MDedge Rheumatology

William Lynes, MD, had a flourishing medical practice and a fulfilling family life with three children when he first attempted suicide in 1999 at age 45. By 2003, depression and two more suicide attempts led to his early retirement.

In a session at the recent virtual American Psychiatric Association (APA) 2021 annual meeting, Dr. Lynes talked about the challenges of dealing with depression while managing the stresses of a career in medicine. The session in which he spoke was called, “The Suicidal Physician: Narratives From a Physician Who Survived and the Physician Widow of One Who Did Not.”

By writing and speaking about his experiences, he says, he has been able to retain his identity as a physician and avoid obsessive thoughts about suicide. He hopes conversations like these help other physicians feel less alone and enable them to push past stigmas to get the help they need. He suspects they do. More than 600 people joined the APA session, and Dr. Lynes received dozens of thankful messages afterward.

“I love medicine, but intrinsically, the practice of medicine is stressful, and you can’t get away,” said Dr. Lynes, a retired urologist in Temecula, Calif. “As far as feedback, it made me feel like it’s something I should continue to do.”
 

A way to heal

For Dr. Lynes, his “downward spiral into darkness” began with a series of catastrophic medical events starting in 1998, when he came home from a family vacation in Mexico feeling unwell. He didn’t bother to do anything about it – typical of a physician, he says. Then one night he woke up shaking with chills and fever. Soon he was in the hospital with respiratory failure from septic shock.

Dr. Lynes spent 6 weeks in the intensive care unit, including 4 weeks on a ventilator. He underwent a tracheostomy. He lost 40 pounds and experienced ICU-related delirium. It was a terrifying time, he said. When he tried to return to work 10 months later, he didn’t feel as though he could function normally.

Having once been a driven doctor who worked long hours, he now doubted himself and dreaded giving patients bad news. Spontaneously, he tried to take his own life.

Afterward, he concealed what had happened from everyone except his wife and managed to resume his practice. However, he was unable to regain the enthusiasm he had once had for his work. Although he had experienced depression before, this time it was unrelenting.

He sought help from a psychiatrist, received a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, and began taking medication. Still, he struggled to fulfill his responsibilities. Then in April 2002, he had a snowboarding accident that caused multiple facial fractures and required five operations. When he returned to work this time, he felt like a failure but resisted asking colleagues for help.

A few months later, Dr. Lynes again attempted suicide, which led to another stay in the ICU and more time on a ventilator. Doctors told his family they didn’t think he would survive. When he recovered, he spent time as an inpatient in a psychiatric ward, where he received the first of a series of electroconvulsive therapy sessions. Compounding his anxiety and depression was the inability to come to terms with his life if he were not able to practice medicine.

The next fall, in September 2003, his third suicide attempt took place in his office on a weekend when no one was around. After locking the door, he looked at his reflection in the frame of his medical school diploma. The glass was cracked. “It was dark, it was black, it was cold,” he said. “I can remember seeing my reflection and thinking how disgusted I was.”

For years after that, Dr. Lynes struggled with his sense of self-worth. He hid from the medical system and dreaded doctors’ appointments. Finally in 2016, he found new meaning at a writing conference, where he met a fellow physician whose story was similar to his. She encouraged him to write about his experience. His essay was published in Annals of Internal Medicine that year. “Then I started speaking, and I feel like I’m a physician again,” he said. “That has really healed me quite a bit.”
 

Why physicians die by suicide

Working in health care can be extremely stressful, even in the best of times, said Michael Myers, MD, a psychiatrist at State University of New York, Brooklyn, and author of the book, “Why Physicians Die By Suicide: Lessons Learned From Their Families and Others Who Cared.”

Years of school and training culminate in a career in which demands are relentless. Societal expectations are high. Many doctors are perfectionists by nature, and physicians tend to feel intense pressure to compete for coveted positions.

Stress starts early in a medical career. A 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis of 183 studies from 43 countries showed that nearly 30% of medical students experienced symptoms of depression and that 11% reported suicidal thoughts, but only 15% sought help.

A 2015 review of 31 studies that involved residents showed that rates of depression remained close to 30% and that about three-quarters of trainees meet criteria for burnout, a type of emotional exhaustion and sense of inadequacy that can result from chronic stress at work.

The stress of medical training appears to be a direct cause of mental health struggles. Rates of depression are higher among those working to become physicians than among their peers of the same age, research shows. In addition, symptoms become more prevalent as people progress through their training.

The COVID-19 pandemic has added stress to an already stressful job. Of more than 2,300 physicians surveyed in August 2020 by the Physicians Foundation, a physicians advocacy organization, 50% indicated that they experienced excessive anger, tearfulness, or anxiety because of the way the pandemic affected their work; 30% felt hopeless or lacking purpose; and 8% had thoughts of self-harm related to the pandemic. Rates of burnout had risen from 40% in 2018 to 58%.

Those problems might be even more acute in places experiencing other types of crises. A 2020 study of 154 emergency department (ED) physicians in Libya, which is in the midst of a civil war, found that 65% were experiencing anxiety, 73% were showing signs of depression, and 68% felt emotionally exhausted.
 

Every story is different

It is unclear how common suicide is among physicians. One often-repeated estimate is that 300-400 physicians die by suicide each year, but no one is certain how that number was determined, said Dr. Myers, who organized the APA panel.

Studies on suicide are inconsistent, and trends are hard to pinpoint. Anecdotally, he has received just as many calls about physician suicides in the past year as he did before the pandemic started. “What I can tell you is that this is a serious subject,” Dr. Myers said. “And it’s not going away.”

Every person is different, and so is every death. Sometimes, career problems have nothing to do with a physician’s suicide, Dr. Myers said. When job stress does play a role, factors are often varied and complex.

After a 35-year career as a double board certified ED physician, Matthew Seaman, MD, retired in January 2017. The same month, a patient filed a complaint against him with the Washington State medical board, which led to an investigation and a lawsuit.

The case was hard on Dr. Seaman, who had continued to work night shifts throughout his career and had won a Hero Award from the American Board of Emergency Medicine, said his wife, Linda Seaman, MD, a family practitioner in Yakima, Wash., who also spoke on the APA panel.

Dr. Seaman said that 2 years after the investigation started, her husband was growing increasingly depressed. In 2019, he testified in a deposition. She said the plaintiff’s attorney “tried every way he could to shame Matt, humiliate Matt, make him believe he was a very bad doctor.” Three days later, he died by suicide at age 62.

Looking back at the year leading up to her husband’s death, Dr. Seaman recognizes multiple obstacles that interfered with her husband’s ability to get help, including frustrating interactions with psychiatrists and the couple’s insurance company.

His identity and experience as a physician also played a role. A couple of months before he died, she tried unsuccessfully to reach his psychiatrist, whose office suggested he go to the ED. However, because he worked as an ED doctor in their small town, he wouldn’t go. Dr. Seaman suspects he was wary of the stigma.

Burnout likely set him up to cave in after decades of work on the front lines, she added. Working in the ED exposes providers to horrific, traumatic cases every day, she said. Physicians learn to suppress their own emotions to deal with what they encounter. Stuffing their feelings can lead to posttraumatic stress. “You just perform,” she said. “You learn to do that.”
 

A real gift

Whenever Dr. Myers hears stories about doctors who died by suicide or who have written about their mental health struggles to help others, he contacts them. One goal of his own writing and of the conference sessions he organizes is to make it easier for others to share their own stories.

“I tell them, first of all, their courage and honesty is a real gift, and they’re saving lives,” he said. “There are so many suffering doctors out there who think that they’re the only one.”

Public conversations such as those that occurred in the APA session also offer opportunities to share advice, including Dr. Myers’ recommendation that doctors be sure they have a primary care physician of their own.

Many don’t, he says, because they say they are too busy, they can treat their own symptoms, or they can self-refer to specialists when needed. But physicians don’t always recognize symptoms of depression in themselves, and when mental health problems arise, they may not seek help or treat themselves appropriately.

A primary care physician can be the first person to recognize a mental health problem and refer a patient for mental health care, said Dr. Myers, whose latest book, “Becoming a Doctors’ Doctor: A Memoir,” explores his experiences treating doctors with burnout and other mental health problems.

Whether they have a primary care doctor or not, he suggests that physicians talk to anyone they trust – a social worker, a religious leader, or a family member who can then help them find the right sort of care.

In the United States, around-the-clock help is available through the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-8255. A psychiatrist-run hotline specifically for physicians is available at 888-409-0141. “Reach out and get some help,” Dr. Myers said. “Just don’t do it alone.”

Dr. Lynes advocates setting boundaries between life and work. He has also benefited from writing about his experiences. A blog or a diary can help physicians process their feelings, he said. His 2016 essay marked a major turning point in his life, giving his life meaning in helping others.

“Since I wrote that article, I can’t tell you how much better I am,” he said. “Now, I’m not embarrassed to be around physicians. I actually consider myself a physician. I didn’t for many, many years. So, I’m doing pretty well.”
 

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

William Lynes, MD, had a flourishing medical practice and a fulfilling family life with three children when he first attempted suicide in 1999 at age 45. By 2003, depression and two more suicide attempts led to his early retirement.

In a session at the recent virtual American Psychiatric Association (APA) 2021 annual meeting, Dr. Lynes talked about the challenges of dealing with depression while managing the stresses of a career in medicine. The session in which he spoke was called, “The Suicidal Physician: Narratives From a Physician Who Survived and the Physician Widow of One Who Did Not.”

By writing and speaking about his experiences, he says, he has been able to retain his identity as a physician and avoid obsessive thoughts about suicide. He hopes conversations like these help other physicians feel less alone and enable them to push past stigmas to get the help they need. He suspects they do. More than 600 people joined the APA session, and Dr. Lynes received dozens of thankful messages afterward.

“I love medicine, but intrinsically, the practice of medicine is stressful, and you can’t get away,” said Dr. Lynes, a retired urologist in Temecula, Calif. “As far as feedback, it made me feel like it’s something I should continue to do.”
 

A way to heal

For Dr. Lynes, his “downward spiral into darkness” began with a series of catastrophic medical events starting in 1998, when he came home from a family vacation in Mexico feeling unwell. He didn’t bother to do anything about it – typical of a physician, he says. Then one night he woke up shaking with chills and fever. Soon he was in the hospital with respiratory failure from septic shock.

Dr. Lynes spent 6 weeks in the intensive care unit, including 4 weeks on a ventilator. He underwent a tracheostomy. He lost 40 pounds and experienced ICU-related delirium. It was a terrifying time, he said. When he tried to return to work 10 months later, he didn’t feel as though he could function normally.

Having once been a driven doctor who worked long hours, he now doubted himself and dreaded giving patients bad news. Spontaneously, he tried to take his own life.

Afterward, he concealed what had happened from everyone except his wife and managed to resume his practice. However, he was unable to regain the enthusiasm he had once had for his work. Although he had experienced depression before, this time it was unrelenting.

He sought help from a psychiatrist, received a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, and began taking medication. Still, he struggled to fulfill his responsibilities. Then in April 2002, he had a snowboarding accident that caused multiple facial fractures and required five operations. When he returned to work this time, he felt like a failure but resisted asking colleagues for help.

A few months later, Dr. Lynes again attempted suicide, which led to another stay in the ICU and more time on a ventilator. Doctors told his family they didn’t think he would survive. When he recovered, he spent time as an inpatient in a psychiatric ward, where he received the first of a series of electroconvulsive therapy sessions. Compounding his anxiety and depression was the inability to come to terms with his life if he were not able to practice medicine.

The next fall, in September 2003, his third suicide attempt took place in his office on a weekend when no one was around. After locking the door, he looked at his reflection in the frame of his medical school diploma. The glass was cracked. “It was dark, it was black, it was cold,” he said. “I can remember seeing my reflection and thinking how disgusted I was.”

For years after that, Dr. Lynes struggled with his sense of self-worth. He hid from the medical system and dreaded doctors’ appointments. Finally in 2016, he found new meaning at a writing conference, where he met a fellow physician whose story was similar to his. She encouraged him to write about his experience. His essay was published in Annals of Internal Medicine that year. “Then I started speaking, and I feel like I’m a physician again,” he said. “That has really healed me quite a bit.”
 

Why physicians die by suicide

Working in health care can be extremely stressful, even in the best of times, said Michael Myers, MD, a psychiatrist at State University of New York, Brooklyn, and author of the book, “Why Physicians Die By Suicide: Lessons Learned From Their Families and Others Who Cared.”

Years of school and training culminate in a career in which demands are relentless. Societal expectations are high. Many doctors are perfectionists by nature, and physicians tend to feel intense pressure to compete for coveted positions.

Stress starts early in a medical career. A 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis of 183 studies from 43 countries showed that nearly 30% of medical students experienced symptoms of depression and that 11% reported suicidal thoughts, but only 15% sought help.

A 2015 review of 31 studies that involved residents showed that rates of depression remained close to 30% and that about three-quarters of trainees meet criteria for burnout, a type of emotional exhaustion and sense of inadequacy that can result from chronic stress at work.

The stress of medical training appears to be a direct cause of mental health struggles. Rates of depression are higher among those working to become physicians than among their peers of the same age, research shows. In addition, symptoms become more prevalent as people progress through their training.

The COVID-19 pandemic has added stress to an already stressful job. Of more than 2,300 physicians surveyed in August 2020 by the Physicians Foundation, a physicians advocacy organization, 50% indicated that they experienced excessive anger, tearfulness, or anxiety because of the way the pandemic affected their work; 30% felt hopeless or lacking purpose; and 8% had thoughts of self-harm related to the pandemic. Rates of burnout had risen from 40% in 2018 to 58%.

Those problems might be even more acute in places experiencing other types of crises. A 2020 study of 154 emergency department (ED) physicians in Libya, which is in the midst of a civil war, found that 65% were experiencing anxiety, 73% were showing signs of depression, and 68% felt emotionally exhausted.
 

Every story is different

It is unclear how common suicide is among physicians. One often-repeated estimate is that 300-400 physicians die by suicide each year, but no one is certain how that number was determined, said Dr. Myers, who organized the APA panel.

Studies on suicide are inconsistent, and trends are hard to pinpoint. Anecdotally, he has received just as many calls about physician suicides in the past year as he did before the pandemic started. “What I can tell you is that this is a serious subject,” Dr. Myers said. “And it’s not going away.”

Every person is different, and so is every death. Sometimes, career problems have nothing to do with a physician’s suicide, Dr. Myers said. When job stress does play a role, factors are often varied and complex.

After a 35-year career as a double board certified ED physician, Matthew Seaman, MD, retired in January 2017. The same month, a patient filed a complaint against him with the Washington State medical board, which led to an investigation and a lawsuit.

The case was hard on Dr. Seaman, who had continued to work night shifts throughout his career and had won a Hero Award from the American Board of Emergency Medicine, said his wife, Linda Seaman, MD, a family practitioner in Yakima, Wash., who also spoke on the APA panel.

Dr. Seaman said that 2 years after the investigation started, her husband was growing increasingly depressed. In 2019, he testified in a deposition. She said the plaintiff’s attorney “tried every way he could to shame Matt, humiliate Matt, make him believe he was a very bad doctor.” Three days later, he died by suicide at age 62.

Looking back at the year leading up to her husband’s death, Dr. Seaman recognizes multiple obstacles that interfered with her husband’s ability to get help, including frustrating interactions with psychiatrists and the couple’s insurance company.

His identity and experience as a physician also played a role. A couple of months before he died, she tried unsuccessfully to reach his psychiatrist, whose office suggested he go to the ED. However, because he worked as an ED doctor in their small town, he wouldn’t go. Dr. Seaman suspects he was wary of the stigma.

Burnout likely set him up to cave in after decades of work on the front lines, she added. Working in the ED exposes providers to horrific, traumatic cases every day, she said. Physicians learn to suppress their own emotions to deal with what they encounter. Stuffing their feelings can lead to posttraumatic stress. “You just perform,” she said. “You learn to do that.”
 

A real gift

Whenever Dr. Myers hears stories about doctors who died by suicide or who have written about their mental health struggles to help others, he contacts them. One goal of his own writing and of the conference sessions he organizes is to make it easier for others to share their own stories.

“I tell them, first of all, their courage and honesty is a real gift, and they’re saving lives,” he said. “There are so many suffering doctors out there who think that they’re the only one.”

Public conversations such as those that occurred in the APA session also offer opportunities to share advice, including Dr. Myers’ recommendation that doctors be sure they have a primary care physician of their own.

Many don’t, he says, because they say they are too busy, they can treat their own symptoms, or they can self-refer to specialists when needed. But physicians don’t always recognize symptoms of depression in themselves, and when mental health problems arise, they may not seek help or treat themselves appropriately.

A primary care physician can be the first person to recognize a mental health problem and refer a patient for mental health care, said Dr. Myers, whose latest book, “Becoming a Doctors’ Doctor: A Memoir,” explores his experiences treating doctors with burnout and other mental health problems.

Whether they have a primary care doctor or not, he suggests that physicians talk to anyone they trust – a social worker, a religious leader, or a family member who can then help them find the right sort of care.

In the United States, around-the-clock help is available through the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-8255. A psychiatrist-run hotline specifically for physicians is available at 888-409-0141. “Reach out and get some help,” Dr. Myers said. “Just don’t do it alone.”

Dr. Lynes advocates setting boundaries between life and work. He has also benefited from writing about his experiences. A blog or a diary can help physicians process their feelings, he said. His 2016 essay marked a major turning point in his life, giving his life meaning in helping others.

“Since I wrote that article, I can’t tell you how much better I am,” he said. “Now, I’m not embarrassed to be around physicians. I actually consider myself a physician. I didn’t for many, many years. So, I’m doing pretty well.”
 

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

William Lynes, MD, had a flourishing medical practice and a fulfilling family life with three children when he first attempted suicide in 1999 at age 45. By 2003, depression and two more suicide attempts led to his early retirement.

In a session at the recent virtual American Psychiatric Association (APA) 2021 annual meeting, Dr. Lynes talked about the challenges of dealing with depression while managing the stresses of a career in medicine. The session in which he spoke was called, “The Suicidal Physician: Narratives From a Physician Who Survived and the Physician Widow of One Who Did Not.”

