Federal Practitioner

Work-life balance was the top concern for female physicians who responded to a new Medscape survey, far outpacing concerns about pay.

A psychiatrist who responded to the survey commented, “I’ve been trying to use all my vacation to spend time with my spouse. I’m always apologizing for being late, not being able to go to an event due to my work schedule, and missing out on life with my husband.”

Nearly two thirds (64%) said the balance was their top concern whereas 43% put pay at the top.

Medscape surveyed more than 3,000 women physicians about how they deal with parenthood, work pressures, and relationships in Women Physicians 2020: The Issues They Care About.
 

Almost all are making personal trade-offs

An overwhelming percentage (94%) said they have had to make personal trade-offs for work obligations.

“Women are more likely to make work compromises to benefit their families,” a cardiologist responded. “I won’t/can’t take a position that would disrupt my husband’s community ties, my children’s schooling, and relationships with family.”

More than one-third of women (36%) said that being a woman had a negative or very negative impact on their compensation. Only 4% said their gender had a positive or very positive impact on pay and 59% said gender had no effect.

The Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2020 showed male specialists made 31% more than their female counterparts and male primary care physicians earned 25% more.

Some factors may help explain some of the difference, but others remain unclear.

Poor negotiating skills have long been cited as a reason women get paid less; in this survey 39% said they were unskilled or very unskilled in salary negotiations, compared with 28% who said they were skilled or very skilled in those talks.

Katie Donovan, founder of Equal Pay Negotiations, reports that only 30% of women negotiate pay at all, compared with 46% of men.

Additionally, women tend to gravitate in specialties that don’t pay as well.

They are poorly represented in some of the highest-paying specialties: orthopedics (9%), urology (12%), and cardiology (14%).

“Society’s view of women as caretaker is powerful,” a radiologist commented. “Women feel like they need to choose specialties where they can work part-time or flexible time in order to be the primary caretaker at home.”
 

Confidence high in leadership abilities

The survey asked women about their confidence in taking a leadership role, and 90% answered that they were confident about taking such a role. However, only half said they had a leadership or supervisory role.

According to the American Medical Association, women make up 3% of healthcare chief medical officers, 6% of department chairs, and 9% of division leaders.

Asked whether women have experienced gender inequity in the workplace, respondents were almost evenly split, but hospital-based physicians at 61% were more likely to report inequity than were 42% of office-based physicians.

A family physician responded, “I have experienced gender inequality more from administrators than from my male colleagues. I think it’s coming from corporate more than from medical professionals.”

In this survey, 3% said their male colleagues were unsupportive of gender equality in the workplace.

The survey responses indicate most women physicians who have children are also conflicted as parents regarding their careers. Almost two-thirds (64%) said they were always or often conflicted with these dueling priorities; only 8% said they sometimes or rarely are.

Those conflicts start even before having children. More than half in this survey (52%) said their career influenced the number of children they have.

A family physician said, “I delayed starting a family because of my career. That affected my fertility and made it hard to complete [in-vitro fertilization].”
 

Family responsibilities meet stigma

Half of the respondents said women physicians are stigmatized for taking a full maternity leave (6 weeks or longer). An even higher percentage (65%) said women are stigmatized for taking more flexible or fewer hours to accommodate family responsibilities.

A 2019 survey of 844 physician mothers found that physicians who took maternity leave received lower peer evaluation scores, lost potential income, and reported experiencing discrimination. One-quarter of the participants (25.8%) reported experiencing discrimination related to breastfeeding or breast milk pumping upon their return to work.

Burnout at work puts stress on primary relationships, 63% of respondents said, although 24% said it did not strain those relationships. Thirteen percent of women gave the response “not applicable.”

“I try to be present when I’m home, but to be honest, I don’t deal with it very well,” a family physician commented.

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

Work-life balance was the top concern for female physicians who responded to a new Medscape survey, far outpacing concerns about pay.

A psychiatrist who responded to the survey commented, “I’ve been trying to use all my vacation to spend time with my spouse. I’m always apologizing for being late, not being able to go to an event due to my work schedule, and missing out on life with my husband.”

Nearly two thirds (64%) said the balance was their top concern whereas 43% put pay at the top.

Medscape surveyed more than 3,000 women physicians about how they deal with parenthood, work pressures, and relationships in Women Physicians 2020: The Issues They Care About.
 

Almost all are making personal trade-offs

An overwhelming percentage (94%) said they have had to make personal trade-offs for work obligations.

“Women are more likely to make work compromises to benefit their families,” a cardiologist responded. “I won’t/can’t take a position that would disrupt my husband’s community ties, my children’s schooling, and relationships with family.”

More than one-third of women (36%) said that being a woman had a negative or very negative impact on their compensation. Only 4% said their gender had a positive or very positive impact on pay and 59% said gender had no effect.

The Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2020 showed male specialists made 31% more than their female counterparts and male primary care physicians earned 25% more.

Some factors may help explain some of the difference, but others remain unclear.

Poor negotiating skills have long been cited as a reason women get paid less; in this survey 39% said they were unskilled or very unskilled in salary negotiations, compared with 28% who said they were skilled or very skilled in those talks.

Katie Donovan, founder of Equal Pay Negotiations, reports that only 30% of women negotiate pay at all, compared with 46% of men.

Additionally, women tend to gravitate in specialties that don’t pay as well.

They are poorly represented in some of the highest-paying specialties: orthopedics (9%), urology (12%), and cardiology (14%).

“Society’s view of women as caretaker is powerful,” a radiologist commented. “Women feel like they need to choose specialties where they can work part-time or flexible time in order to be the primary caretaker at home.”
 

Confidence high in leadership abilities

The survey asked women about their confidence in taking a leadership role, and 90% answered that they were confident about taking such a role. However, only half said they had a leadership or supervisory role.

According to the American Medical Association, women make up 3% of healthcare chief medical officers, 6% of department chairs, and 9% of division leaders.

Asked whether women have experienced gender inequity in the workplace, respondents were almost evenly split, but hospital-based physicians at 61% were more likely to report inequity than were 42% of office-based physicians.

A family physician responded, “I have experienced gender inequality more from administrators than from my male colleagues. I think it’s coming from corporate more than from medical professionals.”

In this survey, 3% said their male colleagues were unsupportive of gender equality in the workplace.

The survey responses indicate most women physicians who have children are also conflicted as parents regarding their careers. Almost two-thirds (64%) said they were always or often conflicted with these dueling priorities; only 8% said they sometimes or rarely are.

Those conflicts start even before having children. More than half in this survey (52%) said their career influenced the number of children they have.

A family physician said, “I delayed starting a family because of my career. That affected my fertility and made it hard to complete [in-vitro fertilization].”
 

Family responsibilities meet stigma

Half of the respondents said women physicians are stigmatized for taking a full maternity leave (6 weeks or longer). An even higher percentage (65%) said women are stigmatized for taking more flexible or fewer hours to accommodate family responsibilities.

A 2019 survey of 844 physician mothers found that physicians who took maternity leave received lower peer evaluation scores, lost potential income, and reported experiencing discrimination. One-quarter of the participants (25.8%) reported experiencing discrimination related to breastfeeding or breast milk pumping upon their return to work.

Burnout at work puts stress on primary relationships, 63% of respondents said, although 24% said it did not strain those relationships. Thirteen percent of women gave the response “not applicable.”

“I try to be present when I’m home, but to be honest, I don’t deal with it very well,” a family physician commented.

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

Work-life balance was the top concern for female physicians who responded to a new Medscape survey, far outpacing concerns about pay.

A psychiatrist who responded to the survey commented, “I’ve been trying to use all my vacation to spend time with my spouse. I’m always apologizing for being late, not being able to go to an event due to my work schedule, and missing out on life with my husband.”

Nearly two thirds (64%) said the balance was their top concern whereas 43% put pay at the top.

Medscape surveyed more than 3,000 women physicians about how they deal with parenthood, work pressures, and relationships in Women Physicians 2020: The Issues They Care About.
 

Almost all are making personal trade-offs

An overwhelming percentage (94%) said they have had to make personal trade-offs for work obligations.

“Women are more likely to make work compromises to benefit their families,” a cardiologist responded. “I won’t/can’t take a position that would disrupt my husband’s community ties, my children’s schooling, and relationships with family.”

More than one-third of women (36%) said that being a woman had a negative or very negative impact on their compensation. Only 4% said their gender had a positive or very positive impact on pay and 59% said gender had no effect.

The Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2020 showed male specialists made 31% more than their female counterparts and male primary care physicians earned 25% more.

Some factors may help explain some of the difference, but others remain unclear.

Poor negotiating skills have long been cited as a reason women get paid less; in this survey 39% said they were unskilled or very unskilled in salary negotiations, compared with 28% who said they were skilled or very skilled in those talks.

Katie Donovan, founder of Equal Pay Negotiations, reports that only 30% of women negotiate pay at all, compared with 46% of men.

Additionally, women tend to gravitate in specialties that don’t pay as well.

They are poorly represented in some of the highest-paying specialties: orthopedics (9%), urology (12%), and cardiology (14%).

“Society’s view of women as caretaker is powerful,” a radiologist commented. “Women feel like they need to choose specialties where they can work part-time or flexible time in order to be the primary caretaker at home.”
 

Confidence high in leadership abilities

The survey asked women about their confidence in taking a leadership role, and 90% answered that they were confident about taking such a role. However, only half said they had a leadership or supervisory role.

According to the American Medical Association, women make up 3% of healthcare chief medical officers, 6% of department chairs, and 9% of division leaders.

Asked whether women have experienced gender inequity in the workplace, respondents were almost evenly split, but hospital-based physicians at 61% were more likely to report inequity than were 42% of office-based physicians.

A family physician responded, “I have experienced gender inequality more from administrators than from my male colleagues. I think it’s coming from corporate more than from medical professionals.”

In this survey, 3% said their male colleagues were unsupportive of gender equality in the workplace.

The survey responses indicate most women physicians who have children are also conflicted as parents regarding their careers. Almost two-thirds (64%) said they were always or often conflicted with these dueling priorities; only 8% said they sometimes or rarely are.

Those conflicts start even before having children. More than half in this survey (52%) said their career influenced the number of children they have.

A family physician said, “I delayed starting a family because of my career. That affected my fertility and made it hard to complete [in-vitro fertilization].”
 

Family responsibilities meet stigma

Half of the respondents said women physicians are stigmatized for taking a full maternity leave (6 weeks or longer). An even higher percentage (65%) said women are stigmatized for taking more flexible or fewer hours to accommodate family responsibilities.

A 2019 survey of 844 physician mothers found that physicians who took maternity leave received lower peer evaluation scores, lost potential income, and reported experiencing discrimination. One-quarter of the participants (25.8%) reported experiencing discrimination related to breastfeeding or breast milk pumping upon their return to work.

Burnout at work puts stress on primary relationships, 63% of respondents said, although 24% said it did not strain those relationships. Thirteen percent of women gave the response “not applicable.”

“I try to be present when I’m home, but to be honest, I don’t deal with it very well,” a family physician commented.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic and resulting lockdown are associated with increased depression and lower levels of life satisfaction – but primarily in specific demographic and socioeconomic groups, new research shows.

A survey of more than 72,000 individuals in the United Kingdom shows that young adults, those in lower-income groups, and those who had been diagnosed with a mental illness were most affected. Interestingly, anxiety increased during the lead-up to the lockdown for the overall group but decreased during the lockdown itself.

A second survey showed that the pandemic triggered poorer mental health among more than 1,400 patients with mental illness or their caregivers. However, individuals found ways of coping despite the increased stress.

Commenting on the findings, David Spiegel, MD, professor and associate chair of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the Center on Stress and Health at Stanford (Calif.) University, noted that expectations of a “tidal wave” of mental health problems during the pandemic may have been wide of the mark.

Instead, the pandemic seems to have caused “an exacerbation” of preexisting mental health conditions, Dr. Spiegel said in an interview.

The studies were presented during a dedicated session at the European Psychiatric Association 2020 Congress, which was virtual this year because of COVID-19.
 

Underrepresented groups

The first presentation was given by Daisy Fancourt, PhD, associate professor of psychobiology and epidemiology, University College London. She described the COVID-19 Social Study, which included more than 72,000 individuals.

Participants were recruited via research databases, media communications, and “more targeted sampling at underrepresented groups, including people from low educational backgrounds and low-income households,” Dr. Fancourt noted.

The respondents took part in the study once a week. This resulted in more than 500,000 completed surveys at a rate of between 3,000 and 6,000 responses per day. Sixteen weeks of data have been gathered so far.

The samples were weighted so they “aligned with population proportions in the U.K. for demographic factors such as age, ethnicity, gender, geographical location, and educational attainment,” said Dr. Fancourt.

Results showed that mental health decreased in the lead-up to lockdown, with decreases in happiness and increases in fear, stress, and sadness.

At the start of lockdown, approximately 60% of people reported that they were stressed about COVID-19 itself, whether catching it or becoming seriously ill. During lockdown, there was little change in levels of depression, but anxiety decreased and life satisfaction increased during this period.
 

