The Hospitalist

It’s likely the United States will see another surge of COVID-19 this winter, warned Christopher Murray, MD, director of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington in Seattle.

Speaking at the national conference of State of Reform on April 8, Dr. Murray cited the seasonality of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which wanes in the summer and waxes in the winter. The “optimistic forecast” of IHME, which has modeled the course of the pandemic for the past 13 months, is that daily deaths will rise a bit in the next month, then decline from May through August, he said.

“Summer should be fairly quiet in terms of COVID, if vaccinations rise and people don’t stop wearing masks,” Dr. Murray said.

But he added that “a considerable surge will occur over next winter,” because the new variants are more transmissible, and people will likely relax social distancing and mask wearing. The IHME predicts that the percentage of Americans who usually don masks will decline from 73% today to 21% by Aug. 1.

With a rapid decline in mask use and a rise in mobility, there will still be more than 1,000 deaths each day by July 1, Dr. Murray said. In a forecast released the day after Dr. Murray spoke, the IHME predicted that by Aug. 1, there will be a total of 618,523 U.S. deaths from COVID-19. Deaths could be as high as 696,651 if mobility among the vaccinated returns to prepandemic levels, the institute forecasts.

Based on cell phone data, Dr. Murray said, the amount of mobility in the United States has already risen to the level of March 2020, when the pandemic was just getting underway.
 

Decreased infections

If there’s one piece of good news in the latest IHME report, it’s that the estimated number of people infected (including those not tested) will drop from 111,581 today to a projected 17,502 on Aug. 1. But in a worst-case scenario, with sharply higher mobility among vaccinated people, the case count on that date would only fall to 73,842.

The SARS-CoV-2 variants are another factor of concern. Dr. Murray distinguished between variants like the one first identified in the U.K. (B.1.1.7) and other “escape variants.”

B.1.1.7, which is now the dominant strain in the United States, increases transmission but doesn’t necessarily escape the immune system or vaccines, he explained.

In contrast, if someone is infected with a variant such as the South African or the Brazilian mutations, he said, a previous COVID-19 infection might not protect the person, and vaccines are less effective against those variants.

Cross-variant immunity may range from 0% to 60% for escape variants, based on the slim amount of data now available, Dr. Murray said. In his view, these variants will be the long-term driver of the pandemic in the United States, while the United Kingdom variant is the short-term driver.

The latest data, he said, show that the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are 75% effective against the escape variants, with lower efficacy for other vaccines. But booster shots may still be required to protect people against some variants.
 

Human factors

Human behavior will also help determine the course of the pandemic, he noted. Vaccine hesitancy, for example, is still high in the United States.

By the end of May, he predicted, about 180 million people will have received about two doses of vaccine. After that, he said, “vaccination will flatline due to lack of demand.” The two unknowns are how much campaigns to promote vaccination will increase vaccine confidence, and when children will be vaccinated.

In the United States, he said, 69% of adults have been vaccinated or want to get a shot. But that percentage has dropped 5 points since February, and vaccine confidence varies by state.

Dr. Murray emphasized that the winter surge he predicts can be blocked if people change their behaviors. These include a rise in vaccine confidence to 80% and continued mask wearing by most people.

However, if vaccine confidence and mask wearing decline, state governments continue to drop social distancing rules, and the uptake of boosters is low, the winter surge could be more serious, he said.
 

Double surge

Murray also raised the possibility of a double surge of COVID-19 and influenza this winter. Widely expected last winter, this double surge never materialized here or elsewhere, partly because of mask wearing. But Dr. Murray said it could happen this year: History shows that the flu tends to be stronger in years after weak outbreaks.

He advised hospitals to prepare now for whatever might come later this year. Public health authorities, he said, should speed up vaccination, monitor variants closely with additional sequencing, and try to modify behavior in high-risk groups.

Asked to explain the recent surge of COVID-19 cases in Michigan, Dr. Murray attributed it partly to the spread of the B.1.1.7 (U.K.) variant. But he noted that the U.K. variant has expanded even more widely in some other states that haven’t had an explosive surge like Michigan’s.

Moreover, he noted, Michigan doesn’t have low mask use or high mobility. So the upward spiral of COVID-19 infections there is very concerning, he said.

In regard to the role of children as reservoirs of the virus, Dr. Murray pointed out that views on this have changed around the world. For a while, people thought kids didn’t spread COVID-19 very much. That view shifted when U.K. data showed that child transmission of the B.1.1.7 variant increased by half to 9% of contacts in comparison with the original virus strain.

Dutch data, similarly, showed schools contributing to the latest outbreaks, and some European nations have closed schools. In the United States, the trend is to open them.

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

It’s likely the United States will see another surge of COVID-19 this winter, warned Christopher Murray, MD, director of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington in Seattle.

Speaking at the national conference of State of Reform on April 8, Dr. Murray cited the seasonality of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which wanes in the summer and waxes in the winter. The “optimistic forecast” of IHME, which has modeled the course of the pandemic for the past 13 months, is that daily deaths will rise a bit in the next month, then decline from May through August, he said.

“Summer should be fairly quiet in terms of COVID, if vaccinations rise and people don’t stop wearing masks,” Dr. Murray said.

But he added that “a considerable surge will occur over next winter,” because the new variants are more transmissible, and people will likely relax social distancing and mask wearing. The IHME predicts that the percentage of Americans who usually don masks will decline from 73% today to 21% by Aug. 1.

With a rapid decline in mask use and a rise in mobility, there will still be more than 1,000 deaths each day by July 1, Dr. Murray said. In a forecast released the day after Dr. Murray spoke, the IHME predicted that by Aug. 1, there will be a total of 618,523 U.S. deaths from COVID-19. Deaths could be as high as 696,651 if mobility among the vaccinated returns to prepandemic levels, the institute forecasts.

Based on cell phone data, Dr. Murray said, the amount of mobility in the United States has already risen to the level of March 2020, when the pandemic was just getting underway.
 

Decreased infections

If there’s one piece of good news in the latest IHME report, it’s that the estimated number of people infected (including those not tested) will drop from 111,581 today to a projected 17,502 on Aug. 1. But in a worst-case scenario, with sharply higher mobility among vaccinated people, the case count on that date would only fall to 73,842.

The SARS-CoV-2 variants are another factor of concern. Dr. Murray distinguished between variants like the one first identified in the U.K. (B.1.1.7) and other “escape variants.”

B.1.1.7, which is now the dominant strain in the United States, increases transmission but doesn’t necessarily escape the immune system or vaccines, he explained.

In contrast, if someone is infected with a variant such as the South African or the Brazilian mutations, he said, a previous COVID-19 infection might not protect the person, and vaccines are less effective against those variants.

Cross-variant immunity may range from 0% to 60% for escape variants, based on the slim amount of data now available, Dr. Murray said. In his view, these variants will be the long-term driver of the pandemic in the United States, while the United Kingdom variant is the short-term driver.

The latest data, he said, show that the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are 75% effective against the escape variants, with lower efficacy for other vaccines. But booster shots may still be required to protect people against some variants.
 

Human factors

Human behavior will also help determine the course of the pandemic, he noted. Vaccine hesitancy, for example, is still high in the United States.

By the end of May, he predicted, about 180 million people will have received about two doses of vaccine. After that, he said, “vaccination will flatline due to lack of demand.” The two unknowns are how much campaigns to promote vaccination will increase vaccine confidence, and when children will be vaccinated.

In the United States, he said, 69% of adults have been vaccinated or want to get a shot. But that percentage has dropped 5 points since February, and vaccine confidence varies by state.

Dr. Murray emphasized that the winter surge he predicts can be blocked if people change their behaviors. These include a rise in vaccine confidence to 80% and continued mask wearing by most people.

However, if vaccine confidence and mask wearing decline, state governments continue to drop social distancing rules, and the uptake of boosters is low, the winter surge could be more serious, he said.
 

Double surge

Murray also raised the possibility of a double surge of COVID-19 and influenza this winter. Widely expected last winter, this double surge never materialized here or elsewhere, partly because of mask wearing. But Dr. Murray said it could happen this year: History shows that the flu tends to be stronger in years after weak outbreaks.

He advised hospitals to prepare now for whatever might come later this year. Public health authorities, he said, should speed up vaccination, monitor variants closely with additional sequencing, and try to modify behavior in high-risk groups.

Asked to explain the recent surge of COVID-19 cases in Michigan, Dr. Murray attributed it partly to the spread of the B.1.1.7 (U.K.) variant. But he noted that the U.K. variant has expanded even more widely in some other states that haven’t had an explosive surge like Michigan’s.

Moreover, he noted, Michigan doesn’t have low mask use or high mobility. So the upward spiral of COVID-19 infections there is very concerning, he said.

In regard to the role of children as reservoirs of the virus, Dr. Murray pointed out that views on this have changed around the world. For a while, people thought kids didn’t spread COVID-19 very much. That view shifted when U.K. data showed that child transmission of the B.1.1.7 variant increased by half to 9% of contacts in comparison with the original virus strain.

Dutch data, similarly, showed schools contributing to the latest outbreaks, and some European nations have closed schools. In the United States, the trend is to open them.

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

It’s likely the United States will see another surge of COVID-19 this winter, warned Christopher Murray, MD, director of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington in Seattle.

Speaking at the national conference of State of Reform on April 8, Dr. Murray cited the seasonality of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which wanes in the summer and waxes in the winter. The “optimistic forecast” of IHME, which has modeled the course of the pandemic for the past 13 months, is that daily deaths will rise a bit in the next month, then decline from May through August, he said.

“Summer should be fairly quiet in terms of COVID, if vaccinations rise and people don’t stop wearing masks,” Dr. Murray said.

But he added that “a considerable surge will occur over next winter,” because the new variants are more transmissible, and people will likely relax social distancing and mask wearing. The IHME predicts that the percentage of Americans who usually don masks will decline from 73% today to 21% by Aug. 1.

With a rapid decline in mask use and a rise in mobility, there will still be more than 1,000 deaths each day by July 1, Dr. Murray said. In a forecast released the day after Dr. Murray spoke, the IHME predicted that by Aug. 1, there will be a total of 618,523 U.S. deaths from COVID-19. Deaths could be as high as 696,651 if mobility among the vaccinated returns to prepandemic levels, the institute forecasts.

Based on cell phone data, Dr. Murray said, the amount of mobility in the United States has already risen to the level of March 2020, when the pandemic was just getting underway.
 

Decreased infections

If there’s one piece of good news in the latest IHME report, it’s that the estimated number of people infected (including those not tested) will drop from 111,581 today to a projected 17,502 on Aug. 1. But in a worst-case scenario, with sharply higher mobility among vaccinated people, the case count on that date would only fall to 73,842.

The SARS-CoV-2 variants are another factor of concern. Dr. Murray distinguished between variants like the one first identified in the U.K. (B.1.1.7) and other “escape variants.”

B.1.1.7, which is now the dominant strain in the United States, increases transmission but doesn’t necessarily escape the immune system or vaccines, he explained.

In contrast, if someone is infected with a variant such as the South African or the Brazilian mutations, he said, a previous COVID-19 infection might not protect the person, and vaccines are less effective against those variants.

Cross-variant immunity may range from 0% to 60% for escape variants, based on the slim amount of data now available, Dr. Murray said. In his view, these variants will be the long-term driver of the pandemic in the United States, while the United Kingdom variant is the short-term driver.

The latest data, he said, show that the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are 75% effective against the escape variants, with lower efficacy for other vaccines. But booster shots may still be required to protect people against some variants.
 

Human factors

Human behavior will also help determine the course of the pandemic, he noted. Vaccine hesitancy, for example, is still high in the United States.

By the end of May, he predicted, about 180 million people will have received about two doses of vaccine. After that, he said, “vaccination will flatline due to lack of demand.” The two unknowns are how much campaigns to promote vaccination will increase vaccine confidence, and when children will be vaccinated.

In the United States, he said, 69% of adults have been vaccinated or want to get a shot. But that percentage has dropped 5 points since February, and vaccine confidence varies by state.

Dr. Murray emphasized that the winter surge he predicts can be blocked if people change their behaviors. These include a rise in vaccine confidence to 80% and continued mask wearing by most people.

However, if vaccine confidence and mask wearing decline, state governments continue to drop social distancing rules, and the uptake of boosters is low, the winter surge could be more serious, he said.
 

Double surge

Murray also raised the possibility of a double surge of COVID-19 and influenza this winter. Widely expected last winter, this double surge never materialized here or elsewhere, partly because of mask wearing. But Dr. Murray said it could happen this year: History shows that the flu tends to be stronger in years after weak outbreaks.

He advised hospitals to prepare now for whatever might come later this year. Public health authorities, he said, should speed up vaccination, monitor variants closely with additional sequencing, and try to modify behavior in high-risk groups.

Asked to explain the recent surge of COVID-19 cases in Michigan, Dr. Murray attributed it partly to the spread of the B.1.1.7 (U.K.) variant. But he noted that the U.K. variant has expanded even more widely in some other states that haven’t had an explosive surge like Michigan’s.

Moreover, he noted, Michigan doesn’t have low mask use or high mobility. So the upward spiral of COVID-19 infections there is very concerning, he said.

In regard to the role of children as reservoirs of the virus, Dr. Murray pointed out that views on this have changed around the world. For a while, people thought kids didn’t spread COVID-19 very much. That view shifted when U.K. data showed that child transmission of the B.1.1.7 variant increased by half to 9% of contacts in comparison with the original virus strain.

Dutch data, similarly, showed schools contributing to the latest outbreaks, and some European nations have closed schools. In the United States, the trend is to open them.

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

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

This article was updated 4/13/21.

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

This article was updated 4/13/21.

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

This article was updated 4/13/21.

A new antiplatelet drug with a completely novel mechanism of action may hold the promise of delivering the holy grail – reducing cardiac events without increasing bleeding. That is the hope behind the new class of drugs directed against the platelet collagen glycoprotein VI (GPVI) receptor.

A phase 2 trial with the first agent in this class, known as revacept (advanceCOR), showed no increase in bleeding with the product when added to standard dual-antiplatelet therapy for patients with stable ischemic heart disease undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), despite the drug’s being used at a dose that has been shown to increase platelet inhibition.

Unfortunately, there was no reduction in the primary clinical efficacy endpoint, a myocardial injury surrogate, but the authors pointed out that the overall event rate was low, and they were hopeful that future trials in a higher-risk population will show efficacy.

The ISAR PLASTER study was published online on March 31 in JAMA Cardiology.

“This new drug is targeting the collagen in the extracellular matrix of atherosclerotic plaque rather than the platelets themselves. So, in theory, this agent should not cause an increase in bleeding,” study author Steffen Massberg, DrMed, said in an interview.

Dr. Massberg explained that revacept targets the binding site for platelets on collagen that is exposed on rupture of atherosclerotic plaques and is a major trigger of platelet activation.

“In contrast to aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors, which target all platelets, revacept only binds to sites where there is ruptured plaque. But the platelets themselves otherwise have normal function, so regular coagulation processes should be unaffected,” he commented.

“While collagen also has a role in the coagulation process, it is more involved in atherosclerotic plaque rupture, and in animal studies, revacept was effective in preventing clot formation in large arteries but only had a small effect on bleeding,” Dr. Massberg added.

In the JAMA Cardiology article, the authors further elaborated that, when collagen is exposed during atherosclerotic plaque rupture, it binds platelet GPVI, the major platelet collagen receptor.

“Glycoprotein VI in turn mediates local platelet recruitment, activation, and aggregation. Glycoprotein VI is an attractive antiplatelet target because GPVI-mediated platelet response plays a central role during myocardial infarction and stroke but is less relevant in physiological hemostasis,” they wrote.

