While rainbow-colored flags may wave proudly from hotel balconies and sports arenas, LGBTQ+ patients might still feel some discrimination in the medical space, according to a Center for American Progress survey.

“Despite health care being considered a basic human right by the World Health Organization, it’s common for LGBTQ+ folks to face difficulties not only when trying to access care but also within the walls of the doctor’s office or hospital,” says Samantha Estevez, MD, a reproductive endocrinology and infertility fellow in New York.

In Medscape’s Physicians’ Views on LGBTQ+ Rights Issues Report 2022: Strong Emotions, Contrary Opinions, physicians were asked whether they see disparities in the care LGBTQ+ patients receive in comparison with the care that non-LGBTQ+ patients receive. About 35% of physicians said LGBTQ+ patients receive a different level of care; 52% of respondents younger than 45 said so.

It’s an issue unlikely to be resolved without the medical community’s awareness. With insights from four LGBTQ+ clinicians, here are several steps physicians can take to close the disparity gap.
 

Update intake forms

Many patient medical forms are populated with checkboxes. These forms may make it easier for patients to share their medical information and for practices to collect data. But unfortunately, they don’t allow for patients to fill in contextual information.

“It’s extremely important for health care professionals to understand the people they are serving,” says Nicholas Grant, PhD, ABPP, president of GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ+ Equality. Dr. Grant is a board-certified clinical psychologist in Hawaii. “The more accurate we are with our information gathering and paperwork, the more accurate we will be at serving our LGBTQ+ communities.”

Dr. Grant recommends asking open-ended questions, such as the following:

• What is your gender identity?
• What was your assigned sex at birth?
• What pronouns do you prefer?
• What gender(s) are your sexual partners?

However, Frances Grimstad, MD, a Boston-based ob/gyn and GLMA board member, adds this advice: Before revising intake forms, consider their purpose.

“As an ob/gyn, information about a patient’s sexual orientation and their sexual activity is beneficial for my care,” says Dr. Grimstad. “But that information may not be relevant for a physical therapy clinic where most patients are coming in with knee injuries. So, you shouldn’t just place items on your intake forms by default. Instead, clinicians should consider what is relevant to the encounter you’re having and how you are going to use the information.”
 

Change signage

Take stock of posters and brochures in the office and signs outside restrooms. If they communicate traditional gender roles, then it may be time for a change.

“It’s important to ensure representation of all types of people and families in your office,” says Chase Anderson, MD, an assistant professor of child and adolescent psychiatry in San Francisco.

Hang posters with images of diverse families. Display brochures that address LGBTQ+ health concerns when warranted. And for restrooms, replace traditional binary images with gender-neutral ones. You can also add signage about each bathroom’s purpose, suggests Dr. Grimstad.

“Let’s not just de-gender bathrooms,” she says. “Let’s hang signs that tell if the bathroom has multiple stalls, urinals, or handicap access. Let signage focus on the functions of each bathroom, not gender.”
 

Ask for feedback

Feedback forms give LBGTQ+ patients a platform to share concerns. For example, consider an email with a linked document that all patients can fill out anonymously. Ask questions such as the following:

• Did you feel affirmed during your appointment? If so, how? If not, how can we improve?
• Did we use the proper pronouns?
• Did signage make you feel like you were in a safe space? What didn’t make you feel safe?

Set up a system with team members to process feedback and implement changes.

Also, if you have a large-scale practice, consider forming an LGBTQ+ community advisory board. “They can offer feedback about your practice’s clinical structure,” Dr. Grimstad tells Medscape.
 

Hire diverse employees

Building a diverse and inclusive workforce is critical to serving the LBGTQ+ community. Team members should reflect your patient population.

“Diversity isn’t a monolith,” says Dr. Grimstad. “It isn’t just racial diversity, or sexual or gender diversity. Even in a town which appears homogeneous in one area of diversity, such as a majority White town, it’s important to remember all the other facets of diversity that exist, such as gender, sexual orientation, cultural diversity.”

A diverse team may offer a surprising boost to your practice. According to a study published in the Journal of the National Medical Association, patient outcomes improve when a more diverse team provides care. In fact, diverse teams fare better in innovation, communication, risk assessment, and financial performance.

Dr. Anderson also recommends allowing team members “to be themselves.” For example, let employees wear their hair in whatever way they prefer or display their tattoos.

“This signals to patients that if staff members can be themselves here, patients can be themselves here, too,” says Dr. Anderson.
 

Provide training

Medical staff may sometimes feel uncomfortable serving LBGTQ+ patients because of their own biases, attitudes, or lack of knowledge about the community. Regular training can ease their discomfort.

“Make sure all health professionals are trained and educated on the needs of LGBTQ+ patients,” says Dr. Grant. “Understanding their health needs is the provider’s responsibility.”

For basic information, Dr. Anderson recommends visiting The Trevor Project, an organization that serves LGBTQ+ youth. “They’re really good at keeping up with changing verbiage and trends,” says Dr. Anderson.

To strengthen community connections, Dr. Grimstad recommends using trainers from your local area if possible. Do a Google search to find an LGBTQ+ center nearby or in the closest major city. Invite them to staff meetings or ask them to organize a workshop.

By implementing these strategies, you can start building a bridge between your practice and the LGBTQ+ community and provide better care for them as patients.

“Whether it’s knowing about PrEP ... or ensuring staff members are trained in caring for patients with any general or sexual identity, we as doctors and medical professionals must continue to move forward and serve our LGBTQ+ patients in big and small ways,” says Dr. Estevez.

For in-depth training, check the following organizations:

National LGBTQIA+ Health Education Center at the Fenway Institute provides educational programs and resources to health care organizations.

GLMA has a top 10 health issues webpage that doctors can use to educate themselves and staff members on the LGBTQ+ community’s most urgent health needs.

Alliance for Full Acceptance offers LGBTQ cultural competency training, including a 1-hour awareness class and a 3-hour inclusivity workshop for clinicians.

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has compiled a list of training curricula for behavioral health counselors and primary care providers.

UCSF’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Resource Center has a list of training and educational materials for medical professionals.

Equality California Institute offers both in-person and virtual training covering basic terminology, data on LGBTQ+ health issues, and how to create an inclusive environment.

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

While rainbow-colored flags may wave proudly from hotel balconies and sports arenas, LGBTQ+ patients might still feel some discrimination in the medical space, according to a Center for American Progress survey.

“Despite health care being considered a basic human right by the World Health Organization, it’s common for LGBTQ+ folks to face difficulties not only when trying to access care but also within the walls of the doctor’s office or hospital,” says Samantha Estevez, MD, a reproductive endocrinology and infertility fellow in New York.

In Medscape’s Physicians’ Views on LGBTQ+ Rights Issues Report 2022: Strong Emotions, Contrary Opinions, physicians were asked whether they see disparities in the care LGBTQ+ patients receive in comparison with the care that non-LGBTQ+ patients receive. About 35% of physicians said LGBTQ+ patients receive a different level of care; 52% of respondents younger than 45 said so.

It’s an issue unlikely to be resolved without the medical community’s awareness. With insights from four LGBTQ+ clinicians, here are several steps physicians can take to close the disparity gap.
 

Update intake forms

Many patient medical forms are populated with checkboxes. These forms may make it easier for patients to share their medical information and for practices to collect data. But unfortunately, they don’t allow for patients to fill in contextual information.

“It’s extremely important for health care professionals to understand the people they are serving,” says Nicholas Grant, PhD, ABPP, president of GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ+ Equality. Dr. Grant is a board-certified clinical psychologist in Hawaii. “The more accurate we are with our information gathering and paperwork, the more accurate we will be at serving our LGBTQ+ communities.”

Dr. Grant recommends asking open-ended questions, such as the following:

• What is your gender identity?
• What was your assigned sex at birth?
• What pronouns do you prefer?
• What gender(s) are your sexual partners?

However, Frances Grimstad, MD, a Boston-based ob/gyn and GLMA board member, adds this advice: Before revising intake forms, consider their purpose.

“As an ob/gyn, information about a patient’s sexual orientation and their sexual activity is beneficial for my care,” says Dr. Grimstad. “But that information may not be relevant for a physical therapy clinic where most patients are coming in with knee injuries. So, you shouldn’t just place items on your intake forms by default. Instead, clinicians should consider what is relevant to the encounter you’re having and how you are going to use the information.”
 

Change signage

Take stock of posters and brochures in the office and signs outside restrooms. If they communicate traditional gender roles, then it may be time for a change.

“It’s important to ensure representation of all types of people and families in your office,” says Chase Anderson, MD, an assistant professor of child and adolescent psychiatry in San Francisco.

Hang posters with images of diverse families. Display brochures that address LGBTQ+ health concerns when warranted. And for restrooms, replace traditional binary images with gender-neutral ones. You can also add signage about each bathroom’s purpose, suggests Dr. Grimstad.

“Let’s not just de-gender bathrooms,” she says. “Let’s hang signs that tell if the bathroom has multiple stalls, urinals, or handicap access. Let signage focus on the functions of each bathroom, not gender.”
 

Ask for feedback

Feedback forms give LBGTQ+ patients a platform to share concerns. For example, consider an email with a linked document that all patients can fill out anonymously. Ask questions such as the following:

• Did you feel affirmed during your appointment? If so, how? If not, how can we improve?
• Did we use the proper pronouns?
• Did signage make you feel like you were in a safe space? What didn’t make you feel safe?

Set up a system with team members to process feedback and implement changes.

Also, if you have a large-scale practice, consider forming an LGBTQ+ community advisory board. “They can offer feedback about your practice’s clinical structure,” Dr. Grimstad tells Medscape.
 

Hire diverse employees

Building a diverse and inclusive workforce is critical to serving the LBGTQ+ community. Team members should reflect your patient population.

“Diversity isn’t a monolith,” says Dr. Grimstad. “It isn’t just racial diversity, or sexual or gender diversity. Even in a town which appears homogeneous in one area of diversity, such as a majority White town, it’s important to remember all the other facets of diversity that exist, such as gender, sexual orientation, cultural diversity.”

A diverse team may offer a surprising boost to your practice. According to a study published in the Journal of the National Medical Association, patient outcomes improve when a more diverse team provides care. In fact, diverse teams fare better in innovation, communication, risk assessment, and financial performance.

Dr. Anderson also recommends allowing team members “to be themselves.” For example, let employees wear their hair in whatever way they prefer or display their tattoos.

“This signals to patients that if staff members can be themselves here, patients can be themselves here, too,” says Dr. Anderson.
 

Provide training

Medical staff may sometimes feel uncomfortable serving LBGTQ+ patients because of their own biases, attitudes, or lack of knowledge about the community. Regular training can ease their discomfort.

“Make sure all health professionals are trained and educated on the needs of LGBTQ+ patients,” says Dr. Grant. “Understanding their health needs is the provider’s responsibility.”

For basic information, Dr. Anderson recommends visiting The Trevor Project, an organization that serves LGBTQ+ youth. “They’re really good at keeping up with changing verbiage and trends,” says Dr. Anderson.

To strengthen community connections, Dr. Grimstad recommends using trainers from your local area if possible. Do a Google search to find an LGBTQ+ center nearby or in the closest major city. Invite them to staff meetings or ask them to organize a workshop.

By implementing these strategies, you can start building a bridge between your practice and the LGBTQ+ community and provide better care for them as patients.

“Whether it’s knowing about PrEP ... or ensuring staff members are trained in caring for patients with any general or sexual identity, we as doctors and medical professionals must continue to move forward and serve our LGBTQ+ patients in big and small ways,” says Dr. Estevez.

For in-depth training, check the following organizations:

National LGBTQIA+ Health Education Center at the Fenway Institute provides educational programs and resources to health care organizations.

GLMA has a top 10 health issues webpage that doctors can use to educate themselves and staff members on the LGBTQ+ community’s most urgent health needs.

Alliance for Full Acceptance offers LGBTQ cultural competency training, including a 1-hour awareness class and a 3-hour inclusivity workshop for clinicians.

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has compiled a list of training curricula for behavioral health counselors and primary care providers.

UCSF’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Resource Center has a list of training and educational materials for medical professionals.

Equality California Institute offers both in-person and virtual training covering basic terminology, data on LGBTQ+ health issues, and how to create an inclusive environment.

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

While rainbow-colored flags may wave proudly from hotel balconies and sports arenas, LGBTQ+ patients might still feel some discrimination in the medical space, according to a Center for American Progress survey.

“Despite health care being considered a basic human right by the World Health Organization, it’s common for LGBTQ+ folks to face difficulties not only when trying to access care but also within the walls of the doctor’s office or hospital,” says Samantha Estevez, MD, a reproductive endocrinology and infertility fellow in New York.

In Medscape’s Physicians’ Views on LGBTQ+ Rights Issues Report 2022: Strong Emotions, Contrary Opinions, physicians were asked whether they see disparities in the care LGBTQ+ patients receive in comparison with the care that non-LGBTQ+ patients receive. About 35% of physicians said LGBTQ+ patients receive a different level of care; 52% of respondents younger than 45 said so.

It’s an issue unlikely to be resolved without the medical community’s awareness. With insights from four LGBTQ+ clinicians, here are several steps physicians can take to close the disparity gap.
 

Update intake forms

Many patient medical forms are populated with checkboxes. These forms may make it easier for patients to share their medical information and for practices to collect data. But unfortunately, they don’t allow for patients to fill in contextual information.

“It’s extremely important for health care professionals to understand the people they are serving,” says Nicholas Grant, PhD, ABPP, president of GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ+ Equality. Dr. Grant is a board-certified clinical psychologist in Hawaii. “The more accurate we are with our information gathering and paperwork, the more accurate we will be at serving our LGBTQ+ communities.”

Dr. Grant recommends asking open-ended questions, such as the following:

• What is your gender identity?
• What was your assigned sex at birth?
• What pronouns do you prefer?
• What gender(s) are your sexual partners?

However, Frances Grimstad, MD, a Boston-based ob/gyn and GLMA board member, adds this advice: Before revising intake forms, consider their purpose.

“As an ob/gyn, information about a patient’s sexual orientation and their sexual activity is beneficial for my care,” says Dr. Grimstad. “But that information may not be relevant for a physical therapy clinic where most patients are coming in with knee injuries. So, you shouldn’t just place items on your intake forms by default. Instead, clinicians should consider what is relevant to the encounter you’re having and how you are going to use the information.”
 

Change signage

Take stock of posters and brochures in the office and signs outside restrooms. If they communicate traditional gender roles, then it may be time for a change.

“It’s important to ensure representation of all types of people and families in your office,” says Chase Anderson, MD, an assistant professor of child and adolescent psychiatry in San Francisco.

Hang posters with images of diverse families. Display brochures that address LGBTQ+ health concerns when warranted. And for restrooms, replace traditional binary images with gender-neutral ones. You can also add signage about each bathroom’s purpose, suggests Dr. Grimstad.

“Let’s not just de-gender bathrooms,” she says. “Let’s hang signs that tell if the bathroom has multiple stalls, urinals, or handicap access. Let signage focus on the functions of each bathroom, not gender.”
 

Ask for feedback

Feedback forms give LBGTQ+ patients a platform to share concerns. For example, consider an email with a linked document that all patients can fill out anonymously. Ask questions such as the following:

• Did you feel affirmed during your appointment? If so, how? If not, how can we improve?
• Did we use the proper pronouns?
• Did signage make you feel like you were in a safe space? What didn’t make you feel safe?

Set up a system with team members to process feedback and implement changes.

Also, if you have a large-scale practice, consider forming an LGBTQ+ community advisory board. “They can offer feedback about your practice’s clinical structure,” Dr. Grimstad tells Medscape.
 

Hire diverse employees

Building a diverse and inclusive workforce is critical to serving the LBGTQ+ community. Team members should reflect your patient population.

