MDedge Endocrinology

Based on data from a meta-analysis of 95 studies that included nearly 30,000,000 individuals, the pooled percentage of asymptomatic COVID-19 infections was 0.25% in the tested population and 40.5% among confirmed cases.

Asymptomatic infections remain potential sources of transmission for COVID-19, especially as communities reopen and public life resumes, but the percentage of these infections among those tested and among those diagnosed with COVID-19 has not been examined, wrote Qiuyue Ma, PhD, and colleagues of Peking University, Beijing.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open the researchers identified 44 cross-sectional studies, 41 cohort studies, seven case series, and three case series on transmission studies. A total of 74 studies were conducted in developed countries, including those in Europe, North America, and Asia. Approximately one-third (37) of the studies were conducted among health care workers or in-hospital patients, 17 among nursing home staff or residents, and 14 among community residents. In addition, 13 studies involved pregnant women, eight involved air or cruise ship travelers, and six involved close contacts of individuals with confirmed infections.

The meta-analysis included 29,776,306 tested individuals; 11,516 of them had asymptomatic infections.

Overall, the pooled percentage of asymptomatic infections among the tested population was 0.25%. In an analysis of different study populations, the percentage was higher in nursing home residents or staff (4.52%), air or cruise ship travelers (2.02%), and pregnant women (2.34%), compared against the pooled percentage.

The pooled percentage of asymptomatic infections among the confirmed population was 40.50%, and this percentage was higher in pregnant women (54.11%), air or cruise ship travelers (52.91%), and nursing home residents or staff (47.53%).

The pooled percentage in the tested population was higher than the overall percentage when the mean age of the study population was 60 years or older (3.69%). By contrast, in the confirmed population, the pooled percentage was higher than the overall percentage when the study population was younger than 20 years (60.2%) or aged 20 to 39 years (49.5%).

The researchers noted in their discussion that the varying percentage of asymptomatic individuals according to community prevalence might impact the heterogeneity of the included studies. They also noted the high number of studies conducted in nursing home populations, groups in which asymptomatic individuals were more likely to be tested.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the potential for missed studies that were not published at the time of the meta-analysis, as well as the exclusion of studies written in Chinese, the researchers noted. Other limitations included lack of follow-up on presymptomatic and covert infections, and the focus on specific populations, factors that may limit the degree to which the results can be generalized.

However, the results highlight the need to screen for asymptomatic infections, especially in countries where COVID-19 has been better controlled, the researchers said. Management strategies for asymptomatic infections, when identified, should include isolation and contact tracing similar to strategies used with confirmed cases, they added. 
 

More testing needed to catch cases early

“During the initial phase of [the] COVID-19 pandemic, testing was not widely available in the United States or the rest of the world,” Setu Patolia, MD, of Saint Louis University School of Medicine, Missouri, said in an interview. Much of the world still lacks access to COVID-19 testing, and early in the pandemic only severely symptomatic patients were tested, he said. “With new variants, particularly the Omicron variant, which may have mild or minimally symptomatic disease, asymptomatic carriers play an important role in propagation of the pandemic,” he explained. “It is important to know the asymptomatic carrier rate among the general population for the future control of [the] pandemic,” he added.

Dr. Patolia said he was surprised by the study finding that one in 400 people in the general population could be asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19.

“Also, nursing home patients are more at risk of complications of COVID, and I expected that they would have a higher rate of symptomatic disease as compared to [the] general population,” said Dr. Patolia. He was also surprised by the high rate of asymptomatic infections in travelers.

“Physicians should be more aware about the asymptomatic carrier rate, particularly in travelers and nursing home patients,” he noted. “Travelers carry high risk of transferring infection from one region to another region of the world, and physicians should advise them to get tested despite the absence of symptoms,” Dr. Patolia emphasized. “Similarly, once any nursing home patient has been diagnosed with COVID-19, physicians should be more careful with the rest of the nursing home patients and test them despite the absence of the symptoms,” he added.

Dr. Patolia also recommended that pregnant women wear masks to help prevent disease transmission when visiting a doctor’s office or labor unit.

Looking ahead, there is a need for cheaper at-home testing kits so that all vulnerable populations can be tested fast and frequently, Dr. Patolia said.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Patolia has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Based on data from a meta-analysis of 95 studies that included nearly 30,000,000 individuals, the pooled percentage of asymptomatic COVID-19 infections was 0.25% in the tested population and 40.5% among confirmed cases.

Asymptomatic infections remain potential sources of transmission for COVID-19, especially as communities reopen and public life resumes, but the percentage of these infections among those tested and among those diagnosed with COVID-19 has not been examined, wrote Qiuyue Ma, PhD, and colleagues of Peking University, Beijing.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open the researchers identified 44 cross-sectional studies, 41 cohort studies, seven case series, and three case series on transmission studies. A total of 74 studies were conducted in developed countries, including those in Europe, North America, and Asia. Approximately one-third (37) of the studies were conducted among health care workers or in-hospital patients, 17 among nursing home staff or residents, and 14 among community residents. In addition, 13 studies involved pregnant women, eight involved air or cruise ship travelers, and six involved close contacts of individuals with confirmed infections.

The meta-analysis included 29,776,306 tested individuals; 11,516 of them had asymptomatic infections.

Overall, the pooled percentage of asymptomatic infections among the tested population was 0.25%. In an analysis of different study populations, the percentage was higher in nursing home residents or staff (4.52%), air or cruise ship travelers (2.02%), and pregnant women (2.34%), compared against the pooled percentage.

The pooled percentage of asymptomatic infections among the confirmed population was 40.50%, and this percentage was higher in pregnant women (54.11%), air or cruise ship travelers (52.91%), and nursing home residents or staff (47.53%).

The pooled percentage in the tested population was higher than the overall percentage when the mean age of the study population was 60 years or older (3.69%). By contrast, in the confirmed population, the pooled percentage was higher than the overall percentage when the study population was younger than 20 years (60.2%) or aged 20 to 39 years (49.5%).

The researchers noted in their discussion that the varying percentage of asymptomatic individuals according to community prevalence might impact the heterogeneity of the included studies. They also noted the high number of studies conducted in nursing home populations, groups in which asymptomatic individuals were more likely to be tested.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the potential for missed studies that were not published at the time of the meta-analysis, as well as the exclusion of studies written in Chinese, the researchers noted. Other limitations included lack of follow-up on presymptomatic and covert infections, and the focus on specific populations, factors that may limit the degree to which the results can be generalized.

However, the results highlight the need to screen for asymptomatic infections, especially in countries where COVID-19 has been better controlled, the researchers said. Management strategies for asymptomatic infections, when identified, should include isolation and contact tracing similar to strategies used with confirmed cases, they added. 
 

More testing needed to catch cases early

“During the initial phase of [the] COVID-19 pandemic, testing was not widely available in the United States or the rest of the world,” Setu Patolia, MD, of Saint Louis University School of Medicine, Missouri, said in an interview. Much of the world still lacks access to COVID-19 testing, and early in the pandemic only severely symptomatic patients were tested, he said. “With new variants, particularly the Omicron variant, which may have mild or minimally symptomatic disease, asymptomatic carriers play an important role in propagation of the pandemic,” he explained. “It is important to know the asymptomatic carrier rate among the general population for the future control of [the] pandemic,” he added.

Dr. Patolia said he was surprised by the study finding that one in 400 people in the general population could be asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19.

“Also, nursing home patients are more at risk of complications of COVID, and I expected that they would have a higher rate of symptomatic disease as compared to [the] general population,” said Dr. Patolia. He was also surprised by the high rate of asymptomatic infections in travelers.

“Physicians should be more aware about the asymptomatic carrier rate, particularly in travelers and nursing home patients,” he noted. “Travelers carry high risk of transferring infection from one region to another region of the world, and physicians should advise them to get tested despite the absence of symptoms,” Dr. Patolia emphasized. “Similarly, once any nursing home patient has been diagnosed with COVID-19, physicians should be more careful with the rest of the nursing home patients and test them despite the absence of the symptoms,” he added.

Dr. Patolia also recommended that pregnant women wear masks to help prevent disease transmission when visiting a doctor’s office or labor unit.

Looking ahead, there is a need for cheaper at-home testing kits so that all vulnerable populations can be tested fast and frequently, Dr. Patolia said.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Patolia has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Based on data from a meta-analysis of 95 studies that included nearly 30,000,000 individuals, the pooled percentage of asymptomatic COVID-19 infections was 0.25% in the tested population and 40.5% among confirmed cases.

Asymptomatic infections remain potential sources of transmission for COVID-19, especially as communities reopen and public life resumes, but the percentage of these infections among those tested and among those diagnosed with COVID-19 has not been examined, wrote Qiuyue Ma, PhD, and colleagues of Peking University, Beijing.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open the researchers identified 44 cross-sectional studies, 41 cohort studies, seven case series, and three case series on transmission studies. A total of 74 studies were conducted in developed countries, including those in Europe, North America, and Asia. Approximately one-third (37) of the studies were conducted among health care workers or in-hospital patients, 17 among nursing home staff or residents, and 14 among community residents. In addition, 13 studies involved pregnant women, eight involved air or cruise ship travelers, and six involved close contacts of individuals with confirmed infections.

The meta-analysis included 29,776,306 tested individuals; 11,516 of them had asymptomatic infections.

Overall, the pooled percentage of asymptomatic infections among the tested population was 0.25%. In an analysis of different study populations, the percentage was higher in nursing home residents or staff (4.52%), air or cruise ship travelers (2.02%), and pregnant women (2.34%), compared against the pooled percentage.

The pooled percentage of asymptomatic infections among the confirmed population was 40.50%, and this percentage was higher in pregnant women (54.11%), air or cruise ship travelers (52.91%), and nursing home residents or staff (47.53%).

The pooled percentage in the tested population was higher than the overall percentage when the mean age of the study population was 60 years or older (3.69%). By contrast, in the confirmed population, the pooled percentage was higher than the overall percentage when the study population was younger than 20 years (60.2%) or aged 20 to 39 years (49.5%).

The researchers noted in their discussion that the varying percentage of asymptomatic individuals according to community prevalence might impact the heterogeneity of the included studies. They also noted the high number of studies conducted in nursing home populations, groups in which asymptomatic individuals were more likely to be tested.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the potential for missed studies that were not published at the time of the meta-analysis, as well as the exclusion of studies written in Chinese, the researchers noted. Other limitations included lack of follow-up on presymptomatic and covert infections, and the focus on specific populations, factors that may limit the degree to which the results can be generalized.

However, the results highlight the need to screen for asymptomatic infections, especially in countries where COVID-19 has been better controlled, the researchers said. Management strategies for asymptomatic infections, when identified, should include isolation and contact tracing similar to strategies used with confirmed cases, they added. 
 

More testing needed to catch cases early

“During the initial phase of [the] COVID-19 pandemic, testing was not widely available in the United States or the rest of the world,” Setu Patolia, MD, of Saint Louis University School of Medicine, Missouri, said in an interview. Much of the world still lacks access to COVID-19 testing, and early in the pandemic only severely symptomatic patients were tested, he said. “With new variants, particularly the Omicron variant, which may have mild or minimally symptomatic disease, asymptomatic carriers play an important role in propagation of the pandemic,” he explained. “It is important to know the asymptomatic carrier rate among the general population for the future control of [the] pandemic,” he added.

Dr. Patolia said he was surprised by the study finding that one in 400 people in the general population could be asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19.

“Also, nursing home patients are more at risk of complications of COVID, and I expected that they would have a higher rate of symptomatic disease as compared to [the] general population,” said Dr. Patolia. He was also surprised by the high rate of asymptomatic infections in travelers.

“Physicians should be more aware about the asymptomatic carrier rate, particularly in travelers and nursing home patients,” he noted. “Travelers carry high risk of transferring infection from one region to another region of the world, and physicians should advise them to get tested despite the absence of symptoms,” Dr. Patolia emphasized. “Similarly, once any nursing home patient has been diagnosed with COVID-19, physicians should be more careful with the rest of the nursing home patients and test them despite the absence of the symptoms,” he added.

Dr. Patolia also recommended that pregnant women wear masks to help prevent disease transmission when visiting a doctor’s office or labor unit.

Looking ahead, there is a need for cheaper at-home testing kits so that all vulnerable populations can be tested fast and frequently, Dr. Patolia said.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Patolia has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

It is possible to talk to a patient for a brief moment and just know if he or she is a satisficer or a maximizer. A “satisficer” when presented with treatment options will invariably say: “I’ll do whatever you say, Doctor.” A “maximizer,” in contrast, would like a printed copy of treatment choices, then would seek a second opinion before ultimately buying an UpToDate subscription to research treatments for him or herself.

Which is more like you? Which should you be if you want to be happy? I’m mostly a satisficer and would like to present an argument for why this way is best.

This notion that we have tendencies toward maximizing or satisficing is thanks to Nobel Memorial Prize winner and all-around smart guy, Herbert A. Simon, PhD. Dr. Simon recognized that, although each person might be expected to make optimal decisions to benefit himself or herself, this is practically impossible. To do so would require an infinite amount of time and energy. He found therefore that we actually exhibit “bounded rationality;” that is, we make the best decision given the limits of time, the price of acquiring information, and even our cognitive abilities. The amount of effort we give to make a decision also depends on the situation: You might be very invested in choosing the right spouse, but not at all invested in choosing soup or salad. (Although, we all have friends who are: “Um, is there any thyme in the soup?”)

You’ll certainly recognize that people have different set points on the spectrum between being a satisficer, one who will take the first option that meets a standard, and a maximizer, one who will seek and accept only the best, even if choosing is at great cost. There are risks and benefits of each. In getting the best job, maximizers might be more successful, but satisficers seem to be happier.

How much this extends into other spheres of life is unclear. It is clear, though, that the work of choosing can come at a cost.

