All Content

PHM20 Virtual session title

Can’t Miss Heart Disease for Hospitalists



Presenter

Erich Maul, DO, MPH, FAAP, SFHM



Session summary

Dr. Erich Maul, professor of pediatrics, medical director for progressive care and acute care, and chief of hospital pediatrics at Kentucky Children’s Hospital, Lexington, presented an engaging, case-based approach to evaluate heart disease when “on call.” He iterated the importance of recognizing congenital heart disease, especially since 25% of these patients usually need surgical intervention within the first month of diagnosis and about 50% of congenital heart disease patients do not have a murmur.

Presenting cases seen during a busy hospitalist call night, Dr. Maul highlighted that patients can present with signs of heart failure, cyanosis, sepsis or hypoperfusion, failure to thrive, and respiratory distress or failure. He discussed the presentation, epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. He also provided examples of common arrhythmias and provided refreshers on management using basic life support (BLS) and pediatric advanced life support.
 

Key takeaways

• Always start with the nine steps to resuscitation: ABC (airway, breathing, circulation), ABC, oxygen, access, monitoring.
• Early BLS is important.
• Congenital heart disease often presents with either cyanosis, hypoperfusion, failure to thrive, or respiratory distress.

Dr. Tantoco is an academic med-peds hospitalist practicing at Northwestern Memorial Hospital and Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago. She is an instructor of medicine (hospital medicine) and pediatrics at Northwestern University, Chicago.

PHM20 Virtual session title

Can’t Miss Heart Disease for Hospitalists



Presenter

Erich Maul, DO, MPH, FAAP, SFHM



Session summary

Dr. Erich Maul, professor of pediatrics, medical director for progressive care and acute care, and chief of hospital pediatrics at Kentucky Children’s Hospital, Lexington, presented an engaging, case-based approach to evaluate heart disease when “on call.” He iterated the importance of recognizing congenital heart disease, especially since 25% of these patients usually need surgical intervention within the first month of diagnosis and about 50% of congenital heart disease patients do not have a murmur.

Presenting cases seen during a busy hospitalist call night, Dr. Maul highlighted that patients can present with signs of heart failure, cyanosis, sepsis or hypoperfusion, failure to thrive, and respiratory distress or failure. He discussed the presentation, epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. He also provided examples of common arrhythmias and provided refreshers on management using basic life support (BLS) and pediatric advanced life support.
 

Key takeaways

• Always start with the nine steps to resuscitation: ABC (airway, breathing, circulation), ABC, oxygen, access, monitoring.
• Early BLS is important.
• Congenital heart disease often presents with either cyanosis, hypoperfusion, failure to thrive, or respiratory distress.

Dr. Tantoco is an academic med-peds hospitalist practicing at Northwestern Memorial Hospital and Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago. She is an instructor of medicine (hospital medicine) and pediatrics at Northwestern University, Chicago.

PHM20 Virtual session title

Can’t Miss Heart Disease for Hospitalists



Presenter

Erich Maul, DO, MPH, FAAP, SFHM



Session summary

Dr. Erich Maul, professor of pediatrics, medical director for progressive care and acute care, and chief of hospital pediatrics at Kentucky Children’s Hospital, Lexington, presented an engaging, case-based approach to evaluate heart disease when “on call.” He iterated the importance of recognizing congenital heart disease, especially since 25% of these patients usually need surgical intervention within the first month of diagnosis and about 50% of congenital heart disease patients do not have a murmur.

Presenting cases seen during a busy hospitalist call night, Dr. Maul highlighted that patients can present with signs of heart failure, cyanosis, sepsis or hypoperfusion, failure to thrive, and respiratory distress or failure. He discussed the presentation, epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. He also provided examples of common arrhythmias and provided refreshers on management using basic life support (BLS) and pediatric advanced life support.
 

Key takeaways

• Always start with the nine steps to resuscitation: ABC (airway, breathing, circulation), ABC, oxygen, access, monitoring.
• Early BLS is important.
• Congenital heart disease often presents with either cyanosis, hypoperfusion, failure to thrive, or respiratory distress.

Dr. Tantoco is an academic med-peds hospitalist practicing at Northwestern Memorial Hospital and Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago. She is an instructor of medicine (hospital medicine) and pediatrics at Northwestern University, Chicago.

The cumulative number of reported COVID-19 cases among children in the United States stood at 406,109 as of Aug. 13, an increase of 6.8% over the previous week, according to a new report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The 406,000 children who have tested positive for COVID-19 represent 9.1% of all cases reported so far by 49 states (New York does not provide age distribution), New York City, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam. Since the proportion of child cases also was 9.1% on Aug. 6, the most recent week is the first without an increase since tracking began in mid-April, the report shows.

State-level data show that Wyoming has the highest percentage of child cases (16.6%) after Alabama changed its “definition of child case from 0-24 to 0-17 years, resulting in a downward revision of cumulative child cases,” the AAP and the CHA said. Alabama’s proportion of such cases dropped from 22.5% to 9.0%.

New Jersey had the lowest rate (3.1%) again this week, along with New York City, but both were up slightly from the week before, when New Jersey was at 2.9% and N.Y.C. was 3.0%. The only states, other than Alabama, that saw declines over the last week were Arkansas, Massachusetts, Mississippi, South Dakota, Texas, and West Virginia. Texas, however, has reported age for only 8% of its confirmed cases, the report noted.

The overall rate of child COVID-19 cases as of Aug. 13 was 538 per 100,000 children, up from 500.7 per 100,000 a week earlier. Arizona was again highest among the states with a rate of 1,254 per 100,000 (up from 1,206) and Vermont was lowest at 121, although Puerto Rico (114) and Guam (88) were lower still, the AAP/CHA data indicate.

For the nine states that report testing information for children, Arizona has the highest positivity rate at 18.3% and West Virginia has the lowest at 3.6%. Data on hospitalizations – available from 21 states and N.Y.C. – show that 3,849 children have been admitted, with rates varying from 0.2% of children in Hawaii to 8.8% in the Big Apple, according to the report.

More specific information on child cases, such as symptoms or underlying conditions, is not being provided by states at this time, the AAP and CHA pointed out.

[email protected]

The cumulative number of reported COVID-19 cases among children in the United States stood at 406,109 as of Aug. 13, an increase of 6.8% over the previous week, according to a new report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The 406,000 children who have tested positive for COVID-19 represent 9.1% of all cases reported so far by 49 states (New York does not provide age distribution), New York City, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam. Since the proportion of child cases also was 9.1% on Aug. 6, the most recent week is the first without an increase since tracking began in mid-April, the report shows.

State-level data show that Wyoming has the highest percentage of child cases (16.6%) after Alabama changed its “definition of child case from 0-24 to 0-17 years, resulting in a downward revision of cumulative child cases,” the AAP and the CHA said. Alabama’s proportion of such cases dropped from 22.5% to 9.0%.

New Jersey had the lowest rate (3.1%) again this week, along with New York City, but both were up slightly from the week before, when New Jersey was at 2.9% and N.Y.C. was 3.0%. The only states, other than Alabama, that saw declines over the last week were Arkansas, Massachusetts, Mississippi, South Dakota, Texas, and West Virginia. Texas, however, has reported age for only 8% of its confirmed cases, the report noted.

The overall rate of child COVID-19 cases as of Aug. 13 was 538 per 100,000 children, up from 500.7 per 100,000 a week earlier. Arizona was again highest among the states with a rate of 1,254 per 100,000 (up from 1,206) and Vermont was lowest at 121, although Puerto Rico (114) and Guam (88) were lower still, the AAP/CHA data indicate.

For the nine states that report testing information for children, Arizona has the highest positivity rate at 18.3% and West Virginia has the lowest at 3.6%. Data on hospitalizations – available from 21 states and N.Y.C. – show that 3,849 children have been admitted, with rates varying from 0.2% of children in Hawaii to 8.8% in the Big Apple, according to the report.

More specific information on child cases, such as symptoms or underlying conditions, is not being provided by states at this time, the AAP and CHA pointed out.

[email protected]

The cumulative number of reported COVID-19 cases among children in the United States stood at 406,109 as of Aug. 13, an increase of 6.8% over the previous week, according to a new report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The 406,000 children who have tested positive for COVID-19 represent 9.1% of all cases reported so far by 49 states (New York does not provide age distribution), New York City, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam. Since the proportion of child cases also was 9.1% on Aug. 6, the most recent week is the first without an increase since tracking began in mid-April, the report shows.

State-level data show that Wyoming has the highest percentage of child cases (16.6%) after Alabama changed its “definition of child case from 0-24 to 0-17 years, resulting in a downward revision of cumulative child cases,” the AAP and the CHA said. Alabama’s proportion of such cases dropped from 22.5% to 9.0%.

New Jersey had the lowest rate (3.1%) again this week, along with New York City, but both were up slightly from the week before, when New Jersey was at 2.9% and N.Y.C. was 3.0%. The only states, other than Alabama, that saw declines over the last week were Arkansas, Massachusetts, Mississippi, South Dakota, Texas, and West Virginia. Texas, however, has reported age for only 8% of its confirmed cases, the report noted.

The overall rate of child COVID-19 cases as of Aug. 13 was 538 per 100,000 children, up from 500.7 per 100,000 a week earlier. Arizona was again highest among the states with a rate of 1,254 per 100,000 (up from 1,206) and Vermont was lowest at 121, although Puerto Rico (114) and Guam (88) were lower still, the AAP/CHA data indicate.

For the nine states that report testing information for children, Arizona has the highest positivity rate at 18.3% and West Virginia has the lowest at 3.6%. Data on hospitalizations – available from 21 states and N.Y.C. – show that 3,849 children have been admitted, with rates varying from 0.2% of children in Hawaii to 8.8% in the Big Apple, according to the report.

More specific information on child cases, such as symptoms or underlying conditions, is not being provided by states at this time, the AAP and CHA pointed out.

[email protected]

As forensic evaluators, we are often asked to review and assess the cognition of aging colleagues. The premise often involves a minor mistake, a poor choice of words, or a lapse in judgment. A physician gets reported for having difficulty using a new electronic form, forgetting the dose of a brand new medication, or getting upset in a public setting. Those behaviors often lead to mandatory psychiatric evaluations. Those requirements are often perceived by the provider as an insult, and betrayal by peers despite many years of dedicated work.

Interestingly, we have noticed many independent evaluators and hospital administrators using this opportunity to send many of our colleagues to pasture. There seems to be an unspoken rule among some forensic evaluators that physicians should represent some form of apex of humanity, beyond reproach, and beyond any fault. Those evaluators will point to any mistake on cognitive scales as proof that the aging physician is no longer safe to practice.¹ Forgetting that Jill is from Illinois in the Saint Louis University Mental Status Examination test or how to copy a three-dimensional cube on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment can cost someone their license.² We are also aware of some evaluators even taking the step further and opining that physicians not only need to score adequately but also demonstrate cognition significantly above average to maintain their privileges.

There is certainly significant appeal in setting a high bar for physicians. In many ways, physicians are characterized in society by their astuteness, intelligence, and high ethical standards. Patients place their lives in the hands of physicians and should trust that those physicians have the cognitive tools to heal them. It could almost seem evident that physicians should have high IQs, score perfectly on screening tools for dementia, and complete a mandatory psychiatric evaluation without any reproach. Yet the reality is often more complex. Dismissing a physician after making any fault actually might reveal anxiety in an evaluator who is more concerned about not being blamed for any future mistakes the physician might make.

We have two main concerns about the idea that we should be intransigent with aging physicians. The first one is the vast differential diagnosis for minor mistakes. An aging physician refusing to comply with a new form or yelling at a clerk once when asked to learn a new electronic medical record are inappropriate though not specific assessments for dementia. Similarly, having significant difficulty learning a new electronic medical record system more often is a sign of ageism rather than cognitive impairment. Subsequently, when arriving for their evaluation, forgetting the date is a common sign of anxiety. A relatable analogy would be to compare the mistake with a medical student forgetting part of the anatomy while questioning by an attending during surgery. Imagine such medical students being referred to mandatory psychiatric evaluation when failing to answer a question during rounds.

In our practice, the most common reason for those minor mistakes during our clinical evaluation is anxiety. After all, patients who present for problems completely unrelated to cognitive decline make similar mistakes. Psychological stressors in physicians require no introduction. The concept is so prevalent and pervasive that it has its own name, “burnout.” Imagine having dedicated most of one’s life to a profession then being enumerated a list of complaints, having one’s privileges put on hold, then being told to complete an independent psychiatric evaluation. If burnout is in part caused by a lack of control, unclear job expectations, rapidly changing models of health care, and dysfunctional workplace dynamics, imagine the consequence of such a referral.

The militant evaluator will use jargon to vilify the reviewed physician. If the physician complains too voraciously, he will be described as having signs of frontotemporal dementia. If the physician comes with a written list of rebuttals, he will be described as having memory problems requiring aids. If the physician is demoralized and quiet, he will be described as being withdrawn and apathetic. If the physician refuses to use or has difficulty with new forms or electronic systems, he will be described as having “impaired executive function,” an ominous term that surely should not be associated with a practicing physician.

The second concern arises from problems with the validity and use of diagnoses like mild cognitive impairment (MCI). MCI is considered to be a transition stage when one maintains “normal activities of daily living, and normal general cognitive function.”³ The American Psychiatric Association Textbook of Psychiatry mentions that there are “however, many cases of nonprogressive MCI.” Should a disorder with generally normal cognition and unclear progression to a more severe disorder require one to be dispensed of their privileges? Should any disorder trump an assessment of functioning?

It is our experience that many if not most physicians’ practice of medicine is not a job but a profession that defines who they are. As such, their occupational habits are an overly repeated and ingrained series of maneuvers analogous to so-called muscle memory. This kind of ritualistic pattern is precisely the kind of cognition that may persist as one starts to have some deficits. This requires the evaluator to be particularly sensitive and cognizant that one may still be able to perform professionally despite some mild but notable deficits. While it is facile to diagnose someone with MCI and justify removing their license, a review of their actual clinical skills is, despite being more time consuming, more pertinent to the evaluation.

In practice, we find that many cases lie in a gray area, which is hard to define. Physicians may come to our office for an evaluation after having said something odd at work. Maybe they misdosed a medication on one occasion. Maybe they wrote the wrong year on a chart. However, if the physician was 30 years old, would we consider any one of those incidents significant? As a psychiatrist rather than a physician practicing the specialty in review, it is particularly hard and sometimes unwise to condone or sanction individual incidents.

Evaluators find solace in neuropsychological testing. However the relevance to the safety of patients is unclear. Many of those tests end up being a simple proxy for age. A physicians’ ability to sort words or cards at a certain speed might correlate to cognitive performance but has unclear significance to the ability to care for patients. Using such tests becomes a de facto age limit on the practice of medicine. It seems essential to expand and refine our repertoire of evaluation tools for the assessment of physicians. As when we perform capacity evaluation in the hospital, we enlist the assistance of the treating team in understanding the questions being asked for a patient, medical boards could consider creating independent multidisciplinary teams where psychiatry has a seat along with the relevant specialties of the evaluee. Likewise, the assessment would benefit from a broad review of the physicians’ general practice rather than the more typical review of one or two incidents.

We are promoting a more individualized approach by medical boards to the many issues of the aging physician. Retiring is no longer the dream of older physicians, but rather working in the suitable position where their contributions, clinical experience, and wisdom are positive contributions to patient care. Furthermore, we encourage medical boards to consider more nuanced decisions. A binary approach fits few cases that we see. Surgeons are a prime example of this. A surgeon in the early stages of Parkinsonism may be unfit to perform surgery but very capable of continuing to contribute to the well-being of patients in other forms of clinical work, including postsurgical care that doesn’t involve physical dexterity. Similarly, medical boards could consider other forms of partial restrictions, including a ban on procedures, a ban on hospital privileges, as well as required supervision or working in teams. Accumulated clinical wisdom allows older physicians to be excellent mentors and educators for younger doctors. There is no simple method to predict which physicians may have the early stages of a progressive dementia, and which may have a stable MCI. A yearly reevaluation if there are no further complaints, is the best approach to determine progression of cognitive problems.

