MDedge Rheumatology

San Diego – The anabolic osteoporosis treatment abaloparatide (Tymlos, Radius Health) works in men as well as women, new data indicate.  

Findings from the Abaloparatide for the Treatment of Men With Osteoporosis (ATOM) randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study were presented last week at the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) Annual Meeting 2022.

Abaloparatide, a subcutaneously administered parathyroid-hormone–related protein (PTHrP) analog, resulted in significant increases in bone mineral density by 12 months at the lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck, compared with placebo in men with osteoporosis, with no significant adverse effects.

“Osteoporosis is underdiagnosed in men. Abaloparatide is another option for an ignored population,” presenter Neil Binkley, MD, of the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health Madison, said in an interview.

Abaloparatide was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2017 for the treatment of postmenopausal women at high risk for fracture due to a history of osteoporotic fracture or multiple fracture risk factors, or who haven’t responded to or are intolerant of other osteoporosis therapies.

While postmenopausal women have mainly been the focus in osteoporosis, men account for approximately 30% of the societal burden of osteoporosis and have greater fracture-related morbidity and mortality than women.

About one in four men over the age of 50 years will have a fragility fracture in their lifetime. Yet, they’re far less likely to be diagnosed or to be included in osteoporosis treatment trials, Dr. Binkley noted.

Asked to comment, session moderator Thanh D. Hoang, DO, told this news organization, “I think it’s a great option to treat osteoporosis, and now we have evidence for treating osteoporosis in men. Mostly the data have come from postmenopausal women.”
 

Screen men with hypogonadism or those taking steroids

“This new medication is an addition to the very limited number of treatments that we have when patients don’t respond to [initial] medications. To have another anabolic bone-forming medication is very, very good,” said Dr. Hoang, who is professor and program director of the Endocrinology Fellowship Program at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.

Radius Health filed a Supplemental New Drug Application with the FDA for abaloparatide (Tymlos) subcutaneous injection in men with osteoporosis at high risk for fracture in February. There is a 10-month review period.

Dr. Binkley advises bone screening for men who have conditions such as hypogonadism or who are taking glucocorticoids or chemotherapeutics.

But, he added, “I think that if we did nothing else good in the osteoporosis field, if we treated people after they fractured that would be a huge step forward. Even with a normal T score, when those people fracture, they [often] don’t have normal bone mineral density ... That’s a group of people we’re ignoring still. They’re not getting diagnosed, and they’re not getting treated.”

ATOM Study: Significant BMD increases at key sites

The approval of abaloparatide in women was based on the phase 3, 18-week ACTIVE trial of more than 2,000 high-risk women, in whom abaloparatide was associated with an 86% reduction in vertebral fracture incidence, compared with placebo, and also significantly greater reductions in nonvertebral fractures, compared with both placebo and teriparatide (Forteo, Eli Lilly).

The ATOM study involved a total of 228 men aged 40-85 years with primary or hypogonadism-associated osteoporosis randomized 2:1 to receive subcutaneous 80 μg abaloparatide or injected placebo daily for 12 months. All had T scores (based on male reference range) of ≤ −2.5 at the lumbar spine or hip, or ≤ −1.5 and with radiologic vertebral fracture or a history of low trauma nonvertebral fracture in the past 5 years, or T score ≤ −2.0 if older than 65 years.

Increases in bone mineral density from baseline were significantly greater with abaloparatide compared with placebo at the lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck at 3, 6, and 12 months. Mean percentage changes at 12 months were 8.5%, 2.1%, and 3.0%, for the three locations, respectively, compared with 1.2%, 0.01%, and 0.2% for placebo (all P ≤ .0001).

Three fractures occurred in those receiving placebo and one with abaloparatide.

For markers of bone turnover, median serum procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (s-PINP) was 111.2 ng/mL after 1 month of abaloparatide treatment and 85.7 ng/mL at month 12. Median serum carboxy-terminal cross-linking telopeptide of type I collagen (s-CTX) was 0.48 ng/mL at month 6 and 0.45 ng/mL at month 12 in the abaloparatide group. Geometric mean relative to baseline s-PINP and s-CTX increased significantly at months 3, 6, and 12 (all P < .001 for relative treatment effect of abaloparatide vs. placebo).

The most commonly reported treatment-emergent adverse events were injection site erythema (12.8% vs. 5.1%), nasopharyngitis (8.7% vs. 7.6%), dizziness (8.7% vs. 1.3%), and arthralgia (6.7% vs. 1.3%), with abaloparatide versus placebo. Serious treatment-emergent adverse event rates were similar in both groups (5.4% vs. 5.1%). There was one death in the abaloparatide group, which was deemed unrelated to the drug.

Dr. Binkley has reported receiving consulting fees from Amgen and research support from Radius. Dr. Hoang has reported disclosures with Acella Pharmaceuticals and Horizon Therapeutics (no financial compensation).

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

San Diego – The anabolic osteoporosis treatment abaloparatide (Tymlos, Radius Health) works in men as well as women, new data indicate.  

Findings from the Abaloparatide for the Treatment of Men With Osteoporosis (ATOM) randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study were presented last week at the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) Annual Meeting 2022.

Abaloparatide, a subcutaneously administered parathyroid-hormone–related protein (PTHrP) analog, resulted in significant increases in bone mineral density by 12 months at the lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck, compared with placebo in men with osteoporosis, with no significant adverse effects.

“Osteoporosis is underdiagnosed in men. Abaloparatide is another option for an ignored population,” presenter Neil Binkley, MD, of the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health Madison, said in an interview.

Abaloparatide was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2017 for the treatment of postmenopausal women at high risk for fracture due to a history of osteoporotic fracture or multiple fracture risk factors, or who haven’t responded to or are intolerant of other osteoporosis therapies.

While postmenopausal women have mainly been the focus in osteoporosis, men account for approximately 30% of the societal burden of osteoporosis and have greater fracture-related morbidity and mortality than women.

About one in four men over the age of 50 years will have a fragility fracture in their lifetime. Yet, they’re far less likely to be diagnosed or to be included in osteoporosis treatment trials, Dr. Binkley noted.

Asked to comment, session moderator Thanh D. Hoang, DO, told this news organization, “I think it’s a great option to treat osteoporosis, and now we have evidence for treating osteoporosis in men. Mostly the data have come from postmenopausal women.”
 

Screen men with hypogonadism or those taking steroids

“This new medication is an addition to the very limited number of treatments that we have when patients don’t respond to [initial] medications. To have another anabolic bone-forming medication is very, very good,” said Dr. Hoang, who is professor and program director of the Endocrinology Fellowship Program at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.

Radius Health filed a Supplemental New Drug Application with the FDA for abaloparatide (Tymlos) subcutaneous injection in men with osteoporosis at high risk for fracture in February. There is a 10-month review period.

Dr. Binkley advises bone screening for men who have conditions such as hypogonadism or who are taking glucocorticoids or chemotherapeutics.

But, he added, “I think that if we did nothing else good in the osteoporosis field, if we treated people after they fractured that would be a huge step forward. Even with a normal T score, when those people fracture, they [often] don’t have normal bone mineral density ... That’s a group of people we’re ignoring still. They’re not getting diagnosed, and they’re not getting treated.”

ATOM Study: Significant BMD increases at key sites

The approval of abaloparatide in women was based on the phase 3, 18-week ACTIVE trial of more than 2,000 high-risk women, in whom abaloparatide was associated with an 86% reduction in vertebral fracture incidence, compared with placebo, and also significantly greater reductions in nonvertebral fractures, compared with both placebo and teriparatide (Forteo, Eli Lilly).

The ATOM study involved a total of 228 men aged 40-85 years with primary or hypogonadism-associated osteoporosis randomized 2:1 to receive subcutaneous 80 μg abaloparatide or injected placebo daily for 12 months. All had T scores (based on male reference range) of ≤ −2.5 at the lumbar spine or hip, or ≤ −1.5 and with radiologic vertebral fracture or a history of low trauma nonvertebral fracture in the past 5 years, or T score ≤ −2.0 if older than 65 years.

Increases in bone mineral density from baseline were significantly greater with abaloparatide compared with placebo at the lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck at 3, 6, and 12 months. Mean percentage changes at 12 months were 8.5%, 2.1%, and 3.0%, for the three locations, respectively, compared with 1.2%, 0.01%, and 0.2% for placebo (all P ≤ .0001).

Three fractures occurred in those receiving placebo and one with abaloparatide.

For markers of bone turnover, median serum procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (s-PINP) was 111.2 ng/mL after 1 month of abaloparatide treatment and 85.7 ng/mL at month 12. Median serum carboxy-terminal cross-linking telopeptide of type I collagen (s-CTX) was 0.48 ng/mL at month 6 and 0.45 ng/mL at month 12 in the abaloparatide group. Geometric mean relative to baseline s-PINP and s-CTX increased significantly at months 3, 6, and 12 (all P < .001 for relative treatment effect of abaloparatide vs. placebo).

The most commonly reported treatment-emergent adverse events were injection site erythema (12.8% vs. 5.1%), nasopharyngitis (8.7% vs. 7.6%), dizziness (8.7% vs. 1.3%), and arthralgia (6.7% vs. 1.3%), with abaloparatide versus placebo. Serious treatment-emergent adverse event rates were similar in both groups (5.4% vs. 5.1%). There was one death in the abaloparatide group, which was deemed unrelated to the drug.

Dr. Binkley has reported receiving consulting fees from Amgen and research support from Radius. Dr. Hoang has reported disclosures with Acella Pharmaceuticals and Horizon Therapeutics (no financial compensation).

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

San Diego – The anabolic osteoporosis treatment abaloparatide (Tymlos, Radius Health) works in men as well as women, new data indicate.  

Findings from the Abaloparatide for the Treatment of Men With Osteoporosis (ATOM) randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study were presented last week at the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) Annual Meeting 2022.

Abaloparatide, a subcutaneously administered parathyroid-hormone–related protein (PTHrP) analog, resulted in significant increases in bone mineral density by 12 months at the lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck, compared with placebo in men with osteoporosis, with no significant adverse effects.

“Osteoporosis is underdiagnosed in men. Abaloparatide is another option for an ignored population,” presenter Neil Binkley, MD, of the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health Madison, said in an interview.

Abaloparatide was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2017 for the treatment of postmenopausal women at high risk for fracture due to a history of osteoporotic fracture or multiple fracture risk factors, or who haven’t responded to or are intolerant of other osteoporosis therapies.

While postmenopausal women have mainly been the focus in osteoporosis, men account for approximately 30% of the societal burden of osteoporosis and have greater fracture-related morbidity and mortality than women.

About one in four men over the age of 50 years will have a fragility fracture in their lifetime. Yet, they’re far less likely to be diagnosed or to be included in osteoporosis treatment trials, Dr. Binkley noted.

Asked to comment, session moderator Thanh D. Hoang, DO, told this news organization, “I think it’s a great option to treat osteoporosis, and now we have evidence for treating osteoporosis in men. Mostly the data have come from postmenopausal women.”
 

Screen men with hypogonadism or those taking steroids

“This new medication is an addition to the very limited number of treatments that we have when patients don’t respond to [initial] medications. To have another anabolic bone-forming medication is very, very good,” said Dr. Hoang, who is professor and program director of the Endocrinology Fellowship Program at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.

Radius Health filed a Supplemental New Drug Application with the FDA for abaloparatide (Tymlos) subcutaneous injection in men with osteoporosis at high risk for fracture in February. There is a 10-month review period.

Dr. Binkley advises bone screening for men who have conditions such as hypogonadism or who are taking glucocorticoids or chemotherapeutics.

But, he added, “I think that if we did nothing else good in the osteoporosis field, if we treated people after they fractured that would be a huge step forward. Even with a normal T score, when those people fracture, they [often] don’t have normal bone mineral density ... That’s a group of people we’re ignoring still. They’re not getting diagnosed, and they’re not getting treated.”

ATOM Study: Significant BMD increases at key sites

The approval of abaloparatide in women was based on the phase 3, 18-week ACTIVE trial of more than 2,000 high-risk women, in whom abaloparatide was associated with an 86% reduction in vertebral fracture incidence, compared with placebo, and also significantly greater reductions in nonvertebral fractures, compared with both placebo and teriparatide (Forteo, Eli Lilly).

The ATOM study involved a total of 228 men aged 40-85 years with primary or hypogonadism-associated osteoporosis randomized 2:1 to receive subcutaneous 80 μg abaloparatide or injected placebo daily for 12 months. All had T scores (based on male reference range) of ≤ −2.5 at the lumbar spine or hip, or ≤ −1.5 and with radiologic vertebral fracture or a history of low trauma nonvertebral fracture in the past 5 years, or T score ≤ −2.0 if older than 65 years.

Increases in bone mineral density from baseline were significantly greater with abaloparatide compared with placebo at the lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck at 3, 6, and 12 months. Mean percentage changes at 12 months were 8.5%, 2.1%, and 3.0%, for the three locations, respectively, compared with 1.2%, 0.01%, and 0.2% for placebo (all P ≤ .0001).

Three fractures occurred in those receiving placebo and one with abaloparatide.

For markers of bone turnover, median serum procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (s-PINP) was 111.2 ng/mL after 1 month of abaloparatide treatment and 85.7 ng/mL at month 12. Median serum carboxy-terminal cross-linking telopeptide of type I collagen (s-CTX) was 0.48 ng/mL at month 6 and 0.45 ng/mL at month 12 in the abaloparatide group. Geometric mean relative to baseline s-PINP and s-CTX increased significantly at months 3, 6, and 12 (all P < .001 for relative treatment effect of abaloparatide vs. placebo).

The most commonly reported treatment-emergent adverse events were injection site erythema (12.8% vs. 5.1%), nasopharyngitis (8.7% vs. 7.6%), dizziness (8.7% vs. 1.3%), and arthralgia (6.7% vs. 1.3%), with abaloparatide versus placebo. Serious treatment-emergent adverse event rates were similar in both groups (5.4% vs. 5.1%). There was one death in the abaloparatide group, which was deemed unrelated to the drug.

Dr. Binkley has reported receiving consulting fees from Amgen and research support from Radius. Dr. Hoang has reported disclosures with Acella Pharmaceuticals and Horizon Therapeutics (no financial compensation).

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

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, Trisha Pasricha, MD, a gastroenterologist and research fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, was talking to a patient who had been hospitalized for a peptic ulcer.

Like other physicians in her institution, Dr. Pasricha was wearing scrubs instead of a white coat, out of concern that the white coat might be more prone to accumulating or transmitting COVID-19 pathogens. Her badge identified her as a physician, and she introduced herself clearly as “Dr. Pasricha.”

The patient “required an emergent procedure, which I discussed with him,” Dr. Pasricha told this news organization. “I went over what the procedure entailed, the risks and benefits, and the need for informed consent. The patient nodded and seemed to understand, but at the end of the discussion he said: ‘That all sounds fine, but I need to speak to the doctor first.’ ”

Dr. Pasricha was taken aback. She wondered: “Who did he think I was the whole time that I was reviewing medical concerns, explaining medical concepts, and describing a procedure in a way that a physician would describe it?”

She realized the reason he didn’t correctly identify her was that, clad only in scrubs, she was less easily recognizable as a physician. And while this type of misidentification happened to physicians of both genders wearing scrubs and no white coat, it was more common for female than for male physicians to be misidentified as technicians, nurses, physician assistants, or other health care professionals, according to Dr. Pasricha.

Dr. Pasricha said she has been the recipient of this “implicit bias” not only from patients but also from members of the health care team, and added that other female colleagues have told her that they’ve had similar experiences, especially when they’re not wearing a white coat.
 

Changing times, changing trends

When COVID-19 began to spread, “there was an initial concern that COVID-19 was passed through surfaces, and concerns about whether white coats could carry viral particles,” according to Jordan Steinberg, MD, PhD, surgical director of the craniofacial program at Nicklaus Children’s Pediatric Specialists/Nicklaus Children’s Health System, Miami. “Hospitals didn’t want to launder the white coats as frequently as scrubs, due to cost concerns. There was also a concern raised that a necktie might dangle in patients’ faces, coming in closer contact with pathogens, so more physicians were wearing scrubs.”

Yet even before the pandemic, physician attire in hospital and outpatient settings had started to change. Dr. Steinberg, who is also a clinical associate professor at Florida International University, Miami, told this news organization that, in his previous appointment at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, he and his colleagues “had noticed in our institution, as well as other facilities, an increasing trend that moved from white coats worn over professional attire toward more casual dress among medical staff – increased wearing of casual fleece or softshell jackets with the institutional logo.”

This was especially true with trainees and the “younger generation,” who were preferring “what I would almost call ‘warm-up clothes,’ gym clothes, and less shirt-tie-white-coat attire for men or white-coats-and-business attire for women.” Dr. Steinberg thinks that some physicians prefer the fleece with the institutional logo “because it’s like wearing your favorite sports team jersey. It gives a sense of belonging.”

Todd Shaffer, MD, MBA, a family physician at University Physicians Associates, Truman Medical Centers and the Lakewood Medical Pavilion, Kansas City, Mo., has been at his institution for 30 years and has seen a similar trend. “At one point, things were very formal,” he told this news organization. But attire was already becoming less formal before the pandemic, and new changes took place during the pandemic, as physicians began wearing scrubs instead of white coats because of fears of viral contamination.

Now, there is less concern about potential viral contamination with the white coat. Yet many physicians continue to wear scrubs – especially those who interact with patients with COVID – and it has become more acceptable to do so, or to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) over ordinary clothing, but it is less common in routine clinical practice, said Dr. Shaffer, a member of the board of directors of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

“The world has changed since COVID. People feel more comfortable dressing more casually during professional Zoom calls, when they have the convenience of working from home,” said Dr. Shaffer, who is also a professor of family medicine at University of Missouri–Kansas City.

Dr. Shaffer himself hasn’t worn a white coat for years. “I’m more likely to wear medium casual pants. I’ve bought some nicer shirts, so I still look professional and upbeat. I don’t always tuck in my shirt, and I don’t dress as formally.” He wears PPE and a mask and/or face shield when treating patients with COVID-19. And he wears a white coat “when someone wants a photograph taken with the doctors – with the stethoscope draped around my neck.”
 

Traditional symbol of medicine

Because of the changing mores, Dr. Steinberg and colleagues at Johns Hopkins wondered if there might still be a role for professional attire and white coats and what patients prefer. To investigate the question, they surveyed 487 U.S. adults in the spring of 2020.

Respondents were asked where and how frequently they see health care professionals wearing white coats, scrubs, and fleece or softshell jackets. They were also shown photographs depicting models wearing various types of attire commonly seen in health care settings and were asked to rank the “health care provider’s” level of experience, professionalism, and friendliness.

The majority of participants said they had seen health care practitioners in white coats “most of the time,” in scrubs “sometimes,” and in fleece or softshell jackets “rarely.” Models in white coats were regarded by respondents as more experienced and professional, although those in softshell jackets were perceived as friendlier.

There were age as well as regional differences in the responses, Dr. Steinberg said. Older respondents were significantly more likely than their younger counterparts to perceive a model wearing a white coat over business attire as being more experienced, and – in all regions of the United States except the West coast – respondents gave lower professionalism scores to providers wearing fleece jackets with scrubs underneath.

Respondents tended to prefer surgeons wearing a white coat with scrubs underneath, while a white coat over business attire was the preferred dress code for family physicians and dermatologists.

“People tended to respond as if there was a more professional element in the white coat. The age-old symbol of the white coat still marked something important,” Dr. Steinberg said. “Our data suggest that the white coat isn’t ready to die just yet. People still see an air of authority and a traditional symbol of medicine. Nevertheless, I do think it will become less common than it used to be, especially in certain regions of the country.”
 