The psychologist Barry Schwartz, PhD, believes that, in general, having more choices leads to more anxiety, not more contentment. For example, which Christmas tree lot would you rather visit: One with hundreds of trees of half a dozen varieties? Or one with just a few trees each of Balsam and Douglas Firs? Dr. Schwartz would argue that you might waste an entire afternoon in the first lot only to bring it home and have remorse when you realize it’s a little lopsided. Or let’s say your child applied to all the Ivy League and Public Ivy schools and also threw in all the top liberal arts colleges. The anxiety of selecting the best and the terror that the “best one” might not choose him or her could be overwhelming. A key lesson is that more in life is by chance than we realize, including how straight your tree is and who gets into Princeton this year. Yet, our expectation that things will work out perfectly if only we maximize is ubiquitous. That confidence in our ability to choose correctly is, however, unwarranted. Better to do your best and know that your tree will be festive and there are many colleges which would lead to a happy life than to fret in choosing and then suffer from dashed expectations. Sometimes good enough is good enough.

Being a satisficer or maximizer is probably somewhat fixed, a personality trait, like being extroverted or conscientious. Yet, having insight can be helpful. If choosing a restaurant in Manhattan becomes an actual project for you with spreadsheets and your own statistical analysis, then go for it! Just know that if that process causes you angst and apprehension, then there is another way. Go to Eleven Madison Park, just because I say so. You might have the best dinner of your life or maybe not. At least by not choosing you’ll have the gift of time to spend picking out a tree instead.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

It is possible to talk to a patient for a brief moment and just know if he or she is a satisficer or a maximizer. A “satisficer” when presented with treatment options will invariably say: “I’ll do whatever you say, Doctor.” A “maximizer,” in contrast, would like a printed copy of treatment choices, then would seek a second opinion before ultimately buying an UpToDate subscription to research treatments for him or herself.

Which is more like you? Which should you be if you want to be happy? I’m mostly a satisficer and would like to present an argument for why this way is best.

This notion that we have tendencies toward maximizing or satisficing is thanks to Nobel Memorial Prize winner and all-around smart guy, Herbert A. Simon, PhD. Dr. Simon recognized that, although each person might be expected to make optimal decisions to benefit himself or herself, this is practically impossible. To do so would require an infinite amount of time and energy. He found therefore that we actually exhibit “bounded rationality;” that is, we make the best decision given the limits of time, the price of acquiring information, and even our cognitive abilities. The amount of effort we give to make a decision also depends on the situation: You might be very invested in choosing the right spouse, but not at all invested in choosing soup or salad. (Although, we all have friends who are: “Um, is there any thyme in the soup?”)

You’ll certainly recognize that people have different set points on the spectrum between being a satisficer, one who will take the first option that meets a standard, and a maximizer, one who will seek and accept only the best, even if choosing is at great cost. There are risks and benefits of each. In getting the best job, maximizers might be more successful, but satisficers seem to be happier.

How much this extends into other spheres of life is unclear. It is clear, though, that the work of choosing can come at a cost.

The psychologist Barry Schwartz, PhD, believes that, in general, having more choices leads to more anxiety, not more contentment. For example, which Christmas tree lot would you rather visit: One with hundreds of trees of half a dozen varieties? Or one with just a few trees each of Balsam and Douglas Firs? Dr. Schwartz would argue that you might waste an entire afternoon in the first lot only to bring it home and have remorse when you realize it’s a little lopsided. Or let’s say your child applied to all the Ivy League and Public Ivy schools and also threw in all the top liberal arts colleges. The anxiety of selecting the best and the terror that the “best one” might not choose him or her could be overwhelming. A key lesson is that more in life is by chance than we realize, including how straight your tree is and who gets into Princeton this year. Yet, our expectation that things will work out perfectly if only we maximize is ubiquitous. That confidence in our ability to choose correctly is, however, unwarranted. Better to do your best and know that your tree will be festive and there are many colleges which would lead to a happy life than to fret in choosing and then suffer from dashed expectations. Sometimes good enough is good enough.

Being a satisficer or maximizer is probably somewhat fixed, a personality trait, like being extroverted or conscientious. Yet, having insight can be helpful. If choosing a restaurant in Manhattan becomes an actual project for you with spreadsheets and your own statistical analysis, then go for it! Just know that if that process causes you angst and apprehension, then there is another way. Go to Eleven Madison Park, just because I say so. You might have the best dinner of your life or maybe not. At least by not choosing you’ll have the gift of time to spend picking out a tree instead.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

It is possible to talk to a patient for a brief moment and just know if he or she is a satisficer or a maximizer. A “satisficer” when presented with treatment options will invariably say: “I’ll do whatever you say, Doctor.” A “maximizer,” in contrast, would like a printed copy of treatment choices, then would seek a second opinion before ultimately buying an UpToDate subscription to research treatments for him or herself.

Which is more like you? Which should you be if you want to be happy? I’m mostly a satisficer and would like to present an argument for why this way is best.

This notion that we have tendencies toward maximizing or satisficing is thanks to Nobel Memorial Prize winner and all-around smart guy, Herbert A. Simon, PhD. Dr. Simon recognized that, although each person might be expected to make optimal decisions to benefit himself or herself, this is practically impossible. To do so would require an infinite amount of time and energy. He found therefore that we actually exhibit “bounded rationality;” that is, we make the best decision given the limits of time, the price of acquiring information, and even our cognitive abilities. The amount of effort we give to make a decision also depends on the situation: You might be very invested in choosing the right spouse, but not at all invested in choosing soup or salad. (Although, we all have friends who are: “Um, is there any thyme in the soup?”)

You’ll certainly recognize that people have different set points on the spectrum between being a satisficer, one who will take the first option that meets a standard, and a maximizer, one who will seek and accept only the best, even if choosing is at great cost. There are risks and benefits of each. In getting the best job, maximizers might be more successful, but satisficers seem to be happier.

How much this extends into other spheres of life is unclear. It is clear, though, that the work of choosing can come at a cost.

The psychologist Barry Schwartz, PhD, believes that, in general, having more choices leads to more anxiety, not more contentment. For example, which Christmas tree lot would you rather visit: One with hundreds of trees of half a dozen varieties? Or one with just a few trees each of Balsam and Douglas Firs? Dr. Schwartz would argue that you might waste an entire afternoon in the first lot only to bring it home and have remorse when you realize it’s a little lopsided. Or let’s say your child applied to all the Ivy League and Public Ivy schools and also threw in all the top liberal arts colleges. The anxiety of selecting the best and the terror that the “best one” might not choose him or her could be overwhelming. A key lesson is that more in life is by chance than we realize, including how straight your tree is and who gets into Princeton this year. Yet, our expectation that things will work out perfectly if only we maximize is ubiquitous. That confidence in our ability to choose correctly is, however, unwarranted. Better to do your best and know that your tree will be festive and there are many colleges which would lead to a happy life than to fret in choosing and then suffer from dashed expectations. Sometimes good enough is good enough.

Being a satisficer or maximizer is probably somewhat fixed, a personality trait, like being extroverted or conscientious. Yet, having insight can be helpful. If choosing a restaurant in Manhattan becomes an actual project for you with spreadsheets and your own statistical analysis, then go for it! Just know that if that process causes you angst and apprehension, then there is another way. Go to Eleven Madison Park, just because I say so. You might have the best dinner of your life or maybe not. At least by not choosing you’ll have the gift of time to spend picking out a tree instead.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

A recent study examined projected career earnings between the genders in a largely community-based physician population, finding a difference of about $2 million in career earnings. That a gender pay gap exists in medicine is not news – but the manner in which this study was done, the investigators’ ability to control for a number of confounding variables, and the size of the study group (over 80,000) are newsworthy.

Some of the key findings include that gender pay gaps start with your first job, and you never close the gap, even as you gain experience and efficiency. Also, the more highly remunerated your specialty, the larger the gap. The gender pay gap joins a growing list of inequities within health care. Although physician compensation is not the most important, given that nearly all physicians are well-paid, and we have much more significant inequities that lead to direct patient harm, the reasons for this discrepancy warrant further consideration.

When I was first being educated about social inequity as part of work in social determinants of health, I made the error of using “inequality” and “inequity” interchangeably. The subtle yet important difference between the two terms was quickly described to me. Inequality is a gastroenterologist getting paid more money to do a colonoscopy than a family physician. Inequity is a female gastroenterologist getting paid less than a male gastroenterologist. Global Health Europe boldly identifies that “inequity is the result of failure.” In looking at the inequity inherent in the gender pay gap, I consider what failed and why.

I’m currently making a major career change, leaving an executive leadership position to return to full-time clinical practice. There is a significant pay decrease that will accompany this change because I am in a primary care specialty. Beyond that, I am considering two employment contracts from different systems to do a similar clinical role.

One of the questions my husband asked was which will pay more over the long run. This is difficult to discern because the compensation formula each health system uses is different, even though they are based on standard national benchmarking data. It is possible that women, in general, are like I am and look for factors other than compensation to make a job decision – assuming, like I do, that it will be close enough to not matter or is generally fair. In fact, while compensation is most certainly a consideration for me, once I determined that it was likely to be in the same ballpark, I stopped comparing. Even as the sole breadwinner in our family, I take this (probably faulty) approach.
 

It’s time to reconsider how we pay physicians

Women may be more likely to gloss over compensation details that men evaluate and negotiate carefully. To change this, women must first take responsibility for being an active, informed, and engaged part of compensation negotiations. In addition, employers who value gender pay equity must negotiate in good faith, keeping in mind the well-described vulnerabilities in discussions about pay. Finally, male and female mentors and leaders should actively coach female physicians on how to approach these conversations with confidence and skill.

In primary care, female physicians spend, on average, about 15% more time with their patients during a visit. Despite spending as much time in clinic seeing patients per week, they see fewer patients, thereby generating less revenue. For compensation plans that are based on productivity, the extra time spent costs money. In this case, it costs the female physicians lost compensation.

The way in which women are more likely to practice medicine, which includes the amount of time they spend with patients, may affect clinical outcomes without directly increasing productivity. A 2017 study demonstrated that elderly patients had lower rates of mortality and readmission when cared for by a female rather than a male physician. These findings require health systems to critically evaluate what compensation plans value and to promote an appropriate balance between quality of care, quantity of care, and style of care.

Although I’ve seen gender pay inequity as blatant as two different salaries for physicians doing the same work – one male and one female – I think this is uncommon. Like many forms of inequity, the outputs are often related to a failed system rather than solely a series of individual failures. Making compensation formulas gender-blind is an important step – but it is only the first step, not the last. Recognizing that the structure of a compensation formula may be biased toward a style of medical practice more likely to be espoused by one gender is necessary as well.

The data, including the findings of this recent study, clearly identify the gender pay gap that exists in medicine, as it does in many other fields, and that it is not explainable solely by differences in specialties, work hours, family status, or title.

To address the inequity, it is imperative that women engage with employers and leaders to both understand and develop skills around effective and appropriate compensation negotiation. Recognizing that compensation plans, especially those built on productivity models, may fail to place adequate value on gender-specific practice styles.

Jennifer Frank is a family physician, physician leader, wife, and mother in Northeast Wisconsin.

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

A recent study examined projected career earnings between the genders in a largely community-based physician population, finding a difference of about $2 million in career earnings. That a gender pay gap exists in medicine is not news – but the manner in which this study was done, the investigators’ ability to control for a number of confounding variables, and the size of the study group (over 80,000) are newsworthy.

Some of the key findings include that gender pay gaps start with your first job, and you never close the gap, even as you gain experience and efficiency. Also, the more highly remunerated your specialty, the larger the gap. The gender pay gap joins a growing list of inequities within health care. Although physician compensation is not the most important, given that nearly all physicians are well-paid, and we have much more significant inequities that lead to direct patient harm, the reasons for this discrepancy warrant further consideration.

When I was first being educated about social inequity as part of work in social determinants of health, I made the error of using “inequality” and “inequity” interchangeably. The subtle yet important difference between the two terms was quickly described to me. Inequality is a gastroenterologist getting paid more money to do a colonoscopy than a family physician. Inequity is a female gastroenterologist getting paid less than a male gastroenterologist. Global Health Europe boldly identifies that “inequity is the result of failure.” In looking at the inequity inherent in the gender pay gap, I consider what failed and why.

I’m currently making a major career change, leaving an executive leadership position to return to full-time clinical practice. There is a significant pay decrease that will accompany this change because I am in a primary care specialty. Beyond that, I am considering two employment contracts from different systems to do a similar clinical role.

One of the questions my husband asked was which will pay more over the long run. This is difficult to discern because the compensation formula each health system uses is different, even though they are based on standard national benchmarking data. It is possible that women, in general, are like I am and look for factors other than compensation to make a job decision – assuming, like I do, that it will be close enough to not matter or is generally fair. In fact, while compensation is most certainly a consideration for me, once I determined that it was likely to be in the same ballpark, I stopped comparing. Even as the sole breadwinner in our family, I take this (probably faulty) approach.
 

It’s time to reconsider how we pay physicians

Women may be more likely to gloss over compensation details that men evaluate and negotiate carefully. To change this, women must first take responsibility for being an active, informed, and engaged part of compensation negotiations. In addition, employers who value gender pay equity must negotiate in good faith, keeping in mind the well-described vulnerabilities in discussions about pay. Finally, male and female mentors and leaders should actively coach female physicians on how to approach these conversations with confidence and skill.

In primary care, female physicians spend, on average, about 15% more time with their patients during a visit. Despite spending as much time in clinic seeing patients per week, they see fewer patients, thereby generating less revenue. For compensation plans that are based on productivity, the extra time spent costs money. In this case, it costs the female physicians lost compensation.

The way in which women are more likely to practice medicine, which includes the amount of time they spend with patients, may affect clinical outcomes without directly increasing productivity. A 2017 study demonstrated that elderly patients had lower rates of mortality and readmission when cared for by a female rather than a male physician. These findings require health systems to critically evaluate what compensation plans value and to promote an appropriate balance between quality of care, quantity of care, and style of care.

Although I’ve seen gender pay inequity as blatant as two different salaries for physicians doing the same work – one male and one female – I think this is uncommon. Like many forms of inequity, the outputs are often related to a failed system rather than solely a series of individual failures. Making compensation formulas gender-blind is an important step – but it is only the first step, not the last. Recognizing that the structure of a compensation formula may be biased toward a style of medical practice more likely to be espoused by one gender is necessary as well.

The data, including the findings of this recent study, clearly identify the gender pay gap that exists in medicine, as it does in many other fields, and that it is not explainable solely by differences in specialties, work hours, family status, or title.