Few crises like the current COVID-19 pandemic can better remind us of the importance of the place of medicine in society. Many states have encouraged retired physicians to contribute their knowledge and expertise, putting themselves in particular risk because of their age. It is a good time to be reminded that we owe them significant respect and care when deciding to remove their license. We are encouraged by the diligent efforts of medical boards in supervising our colleagues but warn against zealot evaluators who use this opportunity to force physicians into retirement. We also encourage medical boards to expand their tools and approaches when facing such cases, as mislabeled cognitive diagnoses can be an easy scapegoat of a poor understanding of the more important psychological and biological factors in the evaluation.

References

1. Tariq SH et al. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2006;14:900-10.

2. Nasreddine Z. mocatest.org. Version 2004 Nov 7.

3. Hales RE et al. The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Psychiatry. Washington: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2014.

Dr. Badre is a forensic psychiatrist in San Diego and an expert in correctional mental health. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Among his writings in chapter 7 in the book “Critical Psychiatry: Controversies and Clinical Implications” (Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2019). He has no disclosures.

Dr. Abrams is a forensic psychiatrist and attorney in San Diego. He is an expert in addictionology, behavioral toxicology, psychopharmacology and correctional mental health. He holds a teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego. Among his writings are chapters about competency in national textbooks. Dr. Abrams has no disclosures.

As forensic evaluators, we are often asked to review and assess the cognition of aging colleagues. The premise often involves a minor mistake, a poor choice of words, or a lapse in judgment. A physician gets reported for having difficulty using a new electronic form, forgetting the dose of a brand new medication, or getting upset in a public setting. Those behaviors often lead to mandatory psychiatric evaluations. Those requirements are often perceived by the provider as an insult, and betrayal by peers despite many years of dedicated work.

Interestingly, we have noticed many independent evaluators and hospital administrators using this opportunity to send many of our colleagues to pasture. There seems to be an unspoken rule among some forensic evaluators that physicians should represent some form of apex of humanity, beyond reproach, and beyond any fault. Those evaluators will point to any mistake on cognitive scales as proof that the aging physician is no longer safe to practice.¹ Forgetting that Jill is from Illinois in the Saint Louis University Mental Status Examination test or how to copy a three-dimensional cube on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment can cost someone their license.² We are also aware of some evaluators even taking the step further and opining that physicians not only need to score adequately but also demonstrate cognition significantly above average to maintain their privileges.

There is certainly significant appeal in setting a high bar for physicians. In many ways, physicians are characterized in society by their astuteness, intelligence, and high ethical standards. Patients place their lives in the hands of physicians and should trust that those physicians have the cognitive tools to heal them. It could almost seem evident that physicians should have high IQs, score perfectly on screening tools for dementia, and complete a mandatory psychiatric evaluation without any reproach. Yet the reality is often more complex. Dismissing a physician after making any fault actually might reveal anxiety in an evaluator who is more concerned about not being blamed for any future mistakes the physician might make.

We have two main concerns about the idea that we should be intransigent with aging physicians. The first one is the vast differential diagnosis for minor mistakes. An aging physician refusing to comply with a new form or yelling at a clerk once when asked to learn a new electronic medical record are inappropriate though not specific assessments for dementia. Similarly, having significant difficulty learning a new electronic medical record system more often is a sign of ageism rather than cognitive impairment. Subsequently, when arriving for their evaluation, forgetting the date is a common sign of anxiety. A relatable analogy would be to compare the mistake with a medical student forgetting part of the anatomy while questioning by an attending during surgery. Imagine such medical students being referred to mandatory psychiatric evaluation when failing to answer a question during rounds.

In our practice, the most common reason for those minor mistakes during our clinical evaluation is anxiety. After all, patients who present for problems completely unrelated to cognitive decline make similar mistakes. Psychological stressors in physicians require no introduction. The concept is so prevalent and pervasive that it has its own name, “burnout.” Imagine having dedicated most of one’s life to a profession then being enumerated a list of complaints, having one’s privileges put on hold, then being told to complete an independent psychiatric evaluation. If burnout is in part caused by a lack of control, unclear job expectations, rapidly changing models of health care, and dysfunctional workplace dynamics, imagine the consequence of such a referral.

The militant evaluator will use jargon to vilify the reviewed physician. If the physician complains too voraciously, he will be described as having signs of frontotemporal dementia. If the physician comes with a written list of rebuttals, he will be described as having memory problems requiring aids. If the physician is demoralized and quiet, he will be described as being withdrawn and apathetic. If the physician refuses to use or has difficulty with new forms or electronic systems, he will be described as having “impaired executive function,” an ominous term that surely should not be associated with a practicing physician.

The second concern arises from problems with the validity and use of diagnoses like mild cognitive impairment (MCI). MCI is considered to be a transition stage when one maintains “normal activities of daily living, and normal general cognitive function.”³ The American Psychiatric Association Textbook of Psychiatry mentions that there are “however, many cases of nonprogressive MCI.” Should a disorder with generally normal cognition and unclear progression to a more severe disorder require one to be dispensed of their privileges? Should any disorder trump an assessment of functioning?

It is our experience that many if not most physicians’ practice of medicine is not a job but a profession that defines who they are. As such, their occupational habits are an overly repeated and ingrained series of maneuvers analogous to so-called muscle memory. This kind of ritualistic pattern is precisely the kind of cognition that may persist as one starts to have some deficits. This requires the evaluator to be particularly sensitive and cognizant that one may still be able to perform professionally despite some mild but notable deficits. While it is facile to diagnose someone with MCI and justify removing their license, a review of their actual clinical skills is, despite being more time consuming, more pertinent to the evaluation.

In practice, we find that many cases lie in a gray area, which is hard to define. Physicians may come to our office for an evaluation after having said something odd at work. Maybe they misdosed a medication on one occasion. Maybe they wrote the wrong year on a chart. However, if the physician was 30 years old, would we consider any one of those incidents significant? As a psychiatrist rather than a physician practicing the specialty in review, it is particularly hard and sometimes unwise to condone or sanction individual incidents.

Evaluators find solace in neuropsychological testing. However the relevance to the safety of patients is unclear. Many of those tests end up being a simple proxy for age. A physicians’ ability to sort words or cards at a certain speed might correlate to cognitive performance but has unclear significance to the ability to care for patients. Using such tests becomes a de facto age limit on the practice of medicine. It seems essential to expand and refine our repertoire of evaluation tools for the assessment of physicians. As when we perform capacity evaluation in the hospital, we enlist the assistance of the treating team in understanding the questions being asked for a patient, medical boards could consider creating independent multidisciplinary teams where psychiatry has a seat along with the relevant specialties of the evaluee. Likewise, the assessment would benefit from a broad review of the physicians’ general practice rather than the more typical review of one or two incidents.

We are promoting a more individualized approach by medical boards to the many issues of the aging physician. Retiring is no longer the dream of older physicians, but rather working in the suitable position where their contributions, clinical experience, and wisdom are positive contributions to patient care. Furthermore, we encourage medical boards to consider more nuanced decisions. A binary approach fits few cases that we see. Surgeons are a prime example of this. A surgeon in the early stages of Parkinsonism may be unfit to perform surgery but very capable of continuing to contribute to the well-being of patients in other forms of clinical work, including postsurgical care that doesn’t involve physical dexterity. Similarly, medical boards could consider other forms of partial restrictions, including a ban on procedures, a ban on hospital privileges, as well as required supervision or working in teams. Accumulated clinical wisdom allows older physicians to be excellent mentors and educators for younger doctors. There is no simple method to predict which physicians may have the early stages of a progressive dementia, and which may have a stable MCI. A yearly reevaluation if there are no further complaints, is the best approach to determine progression of cognitive problems.

Few crises like the current COVID-19 pandemic can better remind us of the importance of the place of medicine in society. Many states have encouraged retired physicians to contribute their knowledge and expertise, putting themselves in particular risk because of their age. It is a good time to be reminded that we owe them significant respect and care when deciding to remove their license. We are encouraged by the diligent efforts of medical boards in supervising our colleagues but warn against zealot evaluators who use this opportunity to force physicians into retirement. We also encourage medical boards to expand their tools and approaches when facing such cases, as mislabeled cognitive diagnoses can be an easy scapegoat of a poor understanding of the more important psychological and biological factors in the evaluation.

References

1. Tariq SH et al. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2006;14:900-10.

2. Nasreddine Z. mocatest.org. Version 2004 Nov 7.

3. Hales RE et al. The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Psychiatry. Washington: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2014.

Dr. Badre is a forensic psychiatrist in San Diego and an expert in correctional mental health. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Among his writings in chapter 7 in the book “Critical Psychiatry: Controversies and Clinical Implications” (Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2019). He has no disclosures.

Dr. Abrams is a forensic psychiatrist and attorney in San Diego. He is an expert in addictionology, behavioral toxicology, psychopharmacology and correctional mental health. He holds a teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego. Among his writings are chapters about competency in national textbooks. Dr. Abrams has no disclosures.

As forensic evaluators, we are often asked to review and assess the cognition of aging colleagues. The premise often involves a minor mistake, a poor choice of words, or a lapse in judgment. A physician gets reported for having difficulty using a new electronic form, forgetting the dose of a brand new medication, or getting upset in a public setting. Those behaviors often lead to mandatory psychiatric evaluations. Those requirements are often perceived by the provider as an insult, and betrayal by peers despite many years of dedicated work.

Interestingly, we have noticed many independent evaluators and hospital administrators using this opportunity to send many of our colleagues to pasture. There seems to be an unspoken rule among some forensic evaluators that physicians should represent some form of apex of humanity, beyond reproach, and beyond any fault. Those evaluators will point to any mistake on cognitive scales as proof that the aging physician is no longer safe to practice.¹ Forgetting that Jill is from Illinois in the Saint Louis University Mental Status Examination test or how to copy a three-dimensional cube on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment can cost someone their license.² We are also aware of some evaluators even taking the step further and opining that physicians not only need to score adequately but also demonstrate cognition significantly above average to maintain their privileges.

There is certainly significant appeal in setting a high bar for physicians. In many ways, physicians are characterized in society by their astuteness, intelligence, and high ethical standards. Patients place their lives in the hands of physicians and should trust that those physicians have the cognitive tools to heal them. It could almost seem evident that physicians should have high IQs, score perfectly on screening tools for dementia, and complete a mandatory psychiatric evaluation without any reproach. Yet the reality is often more complex. Dismissing a physician after making any fault actually might reveal anxiety in an evaluator who is more concerned about not being blamed for any future mistakes the physician might make.

We have two main concerns about the idea that we should be intransigent with aging physicians. The first one is the vast differential diagnosis for minor mistakes. An aging physician refusing to comply with a new form or yelling at a clerk once when asked to learn a new electronic medical record are inappropriate though not specific assessments for dementia. Similarly, having significant difficulty learning a new electronic medical record system more often is a sign of ageism rather than cognitive impairment. Subsequently, when arriving for their evaluation, forgetting the date is a common sign of anxiety. A relatable analogy would be to compare the mistake with a medical student forgetting part of the anatomy while questioning by an attending during surgery. Imagine such medical students being referred to mandatory psychiatric evaluation when failing to answer a question during rounds.

In our practice, the most common reason for those minor mistakes during our clinical evaluation is anxiety. After all, patients who present for problems completely unrelated to cognitive decline make similar mistakes. Psychological stressors in physicians require no introduction. The concept is so prevalent and pervasive that it has its own name, “burnout.” Imagine having dedicated most of one’s life to a profession then being enumerated a list of complaints, having one’s privileges put on hold, then being told to complete an independent psychiatric evaluation. If burnout is in part caused by a lack of control, unclear job expectations, rapidly changing models of health care, and dysfunctional workplace dynamics, imagine the consequence of such a referral.

The militant evaluator will use jargon to vilify the reviewed physician. If the physician complains too voraciously, he will be described as having signs of frontotemporal dementia. If the physician comes with a written list of rebuttals, he will be described as having memory problems requiring aids. If the physician is demoralized and quiet, he will be described as being withdrawn and apathetic. If the physician refuses to use or has difficulty with new forms or electronic systems, he will be described as having “impaired executive function,” an ominous term that surely should not be associated with a practicing physician.

The second concern arises from problems with the validity and use of diagnoses like mild cognitive impairment (MCI). MCI is considered to be a transition stage when one maintains “normal activities of daily living, and normal general cognitive function.”³ The American Psychiatric Association Textbook of Psychiatry mentions that there are “however, many cases of nonprogressive MCI.” Should a disorder with generally normal cognition and unclear progression to a more severe disorder require one to be dispensed of their privileges? Should any disorder trump an assessment of functioning?

It is our experience that many if not most physicians’ practice of medicine is not a job but a profession that defines who they are. As such, their occupational habits are an overly repeated and ingrained series of maneuvers analogous to so-called muscle memory. This kind of ritualistic pattern is precisely the kind of cognition that may persist as one starts to have some deficits. This requires the evaluator to be particularly sensitive and cognizant that one may still be able to perform professionally despite some mild but notable deficits. While it is facile to diagnose someone with MCI and justify removing their license, a review of their actual clinical skills is, despite being more time consuming, more pertinent to the evaluation.

In practice, we find that many cases lie in a gray area, which is hard to define. Physicians may come to our office for an evaluation after having said something odd at work. Maybe they misdosed a medication on one occasion. Maybe they wrote the wrong year on a chart. However, if the physician was 30 years old, would we consider any one of those incidents significant? As a psychiatrist rather than a physician practicing the specialty in review, it is particularly hard and sometimes unwise to condone or sanction individual incidents.

Evaluators find solace in neuropsychological testing. However the relevance to the safety of patients is unclear. Many of those tests end up being a simple proxy for age. A physicians’ ability to sort words or cards at a certain speed might correlate to cognitive performance but has unclear significance to the ability to care for patients. Using such tests becomes a de facto age limit on the practice of medicine. It seems essential to expand and refine our repertoire of evaluation tools for the assessment of physicians. As when we perform capacity evaluation in the hospital, we enlist the assistance of the treating team in understanding the questions being asked for a patient, medical boards could consider creating independent multidisciplinary teams where psychiatry has a seat along with the relevant specialties of the evaluee. Likewise, the assessment would benefit from a broad review of the physicians’ general practice rather than the more typical review of one or two incidents.

We are promoting a more individualized approach by medical boards to the many issues of the aging physician. Retiring is no longer the dream of older physicians, but rather working in the suitable position where their contributions, clinical experience, and wisdom are positive contributions to patient care. Furthermore, we encourage medical boards to consider more nuanced decisions. A binary approach fits few cases that we see. Surgeons are a prime example of this. A surgeon in the early stages of Parkinsonism may be unfit to perform surgery but very capable of continuing to contribute to the well-being of patients in other forms of clinical work, including postsurgical care that doesn’t involve physical dexterity. Similarly, medical boards could consider other forms of partial restrictions, including a ban on procedures, a ban on hospital privileges, as well as required supervision or working in teams. Accumulated clinical wisdom allows older physicians to be excellent mentors and educators for younger doctors. There is no simple method to predict which physicians may have the early stages of a progressive dementia, and which may have a stable MCI. A yearly reevaluation if there are no further complaints, is the best approach to determine progression of cognitive problems.

Few crises like the current COVID-19 pandemic can better remind us of the importance of the place of medicine in society. Many states have encouraged retired physicians to contribute their knowledge and expertise, putting themselves in particular risk because of their age. It is a good time to be reminded that we owe them significant respect and care when deciding to remove their license. We are encouraged by the diligent efforts of medical boards in supervising our colleagues but warn against zealot evaluators who use this opportunity to force physicians into retirement. We also encourage medical boards to expand their tools and approaches when facing such cases, as mislabeled cognitive diagnoses can be an easy scapegoat of a poor understanding of the more important psychological and biological factors in the evaluation.

References

1. Tariq SH et al. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2006;14:900-10.

2. Nasreddine Z. mocatest.org. Version 2004 Nov 7.

3. Hales RE et al. The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Psychiatry. Washington: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2014.

Dr. Badre is a forensic psychiatrist in San Diego and an expert in correctional mental health. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Among his writings in chapter 7 in the book “Critical Psychiatry: Controversies and Clinical Implications” (Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2019). He has no disclosures.

Dr. Abrams is a forensic psychiatrist and attorney in San Diego. He is an expert in addictionology, behavioral toxicology, psychopharmacology and correctional mental health. He holds a teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego. Among his writings are chapters about competency in national textbooks. Dr. Abrams has no disclosures.