Organic, subtle changes

Christopher Petrilli, MD, assistant professor at New York University, conducted research in 2018 regarding physician attire by surveying over 4,000 patients in 10 U.S. academic hospitals. His team found that most patients continued to prefer physicians to wear formal attire under a white coat, especially older respondents.

Dr. Petrilli and colleagues have been studying the issue of physician attire since 2015. “The big issue when we did our initial study – which might not be accurate anymore – is that few hospitals actually had a uniform dress code,” said Dr. Petrilli, the medical director of clinical documentation improvement and the clinical lead of value-based medicine at NYU Langone Hospitals. “When we looked at ‘honor roll hospitals’ during our study, we cold-called these hospitals and also looked online for their dress code policies. Except for the Mayo Clinic, hospitals that had dress code policies were more generic.”

For example, the American Medical Association guidance merely states that attire should be “clean, unsoiled, and appropriate to the setting of care” and recommends weighing research findings regarding textile transmission of health care–associated infections when individual institutions determine their dress code policies. The AMA’s last policy discussion took place in 2015 and its guidance has not changed since the pandemic.

Regardless of what institutions and patients prefer, some research suggests that many physicians would prefer to stay with wearing scrubs rather than reverting to the white coat. One study of 151 hospitalists, conducted in Ireland, found that three-quarters wanted scrubs to remain standard attire, despite the fact that close to half had experienced changes in patients› perception in the absence of their white coat and “professional attire.”

Jennifer Workman, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics, division of pediatric critical care, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview that, as the pandemic has “waxed and waned, some trends have reverted to what they were prepandemic, but other physicians have stayed with wearing scrubs.”

Much depends on practice setting, said Dr. Workman, who is also the medical director of pediatric sepsis at Intermountain Care. In pediatrics, for example, many physicians prefer not to wear white coats when they are interacting with young children or adolescents.

Like Dr. Shaffer, Dr. Workman has seen changes in physicians’ attire during video meetings, where they often dress more casually, perhaps wearing sweatshirts. And in the hospital, more are continuing to wear scrubs. “But I don’t see it as people trying to consciously experiment or push boundaries,” she said. “I see it as a more organic, subtle shift.”

Dr. Petrilli thinks that, at this juncture, it’s “pretty heterogeneous as to who is going to return to formal attire and a white coat and who won’t.” Further research needs to be done into currently evolving trends. “We need a more thorough survey looking at changes. We need to ask [physician respondents]: ‘What is your current attire, and how has it changed?’ ”
 

Navigating the gender divide

In their study, Dr. Steinberg and colleagues found that respondents perceived a male model wearing business attire underneath any type of outerwear (white coat or fleece) to be significantly more professional than a female model wearing the same attire. Respondents also perceived males wearing scrubs to be more professional than females wearing scrubs.

Male models in white coats over business attire were also more likely to be identified as physicians, compared with female models in the same attire. Females were also more likely to be misidentified as nonphysician health care professionals.

Shikha Jain, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Illinois Cancer Center in Chicago, said that Dr. Steinberg’s study confirmed experiences that she and other female physicians have had. Wearing a white coat makes it more likely that a patient will identify you as a physician, but women are less likely to be identified as physicians, regardless of what they wear.

“I think that individuals of color and especially people with intersectional identities – such as women of color – are even more frequently targeted and stereotyped. Numerous studies have shown that a person of color is less likely to be seen as an authority figure, and studies have shown that physicians of color are less likely to be identified as ‘physicians,’ compared to a Caucasian individual,” she said.

Does that mean that female physicians should revert back to prepandemic white coats rather than scrubs or more casual attire? Not necessarily, according to Dr. Jain.

“The typical dress code guidance is that physicians should dress ‘professionally,’ but what that means is a question that needs to be addressed,” Dr. Jain said. “Medicine has evolved from the days of house calls, in which one’s patient population is a very small, intimate group of people in the physician’s community. Yet now, we’ve given rebirth to the ‘house call’ when we do telemedicine with a patient in his or her home. And in the old days, doctors often had offices their homes and now, with telemedicine, patients often see the interior of their physician’s home.” As the delivery of medicine evolves, concepts of “professionalism” – what is defined as “casual” and what is defined as “formal” – is also evolving.

The more important issue, according to Dr. Jain, is to “continue the conversation” about the discrepancies between how men and women are treated in medicine. Attire is one arena in which this issue plays out, and it’s a “bigger picture” that goes beyond the white coat.

Dr. Jain has been “told by patients that a particular outfit doesn’t make me look like a doctor or that scrubs make me look younger. I don’t think my male colleagues have been subjected to these types of remarks, but my female colleagues have heard them as well.”

Even fellow health care providers have commented on Dr. Jain’s clothing. She was presenting at a major medical conference via video and was wearing a similar outfit to the one she wore for her headshot. “Thirty seconds before beginning my talk, one of the male physicians said: ‘Are you wearing the same outfit you wore for your headshot?’ I can’t imagine a man commenting that another man was wearing the same jacket or tie that he wore in the photograph. I found it odd that this was something that someone felt the need to comment on right before I was about to address a large group of people in a professional capacity.”

Addressing these systemic issues “needs to be done and amplified not only by women but also by men in medicine,” said Dr. Jain, founder and director of  Women in Medicine, an organization consisting of women physicians whose goal is to “find and implement solutions to gender inequity.”

Dr. Jain said the organization offers an Inclusive Leadership Development Lab – a course specifically for men in health care leadership positions to learn how to be more equitable, inclusive leaders.
 

A personal decision

Dr. Pasricha hopes she “handled the patient’s misidentification graciously.” She explained to him that she would be the physician conducting the procedure. The patient was initially “a little embarrassed” that he had misidentified her, but she put him at ease and “we moved forward quickly.”

At this point, although some of her colleagues have continued to wear scrubs or have returned to wearing fleeces with hospital logos, Dr. Pasricha prefers to wear a white coat in both inpatient and outpatient settings because it reduces the likelihood of misidentification.

And white coats can be more convenient – for example, Dr. Jain likes the fact that the white coat has pockets where she can put her stethoscope and other items, while some of her professional clothes don’t always have pockets.

Dr. Jain noted that there are some institutions where everyone seems to wear white coats, not only the physician – “from the chaplain to the phlebotomist to the social worker.” In those settings, the white coat no longer distinguishes physicians from nonphysicians, and so wearing a white coat may not confer additional credibility as a physician.

Nevertheless, “if you want to wear a white coat, if you feel it gives you that added level of authority, if you feel it tells people more clearly that you’re a physician, by all means go ahead and do so,” she said. “There’s no ‘one-size-fits-all’ strategy or solution. What’s more important than your clothing is your professionalism.”

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

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, Trisha Pasricha, MD, a gastroenterologist and research fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, was talking to a patient who had been hospitalized for a peptic ulcer.

Like other physicians in her institution, Dr. Pasricha was wearing scrubs instead of a white coat, out of concern that the white coat might be more prone to accumulating or transmitting COVID-19 pathogens. Her badge identified her as a physician, and she introduced herself clearly as “Dr. Pasricha.”

The patient “required an emergent procedure, which I discussed with him,” Dr. Pasricha told this news organization. “I went over what the procedure entailed, the risks and benefits, and the need for informed consent. The patient nodded and seemed to understand, but at the end of the discussion he said: ‘That all sounds fine, but I need to speak to the doctor first.’ ”

Dr. Pasricha was taken aback. She wondered: “Who did he think I was the whole time that I was reviewing medical concerns, explaining medical concepts, and describing a procedure in a way that a physician would describe it?”

She realized the reason he didn’t correctly identify her was that, clad only in scrubs, she was less easily recognizable as a physician. And while this type of misidentification happened to physicians of both genders wearing scrubs and no white coat, it was more common for female than for male physicians to be misidentified as technicians, nurses, physician assistants, or other health care professionals, according to Dr. Pasricha.

Dr. Pasricha said she has been the recipient of this “implicit bias” not only from patients but also from members of the health care team, and added that other female colleagues have told her that they’ve had similar experiences, especially when they’re not wearing a white coat.
 

Changing times, changing trends

When COVID-19 began to spread, “there was an initial concern that COVID-19 was passed through surfaces, and concerns about whether white coats could carry viral particles,” according to Jordan Steinberg, MD, PhD, surgical director of the craniofacial program at Nicklaus Children’s Pediatric Specialists/Nicklaus Children’s Health System, Miami. “Hospitals didn’t want to launder the white coats as frequently as scrubs, due to cost concerns. There was also a concern raised that a necktie might dangle in patients’ faces, coming in closer contact with pathogens, so more physicians were wearing scrubs.”

Yet even before the pandemic, physician attire in hospital and outpatient settings had started to change. Dr. Steinberg, who is also a clinical associate professor at Florida International University, Miami, told this news organization that, in his previous appointment at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, he and his colleagues “had noticed in our institution, as well as other facilities, an increasing trend that moved from white coats worn over professional attire toward more casual dress among medical staff – increased wearing of casual fleece or softshell jackets with the institutional logo.”

This was especially true with trainees and the “younger generation,” who were preferring “what I would almost call ‘warm-up clothes,’ gym clothes, and less shirt-tie-white-coat attire for men or white-coats-and-business attire for women.” Dr. Steinberg thinks that some physicians prefer the fleece with the institutional logo “because it’s like wearing your favorite sports team jersey. It gives a sense of belonging.”

Todd Shaffer, MD, MBA, a family physician at University Physicians Associates, Truman Medical Centers and the Lakewood Medical Pavilion, Kansas City, Mo., has been at his institution for 30 years and has seen a similar trend. “At one point, things were very formal,” he told this news organization. But attire was already becoming less formal before the pandemic, and new changes took place during the pandemic, as physicians began wearing scrubs instead of white coats because of fears of viral contamination.

Now, there is less concern about potential viral contamination with the white coat. Yet many physicians continue to wear scrubs – especially those who interact with patients with COVID – and it has become more acceptable to do so, or to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) over ordinary clothing, but it is less common in routine clinical practice, said Dr. Shaffer, a member of the board of directors of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

“The world has changed since COVID. People feel more comfortable dressing more casually during professional Zoom calls, when they have the convenience of working from home,” said Dr. Shaffer, who is also a professor of family medicine at University of Missouri–Kansas City.

Dr. Shaffer himself hasn’t worn a white coat for years. “I’m more likely to wear medium casual pants. I’ve bought some nicer shirts, so I still look professional and upbeat. I don’t always tuck in my shirt, and I don’t dress as formally.” He wears PPE and a mask and/or face shield when treating patients with COVID-19. And he wears a white coat “when someone wants a photograph taken with the doctors – with the stethoscope draped around my neck.”
 

Traditional symbol of medicine

Because of the changing mores, Dr. Steinberg and colleagues at Johns Hopkins wondered if there might still be a role for professional attire and white coats and what patients prefer. To investigate the question, they surveyed 487 U.S. adults in the spring of 2020.

Respondents were asked where and how frequently they see health care professionals wearing white coats, scrubs, and fleece or softshell jackets. They were also shown photographs depicting models wearing various types of attire commonly seen in health care settings and were asked to rank the “health care provider’s” level of experience, professionalism, and friendliness.

The majority of participants said they had seen health care practitioners in white coats “most of the time,” in scrubs “sometimes,” and in fleece or softshell jackets “rarely.” Models in white coats were regarded by respondents as more experienced and professional, although those in softshell jackets were perceived as friendlier.

There were age as well as regional differences in the responses, Dr. Steinberg said. Older respondents were significantly more likely than their younger counterparts to perceive a model wearing a white coat over business attire as being more experienced, and – in all regions of the United States except the West coast – respondents gave lower professionalism scores to providers wearing fleece jackets with scrubs underneath.

Respondents tended to prefer surgeons wearing a white coat with scrubs underneath, while a white coat over business attire was the preferred dress code for family physicians and dermatologists.

“People tended to respond as if there was a more professional element in the white coat. The age-old symbol of the white coat still marked something important,” Dr. Steinberg said. “Our data suggest that the white coat isn’t ready to die just yet. People still see an air of authority and a traditional symbol of medicine. Nevertheless, I do think it will become less common than it used to be, especially in certain regions of the country.”
 

Organic, subtle changes

Christopher Petrilli, MD, assistant professor at New York University, conducted research in 2018 regarding physician attire by surveying over 4,000 patients in 10 U.S. academic hospitals. His team found that most patients continued to prefer physicians to wear formal attire under a white coat, especially older respondents.

Dr. Petrilli and colleagues have been studying the issue of physician attire since 2015. “The big issue when we did our initial study – which might not be accurate anymore – is that few hospitals actually had a uniform dress code,” said Dr. Petrilli, the medical director of clinical documentation improvement and the clinical lead of value-based medicine at NYU Langone Hospitals. “When we looked at ‘honor roll hospitals’ during our study, we cold-called these hospitals and also looked online for their dress code policies. Except for the Mayo Clinic, hospitals that had dress code policies were more generic.”

For example, the American Medical Association guidance merely states that attire should be “clean, unsoiled, and appropriate to the setting of care” and recommends weighing research findings regarding textile transmission of health care–associated infections when individual institutions determine their dress code policies. The AMA’s last policy discussion took place in 2015 and its guidance has not changed since the pandemic.

Regardless of what institutions and patients prefer, some research suggests that many physicians would prefer to stay with wearing scrubs rather than reverting to the white coat. One study of 151 hospitalists, conducted in Ireland, found that three-quarters wanted scrubs to remain standard attire, despite the fact that close to half had experienced changes in patients› perception in the absence of their white coat and “professional attire.”

Jennifer Workman, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics, division of pediatric critical care, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview that, as the pandemic has “waxed and waned, some trends have reverted to what they were prepandemic, but other physicians have stayed with wearing scrubs.”

Much depends on practice setting, said Dr. Workman, who is also the medical director of pediatric sepsis at Intermountain Care. In pediatrics, for example, many physicians prefer not to wear white coats when they are interacting with young children or adolescents.

Like Dr. Shaffer, Dr. Workman has seen changes in physicians’ attire during video meetings, where they often dress more casually, perhaps wearing sweatshirts. And in the hospital, more are continuing to wear scrubs. “But I don’t see it as people trying to consciously experiment or push boundaries,” she said. “I see it as a more organic, subtle shift.”

Dr. Petrilli thinks that, at this juncture, it’s “pretty heterogeneous as to who is going to return to formal attire and a white coat and who won’t.” Further research needs to be done into currently evolving trends. “We need a more thorough survey looking at changes. We need to ask [physician respondents]: ‘What is your current attire, and how has it changed?’ ”
 

Navigating the gender divide

In their study, Dr. Steinberg and colleagues found that respondents perceived a male model wearing business attire underneath any type of outerwear (white coat or fleece) to be significantly more professional than a female model wearing the same attire. Respondents also perceived males wearing scrubs to be more professional than females wearing scrubs.

Male models in white coats over business attire were also more likely to be identified as physicians, compared with female models in the same attire. Females were also more likely to be misidentified as nonphysician health care professionals.

Shikha Jain, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Illinois Cancer Center in Chicago, said that Dr. Steinberg’s study confirmed experiences that she and other female physicians have had. Wearing a white coat makes it more likely that a patient will identify you as a physician, but women are less likely to be identified as physicians, regardless of what they wear.

“I think that individuals of color and especially people with intersectional identities – such as women of color – are even more frequently targeted and stereotyped. Numerous studies have shown that a person of color is less likely to be seen as an authority figure, and studies have shown that physicians of color are less likely to be identified as ‘physicians,’ compared to a Caucasian individual,” she said.

Does that mean that female physicians should revert back to prepandemic white coats rather than scrubs or more casual attire? Not necessarily, according to Dr. Jain.

“The typical dress code guidance is that physicians should dress ‘professionally,’ but what that means is a question that needs to be addressed,” Dr. Jain said. “Medicine has evolved from the days of house calls, in which one’s patient population is a very small, intimate group of people in the physician’s community. Yet now, we’ve given rebirth to the ‘house call’ when we do telemedicine with a patient in his or her home. And in the old days, doctors often had offices their homes and now, with telemedicine, patients often see the interior of their physician’s home.” As the delivery of medicine evolves, concepts of “professionalism” – what is defined as “casual” and what is defined as “formal” – is also evolving.

The more important issue, according to Dr. Jain, is to “continue the conversation” about the discrepancies between how men and women are treated in medicine. Attire is one arena in which this issue plays out, and it’s a “bigger picture” that goes beyond the white coat.

Dr. Jain has been “told by patients that a particular outfit doesn’t make me look like a doctor or that scrubs make me look younger. I don’t think my male colleagues have been subjected to these types of remarks, but my female colleagues have heard them as well.”

Even fellow health care providers have commented on Dr. Jain’s clothing. She was presenting at a major medical conference via video and was wearing a similar outfit to the one she wore for her headshot. “Thirty seconds before beginning my talk, one of the male physicians said: ‘Are you wearing the same outfit you wore for your headshot?’ I can’t imagine a man commenting that another man was wearing the same jacket or tie that he wore in the photograph. I found it odd that this was something that someone felt the need to comment on right before I was about to address a large group of people in a professional capacity.”

Addressing these systemic issues “needs to be done and amplified not only by women but also by men in medicine,” said Dr. Jain, founder and director of  Women in Medicine, an organization consisting of women physicians whose goal is to “find and implement solutions to gender inequity.”

Dr. Jain said the organization offers an Inclusive Leadership Development Lab – a course specifically for men in health care leadership positions to learn how to be more equitable, inclusive leaders.
 

A personal decision

Dr. Pasricha hopes she “handled the patient’s misidentification graciously.” She explained to him that she would be the physician conducting the procedure. The patient was initially “a little embarrassed” that he had misidentified her, but she put him at ease and “we moved forward quickly.”

At this point, although some of her colleagues have continued to wear scrubs or have returned to wearing fleeces with hospital logos, Dr. Pasricha prefers to wear a white coat in both inpatient and outpatient settings because it reduces the likelihood of misidentification.

And white coats can be more convenient – for example, Dr. Jain likes the fact that the white coat has pockets where she can put her stethoscope and other items, while some of her professional clothes don’t always have pockets.

Dr. Jain noted that there are some institutions where everyone seems to wear white coats, not only the physician – “from the chaplain to the phlebotomist to the social worker.” In those settings, the white coat no longer distinguishes physicians from nonphysicians, and so wearing a white coat may not confer additional credibility as a physician.

Nevertheless, “if you want to wear a white coat, if you feel it gives you that added level of authority, if you feel it tells people more clearly that you’re a physician, by all means go ahead and do so,” she said. “There’s no ‘one-size-fits-all’ strategy or solution. What’s more important than your clothing is your professionalism.”

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

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, Trisha Pasricha, MD, a gastroenterologist and research fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, was talking to a patient who had been hospitalized for a peptic ulcer.

Like other physicians in her institution, Dr. Pasricha was wearing scrubs instead of a white coat, out of concern that the white coat might be more prone to accumulating or transmitting COVID-19 pathogens. Her badge identified her as a physician, and she introduced herself clearly as “Dr. Pasricha.”

The patient “required an emergent procedure, which I discussed with him,” Dr. Pasricha told this news organization. “I went over what the procedure entailed, the risks and benefits, and the need for informed consent. The patient nodded and seemed to understand, but at the end of the discussion he said: ‘That all sounds fine, but I need to speak to the doctor first.’ ”

Dr. Pasricha was taken aback. She wondered: “Who did he think I was the whole time that I was reviewing medical concerns, explaining medical concepts, and describing a procedure in a way that a physician would describe it?”

She realized the reason he didn’t correctly identify her was that, clad only in scrubs, she was less easily recognizable as a physician. And while this type of misidentification happened to physicians of both genders wearing scrubs and no white coat, it was more common for female than for male physicians to be misidentified as technicians, nurses, physician assistants, or other health care professionals, according to Dr. Pasricha.