By writing and speaking about his experiences, he says, he has been able to retain his identity as a physician and avoid obsessive thoughts about suicide. He hopes conversations like these help other physicians feel less alone and enable them to push past stigmas to get the help they need. He suspects they do. More than 600 people joined the APA session, and Dr. Lynes received dozens of thankful messages afterward.

“I love medicine, but intrinsically, the practice of medicine is stressful, and you can’t get away,” said Dr. Lynes, a retired urologist in Temecula, Calif. “As far as feedback, it made me feel like it’s something I should continue to do.”
 

A way to heal

For Dr. Lynes, his “downward spiral into darkness” began with a series of catastrophic medical events starting in 1998, when he came home from a family vacation in Mexico feeling unwell. He didn’t bother to do anything about it – typical of a physician, he says. Then one night he woke up shaking with chills and fever. Soon he was in the hospital with respiratory failure from septic shock.

Dr. Lynes spent 6 weeks in the intensive care unit, including 4 weeks on a ventilator. He underwent a tracheostomy. He lost 40 pounds and experienced ICU-related delirium. It was a terrifying time, he said. When he tried to return to work 10 months later, he didn’t feel as though he could function normally.

Having once been a driven doctor who worked long hours, he now doubted himself and dreaded giving patients bad news. Spontaneously, he tried to take his own life.

Afterward, he concealed what had happened from everyone except his wife and managed to resume his practice. However, he was unable to regain the enthusiasm he had once had for his work. Although he had experienced depression before, this time it was unrelenting.

He sought help from a psychiatrist, received a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, and began taking medication. Still, he struggled to fulfill his responsibilities. Then in April 2002, he had a snowboarding accident that caused multiple facial fractures and required five operations. When he returned to work this time, he felt like a failure but resisted asking colleagues for help.

A few months later, Dr. Lynes again attempted suicide, which led to another stay in the ICU and more time on a ventilator. Doctors told his family they didn’t think he would survive. When he recovered, he spent time as an inpatient in a psychiatric ward, where he received the first of a series of electroconvulsive therapy sessions. Compounding his anxiety and depression was the inability to come to terms with his life if he were not able to practice medicine.

The next fall, in September 2003, his third suicide attempt took place in his office on a weekend when no one was around. After locking the door, he looked at his reflection in the frame of his medical school diploma. The glass was cracked. “It was dark, it was black, it was cold,” he said. “I can remember seeing my reflection and thinking how disgusted I was.”

For years after that, Dr. Lynes struggled with his sense of self-worth. He hid from the medical system and dreaded doctors’ appointments. Finally in 2016, he found new meaning at a writing conference, where he met a fellow physician whose story was similar to his. She encouraged him to write about his experience. His essay was published in Annals of Internal Medicine that year. “Then I started speaking, and I feel like I’m a physician again,” he said. “That has really healed me quite a bit.”
 

Why physicians die by suicide

Working in health care can be extremely stressful, even in the best of times, said Michael Myers, MD, a psychiatrist at State University of New York, Brooklyn, and author of the book, “Why Physicians Die By Suicide: Lessons Learned From Their Families and Others Who Cared.”

Years of school and training culminate in a career in which demands are relentless. Societal expectations are high. Many doctors are perfectionists by nature, and physicians tend to feel intense pressure to compete for coveted positions.

Stress starts early in a medical career. A 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis of 183 studies from 43 countries showed that nearly 30% of medical students experienced symptoms of depression and that 11% reported suicidal thoughts, but only 15% sought help.

A 2015 review of 31 studies that involved residents showed that rates of depression remained close to 30% and that about three-quarters of trainees meet criteria for burnout, a type of emotional exhaustion and sense of inadequacy that can result from chronic stress at work.

The stress of medical training appears to be a direct cause of mental health struggles. Rates of depression are higher among those working to become physicians than among their peers of the same age, research shows. In addition, symptoms become more prevalent as people progress through their training.

The COVID-19 pandemic has added stress to an already stressful job. Of more than 2,300 physicians surveyed in August 2020 by the Physicians Foundation, a physicians advocacy organization, 50% indicated that they experienced excessive anger, tearfulness, or anxiety because of the way the pandemic affected their work; 30% felt hopeless or lacking purpose; and 8% had thoughts of self-harm related to the pandemic. Rates of burnout had risen from 40% in 2018 to 58%.

Those problems might be even more acute in places experiencing other types of crises. A 2020 study of 154 emergency department (ED) physicians in Libya, which is in the midst of a civil war, found that 65% were experiencing anxiety, 73% were showing signs of depression, and 68% felt emotionally exhausted.
 

Every story is different

It is unclear how common suicide is among physicians. One often-repeated estimate is that 300-400 physicians die by suicide each year, but no one is certain how that number was determined, said Dr. Myers, who organized the APA panel.

Studies on suicide are inconsistent, and trends are hard to pinpoint. Anecdotally, he has received just as many calls about physician suicides in the past year as he did before the pandemic started. “What I can tell you is that this is a serious subject,” Dr. Myers said. “And it’s not going away.”

Every person is different, and so is every death. Sometimes, career problems have nothing to do with a physician’s suicide, Dr. Myers said. When job stress does play a role, factors are often varied and complex.

After a 35-year career as a double board certified ED physician, Matthew Seaman, MD, retired in January 2017. The same month, a patient filed a complaint against him with the Washington State medical board, which led to an investigation and a lawsuit.

The case was hard on Dr. Seaman, who had continued to work night shifts throughout his career and had won a Hero Award from the American Board of Emergency Medicine, said his wife, Linda Seaman, MD, a family practitioner in Yakima, Wash., who also spoke on the APA panel.

Dr. Seaman said that 2 years after the investigation started, her husband was growing increasingly depressed. In 2019, he testified in a deposition. She said the plaintiff’s attorney “tried every way he could to shame Matt, humiliate Matt, make him believe he was a very bad doctor.” Three days later, he died by suicide at age 62.

Looking back at the year leading up to her husband’s death, Dr. Seaman recognizes multiple obstacles that interfered with her husband’s ability to get help, including frustrating interactions with psychiatrists and the couple’s insurance company.

His identity and experience as a physician also played a role. A couple of months before he died, she tried unsuccessfully to reach his psychiatrist, whose office suggested he go to the ED. However, because he worked as an ED doctor in their small town, he wouldn’t go. Dr. Seaman suspects he was wary of the stigma.

Burnout likely set him up to cave in after decades of work on the front lines, she added. Working in the ED exposes providers to horrific, traumatic cases every day, she said. Physicians learn to suppress their own emotions to deal with what they encounter. Stuffing their feelings can lead to posttraumatic stress. “You just perform,” she said. “You learn to do that.”
 

A real gift

Whenever Dr. Myers hears stories about doctors who died by suicide or who have written about their mental health struggles to help others, he contacts them. One goal of his own writing and of the conference sessions he organizes is to make it easier for others to share their own stories.

“I tell them, first of all, their courage and honesty is a real gift, and they’re saving lives,” he said. “There are so many suffering doctors out there who think that they’re the only one.”

Public conversations such as those that occurred in the APA session also offer opportunities to share advice, including Dr. Myers’ recommendation that doctors be sure they have a primary care physician of their own.

Many don’t, he says, because they say they are too busy, they can treat their own symptoms, or they can self-refer to specialists when needed. But physicians don’t always recognize symptoms of depression in themselves, and when mental health problems arise, they may not seek help or treat themselves appropriately.

A primary care physician can be the first person to recognize a mental health problem and refer a patient for mental health care, said Dr. Myers, whose latest book, “Becoming a Doctors’ Doctor: A Memoir,” explores his experiences treating doctors with burnout and other mental health problems.

Whether they have a primary care doctor or not, he suggests that physicians talk to anyone they trust – a social worker, a religious leader, or a family member who can then help them find the right sort of care.

In the United States, around-the-clock help is available through the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-8255. A psychiatrist-run hotline specifically for physicians is available at 888-409-0141. “Reach out and get some help,” Dr. Myers said. “Just don’t do it alone.”

Dr. Lynes advocates setting boundaries between life and work. He has also benefited from writing about his experiences. A blog or a diary can help physicians process their feelings, he said. His 2016 essay marked a major turning point in his life, giving his life meaning in helping others.

“Since I wrote that article, I can’t tell you how much better I am,” he said. “Now, I’m not embarrassed to be around physicians. I actually consider myself a physician. I didn’t for many, many years. So, I’m doing pretty well.”
 

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

Look ma, I’m writing with no hands

Imagine being able to type every thought you had without using your hands, the words just magically appearing on the screen as fast as you can think of writing them down. Well, with the help of a new brain-computer interface (BCI), you can.

In a recent paper published in Nature, a team of researchers described how they developed a whole new way of communicating that blows previous BCIs, which used a method of pointing and clicking on letters, out of the water as far as accuracy and speed are concerned.

Developed for individuals with medical conditions or other disabilities that prevent them from communicating verbally or manually, the technology involves placing tiny sensors on the brain in the areas that control hand and arm movements. All the individual has to do is think of the process of writing and the system does the rest.

©Thinkstock

Chicken noodle salmonella

Chickens and ducks sure are cute, especially babies, but humans should be extra careful around these animals for risk of salmonella. This isn’t a new thing to loyal readers of Livin’ on the MDedge.

As more people keep such creatures at home – Emily Shoop of Penn State University told the N.Y. Times that raising poultry was “the fastest-growing animal-related hobby in the United States” – the ducks and chickens are being treated more like house pets, which is sweet but not safe.

In the latest outbreak, more than 160 people, mostly children under 5 years old, have fallen ill from salmonella poisoning and more than 30 have been hospitalized across 43 states, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suspects the numbers could be higher because many did not get tested and recovered on their own.

JasonJiron/Thinkstock

This kidney research rocks!

When kids pick teams on the playground, someone is going to get their feelings hurt by being chosen last. There’s no way around it. Someone has to be last.

It’s the same way with research teams. When scientists are trying to cure diseases or pioneer new surgical techniques, they get a team together. And who always gets picked last? That’s right, the geologist, because who needs a geologist when you’re studying brain-computer interfaces?

Turns out, though, that there was a research team that needed a geologist: The one studying kidney stones.

Illinois geology professor Bruce Fouke explains: “The process of kidney stone formation is part of the natural process of the stone formation seen throughout nature. We are bringing together geology, biology, and medicine to map the entire process of kidney stone formation, step by step.”

Mayandi Sivaguru

Gene therapy: What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!

Gene therapy has the potential to permanently cure all sorts of terrible diseases, and one would assume that this would be something we all could agree on. Yes, no more cancer or diabetes or anything like that, no sane person could possibly be against this, right?

Oh, you poor naive fool.

To be fair, the report written by Goldman Sachs does lay out many potential applications for gene therapy, and all the markets it can expand into. But then the writers ask the question that they’re not supposed to say out loud: Is curing patients a sustainable business model?

Pogonic/Getty Images

Look ma, I’m writing with no hands

Imagine being able to type every thought you had without using your hands, the words just magically appearing on the screen as fast as you can think of writing them down. Well, with the help of a new brain-computer interface (BCI), you can.

In a recent paper published in Nature, a team of researchers described how they developed a whole new way of communicating that blows previous BCIs, which used a method of pointing and clicking on letters, out of the water as far as accuracy and speed are concerned.

Developed for individuals with medical conditions or other disabilities that prevent them from communicating verbally or manually, the technology involves placing tiny sensors on the brain in the areas that control hand and arm movements. All the individual has to do is think of the process of writing and the system does the rest.

©Thinkstock

Chicken noodle salmonella

Chickens and ducks sure are cute, especially babies, but humans should be extra careful around these animals for risk of salmonella. This isn’t a new thing to loyal readers of Livin’ on the MDedge.

As more people keep such creatures at home – Emily Shoop of Penn State University told the N.Y. Times that raising poultry was “the fastest-growing animal-related hobby in the United States” – the ducks and chickens are being treated more like house pets, which is sweet but not safe.

In the latest outbreak, more than 160 people, mostly children under 5 years old, have fallen ill from salmonella poisoning and more than 30 have been hospitalized across 43 states, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suspects the numbers could be higher because many did not get tested and recovered on their own.

JasonJiron/Thinkstock

This kidney research rocks!

When kids pick teams on the playground, someone is going to get their feelings hurt by being chosen last. There’s no way around it. Someone has to be last.

It’s the same way with research teams. When scientists are trying to cure diseases or pioneer new surgical techniques, they get a team together. And who always gets picked last? That’s right, the geologist, because who needs a geologist when you’re studying brain-computer interfaces?

Turns out, though, that there was a research team that needed a geologist: The one studying kidney stones.

Illinois geology professor Bruce Fouke explains: “The process of kidney stone formation is part of the natural process of the stone formation seen throughout nature. We are bringing together geology, biology, and medicine to map the entire process of kidney stone formation, step by step.”

Mayandi Sivaguru

Gene therapy: What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!

Gene therapy has the potential to permanently cure all sorts of terrible diseases, and one would assume that this would be something we all could agree on. Yes, no more cancer or diabetes or anything like that, no sane person could possibly be against this, right?

Oh, you poor naive fool.

To be fair, the report written by Goldman Sachs does lay out many potential applications for gene therapy, and all the markets it can expand into. But then the writers ask the question that they’re not supposed to say out loud: Is curing patients a sustainable business model?

Pogonic/Getty Images

Look ma, I’m writing with no hands

Imagine being able to type every thought you had without using your hands, the words just magically appearing on the screen as fast as you can think of writing them down. Well, with the help of a new brain-computer interface (BCI), you can.

In a recent paper published in Nature, a team of researchers described how they developed a whole new way of communicating that blows previous BCIs, which used a method of pointing and clicking on letters, out of the water as far as accuracy and speed are concerned.

Developed for individuals with medical conditions or other disabilities that prevent them from communicating verbally or manually, the technology involves placing tiny sensors on the brain in the areas that control hand and arm movements. All the individual has to do is think of the process of writing and the system does the rest.

©Thinkstock

Chicken noodle salmonella

Chickens and ducks sure are cute, especially babies, but humans should be extra careful around these animals for risk of salmonella. This isn’t a new thing to loyal readers of Livin’ on the MDedge.

As more people keep such creatures at home – Emily Shoop of Penn State University told the N.Y. Times that raising poultry was “the fastest-growing animal-related hobby in the United States” – the ducks and chickens are being treated more like house pets, which is sweet but not safe.

In the latest outbreak, more than 160 people, mostly children under 5 years old, have fallen ill from salmonella poisoning and more than 30 have been hospitalized across 43 states, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suspects the numbers could be higher because many did not get tested and recovered on their own.

JasonJiron/Thinkstock

This kidney research rocks!

When kids pick teams on the playground, someone is going to get their feelings hurt by being chosen last. There’s no way around it. Someone has to be last.

It’s the same way with research teams. When scientists are trying to cure diseases or pioneer new surgical techniques, they get a team together. And who always gets picked last? That’s right, the geologist, because who needs a geologist when you’re studying brain-computer interfaces?

Turns out, though, that there was a research team that needed a geologist: The one studying kidney stones.

Illinois geology professor Bruce Fouke explains: “The process of kidney stone formation is part of the natural process of the stone formation seen throughout nature. We are bringing together geology, biology, and medicine to map the entire process of kidney stone formation, step by step.”

Mayandi Sivaguru

Gene therapy: What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!

Gene therapy has the potential to permanently cure all sorts of terrible diseases, and one would assume that this would be something we all could agree on. Yes, no more cancer or diabetes or anything like that, no sane person could possibly be against this, right?

Oh, you poor naive fool.

To be fair, the report written by Goldman Sachs does lay out many potential applications for gene therapy, and all the markets it can expand into. But then the writers ask the question that they’re not supposed to say out loud: Is curing patients a sustainable business model?

Pogonic/Getty Images

The first cases of large vessel arterial occlusion strokes linked to the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine have been described in the United Kingdom. The three cases (one of which was fatal) occurred in two women and one man in their 30s or 40s and involved blockages of the carotid and middle cerebral artery. Two of the three patients also had venous thrombosis involving the portal and cerebral venous system. All three also had extremely low platelet counts, confirmed antibodies to platelet factor 4, and raised D-dimer levels, all characteristic of the vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) reaction associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine.  

They are described in detail in a letter published online on May 25 in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry

“These are [the] first detailed reports of arterial stroke believed to be caused by VITT after the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine, although stroke has been mentioned previously in the VITT data,” said senior author David Werring, PhD, FRCP.

“VITT has more commonly presented as CVST [Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis] which is stroke caused by a venous thrombosis; these cases are showing that it can also cause stroke caused by an arterial thrombosis,” explained Dr. Werring, professor of clinical neurology at the Stroke Research Centre, University College London.

“In patients who present with ischemic stroke, especially younger patients, and who have had the AstraZeneca vaccine within the past month, clinicians need to consider VITT as a possible cause, as there is a specific treatment needed for this syndrome,” he said.  

Young patients presenting with ischemic stroke after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine should urgently be evaluated for VITT with laboratory tests, including platelet count, D-dimers, fibrinogen, and anti-PF4 antibodies, the authors wrote, and then managed by a multidisciplinary team, including hematology, neurology, stroke, neurosurgery, and neuroradiology, for rapid access to treatments including intravenous immune globulin, methylprednisolone, plasmapheresis, and nonheparin anticoagulants such as fondaparinux, argatroban, or direct oral anticoagulants.

Dr. Werring noted that these reports do not add anything to the overall risk/benefit of the vaccine, as they are only describing three cases. “While VITT is very serious, the benefit of the vaccine still outweighs its risks,” he said. “Around 40% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 experience some sort of thrombosis and about 1.5% have an ischemic stroke. Whereas latest figures from the U.K. estimate the incidence of VITT with the AstraZeneca vaccine of 1 in 50,000 to 1 in 100,000.

“Our report doesn’t suggest that VITT is more common than these latest figures estimate, but we are just drawing attention to an alternative presentation,” he added.  
 