“Diversity isn’t a monolith,” says Dr. Grimstad. “It isn’t just racial diversity, or sexual or gender diversity. Even in a town which appears homogeneous in one area of diversity, such as a majority White town, it’s important to remember all the other facets of diversity that exist, such as gender, sexual orientation, cultural diversity.”

A diverse team may offer a surprising boost to your practice. According to a study published in the Journal of the National Medical Association, patient outcomes improve when a more diverse team provides care. In fact, diverse teams fare better in innovation, communication, risk assessment, and financial performance.

Dr. Anderson also recommends allowing team members “to be themselves.” For example, let employees wear their hair in whatever way they prefer or display their tattoos.

“This signals to patients that if staff members can be themselves here, patients can be themselves here, too,” says Dr. Anderson.
 

Provide training

Medical staff may sometimes feel uncomfortable serving LBGTQ+ patients because of their own biases, attitudes, or lack of knowledge about the community. Regular training can ease their discomfort.

“Make sure all health professionals are trained and educated on the needs of LGBTQ+ patients,” says Dr. Grant. “Understanding their health needs is the provider’s responsibility.”

For basic information, Dr. Anderson recommends visiting The Trevor Project, an organization that serves LGBTQ+ youth. “They’re really good at keeping up with changing verbiage and trends,” says Dr. Anderson.

To strengthen community connections, Dr. Grimstad recommends using trainers from your local area if possible. Do a Google search to find an LGBTQ+ center nearby or in the closest major city. Invite them to staff meetings or ask them to organize a workshop.

By implementing these strategies, you can start building a bridge between your practice and the LGBTQ+ community and provide better care for them as patients.

“Whether it’s knowing about PrEP ... or ensuring staff members are trained in caring for patients with any general or sexual identity, we as doctors and medical professionals must continue to move forward and serve our LGBTQ+ patients in big and small ways,” says Dr. Estevez.

For in-depth training, check the following organizations:

National LGBTQIA+ Health Education Center at the Fenway Institute provides educational programs and resources to health care organizations.

GLMA has a top 10 health issues webpage that doctors can use to educate themselves and staff members on the LGBTQ+ community’s most urgent health needs.

Alliance for Full Acceptance offers LGBTQ cultural competency training, including a 1-hour awareness class and a 3-hour inclusivity workshop for clinicians.

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has compiled a list of training curricula for behavioral health counselors and primary care providers.

UCSF’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Resource Center has a list of training and educational materials for medical professionals.

Equality California Institute offers both in-person and virtual training covering basic terminology, data on LGBTQ+ health issues, and how to create an inclusive environment.

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

ANAHEIM, CALIF. – Black and Hispanic pediatric faculty earn less than their White counterparts regardless of rank and degree, according to a study presented at the American Academy of Pediatrics National Conference.

“Our results demonstrated broad disparities in compensation by both gender and race/ethnicity,” Kimberly Montez, MD, MPH, of the department of pediatrics at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., told attendees.

Arghavan Salles, MD, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and a senior research scholar at the Clayman Institute for Gender Research, also in Stanford, was not involved in this study but conducts similar research and was unsurprised by these findings.

“It may surprise some people that these gender-based disparities persist in pediatrics, given it is a female-dominated specialty,” Dr. Salles said in an interview. “However, we see the same pattern in other female-dominated medical fields, such as obstetrics and gynecology and nursing.”

Dr. Montez, also the associate director of Wake Forest’s Maya Angelou Center for Health Equity and the associate editor for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Justice at the journal Pediatrics, told attendees that it’s important for academic medical centers to “identify, acknowledge, and address inequities in compensation models, including conducting transparent salary audits, standardizing new hire compensation benchmarks, and automatic review of salary outliers.”

Among the barriers to advancement that exist in academic medicine for individuals underrepresented in medicine are “racism, bias, discrimination, lack of mentorship, and the minority tax – extra responsibilities placed on individuals in the name of diversity,” Dr. Montez said. She drew attention to an article she coauthored in Pediatrics in August that highlighted how historically underrepresented individuals’ representation declined as rank increased and how the diversity of faculty pediatricians does not reflect that of the U.S. population.

Dr. Salles elaborated on the “minority tax” Dr. Montez referenced.

Faculty who are underrepresented in medicine “unfairly bear the majority of the responsibility to mentor [underrepresented] trainees and are more likely to be asked to serve in diversity, equity, and inclusion roles,” Dr. Salles said. “This work is too often uncompensated and undervalued, thereby affecting compensation.” This work also plays a role in gender salary disparities since women, especially women of color, are more likely to take on these roles, Dr. Salles added.

In this study, Dr. Montez and her colleagues aimed to investigate the differences in pediatric faculty salaries by race, ethnicity, and rank and then assess the association of median salary with race/ethnicity after adjustment for degree, rank, and gender. They conducted a cross-sectional study relying on 2020-2021 pediatric faculty median compensation data from the Association of American Medical Colleges annual Medical School Faculty Salary Survey report. The report had a response rate greater than 98% from the 152 medical schools queried.

For both the AAMC report and this study, individuals underrepresented in medicine included those who are African American/Black, Hispanic, American Indian/Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.

The survey included data on 26,548 pediatric faculty, 58% of whom were women, with a median salary of $216,289. Two-thirds of these faculty (67.2%) were White, 4.5% were Hispanic, and 4.4% were Black. Half (50%) were assistant professors, 25% were associate professors, and 17% were professors.

”Women were overly represented among instructors and assistant professors, while men were overly represented [among] associate professors, professors, chiefs, and chairs,” the authors reported. “Men consistently had higher median salaries among all ranks and races/ethnicities.”

For positions of associate professor, professor, chief, and chair, representation of those underrepresented in medicine decreased compared with their overall percentage, but the trend was the opposite for White faculty, who were overrepresented in higher positions relative to their overall percentage. Those with the lowest median salary across all ranks and races/ethnicities were Hispanic women.

Median salaries for those underrepresented in medicine were lower than salaries of White faculty even after adjustment for degree. Black, Hispanic, and American Indian or Alaska Native faculty also had lower median salaries than White faculty after adjusting for rank, but Asian faculty and those who self-identified as “other” race/ethnicity had slightly higher median salaries than White faculty.

Though the findings were not surprising overall, Dr. Montez did note a couple unexpected findings: Hispanic women earn the least across all ranks and Black men earn the most at the associate and professor levels – though Black men also represent a very tiny percentage of individuals at those ranks in the first place.

Dr. Salles noted that the gender wage gap appears widest for Hispanic physicians, compared with White or Black physicians. “It’s important to keep in mind, though, that due to structural racism, implicit bias, and many other factors, there are very few Black and Hispanic full professors of medicine,” Dr. Salles said.  

“Gender bias, sexism, and misogyny” are among the many factors that contribute to the gender pay gap,” Dr. Salles said, and ”the work of women is not valued in the same way as the work of men.”

She pointed to past research showing that CVs with male names at the top are judged as better than those with female names at the top.

”Similarly, it will be judged as being better if the name is Emily or Greg rather than Lakisha or Jamal,” Dr. Salles said. “These findings suggest we evaluate people’s work through the lens of who we think they are and we automatically judge women and other marginalized people to be less worthy.”

Dr. Montez agreed that discrimination is the most likely reason for the salary disparities between men and women and also noted additional factors.

“Women are more likely to shoulder the household and childcare responsibilities as compared to men and they may accept a lower salary for other benefits, such as flexible work hours [and] onsite childcare,” Dr. Montez said. In addition, she said, since most chairs in academic pediatrics are men, new women faculty may not feel able to negotiate higher salaries, or may feel different pressures than men.

Dr. Salles emphasized the importance of not blaming women for not negotiating enough since “women pay a social penalty when they do negotiate.” This problem is likely compounded for women of color, she added. “Offering equitable packages to begin with, rather than requiring applicants to negotiate, would be more equitable.”

Because the AAMC report data was disaggregated, it’s not possible to identify trends by institution, Dr. Montez said, but the August article specifically recommends “that future data be institution specific, and provide race, ethnicity, sex, and rank information, including hiring and promotion details,” including salary information.

In fact, a publicly available, institution-specific equity dashboard would be a “minimum starting point” for tracking and addressing disparities as well as the effect of any interventions, Dr. Montez said. She noted other potential policies that could ameliorate disparities.

“Given that caregiving responsibilities for women often lead to fewer hours worked, work interruptions, and less opportunity for advancement, restructuring jobs with more flexible work schedules without pay reduction and not limiting advancement based on part-time status could be considered,” Dr. Montez said. ”For promotion, given that individuals [underrepresented in medicine] often shoulder the minority tax, institutions should develop promotion criteria to account for this academic credit. Institutions could also implement an annual salary-monitoring system with corrections, should it reveal disparities.”

Dr. Salles consults for Intuitive Surgical and the Intuitive Foundation, but neither of these are related to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Dr. Montez had no disclosures. The study involved no external funding.

ANAHEIM, CALIF. – Black and Hispanic pediatric faculty earn less than their White counterparts regardless of rank and degree, according to a study presented at the American Academy of Pediatrics National Conference.

“Our results demonstrated broad disparities in compensation by both gender and race/ethnicity,” Kimberly Montez, MD, MPH, of the department of pediatrics at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., told attendees.

Arghavan Salles, MD, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and a senior research scholar at the Clayman Institute for Gender Research, also in Stanford, was not involved in this study but conducts similar research and was unsurprised by these findings.

“It may surprise some people that these gender-based disparities persist in pediatrics, given it is a female-dominated specialty,” Dr. Salles said in an interview. “However, we see the same pattern in other female-dominated medical fields, such as obstetrics and gynecology and nursing.”

Dr. Montez, also the associate director of Wake Forest’s Maya Angelou Center for Health Equity and the associate editor for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Justice at the journal Pediatrics, told attendees that it’s important for academic medical centers to “identify, acknowledge, and address inequities in compensation models, including conducting transparent salary audits, standardizing new hire compensation benchmarks, and automatic review of salary outliers.”

Among the barriers to advancement that exist in academic medicine for individuals underrepresented in medicine are “racism, bias, discrimination, lack of mentorship, and the minority tax – extra responsibilities placed on individuals in the name of diversity,” Dr. Montez said. She drew attention to an article she coauthored in Pediatrics in August that highlighted how historically underrepresented individuals’ representation declined as rank increased and how the diversity of faculty pediatricians does not reflect that of the U.S. population.

Dr. Salles elaborated on the “minority tax” Dr. Montez referenced.

Faculty who are underrepresented in medicine “unfairly bear the majority of the responsibility to mentor [underrepresented] trainees and are more likely to be asked to serve in diversity, equity, and inclusion roles,” Dr. Salles said. “This work is too often uncompensated and undervalued, thereby affecting compensation.” This work also plays a role in gender salary disparities since women, especially women of color, are more likely to take on these roles, Dr. Salles added.

In this study, Dr. Montez and her colleagues aimed to investigate the differences in pediatric faculty salaries by race, ethnicity, and rank and then assess the association of median salary with race/ethnicity after adjustment for degree, rank, and gender. They conducted a cross-sectional study relying on 2020-2021 pediatric faculty median compensation data from the Association of American Medical Colleges annual Medical School Faculty Salary Survey report. The report had a response rate greater than 98% from the 152 medical schools queried.

For both the AAMC report and this study, individuals underrepresented in medicine included those who are African American/Black, Hispanic, American Indian/Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.

The survey included data on 26,548 pediatric faculty, 58% of whom were women, with a median salary of $216,289. Two-thirds of these faculty (67.2%) were White, 4.5% were Hispanic, and 4.4% were Black. Half (50%) were assistant professors, 25% were associate professors, and 17% were professors.

”Women were overly represented among instructors and assistant professors, while men were overly represented [among] associate professors, professors, chiefs, and chairs,” the authors reported. “Men consistently had higher median salaries among all ranks and races/ethnicities.”

For positions of associate professor, professor, chief, and chair, representation of those underrepresented in medicine decreased compared with their overall percentage, but the trend was the opposite for White faculty, who were overrepresented in higher positions relative to their overall percentage. Those with the lowest median salary across all ranks and races/ethnicities were Hispanic women.

Median salaries for those underrepresented in medicine were lower than salaries of White faculty even after adjustment for degree. Black, Hispanic, and American Indian or Alaska Native faculty also had lower median salaries than White faculty after adjusting for rank, but Asian faculty and those who self-identified as “other” race/ethnicity had slightly higher median salaries than White faculty.

Though the findings were not surprising overall, Dr. Montez did note a couple unexpected findings: Hispanic women earn the least across all ranks and Black men earn the most at the associate and professor levels – though Black men also represent a very tiny percentage of individuals at those ranks in the first place.

Dr. Salles noted that the gender wage gap appears widest for Hispanic physicians, compared with White or Black physicians. “It’s important to keep in mind, though, that due to structural racism, implicit bias, and many other factors, there are very few Black and Hispanic full professors of medicine,” Dr. Salles said.  

“Gender bias, sexism, and misogyny” are among the many factors that contribute to the gender pay gap,” Dr. Salles said, and ”the work of women is not valued in the same way as the work of men.”

She pointed to past research showing that CVs with male names at the top are judged as better than those with female names at the top.

”Similarly, it will be judged as being better if the name is Emily or Greg rather than Lakisha or Jamal,” Dr. Salles said. “These findings suggest we evaluate people’s work through the lens of who we think they are and we automatically judge women and other marginalized people to be less worthy.”

Dr. Montez agreed that discrimination is the most likely reason for the salary disparities between men and women and also noted additional factors.

“Women are more likely to shoulder the household and childcare responsibilities as compared to men and they may accept a lower salary for other benefits, such as flexible work hours [and] onsite childcare,” Dr. Montez said. In addition, she said, since most chairs in academic pediatrics are men, new women faculty may not feel able to negotiate higher salaries, or may feel different pressures than men.

Dr. Salles emphasized the importance of not blaming women for not negotiating enough since “women pay a social penalty when they do negotiate.” This problem is likely compounded for women of color, she added. “Offering equitable packages to begin with, rather than requiring applicants to negotiate, would be more equitable.”

Because the AAMC report data was disaggregated, it’s not possible to identify trends by institution, Dr. Montez said, but the August article specifically recommends “that future data be institution specific, and provide race, ethnicity, sex, and rank information, including hiring and promotion details,” including salary information.

In fact, a publicly available, institution-specific equity dashboard would be a “minimum starting point” for tracking and addressing disparities as well as the effect of any interventions, Dr. Montez said. She noted other potential policies that could ameliorate disparities.

“Given that caregiving responsibilities for women often lead to fewer hours worked, work interruptions, and less opportunity for advancement, restructuring jobs with more flexible work schedules without pay reduction and not limiting advancement based on part-time status could be considered,” Dr. Montez said. ”For promotion, given that individuals [underrepresented in medicine] often shoulder the minority tax, institutions should develop promotion criteria to account for this academic credit. Institutions could also implement an annual salary-monitoring system with corrections, should it reveal disparities.”

Dr. Salles consults for Intuitive Surgical and the Intuitive Foundation, but neither of these are related to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Dr. Montez had no disclosures. The study involved no external funding.

ANAHEIM, CALIF. – Black and Hispanic pediatric faculty earn less than their White counterparts regardless of rank and degree, according to a study presented at the American Academy of Pediatrics National Conference.

“Our results demonstrated broad disparities in compensation by both gender and race/ethnicity,” Kimberly Montez, MD, MPH, of the department of pediatrics at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., told attendees.

Arghavan Salles, MD, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and a senior research scholar at the Clayman Institute for Gender Research, also in Stanford, was not involved in this study but conducts similar research and was unsurprised by these findings.