To address the inequity, it is imperative that women engage with employers and leaders to both understand and develop skills around effective and appropriate compensation negotiation. Recognizing that compensation plans, especially those built on productivity models, may fail to place adequate value on gender-specific practice styles.

Jennifer Frank is a family physician, physician leader, wife, and mother in Northeast Wisconsin.

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

A recent study examined projected career earnings between the genders in a largely community-based physician population, finding a difference of about $2 million in career earnings. That a gender pay gap exists in medicine is not news – but the manner in which this study was done, the investigators’ ability to control for a number of confounding variables, and the size of the study group (over 80,000) are newsworthy.

Some of the key findings include that gender pay gaps start with your first job, and you never close the gap, even as you gain experience and efficiency. Also, the more highly remunerated your specialty, the larger the gap. The gender pay gap joins a growing list of inequities within health care. Although physician compensation is not the most important, given that nearly all physicians are well-paid, and we have much more significant inequities that lead to direct patient harm, the reasons for this discrepancy warrant further consideration.

When I was first being educated about social inequity as part of work in social determinants of health, I made the error of using “inequality” and “inequity” interchangeably. The subtle yet important difference between the two terms was quickly described to me. Inequality is a gastroenterologist getting paid more money to do a colonoscopy than a family physician. Inequity is a female gastroenterologist getting paid less than a male gastroenterologist. Global Health Europe boldly identifies that “inequity is the result of failure.” In looking at the inequity inherent in the gender pay gap, I consider what failed and why.

I’m currently making a major career change, leaving an executive leadership position to return to full-time clinical practice. There is a significant pay decrease that will accompany this change because I am in a primary care specialty. Beyond that, I am considering two employment contracts from different systems to do a similar clinical role.

One of the questions my husband asked was which will pay more over the long run. This is difficult to discern because the compensation formula each health system uses is different, even though they are based on standard national benchmarking data. It is possible that women, in general, are like I am and look for factors other than compensation to make a job decision – assuming, like I do, that it will be close enough to not matter or is generally fair. In fact, while compensation is most certainly a consideration for me, once I determined that it was likely to be in the same ballpark, I stopped comparing. Even as the sole breadwinner in our family, I take this (probably faulty) approach.
 

It’s time to reconsider how we pay physicians

Women may be more likely to gloss over compensation details that men evaluate and negotiate carefully. To change this, women must first take responsibility for being an active, informed, and engaged part of compensation negotiations. In addition, employers who value gender pay equity must negotiate in good faith, keeping in mind the well-described vulnerabilities in discussions about pay. Finally, male and female mentors and leaders should actively coach female physicians on how to approach these conversations with confidence and skill.

In primary care, female physicians spend, on average, about 15% more time with their patients during a visit. Despite spending as much time in clinic seeing patients per week, they see fewer patients, thereby generating less revenue. For compensation plans that are based on productivity, the extra time spent costs money. In this case, it costs the female physicians lost compensation.

The way in which women are more likely to practice medicine, which includes the amount of time they spend with patients, may affect clinical outcomes without directly increasing productivity. A 2017 study demonstrated that elderly patients had lower rates of mortality and readmission when cared for by a female rather than a male physician. These findings require health systems to critically evaluate what compensation plans value and to promote an appropriate balance between quality of care, quantity of care, and style of care.

Although I’ve seen gender pay inequity as blatant as two different salaries for physicians doing the same work – one male and one female – I think this is uncommon. Like many forms of inequity, the outputs are often related to a failed system rather than solely a series of individual failures. Making compensation formulas gender-blind is an important step – but it is only the first step, not the last. Recognizing that the structure of a compensation formula may be biased toward a style of medical practice more likely to be espoused by one gender is necessary as well.

The data, including the findings of this recent study, clearly identify the gender pay gap that exists in medicine, as it does in many other fields, and that it is not explainable solely by differences in specialties, work hours, family status, or title.

To address the inequity, it is imperative that women engage with employers and leaders to both understand and develop skills around effective and appropriate compensation negotiation. Recognizing that compensation plans, especially those built on productivity models, may fail to place adequate value on gender-specific practice styles.

Jennifer Frank is a family physician, physician leader, wife, and mother in Northeast Wisconsin.

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

Only 12 state medical boards have taken action against physicians who have spread false or misleading information about COVID-19, according to a new survey from the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB).

The FSMB reports that in its 2021 annual survey two-thirds of its 71 member boards (which includes the United States, its territories, and Washington, DC) reported an increase in complaints about doctors spreading false or misleading information.

“The staggering number of state medical boards that have seen an increase in COVID-19 disinformation complaints is a sign of how widespread the issue has become,” said Humayun J. Chaudhry, DO, MACP, president and CEO of the FSMB, in a statement.

The FSMB board of directors warned physicians in July that they risked disciplinary action if they spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation.

The organization said 15 state boards have now adopted similar statements.

Dr. Chaudhry said the FSMB was “encouraged by the number of boards that have already taken action to combat COVID-19 disinformation by disciplining physicians who engage in that behavior and by reminding all physicians that their words and actions matter, and they should think twice before spreading disinformation that may harm patients.”

This news organization asked the FSMB for further comment on why more physicians have not been disciplined, but did not receive a response before publication.

Misinformation policies a new battleground

The FSMB and member board policies on COVID-19 around the country have become a new front in the war against mandates and restrictions.

The Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners voted just recently to remove its statement of policy against the spread of misinformation from its website after a Republican lawmaker allegedly threatened to dissolve the board.

The vote came just a few months after the board had approved the policy. The board did not rescind the policy, however, according to a report by the Associated Press.

In California, the president of the state’s medical board tweeted on December 8 about what she said was an incident of harassment by a group that has promoted “fake COVID-19 treatments.”Ms. Kristina Lawson said she observed four men sitting in front of her house in a truck. They flew a drone over her residence, and then followed her to work, parking nose-to-nose with her vehicle.

Ms. Lawson claimed that when she went to drive home the four men ambushed her in what was by then a dark parking garage. She said her “concern turned to terror” as they jumped out, cameras and recording equipment in hand.

The men told law enforcement called to the scene that they were just trying to interview her, according to a statement emailed by Ms. Lawson.

They had not made such a request to the California Medical Board.

Ms. Lawson tweeted that she would continue to volunteer for the board. “That means protecting Californians from bad doctors, and ensuring disinformation and misinformation do not detract from our work to protect patients and consumers,” she wrote.

The men who ambushed Ms. Larson allegedly identified themselves and were wearing clothing emblazoned with the logo of “America’s Frontline Doctors,” an organization that has trafficked in COVID-19 conspiracy theories and promoted unproven treatments like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, according to Time. It is led by Simone Gold, MD, who was arrested for breaching the U.S. Capitol on January 6.

Despite her activities, on November 30, the California Medical Board renewed Ms. Gold’s 2-year license to practice.

Who’s being disciplined, who’s not

Dr. Gold is not alone. An investigation by NPRin September found that 15 of 16 physicians who have spread false information in a high-profile manner have medical licenses in good standing.

Sherri Tenpenny, DO, who has claimed that COVID-19 vaccines magnetize people and “interface” with 5G cell phone towers, was able to renew her license with the Ohio State Medical Board on October 1, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer.

Some boards have acted. The Oregon Medical Board revoked the license of Steven LaTulippe, MD, and fined him $10,000 for spreading misinformation about masks and overprescribing opioids.

In August, Rhode Island’s Board of Medical Licensure suspended Mark Brody’s license for 5 years after finding that the doctor spread falsehoods about COVID-19 vaccines, according to board documents.

Maine physician Paul Gosselin, DO, is on temporary suspension until a February hearing, while the osteopathic board investigates his issuance of vaccine exemption letters and the promotion of unproven COVID-19 therapies.

The board found that Gosselin had “engaged in conduct that constitutes fraud or deceit,” according to official documents.

The Washington State Medical Board has opened an investigation into Ryan N. Cole, MD, a physician who has claimed that COVID vaccines are “fake,” and was appointed to a regional health board in Idaho in September, according to the Washington Post.

The Idaho Capital Sun reported that Dr. Cole claims he is licensed in 11 states, including Washington. The Idaho Medical Association has also filed a complaint about Dr. Cole with the Idaho Board of Medicine, according to the paper.

New FSMB guidance coming

The FSMB said it expects more disciplinary actions as investigations continue to unfold.

The organization is drafting a new policy document that will include further guidelines and recommendations for state medical boards “to help address the spread of disinformation,” it said. The final document would be released in April 2022.

In the meantime, some states, like Tennessee and others, are trying to find ways to counter the current policy — a development the FSMB called “troubling.”

“The FSMB strongly opposes any effort to restrict a board’s authority to evaluate the standard of care and assess risk for patient harm,” the organization said in its statement.

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

Only 12 state medical boards have taken action against physicians who have spread false or misleading information about COVID-19, according to a new survey from the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB).

The FSMB reports that in its 2021 annual survey two-thirds of its 71 member boards (which includes the United States, its territories, and Washington, DC) reported an increase in complaints about doctors spreading false or misleading information.

“The staggering number of state medical boards that have seen an increase in COVID-19 disinformation complaints is a sign of how widespread the issue has become,” said Humayun J. Chaudhry, DO, MACP, president and CEO of the FSMB, in a statement.

The FSMB board of directors warned physicians in July that they risked disciplinary action if they spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation.

The organization said 15 state boards have now adopted similar statements.

Dr. Chaudhry said the FSMB was “encouraged by the number of boards that have already taken action to combat COVID-19 disinformation by disciplining physicians who engage in that behavior and by reminding all physicians that their words and actions matter, and they should think twice before spreading disinformation that may harm patients.”

This news organization asked the FSMB for further comment on why more physicians have not been disciplined, but did not receive a response before publication.

Misinformation policies a new battleground

The FSMB and member board policies on COVID-19 around the country have become a new front in the war against mandates and restrictions.

The Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners voted just recently to remove its statement of policy against the spread of misinformation from its website after a Republican lawmaker allegedly threatened to dissolve the board.

The vote came just a few months after the board had approved the policy. The board did not rescind the policy, however, according to a report by the Associated Press.

In California, the president of the state’s medical board tweeted on December 8 about what she said was an incident of harassment by a group that has promoted “fake COVID-19 treatments.”Ms. Kristina Lawson said she observed four men sitting in front of her house in a truck. They flew a drone over her residence, and then followed her to work, parking nose-to-nose with her vehicle.

Ms. Lawson claimed that when she went to drive home the four men ambushed her in what was by then a dark parking garage. She said her “concern turned to terror” as they jumped out, cameras and recording equipment in hand.

The men told law enforcement called to the scene that they were just trying to interview her, according to a statement emailed by Ms. Lawson.

They had not made such a request to the California Medical Board.

Ms. Lawson tweeted that she would continue to volunteer for the board. “That means protecting Californians from bad doctors, and ensuring disinformation and misinformation do not detract from our work to protect patients and consumers,” she wrote.

The men who ambushed Ms. Larson allegedly identified themselves and were wearing clothing emblazoned with the logo of “America’s Frontline Doctors,” an organization that has trafficked in COVID-19 conspiracy theories and promoted unproven treatments like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, according to Time. It is led by Simone Gold, MD, who was arrested for breaching the U.S. Capitol on January 6.

Despite her activities, on November 30, the California Medical Board renewed Ms. Gold’s 2-year license to practice.

Who’s being disciplined, who’s not

Dr. Gold is not alone. An investigation by NPRin September found that 15 of 16 physicians who have spread false information in a high-profile manner have medical licenses in good standing.

Sherri Tenpenny, DO, who has claimed that COVID-19 vaccines magnetize people and “interface” with 5G cell phone towers, was able to renew her license with the Ohio State Medical Board on October 1, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer.

Some boards have acted. The Oregon Medical Board revoked the license of Steven LaTulippe, MD, and fined him $10,000 for spreading misinformation about masks and overprescribing opioids.

In August, Rhode Island’s Board of Medical Licensure suspended Mark Brody’s license for 5 years after finding that the doctor spread falsehoods about COVID-19 vaccines, according to board documents.

Maine physician Paul Gosselin, DO, is on temporary suspension until a February hearing, while the osteopathic board investigates his issuance of vaccine exemption letters and the promotion of unproven COVID-19 therapies.

The board found that Gosselin had “engaged in conduct that constitutes fraud or deceit,” according to official documents.

The Washington State Medical Board has opened an investigation into Ryan N. Cole, MD, a physician who has claimed that COVID vaccines are “fake,” and was appointed to a regional health board in Idaho in September, according to the Washington Post.

The Idaho Capital Sun reported that Dr. Cole claims he is licensed in 11 states, including Washington. The Idaho Medical Association has also filed a complaint about Dr. Cole with the Idaho Board of Medicine, according to the paper.

New FSMB guidance coming

The FSMB said it expects more disciplinary actions as investigations continue to unfold.

The organization is drafting a new policy document that will include further guidelines and recommendations for state medical boards “to help address the spread of disinformation,” it said. The final document would be released in April 2022.

In the meantime, some states, like Tennessee and others, are trying to find ways to counter the current policy — a development the FSMB called “troubling.”

“The FSMB strongly opposes any effort to restrict a board’s authority to evaluate the standard of care and assess risk for patient harm,” the organization said in its statement.

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

Only 12 state medical boards have taken action against physicians who have spread false or misleading information about COVID-19, according to a new survey from the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB).

The FSMB reports that in its 2021 annual survey two-thirds of its 71 member boards (which includes the United States, its territories, and Washington, DC) reported an increase in complaints about doctors spreading false or misleading information.

“The staggering number of state medical boards that have seen an increase in COVID-19 disinformation complaints is a sign of how widespread the issue has become,” said Humayun J. Chaudhry, DO, MACP, president and CEO of the FSMB, in a statement.

The FSMB board of directors warned physicians in July that they risked disciplinary action if they spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation.

The organization said 15 state boards have now adopted similar statements.

Dr. Chaudhry said the FSMB was “encouraged by the number of boards that have already taken action to combat COVID-19 disinformation by disciplining physicians who engage in that behavior and by reminding all physicians that their words and actions matter, and they should think twice before spreading disinformation that may harm patients.”