Three cases

The first patient in the current case series, a woman in her 30s, experienced an intermittent headache on the right side and around her eyes 6 days after the vaccine. Five days later, she awoke feeling drowsy and with weakness to her left face, arm, and leg.

Imaging revealed a blocked right middle cerebral artery with brain infarction and clots in the right portal vein. She underwent brain surgery to reduce the pressure in her skull, plasma removal and replacement, and received the anticoagulant fondaparinux, but she still unfortunately died.

The second patient, a woman in her late 30s, presented with headache, confusion, weakness in her left arm, and loss of vision on the left side 12 days after having received the vaccine. Imaging showed occlusion of both carotid arteries, as well as pulmonary embolism and a left cerebral venous sinus thrombosis.  

Her platelet count increased following plasma removal and replacement and intravenous corticosteroids, and her condition improved after fondaparinux treatment.

The third patient, a man in his early 40s, presented 3 weeks after receiving his vaccination with problems speaking. Imaging showed a clot in the left middle cerebral artery, but there was no evidence of clots in the cerebral venous sinuses. He received a platelet and plasma transfusion, and fondaparinux, and remains stable.
 

High index of suspicion required

In a linked commentary, Hugh Markus, PhD, FRCP, professor of stroke medicine at the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, wrote: “This report emphasizes that the immune mediated coagulopathy can also cause arterial thrombosis, including ischemic stroke, although venous thrombosis and especially cerebral venous sinus thrombosis appear more frequent.

“During the current period of COVID vaccination, a high index of suspicion is required to identify thrombotic episodes following vaccination,” he added. “However, it is important to remember that these side effects are rare and much less common than both cerebral venous thrombosis and ischemic stroke associated with COVID-19 infection itself.”
 

Risk/benefit unaltered

Several experts who commented on these reports for the Science Media Centre all agreed with Dr. Werring and Dr. Markus that these reports do not alter the current risk/benefit estimates with the vaccine.

Ian Douglas, PhD, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, who sits on the U.K.’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency’s Pharmacovigilance Expert Advisory Group, said: “The picture regarding the rare syndrome of blood clots combined with low platelet counts associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine is becoming clearer. Until now, the cases described have tended to involve clots in veins such as cerebral vein thrombosis. In this series of three case reports, we now have some evidence that the types of blood vessels affected include arteries as well as veins.”  

“It’s important to stress that such cases remain very rare, and it’s certainly much rarer in people who have had the AstraZeneca vaccine than it is in people affected by COVID-19 itself,” Dr. Douglas emphasized.

“The description of the cases suggests the patients involved presented with the same kind of symptoms as already described in cases involving cerebral vein thrombosis, and they don’t suggest patients need to be on the alert for anything different,” he added.

“However, the emergence of details like this will help guide health professionals who may be faced with similar cases in future; the sooner such cases are recognized, the more chance they will quickly receive the right kind of treatment, hopefully leading to better outcomes.”

Will Lester, MBChB, PhD, consultant hematologist, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, said: “VITT remains a rare complication, and patients with a history of thrombosis, including stroke, should not consider themselves to be at any higher risk of this type of rare thrombosis after vaccination, and COVID infection itself is a significant risk for stroke and other types of thrombosis.”

Many countries have paused use of the AstraZeneca vaccine because of its link to the VITT syndrome or restricted its use to older people as the VITT reaction appears to be slightly more common in younger people. In the United Kingdom, the current recommendation is that individuals under 40 years of age should be offered an alternative to the AstraZeneca vaccine where possible.

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

The first cases of large vessel arterial occlusion strokes linked to the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine have been described in the United Kingdom. The three cases (one of which was fatal) occurred in two women and one man in their 30s or 40s and involved blockages of the carotid and middle cerebral artery. Two of the three patients also had venous thrombosis involving the portal and cerebral venous system. All three also had extremely low platelet counts, confirmed antibodies to platelet factor 4, and raised D-dimer levels, all characteristic of the vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) reaction associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine.  

They are described in detail in a letter published online on May 25 in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry

“These are [the] first detailed reports of arterial stroke believed to be caused by VITT after the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine, although stroke has been mentioned previously in the VITT data,” said senior author David Werring, PhD, FRCP.

“VITT has more commonly presented as CVST [Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis] which is stroke caused by a venous thrombosis; these cases are showing that it can also cause stroke caused by an arterial thrombosis,” explained Dr. Werring, professor of clinical neurology at the Stroke Research Centre, University College London.

“In patients who present with ischemic stroke, especially younger patients, and who have had the AstraZeneca vaccine within the past month, clinicians need to consider VITT as a possible cause, as there is a specific treatment needed for this syndrome,” he said.  

Young patients presenting with ischemic stroke after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine should urgently be evaluated for VITT with laboratory tests, including platelet count, D-dimers, fibrinogen, and anti-PF4 antibodies, the authors wrote, and then managed by a multidisciplinary team, including hematology, neurology, stroke, neurosurgery, and neuroradiology, for rapid access to treatments including intravenous immune globulin, methylprednisolone, plasmapheresis, and nonheparin anticoagulants such as fondaparinux, argatroban, or direct oral anticoagulants.

Dr. Werring noted that these reports do not add anything to the overall risk/benefit of the vaccine, as they are only describing three cases. “While VITT is very serious, the benefit of the vaccine still outweighs its risks,” he said. “Around 40% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 experience some sort of thrombosis and about 1.5% have an ischemic stroke. Whereas latest figures from the U.K. estimate the incidence of VITT with the AstraZeneca vaccine of 1 in 50,000 to 1 in 100,000.

“Our report doesn’t suggest that VITT is more common than these latest figures estimate, but we are just drawing attention to an alternative presentation,” he added.  
 

Three cases

The first patient in the current case series, a woman in her 30s, experienced an intermittent headache on the right side and around her eyes 6 days after the vaccine. Five days later, she awoke feeling drowsy and with weakness to her left face, arm, and leg.

Imaging revealed a blocked right middle cerebral artery with brain infarction and clots in the right portal vein. She underwent brain surgery to reduce the pressure in her skull, plasma removal and replacement, and received the anticoagulant fondaparinux, but she still unfortunately died.

The second patient, a woman in her late 30s, presented with headache, confusion, weakness in her left arm, and loss of vision on the left side 12 days after having received the vaccine. Imaging showed occlusion of both carotid arteries, as well as pulmonary embolism and a left cerebral venous sinus thrombosis.  

Her platelet count increased following plasma removal and replacement and intravenous corticosteroids, and her condition improved after fondaparinux treatment.

The third patient, a man in his early 40s, presented 3 weeks after receiving his vaccination with problems speaking. Imaging showed a clot in the left middle cerebral artery, but there was no evidence of clots in the cerebral venous sinuses. He received a platelet and plasma transfusion, and fondaparinux, and remains stable.
 

High index of suspicion required

In a linked commentary, Hugh Markus, PhD, FRCP, professor of stroke medicine at the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, wrote: “This report emphasizes that the immune mediated coagulopathy can also cause arterial thrombosis, including ischemic stroke, although venous thrombosis and especially cerebral venous sinus thrombosis appear more frequent.

“During the current period of COVID vaccination, a high index of suspicion is required to identify thrombotic episodes following vaccination,” he added. “However, it is important to remember that these side effects are rare and much less common than both cerebral venous thrombosis and ischemic stroke associated with COVID-19 infection itself.”
 

Risk/benefit unaltered

Several experts who commented on these reports for the Science Media Centre all agreed with Dr. Werring and Dr. Markus that these reports do not alter the current risk/benefit estimates with the vaccine.

Ian Douglas, PhD, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, who sits on the U.K.’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency’s Pharmacovigilance Expert Advisory Group, said: “The picture regarding the rare syndrome of blood clots combined with low platelet counts associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine is becoming clearer. Until now, the cases described have tended to involve clots in veins such as cerebral vein thrombosis. In this series of three case reports, we now have some evidence that the types of blood vessels affected include arteries as well as veins.”  

“It’s important to stress that such cases remain very rare, and it’s certainly much rarer in people who have had the AstraZeneca vaccine than it is in people affected by COVID-19 itself,” Dr. Douglas emphasized.

“The description of the cases suggests the patients involved presented with the same kind of symptoms as already described in cases involving cerebral vein thrombosis, and they don’t suggest patients need to be on the alert for anything different,” he added.

“However, the emergence of details like this will help guide health professionals who may be faced with similar cases in future; the sooner such cases are recognized, the more chance they will quickly receive the right kind of treatment, hopefully leading to better outcomes.”

Will Lester, MBChB, PhD, consultant hematologist, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, said: “VITT remains a rare complication, and patients with a history of thrombosis, including stroke, should not consider themselves to be at any higher risk of this type of rare thrombosis after vaccination, and COVID infection itself is a significant risk for stroke and other types of thrombosis.”

Many countries have paused use of the AstraZeneca vaccine because of its link to the VITT syndrome or restricted its use to older people as the VITT reaction appears to be slightly more common in younger people. In the United Kingdom, the current recommendation is that individuals under 40 years of age should be offered an alternative to the AstraZeneca vaccine where possible.

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

The first cases of large vessel arterial occlusion strokes linked to the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine have been described in the United Kingdom. The three cases (one of which was fatal) occurred in two women and one man in their 30s or 40s and involved blockages of the carotid and middle cerebral artery. Two of the three patients also had venous thrombosis involving the portal and cerebral venous system. All three also had extremely low platelet counts, confirmed antibodies to platelet factor 4, and raised D-dimer levels, all characteristic of the vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) reaction associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine.  

They are described in detail in a letter published online on May 25 in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry

“These are [the] first detailed reports of arterial stroke believed to be caused by VITT after the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine, although stroke has been mentioned previously in the VITT data,” said senior author David Werring, PhD, FRCP.

“VITT has more commonly presented as CVST [Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis] which is stroke caused by a venous thrombosis; these cases are showing that it can also cause stroke caused by an arterial thrombosis,” explained Dr. Werring, professor of clinical neurology at the Stroke Research Centre, University College London.

“In patients who present with ischemic stroke, especially younger patients, and who have had the AstraZeneca vaccine within the past month, clinicians need to consider VITT as a possible cause, as there is a specific treatment needed for this syndrome,” he said.  

Young patients presenting with ischemic stroke after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine should urgently be evaluated for VITT with laboratory tests, including platelet count, D-dimers, fibrinogen, and anti-PF4 antibodies, the authors wrote, and then managed by a multidisciplinary team, including hematology, neurology, stroke, neurosurgery, and neuroradiology, for rapid access to treatments including intravenous immune globulin, methylprednisolone, plasmapheresis, and nonheparin anticoagulants such as fondaparinux, argatroban, or direct oral anticoagulants.

Dr. Werring noted that these reports do not add anything to the overall risk/benefit of the vaccine, as they are only describing three cases. “While VITT is very serious, the benefit of the vaccine still outweighs its risks,” he said. “Around 40% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 experience some sort of thrombosis and about 1.5% have an ischemic stroke. Whereas latest figures from the U.K. estimate the incidence of VITT with the AstraZeneca vaccine of 1 in 50,000 to 1 in 100,000.

“Our report doesn’t suggest that VITT is more common than these latest figures estimate, but we are just drawing attention to an alternative presentation,” he added.  
 

Three cases

The first patient in the current case series, a woman in her 30s, experienced an intermittent headache on the right side and around her eyes 6 days after the vaccine. Five days later, she awoke feeling drowsy and with weakness to her left face, arm, and leg.

Imaging revealed a blocked right middle cerebral artery with brain infarction and clots in the right portal vein. She underwent brain surgery to reduce the pressure in her skull, plasma removal and replacement, and received the anticoagulant fondaparinux, but she still unfortunately died.

The second patient, a woman in her late 30s, presented with headache, confusion, weakness in her left arm, and loss of vision on the left side 12 days after having received the vaccine. Imaging showed occlusion of both carotid arteries, as well as pulmonary embolism and a left cerebral venous sinus thrombosis.  

Her platelet count increased following plasma removal and replacement and intravenous corticosteroids, and her condition improved after fondaparinux treatment.

The third patient, a man in his early 40s, presented 3 weeks after receiving his vaccination with problems speaking. Imaging showed a clot in the left middle cerebral artery, but there was no evidence of clots in the cerebral venous sinuses. He received a platelet and plasma transfusion, and fondaparinux, and remains stable.
 

High index of suspicion required

In a linked commentary, Hugh Markus, PhD, FRCP, professor of stroke medicine at the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, wrote: “This report emphasizes that the immune mediated coagulopathy can also cause arterial thrombosis, including ischemic stroke, although venous thrombosis and especially cerebral venous sinus thrombosis appear more frequent.

“During the current period of COVID vaccination, a high index of suspicion is required to identify thrombotic episodes following vaccination,” he added. “However, it is important to remember that these side effects are rare and much less common than both cerebral venous thrombosis and ischemic stroke associated with COVID-19 infection itself.”
 

Risk/benefit unaltered

Several experts who commented on these reports for the Science Media Centre all agreed with Dr. Werring and Dr. Markus that these reports do not alter the current risk/benefit estimates with the vaccine.

Ian Douglas, PhD, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, who sits on the U.K.’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency’s Pharmacovigilance Expert Advisory Group, said: “The picture regarding the rare syndrome of blood clots combined with low platelet counts associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine is becoming clearer. Until now, the cases described have tended to involve clots in veins such as cerebral vein thrombosis. In this series of three case reports, we now have some evidence that the types of blood vessels affected include arteries as well as veins.”  

“It’s important to stress that such cases remain very rare, and it’s certainly much rarer in people who have had the AstraZeneca vaccine than it is in people affected by COVID-19 itself,” Dr. Douglas emphasized.

“The description of the cases suggests the patients involved presented with the same kind of symptoms as already described in cases involving cerebral vein thrombosis, and they don’t suggest patients need to be on the alert for anything different,” he added.

“However, the emergence of details like this will help guide health professionals who may be faced with similar cases in future; the sooner such cases are recognized, the more chance they will quickly receive the right kind of treatment, hopefully leading to better outcomes.”

Will Lester, MBChB, PhD, consultant hematologist, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, said: “VITT remains a rare complication, and patients with a history of thrombosis, including stroke, should not consider themselves to be at any higher risk of this type of rare thrombosis after vaccination, and COVID infection itself is a significant risk for stroke and other types of thrombosis.”

Many countries have paused use of the AstraZeneca vaccine because of its link to the VITT syndrome or restricted its use to older people as the VITT reaction appears to be slightly more common in younger people. In the United Kingdom, the current recommendation is that individuals under 40 years of age should be offered an alternative to the AstraZeneca vaccine where possible.

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

Ten percent of patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) fail to respond properly to COVID-19 vaccinations regardless of medication, researchers report, and small new studies suggest those on methotrexate and rituximab may be especially vulnerable to vaccine failure.

Even so, it’s still crucially vital for patients with IMIDs to get vaccinated and for clinicians to follow recommendations to temporarily withhold certain medications around the time of vaccination, rheumatologist Anne R. Bass, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine and the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, said in an interview. “We’re not making any significant adjustments,” added Dr. Bass, a coauthor of the American College of Rheumatology’s COVID-19 vaccination guidelines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

The findings appear in a trio of studies in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. The most recent study, which appeared May 25, 2021, found that more than one-third of patients with IMIDs who took methotrexate didn’t produce adequate antibody levels after vaccination versus 10% of those in other groups. (P < .001) A May 11 study found that 20 of 30 patients with rheumatic diseases on rituximab failed to respond to vaccination. And a May 6 study reported that immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 are “somewhat delayed and reduced” in patients with IMID, with 99.5% of a control group developing neutralizing antibody activity after vaccination versus 90% of those with IMID (P = .0008).


 

Development of neutralizing antibodies somewhat delayed and reduced

Team members were surprised by the high number of vaccine nonresponders in the May 6 IMID study, coauthor Georg Schett, MD, of Germany’s Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg and University Hospital Erlangen, said in an interview.

The researchers compared two groups of patients who had no history of COVID-19 and received COVID-19 vaccinations, mostly two shots of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (96%): 84 with IMID (mean age, 53.1 years; 65.5% females) and 182 healthy controls (mean age, 40.8 years; 57.1% females).

The patients with IMID most commonly had spondyloarthritis (32.1%), RA (29.8%), inflammatory bowel disease (9.5%), and psoriasis (9.5%). Nearly 43% of the patients were treated with biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and 23.9% with conventional synthetic DMARDSs. Another 29% were not treated.

All of the controls developed anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgG, but 6% of the patients with IMID did not (P = .003). The gap in development of neutralizing antibodies was even higher: 99.5% of the controls developed neutralizing antibody activity versus 90% of the IMID group. “Neutralizing antibodies are more relevant because the test shows how much the antibodies interfere with the binding of SARS-CoV-2 proteins to the receptor,” Dr. Schett said.

The study authors concluded that “our study provides evidence that, while vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is well tolerated and even associated with lower incidence of side effects in patients with IMID, its efficacy is somewhat delayed and reduced. Nonetheless, the data also show that, in principle, patients with IMID respond to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, supporting an aggressive vaccination strategy.”
 

Lowered antibody response to vaccination for some methotrexate users

In the newer study, led by Rebecca H. Haberman, MD, of New York University Langone Health, researchers examined COVID-19 vaccine response in cohorts in New York City and Erlangen, Germany.

The New York cohort included 25 patients with IMID who were taking methotrexate by itself or with other immunomodulatory medications (mean age, 63.2 years), 26 with IMID who were on anticytokine therapy and/or other oral immunomodulators (mean age, 49.1 years) and 26 healthy controls (mean age, 49.2 years). Most patients with IMID had psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis or RA.

The German validation cohort included 182 healthy subjects (mean age, 45.0 years), 11 subjects with IMID who received TNF inhibitor monotherapy (mean age, 40.8 years), and 20 subjects with IMID on methotrexate monotherapy (mean age, 54.5 years).