Following invasive ventilation for severe hypercapnic respiratory failure, patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease had similar levels of treatment failure if they received high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy or noninvasive ventilation, recent research in Critical Care has suggested.

However, for patients with COPD weaned off invasive ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy was “more comfortable and better tolerated,” compared with noninvasive ventilation (NIV). In addition, “airway care interventions and the incidence of nasofacial skin breakdown associated with HFNC were significantly lower than in NIV,” according to Dingyu Tan of the Clinical Medical College of Yangzhou (China) University, Northern Jiangsu People’s Hospital, and colleagues. “HFNC appears to be an effective means of respiratory support for COPD patients extubated after severe hypercapnic respiratory failure,” they said.

The investigators screened patients with COPD and hypercapnic respiratory failure for enrollment, including those who met Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) criteria, were 85 years old or younger and caring for themselves, had bronchopulmonary infection–induced respiratory failure, and had achieved pulmonary infection control criteria. Exclusion criteria were:

• Patients under age 18 years.
• Presence of oral or facial trauma.
• Poor sputum excretion ability.
• Hemodynamic instability that would contraindicate use of NIV.
• Poor cough during PIC window.
• Poor short-term prognosis.
• Failure of the heart, brain, liver or kidney.
• Patients who could not consent to treatment.

Patients were determined to have failed treatment if they returned to invasive mechanical ventilation or switched from one treatment to another (HFNC to NIV or NIV to HFNC). Investigators also performed an arterial blood gas analysis, recorded the number of duration of airway care interventions, and monitored vital signs at 1 hour, 24 hours, and 48 hours after extubation as secondary analyses.

Overall, 44 patients randomized to receive HFNC and 42 patients randomized for NIV were available for analysis. The investigators found 22.7% of patients in the HFNC group and 28.6% in the NIV group experienced treatment failure (risk difference, –5.8%; 95% confidence interval, −23.8 to 12.4%; P = .535), with patients in the HFNC group experiencing a significantly lower level of treatment intolerance, compared with patients in the NIV group (risk difference, ­–50.0%; 95% CI, −74.6 to −12.9%; P = .015). There were no significant differences between either group regarding intubation (−0.65%; 95% CI, −16.01 to 14.46%), while rate of switching treatments was lower in the HFNC group but not significant (−5.2%; 95% CI, −19.82 to 9.05%).

Patients in both the HFNC and NIV groups had faster mean respiratory rates 1 hour after extubation (P < .050). After 24 hours, the NIV group had higher-than-baseline respiratory rates, compared with the HFNC group, which had returned to normal (20 vs. 24.5 breaths per minute; P < .050). Both groups had returned to baseline by 48 hours after extubation. At 1 hour after extubation, patients in the HFNC group had lower PaO₂/FiO₂ (P < .050) and pH values (P < .050), and higher PaCO₂ values (P less than .050), compared with baseline. There were no statistically significant differences in PaO₂/FiO₂, pH, and PaCO₂ values in either group at 24 hours or 48 hours after extubation.

Daily airway care interventions were significantly higher on average in the NIV group, compared with the HFNC group (7 vs. 6; P = .0006), and the HFNC group also had significantly better comfort scores (7 vs. 5; P < .001) as measured by a modified visual analog scale, as well as incidence of nasal and facial skin breakdown (0 vs. 9.6%; P = .027), compared with the NIV group.
 

Results difficult to apply to North American patients

David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, a professor specializing in critical care at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview the results of this trial may not be applicable for patients with infection-related respiratory failure and COPD in North America “due to the differences in common weaning practices between North America and China.”

For example, the trial used the pulmonary infection control (PIC) window criteria for extubation, which requires a significant decrease in radiographic infiltrates, improvement in quality and quantity of sputum, normalizing of leukocyte count, a synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation (SIMV) rate of 10-12 breaths per minute, and pressure support less than 10-12 cm/H₂O (Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2017;12:1255-67).

“The process used to achieve these measures is not standardized. In North America, daily awakening and screening for spontaneous breathing trials would be usual, but this was not reported in the current trial,” he explained.

Differences in patient population also make the application of the results difficult, Dr. Bowton said. “Only 60% of the patients had spirometrically confirmed COPD and fewer than half were on at least dual inhaled therapy prior to hospitalization with only one-third taking beta agonists or anticholinergic agents,” he noted. “The cause of respiratory failure was infectious, requiring an infiltrate on chest radiograph; thus, patients with hypercarbic respiratory failure without a new infiltrate were excluded from the study. On average, patients were hypercarbic, yet alkalemic at the time of extubation; the PaCO₂ and pH at the time of intubation were not reported.

“This study suggests that in some patients with COPD and respiratory failure requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, HFO [high-flow oxygen] may be better tolerated and equally effective as NIPPV [noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation] at mitigating the need for reintubation following extubation. In this patient population where hypoxemia prior to extubation was not severe, the mechanisms by which HFO is beneficial remain speculative,” he said.

This study was funded by the Rui E special fund for emergency medicine research and the Yangzhou Science and Technology Development Plan. The authors report no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Bowton reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Tan D et al. Crit Care. 2020 Aug 6. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-03214-9.

Following invasive ventilation for severe hypercapnic respiratory failure, patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease had similar levels of treatment failure if they received high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy or noninvasive ventilation, recent research in Critical Care has suggested.

However, for patients with COPD weaned off invasive ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy was “more comfortable and better tolerated,” compared with noninvasive ventilation (NIV). In addition, “airway care interventions and the incidence of nasofacial skin breakdown associated with HFNC were significantly lower than in NIV,” according to Dingyu Tan of the Clinical Medical College of Yangzhou (China) University, Northern Jiangsu People’s Hospital, and colleagues. “HFNC appears to be an effective means of respiratory support for COPD patients extubated after severe hypercapnic respiratory failure,” they said.

The investigators screened patients with COPD and hypercapnic respiratory failure for enrollment, including those who met Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) criteria, were 85 years old or younger and caring for themselves, had bronchopulmonary infection–induced respiratory failure, and had achieved pulmonary infection control criteria. Exclusion criteria were:

• Patients under age 18 years.
• Presence of oral or facial trauma.
• Poor sputum excretion ability.
• Hemodynamic instability that would contraindicate use of NIV.
• Poor cough during PIC window.
• Poor short-term prognosis.
• Failure of the heart, brain, liver or kidney.
• Patients who could not consent to treatment.

Patients were determined to have failed treatment if they returned to invasive mechanical ventilation or switched from one treatment to another (HFNC to NIV or NIV to HFNC). Investigators also performed an arterial blood gas analysis, recorded the number of duration of airway care interventions, and monitored vital signs at 1 hour, 24 hours, and 48 hours after extubation as secondary analyses.

Overall, 44 patients randomized to receive HFNC and 42 patients randomized for NIV were available for analysis. The investigators found 22.7% of patients in the HFNC group and 28.6% in the NIV group experienced treatment failure (risk difference, –5.8%; 95% confidence interval, −23.8 to 12.4%; P = .535), with patients in the HFNC group experiencing a significantly lower level of treatment intolerance, compared with patients in the NIV group (risk difference, ­–50.0%; 95% CI, −74.6 to −12.9%; P = .015). There were no significant differences between either group regarding intubation (−0.65%; 95% CI, −16.01 to 14.46%), while rate of switching treatments was lower in the HFNC group but not significant (−5.2%; 95% CI, −19.82 to 9.05%).

Patients in both the HFNC and NIV groups had faster mean respiratory rates 1 hour after extubation (P < .050). After 24 hours, the NIV group had higher-than-baseline respiratory rates, compared with the HFNC group, which had returned to normal (20 vs. 24.5 breaths per minute; P < .050). Both groups had returned to baseline by 48 hours after extubation. At 1 hour after extubation, patients in the HFNC group had lower PaO₂/FiO₂ (P < .050) and pH values (P < .050), and higher PaCO₂ values (P less than .050), compared with baseline. There were no statistically significant differences in PaO₂/FiO₂, pH, and PaCO₂ values in either group at 24 hours or 48 hours after extubation.

Daily airway care interventions were significantly higher on average in the NIV group, compared with the HFNC group (7 vs. 6; P = .0006), and the HFNC group also had significantly better comfort scores (7 vs. 5; P < .001) as measured by a modified visual analog scale, as well as incidence of nasal and facial skin breakdown (0 vs. 9.6%; P = .027), compared with the NIV group.
 

Results difficult to apply to North American patients

David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, a professor specializing in critical care at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview the results of this trial may not be applicable for patients with infection-related respiratory failure and COPD in North America “due to the differences in common weaning practices between North America and China.”

For example, the trial used the pulmonary infection control (PIC) window criteria for extubation, which requires a significant decrease in radiographic infiltrates, improvement in quality and quantity of sputum, normalizing of leukocyte count, a synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation (SIMV) rate of 10-12 breaths per minute, and pressure support less than 10-12 cm/H₂O (Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2017;12:1255-67).

“The process used to achieve these measures is not standardized. In North America, daily awakening and screening for spontaneous breathing trials would be usual, but this was not reported in the current trial,” he explained.

Differences in patient population also make the application of the results difficult, Dr. Bowton said. “Only 60% of the patients had spirometrically confirmed COPD and fewer than half were on at least dual inhaled therapy prior to hospitalization with only one-third taking beta agonists or anticholinergic agents,” he noted. “The cause of respiratory failure was infectious, requiring an infiltrate on chest radiograph; thus, patients with hypercarbic respiratory failure without a new infiltrate were excluded from the study. On average, patients were hypercarbic, yet alkalemic at the time of extubation; the PaCO₂ and pH at the time of intubation were not reported.

“This study suggests that in some patients with COPD and respiratory failure requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, HFO [high-flow oxygen] may be better tolerated and equally effective as NIPPV [noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation] at mitigating the need for reintubation following extubation. In this patient population where hypoxemia prior to extubation was not severe, the mechanisms by which HFO is beneficial remain speculative,” he said.

This study was funded by the Rui E special fund for emergency medicine research and the Yangzhou Science and Technology Development Plan. The authors report no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Bowton reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Tan D et al. Crit Care. 2020 Aug 6. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-03214-9.

Following invasive ventilation for severe hypercapnic respiratory failure, patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease had similar levels of treatment failure if they received high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy or noninvasive ventilation, recent research in Critical Care has suggested.

However, for patients with COPD weaned off invasive ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy was “more comfortable and better tolerated,” compared with noninvasive ventilation (NIV). In addition, “airway care interventions and the incidence of nasofacial skin breakdown associated with HFNC were significantly lower than in NIV,” according to Dingyu Tan of the Clinical Medical College of Yangzhou (China) University, Northern Jiangsu People’s Hospital, and colleagues. “HFNC appears to be an effective means of respiratory support for COPD patients extubated after severe hypercapnic respiratory failure,” they said.

The investigators screened patients with COPD and hypercapnic respiratory failure for enrollment, including those who met Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) criteria, were 85 years old or younger and caring for themselves, had bronchopulmonary infection–induced respiratory failure, and had achieved pulmonary infection control criteria. Exclusion criteria were:

• Patients under age 18 years.
• Presence of oral or facial trauma.
• Poor sputum excretion ability.
• Hemodynamic instability that would contraindicate use of NIV.
• Poor cough during PIC window.
• Poor short-term prognosis.
• Failure of the heart, brain, liver or kidney.
• Patients who could not consent to treatment.

Patients were determined to have failed treatment if they returned to invasive mechanical ventilation or switched from one treatment to another (HFNC to NIV or NIV to HFNC). Investigators also performed an arterial blood gas analysis, recorded the number of duration of airway care interventions, and monitored vital signs at 1 hour, 24 hours, and 48 hours after extubation as secondary analyses.

Overall, 44 patients randomized to receive HFNC and 42 patients randomized for NIV were available for analysis. The investigators found 22.7% of patients in the HFNC group and 28.6% in the NIV group experienced treatment failure (risk difference, –5.8%; 95% confidence interval, −23.8 to 12.4%; P = .535), with patients in the HFNC group experiencing a significantly lower level of treatment intolerance, compared with patients in the NIV group (risk difference, ­–50.0%; 95% CI, −74.6 to −12.9%; P = .015). There were no significant differences between either group regarding intubation (−0.65%; 95% CI, −16.01 to 14.46%), while rate of switching treatments was lower in the HFNC group but not significant (−5.2%; 95% CI, −19.82 to 9.05%).

Patients in both the HFNC and NIV groups had faster mean respiratory rates 1 hour after extubation (P < .050). After 24 hours, the NIV group had higher-than-baseline respiratory rates, compared with the HFNC group, which had returned to normal (20 vs. 24.5 breaths per minute; P < .050). Both groups had returned to baseline by 48 hours after extubation. At 1 hour after extubation, patients in the HFNC group had lower PaO₂/FiO₂ (P < .050) and pH values (P < .050), and higher PaCO₂ values (P less than .050), compared with baseline. There were no statistically significant differences in PaO₂/FiO₂, pH, and PaCO₂ values in either group at 24 hours or 48 hours after extubation.

Daily airway care interventions were significantly higher on average in the NIV group, compared with the HFNC group (7 vs. 6; P = .0006), and the HFNC group also had significantly better comfort scores (7 vs. 5; P < .001) as measured by a modified visual analog scale, as well as incidence of nasal and facial skin breakdown (0 vs. 9.6%; P = .027), compared with the NIV group.
 

Results difficult to apply to North American patients

David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, a professor specializing in critical care at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview the results of this trial may not be applicable for patients with infection-related respiratory failure and COPD in North America “due to the differences in common weaning practices between North America and China.”

For example, the trial used the pulmonary infection control (PIC) window criteria for extubation, which requires a significant decrease in radiographic infiltrates, improvement in quality and quantity of sputum, normalizing of leukocyte count, a synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation (SIMV) rate of 10-12 breaths per minute, and pressure support less than 10-12 cm/H₂O (Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2017;12:1255-67).

“The process used to achieve these measures is not standardized. In North America, daily awakening and screening for spontaneous breathing trials would be usual, but this was not reported in the current trial,” he explained.

Differences in patient population also make the application of the results difficult, Dr. Bowton said. “Only 60% of the patients had spirometrically confirmed COPD and fewer than half were on at least dual inhaled therapy prior to hospitalization with only one-third taking beta agonists or anticholinergic agents,” he noted. “The cause of respiratory failure was infectious, requiring an infiltrate on chest radiograph; thus, patients with hypercarbic respiratory failure without a new infiltrate were excluded from the study. On average, patients were hypercarbic, yet alkalemic at the time of extubation; the PaCO₂ and pH at the time of intubation were not reported.

“This study suggests that in some patients with COPD and respiratory failure requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, HFO [high-flow oxygen] may be better tolerated and equally effective as NIPPV [noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation] at mitigating the need for reintubation following extubation. In this patient population where hypoxemia prior to extubation was not severe, the mechanisms by which HFO is beneficial remain speculative,” he said.

This study was funded by the Rui E special fund for emergency medicine research and the Yangzhou Science and Technology Development Plan. The authors report no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Bowton reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Tan D et al. Crit Care. 2020 Aug 6. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-03214-9.

Rates of thyrotoxicosis are significantly higher among patients who are critically ill with COVID-19 than among patients who are critically ill but who do not not have COVID-19, suggesting an atypical form of thyroiditis related to the novel coronavirus infection, according to new research.

“We suggest routine assessment of thyroid function in patients with COVID-19 requiring high-intensity care because they frequently present with thyrotoxicosis due to a form of subacute thyroiditis related to SARS-CoV-2,” the authors wrote in correspondence published online in The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology.

However, notably, the study – which compared critically ill ICU patients who had COVID-19 with those who did not have COVID-19 or who had milder cases of COVID-19 – indicates that thyroid disorders do not appear to increase the risk of developing COVID-19, first author Ilaria Muller, MD, PhD, of the department of endocrinology, IRCCS Fondazione Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, said in an interview.

“It is important to highlight that we did not find an increased prevalence of preexisting thyroid disorders in COVID-19 patients (contrary to early media reports),” she said. “So far, clinical observations do not support this fear, and we need to reassure people with thyroid disorders, since such disorders are very common among the general population.”

