MDedge Rheumatology

Thank Goodness it’s Monday? Sincerely yours, #hustle. 

The COVID-19 pandemic has given us the opportunity to reevaluate what we believe is important and valuable in our life. For some, it’s the opportunity to perform meaningful work; for others, it’s increased financial compensation; and, for the remaining, it may be autonomy (e.g., control over their time). One example of where this mindset has manifested has been in the Great Resignation. 

The Great Resignation refers to the significant increase in resignations that was recorded in April 2021. Resignation rates tend to be higher in fields with high turnover rates (e.g., health care, tech) as a result of increased demand and burnout. Although hustle culture has been an ongoing trend for the last few years, the pandemic has given somewhat of a reality check of the future. 

Hustle culture refers to the embracing of work as a lifestyle such that it takes over other important aspects of your life – in other words, when work-life balance becomes work-work (im)balance. It has also been aptly referred to as burnout culture or grind culture. It’s a bit ironic or counterintuitive to think that stopping work means increased productivity – but it’s true. 

During my undergraduate years, I was always hustling – there wasn’t a moment where I wasn’t studying, doing research, training for my sport, or thinking about how I could do better and be better. It was all about working 24/7 – an illusion to think I was being productive. Now don’t get me wrong, I think the time and effort I invested during those years paid off. However, it also resulted in a sense of dissatisfaction; that is, dissatisfaction that I didn’t explore other potential paths, that I didn’t have the courage to try new things and to be okay with making mistakes. I had extremely narrow tunnel vision because my one and only goal was to go to medical school. 

However, after entering graduate school and actually taking the time to explore other options and career pathways in health, as well as realize that nontraditional pathways are becoming more and more conventional, there is a sense of relief that “failure” is not about changing paths or making mistakes. 

The part of hustle culture that has me hung up is being able to take the time to reflect whether this is what you truly want. I still believe in the value of hard work but I also believe in the value of meaningful and efficient work while also taking the time to reflect. 

The pandemic has shaped a lot of the way we think, what we value, and how we proceed forward. Who we are and what we value is a continuing and ever-growing process, and how we choose to live our lives will play a part. 

I’m curious to hear from you, do you believe in #hustle? Are you part of the #grind culture? Or do you believe we can achieve success, greatness, and satisfaction without the hustle culture?
 

Ms. Lui is an MSc candidate at the University of Toronto, and is with the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit, Toronto Western Hospital. She has received income from Braxia Scientific. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Thank Goodness it’s Monday? Sincerely yours, #hustle. 

The COVID-19 pandemic has given us the opportunity to reevaluate what we believe is important and valuable in our life. For some, it’s the opportunity to perform meaningful work; for others, it’s increased financial compensation; and, for the remaining, it may be autonomy (e.g., control over their time). One example of where this mindset has manifested has been in the Great Resignation. 

The Great Resignation refers to the significant increase in resignations that was recorded in April 2021. Resignation rates tend to be higher in fields with high turnover rates (e.g., health care, tech) as a result of increased demand and burnout. Although hustle culture has been an ongoing trend for the last few years, the pandemic has given somewhat of a reality check of the future. 

Hustle culture refers to the embracing of work as a lifestyle such that it takes over other important aspects of your life – in other words, when work-life balance becomes work-work (im)balance. It has also been aptly referred to as burnout culture or grind culture. It’s a bit ironic or counterintuitive to think that stopping work means increased productivity – but it’s true. 

During my undergraduate years, I was always hustling – there wasn’t a moment where I wasn’t studying, doing research, training for my sport, or thinking about how I could do better and be better. It was all about working 24/7 – an illusion to think I was being productive. Now don’t get me wrong, I think the time and effort I invested during those years paid off. However, it also resulted in a sense of dissatisfaction; that is, dissatisfaction that I didn’t explore other potential paths, that I didn’t have the courage to try new things and to be okay with making mistakes. I had extremely narrow tunnel vision because my one and only goal was to go to medical school. 

However, after entering graduate school and actually taking the time to explore other options and career pathways in health, as well as realize that nontraditional pathways are becoming more and more conventional, there is a sense of relief that “failure” is not about changing paths or making mistakes. 

The part of hustle culture that has me hung up is being able to take the time to reflect whether this is what you truly want. I still believe in the value of hard work but I also believe in the value of meaningful and efficient work while also taking the time to reflect. 

The pandemic has shaped a lot of the way we think, what we value, and how we proceed forward. Who we are and what we value is a continuing and ever-growing process, and how we choose to live our lives will play a part. 

I’m curious to hear from you, do you believe in #hustle? Are you part of the #grind culture? Or do you believe we can achieve success, greatness, and satisfaction without the hustle culture?
 

Ms. Lui is an MSc candidate at the University of Toronto, and is with the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit, Toronto Western Hospital. She has received income from Braxia Scientific. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Thank Goodness it’s Monday? Sincerely yours, #hustle. 

The COVID-19 pandemic has given us the opportunity to reevaluate what we believe is important and valuable in our life. For some, it’s the opportunity to perform meaningful work; for others, it’s increased financial compensation; and, for the remaining, it may be autonomy (e.g., control over their time). One example of where this mindset has manifested has been in the Great Resignation. 

The Great Resignation refers to the significant increase in resignations that was recorded in April 2021. Resignation rates tend to be higher in fields with high turnover rates (e.g., health care, tech) as a result of increased demand and burnout. Although hustle culture has been an ongoing trend for the last few years, the pandemic has given somewhat of a reality check of the future. 

Hustle culture refers to the embracing of work as a lifestyle such that it takes over other important aspects of your life – in other words, when work-life balance becomes work-work (im)balance. It has also been aptly referred to as burnout culture or grind culture. It’s a bit ironic or counterintuitive to think that stopping work means increased productivity – but it’s true. 

During my undergraduate years, I was always hustling – there wasn’t a moment where I wasn’t studying, doing research, training for my sport, or thinking about how I could do better and be better. It was all about working 24/7 – an illusion to think I was being productive. Now don’t get me wrong, I think the time and effort I invested during those years paid off. However, it also resulted in a sense of dissatisfaction; that is, dissatisfaction that I didn’t explore other potential paths, that I didn’t have the courage to try new things and to be okay with making mistakes. I had extremely narrow tunnel vision because my one and only goal was to go to medical school. 

However, after entering graduate school and actually taking the time to explore other options and career pathways in health, as well as realize that nontraditional pathways are becoming more and more conventional, there is a sense of relief that “failure” is not about changing paths or making mistakes. 

The part of hustle culture that has me hung up is being able to take the time to reflect whether this is what you truly want. I still believe in the value of hard work but I also believe in the value of meaningful and efficient work while also taking the time to reflect. 

The pandemic has shaped a lot of the way we think, what we value, and how we proceed forward. Who we are and what we value is a continuing and ever-growing process, and how we choose to live our lives will play a part. 

I’m curious to hear from you, do you believe in #hustle? Are you part of the #grind culture? Or do you believe we can achieve success, greatness, and satisfaction without the hustle culture?
 

Ms. Lui is an MSc candidate at the University of Toronto, and is with the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit, Toronto Western Hospital. She has received income from Braxia Scientific. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

During a recent virtual medical malpractice trial, the judge called a break, and the participants left their screens. When the trial resumed a short time later, one juror was missing. The court called his phone, but there was no answer.

“Everyone had to keep waiting and waiting while the bailiff kept trying to call,” recalled Elizabeth Leedom, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in Seattle. “The juror fell asleep.”

The sleeping juror caused a significant delay in the trial, Ms. Leedom said. Finally, he woke up, and the trial was able to continue.

In another instance, a potential juror showed up drunk to a virtual jury selection. The man was slurring his words as he answered questions, Ms. Leedom said, and when asked if he was okay, he admitted that he had a drinking problem. The judge asked whether he had consumed alcohol, and the man admitted that he’d been drinking that day. He was excused from jury selection.

These alarming incidents are among the mishaps that happen during virtual medical malpractice trials. Since the pandemic started, many courts have moved to virtual settings to slow the spread of COVID-19. Although some courts have now shifted back to in-person trials, some areas continue to mandate virtual malpractice trials, hearings, and depositions.

Such trials can save money and are convenient, but legal experts say virtual trials present serious challenges for physicians and raise concerns about fairness. Some jurors are not taking virtual cases seriously or do not stay focused on the subject matter, according to attorneys.

“Virtual trials are not as fair to physicians as in-person trials,” said Andrew DeSimone, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in Lexington, Ky. “It’s too easy not to pay attention in a virtual setting. And when you are dealing with complex medical topics, juror attention is a paramount issue.”
 

Casual settings, constant interruptions during jury selections

Understanding and reaching the jury have been the greatest challenges with virtual and hybrid trials, said Laura Eschleman, a medical liability defense attorney based in Atlanta. Hybrid trials are part virtual and part in person.

Ms. Eschleman has participated in jury selections via Zoom in which jurors lounge in bed during the process and spouses and children waltz into the room as they please, she said.

“With over 36 Zoom boxes of potential jurors, assessing each potential juror was difficult to say the least,” she said. “[Jury selection] has always been an opportunity to introduce the defendant physicians to the jurors as humans; doing it virtually took that away. It is difficult to humanize a box on a screen.”

Regarding one virtual jury selection, Ms. Eschleman said the court had narrowed the pool to a final 12 jurors when one juror’s wife burst into his room and started yelling in front of his computer.

The judge allowed her to speak, and the crying woman begged the judge not to select her husband for the trial because it would disrupt the couple’s child care. After a lengthy exchange, they learned that the child was 16 years old and had his own car. The husband disagreed with his wife and wanted to remain a juror.

“This would have never happened had the twelfth juror been called to an in-person jury selection,” Ms. Eschleman said.

Keeping juries focused while the trial is underway can also be a problem, DeSimone said. He describes the courtroom during malpractice trials as a theater of sorts. Jurors watch intently as witnesses testify, evidence is presented, and the judge gives instructions. During virtual trials, however, watching through a screen doesn’t always yield the same captive audiences, he said.

“During Zoom, it’s much harder to connect with the jury because they won’t be as tuned into it,” he said. “If the jury believes the physician is empathetic, conscientious, caring, and compassionate, they will give the physician the benefit of the doubt, even if something went wrong or a bad outcome occurred. Developing that connection through good eye contact, being a teacher, and showing compassion is the most important thing a physician can do when testifying.”

A related challenge is that medical experts can’t connect as well with jurors, and some may have trouble conveying their message from a screen, said Evan Lyman, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in White Plains, N.Y.

“Some experts like to get out of the witness box and kind of take over the courtroom with a laser pointer or a white board,” he said. “For some, that’s what makes them effective experts. Some experts lose their touch when they can’t do that.”

Technical difficulties during virtual trials can cause further woes, said Kari Adams, vice president of claims for Physicians Insurance – A Mutual Company. She recalled a recent case in which technical problems arose during the defense attorney’s closing arguments.

“It’s hard to see our defense attorneys who are used to using all of their advocacy skills, all of their charisma trying to convey it in a virtual format,” she said. “When it’s disrupted, it can really throw things. A lot of their advocacy and personality can play through, but it’s just a little less in that forum.”
 

Doc fights against virtual trial

When Texas cardiologist Amin Al-Ahmad’s malpractice trial was changed to a virtual format because of COVID-19 concerns, Dr. Al-Ahmad and his attorneys fought the move.

They argued that the malpractice case was too complex for a virtual format and that a video trial would deprive Dr. Al-Ahmad of his rights to due process, including the right to trial by jury.

Dr. Al-Ahmad’s case involved allegations that he had failed to promptly diagnose and treat an atrial esophageal fistula, resulting in a patient’s stroke and ongoing neurologic problems. The trial was expected to last up to 10 days. Nine witnesses were expected to testify, and $1 million in damages were at stake, according to court documents.

“The length of trial anticipated, complexity of the medical issues, the confidential medical information at issue, and the number of anticipated medical records exhibits lead to a real risk of juror ‘Zoom fatigue,’ even if the trial is not interrupted with technology glitches, such as jurors dropping off the link or sound loss,” Dr. Al-Ahmad’s attorneys wrote in a petition to the Texas Supreme Court. “The risks of forcing [the defendants] to trial through the procedure of a remote or virtual jury trial are numerous. Not least of these is the risk that [defendants’] relators will be prevented from presenting an adequate defense or being able to fully preserve error during a virtual trial.”

Another concern regards the lack of uniformity from county to county in conducting a virtual trial, said David A. Wright, an attorney for Dr. Al-Ahmad. Some counties don’t permit them, while others permit parties to opt out of virtual trials, he noted.

“Even those that hold virtual trials seem to have different procedures and rules,” he said. “Travis County, where I have tried my virtual cases, has iPads that they provide to each juror so that they are limited to using just the county iPad for the trial. Others, I have heard, permit jurors to use their own devices. There are simply no uniform rules.”

Despite requests to the trial court and petitions to the appellate and Texas Supreme Court, Dr. Al-Ahmad lost his bid to have his trial delayed until in-person trials resumed. The Texas Supreme Court in late 2021 refused to halt the virtual trial.

Dr. Al-Ahmad, based in Austin, declined to comment through his attorney. Mr. Wright said the court’s denial “was not unexpected.”

Dr. Al-Ahmad’s virtual trial went forward in October 2021, and the jury ruled in his favor.

“We were very pleased with the jury’s verdict,” Mr. Wright said.
 

Are virtual trials ending in higher awards?

In addition to jurors’ not taking their roles as seriously, the casual vibe of virtual trials may also be diminishing how jurors view the verdict’s magnitude.

“Virtual trials don’t have the gravity or the seriousness of a real trial,” Ms. Leedom said. “I don’t think the importance of the jury’s decision weighs on them as much during a Zoom trial as it does an in-person trial.”

Alarmingly, Ms. Leedom said that, in her experience, damages in virtual trials have been higher in comparison with damages awarded during in-person trials.

Ms. Adams agreed with this observation.

“We’ll still win cases, but we’re concerned that, in the cases we lose, the damages can be slightly higher because there hasn’t been that interpersonal connection with the defendant,” she said. “It almost becomes like monopoly money to jurors.”
 

Remember these tips during virtual trials

Physicians undergoing virtual trials may have better experiences if they keep a few tips in mind.

Mr. DeSimone emphasized the importance of eye contact with jurors, which can be tricky during virtual settings. It helps if physicians look at the camera, rather than the screen, while talking.

Physicians should be cognizant of their facial expressions as they watch others speak.

“Don’t roll your eyes like: ‘Oh my gosh, he’s an idiot,’ ” Mr. DeSimone said. “Keep a poker face. Be respectful of what’s going on. Don’t be lulled into letting your guard down.”

Before the virtual trial, practice the cross examination and direct examination with your attorney and record it, Ms. Leedom said. That way, doctors can watch how they present on video and make necessary changes before the real trial. Lighting is also important, she noted. Her firm provides special lamps to clients and witnesses for virtual trials and proceedings.

“The lighting makes a huge difference,” she said.

Its also a good idea for physicians to have a paper copy of the records or exhibits that are going to be used so it’s easy for them to flip through them while on the screen. Physicians should also be mindful of how they come across during video depositions, which are sometimes played during virtual trials, Ms. Adams said.

“If you’re not looking professional during the video deposition – you’re eating, you’re not dressed well – the plaintiff’s attorney will take the most inopportune segment of the deposition and portray the physician as: ‘Look, here’s someone who was careless in the medical care, and look, they don’t even look professional when they’re testifying about this horrifying experience,’ ” she said. “They’ll use the clips to make a very careful provider appear distracted.”
 

Are virtual trials and hearings here to stay?

Whether virtual malpractice trials continue will largely depend on the location in which physicians practice. Some insurance carriers are opting to continue virtual trials, but in some areas, trials are being delayed until in-person proceedings can resume, Ms. Adams said. Some areas never adopted video trials and never ceased in-person trials.

“I think it’s going to be very regionally based,” she said. “Some of the smaller, rural counties just don’t have the capacity or the resources to continue, so they’ll probably just go back to in person.”

Not all virtual proceedings are problematic for physicians, say legal experts. Virtual depositions can be beneficial for doctors because they are less intimidating and confrontational than in-person depositions, Mr. Lyman said.

Additionally, virtual mediations can take much less time than in-person mediations, Ms. Adams said. Video depositions and mediations also save travel costs and reduce time missed from work for physicians.

“But I hope we all go back to in-person trials,” Ms. Leedom said. “Even here in King County, [Washington,] where we’ve done federal and state court trials by Zoom, I’m hopeful that it will go back to in-person trials.”

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

During a recent virtual medical malpractice trial, the judge called a break, and the participants left their screens. When the trial resumed a short time later, one juror was missing. The court called his phone, but there was no answer.

“Everyone had to keep waiting and waiting while the bailiff kept trying to call,” recalled Elizabeth Leedom, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in Seattle. “The juror fell asleep.”

The sleeping juror caused a significant delay in the trial, Ms. Leedom said. Finally, he woke up, and the trial was able to continue.

In another instance, a potential juror showed up drunk to a virtual jury selection. The man was slurring his words as he answered questions, Ms. Leedom said, and when asked if he was okay, he admitted that he had a drinking problem. The judge asked whether he had consumed alcohol, and the man admitted that he’d been drinking that day. He was excused from jury selection.