The researchers describe revacept as a dimeric, soluble fusion protein composed of the extracellular domain of the GPVI receptor and the human Fc-fragment. It competes with endogenous platelet GPVI for binding to exposed collagen fibers and inhibits collagen-mediated platelet adhesion and aggregation selectively at the site of plaque rupture.

In addition, revacept blocks binding of von Willebrand factor to collagen and inhibits von Willebrand factor–mediated platelet activation, they reported.

“As a lesion-directed drug, revacept does not interfere with the function of circulating platelets beyond the atherosclerotic lesion,” the authors said.

In animal studies and a phase 1 clinical trial, the drug was shown to inhibit atherothrombosis but to have little effect on systemic hemostasis or bleeding.

The current ISAR-PLASTER trial is the first study of the use of the agent for patients with coronary heart disease.

For the study, 334 patients with stable ischemic heart disease undergoing elective PCI were randomly assigned to receive a single intravenous infusion of revacept 160 mg, revacept 80 mg, or placebo prior to the start of PCI in addition to standard antithrombotic therapy.

The safety endpoint was bleeding of type 2-5, per Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria, at 30 days.

Results showed no significant differences in the primary efficacy endpoint (the composite of death or myocardial injury, defined as an increase in high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T [hsTnT] to at least five times the upper limit of normal within 48 hours from randomization) between the revacept and placebo groups. The primary efficacy endpoint occurred in 24.4% of the revacept 160-mg group, 25.0% of the revacept 80-mg group, and 23.3% of the placebo group.

The high dose of revacept was associated with a small but significant reduction of high-concentration collagen-induced platelet aggregation, but adenosine 5-diphosphate–induced aggregation was not affected.

Revacept did not increase bleeding. Bleeding of BARC type 2 or higher at 30 days occurred in 5.0% of the 160-mg group, 5.9% of the 80-mg group, and 8.6% of the placebo group.

Dr. Massberg pointed out that one possible explanation for the lack of difference in the efficacy outcome was that the patients enrolled in the study were at low risk.

“The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was very low (2.5% at 30 days), and this was a low-risk population undergoing elective PCI,” he commented.

The authors also pointed out that the five-times increase in hsTnT endpoint used in the current study has little prognostic impact.

In addition, Dr. Massberg noted that, in the stable situation, myocardial injury is mostly triggered by cholesterol embolism during PCI and side-branch occlusion due to distal plaque embolization, problems that are unlikely to respond to inhibition of GPVI-collagen interaction by revacept.

He suggested that better results may be achieved in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). “In ACS patients, the myocardial injury is caused by ongoing thrombotic cascades, where the collagen-platelet interaction plays a much larger role, so in theory, this drug should show a greater effect in an ACS population.”

The researchers are now planning a larger phase 3 study in that group.

“I am still optimistic. I still believe it could work,” Dr. Massberg said. “The major aim for this study was safety and dosing. There was no difference in bleeding, so safety was supported,” he added.

The ISAR-PLASTER study was funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research, Deutsches Herzzentrum Munchen, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, and advanceCOR (the manufacturer of revacept). One of the coauthors of the study is a cofounder of advanceCor.

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

A new antiplatelet drug with a completely novel mechanism of action may hold the promise of delivering the holy grail – reducing cardiac events without increasing bleeding. That is the hope behind the new class of drugs directed against the platelet collagen glycoprotein VI (GPVI) receptor.

A phase 2 trial with the first agent in this class, known as revacept (advanceCOR), showed no increase in bleeding with the product when added to standard dual-antiplatelet therapy for patients with stable ischemic heart disease undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), despite the drug’s being used at a dose that has been shown to increase platelet inhibition.

Unfortunately, there was no reduction in the primary clinical efficacy endpoint, a myocardial injury surrogate, but the authors pointed out that the overall event rate was low, and they were hopeful that future trials in a higher-risk population will show efficacy.

The ISAR PLASTER study was published online on March 31 in JAMA Cardiology.

“This new drug is targeting the collagen in the extracellular matrix of atherosclerotic plaque rather than the platelets themselves. So, in theory, this agent should not cause an increase in bleeding,” study author Steffen Massberg, DrMed, said in an interview.

Dr. Massberg explained that revacept targets the binding site for platelets on collagen that is exposed on rupture of atherosclerotic plaques and is a major trigger of platelet activation.

“In contrast to aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors, which target all platelets, revacept only binds to sites where there is ruptured plaque. But the platelets themselves otherwise have normal function, so regular coagulation processes should be unaffected,” he commented.

“While collagen also has a role in the coagulation process, it is more involved in atherosclerotic plaque rupture, and in animal studies, revacept was effective in preventing clot formation in large arteries but only had a small effect on bleeding,” Dr. Massberg added.

In the JAMA Cardiology article, the authors further elaborated that, when collagen is exposed during atherosclerotic plaque rupture, it binds platelet GPVI, the major platelet collagen receptor.

“Glycoprotein VI in turn mediates local platelet recruitment, activation, and aggregation. Glycoprotein VI is an attractive antiplatelet target because GPVI-mediated platelet response plays a central role during myocardial infarction and stroke but is less relevant in physiological hemostasis,” they wrote.

The researchers describe revacept as a dimeric, soluble fusion protein composed of the extracellular domain of the GPVI receptor and the human Fc-fragment. It competes with endogenous platelet GPVI for binding to exposed collagen fibers and inhibits collagen-mediated platelet adhesion and aggregation selectively at the site of plaque rupture.

In addition, revacept blocks binding of von Willebrand factor to collagen and inhibits von Willebrand factor–mediated platelet activation, they reported.

“As a lesion-directed drug, revacept does not interfere with the function of circulating platelets beyond the atherosclerotic lesion,” the authors said.

In animal studies and a phase 1 clinical trial, the drug was shown to inhibit atherothrombosis but to have little effect on systemic hemostasis or bleeding.

The current ISAR-PLASTER trial is the first study of the use of the agent for patients with coronary heart disease.

For the study, 334 patients with stable ischemic heart disease undergoing elective PCI were randomly assigned to receive a single intravenous infusion of revacept 160 mg, revacept 80 mg, or placebo prior to the start of PCI in addition to standard antithrombotic therapy.

The safety endpoint was bleeding of type 2-5, per Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria, at 30 days.

Results showed no significant differences in the primary efficacy endpoint (the composite of death or myocardial injury, defined as an increase in high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T [hsTnT] to at least five times the upper limit of normal within 48 hours from randomization) between the revacept and placebo groups. The primary efficacy endpoint occurred in 24.4% of the revacept 160-mg group, 25.0% of the revacept 80-mg group, and 23.3% of the placebo group.

The high dose of revacept was associated with a small but significant reduction of high-concentration collagen-induced platelet aggregation, but adenosine 5-diphosphate–induced aggregation was not affected.

Revacept did not increase bleeding. Bleeding of BARC type 2 or higher at 30 days occurred in 5.0% of the 160-mg group, 5.9% of the 80-mg group, and 8.6% of the placebo group.

Dr. Massberg pointed out that one possible explanation for the lack of difference in the efficacy outcome was that the patients enrolled in the study were at low risk.

“The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was very low (2.5% at 30 days), and this was a low-risk population undergoing elective PCI,” he commented.

The authors also pointed out that the five-times increase in hsTnT endpoint used in the current study has little prognostic impact.

In addition, Dr. Massberg noted that, in the stable situation, myocardial injury is mostly triggered by cholesterol embolism during PCI and side-branch occlusion due to distal plaque embolization, problems that are unlikely to respond to inhibition of GPVI-collagen interaction by revacept.

He suggested that better results may be achieved in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). “In ACS patients, the myocardial injury is caused by ongoing thrombotic cascades, where the collagen-platelet interaction plays a much larger role, so in theory, this drug should show a greater effect in an ACS population.”

The researchers are now planning a larger phase 3 study in that group.

“I am still optimistic. I still believe it could work,” Dr. Massberg said. “The major aim for this study was safety and dosing. There was no difference in bleeding, so safety was supported,” he added.

The ISAR-PLASTER study was funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research, Deutsches Herzzentrum Munchen, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, and advanceCOR (the manufacturer of revacept). One of the coauthors of the study is a cofounder of advanceCor.

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

A new antiplatelet drug with a completely novel mechanism of action may hold the promise of delivering the holy grail – reducing cardiac events without increasing bleeding. That is the hope behind the new class of drugs directed against the platelet collagen glycoprotein VI (GPVI) receptor.

A phase 2 trial with the first agent in this class, known as revacept (advanceCOR), showed no increase in bleeding with the product when added to standard dual-antiplatelet therapy for patients with stable ischemic heart disease undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), despite the drug’s being used at a dose that has been shown to increase platelet inhibition.

Unfortunately, there was no reduction in the primary clinical efficacy endpoint, a myocardial injury surrogate, but the authors pointed out that the overall event rate was low, and they were hopeful that future trials in a higher-risk population will show efficacy.

The ISAR PLASTER study was published online on March 31 in JAMA Cardiology.

“This new drug is targeting the collagen in the extracellular matrix of atherosclerotic plaque rather than the platelets themselves. So, in theory, this agent should not cause an increase in bleeding,” study author Steffen Massberg, DrMed, said in an interview.

Dr. Massberg explained that revacept targets the binding site for platelets on collagen that is exposed on rupture of atherosclerotic plaques and is a major trigger of platelet activation.

“In contrast to aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors, which target all platelets, revacept only binds to sites where there is ruptured plaque. But the platelets themselves otherwise have normal function, so regular coagulation processes should be unaffected,” he commented.

“While collagen also has a role in the coagulation process, it is more involved in atherosclerotic plaque rupture, and in animal studies, revacept was effective in preventing clot formation in large arteries but only had a small effect on bleeding,” Dr. Massberg added.

In the JAMA Cardiology article, the authors further elaborated that, when collagen is exposed during atherosclerotic plaque rupture, it binds platelet GPVI, the major platelet collagen receptor.

“Glycoprotein VI in turn mediates local platelet recruitment, activation, and aggregation. Glycoprotein VI is an attractive antiplatelet target because GPVI-mediated platelet response plays a central role during myocardial infarction and stroke but is less relevant in physiological hemostasis,” they wrote.

The researchers describe revacept as a dimeric, soluble fusion protein composed of the extracellular domain of the GPVI receptor and the human Fc-fragment. It competes with endogenous platelet GPVI for binding to exposed collagen fibers and inhibits collagen-mediated platelet adhesion and aggregation selectively at the site of plaque rupture.

In addition, revacept blocks binding of von Willebrand factor to collagen and inhibits von Willebrand factor–mediated platelet activation, they reported.

“As a lesion-directed drug, revacept does not interfere with the function of circulating platelets beyond the atherosclerotic lesion,” the authors said.

In animal studies and a phase 1 clinical trial, the drug was shown to inhibit atherothrombosis but to have little effect on systemic hemostasis or bleeding.

The current ISAR-PLASTER trial is the first study of the use of the agent for patients with coronary heart disease.

For the study, 334 patients with stable ischemic heart disease undergoing elective PCI were randomly assigned to receive a single intravenous infusion of revacept 160 mg, revacept 80 mg, or placebo prior to the start of PCI in addition to standard antithrombotic therapy.

The safety endpoint was bleeding of type 2-5, per Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria, at 30 days.

Results showed no significant differences in the primary efficacy endpoint (the composite of death or myocardial injury, defined as an increase in high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T [hsTnT] to at least five times the upper limit of normal within 48 hours from randomization) between the revacept and placebo groups. The primary efficacy endpoint occurred in 24.4% of the revacept 160-mg group, 25.0% of the revacept 80-mg group, and 23.3% of the placebo group.

The high dose of revacept was associated with a small but significant reduction of high-concentration collagen-induced platelet aggregation, but adenosine 5-diphosphate–induced aggregation was not affected.

Revacept did not increase bleeding. Bleeding of BARC type 2 or higher at 30 days occurred in 5.0% of the 160-mg group, 5.9% of the 80-mg group, and 8.6% of the placebo group.

Dr. Massberg pointed out that one possible explanation for the lack of difference in the efficacy outcome was that the patients enrolled in the study were at low risk.

“The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was very low (2.5% at 30 days), and this was a low-risk population undergoing elective PCI,” he commented.

The authors also pointed out that the five-times increase in hsTnT endpoint used in the current study has little prognostic impact.

In addition, Dr. Massberg noted that, in the stable situation, myocardial injury is mostly triggered by cholesterol embolism during PCI and side-branch occlusion due to distal plaque embolization, problems that are unlikely to respond to inhibition of GPVI-collagen interaction by revacept.

He suggested that better results may be achieved in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). “In ACS patients, the myocardial injury is caused by ongoing thrombotic cascades, where the collagen-platelet interaction plays a much larger role, so in theory, this drug should show a greater effect in an ACS population.”

The researchers are now planning a larger phase 3 study in that group.

“I am still optimistic. I still believe it could work,” Dr. Massberg said. “The major aim for this study was safety and dosing. There was no difference in bleeding, so safety was supported,” he added.

The ISAR-PLASTER study was funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research, Deutsches Herzzentrum Munchen, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, and advanceCOR (the manufacturer of revacept). One of the coauthors of the study is a cofounder of advanceCor.

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

The biennial State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) Report was released in fall 2020, reflecting surveys collected just as the pandemic was ramping up. Thus, a COVID Addendum of results was collected and published a few months later. What did these reports tell us about existing and developing trends in staffing and scheduling?

Here is a top five list of findings for hospital medicine programs (HMGs) serving adults only. These are just highlights; for further detail, visit the SHM website to learn more and purchase your copy. The information in the SoHM is extraordinarily helpful in planning for your group’s future staffing and scheduling needs.

5. Average group size has increased

Andrew White, MD, SFHM, associate professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, provided a deep-dive discussion on the increase of group sizes in the March 2021 issue of The Hospitalist. Group size has impacted the way a hospitalist group schedules, when reviewing correlating scheduling survey responses.

Group size can have a direct correlation to scheduling methodology. The number of employed/contracted physician hospitalists in individual groups is up about 25%. Alongside the increase in physician hospitalists is an increase in both nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) in adult hospitalist groups, with the largest growth in PAs. In fact, in 2020, the average number of NPs and PAs per hospitalist group is approaching similar numbers.

In 2020, more than half of all programs reported not having a backup call system. One could speculate that the larger group size has allowed adult hospitalist groups better ability to staff upper fluctuations in daily volume. This could have resulted in day-to-day scheduling ease and flexibility.

4. Shift-type is shifting

In scheduling adult hospitalist groups, fewer groups reported dedicated nocturnists and more groups reported dedicated day admitters.

Just above a third of all adult hospitalist programs report having dedicated day admitter shifts, and the presence of nocturnists is at a 6-year low. One speculation that could be made is that hospitalists are making more of an effort to ensure that more admissions are done during the day and not held over for nighttime. This would be consistent with the strong pressure for hospitals to decrease door-to-floor admission times. However, the presence of nocturnists increases steadily with group size. Ninety-four percent of HMGs with 30-49 physician FTEs and 98% of groups with 50 or more physician FTEs reported using dedicated nocturnists.

3. COVID-19 impacts hospitalist workflows

It’s not hard to imagine that COVID-19 has affected all hospitalist groups: adult, pediatric, and adult/pediatric groups. COVID-19 has affected all lives – at home and at work – across the world. More than 80% of all adult hospitalist groups report having implemented changes (beyond dedicated COVID-19 teams) in workflows and/or how work is allocated among its providers. And nearly 20% report that this is likely a permanent change.

2. Schedules have been disrupted by COVID-19

More than half of adult hospitalist groups report having their schedules disrupted by COVID-19. The top two disruptors are loss of staff time due to exposure quarantine, and lost provider time due to COVID-19 illness. All the while, adult hospitalist groups have been taking care of more and more hospitalized patients.

