-19, based on the knowledge that illness in a mother can affect normal growth and development in a fetus, even if it doesn’t lead to preterm birth.

“A mom getting sick during pregnancy is not good for the baby,” Dr. Rasmussen said. “The baby’s really dependent on the mom. So you want that baby to have good nutrition throughout the pregnancy. It’s just as important earlier on as later. And you want that baby to get good oxygenation no matter what time [in the pregnancy]. I know that people want a little bit of a break [from preventive measures]. But I would emphasize that if you’re pregnant, we do all sorts of things during pregnancy to make sure that our babies are safe and healthy, and I would continue that for the whole pregnancy.”

Specifically, Dr. Rasmussen advised social distancing, use of an N95 mask, and vaccination. Getting vaccinated during pregnancy helps newborns fight off infection until 6 months of age, she added, when they become eligible for vaccination themselves. This added benefit was recently reported in a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine , for which Dr. Rasmussen cowrote an editorial .

“Vaccines have been approved for 6 months and older,” Dr. Rasmussen said. “But what do you do in those first 6 months of life? That’s a high-risk time for kids.”

Despite these risks, convincing pregnant women to get vaccinated remains a key challenge for health care providers, according to Dr. Rasmussen, even with an abundance of safety data. “Early on [in the pandemic], we said we didn’t know a lot about risks. We knew that other vaccines were safe during pregnancy, but we didn’t have a lot of information about a COVID-19 vaccine. But now we have a lot of data on safety during pregnancy, and these vaccines appear to be completely safe, based on the information we have. There have been many, many pregnant women vaccinated in the United States and in other countries.”

For reluctant expecting mothers, Dr. Rasmussen offered some words of advice: “I know that you worry about anything you do when you’re pregnant. But this is something that you can do to help your baby – now, to make a preterm birth less likely, and later, after the baby is born.

“The most important thing is for the pregnant person to hear this [vaccine recommendation] from their doctor,” she added. “If they’re going to listen to anybody, they’re going to listen to their physician. That’s what the data have shown for a long time.”

The investigators and Dr. Rasmussen disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Some medications are safer and more effective than others for treating spine-related pain in older patients, a new comprehensive literature review suggests.

Investigators assessed the evidence for medications used for this indication in older adults by reviewing 138 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.

Among their key findings and recommendations: Acetaminophen has a favorable safety profile for spine-related pain but nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have greater efficacy.

However, NSAIDs should be used in lower doses in the short term, with gastrointestinal precaution, the researchers note.

Corticosteroids have the least evidence for treating nonspecific back pain, they add.

“Most older people experience neck or low back pain at some point, bothersome enough to see their doctor,” coinvestigator Michael Perloff, MD, PhD, department of neurology, Boston University, said in a news release.

“Our findings provide a helpful medication guide for physicians to use for spine pain in an older population that can have a complex medical history,” Dr. Perloff added.

The results were published online in Drugs and Aging.
 

Recommendations, warnings

With the graying of the U.S. population, spine-related pain is increasingly common, the investigators note.

Medications play an important role in pain management, but their use has limitations in the elderly, owing to reduced liver and renal function, comorbid medical problems, and polypharmacy.

Other key findings from the literature review include that, although the nerve pain medications gabapentin and pregabalin may cause dizziness or difficulty walking, they also have some demonstrated benefit for neck and back nerve pain, such as sciatica, in older adults.

These agents should be used in lower doses with smaller dose adjustments, the researchers note.

They caution that the muscle relaxants carisoprodol, chlorzoxazone, cyclobenzaprine, metaxalone, methocarbamol, and orphenadrine should be avoided in older adults because of their association with risk for sedation and falls.
 

‘Rational therapeutic choices’

Three other muscle relaxants – tizanidine, baclofen, and dantrolene – may be helpful for neck and back pain. The most evidence favors tizanidine and baclofen. These should be used in reduced doses. Tizanidine should be avoided in patients with liver disease, and for patients with kidney disease, the dosing of baclofen should be reduced, the investigators write.

Other findings include the following:

• Older tricyclic antidepressants should typically be avoided in this population because of their side effects, but nortriptyline and desipramine may be better tolerated for neck and back nerve pain at lower doses.
• Newer antidepressants, particularly the selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor duloxetine, have a better safety profile and good efficacy for spine-related nerve pain.
• Traditional opioids are typically avoided in the treatment of spine-related pain in older adults, owing to their associated risks.

However, low-dose opioid therapy may be helpful for severe refractory pain, with close monitoring of patients, the researchers note.

Weaker opioids, such as tramadol, may be better tolerated by older patients. They work well when combined with acetaminophen, but they carry the risk for sedation, upset stomach, and constipation.

“Medications used at the correct dose, for the correct diagnosis, adjusting for preexisting medical problems can result in better use of treatments for spine pain,” coinvestigator Jonathan Fu, MD, also with the department of neurology, Boston University, said in the release.

“Rational therapeutic choices should be targeted to spine pain diagnosis, such as NSAIDs and acetaminophen for arthritic and myofascial-based complaints, gabapentinoids or duloxetine for neuropathic and radicular symptoms, antispastic agents for myofascial-based pain, and combination therapy for mixed etiologies,” the investigators write.

They also emphasize that medications should be coupled with physical therapy and exercise programs, as well as treatment of the underlying degenerative disease process and medical illness, while keeping in mind the need for possible interventions and/or corrective surgery.

The research had no specific funding. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Some medications are safer and more effective than others for treating spine-related pain in older patients, a new comprehensive literature review suggests.

Investigators assessed the evidence for medications used for this indication in older adults by reviewing 138 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.

Among their key findings and recommendations: Acetaminophen has a favorable safety profile for spine-related pain but nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have greater efficacy.

However, NSAIDs should be used in lower doses in the short term, with gastrointestinal precaution, the researchers note.

Corticosteroids have the least evidence for treating nonspecific back pain, they add.

“Most older people experience neck or low back pain at some point, bothersome enough to see their doctor,” coinvestigator Michael Perloff, MD, PhD, department of neurology, Boston University, said in a news release.

“Our findings provide a helpful medication guide for physicians to use for spine pain in an older population that can have a complex medical history,” Dr. Perloff added.

The results were published online in Drugs and Aging.
 

Recommendations, warnings

With the graying of the U.S. population, spine-related pain is increasingly common, the investigators note.

Medications play an important role in pain management, but their use has limitations in the elderly, owing to reduced liver and renal function, comorbid medical problems, and polypharmacy.

Other key findings from the literature review include that, although the nerve pain medications gabapentin and pregabalin may cause dizziness or difficulty walking, they also have some demonstrated benefit for neck and back nerve pain, such as sciatica, in older adults.

These agents should be used in lower doses with smaller dose adjustments, the researchers note.

They caution that the muscle relaxants carisoprodol, chlorzoxazone, cyclobenzaprine, metaxalone, methocarbamol, and orphenadrine should be avoided in older adults because of their association with risk for sedation and falls.
 

‘Rational therapeutic choices’

Three other muscle relaxants – tizanidine, baclofen, and dantrolene – may be helpful for neck and back pain. The most evidence favors tizanidine and baclofen. These should be used in reduced doses. Tizanidine should be avoided in patients with liver disease, and for patients with kidney disease, the dosing of baclofen should be reduced, the investigators write.

