The Hospitalist

The practice of pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) has been evolving and rapidly expanding over the last several decades. Not only has the scope of clinical practice matured and become more defined, but hospitalists now also have the responsibility to advance the performance of hospitals and health care systems. Pediatric hospitalists are increasingly incorporating medical education, research, high-value care, patient quality and safety initiatives, and process improvement into their careers.¹ As a result, pediatric hospitalists are occupying a wider range of administrative and leadership positions within the health care system.

The field of PHM has highlighted the importance of leadership in the practice of hospital medicine by dedicating a chapter to “Leadership in Healthcare” in the PHM Core Competencies.¹ The competencies define the expertise required of hospitalists and serve as guidance for the development of education, training, and career development series. Hospitalists may seek out opportunities for leadership training at an institutional or national level. Options may include advanced degrees, national conferences, division training seminars, or self-directed learning through reading or observational experiences. Unfortunately, all of these take time and motivation. As a result, hospitalists tend to pursue these opportunities only after they have already been appointed to leadership positions.

PHM fellowship is the optimal time to build a foundation of leadership skills. Over the course of a 2-year fellowship, fellows have a combined 16 weeks dedicated to educational activities beyond direct patient care.² The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) encourages educational innovation during this time, allowing programs to create unique opportunities for their fellows that will promote progress towards their ultimate career goals.³ This curricular framework provides the flexibility to integrate leadership training into fellowship training.

Many fellows are eager for leadership experiences and mentorship, myself included. As a pediatric chief resident, I was immersed in a diverse range of clinical, educational, research, and administrative responsibilities. I found myself in a leadership position with no prior education on how to manage people or team dynamics, make high-stress decisions on behalf of a group of people, or handle conflict. Although I learned new strategies on a daily basis, the experience showed me how much more I still had to learn in order to be a successful leader. This was one of the reasons I decided to pursue fellowship training. I think many PHM fellowship applicants feel similarly. They may have served in a leadership position in the past but feel underprepared to fulfill leadership positions in the next phase of their careers.

But despite this eagerness, evidence suggests that fellows do not feel that they receive as much management training as they need to start their careers. In a 2014 survey of PHM fellowship graduates, many held formal leadership positions within their institution (23/51) and within national organizations (6/51), despite having only five years of hospitalist experience on average (including time spent in fellowship). When asked about training needs, respondents identified “hospital program management” as an area where they wished they received more training during fellowship.⁴

Anyone who has gone through the PHM fellowship interview process can tell you that a common refrain of program directors is, “One of the goals of our program is to create future leaders in PHM.” This led me to wonder: how do fellowship programs prepare their fellows for future leadership positions?

I began my fellowship training at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in the summer of 2020. The program had just designed a longitudinal leadership elective, which the second-year fellow and I decided to pilot together. As I reflected on the first half of this academic year, I realized that it is unique experiences like this elective that make me thankful I pursued fellowship. I want to share with the hospitalist community the structure of the elective and why it has been particularly valuable with the hope that it will inspire similar opportunities for other fellows.

The program is semi-structured but allows the fellow and preceptors the flexibility to decide what activities would benefit that particular fellow. We attend a variety of administrative and committee meetings with each preceptor that expose us to the responsibilities of their positions, their leadership style in action, their approach to crisis management, and differences in divisional operations. On a monthly basis we meet with a preceptor to discuss a topic related to leadership. Examples of topics include how to run a more effective meeting, barriers to organizational change, leading in crisis, and the importance of mission, vision, values, and goals of organizations. The preceptor sends us articles or other learning materials they have found useful on the topic, and these serve as a starting point for our discussions. These discussions provide a point of reflection as we apply the day’s concept to our own prior experiences or to our observations during the elective.

The combination of learning experiences, discussions, and dedicated preceptorship has prepared me far better for future leadership than my past personal and observational experiences. I have summarized my top three reasons why this structure of leadership development is particularly valuable to me as a fellow.

First, the longitudinal structure of the elective allows us to learn from multiple preceptors over the course of the academic year. The preceptors include the current chief of hospital pediatrics at Nationwide Children’s Hospital; the division director of hospital medicine at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center; and the physician lead for hospital medicine at one of the satellite hospitals in the region. With faculty from the Department of Pediatrics and the Department of Internal Medicine-Pediatrics in these leadership positions, we have the unique ability to compare and contrast operational systems between the two different hospital systems.

Recently, we also had the opportunity to meet with both the chairman of the department of pediatrics and chief medical officer. All of these physician leaders hold a variety of administrative roles and have differing leadership philosophies, each providing useful insights. For instance, one leader ensures his team holds him accountable as the leader by always asking for honest feedback. He recommends telling those you work with to “never let me fail.” Another leader acknowledges that creating five-year plans can be daunting but encouraged us to still be intentional with our direction on a smaller scale by writing down goals for the year and sharing with a mentor. Ultimately, I came away with a wide variety of perspectives to reference as I go forward.

Second, the learning is contextualized. I can take concepts that I learn through reading and discussions and construct meaning based on observations from meetings or other encounters with different leaders. For example, after reviewing several articles on strategies to make meetings more effective, I started noticing what went well and what didn’t go well in every meeting I attended. I observed preceptors employing many of the strategies successfully with positive feedback. This included not only simple practices, such as setting an agenda to provide a compass for the conversation, but also more nuanced practices like controlling the meeting but not the conversation.

After reading about leadership styles I also found myself analyzing the qualities and strategies of leaders I encountered and reflecting on their approach, noticing what I could possibly interlace in my own practice. Several of the leaders I spoke with during the elective recommended paying attention to the actions of the ineffective bosses or mentors because they can teach you something too: how not to act. I even started applying this strategy to the popular television series The Office – Michael Scott, the regional manager of a fictional paper company, demonstrates some of the best and worst leadership skills in every episode. I am developing a repertoire of strategies to lead and motivate people.

Finally, the design allows for real-time application of new methods to my current practice. One particularly useful tool I have learned is Leader Standard Work, a systematic method to get leaders to maintain stability, problem solve, and drive continuous improvement within their organization.⁵ I have used elements of Leader Standard Work on a personal level to improve my time management skills and increase my productivity. For example, I reconceptualized my calendar as a standardized checklist and I organized it to allot more time to critical activities, such as my research and scholarly output, and less on administrative tasks. I am also implementing changes to how I prepare and run meetings, collaborate, and communicate with members of my research team.

Mastery requires practice and feedback, so applying concepts even on a small, personal scale shortly after learning them has been very valuable. Over the last several months I have often wished I had this type of structured leadership education during my year as a chief resident. I think I could have been more intentional in my decision-making, possibly being a stronger leader for the program. Now that I am transferring skills into practice right away, I am setting the stage for lasting changes in behavior that will hopefully benefit all those that I work with in the future.

Leadership development through a customizable longitudinal elective may be an effective way to prepare PHM fellow graduates for future leadership positions. Fellows can emerge with the skills and real-world practice to allow them to feel confident in future positions. However, leadership doesn’t end when we get the position. We must remember to continuously ask for feedback and build upon our experiences to evolve as leaders in PHM.
 

Dr. Westphal is a first-year pediatric hospital medicine fellow at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio with an interest in improving the delivery of quality care for hospitalized infants.

References

1. Maniscalco, J, et al. The Pediatric Hospital Medicine Core Competencies: 2020 Revision. Introduction and Methodology (C). J Hosp Med. 2020;S1;E12-E17. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3391.

2. Jerardi KE, et al; Council of Pediatric Hospital Medicine Fellowship Directors. Development of a Curricular Framework for Pediatric Hospital Medicine Fellowships. Pediatrics. 2017 Jul;140(1):e20170698. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-0698.

3. ACGME Program Requirements for Graduate Medical Education in Pediatric Hospital Medicine. 2020 Edition. Accessed 2021 Jan 14.

4. Oshimura, JM et al. Current roles and perceived needs of pediatric hospital medicine fellowship graduates. Hosp Pediatr. 2016;6(10):633-7. doi: 10.1542/hpeds.2016-0031.

5. Murli, J. Standard Work for Lean Leaders: One of the Keys to Sustaining Performance Gains. Lean Institute Enterprise, Lean Institute Enterprise Inc. 4 Dec 2013. www.lean.org/common/display/?o=2493

The practice of pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) has been evolving and rapidly expanding over the last several decades. Not only has the scope of clinical practice matured and become more defined, but hospitalists now also have the responsibility to advance the performance of hospitals and health care systems. Pediatric hospitalists are increasingly incorporating medical education, research, high-value care, patient quality and safety initiatives, and process improvement into their careers.¹ As a result, pediatric hospitalists are occupying a wider range of administrative and leadership positions within the health care system.

The field of PHM has highlighted the importance of leadership in the practice of hospital medicine by dedicating a chapter to “Leadership in Healthcare” in the PHM Core Competencies.¹ The competencies define the expertise required of hospitalists and serve as guidance for the development of education, training, and career development series. Hospitalists may seek out opportunities for leadership training at an institutional or national level. Options may include advanced degrees, national conferences, division training seminars, or self-directed learning through reading or observational experiences. Unfortunately, all of these take time and motivation. As a result, hospitalists tend to pursue these opportunities only after they have already been appointed to leadership positions.

PHM fellowship is the optimal time to build a foundation of leadership skills. Over the course of a 2-year fellowship, fellows have a combined 16 weeks dedicated to educational activities beyond direct patient care.² The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) encourages educational innovation during this time, allowing programs to create unique opportunities for their fellows that will promote progress towards their ultimate career goals.³ This curricular framework provides the flexibility to integrate leadership training into fellowship training.

Many fellows are eager for leadership experiences and mentorship, myself included. As a pediatric chief resident, I was immersed in a diverse range of clinical, educational, research, and administrative responsibilities. I found myself in a leadership position with no prior education on how to manage people or team dynamics, make high-stress decisions on behalf of a group of people, or handle conflict. Although I learned new strategies on a daily basis, the experience showed me how much more I still had to learn in order to be a successful leader. This was one of the reasons I decided to pursue fellowship training. I think many PHM fellowship applicants feel similarly. They may have served in a leadership position in the past but feel underprepared to fulfill leadership positions in the next phase of their careers.

But despite this eagerness, evidence suggests that fellows do not feel that they receive as much management training as they need to start their careers. In a 2014 survey of PHM fellowship graduates, many held formal leadership positions within their institution (23/51) and within national organizations (6/51), despite having only five years of hospitalist experience on average (including time spent in fellowship). When asked about training needs, respondents identified “hospital program management” as an area where they wished they received more training during fellowship.⁴

Anyone who has gone through the PHM fellowship interview process can tell you that a common refrain of program directors is, “One of the goals of our program is to create future leaders in PHM.” This led me to wonder: how do fellowship programs prepare their fellows for future leadership positions?

I began my fellowship training at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in the summer of 2020. The program had just designed a longitudinal leadership elective, which the second-year fellow and I decided to pilot together. As I reflected on the first half of this academic year, I realized that it is unique experiences like this elective that make me thankful I pursued fellowship. I want to share with the hospitalist community the structure of the elective and why it has been particularly valuable with the hope that it will inspire similar opportunities for other fellows.

The program is semi-structured but allows the fellow and preceptors the flexibility to decide what activities would benefit that particular fellow. We attend a variety of administrative and committee meetings with each preceptor that expose us to the responsibilities of their positions, their leadership style in action, their approach to crisis management, and differences in divisional operations. On a monthly basis we meet with a preceptor to discuss a topic related to leadership. Examples of topics include how to run a more effective meeting, barriers to organizational change, leading in crisis, and the importance of mission, vision, values, and goals of organizations. The preceptor sends us articles or other learning materials they have found useful on the topic, and these serve as a starting point for our discussions. These discussions provide a point of reflection as we apply the day’s concept to our own prior experiences or to our observations during the elective.

The combination of learning experiences, discussions, and dedicated preceptorship has prepared me far better for future leadership than my past personal and observational experiences. I have summarized my top three reasons why this structure of leadership development is particularly valuable to me as a fellow.

First, the longitudinal structure of the elective allows us to learn from multiple preceptors over the course of the academic year. The preceptors include the current chief of hospital pediatrics at Nationwide Children’s Hospital; the division director of hospital medicine at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center; and the physician lead for hospital medicine at one of the satellite hospitals in the region. With faculty from the Department of Pediatrics and the Department of Internal Medicine-Pediatrics in these leadership positions, we have the unique ability to compare and contrast operational systems between the two different hospital systems.

Recently, we also had the opportunity to meet with both the chairman of the department of pediatrics and chief medical officer. All of these physician leaders hold a variety of administrative roles and have differing leadership philosophies, each providing useful insights. For instance, one leader ensures his team holds him accountable as the leader by always asking for honest feedback. He recommends telling those you work with to “never let me fail.” Another leader acknowledges that creating five-year plans can be daunting but encouraged us to still be intentional with our direction on a smaller scale by writing down goals for the year and sharing with a mentor. Ultimately, I came away with a wide variety of perspectives to reference as I go forward.

Second, the learning is contextualized. I can take concepts that I learn through reading and discussions and construct meaning based on observations from meetings or other encounters with different leaders. For example, after reviewing several articles on strategies to make meetings more effective, I started noticing what went well and what didn’t go well in every meeting I attended. I observed preceptors employing many of the strategies successfully with positive feedback. This included not only simple practices, such as setting an agenda to provide a compass for the conversation, but also more nuanced practices like controlling the meeting but not the conversation.

After reading about leadership styles I also found myself analyzing the qualities and strategies of leaders I encountered and reflecting on their approach, noticing what I could possibly interlace in my own practice. Several of the leaders I spoke with during the elective recommended paying attention to the actions of the ineffective bosses or mentors because they can teach you something too: how not to act. I even started applying this strategy to the popular television series The Office – Michael Scott, the regional manager of a fictional paper company, demonstrates some of the best and worst leadership skills in every episode. I am developing a repertoire of strategies to lead and motivate people.

Finally, the design allows for real-time application of new methods to my current practice. One particularly useful tool I have learned is Leader Standard Work, a systematic method to get leaders to maintain stability, problem solve, and drive continuous improvement within their organization.⁵ I have used elements of Leader Standard Work on a personal level to improve my time management skills and increase my productivity. For example, I reconceptualized my calendar as a standardized checklist and I organized it to allot more time to critical activities, such as my research and scholarly output, and less on administrative tasks. I am also implementing changes to how I prepare and run meetings, collaborate, and communicate with members of my research team.

Mastery requires practice and feedback, so applying concepts even on a small, personal scale shortly after learning them has been very valuable. Over the last several months I have often wished I had this type of structured leadership education during my year as a chief resident. I think I could have been more intentional in my decision-making, possibly being a stronger leader for the program. Now that I am transferring skills into practice right away, I am setting the stage for lasting changes in behavior that will hopefully benefit all those that I work with in the future.

Leadership development through a customizable longitudinal elective may be an effective way to prepare PHM fellow graduates for future leadership positions. Fellows can emerge with the skills and real-world practice to allow them to feel confident in future positions. However, leadership doesn’t end when we get the position. We must remember to continuously ask for feedback and build upon our experiences to evolve as leaders in PHM.
 

Dr. Westphal is a first-year pediatric hospital medicine fellow at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio with an interest in improving the delivery of quality care for hospitalized infants.

References

1. Maniscalco, J, et al. The Pediatric Hospital Medicine Core Competencies: 2020 Revision. Introduction and Methodology (C). J Hosp Med. 2020;S1;E12-E17. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3391.

2. Jerardi KE, et al; Council of Pediatric Hospital Medicine Fellowship Directors. Development of a Curricular Framework for Pediatric Hospital Medicine Fellowships. Pediatrics. 2017 Jul;140(1):e20170698. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-0698.

3. ACGME Program Requirements for Graduate Medical Education in Pediatric Hospital Medicine. 2020 Edition. Accessed 2021 Jan 14.

4. Oshimura, JM et al. Current roles and perceived needs of pediatric hospital medicine fellowship graduates. Hosp Pediatr. 2016;6(10):633-7. doi: 10.1542/hpeds.2016-0031.

5. Murli, J. Standard Work for Lean Leaders: One of the Keys to Sustaining Performance Gains. Lean Institute Enterprise, Lean Institute Enterprise Inc. 4 Dec 2013. www.lean.org/common/display/?o=2493

The practice of pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) has been evolving and rapidly expanding over the last several decades. Not only has the scope of clinical practice matured and become more defined, but hospitalists now also have the responsibility to advance the performance of hospitals and health care systems. Pediatric hospitalists are increasingly incorporating medical education, research, high-value care, patient quality and safety initiatives, and process improvement into their careers.¹ As a result, pediatric hospitalists are occupying a wider range of administrative and leadership positions within the health care system.

The field of PHM has highlighted the importance of leadership in the practice of hospital medicine by dedicating a chapter to “Leadership in Healthcare” in the PHM Core Competencies.¹ The competencies define the expertise required of hospitalists and serve as guidance for the development of education, training, and career development series. Hospitalists may seek out opportunities for leadership training at an institutional or national level. Options may include advanced degrees, national conferences, division training seminars, or self-directed learning through reading or observational experiences. Unfortunately, all of these take time and motivation. As a result, hospitalists tend to pursue these opportunities only after they have already been appointed to leadership positions.

PHM fellowship is the optimal time to build a foundation of leadership skills. Over the course of a 2-year fellowship, fellows have a combined 16 weeks dedicated to educational activities beyond direct patient care.² The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) encourages educational innovation during this time, allowing programs to create unique opportunities for their fellows that will promote progress towards their ultimate career goals.³ This curricular framework provides the flexibility to integrate leadership training into fellowship training.

Many fellows are eager for leadership experiences and mentorship, myself included. As a pediatric chief resident, I was immersed in a diverse range of clinical, educational, research, and administrative responsibilities. I found myself in a leadership position with no prior education on how to manage people or team dynamics, make high-stress decisions on behalf of a group of people, or handle conflict. Although I learned new strategies on a daily basis, the experience showed me how much more I still had to learn in order to be a successful leader. This was one of the reasons I decided to pursue fellowship training. I think many PHM fellowship applicants feel similarly. They may have served in a leadership position in the past but feel underprepared to fulfill leadership positions in the next phase of their careers.