“It may surprise some people that these gender-based disparities persist in pediatrics, given it is a female-dominated specialty,” Dr. Salles said in an interview. “However, we see the same pattern in other female-dominated medical fields, such as obstetrics and gynecology and nursing.”

Dr. Montez, also the associate director of Wake Forest’s Maya Angelou Center for Health Equity and the associate editor for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Justice at the journal Pediatrics, told attendees that it’s important for academic medical centers to “identify, acknowledge, and address inequities in compensation models, including conducting transparent salary audits, standardizing new hire compensation benchmarks, and automatic review of salary outliers.”

Among the barriers to advancement that exist in academic medicine for individuals underrepresented in medicine are “racism, bias, discrimination, lack of mentorship, and the minority tax – extra responsibilities placed on individuals in the name of diversity,” Dr. Montez said. She drew attention to an article she coauthored in Pediatrics in August that highlighted how historically underrepresented individuals’ representation declined as rank increased and how the diversity of faculty pediatricians does not reflect that of the U.S. population.

Dr. Salles elaborated on the “minority tax” Dr. Montez referenced.

Faculty who are underrepresented in medicine “unfairly bear the majority of the responsibility to mentor [underrepresented] trainees and are more likely to be asked to serve in diversity, equity, and inclusion roles,” Dr. Salles said. “This work is too often uncompensated and undervalued, thereby affecting compensation.” This work also plays a role in gender salary disparities since women, especially women of color, are more likely to take on these roles, Dr. Salles added.

In this study, Dr. Montez and her colleagues aimed to investigate the differences in pediatric faculty salaries by race, ethnicity, and rank and then assess the association of median salary with race/ethnicity after adjustment for degree, rank, and gender. They conducted a cross-sectional study relying on 2020-2021 pediatric faculty median compensation data from the Association of American Medical Colleges annual Medical School Faculty Salary Survey report. The report had a response rate greater than 98% from the 152 medical schools queried.

For both the AAMC report and this study, individuals underrepresented in medicine included those who are African American/Black, Hispanic, American Indian/Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.

The survey included data on 26,548 pediatric faculty, 58% of whom were women, with a median salary of $216,289. Two-thirds of these faculty (67.2%) were White, 4.5% were Hispanic, and 4.4% were Black. Half (50%) were assistant professors, 25% were associate professors, and 17% were professors.

”Women were overly represented among instructors and assistant professors, while men were overly represented [among] associate professors, professors, chiefs, and chairs,” the authors reported. “Men consistently had higher median salaries among all ranks and races/ethnicities.”

For positions of associate professor, professor, chief, and chair, representation of those underrepresented in medicine decreased compared with their overall percentage, but the trend was the opposite for White faculty, who were overrepresented in higher positions relative to their overall percentage. Those with the lowest median salary across all ranks and races/ethnicities were Hispanic women.

Median salaries for those underrepresented in medicine were lower than salaries of White faculty even after adjustment for degree. Black, Hispanic, and American Indian or Alaska Native faculty also had lower median salaries than White faculty after adjusting for rank, but Asian faculty and those who self-identified as “other” race/ethnicity had slightly higher median salaries than White faculty.

Though the findings were not surprising overall, Dr. Montez did note a couple unexpected findings: Hispanic women earn the least across all ranks and Black men earn the most at the associate and professor levels – though Black men also represent a very tiny percentage of individuals at those ranks in the first place.

Dr. Salles noted that the gender wage gap appears widest for Hispanic physicians, compared with White or Black physicians. “It’s important to keep in mind, though, that due to structural racism, implicit bias, and many other factors, there are very few Black and Hispanic full professors of medicine,” Dr. Salles said.  

“Gender bias, sexism, and misogyny” are among the many factors that contribute to the gender pay gap,” Dr. Salles said, and ”the work of women is not valued in the same way as the work of men.”

She pointed to past research showing that CVs with male names at the top are judged as better than those with female names at the top.

”Similarly, it will be judged as being better if the name is Emily or Greg rather than Lakisha or Jamal,” Dr. Salles said. “These findings suggest we evaluate people’s work through the lens of who we think they are and we automatically judge women and other marginalized people to be less worthy.”

Dr. Montez agreed that discrimination is the most likely reason for the salary disparities between men and women and also noted additional factors.

“Women are more likely to shoulder the household and childcare responsibilities as compared to men and they may accept a lower salary for other benefits, such as flexible work hours [and] onsite childcare,” Dr. Montez said. In addition, she said, since most chairs in academic pediatrics are men, new women faculty may not feel able to negotiate higher salaries, or may feel different pressures than men.

Dr. Salles emphasized the importance of not blaming women for not negotiating enough since “women pay a social penalty when they do negotiate.” This problem is likely compounded for women of color, she added. “Offering equitable packages to begin with, rather than requiring applicants to negotiate, would be more equitable.”

Because the AAMC report data was disaggregated, it’s not possible to identify trends by institution, Dr. Montez said, but the August article specifically recommends “that future data be institution specific, and provide race, ethnicity, sex, and rank information, including hiring and promotion details,” including salary information.

In fact, a publicly available, institution-specific equity dashboard would be a “minimum starting point” for tracking and addressing disparities as well as the effect of any interventions, Dr. Montez said. She noted other potential policies that could ameliorate disparities.

“Given that caregiving responsibilities for women often lead to fewer hours worked, work interruptions, and less opportunity for advancement, restructuring jobs with more flexible work schedules without pay reduction and not limiting advancement based on part-time status could be considered,” Dr. Montez said. ”For promotion, given that individuals [underrepresented in medicine] often shoulder the minority tax, institutions should develop promotion criteria to account for this academic credit. Institutions could also implement an annual salary-monitoring system with corrections, should it reveal disparities.”

Dr. Salles consults for Intuitive Surgical and the Intuitive Foundation, but neither of these are related to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Dr. Montez had no disclosures. The study involved no external funding.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. This is Dr JoAnn Manson, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. I’d like to talk with you about the recent research (particularly randomized clinical trials) of vitamin D supplementation and the implications for clinical practice. As a director of the Vitamin D and Omega-3 trial (VITAL), the largest randomized clinical trial in the world, I’m often asked, “How much vitamin D do we need, and should I take a vitamin D supplement?” I want to review the findings from recent randomized clinical trials and the implications for practice.

For a long time, vitamin D has been perceived as a magic bullet, a panacea, and a cure-all for many chronic health conditions such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, bone fractures, cognitive decline, and depression. Many of the findings, though, have been from observational studies where a higher blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D has been linked to a lower risk for these health conditions.

We know in epidemiology that correlation doesn’t prove causation. Other factors could be involved; for example, people who have higher blood levels of vitamin D may have healthier diets, or they may be spending more time outdoors, being physically active and exposed to the sun. Some of these other factors could be lowering their risk.

When the randomized trials began to emerge, in many of these large-scale trials, the findings were generally neutral or null for cardiovascular disease, total cancer, diabetes, cognitive decline, depression, and many other health outcomes, including fracture. So, the question was asked, does this mean that vitamin D is not important to health?

To the contrary, these findings suggest that vitamin D is so essential to health that we need only small to moderate amounts of vitamin D. Vitamin D is very tightly regulated in the body – the metabolism and function of vitamin D. Even small to moderate amounts will meet the requirements for vitamin D and bone health and many other outcomes.

This is what the National Academy of Medicine, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, and many other professional organizations have advised, that widespread screening for vitamin D deficiency and blanket universal supplementation with vitamin D would not be indicated.

The randomized trials of vitamin D, including the VITAL study, have generally not shown reductions in the major health outcomes. We found two exceptions in VITAL. We saw promising signals, including a 22% reduction in autoimmune conditions (rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis) and a 17% reduction in advanced (metastatic or fatal) cancers. In meta-analyses of other large-scale randomized trials, the findings were a signal for a reduction in advanced cancers, even with very small doses of vitamin D (400-800 IUs daily). We tested 2,000 IUs daily in VITAL.

Overall, it’s recommended that small to moderate amounts of vitamin D are adequate, and among the healthy population, most people do not need screening or supplements.

The reduction in autoimmune diseases suggests that vitamin D may play a role in tamping down inflammation. The question has been raised about whether vitamin D is beneficial in reducing the severity of COVID illness, the need for hospitalization, and long COVID. We are looking at this question in a separate trial called VIVID (Vitamin D for COVID Trial) which tests a higher dose (> 3,000 IUs daily) of vitamin D. Those results will be available at the end of this year or early next year.

In other randomized trials of COVID and vitamin D, the results have been mixed and inconsistent, with no clear answer. During the COVID pandemic, I have generally advised that it’s reasonable to take 1,000-2,000 IUs of vitamin D daily as a form of insurance. This dose is known to be very safe. Over 5.3 years in the VITAL trial we saw that a dose of 2,000 IUs was very safe.

But it’s not essential to take a supplement. And overall, aside from some high-risk groups, most people do not need a supplement. The high-risk groups include patients in nursing homes who may have restricted diets and limited time out of doors. For people with malabsorption conditions such as Crohn’s disease, celiac disease, post–gastric bypass surgery, and those with osteoporosis who are on medications for osteoporosis, it’s still quite reasonable to prescribe calcium and vitamin D.

Recommendations for vitamin D in the generally healthy population really should focus on a healthy diet. The United States has a fortified food supply. Vitamin D is added to many foods, dairy products, and cereals, as well as beverages. Natural sources of vitamin D include fatty fish and wild mushrooms.

We should be looking at food labels (which now include vitamin D content) and try to get adequate vitamin D from our diet, and also do our best to spend time outdoors, being physically active, because it is of great benefit to our health. The general principle is that a dietary supplement will never be a substitute for a healthy diet or healthy lifestyle. And those other behaviors really should be the focus at this time.

Dr. Manson is professor of medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School, and chief of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. She has received infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience for the COSMOS trial.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. This is Dr JoAnn Manson, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. I’d like to talk with you about the recent research (particularly randomized clinical trials) of vitamin D supplementation and the implications for clinical practice. As a director of the Vitamin D and Omega-3 trial (VITAL), the largest randomized clinical trial in the world, I’m often asked, “How much vitamin D do we need, and should I take a vitamin D supplement?” I want to review the findings from recent randomized clinical trials and the implications for practice.

For a long time, vitamin D has been perceived as a magic bullet, a panacea, and a cure-all for many chronic health conditions such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, bone fractures, cognitive decline, and depression. Many of the findings, though, have been from observational studies where a higher blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D has been linked to a lower risk for these health conditions.

We know in epidemiology that correlation doesn’t prove causation. Other factors could be involved; for example, people who have higher blood levels of vitamin D may have healthier diets, or they may be spending more time outdoors, being physically active and exposed to the sun. Some of these other factors could be lowering their risk.

When the randomized trials began to emerge, in many of these large-scale trials, the findings were generally neutral or null for cardiovascular disease, total cancer, diabetes, cognitive decline, depression, and many other health outcomes, including fracture. So, the question was asked, does this mean that vitamin D is not important to health?

To the contrary, these findings suggest that vitamin D is so essential to health that we need only small to moderate amounts of vitamin D. Vitamin D is very tightly regulated in the body – the metabolism and function of vitamin D. Even small to moderate amounts will meet the requirements for vitamin D and bone health and many other outcomes.

This is what the National Academy of Medicine, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, and many other professional organizations have advised, that widespread screening for vitamin D deficiency and blanket universal supplementation with vitamin D would not be indicated.

The randomized trials of vitamin D, including the VITAL study, have generally not shown reductions in the major health outcomes. We found two exceptions in VITAL. We saw promising signals, including a 22% reduction in autoimmune conditions (rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis) and a 17% reduction in advanced (metastatic or fatal) cancers. In meta-analyses of other large-scale randomized trials, the findings were a signal for a reduction in advanced cancers, even with very small doses of vitamin D (400-800 IUs daily). We tested 2,000 IUs daily in VITAL.

Overall, it’s recommended that small to moderate amounts of vitamin D are adequate, and among the healthy population, most people do not need screening or supplements.

The reduction in autoimmune diseases suggests that vitamin D may play a role in tamping down inflammation. The question has been raised about whether vitamin D is beneficial in reducing the severity of COVID illness, the need for hospitalization, and long COVID. We are looking at this question in a separate trial called VIVID (Vitamin D for COVID Trial) which tests a higher dose (> 3,000 IUs daily) of vitamin D. Those results will be available at the end of this year or early next year.

In other randomized trials of COVID and vitamin D, the results have been mixed and inconsistent, with no clear answer. During the COVID pandemic, I have generally advised that it’s reasonable to take 1,000-2,000 IUs of vitamin D daily as a form of insurance. This dose is known to be very safe. Over 5.3 years in the VITAL trial we saw that a dose of 2,000 IUs was very safe.

But it’s not essential to take a supplement. And overall, aside from some high-risk groups, most people do not need a supplement. The high-risk groups include patients in nursing homes who may have restricted diets and limited time out of doors. For people with malabsorption conditions such as Crohn’s disease, celiac disease, post–gastric bypass surgery, and those with osteoporosis who are on medications for osteoporosis, it’s still quite reasonable to prescribe calcium and vitamin D.

Recommendations for vitamin D in the generally healthy population really should focus on a healthy diet. The United States has a fortified food supply. Vitamin D is added to many foods, dairy products, and cereals, as well as beverages. Natural sources of vitamin D include fatty fish and wild mushrooms.

We should be looking at food labels (which now include vitamin D content) and try to get adequate vitamin D from our diet, and also do our best to spend time outdoors, being physically active, because it is of great benefit to our health. The general principle is that a dietary supplement will never be a substitute for a healthy diet or healthy lifestyle. And those other behaviors really should be the focus at this time.

Dr. Manson is professor of medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School, and chief of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. She has received infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience for the COSMOS trial.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. This is Dr JoAnn Manson, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. I’d like to talk with you about the recent research (particularly randomized clinical trials) of vitamin D supplementation and the implications for clinical practice. As a director of the Vitamin D and Omega-3 trial (VITAL), the largest randomized clinical trial in the world, I’m often asked, “How much vitamin D do we need, and should I take a vitamin D supplement?” I want to review the findings from recent randomized clinical trials and the implications for practice.

For a long time, vitamin D has been perceived as a magic bullet, a panacea, and a cure-all for many chronic health conditions such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, bone fractures, cognitive decline, and depression. Many of the findings, though, have been from observational studies where a higher blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D has been linked to a lower risk for these health conditions.

We know in epidemiology that correlation doesn’t prove causation. Other factors could be involved; for example, people who have higher blood levels of vitamin D may have healthier diets, or they may be spending more time outdoors, being physically active and exposed to the sun. Some of these other factors could be lowering their risk.

When the randomized trials began to emerge, in many of these large-scale trials, the findings were generally neutral or null for cardiovascular disease, total cancer, diabetes, cognitive decline, depression, and many other health outcomes, including fracture. So, the question was asked, does this mean that vitamin D is not important to health?

To the contrary, these findings suggest that vitamin D is so essential to health that we need only small to moderate amounts of vitamin D. Vitamin D is very tightly regulated in the body – the metabolism and function of vitamin D. Even small to moderate amounts will meet the requirements for vitamin D and bone health and many other outcomes.

This is what the National Academy of Medicine, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, and many other professional organizations have advised, that widespread screening for vitamin D deficiency and blanket universal supplementation with vitamin D would not be indicated.

The randomized trials of vitamin D, including the VITAL study, have generally not shown reductions in the major health outcomes. We found two exceptions in VITAL. We saw promising signals, including a 22% reduction in autoimmune conditions (rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis) and a 17% reduction in advanced (metastatic or fatal) cancers. In meta-analyses of other large-scale randomized trials, the findings were a signal for a reduction in advanced cancers, even with very small doses of vitamin D (400-800 IUs daily). We tested 2,000 IUs daily in VITAL.