Other findings include the following:

• Older tricyclic antidepressants should typically be avoided in this population because of their side effects, but nortriptyline and desipramine may be better tolerated for neck and back nerve pain at lower doses.
• Newer antidepressants, particularly the selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor duloxetine, have a better safety profile and good efficacy for spine-related nerve pain.
• Traditional opioids are typically avoided in the treatment of spine-related pain in older adults, owing to their associated risks.

However, low-dose opioid therapy may be helpful for severe refractory pain, with close monitoring of patients, the researchers note.

Weaker opioids, such as tramadol, may be better tolerated by older patients. They work well when combined with acetaminophen, but they carry the risk for sedation, upset stomach, and constipation.

“Medications used at the correct dose, for the correct diagnosis, adjusting for preexisting medical problems can result in better use of treatments for spine pain,” coinvestigator Jonathan Fu, MD, also with the department of neurology, Boston University, said in the release.

“Rational therapeutic choices should be targeted to spine pain diagnosis, such as NSAIDs and acetaminophen for arthritic and myofascial-based complaints, gabapentinoids or duloxetine for neuropathic and radicular symptoms, antispastic agents for myofascial-based pain, and combination therapy for mixed etiologies,” the investigators write.

They also emphasize that medications should be coupled with physical therapy and exercise programs, as well as treatment of the underlying degenerative disease process and medical illness, while keeping in mind the need for possible interventions and/or corrective surgery.

The research had no specific funding. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Some medications are safer and more effective than others for treating spine-related pain in older patients, a new comprehensive literature review suggests.

Investigators assessed the evidence for medications used for this indication in older adults by reviewing 138 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.

Among their key findings and recommendations: Acetaminophen has a favorable safety profile for spine-related pain but nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have greater efficacy.

However, NSAIDs should be used in lower doses in the short term, with gastrointestinal precaution, the researchers note.

Corticosteroids have the least evidence for treating nonspecific back pain, they add.

“Most older people experience neck or low back pain at some point, bothersome enough to see their doctor,” coinvestigator Michael Perloff, MD, PhD, department of neurology, Boston University, said in a news release.

“Our findings provide a helpful medication guide for physicians to use for spine pain in an older population that can have a complex medical history,” Dr. Perloff added.

The results were published online in Drugs and Aging.
 

Recommendations, warnings

With the graying of the U.S. population, spine-related pain is increasingly common, the investigators note.

Medications play an important role in pain management, but their use has limitations in the elderly, owing to reduced liver and renal function, comorbid medical problems, and polypharmacy.

Other key findings from the literature review include that, although the nerve pain medications gabapentin and pregabalin may cause dizziness or difficulty walking, they also have some demonstrated benefit for neck and back nerve pain, such as sciatica, in older adults.

These agents should be used in lower doses with smaller dose adjustments, the researchers note.

They caution that the muscle relaxants carisoprodol, chlorzoxazone, cyclobenzaprine, metaxalone, methocarbamol, and orphenadrine should be avoided in older adults because of their association with risk for sedation and falls.
 

‘Rational therapeutic choices’

Three other muscle relaxants – tizanidine, baclofen, and dantrolene – may be helpful for neck and back pain. The most evidence favors tizanidine and baclofen. These should be used in reduced doses. Tizanidine should be avoided in patients with liver disease, and for patients with kidney disease, the dosing of baclofen should be reduced, the investigators write.

Other findings include the following:

• Older tricyclic antidepressants should typically be avoided in this population because of their side effects, but nortriptyline and desipramine may be better tolerated for neck and back nerve pain at lower doses.
• Newer antidepressants, particularly the selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor duloxetine, have a better safety profile and good efficacy for spine-related nerve pain.
• Traditional opioids are typically avoided in the treatment of spine-related pain in older adults, owing to their associated risks.

However, low-dose opioid therapy may be helpful for severe refractory pain, with close monitoring of patients, the researchers note.

Weaker opioids, such as tramadol, may be better tolerated by older patients. They work well when combined with acetaminophen, but they carry the risk for sedation, upset stomach, and constipation.

“Medications used at the correct dose, for the correct diagnosis, adjusting for preexisting medical problems can result in better use of treatments for spine pain,” coinvestigator Jonathan Fu, MD, also with the department of neurology, Boston University, said in the release.

“Rational therapeutic choices should be targeted to spine pain diagnosis, such as NSAIDs and acetaminophen for arthritic and myofascial-based complaints, gabapentinoids or duloxetine for neuropathic and radicular symptoms, antispastic agents for myofascial-based pain, and combination therapy for mixed etiologies,” the investigators write.

They also emphasize that medications should be coupled with physical therapy and exercise programs, as well as treatment of the underlying degenerative disease process and medical illness, while keeping in mind the need for possible interventions and/or corrective surgery.

The research had no specific funding. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The number of overdose deaths involving methadone decreased after the implementation of an early-pandemic policy that allowed some patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) to take methadone at home, new research shows.

Overdose deaths both with and without methadone rose sharply in March 2020, when the policy was announced. Of note, methadone-related deaths decreased in the following months, whereas deaths not involving methadone continued to increase.

“Coupled with research demonstrating improved patient satisfaction, treatment access, and engagement from these policies, these findings can inform decisions about permanently expanding take-home methadone,” the investigators wrote.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

An essential tool

Before the pandemic, patients seeking methadone treatment for OUD in the United States had to visit a federally certified opioid treatment clinic every day to receive the medication.

In response to the pandemic, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration instituted a new policy that allowed states to request exceptions to provide take-home methadone for up to 4 weeks for stable patients and up to 2 weeks for those who were less stable.

To determine the effect of this policy change on overdose death rates, researchers analyzed data on overdose deaths from January 2019 to August 2021.

Overall, the percentage of deaths involving methadone decreased from 4.5% in 2019 to 3.2% in 2021.

The investigators found a sharp increase in all overdose deaths in March 2020. Deaths that did not involve methadone increased by an average of 78.12 more each month before March 2020, increased by an average of 1,078.27 during March 2020, and then continued to increase by an average of 69.07 more each month after March 2020.

Overdose deaths involving methadone increased by a similar amount in March 2020, stabilized, and then decreased 0.05% per month.

Researchers attributed the increase in methadone-related deaths in March 2020 with the rise in overall drug overdose deaths driven by illicitly made fentanyl in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

A study published in JAMA Network Open in March 2022 showed that methadone and other medications to treat OUD are widely underutilized.

That research cited concern over misuse as a key reason for clinicians’ reluctance to prescribe the drugs. The researchers of the current study hope that these new findings lay some of these fears to rest.

“Treatment is an essential tool to stop the addiction and overdose crises, but it is vastly underused,” Nora Volkow, MD, coinvestigator, and director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, said in a press release. “This evidence adds significant weight to the argument that effective treatment for substance use disorders should be offered in an accessible and practical way that works for people who need it.”

The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no relevant disclosures related to the study.

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

The number of overdose deaths involving methadone decreased after the implementation of an early-pandemic policy that allowed some patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) to take methadone at home, new research shows.

Overdose deaths both with and without methadone rose sharply in March 2020, when the policy was announced. Of note, methadone-related deaths decreased in the following months, whereas deaths not involving methadone continued to increase.

