Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

Qualitative interviews with a group of female physicians identified several concerns about fertility and family planning and how those concerns affected their career choices.

Among the findings in a new study were that all 16 women interviewed said medical school education surrounding fertility was inadequate. Many said students should get comprehensive information about fertility’s decline with age and fertility preservation options and that information should be presented early in medical training so students can make choices. Yet, such issues are rarely discussed as part of medical training.

“[I]t would also be helpful for medical students and trainees to know what their options are, what insurance covers ... It wasn’t even touched at my orientation,” said one participant.

The findings from the hour-long interviews were used to build a survey. In a pilot test of the survey on 24 female physicians, researchers found that 71% had delayed childbearing and 67% had altered their careers to build families.

Kathryn S. Smith of Northwestern University, Chicago, led the research. Results were published online in JAMA Network Open.

In addition, 29% of survey respondents turned down career advancement opportunities; 21% chose a different specialty; and 17% changed from an academic to private practice setting to accommodate having children.

Women in the survey cited as factors in their decisions lack of support from physician peers and leadership, particularly around time off for pregnancy, maternity leave, infertility treatments, or parental responsibilities.
 

Results ‘alarming’

“These results are alarming, particularly in light of known gender disparities that exist within academic medicine in time to promotion, achievement of academic rank, and appointment to leadership positions,” the authors wrote.

As of 2020, women made up 43% of medical school faculty but only 21% of department chairs and 19% of medical school deans, according to Association of American Medical Colleges data.

Navigating motherhood as a physician also can take a physical and mental toll. Recent data presented at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) 2022 annual meeting found that one in four physicians who are new mothers report struggling with postpartum depression, a rate twice that of the general population.

And one in four women in a recent survey of 600 female physicians who had attempted conception were diagnosed with infertility.
 

Lack of support ‘pronounced in medicine’

In an invited commentary, Ariela L. Marshall, MD, of the division of hematology-oncology at University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and Arghavan Salles, MD, PhD, of the department of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, noted that career-family struggle is not unique to medicine but “the lack of support for pregnancy is particularly pronounced in medicine.”

The editorialists wrote that they have battled infertility and faced family-building challenges and have intimate familiarity with the struggles.

“Although other workplaces, such as Microsoft, Google, and Facebook, long ago adopted policies to support employees’ family building, including via cryopreservation, those in medicine all too frequently must pay back their parental leave, make up missed call, or even pay back money to their practice,” they wrote. “It is embarrassing that employees of tech companies have better support for reproductive health than do physicians.”

They advocate for change on the entire continuum from fertility awareness and infertility management, bringing children into a family by any method, and child care and career development support for physicians who become parents.

They urge establishing adequate paid parental leave, not just for parents who give birth but for all parents involved in rearing children. They say providing leave to only one parent sets up a discriminatory divide between the partner who continues to work and the person providing care.

Dr. Marshall and Dr. Salles wrote that lack of support is likely part of the reason that 40% of women in medicine switch to part-time positions within their first 6 years in practice.

They also note that too often fertility and family-building discussions focus on cisgendered women who are in heterosexual relationships.

They cite some “nonsensical“ policies around insurance. They give an example of coverage for fertility treatments that often requires trying to conceive before benefits are provided.

“How do two women, two men, or a single person try to conceive?” they ask.

Helen Kang Morgan, MD, clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said that she, too, has made the trade-off the researchers describe.

She was in her first year as a faculty physician at the University of Michigan when she became a mom and decided to go part time.

Unlike some of the women interviewed in the Smith et al. study, she said she felt lucky to have peer support and the support of leaders in her department who made sure she wasn’t derailed from her career path because she chose part-time work for nearly 5 years.

“For some women, part-time is the right choice and for me, at the time, it was the right choice, but it should not be the only choice. It makes it so much harder for women to advance their careers if part-time is the only option,” she said.

Dr. Morgan said this work highlights that conversations about work and parenting needs in medicine have to go from informal conversations to formal conversations.

Department leaders should be asking what female physicians need and what flexibility is needed, she said.

The COVID-19 pandemic showed how bad things could get, she said.

In Ann Arbor, Dr. Morgan noted, schools were virtual until the spring of 2021, putting demands disproportionately on female physicians who absorbed much of the at-home child care responsibilities.

“That created gender inequities I think it is going to take women many, many years to catch up from,” she said.

COVID-19 also, however, forced medicine to incorporate more virtual options, something that should stay in finding solutions to ease the burden on physicians who are mothers, she said.

Reshma Jagsi, MD, deputy chair in the department of radiation oncology at the University of Michigan, said both policies and cultural norms need to change in medicine.

Courtesy Michigan Medicine

Qualitative interviews with a group of female physicians identified several concerns about fertility and family planning and how those concerns affected their career choices.

Among the findings in a new study were that all 16 women interviewed said medical school education surrounding fertility was inadequate. Many said students should get comprehensive information about fertility’s decline with age and fertility preservation options and that information should be presented early in medical training so students can make choices. Yet, such issues are rarely discussed as part of medical training.

“[I]t would also be helpful for medical students and trainees to know what their options are, what insurance covers ... It wasn’t even touched at my orientation,” said one participant.

The findings from the hour-long interviews were used to build a survey. In a pilot test of the survey on 24 female physicians, researchers found that 71% had delayed childbearing and 67% had altered their careers to build families.

Kathryn S. Smith of Northwestern University, Chicago, led the research. Results were published online in JAMA Network Open.

In addition, 29% of survey respondents turned down career advancement opportunities; 21% chose a different specialty; and 17% changed from an academic to private practice setting to accommodate having children.

Women in the survey cited as factors in their decisions lack of support from physician peers and leadership, particularly around time off for pregnancy, maternity leave, infertility treatments, or parental responsibilities.
 

Results ‘alarming’

“These results are alarming, particularly in light of known gender disparities that exist within academic medicine in time to promotion, achievement of academic rank, and appointment to leadership positions,” the authors wrote.

As of 2020, women made up 43% of medical school faculty but only 21% of department chairs and 19% of medical school deans, according to Association of American Medical Colleges data.

Navigating motherhood as a physician also can take a physical and mental toll. Recent data presented at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) 2022 annual meeting found that one in four physicians who are new mothers report struggling with postpartum depression, a rate twice that of the general population.

And one in four women in a recent survey of 600 female physicians who had attempted conception were diagnosed with infertility.
 

Lack of support ‘pronounced in medicine’

In an invited commentary, Ariela L. Marshall, MD, of the division of hematology-oncology at University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and Arghavan Salles, MD, PhD, of the department of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, noted that career-family struggle is not unique to medicine but “the lack of support for pregnancy is particularly pronounced in medicine.”

The editorialists wrote that they have battled infertility and faced family-building challenges and have intimate familiarity with the struggles.

“Although other workplaces, such as Microsoft, Google, and Facebook, long ago adopted policies to support employees’ family building, including via cryopreservation, those in medicine all too frequently must pay back their parental leave, make up missed call, or even pay back money to their practice,” they wrote. “It is embarrassing that employees of tech companies have better support for reproductive health than do physicians.”

They advocate for change on the entire continuum from fertility awareness and infertility management, bringing children into a family by any method, and child care and career development support for physicians who become parents.

They urge establishing adequate paid parental leave, not just for parents who give birth but for all parents involved in rearing children. They say providing leave to only one parent sets up a discriminatory divide between the partner who continues to work and the person providing care.

Dr. Marshall and Dr. Salles wrote that lack of support is likely part of the reason that 40% of women in medicine switch to part-time positions within their first 6 years in practice.

They also note that too often fertility and family-building discussions focus on cisgendered women who are in heterosexual relationships.

They cite some “nonsensical“ policies around insurance. They give an example of coverage for fertility treatments that often requires trying to conceive before benefits are provided.

“How do two women, two men, or a single person try to conceive?” they ask.

Helen Kang Morgan, MD, clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said that she, too, has made the trade-off the researchers describe.

She was in her first year as a faculty physician at the University of Michigan when she became a mom and decided to go part time.

Unlike some of the women interviewed in the Smith et al. study, she said she felt lucky to have peer support and the support of leaders in her department who made sure she wasn’t derailed from her career path because she chose part-time work for nearly 5 years.

“For some women, part-time is the right choice and for me, at the time, it was the right choice, but it should not be the only choice. It makes it so much harder for women to advance their careers if part-time is the only option,” she said.

Dr. Morgan said this work highlights that conversations about work and parenting needs in medicine have to go from informal conversations to formal conversations.

Department leaders should be asking what female physicians need and what flexibility is needed, she said.

The COVID-19 pandemic showed how bad things could get, she said.

In Ann Arbor, Dr. Morgan noted, schools were virtual until the spring of 2021, putting demands disproportionately on female physicians who absorbed much of the at-home child care responsibilities.

“That created gender inequities I think it is going to take women many, many years to catch up from,” she said.

COVID-19 also, however, forced medicine to incorporate more virtual options, something that should stay in finding solutions to ease the burden on physicians who are mothers, she said.

Reshma Jagsi, MD, deputy chair in the department of radiation oncology at the University of Michigan, said both policies and cultural norms need to change in medicine.

Courtesy Michigan Medicine

Qualitative interviews with a group of female physicians identified several concerns about fertility and family planning and how those concerns affected their career choices.

Among the findings in a new study were that all 16 women interviewed said medical school education surrounding fertility was inadequate. Many said students should get comprehensive information about fertility’s decline with age and fertility preservation options and that information should be presented early in medical training so students can make choices. Yet, such issues are rarely discussed as part of medical training.

“[I]t would also be helpful for medical students and trainees to know what their options are, what insurance covers ... It wasn’t even touched at my orientation,” said one participant.

The findings from the hour-long interviews were used to build a survey. In a pilot test of the survey on 24 female physicians, researchers found that 71% had delayed childbearing and 67% had altered their careers to build families.

Kathryn S. Smith of Northwestern University, Chicago, led the research. Results were published online in JAMA Network Open.

In addition, 29% of survey respondents turned down career advancement opportunities; 21% chose a different specialty; and 17% changed from an academic to private practice setting to accommodate having children.

Women in the survey cited as factors in their decisions lack of support from physician peers and leadership, particularly around time off for pregnancy, maternity leave, infertility treatments, or parental responsibilities.
 

Results ‘alarming’

“These results are alarming, particularly in light of known gender disparities that exist within academic medicine in time to promotion, achievement of academic rank, and appointment to leadership positions,” the authors wrote.

As of 2020, women made up 43% of medical school faculty but only 21% of department chairs and 19% of medical school deans, according to Association of American Medical Colleges data.

Navigating motherhood as a physician also can take a physical and mental toll. Recent data presented at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) 2022 annual meeting found that one in four physicians who are new mothers report struggling with postpartum depression, a rate twice that of the general population.

And one in four women in a recent survey of 600 female physicians who had attempted conception were diagnosed with infertility.
 

Lack of support ‘pronounced in medicine’

In an invited commentary, Ariela L. Marshall, MD, of the division of hematology-oncology at University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and Arghavan Salles, MD, PhD, of the department of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, noted that career-family struggle is not unique to medicine but “the lack of support for pregnancy is particularly pronounced in medicine.”

The editorialists wrote that they have battled infertility and faced family-building challenges and have intimate familiarity with the struggles.

“Although other workplaces, such as Microsoft, Google, and Facebook, long ago adopted policies to support employees’ family building, including via cryopreservation, those in medicine all too frequently must pay back their parental leave, make up missed call, or even pay back money to their practice,” they wrote. “It is embarrassing that employees of tech companies have better support for reproductive health than do physicians.”

They advocate for change on the entire continuum from fertility awareness and infertility management, bringing children into a family by any method, and child care and career development support for physicians who become parents.

They urge establishing adequate paid parental leave, not just for parents who give birth but for all parents involved in rearing children. They say providing leave to only one parent sets up a discriminatory divide between the partner who continues to work and the person providing care.

Dr. Marshall and Dr. Salles wrote that lack of support is likely part of the reason that 40% of women in medicine switch to part-time positions within their first 6 years in practice.

They also note that too often fertility and family-building discussions focus on cisgendered women who are in heterosexual relationships.

They cite some “nonsensical“ policies around insurance. They give an example of coverage for fertility treatments that often requires trying to conceive before benefits are provided.

“How do two women, two men, or a single person try to conceive?” they ask.

Helen Kang Morgan, MD, clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said that she, too, has made the trade-off the researchers describe.

She was in her first year as a faculty physician at the University of Michigan when she became a mom and decided to go part time.

Unlike some of the women interviewed in the Smith et al. study, she said she felt lucky to have peer support and the support of leaders in her department who made sure she wasn’t derailed from her career path because she chose part-time work for nearly 5 years.

“For some women, part-time is the right choice and for me, at the time, it was the right choice, but it should not be the only choice. It makes it so much harder for women to advance their careers if part-time is the only option,” she said.

Dr. Morgan said this work highlights that conversations about work and parenting needs in medicine have to go from informal conversations to formal conversations.

Department leaders should be asking what female physicians need and what flexibility is needed, she said.

The COVID-19 pandemic showed how bad things could get, she said.

In Ann Arbor, Dr. Morgan noted, schools were virtual until the spring of 2021, putting demands disproportionately on female physicians who absorbed much of the at-home child care responsibilities.

“That created gender inequities I think it is going to take women many, many years to catch up from,” she said.

COVID-19 also, however, forced medicine to incorporate more virtual options, something that should stay in finding solutions to ease the burden on physicians who are mothers, she said.

Reshma Jagsi, MD, deputy chair in the department of radiation oncology at the University of Michigan, said both policies and cultural norms need to change in medicine.

Courtesy Michigan Medicine

Nearly half of all U.S. adults aged 45 and older have modifiable risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD), including hypertension, low levels of physical activity, and obesity, new research shows.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reveal that among nearly 162,000 adults aged 45 and older who were surveyed in 2019 as part of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), nearly half had high blood pressure and did not achieve aerobic physical activity recommendations. These were the two most common modifiable risk factors for ADRD.