‘We’re not all in this together’

The lower stress level wasn’t surprising, “because people were at home much more. But what is particularly surprising is that it’s continued to drop even though lockdown easing has now been taking place for a number of weeks,” Dr. Fancourt said.

“A big question is: Has mental health been equally affected across this period? And our data seem to suggest that’s very much not the case,” she added.

After assessing different demographic and socioeconomic groups, the investigators found that participants aged 18-29 years had much higher levels of anxiety, depression, and thoughts of death or self-harm and much lower levels of life satisfaction than older participants.

A similar pattern was found for lower-income groups in comparison with those earning more and for individuals in Black, Asian, and minority ethnic groups, compared with White individuals.

For patients who had been diagnosed with a mental illness, levels of depression, anxiety, and thoughts of death or self-harm, as well as life satisfaction, generally ran parallel to those of the general population, although at a far worse level.

Overall, the results suggest that “we’ve not all been ‘in this together,’ as we heard in some of the media,” Dr. Fancourt said. “In fact, it’s been a very different experience, depending on people’s demographic and socioeconomic characteristics.”
 

Increased loneliness, economic worry

Further analysis into loneliness showed that twice as many respondents described themselves as lonely during the COVID-19 pandemic in comparison with beforehand (18.3% vs. 8.5%).

There was very little improvement in loneliness across the study period, “so whilst it might be higher than normal, we’ve not really seen any reduction, even when there’s been easing of lockdown,” Dr. Fancourt said.

A possible reason could be that some of the most lonely respondents were not able to come out of lockdown because of being in a higher-risk group, she noted.

As with the main findings, loneliness during the pandemic was worse for younger adults as well as for those of low income, those who lived alone, and those who had a mental illness.

The researchers assessed lower socioeconomic position (SEP), which was defined by several indicators: annual household income less than £30,000 (about $38,000), high school or lower education, being unemployed, renting instead of owning one’s own home, or living in overcrowded accommodations

During the COVID-19 epidemic, having a lower SEP was associated with a 50%-100% increased risk of losing work in comparison with having a higher SEP. There was also a 300% increased risk of being unable to pay bills and a 600%-800% increased risk of not being able to access essentials, such as medication or sufficient food.

Interestingly, worrying about potential adversities during the pandemic had a similar impact on anxiety and depression. “In other words, worrying about what might be about to happen seems to be as bad for mental health as those things actually happening,” Dr. Fancourt said.

The majority of participants did not feel in control of their future plans and felt more out of control of their employment and mental health than they did their physical health.

Individuals aged 18-29 years felt least in control over finances, relationships, future plans, and mental health. Those aged 60 years or older were the most likely to report feeling in control on all measures.
 

Puzzling results

Dr. Spiegel described the results as “a little puzzling in some ways.” He noted that the easing of discomfort that participants felt during lockdown suggests that the idea of a lockdown being a terrible thing “is not necessarily the case.”

“People realize that their lives and lifestyles are being threatened, and it can be actually comforting to be doing something, even if what you’re doing is rather uncomfortable and disruptive of life,” said Dr. Spiegel, who was not involved with the research.

The lockdown may have led people “to think a little more deeply about what matters to them in life,” he added.

A big message from the study is that “the most anxious and depressed were young people in their late teens to late 20s,” Dr. Spiegel noted. That’s when individuals are most sociable, when they form their own social networks, and when they look for partners.

“What’s a little scarier is they also had higher levels of thoughts of death and self-harm and less life satisfaction. So I think the consequences of social disruption were most profound in this study for people for whom social life is the most important,” said Dr. Spiegel.

However, Roxane Cohen Silver, PhD, professor of psychological science, medicine, and public health, University of California, Irvine, noted that, despite the large number of participants, the study’s methodology left many questions unanswered.

She explained that to make sound public policy recommendations, “one needs to pay a great deal of attention to the methods that are used in collecting those data.” From the available information, the degree to which the sample is representative and the participation rate are unclear, which leaves the study open to selection bias, despite the weighting the researchers performed to generate the results.

“The methodological soundness of the studies on the mental health effect of COVID are just as important, I believe, as they are when we’re trying to understand the effect of treatment or a drug,” Dr. Cohen Silver said.
 

Relief during the pandemic?

The second presentation was given by Sara Simblett, PhD, department of psychology, King’s College London, who described the Coronavirus Outbreak Psychological Experiences study.

This was a two-part investigation in which 31 semistructured interviews with users of mental health services and carers formed the basis of a qualitative survey. It examined the impact of the pandemic on thoughts, emotions, behaviors, and life situations.

The survey was advertised via social media and mental health charities, yielding a total of 1,402 responses. These included responses from 968 individuals who had experience of a mental health condition. Of these, 266 were currently using mental health services, and 189 were informal carers.

Of those, 46.8% met the case threshold for anxiety, 40.3% met the threshold for depression, and 45.3% were determined to have “low resilience.”

The COVID-19 pandemic triggered poorer mental health in the majority of respondents, at 60.8% among those with a preexisting mental health condition and 64.1% among informal carers.

This was reflected in 95.3% of respondents saying that things were uncertain, 81.3% saying they felt restricted by the pandemic, and 71.9% saying that their day was less structured.

However, the survey also revealed that 79.8% felt relieved during the pandemic, 82.1% said that their memory was “much better,” and 62.9% found it easier to concentrate and make plans.

In addition, many people turned to coping mechanisms; 74.7% looked to religion and spirituality as a source of support, and 64.2% used health and wellness apps.

The COVID-19 Social Study is funded by the Wellcome Trust and the Nuffield Foundation. The Coronavirus Outbreak Psychological Experiences study is a collaboration with the McPin Foundation. The investigators and commentators reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic and resulting lockdown are associated with increased depression and lower levels of life satisfaction – but primarily in specific demographic and socioeconomic groups, new research shows.

A survey of more than 72,000 individuals in the United Kingdom shows that young adults, those in lower-income groups, and those who had been diagnosed with a mental illness were most affected. Interestingly, anxiety increased during the lead-up to the lockdown for the overall group but decreased during the lockdown itself.

A second survey showed that the pandemic triggered poorer mental health among more than 1,400 patients with mental illness or their caregivers. However, individuals found ways of coping despite the increased stress.

Commenting on the findings, David Spiegel, MD, professor and associate chair of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the Center on Stress and Health at Stanford (Calif.) University, noted that expectations of a “tidal wave” of mental health problems during the pandemic may have been wide of the mark.

Instead, the pandemic seems to have caused “an exacerbation” of preexisting mental health conditions, Dr. Spiegel said in an interview.

The studies were presented during a dedicated session at the European Psychiatric Association 2020 Congress, which was virtual this year because of COVID-19.
 

Underrepresented groups

The first presentation was given by Daisy Fancourt, PhD, associate professor of psychobiology and epidemiology, University College London. She described the COVID-19 Social Study, which included more than 72,000 individuals.

Participants were recruited via research databases, media communications, and “more targeted sampling at underrepresented groups, including people from low educational backgrounds and low-income households,” Dr. Fancourt noted.

The respondents took part in the study once a week. This resulted in more than 500,000 completed surveys at a rate of between 3,000 and 6,000 responses per day. Sixteen weeks of data have been gathered so far.

The samples were weighted so they “aligned with population proportions in the U.K. for demographic factors such as age, ethnicity, gender, geographical location, and educational attainment,” said Dr. Fancourt.

Results showed that mental health decreased in the lead-up to lockdown, with decreases in happiness and increases in fear, stress, and sadness.

At the start of lockdown, approximately 60% of people reported that they were stressed about COVID-19 itself, whether catching it or becoming seriously ill. During lockdown, there was little change in levels of depression, but anxiety decreased and life satisfaction increased during this period.
 

‘We’re not all in this together’

The lower stress level wasn’t surprising, “because people were at home much more. But what is particularly surprising is that it’s continued to drop even though lockdown easing has now been taking place for a number of weeks,” Dr. Fancourt said.

“A big question is: Has mental health been equally affected across this period? And our data seem to suggest that’s very much not the case,” she added.

After assessing different demographic and socioeconomic groups, the investigators found that participants aged 18-29 years had much higher levels of anxiety, depression, and thoughts of death or self-harm and much lower levels of life satisfaction than older participants.

A similar pattern was found for lower-income groups in comparison with those earning more and for individuals in Black, Asian, and minority ethnic groups, compared with White individuals.

For patients who had been diagnosed with a mental illness, levels of depression, anxiety, and thoughts of death or self-harm, as well as life satisfaction, generally ran parallel to those of the general population, although at a far worse level.

Overall, the results suggest that “we’ve not all been ‘in this together,’ as we heard in some of the media,” Dr. Fancourt said. “In fact, it’s been a very different experience, depending on people’s demographic and socioeconomic characteristics.”
 

Increased loneliness, economic worry

Further analysis into loneliness showed that twice as many respondents described themselves as lonely during the COVID-19 pandemic in comparison with beforehand (18.3% vs. 8.5%).

There was very little improvement in loneliness across the study period, “so whilst it might be higher than normal, we’ve not really seen any reduction, even when there’s been easing of lockdown,” Dr. Fancourt said.

A possible reason could be that some of the most lonely respondents were not able to come out of lockdown because of being in a higher-risk group, she noted.

As with the main findings, loneliness during the pandemic was worse for younger adults as well as for those of low income, those who lived alone, and those who had a mental illness.

The researchers assessed lower socioeconomic position (SEP), which was defined by several indicators: annual household income less than £30,000 (about $38,000), high school or lower education, being unemployed, renting instead of owning one’s own home, or living in overcrowded accommodations

During the COVID-19 epidemic, having a lower SEP was associated with a 50%-100% increased risk of losing work in comparison with having a higher SEP. There was also a 300% increased risk of being unable to pay bills and a 600%-800% increased risk of not being able to access essentials, such as medication or sufficient food.

Interestingly, worrying about potential adversities during the pandemic had a similar impact on anxiety and depression. “In other words, worrying about what might be about to happen seems to be as bad for mental health as those things actually happening,” Dr. Fancourt said.

The majority of participants did not feel in control of their future plans and felt more out of control of their employment and mental health than they did their physical health.

Individuals aged 18-29 years felt least in control over finances, relationships, future plans, and mental health. Those aged 60 years or older were the most likely to report feeling in control on all measures.
 

Puzzling results

Dr. Spiegel described the results as “a little puzzling in some ways.” He noted that the easing of discomfort that participants felt during lockdown suggests that the idea of a lockdown being a terrible thing “is not necessarily the case.”

“People realize that their lives and lifestyles are being threatened, and it can be actually comforting to be doing something, even if what you’re doing is rather uncomfortable and disruptive of life,” said Dr. Spiegel, who was not involved with the research.

The lockdown may have led people “to think a little more deeply about what matters to them in life,” he added.

A big message from the study is that “the most anxious and depressed were young people in their late teens to late 20s,” Dr. Spiegel noted. That’s when individuals are most sociable, when they form their own social networks, and when they look for partners.

“What’s a little scarier is they also had higher levels of thoughts of death and self-harm and less life satisfaction. So I think the consequences of social disruption were most profound in this study for people for whom social life is the most important,” said Dr. Spiegel.

However, Roxane Cohen Silver, PhD, professor of psychological science, medicine, and public health, University of California, Irvine, noted that, despite the large number of participants, the study’s methodology left many questions unanswered.

She explained that to make sound public policy recommendations, “one needs to pay a great deal of attention to the methods that are used in collecting those data.” From the available information, the degree to which the sample is representative and the participation rate are unclear, which leaves the study open to selection bias, despite the weighting the researchers performed to generate the results.

“The methodological soundness of the studies on the mental health effect of COVID are just as important, I believe, as they are when we’re trying to understand the effect of treatment or a drug,” Dr. Cohen Silver said.
 

Relief during the pandemic?

The second presentation was given by Sara Simblett, PhD, department of psychology, King’s College London, who described the Coronavirus Outbreak Psychological Experiences study.

This was a two-part investigation in which 31 semistructured interviews with users of mental health services and carers formed the basis of a qualitative survey. It examined the impact of the pandemic on thoughts, emotions, behaviors, and life situations.

The survey was advertised via social media and mental health charities, yielding a total of 1,402 responses. These included responses from 968 individuals who had experience of a mental health condition. Of these, 266 were currently using mental health services, and 189 were informal carers.

Of those, 46.8% met the case threshold for anxiety, 40.3% met the threshold for depression, and 45.3% were determined to have “low resilience.”

The COVID-19 pandemic triggered poorer mental health in the majority of respondents, at 60.8% among those with a preexisting mental health condition and 64.1% among informal carers.

This was reflected in 95.3% of respondents saying that things were uncertain, 81.3% saying they felt restricted by the pandemic, and 71.9% saying that their day was less structured.

However, the survey also revealed that 79.8% felt relieved during the pandemic, 82.1% said that their memory was “much better,” and 62.9% found it easier to concentrate and make plans.