“Coupled with research demonstrating improved patient satisfaction, treatment access, and engagement from these policies, these findings can inform decisions about permanently expanding take-home methadone,” the investigators wrote.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

An essential tool

Before the pandemic, patients seeking methadone treatment for OUD in the United States had to visit a federally certified opioid treatment clinic every day to receive the medication.

In response to the pandemic, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration instituted a new policy that allowed states to request exceptions to provide take-home methadone for up to 4 weeks for stable patients and up to 2 weeks for those who were less stable.

To determine the effect of this policy change on overdose death rates, researchers analyzed data on overdose deaths from January 2019 to August 2021.

Overall, the percentage of deaths involving methadone decreased from 4.5% in 2019 to 3.2% in 2021.

The investigators found a sharp increase in all overdose deaths in March 2020. Deaths that did not involve methadone increased by an average of 78.12 more each month before March 2020, increased by an average of 1,078.27 during March 2020, and then continued to increase by an average of 69.07 more each month after March 2020.

Overdose deaths involving methadone increased by a similar amount in March 2020, stabilized, and then decreased 0.05% per month.

Researchers attributed the increase in methadone-related deaths in March 2020 with the rise in overall drug overdose deaths driven by illicitly made fentanyl in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

A study published in JAMA Network Open in March 2022 showed that methadone and other medications to treat OUD are widely underutilized.

That research cited concern over misuse as a key reason for clinicians’ reluctance to prescribe the drugs. The researchers of the current study hope that these new findings lay some of these fears to rest.

“Treatment is an essential tool to stop the addiction and overdose crises, but it is vastly underused,” Nora Volkow, MD, coinvestigator, and director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, said in a press release. “This evidence adds significant weight to the argument that effective treatment for substance use disorders should be offered in an accessible and practical way that works for people who need it.”

The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no relevant disclosures related to the study.

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

The number of overdose deaths involving methadone decreased after the implementation of an early-pandemic policy that allowed some patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) to take methadone at home, new research shows.

Overdose deaths both with and without methadone rose sharply in March 2020, when the policy was announced. Of note, methadone-related deaths decreased in the following months, whereas deaths not involving methadone continued to increase.

“Coupled with research demonstrating improved patient satisfaction, treatment access, and engagement from these policies, these findings can inform decisions about permanently expanding take-home methadone,” the investigators wrote.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

An essential tool

Before the pandemic, patients seeking methadone treatment for OUD in the United States had to visit a federally certified opioid treatment clinic every day to receive the medication.

In response to the pandemic, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration instituted a new policy that allowed states to request exceptions to provide take-home methadone for up to 4 weeks for stable patients and up to 2 weeks for those who were less stable.

To determine the effect of this policy change on overdose death rates, researchers analyzed data on overdose deaths from January 2019 to August 2021.

Overall, the percentage of deaths involving methadone decreased from 4.5% in 2019 to 3.2% in 2021.

The investigators found a sharp increase in all overdose deaths in March 2020. Deaths that did not involve methadone increased by an average of 78.12 more each month before March 2020, increased by an average of 1,078.27 during March 2020, and then continued to increase by an average of 69.07 more each month after March 2020.

Overdose deaths involving methadone increased by a similar amount in March 2020, stabilized, and then decreased 0.05% per month.

Researchers attributed the increase in methadone-related deaths in March 2020 with the rise in overall drug overdose deaths driven by illicitly made fentanyl in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

A study published in JAMA Network Open in March 2022 showed that methadone and other medications to treat OUD are widely underutilized.

That research cited concern over misuse as a key reason for clinicians’ reluctance to prescribe the drugs. The researchers of the current study hope that these new findings lay some of these fears to rest.

“Treatment is an essential tool to stop the addiction and overdose crises, but it is vastly underused,” Nora Volkow, MD, coinvestigator, and director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, said in a press release. “This evidence adds significant weight to the argument that effective treatment for substance use disorders should be offered in an accessible and practical way that works for people who need it.”

The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no relevant disclosures related to the study.

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

New COVID-19 cases rose for the second time in 3 weeks, as the effort to vaccinate the youngest children continued to slow after just 3 full weeks.

Nationally, over 75,000 children under age 5 years received their first dose of COVID-19 vaccine during the week of July 7-13. That number is down from the previous week – 118,000 from June 30 to July 6 – which, in turn, was lower than the 206,000 doses administered through the first 10 days after approval, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That all adds up to just under 400,000 vaccinated children, or 2% of the eligible population under age 5, as of July 13.

State-level data, meanwhile, show considerable variation, the American Academy of Pediatrics noted in its weekly analysis of the CDC vaccine data. Vermont has already vaccinated 10.0% of children under age 5 years, and Massachusetts is at 9.5%, while Mississippi (0.3%), Alabama (0.5%), and Louisiana (0.8%) are still below 1%, the AAP said.
 

New cases show signs of steadying

The national count was up by 11.1% for the week of July 8-14, rising to 75,000 new cases, compared with 68,000 the previous week, but the recent trend seems to be leaning toward steadiness. The overall number has been between 67,000 and 76,000 over the past 4 weeks, alternating between rising and falling in that time span, according to data gathered by the AAP and the Children’s Hospital Association from state and territorial health departments.

Despite the absence of a significant surge this summer, though, the weekly numbers “are far higher than one year ago, July 15, 2021, when 24,000 child cases were reported,” the two groups said, also noting that several states have stopped updating their online dashboards over the past year, making the current total artificially low in comparison.

Taken with that grain of salt, the cumulative number of child cases since the start of the pandemic is just over 13.9 million, which represents 18.6% of all cases in the United States. That proportion has been declining in recent weeks and was as high as 19.0% as late as mid-May. “While COVID-19 cases are likely increasingly underreported for all age groups, this decline indicates that children are disproportionately undercounted in reported COVID-19 cases,” the AAP and CHA said.

New COVID-19 cases rose for the second time in 3 weeks, as the effort to vaccinate the youngest children continued to slow after just 3 full weeks.

Nationally, over 75,000 children under age 5 years received their first dose of COVID-19 vaccine during the week of July 7-13. That number is down from the previous week – 118,000 from June 30 to July 6 – which, in turn, was lower than the 206,000 doses administered through the first 10 days after approval, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That all adds up to just under 400,000 vaccinated children, or 2% of the eligible population under age 5, as of July 13.

State-level data, meanwhile, show considerable variation, the American Academy of Pediatrics noted in its weekly analysis of the CDC vaccine data. Vermont has already vaccinated 10.0% of children under age 5 years, and Massachusetts is at 9.5%, while Mississippi (0.3%), Alabama (0.5%), and Louisiana (0.8%) are still below 1%, the AAP said.
 

New cases show signs of steadying

The national count was up by 11.1% for the week of July 8-14, rising to 75,000 new cases, compared with 68,000 the previous week, but the recent trend seems to be leaning toward steadiness. The overall number has been between 67,000 and 76,000 over the past 4 weeks, alternating between rising and falling in that time span, according to data gathered by the AAP and the Children’s Hospital Association from state and territorial health departments.

Despite the absence of a significant surge this summer, though, the weekly numbers “are far higher than one year ago, July 15, 2021, when 24,000 child cases were reported,” the two groups said, also noting that several states have stopped updating their online dashboards over the past year, making the current total artificially low in comparison.

