Feature

Newly released figures showing a rise in the number of men with advanced prostate cancer have laid bare long-simmering resentment among patient advocates who feel the nation’s leading cancer group has largely ignored their concerns for years.

The American Cancer Society on Jan. 13 revealed what it called “alarming” news about prostate cancer: After 2 decades of decline, the number of men diagnosed with the disease in the United States rose by 15% from 2014 to 2019.

“Most concerning,” according to the group’s CEO Karen Knudsen, PhD, MBA, is that the increase is being driven by diagnoses of advanced disease.

“Since 2011, the diagnosis of advanced-stage (regional- or distant-stage) prostate cancer has increased by 4%-5% annually and the proportion of men diagnosed with distant-stage disease has doubled,” said Dr. Knudsen at a press conference concerning the figures. “These findings underscore the importance of understanding and reducing this trend.”

The increase, which works out to be an additional 99,000 cases of prostate cancer, did not take the ACS by surprise; the group has been predicting a jump in diagnoses of the disease, which is the most common cancer in men after skin cancer, and the second most common cause of cancer death for that group.

The ACS announced a new action plan, “Improving Mortality from Prostate Cancer Together” – or IMPACT – to address the rise, especially in Black men, and to curb the increasing rate of advanced, difficult-to-treat cases.

“We must address these shifts in prostate cancer, especially in the Black community, since the incidence of prostate cancer in Black men is 70% higher than in White men and prostate cancer mortality rates in Black men are approximately two to four times higher than those in every other racial and ethnic group,” William Dahut, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer for the ACS, said at the press conference.

A study published in JAMA Network Open challenged that claim, finding that, after controlling for socioeconomic factors, race does not appear to be a significant predictor of mortality for prostate cancer.

Dr. Dahut said in an interview that IMPACT “is still [in the] early days for this initiative and more details will be coming out soon.”

Charles Ryan, MD, CEO of the Prostate Cancer Foundation, the world’s largest prostate cancer research charity, called IMPACT “extremely important work. Highlighting the disparities can only serve to benefit all men with prostate cancer, especially Black men.”
 

Bold action ... or passivity?

Overall cancer mortality has dropped 33% since 1991, averting an estimated 3.8 million deaths, according to ACS. But the story for prostate cancer is different.

The society and advocates had warned as recently as 2 years ago that prostate cancer was poised to rise again, especially advanced cases that may be too late to treat.

Leaders in the prostate cancer advocacy community praised the ACS plan for IMPACT, but some expressed frustration over what they said was ACS’ passivity in the face of long-anticipated increases in cases of the disease.

“I think prostate cancer was not high on their agenda,” said Rick Davis, founder of AnCan, which offers several support groups for patients with prostate cancer.  “It’s good to see ACS get back into the prostate cancer game.”

Mr. Davis and patient advocate Darryl Mitteldorf, LCSW, founder of Malecare, another prostate support organization, said ACS dropped patient services for prostate cancer patients a decade ago and has not been a vocal supporter of screening for levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) to detect prostate cancer early.

“Early detection is supposed to be their goal,” Mr. Davis said.

In 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended against PSA screening, giving it a D-rating. The move prompted attacks on the task force from most advocates and many urologists.

Following this criticism, the task force recommended shared decision-making between patient and doctor, while giving PSA screening a C-rating. Now, the ACS recommends men in general at age 50 discuss prostate cancer screening with their doctor and that Black men do the same at age 45.

Mr. Mitteldorf said ACS “owes prostate cancer patients an explanation and analysis of its response to the USPTF’s downgrade of PSA testing and how that response might be related to death and instance rates.”

Mr. Mitteldorf added that male patients lost key support from ACS when the group dismantled its Man to Man group for prostate cancer patients and its Brother to Brother group for Blacks in particular.

Dr. Dahut said Man to Man “sunsetted” and was turned over to any local organization that chose to offer it. He said longtime staff didn’t have “a lot of information about [the demise of] Brother to Brother.”

For Mr. Davis, those smaller cuts add up to a much larger insult.

“Today, in 2023, ACS continues to poke a finger in the eyes of prostate cancer patients,” he said. “Since 2010, they have not given us any respect. ACS dumped its support.”

He pointed to the group’s funding priorities, noting that outlays for prostate cancer have consistently lagged behind those for breast cancer.

The ACS spent $25.3 million on breast cancer research and $6.7 million for prostate cancer in 2018, and in 2023 will designate $126.5 for breast cancer research and $43.9 million for prostate cancer.

ACS has earmarked $62 million this year for lung cancer programs and $61 million for colorectal cancer.

“Parity between breast cancer and prostate cancer would be a good start in sizing the IMPACT program,” Mr. Davis said. “After all, breast cancer and prostate cancer are hardly different in numbers today.”

Dr. Dahut denied any gender bias in research funding. He said the group makes funding decisions “based on finding the most impactful science regardless of tumor type. Our mission includes funding every cancer, every day; thus, we generally do not go into our funding cycle with any set-asides for a particular cancer.”

Mr. Davis also said the ACS data suggest the growing number of prostate cancer cases is even worse than the group has said. Although the society cites a 3% annual increase in prostate cancer diagnoses from 2014 to 2019, since 2019 the annual increase is a much more dramatic 16%. Meanwhile, the number of new cases of the disease is projected to rise from 175,000 per year in 2019 to 288,000 this year.

Dr. Dahut said the society used the 2014-2019 time frame for technical reasons, separating confirmed cases in the earlier period from estimated cases in recent years.

“We discourage comparing projected cases over time because these cases are model-based and subject to fluctuations,” Dr. Dahut said.

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

Newly released figures showing a rise in the number of men with advanced prostate cancer have laid bare long-simmering resentment among patient advocates who feel the nation’s leading cancer group has largely ignored their concerns for years.

The American Cancer Society on Jan. 13 revealed what it called “alarming” news about prostate cancer: After 2 decades of decline, the number of men diagnosed with the disease in the United States rose by 15% from 2014 to 2019.

“Most concerning,” according to the group’s CEO Karen Knudsen, PhD, MBA, is that the increase is being driven by diagnoses of advanced disease.

“Since 2011, the diagnosis of advanced-stage (regional- or distant-stage) prostate cancer has increased by 4%-5% annually and the proportion of men diagnosed with distant-stage disease has doubled,” said Dr. Knudsen at a press conference concerning the figures. “These findings underscore the importance of understanding and reducing this trend.”

The increase, which works out to be an additional 99,000 cases of prostate cancer, did not take the ACS by surprise; the group has been predicting a jump in diagnoses of the disease, which is the most common cancer in men after skin cancer, and the second most common cause of cancer death for that group.

The ACS announced a new action plan, “Improving Mortality from Prostate Cancer Together” – or IMPACT – to address the rise, especially in Black men, and to curb the increasing rate of advanced, difficult-to-treat cases.

“We must address these shifts in prostate cancer, especially in the Black community, since the incidence of prostate cancer in Black men is 70% higher than in White men and prostate cancer mortality rates in Black men are approximately two to four times higher than those in every other racial and ethnic group,” William Dahut, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer for the ACS, said at the press conference.

A study published in JAMA Network Open challenged that claim, finding that, after controlling for socioeconomic factors, race does not appear to be a significant predictor of mortality for prostate cancer.

Dr. Dahut said in an interview that IMPACT “is still [in the] early days for this initiative and more details will be coming out soon.”

Charles Ryan, MD, CEO of the Prostate Cancer Foundation, the world’s largest prostate cancer research charity, called IMPACT “extremely important work. Highlighting the disparities can only serve to benefit all men with prostate cancer, especially Black men.”
 

Bold action ... or passivity?

Overall cancer mortality has dropped 33% since 1991, averting an estimated 3.8 million deaths, according to ACS. But the story for prostate cancer is different.

The society and advocates had warned as recently as 2 years ago that prostate cancer was poised to rise again, especially advanced cases that may be too late to treat.

Leaders in the prostate cancer advocacy community praised the ACS plan for IMPACT, but some expressed frustration over what they said was ACS’ passivity in the face of long-anticipated increases in cases of the disease.

“I think prostate cancer was not high on their agenda,” said Rick Davis, founder of AnCan, which offers several support groups for patients with prostate cancer.  “It’s good to see ACS get back into the prostate cancer game.”

Mr. Davis and patient advocate Darryl Mitteldorf, LCSW, founder of Malecare, another prostate support organization, said ACS dropped patient services for prostate cancer patients a decade ago and has not been a vocal supporter of screening for levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) to detect prostate cancer early.

“Early detection is supposed to be their goal,” Mr. Davis said.

In 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended against PSA screening, giving it a D-rating. The move prompted attacks on the task force from most advocates and many urologists.

Following this criticism, the task force recommended shared decision-making between patient and doctor, while giving PSA screening a C-rating. Now, the ACS recommends men in general at age 50 discuss prostate cancer screening with their doctor and that Black men do the same at age 45.

Mr. Mitteldorf said ACS “owes prostate cancer patients an explanation and analysis of its response to the USPTF’s downgrade of PSA testing and how that response might be related to death and instance rates.”

Mr. Mitteldorf added that male patients lost key support from ACS when the group dismantled its Man to Man group for prostate cancer patients and its Brother to Brother group for Blacks in particular.

Dr. Dahut said Man to Man “sunsetted” and was turned over to any local organization that chose to offer it. He said longtime staff didn’t have “a lot of information about [the demise of] Brother to Brother.”

For Mr. Davis, those smaller cuts add up to a much larger insult.

“Today, in 2023, ACS continues to poke a finger in the eyes of prostate cancer patients,” he said. “Since 2010, they have not given us any respect. ACS dumped its support.”

He pointed to the group’s funding priorities, noting that outlays for prostate cancer have consistently lagged behind those for breast cancer.

The ACS spent $25.3 million on breast cancer research and $6.7 million for prostate cancer in 2018, and in 2023 will designate $126.5 for breast cancer research and $43.9 million for prostate cancer.

ACS has earmarked $62 million this year for lung cancer programs and $61 million for colorectal cancer.

“Parity between breast cancer and prostate cancer would be a good start in sizing the IMPACT program,” Mr. Davis said. “After all, breast cancer and prostate cancer are hardly different in numbers today.”

Dr. Dahut denied any gender bias in research funding. He said the group makes funding decisions “based on finding the most impactful science regardless of tumor type. Our mission includes funding every cancer, every day; thus, we generally do not go into our funding cycle with any set-asides for a particular cancer.”

Mr. Davis also said the ACS data suggest the growing number of prostate cancer cases is even worse than the group has said. Although the society cites a 3% annual increase in prostate cancer diagnoses from 2014 to 2019, since 2019 the annual increase is a much more dramatic 16%. Meanwhile, the number of new cases of the disease is projected to rise from 175,000 per year in 2019 to 288,000 this year.

Dr. Dahut said the society used the 2014-2019 time frame for technical reasons, separating confirmed cases in the earlier period from estimated cases in recent years.

“We discourage comparing projected cases over time because these cases are model-based and subject to fluctuations,” Dr. Dahut said.

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

Newly released figures showing a rise in the number of men with advanced prostate cancer have laid bare long-simmering resentment among patient advocates who feel the nation’s leading cancer group has largely ignored their concerns for years.

The American Cancer Society on Jan. 13 revealed what it called “alarming” news about prostate cancer: After 2 decades of decline, the number of men diagnosed with the disease in the United States rose by 15% from 2014 to 2019.

“Most concerning,” according to the group’s CEO Karen Knudsen, PhD, MBA, is that the increase is being driven by diagnoses of advanced disease.

“Since 2011, the diagnosis of advanced-stage (regional- or distant-stage) prostate cancer has increased by 4%-5% annually and the proportion of men diagnosed with distant-stage disease has doubled,” said Dr. Knudsen at a press conference concerning the figures. “These findings underscore the importance of understanding and reducing this trend.”

The increase, which works out to be an additional 99,000 cases of prostate cancer, did not take the ACS by surprise; the group has been predicting a jump in diagnoses of the disease, which is the most common cancer in men after skin cancer, and the second most common cause of cancer death for that group.

The ACS announced a new action plan, “Improving Mortality from Prostate Cancer Together” – or IMPACT – to address the rise, especially in Black men, and to curb the increasing rate of advanced, difficult-to-treat cases.

“We must address these shifts in prostate cancer, especially in the Black community, since the incidence of prostate cancer in Black men is 70% higher than in White men and prostate cancer mortality rates in Black men are approximately two to four times higher than those in every other racial and ethnic group,” William Dahut, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer for the ACS, said at the press conference.

A study published in JAMA Network Open challenged that claim, finding that, after controlling for socioeconomic factors, race does not appear to be a significant predictor of mortality for prostate cancer.

Dr. Dahut said in an interview that IMPACT “is still [in the] early days for this initiative and more details will be coming out soon.”

Charles Ryan, MD, CEO of the Prostate Cancer Foundation, the world’s largest prostate cancer research charity, called IMPACT “extremely important work. Highlighting the disparities can only serve to benefit all men with prostate cancer, especially Black men.”
 

Bold action ... or passivity?

Overall cancer mortality has dropped 33% since 1991, averting an estimated 3.8 million deaths, according to ACS. But the story for prostate cancer is different.

The society and advocates had warned as recently as 2 years ago that prostate cancer was poised to rise again, especially advanced cases that may be too late to treat.

Leaders in the prostate cancer advocacy community praised the ACS plan for IMPACT, but some expressed frustration over what they said was ACS’ passivity in the face of long-anticipated increases in cases of the disease.

“I think prostate cancer was not high on their agenda,” said Rick Davis, founder of AnCan, which offers several support groups for patients with prostate cancer.  “It’s good to see ACS get back into the prostate cancer game.”

Mr. Davis and patient advocate Darryl Mitteldorf, LCSW, founder of Malecare, another prostate support organization, said ACS dropped patient services for prostate cancer patients a decade ago and has not been a vocal supporter of screening for levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) to detect prostate cancer early.

“Early detection is supposed to be their goal,” Mr. Davis said.

In 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended against PSA screening, giving it a D-rating. The move prompted attacks on the task force from most advocates and many urologists.

Following this criticism, the task force recommended shared decision-making between patient and doctor, while giving PSA screening a C-rating. Now, the ACS recommends men in general at age 50 discuss prostate cancer screening with their doctor and that Black men do the same at age 45.

Mr. Mitteldorf said ACS “owes prostate cancer patients an explanation and analysis of its response to the USPTF’s downgrade of PSA testing and how that response might be related to death and instance rates.”

Mr. Mitteldorf added that male patients lost key support from ACS when the group dismantled its Man to Man group for prostate cancer patients and its Brother to Brother group for Blacks in particular.

Dr. Dahut said Man to Man “sunsetted” and was turned over to any local organization that chose to offer it. He said longtime staff didn’t have “a lot of information about [the demise of] Brother to Brother.”

For Mr. Davis, those smaller cuts add up to a much larger insult.

“Today, in 2023, ACS continues to poke a finger in the eyes of prostate cancer patients,” he said. “Since 2010, they have not given us any respect. ACS dumped its support.”

He pointed to the group’s funding priorities, noting that outlays for prostate cancer have consistently lagged behind those for breast cancer.

The ACS spent $25.3 million on breast cancer research and $6.7 million for prostate cancer in 2018, and in 2023 will designate $126.5 for breast cancer research and $43.9 million for prostate cancer.

ACS has earmarked $62 million this year for lung cancer programs and $61 million for colorectal cancer.

“Parity between breast cancer and prostate cancer would be a good start in sizing the IMPACT program,” Mr. Davis said. “After all, breast cancer and prostate cancer are hardly different in numbers today.”

Dr. Dahut denied any gender bias in research funding. He said the group makes funding decisions “based on finding the most impactful science regardless of tumor type. Our mission includes funding every cancer, every day; thus, we generally do not go into our funding cycle with any set-asides for a particular cancer.”

Mr. Davis also said the ACS data suggest the growing number of prostate cancer cases is even worse than the group has said. Although the society cites a 3% annual increase in prostate cancer diagnoses from 2014 to 2019, since 2019 the annual increase is a much more dramatic 16%. Meanwhile, the number of new cases of the disease is projected to rise from 175,000 per year in 2019 to 288,000 this year.

Dr. Dahut said the society used the 2014-2019 time frame for technical reasons, separating confirmed cases in the earlier period from estimated cases in recent years.

“We discourage comparing projected cases over time because these cases are model-based and subject to fluctuations,” Dr. Dahut said.

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

When you became a doctor, you may have moved to one city for med school, another for residency, and a third to be an attending. All that moving can make it hard to maintain friendships. Factor in the challenges from the pandemic, and a physician’s life can be lonely. So, when a patient invites you for coffee or a game of pickleball, do you accept? For almost one-third of the physicians who responded to the Medscape Physician Friendships: The Joys and Challenges 2022, the answer might be yes.

About 29% said they develop friendships with patients. However, a lot depends on the circumstances. As one physician in the report said: “I have been a pediatrician for 35 years, and my patients have grown up and become productive adults in our small, rural, isolated area. You can’t help but know almost everyone.”

As the daughter of a cardiologist, Nishi Mehta, MD, a radiologist and founder of the largest physician-only Facebook group in the country, grew up with that small-town-everyone-knows-the-doctor model.

“When I was a kid, I’d go to the mall, and my friends and I would play a game: How long before a patient [of my dad’s] comes up to me?” she said. At the time, Dr. Mehta was embarrassed, but now she marvels that her dad knew his patients so well that they would recognize his daughter in crowded suburban mall.

In other instances, a physician may develop a friendly relationship after a patient leaves their care. For example, Leo Nissola, MD, now a full-time researcher and immunotherapy scientist in San Francisco, has stayed in touch with some of the patients he treated while at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Dr. Nissola said it was important to stay connected with the patients he had meaningful relationships with. “It becomes challenging, though, when a former patient asks for medical advice.” At that moment, “you have to be explicitly clear that the relationship has changed.”
 

A hard line in the sand

The blurring of lines is one reason many doctors refuse to befriend patients, even after they are no longer treating them. The American College of Physicians Ethics Manual advises against treating anyone with whom you have a close relationship, including family and friends.

“Friendships can get in the way of patients being honest with you, which can interfere with medical care,” Dr. Mehta said. “If a patient has a concern related to something they wouldn’t want you to know as friends, it can get awkward. They may elect not to tell you.”

And on the flip side, friendship can provide a view into your private life that you may not welcome in the exam room.

“Let’s say you go out for drinks [with a patient], and you’re up late, but you have surgery the next day,” said Brandi Ring, MD, an ob.gyn. and the associate medical director at the Center for Children and Women in Houston. Now, one of your patients knows you were out until midnight when you had to be in the OR at 5:00 a.m.

Worse still, your relationship could color your decisions about a patient’s care, even unconsciously. It can be hard to maintain objectivity when you have an emotional investment in someone’s well-being.

“We don’t necessarily treat family and friends to the standards of medical care,” said Dr. Ring. “We go above and beyond. We might order more tests and more scans. We don’t always follow the guidelines, especially in critical illness.”

For all these reasons and more, the ACP advises against treating friends.
 

Put physician before friend

But adhering to those guidelines can lead physicians to make some painful decisions. Cutting yourself off from the possibility of friendship is never easy, and the Medscape report found that physicians tend to have fewer friends than the average American.

“Especially earlier in my practice, when I was a young parent, and I would see a lot of other young parents in the same stage in life, I’d think, ‘In other circumstances, I would be hanging out at the park with this person,’ “ said Kathleen Rowland, MD, a family medicine physician and vice chair of education in the department of family medicine at Rush University, Chicago. “But the hard part is, the doctor-patient relationship always comes first.”

To a certain extent, one’s specialty may determine the feasibility of becoming friends with a patient. While Dr. Mehta has never done so, as a radiologist, she doesn’t usually see patients repeatedly. Likewise, a young gerontologist may have little in common with his octogenarian patients. And an older pediatrician is not in the same life stage as his patients’ sleep-deprived new parents, possibly making them less attractive friends.

However, practicing family medicine is all about long-term physician-patient relationships. Getting to know patients and their families over many years can lead to a certain intimacy. Dr. Rowland said that, while a wonderful part of being a physician is getting that unique trust whereby patients tell you all sorts of things about their lives, she’s never gone down the friendship path.

“There’s the assumption I’ll take care of someone for a long period of time, and their partner and their kids, maybe another generation or two,” Dr. Rowland said. “People really do rely on that relationship to contribute to their health.”

Worse, nowadays, when people may be starved for connection, many patients want to feel emotionally close and cared for by their doctor, so it’d be easy to cross the line. While patients deserve a compassionate, caring doctor, the physician is left to walk the line between those boundaries. Dr. Rowland said, “It’s up to the clinician to say: ‘My role is as a doctor. You deserve caring friends, but I have to order your mammogram and your blood counts. My role is different.’ ”
 

Friendly but not friends

It can be tricky to navigate the boundary between a cordial, warm relationship with a patient and that patient inviting you to their daughter’s wedding.

“People may mistake being pleasant and friendly for being friends,” said Larry Blosser, MD, chief medical officer at Central Ohio Primary Care, Westerville. In his position, he sometimes hears from patients who have misunderstood their relationship with a doctor in the practice. When that happens, he advises the physician to consider the persona they’re presenting to the patient. If you’re overly friendly, there’s the potential for confusion, but you can’t be aloof and cold, he said.