In the New York cohort, 96.1% of healthy controls showed “adequate humoral immune response,” along with 92.3% of patients with IMID who weren’t taking methotrexate. However, those on methotrexate had a lower rate of adequate response (72.0%), and the gap persisted even after researchers removed those who showed signs of previous COVID-19 infection (P = .045).

In the German cohort, 98.3% of healthy cohorts and 90.9% of patients with IMID who didn’t receive methotrexate reached an “adequate” humoral response versus just half (50.0%) of those who were taking methotrexate.

When both cohorts are combined, over 90% of the healthy subjects and the patients with IMID on biologic treatments (mainly TNF blockers, n = 37) showed “robust” antibody response. However, only 62% of patients with IMID who took methotrexate (n = 45) reached an “adequate” level of response. The methotrexate gap remained after researchers accounted for differences in age among the cohorts.

What’s going on? “We think that the underlying chronic immune stimulation in autoimmune patients may cause T-cell exhaustion and thus blunts the immune response,” said Dr. Schett, who’s also a coauthor of this study. “In addition, specific drugs such as methotrexate could additionally impair the immune response.”

Still, the findings “reiterate that vaccinations are safe and effective, which is what the recommendations state,” he said, adding that more testing of vaccination immune response is wise.
 

Insights into vaccine response while on rituximab

Two more reports, also published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, offer insight into vaccine response in patients with IMID who take rituximab.

Ridofranz/Getty Images

In one report, published May 11, U.S. researchers retrospectively tracked 89 rheumatic disease patients (76% female; mean age, 61) at a single clinic who’d received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Of those, 21 patients showed no sign of vaccine antibody response, and 20 of them were in the group taking rituximab. (The other patient was taking belimumab.) Another 10 patients taking rituximab did show a response.

“Longer duration from most recent rituximab exposure was associated with a greater likelihood of response,” the report’s authors wrote. “The results suggest that time from last rituximab exposure is an important consideration in maximizing the likelihood of a serological response, but this likely is related to the substantial variation in the period of B-cell depletion following rituximab.”

Finally, an Austrian report published May 6 examined COVID-19 vaccine immune response in five patients who were taking rituximab (four with other drugs such as methotrexate and prednisone). Researchers compared them with eight healthy controls, half who’d been vaccinated.

The researchers found evidence that rituximab “may not have to preclude SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, since a cellular immune response will be mounted even in the absence of circulating B cells. Alternatively, in patients with stable disease, delaying [rituximab] treatment until after the second vaccination may be warranted and, therefore, vaccines with a short interval between first and second vaccination or those showing full protection after a single vaccination may be preferable. Importantly, in the presence of circulating B cells also a humoral immune response may be expected despite prior [rituximab] therapy.”

Dr. Bass said the findings reflect growing awareness that “patients with autoimmune disease, especially when they’re on immunosuppressant medications, don’t quite have as optimal responses to the vaccinations.” However, she said, the vaccines are so potent that they’re likely to still have significant efficacy in these patients even if there’s a reduction in response.

What’s next? Dr. Schett said “testing immune response to vaccination is important for patients with autoimmune disease. Some of them may need a third vaccination.”

The American College of Rheumatology’s COVID-19 vaccination guidelines do not recommend third vaccinations or postvaccination immune testing at this time. However, Dr. Bass, one of the coauthors of the recommendations, said it’s likely that postvaccination immune testing and booster shots will become routine.

Dr. Bass reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Schett reported receiving consulting fees from AbbVie. The May 6 German vaccine study was funded by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, the ERC Synergy grant 4D Nanoscope, the IMI funded project RTCure, the Emerging Fields Initiative MIRACLE of the Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, the Schreiber Stiftung, and the Else Kröner-Memorial Scholarship. The study authors reported no disclosures. The May 25 study of German and American cohorts was funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskletal and Skin Diseases, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Rheumatology Research Foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies COVID-19 Initiative, Pfizer COVID-19 Competitive Grant Program, Beatrice Snyder Foundation, Riley Family Foundation, National Psoriasis Foundation, and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. The authors reported a range of financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. No specific funding was reported for the other two studies mentioned.

Ten percent of patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) fail to respond properly to COVID-19 vaccinations regardless of medication, researchers report, and small new studies suggest those on methotrexate and rituximab may be especially vulnerable to vaccine failure.

Even so, it’s still crucially vital for patients with IMIDs to get vaccinated and for clinicians to follow recommendations to temporarily withhold certain medications around the time of vaccination, rheumatologist Anne R. Bass, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine and the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, said in an interview. “We’re not making any significant adjustments,” added Dr. Bass, a coauthor of the American College of Rheumatology’s COVID-19 vaccination guidelines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

The findings appear in a trio of studies in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. The most recent study, which appeared May 25, 2021, found that more than one-third of patients with IMIDs who took methotrexate didn’t produce adequate antibody levels after vaccination versus 10% of those in other groups. (P < .001) A May 11 study found that 20 of 30 patients with rheumatic diseases on rituximab failed to respond to vaccination. And a May 6 study reported that immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 are “somewhat delayed and reduced” in patients with IMID, with 99.5% of a control group developing neutralizing antibody activity after vaccination versus 90% of those with IMID (P = .0008).


 

Development of neutralizing antibodies somewhat delayed and reduced

Team members were surprised by the high number of vaccine nonresponders in the May 6 IMID study, coauthor Georg Schett, MD, of Germany’s Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg and University Hospital Erlangen, said in an interview.

The researchers compared two groups of patients who had no history of COVID-19 and received COVID-19 vaccinations, mostly two shots of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (96%): 84 with IMID (mean age, 53.1 years; 65.5% females) and 182 healthy controls (mean age, 40.8 years; 57.1% females).

The patients with IMID most commonly had spondyloarthritis (32.1%), RA (29.8%), inflammatory bowel disease (9.5%), and psoriasis (9.5%). Nearly 43% of the patients were treated with biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and 23.9% with conventional synthetic DMARDSs. Another 29% were not treated.

All of the controls developed anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgG, but 6% of the patients with IMID did not (P = .003). The gap in development of neutralizing antibodies was even higher: 99.5% of the controls developed neutralizing antibody activity versus 90% of the IMID group. “Neutralizing antibodies are more relevant because the test shows how much the antibodies interfere with the binding of SARS-CoV-2 proteins to the receptor,” Dr. Schett said.

The study authors concluded that “our study provides evidence that, while vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is well tolerated and even associated with lower incidence of side effects in patients with IMID, its efficacy is somewhat delayed and reduced. Nonetheless, the data also show that, in principle, patients with IMID respond to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, supporting an aggressive vaccination strategy.”
 

Lowered antibody response to vaccination for some methotrexate users

In the newer study, led by Rebecca H. Haberman, MD, of New York University Langone Health, researchers examined COVID-19 vaccine response in cohorts in New York City and Erlangen, Germany.

The New York cohort included 25 patients with IMID who were taking methotrexate by itself or with other immunomodulatory medications (mean age, 63.2 years), 26 with IMID who were on anticytokine therapy and/or other oral immunomodulators (mean age, 49.1 years) and 26 healthy controls (mean age, 49.2 years). Most patients with IMID had psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis or RA.

The German validation cohort included 182 healthy subjects (mean age, 45.0 years), 11 subjects with IMID who received TNF inhibitor monotherapy (mean age, 40.8 years), and 20 subjects with IMID on methotrexate monotherapy (mean age, 54.5 years).

In the New York cohort, 96.1% of healthy controls showed “adequate humoral immune response,” along with 92.3% of patients with IMID who weren’t taking methotrexate. However, those on methotrexate had a lower rate of adequate response (72.0%), and the gap persisted even after researchers removed those who showed signs of previous COVID-19 infection (P = .045).

In the German cohort, 98.3% of healthy cohorts and 90.9% of patients with IMID who didn’t receive methotrexate reached an “adequate” humoral response versus just half (50.0%) of those who were taking methotrexate.

When both cohorts are combined, over 90% of the healthy subjects and the patients with IMID on biologic treatments (mainly TNF blockers, n = 37) showed “robust” antibody response. However, only 62% of patients with IMID who took methotrexate (n = 45) reached an “adequate” level of response. The methotrexate gap remained after researchers accounted for differences in age among the cohorts.

What’s going on? “We think that the underlying chronic immune stimulation in autoimmune patients may cause T-cell exhaustion and thus blunts the immune response,” said Dr. Schett, who’s also a coauthor of this study. “In addition, specific drugs such as methotrexate could additionally impair the immune response.”

Still, the findings “reiterate that vaccinations are safe and effective, which is what the recommendations state,” he said, adding that more testing of vaccination immune response is wise.
 

Insights into vaccine response while on rituximab

Two more reports, also published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, offer insight into vaccine response in patients with IMID who take rituximab.

Ridofranz/Getty Images

In one report, published May 11, U.S. researchers retrospectively tracked 89 rheumatic disease patients (76% female; mean age, 61) at a single clinic who’d received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Of those, 21 patients showed no sign of vaccine antibody response, and 20 of them were in the group taking rituximab. (The other patient was taking belimumab.) Another 10 patients taking rituximab did show a response.

“Longer duration from most recent rituximab exposure was associated with a greater likelihood of response,” the report’s authors wrote. “The results suggest that time from last rituximab exposure is an important consideration in maximizing the likelihood of a serological response, but this likely is related to the substantial variation in the period of B-cell depletion following rituximab.”

Finally, an Austrian report published May 6 examined COVID-19 vaccine immune response in five patients who were taking rituximab (four with other drugs such as methotrexate and prednisone). Researchers compared them with eight healthy controls, half who’d been vaccinated.

The researchers found evidence that rituximab “may not have to preclude SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, since a cellular immune response will be mounted even in the absence of circulating B cells. Alternatively, in patients with stable disease, delaying [rituximab] treatment until after the second vaccination may be warranted and, therefore, vaccines with a short interval between first and second vaccination or those showing full protection after a single vaccination may be preferable. Importantly, in the presence of circulating B cells also a humoral immune response may be expected despite prior [rituximab] therapy.”

Dr. Bass said the findings reflect growing awareness that “patients with autoimmune disease, especially when they’re on immunosuppressant medications, don’t quite have as optimal responses to the vaccinations.” However, she said, the vaccines are so potent that they’re likely to still have significant efficacy in these patients even if there’s a reduction in response.

What’s next? Dr. Schett said “testing immune response to vaccination is important for patients with autoimmune disease. Some of them may need a third vaccination.”

The American College of Rheumatology’s COVID-19 vaccination guidelines do not recommend third vaccinations or postvaccination immune testing at this time. However, Dr. Bass, one of the coauthors of the recommendations, said it’s likely that postvaccination immune testing and booster shots will become routine.

Dr. Bass reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Schett reported receiving consulting fees from AbbVie. The May 6 German vaccine study was funded by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, the ERC Synergy grant 4D Nanoscope, the IMI funded project RTCure, the Emerging Fields Initiative MIRACLE of the Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, the Schreiber Stiftung, and the Else Kröner-Memorial Scholarship. The study authors reported no disclosures. The May 25 study of German and American cohorts was funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskletal and Skin Diseases, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Rheumatology Research Foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies COVID-19 Initiative, Pfizer COVID-19 Competitive Grant Program, Beatrice Snyder Foundation, Riley Family Foundation, National Psoriasis Foundation, and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. The authors reported a range of financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. No specific funding was reported for the other two studies mentioned.

Ten percent of patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) fail to respond properly to COVID-19 vaccinations regardless of medication, researchers report, and small new studies suggest those on methotrexate and rituximab may be especially vulnerable to vaccine failure.

Even so, it’s still crucially vital for patients with IMIDs to get vaccinated and for clinicians to follow recommendations to temporarily withhold certain medications around the time of vaccination, rheumatologist Anne R. Bass, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine and the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, said in an interview. “We’re not making any significant adjustments,” added Dr. Bass, a coauthor of the American College of Rheumatology’s COVID-19 vaccination guidelines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

The findings appear in a trio of studies in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. The most recent study, which appeared May 25, 2021, found that more than one-third of patients with IMIDs who took methotrexate didn’t produce adequate antibody levels after vaccination versus 10% of those in other groups. (P < .001) A May 11 study found that 20 of 30 patients with rheumatic diseases on rituximab failed to respond to vaccination. And a May 6 study reported that immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 are “somewhat delayed and reduced” in patients with IMID, with 99.5% of a control group developing neutralizing antibody activity after vaccination versus 90% of those with IMID (P = .0008).


 

Development of neutralizing antibodies somewhat delayed and reduced

Team members were surprised by the high number of vaccine nonresponders in the May 6 IMID study, coauthor Georg Schett, MD, of Germany’s Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg and University Hospital Erlangen, said in an interview.

The researchers compared two groups of patients who had no history of COVID-19 and received COVID-19 vaccinations, mostly two shots of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (96%): 84 with IMID (mean age, 53.1 years; 65.5% females) and 182 healthy controls (mean age, 40.8 years; 57.1% females).

The patients with IMID most commonly had spondyloarthritis (32.1%), RA (29.8%), inflammatory bowel disease (9.5%), and psoriasis (9.5%). Nearly 43% of the patients were treated with biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and 23.9% with conventional synthetic DMARDSs. Another 29% were not treated.

All of the controls developed anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgG, but 6% of the patients with IMID did not (P = .003). The gap in development of neutralizing antibodies was even higher: 99.5% of the controls developed neutralizing antibody activity versus 90% of the IMID group. “Neutralizing antibodies are more relevant because the test shows how much the antibodies interfere with the binding of SARS-CoV-2 proteins to the receptor,” Dr. Schett said.

The study authors concluded that “our study provides evidence that, while vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is well tolerated and even associated with lower incidence of side effects in patients with IMID, its efficacy is somewhat delayed and reduced. Nonetheless, the data also show that, in principle, patients with IMID respond to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, supporting an aggressive vaccination strategy.”
 

Lowered antibody response to vaccination for some methotrexate users

In the newer study, led by Rebecca H. Haberman, MD, of New York University Langone Health, researchers examined COVID-19 vaccine response in cohorts in New York City and Erlangen, Germany.

The New York cohort included 25 patients with IMID who were taking methotrexate by itself or with other immunomodulatory medications (mean age, 63.2 years), 26 with IMID who were on anticytokine therapy and/or other oral immunomodulators (mean age, 49.1 years) and 26 healthy controls (mean age, 49.2 years). Most patients with IMID had psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis or RA.

The German validation cohort included 182 healthy subjects (mean age, 45.0 years), 11 subjects with IMID who received TNF inhibitor monotherapy (mean age, 40.8 years), and 20 subjects with IMID on methotrexate monotherapy (mean age, 54.5 years).

In the New York cohort, 96.1% of healthy controls showed “adequate humoral immune response,” along with 92.3% of patients with IMID who weren’t taking methotrexate. However, those on methotrexate had a lower rate of adequate response (72.0%), and the gap persisted even after researchers removed those who showed signs of previous COVID-19 infection (P = .045).

In the German cohort, 98.3% of healthy cohorts and 90.9% of patients with IMID who didn’t receive methotrexate reached an “adequate” humoral response versus just half (50.0%) of those who were taking methotrexate.

When both cohorts are combined, over 90% of the healthy subjects and the patients with IMID on biologic treatments (mainly TNF blockers, n = 37) showed “robust” antibody response. However, only 62% of patients with IMID who took methotrexate (n = 45) reached an “adequate” level of response. The methotrexate gap remained after researchers accounted for differences in age among the cohorts.

What’s going on? “We think that the underlying chronic immune stimulation in autoimmune patients may cause T-cell exhaustion and thus blunts the immune response,” said Dr. Schett, who’s also a coauthor of this study. “In addition, specific drugs such as methotrexate could additionally impair the immune response.”

Still, the findings “reiterate that vaccinations are safe and effective, which is what the recommendations state,” he said, adding that more testing of vaccination immune response is wise.
 

Insights into vaccine response while on rituximab

Two more reports, also published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, offer insight into vaccine response in patients with IMID who take rituximab.

Ridofranz/Getty Images

In one report, published May 11, U.S. researchers retrospectively tracked 89 rheumatic disease patients (76% female; mean age, 61) at a single clinic who’d received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Of those, 21 patients showed no sign of vaccine antibody response, and 20 of them were in the group taking rituximab. (The other patient was taking belimumab.) Another 10 patients taking rituximab did show a response.

“Longer duration from most recent rituximab exposure was associated with a greater likelihood of response,” the report’s authors wrote. “The results suggest that time from last rituximab exposure is an important consideration in maximizing the likelihood of a serological response, but this likely is related to the substantial variation in the period of B-cell depletion following rituximab.”

Finally, an Austrian report published May 6 examined COVID-19 vaccine immune response in five patients who were taking rituximab (four with other drugs such as methotrexate and prednisone). Researchers compared them with eight healthy controls, half who’d been vaccinated.

The researchers found evidence that rituximab “may not have to preclude SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, since a cellular immune response will be mounted even in the absence of circulating B cells. Alternatively, in patients with stable disease, delaying [rituximab] treatment until after the second vaccination may be warranted and, therefore, vaccines with a short interval between first and second vaccination or those showing full protection after a single vaccination may be preferable. Importantly, in the presence of circulating B cells also a humoral immune response may be expected despite prior [rituximab] therapy.”

Dr. Bass said the findings reflect growing awareness that “patients with autoimmune disease, especially when they’re on immunosuppressant medications, don’t quite have as optimal responses to the vaccinations.” However, she said, the vaccines are so potent that they’re likely to still have significant efficacy in these patients even if there’s a reduction in response.

What’s next? Dr. Schett said “testing immune response to vaccination is important for patients with autoimmune disease. Some of them may need a third vaccination.”

The American College of Rheumatology’s COVID-19 vaccination guidelines do not recommend third vaccinations or postvaccination immune testing at this time. However, Dr. Bass, one of the coauthors of the recommendations, said it’s likely that postvaccination immune testing and booster shots will become routine.