Taken with that grain of salt, the cumulative number of child cases since the start of the pandemic is just over 13.9 million, which represents 18.6% of all cases in the United States. That proportion has been declining in recent weeks and was as high as 19.0% as late as mid-May. “While COVID-19 cases are likely increasingly underreported for all age groups, this decline indicates that children are disproportionately undercounted in reported COVID-19 cases,” the AAP and CHA said.

New COVID-19 cases rose for the second time in 3 weeks, as the effort to vaccinate the youngest children continued to slow after just 3 full weeks.

Nationally, over 75,000 children under age 5 years received their first dose of COVID-19 vaccine during the week of July 7-13. That number is down from the previous week – 118,000 from June 30 to July 6 – which, in turn, was lower than the 206,000 doses administered through the first 10 days after approval, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That all adds up to just under 400,000 vaccinated children, or 2% of the eligible population under age 5, as of July 13.

State-level data, meanwhile, show considerable variation, the American Academy of Pediatrics noted in its weekly analysis of the CDC vaccine data. Vermont has already vaccinated 10.0% of children under age 5 years, and Massachusetts is at 9.5%, while Mississippi (0.3%), Alabama (0.5%), and Louisiana (0.8%) are still below 1%, the AAP said.
 

New cases show signs of steadying

The national count was up by 11.1% for the week of July 8-14, rising to 75,000 new cases, compared with 68,000 the previous week, but the recent trend seems to be leaning toward steadiness. The overall number has been between 67,000 and 76,000 over the past 4 weeks, alternating between rising and falling in that time span, according to data gathered by the AAP and the Children’s Hospital Association from state and territorial health departments.

Despite the absence of a significant surge this summer, though, the weekly numbers “are far higher than one year ago, July 15, 2021, when 24,000 child cases were reported,” the two groups said, also noting that several states have stopped updating their online dashboards over the past year, making the current total artificially low in comparison.

Taken with that grain of salt, the cumulative number of child cases since the start of the pandemic is just over 13.9 million, which represents 18.6% of all cases in the United States. That proportion has been declining in recent weeks and was as high as 19.0% as late as mid-May. “While COVID-19 cases are likely increasingly underreported for all age groups, this decline indicates that children are disproportionately undercounted in reported COVID-19 cases,” the AAP and CHA said.

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

Key takeaways

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

Why this matters

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

Study design

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

Key results

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

Limitations

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

Disclosures

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

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

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

Key takeaways

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

Why this matters

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

Study design

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

Key results

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

Limitations

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

Disclosures

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

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

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

Key takeaways

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

Why this matters

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

Study design

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

Key results

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

Limitations

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

Disclosures

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

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

Transmission of anxiety appears to be sex-specific – spreading from mothers to daughters and from fathers to sons, new research shows.

The new findings suggest that children learn anxious behavior from their parents, study investigator Barbara Pavlova, PhD, clinical psychologist with Nova Scotia Health Authority, told this news organization.

“This means that transmission of anxiety from parents to children may be preventable,” said Dr. Pavlova, assistant professor, department of psychiatry, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.

Vlad Drobinin

Parental anxiety a disruptor

Anxiety disorders run in families. Both genes and environment are thought to be at play, but there are few data on sex-specific transmission from parent to child.

To investigate, the researchers conducted a cross-sectional study of 203 girls and 195 boys and their parents. The average age of the children was 11 years, and they had a familial risk for mood disorders.

Anxiety disorder in a same-sex parent was significantly associated with anxiety disorder in offspring (odds ratio, 2.85; 95% confidence interval, 1.52-5.34; P = .001) but not in an opposite-sex parent (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 0.81-2.81; P = .20).

Living with a same-sex parent without anxiety was associated with lower rates of offspring anxiety (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.22-0.67; P = .001).

Among all 398 children, 108 (27%) had been diagnosed with one or more anxiety disorders, including generalized anxiety disorder (7.8%), social anxiety disorder (6.3%), separation anxiety disorder (8.6%), specific phobia (8%), and anxiety disorder not otherwise specified (5%).

Rates of anxiety disorders in children increased with age, from 14% in those younger than 9 years to 52% in those older than 15 years. Anxiety disorders were similarly common among boys (24%) and girls (30%).

Rates of anxiety disorders were lowest (24%) in children of two parents without anxiety disorders and highest (41%) in cases in which both parents had anxiety disorders.

The findings point to the possible role of environmental factors, “such as modeling and vicarious learning,” in the transmission of anxiety from parents to their children, the researchers note.

“A child receives [a] similar amount of genetic information from each biological parent. A strong same-sex parent effect suggests children learn resilience by modeling the behavior of their same-sex parent. A parent’s anxiety disorder may disrupt this protective learning,” said Dr. Pavlova.
 

Early diagnosis, treatment essential

Reached for comment, Jill Emanuele, PhD, vice president of clinical training for the Child MIND Institute, New York, said that when it comes to anxiety, it’s important to assess and treat both the parent and the child.

“We know that both environment and genetics play a role in anxiety disorders. From a clinical perspective, if we see a parent with an anxiety disorder, we know that there is a chance that that is also going to affect the child – whether or not the child has an anxiety disorder,” Dr. Emanuele said in an interview.

“Anxiety disorders are the most common psychiatric disorders diagnosed. We also know that anxiety disorders emerge earlier than mood disorders and certainly can emerge in childhood. It’s important to address anxiety early because those same problems can continue into adulthood if left untreated,” Dr. Emanuele added.

The study was supported by the Canada Research Chairs Program, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation, the Nova Scotia Health Research Foundation, and the Dalhousie Medical Research Foundation. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Emanuele is a board member with the Anxiety and Depression Association of America.

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

Transmission of anxiety appears to be sex-specific – spreading from mothers to daughters and from fathers to sons, new research shows.

The new findings suggest that children learn anxious behavior from their parents, study investigator Barbara Pavlova, PhD, clinical psychologist with Nova Scotia Health Authority, told this news organization.

“This means that transmission of anxiety from parents to children may be preventable,” said Dr. Pavlova, assistant professor, department of psychiatry, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.

Vlad Drobinin

Parental anxiety a disruptor

Anxiety disorders run in families. Both genes and environment are thought to be at play, but there are few data on sex-specific transmission from parent to child.

To investigate, the researchers conducted a cross-sectional study of 203 girls and 195 boys and their parents. The average age of the children was 11 years, and they had a familial risk for mood disorders.

Anxiety disorder in a same-sex parent was significantly associated with anxiety disorder in offspring (odds ratio, 2.85; 95% confidence interval, 1.52-5.34; P = .001) but not in an opposite-sex parent (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 0.81-2.81; P = .20).

Living with a same-sex parent without anxiety was associated with lower rates of offspring anxiety (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.22-0.67; P = .001).

Among all 398 children, 108 (27%) had been diagnosed with one or more anxiety disorders, including generalized anxiety disorder (7.8%), social anxiety disorder (6.3%), separation anxiety disorder (8.6%), specific phobia (8%), and anxiety disorder not otherwise specified (5%).

Rates of anxiety disorders in children increased with age, from 14% in those younger than 9 years to 52% in those older than 15 years. Anxiety disorders were similarly common among boys (24%) and girls (30%).

Rates of anxiety disorders were lowest (24%) in children of two parents without anxiety disorders and highest (41%) in cases in which both parents had anxiety disorders.

The findings point to the possible role of environmental factors, “such as modeling and vicarious learning,” in the transmission of anxiety from parents to their children, the researchers note.