Yet the findings add to emerging evidence of a COVID-19/thyroid relationship, Angela M. Leung, MD, said in an interview.

“Given the health care impacts of the current COVID-19 pandemic worldwide, this study provides some insight on the potential systemic inflammation, as well as thyroid-specific inflammation, of the SARS-Cov-2 virus that is described in some emerging reports,” she said.

“This study joins at least six others that have reported a clinical presentation resembling subacute thyroiditis in critically ill patients with COVID-19,” noted Dr. Leung, of the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism in the department of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.
 

Thyroid function analysis in those with severe COVID-19

Dr. Muller explained that preliminary data from her institution showed thyroid abnormalities in patients who were severely ill with COVID-19. She and her team extended the evaluation to include thyroid data and other data on 93 patients with COVID-19 who were admitted to high-intensity care units (HICUs) in Italy during the 2020 pandemic.

Those data were compared with data on 101 critically ill patients admitted to the same HICUs in 2019 who did not have COVID-19. A third group of 52 patients with COVID-19 who were admitted to low-intensity care units (LICUs) in Italy in 2020 were also included in the analysis.

The mean age of the patients in the HICU 2020 group was 65.3 years; in the HICU 2019 group, it was 73 years; and in the LICU group, it was 70 years (P = .001). In addition, the HICU 2020 group included more men than the other two groups (69% vs. 56% and 48%; P = .03).

Of note, only 9% of patients in the HICU 2020 group had preexisting thyroid disorders, compared with 21% in the LICU group and 23% in the HICU 2019 group (P = .017).

These findings suggest that “such conditions are not a risk factor for SARS-CoV-2 infection or severity of COVID-19,” the authors wrote.

The patients with the preexisting thyroid conditions were excluded from the thyroid function analysis.

A significantly higher proportion of patients in the HICU 2020 group (13; 15%) were thyrotoxic upon admission, compared with just 1 (1%) of 78 patients in the HICU 2019 group (P = .002) and one (2%) of 41 patients in the LICU group (P = .025).

Among the 14 patients in the two COVID-19 groups who had thyrotoxicosis, the majority were male (9; 64%)

Among those in the HICU 2020 group, serum thyroid-stimulating hormone concentrations were lower than in either of the other two groups (P = .018), and serum free thyroxine (free T4) concentrations were higher than in the LICU group (P = .016) but not the HICU 2019 group.
 

Differences compared with other infection-related thyroiditis

Although thyrotoxicosis relating to subacute viral thyroiditis can result from a wide variety of viral infections, there are some key differences with COVID-19, Dr. Muller said.

“Thyroid dysfunction related to SARS-CoV-2 seems to be milder than that of classic subacute thyroiditis due to other viruses,” she explained. Furthermore, thyroid dysfunction associated with other viral infections is more common in women, whereas there were more male patients with the COVID-19–related atypical thyroiditis.

In addition, the thyroid effects developed early with COVID-19, whereas they usually emerge after the infections by other viruses.

Patients did not demonstrate the neck pain that is common with classic viral thyroiditis, and the thyroid abnormalities appear to correlate with the severity of COVID-19, whereas they are seen even in patients with mild symptoms when other viral infections are the cause.

In addition to the risk for subacute viral thyroiditis, critically ill patients in general are at risk of developing nonthyroidal illness syndrome, with alterations in thyroid function. However, thyroid hormone measures in the patients severely ill with COVID-19 were not consistent with that syndrome.

A subanalysis of eight HICU 2020 patients with thyroid dysfunction who were followed for 55 days after discharge showed that two experienced hyperthyroidism but likely not from COVID-19; in the remaining six, thyroid function normalized.

Muller speculated that, when ill with COVID-19, the patients likely had a combination of SARS-CoV-2–related atypical thyroiditis and nonthyroidal illness syndrome, known as T4 toxicosis.
 

Will there be any long-term effects?

Importantly, it remains unknown whether the novel coronavirus has longer-term effects on the thyroid, Dr. Muller said.

“We cannot predict what will be the long-lasting thyroid effects after COVID-19,” she said.

With classic subacute viral thyroiditis, “After a few years ... 5%-20% of patients develop permanent hypothyroidism, [and] the same might happen in COVID-19 patients,” she hypothesized. “We will follow our patients long term to answer this question – this study is already ongoing.”

In the meantime, diagnosis of thyroid dysfunction in patients with COVID-19 is important, inasmuch as it could worsen the already critical conditions of patients, Muller stressed.

“The gold-standard treatment for thyroiditis is steroids, so the presence of thyroid dysfunction might represent an additional indication to such treatment in COVID-19 patients, to be verified in properly designed clinical trials,” she advised.
 

ACE2 cell receptors highly expressed in thyroid

Dr. Muller and colleagues also noted recent research showing that ACE2 – demonstrated to be a key host-cell entry receptor for both SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 – is expressed in even higher levels in the thyroid than the lungs, where it causes COVID-19’s notorious pulmonary effects.

Dr. Muller said the implications of ACE2 expression in the thyroid remain to be elucidated.

“If ACE2 is confirmed to be expressed at higher levels, compared with the lungs in the thyroid gland and other tissues, i.e., small intestine, testis, kidney, heart, etc, dedicated studies will be needed to correlate ACE2 expression with the organs’ susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 reflected by clinical presentation,” she said.

Dr. Leung added that, as a take-home message from these and the other thyroid/COVID-19 studies, “data are starting to show us that COVID-19 infection may cause thyrotoxicosis that is possibly related to thyroid and systemic inflammation. However, the serum thyroid function test abnormalities seen in COVID-19 patients with subacute thyroiditis are also likely exacerbated to a substantial extent by nonthyroidal illness physiology.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Leung is on the advisory board of Medscape Diabetes and Endocrinology.

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

Rates of thyrotoxicosis are significantly higher among patients who are critically ill with COVID-19 than among patients who are critically ill but who do not not have COVID-19, suggesting an atypical form of thyroiditis related to the novel coronavirus infection, according to new research.

“We suggest routine assessment of thyroid function in patients with COVID-19 requiring high-intensity care because they frequently present with thyrotoxicosis due to a form of subacute thyroiditis related to SARS-CoV-2,” the authors wrote in correspondence published online in The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology.

However, notably, the study – which compared critically ill ICU patients who had COVID-19 with those who did not have COVID-19 or who had milder cases of COVID-19 – indicates that thyroid disorders do not appear to increase the risk of developing COVID-19, first author Ilaria Muller, MD, PhD, of the department of endocrinology, IRCCS Fondazione Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, said in an interview.

“It is important to highlight that we did not find an increased prevalence of preexisting thyroid disorders in COVID-19 patients (contrary to early media reports),” she said. “So far, clinical observations do not support this fear, and we need to reassure people with thyroid disorders, since such disorders are very common among the general population.”

Yet the findings add to emerging evidence of a COVID-19/thyroid relationship, Angela M. Leung, MD, said in an interview.

“Given the health care impacts of the current COVID-19 pandemic worldwide, this study provides some insight on the potential systemic inflammation, as well as thyroid-specific inflammation, of the SARS-Cov-2 virus that is described in some emerging reports,” she said.

“This study joins at least six others that have reported a clinical presentation resembling subacute thyroiditis in critically ill patients with COVID-19,” noted Dr. Leung, of the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism in the department of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.
 

Thyroid function analysis in those with severe COVID-19

Dr. Muller explained that preliminary data from her institution showed thyroid abnormalities in patients who were severely ill with COVID-19. She and her team extended the evaluation to include thyroid data and other data on 93 patients with COVID-19 who were admitted to high-intensity care units (HICUs) in Italy during the 2020 pandemic.

Those data were compared with data on 101 critically ill patients admitted to the same HICUs in 2019 who did not have COVID-19. A third group of 52 patients with COVID-19 who were admitted to low-intensity care units (LICUs) in Italy in 2020 were also included in the analysis.

The mean age of the patients in the HICU 2020 group was 65.3 years; in the HICU 2019 group, it was 73 years; and in the LICU group, it was 70 years (P = .001). In addition, the HICU 2020 group included more men than the other two groups (69% vs. 56% and 48%; P = .03).

Of note, only 9% of patients in the HICU 2020 group had preexisting thyroid disorders, compared with 21% in the LICU group and 23% in the HICU 2019 group (P = .017).

These findings suggest that “such conditions are not a risk factor for SARS-CoV-2 infection or severity of COVID-19,” the authors wrote.

The patients with the preexisting thyroid conditions were excluded from the thyroid function analysis.

A significantly higher proportion of patients in the HICU 2020 group (13; 15%) were thyrotoxic upon admission, compared with just 1 (1%) of 78 patients in the HICU 2019 group (P = .002) and one (2%) of 41 patients in the LICU group (P = .025).

Among the 14 patients in the two COVID-19 groups who had thyrotoxicosis, the majority were male (9; 64%)

Among those in the HICU 2020 group, serum thyroid-stimulating hormone concentrations were lower than in either of the other two groups (P = .018), and serum free thyroxine (free T4) concentrations were higher than in the LICU group (P = .016) but not the HICU 2019 group.
 

Differences compared with other infection-related thyroiditis

Although thyrotoxicosis relating to subacute viral thyroiditis can result from a wide variety of viral infections, there are some key differences with COVID-19, Dr. Muller said.

“Thyroid dysfunction related to SARS-CoV-2 seems to be milder than that of classic subacute thyroiditis due to other viruses,” she explained. Furthermore, thyroid dysfunction associated with other viral infections is more common in women, whereas there were more male patients with the COVID-19–related atypical thyroiditis.

In addition, the thyroid effects developed early with COVID-19, whereas they usually emerge after the infections by other viruses.

Patients did not demonstrate the neck pain that is common with classic viral thyroiditis, and the thyroid abnormalities appear to correlate with the severity of COVID-19, whereas they are seen even in patients with mild symptoms when other viral infections are the cause.

In addition to the risk for subacute viral thyroiditis, critically ill patients in general are at risk of developing nonthyroidal illness syndrome, with alterations in thyroid function. However, thyroid hormone measures in the patients severely ill with COVID-19 were not consistent with that syndrome.

A subanalysis of eight HICU 2020 patients with thyroid dysfunction who were followed for 55 days after discharge showed that two experienced hyperthyroidism but likely not from COVID-19; in the remaining six, thyroid function normalized.

Muller speculated that, when ill with COVID-19, the patients likely had a combination of SARS-CoV-2–related atypical thyroiditis and nonthyroidal illness syndrome, known as T4 toxicosis.
 

Will there be any long-term effects?

Importantly, it remains unknown whether the novel coronavirus has longer-term effects on the thyroid, Dr. Muller said.

“We cannot predict what will be the long-lasting thyroid effects after COVID-19,” she said.

With classic subacute viral thyroiditis, “After a few years ... 5%-20% of patients develop permanent hypothyroidism, [and] the same might happen in COVID-19 patients,” she hypothesized. “We will follow our patients long term to answer this question – this study is already ongoing.”

In the meantime, diagnosis of thyroid dysfunction in patients with COVID-19 is important, inasmuch as it could worsen the already critical conditions of patients, Muller stressed.

“The gold-standard treatment for thyroiditis is steroids, so the presence of thyroid dysfunction might represent an additional indication to such treatment in COVID-19 patients, to be verified in properly designed clinical trials,” she advised.
 

ACE2 cell receptors highly expressed in thyroid

Dr. Muller and colleagues also noted recent research showing that ACE2 – demonstrated to be a key host-cell entry receptor for both SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 – is expressed in even higher levels in the thyroid than the lungs, where it causes COVID-19’s notorious pulmonary effects.

Dr. Muller said the implications of ACE2 expression in the thyroid remain to be elucidated.

“If ACE2 is confirmed to be expressed at higher levels, compared with the lungs in the thyroid gland and other tissues, i.e., small intestine, testis, kidney, heart, etc, dedicated studies will be needed to correlate ACE2 expression with the organs’ susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 reflected by clinical presentation,” she said.

Dr. Leung added that, as a take-home message from these and the other thyroid/COVID-19 studies, “data are starting to show us that COVID-19 infection may cause thyrotoxicosis that is possibly related to thyroid and systemic inflammation. However, the serum thyroid function test abnormalities seen in COVID-19 patients with subacute thyroiditis are also likely exacerbated to a substantial extent by nonthyroidal illness physiology.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Leung is on the advisory board of Medscape Diabetes and Endocrinology.

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

Rates of thyrotoxicosis are significantly higher among patients who are critically ill with COVID-19 than among patients who are critically ill but who do not not have COVID-19, suggesting an atypical form of thyroiditis related to the novel coronavirus infection, according to new research.

“We suggest routine assessment of thyroid function in patients with COVID-19 requiring high-intensity care because they frequently present with thyrotoxicosis due to a form of subacute thyroiditis related to SARS-CoV-2,” the authors wrote in correspondence published online in The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology.

However, notably, the study – which compared critically ill ICU patients who had COVID-19 with those who did not have COVID-19 or who had milder cases of COVID-19 – indicates that thyroid disorders do not appear to increase the risk of developing COVID-19, first author Ilaria Muller, MD, PhD, of the department of endocrinology, IRCCS Fondazione Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, said in an interview.

“It is important to highlight that we did not find an increased prevalence of preexisting thyroid disorders in COVID-19 patients (contrary to early media reports),” she said. “So far, clinical observations do not support this fear, and we need to reassure people with thyroid disorders, since such disorders are very common among the general population.”

Yet the findings add to emerging evidence of a COVID-19/thyroid relationship, Angela M. Leung, MD, said in an interview.

“Given the health care impacts of the current COVID-19 pandemic worldwide, this study provides some insight on the potential systemic inflammation, as well as thyroid-specific inflammation, of the SARS-Cov-2 virus that is described in some emerging reports,” she said.

“This study joins at least six others that have reported a clinical presentation resembling subacute thyroiditis in critically ill patients with COVID-19,” noted Dr. Leung, of the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism in the department of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.
 

Thyroid function analysis in those with severe COVID-19

Dr. Muller explained that preliminary data from her institution showed thyroid abnormalities in patients who were severely ill with COVID-19. She and her team extended the evaluation to include thyroid data and other data on 93 patients with COVID-19 who were admitted to high-intensity care units (HICUs) in Italy during the 2020 pandemic.

Those data were compared with data on 101 critically ill patients admitted to the same HICUs in 2019 who did not have COVID-19. A third group of 52 patients with COVID-19 who were admitted to low-intensity care units (LICUs) in Italy in 2020 were also included in the analysis.

The mean age of the patients in the HICU 2020 group was 65.3 years; in the HICU 2019 group, it was 73 years; and in the LICU group, it was 70 years (P = .001). In addition, the HICU 2020 group included more men than the other two groups (69% vs. 56% and 48%; P = .03).

Of note, only 9% of patients in the HICU 2020 group had preexisting thyroid disorders, compared with 21% in the LICU group and 23% in the HICU 2019 group (P = .017).

These findings suggest that “such conditions are not a risk factor for SARS-CoV-2 infection or severity of COVID-19,” the authors wrote.

The patients with the preexisting thyroid conditions were excluded from the thyroid function analysis.

A significantly higher proportion of patients in the HICU 2020 group (13; 15%) were thyrotoxic upon admission, compared with just 1 (1%) of 78 patients in the HICU 2019 group (P = .002) and one (2%) of 41 patients in the LICU group (P = .025).

Among the 14 patients in the two COVID-19 groups who had thyrotoxicosis, the majority were male (9; 64%)

Among those in the HICU 2020 group, serum thyroid-stimulating hormone concentrations were lower than in either of the other two groups (P = .018), and serum free thyroxine (free T4) concentrations were higher than in the LICU group (P = .016) but not the HICU 2019 group.
 

Differences compared with other infection-related thyroiditis

Although thyrotoxicosis relating to subacute viral thyroiditis can result from a wide variety of viral infections, there are some key differences with COVID-19, Dr. Muller said.

“Thyroid dysfunction related to SARS-CoV-2 seems to be milder than that of classic subacute thyroiditis due to other viruses,” she explained. Furthermore, thyroid dysfunction associated with other viral infections is more common in women, whereas there were more male patients with the COVID-19–related atypical thyroiditis.

In addition, the thyroid effects developed early with COVID-19, whereas they usually emerge after the infections by other viruses.