Overall, it’s recommended that small to moderate amounts of vitamin D are adequate, and among the healthy population, most people do not need screening or supplements.

The reduction in autoimmune diseases suggests that vitamin D may play a role in tamping down inflammation. The question has been raised about whether vitamin D is beneficial in reducing the severity of COVID illness, the need for hospitalization, and long COVID. We are looking at this question in a separate trial called VIVID (Vitamin D for COVID Trial) which tests a higher dose (> 3,000 IUs daily) of vitamin D. Those results will be available at the end of this year or early next year.

In other randomized trials of COVID and vitamin D, the results have been mixed and inconsistent, with no clear answer. During the COVID pandemic, I have generally advised that it’s reasonable to take 1,000-2,000 IUs of vitamin D daily as a form of insurance. This dose is known to be very safe. Over 5.3 years in the VITAL trial we saw that a dose of 2,000 IUs was very safe.

But it’s not essential to take a supplement. And overall, aside from some high-risk groups, most people do not need a supplement. The high-risk groups include patients in nursing homes who may have restricted diets and limited time out of doors. For people with malabsorption conditions such as Crohn’s disease, celiac disease, post–gastric bypass surgery, and those with osteoporosis who are on medications for osteoporosis, it’s still quite reasonable to prescribe calcium and vitamin D.

Recommendations for vitamin D in the generally healthy population really should focus on a healthy diet. The United States has a fortified food supply. Vitamin D is added to many foods, dairy products, and cereals, as well as beverages. Natural sources of vitamin D include fatty fish and wild mushrooms.

We should be looking at food labels (which now include vitamin D content) and try to get adequate vitamin D from our diet, and also do our best to spend time outdoors, being physically active, because it is of great benefit to our health. The general principle is that a dietary supplement will never be a substitute for a healthy diet or healthy lifestyle. And those other behaviors really should be the focus at this time.

Dr. Manson is professor of medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School, and chief of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. She has received infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience for the COSMOS trial.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has confirmed a nationwide shortage of the immediate release formulation of amphetamine mixed salts (Adderall, Adderall IR), which are approved for treating attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and narcolepsy.

The FDA announcement follows weeks of reports of a shortage of the drug by pharmacy chains and Adderall users.

The agency said it is in “frequent” contact with all manufacturers of Adderall – and reported that one of those companies, Teva, is experiencing ongoing intermittent manufacturing delays.

Other manufacturers continue to produce amphetamine mixed salts, but there is not enough supply to continue to meet U.S. market demand through those producers, the FDA noted.

“Until supply is restored, there are alternative therapies, including the extended-release version of amphetamine mixed salts, available to health care professionals and their patients for amphetamine mixed salts’ approved indications,” the agency said.

Patients should work with their health care provider to determine their best treatment option, it added.

The organization is continuing to monitor the supply of Adderall and to help manufacturers resolve the shortage.

Its Drug Shortage webpage has additional information about the situation and is updated regularly.

“We continue to use all the tools we have available to help keep supply available for patients and will provide public updates regarding the Adderall shortage,” the FDA said.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has confirmed a nationwide shortage of the immediate release formulation of amphetamine mixed salts (Adderall, Adderall IR), which are approved for treating attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and narcolepsy.

The FDA announcement follows weeks of reports of a shortage of the drug by pharmacy chains and Adderall users.

The agency said it is in “frequent” contact with all manufacturers of Adderall – and reported that one of those companies, Teva, is experiencing ongoing intermittent manufacturing delays.

Other manufacturers continue to produce amphetamine mixed salts, but there is not enough supply to continue to meet U.S. market demand through those producers, the FDA noted.

“Until supply is restored, there are alternative therapies, including the extended-release version of amphetamine mixed salts, available to health care professionals and their patients for amphetamine mixed salts’ approved indications,” the agency said.

Patients should work with their health care provider to determine their best treatment option, it added.

The organization is continuing to monitor the supply of Adderall and to help manufacturers resolve the shortage.

Its Drug Shortage webpage has additional information about the situation and is updated regularly.

“We continue to use all the tools we have available to help keep supply available for patients and will provide public updates regarding the Adderall shortage,” the FDA said.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has confirmed a nationwide shortage of the immediate release formulation of amphetamine mixed salts (Adderall, Adderall IR), which are approved for treating attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and narcolepsy.

The FDA announcement follows weeks of reports of a shortage of the drug by pharmacy chains and Adderall users.

The agency said it is in “frequent” contact with all manufacturers of Adderall – and reported that one of those companies, Teva, is experiencing ongoing intermittent manufacturing delays.

Other manufacturers continue to produce amphetamine mixed salts, but there is not enough supply to continue to meet U.S. market demand through those producers, the FDA noted.

“Until supply is restored, there are alternative therapies, including the extended-release version of amphetamine mixed salts, available to health care professionals and their patients for amphetamine mixed salts’ approved indications,” the agency said.

Patients should work with their health care provider to determine their best treatment option, it added.

The organization is continuing to monitor the supply of Adderall and to help manufacturers resolve the shortage.

Its Drug Shortage webpage has additional information about the situation and is updated regularly.

“We continue to use all the tools we have available to help keep supply available for patients and will provide public updates regarding the Adderall shortage,” the FDA said.

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

Women with repeated attempts at weight loss, even if the weight is regained, have modestly greater weight loss at an obesity management clinic than women without such a history, data suggest.

In a retrospective study of data for more than 11,000 participants in a weight-management program, the frequency of weight loss was significantly correlated with the total lifetime weight loss in men (r = 0.61, P < .0001) and women (r = 0.60, P < .0001).

“It should be harder for you to lose weight when you’re older, as opposed to younger. That’s just biology,” study author Sean Wharton, MD, PharmD, medical director of the Wharton Medical Clinic, Burlington, Ont., told this news organization. But older people “have practiced a whole lot more than younger people. That’s probably one of the big things” in their favor, he added.

Dr. Wharton also is a clinical adjunct professor at York University, Toronto, and the lead author of 2020 Canadian clinical practice guidelines on obesity.

The current data were published in Obesity.
 

Practice makes perfect?

The prevalence of obesity is increasing. It is uncertain whether frequent weight losses help or hinder future weight-loss attempts. The effect of age at overweight on future weight loss attempts is also unclear.

To examine these questions, the current researchers analyzed the experiences of patients with obesity treated at the Wharton Medical Clinic Weight Management Program, Hamilton, Ont. At enrollment, participants responded to a questionnaire that elicited information about basic demographics, past weight loss and health practices, medical history, and family medical history. Patients did not receive any stipend for their participation and consented to the use of their medical data for research purposes. The investigators assessed weight change through a retrospective review of electronic medical records.

The study examined a data set that included 36,124 patients who were predominantly White, middle-aged women. “Although this is reflective of the demographic that is most commonly seeking obesity management in North America, the applicability of these findings to other groups is unclear,” wrote the investigators.

As a group, women under age 40 lost 1.7 kg, while those from ages 40 to 60 lost 3.2 kg, and women older than 60 lost 4.2 kg. Weight loss among men was greater and followed a similar pattern. Men under age 40 lost 3.0 kg, those between ages 40 and 60 lost 4.2 kg, and those older than 60 lost 5.2 kg.

To examine how long participants had been trying to lose weight, the investigators analyzed their age of overweight onset. Most participants reported having become overweight before age 40 and having lost at least 4.5 kg at least once in their lifetime. Older women with a longer history of losing weight had better results during the study.

In middle-aged and older women, but not men or younger women, earlier age of overweight onset and lifetime weight loss were associated with modestly greater weight loss at the clinic. When the researchers assessed women age 60 and older, they found that those who had an age of overweight onset before age 10 lost 4.9 kg on average, while those whose age of overweight onset was between ages 20 and 39 lost 4.3 kg. Women with an age of overweight onset above 40 had a weight loss of 3.5 kg.

The finding of greater weight loss in older women who were experienced in dieting was surprising, said Dr. Wharton. It may reflect the effects of perseverance and lifestyle changes. “The other thing is that [older women] also have more time. They have more availability. They make more appointments. They have the ability to be more focused,” said Dr. Wharton.

The Wharton Medical Clinic operates within the Ontario Health Insurance Plan, and all services are provided at no charge to the patient, which may reduce the selection bias against patients with low socioeconomic status, wrote the investigators.
 

Inclusive population

Lesley D. Lutes, PhD, director of the Center for Obesity and Well-Being Research Excellence (CORE) at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said that one of its strengths was its reflection of real-world experience.

Too often, study populations do not reflect well the experiences of people battling obesity, she added. Many potential participants are excluded because of common medical comorbidities such as heart conditions. “So, you don’t see the real-world outcomes for the majority of people” from these studies, said Dr. Lutes.

Furthermore, researchers sometimes draw conclusions about obesity based on data that draws from only a “tiny slice” of the group of patients who can qualify for studies, she added. The resulting recommendations may not suit most patients.

In contrast, the current research was based on a more inclusive set of patient data. “That was an incredible strength of this study, that there [were] no exclusionary criteria” in terms of medical conditions, she said.

No outside funding for the study was reported. Dr. Wharton is the medical director of the Wharton Medical Clinic.

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

Women with repeated attempts at weight loss, even if the weight is regained, have modestly greater weight loss at an obesity management clinic than women without such a history, data suggest.

In a retrospective study of data for more than 11,000 participants in a weight-management program, the frequency of weight loss was significantly correlated with the total lifetime weight loss in men (r = 0.61, P < .0001) and women (r = 0.60, P < .0001).

“It should be harder for you to lose weight when you’re older, as opposed to younger. That’s just biology,” study author Sean Wharton, MD, PharmD, medical director of the Wharton Medical Clinic, Burlington, Ont., told this news organization. But older people “have practiced a whole lot more than younger people. That’s probably one of the big things” in their favor, he added.

Dr. Wharton also is a clinical adjunct professor at York University, Toronto, and the lead author of 2020 Canadian clinical practice guidelines on obesity.

The current data were published in Obesity.
 

Practice makes perfect?

The prevalence of obesity is increasing. It is uncertain whether frequent weight losses help or hinder future weight-loss attempts. The effect of age at overweight on future weight loss attempts is also unclear.

To examine these questions, the current researchers analyzed the experiences of patients with obesity treated at the Wharton Medical Clinic Weight Management Program, Hamilton, Ont. At enrollment, participants responded to a questionnaire that elicited information about basic demographics, past weight loss and health practices, medical history, and family medical history. Patients did not receive any stipend for their participation and consented to the use of their medical data for research purposes. The investigators assessed weight change through a retrospective review of electronic medical records.

The study examined a data set that included 36,124 patients who were predominantly White, middle-aged women. “Although this is reflective of the demographic that is most commonly seeking obesity management in North America, the applicability of these findings to other groups is unclear,” wrote the investigators.

As a group, women under age 40 lost 1.7 kg, while those from ages 40 to 60 lost 3.2 kg, and women older than 60 lost 4.2 kg. Weight loss among men was greater and followed a similar pattern. Men under age 40 lost 3.0 kg, those between ages 40 and 60 lost 4.2 kg, and those older than 60 lost 5.2 kg.

To examine how long participants had been trying to lose weight, the investigators analyzed their age of overweight onset. Most participants reported having become overweight before age 40 and having lost at least 4.5 kg at least once in their lifetime. Older women with a longer history of losing weight had better results during the study.

In middle-aged and older women, but not men or younger women, earlier age of overweight onset and lifetime weight loss were associated with modestly greater weight loss at the clinic. When the researchers assessed women age 60 and older, they found that those who had an age of overweight onset before age 10 lost 4.9 kg on average, while those whose age of overweight onset was between ages 20 and 39 lost 4.3 kg. Women with an age of overweight onset above 40 had a weight loss of 3.5 kg.

The finding of greater weight loss in older women who were experienced in dieting was surprising, said Dr. Wharton. It may reflect the effects of perseverance and lifestyle changes. “The other thing is that [older women] also have more time. They have more availability. They make more appointments. They have the ability to be more focused,” said Dr. Wharton.

The Wharton Medical Clinic operates within the Ontario Health Insurance Plan, and all services are provided at no charge to the patient, which may reduce the selection bias against patients with low socioeconomic status, wrote the investigators.
 

Inclusive population

Lesley D. Lutes, PhD, director of the Center for Obesity and Well-Being Research Excellence (CORE) at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said that one of its strengths was its reflection of real-world experience.

Too often, study populations do not reflect well the experiences of people battling obesity, she added. Many potential participants are excluded because of common medical comorbidities such as heart conditions. “So, you don’t see the real-world outcomes for the majority of people” from these studies, said Dr. Lutes.

Furthermore, researchers sometimes draw conclusions about obesity based on data that draws from only a “tiny slice” of the group of patients who can qualify for studies, she added. The resulting recommendations may not suit most patients.

In contrast, the current research was based on a more inclusive set of patient data. “That was an incredible strength of this study, that there [were] no exclusionary criteria” in terms of medical conditions, she said.

No outside funding for the study was reported. Dr. Wharton is the medical director of the Wharton Medical Clinic.

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

Women with repeated attempts at weight loss, even if the weight is regained, have modestly greater weight loss at an obesity management clinic than women without such a history, data suggest.

In a retrospective study of data for more than 11,000 participants in a weight-management program, the frequency of weight loss was significantly correlated with the total lifetime weight loss in men (r = 0.61, P < .0001) and women (r = 0.60, P < .0001).

“It should be harder for you to lose weight when you’re older, as opposed to younger. That’s just biology,” study author Sean Wharton, MD, PharmD, medical director of the Wharton Medical Clinic, Burlington, Ont., told this news organization. But older people “have practiced a whole lot more than younger people. That’s probably one of the big things” in their favor, he added.

Dr. Wharton also is a clinical adjunct professor at York University, Toronto, and the lead author of 2020 Canadian clinical practice guidelines on obesity.

The current data were published in Obesity.
 

Practice makes perfect?

The prevalence of obesity is increasing. It is uncertain whether frequent weight losses help or hinder future weight-loss attempts. The effect of age at overweight on future weight loss attempts is also unclear.

To examine these questions, the current researchers analyzed the experiences of patients with obesity treated at the Wharton Medical Clinic Weight Management Program, Hamilton, Ont. At enrollment, participants responded to a questionnaire that elicited information about basic demographics, past weight loss and health practices, medical history, and family medical history. Patients did not receive any stipend for their participation and consented to the use of their medical data for research purposes. The investigators assessed weight change through a retrospective review of electronic medical records.

The study examined a data set that included 36,124 patients who were predominantly White, middle-aged women. “Although this is reflective of the demographic that is most commonly seeking obesity management in North America, the applicability of these findings to other groups is unclear,” wrote the investigators.

As a group, women under age 40 lost 1.7 kg, while those from ages 40 to 60 lost 3.2 kg, and women older than 60 lost 4.2 kg. Weight loss among men was greater and followed a similar pattern. Men under age 40 lost 3.0 kg, those between ages 40 and 60 lost 4.2 kg, and those older than 60 lost 5.2 kg.

To examine how long participants had been trying to lose weight, the investigators analyzed their age of overweight onset. Most participants reported having become overweight before age 40 and having lost at least 4.5 kg at least once in their lifetime. Older women with a longer history of losing weight had better results during the study.

In middle-aged and older women, but not men or younger women, earlier age of overweight onset and lifetime weight loss were associated with modestly greater weight loss at the clinic. When the researchers assessed women age 60 and older, they found that those who had an age of overweight onset before age 10 lost 4.9 kg on average, while those whose age of overweight onset was between ages 20 and 39 lost 4.3 kg. Women with an age of overweight onset above 40 had a weight loss of 3.5 kg.

The finding of greater weight loss in older women who were experienced in dieting was surprising, said Dr. Wharton. It may reflect the effects of perseverance and lifestyle changes. “The other thing is that [older women] also have more time. They have more availability. They make more appointments. They have the ability to be more focused,” said Dr. Wharton.

