User login
New guidance for those fully vaccinated against COVID-19
As has been dominating the headlines, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently released updated public health guidance for those who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19.
This new guidance applies to those who are fully vaccinated as indicated by 2 weeks after the second dose in a 2-dose series or 2 weeks after a single-dose vaccine. Those who meet these criteria no longer need to wear a mask or physically distance themselves from others in both indoor and outdoor settings. For those not fully vaccinated, masking and social distancing should continue to be practiced.
The new guidance indicates that quarantine after a known exposure is no longer necessary.
Unless required by local, state, or territorial health authorities, testing is no longer required following domestic travel for fully vaccinated individuals. A negative test is still required prior to boarding an international flight to the United States and testing 3-5 days after arrival is still recommended. Self-quarantine is no longer required after international travel for fully vaccinated individuals.
The new guidance recommends that individuals who are fully vaccinated not participate in routine screening programs when feasible. Finally, if an individual has tested positive for COVID-19, regardless of vaccination status, that person should isolate and not visit public or private settings for a minimum of ten days.1
Updated guidance for health care facilities
In addition to changes for the general public in all settings, the CDC updated guidance for health care facilities on April 27, 2021. These updated guidelines allow for communal dining and visitation for fully vaccinated patients and their visitors. The guidelines indicate that fully vaccinated health care personnel (HCP) do not require quarantine after exposure to patients who have tested positive for COVID-19 as long as the HCP remains asymptomatic. They should, however, continue to utilize personal protective equipment as previously recommended. HCPs are able to be in break and meeting rooms unmasked if all HCPs are vaccinated.2
There are some important caveats to these updated guidelines. They do not apply to those who have immunocompromising conditions, including those using immunosuppressant agents. They also do not apply to locations subject to federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial laws, rules, and regulations, including local business and workplace guidance.
Those who work or reside in correction or detention facilities and homeless shelters are also still required to test after known exposures. Masking is still required by all travelers on all forms of public transportation into and within the United States.
Most importantly, the guidelines apply only to those who are fully vaccinated. Finally, no vaccine is perfect. As such, anyone who experiences symptoms indicative of COVID-19, regardless of vaccination status, should obtain viral testing and isolate themselves from others.1,2
Pros and cons to new guidance
Both sets of updated guidelines are a great example of public health guidance that is changing as the evidence is gathered and changes. This guidance is also a welcome encouragement that the vaccines are effective at decreasing transmission of this virus that has upended our world.
These guidelines leave room for change as evidence is gathered on emerging novel variants. There are, however, a few remaining concerns.
My first concern is for those who are not yet able to be vaccinated, including children under the age of 12. For families with members who are not fully vaccinated, they may have first heard the headlines of “you do not have to mask” to then read the fine print that remains. When truly following these guidelines, many social situations in both the public and private setting should still include both masking and social distancing.
There is no clarity on how these guidelines are enforced. Within the guidance, it is clear that individuals’ privacy is of utmost importance. In the absence of knowledge, that means that the assumption should be that all are not yet vaccinated. Unless there is a way to reliably demonstrate vaccination status, it would likely still be safer to assume that there are individuals who are not fully vaccinated within the setting.
Finally, although this is great news surrounding the efficacy of the vaccine, some are concerned that local mask mandates that have already started to be lifted will be completely removed. As there is still a large portion of the population not yet fully vaccinated, it seems premature for local, state, and territorial authorities to lift these mandates.
How to continue exercising caution
With the outstanding concerns, I will continue to mask in settings, particularly indoors, where I do not definitely know that everyone is vaccinated. I will continue to do this to protect my children and my patients who are not yet vaccinated, and my patients who are immunosuppressed for whom we do not yet have enough information.
I will continue to advise my patients to be thoughtful about the risk for themselves and their families as well.
There has been more benefit to these public health measures then just decreased transmission of COVID-19. I hope that this year has reinforced within us the benefits of masking and self-isolation in the cases of any contagious illnesses.
Although I am looking forward to the opportunities to interact in person with more colleagues and friends, I think we should continue to do this with caution and thoughtfulness. We must be prepared for the possibility of vaccines having decreased efficacy against novel variants as well as eventually the possibility of waning immunity. If these should occur, we need to be prepared for additional recommendation changes and tightening of restrictions.
Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago. She is program director of Northwestern’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program at Humboldt Park, Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at [email protected].
References
1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim Public Health Recommendations for Fully Vaccinated People. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, May 13, 2021.
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated Healthcare Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations in Response to COVID-19 Vaccination. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, April 27, 2021.
As has been dominating the headlines, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently released updated public health guidance for those who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19.
This new guidance applies to those who are fully vaccinated as indicated by 2 weeks after the second dose in a 2-dose series or 2 weeks after a single-dose vaccine. Those who meet these criteria no longer need to wear a mask or physically distance themselves from others in both indoor and outdoor settings. For those not fully vaccinated, masking and social distancing should continue to be practiced.
The new guidance indicates that quarantine after a known exposure is no longer necessary.