Patients did not demonstrate the neck pain that is common with classic viral thyroiditis, and the thyroid abnormalities appear to correlate with the severity of COVID-19, whereas they are seen even in patients with mild symptoms when other viral infections are the cause.

In addition to the risk for subacute viral thyroiditis, critically ill patients in general are at risk of developing nonthyroidal illness syndrome, with alterations in thyroid function. However, thyroid hormone measures in the patients severely ill with COVID-19 were not consistent with that syndrome.

A subanalysis of eight HICU 2020 patients with thyroid dysfunction who were followed for 55 days after discharge showed that two experienced hyperthyroidism but likely not from COVID-19; in the remaining six, thyroid function normalized.

Muller speculated that, when ill with COVID-19, the patients likely had a combination of SARS-CoV-2–related atypical thyroiditis and nonthyroidal illness syndrome, known as T4 toxicosis.
 

Will there be any long-term effects?

Importantly, it remains unknown whether the novel coronavirus has longer-term effects on the thyroid, Dr. Muller said.

“We cannot predict what will be the long-lasting thyroid effects after COVID-19,” she said.

With classic subacute viral thyroiditis, “After a few years ... 5%-20% of patients develop permanent hypothyroidism, [and] the same might happen in COVID-19 patients,” she hypothesized. “We will follow our patients long term to answer this question – this study is already ongoing.”

In the meantime, diagnosis of thyroid dysfunction in patients with COVID-19 is important, inasmuch as it could worsen the already critical conditions of patients, Muller stressed.

“The gold-standard treatment for thyroiditis is steroids, so the presence of thyroid dysfunction might represent an additional indication to such treatment in COVID-19 patients, to be verified in properly designed clinical trials,” she advised.
 

ACE2 cell receptors highly expressed in thyroid

Dr. Muller and colleagues also noted recent research showing that ACE2 – demonstrated to be a key host-cell entry receptor for both SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 – is expressed in even higher levels in the thyroid than the lungs, where it causes COVID-19’s notorious pulmonary effects.

Dr. Muller said the implications of ACE2 expression in the thyroid remain to be elucidated.

“If ACE2 is confirmed to be expressed at higher levels, compared with the lungs in the thyroid gland and other tissues, i.e., small intestine, testis, kidney, heart, etc, dedicated studies will be needed to correlate ACE2 expression with the organs’ susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 reflected by clinical presentation,” she said.

Dr. Leung added that, as a take-home message from these and the other thyroid/COVID-19 studies, “data are starting to show us that COVID-19 infection may cause thyrotoxicosis that is possibly related to thyroid and systemic inflammation. However, the serum thyroid function test abnormalities seen in COVID-19 patients with subacute thyroiditis are also likely exacerbated to a substantial extent by nonthyroidal illness physiology.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Leung is on the advisory board of Medscape Diabetes and Endocrinology.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has created unique and unprecedented challenges for the clinical research world, with potentially long-lasting consequences.

A new analysis of the extent of disruption shows that the average rate of stopped trials nearly doubled during the first 5 months of 2020, compared with the 2 previous years.

“Typically, clinical research precedes clinical practice by several years, so this disruption we’re seeing now will be felt for many years to come,” said Mario Guadino, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

The analysis was published online July 31 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The researchers used Python software to query meta-data from all trials reported on ClinicalTrials.gov. Of 321,218 non-COVID-19 trials queried, 28,672 (8.9%) were reported as stopped, defined as a switch in trial status from “recruiting” to “active and not recruiting,” “completed,” “suspended,” “terminated,” or “withdrawn.”

The average rate of discontinuation was 638 trials/month from January 2017 to December 2019, rising to 1,147 trials/month between January 2020 and May 2020 (P < .001 for trend).

Once stopped (as opposed to paused), restarting a trial is a tricky prospect, said Dr. Guadino. “You can’t stop and restart a trial because it creates a lot of issues, so we should expect many of these stopped trials to never be completed.”

He said these figures likely represent an underestimate of the true impact of the pandemic because there is typically a delay in the updating of the status of a trial on ClinicalTrials.gov.

“We are likely looking only at the tip of the iceberg,” he added. “My impression is that the number of trials that will be affected and even canceled will be very high.”

As for cardiology trials, one of the report’s authors, Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, without naming specific trials, had this to say: “Several cardiovascular trials were paused, and some were permanently discontinued. It may be a while before we fully appreciate just how much information was lost and how much might be salvaged.”

He’s not worried, however, that upcoming cardiology meetings, which have moved online for the foreseeable future, might get a bit boring. “Fortunately, there is enough good work going on in the cardiovascular and cardiometabolic space that I believe there will still be ample randomized and observational data of high quality to present at the major meetings,” Dr. Bhatt said in an email.

The researchers found a weak correlation between the national population-adjusted numbers of COVID-19 cases and the proportion of non-COVID-19 trials stopped by country.

Even for trials that stopped recruiting for a period of time but are continuing, there are myriad issues involving compliance, data integrity, statistical interpretability, etc.

“Even if there is just a temporary disruption, that will most likely lead to reduced enrollment, missing follow-up visits, and protocol deviations, all things that would be red flags during normal times and impact the quality of the clinical trial,” said Dr. Guadino.

“And if your outcome of interest is mortality, well, how exactly do you measure that during a pandemic?” he added.
 

Stopped for lack of funding

Besides the logistical issues, another reason trials may be in jeopardy is funding. A warning early in the pandemic from the research community in Canada that funding was quickly drying up, leaving both jobs and data at risk, led to an aid package from the government to keep the lights on.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and similar groups “have devoted large sums of money to research in COVID, which is of course very appropriate, but that clearly reduces the amount of funding that is available for other researchers,” said Dr. Guadino.

Some funding agencies around the world have canceled or put on hold all non-COVID-19 clinical trials still at the design state, Dr. Guadino said in an interview.

The NIH, he stressed, has not canceled funding and has been “extremely open and cooperative” in trying to help trialists navigate the many COVID-generated issues. They’ve even issued guidance on how to manage trials during COVID-19.

Of note, in the survey, the majority of the trials stopped (95.4%) had nongovernmental funding.

“The data are not very granular, so we’re only able to make some very simple, descriptive comments, but it does seem like the more fragile trials – those that are smaller and industry-funded – are the ones more likely to be disrupted,” said Dr. Guadino.

In some cases, he said, priorities have shifted to COVID-19. “If a small company is sponsoring a trial and they decide they want to sponsor something related to COVID, or they realize that because of the slow enrollment, the trial becomes too expensive to complete, they may opt to just abandon it,” said Dr. Guadino.

At what cost? It will take years to sort that out, he said.

This study received no funding. Dr. Guadino and Dr. Bhatt are both active trialists, participating in both industry- and government-sponsored clinical research.
 

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has created unique and unprecedented challenges for the clinical research world, with potentially long-lasting consequences.

A new analysis of the extent of disruption shows that the average rate of stopped trials nearly doubled during the first 5 months of 2020, compared with the 2 previous years.

“Typically, clinical research precedes clinical practice by several years, so this disruption we’re seeing now will be felt for many years to come,” said Mario Guadino, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

The analysis was published online July 31 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The researchers used Python software to query meta-data from all trials reported on ClinicalTrials.gov. Of 321,218 non-COVID-19 trials queried, 28,672 (8.9%) were reported as stopped, defined as a switch in trial status from “recruiting” to “active and not recruiting,” “completed,” “suspended,” “terminated,” or “withdrawn.”

The average rate of discontinuation was 638 trials/month from January 2017 to December 2019, rising to 1,147 trials/month between January 2020 and May 2020 (P < .001 for trend).

Once stopped (as opposed to paused), restarting a trial is a tricky prospect, said Dr. Guadino. “You can’t stop and restart a trial because it creates a lot of issues, so we should expect many of these stopped trials to never be completed.”

He said these figures likely represent an underestimate of the true impact of the pandemic because there is typically a delay in the updating of the status of a trial on ClinicalTrials.gov.

“We are likely looking only at the tip of the iceberg,” he added. “My impression is that the number of trials that will be affected and even canceled will be very high.”

As for cardiology trials, one of the report’s authors, Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, without naming specific trials, had this to say: “Several cardiovascular trials were paused, and some were permanently discontinued. It may be a while before we fully appreciate just how much information was lost and how much might be salvaged.”

He’s not worried, however, that upcoming cardiology meetings, which have moved online for the foreseeable future, might get a bit boring. “Fortunately, there is enough good work going on in the cardiovascular and cardiometabolic space that I believe there will still be ample randomized and observational data of high quality to present at the major meetings,” Dr. Bhatt said in an email.

The researchers found a weak correlation between the national population-adjusted numbers of COVID-19 cases and the proportion of non-COVID-19 trials stopped by country.

Even for trials that stopped recruiting for a period of time but are continuing, there are myriad issues involving compliance, data integrity, statistical interpretability, etc.

“Even if there is just a temporary disruption, that will most likely lead to reduced enrollment, missing follow-up visits, and protocol deviations, all things that would be red flags during normal times and impact the quality of the clinical trial,” said Dr. Guadino.

“And if your outcome of interest is mortality, well, how exactly do you measure that during a pandemic?” he added.
 

Stopped for lack of funding

Besides the logistical issues, another reason trials may be in jeopardy is funding. A warning early in the pandemic from the research community in Canada that funding was quickly drying up, leaving both jobs and data at risk, led to an aid package from the government to keep the lights on.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and similar groups “have devoted large sums of money to research in COVID, which is of course very appropriate, but that clearly reduces the amount of funding that is available for other researchers,” said Dr. Guadino.

Some funding agencies around the world have canceled or put on hold all non-COVID-19 clinical trials still at the design state, Dr. Guadino said in an interview.

The NIH, he stressed, has not canceled funding and has been “extremely open and cooperative” in trying to help trialists navigate the many COVID-generated issues. They’ve even issued guidance on how to manage trials during COVID-19.

Of note, in the survey, the majority of the trials stopped (95.4%) had nongovernmental funding.

“The data are not very granular, so we’re only able to make some very simple, descriptive comments, but it does seem like the more fragile trials – those that are smaller and industry-funded – are the ones more likely to be disrupted,” said Dr. Guadino.

In some cases, he said, priorities have shifted to COVID-19. “If a small company is sponsoring a trial and they decide they want to sponsor something related to COVID, or they realize that because of the slow enrollment, the trial becomes too expensive to complete, they may opt to just abandon it,” said Dr. Guadino.

At what cost? It will take years to sort that out, he said.

This study received no funding. Dr. Guadino and Dr. Bhatt are both active trialists, participating in both industry- and government-sponsored clinical research.
 

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has created unique and unprecedented challenges for the clinical research world, with potentially long-lasting consequences.

A new analysis of the extent of disruption shows that the average rate of stopped trials nearly doubled during the first 5 months of 2020, compared with the 2 previous years.

“Typically, clinical research precedes clinical practice by several years, so this disruption we’re seeing now will be felt for many years to come,” said Mario Guadino, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

The analysis was published online July 31 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The researchers used Python software to query meta-data from all trials reported on ClinicalTrials.gov. Of 321,218 non-COVID-19 trials queried, 28,672 (8.9%) were reported as stopped, defined as a switch in trial status from “recruiting” to “active and not recruiting,” “completed,” “suspended,” “terminated,” or “withdrawn.”

The average rate of discontinuation was 638 trials/month from January 2017 to December 2019, rising to 1,147 trials/month between January 2020 and May 2020 (P < .001 for trend).

Once stopped (as opposed to paused), restarting a trial is a tricky prospect, said Dr. Guadino. “You can’t stop and restart a trial because it creates a lot of issues, so we should expect many of these stopped trials to never be completed.”

He said these figures likely represent an underestimate of the true impact of the pandemic because there is typically a delay in the updating of the status of a trial on ClinicalTrials.gov.

“We are likely looking only at the tip of the iceberg,” he added. “My impression is that the number of trials that will be affected and even canceled will be very high.”

As for cardiology trials, one of the report’s authors, Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, without naming specific trials, had this to say: “Several cardiovascular trials were paused, and some were permanently discontinued. It may be a while before we fully appreciate just how much information was lost and how much might be salvaged.”

He’s not worried, however, that upcoming cardiology meetings, which have moved online for the foreseeable future, might get a bit boring. “Fortunately, there is enough good work going on in the cardiovascular and cardiometabolic space that I believe there will still be ample randomized and observational data of high quality to present at the major meetings,” Dr. Bhatt said in an email.

The researchers found a weak correlation between the national population-adjusted numbers of COVID-19 cases and the proportion of non-COVID-19 trials stopped by country.

Even for trials that stopped recruiting for a period of time but are continuing, there are myriad issues involving compliance, data integrity, statistical interpretability, etc.

“Even if there is just a temporary disruption, that will most likely lead to reduced enrollment, missing follow-up visits, and protocol deviations, all things that would be red flags during normal times and impact the quality of the clinical trial,” said Dr. Guadino.

“And if your outcome of interest is mortality, well, how exactly do you measure that during a pandemic?” he added.
 

Stopped for lack of funding

Besides the logistical issues, another reason trials may be in jeopardy is funding. A warning early in the pandemic from the research community in Canada that funding was quickly drying up, leaving both jobs and data at risk, led to an aid package from the government to keep the lights on.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and similar groups “have devoted large sums of money to research in COVID, which is of course very appropriate, but that clearly reduces the amount of funding that is available for other researchers,” said Dr. Guadino.

Some funding agencies around the world have canceled or put on hold all non-COVID-19 clinical trials still at the design state, Dr. Guadino said in an interview.

The NIH, he stressed, has not canceled funding and has been “extremely open and cooperative” in trying to help trialists navigate the many COVID-generated issues. They’ve even issued guidance on how to manage trials during COVID-19.

Of note, in the survey, the majority of the trials stopped (95.4%) had nongovernmental funding.

“The data are not very granular, so we’re only able to make some very simple, descriptive comments, but it does seem like the more fragile trials – those that are smaller and industry-funded – are the ones more likely to be disrupted,” said Dr. Guadino.

In some cases, he said, priorities have shifted to COVID-19. “If a small company is sponsoring a trial and they decide they want to sponsor something related to COVID, or they realize that because of the slow enrollment, the trial becomes too expensive to complete, they may opt to just abandon it,” said Dr. Guadino.

At what cost? It will take years to sort that out, he said.

This study received no funding. Dr. Guadino and Dr. Bhatt are both active trialists, participating in both industry- and government-sponsored clinical research.
 

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

The first few months of 2020 have shone a light on the challenges we face in this new decade as a health care industry and society. As the new decade dawned, we glimpsed at just the tip of the iceberg of social injustice and longstanding inequality in our society as the COVID-19 pandemic gripped our world. The evident health disparities revealed what we have always known: that our health care system is a microcosm of our society, and that this crisis laid bare the systematic bias present in our everyday lives.

The events of early 2020 have allowed hospitalists to take our rightful place among the few who can and will be the problem solvers of the most complex puzzles. Any discussion of the year 2020 would be incomplete without talking about COVID-19, the first modern pandemic. The rapid global spread, severity, and transmissibility of the novel coronavirus presented unique clinical and operational challenges.

Hospitalists in my communities not only stepped up to care for our most acutely ill, but also our critically ill COVID-19 patients. We were in lockstep with our emergency medicine and critical care medicine colleagues to ensure that patients – COVID-19 positive or negative – received the right care at the right time in the right place. We partnered with our disaster and emergency preparedness colleagues, some of us members or leaders within our hospital, system, regional, state, or national emergency operations centers.

As further evidence of health disparities emerged in the outcomes of care of patients with COVID-19 and the homicide of George Floyd raised the alarm (again) that racism is alive and well in this country, hospitalists grieved, kneeled, and then stood with our colleagues, patients, and fellow humans to advocate for change. At the front lines, we ensured that crisis standards of care action plans would not disadvantage any person for whom we may care during acute illness. Behind closed doors and in open forums, we spoke in defense of the most vulnerable and wrote about how each and every person can throw a wrench into the existing system of bias and discrimination to produce lasting, real change for the better.