“A child receives [a] similar amount of genetic information from each biological parent. A strong same-sex parent effect suggests children learn resilience by modeling the behavior of their same-sex parent. A parent’s anxiety disorder may disrupt this protective learning,” said Dr. Pavlova.
 

Early diagnosis, treatment essential

Reached for comment, Jill Emanuele, PhD, vice president of clinical training for the Child MIND Institute, New York, said that when it comes to anxiety, it’s important to assess and treat both the parent and the child.

“We know that both environment and genetics play a role in anxiety disorders. From a clinical perspective, if we see a parent with an anxiety disorder, we know that there is a chance that that is also going to affect the child – whether or not the child has an anxiety disorder,” Dr. Emanuele said in an interview.

“Anxiety disorders are the most common psychiatric disorders diagnosed. We also know that anxiety disorders emerge earlier than mood disorders and certainly can emerge in childhood. It’s important to address anxiety early because those same problems can continue into adulthood if left untreated,” Dr. Emanuele added.

The study was supported by the Canada Research Chairs Program, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation, the Nova Scotia Health Research Foundation, and the Dalhousie Medical Research Foundation. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Emanuele is a board member with the Anxiety and Depression Association of America.

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

Transmission of anxiety appears to be sex-specific – spreading from mothers to daughters and from fathers to sons, new research shows.

The new findings suggest that children learn anxious behavior from their parents, study investigator Barbara Pavlova, PhD, clinical psychologist with Nova Scotia Health Authority, told this news organization.

“This means that transmission of anxiety from parents to children may be preventable,” said Dr. Pavlova, assistant professor, department of psychiatry, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.

Vlad Drobinin

Parental anxiety a disruptor

Anxiety disorders run in families. Both genes and environment are thought to be at play, but there are few data on sex-specific transmission from parent to child.

To investigate, the researchers conducted a cross-sectional study of 203 girls and 195 boys and their parents. The average age of the children was 11 years, and they had a familial risk for mood disorders.

Anxiety disorder in a same-sex parent was significantly associated with anxiety disorder in offspring (odds ratio, 2.85; 95% confidence interval, 1.52-5.34; P = .001) but not in an opposite-sex parent (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 0.81-2.81; P = .20).

Living with a same-sex parent without anxiety was associated with lower rates of offspring anxiety (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.22-0.67; P = .001).

Among all 398 children, 108 (27%) had been diagnosed with one or more anxiety disorders, including generalized anxiety disorder (7.8%), social anxiety disorder (6.3%), separation anxiety disorder (8.6%), specific phobia (8%), and anxiety disorder not otherwise specified (5%).

Rates of anxiety disorders in children increased with age, from 14% in those younger than 9 years to 52% in those older than 15 years. Anxiety disorders were similarly common among boys (24%) and girls (30%).

Rates of anxiety disorders were lowest (24%) in children of two parents without anxiety disorders and highest (41%) in cases in which both parents had anxiety disorders.

The findings point to the possible role of environmental factors, “such as modeling and vicarious learning,” in the transmission of anxiety from parents to their children, the researchers note.

“A child receives [a] similar amount of genetic information from each biological parent. A strong same-sex parent effect suggests children learn resilience by modeling the behavior of their same-sex parent. A parent’s anxiety disorder may disrupt this protective learning,” said Dr. Pavlova.
 

Early diagnosis, treatment essential

Reached for comment, Jill Emanuele, PhD, vice president of clinical training for the Child MIND Institute, New York, said that when it comes to anxiety, it’s important to assess and treat both the parent and the child.

“We know that both environment and genetics play a role in anxiety disorders. From a clinical perspective, if we see a parent with an anxiety disorder, we know that there is a chance that that is also going to affect the child – whether or not the child has an anxiety disorder,” Dr. Emanuele said in an interview.

“Anxiety disorders are the most common psychiatric disorders diagnosed. We also know that anxiety disorders emerge earlier than mood disorders and certainly can emerge in childhood. It’s important to address anxiety early because those same problems can continue into adulthood if left untreated,” Dr. Emanuele added.

The study was supported by the Canada Research Chairs Program, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation, the Nova Scotia Health Research Foundation, and the Dalhousie Medical Research Foundation. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Emanuele is a board member with the Anxiety and Depression Association of America.

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

Anxiety over the U.S. economy intensified in June, with 87% of Americans reporting they are anxious or very anxious about inflation, up eight percentage points from the previous month, results from a new national report from the American Psychiatric Association show.

“The economy seems to have supplanted COVID as a major factor in Americans’ day-to-day anxiety,” APA President Rebecca W. Brendel, MD, JD, said in a news release.

“Knowing that so many Americans are concerned about finances is important because it can prepare clinicians to be ready to approach the subject, which is one that people are often reluctant or ashamed to raise on their own,” Dr. Brendel told this news organization.

What’s the best way to bring up the sensitive topic of money?

“In general, it’s best to start with open-ended questions to allow individuals in therapy to share what is on their minds, explore their concerns, and develop strategies to address these issues. Once a patient raises a concern, that is a good time to ask more about the issues they’ve raised and to explore other potential sources of anxiety or stress,” said Dr. Brendel.

The latest APA poll was conducted by Morning Consult, June 18-20, 2022, among a nationally representative sample of 2,210 adults.

In addition to an uptick in worry about inflation, the poll shows that more than half (51%) of adults are worried about a potential loss of income.

Hispanic adults (66%), mothers (65%), millennials (63%), and genZers (62%) are among the groups most likely to be concerned about income loss.

“Stress is not good for health, mental or physical. So, while it’s a reality that Americans are faced with finding ways of making ends meet, it’s more important than ever to make sure that we are all accessing the care that we need,” said Dr. Brendel.

“People should be aware that there may be low- or no-cost options such as community mental health centers or employer-sponsored resources to address mental health concerns,” she added.
 

Coping with traumatic events

The latest poll also shows that about one-third of adults are worried about gun violence (35% overall, 47% among genZers) or a natural disaster (29%) personally affecting them.

Climate change anxiety is also up slightly in June, compared with May (+4%).

The same goes for mid-term election-related anxiety (+3%) – particularly among Democrats (54% vs. 59%) compared with Republicans (48% vs. 48%).

The latest poll provides insight how Americans would cope after a traumatic event. More adults report they will turn to family and friends for support (60%) than practice self-care (42%), speak openly about their feelings (37%), or seek help from a professional (31%). Nearly one-third (30%) say they will move on from it and not dwell on their feelings.

GenZers are the least likely to say they will speak openly about their feelings (29%) and are less likely than millennials to say they would speak to a health professional (28% vs. 38%).

“While many people show resilience, it’s troubling that most Americans wouldn’t speak openly about their feelings after a traumatic event,” APA CEO and Medical Director Saul Levin, MD, said in the news release.

“In many ways, naming feelings is the most important step toward healing, and this reluctance to air our thoughts may indicate that mental health stigma is still a powerful force in our society,” Dr. Levin said.

After a traumatic current event, 41% of Americans say they consume more news and 30% say they take in more social media, but the majority say this does not impact their mental health, the poll shows.

Two in five adults (43%) say the news of a traumatic event makes them feel more informed, 32% say it makes them feel more anxious, and about one-quarter say it makes them feel overwhelmed (27%) or discouraged (24%).

