MDedge ObGyn

A federal judge in Texas has dismissed a lawsuit from 117 Houston Methodist Hospital workers who refused to get a COVID-19 vaccine and said it was illegal to require them to do so.

In the ruling issued June 12, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes upheld the hospital’s policy and said the vaccination requirement didn’t break any federal laws.

“This is not coercion,” Judge Hughes wrote in the ruling.

“Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID-19 virus,” he wrote. “It is a choice made to keep staff, patients, and their families safer.”

In April, the Houston Methodist Hospital system announced a policy that required employees to be vaccinated by June 7 or request an exemption. After the deadline, 178 of 26,000 employees refused to get inoculated and were placed on suspension without pay. The employees said the vaccine was unsafe and “experimental.” In his ruling, Judge Hughes said their claim was false and irrelevant.

“Texas law only protects employees from being terminated for refusing to commit an act carrying criminal penalties to the worker,” he wrote. “Receiving a COVID-19 vaccination is not an illegal act, and it carries no criminal penalties.”

He denounced the “press-release style of the complaint” and the comparison of the hospital’s vaccine policy to forced experimentation by the Nazis against Jewish people during the Holocaust.

“Equating the injection requirement to medical experimentation in concentration camps is reprehensible,” he wrote. “Nazi doctors conducted medical experiments on victims that caused pain, mutilation, permanent disability, and in many cases, death.”

Judge Hughes also said that employees can “freely choose” to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine. If they refuse, they “simply need to work somewhere else,” he wrote.

“If a worker refuses an assignment, changed office, earlier start time, or other directive, he may be properly fired,” Judge Hughes said. “Every employment includes limits on the worker’s behavior in exchange for his remuneration. This is all part of the bargain.”

The ruling could set a precedent for similar COVID-19 vaccine lawsuits across the country, NPR reported. Houston Methodist was one of the first hospitals to require staff to be vaccinated. After the ruling on June 12, the hospital system wrote in a statement that it was “pleased and reassured” that Judge Hughes dismissed a “frivolous lawsuit.”

The hospital system will begin to terminate the 178 employees who were suspended if they don’t get a vaccine by June 21.

Jennifer Bridges, a nurse who has led the campaign against the vaccine policy, said she and the other plaintiffs will appeal the decision, according to KHOU.

“We’re OK with this decision. We are appealing. This will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court,” she told the news station. “This is far from over. This is literally only the beginning.”

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

A federal judge in Texas has dismissed a lawsuit from 117 Houston Methodist Hospital workers who refused to get a COVID-19 vaccine and said it was illegal to require them to do so.

In the ruling issued June 12, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes upheld the hospital’s policy and said the vaccination requirement didn’t break any federal laws.

“This is not coercion,” Judge Hughes wrote in the ruling.

“Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID-19 virus,” he wrote. “It is a choice made to keep staff, patients, and their families safer.”

In April, the Houston Methodist Hospital system announced a policy that required employees to be vaccinated by June 7 or request an exemption. After the deadline, 178 of 26,000 employees refused to get inoculated and were placed on suspension without pay. The employees said the vaccine was unsafe and “experimental.” In his ruling, Judge Hughes said their claim was false and irrelevant.

“Texas law only protects employees from being terminated for refusing to commit an act carrying criminal penalties to the worker,” he wrote. “Receiving a COVID-19 vaccination is not an illegal act, and it carries no criminal penalties.”

He denounced the “press-release style of the complaint” and the comparison of the hospital’s vaccine policy to forced experimentation by the Nazis against Jewish people during the Holocaust.

“Equating the injection requirement to medical experimentation in concentration camps is reprehensible,” he wrote. “Nazi doctors conducted medical experiments on victims that caused pain, mutilation, permanent disability, and in many cases, death.”

Judge Hughes also said that employees can “freely choose” to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine. If they refuse, they “simply need to work somewhere else,” he wrote.

“If a worker refuses an assignment, changed office, earlier start time, or other directive, he may be properly fired,” Judge Hughes said. “Every employment includes limits on the worker’s behavior in exchange for his remuneration. This is all part of the bargain.”

The ruling could set a precedent for similar COVID-19 vaccine lawsuits across the country, NPR reported. Houston Methodist was one of the first hospitals to require staff to be vaccinated. After the ruling on June 12, the hospital system wrote in a statement that it was “pleased and reassured” that Judge Hughes dismissed a “frivolous lawsuit.”

The hospital system will begin to terminate the 178 employees who were suspended if they don’t get a vaccine by June 21.

Jennifer Bridges, a nurse who has led the campaign against the vaccine policy, said she and the other plaintiffs will appeal the decision, according to KHOU.

“We’re OK with this decision. We are appealing. This will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court,” she told the news station. “This is far from over. This is literally only the beginning.”

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

A federal judge in Texas has dismissed a lawsuit from 117 Houston Methodist Hospital workers who refused to get a COVID-19 vaccine and said it was illegal to require them to do so.

In the ruling issued June 12, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes upheld the hospital’s policy and said the vaccination requirement didn’t break any federal laws.

“This is not coercion,” Judge Hughes wrote in the ruling.

“Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID-19 virus,” he wrote. “It is a choice made to keep staff, patients, and their families safer.”

In April, the Houston Methodist Hospital system announced a policy that required employees to be vaccinated by June 7 or request an exemption. After the deadline, 178 of 26,000 employees refused to get inoculated and were placed on suspension without pay. The employees said the vaccine was unsafe and “experimental.” In his ruling, Judge Hughes said their claim was false and irrelevant.

“Texas law only protects employees from being terminated for refusing to commit an act carrying criminal penalties to the worker,” he wrote. “Receiving a COVID-19 vaccination is not an illegal act, and it carries no criminal penalties.”

He denounced the “press-release style of the complaint” and the comparison of the hospital’s vaccine policy to forced experimentation by the Nazis against Jewish people during the Holocaust.

“Equating the injection requirement to medical experimentation in concentration camps is reprehensible,” he wrote. “Nazi doctors conducted medical experiments on victims that caused pain, mutilation, permanent disability, and in many cases, death.”

Judge Hughes also said that employees can “freely choose” to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine. If they refuse, they “simply need to work somewhere else,” he wrote.

“If a worker refuses an assignment, changed office, earlier start time, or other directive, he may be properly fired,” Judge Hughes said. “Every employment includes limits on the worker’s behavior in exchange for his remuneration. This is all part of the bargain.”

The ruling could set a precedent for similar COVID-19 vaccine lawsuits across the country, NPR reported. Houston Methodist was one of the first hospitals to require staff to be vaccinated. After the ruling on June 12, the hospital system wrote in a statement that it was “pleased and reassured” that Judge Hughes dismissed a “frivolous lawsuit.”

The hospital system will begin to terminate the 178 employees who were suspended if they don’t get a vaccine by June 21.

Jennifer Bridges, a nurse who has led the campaign against the vaccine policy, said she and the other plaintiffs will appeal the decision, according to KHOU.

“We’re OK with this decision. We are appealing. This will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court,” she told the news station. “This is far from over. This is literally only the beginning.”

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

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued its long-awaited Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for COVID-19 June 10, surprising many by including only health care workers in the new emergency workplace safety rules.

“The ETS is an overdue step toward protecting health care workers, especially those working in long-term care facilities and home health care who are at greatly increased risk of infection,” said George Washington University, Washington, professor and former Obama administration Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels, PhD, MPH. “OSHA’s failure to issue a COVID-specific standard in other high-risk industries, like meat and poultry processing, corrections, homeless shelters, and retail establishments is disappointing. If exposure is not controlled in these workplaces, they will continue to be important drivers of infections.”

With the new regulations in place, about 10.3 million health care workers at hospitals, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities, as well as emergency responders and home health care workers, should be guaranteed protection standards that replace former guidance.

The new protections include supplying personal protective equipment and ensuring proper usage (for example, mandatory seal checks on respirators); screening everyone who enters the facility for COVID-19; ensuring proper ventilation; and establishing physical distancing requirements (6 feet) for unvaccinated workers. It also requires employers to give workers time off for vaccination. An antiretaliation clause could shield workers who complain about unsafe conditions.

“The science tells us that health care workers, particularly those who come into regular contact with the virus, are most at risk at this point in the pandemic,” Labor Secretary Marty Walsh said on a press call. “So following an extensive review of the science and data, OSHA determined that a health care–specific safety requirement will make the biggest impact.”

But questions remain, said James Brudney, JD, a professor at Fordham Law School in New York and former chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor. The standard doesn’t amplify or address existing rules regarding a right to refuse unsafe work, for example, so employees may still feel they are risking their jobs to complain, despite the antiretaliation clause.

And although vaccinated employees don’t have to adhere to the same distancing and masking standards in many instances, the standard doesn’t spell out how employers should determine their workers’ vaccination status – instead leaving that determination to employers through their own policies and procedures. (California’s state OSHA office rules specify the mechanism for documentation of vaccination.)

The Trump administration did not issue an ETS, saying OSHA’s general duty clause sufficed. President Joe Biden took the opposite approach, calling for an investigation into an ETS on his first day in office. But the process took months longer than promised.

“I know it’s been a long time coming,” Mr. Walsh acknowledged. “Our health care workers from the very beginning have been put at risk.

While health care unions had asked for mandated safety standards sooner, National Nurses United, the country’s largest labor union for registered nurses, still welcomed the rules.

“An ETS is a major step toward requiring accountability for hospitals who consistently put their budget goals and profits over our health and safety,” Zenei Triunfo-Cortez, RN, one of NNU’s three presidents, said in a statement June 9 anticipating the publication of the rules.

The rules do not apply to retail pharmacies, ambulatory care settings that screen nonemployees for COVID-19, or certain other settings in which all employees are vaccinated and people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cannot enter.

The agency said it will work with states that have already issued local regulations, including two states that issued temporary standards of their own, Virginia and California.

Employers will have 2 weeks to comply with most of the regulations after they’re published in the Federal Register. The standards will expire in 6 months but could then become permanent, as Virginia’s did in January.

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

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued its long-awaited Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for COVID-19 June 10, surprising many by including only health care workers in the new emergency workplace safety rules.

“The ETS is an overdue step toward protecting health care workers, especially those working in long-term care facilities and home health care who are at greatly increased risk of infection,” said George Washington University, Washington, professor and former Obama administration Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels, PhD, MPH. “OSHA’s failure to issue a COVID-specific standard in other high-risk industries, like meat and poultry processing, corrections, homeless shelters, and retail establishments is disappointing. If exposure is not controlled in these workplaces, they will continue to be important drivers of infections.”

With the new regulations in place, about 10.3 million health care workers at hospitals, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities, as well as emergency responders and home health care workers, should be guaranteed protection standards that replace former guidance.

The new protections include supplying personal protective equipment and ensuring proper usage (for example, mandatory seal checks on respirators); screening everyone who enters the facility for COVID-19; ensuring proper ventilation; and establishing physical distancing requirements (6 feet) for unvaccinated workers. It also requires employers to give workers time off for vaccination. An antiretaliation clause could shield workers who complain about unsafe conditions.

“The science tells us that health care workers, particularly those who come into regular contact with the virus, are most at risk at this point in the pandemic,” Labor Secretary Marty Walsh said on a press call. “So following an extensive review of the science and data, OSHA determined that a health care–specific safety requirement will make the biggest impact.”

But questions remain, said James Brudney, JD, a professor at Fordham Law School in New York and former chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor. The standard doesn’t amplify or address existing rules regarding a right to refuse unsafe work, for example, so employees may still feel they are risking their jobs to complain, despite the antiretaliation clause.

And although vaccinated employees don’t have to adhere to the same distancing and masking standards in many instances, the standard doesn’t spell out how employers should determine their workers’ vaccination status – instead leaving that determination to employers through their own policies and procedures. (California’s state OSHA office rules specify the mechanism for documentation of vaccination.)

The Trump administration did not issue an ETS, saying OSHA’s general duty clause sufficed. President Joe Biden took the opposite approach, calling for an investigation into an ETS on his first day in office. But the process took months longer than promised.

“I know it’s been a long time coming,” Mr. Walsh acknowledged. “Our health care workers from the very beginning have been put at risk.

While health care unions had asked for mandated safety standards sooner, National Nurses United, the country’s largest labor union for registered nurses, still welcomed the rules.

“An ETS is a major step toward requiring accountability for hospitals who consistently put their budget goals and profits over our health and safety,” Zenei Triunfo-Cortez, RN, one of NNU’s three presidents, said in a statement June 9 anticipating the publication of the rules.

The rules do not apply to retail pharmacies, ambulatory care settings that screen nonemployees for COVID-19, or certain other settings in which all employees are vaccinated and people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cannot enter.

The agency said it will work with states that have already issued local regulations, including two states that issued temporary standards of their own, Virginia and California.

Employers will have 2 weeks to comply with most of the regulations after they’re published in the Federal Register. The standards will expire in 6 months but could then become permanent, as Virginia’s did in January.

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

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued its long-awaited Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for COVID-19 June 10, surprising many by including only health care workers in the new emergency workplace safety rules.

“The ETS is an overdue step toward protecting health care workers, especially those working in long-term care facilities and home health care who are at greatly increased risk of infection,” said George Washington University, Washington, professor and former Obama administration Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels, PhD, MPH. “OSHA’s failure to issue a COVID-specific standard in other high-risk industries, like meat and poultry processing, corrections, homeless shelters, and retail establishments is disappointing. If exposure is not controlled in these workplaces, they will continue to be important drivers of infections.”

With the new regulations in place, about 10.3 million health care workers at hospitals, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities, as well as emergency responders and home health care workers, should be guaranteed protection standards that replace former guidance.

The new protections include supplying personal protective equipment and ensuring proper usage (for example, mandatory seal checks on respirators); screening everyone who enters the facility for COVID-19; ensuring proper ventilation; and establishing physical distancing requirements (6 feet) for unvaccinated workers. It also requires employers to give workers time off for vaccination. An antiretaliation clause could shield workers who complain about unsafe conditions.