Dr. Pasricha said she has been the recipient of this “implicit bias” not only from patients but also from members of the health care team, and added that other female colleagues have told her that they’ve had similar experiences, especially when they’re not wearing a white coat.
 

Changing times, changing trends

When COVID-19 began to spread, “there was an initial concern that COVID-19 was passed through surfaces, and concerns about whether white coats could carry viral particles,” according to Jordan Steinberg, MD, PhD, surgical director of the craniofacial program at Nicklaus Children’s Pediatric Specialists/Nicklaus Children’s Health System, Miami. “Hospitals didn’t want to launder the white coats as frequently as scrubs, due to cost concerns. There was also a concern raised that a necktie might dangle in patients’ faces, coming in closer contact with pathogens, so more physicians were wearing scrubs.”

Yet even before the pandemic, physician attire in hospital and outpatient settings had started to change. Dr. Steinberg, who is also a clinical associate professor at Florida International University, Miami, told this news organization that, in his previous appointment at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, he and his colleagues “had noticed in our institution, as well as other facilities, an increasing trend that moved from white coats worn over professional attire toward more casual dress among medical staff – increased wearing of casual fleece or softshell jackets with the institutional logo.”

This was especially true with trainees and the “younger generation,” who were preferring “what I would almost call ‘warm-up clothes,’ gym clothes, and less shirt-tie-white-coat attire for men or white-coats-and-business attire for women.” Dr. Steinberg thinks that some physicians prefer the fleece with the institutional logo “because it’s like wearing your favorite sports team jersey. It gives a sense of belonging.”

Todd Shaffer, MD, MBA, a family physician at University Physicians Associates, Truman Medical Centers and the Lakewood Medical Pavilion, Kansas City, Mo., has been at his institution for 30 years and has seen a similar trend. “At one point, things were very formal,” he told this news organization. But attire was already becoming less formal before the pandemic, and new changes took place during the pandemic, as physicians began wearing scrubs instead of white coats because of fears of viral contamination.

Now, there is less concern about potential viral contamination with the white coat. Yet many physicians continue to wear scrubs – especially those who interact with patients with COVID – and it has become more acceptable to do so, or to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) over ordinary clothing, but it is less common in routine clinical practice, said Dr. Shaffer, a member of the board of directors of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

“The world has changed since COVID. People feel more comfortable dressing more casually during professional Zoom calls, when they have the convenience of working from home,” said Dr. Shaffer, who is also a professor of family medicine at University of Missouri–Kansas City.

Dr. Shaffer himself hasn’t worn a white coat for years. “I’m more likely to wear medium casual pants. I’ve bought some nicer shirts, so I still look professional and upbeat. I don’t always tuck in my shirt, and I don’t dress as formally.” He wears PPE and a mask and/or face shield when treating patients with COVID-19. And he wears a white coat “when someone wants a photograph taken with the doctors – with the stethoscope draped around my neck.”
 

Traditional symbol of medicine

Because of the changing mores, Dr. Steinberg and colleagues at Johns Hopkins wondered if there might still be a role for professional attire and white coats and what patients prefer. To investigate the question, they surveyed 487 U.S. adults in the spring of 2020.

Respondents were asked where and how frequently they see health care professionals wearing white coats, scrubs, and fleece or softshell jackets. They were also shown photographs depicting models wearing various types of attire commonly seen in health care settings and were asked to rank the “health care provider’s” level of experience, professionalism, and friendliness.

The majority of participants said they had seen health care practitioners in white coats “most of the time,” in scrubs “sometimes,” and in fleece or softshell jackets “rarely.” Models in white coats were regarded by respondents as more experienced and professional, although those in softshell jackets were perceived as friendlier.

There were age as well as regional differences in the responses, Dr. Steinberg said. Older respondents were significantly more likely than their younger counterparts to perceive a model wearing a white coat over business attire as being more experienced, and – in all regions of the United States except the West coast – respondents gave lower professionalism scores to providers wearing fleece jackets with scrubs underneath.

Respondents tended to prefer surgeons wearing a white coat with scrubs underneath, while a white coat over business attire was the preferred dress code for family physicians and dermatologists.

“People tended to respond as if there was a more professional element in the white coat. The age-old symbol of the white coat still marked something important,” Dr. Steinberg said. “Our data suggest that the white coat isn’t ready to die just yet. People still see an air of authority and a traditional symbol of medicine. Nevertheless, I do think it will become less common than it used to be, especially in certain regions of the country.”
 

Organic, subtle changes

Christopher Petrilli, MD, assistant professor at New York University, conducted research in 2018 regarding physician attire by surveying over 4,000 patients in 10 U.S. academic hospitals. His team found that most patients continued to prefer physicians to wear formal attire under a white coat, especially older respondents.

Dr. Petrilli and colleagues have been studying the issue of physician attire since 2015. “The big issue when we did our initial study – which might not be accurate anymore – is that few hospitals actually had a uniform dress code,” said Dr. Petrilli, the medical director of clinical documentation improvement and the clinical lead of value-based medicine at NYU Langone Hospitals. “When we looked at ‘honor roll hospitals’ during our study, we cold-called these hospitals and also looked online for their dress code policies. Except for the Mayo Clinic, hospitals that had dress code policies were more generic.”

For example, the American Medical Association guidance merely states that attire should be “clean, unsoiled, and appropriate to the setting of care” and recommends weighing research findings regarding textile transmission of health care–associated infections when individual institutions determine their dress code policies. The AMA’s last policy discussion took place in 2015 and its guidance has not changed since the pandemic.

Regardless of what institutions and patients prefer, some research suggests that many physicians would prefer to stay with wearing scrubs rather than reverting to the white coat. One study of 151 hospitalists, conducted in Ireland, found that three-quarters wanted scrubs to remain standard attire, despite the fact that close to half had experienced changes in patients› perception in the absence of their white coat and “professional attire.”

Jennifer Workman, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics, division of pediatric critical care, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview that, as the pandemic has “waxed and waned, some trends have reverted to what they were prepandemic, but other physicians have stayed with wearing scrubs.”

Much depends on practice setting, said Dr. Workman, who is also the medical director of pediatric sepsis at Intermountain Care. In pediatrics, for example, many physicians prefer not to wear white coats when they are interacting with young children or adolescents.

Like Dr. Shaffer, Dr. Workman has seen changes in physicians’ attire during video meetings, where they often dress more casually, perhaps wearing sweatshirts. And in the hospital, more are continuing to wear scrubs. “But I don’t see it as people trying to consciously experiment or push boundaries,” she said. “I see it as a more organic, subtle shift.”

Dr. Petrilli thinks that, at this juncture, it’s “pretty heterogeneous as to who is going to return to formal attire and a white coat and who won’t.” Further research needs to be done into currently evolving trends. “We need a more thorough survey looking at changes. We need to ask [physician respondents]: ‘What is your current attire, and how has it changed?’ ”
 

Navigating the gender divide

In their study, Dr. Steinberg and colleagues found that respondents perceived a male model wearing business attire underneath any type of outerwear (white coat or fleece) to be significantly more professional than a female model wearing the same attire. Respondents also perceived males wearing scrubs to be more professional than females wearing scrubs.

Male models in white coats over business attire were also more likely to be identified as physicians, compared with female models in the same attire. Females were also more likely to be misidentified as nonphysician health care professionals.

Shikha Jain, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Illinois Cancer Center in Chicago, said that Dr. Steinberg’s study confirmed experiences that she and other female physicians have had. Wearing a white coat makes it more likely that a patient will identify you as a physician, but women are less likely to be identified as physicians, regardless of what they wear.

“I think that individuals of color and especially people with intersectional identities – such as women of color – are even more frequently targeted and stereotyped. Numerous studies have shown that a person of color is less likely to be seen as an authority figure, and studies have shown that physicians of color are less likely to be identified as ‘physicians,’ compared to a Caucasian individual,” she said.

Does that mean that female physicians should revert back to prepandemic white coats rather than scrubs or more casual attire? Not necessarily, according to Dr. Jain.

“The typical dress code guidance is that physicians should dress ‘professionally,’ but what that means is a question that needs to be addressed,” Dr. Jain said. “Medicine has evolved from the days of house calls, in which one’s patient population is a very small, intimate group of people in the physician’s community. Yet now, we’ve given rebirth to the ‘house call’ when we do telemedicine with a patient in his or her home. And in the old days, doctors often had offices their homes and now, with telemedicine, patients often see the interior of their physician’s home.” As the delivery of medicine evolves, concepts of “professionalism” – what is defined as “casual” and what is defined as “formal” – is also evolving.

The more important issue, according to Dr. Jain, is to “continue the conversation” about the discrepancies between how men and women are treated in medicine. Attire is one arena in which this issue plays out, and it’s a “bigger picture” that goes beyond the white coat.

Dr. Jain has been “told by patients that a particular outfit doesn’t make me look like a doctor or that scrubs make me look younger. I don’t think my male colleagues have been subjected to these types of remarks, but my female colleagues have heard them as well.”

Even fellow health care providers have commented on Dr. Jain’s clothing. She was presenting at a major medical conference via video and was wearing a similar outfit to the one she wore for her headshot. “Thirty seconds before beginning my talk, one of the male physicians said: ‘Are you wearing the same outfit you wore for your headshot?’ I can’t imagine a man commenting that another man was wearing the same jacket or tie that he wore in the photograph. I found it odd that this was something that someone felt the need to comment on right before I was about to address a large group of people in a professional capacity.”

Addressing these systemic issues “needs to be done and amplified not only by women but also by men in medicine,” said Dr. Jain, founder and director of  Women in Medicine, an organization consisting of women physicians whose goal is to “find and implement solutions to gender inequity.”

Dr. Jain said the organization offers an Inclusive Leadership Development Lab – a course specifically for men in health care leadership positions to learn how to be more equitable, inclusive leaders.
 

A personal decision

Dr. Pasricha hopes she “handled the patient’s misidentification graciously.” She explained to him that she would be the physician conducting the procedure. The patient was initially “a little embarrassed” that he had misidentified her, but she put him at ease and “we moved forward quickly.”

At this point, although some of her colleagues have continued to wear scrubs or have returned to wearing fleeces with hospital logos, Dr. Pasricha prefers to wear a white coat in both inpatient and outpatient settings because it reduces the likelihood of misidentification.

And white coats can be more convenient – for example, Dr. Jain likes the fact that the white coat has pockets where she can put her stethoscope and other items, while some of her professional clothes don’t always have pockets.

Dr. Jain noted that there are some institutions where everyone seems to wear white coats, not only the physician – “from the chaplain to the phlebotomist to the social worker.” In those settings, the white coat no longer distinguishes physicians from nonphysicians, and so wearing a white coat may not confer additional credibility as a physician.

Nevertheless, “if you want to wear a white coat, if you feel it gives you that added level of authority, if you feel it tells people more clearly that you’re a physician, by all means go ahead and do so,” she said. “There’s no ‘one-size-fits-all’ strategy or solution. What’s more important than your clothing is your professionalism.”

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

The annual cost of Lyme disease in the United States could be nearly $970 million, according to new research. But not all cases of Lyme disease are equally costly. Costs for patients with disseminated Lyme disease were more than twice as high as those for patients with localized disease.

CDC/ Dr. Amanda Loftis, Dr. William Nicholson, Dr. Will Reeves, Dr. Chris Paddock

“These findings emphasize the importance of early and accurate diagnosis to reduce both illness and its associated personal and societal costs,” the study’s authors write. The analysis was published  in Emerging Infectious Diseases. The authors are from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Yale School of Public Health, and the Departments of Health of Minnesota, Maryland, and New York State.

Lyme disease is the most reported vector-borne disease in the United States; an estimated 476,000 Americans are diagnosed with the infection every year. Though the highest incidences are in the Northeast and in Minnesota and Wisconsin, the CDC has recorded cases in all 50 states. Over the past 20 years, estimates of the total cost of treating Lyme disease have varied from $203 million to nearly $1.3 billion. A major limitation to these studies, however, is that they may not accurately identify patients with Lyme disease or capture many of the nonmedical costs associated with treatment, the authors write, such as costs associated with time taken off work and travel to appointments.

To better capture the comprehensive cost of Lyme disease in the United States, researchers conducted a prospective study from September 2014 to January 2016 and followed reported cases in four states with high rates of Lyme disease: Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, and New York. The team conducted monthly patient surveys and queried billing codes from participants’ clinicians to estimate both the personal expenses and societal costs – such as total costs to the health care system – of Lyme disease.

Participants were variously assigned to one of three categories: those with confirmed local disease (such as patients with erythema migrans); those with confirmed disseminated disease, with symptoms including arthritis, lymphocytic meningitis, and encephalomyelitis; and those with probable cases with reported symptoms.

The researchers surveyed 901 participants with clinician-diagnosed Lyme disease: 402 with localized disease, 238 with disseminated disease, and 261 with probable cases. Nearly all participants (94%) were White, 57% were men, and 71% had an annual household income above $60,000. About 28% of participants were younger than 18 years, 16% were aged 18-45 years, 36% were aged 46-65, and 19% were older than 65 years. For most participants (68%), complete medical cost data were available. Those data were used to calculate societal costs.

Costs per patient varied dramatically, from $0.46 to $30,628. On average, patients spent $1,252 during the study period on expenses related to Lyme disease treatment, including expenses associated with travel and time taken off work. The median cost to patients was notably smaller, at $244. Patients with disseminated disease had the highest median ($358) and mean ($1,692) costs, followed by participants with probable disease (median, $315; mean, $1,277). Participants with localized disease had the lowest median ($170) and mean ($1,070) costs.

Societal costs ranged from $54 to $122,766 per patient; the median was $690, and the mean was $2,032. Multiplying these numbers by the estimated cases diagnosed nationally each year, researchers determined that the total cost of Lyme disease in the United States is between $345 million and $968 million.

The study “pointed out the tremendous variability in costs” associated with Lyme disease treatment, Brian Fallon, MD, MPH, director of the Lyme and Tick-Borne Diseases Research Center at the Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, told this news organization. He was not involved with the research. Some patients continued having health expenses after the end of the study, which means their costs would be even higher, he noted. Though most patients fully recovered after 1 year, about 4% still reported symptoms, and 3% were still incurring costs.

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

The annual cost of Lyme disease in the United States could be nearly $970 million, according to new research. But not all cases of Lyme disease are equally costly. Costs for patients with disseminated Lyme disease were more than twice as high as those for patients with localized disease.

CDC/ Dr. Amanda Loftis, Dr. William Nicholson, Dr. Will Reeves, Dr. Chris Paddock

“These findings emphasize the importance of early and accurate diagnosis to reduce both illness and its associated personal and societal costs,” the study’s authors write. The analysis was published  in Emerging Infectious Diseases. The authors are from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Yale School of Public Health, and the Departments of Health of Minnesota, Maryland, and New York State.

Lyme disease is the most reported vector-borne disease in the United States; an estimated 476,000 Americans are diagnosed with the infection every year. Though the highest incidences are in the Northeast and in Minnesota and Wisconsin, the CDC has recorded cases in all 50 states. Over the past 20 years, estimates of the total cost of treating Lyme disease have varied from $203 million to nearly $1.3 billion. A major limitation to these studies, however, is that they may not accurately identify patients with Lyme disease or capture many of the nonmedical costs associated with treatment, the authors write, such as costs associated with time taken off work and travel to appointments.

To better capture the comprehensive cost of Lyme disease in the United States, researchers conducted a prospective study from September 2014 to January 2016 and followed reported cases in four states with high rates of Lyme disease: Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, and New York. The team conducted monthly patient surveys and queried billing codes from participants’ clinicians to estimate both the personal expenses and societal costs – such as total costs to the health care system – of Lyme disease.

Participants were variously assigned to one of three categories: those with confirmed local disease (such as patients with erythema migrans); those with confirmed disseminated disease, with symptoms including arthritis, lymphocytic meningitis, and encephalomyelitis; and those with probable cases with reported symptoms.

The researchers surveyed 901 participants with clinician-diagnosed Lyme disease: 402 with localized disease, 238 with disseminated disease, and 261 with probable cases. Nearly all participants (94%) were White, 57% were men, and 71% had an annual household income above $60,000. About 28% of participants were younger than 18 years, 16% were aged 18-45 years, 36% were aged 46-65, and 19% were older than 65 years. For most participants (68%), complete medical cost data were available. Those data were used to calculate societal costs.

Costs per patient varied dramatically, from $0.46 to $30,628. On average, patients spent $1,252 during the study period on expenses related to Lyme disease treatment, including expenses associated with travel and time taken off work. The median cost to patients was notably smaller, at $244. Patients with disseminated disease had the highest median ($358) and mean ($1,692) costs, followed by participants with probable disease (median, $315; mean, $1,277). Participants with localized disease had the lowest median ($170) and mean ($1,070) costs.

Societal costs ranged from $54 to $122,766 per patient; the median was $690, and the mean was $2,032. Multiplying these numbers by the estimated cases diagnosed nationally each year, researchers determined that the total cost of Lyme disease in the United States is between $345 million and $968 million.

The study “pointed out the tremendous variability in costs” associated with Lyme disease treatment, Brian Fallon, MD, MPH, director of the Lyme and Tick-Borne Diseases Research Center at the Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, told this news organization. He was not involved with the research. Some patients continued having health expenses after the end of the study, which means their costs would be even higher, he noted. Though most patients fully recovered after 1 year, about 4% still reported symptoms, and 3% were still incurring costs.

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

The annual cost of Lyme disease in the United States could be nearly $970 million, according to new research. But not all cases of Lyme disease are equally costly. Costs for patients with disseminated Lyme disease were more than twice as high as those for patients with localized disease.

CDC/ Dr. Amanda Loftis, Dr. William Nicholson, Dr. Will Reeves, Dr. Chris Paddock

“These findings emphasize the importance of early and accurate diagnosis to reduce both illness and its associated personal and societal costs,” the study’s authors write. The analysis was published  in Emerging Infectious Diseases. The authors are from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Yale School of Public Health, and the Departments of Health of Minnesota, Maryland, and New York State.

Lyme disease is the most reported vector-borne disease in the United States; an estimated 476,000 Americans are diagnosed with the infection every year. Though the highest incidences are in the Northeast and in Minnesota and Wisconsin, the CDC has recorded cases in all 50 states. Over the past 20 years, estimates of the total cost of treating Lyme disease have varied from $203 million to nearly $1.3 billion. A major limitation to these studies, however, is that they may not accurately identify patients with Lyme disease or capture many of the nonmedical costs associated with treatment, the authors write, such as costs associated with time taken off work and travel to appointments.

To better capture the comprehensive cost of Lyme disease in the United States, researchers conducted a prospective study from September 2014 to January 2016 and followed reported cases in four states with high rates of Lyme disease: Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, and New York. The team conducted monthly patient surveys and queried billing codes from participants’ clinicians to estimate both the personal expenses and societal costs – such as total costs to the health care system – of Lyme disease.

Participants were variously assigned to one of three categories: those with confirmed local disease (such as patients with erythema migrans); those with confirmed disseminated disease, with symptoms including arthritis, lymphocytic meningitis, and encephalomyelitis; and those with probable cases with reported symptoms.

The researchers surveyed 901 participants with clinician-diagnosed Lyme disease: 402 with localized disease, 238 with disseminated disease, and 261 with probable cases. Nearly all participants (94%) were White, 57% were men, and 71% had an annual household income above $60,000. About 28% of participants were younger than 18 years, 16% were aged 18-45 years, 36% were aged 46-65, and 19% were older than 65 years. For most participants (68%), complete medical cost data were available. Those data were used to calculate societal costs.