Maintaining that awareness helps to prevent a patient’s offhand invitation to catch a movie or go on a hike. And verbalizing it to your patients can make your relationship clear from the get-go.

“I tell patients we’re a team. I’m the captain, and they’re my MVP. When the match is over, whatever the results, we’re done,” said Karenne Fru, MD, PhD, a fertility specialist at Oma Fertility Atlanta. Making deep connections is essential to her practice, so Dr. Fru structures her patient interactions carefully. “Infertility is such an isolating experience. While you’re with us, we care about what’s going on in your life, your pets, and your mom’s chemo. We need mutual trust for you to be compliant with the care.”

However, that approach won’t work when you see patients regularly, as with family practice or specialties that see the same patients repeatedly throughout the year. In those circumstances, the match is never over but one in which the onus is on the physician to establish a friendly yet professional rapport without letting your self-interest, loneliness, or lack of friends interfere.

“It’s been a very difficult couple of years for a lot of us. Depending on what kind of clinical work we do, some of us took care of healthy people that got very sick or passed away,” Dr. Rowland said. “Having the chance to reconnect with people and reestablish some of that closeness, both physical and emotional, is going to be good for us.”

Just continue conveying warm, trusting compassion for your patients without blurring the friend lines.

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

When you became a doctor, you may have moved to one city for med school, another for residency, and a third to be an attending. All that moving can make it hard to maintain friendships. Factor in the challenges from the pandemic, and a physician’s life can be lonely. So, when a patient invites you for coffee or a game of pickleball, do you accept? For almost one-third of the physicians who responded to the Medscape Physician Friendships: The Joys and Challenges 2022, the answer might be yes.

About 29% said they develop friendships with patients. However, a lot depends on the circumstances. As one physician in the report said: “I have been a pediatrician for 35 years, and my patients have grown up and become productive adults in our small, rural, isolated area. You can’t help but know almost everyone.”

As the daughter of a cardiologist, Nishi Mehta, MD, a radiologist and founder of the largest physician-only Facebook group in the country, grew up with that small-town-everyone-knows-the-doctor model.

“When I was a kid, I’d go to the mall, and my friends and I would play a game: How long before a patient [of my dad’s] comes up to me?” she said. At the time, Dr. Mehta was embarrassed, but now she marvels that her dad knew his patients so well that they would recognize his daughter in crowded suburban mall.

In other instances, a physician may develop a friendly relationship after a patient leaves their care. For example, Leo Nissola, MD, now a full-time researcher and immunotherapy scientist in San Francisco, has stayed in touch with some of the patients he treated while at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Dr. Nissola said it was important to stay connected with the patients he had meaningful relationships with. “It becomes challenging, though, when a former patient asks for medical advice.” At that moment, “you have to be explicitly clear that the relationship has changed.”
 

A hard line in the sand

The blurring of lines is one reason many doctors refuse to befriend patients, even after they are no longer treating them. The American College of Physicians Ethics Manual advises against treating anyone with whom you have a close relationship, including family and friends.

“Friendships can get in the way of patients being honest with you, which can interfere with medical care,” Dr. Mehta said. “If a patient has a concern related to something they wouldn’t want you to know as friends, it can get awkward. They may elect not to tell you.”

And on the flip side, friendship can provide a view into your private life that you may not welcome in the exam room.

“Let’s say you go out for drinks [with a patient], and you’re up late, but you have surgery the next day,” said Brandi Ring, MD, an ob.gyn. and the associate medical director at the Center for Children and Women in Houston. Now, one of your patients knows you were out until midnight when you had to be in the OR at 5:00 a.m.

Worse still, your relationship could color your decisions about a patient’s care, even unconsciously. It can be hard to maintain objectivity when you have an emotional investment in someone’s well-being.

“We don’t necessarily treat family and friends to the standards of medical care,” said Dr. Ring. “We go above and beyond. We might order more tests and more scans. We don’t always follow the guidelines, especially in critical illness.”

For all these reasons and more, the ACP advises against treating friends.
 

Put physician before friend

But adhering to those guidelines can lead physicians to make some painful decisions. Cutting yourself off from the possibility of friendship is never easy, and the Medscape report found that physicians tend to have fewer friends than the average American.

“Especially earlier in my practice, when I was a young parent, and I would see a lot of other young parents in the same stage in life, I’d think, ‘In other circumstances, I would be hanging out at the park with this person,’ “ said Kathleen Rowland, MD, a family medicine physician and vice chair of education in the department of family medicine at Rush University, Chicago. “But the hard part is, the doctor-patient relationship always comes first.”

To a certain extent, one’s specialty may determine the feasibility of becoming friends with a patient. While Dr. Mehta has never done so, as a radiologist, she doesn’t usually see patients repeatedly. Likewise, a young gerontologist may have little in common with his octogenarian patients. And an older pediatrician is not in the same life stage as his patients’ sleep-deprived new parents, possibly making them less attractive friends.

However, practicing family medicine is all about long-term physician-patient relationships. Getting to know patients and their families over many years can lead to a certain intimacy. Dr. Rowland said that, while a wonderful part of being a physician is getting that unique trust whereby patients tell you all sorts of things about their lives, she’s never gone down the friendship path.

“There’s the assumption I’ll take care of someone for a long period of time, and their partner and their kids, maybe another generation or two,” Dr. Rowland said. “People really do rely on that relationship to contribute to their health.”

Worse, nowadays, when people may be starved for connection, many patients want to feel emotionally close and cared for by their doctor, so it’d be easy to cross the line. While patients deserve a compassionate, caring doctor, the physician is left to walk the line between those boundaries. Dr. Rowland said, “It’s up to the clinician to say: ‘My role is as a doctor. You deserve caring friends, but I have to order your mammogram and your blood counts. My role is different.’ ”
 

Friendly but not friends

It can be tricky to navigate the boundary between a cordial, warm relationship with a patient and that patient inviting you to their daughter’s wedding.

“People may mistake being pleasant and friendly for being friends,” said Larry Blosser, MD, chief medical officer at Central Ohio Primary Care, Westerville. In his position, he sometimes hears from patients who have misunderstood their relationship with a doctor in the practice. When that happens, he advises the physician to consider the persona they’re presenting to the patient. If you’re overly friendly, there’s the potential for confusion, but you can’t be aloof and cold, he said.

Maintaining that awareness helps to prevent a patient’s offhand invitation to catch a movie or go on a hike. And verbalizing it to your patients can make your relationship clear from the get-go.

“I tell patients we’re a team. I’m the captain, and they’re my MVP. When the match is over, whatever the results, we’re done,” said Karenne Fru, MD, PhD, a fertility specialist at Oma Fertility Atlanta. Making deep connections is essential to her practice, so Dr. Fru structures her patient interactions carefully. “Infertility is such an isolating experience. While you’re with us, we care about what’s going on in your life, your pets, and your mom’s chemo. We need mutual trust for you to be compliant with the care.”

However, that approach won’t work when you see patients regularly, as with family practice or specialties that see the same patients repeatedly throughout the year. In those circumstances, the match is never over but one in which the onus is on the physician to establish a friendly yet professional rapport without letting your self-interest, loneliness, or lack of friends interfere.

“It’s been a very difficult couple of years for a lot of us. Depending on what kind of clinical work we do, some of us took care of healthy people that got very sick or passed away,” Dr. Rowland said. “Having the chance to reconnect with people and reestablish some of that closeness, both physical and emotional, is going to be good for us.”

Just continue conveying warm, trusting compassion for your patients without blurring the friend lines.

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

When you became a doctor, you may have moved to one city for med school, another for residency, and a third to be an attending. All that moving can make it hard to maintain friendships. Factor in the challenges from the pandemic, and a physician’s life can be lonely. So, when a patient invites you for coffee or a game of pickleball, do you accept? For almost one-third of the physicians who responded to the Medscape Physician Friendships: The Joys and Challenges 2022, the answer might be yes.

About 29% said they develop friendships with patients. However, a lot depends on the circumstances. As one physician in the report said: “I have been a pediatrician for 35 years, and my patients have grown up and become productive adults in our small, rural, isolated area. You can’t help but know almost everyone.”

As the daughter of a cardiologist, Nishi Mehta, MD, a radiologist and founder of the largest physician-only Facebook group in the country, grew up with that small-town-everyone-knows-the-doctor model.

“When I was a kid, I’d go to the mall, and my friends and I would play a game: How long before a patient [of my dad’s] comes up to me?” she said. At the time, Dr. Mehta was embarrassed, but now she marvels that her dad knew his patients so well that they would recognize his daughter in crowded suburban mall.

In other instances, a physician may develop a friendly relationship after a patient leaves their care. For example, Leo Nissola, MD, now a full-time researcher and immunotherapy scientist in San Francisco, has stayed in touch with some of the patients he treated while at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Dr. Nissola said it was important to stay connected with the patients he had meaningful relationships with. “It becomes challenging, though, when a former patient asks for medical advice.” At that moment, “you have to be explicitly clear that the relationship has changed.”
 

A hard line in the sand

The blurring of lines is one reason many doctors refuse to befriend patients, even after they are no longer treating them. The American College of Physicians Ethics Manual advises against treating anyone with whom you have a close relationship, including family and friends.

“Friendships can get in the way of patients being honest with you, which can interfere with medical care,” Dr. Mehta said. “If a patient has a concern related to something they wouldn’t want you to know as friends, it can get awkward. They may elect not to tell you.”

And on the flip side, friendship can provide a view into your private life that you may not welcome in the exam room.

“Let’s say you go out for drinks [with a patient], and you’re up late, but you have surgery the next day,” said Brandi Ring, MD, an ob.gyn. and the associate medical director at the Center for Children and Women in Houston. Now, one of your patients knows you were out until midnight when you had to be in the OR at 5:00 a.m.

Worse still, your relationship could color your decisions about a patient’s care, even unconsciously. It can be hard to maintain objectivity when you have an emotional investment in someone’s well-being.

“We don’t necessarily treat family and friends to the standards of medical care,” said Dr. Ring. “We go above and beyond. We might order more tests and more scans. We don’t always follow the guidelines, especially in critical illness.”

For all these reasons and more, the ACP advises against treating friends.
 

Put physician before friend

But adhering to those guidelines can lead physicians to make some painful decisions. Cutting yourself off from the possibility of friendship is never easy, and the Medscape report found that physicians tend to have fewer friends than the average American.

“Especially earlier in my practice, when I was a young parent, and I would see a lot of other young parents in the same stage in life, I’d think, ‘In other circumstances, I would be hanging out at the park with this person,’ “ said Kathleen Rowland, MD, a family medicine physician and vice chair of education in the department of family medicine at Rush University, Chicago. “But the hard part is, the doctor-patient relationship always comes first.”

To a certain extent, one’s specialty may determine the feasibility of becoming friends with a patient. While Dr. Mehta has never done so, as a radiologist, she doesn’t usually see patients repeatedly. Likewise, a young gerontologist may have little in common with his octogenarian patients. And an older pediatrician is not in the same life stage as his patients’ sleep-deprived new parents, possibly making them less attractive friends.

However, practicing family medicine is all about long-term physician-patient relationships. Getting to know patients and their families over many years can lead to a certain intimacy. Dr. Rowland said that, while a wonderful part of being a physician is getting that unique trust whereby patients tell you all sorts of things about their lives, she’s never gone down the friendship path.

“There’s the assumption I’ll take care of someone for a long period of time, and their partner and their kids, maybe another generation or two,” Dr. Rowland said. “People really do rely on that relationship to contribute to their health.”

Worse, nowadays, when people may be starved for connection, many patients want to feel emotionally close and cared for by their doctor, so it’d be easy to cross the line. While patients deserve a compassionate, caring doctor, the physician is left to walk the line between those boundaries. Dr. Rowland said, “It’s up to the clinician to say: ‘My role is as a doctor. You deserve caring friends, but I have to order your mammogram and your blood counts. My role is different.’ ”
 

Friendly but not friends

It can be tricky to navigate the boundary between a cordial, warm relationship with a patient and that patient inviting you to their daughter’s wedding.

“People may mistake being pleasant and friendly for being friends,” said Larry Blosser, MD, chief medical officer at Central Ohio Primary Care, Westerville. In his position, he sometimes hears from patients who have misunderstood their relationship with a doctor in the practice. When that happens, he advises the physician to consider the persona they’re presenting to the patient. If you’re overly friendly, there’s the potential for confusion, but you can’t be aloof and cold, he said.

Maintaining that awareness helps to prevent a patient’s offhand invitation to catch a movie or go on a hike. And verbalizing it to your patients can make your relationship clear from the get-go.

“I tell patients we’re a team. I’m the captain, and they’re my MVP. When the match is over, whatever the results, we’re done,” said Karenne Fru, MD, PhD, a fertility specialist at Oma Fertility Atlanta. Making deep connections is essential to her practice, so Dr. Fru structures her patient interactions carefully. “Infertility is such an isolating experience. While you’re with us, we care about what’s going on in your life, your pets, and your mom’s chemo. We need mutual trust for you to be compliant with the care.”

However, that approach won’t work when you see patients regularly, as with family practice or specialties that see the same patients repeatedly throughout the year. In those circumstances, the match is never over but one in which the onus is on the physician to establish a friendly yet professional rapport without letting your self-interest, loneliness, or lack of friends interfere.

“It’s been a very difficult couple of years for a lot of us. Depending on what kind of clinical work we do, some of us took care of healthy people that got very sick or passed away,” Dr. Rowland said. “Having the chance to reconnect with people and reestablish some of that closeness, both physical and emotional, is going to be good for us.”

Just continue conveying warm, trusting compassion for your patients without blurring the friend lines.

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

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) and its newly installed president have posted an apology for a speech delivered by its outgoing president that appeared, in part, to disparage affirmative action as a means to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in the field.

The speech, entitled “Three Score & More,” presented Jan. 22 at the STS 58th annual meeting in San Diego by John H. Calhoon, MD, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, unleashed a cascade of tweets, some circumspect but many expressing outrage and dismay.

Many of the tweets were from individuals who acknowledged not hearing the speech but who had seen at least one accompanying slide which, by then, had been widely circulated on the platform. It contained phrases such as “Affirmative Action is not equal opportunity” and “Defining people by color, gender, religion only tends to ingrain bias and discrimination,” all under the heading of “Virtuous Ideals.”

Reactions on Twitter included comments such as “This is bad beyond description” and a description of the slide’s content as “the blueprint & thought process for those actively maintaining Whiteness & the Patriarchy in medicine.”

Following an early onslaught of such tweets, the STS and new president Thomas E. MacGillivray, MD, MedStar Health, Washington, issued a statement disowning at least the controversial parts of Dr. Calhoon’s presentation, stating they were “inconsistent with STS’s core values of diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

The post continues, “The STS apologizes for these remarks. We know these comments were hurtful and we regret the pain they have caused to so many valued colleagues.” It then states, “Diversity, equity, and inclusion are central principles of our Society, and what we strive for in our profession and our practice. STS is committed to learning from this experience and taking action to reinforce our commitment to these values.”

“I believe that either the slide and/or my remarks were misinterpreted by some. I don’t want to hurt anybody. I’m profoundly sorry and apologize,” Dr. Calhoon said in an interview.

“I’m proud of my own group’s record on diversity and using equity and inclusion to get there,” he said. “We’re committed to it. We’ve had a wonderfully diverse group. I tried to highlight that in my remarks.”

About the Twitter response to the slide in question, Dr. Calhoon said, “I have no idea how they were thinking.” He added, “I can only comment that I’m really proud of our record and, for that matter, the STS’s record on diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

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

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) and its newly installed president have posted an apology for a speech delivered by its outgoing president that appeared, in part, to disparage affirmative action as a means to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in the field.

The speech, entitled “Three Score & More,” presented Jan. 22 at the STS 58th annual meeting in San Diego by John H. Calhoon, MD, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, unleashed a cascade of tweets, some circumspect but many expressing outrage and dismay.

Many of the tweets were from individuals who acknowledged not hearing the speech but who had seen at least one accompanying slide which, by then, had been widely circulated on the platform. It contained phrases such as “Affirmative Action is not equal opportunity” and “Defining people by color, gender, religion only tends to ingrain bias and discrimination,” all under the heading of “Virtuous Ideals.”

Reactions on Twitter included comments such as “This is bad beyond description” and a description of the slide’s content as “the blueprint & thought process for those actively maintaining Whiteness & the Patriarchy in medicine.”

Following an early onslaught of such tweets, the STS and new president Thomas E. MacGillivray, MD, MedStar Health, Washington, issued a statement disowning at least the controversial parts of Dr. Calhoon’s presentation, stating they were “inconsistent with STS’s core values of diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

The post continues, “The STS apologizes for these remarks. We know these comments were hurtful and we regret the pain they have caused to so many valued colleagues.” It then states, “Diversity, equity, and inclusion are central principles of our Society, and what we strive for in our profession and our practice. STS is committed to learning from this experience and taking action to reinforce our commitment to these values.”

“I believe that either the slide and/or my remarks were misinterpreted by some. I don’t want to hurt anybody. I’m profoundly sorry and apologize,” Dr. Calhoon said in an interview.

“I’m proud of my own group’s record on diversity and using equity and inclusion to get there,” he said. “We’re committed to it. We’ve had a wonderfully diverse group. I tried to highlight that in my remarks.”

About the Twitter response to the slide in question, Dr. Calhoon said, “I have no idea how they were thinking.” He added, “I can only comment that I’m really proud of our record and, for that matter, the STS’s record on diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

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

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) and its newly installed president have posted an apology for a speech delivered by its outgoing president that appeared, in part, to disparage affirmative action as a means to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in the field.

The speech, entitled “Three Score & More,” presented Jan. 22 at the STS 58th annual meeting in San Diego by John H. Calhoon, MD, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, unleashed a cascade of tweets, some circumspect but many expressing outrage and dismay.

Many of the tweets were from individuals who acknowledged not hearing the speech but who had seen at least one accompanying slide which, by then, had been widely circulated on the platform. It contained phrases such as “Affirmative Action is not equal opportunity” and “Defining people by color, gender, religion only tends to ingrain bias and discrimination,” all under the heading of “Virtuous Ideals.”

Reactions on Twitter included comments such as “This is bad beyond description” and a description of the slide’s content as “the blueprint & thought process for those actively maintaining Whiteness & the Patriarchy in medicine.”

Following an early onslaught of such tweets, the STS and new president Thomas E. MacGillivray, MD, MedStar Health, Washington, issued a statement disowning at least the controversial parts of Dr. Calhoon’s presentation, stating they were “inconsistent with STS’s core values of diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

The post continues, “The STS apologizes for these remarks. We know these comments were hurtful and we regret the pain they have caused to so many valued colleagues.” It then states, “Diversity, equity, and inclusion are central principles of our Society, and what we strive for in our profession and our practice. STS is committed to learning from this experience and taking action to reinforce our commitment to these values.”

“I believe that either the slide and/or my remarks were misinterpreted by some. I don’t want to hurt anybody. I’m profoundly sorry and apologize,” Dr. Calhoon said in an interview.

“I’m proud of my own group’s record on diversity and using equity and inclusion to get there,” he said. “We’re committed to it. We’ve had a wonderfully diverse group. I tried to highlight that in my remarks.”

About the Twitter response to the slide in question, Dr. Calhoon said, “I have no idea how they were thinking.” He added, “I can only comment that I’m really proud of our record and, for that matter, the STS’s record on diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

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

For Julia Moore Vogel, PhD, a cup of peppermint tea marked the moment her life would change forever.

One morning in early July 2020, she took a sip of her favorite strongly flavored pick-me-up and couldn’t taste it. She knew loss of taste and smell were symptoms of COVID-19, and she suspected she had contracted the virus. A doctor’s visit confirmed her fears.

“I remember trying the tea and just being so shocked and thinking: How can this be happening to me?” said Dr. Moore Vogel, a COVID-19 researcher with the Scripps Research Translational Institute in San Diego. “I’d been so incredibly careful.”

Her physician assured her that as a healthy woman in her mid-30s, she’d be “back to normal” in 2 weeks’ time and that her loss of taste and smell “very likely will be your only symptom,” she recalled.

But within a week, Dr. Moore Vogel started having trouble breathing. She couldn’t work, and she experienced crushing fatigue, brain fog, and migraines. Now, 2½ years later, Dr. Moore Vogel is among the tens of millions of Americans with long COVID.

As a COVID-19 patient-researcher who still struggles with fatigue and migraines, she has learned to cope with her condition. She directs the Participant Center for the All of Us Research Program, a National Institutes of Health collaboration to build the largest, most diverse health database in history. She relies on a practice called pacing, which helps conserve physical, mental, and emotional energy, to avoid making her symptoms worse.

And she is a coauthor of a landmark 200-study review of long COVID published Jan. 13 in the journal Nature, with Scripps Executive Vice President and Medscape Editor-in-Chief Eric Topol, MD. Two other institute long COVID researchers and patient advocates who have the condition coauthored the review – Lisa McCorkell and Hannah E. Davis, cofounders of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative , a group of long COVID patients who study the virus.

Dr. Moore Vogel discussed the key findings of the new review and her personal experiences with this news organization.
 

Q: When you contracted COVID, no treatments or vaccines existed. Can you talk about what the experience was like for you?

A: “It was July 2020. The loss of taste and smell was the first symptom, and what was interesting was that was my only symptom for a little bit. Being the goal-oriented, work-oriented person that I am, I just worked the rest of the week and hoped that it wasn’t real.