The Wharton Medical Clinic operates within the Ontario Health Insurance Plan, and all services are provided at no charge to the patient, which may reduce the selection bias against patients with low socioeconomic status, wrote the investigators.
 

Inclusive population

Lesley D. Lutes, PhD, director of the Center for Obesity and Well-Being Research Excellence (CORE) at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said that one of its strengths was its reflection of real-world experience.

Too often, study populations do not reflect well the experiences of people battling obesity, she added. Many potential participants are excluded because of common medical comorbidities such as heart conditions. “So, you don’t see the real-world outcomes for the majority of people” from these studies, said Dr. Lutes.

Furthermore, researchers sometimes draw conclusions about obesity based on data that draws from only a “tiny slice” of the group of patients who can qualify for studies, she added. The resulting recommendations may not suit most patients.

In contrast, the current research was based on a more inclusive set of patient data. “That was an incredible strength of this study, that there [were] no exclusionary criteria” in terms of medical conditions, she said.

No outside funding for the study was reported. Dr. Wharton is the medical director of the Wharton Medical Clinic.

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

Babies born from the 37th week of pregnancy who are mild to moderately small for gestational age (SGA) could benefit from monitoring to check for developmental problems, a study suggested.

A team of researchers at Coventry (England) University found that birth weight below the 25th percentile was associated with more developmental concerns in early childhood than a weight between the 25th and 74th percentile.

Those difficulties were apparent at percentiles higher than the conventional threshold defining SGA, they noted.

Low and high extremes of birth weight have been associated with adverse pregnancy and neonatal health outcomes, but little is known about the effects on motor skills, socialization, language, and other developmental markers for the entire range of birth weights for nonpremature babies.
 

Study linked health databases to child assessment results

To find out more, researchers conducted a population-based cohort study of 686,284 singleton infants born from 37 weeks of gestation, linking pregnancy and birth records from health databases covering all of Scotland to child development assessments carried out between the ages of 2 and 3.5 years.

The researchers looked for associations between birth weight and early childhood developmental concerns, taking into account confounders, such as maternal age, the mother’s medical history during pregnancy, early pregnancy body mass index, deprivation, ethnicity, alcohol use, and smoking history.

The study, published in the open access journal PLOS Medicine, found that babies born below the 25th percentile for birth weight had a higher risk of developmental concerns, compared with babies born between the 25th and 74th percentiles, with the infants who had the lowest birth weight most at risk of later developmental difficulties.

Those born between the 10th and 24th percentile had a relative risk of 1.07 (95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.12; P < .001); between the 3rd and 9th percentile, the RR was 1.18 (95% CI, 1.12-1.25, P < .001), and below the 3rd percentile the RR was 1.37 (95% CI, 1.24-1.50; P < .001).

No substantial increase in the risk of early childhood developmental concerns was identified for larger birth weight categories in the 75th-89th percentile range, the researchers reported.
 

Monitoring and support

The researchers concluded that having mild to moderate SGA “is an unrecognized, potentially important contributor to the prevalence of developmental concerns.”

Before this study, babies below the 10th percentile were usually considered at risk for developmental concerns. However, the investigation found a greater number of babies within the 10th-24th percentile range of birth weights with these issues, simply because there were a larger number of babies within that population.

Abiodun Adanikin, MBBS, PhD, MPH, of Coventry University’s Centre for Healthcare Research, and study first author, said: “Though it is mostly unrecognized, babies who are mild to moderately small at birth are key contributors to the burden of childhood developmental concerns. They may need closer monitoring and increased support to reduce the risk of developmental concerns.”

The study also involved colleagues from the University of Bristol (England), the University of Glasgow, the University of Cambridge (England), and Queen Mary University of London.

This work was supported by a Wellbeing of Women Research Grant. One author has received research support from Roche Diagnostics, GSK, Illumina, and Sera Prognostics (fetal growth restriction, preeclampsia and preterm birth). He has been a paid consultant to GSK (preterm birth) and is a member of a Data Monitoring Committee for GSK trials of RSV vaccination in pregnancy. He is one of three named inventors on a patent application filed by Cambridge Enterprise for novel predictive test for fetal growth disorder. He is an academic editor on PLOS Medicine’s editorial board. The authors declare no other competing interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Babies born from the 37th week of pregnancy who are mild to moderately small for gestational age (SGA) could benefit from monitoring to check for developmental problems, a study suggested.

A team of researchers at Coventry (England) University found that birth weight below the 25th percentile was associated with more developmental concerns in early childhood than a weight between the 25th and 74th percentile.

Those difficulties were apparent at percentiles higher than the conventional threshold defining SGA, they noted.

Low and high extremes of birth weight have been associated with adverse pregnancy and neonatal health outcomes, but little is known about the effects on motor skills, socialization, language, and other developmental markers for the entire range of birth weights for nonpremature babies.
 

Study linked health databases to child assessment results

To find out more, researchers conducted a population-based cohort study of 686,284 singleton infants born from 37 weeks of gestation, linking pregnancy and birth records from health databases covering all of Scotland to child development assessments carried out between the ages of 2 and 3.5 years.

The researchers looked for associations between birth weight and early childhood developmental concerns, taking into account confounders, such as maternal age, the mother’s medical history during pregnancy, early pregnancy body mass index, deprivation, ethnicity, alcohol use, and smoking history.

The study, published in the open access journal PLOS Medicine, found that babies born below the 25th percentile for birth weight had a higher risk of developmental concerns, compared with babies born between the 25th and 74th percentiles, with the infants who had the lowest birth weight most at risk of later developmental difficulties.

Those born between the 10th and 24th percentile had a relative risk of 1.07 (95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.12; P < .001); between the 3rd and 9th percentile, the RR was 1.18 (95% CI, 1.12-1.25, P < .001), and below the 3rd percentile the RR was 1.37 (95% CI, 1.24-1.50; P < .001).

No substantial increase in the risk of early childhood developmental concerns was identified for larger birth weight categories in the 75th-89th percentile range, the researchers reported.
 

Monitoring and support

The researchers concluded that having mild to moderate SGA “is an unrecognized, potentially important contributor to the prevalence of developmental concerns.”

Before this study, babies below the 10th percentile were usually considered at risk for developmental concerns. However, the investigation found a greater number of babies within the 10th-24th percentile range of birth weights with these issues, simply because there were a larger number of babies within that population.

Abiodun Adanikin, MBBS, PhD, MPH, of Coventry University’s Centre for Healthcare Research, and study first author, said: “Though it is mostly unrecognized, babies who are mild to moderately small at birth are key contributors to the burden of childhood developmental concerns. They may need closer monitoring and increased support to reduce the risk of developmental concerns.”

The study also involved colleagues from the University of Bristol (England), the University of Glasgow, the University of Cambridge (England), and Queen Mary University of London.

This work was supported by a Wellbeing of Women Research Grant. One author has received research support from Roche Diagnostics, GSK, Illumina, and Sera Prognostics (fetal growth restriction, preeclampsia and preterm birth). He has been a paid consultant to GSK (preterm birth) and is a member of a Data Monitoring Committee for GSK trials of RSV vaccination in pregnancy. He is one of three named inventors on a patent application filed by Cambridge Enterprise for novel predictive test for fetal growth disorder. He is an academic editor on PLOS Medicine’s editorial board. The authors declare no other competing interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Babies born from the 37th week of pregnancy who are mild to moderately small for gestational age (SGA) could benefit from monitoring to check for developmental problems, a study suggested.

A team of researchers at Coventry (England) University found that birth weight below the 25th percentile was associated with more developmental concerns in early childhood than a weight between the 25th and 74th percentile.

Those difficulties were apparent at percentiles higher than the conventional threshold defining SGA, they noted.

Low and high extremes of birth weight have been associated with adverse pregnancy and neonatal health outcomes, but little is known about the effects on motor skills, socialization, language, and other developmental markers for the entire range of birth weights for nonpremature babies.
 

Study linked health databases to child assessment results

To find out more, researchers conducted a population-based cohort study of 686,284 singleton infants born from 37 weeks of gestation, linking pregnancy and birth records from health databases covering all of Scotland to child development assessments carried out between the ages of 2 and 3.5 years.

The researchers looked for associations between birth weight and early childhood developmental concerns, taking into account confounders, such as maternal age, the mother’s medical history during pregnancy, early pregnancy body mass index, deprivation, ethnicity, alcohol use, and smoking history.

The study, published in the open access journal PLOS Medicine, found that babies born below the 25th percentile for birth weight had a higher risk of developmental concerns, compared with babies born between the 25th and 74th percentiles, with the infants who had the lowest birth weight most at risk of later developmental difficulties.

Those born between the 10th and 24th percentile had a relative risk of 1.07 (95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.12; P < .001); between the 3rd and 9th percentile, the RR was 1.18 (95% CI, 1.12-1.25, P < .001), and below the 3rd percentile the RR was 1.37 (95% CI, 1.24-1.50; P < .001).

No substantial increase in the risk of early childhood developmental concerns was identified for larger birth weight categories in the 75th-89th percentile range, the researchers reported.
 

Monitoring and support

The researchers concluded that having mild to moderate SGA “is an unrecognized, potentially important contributor to the prevalence of developmental concerns.”

Before this study, babies below the 10th percentile were usually considered at risk for developmental concerns. However, the investigation found a greater number of babies within the 10th-24th percentile range of birth weights with these issues, simply because there were a larger number of babies within that population.

Abiodun Adanikin, MBBS, PhD, MPH, of Coventry University’s Centre for Healthcare Research, and study first author, said: “Though it is mostly unrecognized, babies who are mild to moderately small at birth are key contributors to the burden of childhood developmental concerns. They may need closer monitoring and increased support to reduce the risk of developmental concerns.”

The study also involved colleagues from the University of Bristol (England), the University of Glasgow, the University of Cambridge (England), and Queen Mary University of London.

This work was supported by a Wellbeing of Women Research Grant. One author has received research support from Roche Diagnostics, GSK, Illumina, and Sera Prognostics (fetal growth restriction, preeclampsia and preterm birth). He has been a paid consultant to GSK (preterm birth) and is a member of a Data Monitoring Committee for GSK trials of RSV vaccination in pregnancy. He is one of three named inventors on a patent application filed by Cambridge Enterprise for novel predictive test for fetal growth disorder. He is an academic editor on PLOS Medicine’s editorial board. The authors declare no other competing interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Home-based transcranial direct current stimulation with real-time supervision significantly improved clinical symptoms of major depressive disorder, based on data from 26 individuals.

Major depressive disorder (MDD) remains a leading cause of disability and a significant predictor of suicide worldwide, Rachel D. Woodham, PhD, of the University of East London and colleagues wrote.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has demonstrated effectiveness as a noninvasive therapy for MDD, but requires frequent sessions, and repeat visits to treatment centers are a barrier for many patients, they noted. The tDCS procedure involves delivery of a weak direct electric current via placement of electrodes, usually with the anode over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and the cathode over the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, suborbital, or frontotemporal region.

“The current changes neuronal membrane potential and facilitates discharge,” but “in contrast to rTMS and ECT, tDCS does not directly trigger an action potential,” the researchers wrote. The most common side effects reported with tDCS are tingling, itching, burning sensation, skin redness or headache.

The researchers proposed that tDCS could be provided at home under real-time remote supervision.

In an open-label feasibility study published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, they recruited 26 adults with MDD in current depressive episodes of moderate to severe severity. In addition to maintaining their current treatment regimens of medication, psychotherapy, or cognitive behavioral therapy, participants used tDCS at home in 30-minute sessions, for a total of 21 sessions over 6 weeks. A researcher was present in person or on a real-time video call for each at-home session.

The primary outcome of Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD) score improved significantly, from a mean of 19.12 at baseline to 5.33 after 6 weeks. At 3 months, the mean HAMD score was 5.65, and 78.2% of patients met the criteria for clinical remission (HAMD score less than 9). At 6 months, patients maintained this improvement, with a mean HAMD score of 5.43 and 73.9% of the participants in clinical remission. The majority of participants (24 of 26) completed the full 6-week treatment.

Clinical assessments were conducted at baseline, at the end of the 6-week treatment period, at 3 months, and at 6 months, and included not only the HAMD, but also the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA), Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9), and Young Mania Rating Scale. All participants showed significant improvements in HAMA, SDS, and PHQ-9 scores from baseline that endured from the end of the treatment period to the 6 months’ follow-up.

The tDCS involved a bilateral frontal montage, F3 anode, F4 cathode, 2mA, and two different devices were used.

All participants reported the acceptability of at-home tDCS as either “very acceptable” or “quite acceptable.”

The results were limited by the open-label feasibility design and lack of a sham control treatment; therefore, the findings of efficacy are preliminary, the researchers emphasized. “Having real-time supervision for each session likely contributed to symptom improvement.”

However, the results support the feasibility of at-home tDCS to improve outcomes both short- and long-term in patients with moderate to severe MDD, the researchers said. Larger, sham-controlled trials are needed to show efficacy, and additional assessment of feasibility should include the use of app-based devices, which may be more feasible for individuals with lower socioeconomic status.

The study received no outside funding. The study was supported by the Rosetrees Trust. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Home-based transcranial direct current stimulation with real-time supervision significantly improved clinical symptoms of major depressive disorder, based on data from 26 individuals.

Major depressive disorder (MDD) remains a leading cause of disability and a significant predictor of suicide worldwide, Rachel D. Woodham, PhD, of the University of East London and colleagues wrote.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has demonstrated effectiveness as a noninvasive therapy for MDD, but requires frequent sessions, and repeat visits to treatment centers are a barrier for many patients, they noted. The tDCS procedure involves delivery of a weak direct electric current via placement of electrodes, usually with the anode over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and the cathode over the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, suborbital, or frontotemporal region.

“The current changes neuronal membrane potential and facilitates discharge,” but “in contrast to rTMS and ECT, tDCS does not directly trigger an action potential,” the researchers wrote. The most common side effects reported with tDCS are tingling, itching, burning sensation, skin redness or headache.

The researchers proposed that tDCS could be provided at home under real-time remote supervision.

In an open-label feasibility study published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, they recruited 26 adults with MDD in current depressive episodes of moderate to severe severity. In addition to maintaining their current treatment regimens of medication, psychotherapy, or cognitive behavioral therapy, participants used tDCS at home in 30-minute sessions, for a total of 21 sessions over 6 weeks. A researcher was present in person or on a real-time video call for each at-home session.

The primary outcome of Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD) score improved significantly, from a mean of 19.12 at baseline to 5.33 after 6 weeks. At 3 months, the mean HAMD score was 5.65, and 78.2% of patients met the criteria for clinical remission (HAMD score less than 9). At 6 months, patients maintained this improvement, with a mean HAMD score of 5.43 and 73.9% of the participants in clinical remission. The majority of participants (24 of 26) completed the full 6-week treatment.

Clinical assessments were conducted at baseline, at the end of the 6-week treatment period, at 3 months, and at 6 months, and included not only the HAMD, but also the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA), Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9), and Young Mania Rating Scale. All participants showed significant improvements in HAMA, SDS, and PHQ-9 scores from baseline that endured from the end of the treatment period to the 6 months’ follow-up.

The tDCS involved a bilateral frontal montage, F3 anode, F4 cathode, 2mA, and two different devices were used.

All participants reported the acceptability of at-home tDCS as either “very acceptable” or “quite acceptable.”

The results were limited by the open-label feasibility design and lack of a sham control treatment; therefore, the findings of efficacy are preliminary, the researchers emphasized. “Having real-time supervision for each session likely contributed to symptom improvement.”