Costs per patient varied dramatically, from $0.46 to $30,628. On average, patients spent $1,252 during the study period on expenses related to Lyme disease treatment, including expenses associated with travel and time taken off work. The median cost to patients was notably smaller, at $244. Patients with disseminated disease had the highest median ($358) and mean ($1,692) costs, followed by participants with probable disease (median, $315; mean, $1,277). Participants with localized disease had the lowest median ($170) and mean ($1,070) costs.

Societal costs ranged from $54 to $122,766 per patient; the median was $690, and the mean was $2,032. Multiplying these numbers by the estimated cases diagnosed nationally each year, researchers determined that the total cost of Lyme disease in the United States is between $345 million and $968 million.

The study “pointed out the tremendous variability in costs” associated with Lyme disease treatment, Brian Fallon, MD, MPH, director of the Lyme and Tick-Borne Diseases Research Center at the Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, told this news organization. He was not involved with the research. Some patients continued having health expenses after the end of the study, which means their costs would be even higher, he noted. Though most patients fully recovered after 1 year, about 4% still reported symptoms, and 3% were still incurring costs.

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

Being identified as someone that was advised to stay at home and shield, or keep away from face-to-face interactions with others, during the COVID-19 pandemic was indicative of an increased risk for dying from COVID-19 within 28 days of infection, a U.K. study of inflammatory arthritis patients versus the general population suggests.

In fact, shielding status was the highest ranked of all the risk factors identified for early mortality from COVID-19, with a hazard ratio of 1.52 (95% confidence interval, 1.40-1.64) comparing people with and without inflammatory arthritis (IA) who had tested positive.

The list of risk factors associated with higher mortality in the IA patients versus the general population also included diabetes (HR, 1.38), smoking (HR, 1.27), hypertension (HR, 1.19), glucocorticoid use (HR, 1.17), and cancer (HR, 1.10), as well as increasing age (HR, 1.08) and body mass index (HR, 1.01).

Also important was the person’s prior hospitalization history, with those needing in-hospital care in the year running up to their admission for COVID-19 associated with a 34% higher risk for death, and being hospitalized previously with a serious infection was associated with a 20% higher risk.

This has more to do people’s overall vulnerability than their IA, suggested the team behind the findings, who also found that the risk of catching COVID-19 was significantly lower among patients with IA than the general population (3.5% vs. 6%), presumably because of shielding.

Examining the risks for COVID-19 in real-life practice

“COVID-19 has caused over 10 million deaths,” Roxanne Cooksey, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology. “It’s greatly affected vulnerable individuals, which includes individuals with IA, this is due to their compromised immune system and increased risk of infection and the medications that they take to manage their conditions.

“Previous studies have had mixed results about whether people with IA have an increased risk of poor outcome,” added Dr. Cooksey, who is a postdoctoral researcher in the division of infection and immunity at Cardiff (Wales) University.

“So, our research question looks to investigate inflammatory arthritis – that’s rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis – to see whether the conditions themselves or indeed their medications predispose individuals to an increased risk of contracting COVID or even more adverse outcomes.”

Dr. Cooksey and colleagues looked specifically at COVID-19 infection rates and outcomes in adults living in Wales during the first year of the pandemic (March 2020 to May 2021). As such they used routinely collected, anonymized health data from the SAIL Databank and performed a retrospective, population-based cohort study. In total, there were 1,966 people with inflammatory arthritis identified as having COVID-19 and 166,602 people without IA but who had COVID-19 in the study population.

As might be expected, people with inflammatory arthritis who tested positive for COVID-19 were older than those testing positive in the general population, at a mean of 62 years versus 46 years. They were also more likely to have been advised to shield (49.4% versus 4.6%), which in the United Kingdom constituted of receiving a letter telling them about the importance of social distancing, wearing a mask when out in public, and quarantining themselves at home whenever possible.

The main outcomes were hospitalizations and mortality within 28 days of COVID-19 infection. Considering the overall inflammatory arthritis population, rates of both outcomes were higher versus the general population. And when the researchers analyzed the risks according to the type of inflammatory arthritis, the associations were not statistically significant in a multivariable analysis for people with any of the inflammatory arthritis diagnoses: rheumatoid arthritis (n = 1,283), psoriatic arthritis (n = 514), or ankylosing spondylitis (n = 246). Some patients had more than one inflammatory arthritis diagnosis.
 

What does this all mean?

Dr. Cooksey conceded that there were lots of limitations to the data collected – from misclassification bias to data possibly not have been recorded completely or missing because of the disruption to health care services during the early stages of the pandemic. Patients may have been told to shield but not actually shielded, she observed, and maybe because a lack of testing COVID-19 cases were missed or people could have been asymptomatic or unable to be tested.

“The study supports the role of shielding in inflammatory arthritis,” Dr. Cooksey said, particularly in those with RA and the risk factors associated with an increased risk in death. However, that may not mean the entire population, she suggested, saying that “refining the criteria for shielding will help mitigate the negative effects of the entire IA population.”

Senior team member Ernest Choy, MD, added his thoughts, saying that, rather than giving generic shielding recommendations to all IA patients, not everyone has the same risk, so maybe not everyone needs to shield to the same level.

“Psoriatic arthritis patients and ankylosing spondylitis patients are younger, so they really don’t have as high a risk like patients with rheumatoid arthritis,” he said.

Dr. Choy, who is professor of rheumatology at the Cardiff Institute of Infection & Immunity, commented that it was not surprising to find that a prior serious infection was a risk for COVID-19 mortality. This risk factor was examined because of the known association between biologic use and the risk for serious infection.

Moreover, he said that, “if you have a serious comorbidity that requires you to get admitted to hospital, that is a reflection of your vulnerability.”

Dr. Cooksey and Dr. Choy had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

Being identified as someone that was advised to stay at home and shield, or keep away from face-to-face interactions with others, during the COVID-19 pandemic was indicative of an increased risk for dying from COVID-19 within 28 days of infection, a U.K. study of inflammatory arthritis patients versus the general population suggests.

In fact, shielding status was the highest ranked of all the risk factors identified for early mortality from COVID-19, with a hazard ratio of 1.52 (95% confidence interval, 1.40-1.64) comparing people with and without inflammatory arthritis (IA) who had tested positive.

The list of risk factors associated with higher mortality in the IA patients versus the general population also included diabetes (HR, 1.38), smoking (HR, 1.27), hypertension (HR, 1.19), glucocorticoid use (HR, 1.17), and cancer (HR, 1.10), as well as increasing age (HR, 1.08) and body mass index (HR, 1.01).

Also important was the person’s prior hospitalization history, with those needing in-hospital care in the year running up to their admission for COVID-19 associated with a 34% higher risk for death, and being hospitalized previously with a serious infection was associated with a 20% higher risk.

This has more to do people’s overall vulnerability than their IA, suggested the team behind the findings, who also found that the risk of catching COVID-19 was significantly lower among patients with IA than the general population (3.5% vs. 6%), presumably because of shielding.

Examining the risks for COVID-19 in real-life practice

“COVID-19 has caused over 10 million deaths,” Roxanne Cooksey, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology. “It’s greatly affected vulnerable individuals, which includes individuals with IA, this is due to their compromised immune system and increased risk of infection and the medications that they take to manage their conditions.

“Previous studies have had mixed results about whether people with IA have an increased risk of poor outcome,” added Dr. Cooksey, who is a postdoctoral researcher in the division of infection and immunity at Cardiff (Wales) University.

“So, our research question looks to investigate inflammatory arthritis – that’s rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis – to see whether the conditions themselves or indeed their medications predispose individuals to an increased risk of contracting COVID or even more adverse outcomes.”

Dr. Cooksey and colleagues looked specifically at COVID-19 infection rates and outcomes in adults living in Wales during the first year of the pandemic (March 2020 to May 2021). As such they used routinely collected, anonymized health data from the SAIL Databank and performed a retrospective, population-based cohort study. In total, there were 1,966 people with inflammatory arthritis identified as having COVID-19 and 166,602 people without IA but who had COVID-19 in the study population.

As might be expected, people with inflammatory arthritis who tested positive for COVID-19 were older than those testing positive in the general population, at a mean of 62 years versus 46 years. They were also more likely to have been advised to shield (49.4% versus 4.6%), which in the United Kingdom constituted of receiving a letter telling them about the importance of social distancing, wearing a mask when out in public, and quarantining themselves at home whenever possible.

The main outcomes were hospitalizations and mortality within 28 days of COVID-19 infection. Considering the overall inflammatory arthritis population, rates of both outcomes were higher versus the general population. And when the researchers analyzed the risks according to the type of inflammatory arthritis, the associations were not statistically significant in a multivariable analysis for people with any of the inflammatory arthritis diagnoses: rheumatoid arthritis (n = 1,283), psoriatic arthritis (n = 514), or ankylosing spondylitis (n = 246). Some patients had more than one inflammatory arthritis diagnosis.
 

What does this all mean?

Dr. Cooksey conceded that there were lots of limitations to the data collected – from misclassification bias to data possibly not have been recorded completely or missing because of the disruption to health care services during the early stages of the pandemic. Patients may have been told to shield but not actually shielded, she observed, and maybe because a lack of testing COVID-19 cases were missed or people could have been asymptomatic or unable to be tested.

“The study supports the role of shielding in inflammatory arthritis,” Dr. Cooksey said, particularly in those with RA and the risk factors associated with an increased risk in death. However, that may not mean the entire population, she suggested, saying that “refining the criteria for shielding will help mitigate the negative effects of the entire IA population.”

Senior team member Ernest Choy, MD, added his thoughts, saying that, rather than giving generic shielding recommendations to all IA patients, not everyone has the same risk, so maybe not everyone needs to shield to the same level.

“Psoriatic arthritis patients and ankylosing spondylitis patients are younger, so they really don’t have as high a risk like patients with rheumatoid arthritis,” he said.

Dr. Choy, who is professor of rheumatology at the Cardiff Institute of Infection & Immunity, commented that it was not surprising to find that a prior serious infection was a risk for COVID-19 mortality. This risk factor was examined because of the known association between biologic use and the risk for serious infection.

Moreover, he said that, “if you have a serious comorbidity that requires you to get admitted to hospital, that is a reflection of your vulnerability.”

Dr. Cooksey and Dr. Choy had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

Being identified as someone that was advised to stay at home and shield, or keep away from face-to-face interactions with others, during the COVID-19 pandemic was indicative of an increased risk for dying from COVID-19 within 28 days of infection, a U.K. study of inflammatory arthritis patients versus the general population suggests.

In fact, shielding status was the highest ranked of all the risk factors identified for early mortality from COVID-19, with a hazard ratio of 1.52 (95% confidence interval, 1.40-1.64) comparing people with and without inflammatory arthritis (IA) who had tested positive.

The list of risk factors associated with higher mortality in the IA patients versus the general population also included diabetes (HR, 1.38), smoking (HR, 1.27), hypertension (HR, 1.19), glucocorticoid use (HR, 1.17), and cancer (HR, 1.10), as well as increasing age (HR, 1.08) and body mass index (HR, 1.01).

Also important was the person’s prior hospitalization history, with those needing in-hospital care in the year running up to their admission for COVID-19 associated with a 34% higher risk for death, and being hospitalized previously with a serious infection was associated with a 20% higher risk.

This has more to do people’s overall vulnerability than their IA, suggested the team behind the findings, who also found that the risk of catching COVID-19 was significantly lower among patients with IA than the general population (3.5% vs. 6%), presumably because of shielding.

Examining the risks for COVID-19 in real-life practice

“COVID-19 has caused over 10 million deaths,” Roxanne Cooksey, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology. “It’s greatly affected vulnerable individuals, which includes individuals with IA, this is due to their compromised immune system and increased risk of infection and the medications that they take to manage their conditions.

“Previous studies have had mixed results about whether people with IA have an increased risk of poor outcome,” added Dr. Cooksey, who is a postdoctoral researcher in the division of infection and immunity at Cardiff (Wales) University.

“So, our research question looks to investigate inflammatory arthritis – that’s rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis – to see whether the conditions themselves or indeed their medications predispose individuals to an increased risk of contracting COVID or even more adverse outcomes.”

Dr. Cooksey and colleagues looked specifically at COVID-19 infection rates and outcomes in adults living in Wales during the first year of the pandemic (March 2020 to May 2021). As such they used routinely collected, anonymized health data from the SAIL Databank and performed a retrospective, population-based cohort study. In total, there were 1,966 people with inflammatory arthritis identified as having COVID-19 and 166,602 people without IA but who had COVID-19 in the study population.

As might be expected, people with inflammatory arthritis who tested positive for COVID-19 were older than those testing positive in the general population, at a mean of 62 years versus 46 years. They were also more likely to have been advised to shield (49.4% versus 4.6%), which in the United Kingdom constituted of receiving a letter telling them about the importance of social distancing, wearing a mask when out in public, and quarantining themselves at home whenever possible.

The main outcomes were hospitalizations and mortality within 28 days of COVID-19 infection. Considering the overall inflammatory arthritis population, rates of both outcomes were higher versus the general population. And when the researchers analyzed the risks according to the type of inflammatory arthritis, the associations were not statistically significant in a multivariable analysis for people with any of the inflammatory arthritis diagnoses: rheumatoid arthritis (n = 1,283), psoriatic arthritis (n = 514), or ankylosing spondylitis (n = 246). Some patients had more than one inflammatory arthritis diagnosis.
 

What does this all mean?

Dr. Cooksey conceded that there were lots of limitations to the data collected – from misclassification bias to data possibly not have been recorded completely or missing because of the disruption to health care services during the early stages of the pandemic. Patients may have been told to shield but not actually shielded, she observed, and maybe because a lack of testing COVID-19 cases were missed or people could have been asymptomatic or unable to be tested.

“The study supports the role of shielding in inflammatory arthritis,” Dr. Cooksey said, particularly in those with RA and the risk factors associated with an increased risk in death. However, that may not mean the entire population, she suggested, saying that “refining the criteria for shielding will help mitigate the negative effects of the entire IA population.”

Senior team member Ernest Choy, MD, added his thoughts, saying that, rather than giving generic shielding recommendations to all IA patients, not everyone has the same risk, so maybe not everyone needs to shield to the same level.

“Psoriatic arthritis patients and ankylosing spondylitis patients are younger, so they really don’t have as high a risk like patients with rheumatoid arthritis,” he said.

Dr. Choy, who is professor of rheumatology at the Cardiff Institute of Infection & Immunity, commented that it was not surprising to find that a prior serious infection was a risk for COVID-19 mortality. This risk factor was examined because of the known association between biologic use and the risk for serious infection.

Moreover, he said that, “if you have a serious comorbidity that requires you to get admitted to hospital, that is a reflection of your vulnerability.”

Dr. Cooksey and Dr. Choy had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

All patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) should be screened for swallowing difficulties, according to the first evidence-based guideline to be produced.

The guideline, which has been developed by a working group of the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR), also advises that all diagnosed patients should have their myositis antibody levels checked and have their overall well-being assessed. Other recommendations for all patients include the use of glucocorticoids to reduce muscle inflammation and conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) for long-term treatment.

“Finally, now, we’re able to standardize the way we treat adults and children with IIM,” senior guideline author Hector Chinoy, PhD, said at the society’s annual meeting.

It has been a long labor of love, however, taking 4 years to get the guideline published, said Dr. Chinoy, professor of rheumatology and neuromuscular disease at the University of Manchester (England), and a consultant at Salford (England) Royal Hospital.

“We’re not covering diagnosis, classification, or the investigation of suspected IIM,” said Dr. Chinoy. Inclusion body myositis also is not included.

Altogether, there are 13 recommendations that have been developed using a PICO (patient or population, intervention, comparison, outcome) format, graded based on the quality of the available evidence, and then voted on by the working group members to give a score of the strength of agreement. Dr. Chinoy noted that there was a checklist included in the Supplementary Data section of the guideline to help follow the recommendations.

“The target audience for the guideline reflects the variety of clinicians caring for patients with IIM,” Dr. Chinoy said. So that is not just pediatric and adult rheumatologists, but also neurologists, dermatologists, respiratory physicians, oncologists, gastroenterologists, cardiologists, and of course other health care professionals. This includes rheumatology and neurology nurses, psychologists, speech and language therapists, and podiatrists, as well as rheumatology specialist pharmacists, physiotherapists, and occupational therapists.

With reference to the latter, Liza McCann, MBBS, who co-led the development of the guideline, said in a statement released by the BSR that the guideline “highlights the importance of exercise, led and monitored by specialist physiotherapists and occupational therapists.”

Dr. McCann, a consultant pediatric rheumatologist at Alder Hey Hospital, Liverpool, England, and Honorary Clinical Lecturer at the University of Liverpool, added that the guidelines also cover “the need to address psychological wellbeing as an integral part of treatment, in parallel with pharmacological therapies.”

Recommendation highlights

Some of the highlights of the recommendations include the use of high-dose glucocorticoids to manage skeletal muscle inflammation at the time of treatment induction, with specific guidance on the different doses to use in adults and in children. There also is guidance on the use of csDMARDs in both populations and what to use if there is refractory disease – with the strongest evidence supporting the use of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) or cyclophosphamide, and possibly rituximab and abatacept.

“There is insufficient evidence to recommend JAK inhibition,” Dr. Chinoy said. The data search used to develop the guideline had a cutoff of October 2020, but even now there is only anecdotal evidence from case studies, he added.

Importantly, the guidelines recognize that childhood IIM differs from adult disease and call for children to be managed by pediatric specialists.

“Routine assessment of dysphagia should be considered in all patients,” Dr. Chinoy said, “so ask the question.” The recommendation is that a swallowing assessment should involve a speech and language therapist or gastroenterologist, and that IVIG be considered for active disease and dysphagia that is resistant to other treatments.

There also are recommendations to screen adult patients for interstitial lung disease, consider fracture risk, and screen adult patients for cancer if they have specific risk factors that include older age at onset, male gender, dysphagia, and rapid disease onset, among others.
 

Separate cancer screening guidelines on cards

“Around one in four patients with myositis will develop cancer within the 3 years either before or after myositis onset,” Alexander Oldroyd, MBChB, PhD, said in a separate presentation at the BSR annual meeting.

“It’s a hugely increased risk compared to the general population, and a great worry for patients,” he added. Exactly why there is an increased risk is not known, but “there’s a big link between the biological onset of cancer and myositis.”

Dr. Oldroyd, who is an NIHR Academic Clinical Lecturer at the University of Manchester in England and a coauthor of the BSR myositis guideline, is part of a special interest group set up by the International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group (IMACS) that is in the process of developing separate guidelines for cancer screening in people newly diagnosed with IIM.

The aim was to produce evidence-based recommendations that were both “pragmatic and practical,” that could help clinicians answer patient’s questions on their risk and how best and how often to screen them, Dr. Oldroyd explained. Importantly, IMACS has endeavored to create recommendations that should be applicable across different countries and health care systems.

“We had to acknowledge that there’s not a lot of evidence base there,” Dr. Oldroyd said, noting that he and colleagues conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis and used a Delphi process to draft 20 recommendations. These cover identifying risk factors for cancer in people with myositis and categorizing people into low, medium, and high-risk categories. The recommendations also cover what should constitute basic and enhanced screening, and how often someone should be screened.

Moreover, the authors make recommendations on the use of imaging modalities such as PET and CT scans, as well as upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy and naso-endoscopy.

“As rheumatologists, we don’t talk about cancer a lot,” Dr. Oldroyd said. “We pick up a lot of incidental cancers, but we don’t usually talk about cancer screening with patients.” That’s something that needs to change, he said.

“It’s important – just get it out in the open, talk to people about it,” Dr. Oldroyd said.

“Tell them what you’re wanting to do, how you’re wanting to investigate for it, clearly communicate their risk,” he said. “But also acknowledge the limited evidence as well, and clearly communicate the results.”