“The science tells us that health care workers, particularly those who come into regular contact with the virus, are most at risk at this point in the pandemic,” Labor Secretary Marty Walsh said on a press call. “So following an extensive review of the science and data, OSHA determined that a health care–specific safety requirement will make the biggest impact.”

But questions remain, said James Brudney, JD, a professor at Fordham Law School in New York and former chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor. The standard doesn’t amplify or address existing rules regarding a right to refuse unsafe work, for example, so employees may still feel they are risking their jobs to complain, despite the antiretaliation clause.

And although vaccinated employees don’t have to adhere to the same distancing and masking standards in many instances, the standard doesn’t spell out how employers should determine their workers’ vaccination status – instead leaving that determination to employers through their own policies and procedures. (California’s state OSHA office rules specify the mechanism for documentation of vaccination.)

The Trump administration did not issue an ETS, saying OSHA’s general duty clause sufficed. President Joe Biden took the opposite approach, calling for an investigation into an ETS on his first day in office. But the process took months longer than promised.

“I know it’s been a long time coming,” Mr. Walsh acknowledged. “Our health care workers from the very beginning have been put at risk.

While health care unions had asked for mandated safety standards sooner, National Nurses United, the country’s largest labor union for registered nurses, still welcomed the rules.

“An ETS is a major step toward requiring accountability for hospitals who consistently put their budget goals and profits over our health and safety,” Zenei Triunfo-Cortez, RN, one of NNU’s three presidents, said in a statement June 9 anticipating the publication of the rules.

The rules do not apply to retail pharmacies, ambulatory care settings that screen nonemployees for COVID-19, or certain other settings in which all employees are vaccinated and people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cannot enter.

The agency said it will work with states that have already issued local regulations, including two states that issued temporary standards of their own, Virginia and California.

Employers will have 2 weeks to comply with most of the regulations after they’re published in the Federal Register. The standards will expire in 6 months but could then become permanent, as Virginia’s did in January.

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

Graduates of international medical schools died from COVID-19 in disproportionate numbers in the United States in 2020, researchers report.

“I’ve always felt that international medical graduates [IMGs] in America are largely invisible,” said senior author Abraham Verghese, MD, MFA, an infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University. “Everyone is aware that there are foreign doctors, but very few are aware of how many there are and also how vital they are to providing health care in America.”

IMGs made up 25% of all U.S. physicians in 2020 but accounted for 45% of those whose deaths had been attributed to COVID-19 through Nov. 23, 2020, Deendayal Dinakarpandian, MD, PhD, clinical associate professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues report in JAMA Network Open.

IMGs are more likely to work in places where the incidence of COVID-19 is high and in facilities with fewer resources, Dr. Verghese said in an interview. “So, it’s not surprising that they were on the front lines when this thing came along,” he said.

To see whether their vulnerability affected their risk for death, Dr. Dinakarpandian and colleagues collected data from Nov. 23, 2020, from three sources of information regarding deaths among physicians: MedPage Today, which used investigative and voluntary reporting; Medscape, which used voluntary reporting of verifiable information; and a collaboration of The Guardian and Kaiser Health News, which used investigative reporting.

The Medscape project was launched on April 1, 2020. The MedPage Today and The Guardian/Kaiser Health News projects were launched on April 8, 2020.

Dr. Verghese and colleagues researched obituaries and news articles referenced by the three projects to verify their data. They used DocInfo to ascertain the deceased physicians’ medical schools.

After eliminating duplications from the lists, the researchers counted 132 physician deaths in 28 states. Of these, 59 physicians had graduated from medical schools outside the United States, a death toll 1.8 times higher than the proportion of IMGs among U.S. physicians (95% confidence interval, 1.52-2.21; P < .001).

New York, New Jersey, and Florida accounted for 66% of the deaths among IMGs but for only 45% of the deaths among U.S. medical school graduates.

Within each state, the proportion of IMGs among deceased physicians was not statistically different from their proportion among physicians in those states, with the exception of New York.

Two-thirds of the physicians’ deaths occurred in states where IMGs make up a larger proportion of physicians than in the nation as a whole. In these states, the incidence of COVID-19 was high at the start of the pandemic.

In New York, IMGs accounted for 60% of physician deaths, which was 1.62 times higher (95% CI, 1.26-2.09; P = .005) than the 37% among New York physicians overall.

Physicians who were trained abroad frequently can’t get into the most prestigious residency programs or into the highest paid specialties and are more likely to serve in primary care, Dr. Verghese said. Overall, 60% of the physicians who died of COVID-19 worked in primary care.

IMGs often staff hospitals serving low-income communities and communities of color, which were hardest hit by the pandemic and where personal protective equipment was hard to obtain, said Dr. Verghese.

In addition to these risks, IMGs sometimes endure racism, said Dr. Verghese, who obtained his medical degree at Madras Medical College, Chennai, India. “We’ve actually seen in the COVID era, in keeping with the sort of political tone that was set in Washington, that there’s been a lot more abuses of both foreign physicians and foreign looking physicians – even if they’re not foreign trained – and nurses by patients who have been given license. And I want to acknowledge the heroism of all these physicians.”

The study was partially funded by the Presence Center at Stanford. Dr. Verghese is a regular contributor to Medscape. He served on the advisory board for Gilead Sciences, serves as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Leigh Bureau, and receives royalties from Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster.

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

Graduates of international medical schools died from COVID-19 in disproportionate numbers in the United States in 2020, researchers report.

“I’ve always felt that international medical graduates [IMGs] in America are largely invisible,” said senior author Abraham Verghese, MD, MFA, an infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University. “Everyone is aware that there are foreign doctors, but very few are aware of how many there are and also how vital they are to providing health care in America.”

IMGs made up 25% of all U.S. physicians in 2020 but accounted for 45% of those whose deaths had been attributed to COVID-19 through Nov. 23, 2020, Deendayal Dinakarpandian, MD, PhD, clinical associate professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues report in JAMA Network Open.

IMGs are more likely to work in places where the incidence of COVID-19 is high and in facilities with fewer resources, Dr. Verghese said in an interview. “So, it’s not surprising that they were on the front lines when this thing came along,” he said.

To see whether their vulnerability affected their risk for death, Dr. Dinakarpandian and colleagues collected data from Nov. 23, 2020, from three sources of information regarding deaths among physicians: MedPage Today, which used investigative and voluntary reporting; Medscape, which used voluntary reporting of verifiable information; and a collaboration of The Guardian and Kaiser Health News, which used investigative reporting.

The Medscape project was launched on April 1, 2020. The MedPage Today and The Guardian/Kaiser Health News projects were launched on April 8, 2020.

Dr. Verghese and colleagues researched obituaries and news articles referenced by the three projects to verify their data. They used DocInfo to ascertain the deceased physicians’ medical schools.

After eliminating duplications from the lists, the researchers counted 132 physician deaths in 28 states. Of these, 59 physicians had graduated from medical schools outside the United States, a death toll 1.8 times higher than the proportion of IMGs among U.S. physicians (95% confidence interval, 1.52-2.21; P < .001).

New York, New Jersey, and Florida accounted for 66% of the deaths among IMGs but for only 45% of the deaths among U.S. medical school graduates.

Within each state, the proportion of IMGs among deceased physicians was not statistically different from their proportion among physicians in those states, with the exception of New York.

Two-thirds of the physicians’ deaths occurred in states where IMGs make up a larger proportion of physicians than in the nation as a whole. In these states, the incidence of COVID-19 was high at the start of the pandemic.

In New York, IMGs accounted for 60% of physician deaths, which was 1.62 times higher (95% CI, 1.26-2.09; P = .005) than the 37% among New York physicians overall.

Physicians who were trained abroad frequently can’t get into the most prestigious residency programs or into the highest paid specialties and are more likely to serve in primary care, Dr. Verghese said. Overall, 60% of the physicians who died of COVID-19 worked in primary care.

IMGs often staff hospitals serving low-income communities and communities of color, which were hardest hit by the pandemic and where personal protective equipment was hard to obtain, said Dr. Verghese.

In addition to these risks, IMGs sometimes endure racism, said Dr. Verghese, who obtained his medical degree at Madras Medical College, Chennai, India. “We’ve actually seen in the COVID era, in keeping with the sort of political tone that was set in Washington, that there’s been a lot more abuses of both foreign physicians and foreign looking physicians – even if they’re not foreign trained – and nurses by patients who have been given license. And I want to acknowledge the heroism of all these physicians.”

The study was partially funded by the Presence Center at Stanford. Dr. Verghese is a regular contributor to Medscape. He served on the advisory board for Gilead Sciences, serves as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Leigh Bureau, and receives royalties from Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster.

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

Graduates of international medical schools died from COVID-19 in disproportionate numbers in the United States in 2020, researchers report.

“I’ve always felt that international medical graduates [IMGs] in America are largely invisible,” said senior author Abraham Verghese, MD, MFA, an infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University. “Everyone is aware that there are foreign doctors, but very few are aware of how many there are and also how vital they are to providing health care in America.”

IMGs made up 25% of all U.S. physicians in 2020 but accounted for 45% of those whose deaths had been attributed to COVID-19 through Nov. 23, 2020, Deendayal Dinakarpandian, MD, PhD, clinical associate professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues report in JAMA Network Open.

IMGs are more likely to work in places where the incidence of COVID-19 is high and in facilities with fewer resources, Dr. Verghese said in an interview. “So, it’s not surprising that they were on the front lines when this thing came along,” he said.

To see whether their vulnerability affected their risk for death, Dr. Dinakarpandian and colleagues collected data from Nov. 23, 2020, from three sources of information regarding deaths among physicians: MedPage Today, which used investigative and voluntary reporting; Medscape, which used voluntary reporting of verifiable information; and a collaboration of The Guardian and Kaiser Health News, which used investigative reporting.

The Medscape project was launched on April 1, 2020. The MedPage Today and The Guardian/Kaiser Health News projects were launched on April 8, 2020.

Dr. Verghese and colleagues researched obituaries and news articles referenced by the three projects to verify their data. They used DocInfo to ascertain the deceased physicians’ medical schools.

After eliminating duplications from the lists, the researchers counted 132 physician deaths in 28 states. Of these, 59 physicians had graduated from medical schools outside the United States, a death toll 1.8 times higher than the proportion of IMGs among U.S. physicians (95% confidence interval, 1.52-2.21; P < .001).

New York, New Jersey, and Florida accounted for 66% of the deaths among IMGs but for only 45% of the deaths among U.S. medical school graduates.

Within each state, the proportion of IMGs among deceased physicians was not statistically different from their proportion among physicians in those states, with the exception of New York.

Two-thirds of the physicians’ deaths occurred in states where IMGs make up a larger proportion of physicians than in the nation as a whole. In these states, the incidence of COVID-19 was high at the start of the pandemic.

In New York, IMGs accounted for 60% of physician deaths, which was 1.62 times higher (95% CI, 1.26-2.09; P = .005) than the 37% among New York physicians overall.

Physicians who were trained abroad frequently can’t get into the most prestigious residency programs or into the highest paid specialties and are more likely to serve in primary care, Dr. Verghese said. Overall, 60% of the physicians who died of COVID-19 worked in primary care.

IMGs often staff hospitals serving low-income communities and communities of color, which were hardest hit by the pandemic and where personal protective equipment was hard to obtain, said Dr. Verghese.

In addition to these risks, IMGs sometimes endure racism, said Dr. Verghese, who obtained his medical degree at Madras Medical College, Chennai, India. “We’ve actually seen in the COVID era, in keeping with the sort of political tone that was set in Washington, that there’s been a lot more abuses of both foreign physicians and foreign looking physicians – even if they’re not foreign trained – and nurses by patients who have been given license. And I want to acknowledge the heroism of all these physicians.”

The study was partially funded by the Presence Center at Stanford. Dr. Verghese is a regular contributor to Medscape. He served on the advisory board for Gilead Sciences, serves as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Leigh Bureau, and receives royalties from Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster.

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

People with migraines appeared to have a higher likelihood of COVID-19 infection and subsequent symptoms of the disease, but they were less likely to receive health care, according to a study presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.

“These data suggest that people with migraine are either more susceptible to contracting COVID-19, or that they may be more sensitive to the development of symptoms once COVID-19 has been contracted, or both,” Robert Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor of neurological science at the University of Vermont, Burlington. “Further, once COVID-19 has been contracted, people with migraine may be less likely to develop serious COVID-19 outcomes, or they may be less likely to seek health care for COVID-19, or both.”

In providing background information, Dr. Shapiro noted previous research showing that headache is associated with a positive prognosis in COVID-19 inpatients, including lower IL-6 levels throughout the disease course, a 1-week shorter disease course, and a 2.2 times greater relative risk of survival.

Yet in a study across 171 countries, a higher population prevalence of migraine is associated with higher COVID-19 mortality rates. It’s unclear what conclusions can be drawn from that association, however, said Deborah I. Friedman, MD, MPH, professor of neurology and ophthalmology at University of Texas, Dallas, who was not involved in the research.

Dr. Shapiro suggested a theoretical possibility, noting that two genes linked to migraine susceptibility – SCN1A and IFNAR2 – are among 15 host loci also associated with COVID-19 outcomes. Further, Dr. Shapiro noted in his background information, COVID-19 is linked to lower serum calcitonin gene-related peptide levels.

For the study, Dr. Shapiro and colleagues analyzed data from U.S. adults who responded to the National Health and Wellness Survey from April to July 2020. The researchers limited their analysis to the 41,155 participants who had not received the flu vaccine in 2020 since previous research has suggested reduced morbidity among those with COVID-19 who had been vaccinated against the flu. In this group, 4,550 participants had ever been diagnosed by a doctor with migraine (11%) and 36,605 participants had not (89%).

The majority of those with a history of migraine were female (78%), compared with the overall sample (50% female), and tended to be younger, with an average age of 39 compared with 45 for those without migraine (P < .001).

Among those with a previous migraine diagnosis, 3.8% self-reported having had a COVID-19 infection, compared with infection in 2.4% of those without a history of migraine (P < .001). That translated to a 58% increased risk of COVID-19 infection in those with migraine history, with a similar rate of test positivity in both groups (33.7% with migraine history vs. 34.5% without). Test negativity was also similar in both groups (15.9% vs. 17.8%).