I am proud to be a hospitalist, a member of this club, with game changers like Kimberly Manning, Samir Shah, Tracy Cardin, Jason Persoff, Charlie Wray, Chris Moriates, and Vineet Arora – to name just a few. Even more so, I am grateful to be a new member of the Society of Hospital Medicine’s board of directors, where I find myself in the company of admired colleagues as we chart the course of SHM into the new decade. With such a jarring launch, we face a daunting task. In the short term, the board must guide SHM in weathering the economic storm kicked off by COVID-19 and the new social distanced norms we all practice. In the long run, we have to stay the ambitious and steep course of excellence and accomplishment set by our founders.

If we as a community of hospitalists intend to lead our field – and health care in general – each one of us must individually commit to the following pursuits:

1. Maintaining excellence in our clinical practice. First and foremost, our impact on patients happens at the bedside. Honing our clinical skills, staying up to date on the latest, breaking changes in best practices in caring for hospitalized patients and establishing the kind of relationship with their patients that we would wish for ourselves must be a core function. With the staggering volume of knowledge and the rapidity with which new information is constantly added to that existing body, this may seem like an impossibly daunting task. Thankfully, SHM recognizes this vital need and provides resources to allow each one of us to succeed in this endeavor. The Journal of Hospital Medicine brings us the best and most relevant evidence for our practice, ensuring that studies are rigorously performed and reviewed and that the outcomes produced are the ones that we are after. We can maintain board certification with a focused practice in hospital medicine by utilizing the multimodal study tools available through Spark. And, when we are once again able to gather together as a community, the annual conference will provide the best education about hospital medicine available. In the meantime, feel free to explore HM20 Virtual, featuring select offerings from the original HM20 course schedule and the opportunity to earn CME.

2. Guide our future hospitalist colleagues to be 21st-century practitioners. Medical students and residents are entering our profession in a very dynamic time. The competencies they must have in order to succeed as hospitalists in 2020 and onward are different than they were when I went through training. COVID-19 has shown us that hospitalists must be “digital doctors” – they must be facile in utilizing virtual health tools, be capable of harnessing the power of health information technology in the electronic medical record to provide care, and also be able to incorporate and interpret the incredible amount of information in health care “big data.” It is our responsibility today to prepare and coach our trainees so that they may be successful tomorrow.

3. Change the system to ensure that each patient gets the safest, most equitable care we can provide. Each one of us can be at the top of our game, but if we practice in a health care system that has gaps, we may still fail in providing the safest, highest-quality care possible. It is each of our responsibility to use every patient interaction to discover the systemic forces, including the social and cultural biases, that can lead to patient harm. In that, it is our duty to protect the most vulnerable, to redesign systems such that every person can be healthy. Only through this work of improvement do we have hope to eliminate the health disparities that exist.

4. Advocate for our patients. We each have seen the incredible impact that the Affordable Care Act has had on health care delivery in the day-to-day interactions we have with our patients. Yet it is not enough. We still have room to improve the American health care system to allow better access to care, more timely provision of care, and better outcomes for our communities. Sometimes, this takes a change in policy. For each of us, it starts with being aware of how our state policy can impact how care is delivered to our patients. In addition to your own personal advocacy work, you can join forces with SHM’s Advocacy & Public Policy team to use our society to amplify your voice.

The year 2020 began with eye-opening crises that exposed the depth and breadth of the work we have before us in hospital medicine. We have an important role to play in the next decade – surely to be the most interesting time to be a hospitalist.

Dr. Tad-y is a hospitalist and director of GME quality and safety programs at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. She is a member of the SHM board of directors.

The first few months of 2020 have shone a light on the challenges we face in this new decade as a health care industry and society. As the new decade dawned, we glimpsed at just the tip of the iceberg of social injustice and longstanding inequality in our society as the COVID-19 pandemic gripped our world. The evident health disparities revealed what we have always known: that our health care system is a microcosm of our society, and that this crisis laid bare the systematic bias present in our everyday lives.

The events of early 2020 have allowed hospitalists to take our rightful place among the few who can and will be the problem solvers of the most complex puzzles. Any discussion of the year 2020 would be incomplete without talking about COVID-19, the first modern pandemic. The rapid global spread, severity, and transmissibility of the novel coronavirus presented unique clinical and operational challenges.

Hospitalists in my communities not only stepped up to care for our most acutely ill, but also our critically ill COVID-19 patients. We were in lockstep with our emergency medicine and critical care medicine colleagues to ensure that patients – COVID-19 positive or negative – received the right care at the right time in the right place. We partnered with our disaster and emergency preparedness colleagues, some of us members or leaders within our hospital, system, regional, state, or national emergency operations centers.

As further evidence of health disparities emerged in the outcomes of care of patients with COVID-19 and the homicide of George Floyd raised the alarm (again) that racism is alive and well in this country, hospitalists grieved, kneeled, and then stood with our colleagues, patients, and fellow humans to advocate for change. At the front lines, we ensured that crisis standards of care action plans would not disadvantage any person for whom we may care during acute illness. Behind closed doors and in open forums, we spoke in defense of the most vulnerable and wrote about how each and every person can throw a wrench into the existing system of bias and discrimination to produce lasting, real change for the better.

I am proud to be a hospitalist, a member of this club, with game changers like Kimberly Manning, Samir Shah, Tracy Cardin, Jason Persoff, Charlie Wray, Chris Moriates, and Vineet Arora – to name just a few. Even more so, I am grateful to be a new member of the Society of Hospital Medicine’s board of directors, where I find myself in the company of admired colleagues as we chart the course of SHM into the new decade. With such a jarring launch, we face a daunting task. In the short term, the board must guide SHM in weathering the economic storm kicked off by COVID-19 and the new social distanced norms we all practice. In the long run, we have to stay the ambitious and steep course of excellence and accomplishment set by our founders.

If we as a community of hospitalists intend to lead our field – and health care in general – each one of us must individually commit to the following pursuits:

1. Maintaining excellence in our clinical practice. First and foremost, our impact on patients happens at the bedside. Honing our clinical skills, staying up to date on the latest, breaking changes in best practices in caring for hospitalized patients and establishing the kind of relationship with their patients that we would wish for ourselves must be a core function. With the staggering volume of knowledge and the rapidity with which new information is constantly added to that existing body, this may seem like an impossibly daunting task. Thankfully, SHM recognizes this vital need and provides resources to allow each one of us to succeed in this endeavor. The Journal of Hospital Medicine brings us the best and most relevant evidence for our practice, ensuring that studies are rigorously performed and reviewed and that the outcomes produced are the ones that we are after. We can maintain board certification with a focused practice in hospital medicine by utilizing the multimodal study tools available through Spark. And, when we are once again able to gather together as a community, the annual conference will provide the best education about hospital medicine available. In the meantime, feel free to explore HM20 Virtual, featuring select offerings from the original HM20 course schedule and the opportunity to earn CME.

2. Guide our future hospitalist colleagues to be 21st-century practitioners. Medical students and residents are entering our profession in a very dynamic time. The competencies they must have in order to succeed as hospitalists in 2020 and onward are different than they were when I went through training. COVID-19 has shown us that hospitalists must be “digital doctors” – they must be facile in utilizing virtual health tools, be capable of harnessing the power of health information technology in the electronic medical record to provide care, and also be able to incorporate and interpret the incredible amount of information in health care “big data.” It is our responsibility today to prepare and coach our trainees so that they may be successful tomorrow.

3. Change the system to ensure that each patient gets the safest, most equitable care we can provide. Each one of us can be at the top of our game, but if we practice in a health care system that has gaps, we may still fail in providing the safest, highest-quality care possible. It is each of our responsibility to use every patient interaction to discover the systemic forces, including the social and cultural biases, that can lead to patient harm. In that, it is our duty to protect the most vulnerable, to redesign systems such that every person can be healthy. Only through this work of improvement do we have hope to eliminate the health disparities that exist.

4. Advocate for our patients. We each have seen the incredible impact that the Affordable Care Act has had on health care delivery in the day-to-day interactions we have with our patients. Yet it is not enough. We still have room to improve the American health care system to allow better access to care, more timely provision of care, and better outcomes for our communities. Sometimes, this takes a change in policy. For each of us, it starts with being aware of how our state policy can impact how care is delivered to our patients. In addition to your own personal advocacy work, you can join forces with SHM’s Advocacy & Public Policy team to use our society to amplify your voice.

The year 2020 began with eye-opening crises that exposed the depth and breadth of the work we have before us in hospital medicine. We have an important role to play in the next decade – surely to be the most interesting time to be a hospitalist.

Dr. Tad-y is a hospitalist and director of GME quality and safety programs at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. She is a member of the SHM board of directors.

The first few months of 2020 have shone a light on the challenges we face in this new decade as a health care industry and society. As the new decade dawned, we glimpsed at just the tip of the iceberg of social injustice and longstanding inequality in our society as the COVID-19 pandemic gripped our world. The evident health disparities revealed what we have always known: that our health care system is a microcosm of our society, and that this crisis laid bare the systematic bias present in our everyday lives.

The events of early 2020 have allowed hospitalists to take our rightful place among the few who can and will be the problem solvers of the most complex puzzles. Any discussion of the year 2020 would be incomplete without talking about COVID-19, the first modern pandemic. The rapid global spread, severity, and transmissibility of the novel coronavirus presented unique clinical and operational challenges.

Hospitalists in my communities not only stepped up to care for our most acutely ill, but also our critically ill COVID-19 patients. We were in lockstep with our emergency medicine and critical care medicine colleagues to ensure that patients – COVID-19 positive or negative – received the right care at the right time in the right place. We partnered with our disaster and emergency preparedness colleagues, some of us members or leaders within our hospital, system, regional, state, or national emergency operations centers.

As further evidence of health disparities emerged in the outcomes of care of patients with COVID-19 and the homicide of George Floyd raised the alarm (again) that racism is alive and well in this country, hospitalists grieved, kneeled, and then stood with our colleagues, patients, and fellow humans to advocate for change. At the front lines, we ensured that crisis standards of care action plans would not disadvantage any person for whom we may care during acute illness. Behind closed doors and in open forums, we spoke in defense of the most vulnerable and wrote about how each and every person can throw a wrench into the existing system of bias and discrimination to produce lasting, real change for the better.

I am proud to be a hospitalist, a member of this club, with game changers like Kimberly Manning, Samir Shah, Tracy Cardin, Jason Persoff, Charlie Wray, Chris Moriates, and Vineet Arora – to name just a few. Even more so, I am grateful to be a new member of the Society of Hospital Medicine’s board of directors, where I find myself in the company of admired colleagues as we chart the course of SHM into the new decade. With such a jarring launch, we face a daunting task. In the short term, the board must guide SHM in weathering the economic storm kicked off by COVID-19 and the new social distanced norms we all practice. In the long run, we have to stay the ambitious and steep course of excellence and accomplishment set by our founders.

If we as a community of hospitalists intend to lead our field – and health care in general – each one of us must individually commit to the following pursuits:

1. Maintaining excellence in our clinical practice. First and foremost, our impact on patients happens at the bedside. Honing our clinical skills, staying up to date on the latest, breaking changes in best practices in caring for hospitalized patients and establishing the kind of relationship with their patients that we would wish for ourselves must be a core function. With the staggering volume of knowledge and the rapidity with which new information is constantly added to that existing body, this may seem like an impossibly daunting task. Thankfully, SHM recognizes this vital need and provides resources to allow each one of us to succeed in this endeavor. The Journal of Hospital Medicine brings us the best and most relevant evidence for our practice, ensuring that studies are rigorously performed and reviewed and that the outcomes produced are the ones that we are after. We can maintain board certification with a focused practice in hospital medicine by utilizing the multimodal study tools available through Spark. And, when we are once again able to gather together as a community, the annual conference will provide the best education about hospital medicine available. In the meantime, feel free to explore HM20 Virtual, featuring select offerings from the original HM20 course schedule and the opportunity to earn CME.

2. Guide our future hospitalist colleagues to be 21st-century practitioners. Medical students and residents are entering our profession in a very dynamic time. The competencies they must have in order to succeed as hospitalists in 2020 and onward are different than they were when I went through training. COVID-19 has shown us that hospitalists must be “digital doctors” – they must be facile in utilizing virtual health tools, be capable of harnessing the power of health information technology in the electronic medical record to provide care, and also be able to incorporate and interpret the incredible amount of information in health care “big data.” It is our responsibility today to prepare and coach our trainees so that they may be successful tomorrow.

3. Change the system to ensure that each patient gets the safest, most equitable care we can provide. Each one of us can be at the top of our game, but if we practice in a health care system that has gaps, we may still fail in providing the safest, highest-quality care possible. It is each of our responsibility to use every patient interaction to discover the systemic forces, including the social and cultural biases, that can lead to patient harm. In that, it is our duty to protect the most vulnerable, to redesign systems such that every person can be healthy. Only through this work of improvement do we have hope to eliminate the health disparities that exist.

4. Advocate for our patients. We each have seen the incredible impact that the Affordable Care Act has had on health care delivery in the day-to-day interactions we have with our patients. Yet it is not enough. We still have room to improve the American health care system to allow better access to care, more timely provision of care, and better outcomes for our communities. Sometimes, this takes a change in policy. For each of us, it starts with being aware of how our state policy can impact how care is delivered to our patients. In addition to your own personal advocacy work, you can join forces with SHM’s Advocacy & Public Policy team to use our society to amplify your voice.

The year 2020 began with eye-opening crises that exposed the depth and breadth of the work we have before us in hospital medicine. We have an important role to play in the next decade – surely to be the most interesting time to be a hospitalist.

Dr. Tad-y is a hospitalist and director of GME quality and safety programs at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. She is a member of the SHM board of directors.

In a large California health care plan, among patients with COVID-19, men aged 60 years and younger had a much higher risk of dying within 3 weeks of diagnosis if they had severe obesity as opposed to being of normal weight, independently of other risk factors.

The research shows that “obesity plays a profound role in risk for death from COVID-19, particularly in male patients and younger populations,” reported Sara Y. Tartof, PhD, MPH, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, Calif., and coauthors.

The data “highlight the leading role of severe obesity over correlated risk factors, providing a target for early intervention,” they concluded in an article published online Aug. 12 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

This work adds to nearly 300 articles that have shown that severe obesity is associated with an increased risk for morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.

In an accompanying editorial, David A. Kass, MD, said: “Consistency of this new study and prior research should put to rest the contention that obesity is common in severe COVID-19 because it is common in the population.”

Rather, these findings show that “obesity is an important independent risk factor for serious COVID-19 disease,” he pointed out.

On the basis of this evidence, “arguably the hardest question to answer is: What is to be done?” wondered Kass, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Although data consistently show that a body mass index >35 kg/m² is predictive of major health risks, “weight reduction at that level of obesity is difficult and certainly is not achieved rapidly,” Dr. Kass stressed.

“Therefore ... social distancing; altering behaviors to reduce viral exposure and transmission, such as wearing masks; and instituting policies and health care approaches that recognize the potential effects of obesity should be implemented,” he emphasized. “These actions should help and are certainly doable.”

Similarly, Dr. Tartof and colleagues said their “findings also reveal the distressing collision of two pandemics: COVID-19 and obesity.

“As COVID-19 continues to spread unabated, we must focus our immediate efforts on containing the crisis at hand,” they urged.

However, the findings also “underscore the need for future collective efforts to combat the equally devastating, and potentially synergistic, force of the obesity epidemic.”
 

COVID-19 pandemic collides with obesity epidemic

Previous studies of obesity and COVID-19 were small, did not adjust for multiple confounders, or did not include nonhospitalized patients, Dr. Tartof and coauthors wrote.

Their study included 6,916 members of the Kaiser Permanente Southern California health care plan who were diagnosed with COVID-19 from Feb. 13 to May 2, 2020.

The researchers calculated the risk for death at 21 days after a COVID-19 diagnosis; findings were corrected for age, sex, race/ethnicity, smoking, myocardial infarction, heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, chronic pulmonary disease, renal disease, metastatic tumor or malignancy, other immune disease, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, asthma, organ transplant, and diabetes status.

On the basis of BMI, the patients were classified as being underweight, of normal weight, overweight, or as having class 1, 2, or 3 obesity. BMI of 18.5 to 24 kg/m² is defined as normal weight.

Class 3 obesity, also called severe obesity, included moderately severe obesity (BMI, 40-44 kg/m²) and extremely severe obesity (≥45 kg/m²).

A little more than half of the patients were women (55%), and more than 50% were Hispanic (54%).

A total of 206 patients (3%) died within 21 days of being diagnosed with COVID-19; of these, 67% had been hospitalized, and 43% had been intubated.

