Rheumatology News

Morton J, MD, a 68-year-old cardiologist based in the Midwest, saw things become dramatically worse when his nine-physician practice was taken over by a large health system.

“Everything changed. My partners and I lost a lot of autonomy. We had a say – but not the final say-so in who we hired as medical assistants or receptionists. We had to change how long we spent with patients and justify procedures or tests – not just to the insurance companies, which is an old story, but to our new employer,” said Dr. J, who asked to remain anonymous.

Worst of all, “I had to report to a kid – a doctor in his 30s, someone young enough to be my son, someone with a fraction of the clinical training and experience I had but who now got to tell me what to do and how to run my practice.”

The “final straw” for Dr. J came when the practice had to change to a new electronic health record (EHR) system. “Learning this new system was like pulling teeth,” he said. His youthful supervisor was “obviously impatient and irritated – his whole attitude and demeanor reflected a sense that he was saddled with a dinosaur.”

After much anguishing and soul-searching, Dr. J decided to retire. “I was already close to retirement age, and I thought it would be nice to spend more time with my grandchildren. Feeling so disrespected was simply the catalyst that brought the decision to a head a couple of years sooner than I had planned.”
 

Getting through a delicate discussion

This unfortunate situation could have been avoided had the younger supervisor shown more sensitivity, says otolaryngologist Mark Wallace, DO.

Dr. Wallace is speaking from personal experience. Early in his career, he was a younger physician who was forced to discuss a practice management issue with an older physician.

Dr. Wallace was a member of a committee that was responsible for “maximizing the efficiency of good care, while still being aware of cost issues.” When the committee “wanted one of the physicians in the group to change their behavior to improve cost savings, it was my job to discuss that with them.”

Dr. Wallace, who today is a locum tenens physician and a medical practice consultant to Physicians Thrive – an advisory group that helps physicians with financial and practice management problems – recalls feeling uncomfortable about broaching the subject to his supervisee. In this case, the older physician was prescribing name brand medications, and the committee that appointed Dr. Wallace wanted him to encourage the physician to prescribe a generic medication first and reserve brand prescriptions only for cases in which the generic was ineffective.

He acknowledges that he thought the generic was equivalent to the branded product in safety and efficacy.

“I always felt this to be a delicate discussion, whatever the age of the physician, because I didn’t like the idea of telling a doctor that they have to change how they practice so as to save money. I would never want anyone to feel they’re providing a lower level of care.”

The fact that this was an older physician – in his 60s – compounded his hesitancy. “Older physicians have a lot more experience than what I had in my 30s,” Dr. Wallace said. “I could talk to them about studies and outcomes and things like that, but a large part of medicine is the experience you gain over time.

“I presented it simply as a cost issue raised by the committee and asked him to consider experimenting with changing his prescribing behavior, while emphasizing that ultimately, it was his decision,” says Dr. Wallace.

The supervisee understood the concern and agreed to the experiment. He ended up prescribing the generic more frequently, although perhaps not as frequently as the committee would have liked.

Respectful, authentic, honest communication is important in any leadership situation but especially in those in which younger physicians are supervising physicians who are old enough to be their parents, says Ted Epperly, MD, a family physician in Boise, Idaho, and president and CEO of Family Medicine Residency of Idaho.

Dr. Wallace said that older physicians, on coming out of training, felt more respected, were better paid, and didn’t have to continually adjust to new regulations and new complicated insurance requirements. Today’s young physicians coming out of training may not find the practice of medicine as enjoyable as their older counterparts did, but they are accustomed to increasingly complex rules and regulations, so it’s less of an adjustment. But many may not feel they want to work 80 hours per week, as their older counterparts did.
 

Challenges of technology

Technology is one of the most central areas where intergenerational differences play out, says Tracy Clarke, chief human resources officer at Kitsap Mental Health Services, a large nonprofit organization in Bremerton, Wash., that employs roughly 500 individuals. “The younger physicians in our practice are really prepared, already engaged in technology, and used to using technology for documentation, and it is already integrated into the way they do business in general and practice,” she said.

Dr. Epperly noted that Gen X-ers are typically comfortable with digital technology, although not quite as much as the following generation, the millennials, who have grown up with smartphones and computers quite literally at their fingertips from earliest childhood.

Dr. Epperly, now 67, described the experience of having his organization convert to a new EHR system. “Although the younger physicians were not my supervisors, the dynamic that occurred when we were switching to the new system is typical of what might happen in a more formal reporting structure of older ‘supervisee’ and younger supervisor,” he said. In fact, his experience was similar to that of Dr. J.

“Some of the millennials were so quick to learn the new system that they forgot to check in with the older ones about how they were doing, or they were frustrated with our slow pace of learning the new technology,” said Dr. Epperly. “In fact, I was struggling to master it, and so were many others of my generation, and I felt very dumb, slow, and vulnerable, even though I usually regard myself as a pretty bright guy.”

Dr. Epperly encourages younger physicians not to think, “He’s asked me five times how to do this – what’s his problem?” This impatience can be intuited by the older physician, who may take it personally and feel devalued and disrespected.

Joy Engblade, an internal medicine physician and CMO of Northern Inyo Hospital, Bishop, Calif., said that when her institution was transitioning to a new EHR system this past May, she was worried that the older physicians would have the most difficulty.

Ironically, that turned out not to be the case. In fact, the younger physicians struggled more because the older physicians recognized their limitations and “were willing to do whatever we asked them to do. They watched the tutorials about how to use the new EHR. They went to every class that was offered and did all the practice sessions.” By contrast, many of the younger ones thought, “I know how to work an EHR, I’ve been doing it for years, so how hard could it be?” By the time they needed to actually use it, the instructional resources and tutorials were no longer available.

Dr. Epperly’s experience is different. He noted that some older physicians may be embarrassed to acknowledge that they are technologically challenged and may say, “I got it, I understand,” when they are still struggling to master the new technology.

Ms. Clarke notes that the leadership in her organization is younger than many of the physicians who report to them. “For the leadership, the biggest challenge is that many older physicians are set in their ways, and they haven’t really seen a reason to change their practice or ways of doing things.” For example, some still prefer paper charting or making voice recordings of patient visits for other people to transcribe.

Ms. Clarke has some advice for younger leaders: “Really explore what the pain points are of these older physicians. Beyond their saying, ‘because I’ve always done it this way,’ what really is the advantage of, for example, paper charting when using the EHR is more efficient?”

Daniel DeBehnke, MD, is an emergency medicine physician and vice president and chief physician executive for Premier Inc., where he helps hospitals improve quality, safety, and financial performance. Before joining Premier, he was both a practicing physician and CEO of a health system consisting of more than 1,500 physicians.

“Having been on both sides of the spectrum as manager/leader within a physician group, some of whom are senior to me and some of whom are junior, I can tell you that I have never had any issues related to the age gap.” In fact, it is less about age per se and more about “the expertise that you, as a manager, bring to the table in understanding the nuances of the medical practice and for the individual being ‘managed.’ It is about trusting the expertise of the manager.”
 

Before and after hourly caps

Dr. Engblade regards “generational” issues to be less about age and birth year and more about the cap on hours worked during residency.

Dr. Engblade, who is 45 years old, said she did her internship year with no hourly restrictions. Such restrictions only went into effect during her second year of residency. “This created a paradigm shift in how much people wanted to work and created a consciousness of work-life balance that hadn’t been part of the conversation before,” she said.

When she interviews an older physician, a typical response is, “Of course I’ll be available any time,” whereas younger physicians, who went through residency after hourly restrictions had been established, are more likely to ask how many hours they will be on and how many they’ll be off.

Matt Lambert, MD, an independent emergency medicine physician and CMO of Curation Health, Washington, agreed, noting that differences in the cap on hours during training “can create a bit of an undertow, a tension between younger managers who are better adjusted in terms of work-life balance and older physicians being managed, who have a different work ethic and also might regard their managers as being less trained because they put in fewer hours during training.”

It is also important to be cognizant of differences in style and priorities that each generation brings to the table. Jaciel Keltgen, PhD, assistant professor of business administration, Augustana University, Sioux Falls, S.D., has heard older physicians say, “We did this the hard way, we sacrificed for our organization, and we expect the same values of younger physicians.” The younger ones tend to say, “We need to use all the tools at our disposal, and medicine doesn’t have to be practiced the way it’s always been.”

Dr. Keltgen, whose PhD is in political science and who has studied public administration, said that younger physicians may also question the mores and protocols that older physicians take for granted. For example, when her physician son was beginning his career, he was told by his senior supervisors that although he was “performing beautifully as a physician, he needed to shave more frequently, wear his white coat more often, and introduce himself as ‘Doctor’ rather than by his first name. Although he did wear his white coat more often, he didn’t change how he introduced himself to patients.”

Flexibility and mutual understanding of each generation’s needs, the type, structure, and amount of training they underwent, and the prevailing values will smooth supervisory interactions and optimize outcomes, experts agree.
 

Every generation’s No. 1 concern

For her dissertation, Dr. Keltgen used a large dataset of physicians and sought to draw a predictive model by generation and gender as to what physicians were seeking in order to be satisfied in their careers. One “overwhelming finding” of her research into generational differences in physicians is that “every single generation and gender is there to promote the health of their patients, and providing excellent care is their No. 1 concern. That is the common focus and the foundation that everyone can build on.”

Dr. J agreed. “Had I felt like a valued collaborator, I might have made a different decision.” He has begun to consider reentering clinical practice, perhaps as locum tenens or on a part-time basis. “I don’t want to feel that I’ve been driven out of a field that I love. I will see if I can find some type of context where my experience will be valued and learn to bring myself up to speed with technology if necessary. I believe I still have much to offer patients, and I would like to find a context to do so.”

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

Morton J, MD, a 68-year-old cardiologist based in the Midwest, saw things become dramatically worse when his nine-physician practice was taken over by a large health system.

“Everything changed. My partners and I lost a lot of autonomy. We had a say – but not the final say-so in who we hired as medical assistants or receptionists. We had to change how long we spent with patients and justify procedures or tests – not just to the insurance companies, which is an old story, but to our new employer,” said Dr. J, who asked to remain anonymous.

Worst of all, “I had to report to a kid – a doctor in his 30s, someone young enough to be my son, someone with a fraction of the clinical training and experience I had but who now got to tell me what to do and how to run my practice.”

The “final straw” for Dr. J came when the practice had to change to a new electronic health record (EHR) system. “Learning this new system was like pulling teeth,” he said. His youthful supervisor was “obviously impatient and irritated – his whole attitude and demeanor reflected a sense that he was saddled with a dinosaur.”

After much anguishing and soul-searching, Dr. J decided to retire. “I was already close to retirement age, and I thought it would be nice to spend more time with my grandchildren. Feeling so disrespected was simply the catalyst that brought the decision to a head a couple of years sooner than I had planned.”
 

Getting through a delicate discussion

This unfortunate situation could have been avoided had the younger supervisor shown more sensitivity, says otolaryngologist Mark Wallace, DO.

Dr. Wallace is speaking from personal experience. Early in his career, he was a younger physician who was forced to discuss a practice management issue with an older physician.

Dr. Wallace was a member of a committee that was responsible for “maximizing the efficiency of good care, while still being aware of cost issues.” When the committee “wanted one of the physicians in the group to change their behavior to improve cost savings, it was my job to discuss that with them.”

Dr. Wallace, who today is a locum tenens physician and a medical practice consultant to Physicians Thrive – an advisory group that helps physicians with financial and practice management problems – recalls feeling uncomfortable about broaching the subject to his supervisee. In this case, the older physician was prescribing name brand medications, and the committee that appointed Dr. Wallace wanted him to encourage the physician to prescribe a generic medication first and reserve brand prescriptions only for cases in which the generic was ineffective.

He acknowledges that he thought the generic was equivalent to the branded product in safety and efficacy.

“I always felt this to be a delicate discussion, whatever the age of the physician, because I didn’t like the idea of telling a doctor that they have to change how they practice so as to save money. I would never want anyone to feel they’re providing a lower level of care.”

The fact that this was an older physician – in his 60s – compounded his hesitancy. “Older physicians have a lot more experience than what I had in my 30s,” Dr. Wallace said. “I could talk to them about studies and outcomes and things like that, but a large part of medicine is the experience you gain over time.

“I presented it simply as a cost issue raised by the committee and asked him to consider experimenting with changing his prescribing behavior, while emphasizing that ultimately, it was his decision,” says Dr. Wallace.

The supervisee understood the concern and agreed to the experiment. He ended up prescribing the generic more frequently, although perhaps not as frequently as the committee would have liked.

Respectful, authentic, honest communication is important in any leadership situation but especially in those in which younger physicians are supervising physicians who are old enough to be their parents, says Ted Epperly, MD, a family physician in Boise, Idaho, and president and CEO of Family Medicine Residency of Idaho.

Dr. Wallace said that older physicians, on coming out of training, felt more respected, were better paid, and didn’t have to continually adjust to new regulations and new complicated insurance requirements. Today’s young physicians coming out of training may not find the practice of medicine as enjoyable as their older counterparts did, but they are accustomed to increasingly complex rules and regulations, so it’s less of an adjustment. But many may not feel they want to work 80 hours per week, as their older counterparts did.
 

Challenges of technology

Technology is one of the most central areas where intergenerational differences play out, says Tracy Clarke, chief human resources officer at Kitsap Mental Health Services, a large nonprofit organization in Bremerton, Wash., that employs roughly 500 individuals. “The younger physicians in our practice are really prepared, already engaged in technology, and used to using technology for documentation, and it is already integrated into the way they do business in general and practice,” she said.

Dr. Epperly noted that Gen X-ers are typically comfortable with digital technology, although not quite as much as the following generation, the millennials, who have grown up with smartphones and computers quite literally at their fingertips from earliest childhood.

Dr. Epperly, now 67, described the experience of having his organization convert to a new EHR system. “Although the younger physicians were not my supervisors, the dynamic that occurred when we were switching to the new system is typical of what might happen in a more formal reporting structure of older ‘supervisee’ and younger supervisor,” he said. In fact, his experience was similar to that of Dr. J.

“Some of the millennials were so quick to learn the new system that they forgot to check in with the older ones about how they were doing, or they were frustrated with our slow pace of learning the new technology,” said Dr. Epperly. “In fact, I was struggling to master it, and so were many others of my generation, and I felt very dumb, slow, and vulnerable, even though I usually regard myself as a pretty bright guy.”

Dr. Epperly encourages younger physicians not to think, “He’s asked me five times how to do this – what’s his problem?” This impatience can be intuited by the older physician, who may take it personally and feel devalued and disrespected.

Joy Engblade, an internal medicine physician and CMO of Northern Inyo Hospital, Bishop, Calif., said that when her institution was transitioning to a new EHR system this past May, she was worried that the older physicians would have the most difficulty.

Ironically, that turned out not to be the case. In fact, the younger physicians struggled more because the older physicians recognized their limitations and “were willing to do whatever we asked them to do. They watched the tutorials about how to use the new EHR. They went to every class that was offered and did all the practice sessions.” By contrast, many of the younger ones thought, “I know how to work an EHR, I’ve been doing it for years, so how hard could it be?” By the time they needed to actually use it, the instructional resources and tutorials were no longer available.