In addition, more than one-third (35%) of adults were obese, 19% had diabetes, 18% had depression, 15% were smokers, 11% had hearing loss, and 10% were binge drinkers.

The findings were published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
 

A missed prevention opportunity

More than 1 in 10 (11.3%) adults surveyed reported subjective cognitive decline (SCD), an early indicator of possible future ADRD. 

The prevalence of SCD increased from about 4% among adults with no modifiable risk factors for ADRD to 25% for those with four or more risk factors.

Adults with SCD were more apt to report having almost all modifiable risk factors and were more likely to report four or more risk factors (34%) than were peers without SCD (13%)

The prevalence of SCD ranged from a high of about 29% in those with depression and 25% in those with hearing loss to 11% in those who reported binge drinking.

In line with previous research, the findings indicate that American Indian or Alaska Native, Black or African American, and Hispanic populations were more likely to have modifiable risk factors for ADRD than other racial groups, the researchers reported.

The CDC’s National Healthy Brain Initiative supports culturally tailored interventions that address ADRD risk factors specifically in these populations.

In 2021, the federal government’s National Plan to Address Alzheimer’s Disease was updated to include a new goal to reduce risk factors for ADRD.

“Given the prevalence of modifiable risk factors for ADRD and anticipated growth of the older adult population and those with ADRD, this new goal has the potential to benefit a large proportion of U.S. adults,” the investigators wrote.

“In addition to helping patients discuss concerns about memory loss, health care professionals should also screen patients for modifiable risk factors, counsel patients with risk factors, and refer them to effective programs and interventions where recommended,” they advised.

A recent report from the Lancet Commission on Dementia Prevention, Intervention, and Care found that modifying 12 risk factors over the life course could delay or prevent 40% of dementia cases.

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

Nearly half of all U.S. adults aged 45 and older have modifiable risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD), including hypertension, low levels of physical activity, and obesity, new research shows.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reveal that among nearly 162,000 adults aged 45 and older who were surveyed in 2019 as part of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), nearly half had high blood pressure and did not achieve aerobic physical activity recommendations. These were the two most common modifiable risk factors for ADRD.

In addition, more than one-third (35%) of adults were obese, 19% had diabetes, 18% had depression, 15% were smokers, 11% had hearing loss, and 10% were binge drinkers.

The findings were published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
 

A missed prevention opportunity

More than 1 in 10 (11.3%) adults surveyed reported subjective cognitive decline (SCD), an early indicator of possible future ADRD. 

The prevalence of SCD increased from about 4% among adults with no modifiable risk factors for ADRD to 25% for those with four or more risk factors.

Adults with SCD were more apt to report having almost all modifiable risk factors and were more likely to report four or more risk factors (34%) than were peers without SCD (13%)

The prevalence of SCD ranged from a high of about 29% in those with depression and 25% in those with hearing loss to 11% in those who reported binge drinking.

In line with previous research, the findings indicate that American Indian or Alaska Native, Black or African American, and Hispanic populations were more likely to have modifiable risk factors for ADRD than other racial groups, the researchers reported.

The CDC’s National Healthy Brain Initiative supports culturally tailored interventions that address ADRD risk factors specifically in these populations.

In 2021, the federal government’s National Plan to Address Alzheimer’s Disease was updated to include a new goal to reduce risk factors for ADRD.

“Given the prevalence of modifiable risk factors for ADRD and anticipated growth of the older adult population and those with ADRD, this new goal has the potential to benefit a large proportion of U.S. adults,” the investigators wrote.

“In addition to helping patients discuss concerns about memory loss, health care professionals should also screen patients for modifiable risk factors, counsel patients with risk factors, and refer them to effective programs and interventions where recommended,” they advised.

A recent report from the Lancet Commission on Dementia Prevention, Intervention, and Care found that modifying 12 risk factors over the life course could delay or prevent 40% of dementia cases.

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

Nearly half of all U.S. adults aged 45 and older have modifiable risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD), including hypertension, low levels of physical activity, and obesity, new research shows.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reveal that among nearly 162,000 adults aged 45 and older who were surveyed in 2019 as part of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), nearly half had high blood pressure and did not achieve aerobic physical activity recommendations. These were the two most common modifiable risk factors for ADRD.

In addition, more than one-third (35%) of adults were obese, 19% had diabetes, 18% had depression, 15% were smokers, 11% had hearing loss, and 10% were binge drinkers.

The findings were published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
 

A missed prevention opportunity

More than 1 in 10 (11.3%) adults surveyed reported subjective cognitive decline (SCD), an early indicator of possible future ADRD. 

The prevalence of SCD increased from about 4% among adults with no modifiable risk factors for ADRD to 25% for those with four or more risk factors.

Adults with SCD were more apt to report having almost all modifiable risk factors and were more likely to report four or more risk factors (34%) than were peers without SCD (13%)

The prevalence of SCD ranged from a high of about 29% in those with depression and 25% in those with hearing loss to 11% in those who reported binge drinking.

In line with previous research, the findings indicate that American Indian or Alaska Native, Black or African American, and Hispanic populations were more likely to have modifiable risk factors for ADRD than other racial groups, the researchers reported.

The CDC’s National Healthy Brain Initiative supports culturally tailored interventions that address ADRD risk factors specifically in these populations.

In 2021, the federal government’s National Plan to Address Alzheimer’s Disease was updated to include a new goal to reduce risk factors for ADRD.

“Given the prevalence of modifiable risk factors for ADRD and anticipated growth of the older adult population and those with ADRD, this new goal has the potential to benefit a large proportion of U.S. adults,” the investigators wrote.

“In addition to helping patients discuss concerns about memory loss, health care professionals should also screen patients for modifiable risk factors, counsel patients with risk factors, and refer them to effective programs and interventions where recommended,” they advised.

A recent report from the Lancet Commission on Dementia Prevention, Intervention, and Care found that modifying 12 risk factors over the life course could delay or prevent 40% of dementia cases.

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

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, signed off May 19 on an advisory panel’s recommendation that children ages 5 to 11 years should receive a Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine booster dose at least 5 months after completion of the primary series.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted 11:1, with one abstention, on a question about whether it recommended these additional shots in this age group.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on May 17 amended the emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to cover a single booster dose for administration to individuals 5 through 11 years of age.

At the request of CDC staff, ACIP members considered whether there should be softer wording for this recommendation, stating that children in this age group “may” receive a booster. This kind of phrasing would better reflect uncertainty about the course of COVID in the months ahead and allow flexibility for a stronger recommendation in the fall.

ACIP panelists and members of key groups argued strongly for a “should” recommendation, despite the uncertainties.

They also called for stronger efforts to make sure eligible children received their initial COVID-19 shots. Data gathered between November and April show only 14.4% of children ages 5 to 11 in rural areas have received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccination, with top rates of 39.8% in large urban communities and 36% in larger suburban regions, CDC staff said.

CDC staff also said nearly 40% of parents in rural areas reported that their children’s pediatricians did not recommend COVID-19 vaccinations, compared with only 8% of parents in urban communities. These figures concerned ACIP members and liaisons from medical associations who take part in the panel’s deliberations but not in its votes.

“People will hear the word ‘m-a-y’ as ‘m-e-h’,” said Patricia Stinchfield, RN, MS, who served as the liaison for National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners to ACIP. “I think we need to add urgency” to efforts to increase use of COVID vaccinations, she said.

Voting no on Thursday was Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, of Vanderbilt University. She explained after the vote that she is in favor of having young children vaccinated, but she’s concerned about the low rates of initial uptake of the COVID-19 shots.

“Boosters are great once we’ve gotten everyone their first round,” she said. “That needs to be our priority in this.”

Sandra Fryhofer, MD, the American Medical Association’s liaison to ACIP, stressed the add-on benefits from more widespread vaccination of children against COVID. Dr. Fryhofer said she serves adults in her practice as an internal medicine physician, with many of her patients being at high risk for complications from COVID.

Too many people are assuming the spread of infections in the community has lessened the risk of the virus, Dr. Fryhofer said.

“Not everyone’s had COVID yet, and my patients will be likely to get COVID if their grandchildren get it. We’re going through pandemic fatigue in this country,” she said. “Unfortunately, masks are now more off than on. Winter’s coming. They’re more variants” of the virus likely to emerge.

The data emerging so far suggests COVID vaccines will become a three-dose medicine, as is already accepted for other shots like hepatitis B vaccine, Dr. Fryhofer said.

Data gathered to date show the vaccine decreases risk of hospitalization for COVID and for complications such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), she said.

“The bottom line is children in this age group are getting COVID,” Dr. Fryhofer said of the 5- to 11-year-olds. “Some do fine. Some are getting real sick. Some are hospitalized, some have died.”

At the meeting, CDC staff cited data from a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine in March showing that vaccination had reduced the risk of hospitalization for COVID-19 among children 5 to 11 years of age by two-thirds during the Omicron period; most children with critical COVID-19 were unvaccinated.

COVID-19 led to 66 deaths among children ages 5 to 11 in the October 2020 to October 2021 timeframe, said ACIP member Matthew F. Daley, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Colorado during a presentation to his fellow panel members.

Parents may underestimate children’s risk from COVID and thus hold off on vaccinations, stressed AMA President Gerald E. Harmon, MD, in a statement issued after the meeting.

“It is concerning that only 1 in 3 children between the ages of 5 and 11 in the United States have received two doses of the vaccine, in part because parents believe them to be at lower risk for severe disease than adults,” Dr. Harmon said. “But the Omicron variant brought about change that should alter that calculus.”
 

Responding to early data

As Dr. Fryhofer put it, the medical community has been learning in “real time” about how COVID vaccines work and how to use them.

The EUA granted on May 17 for booster shots for children ages 5 to 11 was based on an analysis of immune response data in a subset of children from an ongoing randomized placebo-controlled trial, the FDA said.

Antibody responses were evaluated in 67 study participants who received a booster dose 7 to 9 months after completing a two-dose primary series of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. The EUA for the booster shot was intended to respond to emerging data that suggest that vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 wanes after the second dose of the vaccine, the FDA said.
 

CDC seeks help tracking vaccine complications

At the ACIP meeting, a top CDC vaccine-safety official, Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, asked physicians to make sure their patients know about the agency’s V-Safe program for gathering reports from the public about their experiences with COVID vaccines. This is intended to help the CDC monitor for side effects of these medications.

“We need your help,” he said during a presentation about adverse events reported to date in children ages 5 to 11 who took the Pfizer vaccine.

About 18.1 million doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine have been administered to children ages 5 to 11 years in the United States so far. Most of the reports of adverse events following vaccination were not serious, he said. But there were 20 reports of myocarditis verified to meet CDC case definition among children ages 5 to 11 years.

One case involved a death with histopathologic evidence of myocarditis on autopsy. The CDC continues to assist with case review, he said.

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

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, signed off May 19 on an advisory panel’s recommendation that children ages 5 to 11 years should receive a Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine booster dose at least 5 months after completion of the primary series.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted 11:1, with one abstention, on a question about whether it recommended these additional shots in this age group.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on May 17 amended the emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to cover a single booster dose for administration to individuals 5 through 11 years of age.

At the request of CDC staff, ACIP members considered whether there should be softer wording for this recommendation, stating that children in this age group “may” receive a booster. This kind of phrasing would better reflect uncertainty about the course of COVID in the months ahead and allow flexibility for a stronger recommendation in the fall.

ACIP panelists and members of key groups argued strongly for a “should” recommendation, despite the uncertainties.

They also called for stronger efforts to make sure eligible children received their initial COVID-19 shots. Data gathered between November and April show only 14.4% of children ages 5 to 11 in rural areas have received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccination, with top rates of 39.8% in large urban communities and 36% in larger suburban regions, CDC staff said.

CDC staff also said nearly 40% of parents in rural areas reported that their children’s pediatricians did not recommend COVID-19 vaccinations, compared with only 8% of parents in urban communities. These figures concerned ACIP members and liaisons from medical associations who take part in the panel’s deliberations but not in its votes.

“People will hear the word ‘m-a-y’ as ‘m-e-h’,” said Patricia Stinchfield, RN, MS, who served as the liaison for National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners to ACIP. “I think we need to add urgency” to efforts to increase use of COVID vaccinations, she said.

Voting no on Thursday was Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, of Vanderbilt University. She explained after the vote that she is in favor of having young children vaccinated, but she’s concerned about the low rates of initial uptake of the COVID-19 shots.

“Boosters are great once we’ve gotten everyone their first round,” she said. “That needs to be our priority in this.”

Sandra Fryhofer, MD, the American Medical Association’s liaison to ACIP, stressed the add-on benefits from more widespread vaccination of children against COVID. Dr. Fryhofer said she serves adults in her practice as an internal medicine physician, with many of her patients being at high risk for complications from COVID.

Too many people are assuming the spread of infections in the community has lessened the risk of the virus, Dr. Fryhofer said.

“Not everyone’s had COVID yet, and my patients will be likely to get COVID if their grandchildren get it. We’re going through pandemic fatigue in this country,” she said. “Unfortunately, masks are now more off than on. Winter’s coming. They’re more variants” of the virus likely to emerge.

The data emerging so far suggests COVID vaccines will become a three-dose medicine, as is already accepted for other shots like hepatitis B vaccine, Dr. Fryhofer said.

Data gathered to date show the vaccine decreases risk of hospitalization for COVID and for complications such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), she said.

“The bottom line is children in this age group are getting COVID,” Dr. Fryhofer said of the 5- to 11-year-olds. “Some do fine. Some are getting real sick. Some are hospitalized, some have died.”