These alarming incidents are among the mishaps that happen during virtual medical malpractice trials. Since the pandemic started, many courts have moved to virtual settings to slow the spread of COVID-19. Although some courts have now shifted back to in-person trials, some areas continue to mandate virtual malpractice trials, hearings, and depositions.

Such trials can save money and are convenient, but legal experts say virtual trials present serious challenges for physicians and raise concerns about fairness. Some jurors are not taking virtual cases seriously or do not stay focused on the subject matter, according to attorneys.

“Virtual trials are not as fair to physicians as in-person trials,” said Andrew DeSimone, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in Lexington, Ky. “It’s too easy not to pay attention in a virtual setting. And when you are dealing with complex medical topics, juror attention is a paramount issue.”
 

Casual settings, constant interruptions during jury selections

Understanding and reaching the jury have been the greatest challenges with virtual and hybrid trials, said Laura Eschleman, a medical liability defense attorney based in Atlanta. Hybrid trials are part virtual and part in person.

Ms. Eschleman has participated in jury selections via Zoom in which jurors lounge in bed during the process and spouses and children waltz into the room as they please, she said.

“With over 36 Zoom boxes of potential jurors, assessing each potential juror was difficult to say the least,” she said. “[Jury selection] has always been an opportunity to introduce the defendant physicians to the jurors as humans; doing it virtually took that away. It is difficult to humanize a box on a screen.”

Regarding one virtual jury selection, Ms. Eschleman said the court had narrowed the pool to a final 12 jurors when one juror’s wife burst into his room and started yelling in front of his computer.

The judge allowed her to speak, and the crying woman begged the judge not to select her husband for the trial because it would disrupt the couple’s child care. After a lengthy exchange, they learned that the child was 16 years old and had his own car. The husband disagreed with his wife and wanted to remain a juror.

“This would have never happened had the twelfth juror been called to an in-person jury selection,” Ms. Eschleman said.

Keeping juries focused while the trial is underway can also be a problem, DeSimone said. He describes the courtroom during malpractice trials as a theater of sorts. Jurors watch intently as witnesses testify, evidence is presented, and the judge gives instructions. During virtual trials, however, watching through a screen doesn’t always yield the same captive audiences, he said.

“During Zoom, it’s much harder to connect with the jury because they won’t be as tuned into it,” he said. “If the jury believes the physician is empathetic, conscientious, caring, and compassionate, they will give the physician the benefit of the doubt, even if something went wrong or a bad outcome occurred. Developing that connection through good eye contact, being a teacher, and showing compassion is the most important thing a physician can do when testifying.”

A related challenge is that medical experts can’t connect as well with jurors, and some may have trouble conveying their message from a screen, said Evan Lyman, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in White Plains, N.Y.

“Some experts like to get out of the witness box and kind of take over the courtroom with a laser pointer or a white board,” he said. “For some, that’s what makes them effective experts. Some experts lose their touch when they can’t do that.”

Technical difficulties during virtual trials can cause further woes, said Kari Adams, vice president of claims for Physicians Insurance – A Mutual Company. She recalled a recent case in which technical problems arose during the defense attorney’s closing arguments.

“It’s hard to see our defense attorneys who are used to using all of their advocacy skills, all of their charisma trying to convey it in a virtual format,” she said. “When it’s disrupted, it can really throw things. A lot of their advocacy and personality can play through, but it’s just a little less in that forum.”
 

Doc fights against virtual trial

When Texas cardiologist Amin Al-Ahmad’s malpractice trial was changed to a virtual format because of COVID-19 concerns, Dr. Al-Ahmad and his attorneys fought the move.

They argued that the malpractice case was too complex for a virtual format and that a video trial would deprive Dr. Al-Ahmad of his rights to due process, including the right to trial by jury.

Dr. Al-Ahmad’s case involved allegations that he had failed to promptly diagnose and treat an atrial esophageal fistula, resulting in a patient’s stroke and ongoing neurologic problems. The trial was expected to last up to 10 days. Nine witnesses were expected to testify, and $1 million in damages were at stake, according to court documents.

“The length of trial anticipated, complexity of the medical issues, the confidential medical information at issue, and the number of anticipated medical records exhibits lead to a real risk of juror ‘Zoom fatigue,’ even if the trial is not interrupted with technology glitches, such as jurors dropping off the link or sound loss,” Dr. Al-Ahmad’s attorneys wrote in a petition to the Texas Supreme Court. “The risks of forcing [the defendants] to trial through the procedure of a remote or virtual jury trial are numerous. Not least of these is the risk that [defendants’] relators will be prevented from presenting an adequate defense or being able to fully preserve error during a virtual trial.”

Another concern regards the lack of uniformity from county to county in conducting a virtual trial, said David A. Wright, an attorney for Dr. Al-Ahmad. Some counties don’t permit them, while others permit parties to opt out of virtual trials, he noted.

“Even those that hold virtual trials seem to have different procedures and rules,” he said. “Travis County, where I have tried my virtual cases, has iPads that they provide to each juror so that they are limited to using just the county iPad for the trial. Others, I have heard, permit jurors to use their own devices. There are simply no uniform rules.”

Despite requests to the trial court and petitions to the appellate and Texas Supreme Court, Dr. Al-Ahmad lost his bid to have his trial delayed until in-person trials resumed. The Texas Supreme Court in late 2021 refused to halt the virtual trial.

Dr. Al-Ahmad, based in Austin, declined to comment through his attorney. Mr. Wright said the court’s denial “was not unexpected.”

Dr. Al-Ahmad’s virtual trial went forward in October 2021, and the jury ruled in his favor.

“We were very pleased with the jury’s verdict,” Mr. Wright said.
 

Are virtual trials ending in higher awards?

In addition to jurors’ not taking their roles as seriously, the casual vibe of virtual trials may also be diminishing how jurors view the verdict’s magnitude.

“Virtual trials don’t have the gravity or the seriousness of a real trial,” Ms. Leedom said. “I don’t think the importance of the jury’s decision weighs on them as much during a Zoom trial as it does an in-person trial.”

Alarmingly, Ms. Leedom said that, in her experience, damages in virtual trials have been higher in comparison with damages awarded during in-person trials.

Ms. Adams agreed with this observation.

“We’ll still win cases, but we’re concerned that, in the cases we lose, the damages can be slightly higher because there hasn’t been that interpersonal connection with the defendant,” she said. “It almost becomes like monopoly money to jurors.”
 

Remember these tips during virtual trials

Physicians undergoing virtual trials may have better experiences if they keep a few tips in mind.

Mr. DeSimone emphasized the importance of eye contact with jurors, which can be tricky during virtual settings. It helps if physicians look at the camera, rather than the screen, while talking.

Physicians should be cognizant of their facial expressions as they watch others speak.

“Don’t roll your eyes like: ‘Oh my gosh, he’s an idiot,’ ” Mr. DeSimone said. “Keep a poker face. Be respectful of what’s going on. Don’t be lulled into letting your guard down.”

Before the virtual trial, practice the cross examination and direct examination with your attorney and record it, Ms. Leedom said. That way, doctors can watch how they present on video and make necessary changes before the real trial. Lighting is also important, she noted. Her firm provides special lamps to clients and witnesses for virtual trials and proceedings.

“The lighting makes a huge difference,” she said.

Its also a good idea for physicians to have a paper copy of the records or exhibits that are going to be used so it’s easy for them to flip through them while on the screen. Physicians should also be mindful of how they come across during video depositions, which are sometimes played during virtual trials, Ms. Adams said.

“If you’re not looking professional during the video deposition – you’re eating, you’re not dressed well – the plaintiff’s attorney will take the most inopportune segment of the deposition and portray the physician as: ‘Look, here’s someone who was careless in the medical care, and look, they don’t even look professional when they’re testifying about this horrifying experience,’ ” she said. “They’ll use the clips to make a very careful provider appear distracted.”
 

Are virtual trials and hearings here to stay?

Whether virtual malpractice trials continue will largely depend on the location in which physicians practice. Some insurance carriers are opting to continue virtual trials, but in some areas, trials are being delayed until in-person proceedings can resume, Ms. Adams said. Some areas never adopted video trials and never ceased in-person trials.

“I think it’s going to be very regionally based,” she said. “Some of the smaller, rural counties just don’t have the capacity or the resources to continue, so they’ll probably just go back to in person.”

Not all virtual proceedings are problematic for physicians, say legal experts. Virtual depositions can be beneficial for doctors because they are less intimidating and confrontational than in-person depositions, Mr. Lyman said.

Additionally, virtual mediations can take much less time than in-person mediations, Ms. Adams said. Video depositions and mediations also save travel costs and reduce time missed from work for physicians.

“But I hope we all go back to in-person trials,” Ms. Leedom said. “Even here in King County, [Washington,] where we’ve done federal and state court trials by Zoom, I’m hopeful that it will go back to in-person trials.”

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

During a recent virtual medical malpractice trial, the judge called a break, and the participants left their screens. When the trial resumed a short time later, one juror was missing. The court called his phone, but there was no answer.

“Everyone had to keep waiting and waiting while the bailiff kept trying to call,” recalled Elizabeth Leedom, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in Seattle. “The juror fell asleep.”

The sleeping juror caused a significant delay in the trial, Ms. Leedom said. Finally, he woke up, and the trial was able to continue.

In another instance, a potential juror showed up drunk to a virtual jury selection. The man was slurring his words as he answered questions, Ms. Leedom said, and when asked if he was okay, he admitted that he had a drinking problem. The judge asked whether he had consumed alcohol, and the man admitted that he’d been drinking that day. He was excused from jury selection.

These alarming incidents are among the mishaps that happen during virtual medical malpractice trials. Since the pandemic started, many courts have moved to virtual settings to slow the spread of COVID-19. Although some courts have now shifted back to in-person trials, some areas continue to mandate virtual malpractice trials, hearings, and depositions.

Such trials can save money and are convenient, but legal experts say virtual trials present serious challenges for physicians and raise concerns about fairness. Some jurors are not taking virtual cases seriously or do not stay focused on the subject matter, according to attorneys.

“Virtual trials are not as fair to physicians as in-person trials,” said Andrew DeSimone, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in Lexington, Ky. “It’s too easy not to pay attention in a virtual setting. And when you are dealing with complex medical topics, juror attention is a paramount issue.”
 

Casual settings, constant interruptions during jury selections

Understanding and reaching the jury have been the greatest challenges with virtual and hybrid trials, said Laura Eschleman, a medical liability defense attorney based in Atlanta. Hybrid trials are part virtual and part in person.

Ms. Eschleman has participated in jury selections via Zoom in which jurors lounge in bed during the process and spouses and children waltz into the room as they please, she said.

“With over 36 Zoom boxes of potential jurors, assessing each potential juror was difficult to say the least,” she said. “[Jury selection] has always been an opportunity to introduce the defendant physicians to the jurors as humans; doing it virtually took that away. It is difficult to humanize a box on a screen.”

Regarding one virtual jury selection, Ms. Eschleman said the court had narrowed the pool to a final 12 jurors when one juror’s wife burst into his room and started yelling in front of his computer.

The judge allowed her to speak, and the crying woman begged the judge not to select her husband for the trial because it would disrupt the couple’s child care. After a lengthy exchange, they learned that the child was 16 years old and had his own car. The husband disagreed with his wife and wanted to remain a juror.

“This would have never happened had the twelfth juror been called to an in-person jury selection,” Ms. Eschleman said.

Keeping juries focused while the trial is underway can also be a problem, DeSimone said. He describes the courtroom during malpractice trials as a theater of sorts. Jurors watch intently as witnesses testify, evidence is presented, and the judge gives instructions. During virtual trials, however, watching through a screen doesn’t always yield the same captive audiences, he said.

“During Zoom, it’s much harder to connect with the jury because they won’t be as tuned into it,” he said. “If the jury believes the physician is empathetic, conscientious, caring, and compassionate, they will give the physician the benefit of the doubt, even if something went wrong or a bad outcome occurred. Developing that connection through good eye contact, being a teacher, and showing compassion is the most important thing a physician can do when testifying.”

A related challenge is that medical experts can’t connect as well with jurors, and some may have trouble conveying their message from a screen, said Evan Lyman, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in White Plains, N.Y.

“Some experts like to get out of the witness box and kind of take over the courtroom with a laser pointer or a white board,” he said. “For some, that’s what makes them effective experts. Some experts lose their touch when they can’t do that.”

Technical difficulties during virtual trials can cause further woes, said Kari Adams, vice president of claims for Physicians Insurance – A Mutual Company. She recalled a recent case in which technical problems arose during the defense attorney’s closing arguments.

“It’s hard to see our defense attorneys who are used to using all of their advocacy skills, all of their charisma trying to convey it in a virtual format,” she said. “When it’s disrupted, it can really throw things. A lot of their advocacy and personality can play through, but it’s just a little less in that forum.”
 

Doc fights against virtual trial

When Texas cardiologist Amin Al-Ahmad’s malpractice trial was changed to a virtual format because of COVID-19 concerns, Dr. Al-Ahmad and his attorneys fought the move.

They argued that the malpractice case was too complex for a virtual format and that a video trial would deprive Dr. Al-Ahmad of his rights to due process, including the right to trial by jury.

Dr. Al-Ahmad’s case involved allegations that he had failed to promptly diagnose and treat an atrial esophageal fistula, resulting in a patient’s stroke and ongoing neurologic problems. The trial was expected to last up to 10 days. Nine witnesses were expected to testify, and $1 million in damages were at stake, according to court documents.

“The length of trial anticipated, complexity of the medical issues, the confidential medical information at issue, and the number of anticipated medical records exhibits lead to a real risk of juror ‘Zoom fatigue,’ even if the trial is not interrupted with technology glitches, such as jurors dropping off the link or sound loss,” Dr. Al-Ahmad’s attorneys wrote in a petition to the Texas Supreme Court. “The risks of forcing [the defendants] to trial through the procedure of a remote or virtual jury trial are numerous. Not least of these is the risk that [defendants’] relators will be prevented from presenting an adequate defense or being able to fully preserve error during a virtual trial.”

Another concern regards the lack of uniformity from county to county in conducting a virtual trial, said David A. Wright, an attorney for Dr. Al-Ahmad. Some counties don’t permit them, while others permit parties to opt out of virtual trials, he noted.

“Even those that hold virtual trials seem to have different procedures and rules,” he said. “Travis County, where I have tried my virtual cases, has iPads that they provide to each juror so that they are limited to using just the county iPad for the trial. Others, I have heard, permit jurors to use their own devices. There are simply no uniform rules.”

Despite requests to the trial court and petitions to the appellate and Texas Supreme Court, Dr. Al-Ahmad lost his bid to have his trial delayed until in-person trials resumed. The Texas Supreme Court in late 2021 refused to halt the virtual trial.

Dr. Al-Ahmad, based in Austin, declined to comment through his attorney. Mr. Wright said the court’s denial “was not unexpected.”

Dr. Al-Ahmad’s virtual trial went forward in October 2021, and the jury ruled in his favor.

“We were very pleased with the jury’s verdict,” Mr. Wright said.
 

Are virtual trials ending in higher awards?

In addition to jurors’ not taking their roles as seriously, the casual vibe of virtual trials may also be diminishing how jurors view the verdict’s magnitude.

“Virtual trials don’t have the gravity or the seriousness of a real trial,” Ms. Leedom said. “I don’t think the importance of the jury’s decision weighs on them as much during a Zoom trial as it does an in-person trial.”

Alarmingly, Ms. Leedom said that, in her experience, damages in virtual trials have been higher in comparison with damages awarded during in-person trials.

Ms. Adams agreed with this observation.

“We’ll still win cases, but we’re concerned that, in the cases we lose, the damages can be slightly higher because there hasn’t been that interpersonal connection with the defendant,” she said. “It almost becomes like monopoly money to jurors.”
 

Remember these tips during virtual trials

Physicians undergoing virtual trials may have better experiences if they keep a few tips in mind.

Mr. DeSimone emphasized the importance of eye contact with jurors, which can be tricky during virtual settings. It helps if physicians look at the camera, rather than the screen, while talking.

Physicians should be cognizant of their facial expressions as they watch others speak.

“Don’t roll your eyes like: ‘Oh my gosh, he’s an idiot,’ ” Mr. DeSimone said. “Keep a poker face. Be respectful of what’s going on. Don’t be lulled into letting your guard down.”

Before the virtual trial, practice the cross examination and direct examination with your attorney and record it, Ms. Leedom said. That way, doctors can watch how they present on video and make necessary changes before the real trial. Lighting is also important, she noted. Her firm provides special lamps to clients and witnesses for virtual trials and proceedings.

“The lighting makes a huge difference,” she said.

Its also a good idea for physicians to have a paper copy of the records or exhibits that are going to be used so it’s easy for them to flip through them while on the screen. Physicians should also be mindful of how they come across during video depositions, which are sometimes played during virtual trials, Ms. Adams said.

“If you’re not looking professional during the video deposition – you’re eating, you’re not dressed well – the plaintiff’s attorney will take the most inopportune segment of the deposition and portray the physician as: ‘Look, here’s someone who was careless in the medical care, and look, they don’t even look professional when they’re testifying about this horrifying experience,’ ” she said. “They’ll use the clips to make a very careful provider appear distracted.”
 