This news organization asked the FSMB for further comment on why more physicians have not been disciplined, but did not receive a response before publication.

Misinformation policies a new battleground

The FSMB and member board policies on COVID-19 around the country have become a new front in the war against mandates and restrictions.

The Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners voted just recently to remove its statement of policy against the spread of misinformation from its website after a Republican lawmaker allegedly threatened to dissolve the board.

The vote came just a few months after the board had approved the policy. The board did not rescind the policy, however, according to a report by the Associated Press.

In California, the president of the state’s medical board tweeted on December 8 about what she said was an incident of harassment by a group that has promoted “fake COVID-19 treatments.”Ms. Kristina Lawson said she observed four men sitting in front of her house in a truck. They flew a drone over her residence, and then followed her to work, parking nose-to-nose with her vehicle.

Ms. Lawson claimed that when she went to drive home the four men ambushed her in what was by then a dark parking garage. She said her “concern turned to terror” as they jumped out, cameras and recording equipment in hand.

The men told law enforcement called to the scene that they were just trying to interview her, according to a statement emailed by Ms. Lawson.

They had not made such a request to the California Medical Board.

Ms. Lawson tweeted that she would continue to volunteer for the board. “That means protecting Californians from bad doctors, and ensuring disinformation and misinformation do not detract from our work to protect patients and consumers,” she wrote.

The men who ambushed Ms. Larson allegedly identified themselves and were wearing clothing emblazoned with the logo of “America’s Frontline Doctors,” an organization that has trafficked in COVID-19 conspiracy theories and promoted unproven treatments like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, according to Time. It is led by Simone Gold, MD, who was arrested for breaching the U.S. Capitol on January 6.

Despite her activities, on November 30, the California Medical Board renewed Ms. Gold’s 2-year license to practice.

Who’s being disciplined, who’s not

Dr. Gold is not alone. An investigation by NPRin September found that 15 of 16 physicians who have spread false information in a high-profile manner have medical licenses in good standing.

Sherri Tenpenny, DO, who has claimed that COVID-19 vaccines magnetize people and “interface” with 5G cell phone towers, was able to renew her license with the Ohio State Medical Board on October 1, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer.

Some boards have acted. The Oregon Medical Board revoked the license of Steven LaTulippe, MD, and fined him $10,000 for spreading misinformation about masks and overprescribing opioids.

In August, Rhode Island’s Board of Medical Licensure suspended Mark Brody’s license for 5 years after finding that the doctor spread falsehoods about COVID-19 vaccines, according to board documents.

Maine physician Paul Gosselin, DO, is on temporary suspension until a February hearing, while the osteopathic board investigates his issuance of vaccine exemption letters and the promotion of unproven COVID-19 therapies.

The board found that Gosselin had “engaged in conduct that constitutes fraud or deceit,” according to official documents.

The Washington State Medical Board has opened an investigation into Ryan N. Cole, MD, a physician who has claimed that COVID vaccines are “fake,” and was appointed to a regional health board in Idaho in September, according to the Washington Post.

The Idaho Capital Sun reported that Dr. Cole claims he is licensed in 11 states, including Washington. The Idaho Medical Association has also filed a complaint about Dr. Cole with the Idaho Board of Medicine, according to the paper.

New FSMB guidance coming

The FSMB said it expects more disciplinary actions as investigations continue to unfold.

The organization is drafting a new policy document that will include further guidelines and recommendations for state medical boards “to help address the spread of disinformation,” it said. The final document would be released in April 2022.

In the meantime, some states, like Tennessee and others, are trying to find ways to counter the current policy — a development the FSMB called “troubling.”

“The FSMB strongly opposes any effort to restrict a board’s authority to evaluate the standard of care and assess risk for patient harm,” the organization said in its statement.

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

Most of the United States will see significant growth in COVID-19 cases during the next four weeks, according to the latest forecasting models by the PolicyLab at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

Large metropolitan areas, especially those in the Northeast, are already seeing a major increase in cases following Thanksgiving, and that trend is expected to continue.

“Why? Simply stated, the large amount of Thanksgiving travel and gatherings undermined the nation’s pandemic footing and has elevated disease burden in areas of the country that were fortunate to have lower case rates before the holidays,” the forecasters wrote.

Case numbers in New York City are expected to double throughout December, the forecasters said. Similar growth could happen across Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore.

Overall, COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are rising across the United States but remain below levels seen during the summer and last winter’s surges, according to the New York Times. The increase is still being driven by the Delta variant, though it remains unclear how the Omicron variant, which has been detected in 27 states, could affect the trends in the coming weeks.

During the past week, the United States has reported an average of more than 120,000 new cases each day, the newspaper reported, which is an increase of 38% from two weeks ago.

The daily average of COVID-19 hospitalizations is around 64,000, which marks an increase of 22% from two weeks ago. More than 1,300 deaths are being reported each day, which is up 26%.

Numerous states are reporting double the cases from two weeks ago, stretching across the country from states in the Northeast such as Connecticut and Rhode Island to southern states such as North Carolina and Texas and western states such as California.

The Great Lakes region and the Northeast are seeing some of the most severe increases, the newspaper reported. New Hampshire leads the United States in recent cases per capita, and Maine has reported more cases in the past week than in any other seven-day period during the pandemic.

Michigan has the country’s highest hospitalization rate, and federal medical teams have been sent to the state to help with the surge in patients, according to The Detroit News. Michigan’s top public health officials described the surge as a “critical” and “deeply concerning” situation on Dec. 10, and they requested 200 more ventilators from the Strategic National Stockpile.

Indiana, Maine, and New York have also requested aid from the National Guard, according to USA Today. Health officials in those states urged residents to get vaccines or booster shots and wear masks in indoor public settings.

The Omicron variant can evade some vaccine protection, but booster shots can increase efficacy and offer more coverage, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said Dec. 12.

“If you want to be optimally protected, absolutely get a booster,” he said on ABC’s “This Week.”

In addition, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has announced a statewide mask mandate, which will take effect Dec. 13. Masks will be required in all indoor public spaces and businesses, unless the location implements a vaccine requirement instead, the news outlet reported.

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

Most of the United States will see significant growth in COVID-19 cases during the next four weeks, according to the latest forecasting models by the PolicyLab at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

Large metropolitan areas, especially those in the Northeast, are already seeing a major increase in cases following Thanksgiving, and that trend is expected to continue.

“Why? Simply stated, the large amount of Thanksgiving travel and gatherings undermined the nation’s pandemic footing and has elevated disease burden in areas of the country that were fortunate to have lower case rates before the holidays,” the forecasters wrote.

Case numbers in New York City are expected to double throughout December, the forecasters said. Similar growth could happen across Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore.

Overall, COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are rising across the United States but remain below levels seen during the summer and last winter’s surges, according to the New York Times. The increase is still being driven by the Delta variant, though it remains unclear how the Omicron variant, which has been detected in 27 states, could affect the trends in the coming weeks.

During the past week, the United States has reported an average of more than 120,000 new cases each day, the newspaper reported, which is an increase of 38% from two weeks ago.

The daily average of COVID-19 hospitalizations is around 64,000, which marks an increase of 22% from two weeks ago. More than 1,300 deaths are being reported each day, which is up 26%.

Numerous states are reporting double the cases from two weeks ago, stretching across the country from states in the Northeast such as Connecticut and Rhode Island to southern states such as North Carolina and Texas and western states such as California.

The Great Lakes region and the Northeast are seeing some of the most severe increases, the newspaper reported. New Hampshire leads the United States in recent cases per capita, and Maine has reported more cases in the past week than in any other seven-day period during the pandemic.

Michigan has the country’s highest hospitalization rate, and federal medical teams have been sent to the state to help with the surge in patients, according to The Detroit News. Michigan’s top public health officials described the surge as a “critical” and “deeply concerning” situation on Dec. 10, and they requested 200 more ventilators from the Strategic National Stockpile.

Indiana, Maine, and New York have also requested aid from the National Guard, according to USA Today. Health officials in those states urged residents to get vaccines or booster shots and wear masks in indoor public settings.

The Omicron variant can evade some vaccine protection, but booster shots can increase efficacy and offer more coverage, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said Dec. 12.

“If you want to be optimally protected, absolutely get a booster,” he said on ABC’s “This Week.”

In addition, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has announced a statewide mask mandate, which will take effect Dec. 13. Masks will be required in all indoor public spaces and businesses, unless the location implements a vaccine requirement instead, the news outlet reported.

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

Most of the United States will see significant growth in COVID-19 cases during the next four weeks, according to the latest forecasting models by the PolicyLab at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

Large metropolitan areas, especially those in the Northeast, are already seeing a major increase in cases following Thanksgiving, and that trend is expected to continue.

“Why? Simply stated, the large amount of Thanksgiving travel and gatherings undermined the nation’s pandemic footing and has elevated disease burden in areas of the country that were fortunate to have lower case rates before the holidays,” the forecasters wrote.

Case numbers in New York City are expected to double throughout December, the forecasters said. Similar growth could happen across Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore.

Overall, COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are rising across the United States but remain below levels seen during the summer and last winter’s surges, according to the New York Times. The increase is still being driven by the Delta variant, though it remains unclear how the Omicron variant, which has been detected in 27 states, could affect the trends in the coming weeks.

During the past week, the United States has reported an average of more than 120,000 new cases each day, the newspaper reported, which is an increase of 38% from two weeks ago.

The daily average of COVID-19 hospitalizations is around 64,000, which marks an increase of 22% from two weeks ago. More than 1,300 deaths are being reported each day, which is up 26%.

Numerous states are reporting double the cases from two weeks ago, stretching across the country from states in the Northeast such as Connecticut and Rhode Island to southern states such as North Carolina and Texas and western states such as California.

The Great Lakes region and the Northeast are seeing some of the most severe increases, the newspaper reported. New Hampshire leads the United States in recent cases per capita, and Maine has reported more cases in the past week than in any other seven-day period during the pandemic.

Michigan has the country’s highest hospitalization rate, and federal medical teams have been sent to the state to help with the surge in patients, according to The Detroit News. Michigan’s top public health officials described the surge as a “critical” and “deeply concerning” situation on Dec. 10, and they requested 200 more ventilators from the Strategic National Stockpile.

Indiana, Maine, and New York have also requested aid from the National Guard, according to USA Today. Health officials in those states urged residents to get vaccines or booster shots and wear masks in indoor public settings.

The Omicron variant can evade some vaccine protection, but booster shots can increase efficacy and offer more coverage, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said Dec. 12.

“If you want to be optimally protected, absolutely get a booster,” he said on ABC’s “This Week.”

In addition, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has announced a statewide mask mandate, which will take effect Dec. 13. Masks will be required in all indoor public spaces and businesses, unless the location implements a vaccine requirement instead, the news outlet reported.

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

Among women with breast cancer being treated with aromatase inhibitors (AI), supplementation with vitamin D and calcium protected against bone loss after 5 years, according to results from a prospective cohort study in Brazil. The study found no difference in bone mineral density outcomes at 5 years between women with hormone receptor–positive cancers treated with aromatase inhibitors (AIG) and triple negative or HER-2 positive patients who were treated with another therapy (CG).

Courtesy Renata Flores

About two-thirds of women with breast cancer have tumors that are positive for hormone receptors, and so are often treated with endocrine therapy such as selective estrogen receptor modulators or AI. However, there are concerns that AI treatment may lead to a loss of bone mineral density and impacts on quality of life. This loss is influenced by a range of factors, including body weight, physical activity, smoking, alcohol consumption, corticosteroid use, calcium in the diet, and circulating levels of vitamin D.

Vitamin D helps to regulate absorption of calcium and phosphorus, ensuring that their plasma concentrations are high enough for adequate bone health. But vitamin D deficiency is a common problem, even in tropical areas such as Brazil. “It is high in the general population and especially in postmenopausal breast cancer patients. Thus, vitamin D and calcium supplementation has an impact on these women’s lives,” said lead author Marcelo Antonini, MD, who presented the study (abstract P1-13-04) at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. He is a researcher at Hospital Servidor Publico Estadual in São Paulo, Brazil.

Although the findings are encouraging, more work needs to be done before it leads to a change in practice. “Larger studies must be carried out to prove this theory; however, in noncancer patients we have already well established the benefits of vitamin D and calcium supplementation,” Dr. Antonini said in an interview

The researchers examined women before the start of treatment, at 6 months, and at 5 years. Those with vitamin D levels below 30 ng/mL received 7,000 IU/day for 8 weeks, followed by a 1,000 IU/day maintenance dose. Subjects with osteopenia received a calcium supplement (500 mg calcium carbonate), and those with osteoporosis received 4 mg zoledronic acid (Zometa, Novartis).

There were 140 patients in both the AIG and CG groups. The average age was 65 years. Sixty-four percent of the AIG group and 71% of the CG group were vitamin D deficient at baseline. At 5 years, the frequencies were 17% and 16%, respectively. Both groups showed significant declines in bone mineral density in the femoral neck and femur at both 6 months and 5 years, but there was no significant difference between them. There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to bone density loss in the spine.

The study is limited by the fact that it was conducted at a single center and had a small population size.

Another prospective observational study, published earlier this year, looked at vitamin D supplementation in 741 patients (mean age 61.9 years) being treated with aromatase inhibitors, whose baseline vitamin D levels were less 30 ng/mL. They received 16,000 IU dose of oral calcifediol every 2 weeks. At 3 months, individuals who achieved vitamin D levels of 40 ng/mL or higher were less likely to have joint pain (P < .05). At 12 months, data from 473 patients showed that for every 10-ng/mL increase in serum vitamin D at 3 months, there was a reduction in loss of bone marrow density in the lumbar spine (adjusted beta = +0.177%, P < .05), though there were no associations between vitamin D levels and BMD of the femur or total hip.

“Our results suggest that optimal levels of vitamin D are associated with a reduced risk of joint pain related to AI treatment. A target threshold (of vitamin D) levels was set at 40 ng/mL to significantly reduce the increase in joint pain. The authors noted that this threshold is well above the goal of 20 ng/mL recommended by the 2010 Institute of Medicine report.