Dr. Bass reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Schett reported receiving consulting fees from AbbVie. The May 6 German vaccine study was funded by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, the ERC Synergy grant 4D Nanoscope, the IMI funded project RTCure, the Emerging Fields Initiative MIRACLE of the Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, the Schreiber Stiftung, and the Else Kröner-Memorial Scholarship. The study authors reported no disclosures. The May 25 study of German and American cohorts was funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskletal and Skin Diseases, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Rheumatology Research Foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies COVID-19 Initiative, Pfizer COVID-19 Competitive Grant Program, Beatrice Snyder Foundation, Riley Family Foundation, National Psoriasis Foundation, and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. The authors reported a range of financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. No specific funding was reported for the other two studies mentioned.

Physicians’ trust in health care system leaders has taken a steep drop during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a survey conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago on behalf of the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation.

Survey results, released May 21, indicate that 30% of physicians say their trust in the U.S. health care system and health care leadership has decreased during the pandemic. Only 18% reported an increase in trust.

Physicians, however, have great trust in their fellow clinicians.

In the survey of 600 physicians, 94% said they trust doctors within their practice; 85% trusted doctors outside of their practice; and 89% trusted nurses. That trust increased during the pandemic, with 41% saying their trust in fellow physicians rose and 37% saying their trust in nurses did.

In a separate survey, NORC asked patients about their trust in various aspects of health care. Among 2,069 respondents, a wide majority reported that they trust doctors (84%) and nurses (85%), but only 64% trusted the health care system as a whole. One in three consumers (32%) said their trust in the health care system decreased during the pandemic, compared with 11% who said their trust increased.

The ABIM Foundation released the research findings on May 21 as part of Building Trust, a national campaign that aims to boost trust among patients, clinicians, system leaders, researchers, and others.

Richard J. Baron, MD, president and chief executive officer of the ABIM Foundation, said in an interview, “Clearly there’s lower trust in health care organization leaders and executives, and that’s troubling.

“Science by itself is not enough,” he said. “Becoming trustworthy has to be a core project of everybody in health care.”

Deterioration in physicians’ trust during the pandemic comes in part from failed promises of adequate personal protective equipment and some physicians’ loss of income as a result of the crisis, Dr. Baron said.

He added that the vaccine rollout was very uneven and that policies as to which elective procedures could be performed were handled differently in different parts of the country.

He also noted that, early on, transparency was lacking as to how many COVID patients hospitals were treating, which may have contributed to the decrease in trust in the system.
 

Fear of being known as ‘the COVID hospital’

Hospitals were afraid of being known as “the COVID hospital” and losing patients who were afraid to come there, Dr. Baron said.

He said the COVID-19 epidemic exacerbated problems regarding trust, but that trust has been declining for some time. The Building Trust campaign will focus on solutions in breaches of trust as physicians move increasingly toward being employees of huge systems, according to Dr. Baron.

However, trust works both ways, Dr. Baron notes. Physicians can be champions for their health care system or “throw the system under the bus,” he said.

For example, if a patient complains about the appointment system, clinicians who trust their institutions may say the system usually works and that they will try to make sure the patient has a better experience next time. Clinicians without trust may say they agree that the health care system doesn’t know what it is doing, and patients may further lose confidence when physicians validate their complaint, and patients may then go elsewhere.
 

78% of patients trust primary care doctor

When asked whether they trust their primary care physician, 78% of patients said yes. However, trust in doctors was higher among people who were older (90%), White (82%), or had high income (89%). Among people reporting lower trust, 25% said their physician spends too little time with them, and 14% said their doctor does not know or listen to them.

The survey shows that government agencies have work to do to earn trust. Responses indicate that 43% of physicians said they have “complete trust” in government health care agencies, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is substantially higher than other parts of the health care system. However, trust in agencies declined for 43% of physician respondents and increased for 21%.

Dhruv Khullar, MD, MPP, of the department of health policy and economics at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York, told this news organization the survey results match what he sees anecdotally in medicine – that physicians have been losing trust in the system but not in their colleagues.

He said the sample size of 600 is enough to be influential, though he said he would like to know the response rate, which was not calculated for this survey.

He added that, in large part, physicians’ lack of trust in their systems may come from generally being asked to see more patients and to meet more metrics during the same or shorter periods.

Physicians’ lack of trust in the system can have significant consequences, he said. It can lead to burnout, which has been linked with poorer quality of care and physician turnover, he noted.

COVID-19 led some physicians to wonder whether their system had their best interests at heart, insofar as access to adequate medicines and supplies as well as emotional support were inconsistent, Dr. Khullar said.

He said that to regain trust health care systems need to ask themselves questions in three areas. The first is whether their goals are focused on the best interest of the organization or the best interest of the patient.

“Next is competency,” Dr. Khullar said. “Maybe your motives are right, but are you able to deliver? Are you delivering a good product, whether clinical services or something else?”

The third area is transparency, he said. “Are you going to be honest and forthright in what we’re doing and where we’re going?”

Caroline Pearson, senior vice president of health care strategy for NORC, said the emailed survey was conducted between Dec. 29, 2020, and Feb. 5, 2021, with a health care survey partner that maintains a nationwide panel of physicians across specialties.

She said this report is fairly novel insofar as surveys are more typically conducted regarding patients’ trust of their doctors or of the health care system.

Ms. Pearson said because health care is delivered in teams, understanding the level of trust among the entities helps ensure that care will be delivered effectively and seamlessly with high quality.

“We want our patients to trust our doctors, but we really want doctors to trust each other and trust the hospitals and systems in which they’re working,” she said.

Dr. Baron, Ms. Pearson, and Dr. Khullar report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physicians’ trust in health care system leaders has taken a steep drop during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a survey conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago on behalf of the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation.

Survey results, released May 21, indicate that 30% of physicians say their trust in the U.S. health care system and health care leadership has decreased during the pandemic. Only 18% reported an increase in trust.

Physicians, however, have great trust in their fellow clinicians.

In the survey of 600 physicians, 94% said they trust doctors within their practice; 85% trusted doctors outside of their practice; and 89% trusted nurses. That trust increased during the pandemic, with 41% saying their trust in fellow physicians rose and 37% saying their trust in nurses did.

In a separate survey, NORC asked patients about their trust in various aspects of health care. Among 2,069 respondents, a wide majority reported that they trust doctors (84%) and nurses (85%), but only 64% trusted the health care system as a whole. One in three consumers (32%) said their trust in the health care system decreased during the pandemic, compared with 11% who said their trust increased.

The ABIM Foundation released the research findings on May 21 as part of Building Trust, a national campaign that aims to boost trust among patients, clinicians, system leaders, researchers, and others.

Richard J. Baron, MD, president and chief executive officer of the ABIM Foundation, said in an interview, “Clearly there’s lower trust in health care organization leaders and executives, and that’s troubling.

“Science by itself is not enough,” he said. “Becoming trustworthy has to be a core project of everybody in health care.”

Deterioration in physicians’ trust during the pandemic comes in part from failed promises of adequate personal protective equipment and some physicians’ loss of income as a result of the crisis, Dr. Baron said.

He added that the vaccine rollout was very uneven and that policies as to which elective procedures could be performed were handled differently in different parts of the country.

He also noted that, early on, transparency was lacking as to how many COVID patients hospitals were treating, which may have contributed to the decrease in trust in the system.
 

Fear of being known as ‘the COVID hospital’

Hospitals were afraid of being known as “the COVID hospital” and losing patients who were afraid to come there, Dr. Baron said.

He said the COVID-19 epidemic exacerbated problems regarding trust, but that trust has been declining for some time. The Building Trust campaign will focus on solutions in breaches of trust as physicians move increasingly toward being employees of huge systems, according to Dr. Baron.

However, trust works both ways, Dr. Baron notes. Physicians can be champions for their health care system or “throw the system under the bus,” he said.

For example, if a patient complains about the appointment system, clinicians who trust their institutions may say the system usually works and that they will try to make sure the patient has a better experience next time. Clinicians without trust may say they agree that the health care system doesn’t know what it is doing, and patients may further lose confidence when physicians validate their complaint, and patients may then go elsewhere.
 

78% of patients trust primary care doctor

When asked whether they trust their primary care physician, 78% of patients said yes. However, trust in doctors was higher among people who were older (90%), White (82%), or had high income (89%). Among people reporting lower trust, 25% said their physician spends too little time with them, and 14% said their doctor does not know or listen to them.

The survey shows that government agencies have work to do to earn trust. Responses indicate that 43% of physicians said they have “complete trust” in government health care agencies, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is substantially higher than other parts of the health care system. However, trust in agencies declined for 43% of physician respondents and increased for 21%.

Dhruv Khullar, MD, MPP, of the department of health policy and economics at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York, told this news organization the survey results match what he sees anecdotally in medicine – that physicians have been losing trust in the system but not in their colleagues.

He said the sample size of 600 is enough to be influential, though he said he would like to know the response rate, which was not calculated for this survey.

He added that, in large part, physicians’ lack of trust in their systems may come from generally being asked to see more patients and to meet more metrics during the same or shorter periods.

Physicians’ lack of trust in the system can have significant consequences, he said. It can lead to burnout, which has been linked with poorer quality of care and physician turnover, he noted.

COVID-19 led some physicians to wonder whether their system had their best interests at heart, insofar as access to adequate medicines and supplies as well as emotional support were inconsistent, Dr. Khullar said.

He said that to regain trust health care systems need to ask themselves questions in three areas. The first is whether their goals are focused on the best interest of the organization or the best interest of the patient.

“Next is competency,” Dr. Khullar said. “Maybe your motives are right, but are you able to deliver? Are you delivering a good product, whether clinical services or something else?”

The third area is transparency, he said. “Are you going to be honest and forthright in what we’re doing and where we’re going?”

Caroline Pearson, senior vice president of health care strategy for NORC, said the emailed survey was conducted between Dec. 29, 2020, and Feb. 5, 2021, with a health care survey partner that maintains a nationwide panel of physicians across specialties.

She said this report is fairly novel insofar as surveys are more typically conducted regarding patients’ trust of their doctors or of the health care system.

Ms. Pearson said because health care is delivered in teams, understanding the level of trust among the entities helps ensure that care will be delivered effectively and seamlessly with high quality.

“We want our patients to trust our doctors, but we really want doctors to trust each other and trust the hospitals and systems in which they’re working,” she said.

Dr. Baron, Ms. Pearson, and Dr. Khullar report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physicians’ trust in health care system leaders has taken a steep drop during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a survey conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago on behalf of the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation.

Survey results, released May 21, indicate that 30% of physicians say their trust in the U.S. health care system and health care leadership has decreased during the pandemic. Only 18% reported an increase in trust.

Physicians, however, have great trust in their fellow clinicians.

In the survey of 600 physicians, 94% said they trust doctors within their practice; 85% trusted doctors outside of their practice; and 89% trusted nurses. That trust increased during the pandemic, with 41% saying their trust in fellow physicians rose and 37% saying their trust in nurses did.

In a separate survey, NORC asked patients about their trust in various aspects of health care. Among 2,069 respondents, a wide majority reported that they trust doctors (84%) and nurses (85%), but only 64% trusted the health care system as a whole. One in three consumers (32%) said their trust in the health care system decreased during the pandemic, compared with 11% who said their trust increased.

The ABIM Foundation released the research findings on May 21 as part of Building Trust, a national campaign that aims to boost trust among patients, clinicians, system leaders, researchers, and others.

Richard J. Baron, MD, president and chief executive officer of the ABIM Foundation, said in an interview, “Clearly there’s lower trust in health care organization leaders and executives, and that’s troubling.

“Science by itself is not enough,” he said. “Becoming trustworthy has to be a core project of everybody in health care.”

Deterioration in physicians’ trust during the pandemic comes in part from failed promises of adequate personal protective equipment and some physicians’ loss of income as a result of the crisis, Dr. Baron said.

He added that the vaccine rollout was very uneven and that policies as to which elective procedures could be performed were handled differently in different parts of the country.

He also noted that, early on, transparency was lacking as to how many COVID patients hospitals were treating, which may have contributed to the decrease in trust in the system.
 

Fear of being known as ‘the COVID hospital’

Hospitals were afraid of being known as “the COVID hospital” and losing patients who were afraid to come there, Dr. Baron said.

He said the COVID-19 epidemic exacerbated problems regarding trust, but that trust has been declining for some time. The Building Trust campaign will focus on solutions in breaches of trust as physicians move increasingly toward being employees of huge systems, according to Dr. Baron.

However, trust works both ways, Dr. Baron notes. Physicians can be champions for their health care system or “throw the system under the bus,” he said.

For example, if a patient complains about the appointment system, clinicians who trust their institutions may say the system usually works and that they will try to make sure the patient has a better experience next time. Clinicians without trust may say they agree that the health care system doesn’t know what it is doing, and patients may further lose confidence when physicians validate their complaint, and patients may then go elsewhere.
 

78% of patients trust primary care doctor

When asked whether they trust their primary care physician, 78% of patients said yes. However, trust in doctors was higher among people who were older (90%), White (82%), or had high income (89%). Among people reporting lower trust, 25% said their physician spends too little time with them, and 14% said their doctor does not know or listen to them.

The survey shows that government agencies have work to do to earn trust. Responses indicate that 43% of physicians said they have “complete trust” in government health care agencies, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is substantially higher than other parts of the health care system. However, trust in agencies declined for 43% of physician respondents and increased for 21%.

Dhruv Khullar, MD, MPP, of the department of health policy and economics at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York, told this news organization the survey results match what he sees anecdotally in medicine – that physicians have been losing trust in the system but not in their colleagues.

He said the sample size of 600 is enough to be influential, though he said he would like to know the response rate, which was not calculated for this survey.

He added that, in large part, physicians’ lack of trust in their systems may come from generally being asked to see more patients and to meet more metrics during the same or shorter periods.

Physicians’ lack of trust in the system can have significant consequences, he said. It can lead to burnout, which has been linked with poorer quality of care and physician turnover, he noted.

COVID-19 led some physicians to wonder whether their system had their best interests at heart, insofar as access to adequate medicines and supplies as well as emotional support were inconsistent, Dr. Khullar said.

He said that to regain trust health care systems need to ask themselves questions in three areas. The first is whether their goals are focused on the best interest of the organization or the best interest of the patient.

“Next is competency,” Dr. Khullar said. “Maybe your motives are right, but are you able to deliver? Are you delivering a good product, whether clinical services or something else?”

The third area is transparency, he said. “Are you going to be honest and forthright in what we’re doing and where we’re going?”

Caroline Pearson, senior vice president of health care strategy for NORC, said the emailed survey was conducted between Dec. 29, 2020, and Feb. 5, 2021, with a health care survey partner that maintains a nationwide panel of physicians across specialties.

She said this report is fairly novel insofar as surveys are more typically conducted regarding patients’ trust of their doctors or of the health care system.

Ms. Pearson said because health care is delivered in teams, understanding the level of trust among the entities helps ensure that care will be delivered effectively and seamlessly with high quality.

“We want our patients to trust our doctors, but we really want doctors to trust each other and trust the hospitals and systems in which they’re working,” she said.

Dr. Baron, Ms. Pearson, and Dr. Khullar report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Mycophenolate mofetil, commonly used as a first-line corticosteroid-sparing agent for moderate to severe cases of the autoimmune blistering skin condition pemphigus vulgaris, has been found to be inferior to the biologic agent rituximab.

Mycophenolate mofetil is widely accepted as a first-in-line corticosteroid-sparing agent for pemphigus vulgaris, but few studies have compared the effectiveness of the two treatments for pemphigus vulgaris. The European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology recommends rituximab (Rituxan), a CD20 inhibitor, as first-line treatment for patients with new-onset cases of moderate to severe intensity or for patients who fail to achieve clinical remission with systemic corticosteroids with or without other immunosuppressive treatments.

In the current study, published online on May 19, 2021, in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers led by Victoria P. Werth, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, conducted a randomized, controlled trial of 135 patients (mean age, 48 years; 53% women) with moderate to severe pemphigus vulgaris with 67 receiving rituximab and 68 receiving mycophenolate mofetil (99% of patients in the rituximab group and 85% of patients in the mycophenolate mofetil group completed the trial).

Patients in the rituximab group received 1,000 mg of IV rituximab on days 1, 15, 168, and 182 of the study, plus twice-daily oral placebo. Intravenous methylprednisolone at 100 mg was administered before each rituximab infusion to reduce infusion-related reactions. Patients in the second group were given mycophenolate mofetil orally twice daily, starting at 1 g/day in divided doses and adjusted to 2 g/day in divided doses by week 2. They also received placebo infusions on days 1, 15, 168, and 182 of the study.

Patients in both groups received oral glucocorticoids throughout the course of the trial: an average of 3,545 mg for the rituximab treatment group and a cumulative dose of 5,140 mg for the group treated with mycophenolate mofetil, a statistically significant difference (P < .001). Outcomes based on 62 patients treated with rituximab and 63 on MMF, a modified intention-to-treat group.

By week 52, 25 patients (40%) who were treated with rituximab experienced complete sustained remission (the primary endpoint), compared with 6 patients (10%) in the mycophenolate mofetil group (95% confidence interval, 15-45, P < .001).

Only six patients in the rituximab group experienced a disease flare as compared with 44 patients in the mycophenolate mofetil group (adjusted rate ratio, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.05-0.29; P < .001). Serious adverse events occurred in 15 of 67 patients (22%) in the rituximab group and in 10 of 68 (15%) in the mycophenolate mofetil group with 3 patients in the rituximab group and 26 in the mycophenolate mofetil receiving rescue therapy.

Second to remission, the goal of treatment for pemphigus vulgaris is to reduce the use of glucocorticoids, Dr. Werth and colleagues wrote, adding: “The results of this trial showed that rituximab was superior to mycophenolate mofetil in producing sustained complete remission over 52 weeks among patients with moderate to severe pemphigus vulgaris. Rituximab had a greater glucocorticoid-sparing effect than mycophenolate mofetil, but more patients in this group had serious adverse events.”

Most adverse events in the rituximab group were limited to infusion-related reactions, but serious adverse events occurred in 15 patients (including pneumonia and upper respiratory tract infection, cellulitis and acute pyelonephritis, viral pneumonia, and skin infection). Ten patients in the mycophenolate mofetil group experienced serious adverse events (pneumonia and influenza, cellulitis and sepsis, herpes zoster, and pyelonephritis).