While some groups have not made any changes in scheduling due to COVID-19, many have. Nearly 60% of all groups have increased scheduling flexibility or changed their scheduling model. For about 11% of all groups, this change is likely to be permanent.

1. COVID-19 has changed scheduling methodologies – perhaps for the long-term

Three out of four adult hospitalist groups have created new COVID-19 dedicated teams each day. This has likely had one of the most impacts.

Unit-based assignment reported in the 2020 SoHM was already up from the 2018 SoHM Report (42.7% vs 36%). Now, in addition to nocturnists, day admitter, rounder roles, and unit-based assignments, hospital medicine groups must also incorporate COVID-19 teams into daily scheduling considerations. One in five groups report this change may likely be a permanent addition to the hospitalist schedule. Wow.

As we think forward to the 2022 SoHM, staffing and scheduling of adult hospital medicine group will be a key topic of the survey. How does COVID-19 change hospital medicine groups in the medium and long term? One thing is for sure – hospital medicine groups are resilient and have proven to be creative in ensuring our hospitalized patients are well cared for.

Post your thoughts and questions for your peer network on the SHM Online Community: HMX. Let’s keep the conversation going on how we can help each other create sustainable staffing and scheduling models that are continuously adapting to our peripandemic environment.
 

Ms. Trask is national vice president of the Hospital Medicine Service Line at Catholic Health Initiatives in Englewood, Colo.

The biennial State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) Report was released in fall 2020, reflecting surveys collected just as the pandemic was ramping up. Thus, a COVID Addendum of results was collected and published a few months later. What did these reports tell us about existing and developing trends in staffing and scheduling?

Here is a top five list of findings for hospital medicine programs (HMGs) serving adults only. These are just highlights; for further detail, visit the SHM website to learn more and purchase your copy. The information in the SoHM is extraordinarily helpful in planning for your group’s future staffing and scheduling needs.

5. Average group size has increased

Andrew White, MD, SFHM, associate professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, provided a deep-dive discussion on the increase of group sizes in the March 2021 issue of The Hospitalist. Group size has impacted the way a hospitalist group schedules, when reviewing correlating scheduling survey responses.

Group size can have a direct correlation to scheduling methodology. The number of employed/contracted physician hospitalists in individual groups is up about 25%. Alongside the increase in physician hospitalists is an increase in both nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) in adult hospitalist groups, with the largest growth in PAs. In fact, in 2020, the average number of NPs and PAs per hospitalist group is approaching similar numbers.

In 2020, more than half of all programs reported not having a backup call system. One could speculate that the larger group size has allowed adult hospitalist groups better ability to staff upper fluctuations in daily volume. This could have resulted in day-to-day scheduling ease and flexibility.

4. Shift-type is shifting

In scheduling adult hospitalist groups, fewer groups reported dedicated nocturnists and more groups reported dedicated day admitters.

Just above a third of all adult hospitalist programs report having dedicated day admitter shifts, and the presence of nocturnists is at a 6-year low. One speculation that could be made is that hospitalists are making more of an effort to ensure that more admissions are done during the day and not held over for nighttime. This would be consistent with the strong pressure for hospitals to decrease door-to-floor admission times. However, the presence of nocturnists increases steadily with group size. Ninety-four percent of HMGs with 30-49 physician FTEs and 98% of groups with 50 or more physician FTEs reported using dedicated nocturnists.

3. COVID-19 impacts hospitalist workflows

It’s not hard to imagine that COVID-19 has affected all hospitalist groups: adult, pediatric, and adult/pediatric groups. COVID-19 has affected all lives – at home and at work – across the world. More than 80% of all adult hospitalist groups report having implemented changes (beyond dedicated COVID-19 teams) in workflows and/or how work is allocated among its providers. And nearly 20% report that this is likely a permanent change.

2. Schedules have been disrupted by COVID-19

More than half of adult hospitalist groups report having their schedules disrupted by COVID-19. The top two disruptors are loss of staff time due to exposure quarantine, and lost provider time due to COVID-19 illness. All the while, adult hospitalist groups have been taking care of more and more hospitalized patients.

While some groups have not made any changes in scheduling due to COVID-19, many have. Nearly 60% of all groups have increased scheduling flexibility or changed their scheduling model. For about 11% of all groups, this change is likely to be permanent.

1. COVID-19 has changed scheduling methodologies – perhaps for the long-term

Three out of four adult hospitalist groups have created new COVID-19 dedicated teams each day. This has likely had one of the most impacts.

Unit-based assignment reported in the 2020 SoHM was already up from the 2018 SoHM Report (42.7% vs 36%). Now, in addition to nocturnists, day admitter, rounder roles, and unit-based assignments, hospital medicine groups must also incorporate COVID-19 teams into daily scheduling considerations. One in five groups report this change may likely be a permanent addition to the hospitalist schedule. Wow.

As we think forward to the 2022 SoHM, staffing and scheduling of adult hospital medicine group will be a key topic of the survey. How does COVID-19 change hospital medicine groups in the medium and long term? One thing is for sure – hospital medicine groups are resilient and have proven to be creative in ensuring our hospitalized patients are well cared for.

Post your thoughts and questions for your peer network on the SHM Online Community: HMX. Let’s keep the conversation going on how we can help each other create sustainable staffing and scheduling models that are continuously adapting to our peripandemic environment.
 

Ms. Trask is national vice president of the Hospital Medicine Service Line at Catholic Health Initiatives in Englewood, Colo.

The biennial State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) Report was released in fall 2020, reflecting surveys collected just as the pandemic was ramping up. Thus, a COVID Addendum of results was collected and published a few months later. What did these reports tell us about existing and developing trends in staffing and scheduling?

Here is a top five list of findings for hospital medicine programs (HMGs) serving adults only. These are just highlights; for further detail, visit the SHM website to learn more and purchase your copy. The information in the SoHM is extraordinarily helpful in planning for your group’s future staffing and scheduling needs.

5. Average group size has increased

Andrew White, MD, SFHM, associate professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, provided a deep-dive discussion on the increase of group sizes in the March 2021 issue of The Hospitalist. Group size has impacted the way a hospitalist group schedules, when reviewing correlating scheduling survey responses.

Group size can have a direct correlation to scheduling methodology. The number of employed/contracted physician hospitalists in individual groups is up about 25%. Alongside the increase in physician hospitalists is an increase in both nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) in adult hospitalist groups, with the largest growth in PAs. In fact, in 2020, the average number of NPs and PAs per hospitalist group is approaching similar numbers.

In 2020, more than half of all programs reported not having a backup call system. One could speculate that the larger group size has allowed adult hospitalist groups better ability to staff upper fluctuations in daily volume. This could have resulted in day-to-day scheduling ease and flexibility.

4. Shift-type is shifting

In scheduling adult hospitalist groups, fewer groups reported dedicated nocturnists and more groups reported dedicated day admitters.

Just above a third of all adult hospitalist programs report having dedicated day admitter shifts, and the presence of nocturnists is at a 6-year low. One speculation that could be made is that hospitalists are making more of an effort to ensure that more admissions are done during the day and not held over for nighttime. This would be consistent with the strong pressure for hospitals to decrease door-to-floor admission times. However, the presence of nocturnists increases steadily with group size. Ninety-four percent of HMGs with 30-49 physician FTEs and 98% of groups with 50 or more physician FTEs reported using dedicated nocturnists.

3. COVID-19 impacts hospitalist workflows

It’s not hard to imagine that COVID-19 has affected all hospitalist groups: adult, pediatric, and adult/pediatric groups. COVID-19 has affected all lives – at home and at work – across the world. More than 80% of all adult hospitalist groups report having implemented changes (beyond dedicated COVID-19 teams) in workflows and/or how work is allocated among its providers. And nearly 20% report that this is likely a permanent change.

2. Schedules have been disrupted by COVID-19

More than half of adult hospitalist groups report having their schedules disrupted by COVID-19. The top two disruptors are loss of staff time due to exposure quarantine, and lost provider time due to COVID-19 illness. All the while, adult hospitalist groups have been taking care of more and more hospitalized patients.

While some groups have not made any changes in scheduling due to COVID-19, many have. Nearly 60% of all groups have increased scheduling flexibility or changed their scheduling model. For about 11% of all groups, this change is likely to be permanent.

1. COVID-19 has changed scheduling methodologies – perhaps for the long-term

Three out of four adult hospitalist groups have created new COVID-19 dedicated teams each day. This has likely had one of the most impacts.

Unit-based assignment reported in the 2020 SoHM was already up from the 2018 SoHM Report (42.7% vs 36%). Now, in addition to nocturnists, day admitter, rounder roles, and unit-based assignments, hospital medicine groups must also incorporate COVID-19 teams into daily scheduling considerations. One in five groups report this change may likely be a permanent addition to the hospitalist schedule. Wow.

As we think forward to the 2022 SoHM, staffing and scheduling of adult hospital medicine group will be a key topic of the survey. How does COVID-19 change hospital medicine groups in the medium and long term? One thing is for sure – hospital medicine groups are resilient and have proven to be creative in ensuring our hospitalized patients are well cared for.

Post your thoughts and questions for your peer network on the SHM Online Community: HMX. Let’s keep the conversation going on how we can help each other create sustainable staffing and scheduling models that are continuously adapting to our peripandemic environment.
 

Ms. Trask is national vice president of the Hospital Medicine Service Line at Catholic Health Initiatives in Englewood, Colo.

Each afternoon, Cyrus Shahpar, MD, the data guru for the White House COVID-19 Response Team, sends an email to staffers with the daily count of COVID-19 vaccinations delivered in the United States.

The numbers, collected from states ahead of the final figures being posted on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, act as a report card of sorts on the team’s efforts.

On Saturday, April 3, it was a new record: 4.1 million vaccinations delivered in a single day, more than the total population of some states.

While the United States has a long way to go before it is done with COVID-19, there’s finally some good news in the nation’s long and blundering slog through the pandemic.

After a rocky start in December 2020 and January 2021, vaccination is happening faster than nearly anyone thought possible. As more people see their friends and family roll up their sleeves, hesitancy is dropping, too.

In settings where large numbers of people are vaccinated, such as nursing homes, COVID-19 cases and deaths have plunged.

Those gains, however, haven’t been shared equally. According to CDC data, 69% of people who are fully vaccinated are White, while just 8% are Black and about 9% are Hispanic, a group that now represents most new COVID-19 cases. 

Officials say that’s partly because the vaccines were rolled out to the elderly first. The average life expectancy for Black people in the United States is now age 72, which means there were fewer people of color represented in the first groups to become eligible. Experts are hopeful that underrepresented groups will start to catch up as more states open up vaccinations to younger people.

Based on overall numbers of daily vaccine doses, the United States ranks third, behind China and India. America ranks fourth – behind Israel, the United Kingdom, and Chile – in the total share of the population that’s been vaccinated, according to the website Our World in Data.
 

A positive development

It’s a stunning turnaround for a country that failed for months to develop effective tests, and still struggles in some quarters to investigate new cases and quarantine their contacts.

The 7-day rolling average of vaccines administered in the United States is currently more than 3 million a day.

“We knew that we needed to get to 3 million a day at some point, if we were going to get most people vaccinated this year, but I don’t think that most people expected it to happen this early,” said Eric Toner, MD, a senior scholar with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore.

Before taking office, President Joe Biden pledged to get 100 million shots in arms within his first 100 days in office. After hitting that goal in late March, he doubled it, to 200 million vaccinations by April 30. After first saying all adults should be eligible to get in line for the vaccine by May 1, on April 6, he bumped up that date to April 19. 

Some media reports have seen this repeated moving of the goalposts as calculated – an unstated strategy of underpromising and overdelivering with the aim of rebuilding public trust.

But others pointed out that, even if that’s true, the goals being set aren’t easy, and hitting them has never been a given.

“I think the Biden administration really gets a lot of credit for pushing the companies to get more vaccine out faster than they had planned to,” Dr. Toner said. “And the states have really responded as well as the federal government in terms of getting vaccination sites going. So we’re not only getting the vaccines, we’re getting it into people’s arms faster than expected.”

Others agree.

“We’re doing an amazing job, and I think the U.S. is really beginning to bend the curve,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, an infectious disease specialist and distinguished professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.

“I think overall it’s just that everybody’s putting in a ton of work to get it done,” he said.

On April 3, the day the United States hit its vaccination record, he was volunteering to give vaccinations.

“I mean, of all the bad things we do to people as clinicians, this is one thing that people are very happy about, right?” Dr. del Rio said.

He said he vaccinated a young woman who asked if she could video chat with her mom, who was feeling nervous about getting the shot. He answered her mom’s questions, and later that day, she came down to be vaccinated herself.
 

‘We view it as a war’

The White House COVID-19 Response Team has worked hard to better coordinate the work of so many people at both the federal and state levels, Andy Slavitt, senior adviser for the team, said in an interview.

“We view it as a war, and in a war, you do everything: You bring experienced personnel; you bring all the resources to bear; you create multiple routes,” Mr. Slavitt said. “You don’t leave anything to chance.”

Among the levers the administration has pulled, using the Defense Production Act has helped vaccine manufacturers get needed supplies, Mr. Slavitt said.

The administration has set up an array of Federal Emergency Management Agency–run community vaccination centers and mobile vaccination sites to complement state-led efforts, and it’s activated a federal health law called the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, which provides immunity from liability for retired doctors and nurses, among others, who sign up to help give vaccinations. That’s helped get more people into the field giving shots. 

The administration also canceled a plan to allocate vaccines to states based on their pace of administration, which would have punished underperforming states. Instead, doses are allocated based on population. 

In a media call on April 7, when asked whether the administration would send additional vaccines to Michigan, a state that’s seeing a surge of COVID-19 cases with more transmissible variants, Mr. Slavitt said they weren’t managing vaccine supply “according to some formula.”

He said they were distributing based on population “because that’s fundamental,” but were also locating vaccines “surgically in places that have had the greatest disease and where people have the greatest exposure.”

He said sites like community health centers and retail pharmacies have the power to order vaccines directly from the federal government, which helps get more supply to harder-hit areas.

Mr. Slavitt said hitting 4.1 million daily vaccinations on April 3 was gratifying.

“I’ve seen photographs ... of people breaking down in tears when they get their vaccine, people who are giving standing ovations to active military for taking care of them,” he said, “and I think about people who have gone for a long time without hope, or who have been very scared.

“It’s incredibly encouraging to think about maybe a few million people taking a step back to normal life again,” he said.

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

Each afternoon, Cyrus Shahpar, MD, the data guru for the White House COVID-19 Response Team, sends an email to staffers with the daily count of COVID-19 vaccinations delivered in the United States.

The numbers, collected from states ahead of the final figures being posted on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, act as a report card of sorts on the team’s efforts.

On Saturday, April 3, it was a new record: 4.1 million vaccinations delivered in a single day, more than the total population of some states.

While the United States has a long way to go before it is done with COVID-19, there’s finally some good news in the nation’s long and blundering slog through the pandemic.

After a rocky start in December 2020 and January 2021, vaccination is happening faster than nearly anyone thought possible. As more people see their friends and family roll up their sleeves, hesitancy is dropping, too.

In settings where large numbers of people are vaccinated, such as nursing homes, COVID-19 cases and deaths have plunged.

Those gains, however, haven’t been shared equally. According to CDC data, 69% of people who are fully vaccinated are White, while just 8% are Black and about 9% are Hispanic, a group that now represents most new COVID-19 cases. 

Officials say that’s partly because the vaccines were rolled out to the elderly first. The average life expectancy for Black people in the United States is now age 72, which means there were fewer people of color represented in the first groups to become eligible. Experts are hopeful that underrepresented groups will start to catch up as more states open up vaccinations to younger people.