“But that was a Wednesday, and by Friday, I was just getting really tired, and it was really hard to finish my workday. I ended up taking 3 weeks off to recover from the acute phase. At the time, I had read early discussions about long COVID, and it was always on my [mind] – how long was it going to take to recover?”
 

Q: You went to see a doctor that first week?

A: “I called them when I had the loss of taste and smell, and they said, ‘It’s very likely this will be your only symptom.’ And when I first talked to a physician, they were saying, ‘Oh, you’re young and healthy, in 2 weeks you’ll be back to normal.’ But of course that turned out not to be true.

“It’s hard to remember what it was like at that time. There were so few treatments, it was all about rationing ventilators, and it was absolutely terrifying at the time to just not know what was going to happen.”
 

Q: How are you managing your condition today?

A: “I have myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), one of the really common diagnoses that come out of long COVID. So, that’s the biggest thing for me to manage now, and the main management is pacing.

“I also have medications for migraine management. I’ve always had some degree of migraines, like 2 a month, but now it’s like 15 a month, so it’s a totally different scale of management.”
 

Q: It must be frustrating, personally and professionally, that long COVID treatments remain elusive.

A: “I’m disappointed at the pace of testing things in clinical trials. There was so much progress made, so much innovation in the early stages of the pandemic to treat the acute phase, and it led to amazing things. We have all these monoclonal antibodies, the steroids are really effective, not to mention the antivirals and the vaccines, of course, on the prevention side. It’s been amazing.

“But for some reason, long COVID treatment is really lagging. What I hypothesize as part of the reason for that is that it doesn’t feel as dramatic. When you see someone on a ventilator or hear about death, it feels very dramatic, and people really worry about that.”
 

Q: So, let’s talk about the research. How did your personal experiences – and those of the two other coauthors with long COVID – help inform this review?

A: “I work with Eric Topol on a regular basis, and it was amazing that he invited patients to work with him on this review ... I have to say of my other long COVID patient coauthors, Hannah Davis and Lisa McCorkell, it was amazing to work with them.

“It was my first time working with people who have long COVID on a big project. The understanding that we had of each other [where] one of us might say, Oh, I’m crashing today, I can’t work on this. Can you help get us across the finish line for this deadline? That was really amazing to me in terms of how a workplace can be with real disability accommodations.

“It’s really changed my personal outlook on how important it is to have patients involved in the process.”
 

Q: What was the most surprising or significant finding of the review, in your view?

A: “I would say the most impactful thing to me in the process of writing this review is how much research has been done in such a short time. We started with over 250 studies that we wanted to reference in the review, and we actually had to cut out 50 in the editorial process, which was really hard!

“There’s just been so much progress that’s been made in the past couple of years. And then thinking about the progress on long COVID in general, the other things that’s important to acknowledge is all the work that’s been done on other postviral illnesses that present very similarly to long COVID in many patients, ME/CFS, and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).”
 

Q: One thing that stood out is the review’s finding that long COVID is potentially lifelong COVID and, in some ways, is closer to HIV-AIDS than, say, influenza. Is that right?

A: “Yes. I’m really glad you took that point away from the review because that was one of the things that I felt the most strongly about incorporating. For many people, based on the treatments that we have today, this is likely to lead to lifelong disability. And that’s something, from my personal experience, for sure. I’m seeing no improvement on the horizon.

“That’s part of why I’m so passionate about there being clinical trials because I know there are millions and millions of us. So for me, that wasn’t so surprising, because I’m living it, but I can see how for the general public that was a really surprising finding.”
 

Q: The review breaks down long COVID’s effects on various organs/systems, and it includes the most comprehensive look to date at the effects on pregnant women. Anything you’d care to stress about that?

A: “It really underlies the importance of vaccination, given that it can affect both the pregnant person and child. There is early evidence of development delays if there’s infection while the child is still gestating. So, I think it underscores the need for vaccination to reduce that risk.

“You know, pregnancy is a stressful and terrifying time anyway. So, if there’s anything you can do to reduce the risk to yourself and your unborn child, I think it’s really worthwhile.”
 

Q: Why do you think this exhaustive review was needed?

A: “Because of the massive amount of literature that’s out there, it’s so hard for anybody to sift through. Eric Topol and Hannah Davis, two of the coauthors, are two people who have done it, and they keep up with all the literature, and they are always tweeting about it.

“But most people don’t have the time to be able to sift through it, so what we did was take all of that literature, organize it into sections, and summarize the key findings. Then the other thing that I think is really important for the field right now is the recommendations piece.”
 

Q: What impact do you think the new long COVID review in Nature will have?

A: “The response to our review is way beyond what I expected, and I think that’s in part a sign that there is growing awareness of the issue of long COVID.

“I hope that helps spiral toward more treatment trials. Because there are a lot of great candidates out there. We have a whole table in the review about the different potential treatments that should be tested.”
 

Q: What’s the take-home message for physicians?

A: “One of the key recommendations is about physician education. We know that it is so hard for physicians to keep up with this massive amount of literature, and we really need more physician education that’s meant for busy physicians who really don’t have time to read all of the primary literature themselves.

“So many folks are not getting the care that they need. Because these types of conditions haven’t been seen as much by primary care providers, physical therapists, etc., there’s so much more education that’s needed.

“I think the basic tenets probably could be taught in a weekend course, [including] listening to the patients, believing patients. There are so many times patient symptoms are [dismissed and not] really being taken seriously by their physicians.

“I think part of the challenge behind that is the conflating of mental health issues with these other physiological symptoms. There’s a tendency to say, ‘Oh, all this is this caused by mental health issues’ and that mental health is the root cause, when actually it’s the illness that’s the root cause.”
 

Q: What’s the big picture: How significant is the public health crisis that long COVID represents?

A: “I believe it’s a massive crisis, a massive emergency. A lot of people in the long COVID community are calling it a mass-disabling event. There is concern that if we let the pandemic run unmitigated for long enough – given that we expect about 10% of folks that get COVID will end up with long COVID – we could end up eventually with a majority-disabled society.

“That would be devasting – to individuals, to the economy, the medical system. So, it’s absolutely a public health emergency in my view, and that’s part of why I’ve been so surprised by the lack of trials, the lack of awareness in the public. There hasn’t been as much public education about long COVID as there has about acute COVID. I think we can do more from a public health perspective.”
 

Q: What are the main challenges in combating long COVID?

A: “I think the lack of treatments is the most devastating part because it’s such a hard disease to contract, and there’s no end in sight, and so that time horizon can be really difficult. That’s part of why I’m pushing the treatments so much, because I want to offer hope to the community, you know, I want there to be hope around the corner.

“My hope is that within 5 years we’ll have treatments that can really improve quality of life for the community. And I know that that may seem like a long time for those who are suffering, and I hope that there will be some clinical trials of treatments that improve symptom management within 1-2 years. But I think for really more novel things, it’s really going to take at least 5.”
 

Q: Any advice you’d give to someone with long COVID today?

A: “Connecting with others that are going through the experience is extremely valuable and can really help with that mental component which can be really draining.

“The other thing, in terms of what’s important for the lives of people who are living with long COVID, I would say to everyone who doesn’t have long COVID but knows someone who does, being able to offer support is crucial and can make such a difference in quality of life.

“It is really crucial, for those who don’t have long COVID, to take it into account when you’re making your risk calculations. When you’re thinking: Am I going to wear a mask here? or Am I going to go to that bar?

“Really consider the possibility that if you get COVID, you have a 10% chance of getting long COVID. And if you get long COVID, you have a 25% chance of not being able to work anymore or being so ill that you can’t work anymore and you may lose your health insurance.

“The compounding effects are absolutely devastating, and I think that’s under-factored-in to the general risk calculations of the public.”

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

For Julia Moore Vogel, PhD, a cup of peppermint tea marked the moment her life would change forever.

One morning in early July 2020, she took a sip of her favorite strongly flavored pick-me-up and couldn’t taste it. She knew loss of taste and smell were symptoms of COVID-19, and she suspected she had contracted the virus. A doctor’s visit confirmed her fears.

“I remember trying the tea and just being so shocked and thinking: How can this be happening to me?” said Dr. Moore Vogel, a COVID-19 researcher with the Scripps Research Translational Institute in San Diego. “I’d been so incredibly careful.”

Her physician assured her that as a healthy woman in her mid-30s, she’d be “back to normal” in 2 weeks’ time and that her loss of taste and smell “very likely will be your only symptom,” she recalled.

But within a week, Dr. Moore Vogel started having trouble breathing. She couldn’t work, and she experienced crushing fatigue, brain fog, and migraines. Now, 2½ years later, Dr. Moore Vogel is among the tens of millions of Americans with long COVID.

As a COVID-19 patient-researcher who still struggles with fatigue and migraines, she has learned to cope with her condition. She directs the Participant Center for the All of Us Research Program, a National Institutes of Health collaboration to build the largest, most diverse health database in history. She relies on a practice called pacing, which helps conserve physical, mental, and emotional energy, to avoid making her symptoms worse.

And she is a coauthor of a landmark 200-study review of long COVID published Jan. 13 in the journal Nature, with Scripps Executive Vice President and Medscape Editor-in-Chief Eric Topol, MD. Two other institute long COVID researchers and patient advocates who have the condition coauthored the review – Lisa McCorkell and Hannah E. Davis, cofounders of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative , a group of long COVID patients who study the virus.

Dr. Moore Vogel discussed the key findings of the new review and her personal experiences with this news organization.
 

Q: When you contracted COVID, no treatments or vaccines existed. Can you talk about what the experience was like for you?

A: “It was July 2020. The loss of taste and smell was the first symptom, and what was interesting was that was my only symptom for a little bit. Being the goal-oriented, work-oriented person that I am, I just worked the rest of the week and hoped that it wasn’t real.

“But that was a Wednesday, and by Friday, I was just getting really tired, and it was really hard to finish my workday. I ended up taking 3 weeks off to recover from the acute phase. At the time, I had read early discussions about long COVID, and it was always on my [mind] – how long was it going to take to recover?”
 

Q: You went to see a doctor that first week?

A: “I called them when I had the loss of taste and smell, and they said, ‘It’s very likely this will be your only symptom.’ And when I first talked to a physician, they were saying, ‘Oh, you’re young and healthy, in 2 weeks you’ll be back to normal.’ But of course that turned out not to be true.

“It’s hard to remember what it was like at that time. There were so few treatments, it was all about rationing ventilators, and it was absolutely terrifying at the time to just not know what was going to happen.”
 

Q: How are you managing your condition today?

A: “I have myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), one of the really common diagnoses that come out of long COVID. So, that’s the biggest thing for me to manage now, and the main management is pacing.

“I also have medications for migraine management. I’ve always had some degree of migraines, like 2 a month, but now it’s like 15 a month, so it’s a totally different scale of management.”
 

Q: It must be frustrating, personally and professionally, that long COVID treatments remain elusive.

A: “I’m disappointed at the pace of testing things in clinical trials. There was so much progress made, so much innovation in the early stages of the pandemic to treat the acute phase, and it led to amazing things. We have all these monoclonal antibodies, the steroids are really effective, not to mention the antivirals and the vaccines, of course, on the prevention side. It’s been amazing.

“But for some reason, long COVID treatment is really lagging. What I hypothesize as part of the reason for that is that it doesn’t feel as dramatic. When you see someone on a ventilator or hear about death, it feels very dramatic, and people really worry about that.”
 

Q: So, let’s talk about the research. How did your personal experiences – and those of the two other coauthors with long COVID – help inform this review?

A: “I work with Eric Topol on a regular basis, and it was amazing that he invited patients to work with him on this review ... I have to say of my other long COVID patient coauthors, Hannah Davis and Lisa McCorkell, it was amazing to work with them.

“It was my first time working with people who have long COVID on a big project. The understanding that we had of each other [where] one of us might say, Oh, I’m crashing today, I can’t work on this. Can you help get us across the finish line for this deadline? That was really amazing to me in terms of how a workplace can be with real disability accommodations.

“It’s really changed my personal outlook on how important it is to have patients involved in the process.”
 

Q: What was the most surprising or significant finding of the review, in your view?

A: “I would say the most impactful thing to me in the process of writing this review is how much research has been done in such a short time. We started with over 250 studies that we wanted to reference in the review, and we actually had to cut out 50 in the editorial process, which was really hard!

“There’s just been so much progress that’s been made in the past couple of years. And then thinking about the progress on long COVID in general, the other things that’s important to acknowledge is all the work that’s been done on other postviral illnesses that present very similarly to long COVID in many patients, ME/CFS, and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).”
 

Q: One thing that stood out is the review’s finding that long COVID is potentially lifelong COVID and, in some ways, is closer to HIV-AIDS than, say, influenza. Is that right?

A: “Yes. I’m really glad you took that point away from the review because that was one of the things that I felt the most strongly about incorporating. For many people, based on the treatments that we have today, this is likely to lead to lifelong disability. And that’s something, from my personal experience, for sure. I’m seeing no improvement on the horizon.

“That’s part of why I’m so passionate about there being clinical trials because I know there are millions and millions of us. So for me, that wasn’t so surprising, because I’m living it, but I can see how for the general public that was a really surprising finding.”
 

Q: The review breaks down long COVID’s effects on various organs/systems, and it includes the most comprehensive look to date at the effects on pregnant women. Anything you’d care to stress about that?

A: “It really underlies the importance of vaccination, given that it can affect both the pregnant person and child. There is early evidence of development delays if there’s infection while the child is still gestating. So, I think it underscores the need for vaccination to reduce that risk.

“You know, pregnancy is a stressful and terrifying time anyway. So, if there’s anything you can do to reduce the risk to yourself and your unborn child, I think it’s really worthwhile.”
 

Q: Why do you think this exhaustive review was needed?

A: “Because of the massive amount of literature that’s out there, it’s so hard for anybody to sift through. Eric Topol and Hannah Davis, two of the coauthors, are two people who have done it, and they keep up with all the literature, and they are always tweeting about it.

“But most people don’t have the time to be able to sift through it, so what we did was take all of that literature, organize it into sections, and summarize the key findings. Then the other thing that I think is really important for the field right now is the recommendations piece.”
 

Q: What impact do you think the new long COVID review in Nature will have?

A: “The response to our review is way beyond what I expected, and I think that’s in part a sign that there is growing awareness of the issue of long COVID.

“I hope that helps spiral toward more treatment trials. Because there are a lot of great candidates out there. We have a whole table in the review about the different potential treatments that should be tested.”
 

Q: What’s the take-home message for physicians?

A: “One of the key recommendations is about physician education. We know that it is so hard for physicians to keep up with this massive amount of literature, and we really need more physician education that’s meant for busy physicians who really don’t have time to read all of the primary literature themselves.

“So many folks are not getting the care that they need. Because these types of conditions haven’t been seen as much by primary care providers, physical therapists, etc., there’s so much more education that’s needed.

“I think the basic tenets probably could be taught in a weekend course, [including] listening to the patients, believing patients. There are so many times patient symptoms are [dismissed and not] really being taken seriously by their physicians.

“I think part of the challenge behind that is the conflating of mental health issues with these other physiological symptoms. There’s a tendency to say, ‘Oh, all this is this caused by mental health issues’ and that mental health is the root cause, when actually it’s the illness that’s the root cause.”
 

Q: What’s the big picture: How significant is the public health crisis that long COVID represents?

A: “I believe it’s a massive crisis, a massive emergency. A lot of people in the long COVID community are calling it a mass-disabling event. There is concern that if we let the pandemic run unmitigated for long enough – given that we expect about 10% of folks that get COVID will end up with long COVID – we could end up eventually with a majority-disabled society.

“That would be devasting – to individuals, to the economy, the medical system. So, it’s absolutely a public health emergency in my view, and that’s part of why I’ve been so surprised by the lack of trials, the lack of awareness in the public. There hasn’t been as much public education about long COVID as there has about acute COVID. I think we can do more from a public health perspective.”
 

Q: What are the main challenges in combating long COVID?

A: “I think the lack of treatments is the most devastating part because it’s such a hard disease to contract, and there’s no end in sight, and so that time horizon can be really difficult. That’s part of why I’m pushing the treatments so much, because I want to offer hope to the community, you know, I want there to be hope around the corner.

“My hope is that within 5 years we’ll have treatments that can really improve quality of life for the community. And I know that that may seem like a long time for those who are suffering, and I hope that there will be some clinical trials of treatments that improve symptom management within 1-2 years. But I think for really more novel things, it’s really going to take at least 5.”
 

Q: Any advice you’d give to someone with long COVID today?

A: “Connecting with others that are going through the experience is extremely valuable and can really help with that mental component which can be really draining.

“The other thing, in terms of what’s important for the lives of people who are living with long COVID, I would say to everyone who doesn’t have long COVID but knows someone who does, being able to offer support is crucial and can make such a difference in quality of life.

“It is really crucial, for those who don’t have long COVID, to take it into account when you’re making your risk calculations. When you’re thinking: Am I going to wear a mask here? or Am I going to go to that bar?

“Really consider the possibility that if you get COVID, you have a 10% chance of getting long COVID. And if you get long COVID, you have a 25% chance of not being able to work anymore or being so ill that you can’t work anymore and you may lose your health insurance.

“The compounding effects are absolutely devastating, and I think that’s under-factored-in to the general risk calculations of the public.”

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

For Julia Moore Vogel, PhD, a cup of peppermint tea marked the moment her life would change forever.

One morning in early July 2020, she took a sip of her favorite strongly flavored pick-me-up and couldn’t taste it. She knew loss of taste and smell were symptoms of COVID-19, and she suspected she had contracted the virus. A doctor’s visit confirmed her fears.

“I remember trying the tea and just being so shocked and thinking: How can this be happening to me?” said Dr. Moore Vogel, a COVID-19 researcher with the Scripps Research Translational Institute in San Diego. “I’d been so incredibly careful.”

Her physician assured her that as a healthy woman in her mid-30s, she’d be “back to normal” in 2 weeks’ time and that her loss of taste and smell “very likely will be your only symptom,” she recalled.

But within a week, Dr. Moore Vogel started having trouble breathing. She couldn’t work, and she experienced crushing fatigue, brain fog, and migraines. Now, 2½ years later, Dr. Moore Vogel is among the tens of millions of Americans with long COVID.

As a COVID-19 patient-researcher who still struggles with fatigue and migraines, she has learned to cope with her condition. She directs the Participant Center for the All of Us Research Program, a National Institutes of Health collaboration to build the largest, most diverse health database in history. She relies on a practice called pacing, which helps conserve physical, mental, and emotional energy, to avoid making her symptoms worse.

And she is a coauthor of a landmark 200-study review of long COVID published Jan. 13 in the journal Nature, with Scripps Executive Vice President and Medscape Editor-in-Chief Eric Topol, MD. Two other institute long COVID researchers and patient advocates who have the condition coauthored the review – Lisa McCorkell and Hannah E. Davis, cofounders of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative , a group of long COVID patients who study the virus.

Dr. Moore Vogel discussed the key findings of the new review and her personal experiences with this news organization.
 

Q: When you contracted COVID, no treatments or vaccines existed. Can you talk about what the experience was like for you?

A: “It was July 2020. The loss of taste and smell was the first symptom, and what was interesting was that was my only symptom for a little bit. Being the goal-oriented, work-oriented person that I am, I just worked the rest of the week and hoped that it wasn’t real.

“But that was a Wednesday, and by Friday, I was just getting really tired, and it was really hard to finish my workday. I ended up taking 3 weeks off to recover from the acute phase. At the time, I had read early discussions about long COVID, and it was always on my [mind] – how long was it going to take to recover?”
 

Q: You went to see a doctor that first week?

A: “I called them when I had the loss of taste and smell, and they said, ‘It’s very likely this will be your only symptom.’ And when I first talked to a physician, they were saying, ‘Oh, you’re young and healthy, in 2 weeks you’ll be back to normal.’ But of course that turned out not to be true.

“It’s hard to remember what it was like at that time. There were so few treatments, it was all about rationing ventilators, and it was absolutely terrifying at the time to just not know what was going to happen.”
 

Q: How are you managing your condition today?

A: “I have myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), one of the really common diagnoses that come out of long COVID. So, that’s the biggest thing for me to manage now, and the main management is pacing.

“I also have medications for migraine management. I’ve always had some degree of migraines, like 2 a month, but now it’s like 15 a month, so it’s a totally different scale of management.”
 

Q: It must be frustrating, personally and professionally, that long COVID treatments remain elusive.

A: “I’m disappointed at the pace of testing things in clinical trials. There was so much progress made, so much innovation in the early stages of the pandemic to treat the acute phase, and it led to amazing things. We have all these monoclonal antibodies, the steroids are really effective, not to mention the antivirals and the vaccines, of course, on the prevention side. It’s been amazing.

“But for some reason, long COVID treatment is really lagging. What I hypothesize as part of the reason for that is that it doesn’t feel as dramatic. When you see someone on a ventilator or hear about death, it feels very dramatic, and people really worry about that.”
 

Q: So, let’s talk about the research. How did your personal experiences – and those of the two other coauthors with long COVID – help inform this review?

A: “I work with Eric Topol on a regular basis, and it was amazing that he invited patients to work with him on this review ... I have to say of my other long COVID patient coauthors, Hannah Davis and Lisa McCorkell, it was amazing to work with them.

“It was my first time working with people who have long COVID on a big project. The understanding that we had of each other [where] one of us might say, Oh, I’m crashing today, I can’t work on this. Can you help get us across the finish line for this deadline? That was really amazing to me in terms of how a workplace can be with real disability accommodations.