Of 360 respondents who had tested positive for COVID-19, the 60 with a history of migraine reported more frequent symptoms than those without migraine. The increased frequency was statistically significant (P < .001 unless otherwise indicated) for the following symptoms:

• Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath (P = .005).
• Fever.
• Headache, sore throat, and/or congestion.
• Fatigue.
• Loss of smell and taste.
• Chills and body aches.
• Persistent pain or pressure in the chest.
• Confusion or inability to arouse.
• Digestive issues (P = .005).
• Bluish lips or face.

For several of these symptoms – such as headache/sore throat/congestion, persistent pain or pressure in the chest, confusion/inability to arouse, and digestive issues – more than twice as many respondents with migraine reported the symptom, vs. those without migraine.
 

Changes in health care utilization

“I think that people with migraine are aware of their bodies and aware of their symptoms more than the average person,” Dr. Friedman said. Yet those with migraine were less likely to use health care while diagnosed with COVID-19 than were those without migraine. Migraine sufferers with a COVID-19 infection were 1.2 times more likely to visit a health care provider than were those without an infection, but the similar relative risk was 1.35 greater for those with COVID-19 infections and no migraines.

Similarly, those with a migraine history were more than twice as likely to visit the emergency department when they had a COVID-19 vaccine infection than were those without an infection (RR = 2.6), but among those without a history of migraine, respondents were nearly five times more likely to visit the emergency department when they had a COVID-19 infection than when they didn’t (RR = 4.9).

Dr. Friedman suggested that the lower utilization rate may have to do with the nature of migraine itself. “There are people with migraine who go to the emergency room all the time, but then there’s most of the people with migraine, who would rather die than go to the emergency room because with the light and the noise, it’s just a horrible place to be if you have migraine,” Dr. Friedman said. “I think the majority of people would prefer not to go to the emergency room if given the choice.”

Increased likelihood of hospitalization among those with migraine and a COVID-19 infection was 4.6 compared with those with a migraine and no infection; the corresponding hospitalization risk for COVID-19 among those without migraine was 7.6 times greater than for those with no infection. All these risk ratios were statistically significant.

Dr. Shapiro then speculated on what it might mean that headache is a positive prognostic indicator for COVID-19 inpatients and that migraine population prevalence is linked to higher COVID-19 mortality.

“A hypothesis emerges that headache as a symptom, and migraine as a disease, may reflect adaptive processes associated with host defenses against viruses,” Dr. Shapiro said. “For example, migraine-driven behaviors, such as social distancing due to photophobia, in the setting of viral illness may play adaptive roles in reducing viral spread.”

The researchers did not receive external funding. Dr. Shapiro has consulted for Eli Lilly and Lundbeck. Dr. Friedman reports grant support and/or advisory board participation for Allergan, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Impel NeuroPharma, Invex, Lundbeck, Merck, Revance Therapeutics, Satsuma Pharmaceuticals, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Theranica, and Zosano Pharma.

People with migraines appeared to have a higher likelihood of COVID-19 infection and subsequent symptoms of the disease, but they were less likely to receive health care, according to a study presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.

“These data suggest that people with migraine are either more susceptible to contracting COVID-19, or that they may be more sensitive to the development of symptoms once COVID-19 has been contracted, or both,” Robert Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor of neurological science at the University of Vermont, Burlington. “Further, once COVID-19 has been contracted, people with migraine may be less likely to develop serious COVID-19 outcomes, or they may be less likely to seek health care for COVID-19, or both.”

In providing background information, Dr. Shapiro noted previous research showing that headache is associated with a positive prognosis in COVID-19 inpatients, including lower IL-6 levels throughout the disease course, a 1-week shorter disease course, and a 2.2 times greater relative risk of survival.

Yet in a study across 171 countries, a higher population prevalence of migraine is associated with higher COVID-19 mortality rates. It’s unclear what conclusions can be drawn from that association, however, said Deborah I. Friedman, MD, MPH, professor of neurology and ophthalmology at University of Texas, Dallas, who was not involved in the research.

Dr. Shapiro suggested a theoretical possibility, noting that two genes linked to migraine susceptibility – SCN1A and IFNAR2 – are among 15 host loci also associated with COVID-19 outcomes. Further, Dr. Shapiro noted in his background information, COVID-19 is linked to lower serum calcitonin gene-related peptide levels.

For the study, Dr. Shapiro and colleagues analyzed data from U.S. adults who responded to the National Health and Wellness Survey from April to July 2020. The researchers limited their analysis to the 41,155 participants who had not received the flu vaccine in 2020 since previous research has suggested reduced morbidity among those with COVID-19 who had been vaccinated against the flu. In this group, 4,550 participants had ever been diagnosed by a doctor with migraine (11%) and 36,605 participants had not (89%).

The majority of those with a history of migraine were female (78%), compared with the overall sample (50% female), and tended to be younger, with an average age of 39 compared with 45 for those without migraine (P < .001).

Among those with a previous migraine diagnosis, 3.8% self-reported having had a COVID-19 infection, compared with infection in 2.4% of those without a history of migraine (P < .001). That translated to a 58% increased risk of COVID-19 infection in those with migraine history, with a similar rate of test positivity in both groups (33.7% with migraine history vs. 34.5% without). Test negativity was also similar in both groups (15.9% vs. 17.8%).

Of 360 respondents who had tested positive for COVID-19, the 60 with a history of migraine reported more frequent symptoms than those without migraine. The increased frequency was statistically significant (P < .001 unless otherwise indicated) for the following symptoms:

• Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath (P = .005).
• Fever.
• Headache, sore throat, and/or congestion.
• Fatigue.
• Loss of smell and taste.
• Chills and body aches.
• Persistent pain or pressure in the chest.
• Confusion or inability to arouse.
• Digestive issues (P = .005).
• Bluish lips or face.

For several of these symptoms – such as headache/sore throat/congestion, persistent pain or pressure in the chest, confusion/inability to arouse, and digestive issues – more than twice as many respondents with migraine reported the symptom, vs. those without migraine.
 

Changes in health care utilization

“I think that people with migraine are aware of their bodies and aware of their symptoms more than the average person,” Dr. Friedman said. Yet those with migraine were less likely to use health care while diagnosed with COVID-19 than were those without migraine. Migraine sufferers with a COVID-19 infection were 1.2 times more likely to visit a health care provider than were those without an infection, but the similar relative risk was 1.35 greater for those with COVID-19 infections and no migraines.

Similarly, those with a migraine history were more than twice as likely to visit the emergency department when they had a COVID-19 vaccine infection than were those without an infection (RR = 2.6), but among those without a history of migraine, respondents were nearly five times more likely to visit the emergency department when they had a COVID-19 infection than when they didn’t (RR = 4.9).

Dr. Friedman suggested that the lower utilization rate may have to do with the nature of migraine itself. “There are people with migraine who go to the emergency room all the time, but then there’s most of the people with migraine, who would rather die than go to the emergency room because with the light and the noise, it’s just a horrible place to be if you have migraine,” Dr. Friedman said. “I think the majority of people would prefer not to go to the emergency room if given the choice.”

Increased likelihood of hospitalization among those with migraine and a COVID-19 infection was 4.6 compared with those with a migraine and no infection; the corresponding hospitalization risk for COVID-19 among those without migraine was 7.6 times greater than for those with no infection. All these risk ratios were statistically significant.

Dr. Shapiro then speculated on what it might mean that headache is a positive prognostic indicator for COVID-19 inpatients and that migraine population prevalence is linked to higher COVID-19 mortality.

“A hypothesis emerges that headache as a symptom, and migraine as a disease, may reflect adaptive processes associated with host defenses against viruses,” Dr. Shapiro said. “For example, migraine-driven behaviors, such as social distancing due to photophobia, in the setting of viral illness may play adaptive roles in reducing viral spread.”

The researchers did not receive external funding. Dr. Shapiro has consulted for Eli Lilly and Lundbeck. Dr. Friedman reports grant support and/or advisory board participation for Allergan, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Impel NeuroPharma, Invex, Lundbeck, Merck, Revance Therapeutics, Satsuma Pharmaceuticals, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Theranica, and Zosano Pharma.

People with migraines appeared to have a higher likelihood of COVID-19 infection and subsequent symptoms of the disease, but they were less likely to receive health care, according to a study presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.

“These data suggest that people with migraine are either more susceptible to contracting COVID-19, or that they may be more sensitive to the development of symptoms once COVID-19 has been contracted, or both,” Robert Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor of neurological science at the University of Vermont, Burlington. “Further, once COVID-19 has been contracted, people with migraine may be less likely to develop serious COVID-19 outcomes, or they may be less likely to seek health care for COVID-19, or both.”

In providing background information, Dr. Shapiro noted previous research showing that headache is associated with a positive prognosis in COVID-19 inpatients, including lower IL-6 levels throughout the disease course, a 1-week shorter disease course, and a 2.2 times greater relative risk of survival.

Yet in a study across 171 countries, a higher population prevalence of migraine is associated with higher COVID-19 mortality rates. It’s unclear what conclusions can be drawn from that association, however, said Deborah I. Friedman, MD, MPH, professor of neurology and ophthalmology at University of Texas, Dallas, who was not involved in the research.

Dr. Shapiro suggested a theoretical possibility, noting that two genes linked to migraine susceptibility – SCN1A and IFNAR2 – are among 15 host loci also associated with COVID-19 outcomes. Further, Dr. Shapiro noted in his background information, COVID-19 is linked to lower serum calcitonin gene-related peptide levels.

For the study, Dr. Shapiro and colleagues analyzed data from U.S. adults who responded to the National Health and Wellness Survey from April to July 2020. The researchers limited their analysis to the 41,155 participants who had not received the flu vaccine in 2020 since previous research has suggested reduced morbidity among those with COVID-19 who had been vaccinated against the flu. In this group, 4,550 participants had ever been diagnosed by a doctor with migraine (11%) and 36,605 participants had not (89%).

The majority of those with a history of migraine were female (78%), compared with the overall sample (50% female), and tended to be younger, with an average age of 39 compared with 45 for those without migraine (P < .001).

Among those with a previous migraine diagnosis, 3.8% self-reported having had a COVID-19 infection, compared with infection in 2.4% of those without a history of migraine (P < .001). That translated to a 58% increased risk of COVID-19 infection in those with migraine history, with a similar rate of test positivity in both groups (33.7% with migraine history vs. 34.5% without). Test negativity was also similar in both groups (15.9% vs. 17.8%).

Of 360 respondents who had tested positive for COVID-19, the 60 with a history of migraine reported more frequent symptoms than those without migraine. The increased frequency was statistically significant (P < .001 unless otherwise indicated) for the following symptoms:

• Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath (P = .005).
• Fever.
• Headache, sore throat, and/or congestion.
• Fatigue.
• Loss of smell and taste.
• Chills and body aches.
• Persistent pain or pressure in the chest.
• Confusion or inability to arouse.
• Digestive issues (P = .005).
• Bluish lips or face.

For several of these symptoms – such as headache/sore throat/congestion, persistent pain or pressure in the chest, confusion/inability to arouse, and digestive issues – more than twice as many respondents with migraine reported the symptom, vs. those without migraine.
 

Changes in health care utilization

“I think that people with migraine are aware of their bodies and aware of their symptoms more than the average person,” Dr. Friedman said. Yet those with migraine were less likely to use health care while diagnosed with COVID-19 than were those without migraine. Migraine sufferers with a COVID-19 infection were 1.2 times more likely to visit a health care provider than were those without an infection, but the similar relative risk was 1.35 greater for those with COVID-19 infections and no migraines.

Similarly, those with a migraine history were more than twice as likely to visit the emergency department when they had a COVID-19 vaccine infection than were those without an infection (RR = 2.6), but among those without a history of migraine, respondents were nearly five times more likely to visit the emergency department when they had a COVID-19 infection than when they didn’t (RR = 4.9).

Dr. Friedman suggested that the lower utilization rate may have to do with the nature of migraine itself. “There are people with migraine who go to the emergency room all the time, but then there’s most of the people with migraine, who would rather die than go to the emergency room because with the light and the noise, it’s just a horrible place to be if you have migraine,” Dr. Friedman said. “I think the majority of people would prefer not to go to the emergency room if given the choice.”

Increased likelihood of hospitalization among those with migraine and a COVID-19 infection was 4.6 compared with those with a migraine and no infection; the corresponding hospitalization risk for COVID-19 among those without migraine was 7.6 times greater than for those with no infection. All these risk ratios were statistically significant.

Dr. Shapiro then speculated on what it might mean that headache is a positive prognostic indicator for COVID-19 inpatients and that migraine population prevalence is linked to higher COVID-19 mortality.

“A hypothesis emerges that headache as a symptom, and migraine as a disease, may reflect adaptive processes associated with host defenses against viruses,” Dr. Shapiro said. “For example, migraine-driven behaviors, such as social distancing due to photophobia, in the setting of viral illness may play adaptive roles in reducing viral spread.”

The researchers did not receive external funding. Dr. Shapiro has consulted for Eli Lilly and Lundbeck. Dr. Friedman reports grant support and/or advisory board participation for Allergan, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Impel NeuroPharma, Invex, Lundbeck, Merck, Revance Therapeutics, Satsuma Pharmaceuticals, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Theranica, and Zosano Pharma.

Increased intake of meat was linked to the risk of coronary heart disease, and substituting plant protein for red or processed meat appeared to reduce that risk, in a study from pooled cohorts totaling more than a million persons.

Fuse/Thinkstock

“We know that red and processed meat intake has been associated with higher risks of fatal coronary heart disease,” said Laila Al-Shaar, PhD, of Penn State University, Hershey. However, very few studies have evaluated substitution of alternative protein sources for red and processed meat in relation to fatal CHD risk, she said.

In a study presented at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting, Dr. Al-Shaar and colleagues reviewed individual-level data from the Pooling Project of Prospective Studies of Diet and Cancer, which included 16 prospective cohorts totaling 1,364,211 participants. The average age of the participants was 57 years, and 40% were men. Individuals with a history of cancer or cardiovascular disease were excluded. The participants were followed for 7-32 years. Diet was assessed in each cohort using baselines questionnaires, and cases were identified through medical records.