Dr. Chinoy acknowledged he had received fees for presentations (UCB, Biogen), consultancy (Alexion, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Orphazyme, AstraZeneca), or grant support (Eli Lilly, UCB) that had been paid via his institution for the purpose of furthering myositis research. Dr. Oldroyd had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

All patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) should be screened for swallowing difficulties, according to the first evidence-based guideline to be produced.

The guideline, which has been developed by a working group of the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR), also advises that all diagnosed patients should have their myositis antibody levels checked and have their overall well-being assessed. Other recommendations for all patients include the use of glucocorticoids to reduce muscle inflammation and conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) for long-term treatment.

“Finally, now, we’re able to standardize the way we treat adults and children with IIM,” senior guideline author Hector Chinoy, PhD, said at the society’s annual meeting.

It has been a long labor of love, however, taking 4 years to get the guideline published, said Dr. Chinoy, professor of rheumatology and neuromuscular disease at the University of Manchester (England), and a consultant at Salford (England) Royal Hospital.

“We’re not covering diagnosis, classification, or the investigation of suspected IIM,” said Dr. Chinoy. Inclusion body myositis also is not included.

Altogether, there are 13 recommendations that have been developed using a PICO (patient or population, intervention, comparison, outcome) format, graded based on the quality of the available evidence, and then voted on by the working group members to give a score of the strength of agreement. Dr. Chinoy noted that there was a checklist included in the Supplementary Data section of the guideline to help follow the recommendations.

“The target audience for the guideline reflects the variety of clinicians caring for patients with IIM,” Dr. Chinoy said. So that is not just pediatric and adult rheumatologists, but also neurologists, dermatologists, respiratory physicians, oncologists, gastroenterologists, cardiologists, and of course other health care professionals. This includes rheumatology and neurology nurses, psychologists, speech and language therapists, and podiatrists, as well as rheumatology specialist pharmacists, physiotherapists, and occupational therapists.

With reference to the latter, Liza McCann, MBBS, who co-led the development of the guideline, said in a statement released by the BSR that the guideline “highlights the importance of exercise, led and monitored by specialist physiotherapists and occupational therapists.”

Dr. McCann, a consultant pediatric rheumatologist at Alder Hey Hospital, Liverpool, England, and Honorary Clinical Lecturer at the University of Liverpool, added that the guidelines also cover “the need to address psychological wellbeing as an integral part of treatment, in parallel with pharmacological therapies.”

Recommendation highlights

Some of the highlights of the recommendations include the use of high-dose glucocorticoids to manage skeletal muscle inflammation at the time of treatment induction, with specific guidance on the different doses to use in adults and in children. There also is guidance on the use of csDMARDs in both populations and what to use if there is refractory disease – with the strongest evidence supporting the use of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) or cyclophosphamide, and possibly rituximab and abatacept.

“There is insufficient evidence to recommend JAK inhibition,” Dr. Chinoy said. The data search used to develop the guideline had a cutoff of October 2020, but even now there is only anecdotal evidence from case studies, he added.

Importantly, the guidelines recognize that childhood IIM differs from adult disease and call for children to be managed by pediatric specialists.

“Routine assessment of dysphagia should be considered in all patients,” Dr. Chinoy said, “so ask the question.” The recommendation is that a swallowing assessment should involve a speech and language therapist or gastroenterologist, and that IVIG be considered for active disease and dysphagia that is resistant to other treatments.

There also are recommendations to screen adult patients for interstitial lung disease, consider fracture risk, and screen adult patients for cancer if they have specific risk factors that include older age at onset, male gender, dysphagia, and rapid disease onset, among others.
 

Separate cancer screening guidelines on cards

“Around one in four patients with myositis will develop cancer within the 3 years either before or after myositis onset,” Alexander Oldroyd, MBChB, PhD, said in a separate presentation at the BSR annual meeting.

“It’s a hugely increased risk compared to the general population, and a great worry for patients,” he added. Exactly why there is an increased risk is not known, but “there’s a big link between the biological onset of cancer and myositis.”

Dr. Oldroyd, who is an NIHR Academic Clinical Lecturer at the University of Manchester in England and a coauthor of the BSR myositis guideline, is part of a special interest group set up by the International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group (IMACS) that is in the process of developing separate guidelines for cancer screening in people newly diagnosed with IIM.

The aim was to produce evidence-based recommendations that were both “pragmatic and practical,” that could help clinicians answer patient’s questions on their risk and how best and how often to screen them, Dr. Oldroyd explained. Importantly, IMACS has endeavored to create recommendations that should be applicable across different countries and health care systems.

“We had to acknowledge that there’s not a lot of evidence base there,” Dr. Oldroyd said, noting that he and colleagues conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis and used a Delphi process to draft 20 recommendations. These cover identifying risk factors for cancer in people with myositis and categorizing people into low, medium, and high-risk categories. The recommendations also cover what should constitute basic and enhanced screening, and how often someone should be screened.

Moreover, the authors make recommendations on the use of imaging modalities such as PET and CT scans, as well as upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy and naso-endoscopy.

“As rheumatologists, we don’t talk about cancer a lot,” Dr. Oldroyd said. “We pick up a lot of incidental cancers, but we don’t usually talk about cancer screening with patients.” That’s something that needs to change, he said.

“It’s important – just get it out in the open, talk to people about it,” Dr. Oldroyd said.

“Tell them what you’re wanting to do, how you’re wanting to investigate for it, clearly communicate their risk,” he said. “But also acknowledge the limited evidence as well, and clearly communicate the results.”

Dr. Chinoy acknowledged he had received fees for presentations (UCB, Biogen), consultancy (Alexion, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Orphazyme, AstraZeneca), or grant support (Eli Lilly, UCB) that had been paid via his institution for the purpose of furthering myositis research. Dr. Oldroyd had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

All patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) should be screened for swallowing difficulties, according to the first evidence-based guideline to be produced.

The guideline, which has been developed by a working group of the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR), also advises that all diagnosed patients should have their myositis antibody levels checked and have their overall well-being assessed. Other recommendations for all patients include the use of glucocorticoids to reduce muscle inflammation and conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) for long-term treatment.

“Finally, now, we’re able to standardize the way we treat adults and children with IIM,” senior guideline author Hector Chinoy, PhD, said at the society’s annual meeting.

It has been a long labor of love, however, taking 4 years to get the guideline published, said Dr. Chinoy, professor of rheumatology and neuromuscular disease at the University of Manchester (England), and a consultant at Salford (England) Royal Hospital.

“We’re not covering diagnosis, classification, or the investigation of suspected IIM,” said Dr. Chinoy. Inclusion body myositis also is not included.

Altogether, there are 13 recommendations that have been developed using a PICO (patient or population, intervention, comparison, outcome) format, graded based on the quality of the available evidence, and then voted on by the working group members to give a score of the strength of agreement. Dr. Chinoy noted that there was a checklist included in the Supplementary Data section of the guideline to help follow the recommendations.

“The target audience for the guideline reflects the variety of clinicians caring for patients with IIM,” Dr. Chinoy said. So that is not just pediatric and adult rheumatologists, but also neurologists, dermatologists, respiratory physicians, oncologists, gastroenterologists, cardiologists, and of course other health care professionals. This includes rheumatology and neurology nurses, psychologists, speech and language therapists, and podiatrists, as well as rheumatology specialist pharmacists, physiotherapists, and occupational therapists.

With reference to the latter, Liza McCann, MBBS, who co-led the development of the guideline, said in a statement released by the BSR that the guideline “highlights the importance of exercise, led and monitored by specialist physiotherapists and occupational therapists.”

Dr. McCann, a consultant pediatric rheumatologist at Alder Hey Hospital, Liverpool, England, and Honorary Clinical Lecturer at the University of Liverpool, added that the guidelines also cover “the need to address psychological wellbeing as an integral part of treatment, in parallel with pharmacological therapies.”

Recommendation highlights

Some of the highlights of the recommendations include the use of high-dose glucocorticoids to manage skeletal muscle inflammation at the time of treatment induction, with specific guidance on the different doses to use in adults and in children. There also is guidance on the use of csDMARDs in both populations and what to use if there is refractory disease – with the strongest evidence supporting the use of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) or cyclophosphamide, and possibly rituximab and abatacept.

“There is insufficient evidence to recommend JAK inhibition,” Dr. Chinoy said. The data search used to develop the guideline had a cutoff of October 2020, but even now there is only anecdotal evidence from case studies, he added.

Importantly, the guidelines recognize that childhood IIM differs from adult disease and call for children to be managed by pediatric specialists.

“Routine assessment of dysphagia should be considered in all patients,” Dr. Chinoy said, “so ask the question.” The recommendation is that a swallowing assessment should involve a speech and language therapist or gastroenterologist, and that IVIG be considered for active disease and dysphagia that is resistant to other treatments.

There also are recommendations to screen adult patients for interstitial lung disease, consider fracture risk, and screen adult patients for cancer if they have specific risk factors that include older age at onset, male gender, dysphagia, and rapid disease onset, among others.
 

Separate cancer screening guidelines on cards

“Around one in four patients with myositis will develop cancer within the 3 years either before or after myositis onset,” Alexander Oldroyd, MBChB, PhD, said in a separate presentation at the BSR annual meeting.

“It’s a hugely increased risk compared to the general population, and a great worry for patients,” he added. Exactly why there is an increased risk is not known, but “there’s a big link between the biological onset of cancer and myositis.”

Dr. Oldroyd, who is an NIHR Academic Clinical Lecturer at the University of Manchester in England and a coauthor of the BSR myositis guideline, is part of a special interest group set up by the International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group (IMACS) that is in the process of developing separate guidelines for cancer screening in people newly diagnosed with IIM.

The aim was to produce evidence-based recommendations that were both “pragmatic and practical,” that could help clinicians answer patient’s questions on their risk and how best and how often to screen them, Dr. Oldroyd explained. Importantly, IMACS has endeavored to create recommendations that should be applicable across different countries and health care systems.

“We had to acknowledge that there’s not a lot of evidence base there,” Dr. Oldroyd said, noting that he and colleagues conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis and used a Delphi process to draft 20 recommendations. These cover identifying risk factors for cancer in people with myositis and categorizing people into low, medium, and high-risk categories. The recommendations also cover what should constitute basic and enhanced screening, and how often someone should be screened.

Moreover, the authors make recommendations on the use of imaging modalities such as PET and CT scans, as well as upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy and naso-endoscopy.

“As rheumatologists, we don’t talk about cancer a lot,” Dr. Oldroyd said. “We pick up a lot of incidental cancers, but we don’t usually talk about cancer screening with patients.” That’s something that needs to change, he said.

“It’s important – just get it out in the open, talk to people about it,” Dr. Oldroyd said.

“Tell them what you’re wanting to do, how you’re wanting to investigate for it, clearly communicate their risk,” he said. “But also acknowledge the limited evidence as well, and clearly communicate the results.”

Dr. Chinoy acknowledged he had received fees for presentations (UCB, Biogen), consultancy (Alexion, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Orphazyme, AstraZeneca), or grant support (Eli Lilly, UCB) that had been paid via his institution for the purpose of furthering myositis research. Dr. Oldroyd had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Transplanting fecal microbiota from young mice into older mice can reverse signs of aging in the gut, brain, and eyes, a team of scientists from the United Kingdom has found. Conversely, transplanting microbiota from old mice to young mice has the opposite effect.

This research provides “tantalizing evidence for the direct involvement of gut microbes in aging and the functional decline of brain function and vision and offers a potential solution in the form of gut microbe replacement therapy,” Simon Carding, PhD, who heads the gut microbes and health research program at the Quadram Institute in Norwich, England, said in a news release.

The study was published online in the journal Microbiome.

The fountain of youth?

Age-related changes in diversity, composition, and function of the gut microbiota are associated with low-grade systemic inflammation, declining tissue function, and increased susceptibility to age-related chronic diseases.

Dr. Carding and colleagues at the Quadram Institute and the University of East Anglia used fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) to exchange the intestinal microbiota of young mice and aged mice.

Young mice who received aged microbiota showed increased intestinal barrier permeability (leaky gut) coupled with upregulated inflammation in the brain and retina, as well as loss of a key functional protein in the eye, they report.

Conversely, these detrimental effects were reversed when microbiota from young mice was transferred to aged mice. FMT with young microbiota also led to enrichment of beneficial taxa in aged mice.

“Our data support the suggestion that altered gut microbiota in old age contributes to intestinal and systemic inflammation, and so may contribute to driving inflammatory pathologies of aged organs,” the study team wrote.

“Targeting the gut-brain axis in aging, by modification of microbial composition to modulate immune and metabolic pathways, may therefore be a potential avenue for therapeutic approaches to age-associated inflammatory and functional decline,” they suggested.

In ongoing studies, the study team are working to understand how long the beneficial effects of young donor microbiota last, which will establish whether FMT can promote long-term health benefits in aged individuals and ameliorate age-associated neurodegeneration and retinal functional deterioration.

“Our results provide more evidence of the important links between microbes in the gut and healthy aging of tissues and organs around the body,” lead author Aimée Parker, PhD, from the Quadram Institute, said in the release.

“We hope that our findings will contribute ultimately to understanding how we can manipulate our diet and our gut bacteria to maximize good health in later life,” she added.

Support for this research was provided by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. The authors report no relevant financial relationships .

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

Transplanting fecal microbiota from young mice into older mice can reverse signs of aging in the gut, brain, and eyes, a team of scientists from the United Kingdom has found. Conversely, transplanting microbiota from old mice to young mice has the opposite effect.

This research provides “tantalizing evidence for the direct involvement of gut microbes in aging and the functional decline of brain function and vision and offers a potential solution in the form of gut microbe replacement therapy,” Simon Carding, PhD, who heads the gut microbes and health research program at the Quadram Institute in Norwich, England, said in a news release.

The study was published online in the journal Microbiome.

The fountain of youth?

Age-related changes in diversity, composition, and function of the gut microbiota are associated with low-grade systemic inflammation, declining tissue function, and increased susceptibility to age-related chronic diseases.

Dr. Carding and colleagues at the Quadram Institute and the University of East Anglia used fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) to exchange the intestinal microbiota of young mice and aged mice.

Young mice who received aged microbiota showed increased intestinal barrier permeability (leaky gut) coupled with upregulated inflammation in the brain and retina, as well as loss of a key functional protein in the eye, they report.

Conversely, these detrimental effects were reversed when microbiota from young mice was transferred to aged mice. FMT with young microbiota also led to enrichment of beneficial taxa in aged mice.

“Our data support the suggestion that altered gut microbiota in old age contributes to intestinal and systemic inflammation, and so may contribute to driving inflammatory pathologies of aged organs,” the study team wrote.

“Targeting the gut-brain axis in aging, by modification of microbial composition to modulate immune and metabolic pathways, may therefore be a potential avenue for therapeutic approaches to age-associated inflammatory and functional decline,” they suggested.

In ongoing studies, the study team are working to understand how long the beneficial effects of young donor microbiota last, which will establish whether FMT can promote long-term health benefits in aged individuals and ameliorate age-associated neurodegeneration and retinal functional deterioration.

“Our results provide more evidence of the important links between microbes in the gut and healthy aging of tissues and organs around the body,” lead author Aimée Parker, PhD, from the Quadram Institute, said in the release.

“We hope that our findings will contribute ultimately to understanding how we can manipulate our diet and our gut bacteria to maximize good health in later life,” she added.

Support for this research was provided by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. The authors report no relevant financial relationships .

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

Transplanting fecal microbiota from young mice into older mice can reverse signs of aging in the gut, brain, and eyes, a team of scientists from the United Kingdom has found. Conversely, transplanting microbiota from old mice to young mice has the opposite effect.

This research provides “tantalizing evidence for the direct involvement of gut microbes in aging and the functional decline of brain function and vision and offers a potential solution in the form of gut microbe replacement therapy,” Simon Carding, PhD, who heads the gut microbes and health research program at the Quadram Institute in Norwich, England, said in a news release.

The study was published online in the journal Microbiome.

The fountain of youth?

Age-related changes in diversity, composition, and function of the gut microbiota are associated with low-grade systemic inflammation, declining tissue function, and increased susceptibility to age-related chronic diseases.

Dr. Carding and colleagues at the Quadram Institute and the University of East Anglia used fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) to exchange the intestinal microbiota of young mice and aged mice.

Young mice who received aged microbiota showed increased intestinal barrier permeability (leaky gut) coupled with upregulated inflammation in the brain and retina, as well as loss of a key functional protein in the eye, they report.

Conversely, these detrimental effects were reversed when microbiota from young mice was transferred to aged mice. FMT with young microbiota also led to enrichment of beneficial taxa in aged mice.

“Our data support the suggestion that altered gut microbiota in old age contributes to intestinal and systemic inflammation, and so may contribute to driving inflammatory pathologies of aged organs,” the study team wrote.

“Targeting the gut-brain axis in aging, by modification of microbial composition to modulate immune and metabolic pathways, may therefore be a potential avenue for therapeutic approaches to age-associated inflammatory and functional decline,” they suggested.

In ongoing studies, the study team are working to understand how long the beneficial effects of young donor microbiota last, which will establish whether FMT can promote long-term health benefits in aged individuals and ameliorate age-associated neurodegeneration and retinal functional deterioration.

“Our results provide more evidence of the important links between microbes in the gut and healthy aging of tissues and organs around the body,” lead author Aimée Parker, PhD, from the Quadram Institute, said in the release.

“We hope that our findings will contribute ultimately to understanding how we can manipulate our diet and our gut bacteria to maximize good health in later life,” she added.

Support for this research was provided by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. The authors report no relevant financial relationships .

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

A Pennsylvania-based internist was sentenced to 20 years in prison by a federal judge on May 10 for running a prescription “pill mill” from his medical practice.

Since May 2005, Andrew Berkowitz, MD, 62, of Huntington Valley, Pa., was president and CEO of A+ Pain Management, a clinic in the Philadelphia area, according to his LinkedIn profile.

Prosecutors said patients, no matter their complaint, would leave Dr. Berkowitz’s offices with “goodie bags” filled with a selection of drugs. A typical haul included topical analgesics, such as Relyyt and/or lidocaine; muscle relaxants, including chlorzoxazone and/or cyclobenzaprine; anti-inflammatories, such as celecoxib and/or fenoprofen; and schedule IV substances, including tramadol, eszopiclone, and quazepam.

The practice was registered in Pennsylvania as a nonpharmacy dispensing site, allowing Dr. Berkowitz to bill insurers for the drugs, according to The Pennsylvania Record, a journal covering Pennsylvania’s legal system. Dr. Berkowitz also prescribed oxycodone for “pill seeking” patients, who gave him their tacit approval of submitting claims to their insurance providers, which included Medicare, Aetna, and others, for the items in the goodie bag.

In addition, Dr. Berkowitz fraudulently billed insurers for medically unnecessary physical therapy, acupuncture, and chiropractic adjustments, as well as for treatments that were never provided, according to federal officials.

According to the Department of Justice, Dr. Berkowitz collected more than $4,000 per bag from insurers. From 2015 to 2018, prosecutors estimate that Dr. Berkowitz took in more than $4 million in fraudulent proceeds from his scheme.

The pill mill came to the attention of federal authorities after Blue Cross investigators forwarded to the FBI several complaints it had received about Dr. Berkowitz. In 2017, the FBI sent a cooperating witness to Dr. Berkowitz’s clinic. The undercover patient received a prescription for oxycodone, Motrin, and Flexeril and paid $185, according to The Record.

After being indicted in 2019, Dr. Berkowitz pleaded guilty in January 2020 to 19 counts of health care fraud and to 23 counts of distributing oxycodone outside the course of professional practice and without a legitimate medical purpose.