Dr. Epperly’s experience is different. He noted that some older physicians may be embarrassed to acknowledge that they are technologically challenged and may say, “I got it, I understand,” when they are still struggling to master the new technology.

Ms. Clarke notes that the leadership in her organization is younger than many of the physicians who report to them. “For the leadership, the biggest challenge is that many older physicians are set in their ways, and they haven’t really seen a reason to change their practice or ways of doing things.” For example, some still prefer paper charting or making voice recordings of patient visits for other people to transcribe.

Ms. Clarke has some advice for younger leaders: “Really explore what the pain points are of these older physicians. Beyond their saying, ‘because I’ve always done it this way,’ what really is the advantage of, for example, paper charting when using the EHR is more efficient?”

Daniel DeBehnke, MD, is an emergency medicine physician and vice president and chief physician executive for Premier Inc., where he helps hospitals improve quality, safety, and financial performance. Before joining Premier, he was both a practicing physician and CEO of a health system consisting of more than 1,500 physicians.

“Having been on both sides of the spectrum as manager/leader within a physician group, some of whom are senior to me and some of whom are junior, I can tell you that I have never had any issues related to the age gap.” In fact, it is less about age per se and more about “the expertise that you, as a manager, bring to the table in understanding the nuances of the medical practice and for the individual being ‘managed.’ It is about trusting the expertise of the manager.”
 

Before and after hourly caps

Dr. Engblade regards “generational” issues to be less about age and birth year and more about the cap on hours worked during residency.

Dr. Engblade, who is 45 years old, said she did her internship year with no hourly restrictions. Such restrictions only went into effect during her second year of residency. “This created a paradigm shift in how much people wanted to work and created a consciousness of work-life balance that hadn’t been part of the conversation before,” she said.

When she interviews an older physician, a typical response is, “Of course I’ll be available any time,” whereas younger physicians, who went through residency after hourly restrictions had been established, are more likely to ask how many hours they will be on and how many they’ll be off.

Matt Lambert, MD, an independent emergency medicine physician and CMO of Curation Health, Washington, agreed, noting that differences in the cap on hours during training “can create a bit of an undertow, a tension between younger managers who are better adjusted in terms of work-life balance and older physicians being managed, who have a different work ethic and also might regard their managers as being less trained because they put in fewer hours during training.”

It is also important to be cognizant of differences in style and priorities that each generation brings to the table. Jaciel Keltgen, PhD, assistant professor of business administration, Augustana University, Sioux Falls, S.D., has heard older physicians say, “We did this the hard way, we sacrificed for our organization, and we expect the same values of younger physicians.” The younger ones tend to say, “We need to use all the tools at our disposal, and medicine doesn’t have to be practiced the way it’s always been.”

Dr. Keltgen, whose PhD is in political science and who has studied public administration, said that younger physicians may also question the mores and protocols that older physicians take for granted. For example, when her physician son was beginning his career, he was told by his senior supervisors that although he was “performing beautifully as a physician, he needed to shave more frequently, wear his white coat more often, and introduce himself as ‘Doctor’ rather than by his first name. Although he did wear his white coat more often, he didn’t change how he introduced himself to patients.”

Flexibility and mutual understanding of each generation’s needs, the type, structure, and amount of training they underwent, and the prevailing values will smooth supervisory interactions and optimize outcomes, experts agree.
 

Every generation’s No. 1 concern

For her dissertation, Dr. Keltgen used a large dataset of physicians and sought to draw a predictive model by generation and gender as to what physicians were seeking in order to be satisfied in their careers. One “overwhelming finding” of her research into generational differences in physicians is that “every single generation and gender is there to promote the health of their patients, and providing excellent care is their No. 1 concern. That is the common focus and the foundation that everyone can build on.”

Dr. J agreed. “Had I felt like a valued collaborator, I might have made a different decision.” He has begun to consider reentering clinical practice, perhaps as locum tenens or on a part-time basis. “I don’t want to feel that I’ve been driven out of a field that I love. I will see if I can find some type of context where my experience will be valued and learn to bring myself up to speed with technology if necessary. I believe I still have much to offer patients, and I would like to find a context to do so.”

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

Morton J, MD, a 68-year-old cardiologist based in the Midwest, saw things become dramatically worse when his nine-physician practice was taken over by a large health system.

“Everything changed. My partners and I lost a lot of autonomy. We had a say – but not the final say-so in who we hired as medical assistants or receptionists. We had to change how long we spent with patients and justify procedures or tests – not just to the insurance companies, which is an old story, but to our new employer,” said Dr. J, who asked to remain anonymous.

Worst of all, “I had to report to a kid – a doctor in his 30s, someone young enough to be my son, someone with a fraction of the clinical training and experience I had but who now got to tell me what to do and how to run my practice.”

The “final straw” for Dr. J came when the practice had to change to a new electronic health record (EHR) system. “Learning this new system was like pulling teeth,” he said. His youthful supervisor was “obviously impatient and irritated – his whole attitude and demeanor reflected a sense that he was saddled with a dinosaur.”

After much anguishing and soul-searching, Dr. J decided to retire. “I was already close to retirement age, and I thought it would be nice to spend more time with my grandchildren. Feeling so disrespected was simply the catalyst that brought the decision to a head a couple of years sooner than I had planned.”
 

Getting through a delicate discussion

This unfortunate situation could have been avoided had the younger supervisor shown more sensitivity, says otolaryngologist Mark Wallace, DO.

Dr. Wallace is speaking from personal experience. Early in his career, he was a younger physician who was forced to discuss a practice management issue with an older physician.

Dr. Wallace was a member of a committee that was responsible for “maximizing the efficiency of good care, while still being aware of cost issues.” When the committee “wanted one of the physicians in the group to change their behavior to improve cost savings, it was my job to discuss that with them.”

Dr. Wallace, who today is a locum tenens physician and a medical practice consultant to Physicians Thrive – an advisory group that helps physicians with financial and practice management problems – recalls feeling uncomfortable about broaching the subject to his supervisee. In this case, the older physician was prescribing name brand medications, and the committee that appointed Dr. Wallace wanted him to encourage the physician to prescribe a generic medication first and reserve brand prescriptions only for cases in which the generic was ineffective.

He acknowledges that he thought the generic was equivalent to the branded product in safety and efficacy.

“I always felt this to be a delicate discussion, whatever the age of the physician, because I didn’t like the idea of telling a doctor that they have to change how they practice so as to save money. I would never want anyone to feel they’re providing a lower level of care.”

The fact that this was an older physician – in his 60s – compounded his hesitancy. “Older physicians have a lot more experience than what I had in my 30s,” Dr. Wallace said. “I could talk to them about studies and outcomes and things like that, but a large part of medicine is the experience you gain over time.

“I presented it simply as a cost issue raised by the committee and asked him to consider experimenting with changing his prescribing behavior, while emphasizing that ultimately, it was his decision,” says Dr. Wallace.

The supervisee understood the concern and agreed to the experiment. He ended up prescribing the generic more frequently, although perhaps not as frequently as the committee would have liked.

Respectful, authentic, honest communication is important in any leadership situation but especially in those in which younger physicians are supervising physicians who are old enough to be their parents, says Ted Epperly, MD, a family physician in Boise, Idaho, and president and CEO of Family Medicine Residency of Idaho.

Dr. Wallace said that older physicians, on coming out of training, felt more respected, were better paid, and didn’t have to continually adjust to new regulations and new complicated insurance requirements. Today’s young physicians coming out of training may not find the practice of medicine as enjoyable as their older counterparts did, but they are accustomed to increasingly complex rules and regulations, so it’s less of an adjustment. But many may not feel they want to work 80 hours per week, as their older counterparts did.
 

Challenges of technology

Technology is one of the most central areas where intergenerational differences play out, says Tracy Clarke, chief human resources officer at Kitsap Mental Health Services, a large nonprofit organization in Bremerton, Wash., that employs roughly 500 individuals. “The younger physicians in our practice are really prepared, already engaged in technology, and used to using technology for documentation, and it is already integrated into the way they do business in general and practice,” she said.

Dr. Epperly noted that Gen X-ers are typically comfortable with digital technology, although not quite as much as the following generation, the millennials, who have grown up with smartphones and computers quite literally at their fingertips from earliest childhood.

Dr. Epperly, now 67, described the experience of having his organization convert to a new EHR system. “Although the younger physicians were not my supervisors, the dynamic that occurred when we were switching to the new system is typical of what might happen in a more formal reporting structure of older ‘supervisee’ and younger supervisor,” he said. In fact, his experience was similar to that of Dr. J.

“Some of the millennials were so quick to learn the new system that they forgot to check in with the older ones about how they were doing, or they were frustrated with our slow pace of learning the new technology,” said Dr. Epperly. “In fact, I was struggling to master it, and so were many others of my generation, and I felt very dumb, slow, and vulnerable, even though I usually regard myself as a pretty bright guy.”

Dr. Epperly encourages younger physicians not to think, “He’s asked me five times how to do this – what’s his problem?” This impatience can be intuited by the older physician, who may take it personally and feel devalued and disrespected.

Joy Engblade, an internal medicine physician and CMO of Northern Inyo Hospital, Bishop, Calif., said that when her institution was transitioning to a new EHR system this past May, she was worried that the older physicians would have the most difficulty.

Ironically, that turned out not to be the case. In fact, the younger physicians struggled more because the older physicians recognized their limitations and “were willing to do whatever we asked them to do. They watched the tutorials about how to use the new EHR. They went to every class that was offered and did all the practice sessions.” By contrast, many of the younger ones thought, “I know how to work an EHR, I’ve been doing it for years, so how hard could it be?” By the time they needed to actually use it, the instructional resources and tutorials were no longer available.

Dr. Epperly’s experience is different. He noted that some older physicians may be embarrassed to acknowledge that they are technologically challenged and may say, “I got it, I understand,” when they are still struggling to master the new technology.

Ms. Clarke notes that the leadership in her organization is younger than many of the physicians who report to them. “For the leadership, the biggest challenge is that many older physicians are set in their ways, and they haven’t really seen a reason to change their practice or ways of doing things.” For example, some still prefer paper charting or making voice recordings of patient visits for other people to transcribe.

Ms. Clarke has some advice for younger leaders: “Really explore what the pain points are of these older physicians. Beyond their saying, ‘because I’ve always done it this way,’ what really is the advantage of, for example, paper charting when using the EHR is more efficient?”

Daniel DeBehnke, MD, is an emergency medicine physician and vice president and chief physician executive for Premier Inc., where he helps hospitals improve quality, safety, and financial performance. Before joining Premier, he was both a practicing physician and CEO of a health system consisting of more than 1,500 physicians.

“Having been on both sides of the spectrum as manager/leader within a physician group, some of whom are senior to me and some of whom are junior, I can tell you that I have never had any issues related to the age gap.” In fact, it is less about age per se and more about “the expertise that you, as a manager, bring to the table in understanding the nuances of the medical practice and for the individual being ‘managed.’ It is about trusting the expertise of the manager.”
 

Before and after hourly caps

Dr. Engblade regards “generational” issues to be less about age and birth year and more about the cap on hours worked during residency.

Dr. Engblade, who is 45 years old, said she did her internship year with no hourly restrictions. Such restrictions only went into effect during her second year of residency. “This created a paradigm shift in how much people wanted to work and created a consciousness of work-life balance that hadn’t been part of the conversation before,” she said.

When she interviews an older physician, a typical response is, “Of course I’ll be available any time,” whereas younger physicians, who went through residency after hourly restrictions had been established, are more likely to ask how many hours they will be on and how many they’ll be off.

Matt Lambert, MD, an independent emergency medicine physician and CMO of Curation Health, Washington, agreed, noting that differences in the cap on hours during training “can create a bit of an undertow, a tension between younger managers who are better adjusted in terms of work-life balance and older physicians being managed, who have a different work ethic and also might regard their managers as being less trained because they put in fewer hours during training.”

It is also important to be cognizant of differences in style and priorities that each generation brings to the table. Jaciel Keltgen, PhD, assistant professor of business administration, Augustana University, Sioux Falls, S.D., has heard older physicians say, “We did this the hard way, we sacrificed for our organization, and we expect the same values of younger physicians.” The younger ones tend to say, “We need to use all the tools at our disposal, and medicine doesn’t have to be practiced the way it’s always been.”

Dr. Keltgen, whose PhD is in political science and who has studied public administration, said that younger physicians may also question the mores and protocols that older physicians take for granted. For example, when her physician son was beginning his career, he was told by his senior supervisors that although he was “performing beautifully as a physician, he needed to shave more frequently, wear his white coat more often, and introduce himself as ‘Doctor’ rather than by his first name. Although he did wear his white coat more often, he didn’t change how he introduced himself to patients.”

Flexibility and mutual understanding of each generation’s needs, the type, structure, and amount of training they underwent, and the prevailing values will smooth supervisory interactions and optimize outcomes, experts agree.
 

Every generation’s No. 1 concern

For her dissertation, Dr. Keltgen used a large dataset of physicians and sought to draw a predictive model by generation and gender as to what physicians were seeking in order to be satisfied in their careers. One “overwhelming finding” of her research into generational differences in physicians is that “every single generation and gender is there to promote the health of their patients, and providing excellent care is their No. 1 concern. That is the common focus and the foundation that everyone can build on.”

Dr. J agreed. “Had I felt like a valued collaborator, I might have made a different decision.” He has begun to consider reentering clinical practice, perhaps as locum tenens or on a part-time basis. “I don’t want to feel that I’ve been driven out of a field that I love. I will see if I can find some type of context where my experience will be valued and learn to bring myself up to speed with technology if necessary. I believe I still have much to offer patients, and I would like to find a context to do so.”

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

Can you keep it down? I’m trying to be boring

He chides his friends for not looking both ways before crossing the road. He is never questioned by the police because they fall asleep listening to him talk. He has won the office’s coveted perfect attendance award 10 years running. Look out, Dos Equis guy, you’ve got some new competition. That’s right, it’s the most boring man in the world.

For this boring study (sorry, study on boredom) conducted by English researchers and published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, people were surveyed on various jobs and hobbies, ranking them by how exciting or boring they are, as well as how competent someone with those jobs/hobbies would be, their willingness to avoid someone with those jobs/hobbies, and how much they’d need to be paid to spend time with someone who had an undesirable job/hobby.

Courtesy Mohamed Hassan/pxhere

According to the British public, the most boring person in the world is a religious data analyst who likes to sleep and lives in a small town. In fact, spending time with this person is almost a full-time job on its own: To make it worth their while, survey subjects wanted 35 pounds a day. The boring person also was viewed as less competent, as is anyone with a boring job.