Total red meat included processed meat and unprocessed red meat; animal protein sources included seafood, poultry, eggs, and low- and high-fat dairy products; and plant protein sources included nuts and beans.

The researchers identified 51,176 fatal CHD cases during the study period. After controlling for dietary and nondietary factors, they found that an increase of 100 g per day of total red meat intake was associated with a 7% increased risk of fatal coronary heart disease (relative risk, 1.07).

However, substituting 200 calories (kcal) per day from nuts, low- and high-fat dairy products, and poultry for 200 calories per day from total red meat was associated with a 6%-14% lower risk of fatal CHD, Dr. Al-Shaar added at the meeting sponsored by the American Heart Association.

These associations were stronger when substituting the alternative protein sources for processed meat, especially among women; risk was reduced by 17%-24%, on the basis of 14,888 cases.

The researchers also found that substituting 200 calories per day from eggs for 200 calories per day for total red meat and unprocessed red meat was associated with 8% and 14% higher risk of fatal CHD, respectively; but this substitution of eggs for processed meat was not significant (4%).

“When we did the association by gender, the results were even stronger in women,” said Dr. Al-Shaar. However, “these are very preliminary results” that should be interpreted with caution, and more analysis is needed, she said. “We are planning to include other cohorts with other protein sources such as soy protein,” she noted. However, the results provide additional evidence that consumption of red and processed meat contributes to an increased risk of coronary heart disease, and that substituting some red and processed meat with nuts, dairy products, or poultry may reduce this risk, she concluded.
 

Women especially benefit from red meat reduction

The study is important because of the continuing interest in various sources of dietary protein intake, Linda Van Horn, PhD, RD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

“The investigators studied associations of substituting other animal and plant protein sources for total red meat, unprocessed red meat, and processed meat in relation to risk of fatal CHD,” she said.

The researchers found that swapping as little as 200 calories per day of total red meat for nuts, low- or high-fat dairy products, or poultry were associated with a 6%-14% reduced risk of fatal CHD, said Dr. Van Horn. “Alternatively, if those 200 calories per day for red meat were substituted with eggs, they saw as much as 14% higher risk of fatal CHD,” she noted.

The message for both consumers and clinicians is that the findings from this large study support recommendations for plant-based and lean animal sources of protein instead of red and processed meat or eggs, as these sources “offer significantly lower risk for CHD mortality,” Dr. Van Horn said. “This may be especially true for women, but the total population is likely to benefit from this approach,” she said.

Additional research is needed, Dr. Van Horn emphasized. “Prospective lifetime data, starting in utero and over the life course, are needed to better establish recommended dietary patterns at every age and among all ethnicities and diverse socioeconomic groups,” she said.

Dr. Al-Shaar had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Van Horn had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Increased intake of meat was linked to the risk of coronary heart disease, and substituting plant protein for red or processed meat appeared to reduce that risk, in a study from pooled cohorts totaling more than a million persons.

Fuse/Thinkstock

“We know that red and processed meat intake has been associated with higher risks of fatal coronary heart disease,” said Laila Al-Shaar, PhD, of Penn State University, Hershey. However, very few studies have evaluated substitution of alternative protein sources for red and processed meat in relation to fatal CHD risk, she said.

In a study presented at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting, Dr. Al-Shaar and colleagues reviewed individual-level data from the Pooling Project of Prospective Studies of Diet and Cancer, which included 16 prospective cohorts totaling 1,364,211 participants. The average age of the participants was 57 years, and 40% were men. Individuals with a history of cancer or cardiovascular disease were excluded. The participants were followed for 7-32 years. Diet was assessed in each cohort using baselines questionnaires, and cases were identified through medical records.

Total red meat included processed meat and unprocessed red meat; animal protein sources included seafood, poultry, eggs, and low- and high-fat dairy products; and plant protein sources included nuts and beans.

The researchers identified 51,176 fatal CHD cases during the study period. After controlling for dietary and nondietary factors, they found that an increase of 100 g per day of total red meat intake was associated with a 7% increased risk of fatal coronary heart disease (relative risk, 1.07).

However, substituting 200 calories (kcal) per day from nuts, low- and high-fat dairy products, and poultry for 200 calories per day from total red meat was associated with a 6%-14% lower risk of fatal CHD, Dr. Al-Shaar added at the meeting sponsored by the American Heart Association.

These associations were stronger when substituting the alternative protein sources for processed meat, especially among women; risk was reduced by 17%-24%, on the basis of 14,888 cases.

The researchers also found that substituting 200 calories per day from eggs for 200 calories per day for total red meat and unprocessed red meat was associated with 8% and 14% higher risk of fatal CHD, respectively; but this substitution of eggs for processed meat was not significant (4%).

“When we did the association by gender, the results were even stronger in women,” said Dr. Al-Shaar. However, “these are very preliminary results” that should be interpreted with caution, and more analysis is needed, she said. “We are planning to include other cohorts with other protein sources such as soy protein,” she noted. However, the results provide additional evidence that consumption of red and processed meat contributes to an increased risk of coronary heart disease, and that substituting some red and processed meat with nuts, dairy products, or poultry may reduce this risk, she concluded.
 

Women especially benefit from red meat reduction

The study is important because of the continuing interest in various sources of dietary protein intake, Linda Van Horn, PhD, RD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

“The investigators studied associations of substituting other animal and plant protein sources for total red meat, unprocessed red meat, and processed meat in relation to risk of fatal CHD,” she said.

The researchers found that swapping as little as 200 calories per day of total red meat for nuts, low- or high-fat dairy products, or poultry were associated with a 6%-14% reduced risk of fatal CHD, said Dr. Van Horn. “Alternatively, if those 200 calories per day for red meat were substituted with eggs, they saw as much as 14% higher risk of fatal CHD,” she noted.

The message for both consumers and clinicians is that the findings from this large study support recommendations for plant-based and lean animal sources of protein instead of red and processed meat or eggs, as these sources “offer significantly lower risk for CHD mortality,” Dr. Van Horn said. “This may be especially true for women, but the total population is likely to benefit from this approach,” she said.

Additional research is needed, Dr. Van Horn emphasized. “Prospective lifetime data, starting in utero and over the life course, are needed to better establish recommended dietary patterns at every age and among all ethnicities and diverse socioeconomic groups,” she said.

Dr. Al-Shaar had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Van Horn had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Increased intake of meat was linked to the risk of coronary heart disease, and substituting plant protein for red or processed meat appeared to reduce that risk, in a study from pooled cohorts totaling more than a million persons.

Fuse/Thinkstock

“We know that red and processed meat intake has been associated with higher risks of fatal coronary heart disease,” said Laila Al-Shaar, PhD, of Penn State University, Hershey. However, very few studies have evaluated substitution of alternative protein sources for red and processed meat in relation to fatal CHD risk, she said.

In a study presented at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting, Dr. Al-Shaar and colleagues reviewed individual-level data from the Pooling Project of Prospective Studies of Diet and Cancer, which included 16 prospective cohorts totaling 1,364,211 participants. The average age of the participants was 57 years, and 40% were men. Individuals with a history of cancer or cardiovascular disease were excluded. The participants were followed for 7-32 years. Diet was assessed in each cohort using baselines questionnaires, and cases were identified through medical records.

Total red meat included processed meat and unprocessed red meat; animal protein sources included seafood, poultry, eggs, and low- and high-fat dairy products; and plant protein sources included nuts and beans.

The researchers identified 51,176 fatal CHD cases during the study period. After controlling for dietary and nondietary factors, they found that an increase of 100 g per day of total red meat intake was associated with a 7% increased risk of fatal coronary heart disease (relative risk, 1.07).

However, substituting 200 calories (kcal) per day from nuts, low- and high-fat dairy products, and poultry for 200 calories per day from total red meat was associated with a 6%-14% lower risk of fatal CHD, Dr. Al-Shaar added at the meeting sponsored by the American Heart Association.

These associations were stronger when substituting the alternative protein sources for processed meat, especially among women; risk was reduced by 17%-24%, on the basis of 14,888 cases.

The researchers also found that substituting 200 calories per day from eggs for 200 calories per day for total red meat and unprocessed red meat was associated with 8% and 14% higher risk of fatal CHD, respectively; but this substitution of eggs for processed meat was not significant (4%).

“When we did the association by gender, the results were even stronger in women,” said Dr. Al-Shaar. However, “these are very preliminary results” that should be interpreted with caution, and more analysis is needed, she said. “We are planning to include other cohorts with other protein sources such as soy protein,” she noted. However, the results provide additional evidence that consumption of red and processed meat contributes to an increased risk of coronary heart disease, and that substituting some red and processed meat with nuts, dairy products, or poultry may reduce this risk, she concluded.
 

Women especially benefit from red meat reduction

The study is important because of the continuing interest in various sources of dietary protein intake, Linda Van Horn, PhD, RD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

“The investigators studied associations of substituting other animal and plant protein sources for total red meat, unprocessed red meat, and processed meat in relation to risk of fatal CHD,” she said.

The researchers found that swapping as little as 200 calories per day of total red meat for nuts, low- or high-fat dairy products, or poultry were associated with a 6%-14% reduced risk of fatal CHD, said Dr. Van Horn. “Alternatively, if those 200 calories per day for red meat were substituted with eggs, they saw as much as 14% higher risk of fatal CHD,” she noted.

The message for both consumers and clinicians is that the findings from this large study support recommendations for plant-based and lean animal sources of protein instead of red and processed meat or eggs, as these sources “offer significantly lower risk for CHD mortality,” Dr. Van Horn said. “This may be especially true for women, but the total population is likely to benefit from this approach,” she said.

Additional research is needed, Dr. Van Horn emphasized. “Prospective lifetime data, starting in utero and over the life course, are needed to better establish recommended dietary patterns at every age and among all ethnicities and diverse socioeconomic groups,” she said.

Dr. Al-Shaar had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Van Horn had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Pandemic smoking: More or less?

The COVID-19 pandemic has changed a lot of habits in people, for better or worse. Some people may have turned to food and alcohol for comfort, while others started on health kicks to emerge from the ordeal as new people. Well, the same can be said about smokers.

artisteer/Getty Images

New evidence comes from a survey conducted from May to July 2020 of 694 current and former smokers with an average age of 53 years. All had been hospitalized prior to the pandemic and had previously participated in clinical trials to for smoking cessation in Boston, Nashville, and Pittsburgh hospitals.

Researchers found that 32% of participants smoked more, 37% smoked less, and 31% made no change in their smoking habits. By the time of the survey, 28% of former smokers had relapsed. Although 68% of the participants believed smoking increased the risk of getting COVID-19, that still didn’t stop some people from smoking more. Why?

Respondents “might have increased their smoking due to stress and boredom. On the other hand, the fear of catching COVID might have led them to cut down or quit smoking,” said lead author Nancy A. Rigotti, MD. “Even before the pandemic, tobacco smoking was the leading preventable cause of death in the United States. COVID-19 has given smokers yet another good reason to stop smoking.”

This creates an opportunity for physicians to preach the gospel to smokers about their vulnerability to respiratory disease in hopes of getting them to quit for good. We just wish the same could be said for all of our excessive pandemic online shopping.
 

3,000 years and just one pair of genomes to wear

Men and women are different. We’ll give you a moment to pick your jaw off the ground.

It makes sense though, the sexes being different, especially when you look at the broader animal kingdom. The males and females of many species are slightly different when it comes to size and shape, but there’s a big question that literally only anthropologists have asked: Were human males and females more different in the past than they are today?

Leonard Mukooli/Pixabay

To be more specific, some scientists believe that males and females grew more similar when humans shifted from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to a farming-based lifestyle, as agriculture encouraged a more equitable division of labor. Others believe that the differences come down to random chance.

Researchers from Penn State University analyzed genomic data from over 350,000 males and females stored in the UK Biobank and looked at the recent (within the last ~3,000 years; post-agriculture adoption in Britain) evolutionary histories of these loci. Height, body mass, hip circumference, body fat percentage, and waist circumference were analyzed, and while there were thousands of differences in the genomes, only one trait occurred more frequently during that time period: Females gained a significantly higher body fat content than males.

It’s a sad day then for the millions of people who were big fans of the “farming caused men and women to become more similar” theory. Count the LOTME crew among them. Be honest: Wouldn’t life be so much simpler if men and women were exactly the same? Just think about it, no more arguments about leaving the toilet seat up. It’d be worth it just for that.
 

Proteins don’t lie

Research published in Open Biology shows that the human brain contains 14,315 different proteins. The team conducting that study wanted to find out which organ was the most similar to the old brain box, so they did protein counts for the 32 other major tissue types, including heart, salivary gland, lung, spleen, and endometrium.

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

The tissue with the most proteins in common with the center of human intelligence? You’re thinking it has to be colon at this point, right? We were sure it was going to be colon, but it’s not.

The winner, with 13,442 shared proteins, is the testes. The testes have 15,687 proteins, of which 85.7% are shared with the brain. The researchers, sadly, did not provide protein counts for the other tissue types, but we bet colon was a close second.
 

Dreaming about COVID?

We thought we were the only ones who have been having crazy dreams lately. Each one seems crazier and more vivid than the one before. Have you been having weird dreams lately?

Unsplash/@spanic

This is likely your brain’s coping mechanism to handle your pandemic stress, according to Dr. Erik Hoel of Tufts University. Dreams that are crazy and scary might make real life seem lighter and simpler. He calls it the “overfitted brain hypothesis.”

“It is their very strangeness that gives them their biological function,” Dr. Hoel said. It literally makes you feel like COVID-19 and lockdowns aren’t as scary as they seem.

We always knew our minds were powerful things. Apparently, your brain gets tired of everyday familiarity just like you do, and it creates crazy dreams to keep things interesting.

Just remember: That recurring dream that you’re back in college and missing 10 assignments is there to help you, not scare you! Even though it is pretty scary. 

Pandemic smoking: More or less?