On May 10, he was sentenced to 20 years in prison, followed by 5 years of supervised release. In addition, he was ordered to pay a $40,000 fine and almost $4 million in restitution. As a result of civil False Claims Act liability for false claims submitted to Medicare, he is also obligated to pay approximately $1.8 million and is subject to a permanent prohibition on prescribing, distributing, or dispensing controlled substances.

Dr. Berkowitz’s actions were deemed especially egregious in light of the opioid epidemic.

“Doctors are supposed to treat illness, not feed it,” said Jacqueline Maguire, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Philadelphia division. “Andrew Berkowitz prescribed patients unnecessary pills and handed out opioids to addicts.” Jennifer Arbittier Williams, acting U.S. Attorney, added upon announcing the sentence, “Doctors who dare engage in health care fraud and drug diversion, two drivers of the opioid epidemic ravaging our communities, should heed this sentence as a warning that they will be held responsible, criminally and financially.”

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

A Pennsylvania-based internist was sentenced to 20 years in prison by a federal judge on May 10 for running a prescription “pill mill” from his medical practice.

Since May 2005, Andrew Berkowitz, MD, 62, of Huntington Valley, Pa., was president and CEO of A+ Pain Management, a clinic in the Philadelphia area, according to his LinkedIn profile.

Prosecutors said patients, no matter their complaint, would leave Dr. Berkowitz’s offices with “goodie bags” filled with a selection of drugs. A typical haul included topical analgesics, such as Relyyt and/or lidocaine; muscle relaxants, including chlorzoxazone and/or cyclobenzaprine; anti-inflammatories, such as celecoxib and/or fenoprofen; and schedule IV substances, including tramadol, eszopiclone, and quazepam.

The practice was registered in Pennsylvania as a nonpharmacy dispensing site, allowing Dr. Berkowitz to bill insurers for the drugs, according to The Pennsylvania Record, a journal covering Pennsylvania’s legal system. Dr. Berkowitz also prescribed oxycodone for “pill seeking” patients, who gave him their tacit approval of submitting claims to their insurance providers, which included Medicare, Aetna, and others, for the items in the goodie bag.

In addition, Dr. Berkowitz fraudulently billed insurers for medically unnecessary physical therapy, acupuncture, and chiropractic adjustments, as well as for treatments that were never provided, according to federal officials.

According to the Department of Justice, Dr. Berkowitz collected more than $4,000 per bag from insurers. From 2015 to 2018, prosecutors estimate that Dr. Berkowitz took in more than $4 million in fraudulent proceeds from his scheme.

The pill mill came to the attention of federal authorities after Blue Cross investigators forwarded to the FBI several complaints it had received about Dr. Berkowitz. In 2017, the FBI sent a cooperating witness to Dr. Berkowitz’s clinic. The undercover patient received a prescription for oxycodone, Motrin, and Flexeril and paid $185, according to The Record.

After being indicted in 2019, Dr. Berkowitz pleaded guilty in January 2020 to 19 counts of health care fraud and to 23 counts of distributing oxycodone outside the course of professional practice and without a legitimate medical purpose.

On May 10, he was sentenced to 20 years in prison, followed by 5 years of supervised release. In addition, he was ordered to pay a $40,000 fine and almost $4 million in restitution. As a result of civil False Claims Act liability for false claims submitted to Medicare, he is also obligated to pay approximately $1.8 million and is subject to a permanent prohibition on prescribing, distributing, or dispensing controlled substances.

Dr. Berkowitz’s actions were deemed especially egregious in light of the opioid epidemic.

“Doctors are supposed to treat illness, not feed it,” said Jacqueline Maguire, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Philadelphia division. “Andrew Berkowitz prescribed patients unnecessary pills and handed out opioids to addicts.” Jennifer Arbittier Williams, acting U.S. Attorney, added upon announcing the sentence, “Doctors who dare engage in health care fraud and drug diversion, two drivers of the opioid epidemic ravaging our communities, should heed this sentence as a warning that they will be held responsible, criminally and financially.”

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

A Pennsylvania-based internist was sentenced to 20 years in prison by a federal judge on May 10 for running a prescription “pill mill” from his medical practice.

Since May 2005, Andrew Berkowitz, MD, 62, of Huntington Valley, Pa., was president and CEO of A+ Pain Management, a clinic in the Philadelphia area, according to his LinkedIn profile.

Prosecutors said patients, no matter their complaint, would leave Dr. Berkowitz’s offices with “goodie bags” filled with a selection of drugs. A typical haul included topical analgesics, such as Relyyt and/or lidocaine; muscle relaxants, including chlorzoxazone and/or cyclobenzaprine; anti-inflammatories, such as celecoxib and/or fenoprofen; and schedule IV substances, including tramadol, eszopiclone, and quazepam.

The practice was registered in Pennsylvania as a nonpharmacy dispensing site, allowing Dr. Berkowitz to bill insurers for the drugs, according to The Pennsylvania Record, a journal covering Pennsylvania’s legal system. Dr. Berkowitz also prescribed oxycodone for “pill seeking” patients, who gave him their tacit approval of submitting claims to their insurance providers, which included Medicare, Aetna, and others, for the items in the goodie bag.

In addition, Dr. Berkowitz fraudulently billed insurers for medically unnecessary physical therapy, acupuncture, and chiropractic adjustments, as well as for treatments that were never provided, according to federal officials.

According to the Department of Justice, Dr. Berkowitz collected more than $4,000 per bag from insurers. From 2015 to 2018, prosecutors estimate that Dr. Berkowitz took in more than $4 million in fraudulent proceeds from his scheme.

The pill mill came to the attention of federal authorities after Blue Cross investigators forwarded to the FBI several complaints it had received about Dr. Berkowitz. In 2017, the FBI sent a cooperating witness to Dr. Berkowitz’s clinic. The undercover patient received a prescription for oxycodone, Motrin, and Flexeril and paid $185, according to The Record.

After being indicted in 2019, Dr. Berkowitz pleaded guilty in January 2020 to 19 counts of health care fraud and to 23 counts of distributing oxycodone outside the course of professional practice and without a legitimate medical purpose.

On May 10, he was sentenced to 20 years in prison, followed by 5 years of supervised release. In addition, he was ordered to pay a $40,000 fine and almost $4 million in restitution. As a result of civil False Claims Act liability for false claims submitted to Medicare, he is also obligated to pay approximately $1.8 million and is subject to a permanent prohibition on prescribing, distributing, or dispensing controlled substances.

Dr. Berkowitz’s actions were deemed especially egregious in light of the opioid epidemic.

“Doctors are supposed to treat illness, not feed it,” said Jacqueline Maguire, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Philadelphia division. “Andrew Berkowitz prescribed patients unnecessary pills and handed out opioids to addicts.” Jennifer Arbittier Williams, acting U.S. Attorney, added upon announcing the sentence, “Doctors who dare engage in health care fraud and drug diversion, two drivers of the opioid epidemic ravaging our communities, should heed this sentence as a warning that they will be held responsible, criminally and financially.”

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

Losing weight for TikTok: Taco Bell edition

There are many reasons why a person would want to lose weight. Too numerous to list. Losing weight to improve your health, however, doesn’t bring in a few hundred thousand TikTok subscribers. Losing weight to convince Taco Bell to bring back an obscure menu item, on the other hand ...

Chris Sandberg, a 37-year-old man from San Francisco, has struggled with his weight for years, losing and gaining hundreds of pounds in an endless cycle of feast and famine. In an unrelated development, at the start of the pandemic he also started making videos on TikTok. As the pandemic wore on, he realized that his excess weight put him at increased risk for severe COVID, as well as other chronic diseases, and he resolved to lose weight. He decided to turn his weight-loss journey into a TikTok challenge but, as we said, losing weight for its own sake isn’t enough for the almighty algorithm. He needed a different goal, preferably something offbeat and a little silly.

Matt Prince/Taco Bell

Back in 2013, Taco Bell introduced the Grilled Stuft Nacho, “a flour tortilla, shaped like a nacho, stuffed with beef, cheesy jalapeño sauce, sour cream and crunchy red strips,” according to its website. Mr. Sandberg discovered the item in 2015 and instantly fell in love, purchasing one every day for a week. After that first week, however, he discovered, to his horror, that the Grilled Stuft Nacho had been discontinued.

That loss haunted him for years, until inspiration struck in 2021. He pledged to work out every day on TikTok until Taco Bell brought back the Grilled Stuft Nacho. A bit incongruous, exercising for notoriously unhealthy fast food, but that’s kind of the point. He began the challenge on Jan. 4, 2021, and has continued it every day since, nearly 500 days. Over that time, he’s lost 87 pounds (from 275 at the start to under 190) and currently has 450,000 TikTok subscribers.

A year into the challenge, a local Taco Bell made Mr. Sandberg his beloved Grilled Stuft Nacho, but since the challenge was to exercise until Taco Bell brings the item back to all its restaurants, not just for him, the great journey continues. And we admire him for it. In fact, he’s inspired us: We will write a LOTME every week until it receives a Pulitzer Prize. This is important journalism we do here. Don’t deny it!
 

Episode XIX: COVID strikes back

So what’s next for COVID? Is Disney going to turn it into a series? Can it support a spin-off? Did James Cameron really buy the movie rights? Can it compete against the NFL in the all-important 18-34 demographic? When are Star Wars characters going to get involved?

Adli Wahid/Pixabay

COVID’s motivations and negotiations are pretty much a mystery to us, but we can answer that last question. They already are involved. Well, one of them anyway.

The Chinese government has been enforcing a COVID lockdown in Shanghai for over a month now, but authorities had started letting people out of their homes for short periods of time. A recent push to bring down transmission, however, has made residents increasingly frustrated and argumentative, according to Reuters.

A now-unavailable video, which Reuters could not verify, surfaced on Chinese social media showing police in hazmat suits arguing with people who were being told that they were going to be quarantined because a neighbor had tested positive.

That’s when the Force kicks in, and this next bit comes directly from the Reuters report: “This is so that we can thoroughly remove any positive cases,” one of the officers is heard saying. “Stop asking me why, there is no why.”

There is no why? Does that remind you of someone? Someone short and green, with an odd syntax? That’s right. Clearly, Yoda it is. Yoda is alive and working for the Chinese government in Shanghai. You read it here first.
 

Your coffee may be guilty of sexual discrimination

How do you take your coffee? Espresso, drip, instant, or brewed from a regular old coffee machine? Well, a recent study published in Open Heart suggests that gender and brewing method can alter your coffee’s effect on cholesterol levels.

Art_rich/Getty Images

Besides caffeine, coffee beans have naturally occurring chemicals such as diterpenes, cafestol, and kahweol that raise cholesterol levels in the blood. And then there are the various brewing methods, which are going to release different amounts of chemicals from the beans. According to Consumer Reports, an ounce of espresso has 63 mg of caffeine and an ounce of regular coffee has 12-16 mg. That’s a bit deceiving, though, since no one ever drinks an ounce of regular coffee, so figure 96-128 mg of caffeine for an 8-ounce cup. That’s enough to make anyone’s heart race.

Data from 21,083 participants in the seventh survey of the Tromsø Study who were aged 40 and older showed that women drank a mean of 3.8 cups per day while men drank 4.9 cups. Drinking six or more cups of plunger-brewed coffee was associated with increased cholesterol in both genders, but drinking three to five cups of espresso was significantly associated with high cholesterol in men only. Having six or more cups of filtered coffee daily raised cholesterol in women, but instant coffee increased cholesterol levels in both genders, regardless of how many cups they drank.

People all over the planet drink coffee, some of us like our lives depend on it. Since “coffee is the most frequently consumed central stimulant worldwide,” the investigators said, “even small health effects can have considerable health consequences.”

We’ll drink to that.
 

Have you ever dreamed of having a clone?

When will science grace us with the ability to clone ourselves? It sounds like a dream come true. Our clones can do the stuff that we don’t want to do, like sit in on that 3-hour meeting or do our grocery shopping – really just all the boring stuff we don’t want to do.

Ria Sopala/Pixabay

In 1996, when a sheep named Dolly became the first mammal cloned successfully, people thought it was the start of an amazing cloning era, but, alas, we haven’t made it to cloning humans yet, as LiveScience discovered when it took a look at the subject.

The idea of cloning was quite exciting for science, as people looked forward to eradicating genetic diseases and birth defects. Research done in 1999, however, countered those hopes by suggesting that cloning might increase birth defects.

So why do you think we haven’t advanced to truly cloning humans? Ethics? Time and effort? Technological barriers? “Human cloning is a particularly dramatic action, and was one of the topics that helped launch American bioethics,” Hank Greely, professor of law and genetics at Stanford (Calif.) University, told LiveScience.

What if the clones turned evil and were bent on destroying the world?

We might imagine a clone of ourselves being completely identical to us in our thoughts, actions, and physical looks. However, that’s not necessarily true; a clone would be its own person even if it looks exactly like you.

So what do the professionals think? Is it worth giving human cloning a shot? Are there benefits? Mr. Greely said that “there are none that we should be willing to consider.”

The dream of having a clone to help your son with his math homework may have gone down the drain, but maybe it’s best not to open doors that could lead to drastic changes in our world.

Losing weight for TikTok: Taco Bell edition

There are many reasons why a person would want to lose weight. Too numerous to list. Losing weight to improve your health, however, doesn’t bring in a few hundred thousand TikTok subscribers. Losing weight to convince Taco Bell to bring back an obscure menu item, on the other hand ...

Chris Sandberg, a 37-year-old man from San Francisco, has struggled with his weight for years, losing and gaining hundreds of pounds in an endless cycle of feast and famine. In an unrelated development, at the start of the pandemic he also started making videos on TikTok. As the pandemic wore on, he realized that his excess weight put him at increased risk for severe COVID, as well as other chronic diseases, and he resolved to lose weight. He decided to turn his weight-loss journey into a TikTok challenge but, as we said, losing weight for its own sake isn’t enough for the almighty algorithm. He needed a different goal, preferably something offbeat and a little silly.

Matt Prince/Taco Bell

Back in 2013, Taco Bell introduced the Grilled Stuft Nacho, “a flour tortilla, shaped like a nacho, stuffed with beef, cheesy jalapeño sauce, sour cream and crunchy red strips,” according to its website. Mr. Sandberg discovered the item in 2015 and instantly fell in love, purchasing one every day for a week. After that first week, however, he discovered, to his horror, that the Grilled Stuft Nacho had been discontinued.

That loss haunted him for years, until inspiration struck in 2021. He pledged to work out every day on TikTok until Taco Bell brought back the Grilled Stuft Nacho. A bit incongruous, exercising for notoriously unhealthy fast food, but that’s kind of the point. He began the challenge on Jan. 4, 2021, and has continued it every day since, nearly 500 days. Over that time, he’s lost 87 pounds (from 275 at the start to under 190) and currently has 450,000 TikTok subscribers.

A year into the challenge, a local Taco Bell made Mr. Sandberg his beloved Grilled Stuft Nacho, but since the challenge was to exercise until Taco Bell brings the item back to all its restaurants, not just for him, the great journey continues. And we admire him for it. In fact, he’s inspired us: We will write a LOTME every week until it receives a Pulitzer Prize. This is important journalism we do here. Don’t deny it!
 

Episode XIX: COVID strikes back

So what’s next for COVID? Is Disney going to turn it into a series? Can it support a spin-off? Did James Cameron really buy the movie rights? Can it compete against the NFL in the all-important 18-34 demographic? When are Star Wars characters going to get involved?

Adli Wahid/Pixabay

COVID’s motivations and negotiations are pretty much a mystery to us, but we can answer that last question. They already are involved. Well, one of them anyway.

The Chinese government has been enforcing a COVID lockdown in Shanghai for over a month now, but authorities had started letting people out of their homes for short periods of time. A recent push to bring down transmission, however, has made residents increasingly frustrated and argumentative, according to Reuters.

A now-unavailable video, which Reuters could not verify, surfaced on Chinese social media showing police in hazmat suits arguing with people who were being told that they were going to be quarantined because a neighbor had tested positive.

That’s when the Force kicks in, and this next bit comes directly from the Reuters report: “This is so that we can thoroughly remove any positive cases,” one of the officers is heard saying. “Stop asking me why, there is no why.”

There is no why? Does that remind you of someone? Someone short and green, with an odd syntax? That’s right. Clearly, Yoda it is. Yoda is alive and working for the Chinese government in Shanghai. You read it here first.
 

Your coffee may be guilty of sexual discrimination

How do you take your coffee? Espresso, drip, instant, or brewed from a regular old coffee machine? Well, a recent study published in Open Heart suggests that gender and brewing method can alter your coffee’s effect on cholesterol levels.

Art_rich/Getty Images

Besides caffeine, coffee beans have naturally occurring chemicals such as diterpenes, cafestol, and kahweol that raise cholesterol levels in the blood. And then there are the various brewing methods, which are going to release different amounts of chemicals from the beans. According to Consumer Reports, an ounce of espresso has 63 mg of caffeine and an ounce of regular coffee has 12-16 mg. That’s a bit deceiving, though, since no one ever drinks an ounce of regular coffee, so figure 96-128 mg of caffeine for an 8-ounce cup. That’s enough to make anyone’s heart race.

Data from 21,083 participants in the seventh survey of the Tromsø Study who were aged 40 and older showed that women drank a mean of 3.8 cups per day while men drank 4.9 cups. Drinking six or more cups of plunger-brewed coffee was associated with increased cholesterol in both genders, but drinking three to five cups of espresso was significantly associated with high cholesterol in men only. Having six or more cups of filtered coffee daily raised cholesterol in women, but instant coffee increased cholesterol levels in both genders, regardless of how many cups they drank.

People all over the planet drink coffee, some of us like our lives depend on it. Since “coffee is the most frequently consumed central stimulant worldwide,” the investigators said, “even small health effects can have considerable health consequences.”

We’ll drink to that.
 

Have you ever dreamed of having a clone?

When will science grace us with the ability to clone ourselves? It sounds like a dream come true. Our clones can do the stuff that we don’t want to do, like sit in on that 3-hour meeting or do our grocery shopping – really just all the boring stuff we don’t want to do.

Ria Sopala/Pixabay

In 1996, when a sheep named Dolly became the first mammal cloned successfully, people thought it was the start of an amazing cloning era, but, alas, we haven’t made it to cloning humans yet, as LiveScience discovered when it took a look at the subject.

The idea of cloning was quite exciting for science, as people looked forward to eradicating genetic diseases and birth defects. Research done in 1999, however, countered those hopes by suggesting that cloning might increase birth defects.

So why do you think we haven’t advanced to truly cloning humans? Ethics? Time and effort? Technological barriers? “Human cloning is a particularly dramatic action, and was one of the topics that helped launch American bioethics,” Hank Greely, professor of law and genetics at Stanford (Calif.) University, told LiveScience.

What if the clones turned evil and were bent on destroying the world?

We might imagine a clone of ourselves being completely identical to us in our thoughts, actions, and physical looks. However, that’s not necessarily true; a clone would be its own person even if it looks exactly like you.

So what do the professionals think? Is it worth giving human cloning a shot? Are there benefits? Mr. Greely said that “there are none that we should be willing to consider.”

The dream of having a clone to help your son with his math homework may have gone down the drain, but maybe it’s best not to open doors that could lead to drastic changes in our world.

Losing weight for TikTok: Taco Bell edition

There are many reasons why a person would want to lose weight. Too numerous to list. Losing weight to improve your health, however, doesn’t bring in a few hundred thousand TikTok subscribers. Losing weight to convince Taco Bell to bring back an obscure menu item, on the other hand ...