In addition, many people turned to coping mechanisms; 74.7% looked to religion and spirituality as a source of support, and 64.2% used health and wellness apps.

The COVID-19 Social Study is funded by the Wellcome Trust and the Nuffield Foundation. The Coronavirus Outbreak Psychological Experiences study is a collaboration with the McPin Foundation. The investigators and commentators reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic and resulting lockdown are associated with increased depression and lower levels of life satisfaction – but primarily in specific demographic and socioeconomic groups, new research shows.

A survey of more than 72,000 individuals in the United Kingdom shows that young adults, those in lower-income groups, and those who had been diagnosed with a mental illness were most affected. Interestingly, anxiety increased during the lead-up to the lockdown for the overall group but decreased during the lockdown itself.

A second survey showed that the pandemic triggered poorer mental health among more than 1,400 patients with mental illness or their caregivers. However, individuals found ways of coping despite the increased stress.

Commenting on the findings, David Spiegel, MD, professor and associate chair of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the Center on Stress and Health at Stanford (Calif.) University, noted that expectations of a “tidal wave” of mental health problems during the pandemic may have been wide of the mark.

Instead, the pandemic seems to have caused “an exacerbation” of preexisting mental health conditions, Dr. Spiegel said in an interview.

The studies were presented during a dedicated session at the European Psychiatric Association 2020 Congress, which was virtual this year because of COVID-19.
 

Underrepresented groups

The first presentation was given by Daisy Fancourt, PhD, associate professor of psychobiology and epidemiology, University College London. She described the COVID-19 Social Study, which included more than 72,000 individuals.

Participants were recruited via research databases, media communications, and “more targeted sampling at underrepresented groups, including people from low educational backgrounds and low-income households,” Dr. Fancourt noted.

The respondents took part in the study once a week. This resulted in more than 500,000 completed surveys at a rate of between 3,000 and 6,000 responses per day. Sixteen weeks of data have been gathered so far.

The samples were weighted so they “aligned with population proportions in the U.K. for demographic factors such as age, ethnicity, gender, geographical location, and educational attainment,” said Dr. Fancourt.

Results showed that mental health decreased in the lead-up to lockdown, with decreases in happiness and increases in fear, stress, and sadness.

At the start of lockdown, approximately 60% of people reported that they were stressed about COVID-19 itself, whether catching it or becoming seriously ill. During lockdown, there was little change in levels of depression, but anxiety decreased and life satisfaction increased during this period.
 

‘We’re not all in this together’

The lower stress level wasn’t surprising, “because people were at home much more. But what is particularly surprising is that it’s continued to drop even though lockdown easing has now been taking place for a number of weeks,” Dr. Fancourt said.

“A big question is: Has mental health been equally affected across this period? And our data seem to suggest that’s very much not the case,” she added.

After assessing different demographic and socioeconomic groups, the investigators found that participants aged 18-29 years had much higher levels of anxiety, depression, and thoughts of death or self-harm and much lower levels of life satisfaction than older participants.

A similar pattern was found for lower-income groups in comparison with those earning more and for individuals in Black, Asian, and minority ethnic groups, compared with White individuals.

For patients who had been diagnosed with a mental illness, levels of depression, anxiety, and thoughts of death or self-harm, as well as life satisfaction, generally ran parallel to those of the general population, although at a far worse level.

Overall, the results suggest that “we’ve not all been ‘in this together,’ as we heard in some of the media,” Dr. Fancourt said. “In fact, it’s been a very different experience, depending on people’s demographic and socioeconomic characteristics.”
 

Increased loneliness, economic worry

Further analysis into loneliness showed that twice as many respondents described themselves as lonely during the COVID-19 pandemic in comparison with beforehand (18.3% vs. 8.5%).

There was very little improvement in loneliness across the study period, “so whilst it might be higher than normal, we’ve not really seen any reduction, even when there’s been easing of lockdown,” Dr. Fancourt said.

A possible reason could be that some of the most lonely respondents were not able to come out of lockdown because of being in a higher-risk group, she noted.

As with the main findings, loneliness during the pandemic was worse for younger adults as well as for those of low income, those who lived alone, and those who had a mental illness.

The researchers assessed lower socioeconomic position (SEP), which was defined by several indicators: annual household income less than £30,000 (about $38,000), high school or lower education, being unemployed, renting instead of owning one’s own home, or living in overcrowded accommodations

During the COVID-19 epidemic, having a lower SEP was associated with a 50%-100% increased risk of losing work in comparison with having a higher SEP. There was also a 300% increased risk of being unable to pay bills and a 600%-800% increased risk of not being able to access essentials, such as medication or sufficient food.

Interestingly, worrying about potential adversities during the pandemic had a similar impact on anxiety and depression. “In other words, worrying about what might be about to happen seems to be as bad for mental health as those things actually happening,” Dr. Fancourt said.

The majority of participants did not feel in control of their future plans and felt more out of control of their employment and mental health than they did their physical health.

Individuals aged 18-29 years felt least in control over finances, relationships, future plans, and mental health. Those aged 60 years or older were the most likely to report feeling in control on all measures.
 

Puzzling results

Dr. Spiegel described the results as “a little puzzling in some ways.” He noted that the easing of discomfort that participants felt during lockdown suggests that the idea of a lockdown being a terrible thing “is not necessarily the case.”

“People realize that their lives and lifestyles are being threatened, and it can be actually comforting to be doing something, even if what you’re doing is rather uncomfortable and disruptive of life,” said Dr. Spiegel, who was not involved with the research.

The lockdown may have led people “to think a little more deeply about what matters to them in life,” he added.

A big message from the study is that “the most anxious and depressed were young people in their late teens to late 20s,” Dr. Spiegel noted. That’s when individuals are most sociable, when they form their own social networks, and when they look for partners.

“What’s a little scarier is they also had higher levels of thoughts of death and self-harm and less life satisfaction. So I think the consequences of social disruption were most profound in this study for people for whom social life is the most important,” said Dr. Spiegel.

However, Roxane Cohen Silver, PhD, professor of psychological science, medicine, and public health, University of California, Irvine, noted that, despite the large number of participants, the study’s methodology left many questions unanswered.

She explained that to make sound public policy recommendations, “one needs to pay a great deal of attention to the methods that are used in collecting those data.” From the available information, the degree to which the sample is representative and the participation rate are unclear, which leaves the study open to selection bias, despite the weighting the researchers performed to generate the results.

“The methodological soundness of the studies on the mental health effect of COVID are just as important, I believe, as they are when we’re trying to understand the effect of treatment or a drug,” Dr. Cohen Silver said.
 

Relief during the pandemic?

The second presentation was given by Sara Simblett, PhD, department of psychology, King’s College London, who described the Coronavirus Outbreak Psychological Experiences study.

This was a two-part investigation in which 31 semistructured interviews with users of mental health services and carers formed the basis of a qualitative survey. It examined the impact of the pandemic on thoughts, emotions, behaviors, and life situations.

The survey was advertised via social media and mental health charities, yielding a total of 1,402 responses. These included responses from 968 individuals who had experience of a mental health condition. Of these, 266 were currently using mental health services, and 189 were informal carers.

Of those, 46.8% met the case threshold for anxiety, 40.3% met the threshold for depression, and 45.3% were determined to have “low resilience.”

The COVID-19 pandemic triggered poorer mental health in the majority of respondents, at 60.8% among those with a preexisting mental health condition and 64.1% among informal carers.

This was reflected in 95.3% of respondents saying that things were uncertain, 81.3% saying they felt restricted by the pandemic, and 71.9% saying that their day was less structured.

However, the survey also revealed that 79.8% felt relieved during the pandemic, 82.1% said that their memory was “much better,” and 62.9% found it easier to concentrate and make plans.

In addition, many people turned to coping mechanisms; 74.7% looked to religion and spirituality as a source of support, and 64.2% used health and wellness apps.

The COVID-19 Social Study is funded by the Wellcome Trust and the Nuffield Foundation. The Coronavirus Outbreak Psychological Experiences study is a collaboration with the McPin Foundation. The investigators and commentators reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

“The sewer is the conscience of the city. Everything there converges and confronts everything else. In that livid spot there are shades, but there are no longer any secrets.” Victor Hugo – “Les Miserables”

To get a sense of the prevalence of COVID-19 in a community you need to test hundreds to thousands of people. This is difficult, resource intensive, and requires cooperation for testing among people both with and without symptoms. It turns out that Sewage Chemical Information Mining (SCIM), a technology that has been in development for over a decade, is now being developed to track COVID-19.

In various locations from China to medieval London, there have been attempts to utilize human excrement for the betterment of mankind, from employing it as fertilizer to processing it to make gunpowder. Such attempts did not always work as planned. The use of sewage for fertilizer in Europe and the United States in the 1840s and 1850s led to the spread of waterborne diseases, including cholera and typhoid. As the importance of sanitary elimination of human waste became ever clearer, ideas and technology for our modern system of sewage management evolved. We have since advanced a great deal, so that all industrialized nations now have a well-developed system for clean water entry, as well as sewage treatment and disposal. Nonetheless, there remains a nagging question of whether human waste could be used for something productive.¹

In the early 2000s, SCIM was developed as a technique to assess population-level human health and disease. In SCIM, untreated sewage is tested for a chemical of interest which reflects a health parameter for a community. Chemicals of interest and usage rates can be calculated for substances as varied as opioids, tobacco, pesticides, and even nonnutritive sweeteners. For instance, relative opioid use can be calculated over time for a given “sewershed” or sewage catchment area. The calculation of community-wide exposure to substances as a means of getting real-time data on shifts of usage without having to collect and collate data from thousands of individuals has been termed wastewater-based epidemiology.

We use urine and stool testing in so many other areas, such as urinalysis, urine drug testing, urine Legionella antigen testing, and stool testing for common pathogens. What a rich source of information is present in the combination of urine and stool that collectively make up sewage! With the average volume of urine per adult being approximately 1 liter daily (and with urine calculated to be approximately 1% of wastewater), accurate analytic techniques can estimate per capita exposure to different substances. Applications of wastewater-based epidemiology have included tracking community prevalence of enteric viral infections, opioid and tobacco use, and many other indicators of health and disease.²

Given the enormous work in the field over the last 2 decades and that SARS-CoV-2 RNA has been detected in feces of both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, it was only a short conceptual step for those familiar with sewage epidemiology to consider adapting it to assess the prevalence of COVID-19 in a community.

An elegant study collected untreated sewage from southeast Queensland, Australia. The sewage was processed, concentrated, and then tested with reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction analysis for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. The number of RNA copies was then entered into an equation that included the population served by the sewage encatchment area, as well as the measured liters of wastewater and grams of feces per day. This provided an estimate of the number of persons infected in the community, and the researchers were able to show reasonable agreement between the numbers estimated by sewage analysis and that found in traditional clinical testing.^3,4

The promise of wastewater-based epidemiology is large. Early research indicates that quantification of viral particles in sewage can be accurately assessed and correlated with the prevalence of the infection in the community. Such levels can then be used to track infection rates of COVID-19 over time, as well as to compare the relative rates in different communities.

Our sewage may hold the answer to accurately and easily tracking COVID-19, and ultimately help us gain a better hold on this disease.
 

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

References

1. History of water supply and sanitation. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_water_supply_and_sanitation.

2. Daughton C. Monitoring wastewater for assessing community health: Sewage Chemical-Information Mining (SCIM). Sci Total Environ. 2017 Nov 29. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.102.

3. Ahmed W et al. First confirmed detection of SARS-CoV-2 in untreated wastewater in Australia: A proof of concept for the wastewater surveillance of COVID-19 in the community. Sci Total Environ. 2020 Apr 18. doi: doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138764.

4. Daughton C. The international imperative to rapidly and inexpensively monitor community-wide COVID-19 infection status and trends. Sci Total Environ. 2020 Mar 23. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138149.

“The sewer is the conscience of the city. Everything there converges and confronts everything else. In that livid spot there are shades, but there are no longer any secrets.” Victor Hugo – “Les Miserables”

To get a sense of the prevalence of COVID-19 in a community you need to test hundreds to thousands of people. This is difficult, resource intensive, and requires cooperation for testing among people both with and without symptoms. It turns out that Sewage Chemical Information Mining (SCIM), a technology that has been in development for over a decade, is now being developed to track COVID-19.

In various locations from China to medieval London, there have been attempts to utilize human excrement for the betterment of mankind, from employing it as fertilizer to processing it to make gunpowder. Such attempts did not always work as planned. The use of sewage for fertilizer in Europe and the United States in the 1840s and 1850s led to the spread of waterborne diseases, including cholera and typhoid. As the importance of sanitary elimination of human waste became ever clearer, ideas and technology for our modern system of sewage management evolved. We have since advanced a great deal, so that all industrialized nations now have a well-developed system for clean water entry, as well as sewage treatment and disposal. Nonetheless, there remains a nagging question of whether human waste could be used for something productive.¹

In the early 2000s, SCIM was developed as a technique to assess population-level human health and disease. In SCIM, untreated sewage is tested for a chemical of interest which reflects a health parameter for a community. Chemicals of interest and usage rates can be calculated for substances as varied as opioids, tobacco, pesticides, and even nonnutritive sweeteners. For instance, relative opioid use can be calculated over time for a given “sewershed” or sewage catchment area. The calculation of community-wide exposure to substances as a means of getting real-time data on shifts of usage without having to collect and collate data from thousands of individuals has been termed wastewater-based epidemiology.