The COVID-19 pandemic has changed a lot of habits in people, for better or worse. Some people may have turned to food and alcohol for comfort, while others started on health kicks to emerge from the ordeal as new people. Well, the same can be said about smokers.

artisteer/Getty Images

New evidence comes from a survey conducted from May to July 2020 of 694 current and former smokers with an average age of 53 years. All had been hospitalized prior to the pandemic and had previously participated in clinical trials to for smoking cessation in Boston, Nashville, and Pittsburgh hospitals.

Researchers found that 32% of participants smoked more, 37% smoked less, and 31% made no change in their smoking habits. By the time of the survey, 28% of former smokers had relapsed. Although 68% of the participants believed smoking increased the risk of getting COVID-19, that still didn’t stop some people from smoking more. Why?

Respondents “might have increased their smoking due to stress and boredom. On the other hand, the fear of catching COVID might have led them to cut down or quit smoking,” said lead author Nancy A. Rigotti, MD. “Even before the pandemic, tobacco smoking was the leading preventable cause of death in the United States. COVID-19 has given smokers yet another good reason to stop smoking.”

This creates an opportunity for physicians to preach the gospel to smokers about their vulnerability to respiratory disease in hopes of getting them to quit for good. We just wish the same could be said for all of our excessive pandemic online shopping.
 

3,000 years and just one pair of genomes to wear

Men and women are different. We’ll give you a moment to pick your jaw off the ground.

It makes sense though, the sexes being different, especially when you look at the broader animal kingdom. The males and females of many species are slightly different when it comes to size and shape, but there’s a big question that literally only anthropologists have asked: Were human males and females more different in the past than they are today?

Leonard Mukooli/Pixabay

To be more specific, some scientists believe that males and females grew more similar when humans shifted from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to a farming-based lifestyle, as agriculture encouraged a more equitable division of labor. Others believe that the differences come down to random chance.

Researchers from Penn State University analyzed genomic data from over 350,000 males and females stored in the UK Biobank and looked at the recent (within the last ~3,000 years; post-agriculture adoption in Britain) evolutionary histories of these loci. Height, body mass, hip circumference, body fat percentage, and waist circumference were analyzed, and while there were thousands of differences in the genomes, only one trait occurred more frequently during that time period: Females gained a significantly higher body fat content than males.

It’s a sad day then for the millions of people who were big fans of the “farming caused men and women to become more similar” theory. Count the LOTME crew among them. Be honest: Wouldn’t life be so much simpler if men and women were exactly the same? Just think about it, no more arguments about leaving the toilet seat up. It’d be worth it just for that.
 

Proteins don’t lie

Research published in Open Biology shows that the human brain contains 14,315 different proteins. The team conducting that study wanted to find out which organ was the most similar to the old brain box, so they did protein counts for the 32 other major tissue types, including heart, salivary gland, lung, spleen, and endometrium.

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

The tissue with the most proteins in common with the center of human intelligence? You’re thinking it has to be colon at this point, right? We were sure it was going to be colon, but it’s not.

The winner, with 13,442 shared proteins, is the testes. The testes have 15,687 proteins, of which 85.7% are shared with the brain. The researchers, sadly, did not provide protein counts for the other tissue types, but we bet colon was a close second.
 

Dreaming about COVID?

We thought we were the only ones who have been having crazy dreams lately. Each one seems crazier and more vivid than the one before. Have you been having weird dreams lately?

Unsplash/@spanic

This is likely your brain’s coping mechanism to handle your pandemic stress, according to Dr. Erik Hoel of Tufts University. Dreams that are crazy and scary might make real life seem lighter and simpler. He calls it the “overfitted brain hypothesis.”

“It is their very strangeness that gives them their biological function,” Dr. Hoel said. It literally makes you feel like COVID-19 and lockdowns aren’t as scary as they seem.

We always knew our minds were powerful things. Apparently, your brain gets tired of everyday familiarity just like you do, and it creates crazy dreams to keep things interesting.

Just remember: That recurring dream that you’re back in college and missing 10 assignments is there to help you, not scare you! Even though it is pretty scary. 

Pandemic smoking: More or less?

The COVID-19 pandemic has changed a lot of habits in people, for better or worse. Some people may have turned to food and alcohol for comfort, while others started on health kicks to emerge from the ordeal as new people. Well, the same can be said about smokers.

artisteer/Getty Images

New evidence comes from a survey conducted from May to July 2020 of 694 current and former smokers with an average age of 53 years. All had been hospitalized prior to the pandemic and had previously participated in clinical trials to for smoking cessation in Boston, Nashville, and Pittsburgh hospitals.

Researchers found that 32% of participants smoked more, 37% smoked less, and 31% made no change in their smoking habits. By the time of the survey, 28% of former smokers had relapsed. Although 68% of the participants believed smoking increased the risk of getting COVID-19, that still didn’t stop some people from smoking more. Why?

Respondents “might have increased their smoking due to stress and boredom. On the other hand, the fear of catching COVID might have led them to cut down or quit smoking,” said lead author Nancy A. Rigotti, MD. “Even before the pandemic, tobacco smoking was the leading preventable cause of death in the United States. COVID-19 has given smokers yet another good reason to stop smoking.”

This creates an opportunity for physicians to preach the gospel to smokers about their vulnerability to respiratory disease in hopes of getting them to quit for good. We just wish the same could be said for all of our excessive pandemic online shopping.
 

3,000 years and just one pair of genomes to wear

Men and women are different. We’ll give you a moment to pick your jaw off the ground.

It makes sense though, the sexes being different, especially when you look at the broader animal kingdom. The males and females of many species are slightly different when it comes to size and shape, but there’s a big question that literally only anthropologists have asked: Were human males and females more different in the past than they are today?

Leonard Mukooli/Pixabay

To be more specific, some scientists believe that males and females grew more similar when humans shifted from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to a farming-based lifestyle, as agriculture encouraged a more equitable division of labor. Others believe that the differences come down to random chance.

Researchers from Penn State University analyzed genomic data from over 350,000 males and females stored in the UK Biobank and looked at the recent (within the last ~3,000 years; post-agriculture adoption in Britain) evolutionary histories of these loci. Height, body mass, hip circumference, body fat percentage, and waist circumference were analyzed, and while there were thousands of differences in the genomes, only one trait occurred more frequently during that time period: Females gained a significantly higher body fat content than males.

It’s a sad day then for the millions of people who were big fans of the “farming caused men and women to become more similar” theory. Count the LOTME crew among them. Be honest: Wouldn’t life be so much simpler if men and women were exactly the same? Just think about it, no more arguments about leaving the toilet seat up. It’d be worth it just for that.
 

Proteins don’t lie

Research published in Open Biology shows that the human brain contains 14,315 different proteins. The team conducting that study wanted to find out which organ was the most similar to the old brain box, so they did protein counts for the 32 other major tissue types, including heart, salivary gland, lung, spleen, and endometrium.

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

The tissue with the most proteins in common with the center of human intelligence? You’re thinking it has to be colon at this point, right? We were sure it was going to be colon, but it’s not.

The winner, with 13,442 shared proteins, is the testes. The testes have 15,687 proteins, of which 85.7% are shared with the brain. The researchers, sadly, did not provide protein counts for the other tissue types, but we bet colon was a close second.
 

Dreaming about COVID?

We thought we were the only ones who have been having crazy dreams lately. Each one seems crazier and more vivid than the one before. Have you been having weird dreams lately?

Unsplash/@spanic

This is likely your brain’s coping mechanism to handle your pandemic stress, according to Dr. Erik Hoel of Tufts University. Dreams that are crazy and scary might make real life seem lighter and simpler. He calls it the “overfitted brain hypothesis.”

“It is their very strangeness that gives them their biological function,” Dr. Hoel said. It literally makes you feel like COVID-19 and lockdowns aren’t as scary as they seem.

We always knew our minds were powerful things. Apparently, your brain gets tired of everyday familiarity just like you do, and it creates crazy dreams to keep things interesting.

Just remember: That recurring dream that you’re back in college and missing 10 assignments is there to help you, not scare you! Even though it is pretty scary. 

Black women exposed to ozone air pollution have an increased risk of developing fibroids, according to new research published in Human Production.

Uterine fibroids are a common type of pelvic growth, affecting up to 80% of women by the time they reach age 50, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Black women are hit hardest by fibroids; they are diagnosed two to three times the rate of White women and tend to have more severe symptoms.

Researchers are unclear on why exposure to ozone air pollution increases the risk of developing fibroids. However, they believe that when it comes to identifying causes of fibroids and explanations for racial disparities in fibroids, more research that focuses on environmental and neighborhood-level risk factors could help inform policy and interventions to improve gynecologic health.

“A large body of literature from the environmental justice field has documented that people of color, and Black people specifically, are inequitably exposed to air pollution,” study author Amelia K. Wesselink, PhD, assistant professor at Boston University School of Public Health, said in an interview. “And there is growing evidence that air pollution can influence gynecologic health and therefore may contribute to racial disparities in gynecologic outcomes.”

Dr. Wesselink and colleagues wanted to know the extent to which three air pollutants – particulate matter (PM2.5), nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) and ozone (0₃) – were linked to the development of fibroids. To figure this out, they analyzed data on nearly 22,000 premenopausal Black women who lived in 56 metropolitan areas in the United States between 2007 and 2011. They assigned air pollution exposures to participants’ residential addresses collected at baseline and over follow-up and tried to capture long-term exposure to air pollutants.

During the study, nearly 30% of participants reported that they were diagnosed with fibroids. Researchers observed that the exposure to PM2.5 and NO₂ was not associated with an increased risk of developing these fibroids.

Dr. Wesselink said the findings may have underestimated fibroid incidence, so they “need to be replicated in a prospective, ultrasound-based study that can identify all fibroid cases.”

“There has not been a lot of research on how air pollution influences fibroid risk, but the two studies that are out there show some evidence of an association,” said Dr. Wesselink. “The fact that our results were consistent with this is interesting. The surprising part of our findings was that we observed an association for ozone, but not for PM2.5 or NO₂.”

Nathaniel DeNicola, MD, MSHP, FACOG, a Washington-based obstetrics and gynecology physician affiliated with John Hopkins Health System, applauded the methodology of the study and said the findings prove that patients and doctors should be talking about the environment and exposures to air pollutants.

“[Air pollution] has numerous components to it. And we should try to figure out exactly what components are most dangerous to human health and what doses and what times of life,” said Dr. DeNicola, an environmental health expert.

The increased risk of developing fibroids is a “historical observation” and air pollution may be part of a multifactorial cause of that, Dr. DeNicola said. He said he wouldn’t be surprised if future studies show that “higher exposure [to air pollution] – due to how city planning works, often communities of color are in the areas with the most dense air pollution – exacerbates some other mechanism already in place.

Although it’s unclear how ozone exposure increases fibroid risk, Dr. Wesselink said it may be through a mechanism that is unique to ozone.

“In other words, it might be that there is a factor related to ozone that we did not account for that explains our findings. Vitamin D is a factor that we were not able to account for in this study,” Dr. Wesselink said. “Future work on this topic should consider the role of vitamin D [exposure or deficiency].”

Dr. DeNicola said ozone’s impact may also be tied to its “known association” with hypertension. A 2017 study by Drew B. Day, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and colleagues, found that ozone exposure has been linked to hypertension. Meanwhile, a 2015 study has found an association between hypertension and fibroids.

“[This study] does raise an important message. It shines a light where more research needs to be done,” Dr. DeNicola said. “The ozone connection to hypertension was probably most compelling as a true risk factor for uterine fibroids.”

Dr. Wesselink said future work on fibroid etiology should focus on environmental and neighborhood-level exposures to pollutants.

Black women exposed to ozone air pollution have an increased risk of developing fibroids, according to new research published in Human Production.

Uterine fibroids are a common type of pelvic growth, affecting up to 80% of women by the time they reach age 50, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Black women are hit hardest by fibroids; they are diagnosed two to three times the rate of White women and tend to have more severe symptoms.

Researchers are unclear on why exposure to ozone air pollution increases the risk of developing fibroids. However, they believe that when it comes to identifying causes of fibroids and explanations for racial disparities in fibroids, more research that focuses on environmental and neighborhood-level risk factors could help inform policy and interventions to improve gynecologic health.

“A large body of literature from the environmental justice field has documented that people of color, and Black people specifically, are inequitably exposed to air pollution,” study author Amelia K. Wesselink, PhD, assistant professor at Boston University School of Public Health, said in an interview. “And there is growing evidence that air pollution can influence gynecologic health and therefore may contribute to racial disparities in gynecologic outcomes.”

Dr. Wesselink and colleagues wanted to know the extent to which three air pollutants – particulate matter (PM2.5), nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) and ozone (0₃) – were linked to the development of fibroids. To figure this out, they analyzed data on nearly 22,000 premenopausal Black women who lived in 56 metropolitan areas in the United States between 2007 and 2011. They assigned air pollution exposures to participants’ residential addresses collected at baseline and over follow-up and tried to capture long-term exposure to air pollutants.

During the study, nearly 30% of participants reported that they were diagnosed with fibroids. Researchers observed that the exposure to PM2.5 and NO₂ was not associated with an increased risk of developing these fibroids.

Dr. Wesselink said the findings may have underestimated fibroid incidence, so they “need to be replicated in a prospective, ultrasound-based study that can identify all fibroid cases.”

“There has not been a lot of research on how air pollution influences fibroid risk, but the two studies that are out there show some evidence of an association,” said Dr. Wesselink. “The fact that our results were consistent with this is interesting. The surprising part of our findings was that we observed an association for ozone, but not for PM2.5 or NO₂.”

Nathaniel DeNicola, MD, MSHP, FACOG, a Washington-based obstetrics and gynecology physician affiliated with John Hopkins Health System, applauded the methodology of the study and said the findings prove that patients and doctors should be talking about the environment and exposures to air pollutants.

“[Air pollution] has numerous components to it. And we should try to figure out exactly what components are most dangerous to human health and what doses and what times of life,” said Dr. DeNicola, an environmental health expert.