“It’s really changed my personal outlook on how important it is to have patients involved in the process.”
 

Q: What was the most surprising or significant finding of the review, in your view?

A: “I would say the most impactful thing to me in the process of writing this review is how much research has been done in such a short time. We started with over 250 studies that we wanted to reference in the review, and we actually had to cut out 50 in the editorial process, which was really hard!

“There’s just been so much progress that’s been made in the past couple of years. And then thinking about the progress on long COVID in general, the other things that’s important to acknowledge is all the work that’s been done on other postviral illnesses that present very similarly to long COVID in many patients, ME/CFS, and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).”
 

Q: One thing that stood out is the review’s finding that long COVID is potentially lifelong COVID and, in some ways, is closer to HIV-AIDS than, say, influenza. Is that right?

A: “Yes. I’m really glad you took that point away from the review because that was one of the things that I felt the most strongly about incorporating. For many people, based on the treatments that we have today, this is likely to lead to lifelong disability. And that’s something, from my personal experience, for sure. I’m seeing no improvement on the horizon.

“That’s part of why I’m so passionate about there being clinical trials because I know there are millions and millions of us. So for me, that wasn’t so surprising, because I’m living it, but I can see how for the general public that was a really surprising finding.”
 

Q: The review breaks down long COVID’s effects on various organs/systems, and it includes the most comprehensive look to date at the effects on pregnant women. Anything you’d care to stress about that?

A: “It really underlies the importance of vaccination, given that it can affect both the pregnant person and child. There is early evidence of development delays if there’s infection while the child is still gestating. So, I think it underscores the need for vaccination to reduce that risk.

“You know, pregnancy is a stressful and terrifying time anyway. So, if there’s anything you can do to reduce the risk to yourself and your unborn child, I think it’s really worthwhile.”
 

Q: Why do you think this exhaustive review was needed?

A: “Because of the massive amount of literature that’s out there, it’s so hard for anybody to sift through. Eric Topol and Hannah Davis, two of the coauthors, are two people who have done it, and they keep up with all the literature, and they are always tweeting about it.

“But most people don’t have the time to be able to sift through it, so what we did was take all of that literature, organize it into sections, and summarize the key findings. Then the other thing that I think is really important for the field right now is the recommendations piece.”
 

Q: What impact do you think the new long COVID review in Nature will have?

A: “The response to our review is way beyond what I expected, and I think that’s in part a sign that there is growing awareness of the issue of long COVID.

“I hope that helps spiral toward more treatment trials. Because there are a lot of great candidates out there. We have a whole table in the review about the different potential treatments that should be tested.”
 

Q: What’s the take-home message for physicians?

A: “One of the key recommendations is about physician education. We know that it is so hard for physicians to keep up with this massive amount of literature, and we really need more physician education that’s meant for busy physicians who really don’t have time to read all of the primary literature themselves.

“So many folks are not getting the care that they need. Because these types of conditions haven’t been seen as much by primary care providers, physical therapists, etc., there’s so much more education that’s needed.

“I think the basic tenets probably could be taught in a weekend course, [including] listening to the patients, believing patients. There are so many times patient symptoms are [dismissed and not] really being taken seriously by their physicians.

“I think part of the challenge behind that is the conflating of mental health issues with these other physiological symptoms. There’s a tendency to say, ‘Oh, all this is this caused by mental health issues’ and that mental health is the root cause, when actually it’s the illness that’s the root cause.”
 

Q: What’s the big picture: How significant is the public health crisis that long COVID represents?

A: “I believe it’s a massive crisis, a massive emergency. A lot of people in the long COVID community are calling it a mass-disabling event. There is concern that if we let the pandemic run unmitigated for long enough – given that we expect about 10% of folks that get COVID will end up with long COVID – we could end up eventually with a majority-disabled society.

“That would be devasting – to individuals, to the economy, the medical system. So, it’s absolutely a public health emergency in my view, and that’s part of why I’ve been so surprised by the lack of trials, the lack of awareness in the public. There hasn’t been as much public education about long COVID as there has about acute COVID. I think we can do more from a public health perspective.”
 

Q: What are the main challenges in combating long COVID?

A: “I think the lack of treatments is the most devastating part because it’s such a hard disease to contract, and there’s no end in sight, and so that time horizon can be really difficult. That’s part of why I’m pushing the treatments so much, because I want to offer hope to the community, you know, I want there to be hope around the corner.

“My hope is that within 5 years we’ll have treatments that can really improve quality of life for the community. And I know that that may seem like a long time for those who are suffering, and I hope that there will be some clinical trials of treatments that improve symptom management within 1-2 years. But I think for really more novel things, it’s really going to take at least 5.”
 

Q: Any advice you’d give to someone with long COVID today?

A: “Connecting with others that are going through the experience is extremely valuable and can really help with that mental component which can be really draining.

“The other thing, in terms of what’s important for the lives of people who are living with long COVID, I would say to everyone who doesn’t have long COVID but knows someone who does, being able to offer support is crucial and can make such a difference in quality of life.

“It is really crucial, for those who don’t have long COVID, to take it into account when you’re making your risk calculations. When you’re thinking: Am I going to wear a mask here? or Am I going to go to that bar?

“Really consider the possibility that if you get COVID, you have a 10% chance of getting long COVID. And if you get long COVID, you have a 25% chance of not being able to work anymore or being so ill that you can’t work anymore and you may lose your health insurance.

“The compounding effects are absolutely devastating, and I think that’s under-factored-in to the general risk calculations of the public.”

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

Everybody wants a younger heart

As more people live well past 90, scientists have been taking a closer look at how they’ve been doing it. Mostly it boiled down to genetics. You either had it or you didn’t. Well, a recent study suggests that doesn’t have to be true anymore, at least for the heart.

Scientists from the United Kingdom and Italy found an antiaging gene in some centenarians that has shown possible antiaging effects in mice and in human heart cells. A single administration of the mutant antiaging gene, they found, stopped heart function decay in middle-aged mice and even reversed the biological clock by the human equivalent of 10 years in elderly mice.

©ktsimage/thinkstockphotos.com

When the researchers applied the antiaging gene to samples of human heart cells from elderly people with heart problems, the cells “resumed functioning properly, proving to be more efficient in building new blood vessels,” they said in a written statement. It all kind of sounds like something out of Dr. Frankenstein’s lab.
 

I want to believe … in better sleep

The “X-Files” theme song plays. Mulder and Scully are sitting in a diner, breakfast laid out around them. The diner is quiet, with only a few people inside.

Mulder: I’m telling you, Scully, there’s something spooky going on here.

Scully: You mean other than the fact that this town in Georgia looks suspiciously like Vancouver?

Mulder: Not one person we spoke to yesterday has gotten a full night’s sleep since the UFO sighting last month. I’m telling you, they’re here, they’re experimenting.

Scully: Do you really want me to do this to you again?

Mulder: Do what again?

Scully: There’s nothing going on here that can’t be explained by the current research. Why, in January 2023 a study was published revealing a link between poor sleep and belief in paranormal phenomena like UFOS, demons, or ghosts. Which probably explains why you’re on your third cup of coffee for the morning.

Mulder: Scully, you’ve literally been abducted by aliens. Do we have to play this game every time?

Scully: Look, it’s simple. In a sample of nearly 9,000 people, nearly two-thirds of those who reported experiencing sleep paralysis or exploding head syndrome reported believing in UFOs and aliens walking amongst humanity, despite making up just 3% of the overall sample.

Alexandra Gorn/Unsplash

Furthermore, about 60% of those reporting sleep paralysis also reported believing near-death experiences prove the soul lingers on after death, and those with stronger insomnia symptoms were more likely to believe in the devil.

Mulder: Aha!

Scully: Aha what?

Mulder: You’re a devout Christian. You believe in the devil and the soul.

Scully: Yes, but I don’t let it interfere with a good night’s sleep, Mulder. These people saw something strange, convinced themselves it was a UFO, and now they can’t sleep. It’s a vicious cycle. The study authors even said that people experiencing strange nighttime phenomena could interpret this as evidence of aliens or other paranormal beings, thus making them even more susceptible to further sleep disruption and deepening beliefs. Look who I’m talking to.

Mulder: Always with the facts, eh?

Scully: I am a doctor, after all. And if you want more research into how paranormal belief and poor sleep quality are linked, I’d be happy to dig out the literature, because the truth is out there, Mulder.

Mulder: I hate you sometimes.

It’s ChatGPT’s world. We’re just living in it

Have you heard about ChatGPT? The artificial intelligence chatbot was just launched in November and it’s already more important to the Internet than either Vladimir Putin or “Rick and Morty.”

What’s that? You’re wondering why you should care? Well, excuuuuuse us, but we thought you might want to know that ChatGPT is in the process of taking over the world. Let’s take a quick look at what it’s been up to.

“ChatGPT bot passes law school exam”

“ChatGPT passes MBA exam given by a Wharton professor”

“A freelance writer says ChatGPT wrote a $600 article in just 30 seconds”

And here’s one that might be of interest to those of the health care persuasion: “ChatGPT can pass part of the U.S. Medical Licensing Exam.” See? It’s coming for you, too.

The artificial intelligence known as ChatGPT “performed at >50% accuracy across [the three USMLE] examinations, exceeding 60% in most analyses,” a group of researchers wrote on the preprint server medRxiv, noting that 60% is usually the pass threshold for humans taking the exam in any given year.

Mohamed Hassan/PxHere

Everybody wants a younger heart

As more people live well past 90, scientists have been taking a closer look at how they’ve been doing it. Mostly it boiled down to genetics. You either had it or you didn’t. Well, a recent study suggests that doesn’t have to be true anymore, at least for the heart.

Scientists from the United Kingdom and Italy found an antiaging gene in some centenarians that has shown possible antiaging effects in mice and in human heart cells. A single administration of the mutant antiaging gene, they found, stopped heart function decay in middle-aged mice and even reversed the biological clock by the human equivalent of 10 years in elderly mice.

©ktsimage/thinkstockphotos.com

When the researchers applied the antiaging gene to samples of human heart cells from elderly people with heart problems, the cells “resumed functioning properly, proving to be more efficient in building new blood vessels,” they said in a written statement. It all kind of sounds like something out of Dr. Frankenstein’s lab.
 

I want to believe … in better sleep

The “X-Files” theme song plays. Mulder and Scully are sitting in a diner, breakfast laid out around them. The diner is quiet, with only a few people inside.

Mulder: I’m telling you, Scully, there’s something spooky going on here.

Scully: You mean other than the fact that this town in Georgia looks suspiciously like Vancouver?

Mulder: Not one person we spoke to yesterday has gotten a full night’s sleep since the UFO sighting last month. I’m telling you, they’re here, they’re experimenting.

Scully: Do you really want me to do this to you again?

Mulder: Do what again?

Scully: There’s nothing going on here that can’t be explained by the current research. Why, in January 2023 a study was published revealing a link between poor sleep and belief in paranormal phenomena like UFOS, demons, or ghosts. Which probably explains why you’re on your third cup of coffee for the morning.

Mulder: Scully, you’ve literally been abducted by aliens. Do we have to play this game every time?

Scully: Look, it’s simple. In a sample of nearly 9,000 people, nearly two-thirds of those who reported experiencing sleep paralysis or exploding head syndrome reported believing in UFOs and aliens walking amongst humanity, despite making up just 3% of the overall sample.

Alexandra Gorn/Unsplash

Furthermore, about 60% of those reporting sleep paralysis also reported believing near-death experiences prove the soul lingers on after death, and those with stronger insomnia symptoms were more likely to believe in the devil.

Mulder: Aha!

Scully: Aha what?

Mulder: You’re a devout Christian. You believe in the devil and the soul.

Scully: Yes, but I don’t let it interfere with a good night’s sleep, Mulder. These people saw something strange, convinced themselves it was a UFO, and now they can’t sleep. It’s a vicious cycle. The study authors even said that people experiencing strange nighttime phenomena could interpret this as evidence of aliens or other paranormal beings, thus making them even more susceptible to further sleep disruption and deepening beliefs. Look who I’m talking to.

Mulder: Always with the facts, eh?

Scully: I am a doctor, after all. And if you want more research into how paranormal belief and poor sleep quality are linked, I’d be happy to dig out the literature, because the truth is out there, Mulder.

Mulder: I hate you sometimes.

It’s ChatGPT’s world. We’re just living in it

Have you heard about ChatGPT? The artificial intelligence chatbot was just launched in November and it’s already more important to the Internet than either Vladimir Putin or “Rick and Morty.”

What’s that? You’re wondering why you should care? Well, excuuuuuse us, but we thought you might want to know that ChatGPT is in the process of taking over the world. Let’s take a quick look at what it’s been up to.

“ChatGPT bot passes law school exam”

“ChatGPT passes MBA exam given by a Wharton professor”

“A freelance writer says ChatGPT wrote a $600 article in just 30 seconds”

And here’s one that might be of interest to those of the health care persuasion: “ChatGPT can pass part of the U.S. Medical Licensing Exam.” See? It’s coming for you, too.

The artificial intelligence known as ChatGPT “performed at >50% accuracy across [the three USMLE] examinations, exceeding 60% in most analyses,” a group of researchers wrote on the preprint server medRxiv, noting that 60% is usually the pass threshold for humans taking the exam in any given year.

Mohamed Hassan/PxHere

Everybody wants a younger heart

As more people live well past 90, scientists have been taking a closer look at how they’ve been doing it. Mostly it boiled down to genetics. You either had it or you didn’t. Well, a recent study suggests that doesn’t have to be true anymore, at least for the heart.

Scientists from the United Kingdom and Italy found an antiaging gene in some centenarians that has shown possible antiaging effects in mice and in human heart cells. A single administration of the mutant antiaging gene, they found, stopped heart function decay in middle-aged mice and even reversed the biological clock by the human equivalent of 10 years in elderly mice.

©ktsimage/thinkstockphotos.com

When the researchers applied the antiaging gene to samples of human heart cells from elderly people with heart problems, the cells “resumed functioning properly, proving to be more efficient in building new blood vessels,” they said in a written statement. It all kind of sounds like something out of Dr. Frankenstein’s lab.
 

I want to believe … in better sleep

The “X-Files” theme song plays. Mulder and Scully are sitting in a diner, breakfast laid out around them. The diner is quiet, with only a few people inside.

Mulder: I’m telling you, Scully, there’s something spooky going on here.

Scully: You mean other than the fact that this town in Georgia looks suspiciously like Vancouver?

Mulder: Not one person we spoke to yesterday has gotten a full night’s sleep since the UFO sighting last month. I’m telling you, they’re here, they’re experimenting.

Scully: Do you really want me to do this to you again?

Mulder: Do what again?

Scully: There’s nothing going on here that can’t be explained by the current research. Why, in January 2023 a study was published revealing a link between poor sleep and belief in paranormal phenomena like UFOS, demons, or ghosts. Which probably explains why you’re on your third cup of coffee for the morning.

Mulder: Scully, you’ve literally been abducted by aliens. Do we have to play this game every time?

Scully: Look, it’s simple. In a sample of nearly 9,000 people, nearly two-thirds of those who reported experiencing sleep paralysis or exploding head syndrome reported believing in UFOs and aliens walking amongst humanity, despite making up just 3% of the overall sample.

Alexandra Gorn/Unsplash

Furthermore, about 60% of those reporting sleep paralysis also reported believing near-death experiences prove the soul lingers on after death, and those with stronger insomnia symptoms were more likely to believe in the devil.

Mulder: Aha!

Scully: Aha what?

Mulder: You’re a devout Christian. You believe in the devil and the soul.

Scully: Yes, but I don’t let it interfere with a good night’s sleep, Mulder. These people saw something strange, convinced themselves it was a UFO, and now they can’t sleep. It’s a vicious cycle. The study authors even said that people experiencing strange nighttime phenomena could interpret this as evidence of aliens or other paranormal beings, thus making them even more susceptible to further sleep disruption and deepening beliefs. Look who I’m talking to.

Mulder: Always with the facts, eh?

Scully: I am a doctor, after all. And if you want more research into how paranormal belief and poor sleep quality are linked, I’d be happy to dig out the literature, because the truth is out there, Mulder.

Mulder: I hate you sometimes.

It’s ChatGPT’s world. We’re just living in it

Have you heard about ChatGPT? The artificial intelligence chatbot was just launched in November and it’s already more important to the Internet than either Vladimir Putin or “Rick and Morty.”

What’s that? You’re wondering why you should care? Well, excuuuuuse us, but we thought you might want to know that ChatGPT is in the process of taking over the world. Let’s take a quick look at what it’s been up to.

“ChatGPT bot passes law school exam”

“ChatGPT passes MBA exam given by a Wharton professor”

“A freelance writer says ChatGPT wrote a $600 article in just 30 seconds”

And here’s one that might be of interest to those of the health care persuasion: “ChatGPT can pass part of the U.S. Medical Licensing Exam.” See? It’s coming for you, too.

The artificial intelligence known as ChatGPT “performed at >50% accuracy across [the three USMLE] examinations, exceeding 60% in most analyses,” a group of researchers wrote on the preprint server medRxiv, noting that 60% is usually the pass threshold for humans taking the exam in any given year.

Mohamed Hassan/PxHere

U.S. health officials want to simplify the recommended COVID-19 vaccine protocol, making it more like the process for annual flu shots.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is suggesting a single annual shot. The formulation would be selected in June targeting the most threatening COVID-19 strains, and then people could get a shot in the fall when people begin spending more time indoors and exposure increases. 

Some people, such as those who are older or immunocompromised, may need more than one dose.

A national advisory committee is expected to vote on the proposal at a meeting Jan. 26.

People in the United States have been much less likely to get an updated COVID-19 booster shot, compared with widespread uptake of the primary vaccine series. In its proposal, the FDA indicated it hoped a single annual shot would overcome challenges created by the complexity of the process – both in messaging and administration – attributed to that low booster rate. Nine in 10 people age 12 or older got the primary vaccine series in the United States, but only 15% got the latest booster shot for COVID-19.

About half of children and adults in the U.S. get an annual flu shot, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data.

The FDA also wants to move to a single COVID-19 vaccine formulation that would be used for primary vaccine series and for booster shots.

COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are trending downward, according to the data tracker from the New York Times. Cases are down 28%, with 47,290 tallied daily. Hospitalizations are down 22%, with 37,474 daily. Deaths are down 4%, with an average of 489 per day as of Jan. 22.

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

U.S. health officials want to simplify the recommended COVID-19 vaccine protocol, making it more like the process for annual flu shots.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is suggesting a single annual shot. The formulation would be selected in June targeting the most threatening COVID-19 strains, and then people could get a shot in the fall when people begin spending more time indoors and exposure increases. 

Some people, such as those who are older or immunocompromised, may need more than one dose.

A national advisory committee is expected to vote on the proposal at a meeting Jan. 26.

People in the United States have been much less likely to get an updated COVID-19 booster shot, compared with widespread uptake of the primary vaccine series. In its proposal, the FDA indicated it hoped a single annual shot would overcome challenges created by the complexity of the process – both in messaging and administration – attributed to that low booster rate. Nine in 10 people age 12 or older got the primary vaccine series in the United States, but only 15% got the latest booster shot for COVID-19.

About half of children and adults in the U.S. get an annual flu shot, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data.

The FDA also wants to move to a single COVID-19 vaccine formulation that would be used for primary vaccine series and for booster shots.

COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are trending downward, according to the data tracker from the New York Times. Cases are down 28%, with 47,290 tallied daily. Hospitalizations are down 22%, with 37,474 daily. Deaths are down 4%, with an average of 489 per day as of Jan. 22.

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

U.S. health officials want to simplify the recommended COVID-19 vaccine protocol, making it more like the process for annual flu shots.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is suggesting a single annual shot. The formulation would be selected in June targeting the most threatening COVID-19 strains, and then people could get a shot in the fall when people begin spending more time indoors and exposure increases. 

Some people, such as those who are older or immunocompromised, may need more than one dose.

A national advisory committee is expected to vote on the proposal at a meeting Jan. 26.

People in the United States have been much less likely to get an updated COVID-19 booster shot, compared with widespread uptake of the primary vaccine series. In its proposal, the FDA indicated it hoped a single annual shot would overcome challenges created by the complexity of the process – both in messaging and administration – attributed to that low booster rate. Nine in 10 people age 12 or older got the primary vaccine series in the United States, but only 15% got the latest booster shot for COVID-19.

About half of children and adults in the U.S. get an annual flu shot, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data.

The FDA also wants to move to a single COVID-19 vaccine formulation that would be used for primary vaccine series and for booster shots.

COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are trending downward, according to the data tracker from the New York Times. Cases are down 28%, with 47,290 tallied daily. Hospitalizations are down 22%, with 37,474 daily. Deaths are down 4%, with an average of 489 per day as of Jan. 22.

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

The risk of health harms from alcohol is low for people who consume two standard drinks or fewer per week, but it’s higher with greater consumption, according to new guidance from the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction.

“Drinking less is better,” says the guidance, which replaces Canada’s 2011 Low-Risk Drinking Guidelines (LRDGs).