The current study had several limitations, primarily its small size. Plus, the authors noted a short follow-up period after glucocorticoids were stopped.

Mycophenolate mofetil, along with immunosuppressants, is approved in the United States as a treatment for organ rejection in patients who have received kidney, heart or liver transplants. But it is also used off label for pemphigus vulgaris and in rheumatology as a treatment for lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, vasculitis, inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn’s disease), inflammatory eye disease (uveitis) as well as kidney and skin disorders.

In the 2018 treatment guidelines for pemphigus by the European Dermatology Forum and the EADV, mycophenolate mofetil is recommended as a first-line corticosteroid sparing agent for pemphigus vulgaris.

Rituximab was approved in 2018 as the first biologic therapy for patients with pemphigus vulgaris and is currently recommended as a treatment for patients with pemphigus. But how well it works in comparison with the long-established mycophenolate mofetil hasn’t been extensively studied.

Other smaller studies show that mycophenolate mofetil has a treatment effect, but those studies were small. The Ritux 3 trial, published in The Lancet showed that rituximab plus glucocorticoids as opposed to glucocorticoids alone was beneficial in treating pemphigus.

“Rituximab has moved toward first-line therapy for moderate to severe pemphigus as recommended by an international panel of experts,” Dr. Werth said in an interview.

In her practice, Dr. Werth said that she has observed similar outcomes in clinical practice for patients prescribed oral mycophenolate mofetil. “Patients take a long time to get to remission and frequently end up staying on prednisone and long-term mycophenolate mofetil,” she said. She uses mycophenolate mofetil less often since rituximab has been shown to be effective for many patients, but mycophenolate mofetil “still has a place for patients who don’t want, or can’t tolerate, rituximab, or for cases in which rituximab doesn’t work.”

This study was supported by a grant from Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Werth disclosed having served as a consultant to Genentech on pemphigus, and that the University of Pennsylvania has received a grant/contract to perform a rituximab–mycophenolate mofetil trial for pemphigus vulgaris.

Mycophenolate mofetil, commonly used as a first-line corticosteroid-sparing agent for moderate to severe cases of the autoimmune blistering skin condition pemphigus vulgaris, has been found to be inferior to the biologic agent rituximab.

Mycophenolate mofetil is widely accepted as a first-in-line corticosteroid-sparing agent for pemphigus vulgaris, but few studies have compared the effectiveness of the two treatments for pemphigus vulgaris. The European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology recommends rituximab (Rituxan), a CD20 inhibitor, as first-line treatment for patients with new-onset cases of moderate to severe intensity or for patients who fail to achieve clinical remission with systemic corticosteroids with or without other immunosuppressive treatments.

In the current study, published online on May 19, 2021, in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers led by Victoria P. Werth, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, conducted a randomized, controlled trial of 135 patients (mean age, 48 years; 53% women) with moderate to severe pemphigus vulgaris with 67 receiving rituximab and 68 receiving mycophenolate mofetil (99% of patients in the rituximab group and 85% of patients in the mycophenolate mofetil group completed the trial).

Patients in the rituximab group received 1,000 mg of IV rituximab on days 1, 15, 168, and 182 of the study, plus twice-daily oral placebo. Intravenous methylprednisolone at 100 mg was administered before each rituximab infusion to reduce infusion-related reactions. Patients in the second group were given mycophenolate mofetil orally twice daily, starting at 1 g/day in divided doses and adjusted to 2 g/day in divided doses by week 2. They also received placebo infusions on days 1, 15, 168, and 182 of the study.

Patients in both groups received oral glucocorticoids throughout the course of the trial: an average of 3,545 mg for the rituximab treatment group and a cumulative dose of 5,140 mg for the group treated with mycophenolate mofetil, a statistically significant difference (P < .001). Outcomes based on 62 patients treated with rituximab and 63 on MMF, a modified intention-to-treat group.

By week 52, 25 patients (40%) who were treated with rituximab experienced complete sustained remission (the primary endpoint), compared with 6 patients (10%) in the mycophenolate mofetil group (95% confidence interval, 15-45, P < .001).

Only six patients in the rituximab group experienced a disease flare as compared with 44 patients in the mycophenolate mofetil group (adjusted rate ratio, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.05-0.29; P < .001). Serious adverse events occurred in 15 of 67 patients (22%) in the rituximab group and in 10 of 68 (15%) in the mycophenolate mofetil group with 3 patients in the rituximab group and 26 in the mycophenolate mofetil receiving rescue therapy.

Second to remission, the goal of treatment for pemphigus vulgaris is to reduce the use of glucocorticoids, Dr. Werth and colleagues wrote, adding: “The results of this trial showed that rituximab was superior to mycophenolate mofetil in producing sustained complete remission over 52 weeks among patients with moderate to severe pemphigus vulgaris. Rituximab had a greater glucocorticoid-sparing effect than mycophenolate mofetil, but more patients in this group had serious adverse events.”

Most adverse events in the rituximab group were limited to infusion-related reactions, but serious adverse events occurred in 15 patients (including pneumonia and upper respiratory tract infection, cellulitis and acute pyelonephritis, viral pneumonia, and skin infection). Ten patients in the mycophenolate mofetil group experienced serious adverse events (pneumonia and influenza, cellulitis and sepsis, herpes zoster, and pyelonephritis).

The current study had several limitations, primarily its small size. Plus, the authors noted a short follow-up period after glucocorticoids were stopped.

Mycophenolate mofetil, along with immunosuppressants, is approved in the United States as a treatment for organ rejection in patients who have received kidney, heart or liver transplants. But it is also used off label for pemphigus vulgaris and in rheumatology as a treatment for lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, vasculitis, inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn’s disease), inflammatory eye disease (uveitis) as well as kidney and skin disorders.

In the 2018 treatment guidelines for pemphigus by the European Dermatology Forum and the EADV, mycophenolate mofetil is recommended as a first-line corticosteroid sparing agent for pemphigus vulgaris.

Rituximab was approved in 2018 as the first biologic therapy for patients with pemphigus vulgaris and is currently recommended as a treatment for patients with pemphigus. But how well it works in comparison with the long-established mycophenolate mofetil hasn’t been extensively studied.

Other smaller studies show that mycophenolate mofetil has a treatment effect, but those studies were small. The Ritux 3 trial, published in The Lancet showed that rituximab plus glucocorticoids as opposed to glucocorticoids alone was beneficial in treating pemphigus.

“Rituximab has moved toward first-line therapy for moderate to severe pemphigus as recommended by an international panel of experts,” Dr. Werth said in an interview.

In her practice, Dr. Werth said that she has observed similar outcomes in clinical practice for patients prescribed oral mycophenolate mofetil. “Patients take a long time to get to remission and frequently end up staying on prednisone and long-term mycophenolate mofetil,” she said. She uses mycophenolate mofetil less often since rituximab has been shown to be effective for many patients, but mycophenolate mofetil “still has a place for patients who don’t want, or can’t tolerate, rituximab, or for cases in which rituximab doesn’t work.”

This study was supported by a grant from Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Werth disclosed having served as a consultant to Genentech on pemphigus, and that the University of Pennsylvania has received a grant/contract to perform a rituximab–mycophenolate mofetil trial for pemphigus vulgaris.

Mycophenolate mofetil, commonly used as a first-line corticosteroid-sparing agent for moderate to severe cases of the autoimmune blistering skin condition pemphigus vulgaris, has been found to be inferior to the biologic agent rituximab.

Mycophenolate mofetil is widely accepted as a first-in-line corticosteroid-sparing agent for pemphigus vulgaris, but few studies have compared the effectiveness of the two treatments for pemphigus vulgaris. The European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology recommends rituximab (Rituxan), a CD20 inhibitor, as first-line treatment for patients with new-onset cases of moderate to severe intensity or for patients who fail to achieve clinical remission with systemic corticosteroids with or without other immunosuppressive treatments.

In the current study, published online on May 19, 2021, in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers led by Victoria P. Werth, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, conducted a randomized, controlled trial of 135 patients (mean age, 48 years; 53% women) with moderate to severe pemphigus vulgaris with 67 receiving rituximab and 68 receiving mycophenolate mofetil (99% of patients in the rituximab group and 85% of patients in the mycophenolate mofetil group completed the trial).

Patients in the rituximab group received 1,000 mg of IV rituximab on days 1, 15, 168, and 182 of the study, plus twice-daily oral placebo. Intravenous methylprednisolone at 100 mg was administered before each rituximab infusion to reduce infusion-related reactions. Patients in the second group were given mycophenolate mofetil orally twice daily, starting at 1 g/day in divided doses and adjusted to 2 g/day in divided doses by week 2. They also received placebo infusions on days 1, 15, 168, and 182 of the study.

Patients in both groups received oral glucocorticoids throughout the course of the trial: an average of 3,545 mg for the rituximab treatment group and a cumulative dose of 5,140 mg for the group treated with mycophenolate mofetil, a statistically significant difference (P < .001). Outcomes based on 62 patients treated with rituximab and 63 on MMF, a modified intention-to-treat group.

By week 52, 25 patients (40%) who were treated with rituximab experienced complete sustained remission (the primary endpoint), compared with 6 patients (10%) in the mycophenolate mofetil group (95% confidence interval, 15-45, P < .001).

Only six patients in the rituximab group experienced a disease flare as compared with 44 patients in the mycophenolate mofetil group (adjusted rate ratio, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.05-0.29; P < .001). Serious adverse events occurred in 15 of 67 patients (22%) in the rituximab group and in 10 of 68 (15%) in the mycophenolate mofetil group with 3 patients in the rituximab group and 26 in the mycophenolate mofetil receiving rescue therapy.

Second to remission, the goal of treatment for pemphigus vulgaris is to reduce the use of glucocorticoids, Dr. Werth and colleagues wrote, adding: “The results of this trial showed that rituximab was superior to mycophenolate mofetil in producing sustained complete remission over 52 weeks among patients with moderate to severe pemphigus vulgaris. Rituximab had a greater glucocorticoid-sparing effect than mycophenolate mofetil, but more patients in this group had serious adverse events.”

Most adverse events in the rituximab group were limited to infusion-related reactions, but serious adverse events occurred in 15 patients (including pneumonia and upper respiratory tract infection, cellulitis and acute pyelonephritis, viral pneumonia, and skin infection). Ten patients in the mycophenolate mofetil group experienced serious adverse events (pneumonia and influenza, cellulitis and sepsis, herpes zoster, and pyelonephritis).

The current study had several limitations, primarily its small size. Plus, the authors noted a short follow-up period after glucocorticoids were stopped.

Mycophenolate mofetil, along with immunosuppressants, is approved in the United States as a treatment for organ rejection in patients who have received kidney, heart or liver transplants. But it is also used off label for pemphigus vulgaris and in rheumatology as a treatment for lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, vasculitis, inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn’s disease), inflammatory eye disease (uveitis) as well as kidney and skin disorders.

In the 2018 treatment guidelines for pemphigus by the European Dermatology Forum and the EADV, mycophenolate mofetil is recommended as a first-line corticosteroid sparing agent for pemphigus vulgaris.

Rituximab was approved in 2018 as the first biologic therapy for patients with pemphigus vulgaris and is currently recommended as a treatment for patients with pemphigus. But how well it works in comparison with the long-established mycophenolate mofetil hasn’t been extensively studied.

Other smaller studies show that mycophenolate mofetil has a treatment effect, but those studies were small. The Ritux 3 trial, published in The Lancet showed that rituximab plus glucocorticoids as opposed to glucocorticoids alone was beneficial in treating pemphigus.

“Rituximab has moved toward first-line therapy for moderate to severe pemphigus as recommended by an international panel of experts,” Dr. Werth said in an interview.

In her practice, Dr. Werth said that she has observed similar outcomes in clinical practice for patients prescribed oral mycophenolate mofetil. “Patients take a long time to get to remission and frequently end up staying on prednisone and long-term mycophenolate mofetil,” she said. She uses mycophenolate mofetil less often since rituximab has been shown to be effective for many patients, but mycophenolate mofetil “still has a place for patients who don’t want, or can’t tolerate, rituximab, or for cases in which rituximab doesn’t work.”

This study was supported by a grant from Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Werth disclosed having served as a consultant to Genentech on pemphigus, and that the University of Pennsylvania has received a grant/contract to perform a rituximab–mycophenolate mofetil trial for pemphigus vulgaris.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s latest guidance on what fully vaccinated people can do safely – including not socially distancing and not wearing a mask indoors or outdoors unless other regulations require it – has been widely misinterpreted and caused confusion, two infectious disease experts said at a briefing on May 20 hosted by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).

The CDC did not ‘’lift” the mask mandate, but rather supplied guidance for those who are fully vaccinated. However, many questions and gray areas remain, and the experts addressed those. ‘’The CDC guidance is really directed at people who are fully vaccinated and who we know are likely to have a really solid response to the vaccine,” said Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, MPH, director of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and an IDSA board member.

That message was largely lost, said Dr. Marrazzo and Jeffrey Duchin, MD, health officer of public health for Seattle and King County, Washington, and also an IDSA board member. Dr. Duchin said many people mistakenly regarded the new guidance as a message that the pandemic is over.

Among their practical tips on how to interpret the guidance:
 

To mask or not?

To make the decision, people need to think about not only the numbers of vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals in their community but the local rates of disease, the experts said.  And they need to know that the CDC guidance doesn’t apply if regulations by federal or state authorities or businesses and workplace are in conflict.

Deciding on mask use sometimes depends on where you are going. What about going into grocery stores or large bin stores without a mask? “If you are fully vaccinated and have no other conditions that compromise your immune system, and the rates of COVID are relatively low where you live, and the vaccination rates are high, I would be 100% fine” without a mask, Dr. Marrazzo said. But it’s important to think of all these factors in calculating your risk.

“I’m still wearing a mask when I go anywhere in public,” she said, citing vaccination rates that have not yet reached 50% in her area.

If that rate reached 80%, the typical percentage talked about for herd immunity, and new cases were low, Dr. Marrazzo said she might shed the mask.

The CDC also continues to recommend masks on mass transit for all.

One population that also must be considered, and who must evaluate their risk, even if vaccinated, are the immunocompromised, Dr. Marrazzo said. While people think of the immunocompromised as those with HIV or organ transplants, the numbers are actually much larger.

“A study a couple of years ago indicated up to 3% of Americans may actually have been told by their physician they have some of level of being immunocompromised,” she said. Among the examples are those who are on dialysis, on chemotherapy, or those taking any of the medications that modify the immune system.

“Millions of people fit this bill, and we have [very] little data on whether the vaccine works in them. We think it does,” Dr. Marrazzo said.

Still, she said, it’s a reason for these people to be cautious. For some other vaccines, the dose is modified for those who are immunocompromised. What’s not known yet is whether additional doses of the COVID vaccines might boost protection for those who are immunocompromised.

Many people, even after vaccination, may choose to keep wearing a mask especially in indoor, crowded settings, Dr. Duchin said. “We need to expect, accept, and respect continued mask wearing by anyone at any time.”

In most outdoor settings, he said, “I think masks are probably not necessary, vaccinated or not, regardless of age.” One exception: close face-to-face contact, such as in certain sports.
 

How to protect toddlers and infants

With masks not practical or recommended for infants and toddlers under 2 years old, Dr. Marrazzo said adults should remember that ‘’those very little kids don’t do poorly at all [even if infected], although there is not a ton of data.”

Adults should still treat young children as vulnerable, especially newborns. Adults not yet vaccinated should wear a mask when around them, she said.
 

J & J vaccine recipients

With less ‘’real world” data on the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, should those who got it think of themselves in a different risk group than those who got Moderna or Pfizer and adjust their behavior accordingly? 

“The J&J vaccine, based on everything we know, does provide a great deal of protection,” Dr. Marrazzo said. ‘’We don’t know as much about prevention of transmission in the asymptomatic cases in the J&J.”

Most of that data, she said, is from the mRNA vaccines Pfizer and Moderna. “I think it’s an important area to study and learn about.” But all three vaccines, overall, provide a high level of protection, she said.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s latest guidance on what fully vaccinated people can do safely – including not socially distancing and not wearing a mask indoors or outdoors unless other regulations require it – has been widely misinterpreted and caused confusion, two infectious disease experts said at a briefing on May 20 hosted by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).

The CDC did not ‘’lift” the mask mandate, but rather supplied guidance for those who are fully vaccinated. However, many questions and gray areas remain, and the experts addressed those. ‘’The CDC guidance is really directed at people who are fully vaccinated and who we know are likely to have a really solid response to the vaccine,” said Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, MPH, director of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and an IDSA board member.

That message was largely lost, said Dr. Marrazzo and Jeffrey Duchin, MD, health officer of public health for Seattle and King County, Washington, and also an IDSA board member. Dr. Duchin said many people mistakenly regarded the new guidance as a message that the pandemic is over.

Among their practical tips on how to interpret the guidance:
 

To mask or not?

To make the decision, people need to think about not only the numbers of vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals in their community but the local rates of disease, the experts said.  And they need to know that the CDC guidance doesn’t apply if regulations by federal or state authorities or businesses and workplace are in conflict.

Deciding on mask use sometimes depends on where you are going. What about going into grocery stores or large bin stores without a mask? “If you are fully vaccinated and have no other conditions that compromise your immune system, and the rates of COVID are relatively low where you live, and the vaccination rates are high, I would be 100% fine” without a mask, Dr. Marrazzo said. But it’s important to think of all these factors in calculating your risk.

“I’m still wearing a mask when I go anywhere in public,” she said, citing vaccination rates that have not yet reached 50% in her area.

If that rate reached 80%, the typical percentage talked about for herd immunity, and new cases were low, Dr. Marrazzo said she might shed the mask.

The CDC also continues to recommend masks on mass transit for all.

One population that also must be considered, and who must evaluate their risk, even if vaccinated, are the immunocompromised, Dr. Marrazzo said. While people think of the immunocompromised as those with HIV or organ transplants, the numbers are actually much larger.