Now, there probably aren’t a lot of religious data analysts out there, but don’t worry, there are plenty of other boring jobs – accounting, tax/insurance, cleaning, and banking rounded out the top five (apparently people don’t like finances) – and hobbies – watching TV, observing animals, and mathematics filled out the top five. In case you’re curious, performing artists, scientists, journalists, health professionals, and teachers were viewed as having exciting jobs; exciting hobbies included gaming, reading, domestic tasks (really?), gardening, and writing.

Lead researcher Wijnand Van Tilburg, PhD, made an excellent point about people with boring jobs: They “have power in society – perhaps we should try not to upset them and stereotype them as boring!”

We think they should lean into it and make The Most Boring Man in the World ads: “When I drive a car off the lot, its value increases because I used the correct lending association. Batman trusts me with his Batmobile insurance. I can make those Cuban cigars tax exempt. Stay financially solvent, my friends.”
 

Fungi, but make it fashion

Fashion is an expensive and costly industry to sustain. Cotton production takes a toll on the environment, leather production comes with environmental and ethical/moral conundrums, and thanks to fast fashion, about 85% of textiles are being thrown away in the United States.

Courtesy Akram Zamani

Researchers at the University of Borås in Sweden, however, have found a newish solution to create leather, cotton, and other textiles. And as with so many of the finer things, it starts with unsold bread from the grocery store.

Akram Zamani, PhD, and her team take that bread and turn it into breadcrumbs, then combine it with water and Rhizopus delemar, a fungus typically found in decaying food. After a couple of days of feasting on the bread, the fungus produces natural fibers made of chitin and chitosan that accumulate in the cell walls. After proteins, lipids, and other byproducts are removed, the team is left with a jelly-like substance made of those fibrous cell walls that can be spun into a fabric.

The researchers started small with very thin nonpliable sheets, but with a little layering by using tree tannins for softness and alkali for strength, their fungal leather is more like real leather than competing fungal leathers. Not to mention its being able to be produced in a fraction of the time.

This new fungal leather is fast to produce, it’s biodegradable, and it uses only natural ingredients to treat the materials. It’s the ultimate environmental fashion statement.
 

Who’s afraid of cancer? Not C. elegans

And now, we bring you part 2 of our ongoing series: Creatures that can diagnose cancer. Last week, we discovered that ants are well on their way to replacing dogs in our medical labs and in our hearts. This week, we present the even-more-lovable nematode.

Courtesy Nari Jang

The soil-dwelling nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, which is less than 1 mm long, is known to be “attracted or repelled by certain odors, so we came up with an idea that the roundworm could be used to detect lung cancer,” Shin Sik Choi, PhD, of Myongji University in South Korea, who is the project’s principal investigator, said in a statement on Eurekalert.

Dr. Choi’s team created a “worm-on-a-chip” that allowed the nematodes to choose between a drop of culture media from lung cancer cells and media from normal lung fibroblasts. An hour after being placed in the chip’s central chamber, more nematodes had crawled toward the lung cancer media than the normal-cell sample.

The investigators estimate that the device is about 70% effective at detecting cancer cells, but “they hope to increase both the accuracy and sensitivity of the method by using worms that were previously exposed to cancer cell media and therefore have a ‘memory’ of cancer-specific odor molecules,” according to the statement from the American Chemical Society.

Since C. elegans is easy to grow in a lab and, apparently, easy to train, the researchers hope that the worm-on-a-chip can become a quick, easy, economical, and noninvasive cancer screen.

So watch out cancer, because we never bet against the creepy crawlies.
 

Mosquitoes have us figured out

We are nearing mosquito season; quite possibly the most annoying and itchy time of the year. We stock up on bottles of bug spray, but somehow we still get bite after bite. It appears that mosquitoes are basically able to ignore our bug sprays, which explains why we’re still covered in bites after the Fourth of July fireworks. It turns out mosquitoes are more complex than we thought for such tiny creatures.

Courtesy Jim Gathany/CDC

There’s plenty of research on the best ways to keep mosquitoes away, because not only are they incredibly annoying, but they also carry potentially harmful diseases. In a recent experiment, researchers used mosquitoes that were genetically modified to have an excessive amount of an odor receptor called AgOR2, which responds to the smell of humans.

“AgOR2 overexpression threw a wrench in the whole system by inactivating olfactory receptors in these mosquitoes,” Christopher Potter, PhD, associate professor of neuroscience at Johns Hopkins University, said in a written statement.

After testing how these genetically modified mosquitoes reacted to some of the common smells of bug spray such as lemongrass, they discovered that it’s easy for the mosquitoes to ignore the smell. We wish it were that easy for us to ignore that chemically fruity smell.

Researchers continue to work hard to figure out how to repel mosquitoes and we’re rooting for them as summer approaches, despite the mosquito’s status as a creepy crawly.

Can you keep it down? I’m trying to be boring

He chides his friends for not looking both ways before crossing the road. He is never questioned by the police because they fall asleep listening to him talk. He has won the office’s coveted perfect attendance award 10 years running. Look out, Dos Equis guy, you’ve got some new competition. That’s right, it’s the most boring man in the world.

For this boring study (sorry, study on boredom) conducted by English researchers and published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, people were surveyed on various jobs and hobbies, ranking them by how exciting or boring they are, as well as how competent someone with those jobs/hobbies would be, their willingness to avoid someone with those jobs/hobbies, and how much they’d need to be paid to spend time with someone who had an undesirable job/hobby.

Courtesy Mohamed Hassan/pxhere

According to the British public, the most boring person in the world is a religious data analyst who likes to sleep and lives in a small town. In fact, spending time with this person is almost a full-time job on its own: To make it worth their while, survey subjects wanted 35 pounds a day. The boring person also was viewed as less competent, as is anyone with a boring job.

Now, there probably aren’t a lot of religious data analysts out there, but don’t worry, there are plenty of other boring jobs – accounting, tax/insurance, cleaning, and banking rounded out the top five (apparently people don’t like finances) – and hobbies – watching TV, observing animals, and mathematics filled out the top five. In case you’re curious, performing artists, scientists, journalists, health professionals, and teachers were viewed as having exciting jobs; exciting hobbies included gaming, reading, domestic tasks (really?), gardening, and writing.

Lead researcher Wijnand Van Tilburg, PhD, made an excellent point about people with boring jobs: They “have power in society – perhaps we should try not to upset them and stereotype them as boring!”

We think they should lean into it and make The Most Boring Man in the World ads: “When I drive a car off the lot, its value increases because I used the correct lending association. Batman trusts me with his Batmobile insurance. I can make those Cuban cigars tax exempt. Stay financially solvent, my friends.”
 

Fungi, but make it fashion

Fashion is an expensive and costly industry to sustain. Cotton production takes a toll on the environment, leather production comes with environmental and ethical/moral conundrums, and thanks to fast fashion, about 85% of textiles are being thrown away in the United States.

Courtesy Akram Zamani

Researchers at the University of Borås in Sweden, however, have found a newish solution to create leather, cotton, and other textiles. And as with so many of the finer things, it starts with unsold bread from the grocery store.

Akram Zamani, PhD, and her team take that bread and turn it into breadcrumbs, then combine it with water and Rhizopus delemar, a fungus typically found in decaying food. After a couple of days of feasting on the bread, the fungus produces natural fibers made of chitin and chitosan that accumulate in the cell walls. After proteins, lipids, and other byproducts are removed, the team is left with a jelly-like substance made of those fibrous cell walls that can be spun into a fabric.

The researchers started small with very thin nonpliable sheets, but with a little layering by using tree tannins for softness and alkali for strength, their fungal leather is more like real leather than competing fungal leathers. Not to mention its being able to be produced in a fraction of the time.

This new fungal leather is fast to produce, it’s biodegradable, and it uses only natural ingredients to treat the materials. It’s the ultimate environmental fashion statement.
 

Who’s afraid of cancer? Not C. elegans

And now, we bring you part 2 of our ongoing series: Creatures that can diagnose cancer. Last week, we discovered that ants are well on their way to replacing dogs in our medical labs and in our hearts. This week, we present the even-more-lovable nematode.

Courtesy Nari Jang

The soil-dwelling nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, which is less than 1 mm long, is known to be “attracted or repelled by certain odors, so we came up with an idea that the roundworm could be used to detect lung cancer,” Shin Sik Choi, PhD, of Myongji University in South Korea, who is the project’s principal investigator, said in a statement on Eurekalert.

Dr. Choi’s team created a “worm-on-a-chip” that allowed the nematodes to choose between a drop of culture media from lung cancer cells and media from normal lung fibroblasts. An hour after being placed in the chip’s central chamber, more nematodes had crawled toward the lung cancer media than the normal-cell sample.

The investigators estimate that the device is about 70% effective at detecting cancer cells, but “they hope to increase both the accuracy and sensitivity of the method by using worms that were previously exposed to cancer cell media and therefore have a ‘memory’ of cancer-specific odor molecules,” according to the statement from the American Chemical Society.

Since C. elegans is easy to grow in a lab and, apparently, easy to train, the researchers hope that the worm-on-a-chip can become a quick, easy, economical, and noninvasive cancer screen.

So watch out cancer, because we never bet against the creepy crawlies.
 

Mosquitoes have us figured out

We are nearing mosquito season; quite possibly the most annoying and itchy time of the year. We stock up on bottles of bug spray, but somehow we still get bite after bite. It appears that mosquitoes are basically able to ignore our bug sprays, which explains why we’re still covered in bites after the Fourth of July fireworks. It turns out mosquitoes are more complex than we thought for such tiny creatures.

Courtesy Jim Gathany/CDC

There’s plenty of research on the best ways to keep mosquitoes away, because not only are they incredibly annoying, but they also carry potentially harmful diseases. In a recent experiment, researchers used mosquitoes that were genetically modified to have an excessive amount of an odor receptor called AgOR2, which responds to the smell of humans.

“AgOR2 overexpression threw a wrench in the whole system by inactivating olfactory receptors in these mosquitoes,” Christopher Potter, PhD, associate professor of neuroscience at Johns Hopkins University, said in a written statement.

After testing how these genetically modified mosquitoes reacted to some of the common smells of bug spray such as lemongrass, they discovered that it’s easy for the mosquitoes to ignore the smell. We wish it were that easy for us to ignore that chemically fruity smell.

Researchers continue to work hard to figure out how to repel mosquitoes and we’re rooting for them as summer approaches, despite the mosquito’s status as a creepy crawly.

Can you keep it down? I’m trying to be boring

He chides his friends for not looking both ways before crossing the road. He is never questioned by the police because they fall asleep listening to him talk. He has won the office’s coveted perfect attendance award 10 years running. Look out, Dos Equis guy, you’ve got some new competition. That’s right, it’s the most boring man in the world.

For this boring study (sorry, study on boredom) conducted by English researchers and published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, people were surveyed on various jobs and hobbies, ranking them by how exciting or boring they are, as well as how competent someone with those jobs/hobbies would be, their willingness to avoid someone with those jobs/hobbies, and how much they’d need to be paid to spend time with someone who had an undesirable job/hobby.

Courtesy Mohamed Hassan/pxhere

According to the British public, the most boring person in the world is a religious data analyst who likes to sleep and lives in a small town. In fact, spending time with this person is almost a full-time job on its own: To make it worth their while, survey subjects wanted 35 pounds a day. The boring person also was viewed as less competent, as is anyone with a boring job.

Now, there probably aren’t a lot of religious data analysts out there, but don’t worry, there are plenty of other boring jobs – accounting, tax/insurance, cleaning, and banking rounded out the top five (apparently people don’t like finances) – and hobbies – watching TV, observing animals, and mathematics filled out the top five. In case you’re curious, performing artists, scientists, journalists, health professionals, and teachers were viewed as having exciting jobs; exciting hobbies included gaming, reading, domestic tasks (really?), gardening, and writing.

Lead researcher Wijnand Van Tilburg, PhD, made an excellent point about people with boring jobs: They “have power in society – perhaps we should try not to upset them and stereotype them as boring!”

We think they should lean into it and make The Most Boring Man in the World ads: “When I drive a car off the lot, its value increases because I used the correct lending association. Batman trusts me with his Batmobile insurance. I can make those Cuban cigars tax exempt. Stay financially solvent, my friends.”
 

Fungi, but make it fashion

Fashion is an expensive and costly industry to sustain. Cotton production takes a toll on the environment, leather production comes with environmental and ethical/moral conundrums, and thanks to fast fashion, about 85% of textiles are being thrown away in the United States.

Courtesy Akram Zamani

Researchers at the University of Borås in Sweden, however, have found a newish solution to create leather, cotton, and other textiles. And as with so many of the finer things, it starts with unsold bread from the grocery store.

Akram Zamani, PhD, and her team take that bread and turn it into breadcrumbs, then combine it with water and Rhizopus delemar, a fungus typically found in decaying food. After a couple of days of feasting on the bread, the fungus produces natural fibers made of chitin and chitosan that accumulate in the cell walls. After proteins, lipids, and other byproducts are removed, the team is left with a jelly-like substance made of those fibrous cell walls that can be spun into a fabric.

The researchers started small with very thin nonpliable sheets, but with a little layering by using tree tannins for softness and alkali for strength, their fungal leather is more like real leather than competing fungal leathers. Not to mention its being able to be produced in a fraction of the time.

This new fungal leather is fast to produce, it’s biodegradable, and it uses only natural ingredients to treat the materials. It’s the ultimate environmental fashion statement.
 

Who’s afraid of cancer? Not C. elegans

And now, we bring you part 2 of our ongoing series: Creatures that can diagnose cancer. Last week, we discovered that ants are well on their way to replacing dogs in our medical labs and in our hearts. This week, we present the even-more-lovable nematode.

Courtesy Nari Jang

The soil-dwelling nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, which is less than 1 mm long, is known to be “attracted or repelled by certain odors, so we came up with an idea that the roundworm could be used to detect lung cancer,” Shin Sik Choi, PhD, of Myongji University in South Korea, who is the project’s principal investigator, said in a statement on Eurekalert.

Dr. Choi’s team created a “worm-on-a-chip” that allowed the nematodes to choose between a drop of culture media from lung cancer cells and media from normal lung fibroblasts. An hour after being placed in the chip’s central chamber, more nematodes had crawled toward the lung cancer media than the normal-cell sample.

The investigators estimate that the device is about 70% effective at detecting cancer cells, but “they hope to increase both the accuracy and sensitivity of the method by using worms that were previously exposed to cancer cell media and therefore have a ‘memory’ of cancer-specific odor molecules,” according to the statement from the American Chemical Society.

Since C. elegans is easy to grow in a lab and, apparently, easy to train, the researchers hope that the worm-on-a-chip can become a quick, easy, economical, and noninvasive cancer screen.

So watch out cancer, because we never bet against the creepy crawlies.
 

Mosquitoes have us figured out

We are nearing mosquito season; quite possibly the most annoying and itchy time of the year. We stock up on bottles of bug spray, but somehow we still get bite after bite. It appears that mosquitoes are basically able to ignore our bug sprays, which explains why we’re still covered in bites after the Fourth of July fireworks. It turns out mosquitoes are more complex than we thought for such tiny creatures.