Unless required by local, state, or territorial health authorities, testing is no longer required following domestic travel for fully vaccinated individuals. A negative test is still required prior to boarding an international flight to the United States and testing 3-5 days after arrival is still recommended. Self-quarantine is no longer required after international travel for fully vaccinated individuals.
The new guidance recommends that individuals who are fully vaccinated not participate in routine screening programs when feasible. Finally, if an individual has tested positive for COVID-19, regardless of vaccination status, that person should isolate and not visit public or private settings for a minimum of ten days.1
Updated guidance for health care facilities
In addition to changes for the general public in all settings, the CDC updated guidance for health care facilities on April 27, 2021. These updated guidelines allow for communal dining and visitation for fully vaccinated patients and their visitors. The guidelines indicate that fully vaccinated health care personnel (HCP) do not require quarantine after exposure to patients who have tested positive for COVID-19 as long as the HCP remains asymptomatic. They should, however, continue to utilize personal protective equipment as previously recommended. HCPs are able to be in break and meeting rooms unmasked if all HCPs are vaccinated.2
There are some important caveats to these updated guidelines. They do not apply to those who have immunocompromising conditions, including those using immunosuppressant agents. They also do not apply to locations subject to federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial laws, rules, and regulations, including local business and workplace guidance.
Those who work or reside in correction or detention facilities and homeless shelters are also still required to test after known exposures. Masking is still required by all travelers on all forms of public transportation into and within the United States.
Most importantly, the guidelines apply only to those who are fully vaccinated. Finally, no vaccine is perfect. As such, anyone who experiences symptoms indicative of COVID-19, regardless of vaccination status, should obtain viral testing and isolate themselves from others.1,2
Pros and cons to new guidance
Both sets of updated guidelines are a great example of public health guidance that is changing as the evidence is gathered and changes. This guidance is also a welcome encouragement that the vaccines are effective at decreasing transmission of this virus that has upended our world.
These guidelines leave room for change as evidence is gathered on emerging novel variants. There are, however, a few remaining concerns.
My first concern is for those who are not yet able to be vaccinated, including children under the age of 12. For families with members who are not fully vaccinated, they may have first heard the headlines of “you do not have to mask” to then read the fine print that remains. When truly following these guidelines, many social situations in both the public and private setting should still include both masking and social distancing.
There is no clarity on how these guidelines are enforced. Within the guidance, it is clear that individuals’ privacy is of utmost importance. In the absence of knowledge, that means that the assumption should be that all are not yet vaccinated. Unless there is a way to reliably demonstrate vaccination status, it would likely still be safer to assume that there are individuals who are not fully vaccinated within the setting.
Finally, although this is great news surrounding the efficacy of the vaccine, some are concerned that local mask mandates that have already started to be lifted will be completely removed. As there is still a large portion of the population not yet fully vaccinated, it seems premature for local, state, and territorial authorities to lift these mandates.
How to continue exercising caution
With the outstanding concerns, I will continue to mask in settings, particularly indoors, where I do not definitely know that everyone is vaccinated. I will continue to do this to protect my children and my patients who are not yet vaccinated, and my patients who are immunosuppressed for whom we do not yet have enough information.
I will continue to advise my patients to be thoughtful about the risk for themselves and their families as well.
There has been more benefit to these public health measures then just decreased transmission of COVID-19. I hope that this year has reinforced within us the benefits of masking and self-isolation in the cases of any contagious illnesses.
Although I am looking forward to the opportunities to interact in person with more colleagues and friends, I think we should continue to do this with caution and thoughtfulness. We must be prepared for the possibility of vaccines having decreased efficacy against novel variants as well as eventually the possibility of waning immunity. If these should occur, we need to be prepared for additional recommendation changes and tightening of restrictions.
Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago. She is program director of Northwestern’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program at Humboldt Park, Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at [email protected].
References
1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim Public Health Recommendations for Fully Vaccinated People. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, May 13, 2021.
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated Healthcare Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations in Response to COVID-19 Vaccination. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, April 27, 2021.
As has been dominating the headlines, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently released updated public health guidance for those who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19.
This new guidance applies to those who are fully vaccinated as indicated by 2 weeks after the second dose in a 2-dose series or 2 weeks after a single-dose vaccine. Those who meet these criteria no longer need to wear a mask or physically distance themselves from others in both indoor and outdoor settings. For those not fully vaccinated, masking and social distancing should continue to be practiced.
The new guidance indicates that quarantine after a known exposure is no longer necessary.
Unless required by local, state, or territorial health authorities, testing is no longer required following domestic travel for fully vaccinated individuals. A negative test is still required prior to boarding an international flight to the United States and testing 3-5 days after arrival is still recommended. Self-quarantine is no longer required after international travel for fully vaccinated individuals.