We use urine and stool testing in so many other areas, such as urinalysis, urine drug testing, urine Legionella antigen testing, and stool testing for common pathogens. What a rich source of information is present in the combination of urine and stool that collectively make up sewage! With the average volume of urine per adult being approximately 1 liter daily (and with urine calculated to be approximately 1% of wastewater), accurate analytic techniques can estimate per capita exposure to different substances. Applications of wastewater-based epidemiology have included tracking community prevalence of enteric viral infections, opioid and tobacco use, and many other indicators of health and disease.²

Given the enormous work in the field over the last 2 decades and that SARS-CoV-2 RNA has been detected in feces of both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, it was only a short conceptual step for those familiar with sewage epidemiology to consider adapting it to assess the prevalence of COVID-19 in a community.

An elegant study collected untreated sewage from southeast Queensland, Australia. The sewage was processed, concentrated, and then tested with reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction analysis for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. The number of RNA copies was then entered into an equation that included the population served by the sewage encatchment area, as well as the measured liters of wastewater and grams of feces per day. This provided an estimate of the number of persons infected in the community, and the researchers were able to show reasonable agreement between the numbers estimated by sewage analysis and that found in traditional clinical testing.^3,4

The promise of wastewater-based epidemiology is large. Early research indicates that quantification of viral particles in sewage can be accurately assessed and correlated with the prevalence of the infection in the community. Such levels can then be used to track infection rates of COVID-19 over time, as well as to compare the relative rates in different communities.

Our sewage may hold the answer to accurately and easily tracking COVID-19, and ultimately help us gain a better hold on this disease.
 

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

References

1. History of water supply and sanitation. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_water_supply_and_sanitation.

2. Daughton C. Monitoring wastewater for assessing community health: Sewage Chemical-Information Mining (SCIM). Sci Total Environ. 2017 Nov 29. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.102.

3. Ahmed W et al. First confirmed detection of SARS-CoV-2 in untreated wastewater in Australia: A proof of concept for the wastewater surveillance of COVID-19 in the community. Sci Total Environ. 2020 Apr 18. doi: doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138764.

4. Daughton C. The international imperative to rapidly and inexpensively monitor community-wide COVID-19 infection status and trends. Sci Total Environ. 2020 Mar 23. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138149.

“The sewer is the conscience of the city. Everything there converges and confronts everything else. In that livid spot there are shades, but there are no longer any secrets.” Victor Hugo – “Les Miserables”

To get a sense of the prevalence of COVID-19 in a community you need to test hundreds to thousands of people. This is difficult, resource intensive, and requires cooperation for testing among people both with and without symptoms. It turns out that Sewage Chemical Information Mining (SCIM), a technology that has been in development for over a decade, is now being developed to track COVID-19.

In various locations from China to medieval London, there have been attempts to utilize human excrement for the betterment of mankind, from employing it as fertilizer to processing it to make gunpowder. Such attempts did not always work as planned. The use of sewage for fertilizer in Europe and the United States in the 1840s and 1850s led to the spread of waterborne diseases, including cholera and typhoid. As the importance of sanitary elimination of human waste became ever clearer, ideas and technology for our modern system of sewage management evolved. We have since advanced a great deal, so that all industrialized nations now have a well-developed system for clean water entry, as well as sewage treatment and disposal. Nonetheless, there remains a nagging question of whether human waste could be used for something productive.¹

In the early 2000s, SCIM was developed as a technique to assess population-level human health and disease. In SCIM, untreated sewage is tested for a chemical of interest which reflects a health parameter for a community. Chemicals of interest and usage rates can be calculated for substances as varied as opioids, tobacco, pesticides, and even nonnutritive sweeteners. For instance, relative opioid use can be calculated over time for a given “sewershed” or sewage catchment area. The calculation of community-wide exposure to substances as a means of getting real-time data on shifts of usage without having to collect and collate data from thousands of individuals has been termed wastewater-based epidemiology.

We use urine and stool testing in so many other areas, such as urinalysis, urine drug testing, urine Legionella antigen testing, and stool testing for common pathogens. What a rich source of information is present in the combination of urine and stool that collectively make up sewage! With the average volume of urine per adult being approximately 1 liter daily (and with urine calculated to be approximately 1% of wastewater), accurate analytic techniques can estimate per capita exposure to different substances. Applications of wastewater-based epidemiology have included tracking community prevalence of enteric viral infections, opioid and tobacco use, and many other indicators of health and disease.²

Given the enormous work in the field over the last 2 decades and that SARS-CoV-2 RNA has been detected in feces of both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, it was only a short conceptual step for those familiar with sewage epidemiology to consider adapting it to assess the prevalence of COVID-19 in a community.

An elegant study collected untreated sewage from southeast Queensland, Australia. The sewage was processed, concentrated, and then tested with reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction analysis for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. The number of RNA copies was then entered into an equation that included the population served by the sewage encatchment area, as well as the measured liters of wastewater and grams of feces per day. This provided an estimate of the number of persons infected in the community, and the researchers were able to show reasonable agreement between the numbers estimated by sewage analysis and that found in traditional clinical testing.^3,4

The promise of wastewater-based epidemiology is large. Early research indicates that quantification of viral particles in sewage can be accurately assessed and correlated with the prevalence of the infection in the community. Such levels can then be used to track infection rates of COVID-19 over time, as well as to compare the relative rates in different communities.

Our sewage may hold the answer to accurately and easily tracking COVID-19, and ultimately help us gain a better hold on this disease.
 

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

References

1. History of water supply and sanitation. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_water_supply_and_sanitation.

2. Daughton C. Monitoring wastewater for assessing community health: Sewage Chemical-Information Mining (SCIM). Sci Total Environ. 2017 Nov 29. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.102.

3. Ahmed W et al. First confirmed detection of SARS-CoV-2 in untreated wastewater in Australia: A proof of concept for the wastewater surveillance of COVID-19 in the community. Sci Total Environ. 2020 Apr 18. doi: doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138764.

4. Daughton C. The international imperative to rapidly and inexpensively monitor community-wide COVID-19 infection status and trends. Sci Total Environ. 2020 Mar 23. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138149.

Bicycling has always been part of who I am because it offered me the freedom to explore as a preteen. As an adult I have always been a bicycle commuter and a very visible part of the community as I pedal around town to do my errands. But, I didn’t always wear a helmet ... because well, I just didn’t. I saw the helmet as a nuisance with very little benefit to myself. Eventually, when bike races required helmets I bought one just for the competitions. Until one day about 30 years ago when the mother of a child I was seeing in the office said, “Dr. Wilkoff, you know as an influential member of this community, particularly its children, you should be wearing a helmet.” My wife had been badgering me for years but this woman’s courage to speak up embarrassed me into changing my ways.

For some, maybe many, people, wearing a mask during the COVID-19 pandemic is a nuisance and an assault on their independence just as I viewed a bicycle helmet. Initially there was some information being circulated that any mask less robust than a N-95 had very little if any effect, either as protection or as way to decrease spread. I certainly had my doubts about the value of mask other than as a statement of solidarity. However, we are now learning that masks can serve an important role along with social distancing in a comprehensive community effort to minimize contagion.

In light of this new information, why are there are still people who won’t wear a mask? It may be that they are receiving their news filtered through a lens that discredits science. But, it is more likely the result of the same mindset that permeates the anti-vaccine faction that the common good is less important than personal freedom to follow their beliefs.

Do we have any tools at our disposal to increase the number of folks wearing masks? Based on our experience with attempts to convince those who are anti-vaccine, education will be ineffective in shifting the focus from personal freedom to a commitment to the welfare of the community at large. Shaming might be effective, but it runs the risk of igniting conflicts and further widening the gaps in our society. Some establishments have been effective in simply saying “no mask, no entry,” but this runs the same risk of creating friction depending on the community and the situation.

The ship may have already sailed on our best opportunity to achieve community compliance when the leaders of our national government have chosen to ignore their obligation to set an example by refusing to wear masks. I fear that the wedge has already been set and the widening of the gap between those who see their responsibility to the community at large and those who do not will continue to grow.

I am fortunate to live in a town whose residents look out for each other and have relied on local leaders to set an example in the absence of leadership on a national level.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

Bicycling has always been part of who I am because it offered me the freedom to explore as a preteen. As an adult I have always been a bicycle commuter and a very visible part of the community as I pedal around town to do my errands. But, I didn’t always wear a helmet ... because well, I just didn’t. I saw the helmet as a nuisance with very little benefit to myself. Eventually, when bike races required helmets I bought one just for the competitions. Until one day about 30 years ago when the mother of a child I was seeing in the office said, “Dr. Wilkoff, you know as an influential member of this community, particularly its children, you should be wearing a helmet.” My wife had been badgering me for years but this woman’s courage to speak up embarrassed me into changing my ways.

For some, maybe many, people, wearing a mask during the COVID-19 pandemic is a nuisance and an assault on their independence just as I viewed a bicycle helmet. Initially there was some information being circulated that any mask less robust than a N-95 had very little if any effect, either as protection or as way to decrease spread. I certainly had my doubts about the value of mask other than as a statement of solidarity. However, we are now learning that masks can serve an important role along with social distancing in a comprehensive community effort to minimize contagion.

In light of this new information, why are there are still people who won’t wear a mask? It may be that they are receiving their news filtered through a lens that discredits science. But, it is more likely the result of the same mindset that permeates the anti-vaccine faction that the common good is less important than personal freedom to follow their beliefs.

Do we have any tools at our disposal to increase the number of folks wearing masks? Based on our experience with attempts to convince those who are anti-vaccine, education will be ineffective in shifting the focus from personal freedom to a commitment to the welfare of the community at large. Shaming might be effective, but it runs the risk of igniting conflicts and further widening the gaps in our society. Some establishments have been effective in simply saying “no mask, no entry,” but this runs the same risk of creating friction depending on the community and the situation.

The ship may have already sailed on our best opportunity to achieve community compliance when the leaders of our national government have chosen to ignore their obligation to set an example by refusing to wear masks. I fear that the wedge has already been set and the widening of the gap between those who see their responsibility to the community at large and those who do not will continue to grow.

I am fortunate to live in a town whose residents look out for each other and have relied on local leaders to set an example in the absence of leadership on a national level.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

Bicycling has always been part of who I am because it offered me the freedom to explore as a preteen. As an adult I have always been a bicycle commuter and a very visible part of the community as I pedal around town to do my errands. But, I didn’t always wear a helmet ... because well, I just didn’t. I saw the helmet as a nuisance with very little benefit to myself. Eventually, when bike races required helmets I bought one just for the competitions. Until one day about 30 years ago when the mother of a child I was seeing in the office said, “Dr. Wilkoff, you know as an influential member of this community, particularly its children, you should be wearing a helmet.” My wife had been badgering me for years but this woman’s courage to speak up embarrassed me into changing my ways.

For some, maybe many, people, wearing a mask during the COVID-19 pandemic is a nuisance and an assault on their independence just as I viewed a bicycle helmet. Initially there was some information being circulated that any mask less robust than a N-95 had very little if any effect, either as protection or as way to decrease spread. I certainly had my doubts about the value of mask other than as a statement of solidarity. However, we are now learning that masks can serve an important role along with social distancing in a comprehensive community effort to minimize contagion.

In light of this new information, why are there are still people who won’t wear a mask? It may be that they are receiving their news filtered through a lens that discredits science. But, it is more likely the result of the same mindset that permeates the anti-vaccine faction that the common good is less important than personal freedom to follow their beliefs.

Do we have any tools at our disposal to increase the number of folks wearing masks? Based on our experience with attempts to convince those who are anti-vaccine, education will be ineffective in shifting the focus from personal freedom to a commitment to the welfare of the community at large. Shaming might be effective, but it runs the risk of igniting conflicts and further widening the gaps in our society. Some establishments have been effective in simply saying “no mask, no entry,” but this runs the same risk of creating friction depending on the community and the situation.

The ship may have already sailed on our best opportunity to achieve community compliance when the leaders of our national government have chosen to ignore their obligation to set an example by refusing to wear masks. I fear that the wedge has already been set and the widening of the gap between those who see their responsibility to the community at large and those who do not will continue to grow.

I am fortunate to live in a town whose residents look out for each other and have relied on local leaders to set an example in the absence of leadership on a national level.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

The benefits of continuous positive airway pressure therapy for patients with obstructive sleep apnea are well documented, but it only works if patients can adhere to the therapy.

A large national study of older Medicare patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) has identified lower socioeconomic status and comorbidities as independent risk factors for nonadherence to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy.