Dr. Brendel noted that, after a traumatic event, “it’s expected that people may experience anxiety or other symptoms for brief periods of time. However, no two people experience things the same way. If symptoms don’t go away, are overwhelming, or get worse over time, for example, it’s critical to seek help right away.”

The June poll shows that 50% of Americans are anxious about the future of reproductive rights but the poll was conducted before the Dobbs ruling.

Anxiety around COVID-19 continues to ease, with about 47% of Americans saying they are concerned about the pandemic, down 2% among all Americans and 16% among Black Americans since May.

The APA’s Healthy Minds Monthly tracks timely mental health issues throughout the year. The APA also releases its annual Healthy Minds Poll each May in conjunction with Mental Health Awareness Month.

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

Anxiety over the U.S. economy intensified in June, with 87% of Americans reporting they are anxious or very anxious about inflation, up eight percentage points from the previous month, results from a new national report from the American Psychiatric Association show.

“The economy seems to have supplanted COVID as a major factor in Americans’ day-to-day anxiety,” APA President Rebecca W. Brendel, MD, JD, said in a news release.

“Knowing that so many Americans are concerned about finances is important because it can prepare clinicians to be ready to approach the subject, which is one that people are often reluctant or ashamed to raise on their own,” Dr. Brendel told this news organization.

What’s the best way to bring up the sensitive topic of money?

“In general, it’s best to start with open-ended questions to allow individuals in therapy to share what is on their minds, explore their concerns, and develop strategies to address these issues. Once a patient raises a concern, that is a good time to ask more about the issues they’ve raised and to explore other potential sources of anxiety or stress,” said Dr. Brendel.

The latest APA poll was conducted by Morning Consult, June 18-20, 2022, among a nationally representative sample of 2,210 adults.

In addition to an uptick in worry about inflation, the poll shows that more than half (51%) of adults are worried about a potential loss of income.

Hispanic adults (66%), mothers (65%), millennials (63%), and genZers (62%) are among the groups most likely to be concerned about income loss.

“Stress is not good for health, mental or physical. So, while it’s a reality that Americans are faced with finding ways of making ends meet, it’s more important than ever to make sure that we are all accessing the care that we need,” said Dr. Brendel.

“People should be aware that there may be low- or no-cost options such as community mental health centers or employer-sponsored resources to address mental health concerns,” she added.
 

Coping with traumatic events

The latest poll also shows that about one-third of adults are worried about gun violence (35% overall, 47% among genZers) or a natural disaster (29%) personally affecting them.

Climate change anxiety is also up slightly in June, compared with May (+4%).

The same goes for mid-term election-related anxiety (+3%) – particularly among Democrats (54% vs. 59%) compared with Republicans (48% vs. 48%).

The latest poll provides insight how Americans would cope after a traumatic event. More adults report they will turn to family and friends for support (60%) than practice self-care (42%), speak openly about their feelings (37%), or seek help from a professional (31%). Nearly one-third (30%) say they will move on from it and not dwell on their feelings.

GenZers are the least likely to say they will speak openly about their feelings (29%) and are less likely than millennials to say they would speak to a health professional (28% vs. 38%).

“While many people show resilience, it’s troubling that most Americans wouldn’t speak openly about their feelings after a traumatic event,” APA CEO and Medical Director Saul Levin, MD, said in the news release.

“In many ways, naming feelings is the most important step toward healing, and this reluctance to air our thoughts may indicate that mental health stigma is still a powerful force in our society,” Dr. Levin said.

After a traumatic current event, 41% of Americans say they consume more news and 30% say they take in more social media, but the majority say this does not impact their mental health, the poll shows.

Two in five adults (43%) say the news of a traumatic event makes them feel more informed, 32% say it makes them feel more anxious, and about one-quarter say it makes them feel overwhelmed (27%) or discouraged (24%).

Dr. Brendel noted that, after a traumatic event, “it’s expected that people may experience anxiety or other symptoms for brief periods of time. However, no two people experience things the same way. If symptoms don’t go away, are overwhelming, or get worse over time, for example, it’s critical to seek help right away.”

The June poll shows that 50% of Americans are anxious about the future of reproductive rights but the poll was conducted before the Dobbs ruling.

Anxiety around COVID-19 continues to ease, with about 47% of Americans saying they are concerned about the pandemic, down 2% among all Americans and 16% among Black Americans since May.

The APA’s Healthy Minds Monthly tracks timely mental health issues throughout the year. The APA also releases its annual Healthy Minds Poll each May in conjunction with Mental Health Awareness Month.

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

Anxiety over the U.S. economy intensified in June, with 87% of Americans reporting they are anxious or very anxious about inflation, up eight percentage points from the previous month, results from a new national report from the American Psychiatric Association show.

“The economy seems to have supplanted COVID as a major factor in Americans’ day-to-day anxiety,” APA President Rebecca W. Brendel, MD, JD, said in a news release.

“Knowing that so many Americans are concerned about finances is important because it can prepare clinicians to be ready to approach the subject, which is one that people are often reluctant or ashamed to raise on their own,” Dr. Brendel told this news organization.

What’s the best way to bring up the sensitive topic of money?

“In general, it’s best to start with open-ended questions to allow individuals in therapy to share what is on their minds, explore their concerns, and develop strategies to address these issues. Once a patient raises a concern, that is a good time to ask more about the issues they’ve raised and to explore other potential sources of anxiety or stress,” said Dr. Brendel.

The latest APA poll was conducted by Morning Consult, June 18-20, 2022, among a nationally representative sample of 2,210 adults.

In addition to an uptick in worry about inflation, the poll shows that more than half (51%) of adults are worried about a potential loss of income.

Hispanic adults (66%), mothers (65%), millennials (63%), and genZers (62%) are among the groups most likely to be concerned about income loss.

“Stress is not good for health, mental or physical. So, while it’s a reality that Americans are faced with finding ways of making ends meet, it’s more important than ever to make sure that we are all accessing the care that we need,” said Dr. Brendel.

“People should be aware that there may be low- or no-cost options such as community mental health centers or employer-sponsored resources to address mental health concerns,” she added.
 

Coping with traumatic events

The latest poll also shows that about one-third of adults are worried about gun violence (35% overall, 47% among genZers) or a natural disaster (29%) personally affecting them.

Climate change anxiety is also up slightly in June, compared with May (+4%).

The same goes for mid-term election-related anxiety (+3%) – particularly among Democrats (54% vs. 59%) compared with Republicans (48% vs. 48%).

The latest poll provides insight how Americans would cope after a traumatic event. More adults report they will turn to family and friends for support (60%) than practice self-care (42%), speak openly about their feelings (37%), or seek help from a professional (31%). Nearly one-third (30%) say they will move on from it and not dwell on their feelings.

GenZers are the least likely to say they will speak openly about their feelings (29%) and are less likely than millennials to say they would speak to a health professional (28% vs. 38%).

“While many people show resilience, it’s troubling that most Americans wouldn’t speak openly about their feelings after a traumatic event,” APA CEO and Medical Director Saul Levin, MD, said in the news release.

“In many ways, naming feelings is the most important step toward healing, and this reluctance to air our thoughts may indicate that mental health stigma is still a powerful force in our society,” Dr. Levin said.

After a traumatic current event, 41% of Americans say they consume more news and 30% say they take in more social media, but the majority say this does not impact their mental health, the poll shows.