However, the results support the feasibility of at-home tDCS to improve outcomes both short- and long-term in patients with moderate to severe MDD, the researchers said. Larger, sham-controlled trials are needed to show efficacy, and additional assessment of feasibility should include the use of app-based devices, which may be more feasible for individuals with lower socioeconomic status.

The study received no outside funding. The study was supported by the Rosetrees Trust. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Home-based transcranial direct current stimulation with real-time supervision significantly improved clinical symptoms of major depressive disorder, based on data from 26 individuals.

Major depressive disorder (MDD) remains a leading cause of disability and a significant predictor of suicide worldwide, Rachel D. Woodham, PhD, of the University of East London and colleagues wrote.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has demonstrated effectiveness as a noninvasive therapy for MDD, but requires frequent sessions, and repeat visits to treatment centers are a barrier for many patients, they noted. The tDCS procedure involves delivery of a weak direct electric current via placement of electrodes, usually with the anode over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and the cathode over the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, suborbital, or frontotemporal region.

“The current changes neuronal membrane potential and facilitates discharge,” but “in contrast to rTMS and ECT, tDCS does not directly trigger an action potential,” the researchers wrote. The most common side effects reported with tDCS are tingling, itching, burning sensation, skin redness or headache.

The researchers proposed that tDCS could be provided at home under real-time remote supervision.

In an open-label feasibility study published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, they recruited 26 adults with MDD in current depressive episodes of moderate to severe severity. In addition to maintaining their current treatment regimens of medication, psychotherapy, or cognitive behavioral therapy, participants used tDCS at home in 30-minute sessions, for a total of 21 sessions over 6 weeks. A researcher was present in person or on a real-time video call for each at-home session.

The primary outcome of Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD) score improved significantly, from a mean of 19.12 at baseline to 5.33 after 6 weeks. At 3 months, the mean HAMD score was 5.65, and 78.2% of patients met the criteria for clinical remission (HAMD score less than 9). At 6 months, patients maintained this improvement, with a mean HAMD score of 5.43 and 73.9% of the participants in clinical remission. The majority of participants (24 of 26) completed the full 6-week treatment.

Clinical assessments were conducted at baseline, at the end of the 6-week treatment period, at 3 months, and at 6 months, and included not only the HAMD, but also the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA), Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9), and Young Mania Rating Scale. All participants showed significant improvements in HAMA, SDS, and PHQ-9 scores from baseline that endured from the end of the treatment period to the 6 months’ follow-up.

The tDCS involved a bilateral frontal montage, F3 anode, F4 cathode, 2mA, and two different devices were used.

All participants reported the acceptability of at-home tDCS as either “very acceptable” or “quite acceptable.”

The results were limited by the open-label feasibility design and lack of a sham control treatment; therefore, the findings of efficacy are preliminary, the researchers emphasized. “Having real-time supervision for each session likely contributed to symptom improvement.”

However, the results support the feasibility of at-home tDCS to improve outcomes both short- and long-term in patients with moderate to severe MDD, the researchers said. Larger, sham-controlled trials are needed to show efficacy, and additional assessment of feasibility should include the use of app-based devices, which may be more feasible for individuals with lower socioeconomic status.

The study received no outside funding. The study was supported by the Rosetrees Trust. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Individuals who experience out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with nonshockable presentations have a better chance of survival when first responders use a novel CPR approach that includes gradual head-up positioning combined with basic but effective circulation-enhancing adjuncts, as shown from data from more than 2,000 patients.

In a study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians, Paul Pepe, MD, medical director for Dallas County Emergency Medical Services, reviewed data from five EMS systems that had adopted the new approach. Data were collected prospectively over the past 2 years from a national registry of patients who had received what Dr. Pepe called a “neuroprotective CPR bundle” (NP-CPR).

The study compared 380 NP-CPR case patients to 1,852 control patients who had received conventional CPR. Control data came from high-performance EMS systems that had participated in well-monitored, published OHCA trials funded by the National Institutes of Health. The primary outcome that was used for comparison was successful survival to hospital discharge with neurologically intact status (SURV-NI).

Traditional CPR supine chest compression techniques, if performed early and properly, can be lifesaving, but they are suboptimal, Dr. Pepe said. “Current techniques create pressure waves that run up the arterial side, but they also create back-pressure on the venous side, increasing intracranial pressure (ICP), thus compromising optimal cerebral blood flow,” he told this news organization.

For that reason, a modified physiologic approach to CPR was designed. It involves an airway adjunct called an impedance threshold device (ITD) and active compression-decompression (ACD) with a device “resembling a toilet plunger,” Dr. Pepe said.

The devices draw more blood out of the brain and into the thorax in a complementary fashion. The combination of these two adjuncts had dramatically improved SURV-NI by 50% in a clinical trial, Dr. Pepe said.

The new technology uses automated gradual head-up/torso-up positioning (AHUP) after first “priming the pump” with ITD-ACD–enhanced circulation. It was found to markedly augment that effect even further. In the laboratory setting, this synergistic NP-CPR bundle has been shown to help normalize cerebral perfusion pressure, further promoting neuro-intact survival. Normalization of end-tidal CO2 is routinely observed, according to Dr. Pepe.

In contrast to patients who present with ventricular fibrillation (shockable cases), patients with nonshockable presentations always have had grim prognoses, Dr. Pepe said. Until now, lifesaving advances had not been found, despite the fact that nonshockable presentations (asystole or electrical activity with no pulse) constitute approximately 80% of OHCA cases, or about 250,000 to 300,00 cases a year in the United States, he said.

In the study, approximately 60% of both the NP-CPR patients and control patients had asystole (flatline) presentations. The NP-CPR group had a significant threefold improvement in SURV-NI, compared with patients treated with conventional CPR in the high-functioning systems (odds ratio, 3.09). In a propensity-scored analysis matching all variables known to affect outcome, the OR increased to nearly fourfold higher (OR, 3.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-11.78), Dr. Pepe said.

The researchers also found that the time from receipt of a 911 call to initiation of AHUP was associated with progressively higher chances of survival. The median time for application was 11 minutes; when the elapsed time was less than 11 minutes, the SURV-NI was nearly 11-fold higher for NP-CPR patients than for control patients (OR, 10.59), with survival chances of 6% versus 0.5%. ORs were even higher when the time to treatment was less than 16 minutes (OR, 13.58), with survival rates of 5% versus 0.4%.

The findings not only demonstrate proof of concept in these most futile cases but also that implementation is feasible for the majority of patients, considering that the median time to the start of any CPR by a first responder was 8 minutes for both NP-CPR patients and control patients, “let alone 11 minutes for the AHUP initiation,” Dr. Pepe said. “This finally gives some hope for these nonshockable cases,” he emphasized.

“All of these devices have now been cleared by the Food and Drug Administration and should be adopted by all first-in responders,” said Dr. Pepe. “But they should be implemented as a bundle and in the proper sequence and as soon as feasible.”

Training and implementation efforts continue to expand, and more lives can be saved as more firefighters and first-in response teams acquire equipment and training, which can cut the time to response, he said.

The registry will continue to monitor outcomes with NP-CPR – the term was suggested by a patient who survived through this new approach – and Dr. Pepe and colleagues expect the statistics to improve further with wider adoption and faster implementation with the fastest responders.

A recent study by Dr. Pepe’s team, published in Resuscitation, showed the effectiveness of the neuroprotective bundle in improving survival for OHCA patients overall. The current study confirmed its impact on neuro-intact survival for the subgroup of patients with nonshockable cases.

One other take-home message is that head-up CPR cannot yet be performed by lay bystanders. “Also, do not implement this unless you are going to do it right,” Dr. Pepe emphasized in an interview.

Advanced CPR Solutions provided some materials and research funding for an independent data collector. No other relevant financial relationships have been disclosed.

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

Individuals who experience out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with nonshockable presentations have a better chance of survival when first responders use a novel CPR approach that includes gradual head-up positioning combined with basic but effective circulation-enhancing adjuncts, as shown from data from more than 2,000 patients.

In a study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians, Paul Pepe, MD, medical director for Dallas County Emergency Medical Services, reviewed data from five EMS systems that had adopted the new approach. Data were collected prospectively over the past 2 years from a national registry of patients who had received what Dr. Pepe called a “neuroprotective CPR bundle” (NP-CPR).

The study compared 380 NP-CPR case patients to 1,852 control patients who had received conventional CPR. Control data came from high-performance EMS systems that had participated in well-monitored, published OHCA trials funded by the National Institutes of Health. The primary outcome that was used for comparison was successful survival to hospital discharge with neurologically intact status (SURV-NI).

Traditional CPR supine chest compression techniques, if performed early and properly, can be lifesaving, but they are suboptimal, Dr. Pepe said. “Current techniques create pressure waves that run up the arterial side, but they also create back-pressure on the venous side, increasing intracranial pressure (ICP), thus compromising optimal cerebral blood flow,” he told this news organization.

For that reason, a modified physiologic approach to CPR was designed. It involves an airway adjunct called an impedance threshold device (ITD) and active compression-decompression (ACD) with a device “resembling a toilet plunger,” Dr. Pepe said.

The devices draw more blood out of the brain and into the thorax in a complementary fashion. The combination of these two adjuncts had dramatically improved SURV-NI by 50% in a clinical trial, Dr. Pepe said.

The new technology uses automated gradual head-up/torso-up positioning (AHUP) after first “priming the pump” with ITD-ACD–enhanced circulation. It was found to markedly augment that effect even further. In the laboratory setting, this synergistic NP-CPR bundle has been shown to help normalize cerebral perfusion pressure, further promoting neuro-intact survival. Normalization of end-tidal CO2 is routinely observed, according to Dr. Pepe.

In contrast to patients who present with ventricular fibrillation (shockable cases), patients with nonshockable presentations always have had grim prognoses, Dr. Pepe said. Until now, lifesaving advances had not been found, despite the fact that nonshockable presentations (asystole or electrical activity with no pulse) constitute approximately 80% of OHCA cases, or about 250,000 to 300,00 cases a year in the United States, he said.

In the study, approximately 60% of both the NP-CPR patients and control patients had asystole (flatline) presentations. The NP-CPR group had a significant threefold improvement in SURV-NI, compared with patients treated with conventional CPR in the high-functioning systems (odds ratio, 3.09). In a propensity-scored analysis matching all variables known to affect outcome, the OR increased to nearly fourfold higher (OR, 3.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-11.78), Dr. Pepe said.

The researchers also found that the time from receipt of a 911 call to initiation of AHUP was associated with progressively higher chances of survival. The median time for application was 11 minutes; when the elapsed time was less than 11 minutes, the SURV-NI was nearly 11-fold higher for NP-CPR patients than for control patients (OR, 10.59), with survival chances of 6% versus 0.5%. ORs were even higher when the time to treatment was less than 16 minutes (OR, 13.58), with survival rates of 5% versus 0.4%.

The findings not only demonstrate proof of concept in these most futile cases but also that implementation is feasible for the majority of patients, considering that the median time to the start of any CPR by a first responder was 8 minutes for both NP-CPR patients and control patients, “let alone 11 minutes for the AHUP initiation,” Dr. Pepe said. “This finally gives some hope for these nonshockable cases,” he emphasized.

“All of these devices have now been cleared by the Food and Drug Administration and should be adopted by all first-in responders,” said Dr. Pepe. “But they should be implemented as a bundle and in the proper sequence and as soon as feasible.”

Training and implementation efforts continue to expand, and more lives can be saved as more firefighters and first-in response teams acquire equipment and training, which can cut the time to response, he said.

The registry will continue to monitor outcomes with NP-CPR – the term was suggested by a patient who survived through this new approach – and Dr. Pepe and colleagues expect the statistics to improve further with wider adoption and faster implementation with the fastest responders.

A recent study by Dr. Pepe’s team, published in Resuscitation, showed the effectiveness of the neuroprotective bundle in improving survival for OHCA patients overall. The current study confirmed its impact on neuro-intact survival for the subgroup of patients with nonshockable cases.

One other take-home message is that head-up CPR cannot yet be performed by lay bystanders. “Also, do not implement this unless you are going to do it right,” Dr. Pepe emphasized in an interview.

Advanced CPR Solutions provided some materials and research funding for an independent data collector. No other relevant financial relationships have been disclosed.

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

Individuals who experience out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with nonshockable presentations have a better chance of survival when first responders use a novel CPR approach that includes gradual head-up positioning combined with basic but effective circulation-enhancing adjuncts, as shown from data from more than 2,000 patients.

In a study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians, Paul Pepe, MD, medical director for Dallas County Emergency Medical Services, reviewed data from five EMS systems that had adopted the new approach. Data were collected prospectively over the past 2 years from a national registry of patients who had received what Dr. Pepe called a “neuroprotective CPR bundle” (NP-CPR).

The study compared 380 NP-CPR case patients to 1,852 control patients who had received conventional CPR. Control data came from high-performance EMS systems that had participated in well-monitored, published OHCA trials funded by the National Institutes of Health. The primary outcome that was used for comparison was successful survival to hospital discharge with neurologically intact status (SURV-NI).

Traditional CPR supine chest compression techniques, if performed early and properly, can be lifesaving, but they are suboptimal, Dr. Pepe said. “Current techniques create pressure waves that run up the arterial side, but they also create back-pressure on the venous side, increasing intracranial pressure (ICP), thus compromising optimal cerebral blood flow,” he told this news organization.

For that reason, a modified physiologic approach to CPR was designed. It involves an airway adjunct called an impedance threshold device (ITD) and active compression-decompression (ACD) with a device “resembling a toilet plunger,” Dr. Pepe said.

The devices draw more blood out of the brain and into the thorax in a complementary fashion. The combination of these two adjuncts had dramatically improved SURV-NI by 50% in a clinical trial, Dr. Pepe said.

The new technology uses automated gradual head-up/torso-up positioning (AHUP) after first “priming the pump” with ITD-ACD–enhanced circulation. It was found to markedly augment that effect even further. In the laboratory setting, this synergistic NP-CPR bundle has been shown to help normalize cerebral perfusion pressure, further promoting neuro-intact survival. Normalization of end-tidal CO2 is routinely observed, according to Dr. Pepe.

In contrast to patients who present with ventricular fibrillation (shockable cases), patients with nonshockable presentations always have had grim prognoses, Dr. Pepe said. Until now, lifesaving advances had not been found, despite the fact that nonshockable presentations (asystole or electrical activity with no pulse) constitute approximately 80% of OHCA cases, or about 250,000 to 300,00 cases a year in the United States, he said.

In the study, approximately 60% of both the NP-CPR patients and control patients had asystole (flatline) presentations. The NP-CPR group had a significant threefold improvement in SURV-NI, compared with patients treated with conventional CPR in the high-functioning systems (odds ratio, 3.09). In a propensity-scored analysis matching all variables known to affect outcome, the OR increased to nearly fourfold higher (OR, 3.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-11.78), Dr. Pepe said.

The researchers also found that the time from receipt of a 911 call to initiation of AHUP was associated with progressively higher chances of survival. The median time for application was 11 minutes; when the elapsed time was less than 11 minutes, the SURV-NI was nearly 11-fold higher for NP-CPR patients than for control patients (OR, 10.59), with survival chances of 6% versus 0.5%. ORs were even higher when the time to treatment was less than 16 minutes (OR, 13.58), with survival rates of 5% versus 0.4%.

The findings not only demonstrate proof of concept in these most futile cases but also that implementation is feasible for the majority of patients, considering that the median time to the start of any CPR by a first responder was 8 minutes for both NP-CPR patients and control patients, “let alone 11 minutes for the AHUP initiation,” Dr. Pepe said. “This finally gives some hope for these nonshockable cases,” he emphasized.

“All of these devices have now been cleared by the Food and Drug Administration and should be adopted by all first-in responders,” said Dr. Pepe. “But they should be implemented as a bundle and in the proper sequence and as soon as feasible.”