The study did not receive external funding. Dr. Antonini has no relevant financial disclosures.

Among women with breast cancer being treated with aromatase inhibitors (AI), supplementation with vitamin D and calcium protected against bone loss after 5 years, according to results from a prospective cohort study in Brazil. The study found no difference in bone mineral density outcomes at 5 years between women with hormone receptor–positive cancers treated with aromatase inhibitors (AIG) and triple negative or HER-2 positive patients who were treated with another therapy (CG).

Courtesy Renata Flores

About two-thirds of women with breast cancer have tumors that are positive for hormone receptors, and so are often treated with endocrine therapy such as selective estrogen receptor modulators or AI. However, there are concerns that AI treatment may lead to a loss of bone mineral density and impacts on quality of life. This loss is influenced by a range of factors, including body weight, physical activity, smoking, alcohol consumption, corticosteroid use, calcium in the diet, and circulating levels of vitamin D.

Vitamin D helps to regulate absorption of calcium and phosphorus, ensuring that their plasma concentrations are high enough for adequate bone health. But vitamin D deficiency is a common problem, even in tropical areas such as Brazil. “It is high in the general population and especially in postmenopausal breast cancer patients. Thus, vitamin D and calcium supplementation has an impact on these women’s lives,” said lead author Marcelo Antonini, MD, who presented the study (abstract P1-13-04) at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. He is a researcher at Hospital Servidor Publico Estadual in São Paulo, Brazil.

Although the findings are encouraging, more work needs to be done before it leads to a change in practice. “Larger studies must be carried out to prove this theory; however, in noncancer patients we have already well established the benefits of vitamin D and calcium supplementation,” Dr. Antonini said in an interview

The researchers examined women before the start of treatment, at 6 months, and at 5 years. Those with vitamin D levels below 30 ng/mL received 7,000 IU/day for 8 weeks, followed by a 1,000 IU/day maintenance dose. Subjects with osteopenia received a calcium supplement (500 mg calcium carbonate), and those with osteoporosis received 4 mg zoledronic acid (Zometa, Novartis).

There were 140 patients in both the AIG and CG groups. The average age was 65 years. Sixty-four percent of the AIG group and 71% of the CG group were vitamin D deficient at baseline. At 5 years, the frequencies were 17% and 16%, respectively. Both groups showed significant declines in bone mineral density in the femoral neck and femur at both 6 months and 5 years, but there was no significant difference between them. There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to bone density loss in the spine.

The study is limited by the fact that it was conducted at a single center and had a small population size.

Another prospective observational study, published earlier this year, looked at vitamin D supplementation in 741 patients (mean age 61.9 years) being treated with aromatase inhibitors, whose baseline vitamin D levels were less 30 ng/mL. They received 16,000 IU dose of oral calcifediol every 2 weeks. At 3 months, individuals who achieved vitamin D levels of 40 ng/mL or higher were less likely to have joint pain (P < .05). At 12 months, data from 473 patients showed that for every 10-ng/mL increase in serum vitamin D at 3 months, there was a reduction in loss of bone marrow density in the lumbar spine (adjusted beta = +0.177%, P < .05), though there were no associations between vitamin D levels and BMD of the femur or total hip.

“Our results suggest that optimal levels of vitamin D are associated with a reduced risk of joint pain related to AI treatment. A target threshold (of vitamin D) levels was set at 40 ng/mL to significantly reduce the increase in joint pain. The authors noted that this threshold is well above the goal of 20 ng/mL recommended by the 2010 Institute of Medicine report.

The study did not receive external funding. Dr. Antonini has no relevant financial disclosures.

Among women with breast cancer being treated with aromatase inhibitors (AI), supplementation with vitamin D and calcium protected against bone loss after 5 years, according to results from a prospective cohort study in Brazil. The study found no difference in bone mineral density outcomes at 5 years between women with hormone receptor–positive cancers treated with aromatase inhibitors (AIG) and triple negative or HER-2 positive patients who were treated with another therapy (CG).

Courtesy Renata Flores

About two-thirds of women with breast cancer have tumors that are positive for hormone receptors, and so are often treated with endocrine therapy such as selective estrogen receptor modulators or AI. However, there are concerns that AI treatment may lead to a loss of bone mineral density and impacts on quality of life. This loss is influenced by a range of factors, including body weight, physical activity, smoking, alcohol consumption, corticosteroid use, calcium in the diet, and circulating levels of vitamin D.

Vitamin D helps to regulate absorption of calcium and phosphorus, ensuring that their plasma concentrations are high enough for adequate bone health. But vitamin D deficiency is a common problem, even in tropical areas such as Brazil. “It is high in the general population and especially in postmenopausal breast cancer patients. Thus, vitamin D and calcium supplementation has an impact on these women’s lives,” said lead author Marcelo Antonini, MD, who presented the study (abstract P1-13-04) at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. He is a researcher at Hospital Servidor Publico Estadual in São Paulo, Brazil.

Although the findings are encouraging, more work needs to be done before it leads to a change in practice. “Larger studies must be carried out to prove this theory; however, in noncancer patients we have already well established the benefits of vitamin D and calcium supplementation,” Dr. Antonini said in an interview

The researchers examined women before the start of treatment, at 6 months, and at 5 years. Those with vitamin D levels below 30 ng/mL received 7,000 IU/day for 8 weeks, followed by a 1,000 IU/day maintenance dose. Subjects with osteopenia received a calcium supplement (500 mg calcium carbonate), and those with osteoporosis received 4 mg zoledronic acid (Zometa, Novartis).

There were 140 patients in both the AIG and CG groups. The average age was 65 years. Sixty-four percent of the AIG group and 71% of the CG group were vitamin D deficient at baseline. At 5 years, the frequencies were 17% and 16%, respectively. Both groups showed significant declines in bone mineral density in the femoral neck and femur at both 6 months and 5 years, but there was no significant difference between them. There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to bone density loss in the spine.

The study is limited by the fact that it was conducted at a single center and had a small population size.

Another prospective observational study, published earlier this year, looked at vitamin D supplementation in 741 patients (mean age 61.9 years) being treated with aromatase inhibitors, whose baseline vitamin D levels were less 30 ng/mL. They received 16,000 IU dose of oral calcifediol every 2 weeks. At 3 months, individuals who achieved vitamin D levels of 40 ng/mL or higher were less likely to have joint pain (P < .05). At 12 months, data from 473 patients showed that for every 10-ng/mL increase in serum vitamin D at 3 months, there was a reduction in loss of bone marrow density in the lumbar spine (adjusted beta = +0.177%, P < .05), though there were no associations between vitamin D levels and BMD of the femur or total hip.

“Our results suggest that optimal levels of vitamin D are associated with a reduced risk of joint pain related to AI treatment. A target threshold (of vitamin D) levels was set at 40 ng/mL to significantly reduce the increase in joint pain. The authors noted that this threshold is well above the goal of 20 ng/mL recommended by the 2010 Institute of Medicine report.

The study did not receive external funding. Dr. Antonini has no relevant financial disclosures.

One in 10 adults worldwide currently has diabetes, accounting for an estimated global health expenditure of $966 billion in U.S. dollars in 2021, according to the new International Diabetes Federation Diabetes Atlas.

The IDF Atlas, 10th edition, was published online Dec. 6, 2021.

Highlights from it were presented during two sessions at the IDF Virtual Congress 2021, covering global diabetes incidence and prevalence, mortality, and costs, as well as new sections in this edition devoted to adult-onset type 1 diabetes, childhood-onset type 2 diabetes, and the interactions between diabetes and COVID-19.

More detailed data from some of the Atlas chapters were also published Dec. 6, 2021, in separate papers in the IDF journal Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, with more publications planned.

Information for the Atlas comes from peer-reviewed literature, unpublished reports, and national registries. This latest edition includes 219 data sources from 144 countries, with figures for other countries extrapolated.

Atlas cochair Dianna Magliano, PhD, reviewed some of the highlights. Half of those currently with diabetes, or about 240 million adults, are undiagnosed, and another 319 million have impaired fasting glucose. Over three-quarters of all adults with diabetes now live in low- and middle-income countries. And about 6.7 million deaths in 2021 can be attributed to diabetes.

The Atlas also predicts increases in these numbers over the coming decades if current trends continue.

“Our data and projections tell a sobering story. Diabetes prevalence is expected to increase globally. The number of adults with diabetes will rise from 537 million in 2021 to 786 million ... by the year 2045, an increase of 46%. Rises are expected in every region of the world, with the largest increases expected to occur in the regions of Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia,” said Dr. Magliano, head of diabetes and population health at the Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne.

Since 2019, when the last Atlas was published, the 2021 numbers represent increases of 73.6 million more adults with diabetes including 7.8 million more undiagnosed, 2.5 million more deaths attributed to diabetes, and an additional global expenditure of $206 billion.

Increases have also occurred in the number of people with prediabetes, children with type 1 diabetes, and pregnancies affected by diabetes, Dr. Magliano reported.

“There is a strong need for effective intervention strategies and policies to stall the increase in the number of people developing diabetes across the world,” she added.
 

Projected rise in expenditures for diabetes will be ‘unsustainable’

The current $966 billion global health expenditure caused by diabetes represents a 316% increase from the $232 billion reported in 2006, according to William H. Herman, MD, professor of internal medicine and epidemiology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

By region, 43% of current diabetes-related global expenditures are in North America, 25% in the Western Pacific, and 20% in Europe, while 12% are from the regions of South and Central America, North Africa, Africa, and Southeast Asia combined, Herman said.

The direct costs of diabetes are projected to grow to $1054 billion in 2045, an increase of just 9% over 25 years. The reason for the far lower increase going forward, compared with the tripling in the 15 years prior, is because of the anticipated diabetes rise in regions of the world where per-person spending on diabetes is low, a situation Dr. Herman called “unsustainable.”

“The keys to controlling the global costs of diabetes care are diabetes prevention and providing effective care to the largest number of people at the lowest possible cost,” he said.
 

Diabetes-related mortality: Some shifts since 2019

One third of the current 6.7 million diabetes-related deaths in 2021 were in people younger than 60 years, said Elbert S. Huang, MD, professor of medicine and public health sciences at the University of Chicago.

Overall, diabetes accounted for 11.8% of total global deaths in people younger than 60 years, but that varied widely, from 24.5% in the Middle East/North Africa to just 6.9% in Southeast Asia.

The regions with the highest number of diabetes-related deaths in people younger than 60 years in 2021 were the Western Pacific and the Middle East/North Africa, a major change from just 2 years ago, when Southeast Asia and Africa saw the greatest numbers of diabetes-related deaths in working-age adults.

“These findings mirror recent reports on inadequate uptake of diabetes prevention programs as well as stagnant quality of care trends for the past decade and reemphasize the need to address noncommunicable diseases across the globe,” Dr. Huang said.
 

Diabetes and COVID-19: Other factors partly explain the increased risk

Gillian Booth, MD, summarized the current literature on COVID-19 and diabetes including a meta-analysis her group conducted of 300 studies from around the world, with 58% from high-income countries.

The risk for increased COVID-19 severity in people with diabetes could be at least partly explained by factors such as age, sex, and comorbidities, said Dr. Booth, professor in the department of medicine and the Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation at the University of Toronto.

For example, the unadjusted pooled odds of hospitalization with COVID-19 in patients with diabetes, compared with those without diabetes, was 3.69, but dropped to 1.73 after adjustment for age, sex, and having one or more comorbidities. For COVID-19–related death, those odds ratios were 2.32 unadjusted versus 1.59 adjusted. In both cases, the values were still significant after adjustment, she emphasized.

Overall, hyperglycemia and hemoglobin A1c at admission emerged as significant independent predictors of severe outcomes.

“Further research is needed to understand the interplay between COVID-19 and diabetes and how best to address the disproportionate burden of COVID-19 among people living with diabetes,” she stressed.
 

Adult-onset type 1 diabetes: Growing recognition of the burden

Ascertainment of data for both adult-onset type 1 and type 2 diabetes in youth was subject to significant limitations.

For adult-onset type 1 diabetes, Jessica Harding, PhD, pointed to the fact that the epidemiology of adult-onset type 1 diabetes hasn’t been well characterized because of the historical focus on children, the difficulty of distinguishing it from type 2 diabetes in adults, and that many registries simply don’t include incident data across the lifespan for type 1 diabetes.

Nonetheless, she said, “there is growing recognition of the burden of adult-onset type 1,” noting that the American Diabetes Association and European Association for the Study of Diabetes just published a consensus statement addressing the topic.

A systematic review of 46 studies representing 32 countries or regions revealed that countries with the highest incidence of type 1 diabetes onset per population of 100,000 ages 20 or above were Eritrea, at 46.2, followed by Sweden and Ireland, both at 30.6, and Finland, at 0. The lowest rates were in Asian countries.

While the Nordic countries (Finland, Sweden, and Norway) are among the top for incidence of both childhood-onset (0-14 years) and adult-onset type 1 diabetes, Eritrea isn’t even among the top 10 for childhood onset.

The unusual situation in Eritrea is the subject of current study but the reasons aren’t yet clear, noted Dr. Magliano, of Emory University, Atlanta, during the question-and-answer period.

And only seven studies, 15%, used biomarkers to determine type 1 diabetes status, suggesting “there is a pressing need to improve the quality and quantity of information on adult-onset type 1 diabetes, particularly in those low- and middle-income countries,” Dr. Harding said.
 

Type 2 diabetes in youth: A call for better data

When presenting the data for childhood-onset type 2 diabetes, Andrea Luk, MD, noted: “The onset of advanced complications during the most productive time of life has significant impact on individuals, communities, and health economies.”

In 19 studies, the highest reported prevalence of type 2 diabetes in youth was in Brazil, Mexico, indigenous populations of the United States and Canada, and the Black population in the United States, with rates ranging from 160 per 100,000 to 3300 per 100,000. The lowest prevalence rates of 0.6 per 100,000 to 2.7 per 100,000 were reported in Europe. Incidence data were similar, with the highest rates from 31 per 100,000 to 94 per 100,000 and the lowest 0.1 per 100,000 to 0.8 per 100,000 per year.  

Of note, Dr. Luk pointed out that childhood obesity is an important factor but not the only one.