Courtesy Jim Gathany/CDC

There’s plenty of research on the best ways to keep mosquitoes away, because not only are they incredibly annoying, but they also carry potentially harmful diseases. In a recent experiment, researchers used mosquitoes that were genetically modified to have an excessive amount of an odor receptor called AgOR2, which responds to the smell of humans.

“AgOR2 overexpression threw a wrench in the whole system by inactivating olfactory receptors in these mosquitoes,” Christopher Potter, PhD, associate professor of neuroscience at Johns Hopkins University, said in a written statement.

After testing how these genetically modified mosquitoes reacted to some of the common smells of bug spray such as lemongrass, they discovered that it’s easy for the mosquitoes to ignore the smell. We wish it were that easy for us to ignore that chemically fruity smell.

Researchers continue to work hard to figure out how to repel mosquitoes and we’re rooting for them as summer approaches, despite the mosquito’s status as a creepy crawly.

Seroprevalence surveys suggest that, from the beginning of the pandemic to 2022, more than a third of the global population had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. As large numbers of people continue to be infected, the efficacy and duration of natural immunity, in terms of protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfections and severe disease, are of crucial significance. The virus’s epidemiologic trajectory will be influenced by the trends in vaccine-induced and hybrid immunity.

Omicron’s immune evasion

Cases of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection are increasing around the world. According to data from the U.K. Health Security Agency, 650,000 people in England have been infected twice, and most of them were reinfected in the past 2 months. Before mid-November 2021, reinfections accounted for about 1% of reported cases, but the rate has now increased to around 10%. The reinfection risk was 16 times higher between mid-December 2021 and early January 2022. Experts believe that this spike in reinfections is related to the spread of Omicron, which overtook Delta as the dominant variant. Nonetheless, other aspects should also be considered.

Omicron’s greater propensity to spread is not unrelated to its ability to evade the body’s immune defenses. This aspect was raised in a letter recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The authors reported that the effectiveness of previous infection in preventing reinfection against the Alpha, Beta, and Delta variants was around 90%, but it was only 56% against Omicron.
 

Natural immunity

Natural immunity showed roughly similar effectiveness regarding protection against reinfection across different SARS-CoV-2 variants, with the exception of the Omicron variant. The risk of hospitalization and death was also reduced in SARS-CoV-2 reinfections versus primary infections. Observational studies indicate that natural immunity may offer equal or greater protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, compared with immunization with two doses of an mRNA vaccine, but the data are not fully consistent.

Natural immunity seems to be relatively long-lasting. Data from Denmark and Austria show no evidence that protection against reinfections wanes after 6 months. Some investigations indicate that protection against reinfection is lowest 4-5 months after initial infection and increases thereafter, a finding that might hypothetically be explained by persistent viral shedding; that is, misclassification of prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infections as reinfections. While no comparison was made against information pertaining to unvaccinated, not previously-infected individuals, preliminary data from Israel suggest that protection from reinfection can decrease from 6 to more than 12 months after the first SARS-CoV-2 infection. Taken together, epidemiologic studies indicate that protection against reinfections by natural immunity lasts over 1 year with only moderate, if any, decline over this period. Among older individuals, immunocompromised patients, and those with certain comorbidities or exposure risk (for example, health care workers), rates of reinfection may be higher. It is plausible that reinfection risk may be a function of exposure risk.

There is accumulating evidence that reinfections may be significantly less severe than primary infections with SARS-CoV-2. Reduced clinical severity of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections naturally also makes sense from a biologic point of view, inasmuch as a previously primed immune system should be better prepared for a rechallenge with this virus.
 

Vaccine-induced immunity

The short-term (<4 months) efficacy of mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 is high and varies from 94.1% (Moderna) to 95% (BioNTech/Pfizer). This has been confirmed by randomized controlled trials and was subsequently confirmed in effectiveness studies in real-world settings. Waning efficacy was observed with respect to protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections (for example, only approximately 20% after about half a year in Qatar), whereas protection against severe disease was either sustained or showed only a moderate decline.

In individuals who received two doses of the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine at least 5 months earlier, an additional vaccine dose, a so-called booster, significantly lowered mortality and severe illness. These findings suggest that the booster restored and probably exceeded the initial short-term efficacy of the initial vaccination.

Data are still emerging regarding the efficacy of boosters against the Omicron variants. Preliminary data suggest a far lower ability to restore protection from infection and vaccination. However, fatalities and hospitalizations remain low.
 

Natural immunity vs. vaccine-induced immunity

Comparisons of natural immunity with vaccine-induced immunity are complicated by a series of biases and by combinations of biases – for example, the biases of comparisons between infected and uninfected, plus the biases of comparisons between vaccinated and nonvaccinated, with strong potential selection biases and confounding. Of particular note, the proportion of people previously infected and/or vaccinated may influence estimates of effectiveness. Regarding this point, one study compared unvaccinated patients with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccinated individuals followed up from a week after the second vaccine dose onward versus a group of unvaccinated, not previously infected individuals. The findings showed that, compared with unvaccinated, not previously infected individuals, the natural immunity group and the vaccinated group had similar protection of 94.8% and 92.8% against infection, of 94.1% and 94.2% against hospitalization, and of 96.4% and 94.4% against severe illness, respectively.

Hybrid immunity

The combination of a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and a respective vaccination is called hybrid immunity. This combination seems to confer the greatest protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, but several knowledge gaps remain regarding this issue.

Data from Israel showed that, when the time since the last immunity-conferring event (either primary infection or vaccination) was the same, the rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections were similar in the following groups: individuals who had a previous infection and no vaccination, individuals who had an infection and were then vaccinated with a single dose after at least 3 months, and individuals who were vaccinated (two doses) and then infected. Severe disease was relatively rare overall.

Data on the efficacy of hybrid immunity point in the direction of hybrid immunity being superior, as compared with either vaccine-induced (without a booster) immunity or natural immunity alone. Timing and mode of vaccination of previously infected individuals to achieve optimal hybrid immunity are central questions that remain to be addressed in future studies.

Given that vaccination rates are continuously increasing and that, by the beginning of 2022, perhaps half or more of the global population had already been infected with SARS-CoV-2, with the vast majority of this group not being officially detected, it would appear logical that future infection waves, even with highly transmissible variants of SARS-CoV-2, may be limited with respect to their maximum potential health burden. The advent of Omicron suggests that massive surges can occur even in populations with extremely high rates of previous vaccination and variable rates of prior infections. However, even then, the accompanying burden of hospitalizations and deaths is far less than what was seen in 2020 and 2021. One may argue that the pandemic has already transitioned to the endemic phase and that Omicron is an endemic wave occurring in the setting of already widespread population immunity.

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

Seroprevalence surveys suggest that, from the beginning of the pandemic to 2022, more than a third of the global population had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. As large numbers of people continue to be infected, the efficacy and duration of natural immunity, in terms of protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfections and severe disease, are of crucial significance. The virus’s epidemiologic trajectory will be influenced by the trends in vaccine-induced and hybrid immunity.

Omicron’s immune evasion

Cases of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection are increasing around the world. According to data from the U.K. Health Security Agency, 650,000 people in England have been infected twice, and most of them were reinfected in the past 2 months. Before mid-November 2021, reinfections accounted for about 1% of reported cases, but the rate has now increased to around 10%. The reinfection risk was 16 times higher between mid-December 2021 and early January 2022. Experts believe that this spike in reinfections is related to the spread of Omicron, which overtook Delta as the dominant variant. Nonetheless, other aspects should also be considered.

Omicron’s greater propensity to spread is not unrelated to its ability to evade the body’s immune defenses. This aspect was raised in a letter recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The authors reported that the effectiveness of previous infection in preventing reinfection against the Alpha, Beta, and Delta variants was around 90%, but it was only 56% against Omicron.
 

Natural immunity

Natural immunity showed roughly similar effectiveness regarding protection against reinfection across different SARS-CoV-2 variants, with the exception of the Omicron variant. The risk of hospitalization and death was also reduced in SARS-CoV-2 reinfections versus primary infections. Observational studies indicate that natural immunity may offer equal or greater protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, compared with immunization with two doses of an mRNA vaccine, but the data are not fully consistent.

Natural immunity seems to be relatively long-lasting. Data from Denmark and Austria show no evidence that protection against reinfections wanes after 6 months. Some investigations indicate that protection against reinfection is lowest 4-5 months after initial infection and increases thereafter, a finding that might hypothetically be explained by persistent viral shedding; that is, misclassification of prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infections as reinfections. While no comparison was made against information pertaining to unvaccinated, not previously-infected individuals, preliminary data from Israel suggest that protection from reinfection can decrease from 6 to more than 12 months after the first SARS-CoV-2 infection. Taken together, epidemiologic studies indicate that protection against reinfections by natural immunity lasts over 1 year with only moderate, if any, decline over this period. Among older individuals, immunocompromised patients, and those with certain comorbidities or exposure risk (for example, health care workers), rates of reinfection may be higher. It is plausible that reinfection risk may be a function of exposure risk.

There is accumulating evidence that reinfections may be significantly less severe than primary infections with SARS-CoV-2. Reduced clinical severity of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections naturally also makes sense from a biologic point of view, inasmuch as a previously primed immune system should be better prepared for a rechallenge with this virus.
 

Vaccine-induced immunity

The short-term (<4 months) efficacy of mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 is high and varies from 94.1% (Moderna) to 95% (BioNTech/Pfizer). This has been confirmed by randomized controlled trials and was subsequently confirmed in effectiveness studies in real-world settings. Waning efficacy was observed with respect to protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections (for example, only approximately 20% after about half a year in Qatar), whereas protection against severe disease was either sustained or showed only a moderate decline.

In individuals who received two doses of the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine at least 5 months earlier, an additional vaccine dose, a so-called booster, significantly lowered mortality and severe illness. These findings suggest that the booster restored and probably exceeded the initial short-term efficacy of the initial vaccination.

Data are still emerging regarding the efficacy of boosters against the Omicron variants. Preliminary data suggest a far lower ability to restore protection from infection and vaccination. However, fatalities and hospitalizations remain low.
 

Natural immunity vs. vaccine-induced immunity

Comparisons of natural immunity with vaccine-induced immunity are complicated by a series of biases and by combinations of biases – for example, the biases of comparisons between infected and uninfected, plus the biases of comparisons between vaccinated and nonvaccinated, with strong potential selection biases and confounding. Of particular note, the proportion of people previously infected and/or vaccinated may influence estimates of effectiveness. Regarding this point, one study compared unvaccinated patients with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccinated individuals followed up from a week after the second vaccine dose onward versus a group of unvaccinated, not previously infected individuals. The findings showed that, compared with unvaccinated, not previously infected individuals, the natural immunity group and the vaccinated group had similar protection of 94.8% and 92.8% against infection, of 94.1% and 94.2% against hospitalization, and of 96.4% and 94.4% against severe illness, respectively.

Hybrid immunity

The combination of a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and a respective vaccination is called hybrid immunity. This combination seems to confer the greatest protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, but several knowledge gaps remain regarding this issue.

Data from Israel showed that, when the time since the last immunity-conferring event (either primary infection or vaccination) was the same, the rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections were similar in the following groups: individuals who had a previous infection and no vaccination, individuals who had an infection and were then vaccinated with a single dose after at least 3 months, and individuals who were vaccinated (two doses) and then infected. Severe disease was relatively rare overall.

Data on the efficacy of hybrid immunity point in the direction of hybrid immunity being superior, as compared with either vaccine-induced (without a booster) immunity or natural immunity alone. Timing and mode of vaccination of previously infected individuals to achieve optimal hybrid immunity are central questions that remain to be addressed in future studies.

Given that vaccination rates are continuously increasing and that, by the beginning of 2022, perhaps half or more of the global population had already been infected with SARS-CoV-2, with the vast majority of this group not being officially detected, it would appear logical that future infection waves, even with highly transmissible variants of SARS-CoV-2, may be limited with respect to their maximum potential health burden. The advent of Omicron suggests that massive surges can occur even in populations with extremely high rates of previous vaccination and variable rates of prior infections. However, even then, the accompanying burden of hospitalizations and deaths is far less than what was seen in 2020 and 2021. One may argue that the pandemic has already transitioned to the endemic phase and that Omicron is an endemic wave occurring in the setting of already widespread population immunity.

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

Seroprevalence surveys suggest that, from the beginning of the pandemic to 2022, more than a third of the global population had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. As large numbers of people continue to be infected, the efficacy and duration of natural immunity, in terms of protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfections and severe disease, are of crucial significance. The virus’s epidemiologic trajectory will be influenced by the trends in vaccine-induced and hybrid immunity.

Omicron’s immune evasion

Cases of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection are increasing around the world. According to data from the U.K. Health Security Agency, 650,000 people in England have been infected twice, and most of them were reinfected in the past 2 months. Before mid-November 2021, reinfections accounted for about 1% of reported cases, but the rate has now increased to around 10%. The reinfection risk was 16 times higher between mid-December 2021 and early January 2022. Experts believe that this spike in reinfections is related to the spread of Omicron, which overtook Delta as the dominant variant. Nonetheless, other aspects should also be considered.

Omicron’s greater propensity to spread is not unrelated to its ability to evade the body’s immune defenses. This aspect was raised in a letter recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The authors reported that the effectiveness of previous infection in preventing reinfection against the Alpha, Beta, and Delta variants was around 90%, but it was only 56% against Omicron.
 

Natural immunity

Natural immunity showed roughly similar effectiveness regarding protection against reinfection across different SARS-CoV-2 variants, with the exception of the Omicron variant. The risk of hospitalization and death was also reduced in SARS-CoV-2 reinfections versus primary infections. Observational studies indicate that natural immunity may offer equal or greater protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, compared with immunization with two doses of an mRNA vaccine, but the data are not fully consistent.

Natural immunity seems to be relatively long-lasting. Data from Denmark and Austria show no evidence that protection against reinfections wanes after 6 months. Some investigations indicate that protection against reinfection is lowest 4-5 months after initial infection and increases thereafter, a finding that might hypothetically be explained by persistent viral shedding; that is, misclassification of prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infections as reinfections. While no comparison was made against information pertaining to unvaccinated, not previously-infected individuals, preliminary data from Israel suggest that protection from reinfection can decrease from 6 to more than 12 months after the first SARS-CoV-2 infection. Taken together, epidemiologic studies indicate that protection against reinfections by natural immunity lasts over 1 year with only moderate, if any, decline over this period. Among older individuals, immunocompromised patients, and those with certain comorbidities or exposure risk (for example, health care workers), rates of reinfection may be higher. It is plausible that reinfection risk may be a function of exposure risk.

There is accumulating evidence that reinfections may be significantly less severe than primary infections with SARS-CoV-2. Reduced clinical severity of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections naturally also makes sense from a biologic point of view, inasmuch as a previously primed immune system should be better prepared for a rechallenge with this virus.
 