Developed in consultation with an executive committee from federal, provincial, and territorial governments; national organizations; three scientific expert panels; and an internal evidence review working group, the guidance presents the following findings:

• Consuming no drinks per week has benefits, such as better health and better sleep, and it’s the only safe option during pregnancy.
• Consuming one or two standard drinks weekly will likely not have alcohol-related consequences.
• Three to six drinks raise the risk of developing breast, colon, and other cancers.
• Seven or more increase the risk of heart disease or stroke.
• Each additional drink “radically increases” the risk of these health consequences.

“Alcohol is more harmful than was previously thought and is a key component of the health of your patients,” Adam Sherk, PhD, a scientist at the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research at the University of Victoria (B.C.), and a member of the scientific expert panel that contributed to the guidance, said in an interview. “Display and discuss the new guidance with your patients with the main message that drinking less is better.”

Peter Butt, MD, a clinical associate professor at the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, and cochair of the guidance project, said in an interview: “The World Health Organization has identified over 200 ICD-coded conditions associated with alcohol use. This creates many opportunities to inquire into quantity and frequency of alcohol use, relate it to the patient’s health and well-being, and provide advice on reduction.”

“Canada’s Guidance on Alcohol and Health: Final Report” and a related infographic were published online Jan. 17.
 

Continuum of risk

The impetus for the new guidance came from the fact that “our 2011 LRDGs were no longer current, and there was emerging evidence that people drinking within those levels were coming to harm,” said Dr. Butt.

That evidence indicates that alcohol causes at least seven types of cancer, mostly of the breast or colon; is a risk factor for most types of heart disease; and is a main cause of liver disease. Evidence also indicates that avoiding drinking to the point of intoxication will reduce people’s risk of perpetrating alcohol-related violence.

Responding to the need to accurately quantify the risk, the guidance defines a “standard” drink as 12 oz of beer, cooler, or cider (5% alcohol); 5 oz of wine (12% alcohol); and 1.5 oz of spirits such as whiskey, vodka, or gin (40% alcohol).

Using different mortality risk thresholds, the project’s experts developed the following continuum of risk:

• Low for individuals who consume two standard drinks or fewer per week
• Moderate for those who consume from three to six standard drinks per week
• Increasingly high for those who consume seven standard drinks or more per week

The guidance makes the following observations:

• Consuming more than two standard drinks per drinking occasion is associated with an increased risk of harms to self and others, including injuries and violence.
• When pregnant or trying to get pregnant, no amount of alcohol is safe.
• When breastfeeding, not drinking is safest.
• Above the upper limit of the moderate risk zone, health risks increase more steeply for females than males.
• Far more injuries, violence, and deaths result from men’s alcohol use, especially for per occasion drinking, than from women’s alcohol use.
• Young people should delay alcohol use for as long as possible.
• Individuals should not start to use alcohol or increase their alcohol use for health benefits.
• Any reduction in alcohol use is beneficial.

Other national guidelines

“Countries that haven’t updated their alcohol use guidelines recently should do so, as the evidence regarding alcohol and health has advanced considerably in the past 10 years,” said Dr. Sherk. He acknowledged that “any time health guidance changes substantially, it’s reasonable to expect a period of readjustment.”

“Some will be resistant,” Dr. Butt agreed. “Some professionals will need more education than others on the health effects of alcohol. Some patients will also be more invested in drinking than others. The harm-reduction, risk-zone approach should assist in the process of engaging patients and helping them reduce over time.

“Just as we benefited from the updates done in the United Kingdom, France, and especially Australia, so also researchers elsewhere will critique our work and our approach and make their own decisions on how best to communicate with their public,” Dr. Butt said. He noted that Canada’s contributions regarding the association between alcohol and violence, as well as their sex/gender approach to the evidence, “may influence the next country’s review.”

Commenting on whether the United States should consider changing its guidance, Timothy Brennan, MD, MPH, chief of clinical services for the Addiction Institute of Mount Sinai Health System in New York, said in an interview, “A lot of people will be surprised at the recommended limits on alcohol. Most think that they can have one or two glasses of alcohol per day and not have any increased risk to their health. I think the Canadians deserve credit for putting themselves out there.”

Dr. Brennan said there will “certainly be pushback by the drinking lobby, which is very strong both in the U.S. and in Canada.” In fact, the national trade group Beer Canada was recently quoted as stating that it still supports the 2011 guidelines and that the updating process lacked full transparency and expert technical peer review.

Nevertheless, Dr. Brennan said, “it’s overwhelmingly clear that alcohol affects a ton of different parts of our body, so limiting the amount of alcohol we take in is always going to be a good thing. The Canadian graphic is great because it color-codes the risk. I recommend that clinicians put it up in their offices and begin quantifying the units of alcohol that are going into a patient’s body each day.”

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

The risk of health harms from alcohol is low for people who consume two standard drinks or fewer per week, but it’s higher with greater consumption, according to new guidance from the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction.

“Drinking less is better,” says the guidance, which replaces Canada’s 2011 Low-Risk Drinking Guidelines (LRDGs).

Developed in consultation with an executive committee from federal, provincial, and territorial governments; national organizations; three scientific expert panels; and an internal evidence review working group, the guidance presents the following findings:

• Consuming no drinks per week has benefits, such as better health and better sleep, and it’s the only safe option during pregnancy.
• Consuming one or two standard drinks weekly will likely not have alcohol-related consequences.
• Three to six drinks raise the risk of developing breast, colon, and other cancers.
• Seven or more increase the risk of heart disease or stroke.
• Each additional drink “radically increases” the risk of these health consequences.

“Alcohol is more harmful than was previously thought and is a key component of the health of your patients,” Adam Sherk, PhD, a scientist at the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research at the University of Victoria (B.C.), and a member of the scientific expert panel that contributed to the guidance, said in an interview. “Display and discuss the new guidance with your patients with the main message that drinking less is better.”

Peter Butt, MD, a clinical associate professor at the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, and cochair of the guidance project, said in an interview: “The World Health Organization has identified over 200 ICD-coded conditions associated with alcohol use. This creates many opportunities to inquire into quantity and frequency of alcohol use, relate it to the patient’s health and well-being, and provide advice on reduction.”

“Canada’s Guidance on Alcohol and Health: Final Report” and a related infographic were published online Jan. 17.
 

Continuum of risk

The impetus for the new guidance came from the fact that “our 2011 LRDGs were no longer current, and there was emerging evidence that people drinking within those levels were coming to harm,” said Dr. Butt.

That evidence indicates that alcohol causes at least seven types of cancer, mostly of the breast or colon; is a risk factor for most types of heart disease; and is a main cause of liver disease. Evidence also indicates that avoiding drinking to the point of intoxication will reduce people’s risk of perpetrating alcohol-related violence.

Responding to the need to accurately quantify the risk, the guidance defines a “standard” drink as 12 oz of beer, cooler, or cider (5% alcohol); 5 oz of wine (12% alcohol); and 1.5 oz of spirits such as whiskey, vodka, or gin (40% alcohol).

Using different mortality risk thresholds, the project’s experts developed the following continuum of risk:

• Low for individuals who consume two standard drinks or fewer per week
• Moderate for those who consume from three to six standard drinks per week
• Increasingly high for those who consume seven standard drinks or more per week

The guidance makes the following observations:

• Consuming more than two standard drinks per drinking occasion is associated with an increased risk of harms to self and others, including injuries and violence.
• When pregnant or trying to get pregnant, no amount of alcohol is safe.
• When breastfeeding, not drinking is safest.
• Above the upper limit of the moderate risk zone, health risks increase more steeply for females than males.
• Far more injuries, violence, and deaths result from men’s alcohol use, especially for per occasion drinking, than from women’s alcohol use.
• Young people should delay alcohol use for as long as possible.
• Individuals should not start to use alcohol or increase their alcohol use for health benefits.
• Any reduction in alcohol use is beneficial.

Other national guidelines

“Countries that haven’t updated their alcohol use guidelines recently should do so, as the evidence regarding alcohol and health has advanced considerably in the past 10 years,” said Dr. Sherk. He acknowledged that “any time health guidance changes substantially, it’s reasonable to expect a period of readjustment.”

“Some will be resistant,” Dr. Butt agreed. “Some professionals will need more education than others on the health effects of alcohol. Some patients will also be more invested in drinking than others. The harm-reduction, risk-zone approach should assist in the process of engaging patients and helping them reduce over time.

“Just as we benefited from the updates done in the United Kingdom, France, and especially Australia, so also researchers elsewhere will critique our work and our approach and make their own decisions on how best to communicate with their public,” Dr. Butt said. He noted that Canada’s contributions regarding the association between alcohol and violence, as well as their sex/gender approach to the evidence, “may influence the next country’s review.”

Commenting on whether the United States should consider changing its guidance, Timothy Brennan, MD, MPH, chief of clinical services for the Addiction Institute of Mount Sinai Health System in New York, said in an interview, “A lot of people will be surprised at the recommended limits on alcohol. Most think that they can have one or two glasses of alcohol per day and not have any increased risk to their health. I think the Canadians deserve credit for putting themselves out there.”

Dr. Brennan said there will “certainly be pushback by the drinking lobby, which is very strong both in the U.S. and in Canada.” In fact, the national trade group Beer Canada was recently quoted as stating that it still supports the 2011 guidelines and that the updating process lacked full transparency and expert technical peer review.

Nevertheless, Dr. Brennan said, “it’s overwhelmingly clear that alcohol affects a ton of different parts of our body, so limiting the amount of alcohol we take in is always going to be a good thing. The Canadian graphic is great because it color-codes the risk. I recommend that clinicians put it up in their offices and begin quantifying the units of alcohol that are going into a patient’s body each day.”

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

The risk of health harms from alcohol is low for people who consume two standard drinks or fewer per week, but it’s higher with greater consumption, according to new guidance from the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction.

“Drinking less is better,” says the guidance, which replaces Canada’s 2011 Low-Risk Drinking Guidelines (LRDGs).

Developed in consultation with an executive committee from federal, provincial, and territorial governments; national organizations; three scientific expert panels; and an internal evidence review working group, the guidance presents the following findings:

• Consuming no drinks per week has benefits, such as better health and better sleep, and it’s the only safe option during pregnancy.
• Consuming one or two standard drinks weekly will likely not have alcohol-related consequences.
• Three to six drinks raise the risk of developing breast, colon, and other cancers.
• Seven or more increase the risk of heart disease or stroke.
• Each additional drink “radically increases” the risk of these health consequences.

“Alcohol is more harmful than was previously thought and is a key component of the health of your patients,” Adam Sherk, PhD, a scientist at the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research at the University of Victoria (B.C.), and a member of the scientific expert panel that contributed to the guidance, said in an interview. “Display and discuss the new guidance with your patients with the main message that drinking less is better.”

Peter Butt, MD, a clinical associate professor at the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, and cochair of the guidance project, said in an interview: “The World Health Organization has identified over 200 ICD-coded conditions associated with alcohol use. This creates many opportunities to inquire into quantity and frequency of alcohol use, relate it to the patient’s health and well-being, and provide advice on reduction.”

“Canada’s Guidance on Alcohol and Health: Final Report” and a related infographic were published online Jan. 17.
 

Continuum of risk

The impetus for the new guidance came from the fact that “our 2011 LRDGs were no longer current, and there was emerging evidence that people drinking within those levels were coming to harm,” said Dr. Butt.

That evidence indicates that alcohol causes at least seven types of cancer, mostly of the breast or colon; is a risk factor for most types of heart disease; and is a main cause of liver disease. Evidence also indicates that avoiding drinking to the point of intoxication will reduce people’s risk of perpetrating alcohol-related violence.

Responding to the need to accurately quantify the risk, the guidance defines a “standard” drink as 12 oz of beer, cooler, or cider (5% alcohol); 5 oz of wine (12% alcohol); and 1.5 oz of spirits such as whiskey, vodka, or gin (40% alcohol).

Using different mortality risk thresholds, the project’s experts developed the following continuum of risk:

• Low for individuals who consume two standard drinks or fewer per week
• Moderate for those who consume from three to six standard drinks per week
• Increasingly high for those who consume seven standard drinks or more per week

The guidance makes the following observations:

• Consuming more than two standard drinks per drinking occasion is associated with an increased risk of harms to self and others, including injuries and violence.
• When pregnant or trying to get pregnant, no amount of alcohol is safe.
• When breastfeeding, not drinking is safest.
• Above the upper limit of the moderate risk zone, health risks increase more steeply for females than males.
• Far more injuries, violence, and deaths result from men’s alcohol use, especially for per occasion drinking, than from women’s alcohol use.
• Young people should delay alcohol use for as long as possible.
• Individuals should not start to use alcohol or increase their alcohol use for health benefits.
• Any reduction in alcohol use is beneficial.

Other national guidelines

“Countries that haven’t updated their alcohol use guidelines recently should do so, as the evidence regarding alcohol and health has advanced considerably in the past 10 years,” said Dr. Sherk. He acknowledged that “any time health guidance changes substantially, it’s reasonable to expect a period of readjustment.”

“Some will be resistant,” Dr. Butt agreed. “Some professionals will need more education than others on the health effects of alcohol. Some patients will also be more invested in drinking than others. The harm-reduction, risk-zone approach should assist in the process of engaging patients and helping them reduce over time.

“Just as we benefited from the updates done in the United Kingdom, France, and especially Australia, so also researchers elsewhere will critique our work and our approach and make their own decisions on how best to communicate with their public,” Dr. Butt said. He noted that Canada’s contributions regarding the association between alcohol and violence, as well as their sex/gender approach to the evidence, “may influence the next country’s review.”

Commenting on whether the United States should consider changing its guidance, Timothy Brennan, MD, MPH, chief of clinical services for the Addiction Institute of Mount Sinai Health System in New York, said in an interview, “A lot of people will be surprised at the recommended limits on alcohol. Most think that they can have one or two glasses of alcohol per day and not have any increased risk to their health. I think the Canadians deserve credit for putting themselves out there.”

Dr. Brennan said there will “certainly be pushback by the drinking lobby, which is very strong both in the U.S. and in Canada.” In fact, the national trade group Beer Canada was recently quoted as stating that it still supports the 2011 guidelines and that the updating process lacked full transparency and expert technical peer review.

Nevertheless, Dr. Brennan said, “it’s overwhelmingly clear that alcohol affects a ton of different parts of our body, so limiting the amount of alcohol we take in is always going to be a good thing. The Canadian graphic is great because it color-codes the risk. I recommend that clinicians put it up in their offices and begin quantifying the units of alcohol that are going into a patient’s body each day.”

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

Amid growing concern among the public, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals, the Canadian government is seeking to delay the legalization of its proposed medical assistance in dying (MAID) for mental illness law that is slated to pass on March 17.

Canada already has the largest number of deaths by MAID of any nation, with 10,064 in 2021, a 32% increase from 2020. With the addition of serious mental illness (SMI) as an eligible category, the country is on track to have the most liberal assisted-death policy in the world.

Concerns about the additional number of patients who could become eligible for MAID, and a lack of evidence-backed standards from disability rights groups, mental health advocates, First Nations leaders, psychiatrists, and other mental health providers, seems to have led the Canadian government to give the proposed law some sober second thought.

“Listening to experts and Canadians, we believe this date needs to be temporarily delayed,” said David Lametti, Canada’s minister of Justice and attorney general of Canada; Jean-Yves Duclos, minister of Health; and  Carolyn Bennett, minister of Mental Health and Addictions, in a Dec. 15, 2022, joint statement.

Canada’s Parliament – which approved the expansion – will now have to vote on whether to okay a pause on the legislation.

However, the Canadian Psychiatric Association has not been calling for a delay in the proposed legislation. In a November 2021 statement, the CPA  said it “does not take a position on the legality or morality of MAID,” but added that to deny MAID to people with mental illness was discriminatory, and that, as it was the law, it must be followed.

“CPA has not taken a position about MAID,” the association’s president Gary Chaimowitz, MBChB, told this news organization. “We know this is coming and our organization is trying to get its members ready for what will be most likely the ability of people with mental conditions to be able to request MAID,” said Dr. Chaimowitz, who is also head of forensic psychiatry at St. Joseph’s Healthcare and a professor of psychiatry at McMaster University, both in Hamilton, Ont.

Dr. Chaimowitz acknowledges that “a majority of psychiatrists do not want to be involved in anything to do with MAID.”

“The idea, certainly in psychiatry, is to get people well and we’ve been taught that people dying from a major mental disorder is something that we’re trained to prevent,” he added.
 

A ‘clinical option’

Assisted medical death is especially fraught in psychiatry, said Rebecca Brendel, MD, president of the American Psychiatric Association. She noted a 25-year life expectancy gap between people with SMI and those who do not have such conditions.

“As a profession we have very serious obligations to advance treatment so that a person with serious mental illness can live [a] full, productive, and healthy [life],” Dr. Brendel, associate director of the Center for Bioethics at Harvard Medical School in Boston, said in an interview.

Under the Canadian proposal, psychiatrists would be allowed to suggest MAID as a “clinical option.”

Harold Braswell, PhD, a fellow with The Hastings Center, a bioethics research institute, calls that problematic.

“It’s not neutral to suggest to someone that it would be theoretically reasonable to end their lives,” Dr. Braswell, associate professor at the Albert Gnaegi Center for Health Care Ethics at Saint Louis University, told this news organization.

It also creates a double standard in the treatment of suicidal ideation, in which suicide prevention is absolute for some, but encouraging it as a possibility for others, he added.  

“To have that come from an authority figure is something that’s very harsh and, in my opinion, very potentially destructive,” especially for vulnerable groups, like First Nations people, who already have elevated rates of suicide, said Dr. Braswell.
 

Fierce debate

Since 2016, Canada has allowed MAID for medical conditions and diseases that will not improve and in cases where the evidence shows that medical providers can accurately predict the condition will not improve.

However, in 2019, a Quebec court ruled that the law unconstitutionally barred euthanasia in people who were not terminally ill. In March 2021, Canada’s criminal code was amended to allow MAID for people whose natural death was not “reasonably foreseeable,” but it excluded SMI for a period of 2 years, ending in March 2023.

The 2-year stay was intended to allow for study and to give mental health providers and MAID assessors time to develop standards.

The federal government charged a 12-member expert panel with determining how to safely allow MAID for SMI. In its final report released in May 2022 it recommended that standards be developed. 

The panel acknowledged that for many conditions it may be impossible to make predictions about whether an individual might improve. However, it did not mention SMI.

In those cases, when MAID is requested, “establishing incurability and irreversibility on the basis of the evolution and response to past interventions is necessary,” the panel noted, adding that these are the criteria used by psychiatrists assessing euthanasia requests in the Netherlands and Belgium.

But the notion that mental illness can be irremediable has been fiercely debated.

Soon after the expert report was released, the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto noted on its website that there are currently  “no agreed upon standards for psychiatrists or other health care practitioners to use to determine if a person’s mental illness is ‘grievous and irremediable’ for the purposes of MAID.” 

Dr. Chaimowitz acknowledged that “there’s no agreed-upon definition of incurability” in mental illness. Some psychiatrists “will argue that there’s always another treatment that can be attempted,” he said, adding that there has been a lack of consensus on irremediability among CPA members.
 

Protecting vulnerable populations

Matt Wynia, MD, MPH, FACP, director of the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said the question of irremediability is crucial. “Most people with mental illness do get better, especially if they’re in treatment,” Dr. Wynia said.

For MAID assessors it may be difficult to know when someone has tried all possible treatments, especially given the wide array of options, including psychedelics, said Dr. Wynia.

Dr. Braswell said there is not enough evidence that mental illness is incurable. With SMI, “there’s a lot more potential for the causes of the individual’s suffering to be ameliorated. By offering MAID, you’re going to kill people who might have been able to get out of this through other nonlethal means.”

Currently, MAID is provided for an irremediable medical condition, “in other words, a condition that will not improve and that we can predict will not improve,” said Karandeep S. Gaind, MD, chief of psychiatry at Toronto’s Humber River Hospital and physician chair of the hospital’s MAID team.

“If that’s the premise, then I think we cannot provide MAID for sole mental illness,” Dr. Gaind said. “Because we can’t honestly make those predictions” with mental illness, he added.

Dr. Gaind does not support MAID for mental illness and believes that it will put the vulnerable – including those living in poverty – at particular risk.

With the proposed expansion, MAID is “now becoming something which is being sought as a way to escape a painful life rather than to avoid a painful death,” said Dr. Gaind, who is also a past president of the CPA.

One member of the federal government’s expert panel – Ellen Cohen, who had a psychiatric condition – wrote in The Globe and Mail that she quit early on when it became apparent that the panel was not seriously considering her own experiences or the possibility that poverty and lack of access to care or social supports could strongly influence a request for MAID.
 

Social determinants of suffering

People with mental illness often are without homes, have substance use disorders, have been stigmatized and discriminated against, and have poor social supports, said Dr. Wynia. “You worry that it’s all of those things that are making them want to end their lives,” he said.

The Daily Mail ran a story in December 2022 about a 65-year-old Canadian who said he’d applied for MAID solely because of fears that his disability benefits for various chronic health conditions were being cut off and that he didn’t want to live in poverty.

A 51-year-old Ontario woman with multiple chemical sensitivities was granted MAID after she said she could not find housing that could keep her safe, according to an August report by CTV News.

Tarek Rajji, MD, chief of the Adult Neurodevelopment and Geriatric Psychiatry Division at CAMH, said social determinants of health need to be considered in standards created to guide MAID for mental illness.

“We’re very mindful of the fact that the suffering, that is, the grievousness that the person is living with, in the context of mental illness, many times is due to the social determinants of their illness and the social determinants of their suffering,” Dr. Rajji said.