“[The] present results represent the largest study to date of rates and predictors of CPAP adherence among older adults in the United States. In our national sample of Medicare beneficiaries, adherence rates were generally lower than previously reported in smaller, clinic-based studies,” Emerson M. Wickwire, PhD, of the Sleep Disorders Center and division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, and colleagues wrote in Sleep.

Dr. Wickwire and colleagues estimated CPAP machine adherence using a 5% sample of Medicare claims data, identifying 3,229 Medicare beneficiaries with OSA who began CPAP therapy between 2009 and 2011. Individuals in the sample were aged at least 65 years with a new diagnosis of OSA, 88.1% of beneficiaries were white, and 52.3% were male.

The researchers applied objective adherence criteria set by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which defines CPAP adherence as a patient using CPAP for at least 4 hours on 70% of nights, or CPAP use for 21 of 30 consecutive days within 90 days after beginning therapy.

Using CPAP machine charges as a measure of who adhered to therapy, they found 1,420 of 3,229 individuals (44%) achieved adherence under these criteria, which included making 13 monthly payments during their CPAP machine’s “rent-to-own” period. Partial adherence was found in 997 individuals (30.9%) who made between 4-12 payments on their CPAP machine, while 812 individuals (25.2%) made 4 payments or fewer on their CPAP machines, which the researchers classified as nonadherence. Nonadherers tended to be slightly younger (mean, 72.5 years vs. 79.2 years; P < .001) and had a higher number of comorbidities (35.2% vs. 30.4%; P = .002), compared with individuals with high adherence. Anxiety (odds ratio, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.61), anemia (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.32), fibromyalgia (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.03-1.38), traumatic brain injury (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.21-2.07), and Medicaid eligibility (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.24-1.75) were all independently associated with lower CPAP adherence. Medicaid eligibility was considered an indicator of lower socioeconomic status.

Krishna M. Sundar, MD, FCCP, director at the Sleep-Wake Center in the University of Utah pulmonary division in Salt Lake City and CHEST Physician editorial board member, said in an interview that studies have shown early signs of adherence within the first few weeks are an important indicator of overall adherence to CPAP therapy. However, the use of CPAP machine payments in the study by Dr. Wickwire and colleagues was a novel way to track adherence.

Some of the issues with nonadherence may be related to challenges in using the technology, but it is the clinician’s role to communicate with patients about the effectiveness of CPAP and identifying reasons for nonadherence while also attempting to tease out the subtle socioeconomic factors related to nonadherence, Dr. Sundar noted. “We need to alter our practice to make sure that we communicate with these patients and better understand what are the social factors in getting the CPAP or utilizing CPAP, and also following these patients more closely, especially in the first month of starting CPAP therapy.

“Just because somebody has severe sleep apnea and other comorbid conditions does not mean that they’re going to wear the CPAP,” he said. “So, the fact that socioeconomic factors play an equal if not more important role in terms of predicting CPAP adherence. That is an important takeaway.”

Octavian C. Ioachimescu, MD, FCCP, of Emory University, Atlanta, and the Atlanta Veteran Affairs Administration and CHEST Physician editorial board member, said in an interview that the study raises a major question of what is next. “What can we offer to these patients, and what is the real-world compliance to that ‘next-best’ modality?” Dr. Ioachimescu said. “What are the outcomes of these individuals in the point-of-care environment, or ‘real world?’ ”

The analysis by the authors adds the perspective of a “real-world depiction of clinical care for patients with OSA,” Dr. Ioachimescu said. “One major lesson of such an analysis is that the health care goal setting that is referential to initial, randomized, well-controlled studies on highly selected patient populations need to be reassessed periodically from the point of view of actual results in the clinics.”

Clinicians may need to borrow ideas from other therapeutic fields to help improve patient adherence, he said. “[W]e may be able to develop and implement in the future peer involvement, behavioral and cognitive approaches, motivational enhancement interventions, as well as elements of acceptance and commitment techniques, all in the larger context of more integrated and in the same time individualized approaches to therapy.”

The investigators concluded that, “relative to Medicare-only beneficiaries, those eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid were significantly less likely to adhere to CPAP. Future research should seek to develop a deeper understanding of the mechanisms through which [socioeconomic status] and other social determinants impact patient experience throughout the OSA diagnostic and treatment process, including receiving, acclimating, and adhering to CPAP therapy.”

Dr. Sundar concurred with this assessment and said more research is needed on factors impacting adherence such as poverty, homelessness, and home support systems. “It’s not just coordinating with the patient. Clearly, more work is needed in understanding the social aspects of CPAP adherence.”

This study was funded in part by an investigator-initiated grant provided by ResMed to Dr. Wickmire’s institution, the University of Maryland, Baltimore. Dr. Wickmire reported being a scientific consultant to DayZz, Eisai, Merck, and Purdue and holds shares in WellTap. Dr. Oldstone is a ResMed employee and shareholder. Dr. Sundar reported being a cofounder of Hypnoscure, which creates software for population management of sleep apnea, and an investigator in trials where ResMed and Respironics devices were used. Dr. Ioachimescu reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Wickwire EM et al. Sleep. 2020 Jun 23. doi: 10.1093/sleep/zsaa122.

The benefits of continuous positive airway pressure therapy for patients with obstructive sleep apnea are well documented, but it only works if patients can adhere to the therapy.

A large national study of older Medicare patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) has identified lower socioeconomic status and comorbidities as independent risk factors for nonadherence to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy.

“[The] present results represent the largest study to date of rates and predictors of CPAP adherence among older adults in the United States. In our national sample of Medicare beneficiaries, adherence rates were generally lower than previously reported in smaller, clinic-based studies,” Emerson M. Wickwire, PhD, of the Sleep Disorders Center and division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, and colleagues wrote in Sleep.

Dr. Wickwire and colleagues estimated CPAP machine adherence using a 5% sample of Medicare claims data, identifying 3,229 Medicare beneficiaries with OSA who began CPAP therapy between 2009 and 2011. Individuals in the sample were aged at least 65 years with a new diagnosis of OSA, 88.1% of beneficiaries were white, and 52.3% were male.

The researchers applied objective adherence criteria set by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which defines CPAP adherence as a patient using CPAP for at least 4 hours on 70% of nights, or CPAP use for 21 of 30 consecutive days within 90 days after beginning therapy.

Using CPAP machine charges as a measure of who adhered to therapy, they found 1,420 of 3,229 individuals (44%) achieved adherence under these criteria, which included making 13 monthly payments during their CPAP machine’s “rent-to-own” period. Partial adherence was found in 997 individuals (30.9%) who made between 4-12 payments on their CPAP machine, while 812 individuals (25.2%) made 4 payments or fewer on their CPAP machines, which the researchers classified as nonadherence. Nonadherers tended to be slightly younger (mean, 72.5 years vs. 79.2 years; P < .001) and had a higher number of comorbidities (35.2% vs. 30.4%; P = .002), compared with individuals with high adherence. Anxiety (odds ratio, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.61), anemia (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.32), fibromyalgia (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.03-1.38), traumatic brain injury (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.21-2.07), and Medicaid eligibility (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.24-1.75) were all independently associated with lower CPAP adherence. Medicaid eligibility was considered an indicator of lower socioeconomic status.

Krishna M. Sundar, MD, FCCP, director at the Sleep-Wake Center in the University of Utah pulmonary division in Salt Lake City and CHEST Physician editorial board member, said in an interview that studies have shown early signs of adherence within the first few weeks are an important indicator of overall adherence to CPAP therapy. However, the use of CPAP machine payments in the study by Dr. Wickwire and colleagues was a novel way to track adherence.

Some of the issues with nonadherence may be related to challenges in using the technology, but it is the clinician’s role to communicate with patients about the effectiveness of CPAP and identifying reasons for nonadherence while also attempting to tease out the subtle socioeconomic factors related to nonadherence, Dr. Sundar noted. “We need to alter our practice to make sure that we communicate with these patients and better understand what are the social factors in getting the CPAP or utilizing CPAP, and also following these patients more closely, especially in the first month of starting CPAP therapy.

“Just because somebody has severe sleep apnea and other comorbid conditions does not mean that they’re going to wear the CPAP,” he said. “So, the fact that socioeconomic factors play an equal if not more important role in terms of predicting CPAP adherence. That is an important takeaway.”

Octavian C. Ioachimescu, MD, FCCP, of Emory University, Atlanta, and the Atlanta Veteran Affairs Administration and CHEST Physician editorial board member, said in an interview that the study raises a major question of what is next. “What can we offer to these patients, and what is the real-world compliance to that ‘next-best’ modality?” Dr. Ioachimescu said. “What are the outcomes of these individuals in the point-of-care environment, or ‘real world?’ ”

The analysis by the authors adds the perspective of a “real-world depiction of clinical care for patients with OSA,” Dr. Ioachimescu said. “One major lesson of such an analysis is that the health care goal setting that is referential to initial, randomized, well-controlled studies on highly selected patient populations need to be reassessed periodically from the point of view of actual results in the clinics.”

Clinicians may need to borrow ideas from other therapeutic fields to help improve patient adherence, he said. “[W]e may be able to develop and implement in the future peer involvement, behavioral and cognitive approaches, motivational enhancement interventions, as well as elements of acceptance and commitment techniques, all in the larger context of more integrated and in the same time individualized approaches to therapy.”

The investigators concluded that, “relative to Medicare-only beneficiaries, those eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid were significantly less likely to adhere to CPAP. Future research should seek to develop a deeper understanding of the mechanisms through which [socioeconomic status] and other social determinants impact patient experience throughout the OSA diagnostic and treatment process, including receiving, acclimating, and adhering to CPAP therapy.”

Dr. Sundar concurred with this assessment and said more research is needed on factors impacting adherence such as poverty, homelessness, and home support systems. “It’s not just coordinating with the patient. Clearly, more work is needed in understanding the social aspects of CPAP adherence.”

This study was funded in part by an investigator-initiated grant provided by ResMed to Dr. Wickmire’s institution, the University of Maryland, Baltimore. Dr. Wickmire reported being a scientific consultant to DayZz, Eisai, Merck, and Purdue and holds shares in WellTap. Dr. Oldstone is a ResMed employee and shareholder. Dr. Sundar reported being a cofounder of Hypnoscure, which creates software for population management of sleep apnea, and an investigator in trials where ResMed and Respironics devices were used. Dr. Ioachimescu reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Wickwire EM et al. Sleep. 2020 Jun 23. doi: 10.1093/sleep/zsaa122.

The benefits of continuous positive airway pressure therapy for patients with obstructive sleep apnea are well documented, but it only works if patients can adhere to the therapy.

A large national study of older Medicare patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) has identified lower socioeconomic status and comorbidities as independent risk factors for nonadherence to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy.

“[The] present results represent the largest study to date of rates and predictors of CPAP adherence among older adults in the United States. In our national sample of Medicare beneficiaries, adherence rates were generally lower than previously reported in smaller, clinic-based studies,” Emerson M. Wickwire, PhD, of the Sleep Disorders Center and division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, and colleagues wrote in Sleep.

Dr. Wickwire and colleagues estimated CPAP machine adherence using a 5% sample of Medicare claims data, identifying 3,229 Medicare beneficiaries with OSA who began CPAP therapy between 2009 and 2011. Individuals in the sample were aged at least 65 years with a new diagnosis of OSA, 88.1% of beneficiaries were white, and 52.3% were male.

The researchers applied objective adherence criteria set by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which defines CPAP adherence as a patient using CPAP for at least 4 hours on 70% of nights, or CPAP use for 21 of 30 consecutive days within 90 days after beginning therapy.

Using CPAP machine charges as a measure of who adhered to therapy, they found 1,420 of 3,229 individuals (44%) achieved adherence under these criteria, which included making 13 monthly payments during their CPAP machine’s “rent-to-own” period. Partial adherence was found in 997 individuals (30.9%) who made between 4-12 payments on their CPAP machine, while 812 individuals (25.2%) made 4 payments or fewer on their CPAP machines, which the researchers classified as nonadherence. Nonadherers tended to be slightly younger (mean, 72.5 years vs. 79.2 years; P < .001) and had a higher number of comorbidities (35.2% vs. 30.4%; P = .002), compared with individuals with high adherence. Anxiety (odds ratio, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.61), anemia (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.32), fibromyalgia (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.03-1.38), traumatic brain injury (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.21-2.07), and Medicaid eligibility (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.24-1.75) were all independently associated with lower CPAP adherence. Medicaid eligibility was considered an indicator of lower socioeconomic status.

Krishna M. Sundar, MD, FCCP, director at the Sleep-Wake Center in the University of Utah pulmonary division in Salt Lake City and CHEST Physician editorial board member, said in an interview that studies have shown early signs of adherence within the first few weeks are an important indicator of overall adherence to CPAP therapy. However, the use of CPAP machine payments in the study by Dr. Wickwire and colleagues was a novel way to track adherence.