Are virtual trials and hearings here to stay?

Whether virtual malpractice trials continue will largely depend on the location in which physicians practice. Some insurance carriers are opting to continue virtual trials, but in some areas, trials are being delayed until in-person proceedings can resume, Ms. Adams said. Some areas never adopted video trials and never ceased in-person trials.

“I think it’s going to be very regionally based,” she said. “Some of the smaller, rural counties just don’t have the capacity or the resources to continue, so they’ll probably just go back to in person.”

Not all virtual proceedings are problematic for physicians, say legal experts. Virtual depositions can be beneficial for doctors because they are less intimidating and confrontational than in-person depositions, Mr. Lyman said.

Additionally, virtual mediations can take much less time than in-person mediations, Ms. Adams said. Video depositions and mediations also save travel costs and reduce time missed from work for physicians.

“But I hope we all go back to in-person trials,” Ms. Leedom said. “Even here in King County, [Washington,] where we’ve done federal and state court trials by Zoom, I’m hopeful that it will go back to in-person trials.”

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

BOSTON – Following infection with SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients between the ages of 18 and 65 were at a significantly increased for developing certain cutaneous autoimmune and vascular diseases. This predominately favored systemic disease states with cutaneous involvement, rather than skin-limited processes.

The findings come from a large multicenter analysis that Zachary Holcomb, MD, presented during a late-breaking abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Doug Brunk, MDedge News

“Viral triggers have been implicated in the pathogenesis of rheumatologic disease, but information regarding development of autoimmune disease following SARS-CoV-2 infection is limited,” said Dr. Holcomb, chief resident in the Harvard Combined Internal Medicine–Dermatology Residency, Boston. “Given its proposed thromboinflammatory pathobiology, we hypothesized that SARS-CoV-2 infection increases the risk of development of autoimmune disease with cutaneous manifestations and sought to define incidence rates of newly-diagnosed autoimmune diseases following SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

The researchers drew from the TriNetX Dataworks platform, an online cloud-based system that contains aggregated and deidentified patient information from about 75 million patients across 48 health care organizations. The infected cohort was defined as having a positive lab test for severe SARS-CoV-2 within the study window using Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINCs). Healthy controls consisted of a documented health care contact (inpatient or outpatient visit) during the study window without a positive SARS-CoV-2 lab test. Each cohort included patients aged 18-65 at the time of the study, and patients with previously diagnosed cutaneous autoimmune or vascular diseases were excluded from the analysis.

After propensity matching, the COVID-19 infected cohort and the healthy cohort included 1,904,864 patients each, with no baseline differences in age at index event, ethnicity, race, or sex. The study window was between April 1, 2020, and Oct. 1, 2020. The index event was a COVID-19 infection for the infected group and first documented health care contact in the healthy control group. The researchers looked at a window of 60 days following this index event for new incidence of cutaneous or vascular disease.

In the realm of connective tissue and related diseases, they found the incidence was increased among the COVID-19 infected group compared with controls for dermatomyositis (risk ratio, 2.273; P = .0196), scleroderma (RR, 1.959; P = .0001), and systemic lupus erythematosus (RR, 1.401; P < .0001). They also noted a significant decrease in the new incidence of alopecia areata in the COVID-19 infected group compared with controls (RR, 0.527; P < .0001).

No significant differences in the incidence of bullous and papulosquamous diseases were observed between the two groups. However, sarcoidosis was significantly more common in the COVID-19–infected group compared with controls (RR, 2.086; P < .001). “When taking all of these autoinflammatory diseases as a whole, there was an increased incidence in the COVID-19 infected group overall with a RR of 1.168 (P < .0001),” Dr. Holcomb said.

In the realm of vascular skin diseases, there was an increased incidence in the COVID-19 infected group in acrocyanosis (RR, 2.825; P < .001), Raynaud’s phenomenon (RR, 1.462; P < .0001), cutaneous small vessel vasculitis (RR, 1.714; P < .0001), granulomatosis with polyangiitis (RR, 2.667; P = .0002), and temporal arteritis (RR, 1.900; P = .0038).

“Interestingly, despite the academic and lay press reports of COVID toes, we did not see that in our data related to the COVID-infected group,” he said.

Dr. Holcomb acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including a narrow study window with a relatively short follow-up. “We were able to propensity match based on baseline demographics but not necessarily so based on health status and prior autoimmune disease,” he said. In addition, since the study was limited to those aged 18-65, the results may not be generalizable to pediatric and elderly patients, he said.

He described the study findings as “somewhat hypothesis-generating.” For instance, “why would we have more of a systemic process [at play?]. Our theory is that the severe inflammatory nature of COVID-19 leads to a lot of internal organ damage and exposure of autoantigens in that process, with relative skin sparing.”

One of the session moderators, Robert Paul Dellavalle, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of Colorado, Aurora, characterized the findings as “intriguing” but preliminary. “It would be interesting to look at more recent cohorts and see how vaccination for COVID-19 would impact the incidence rates of some of these diseases,” he said.

When asked for comment, Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women's Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said, "This is an interesting study that should be followed up. Viral triggers have been known to precede autoimmune diseases so it will be very important to understand whether COVID-19 also impacts systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases. I would be interested in differences in surveillance between the infection and control groups early in the pandemic. Many patients were avoiding interaction with the health care system at that point." 

Dr. Holcomb reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Dellavalle disclosed that he is a consultant for Altus Labs and ParaPRO LLC. He has received grants and research funding from Pfizer.

* This story was updated on 3/29/22.

BOSTON – Following infection with SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients between the ages of 18 and 65 were at a significantly increased for developing certain cutaneous autoimmune and vascular diseases. This predominately favored systemic disease states with cutaneous involvement, rather than skin-limited processes.

The findings come from a large multicenter analysis that Zachary Holcomb, MD, presented during a late-breaking abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Doug Brunk, MDedge News

“Viral triggers have been implicated in the pathogenesis of rheumatologic disease, but information regarding development of autoimmune disease following SARS-CoV-2 infection is limited,” said Dr. Holcomb, chief resident in the Harvard Combined Internal Medicine–Dermatology Residency, Boston. “Given its proposed thromboinflammatory pathobiology, we hypothesized that SARS-CoV-2 infection increases the risk of development of autoimmune disease with cutaneous manifestations and sought to define incidence rates of newly-diagnosed autoimmune diseases following SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

The researchers drew from the TriNetX Dataworks platform, an online cloud-based system that contains aggregated and deidentified patient information from about 75 million patients across 48 health care organizations. The infected cohort was defined as having a positive lab test for severe SARS-CoV-2 within the study window using Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINCs). Healthy controls consisted of a documented health care contact (inpatient or outpatient visit) during the study window without a positive SARS-CoV-2 lab test. Each cohort included patients aged 18-65 at the time of the study, and patients with previously diagnosed cutaneous autoimmune or vascular diseases were excluded from the analysis.

After propensity matching, the COVID-19 infected cohort and the healthy cohort included 1,904,864 patients each, with no baseline differences in age at index event, ethnicity, race, or sex. The study window was between April 1, 2020, and Oct. 1, 2020. The index event was a COVID-19 infection for the infected group and first documented health care contact in the healthy control group. The researchers looked at a window of 60 days following this index event for new incidence of cutaneous or vascular disease.

In the realm of connective tissue and related diseases, they found the incidence was increased among the COVID-19 infected group compared with controls for dermatomyositis (risk ratio, 2.273; P = .0196), scleroderma (RR, 1.959; P = .0001), and systemic lupus erythematosus (RR, 1.401; P < .0001). They also noted a significant decrease in the new incidence of alopecia areata in the COVID-19 infected group compared with controls (RR, 0.527; P < .0001).

No significant differences in the incidence of bullous and papulosquamous diseases were observed between the two groups. However, sarcoidosis was significantly more common in the COVID-19–infected group compared with controls (RR, 2.086; P < .001). “When taking all of these autoinflammatory diseases as a whole, there was an increased incidence in the COVID-19 infected group overall with a RR of 1.168 (P < .0001),” Dr. Holcomb said.

In the realm of vascular skin diseases, there was an increased incidence in the COVID-19 infected group in acrocyanosis (RR, 2.825; P < .001), Raynaud’s phenomenon (RR, 1.462; P < .0001), cutaneous small vessel vasculitis (RR, 1.714; P < .0001), granulomatosis with polyangiitis (RR, 2.667; P = .0002), and temporal arteritis (RR, 1.900; P = .0038).

“Interestingly, despite the academic and lay press reports of COVID toes, we did not see that in our data related to the COVID-infected group,” he said.

Dr. Holcomb acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including a narrow study window with a relatively short follow-up. “We were able to propensity match based on baseline demographics but not necessarily so based on health status and prior autoimmune disease,” he said. In addition, since the study was limited to those aged 18-65, the results may not be generalizable to pediatric and elderly patients, he said.

He described the study findings as “somewhat hypothesis-generating.” For instance, “why would we have more of a systemic process [at play?]. Our theory is that the severe inflammatory nature of COVID-19 leads to a lot of internal organ damage and exposure of autoantigens in that process, with relative skin sparing.”

One of the session moderators, Robert Paul Dellavalle, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of Colorado, Aurora, characterized the findings as “intriguing” but preliminary. “It would be interesting to look at more recent cohorts and see how vaccination for COVID-19 would impact the incidence rates of some of these diseases,” he said.

When asked for comment, Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women's Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said, "This is an interesting study that should be followed up. Viral triggers have been known to precede autoimmune diseases so it will be very important to understand whether COVID-19 also impacts systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases. I would be interested in differences in surveillance between the infection and control groups early in the pandemic. Many patients were avoiding interaction with the health care system at that point." 

Dr. Holcomb reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Dellavalle disclosed that he is a consultant for Altus Labs and ParaPRO LLC. He has received grants and research funding from Pfizer.

* This story was updated on 3/29/22.

BOSTON – Following infection with SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients between the ages of 18 and 65 were at a significantly increased for developing certain cutaneous autoimmune and vascular diseases. This predominately favored systemic disease states with cutaneous involvement, rather than skin-limited processes.

The findings come from a large multicenter analysis that Zachary Holcomb, MD, presented during a late-breaking abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Doug Brunk, MDedge News

“Viral triggers have been implicated in the pathogenesis of rheumatologic disease, but information regarding development of autoimmune disease following SARS-CoV-2 infection is limited,” said Dr. Holcomb, chief resident in the Harvard Combined Internal Medicine–Dermatology Residency, Boston. “Given its proposed thromboinflammatory pathobiology, we hypothesized that SARS-CoV-2 infection increases the risk of development of autoimmune disease with cutaneous manifestations and sought to define incidence rates of newly-diagnosed autoimmune diseases following SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

The researchers drew from the TriNetX Dataworks platform, an online cloud-based system that contains aggregated and deidentified patient information from about 75 million patients across 48 health care organizations. The infected cohort was defined as having a positive lab test for severe SARS-CoV-2 within the study window using Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINCs). Healthy controls consisted of a documented health care contact (inpatient or outpatient visit) during the study window without a positive SARS-CoV-2 lab test. Each cohort included patients aged 18-65 at the time of the study, and patients with previously diagnosed cutaneous autoimmune or vascular diseases were excluded from the analysis.

After propensity matching, the COVID-19 infected cohort and the healthy cohort included 1,904,864 patients each, with no baseline differences in age at index event, ethnicity, race, or sex. The study window was between April 1, 2020, and Oct. 1, 2020. The index event was a COVID-19 infection for the infected group and first documented health care contact in the healthy control group. The researchers looked at a window of 60 days following this index event for new incidence of cutaneous or vascular disease.

In the realm of connective tissue and related diseases, they found the incidence was increased among the COVID-19 infected group compared with controls for dermatomyositis (risk ratio, 2.273; P = .0196), scleroderma (RR, 1.959; P = .0001), and systemic lupus erythematosus (RR, 1.401; P < .0001). They also noted a significant decrease in the new incidence of alopecia areata in the COVID-19 infected group compared with controls (RR, 0.527; P < .0001).

No significant differences in the incidence of bullous and papulosquamous diseases were observed between the two groups. However, sarcoidosis was significantly more common in the COVID-19–infected group compared with controls (RR, 2.086; P < .001). “When taking all of these autoinflammatory diseases as a whole, there was an increased incidence in the COVID-19 infected group overall with a RR of 1.168 (P < .0001),” Dr. Holcomb said.

In the realm of vascular skin diseases, there was an increased incidence in the COVID-19 infected group in acrocyanosis (RR, 2.825; P < .001), Raynaud’s phenomenon (RR, 1.462; P < .0001), cutaneous small vessel vasculitis (RR, 1.714; P < .0001), granulomatosis with polyangiitis (RR, 2.667; P = .0002), and temporal arteritis (RR, 1.900; P = .0038).

“Interestingly, despite the academic and lay press reports of COVID toes, we did not see that in our data related to the COVID-infected group,” he said.

Dr. Holcomb acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including a narrow study window with a relatively short follow-up. “We were able to propensity match based on baseline demographics but not necessarily so based on health status and prior autoimmune disease,” he said. In addition, since the study was limited to those aged 18-65, the results may not be generalizable to pediatric and elderly patients, he said.

He described the study findings as “somewhat hypothesis-generating.” For instance, “why would we have more of a systemic process [at play?]. Our theory is that the severe inflammatory nature of COVID-19 leads to a lot of internal organ damage and exposure of autoantigens in that process, with relative skin sparing.”

One of the session moderators, Robert Paul Dellavalle, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of Colorado, Aurora, characterized the findings as “intriguing” but preliminary. “It would be interesting to look at more recent cohorts and see how vaccination for COVID-19 would impact the incidence rates of some of these diseases,” he said.

When asked for comment, Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women's Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said, "This is an interesting study that should be followed up. Viral triggers have been known to precede autoimmune diseases so it will be very important to understand whether COVID-19 also impacts systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases. I would be interested in differences in surveillance between the infection and control groups early in the pandemic. Many patients were avoiding interaction with the health care system at that point." 

Dr. Holcomb reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Dellavalle disclosed that he is a consultant for Altus Labs and ParaPRO LLC. He has received grants and research funding from Pfizer.

* This story was updated on 3/29/22.

CHICAGO – Patients undergoing primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for their glenohumeral osteoarthritis had more complications of care and higher hospital costs when they also had a diagnosis of depression, new data show.

The abstract was presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons.

Researchers, led by Keith Diamond, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at Maimonides Medical Center in New York, queried a private payer database looking for patients who had primary RSA for treatment of glenohumeral OA and also had a diagnosis of depressive disorder (DD) from 2010 to 2019. Patients without DD served as the controls.

After the randomized matching with controls at a 1:5 ratio, the study consisted of 28,410 patients: 4,084 in the DD group and 24,326 in the control group.

Researchers found that patients with depression had longer hospital stays (3 vs. 2 days, P = .0007). They also had higher frequency and odds of developing side effects within the period of care (47.4% vs. 14.7%; odds ratio, 2.27; 95% CI, 2.10-2.45,  P < .0001).

Patients with depression also had significantly higher rates of medical complications surrounding the surgery and costs were higher ($19,363 vs. $17,927, P < .0001).

Pneumonia rates were much higher in patients with DD (10% vs. 1.8%; OR, 2.88; P < .0001).

Patients with depression had higher odds of cerebrovascular accident (3.1% vs. 0.7%; OR, 2.69, P < .0001); myocardial infarctions (2% vs. 0.4%; OR, 2.54; P < .0001); acute kidney injuries (11.1% vs. 2.3%; OR, 2.11, P < .0001); surgical site infections (4.4% vs. 2.4%; OR, 1.52, P < .0001); and other complications, the authors wrote.

Dr. Diamond said in an interview that there may be a few potential reasons for the associations.

In regard to the strong association with pneumonia, Dr. Diamond hypothesized, “patients with depression can be shown to have lower respiratory drive. If a patient isn’t motivated to get out of bed, that can lead to decreased inflation of the lungs.”

Acute kidney injury could be linked with depression-related lack of self-care in properly hydrating, he said. Surgical site infections could come from suboptimal hygiene related to managing the cast after surgery, which may be more difficult when patients also struggle with depression.

Asked to comment on Dr. Diamond’s study, Grant Garrigues, MD, an associate professor at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, and director of upper extremity research, told this news organization the study helps confirm known associations between depression and arthritis.

“We know that people with depression and anxiety feel pain differently,” he said. “It might have to do with your outlook – are you catastrophizing or thinking it’s a minor inconvenience? It’s not that it’s just in your head – you physically feel it differently. That is something we’re certainly attuned to. We want to make sure the mental health part of the picture is optimized as much as possible.”

He added that there is increasing evidence of links between depression and the development of arthritis.

“I’m not saying that everyone with arthritis has depression, but with arthritis being multifactorial, there’s a relatively high incidence of symptomatic arthritis in patients with depression,” Dr. Garrigues said.

“We think it may have something to do with the fight-or-flight hormones in your body that may be revved up if you are living in a stressful environment or are living with a mental health problem. Those will actually change – on a cellular and biochemical basis – some of the things that affect arthritis.”
 