“A study a couple of years ago indicated up to 3% of Americans may actually have been told by their physician they have some of level of being immunocompromised,” she said. Among the examples are those who are on dialysis, on chemotherapy, or those taking any of the medications that modify the immune system.

“Millions of people fit this bill, and we have [very] little data on whether the vaccine works in them. We think it does,” Dr. Marrazzo said.

Still, she said, it’s a reason for these people to be cautious. For some other vaccines, the dose is modified for those who are immunocompromised. What’s not known yet is whether additional doses of the COVID vaccines might boost protection for those who are immunocompromised.

Many people, even after vaccination, may choose to keep wearing a mask especially in indoor, crowded settings, Dr. Duchin said. “We need to expect, accept, and respect continued mask wearing by anyone at any time.”

In most outdoor settings, he said, “I think masks are probably not necessary, vaccinated or not, regardless of age.” One exception: close face-to-face contact, such as in certain sports.
 

How to protect toddlers and infants

With masks not practical or recommended for infants and toddlers under 2 years old, Dr. Marrazzo said adults should remember that ‘’those very little kids don’t do poorly at all [even if infected], although there is not a ton of data.”

Adults should still treat young children as vulnerable, especially newborns. Adults not yet vaccinated should wear a mask when around them, she said.
 

J & J vaccine recipients

With less ‘’real world” data on the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, should those who got it think of themselves in a different risk group than those who got Moderna or Pfizer and adjust their behavior accordingly? 

“The J&J vaccine, based on everything we know, does provide a great deal of protection,” Dr. Marrazzo said. ‘’We don’t know as much about prevention of transmission in the asymptomatic cases in the J&J.”

Most of that data, she said, is from the mRNA vaccines Pfizer and Moderna. “I think it’s an important area to study and learn about.” But all three vaccines, overall, provide a high level of protection, she said.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s latest guidance on what fully vaccinated people can do safely – including not socially distancing and not wearing a mask indoors or outdoors unless other regulations require it – has been widely misinterpreted and caused confusion, two infectious disease experts said at a briefing on May 20 hosted by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).

The CDC did not ‘’lift” the mask mandate, but rather supplied guidance for those who are fully vaccinated. However, many questions and gray areas remain, and the experts addressed those. ‘’The CDC guidance is really directed at people who are fully vaccinated and who we know are likely to have a really solid response to the vaccine,” said Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, MPH, director of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and an IDSA board member.

That message was largely lost, said Dr. Marrazzo and Jeffrey Duchin, MD, health officer of public health for Seattle and King County, Washington, and also an IDSA board member. Dr. Duchin said many people mistakenly regarded the new guidance as a message that the pandemic is over.

Among their practical tips on how to interpret the guidance:
 

To mask or not?

To make the decision, people need to think about not only the numbers of vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals in their community but the local rates of disease, the experts said.  And they need to know that the CDC guidance doesn’t apply if regulations by federal or state authorities or businesses and workplace are in conflict.

Deciding on mask use sometimes depends on where you are going. What about going into grocery stores or large bin stores without a mask? “If you are fully vaccinated and have no other conditions that compromise your immune system, and the rates of COVID are relatively low where you live, and the vaccination rates are high, I would be 100% fine” without a mask, Dr. Marrazzo said. But it’s important to think of all these factors in calculating your risk.

“I’m still wearing a mask when I go anywhere in public,” she said, citing vaccination rates that have not yet reached 50% in her area.

If that rate reached 80%, the typical percentage talked about for herd immunity, and new cases were low, Dr. Marrazzo said she might shed the mask.

The CDC also continues to recommend masks on mass transit for all.

One population that also must be considered, and who must evaluate their risk, even if vaccinated, are the immunocompromised, Dr. Marrazzo said. While people think of the immunocompromised as those with HIV or organ transplants, the numbers are actually much larger.

“A study a couple of years ago indicated up to 3% of Americans may actually have been told by their physician they have some of level of being immunocompromised,” she said. Among the examples are those who are on dialysis, on chemotherapy, or those taking any of the medications that modify the immune system.

“Millions of people fit this bill, and we have [very] little data on whether the vaccine works in them. We think it does,” Dr. Marrazzo said.

Still, she said, it’s a reason for these people to be cautious. For some other vaccines, the dose is modified for those who are immunocompromised. What’s not known yet is whether additional doses of the COVID vaccines might boost protection for those who are immunocompromised.

Many people, even after vaccination, may choose to keep wearing a mask especially in indoor, crowded settings, Dr. Duchin said. “We need to expect, accept, and respect continued mask wearing by anyone at any time.”

In most outdoor settings, he said, “I think masks are probably not necessary, vaccinated or not, regardless of age.” One exception: close face-to-face contact, such as in certain sports.
 

How to protect toddlers and infants

With masks not practical or recommended for infants and toddlers under 2 years old, Dr. Marrazzo said adults should remember that ‘’those very little kids don’t do poorly at all [even if infected], although there is not a ton of data.”

Adults should still treat young children as vulnerable, especially newborns. Adults not yet vaccinated should wear a mask when around them, she said.
 

J & J vaccine recipients

With less ‘’real world” data on the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, should those who got it think of themselves in a different risk group than those who got Moderna or Pfizer and adjust their behavior accordingly? 

“The J&J vaccine, based on everything we know, does provide a great deal of protection,” Dr. Marrazzo said. ‘’We don’t know as much about prevention of transmission in the asymptomatic cases in the J&J.”

Most of that data, she said, is from the mRNA vaccines Pfizer and Moderna. “I think it’s an important area to study and learn about.” But all three vaccines, overall, provide a high level of protection, she said.

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

Length of hospital stay and the need for intensive care for pediatric COVID-19 patients with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children was not significantly different for those who presented first as outpatients or emergency patients, based on data from 34 children.

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) can be challenging to diagnose, as the key characteristics of fever, elevated inflammatory markers, and involvement of at least two organ systems often overlap with other illnesses, said Erin B. Treemarcki, DO, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and colleagues.

“Primary care and urgent care providers are often the first point of health care for children with symptoms of MIS-C,” the researchers wrote. In a study (Poster 142) presented at the annual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies, held virtually, the researchers conducted a retrospective review of 34 patients younger than 21 years who were hospitalized with MIS-C at a single center between April 2020 and December 2020. The average age of the patients was 7.9 years, 68% were male, 82% were White, and 53% first presented to an outpatient clinic.

Sixteen patients presented to an emergency department and 18 presented to an ambulatory setting. The length of hospitalization ranged from 3 to 16 days with a median of 6 days, and the PICU stay ranged from 1 to 10 days with a median of 2 days.

Overall, the length of hospital stay and rate of PICU admission were not significantly different between the emergency presentation and outpatient presentation groups. Twenty-four patients entered the PICU, 13 at admission and 11 as transfers. However, the median number of days of symptoms prior to admission was significantly higher for outpatient cases (6 days vs. 4 days, P = .03).

One patient was readmitted to the hospital within 30 days for aseptic meningitis, and none of the patients died.

Initial symptoms were not significantly different for outpatient vs. emergency department patients. The most common initial manifestations of MIS-C included fever (100%), gastrointestinal symptoms (85%), and mucocutaneous symptoms (88%). Mucocutaneous symptoms included rash, oral mucosal changes, conjunctivitis, and hand/foot edema. In addition, 65% of the patients met at least 3 criteria for Kawasaki disease, the researchers noted.

The most common elevated labs at presentation regardless of setting were D-dimer (100%), C-reactive protein (97%), ferritin (97%), procalcitonin (97%), and serum IL-6 (94%).

The study findings were limited by the small sample size and focus on data from a single center. However, the results emphasize the varied presentations of MIS-C and the importance that both primary care and urgent care providers know the signs, as they are often the first point of health care for children with MIS-C, the researchers noted.
 

Keep looking for factors that put children at risk

“MIS-C is probably the most serious complication of COVID in children, so we as pediatricians on the front line need to know what it looks like,” Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview.

Dr. Kinsella said she was surprised by the study finding that children’s length of hospital stay was not affected by presentation setting.

“I would have thought the kids presenting in an outpatient setting would take longer to diagnose, and therefore have a longer hospital stay,” she noted. Instead, the take-home message is that whether the MIS-C diagnosis occurs in the outpatient or emergency setting, the length of stay is the same, and that the most common symptoms are fever, gastrointestinal, mucocutaneous, and cardiac symptoms regardless of initial presentation setting, she said.

More research is needed, and future studies should examine “any potential underlying factors making these particular kids susceptible to MIS-C,” Dr. Kinsella added.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts, but serves on the Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board.

Length of hospital stay and the need for intensive care for pediatric COVID-19 patients with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children was not significantly different for those who presented first as outpatients or emergency patients, based on data from 34 children.

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) can be challenging to diagnose, as the key characteristics of fever, elevated inflammatory markers, and involvement of at least two organ systems often overlap with other illnesses, said Erin B. Treemarcki, DO, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and colleagues.

“Primary care and urgent care providers are often the first point of health care for children with symptoms of MIS-C,” the researchers wrote. In a study (Poster 142) presented at the annual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies, held virtually, the researchers conducted a retrospective review of 34 patients younger than 21 years who were hospitalized with MIS-C at a single center between April 2020 and December 2020. The average age of the patients was 7.9 years, 68% were male, 82% were White, and 53% first presented to an outpatient clinic.

Sixteen patients presented to an emergency department and 18 presented to an ambulatory setting. The length of hospitalization ranged from 3 to 16 days with a median of 6 days, and the PICU stay ranged from 1 to 10 days with a median of 2 days.

Overall, the length of hospital stay and rate of PICU admission were not significantly different between the emergency presentation and outpatient presentation groups. Twenty-four patients entered the PICU, 13 at admission and 11 as transfers. However, the median number of days of symptoms prior to admission was significantly higher for outpatient cases (6 days vs. 4 days, P = .03).

One patient was readmitted to the hospital within 30 days for aseptic meningitis, and none of the patients died.

Initial symptoms were not significantly different for outpatient vs. emergency department patients. The most common initial manifestations of MIS-C included fever (100%), gastrointestinal symptoms (85%), and mucocutaneous symptoms (88%). Mucocutaneous symptoms included rash, oral mucosal changes, conjunctivitis, and hand/foot edema. In addition, 65% of the patients met at least 3 criteria for Kawasaki disease, the researchers noted.

The most common elevated labs at presentation regardless of setting were D-dimer (100%), C-reactive protein (97%), ferritin (97%), procalcitonin (97%), and serum IL-6 (94%).

The study findings were limited by the small sample size and focus on data from a single center. However, the results emphasize the varied presentations of MIS-C and the importance that both primary care and urgent care providers know the signs, as they are often the first point of health care for children with MIS-C, the researchers noted.
 

Keep looking for factors that put children at risk

“MIS-C is probably the most serious complication of COVID in children, so we as pediatricians on the front line need to know what it looks like,” Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview.

Dr. Kinsella said she was surprised by the study finding that children’s length of hospital stay was not affected by presentation setting.

“I would have thought the kids presenting in an outpatient setting would take longer to diagnose, and therefore have a longer hospital stay,” she noted. Instead, the take-home message is that whether the MIS-C diagnosis occurs in the outpatient or emergency setting, the length of stay is the same, and that the most common symptoms are fever, gastrointestinal, mucocutaneous, and cardiac symptoms regardless of initial presentation setting, she said.

More research is needed, and future studies should examine “any potential underlying factors making these particular kids susceptible to MIS-C,” Dr. Kinsella added.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts, but serves on the Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board.

Length of hospital stay and the need for intensive care for pediatric COVID-19 patients with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children was not significantly different for those who presented first as outpatients or emergency patients, based on data from 34 children.

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) can be challenging to diagnose, as the key characteristics of fever, elevated inflammatory markers, and involvement of at least two organ systems often overlap with other illnesses, said Erin B. Treemarcki, DO, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and colleagues.

“Primary care and urgent care providers are often the first point of health care for children with symptoms of MIS-C,” the researchers wrote. In a study (Poster 142) presented at the annual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies, held virtually, the researchers conducted a retrospective review of 34 patients younger than 21 years who were hospitalized with MIS-C at a single center between April 2020 and December 2020. The average age of the patients was 7.9 years, 68% were male, 82% were White, and 53% first presented to an outpatient clinic.

Sixteen patients presented to an emergency department and 18 presented to an ambulatory setting. The length of hospitalization ranged from 3 to 16 days with a median of 6 days, and the PICU stay ranged from 1 to 10 days with a median of 2 days.

Overall, the length of hospital stay and rate of PICU admission were not significantly different between the emergency presentation and outpatient presentation groups. Twenty-four patients entered the PICU, 13 at admission and 11 as transfers. However, the median number of days of symptoms prior to admission was significantly higher for outpatient cases (6 days vs. 4 days, P = .03).

One patient was readmitted to the hospital within 30 days for aseptic meningitis, and none of the patients died.

Initial symptoms were not significantly different for outpatient vs. emergency department patients. The most common initial manifestations of MIS-C included fever (100%), gastrointestinal symptoms (85%), and mucocutaneous symptoms (88%). Mucocutaneous symptoms included rash, oral mucosal changes, conjunctivitis, and hand/foot edema. In addition, 65% of the patients met at least 3 criteria for Kawasaki disease, the researchers noted.

The most common elevated labs at presentation regardless of setting were D-dimer (100%), C-reactive protein (97%), ferritin (97%), procalcitonin (97%), and serum IL-6 (94%).

The study findings were limited by the small sample size and focus on data from a single center. However, the results emphasize the varied presentations of MIS-C and the importance that both primary care and urgent care providers know the signs, as they are often the first point of health care for children with MIS-C, the researchers noted.
 

Keep looking for factors that put children at risk

“MIS-C is probably the most serious complication of COVID in children, so we as pediatricians on the front line need to know what it looks like,” Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview.

Dr. Kinsella said she was surprised by the study finding that children’s length of hospital stay was not affected by presentation setting.

“I would have thought the kids presenting in an outpatient setting would take longer to diagnose, and therefore have a longer hospital stay,” she noted. Instead, the take-home message is that whether the MIS-C diagnosis occurs in the outpatient or emergency setting, the length of stay is the same, and that the most common symptoms are fever, gastrointestinal, mucocutaneous, and cardiac symptoms regardless of initial presentation setting, she said.

More research is needed, and future studies should examine “any potential underlying factors making these particular kids susceptible to MIS-C,” Dr. Kinsella added.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts, but serves on the Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board.

As has been dominating the headlines, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently released updated public health guidance for those who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19. This guidance was issued on May 13, 2021, and has potentially provided some relief to those who are fully vaccinated, though some are concerned and confused about the implications of this guidance.

This new guidance applies to those who are fully vaccinated as indicated by 2 weeks after the second dose in a 2-dose series or 2 weeks after a single-dose vaccine. Those who meet these criteria no longer need to wear a mask or physically distance themselves from others in both indoor and outdoor settings. For those not fully vaccinated, masking and social distancing should continue to be practiced.

The new guidance indicates that quarantine after a known exposure is no longer necessary.

Unless required by local, state, or territorial health authorities, testing is no longer required following domestic travel for fully vaccinated individuals. A negative test is still required prior to boarding an international flight to the United States and testing 3-5 days after arrival is still recommended. Self-quarantine is no longer required after international travel for fully vaccinated individuals.

The new guidance recommends that individuals who are fully vaccinated not participate in routine screening programs when feasible. Finally, if an individual has tested positive for COVID-19, regardless of vaccination status, that person should isolate and not visit public or private settings for a minimum of ten days.¹

Updated guidance for health care facilities

In addition to changes for the general public in all settings, the CDC updated guidance for health care facilities on April 27, 2021. These updated guidelines allow for communal dining and visitation for fully vaccinated patients and their visitors. The guidelines indicate that fully vaccinated health care personnel (HCP) do not require quarantine after exposure to patients who have tested positive for COVID-19 as long as the HCP remains asymptomatic. They should, however, continue to utilize personal protective equipment as previously recommended. HCPs are able to be in break and meeting rooms unmasked if all HCPs are vaccinated.²

There are some important caveats to these updated guidelines. They do not apply to those who have immunocompromising conditions, including those using immunosuppressant agents. They also do not apply to locations subject to federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial laws, rules, and regulations, including local business and workplace guidance.

Those who work or reside in correction or detention facilities and homeless shelters are also still required to test after known exposures. Masking is still required by all travelers on all forms of public transportation into and within the United States.

Most importantly, the guidelines apply only to those who are fully vaccinated. Finally, no vaccine is perfect. As such, anyone who experiences symptoms indicative of COVID-19, regardless of vaccination status, should obtain viral testing and isolate themselves from others.^1,2

Pros and cons to new guidance

Both sets of updated guidelines are a great example of public health guidance that is changing as the evidence is gathered and changes. This guidance is also a welcome encouragement that the vaccines are effective at decreasing transmission of this virus that has upended our world.

These guidelines leave room for change as evidence is gathered on emerging novel variants. There are, however, a few remaining concerns.

My first concern is for those who are not yet able to be vaccinated, including children under the age of 12. For families with members who are not fully vaccinated, they may have first heard the headlines of “you do not have to mask” to then read the fine print that remains. When truly following these guidelines, many social situations in both the public and private setting should still include both masking and social distancing.

There is no clarity on how these guidelines are enforced. Within the guidance, it is clear that individuals’ privacy is of utmost importance. In the absence of knowledge, that means that the assumption should be that all are not yet vaccinated. Unless there is a way to reliably demonstrate vaccination status, it would likely still be safer to assume that there are individuals who are not fully vaccinated within the setting.

Finally, although this is great news surrounding the efficacy of the vaccine, some are concerned that local mask mandates that have already started to be lifted will be completely removed. As there is still a large portion of the population not yet fully vaccinated, it seems premature for local, state, and territorial authorities to lift these mandates.
 

How to continue exercising caution

With the outstanding concerns, I will continue to mask in settings, particularly indoors, where I do not definitely know that everyone is vaccinated. I will continue to do this to protect my children and my patients who are not yet vaccinated, and my patients who are immunosuppressed for whom we do not yet have enough information.