But despite this eagerness, evidence suggests that fellows do not feel that they receive as much management training as they need to start their careers. In a 2014 survey of PHM fellowship graduates, many held formal leadership positions within their institution (23/51) and within national organizations (6/51), despite having only five years of hospitalist experience on average (including time spent in fellowship). When asked about training needs, respondents identified “hospital program management” as an area where they wished they received more training during fellowship.⁴

Anyone who has gone through the PHM fellowship interview process can tell you that a common refrain of program directors is, “One of the goals of our program is to create future leaders in PHM.” This led me to wonder: how do fellowship programs prepare their fellows for future leadership positions?

I began my fellowship training at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in the summer of 2020. The program had just designed a longitudinal leadership elective, which the second-year fellow and I decided to pilot together. As I reflected on the first half of this academic year, I realized that it is unique experiences like this elective that make me thankful I pursued fellowship. I want to share with the hospitalist community the structure of the elective and why it has been particularly valuable with the hope that it will inspire similar opportunities for other fellows.

The program is semi-structured but allows the fellow and preceptors the flexibility to decide what activities would benefit that particular fellow. We attend a variety of administrative and committee meetings with each preceptor that expose us to the responsibilities of their positions, their leadership style in action, their approach to crisis management, and differences in divisional operations. On a monthly basis we meet with a preceptor to discuss a topic related to leadership. Examples of topics include how to run a more effective meeting, barriers to organizational change, leading in crisis, and the importance of mission, vision, values, and goals of organizations. The preceptor sends us articles or other learning materials they have found useful on the topic, and these serve as a starting point for our discussions. These discussions provide a point of reflection as we apply the day’s concept to our own prior experiences or to our observations during the elective.

The combination of learning experiences, discussions, and dedicated preceptorship has prepared me far better for future leadership than my past personal and observational experiences. I have summarized my top three reasons why this structure of leadership development is particularly valuable to me as a fellow.

First, the longitudinal structure of the elective allows us to learn from multiple preceptors over the course of the academic year. The preceptors include the current chief of hospital pediatrics at Nationwide Children’s Hospital; the division director of hospital medicine at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center; and the physician lead for hospital medicine at one of the satellite hospitals in the region. With faculty from the Department of Pediatrics and the Department of Internal Medicine-Pediatrics in these leadership positions, we have the unique ability to compare and contrast operational systems between the two different hospital systems.

Recently, we also had the opportunity to meet with both the chairman of the department of pediatrics and chief medical officer. All of these physician leaders hold a variety of administrative roles and have differing leadership philosophies, each providing useful insights. For instance, one leader ensures his team holds him accountable as the leader by always asking for honest feedback. He recommends telling those you work with to “never let me fail.” Another leader acknowledges that creating five-year plans can be daunting but encouraged us to still be intentional with our direction on a smaller scale by writing down goals for the year and sharing with a mentor. Ultimately, I came away with a wide variety of perspectives to reference as I go forward.

Second, the learning is contextualized. I can take concepts that I learn through reading and discussions and construct meaning based on observations from meetings or other encounters with different leaders. For example, after reviewing several articles on strategies to make meetings more effective, I started noticing what went well and what didn’t go well in every meeting I attended. I observed preceptors employing many of the strategies successfully with positive feedback. This included not only simple practices, such as setting an agenda to provide a compass for the conversation, but also more nuanced practices like controlling the meeting but not the conversation.

After reading about leadership styles I also found myself analyzing the qualities and strategies of leaders I encountered and reflecting on their approach, noticing what I could possibly interlace in my own practice. Several of the leaders I spoke with during the elective recommended paying attention to the actions of the ineffective bosses or mentors because they can teach you something too: how not to act. I even started applying this strategy to the popular television series The Office – Michael Scott, the regional manager of a fictional paper company, demonstrates some of the best and worst leadership skills in every episode. I am developing a repertoire of strategies to lead and motivate people.

Finally, the design allows for real-time application of new methods to my current practice. One particularly useful tool I have learned is Leader Standard Work, a systematic method to get leaders to maintain stability, problem solve, and drive continuous improvement within their organization.⁵ I have used elements of Leader Standard Work on a personal level to improve my time management skills and increase my productivity. For example, I reconceptualized my calendar as a standardized checklist and I organized it to allot more time to critical activities, such as my research and scholarly output, and less on administrative tasks. I am also implementing changes to how I prepare and run meetings, collaborate, and communicate with members of my research team.

Mastery requires practice and feedback, so applying concepts even on a small, personal scale shortly after learning them has been very valuable. Over the last several months I have often wished I had this type of structured leadership education during my year as a chief resident. I think I could have been more intentional in my decision-making, possibly being a stronger leader for the program. Now that I am transferring skills into practice right away, I am setting the stage for lasting changes in behavior that will hopefully benefit all those that I work with in the future.

Leadership development through a customizable longitudinal elective may be an effective way to prepare PHM fellow graduates for future leadership positions. Fellows can emerge with the skills and real-world practice to allow them to feel confident in future positions. However, leadership doesn’t end when we get the position. We must remember to continuously ask for feedback and build upon our experiences to evolve as leaders in PHM.
 

Dr. Westphal is a first-year pediatric hospital medicine fellow at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio with an interest in improving the delivery of quality care for hospitalized infants.

References

1. Maniscalco, J, et al. The Pediatric Hospital Medicine Core Competencies: 2020 Revision. Introduction and Methodology (C). J Hosp Med. 2020;S1;E12-E17. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3391.

2. Jerardi KE, et al; Council of Pediatric Hospital Medicine Fellowship Directors. Development of a Curricular Framework for Pediatric Hospital Medicine Fellowships. Pediatrics. 2017 Jul;140(1):e20170698. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-0698.

3. ACGME Program Requirements for Graduate Medical Education in Pediatric Hospital Medicine. 2020 Edition. Accessed 2021 Jan 14.

4. Oshimura, JM et al. Current roles and perceived needs of pediatric hospital medicine fellowship graduates. Hosp Pediatr. 2016;6(10):633-7. doi: 10.1542/hpeds.2016-0031.

5. Murli, J. Standard Work for Lean Leaders: One of the Keys to Sustaining Performance Gains. Lean Institute Enterprise, Lean Institute Enterprise Inc. 4 Dec 2013. www.lean.org/common/display/?o=2493

Prophylactic anticoagulation to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) was associated with reduced 60-day mortality in patients with COVID-19 who were ill enough to require hospitalization, a new report shows.

In a cohort study of more than 1,300 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection across 30 hospitals in Michigan, both prophylactic- and therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were associated with reduced in-hospital mortality; however, at 60 days, only prophylactic-dose anticoagulation remained associated with lower mortality.

And adherence was key; nonadherence, or missing 2 days or more of anticoagulation, was linked to more deaths at 60 days.

The findings, which were published online June 11 in JAMA Network Open, are final proof that a prophylactic anticoagulation strategy for the hospitalized COVID population is, indeed, the right one, Valerie M. Vaughn, MD, director of hospital medicine research at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview.

“We’ve probably always known that patients with COVID need prophylaxis for VTE, but we found that early on, unfortunately, that wasn’t being done,” Dr. Vaughn said.

“Now, we see that prophylactic rates have increased. We always knew to use anticoagulation prophylactically in patients who were hospitalized with infection because of their risk for VTE, so this study just drives home that proper adherence to an anticoagulation protocol improves mortality,” she said.

Dr. Vaughn was on the front lines when COVID-19 came to Michigan, where the research was conducted.

“We probably should have been anticoagulating from the get-go, but you have to remember that in the early days of COVID, the hospitals in Michigan were being overwhelmed. They didn’t have PPE. They were taking care of patients outside of their typical hospital beds or setting up field hospitals,” she said. “It was not quite as bad as New York, but at the University of Michigan, we set up four or five ICUs outside of our normal care.”

They also converted the top floor of their pediatric hospital into an ICU to take care of patients with COVID during the first surge, she added. “We didn’t know much about this disease, but faced with this influx of patients, many of whom were dying with blood clots, we had to do something.”  

Some hospitals began prophylactically anticoagulating their patients, but others hesitated before adopting the strategy. “But now we feel confident that prophylactic anticoagulation, done according to the right protocol, with no interruptions in the treatment, is beneficial,” Dr. Vaughn said.

The best medication choice is enoxaparin (Lovenox), which can be given once a day, as opposed to heparin, which needs to be given via injection three times a day, she said.

“Prophylactic dose anticoagulation is typically given by an injection under the skin, but a lot of times, I’ve had patients tell me they feel like a human pin cushion and have all these bruises from being stuck with needles every day, which I can totally relate to,” she said.

“It is important for us as clinicians to explain that we’re having to poke our patients because it is good for them and will help them fight COVID,” she added. “Also having the once-a-day option is going to be a lot better for adherence, and adherence to the protocol, not missing any days, is key to the better outcome.”

Dr. Vaughn and her team reviewed the charts of 1,351 patients (48% women, 49% Black, median age 64 [range 52-75]) who were hospitalized throughout Michigan during the first several months of the COVID-19 pandemic, from March to June 2020.

Only 18 patients (1.3%) had a confirmed VTE and 219 patients (16.2%) received treatment-dose anticoagulation.

The researchers noted that use of treatment-dose anticoagulation without imaging ranged from 0% to 29% across hospitals and increased significantly over time.

Of the 1,127 patients who received anticoagulation, 392 (34.8%) missed 2 days or more of prophylaxis.

In addition, there were varying rates of missed prophylaxis among the hospitals, from 11% to 61%, but these rates decreased markedly over time.

Missed doses were associated with a higher 60-day mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.67), but not in-hospital mortality (aHR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.91-1.03).

Compared with no anticoagulation, receiving any dose of anticoagulation was associated with lower in-hospital mortality.

However, only prophylactic-dose anticoagulation remained associated with lower mortality at 60 days. The adjusted hazard ratio for prophylactic-dose anticoagulation was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.51-0.90), compared with 0.92 (95% CI, 0.63-1.35) for treatment-dose anticoagulation.
 

Study boosts confidence

Despite its limitations, the study should make clinicians more confident that the use of prophylactic anticoagulation is warranted for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, write Andrew B. Dicks, MD, and Ido Weinberg, MD, from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, in an invited commentary.

“Practically, we still lack the granular data we need to help guide us in patient-by-patient decision-making – such as anticoagulation agent choice, dosage, and duration of therapy – especially as dictated by acuity of patient illness,” Dr. Dicks and Dr. Weinberg note.

“While we still await the data from randomized controlled trials to guide the optimal anticoagulation dose and duration, this study adds significant merit to the previously published recommendations from several different medical organizations regarding the use of prophylactic anticoagulation in hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Dicks told this news organization.

The study was supported by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network as part of their Value Partnerships program. Dr. Vaughn has reported receiving speaking fees from Thermo Fisher Scientific. Dr. Dicks and Dr. Weinberg have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Prophylactic anticoagulation to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) was associated with reduced 60-day mortality in patients with COVID-19 who were ill enough to require hospitalization, a new report shows.

In a cohort study of more than 1,300 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection across 30 hospitals in Michigan, both prophylactic- and therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were associated with reduced in-hospital mortality; however, at 60 days, only prophylactic-dose anticoagulation remained associated with lower mortality.

And adherence was key; nonadherence, or missing 2 days or more of anticoagulation, was linked to more deaths at 60 days.

The findings, which were published online June 11 in JAMA Network Open, are final proof that a prophylactic anticoagulation strategy for the hospitalized COVID population is, indeed, the right one, Valerie M. Vaughn, MD, director of hospital medicine research at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview.

“We’ve probably always known that patients with COVID need prophylaxis for VTE, but we found that early on, unfortunately, that wasn’t being done,” Dr. Vaughn said.

“Now, we see that prophylactic rates have increased. We always knew to use anticoagulation prophylactically in patients who were hospitalized with infection because of their risk for VTE, so this study just drives home that proper adherence to an anticoagulation protocol improves mortality,” she said.

Dr. Vaughn was on the front lines when COVID-19 came to Michigan, where the research was conducted.

“We probably should have been anticoagulating from the get-go, but you have to remember that in the early days of COVID, the hospitals in Michigan were being overwhelmed. They didn’t have PPE. They were taking care of patients outside of their typical hospital beds or setting up field hospitals,” she said. “It was not quite as bad as New York, but at the University of Michigan, we set up four or five ICUs outside of our normal care.”

They also converted the top floor of their pediatric hospital into an ICU to take care of patients with COVID during the first surge, she added. “We didn’t know much about this disease, but faced with this influx of patients, many of whom were dying with blood clots, we had to do something.”  

Some hospitals began prophylactically anticoagulating their patients, but others hesitated before adopting the strategy. “But now we feel confident that prophylactic anticoagulation, done according to the right protocol, with no interruptions in the treatment, is beneficial,” Dr. Vaughn said.

The best medication choice is enoxaparin (Lovenox), which can be given once a day, as opposed to heparin, which needs to be given via injection three times a day, she said.

“Prophylactic dose anticoagulation is typically given by an injection under the skin, but a lot of times, I’ve had patients tell me they feel like a human pin cushion and have all these bruises from being stuck with needles every day, which I can totally relate to,” she said.

“It is important for us as clinicians to explain that we’re having to poke our patients because it is good for them and will help them fight COVID,” she added. “Also having the once-a-day option is going to be a lot better for adherence, and adherence to the protocol, not missing any days, is key to the better outcome.”

Dr. Vaughn and her team reviewed the charts of 1,351 patients (48% women, 49% Black, median age 64 [range 52-75]) who were hospitalized throughout Michigan during the first several months of the COVID-19 pandemic, from March to June 2020.

Only 18 patients (1.3%) had a confirmed VTE and 219 patients (16.2%) received treatment-dose anticoagulation.

The researchers noted that use of treatment-dose anticoagulation without imaging ranged from 0% to 29% across hospitals and increased significantly over time.

Of the 1,127 patients who received anticoagulation, 392 (34.8%) missed 2 days or more of prophylaxis.

In addition, there were varying rates of missed prophylaxis among the hospitals, from 11% to 61%, but these rates decreased markedly over time.

Missed doses were associated with a higher 60-day mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.67), but not in-hospital mortality (aHR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.91-1.03).

Compared with no anticoagulation, receiving any dose of anticoagulation was associated with lower in-hospital mortality.

However, only prophylactic-dose anticoagulation remained associated with lower mortality at 60 days. The adjusted hazard ratio for prophylactic-dose anticoagulation was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.51-0.90), compared with 0.92 (95% CI, 0.63-1.35) for treatment-dose anticoagulation.
 

Study boosts confidence

Despite its limitations, the study should make clinicians more confident that the use of prophylactic anticoagulation is warranted for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, write Andrew B. Dicks, MD, and Ido Weinberg, MD, from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, in an invited commentary.

“Practically, we still lack the granular data we need to help guide us in patient-by-patient decision-making – such as anticoagulation agent choice, dosage, and duration of therapy – especially as dictated by acuity of patient illness,” Dr. Dicks and Dr. Weinberg note.

“While we still await the data from randomized controlled trials to guide the optimal anticoagulation dose and duration, this study adds significant merit to the previously published recommendations from several different medical organizations regarding the use of prophylactic anticoagulation in hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Dicks told this news organization.

The study was supported by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network as part of their Value Partnerships program. Dr. Vaughn has reported receiving speaking fees from Thermo Fisher Scientific. Dr. Dicks and Dr. Weinberg have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Prophylactic anticoagulation to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) was associated with reduced 60-day mortality in patients with COVID-19 who were ill enough to require hospitalization, a new report shows.

In a cohort study of more than 1,300 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection across 30 hospitals in Michigan, both prophylactic- and therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were associated with reduced in-hospital mortality; however, at 60 days, only prophylactic-dose anticoagulation remained associated with lower mortality.

And adherence was key; nonadherence, or missing 2 days or more of anticoagulation, was linked to more deaths at 60 days.

The findings, which were published online June 11 in JAMA Network Open, are final proof that a prophylactic anticoagulation strategy for the hospitalized COVID population is, indeed, the right one, Valerie M. Vaughn, MD, director of hospital medicine research at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview.

“We’ve probably always known that patients with COVID need prophylaxis for VTE, but we found that early on, unfortunately, that wasn’t being done,” Dr. Vaughn said.

“Now, we see that prophylactic rates have increased. We always knew to use anticoagulation prophylactically in patients who were hospitalized with infection because of their risk for VTE, so this study just drives home that proper adherence to an anticoagulation protocol improves mortality,” she said.

Dr. Vaughn was on the front lines when COVID-19 came to Michigan, where the research was conducted.

“We probably should have been anticoagulating from the get-go, but you have to remember that in the early days of COVID, the hospitals in Michigan were being overwhelmed. They didn’t have PPE. They were taking care of patients outside of their typical hospital beds or setting up field hospitals,” she said. “It was not quite as bad as New York, but at the University of Michigan, we set up four or five ICUs outside of our normal care.”

They also converted the top floor of their pediatric hospital into an ICU to take care of patients with COVID during the first surge, she added. “We didn’t know much about this disease, but faced with this influx of patients, many of whom were dying with blood clots, we had to do something.”  

Some hospitals began prophylactically anticoagulating their patients, but others hesitated before adopting the strategy. “But now we feel confident that prophylactic anticoagulation, done according to the right protocol, with no interruptions in the treatment, is beneficial,” Dr. Vaughn said.

The best medication choice is enoxaparin (Lovenox), which can be given once a day, as opposed to heparin, which needs to be given via injection three times a day, she said.

“Prophylactic dose anticoagulation is typically given by an injection under the skin, but a lot of times, I’ve had patients tell me they feel like a human pin cushion and have all these bruises from being stuck with needles every day, which I can totally relate to,” she said.