Vaccine-induced immunity

The short-term (<4 months) efficacy of mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 is high and varies from 94.1% (Moderna) to 95% (BioNTech/Pfizer). This has been confirmed by randomized controlled trials and was subsequently confirmed in effectiveness studies in real-world settings. Waning efficacy was observed with respect to protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections (for example, only approximately 20% after about half a year in Qatar), whereas protection against severe disease was either sustained or showed only a moderate decline.

In individuals who received two doses of the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine at least 5 months earlier, an additional vaccine dose, a so-called booster, significantly lowered mortality and severe illness. These findings suggest that the booster restored and probably exceeded the initial short-term efficacy of the initial vaccination.

Data are still emerging regarding the efficacy of boosters against the Omicron variants. Preliminary data suggest a far lower ability to restore protection from infection and vaccination. However, fatalities and hospitalizations remain low.
 

Natural immunity vs. vaccine-induced immunity

Comparisons of natural immunity with vaccine-induced immunity are complicated by a series of biases and by combinations of biases – for example, the biases of comparisons between infected and uninfected, plus the biases of comparisons between vaccinated and nonvaccinated, with strong potential selection biases and confounding. Of particular note, the proportion of people previously infected and/or vaccinated may influence estimates of effectiveness. Regarding this point, one study compared unvaccinated patients with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccinated individuals followed up from a week after the second vaccine dose onward versus a group of unvaccinated, not previously infected individuals. The findings showed that, compared with unvaccinated, not previously infected individuals, the natural immunity group and the vaccinated group had similar protection of 94.8% and 92.8% against infection, of 94.1% and 94.2% against hospitalization, and of 96.4% and 94.4% against severe illness, respectively.

Hybrid immunity

The combination of a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and a respective vaccination is called hybrid immunity. This combination seems to confer the greatest protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, but several knowledge gaps remain regarding this issue.

Data from Israel showed that, when the time since the last immunity-conferring event (either primary infection or vaccination) was the same, the rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections were similar in the following groups: individuals who had a previous infection and no vaccination, individuals who had an infection and were then vaccinated with a single dose after at least 3 months, and individuals who were vaccinated (two doses) and then infected. Severe disease was relatively rare overall.

Data on the efficacy of hybrid immunity point in the direction of hybrid immunity being superior, as compared with either vaccine-induced (without a booster) immunity or natural immunity alone. Timing and mode of vaccination of previously infected individuals to achieve optimal hybrid immunity are central questions that remain to be addressed in future studies.

Given that vaccination rates are continuously increasing and that, by the beginning of 2022, perhaps half or more of the global population had already been infected with SARS-CoV-2, with the vast majority of this group not being officially detected, it would appear logical that future infection waves, even with highly transmissible variants of SARS-CoV-2, may be limited with respect to their maximum potential health burden. The advent of Omicron suggests that massive surges can occur even in populations with extremely high rates of previous vaccination and variable rates of prior infections. However, even then, the accompanying burden of hospitalizations and deaths is far less than what was seen in 2020 and 2021. One may argue that the pandemic has already transitioned to the endemic phase and that Omicron is an endemic wave occurring in the setting of already widespread population immunity.

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

COVID-19 infection appears to significantly raise the risk for diabetes by about 40% at 1 year, indicate new data from a very large Veterans Administration population.

“If patients have a prior history of COVID-19, that’s a risk factor for diabetes and they should certainly be screened for diabetes,” study coauthor Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a nephrologist and chief of research and development at VA St. Louis Health Care, told this news organization.

“It’s still premature to make guidelines. I think we have to process the data landscape to understand what this all really means, but it’s really, really clear that all these roads are pointing in one direction, that COVID-19 increases the risk of diabetes up to a year later. The risk is small but not negligible,” he said.

The database includes over 8 million people and 180,000 with a prior COVID-19 diagnosis. Significantly increased diabetes risks compared to those not infected ranging from 31% to more than double were found in an analysis of subgroups based on diabetes risk score, body mass index, age, race, prediabetes status, and deprivation level, even after adjustment for confounding factors.

There was a gradient of diabetes risk by COVID-19 severity – i.e., whether patients had not been hospitalized, had been hospitalized, or stayed in intensive care – but a significant excess diabetes burden was seen even among those with “mild” COVID-19. The diabetes risk was also elevated compared to both contemporary and historical controls.

The study was published March 21 in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, by Yan Xie, MPH, also of VA St Louis Health Care, along with Dr. Al-Aly.

The data align with those from another study just published from a nationwide German primary care database. That study was smaller and of shorter duration than the new VA study but consistent, said Dr. Al-Aly, a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University, St. Louis.

Millions more with new diabetes as late manifestation of COVID-19

“Millions of people in the U.S. have had COVID-19, so this is going to translate to literally millions more people with new-onset diabetes. Better to identify them early so they can be adequately treated,” Dr. Al-Aly said in an interview.

“The long-term implications of SARS-CoV-2 infection increasing diabetes risk are profound,” Venkat Narayan, MD, and Lisa R. Staimez, PhD, both of the Rollins School of Public Health and Emory Global Diabetes Research Center at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an accompanying editorial.

“With large and growing numbers of people worldwide infected with SARS-CoV-2 (434,154,739 cumulative cases by Feb. 28, 2022), any COVID-19-related increases in diabetes incidence could lead to unprecedented cases of diabetes worldwide – wreaking havoc on already over-stretched and under-resourced clinical and public health systems globally, with devastating tolls in terms of deaths and suffering,” they added.

Medscape Medical News contributor Eric Topol MD, of Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, Calif., agrees. He said these new data “are most profound. The researchers found a 40% increase in diabetes that wasn’t present at 1 month after COVID-19 but at 1 year, it was. Some kind of late manifestation is happening here.”  

Dr. Al-Aly told this news organization that the mechanisms for the association are unknown and likely to be heterogeneous. Among the people who already had risk factors for type 2 diabetes, such as obesity or metabolic syndrome, SARS-CoV-2 could simply accelerate that process and “put them over the edge” to overt diabetes.

However, for those without diabetes risk factors, “COVID-19 with all the inflammation it provokes in the body could be leading to de novo disease.” (Diabetes status was ascertained by ICD-10 codes and only about 0.70% of the total were recorded as type 1 diabetes. But, since autoantibody testing wasn’t routinely conducted, it’s unknown how many of the cases may have been type 1 misclassified as type 2, Dr. Al-Aly acknowledged.)
 

Diabetes risk significantly increased after COVID-19 in all analyses

The analysis included 181,280 patients in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs health care database with a COVID-19 diagnosis who survived for at least 30 days afterward during March 2020 through Sept. 30, 2021, with 4,118,441 contemporary controls without COVID-19 seen during 2019, and a historical control group of 4,286,911 people seen at the VA in 2017. Average follow-up was about a year.

Compared with the contemporary controls, the COVID-19 group had an excess diabetes burden of 13.46 per 1,000 person-years with a hazard ratio of 1.40. They had an increased 12.35 per 1,000 person-year risk for incident use of glucose-lowering medications, with a hazard ratio of 1.85. Similar results were seen with the historical controls.

Subgroup analyses showed an increased risk for diabetes following COVID-19 infection by age (≤ 65 years and > 65 years), race (White and Black), sex (male and female), BMI categories (> 18.5 to ≤ 25 kg/m², > 25 to ≤ 30 kg/m², and > 30 kg/m²), and area deprivation index quartiles. The increased risk was also seen across diabetes risk score quartiles.

Notably, COVID-19 significantly elevated the diabetes risk by 59% even for the subgroup with BMI between 18 and 25 kg/m², and by 38% among those with the lowest diabetes risk score quartile.

The COVID-19 population included 162,096 who were not hospitalized, 15,078 hospitalized, and 4,106 admitted to intensive care. Here, the hazard ratios for diabetes compared to the contemporary controls were 1.25, 2.73, and 3.76, respectively, all significant.  

Dr. Al-Aly said that his group is now further analyzing the VA data for other outcomes including cardiovascular disease and kidney disease, as well as the now well-documented long COVID symptoms including fatigue, pain, and neurocognitive dysfunction.

They’re also investigating the impact of the COVID-19 vaccine to see whether the risks are mitigated in the case of breakthrough infections: “We’re doing a broad systematic assessment. The next paper will be more comprehensive.”

Dr. Narayan and Dr. Staimez wrote: “The potential connection between COVID-19 and diabetes highlights that infectious diseases (eg, SARS-CoV-2) and chronic diseases (eg, diabetes) cannot be viewed in siloes. When we emerge out of the pandemic, the much-neglected non-communicable diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, will continue their relentless trajectory, possibly in an accelerated manner, as the leading burdens of global health.” 

Dr. Al-Aly declared support from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for the submitted work. He has received consultation fees from Gilead Sciences and funding (unrelated to this work) from Tonix Pharmaceuticals. He is a member of the board of directors for Veterans Research and Education Foundation of Saint Louis, associate editor for the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, and a member of multiple editorial boards. Dr. Narayan and Dr. Staimez have received support from the National Institutes of Health.

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

COVID-19 infection appears to significantly raise the risk for diabetes by about 40% at 1 year, indicate new data from a very large Veterans Administration population.

“If patients have a prior history of COVID-19, that’s a risk factor for diabetes and they should certainly be screened for diabetes,” study coauthor Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a nephrologist and chief of research and development at VA St. Louis Health Care, told this news organization.

“It’s still premature to make guidelines. I think we have to process the data landscape to understand what this all really means, but it’s really, really clear that all these roads are pointing in one direction, that COVID-19 increases the risk of diabetes up to a year later. The risk is small but not negligible,” he said.

The database includes over 8 million people and 180,000 with a prior COVID-19 diagnosis. Significantly increased diabetes risks compared to those not infected ranging from 31% to more than double were found in an analysis of subgroups based on diabetes risk score, body mass index, age, race, prediabetes status, and deprivation level, even after adjustment for confounding factors.

There was a gradient of diabetes risk by COVID-19 severity – i.e., whether patients had not been hospitalized, had been hospitalized, or stayed in intensive care – but a significant excess diabetes burden was seen even among those with “mild” COVID-19. The diabetes risk was also elevated compared to both contemporary and historical controls.

The study was published March 21 in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, by Yan Xie, MPH, also of VA St Louis Health Care, along with Dr. Al-Aly.

The data align with those from another study just published from a nationwide German primary care database. That study was smaller and of shorter duration than the new VA study but consistent, said Dr. Al-Aly, a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University, St. Louis.

Millions more with new diabetes as late manifestation of COVID-19

“Millions of people in the U.S. have had COVID-19, so this is going to translate to literally millions more people with new-onset diabetes. Better to identify them early so they can be adequately treated,” Dr. Al-Aly said in an interview.

“The long-term implications of SARS-CoV-2 infection increasing diabetes risk are profound,” Venkat Narayan, MD, and Lisa R. Staimez, PhD, both of the Rollins School of Public Health and Emory Global Diabetes Research Center at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an accompanying editorial.

“With large and growing numbers of people worldwide infected with SARS-CoV-2 (434,154,739 cumulative cases by Feb. 28, 2022), any COVID-19-related increases in diabetes incidence could lead to unprecedented cases of diabetes worldwide – wreaking havoc on already over-stretched and under-resourced clinical and public health systems globally, with devastating tolls in terms of deaths and suffering,” they added.

Medscape Medical News contributor Eric Topol MD, of Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, Calif., agrees. He said these new data “are most profound. The researchers found a 40% increase in diabetes that wasn’t present at 1 month after COVID-19 but at 1 year, it was. Some kind of late manifestation is happening here.”  

Dr. Al-Aly told this news organization that the mechanisms for the association are unknown and likely to be heterogeneous. Among the people who already had risk factors for type 2 diabetes, such as obesity or metabolic syndrome, SARS-CoV-2 could simply accelerate that process and “put them over the edge” to overt diabetes.

However, for those without diabetes risk factors, “COVID-19 with all the inflammation it provokes in the body could be leading to de novo disease.” (Diabetes status was ascertained by ICD-10 codes and only about 0.70% of the total were recorded as type 1 diabetes. But, since autoantibody testing wasn’t routinely conducted, it’s unknown how many of the cases may have been type 1 misclassified as type 2, Dr. Al-Aly acknowledged.)
 

Diabetes risk significantly increased after COVID-19 in all analyses

The analysis included 181,280 patients in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs health care database with a COVID-19 diagnosis who survived for at least 30 days afterward during March 2020 through Sept. 30, 2021, with 4,118,441 contemporary controls without COVID-19 seen during 2019, and a historical control group of 4,286,911 people seen at the VA in 2017. Average follow-up was about a year.

Compared with the contemporary controls, the COVID-19 group had an excess diabetes burden of 13.46 per 1,000 person-years with a hazard ratio of 1.40. They had an increased 12.35 per 1,000 person-year risk for incident use of glucose-lowering medications, with a hazard ratio of 1.85. Similar results were seen with the historical controls.

Subgroup analyses showed an increased risk for diabetes following COVID-19 infection by age (≤ 65 years and > 65 years), race (White and Black), sex (male and female), BMI categories (> 18.5 to ≤ 25 kg/m², > 25 to ≤ 30 kg/m², and > 30 kg/m²), and area deprivation index quartiles. The increased risk was also seen across diabetes risk score quartiles.

Notably, COVID-19 significantly elevated the diabetes risk by 59% even for the subgroup with BMI between 18 and 25 kg/m², and by 38% among those with the lowest diabetes risk score quartile.

The COVID-19 population included 162,096 who were not hospitalized, 15,078 hospitalized, and 4,106 admitted to intensive care. Here, the hazard ratios for diabetes compared to the contemporary controls were 1.25, 2.73, and 3.76, respectively, all significant.  

Dr. Al-Aly said that his group is now further analyzing the VA data for other outcomes including cardiovascular disease and kidney disease, as well as the now well-documented long COVID symptoms including fatigue, pain, and neurocognitive dysfunction.

They’re also investigating the impact of the COVID-19 vaccine to see whether the risks are mitigated in the case of breakthrough infections: “We’re doing a broad systematic assessment. The next paper will be more comprehensive.”

Dr. Narayan and Dr. Staimez wrote: “The potential connection between COVID-19 and diabetes highlights that infectious diseases (eg, SARS-CoV-2) and chronic diseases (eg, diabetes) cannot be viewed in siloes. When we emerge out of the pandemic, the much-neglected non-communicable diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, will continue their relentless trajectory, possibly in an accelerated manner, as the leading burdens of global health.” 

Dr. Al-Aly declared support from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for the submitted work. He has received consultation fees from Gilead Sciences and funding (unrelated to this work) from Tonix Pharmaceuticals. He is a member of the board of directors for Veterans Research and Education Foundation of Saint Louis, associate editor for the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, and a member of multiple editorial boards. Dr. Narayan and Dr. Staimez have received support from the National Institutes of Health.

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

COVID-19 infection appears to significantly raise the risk for diabetes by about 40% at 1 year, indicate new data from a very large Veterans Administration population.

“If patients have a prior history of COVID-19, that’s a risk factor for diabetes and they should certainly be screened for diabetes,” study coauthor Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a nephrologist and chief of research and development at VA St. Louis Health Care, told this news organization.