Some of the issues with nonadherence may be related to challenges in using the technology, but it is the clinician’s role to communicate with patients about the effectiveness of CPAP and identifying reasons for nonadherence while also attempting to tease out the subtle socioeconomic factors related to nonadherence, Dr. Sundar noted. “We need to alter our practice to make sure that we communicate with these patients and better understand what are the social factors in getting the CPAP or utilizing CPAP, and also following these patients more closely, especially in the first month of starting CPAP therapy.

“Just because somebody has severe sleep apnea and other comorbid conditions does not mean that they’re going to wear the CPAP,” he said. “So, the fact that socioeconomic factors play an equal if not more important role in terms of predicting CPAP adherence. That is an important takeaway.”

Octavian C. Ioachimescu, MD, FCCP, of Emory University, Atlanta, and the Atlanta Veteran Affairs Administration and CHEST Physician editorial board member, said in an interview that the study raises a major question of what is next. “What can we offer to these patients, and what is the real-world compliance to that ‘next-best’ modality?” Dr. Ioachimescu said. “What are the outcomes of these individuals in the point-of-care environment, or ‘real world?’ ”

The analysis by the authors adds the perspective of a “real-world depiction of clinical care for patients with OSA,” Dr. Ioachimescu said. “One major lesson of such an analysis is that the health care goal setting that is referential to initial, randomized, well-controlled studies on highly selected patient populations need to be reassessed periodically from the point of view of actual results in the clinics.”

Clinicians may need to borrow ideas from other therapeutic fields to help improve patient adherence, he said. “[W]e may be able to develop and implement in the future peer involvement, behavioral and cognitive approaches, motivational enhancement interventions, as well as elements of acceptance and commitment techniques, all in the larger context of more integrated and in the same time individualized approaches to therapy.”

The investigators concluded that, “relative to Medicare-only beneficiaries, those eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid were significantly less likely to adhere to CPAP. Future research should seek to develop a deeper understanding of the mechanisms through which [socioeconomic status] and other social determinants impact patient experience throughout the OSA diagnostic and treatment process, including receiving, acclimating, and adhering to CPAP therapy.”

Dr. Sundar concurred with this assessment and said more research is needed on factors impacting adherence such as poverty, homelessness, and home support systems. “It’s not just coordinating with the patient. Clearly, more work is needed in understanding the social aspects of CPAP adherence.”

This study was funded in part by an investigator-initiated grant provided by ResMed to Dr. Wickmire’s institution, the University of Maryland, Baltimore. Dr. Wickmire reported being a scientific consultant to DayZz, Eisai, Merck, and Purdue and holds shares in WellTap. Dr. Oldstone is a ResMed employee and shareholder. Dr. Sundar reported being a cofounder of Hypnoscure, which creates software for population management of sleep apnea, and an investigator in trials where ResMed and Respironics devices were used. Dr. Ioachimescu reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Wickwire EM et al. Sleep. 2020 Jun 23. doi: 10.1093/sleep/zsaa122.

Starting breast cancer screening in young adulthood has the potential to sharply reduce deaths from the disease among women who have received chest radiation for childhood cancer, a modeling study suggests.

Two strategies – annual mammography with MRI and annual MRI alone – at least halved breast cancer mortality when started at the ages of 25 or 30 years.

Jennifer M. Yeh, PhD, of Harvard Medical School in Boston and colleagues reported these results in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

When cost was also considered, 30 years emerged as the preferred starting age, dropping the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) below the generally accepted threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

“Our findings underscore the importance of making sure that young women previously treated with chest radiation are informed about their elevated breast cancer risk and the benefits of routine screening. Both primary care providers and oncologists who care for survivors should discuss breast cancer screening with these patients,” Dr. Yeh and colleagues wrote.

“Screening guidelines should emphasize the importance of MRI screening (with or without mammography) among survivors,” the authors recommended. “Our findings also highlight the importance of ensuring that survivors have access to health insurance coverage for MRI screening.”
 

Implications for awareness, coverage

“My hope is that, by showing the significantly decreased risk of death associated with early breast cancer screening, with harm-benefit ratios considerably lower than benchmarks for average-risk women, this study will help health insurance companies see the benefit in covering early screening for at-risk survivors,” commented Karen E. Effinger, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, and the Aflac Cancer & Blood Disorders Center at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta.

“In many survivors, the cost of current screening [as recommended by] guidelines is prohibitive,” added Dr. Effinger, who was not involved in the current study.

The main concern regarding the study’s findings is generalizability to the contemporary era, given the use of a cohort diagnosed and treated decades ago and changes in radiation techniques and dosing since then, she noted in an interview. This limitation was addressed in a sensitivity analysis that halved the women’s base-case lifetime risk of breast cancer and still netted similar results.

“However, it will take many years to determine the true risk reduction of our current treatment strategies,” Dr. Effinger acknowledged.

“It is crucial that we improve our education of both survivors and our colleagues who care for these survivors, especially in regard to risk of subsequent malignancies and the benefits of screening,” Dr. Effinger maintained. “While many people are aware of the risk of breast cancer associated with BRCA mutations, the increased risk in survivors of childhood cancer is not as recognized by nononcologists. This study reinforces that increasing this awareness can save lives.”

In educating their patients about preventive care, health care providers must strike “a fine balance between discussing the risks and benefits of screening without provoking significant anxiety,” she concluded. “It is important for survivors to establish care with a primary care provider in order to develop trust and receive the guidance they need to decrease the risk of early mortality.”
 

Study details

Dr. Yeh and colleagues developed models to compare outcomes with various screening strategies among women aged 20 years who had received chest radiotherapy for childhood cancer during 1970-1986. The women had been diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma (55%), Wilms tumor (12%), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (8%), and other cancers.

The investigators conducted their analysis using data from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study and other published sources, a lifetime time horizon, and a payer perspective.

The team assessed three strategies: no screening; digital mammography with MRI screening starting at 25 years of age (the current Children’s Oncology Group recommendation), 30 years, or 35 years and continuing to 74 years of age; and MRI only starting at age 25, 30, or 35 years and continuing to age 74 years.

The main study results showed that, without screening, women who had received chest radiation for childhood cancer had a 10%-11% lifetime risk of breast cancer mortality across models.

Relative to no screening, starting at age 25 years, the largest share of deaths was averted with the strategy of annual mammography with MRI – 56.3%-71.2% – or with the strategy of annual MRI alone – 55.7%-62.0%.

These two strategies also yielded the most screening tests, as well as the most false-positive test results and benign biopsy results.

For women who started screening at age 25, there were 4,188-4,879 false-positive test results per 1,000 women for mammography plus MRI and 3,283-3,764 false-positive results per 1,000 women for MRI alone.

For women who started screening at age 25, there were 1,340-1,561 benign biopsy results per 1,000 women for mammography plus MRI and 1,248-1,430 benign results per 1,000 women for MRI alone.

After cost was factored in, beginning screening at age 30 emerged as the preferred strategy to achieve an ICER threshold of less than $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

When started at 30 years of age, annual mammography with MRI averted 54.7%-68.8% of breast cancer deaths, with an ICER of $25,400-$113,200 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Annual MRI alone averted 54.0%-60.0% of breast cancer deaths, with an ICER of $21,800-$50,580 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

This research was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, and American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. The authors disclosed relationships with GE Healthcare and Biovector. Dr. Effinger disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Yeh JM et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jul 7. doi: 10.7326/M19-3481.

Starting breast cancer screening in young adulthood has the potential to sharply reduce deaths from the disease among women who have received chest radiation for childhood cancer, a modeling study suggests.

Two strategies – annual mammography with MRI and annual MRI alone – at least halved breast cancer mortality when started at the ages of 25 or 30 years.

Jennifer M. Yeh, PhD, of Harvard Medical School in Boston and colleagues reported these results in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

When cost was also considered, 30 years emerged as the preferred starting age, dropping the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) below the generally accepted threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

“Our findings underscore the importance of making sure that young women previously treated with chest radiation are informed about their elevated breast cancer risk and the benefits of routine screening. Both primary care providers and oncologists who care for survivors should discuss breast cancer screening with these patients,” Dr. Yeh and colleagues wrote.

“Screening guidelines should emphasize the importance of MRI screening (with or without mammography) among survivors,” the authors recommended. “Our findings also highlight the importance of ensuring that survivors have access to health insurance coverage for MRI screening.”
 

Implications for awareness, coverage

“My hope is that, by showing the significantly decreased risk of death associated with early breast cancer screening, with harm-benefit ratios considerably lower than benchmarks for average-risk women, this study will help health insurance companies see the benefit in covering early screening for at-risk survivors,” commented Karen E. Effinger, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, and the Aflac Cancer & Blood Disorders Center at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta.

“In many survivors, the cost of current screening [as recommended by] guidelines is prohibitive,” added Dr. Effinger, who was not involved in the current study.

The main concern regarding the study’s findings is generalizability to the contemporary era, given the use of a cohort diagnosed and treated decades ago and changes in radiation techniques and dosing since then, she noted in an interview. This limitation was addressed in a sensitivity analysis that halved the women’s base-case lifetime risk of breast cancer and still netted similar results.

“However, it will take many years to determine the true risk reduction of our current treatment strategies,” Dr. Effinger acknowledged.

“It is crucial that we improve our education of both survivors and our colleagues who care for these survivors, especially in regard to risk of subsequent malignancies and the benefits of screening,” Dr. Effinger maintained. “While many people are aware of the risk of breast cancer associated with BRCA mutations, the increased risk in survivors of childhood cancer is not as recognized by nononcologists. This study reinforces that increasing this awareness can save lives.”

In educating their patients about preventive care, health care providers must strike “a fine balance between discussing the risks and benefits of screening without provoking significant anxiety,” she concluded. “It is important for survivors to establish care with a primary care provider in order to develop trust and receive the guidance they need to decrease the risk of early mortality.”
 

Study details

Dr. Yeh and colleagues developed models to compare outcomes with various screening strategies among women aged 20 years who had received chest radiotherapy for childhood cancer during 1970-1986. The women had been diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma (55%), Wilms tumor (12%), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (8%), and other cancers.

The investigators conducted their analysis using data from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study and other published sources, a lifetime time horizon, and a payer perspective.

The team assessed three strategies: no screening; digital mammography with MRI screening starting at 25 years of age (the current Children’s Oncology Group recommendation), 30 years, or 35 years and continuing to 74 years of age; and MRI only starting at age 25, 30, or 35 years and continuing to age 74 years.

The main study results showed that, without screening, women who had received chest radiation for childhood cancer had a 10%-11% lifetime risk of breast cancer mortality across models.

Relative to no screening, starting at age 25 years, the largest share of deaths was averted with the strategy of annual mammography with MRI – 56.3%-71.2% – or with the strategy of annual MRI alone – 55.7%-62.0%.

These two strategies also yielded the most screening tests, as well as the most false-positive test results and benign biopsy results.

For women who started screening at age 25, there were 4,188-4,879 false-positive test results per 1,000 women for mammography plus MRI and 3,283-3,764 false-positive results per 1,000 women for MRI alone.

For women who started screening at age 25, there were 1,340-1,561 benign biopsy results per 1,000 women for mammography plus MRI and 1,248-1,430 benign results per 1,000 women for MRI alone.

After cost was factored in, beginning screening at age 30 emerged as the preferred strategy to achieve an ICER threshold of less than $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

When started at 30 years of age, annual mammography with MRI averted 54.7%-68.8% of breast cancer deaths, with an ICER of $25,400-$113,200 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Annual MRI alone averted 54.0%-60.0% of breast cancer deaths, with an ICER of $21,800-$50,580 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

This research was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, and American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. The authors disclosed relationships with GE Healthcare and Biovector. Dr. Effinger disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Yeh JM et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jul 7. doi: 10.7326/M19-3481.

Starting breast cancer screening in young adulthood has the potential to sharply reduce deaths from the disease among women who have received chest radiation for childhood cancer, a modeling study suggests.

Two strategies – annual mammography with MRI and annual MRI alone – at least halved breast cancer mortality when started at the ages of 25 or 30 years.

Jennifer M. Yeh, PhD, of Harvard Medical School in Boston and colleagues reported these results in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

When cost was also considered, 30 years emerged as the preferred starting age, dropping the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) below the generally accepted threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

“Our findings underscore the importance of making sure that young women previously treated with chest radiation are informed about their elevated breast cancer risk and the benefits of routine screening. Both primary care providers and oncologists who care for survivors should discuss breast cancer screening with these patients,” Dr. Yeh and colleagues wrote.

“Screening guidelines should emphasize the importance of MRI screening (with or without mammography) among survivors,” the authors recommended. “Our findings also highlight the importance of ensuring that survivors have access to health insurance coverage for MRI screening.”
 

Implications for awareness, coverage

“My hope is that, by showing the significantly decreased risk of death associated with early breast cancer screening, with harm-benefit ratios considerably lower than benchmarks for average-risk women, this study will help health insurance companies see the benefit in covering early screening for at-risk survivors,” commented Karen E. Effinger, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, and the Aflac Cancer & Blood Disorders Center at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta.