“It is important for us as clinicians to explain that we’re having to poke our patients because it is good for them and will help them fight COVID,” she added. “Also having the once-a-day option is going to be a lot better for adherence, and adherence to the protocol, not missing any days, is key to the better outcome.”

Dr. Vaughn and her team reviewed the charts of 1,351 patients (48% women, 49% Black, median age 64 [range 52-75]) who were hospitalized throughout Michigan during the first several months of the COVID-19 pandemic, from March to June 2020.

Only 18 patients (1.3%) had a confirmed VTE and 219 patients (16.2%) received treatment-dose anticoagulation.

The researchers noted that use of treatment-dose anticoagulation without imaging ranged from 0% to 29% across hospitals and increased significantly over time.

Of the 1,127 patients who received anticoagulation, 392 (34.8%) missed 2 days or more of prophylaxis.

In addition, there were varying rates of missed prophylaxis among the hospitals, from 11% to 61%, but these rates decreased markedly over time.

Missed doses were associated with a higher 60-day mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.67), but not in-hospital mortality (aHR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.91-1.03).

Compared with no anticoagulation, receiving any dose of anticoagulation was associated with lower in-hospital mortality.

However, only prophylactic-dose anticoagulation remained associated with lower mortality at 60 days. The adjusted hazard ratio for prophylactic-dose anticoagulation was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.51-0.90), compared with 0.92 (95% CI, 0.63-1.35) for treatment-dose anticoagulation.
 

Study boosts confidence

Despite its limitations, the study should make clinicians more confident that the use of prophylactic anticoagulation is warranted for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, write Andrew B. Dicks, MD, and Ido Weinberg, MD, from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, in an invited commentary.

“Practically, we still lack the granular data we need to help guide us in patient-by-patient decision-making – such as anticoagulation agent choice, dosage, and duration of therapy – especially as dictated by acuity of patient illness,” Dr. Dicks and Dr. Weinberg note.

“While we still await the data from randomized controlled trials to guide the optimal anticoagulation dose and duration, this study adds significant merit to the previously published recommendations from several different medical organizations regarding the use of prophylactic anticoagulation in hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Dicks told this news organization.

The study was supported by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network as part of their Value Partnerships program. Dr. Vaughn has reported receiving speaking fees from Thermo Fisher Scientific. Dr. Dicks and Dr. Weinberg have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the absence of formal clinical trials, pediatricians are racing to determine the efficacy and risks of currently used therapies for the SARS-CoV-2–linked multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C).

That requires rapid pragmatic evaluation of therapies. Two real-world observational studies published online June 16 in The New England Journal of Medicine do that, with differing results.

In the Overcoming COVID-19 study, investigators assessed initial therapy and outcomes for patients with MIS-C using surveillance data from 58 pediatric hospitals nationwide.

The results suggest that patients with MIS-C who were younger than 21 years of age and who were initially treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) plus glucocorticoids fared better in terms of cardiovascular function.

The study included 518 children (median age, 8.7 years) who were admitted to the hospital between March and October 2020 and who received at least one immunomodulatory therapy. In a propensity score–matched analysis, those given IVIG plus glucocorticoids (n = 103) had a lower risk for the primary outcome of cardiovascular dysfunction on or after day 2 than those given IVIG alone (n = 103), at 17% versus 31% (risk ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.94).

Risks for individual aspects of the study’s composite outcome were also lower with IVIG plus glucocorticoids. Left ventricular dysfunction occurred in 8% and 17%, respectively (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.19-1.15). Shock requiring vasopressor use emerged in 13% and 24%, respectively (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.29-1.00).

In addition, there were fewer cases in which adjunctive therapy was given on day one among those who received combination therapy than among those who received IVIG alone, at 34% versus 70% (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.65), but the risk for fever was not lower on or after day two (31% and 40%, respectively; RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.53-1.13).

Lead author Mary Beth F. Son, MD, director of the rheumatology program at Boston Children’s Hospital, who is also associate professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, stressed that the study did not assess which MIS-C patients should receive treatment. “Rather, we studied children who had been treated with one of two initial regimens and then assessed short-term outcomes,” she told this news organization.

Going forward, it will be important to study which children should receive immunomodulatory treatment, Dr. Son said. “Specifically, can the less ill children receive IVIG alone or no treatment? This is an unanswered question at the moment, which could be addressed with a randomized controlled trial.”

Future directions, she added, will include assessing long-term cardiac outcomes for patients with MIS-C as well as studying outpatient regimens, especially those that involve steroids.

Earlier this year, French investigators found better outcomes with combined corticosteroids and IVIG than with IVIG alone. They suggested that combination therapy should be the standard of care, given the present state of therapeutic knowledge.
 

Maybe not so standard

Different results emerged, however, from an international study of MIS-C that compared three, rather than two, treatment approaches. Collaborators from the Best Available Treatment Study for MIS-C (BATS) evaluated data for 614 children with suspected MIS-C between June 2020 and February 2021 in 32 countries and found no substantial differences in recovery among children whose primary treatment was IVIG alone, IVIG plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone.

The study by Andrew J. McArdle, MB BChir, MSC, a clinical research fellow at Imperial College London, and colleagues was published June 16 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

In the BATS cohort, 246 received IVIG alone, 208 received IVIG plus glucocorticoids, and 99 received glucocorticoids alone. Twenty-two patients received other combinations, including biologics, and 39 received no immunomodulatory therapy.

Among patients who were included in the primary analysis, death occurred or inotropic or ventilatory support was employed in 56 of 180 of the patients who received IVIG plus glucocorticoids, compared with 44 of 211 patients treated with IVIG alone, for an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.33-1.82). Among those who received glucocorticoids alone, 17 of 83 met the primary endpoint of death or inotropic or ventilatory support, for an aOR relative to IVIG alone of 0.54 (95% CI, 0.22-1.33).

After adjustments, the likelihood for reduced disease severity was similar in the two groups relative to IVIG alone, at 0.90 for IVIG plus glucocorticoids and 0.93 for glucocorticoids alone. Time to reduction in disease severity was also comparable across all groups.

Some of the differences between the U.S. study and the global studies could be the result of the larger size of the international cohort and possibly a difference in the strains of virus in the United States and abroad, according to S. Sexson Tejtel, MD, PhD, MPH, a pediatric cardiologist at Texas Children’s Hospital and an assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. “Some strains make children sicker than others, and they’re going to need more treatment,” said Dr. Sexson Tejtel, who was not involved in either study.

Dr. Sexson Tejtel also noted that the U.S. researchers did not assess outcomes among children treated with steroids alone. “It would be interesting to know what steroids alone look like in the U.S. MIS-C population,” she said in an interview.

BATS corresponding author Michael Levin, MBE, PhD, FRCPCH, an Imperial College professor of pediatrics and international child health, told this news organization that the differing results may have arisen because of the international study’s three-treatment focus, its wider spectrum of patients, and its different endpoints: Death and inotropic support on or after day 2, versus echocardiographic left ventricular dysfunction or inotropic usage.

Regardless of the differences between the two studies, neither establishes the most effective single or combination treatment, writes Roberta L. DeBiasi, MD, of the Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases at Children’s National Hospital and Research Institute and George Washington University, Washington, in an accompanying editorial. “Specifically, neither study was powered to include an evaluation of approaches that steer away from broad immunosuppression with glucocorticoids and that focus on more targeted and titratable treatments with biologic agents, such as anakinra and infliximab,” she writes.

Dr. DeBiasi adds that long-term follow-up studies of cardiac and noncardiac outcomes in these patients will launch soon. “Meanwhile, continued collaboration across centers is essential to decreasing the short-term incidence of death and complications,” she writes.

“It will be interesting as we apply results from these studies as they come out to see how they change our practice,” Dr. Sexson Tejtel said. “And it would be good to have some randomized clinical trials.”

For Dr. Levin, the bottom line is that all three treatments are associated with recovery for a majority of children. “This is good news for clinicians who have been guessing which treatment to use,” he said. “Both studies are attempts to provide doctors with some evidence on which to base treatment decisions and are not the final answer. Our study is ongoing, and with larger numbers of patients it may give clearer answers.”

The Overcoming COVID-19 study was funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Several coauthors have reported support from industry outside of the submitted work. BATS was funded by the European Union’s Horizons 2020 Program. The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One coauthor’s spouse is employed by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. DeBiasi and Dr. Sexson Tejtel have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the absence of formal clinical trials, pediatricians are racing to determine the efficacy and risks of currently used therapies for the SARS-CoV-2–linked multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C).

That requires rapid pragmatic evaluation of therapies. Two real-world observational studies published online June 16 in The New England Journal of Medicine do that, with differing results.

In the Overcoming COVID-19 study, investigators assessed initial therapy and outcomes for patients with MIS-C using surveillance data from 58 pediatric hospitals nationwide.

The results suggest that patients with MIS-C who were younger than 21 years of age and who were initially treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) plus glucocorticoids fared better in terms of cardiovascular function.

The study included 518 children (median age, 8.7 years) who were admitted to the hospital between March and October 2020 and who received at least one immunomodulatory therapy. In a propensity score–matched analysis, those given IVIG plus glucocorticoids (n = 103) had a lower risk for the primary outcome of cardiovascular dysfunction on or after day 2 than those given IVIG alone (n = 103), at 17% versus 31% (risk ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.94).

Risks for individual aspects of the study’s composite outcome were also lower with IVIG plus glucocorticoids. Left ventricular dysfunction occurred in 8% and 17%, respectively (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.19-1.15). Shock requiring vasopressor use emerged in 13% and 24%, respectively (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.29-1.00).

In addition, there were fewer cases in which adjunctive therapy was given on day one among those who received combination therapy than among those who received IVIG alone, at 34% versus 70% (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.65), but the risk for fever was not lower on or after day two (31% and 40%, respectively; RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.53-1.13).

Lead author Mary Beth F. Son, MD, director of the rheumatology program at Boston Children’s Hospital, who is also associate professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, stressed that the study did not assess which MIS-C patients should receive treatment. “Rather, we studied children who had been treated with one of two initial regimens and then assessed short-term outcomes,” she told this news organization.

Going forward, it will be important to study which children should receive immunomodulatory treatment, Dr. Son said. “Specifically, can the less ill children receive IVIG alone or no treatment? This is an unanswered question at the moment, which could be addressed with a randomized controlled trial.”

Future directions, she added, will include assessing long-term cardiac outcomes for patients with MIS-C as well as studying outpatient regimens, especially those that involve steroids.

Earlier this year, French investigators found better outcomes with combined corticosteroids and IVIG than with IVIG alone. They suggested that combination therapy should be the standard of care, given the present state of therapeutic knowledge.
 

Maybe not so standard

Different results emerged, however, from an international study of MIS-C that compared three, rather than two, treatment approaches. Collaborators from the Best Available Treatment Study for MIS-C (BATS) evaluated data for 614 children with suspected MIS-C between June 2020 and February 2021 in 32 countries and found no substantial differences in recovery among children whose primary treatment was IVIG alone, IVIG plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone.

The study by Andrew J. McArdle, MB BChir, MSC, a clinical research fellow at Imperial College London, and colleagues was published June 16 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

In the BATS cohort, 246 received IVIG alone, 208 received IVIG plus glucocorticoids, and 99 received glucocorticoids alone. Twenty-two patients received other combinations, including biologics, and 39 received no immunomodulatory therapy.

Among patients who were included in the primary analysis, death occurred or inotropic or ventilatory support was employed in 56 of 180 of the patients who received IVIG plus glucocorticoids, compared with 44 of 211 patients treated with IVIG alone, for an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.33-1.82). Among those who received glucocorticoids alone, 17 of 83 met the primary endpoint of death or inotropic or ventilatory support, for an aOR relative to IVIG alone of 0.54 (95% CI, 0.22-1.33).

After adjustments, the likelihood for reduced disease severity was similar in the two groups relative to IVIG alone, at 0.90 for IVIG plus glucocorticoids and 0.93 for glucocorticoids alone. Time to reduction in disease severity was also comparable across all groups.

Some of the differences between the U.S. study and the global studies could be the result of the larger size of the international cohort and possibly a difference in the strains of virus in the United States and abroad, according to S. Sexson Tejtel, MD, PhD, MPH, a pediatric cardiologist at Texas Children’s Hospital and an assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. “Some strains make children sicker than others, and they’re going to need more treatment,” said Dr. Sexson Tejtel, who was not involved in either study.

Dr. Sexson Tejtel also noted that the U.S. researchers did not assess outcomes among children treated with steroids alone. “It would be interesting to know what steroids alone look like in the U.S. MIS-C population,” she said in an interview.

BATS corresponding author Michael Levin, MBE, PhD, FRCPCH, an Imperial College professor of pediatrics and international child health, told this news organization that the differing results may have arisen because of the international study’s three-treatment focus, its wider spectrum of patients, and its different endpoints: Death and inotropic support on or after day 2, versus echocardiographic left ventricular dysfunction or inotropic usage.

Regardless of the differences between the two studies, neither establishes the most effective single or combination treatment, writes Roberta L. DeBiasi, MD, of the Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases at Children’s National Hospital and Research Institute and George Washington University, Washington, in an accompanying editorial. “Specifically, neither study was powered to include an evaluation of approaches that steer away from broad immunosuppression with glucocorticoids and that focus on more targeted and titratable treatments with biologic agents, such as anakinra and infliximab,” she writes.

Dr. DeBiasi adds that long-term follow-up studies of cardiac and noncardiac outcomes in these patients will launch soon. “Meanwhile, continued collaboration across centers is essential to decreasing the short-term incidence of death and complications,” she writes.

“It will be interesting as we apply results from these studies as they come out to see how they change our practice,” Dr. Sexson Tejtel said. “And it would be good to have some randomized clinical trials.”

For Dr. Levin, the bottom line is that all three treatments are associated with recovery for a majority of children. “This is good news for clinicians who have been guessing which treatment to use,” he said. “Both studies are attempts to provide doctors with some evidence on which to base treatment decisions and are not the final answer. Our study is ongoing, and with larger numbers of patients it may give clearer answers.”

The Overcoming COVID-19 study was funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Several coauthors have reported support from industry outside of the submitted work. BATS was funded by the European Union’s Horizons 2020 Program. The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One coauthor’s spouse is employed by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. DeBiasi and Dr. Sexson Tejtel have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the absence of formal clinical trials, pediatricians are racing to determine the efficacy and risks of currently used therapies for the SARS-CoV-2–linked multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C).

That requires rapid pragmatic evaluation of therapies. Two real-world observational studies published online June 16 in The New England Journal of Medicine do that, with differing results.

In the Overcoming COVID-19 study, investigators assessed initial therapy and outcomes for patients with MIS-C using surveillance data from 58 pediatric hospitals nationwide.

The results suggest that patients with MIS-C who were younger than 21 years of age and who were initially treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) plus glucocorticoids fared better in terms of cardiovascular function.

The study included 518 children (median age, 8.7 years) who were admitted to the hospital between March and October 2020 and who received at least one immunomodulatory therapy. In a propensity score–matched analysis, those given IVIG plus glucocorticoids (n = 103) had a lower risk for the primary outcome of cardiovascular dysfunction on or after day 2 than those given IVIG alone (n = 103), at 17% versus 31% (risk ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.94).

Risks for individual aspects of the study’s composite outcome were also lower with IVIG plus glucocorticoids. Left ventricular dysfunction occurred in 8% and 17%, respectively (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.19-1.15). Shock requiring vasopressor use emerged in 13% and 24%, respectively (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.29-1.00).

In addition, there were fewer cases in which adjunctive therapy was given on day one among those who received combination therapy than among those who received IVIG alone, at 34% versus 70% (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.65), but the risk for fever was not lower on or after day two (31% and 40%, respectively; RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.53-1.13).

Lead author Mary Beth F. Son, MD, director of the rheumatology program at Boston Children’s Hospital, who is also associate professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, stressed that the study did not assess which MIS-C patients should receive treatment. “Rather, we studied children who had been treated with one of two initial regimens and then assessed short-term outcomes,” she told this news organization.

Going forward, it will be important to study which children should receive immunomodulatory treatment, Dr. Son said. “Specifically, can the less ill children receive IVIG alone or no treatment? This is an unanswered question at the moment, which could be addressed with a randomized controlled trial.”

Future directions, she added, will include assessing long-term cardiac outcomes for patients with MIS-C as well as studying outpatient regimens, especially those that involve steroids.

Earlier this year, French investigators found better outcomes with combined corticosteroids and IVIG than with IVIG alone. They suggested that combination therapy should be the standard of care, given the present state of therapeutic knowledge.
 

Maybe not so standard

Different results emerged, however, from an international study of MIS-C that compared three, rather than two, treatment approaches. Collaborators from the Best Available Treatment Study for MIS-C (BATS) evaluated data for 614 children with suspected MIS-C between June 2020 and February 2021 in 32 countries and found no substantial differences in recovery among children whose primary treatment was IVIG alone, IVIG plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone.

The study by Andrew J. McArdle, MB BChir, MSC, a clinical research fellow at Imperial College London, and colleagues was published June 16 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

In the BATS cohort, 246 received IVIG alone, 208 received IVIG plus glucocorticoids, and 99 received glucocorticoids alone. Twenty-two patients received other combinations, including biologics, and 39 received no immunomodulatory therapy.

Among patients who were included in the primary analysis, death occurred or inotropic or ventilatory support was employed in 56 of 180 of the patients who received IVIG plus glucocorticoids, compared with 44 of 211 patients treated with IVIG alone, for an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.33-1.82). Among those who received glucocorticoids alone, 17 of 83 met the primary endpoint of death or inotropic or ventilatory support, for an aOR relative to IVIG alone of 0.54 (95% CI, 0.22-1.33).

After adjustments, the likelihood for reduced disease severity was similar in the two groups relative to IVIG alone, at 0.90 for IVIG plus glucocorticoids and 0.93 for glucocorticoids alone. Time to reduction in disease severity was also comparable across all groups.