Based on overall numbers of daily vaccine doses, the United States ranks third, behind China and India. America ranks fourth – behind Israel, the United Kingdom, and Chile – in the total share of the population that’s been vaccinated, according to the website Our World in Data.
 

A positive development

It’s a stunning turnaround for a country that failed for months to develop effective tests, and still struggles in some quarters to investigate new cases and quarantine their contacts.

The 7-day rolling average of vaccines administered in the United States is currently more than 3 million a day.

“We knew that we needed to get to 3 million a day at some point, if we were going to get most people vaccinated this year, but I don’t think that most people expected it to happen this early,” said Eric Toner, MD, a senior scholar with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore.

Before taking office, President Joe Biden pledged to get 100 million shots in arms within his first 100 days in office. After hitting that goal in late March, he doubled it, to 200 million vaccinations by April 30. After first saying all adults should be eligible to get in line for the vaccine by May 1, on April 6, he bumped up that date to April 19. 

Some media reports have seen this repeated moving of the goalposts as calculated – an unstated strategy of underpromising and overdelivering with the aim of rebuilding public trust.

But others pointed out that, even if that’s true, the goals being set aren’t easy, and hitting them has never been a given.

“I think the Biden administration really gets a lot of credit for pushing the companies to get more vaccine out faster than they had planned to,” Dr. Toner said. “And the states have really responded as well as the federal government in terms of getting vaccination sites going. So we’re not only getting the vaccines, we’re getting it into people’s arms faster than expected.”

Others agree.

“We’re doing an amazing job, and I think the U.S. is really beginning to bend the curve,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, an infectious disease specialist and distinguished professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.

“I think overall it’s just that everybody’s putting in a ton of work to get it done,” he said.

On April 3, the day the United States hit its vaccination record, he was volunteering to give vaccinations.

“I mean, of all the bad things we do to people as clinicians, this is one thing that people are very happy about, right?” Dr. del Rio said.

He said he vaccinated a young woman who asked if she could video chat with her mom, who was feeling nervous about getting the shot. He answered her mom’s questions, and later that day, she came down to be vaccinated herself.
 

‘We view it as a war’

The White House COVID-19 Response Team has worked hard to better coordinate the work of so many people at both the federal and state levels, Andy Slavitt, senior adviser for the team, said in an interview.

“We view it as a war, and in a war, you do everything: You bring experienced personnel; you bring all the resources to bear; you create multiple routes,” Mr. Slavitt said. “You don’t leave anything to chance.”

Among the levers the administration has pulled, using the Defense Production Act has helped vaccine manufacturers get needed supplies, Mr. Slavitt said.

The administration has set up an array of Federal Emergency Management Agency–run community vaccination centers and mobile vaccination sites to complement state-led efforts, and it’s activated a federal health law called the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, which provides immunity from liability for retired doctors and nurses, among others, who sign up to help give vaccinations. That’s helped get more people into the field giving shots. 

The administration also canceled a plan to allocate vaccines to states based on their pace of administration, which would have punished underperforming states. Instead, doses are allocated based on population. 

In a media call on April 7, when asked whether the administration would send additional vaccines to Michigan, a state that’s seeing a surge of COVID-19 cases with more transmissible variants, Mr. Slavitt said they weren’t managing vaccine supply “according to some formula.”

He said they were distributing based on population “because that’s fundamental,” but were also locating vaccines “surgically in places that have had the greatest disease and where people have the greatest exposure.”

He said sites like community health centers and retail pharmacies have the power to order vaccines directly from the federal government, which helps get more supply to harder-hit areas.

Mr. Slavitt said hitting 4.1 million daily vaccinations on April 3 was gratifying.

“I’ve seen photographs ... of people breaking down in tears when they get their vaccine, people who are giving standing ovations to active military for taking care of them,” he said, “and I think about people who have gone for a long time without hope, or who have been very scared.

“It’s incredibly encouraging to think about maybe a few million people taking a step back to normal life again,” he said.

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

Each afternoon, Cyrus Shahpar, MD, the data guru for the White House COVID-19 Response Team, sends an email to staffers with the daily count of COVID-19 vaccinations delivered in the United States.

The numbers, collected from states ahead of the final figures being posted on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, act as a report card of sorts on the team’s efforts.

On Saturday, April 3, it was a new record: 4.1 million vaccinations delivered in a single day, more than the total population of some states.

While the United States has a long way to go before it is done with COVID-19, there’s finally some good news in the nation’s long and blundering slog through the pandemic.

After a rocky start in December 2020 and January 2021, vaccination is happening faster than nearly anyone thought possible. As more people see their friends and family roll up their sleeves, hesitancy is dropping, too.

In settings where large numbers of people are vaccinated, such as nursing homes, COVID-19 cases and deaths have plunged.

Those gains, however, haven’t been shared equally. According to CDC data, 69% of people who are fully vaccinated are White, while just 8% are Black and about 9% are Hispanic, a group that now represents most new COVID-19 cases. 

Officials say that’s partly because the vaccines were rolled out to the elderly first. The average life expectancy for Black people in the United States is now age 72, which means there were fewer people of color represented in the first groups to become eligible. Experts are hopeful that underrepresented groups will start to catch up as more states open up vaccinations to younger people.

Based on overall numbers of daily vaccine doses, the United States ranks third, behind China and India. America ranks fourth – behind Israel, the United Kingdom, and Chile – in the total share of the population that’s been vaccinated, according to the website Our World in Data.
 

A positive development

It’s a stunning turnaround for a country that failed for months to develop effective tests, and still struggles in some quarters to investigate new cases and quarantine their contacts.

The 7-day rolling average of vaccines administered in the United States is currently more than 3 million a day.

“We knew that we needed to get to 3 million a day at some point, if we were going to get most people vaccinated this year, but I don’t think that most people expected it to happen this early,” said Eric Toner, MD, a senior scholar with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore.

Before taking office, President Joe Biden pledged to get 100 million shots in arms within his first 100 days in office. After hitting that goal in late March, he doubled it, to 200 million vaccinations by April 30. After first saying all adults should be eligible to get in line for the vaccine by May 1, on April 6, he bumped up that date to April 19. 

Some media reports have seen this repeated moving of the goalposts as calculated – an unstated strategy of underpromising and overdelivering with the aim of rebuilding public trust.

But others pointed out that, even if that’s true, the goals being set aren’t easy, and hitting them has never been a given.

“I think the Biden administration really gets a lot of credit for pushing the companies to get more vaccine out faster than they had planned to,” Dr. Toner said. “And the states have really responded as well as the federal government in terms of getting vaccination sites going. So we’re not only getting the vaccines, we’re getting it into people’s arms faster than expected.”

Others agree.

“We’re doing an amazing job, and I think the U.S. is really beginning to bend the curve,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, an infectious disease specialist and distinguished professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.

“I think overall it’s just that everybody’s putting in a ton of work to get it done,” he said.

On April 3, the day the United States hit its vaccination record, he was volunteering to give vaccinations.

“I mean, of all the bad things we do to people as clinicians, this is one thing that people are very happy about, right?” Dr. del Rio said.

He said he vaccinated a young woman who asked if she could video chat with her mom, who was feeling nervous about getting the shot. He answered her mom’s questions, and later that day, she came down to be vaccinated herself.
 

‘We view it as a war’

The White House COVID-19 Response Team has worked hard to better coordinate the work of so many people at both the federal and state levels, Andy Slavitt, senior adviser for the team, said in an interview.

“We view it as a war, and in a war, you do everything: You bring experienced personnel; you bring all the resources to bear; you create multiple routes,” Mr. Slavitt said. “You don’t leave anything to chance.”

Among the levers the administration has pulled, using the Defense Production Act has helped vaccine manufacturers get needed supplies, Mr. Slavitt said.

The administration has set up an array of Federal Emergency Management Agency–run community vaccination centers and mobile vaccination sites to complement state-led efforts, and it’s activated a federal health law called the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, which provides immunity from liability for retired doctors and nurses, among others, who sign up to help give vaccinations. That’s helped get more people into the field giving shots. 

The administration also canceled a plan to allocate vaccines to states based on their pace of administration, which would have punished underperforming states. Instead, doses are allocated based on population. 

In a media call on April 7, when asked whether the administration would send additional vaccines to Michigan, a state that’s seeing a surge of COVID-19 cases with more transmissible variants, Mr. Slavitt said they weren’t managing vaccine supply “according to some formula.”

He said they were distributing based on population “because that’s fundamental,” but were also locating vaccines “surgically in places that have had the greatest disease and where people have the greatest exposure.”

He said sites like community health centers and retail pharmacies have the power to order vaccines directly from the federal government, which helps get more supply to harder-hit areas.

Mr. Slavitt said hitting 4.1 million daily vaccinations on April 3 was gratifying.

“I’ve seen photographs ... of people breaking down in tears when they get their vaccine, people who are giving standing ovations to active military for taking care of them,” he said, “and I think about people who have gone for a long time without hope, or who have been very scared.

“It’s incredibly encouraging to think about maybe a few million people taking a step back to normal life again,” he said.

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

The Atlanta spa massacre, the commencement of the George Floyd trial, and COVID-19 highlight societal inequalities and health disparities among minority groups. We can only hope that we have arrived at the tipping point to address historical institutional racism and structural violence in this country.

Admittedly, we, as health care professionals, have been at best apathetic and at worst complicit with this tragedy. Dr. James Sims, the father of gynecology, perfected his surgical techniques of vaginal fistula on slaves. Starting in 1845, he performed over thirty surgeries without anesthesia on Anarcha Westcott.¹ Moreover, the past century was dotted with similar transgressions such as the Tuskegee Untreated Syphilis Experiment from 1932 to 1972, the use of the cells of Henrietta Lack in 1951, and the disproportionate lack of funding of sickle cell research.² We must move from complicit/apathetic to being part of the discourse and solution. 

The juxtaposition of George Floyd’s cry of “I can’t breathe” and the disproportionate way in which COVID-19 has affected Black communities and people of color highlights how deeply entrenched the problem of systemic racism is in this country. The innumerable reported hate crimes against Asian Americans stemming from xenophobia linked to the COVID-19 pandemic and the stereotyping of Hispanic Americans as criminals during the last U.S. administration demonstrate that all minority racial/ethnic groups are affected. As clinicians who care for the health of our communities and strive to reduce suffering, we have a responsibility to identify discrimination that exists in the health care system – ranging from subtle implicit bias to overt discrimination.³

Unconscious bias and its effect on diversity and inclusion has only recently been recognized and addressed in the realm of health care as applied to clinicians. This is key to structural racism as providers inadvertently use unconscious bias every day to make their medical decisions quick and efficient. As Dayna Bowen Matthews points out in her book, “Just Medicine,” “where health and health care are concerned, even when implicit biases are based on seemingly benign distinctions, or supported by apparently rational or widely held observations, these biases can cause grave individual, group, and societal harm that is commensurate to and even exceeds the harm caused by outright racism.” To deny the prejudices that providers have when making decisions for patients will perpetuate the racism and hinder our ability to overcome health inequity. Americans of racial and ethnic minorities have a higher incidence of chronic diseases and premature death when compared to white Americans.⁴ These disparities exist even when controlling for individual variations such as availability of health insurance, education, and socioeconomic status.⁵ Social determinants of health because of racial differences is often talked about as a cause of health care inequity, but given the evidence that providers play a much more active role in this, we need to become more comfortable with the discomfort of using the word “racism” if we intend to bring awareness and create change. 

In order to tackle structural racism in health care, organizations must take a multifaceted approach. Evidence-based strategies include: creation of an inclusive workforce, diversification of the workforce to better represent patient populations, and education/training on the effect of implicit bias on equitable health care.⁶ These aspirations can provide a framework for interventions at all levels of health care organizations.

The JEDI (justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion) committee of the section of hospital medicine at Wake Forest Baptist Health System came into existence in November 2019. The objective for JEDI was to use evidence-based methods to help create an environment that would lead to the creation of a diverse and inclusive hospital medicine group. Prior to establishing our committee, we interviewed providers from traditional minority groups who were part of our practice to bring clarity to the discrimination faced by our providers from colleagues, staff, and patients. The discrimination varied from microaggressions caused by implicit biases to macroaggression from overt discrimination. We initiated our work on this burning platform by following the evidence-based methods mentioned earlier.
 

Creation of an inclusive workforce. Our working committee included members of varied backgrounds and experiences who were passionate about enhancing equity while focusing on inclusion and wellness. The committee brainstormed ideas for interventions that could make a positive impact for our teammates. Individual providers voted to choose the interventions that would positively impact their inclusion and health. Using a validated survey,⁷ we were able to measure the degree of inclusion of our work group based on multiple demographics including age, gender, race/ethnicity, training (physician vs. APP), etc. Our intention is to complete the proposed interventions before remeasuring inclusion to understand the effect of our work.

Diversifying the workforce. Although our section of hospital medicine at Wake Forest Baptist Health System consists of providers self-identifying as people of color, we do not adequately mirror the racial composition of the population we serve. To achieve the desired result, we have made changes to our recruiting program. The section of hospital medicine visibly demonstrates our commitment to diversity and displays our values on our website. We intend for this to attract diverse individuals who would intend to be part of our group.

Education and training on impact of implicit bias on equitable health care. Implicit bias training will have to consist of actions that would help our clinicians recognize their own prejudices and find means to mitigate them. We have committed to bystander education that would give practice and words to our providers to speak up in situations where they see discrimination in the workplace that is directed against patients, staff, and colleagues. A series of open and honest conversations about racial and gender discrimination in health care that involves inviting accomplished speakers from around the country has been planned. Continued attention to opportunities to further awareness on this subject is vital.
 

On Jan. 6, 2021, a day that should have filled citizens with pride and hope with the election of the first Black minister and the first Jewish man to the U.S. Senate in a historically conservative state, as well as the confirmation of the election of a president who pledged to address racial disparities, we instead saw another stark reminder of where we came from and just how far we have to go. White supremacists incited by their perceived threat to a legacy of centuries of suppression transformed into a mob of insurrectionists, blatantly bearing Confederate and Nazi flags, and seemingly easily invaded and desecrated the U.S. Capitol. On March 16, 2021, a white male who was “having a bad day” ended the lives of eight individuals, including six Asian Americans.

These instances have brought forth the reality that many of our interventions have been directed towards subtle prejudices and microaggressions alone. We have skirted around calling out overt discrimination of minority groups and failed to openly acknowledge our own contribution to the problem. This newly found awareness has created an opportunity for more impactful work. The equitable delivery of health care is dependent on creating a patient-provider relationship based on trust; addressing overt discrimination respectfully; and overcoming unconscious bias.

While we have made the commitment to confront structural racism in our workplace and taken important steps to work towards this goal with the initiatives set forth by our JEDI committee, we certainly have a long way to go. George Floyd spent the last 8 minutes and 46 seconds of his life struggling to breathe and asking for his mother. Let’s not waste another second and instead be the change that we seek in health care.
 

Dr. Nagaraj is medical director, Hospital Medicine, at Lexington (N.C.) Medical Center, assistant professor at Wake Forest School of Medicine, and cochair, JEDI committee for diversity and inclusion, hospital medicine, at Wake Forest Baptist Health, Winston-Salem, NC. Ms. Haller is cochair, JEDI committee for diversity and inclusion, hospital medicine, Wake Forest Baptist Health. Dr. Huang is the executive medical director and service line director of general medicine and hospital medicine within the Wake Forest Baptist Health System and associate professor at Wake Forest School of Medicine. The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Julie Freischlag, Dr. Kevin High, and Dr. David McIntosh at Wake Forest Baptist Health System for the support of the JEDI committee and the section on hospital medicine.

References

1. Holland B. The “father of modern gynecology” performed shocking experiments on enslaved women. History. 2017 Aug 29. www.history.com/news/the-father-of-modern-gynecology-performed-shocking-experiments-on-slaves.