At the meeting, CDC staff cited data from a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine in March showing that vaccination had reduced the risk of hospitalization for COVID-19 among children 5 to 11 years of age by two-thirds during the Omicron period; most children with critical COVID-19 were unvaccinated.

COVID-19 led to 66 deaths among children ages 5 to 11 in the October 2020 to October 2021 timeframe, said ACIP member Matthew F. Daley, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Colorado during a presentation to his fellow panel members.

Parents may underestimate children’s risk from COVID and thus hold off on vaccinations, stressed AMA President Gerald E. Harmon, MD, in a statement issued after the meeting.

“It is concerning that only 1 in 3 children between the ages of 5 and 11 in the United States have received two doses of the vaccine, in part because parents believe them to be at lower risk for severe disease than adults,” Dr. Harmon said. “But the Omicron variant brought about change that should alter that calculus.”
 

Responding to early data

As Dr. Fryhofer put it, the medical community has been learning in “real time” about how COVID vaccines work and how to use them.

The EUA granted on May 17 for booster shots for children ages 5 to 11 was based on an analysis of immune response data in a subset of children from an ongoing randomized placebo-controlled trial, the FDA said.

Antibody responses were evaluated in 67 study participants who received a booster dose 7 to 9 months after completing a two-dose primary series of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. The EUA for the booster shot was intended to respond to emerging data that suggest that vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 wanes after the second dose of the vaccine, the FDA said.
 

CDC seeks help tracking vaccine complications

At the ACIP meeting, a top CDC vaccine-safety official, Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, asked physicians to make sure their patients know about the agency’s V-Safe program for gathering reports from the public about their experiences with COVID vaccines. This is intended to help the CDC monitor for side effects of these medications.

“We need your help,” he said during a presentation about adverse events reported to date in children ages 5 to 11 who took the Pfizer vaccine.

About 18.1 million doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine have been administered to children ages 5 to 11 years in the United States so far. Most of the reports of adverse events following vaccination were not serious, he said. But there were 20 reports of myocarditis verified to meet CDC case definition among children ages 5 to 11 years.

One case involved a death with histopathologic evidence of myocarditis on autopsy. The CDC continues to assist with case review, he said.

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

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, signed off May 19 on an advisory panel’s recommendation that children ages 5 to 11 years should receive a Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine booster dose at least 5 months after completion of the primary series.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted 11:1, with one abstention, on a question about whether it recommended these additional shots in this age group.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on May 17 amended the emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to cover a single booster dose for administration to individuals 5 through 11 years of age.

At the request of CDC staff, ACIP members considered whether there should be softer wording for this recommendation, stating that children in this age group “may” receive a booster. This kind of phrasing would better reflect uncertainty about the course of COVID in the months ahead and allow flexibility for a stronger recommendation in the fall.

ACIP panelists and members of key groups argued strongly for a “should” recommendation, despite the uncertainties.

They also called for stronger efforts to make sure eligible children received their initial COVID-19 shots. Data gathered between November and April show only 14.4% of children ages 5 to 11 in rural areas have received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccination, with top rates of 39.8% in large urban communities and 36% in larger suburban regions, CDC staff said.

CDC staff also said nearly 40% of parents in rural areas reported that their children’s pediatricians did not recommend COVID-19 vaccinations, compared with only 8% of parents in urban communities. These figures concerned ACIP members and liaisons from medical associations who take part in the panel’s deliberations but not in its votes.

“People will hear the word ‘m-a-y’ as ‘m-e-h’,” said Patricia Stinchfield, RN, MS, who served as the liaison for National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners to ACIP. “I think we need to add urgency” to efforts to increase use of COVID vaccinations, she said.

Voting no on Thursday was Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, of Vanderbilt University. She explained after the vote that she is in favor of having young children vaccinated, but she’s concerned about the low rates of initial uptake of the COVID-19 shots.

“Boosters are great once we’ve gotten everyone their first round,” she said. “That needs to be our priority in this.”

Sandra Fryhofer, MD, the American Medical Association’s liaison to ACIP, stressed the add-on benefits from more widespread vaccination of children against COVID. Dr. Fryhofer said she serves adults in her practice as an internal medicine physician, with many of her patients being at high risk for complications from COVID.

Too many people are assuming the spread of infections in the community has lessened the risk of the virus, Dr. Fryhofer said.

“Not everyone’s had COVID yet, and my patients will be likely to get COVID if their grandchildren get it. We’re going through pandemic fatigue in this country,” she said. “Unfortunately, masks are now more off than on. Winter’s coming. They’re more variants” of the virus likely to emerge.

The data emerging so far suggests COVID vaccines will become a three-dose medicine, as is already accepted for other shots like hepatitis B vaccine, Dr. Fryhofer said.

Data gathered to date show the vaccine decreases risk of hospitalization for COVID and for complications such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), she said.

“The bottom line is children in this age group are getting COVID,” Dr. Fryhofer said of the 5- to 11-year-olds. “Some do fine. Some are getting real sick. Some are hospitalized, some have died.”

At the meeting, CDC staff cited data from a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine in March showing that vaccination had reduced the risk of hospitalization for COVID-19 among children 5 to 11 years of age by two-thirds during the Omicron period; most children with critical COVID-19 were unvaccinated.

COVID-19 led to 66 deaths among children ages 5 to 11 in the October 2020 to October 2021 timeframe, said ACIP member Matthew F. Daley, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Colorado during a presentation to his fellow panel members.

Parents may underestimate children’s risk from COVID and thus hold off on vaccinations, stressed AMA President Gerald E. Harmon, MD, in a statement issued after the meeting.

“It is concerning that only 1 in 3 children between the ages of 5 and 11 in the United States have received two doses of the vaccine, in part because parents believe them to be at lower risk for severe disease than adults,” Dr. Harmon said. “But the Omicron variant brought about change that should alter that calculus.”
 

Responding to early data

As Dr. Fryhofer put it, the medical community has been learning in “real time” about how COVID vaccines work and how to use them.

The EUA granted on May 17 for booster shots for children ages 5 to 11 was based on an analysis of immune response data in a subset of children from an ongoing randomized placebo-controlled trial, the FDA said.

Antibody responses were evaluated in 67 study participants who received a booster dose 7 to 9 months after completing a two-dose primary series of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. The EUA for the booster shot was intended to respond to emerging data that suggest that vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 wanes after the second dose of the vaccine, the FDA said.
 

CDC seeks help tracking vaccine complications

At the ACIP meeting, a top CDC vaccine-safety official, Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, asked physicians to make sure their patients know about the agency’s V-Safe program for gathering reports from the public about their experiences with COVID vaccines. This is intended to help the CDC monitor for side effects of these medications.

“We need your help,” he said during a presentation about adverse events reported to date in children ages 5 to 11 who took the Pfizer vaccine.

About 18.1 million doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine have been administered to children ages 5 to 11 years in the United States so far. Most of the reports of adverse events following vaccination were not serious, he said. But there were 20 reports of myocarditis verified to meet CDC case definition among children ages 5 to 11 years.

One case involved a death with histopathologic evidence of myocarditis on autopsy. The CDC continues to assist with case review, he said.

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

MADRID – There is increasing evidence of the impact that SARS-CoV-2 infection has on patients with diabetes. It involves the relationship between COVID-19 and new diagnoses of diabetes and blood glucose disorders, among others, in the post–COVID-19 period. These topics were addressed at the XXXIII National Congress of the Spanish Diabetes Society. They were also the central theme of the inaugural conference, Pancreatic Involvement During COVID-19: From Preclinical Studies to Clinical Relevance, which was led by Alexander Kleger, MD, PhD, head of the department of pancreatology at the Ulm (Germany) University Clinic for Internal Medicine.

The chair of the scientific committee of the congress, Franz Martín, MD, launched the conference by noting that the work of Dr. Kleger and his team has made it possible to ascertain that SARS-CoV-2 can infect pancreatic beta cells that produce insulin. This observation may help in understanding why patients with COVID-19 sometimes experience symptoms related to greater difficulty regulating blood glucose.

“In addition, the German expert and his group have described the abnormalities that occur in beta cells when they are infected by SARS-CoV-2, something especially important, given that knowledge of these abnormalities may be of great importance to understanding the possible appearance of more cases of diabetes in the future,” Dr. Martín added.

“Our data identify the human pancreas as a target of SARS-CoV-2 infection and suggest that pancreatic beta cell involvement could contribute to the metabolic dysregulation seen in COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Kleger pointed out.

In his speech, Dr. Kleger reviewed the evidence on the effects of SARS-CoV-2 that has been garnered since the start of the pandemic, and he presented his research group’s findings on the impact at the pancreatic level.

“Since March 2020, it has been seen that COVID-19 affected the pancreas, and studies published in August of that same year clearly spoke of both a worsening of diabetes and an increase in new cases of this disease diagnosed after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Also, the data showed how hospitalized patients with no previous history of diabetes experienced rapid increases in glucose levels 5 days after admission,” Dr. Kleger said.
 

Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2

As an example of the pace at which evidence on the pancreatic impact of this virus has been evolving, Dr. Kleger referred to early studies that found no angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor on cells of the endocrine and exocrine pancreas. “To our surprise, in our work, we did observe the obvious presence of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 specifically expressed in human pancreatic beta cells, something confirmed by other investigations. Another surprising aspect was verifying that the viral infection lasts longer in the pancreas than in the lungs,” said the expert.

These findings caused the researchers to realize that SARS-CoV-2 may be directly or indirectly associated with diabetes. “It is currently the subject of debate whether it may be a direct effect, infecting or directly reaching the pancreatic beta cells, or whether this involvement is a result of the effect of the infection at systemic level, in the context of the cytokine storm and the proinflammatory environment derived from it. Our current challenge is to confirm whether this virus can really replicate in pancreatic beta cells and to assess the possible existence of reinfections, among other aspects,” said Dr. Kleger.

Along with these “developing areas of knowledge,” there are several certainties regarding the link between diabetes and COVID-19. Dr. Kleger summarized the most relevant one. “Preexisting diabetes is known to be a highly prevalent comorbidity seen in 11%-22% of patients and increases the risk of severe disease and mortality.

“SARS-CoV-2 infection has also been shown to affect the exocrine pancreas, manifesting as pancreatitis in 5% of critically ill patients with COVID-19, as well as enlargement of the pancreas and abnormal levels of amylase or lipase in 7.5%-17% of patients.

“Furthermore, it is obvious that SARS-CoV-2 infection produces glycometabolic dysfunction in these patients, with increased hyperglycemia in people with type 2 diabetes and ketoacidosis in 2%-6.4% of patients with and without diabetes.”
 

After recovery

The most recent research reveals the persistence of this dysregulation long after recovery from COVID-19. “We’ve seen that in a significant proportion of patients, hyperglycemia is maintained for some time; in the specific case of hospitalized patients [without the need for assisted ventilation or other intensive care requirements], for up to more than 2 months after overcoming the illness.

“In the same way, there are studies that have shown that insulin resistance and hyperstimulation of pancreatic beta cells remain at pathological levels in the post–COVID-19 phase. And in line with increased insulin resistance, signs of hyperinflammation have also been detected in these patients.”

Dr. Kleger noted that another research area is the increased incidence of newly diagnosed diabetes after recovery from SARS-CoV-2 infection, “something that seems to be correlated with how severely the disease has been experienced and also depending on whether hospitalization or intensive care was needed. Likewise, retrospective studies have shown that the risk of developing type 2 diabetes is higher in COVID-19 patients, compared with those with other respiratory infections. Regarding the incidence of type 1 diabetes, there is evidence, particularly in the case of children, of a clear correlation between the pandemic waves and the increase in cases.

“Therefore, and in view of this data, we could say that, with regard to the involvement of SARS-CoV-2 in pancreatic beta cells, something is up, but we are not yet able to fully understand what it is. What can be confirmed based on the numerous studies carried out in this regard is that COVID-19 produces a metabolic dysregulation [hyperglycemia, insulin resistance, diabetic ketoacidosis] which in turn favors the development of diabetes in patients with no history of this disease,” said Dr. Kleger.

“Likewise, everything points to the existence of a definitively feasible infection in pancreatic beta cells associated with SARS-CoV-2, but there are still unknown aspects of the physiology that explain this effect that remain the subject of debate and deserve future studies,” he concluded.
 

Consequences of the pandemic

The experts agreed that, although COVID-19 is no longer at the center of specialist care, it is still a subject of investigation. On the conference’s opening day, an update was made on the approach to diabetes.

Care activity is gradually recovering as the time that professionals devote to COVID-19 care is reduced, “but it will take time to catch up with the care activities not carried out during the pandemic, and, unfortunately, in the coming years, we will see the repercussion of the lack or reduction of care during these years,” stressed the SED chair, Antonio Pérez Pérez, MD, director of endocrinology and nutrition of Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona.

Dr. Pérez stressed that the pandemic has revealed health system deficiencies in diabetes care. He added that the impact of COVID-19 on diabetes (resulting from the effects of the infection itself or from the inadequacy of prevention, diagnosis, and treatment measures) fostered a deterioration of metabolic control and a delay in the diagnosis of the disease and its complications.

“All this contributes to the fact that we currently continue to see patients with complications, especially in the case of type 2 diabetes, with more serious decompensations and diagnoses in more advanced stages of the disease. This impact has been more significant in older people from disadvantaged areas and with less capacity for self-monitoring and self-adjustment of treatment,” he added.

Describing lessons learned through the experiences accumulated in diabetes care during the pandemic, Dr. Pérez highlighted the push for virtual consultations, accessibility to drugs prescribed in electronic prescriptions, and the use of educational resources online and of telemedicine tools. “The need to invest in the health sector has also been assumed, endowing it with robustness in well-trained health personnel, to promote health education, boost efficient health organization, and invest in innovation aimed at facilitating care.”

Dr. Kleger and Dr. Pérez disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish edition.