Some of the differences between the U.S. study and the global studies could be the result of the larger size of the international cohort and possibly a difference in the strains of virus in the United States and abroad, according to S. Sexson Tejtel, MD, PhD, MPH, a pediatric cardiologist at Texas Children’s Hospital and an assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. “Some strains make children sicker than others, and they’re going to need more treatment,” said Dr. Sexson Tejtel, who was not involved in either study.

Dr. Sexson Tejtel also noted that the U.S. researchers did not assess outcomes among children treated with steroids alone. “It would be interesting to know what steroids alone look like in the U.S. MIS-C population,” she said in an interview.

BATS corresponding author Michael Levin, MBE, PhD, FRCPCH, an Imperial College professor of pediatrics and international child health, told this news organization that the differing results may have arisen because of the international study’s three-treatment focus, its wider spectrum of patients, and its different endpoints: Death and inotropic support on or after day 2, versus echocardiographic left ventricular dysfunction or inotropic usage.

Regardless of the differences between the two studies, neither establishes the most effective single or combination treatment, writes Roberta L. DeBiasi, MD, of the Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases at Children’s National Hospital and Research Institute and George Washington University, Washington, in an accompanying editorial. “Specifically, neither study was powered to include an evaluation of approaches that steer away from broad immunosuppression with glucocorticoids and that focus on more targeted and titratable treatments with biologic agents, such as anakinra and infliximab,” she writes.

Dr. DeBiasi adds that long-term follow-up studies of cardiac and noncardiac outcomes in these patients will launch soon. “Meanwhile, continued collaboration across centers is essential to decreasing the short-term incidence of death and complications,” she writes.

“It will be interesting as we apply results from these studies as they come out to see how they change our practice,” Dr. Sexson Tejtel said. “And it would be good to have some randomized clinical trials.”

For Dr. Levin, the bottom line is that all three treatments are associated with recovery for a majority of children. “This is good news for clinicians who have been guessing which treatment to use,” he said. “Both studies are attempts to provide doctors with some evidence on which to base treatment decisions and are not the final answer. Our study is ongoing, and with larger numbers of patients it may give clearer answers.”

The Overcoming COVID-19 study was funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Several coauthors have reported support from industry outside of the submitted work. BATS was funded by the European Union’s Horizons 2020 Program. The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One coauthor’s spouse is employed by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. DeBiasi and Dr. Sexson Tejtel have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

I arrived on the 6th floor nursing unit one day last fall to find halls abuzz with people. Something didn’t feel right, and then I a saw a nursing colleague with tears streaming down her face. My heart dropped. She looked up at me and said, “Dr Hass, K died last night.” She started to sob. I stood dumbfounded for a moment. We had lost a beloved coworker to COVID.

There has been a collective sense of grief in our country since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic as we have all been suffering losses: smiles, touch, in-person relationships, a “normal life.” But it went to another level for us at Alta Bates Summit Medical Center in Oakland, Calif., with the passing of a couple of our beloved teammates in the fall. Strong emotions triggered by these events caused me to pause and think: “What is grief? Is it another word for sadness? How do we work through it?”

What is the difference between sadness and grief? While related, they are temporally and functionally quite different. Sadness is an emotion, and like all emotions, we feel it in brief episodes. Those moments of profound sadness only last minutes at a time. Sadness leads to decreased physiological arousal, especially after crying. When less intense, the physiological slowing is thought to allow for some mental clarity that lets the loss sink in and moves us toward a recalibration process. These episodes of sadness occur more frequently and with greater intensity the closer we are to the triggering event.

While emotions last minutes, mood, another affective state, lasts hours to days and is less intense and specific in content. A sad mood can be present much of the time after a significant loss. Emotions predispose to moods and vice versa.

Grief, on the other hand, is a complex and lengthy process that moves us from a place of loss to a new place with a new equilibrium without the lost object. While sadness is about fully acknowledging the loss, the grieving process is about getting beyond it. The bigger the loss, the bigger the hole in your life and the longer the grieving process. Grief is a multi-emotional process with people often experiencing a range of emotions, such as shock, anger, and fear in addition to sadness.

As I grappled with my sense of loss, I realized that understanding the grieving process was going to help me as I navigate this world now full of loss. Here are a few things we should all keep in mind.
 

A sense of mindful self-awareness

As we work through our grief, a mindful self-awareness can help us identify our emotions and see them as part of the grieving process. Simply anticipating emotions can lessen the impact of them when they come. As they come on, try to name the emotion, e.g., “I am so sad,” and feel the experience in the body. The sadness can be cathartic, and by focusing on the body and not the head, we can also drop the sometimes healthy, sometimes unhealthy rants and ruminations that can accompany these events. If we experience the emotions with mindful self-awareness, we can see our emotions as part of a healing, grieving process, and we will likely be able to handle them more gracefully.

In the days after the death of my nursing colleague, my sad mood would be interrupted with flares of anger triggered by thoughts of those not wearing masks or spreading misinformation. Moving my thoughts to the emotions, I would say to myself, “I am really angry, and I am angry because of these deaths.” I felt the recognition of the emotions helped me better ride the big waves on the grieving journey.

Counter to the thinking of the 20th century, research by George Bonanno at Columbia University found that the majority of bereavement is met with resilience. We will be sad, we might have moments of anger or denial or fear, but for most of us, despite the gravity of the loss, our innate resilience will lead about 50-80% of us to recover to near our baseline in months. It is nice to know we are not repressing things if we don’t pass through all the stages postulated by Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, the dominate paradigm in the field.¹

For those grieving, this idea of resilience being the norm can provide reassurance during tough moments. While our degree of resilience will depend on our loss and our circumstance, the work of Lucy Hone, PhD, suggests that resilience can be fostered. Many of the negative feelings we experience have a flip side we can seek out. We can be grateful for what remains and what the departed has left us with. We can aid in our grieving journey by using many of the resources available from UC Berkeley’s Greater Good in Action (https://ggia.berkeley.edu/).

While most grief is met with resilience, complicated grieving with persistent negative moods and emotions is common. We should consider seeking professional help if our emotions and pattern of thought continue to feel unhealthy.
 

Meaning and wisdom, not acceptance

Another change in our understanding of grief is this: Instead of “acceptance” being seen as the end result of grieving, meaning and wisdom are now recognized as the outcomes. Research has found that efforts to find meaning in loss facilitates the grieving process. As time passes and our sadness lessens, the loved one doesn’t leave us but stays with us as a better understanding of the beauty and complexity of life. The loss, through grieving, is transformed to wisdom that will guide us through future challenges and help us make sense of the world.

Last week, masked and robed and with an iPad in hand so the family could join the conversation, I was talking to Ms. B who is hospitalized with COVID-19. She said, “I just keep thinking, ‘Why is this happening to me? To all of us?’ And then I realized that it is a message from God that we need to do a better job of taking care of each other, and I suddenly felt a little better. What do you think, Dr. Hass?”

“Wow,” I said. “Thank you for sharing that. There is definitely some truth there. There is a lot to learn from the pandemic about how we care for each other. I need to keep that in mind when I start feeling down.”

So much is going on now: climate change, racial violence, frightening political dysfunction, and a global pandemic that has upended our daily routines and the economy. It is hard to keep track of all the loss and uncertainty. We might not know why feelings of sadness, anger and anxiety come on, but if we can meet these emotions with mindful equanimity, see them as part of our intrinsic healing process and keep in mind that our path will likely be towards one of wisdom and sense-making, we can better navigate these profoundly unsettling times.

Just as sadness is not grief, joy alone does not lead to happiness. A happy life comes as much from meaning as joy. While unbridled joy might be in short supply, our grief, our work as hospitalists with the suffering, and confronting the many problems our world faces gives us the opportunity to lead a meaningful life. If we couple this search for meaning with healthy habits that promote wellbeing, such as hugs, investing in relationships, and moving our body in the natural world, we can survive these crazy times and be wiser beings as a result of our experiences.
 

Dr. Hass is a hospitalist at Sutter East Bay Medical Group in Oakland, Calif. He is a member of the clinical faculty at the University of California, Berkeley-UC San Francisco joint medical program, and an adviser on health and health care at the Greater Good Science Center at UC Berkeley.

Reference

1. Bonanno GA, and Boerner K. The stage theory of grief. JAMA. 2007;297(24):2692-2694. doi:10.1001/jama.297.24.2693-a.

I arrived on the 6th floor nursing unit one day last fall to find halls abuzz with people. Something didn’t feel right, and then I a saw a nursing colleague with tears streaming down her face. My heart dropped. She looked up at me and said, “Dr Hass, K died last night.” She started to sob. I stood dumbfounded for a moment. We had lost a beloved coworker to COVID.

There has been a collective sense of grief in our country since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic as we have all been suffering losses: smiles, touch, in-person relationships, a “normal life.” But it went to another level for us at Alta Bates Summit Medical Center in Oakland, Calif., with the passing of a couple of our beloved teammates in the fall. Strong emotions triggered by these events caused me to pause and think: “What is grief? Is it another word for sadness? How do we work through it?”

What is the difference between sadness and grief? While related, they are temporally and functionally quite different. Sadness is an emotion, and like all emotions, we feel it in brief episodes. Those moments of profound sadness only last minutes at a time. Sadness leads to decreased physiological arousal, especially after crying. When less intense, the physiological slowing is thought to allow for some mental clarity that lets the loss sink in and moves us toward a recalibration process. These episodes of sadness occur more frequently and with greater intensity the closer we are to the triggering event.

While emotions last minutes, mood, another affective state, lasts hours to days and is less intense and specific in content. A sad mood can be present much of the time after a significant loss. Emotions predispose to moods and vice versa.

Grief, on the other hand, is a complex and lengthy process that moves us from a place of loss to a new place with a new equilibrium without the lost object. While sadness is about fully acknowledging the loss, the grieving process is about getting beyond it. The bigger the loss, the bigger the hole in your life and the longer the grieving process. Grief is a multi-emotional process with people often experiencing a range of emotions, such as shock, anger, and fear in addition to sadness.

As I grappled with my sense of loss, I realized that understanding the grieving process was going to help me as I navigate this world now full of loss. Here are a few things we should all keep in mind.
 

A sense of mindful self-awareness

As we work through our grief, a mindful self-awareness can help us identify our emotions and see them as part of the grieving process. Simply anticipating emotions can lessen the impact of them when they come. As they come on, try to name the emotion, e.g., “I am so sad,” and feel the experience in the body. The sadness can be cathartic, and by focusing on the body and not the head, we can also drop the sometimes healthy, sometimes unhealthy rants and ruminations that can accompany these events. If we experience the emotions with mindful self-awareness, we can see our emotions as part of a healing, grieving process, and we will likely be able to handle them more gracefully.

In the days after the death of my nursing colleague, my sad mood would be interrupted with flares of anger triggered by thoughts of those not wearing masks or spreading misinformation. Moving my thoughts to the emotions, I would say to myself, “I am really angry, and I am angry because of these deaths.” I felt the recognition of the emotions helped me better ride the big waves on the grieving journey.

Counter to the thinking of the 20th century, research by George Bonanno at Columbia University found that the majority of bereavement is met with resilience. We will be sad, we might have moments of anger or denial or fear, but for most of us, despite the gravity of the loss, our innate resilience will lead about 50-80% of us to recover to near our baseline in months. It is nice to know we are not repressing things if we don’t pass through all the stages postulated by Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, the dominate paradigm in the field.¹

For those grieving, this idea of resilience being the norm can provide reassurance during tough moments. While our degree of resilience will depend on our loss and our circumstance, the work of Lucy Hone, PhD, suggests that resilience can be fostered. Many of the negative feelings we experience have a flip side we can seek out. We can be grateful for what remains and what the departed has left us with. We can aid in our grieving journey by using many of the resources available from UC Berkeley’s Greater Good in Action (https://ggia.berkeley.edu/).

While most grief is met with resilience, complicated grieving with persistent negative moods and emotions is common. We should consider seeking professional help if our emotions and pattern of thought continue to feel unhealthy.
 

Meaning and wisdom, not acceptance

Another change in our understanding of grief is this: Instead of “acceptance” being seen as the end result of grieving, meaning and wisdom are now recognized as the outcomes. Research has found that efforts to find meaning in loss facilitates the grieving process. As time passes and our sadness lessens, the loved one doesn’t leave us but stays with us as a better understanding of the beauty and complexity of life. The loss, through grieving, is transformed to wisdom that will guide us through future challenges and help us make sense of the world.

Last week, masked and robed and with an iPad in hand so the family could join the conversation, I was talking to Ms. B who is hospitalized with COVID-19. She said, “I just keep thinking, ‘Why is this happening to me? To all of us?’ And then I realized that it is a message from God that we need to do a better job of taking care of each other, and I suddenly felt a little better. What do you think, Dr. Hass?”

“Wow,” I said. “Thank you for sharing that. There is definitely some truth there. There is a lot to learn from the pandemic about how we care for each other. I need to keep that in mind when I start feeling down.”

So much is going on now: climate change, racial violence, frightening political dysfunction, and a global pandemic that has upended our daily routines and the economy. It is hard to keep track of all the loss and uncertainty. We might not know why feelings of sadness, anger and anxiety come on, but if we can meet these emotions with mindful equanimity, see them as part of our intrinsic healing process and keep in mind that our path will likely be towards one of wisdom and sense-making, we can better navigate these profoundly unsettling times.

Just as sadness is not grief, joy alone does not lead to happiness. A happy life comes as much from meaning as joy. While unbridled joy might be in short supply, our grief, our work as hospitalists with the suffering, and confronting the many problems our world faces gives us the opportunity to lead a meaningful life. If we couple this search for meaning with healthy habits that promote wellbeing, such as hugs, investing in relationships, and moving our body in the natural world, we can survive these crazy times and be wiser beings as a result of our experiences.
 

Dr. Hass is a hospitalist at Sutter East Bay Medical Group in Oakland, Calif. He is a member of the clinical faculty at the University of California, Berkeley-UC San Francisco joint medical program, and an adviser on health and health care at the Greater Good Science Center at UC Berkeley.

Reference

1. Bonanno GA, and Boerner K. The stage theory of grief. JAMA. 2007;297(24):2692-2694. doi:10.1001/jama.297.24.2693-a.

I arrived on the 6th floor nursing unit one day last fall to find halls abuzz with people. Something didn’t feel right, and then I a saw a nursing colleague with tears streaming down her face. My heart dropped. She looked up at me and said, “Dr Hass, K died last night.” She started to sob. I stood dumbfounded for a moment. We had lost a beloved coworker to COVID.

There has been a collective sense of grief in our country since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic as we have all been suffering losses: smiles, touch, in-person relationships, a “normal life.” But it went to another level for us at Alta Bates Summit Medical Center in Oakland, Calif., with the passing of a couple of our beloved teammates in the fall. Strong emotions triggered by these events caused me to pause and think: “What is grief? Is it another word for sadness? How do we work through it?”

What is the difference between sadness and grief? While related, they are temporally and functionally quite different. Sadness is an emotion, and like all emotions, we feel it in brief episodes. Those moments of profound sadness only last minutes at a time. Sadness leads to decreased physiological arousal, especially after crying. When less intense, the physiological slowing is thought to allow for some mental clarity that lets the loss sink in and moves us toward a recalibration process. These episodes of sadness occur more frequently and with greater intensity the closer we are to the triggering event.

While emotions last minutes, mood, another affective state, lasts hours to days and is less intense and specific in content. A sad mood can be present much of the time after a significant loss. Emotions predispose to moods and vice versa.

Grief, on the other hand, is a complex and lengthy process that moves us from a place of loss to a new place with a new equilibrium without the lost object. While sadness is about fully acknowledging the loss, the grieving process is about getting beyond it. The bigger the loss, the bigger the hole in your life and the longer the grieving process. Grief is a multi-emotional process with people often experiencing a range of emotions, such as shock, anger, and fear in addition to sadness.

As I grappled with my sense of loss, I realized that understanding the grieving process was going to help me as I navigate this world now full of loss. Here are a few things we should all keep in mind.
 

A sense of mindful self-awareness

As we work through our grief, a mindful self-awareness can help us identify our emotions and see them as part of the grieving process. Simply anticipating emotions can lessen the impact of them when they come. As they come on, try to name the emotion, e.g., “I am so sad,” and feel the experience in the body. The sadness can be cathartic, and by focusing on the body and not the head, we can also drop the sometimes healthy, sometimes unhealthy rants and ruminations that can accompany these events. If we experience the emotions with mindful self-awareness, we can see our emotions as part of a healing, grieving process, and we will likely be able to handle them more gracefully.

In the days after the death of my nursing colleague, my sad mood would be interrupted with flares of anger triggered by thoughts of those not wearing masks or spreading misinformation. Moving my thoughts to the emotions, I would say to myself, “I am really angry, and I am angry because of these deaths.” I felt the recognition of the emotions helped me better ride the big waves on the grieving journey.

Counter to the thinking of the 20th century, research by George Bonanno at Columbia University found that the majority of bereavement is met with resilience. We will be sad, we might have moments of anger or denial or fear, but for most of us, despite the gravity of the loss, our innate resilience will lead about 50-80% of us to recover to near our baseline in months. It is nice to know we are not repressing things if we don’t pass through all the stages postulated by Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, the dominate paradigm in the field.¹

For those grieving, this idea of resilience being the norm can provide reassurance during tough moments. While our degree of resilience will depend on our loss and our circumstance, the work of Lucy Hone, PhD, suggests that resilience can be fostered. Many of the negative feelings we experience have a flip side we can seek out. We can be grateful for what remains and what the departed has left us with. We can aid in our grieving journey by using many of the resources available from UC Berkeley’s Greater Good in Action (https://ggia.berkeley.edu/).

While most grief is met with resilience, complicated grieving with persistent negative moods and emotions is common. We should consider seeking professional help if our emotions and pattern of thought continue to feel unhealthy.
 