The increased risk of developing fibroids is a “historical observation” and air pollution may be part of a multifactorial cause of that, Dr. DeNicola said. He said he wouldn’t be surprised if future studies show that “higher exposure [to air pollution] – due to how city planning works, often communities of color are in the areas with the most dense air pollution – exacerbates some other mechanism already in place.

Although it’s unclear how ozone exposure increases fibroid risk, Dr. Wesselink said it may be through a mechanism that is unique to ozone.

“In other words, it might be that there is a factor related to ozone that we did not account for that explains our findings. Vitamin D is a factor that we were not able to account for in this study,” Dr. Wesselink said. “Future work on this topic should consider the role of vitamin D [exposure or deficiency].”

Dr. DeNicola said ozone’s impact may also be tied to its “known association” with hypertension. A 2017 study by Drew B. Day, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and colleagues, found that ozone exposure has been linked to hypertension. Meanwhile, a 2015 study has found an association between hypertension and fibroids.

“[This study] does raise an important message. It shines a light where more research needs to be done,” Dr. DeNicola said. “The ozone connection to hypertension was probably most compelling as a true risk factor for uterine fibroids.”

Dr. Wesselink said future work on fibroid etiology should focus on environmental and neighborhood-level exposures to pollutants.

Black women exposed to ozone air pollution have an increased risk of developing fibroids, according to new research published in Human Production.

Uterine fibroids are a common type of pelvic growth, affecting up to 80% of women by the time they reach age 50, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Black women are hit hardest by fibroids; they are diagnosed two to three times the rate of White women and tend to have more severe symptoms.

Researchers are unclear on why exposure to ozone air pollution increases the risk of developing fibroids. However, they believe that when it comes to identifying causes of fibroids and explanations for racial disparities in fibroids, more research that focuses on environmental and neighborhood-level risk factors could help inform policy and interventions to improve gynecologic health.

“A large body of literature from the environmental justice field has documented that people of color, and Black people specifically, are inequitably exposed to air pollution,” study author Amelia K. Wesselink, PhD, assistant professor at Boston University School of Public Health, said in an interview. “And there is growing evidence that air pollution can influence gynecologic health and therefore may contribute to racial disparities in gynecologic outcomes.”

Dr. Wesselink and colleagues wanted to know the extent to which three air pollutants – particulate matter (PM2.5), nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) and ozone (0₃) – were linked to the development of fibroids. To figure this out, they analyzed data on nearly 22,000 premenopausal Black women who lived in 56 metropolitan areas in the United States between 2007 and 2011. They assigned air pollution exposures to participants’ residential addresses collected at baseline and over follow-up and tried to capture long-term exposure to air pollutants.

During the study, nearly 30% of participants reported that they were diagnosed with fibroids. Researchers observed that the exposure to PM2.5 and NO₂ was not associated with an increased risk of developing these fibroids.

Dr. Wesselink said the findings may have underestimated fibroid incidence, so they “need to be replicated in a prospective, ultrasound-based study that can identify all fibroid cases.”

“There has not been a lot of research on how air pollution influences fibroid risk, but the two studies that are out there show some evidence of an association,” said Dr. Wesselink. “The fact that our results were consistent with this is interesting. The surprising part of our findings was that we observed an association for ozone, but not for PM2.5 or NO₂.”

Nathaniel DeNicola, MD, MSHP, FACOG, a Washington-based obstetrics and gynecology physician affiliated with John Hopkins Health System, applauded the methodology of the study and said the findings prove that patients and doctors should be talking about the environment and exposures to air pollutants.

“[Air pollution] has numerous components to it. And we should try to figure out exactly what components are most dangerous to human health and what doses and what times of life,” said Dr. DeNicola, an environmental health expert.

The increased risk of developing fibroids is a “historical observation” and air pollution may be part of a multifactorial cause of that, Dr. DeNicola said. He said he wouldn’t be surprised if future studies show that “higher exposure [to air pollution] – due to how city planning works, often communities of color are in the areas with the most dense air pollution – exacerbates some other mechanism already in place.

Although it’s unclear how ozone exposure increases fibroid risk, Dr. Wesselink said it may be through a mechanism that is unique to ozone.

“In other words, it might be that there is a factor related to ozone that we did not account for that explains our findings. Vitamin D is a factor that we were not able to account for in this study,” Dr. Wesselink said. “Future work on this topic should consider the role of vitamin D [exposure or deficiency].”

Dr. DeNicola said ozone’s impact may also be tied to its “known association” with hypertension. A 2017 study by Drew B. Day, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and colleagues, found that ozone exposure has been linked to hypertension. Meanwhile, a 2015 study has found an association between hypertension and fibroids.

“[This study] does raise an important message. It shines a light where more research needs to be done,” Dr. DeNicola said. “The ozone connection to hypertension was probably most compelling as a true risk factor for uterine fibroids.”

Dr. Wesselink said future work on fibroid etiology should focus on environmental and neighborhood-level exposures to pollutants.

Women with osteoporosis, low bone density, or a previous vertebral fracture show significant increases in the risk of hearing loss compared to those without osteoporosis, according to a new study with more than 3 decades of follow-up.

The use of bisphosphonate therapy did not alter the risk, the researchers found.

“To the best of our knowledge, this is the first large longitudinal study to evaluate the relations of bone density, bisphosphonate use, fractures, and risk of hearing loss,” reported Sharon Curhan, MD, and colleagues in research published online in the Journal of the American Geriatric Society.

“In this large nationwide longitudinal study of nearly 144,000 women with up to 34 years of follow-up, we found that osteoporosis or low bone density was independently associated with higher risk of incident moderate or worse hearing loss,” the authors wrote.

“The magnitude of the elevated risk was similar among women who did and did not use bisphosphonates,” they added.
 

Participants were from the nurses’ health study and NHS II

With recent research suggesting a potential link between bisphosphonate use and prevention of noise-induced hearing loss in mice, Dr. Curhan, of the Channing Division of Network Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues turned to the large longitudinal cohorts of the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS), conducted from 1982 to 2016, and the Nurses’ Health Study II (NHS II), from 1995 to 2017.

In total, the primary analysis included 60,821 women in the NHS and 83,078 in the NHS II.

Women in the NHS were aged 36-61 years at baseline and 70-95 years at the end of follow-up, while in the NHS II, women were aged 31-48 years at baseline and 53-70 years at the end of follow-up.

After multivariate adjustment for key factors including age, race/ethnicity, oral hormone use, and a variety of other factors, women in the NHS with osteoporosis had an increased risk of moderate or worse hearing loss, as self-reported every 2 years, compared to those without osteoporosis (relative risk, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.19).

And in the NHS II, which also included data on low bone density, the risk of self-reported hearing loss was higher among those with osteoporosis or low bone density (RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.21-1.40).

No significant differences were observed in hearing loss risk based on whether women were treated with bisphosphonates, with the mean duration of use of the medication being 5.8 years in the NHS and 3.4 years in the NHS II.

Those who sustained a vertebral fracture also had a higher risk of hearing loss in both studies (NHS: RR, 1.31; NHS II: RR, 1.39).

However, the increased risk of hearing loss was not observed with hip fracture.

“Our findings of up to a 40% higher risk among women with vertebral fracture, but not hip fracture, were intriguing and merit further study,” the authors noted.

“The discordant findings between these skeletal sites may reflect differences in composition and metabolism of bones in the spine and hip and could provide insight into the pathophysiological changes in the ear that may lead to hearing loss,” they added.
 

Audiometric subanalysis

In an analysis of a subcohort of 3,749 women looking at audiometric thresholds for a more precise measure of hearing loss, women with osteoporosis or low bone density continued to show significantly worse hearing loss when treated with bisphosphonates compared to those without osteoporosis or low bone density.

However, there were no significant hearing loss differences among those with osteoporosis who did not take bisphosphonates versus those without osteoporosis.

The authors speculate that the use of bisphosphonates could have been indicative of more severe osteoporosis, hence the poorer audiometric thresholds.

In an interview, Dr. Curhan said the details of bisphosphonate use, such as type and duration, and their role in hearing loss should be further evaluated.

“Possibly, a potential influence of bisphosphonates on the relation of osteoporosis and hearing loss in humans may depend on the type, dose, and timing of bisphosphonate administration,” she observed. “This is an important question for further study.”
 

Mechanisms: Bone loss may extend to ear structures

In terms of the mechanisms linking osteoporosis itself to hearing loss, the authors noted that bone loss, in addition to compromising more prominent skeletal sites, could logically extend to bone-related structures in the ear.

“Bone mass at peripheral sites is correlated with bone mass at central sites, such as hip and spine, with correlation coefficients between 0.6 and 0.7,” they explained. “Plausibly, systemic bone demineralization could involve the temporal bone, the otic capsule, and the middle ear ossicles.”

They noted that hearing loss has been linked to other pathologic bone disorders, including otosclerosis and Paget disease.

Furthermore, imbalances in bone formation and resorption in osteoporosis may lead to alterations in ionic metabolism, which can lead to hearing loss.

Looking ahead, Dr. Curhan and colleagues plan to further examine whether calcium and vitamin D, which are associated with the prevention of osteoporosis, have a role in preventing hearing loss.

In the meantime, the findings underscore that clinicians treating patients with osteoporosis should routinely check patients’ hearing, Dr. Curhan said.

“Undetected and untreated hearing loss can adversely impact social interactions, physical and mental well-being, and daily life,” she said.

“Early detection of hearing loss offers greater opportunity for successful management and to learn strategies for rehabilitation and prevention of further progression.”

The study received support from the National Institutes of Health.
 

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

Women with osteoporosis, low bone density, or a previous vertebral fracture show significant increases in the risk of hearing loss compared to those without osteoporosis, according to a new study with more than 3 decades of follow-up.

The use of bisphosphonate therapy did not alter the risk, the researchers found.

“To the best of our knowledge, this is the first large longitudinal study to evaluate the relations of bone density, bisphosphonate use, fractures, and risk of hearing loss,” reported Sharon Curhan, MD, and colleagues in research published online in the Journal of the American Geriatric Society.

“In this large nationwide longitudinal study of nearly 144,000 women with up to 34 years of follow-up, we found that osteoporosis or low bone density was independently associated with higher risk of incident moderate or worse hearing loss,” the authors wrote.

“The magnitude of the elevated risk was similar among women who did and did not use bisphosphonates,” they added.
 

Participants were from the nurses’ health study and NHS II

With recent research suggesting a potential link between bisphosphonate use and prevention of noise-induced hearing loss in mice, Dr. Curhan, of the Channing Division of Network Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues turned to the large longitudinal cohorts of the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS), conducted from 1982 to 2016, and the Nurses’ Health Study II (NHS II), from 1995 to 2017.

In total, the primary analysis included 60,821 women in the NHS and 83,078 in the NHS II.

Women in the NHS were aged 36-61 years at baseline and 70-95 years at the end of follow-up, while in the NHS II, women were aged 31-48 years at baseline and 53-70 years at the end of follow-up.

After multivariate adjustment for key factors including age, race/ethnicity, oral hormone use, and a variety of other factors, women in the NHS with osteoporosis had an increased risk of moderate or worse hearing loss, as self-reported every 2 years, compared to those without osteoporosis (relative risk, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.19).

And in the NHS II, which also included data on low bone density, the risk of self-reported hearing loss was higher among those with osteoporosis or low bone density (RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.21-1.40).

No significant differences were observed in hearing loss risk based on whether women were treated with bisphosphonates, with the mean duration of use of the medication being 5.8 years in the NHS and 3.4 years in the NHS II.

Those who sustained a vertebral fracture also had a higher risk of hearing loss in both studies (NHS: RR, 1.31; NHS II: RR, 1.39).

However, the increased risk of hearing loss was not observed with hip fracture.

“Our findings of up to a 40% higher risk among women with vertebral fracture, but not hip fracture, were intriguing and merit further study,” the authors noted.

“The discordant findings between these skeletal sites may reflect differences in composition and metabolism of bones in the spine and hip and could provide insight into the pathophysiological changes in the ear that may lead to hearing loss,” they added.
 

Audiometric subanalysis

In an analysis of a subcohort of 3,749 women looking at audiometric thresholds for a more precise measure of hearing loss, women with osteoporosis or low bone density continued to show significantly worse hearing loss when treated with bisphosphonates compared to those without osteoporosis or low bone density.

However, there were no significant hearing loss differences among those with osteoporosis who did not take bisphosphonates versus those without osteoporosis.

The authors speculate that the use of bisphosphonates could have been indicative of more severe osteoporosis, hence the poorer audiometric thresholds.

In an interview, Dr. Curhan said the details of bisphosphonate use, such as type and duration, and their role in hearing loss should be further evaluated.

“Possibly, a potential influence of bisphosphonates on the relation of osteoporosis and hearing loss in humans may depend on the type, dose, and timing of bisphosphonate administration,” she observed. “This is an important question for further study.”
 

Mechanisms: Bone loss may extend to ear structures

In terms of the mechanisms linking osteoporosis itself to hearing loss, the authors noted that bone loss, in addition to compromising more prominent skeletal sites, could logically extend to bone-related structures in the ear.

“Bone mass at peripheral sites is correlated with bone mass at central sites, such as hip and spine, with correlation coefficients between 0.6 and 0.7,” they explained. “Plausibly, systemic bone demineralization could involve the temporal bone, the otic capsule, and the middle ear ossicles.”

They noted that hearing loss has been linked to other pathologic bone disorders, including otosclerosis and Paget disease.

Furthermore, imbalances in bone formation and resorption in osteoporosis may lead to alterations in ionic metabolism, which can lead to hearing loss.

Looking ahead, Dr. Curhan and colleagues plan to further examine whether calcium and vitamin D, which are associated with the prevention of osteoporosis, have a role in preventing hearing loss.

In the meantime, the findings underscore that clinicians treating patients with osteoporosis should routinely check patients’ hearing, Dr. Curhan said.

“Undetected and untreated hearing loss can adversely impact social interactions, physical and mental well-being, and daily life,” she said.

“Early detection of hearing loss offers greater opportunity for successful management and to learn strategies for rehabilitation and prevention of further progression.”

The study received support from the National Institutes of Health.
 