2. Buseh AG et al. Community leaders’ perspectives on engaging African Americans in biobanks and other human genetics initiatives. J Community Genet. 2013 Oct;4(4):483-94. doi: 10.1007/s12687-013-0155-z.

3. National Center for Health Statistics. Health, United States, 2015: With special feature on racial and ethnic health disparities. 2016 May. www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus15.pdf.

4. Bailey ZD et al. Structural racism and health inequities in the USA: evidence and interventions. Lancet. 2017 Apr 8;389(10077):1453-63. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30569-X.

5. Arvizo C and Garrison E. Diversity and inclusion: the role of unconscious bias on patient care, health outcomes and the workforce in obstetrics and gynaecology. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Oct;31(5):356-62. doi: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000566.

6. Chung BG et al. Work group inclusion: test of a scale and model. Group & Organization Management. 2020;45(1):75-102. doi: 10.1177/1059601119839858.

The Atlanta spa massacre, the commencement of the George Floyd trial, and COVID-19 highlight societal inequalities and health disparities among minority groups. We can only hope that we have arrived at the tipping point to address historical institutional racism and structural violence in this country.

Admittedly, we, as health care professionals, have been at best apathetic and at worst complicit with this tragedy. Dr. James Sims, the father of gynecology, perfected his surgical techniques of vaginal fistula on slaves. Starting in 1845, he performed over thirty surgeries without anesthesia on Anarcha Westcott.¹ Moreover, the past century was dotted with similar transgressions such as the Tuskegee Untreated Syphilis Experiment from 1932 to 1972, the use of the cells of Henrietta Lack in 1951, and the disproportionate lack of funding of sickle cell research.² We must move from complicit/apathetic to being part of the discourse and solution. 

The juxtaposition of George Floyd’s cry of “I can’t breathe” and the disproportionate way in which COVID-19 has affected Black communities and people of color highlights how deeply entrenched the problem of systemic racism is in this country. The innumerable reported hate crimes against Asian Americans stemming from xenophobia linked to the COVID-19 pandemic and the stereotyping of Hispanic Americans as criminals during the last U.S. administration demonstrate that all minority racial/ethnic groups are affected. As clinicians who care for the health of our communities and strive to reduce suffering, we have a responsibility to identify discrimination that exists in the health care system – ranging from subtle implicit bias to overt discrimination.³

Unconscious bias and its effect on diversity and inclusion has only recently been recognized and addressed in the realm of health care as applied to clinicians. This is key to structural racism as providers inadvertently use unconscious bias every day to make their medical decisions quick and efficient. As Dayna Bowen Matthews points out in her book, “Just Medicine,” “where health and health care are concerned, even when implicit biases are based on seemingly benign distinctions, or supported by apparently rational or widely held observations, these biases can cause grave individual, group, and societal harm that is commensurate to and even exceeds the harm caused by outright racism.” To deny the prejudices that providers have when making decisions for patients will perpetuate the racism and hinder our ability to overcome health inequity. Americans of racial and ethnic minorities have a higher incidence of chronic diseases and premature death when compared to white Americans.⁴ These disparities exist even when controlling for individual variations such as availability of health insurance, education, and socioeconomic status.⁵ Social determinants of health because of racial differences is often talked about as a cause of health care inequity, but given the evidence that providers play a much more active role in this, we need to become more comfortable with the discomfort of using the word “racism” if we intend to bring awareness and create change. 

In order to tackle structural racism in health care, organizations must take a multifaceted approach. Evidence-based strategies include: creation of an inclusive workforce, diversification of the workforce to better represent patient populations, and education/training on the effect of implicit bias on equitable health care.⁶ These aspirations can provide a framework for interventions at all levels of health care organizations.

The JEDI (justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion) committee of the section of hospital medicine at Wake Forest Baptist Health System came into existence in November 2019. The objective for JEDI was to use evidence-based methods to help create an environment that would lead to the creation of a diverse and inclusive hospital medicine group. Prior to establishing our committee, we interviewed providers from traditional minority groups who were part of our practice to bring clarity to the discrimination faced by our providers from colleagues, staff, and patients. The discrimination varied from microaggressions caused by implicit biases to macroaggression from overt discrimination. We initiated our work on this burning platform by following the evidence-based methods mentioned earlier.
 

Creation of an inclusive workforce. Our working committee included members of varied backgrounds and experiences who were passionate about enhancing equity while focusing on inclusion and wellness. The committee brainstormed ideas for interventions that could make a positive impact for our teammates. Individual providers voted to choose the interventions that would positively impact their inclusion and health. Using a validated survey,⁷ we were able to measure the degree of inclusion of our work group based on multiple demographics including age, gender, race/ethnicity, training (physician vs. APP), etc. Our intention is to complete the proposed interventions before remeasuring inclusion to understand the effect of our work.

Diversifying the workforce. Although our section of hospital medicine at Wake Forest Baptist Health System consists of providers self-identifying as people of color, we do not adequately mirror the racial composition of the population we serve. To achieve the desired result, we have made changes to our recruiting program. The section of hospital medicine visibly demonstrates our commitment to diversity and displays our values on our website. We intend for this to attract diverse individuals who would intend to be part of our group.

Education and training on impact of implicit bias on equitable health care. Implicit bias training will have to consist of actions that would help our clinicians recognize their own prejudices and find means to mitigate them. We have committed to bystander education that would give practice and words to our providers to speak up in situations where they see discrimination in the workplace that is directed against patients, staff, and colleagues. A series of open and honest conversations about racial and gender discrimination in health care that involves inviting accomplished speakers from around the country has been planned. Continued attention to opportunities to further awareness on this subject is vital.
 

On Jan. 6, 2021, a day that should have filled citizens with pride and hope with the election of the first Black minister and the first Jewish man to the U.S. Senate in a historically conservative state, as well as the confirmation of the election of a president who pledged to address racial disparities, we instead saw another stark reminder of where we came from and just how far we have to go. White supremacists incited by their perceived threat to a legacy of centuries of suppression transformed into a mob of insurrectionists, blatantly bearing Confederate and Nazi flags, and seemingly easily invaded and desecrated the U.S. Capitol. On March 16, 2021, a white male who was “having a bad day” ended the lives of eight individuals, including six Asian Americans.

These instances have brought forth the reality that many of our interventions have been directed towards subtle prejudices and microaggressions alone. We have skirted around calling out overt discrimination of minority groups and failed to openly acknowledge our own contribution to the problem. This newly found awareness has created an opportunity for more impactful work. The equitable delivery of health care is dependent on creating a patient-provider relationship based on trust; addressing overt discrimination respectfully; and overcoming unconscious bias.

While we have made the commitment to confront structural racism in our workplace and taken important steps to work towards this goal with the initiatives set forth by our JEDI committee, we certainly have a long way to go. George Floyd spent the last 8 minutes and 46 seconds of his life struggling to breathe and asking for his mother. Let’s not waste another second and instead be the change that we seek in health care.
 

Dr. Nagaraj is medical director, Hospital Medicine, at Lexington (N.C.) Medical Center, assistant professor at Wake Forest School of Medicine, and cochair, JEDI committee for diversity and inclusion, hospital medicine, at Wake Forest Baptist Health, Winston-Salem, NC. Ms. Haller is cochair, JEDI committee for diversity and inclusion, hospital medicine, Wake Forest Baptist Health. Dr. Huang is the executive medical director and service line director of general medicine and hospital medicine within the Wake Forest Baptist Health System and associate professor at Wake Forest School of Medicine. The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Julie Freischlag, Dr. Kevin High, and Dr. David McIntosh at Wake Forest Baptist Health System for the support of the JEDI committee and the section on hospital medicine.

References

1. Holland B. The “father of modern gynecology” performed shocking experiments on enslaved women. History. 2017 Aug 29. www.history.com/news/the-father-of-modern-gynecology-performed-shocking-experiments-on-slaves.

2. Buseh AG et al. Community leaders’ perspectives on engaging African Americans in biobanks and other human genetics initiatives. J Community Genet. 2013 Oct;4(4):483-94. doi: 10.1007/s12687-013-0155-z.

3. National Center for Health Statistics. Health, United States, 2015: With special feature on racial and ethnic health disparities. 2016 May. www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus15.pdf.

4. Bailey ZD et al. Structural racism and health inequities in the USA: evidence and interventions. Lancet. 2017 Apr 8;389(10077):1453-63. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30569-X.

5. Arvizo C and Garrison E. Diversity and inclusion: the role of unconscious bias on patient care, health outcomes and the workforce in obstetrics and gynaecology. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Oct;31(5):356-62. doi: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000566.

6. Chung BG et al. Work group inclusion: test of a scale and model. Group & Organization Management. 2020;45(1):75-102. doi: 10.1177/1059601119839858.

The Atlanta spa massacre, the commencement of the George Floyd trial, and COVID-19 highlight societal inequalities and health disparities among minority groups. We can only hope that we have arrived at the tipping point to address historical institutional racism and structural violence in this country.

Admittedly, we, as health care professionals, have been at best apathetic and at worst complicit with this tragedy. Dr. James Sims, the father of gynecology, perfected his surgical techniques of vaginal fistula on slaves. Starting in 1845, he performed over thirty surgeries without anesthesia on Anarcha Westcott.¹ Moreover, the past century was dotted with similar transgressions such as the Tuskegee Untreated Syphilis Experiment from 1932 to 1972, the use of the cells of Henrietta Lack in 1951, and the disproportionate lack of funding of sickle cell research.² We must move from complicit/apathetic to being part of the discourse and solution. 

The juxtaposition of George Floyd’s cry of “I can’t breathe” and the disproportionate way in which COVID-19 has affected Black communities and people of color highlights how deeply entrenched the problem of systemic racism is in this country. The innumerable reported hate crimes against Asian Americans stemming from xenophobia linked to the COVID-19 pandemic and the stereotyping of Hispanic Americans as criminals during the last U.S. administration demonstrate that all minority racial/ethnic groups are affected. As clinicians who care for the health of our communities and strive to reduce suffering, we have a responsibility to identify discrimination that exists in the health care system – ranging from subtle implicit bias to overt discrimination.³

Unconscious bias and its effect on diversity and inclusion has only recently been recognized and addressed in the realm of health care as applied to clinicians. This is key to structural racism as providers inadvertently use unconscious bias every day to make their medical decisions quick and efficient. As Dayna Bowen Matthews points out in her book, “Just Medicine,” “where health and health care are concerned, even when implicit biases are based on seemingly benign distinctions, or supported by apparently rational or widely held observations, these biases can cause grave individual, group, and societal harm that is commensurate to and even exceeds the harm caused by outright racism.” To deny the prejudices that providers have when making decisions for patients will perpetuate the racism and hinder our ability to overcome health inequity. Americans of racial and ethnic minorities have a higher incidence of chronic diseases and premature death when compared to white Americans.⁴ These disparities exist even when controlling for individual variations such as availability of health insurance, education, and socioeconomic status.⁵ Social determinants of health because of racial differences is often talked about as a cause of health care inequity, but given the evidence that providers play a much more active role in this, we need to become more comfortable with the discomfort of using the word “racism” if we intend to bring awareness and create change. 

In order to tackle structural racism in health care, organizations must take a multifaceted approach. Evidence-based strategies include: creation of an inclusive workforce, diversification of the workforce to better represent patient populations, and education/training on the effect of implicit bias on equitable health care.⁶ These aspirations can provide a framework for interventions at all levels of health care organizations.

The JEDI (justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion) committee of the section of hospital medicine at Wake Forest Baptist Health System came into existence in November 2019. The objective for JEDI was to use evidence-based methods to help create an environment that would lead to the creation of a diverse and inclusive hospital medicine group. Prior to establishing our committee, we interviewed providers from traditional minority groups who were part of our practice to bring clarity to the discrimination faced by our providers from colleagues, staff, and patients. The discrimination varied from microaggressions caused by implicit biases to macroaggression from overt discrimination. We initiated our work on this burning platform by following the evidence-based methods mentioned earlier.
 

Creation of an inclusive workforce. Our working committee included members of varied backgrounds and experiences who were passionate about enhancing equity while focusing on inclusion and wellness. The committee brainstormed ideas for interventions that could make a positive impact for our teammates. Individual providers voted to choose the interventions that would positively impact their inclusion and health. Using a validated survey,⁷ we were able to measure the degree of inclusion of our work group based on multiple demographics including age, gender, race/ethnicity, training (physician vs. APP), etc. Our intention is to complete the proposed interventions before remeasuring inclusion to understand the effect of our work.

Diversifying the workforce. Although our section of hospital medicine at Wake Forest Baptist Health System consists of providers self-identifying as people of color, we do not adequately mirror the racial composition of the population we serve. To achieve the desired result, we have made changes to our recruiting program. The section of hospital medicine visibly demonstrates our commitment to diversity and displays our values on our website. We intend for this to attract diverse individuals who would intend to be part of our group.

Education and training on impact of implicit bias on equitable health care. Implicit bias training will have to consist of actions that would help our clinicians recognize their own prejudices and find means to mitigate them. We have committed to bystander education that would give practice and words to our providers to speak up in situations where they see discrimination in the workplace that is directed against patients, staff, and colleagues. A series of open and honest conversations about racial and gender discrimination in health care that involves inviting accomplished speakers from around the country has been planned. Continued attention to opportunities to further awareness on this subject is vital.
 

On Jan. 6, 2021, a day that should have filled citizens with pride and hope with the election of the first Black minister and the first Jewish man to the U.S. Senate in a historically conservative state, as well as the confirmation of the election of a president who pledged to address racial disparities, we instead saw another stark reminder of where we came from and just how far we have to go. White supremacists incited by their perceived threat to a legacy of centuries of suppression transformed into a mob of insurrectionists, blatantly bearing Confederate and Nazi flags, and seemingly easily invaded and desecrated the U.S. Capitol. On March 16, 2021, a white male who was “having a bad day” ended the lives of eight individuals, including six Asian Americans.

These instances have brought forth the reality that many of our interventions have been directed towards subtle prejudices and microaggressions alone. We have skirted around calling out overt discrimination of minority groups and failed to openly acknowledge our own contribution to the problem. This newly found awareness has created an opportunity for more impactful work. The equitable delivery of health care is dependent on creating a patient-provider relationship based on trust; addressing overt discrimination respectfully; and overcoming unconscious bias.

While we have made the commitment to confront structural racism in our workplace and taken important steps to work towards this goal with the initiatives set forth by our JEDI committee, we certainly have a long way to go. George Floyd spent the last 8 minutes and 46 seconds of his life struggling to breathe and asking for his mother. Let’s not waste another second and instead be the change that we seek in health care.
 

Dr. Nagaraj is medical director, Hospital Medicine, at Lexington (N.C.) Medical Center, assistant professor at Wake Forest School of Medicine, and cochair, JEDI committee for diversity and inclusion, hospital medicine, at Wake Forest Baptist Health, Winston-Salem, NC. Ms. Haller is cochair, JEDI committee for diversity and inclusion, hospital medicine, Wake Forest Baptist Health. Dr. Huang is the executive medical director and service line director of general medicine and hospital medicine within the Wake Forest Baptist Health System and associate professor at Wake Forest School of Medicine. The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Julie Freischlag, Dr. Kevin High, and Dr. David McIntosh at Wake Forest Baptist Health System for the support of the JEDI committee and the section on hospital medicine.

References

1. Holland B. The “father of modern gynecology” performed shocking experiments on enslaved women. History. 2017 Aug 29. www.history.com/news/the-father-of-modern-gynecology-performed-shocking-experiments-on-slaves.

2. Buseh AG et al. Community leaders’ perspectives on engaging African Americans in biobanks and other human genetics initiatives. J Community Genet. 2013 Oct;4(4):483-94. doi: 10.1007/s12687-013-0155-z.