Two in five adults (43%) say the news of a traumatic event makes them feel more informed, 32% say it makes them feel more anxious, and about one-quarter say it makes them feel overwhelmed (27%) or discouraged (24%).

Dr. Brendel noted that, after a traumatic event, “it’s expected that people may experience anxiety or other symptoms for brief periods of time. However, no two people experience things the same way. If symptoms don’t go away, are overwhelming, or get worse over time, for example, it’s critical to seek help right away.”

The June poll shows that 50% of Americans are anxious about the future of reproductive rights but the poll was conducted before the Dobbs ruling.

Anxiety around COVID-19 continues to ease, with about 47% of Americans saying they are concerned about the pandemic, down 2% among all Americans and 16% among Black Americans since May.

The APA’s Healthy Minds Monthly tracks timely mental health issues throughout the year. The APA also releases its annual Healthy Minds Poll each May in conjunction with Mental Health Awareness Month.

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

The addition of social determinants of health (SDOH) to machine-learning risk-prediction models improved forecasts of in-hospital mortality in Black adults hospitalized for heart failure (HF) but didn’t show similar ability in non-Black patients, in a study based in part on the American Heart Association–sponsored Get with the Guidelines in Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) registry.

The novel risk-prediction tool bolstered by SDOH at the zip-code level – including household income, number of adults without a high-school degree, poverty and unemployment rates, and other factors – stratified risk more sharply in Black patients than more standard models, including some based on multivariable logistic regression.

“Traditional risk models that exist for heart failure assign lower risks to Black individuals if everything else is held constant,” Ambarish Pandey, MD, MSCS, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, told this news organization.

“I think that is problematic, because if Black patients are considered lower risk, they may not get appropriate risk-based therapies that are being provided. We wanted to move away from this approach and use a more race-agnostic approach,” said Dr. Pandey, who is senior author on the study published  in JAMA Cardiology, with lead author Matthew W. Segar, MD, Texas Heart Institute, Houston.

The training dataset for the prediction model consisted of 123,634 patients hospitalized with HF (mean age, 71 years), of whom 47% were women, enrolled in the GWTG-HF registry from 2010 through 2020.

The machine-learning models showed “excellent performance” when applied to an internal subset cohort of 82,420 patients, with a C statistic of 0.81 for Black patients and 0.82 for non-Black patients, the authors report, and in a real-world cohort of 553,506 patients, with C statistics of 0.74 and 0.75, respectively. The models performed similarly well, they write, in an external validation cohort derived from the ARIC registry, with C statistics of 0.79 and 0.80, respectively.

The machine-learning models’ performance surpassed that of the GWTG-HF risk-score model, C statistics 0.69 for both Black and non-Black patients, and other logistic regression models in which race was a covariate, the authors state.

“We also observed significant race-specific differences in the population-attributable risk of in-hospital mortality associated with the SDOH, with a significantly greater contribution of these parameters to the overall in-hospital mortality risk in Black patients versus non-Black patients,” they write.

For Black patients, five of the SDOH parameters were among the top 20 covariate predictors of in-hospital mortality: mean income level, vacancy and unemployment rates, proportion of the population without a high school degree, and proportion older than 65 years. Together they accounted for 11.6% of population-attributable risk for in-hospital death.

Only one SDOH parameter – percentage of population older than 65 years – made the top 20 for non-Black patients, with a population-attributable risk of 0.5%, the group reports.

“I hope our work spurs future investigations to better understand how social determinants contribute to risk and how they can be incorporated in management of these patients,” Dr. Pandey said.

“I commend the authors for attempting to address SDOH as a potential contributor to some of the differences in outcomes among patients with heart failure,” writes Eldrin F. Lewis, MD, MPH, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, Calif., in an accompanying editorial.

“It is imperative that we use these newer techniques to go beyond simply predicting which groups are at heightened risk and leverage the data to create solutions that will reduce those risks for the individual patient,” Dr. Lewis states.

“We should use these tools to reduce racial and ethnic differences in the operations of health care systems, potential bias in management decisions, and inactivity due to the difficulty in getting guideline-directed medical therapy into the hands of people who may have limited resources with minimal out-of-pocket costs,” he writes.

The models assessed in the current report “set a new bar for risk prediction: Integration of a comprehensive set of demographics, comorbidities, and social determinants with machine learning obviates race and ethnicity in risk prediction,” contend JAMA Cardiology deputy editor Clyde W. Yancy, MD, and associate editor Sadiya S. Khan, MD, both from Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, in an accompanying editor’s note.

“This more careful incorporation of individual-level, neighborhood-level, and hospital-level social factors,” they conclude, “is now a candidate template for future risk models.”

Dr. Pandey discloses grant funding from Applied Therapeutics and Gilead Sciences; consulting for or serving as an advisor to Tricog Health, Eli Lilly, Rivus, and Roche Diagnostics; receiving nonfinancial support from Pfizer and Merck; and research support from the Texas Health Resources Clinical Scholarship, the Gilead Sciences Research Scholar Program, the National Institute on Aging GEMSSTAR Grant, and Applied Therapeutics. Dr. Segar discloses receiving nonfinancial support from Pfizer and Merck. Other disclosures are in the report. Dr. Lewis reported no disclosures. Dr. Yancy and Dr. Khan had no relevant disclosures.

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

The addition of social determinants of health (SDOH) to machine-learning risk-prediction models improved forecasts of in-hospital mortality in Black adults hospitalized for heart failure (HF) but didn’t show similar ability in non-Black patients, in a study based in part on the American Heart Association–sponsored Get with the Guidelines in Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) registry.

The novel risk-prediction tool bolstered by SDOH at the zip-code level – including household income, number of adults without a high-school degree, poverty and unemployment rates, and other factors – stratified risk more sharply in Black patients than more standard models, including some based on multivariable logistic regression.

“Traditional risk models that exist for heart failure assign lower risks to Black individuals if everything else is held constant,” Ambarish Pandey, MD, MSCS, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, told this news organization.

“I think that is problematic, because if Black patients are considered lower risk, they may not get appropriate risk-based therapies that are being provided. We wanted to move away from this approach and use a more race-agnostic approach,” said Dr. Pandey, who is senior author on the study published  in JAMA Cardiology, with lead author Matthew W. Segar, MD, Texas Heart Institute, Houston.

The training dataset for the prediction model consisted of 123,634 patients hospitalized with HF (mean age, 71 years), of whom 47% were women, enrolled in the GWTG-HF registry from 2010 through 2020.

The machine-learning models showed “excellent performance” when applied to an internal subset cohort of 82,420 patients, with a C statistic of 0.81 for Black patients and 0.82 for non-Black patients, the authors report, and in a real-world cohort of 553,506 patients, with C statistics of 0.74 and 0.75, respectively. The models performed similarly well, they write, in an external validation cohort derived from the ARIC registry, with C statistics of 0.79 and 0.80, respectively.

The machine-learning models’ performance surpassed that of the GWTG-HF risk-score model, C statistics 0.69 for both Black and non-Black patients, and other logistic regression models in which race was a covariate, the authors state.

“We also observed significant race-specific differences in the population-attributable risk of in-hospital mortality associated with the SDOH, with a significantly greater contribution of these parameters to the overall in-hospital mortality risk in Black patients versus non-Black patients,” they write.