Many are also concerned that it will be difficult to separate out suicidality from sheer hopelessness.

The CPA has advised a group that’s working on developing guidelines for MAID in SMI and is also developing a curriculum for mental health providers, Dr. Chaimowitz said. As part of that, there will be a process to ensure that someone who is actively suicidal is not granted MAID.

“I do not believe that it’s contemplated that MAID is going to accelerate or facilitate suicidal ideation,” he said. Someone who is suicidal will be referred to treatment, said Dr. Chaimowitz.

“People with depression often feel hopeless,” and may refuse treatments that have worked in the past, countered Dr. Gaind. Some of his patients “are absolutely convinced that nothing will help,” he said.
 

Troublesome cases

The expert panel said in its final report that “it is not possible to provide fixed rules for how many attempts at interventions, how many types of interventions, and over how much time,” are necessary to establish “irreversibility” of mental illness.

Dr. Chaimowitz said MAID will not be offered to anyone “refusing treatment for their condition without any good reason.” They will be “unlikely to meet criteria for incurable,” as they will have needed to avail themselves of the array of treatments available, he said. 

That would be similar to rules in Belgium and the Netherlands, which allow euthanasia for psychiatric conditions. 

An estimated 100-300 psychiatric patients receive euthanasia each year in those countries, according to a 2021 commentary in Psychiatric Times (Jun 7;38[6]) by Mark S. Komrad, MD, a Towson, Maryland-based psychiatrist.

There are still troublesome cases. 

As previously reported by this news organization, many in Belgium were distressed recently at the news that a 23-year-old woman who had survived a terrorist attack, Shanti De Corte, requested and was granted euthanasia.

As the deadline for implementation of MAID grew closer, calls for delay grew louder, especially given the lack of concrete standards for providers.

During the waning months of 2022, Dr. Gaind – who said he was suspended from CPA for “unprofessional interactions” and allegedly misrepresenting CPA’s processes and governance matters – announced the launch of a new organization, the Society of Canadian Psychiatry, in November calling for a delay in MAID of at least 1 year so that evidence-based safeguards could be implemented. The petition has been signed by more than 200 psychiatrists, along with several dozen physicians, MAID assessors, and individuals with mental illness and family members.

The Association of Chairs of Psychiatry in Canada, the Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention, the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, a group of indigenous leaders, and the Ontario Association for ACT and FACT, psychiatrists who provide care to individuals with severe mental illness, among other groups, joined the call for a delay.

In its December announcement, the Canadian federal ministers said a factor in seeking a delay was that standards guiding clinicians would not be delivered until at least February – too close to when applications would be opened.

Upon hearing about the federal government’s intentions, the chair of the expert panel, Mona Gupta, MD, told The Canadian Press that she did not think it was necessary to put off implementation because necessary safeguards were already in place.

Dr. Chaimowitz awaits the standards but is optimistic that for mental illness, “the process will be tightly controlled, closely monitored, and open to scrutiny,” he said.

Dr. Braswell is not convinced. The concern is that adding people with mental illness is “going to overload the capacity of the government to monitor this practice,” he said.
 

Is the United States next?

Although Canada and the United States share a border, it’s unlikely that U.S. states will allow aid in dying for nonterminal illness, much less for psychiatric conditions any time soon, said Dr. Braswell and others.

Ten states – California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington – have laws allowing assistance in dying, but for terminal illness only.

In 2016, the APA adopted the American Medical Association policy on medical euthanasia, stating, “that a psychiatrist should not prescribe or administer any intervention to a nonterminally ill person for the purpose of causing death.”

Dr. Brendel said the field is acutely aware that people with mental illness do suffer, but that more work needs to be done – and is being done – on “distinguishing wishes to hasten death or end one’s life from these historical or traditional notions that any premature death is a suicide.”

There is also increasing discussion within the medical community, not just psychiatry, about a physician’s duty to relieve suffering, said Dr. Wynia. “There’s debate basically about whether we stand for preserving life essentially at all costs and never being involved in the taking of life, or whether we stand for reduction of suffering and being the advocate for the patients that we serve,” he said.

“Those are both legitimate,” said Dr. Wynia, adding, “there are good reasons to want both of those to be true.”

“I suspect that 20 years from now we will still be having conversations about how physicians, how psychiatrists ought to participate in preserving life and in shepherding death,” said Dr. Brendel.

But to Dr. Gaind, the debate is not just esoteric, it’s a soon-to-be reality in Canada. “When we’re providing death to people who aren’t dying, to me that’s like providing what amounts to a wrongful death,” he said.

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

Amid growing concern among the public, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals, the Canadian government is seeking to delay the legalization of its proposed medical assistance in dying (MAID) for mental illness law that is slated to pass on March 17.

Canada already has the largest number of deaths by MAID of any nation, with 10,064 in 2021, a 32% increase from 2020. With the addition of serious mental illness (SMI) as an eligible category, the country is on track to have the most liberal assisted-death policy in the world.

Concerns about the additional number of patients who could become eligible for MAID, and a lack of evidence-backed standards from disability rights groups, mental health advocates, First Nations leaders, psychiatrists, and other mental health providers, seems to have led the Canadian government to give the proposed law some sober second thought.

“Listening to experts and Canadians, we believe this date needs to be temporarily delayed,” said David Lametti, Canada’s minister of Justice and attorney general of Canada; Jean-Yves Duclos, minister of Health; and  Carolyn Bennett, minister of Mental Health and Addictions, in a Dec. 15, 2022, joint statement.

Canada’s Parliament – which approved the expansion – will now have to vote on whether to okay a pause on the legislation.

However, the Canadian Psychiatric Association has not been calling for a delay in the proposed legislation. In a November 2021 statement, the CPA  said it “does not take a position on the legality or morality of MAID,” but added that to deny MAID to people with mental illness was discriminatory, and that, as it was the law, it must be followed.

“CPA has not taken a position about MAID,” the association’s president Gary Chaimowitz, MBChB, told this news organization. “We know this is coming and our organization is trying to get its members ready for what will be most likely the ability of people with mental conditions to be able to request MAID,” said Dr. Chaimowitz, who is also head of forensic psychiatry at St. Joseph’s Healthcare and a professor of psychiatry at McMaster University, both in Hamilton, Ont.

Dr. Chaimowitz acknowledges that “a majority of psychiatrists do not want to be involved in anything to do with MAID.”

“The idea, certainly in psychiatry, is to get people well and we’ve been taught that people dying from a major mental disorder is something that we’re trained to prevent,” he added.
 

A ‘clinical option’

Assisted medical death is especially fraught in psychiatry, said Rebecca Brendel, MD, president of the American Psychiatric Association. She noted a 25-year life expectancy gap between people with SMI and those who do not have such conditions.

“As a profession we have very serious obligations to advance treatment so that a person with serious mental illness can live [a] full, productive, and healthy [life],” Dr. Brendel, associate director of the Center for Bioethics at Harvard Medical School in Boston, said in an interview.

Under the Canadian proposal, psychiatrists would be allowed to suggest MAID as a “clinical option.”

Harold Braswell, PhD, a fellow with The Hastings Center, a bioethics research institute, calls that problematic.

“It’s not neutral to suggest to someone that it would be theoretically reasonable to end their lives,” Dr. Braswell, associate professor at the Albert Gnaegi Center for Health Care Ethics at Saint Louis University, told this news organization.

It also creates a double standard in the treatment of suicidal ideation, in which suicide prevention is absolute for some, but encouraging it as a possibility for others, he added.  

“To have that come from an authority figure is something that’s very harsh and, in my opinion, very potentially destructive,” especially for vulnerable groups, like First Nations people, who already have elevated rates of suicide, said Dr. Braswell.
 

Fierce debate

Since 2016, Canada has allowed MAID for medical conditions and diseases that will not improve and in cases where the evidence shows that medical providers can accurately predict the condition will not improve.

However, in 2019, a Quebec court ruled that the law unconstitutionally barred euthanasia in people who were not terminally ill. In March 2021, Canada’s criminal code was amended to allow MAID for people whose natural death was not “reasonably foreseeable,” but it excluded SMI for a period of 2 years, ending in March 2023.

The 2-year stay was intended to allow for study and to give mental health providers and MAID assessors time to develop standards.

The federal government charged a 12-member expert panel with determining how to safely allow MAID for SMI. In its final report released in May 2022 it recommended that standards be developed. 

The panel acknowledged that for many conditions it may be impossible to make predictions about whether an individual might improve. However, it did not mention SMI.

In those cases, when MAID is requested, “establishing incurability and irreversibility on the basis of the evolution and response to past interventions is necessary,” the panel noted, adding that these are the criteria used by psychiatrists assessing euthanasia requests in the Netherlands and Belgium.

But the notion that mental illness can be irremediable has been fiercely debated.

Soon after the expert report was released, the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto noted on its website that there are currently  “no agreed upon standards for psychiatrists or other health care practitioners to use to determine if a person’s mental illness is ‘grievous and irremediable’ for the purposes of MAID.” 

Dr. Chaimowitz acknowledged that “there’s no agreed-upon definition of incurability” in mental illness. Some psychiatrists “will argue that there’s always another treatment that can be attempted,” he said, adding that there has been a lack of consensus on irremediability among CPA members.
 

Protecting vulnerable populations

Matt Wynia, MD, MPH, FACP, director of the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said the question of irremediability is crucial. “Most people with mental illness do get better, especially if they’re in treatment,” Dr. Wynia said.

For MAID assessors it may be difficult to know when someone has tried all possible treatments, especially given the wide array of options, including psychedelics, said Dr. Wynia.

Dr. Braswell said there is not enough evidence that mental illness is incurable. With SMI, “there’s a lot more potential for the causes of the individual’s suffering to be ameliorated. By offering MAID, you’re going to kill people who might have been able to get out of this through other nonlethal means.”

Currently, MAID is provided for an irremediable medical condition, “in other words, a condition that will not improve and that we can predict will not improve,” said Karandeep S. Gaind, MD, chief of psychiatry at Toronto’s Humber River Hospital and physician chair of the hospital’s MAID team.

“If that’s the premise, then I think we cannot provide MAID for sole mental illness,” Dr. Gaind said. “Because we can’t honestly make those predictions” with mental illness, he added.

Dr. Gaind does not support MAID for mental illness and believes that it will put the vulnerable – including those living in poverty – at particular risk.

With the proposed expansion, MAID is “now becoming something which is being sought as a way to escape a painful life rather than to avoid a painful death,” said Dr. Gaind, who is also a past president of the CPA.

One member of the federal government’s expert panel – Ellen Cohen, who had a psychiatric condition – wrote in The Globe and Mail that she quit early on when it became apparent that the panel was not seriously considering her own experiences or the possibility that poverty and lack of access to care or social supports could strongly influence a request for MAID.
 

Social determinants of suffering

People with mental illness often are without homes, have substance use disorders, have been stigmatized and discriminated against, and have poor social supports, said Dr. Wynia. “You worry that it’s all of those things that are making them want to end their lives,” he said.

The Daily Mail ran a story in December 2022 about a 65-year-old Canadian who said he’d applied for MAID solely because of fears that his disability benefits for various chronic health conditions were being cut off and that he didn’t want to live in poverty.

A 51-year-old Ontario woman with multiple chemical sensitivities was granted MAID after she said she could not find housing that could keep her safe, according to an August report by CTV News.

Tarek Rajji, MD, chief of the Adult Neurodevelopment and Geriatric Psychiatry Division at CAMH, said social determinants of health need to be considered in standards created to guide MAID for mental illness.

“We’re very mindful of the fact that the suffering, that is, the grievousness that the person is living with, in the context of mental illness, many times is due to the social determinants of their illness and the social determinants of their suffering,” Dr. Rajji said.

Many are also concerned that it will be difficult to separate out suicidality from sheer hopelessness.

The CPA has advised a group that’s working on developing guidelines for MAID in SMI and is also developing a curriculum for mental health providers, Dr. Chaimowitz said. As part of that, there will be a process to ensure that someone who is actively suicidal is not granted MAID.

“I do not believe that it’s contemplated that MAID is going to accelerate or facilitate suicidal ideation,” he said. Someone who is suicidal will be referred to treatment, said Dr. Chaimowitz.

“People with depression often feel hopeless,” and may refuse treatments that have worked in the past, countered Dr. Gaind. Some of his patients “are absolutely convinced that nothing will help,” he said.
 

Troublesome cases

The expert panel said in its final report that “it is not possible to provide fixed rules for how many attempts at interventions, how many types of interventions, and over how much time,” are necessary to establish “irreversibility” of mental illness.

Dr. Chaimowitz said MAID will not be offered to anyone “refusing treatment for their condition without any good reason.” They will be “unlikely to meet criteria for incurable,” as they will have needed to avail themselves of the array of treatments available, he said. 

That would be similar to rules in Belgium and the Netherlands, which allow euthanasia for psychiatric conditions. 

An estimated 100-300 psychiatric patients receive euthanasia each year in those countries, according to a 2021 commentary in Psychiatric Times (Jun 7;38[6]) by Mark S. Komrad, MD, a Towson, Maryland-based psychiatrist.

There are still troublesome cases. 

As previously reported by this news organization, many in Belgium were distressed recently at the news that a 23-year-old woman who had survived a terrorist attack, Shanti De Corte, requested and was granted euthanasia.

As the deadline for implementation of MAID grew closer, calls for delay grew louder, especially given the lack of concrete standards for providers.

During the waning months of 2022, Dr. Gaind – who said he was suspended from CPA for “unprofessional interactions” and allegedly misrepresenting CPA’s processes and governance matters – announced the launch of a new organization, the Society of Canadian Psychiatry, in November calling for a delay in MAID of at least 1 year so that evidence-based safeguards could be implemented. The petition has been signed by more than 200 psychiatrists, along with several dozen physicians, MAID assessors, and individuals with mental illness and family members.

The Association of Chairs of Psychiatry in Canada, the Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention, the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, a group of indigenous leaders, and the Ontario Association for ACT and FACT, psychiatrists who provide care to individuals with severe mental illness, among other groups, joined the call for a delay.

In its December announcement, the Canadian federal ministers said a factor in seeking a delay was that standards guiding clinicians would not be delivered until at least February – too close to when applications would be opened.

Upon hearing about the federal government’s intentions, the chair of the expert panel, Mona Gupta, MD, told The Canadian Press that she did not think it was necessary to put off implementation because necessary safeguards were already in place.

Dr. Chaimowitz awaits the standards but is optimistic that for mental illness, “the process will be tightly controlled, closely monitored, and open to scrutiny,” he said.

Dr. Braswell is not convinced. The concern is that adding people with mental illness is “going to overload the capacity of the government to monitor this practice,” he said.
 

Is the United States next?

Although Canada and the United States share a border, it’s unlikely that U.S. states will allow aid in dying for nonterminal illness, much less for psychiatric conditions any time soon, said Dr. Braswell and others.

Ten states – California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington – have laws allowing assistance in dying, but for terminal illness only.

In 2016, the APA adopted the American Medical Association policy on medical euthanasia, stating, “that a psychiatrist should not prescribe or administer any intervention to a nonterminally ill person for the purpose of causing death.”

Dr. Brendel said the field is acutely aware that people with mental illness do suffer, but that more work needs to be done – and is being done – on “distinguishing wishes to hasten death or end one’s life from these historical or traditional notions that any premature death is a suicide.”

There is also increasing discussion within the medical community, not just psychiatry, about a physician’s duty to relieve suffering, said Dr. Wynia. “There’s debate basically about whether we stand for preserving life essentially at all costs and never being involved in the taking of life, or whether we stand for reduction of suffering and being the advocate for the patients that we serve,” he said.

“Those are both legitimate,” said Dr. Wynia, adding, “there are good reasons to want both of those to be true.”

“I suspect that 20 years from now we will still be having conversations about how physicians, how psychiatrists ought to participate in preserving life and in shepherding death,” said Dr. Brendel.

But to Dr. Gaind, the debate is not just esoteric, it’s a soon-to-be reality in Canada. “When we’re providing death to people who aren’t dying, to me that’s like providing what amounts to a wrongful death,” he said.

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

Amid growing concern among the public, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals, the Canadian government is seeking to delay the legalization of its proposed medical assistance in dying (MAID) for mental illness law that is slated to pass on March 17.

Canada already has the largest number of deaths by MAID of any nation, with 10,064 in 2021, a 32% increase from 2020. With the addition of serious mental illness (SMI) as an eligible category, the country is on track to have the most liberal assisted-death policy in the world.

Concerns about the additional number of patients who could become eligible for MAID, and a lack of evidence-backed standards from disability rights groups, mental health advocates, First Nations leaders, psychiatrists, and other mental health providers, seems to have led the Canadian government to give the proposed law some sober second thought.

“Listening to experts and Canadians, we believe this date needs to be temporarily delayed,” said David Lametti, Canada’s minister of Justice and attorney general of Canada; Jean-Yves Duclos, minister of Health; and  Carolyn Bennett, minister of Mental Health and Addictions, in a Dec. 15, 2022, joint statement.

Canada’s Parliament – which approved the expansion – will now have to vote on whether to okay a pause on the legislation.

However, the Canadian Psychiatric Association has not been calling for a delay in the proposed legislation. In a November 2021 statement, the CPA  said it “does not take a position on the legality or morality of MAID,” but added that to deny MAID to people with mental illness was discriminatory, and that, as it was the law, it must be followed.

“CPA has not taken a position about MAID,” the association’s president Gary Chaimowitz, MBChB, told this news organization. “We know this is coming and our organization is trying to get its members ready for what will be most likely the ability of people with mental conditions to be able to request MAID,” said Dr. Chaimowitz, who is also head of forensic psychiatry at St. Joseph’s Healthcare and a professor of psychiatry at McMaster University, both in Hamilton, Ont.

Dr. Chaimowitz acknowledges that “a majority of psychiatrists do not want to be involved in anything to do with MAID.”

“The idea, certainly in psychiatry, is to get people well and we’ve been taught that people dying from a major mental disorder is something that we’re trained to prevent,” he added.
 

A ‘clinical option’

Assisted medical death is especially fraught in psychiatry, said Rebecca Brendel, MD, president of the American Psychiatric Association. She noted a 25-year life expectancy gap between people with SMI and those who do not have such conditions.

“As a profession we have very serious obligations to advance treatment so that a person with serious mental illness can live [a] full, productive, and healthy [life],” Dr. Brendel, associate director of the Center for Bioethics at Harvard Medical School in Boston, said in an interview.

Under the Canadian proposal, psychiatrists would be allowed to suggest MAID as a “clinical option.”

Harold Braswell, PhD, a fellow with The Hastings Center, a bioethics research institute, calls that problematic.

“It’s not neutral to suggest to someone that it would be theoretically reasonable to end their lives,” Dr. Braswell, associate professor at the Albert Gnaegi Center for Health Care Ethics at Saint Louis University, told this news organization.

It also creates a double standard in the treatment of suicidal ideation, in which suicide prevention is absolute for some, but encouraging it as a possibility for others, he added.  

“To have that come from an authority figure is something that’s very harsh and, in my opinion, very potentially destructive,” especially for vulnerable groups, like First Nations people, who already have elevated rates of suicide, said Dr. Braswell.
 

Fierce debate

Since 2016, Canada has allowed MAID for medical conditions and diseases that will not improve and in cases where the evidence shows that medical providers can accurately predict the condition will not improve.

However, in 2019, a Quebec court ruled that the law unconstitutionally barred euthanasia in people who were not terminally ill. In March 2021, Canada’s criminal code was amended to allow MAID for people whose natural death was not “reasonably foreseeable,” but it excluded SMI for a period of 2 years, ending in March 2023.

The 2-year stay was intended to allow for study and to give mental health providers and MAID assessors time to develop standards.

The federal government charged a 12-member expert panel with determining how to safely allow MAID for SMI. In its final report released in May 2022 it recommended that standards be developed. 

The panel acknowledged that for many conditions it may be impossible to make predictions about whether an individual might improve. However, it did not mention SMI.

In those cases, when MAID is requested, “establishing incurability and irreversibility on the basis of the evolution and response to past interventions is necessary,” the panel noted, adding that these are the criteria used by psychiatrists assessing euthanasia requests in the Netherlands and Belgium.

But the notion that mental illness can be irremediable has been fiercely debated.

Soon after the expert report was released, the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto noted on its website that there are currently  “no agreed upon standards for psychiatrists or other health care practitioners to use to determine if a person’s mental illness is ‘grievous and irremediable’ for the purposes of MAID.” 

Dr. Chaimowitz acknowledged that “there’s no agreed-upon definition of incurability” in mental illness. Some psychiatrists “will argue that there’s always another treatment that can be attempted,” he said, adding that there has been a lack of consensus on irremediability among CPA members.
 

Protecting vulnerable populations

Matt Wynia, MD, MPH, FACP, director of the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said the question of irremediability is crucial. “Most people with mental illness do get better, especially if they’re in treatment,” Dr. Wynia said.

For MAID assessors it may be difficult to know when someone has tried all possible treatments, especially given the wide array of options, including psychedelics, said Dr. Wynia.

Dr. Braswell said there is not enough evidence that mental illness is incurable. With SMI, “there’s a lot more potential for the causes of the individual’s suffering to be ameliorated. By offering MAID, you’re going to kill people who might have been able to get out of this through other nonlethal means.”