“It’s still premature to make guidelines. I think we have to process the data landscape to understand what this all really means, but it’s really, really clear that all these roads are pointing in one direction, that COVID-19 increases the risk of diabetes up to a year later. The risk is small but not negligible,” he said.

The database includes over 8 million people and 180,000 with a prior COVID-19 diagnosis. Significantly increased diabetes risks compared to those not infected ranging from 31% to more than double were found in an analysis of subgroups based on diabetes risk score, body mass index, age, race, prediabetes status, and deprivation level, even after adjustment for confounding factors.

There was a gradient of diabetes risk by COVID-19 severity – i.e., whether patients had not been hospitalized, had been hospitalized, or stayed in intensive care – but a significant excess diabetes burden was seen even among those with “mild” COVID-19. The diabetes risk was also elevated compared to both contemporary and historical controls.

The study was published March 21 in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, by Yan Xie, MPH, also of VA St Louis Health Care, along with Dr. Al-Aly.

The data align with those from another study just published from a nationwide German primary care database. That study was smaller and of shorter duration than the new VA study but consistent, said Dr. Al-Aly, a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University, St. Louis.

Millions more with new diabetes as late manifestation of COVID-19

“Millions of people in the U.S. have had COVID-19, so this is going to translate to literally millions more people with new-onset diabetes. Better to identify them early so they can be adequately treated,” Dr. Al-Aly said in an interview.

“The long-term implications of SARS-CoV-2 infection increasing diabetes risk are profound,” Venkat Narayan, MD, and Lisa R. Staimez, PhD, both of the Rollins School of Public Health and Emory Global Diabetes Research Center at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an accompanying editorial.

“With large and growing numbers of people worldwide infected with SARS-CoV-2 (434,154,739 cumulative cases by Feb. 28, 2022), any COVID-19-related increases in diabetes incidence could lead to unprecedented cases of diabetes worldwide – wreaking havoc on already over-stretched and under-resourced clinical and public health systems globally, with devastating tolls in terms of deaths and suffering,” they added.

Medscape Medical News contributor Eric Topol MD, of Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, Calif., agrees. He said these new data “are most profound. The researchers found a 40% increase in diabetes that wasn’t present at 1 month after COVID-19 but at 1 year, it was. Some kind of late manifestation is happening here.”  

Dr. Al-Aly told this news organization that the mechanisms for the association are unknown and likely to be heterogeneous. Among the people who already had risk factors for type 2 diabetes, such as obesity or metabolic syndrome, SARS-CoV-2 could simply accelerate that process and “put them over the edge” to overt diabetes.

However, for those without diabetes risk factors, “COVID-19 with all the inflammation it provokes in the body could be leading to de novo disease.” (Diabetes status was ascertained by ICD-10 codes and only about 0.70% of the total were recorded as type 1 diabetes. But, since autoantibody testing wasn’t routinely conducted, it’s unknown how many of the cases may have been type 1 misclassified as type 2, Dr. Al-Aly acknowledged.)
 

Diabetes risk significantly increased after COVID-19 in all analyses

The analysis included 181,280 patients in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs health care database with a COVID-19 diagnosis who survived for at least 30 days afterward during March 2020 through Sept. 30, 2021, with 4,118,441 contemporary controls without COVID-19 seen during 2019, and a historical control group of 4,286,911 people seen at the VA in 2017. Average follow-up was about a year.

Compared with the contemporary controls, the COVID-19 group had an excess diabetes burden of 13.46 per 1,000 person-years with a hazard ratio of 1.40. They had an increased 12.35 per 1,000 person-year risk for incident use of glucose-lowering medications, with a hazard ratio of 1.85. Similar results were seen with the historical controls.

Subgroup analyses showed an increased risk for diabetes following COVID-19 infection by age (≤ 65 years and > 65 years), race (White and Black), sex (male and female), BMI categories (> 18.5 to ≤ 25 kg/m², > 25 to ≤ 30 kg/m², and > 30 kg/m²), and area deprivation index quartiles. The increased risk was also seen across diabetes risk score quartiles.

Notably, COVID-19 significantly elevated the diabetes risk by 59% even for the subgroup with BMI between 18 and 25 kg/m², and by 38% among those with the lowest diabetes risk score quartile.

The COVID-19 population included 162,096 who were not hospitalized, 15,078 hospitalized, and 4,106 admitted to intensive care. Here, the hazard ratios for diabetes compared to the contemporary controls were 1.25, 2.73, and 3.76, respectively, all significant.  

Dr. Al-Aly said that his group is now further analyzing the VA data for other outcomes including cardiovascular disease and kidney disease, as well as the now well-documented long COVID symptoms including fatigue, pain, and neurocognitive dysfunction.

They’re also investigating the impact of the COVID-19 vaccine to see whether the risks are mitigated in the case of breakthrough infections: “We’re doing a broad systematic assessment. The next paper will be more comprehensive.”

Dr. Narayan and Dr. Staimez wrote: “The potential connection between COVID-19 and diabetes highlights that infectious diseases (eg, SARS-CoV-2) and chronic diseases (eg, diabetes) cannot be viewed in siloes. When we emerge out of the pandemic, the much-neglected non-communicable diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, will continue their relentless trajectory, possibly in an accelerated manner, as the leading burdens of global health.” 

Dr. Al-Aly declared support from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for the submitted work. He has received consultation fees from Gilead Sciences and funding (unrelated to this work) from Tonix Pharmaceuticals. He is a member of the board of directors for Veterans Research and Education Foundation of Saint Louis, associate editor for the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, and a member of multiple editorial boards. Dr. Narayan and Dr. Staimez have received support from the National Institutes of Health.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the division of medical ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine.

There are many difficult moral issues that are being fueled by the terrible war that Russia is waging against Ukraine. I think there is no way to justify anything that the Russians are doing. Ukraine did not do anything to violate Russian integrity, Russian territorial integrity, or anything by way of being aggressive toward Russia.

Russia decided at some point it wanted the Ukraine back. Putin has a dream, as the long-standing leader of Russia, to restore the Soviet empire, and Ukraine is top of the list of the places that he wants back for a variety of reasons.

We’re not here to debate the merits and demerits of this terrible act of war. One issue that’s come up that doctors and scientists face is whether they should be cooperating with Russian scientific societies, Russian doctors, and Russian scientists.

The European Society of Cardiology made a decision very recently to drop, as members, both Russia and Belarus, Russia’s ally in this aggressive war against Ukraine. They basically found it intolerable to have business as usual with these subsidiary cardiology societies as part of the ongoing activities of the European group.

The sole goal of this overarching European group is to reduce the health burden of cardiovascular disease. It doesn’t have political goals. It doesn’t have much to say about anything other than, “Let’s get evidence-based medicine used to try and prevent heart disease or treat heart disease.” So there’s noble intent.

Many of its members asked, “What are we doing in politics? Why are we punishing Russian and Belarussian cardiologists, acting as if somehow they are responsible for what the Russian army is doing or for what Putin has decided to do? Why are we acting against them? They are just trying to fight heart disease. That’s a legitimate goal for any doctor, public health official, or scientist.” They didn’t see, as members, why this exclusion had taken place.

I believe the exclusion is appropriate and some of the membership, obviously, in the European Society of Cardiology, agrees. It’s not because they’re holding doctors or scientists directly accountable for Putin’s war crimes, ethnic cleansing assault, or bombing and shelling of hospitals, maternity hospitals, and civilians.

They understand that these scientists and doctors have little to do with such things, but we are in a new form of warfare, and that warfare is basically economic and sociologic: turning Russia, as an inexcusably aggressive state, into a pariah.

The reason to break the ties is that that is the way to bring pressure upon Putin and his kleptocratic, oligarchic advisers to stop the attack, to try and bring down their economy, to say, “Business is not going to go on as usual. You will be excluded from normal scientific and medical commerce. We’re not going to be holding conferences or exchanging ideas,” and in my view, extending it to say, “We’re not taking your papers, we’re not publishing anything you do. We’re not even having you speak at our meetings until this war, this aggressive invasion, and these war crimes come to a halt.”

There is actually a basis for this action. It isn’t in the organization’s own bylaws, which as I said, are very simple — reduce cardiovascular disease burden — but they are a member of a broader group, the Biomedical Alliance in Europe, which does have a very explicit code of ethics.

I’m going to read you a little bit from that code. It says healthcare organizations should uphold and promote equality, diversity and inclusion, accountability, transparency, and equality. They also say that all members, including the European Society of Cardiology, should be committed both to the Declaration of Helsinki, a fundamental medical ethics document, and the Declaration of Geneva. These rules refer to the highest respect of human beings, responsible resource allocation, and preservation of the environment, among other things.

What the organization is doing is consistent with the code of ethics that the broader organization of all the medical societies of Europe say that these individual groups should be doing. You can’t collaborate with war criminals. You can’t act as if business as usual is going on. That’s not inclusive. That’s not respect for diversity.

I think the Ukrainian medical societies of cardiology and other specialties would find it grimly ironic to say that keeping Russian and Belarus members makes sense, given what’s going on in their country and what is happening to them. They’re under attack. They’re being killed. Their healthcare institutions are being indiscriminately shelled and bombed.

It’s very hard — and I understand that — to say we’re going to punish scientists. We’re going to, perhaps, even cause public health problems in Russia because we’re not going to collaborate right now with doctors and scientists in cardiology or any other medical specialty. I think it’s what has to be done.

We’re in a new era of trying to combat what is basically organized, international ethnic terrorism, complete with war crimes. We fight financially. We fight by isolating. We fight by excluding. It’s painful. It’s difficult. It’s somewhat unfair to individuals.

Only through that kind of pain are we going to get the kind of pressure that will achieve justice. I think that is a goal that we have to commend the European Society of Cardiology for honoring.
 

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He is the author or editor of 35 books and 750 peer-reviewed articles as well as a frequent commentator in the media on bioethical issues. He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (an unpaid position), and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the division of medical ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine.

There are many difficult moral issues that are being fueled by the terrible war that Russia is waging against Ukraine. I think there is no way to justify anything that the Russians are doing. Ukraine did not do anything to violate Russian integrity, Russian territorial integrity, or anything by way of being aggressive toward Russia.

Russia decided at some point it wanted the Ukraine back. Putin has a dream, as the long-standing leader of Russia, to restore the Soviet empire, and Ukraine is top of the list of the places that he wants back for a variety of reasons.

We’re not here to debate the merits and demerits of this terrible act of war. One issue that’s come up that doctors and scientists face is whether they should be cooperating with Russian scientific societies, Russian doctors, and Russian scientists.

The European Society of Cardiology made a decision very recently to drop, as members, both Russia and Belarus, Russia’s ally in this aggressive war against Ukraine. They basically found it intolerable to have business as usual with these subsidiary cardiology societies as part of the ongoing activities of the European group.

The sole goal of this overarching European group is to reduce the health burden of cardiovascular disease. It doesn’t have political goals. It doesn’t have much to say about anything other than, “Let’s get evidence-based medicine used to try and prevent heart disease or treat heart disease.” So there’s noble intent.

Many of its members asked, “What are we doing in politics? Why are we punishing Russian and Belarussian cardiologists, acting as if somehow they are responsible for what the Russian army is doing or for what Putin has decided to do? Why are we acting against them? They are just trying to fight heart disease. That’s a legitimate goal for any doctor, public health official, or scientist.” They didn’t see, as members, why this exclusion had taken place.

I believe the exclusion is appropriate and some of the membership, obviously, in the European Society of Cardiology, agrees. It’s not because they’re holding doctors or scientists directly accountable for Putin’s war crimes, ethnic cleansing assault, or bombing and shelling of hospitals, maternity hospitals, and civilians.

They understand that these scientists and doctors have little to do with such things, but we are in a new form of warfare, and that warfare is basically economic and sociologic: turning Russia, as an inexcusably aggressive state, into a pariah.

The reason to break the ties is that that is the way to bring pressure upon Putin and his kleptocratic, oligarchic advisers to stop the attack, to try and bring down their economy, to say, “Business is not going to go on as usual. You will be excluded from normal scientific and medical commerce. We’re not going to be holding conferences or exchanging ideas,” and in my view, extending it to say, “We’re not taking your papers, we’re not publishing anything you do. We’re not even having you speak at our meetings until this war, this aggressive invasion, and these war crimes come to a halt.”

There is actually a basis for this action. It isn’t in the organization’s own bylaws, which as I said, are very simple — reduce cardiovascular disease burden — but they are a member of a broader group, the Biomedical Alliance in Europe, which does have a very explicit code of ethics.

I’m going to read you a little bit from that code. It says healthcare organizations should uphold and promote equality, diversity and inclusion, accountability, transparency, and equality. They also say that all members, including the European Society of Cardiology, should be committed both to the Declaration of Helsinki, a fundamental medical ethics document, and the Declaration of Geneva. These rules refer to the highest respect of human beings, responsible resource allocation, and preservation of the environment, among other things.

What the organization is doing is consistent with the code of ethics that the broader organization of all the medical societies of Europe say that these individual groups should be doing. You can’t collaborate with war criminals. You can’t act as if business as usual is going on. That’s not inclusive. That’s not respect for diversity.

I think the Ukrainian medical societies of cardiology and other specialties would find it grimly ironic to say that keeping Russian and Belarus members makes sense, given what’s going on in their country and what is happening to them. They’re under attack. They’re being killed. Their healthcare institutions are being indiscriminately shelled and bombed.

It’s very hard — and I understand that — to say we’re going to punish scientists. We’re going to, perhaps, even cause public health problems in Russia because we’re not going to collaborate right now with doctors and scientists in cardiology or any other medical specialty. I think it’s what has to be done.

We’re in a new era of trying to combat what is basically organized, international ethnic terrorism, complete with war crimes. We fight financially. We fight by isolating. We fight by excluding. It’s painful. It’s difficult. It’s somewhat unfair to individuals.

Only through that kind of pain are we going to get the kind of pressure that will achieve justice. I think that is a goal that we have to commend the European Society of Cardiology for honoring.
 

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He is the author or editor of 35 books and 750 peer-reviewed articles as well as a frequent commentator in the media on bioethical issues. He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (an unpaid position), and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the division of medical ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine.

There are many difficult moral issues that are being fueled by the terrible war that Russia is waging against Ukraine. I think there is no way to justify anything that the Russians are doing. Ukraine did not do anything to violate Russian integrity, Russian territorial integrity, or anything by way of being aggressive toward Russia.

Russia decided at some point it wanted the Ukraine back. Putin has a dream, as the long-standing leader of Russia, to restore the Soviet empire, and Ukraine is top of the list of the places that he wants back for a variety of reasons.

We’re not here to debate the merits and demerits of this terrible act of war. One issue that’s come up that doctors and scientists face is whether they should be cooperating with Russian scientific societies, Russian doctors, and Russian scientists.

The European Society of Cardiology made a decision very recently to drop, as members, both Russia and Belarus, Russia’s ally in this aggressive war against Ukraine. They basically found it intolerable to have business as usual with these subsidiary cardiology societies as part of the ongoing activities of the European group.