“In many survivors, the cost of current screening [as recommended by] guidelines is prohibitive,” added Dr. Effinger, who was not involved in the current study.

The main concern regarding the study’s findings is generalizability to the contemporary era, given the use of a cohort diagnosed and treated decades ago and changes in radiation techniques and dosing since then, she noted in an interview. This limitation was addressed in a sensitivity analysis that halved the women’s base-case lifetime risk of breast cancer and still netted similar results.

“However, it will take many years to determine the true risk reduction of our current treatment strategies,” Dr. Effinger acknowledged.

“It is crucial that we improve our education of both survivors and our colleagues who care for these survivors, especially in regard to risk of subsequent malignancies and the benefits of screening,” Dr. Effinger maintained. “While many people are aware of the risk of breast cancer associated with BRCA mutations, the increased risk in survivors of childhood cancer is not as recognized by nononcologists. This study reinforces that increasing this awareness can save lives.”

In educating their patients about preventive care, health care providers must strike “a fine balance between discussing the risks and benefits of screening without provoking significant anxiety,” she concluded. “It is important for survivors to establish care with a primary care provider in order to develop trust and receive the guidance they need to decrease the risk of early mortality.”
 

Study details

Dr. Yeh and colleagues developed models to compare outcomes with various screening strategies among women aged 20 years who had received chest radiotherapy for childhood cancer during 1970-1986. The women had been diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma (55%), Wilms tumor (12%), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (8%), and other cancers.

The investigators conducted their analysis using data from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study and other published sources, a lifetime time horizon, and a payer perspective.

The team assessed three strategies: no screening; digital mammography with MRI screening starting at 25 years of age (the current Children’s Oncology Group recommendation), 30 years, or 35 years and continuing to 74 years of age; and MRI only starting at age 25, 30, or 35 years and continuing to age 74 years.

The main study results showed that, without screening, women who had received chest radiation for childhood cancer had a 10%-11% lifetime risk of breast cancer mortality across models.

Relative to no screening, starting at age 25 years, the largest share of deaths was averted with the strategy of annual mammography with MRI – 56.3%-71.2% – or with the strategy of annual MRI alone – 55.7%-62.0%.

These two strategies also yielded the most screening tests, as well as the most false-positive test results and benign biopsy results.

For women who started screening at age 25, there were 4,188-4,879 false-positive test results per 1,000 women for mammography plus MRI and 3,283-3,764 false-positive results per 1,000 women for MRI alone.

For women who started screening at age 25, there were 1,340-1,561 benign biopsy results per 1,000 women for mammography plus MRI and 1,248-1,430 benign results per 1,000 women for MRI alone.

After cost was factored in, beginning screening at age 30 emerged as the preferred strategy to achieve an ICER threshold of less than $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

When started at 30 years of age, annual mammography with MRI averted 54.7%-68.8% of breast cancer deaths, with an ICER of $25,400-$113,200 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Annual MRI alone averted 54.0%-60.0% of breast cancer deaths, with an ICER of $21,800-$50,580 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

This research was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, and American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. The authors disclosed relationships with GE Healthcare and Biovector. Dr. Effinger disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Yeh JM et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jul 7. doi: 10.7326/M19-3481.

A phase 1/2 trial of a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 being developed by the University of Oxford has found that the vaccine is safe, causes few side effects, and induces strong immune responses.

The early stage results, published in The Lancet, found that the candidate vaccine, known as ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, provoked a T-cell response peaking 14 days after vaccination, and an antibody response within 28 days.

Andrew Pollard, chief investigator on the study, and professor of pediatric infection and immunity at Oxford University, described the results as “encouraging”. He told a briefing convened by the Science Media Centre on Monday that it was “a really important milestone on the path to the development of the vaccine”.

In the Commons, the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, hailed the results for taking us “one step closer to finding a vaccine that can potentially save lives, all around the world”.

The trial, which has so far involved 1,077 healthy adults, caused minor side effects when compared with a control group given a meningitis vaccine. Fatigue and headache were the most commonly reported reactions.

However, there were no serious adverse events from the vaccine, the researchers said.
 

‘Still a long way to go’

Sarah Gilbert, lead researcher of the vaccine development program, and professor of vaccinology at Oxford, cautioned that there was still a long way to go before the team could confirm that the vaccine could protect against developing COVID-19.

“The difficulty that we have, and that all vaccine developers have in trying to make a vaccine against this particular virus, is that we don’t know how strong that immune response needs to be,” she said.

“So, we can’t say just by looking at immune responses whether this is going to protect people or not. And the only way we’re going to find out is by doing the large phase 3 trials and wait for people to be infected as part of that trial before we know if the vaccine can work.”

The authors noted some limitations to their findings. They said more research was needed to confirm their results in different groups of people – including older age groups, those with other health conditions, and in ethnically and geographically diverse populations.

A notable result of the trial was that participants given a second dose of the vaccine appeared to display a stronger immune response, a finding that had influenced plans to “look at two dose regimes as well as one dose regimes in the phase 3 trial”, Prof Adrian Hill, director of Oxford’s Jenner Institute, confirmed.

ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 is made from a weakened version of an adenovirus that causes infections in chimpanzees. The virus has been genetically modified so that it cannot grow in humans.

On Monday, the government announced that it had struck a deal with AstraZeneca for access to 100 million doses of the Oxford vaccine, in addition to millions of doses of other promising candidate vaccines.
 

Expert reaction to the findings

The Medical Research Council helped to fund the trial. Executive Chair Professor Fiona Watt commented: “It is truly remarkable how fast this vaccine has progressed, with our support, through early clinical trials, and it is very encouraging that it shows no safety concerns and evokes strong immune responses.

“There is a lot that we don’t yet know about immunity to the virus that causes COVID-19. However, it seems that both antibody and T cell immunity are important, and this vaccine triggers both responses. The much anticipated next milestone will be the results of the larger trials that are happening now to find out if the vaccine will protect people from the virus.”

Jonathan Ball, professor of molecular virology at the University of Nottingham, told the SMC: “The results of the Oxford chimp adenovirus vaccine candidate show that the vaccine is able to generate antibodies and T cells in humans and these persisted for several weeks. Whilst encouraging there is still a long way to go before we can herald the arrival of a successful coronavirus vaccine.

“It is unclear whether the levels of immunity can protect against infection – that’s what the larger ongoing phase III trials are designed to test. Nor do we know if this vaccine can protect those most vulnerable to severe COVID-19 disease.”

Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, commented: “For the vaccine to be really useful, we not only need the larger studies conducted where COVID-19 is still occurring at a high rate, but we need to be reasonably sure that the protection lasts for a considerable time.”

He said it was also vital that people older than 55 were included in later trials.

Richard Torbett, chief executive of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, said: “Developing a vaccine is an incredibly difficult challenge; the fact that there are multiple candidates in development is hopefully a sign that the hard work will ultimately pay off.

“But we must be patient. Proving that a vaccine is safe and effective is a long process and we could still be many months away.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A phase 1/2 trial of a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 being developed by the University of Oxford has found that the vaccine is safe, causes few side effects, and induces strong immune responses.

The early stage results, published in The Lancet, found that the candidate vaccine, known as ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, provoked a T-cell response peaking 14 days after vaccination, and an antibody response within 28 days.

Andrew Pollard, chief investigator on the study, and professor of pediatric infection and immunity at Oxford University, described the results as “encouraging”. He told a briefing convened by the Science Media Centre on Monday that it was “a really important milestone on the path to the development of the vaccine”.

In the Commons, the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, hailed the results for taking us “one step closer to finding a vaccine that can potentially save lives, all around the world”.

The trial, which has so far involved 1,077 healthy adults, caused minor side effects when compared with a control group given a meningitis vaccine. Fatigue and headache were the most commonly reported reactions.

However, there were no serious adverse events from the vaccine, the researchers said.
 

‘Still a long way to go’

Sarah Gilbert, lead researcher of the vaccine development program, and professor of vaccinology at Oxford, cautioned that there was still a long way to go before the team could confirm that the vaccine could protect against developing COVID-19.

“The difficulty that we have, and that all vaccine developers have in trying to make a vaccine against this particular virus, is that we don’t know how strong that immune response needs to be,” she said.

“So, we can’t say just by looking at immune responses whether this is going to protect people or not. And the only way we’re going to find out is by doing the large phase 3 trials and wait for people to be infected as part of that trial before we know if the vaccine can work.”

The authors noted some limitations to their findings. They said more research was needed to confirm their results in different groups of people – including older age groups, those with other health conditions, and in ethnically and geographically diverse populations.

A notable result of the trial was that participants given a second dose of the vaccine appeared to display a stronger immune response, a finding that had influenced plans to “look at two dose regimes as well as one dose regimes in the phase 3 trial”, Prof Adrian Hill, director of Oxford’s Jenner Institute, confirmed.

ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 is made from a weakened version of an adenovirus that causes infections in chimpanzees. The virus has been genetically modified so that it cannot grow in humans.

On Monday, the government announced that it had struck a deal with AstraZeneca for access to 100 million doses of the Oxford vaccine, in addition to millions of doses of other promising candidate vaccines.
 

Expert reaction to the findings

The Medical Research Council helped to fund the trial. Executive Chair Professor Fiona Watt commented: “It is truly remarkable how fast this vaccine has progressed, with our support, through early clinical trials, and it is very encouraging that it shows no safety concerns and evokes strong immune responses.

“There is a lot that we don’t yet know about immunity to the virus that causes COVID-19. However, it seems that both antibody and T cell immunity are important, and this vaccine triggers both responses. The much anticipated next milestone will be the results of the larger trials that are happening now to find out if the vaccine will protect people from the virus.”

Jonathan Ball, professor of molecular virology at the University of Nottingham, told the SMC: “The results of the Oxford chimp adenovirus vaccine candidate show that the vaccine is able to generate antibodies and T cells in humans and these persisted for several weeks. Whilst encouraging there is still a long way to go before we can herald the arrival of a successful coronavirus vaccine.

“It is unclear whether the levels of immunity can protect against infection – that’s what the larger ongoing phase III trials are designed to test. Nor do we know if this vaccine can protect those most vulnerable to severe COVID-19 disease.”

Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, commented: “For the vaccine to be really useful, we not only need the larger studies conducted where COVID-19 is still occurring at a high rate, but we need to be reasonably sure that the protection lasts for a considerable time.”

He said it was also vital that people older than 55 were included in later trials.

Richard Torbett, chief executive of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, said: “Developing a vaccine is an incredibly difficult challenge; the fact that there are multiple candidates in development is hopefully a sign that the hard work will ultimately pay off.

“But we must be patient. Proving that a vaccine is safe and effective is a long process and we could still be many months away.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A phase 1/2 trial of a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 being developed by the University of Oxford has found that the vaccine is safe, causes few side effects, and induces strong immune responses.

The early stage results, published in The Lancet, found that the candidate vaccine, known as ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, provoked a T-cell response peaking 14 days after vaccination, and an antibody response within 28 days.

Andrew Pollard, chief investigator on the study, and professor of pediatric infection and immunity at Oxford University, described the results as “encouraging”. He told a briefing convened by the Science Media Centre on Monday that it was “a really important milestone on the path to the development of the vaccine”.

In the Commons, the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, hailed the results for taking us “one step closer to finding a vaccine that can potentially save lives, all around the world”.

The trial, which has so far involved 1,077 healthy adults, caused minor side effects when compared with a control group given a meningitis vaccine. Fatigue and headache were the most commonly reported reactions.

However, there were no serious adverse events from the vaccine, the researchers said.
 

‘Still a long way to go’

Sarah Gilbert, lead researcher of the vaccine development program, and professor of vaccinology at Oxford, cautioned that there was still a long way to go before the team could confirm that the vaccine could protect against developing COVID-19.

“The difficulty that we have, and that all vaccine developers have in trying to make a vaccine against this particular virus, is that we don’t know how strong that immune response needs to be,” she said.

“So, we can’t say just by looking at immune responses whether this is going to protect people or not. And the only way we’re going to find out is by doing the large phase 3 trials and wait for people to be infected as part of that trial before we know if the vaccine can work.”

The authors noted some limitations to their findings. They said more research was needed to confirm their results in different groups of people – including older age groups, those with other health conditions, and in ethnically and geographically diverse populations.

A notable result of the trial was that participants given a second dose of the vaccine appeared to display a stronger immune response, a finding that had influenced plans to “look at two dose regimes as well as one dose regimes in the phase 3 trial”, Prof Adrian Hill, director of Oxford’s Jenner Institute, confirmed.

ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 is made from a weakened version of an adenovirus that causes infections in chimpanzees. The virus has been genetically modified so that it cannot grow in humans.

On Monday, the government announced that it had struck a deal with AstraZeneca for access to 100 million doses of the Oxford vaccine, in addition to millions of doses of other promising candidate vaccines.
 