Meaning and wisdom, not acceptance

Another change in our understanding of grief is this: Instead of “acceptance” being seen as the end result of grieving, meaning and wisdom are now recognized as the outcomes. Research has found that efforts to find meaning in loss facilitates the grieving process. As time passes and our sadness lessens, the loved one doesn’t leave us but stays with us as a better understanding of the beauty and complexity of life. The loss, through grieving, is transformed to wisdom that will guide us through future challenges and help us make sense of the world.

Last week, masked and robed and with an iPad in hand so the family could join the conversation, I was talking to Ms. B who is hospitalized with COVID-19. She said, “I just keep thinking, ‘Why is this happening to me? To all of us?’ And then I realized that it is a message from God that we need to do a better job of taking care of each other, and I suddenly felt a little better. What do you think, Dr. Hass?”

“Wow,” I said. “Thank you for sharing that. There is definitely some truth there. There is a lot to learn from the pandemic about how we care for each other. I need to keep that in mind when I start feeling down.”

So much is going on now: climate change, racial violence, frightening political dysfunction, and a global pandemic that has upended our daily routines and the economy. It is hard to keep track of all the loss and uncertainty. We might not know why feelings of sadness, anger and anxiety come on, but if we can meet these emotions with mindful equanimity, see them as part of our intrinsic healing process and keep in mind that our path will likely be towards one of wisdom and sense-making, we can better navigate these profoundly unsettling times.

Just as sadness is not grief, joy alone does not lead to happiness. A happy life comes as much from meaning as joy. While unbridled joy might be in short supply, our grief, our work as hospitalists with the suffering, and confronting the many problems our world faces gives us the opportunity to lead a meaningful life. If we couple this search for meaning with healthy habits that promote wellbeing, such as hugs, investing in relationships, and moving our body in the natural world, we can survive these crazy times and be wiser beings as a result of our experiences.
 

Dr. Hass is a hospitalist at Sutter East Bay Medical Group in Oakland, Calif. He is a member of the clinical faculty at the University of California, Berkeley-UC San Francisco joint medical program, and an adviser on health and health care at the Greater Good Science Center at UC Berkeley.

Reference

1. Bonanno GA, and Boerner K. The stage theory of grief. JAMA. 2007;297(24):2692-2694. doi:10.1001/jama.297.24.2693-a.

Agents that reverse the effect of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are highly effective in patients with severe bleeding, but mortality rates remain high despite their use, a meta-analysis shows.

Effective hemostasis was achieved in 78.5% of patients treated with a reversal agent, whereas failure to achieve hemostasis was associated with more than a threefold higher relative risk for death (relative risk, 3.63; 95% confidence interval, 2.56-5.16).

“This has implications in practice because it emphasizes the need for achieving effective hemostasis, if not with only one agent, trying other agents or treatment modalities, because it is a strong predictor of survival,” lead author Antonio Gómez-Outes, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

The bad news, he said, is that the mortality rate was still significant, at 17.7%, and approximately half of patients with DOAC-related severe intracranial bleeding survived with long-term moderate/severe disability.

“The lesson is to prevent these bleeding events because once they appear, even if you give an antidote, the outcome is poor, particularly for intracranial bleeding,” said Dr. Gómez-Outes, division of pharmacology and clinical drug evaluation, Spanish Agency for Medicines and Medical Devices, Madrid.

To put this in context, mortality rates were close to 50% after intracranial bleeding a decade ago when there were no antidotes or reversal agents, he observed. “So to some extent, patient care has improved, and the outcome has improved, but there is a long road to improve regarding disability.”

More than 100,000 DOAC-related major bleeding cases occur each year in the United States and European Union, Dr. Gómez-Outes said, and about half are severe enough to require hospitalization and potentially the use of a reversal agent. These include idarucizumab (Praxbind) for dabigatran reversal and prothombin complex concentrates (4CCC) or andexanet alpha (Andexxa) for reversal of direct factor Xa inhibitors like rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban.

As reported in the June 22 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the meta-analysis comprised 4,735 patients (mean age, 77 years; 57% male) with severe DOAC-related bleeding who received 4PCC (n = 2,688), idarucizumab (n = 1,111), or andexanet (n = 936) in 60 studies between January 2010 and December 2020.

Atrial fibrillation (AFib) was the most common reason for use of a DOAC (82%), followed by venous thromboembolism (14%). Rivaroxaban was used in 36%, apixaban in 32%, dabigatran in 31%, and edoxaban in 1%.

The index bleeding event was intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) in 55%. Anticoagulation was restarted in 57% of patients an average of 11 days after admission.

Mortality rates were 20.2% in patients with ICH and 15.4% in those with extracranial bleeding. There were no differences in death rates by reversal agent used, type of study, risk for bias, or study sponsorship in meta-regression analysis.

Rebleeding occurred in 13.2% of patients; 82.0% of these events were described as an ICH, and 78.0% occurred after anticoagulation was restarted.

The overall rate of thromboembolism was 4.6%. The risk was particularly high with andexanet, at 10.7%, and relatively low with idarucizumab (3.8%) and 4PCC (4.3%), the authors note.

“Our meta-analysis suggests specific reversal with andexanet is not superior to unspecific reversal with 4PCC, and that’s good news because many centers, in many countries, have no access to specific antidotes that are more costly,” Dr. Gómez-Outes said. “4PCC is an effective and relatively safe drug, so it’s still a good option for these patients.”

Labeling for andexanet includes a warning for thromboembolic events, but in the absence of direct comparisons, the findings should be interpreted with caution, he added. Further insights are expected from an ongoing randomized trial of andexanet and standard of care in 900 patients who present with acute ICH less than 15 hours after taking an oral factor Xa inhibitor. The preliminary completion date is set for 2023.

“The meta-analysis raises awareness about the rates of mortality and thromboembolism after reversal agent administration, although understanding the implications of these data is challenging,” Christopher Granger, MD, and Sean P. Pokomey, MD, MBA, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., say in an accompanying editorial.

The fact that failure to achieve hemostasis was associated with death is expected and might be related to the way hemostasis was defined, rather than the actual failure of the hemostatic treatments, they suggest. “The prothrombotic effects of each agent, including andexanet, need to be better understood, as clinicians work toward including reversal agents into algorithms for bleeding management.”

Effective hemostasis was defined in the studies through various methods as: “Excellent/good” using the Sarode and ANNEXA-4 scales; “yes” in the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis Scale; and with other scales and through clinical judgment.

Although the size of the meta-analysis dwarfs previous reviews, the editorialists and authors point out that 47 of the 60 studies were retrospective, only two had control groups, and 45 had a high risk for bias.

In general, there was also poor reporting of key clinical data, such as postbleeding anticoagulation management, and a limitation of the mortality analysis is that it was based in selected patients with effective hemostasis assessed within 48 hours, which may not capture early deaths, the authors note.

“The morbidity and mortality from ischemic strokes as a result of undertreatment of stroke prevention in patients with AFib continue to dwarf the bleeding related mortality among patients with AFib and on DOACs, and thus the number one priority is to treat nearly all patients with AFib with a DOAC,” Dr. Granger and Dr. Pokomey conclude. “The availability of reversal agents for DOACs should provide reassurance, with another tool in our armamentarium, to providers to prescribe OACs for stroke prevention.”

No funding/grant support was received to conduct the study. Coauthor Ramón Lecumberri has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bristol Myers Squibb outside the submitted work. All other authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Granger has received research and consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Janssen, Boston Scientific, Apple, AstraZeneca, Novartis, AbbVie, Biomed, CeleCor, GSK, Novartis, Medtronic, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Philips, Rho, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Pokomey has received modest consulting support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Janssen, and Zoll; modest research support from Gilead, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Janssen; and significant research support from the FDA.

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

Agents that reverse the effect of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are highly effective in patients with severe bleeding, but mortality rates remain high despite their use, a meta-analysis shows.

Effective hemostasis was achieved in 78.5% of patients treated with a reversal agent, whereas failure to achieve hemostasis was associated with more than a threefold higher relative risk for death (relative risk, 3.63; 95% confidence interval, 2.56-5.16).

“This has implications in practice because it emphasizes the need for achieving effective hemostasis, if not with only one agent, trying other agents or treatment modalities, because it is a strong predictor of survival,” lead author Antonio Gómez-Outes, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

The bad news, he said, is that the mortality rate was still significant, at 17.7%, and approximately half of patients with DOAC-related severe intracranial bleeding survived with long-term moderate/severe disability.

“The lesson is to prevent these bleeding events because once they appear, even if you give an antidote, the outcome is poor, particularly for intracranial bleeding,” said Dr. Gómez-Outes, division of pharmacology and clinical drug evaluation, Spanish Agency for Medicines and Medical Devices, Madrid.

To put this in context, mortality rates were close to 50% after intracranial bleeding a decade ago when there were no antidotes or reversal agents, he observed. “So to some extent, patient care has improved, and the outcome has improved, but there is a long road to improve regarding disability.”

More than 100,000 DOAC-related major bleeding cases occur each year in the United States and European Union, Dr. Gómez-Outes said, and about half are severe enough to require hospitalization and potentially the use of a reversal agent. These include idarucizumab (Praxbind) for dabigatran reversal and prothombin complex concentrates (4CCC) or andexanet alpha (Andexxa) for reversal of direct factor Xa inhibitors like rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban.

As reported in the June 22 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the meta-analysis comprised 4,735 patients (mean age, 77 years; 57% male) with severe DOAC-related bleeding who received 4PCC (n = 2,688), idarucizumab (n = 1,111), or andexanet (n = 936) in 60 studies between January 2010 and December 2020.

Atrial fibrillation (AFib) was the most common reason for use of a DOAC (82%), followed by venous thromboembolism (14%). Rivaroxaban was used in 36%, apixaban in 32%, dabigatran in 31%, and edoxaban in 1%.

The index bleeding event was intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) in 55%. Anticoagulation was restarted in 57% of patients an average of 11 days after admission.

Mortality rates were 20.2% in patients with ICH and 15.4% in those with extracranial bleeding. There were no differences in death rates by reversal agent used, type of study, risk for bias, or study sponsorship in meta-regression analysis.

Rebleeding occurred in 13.2% of patients; 82.0% of these events were described as an ICH, and 78.0% occurred after anticoagulation was restarted.

The overall rate of thromboembolism was 4.6%. The risk was particularly high with andexanet, at 10.7%, and relatively low with idarucizumab (3.8%) and 4PCC (4.3%), the authors note.

“Our meta-analysis suggests specific reversal with andexanet is not superior to unspecific reversal with 4PCC, and that’s good news because many centers, in many countries, have no access to specific antidotes that are more costly,” Dr. Gómez-Outes said. “4PCC is an effective and relatively safe drug, so it’s still a good option for these patients.”

Labeling for andexanet includes a warning for thromboembolic events, but in the absence of direct comparisons, the findings should be interpreted with caution, he added. Further insights are expected from an ongoing randomized trial of andexanet and standard of care in 900 patients who present with acute ICH less than 15 hours after taking an oral factor Xa inhibitor. The preliminary completion date is set for 2023.

“The meta-analysis raises awareness about the rates of mortality and thromboembolism after reversal agent administration, although understanding the implications of these data is challenging,” Christopher Granger, MD, and Sean P. Pokomey, MD, MBA, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., say in an accompanying editorial.

The fact that failure to achieve hemostasis was associated with death is expected and might be related to the way hemostasis was defined, rather than the actual failure of the hemostatic treatments, they suggest. “The prothrombotic effects of each agent, including andexanet, need to be better understood, as clinicians work toward including reversal agents into algorithms for bleeding management.”

Effective hemostasis was defined in the studies through various methods as: “Excellent/good” using the Sarode and ANNEXA-4 scales; “yes” in the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis Scale; and with other scales and through clinical judgment.

Although the size of the meta-analysis dwarfs previous reviews, the editorialists and authors point out that 47 of the 60 studies were retrospective, only two had control groups, and 45 had a high risk for bias.

In general, there was also poor reporting of key clinical data, such as postbleeding anticoagulation management, and a limitation of the mortality analysis is that it was based in selected patients with effective hemostasis assessed within 48 hours, which may not capture early deaths, the authors note.

“The morbidity and mortality from ischemic strokes as a result of undertreatment of stroke prevention in patients with AFib continue to dwarf the bleeding related mortality among patients with AFib and on DOACs, and thus the number one priority is to treat nearly all patients with AFib with a DOAC,” Dr. Granger and Dr. Pokomey conclude. “The availability of reversal agents for DOACs should provide reassurance, with another tool in our armamentarium, to providers to prescribe OACs for stroke prevention.”

No funding/grant support was received to conduct the study. Coauthor Ramón Lecumberri has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bristol Myers Squibb outside the submitted work. All other authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Granger has received research and consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Janssen, Boston Scientific, Apple, AstraZeneca, Novartis, AbbVie, Biomed, CeleCor, GSK, Novartis, Medtronic, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Philips, Rho, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Pokomey has received modest consulting support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Janssen, and Zoll; modest research support from Gilead, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Janssen; and significant research support from the FDA.

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

Agents that reverse the effect of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are highly effective in patients with severe bleeding, but mortality rates remain high despite their use, a meta-analysis shows.

Effective hemostasis was achieved in 78.5% of patients treated with a reversal agent, whereas failure to achieve hemostasis was associated with more than a threefold higher relative risk for death (relative risk, 3.63; 95% confidence interval, 2.56-5.16).

“This has implications in practice because it emphasizes the need for achieving effective hemostasis, if not with only one agent, trying other agents or treatment modalities, because it is a strong predictor of survival,” lead author Antonio Gómez-Outes, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

The bad news, he said, is that the mortality rate was still significant, at 17.7%, and approximately half of patients with DOAC-related severe intracranial bleeding survived with long-term moderate/severe disability.

“The lesson is to prevent these bleeding events because once they appear, even if you give an antidote, the outcome is poor, particularly for intracranial bleeding,” said Dr. Gómez-Outes, division of pharmacology and clinical drug evaluation, Spanish Agency for Medicines and Medical Devices, Madrid.

To put this in context, mortality rates were close to 50% after intracranial bleeding a decade ago when there were no antidotes or reversal agents, he observed. “So to some extent, patient care has improved, and the outcome has improved, but there is a long road to improve regarding disability.”

More than 100,000 DOAC-related major bleeding cases occur each year in the United States and European Union, Dr. Gómez-Outes said, and about half are severe enough to require hospitalization and potentially the use of a reversal agent. These include idarucizumab (Praxbind) for dabigatran reversal and prothombin complex concentrates (4CCC) or andexanet alpha (Andexxa) for reversal of direct factor Xa inhibitors like rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban.

As reported in the June 22 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the meta-analysis comprised 4,735 patients (mean age, 77 years; 57% male) with severe DOAC-related bleeding who received 4PCC (n = 2,688), idarucizumab (n = 1,111), or andexanet (n = 936) in 60 studies between January 2010 and December 2020.

Atrial fibrillation (AFib) was the most common reason for use of a DOAC (82%), followed by venous thromboembolism (14%). Rivaroxaban was used in 36%, apixaban in 32%, dabigatran in 31%, and edoxaban in 1%.

The index bleeding event was intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) in 55%. Anticoagulation was restarted in 57% of patients an average of 11 days after admission.

Mortality rates were 20.2% in patients with ICH and 15.4% in those with extracranial bleeding. There were no differences in death rates by reversal agent used, type of study, risk for bias, or study sponsorship in meta-regression analysis.

Rebleeding occurred in 13.2% of patients; 82.0% of these events were described as an ICH, and 78.0% occurred after anticoagulation was restarted.

The overall rate of thromboembolism was 4.6%. The risk was particularly high with andexanet, at 10.7%, and relatively low with idarucizumab (3.8%) and 4PCC (4.3%), the authors note.

“Our meta-analysis suggests specific reversal with andexanet is not superior to unspecific reversal with 4PCC, and that’s good news because many centers, in many countries, have no access to specific antidotes that are more costly,” Dr. Gómez-Outes said. “4PCC is an effective and relatively safe drug, so it’s still a good option for these patients.”

Labeling for andexanet includes a warning for thromboembolic events, but in the absence of direct comparisons, the findings should be interpreted with caution, he added. Further insights are expected from an ongoing randomized trial of andexanet and standard of care in 900 patients who present with acute ICH less than 15 hours after taking an oral factor Xa inhibitor. The preliminary completion date is set for 2023.

“The meta-analysis raises awareness about the rates of mortality and thromboembolism after reversal agent administration, although understanding the implications of these data is challenging,” Christopher Granger, MD, and Sean P. Pokomey, MD, MBA, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., say in an accompanying editorial.

The fact that failure to achieve hemostasis was associated with death is expected and might be related to the way hemostasis was defined, rather than the actual failure of the hemostatic treatments, they suggest. “The prothrombotic effects of each agent, including andexanet, need to be better understood, as clinicians work toward including reversal agents into algorithms for bleeding management.”

Effective hemostasis was defined in the studies through various methods as: “Excellent/good” using the Sarode and ANNEXA-4 scales; “yes” in the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis Scale; and with other scales and through clinical judgment.

Although the size of the meta-analysis dwarfs previous reviews, the editorialists and authors point out that 47 of the 60 studies were retrospective, only two had control groups, and 45 had a high risk for bias.

In general, there was also poor reporting of key clinical data, such as postbleeding anticoagulation management, and a limitation of the mortality analysis is that it was based in selected patients with effective hemostasis assessed within 48 hours, which may not capture early deaths, the authors note.

“The morbidity and mortality from ischemic strokes as a result of undertreatment of stroke prevention in patients with AFib continue to dwarf the bleeding related mortality among patients with AFib and on DOACs, and thus the number one priority is to treat nearly all patients with AFib with a DOAC,” Dr. Granger and Dr. Pokomey conclude. “The availability of reversal agents for DOACs should provide reassurance, with another tool in our armamentarium, to providers to prescribe OACs for stroke prevention.”