3. National Center for Health Statistics. Health, United States, 2015: With special feature on racial and ethnic health disparities. 2016 May. www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus15.pdf.

4. Bailey ZD et al. Structural racism and health inequities in the USA: evidence and interventions. Lancet. 2017 Apr 8;389(10077):1453-63. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30569-X.

5. Arvizo C and Garrison E. Diversity and inclusion: the role of unconscious bias on patient care, health outcomes and the workforce in obstetrics and gynaecology. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Oct;31(5):356-62. doi: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000566.

6. Chung BG et al. Work group inclusion: test of a scale and model. Group & Organization Management. 2020;45(1):75-102. doi: 10.1177/1059601119839858.

Approximately 40,000 children in the United States have lost a parent to COVID-19, based on data from a combination of death counts and simulation models.

dtiberio/iStock/Getty Images

The scale of mortality from COVID-19 among adults in the United States merits efforts to monitor how many children have lost a parent as a result of the pandemic, wrote Rachel Kidman, PhD, of Stony Brook (N.Y.) University and colleagues.

In a study published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers used kinship networks of White and Black individuals in the United States to estimate parental bereavement. They combined deaths from COVID-19 as of February 2021 and combined them with excess deaths, and estimated future bereavement based on a herd immunity scenario.

Overall, the model suggested that each death from COVID-19 results in potential parental bereavement for 0.78 children aged 0-17 years, representing an increase of 17.5%-20.2% in parental bereavement. The model indicated that, as of February 2021, 37,337 children aged 0-17 years had lost a parent to COVID-19, including 11,366 children age 0-9 years and 31,661 children and teens aged 10-17 years. A total of 20,600 of these children were non-Hispanic White and 7,600 were Black. Black children accounted for 20% of the bereaved children, although they account for approximately 14% of children aged 0-17 years in the United States, the researchers noted.

Including the excess death estimate, which refers to the difference between observed and expected deaths for the remainder of the pandemic, raised the total bereaved children to 43,000. A future mortality scenario using a total of 1,500,000 deaths from COVID-19 based on a natural herd immunity strategy increased the total estimate of bereaved children to 116,922.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on nonparental primary caregivers, and the use of demographic models rather than survey or administrative data, the researchers noted.

However, the huge number of children who have experienced the death of a parent because of COVID-19 emphasizes the need for reforms to address health, educational, and economic impacts of this mass bereavement on children and teens, they said.

“Parentally bereaved children will also need targeted support to help with grief, particularly during this period of heightened social isolation,” they emphasized.

Establishment of a national child bereavement cohort could identify children early in the bereavement process to help ensure that they are connected to local supportive care and monitored for health and behavior problems, the researchers said. In addition, such a cohort could be used as a basis for a longitudinal study of the impact of mass parental bereavement during a unique period of social isolation and economic uncertainty, they concluded.
 

Study spotlights gaps in mental health care

The study is an important reminder of how COVID-19 has disrupted children’s lives, said Herschel Lessin, MD, of Children’s Medical Group in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., in an interview. Losing a parent because of COVID-19 is one more tragedy on the list of social and emotional disasters the pandemic has wrought on children, he said.

“There has to be some sort of national response to help children through all of this, not just one item at a time,” Dr. Lessin said. However, the management of children’s mental health in the United States has been subpar for decades, he noted, with few clinicians trained to specialize in treating behavioral and mental health issues in children. Consequently, more general pediatricians will continue to be faced with the mental health issues of bereaved children who desperately need support, he said.

Money remains a key barrier, as it keeps qualified clinicians from entering the field of pediatric mental and behavioral health, and even where there are mental health providers, most do not take insurance and have long waiting lists, Dr. Lessin noted.

General pediatricians were seeing more patients with ADHD, anxiety, and depression before the advent of COVID-19, though most are not trained in managing these conditions, said Dr. Lessin. “Approximately 25%-30% of my visits now are mental health related, and the pandemic will make it geometrically worse,” he said.

The current study, with its dramatic estimates of the number of children who have lost a parent because of COVID-19, may bring attention to the fact that more training and money are needed to support mental health programs for children, he said.

Lead author Dr. Kidman had no financial conflicts to disclose. The study was supported by grants to corresponding author Ashton M. Verdery, PhD, from the National Institute on Aging and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Lessin had no financial conflicts but serves on the Pediatric News editorial advisory board.

SOURCE: Kidman R et al. JAMA Pediatr. .

Approximately 40,000 children in the United States have lost a parent to COVID-19, based on data from a combination of death counts and simulation models.

dtiberio/iStock/Getty Images

The scale of mortality from COVID-19 among adults in the United States merits efforts to monitor how many children have lost a parent as a result of the pandemic, wrote Rachel Kidman, PhD, of Stony Brook (N.Y.) University and colleagues.

In a study published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers used kinship networks of White and Black individuals in the United States to estimate parental bereavement. They combined deaths from COVID-19 as of February 2021 and combined them with excess deaths, and estimated future bereavement based on a herd immunity scenario.

Overall, the model suggested that each death from COVID-19 results in potential parental bereavement for 0.78 children aged 0-17 years, representing an increase of 17.5%-20.2% in parental bereavement. The model indicated that, as of February 2021, 37,337 children aged 0-17 years had lost a parent to COVID-19, including 11,366 children age 0-9 years and 31,661 children and teens aged 10-17 years. A total of 20,600 of these children were non-Hispanic White and 7,600 were Black. Black children accounted for 20% of the bereaved children, although they account for approximately 14% of children aged 0-17 years in the United States, the researchers noted.

Including the excess death estimate, which refers to the difference between observed and expected deaths for the remainder of the pandemic, raised the total bereaved children to 43,000. A future mortality scenario using a total of 1,500,000 deaths from COVID-19 based on a natural herd immunity strategy increased the total estimate of bereaved children to 116,922.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on nonparental primary caregivers, and the use of demographic models rather than survey or administrative data, the researchers noted.

However, the huge number of children who have experienced the death of a parent because of COVID-19 emphasizes the need for reforms to address health, educational, and economic impacts of this mass bereavement on children and teens, they said.

“Parentally bereaved children will also need targeted support to help with grief, particularly during this period of heightened social isolation,” they emphasized.

Establishment of a national child bereavement cohort could identify children early in the bereavement process to help ensure that they are connected to local supportive care and monitored for health and behavior problems, the researchers said. In addition, such a cohort could be used as a basis for a longitudinal study of the impact of mass parental bereavement during a unique period of social isolation and economic uncertainty, they concluded.
 

Study spotlights gaps in mental health care

The study is an important reminder of how COVID-19 has disrupted children’s lives, said Herschel Lessin, MD, of Children’s Medical Group in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., in an interview. Losing a parent because of COVID-19 is one more tragedy on the list of social and emotional disasters the pandemic has wrought on children, he said.

“There has to be some sort of national response to help children through all of this, not just one item at a time,” Dr. Lessin said. However, the management of children’s mental health in the United States has been subpar for decades, he noted, with few clinicians trained to specialize in treating behavioral and mental health issues in children. Consequently, more general pediatricians will continue to be faced with the mental health issues of bereaved children who desperately need support, he said.

Money remains a key barrier, as it keeps qualified clinicians from entering the field of pediatric mental and behavioral health, and even where there are mental health providers, most do not take insurance and have long waiting lists, Dr. Lessin noted.

General pediatricians were seeing more patients with ADHD, anxiety, and depression before the advent of COVID-19, though most are not trained in managing these conditions, said Dr. Lessin. “Approximately 25%-30% of my visits now are mental health related, and the pandemic will make it geometrically worse,” he said.

The current study, with its dramatic estimates of the number of children who have lost a parent because of COVID-19, may bring attention to the fact that more training and money are needed to support mental health programs for children, he said.

Lead author Dr. Kidman had no financial conflicts to disclose. The study was supported by grants to corresponding author Ashton M. Verdery, PhD, from the National Institute on Aging and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Lessin had no financial conflicts but serves on the Pediatric News editorial advisory board.

SOURCE: Kidman R et al. JAMA Pediatr. .

Approximately 40,000 children in the United States have lost a parent to COVID-19, based on data from a combination of death counts and simulation models.

dtiberio/iStock/Getty Images

The scale of mortality from COVID-19 among adults in the United States merits efforts to monitor how many children have lost a parent as a result of the pandemic, wrote Rachel Kidman, PhD, of Stony Brook (N.Y.) University and colleagues.

In a study published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers used kinship networks of White and Black individuals in the United States to estimate parental bereavement. They combined deaths from COVID-19 as of February 2021 and combined them with excess deaths, and estimated future bereavement based on a herd immunity scenario.

Overall, the model suggested that each death from COVID-19 results in potential parental bereavement for 0.78 children aged 0-17 years, representing an increase of 17.5%-20.2% in parental bereavement. The model indicated that, as of February 2021, 37,337 children aged 0-17 years had lost a parent to COVID-19, including 11,366 children age 0-9 years and 31,661 children and teens aged 10-17 years. A total of 20,600 of these children were non-Hispanic White and 7,600 were Black. Black children accounted for 20% of the bereaved children, although they account for approximately 14% of children aged 0-17 years in the United States, the researchers noted.

Including the excess death estimate, which refers to the difference between observed and expected deaths for the remainder of the pandemic, raised the total bereaved children to 43,000. A future mortality scenario using a total of 1,500,000 deaths from COVID-19 based on a natural herd immunity strategy increased the total estimate of bereaved children to 116,922.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on nonparental primary caregivers, and the use of demographic models rather than survey or administrative data, the researchers noted.

However, the huge number of children who have experienced the death of a parent because of COVID-19 emphasizes the need for reforms to address health, educational, and economic impacts of this mass bereavement on children and teens, they said.

“Parentally bereaved children will also need targeted support to help with grief, particularly during this period of heightened social isolation,” they emphasized.

Establishment of a national child bereavement cohort could identify children early in the bereavement process to help ensure that they are connected to local supportive care and monitored for health and behavior problems, the researchers said. In addition, such a cohort could be used as a basis for a longitudinal study of the impact of mass parental bereavement during a unique period of social isolation and economic uncertainty, they concluded.
 

Study spotlights gaps in mental health care

The study is an important reminder of how COVID-19 has disrupted children’s lives, said Herschel Lessin, MD, of Children’s Medical Group in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., in an interview. Losing a parent because of COVID-19 is one more tragedy on the list of social and emotional disasters the pandemic has wrought on children, he said.

“There has to be some sort of national response to help children through all of this, not just one item at a time,” Dr. Lessin said. However, the management of children’s mental health in the United States has been subpar for decades, he noted, with few clinicians trained to specialize in treating behavioral and mental health issues in children. Consequently, more general pediatricians will continue to be faced with the mental health issues of bereaved children who desperately need support, he said.

Money remains a key barrier, as it keeps qualified clinicians from entering the field of pediatric mental and behavioral health, and even where there are mental health providers, most do not take insurance and have long waiting lists, Dr. Lessin noted.

General pediatricians were seeing more patients with ADHD, anxiety, and depression before the advent of COVID-19, though most are not trained in managing these conditions, said Dr. Lessin. “Approximately 25%-30% of my visits now are mental health related, and the pandemic will make it geometrically worse,” he said.

The current study, with its dramatic estimates of the number of children who have lost a parent because of COVID-19, may bring attention to the fact that more training and money are needed to support mental health programs for children, he said.

Lead author Dr. Kidman had no financial conflicts to disclose. The study was supported by grants to corresponding author Ashton M. Verdery, PhD, from the National Institute on Aging and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Lessin had no financial conflicts but serves on the Pediatric News editorial advisory board.

SOURCE: Kidman R et al. JAMA Pediatr. .

COVID-19 survivors face a sharply elevated risk of developing psychiatric or neurologic disorders in the 6 months after they contract the virus – a danger that mounts with symptom severity, new research shows.
 

In what is purported to be the largest study of its kind to date, results showed that among 236,379 COVID-19 patients, one-third were diagnosed with at least 1 of 14 psychiatric or neurologic disorders within a 6-month span.

The rate of illnesses, which ranged from depression to stroke, rose sharply among those with COVID-19 symptoms acute enough to require hospitalization.  

“If we look at patients who were hospitalized, that rate increased to 39%, and then increased to about just under 1 in 2 patients who needed ICU admission at the time of the COVID-19 diagnosis,” Maxime Taquet, PhD, University of Oxford (England) department of psychiatry, said at a media briefing.

Incidence jumps to almost two-thirds in patients with encephalopathy at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, he added.

The study, which examined the brain health of 236,379 survivors of COVID-19 via a U.S. database of 81 million electronic health records, was published online April 6 in The Lancet Psychiatry.
 

High rate of neurologic, psychiatric disorders

The research team looked at the first-time diagnosis or recurrence of 14 neurologic and psychiatric outcomes in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections. They also compared the brain health of this cohort with a control group of those with influenza or with non–COVID-19 respiratory infections over the same period. 

All study participants were older than 10 years, diagnosed with COVID-19 on or after Jan. 20, 2020, and still alive as of Dec. 13, 2020.

The psychiatric and neurologic conditions examined included intracranial hemorrhage; ischemic stroke; parkinsonism; Guillain-Barré syndrome; nerve, nerve root and plexus disorders; myoneural junction and muscle disease; encephalitis; dementia; psychotic, mood, and anxiety disorders; substance use disorder; and insomnia.

The investigators used hospitalization, intensive care admissions, and encephalopathy as an indication of the severity of COVID-19 symptoms.

The study benchmarked the primary cohort with four populations of patients diagnosed in the same period with nonrespiratory illnesses, including skin infection, urolithiasis, bone fractures, and pulmonary embolisms.

Results showed that substantially more COVID-19 patients were diagnosed with a neurologic or psychiatric disorder compared with those with other respiratory illnesses.

“On average, in terms of the relative numbers, there was a 44% increased risk of having a neurological or psychiatric diagnosis after COVID-19 than after the flu and a 16% increased risk compared to other respiratory tract infections,” Dr. Taquet told reporters.

Health services should be prepared for an increase in psychiatric and neurologic issues in the months to come, he said, adding that further investigations are needed into why, and how, the coronavirus affects brain health.
 

Largest study to date

Although previous research suggests a link between the two, this is the largest study of its kind, examines a wider range of neurologic outcomes, and spans the longest time frame to date, said study coinvestigator Paul Harrison, BM BCh, associate head of the University of Oxford department of psychiatry.

There was a lower incidence of mood and anxiety disorders vs. neurologic disorders in patients with severe COVID-19 symptoms, a finding that Dr. Harrison said may indicate pandemic-related psychological stress is driving these disorders vs. biological factors.

“This paper follows up on an earlier study we did where we found much the same association, and our view is that a lot of the mental health consequences of COVID are … to do with the stress of knowing that one has had COVID and all the implications that go with that, rather than its being a direct effect, for example, of the virus on the brain, or of the immune response to the virus on the brain,” he added.

In contrast, neurologic diagnoses were more likely to be “mediated by some direct consequence of the COVID infection,” he added.

Psychosis and dementia, for instance, were less frequent in the overall COVID-19 population but became much more frequent among those with severe symptoms. The research team said these findings, along with those related to the incidence of ischemic stroke, were “concerning.”

“We found that 1 in 50 patients with COVID-19 go on to have an ischemic stroke in the 6 months after the COVID-19 illness,” Dr. Taquet told reporters. “And that rate increased to 1 in 11 patients if we look at patients with encephalopathy at the time of the COVID-19 diagnosis.”

Rates of brain hemorrhages also rose sharply among those with acute symptoms. Just over 1 in 200 total COVID-19 patients were diagnosed with this neurological condition, but that jumped to 1 in 25 of those who experienced encephalopathy at the time of their COVID-19 diagnosis.
 