Training and implementation efforts continue to expand, and more lives can be saved as more firefighters and first-in response teams acquire equipment and training, which can cut the time to response, he said.

The registry will continue to monitor outcomes with NP-CPR – the term was suggested by a patient who survived through this new approach – and Dr. Pepe and colleagues expect the statistics to improve further with wider adoption and faster implementation with the fastest responders.

A recent study by Dr. Pepe’s team, published in Resuscitation, showed the effectiveness of the neuroprotective bundle in improving survival for OHCA patients overall. The current study confirmed its impact on neuro-intact survival for the subgroup of patients with nonshockable cases.

One other take-home message is that head-up CPR cannot yet be performed by lay bystanders. “Also, do not implement this unless you are going to do it right,” Dr. Pepe emphasized in an interview.

Advanced CPR Solutions provided some materials and research funding for an independent data collector. No other relevant financial relationships have been disclosed.

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

It’s a devastating series of setbacks for long COVID patients. First, they get the debilitating symptoms of their condition. Then they are forced to give up their jobs, or severely curtail their work hours, as their symptoms linger. And next, for many, they lose their employer-sponsored health insurance. 

While not all long COVID patients are debilitated, the CDC’s ongoing survey on long COVID found a quarter of adults with long COVID report it significantly affects their day-to-day living activities.

Estimates have shown that long COVID has disrupted the lives of anywhere from 16 million to 34 million Americans between the ages of 18 and 65. 

While hard data is still limited, a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis found that more than half of adults with long COVID who worked before getting the virus are now either out of work or working fewer hours. 

According to data from the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey, out of the estimated 16 million working-age adults who currently have long COVID, 2 million to 4 million of them are out of work because of their symptoms. The cost of those lost wages ranges from $170 billion a year to as much as $230 billion, the Census Bureau says. And given that approximately 155 million Americans have employer-sponsored health insurance, the welfare of working-age adults may be under serious threat. 

“Millions of people are now impacted by long COVID, and oftentimes along with that comes the inability to work,” says Megan Cole Brahim, PhD, an assistant professor in the department of health law, policy, and management at Boston University and codirector of the school’s Medicaid policy lab. “And because a lot of people get their health insurance coverage through employer-sponsored coverage, no longer being able to work means you may not have access to the health insurance that you once had.”

The CDC defines long COVID as a wide array of health conditions, including malaise, fatigue, shortness of breath, mental health issues, problems with the part of the nervous system that controls body functions, and more. 

Gwen Bishop was working remotely for the human resources department at the University of Washington Medical Centers, Seattle, when she got COVID-19. When the infection passed, Ms. Bishop, 39, thought she’d start feeling well enough to get back to work – but that didn’t happen. 

“When I would log in to work and just try to read emails,” she says, “it was like they were written in Greek. It made no sense and was incredibly stressful.”

This falls in line with what researchers have found out about the nervous system issues reported by people with long COVID. People who have survived acute COVID infections have reported lasting sensory and motor function problems, brain fog, and memory problems. 

Ms. Bishop, who was diagnosed with ADHD when she was in grade school, says another complication she got from her long COVID was a new intolerance to stimulants like coffee and her ADHD medication, Vyvanse, which were normal parts of her everyday life. 

“Every time I would take my ADHD medicine or have a cup of coffee, I would have a panic attack until it wore off,” says Ms. Bishop. “Vyvanse is a very long-acting stimulant, so that would be an entire day of an endless panic attack.” 

In order for her to get a medical leave approved, Ms. Bishop needed to get documents by a certain date from her doctor’s office that confirmed her long COVID diagnosis. She was able to get a couple of extensions, but Bishop says that with the burden that has been placed on our medical systems, getting in to see a doctor through her employer insurance was taking much longer than expected. By the time she got an appointment, she says, she had already been fired for missing too much work. Emails she provided showing exchanges between her and her employer verify her story. And without her health insurance, her appointment through that provider would no longer have been covered.

In July 2021, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services issued guidance recognizing long COVID as a disability “if the person’s condition or any of its symptoms is a ‘physical or mental’ impairment that ‘substantially limits’ one or more major life activities.” 

But getting access to disability benefits hasn’t been easy for people with long COVID. On top of having to be out of work for 12 months before being able to qualify for Social Security Disability Insurance, some of those who have applied say they have had to put up a fight to actually gain access to disability insurance. The Social Security Administration has yet to reveal just how many applications that cited long COVID have been denied so far.  

David Barnett, a former bartender in the Seattle area in his early 40s, got COVID-19 in March 2020. Before his infection, he spent much of his time working on his feet, bodybuilding, and hiking with his partner. But for the last nearly 3 years, even just going for a walk has been a major challenge. He says he has spent much of his post-COVID life either chair-bound or bed-bound because of his symptoms. 

He is currently on his partner’s health insurance plan but is still responsible for copays and out-of-network appointments and treatments. After being unable to bartend any more, he started a GoFundMe account and dug into his personal savings. He says he applied for food stamps and is getting ready to sell his truck. Mr. Barnett applied for disability in March of this year but says he was denied benefits by the Social Security Administration and has hired a lawyer to appeal.

He runs a 24-hour online support group on Zoom for people with long COVID and says that no one in his close circle has successfully gotten access to disability payments. 

Alba Azola, MD, codirector of Johns Hopkins University’s Post-Acute COVID-19 Team, says at least half of her patients need some level of accommodations to get back to work; most can, if given the proper accommodations, such as switching to a job that can be done sitting down, or with limited time standing. But there are still patients who have been more severely disabled by their long COVID symptoms. 

“Work is such a part of people’s identity. The people who are very impaired, all they want to do is to get back to work and their normal lives,” she says.

Many of Dr. Azola’s long COVID patients aren’t able to return to their original jobs. She says they often have to find new positions more tailored to their new realities. One patient, a nurse and mother of five who previously worked in a facility where she got COVID-19, was out of work for 9 months after her infection. She ultimately lost her job, and Dr. Azola says the patient’s employer was hesitant to provide her with any accommodations. The patient was finally able to find a different job as a nurse coordinator where she doesn’t have to be standing for more than 10 minutes at a time. 

Ge Bai, PhD, a professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, says the novelty of long COVID and the continued uncertainty around it raise questions for health insurance providers. 

“There’s no well-defined pathway to treat or cure this condition,” Dr. Bai says. “Right now, employers have discretion to determine when a condition is being covered or not being covered. So people with long COVID do have a risk that their treatments won’t be covered.”

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

It’s a devastating series of setbacks for long COVID patients. First, they get the debilitating symptoms of their condition. Then they are forced to give up their jobs, or severely curtail their work hours, as their symptoms linger. And next, for many, they lose their employer-sponsored health insurance. 

While not all long COVID patients are debilitated, the CDC’s ongoing survey on long COVID found a quarter of adults with long COVID report it significantly affects their day-to-day living activities.

Estimates have shown that long COVID has disrupted the lives of anywhere from 16 million to 34 million Americans between the ages of 18 and 65. 

While hard data is still limited, a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis found that more than half of adults with long COVID who worked before getting the virus are now either out of work or working fewer hours. 

According to data from the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey, out of the estimated 16 million working-age adults who currently have long COVID, 2 million to 4 million of them are out of work because of their symptoms. The cost of those lost wages ranges from $170 billion a year to as much as $230 billion, the Census Bureau says. And given that approximately 155 million Americans have employer-sponsored health insurance, the welfare of working-age adults may be under serious threat. 

“Millions of people are now impacted by long COVID, and oftentimes along with that comes the inability to work,” says Megan Cole Brahim, PhD, an assistant professor in the department of health law, policy, and management at Boston University and codirector of the school’s Medicaid policy lab. “And because a lot of people get their health insurance coverage through employer-sponsored coverage, no longer being able to work means you may not have access to the health insurance that you once had.”

The CDC defines long COVID as a wide array of health conditions, including malaise, fatigue, shortness of breath, mental health issues, problems with the part of the nervous system that controls body functions, and more. 

Gwen Bishop was working remotely for the human resources department at the University of Washington Medical Centers, Seattle, when she got COVID-19. When the infection passed, Ms. Bishop, 39, thought she’d start feeling well enough to get back to work – but that didn’t happen. 

“When I would log in to work and just try to read emails,” she says, “it was like they were written in Greek. It made no sense and was incredibly stressful.”

This falls in line with what researchers have found out about the nervous system issues reported by people with long COVID. People who have survived acute COVID infections have reported lasting sensory and motor function problems, brain fog, and memory problems. 

Ms. Bishop, who was diagnosed with ADHD when she was in grade school, says another complication she got from her long COVID was a new intolerance to stimulants like coffee and her ADHD medication, Vyvanse, which were normal parts of her everyday life. 

“Every time I would take my ADHD medicine or have a cup of coffee, I would have a panic attack until it wore off,” says Ms. Bishop. “Vyvanse is a very long-acting stimulant, so that would be an entire day of an endless panic attack.” 

In order for her to get a medical leave approved, Ms. Bishop needed to get documents by a certain date from her doctor’s office that confirmed her long COVID diagnosis. She was able to get a couple of extensions, but Bishop says that with the burden that has been placed on our medical systems, getting in to see a doctor through her employer insurance was taking much longer than expected. By the time she got an appointment, she says, she had already been fired for missing too much work. Emails she provided showing exchanges between her and her employer verify her story. And without her health insurance, her appointment through that provider would no longer have been covered.

In July 2021, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services issued guidance recognizing long COVID as a disability “if the person’s condition or any of its symptoms is a ‘physical or mental’ impairment that ‘substantially limits’ one or more major life activities.” 

But getting access to disability benefits hasn’t been easy for people with long COVID. On top of having to be out of work for 12 months before being able to qualify for Social Security Disability Insurance, some of those who have applied say they have had to put up a fight to actually gain access to disability insurance. The Social Security Administration has yet to reveal just how many applications that cited long COVID have been denied so far.  

David Barnett, a former bartender in the Seattle area in his early 40s, got COVID-19 in March 2020. Before his infection, he spent much of his time working on his feet, bodybuilding, and hiking with his partner. But for the last nearly 3 years, even just going for a walk has been a major challenge. He says he has spent much of his post-COVID life either chair-bound or bed-bound because of his symptoms. 

He is currently on his partner’s health insurance plan but is still responsible for copays and out-of-network appointments and treatments. After being unable to bartend any more, he started a GoFundMe account and dug into his personal savings. He says he applied for food stamps and is getting ready to sell his truck. Mr. Barnett applied for disability in March of this year but says he was denied benefits by the Social Security Administration and has hired a lawyer to appeal.

He runs a 24-hour online support group on Zoom for people with long COVID and says that no one in his close circle has successfully gotten access to disability payments. 

Alba Azola, MD, codirector of Johns Hopkins University’s Post-Acute COVID-19 Team, says at least half of her patients need some level of accommodations to get back to work; most can, if given the proper accommodations, such as switching to a job that can be done sitting down, or with limited time standing. But there are still patients who have been more severely disabled by their long COVID symptoms. 

“Work is such a part of people’s identity. The people who are very impaired, all they want to do is to get back to work and their normal lives,” she says.

Many of Dr. Azola’s long COVID patients aren’t able to return to their original jobs. She says they often have to find new positions more tailored to their new realities. One patient, a nurse and mother of five who previously worked in a facility where she got COVID-19, was out of work for 9 months after her infection. She ultimately lost her job, and Dr. Azola says the patient’s employer was hesitant to provide her with any accommodations. The patient was finally able to find a different job as a nurse coordinator where she doesn’t have to be standing for more than 10 minutes at a time. 

Ge Bai, PhD, a professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, says the novelty of long COVID and the continued uncertainty around it raise questions for health insurance providers. 

“There’s no well-defined pathway to treat or cure this condition,” Dr. Bai says. “Right now, employers have discretion to determine when a condition is being covered or not being covered. So people with long COVID do have a risk that their treatments won’t be covered.”

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

It’s a devastating series of setbacks for long COVID patients. First, they get the debilitating symptoms of their condition. Then they are forced to give up their jobs, or severely curtail their work hours, as their symptoms linger. And next, for many, they lose their employer-sponsored health insurance. 

While not all long COVID patients are debilitated, the CDC’s ongoing survey on long COVID found a quarter of adults with long COVID report it significantly affects their day-to-day living activities.

Estimates have shown that long COVID has disrupted the lives of anywhere from 16 million to 34 million Americans between the ages of 18 and 65. 

While hard data is still limited, a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis found that more than half of adults with long COVID who worked before getting the virus are now either out of work or working fewer hours. 

According to data from the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey, out of the estimated 16 million working-age adults who currently have long COVID, 2 million to 4 million of them are out of work because of their symptoms. The cost of those lost wages ranges from $170 billion a year to as much as $230 billion, the Census Bureau says. And given that approximately 155 million Americans have employer-sponsored health insurance, the welfare of working-age adults may be under serious threat. 

“Millions of people are now impacted by long COVID, and oftentimes along with that comes the inability to work,” says Megan Cole Brahim, PhD, an assistant professor in the department of health law, policy, and management at Boston University and codirector of the school’s Medicaid policy lab. “And because a lot of people get their health insurance coverage through employer-sponsored coverage, no longer being able to work means you may not have access to the health insurance that you once had.”

The CDC defines long COVID as a wide array of health conditions, including malaise, fatigue, shortness of breath, mental health issues, problems with the part of the nervous system that controls body functions, and more. 

Gwen Bishop was working remotely for the human resources department at the University of Washington Medical Centers, Seattle, when she got COVID-19. When the infection passed, Ms. Bishop, 39, thought she’d start feeling well enough to get back to work – but that didn’t happen. 

“When I would log in to work and just try to read emails,” she says, “it was like they were written in Greek. It made no sense and was incredibly stressful.”

This falls in line with what researchers have found out about the nervous system issues reported by people with long COVID. People who have survived acute COVID infections have reported lasting sensory and motor function problems, brain fog, and memory problems. 

Ms. Bishop, who was diagnosed with ADHD when she was in grade school, says another complication she got from her long COVID was a new intolerance to stimulants like coffee and her ADHD medication, Vyvanse, which were normal parts of her everyday life. 

“Every time I would take my ADHD medicine or have a cup of coffee, I would have a panic attack until it wore off,” says Ms. Bishop. “Vyvanse is a very long-acting stimulant, so that would be an entire day of an endless panic attack.” 

In order for her to get a medical leave approved, Ms. Bishop needed to get documents by a certain date from her doctor’s office that confirmed her long COVID diagnosis. She was able to get a couple of extensions, but Bishop says that with the burden that has been placed on our medical systems, getting in to see a doctor through her employer insurance was taking much longer than expected. By the time she got an appointment, she says, she had already been fired for missing too much work. Emails she provided showing exchanges between her and her employer verify her story. And without her health insurance, her appointment through that provider would no longer have been covered.

In July 2021, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services issued guidance recognizing long COVID as a disability “if the person’s condition or any of its symptoms is a ‘physical or mental’ impairment that ‘substantially limits’ one or more major life activities.” 

But getting access to disability benefits hasn’t been easy for people with long COVID. On top of having to be out of work for 12 months before being able to qualify for Social Security Disability Insurance, some of those who have applied say they have had to put up a fight to actually gain access to disability insurance. The Social Security Administration has yet to reveal just how many applications that cited long COVID have been denied so far.  

David Barnett, a former bartender in the Seattle area in his early 40s, got COVID-19 in March 2020. Before his infection, he spent much of his time working on his feet, bodybuilding, and hiking with his partner. But for the last nearly 3 years, even just going for a walk has been a major challenge. He says he has spent much of his post-COVID life either chair-bound or bed-bound because of his symptoms. 