I will continue to advise my patients to be thoughtful about the risk for themselves and their families as well.

There has been more benefit to these public health measures then just decreased transmission of COVID-19. I hope that this year has reinforced within us the benefits of masking and self-isolation in the cases of any contagious illnesses.

Although I am looking forward to the opportunities to interact in person with more colleagues and friends, I think we should continue to do this with caution and thoughtfulness. We must be prepared for the possibility of vaccines having decreased efficacy against novel variants as well as eventually the possibility of waning immunity. If these should occur, we need to be prepared for additional recommendation changes and tightening of restrictions.
 

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago. She is program director of Northwestern’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program at Humboldt Park, Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at [email protected].

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim Public Health Recommendations for Fully Vaccinated People. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, May 13, 2021.

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated Healthcare Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations in Response to COVID-19 Vaccination. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, April 27, 2021.

As has been dominating the headlines, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently released updated public health guidance for those who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19. This guidance was issued on May 13, 2021, and has potentially provided some relief to those who are fully vaccinated, though some are concerned and confused about the implications of this guidance.

This new guidance applies to those who are fully vaccinated as indicated by 2 weeks after the second dose in a 2-dose series or 2 weeks after a single-dose vaccine. Those who meet these criteria no longer need to wear a mask or physically distance themselves from others in both indoor and outdoor settings. For those not fully vaccinated, masking and social distancing should continue to be practiced.

The new guidance indicates that quarantine after a known exposure is no longer necessary.

Unless required by local, state, or territorial health authorities, testing is no longer required following domestic travel for fully vaccinated individuals. A negative test is still required prior to boarding an international flight to the United States and testing 3-5 days after arrival is still recommended. Self-quarantine is no longer required after international travel for fully vaccinated individuals.

The new guidance recommends that individuals who are fully vaccinated not participate in routine screening programs when feasible. Finally, if an individual has tested positive for COVID-19, regardless of vaccination status, that person should isolate and not visit public or private settings for a minimum of ten days.¹

Updated guidance for health care facilities

In addition to changes for the general public in all settings, the CDC updated guidance for health care facilities on April 27, 2021. These updated guidelines allow for communal dining and visitation for fully vaccinated patients and their visitors. The guidelines indicate that fully vaccinated health care personnel (HCP) do not require quarantine after exposure to patients who have tested positive for COVID-19 as long as the HCP remains asymptomatic. They should, however, continue to utilize personal protective equipment as previously recommended. HCPs are able to be in break and meeting rooms unmasked if all HCPs are vaccinated.²

There are some important caveats to these updated guidelines. They do not apply to those who have immunocompromising conditions, including those using immunosuppressant agents. They also do not apply to locations subject to federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial laws, rules, and regulations, including local business and workplace guidance.

Those who work or reside in correction or detention facilities and homeless shelters are also still required to test after known exposures. Masking is still required by all travelers on all forms of public transportation into and within the United States.

Most importantly, the guidelines apply only to those who are fully vaccinated. Finally, no vaccine is perfect. As such, anyone who experiences symptoms indicative of COVID-19, regardless of vaccination status, should obtain viral testing and isolate themselves from others.^1,2

Pros and cons to new guidance

Both sets of updated guidelines are a great example of public health guidance that is changing as the evidence is gathered and changes. This guidance is also a welcome encouragement that the vaccines are effective at decreasing transmission of this virus that has upended our world.

These guidelines leave room for change as evidence is gathered on emerging novel variants. There are, however, a few remaining concerns.

My first concern is for those who are not yet able to be vaccinated, including children under the age of 12. For families with members who are not fully vaccinated, they may have first heard the headlines of “you do not have to mask” to then read the fine print that remains. When truly following these guidelines, many social situations in both the public and private setting should still include both masking and social distancing.

There is no clarity on how these guidelines are enforced. Within the guidance, it is clear that individuals’ privacy is of utmost importance. In the absence of knowledge, that means that the assumption should be that all are not yet vaccinated. Unless there is a way to reliably demonstrate vaccination status, it would likely still be safer to assume that there are individuals who are not fully vaccinated within the setting.

Finally, although this is great news surrounding the efficacy of the vaccine, some are concerned that local mask mandates that have already started to be lifted will be completely removed. As there is still a large portion of the population not yet fully vaccinated, it seems premature for local, state, and territorial authorities to lift these mandates.
 

How to continue exercising caution

With the outstanding concerns, I will continue to mask in settings, particularly indoors, where I do not definitely know that everyone is vaccinated. I will continue to do this to protect my children and my patients who are not yet vaccinated, and my patients who are immunosuppressed for whom we do not yet have enough information.

I will continue to advise my patients to be thoughtful about the risk for themselves and their families as well.

There has been more benefit to these public health measures then just decreased transmission of COVID-19. I hope that this year has reinforced within us the benefits of masking and self-isolation in the cases of any contagious illnesses.

Although I am looking forward to the opportunities to interact in person with more colleagues and friends, I think we should continue to do this with caution and thoughtfulness. We must be prepared for the possibility of vaccines having decreased efficacy against novel variants as well as eventually the possibility of waning immunity. If these should occur, we need to be prepared for additional recommendation changes and tightening of restrictions.
 

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago. She is program director of Northwestern’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program at Humboldt Park, Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at [email protected].

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim Public Health Recommendations for Fully Vaccinated People. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, May 13, 2021.

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated Healthcare Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations in Response to COVID-19 Vaccination. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, April 27, 2021.

As has been dominating the headlines, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently released updated public health guidance for those who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19. This guidance was issued on May 13, 2021, and has potentially provided some relief to those who are fully vaccinated, though some are concerned and confused about the implications of this guidance.

This new guidance applies to those who are fully vaccinated as indicated by 2 weeks after the second dose in a 2-dose series or 2 weeks after a single-dose vaccine. Those who meet these criteria no longer need to wear a mask or physically distance themselves from others in both indoor and outdoor settings. For those not fully vaccinated, masking and social distancing should continue to be practiced.

The new guidance indicates that quarantine after a known exposure is no longer necessary.

Unless required by local, state, or territorial health authorities, testing is no longer required following domestic travel for fully vaccinated individuals. A negative test is still required prior to boarding an international flight to the United States and testing 3-5 days after arrival is still recommended. Self-quarantine is no longer required after international travel for fully vaccinated individuals.

The new guidance recommends that individuals who are fully vaccinated not participate in routine screening programs when feasible. Finally, if an individual has tested positive for COVID-19, regardless of vaccination status, that person should isolate and not visit public or private settings for a minimum of ten days.¹

Updated guidance for health care facilities

In addition to changes for the general public in all settings, the CDC updated guidance for health care facilities on April 27, 2021. These updated guidelines allow for communal dining and visitation for fully vaccinated patients and their visitors. The guidelines indicate that fully vaccinated health care personnel (HCP) do not require quarantine after exposure to patients who have tested positive for COVID-19 as long as the HCP remains asymptomatic. They should, however, continue to utilize personal protective equipment as previously recommended. HCPs are able to be in break and meeting rooms unmasked if all HCPs are vaccinated.²

There are some important caveats to these updated guidelines. They do not apply to those who have immunocompromising conditions, including those using immunosuppressant agents. They also do not apply to locations subject to federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial laws, rules, and regulations, including local business and workplace guidance.

Those who work or reside in correction or detention facilities and homeless shelters are also still required to test after known exposures. Masking is still required by all travelers on all forms of public transportation into and within the United States.

Most importantly, the guidelines apply only to those who are fully vaccinated. Finally, no vaccine is perfect. As such, anyone who experiences symptoms indicative of COVID-19, regardless of vaccination status, should obtain viral testing and isolate themselves from others.^1,2

Pros and cons to new guidance

Both sets of updated guidelines are a great example of public health guidance that is changing as the evidence is gathered and changes. This guidance is also a welcome encouragement that the vaccines are effective at decreasing transmission of this virus that has upended our world.

These guidelines leave room for change as evidence is gathered on emerging novel variants. There are, however, a few remaining concerns.

My first concern is for those who are not yet able to be vaccinated, including children under the age of 12. For families with members who are not fully vaccinated, they may have first heard the headlines of “you do not have to mask” to then read the fine print that remains. When truly following these guidelines, many social situations in both the public and private setting should still include both masking and social distancing.

There is no clarity on how these guidelines are enforced. Within the guidance, it is clear that individuals’ privacy is of utmost importance. In the absence of knowledge, that means that the assumption should be that all are not yet vaccinated. Unless there is a way to reliably demonstrate vaccination status, it would likely still be safer to assume that there are individuals who are not fully vaccinated within the setting.

Finally, although this is great news surrounding the efficacy of the vaccine, some are concerned that local mask mandates that have already started to be lifted will be completely removed. As there is still a large portion of the population not yet fully vaccinated, it seems premature for local, state, and territorial authorities to lift these mandates.
 

How to continue exercising caution

With the outstanding concerns, I will continue to mask in settings, particularly indoors, where I do not definitely know that everyone is vaccinated. I will continue to do this to protect my children and my patients who are not yet vaccinated, and my patients who are immunosuppressed for whom we do not yet have enough information.

I will continue to advise my patients to be thoughtful about the risk for themselves and their families as well.

There has been more benefit to these public health measures then just decreased transmission of COVID-19. I hope that this year has reinforced within us the benefits of masking and self-isolation in the cases of any contagious illnesses.

Although I am looking forward to the opportunities to interact in person with more colleagues and friends, I think we should continue to do this with caution and thoughtfulness. We must be prepared for the possibility of vaccines having decreased efficacy against novel variants as well as eventually the possibility of waning immunity. If these should occur, we need to be prepared for additional recommendation changes and tightening of restrictions.
 

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago. She is program director of Northwestern’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program at Humboldt Park, Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at [email protected].

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim Public Health Recommendations for Fully Vaccinated People. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, May 13, 2021.

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated Healthcare Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations in Response to COVID-19 Vaccination. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, April 27, 2021.

Have you ever had a nightmare you’re running late? Recently I dreamt I was seeing patients on a ship, a little cruiser like the ones that give you tours of Boston Harbor, with low ceilings and narrow iron stairs. My nurse stood where what would have been the coffee and danish window. My first patient was a newborn (this was a nightmare, in case you forgot) who was enormous. She had a big belly and spindly legs that hung off the table. Uniform, umbilicated papules and pustules covered her body. At the sight of her, terror ripped through me – no clue. I rushed to the doctor lounge (nice the ship had one) and flipped channels on a little TV mounted on the ceiling. Suddenly, my nurse burst in, she was frantic because dozens of angry adults and crying children were crammed in the hallway. Apparently, I had been watching TV for hours and my whole clinic was now backed up.

Running-late dreams are common and usually relate to real life. For us, the clinic has been busy lately. Vaccinated patients are returning after a year with their skin cancers that have flourished and psoriasis covering them like kudzu. Staying on time has been difficult. Yet, despite the challenge, some of my colleagues manage easily. Why are they always on time? I talked to a few to get insight. In particular, they “see the floor” better than other docs and therefore make continual adjustments to stay on pace. At its essence, they are using super-powers of observation to make decisions. It reminded me of a podcast about court awareness and great passers in basketball like the Charlotte Hornets’ LaMelo Ball and NBA great, Bill Bradley.

Bradley had an extraordinary ability to know where all the players were, and where they would be, at any given moment. He spent years honing this skill, noticing details in store windows as he stared straight ahead walking down a street. It’s reported his peripheral vision extended 5%-15% wider than average and he used it to gather more information and to process it more quickly. As a result he made outstanding decisions and fast, ultimately earning a spot in the Hall of Fame in Springfield.

Hall of Fame clinicians similarly take in a wider view than others and process that information quickly. They know how much time they have spent in the room, sense the emotional needs of the patient and anticipate the complexity of the problem. They quickly get to the critical questions and examinations that will make the diagnosis. They know the experience and skill of their medical assistant. They know the level of difficulty and even the temperament of patients who lie ahead on the schedule. All this is processed and used in moment-to-moment decision making. Do I sit down or stand up now? Can I excise this today, or reschedule? Do I ask another question? Do I step out of this room and see another in parallel while this biopsy is set up? And always, do I dare ask about grandkids or do I politely move on?

By broadening out their vision, they optimize their clinic, providing the best possible service, whether the day is busy or slow. I found their economy of motion also means they are less exhausted at the end of the day. I bet if when they dream of being on a ship, they’re sipping a Mai Tai, lounging on the deck.

For more on Bill Bradley and becoming more observant about your surroundings, you might appreciate the following:

www.newyorker.com/magazine/1965/01/23/a-sense-of-where-you-are and freakonomics.com/podcast/nsq-mindfulness/

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

Have you ever had a nightmare you’re running late? Recently I dreamt I was seeing patients on a ship, a little cruiser like the ones that give you tours of Boston Harbor, with low ceilings and narrow iron stairs. My nurse stood where what would have been the coffee and danish window. My first patient was a newborn (this was a nightmare, in case you forgot) who was enormous. She had a big belly and spindly legs that hung off the table. Uniform, umbilicated papules and pustules covered her body. At the sight of her, terror ripped through me – no clue. I rushed to the doctor lounge (nice the ship had one) and flipped channels on a little TV mounted on the ceiling. Suddenly, my nurse burst in, she was frantic because dozens of angry adults and crying children were crammed in the hallway. Apparently, I had been watching TV for hours and my whole clinic was now backed up.

Running-late dreams are common and usually relate to real life. For us, the clinic has been busy lately. Vaccinated patients are returning after a year with their skin cancers that have flourished and psoriasis covering them like kudzu. Staying on time has been difficult. Yet, despite the challenge, some of my colleagues manage easily. Why are they always on time? I talked to a few to get insight. In particular, they “see the floor” better than other docs and therefore make continual adjustments to stay on pace. At its essence, they are using super-powers of observation to make decisions. It reminded me of a podcast about court awareness and great passers in basketball like the Charlotte Hornets’ LaMelo Ball and NBA great, Bill Bradley.

Bradley had an extraordinary ability to know where all the players were, and where they would be, at any given moment. He spent years honing this skill, noticing details in store windows as he stared straight ahead walking down a street. It’s reported his peripheral vision extended 5%-15% wider than average and he used it to gather more information and to process it more quickly. As a result he made outstanding decisions and fast, ultimately earning a spot in the Hall of Fame in Springfield.

Hall of Fame clinicians similarly take in a wider view than others and process that information quickly. They know how much time they have spent in the room, sense the emotional needs of the patient and anticipate the complexity of the problem. They quickly get to the critical questions and examinations that will make the diagnosis. They know the experience and skill of their medical assistant. They know the level of difficulty and even the temperament of patients who lie ahead on the schedule. All this is processed and used in moment-to-moment decision making. Do I sit down or stand up now? Can I excise this today, or reschedule? Do I ask another question? Do I step out of this room and see another in parallel while this biopsy is set up? And always, do I dare ask about grandkids or do I politely move on?

By broadening out their vision, they optimize their clinic, providing the best possible service, whether the day is busy or slow. I found their economy of motion also means they are less exhausted at the end of the day. I bet if when they dream of being on a ship, they’re sipping a Mai Tai, lounging on the deck.

For more on Bill Bradley and becoming more observant about your surroundings, you might appreciate the following:

www.newyorker.com/magazine/1965/01/23/a-sense-of-where-you-are and freakonomics.com/podcast/nsq-mindfulness/

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

Have you ever had a nightmare you’re running late? Recently I dreamt I was seeing patients on a ship, a little cruiser like the ones that give you tours of Boston Harbor, with low ceilings and narrow iron stairs. My nurse stood where what would have been the coffee and danish window. My first patient was a newborn (this was a nightmare, in case you forgot) who was enormous. She had a big belly and spindly legs that hung off the table. Uniform, umbilicated papules and pustules covered her body. At the sight of her, terror ripped through me – no clue. I rushed to the doctor lounge (nice the ship had one) and flipped channels on a little TV mounted on the ceiling. Suddenly, my nurse burst in, she was frantic because dozens of angry adults and crying children were crammed in the hallway. Apparently, I had been watching TV for hours and my whole clinic was now backed up.

Running-late dreams are common and usually relate to real life. For us, the clinic has been busy lately. Vaccinated patients are returning after a year with their skin cancers that have flourished and psoriasis covering them like kudzu. Staying on time has been difficult. Yet, despite the challenge, some of my colleagues manage easily. Why are they always on time? I talked to a few to get insight. In particular, they “see the floor” better than other docs and therefore make continual adjustments to stay on pace. At its essence, they are using super-powers of observation to make decisions. It reminded me of a podcast about court awareness and great passers in basketball like the Charlotte Hornets’ LaMelo Ball and NBA great, Bill Bradley.

Bradley had an extraordinary ability to know where all the players were, and where they would be, at any given moment. He spent years honing this skill, noticing details in store windows as he stared straight ahead walking down a street. It’s reported his peripheral vision extended 5%-15% wider than average and he used it to gather more information and to process it more quickly. As a result he made outstanding decisions and fast, ultimately earning a spot in the Hall of Fame in Springfield.

Hall of Fame clinicians similarly take in a wider view than others and process that information quickly. They know how much time they have spent in the room, sense the emotional needs of the patient and anticipate the complexity of the problem. They quickly get to the critical questions and examinations that will make the diagnosis. They know the experience and skill of their medical assistant. They know the level of difficulty and even the temperament of patients who lie ahead on the schedule. All this is processed and used in moment-to-moment decision making. Do I sit down or stand up now? Can I excise this today, or reschedule? Do I ask another question? Do I step out of this room and see another in parallel while this biopsy is set up? And always, do I dare ask about grandkids or do I politely move on?

By broadening out their vision, they optimize their clinic, providing the best possible service, whether the day is busy or slow. I found their economy of motion also means they are less exhausted at the end of the day. I bet if when they dream of being on a ship, they’re sipping a Mai Tai, lounging on the deck.

For more on Bill Bradley and becoming more observant about your surroundings, you might appreciate the following:

www.newyorker.com/magazine/1965/01/23/a-sense-of-where-you-are and freakonomics.com/podcast/nsq-mindfulness/

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].