Stronger emphasis on mental health

Dr. Diamond said the field needs more emphasis on perioperative state of mind.  

“As orthopedic surgeons, we are preoccupied with the mechanical, the structural aspects of health care as we try to fix bones, ligaments, and tendons. But I think we need to recognize and explore the connection between the psychiatric and psychological health with our musculoskeletal health.”

He noted that, in the preoperative setting, providers look for hypertension, diabetes, smoking status, and other conditions that could complicate surgical outcomes and said mental health should be a factor in whether a surgery proceeds.

“If someone’s diabetes isn’t controlled you can delay an elective case until their [hemoglobin] A1c is under the recommended limit and you get clearance from their primary care doctor. I think that’s something that should be applied to patients with depressive disorders,” Dr. Diamond said.

This study did not distinguish between patients who were being treated for depression at the time of surgery and those not on treatment. More study related to whether treatment affects depression’s association with RSA outcomes is needed, Dr. Diamond added.

Dr. Garrigues said he talks candidly with patients considering surgery about how they are managing their mental health struggles.

“If they say they haven’t seen their psychiatrist or are off their medications, that’s a nonstarter,” he said.

“Anything outside of the surgery you can optimize, whether it’s mental health, medical, social situations – you want to have all your ducks in a row before you dive into surgery,” Dr. Garrigues said.

He added that patients’ mental health status may even affect the venue for the patient – whether outpatient or inpatient, where they can get more supervision and help in making transitions after surgery.

Dr. Diamond and coauthors and Dr. Garrigues disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Patients undergoing primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for their glenohumeral osteoarthritis had more complications of care and higher hospital costs when they also had a diagnosis of depression, new data show.

The abstract was presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons.

Researchers, led by Keith Diamond, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at Maimonides Medical Center in New York, queried a private payer database looking for patients who had primary RSA for treatment of glenohumeral OA and also had a diagnosis of depressive disorder (DD) from 2010 to 2019. Patients without DD served as the controls.

After the randomized matching with controls at a 1:5 ratio, the study consisted of 28,410 patients: 4,084 in the DD group and 24,326 in the control group.

Researchers found that patients with depression had longer hospital stays (3 vs. 2 days, P = .0007). They also had higher frequency and odds of developing side effects within the period of care (47.4% vs. 14.7%; odds ratio, 2.27; 95% CI, 2.10-2.45,  P < .0001).

Patients with depression also had significantly higher rates of medical complications surrounding the surgery and costs were higher ($19,363 vs. $17,927, P < .0001).

Pneumonia rates were much higher in patients with DD (10% vs. 1.8%; OR, 2.88; P < .0001).

Patients with depression had higher odds of cerebrovascular accident (3.1% vs. 0.7%; OR, 2.69, P < .0001); myocardial infarctions (2% vs. 0.4%; OR, 2.54; P < .0001); acute kidney injuries (11.1% vs. 2.3%; OR, 2.11, P < .0001); surgical site infections (4.4% vs. 2.4%; OR, 1.52, P < .0001); and other complications, the authors wrote.

Dr. Diamond said in an interview that there may be a few potential reasons for the associations.

In regard to the strong association with pneumonia, Dr. Diamond hypothesized, “patients with depression can be shown to have lower respiratory drive. If a patient isn’t motivated to get out of bed, that can lead to decreased inflation of the lungs.”

Acute kidney injury could be linked with depression-related lack of self-care in properly hydrating, he said. Surgical site infections could come from suboptimal hygiene related to managing the cast after surgery, which may be more difficult when patients also struggle with depression.

Asked to comment on Dr. Diamond’s study, Grant Garrigues, MD, an associate professor at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, and director of upper extremity research, told this news organization the study helps confirm known associations between depression and arthritis.

“We know that people with depression and anxiety feel pain differently,” he said. “It might have to do with your outlook – are you catastrophizing or thinking it’s a minor inconvenience? It’s not that it’s just in your head – you physically feel it differently. That is something we’re certainly attuned to. We want to make sure the mental health part of the picture is optimized as much as possible.”

He added that there is increasing evidence of links between depression and the development of arthritis.

“I’m not saying that everyone with arthritis has depression, but with arthritis being multifactorial, there’s a relatively high incidence of symptomatic arthritis in patients with depression,” Dr. Garrigues said.

“We think it may have something to do with the fight-or-flight hormones in your body that may be revved up if you are living in a stressful environment or are living with a mental health problem. Those will actually change – on a cellular and biochemical basis – some of the things that affect arthritis.”
 

Stronger emphasis on mental health

Dr. Diamond said the field needs more emphasis on perioperative state of mind.  

“As orthopedic surgeons, we are preoccupied with the mechanical, the structural aspects of health care as we try to fix bones, ligaments, and tendons. But I think we need to recognize and explore the connection between the psychiatric and psychological health with our musculoskeletal health.”

He noted that, in the preoperative setting, providers look for hypertension, diabetes, smoking status, and other conditions that could complicate surgical outcomes and said mental health should be a factor in whether a surgery proceeds.

“If someone’s diabetes isn’t controlled you can delay an elective case until their [hemoglobin] A1c is under the recommended limit and you get clearance from their primary care doctor. I think that’s something that should be applied to patients with depressive disorders,” Dr. Diamond said.

This study did not distinguish between patients who were being treated for depression at the time of surgery and those not on treatment. More study related to whether treatment affects depression’s association with RSA outcomes is needed, Dr. Diamond added.

Dr. Garrigues said he talks candidly with patients considering surgery about how they are managing their mental health struggles.

“If they say they haven’t seen their psychiatrist or are off their medications, that’s a nonstarter,” he said.

“Anything outside of the surgery you can optimize, whether it’s mental health, medical, social situations – you want to have all your ducks in a row before you dive into surgery,” Dr. Garrigues said.

He added that patients’ mental health status may even affect the venue for the patient – whether outpatient or inpatient, where they can get more supervision and help in making transitions after surgery.

Dr. Diamond and coauthors and Dr. Garrigues disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Patients undergoing primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for their glenohumeral osteoarthritis had more complications of care and higher hospital costs when they also had a diagnosis of depression, new data show.

The abstract was presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons.

Researchers, led by Keith Diamond, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at Maimonides Medical Center in New York, queried a private payer database looking for patients who had primary RSA for treatment of glenohumeral OA and also had a diagnosis of depressive disorder (DD) from 2010 to 2019. Patients without DD served as the controls.

After the randomized matching with controls at a 1:5 ratio, the study consisted of 28,410 patients: 4,084 in the DD group and 24,326 in the control group.

Researchers found that patients with depression had longer hospital stays (3 vs. 2 days, P = .0007). They also had higher frequency and odds of developing side effects within the period of care (47.4% vs. 14.7%; odds ratio, 2.27; 95% CI, 2.10-2.45,  P < .0001).

Patients with depression also had significantly higher rates of medical complications surrounding the surgery and costs were higher ($19,363 vs. $17,927, P < .0001).

Pneumonia rates were much higher in patients with DD (10% vs. 1.8%; OR, 2.88; P < .0001).

Patients with depression had higher odds of cerebrovascular accident (3.1% vs. 0.7%; OR, 2.69, P < .0001); myocardial infarctions (2% vs. 0.4%; OR, 2.54; P < .0001); acute kidney injuries (11.1% vs. 2.3%; OR, 2.11, P < .0001); surgical site infections (4.4% vs. 2.4%; OR, 1.52, P < .0001); and other complications, the authors wrote.

Dr. Diamond said in an interview that there may be a few potential reasons for the associations.

In regard to the strong association with pneumonia, Dr. Diamond hypothesized, “patients with depression can be shown to have lower respiratory drive. If a patient isn’t motivated to get out of bed, that can lead to decreased inflation of the lungs.”

Acute kidney injury could be linked with depression-related lack of self-care in properly hydrating, he said. Surgical site infections could come from suboptimal hygiene related to managing the cast after surgery, which may be more difficult when patients also struggle with depression.

Asked to comment on Dr. Diamond’s study, Grant Garrigues, MD, an associate professor at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, and director of upper extremity research, told this news organization the study helps confirm known associations between depression and arthritis.

“We know that people with depression and anxiety feel pain differently,” he said. “It might have to do with your outlook – are you catastrophizing or thinking it’s a minor inconvenience? It’s not that it’s just in your head – you physically feel it differently. That is something we’re certainly attuned to. We want to make sure the mental health part of the picture is optimized as much as possible.”

He added that there is increasing evidence of links between depression and the development of arthritis.

“I’m not saying that everyone with arthritis has depression, but with arthritis being multifactorial, there’s a relatively high incidence of symptomatic arthritis in patients with depression,” Dr. Garrigues said.

“We think it may have something to do with the fight-or-flight hormones in your body that may be revved up if you are living in a stressful environment or are living with a mental health problem. Those will actually change – on a cellular and biochemical basis – some of the things that affect arthritis.”
 

Stronger emphasis on mental health

Dr. Diamond said the field needs more emphasis on perioperative state of mind.  

“As orthopedic surgeons, we are preoccupied with the mechanical, the structural aspects of health care as we try to fix bones, ligaments, and tendons. But I think we need to recognize and explore the connection between the psychiatric and psychological health with our musculoskeletal health.”

He noted that, in the preoperative setting, providers look for hypertension, diabetes, smoking status, and other conditions that could complicate surgical outcomes and said mental health should be a factor in whether a surgery proceeds.

“If someone’s diabetes isn’t controlled you can delay an elective case until their [hemoglobin] A1c is under the recommended limit and you get clearance from their primary care doctor. I think that’s something that should be applied to patients with depressive disorders,” Dr. Diamond said.

This study did not distinguish between patients who were being treated for depression at the time of surgery and those not on treatment. More study related to whether treatment affects depression’s association with RSA outcomes is needed, Dr. Diamond added.

Dr. Garrigues said he talks candidly with patients considering surgery about how they are managing their mental health struggles.

“If they say they haven’t seen their psychiatrist or are off their medications, that’s a nonstarter,” he said.

“Anything outside of the surgery you can optimize, whether it’s mental health, medical, social situations – you want to have all your ducks in a row before you dive into surgery,” Dr. Garrigues said.

He added that patients’ mental health status may even affect the venue for the patient – whether outpatient or inpatient, where they can get more supervision and help in making transitions after surgery.

Dr. Diamond and coauthors and Dr. Garrigues disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Heartland virus is circulating in lone star ticks in Georgia, according to a new study published in Emerging Infectious Diseases.

People can get the virus after being bitten by an infected tick, which can lead to hospitalization and death. The virus has also been found among deer and other wild mammals.

“Heartland is an emerging infectious disease that is not well understood,” Gonzalo Vazquez-Prokopec, PhD, the senior study author and an expert in vector-borne diseases at Emory University, Atlanta, said in a statement.

“We’re trying to get ahead of this virus by learning everything that we can about it before it potentially becomes a bigger problem,” he said.

Researchers at Emory and the University of Georgia analyzed virus samples from nearly 10,000 ticks collected in central Georgia. They found that about 1 out of every 2,000 specimens had the Heartland virus, including the adult and nymph stages.

The virus, which was first identified in Missouri in 2009, has been documented in several states across the Southeast and Midwest. There have been more than 50 cases in people from 11 states, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, with most cases requiring hospitalization. Most people diagnosed with the disease became sick from May to September, the CDC reported. Symptoms can be a high fever, fatigue, diarrhea, muscle pain, and low counts of white blood cells and platelets. It can take up to 2 weeks for symptoms to appear after a bite from an infected tick.

There are no vaccines or medications to prevent or treat the Heartland virus, according to the CDC. Doctors may be able to provide medications to improve symptoms. Overall, though, experts recommend that people avoid tick bites as much as possible, particularly during “high tick season” between April and September.

“You should be thinking about them almost any time of the year. It’s something that should be on everybody’s mind,” Jonathan Larson, PhD, an extension entomologist at the University of Kentucky, Lexington, told USA Today.

The CDC recognizes 18 tick-borne diseases in the United States, including Lyme disease, which has become the most common vector-borne disease in the country. The black-legged tick, also known as the deer tick, typically transmits the bacteria that causes Lyme disease.

But researchers are still studying how the Heartland virus spreads. In the latest study, they found the virus in the lone star tick, which is named for a distinctive white spot on its back and is the most common tick in Georgia. The tick is also widely distributed in wooded areas across the Southeast, Midwest, and Eastern United States.

The research team will now collect ticks across Georgia for testing to better understand what could raise the risk of getting the Heartland virus.

“We want to start filling in the huge gaps of knowledge of the transmission cycle for Heartland virus,” Dr. Vazquez-Prokopec said. “We need to better understand the key actors that transmit the virus and any environmental factors that may help it to persist within different habitats.”

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

The Heartland virus is circulating in lone star ticks in Georgia, according to a new study published in Emerging Infectious Diseases.

People can get the virus after being bitten by an infected tick, which can lead to hospitalization and death. The virus has also been found among deer and other wild mammals.

“Heartland is an emerging infectious disease that is not well understood,” Gonzalo Vazquez-Prokopec, PhD, the senior study author and an expert in vector-borne diseases at Emory University, Atlanta, said in a statement.

“We’re trying to get ahead of this virus by learning everything that we can about it before it potentially becomes a bigger problem,” he said.

Researchers at Emory and the University of Georgia analyzed virus samples from nearly 10,000 ticks collected in central Georgia. They found that about 1 out of every 2,000 specimens had the Heartland virus, including the adult and nymph stages.

The virus, which was first identified in Missouri in 2009, has been documented in several states across the Southeast and Midwest. There have been more than 50 cases in people from 11 states, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, with most cases requiring hospitalization. Most people diagnosed with the disease became sick from May to September, the CDC reported. Symptoms can be a high fever, fatigue, diarrhea, muscle pain, and low counts of white blood cells and platelets. It can take up to 2 weeks for symptoms to appear after a bite from an infected tick.

There are no vaccines or medications to prevent or treat the Heartland virus, according to the CDC. Doctors may be able to provide medications to improve symptoms. Overall, though, experts recommend that people avoid tick bites as much as possible, particularly during “high tick season” between April and September.

“You should be thinking about them almost any time of the year. It’s something that should be on everybody’s mind,” Jonathan Larson, PhD, an extension entomologist at the University of Kentucky, Lexington, told USA Today.

The CDC recognizes 18 tick-borne diseases in the United States, including Lyme disease, which has become the most common vector-borne disease in the country. The black-legged tick, also known as the deer tick, typically transmits the bacteria that causes Lyme disease.

But researchers are still studying how the Heartland virus spreads. In the latest study, they found the virus in the lone star tick, which is named for a distinctive white spot on its back and is the most common tick in Georgia. The tick is also widely distributed in wooded areas across the Southeast, Midwest, and Eastern United States.

The research team will now collect ticks across Georgia for testing to better understand what could raise the risk of getting the Heartland virus.

“We want to start filling in the huge gaps of knowledge of the transmission cycle for Heartland virus,” Dr. Vazquez-Prokopec said. “We need to better understand the key actors that transmit the virus and any environmental factors that may help it to persist within different habitats.”

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

The Heartland virus is circulating in lone star ticks in Georgia, according to a new study published in Emerging Infectious Diseases.

People can get the virus after being bitten by an infected tick, which can lead to hospitalization and death. The virus has also been found among deer and other wild mammals.

“Heartland is an emerging infectious disease that is not well understood,” Gonzalo Vazquez-Prokopec, PhD, the senior study author and an expert in vector-borne diseases at Emory University, Atlanta, said in a statement.

“We’re trying to get ahead of this virus by learning everything that we can about it before it potentially becomes a bigger problem,” he said.

Researchers at Emory and the University of Georgia analyzed virus samples from nearly 10,000 ticks collected in central Georgia. They found that about 1 out of every 2,000 specimens had the Heartland virus, including the adult and nymph stages.

The virus, which was first identified in Missouri in 2009, has been documented in several states across the Southeast and Midwest. There have been more than 50 cases in people from 11 states, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, with most cases requiring hospitalization. Most people diagnosed with the disease became sick from May to September, the CDC reported. Symptoms can be a high fever, fatigue, diarrhea, muscle pain, and low counts of white blood cells and platelets. It can take up to 2 weeks for symptoms to appear after a bite from an infected tick.

There are no vaccines or medications to prevent or treat the Heartland virus, according to the CDC. Doctors may be able to provide medications to improve symptoms. Overall, though, experts recommend that people avoid tick bites as much as possible, particularly during “high tick season” between April and September.

“You should be thinking about them almost any time of the year. It’s something that should be on everybody’s mind,” Jonathan Larson, PhD, an extension entomologist at the University of Kentucky, Lexington, told USA Today.

The CDC recognizes 18 tick-borne diseases in the United States, including Lyme disease, which has become the most common vector-borne disease in the country. The black-legged tick, also known as the deer tick, typically transmits the bacteria that causes Lyme disease.

But researchers are still studying how the Heartland virus spreads. In the latest study, they found the virus in the lone star tick, which is named for a distinctive white spot on its back and is the most common tick in Georgia. The tick is also widely distributed in wooded areas across the Southeast, Midwest, and Eastern United States.