He is currently on his partner’s health insurance plan but is still responsible for copays and out-of-network appointments and treatments. After being unable to bartend any more, he started a GoFundMe account and dug into his personal savings. He says he applied for food stamps and is getting ready to sell his truck. Mr. Barnett applied for disability in March of this year but says he was denied benefits by the Social Security Administration and has hired a lawyer to appeal.

He runs a 24-hour online support group on Zoom for people with long COVID and says that no one in his close circle has successfully gotten access to disability payments. 

Alba Azola, MD, codirector of Johns Hopkins University’s Post-Acute COVID-19 Team, says at least half of her patients need some level of accommodations to get back to work; most can, if given the proper accommodations, such as switching to a job that can be done sitting down, or with limited time standing. But there are still patients who have been more severely disabled by their long COVID symptoms. 

“Work is such a part of people’s identity. The people who are very impaired, all they want to do is to get back to work and their normal lives,” she says.

Many of Dr. Azola’s long COVID patients aren’t able to return to their original jobs. She says they often have to find new positions more tailored to their new realities. One patient, a nurse and mother of five who previously worked in a facility where she got COVID-19, was out of work for 9 months after her infection. She ultimately lost her job, and Dr. Azola says the patient’s employer was hesitant to provide her with any accommodations. The patient was finally able to find a different job as a nurse coordinator where she doesn’t have to be standing for more than 10 minutes at a time. 

Ge Bai, PhD, a professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, says the novelty of long COVID and the continued uncertainty around it raise questions for health insurance providers. 

“There’s no well-defined pathway to treat or cure this condition,” Dr. Bai says. “Right now, employers have discretion to determine when a condition is being covered or not being covered. So people with long COVID do have a risk that their treatments won’t be covered.”

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

Poor visual acuity, defined as difficulty discerning letters or numbers at a given distance, is associated with depression in middle-aged and older individuals, research suggests.

After multiple adjustments, analysis of data from more than 114,000 participants in the UK Biobank Study showed that visual impairment was linked to a 19% higher risk for depression.

In addition, imaging results showed a significant link between deteriorating brain structures and depression in those with poor visual acuity.

“Our findings highlight the value of visual health in association with mental health,” Xiayin Zhang, PhD, Guangdong Eye Institute, department of ophthalmology, Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital, Guangzhou, China, and colleagues write.

“Screening of vision at an early stage should be embedded in the middle-aged and older population to stratify the vulnerable population at risk for depression,” the investigators add.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

UK biobank analyses

The analysis included 114,583 participants (54.5% women; mean age, 56.8 years) from the UK Biobank who completed standardized questionnaires and underwent ocular examinations.

To test distance visual acuity, all were asked to read letters on lines from the top to the bottom of a chart while wearing prescribed optical correction. Visual impairment was defined as visual acuity worse than 0.3 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (LogMAR) units.

Depressive symptoms were self-reported using the two-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2), in which a score of 3 or more indicates depression. As well, a medical practitioner conducted an assessment of depression at baseline.

Among the participants, 87.2% had no visual impairment or depression and acted as the healthy control group. In addition, 3.2% showed visual impairment, 10% reported a diagnosis of depression, and 0.4% had both.

Researchers adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, education, smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity, family history of severe depression, obesity, hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and deprivation on the Townsend index.

Among those with visual impairment, 12.4% had depression, compared with 9.9% without visual impairment.
 

Structure deterioration

After adjusting for potential confounders, visual impairment was associated with a 19% higher risk for depression (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.34; P = .003). In addition, 1-line–worse visual acuity was associated with 5% higher odds of depression (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.04-1.07; P < .001).

The association between visual acuity and depression was found in both younger (39-58 years) and older (59-72 years) groups, as well as in both men and women.

The researchers also explored the association between depressive symptoms and brain structure using MRI scans from a subset of 7,844 individuals (51% women; 2% with visual impairment).

Results showed linear associations between PHQ-2 scores and the left volume of gray matter in the supracalcarine cortex (coefficient, 7.61; 95% CI, 3.9-11.3; adjusted P = .006).

The investigators note that the supracalcarine cortex is spatially connected to the primary visual cortex, suggesting the visual cortex may be involved in the pathogenesis of depression.

PHQ-2 scores were also associated with mean isotropic volume fraction (ISOVF) in the right fornix (cres) and/or stria terminalis (coefficient, .003; 95% CI, 0.001-0.004; adjusted P = .01).

The links “could be moderated by visual acuity, whereby increased PHQ score was associated with higher ISOVF levels only among those with poorer visual acuity (P = .02 for interaction),” the investigators report.

These results “suggest that poorer visual acuity was associated with greater depressive symptoms and may have contributed to the related deterioration of the fornix and stria terminalis,” they add.

They note that previous studies have supported the hypothesis that the fornix and stria terminalis are involved in the pathophysiology of other brain-related conditions, including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and autism spectrum disorder.

However, the investigators did not have information on how long the participants had experienced visual impairment, so they couldn’t investigate whether results were affected by time. Additional study limitations cited were that depression may affect vision and that a large proportion of the participants (89.3%) were White.
 

Study ‘adds nuance’

Commenting on the study, Ipsit V. Vahia, MD, of the department of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and associate chief of geriatric psychiatry at McLean Hospital, Belmont, Mass., said the study “adds nuance to our understanding” of the well-established relationship between vision deficits and depression.

“It indicates that even mild visual deficits may be associated with depression,” said Dr. Vahia, who was not involved with the research.

The investigators validated this association by showing that visual acuity was also associated with neuroimaging markers of depression, he added.

Although the study was not designed to demonstrate causal relationships between mood and vision and its findings do not confirm that correcting visual acuity deficits will resolve depressive symptoms, “the large study sample and high quality of data should give clinicians confidence in the study’s findings,” Dr. Vahia said.

“Correcting visual acuity deficits can be considered standard care for older adults worldwide, and this study suggests that providing this standard care could also benefit mental health,” he concluded.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation, the Outstanding Young Talent Trainee Program of Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital, the Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital Scientific Research Funds for Leading Medical Talents and Distinguished Young Scholars in Guangdong Province, the Talent Introduction Fund of Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital, the Science and Technology Program of Guangzhou, China, the Project of Special Research on Cardiovascular Diseases, the Research Foundation of Medical Science and Technology of Guangdong Province, the University of Melbourne at Research Accelerator Program, and the CERA (Centre for Eye Research Australia) Foundation and Victorian State Government for the Centre for Eye Research Australia. The investigators and Dr. Vahia have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Poor visual acuity, defined as difficulty discerning letters or numbers at a given distance, is associated with depression in middle-aged and older individuals, research suggests.

After multiple adjustments, analysis of data from more than 114,000 participants in the UK Biobank Study showed that visual impairment was linked to a 19% higher risk for depression.

In addition, imaging results showed a significant link between deteriorating brain structures and depression in those with poor visual acuity.

“Our findings highlight the value of visual health in association with mental health,” Xiayin Zhang, PhD, Guangdong Eye Institute, department of ophthalmology, Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital, Guangzhou, China, and colleagues write.

“Screening of vision at an early stage should be embedded in the middle-aged and older population to stratify the vulnerable population at risk for depression,” the investigators add.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

UK biobank analyses

The analysis included 114,583 participants (54.5% women; mean age, 56.8 years) from the UK Biobank who completed standardized questionnaires and underwent ocular examinations.

To test distance visual acuity, all were asked to read letters on lines from the top to the bottom of a chart while wearing prescribed optical correction. Visual impairment was defined as visual acuity worse than 0.3 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (LogMAR) units.

Depressive symptoms were self-reported using the two-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2), in which a score of 3 or more indicates depression. As well, a medical practitioner conducted an assessment of depression at baseline.

Among the participants, 87.2% had no visual impairment or depression and acted as the healthy control group. In addition, 3.2% showed visual impairment, 10% reported a diagnosis of depression, and 0.4% had both.

Researchers adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, education, smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity, family history of severe depression, obesity, hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and deprivation on the Townsend index.

Among those with visual impairment, 12.4% had depression, compared with 9.9% without visual impairment.
 

Structure deterioration

After adjusting for potential confounders, visual impairment was associated with a 19% higher risk for depression (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.34; P = .003). In addition, 1-line–worse visual acuity was associated with 5% higher odds of depression (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.04-1.07; P < .001).

The association between visual acuity and depression was found in both younger (39-58 years) and older (59-72 years) groups, as well as in both men and women.

The researchers also explored the association between depressive symptoms and brain structure using MRI scans from a subset of 7,844 individuals (51% women; 2% with visual impairment).

Results showed linear associations between PHQ-2 scores and the left volume of gray matter in the supracalcarine cortex (coefficient, 7.61; 95% CI, 3.9-11.3; adjusted P = .006).

The investigators note that the supracalcarine cortex is spatially connected to the primary visual cortex, suggesting the visual cortex may be involved in the pathogenesis of depression.

PHQ-2 scores were also associated with mean isotropic volume fraction (ISOVF) in the right fornix (cres) and/or stria terminalis (coefficient, .003; 95% CI, 0.001-0.004; adjusted P = .01).

The links “could be moderated by visual acuity, whereby increased PHQ score was associated with higher ISOVF levels only among those with poorer visual acuity (P = .02 for interaction),” the investigators report.

These results “suggest that poorer visual acuity was associated with greater depressive symptoms and may have contributed to the related deterioration of the fornix and stria terminalis,” they add.

They note that previous studies have supported the hypothesis that the fornix and stria terminalis are involved in the pathophysiology of other brain-related conditions, including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and autism spectrum disorder.

However, the investigators did not have information on how long the participants had experienced visual impairment, so they couldn’t investigate whether results were affected by time. Additional study limitations cited were that depression may affect vision and that a large proportion of the participants (89.3%) were White.
 

Study ‘adds nuance’

Commenting on the study, Ipsit V. Vahia, MD, of the department of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and associate chief of geriatric psychiatry at McLean Hospital, Belmont, Mass., said the study “adds nuance to our understanding” of the well-established relationship between vision deficits and depression.

“It indicates that even mild visual deficits may be associated with depression,” said Dr. Vahia, who was not involved with the research.

The investigators validated this association by showing that visual acuity was also associated with neuroimaging markers of depression, he added.

Although the study was not designed to demonstrate causal relationships between mood and vision and its findings do not confirm that correcting visual acuity deficits will resolve depressive symptoms, “the large study sample and high quality of data should give clinicians confidence in the study’s findings,” Dr. Vahia said.

“Correcting visual acuity deficits can be considered standard care for older adults worldwide, and this study suggests that providing this standard care could also benefit mental health,” he concluded.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation, the Outstanding Young Talent Trainee Program of Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital, the Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital Scientific Research Funds for Leading Medical Talents and Distinguished Young Scholars in Guangdong Province, the Talent Introduction Fund of Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital, the Science and Technology Program of Guangzhou, China, the Project of Special Research on Cardiovascular Diseases, the Research Foundation of Medical Science and Technology of Guangdong Province, the University of Melbourne at Research Accelerator Program, and the CERA (Centre for Eye Research Australia) Foundation and Victorian State Government for the Centre for Eye Research Australia. The investigators and Dr. Vahia have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Poor visual acuity, defined as difficulty discerning letters or numbers at a given distance, is associated with depression in middle-aged and older individuals, research suggests.

After multiple adjustments, analysis of data from more than 114,000 participants in the UK Biobank Study showed that visual impairment was linked to a 19% higher risk for depression.

In addition, imaging results showed a significant link between deteriorating brain structures and depression in those with poor visual acuity.

“Our findings highlight the value of visual health in association with mental health,” Xiayin Zhang, PhD, Guangdong Eye Institute, department of ophthalmology, Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital, Guangzhou, China, and colleagues write.

“Screening of vision at an early stage should be embedded in the middle-aged and older population to stratify the vulnerable population at risk for depression,” the investigators add.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

UK biobank analyses

The analysis included 114,583 participants (54.5% women; mean age, 56.8 years) from the UK Biobank who completed standardized questionnaires and underwent ocular examinations.

To test distance visual acuity, all were asked to read letters on lines from the top to the bottom of a chart while wearing prescribed optical correction. Visual impairment was defined as visual acuity worse than 0.3 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (LogMAR) units.

Depressive symptoms were self-reported using the two-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2), in which a score of 3 or more indicates depression. As well, a medical practitioner conducted an assessment of depression at baseline.

Among the participants, 87.2% had no visual impairment or depression and acted as the healthy control group. In addition, 3.2% showed visual impairment, 10% reported a diagnosis of depression, and 0.4% had both.

Researchers adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, education, smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity, family history of severe depression, obesity, hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and deprivation on the Townsend index.

Among those with visual impairment, 12.4% had depression, compared with 9.9% without visual impairment.
 

Structure deterioration

After adjusting for potential confounders, visual impairment was associated with a 19% higher risk for depression (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.34; P = .003). In addition, 1-line–worse visual acuity was associated with 5% higher odds of depression (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.04-1.07; P < .001).

The association between visual acuity and depression was found in both younger (39-58 years) and older (59-72 years) groups, as well as in both men and women.

The researchers also explored the association between depressive symptoms and brain structure using MRI scans from a subset of 7,844 individuals (51% women; 2% with visual impairment).

Results showed linear associations between PHQ-2 scores and the left volume of gray matter in the supracalcarine cortex (coefficient, 7.61; 95% CI, 3.9-11.3; adjusted P = .006).

The investigators note that the supracalcarine cortex is spatially connected to the primary visual cortex, suggesting the visual cortex may be involved in the pathogenesis of depression.

PHQ-2 scores were also associated with mean isotropic volume fraction (ISOVF) in the right fornix (cres) and/or stria terminalis (coefficient, .003; 95% CI, 0.001-0.004; adjusted P = .01).

The links “could be moderated by visual acuity, whereby increased PHQ score was associated with higher ISOVF levels only among those with poorer visual acuity (P = .02 for interaction),” the investigators report.

These results “suggest that poorer visual acuity was associated with greater depressive symptoms and may have contributed to the related deterioration of the fornix and stria terminalis,” they add.

They note that previous studies have supported the hypothesis that the fornix and stria terminalis are involved in the pathophysiology of other brain-related conditions, including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and autism spectrum disorder.

However, the investigators did not have information on how long the participants had experienced visual impairment, so they couldn’t investigate whether results were affected by time. Additional study limitations cited were that depression may affect vision and that a large proportion of the participants (89.3%) were White.
 

Study ‘adds nuance’

Commenting on the study, Ipsit V. Vahia, MD, of the department of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and associate chief of geriatric psychiatry at McLean Hospital, Belmont, Mass., said the study “adds nuance to our understanding” of the well-established relationship between vision deficits and depression.

“It indicates that even mild visual deficits may be associated with depression,” said Dr. Vahia, who was not involved with the research.

The investigators validated this association by showing that visual acuity was also associated with neuroimaging markers of depression, he added.

Although the study was not designed to demonstrate causal relationships between mood and vision and its findings do not confirm that correcting visual acuity deficits will resolve depressive symptoms, “the large study sample and high quality of data should give clinicians confidence in the study’s findings,” Dr. Vahia said.

“Correcting visual acuity deficits can be considered standard care for older adults worldwide, and this study suggests that providing this standard care could also benefit mental health,” he concluded.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation, the Outstanding Young Talent Trainee Program of Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital, the Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital Scientific Research Funds for Leading Medical Talents and Distinguished Young Scholars in Guangdong Province, the Talent Introduction Fund of Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital, the Science and Technology Program of Guangzhou, China, the Project of Special Research on Cardiovascular Diseases, the Research Foundation of Medical Science and Technology of Guangdong Province, the University of Melbourne at Research Accelerator Program, and the CERA (Centre for Eye Research Australia) Foundation and Victorian State Government for the Centre for Eye Research Australia. The investigators and Dr. Vahia have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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