Chris Sandberg, a 37-year-old man from San Francisco, has struggled with his weight for years, losing and gaining hundreds of pounds in an endless cycle of feast and famine. In an unrelated development, at the start of the pandemic he also started making videos on TikTok. As the pandemic wore on, he realized that his excess weight put him at increased risk for severe COVID, as well as other chronic diseases, and he resolved to lose weight. He decided to turn his weight-loss journey into a TikTok challenge but, as we said, losing weight for its own sake isn’t enough for the almighty algorithm. He needed a different goal, preferably something offbeat and a little silly.

Matt Prince/Taco Bell

Back in 2013, Taco Bell introduced the Grilled Stuft Nacho, “a flour tortilla, shaped like a nacho, stuffed with beef, cheesy jalapeño sauce, sour cream and crunchy red strips,” according to its website. Mr. Sandberg discovered the item in 2015 and instantly fell in love, purchasing one every day for a week. After that first week, however, he discovered, to his horror, that the Grilled Stuft Nacho had been discontinued.

That loss haunted him for years, until inspiration struck in 2021. He pledged to work out every day on TikTok until Taco Bell brought back the Grilled Stuft Nacho. A bit incongruous, exercising for notoriously unhealthy fast food, but that’s kind of the point. He began the challenge on Jan. 4, 2021, and has continued it every day since, nearly 500 days. Over that time, he’s lost 87 pounds (from 275 at the start to under 190) and currently has 450,000 TikTok subscribers.

A year into the challenge, a local Taco Bell made Mr. Sandberg his beloved Grilled Stuft Nacho, but since the challenge was to exercise until Taco Bell brings the item back to all its restaurants, not just for him, the great journey continues. And we admire him for it. In fact, he’s inspired us: We will write a LOTME every week until it receives a Pulitzer Prize. This is important journalism we do here. Don’t deny it!
 

Episode XIX: COVID strikes back

So what’s next for COVID? Is Disney going to turn it into a series? Can it support a spin-off? Did James Cameron really buy the movie rights? Can it compete against the NFL in the all-important 18-34 demographic? When are Star Wars characters going to get involved?

Adli Wahid/Pixabay

COVID’s motivations and negotiations are pretty much a mystery to us, but we can answer that last question. They already are involved. Well, one of them anyway.

The Chinese government has been enforcing a COVID lockdown in Shanghai for over a month now, but authorities had started letting people out of their homes for short periods of time. A recent push to bring down transmission, however, has made residents increasingly frustrated and argumentative, according to Reuters.

A now-unavailable video, which Reuters could not verify, surfaced on Chinese social media showing police in hazmat suits arguing with people who were being told that they were going to be quarantined because a neighbor had tested positive.

That’s when the Force kicks in, and this next bit comes directly from the Reuters report: “This is so that we can thoroughly remove any positive cases,” one of the officers is heard saying. “Stop asking me why, there is no why.”

There is no why? Does that remind you of someone? Someone short and green, with an odd syntax? That’s right. Clearly, Yoda it is. Yoda is alive and working for the Chinese government in Shanghai. You read it here first.
 

Your coffee may be guilty of sexual discrimination

How do you take your coffee? Espresso, drip, instant, or brewed from a regular old coffee machine? Well, a recent study published in Open Heart suggests that gender and brewing method can alter your coffee’s effect on cholesterol levels.

Art_rich/Getty Images

Besides caffeine, coffee beans have naturally occurring chemicals such as diterpenes, cafestol, and kahweol that raise cholesterol levels in the blood. And then there are the various brewing methods, which are going to release different amounts of chemicals from the beans. According to Consumer Reports, an ounce of espresso has 63 mg of caffeine and an ounce of regular coffee has 12-16 mg. That’s a bit deceiving, though, since no one ever drinks an ounce of regular coffee, so figure 96-128 mg of caffeine for an 8-ounce cup. That’s enough to make anyone’s heart race.

Data from 21,083 participants in the seventh survey of the Tromsø Study who were aged 40 and older showed that women drank a mean of 3.8 cups per day while men drank 4.9 cups. Drinking six or more cups of plunger-brewed coffee was associated with increased cholesterol in both genders, but drinking three to five cups of espresso was significantly associated with high cholesterol in men only. Having six or more cups of filtered coffee daily raised cholesterol in women, but instant coffee increased cholesterol levels in both genders, regardless of how many cups they drank.

People all over the planet drink coffee, some of us like our lives depend on it. Since “coffee is the most frequently consumed central stimulant worldwide,” the investigators said, “even small health effects can have considerable health consequences.”

We’ll drink to that.
 

Have you ever dreamed of having a clone?

When will science grace us with the ability to clone ourselves? It sounds like a dream come true. Our clones can do the stuff that we don’t want to do, like sit in on that 3-hour meeting or do our grocery shopping – really just all the boring stuff we don’t want to do.

Ria Sopala/Pixabay

In 1996, when a sheep named Dolly became the first mammal cloned successfully, people thought it was the start of an amazing cloning era, but, alas, we haven’t made it to cloning humans yet, as LiveScience discovered when it took a look at the subject.

The idea of cloning was quite exciting for science, as people looked forward to eradicating genetic diseases and birth defects. Research done in 1999, however, countered those hopes by suggesting that cloning might increase birth defects.

So why do you think we haven’t advanced to truly cloning humans? Ethics? Time and effort? Technological barriers? “Human cloning is a particularly dramatic action, and was one of the topics that helped launch American bioethics,” Hank Greely, professor of law and genetics at Stanford (Calif.) University, told LiveScience.

What if the clones turned evil and were bent on destroying the world?

We might imagine a clone of ourselves being completely identical to us in our thoughts, actions, and physical looks. However, that’s not necessarily true; a clone would be its own person even if it looks exactly like you.

So what do the professionals think? Is it worth giving human cloning a shot? Are there benefits? Mr. Greely said that “there are none that we should be willing to consider.”

The dream of having a clone to help your son with his math homework may have gone down the drain, but maybe it’s best not to open doors that could lead to drastic changes in our world.

Children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) who need a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor after failing conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) treatment often experience insurance delays before beginning the new drug because of prior authorization denials, according to research presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA). The findings were also published  as a research letter in JAMA Network Open.

“Prompt escalation to TNF inhibitors is recommended for children with JIA refractory to DMARDs,” author Jordan Roberts, MD, a clinical fellow of the Harvard Medical School Rheumatology Program, Boston, told CARRA attendees. TNF inhibitors are increasingly used as first-line treatment in JIA since growing evidence suggests better outcomes from early treatment with biologics. “Prior authorization requirements that delay TNF inhibitor initiation among children with JIA are common in clinical practice,” Dr. Roberts said, but little evidence exists to understand the extent of this problem and its causes.

The researchers therefore conducted a retrospective cohort study using a search of electronic health records from January 2018 to December 2019 to find all children at a single center with a new diagnosis of nonsystemic JIA. Then the authors pulled the timing of prior authorization requests, approvals, denials, and first TNF inhibitor dose from the medical notes. They also sought out any children who had been recommended a TNF inhibitor but never started one.

The total population included 54 children with an average age of 10 years, about two-thirds of whom had private insurance (63%). The group was predominantly White (63%), although 13% declined to provide race, and 7% were Hispanic. Most subtypes of disease were represented: oligoarticular persistent (28%), oligoarticular extended (2%), polyarticular rheumatoid factor-negative (15%), polyarticular rheumatoid factor-positive (15%), psoriatic arthritis (26%), enthesitis-related arthritis (12%), and undifferentiated arthritis (2%).

The 44 participants with private insurance had an average of two joints with active disease, while the 10 patients with public insurance had an average of four involved joints. Nearly all the patients (91%) had previously taken or were currently taking DMARDs when the prior authorization was submitted, and 61% had received NSAIDs.

All but one of the patients’ insurance plans required a prior authorization. The first prior authorization was denied for about one-third of the public insurance patients (30%) and a quarter of the private insurance patients. About 1 in 5 patients overall (22%) required a written appeal to override the denial, and 4% required peer-to-peer review. Meanwhile, 7% of patients began another medication because of the denial.

It took a median of 3 days for prior authorizations to be approved and a median of 24 days from the time the TNF inhibitor was recommended to the patient receiving the first dose. However, 22% of patients waited at least 2 weeks before the prior authorization was approved, and more than a quarter of the requests took over 30 days before the patient could begin the medication. In the public insurance group in particular, a quarter of children waited at least 19 days for approval and at least 44 days before starting the medication.

In fact, when the researchers looked at the difference in approval time between those who did and did not receive an initial denial, the difference was stark. Median approval time was 16 days when the prior authorization was denied, compared with a median of 5 days when the first prior authorization was approved. Similarly, time to initiation of the drug after recommendation was a median of 35 days for those whose prior authorization was first denied and 17 days for those with an initial approval.

The most common reason for an initial denial was the insurance company requiring a different TNF inhibitor than the one the rheumatologist wanted to prescribe. “These were all children whose rheumatologist has recommended either infliximab or etanercept that were required to use adalimumab instead,” Dr. Roberts said.

The other reasons for initial denial were similarly familiar ones:

• Required submission to another insurer
• Additional documentation required
• Lack of medical necessity
• Prescription was for an indication not approved by the Food and Drug Administration
• Age of patient
• Nonbiologic DMARD required
• NSAID required for step therapy

Only three children who were advised to begin a TNF inhibitor did not do so, including one who was lost to follow-up, one who had injection-related anxiety, and one who had safety concerns about the medication.

“Several children were required to use alternative TNF inhibitors than the one that was recommended due to restricted formularies, which may reduce shared decisionmaking between physicians and families and may not be the optimal clinical choice for an individual child,” Dr. Roberts said in her conclusion. Most children, however, were able to get approval for the TNF inhibitor originally requested, “suggesting that utilization management strategies present barriers to timely care despite appropriate specialty medication requests,” she said. “Therefore, it’s important for us to advocate for access to medications for children with JIA.”

Findings are not surprising

“I have these same experiences at my institution – often insurance will dictate clinical practice, and step therapy is the only option, causing a delay to initiation of TNFi even if we think, as the pediatric rheumatologist, that a child needs this medicine to be initiated on presentation to our clinic,” Nayimisha Balmuri, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics in the division of allergy, immunology, and rheumatology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

Dr. Balmuri, who was not involved in the study, noted that in her clinic at Johns Hopkins, it is hit or miss if an appeal to insurance companies or to the state (if it is Medicaid coverage) will be successful. “Unfortunately, [we are] mostly unsuccessful, and we have to try another DMARD for 8 to 12 weeks first before trying to get TNFi,” she said.

Dr. Balmuri called for bringing these issues to the attention of state and federal legislators. “It’s so important for us to continue to advocate for our patients at the state and national level! We are the advocates for our patients, and we are uniquely trained to know the best medications to initiate to help patients maximize their chance to reach remission of arthritis. Insurance companies need to hear our voices!”

Dr. Roberts reported grants from CARRA, the Lupus Foundation of America, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases during the conduct of the study.

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

Children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) who need a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor after failing conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) treatment often experience insurance delays before beginning the new drug because of prior authorization denials, according to research presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA). The findings were also published  as a research letter in JAMA Network Open.

“Prompt escalation to TNF inhibitors is recommended for children with JIA refractory to DMARDs,” author Jordan Roberts, MD, a clinical fellow of the Harvard Medical School Rheumatology Program, Boston, told CARRA attendees. TNF inhibitors are increasingly used as first-line treatment in JIA since growing evidence suggests better outcomes from early treatment with biologics. “Prior authorization requirements that delay TNF inhibitor initiation among children with JIA are common in clinical practice,” Dr. Roberts said, but little evidence exists to understand the extent of this problem and its causes.

The researchers therefore conducted a retrospective cohort study using a search of electronic health records from January 2018 to December 2019 to find all children at a single center with a new diagnosis of nonsystemic JIA. Then the authors pulled the timing of prior authorization requests, approvals, denials, and first TNF inhibitor dose from the medical notes. They also sought out any children who had been recommended a TNF inhibitor but never started one.

The total population included 54 children with an average age of 10 years, about two-thirds of whom had private insurance (63%). The group was predominantly White (63%), although 13% declined to provide race, and 7% were Hispanic. Most subtypes of disease were represented: oligoarticular persistent (28%), oligoarticular extended (2%), polyarticular rheumatoid factor-negative (15%), polyarticular rheumatoid factor-positive (15%), psoriatic arthritis (26%), enthesitis-related arthritis (12%), and undifferentiated arthritis (2%).

The 44 participants with private insurance had an average of two joints with active disease, while the 10 patients with public insurance had an average of four involved joints. Nearly all the patients (91%) had previously taken or were currently taking DMARDs when the prior authorization was submitted, and 61% had received NSAIDs.

All but one of the patients’ insurance plans required a prior authorization. The first prior authorization was denied for about one-third of the public insurance patients (30%) and a quarter of the private insurance patients. About 1 in 5 patients overall (22%) required a written appeal to override the denial, and 4% required peer-to-peer review. Meanwhile, 7% of patients began another medication because of the denial.

It took a median of 3 days for prior authorizations to be approved and a median of 24 days from the time the TNF inhibitor was recommended to the patient receiving the first dose. However, 22% of patients waited at least 2 weeks before the prior authorization was approved, and more than a quarter of the requests took over 30 days before the patient could begin the medication. In the public insurance group in particular, a quarter of children waited at least 19 days for approval and at least 44 days before starting the medication.

In fact, when the researchers looked at the difference in approval time between those who did and did not receive an initial denial, the difference was stark. Median approval time was 16 days when the prior authorization was denied, compared with a median of 5 days when the first prior authorization was approved. Similarly, time to initiation of the drug after recommendation was a median of 35 days for those whose prior authorization was first denied and 17 days for those with an initial approval.

The most common reason for an initial denial was the insurance company requiring a different TNF inhibitor than the one the rheumatologist wanted to prescribe. “These were all children whose rheumatologist has recommended either infliximab or etanercept that were required to use adalimumab instead,” Dr. Roberts said.

The other reasons for initial denial were similarly familiar ones:

• Required submission to another insurer
• Additional documentation required
• Lack of medical necessity
• Prescription was for an indication not approved by the Food and Drug Administration
• Age of patient
• Nonbiologic DMARD required
• NSAID required for step therapy

Only three children who were advised to begin a TNF inhibitor did not do so, including one who was lost to follow-up, one who had injection-related anxiety, and one who had safety concerns about the medication.

“Several children were required to use alternative TNF inhibitors than the one that was recommended due to restricted formularies, which may reduce shared decisionmaking between physicians and families and may not be the optimal clinical choice for an individual child,” Dr. Roberts said in her conclusion. Most children, however, were able to get approval for the TNF inhibitor originally requested, “suggesting that utilization management strategies present barriers to timely care despite appropriate specialty medication requests,” she said. “Therefore, it’s important for us to advocate for access to medications for children with JIA.”

Findings are not surprising

“I have these same experiences at my institution – often insurance will dictate clinical practice, and step therapy is the only option, causing a delay to initiation of TNFi even if we think, as the pediatric rheumatologist, that a child needs this medicine to be initiated on presentation to our clinic,” Nayimisha Balmuri, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics in the division of allergy, immunology, and rheumatology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

Dr. Balmuri, who was not involved in the study, noted that in her clinic at Johns Hopkins, it is hit or miss if an appeal to insurance companies or to the state (if it is Medicaid coverage) will be successful. “Unfortunately, [we are] mostly unsuccessful, and we have to try another DMARD for 8 to 12 weeks first before trying to get TNFi,” she said.

Dr. Balmuri called for bringing these issues to the attention of state and federal legislators. “It’s so important for us to continue to advocate for our patients at the state and national level! We are the advocates for our patients, and we are uniquely trained to know the best medications to initiate to help patients maximize their chance to reach remission of arthritis. Insurance companies need to hear our voices!”

Dr. Roberts reported grants from CARRA, the Lupus Foundation of America, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases during the conduct of the study.

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

Children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) who need a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor after failing conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) treatment often experience insurance delays before beginning the new drug because of prior authorization denials, according to research presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA). The findings were also published  as a research letter in JAMA Network Open.

“Prompt escalation to TNF inhibitors is recommended for children with JIA refractory to DMARDs,” author Jordan Roberts, MD, a clinical fellow of the Harvard Medical School Rheumatology Program, Boston, told CARRA attendees. TNF inhibitors are increasingly used as first-line treatment in JIA since growing evidence suggests better outcomes from early treatment with biologics. “Prior authorization requirements that delay TNF inhibitor initiation among children with JIA are common in clinical practice,” Dr. Roberts said, but little evidence exists to understand the extent of this problem and its causes.

The researchers therefore conducted a retrospective cohort study using a search of electronic health records from January 2018 to December 2019 to find all children at a single center with a new diagnosis of nonsystemic JIA. Then the authors pulled the timing of prior authorization requests, approvals, denials, and first TNF inhibitor dose from the medical notes. They also sought out any children who had been recommended a TNF inhibitor but never started one.

The total population included 54 children with an average age of 10 years, about two-thirds of whom had private insurance (63%). The group was predominantly White (63%), although 13% declined to provide race, and 7% were Hispanic. Most subtypes of disease were represented: oligoarticular persistent (28%), oligoarticular extended (2%), polyarticular rheumatoid factor-negative (15%), polyarticular rheumatoid factor-positive (15%), psoriatic arthritis (26%), enthesitis-related arthritis (12%), and undifferentiated arthritis (2%).

The 44 participants with private insurance had an average of two joints with active disease, while the 10 patients with public insurance had an average of four involved joints. Nearly all the patients (91%) had previously taken or were currently taking DMARDs when the prior authorization was submitted, and 61% had received NSAIDs.

All but one of the patients’ insurance plans required a prior authorization. The first prior authorization was denied for about one-third of the public insurance patients (30%) and a quarter of the private insurance patients. About 1 in 5 patients overall (22%) required a written appeal to override the denial, and 4% required peer-to-peer review. Meanwhile, 7% of patients began another medication because of the denial.

It took a median of 3 days for prior authorizations to be approved and a median of 24 days from the time the TNF inhibitor was recommended to the patient receiving the first dose. However, 22% of patients waited at least 2 weeks before the prior authorization was approved, and more than a quarter of the requests took over 30 days before the patient could begin the medication. In the public insurance group in particular, a quarter of children waited at least 19 days for approval and at least 44 days before starting the medication.

In fact, when the researchers looked at the difference in approval time between those who did and did not receive an initial denial, the difference was stark. Median approval time was 16 days when the prior authorization was denied, compared with a median of 5 days when the first prior authorization was approved. Similarly, time to initiation of the drug after recommendation was a median of 35 days for those whose prior authorization was first denied and 17 days for those with an initial approval.

The most common reason for an initial denial was the insurance company requiring a different TNF inhibitor than the one the rheumatologist wanted to prescribe. “These were all children whose rheumatologist has recommended either infliximab or etanercept that were required to use adalimumab instead,” Dr. Roberts said.

The other reasons for initial denial were similarly familiar ones:

• Required submission to another insurer
• Additional documentation required
• Lack of medical necessity
• Prescription was for an indication not approved by the Food and Drug Administration
• Age of patient
• Nonbiologic DMARD required
• NSAID required for step therapy

Only three children who were advised to begin a TNF inhibitor did not do so, including one who was lost to follow-up, one who had injection-related anxiety, and one who had safety concerns about the medication.

“Several children were required to use alternative TNF inhibitors than the one that was recommended due to restricted formularies, which may reduce shared decisionmaking between physicians and families and may not be the optimal clinical choice for an individual child,” Dr. Roberts said in her conclusion. Most children, however, were able to get approval for the TNF inhibitor originally requested, “suggesting that utilization management strategies present barriers to timely care despite appropriate specialty medication requests,” she said. “Therefore, it’s important for us to advocate for access to medications for children with JIA.”