The research team will now collect ticks across Georgia for testing to better understand what could raise the risk of getting the Heartland virus.

“We want to start filling in the huge gaps of knowledge of the transmission cycle for Heartland virus,” Dr. Vazquez-Prokopec said. “We need to better understand the key actors that transmit the virus and any environmental factors that may help it to persist within different habitats.”

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

People with higher (above the median) consumption of artificial sweeteners – especially aspartame and acesulfame-potassium (acesulfame-K) – had a 13% higher risk of overall cancer over 8 years than those who did not consume these sweeteners.

Higher consumption of aspartame was associated with a 22% increased risk of breast cancer and a 15% increased risk of obesity-related cancer, compared with not consuming any of these sweeteners.*

BigRedCurlyGuy/Thinkstock

These findings from the Nutri-Santé population-based observational study in France were published online March 24, 2022, in PLoS Medicine.

“Our findings do not support the use of artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives for sugar in foods or beverages and provide important and novel information to address the controversies about their potential adverse health effect,” Charlotte Debras, of the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research (Inserm) and Sorbonne Paris Nord University, and colleagues wrote.

“Results from the NutriNet-Santé cohort (n = 102,865) suggest that artificial sweeteners found in many food and beverage brands worldwide may be associated with increased cancer risk, in line with several experimental in vivo/in vitro studies. These findings provide novel information for the re-evaluation of these food additives by health agencies,” they wrote.

Commenting to the U.K. Science Media Center, Duane Mellor, PhD, registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow, Aston (England) University, said: “This study does not prove or even suggest that we should go back to sugar and turn our backs on artificial sweeteners or diet drinks.  

“It does, however, suggest that artificial sweeteners are not a perfect replacement for sugar, they come with their own potential risks, as does sugar. The ideal answer is probably to move away from both, however, that may be unappealing to many who like a little sweetness in their life, so ditching the regular or diet soft drink (soda) for water may not be a well-received health message.”
 

Important analysis, interpret with caution

“I think that this is an important analysis, but the results need to be interpreted with caution,” another expert, John L. Sievenpiper, MD, PhD, associate professor, departments of nutritional sciences and medicine, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“Large observational studies like this one that assess the exposure to low and no calorie sweeteners with obesity-related chronic diseases are at risk of reverse causality,” he explained. This is “a caveat that is well recognized by investigators in this field ... and guideline and policy makers.”

Reverse causality is a possibility because “it is likely that many high consumers of low- and no-calorie sweeteners (of which aspartame and acesulfame-K are the most common) will be consuming these sweeteners as a weight-loss strategy,” he added, “as opposed to these sweeteners causing obesity and its complications (including cancers).”

His team recently published a Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group–commissioned systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials (JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5[3]:e222092). Their findings “suggest that over the moderate term [low- and no-calorie sweetened beverages] are a viable alternative to water as a replacement strategy in adults with overweight or obesity who are at risk for or have diabetes,” states one of two syntheses (the other is in press in Diabetes Care) for the update of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes guidelines coming in the fall of 2022. 

“The bottom line” for the current study, according to Dr. Sievenpiper, “is that it is difficult to disentangle the signals for low- and no-calorie sweeteners from obesity itself and the signals for the sugars and calories that they are replacing/displacing in this analysis. Substitution analyses would be useful to address some of these concerns.”
 

Conflicting results

Recent epidemiologic and animal studies about a possible link between artificial sweeteners and risk of cancer have had conflicting results, and information about specific types of sweeteners and consumption of artificially sweetened foods as well as beverages is lacking, Ms. Debras and colleagues wrote.

They aimed to investigate the associations between intakes of artificial sweeteners (total and the most common ones – aspartame, acesulfame-K, and sucralose) and cancer risk (overall risk and most frequent types – breast, prostate, and obesity-related cancers) in the ongoing NutriNet-Santé study.

“Obesity-related cancers are cancers for which obesity is involved in their etiology as one of the risk (or protective) factors, as recognized by the World Cancer Research Fund (independently of participant BMI [body mass index] status): colorectal, stomach, liver, mouth, pharynx, larynx, esophageal, breast (with opposite associations pre- and post menopause), ovarian, endometrial, and prostate cancers,” the researchers explained.

According to a recent study , “obesity increases the risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women but, conversely, it appears to be protective in premenopausal women,” Dr. Sievenpiper noted.

The ongoing NutriNet-Santé study was initiated in 2009 to investigate associations between nutrition and health in the French population. Participants aged 18 and older with Internet access enroll voluntarily and self-report medical history and sociodemographic, diet, lifestyle, and health data.

The current cohort included 102,865 adults who enrolled in 2009-2021.

Consumption of artificial sweeteners was determined from repeated 24-hour dietary records that included brand names of processed foods.

At enrollment, participants were an average age of 42 years and 79% were women. They had a mean BMI of 24 kg/m2. On average, they had 5.6 dietary records.

Most participants did not consume artificial sweeteners (63%); those who did were classified as lower consumers (18.5%) or higher consumers (18.5%).

Aspartame was the most common artificial sweetener (58% of intake), followed by acesulfame-K (29%) and sucralose (10%), and these were mostly in soft drinks (53%), table-top sweeteners (29%), and yogurt/cottage cheese (8%). 

During a median 7.7-year follow-up, 3,358 incident cancers – 982 breast, 403 prostate, and 2023 obesity-related cancers – were diagnosed in participants who were a mean age of 60.

Compared with nonconsumers, higher consumers of artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of overall cancer (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.25; P-trend = .002), after adjusting for age, sex, education, physical activity, smoking, BMI, height, weight gain during follow-up, diabetes, family history of cancer, number of 24-hour dietary records, baseline caloric intake, and consumption of alcohol, sodium, saturated fatty acids, fiber, sugar, fruit and vegetables, whole-grain foods, and dairy products.

Participants who were higher consumers of aspartame had an increased risk of overall cancer (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.28; P = .002), as did higher consumers of acesulfame-K (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.26; P = .007), compared with nonconsumers, after adjusting for the multiple variables. 

Higher consumers of aspartame had a higher risk of breast cancer (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.48; P = .036) and obesity-related cancers (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.32; P = .026) than nonconsumers.

Higher consumers of total artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of obesity-related cancers than nonconsumers (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.00-1.28; P = .036).

The researchers acknowledged that study limitations include potential selection bias, residual confounding, and reverse causality, though sensitivity analyses were performed to address these concerns.

The NutriNet-Santé study was supported by several French public institutions. Ms. Debras was supported by a grant from the French National Cancer Institute. This project has received funding from the European Research Council, the French National Cancer Institute, the French Ministry of Health, and the IdEx Université de Paris. Dr. Sievenpiper has reported receiving funding from the Tate and Lyle Nutritional Research Fund at the University of Toronto, the Nutrition Trialists Fund at the University of Toronto, and the International Sweeteners Association.

Correction, 3/31: An earlier version of this article erroneously stated that there was a 22% increased risk of overall cancer, rather than breast cancer. 

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

People with higher (above the median) consumption of artificial sweeteners – especially aspartame and acesulfame-potassium (acesulfame-K) – had a 13% higher risk of overall cancer over 8 years than those who did not consume these sweeteners.

Higher consumption of aspartame was associated with a 22% increased risk of breast cancer and a 15% increased risk of obesity-related cancer, compared with not consuming any of these sweeteners.*

BigRedCurlyGuy/Thinkstock

These findings from the Nutri-Santé population-based observational study in France were published online March 24, 2022, in PLoS Medicine.

“Our findings do not support the use of artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives for sugar in foods or beverages and provide important and novel information to address the controversies about their potential adverse health effect,” Charlotte Debras, of the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research (Inserm) and Sorbonne Paris Nord University, and colleagues wrote.

“Results from the NutriNet-Santé cohort (n = 102,865) suggest that artificial sweeteners found in many food and beverage brands worldwide may be associated with increased cancer risk, in line with several experimental in vivo/in vitro studies. These findings provide novel information for the re-evaluation of these food additives by health agencies,” they wrote.

Commenting to the U.K. Science Media Center, Duane Mellor, PhD, registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow, Aston (England) University, said: “This study does not prove or even suggest that we should go back to sugar and turn our backs on artificial sweeteners or diet drinks.  

“It does, however, suggest that artificial sweeteners are not a perfect replacement for sugar, they come with their own potential risks, as does sugar. The ideal answer is probably to move away from both, however, that may be unappealing to many who like a little sweetness in their life, so ditching the regular or diet soft drink (soda) for water may not be a well-received health message.”
 

Important analysis, interpret with caution

“I think that this is an important analysis, but the results need to be interpreted with caution,” another expert, John L. Sievenpiper, MD, PhD, associate professor, departments of nutritional sciences and medicine, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“Large observational studies like this one that assess the exposure to low and no calorie sweeteners with obesity-related chronic diseases are at risk of reverse causality,” he explained. This is “a caveat that is well recognized by investigators in this field ... and guideline and policy makers.”

Reverse causality is a possibility because “it is likely that many high consumers of low- and no-calorie sweeteners (of which aspartame and acesulfame-K are the most common) will be consuming these sweeteners as a weight-loss strategy,” he added, “as opposed to these sweeteners causing obesity and its complications (including cancers).”

His team recently published a Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group–commissioned systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials (JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5[3]:e222092). Their findings “suggest that over the moderate term [low- and no-calorie sweetened beverages] are a viable alternative to water as a replacement strategy in adults with overweight or obesity who are at risk for or have diabetes,” states one of two syntheses (the other is in press in Diabetes Care) for the update of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes guidelines coming in the fall of 2022. 

“The bottom line” for the current study, according to Dr. Sievenpiper, “is that it is difficult to disentangle the signals for low- and no-calorie sweeteners from obesity itself and the signals for the sugars and calories that they are replacing/displacing in this analysis. Substitution analyses would be useful to address some of these concerns.”
 

Conflicting results

Recent epidemiologic and animal studies about a possible link between artificial sweeteners and risk of cancer have had conflicting results, and information about specific types of sweeteners and consumption of artificially sweetened foods as well as beverages is lacking, Ms. Debras and colleagues wrote.

They aimed to investigate the associations between intakes of artificial sweeteners (total and the most common ones – aspartame, acesulfame-K, and sucralose) and cancer risk (overall risk and most frequent types – breast, prostate, and obesity-related cancers) in the ongoing NutriNet-Santé study.

“Obesity-related cancers are cancers for which obesity is involved in their etiology as one of the risk (or protective) factors, as recognized by the World Cancer Research Fund (independently of participant BMI [body mass index] status): colorectal, stomach, liver, mouth, pharynx, larynx, esophageal, breast (with opposite associations pre- and post menopause), ovarian, endometrial, and prostate cancers,” the researchers explained.

According to a recent study , “obesity increases the risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women but, conversely, it appears to be protective in premenopausal women,” Dr. Sievenpiper noted.

The ongoing NutriNet-Santé study was initiated in 2009 to investigate associations between nutrition and health in the French population. Participants aged 18 and older with Internet access enroll voluntarily and self-report medical history and sociodemographic, diet, lifestyle, and health data.

The current cohort included 102,865 adults who enrolled in 2009-2021.

Consumption of artificial sweeteners was determined from repeated 24-hour dietary records that included brand names of processed foods.

At enrollment, participants were an average age of 42 years and 79% were women. They had a mean BMI of 24 kg/m2. On average, they had 5.6 dietary records.

Most participants did not consume artificial sweeteners (63%); those who did were classified as lower consumers (18.5%) or higher consumers (18.5%).

Aspartame was the most common artificial sweetener (58% of intake), followed by acesulfame-K (29%) and sucralose (10%), and these were mostly in soft drinks (53%), table-top sweeteners (29%), and yogurt/cottage cheese (8%). 

During a median 7.7-year follow-up, 3,358 incident cancers – 982 breast, 403 prostate, and 2023 obesity-related cancers – were diagnosed in participants who were a mean age of 60.

Compared with nonconsumers, higher consumers of artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of overall cancer (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.25; P-trend = .002), after adjusting for age, sex, education, physical activity, smoking, BMI, height, weight gain during follow-up, diabetes, family history of cancer, number of 24-hour dietary records, baseline caloric intake, and consumption of alcohol, sodium, saturated fatty acids, fiber, sugar, fruit and vegetables, whole-grain foods, and dairy products.

Participants who were higher consumers of aspartame had an increased risk of overall cancer (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.28; P = .002), as did higher consumers of acesulfame-K (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.26; P = .007), compared with nonconsumers, after adjusting for the multiple variables. 

Higher consumers of aspartame had a higher risk of breast cancer (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.48; P = .036) and obesity-related cancers (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.32; P = .026) than nonconsumers.

Higher consumers of total artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of obesity-related cancers than nonconsumers (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.00-1.28; P = .036).

The researchers acknowledged that study limitations include potential selection bias, residual confounding, and reverse causality, though sensitivity analyses were performed to address these concerns.

The NutriNet-Santé study was supported by several French public institutions. Ms. Debras was supported by a grant from the French National Cancer Institute. This project has received funding from the European Research Council, the French National Cancer Institute, the French Ministry of Health, and the IdEx Université de Paris. Dr. Sievenpiper has reported receiving funding from the Tate and Lyle Nutritional Research Fund at the University of Toronto, the Nutrition Trialists Fund at the University of Toronto, and the International Sweeteners Association.

Correction, 3/31: An earlier version of this article erroneously stated that there was a 22% increased risk of overall cancer, rather than breast cancer. 

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

People with higher (above the median) consumption of artificial sweeteners – especially aspartame and acesulfame-potassium (acesulfame-K) – had a 13% higher risk of overall cancer over 8 years than those who did not consume these sweeteners.

Higher consumption of aspartame was associated with a 22% increased risk of breast cancer and a 15% increased risk of obesity-related cancer, compared with not consuming any of these sweeteners.*

BigRedCurlyGuy/Thinkstock

These findings from the Nutri-Santé population-based observational study in France were published online March 24, 2022, in PLoS Medicine.

“Our findings do not support the use of artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives for sugar in foods or beverages and provide important and novel information to address the controversies about their potential adverse health effect,” Charlotte Debras, of the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research (Inserm) and Sorbonne Paris Nord University, and colleagues wrote.

“Results from the NutriNet-Santé cohort (n = 102,865) suggest that artificial sweeteners found in many food and beverage brands worldwide may be associated with increased cancer risk, in line with several experimental in vivo/in vitro studies. These findings provide novel information for the re-evaluation of these food additives by health agencies,” they wrote.

Commenting to the U.K. Science Media Center, Duane Mellor, PhD, registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow, Aston (England) University, said: “This study does not prove or even suggest that we should go back to sugar and turn our backs on artificial sweeteners or diet drinks.  

“It does, however, suggest that artificial sweeteners are not a perfect replacement for sugar, they come with their own potential risks, as does sugar. The ideal answer is probably to move away from both, however, that may be unappealing to many who like a little sweetness in their life, so ditching the regular or diet soft drink (soda) for water may not be a well-received health message.”
 

Important analysis, interpret with caution

“I think that this is an important analysis, but the results need to be interpreted with caution,” another expert, John L. Sievenpiper, MD, PhD, associate professor, departments of nutritional sciences and medicine, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“Large observational studies like this one that assess the exposure to low and no calorie sweeteners with obesity-related chronic diseases are at risk of reverse causality,” he explained. This is “a caveat that is well recognized by investigators in this field ... and guideline and policy makers.”

Reverse causality is a possibility because “it is likely that many high consumers of low- and no-calorie sweeteners (of which aspartame and acesulfame-K are the most common) will be consuming these sweeteners as a weight-loss strategy,” he added, “as opposed to these sweeteners causing obesity and its complications (including cancers).”

His team recently published a Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group–commissioned systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials (JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5[3]:e222092). Their findings “suggest that over the moderate term [low- and no-calorie sweetened beverages] are a viable alternative to water as a replacement strategy in adults with overweight or obesity who are at risk for or have diabetes,” states one of two syntheses (the other is in press in Diabetes Care) for the update of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes guidelines coming in the fall of 2022. 

“The bottom line” for the current study, according to Dr. Sievenpiper, “is that it is difficult to disentangle the signals for low- and no-calorie sweeteners from obesity itself and the signals for the sugars and calories that they are replacing/displacing in this analysis. Substitution analyses would be useful to address some of these concerns.”
 

Conflicting results

Recent epidemiologic and animal studies about a possible link between artificial sweeteners and risk of cancer have had conflicting results, and information about specific types of sweeteners and consumption of artificially sweetened foods as well as beverages is lacking, Ms. Debras and colleagues wrote.

They aimed to investigate the associations between intakes of artificial sweeteners (total and the most common ones – aspartame, acesulfame-K, and sucralose) and cancer risk (overall risk and most frequent types – breast, prostate, and obesity-related cancers) in the ongoing NutriNet-Santé study.

“Obesity-related cancers are cancers for which obesity is involved in their etiology as one of the risk (or protective) factors, as recognized by the World Cancer Research Fund (independently of participant BMI [body mass index] status): colorectal, stomach, liver, mouth, pharynx, larynx, esophageal, breast (with opposite associations pre- and post menopause), ovarian, endometrial, and prostate cancers,” the researchers explained.