MADRID – There is increasing evidence of the impact that SARS-CoV-2 infection has on patients with diabetes. It involves the relationship between COVID-19 and new diagnoses of diabetes and blood glucose disorders, among others, in the post–COVID-19 period. These topics were addressed at the XXXIII National Congress of the Spanish Diabetes Society. They were also the central theme of the inaugural conference, Pancreatic Involvement During COVID-19: From Preclinical Studies to Clinical Relevance, which was led by Alexander Kleger, MD, PhD, head of the department of pancreatology at the Ulm (Germany) University Clinic for Internal Medicine.

The chair of the scientific committee of the congress, Franz Martín, MD, launched the conference by noting that the work of Dr. Kleger and his team has made it possible to ascertain that SARS-CoV-2 can infect pancreatic beta cells that produce insulin. This observation may help in understanding why patients with COVID-19 sometimes experience symptoms related to greater difficulty regulating blood glucose.

“In addition, the German expert and his group have described the abnormalities that occur in beta cells when they are infected by SARS-CoV-2, something especially important, given that knowledge of these abnormalities may be of great importance to understanding the possible appearance of more cases of diabetes in the future,” Dr. Martín added.

“Our data identify the human pancreas as a target of SARS-CoV-2 infection and suggest that pancreatic beta cell involvement could contribute to the metabolic dysregulation seen in COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Kleger pointed out.

In his speech, Dr. Kleger reviewed the evidence on the effects of SARS-CoV-2 that has been garnered since the start of the pandemic, and he presented his research group’s findings on the impact at the pancreatic level.

“Since March 2020, it has been seen that COVID-19 affected the pancreas, and studies published in August of that same year clearly spoke of both a worsening of diabetes and an increase in new cases of this disease diagnosed after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Also, the data showed how hospitalized patients with no previous history of diabetes experienced rapid increases in glucose levels 5 days after admission,” Dr. Kleger said.
 

Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2

As an example of the pace at which evidence on the pancreatic impact of this virus has been evolving, Dr. Kleger referred to early studies that found no angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor on cells of the endocrine and exocrine pancreas. “To our surprise, in our work, we did observe the obvious presence of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 specifically expressed in human pancreatic beta cells, something confirmed by other investigations. Another surprising aspect was verifying that the viral infection lasts longer in the pancreas than in the lungs,” said the expert.

These findings caused the researchers to realize that SARS-CoV-2 may be directly or indirectly associated with diabetes. “It is currently the subject of debate whether it may be a direct effect, infecting or directly reaching the pancreatic beta cells, or whether this involvement is a result of the effect of the infection at systemic level, in the context of the cytokine storm and the proinflammatory environment derived from it. Our current challenge is to confirm whether this virus can really replicate in pancreatic beta cells and to assess the possible existence of reinfections, among other aspects,” said Dr. Kleger.

Along with these “developing areas of knowledge,” there are several certainties regarding the link between diabetes and COVID-19. Dr. Kleger summarized the most relevant one. “Preexisting diabetes is known to be a highly prevalent comorbidity seen in 11%-22% of patients and increases the risk of severe disease and mortality.

“SARS-CoV-2 infection has also been shown to affect the exocrine pancreas, manifesting as pancreatitis in 5% of critically ill patients with COVID-19, as well as enlargement of the pancreas and abnormal levels of amylase or lipase in 7.5%-17% of patients.

“Furthermore, it is obvious that SARS-CoV-2 infection produces glycometabolic dysfunction in these patients, with increased hyperglycemia in people with type 2 diabetes and ketoacidosis in 2%-6.4% of patients with and without diabetes.”
 

After recovery

The most recent research reveals the persistence of this dysregulation long after recovery from COVID-19. “We’ve seen that in a significant proportion of patients, hyperglycemia is maintained for some time; in the specific case of hospitalized patients [without the need for assisted ventilation or other intensive care requirements], for up to more than 2 months after overcoming the illness.

“In the same way, there are studies that have shown that insulin resistance and hyperstimulation of pancreatic beta cells remain at pathological levels in the post–COVID-19 phase. And in line with increased insulin resistance, signs of hyperinflammation have also been detected in these patients.”

Dr. Kleger noted that another research area is the increased incidence of newly diagnosed diabetes after recovery from SARS-CoV-2 infection, “something that seems to be correlated with how severely the disease has been experienced and also depending on whether hospitalization or intensive care was needed. Likewise, retrospective studies have shown that the risk of developing type 2 diabetes is higher in COVID-19 patients, compared with those with other respiratory infections. Regarding the incidence of type 1 diabetes, there is evidence, particularly in the case of children, of a clear correlation between the pandemic waves and the increase in cases.

“Therefore, and in view of this data, we could say that, with regard to the involvement of SARS-CoV-2 in pancreatic beta cells, something is up, but we are not yet able to fully understand what it is. What can be confirmed based on the numerous studies carried out in this regard is that COVID-19 produces a metabolic dysregulation [hyperglycemia, insulin resistance, diabetic ketoacidosis] which in turn favors the development of diabetes in patients with no history of this disease,” said Dr. Kleger.

“Likewise, everything points to the existence of a definitively feasible infection in pancreatic beta cells associated with SARS-CoV-2, but there are still unknown aspects of the physiology that explain this effect that remain the subject of debate and deserve future studies,” he concluded.
 

Consequences of the pandemic

The experts agreed that, although COVID-19 is no longer at the center of specialist care, it is still a subject of investigation. On the conference’s opening day, an update was made on the approach to diabetes.

Care activity is gradually recovering as the time that professionals devote to COVID-19 care is reduced, “but it will take time to catch up with the care activities not carried out during the pandemic, and, unfortunately, in the coming years, we will see the repercussion of the lack or reduction of care during these years,” stressed the SED chair, Antonio Pérez Pérez, MD, director of endocrinology and nutrition of Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona.

Dr. Pérez stressed that the pandemic has revealed health system deficiencies in diabetes care. He added that the impact of COVID-19 on diabetes (resulting from the effects of the infection itself or from the inadequacy of prevention, diagnosis, and treatment measures) fostered a deterioration of metabolic control and a delay in the diagnosis of the disease and its complications.

“All this contributes to the fact that we currently continue to see patients with complications, especially in the case of type 2 diabetes, with more serious decompensations and diagnoses in more advanced stages of the disease. This impact has been more significant in older people from disadvantaged areas and with less capacity for self-monitoring and self-adjustment of treatment,” he added.

Describing lessons learned through the experiences accumulated in diabetes care during the pandemic, Dr. Pérez highlighted the push for virtual consultations, accessibility to drugs prescribed in electronic prescriptions, and the use of educational resources online and of telemedicine tools. “The need to invest in the health sector has also been assumed, endowing it with robustness in well-trained health personnel, to promote health education, boost efficient health organization, and invest in innovation aimed at facilitating care.”

Dr. Kleger and Dr. Pérez disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish edition.

MADRID – There is increasing evidence of the impact that SARS-CoV-2 infection has on patients with diabetes. It involves the relationship between COVID-19 and new diagnoses of diabetes and blood glucose disorders, among others, in the post–COVID-19 period. These topics were addressed at the XXXIII National Congress of the Spanish Diabetes Society. They were also the central theme of the inaugural conference, Pancreatic Involvement During COVID-19: From Preclinical Studies to Clinical Relevance, which was led by Alexander Kleger, MD, PhD, head of the department of pancreatology at the Ulm (Germany) University Clinic for Internal Medicine.

The chair of the scientific committee of the congress, Franz Martín, MD, launched the conference by noting that the work of Dr. Kleger and his team has made it possible to ascertain that SARS-CoV-2 can infect pancreatic beta cells that produce insulin. This observation may help in understanding why patients with COVID-19 sometimes experience symptoms related to greater difficulty regulating blood glucose.

“In addition, the German expert and his group have described the abnormalities that occur in beta cells when they are infected by SARS-CoV-2, something especially important, given that knowledge of these abnormalities may be of great importance to understanding the possible appearance of more cases of diabetes in the future,” Dr. Martín added.

“Our data identify the human pancreas as a target of SARS-CoV-2 infection and suggest that pancreatic beta cell involvement could contribute to the metabolic dysregulation seen in COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Kleger pointed out.

In his speech, Dr. Kleger reviewed the evidence on the effects of SARS-CoV-2 that has been garnered since the start of the pandemic, and he presented his research group’s findings on the impact at the pancreatic level.

“Since March 2020, it has been seen that COVID-19 affected the pancreas, and studies published in August of that same year clearly spoke of both a worsening of diabetes and an increase in new cases of this disease diagnosed after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Also, the data showed how hospitalized patients with no previous history of diabetes experienced rapid increases in glucose levels 5 days after admission,” Dr. Kleger said.
 

Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2

As an example of the pace at which evidence on the pancreatic impact of this virus has been evolving, Dr. Kleger referred to early studies that found no angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor on cells of the endocrine and exocrine pancreas. “To our surprise, in our work, we did observe the obvious presence of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 specifically expressed in human pancreatic beta cells, something confirmed by other investigations. Another surprising aspect was verifying that the viral infection lasts longer in the pancreas than in the lungs,” said the expert.

These findings caused the researchers to realize that SARS-CoV-2 may be directly or indirectly associated with diabetes. “It is currently the subject of debate whether it may be a direct effect, infecting or directly reaching the pancreatic beta cells, or whether this involvement is a result of the effect of the infection at systemic level, in the context of the cytokine storm and the proinflammatory environment derived from it. Our current challenge is to confirm whether this virus can really replicate in pancreatic beta cells and to assess the possible existence of reinfections, among other aspects,” said Dr. Kleger.

Along with these “developing areas of knowledge,” there are several certainties regarding the link between diabetes and COVID-19. Dr. Kleger summarized the most relevant one. “Preexisting diabetes is known to be a highly prevalent comorbidity seen in 11%-22% of patients and increases the risk of severe disease and mortality.

“SARS-CoV-2 infection has also been shown to affect the exocrine pancreas, manifesting as pancreatitis in 5% of critically ill patients with COVID-19, as well as enlargement of the pancreas and abnormal levels of amylase or lipase in 7.5%-17% of patients.

“Furthermore, it is obvious that SARS-CoV-2 infection produces glycometabolic dysfunction in these patients, with increased hyperglycemia in people with type 2 diabetes and ketoacidosis in 2%-6.4% of patients with and without diabetes.”
 

After recovery

The most recent research reveals the persistence of this dysregulation long after recovery from COVID-19. “We’ve seen that in a significant proportion of patients, hyperglycemia is maintained for some time; in the specific case of hospitalized patients [without the need for assisted ventilation or other intensive care requirements], for up to more than 2 months after overcoming the illness.

“In the same way, there are studies that have shown that insulin resistance and hyperstimulation of pancreatic beta cells remain at pathological levels in the post–COVID-19 phase. And in line with increased insulin resistance, signs of hyperinflammation have also been detected in these patients.”

Dr. Kleger noted that another research area is the increased incidence of newly diagnosed diabetes after recovery from SARS-CoV-2 infection, “something that seems to be correlated with how severely the disease has been experienced and also depending on whether hospitalization or intensive care was needed. Likewise, retrospective studies have shown that the risk of developing type 2 diabetes is higher in COVID-19 patients, compared with those with other respiratory infections. Regarding the incidence of type 1 diabetes, there is evidence, particularly in the case of children, of a clear correlation between the pandemic waves and the increase in cases.

“Therefore, and in view of this data, we could say that, with regard to the involvement of SARS-CoV-2 in pancreatic beta cells, something is up, but we are not yet able to fully understand what it is. What can be confirmed based on the numerous studies carried out in this regard is that COVID-19 produces a metabolic dysregulation [hyperglycemia, insulin resistance, diabetic ketoacidosis] which in turn favors the development of diabetes in patients with no history of this disease,” said Dr. Kleger.

“Likewise, everything points to the existence of a definitively feasible infection in pancreatic beta cells associated with SARS-CoV-2, but there are still unknown aspects of the physiology that explain this effect that remain the subject of debate and deserve future studies,” he concluded.
 

Consequences of the pandemic

The experts agreed that, although COVID-19 is no longer at the center of specialist care, it is still a subject of investigation. On the conference’s opening day, an update was made on the approach to diabetes.

Care activity is gradually recovering as the time that professionals devote to COVID-19 care is reduced, “but it will take time to catch up with the care activities not carried out during the pandemic, and, unfortunately, in the coming years, we will see the repercussion of the lack or reduction of care during these years,” stressed the SED chair, Antonio Pérez Pérez, MD, director of endocrinology and nutrition of Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona.

Dr. Pérez stressed that the pandemic has revealed health system deficiencies in diabetes care. He added that the impact of COVID-19 on diabetes (resulting from the effects of the infection itself or from the inadequacy of prevention, diagnosis, and treatment measures) fostered a deterioration of metabolic control and a delay in the diagnosis of the disease and its complications.

“All this contributes to the fact that we currently continue to see patients with complications, especially in the case of type 2 diabetes, with more serious decompensations and diagnoses in more advanced stages of the disease. This impact has been more significant in older people from disadvantaged areas and with less capacity for self-monitoring and self-adjustment of treatment,” he added.

Describing lessons learned through the experiences accumulated in diabetes care during the pandemic, Dr. Pérez highlighted the push for virtual consultations, accessibility to drugs prescribed in electronic prescriptions, and the use of educational resources online and of telemedicine tools. “The need to invest in the health sector has also been assumed, endowing it with robustness in well-trained health personnel, to promote health education, boost efficient health organization, and invest in innovation aimed at facilitating care.”

Dr. Kleger and Dr. Pérez disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish edition.

Some smokers might not get lung cancer because of their DNA, researchers report in a new study.

These people have genes that help limit mutations to DNA that would turn cells malignant and make them grow into tumors, the researchers say.