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

Women with osteoporosis, low bone density, or a previous vertebral fracture show significant increases in the risk of hearing loss compared to those without osteoporosis, according to a new study with more than 3 decades of follow-up.

The use of bisphosphonate therapy did not alter the risk, the researchers found.

“To the best of our knowledge, this is the first large longitudinal study to evaluate the relations of bone density, bisphosphonate use, fractures, and risk of hearing loss,” reported Sharon Curhan, MD, and colleagues in research published online in the Journal of the American Geriatric Society.

“In this large nationwide longitudinal study of nearly 144,000 women with up to 34 years of follow-up, we found that osteoporosis or low bone density was independently associated with higher risk of incident moderate or worse hearing loss,” the authors wrote.

“The magnitude of the elevated risk was similar among women who did and did not use bisphosphonates,” they added.
 

Participants were from the nurses’ health study and NHS II

With recent research suggesting a potential link between bisphosphonate use and prevention of noise-induced hearing loss in mice, Dr. Curhan, of the Channing Division of Network Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues turned to the large longitudinal cohorts of the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS), conducted from 1982 to 2016, and the Nurses’ Health Study II (NHS II), from 1995 to 2017.

In total, the primary analysis included 60,821 women in the NHS and 83,078 in the NHS II.

Women in the NHS were aged 36-61 years at baseline and 70-95 years at the end of follow-up, while in the NHS II, women were aged 31-48 years at baseline and 53-70 years at the end of follow-up.

After multivariate adjustment for key factors including age, race/ethnicity, oral hormone use, and a variety of other factors, women in the NHS with osteoporosis had an increased risk of moderate or worse hearing loss, as self-reported every 2 years, compared to those without osteoporosis (relative risk, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.19).

And in the NHS II, which also included data on low bone density, the risk of self-reported hearing loss was higher among those with osteoporosis or low bone density (RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.21-1.40).

No significant differences were observed in hearing loss risk based on whether women were treated with bisphosphonates, with the mean duration of use of the medication being 5.8 years in the NHS and 3.4 years in the NHS II.

Those who sustained a vertebral fracture also had a higher risk of hearing loss in both studies (NHS: RR, 1.31; NHS II: RR, 1.39).

However, the increased risk of hearing loss was not observed with hip fracture.

“Our findings of up to a 40% higher risk among women with vertebral fracture, but not hip fracture, were intriguing and merit further study,” the authors noted.

“The discordant findings between these skeletal sites may reflect differences in composition and metabolism of bones in the spine and hip and could provide insight into the pathophysiological changes in the ear that may lead to hearing loss,” they added.
 

Audiometric subanalysis

In an analysis of a subcohort of 3,749 women looking at audiometric thresholds for a more precise measure of hearing loss, women with osteoporosis or low bone density continued to show significantly worse hearing loss when treated with bisphosphonates compared to those without osteoporosis or low bone density.

However, there were no significant hearing loss differences among those with osteoporosis who did not take bisphosphonates versus those without osteoporosis.

The authors speculate that the use of bisphosphonates could have been indicative of more severe osteoporosis, hence the poorer audiometric thresholds.

In an interview, Dr. Curhan said the details of bisphosphonate use, such as type and duration, and their role in hearing loss should be further evaluated.

“Possibly, a potential influence of bisphosphonates on the relation of osteoporosis and hearing loss in humans may depend on the type, dose, and timing of bisphosphonate administration,” she observed. “This is an important question for further study.”
 

Mechanisms: Bone loss may extend to ear structures

In terms of the mechanisms linking osteoporosis itself to hearing loss, the authors noted that bone loss, in addition to compromising more prominent skeletal sites, could logically extend to bone-related structures in the ear.

“Bone mass at peripheral sites is correlated with bone mass at central sites, such as hip and spine, with correlation coefficients between 0.6 and 0.7,” they explained. “Plausibly, systemic bone demineralization could involve the temporal bone, the otic capsule, and the middle ear ossicles.”

They noted that hearing loss has been linked to other pathologic bone disorders, including otosclerosis and Paget disease.

Furthermore, imbalances in bone formation and resorption in osteoporosis may lead to alterations in ionic metabolism, which can lead to hearing loss.

Looking ahead, Dr. Curhan and colleagues plan to further examine whether calcium and vitamin D, which are associated with the prevention of osteoporosis, have a role in preventing hearing loss.

In the meantime, the findings underscore that clinicians treating patients with osteoporosis should routinely check patients’ hearing, Dr. Curhan said.

“Undetected and untreated hearing loss can adversely impact social interactions, physical and mental well-being, and daily life,” she said.

“Early detection of hearing loss offers greater opportunity for successful management and to learn strategies for rehabilitation and prevention of further progression.”

The study received support from the National Institutes of Health.
 

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

A group of 117 people who work at the Houston Methodist Health System has filed a lawsuit against the medical center, objecting to its policy of requiring employees and contractors to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or risk losing their jobs.

Plaintiffs include Jennifer Bridges, RN, a medical-surgical nurse at the hospital who has become the public face and voice of health care workers who object to mandatory vaccination, as well as Bob Nevens, the hospital’s director of corporate risk.

Mr. Nevens said the hospital was requiring him to be vaccinated even though he doesn’t treat patients and has been working from home for most of the past year.

“My civil rights and liberties have been trampled on,” he said in comments posted on an online petition. “My right to protect myself from unknown side effects of these vaccines has been placed below the optics of ‘leading medicine,’ “ he said.

Mr. Nevens says in his comments that he was fired on April 15, although the lawsuit says he is currently employed by the hospital’s corporate office.

The Texas attorney who filed the lawsuit, Jared Woodfill, is known to champion conservative causes. In March 2020, he challenged Harris County’s stay-at-home order, charging that it violated religious liberty. He was chairman of the Harris County Republican Party for more than a decade. His website says he is a frequent guest on the local Fox News affiliate.

The lawsuit hinges on a section of the federal law that authorizes emergency use of medical products – US Code 360bbb-3.

That law says that individuals to whom the product is administered should be informed “of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequence, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.”

Legal experts are split as to what the provision means for vaccination mandates. Courts have not yet weighed in with their interpretations of the law.

The petition also repeats a popular antivaccination argument that likens requiring a vaccine approved for emergency use to the kind of medical experimentation performed by Nazi doctors on Jewish prisoners in concentration camps. It says forcing people to choose between an experimental vaccine and a job is a violation of the Nuremberg Code, which says that people must voluntarily and knowingly consent to participating in research.

The vaccines have already been tested in clinical trials. People who are getting them now are not part of those studies, though vaccine manufacturers, regulators, and safety experts are still watching closely for any sign of problems tied to the new shots.

It is true, however, that the emergency use authorization granted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administraiton sped up the process of getting the vaccines onto market. Vaccine manufacturers are currently completing the process of submitting documentation required for a full biologics license application, the mechanism the FDA uses for full approval.

Houston Methodist sent an email to employees in April notifying them that they had until June 7 to start the vaccination process or apply for a medical or religious exemption. Those who decide not to will be terminated.

Marc Boom, MD, the health care system’s president and CEO, has explained that the policy is in place to protect patients and that it was the first hospital in the United States to require it. Since then, other hospitals, including the University of Pennsylvania Health System, have required COVID vaccines.

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

A group of 117 people who work at the Houston Methodist Health System has filed a lawsuit against the medical center, objecting to its policy of requiring employees and contractors to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or risk losing their jobs.

Plaintiffs include Jennifer Bridges, RN, a medical-surgical nurse at the hospital who has become the public face and voice of health care workers who object to mandatory vaccination, as well as Bob Nevens, the hospital’s director of corporate risk.

Mr. Nevens said the hospital was requiring him to be vaccinated even though he doesn’t treat patients and has been working from home for most of the past year.

“My civil rights and liberties have been trampled on,” he said in comments posted on an online petition. “My right to protect myself from unknown side effects of these vaccines has been placed below the optics of ‘leading medicine,’ “ he said.

Mr. Nevens says in his comments that he was fired on April 15, although the lawsuit says he is currently employed by the hospital’s corporate office.

The Texas attorney who filed the lawsuit, Jared Woodfill, is known to champion conservative causes. In March 2020, he challenged Harris County’s stay-at-home order, charging that it violated religious liberty. He was chairman of the Harris County Republican Party for more than a decade. His website says he is a frequent guest on the local Fox News affiliate.

The lawsuit hinges on a section of the federal law that authorizes emergency use of medical products – US Code 360bbb-3.

That law says that individuals to whom the product is administered should be informed “of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequence, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.”

Legal experts are split as to what the provision means for vaccination mandates. Courts have not yet weighed in with their interpretations of the law.

The petition also repeats a popular antivaccination argument that likens requiring a vaccine approved for emergency use to the kind of medical experimentation performed by Nazi doctors on Jewish prisoners in concentration camps. It says forcing people to choose between an experimental vaccine and a job is a violation of the Nuremberg Code, which says that people must voluntarily and knowingly consent to participating in research.

The vaccines have already been tested in clinical trials. People who are getting them now are not part of those studies, though vaccine manufacturers, regulators, and safety experts are still watching closely for any sign of problems tied to the new shots.

It is true, however, that the emergency use authorization granted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administraiton sped up the process of getting the vaccines onto market. Vaccine manufacturers are currently completing the process of submitting documentation required for a full biologics license application, the mechanism the FDA uses for full approval.

Houston Methodist sent an email to employees in April notifying them that they had until June 7 to start the vaccination process or apply for a medical or religious exemption. Those who decide not to will be terminated.

Marc Boom, MD, the health care system’s president and CEO, has explained that the policy is in place to protect patients and that it was the first hospital in the United States to require it. Since then, other hospitals, including the University of Pennsylvania Health System, have required COVID vaccines.

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

A group of 117 people who work at the Houston Methodist Health System has filed a lawsuit against the medical center, objecting to its policy of requiring employees and contractors to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or risk losing their jobs.

Plaintiffs include Jennifer Bridges, RN, a medical-surgical nurse at the hospital who has become the public face and voice of health care workers who object to mandatory vaccination, as well as Bob Nevens, the hospital’s director of corporate risk.

Mr. Nevens said the hospital was requiring him to be vaccinated even though he doesn’t treat patients and has been working from home for most of the past year.

“My civil rights and liberties have been trampled on,” he said in comments posted on an online petition. “My right to protect myself from unknown side effects of these vaccines has been placed below the optics of ‘leading medicine,’ “ he said.

Mr. Nevens says in his comments that he was fired on April 15, although the lawsuit says he is currently employed by the hospital’s corporate office.

The Texas attorney who filed the lawsuit, Jared Woodfill, is known to champion conservative causes. In March 2020, he challenged Harris County’s stay-at-home order, charging that it violated religious liberty. He was chairman of the Harris County Republican Party for more than a decade. His website says he is a frequent guest on the local Fox News affiliate.

The lawsuit hinges on a section of the federal law that authorizes emergency use of medical products – US Code 360bbb-3.

That law says that individuals to whom the product is administered should be informed “of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequence, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.”

Legal experts are split as to what the provision means for vaccination mandates. Courts have not yet weighed in with their interpretations of the law.

The petition also repeats a popular antivaccination argument that likens requiring a vaccine approved for emergency use to the kind of medical experimentation performed by Nazi doctors on Jewish prisoners in concentration camps. It says forcing people to choose between an experimental vaccine and a job is a violation of the Nuremberg Code, which says that people must voluntarily and knowingly consent to participating in research.

The vaccines have already been tested in clinical trials. People who are getting them now are not part of those studies, though vaccine manufacturers, regulators, and safety experts are still watching closely for any sign of problems tied to the new shots.

It is true, however, that the emergency use authorization granted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administraiton sped up the process of getting the vaccines onto market. Vaccine manufacturers are currently completing the process of submitting documentation required for a full biologics license application, the mechanism the FDA uses for full approval.

Houston Methodist sent an email to employees in April notifying them that they had until June 7 to start the vaccination process or apply for a medical or religious exemption. Those who decide not to will be terminated.

Marc Boom, MD, the health care system’s president and CEO, has explained that the policy is in place to protect patients and that it was the first hospital in the United States to require it. Since then, other hospitals, including the University of Pennsylvania Health System, have required COVID vaccines.

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

For patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, first line chemotherapy with cabazitaxel (Jevtana) every 3 weeks offers efficacy comparable to that of once-weekly paclitaxel, but with lower risk for peripheral neuropathy and better patient-reported quality of life, investigators in the multicenter CONCERT trial found.

In an open-label clinical trial of 158 patients from 14 hospitals in the United Kingdom, there was no difference in the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) or a secondary overall survival endpoint between patients randomly assigned to initial chemotherapy with cabazitaxel every 3 weeks or weekly paclitaxel, reported Amit Bahl, MD, of University Hospital Bristol, England, and colleagues.

“Cabazitaxel is safe and well tolerated for metastatic breast cancer and requires fewer hospital visits than weekly paclitaxel, which is very important for patients and health care providers, but more so in the current situation,” he said in an oral abstract session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting (Abstract 1008).

Cabazitaxel is currently approved in the United States and Europe in combination with prednisone for treatment of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with a docetaxel-containing treatment regimen. It is not currently approved for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer, but has been explored for this indication in clinical trials.

“In the metastatic setting, where patients continue on treatment pretty much indefinitely until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, the use of an every-3-week regimen could be attractive, because it means less visits for the patients, and it appears that this drug has lower toxicity in terms of peripheral neuropathy,” said breast cancer specialist Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Bardia, of Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, commented on the study in an interview.

Although paclitaxel is commonly used as first-line chemotherapy for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, it is associated with only modest response rates, ranging from 21.5% to 53.7% and carries significant risk of peripheral neuropathy, Dr. Bahl and colleagues noted.

“There is an unmet need for an alternative first-line cytotoxic chemotherapy agent, and cabazitaxel is a taxoid agent which has showed promising results in phase 2 trial of metastatic breast cancer patients in the second-line setting, even those with taxane resistance,” he said.
 