For Black patients, five of the SDOH parameters were among the top 20 covariate predictors of in-hospital mortality: mean income level, vacancy and unemployment rates, proportion of the population without a high school degree, and proportion older than 65 years. Together they accounted for 11.6% of population-attributable risk for in-hospital death.

Only one SDOH parameter – percentage of population older than 65 years – made the top 20 for non-Black patients, with a population-attributable risk of 0.5%, the group reports.

“I hope our work spurs future investigations to better understand how social determinants contribute to risk and how they can be incorporated in management of these patients,” Dr. Pandey said.

“I commend the authors for attempting to address SDOH as a potential contributor to some of the differences in outcomes among patients with heart failure,” writes Eldrin F. Lewis, MD, MPH, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, Calif., in an accompanying editorial.

“It is imperative that we use these newer techniques to go beyond simply predicting which groups are at heightened risk and leverage the data to create solutions that will reduce those risks for the individual patient,” Dr. Lewis states.

“We should use these tools to reduce racial and ethnic differences in the operations of health care systems, potential bias in management decisions, and inactivity due to the difficulty in getting guideline-directed medical therapy into the hands of people who may have limited resources with minimal out-of-pocket costs,” he writes.

The models assessed in the current report “set a new bar for risk prediction: Integration of a comprehensive set of demographics, comorbidities, and social determinants with machine learning obviates race and ethnicity in risk prediction,” contend JAMA Cardiology deputy editor Clyde W. Yancy, MD, and associate editor Sadiya S. Khan, MD, both from Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, in an accompanying editor’s note.

“This more careful incorporation of individual-level, neighborhood-level, and hospital-level social factors,” they conclude, “is now a candidate template for future risk models.”

Dr. Pandey discloses grant funding from Applied Therapeutics and Gilead Sciences; consulting for or serving as an advisor to Tricog Health, Eli Lilly, Rivus, and Roche Diagnostics; receiving nonfinancial support from Pfizer and Merck; and research support from the Texas Health Resources Clinical Scholarship, the Gilead Sciences Research Scholar Program, the National Institute on Aging GEMSSTAR Grant, and Applied Therapeutics. Dr. Segar discloses receiving nonfinancial support from Pfizer and Merck. Other disclosures are in the report. Dr. Lewis reported no disclosures. Dr. Yancy and Dr. Khan had no relevant disclosures.

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

The addition of social determinants of health (SDOH) to machine-learning risk-prediction models improved forecasts of in-hospital mortality in Black adults hospitalized for heart failure (HF) but didn’t show similar ability in non-Black patients, in a study based in part on the American Heart Association–sponsored Get with the Guidelines in Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) registry.

The novel risk-prediction tool bolstered by SDOH at the zip-code level – including household income, number of adults without a high-school degree, poverty and unemployment rates, and other factors – stratified risk more sharply in Black patients than more standard models, including some based on multivariable logistic regression.

“Traditional risk models that exist for heart failure assign lower risks to Black individuals if everything else is held constant,” Ambarish Pandey, MD, MSCS, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, told this news organization.

“I think that is problematic, because if Black patients are considered lower risk, they may not get appropriate risk-based therapies that are being provided. We wanted to move away from this approach and use a more race-agnostic approach,” said Dr. Pandey, who is senior author on the study published  in JAMA Cardiology, with lead author Matthew W. Segar, MD, Texas Heart Institute, Houston.

The training dataset for the prediction model consisted of 123,634 patients hospitalized with HF (mean age, 71 years), of whom 47% were women, enrolled in the GWTG-HF registry from 2010 through 2020.

The machine-learning models showed “excellent performance” when applied to an internal subset cohort of 82,420 patients, with a C statistic of 0.81 for Black patients and 0.82 for non-Black patients, the authors report, and in a real-world cohort of 553,506 patients, with C statistics of 0.74 and 0.75, respectively. The models performed similarly well, they write, in an external validation cohort derived from the ARIC registry, with C statistics of 0.79 and 0.80, respectively.

The machine-learning models’ performance surpassed that of the GWTG-HF risk-score model, C statistics 0.69 for both Black and non-Black patients, and other logistic regression models in which race was a covariate, the authors state.

“We also observed significant race-specific differences in the population-attributable risk of in-hospital mortality associated with the SDOH, with a significantly greater contribution of these parameters to the overall in-hospital mortality risk in Black patients versus non-Black patients,” they write.

For Black patients, five of the SDOH parameters were among the top 20 covariate predictors of in-hospital mortality: mean income level, vacancy and unemployment rates, proportion of the population without a high school degree, and proportion older than 65 years. Together they accounted for 11.6% of population-attributable risk for in-hospital death.

Only one SDOH parameter – percentage of population older than 65 years – made the top 20 for non-Black patients, with a population-attributable risk of 0.5%, the group reports.

“I hope our work spurs future investigations to better understand how social determinants contribute to risk and how they can be incorporated in management of these patients,” Dr. Pandey said.

“I commend the authors for attempting to address SDOH as a potential contributor to some of the differences in outcomes among patients with heart failure,” writes Eldrin F. Lewis, MD, MPH, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, Calif., in an accompanying editorial.

“It is imperative that we use these newer techniques to go beyond simply predicting which groups are at heightened risk and leverage the data to create solutions that will reduce those risks for the individual patient,” Dr. Lewis states.

“We should use these tools to reduce racial and ethnic differences in the operations of health care systems, potential bias in management decisions, and inactivity due to the difficulty in getting guideline-directed medical therapy into the hands of people who may have limited resources with minimal out-of-pocket costs,” he writes.

The models assessed in the current report “set a new bar for risk prediction: Integration of a comprehensive set of demographics, comorbidities, and social determinants with machine learning obviates race and ethnicity in risk prediction,” contend JAMA Cardiology deputy editor Clyde W. Yancy, MD, and associate editor Sadiya S. Khan, MD, both from Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, in an accompanying editor’s note.

“This more careful incorporation of individual-level, neighborhood-level, and hospital-level social factors,” they conclude, “is now a candidate template for future risk models.”

Dr. Pandey discloses grant funding from Applied Therapeutics and Gilead Sciences; consulting for or serving as an advisor to Tricog Health, Eli Lilly, Rivus, and Roche Diagnostics; receiving nonfinancial support from Pfizer and Merck; and research support from the Texas Health Resources Clinical Scholarship, the Gilead Sciences Research Scholar Program, the National Institute on Aging GEMSSTAR Grant, and Applied Therapeutics. Dr. Segar discloses receiving nonfinancial support from Pfizer and Merck. Other disclosures are in the report. Dr. Lewis reported no disclosures. Dr. Yancy and Dr. Khan had no relevant disclosures.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doctors take threats by patients more seriously now

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

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

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

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

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

Shooters/killers vs. agitated patients

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

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

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

Playing down the risk of violence

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to deal with volatile patients

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

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

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

Defending yourself

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

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

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

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

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

Rising violence from patients

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doctors take threats by patients more seriously now

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

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

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

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

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

Shooters/killers vs. agitated patients

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

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

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

Playing down the risk of violence

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to deal with volatile patients

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

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

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

Defending yourself

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

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

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

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

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

Rising violence from patients

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doctors take threats by patients more seriously now

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

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

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

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

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

Shooters/killers vs. agitated patients

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

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

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

Playing down the risk of violence

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to deal with volatile patients

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

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

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

Defending yourself

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

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

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

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

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

Rising violence from patients

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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