Overall, the COVID-19 patients with moderately severe or extremely severe obesity had a 2.7-fold and 4.2-fold increased risk for death, respectively, within 3 weeks compared with patients of normal weight.

Patients in the other BMI categories did not have a significantly higher risk of dying during follow-up.

However, each decade of increasing age after age 40 was associated with a stepwise increased risk for death within 3 weeks of the COVID-19 diagnosis.
 

Risk stratified by age and sex

Further analysis showed that, “most strikingly,” among patients aged 60 and younger, those with moderately severe obesity and extremely severe obesity had significant 17-fold and 12-fold higher risks of dying during follow-up, respectively, compared with patients of normal weight, the researchers reported.

In patients older than 60, moderately severe obesity did not confer a significant increased risk for imminent death from COVID-19; extremely severe obesity conferred a smaller, threefold increased risk for this.

“Our finding that severe obesity, particularly among younger patients, eclipses the mortality risk posed by other obesity-related conditions, such as history of myocardial infarction (MI), diabetes, hypertension, or hyperlipidemia, suggests a significant pathophysiologic link between excess adiposity and severe COVID-19 illness,” the researchers noted.

This independent increased risk for death with severe obesity was seen in men but not in women.

Men with moderately severe and extremely severe obesity had significant 4.8-fold and 10-fold higher risks of dying within 3 weeks, respectively, compared with men of normal weight.

“That the risks are higher in younger patients is probably not because obesity is particularly damaging in this age group; it is more likely that other serious comorbidities that evolve later in life take over as dominant risk factors,” Dr. Kass suggested in his editorial.

“That males are particularly affected may reflect their greater visceral adiposity over females, given that this fat is notably proinflammatory and contributes to metabolic and vascular disease,” he added.

“As a cardiologist who studies heart failure,” Dr. Kass wrote, “I am struck by how many of the mechanisms that are mentioned in reviews of obesity risk and heart disease are also mentioned in reviews of obesity and COVID-19.”

The study was funded by Roche-Genentech. Kass has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures of the authors are listed in the article.
 

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

In a large California health care plan, among patients with COVID-19, men aged 60 years and younger had a much higher risk of dying within 3 weeks of diagnosis if they had severe obesity as opposed to being of normal weight, independently of other risk factors.

The research shows that “obesity plays a profound role in risk for death from COVID-19, particularly in male patients and younger populations,” reported Sara Y. Tartof, PhD, MPH, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, Calif., and coauthors.

The data “highlight the leading role of severe obesity over correlated risk factors, providing a target for early intervention,” they concluded in an article published online Aug. 12 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

This work adds to nearly 300 articles that have shown that severe obesity is associated with an increased risk for morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.

In an accompanying editorial, David A. Kass, MD, said: “Consistency of this new study and prior research should put to rest the contention that obesity is common in severe COVID-19 because it is common in the population.”

Rather, these findings show that “obesity is an important independent risk factor for serious COVID-19 disease,” he pointed out.

On the basis of this evidence, “arguably the hardest question to answer is: What is to be done?” wondered Kass, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Although data consistently show that a body mass index >35 kg/m² is predictive of major health risks, “weight reduction at that level of obesity is difficult and certainly is not achieved rapidly,” Dr. Kass stressed.

“Therefore ... social distancing; altering behaviors to reduce viral exposure and transmission, such as wearing masks; and instituting policies and health care approaches that recognize the potential effects of obesity should be implemented,” he emphasized. “These actions should help and are certainly doable.”

Similarly, Dr. Tartof and colleagues said their “findings also reveal the distressing collision of two pandemics: COVID-19 and obesity.

“As COVID-19 continues to spread unabated, we must focus our immediate efforts on containing the crisis at hand,” they urged.

However, the findings also “underscore the need for future collective efforts to combat the equally devastating, and potentially synergistic, force of the obesity epidemic.”
 

COVID-19 pandemic collides with obesity epidemic

Previous studies of obesity and COVID-19 were small, did not adjust for multiple confounders, or did not include nonhospitalized patients, Dr. Tartof and coauthors wrote.

Their study included 6,916 members of the Kaiser Permanente Southern California health care plan who were diagnosed with COVID-19 from Feb. 13 to May 2, 2020.

The researchers calculated the risk for death at 21 days after a COVID-19 diagnosis; findings were corrected for age, sex, race/ethnicity, smoking, myocardial infarction, heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, chronic pulmonary disease, renal disease, metastatic tumor or malignancy, other immune disease, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, asthma, organ transplant, and diabetes status.

On the basis of BMI, the patients were classified as being underweight, of normal weight, overweight, or as having class 1, 2, or 3 obesity. BMI of 18.5 to 24 kg/m² is defined as normal weight.

Class 3 obesity, also called severe obesity, included moderately severe obesity (BMI, 40-44 kg/m²) and extremely severe obesity (≥45 kg/m²).

A little more than half of the patients were women (55%), and more than 50% were Hispanic (54%).

A total of 206 patients (3%) died within 21 days of being diagnosed with COVID-19; of these, 67% had been hospitalized, and 43% had been intubated.

Overall, the COVID-19 patients with moderately severe or extremely severe obesity had a 2.7-fold and 4.2-fold increased risk for death, respectively, within 3 weeks compared with patients of normal weight.

Patients in the other BMI categories did not have a significantly higher risk of dying during follow-up.

However, each decade of increasing age after age 40 was associated with a stepwise increased risk for death within 3 weeks of the COVID-19 diagnosis.
 

Risk stratified by age and sex

Further analysis showed that, “most strikingly,” among patients aged 60 and younger, those with moderately severe obesity and extremely severe obesity had significant 17-fold and 12-fold higher risks of dying during follow-up, respectively, compared with patients of normal weight, the researchers reported.

In patients older than 60, moderately severe obesity did not confer a significant increased risk for imminent death from COVID-19; extremely severe obesity conferred a smaller, threefold increased risk for this.

“Our finding that severe obesity, particularly among younger patients, eclipses the mortality risk posed by other obesity-related conditions, such as history of myocardial infarction (MI), diabetes, hypertension, or hyperlipidemia, suggests a significant pathophysiologic link between excess adiposity and severe COVID-19 illness,” the researchers noted.

This independent increased risk for death with severe obesity was seen in men but not in women.

Men with moderately severe and extremely severe obesity had significant 4.8-fold and 10-fold higher risks of dying within 3 weeks, respectively, compared with men of normal weight.

“That the risks are higher in younger patients is probably not because obesity is particularly damaging in this age group; it is more likely that other serious comorbidities that evolve later in life take over as dominant risk factors,” Dr. Kass suggested in his editorial.

“That males are particularly affected may reflect their greater visceral adiposity over females, given that this fat is notably proinflammatory and contributes to metabolic and vascular disease,” he added.

“As a cardiologist who studies heart failure,” Dr. Kass wrote, “I am struck by how many of the mechanisms that are mentioned in reviews of obesity risk and heart disease are also mentioned in reviews of obesity and COVID-19.”

The study was funded by Roche-Genentech. Kass has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures of the authors are listed in the article.
 

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

In a large California health care plan, among patients with COVID-19, men aged 60 years and younger had a much higher risk of dying within 3 weeks of diagnosis if they had severe obesity as opposed to being of normal weight, independently of other risk factors.

The research shows that “obesity plays a profound role in risk for death from COVID-19, particularly in male patients and younger populations,” reported Sara Y. Tartof, PhD, MPH, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, Calif., and coauthors.

The data “highlight the leading role of severe obesity over correlated risk factors, providing a target for early intervention,” they concluded in an article published online Aug. 12 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

This work adds to nearly 300 articles that have shown that severe obesity is associated with an increased risk for morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.

In an accompanying editorial, David A. Kass, MD, said: “Consistency of this new study and prior research should put to rest the contention that obesity is common in severe COVID-19 because it is common in the population.”

Rather, these findings show that “obesity is an important independent risk factor for serious COVID-19 disease,” he pointed out.

On the basis of this evidence, “arguably the hardest question to answer is: What is to be done?” wondered Kass, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Although data consistently show that a body mass index >35 kg/m² is predictive of major health risks, “weight reduction at that level of obesity is difficult and certainly is not achieved rapidly,” Dr. Kass stressed.

“Therefore ... social distancing; altering behaviors to reduce viral exposure and transmission, such as wearing masks; and instituting policies and health care approaches that recognize the potential effects of obesity should be implemented,” he emphasized. “These actions should help and are certainly doable.”

Similarly, Dr. Tartof and colleagues said their “findings also reveal the distressing collision of two pandemics: COVID-19 and obesity.

“As COVID-19 continues to spread unabated, we must focus our immediate efforts on containing the crisis at hand,” they urged.

However, the findings also “underscore the need for future collective efforts to combat the equally devastating, and potentially synergistic, force of the obesity epidemic.”
 

COVID-19 pandemic collides with obesity epidemic

Previous studies of obesity and COVID-19 were small, did not adjust for multiple confounders, or did not include nonhospitalized patients, Dr. Tartof and coauthors wrote.

Their study included 6,916 members of the Kaiser Permanente Southern California health care plan who were diagnosed with COVID-19 from Feb. 13 to May 2, 2020.

The researchers calculated the risk for death at 21 days after a COVID-19 diagnosis; findings were corrected for age, sex, race/ethnicity, smoking, myocardial infarction, heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, chronic pulmonary disease, renal disease, metastatic tumor or malignancy, other immune disease, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, asthma, organ transplant, and diabetes status.

On the basis of BMI, the patients were classified as being underweight, of normal weight, overweight, or as having class 1, 2, or 3 obesity. BMI of 18.5 to 24 kg/m² is defined as normal weight.

Class 3 obesity, also called severe obesity, included moderately severe obesity (BMI, 40-44 kg/m²) and extremely severe obesity (≥45 kg/m²).

A little more than half of the patients were women (55%), and more than 50% were Hispanic (54%).

A total of 206 patients (3%) died within 21 days of being diagnosed with COVID-19; of these, 67% had been hospitalized, and 43% had been intubated.

Overall, the COVID-19 patients with moderately severe or extremely severe obesity had a 2.7-fold and 4.2-fold increased risk for death, respectively, within 3 weeks compared with patients of normal weight.

Patients in the other BMI categories did not have a significantly higher risk of dying during follow-up.

However, each decade of increasing age after age 40 was associated with a stepwise increased risk for death within 3 weeks of the COVID-19 diagnosis.
 

Risk stratified by age and sex

Further analysis showed that, “most strikingly,” among patients aged 60 and younger, those with moderately severe obesity and extremely severe obesity had significant 17-fold and 12-fold higher risks of dying during follow-up, respectively, compared with patients of normal weight, the researchers reported.

In patients older than 60, moderately severe obesity did not confer a significant increased risk for imminent death from COVID-19; extremely severe obesity conferred a smaller, threefold increased risk for this.

“Our finding that severe obesity, particularly among younger patients, eclipses the mortality risk posed by other obesity-related conditions, such as history of myocardial infarction (MI), diabetes, hypertension, or hyperlipidemia, suggests a significant pathophysiologic link between excess adiposity and severe COVID-19 illness,” the researchers noted.

This independent increased risk for death with severe obesity was seen in men but not in women.

Men with moderately severe and extremely severe obesity had significant 4.8-fold and 10-fold higher risks of dying within 3 weeks, respectively, compared with men of normal weight.

“That the risks are higher in younger patients is probably not because obesity is particularly damaging in this age group; it is more likely that other serious comorbidities that evolve later in life take over as dominant risk factors,” Dr. Kass suggested in his editorial.

“That males are particularly affected may reflect their greater visceral adiposity over females, given that this fat is notably proinflammatory and contributes to metabolic and vascular disease,” he added.

“As a cardiologist who studies heart failure,” Dr. Kass wrote, “I am struck by how many of the mechanisms that are mentioned in reviews of obesity risk and heart disease are also mentioned in reviews of obesity and COVID-19.”

The study was funded by Roche-Genentech. Kass has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures of the authors are listed in the article.
 

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

Most residents who were asked whether their training prepared them for COVID-19 in a Medscape survey said it had not or they weren’t sure.

Whereas 40% said they felt prepared, 30% said they did not feel prepared and 31% answered they were unsure. (Numbers were rounded, so some answers pushed above 100%.)

One quarter have $300,000 or more in student debt

The Medscape Residents Salary & Debt Report 2020, with data collected April 3 to June 1, found that nearly one in four residents (24%) had medical school debt of more than $300,000. Half (49%) had more than $200,000.

The data include answers from 1,659 U.S. medical residents.

For the sixth straight year, female residents were more satisfied with their pay than were their male colleagues. This year the satisfaction gap was 45% female compared with 42% male. That imbalance came despite their making nearly the same pay overall ($63,700 for men and $63,000 for women).

Among practicing physicians, the pay gap is much wider: Men make 25% more in primary care and 31% more in specialties.

More than a third of residents (34%) said they felt residents should make 26%-50% more than they do. Ten percent thought they should earn 76%-100% more.

For those not satisfied with pay, the top reasons were feeling the pay was too low for the hours worked (81%) or too low compared with other medical staff, such as physician assistants (PAs) or nurses (77% chose that answer).

As for hours worked, 31% of residents reported they spend more than 60 hours/week seeing patients.

The top-paying specialties, averaging $69,500, were allergy and immunology, hematology, plastic surgery, aesthetic medicine, rheumatology, and specialized surgery. The lowest paid were family medicine residents at $58,500.

In primary care, overall, most residents said they planned to specialize. Only 47% planned to continue to work in primary care. Male residents were much more likely to say they will subspecialize than were their female colleagues (52% vs. 35%).

More than 90% of residents say future pay has influenced their choice of specialty, though more men than women felt that way (93% vs. 86%).

Good relationships with others

Overall, residents reported good relationships with attending physicians and nurses.

Most (88%) said they had good or very good relationships with attending physicians, 10% said the relationships were fair, and 2% said they were poor.

In addition, 89% of residents said the amount of supervision was appropriate, 4% said there was too much, and 7% said there was too little.

Relationships with nurses/PAs were slightly less positive overall: Eighty-two percent reported good or very good relationships with nurses/PAs, 15% said those relationships were fair, and 3% said they were poor.

One respondent said: “Our relationships could be better, but I think everyone is just overwhelmed with COVID-19, so emotions are heightened.”

Another said: “It takes time to earn the respect from nurses.”

Seventy-seven percent said they were satisfied with their learning experience overall, 12% were neutral on the question, and 11% said they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied.

Work-life balance is the top concern

Work-life balance continues to be the top concern for residents. More than one-quarter (27%) in residency years 1 through 4 listed that as the top concern, and even more (32%) of those in years 5 through 8 agreed.

That was followed by demands on time and fear of failure or making a serious mistake.

The survey indicates that benefit packages for residents have stayed much the same over the past 2 years with health insurance and paid time off for sick leave, vacation, and personal time most commonly reported at 89% and 87%, respectively.

Much less common were benefits including commuter assistance (parking, public transportation) at 24%, housing allowance (8%), and child care (4%).

The vast majority of residents reported doing scut work (unskilled tasks): More than half (54%) reported doing 1-10 hours/week and 22% did 11-20 hours/week. Regardless of the number of hours, however, 62% said the time spent performing these tasks was appropriate.
 

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

Most residents who were asked whether their training prepared them for COVID-19 in a Medscape survey said it had not or they weren’t sure.

Whereas 40% said they felt prepared, 30% said they did not feel prepared and 31% answered they were unsure. (Numbers were rounded, so some answers pushed above 100%.)

One quarter have $300,000 or more in student debt

The Medscape Residents Salary & Debt Report 2020, with data collected April 3 to June 1, found that nearly one in four residents (24%) had medical school debt of more than $300,000. Half (49%) had more than $200,000.

The data include answers from 1,659 U.S. medical residents.

For the sixth straight year, female residents were more satisfied with their pay than were their male colleagues. This year the satisfaction gap was 45% female compared with 42% male. That imbalance came despite their making nearly the same pay overall ($63,700 for men and $63,000 for women).

Among practicing physicians, the pay gap is much wider: Men make 25% more in primary care and 31% more in specialties.

More than a third of residents (34%) said they felt residents should make 26%-50% more than they do. Ten percent thought they should earn 76%-100% more.