No funding/grant support was received to conduct the study. Coauthor Ramón Lecumberri has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bristol Myers Squibb outside the submitted work. All other authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Granger has received research and consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Janssen, Boston Scientific, Apple, AstraZeneca, Novartis, AbbVie, Biomed, CeleCor, GSK, Novartis, Medtronic, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Philips, Rho, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Pokomey has received modest consulting support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Janssen, and Zoll; modest research support from Gilead, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Janssen; and significant research support from the FDA.

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

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act June 17 in a 7 to 2 vote, rejecting claims by the challengers that the requirement for all Americans to obtain health insurance is unconstitutional.

ETIENJones/thinkstockphotos

The challengers were comprised of 18 GOP-dominated states, led by Texas, that took issue with the ACA’s individual mandate – which required most Americans to have health insurance or pay a tax penalty.

But Congress reduced the penalty to zero in 2017. Challengers argued that without the mandate,  the rest of the law should be scrapped, too. The court ruled that eliminated the harm the states were claiming.

“To have standing, a plaintiff must ‘allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief,’” the majority wrote. “No plaintiff has shown such an injury ‘fairly traceable’ to the ‘allegedly unlawful conduct’ challenged here.”

Justice Stephen Breyer authored the opinion. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

The decision said that the mandate in question did not require the 18 states that brought the complaint to pay anything, and therefore they had no standing.

President Joe Biden has said he plans to build on the ACA – which was enacted while he was vice president – to offer coverage to more Americans.

This marks the third time the Supreme Court spared the Obama-era law from GOP attacks. The mandate was also upheld in 2012 in a 5 to 4 ruling.

American Medical Association president Gerald Harmon, MD, also called for building on the ruling to expand the law.

“With yet another court decision upholding the ACA now behind us, we remain committed to strengthening the current law and look forward to policymakers advancing solutions to improve the ACA,” Dr. Harmon said in a statement. “The AMA will continue working to expand access to health care and ensure that all Americans have meaningful, comprehensive, and affordable health coverage to improve the health of the nation.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a longtime advocate for the ACA, called the decision a “landmark victory for Democrats.”

“Thanks to the tireless advocacy of Americans across the country and Democrats in Congress, the Affordable Care Act endures as a pillar of American health and economic security alongside Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security,” she said in a statement.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) also celebrated the ruling.

“The Affordable Care Act has won. The Supreme Court has just ruled: the ACA is here to stay and now we’re going to try to make it bigger and better,” he said, according to CNN. “For more than a decade, the assault on our health care law was relentless from Republicans in Congress, from the executive branch itself and from Republican attorneys general in the courts. Each time in each arena, the ACA has prevailed.”

This article was updated June 17, 2021.

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

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act June 17 in a 7 to 2 vote, rejecting claims by the challengers that the requirement for all Americans to obtain health insurance is unconstitutional.

ETIENJones/thinkstockphotos

The challengers were comprised of 18 GOP-dominated states, led by Texas, that took issue with the ACA’s individual mandate – which required most Americans to have health insurance or pay a tax penalty.

But Congress reduced the penalty to zero in 2017. Challengers argued that without the mandate,  the rest of the law should be scrapped, too. The court ruled that eliminated the harm the states were claiming.

“To have standing, a plaintiff must ‘allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief,’” the majority wrote. “No plaintiff has shown such an injury ‘fairly traceable’ to the ‘allegedly unlawful conduct’ challenged here.”

Justice Stephen Breyer authored the opinion. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

The decision said that the mandate in question did not require the 18 states that brought the complaint to pay anything, and therefore they had no standing.

President Joe Biden has said he plans to build on the ACA – which was enacted while he was vice president – to offer coverage to more Americans.

This marks the third time the Supreme Court spared the Obama-era law from GOP attacks. The mandate was also upheld in 2012 in a 5 to 4 ruling.

American Medical Association president Gerald Harmon, MD, also called for building on the ruling to expand the law.

“With yet another court decision upholding the ACA now behind us, we remain committed to strengthening the current law and look forward to policymakers advancing solutions to improve the ACA,” Dr. Harmon said in a statement. “The AMA will continue working to expand access to health care and ensure that all Americans have meaningful, comprehensive, and affordable health coverage to improve the health of the nation.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a longtime advocate for the ACA, called the decision a “landmark victory for Democrats.”

“Thanks to the tireless advocacy of Americans across the country and Democrats in Congress, the Affordable Care Act endures as a pillar of American health and economic security alongside Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security,” she said in a statement.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) also celebrated the ruling.

“The Affordable Care Act has won. The Supreme Court has just ruled: the ACA is here to stay and now we’re going to try to make it bigger and better,” he said, according to CNN. “For more than a decade, the assault on our health care law was relentless from Republicans in Congress, from the executive branch itself and from Republican attorneys general in the courts. Each time in each arena, the ACA has prevailed.”

This article was updated June 17, 2021.

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

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act June 17 in a 7 to 2 vote, rejecting claims by the challengers that the requirement for all Americans to obtain health insurance is unconstitutional.

ETIENJones/thinkstockphotos

The challengers were comprised of 18 GOP-dominated states, led by Texas, that took issue with the ACA’s individual mandate – which required most Americans to have health insurance or pay a tax penalty.

But Congress reduced the penalty to zero in 2017. Challengers argued that without the mandate,  the rest of the law should be scrapped, too. The court ruled that eliminated the harm the states were claiming.

“To have standing, a plaintiff must ‘allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief,’” the majority wrote. “No plaintiff has shown such an injury ‘fairly traceable’ to the ‘allegedly unlawful conduct’ challenged here.”

Justice Stephen Breyer authored the opinion. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

The decision said that the mandate in question did not require the 18 states that brought the complaint to pay anything, and therefore they had no standing.

President Joe Biden has said he plans to build on the ACA – which was enacted while he was vice president – to offer coverage to more Americans.

This marks the third time the Supreme Court spared the Obama-era law from GOP attacks. The mandate was also upheld in 2012 in a 5 to 4 ruling.

American Medical Association president Gerald Harmon, MD, also called for building on the ruling to expand the law.

“With yet another court decision upholding the ACA now behind us, we remain committed to strengthening the current law and look forward to policymakers advancing solutions to improve the ACA,” Dr. Harmon said in a statement. “The AMA will continue working to expand access to health care and ensure that all Americans have meaningful, comprehensive, and affordable health coverage to improve the health of the nation.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a longtime advocate for the ACA, called the decision a “landmark victory for Democrats.”

“Thanks to the tireless advocacy of Americans across the country and Democrats in Congress, the Affordable Care Act endures as a pillar of American health and economic security alongside Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security,” she said in a statement.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) also celebrated the ruling.

“The Affordable Care Act has won. The Supreme Court has just ruled: the ACA is here to stay and now we’re going to try to make it bigger and better,” he said, according to CNN. “For more than a decade, the assault on our health care law was relentless from Republicans in Congress, from the executive branch itself and from Republican attorneys general in the courts. Each time in each arena, the ACA has prevailed.”

This article was updated June 17, 2021.

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

While the investigation into cases of myocarditis possibly associated with COVID vaccines proceeds, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association (ASA) continue to urge everyone who is eligible for the vaccine to get it without delay.

“We remain confident that the benefits of vaccination far exceed the very unusual risks,” the leadership of the AHA/ASA said in a statement issued June 12.

“The risks of COVID-19 infection include its potentially fatal consequences and the potential long-term health effects that are still revealing themselves, including lingering consequences affecting the heart, brain, vascular system, and other organs after infection,” they point out.

Late last week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention alerted health care providers that the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Work Group (VaST) of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) will meet June 18 to review cases of myocarditis reported in adolescents and young adults after they received a COVID-19 vaccine manufactured by Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna.

The CDC is monitoring the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) and the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) for cases of myocarditis that have been associated with the mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 from Pfizer and Moderna.

These cases may occur more often in males than females and more frequently after the second dose than the first dose of either mRNA vaccine. Symptoms typically occur in the 3 days after administration.

“The CDC’s ongoing investigation into cases of suspected myocarditis reflects a strong and steadfast commitment to transparency and the importance of scientific rigor on all fronts. We applaud the CDC’s unwavering efforts to lead our nation’s scientific and public health efforts, including ensuring the continued safety of the COVID-19 vaccines,” the AHA/ASA states.

They emphasize that vaccinations should continue, and say it’s important to consider the details of the suspected myocarditis cases being investigated by the CDC.

As of June 11, more than 306 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been administered in the United States (since Dec. 14, 2020) and nearly 43% of Americans – more than 142 million people – are now fully vaccinated.

According to the June 10 CDC VAERS report detailing adverse events through May 31:

• 789 cases of suspected myocarditis have been reported, with 475 involving people younger than 30 years; 79 cases reported were in patients 16 or 17 years old.
• The vast majority (81%) of the 270 patients younger than 30 years who were discharged from care after suspected myocarditis related to COVID-19 vaccination have recovered fully; the remaining 19% of patients report ongoing symptoms or complete data are missing.
• 196 cases of suspected myocarditis after a COVID-19 vaccine were reported in young adults 18 to 24 years of age, which is higher than expected for this age group.

As of May 31, only about 9% of the COVID-19 vaccine doses administered were to people 16 to 24 years of age, which is why this “higher-than-normal rate of possible myocarditis cases” warrants investigation, the AHA/ASA says.

They note that these suspected myocarditis cases were reported to VAERS because of their proximity to COVID-19 vaccine administration.

It remains to be determined which cases meet the clinical criteria for a diagnosis of myocarditis and whether they have any direct connection to the COVID-19 vaccine, the AHA/ASA says.

They urge all health care professionals to be aware of “very rare” adverse events that could be related to a COVID-19 vaccine, including myocarditis, blood clots, low platelets, and symptoms of severe inflammation.

They advise asking patients who present with symptoms related to these conditions about the timing of recent COVID vaccinations, as needed, to confirm the diagnosis and provide appropriate treatment quickly.

The AHA will be at the CDC’s June 18 meeting to review the latest evidence on cases of suspected myocarditis after the COVID-19 vaccine, the statement adds.

The statement notes that it reflects the views of the AHA/ASA and its scientific leadership, including current president Mitchel S.V. Elkind, MD, PhD; immediate past-president Robert A. Harrington, MD; president-elect Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD; AHA/ASA chief science and medical officer Mariell Jessup, MD; and chief medical officer for prevention Eduardo Sanchez, MD, MPH.

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

While the investigation into cases of myocarditis possibly associated with COVID vaccines proceeds, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association (ASA) continue to urge everyone who is eligible for the vaccine to get it without delay.

“We remain confident that the benefits of vaccination far exceed the very unusual risks,” the leadership of the AHA/ASA said in a statement issued June 12.

“The risks of COVID-19 infection include its potentially fatal consequences and the potential long-term health effects that are still revealing themselves, including lingering consequences affecting the heart, brain, vascular system, and other organs after infection,” they point out.

Late last week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention alerted health care providers that the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Work Group (VaST) of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) will meet June 18 to review cases of myocarditis reported in adolescents and young adults after they received a COVID-19 vaccine manufactured by Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna.

The CDC is monitoring the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) and the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) for cases of myocarditis that have been associated with the mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 from Pfizer and Moderna.

These cases may occur more often in males than females and more frequently after the second dose than the first dose of either mRNA vaccine. Symptoms typically occur in the 3 days after administration.

“The CDC’s ongoing investigation into cases of suspected myocarditis reflects a strong and steadfast commitment to transparency and the importance of scientific rigor on all fronts. We applaud the CDC’s unwavering efforts to lead our nation’s scientific and public health efforts, including ensuring the continued safety of the COVID-19 vaccines,” the AHA/ASA states.

They emphasize that vaccinations should continue, and say it’s important to consider the details of the suspected myocarditis cases being investigated by the CDC.

As of June 11, more than 306 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been administered in the United States (since Dec. 14, 2020) and nearly 43% of Americans – more than 142 million people – are now fully vaccinated.

According to the June 10 CDC VAERS report detailing adverse events through May 31:

• 789 cases of suspected myocarditis have been reported, with 475 involving people younger than 30 years; 79 cases reported were in patients 16 or 17 years old.
• The vast majority (81%) of the 270 patients younger than 30 years who were discharged from care after suspected myocarditis related to COVID-19 vaccination have recovered fully; the remaining 19% of patients report ongoing symptoms or complete data are missing.
• 196 cases of suspected myocarditis after a COVID-19 vaccine were reported in young adults 18 to 24 years of age, which is higher than expected for this age group.

As of May 31, only about 9% of the COVID-19 vaccine doses administered were to people 16 to 24 years of age, which is why this “higher-than-normal rate of possible myocarditis cases” warrants investigation, the AHA/ASA says.

They note that these suspected myocarditis cases were reported to VAERS because of their proximity to COVID-19 vaccine administration.

It remains to be determined which cases meet the clinical criteria for a diagnosis of myocarditis and whether they have any direct connection to the COVID-19 vaccine, the AHA/ASA says.

They urge all health care professionals to be aware of “very rare” adverse events that could be related to a COVID-19 vaccine, including myocarditis, blood clots, low platelets, and symptoms of severe inflammation.

They advise asking patients who present with symptoms related to these conditions about the timing of recent COVID vaccinations, as needed, to confirm the diagnosis and provide appropriate treatment quickly.

The AHA will be at the CDC’s June 18 meeting to review the latest evidence on cases of suspected myocarditis after the COVID-19 vaccine, the statement adds.

The statement notes that it reflects the views of the AHA/ASA and its scientific leadership, including current president Mitchel S.V. Elkind, MD, PhD; immediate past-president Robert A. Harrington, MD; president-elect Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD; AHA/ASA chief science and medical officer Mariell Jessup, MD; and chief medical officer for prevention Eduardo Sanchez, MD, MPH.

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

While the investigation into cases of myocarditis possibly associated with COVID vaccines proceeds, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association (ASA) continue to urge everyone who is eligible for the vaccine to get it without delay.

“We remain confident that the benefits of vaccination far exceed the very unusual risks,” the leadership of the AHA/ASA said in a statement issued June 12.

“The risks of COVID-19 infection include its potentially fatal consequences and the potential long-term health effects that are still revealing themselves, including lingering consequences affecting the heart, brain, vascular system, and other organs after infection,” they point out.

Late last week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention alerted health care providers that the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Work Group (VaST) of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) will meet June 18 to review cases of myocarditis reported in adolescents and young adults after they received a COVID-19 vaccine manufactured by Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna.

The CDC is monitoring the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) and the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) for cases of myocarditis that have been associated with the mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 from Pfizer and Moderna.

These cases may occur more often in males than females and more frequently after the second dose than the first dose of either mRNA vaccine. Symptoms typically occur in the 3 days after administration.

“The CDC’s ongoing investigation into cases of suspected myocarditis reflects a strong and steadfast commitment to transparency and the importance of scientific rigor on all fronts. We applaud the CDC’s unwavering efforts to lead our nation’s scientific and public health efforts, including ensuring the continued safety of the COVID-19 vaccines,” the AHA/ASA states.

They emphasize that vaccinations should continue, and say it’s important to consider the details of the suspected myocarditis cases being investigated by the CDC.

As of June 11, more than 306 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been administered in the United States (since Dec. 14, 2020) and nearly 43% of Americans – more than 142 million people – are now fully vaccinated.

According to the June 10 CDC VAERS report detailing adverse events through May 31:

• 789 cases of suspected myocarditis have been reported, with 475 involving people younger than 30 years; 79 cases reported were in patients 16 or 17 years old.
• The vast majority (81%) of the 270 patients younger than 30 years who were discharged from care after suspected myocarditis related to COVID-19 vaccination have recovered fully; the remaining 19% of patients report ongoing symptoms or complete data are missing.
• 196 cases of suspected myocarditis after a COVID-19 vaccine were reported in young adults 18 to 24 years of age, which is higher than expected for this age group.

As of May 31, only about 9% of the COVID-19 vaccine doses administered were to people 16 to 24 years of age, which is why this “higher-than-normal rate of possible myocarditis cases” warrants investigation, the AHA/ASA says.

They note that these suspected myocarditis cases were reported to VAERS because of their proximity to COVID-19 vaccine administration.

It remains to be determined which cases meet the clinical criteria for a diagnosis of myocarditis and whether they have any direct connection to the COVID-19 vaccine, the AHA/ASA says.

They urge all health care professionals to be aware of “very rare” adverse events that could be related to a COVID-19 vaccine, including myocarditis, blood clots, low platelets, and symptoms of severe inflammation.

They advise asking patients who present with symptoms related to these conditions about the timing of recent COVID vaccinations, as needed, to confirm the diagnosis and provide appropriate treatment quickly.

The AHA will be at the CDC’s June 18 meeting to review the latest evidence on cases of suspected myocarditis after the COVID-19 vaccine, the statement adds.

The statement notes that it reflects the views of the AHA/ASA and its scientific leadership, including current president Mitchel S.V. Elkind, MD, PhD; immediate past-president Robert A. Harrington, MD; president-elect Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD; AHA/ASA chief science and medical officer Mariell Jessup, MD; and chief medical officer for prevention Eduardo Sanchez, MD, MPH.

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

Gradually, we are emerging from the chaos, isolation, and anxiety of COVID-19. As the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention adjusts its recommendations and vaccinations become more widely available, our communities are beginning to return to normalcy. We are encouraged to put aside our masks if vaccinated and rejoin society, to venture out with less hesitancy and anxiety. As family and friends reunite, memories of confusion, frustration, and fear are beginning to fade to black. Despite the prevailing belief that we should move on, look forward, and remember the past to safeguard our future, remnants of the pandemic remain.

shironosov/Getty Images

Unvaccinated individuals, notably children under the age of 12, are quite significant in number. The use of telehealth is now standard practice.

For several years, we were warned about the looming “mental health crisis.” The past year has demonstrated that a crisis no longer looms – it has arrived. Our patients can reveal the vulnerability COVID-19 has wrought – from the devastation of lives lost, supply shortages, loss of employment and financial stability – to a lack of access to computers and thereby, the risk of educational decline. Those factors, coupled with isolation and uncertainty about the future, have led to an influx of individuals with anxiety, depression, and other mood disorders seeking mental health treatment.
 