The sole goal of this overarching European group is to reduce the health burden of cardiovascular disease. It doesn’t have political goals. It doesn’t have much to say about anything other than, “Let’s get evidence-based medicine used to try and prevent heart disease or treat heart disease.” So there’s noble intent.

Many of its members asked, “What are we doing in politics? Why are we punishing Russian and Belarussian cardiologists, acting as if somehow they are responsible for what the Russian army is doing or for what Putin has decided to do? Why are we acting against them? They are just trying to fight heart disease. That’s a legitimate goal for any doctor, public health official, or scientist.” They didn’t see, as members, why this exclusion had taken place.

I believe the exclusion is appropriate and some of the membership, obviously, in the European Society of Cardiology, agrees. It’s not because they’re holding doctors or scientists directly accountable for Putin’s war crimes, ethnic cleansing assault, or bombing and shelling of hospitals, maternity hospitals, and civilians.

They understand that these scientists and doctors have little to do with such things, but we are in a new form of warfare, and that warfare is basically economic and sociologic: turning Russia, as an inexcusably aggressive state, into a pariah.

The reason to break the ties is that that is the way to bring pressure upon Putin and his kleptocratic, oligarchic advisers to stop the attack, to try and bring down their economy, to say, “Business is not going to go on as usual. You will be excluded from normal scientific and medical commerce. We’re not going to be holding conferences or exchanging ideas,” and in my view, extending it to say, “We’re not taking your papers, we’re not publishing anything you do. We’re not even having you speak at our meetings until this war, this aggressive invasion, and these war crimes come to a halt.”

There is actually a basis for this action. It isn’t in the organization’s own bylaws, which as I said, are very simple — reduce cardiovascular disease burden — but they are a member of a broader group, the Biomedical Alliance in Europe, which does have a very explicit code of ethics.

I’m going to read you a little bit from that code. It says healthcare organizations should uphold and promote equality, diversity and inclusion, accountability, transparency, and equality. They also say that all members, including the European Society of Cardiology, should be committed both to the Declaration of Helsinki, a fundamental medical ethics document, and the Declaration of Geneva. These rules refer to the highest respect of human beings, responsible resource allocation, and preservation of the environment, among other things.

What the organization is doing is consistent with the code of ethics that the broader organization of all the medical societies of Europe say that these individual groups should be doing. You can’t collaborate with war criminals. You can’t act as if business as usual is going on. That’s not inclusive. That’s not respect for diversity.

I think the Ukrainian medical societies of cardiology and other specialties would find it grimly ironic to say that keeping Russian and Belarus members makes sense, given what’s going on in their country and what is happening to them. They’re under attack. They’re being killed. Their healthcare institutions are being indiscriminately shelled and bombed.

It’s very hard — and I understand that — to say we’re going to punish scientists. We’re going to, perhaps, even cause public health problems in Russia because we’re not going to collaborate right now with doctors and scientists in cardiology or any other medical specialty. I think it’s what has to be done.

We’re in a new era of trying to combat what is basically organized, international ethnic terrorism, complete with war crimes. We fight financially. We fight by isolating. We fight by excluding. It’s painful. It’s difficult. It’s somewhat unfair to individuals.

Only through that kind of pain are we going to get the kind of pressure that will achieve justice. I think that is a goal that we have to commend the European Society of Cardiology for honoring.
 

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He is the author or editor of 35 books and 750 peer-reviewed articles as well as a frequent commentator in the media on bioethical issues. He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (an unpaid position), and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

U.S. health officials are watching the steady climb in COVID-19 cases in the United Kingdom, which tends to signal what could happen next in the United States, according to NPR.

Daily cases counts have increased 38% in the past week, according to the latest data from the U.K. Health Security Agency. Hospitalizations are up about 25% as well.

“Over the last year or so, what happens in the U.K. usually happens here a few weeks later,” Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told NPR.

“And right now, the U.K. is seeing somewhat of a rebound in cases,” he said.

Health officials in the United Kingdom have noted the latest increase is likely due to the contagious BA.2 Omicron subvariant, the recent loosening of coronavirus restrictions, and waning immunity from vaccinations and infections.

“All three of those factors we have here in the United States,” Dr. Fauci said. “So I would not be surprised if, in the next few weeks, we see either a plateauing … of cases or even [the curve] rebounds and slightly goes up.”

Right now, COVID-19 cases in the United Stastes have dropped to their lowest levels since July 2021, according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, with fewer than 30,000 daily cases. At the same time, the rate of decline in cases has slowed significantly and is beginning to plateau.

Public health experts are also pointing to wastewater surveillance data that shows an uptick in viral activity across the country. The CDC’s wastewater dashboard indicates that about 35% of sites that monitor wastewater are seeing an increase, with consistent growth in Florida, Rhode Island, and West Virginia.

“The power of wastewater surveillance is that it’s an early warning system,” Amy Kirby, the program lead for the CDC’s National Wastewater Surveillance System, told NPR.

“We are seeing evidence of increases in some communities across the country,” she said. “What looked like noise at the beginning of the week is starting to look like a true signal here at the end of the week.”

The wastewater system doesn’t distinguish between Omicron and subvariants such as BA.2. However, other CDC data has found an increase in BA.2 cases in the United States, making up about a quarter of new COVID-19 cases.

The BA.2 variant has roughly doubled each week for the last month, which means it could become the dominant coronavirus strain in the United States in coming weeks, according to USA Today. Cases appear to be spreading more quickly in the Northeast and West, making up about 39% of cases in New York and New Jersey last week.

BA.2 also accounts for nearly 39% of cases across the Northeast, including Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont, USA Today reported. In the West, which includes Arizona, California and Nevada, the subvariant makes up about 28% of new cases. In the upper West, which includes Alaska, Oregon and Washington, about 26% of cases are BA.2.

The good news is that BA.2 “doesn’t seem to evade our vaccines or immunity any more than the prior Omicron [variant]. And it doesn’t seem to lead to any more increased severity of disease,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, the CDC director, told NPR’s Morning Edition on March 18.

The effects of BA.2 will likely depend on the immunity profile in the United States, including how long it’s been since someone was vaccinated, boosted, or recovered from an infection, she said.

Health officials are watching other countries with BA.2 increases, such as Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands. Many European countries have been reporting an uptick but not implementing major restrictions or shutdowns, USA Today reported.

The BA.2 variant likely won’t lead to a major surge in severe disease or strict COVID-19 measures, Dr. Fauci told NPR, but some coronavirus protocols may need to be implemented again if cases grow dramatically.

“We must be ready to pivot and, if necessary, to go back to stricter mitigation with regard to masks,” he said.

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

U.S. health officials are watching the steady climb in COVID-19 cases in the United Kingdom, which tends to signal what could happen next in the United States, according to NPR.

Daily cases counts have increased 38% in the past week, according to the latest data from the U.K. Health Security Agency. Hospitalizations are up about 25% as well.

“Over the last year or so, what happens in the U.K. usually happens here a few weeks later,” Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told NPR.

“And right now, the U.K. is seeing somewhat of a rebound in cases,” he said.

Health officials in the United Kingdom have noted the latest increase is likely due to the contagious BA.2 Omicron subvariant, the recent loosening of coronavirus restrictions, and waning immunity from vaccinations and infections.

“All three of those factors we have here in the United States,” Dr. Fauci said. “So I would not be surprised if, in the next few weeks, we see either a plateauing … of cases or even [the curve] rebounds and slightly goes up.”

Right now, COVID-19 cases in the United Stastes have dropped to their lowest levels since July 2021, according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, with fewer than 30,000 daily cases. At the same time, the rate of decline in cases has slowed significantly and is beginning to plateau.

Public health experts are also pointing to wastewater surveillance data that shows an uptick in viral activity across the country. The CDC’s wastewater dashboard indicates that about 35% of sites that monitor wastewater are seeing an increase, with consistent growth in Florida, Rhode Island, and West Virginia.

“The power of wastewater surveillance is that it’s an early warning system,” Amy Kirby, the program lead for the CDC’s National Wastewater Surveillance System, told NPR.

“We are seeing evidence of increases in some communities across the country,” she said. “What looked like noise at the beginning of the week is starting to look like a true signal here at the end of the week.”

The wastewater system doesn’t distinguish between Omicron and subvariants such as BA.2. However, other CDC data has found an increase in BA.2 cases in the United States, making up about a quarter of new COVID-19 cases.

The BA.2 variant has roughly doubled each week for the last month, which means it could become the dominant coronavirus strain in the United States in coming weeks, according to USA Today. Cases appear to be spreading more quickly in the Northeast and West, making up about 39% of cases in New York and New Jersey last week.

BA.2 also accounts for nearly 39% of cases across the Northeast, including Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont, USA Today reported. In the West, which includes Arizona, California and Nevada, the subvariant makes up about 28% of new cases. In the upper West, which includes Alaska, Oregon and Washington, about 26% of cases are BA.2.

The good news is that BA.2 “doesn’t seem to evade our vaccines or immunity any more than the prior Omicron [variant]. And it doesn’t seem to lead to any more increased severity of disease,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, the CDC director, told NPR’s Morning Edition on March 18.

The effects of BA.2 will likely depend on the immunity profile in the United States, including how long it’s been since someone was vaccinated, boosted, or recovered from an infection, she said.

Health officials are watching other countries with BA.2 increases, such as Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands. Many European countries have been reporting an uptick but not implementing major restrictions or shutdowns, USA Today reported.

The BA.2 variant likely won’t lead to a major surge in severe disease or strict COVID-19 measures, Dr. Fauci told NPR, but some coronavirus protocols may need to be implemented again if cases grow dramatically.

“We must be ready to pivot and, if necessary, to go back to stricter mitigation with regard to masks,” he said.

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

U.S. health officials are watching the steady climb in COVID-19 cases in the United Kingdom, which tends to signal what could happen next in the United States, according to NPR.

Daily cases counts have increased 38% in the past week, according to the latest data from the U.K. Health Security Agency. Hospitalizations are up about 25% as well.

“Over the last year or so, what happens in the U.K. usually happens here a few weeks later,” Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told NPR.

“And right now, the U.K. is seeing somewhat of a rebound in cases,” he said.

Health officials in the United Kingdom have noted the latest increase is likely due to the contagious BA.2 Omicron subvariant, the recent loosening of coronavirus restrictions, and waning immunity from vaccinations and infections.

“All three of those factors we have here in the United States,” Dr. Fauci said. “So I would not be surprised if, in the next few weeks, we see either a plateauing … of cases or even [the curve] rebounds and slightly goes up.”

Right now, COVID-19 cases in the United Stastes have dropped to their lowest levels since July 2021, according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, with fewer than 30,000 daily cases. At the same time, the rate of decline in cases has slowed significantly and is beginning to plateau.

Public health experts are also pointing to wastewater surveillance data that shows an uptick in viral activity across the country. The CDC’s wastewater dashboard indicates that about 35% of sites that monitor wastewater are seeing an increase, with consistent growth in Florida, Rhode Island, and West Virginia.

“The power of wastewater surveillance is that it’s an early warning system,” Amy Kirby, the program lead for the CDC’s National Wastewater Surveillance System, told NPR.

“We are seeing evidence of increases in some communities across the country,” she said. “What looked like noise at the beginning of the week is starting to look like a true signal here at the end of the week.”

The wastewater system doesn’t distinguish between Omicron and subvariants such as BA.2. However, other CDC data has found an increase in BA.2 cases in the United States, making up about a quarter of new COVID-19 cases.

The BA.2 variant has roughly doubled each week for the last month, which means it could become the dominant coronavirus strain in the United States in coming weeks, according to USA Today. Cases appear to be spreading more quickly in the Northeast and West, making up about 39% of cases in New York and New Jersey last week.

BA.2 also accounts for nearly 39% of cases across the Northeast, including Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont, USA Today reported. In the West, which includes Arizona, California and Nevada, the subvariant makes up about 28% of new cases. In the upper West, which includes Alaska, Oregon and Washington, about 26% of cases are BA.2.

The good news is that BA.2 “doesn’t seem to evade our vaccines or immunity any more than the prior Omicron [variant]. And it doesn’t seem to lead to any more increased severity of disease,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, the CDC director, told NPR’s Morning Edition on March 18.

The effects of BA.2 will likely depend on the immunity profile in the United States, including how long it’s been since someone was vaccinated, boosted, or recovered from an infection, she said.

Health officials are watching other countries with BA.2 increases, such as Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands. Many European countries have been reporting an uptick but not implementing major restrictions or shutdowns, USA Today reported.

The BA.2 variant likely won’t lead to a major surge in severe disease or strict COVID-19 measures, Dr. Fauci told NPR, but some coronavirus protocols may need to be implemented again if cases grow dramatically.

“We must be ready to pivot and, if necessary, to go back to stricter mitigation with regard to masks,” he said.

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

For patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) whose condition doesn’t respond adequately to methotrexate, addition of the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor adalimumab increased the likelihood of achieving minimum disease activity (MDA), compared with escalation of MTX dose, according to results from a phase 4, open-label study.

The new study is one of only a few to compare treatment protocols in a field that has seen new therapeutic options become available in recent years. That lack of evidence can leave patients and physicians uncertain about the next step if the initial results of treatment are disappointing.

“There are some gaps in our database and our understanding of psoriatic arthritis, compared to rheumatoid arthritis, where we have had many more studies over the years,” Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, told this news organization when asked to comment on the study.

The trial provides one answer, at least. “There was a clear-cut signal that it made more sense to add adalimumab at that early juncture where a person is not quite doing well enough on methotrexate to satisfy our goal of getting the patient to low disease activity. It gives us as clinicians some ammunition to speak to our insurance formulary people on this side of the Atlantic, or [for] people in the U.K. to go to their local regulatory board that approves medicines and be able to show them some actual practically derived evidence about this very common question that comes up in practice,” senior and corresponding author Philip Mease, MD, said in an interview. The study was published online in The Lancet Rheumatology.

“When a clinician and patient are making the decision to move on from methotrexate monotherapy, either because of lack of efficacy or safety issues, tolerability issues, it makes most sense to add on a biologic medication such as a TNF inhibitor at that juncture, rather than intensifying methotrexate therapy,” said Dr. Mease, who is director of rheumatology research at Swedish Medical Center/Providence St. Joseph Health and a clinical professor at the University of Washington, both in Seattle.

Physicians may be tempted to bump up the dose for patients who can tolerate MTX and who may be showing some improvement, but the new study should prompt a different strategy if MDA isn’t achieved, according to Oliver FitzGerald, MD, a professor at the Conway Institute for Biomolecular Research at University College Dublin, who was asked to comment on the study. “This study clearly shows that the early addition of adalimumab is the better choice, and it would change practice. That being said, there are clearly some patients who do respond sufficiently to increasing methotrexate, and it would be useful to be able to predict which patients might do that.” He added that the study focused on adalimumab and that the results might not apply to other biologics.