For those not satisfied with pay, the top reasons were feeling the pay was too low for the hours worked (81%) or too low compared with other medical staff, such as physician assistants (PAs) or nurses (77% chose that answer).

As for hours worked, 31% of residents reported they spend more than 60 hours/week seeing patients.

The top-paying specialties, averaging $69,500, were allergy and immunology, hematology, plastic surgery, aesthetic medicine, rheumatology, and specialized surgery. The lowest paid were family medicine residents at $58,500.

In primary care, overall, most residents said they planned to specialize. Only 47% planned to continue to work in primary care. Male residents were much more likely to say they will subspecialize than were their female colleagues (52% vs. 35%).

More than 90% of residents say future pay has influenced their choice of specialty, though more men than women felt that way (93% vs. 86%).

Good relationships with others

Overall, residents reported good relationships with attending physicians and nurses.

Most (88%) said they had good or very good relationships with attending physicians, 10% said the relationships were fair, and 2% said they were poor.

In addition, 89% of residents said the amount of supervision was appropriate, 4% said there was too much, and 7% said there was too little.

Relationships with nurses/PAs were slightly less positive overall: Eighty-two percent reported good or very good relationships with nurses/PAs, 15% said those relationships were fair, and 3% said they were poor.

One respondent said: “Our relationships could be better, but I think everyone is just overwhelmed with COVID-19, so emotions are heightened.”

Another said: “It takes time to earn the respect from nurses.”

Seventy-seven percent said they were satisfied with their learning experience overall, 12% were neutral on the question, and 11% said they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied.

Work-life balance is the top concern

Work-life balance continues to be the top concern for residents. More than one-quarter (27%) in residency years 1 through 4 listed that as the top concern, and even more (32%) of those in years 5 through 8 agreed.

That was followed by demands on time and fear of failure or making a serious mistake.

The survey indicates that benefit packages for residents have stayed much the same over the past 2 years with health insurance and paid time off for sick leave, vacation, and personal time most commonly reported at 89% and 87%, respectively.

Much less common were benefits including commuter assistance (parking, public transportation) at 24%, housing allowance (8%), and child care (4%).

The vast majority of residents reported doing scut work (unskilled tasks): More than half (54%) reported doing 1-10 hours/week and 22% did 11-20 hours/week. Regardless of the number of hours, however, 62% said the time spent performing these tasks was appropriate.
 

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

Most residents who were asked whether their training prepared them for COVID-19 in a Medscape survey said it had not or they weren’t sure.

Whereas 40% said they felt prepared, 30% said they did not feel prepared and 31% answered they were unsure. (Numbers were rounded, so some answers pushed above 100%.)

One quarter have $300,000 or more in student debt

The Medscape Residents Salary & Debt Report 2020, with data collected April 3 to June 1, found that nearly one in four residents (24%) had medical school debt of more than $300,000. Half (49%) had more than $200,000.

The data include answers from 1,659 U.S. medical residents.

For the sixth straight year, female residents were more satisfied with their pay than were their male colleagues. This year the satisfaction gap was 45% female compared with 42% male. That imbalance came despite their making nearly the same pay overall ($63,700 for men and $63,000 for women).

Among practicing physicians, the pay gap is much wider: Men make 25% more in primary care and 31% more in specialties.

More than a third of residents (34%) said they felt residents should make 26%-50% more than they do. Ten percent thought they should earn 76%-100% more.

For those not satisfied with pay, the top reasons were feeling the pay was too low for the hours worked (81%) or too low compared with other medical staff, such as physician assistants (PAs) or nurses (77% chose that answer).

As for hours worked, 31% of residents reported they spend more than 60 hours/week seeing patients.

The top-paying specialties, averaging $69,500, were allergy and immunology, hematology, plastic surgery, aesthetic medicine, rheumatology, and specialized surgery. The lowest paid were family medicine residents at $58,500.

In primary care, overall, most residents said they planned to specialize. Only 47% planned to continue to work in primary care. Male residents were much more likely to say they will subspecialize than were their female colleagues (52% vs. 35%).

More than 90% of residents say future pay has influenced their choice of specialty, though more men than women felt that way (93% vs. 86%).

Good relationships with others

Overall, residents reported good relationships with attending physicians and nurses.

Most (88%) said they had good or very good relationships with attending physicians, 10% said the relationships were fair, and 2% said they were poor.

In addition, 89% of residents said the amount of supervision was appropriate, 4% said there was too much, and 7% said there was too little.

Relationships with nurses/PAs were slightly less positive overall: Eighty-two percent reported good or very good relationships with nurses/PAs, 15% said those relationships were fair, and 3% said they were poor.

One respondent said: “Our relationships could be better, but I think everyone is just overwhelmed with COVID-19, so emotions are heightened.”

Another said: “It takes time to earn the respect from nurses.”

Seventy-seven percent said they were satisfied with their learning experience overall, 12% were neutral on the question, and 11% said they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied.

Work-life balance is the top concern

Work-life balance continues to be the top concern for residents. More than one-quarter (27%) in residency years 1 through 4 listed that as the top concern, and even more (32%) of those in years 5 through 8 agreed.

That was followed by demands on time and fear of failure or making a serious mistake.

The survey indicates that benefit packages for residents have stayed much the same over the past 2 years with health insurance and paid time off for sick leave, vacation, and personal time most commonly reported at 89% and 87%, respectively.

Much less common were benefits including commuter assistance (parking, public transportation) at 24%, housing allowance (8%), and child care (4%).

The vast majority of residents reported doing scut work (unskilled tasks): More than half (54%) reported doing 1-10 hours/week and 22% did 11-20 hours/week. Regardless of the number of hours, however, 62% said the time spent performing these tasks was appropriate.
 

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

The week of March 13, Heather Nye, MD, PhD, SFHM, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, got word that schools were closing because of COVID-19.

“My first thought was, ‘You’re kidding, right?’ ” she said. That was the start of a series of reactions that included denial and bargaining and, finally, some semblance of acceptance.

In a session at HM20 Virtual, hosted by the Society of Hospital Medicine, she and David J. Alfandre, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at New York University Langone, described the complicated logistics and emotional and psychological strain that has come from working during a time of such great health care need while balancing home responsibilities and parenting.

At the time schools closed, Dr. Alfandre said, he was busy with clinical work while his wife’s work as an academic psychiatrist, including research activities, stopped for a time, allowing her to manage many of the family duties. Ever since her work picked back up, though, it’s been a juggling act.

“Our roles were dynamic and changing, sometimes week to week,” he said. “It was quite a shock to the system.”

Well before the pandemic struck, Dr. Nye and Dr. Alfandre had been scheduled to talk during the annual conference about work-parenting challenges. The pandemic has further underscored those challenges, they said. The session, they insisted, was meant as a storytelling opportunity to humanize hospitalists’ experience as they straddle work and family, not to offer clear solutions, although they did make suggestions in that vein.

Child care and odd hours always have been a challenge for hospitalists, they said, and for those in academia, any “wiggle room” in the schedule is often taken up by education, administration, and research projects.

“And then, of course, there are those ever-important baseball games and ballet recitals and any number of school-related activities to help support your kids,” Dr. Nye said.

COVID-19 has brought a new degree of strain, she said. There is the concern that hospitalists’ very work brings a higher infection risk to their children. Extra work responsibilities have brought on guilt about perhaps not doing a well enough job helping their children with schoolwork “without having any definition of what ‘well enough’ actually looks like.” At the same time, she said, she’s felt “incredibly grateful to have a stable job.

“There is this spectrum of guilt and gratitude that is constant – it’s an undulating, never-stopping pendulum,” she said.

Dr. Alfandre noted that it was a “tremendously proud moment” to have people cheering for his colleagues and him at shift change in New York. Still, after several days off, he “felt guilty that I wasn’t in the hospital.”

Dr. Nye observed that, while working from home on nonclinical work, “recognizing how little I got done was a big surprise,” and she had to “grow comfortable with that” and learn to live with the uncertainty about when that was going to change.

Both physicians described the emotional toll of worrying about their children if they have to continue distance learning.

At work, her center seems to be in a constant state of instability – they’re either dealing with a surge or a reopening.

“It just goes on and on and on and on,” she said. “I find it overwhelming.”

Dr. Alfandre said that a shared Google calendar for his wife and him – with appointments, work obligations, children’s doctor’s appointments, recitals – has been helpful, removing the strain of having to remind each other.

“It’s really about cooperation with your partner,” he said. “I really think this is the most important aspect.”

He said that there are skills used at work that hospitalists can use at home – such as not getting upset with a child for crying about a spilled drink – in the same way that a physician wouldn’t get upset with a patient concerned about a test.

“We empathize with our patients, and we empathize with our kids and what their experience is,” he said. Similarly, seeing family members crowd around a smartphone video call to check in with a COVID-19 patient can be a helpful reminder to appreciate going home to family at the end of the day.

When her children get upset that she has to go in to work, Dr. Nye said, it has been helpful to explain that her many patients are suffering and scared and need her help.

“I feel like sharing that part of our job to our kids helps them understand that there are very, very big problems out there – that they don’t have to know too much about and be frightened about – but [that knowledge] just gives them a little perspective.”

Dr. Nye and Dr. Alfandre said they had no financial conflicts of interest.

The week of March 13, Heather Nye, MD, PhD, SFHM, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, got word that schools were closing because of COVID-19.

“My first thought was, ‘You’re kidding, right?’ ” she said. That was the start of a series of reactions that included denial and bargaining and, finally, some semblance of acceptance.

In a session at HM20 Virtual, hosted by the Society of Hospital Medicine, she and David J. Alfandre, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at New York University Langone, described the complicated logistics and emotional and psychological strain that has come from working during a time of such great health care need while balancing home responsibilities and parenting.

At the time schools closed, Dr. Alfandre said, he was busy with clinical work while his wife’s work as an academic psychiatrist, including research activities, stopped for a time, allowing her to manage many of the family duties. Ever since her work picked back up, though, it’s been a juggling act.

“Our roles were dynamic and changing, sometimes week to week,” he said. “It was quite a shock to the system.”

Well before the pandemic struck, Dr. Nye and Dr. Alfandre had been scheduled to talk during the annual conference about work-parenting challenges. The pandemic has further underscored those challenges, they said. The session, they insisted, was meant as a storytelling opportunity to humanize hospitalists’ experience as they straddle work and family, not to offer clear solutions, although they did make suggestions in that vein.

Child care and odd hours always have been a challenge for hospitalists, they said, and for those in academia, any “wiggle room” in the schedule is often taken up by education, administration, and research projects.

“And then, of course, there are those ever-important baseball games and ballet recitals and any number of school-related activities to help support your kids,” Dr. Nye said.

COVID-19 has brought a new degree of strain, she said. There is the concern that hospitalists’ very work brings a higher infection risk to their children. Extra work responsibilities have brought on guilt about perhaps not doing a well enough job helping their children with schoolwork “without having any definition of what ‘well enough’ actually looks like.” At the same time, she said, she’s felt “incredibly grateful to have a stable job.

“There is this spectrum of guilt and gratitude that is constant – it’s an undulating, never-stopping pendulum,” she said.

Dr. Alfandre noted that it was a “tremendously proud moment” to have people cheering for his colleagues and him at shift change in New York. Still, after several days off, he “felt guilty that I wasn’t in the hospital.”

Dr. Nye observed that, while working from home on nonclinical work, “recognizing how little I got done was a big surprise,” and she had to “grow comfortable with that” and learn to live with the uncertainty about when that was going to change.

Both physicians described the emotional toll of worrying about their children if they have to continue distance learning.

At work, her center seems to be in a constant state of instability – they’re either dealing with a surge or a reopening.

“It just goes on and on and on and on,” she said. “I find it overwhelming.”

Dr. Alfandre said that a shared Google calendar for his wife and him – with appointments, work obligations, children’s doctor’s appointments, recitals – has been helpful, removing the strain of having to remind each other.

“It’s really about cooperation with your partner,” he said. “I really think this is the most important aspect.”

He said that there are skills used at work that hospitalists can use at home – such as not getting upset with a child for crying about a spilled drink – in the same way that a physician wouldn’t get upset with a patient concerned about a test.

“We empathize with our patients, and we empathize with our kids and what their experience is,” he said. Similarly, seeing family members crowd around a smartphone video call to check in with a COVID-19 patient can be a helpful reminder to appreciate going home to family at the end of the day.

When her children get upset that she has to go in to work, Dr. Nye said, it has been helpful to explain that her many patients are suffering and scared and need her help.

“I feel like sharing that part of our job to our kids helps them understand that there are very, very big problems out there – that they don’t have to know too much about and be frightened about – but [that knowledge] just gives them a little perspective.”

Dr. Nye and Dr. Alfandre said they had no financial conflicts of interest.

The week of March 13, Heather Nye, MD, PhD, SFHM, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, got word that schools were closing because of COVID-19.

“My first thought was, ‘You’re kidding, right?’ ” she said. That was the start of a series of reactions that included denial and bargaining and, finally, some semblance of acceptance.

In a session at HM20 Virtual, hosted by the Society of Hospital Medicine, she and David J. Alfandre, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at New York University Langone, described the complicated logistics and emotional and psychological strain that has come from working during a time of such great health care need while balancing home responsibilities and parenting.

At the time schools closed, Dr. Alfandre said, he was busy with clinical work while his wife’s work as an academic psychiatrist, including research activities, stopped for a time, allowing her to manage many of the family duties. Ever since her work picked back up, though, it’s been a juggling act.

“Our roles were dynamic and changing, sometimes week to week,” he said. “It was quite a shock to the system.”

Well before the pandemic struck, Dr. Nye and Dr. Alfandre had been scheduled to talk during the annual conference about work-parenting challenges. The pandemic has further underscored those challenges, they said. The session, they insisted, was meant as a storytelling opportunity to humanize hospitalists’ experience as they straddle work and family, not to offer clear solutions, although they did make suggestions in that vein.

Child care and odd hours always have been a challenge for hospitalists, they said, and for those in academia, any “wiggle room” in the schedule is often taken up by education, administration, and research projects.

“And then, of course, there are those ever-important baseball games and ballet recitals and any number of school-related activities to help support your kids,” Dr. Nye said.

COVID-19 has brought a new degree of strain, she said. There is the concern that hospitalists’ very work brings a higher infection risk to their children. Extra work responsibilities have brought on guilt about perhaps not doing a well enough job helping their children with schoolwork “without having any definition of what ‘well enough’ actually looks like.” At the same time, she said, she’s felt “incredibly grateful to have a stable job.

“There is this spectrum of guilt and gratitude that is constant – it’s an undulating, never-stopping pendulum,” she said.

Dr. Alfandre noted that it was a “tremendously proud moment” to have people cheering for his colleagues and him at shift change in New York. Still, after several days off, he “felt guilty that I wasn’t in the hospital.”

Dr. Nye observed that, while working from home on nonclinical work, “recognizing how little I got done was a big surprise,” and she had to “grow comfortable with that” and learn to live with the uncertainty about when that was going to change.

Both physicians described the emotional toll of worrying about their children if they have to continue distance learning.

At work, her center seems to be in a constant state of instability – they’re either dealing with a surge or a reopening.

“It just goes on and on and on and on,” she said. “I find it overwhelming.”

Dr. Alfandre said that a shared Google calendar for his wife and him – with appointments, work obligations, children’s doctor’s appointments, recitals – has been helpful, removing the strain of having to remind each other.

“It’s really about cooperation with your partner,” he said. “I really think this is the most important aspect.”

He said that there are skills used at work that hospitalists can use at home – such as not getting upset with a child for crying about a spilled drink – in the same way that a physician wouldn’t get upset with a patient concerned about a test.

“We empathize with our patients, and we empathize with our kids and what their experience is,” he said. Similarly, seeing family members crowd around a smartphone video call to check in with a COVID-19 patient can be a helpful reminder to appreciate going home to family at the end of the day.

When her children get upset that she has to go in to work, Dr. Nye said, it has been helpful to explain that her many patients are suffering and scared and need her help.

“I feel like sharing that part of our job to our kids helps them understand that there are very, very big problems out there – that they don’t have to know too much about and be frightened about – but [that knowledge] just gives them a little perspective.”

Dr. Nye and Dr. Alfandre said they had no financial conflicts of interest.