Need for replication

Study coauthor Masud Husain, PhD, of University of Oxford’s cognitive neurology department, told reporters that while there is evidence from other neurologic studies that the virus can access the brain, there has been little sign the neurons themselves are affected.

“There isn’t much evidence that the virus itself attacks neurons in the brain, but it can cause inflammation, and it can activate inflammatory cells in the brain,” he said.

“And those effects are probably very important in some of the biological effects on the brain. In addition, of course, we know that the virus can change clotting and the likelihood of thrombosis in the blood, and those effects can also impact upon the brain,” he added.

Dr. Harrison said it would be helpful to replicate the results garnered from the U.S. database in other populations.

“It goes without saying that replication of these results with other electronic health records and in other countries is a priority,” he said, adding that investigations are essential into how and why the virus affects brain health.

Dr. Harrison cited a U.K. Research and Innovation–funded study called COVID CNS that will follow patients with neurologic and/or psychiatric issues during acute COVID-19 in hopes of exploring possible causes.
 

Beyond a reasonable doubt

Commenting on the findings, Sir Simon Wessely, MD, Regius chair of psychiatry, King’s College London, said in a release: “This is a very important paper. It confirms beyond any reasonable doubt that COVID-19 affects both brain and mind in equal measure.”

Some of these effects, including stroke and anxiety disorders, were already known, but others such as dementia and psychosis were less well known, he added. 

“What is very new is the comparisons with all respiratory viruses or influenza, which suggests that these increases are specifically related to COVID-19, and not a general impact of viral infection,” Dr. Wessely said. “In general, the worse the illness, the greater the neurological or psychiatric outcomes, which is perhaps not surprising.    

“The worst outcomes were in those with encephalopathy – inflammation of the brain – again, not surprising. The association with dementia was, however, small and might reflect diagnostic issues, whilst so far there doesn’t seem early evidence of a link with parkinsonism, which was a major factor after the great Spanish Flu pandemic, although the authors caution that it is too early to rule this out.”

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

COVID-19 survivors face a sharply elevated risk of developing psychiatric or neurologic disorders in the 6 months after they contract the virus – a danger that mounts with symptom severity, new research shows.
 

In what is purported to be the largest study of its kind to date, results showed that among 236,379 COVID-19 patients, one-third were diagnosed with at least 1 of 14 psychiatric or neurologic disorders within a 6-month span.

The rate of illnesses, which ranged from depression to stroke, rose sharply among those with COVID-19 symptoms acute enough to require hospitalization.  

“If we look at patients who were hospitalized, that rate increased to 39%, and then increased to about just under 1 in 2 patients who needed ICU admission at the time of the COVID-19 diagnosis,” Maxime Taquet, PhD, University of Oxford (England) department of psychiatry, said at a media briefing.

Incidence jumps to almost two-thirds in patients with encephalopathy at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, he added.

The study, which examined the brain health of 236,379 survivors of COVID-19 via a U.S. database of 81 million electronic health records, was published online April 6 in The Lancet Psychiatry.
 

High rate of neurologic, psychiatric disorders

The research team looked at the first-time diagnosis or recurrence of 14 neurologic and psychiatric outcomes in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections. They also compared the brain health of this cohort with a control group of those with influenza or with non–COVID-19 respiratory infections over the same period. 

All study participants were older than 10 years, diagnosed with COVID-19 on or after Jan. 20, 2020, and still alive as of Dec. 13, 2020.

The psychiatric and neurologic conditions examined included intracranial hemorrhage; ischemic stroke; parkinsonism; Guillain-Barré syndrome; nerve, nerve root and plexus disorders; myoneural junction and muscle disease; encephalitis; dementia; psychotic, mood, and anxiety disorders; substance use disorder; and insomnia.

The investigators used hospitalization, intensive care admissions, and encephalopathy as an indication of the severity of COVID-19 symptoms.

The study benchmarked the primary cohort with four populations of patients diagnosed in the same period with nonrespiratory illnesses, including skin infection, urolithiasis, bone fractures, and pulmonary embolisms.

Results showed that substantially more COVID-19 patients were diagnosed with a neurologic or psychiatric disorder compared with those with other respiratory illnesses.

“On average, in terms of the relative numbers, there was a 44% increased risk of having a neurological or psychiatric diagnosis after COVID-19 than after the flu and a 16% increased risk compared to other respiratory tract infections,” Dr. Taquet told reporters.

Health services should be prepared for an increase in psychiatric and neurologic issues in the months to come, he said, adding that further investigations are needed into why, and how, the coronavirus affects brain health.
 

Largest study to date

Although previous research suggests a link between the two, this is the largest study of its kind, examines a wider range of neurologic outcomes, and spans the longest time frame to date, said study coinvestigator Paul Harrison, BM BCh, associate head of the University of Oxford department of psychiatry.

There was a lower incidence of mood and anxiety disorders vs. neurologic disorders in patients with severe COVID-19 symptoms, a finding that Dr. Harrison said may indicate pandemic-related psychological stress is driving these disorders vs. biological factors.

“This paper follows up on an earlier study we did where we found much the same association, and our view is that a lot of the mental health consequences of COVID are … to do with the stress of knowing that one has had COVID and all the implications that go with that, rather than its being a direct effect, for example, of the virus on the brain, or of the immune response to the virus on the brain,” he added.

In contrast, neurologic diagnoses were more likely to be “mediated by some direct consequence of the COVID infection,” he added.

Psychosis and dementia, for instance, were less frequent in the overall COVID-19 population but became much more frequent among those with severe symptoms. The research team said these findings, along with those related to the incidence of ischemic stroke, were “concerning.”

“We found that 1 in 50 patients with COVID-19 go on to have an ischemic stroke in the 6 months after the COVID-19 illness,” Dr. Taquet told reporters. “And that rate increased to 1 in 11 patients if we look at patients with encephalopathy at the time of the COVID-19 diagnosis.”

Rates of brain hemorrhages also rose sharply among those with acute symptoms. Just over 1 in 200 total COVID-19 patients were diagnosed with this neurological condition, but that jumped to 1 in 25 of those who experienced encephalopathy at the time of their COVID-19 diagnosis.
 

Need for replication

Study coauthor Masud Husain, PhD, of University of Oxford’s cognitive neurology department, told reporters that while there is evidence from other neurologic studies that the virus can access the brain, there has been little sign the neurons themselves are affected.

“There isn’t much evidence that the virus itself attacks neurons in the brain, but it can cause inflammation, and it can activate inflammatory cells in the brain,” he said.

“And those effects are probably very important in some of the biological effects on the brain. In addition, of course, we know that the virus can change clotting and the likelihood of thrombosis in the blood, and those effects can also impact upon the brain,” he added.

Dr. Harrison said it would be helpful to replicate the results garnered from the U.S. database in other populations.

“It goes without saying that replication of these results with other electronic health records and in other countries is a priority,” he said, adding that investigations are essential into how and why the virus affects brain health.

Dr. Harrison cited a U.K. Research and Innovation–funded study called COVID CNS that will follow patients with neurologic and/or psychiatric issues during acute COVID-19 in hopes of exploring possible causes.
 

Beyond a reasonable doubt

Commenting on the findings, Sir Simon Wessely, MD, Regius chair of psychiatry, King’s College London, said in a release: “This is a very important paper. It confirms beyond any reasonable doubt that COVID-19 affects both brain and mind in equal measure.”

Some of these effects, including stroke and anxiety disorders, were already known, but others such as dementia and psychosis were less well known, he added. 

“What is very new is the comparisons with all respiratory viruses or influenza, which suggests that these increases are specifically related to COVID-19, and not a general impact of viral infection,” Dr. Wessely said. “In general, the worse the illness, the greater the neurological or psychiatric outcomes, which is perhaps not surprising.    

“The worst outcomes were in those with encephalopathy – inflammation of the brain – again, not surprising. The association with dementia was, however, small and might reflect diagnostic issues, whilst so far there doesn’t seem early evidence of a link with parkinsonism, which was a major factor after the great Spanish Flu pandemic, although the authors caution that it is too early to rule this out.”

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

COVID-19 survivors face a sharply elevated risk of developing psychiatric or neurologic disorders in the 6 months after they contract the virus – a danger that mounts with symptom severity, new research shows.
 

In what is purported to be the largest study of its kind to date, results showed that among 236,379 COVID-19 patients, one-third were diagnosed with at least 1 of 14 psychiatric or neurologic disorders within a 6-month span.

The rate of illnesses, which ranged from depression to stroke, rose sharply among those with COVID-19 symptoms acute enough to require hospitalization.  

“If we look at patients who were hospitalized, that rate increased to 39%, and then increased to about just under 1 in 2 patients who needed ICU admission at the time of the COVID-19 diagnosis,” Maxime Taquet, PhD, University of Oxford (England) department of psychiatry, said at a media briefing.

Incidence jumps to almost two-thirds in patients with encephalopathy at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, he added.

The study, which examined the brain health of 236,379 survivors of COVID-19 via a U.S. database of 81 million electronic health records, was published online April 6 in The Lancet Psychiatry.
 

High rate of neurologic, psychiatric disorders

The research team looked at the first-time diagnosis or recurrence of 14 neurologic and psychiatric outcomes in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections. They also compared the brain health of this cohort with a control group of those with influenza or with non–COVID-19 respiratory infections over the same period. 

All study participants were older than 10 years, diagnosed with COVID-19 on or after Jan. 20, 2020, and still alive as of Dec. 13, 2020.

The psychiatric and neurologic conditions examined included intracranial hemorrhage; ischemic stroke; parkinsonism; Guillain-Barré syndrome; nerve, nerve root and plexus disorders; myoneural junction and muscle disease; encephalitis; dementia; psychotic, mood, and anxiety disorders; substance use disorder; and insomnia.

The investigators used hospitalization, intensive care admissions, and encephalopathy as an indication of the severity of COVID-19 symptoms.

The study benchmarked the primary cohort with four populations of patients diagnosed in the same period with nonrespiratory illnesses, including skin infection, urolithiasis, bone fractures, and pulmonary embolisms.

Results showed that substantially more COVID-19 patients were diagnosed with a neurologic or psychiatric disorder compared with those with other respiratory illnesses.

“On average, in terms of the relative numbers, there was a 44% increased risk of having a neurological or psychiatric diagnosis after COVID-19 than after the flu and a 16% increased risk compared to other respiratory tract infections,” Dr. Taquet told reporters.

Health services should be prepared for an increase in psychiatric and neurologic issues in the months to come, he said, adding that further investigations are needed into why, and how, the coronavirus affects brain health.
 

Largest study to date

Although previous research suggests a link between the two, this is the largest study of its kind, examines a wider range of neurologic outcomes, and spans the longest time frame to date, said study coinvestigator Paul Harrison, BM BCh, associate head of the University of Oxford department of psychiatry.

There was a lower incidence of mood and anxiety disorders vs. neurologic disorders in patients with severe COVID-19 symptoms, a finding that Dr. Harrison said may indicate pandemic-related psychological stress is driving these disorders vs. biological factors.

“This paper follows up on an earlier study we did where we found much the same association, and our view is that a lot of the mental health consequences of COVID are … to do with the stress of knowing that one has had COVID and all the implications that go with that, rather than its being a direct effect, for example, of the virus on the brain, or of the immune response to the virus on the brain,” he added.

In contrast, neurologic diagnoses were more likely to be “mediated by some direct consequence of the COVID infection,” he added.

Psychosis and dementia, for instance, were less frequent in the overall COVID-19 population but became much more frequent among those with severe symptoms. The research team said these findings, along with those related to the incidence of ischemic stroke, were “concerning.”

“We found that 1 in 50 patients with COVID-19 go on to have an ischemic stroke in the 6 months after the COVID-19 illness,” Dr. Taquet told reporters. “And that rate increased to 1 in 11 patients if we look at patients with encephalopathy at the time of the COVID-19 diagnosis.”

Rates of brain hemorrhages also rose sharply among those with acute symptoms. Just over 1 in 200 total COVID-19 patients were diagnosed with this neurological condition, but that jumped to 1 in 25 of those who experienced encephalopathy at the time of their COVID-19 diagnosis.
 

Need for replication

Study coauthor Masud Husain, PhD, of University of Oxford’s cognitive neurology department, told reporters that while there is evidence from other neurologic studies that the virus can access the brain, there has been little sign the neurons themselves are affected.

“There isn’t much evidence that the virus itself attacks neurons in the brain, but it can cause inflammation, and it can activate inflammatory cells in the brain,” he said.

“And those effects are probably very important in some of the biological effects on the brain. In addition, of course, we know that the virus can change clotting and the likelihood of thrombosis in the blood, and those effects can also impact upon the brain,” he added.

Dr. Harrison said it would be helpful to replicate the results garnered from the U.S. database in other populations.

“It goes without saying that replication of these results with other electronic health records and in other countries is a priority,” he said, adding that investigations are essential into how and why the virus affects brain health.

Dr. Harrison cited a U.K. Research and Innovation–funded study called COVID CNS that will follow patients with neurologic and/or psychiatric issues during acute COVID-19 in hopes of exploring possible causes.
 

Beyond a reasonable doubt

Commenting on the findings, Sir Simon Wessely, MD, Regius chair of psychiatry, King’s College London, said in a release: “This is a very important paper. It confirms beyond any reasonable doubt that COVID-19 affects both brain and mind in equal measure.”

Some of these effects, including stroke and anxiety disorders, were already known, but others such as dementia and psychosis were less well known, he added. 

“What is very new is the comparisons with all respiratory viruses or influenza, which suggests that these increases are specifically related to COVID-19, and not a general impact of viral infection,” Dr. Wessely said. “In general, the worse the illness, the greater the neurological or psychiatric outcomes, which is perhaps not surprising.    

“The worst outcomes were in those with encephalopathy – inflammation of the brain – again, not surprising. The association with dementia was, however, small and might reflect diagnostic issues, whilst so far there doesn’t seem early evidence of a link with parkinsonism, which was a major factor after the great Spanish Flu pandemic, although the authors caution that it is too early to rule this out.”

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

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to take its toll on the well-being and work satisfaction of health care providers, a new survey of more than 5,000 clinicians at an academic medical center illustrates.

About one in five people reported considering leaving the workforce because of the challenges of working during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, 30% reported they are considering cutting back work hours.

“There are a substantial number of employees and trainees who are experiencing major stress and work disruptions because of the pandemic,” lead author Rebecca K. Delaney, PhD, said in an interview. “It is particularly alarming that people who have spent 5 or more years in training for their specialty are struggling with their work, so much so that they have even considered leaving the workforce or reducing their hours.”

“Being a caregiver adds another layer of difficulty for faculty, staff, and trainees who are trying to manage work and child care,” added Dr. Delaney, a researcher in the department of population health sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

The study was published online April 2 in JAMA Network Open.

“This looks like an excellent survey,” Carol A Bernstein, MD, said in an interview when asked to comment. “I do not think it provides particularly new information as these challenges in the workplace, especially for women during COVID, have been well documented in the media and the medical literature to date.”

“That said, to the extent that data helps drive solutions, I would hope that information such as this would be considered as strong further evidence that health care systems must pay close attention to the wellbeing of the workforce,” added Dr. Bernstein, professor and vice chair of faculty development and well-being, departments of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and obstetrics and gynecology and women’s health, Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.
 

When the pandemic hits home

A total of 42% of the American workforce rapidly transitioned to working from home at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, many employees had to provide child care and assistance with schoolwork. This placed a burden on many individuals at academic medical centers, and women in particular.

“Women comprise 74.9% of hospital employees, many of whom are essential clinical workers,” the researchers noted. “The extent of the needs and difficulties for these workers during the pandemic remain largely unknown.”