According to a recent study , “obesity increases the risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women but, conversely, it appears to be protective in premenopausal women,” Dr. Sievenpiper noted.

The ongoing NutriNet-Santé study was initiated in 2009 to investigate associations between nutrition and health in the French population. Participants aged 18 and older with Internet access enroll voluntarily and self-report medical history and sociodemographic, diet, lifestyle, and health data.

The current cohort included 102,865 adults who enrolled in 2009-2021.

Consumption of artificial sweeteners was determined from repeated 24-hour dietary records that included brand names of processed foods.

At enrollment, participants were an average age of 42 years and 79% were women. They had a mean BMI of 24 kg/m2. On average, they had 5.6 dietary records.

Most participants did not consume artificial sweeteners (63%); those who did were classified as lower consumers (18.5%) or higher consumers (18.5%).

Aspartame was the most common artificial sweetener (58% of intake), followed by acesulfame-K (29%) and sucralose (10%), and these were mostly in soft drinks (53%), table-top sweeteners (29%), and yogurt/cottage cheese (8%). 

During a median 7.7-year follow-up, 3,358 incident cancers – 982 breast, 403 prostate, and 2023 obesity-related cancers – were diagnosed in participants who were a mean age of 60.

Compared with nonconsumers, higher consumers of artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of overall cancer (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.25; P-trend = .002), after adjusting for age, sex, education, physical activity, smoking, BMI, height, weight gain during follow-up, diabetes, family history of cancer, number of 24-hour dietary records, baseline caloric intake, and consumption of alcohol, sodium, saturated fatty acids, fiber, sugar, fruit and vegetables, whole-grain foods, and dairy products.

Participants who were higher consumers of aspartame had an increased risk of overall cancer (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.28; P = .002), as did higher consumers of acesulfame-K (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.26; P = .007), compared with nonconsumers, after adjusting for the multiple variables. 

Higher consumers of aspartame had a higher risk of breast cancer (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.48; P = .036) and obesity-related cancers (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.32; P = .026) than nonconsumers.

Higher consumers of total artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of obesity-related cancers than nonconsumers (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.00-1.28; P = .036).

The researchers acknowledged that study limitations include potential selection bias, residual confounding, and reverse causality, though sensitivity analyses were performed to address these concerns.

The NutriNet-Santé study was supported by several French public institutions. Ms. Debras was supported by a grant from the French National Cancer Institute. This project has received funding from the European Research Council, the French National Cancer Institute, the French Ministry of Health, and the IdEx Université de Paris. Dr. Sievenpiper has reported receiving funding from the Tate and Lyle Nutritional Research Fund at the University of Toronto, the Nutrition Trialists Fund at the University of Toronto, and the International Sweeteners Association.

Correction, 3/31: An earlier version of this article erroneously stated that there was a 22% increased risk of overall cancer, rather than breast cancer. 

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

Vaccination strategies for people with rheumatic diseases have received significant scrutiny in regard to COVID-19 vaccines. People with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at higher risk for adverse outcomes related to COVID-19 but also may have reduced immunogenicity to COVID-19 vaccines; thus, temporary withdrawal of medications has been suggested. Renner Araujo and colleagues report the results of a single-center randomized study from Brazil looking at the immune response to two doses of the Sinovac-CoronaVac vaccine in 129 patients with RA. They found that those who stopped methotrexate for 2 weeks after both doses had a higher rate of seroconversion, based on immunoglobulin (Ig) G positivity (78% vs. 54%), than those who remained on methotrexate. Antibody titers were also higher in the "methotrexate-hold" group. Flare rates were higher, based on the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) — though not on the Disease Activity Scale-28 (DAS-28) — in patients who withdrew from methotrexate. This information is interesting with respect to the use of future inactivated virus vaccines, though its applicability to mRNA vaccines, other than predicting the possibility of flare, is less clear. However, the results could be useful in informed discussions and decision-making regarding withdrawing immunosuppressive drugs.

Some people with rheumatic diseases have been concerned about flares of disease activity related to COVID-19 vaccination. Tedeschi and colleagues conducted a prospective observational study of 71 patients with RA who were previously inoculated against COVID-19 with two mRNA vaccine doses or one adenovirus vector vaccine dose. Using the patient-reported Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index-5 (RADAI-5), they measured disease activity weekly from study enrollment through 4 weeks after an additional dose. They did not find any change in mean RADAI-5 score between pre- and post additional dose, nor was disease activity different in patients who stopped disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) compared with those who did not. The study also examined flow cytometry of lymphocyte populations among a subset of these patients (n = 27) and found no significant differences in T peripheral helper cells, T follicular helper cells, age-associated B cells, and plasmablasts among patients before and after the additional vaccine dose. Though the flow cytometry data are difficult to generalize, given the presumed heterogeneity and small number of patients, the lack of change in RA disease activity after the additional vaccine dose is reassuring.

Achievement of remission in patients with RA is also an area of continued interest, especially because of the difficulty of reaching this target under real-world conditions. Larid and colleagues report the prognostic factors of remission and characteristics of 215 patients with RA over 7 years of follow-up at an academic hospital in France. Notably, 33% of patients were in remission at 1 year, of whom 76% remained in remission at 7 years. However, 48% of patients who were not in remission at 1 year achieved remission at 7 years; 58% of study participants were in remission in total at 7 years of follow-up. Those in remission were more frequently being prescribed both conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) and biologic DMARD (bDMARD), while those not in remission at 7 years were receiving corticosteroids at higher doses. Owing to the lack of more precise treatment information, as well as the large number of patients who did not complete the 7-year follow-up visit, drawing conclusions is difficult. While we cannot say, based on these results, that use of certain medication regimens or strategies is more likely to lead to remission, the data at least lend support to the possibility of achieving remission in the long term.

Finally, Ahmad and colleagues performed a post-hoc analysis of the phase 3b AVERT trial of abatacept vs. methotrexate; 172 patients in remission were evaluated at 6 and 12 months after withdrawal of abatacept + methotrexate, abatacept monotherapy, or methotrexate monotherapy. Similar proportions of patients in all three treatment groups experienced a flare (about 58% at 6 months and 66% at 12 months). Patients with higher Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) scores and evidence of erosions on MRI at withdrawal were more likely to experience a flare, consistent with prior studies. This highlights potential predictors of withdrawal from therapy. Given the lack of significant difference between the treatment groups, however, it does raise the question of why combination therapy with abatacept and methotrexate is more likely to lead to patients achieving remission in studies without as big an effect on drug-free remission after withdrawal. A more stringent definition of remission rather than DAS-28 C-reactive protein may be desirable.

Vaccination strategies for people with rheumatic diseases have received significant scrutiny in regard to COVID-19 vaccines. People with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at higher risk for adverse outcomes related to COVID-19 but also may have reduced immunogenicity to COVID-19 vaccines; thus, temporary withdrawal of medications has been suggested. Renner Araujo and colleagues report the results of a single-center randomized study from Brazil looking at the immune response to two doses of the Sinovac-CoronaVac vaccine in 129 patients with RA. They found that those who stopped methotrexate for 2 weeks after both doses had a higher rate of seroconversion, based on immunoglobulin (Ig) G positivity (78% vs. 54%), than those who remained on methotrexate. Antibody titers were also higher in the "methotrexate-hold" group. Flare rates were higher, based on the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) — though not on the Disease Activity Scale-28 (DAS-28) — in patients who withdrew from methotrexate. This information is interesting with respect to the use of future inactivated virus vaccines, though its applicability to mRNA vaccines, other than predicting the possibility of flare, is less clear. However, the results could be useful in informed discussions and decision-making regarding withdrawing immunosuppressive drugs.

Some people with rheumatic diseases have been concerned about flares of disease activity related to COVID-19 vaccination. Tedeschi and colleagues conducted a prospective observational study of 71 patients with RA who were previously inoculated against COVID-19 with two mRNA vaccine doses or one adenovirus vector vaccine dose. Using the patient-reported Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index-5 (RADAI-5), they measured disease activity weekly from study enrollment through 4 weeks after an additional dose. They did not find any change in mean RADAI-5 score between pre- and post additional dose, nor was disease activity different in patients who stopped disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) compared with those who did not. The study also examined flow cytometry of lymphocyte populations among a subset of these patients (n = 27) and found no significant differences in T peripheral helper cells, T follicular helper cells, age-associated B cells, and plasmablasts among patients before and after the additional vaccine dose. Though the flow cytometry data are difficult to generalize, given the presumed heterogeneity and small number of patients, the lack of change in RA disease activity after the additional vaccine dose is reassuring.

Achievement of remission in patients with RA is also an area of continued interest, especially because of the difficulty of reaching this target under real-world conditions. Larid and colleagues report the prognostic factors of remission and characteristics of 215 patients with RA over 7 years of follow-up at an academic hospital in France. Notably, 33% of patients were in remission at 1 year, of whom 76% remained in remission at 7 years. However, 48% of patients who were not in remission at 1 year achieved remission at 7 years; 58% of study participants were in remission in total at 7 years of follow-up. Those in remission were more frequently being prescribed both conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) and biologic DMARD (bDMARD), while those not in remission at 7 years were receiving corticosteroids at higher doses. Owing to the lack of more precise treatment information, as well as the large number of patients who did not complete the 7-year follow-up visit, drawing conclusions is difficult. While we cannot say, based on these results, that use of certain medication regimens or strategies is more likely to lead to remission, the data at least lend support to the possibility of achieving remission in the long term.

Finally, Ahmad and colleagues performed a post-hoc analysis of the phase 3b AVERT trial of abatacept vs. methotrexate; 172 patients in remission were evaluated at 6 and 12 months after withdrawal of abatacept + methotrexate, abatacept monotherapy, or methotrexate monotherapy. Similar proportions of patients in all three treatment groups experienced a flare (about 58% at 6 months and 66% at 12 months). Patients with higher Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) scores and evidence of erosions on MRI at withdrawal were more likely to experience a flare, consistent with prior studies. This highlights potential predictors of withdrawal from therapy. Given the lack of significant difference between the treatment groups, however, it does raise the question of why combination therapy with abatacept and methotrexate is more likely to lead to patients achieving remission in studies without as big an effect on drug-free remission after withdrawal. A more stringent definition of remission rather than DAS-28 C-reactive protein may be desirable.

Vaccination strategies for people with rheumatic diseases have received significant scrutiny in regard to COVID-19 vaccines. People with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at higher risk for adverse outcomes related to COVID-19 but also may have reduced immunogenicity to COVID-19 vaccines; thus, temporary withdrawal of medications has been suggested. Renner Araujo and colleagues report the results of a single-center randomized study from Brazil looking at the immune response to two doses of the Sinovac-CoronaVac vaccine in 129 patients with RA. They found that those who stopped methotrexate for 2 weeks after both doses had a higher rate of seroconversion, based on immunoglobulin (Ig) G positivity (78% vs. 54%), than those who remained on methotrexate. Antibody titers were also higher in the "methotrexate-hold" group. Flare rates were higher, based on the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) — though not on the Disease Activity Scale-28 (DAS-28) — in patients who withdrew from methotrexate. This information is interesting with respect to the use of future inactivated virus vaccines, though its applicability to mRNA vaccines, other than predicting the possibility of flare, is less clear. However, the results could be useful in informed discussions and decision-making regarding withdrawing immunosuppressive drugs.

Some people with rheumatic diseases have been concerned about flares of disease activity related to COVID-19 vaccination. Tedeschi and colleagues conducted a prospective observational study of 71 patients with RA who were previously inoculated against COVID-19 with two mRNA vaccine doses or one adenovirus vector vaccine dose. Using the patient-reported Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index-5 (RADAI-5), they measured disease activity weekly from study enrollment through 4 weeks after an additional dose. They did not find any change in mean RADAI-5 score between pre- and post additional dose, nor was disease activity different in patients who stopped disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) compared with those who did not. The study also examined flow cytometry of lymphocyte populations among a subset of these patients (n = 27) and found no significant differences in T peripheral helper cells, T follicular helper cells, age-associated B cells, and plasmablasts among patients before and after the additional vaccine dose. Though the flow cytometry data are difficult to generalize, given the presumed heterogeneity and small number of patients, the lack of change in RA disease activity after the additional vaccine dose is reassuring.

Achievement of remission in patients with RA is also an area of continued interest, especially because of the difficulty of reaching this target under real-world conditions. Larid and colleagues report the prognostic factors of remission and characteristics of 215 patients with RA over 7 years of follow-up at an academic hospital in France. Notably, 33% of patients were in remission at 1 year, of whom 76% remained in remission at 7 years. However, 48% of patients who were not in remission at 1 year achieved remission at 7 years; 58% of study participants were in remission in total at 7 years of follow-up. Those in remission were more frequently being prescribed both conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) and biologic DMARD (bDMARD), while those not in remission at 7 years were receiving corticosteroids at higher doses. Owing to the lack of more precise treatment information, as well as the large number of patients who did not complete the 7-year follow-up visit, drawing conclusions is difficult. While we cannot say, based on these results, that use of certain medication regimens or strategies is more likely to lead to remission, the data at least lend support to the possibility of achieving remission in the long term.

Finally, Ahmad and colleagues performed a post-hoc analysis of the phase 3b AVERT trial of abatacept vs. methotrexate; 172 patients in remission were evaluated at 6 and 12 months after withdrawal of abatacept + methotrexate, abatacept monotherapy, or methotrexate monotherapy. Similar proportions of patients in all three treatment groups experienced a flare (about 58% at 6 months and 66% at 12 months). Patients with higher Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) scores and evidence of erosions on MRI at withdrawal were more likely to experience a flare, consistent with prior studies. This highlights potential predictors of withdrawal from therapy. Given the lack of significant difference between the treatment groups, however, it does raise the question of why combination therapy with abatacept and methotrexate is more likely to lead to patients achieving remission in studies without as big an effect on drug-free remission after withdrawal. A more stringent definition of remission rather than DAS-28 C-reactive protein may be desirable.

CHICAGO - Posterior-stabilized (PS) bearings used in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may increase the risk of revision compared with bearings of other design, new data suggest.

That possibility has previously been reported in studies outside the United States, and now an analysis of more than 300,000 cases in the American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR) suggests it’s the case in the United States as well.

Principal investigator Ryland Kagan, MD, of the department of orthopedic surgery at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, told this news organization, “What’s unique about our experience in the U.S. is our overall high use of PS implants.”

More than half of TKAs in the United States use the PS bearings; in comparison, in Australia and European countries, PS use is closer to 20%, he said. Because of this disparity, previous studies have not been seen as generalizable to the United States, he said.

Researchers used AJRR data from 2012 to 2019 and identified all primary TKA procedures performed during that period. Cases were linked to supplemental Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data to find revision procedures that may not have been included in the AJRR database.

Jamil Kendall, MD, an orthopedic resident at OHSU, was first author on the study. The team evaluated patient demographics, polyethylene characteristics, procedure dates, and cause for revision in the 305,279 cases.

Of those cases in which implant characteristics were reported, 161,486 (52.9%) patients received PS bearings, and 143,793 (47.1%) received minimally stabilized bearings.

The researchers compared three minimally stabilized implants (cruciate retaining [CR], anterior stabilized [AS], or pivot bearing designs) with each other for risk and then compared minimally stabilized options as a group with the PS bearings.

They found no significant differences among the three minimally stabilized options.

But revision risk was higher when they compared the minimally stabilized implants with the PS bearing implants. Use of PS bearings had a hazard ratio of 1.25 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.3; P < .0001) for all-cause revision and an HR of 1.18 (95% CI, 1.0-1.4; P = .02) for infection.

Among the patients with minimally stabilized bearings, 1,693 (1.2%) underwent revision for any cause, and 334 (0.2%) underwent revision for infection. For patients with PS bearings, 2,406 (1.5%) underwent revision for any cause, and 446 (0.3%) underwent revision for infection.

Even a small difference significant

Dr. Kagan said, “The difference isn’t dramatic, but when you think of the total number of total knee arthroplasties done, you’re talking about millions of procedures. Even with a small increased risk, you’re going to see a large influence for a population.”

Richard Lynn Illgen, MD, director of the University of Wisconsin-Madison joint replacement program, told this news organization this work identifies a trend, but he pointed out that registry-based studies have important limitations.

“They cannot establish causality,” he said. “There are many potential confounding variables and potential selection biases that could affect the study. Specifically, the study did not control for degree of deformity or medical comorbidities. Although some surgeons routinely use PS designs for all primary TKAs, others use PS designs for patients with more severe deformities. It is possible that PS designs were used more frequently in patients with a greater degree of deformity, and this could introduce a selection bias.”

He added that no data were included to enable stratification of groups according to medical comorbidities.

“It is possible that selection bias exists comparing the relative degree of medical comorbidities between patients in the PS TKA and minimally constrained TKA groups,” Dr. Illgen said.

He said further prospective, randomized studies are needed to eliminate selection bias and to better determine whether the observed pattern of increased risk of revision holds up, compared with the minimally supported versions.

The authors acknowledged those limitations, but Dr. Kagan said the high percentage of PS procedures in the United States helps mitigate potential bias.