The study should encourage use of a quantitative treat-to-target measure like MDA, which is a composite measure of patient perspectives, Dr. Mease said. The American College of Rheumatology and National Psoriasis Foundation and Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis have recommended the use of MDA as a treat-to-target measure for PsA. The ACR and NPF recommend TNF inhibitors as first-line treatment, and GRAPPA includes it as a first-line option, whereas the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommends MTX only in the first line.

The study also suggests that there is value to using adalimumab on a weekly basis if an every-other-week schedule doesn’t produce the desired results. This strategy hasn’t been examined in PsA or even RA, according to Dr. Kavanaugh, who is a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego. “It did look like raising the dose might be an option for patients who are on every other week and are not doing quite as well as we would have hoped.”

The CONTROL study was a phase 4, two-part, open-label study. It included 245 patients in 14 countries who did not have MDA with MTX. In the first part of the study, patients were randomly assigned to receive weekly 15 mg MTX along with 40 mg adalimumab every other week, or escalation of MTX dose to 20-25 mg/week. MTX could be administered orally or intravenously. After 16 weeks (part 1), for patients who achieved MDA, current therapy was maintained or modified; for patients who did not achieve MDA, therapy was escalated over the following 16 weeks by giving adalimumab every week in the combination group or by adding adalimumab every other week in the MTX escalation arm.

Overall, 95% of the MTX plus adalimumab group completed part 1, as did 90% of the MTX escalation group. A total of 41% of the adalimumab group achieved MDA at 16 weeks versus 13% of the MTX group (P < .0001). The result held after accounting for sex and the interaction between sex and treatment (odds ratio, 4.6; 95% confidence interval, 2.4-8.9).

Among patients who achieved MDA at 16 weeks, 80% in the adalimumab group continued to have MDA at 32 weeks even after MTX had been withdrawn. Of those in the MTX escalation group, 67% continued to have MDA at 32 weeks with continued escalation of MTX.

Of the patients in the MTX escalation group who did not respond, 55% reached MDA following introduction of adalimumab every other week. Of those who did not respond to adalimumab, 30% reached MDA after switching to weekly adalimumab doses.

The study was open label, and patients who received adalimumab may have expected some improvement; that could have skewed the findings, Dr. Kavanaugh said. “I think that’s an important consideration as we interpret the data. The people who got the MTX arm probably had less of an expectation that they were going to do much better than those who switched to the adalimumab, as did the doctors taking care of them.”

The CONTROL study was funded by AbbVie. Dr. Mease has received research grants, consulted for, or received speaker honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB. Dr. FitzGerald has received grant support and honoraria from AbbVie. Dr. Kavanaugh has received research support from or consulted for AbbVie, Janssen, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, and UCB.

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

For patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) whose condition doesn’t respond adequately to methotrexate, addition of the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor adalimumab increased the likelihood of achieving minimum disease activity (MDA), compared with escalation of MTX dose, according to results from a phase 4, open-label study.

The new study is one of only a few to compare treatment protocols in a field that has seen new therapeutic options become available in recent years. That lack of evidence can leave patients and physicians uncertain about the next step if the initial results of treatment are disappointing.

“There are some gaps in our database and our understanding of psoriatic arthritis, compared to rheumatoid arthritis, where we have had many more studies over the years,” Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, told this news organization when asked to comment on the study.

The trial provides one answer, at least. “There was a clear-cut signal that it made more sense to add adalimumab at that early juncture where a person is not quite doing well enough on methotrexate to satisfy our goal of getting the patient to low disease activity. It gives us as clinicians some ammunition to speak to our insurance formulary people on this side of the Atlantic, or [for] people in the U.K. to go to their local regulatory board that approves medicines and be able to show them some actual practically derived evidence about this very common question that comes up in practice,” senior and corresponding author Philip Mease, MD, said in an interview. The study was published online in The Lancet Rheumatology.

“When a clinician and patient are making the decision to move on from methotrexate monotherapy, either because of lack of efficacy or safety issues, tolerability issues, it makes most sense to add on a biologic medication such as a TNF inhibitor at that juncture, rather than intensifying methotrexate therapy,” said Dr. Mease, who is director of rheumatology research at Swedish Medical Center/Providence St. Joseph Health and a clinical professor at the University of Washington, both in Seattle.

Physicians may be tempted to bump up the dose for patients who can tolerate MTX and who may be showing some improvement, but the new study should prompt a different strategy if MDA isn’t achieved, according to Oliver FitzGerald, MD, a professor at the Conway Institute for Biomolecular Research at University College Dublin, who was asked to comment on the study. “This study clearly shows that the early addition of adalimumab is the better choice, and it would change practice. That being said, there are clearly some patients who do respond sufficiently to increasing methotrexate, and it would be useful to be able to predict which patients might do that.” He added that the study focused on adalimumab and that the results might not apply to other biologics.

The study should encourage use of a quantitative treat-to-target measure like MDA, which is a composite measure of patient perspectives, Dr. Mease said. The American College of Rheumatology and National Psoriasis Foundation and Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis have recommended the use of MDA as a treat-to-target measure for PsA. The ACR and NPF recommend TNF inhibitors as first-line treatment, and GRAPPA includes it as a first-line option, whereas the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommends MTX only in the first line.

The study also suggests that there is value to using adalimumab on a weekly basis if an every-other-week schedule doesn’t produce the desired results. This strategy hasn’t been examined in PsA or even RA, according to Dr. Kavanaugh, who is a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego. “It did look like raising the dose might be an option for patients who are on every other week and are not doing quite as well as we would have hoped.”

The CONTROL study was a phase 4, two-part, open-label study. It included 245 patients in 14 countries who did not have MDA with MTX. In the first part of the study, patients were randomly assigned to receive weekly 15 mg MTX along with 40 mg adalimumab every other week, or escalation of MTX dose to 20-25 mg/week. MTX could be administered orally or intravenously. After 16 weeks (part 1), for patients who achieved MDA, current therapy was maintained or modified; for patients who did not achieve MDA, therapy was escalated over the following 16 weeks by giving adalimumab every week in the combination group or by adding adalimumab every other week in the MTX escalation arm.

Overall, 95% of the MTX plus adalimumab group completed part 1, as did 90% of the MTX escalation group. A total of 41% of the adalimumab group achieved MDA at 16 weeks versus 13% of the MTX group (P < .0001). The result held after accounting for sex and the interaction between sex and treatment (odds ratio, 4.6; 95% confidence interval, 2.4-8.9).

Among patients who achieved MDA at 16 weeks, 80% in the adalimumab group continued to have MDA at 32 weeks even after MTX had been withdrawn. Of those in the MTX escalation group, 67% continued to have MDA at 32 weeks with continued escalation of MTX.

Of the patients in the MTX escalation group who did not respond, 55% reached MDA following introduction of adalimumab every other week. Of those who did not respond to adalimumab, 30% reached MDA after switching to weekly adalimumab doses.

The study was open label, and patients who received adalimumab may have expected some improvement; that could have skewed the findings, Dr. Kavanaugh said. “I think that’s an important consideration as we interpret the data. The people who got the MTX arm probably had less of an expectation that they were going to do much better than those who switched to the adalimumab, as did the doctors taking care of them.”

The CONTROL study was funded by AbbVie. Dr. Mease has received research grants, consulted for, or received speaker honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB. Dr. FitzGerald has received grant support and honoraria from AbbVie. Dr. Kavanaugh has received research support from or consulted for AbbVie, Janssen, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, and UCB.

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

For patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) whose condition doesn’t respond adequately to methotrexate, addition of the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor adalimumab increased the likelihood of achieving minimum disease activity (MDA), compared with escalation of MTX dose, according to results from a phase 4, open-label study.

The new study is one of only a few to compare treatment protocols in a field that has seen new therapeutic options become available in recent years. That lack of evidence can leave patients and physicians uncertain about the next step if the initial results of treatment are disappointing.

“There are some gaps in our database and our understanding of psoriatic arthritis, compared to rheumatoid arthritis, where we have had many more studies over the years,” Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, told this news organization when asked to comment on the study.

The trial provides one answer, at least. “There was a clear-cut signal that it made more sense to add adalimumab at that early juncture where a person is not quite doing well enough on methotrexate to satisfy our goal of getting the patient to low disease activity. It gives us as clinicians some ammunition to speak to our insurance formulary people on this side of the Atlantic, or [for] people in the U.K. to go to their local regulatory board that approves medicines and be able to show them some actual practically derived evidence about this very common question that comes up in practice,” senior and corresponding author Philip Mease, MD, said in an interview. The study was published online in The Lancet Rheumatology.

“When a clinician and patient are making the decision to move on from methotrexate monotherapy, either because of lack of efficacy or safety issues, tolerability issues, it makes most sense to add on a biologic medication such as a TNF inhibitor at that juncture, rather than intensifying methotrexate therapy,” said Dr. Mease, who is director of rheumatology research at Swedish Medical Center/Providence St. Joseph Health and a clinical professor at the University of Washington, both in Seattle.

Physicians may be tempted to bump up the dose for patients who can tolerate MTX and who may be showing some improvement, but the new study should prompt a different strategy if MDA isn’t achieved, according to Oliver FitzGerald, MD, a professor at the Conway Institute for Biomolecular Research at University College Dublin, who was asked to comment on the study. “This study clearly shows that the early addition of adalimumab is the better choice, and it would change practice. That being said, there are clearly some patients who do respond sufficiently to increasing methotrexate, and it would be useful to be able to predict which patients might do that.” He added that the study focused on adalimumab and that the results might not apply to other biologics.

The study should encourage use of a quantitative treat-to-target measure like MDA, which is a composite measure of patient perspectives, Dr. Mease said. The American College of Rheumatology and National Psoriasis Foundation and Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis have recommended the use of MDA as a treat-to-target measure for PsA. The ACR and NPF recommend TNF inhibitors as first-line treatment, and GRAPPA includes it as a first-line option, whereas the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommends MTX only in the first line.

The study also suggests that there is value to using adalimumab on a weekly basis if an every-other-week schedule doesn’t produce the desired results. This strategy hasn’t been examined in PsA or even RA, according to Dr. Kavanaugh, who is a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego. “It did look like raising the dose might be an option for patients who are on every other week and are not doing quite as well as we would have hoped.”

The CONTROL study was a phase 4, two-part, open-label study. It included 245 patients in 14 countries who did not have MDA with MTX. In the first part of the study, patients were randomly assigned to receive weekly 15 mg MTX along with 40 mg adalimumab every other week, or escalation of MTX dose to 20-25 mg/week. MTX could be administered orally or intravenously. After 16 weeks (part 1), for patients who achieved MDA, current therapy was maintained or modified; for patients who did not achieve MDA, therapy was escalated over the following 16 weeks by giving adalimumab every week in the combination group or by adding adalimumab every other week in the MTX escalation arm.

Overall, 95% of the MTX plus adalimumab group completed part 1, as did 90% of the MTX escalation group. A total of 41% of the adalimumab group achieved MDA at 16 weeks versus 13% of the MTX group (P < .0001). The result held after accounting for sex and the interaction between sex and treatment (odds ratio, 4.6; 95% confidence interval, 2.4-8.9).

Among patients who achieved MDA at 16 weeks, 80% in the adalimumab group continued to have MDA at 32 weeks even after MTX had been withdrawn. Of those in the MTX escalation group, 67% continued to have MDA at 32 weeks with continued escalation of MTX.

Of the patients in the MTX escalation group who did not respond, 55% reached MDA following introduction of adalimumab every other week. Of those who did not respond to adalimumab, 30% reached MDA after switching to weekly adalimumab doses.

The study was open label, and patients who received adalimumab may have expected some improvement; that could have skewed the findings, Dr. Kavanaugh said. “I think that’s an important consideration as we interpret the data. The people who got the MTX arm probably had less of an expectation that they were going to do much better than those who switched to the adalimumab, as did the doctors taking care of them.”

The CONTROL study was funded by AbbVie. Dr. Mease has received research grants, consulted for, or received speaker honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB. Dr. FitzGerald has received grant support and honoraria from AbbVie. Dr. Kavanaugh has received research support from or consulted for AbbVie, Janssen, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, and UCB.

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

Over 2.5 million people have fled the ghastly war in Ukraine for safety. But, not everyone is trying to leave. Shockingly, hundreds of thousands are actually flocking toward the danger in Ukraine right now. Many of them are women. 

I was commuting to work when I first heard this story on a podcast. In astonishing numbers, women have chosen to return to or stay in Ukraine because they’re needed to fight and to protect their families. My reaction, like yours, was to be inspired. What amazing courage! Twitter and Instagram will swell with images of their balaclava masked faces standing in the breach once more. Like the women in medicine who armed themselves with surgical masks and face shields and babies on their backs to join the fight against COVID-19. They will be poster girls, blue sleeves rolled up and red polka dotted bandanas covering their hair. 

But that’s not what they want. “We don’t want to be an inspiration,” said one fearless Ukrainian fighter in the story, “we want to be alive.”

At the time of this writing as we celebrate the brilliant accomplishments of women on March 8, International Women’s Day, I wonder if we don’t have it slightly wrong.

Although acknowledgment is appreciated, the women I work alongside don’t need me to be inspired by them. They need me to stand with them, to help them. There has been extensive reporting on the disproportionate burden that women have borne though the pandemic: lost income, lost status, lost jobs. The “she-session” it’s been called, refers to the million women who have not rejoined the workforce since COVID-19. This is especially acute for us in medicine where women are significantly more likely than are men to report not working full time, or not working at all.

The truth is that even in 2022, the burdens of family life are still not borne equally. Bias against mothers in particular can be insidious. Take academia, where there is little sympathy for not publishing on schedule. Perhaps there are unexplained gaps, but where exactly on a CV does one put “recurrent pregnancy loss?” Do you know how many clinics or ORs a woman must cancel to attempt maddeningly unpredictable egg retrievals and embryo transfers? A lot. Not to mention the financial burden of doing so. 

During the pandemic, female physicians were more likely to manage child care, schooling, and household duties, compared to male physicians.

And yet (perhaps even because of that?) women in medicine make less money. How much? About $80,000 less on average in dermatology. Inspired? Indeed. No thanks. Let’s #BreakTheBias rather. 

I’m not a policy expert nor a sociologist. I don’t know what advice might be helpful here. I’d say raising our collective consciousness of the unfairness, highlighting discrepancies, and advocating for equality are good starts. But, International Women’s Day isn’t new. It’s old. Like over a hundred years old (since 1909 to be exact). We don’t just need a better hashtag, we need to do something. Give equity in pay. Offer opportunities for leadership that accommodate the extra duty women might have outside work. Create flexibility in schedules and without the penalty of having to pump at work or leave early to pick up a child. Not to mention all the opportunities we men have to do more of the household work that women currently do. 

The gallant women of Ukraine don’t need our approbation. They need our aid and our prayers. Like the women in my department, at my medical center, in my community, they aren’t posing to be made into posters. There’s work to be done and they are flocking toward it right now. 

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].

Over 2.5 million people have fled the ghastly war in Ukraine for safety. But, not everyone is trying to leave. Shockingly, hundreds of thousands are actually flocking toward the danger in Ukraine right now. Many of them are women.