Currently, MAID is provided for an irremediable medical condition, “in other words, a condition that will not improve and that we can predict will not improve,” said Karandeep S. Gaind, MD, chief of psychiatry at Toronto’s Humber River Hospital and physician chair of the hospital’s MAID team.

“If that’s the premise, then I think we cannot provide MAID for sole mental illness,” Dr. Gaind said. “Because we can’t honestly make those predictions” with mental illness, he added.

Dr. Gaind does not support MAID for mental illness and believes that it will put the vulnerable – including those living in poverty – at particular risk.

With the proposed expansion, MAID is “now becoming something which is being sought as a way to escape a painful life rather than to avoid a painful death,” said Dr. Gaind, who is also a past president of the CPA.

One member of the federal government’s expert panel – Ellen Cohen, who had a psychiatric condition – wrote in The Globe and Mail that she quit early on when it became apparent that the panel was not seriously considering her own experiences or the possibility that poverty and lack of access to care or social supports could strongly influence a request for MAID.
 

Social determinants of suffering

People with mental illness often are without homes, have substance use disorders, have been stigmatized and discriminated against, and have poor social supports, said Dr. Wynia. “You worry that it’s all of those things that are making them want to end their lives,” he said.

The Daily Mail ran a story in December 2022 about a 65-year-old Canadian who said he’d applied for MAID solely because of fears that his disability benefits for various chronic health conditions were being cut off and that he didn’t want to live in poverty.

A 51-year-old Ontario woman with multiple chemical sensitivities was granted MAID after she said she could not find housing that could keep her safe, according to an August report by CTV News.

Tarek Rajji, MD, chief of the Adult Neurodevelopment and Geriatric Psychiatry Division at CAMH, said social determinants of health need to be considered in standards created to guide MAID for mental illness.

“We’re very mindful of the fact that the suffering, that is, the grievousness that the person is living with, in the context of mental illness, many times is due to the social determinants of their illness and the social determinants of their suffering,” Dr. Rajji said.

Many are also concerned that it will be difficult to separate out suicidality from sheer hopelessness.

The CPA has advised a group that’s working on developing guidelines for MAID in SMI and is also developing a curriculum for mental health providers, Dr. Chaimowitz said. As part of that, there will be a process to ensure that someone who is actively suicidal is not granted MAID.

“I do not believe that it’s contemplated that MAID is going to accelerate or facilitate suicidal ideation,” he said. Someone who is suicidal will be referred to treatment, said Dr. Chaimowitz.

“People with depression often feel hopeless,” and may refuse treatments that have worked in the past, countered Dr. Gaind. Some of his patients “are absolutely convinced that nothing will help,” he said.
 

Troublesome cases

The expert panel said in its final report that “it is not possible to provide fixed rules for how many attempts at interventions, how many types of interventions, and over how much time,” are necessary to establish “irreversibility” of mental illness.

Dr. Chaimowitz said MAID will not be offered to anyone “refusing treatment for their condition without any good reason.” They will be “unlikely to meet criteria for incurable,” as they will have needed to avail themselves of the array of treatments available, he said. 

That would be similar to rules in Belgium and the Netherlands, which allow euthanasia for psychiatric conditions. 

An estimated 100-300 psychiatric patients receive euthanasia each year in those countries, according to a 2021 commentary in Psychiatric Times (Jun 7;38[6]) by Mark S. Komrad, MD, a Towson, Maryland-based psychiatrist.

There are still troublesome cases. 

As previously reported by this news organization, many in Belgium were distressed recently at the news that a 23-year-old woman who had survived a terrorist attack, Shanti De Corte, requested and was granted euthanasia.

As the deadline for implementation of MAID grew closer, calls for delay grew louder, especially given the lack of concrete standards for providers.

During the waning months of 2022, Dr. Gaind – who said he was suspended from CPA for “unprofessional interactions” and allegedly misrepresenting CPA’s processes and governance matters – announced the launch of a new organization, the Society of Canadian Psychiatry, in November calling for a delay in MAID of at least 1 year so that evidence-based safeguards could be implemented. The petition has been signed by more than 200 psychiatrists, along with several dozen physicians, MAID assessors, and individuals with mental illness and family members.

The Association of Chairs of Psychiatry in Canada, the Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention, the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, a group of indigenous leaders, and the Ontario Association for ACT and FACT, psychiatrists who provide care to individuals with severe mental illness, among other groups, joined the call for a delay.

In its December announcement, the Canadian federal ministers said a factor in seeking a delay was that standards guiding clinicians would not be delivered until at least February – too close to when applications would be opened.

Upon hearing about the federal government’s intentions, the chair of the expert panel, Mona Gupta, MD, told The Canadian Press that she did not think it was necessary to put off implementation because necessary safeguards were already in place.

Dr. Chaimowitz awaits the standards but is optimistic that for mental illness, “the process will be tightly controlled, closely monitored, and open to scrutiny,” he said.

Dr. Braswell is not convinced. The concern is that adding people with mental illness is “going to overload the capacity of the government to monitor this practice,” he said.
 

Is the United States next?

Although Canada and the United States share a border, it’s unlikely that U.S. states will allow aid in dying for nonterminal illness, much less for psychiatric conditions any time soon, said Dr. Braswell and others.

Ten states – California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington – have laws allowing assistance in dying, but for terminal illness only.

In 2016, the APA adopted the American Medical Association policy on medical euthanasia, stating, “that a psychiatrist should not prescribe or administer any intervention to a nonterminally ill person for the purpose of causing death.”

Dr. Brendel said the field is acutely aware that people with mental illness do suffer, but that more work needs to be done – and is being done – on “distinguishing wishes to hasten death or end one’s life from these historical or traditional notions that any premature death is a suicide.”

There is also increasing discussion within the medical community, not just psychiatry, about a physician’s duty to relieve suffering, said Dr. Wynia. “There’s debate basically about whether we stand for preserving life essentially at all costs and never being involved in the taking of life, or whether we stand for reduction of suffering and being the advocate for the patients that we serve,” he said.

“Those are both legitimate,” said Dr. Wynia, adding, “there are good reasons to want both of those to be true.”

“I suspect that 20 years from now we will still be having conversations about how physicians, how psychiatrists ought to participate in preserving life and in shepherding death,” said Dr. Brendel.

But to Dr. Gaind, the debate is not just esoteric, it’s a soon-to-be reality in Canada. “When we’re providing death to people who aren’t dying, to me that’s like providing what amounts to a wrongful death,” he said.

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

For Tammy Rainey, finding a health care provider who knows about gender-affirming care has been a challenge in the rural northern Mississippi town where she lives.

As a transgender woman, Ms. Rainey needs the hormone estrogen, which allows her to physically transition by developing more feminine features. But when she asked her doctor for an estrogen prescription, he said he couldn’t provide that type of care.

“He’s generally a good guy and doesn’t act prejudiced. He gets my name and pronouns right,” said Ms. Rainey. “But when I asked him about hormones, he said, ‘I just don’t feel like I know enough about that. I don’t want to get involved in that.’ ”

So Ms. Rainey drives around 170 miles round trip every 6 months to get a supply of estrogen from a clinic in Memphis, Tenn., to take home with her.

The obstacles Ms. Rainey overcomes to access care illustrate a type of medical inequity that transgender people who live in the rural United States often face: A general lack of education about trans-related care among small-town health professionals who might also be reluctant to learn.

“Medical communities across the country are seeing clearly that there is a knowledge gap in the provision of gender-affirming care,” said Morissa Ladinsky, MD, a pediatrician who co-leads the Youth Multidisciplinary Gender Team at the University of Alabama–Birmingham (UAB).

Accurately counting the number of transgender people in rural America is hindered by a lack of U.S. census data and uniform state data. However, the Movement Advancement Project, a nonprofit organization that advocates for LGBTQ+ issues, used 2014-17 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data from selected ZIP codes in 35 states to estimate that roughly one in six transgender adults in the United States live in a rural area. When that report was released in 2019, there were an estimated 1.4 million transgender people 13 and older nationwide. That number is now at least 1.6 million, according to the Williams Institute, a nonprofit think tank at the UCLA School of Law.

One in three trans people in rural areas experienced discrimination by a health care provider in the year leading up to the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey Report, according to an analysis by MAP. A third of all trans individuals report having to teach their doctors about their health care needs to receive appropriate care, and 62% worry about being negatively judged by a health care provider because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, according to data collected by the Williams Institute and other organizations.

A lack of local rural providers knowledgeable in trans care can mean long drives to gender-affirming clinics in metropolitan areas. Rural trans people are three times as likely as are all transgender adults to travel 25-49 miles for routine care.

In Colorado, for example, many trans people outside Denver struggle to find proper care. Those who do have a trans-inclusive provider are more likely to receive wellness exams, less likely to delay care due to discrimination, and less likely to attempt suicide, according to results from the Colorado Transgender Health Survey published in 2018.

Much of the lack of care experienced by trans people is linked to insufficient education on LGBTQ+ health in medical schools across the country. In 2014, the Association of American Medical Colleges, which represents 170 accredited medical schools in the United States and Canada, released its first curriculum guidelines on caring for LGBTQ+ patients. As of 2018, 76% of medical schools included LGBTQ health themes in their curriculum, with half providing three or fewer classes on this topic.

Perhaps because of this, almost 77% of students from 10 medical schools in New England felt “not competent” or “somewhat not competent” in treating gender minority patients, according to a 2018 pilot study. Another paper, published last year, found that even clinicians who work in trans-friendly clinics lack knowledge about hormones, gender-affirming surgical options, and how to use appropriate pronouns and trans-inclusive language.

Throughout medical school, trans care was only briefly mentioned in endocrinology class, said Justin Bailey, MD, who received his medical degree from UAB in 2021 and is now a resident there. “I don’t want to say the wrong thing or use the wrong pronouns, so I was hesitant and a little bit tepid in my approach to interviewing and treating this population of patients,” he said.

On top of insufficient medical school education, some practicing doctors don’t take the time to teach themselves about trans people, said Kathie Moehlig, founder of TransFamily Support Services, a nonprofit organization that offers a range of services to transgender people and their families. They are very well intentioned yet uneducated when it comes to transgender care, she said.

Some medical schools, like the one at UAB, have pushed for change. Since 2017, Dr. Ladinsky and her colleagues have worked to include trans people in their standardized patient program, which gives medical students hands-on experience and feedback by interacting with “patients” in simulated clinical environments.

For example, a trans individual acting as a patient will simulate acid reflux by pretending to have pain in their stomach and chest. Then, over the course of the examination, they will reveal that they are transgender.

In the early years of this program, some students’ bedside manner would change once the patient’s gender identity was revealed, said Elaine Stephens, a trans woman who participates in UAB’s standardized patient program. “Sometimes they would immediately start asking about sexual activity,” Stephens said.

Since UAB launched its program, students’ reactions have improved significantly, she said.

This progress is being replicated by other medical schools, said Ms. Moehlig. “But it’s a slow start, and these are large institutions that take a long time to move forward.”

Advocates also are working outside medical schools to improve care in rural areas. In Colorado, the nonprofit Extension for Community Health Outcomes, or ECHO Colorado, has been offering monthly virtual classes on gender-affirming care to rural providers since 2020. The classes became so popular that the organization created a 4-week boot camp in 2021 for providers to learn about hormone therapy management, proper terminologies, surgical options, and supporting patients’ mental health.

For many years, doctors failed to recognize the need to learn about gender-affirming care, said Caroline Kirsch, DO, director of osteopathic education at the University of Wyoming Family Medicine Residency Program–Casper. In Casper, this led to “a number of patients traveling to Colorado to access care, which is a large burden for them financially,” said Dr. Kirsch, who has participated in the ECHO Colorado program.

“Things that haven’t been as well taught historically in medical school are things that I think many physicians feel anxious about initially,” she said. “The earlier you learn about this type of care in your career, the more likely you are to see its potential and be less anxious about it.”

Educating more providers about trans-related care has become increasingly vital in recent years as gender-affirming clinics nationwide experience a rise in harassment and threats. For instance, Vanderbilt University Medical Center’s Clinic for Transgender Health became the target of far-right hate on social media last year. After growing pressure from Tennessee’s Republican lawmakers, the clinic paused gender-affirmation surgeries on patients younger than 18, potentially leaving many trans individuals without necessary care.

Stephens hopes to see more medical schools include coursework on trans health care. She also wishes for doctors to treat trans people as they would any other patient.

“Just provide quality health care,” she tells the medical students at UAB. “We need health care like everyone else does.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

For Tammy Rainey, finding a health care provider who knows about gender-affirming care has been a challenge in the rural northern Mississippi town where she lives.

As a transgender woman, Ms. Rainey needs the hormone estrogen, which allows her to physically transition by developing more feminine features. But when she asked her doctor for an estrogen prescription, he said he couldn’t provide that type of care.

“He’s generally a good guy and doesn’t act prejudiced. He gets my name and pronouns right,” said Ms. Rainey. “But when I asked him about hormones, he said, ‘I just don’t feel like I know enough about that. I don’t want to get involved in that.’ ”

So Ms. Rainey drives around 170 miles round trip every 6 months to get a supply of estrogen from a clinic in Memphis, Tenn., to take home with her.

The obstacles Ms. Rainey overcomes to access care illustrate a type of medical inequity that transgender people who live in the rural United States often face: A general lack of education about trans-related care among small-town health professionals who might also be reluctant to learn.

“Medical communities across the country are seeing clearly that there is a knowledge gap in the provision of gender-affirming care,” said Morissa Ladinsky, MD, a pediatrician who co-leads the Youth Multidisciplinary Gender Team at the University of Alabama–Birmingham (UAB).

Accurately counting the number of transgender people in rural America is hindered by a lack of U.S. census data and uniform state data. However, the Movement Advancement Project, a nonprofit organization that advocates for LGBTQ+ issues, used 2014-17 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data from selected ZIP codes in 35 states to estimate that roughly one in six transgender adults in the United States live in a rural area. When that report was released in 2019, there were an estimated 1.4 million transgender people 13 and older nationwide. That number is now at least 1.6 million, according to the Williams Institute, a nonprofit think tank at the UCLA School of Law.

One in three trans people in rural areas experienced discrimination by a health care provider in the year leading up to the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey Report, according to an analysis by MAP. A third of all trans individuals report having to teach their doctors about their health care needs to receive appropriate care, and 62% worry about being negatively judged by a health care provider because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, according to data collected by the Williams Institute and other organizations.

A lack of local rural providers knowledgeable in trans care can mean long drives to gender-affirming clinics in metropolitan areas. Rural trans people are three times as likely as are all transgender adults to travel 25-49 miles for routine care.

In Colorado, for example, many trans people outside Denver struggle to find proper care. Those who do have a trans-inclusive provider are more likely to receive wellness exams, less likely to delay care due to discrimination, and less likely to attempt suicide, according to results from the Colorado Transgender Health Survey published in 2018.

Much of the lack of care experienced by trans people is linked to insufficient education on LGBTQ+ health in medical schools across the country. In 2014, the Association of American Medical Colleges, which represents 170 accredited medical schools in the United States and Canada, released its first curriculum guidelines on caring for LGBTQ+ patients. As of 2018, 76% of medical schools included LGBTQ health themes in their curriculum, with half providing three or fewer classes on this topic.

Perhaps because of this, almost 77% of students from 10 medical schools in New England felt “not competent” or “somewhat not competent” in treating gender minority patients, according to a 2018 pilot study. Another paper, published last year, found that even clinicians who work in trans-friendly clinics lack knowledge about hormones, gender-affirming surgical options, and how to use appropriate pronouns and trans-inclusive language.

Throughout medical school, trans care was only briefly mentioned in endocrinology class, said Justin Bailey, MD, who received his medical degree from UAB in 2021 and is now a resident there. “I don’t want to say the wrong thing or use the wrong pronouns, so I was hesitant and a little bit tepid in my approach to interviewing and treating this population of patients,” he said.

On top of insufficient medical school education, some practicing doctors don’t take the time to teach themselves about trans people, said Kathie Moehlig, founder of TransFamily Support Services, a nonprofit organization that offers a range of services to transgender people and their families. They are very well intentioned yet uneducated when it comes to transgender care, she said.

Some medical schools, like the one at UAB, have pushed for change. Since 2017, Dr. Ladinsky and her colleagues have worked to include trans people in their standardized patient program, which gives medical students hands-on experience and feedback by interacting with “patients” in simulated clinical environments.

For example, a trans individual acting as a patient will simulate acid reflux by pretending to have pain in their stomach and chest. Then, over the course of the examination, they will reveal that they are transgender.

In the early years of this program, some students’ bedside manner would change once the patient’s gender identity was revealed, said Elaine Stephens, a trans woman who participates in UAB’s standardized patient program. “Sometimes they would immediately start asking about sexual activity,” Stephens said.

Since UAB launched its program, students’ reactions have improved significantly, she said.

This progress is being replicated by other medical schools, said Ms. Moehlig. “But it’s a slow start, and these are large institutions that take a long time to move forward.”

Advocates also are working outside medical schools to improve care in rural areas. In Colorado, the nonprofit Extension for Community Health Outcomes, or ECHO Colorado, has been offering monthly virtual classes on gender-affirming care to rural providers since 2020. The classes became so popular that the organization created a 4-week boot camp in 2021 for providers to learn about hormone therapy management, proper terminologies, surgical options, and supporting patients’ mental health.

For many years, doctors failed to recognize the need to learn about gender-affirming care, said Caroline Kirsch, DO, director of osteopathic education at the University of Wyoming Family Medicine Residency Program–Casper. In Casper, this led to “a number of patients traveling to Colorado to access care, which is a large burden for them financially,” said Dr. Kirsch, who has participated in the ECHO Colorado program.

“Things that haven’t been as well taught historically in medical school are things that I think many physicians feel anxious about initially,” she said. “The earlier you learn about this type of care in your career, the more likely you are to see its potential and be less anxious about it.”

Educating more providers about trans-related care has become increasingly vital in recent years as gender-affirming clinics nationwide experience a rise in harassment and threats. For instance, Vanderbilt University Medical Center’s Clinic for Transgender Health became the target of far-right hate on social media last year. After growing pressure from Tennessee’s Republican lawmakers, the clinic paused gender-affirmation surgeries on patients younger than 18, potentially leaving many trans individuals without necessary care.

Stephens hopes to see more medical schools include coursework on trans health care. She also wishes for doctors to treat trans people as they would any other patient.

“Just provide quality health care,” she tells the medical students at UAB. “We need health care like everyone else does.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

For Tammy Rainey, finding a health care provider who knows about gender-affirming care has been a challenge in the rural northern Mississippi town where she lives.

As a transgender woman, Ms. Rainey needs the hormone estrogen, which allows her to physically transition by developing more feminine features. But when she asked her doctor for an estrogen prescription, he said he couldn’t provide that type of care.

“He’s generally a good guy and doesn’t act prejudiced. He gets my name and pronouns right,” said Ms. Rainey. “But when I asked him about hormones, he said, ‘I just don’t feel like I know enough about that. I don’t want to get involved in that.’ ”

So Ms. Rainey drives around 170 miles round trip every 6 months to get a supply of estrogen from a clinic in Memphis, Tenn., to take home with her.

The obstacles Ms. Rainey overcomes to access care illustrate a type of medical inequity that transgender people who live in the rural United States often face: A general lack of education about trans-related care among small-town health professionals who might also be reluctant to learn.

“Medical communities across the country are seeing clearly that there is a knowledge gap in the provision of gender-affirming care,” said Morissa Ladinsky, MD, a pediatrician who co-leads the Youth Multidisciplinary Gender Team at the University of Alabama–Birmingham (UAB).

Accurately counting the number of transgender people in rural America is hindered by a lack of U.S. census data and uniform state data. However, the Movement Advancement Project, a nonprofit organization that advocates for LGBTQ+ issues, used 2014-17 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data from selected ZIP codes in 35 states to estimate that roughly one in six transgender adults in the United States live in a rural area. When that report was released in 2019, there were an estimated 1.4 million transgender people 13 and older nationwide. That number is now at least 1.6 million, according to the Williams Institute, a nonprofit think tank at the UCLA School of Law.

One in three trans people in rural areas experienced discrimination by a health care provider in the year leading up to the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey Report, according to an analysis by MAP. A third of all trans individuals report having to teach their doctors about their health care needs to receive appropriate care, and 62% worry about being negatively judged by a health care provider because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, according to data collected by the Williams Institute and other organizations.

A lack of local rural providers knowledgeable in trans care can mean long drives to gender-affirming clinics in metropolitan areas. Rural trans people are three times as likely as are all transgender adults to travel 25-49 miles for routine care.

In Colorado, for example, many trans people outside Denver struggle to find proper care. Those who do have a trans-inclusive provider are more likely to receive wellness exams, less likely to delay care due to discrimination, and less likely to attempt suicide, according to results from the Colorado Transgender Health Survey published in 2018.

Much of the lack of care experienced by trans people is linked to insufficient education on LGBTQ+ health in medical schools across the country. In 2014, the Association of American Medical Colleges, which represents 170 accredited medical schools in the United States and Canada, released its first curriculum guidelines on caring for LGBTQ+ patients. As of 2018, 76% of medical schools included LGBTQ health themes in their curriculum, with half providing three or fewer classes on this topic.

Perhaps because of this, almost 77% of students from 10 medical schools in New England felt “not competent” or “somewhat not competent” in treating gender minority patients, according to a 2018 pilot study. Another paper, published last year, found that even clinicians who work in trans-friendly clinics lack knowledge about hormones, gender-affirming surgical options, and how to use appropriate pronouns and trans-inclusive language.