Scientists have long suspected that smoking leads to lung cancer by triggering DNA mutations in healthy cells. But it was hard for them to identify the mutations in healthy cells that might help predict future cancer risk, Jan Vijg, PhD, a senior author of the study and researcher at the University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China, said in a statement.

His team used a process called single-cell whole genome sequencing to examine cells lining the lungs of 19 smokers and 14 nonsmokers ranging in age from their pre-teens to their mid-80s. The cells came from patients who had tissue samples collected from their lungs during diagnostic testing unrelated to cancer. The scientists reported their findings in Nature Genetics.

The researchers specifically looked at cells lining the lungs because these cells can survive for years and build up mutations over time that are linked to aging and smoking.

“Of all the lung’s cell types, these are among the most likely to become cancerous,” says Simon Spivack, MD, a senior author of the study and professor at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.

Smokers had far more gene mutations that can cause lung cancer than nonsmokers, the analysis found.

“This experimentally confirms that smoking increases lung cancer risk by increasing the frequency of mutations, as previously hypothesized,” says Dr. Spivack. “This is likely one reason why so few nonsmokers get lung cancer, while 10 to 20 percent of lifelong smokers do.”

Among the smokers, people had smoked a maximum of 116 pack-years. A pack-year is the equivalent of smoking one pack a day for a year. The number of mutations detected in smokers’ lung cells increased in direct proportion to the number of pack-years they smoked.

But after 23 pack-years, the lung cells in smokers didn’t appear to add more mutations, the researchers report, suggesting that some people’s genes might make them more likely to fight mutations.

“The heaviest smokers did not have the highest mutation burden,” says Dr. Spivack. “Our data suggest that these individuals may have survived for so long in spite of their heavy smoking because they managed to suppress further mutation accumulation.”

While it’s possible these findings could one day help doctors come up with better ways to screen for lung cancer and treat the disease, that’s still a long way off. Many more lab tests and larger studies will be needed to better pinpoint which smokers might be more prone to lung cancer and why.

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

Some smokers might not get lung cancer because of their DNA, researchers report in a new study.

These people have genes that help limit mutations to DNA that would turn cells malignant and make them grow into tumors, the researchers say.

Scientists have long suspected that smoking leads to lung cancer by triggering DNA mutations in healthy cells. But it was hard for them to identify the mutations in healthy cells that might help predict future cancer risk, Jan Vijg, PhD, a senior author of the study and researcher at the University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China, said in a statement.

His team used a process called single-cell whole genome sequencing to examine cells lining the lungs of 19 smokers and 14 nonsmokers ranging in age from their pre-teens to their mid-80s. The cells came from patients who had tissue samples collected from their lungs during diagnostic testing unrelated to cancer. The scientists reported their findings in Nature Genetics.

The researchers specifically looked at cells lining the lungs because these cells can survive for years and build up mutations over time that are linked to aging and smoking.

“Of all the lung’s cell types, these are among the most likely to become cancerous,” says Simon Spivack, MD, a senior author of the study and professor at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.

Smokers had far more gene mutations that can cause lung cancer than nonsmokers, the analysis found.

“This experimentally confirms that smoking increases lung cancer risk by increasing the frequency of mutations, as previously hypothesized,” says Dr. Spivack. “This is likely one reason why so few nonsmokers get lung cancer, while 10 to 20 percent of lifelong smokers do.”

Among the smokers, people had smoked a maximum of 116 pack-years. A pack-year is the equivalent of smoking one pack a day for a year. The number of mutations detected in smokers’ lung cells increased in direct proportion to the number of pack-years they smoked.

But after 23 pack-years, the lung cells in smokers didn’t appear to add more mutations, the researchers report, suggesting that some people’s genes might make them more likely to fight mutations.

“The heaviest smokers did not have the highest mutation burden,” says Dr. Spivack. “Our data suggest that these individuals may have survived for so long in spite of their heavy smoking because they managed to suppress further mutation accumulation.”

While it’s possible these findings could one day help doctors come up with better ways to screen for lung cancer and treat the disease, that’s still a long way off. Many more lab tests and larger studies will be needed to better pinpoint which smokers might be more prone to lung cancer and why.

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

Some smokers might not get lung cancer because of their DNA, researchers report in a new study.

These people have genes that help limit mutations to DNA that would turn cells malignant and make them grow into tumors, the researchers say.

Scientists have long suspected that smoking leads to lung cancer by triggering DNA mutations in healthy cells. But it was hard for them to identify the mutations in healthy cells that might help predict future cancer risk, Jan Vijg, PhD, a senior author of the study and researcher at the University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China, said in a statement.

His team used a process called single-cell whole genome sequencing to examine cells lining the lungs of 19 smokers and 14 nonsmokers ranging in age from their pre-teens to their mid-80s. The cells came from patients who had tissue samples collected from their lungs during diagnostic testing unrelated to cancer. The scientists reported their findings in Nature Genetics.

The researchers specifically looked at cells lining the lungs because these cells can survive for years and build up mutations over time that are linked to aging and smoking.

“Of all the lung’s cell types, these are among the most likely to become cancerous,” says Simon Spivack, MD, a senior author of the study and professor at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.

Smokers had far more gene mutations that can cause lung cancer than nonsmokers, the analysis found.

“This experimentally confirms that smoking increases lung cancer risk by increasing the frequency of mutations, as previously hypothesized,” says Dr. Spivack. “This is likely one reason why so few nonsmokers get lung cancer, while 10 to 20 percent of lifelong smokers do.”

Among the smokers, people had smoked a maximum of 116 pack-years. A pack-year is the equivalent of smoking one pack a day for a year. The number of mutations detected in smokers’ lung cells increased in direct proportion to the number of pack-years they smoked.

But after 23 pack-years, the lung cells in smokers didn’t appear to add more mutations, the researchers report, suggesting that some people’s genes might make them more likely to fight mutations.

“The heaviest smokers did not have the highest mutation burden,” says Dr. Spivack. “Our data suggest that these individuals may have survived for so long in spite of their heavy smoking because they managed to suppress further mutation accumulation.”

While it’s possible these findings could one day help doctors come up with better ways to screen for lung cancer and treat the disease, that’s still a long way off. Many more lab tests and larger studies will be needed to better pinpoint which smokers might be more prone to lung cancer and why.

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

A few years ago I tracked down my medical school interviewer to thank him for giving me the opportunity to do what I felt I was called to do. I was surprised that, after 15 years, he actually remembered me and remembered details like walking to the courtyard to meet my father who’d driven me to the interview.

Gratitude throughout my career has grounded me in moments of hardship and highlighted joyful times that give me peace. Sharing my gratitude and letting him know I was happy felt important to me.

Choosing to practice family medicine has a lot to do with why I am happy in my career today.

One of my frustrations with health care had been its emphasis on treatment of sickness, rather than a broader one that incorporated prevention of sickness. During my third year of medical school, I was following a family and sports medicine faculty member who was focusing on aspects of lifestyle medicine to help a patient remain active and age gracefully. Seeing opportunities to practice preventative medicine in family medicine made me realize the specialty was the perfect fit for me.
 

Food as medicine

While participating in rotations I also realized you can find a subspecialty within family medicine.

During my fourth year of medical school, I followed an attending who was seeing a patient for hypertension, prediabetes and hypercholesterolemia. The attending told the patient to eat “healthier,” gave her a handout, and scheduled a follow up appointment for 6 months later.

My thoughts were: “That’s it? That’s how we counsel patients to improve their dietary habits?”

As the patient was leaving the exam room, I asked her what type of oil she cooked with, and I proceeded to share culinary tips from my mother – who was a self-taught and early adopter of the food-as-medicine movement.

Once I started my residency, I knew I’d want to incorporate lifestyle and dietary approaches at many of my patient visits.

I scheduled patients every month to monitor their weight, follow up on chronic conditions, but more importantly, to engage them in their health and empower them to make small lifestyle changes each month and report their efforts. I felt like I was their health coach and cheerleader.
 

My career in family medicine

Entering the job market allowed me to form my philosophy of treating patients with a mind, body, and spirit approach. I chose to practice value-based care, which aligns with my lifestyle and preventative medicine approach .

I currently practice in a small family medicine–only clinic that is part of a larger multispecialty system. Primary care specialties in my organization are valued, respected and central to a patient’s well being and care. We are encouraged to spend time with patients, assess barriers to care and work collaboratively with our healthcare team, so that preventative medicine approaches take the lead in a patient’s health. This supportive culture and environment is one where my passion for food as medicine has thrived.

One day I forgot to pack a lunch and instead brought a grocery bag of items to make a salad. When I realized I made too much, I sent an email to my staff to get some “free salad in my office.” This serendipitous moment started an informal office “salad club” each week. Continued support from my staff and leadership, allowed me to consider further extending this teaching to my patients and my colleagues.

Three years ago, I helped adopt a sustainable plant-forward menu for our physician meetings, complete with a recipe from the menu for physicians to replicate at home or give to their patients.

I also pursued adoption of shared medical appointments for our medical group. These appointments apply the “see one, do one, teach one” model in medicine, but with culinary medicine as the focus.

Knowing that my patients are all connected to their families through food, I sought this as an opportunity to dive in further with wellness opportunities at their next meal. After almost 2 years of working on this project, I was able to host my first shared medical appointment with a group of patients on March 12, 2020. The next day schools closed, lockdowns occurred, and the world changed.
 

Opportunities highlighted by the pandemic

We always knew health care was broken but adding the increasingly longer hours and COVID vaccine–hesitant patients that the pandemic brought made everything look dark at times. What has helped me stay hopeful and energetic for system changes is feeling gratitude and seeking bright lights.

My experiences seeing patients in telehealth visits are examples of some of the bright lights I found in the pandemic. During these visits, patients showed me something from their pantry, and we’d go over nutritional labels together.

Additionally, my patients became engaged with their own conditions and wanted to improve them because of news articles highlighting risk factors for COVID-19, such as obesity. I had an active audience when it came to talking about food-as-medicine approaches to improving risk factors and immunity. And since everyone was listening, I didn’t stop at food. I also talked about physical health, stress resiliency, planetary diets, sleep, connections, and lastly vaccines!

Once the vaccines were distributed, I naturally gravitated to having those conversations with patients and colleagues and on social media. Plus, the pandemic gave us moments of simple times to slow down, take more rests, be less overscheduled, consider work-life priorities, and, lastly, to be okay with not being totally okay.

In practicing primary care, we have a unique role in seeing medicine from a whole body, whole person, whole family perspective. There is an opportunity to highlight what is broken in medicine and aim to make it whole.

I’m currently looking at shared medical appointments as a new standard way to provide care to all patients, because it improves access, provides better quality visits and aligns my values, mission, and purpose.

In the midst of the pandemic, I helped advocate for a sustainable plant-forward menu that was launched throughout four different hospitals in the Sharp HealthCare system, in California, in 2020. Knowing that patients were served a menu I played a role in, gave me solace.

As part of the hospital food and nutrition team, I am grateful for the opportunity I have to work on a broader mission to address social determinants of health and seek opportunities to help the system work for our patients.

Public health communication has been lacking in the pandemic, but another bright light is that we were still the trusted messengers to our patients and our communities. I’m continually honored and humbled to be trusted with a whole family’s health.

Dr. Neison practices family medicine and culinary medicine at Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group in San Diego, and is cochair of climate and planetary health for SRS Medical Group. You can follow her on Instagram, LinkedIn, and Facebook @Flavors4WellnessMD.

A few years ago I tracked down my medical school interviewer to thank him for giving me the opportunity to do what I felt I was called to do. I was surprised that, after 15 years, he actually remembered me and remembered details like walking to the courtyard to meet my father who’d driven me to the interview.

Gratitude throughout my career has grounded me in moments of hardship and highlighted joyful times that give me peace. Sharing my gratitude and letting him know I was happy felt important to me.

Choosing to practice family medicine has a lot to do with why I am happy in my career today.

One of my frustrations with health care had been its emphasis on treatment of sickness, rather than a broader one that incorporated prevention of sickness. During my third year of medical school, I was following a family and sports medicine faculty member who was focusing on aspects of lifestyle medicine to help a patient remain active and age gracefully. Seeing opportunities to practice preventative medicine in family medicine made me realize the specialty was the perfect fit for me.
 

Food as medicine

While participating in rotations I also realized you can find a subspecialty within family medicine.

During my fourth year of medical school, I followed an attending who was seeing a patient for hypertension, prediabetes and hypercholesterolemia. The attending told the patient to eat “healthier,” gave her a handout, and scheduled a follow up appointment for 6 months later.

My thoughts were: “That’s it? That’s how we counsel patients to improve their dietary habits?”

As the patient was leaving the exam room, I asked her what type of oil she cooked with, and I proceeded to share culinary tips from my mother – who was a self-taught and early adopter of the food-as-medicine movement.

Once I started my residency, I knew I’d want to incorporate lifestyle and dietary approaches at many of my patient visits.

I scheduled patients every month to monitor their weight, follow up on chronic conditions, but more importantly, to engage them in their health and empower them to make small lifestyle changes each month and report their efforts. I felt like I was their health coach and cheerleader.
 

My career in family medicine

Entering the job market allowed me to form my philosophy of treating patients with a mind, body, and spirit approach. I chose to practice value-based care, which aligns with my lifestyle and preventative medicine approach .

I currently practice in a small family medicine–only clinic that is part of a larger multispecialty system. Primary care specialties in my organization are valued, respected and central to a patient’s well being and care. We are encouraged to spend time with patients, assess barriers to care and work collaboratively with our healthcare team, so that preventative medicine approaches take the lead in a patient’s health. This supportive culture and environment is one where my passion for food as medicine has thrived.

One day I forgot to pack a lunch and instead brought a grocery bag of items to make a salad. When I realized I made too much, I sent an email to my staff to get some “free salad in my office.” This serendipitous moment started an informal office “salad club” each week. Continued support from my staff and leadership, allowed me to consider further extending this teaching to my patients and my colleagues.