“Some populations that have a low prevalence of obesity, such as East Asians, reported higher incidence rates of youth-onset type 2 diabetes than populations with a greater burden of childhood obesity.”

There was variability in incidence rates for youth of similar ethnic background but from different countries. “Apart from genetic predisposition and background obesogenic environment, disparity in socioeconomic status, access to health care, and cultural practices are other contributors to differences in risk of type 2 diabetes in youth,” noted Dr. Luk, associate professor in the division of endocrinology, Department of Medicine and Therapeutics, Chinese University of Hong Kong.

She also noted that the incidence of type 2 diabetes was extremely low in prepubertal children and rises gradually during puberty, and that the incidence is higher in girls than boys but that reverses in adulthood.

Compared with adults with type 2 diabetes, youth with type 2 diabetes had a more adverse glycemic trajectory and higher rates of metformin failure.

And compared with youth with type 1 diabetes, those with type 2 diabetes had more adverse metabolic profiles and higher rates of vascular complications.

“A strong call must be made for the collection of trend data to assess global burden of type 2 diabetes in youth,” she concluded.

Dr. Luk reported serving as an advisory panel member for and/or receiving research support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, the Asia Diabetes Foundation, Bayer, Lee’s Pharmaceutical, MSD, Novo Nordisk, Roche, Sugardown, and Takeda. The other authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

One in 10 adults worldwide currently has diabetes, accounting for an estimated global health expenditure of $966 billion in U.S. dollars in 2021, according to the new International Diabetes Federation Diabetes Atlas.

The IDF Atlas, 10th edition, was published online Dec. 6, 2021.

Highlights from it were presented during two sessions at the IDF Virtual Congress 2021, covering global diabetes incidence and prevalence, mortality, and costs, as well as new sections in this edition devoted to adult-onset type 1 diabetes, childhood-onset type 2 diabetes, and the interactions between diabetes and COVID-19.

More detailed data from some of the Atlas chapters were also published Dec. 6, 2021, in separate papers in the IDF journal Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, with more publications planned.

Information for the Atlas comes from peer-reviewed literature, unpublished reports, and national registries. This latest edition includes 219 data sources from 144 countries, with figures for other countries extrapolated.

Atlas cochair Dianna Magliano, PhD, reviewed some of the highlights. Half of those currently with diabetes, or about 240 million adults, are undiagnosed, and another 319 million have impaired fasting glucose. Over three-quarters of all adults with diabetes now live in low- and middle-income countries. And about 6.7 million deaths in 2021 can be attributed to diabetes.

The Atlas also predicts increases in these numbers over the coming decades if current trends continue.

“Our data and projections tell a sobering story. Diabetes prevalence is expected to increase globally. The number of adults with diabetes will rise from 537 million in 2021 to 786 million ... by the year 2045, an increase of 46%. Rises are expected in every region of the world, with the largest increases expected to occur in the regions of Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia,” said Dr. Magliano, head of diabetes and population health at the Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne.

Since 2019, when the last Atlas was published, the 2021 numbers represent increases of 73.6 million more adults with diabetes including 7.8 million more undiagnosed, 2.5 million more deaths attributed to diabetes, and an additional global expenditure of $206 billion.

Increases have also occurred in the number of people with prediabetes, children with type 1 diabetes, and pregnancies affected by diabetes, Dr. Magliano reported.

“There is a strong need for effective intervention strategies and policies to stall the increase in the number of people developing diabetes across the world,” she added.
 

Projected rise in expenditures for diabetes will be ‘unsustainable’

The current $966 billion global health expenditure caused by diabetes represents a 316% increase from the $232 billion reported in 2006, according to William H. Herman, MD, professor of internal medicine and epidemiology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

By region, 43% of current diabetes-related global expenditures are in North America, 25% in the Western Pacific, and 20% in Europe, while 12% are from the regions of South and Central America, North Africa, Africa, and Southeast Asia combined, Herman said.

The direct costs of diabetes are projected to grow to $1054 billion in 2045, an increase of just 9% over 25 years. The reason for the far lower increase going forward, compared with the tripling in the 15 years prior, is because of the anticipated diabetes rise in regions of the world where per-person spending on diabetes is low, a situation Dr. Herman called “unsustainable.”

“The keys to controlling the global costs of diabetes care are diabetes prevention and providing effective care to the largest number of people at the lowest possible cost,” he said.
 

Diabetes-related mortality: Some shifts since 2019

One third of the current 6.7 million diabetes-related deaths in 2021 were in people younger than 60 years, said Elbert S. Huang, MD, professor of medicine and public health sciences at the University of Chicago.

Overall, diabetes accounted for 11.8% of total global deaths in people younger than 60 years, but that varied widely, from 24.5% in the Middle East/North Africa to just 6.9% in Southeast Asia.

The regions with the highest number of diabetes-related deaths in people younger than 60 years in 2021 were the Western Pacific and the Middle East/North Africa, a major change from just 2 years ago, when Southeast Asia and Africa saw the greatest numbers of diabetes-related deaths in working-age adults.

“These findings mirror recent reports on inadequate uptake of diabetes prevention programs as well as stagnant quality of care trends for the past decade and reemphasize the need to address noncommunicable diseases across the globe,” Dr. Huang said.
 

Diabetes and COVID-19: Other factors partly explain the increased risk

Gillian Booth, MD, summarized the current literature on COVID-19 and diabetes including a meta-analysis her group conducted of 300 studies from around the world, with 58% from high-income countries.

The risk for increased COVID-19 severity in people with diabetes could be at least partly explained by factors such as age, sex, and comorbidities, said Dr. Booth, professor in the department of medicine and the Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation at the University of Toronto.

For example, the unadjusted pooled odds of hospitalization with COVID-19 in patients with diabetes, compared with those without diabetes, was 3.69, but dropped to 1.73 after adjustment for age, sex, and having one or more comorbidities. For COVID-19–related death, those odds ratios were 2.32 unadjusted versus 1.59 adjusted. In both cases, the values were still significant after adjustment, she emphasized.

Overall, hyperglycemia and hemoglobin A1c at admission emerged as significant independent predictors of severe outcomes.

“Further research is needed to understand the interplay between COVID-19 and diabetes and how best to address the disproportionate burden of COVID-19 among people living with diabetes,” she stressed.
 

Adult-onset type 1 diabetes: Growing recognition of the burden

Ascertainment of data for both adult-onset type 1 and type 2 diabetes in youth was subject to significant limitations.

For adult-onset type 1 diabetes, Jessica Harding, PhD, pointed to the fact that the epidemiology of adult-onset type 1 diabetes hasn’t been well characterized because of the historical focus on children, the difficulty of distinguishing it from type 2 diabetes in adults, and that many registries simply don’t include incident data across the lifespan for type 1 diabetes.

Nonetheless, she said, “there is growing recognition of the burden of adult-onset type 1,” noting that the American Diabetes Association and European Association for the Study of Diabetes just published a consensus statement addressing the topic.

A systematic review of 46 studies representing 32 countries or regions revealed that countries with the highest incidence of type 1 diabetes onset per population of 100,000 ages 20 or above were Eritrea, at 46.2, followed by Sweden and Ireland, both at 30.6, and Finland, at 0. The lowest rates were in Asian countries.

While the Nordic countries (Finland, Sweden, and Norway) are among the top for incidence of both childhood-onset (0-14 years) and adult-onset type 1 diabetes, Eritrea isn’t even among the top 10 for childhood onset.

The unusual situation in Eritrea is the subject of current study but the reasons aren’t yet clear, noted Dr. Magliano, of Emory University, Atlanta, during the question-and-answer period.

And only seven studies, 15%, used biomarkers to determine type 1 diabetes status, suggesting “there is a pressing need to improve the quality and quantity of information on adult-onset type 1 diabetes, particularly in those low- and middle-income countries,” Dr. Harding said.
 

Type 2 diabetes in youth: A call for better data

When presenting the data for childhood-onset type 2 diabetes, Andrea Luk, MD, noted: “The onset of advanced complications during the most productive time of life has significant impact on individuals, communities, and health economies.”

In 19 studies, the highest reported prevalence of type 2 diabetes in youth was in Brazil, Mexico, indigenous populations of the United States and Canada, and the Black population in the United States, with rates ranging from 160 per 100,000 to 3300 per 100,000. The lowest prevalence rates of 0.6 per 100,000 to 2.7 per 100,000 were reported in Europe. Incidence data were similar, with the highest rates from 31 per 100,000 to 94 per 100,000 and the lowest 0.1 per 100,000 to 0.8 per 100,000 per year.  

Of note, Dr. Luk pointed out that childhood obesity is an important factor but not the only one.

“Some populations that have a low prevalence of obesity, such as East Asians, reported higher incidence rates of youth-onset type 2 diabetes than populations with a greater burden of childhood obesity.”

There was variability in incidence rates for youth of similar ethnic background but from different countries. “Apart from genetic predisposition and background obesogenic environment, disparity in socioeconomic status, access to health care, and cultural practices are other contributors to differences in risk of type 2 diabetes in youth,” noted Dr. Luk, associate professor in the division of endocrinology, Department of Medicine and Therapeutics, Chinese University of Hong Kong.

She also noted that the incidence of type 2 diabetes was extremely low in prepubertal children and rises gradually during puberty, and that the incidence is higher in girls than boys but that reverses in adulthood.

Compared with adults with type 2 diabetes, youth with type 2 diabetes had a more adverse glycemic trajectory and higher rates of metformin failure.

And compared with youth with type 1 diabetes, those with type 2 diabetes had more adverse metabolic profiles and higher rates of vascular complications.

“A strong call must be made for the collection of trend data to assess global burden of type 2 diabetes in youth,” she concluded.

Dr. Luk reported serving as an advisory panel member for and/or receiving research support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, the Asia Diabetes Foundation, Bayer, Lee’s Pharmaceutical, MSD, Novo Nordisk, Roche, Sugardown, and Takeda. The other authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

One in 10 adults worldwide currently has diabetes, accounting for an estimated global health expenditure of $966 billion in U.S. dollars in 2021, according to the new International Diabetes Federation Diabetes Atlas.

The IDF Atlas, 10th edition, was published online Dec. 6, 2021.

Highlights from it were presented during two sessions at the IDF Virtual Congress 2021, covering global diabetes incidence and prevalence, mortality, and costs, as well as new sections in this edition devoted to adult-onset type 1 diabetes, childhood-onset type 2 diabetes, and the interactions between diabetes and COVID-19.

More detailed data from some of the Atlas chapters were also published Dec. 6, 2021, in separate papers in the IDF journal Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, with more publications planned.

Information for the Atlas comes from peer-reviewed literature, unpublished reports, and national registries. This latest edition includes 219 data sources from 144 countries, with figures for other countries extrapolated.

Atlas cochair Dianna Magliano, PhD, reviewed some of the highlights. Half of those currently with diabetes, or about 240 million adults, are undiagnosed, and another 319 million have impaired fasting glucose. Over three-quarters of all adults with diabetes now live in low- and middle-income countries. And about 6.7 million deaths in 2021 can be attributed to diabetes.

The Atlas also predicts increases in these numbers over the coming decades if current trends continue.

“Our data and projections tell a sobering story. Diabetes prevalence is expected to increase globally. The number of adults with diabetes will rise from 537 million in 2021 to 786 million ... by the year 2045, an increase of 46%. Rises are expected in every region of the world, with the largest increases expected to occur in the regions of Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia,” said Dr. Magliano, head of diabetes and population health at the Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne.

Since 2019, when the last Atlas was published, the 2021 numbers represent increases of 73.6 million more adults with diabetes including 7.8 million more undiagnosed, 2.5 million more deaths attributed to diabetes, and an additional global expenditure of $206 billion.

Increases have also occurred in the number of people with prediabetes, children with type 1 diabetes, and pregnancies affected by diabetes, Dr. Magliano reported.

“There is a strong need for effective intervention strategies and policies to stall the increase in the number of people developing diabetes across the world,” she added.
 

Projected rise in expenditures for diabetes will be ‘unsustainable’

The current $966 billion global health expenditure caused by diabetes represents a 316% increase from the $232 billion reported in 2006, according to William H. Herman, MD, professor of internal medicine and epidemiology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

By region, 43% of current diabetes-related global expenditures are in North America, 25% in the Western Pacific, and 20% in Europe, while 12% are from the regions of South and Central America, North Africa, Africa, and Southeast Asia combined, Herman said.

The direct costs of diabetes are projected to grow to $1054 billion in 2045, an increase of just 9% over 25 years. The reason for the far lower increase going forward, compared with the tripling in the 15 years prior, is because of the anticipated diabetes rise in regions of the world where per-person spending on diabetes is low, a situation Dr. Herman called “unsustainable.”

“The keys to controlling the global costs of diabetes care are diabetes prevention and providing effective care to the largest number of people at the lowest possible cost,” he said.
 

Diabetes-related mortality: Some shifts since 2019

One third of the current 6.7 million diabetes-related deaths in 2021 were in people younger than 60 years, said Elbert S. Huang, MD, professor of medicine and public health sciences at the University of Chicago.

Overall, diabetes accounted for 11.8% of total global deaths in people younger than 60 years, but that varied widely, from 24.5% in the Middle East/North Africa to just 6.9% in Southeast Asia.

The regions with the highest number of diabetes-related deaths in people younger than 60 years in 2021 were the Western Pacific and the Middle East/North Africa, a major change from just 2 years ago, when Southeast Asia and Africa saw the greatest numbers of diabetes-related deaths in working-age adults.

“These findings mirror recent reports on inadequate uptake of diabetes prevention programs as well as stagnant quality of care trends for the past decade and reemphasize the need to address noncommunicable diseases across the globe,” Dr. Huang said.
 

Diabetes and COVID-19: Other factors partly explain the increased risk

Gillian Booth, MD, summarized the current literature on COVID-19 and diabetes including a meta-analysis her group conducted of 300 studies from around the world, with 58% from high-income countries.

The risk for increased COVID-19 severity in people with diabetes could be at least partly explained by factors such as age, sex, and comorbidities, said Dr. Booth, professor in the department of medicine and the Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation at the University of Toronto.