Throughout medical school, trans care was only briefly mentioned in endocrinology class, said Justin Bailey, MD, who received his medical degree from UAB in 2021 and is now a resident there. “I don’t want to say the wrong thing or use the wrong pronouns, so I was hesitant and a little bit tepid in my approach to interviewing and treating this population of patients,” he said.

On top of insufficient medical school education, some practicing doctors don’t take the time to teach themselves about trans people, said Kathie Moehlig, founder of TransFamily Support Services, a nonprofit organization that offers a range of services to transgender people and their families. They are very well intentioned yet uneducated when it comes to transgender care, she said.

Some medical schools, like the one at UAB, have pushed for change. Since 2017, Dr. Ladinsky and her colleagues have worked to include trans people in their standardized patient program, which gives medical students hands-on experience and feedback by interacting with “patients” in simulated clinical environments.

For example, a trans individual acting as a patient will simulate acid reflux by pretending to have pain in their stomach and chest. Then, over the course of the examination, they will reveal that they are transgender.

In the early years of this program, some students’ bedside manner would change once the patient’s gender identity was revealed, said Elaine Stephens, a trans woman who participates in UAB’s standardized patient program. “Sometimes they would immediately start asking about sexual activity,” Stephens said.

Since UAB launched its program, students’ reactions have improved significantly, she said.

This progress is being replicated by other medical schools, said Ms. Moehlig. “But it’s a slow start, and these are large institutions that take a long time to move forward.”

Advocates also are working outside medical schools to improve care in rural areas. In Colorado, the nonprofit Extension for Community Health Outcomes, or ECHO Colorado, has been offering monthly virtual classes on gender-affirming care to rural providers since 2020. The classes became so popular that the organization created a 4-week boot camp in 2021 for providers to learn about hormone therapy management, proper terminologies, surgical options, and supporting patients’ mental health.

For many years, doctors failed to recognize the need to learn about gender-affirming care, said Caroline Kirsch, DO, director of osteopathic education at the University of Wyoming Family Medicine Residency Program–Casper. In Casper, this led to “a number of patients traveling to Colorado to access care, which is a large burden for them financially,” said Dr. Kirsch, who has participated in the ECHO Colorado program.

“Things that haven’t been as well taught historically in medical school are things that I think many physicians feel anxious about initially,” she said. “The earlier you learn about this type of care in your career, the more likely you are to see its potential and be less anxious about it.”

Educating more providers about trans-related care has become increasingly vital in recent years as gender-affirming clinics nationwide experience a rise in harassment and threats. For instance, Vanderbilt University Medical Center’s Clinic for Transgender Health became the target of far-right hate on social media last year. After growing pressure from Tennessee’s Republican lawmakers, the clinic paused gender-affirmation surgeries on patients younger than 18, potentially leaving many trans individuals without necessary care.

Stephens hopes to see more medical schools include coursework on trans health care. She also wishes for doctors to treat trans people as they would any other patient.

“Just provide quality health care,” she tells the medical students at UAB. “We need health care like everyone else does.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

In 2020, the rapid spread of the newly identified SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus led various global public health institutions to establish strategies to stop transmission and reduce mortality. Nonpharmacological measures – including social distancing, regular hand washing, and the use of face masks – contributed to reducing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on health systems in different regions of the world. However, because of the implementation of these measures, the transmission of other infectious agents also experienced a marked reduction.

Approximately 3 years after the start of the pandemic, it is evident that SARS-COV-2 has also affected the dynamic of other infectious agents, generating phenomena ranging from an immunity gap, which favors the increase in some diseases, to the apparent disappearance of an influenza virus lineage.
 

Understanding the phenomenon

In mid-2021, doctors and researchers around the world began to share their opinions about the side effect of the strict measures implemented to contain COVID-19.

In May 2021, along with some coresearchers, Emmanuel Grimprel, MD, of the Pediatric Infectious Pathology Group in Créteil, France, wrote for Infectious Disease Now, “The transmission of some pathogens is often similar to that of SARS-CoV-2, essentially large droplets, aerosols, and direct hand contact, often with lower transmissibility. The lack of immune system stimulation due to nonpharmaceutical measures induces an ‘immune debt’ that may have negative consequences when the pandemic is under control.” According to the authors, mathematical models evaluated up to that point were already suggesting that the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza A epidemics would be more serious in subsequent years.

In July 2022, a commentary in The Lancet led by Kevin Messacar, MD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, grew in relevance and gave prominence to the phenomenon. In the commentary, Dr. Messacar and a group of experts explained how the decrease in exposure to endemic viruses had given rise to an immunity gap.

“The immunity gap phenomenon that has been reported in articles such as The Lancet publication is mainly due to the isolation that took place to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections. Although this distancing was a good response to combat infections, or at least delay them while coronavirus research advanced, what we are now experiencing is the increase in cases of respiratory diseases caused by other agents such as respiratory syncytial virus and influenza due to lack of exposure,” as explained to this news organization by Erandeni Martínez Jiménez, biomedicine graduate and member of the Medical Virology Laboratory of the Mexican Institute of Social Security, at the Zone No. 5 General Hospital in Metepec-Atlixco, Mexico.

“This phenomenon occurs in all age groups. However, it is more evident in children and babies, since at their age, they have been exposed to fewer pathogens and, when added to isolation, makes this immunity gap more evident. Many immunologists compare this to hygiene theory in which it is explained that a ‘sterile’ environment will cause children to avoid the everyday and common pathogens required to be able to develop an adequate immune system,” added Martínez Jimenez.

“In addition, due to the isolation, the vaccination rate in children decreased, since many parents did not risk their children going out. This causes the immunity gap to grow even further as these children are not protected against common pathogens. While a mother passes antibodies to the child through the uterus via her placenta, the mother will only pass on those antibodies to which she has been exposed and as expected due to the lockdown, exposure to other pathogens has been greatly reduced.”

On the other hand, Andreu Comas, MD, PhD, MHS, of the Center for Research in Health Sciences and Biomedicine of the Autonomous University of San Luis Potosí (Mexico), considered that there are other immunity gaps that are not limited to respiratory infections and that are related to the fall in vaccination coverage. “Children are going to experience several immunity gaps. In the middle of the previous 6-year term, we had a vaccination schedule coverage of around 70% for children. Now that vaccination coverage has fallen to 30%, today we have an immunity gap for measles, rubella, mumps, tetanus, diphtheria, whooping cough, and meningeal tuberculosis. We have a significant growth or risk for other diseases.”
 

Lineage extinction

Three types of influenza viruses – A, B, and C – cause infections in humans. Although influenza A virus is the main type associated with infections during seasonal periods, as of 2020, influenza B virus was considered the causative agent of about a quarter of annual influenza cases.

During the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, cocirculation of the two distinct lineages of influenza B viruses, B/Victoria/2/1987 (B/Victoria) and B/Yamagata/16/1988 (B/Yamagata), decreased significantly. According to data from the FluNet tool, which is coordinated by the World Health Organization, since March 2020 the isolation or sequencing of viruses belonging to the Yamagata lineage was not conclusively carried out.

Specialists like John Paget, PhD, from the Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (Nivel) in Utrecht, have indicated that determining the extinction of the B/Yamagata lineage is critical. There is the possibility of a reintroduction of the lineage, as has occurred in the past with the reemergence of influenza A (H1N1) in 1997, which could represent a risk in subsequent years.

“In the next few years, research related to viruses such as influenza B and the impact on population immunity will be important. Let’s remember that influenza changes every year due to its characteristics, so a lack of exposure will also have an impact on the development of the disease,” said Martínez Jiménez.
 

Vaccination is essential

According to Dr. Comas, the only way to overcome the immunity gap phenomenon is through vaccination campaigns. “There is no other way to overcome the phenomenon, and how fast it is done will depend on the effort,” he said.

“In the case of COVID-19, it is not planned to vaccinate children under 5 years of age, and if we do not vaccinate children under 5 years of age, that gap will exist. In addition, this winter season will be important to know whether we are already endemic or not. It will be the key point, and it will determine if we will have a peak or not in the summer.

“In the case of the rest of the diseases, we need to correct what has been deficient in different governments, and we are going to have the resurgence of other infectious diseases that had already been forgotten. We have the example of poliomyelitis, the increase in meningeal tuberculosis, and we will have an increase in whooping cough and pertussislike syndrome. In this sense, we are going back to the point where Mexico and the world were around the ‘60s and ‘70s, and we have to be very alert to detect, isolate, and revaccinate.”

Finally, Dr. Comas called for continuing precautionary measures before the arrival of the sixth wave. “At a national level, the sixth wave of COVID-19 has already begun, and an increase in cases is expected in January. Regarding vaccines, if you are over 18 years of age and have not had any vaccine dose, you can get Abdala, however, there are no studies on this vaccine as a booster, and it is not authorized by the Mexican government for this purpose. Therefore, it is necessary to continue with measures such as the use of face masks in crowded places or with poor ventilation, and in the event of having symptoms, avoid going out and encourage ventilation at work and schools. If we do this, at least in the case of diseases that are transmitted by the respiratory route, the impact will be minimal.”

Martínez Jiménez and Dr. Comas have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition.

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

In 2020, the rapid spread of the newly identified SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus led various global public health institutions to establish strategies to stop transmission and reduce mortality. Nonpharmacological measures – including social distancing, regular hand washing, and the use of face masks – contributed to reducing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on health systems in different regions of the world. However, because of the implementation of these measures, the transmission of other infectious agents also experienced a marked reduction.

Approximately 3 years after the start of the pandemic, it is evident that SARS-COV-2 has also affected the dynamic of other infectious agents, generating phenomena ranging from an immunity gap, which favors the increase in some diseases, to the apparent disappearance of an influenza virus lineage.
 

Understanding the phenomenon

In mid-2021, doctors and researchers around the world began to share their opinions about the side effect of the strict measures implemented to contain COVID-19.

In May 2021, along with some coresearchers, Emmanuel Grimprel, MD, of the Pediatric Infectious Pathology Group in Créteil, France, wrote for Infectious Disease Now, “The transmission of some pathogens is often similar to that of SARS-CoV-2, essentially large droplets, aerosols, and direct hand contact, often with lower transmissibility. The lack of immune system stimulation due to nonpharmaceutical measures induces an ‘immune debt’ that may have negative consequences when the pandemic is under control.” According to the authors, mathematical models evaluated up to that point were already suggesting that the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza A epidemics would be more serious in subsequent years.

In July 2022, a commentary in The Lancet led by Kevin Messacar, MD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, grew in relevance and gave prominence to the phenomenon. In the commentary, Dr. Messacar and a group of experts explained how the decrease in exposure to endemic viruses had given rise to an immunity gap.

“The immunity gap phenomenon that has been reported in articles such as The Lancet publication is mainly due to the isolation that took place to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections. Although this distancing was a good response to combat infections, or at least delay them while coronavirus research advanced, what we are now experiencing is the increase in cases of respiratory diseases caused by other agents such as respiratory syncytial virus and influenza due to lack of exposure,” as explained to this news organization by Erandeni Martínez Jiménez, biomedicine graduate and member of the Medical Virology Laboratory of the Mexican Institute of Social Security, at the Zone No. 5 General Hospital in Metepec-Atlixco, Mexico.

“This phenomenon occurs in all age groups. However, it is more evident in children and babies, since at their age, they have been exposed to fewer pathogens and, when added to isolation, makes this immunity gap more evident. Many immunologists compare this to hygiene theory in which it is explained that a ‘sterile’ environment will cause children to avoid the everyday and common pathogens required to be able to develop an adequate immune system,” added Martínez Jimenez.

“In addition, due to the isolation, the vaccination rate in children decreased, since many parents did not risk their children going out. This causes the immunity gap to grow even further as these children are not protected against common pathogens. While a mother passes antibodies to the child through the uterus via her placenta, the mother will only pass on those antibodies to which she has been exposed and as expected due to the lockdown, exposure to other pathogens has been greatly reduced.”

On the other hand, Andreu Comas, MD, PhD, MHS, of the Center for Research in Health Sciences and Biomedicine of the Autonomous University of San Luis Potosí (Mexico), considered that there are other immunity gaps that are not limited to respiratory infections and that are related to the fall in vaccination coverage. “Children are going to experience several immunity gaps. In the middle of the previous 6-year term, we had a vaccination schedule coverage of around 70% for children. Now that vaccination coverage has fallen to 30%, today we have an immunity gap for measles, rubella, mumps, tetanus, diphtheria, whooping cough, and meningeal tuberculosis. We have a significant growth or risk for other diseases.”
 

Lineage extinction

Three types of influenza viruses – A, B, and C – cause infections in humans. Although influenza A virus is the main type associated with infections during seasonal periods, as of 2020, influenza B virus was considered the causative agent of about a quarter of annual influenza cases.

During the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, cocirculation of the two distinct lineages of influenza B viruses, B/Victoria/2/1987 (B/Victoria) and B/Yamagata/16/1988 (B/Yamagata), decreased significantly. According to data from the FluNet tool, which is coordinated by the World Health Organization, since March 2020 the isolation or sequencing of viruses belonging to the Yamagata lineage was not conclusively carried out.

Specialists like John Paget, PhD, from the Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (Nivel) in Utrecht, have indicated that determining the extinction of the B/Yamagata lineage is critical. There is the possibility of a reintroduction of the lineage, as has occurred in the past with the reemergence of influenza A (H1N1) in 1997, which could represent a risk in subsequent years.

“In the next few years, research related to viruses such as influenza B and the impact on population immunity will be important. Let’s remember that influenza changes every year due to its characteristics, so a lack of exposure will also have an impact on the development of the disease,” said Martínez Jiménez.
 

Vaccination is essential

According to Dr. Comas, the only way to overcome the immunity gap phenomenon is through vaccination campaigns. “There is no other way to overcome the phenomenon, and how fast it is done will depend on the effort,” he said.

“In the case of COVID-19, it is not planned to vaccinate children under 5 years of age, and if we do not vaccinate children under 5 years of age, that gap will exist. In addition, this winter season will be important to know whether we are already endemic or not. It will be the key point, and it will determine if we will have a peak or not in the summer.

“In the case of the rest of the diseases, we need to correct what has been deficient in different governments, and we are going to have the resurgence of other infectious diseases that had already been forgotten. We have the example of poliomyelitis, the increase in meningeal tuberculosis, and we will have an increase in whooping cough and pertussislike syndrome. In this sense, we are going back to the point where Mexico and the world were around the ‘60s and ‘70s, and we have to be very alert to detect, isolate, and revaccinate.”

Finally, Dr. Comas called for continuing precautionary measures before the arrival of the sixth wave. “At a national level, the sixth wave of COVID-19 has already begun, and an increase in cases is expected in January. Regarding vaccines, if you are over 18 years of age and have not had any vaccine dose, you can get Abdala, however, there are no studies on this vaccine as a booster, and it is not authorized by the Mexican government for this purpose. Therefore, it is necessary to continue with measures such as the use of face masks in crowded places or with poor ventilation, and in the event of having symptoms, avoid going out and encourage ventilation at work and schools. If we do this, at least in the case of diseases that are transmitted by the respiratory route, the impact will be minimal.”

Martínez Jiménez and Dr. Comas have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition.

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

In 2020, the rapid spread of the newly identified SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus led various global public health institutions to establish strategies to stop transmission and reduce mortality. Nonpharmacological measures – including social distancing, regular hand washing, and the use of face masks – contributed to reducing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on health systems in different regions of the world. However, because of the implementation of these measures, the transmission of other infectious agents also experienced a marked reduction.

Approximately 3 years after the start of the pandemic, it is evident that SARS-COV-2 has also affected the dynamic of other infectious agents, generating phenomena ranging from an immunity gap, which favors the increase in some diseases, to the apparent disappearance of an influenza virus lineage.
 

Understanding the phenomenon

In mid-2021, doctors and researchers around the world began to share their opinions about the side effect of the strict measures implemented to contain COVID-19.

In May 2021, along with some coresearchers, Emmanuel Grimprel, MD, of the Pediatric Infectious Pathology Group in Créteil, France, wrote for Infectious Disease Now, “The transmission of some pathogens is often similar to that of SARS-CoV-2, essentially large droplets, aerosols, and direct hand contact, often with lower transmissibility. The lack of immune system stimulation due to nonpharmaceutical measures induces an ‘immune debt’ that may have negative consequences when the pandemic is under control.” According to the authors, mathematical models evaluated up to that point were already suggesting that the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza A epidemics would be more serious in subsequent years.

In July 2022, a commentary in The Lancet led by Kevin Messacar, MD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, grew in relevance and gave prominence to the phenomenon. In the commentary, Dr. Messacar and a group of experts explained how the decrease in exposure to endemic viruses had given rise to an immunity gap.

“The immunity gap phenomenon that has been reported in articles such as The Lancet publication is mainly due to the isolation that took place to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections. Although this distancing was a good response to combat infections, or at least delay them while coronavirus research advanced, what we are now experiencing is the increase in cases of respiratory diseases caused by other agents such as respiratory syncytial virus and influenza due to lack of exposure,” as explained to this news organization by Erandeni Martínez Jiménez, biomedicine graduate and member of the Medical Virology Laboratory of the Mexican Institute of Social Security, at the Zone No. 5 General Hospital in Metepec-Atlixco, Mexico.

“This phenomenon occurs in all age groups. However, it is more evident in children and babies, since at their age, they have been exposed to fewer pathogens and, when added to isolation, makes this immunity gap more evident. Many immunologists compare this to hygiene theory in which it is explained that a ‘sterile’ environment will cause children to avoid the everyday and common pathogens required to be able to develop an adequate immune system,” added Martínez Jimenez.

“In addition, due to the isolation, the vaccination rate in children decreased, since many parents did not risk their children going out. This causes the immunity gap to grow even further as these children are not protected against common pathogens. While a mother passes antibodies to the child through the uterus via her placenta, the mother will only pass on those antibodies to which she has been exposed and as expected due to the lockdown, exposure to other pathogens has been greatly reduced.”

On the other hand, Andreu Comas, MD, PhD, MHS, of the Center for Research in Health Sciences and Biomedicine of the Autonomous University of San Luis Potosí (Mexico), considered that there are other immunity gaps that are not limited to respiratory infections and that are related to the fall in vaccination coverage. “Children are going to experience several immunity gaps. In the middle of the previous 6-year term, we had a vaccination schedule coverage of around 70% for children. Now that vaccination coverage has fallen to 30%, today we have an immunity gap for measles, rubella, mumps, tetanus, diphtheria, whooping cough, and meningeal tuberculosis. We have a significant growth or risk for other diseases.”
 

Lineage extinction

Three types of influenza viruses – A, B, and C – cause infections in humans. Although influenza A virus is the main type associated with infections during seasonal periods, as of 2020, influenza B virus was considered the causative agent of about a quarter of annual influenza cases.

During the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, cocirculation of the two distinct lineages of influenza B viruses, B/Victoria/2/1987 (B/Victoria) and B/Yamagata/16/1988 (B/Yamagata), decreased significantly. According to data from the FluNet tool, which is coordinated by the World Health Organization, since March 2020 the isolation or sequencing of viruses belonging to the Yamagata lineage was not conclusively carried out.

Specialists like John Paget, PhD, from the Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (Nivel) in Utrecht, have indicated that determining the extinction of the B/Yamagata lineage is critical. There is the possibility of a reintroduction of the lineage, as has occurred in the past with the reemergence of influenza A (H1N1) in 1997, which could represent a risk in subsequent years.

“In the next few years, research related to viruses such as influenza B and the impact on population immunity will be important. Let’s remember that influenza changes every year due to its characteristics, so a lack of exposure will also have an impact on the development of the disease,” said Martínez Jiménez.
 

Vaccination is essential

According to Dr. Comas, the only way to overcome the immunity gap phenomenon is through vaccination campaigns. “There is no other way to overcome the phenomenon, and how fast it is done will depend on the effort,” he said.

“In the case of COVID-19, it is not planned to vaccinate children under 5 years of age, and if we do not vaccinate children under 5 years of age, that gap will exist. In addition, this winter season will be important to know whether we are already endemic or not. It will be the key point, and it will determine if we will have a peak or not in the summer.

“In the case of the rest of the diseases, we need to correct what has been deficient in different governments, and we are going to have the resurgence of other infectious diseases that had already been forgotten. We have the example of poliomyelitis, the increase in meningeal tuberculosis, and we will have an increase in whooping cough and pertussislike syndrome. In this sense, we are going back to the point where Mexico and the world were around the ‘60s and ‘70s, and we have to be very alert to detect, isolate, and revaccinate.”

Finally, Dr. Comas called for continuing precautionary measures before the arrival of the sixth wave. “At a national level, the sixth wave of COVID-19 has already begun, and an increase in cases is expected in January. Regarding vaccines, if you are over 18 years of age and have not had any vaccine dose, you can get Abdala, however, there are no studies on this vaccine as a booster, and it is not authorized by the Mexican government for this purpose. Therefore, it is necessary to continue with measures such as the use of face masks in crowded places or with poor ventilation, and in the event of having symptoms, avoid going out and encourage ventilation at work and schools. If we do this, at least in the case of diseases that are transmitted by the respiratory route, the impact will be minimal.”

Martínez Jiménez and Dr. Comas have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition.

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