Three years ago, I helped adopt a sustainable plant-forward menu for our physician meetings, complete with a recipe from the menu for physicians to replicate at home or give to their patients.

I also pursued adoption of shared medical appointments for our medical group. These appointments apply the “see one, do one, teach one” model in medicine, but with culinary medicine as the focus.

Knowing that my patients are all connected to their families through food, I sought this as an opportunity to dive in further with wellness opportunities at their next meal. After almost 2 years of working on this project, I was able to host my first shared medical appointment with a group of patients on March 12, 2020. The next day schools closed, lockdowns occurred, and the world changed.
 

Opportunities highlighted by the pandemic

We always knew health care was broken but adding the increasingly longer hours and COVID vaccine–hesitant patients that the pandemic brought made everything look dark at times. What has helped me stay hopeful and energetic for system changes is feeling gratitude and seeking bright lights.

My experiences seeing patients in telehealth visits are examples of some of the bright lights I found in the pandemic. During these visits, patients showed me something from their pantry, and we’d go over nutritional labels together.

Additionally, my patients became engaged with their own conditions and wanted to improve them because of news articles highlighting risk factors for COVID-19, such as obesity. I had an active audience when it came to talking about food-as-medicine approaches to improving risk factors and immunity. And since everyone was listening, I didn’t stop at food. I also talked about physical health, stress resiliency, planetary diets, sleep, connections, and lastly vaccines!

Once the vaccines were distributed, I naturally gravitated to having those conversations with patients and colleagues and on social media. Plus, the pandemic gave us moments of simple times to slow down, take more rests, be less overscheduled, consider work-life priorities, and, lastly, to be okay with not being totally okay.

In practicing primary care, we have a unique role in seeing medicine from a whole body, whole person, whole family perspective. There is an opportunity to highlight what is broken in medicine and aim to make it whole.

I’m currently looking at shared medical appointments as a new standard way to provide care to all patients, because it improves access, provides better quality visits and aligns my values, mission, and purpose.

In the midst of the pandemic, I helped advocate for a sustainable plant-forward menu that was launched throughout four different hospitals in the Sharp HealthCare system, in California, in 2020. Knowing that patients were served a menu I played a role in, gave me solace.

As part of the hospital food and nutrition team, I am grateful for the opportunity I have to work on a broader mission to address social determinants of health and seek opportunities to help the system work for our patients.

Public health communication has been lacking in the pandemic, but another bright light is that we were still the trusted messengers to our patients and our communities. I’m continually honored and humbled to be trusted with a whole family’s health.

Dr. Neison practices family medicine and culinary medicine at Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group in San Diego, and is cochair of climate and planetary health for SRS Medical Group. You can follow her on Instagram, LinkedIn, and Facebook @Flavors4WellnessMD.

A few years ago I tracked down my medical school interviewer to thank him for giving me the opportunity to do what I felt I was called to do. I was surprised that, after 15 years, he actually remembered me and remembered details like walking to the courtyard to meet my father who’d driven me to the interview.

Gratitude throughout my career has grounded me in moments of hardship and highlighted joyful times that give me peace. Sharing my gratitude and letting him know I was happy felt important to me.

Choosing to practice family medicine has a lot to do with why I am happy in my career today.

One of my frustrations with health care had been its emphasis on treatment of sickness, rather than a broader one that incorporated prevention of sickness. During my third year of medical school, I was following a family and sports medicine faculty member who was focusing on aspects of lifestyle medicine to help a patient remain active and age gracefully. Seeing opportunities to practice preventative medicine in family medicine made me realize the specialty was the perfect fit for me.
 

Food as medicine

While participating in rotations I also realized you can find a subspecialty within family medicine.

During my fourth year of medical school, I followed an attending who was seeing a patient for hypertension, prediabetes and hypercholesterolemia. The attending told the patient to eat “healthier,” gave her a handout, and scheduled a follow up appointment for 6 months later.

My thoughts were: “That’s it? That’s how we counsel patients to improve their dietary habits?”

As the patient was leaving the exam room, I asked her what type of oil she cooked with, and I proceeded to share culinary tips from my mother – who was a self-taught and early adopter of the food-as-medicine movement.

Once I started my residency, I knew I’d want to incorporate lifestyle and dietary approaches at many of my patient visits.

I scheduled patients every month to monitor their weight, follow up on chronic conditions, but more importantly, to engage them in their health and empower them to make small lifestyle changes each month and report their efforts. I felt like I was their health coach and cheerleader.
 

My career in family medicine

Entering the job market allowed me to form my philosophy of treating patients with a mind, body, and spirit approach. I chose to practice value-based care, which aligns with my lifestyle and preventative medicine approach .

I currently practice in a small family medicine–only clinic that is part of a larger multispecialty system. Primary care specialties in my organization are valued, respected and central to a patient’s well being and care. We are encouraged to spend time with patients, assess barriers to care and work collaboratively with our healthcare team, so that preventative medicine approaches take the lead in a patient’s health. This supportive culture and environment is one where my passion for food as medicine has thrived.

One day I forgot to pack a lunch and instead brought a grocery bag of items to make a salad. When I realized I made too much, I sent an email to my staff to get some “free salad in my office.” This serendipitous moment started an informal office “salad club” each week. Continued support from my staff and leadership, allowed me to consider further extending this teaching to my patients and my colleagues.

Three years ago, I helped adopt a sustainable plant-forward menu for our physician meetings, complete with a recipe from the menu for physicians to replicate at home or give to their patients.

I also pursued adoption of shared medical appointments for our medical group. These appointments apply the “see one, do one, teach one” model in medicine, but with culinary medicine as the focus.

Knowing that my patients are all connected to their families through food, I sought this as an opportunity to dive in further with wellness opportunities at their next meal. After almost 2 years of working on this project, I was able to host my first shared medical appointment with a group of patients on March 12, 2020. The next day schools closed, lockdowns occurred, and the world changed.
 

Opportunities highlighted by the pandemic

We always knew health care was broken but adding the increasingly longer hours and COVID vaccine–hesitant patients that the pandemic brought made everything look dark at times. What has helped me stay hopeful and energetic for system changes is feeling gratitude and seeking bright lights.

My experiences seeing patients in telehealth visits are examples of some of the bright lights I found in the pandemic. During these visits, patients showed me something from their pantry, and we’d go over nutritional labels together.

Additionally, my patients became engaged with their own conditions and wanted to improve them because of news articles highlighting risk factors for COVID-19, such as obesity. I had an active audience when it came to talking about food-as-medicine approaches to improving risk factors and immunity. And since everyone was listening, I didn’t stop at food. I also talked about physical health, stress resiliency, planetary diets, sleep, connections, and lastly vaccines!

Once the vaccines were distributed, I naturally gravitated to having those conversations with patients and colleagues and on social media. Plus, the pandemic gave us moments of simple times to slow down, take more rests, be less overscheduled, consider work-life priorities, and, lastly, to be okay with not being totally okay.

In practicing primary care, we have a unique role in seeing medicine from a whole body, whole person, whole family perspective. There is an opportunity to highlight what is broken in medicine and aim to make it whole.

I’m currently looking at shared medical appointments as a new standard way to provide care to all patients, because it improves access, provides better quality visits and aligns my values, mission, and purpose.

In the midst of the pandemic, I helped advocate for a sustainable plant-forward menu that was launched throughout four different hospitals in the Sharp HealthCare system, in California, in 2020. Knowing that patients were served a menu I played a role in, gave me solace.

As part of the hospital food and nutrition team, I am grateful for the opportunity I have to work on a broader mission to address social determinants of health and seek opportunities to help the system work for our patients.

Public health communication has been lacking in the pandemic, but another bright light is that we were still the trusted messengers to our patients and our communities. I’m continually honored and humbled to be trusted with a whole family’s health.

Dr. Neison practices family medicine and culinary medicine at Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group in San Diego, and is cochair of climate and planetary health for SRS Medical Group. You can follow her on Instagram, LinkedIn, and Facebook @Flavors4WellnessMD.

Vaccinated people who have a breakthrough case of Omicron will have better protection against COVID-19 variants than vaccinated people who receive a booster shot, two preprint studies show.

The University of Washington, Seattle, working with Vir Biotechnology of San Francisco, looked at blood samples of vaccinated people who had breakthrough cases of Delta or Omicron and compared the samples with three other groups: people who caught COVID and were later vaccinated, vaccinated people who were never infected, and people who were infected and never vaccinated.

The vaccinated people who had a breakthrough case of Omicron produced antibodies that helped protect against coronavirus variants, whereas unvaccinated people who caught Omicron didn’t produce as many antibodies, the study showed.

BioNTech, the German biotechnology company, found that people who’d been double and triple vaccinated and then became infected with Omicron had a better B-cell response than people who’d gotten a booster shot but had not been infected.

The University of Washington research team also came up with similar findings about B cells.

The findings don’t mean people should deliberately try to become infected with COVID, said Alexandra Walls, PhD, one of the University of Washington scientists, according to Business Standard.

But the study does indicate “that we are at the point where we may want to consider having a different vaccine to boost people,” said David Veesler, PhD, of the University of Washington team.

“We should think about breakthrough infections as essentially equivalent to another dose of vaccine,” John Wherry, PhD, a professor and director of the Institute for Immunology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told Business Standard. Dr. Wherry was not involved in the studies but reviewed the BioNTech study.

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

Vaccinated people who have a breakthrough case of Omicron will have better protection against COVID-19 variants than vaccinated people who receive a booster shot, two preprint studies show.

The University of Washington, Seattle, working with Vir Biotechnology of San Francisco, looked at blood samples of vaccinated people who had breakthrough cases of Delta or Omicron and compared the samples with three other groups: people who caught COVID and were later vaccinated, vaccinated people who were never infected, and people who were infected and never vaccinated.

The vaccinated people who had a breakthrough case of Omicron produced antibodies that helped protect against coronavirus variants, whereas unvaccinated people who caught Omicron didn’t produce as many antibodies, the study showed.

BioNTech, the German biotechnology company, found that people who’d been double and triple vaccinated and then became infected with Omicron had a better B-cell response than people who’d gotten a booster shot but had not been infected.

The University of Washington research team also came up with similar findings about B cells.

The findings don’t mean people should deliberately try to become infected with COVID, said Alexandra Walls, PhD, one of the University of Washington scientists, according to Business Standard.

But the study does indicate “that we are at the point where we may want to consider having a different vaccine to boost people,” said David Veesler, PhD, of the University of Washington team.

“We should think about breakthrough infections as essentially equivalent to another dose of vaccine,” John Wherry, PhD, a professor and director of the Institute for Immunology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told Business Standard. Dr. Wherry was not involved in the studies but reviewed the BioNTech study.

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

Vaccinated people who have a breakthrough case of Omicron will have better protection against COVID-19 variants than vaccinated people who receive a booster shot, two preprint studies show.

The University of Washington, Seattle, working with Vir Biotechnology of San Francisco, looked at blood samples of vaccinated people who had breakthrough cases of Delta or Omicron and compared the samples with three other groups: people who caught COVID and were later vaccinated, vaccinated people who were never infected, and people who were infected and never vaccinated.

The vaccinated people who had a breakthrough case of Omicron produced antibodies that helped protect against coronavirus variants, whereas unvaccinated people who caught Omicron didn’t produce as many antibodies, the study showed.

BioNTech, the German biotechnology company, found that people who’d been double and triple vaccinated and then became infected with Omicron had a better B-cell response than people who’d gotten a booster shot but had not been infected.

The University of Washington research team also came up with similar findings about B cells.

The findings don’t mean people should deliberately try to become infected with COVID, said Alexandra Walls, PhD, one of the University of Washington scientists, according to Business Standard.

But the study does indicate “that we are at the point where we may want to consider having a different vaccine to boost people,” said David Veesler, PhD, of the University of Washington team.

“We should think about breakthrough infections as essentially equivalent to another dose of vaccine,” John Wherry, PhD, a professor and director of the Institute for Immunology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told Business Standard. Dr. Wherry was not involved in the studies but reviewed the BioNTech study.

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

In the run up to the midterm elections in November, President Biden has warmed to student loan forgiveness. However, before even being proposed, severe restrictions have been attached to the forgiveness that would severely limit any effective forgiveness for physicians.

What was the plan?

During the 2020 election, student loan forgiveness was a hot topic as the COVID epidemic raged. The CARES Act has placed all federal student loans in forbearance, with no payments made and the interest rate set to 0% to prevent further accrual. While this was tremendously useful to 45 million borrowers around the country (including the author), nothing material was done to deal with the loans.

The Biden Administration’s approach at that time was multi-tiered and chaotic. Plans were put forward that either expanded Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) or capped it. Plans were put forward that either extended free undergraduate or severely limited it through Pell Grants. Unfortunately, that duality continues today, with current plans not having a clear goal or a target group of beneficiaries.
 

Necessary CARES Act extensions

The Biden Administration has attempted repeatedly to turn the student loan apparatus back on, restarting payments en masse. However, each time, they are beset by challenges, ranging from repeat COVID spikes to servicer withdrawals or macroeconomic indicators of a recession.

At each step, the administration has had little choice but to extend the CARES Act forbearance, lest they suffer retribution for hastily resuming payments for 45 million borrowers without the apparatus to do so. Two years ago, the major federal servicers laid off hundreds, if not thousands, of staffers responsible for payment processing, accounting, customer care, and taxation. Hiring, training, and staffing these positions is nontrivial.

The administration has been out of step with servicers such that three of the largest have chosen not to renew their contracts: Navient, MyFedLoan, and Granite State Management and Resources. This has left 15 million borrowers in the lurch, not knowing who their servicer is – and, even worse, losing track of qualifying payments toward programs like PSLF.
 

Avenues of forgiveness

There are two major pathways to forgiveness. It is widely believed that the executive branch has the authority to broadly forgive student loans under executive order and managed through the U.S. Department of Education.