Doctors, others suffering

As result of a medical culture guided by the sacred oath to which care, compassion, and dedication held as true in ancient Greece as it does today, the focus centers on those around us – while signs of our own weariness are waved away as “a bad day.” Even though several support groups are readily available to offer a listening ear and mental health physicians who focus on the treatment of health care professionals are becoming more ubiquitous, the vestiges of past doctrine remain.

In this modern age of medical training, there is often as much sacrifice as there is attainment of knowledge. This philosophy is so ingrained that throughout training and practice one may come across colleagues experiencing an abundance of guilt when leave is needed for personal reasons. We are quick to recommend such steps for our patients, family, and friends, but hesitant to consider such for ourselves. Yet, of all the lessons this past year has wrought, the importance of mental health and self-care cannot be overstated. This raises the question: How do we incorporate wellness into our routines while navigating the complexity of medicine?

It is vital to accept our humanity as something not to repair, treat, or overcome but to understand. There is strength and power in vulnerability. If we do not perceive and validate this process within ourselves, how can we do so for others? In other words, the oxygen mask must be placed on us first before we can place it on anyone else – patients or otherwise.

Chiefly and above all else, the importance of identifying individual signs of stress is essential. Where do you hold tension? Are you prone to GI distress or headaches when taxed? Do you tend toward irritability, apathy, or exhaustion?

Once this is determined, it is important to assess your stress on a numerical scale, such as those used for pain. Are you a 5 or an 8? Finally, are there identifiable triggers or reliable alleviators? Is there a time of day or day of the week that is most difficult to manage? Can you anticipate potential stressors? Understanding your triggers, listening to your body, and practicing the language of self is the first step toward wellness.

Following introspection and observation, the next step is inventory. Take stock of your reserves. What replenishes? What depletes? What brings joy? What brings dread? Are there certain activities that mitigate stress? If so, how much time do they entail? Identify your number on a scale and associate that number with specific strategies or techniques. Remember that decompression for a 6 might be excessive for a 4. Furthermore, what is the duration of these feelings? Chronic stressors may incur gradual change verses sudden impact if acute. Through identifying personal signs, devising and using a scale, as well as escalating or de-escalating factors, individuals become more in tune with their bodies and therefore, more likely to intervene before burnout takes hold.

With this process well integrated, one can now consider stylized approaches for stress management. For example, those inclined toward mindfulness practices may find yoga, meditation, and relaxation exercises beneficial. Others may thrive on positive affirmations, gratitude, and thankfulness. While some might find relief in physical activity, be it strenuous or casual, the creative arts might appeal to those who find joy in painting, writing, or doing crafts. In addition, baking, reading, dancing, and/or listening to music might help lift stress.

Along with those discoveries, or in some cases, rediscoveries, basic needs such as dietary habits and nutrition, hydration, and sleep are vital toward emotional regulation, physiological homeostasis, and stress modulation. Remember HALT: Hungry, Angry, Lonely, Tired, Too hot, Too cold, Sad or Stressed. Those strategies are meant to guide self-care and highlight the importance of allowing time for self-awareness. Imagine yourself as if you are meeting a new patient. Establish rapport, identify symptoms, and explore options for treatment. When we give time to ourselves, we can give time more freely to others. With this in mind, try following the 5-minute wellness check that I formulated:

1. How am I feeling? What am I feeling?

2. Assess HALTS.

3. Identify the number on your scale.

4. Methods of quick de-escalation:

• Designate and schedule personal time.
• Write down daily goals.
• Repeat positive affirmations or write down words of gratitude.
• Use deep breathing exercises.
• Stretch or take a brief walk.
• Engage in mindfulness practices, such as meditation.

Once we develop a habit of monitoring, assessing, and practicing self-care, the process becomes more efficient and effective. Think of the way a seasoned attending can manage workflow with ease, compared with an intern. Recognizing signs and using these strategies routinely can become a quick daily measure of well-being.
 

Dr. Thomas is a board-certified adult psychiatrist with interests in chronic illness, women’s behavioral health, and minority mental health. She currently practices in North Kingstown and East Providence, R.I. Dr. Thomas has no conflicts of interest.

Gradually, we are emerging from the chaos, isolation, and anxiety of COVID-19. As the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention adjusts its recommendations and vaccinations become more widely available, our communities are beginning to return to normalcy. We are encouraged to put aside our masks if vaccinated and rejoin society, to venture out with less hesitancy and anxiety. As family and friends reunite, memories of confusion, frustration, and fear are beginning to fade to black. Despite the prevailing belief that we should move on, look forward, and remember the past to safeguard our future, remnants of the pandemic remain.

shironosov/Getty Images

Unvaccinated individuals, notably children under the age of 12, are quite significant in number. The use of telehealth is now standard practice.

For several years, we were warned about the looming “mental health crisis.” The past year has demonstrated that a crisis no longer looms – it has arrived. Our patients can reveal the vulnerability COVID-19 has wrought – from the devastation of lives lost, supply shortages, loss of employment and financial stability – to a lack of access to computers and thereby, the risk of educational decline. Those factors, coupled with isolation and uncertainty about the future, have led to an influx of individuals with anxiety, depression, and other mood disorders seeking mental health treatment.
 

Doctors, others suffering

As result of a medical culture guided by the sacred oath to which care, compassion, and dedication held as true in ancient Greece as it does today, the focus centers on those around us – while signs of our own weariness are waved away as “a bad day.” Even though several support groups are readily available to offer a listening ear and mental health physicians who focus on the treatment of health care professionals are becoming more ubiquitous, the vestiges of past doctrine remain.

In this modern age of medical training, there is often as much sacrifice as there is attainment of knowledge. This philosophy is so ingrained that throughout training and practice one may come across colleagues experiencing an abundance of guilt when leave is needed for personal reasons. We are quick to recommend such steps for our patients, family, and friends, but hesitant to consider such for ourselves. Yet, of all the lessons this past year has wrought, the importance of mental health and self-care cannot be overstated. This raises the question: How do we incorporate wellness into our routines while navigating the complexity of medicine?

It is vital to accept our humanity as something not to repair, treat, or overcome but to understand. There is strength and power in vulnerability. If we do not perceive and validate this process within ourselves, how can we do so for others? In other words, the oxygen mask must be placed on us first before we can place it on anyone else – patients or otherwise.

Chiefly and above all else, the importance of identifying individual signs of stress is essential. Where do you hold tension? Are you prone to GI distress or headaches when taxed? Do you tend toward irritability, apathy, or exhaustion?

Once this is determined, it is important to assess your stress on a numerical scale, such as those used for pain. Are you a 5 or an 8? Finally, are there identifiable triggers or reliable alleviators? Is there a time of day or day of the week that is most difficult to manage? Can you anticipate potential stressors? Understanding your triggers, listening to your body, and practicing the language of self is the first step toward wellness.

Following introspection and observation, the next step is inventory. Take stock of your reserves. What replenishes? What depletes? What brings joy? What brings dread? Are there certain activities that mitigate stress? If so, how much time do they entail? Identify your number on a scale and associate that number with specific strategies or techniques. Remember that decompression for a 6 might be excessive for a 4. Furthermore, what is the duration of these feelings? Chronic stressors may incur gradual change verses sudden impact if acute. Through identifying personal signs, devising and using a scale, as well as escalating or de-escalating factors, individuals become more in tune with their bodies and therefore, more likely to intervene before burnout takes hold.

With this process well integrated, one can now consider stylized approaches for stress management. For example, those inclined toward mindfulness practices may find yoga, meditation, and relaxation exercises beneficial. Others may thrive on positive affirmations, gratitude, and thankfulness. While some might find relief in physical activity, be it strenuous or casual, the creative arts might appeal to those who find joy in painting, writing, or doing crafts. In addition, baking, reading, dancing, and/or listening to music might help lift stress.

Along with those discoveries, or in some cases, rediscoveries, basic needs such as dietary habits and nutrition, hydration, and sleep are vital toward emotional regulation, physiological homeostasis, and stress modulation. Remember HALT: Hungry, Angry, Lonely, Tired, Too hot, Too cold, Sad or Stressed. Those strategies are meant to guide self-care and highlight the importance of allowing time for self-awareness. Imagine yourself as if you are meeting a new patient. Establish rapport, identify symptoms, and explore options for treatment. When we give time to ourselves, we can give time more freely to others. With this in mind, try following the 5-minute wellness check that I formulated:

1. How am I feeling? What am I feeling?

2. Assess HALTS.

3. Identify the number on your scale.

4. Methods of quick de-escalation:

• Designate and schedule personal time.
• Write down daily goals.
• Repeat positive affirmations or write down words of gratitude.
• Use deep breathing exercises.
• Stretch or take a brief walk.
• Engage in mindfulness practices, such as meditation.

Once we develop a habit of monitoring, assessing, and practicing self-care, the process becomes more efficient and effective. Think of the way a seasoned attending can manage workflow with ease, compared with an intern. Recognizing signs and using these strategies routinely can become a quick daily measure of well-being.
 

Dr. Thomas is a board-certified adult psychiatrist with interests in chronic illness, women’s behavioral health, and minority mental health. She currently practices in North Kingstown and East Providence, R.I. Dr. Thomas has no conflicts of interest.

Gradually, we are emerging from the chaos, isolation, and anxiety of COVID-19. As the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention adjusts its recommendations and vaccinations become more widely available, our communities are beginning to return to normalcy. We are encouraged to put aside our masks if vaccinated and rejoin society, to venture out with less hesitancy and anxiety. As family and friends reunite, memories of confusion, frustration, and fear are beginning to fade to black. Despite the prevailing belief that we should move on, look forward, and remember the past to safeguard our future, remnants of the pandemic remain.

shironosov/Getty Images

Unvaccinated individuals, notably children under the age of 12, are quite significant in number. The use of telehealth is now standard practice.

For several years, we were warned about the looming “mental health crisis.” The past year has demonstrated that a crisis no longer looms – it has arrived. Our patients can reveal the vulnerability COVID-19 has wrought – from the devastation of lives lost, supply shortages, loss of employment and financial stability – to a lack of access to computers and thereby, the risk of educational decline. Those factors, coupled with isolation and uncertainty about the future, have led to an influx of individuals with anxiety, depression, and other mood disorders seeking mental health treatment.
 

Doctors, others suffering

As result of a medical culture guided by the sacred oath to which care, compassion, and dedication held as true in ancient Greece as it does today, the focus centers on those around us – while signs of our own weariness are waved away as “a bad day.” Even though several support groups are readily available to offer a listening ear and mental health physicians who focus on the treatment of health care professionals are becoming more ubiquitous, the vestiges of past doctrine remain.

In this modern age of medical training, there is often as much sacrifice as there is attainment of knowledge. This philosophy is so ingrained that throughout training and practice one may come across colleagues experiencing an abundance of guilt when leave is needed for personal reasons. We are quick to recommend such steps for our patients, family, and friends, but hesitant to consider such for ourselves. Yet, of all the lessons this past year has wrought, the importance of mental health and self-care cannot be overstated. This raises the question: How do we incorporate wellness into our routines while navigating the complexity of medicine?

It is vital to accept our humanity as something not to repair, treat, or overcome but to understand. There is strength and power in vulnerability. If we do not perceive and validate this process within ourselves, how can we do so for others? In other words, the oxygen mask must be placed on us first before we can place it on anyone else – patients or otherwise.

Chiefly and above all else, the importance of identifying individual signs of stress is essential. Where do you hold tension? Are you prone to GI distress or headaches when taxed? Do you tend toward irritability, apathy, or exhaustion?

Once this is determined, it is important to assess your stress on a numerical scale, such as those used for pain. Are you a 5 or an 8? Finally, are there identifiable triggers or reliable alleviators? Is there a time of day or day of the week that is most difficult to manage? Can you anticipate potential stressors? Understanding your triggers, listening to your body, and practicing the language of self is the first step toward wellness.

Following introspection and observation, the next step is inventory. Take stock of your reserves. What replenishes? What depletes? What brings joy? What brings dread? Are there certain activities that mitigate stress? If so, how much time do they entail? Identify your number on a scale and associate that number with specific strategies or techniques. Remember that decompression for a 6 might be excessive for a 4. Furthermore, what is the duration of these feelings? Chronic stressors may incur gradual change verses sudden impact if acute. Through identifying personal signs, devising and using a scale, as well as escalating or de-escalating factors, individuals become more in tune with their bodies and therefore, more likely to intervene before burnout takes hold.

With this process well integrated, one can now consider stylized approaches for stress management. For example, those inclined toward mindfulness practices may find yoga, meditation, and relaxation exercises beneficial. Others may thrive on positive affirmations, gratitude, and thankfulness. While some might find relief in physical activity, be it strenuous or casual, the creative arts might appeal to those who find joy in painting, writing, or doing crafts. In addition, baking, reading, dancing, and/or listening to music might help lift stress.

Along with those discoveries, or in some cases, rediscoveries, basic needs such as dietary habits and nutrition, hydration, and sleep are vital toward emotional regulation, physiological homeostasis, and stress modulation. Remember HALT: Hungry, Angry, Lonely, Tired, Too hot, Too cold, Sad or Stressed. Those strategies are meant to guide self-care and highlight the importance of allowing time for self-awareness. Imagine yourself as if you are meeting a new patient. Establish rapport, identify symptoms, and explore options for treatment. When we give time to ourselves, we can give time more freely to others. With this in mind, try following the 5-minute wellness check that I formulated:

1. How am I feeling? What am I feeling?

2. Assess HALTS.

3. Identify the number on your scale.

4. Methods of quick de-escalation:

• Designate and schedule personal time.
• Write down daily goals.
• Repeat positive affirmations or write down words of gratitude.
• Use deep breathing exercises.
• Stretch or take a brief walk.
• Engage in mindfulness practices, such as meditation.

Once we develop a habit of monitoring, assessing, and practicing self-care, the process becomes more efficient and effective. Think of the way a seasoned attending can manage workflow with ease, compared with an intern. Recognizing signs and using these strategies routinely can become a quick daily measure of well-being.
 

Dr. Thomas is a board-certified adult psychiatrist with interests in chronic illness, women’s behavioral health, and minority mental health. She currently practices in North Kingstown and East Providence, R.I. Dr. Thomas has no conflicts of interest.

Chilblain-like lesions seen in adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic are nonischemic and not related to systemic or localized SARS-CoV-2 infection, suggests a case series from Italy.

These lesions are “most likely are benign” and resolve on their own after 2-6 weeks, Valentina Discepolo, MD, PhD, University of Naples Federico II, told this news organization.

“They do not seem to be the manifestation of systemic inflammatory or autoimmune phenomena. According to our experience, they should not require a SARS-CoV-2–specific molecular or serological test since in all cases in our series they were negative,” said Dr. Discepolo.

The study was published online June 10, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.
 

‘COVID toes’ a fallacy?

The temporal association between the COVID-19 pandemic and the increasing number of chilblain-like lesions has led some in the media to call it “COVID toes,” the investigators wrote. However, data on the association with SARS-CoV-2 are controversial.

For this report, Dr. Discepolo and colleagues evaluated 17 adolescents who presented with chilblain-like lesions of the toes during the first wave of the pandemic in southern Italy.

None had evidence of current, past, or local SARS-CoV-2 infection.

“In our experience, chilblain-like lesions are not a manifestation of COVID-19, as shown by negative serological and molecular specific for SARS-CoV2,” Dr. Discepolo said in an interview.

The lesions were bilaterally distributed in 16 adolescents (94.1%) and heel skin was involved in 7 (41.2%). Ulceration complicated one patient during the active phase of the disease, and desquamation developed over time in three patients (17.6%). Only two patients (11.8%) had concurrent involvement of the fingers.

Self-administered therapies included topical antibiotics and/or corticosteroids, disinfectants, and antifungal agents; systemic antibiotics or corticosteroids were used rarely.

None of the therapies substantially changed the course of the lesions. Duration was “extremely variable,” ranging from 49 to 145 days; however, at follow-up, all patients had full resolution.

Almost invariably, the lesions were characterized by a triad of red dots, white rosettes, and white streaks on an erythematous background, the investigators reported.

In more than half the patients (56%), red dots often appeared as dotted and comma-shaped congested vessels that surrounded the rosettes in the early stage of the lesions. In later stages, red dots were still present, but the rosettes had disappeared.

Although found inconsistently in inflammatory cutaneous conditions, these three signs do not characterize the dermoscopic picture of perniosis, suggesting a distinct disease process, the investigators said.

 

Don’t blame it on ischemia, clots

Histologic analysis revealed “remodeling of the dermal blood vessels with a lobular arrangement, wall thickening, and a mild perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate,” they noted.

Punch biopsy of the involved skin mostly showed endothelial hyperplasia, mild lymphocytic infiltrate, and vessels’ architecture disruption with no papillary dermal edema or eosinophilic or neutrophilic infiltrate.

Pathology did not reveal any ischemic changes, which argues against systemic vasculopathy, Farzam Gorouhi, MD, from Kaiser Permanente, South Sacramento Medical Center, noted in a linked editorial. “Thus, this study provides further evidence against the thromboembolic nature of the presented pattern in adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Results of capillaroscopy, used to investigate structural changes in peripheral microcirculation, were either completely normal or showed rare ectasias, supporting a lack of systemic inflammatory process.

“The lack of capillaroscopic features of a major vasculopathic event in the study by Discepolo et al. argues against the ischemic nature of this disease and, thus, indicates that this presentation is not associated with systemic ischemia or an embolic event,” Dr. Gorouhi noted.

Chilblain-like lesions have been one of the most commonly described cutaneous manifestations during the COVID-19 pandemic, but their etiopathogenesis, including the role of SARS-CoV-2, has remained elusive, the investigators wrote.

The findings in this case series do not support the association of the lesions with SARS-CoV-2 infection, they concluded.