For example, the unadjusted pooled odds of hospitalization with COVID-19 in patients with diabetes, compared with those without diabetes, was 3.69, but dropped to 1.73 after adjustment for age, sex, and having one or more comorbidities. For COVID-19–related death, those odds ratios were 2.32 unadjusted versus 1.59 adjusted. In both cases, the values were still significant after adjustment, she emphasized.

Overall, hyperglycemia and hemoglobin A1c at admission emerged as significant independent predictors of severe outcomes.

“Further research is needed to understand the interplay between COVID-19 and diabetes and how best to address the disproportionate burden of COVID-19 among people living with diabetes,” she stressed.
 

Adult-onset type 1 diabetes: Growing recognition of the burden

Ascertainment of data for both adult-onset type 1 and type 2 diabetes in youth was subject to significant limitations.

For adult-onset type 1 diabetes, Jessica Harding, PhD, pointed to the fact that the epidemiology of adult-onset type 1 diabetes hasn’t been well characterized because of the historical focus on children, the difficulty of distinguishing it from type 2 diabetes in adults, and that many registries simply don’t include incident data across the lifespan for type 1 diabetes.

Nonetheless, she said, “there is growing recognition of the burden of adult-onset type 1,” noting that the American Diabetes Association and European Association for the Study of Diabetes just published a consensus statement addressing the topic.

A systematic review of 46 studies representing 32 countries or regions revealed that countries with the highest incidence of type 1 diabetes onset per population of 100,000 ages 20 or above were Eritrea, at 46.2, followed by Sweden and Ireland, both at 30.6, and Finland, at 0. The lowest rates were in Asian countries.

While the Nordic countries (Finland, Sweden, and Norway) are among the top for incidence of both childhood-onset (0-14 years) and adult-onset type 1 diabetes, Eritrea isn’t even among the top 10 for childhood onset.

The unusual situation in Eritrea is the subject of current study but the reasons aren’t yet clear, noted Dr. Magliano, of Emory University, Atlanta, during the question-and-answer period.

And only seven studies, 15%, used biomarkers to determine type 1 diabetes status, suggesting “there is a pressing need to improve the quality and quantity of information on adult-onset type 1 diabetes, particularly in those low- and middle-income countries,” Dr. Harding said.
 

Type 2 diabetes in youth: A call for better data

When presenting the data for childhood-onset type 2 diabetes, Andrea Luk, MD, noted: “The onset of advanced complications during the most productive time of life has significant impact on individuals, communities, and health economies.”

In 19 studies, the highest reported prevalence of type 2 diabetes in youth was in Brazil, Mexico, indigenous populations of the United States and Canada, and the Black population in the United States, with rates ranging from 160 per 100,000 to 3300 per 100,000. The lowest prevalence rates of 0.6 per 100,000 to 2.7 per 100,000 were reported in Europe. Incidence data were similar, with the highest rates from 31 per 100,000 to 94 per 100,000 and the lowest 0.1 per 100,000 to 0.8 per 100,000 per year.  

Of note, Dr. Luk pointed out that childhood obesity is an important factor but not the only one.

“Some populations that have a low prevalence of obesity, such as East Asians, reported higher incidence rates of youth-onset type 2 diabetes than populations with a greater burden of childhood obesity.”

There was variability in incidence rates for youth of similar ethnic background but from different countries. “Apart from genetic predisposition and background obesogenic environment, disparity in socioeconomic status, access to health care, and cultural practices are other contributors to differences in risk of type 2 diabetes in youth,” noted Dr. Luk, associate professor in the division of endocrinology, Department of Medicine and Therapeutics, Chinese University of Hong Kong.

She also noted that the incidence of type 2 diabetes was extremely low in prepubertal children and rises gradually during puberty, and that the incidence is higher in girls than boys but that reverses in adulthood.

Compared with adults with type 2 diabetes, youth with type 2 diabetes had a more adverse glycemic trajectory and higher rates of metformin failure.

And compared with youth with type 1 diabetes, those with type 2 diabetes had more adverse metabolic profiles and higher rates of vascular complications.

“A strong call must be made for the collection of trend data to assess global burden of type 2 diabetes in youth,” she concluded.

Dr. Luk reported serving as an advisory panel member for and/or receiving research support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, the Asia Diabetes Foundation, Bayer, Lee’s Pharmaceutical, MSD, Novo Nordisk, Roche, Sugardown, and Takeda. The other authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The new Omicron variant could make it more likely that people will need a fourth coronavirus vaccine earlier than expected, Pfizer officials said on Dec. 8.

The standard two doses may be less effective against the variant, the company announced earlier in the day, and a booster dose increases neutralizing antibodies.

But the timeline might need to be moved up for a fourth dose. Previously, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, PhD, said another dose might be needed about a year after a third shot. Now the company’s scientists believe that a fourth shot, which targets the Omicron variant, could be required sooner.

“With Omicron, we need to wait and see because we have very little information. We may need it faster,” Dr. Bourla said on CNBC’s Squawk Box.

“But for right now, the most important thing is that we have winter in front of us,” he said. “From a healthcare perspective, it is important to understand that we need to be well-protected to go through the winter.”

A third dose should provide protection throughout the winter, Dr. Bourla said. That may buy time until the early spring to develop new shots that target Omicron, which Pfizer could have ready by March, according to  Bloomberg News.

As of the afternoon of Dec. 8, 43 people in 19 states had tested positive for the Omicron variant, according to The Associated Press. More than 75% had been vaccinated, and a third had had booster shots. About a third had traveled internationally.

Nearly all of them have had mild symptoms so far, the AP reported, with the most common symptoms being a cough, congestion, and fatigue. One person has been hospitalized, but no deaths have been reported so far.

The CDC is still trying to determine how the Omicron variant may affect the course of the pandemic and whether the strain is more contagious or causes more severe disease.

“What we generally know is the more mutations a variant has, the higher level you need your immunity to be,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the CDC, told the AP.

“We want to make sure we bolster everybody’s immunity,” she said. “And that’s really what motivated the decision to expand our guidance [on boosters for all adults].”

The Omicron variant has been reported in 57 countries so far, World Health Organization officials reported Dec. 8, and they expect that number to continue growing.

“Certain features of Omicron, including its global spread and large number of mutations, suggest it could have a major impact on the course of the pandemic. Exactly what that impact will be is still difficult to know,” Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD, the World Health Organization’s director-general, said during a media briefing.

Several studies suggest that Omicron leads to a rapid increase in transmission, he said, though scientists are still trying to understand whether it can “outcompete Delta.” Data from South Africa also suggests a higher risk of reinfection with Omicron, though it appears to cause milder disease than Delta, he noted.

“Even though we still need answers to some crucial questions, we are not defenseless against Omicron or Delta,” he said. “The steps countries take today, and in the coming days and weeks, will determine how Omicron unfolds.”

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

The new Omicron variant could make it more likely that people will need a fourth coronavirus vaccine earlier than expected, Pfizer officials said on Dec. 8.

The standard two doses may be less effective against the variant, the company announced earlier in the day, and a booster dose increases neutralizing antibodies.

But the timeline might need to be moved up for a fourth dose. Previously, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, PhD, said another dose might be needed about a year after a third shot. Now the company’s scientists believe that a fourth shot, which targets the Omicron variant, could be required sooner.

“With Omicron, we need to wait and see because we have very little information. We may need it faster,” Dr. Bourla said on CNBC’s Squawk Box.

“But for right now, the most important thing is that we have winter in front of us,” he said. “From a healthcare perspective, it is important to understand that we need to be well-protected to go through the winter.”

A third dose should provide protection throughout the winter, Dr. Bourla said. That may buy time until the early spring to develop new shots that target Omicron, which Pfizer could have ready by March, according to  Bloomberg News.

As of the afternoon of Dec. 8, 43 people in 19 states had tested positive for the Omicron variant, according to The Associated Press. More than 75% had been vaccinated, and a third had had booster shots. About a third had traveled internationally.

Nearly all of them have had mild symptoms so far, the AP reported, with the most common symptoms being a cough, congestion, and fatigue. One person has been hospitalized, but no deaths have been reported so far.

The CDC is still trying to determine how the Omicron variant may affect the course of the pandemic and whether the strain is more contagious or causes more severe disease.

“What we generally know is the more mutations a variant has, the higher level you need your immunity to be,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the CDC, told the AP.

“We want to make sure we bolster everybody’s immunity,” she said. “And that’s really what motivated the decision to expand our guidance [on boosters for all adults].”

The Omicron variant has been reported in 57 countries so far, World Health Organization officials reported Dec. 8, and they expect that number to continue growing.

“Certain features of Omicron, including its global spread and large number of mutations, suggest it could have a major impact on the course of the pandemic. Exactly what that impact will be is still difficult to know,” Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD, the World Health Organization’s director-general, said during a media briefing.

Several studies suggest that Omicron leads to a rapid increase in transmission, he said, though scientists are still trying to understand whether it can “outcompete Delta.” Data from South Africa also suggests a higher risk of reinfection with Omicron, though it appears to cause milder disease than Delta, he noted.

“Even though we still need answers to some crucial questions, we are not defenseless against Omicron or Delta,” he said. “The steps countries take today, and in the coming days and weeks, will determine how Omicron unfolds.”

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

The new Omicron variant could make it more likely that people will need a fourth coronavirus vaccine earlier than expected, Pfizer officials said on Dec. 8.

The standard two doses may be less effective against the variant, the company announced earlier in the day, and a booster dose increases neutralizing antibodies.

But the timeline might need to be moved up for a fourth dose. Previously, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, PhD, said another dose might be needed about a year after a third shot. Now the company’s scientists believe that a fourth shot, which targets the Omicron variant, could be required sooner.

“With Omicron, we need to wait and see because we have very little information. We may need it faster,” Dr. Bourla said on CNBC’s Squawk Box.

“But for right now, the most important thing is that we have winter in front of us,” he said. “From a healthcare perspective, it is important to understand that we need to be well-protected to go through the winter.”

A third dose should provide protection throughout the winter, Dr. Bourla said. That may buy time until the early spring to develop new shots that target Omicron, which Pfizer could have ready by March, according to  Bloomberg News.

As of the afternoon of Dec. 8, 43 people in 19 states had tested positive for the Omicron variant, according to The Associated Press. More than 75% had been vaccinated, and a third had had booster shots. About a third had traveled internationally.

Nearly all of them have had mild symptoms so far, the AP reported, with the most common symptoms being a cough, congestion, and fatigue. One person has been hospitalized, but no deaths have been reported so far.

The CDC is still trying to determine how the Omicron variant may affect the course of the pandemic and whether the strain is more contagious or causes more severe disease.

“What we generally know is the more mutations a variant has, the higher level you need your immunity to be,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the CDC, told the AP.

“We want to make sure we bolster everybody’s immunity,” she said. “And that’s really what motivated the decision to expand our guidance [on boosters for all adults].”

The Omicron variant has been reported in 57 countries so far, World Health Organization officials reported Dec. 8, and they expect that number to continue growing.

“Certain features of Omicron, including its global spread and large number of mutations, suggest it could have a major impact on the course of the pandemic. Exactly what that impact will be is still difficult to know,” Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD, the World Health Organization’s director-general, said during a media briefing.

Several studies suggest that Omicron leads to a rapid increase in transmission, he said, though scientists are still trying to understand whether it can “outcompete Delta.” Data from South Africa also suggests a higher risk of reinfection with Omicron, though it appears to cause milder disease than Delta, he noted.

“Even though we still need answers to some crucial questions, we are not defenseless against Omicron or Delta,” he said. “The steps countries take today, and in the coming days and weeks, will determine how Omicron unfolds.”

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

Hospital and physician groups on Dec. 9 announced their plan to sue the federal government over its plan for addressing disputes about surprise medical bills, which tilts toward using prevailing rates paid for services.

The American Hospital Association and American Medical Association said they will ask the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to try to prevent implementation of certain provisions of new federal rules on surprise bills. This court is often a venue for fights over federal rules. Also joining the suit are Nevada-based Renown Health, UMass Memorial Health, and two physicians based in North Carolina, AHA and AMA said.

Federal agencies, including the Department of Health & Human Services, in September had unveiled the rule on surprise medical bills that will take effect Jan. 1.

Under this rule, a key benchmark for payment disputes would be the qualifying payment amount (QPA), which is pegged to median contracted rates. In the dispute-resolution process outlined in the rule, there is a presumption that the QPA is the appropriate out-of-network rate.

The rule allows for exceptions in which the independent mediating organization handling the payment dispute resolution has “credible information” as to why the QPA is materially different from the appropriate out-of-network rate.

In the view of the federal agencies that issued the rule, this approach “encourages predictable outcomes,” which likely would reduce the number of disputes that go through the resolution process while also “providing equitable and clear standards” for cases to appropriately deviate from QPA. HHS was joined in issuing the rule by the Treasury and Labor Departments and the Office of Personnel Management.

AMA and AHA disagree with their view, seeing this approach as a boon for insurers at the expense of physicians and hospitals.

In a press release, they said the rule’s approach to surprise billing would “all but ensure that hospitals, physicians, and other providers will routinely be undercompensated by commercial insurers, and patients will have fewer choices for access to in-network services.”

The rule is part of the implementation of a federal law passed in December 2020, known as the No Surprises Act. In their statement, AHA and AMA said their legal challenge would not prevent “core patient protections’’ of that law from moving forward.

“No patient should fear receiving a surprise medical bill,” Rick Pollack, AHA president and chief executive, said in the statement. “That is why hospitals and health systems supported the No Surprises Act to protect patients and keep them out of the middle of disputes between providers and insurers. Congress carefully crafted the law with a balanced, patient-friendly approach and it should be implemented as intended.”

AMA President Gerald E. Harmon, MD, added the approach used in the rule on surprise billing could create “an unsustainable situation for physicians.”

“Our legal challenge urges regulators to ensure there is a fair and meaningful process to resolve disputes between health care providers and insurance companies,” Dr. Harmon said.

AHA and AMA included with their statement a link to a November letter from more than 150 members of Congress, who also objected to the approach taken in designing the independent dispute-resolution (IDR) process.