Dr. Illgen serves as a consultant and developer for Stryker, is chair of the AAOS AJRR Research Projects Subcommittee, and is a member of the AJRR Steering Committee. Dr. Kagan receives research support from KCI, Ortho Development, and Smith & Nephew, where he is also a paid consultant. Dr. Kendall reports no relevant financial relationships. Another coauthor of the study is a paid consultant for 3M, Heraeus, Immunis, Smith & Nephew, Zimmer Biomet, and Total Joint Orthopedics and has stock or stock options in Joint Development.

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

CHICAGO - Posterior-stabilized (PS) bearings used in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may increase the risk of revision compared with bearings of other design, new data suggest.

That possibility has previously been reported in studies outside the United States, and now an analysis of more than 300,000 cases in the American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR) suggests it’s the case in the United States as well.

Principal investigator Ryland Kagan, MD, of the department of orthopedic surgery at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, told this news organization, “What’s unique about our experience in the U.S. is our overall high use of PS implants.”

More than half of TKAs in the United States use the PS bearings; in comparison, in Australia and European countries, PS use is closer to 20%, he said. Because of this disparity, previous studies have not been seen as generalizable to the United States, he said.

Researchers used AJRR data from 2012 to 2019 and identified all primary TKA procedures performed during that period. Cases were linked to supplemental Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data to find revision procedures that may not have been included in the AJRR database.

Jamil Kendall, MD, an orthopedic resident at OHSU, was first author on the study. The team evaluated patient demographics, polyethylene characteristics, procedure dates, and cause for revision in the 305,279 cases.

Of those cases in which implant characteristics were reported, 161,486 (52.9%) patients received PS bearings, and 143,793 (47.1%) received minimally stabilized bearings.

The researchers compared three minimally stabilized implants (cruciate retaining [CR], anterior stabilized [AS], or pivot bearing designs) with each other for risk and then compared minimally stabilized options as a group with the PS bearings.

They found no significant differences among the three minimally stabilized options.

But revision risk was higher when they compared the minimally stabilized implants with the PS bearing implants. Use of PS bearings had a hazard ratio of 1.25 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.3; P < .0001) for all-cause revision and an HR of 1.18 (95% CI, 1.0-1.4; P = .02) for infection.

Among the patients with minimally stabilized bearings, 1,693 (1.2%) underwent revision for any cause, and 334 (0.2%) underwent revision for infection. For patients with PS bearings, 2,406 (1.5%) underwent revision for any cause, and 446 (0.3%) underwent revision for infection.

Even a small difference significant

Dr. Kagan said, “The difference isn’t dramatic, but when you think of the total number of total knee arthroplasties done, you’re talking about millions of procedures. Even with a small increased risk, you’re going to see a large influence for a population.”

Richard Lynn Illgen, MD, director of the University of Wisconsin-Madison joint replacement program, told this news organization this work identifies a trend, but he pointed out that registry-based studies have important limitations.

“They cannot establish causality,” he said. “There are many potential confounding variables and potential selection biases that could affect the study. Specifically, the study did not control for degree of deformity or medical comorbidities. Although some surgeons routinely use PS designs for all primary TKAs, others use PS designs for patients with more severe deformities. It is possible that PS designs were used more frequently in patients with a greater degree of deformity, and this could introduce a selection bias.”

He added that no data were included to enable stratification of groups according to medical comorbidities.

“It is possible that selection bias exists comparing the relative degree of medical comorbidities between patients in the PS TKA and minimally constrained TKA groups,” Dr. Illgen said.

He said further prospective, randomized studies are needed to eliminate selection bias and to better determine whether the observed pattern of increased risk of revision holds up, compared with the minimally supported versions.

The authors acknowledged those limitations, but Dr. Kagan said the high percentage of PS procedures in the United States helps mitigate potential bias.

Dr. Illgen serves as a consultant and developer for Stryker, is chair of the AAOS AJRR Research Projects Subcommittee, and is a member of the AJRR Steering Committee. Dr. Kagan receives research support from KCI, Ortho Development, and Smith & Nephew, where he is also a paid consultant. Dr. Kendall reports no relevant financial relationships. Another coauthor of the study is a paid consultant for 3M, Heraeus, Immunis, Smith & Nephew, Zimmer Biomet, and Total Joint Orthopedics and has stock or stock options in Joint Development.

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

CHICAGO - Posterior-stabilized (PS) bearings used in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may increase the risk of revision compared with bearings of other design, new data suggest.

That possibility has previously been reported in studies outside the United States, and now an analysis of more than 300,000 cases in the American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR) suggests it’s the case in the United States as well.

Principal investigator Ryland Kagan, MD, of the department of orthopedic surgery at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, told this news organization, “What’s unique about our experience in the U.S. is our overall high use of PS implants.”

More than half of TKAs in the United States use the PS bearings; in comparison, in Australia and European countries, PS use is closer to 20%, he said. Because of this disparity, previous studies have not been seen as generalizable to the United States, he said.

Researchers used AJRR data from 2012 to 2019 and identified all primary TKA procedures performed during that period. Cases were linked to supplemental Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data to find revision procedures that may not have been included in the AJRR database.

Jamil Kendall, MD, an orthopedic resident at OHSU, was first author on the study. The team evaluated patient demographics, polyethylene characteristics, procedure dates, and cause for revision in the 305,279 cases.

Of those cases in which implant characteristics were reported, 161,486 (52.9%) patients received PS bearings, and 143,793 (47.1%) received minimally stabilized bearings.

The researchers compared three minimally stabilized implants (cruciate retaining [CR], anterior stabilized [AS], or pivot bearing designs) with each other for risk and then compared minimally stabilized options as a group with the PS bearings.

They found no significant differences among the three minimally stabilized options.

But revision risk was higher when they compared the minimally stabilized implants with the PS bearing implants. Use of PS bearings had a hazard ratio of 1.25 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.3; P < .0001) for all-cause revision and an HR of 1.18 (95% CI, 1.0-1.4; P = .02) for infection.

Among the patients with minimally stabilized bearings, 1,693 (1.2%) underwent revision for any cause, and 334 (0.2%) underwent revision for infection. For patients with PS bearings, 2,406 (1.5%) underwent revision for any cause, and 446 (0.3%) underwent revision for infection.

Even a small difference significant

Dr. Kagan said, “The difference isn’t dramatic, but when you think of the total number of total knee arthroplasties done, you’re talking about millions of procedures. Even with a small increased risk, you’re going to see a large influence for a population.”

Richard Lynn Illgen, MD, director of the University of Wisconsin-Madison joint replacement program, told this news organization this work identifies a trend, but he pointed out that registry-based studies have important limitations.

“They cannot establish causality,” he said. “There are many potential confounding variables and potential selection biases that could affect the study. Specifically, the study did not control for degree of deformity or medical comorbidities. Although some surgeons routinely use PS designs for all primary TKAs, others use PS designs for patients with more severe deformities. It is possible that PS designs were used more frequently in patients with a greater degree of deformity, and this could introduce a selection bias.”

He added that no data were included to enable stratification of groups according to medical comorbidities.

“It is possible that selection bias exists comparing the relative degree of medical comorbidities between patients in the PS TKA and minimally constrained TKA groups,” Dr. Illgen said.

He said further prospective, randomized studies are needed to eliminate selection bias and to better determine whether the observed pattern of increased risk of revision holds up, compared with the minimally supported versions.

The authors acknowledged those limitations, but Dr. Kagan said the high percentage of PS procedures in the United States helps mitigate potential bias.

Dr. Illgen serves as a consultant and developer for Stryker, is chair of the AAOS AJRR Research Projects Subcommittee, and is a member of the AJRR Steering Committee. Dr. Kagan receives research support from KCI, Ortho Development, and Smith & Nephew, where he is also a paid consultant. Dr. Kendall reports no relevant financial relationships. Another coauthor of the study is a paid consultant for 3M, Heraeus, Immunis, Smith & Nephew, Zimmer Biomet, and Total Joint Orthopedics and has stock or stock options in Joint Development.

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

CHICAGO - Patients 80 years or older undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have similar odds of complications, compared with 65- to 79-year-old patients, an analysis of more than 1.7 million cases suggests.

Priscilla Varghese, MBA, MS, and an MD candidate at State University of New York, Brooklyn, led the research, presented at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 2022 annual meeting.

Ms. Varghese’s team queried a Medicare claims database for the years 2005-2014 and analyzed information from 295,908 octogenarians and 1.4 million control patients aged 65-79 who received TKA.

Study group patients were randomly matched to controls in a 1:5 ratio according to gender and comorbidities, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, and kidney failure.

Octogenarians were found to have higher incidence and odds of 90-day readmission rates (10.59% vs. 9.35%; odds ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.16; P < .0001).   

Hospital stays were also longer (3.69 days ± 1.95 vs. 3.23 days ± 1.83; P < .0001), compared with controls.

Reassuring older patients

However, Ms. Varghese told this news organization she was surprised to find that the older group had equal incidence and odds of developing medical complications (1.26% vs. 1.26%; OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.03; P =.99).

“That’s a really important piece of information to have when we are advising 80-year-olds – to be able to say their risk of adverse outcomes is similar to someone who’s 10 years, 15 years younger,” she said. “It’s really reassuring.”

These results offer good news to older patients who might be hesitant to undergo the surgery, and good news in general as life expectancy increases and people stay active long into their later years, forecasting the need for more knee replacements.

The number of total knee replacements is expected to rise dramatically in the United States.

In a 2017 study published in Osteoarthritis Cartilage, the authors write, “the number of TKAs in the U.S., which already has the highest [incidence rate] of knee arthroplasty in the world, is expected to increase 143% by 2050.”

Thomas Fleeter, MD, an orthopedic surgeon practicing in Reston, Virginia, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization this study reinforces that “it’s OK to do knee replacements in elderly people; you just have to pick the right ones.”

He pointed out that the study also showed that the 80-and-older patients don’t have the added risk of loosening their mechanical components after the surgery, likely because they are less inclined than their younger counterparts to follow surgery with strenuous activities.

In a subanalysis, revision rates were also lower for the octogenarians (0.01% vs. 0.02% for controls).

Octogenarians who had TKA were found to have lower incidence and odds (1.6% vs. 1.93%; OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.88, P < .001) of implant-related complications, compared with the younger group.

The increased length of stay would be expected, Dr. Fleeter said, because those 80-plus may need a bit more help getting out of bed and may not have as much support at home.

A total knee replacement can have the substantial benefit of improving octogenarians’ ability to maintain their independence longer by facilitating driving or walking.

“It’s a small and manageable risk if you pick the right patients,” he said.

Demand for TKAs rises as population ages

As patients are living longer and wanting to maintain their mobility and as obesity rates are rising, more older patients will seek total knee replacements, especially since the payoff is high, Ms. Varghese noted.

“People who undergo this operation tend to show remarkable decreases in pain and increases in range of motion,” she said.

This study has the advantage of a more personalized look at risks of TKA because it stratifies age groups.

“The literature tends to look at the elderly population as one big cohort – 65 and older,” Ms. Varghese said. “We were able to provide patients more specific data.”

Ms. Varghese and Dr. Fleeter have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO - Patients 80 years or older undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have similar odds of complications, compared with 65- to 79-year-old patients, an analysis of more than 1.7 million cases suggests.

Priscilla Varghese, MBA, MS, and an MD candidate at State University of New York, Brooklyn, led the research, presented at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 2022 annual meeting.

Ms. Varghese’s team queried a Medicare claims database for the years 2005-2014 and analyzed information from 295,908 octogenarians and 1.4 million control patients aged 65-79 who received TKA.

Study group patients were randomly matched to controls in a 1:5 ratio according to gender and comorbidities, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, and kidney failure.

Octogenarians were found to have higher incidence and odds of 90-day readmission rates (10.59% vs. 9.35%; odds ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.16; P < .0001).   

Hospital stays were also longer (3.69 days ± 1.95 vs. 3.23 days ± 1.83; P < .0001), compared with controls.

Reassuring older patients

However, Ms. Varghese told this news organization she was surprised to find that the older group had equal incidence and odds of developing medical complications (1.26% vs. 1.26%; OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.03; P =.99).

“That’s a really important piece of information to have when we are advising 80-year-olds – to be able to say their risk of adverse outcomes is similar to someone who’s 10 years, 15 years younger,” she said. “It’s really reassuring.”

These results offer good news to older patients who might be hesitant to undergo the surgery, and good news in general as life expectancy increases and people stay active long into their later years, forecasting the need for more knee replacements.

The number of total knee replacements is expected to rise dramatically in the United States.

In a 2017 study published in Osteoarthritis Cartilage, the authors write, “the number of TKAs in the U.S., which already has the highest [incidence rate] of knee arthroplasty in the world, is expected to increase 143% by 2050.”

Thomas Fleeter, MD, an orthopedic surgeon practicing in Reston, Virginia, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization this study reinforces that “it’s OK to do knee replacements in elderly people; you just have to pick the right ones.”

He pointed out that the study also showed that the 80-and-older patients don’t have the added risk of loosening their mechanical components after the surgery, likely because they are less inclined than their younger counterparts to follow surgery with strenuous activities.

In a subanalysis, revision rates were also lower for the octogenarians (0.01% vs. 0.02% for controls).

Octogenarians who had TKA were found to have lower incidence and odds (1.6% vs. 1.93%; OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.88, P < .001) of implant-related complications, compared with the younger group.

The increased length of stay would be expected, Dr. Fleeter said, because those 80-plus may need a bit more help getting out of bed and may not have as much support at home.

A total knee replacement can have the substantial benefit of improving octogenarians’ ability to maintain their independence longer by facilitating driving or walking.

“It’s a small and manageable risk if you pick the right patients,” he said.

Demand for TKAs rises as population ages

As patients are living longer and wanting to maintain their mobility and as obesity rates are rising, more older patients will seek total knee replacements, especially since the payoff is high, Ms. Varghese noted.

“People who undergo this operation tend to show remarkable decreases in pain and increases in range of motion,” she said.

This study has the advantage of a more personalized look at risks of TKA because it stratifies age groups.

“The literature tends to look at the elderly population as one big cohort – 65 and older,” Ms. Varghese said. “We were able to provide patients more specific data.”

Ms. Varghese and Dr. Fleeter have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO - Patients 80 years or older undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have similar odds of complications, compared with 65- to 79-year-old patients, an analysis of more than 1.7 million cases suggests.

Priscilla Varghese, MBA, MS, and an MD candidate at State University of New York, Brooklyn, led the research, presented at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 2022 annual meeting.

Ms. Varghese’s team queried a Medicare claims database for the years 2005-2014 and analyzed information from 295,908 octogenarians and 1.4 million control patients aged 65-79 who received TKA.

Study group patients were randomly matched to controls in a 1:5 ratio according to gender and comorbidities, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, and kidney failure.

Octogenarians were found to have higher incidence and odds of 90-day readmission rates (10.59% vs. 9.35%; odds ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.16; P < .0001).   

Hospital stays were also longer (3.69 days ± 1.95 vs. 3.23 days ± 1.83; P < .0001), compared with controls.

Reassuring older patients

However, Ms. Varghese told this news organization she was surprised to find that the older group had equal incidence and odds of developing medical complications (1.26% vs. 1.26%; OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.03; P =.99).

“That’s a really important piece of information to have when we are advising 80-year-olds – to be able to say their risk of adverse outcomes is similar to someone who’s 10 years, 15 years younger,” she said. “It’s really reassuring.”

These results offer good news to older patients who might be hesitant to undergo the surgery, and good news in general as life expectancy increases and people stay active long into their later years, forecasting the need for more knee replacements.

The number of total knee replacements is expected to rise dramatically in the United States.

In a 2017 study published in Osteoarthritis Cartilage, the authors write, “the number of TKAs in the U.S., which already has the highest [incidence rate] of knee arthroplasty in the world, is expected to increase 143% by 2050.”

Thomas Fleeter, MD, an orthopedic surgeon practicing in Reston, Virginia, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization this study reinforces that “it’s OK to do knee replacements in elderly people; you just have to pick the right ones.”

He pointed out that the study also showed that the 80-and-older patients don’t have the added risk of loosening their mechanical components after the surgery, likely because they are less inclined than their younger counterparts to follow surgery with strenuous activities.

In a subanalysis, revision rates were also lower for the octogenarians (0.01% vs. 0.02% for controls).

Octogenarians who had TKA were found to have lower incidence and odds (1.6% vs. 1.93%; OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.88, P < .001) of implant-related complications, compared with the younger group.

The increased length of stay would be expected, Dr. Fleeter said, because those 80-plus may need a bit more help getting out of bed and may not have as much support at home.

A total knee replacement can have the substantial benefit of improving octogenarians’ ability to maintain their independence longer by facilitating driving or walking.

“It’s a small and manageable risk if you pick the right patients,” he said.

Demand for TKAs rises as population ages

As patients are living longer and wanting to maintain their mobility and as obesity rates are rising, more older patients will seek total knee replacements, especially since the payoff is high, Ms. Varghese noted.

“People who undergo this operation tend to show remarkable decreases in pain and increases in range of motion,” she said.

This study has the advantage of a more personalized look at risks of TKA because it stratifies age groups.

“The literature tends to look at the elderly population as one big cohort – 65 and older,” Ms. Varghese said. “We were able to provide patients more specific data.”