The alternative is through congressional action, voting on forgiveness as an economic stimulus plan. There is little appetite in Congress for forgiveness, and prominent congresspeople like Senator Warren and Senator Schumer have both pushed the executive branch for forgiveness in recognition of this.
 

What has been proposed?

First, it’s important to state that as headline-grabbing as it is to see that $50,000 of forgiveness has been proposed, the reality is that President Biden has repeatedly stated that he will not be in favor of that level of forgiveness. Instead, the number most commonly being discussed is $10,000. This would represent an unprecedented amount of support, alleviating 35% of borrowers of all student debt.

The impact of proposed forgiveness plans for physicians

For the medical community, sadly, this doesn’t represent a significant amount of forgiveness. At graduation, the average MD has $203,000 in debt, and the average DO has $258,000 in debt. These numbers grow during residency for years before any meaningful payments are made.

Further weakening forgiveness plans for physicians has been two caps proposed by the administration in recent days. The first is an income cap of $125,000. While this would maintain forgiveness for nearly all residents and fellows, this would exclude nearly every practicing physician. The alternative to an income cap is specific exclusion of certain careers seen to be high-earning: doctors and lawyers.
 

The bottom line

Physicians are unlikely to be included in any forgiveness plans being proposed recently by the Biden Administration. If they are considered, it will be for exclusion from any forgiveness offered.

For physicians no longer eligible for PSLF, this exclusion needs to be considered in managing the student loan debt associated with becoming a doctor.

Dr. Palmer is a part-time instructor, department of pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and staff physician, department of medical critical care, Boston Children’s Hospital. He disclosed that he serves as director for Panacea Financial.

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

In the run up to the midterm elections in November, President Biden has warmed to student loan forgiveness. However, before even being proposed, severe restrictions have been attached to the forgiveness that would severely limit any effective forgiveness for physicians.

What was the plan?

During the 2020 election, student loan forgiveness was a hot topic as the COVID epidemic raged. The CARES Act has placed all federal student loans in forbearance, with no payments made and the interest rate set to 0% to prevent further accrual. While this was tremendously useful to 45 million borrowers around the country (including the author), nothing material was done to deal with the loans.

The Biden Administration’s approach at that time was multi-tiered and chaotic. Plans were put forward that either expanded Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) or capped it. Plans were put forward that either extended free undergraduate or severely limited it through Pell Grants. Unfortunately, that duality continues today, with current plans not having a clear goal or a target group of beneficiaries.
 

Necessary CARES Act extensions

The Biden Administration has attempted repeatedly to turn the student loan apparatus back on, restarting payments en masse. However, each time, they are beset by challenges, ranging from repeat COVID spikes to servicer withdrawals or macroeconomic indicators of a recession.

At each step, the administration has had little choice but to extend the CARES Act forbearance, lest they suffer retribution for hastily resuming payments for 45 million borrowers without the apparatus to do so. Two years ago, the major federal servicers laid off hundreds, if not thousands, of staffers responsible for payment processing, accounting, customer care, and taxation. Hiring, training, and staffing these positions is nontrivial.

The administration has been out of step with servicers such that three of the largest have chosen not to renew their contracts: Navient, MyFedLoan, and Granite State Management and Resources. This has left 15 million borrowers in the lurch, not knowing who their servicer is – and, even worse, losing track of qualifying payments toward programs like PSLF.
 

Avenues of forgiveness

There are two major pathways to forgiveness. It is widely believed that the executive branch has the authority to broadly forgive student loans under executive order and managed through the U.S. Department of Education.

The alternative is through congressional action, voting on forgiveness as an economic stimulus plan. There is little appetite in Congress for forgiveness, and prominent congresspeople like Senator Warren and Senator Schumer have both pushed the executive branch for forgiveness in recognition of this.
 

What has been proposed?

First, it’s important to state that as headline-grabbing as it is to see that $50,000 of forgiveness has been proposed, the reality is that President Biden has repeatedly stated that he will not be in favor of that level of forgiveness. Instead, the number most commonly being discussed is $10,000. This would represent an unprecedented amount of support, alleviating 35% of borrowers of all student debt.

The impact of proposed forgiveness plans for physicians

For the medical community, sadly, this doesn’t represent a significant amount of forgiveness. At graduation, the average MD has $203,000 in debt, and the average DO has $258,000 in debt. These numbers grow during residency for years before any meaningful payments are made.

Further weakening forgiveness plans for physicians has been two caps proposed by the administration in recent days. The first is an income cap of $125,000. While this would maintain forgiveness for nearly all residents and fellows, this would exclude nearly every practicing physician. The alternative to an income cap is specific exclusion of certain careers seen to be high-earning: doctors and lawyers.
 

The bottom line

Physicians are unlikely to be included in any forgiveness plans being proposed recently by the Biden Administration. If they are considered, it will be for exclusion from any forgiveness offered.

For physicians no longer eligible for PSLF, this exclusion needs to be considered in managing the student loan debt associated with becoming a doctor.

Dr. Palmer is a part-time instructor, department of pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and staff physician, department of medical critical care, Boston Children’s Hospital. He disclosed that he serves as director for Panacea Financial.

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

In the run up to the midterm elections in November, President Biden has warmed to student loan forgiveness. However, before even being proposed, severe restrictions have been attached to the forgiveness that would severely limit any effective forgiveness for physicians.

What was the plan?

During the 2020 election, student loan forgiveness was a hot topic as the COVID epidemic raged. The CARES Act has placed all federal student loans in forbearance, with no payments made and the interest rate set to 0% to prevent further accrual. While this was tremendously useful to 45 million borrowers around the country (including the author), nothing material was done to deal with the loans.

The Biden Administration’s approach at that time was multi-tiered and chaotic. Plans were put forward that either expanded Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) or capped it. Plans were put forward that either extended free undergraduate or severely limited it through Pell Grants. Unfortunately, that duality continues today, with current plans not having a clear goal or a target group of beneficiaries.
 

Necessary CARES Act extensions

The Biden Administration has attempted repeatedly to turn the student loan apparatus back on, restarting payments en masse. However, each time, they are beset by challenges, ranging from repeat COVID spikes to servicer withdrawals or macroeconomic indicators of a recession.

At each step, the administration has had little choice but to extend the CARES Act forbearance, lest they suffer retribution for hastily resuming payments for 45 million borrowers without the apparatus to do so. Two years ago, the major federal servicers laid off hundreds, if not thousands, of staffers responsible for payment processing, accounting, customer care, and taxation. Hiring, training, and staffing these positions is nontrivial.

The administration has been out of step with servicers such that three of the largest have chosen not to renew their contracts: Navient, MyFedLoan, and Granite State Management and Resources. This has left 15 million borrowers in the lurch, not knowing who their servicer is – and, even worse, losing track of qualifying payments toward programs like PSLF.
 

Avenues of forgiveness

There are two major pathways to forgiveness. It is widely believed that the executive branch has the authority to broadly forgive student loans under executive order and managed through the U.S. Department of Education.

The alternative is through congressional action, voting on forgiveness as an economic stimulus plan. There is little appetite in Congress for forgiveness, and prominent congresspeople like Senator Warren and Senator Schumer have both pushed the executive branch for forgiveness in recognition of this.
 

What has been proposed?

First, it’s important to state that as headline-grabbing as it is to see that $50,000 of forgiveness has been proposed, the reality is that President Biden has repeatedly stated that he will not be in favor of that level of forgiveness. Instead, the number most commonly being discussed is $10,000. This would represent an unprecedented amount of support, alleviating 35% of borrowers of all student debt.

The impact of proposed forgiveness plans for physicians

For the medical community, sadly, this doesn’t represent a significant amount of forgiveness. At graduation, the average MD has $203,000 in debt, and the average DO has $258,000 in debt. These numbers grow during residency for years before any meaningful payments are made.

Further weakening forgiveness plans for physicians has been two caps proposed by the administration in recent days. The first is an income cap of $125,000. While this would maintain forgiveness for nearly all residents and fellows, this would exclude nearly every practicing physician. The alternative to an income cap is specific exclusion of certain careers seen to be high-earning: doctors and lawyers.
 

The bottom line

Physicians are unlikely to be included in any forgiveness plans being proposed recently by the Biden Administration. If they are considered, it will be for exclusion from any forgiveness offered.

For physicians no longer eligible for PSLF, this exclusion needs to be considered in managing the student loan debt associated with becoming a doctor.

Dr. Palmer is a part-time instructor, department of pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and staff physician, department of medical critical care, Boston Children’s Hospital. He disclosed that he serves as director for Panacea Financial.

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

The latest increase in new child COVID-19 cases seems to be picking up steam, rising by 50% in the last week, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The new-case count was over 93,000 for the week of May 6-12, compared with 62,000 the previous week. That 50% week-to-week change follows increases of 17%, 44%, 12%, and 28% since the nationwide weekly total fell to its low point for the year (25,915) in the beginning of April, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report.

By comparison, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention put the total number of cases in children aged 0-17 at 12.7 million, although that figure is based on a cumulative number of 73.4 million cases among all ages, which is well short of the reported total of almost 82.4 million as of May 16. COVID cases in children have led to 1,536 deaths so far, the CDC said.

The recent upward trend in new cases also can be seen in the CDC’s data, which show the weekly rate rising from 35 per 100,000 population on March 26 to 102 per 100,000 on May 7 in children aged 0-14 years, with commensurate increases seen among older children over the same period. In turn, the rate of new admissions for children aged 0-17 has gone from a low of 0.13 per 100,000 as late as April 10 up to 0.23 on May 13, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

One thing not going up these days is vaccinations among the youngest eligible children. The number of 5- to 11-year-olds receiving their initial dose was down to 40,000 for the week of May 5-11, the fewest since the vaccine was approved for that age group. For a change of pace, the number increased among children aged 12-17, as 37,000 got initial vaccinations that week, compared with 29,000 a week earlier, the AAP said in its weekly vaccination report.

[email protected]

The latest increase in new child COVID-19 cases seems to be picking up steam, rising by 50% in the last week, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The new-case count was over 93,000 for the week of May 6-12, compared with 62,000 the previous week. That 50% week-to-week change follows increases of 17%, 44%, 12%, and 28% since the nationwide weekly total fell to its low point for the year (25,915) in the beginning of April, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report.

By comparison, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention put the total number of cases in children aged 0-17 at 12.7 million, although that figure is based on a cumulative number of 73.4 million cases among all ages, which is well short of the reported total of almost 82.4 million as of May 16. COVID cases in children have led to 1,536 deaths so far, the CDC said.

The recent upward trend in new cases also can be seen in the CDC’s data, which show the weekly rate rising from 35 per 100,000 population on March 26 to 102 per 100,000 on May 7 in children aged 0-14 years, with commensurate increases seen among older children over the same period. In turn, the rate of new admissions for children aged 0-17 has gone from a low of 0.13 per 100,000 as late as April 10 up to 0.23 on May 13, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

One thing not going up these days is vaccinations among the youngest eligible children. The number of 5- to 11-year-olds receiving their initial dose was down to 40,000 for the week of May 5-11, the fewest since the vaccine was approved for that age group. For a change of pace, the number increased among children aged 12-17, as 37,000 got initial vaccinations that week, compared with 29,000 a week earlier, the AAP said in its weekly vaccination report.

[email protected]

The latest increase in new child COVID-19 cases seems to be picking up steam, rising by 50% in the last week, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The new-case count was over 93,000 for the week of May 6-12, compared with 62,000 the previous week. That 50% week-to-week change follows increases of 17%, 44%, 12%, and 28% since the nationwide weekly total fell to its low point for the year (25,915) in the beginning of April, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report.

By comparison, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention put the total number of cases in children aged 0-17 at 12.7 million, although that figure is based on a cumulative number of 73.4 million cases among all ages, which is well short of the reported total of almost 82.4 million as of May 16. COVID cases in children have led to 1,536 deaths so far, the CDC said.

The recent upward trend in new cases also can be seen in the CDC’s data, which show the weekly rate rising from 35 per 100,000 population on March 26 to 102 per 100,000 on May 7 in children aged 0-14 years, with commensurate increases seen among older children over the same period. In turn, the rate of new admissions for children aged 0-17 has gone from a low of 0.13 per 100,000 as late as April 10 up to 0.23 on May 13, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

One thing not going up these days is vaccinations among the youngest eligible children. The number of 5- to 11-year-olds receiving their initial dose was down to 40,000 for the week of May 5-11, the fewest since the vaccine was approved for that age group. For a change of pace, the number increased among children aged 12-17, as 37,000 got initial vaccinations that week, compared with 29,000 a week earlier, the AAP said in its weekly vaccination report.

[email protected]

Before the pandemic hit in 2019, Pooja Aysola, MD, considered herself lucky because she could tap into telehealth for neurology consults in her work as an emergency department physician.  

“We would wheel in a computer screen with a neurologist on board every time we had a suspected stroke patient. And I was able to talk directly to the neurologist about my patient’s symptoms. And it was great,” Dr. Aysola said.

The pandemic, however, prompted the need for telehealth in many situations beyond specialty care. As such, investment exploded over the past few years.

“We’re seeing telehealth across all specialties ... more than half of clinicians are now saying that they do believe that virtual visits will surpass in-person visits for primary care needs,” said Dr. Aysola, who also serves as senior director, clinical operations at Wheel, a Texas-based telehealth company.

Dr. Aysola spoke during an American Telemedicine Association conference panel addressing how COVID prompted an uptick in telehealth investment and utilization and how such virtual care is likely to evolve moving forward.

Nathaniel Lacktman, a partner at law firm Foley & Lardner, agreed with Dr. Aysola’s assessment of the market.

“The appetite for virtual care has become voracious,” said Mr. Lacktman, who chairs the firm’s telemedicine and digital health team. “It reminds me in some ways of taking my kids out to dinner and saying, ‘Try this new food.’ They’re like, ‘No, I won’t like it.’ They finally get a little taste and they’re like, ‘This is amazing.’”