“This directive establishes a de facto benchmark rate, making the median in-network rate the default factor considered in the IDR process. This approach is contrary to statute and could incentivize insurance companies to set artificially low payment rates, which would narrow provider networks and jeopardize patient access to care – the exact opposite of the goal of the law,” wrote the members of Congress, including Rep. Raul Ruiz, MD, a California Democrat, and Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD, an Indiana Republican.

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

Hospital and physician groups on Dec. 9 announced their plan to sue the federal government over its plan for addressing disputes about surprise medical bills, which tilts toward using prevailing rates paid for services.

The American Hospital Association and American Medical Association said they will ask the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to try to prevent implementation of certain provisions of new federal rules on surprise bills. This court is often a venue for fights over federal rules. Also joining the suit are Nevada-based Renown Health, UMass Memorial Health, and two physicians based in North Carolina, AHA and AMA said.

Federal agencies, including the Department of Health & Human Services, in September had unveiled the rule on surprise medical bills that will take effect Jan. 1.

Under this rule, a key benchmark for payment disputes would be the qualifying payment amount (QPA), which is pegged to median contracted rates. In the dispute-resolution process outlined in the rule, there is a presumption that the QPA is the appropriate out-of-network rate.

The rule allows for exceptions in which the independent mediating organization handling the payment dispute resolution has “credible information” as to why the QPA is materially different from the appropriate out-of-network rate.

In the view of the federal agencies that issued the rule, this approach “encourages predictable outcomes,” which likely would reduce the number of disputes that go through the resolution process while also “providing equitable and clear standards” for cases to appropriately deviate from QPA. HHS was joined in issuing the rule by the Treasury and Labor Departments and the Office of Personnel Management.

AMA and AHA disagree with their view, seeing this approach as a boon for insurers at the expense of physicians and hospitals.

In a press release, they said the rule’s approach to surprise billing would “all but ensure that hospitals, physicians, and other providers will routinely be undercompensated by commercial insurers, and patients will have fewer choices for access to in-network services.”

The rule is part of the implementation of a federal law passed in December 2020, known as the No Surprises Act. In their statement, AHA and AMA said their legal challenge would not prevent “core patient protections’’ of that law from moving forward.

“No patient should fear receiving a surprise medical bill,” Rick Pollack, AHA president and chief executive, said in the statement. “That is why hospitals and health systems supported the No Surprises Act to protect patients and keep them out of the middle of disputes between providers and insurers. Congress carefully crafted the law with a balanced, patient-friendly approach and it should be implemented as intended.”

AMA President Gerald E. Harmon, MD, added the approach used in the rule on surprise billing could create “an unsustainable situation for physicians.”

“Our legal challenge urges regulators to ensure there is a fair and meaningful process to resolve disputes between health care providers and insurance companies,” Dr. Harmon said.

AHA and AMA included with their statement a link to a November letter from more than 150 members of Congress, who also objected to the approach taken in designing the independent dispute-resolution (IDR) process.

“This directive establishes a de facto benchmark rate, making the median in-network rate the default factor considered in the IDR process. This approach is contrary to statute and could incentivize insurance companies to set artificially low payment rates, which would narrow provider networks and jeopardize patient access to care – the exact opposite of the goal of the law,” wrote the members of Congress, including Rep. Raul Ruiz, MD, a California Democrat, and Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD, an Indiana Republican.

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

Hospital and physician groups on Dec. 9 announced their plan to sue the federal government over its plan for addressing disputes about surprise medical bills, which tilts toward using prevailing rates paid for services.

The American Hospital Association and American Medical Association said they will ask the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to try to prevent implementation of certain provisions of new federal rules on surprise bills. This court is often a venue for fights over federal rules. Also joining the suit are Nevada-based Renown Health, UMass Memorial Health, and two physicians based in North Carolina, AHA and AMA said.

Federal agencies, including the Department of Health & Human Services, in September had unveiled the rule on surprise medical bills that will take effect Jan. 1.

Under this rule, a key benchmark for payment disputes would be the qualifying payment amount (QPA), which is pegged to median contracted rates. In the dispute-resolution process outlined in the rule, there is a presumption that the QPA is the appropriate out-of-network rate.

The rule allows for exceptions in which the independent mediating organization handling the payment dispute resolution has “credible information” as to why the QPA is materially different from the appropriate out-of-network rate.

In the view of the federal agencies that issued the rule, this approach “encourages predictable outcomes,” which likely would reduce the number of disputes that go through the resolution process while also “providing equitable and clear standards” for cases to appropriately deviate from QPA. HHS was joined in issuing the rule by the Treasury and Labor Departments and the Office of Personnel Management.

AMA and AHA disagree with their view, seeing this approach as a boon for insurers at the expense of physicians and hospitals.

In a press release, they said the rule’s approach to surprise billing would “all but ensure that hospitals, physicians, and other providers will routinely be undercompensated by commercial insurers, and patients will have fewer choices for access to in-network services.”

The rule is part of the implementation of a federal law passed in December 2020, known as the No Surprises Act. In their statement, AHA and AMA said their legal challenge would not prevent “core patient protections’’ of that law from moving forward.

“No patient should fear receiving a surprise medical bill,” Rick Pollack, AHA president and chief executive, said in the statement. “That is why hospitals and health systems supported the No Surprises Act to protect patients and keep them out of the middle of disputes between providers and insurers. Congress carefully crafted the law with a balanced, patient-friendly approach and it should be implemented as intended.”

AMA President Gerald E. Harmon, MD, added the approach used in the rule on surprise billing could create “an unsustainable situation for physicians.”

“Our legal challenge urges regulators to ensure there is a fair and meaningful process to resolve disputes between health care providers and insurance companies,” Dr. Harmon said.

AHA and AMA included with their statement a link to a November letter from more than 150 members of Congress, who also objected to the approach taken in designing the independent dispute-resolution (IDR) process.

“This directive establishes a de facto benchmark rate, making the median in-network rate the default factor considered in the IDR process. This approach is contrary to statute and could incentivize insurance companies to set artificially low payment rates, which would narrow provider networks and jeopardize patient access to care – the exact opposite of the goal of the law,” wrote the members of Congress, including Rep. Raul Ruiz, MD, a California Democrat, and Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD, an Indiana Republican.

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

The Pfizer/BioNTech booster lowers the risk for confirmed illness, severe illness, and death from COVID-19, according to two large studies from Israel published Dec. 8, 2021, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Both studies were completed before the advent of the Omicron variant.

In one study that included data on more than 4 million patients, led by Yinon M. Bar-On, MSc, of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, the rate of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection was lower in the booster group than in the nonbooster group by a factor of about 10.

This was true across all five age groups studied (range among the groups [starting with age 16], 9.0-17.2).

The risk for severe COVID-19 in the primary analysis decreased in the booster group by a factor of 17.9 (95% confidence interval, 15.1-21.2), among those aged 60 years or older. Risk for severe illness in those ages 40-59 was lower by a factor of 21.7 (95% CI, 10.6-44.2).

Among the 60 and older age group, risk for death was also reduced by a factor of 14.7 (95% CI, 10.0-21.4).

Researchers analyzed data for the period from July 30 to Oct. 10, 2021, from the Israel Ministry of Health database on 4.69 million people at least 16 years old who had received two Pfizer doses at least 5 months earlier.

In the main analysis, the researchers compared the rates of confirmed COVID-19, severe disease, and death among those who had gotten a booster at least 12 days earlier with the rates in a nonbooster group.

The authors wrote: “Booster vaccination programs may provide a way to control transmission without costly social-distancing measures and quarantines. Our findings provide evidence for the short-term effectiveness of the booster dose against the currently dominant Delta variant in persons 16 years of age or older.”
 

Death risk down by 90%

A second study, led by Ronen Arbel, PhD, with the community medical services division, Clalit Health Services (CHS), Tel Aviv, which included more than 800,000 participants, also found mortality risk was greatly reduced among those who received the booster compared with those who didn’t get the booster.

Participants aged 50 years or older who received a booster at least 5 months after a second Pfizer dose had 90% lower mortality risk because of COVID-19 than participants who did not get the booster.

The adjusted hazard ratio for death as a result of COVID-19 in the booster group, as compared with the nonbooster group, was 0.10 (95% CI, 0.07-0.14; P < .001). Of the 843,208 eligible participants, 758,118 (90%) received the booster during the 54-day study period.

The study included all CHS members who were aged 50 years or older on the study start date and had received two Pfizer doses at least 5 months earlier. CHS covers about 52% of the Israeli population and is the largest of four health care organizations in Israel that provide mandatory health care.

The authors noted that, although the study period was only 54 days (Aug. 6–Sept. 29), during that time “the incidence of COVID-19 in Israel was one of the highest in the world.”

The authors of both original articles pointed out that the studies are limited by short time periods and that longer-term studies are needed to see how the booster shots stand up to known and future variants, such as Omicron.

None of the authors involved in both studies reported relevant financial relationships.

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

The Pfizer/BioNTech booster lowers the risk for confirmed illness, severe illness, and death from COVID-19, according to two large studies from Israel published Dec. 8, 2021, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Both studies were completed before the advent of the Omicron variant.

In one study that included data on more than 4 million patients, led by Yinon M. Bar-On, MSc, of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, the rate of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection was lower in the booster group than in the nonbooster group by a factor of about 10.

This was true across all five age groups studied (range among the groups [starting with age 16], 9.0-17.2).

The risk for severe COVID-19 in the primary analysis decreased in the booster group by a factor of 17.9 (95% confidence interval, 15.1-21.2), among those aged 60 years or older. Risk for severe illness in those ages 40-59 was lower by a factor of 21.7 (95% CI, 10.6-44.2).

Among the 60 and older age group, risk for death was also reduced by a factor of 14.7 (95% CI, 10.0-21.4).

Researchers analyzed data for the period from July 30 to Oct. 10, 2021, from the Israel Ministry of Health database on 4.69 million people at least 16 years old who had received two Pfizer doses at least 5 months earlier.

In the main analysis, the researchers compared the rates of confirmed COVID-19, severe disease, and death among those who had gotten a booster at least 12 days earlier with the rates in a nonbooster group.

The authors wrote: “Booster vaccination programs may provide a way to control transmission without costly social-distancing measures and quarantines. Our findings provide evidence for the short-term effectiveness of the booster dose against the currently dominant Delta variant in persons 16 years of age or older.”
 

Death risk down by 90%

A second study, led by Ronen Arbel, PhD, with the community medical services division, Clalit Health Services (CHS), Tel Aviv, which included more than 800,000 participants, also found mortality risk was greatly reduced among those who received the booster compared with those who didn’t get the booster.

Participants aged 50 years or older who received a booster at least 5 months after a second Pfizer dose had 90% lower mortality risk because of COVID-19 than participants who did not get the booster.

The adjusted hazard ratio for death as a result of COVID-19 in the booster group, as compared with the nonbooster group, was 0.10 (95% CI, 0.07-0.14; P < .001). Of the 843,208 eligible participants, 758,118 (90%) received the booster during the 54-day study period.

The study included all CHS members who were aged 50 years or older on the study start date and had received two Pfizer doses at least 5 months earlier. CHS covers about 52% of the Israeli population and is the largest of four health care organizations in Israel that provide mandatory health care.

The authors noted that, although the study period was only 54 days (Aug. 6–Sept. 29), during that time “the incidence of COVID-19 in Israel was one of the highest in the world.”

The authors of both original articles pointed out that the studies are limited by short time periods and that longer-term studies are needed to see how the booster shots stand up to known and future variants, such as Omicron.

None of the authors involved in both studies reported relevant financial relationships.

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

The Pfizer/BioNTech booster lowers the risk for confirmed illness, severe illness, and death from COVID-19, according to two large studies from Israel published Dec. 8, 2021, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Both studies were completed before the advent of the Omicron variant.

In one study that included data on more than 4 million patients, led by Yinon M. Bar-On, MSc, of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, the rate of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection was lower in the booster group than in the nonbooster group by a factor of about 10.

This was true across all five age groups studied (range among the groups [starting with age 16], 9.0-17.2).

The risk for severe COVID-19 in the primary analysis decreased in the booster group by a factor of 17.9 (95% confidence interval, 15.1-21.2), among those aged 60 years or older. Risk for severe illness in those ages 40-59 was lower by a factor of 21.7 (95% CI, 10.6-44.2).

Among the 60 and older age group, risk for death was also reduced by a factor of 14.7 (95% CI, 10.0-21.4).

Researchers analyzed data for the period from July 30 to Oct. 10, 2021, from the Israel Ministry of Health database on 4.69 million people at least 16 years old who had received two Pfizer doses at least 5 months earlier.

In the main analysis, the researchers compared the rates of confirmed COVID-19, severe disease, and death among those who had gotten a booster at least 12 days earlier with the rates in a nonbooster group.

The authors wrote: “Booster vaccination programs may provide a way to control transmission without costly social-distancing measures and quarantines. Our findings provide evidence for the short-term effectiveness of the booster dose against the currently dominant Delta variant in persons 16 years of age or older.”
 

Death risk down by 90%

A second study, led by Ronen Arbel, PhD, with the community medical services division, Clalit Health Services (CHS), Tel Aviv, which included more than 800,000 participants, also found mortality risk was greatly reduced among those who received the booster compared with those who didn’t get the booster.

Participants aged 50 years or older who received a booster at least 5 months after a second Pfizer dose had 90% lower mortality risk because of COVID-19 than participants who did not get the booster.

The adjusted hazard ratio for death as a result of COVID-19 in the booster group, as compared with the nonbooster group, was 0.10 (95% CI, 0.07-0.14; P < .001). Of the 843,208 eligible participants, 758,118 (90%) received the booster during the 54-day study period.

The study included all CHS members who were aged 50 years or older on the study start date and had received two Pfizer doses at least 5 months earlier. CHS covers about 52% of the Israeli population and is the largest of four health care organizations in Israel that provide mandatory health care.

The authors noted that, although the study period was only 54 days (Aug. 6–Sept. 29), during that time “the incidence of COVID-19 in Israel was one of the highest in the world.”

The authors of both original articles pointed out that the studies are limited by short time periods and that longer-term studies are needed to see how the booster shots stand up to known and future variants, such as Omicron.

None of the authors involved in both studies reported relevant financial relationships.

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