Findings are not surprising

“I have these same experiences at my institution – often insurance will dictate clinical practice, and step therapy is the only option, causing a delay to initiation of TNFi even if we think, as the pediatric rheumatologist, that a child needs this medicine to be initiated on presentation to our clinic,” Nayimisha Balmuri, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics in the division of allergy, immunology, and rheumatology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

Dr. Balmuri, who was not involved in the study, noted that in her clinic at Johns Hopkins, it is hit or miss if an appeal to insurance companies or to the state (if it is Medicaid coverage) will be successful. “Unfortunately, [we are] mostly unsuccessful, and we have to try another DMARD for 8 to 12 weeks first before trying to get TNFi,” she said.

Dr. Balmuri called for bringing these issues to the attention of state and federal legislators. “It’s so important for us to continue to advocate for our patients at the state and national level! We are the advocates for our patients, and we are uniquely trained to know the best medications to initiate to help patients maximize their chance to reach remission of arthritis. Insurance companies need to hear our voices!”

Dr. Roberts reported grants from CARRA, the Lupus Foundation of America, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases during the conduct of the study.

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

Madhu Manivannan, a third-year medical student at Emory University, Atlanta, is on the vanguard of a new approach to clinical education. Ms. Manivannan, copresident of Emory Medical Students for Climate Action, was in the first class of Emory’s medical students to experience the birth of a refined curriculum – lobbied for and partially created by students themselves. The new course of study addresses the myriad ways climate affects health: from air pollution and its effects on the lungs and cardiovascular system to heat-related kidney disease.

“We have known that climate has affected health for decades,” Ms. Manivannan said in a recent interview. “The narrative used to be that icebergs were melting and in 2050 polar bears would be extinct. The piece that’s different now is people are linking climate to increases in asthma and various diseases. We have a way to directly communicate that it’s not a far-off thing. It’s happening to your friends and family right now.”

Hospitals, medical schools, and public health programs are stepping up to educate the next generation of doctors as well as veteran medical workers on one of the most widespread, insidious health threats of our time – climate change – and specific ways it could affect their patients.

Although climate change may seem to many Americans like a distant threat, Marilyn Howarth, MD, a pediatrician in Philadelphia, is trying to make sure physicians are better prepared to treat a growing number of health problems associated with global warming.

“There isn’t a lot of education for pediatricians and internists on environmental health issues. It has not been a standard part of education in medical school or residency training,” Dr. Howarth, deputy director of the new Philadelphia Regional Center for Children’s Environmental Health, said. “With increasing attention on our climate, we really recognize there’s a real gap in physician knowledge, both in pediatric and adult care.”

Scientists have found that climate change can alter just about every system within the human body. Studies show that more extreme weather events, such as heat waves, thunderstorms, and floods, can worsen asthma and produce more pollen and mold, triggering debilitating respiratory problems.

According to the American Lung Association, ultrafine particles of air pollution can be inhaled and then travel throughout the bloodstream, wreaking havoc on organs and increasing risk of heart attack and stroke. Various types of air pollution also cause changes to the climate by trapping heat in the atmosphere, which leads to problems such as rising sea levels and extreme weather. Plus, in a new study published in Nature, scientists warn that warming climates are forcing animals to migrate to different areas, raising the risk that new infectious diseases will hop from animals – such as bats – to humans, a process called “zoonotic spillover” that many researchers believe is responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

The Philadelphia Regional Center for Children’s Environmental Health

One of the latest initiatives aimed at disseminating information about children’s health to health care providers is the Philadelphia Regional Center for Children’s Environmental Health, part of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and Penn Medicine. CHOP and Penn Medicine are jointly funding this center’s work, which will include educating health care providers on how to better screen for climate-caused health risks and treat related conditions, such as lead poisoning and asthma.

Outreach will focus on providers who treat patients with illnesses that researchers have linked to climate change, Dr. Howarth said. The center will offer clinicians access to seminars and webinars, along with online resources to help doctors treat environmental illnesses. For example, doctors at CHOP’s Poison Control Center are developing a toolkit for physicians to treat patients with elevated levels of lead in the blood. Scientists have linked extreme weather events related to climate change to flooding that pushes metals away from river banks where they were previously contained, allowing them to more easily contaminate homes, soils, and yards.

The initiative builds on CHOP’s Community Asthma Prevention Program (CAPP), which was launched in 1997 by Tyra Bryant-Stephens, MD, its current medical director. CAPP deploys community health workers into homes armed with supplies and tips for managing asthma. The new center will use similar tactics to provide education and resources to patients. The goal is to reach as many at-risk local children as possible.
 

Future generation of doctors fuel growth in climate change education

Lisa Doggett, MD, cofounder and president of the board of directors of Texas Physicians for Social Responsibility, announced in March that the University of Texas at Austin, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and the University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas have all decided to begin offering a course on environmental threats. Emory’s new curriculum has become more comprehensive every year since its start – thanks in part to the input of students like Ms. Manivannan. Faculty members tasked her with approving the new additions to the curriculum on how climate affects health, which in 2019 had consisted of a few slides about issues such as extreme heat exposure and air pollution and their effects on childbirth outcomes.

Material on climate change has now been woven into 13 courses. It is discussed at length in relation to pulmonology, cardiology, and gastropulmonology, for example, said Rebecca Philipsborn, MD, MPA, FAAP, faculty lead for the environmental and health curriculum at Emory.

The curriculum has only been incorporated into Emory’s program for the past 2 years. Dr. Philipsborn said the school plans to expand it to the clinical years to help trainees learn to treat conditions such as pediatric asthma.

“In the past few years, there has been so much momentum, and part of that is a testament to already seeing effects of climate change and how they affect delivery of health care,” she said.

At least one medical journal has recently ramped up its efforts to educate physicians on the links between health issues and climate change. Editors of Family Practice, from Oxford University Press, have announced that they plan to publish a special Climate Crisis and Primary Health Care issue in September.

Of course, not all climate initiatives in medicine are new. A select few have existed for decades.

But only now are physicians widely seeing the links between health and environment, according to Aaron Bernstein, MD, MPH, interim director of the Center for Climate, Health, and the Global Environment (C-CHANGE) at Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

C-CHANGE, founded in 1996, was the first center in the world to focus on the health effects of environmental change.

“It’s taken 20 years, but what we’re seeing, I think, is the fruits of education,” Dr. Bernstein said. “There’s clearly a wave building here, and I think it really started with education and people younger than the people in charge calling them into account.”

Like the Philadelphia center, Harvard’s program conducts research on climate and health and educates people from high schoolers to health care veterans. Dr. Bernstein helps lead Climate MD, a program that aims to prepare health care workers for climate crises. The Climate MD team has published several articles in peer-reviewed journals on how to better treat patients struggling with environmental health problems. For example, an article on mapping patients in hurricane zones helped shed light on how systems can identify climate-vulnerable patients using public data.

They also developed a tool to help pediatricians provide “climate-informed primary care” – guidance on how to assess whether children are at risk of any harmful environmental exposures, a feature that is not part of standard pediatric visits.

Like the other programs, Climate MD uses community outreach to treat as many local patients as possible. Staff work with providers at more than 100 health clinics, particularly in areas where climate change disproportionately affects residents.

The next major step is to bring some of this into clinical practice, Dr. Bernstein said. In February 2020, C-CHANGE held its first symposium to address that issue.

“The key is to understand climate issues from a provider’s perspective,” he said. “Then those issues can really be brought to the bedside.”

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

Madhu Manivannan, a third-year medical student at Emory University, Atlanta, is on the vanguard of a new approach to clinical education. Ms. Manivannan, copresident of Emory Medical Students for Climate Action, was in the first class of Emory’s medical students to experience the birth of a refined curriculum – lobbied for and partially created by students themselves. The new course of study addresses the myriad ways climate affects health: from air pollution and its effects on the lungs and cardiovascular system to heat-related kidney disease.

“We have known that climate has affected health for decades,” Ms. Manivannan said in a recent interview. “The narrative used to be that icebergs were melting and in 2050 polar bears would be extinct. The piece that’s different now is people are linking climate to increases in asthma and various diseases. We have a way to directly communicate that it’s not a far-off thing. It’s happening to your friends and family right now.”

Hospitals, medical schools, and public health programs are stepping up to educate the next generation of doctors as well as veteran medical workers on one of the most widespread, insidious health threats of our time – climate change – and specific ways it could affect their patients.

Although climate change may seem to many Americans like a distant threat, Marilyn Howarth, MD, a pediatrician in Philadelphia, is trying to make sure physicians are better prepared to treat a growing number of health problems associated with global warming.

“There isn’t a lot of education for pediatricians and internists on environmental health issues. It has not been a standard part of education in medical school or residency training,” Dr. Howarth, deputy director of the new Philadelphia Regional Center for Children’s Environmental Health, said. “With increasing attention on our climate, we really recognize there’s a real gap in physician knowledge, both in pediatric and adult care.”

Scientists have found that climate change can alter just about every system within the human body. Studies show that more extreme weather events, such as heat waves, thunderstorms, and floods, can worsen asthma and produce more pollen and mold, triggering debilitating respiratory problems.

According to the American Lung Association, ultrafine particles of air pollution can be inhaled and then travel throughout the bloodstream, wreaking havoc on organs and increasing risk of heart attack and stroke. Various types of air pollution also cause changes to the climate by trapping heat in the atmosphere, which leads to problems such as rising sea levels and extreme weather. Plus, in a new study published in Nature, scientists warn that warming climates are forcing animals to migrate to different areas, raising the risk that new infectious diseases will hop from animals – such as bats – to humans, a process called “zoonotic spillover” that many researchers believe is responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

The Philadelphia Regional Center for Children’s Environmental Health

One of the latest initiatives aimed at disseminating information about children’s health to health care providers is the Philadelphia Regional Center for Children’s Environmental Health, part of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and Penn Medicine. CHOP and Penn Medicine are jointly funding this center’s work, which will include educating health care providers on how to better screen for climate-caused health risks and treat related conditions, such as lead poisoning and asthma.

Outreach will focus on providers who treat patients with illnesses that researchers have linked to climate change, Dr. Howarth said. The center will offer clinicians access to seminars and webinars, along with online resources to help doctors treat environmental illnesses. For example, doctors at CHOP’s Poison Control Center are developing a toolkit for physicians to treat patients with elevated levels of lead in the blood. Scientists have linked extreme weather events related to climate change to flooding that pushes metals away from river banks where they were previously contained, allowing them to more easily contaminate homes, soils, and yards.

The initiative builds on CHOP’s Community Asthma Prevention Program (CAPP), which was launched in 1997 by Tyra Bryant-Stephens, MD, its current medical director. CAPP deploys community health workers into homes armed with supplies and tips for managing asthma. The new center will use similar tactics to provide education and resources to patients. The goal is to reach as many at-risk local children as possible.
 

Future generation of doctors fuel growth in climate change education

Lisa Doggett, MD, cofounder and president of the board of directors of Texas Physicians for Social Responsibility, announced in March that the University of Texas at Austin, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and the University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas have all decided to begin offering a course on environmental threats. Emory’s new curriculum has become more comprehensive every year since its start – thanks in part to the input of students like Ms. Manivannan. Faculty members tasked her with approving the new additions to the curriculum on how climate affects health, which in 2019 had consisted of a few slides about issues such as extreme heat exposure and air pollution and their effects on childbirth outcomes.

Material on climate change has now been woven into 13 courses. It is discussed at length in relation to pulmonology, cardiology, and gastropulmonology, for example, said Rebecca Philipsborn, MD, MPA, FAAP, faculty lead for the environmental and health curriculum at Emory.

The curriculum has only been incorporated into Emory’s program for the past 2 years. Dr. Philipsborn said the school plans to expand it to the clinical years to help trainees learn to treat conditions such as pediatric asthma.

“In the past few years, there has been so much momentum, and part of that is a testament to already seeing effects of climate change and how they affect delivery of health care,” she said.

At least one medical journal has recently ramped up its efforts to educate physicians on the links between health issues and climate change. Editors of Family Practice, from Oxford University Press, have announced that they plan to publish a special Climate Crisis and Primary Health Care issue in September.

Of course, not all climate initiatives in medicine are new. A select few have existed for decades.

But only now are physicians widely seeing the links between health and environment, according to Aaron Bernstein, MD, MPH, interim director of the Center for Climate, Health, and the Global Environment (C-CHANGE) at Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

C-CHANGE, founded in 1996, was the first center in the world to focus on the health effects of environmental change.

“It’s taken 20 years, but what we’re seeing, I think, is the fruits of education,” Dr. Bernstein said. “There’s clearly a wave building here, and I think it really started with education and people younger than the people in charge calling them into account.”

Like the Philadelphia center, Harvard’s program conducts research on climate and health and educates people from high schoolers to health care veterans. Dr. Bernstein helps lead Climate MD, a program that aims to prepare health care workers for climate crises. The Climate MD team has published several articles in peer-reviewed journals on how to better treat patients struggling with environmental health problems. For example, an article on mapping patients in hurricane zones helped shed light on how systems can identify climate-vulnerable patients using public data.

They also developed a tool to help pediatricians provide “climate-informed primary care” – guidance on how to assess whether children are at risk of any harmful environmental exposures, a feature that is not part of standard pediatric visits.

Like the other programs, Climate MD uses community outreach to treat as many local patients as possible. Staff work with providers at more than 100 health clinics, particularly in areas where climate change disproportionately affects residents.

The next major step is to bring some of this into clinical practice, Dr. Bernstein said. In February 2020, C-CHANGE held its first symposium to address that issue.

“The key is to understand climate issues from a provider’s perspective,” he said. “Then those issues can really be brought to the bedside.”

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

Madhu Manivannan, a third-year medical student at Emory University, Atlanta, is on the vanguard of a new approach to clinical education. Ms. Manivannan, copresident of Emory Medical Students for Climate Action, was in the first class of Emory’s medical students to experience the birth of a refined curriculum – lobbied for and partially created by students themselves. The new course of study addresses the myriad ways climate affects health: from air pollution and its effects on the lungs and cardiovascular system to heat-related kidney disease.

“We have known that climate has affected health for decades,” Ms. Manivannan said in a recent interview. “The narrative used to be that icebergs were melting and in 2050 polar bears would be extinct. The piece that’s different now is people are linking climate to increases in asthma and various diseases. We have a way to directly communicate that it’s not a far-off thing. It’s happening to your friends and family right now.”

Hospitals, medical schools, and public health programs are stepping up to educate the next generation of doctors as well as veteran medical workers on one of the most widespread, insidious health threats of our time – climate change – and specific ways it could affect their patients.

Although climate change may seem to many Americans like a distant threat, Marilyn Howarth, MD, a pediatrician in Philadelphia, is trying to make sure physicians are better prepared to treat a growing number of health problems associated with global warming.

“There isn’t a lot of education for pediatricians and internists on environmental health issues. It has not been a standard part of education in medical school or residency training,” Dr. Howarth, deputy director of the new Philadelphia Regional Center for Children’s Environmental Health, said. “With increasing attention on our climate, we really recognize there’s a real gap in physician knowledge, both in pediatric and adult care.”

Scientists have found that climate change can alter just about every system within the human body. Studies show that more extreme weather events, such as heat waves, thunderstorms, and floods, can worsen asthma and produce more pollen and mold, triggering debilitating respiratory problems.

According to the American Lung Association, ultrafine particles of air pollution can be inhaled and then travel throughout the bloodstream, wreaking havoc on organs and increasing risk of heart attack and stroke. Various types of air pollution also cause changes to the climate by trapping heat in the atmosphere, which leads to problems such as rising sea levels and extreme weather. Plus, in a new study published in Nature, scientists warn that warming climates are forcing animals to migrate to different areas, raising the risk that new infectious diseases will hop from animals – such as bats – to humans, a process called “zoonotic spillover” that many researchers believe is responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

The Philadelphia Regional Center for Children’s Environmental Health

One of the latest initiatives aimed at disseminating information about children’s health to health care providers is the Philadelphia Regional Center for Children’s Environmental Health, part of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and Penn Medicine. CHOP and Penn Medicine are jointly funding this center’s work, which will include educating health care providers on how to better screen for climate-caused health risks and treat related conditions, such as lead poisoning and asthma.

Outreach will focus on providers who treat patients with illnesses that researchers have linked to climate change, Dr. Howarth said. The center will offer clinicians access to seminars and webinars, along with online resources to help doctors treat environmental illnesses. For example, doctors at CHOP’s Poison Control Center are developing a toolkit for physicians to treat patients with elevated levels of lead in the blood. Scientists have linked extreme weather events related to climate change to flooding that pushes metals away from river banks where they were previously contained, allowing them to more easily contaminate homes, soils, and yards.

The initiative builds on CHOP’s Community Asthma Prevention Program (CAPP), which was launched in 1997 by Tyra Bryant-Stephens, MD, its current medical director. CAPP deploys community health workers into homes armed with supplies and tips for managing asthma. The new center will use similar tactics to provide education and resources to patients. The goal is to reach as many at-risk local children as possible.
 

Future generation of doctors fuel growth in climate change education

Lisa Doggett, MD, cofounder and president of the board of directors of Texas Physicians for Social Responsibility, announced in March that the University of Texas at Austin, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and the University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas have all decided to begin offering a course on environmental threats. Emory’s new curriculum has become more comprehensive every year since its start – thanks in part to the input of students like Ms. Manivannan. Faculty members tasked her with approving the new additions to the curriculum on how climate affects health, which in 2019 had consisted of a few slides about issues such as extreme heat exposure and air pollution and their effects on childbirth outcomes.

Material on climate change has now been woven into 13 courses. It is discussed at length in relation to pulmonology, cardiology, and gastropulmonology, for example, said Rebecca Philipsborn, MD, MPA, FAAP, faculty lead for the environmental and health curriculum at Emory.

The curriculum has only been incorporated into Emory’s program for the past 2 years. Dr. Philipsborn said the school plans to expand it to the clinical years to help trainees learn to treat conditions such as pediatric asthma.

“In the past few years, there has been so much momentum, and part of that is a testament to already seeing effects of climate change and how they affect delivery of health care,” she said.

At least one medical journal has recently ramped up its efforts to educate physicians on the links between health issues and climate change. Editors of Family Practice, from Oxford University Press, have announced that they plan to publish a special Climate Crisis and Primary Health Care issue in September.

Of course, not all climate initiatives in medicine are new. A select few have existed for decades.

But only now are physicians widely seeing the links between health and environment, according to Aaron Bernstein, MD, MPH, interim director of the Center for Climate, Health, and the Global Environment (C-CHANGE) at Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

C-CHANGE, founded in 1996, was the first center in the world to focus on the health effects of environmental change.

“It’s taken 20 years, but what we’re seeing, I think, is the fruits of education,” Dr. Bernstein said. “There’s clearly a wave building here, and I think it really started with education and people younger than the people in charge calling them into account.”

Like the Philadelphia center, Harvard’s program conducts research on climate and health and educates people from high schoolers to health care veterans. Dr. Bernstein helps lead Climate MD, a program that aims to prepare health care workers for climate crises. The Climate MD team has published several articles in peer-reviewed journals on how to better treat patients struggling with environmental health problems. For example, an article on mapping patients in hurricane zones helped shed light on how systems can identify climate-vulnerable patients using public data.

They also developed a tool to help pediatricians provide “climate-informed primary care” – guidance on how to assess whether children are at risk of any harmful environmental exposures, a feature that is not part of standard pediatric visits.

Like the other programs, Climate MD uses community outreach to treat as many local patients as possible. Staff work with providers at more than 100 health clinics, particularly in areas where climate change disproportionately affects residents.

The next major step is to bring some of this into clinical practice, Dr. Bernstein said. In February 2020, C-CHANGE held its first symposium to address that issue.

“The key is to understand climate issues from a provider’s perspective,” he said. “Then those issues can really be brought to the bedside.”

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