Ms. Varghese and Dr. Fleeter have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The vast majority of U.S. physicians regularly treat patients with socioeconomic challenges – from financial instability and a lack of transportation to eviction threats and domestic problems – but are deeply frustrated by their inability to adequately address these issues, a new survey has found.

The survey, conducted in February by The Physicians Foundation, queried 1,502 doctors (500 primary care physicians and 1,002 specialists) about their experience with social drivers – also known as determinants – of health (SDOH). Among the key findings: More than 60% of respondents said they had little or no time to effectively address the SDOH needs of their patients, yet nearly 9 in 10 (87%) said they would like to be able to do so in the future.

Most (63%) said they feel burned out when they try to help patients with their SDOH needs; and nearly 7 in 10 (68%) said managing SDOH for their patients has a “major impact” on their mental health and well-being.

This news organization spoke with Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation, about the findings.

Q: These issues aren’t new. Why did you undertake this survey now?

The Physicians Foundation has surveyed America’s physicians for a decade on their practice and the broader health care environment, which included questions on SDOH. However, this is the first one we’ve done that concentrated entirely on SDOH. We think it’s particularly timely now.

The COVID-19 pandemic focused a very harsh spotlight on the tremendous impact SDOH can have on patient health, care outcomes, costs, physician burden, and the physician-patient relationship. It’s become increasingly apparent that for our country to achieve health equity and improve our health care system, including physician satisfaction, we must address the impact of SDOH on patients and physicians.

Even before the pandemic, we had an epidemic of physician burnout. That was driven in large part by the huge amount of time being wasted on administrative tasks such as pre-approvals, insurance forms, and working with electronic medical records. Now we’re recognizing that the causes of physician burnout are much larger than that.

Q: The results of the survey show that physicians are seeing the effects of SDOH no matter where they practice – rural (81%), urban (81%), suburban (73%) – how old they are, or their own racial or ethnic heritage. Is that surprising?

I was, in fact, surprised by the pervasiveness. Every physician is seeing the impact of social drivers on their patients every day. For a long time, physicians tried to ignore these problems because they couldn’t deal with them at the practice level; it was too big a task. But if we’re going to decrease the cost of health care and increase the quality of outcomes and decrease the enormous disparities we see, we’re going to have to deal with these SDOH.

I think the problem is grim, but physicians recognize this issue. It’s not one that they traditionally are trained to deal with – and, more importantly, they are not reimbursed on these issues. But despite that, they all want to help.

Q: The survey found that 83% of physicians believed their inability to adequately deal with SDOH moderately (60%) or significantly (23%) contributed to their feelings of burnout. Why do you think physicians find these problems so frustrating and stressful?

The definition of burnout is feeling that you’re being held responsible for things you no longer have any control or authority over. A patient’s inability to find transportation to get to an appointment, or who has financial instability that can lead them to have to make a choice between buying medicine or buying food for their family, isn’t something a physician can change. The overwhelming majority of physicians in our survey not only recognize that their patients have needs in these areas, but they don’t have time to be able to deal with them the way that they’d like to – either the resources aren’t there, or they aren’t effective, or they simply don’t know where to turn.

This phenomenon has been quantified by research. A 2020 study in JAMA, by the Physicians Foundation Center for the Study of Physician Practice and Leadership at Weill Cornell Medicine, found that physicians who had a larger burden of patients with more social needs received lower quality scores from Medicare and were less likely to receive bonuses for the care they provided. But the lower scores were related to the patients’ socioeconomic environment and had nothing do with the quality of the care they received.

Q: Researchers have looked at the relationship between SDOH and burnout, and what happens when physicians incorporate resources to address social issues into their practice. And it seems that doing so can help ease burnout at least a little.

That makes perfect sense. You’re now giving them the ability to intervene and do something about a health-related issue that’s going to help their patients get better quicker. At the same time, addressing these social issues can reduce health care costs to the system while improving outcomes. For example, when a patient with diabetes who needs insulin has their electricity cut off, they can no longer refrigerate the insulin. So simply having their electricity restored could keep them from being hospitalized for a diabetic coma because they weren’t able to follow their treatment.

The Health Leads Grow and Catalyze project, which we helped fund in 2014-2018, trained college students to make lists of key resources patients might require – like food, electricity, or heat – and work with physicians in the emergency room to get a prescription for that need. We’ve seen a very excellent return on investment and it’s now in health systems all over the country.

Q: The survey does a good job of highlighting the nature and scope of the problem, but what about solutions? What, if anything, can physicians be doing now to reduce the burden of SDOH for their patients?

The most important thing we’re doing now is drawing attention to the problem, not only to the impact it’s having on patients’ health but the health and well-being of our physicians.

The greatest challenge physicians said they faced was not having enough time to address these issues in their practice, and that stems directly from a lot of time that gets wasted on other things – preapprovals, inefficient EHRs, checkboxes. Our doctors reported that even when they know where the resources exist, they are hard to access or unavailable when they want them.

Almost all these things are going to require innovative solutions, and in some cases might vary by the individual. With transportation, for example, maybe we need a system like Meals on Wheels, where part of the solution could be a system of volunteer drivers to take patients to appointments. Or we might need more funding for transportation directly aimed at people who don’t have access to a bus line. But when you think about how much a ride in an ambulance costs versus how much it would cost to get someone to the doctor before they got sick enough to require that ambulance, that kind of expenditure makes a lot of sense for driving down individual and system costs. 

Q: The problem of unconscious bias in medicine has been receiving increasing attention. Do you think this bias is related to the issues of SDOH the new survey reveals?

Discrimination and racism are examples of SDOH. Implicit bias can happen in any aspect of our lives and interactions with others – so for physicians this can happen with our patients. Our survey didn’t specifically dive into how bias plays a role in addressing the impact of SDOH, but as a society we can no longer ignore any factor that hinders a person from accessing high-quality, cost-effective health care, including our own unconscious bias.

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

The vast majority of U.S. physicians regularly treat patients with socioeconomic challenges – from financial instability and a lack of transportation to eviction threats and domestic problems – but are deeply frustrated by their inability to adequately address these issues, a new survey has found.

The survey, conducted in February by The Physicians Foundation, queried 1,502 doctors (500 primary care physicians and 1,002 specialists) about their experience with social drivers – also known as determinants – of health (SDOH). Among the key findings: More than 60% of respondents said they had little or no time to effectively address the SDOH needs of their patients, yet nearly 9 in 10 (87%) said they would like to be able to do so in the future.

Most (63%) said they feel burned out when they try to help patients with their SDOH needs; and nearly 7 in 10 (68%) said managing SDOH for their patients has a “major impact” on their mental health and well-being.

This news organization spoke with Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation, about the findings.

Q: These issues aren’t new. Why did you undertake this survey now?

The Physicians Foundation has surveyed America’s physicians for a decade on their practice and the broader health care environment, which included questions on SDOH. However, this is the first one we’ve done that concentrated entirely on SDOH. We think it’s particularly timely now.

The COVID-19 pandemic focused a very harsh spotlight on the tremendous impact SDOH can have on patient health, care outcomes, costs, physician burden, and the physician-patient relationship. It’s become increasingly apparent that for our country to achieve health equity and improve our health care system, including physician satisfaction, we must address the impact of SDOH on patients and physicians.

Even before the pandemic, we had an epidemic of physician burnout. That was driven in large part by the huge amount of time being wasted on administrative tasks such as pre-approvals, insurance forms, and working with electronic medical records. Now we’re recognizing that the causes of physician burnout are much larger than that.

Q: The results of the survey show that physicians are seeing the effects of SDOH no matter where they practice – rural (81%), urban (81%), suburban (73%) – how old they are, or their own racial or ethnic heritage. Is that surprising?

I was, in fact, surprised by the pervasiveness. Every physician is seeing the impact of social drivers on their patients every day. For a long time, physicians tried to ignore these problems because they couldn’t deal with them at the practice level; it was too big a task. But if we’re going to decrease the cost of health care and increase the quality of outcomes and decrease the enormous disparities we see, we’re going to have to deal with these SDOH.

I think the problem is grim, but physicians recognize this issue. It’s not one that they traditionally are trained to deal with – and, more importantly, they are not reimbursed on these issues. But despite that, they all want to help.

Q: The survey found that 83% of physicians believed their inability to adequately deal with SDOH moderately (60%) or significantly (23%) contributed to their feelings of burnout. Why do you think physicians find these problems so frustrating and stressful?

The definition of burnout is feeling that you’re being held responsible for things you no longer have any control or authority over. A patient’s inability to find transportation to get to an appointment, or who has financial instability that can lead them to have to make a choice between buying medicine or buying food for their family, isn’t something a physician can change. The overwhelming majority of physicians in our survey not only recognize that their patients have needs in these areas, but they don’t have time to be able to deal with them the way that they’d like to – either the resources aren’t there, or they aren’t effective, or they simply don’t know where to turn.

This phenomenon has been quantified by research. A 2020 study in JAMA, by the Physicians Foundation Center for the Study of Physician Practice and Leadership at Weill Cornell Medicine, found that physicians who had a larger burden of patients with more social needs received lower quality scores from Medicare and were less likely to receive bonuses for the care they provided. But the lower scores were related to the patients’ socioeconomic environment and had nothing do with the quality of the care they received.

Q: Researchers have looked at the relationship between SDOH and burnout, and what happens when physicians incorporate resources to address social issues into their practice. And it seems that doing so can help ease burnout at least a little.

That makes perfect sense. You’re now giving them the ability to intervene and do something about a health-related issue that’s going to help their patients get better quicker. At the same time, addressing these social issues can reduce health care costs to the system while improving outcomes. For example, when a patient with diabetes who needs insulin has their electricity cut off, they can no longer refrigerate the insulin. So simply having their electricity restored could keep them from being hospitalized for a diabetic coma because they weren’t able to follow their treatment.

The Health Leads Grow and Catalyze project, which we helped fund in 2014-2018, trained college students to make lists of key resources patients might require – like food, electricity, or heat – and work with physicians in the emergency room to get a prescription for that need. We’ve seen a very excellent return on investment and it’s now in health systems all over the country.

Q: The survey does a good job of highlighting the nature and scope of the problem, but what about solutions? What, if anything, can physicians be doing now to reduce the burden of SDOH for their patients?

The most important thing we’re doing now is drawing attention to the problem, not only to the impact it’s having on patients’ health but the health and well-being of our physicians.

The greatest challenge physicians said they faced was not having enough time to address these issues in their practice, and that stems directly from a lot of time that gets wasted on other things – preapprovals, inefficient EHRs, checkboxes. Our doctors reported that even when they know where the resources exist, they are hard to access or unavailable when they want them.

Almost all these things are going to require innovative solutions, and in some cases might vary by the individual. With transportation, for example, maybe we need a system like Meals on Wheels, where part of the solution could be a system of volunteer drivers to take patients to appointments. Or we might need more funding for transportation directly aimed at people who don’t have access to a bus line. But when you think about how much a ride in an ambulance costs versus how much it would cost to get someone to the doctor before they got sick enough to require that ambulance, that kind of expenditure makes a lot of sense for driving down individual and system costs. 

Q: The problem of unconscious bias in medicine has been receiving increasing attention. Do you think this bias is related to the issues of SDOH the new survey reveals?

Discrimination and racism are examples of SDOH. Implicit bias can happen in any aspect of our lives and interactions with others – so for physicians this can happen with our patients. Our survey didn’t specifically dive into how bias plays a role in addressing the impact of SDOH, but as a society we can no longer ignore any factor that hinders a person from accessing high-quality, cost-effective health care, including our own unconscious bias.

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

The vast majority of U.S. physicians regularly treat patients with socioeconomic challenges – from financial instability and a lack of transportation to eviction threats and domestic problems – but are deeply frustrated by their inability to adequately address these issues, a new survey has found.

The survey, conducted in February by The Physicians Foundation, queried 1,502 doctors (500 primary care physicians and 1,002 specialists) about their experience with social drivers – also known as determinants – of health (SDOH). Among the key findings: More than 60% of respondents said they had little or no time to effectively address the SDOH needs of their patients, yet nearly 9 in 10 (87%) said they would like to be able to do so in the future.

Most (63%) said they feel burned out when they try to help patients with their SDOH needs; and nearly 7 in 10 (68%) said managing SDOH for their patients has a “major impact” on their mental health and well-being.

This news organization spoke with Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation, about the findings.

Q: These issues aren’t new. Why did you undertake this survey now?

The Physicians Foundation has surveyed America’s physicians for a decade on their practice and the broader health care environment, which included questions on SDOH. However, this is the first one we’ve done that concentrated entirely on SDOH. We think it’s particularly timely now.

The COVID-19 pandemic focused a very harsh spotlight on the tremendous impact SDOH can have on patient health, care outcomes, costs, physician burden, and the physician-patient relationship. It’s become increasingly apparent that for our country to achieve health equity and improve our health care system, including physician satisfaction, we must address the impact of SDOH on patients and physicians.

Even before the pandemic, we had an epidemic of physician burnout. That was driven in large part by the huge amount of time being wasted on administrative tasks such as pre-approvals, insurance forms, and working with electronic medical records. Now we’re recognizing that the causes of physician burnout are much larger than that.

Q: The results of the survey show that physicians are seeing the effects of SDOH no matter where they practice – rural (81%), urban (81%), suburban (73%) – how old they are, or their own racial or ethnic heritage. Is that surprising?

I was, in fact, surprised by the pervasiveness. Every physician is seeing the impact of social drivers on their patients every day. For a long time, physicians tried to ignore these problems because they couldn’t deal with them at the practice level; it was too big a task. But if we’re going to decrease the cost of health care and increase the quality of outcomes and decrease the enormous disparities we see, we’re going to have to deal with these SDOH.

I think the problem is grim, but physicians recognize this issue. It’s not one that they traditionally are trained to deal with – and, more importantly, they are not reimbursed on these issues. But despite that, they all want to help.

Q: The survey found that 83% of physicians believed their inability to adequately deal with SDOH moderately (60%) or significantly (23%) contributed to their feelings of burnout. Why do you think physicians find these problems so frustrating and stressful?

The definition of burnout is feeling that you’re being held responsible for things you no longer have any control or authority over. A patient’s inability to find transportation to get to an appointment, or who has financial instability that can lead them to have to make a choice between buying medicine or buying food for their family, isn’t something a physician can change. The overwhelming majority of physicians in our survey not only recognize that their patients have needs in these areas, but they don’t have time to be able to deal with them the way that they’d like to – either the resources aren’t there, or they aren’t effective, or they simply don’t know where to turn.

This phenomenon has been quantified by research. A 2020 study in JAMA, by the Physicians Foundation Center for the Study of Physician Practice and Leadership at Weill Cornell Medicine, found that physicians who had a larger burden of patients with more social needs received lower quality scores from Medicare and were less likely to receive bonuses for the care they provided. But the lower scores were related to the patients’ socioeconomic environment and had nothing do with the quality of the care they received.

Q: Researchers have looked at the relationship between SDOH and burnout, and what happens when physicians incorporate resources to address social issues into their practice. And it seems that doing so can help ease burnout at least a little.

That makes perfect sense. You’re now giving them the ability to intervene and do something about a health-related issue that’s going to help their patients get better quicker. At the same time, addressing these social issues can reduce health care costs to the system while improving outcomes. For example, when a patient with diabetes who needs insulin has their electricity cut off, they can no longer refrigerate the insulin. So simply having their electricity restored could keep them from being hospitalized for a diabetic coma because they weren’t able to follow their treatment.

The Health Leads Grow and Catalyze project, which we helped fund in 2014-2018, trained college students to make lists of key resources patients might require – like food, electricity, or heat – and work with physicians in the emergency room to get a prescription for that need. We’ve seen a very excellent return on investment and it’s now in health systems all over the country.

Q: The survey does a good job of highlighting the nature and scope of the problem, but what about solutions? What, if anything, can physicians be doing now to reduce the burden of SDOH for their patients?

The most important thing we’re doing now is drawing attention to the problem, not only to the impact it’s having on patients’ health but the health and well-being of our physicians.

The greatest challenge physicians said they faced was not having enough time to address these issues in their practice, and that stems directly from a lot of time that gets wasted on other things – preapprovals, inefficient EHRs, checkboxes. Our doctors reported that even when they know where the resources exist, they are hard to access or unavailable when they want them.

Almost all these things are going to require innovative solutions, and in some cases might vary by the individual. With transportation, for example, maybe we need a system like Meals on Wheels, where part of the solution could be a system of volunteer drivers to take patients to appointments. Or we might need more funding for transportation directly aimed at people who don’t have access to a bus line. But when you think about how much a ride in an ambulance costs versus how much it would cost to get someone to the doctor before they got sick enough to require that ambulance, that kind of expenditure makes a lot of sense for driving down individual and system costs. 

Q: The problem of unconscious bias in medicine has been receiving increasing attention. Do you think this bias is related to the issues of SDOH the new survey reveals?

Discrimination and racism are examples of SDOH. Implicit bias can happen in any aspect of our lives and interactions with others – so for physicians this can happen with our patients. Our survey didn’t specifically dive into how bias plays a role in addressing the impact of SDOH, but as a society we can no longer ignore any factor that hinders a person from accessing high-quality, cost-effective health care, including our own unconscious bias.

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