Expert reaction to the findings

The Medical Research Council helped to fund the trial. Executive Chair Professor Fiona Watt commented: “It is truly remarkable how fast this vaccine has progressed, with our support, through early clinical trials, and it is very encouraging that it shows no safety concerns and evokes strong immune responses.

“There is a lot that we don’t yet know about immunity to the virus that causes COVID-19. However, it seems that both antibody and T cell immunity are important, and this vaccine triggers both responses. The much anticipated next milestone will be the results of the larger trials that are happening now to find out if the vaccine will protect people from the virus.”

Jonathan Ball, professor of molecular virology at the University of Nottingham, told the SMC: “The results of the Oxford chimp adenovirus vaccine candidate show that the vaccine is able to generate antibodies and T cells in humans and these persisted for several weeks. Whilst encouraging there is still a long way to go before we can herald the arrival of a successful coronavirus vaccine.

“It is unclear whether the levels of immunity can protect against infection – that’s what the larger ongoing phase III trials are designed to test. Nor do we know if this vaccine can protect those most vulnerable to severe COVID-19 disease.”

Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, commented: “For the vaccine to be really useful, we not only need the larger studies conducted where COVID-19 is still occurring at a high rate, but we need to be reasonably sure that the protection lasts for a considerable time.”

He said it was also vital that people older than 55 were included in later trials.

Richard Torbett, chief executive of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, said: “Developing a vaccine is an incredibly difficult challenge; the fact that there are multiple candidates in development is hopefully a sign that the hard work will ultimately pay off.

“But we must be patient. Proving that a vaccine is safe and effective is a long process and we could still be many months away.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) has issued a statement declaring that obesity surgery is not elective and should be resumed as soon as it›s safe to do so during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The ASMBS statement, “Safer Through Surgery,” was published online in Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases by the ASMBS executive committee.

It is a reaction to the fact that some U.S. states have placed metabolic and bariatric surgery in the same low-priority category as cosmetic surgery as examples of “elective” procedures that should be among the last to be restarted when pandemic restrictions are eased.

Rather, ASMBS argues, although obesity surgery must be postponed along with other nonemergency procedures when surges in the novel coronavirus make them unsafe, such operations should be resumed as soon as possible along with other medically necessary procedures.

“Metabolic and bariatric surgery is NOT elective. Metabolic and bariatric surgery is medically necessary and the best treatment for those with the life-threatening and life-limiting disease of severe obesity,” the statement says.

And obesity itself is a major risk factor for worse COVID-19 outcomes, ASMBS President Matt Hutter, MD, told Medscape Medical News, noting that individuals with obesity are “more likely to be in [intensive care units].”

“Mortality rates are higher, even in young patients. And [obesity] ... is associated with other comorbidities including diabetes and heart disease...We know the clock is ticking for some folks. For those with early diabetes, the sooner the [bariatric] surgery the more likely it is [for diabetes] to go into remission.”

Because the pandemic may be around for a while, “If we can make people [with obesity] safer ... because they’ve had surgery ... they may be better off,” should they get COVID-19 later, he pointed out.

Hutter noted that the ASMBS recorded a series of webinars, archived on the society’s website, with panels discussing in-depth issues to consider in prioritizing patients when restarting metabolic and bariatric surgery.

There are some differences of opinion, such as whether the sickest patients should be the first to have the surgeries upon reopening, or whether those individuals might be worse off if they contract COVID-19 in the perioperative setting.

“I don’t think there’s a right or wrong answer, but I think we have to figure out what’s right for the individual patient, considering their specific risks of having versus not having surgery, of waiting 1 month, 2 months, or 6 months. One thing we do know is that obesity is a significant disease.”
 

‘Before, during, and after COVID, obesity itself remains an epidemic’

Asked to comment on the ASMBS stance, Obesity Society president Lee M. Kaplan, MD, PhD, sent Medscape Medical News a statement.

“We do not fully understand which aspects of obesity pathophysiology ... are most responsible for the adverse COVID-19 outcomes, nor do we know the degree to which reduced access to care, social isolation, and other social and environmental determinants of health disproportionately affect COVID-19 patients with obesity,” he noted.

“At this early stage, we have not yet determined the impact of weight loss and various types of antiobesity therapies on these risks.”

Nonetheless, Kaplan said, “the extended COVID-19 pandemic underscores the importance of increasing, not diminishing, our commitment to understanding and treating obesity, using all available, evidence-based therapies, including lifestyle modification, antiobesity medications, bariatric surgery, and combinations thereof.”

As all health care delivery is being reorganized around the pandemic, Kaplan added: “Rethinking and changing our approach to obesity needs to be a central feature of this process.

“Before, during, and after COVID, obesity itself remains an epidemic. Its high global prevalence, increasing severity, and profound impact on all aspects of health and disease require that it be addressed more universally within the health care system, with the same commitment afforded to other chronic diseases.”

Obesity treatment isn’t generally considered an emergency, he noted, “because obesity is a chronic disease, whose adverse health effects often accumulate slowly and insidiously. Its generally slow progression allows for careful and coordinated care planning, and advanced scheduling of therapeutic interventions, including surgery. These characteristics, however, should not lead us to infer that treating obesity itself is optional.”

Hutter has reported receiving honoraria from Ethicon and Medtronic, and is a consultant for Vicarious Surgical and Sigilon Therapeutics. Kaplan has reported consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim, Fractyl, Gelesis, GI Dynamics, Johnson & Johnson, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, the National Institutes of Health, and the Department of State.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) has issued a statement declaring that obesity surgery is not elective and should be resumed as soon as it›s safe to do so during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The ASMBS statement, “Safer Through Surgery,” was published online in Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases by the ASMBS executive committee.

It is a reaction to the fact that some U.S. states have placed metabolic and bariatric surgery in the same low-priority category as cosmetic surgery as examples of “elective” procedures that should be among the last to be restarted when pandemic restrictions are eased.

Rather, ASMBS argues, although obesity surgery must be postponed along with other nonemergency procedures when surges in the novel coronavirus make them unsafe, such operations should be resumed as soon as possible along with other medically necessary procedures.

“Metabolic and bariatric surgery is NOT elective. Metabolic and bariatric surgery is medically necessary and the best treatment for those with the life-threatening and life-limiting disease of severe obesity,” the statement says.

And obesity itself is a major risk factor for worse COVID-19 outcomes, ASMBS President Matt Hutter, MD, told Medscape Medical News, noting that individuals with obesity are “more likely to be in [intensive care units].”

“Mortality rates are higher, even in young patients. And [obesity] ... is associated with other comorbidities including diabetes and heart disease...We know the clock is ticking for some folks. For those with early diabetes, the sooner the [bariatric] surgery the more likely it is [for diabetes] to go into remission.”

Because the pandemic may be around for a while, “If we can make people [with obesity] safer ... because they’ve had surgery ... they may be better off,” should they get COVID-19 later, he pointed out.

Hutter noted that the ASMBS recorded a series of webinars, archived on the society’s website, with panels discussing in-depth issues to consider in prioritizing patients when restarting metabolic and bariatric surgery.

There are some differences of opinion, such as whether the sickest patients should be the first to have the surgeries upon reopening, or whether those individuals might be worse off if they contract COVID-19 in the perioperative setting.

“I don’t think there’s a right or wrong answer, but I think we have to figure out what’s right for the individual patient, considering their specific risks of having versus not having surgery, of waiting 1 month, 2 months, or 6 months. One thing we do know is that obesity is a significant disease.”
 

‘Before, during, and after COVID, obesity itself remains an epidemic’

Asked to comment on the ASMBS stance, Obesity Society president Lee M. Kaplan, MD, PhD, sent Medscape Medical News a statement.

“We do not fully understand which aspects of obesity pathophysiology ... are most responsible for the adverse COVID-19 outcomes, nor do we know the degree to which reduced access to care, social isolation, and other social and environmental determinants of health disproportionately affect COVID-19 patients with obesity,” he noted.

“At this early stage, we have not yet determined the impact of weight loss and various types of antiobesity therapies on these risks.”

Nonetheless, Kaplan said, “the extended COVID-19 pandemic underscores the importance of increasing, not diminishing, our commitment to understanding and treating obesity, using all available, evidence-based therapies, including lifestyle modification, antiobesity medications, bariatric surgery, and combinations thereof.”

As all health care delivery is being reorganized around the pandemic, Kaplan added: “Rethinking and changing our approach to obesity needs to be a central feature of this process.

“Before, during, and after COVID, obesity itself remains an epidemic. Its high global prevalence, increasing severity, and profound impact on all aspects of health and disease require that it be addressed more universally within the health care system, with the same commitment afforded to other chronic diseases.”

Obesity treatment isn’t generally considered an emergency, he noted, “because obesity is a chronic disease, whose adverse health effects often accumulate slowly and insidiously. Its generally slow progression allows for careful and coordinated care planning, and advanced scheduling of therapeutic interventions, including surgery. These characteristics, however, should not lead us to infer that treating obesity itself is optional.”

Hutter has reported receiving honoraria from Ethicon and Medtronic, and is a consultant for Vicarious Surgical and Sigilon Therapeutics. Kaplan has reported consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim, Fractyl, Gelesis, GI Dynamics, Johnson & Johnson, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, the National Institutes of Health, and the Department of State.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) has issued a statement declaring that obesity surgery is not elective and should be resumed as soon as it›s safe to do so during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The ASMBS statement, “Safer Through Surgery,” was published online in Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases by the ASMBS executive committee.

It is a reaction to the fact that some U.S. states have placed metabolic and bariatric surgery in the same low-priority category as cosmetic surgery as examples of “elective” procedures that should be among the last to be restarted when pandemic restrictions are eased.

Rather, ASMBS argues, although obesity surgery must be postponed along with other nonemergency procedures when surges in the novel coronavirus make them unsafe, such operations should be resumed as soon as possible along with other medically necessary procedures.

“Metabolic and bariatric surgery is NOT elective. Metabolic and bariatric surgery is medically necessary and the best treatment for those with the life-threatening and life-limiting disease of severe obesity,” the statement says.

And obesity itself is a major risk factor for worse COVID-19 outcomes, ASMBS President Matt Hutter, MD, told Medscape Medical News, noting that individuals with obesity are “more likely to be in [intensive care units].”

“Mortality rates are higher, even in young patients. And [obesity] ... is associated with other comorbidities including diabetes and heart disease...We know the clock is ticking for some folks. For those with early diabetes, the sooner the [bariatric] surgery the more likely it is [for diabetes] to go into remission.”

Because the pandemic may be around for a while, “If we can make people [with obesity] safer ... because they’ve had surgery ... they may be better off,” should they get COVID-19 later, he pointed out.

Hutter noted that the ASMBS recorded a series of webinars, archived on the society’s website, with panels discussing in-depth issues to consider in prioritizing patients when restarting metabolic and bariatric surgery.

There are some differences of opinion, such as whether the sickest patients should be the first to have the surgeries upon reopening, or whether those individuals might be worse off if they contract COVID-19 in the perioperative setting.

“I don’t think there’s a right or wrong answer, but I think we have to figure out what’s right for the individual patient, considering their specific risks of having versus not having surgery, of waiting 1 month, 2 months, or 6 months. One thing we do know is that obesity is a significant disease.”
 

‘Before, during, and after COVID, obesity itself remains an epidemic’

Asked to comment on the ASMBS stance, Obesity Society president Lee M. Kaplan, MD, PhD, sent Medscape Medical News a statement.

“We do not fully understand which aspects of obesity pathophysiology ... are most responsible for the adverse COVID-19 outcomes, nor do we know the degree to which reduced access to care, social isolation, and other social and environmental determinants of health disproportionately affect COVID-19 patients with obesity,” he noted.

“At this early stage, we have not yet determined the impact of weight loss and various types of antiobesity therapies on these risks.”

Nonetheless, Kaplan said, “the extended COVID-19 pandemic underscores the importance of increasing, not diminishing, our commitment to understanding and treating obesity, using all available, evidence-based therapies, including lifestyle modification, antiobesity medications, bariatric surgery, and combinations thereof.”

As all health care delivery is being reorganized around the pandemic, Kaplan added: “Rethinking and changing our approach to obesity needs to be a central feature of this process.

“Before, during, and after COVID, obesity itself remains an epidemic. Its high global prevalence, increasing severity, and profound impact on all aspects of health and disease require that it be addressed more universally within the health care system, with the same commitment afforded to other chronic diseases.”

Obesity treatment isn’t generally considered an emergency, he noted, “because obesity is a chronic disease, whose adverse health effects often accumulate slowly and insidiously. Its generally slow progression allows for careful and coordinated care planning, and advanced scheduling of therapeutic interventions, including surgery. These characteristics, however, should not lead us to infer that treating obesity itself is optional.”

Hutter has reported receiving honoraria from Ethicon and Medtronic, and is a consultant for Vicarious Surgical and Sigilon Therapeutics. Kaplan has reported consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim, Fractyl, Gelesis, GI Dynamics, Johnson & Johnson, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, the National Institutes of Health, and the Department of State.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.