Open-label trial

To see whether cabazitaxel could meet those requirements, the investigators conducted a phase 2 randomized trial in which patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer not previously treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy were assigned, 79 in each arm, to receive cabazitaxel 25 mg/m² every 3 weeks, or paclitaxel 80 mg/m² weekly.

The median patient age was 56 years in the cabazitaxel group and 61 years in the paclitaxel group. Roughly two-thirds of patients in each arm had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0, and the remainder had ECOG performance status 1.

In each arm, the median time on treatment was 15 weeks, but treatment delays and dose reductions were more common among patients on paclitaxel than cabazitaxel (61% vs. 39%, and 37% vs. 24%, respectively).

There were 149 PFS events at the time of the analysis. The median PFS with cabazitaxel was 6.7 months vs. 5.8 months with paclitaxel. This difference was not statistically significant. Median overall survival was 20.6 months in the cabazitaxel arm, vs. 18.2 months 20.0 months, respectively.

Similarly, there were no significant differences in either the overall response rates (42% vs. 37%), or time to response.

There were no complete responses with cabazitaxel vs. two (2.5%) with paclitaxel. The respective partial response rates were 41.8% vs. 34.2%.

In a subgroup analysis of PFS, there were no significant between-arm differences, except for an improved PFS in patients 65 and older with cabazitaxel (hazard ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.80).
 

Quality of life favors cabazitaxel

Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurred in 42% of patients on cabazitaxel vs. 51% on paclitaxel. Diarrhea, febrile neutropenia, and nausea were the most common grade 3 or greater events in the cabazitaxel arm, whereas grade 3 or greater lung infection and peripheral neuropathy were more common with paclitaxel.

Sensory peripheral neuropathy of any grade occurred in 16% of patients assigned to cabazitaxel, compared with 54% assigned to paclitaxel. The respective rates of alopecia were 27% and 42%.

Over the course of treatment, the mean EuroQuol EQ-5D-5L single index utility score and visual analogue scale score were higher with cabazitaxel arm compared to paclitaxel, suggesting better patient quality of life with cabazitaxel.

In addition, throughout treatment patients in the cabazitaxel arm reported significantly better scores on The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Breast (FACT-B) breast cancer subscale, Dr. Bahl said.
 

Second-line may be better

ASCO invited discussant Marleen Kok, MD, PhD, from the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam, pointed out that in the phase 2 GENEVIEVE trial comparing the efficacy and safety of cabazitaxel versus weekly paclitaxel as neoadjuvant treatment in patients with triple negative or luminal B/HER2 normal breast cancer the pathologic complete response rate with cabazitaxel was 1.2%, compared with 11% with paclitaxel.

“This GENEVIEVE trial, together with the CONCERT trial, suggests that there is not a big role for cabazitaxel to be used upfront before other taxanes,” she said.

However, in a phase 2 study of cabazitaxel as second-line therapy in patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer who had previously been treated with taxanes, the overall response rate was 23%, “which is still of interest and importance for our patients,” she added.

Dr. Kok did not address quality of life differences between the regimens, however.

In a side note, Dr. Bardia said that “if there were an oral form of paclitaxel, that would certainly be very welcome, in that an oral drug is more convenient for patients, and would require fewer visits to the hospital.”

The CONCERT trial was funded by an investigator-sponsored study grant from Sanofi. Dr. Bahl disclosed honoraria and institutional research funding from Sanofi/Aventis and others, and travel expenses from Bayer and Roche. Dr. Kok disclosed a consulting or advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb/Medarex, and institutional research funding from that company and others. Dr. Bardia disclosed a consulting or advisory role and research funding to his institution from multiple companies.

For patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, first line chemotherapy with cabazitaxel (Jevtana) every 3 weeks offers efficacy comparable to that of once-weekly paclitaxel, but with lower risk for peripheral neuropathy and better patient-reported quality of life, investigators in the multicenter CONCERT trial found.

In an open-label clinical trial of 158 patients from 14 hospitals in the United Kingdom, there was no difference in the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) or a secondary overall survival endpoint between patients randomly assigned to initial chemotherapy with cabazitaxel every 3 weeks or weekly paclitaxel, reported Amit Bahl, MD, of University Hospital Bristol, England, and colleagues.

“Cabazitaxel is safe and well tolerated for metastatic breast cancer and requires fewer hospital visits than weekly paclitaxel, which is very important for patients and health care providers, but more so in the current situation,” he said in an oral abstract session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting (Abstract 1008).

Cabazitaxel is currently approved in the United States and Europe in combination with prednisone for treatment of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with a docetaxel-containing treatment regimen. It is not currently approved for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer, but has been explored for this indication in clinical trials.

“In the metastatic setting, where patients continue on treatment pretty much indefinitely until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, the use of an every-3-week regimen could be attractive, because it means less visits for the patients, and it appears that this drug has lower toxicity in terms of peripheral neuropathy,” said breast cancer specialist Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Bardia, of Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, commented on the study in an interview.

Although paclitaxel is commonly used as first-line chemotherapy for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, it is associated with only modest response rates, ranging from 21.5% to 53.7% and carries significant risk of peripheral neuropathy, Dr. Bahl and colleagues noted.

“There is an unmet need for an alternative first-line cytotoxic chemotherapy agent, and cabazitaxel is a taxoid agent which has showed promising results in phase 2 trial of metastatic breast cancer patients in the second-line setting, even those with taxane resistance,” he said.
 

Open-label trial

To see whether cabazitaxel could meet those requirements, the investigators conducted a phase 2 randomized trial in which patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer not previously treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy were assigned, 79 in each arm, to receive cabazitaxel 25 mg/m² every 3 weeks, or paclitaxel 80 mg/m² weekly.

The median patient age was 56 years in the cabazitaxel group and 61 years in the paclitaxel group. Roughly two-thirds of patients in each arm had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0, and the remainder had ECOG performance status 1.

In each arm, the median time on treatment was 15 weeks, but treatment delays and dose reductions were more common among patients on paclitaxel than cabazitaxel (61% vs. 39%, and 37% vs. 24%, respectively).

There were 149 PFS events at the time of the analysis. The median PFS with cabazitaxel was 6.7 months vs. 5.8 months with paclitaxel. This difference was not statistically significant. Median overall survival was 20.6 months in the cabazitaxel arm, vs. 18.2 months 20.0 months, respectively.

Similarly, there were no significant differences in either the overall response rates (42% vs. 37%), or time to response.

There were no complete responses with cabazitaxel vs. two (2.5%) with paclitaxel. The respective partial response rates were 41.8% vs. 34.2%.

In a subgroup analysis of PFS, there were no significant between-arm differences, except for an improved PFS in patients 65 and older with cabazitaxel (hazard ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.80).
 

Quality of life favors cabazitaxel

Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurred in 42% of patients on cabazitaxel vs. 51% on paclitaxel. Diarrhea, febrile neutropenia, and nausea were the most common grade 3 or greater events in the cabazitaxel arm, whereas grade 3 or greater lung infection and peripheral neuropathy were more common with paclitaxel.

Sensory peripheral neuropathy of any grade occurred in 16% of patients assigned to cabazitaxel, compared with 54% assigned to paclitaxel. The respective rates of alopecia were 27% and 42%.

Over the course of treatment, the mean EuroQuol EQ-5D-5L single index utility score and visual analogue scale score were higher with cabazitaxel arm compared to paclitaxel, suggesting better patient quality of life with cabazitaxel.

In addition, throughout treatment patients in the cabazitaxel arm reported significantly better scores on The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Breast (FACT-B) breast cancer subscale, Dr. Bahl said.
 

Second-line may be better

ASCO invited discussant Marleen Kok, MD, PhD, from the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam, pointed out that in the phase 2 GENEVIEVE trial comparing the efficacy and safety of cabazitaxel versus weekly paclitaxel as neoadjuvant treatment in patients with triple negative or luminal B/HER2 normal breast cancer the pathologic complete response rate with cabazitaxel was 1.2%, compared with 11% with paclitaxel.

“This GENEVIEVE trial, together with the CONCERT trial, suggests that there is not a big role for cabazitaxel to be used upfront before other taxanes,” she said.

However, in a phase 2 study of cabazitaxel as second-line therapy in patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer who had previously been treated with taxanes, the overall response rate was 23%, “which is still of interest and importance for our patients,” she added.

Dr. Kok did not address quality of life differences between the regimens, however.

In a side note, Dr. Bardia said that “if there were an oral form of paclitaxel, that would certainly be very welcome, in that an oral drug is more convenient for patients, and would require fewer visits to the hospital.”

The CONCERT trial was funded by an investigator-sponsored study grant from Sanofi. Dr. Bahl disclosed honoraria and institutional research funding from Sanofi/Aventis and others, and travel expenses from Bayer and Roche. Dr. Kok disclosed a consulting or advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb/Medarex, and institutional research funding from that company and others. Dr. Bardia disclosed a consulting or advisory role and research funding to his institution from multiple companies.

For patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, first line chemotherapy with cabazitaxel (Jevtana) every 3 weeks offers efficacy comparable to that of once-weekly paclitaxel, but with lower risk for peripheral neuropathy and better patient-reported quality of life, investigators in the multicenter CONCERT trial found.

In an open-label clinical trial of 158 patients from 14 hospitals in the United Kingdom, there was no difference in the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) or a secondary overall survival endpoint between patients randomly assigned to initial chemotherapy with cabazitaxel every 3 weeks or weekly paclitaxel, reported Amit Bahl, MD, of University Hospital Bristol, England, and colleagues.

“Cabazitaxel is safe and well tolerated for metastatic breast cancer and requires fewer hospital visits than weekly paclitaxel, which is very important for patients and health care providers, but more so in the current situation,” he said in an oral abstract session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting (Abstract 1008).

Cabazitaxel is currently approved in the United States and Europe in combination with prednisone for treatment of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with a docetaxel-containing treatment regimen. It is not currently approved for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer, but has been explored for this indication in clinical trials.

“In the metastatic setting, where patients continue on treatment pretty much indefinitely until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, the use of an every-3-week regimen could be attractive, because it means less visits for the patients, and it appears that this drug has lower toxicity in terms of peripheral neuropathy,” said breast cancer specialist Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Bardia, of Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, commented on the study in an interview.

Although paclitaxel is commonly used as first-line chemotherapy for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, it is associated with only modest response rates, ranging from 21.5% to 53.7% and carries significant risk of peripheral neuropathy, Dr. Bahl and colleagues noted.

“There is an unmet need for an alternative first-line cytotoxic chemotherapy agent, and cabazitaxel is a taxoid agent which has showed promising results in phase 2 trial of metastatic breast cancer patients in the second-line setting, even those with taxane resistance,” he said.
 

Open-label trial

To see whether cabazitaxel could meet those requirements, the investigators conducted a phase 2 randomized trial in which patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer not previously treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy were assigned, 79 in each arm, to receive cabazitaxel 25 mg/m² every 3 weeks, or paclitaxel 80 mg/m² weekly.

The median patient age was 56 years in the cabazitaxel group and 61 years in the paclitaxel group. Roughly two-thirds of patients in each arm had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0, and the remainder had ECOG performance status 1.

In each arm, the median time on treatment was 15 weeks, but treatment delays and dose reductions were more common among patients on paclitaxel than cabazitaxel (61% vs. 39%, and 37% vs. 24%, respectively).

There were 149 PFS events at the time of the analysis. The median PFS with cabazitaxel was 6.7 months vs. 5.8 months with paclitaxel. This difference was not statistically significant. Median overall survival was 20.6 months in the cabazitaxel arm, vs. 18.2 months 20.0 months, respectively.

Similarly, there were no significant differences in either the overall response rates (42% vs. 37%), or time to response.

There were no complete responses with cabazitaxel vs. two (2.5%) with paclitaxel. The respective partial response rates were 41.8% vs. 34.2%.

In a subgroup analysis of PFS, there were no significant between-arm differences, except for an improved PFS in patients 65 and older with cabazitaxel (hazard ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.80).
 

Quality of life favors cabazitaxel

Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurred in 42% of patients on cabazitaxel vs. 51% on paclitaxel. Diarrhea, febrile neutropenia, and nausea were the most common grade 3 or greater events in the cabazitaxel arm, whereas grade 3 or greater lung infection and peripheral neuropathy were more common with paclitaxel.

Sensory peripheral neuropathy of any grade occurred in 16% of patients assigned to cabazitaxel, compared with 54% assigned to paclitaxel. The respective rates of alopecia were 27% and 42%.

Over the course of treatment, the mean EuroQuol EQ-5D-5L single index utility score and visual analogue scale score were higher with cabazitaxel arm compared to paclitaxel, suggesting better patient quality of life with cabazitaxel.

In addition, throughout treatment patients in the cabazitaxel arm reported significantly better scores on The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Breast (FACT-B) breast cancer subscale, Dr. Bahl said.
 

Second-line may be better

ASCO invited discussant Marleen Kok, MD, PhD, from the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam, pointed out that in the phase 2 GENEVIEVE trial comparing the efficacy and safety of cabazitaxel versus weekly paclitaxel as neoadjuvant treatment in patients with triple negative or luminal B/HER2 normal breast cancer the pathologic complete response rate with cabazitaxel was 1.2%, compared with 11% with paclitaxel.

“This GENEVIEVE trial, together with the CONCERT trial, suggests that there is not a big role for cabazitaxel to be used upfront before other taxanes,” she said.

However, in a phase 2 study of cabazitaxel as second-line therapy in patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer who had previously been treated with taxanes, the overall response rate was 23%, “which is still of interest and importance for our patients,” she added.

Dr. Kok did not address quality of life differences between the regimens, however.

In a side note, Dr. Bardia said that “if there were an oral form of paclitaxel, that would certainly be very welcome, in that an oral drug is more convenient for patients, and would require fewer visits to the hospital.”

The CONCERT trial was funded by an investigator-sponsored study grant from Sanofi. Dr. Bahl disclosed honoraria and institutional research funding from Sanofi/Aventis and others, and travel expenses from Bayer and Roche. Dr. Kok disclosed a consulting or advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb/Medarex, and institutional research funding from that company and others. Dr. Bardia disclosed a consulting or advisory role and research funding to his institution from multiple companies.