The fact that only three new cases of chilblain-like lesions were reported during the highest peaks of the pandemic further supports a lack of association with SARS-CoV-2 infection, they noted.

In addition, none of these patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and all three cases during the second wave occurred in the winter months, suggesting that exposure to the cold might, at least in some cases, trigger the skin lesions, the investigators said.

In line with this hypothesis, seven of the adolescents in this case series (41.2%) relapsed during the winter months while again testing negative for SARS-CoV-2.

“We believe that lifestyle modifications [reduced physical activity, microtraumatisms caused by walking barefoot at home] during the first strict lockdown played a role, likely promoting a local inflammatory process promoted by vascular stasis that led in genetically susceptible individuals to the onset of these lesions,” Dr. Discepolo said in an interview.

This research had no specific funding. The investigators and Dr. Gorouhi declared no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

Chilblain-like lesions seen in adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic are nonischemic and not related to systemic or localized SARS-CoV-2 infection, suggests a case series from Italy.

These lesions are “most likely are benign” and resolve on their own after 2-6 weeks, Valentina Discepolo, MD, PhD, University of Naples Federico II, told this news organization.

“They do not seem to be the manifestation of systemic inflammatory or autoimmune phenomena. According to our experience, they should not require a SARS-CoV-2–specific molecular or serological test since in all cases in our series they were negative,” said Dr. Discepolo.

The study was published online June 10, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.
 

‘COVID toes’ a fallacy?

The temporal association between the COVID-19 pandemic and the increasing number of chilblain-like lesions has led some in the media to call it “COVID toes,” the investigators wrote. However, data on the association with SARS-CoV-2 are controversial.

For this report, Dr. Discepolo and colleagues evaluated 17 adolescents who presented with chilblain-like lesions of the toes during the first wave of the pandemic in southern Italy.

None had evidence of current, past, or local SARS-CoV-2 infection.

“In our experience, chilblain-like lesions are not a manifestation of COVID-19, as shown by negative serological and molecular specific for SARS-CoV2,” Dr. Discepolo said in an interview.

The lesions were bilaterally distributed in 16 adolescents (94.1%) and heel skin was involved in 7 (41.2%). Ulceration complicated one patient during the active phase of the disease, and desquamation developed over time in three patients (17.6%). Only two patients (11.8%) had concurrent involvement of the fingers.

Self-administered therapies included topical antibiotics and/or corticosteroids, disinfectants, and antifungal agents; systemic antibiotics or corticosteroids were used rarely.

None of the therapies substantially changed the course of the lesions. Duration was “extremely variable,” ranging from 49 to 145 days; however, at follow-up, all patients had full resolution.

Almost invariably, the lesions were characterized by a triad of red dots, white rosettes, and white streaks on an erythematous background, the investigators reported.

In more than half the patients (56%), red dots often appeared as dotted and comma-shaped congested vessels that surrounded the rosettes in the early stage of the lesions. In later stages, red dots were still present, but the rosettes had disappeared.

Although found inconsistently in inflammatory cutaneous conditions, these three signs do not characterize the dermoscopic picture of perniosis, suggesting a distinct disease process, the investigators said.

 

Don’t blame it on ischemia, clots

Histologic analysis revealed “remodeling of the dermal blood vessels with a lobular arrangement, wall thickening, and a mild perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate,” they noted.

Punch biopsy of the involved skin mostly showed endothelial hyperplasia, mild lymphocytic infiltrate, and vessels’ architecture disruption with no papillary dermal edema or eosinophilic or neutrophilic infiltrate.

Pathology did not reveal any ischemic changes, which argues against systemic vasculopathy, Farzam Gorouhi, MD, from Kaiser Permanente, South Sacramento Medical Center, noted in a linked editorial. “Thus, this study provides further evidence against the thromboembolic nature of the presented pattern in adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Results of capillaroscopy, used to investigate structural changes in peripheral microcirculation, were either completely normal or showed rare ectasias, supporting a lack of systemic inflammatory process.

“The lack of capillaroscopic features of a major vasculopathic event in the study by Discepolo et al. argues against the ischemic nature of this disease and, thus, indicates that this presentation is not associated with systemic ischemia or an embolic event,” Dr. Gorouhi noted.

Chilblain-like lesions have been one of the most commonly described cutaneous manifestations during the COVID-19 pandemic, but their etiopathogenesis, including the role of SARS-CoV-2, has remained elusive, the investigators wrote.

The findings in this case series do not support the association of the lesions with SARS-CoV-2 infection, they concluded.

The fact that only three new cases of chilblain-like lesions were reported during the highest peaks of the pandemic further supports a lack of association with SARS-CoV-2 infection, they noted.

In addition, none of these patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and all three cases during the second wave occurred in the winter months, suggesting that exposure to the cold might, at least in some cases, trigger the skin lesions, the investigators said.

In line with this hypothesis, seven of the adolescents in this case series (41.2%) relapsed during the winter months while again testing negative for SARS-CoV-2.

“We believe that lifestyle modifications [reduced physical activity, microtraumatisms caused by walking barefoot at home] during the first strict lockdown played a role, likely promoting a local inflammatory process promoted by vascular stasis that led in genetically susceptible individuals to the onset of these lesions,” Dr. Discepolo said in an interview.

This research had no specific funding. The investigators and Dr. Gorouhi declared no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

Chilblain-like lesions seen in adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic are nonischemic and not related to systemic or localized SARS-CoV-2 infection, suggests a case series from Italy.

These lesions are “most likely are benign” and resolve on their own after 2-6 weeks, Valentina Discepolo, MD, PhD, University of Naples Federico II, told this news organization.

“They do not seem to be the manifestation of systemic inflammatory or autoimmune phenomena. According to our experience, they should not require a SARS-CoV-2–specific molecular or serological test since in all cases in our series they were negative,” said Dr. Discepolo.

The study was published online June 10, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.
 

‘COVID toes’ a fallacy?

The temporal association between the COVID-19 pandemic and the increasing number of chilblain-like lesions has led some in the media to call it “COVID toes,” the investigators wrote. However, data on the association with SARS-CoV-2 are controversial.

For this report, Dr. Discepolo and colleagues evaluated 17 adolescents who presented with chilblain-like lesions of the toes during the first wave of the pandemic in southern Italy.

None had evidence of current, past, or local SARS-CoV-2 infection.

“In our experience, chilblain-like lesions are not a manifestation of COVID-19, as shown by negative serological and molecular specific for SARS-CoV2,” Dr. Discepolo said in an interview.

The lesions were bilaterally distributed in 16 adolescents (94.1%) and heel skin was involved in 7 (41.2%). Ulceration complicated one patient during the active phase of the disease, and desquamation developed over time in three patients (17.6%). Only two patients (11.8%) had concurrent involvement of the fingers.

Self-administered therapies included topical antibiotics and/or corticosteroids, disinfectants, and antifungal agents; systemic antibiotics or corticosteroids were used rarely.

None of the therapies substantially changed the course of the lesions. Duration was “extremely variable,” ranging from 49 to 145 days; however, at follow-up, all patients had full resolution.

Almost invariably, the lesions were characterized by a triad of red dots, white rosettes, and white streaks on an erythematous background, the investigators reported.

In more than half the patients (56%), red dots often appeared as dotted and comma-shaped congested vessels that surrounded the rosettes in the early stage of the lesions. In later stages, red dots were still present, but the rosettes had disappeared.

Although found inconsistently in inflammatory cutaneous conditions, these three signs do not characterize the dermoscopic picture of perniosis, suggesting a distinct disease process, the investigators said.

 

Don’t blame it on ischemia, clots

Histologic analysis revealed “remodeling of the dermal blood vessels with a lobular arrangement, wall thickening, and a mild perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate,” they noted.

Punch biopsy of the involved skin mostly showed endothelial hyperplasia, mild lymphocytic infiltrate, and vessels’ architecture disruption with no papillary dermal edema or eosinophilic or neutrophilic infiltrate.

Pathology did not reveal any ischemic changes, which argues against systemic vasculopathy, Farzam Gorouhi, MD, from Kaiser Permanente, South Sacramento Medical Center, noted in a linked editorial. “Thus, this study provides further evidence against the thromboembolic nature of the presented pattern in adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Results of capillaroscopy, used to investigate structural changes in peripheral microcirculation, were either completely normal or showed rare ectasias, supporting a lack of systemic inflammatory process.

“The lack of capillaroscopic features of a major vasculopathic event in the study by Discepolo et al. argues against the ischemic nature of this disease and, thus, indicates that this presentation is not associated with systemic ischemia or an embolic event,” Dr. Gorouhi noted.

Chilblain-like lesions have been one of the most commonly described cutaneous manifestations during the COVID-19 pandemic, but their etiopathogenesis, including the role of SARS-CoV-2, has remained elusive, the investigators wrote.

The findings in this case series do not support the association of the lesions with SARS-CoV-2 infection, they concluded.

The fact that only three new cases of chilblain-like lesions were reported during the highest peaks of the pandemic further supports a lack of association with SARS-CoV-2 infection, they noted.

In addition, none of these patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and all three cases during the second wave occurred in the winter months, suggesting that exposure to the cold might, at least in some cases, trigger the skin lesions, the investigators said.

In line with this hypothesis, seven of the adolescents in this case series (41.2%) relapsed during the winter months while again testing negative for SARS-CoV-2.

“We believe that lifestyle modifications [reduced physical activity, microtraumatisms caused by walking barefoot at home] during the first strict lockdown played a role, likely promoting a local inflammatory process promoted by vascular stasis that led in genetically susceptible individuals to the onset of these lesions,” Dr. Discepolo said in an interview.

This research had no specific funding. The investigators and Dr. Gorouhi declared no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

Last month we converged virtually for our annual conference, SHM Converge – the second time since the start of the coronavirus pandemic. We are thankful for innovations and advancements in technology that have allowed the world, including SHM, to continue connecting us all together. And yet, 18 months in, having forged new roads, experienced unique and life-changing events, we long for the in-person human connection that allows us to share a common experience. At a time of imperatives in our world – a global pandemic, systemic racism, and deep geopolitical divides – more than ever, we need to converge. Isolation only festers, deepening our divisions and conflicts.

In high school, I read Robert Frost’s poem “The Road Not Taken” and clung to the notion of diverging roads and choosing the road less traveled. Like most young people, my years since reading the poem were filled with attempts at forging new paths and experiencing great things – and yet, always feeling unaccomplished. Was Oscar Wilde right when he wrote: “Life imitates Art far more than Art imitates Life?” After all, these past 18 months, we have shared in the traumas of our times, and still, we remain isolated and alone. Our diverse experiences have been real, both tragic and heroic, from east to west, city to country, black to white, and red to blue.

At SHM, it’s time to converge and face the great challenges of our lifetime. A deadly pandemic continues to rage around the world, bringing unprecedented human suffering and loss of lives. In its wake, this pandemic also laid bare the ugly face of systemic racism, brought our deepest divisions to the surface – all threatening the very fabric of our society. This pandemic has been a stress test for health care systems, revealing our vulnerabilities and expanding the chasm of care between urban and rural communities, all in turn worsening our growing health disparities. This moment needs convergence to rekindle connection and solidarity.

Scholars do not interpret “The Road Not Taken” as a recommendation to take the road less traveled. Instead, it is a suggestion that the diverging roads lead to a common place having been “worn about the same” as they “equally lay.” It is true that our roads are unique and shape our lives, but so, too, does the destination and common place our roads lead us to. At that common place, during these taxing times, SHM enables hospitalists to tackle these great challenges.

For over 2 decades of dynamic changes in health care, SHM has been the workshop where hospitalists converged to sharpen clinical skills, improve quality and safety, develop acute care models inside and outside of hospitals, advocate for better health policy and blaze new trails. Though the issues evolved, and new ones emerge, today is no different.

Indeed, this is an historic time. This weighted moment meets us at the crossroads. A moment that demands synergy, cooperation, and creativity. A dynamic change to health care policy, advances in care innovation, renewed prioritization of public health, and rich national discourse on our social fabric; hospitalists are essential to every one of those conversations. SHM has evolved to meet our growing needs, equipping hospitalists with tools to engage at every level, and most importantly, enabled us to find our common place.

Where do we go now? I suggest we continue to take the roads not taken and at the destination, build the map of tomorrow, together.

Dr. Siy is division medical director, hospital specialties, in the departments of hospital medicine and community senior and palliative care at HealthPartners in Bloomington, Minn. He is the new president of SHM.

Last month we converged virtually for our annual conference, SHM Converge – the second time since the start of the coronavirus pandemic. We are thankful for innovations and advancements in technology that have allowed the world, including SHM, to continue connecting us all together. And yet, 18 months in, having forged new roads, experienced unique and life-changing events, we long for the in-person human connection that allows us to share a common experience. At a time of imperatives in our world – a global pandemic, systemic racism, and deep geopolitical divides – more than ever, we need to converge. Isolation only festers, deepening our divisions and conflicts.

In high school, I read Robert Frost’s poem “The Road Not Taken” and clung to the notion of diverging roads and choosing the road less traveled. Like most young people, my years since reading the poem were filled with attempts at forging new paths and experiencing great things – and yet, always feeling unaccomplished. Was Oscar Wilde right when he wrote: “Life imitates Art far more than Art imitates Life?” After all, these past 18 months, we have shared in the traumas of our times, and still, we remain isolated and alone. Our diverse experiences have been real, both tragic and heroic, from east to west, city to country, black to white, and red to blue.

At SHM, it’s time to converge and face the great challenges of our lifetime. A deadly pandemic continues to rage around the world, bringing unprecedented human suffering and loss of lives. In its wake, this pandemic also laid bare the ugly face of systemic racism, brought our deepest divisions to the surface – all threatening the very fabric of our society. This pandemic has been a stress test for health care systems, revealing our vulnerabilities and expanding the chasm of care between urban and rural communities, all in turn worsening our growing health disparities. This moment needs convergence to rekindle connection and solidarity.

Scholars do not interpret “The Road Not Taken” as a recommendation to take the road less traveled. Instead, it is a suggestion that the diverging roads lead to a common place having been “worn about the same” as they “equally lay.” It is true that our roads are unique and shape our lives, but so, too, does the destination and common place our roads lead us to. At that common place, during these taxing times, SHM enables hospitalists to tackle these great challenges.

For over 2 decades of dynamic changes in health care, SHM has been the workshop where hospitalists converged to sharpen clinical skills, improve quality and safety, develop acute care models inside and outside of hospitals, advocate for better health policy and blaze new trails. Though the issues evolved, and new ones emerge, today is no different.

Indeed, this is an historic time. This weighted moment meets us at the crossroads. A moment that demands synergy, cooperation, and creativity. A dynamic change to health care policy, advances in care innovation, renewed prioritization of public health, and rich national discourse on our social fabric; hospitalists are essential to every one of those conversations. SHM has evolved to meet our growing needs, equipping hospitalists with tools to engage at every level, and most importantly, enabled us to find our common place.

Where do we go now? I suggest we continue to take the roads not taken and at the destination, build the map of tomorrow, together.

Dr. Siy is division medical director, hospital specialties, in the departments of hospital medicine and community senior and palliative care at HealthPartners in Bloomington, Minn. He is the new president of SHM.

Last month we converged virtually for our annual conference, SHM Converge – the second time since the start of the coronavirus pandemic. We are thankful for innovations and advancements in technology that have allowed the world, including SHM, to continue connecting us all together. And yet, 18 months in, having forged new roads, experienced unique and life-changing events, we long for the in-person human connection that allows us to share a common experience. At a time of imperatives in our world – a global pandemic, systemic racism, and deep geopolitical divides – more than ever, we need to converge. Isolation only festers, deepening our divisions and conflicts.

In high school, I read Robert Frost’s poem “The Road Not Taken” and clung to the notion of diverging roads and choosing the road less traveled. Like most young people, my years since reading the poem were filled with attempts at forging new paths and experiencing great things – and yet, always feeling unaccomplished. Was Oscar Wilde right when he wrote: “Life imitates Art far more than Art imitates Life?” After all, these past 18 months, we have shared in the traumas of our times, and still, we remain isolated and alone. Our diverse experiences have been real, both tragic and heroic, from east to west, city to country, black to white, and red to blue.

At SHM, it’s time to converge and face the great challenges of our lifetime. A deadly pandemic continues to rage around the world, bringing unprecedented human suffering and loss of lives. In its wake, this pandemic also laid bare the ugly face of systemic racism, brought our deepest divisions to the surface – all threatening the very fabric of our society. This pandemic has been a stress test for health care systems, revealing our vulnerabilities and expanding the chasm of care between urban and rural communities, all in turn worsening our growing health disparities. This moment needs convergence to rekindle connection and solidarity.

Scholars do not interpret “The Road Not Taken” as a recommendation to take the road less traveled. Instead, it is a suggestion that the diverging roads lead to a common place having been “worn about the same” as they “equally lay.” It is true that our roads are unique and shape our lives, but so, too, does the destination and common place our roads lead us to. At that common place, during these taxing times, SHM enables hospitalists to tackle these great challenges.

For over 2 decades of dynamic changes in health care, SHM has been the workshop where hospitalists converged to sharpen clinical skills, improve quality and safety, develop acute care models inside and outside of hospitals, advocate for better health policy and blaze new trails. Though the issues evolved, and new ones emerge, today is no different.

Indeed, this is an historic time. This weighted moment meets us at the crossroads. A moment that demands synergy, cooperation, and creativity. A dynamic change to health care policy, advances in care innovation, renewed prioritization of public health, and rich national discourse on our social fabric; hospitalists are essential to every one of those conversations. SHM has evolved to meet our growing needs, equipping hospitalists with tools to engage at every level, and most importantly, enabled us to find our common place.

Where do we go now? I suggest we continue to take the roads not taken and at the destination, build the map of tomorrow, together.

Dr. Siy is division medical director, hospital specialties, in the departments of hospital medicine and community senior and palliative care at HealthPartners in Bloomington, Minn. He is the new president of SHM.