To learn more, Dr. Delaney, senior author Angie Fagerlin, PhD, and their colleagues emailed a Qualtrics survey to 27,700 faculty, staff, and trainees at University of Utah Health. The survey was conducted Aug. 5-20, 2020 as part of a quality improvement initiative. All responses were anonymous.

Survey questions included if, because of the pandemic, people had considered leaving the workforce, considered reducing their hours, or experienced reduced productivity. The researchers also asked about career impacts and potential solutions in terms of “work culture adaptations.”

Respondents with children aged under 18 years also were asked about child care options. Dr. Delaney and colleagues also inquired about race and ethnicity because they hypothesized that employees from underrepresented groups would likely experience the pandemic differently.

The mean age of the 5,951 (21%) faculty, staff, and trainees who completed the survey was 40 years. A majority of respondents were women, reflecting the higher proportion of women within the health system.

A majority (86%) identified as White or European American. About two-thirds of respondents (66%) were staff, 16% were faculty, and 13% were trainees.
 

COVID-19 career concerns

Overall, 1,061 respondents (21%) “moderately or very seriously” considered leaving the workforce and 1,505 (30%) considered reducing hours. Respondents who were younger, married, a member of an underrepresented racial/ethnic group, and worked in a clinical setting were more likely to consider leaving the workforce.

The survey showed 27% felt their productivity increased whereas 39% believed their productivity decreased.

Of the 2,412 survey participants with children aged 18 years or younger, 66% reported that they did not have child care fully available.

“Failure to address and provide for child care has long been one of the many significant deficits in U.S. health care systems,” said Dr. Bernstein, lead author of a March 2021 report evaluating staff emotional support at Montefiore Medical Center during the pandemic in The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety.

Furthermore, 47% were “moderately or very seriously worried” about COVID-19 impacting their career development.

Women trainees were significantly more likely than male counterparts to consider leaving the workforce and reducing their work hours. Women in a faculty or trainee role were also more likely to worry about COVID-19’s impact on their career, compared with men, and compared with women in staff positions.

“It was disheartening to have our data support the gender and racial/ethnic disparity that has been highlighted in the media during the pandemic,” Dr. Delaney said. “Women and in some cases racial/ethnic groups that are underrepresented in medicine were most likely to consider leaving the workforce, reducing hours, and were worried about their career development.

“It is critical that we strategically address these important disparities,” she said.

Women also are disproportionately affected by burnout, particularly during the pandemic, according to an analysis of Medscape’s Physician Burnout and Suicide Report.

Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has shifted the medical specialties now considered highest risk for burnout: critical care physicians ranked first in the report, followed by rheumatologists and infectious disease specialists.
 

Potential solutions

“Given the disproportionate impact COVID-19 has on employees of health systems, institutions must find ways to support their employees, both in terms of workplace cultural adaptations and assistance with familial responsibilities,” the researchers noted.

Telecommuting policies, scheduling flexibility, and expanding employee support programs are potential solutions. Institutional policies also could address the educational and direct care needs of employee children.

Limitations of the study include its generalizability beyond employees of University of Utah Health. Also, respondents included a lower proportion of racial and ethnic groups, compared with national figures, “although this is mostly accounted for by the overall low population of such groups in the state of Utah,” the researchers added.

“Our results suggest that respondents were struggling during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the researchers noted. “As a result, even after investing substantial amounts of time in years of training, many were considering leaving the workforce because of stress and caregiving responsibilities related to the pandemic.”

The Jon M. Huntsman Presidential Endowed Chair supported the work with a financial award to Dr. Fagerlin. Dr. Delaney and Dr. Bernstein disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to take its toll on the well-being and work satisfaction of health care providers, a new survey of more than 5,000 clinicians at an academic medical center illustrates.

About one in five people reported considering leaving the workforce because of the challenges of working during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, 30% reported they are considering cutting back work hours.

“There are a substantial number of employees and trainees who are experiencing major stress and work disruptions because of the pandemic,” lead author Rebecca K. Delaney, PhD, said in an interview. “It is particularly alarming that people who have spent 5 or more years in training for their specialty are struggling with their work, so much so that they have even considered leaving the workforce or reducing their hours.”

“Being a caregiver adds another layer of difficulty for faculty, staff, and trainees who are trying to manage work and child care,” added Dr. Delaney, a researcher in the department of population health sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

The study was published online April 2 in JAMA Network Open.

“This looks like an excellent survey,” Carol A Bernstein, MD, said in an interview when asked to comment. “I do not think it provides particularly new information as these challenges in the workplace, especially for women during COVID, have been well documented in the media and the medical literature to date.”

“That said, to the extent that data helps drive solutions, I would hope that information such as this would be considered as strong further evidence that health care systems must pay close attention to the wellbeing of the workforce,” added Dr. Bernstein, professor and vice chair of faculty development and well-being, departments of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and obstetrics and gynecology and women’s health, Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.
 

When the pandemic hits home

A total of 42% of the American workforce rapidly transitioned to working from home at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, many employees had to provide child care and assistance with schoolwork. This placed a burden on many individuals at academic medical centers, and women in particular.

“Women comprise 74.9% of hospital employees, many of whom are essential clinical workers,” the researchers noted. “The extent of the needs and difficulties for these workers during the pandemic remain largely unknown.”

To learn more, Dr. Delaney, senior author Angie Fagerlin, PhD, and their colleagues emailed a Qualtrics survey to 27,700 faculty, staff, and trainees at University of Utah Health. The survey was conducted Aug. 5-20, 2020 as part of a quality improvement initiative. All responses were anonymous.

Survey questions included if, because of the pandemic, people had considered leaving the workforce, considered reducing their hours, or experienced reduced productivity. The researchers also asked about career impacts and potential solutions in terms of “work culture adaptations.”

Respondents with children aged under 18 years also were asked about child care options. Dr. Delaney and colleagues also inquired about race and ethnicity because they hypothesized that employees from underrepresented groups would likely experience the pandemic differently.

The mean age of the 5,951 (21%) faculty, staff, and trainees who completed the survey was 40 years. A majority of respondents were women, reflecting the higher proportion of women within the health system.

A majority (86%) identified as White or European American. About two-thirds of respondents (66%) were staff, 16% were faculty, and 13% were trainees.
 

COVID-19 career concerns

Overall, 1,061 respondents (21%) “moderately or very seriously” considered leaving the workforce and 1,505 (30%) considered reducing hours. Respondents who were younger, married, a member of an underrepresented racial/ethnic group, and worked in a clinical setting were more likely to consider leaving the workforce.

The survey showed 27% felt their productivity increased whereas 39% believed their productivity decreased.

Of the 2,412 survey participants with children aged 18 years or younger, 66% reported that they did not have child care fully available.

“Failure to address and provide for child care has long been one of the many significant deficits in U.S. health care systems,” said Dr. Bernstein, lead author of a March 2021 report evaluating staff emotional support at Montefiore Medical Center during the pandemic in The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety.

Furthermore, 47% were “moderately or very seriously worried” about COVID-19 impacting their career development.

Women trainees were significantly more likely than male counterparts to consider leaving the workforce and reducing their work hours. Women in a faculty or trainee role were also more likely to worry about COVID-19’s impact on their career, compared with men, and compared with women in staff positions.

“It was disheartening to have our data support the gender and racial/ethnic disparity that has been highlighted in the media during the pandemic,” Dr. Delaney said. “Women and in some cases racial/ethnic groups that are underrepresented in medicine were most likely to consider leaving the workforce, reducing hours, and were worried about their career development.

“It is critical that we strategically address these important disparities,” she said.

Women also are disproportionately affected by burnout, particularly during the pandemic, according to an analysis of Medscape’s Physician Burnout and Suicide Report.

Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has shifted the medical specialties now considered highest risk for burnout: critical care physicians ranked first in the report, followed by rheumatologists and infectious disease specialists.
 

Potential solutions

“Given the disproportionate impact COVID-19 has on employees of health systems, institutions must find ways to support their employees, both in terms of workplace cultural adaptations and assistance with familial responsibilities,” the researchers noted.

Telecommuting policies, scheduling flexibility, and expanding employee support programs are potential solutions. Institutional policies also could address the educational and direct care needs of employee children.

Limitations of the study include its generalizability beyond employees of University of Utah Health. Also, respondents included a lower proportion of racial and ethnic groups, compared with national figures, “although this is mostly accounted for by the overall low population of such groups in the state of Utah,” the researchers added.

“Our results suggest that respondents were struggling during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the researchers noted. “As a result, even after investing substantial amounts of time in years of training, many were considering leaving the workforce because of stress and caregiving responsibilities related to the pandemic.”

The Jon M. Huntsman Presidential Endowed Chair supported the work with a financial award to Dr. Fagerlin. Dr. Delaney and Dr. Bernstein disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to take its toll on the well-being and work satisfaction of health care providers, a new survey of more than 5,000 clinicians at an academic medical center illustrates.

About one in five people reported considering leaving the workforce because of the challenges of working during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, 30% reported they are considering cutting back work hours.

“There are a substantial number of employees and trainees who are experiencing major stress and work disruptions because of the pandemic,” lead author Rebecca K. Delaney, PhD, said in an interview. “It is particularly alarming that people who have spent 5 or more years in training for their specialty are struggling with their work, so much so that they have even considered leaving the workforce or reducing their hours.”

“Being a caregiver adds another layer of difficulty for faculty, staff, and trainees who are trying to manage work and child care,” added Dr. Delaney, a researcher in the department of population health sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

The study was published online April 2 in JAMA Network Open.

“This looks like an excellent survey,” Carol A Bernstein, MD, said in an interview when asked to comment. “I do not think it provides particularly new information as these challenges in the workplace, especially for women during COVID, have been well documented in the media and the medical literature to date.”

“That said, to the extent that data helps drive solutions, I would hope that information such as this would be considered as strong further evidence that health care systems must pay close attention to the wellbeing of the workforce,” added Dr. Bernstein, professor and vice chair of faculty development and well-being, departments of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and obstetrics and gynecology and women’s health, Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.
 

When the pandemic hits home

A total of 42% of the American workforce rapidly transitioned to working from home at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, many employees had to provide child care and assistance with schoolwork. This placed a burden on many individuals at academic medical centers, and women in particular.

“Women comprise 74.9% of hospital employees, many of whom are essential clinical workers,” the researchers noted. “The extent of the needs and difficulties for these workers during the pandemic remain largely unknown.”

To learn more, Dr. Delaney, senior author Angie Fagerlin, PhD, and their colleagues emailed a Qualtrics survey to 27,700 faculty, staff, and trainees at University of Utah Health. The survey was conducted Aug. 5-20, 2020 as part of a quality improvement initiative. All responses were anonymous.

Survey questions included if, because of the pandemic, people had considered leaving the workforce, considered reducing their hours, or experienced reduced productivity. The researchers also asked about career impacts and potential solutions in terms of “work culture adaptations.”

Respondents with children aged under 18 years also were asked about child care options. Dr. Delaney and colleagues also inquired about race and ethnicity because they hypothesized that employees from underrepresented groups would likely experience the pandemic differently.

The mean age of the 5,951 (21%) faculty, staff, and trainees who completed the survey was 40 years. A majority of respondents were women, reflecting the higher proportion of women within the health system.

A majority (86%) identified as White or European American. About two-thirds of respondents (66%) were staff, 16% were faculty, and 13% were trainees.
 

COVID-19 career concerns

Overall, 1,061 respondents (21%) “moderately or very seriously” considered leaving the workforce and 1,505 (30%) considered reducing hours. Respondents who were younger, married, a member of an underrepresented racial/ethnic group, and worked in a clinical setting were more likely to consider leaving the workforce.

The survey showed 27% felt their productivity increased whereas 39% believed their productivity decreased.

Of the 2,412 survey participants with children aged 18 years or younger, 66% reported that they did not have child care fully available.

“Failure to address and provide for child care has long been one of the many significant deficits in U.S. health care systems,” said Dr. Bernstein, lead author of a March 2021 report evaluating staff emotional support at Montefiore Medical Center during the pandemic in The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety.

Furthermore, 47% were “moderately or very seriously worried” about COVID-19 impacting their career development.

Women trainees were significantly more likely than male counterparts to consider leaving the workforce and reducing their work hours. Women in a faculty or trainee role were also more likely to worry about COVID-19’s impact on their career, compared with men, and compared with women in staff positions.

“It was disheartening to have our data support the gender and racial/ethnic disparity that has been highlighted in the media during the pandemic,” Dr. Delaney said. “Women and in some cases racial/ethnic groups that are underrepresented in medicine were most likely to consider leaving the workforce, reducing hours, and were worried about their career development.

“It is critical that we strategically address these important disparities,” she said.

Women also are disproportionately affected by burnout, particularly during the pandemic, according to an analysis of Medscape’s Physician Burnout and Suicide Report.

Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has shifted the medical specialties now considered highest risk for burnout: critical care physicians ranked first in the report, followed by rheumatologists and infectious disease specialists.
 

Potential solutions

“Given the disproportionate impact COVID-19 has on employees of health systems, institutions must find ways to support their employees, both in terms of workplace cultural adaptations and assistance with familial responsibilities,” the researchers noted.

Telecommuting policies, scheduling flexibility, and expanding employee support programs are potential solutions. Institutional policies also could address the educational and direct care needs of employee children.

Limitations of the study include its generalizability beyond employees of University of Utah Health. Also, respondents included a lower proportion of racial and ethnic groups, compared with national figures, “although this is mostly accounted for by the overall low population of such groups in the state of Utah,” the researchers added.

“Our results suggest that respondents were struggling during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the researchers noted. “As a result, even after investing substantial amounts of time in years of training, many were considering leaving the workforce because of stress and caregiving responsibilities related to the pandemic.”

The Jon M. Huntsman Presidential Endowed Chair supported the work with a financial award to Dr. Fagerlin. Dr. Delaney and Dr. Bernstein disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The list of medical comorbidities associated with high risk for severe COVID-19 now includes moderate to severe asthma, diabetes, and substance use disorders, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC’s latest list consists of 17 conditions or groups of related conditions that may increase patients’ risk of developing severe outcomes of COVID-19, the CDC said on a web page intended for the general public.

On a separate page, the CDC defines severe outcomes “as hospitalization, admission to the intensive care unit, intubation or mechanical ventilation, or death.”

Asthma is included in the newly expanded list with other chronic lung diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cystic fibrosis; the list’s heart disease entry covers coronary artery disease, heart failure, cardiomyopathies, and hypertension, the CDC said.

[email protected]

The list of medical comorbidities associated with high risk for severe COVID-19 now includes moderate to severe asthma, diabetes, and substance use disorders, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC’s latest list consists of 17 conditions or groups of related conditions that may increase patients’ risk of developing severe outcomes of COVID-19, the CDC said on a web page intended for the general public.

On a separate page, the CDC defines severe outcomes “as hospitalization, admission to the intensive care unit, intubation or mechanical ventilation, or death.”

Asthma is included in the newly expanded list with other chronic lung diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cystic fibrosis; the list’s heart disease entry covers coronary artery disease, heart failure, cardiomyopathies, and hypertension, the CDC said.

[email protected]

The list of medical comorbidities associated with high risk for severe COVID-19 now includes moderate to severe asthma, diabetes, and substance use disorders, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC’s latest list consists of 17 conditions or groups of related conditions that may increase patients’ risk of developing severe outcomes of COVID-19, the CDC said on a web page intended for the general public.

On a separate page, the CDC defines severe outcomes “as hospitalization, admission to the intensive care unit, intubation or mechanical ventilation, or death.”

Asthma is included in the newly expanded list with other chronic lung diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cystic fibrosis; the list’s heart disease entry covers coronary artery disease, heart failure, cardiomyopathies, and hypertension, the CDC said.

[email protected]