While there is no doubt that stakeholders – from innovators to investors to providers to patients – will want more than just a taste of telehealth in the future, panelists addressed if this undeniable demand for virtual care was simply a short-term response to the pandemic or if there is a long-term desire to fundamentally change how care is delivered.
 

Expanding on the pandemic-driven ‘sandbox’

While the uptick in telehealth investment and utilization is not expected to continue at such jarring rates in the future, the panelists pointed out that innovation will proceed but perhaps at a different pace.

“The last 3 years have been a sandbox during which the industry was able to experiment,” said Mr. Lacktman. “What we’re going to see more of even post pandemic is building upon that experimental sandbox and creating models that aren’t just high growth and really quick but that are sustainable and meaningful.”

As such, patients and providers won’t be looking for telehealth to simply provide access to care but to provide a full scope of services while also improving quality.   

Rachel Stillman, vice president of 7wireVentures, a Chicago-based venture capital firm, also expects interest in telehealth to continue but at a less frenetic pace. In 2021, the industry witnessed nearly $31 billion of venture financing directed towards digital health companies, she said.

“Now, Q1 2022 has had a little bit of a slower start. But with that said, we still have invested $6 billion in early stage companies. So ... we’re seeing some initial signs perhaps of – I don’t want to call it a slowdown – but increased discipline,” Ms. Stillman said.

Start-up companies will need to carefully position themselves for success in this post pandemic environment. “Ultimately, it really goes down to making sure your fundamentals are strong ... and having a really compelling [return on investment] case for your health plan, your self-insured employer, your health system, or your ultimate buyer,” Ms. Stillman said.

Two models are coming into play as innovation continues, she added. One is a traditional care delivery model whereby a start-up organization is building their own provider network specialized for the conditions or patient populations they are serving.

“Conversely, there are new entrants that are thinking about how they can leverage their insightful and strong technology foundations and platforms for existing provider networks that could benefit from a telemedicine partner,” Ms. Stillman pointed out.

Dr. Aysola added that companies are moving forward strategically to achieve post pandemic success. Some telehealth start-ups, for instance, are “capturing some of the low-hanging fruit, the simple UTIs, the really easy things to treat,” Dr. Aysola said. 

Others are addressing the clinician’s experience. “Over 50% of clinicians have thought about leaving their jobs at some point during the pandemic. And so it’s becoming really clear that focusing on the clinician and the clinician’s needs are just imperative to [creating a] winning model post-pandemic,” Dr. Aysola said.
 

Adapting to the new normal

Health care provider organizations also need to adjust to post pandemic realities. “We work with a number of hospital systems, and it’s astounding how slow they are compared to the start-ups because there’s a lot more constituents; there’s bureaucracy,” Mr. Lacktman said. As a result, “the hospitals are in a more uncomfortable position post pandemic than the start-ups.”

To move forward successfully, these organizations, which are typically risk averse, need to create alignment among legal, compliance, and clinical leaders, Mr. Lacktman advised. 

One of the first decisions that these teams need to make is whether they should proceed on their own or enter into a partnership with a start-up or pursue a merger and acquisition. In addition, some health systems, hospitals, and health plans are even opting to establish their own venture funds.

“Building your own venture fund or even investing ... in companies directly or in other venture funds [are strategies] that health systems might be able to leverage both to accelerate partnerships and also really be on top of key trends,” Ms. Stillman said.

No matter how health care systems invest in and implement telemedicine technologies, though, the need to move quickly is paramount.

Traditional health care systems “don’t always have the luxury of time. Things have to be done pretty quickly in order to remain competitive,” Dr. Aysola concluded. “We’ve found that companies can launch a virtual care offering in a matter of weeks. When in reality, if a traditional health care system were to try to launch it on their own, it could take upwards of 15 months.”

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

Before the pandemic hit in 2019, Pooja Aysola, MD, considered herself lucky because she could tap into telehealth for neurology consults in her work as an emergency department physician.  

“We would wheel in a computer screen with a neurologist on board every time we had a suspected stroke patient. And I was able to talk directly to the neurologist about my patient’s symptoms. And it was great,” Dr. Aysola said.

The pandemic, however, prompted the need for telehealth in many situations beyond specialty care. As such, investment exploded over the past few years.

“We’re seeing telehealth across all specialties ... more than half of clinicians are now saying that they do believe that virtual visits will surpass in-person visits for primary care needs,” said Dr. Aysola, who also serves as senior director, clinical operations at Wheel, a Texas-based telehealth company.

Dr. Aysola spoke during an American Telemedicine Association conference panel addressing how COVID prompted an uptick in telehealth investment and utilization and how such virtual care is likely to evolve moving forward.

Nathaniel Lacktman, a partner at law firm Foley & Lardner, agreed with Dr. Aysola’s assessment of the market.

“The appetite for virtual care has become voracious,” said Mr. Lacktman, who chairs the firm’s telemedicine and digital health team. “It reminds me in some ways of taking my kids out to dinner and saying, ‘Try this new food.’ They’re like, ‘No, I won’t like it.’ They finally get a little taste and they’re like, ‘This is amazing.’”

While there is no doubt that stakeholders – from innovators to investors to providers to patients – will want more than just a taste of telehealth in the future, panelists addressed if this undeniable demand for virtual care was simply a short-term response to the pandemic or if there is a long-term desire to fundamentally change how care is delivered.
 

Expanding on the pandemic-driven ‘sandbox’

While the uptick in telehealth investment and utilization is not expected to continue at such jarring rates in the future, the panelists pointed out that innovation will proceed but perhaps at a different pace.

“The last 3 years have been a sandbox during which the industry was able to experiment,” said Mr. Lacktman. “What we’re going to see more of even post pandemic is building upon that experimental sandbox and creating models that aren’t just high growth and really quick but that are sustainable and meaningful.”

As such, patients and providers won’t be looking for telehealth to simply provide access to care but to provide a full scope of services while also improving quality.   

Rachel Stillman, vice president of 7wireVentures, a Chicago-based venture capital firm, also expects interest in telehealth to continue but at a less frenetic pace. In 2021, the industry witnessed nearly $31 billion of venture financing directed towards digital health companies, she said.

“Now, Q1 2022 has had a little bit of a slower start. But with that said, we still have invested $6 billion in early stage companies. So ... we’re seeing some initial signs perhaps of – I don’t want to call it a slowdown – but increased discipline,” Ms. Stillman said.

Start-up companies will need to carefully position themselves for success in this post pandemic environment. “Ultimately, it really goes down to making sure your fundamentals are strong ... and having a really compelling [return on investment] case for your health plan, your self-insured employer, your health system, or your ultimate buyer,” Ms. Stillman said.

Two models are coming into play as innovation continues, she added. One is a traditional care delivery model whereby a start-up organization is building their own provider network specialized for the conditions or patient populations they are serving.

“Conversely, there are new entrants that are thinking about how they can leverage their insightful and strong technology foundations and platforms for existing provider networks that could benefit from a telemedicine partner,” Ms. Stillman pointed out.

Dr. Aysola added that companies are moving forward strategically to achieve post pandemic success. Some telehealth start-ups, for instance, are “capturing some of the low-hanging fruit, the simple UTIs, the really easy things to treat,” Dr. Aysola said. 

Others are addressing the clinician’s experience. “Over 50% of clinicians have thought about leaving their jobs at some point during the pandemic. And so it’s becoming really clear that focusing on the clinician and the clinician’s needs are just imperative to [creating a] winning model post-pandemic,” Dr. Aysola said.
 

Adapting to the new normal

Health care provider organizations also need to adjust to post pandemic realities. “We work with a number of hospital systems, and it’s astounding how slow they are compared to the start-ups because there’s a lot more constituents; there’s bureaucracy,” Mr. Lacktman said. As a result, “the hospitals are in a more uncomfortable position post pandemic than the start-ups.”

To move forward successfully, these organizations, which are typically risk averse, need to create alignment among legal, compliance, and clinical leaders, Mr. Lacktman advised. 

One of the first decisions that these teams need to make is whether they should proceed on their own or enter into a partnership with a start-up or pursue a merger and acquisition. In addition, some health systems, hospitals, and health plans are even opting to establish their own venture funds.

“Building your own venture fund or even investing ... in companies directly or in other venture funds [are strategies] that health systems might be able to leverage both to accelerate partnerships and also really be on top of key trends,” Ms. Stillman said.

No matter how health care systems invest in and implement telemedicine technologies, though, the need to move quickly is paramount.

Traditional health care systems “don’t always have the luxury of time. Things have to be done pretty quickly in order to remain competitive,” Dr. Aysola concluded. “We’ve found that companies can launch a virtual care offering in a matter of weeks. When in reality, if a traditional health care system were to try to launch it on their own, it could take upwards of 15 months.”

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

Before the pandemic hit in 2019, Pooja Aysola, MD, considered herself lucky because she could tap into telehealth for neurology consults in her work as an emergency department physician.  

“We would wheel in a computer screen with a neurologist on board every time we had a suspected stroke patient. And I was able to talk directly to the neurologist about my patient’s symptoms. And it was great,” Dr. Aysola said.

The pandemic, however, prompted the need for telehealth in many situations beyond specialty care. As such, investment exploded over the past few years.

“We’re seeing telehealth across all specialties ... more than half of clinicians are now saying that they do believe that virtual visits will surpass in-person visits for primary care needs,” said Dr. Aysola, who also serves as senior director, clinical operations at Wheel, a Texas-based telehealth company.

Dr. Aysola spoke during an American Telemedicine Association conference panel addressing how COVID prompted an uptick in telehealth investment and utilization and how such virtual care is likely to evolve moving forward.

Nathaniel Lacktman, a partner at law firm Foley & Lardner, agreed with Dr. Aysola’s assessment of the market.

“The appetite for virtual care has become voracious,” said Mr. Lacktman, who chairs the firm’s telemedicine and digital health team. “It reminds me in some ways of taking my kids out to dinner and saying, ‘Try this new food.’ They’re like, ‘No, I won’t like it.’ They finally get a little taste and they’re like, ‘This is amazing.’”

While there is no doubt that stakeholders – from innovators to investors to providers to patients – will want more than just a taste of telehealth in the future, panelists addressed if this undeniable demand for virtual care was simply a short-term response to the pandemic or if there is a long-term desire to fundamentally change how care is delivered.
 

Expanding on the pandemic-driven ‘sandbox’

While the uptick in telehealth investment and utilization is not expected to continue at such jarring rates in the future, the panelists pointed out that innovation will proceed but perhaps at a different pace.

“The last 3 years have been a sandbox during which the industry was able to experiment,” said Mr. Lacktman. “What we’re going to see more of even post pandemic is building upon that experimental sandbox and creating models that aren’t just high growth and really quick but that are sustainable and meaningful.”

As such, patients and providers won’t be looking for telehealth to simply provide access to care but to provide a full scope of services while also improving quality.   

Rachel Stillman, vice president of 7wireVentures, a Chicago-based venture capital firm, also expects interest in telehealth to continue but at a less frenetic pace. In 2021, the industry witnessed nearly $31 billion of venture financing directed towards digital health companies, she said.

“Now, Q1 2022 has had a little bit of a slower start. But with that said, we still have invested $6 billion in early stage companies. So ... we’re seeing some initial signs perhaps of – I don’t want to call it a slowdown – but increased discipline,” Ms. Stillman said.

Start-up companies will need to carefully position themselves for success in this post pandemic environment. “Ultimately, it really goes down to making sure your fundamentals are strong ... and having a really compelling [return on investment] case for your health plan, your self-insured employer, your health system, or your ultimate buyer,” Ms. Stillman said.

Two models are coming into play as innovation continues, she added. One is a traditional care delivery model whereby a start-up organization is building their own provider network specialized for the conditions or patient populations they are serving.

“Conversely, there are new entrants that are thinking about how they can leverage their insightful and strong technology foundations and platforms for existing provider networks that could benefit from a telemedicine partner,” Ms. Stillman pointed out.

Dr. Aysola added that companies are moving forward strategically to achieve post pandemic success. Some telehealth start-ups, for instance, are “capturing some of the low-hanging fruit, the simple UTIs, the really easy things to treat,” Dr. Aysola said. 

Others are addressing the clinician’s experience. “Over 50% of clinicians have thought about leaving their jobs at some point during the pandemic. And so it’s becoming really clear that focusing on the clinician and the clinician’s needs are just imperative to [creating a] winning model post-pandemic,” Dr. Aysola said.
 

Adapting to the new normal

Health care provider organizations also need to adjust to post pandemic realities. “We work with a number of hospital systems, and it’s astounding how slow they are compared to the start-ups because there’s a lot more constituents; there’s bureaucracy,” Mr. Lacktman said. As a result, “the hospitals are in a more uncomfortable position post pandemic than the start-ups.”

To move forward successfully, these organizations, which are typically risk averse, need to create alignment among legal, compliance, and clinical leaders, Mr. Lacktman advised. 

One of the first decisions that these teams need to make is whether they should proceed on their own or enter into a partnership with a start-up or pursue a merger and acquisition. In addition, some health systems, hospitals, and health plans are even opting to establish their own venture funds.

“Building your own venture fund or even investing ... in companies directly or in other venture funds [are strategies] that health systems might be able to leverage both to accelerate partnerships and also really be on top of key trends,” Ms. Stillman said.

No matter how health care systems invest in and implement telemedicine technologies, though, the need to move quickly is paramount.

Traditional health care systems “don’t always have the luxury of time. Things have to be done pretty quickly in order to remain competitive,” Dr. Aysola concluded. “We’ve found that companies can launch a virtual care offering in a matter of weeks. When in reality, if a traditional health care system were to try to launch it on their own, it could take upwards of 15 months.”

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