The new guidance recommends that individuals who are fully vaccinated not participate in routine screening programs when feasible. Finally, if an individual has tested positive for COVID-19, regardless of vaccination status, that person should isolate and not visit public or private settings for a minimum of ten days.1
Updated guidance for health care facilities
In addition to changes for the general public in all settings, the CDC updated guidance for health care facilities on April 27, 2021. These updated guidelines allow for communal dining and visitation for fully vaccinated patients and their visitors. The guidelines indicate that fully vaccinated health care personnel (HCP) do not require quarantine after exposure to patients who have tested positive for COVID-19 as long as the HCP remains asymptomatic. They should, however, continue to utilize personal protective equipment as previously recommended. HCPs are able to be in break and meeting rooms unmasked if all HCPs are vaccinated.2
There are some important caveats to these updated guidelines. They do not apply to those who have immunocompromising conditions, including those using immunosuppressant agents. They also do not apply to locations subject to federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial laws, rules, and regulations, including local business and workplace guidance.
Those who work or reside in correction or detention facilities and homeless shelters are also still required to test after known exposures. Masking is still required by all travelers on all forms of public transportation into and within the United States.
Most importantly, the guidelines apply only to those who are fully vaccinated. Finally, no vaccine is perfect. As such, anyone who experiences symptoms indicative of COVID-19, regardless of vaccination status, should obtain viral testing and isolate themselves from others.1,2
Pros and cons to new guidance
Both sets of updated guidelines are a great example of public health guidance that is changing as the evidence is gathered and changes. This guidance is also a welcome encouragement that the vaccines are effective at decreasing transmission of this virus that has upended our world.
These guidelines leave room for change as evidence is gathered on emerging novel variants. There are, however, a few remaining concerns.
My first concern is for those who are not yet able to be vaccinated, including children under the age of 12. For families with members who are not fully vaccinated, they may have first heard the headlines of “you do not have to mask” to then read the fine print that remains. When truly following these guidelines, many social situations in both the public and private setting should still include both masking and social distancing.
There is no clarity on how these guidelines are enforced. Within the guidance, it is clear that individuals’ privacy is of utmost importance. In the absence of knowledge, that means that the assumption should be that all are not yet vaccinated. Unless there is a way to reliably demonstrate vaccination status, it would likely still be safer to assume that there are individuals who are not fully vaccinated within the setting.
Finally, although this is great news surrounding the efficacy of the vaccine, some are concerned that local mask mandates that have already started to be lifted will be completely removed. As there is still a large portion of the population not yet fully vaccinated, it seems premature for local, state, and territorial authorities to lift these mandates.
How to continue exercising caution
With the outstanding concerns, I will continue to mask in settings, particularly indoors, where I do not definitely know that everyone is vaccinated. I will continue to do this to protect my children and my patients who are not yet vaccinated, and my patients who are immunosuppressed for whom we do not yet have enough information.
I will continue to advise my patients to be thoughtful about the risk for themselves and their families as well.
There has been more benefit to these public health measures then just decreased transmission of COVID-19. I hope that this year has reinforced within us the benefits of masking and self-isolation in the cases of any contagious illnesses.
Although I am looking forward to the opportunities to interact in person with more colleagues and friends, I think we should continue to do this with caution and thoughtfulness. We must be prepared for the possibility of vaccines having decreased efficacy against novel variants as well as eventually the possibility of waning immunity. If these should occur, we need to be prepared for additional recommendation changes and tightening of restrictions.
Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago. She is program director of Northwestern’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program at Humboldt Park, Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at [email protected].
References
1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim Public Health Recommendations for Fully Vaccinated People. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, May 13, 2021.
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated Healthcare Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations in Response to COVID-19 Vaccination. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, April 27, 2021.
COVID-19 in children: Weekly cases drop to 6-month low
Just 1 week after it looked like the COVID-19 situation in children might be taking another turn for the worse, the number of new pediatric cases dropped to its lowest level since October, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report. During the week of April 30 to May 6 – the same week Rhode Island reported a large backlog of cases and increased its total by 30% – the number of new cases went up slightly after 2 weeks of declines.
Other positive indicators come in the form of the proportion of cases occurring in children. The cumulative percentage of cases in children since the start of the pandemic remained at 14.0% for a second consecutive week, and the proportion of new cases in children held at 24.0% and did not increase for the first time in 6 weeks, based on data from 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.
The total number of child COVID-19 cases reported in these jurisdictions is now up to 3.9 million, for a cumulative rate of 5,187 cases per 100,000 children in the United States. Among the states, total counts range from a low of 4,070 in Hawaii to 475,619 in California. Hawaii also has the lowest rate at 1,357 per 100,000 children, while the highest, 9,778 per 100,000, can be found in Rhode Island, the AAP and CHA said.
Deaths in children continue to accumulate at a relatively slow pace, with two more added during the week of May 7-13, bringing the total to 308 for the entire pandemic in 43 states, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam. Children’s share of the mortality burden is currently 0.06%, a figure that has not changed since mid-December, and the death rate for children with COVID-19 is 0.01%, according to the report.
Almost two-thirds (65%) of all deaths have occurred in just nine states – Arizona (31), California (21), Colorado (13), Georgia (10), Illinois (18), Maryland (10), Pennsylvania (10), Tennessee (10), and Texas (52) – and New York City (24), while eight states have not reported any deaths yet, the two groups said.
Just 1 week after it looked like the COVID-19 situation in children might be taking another turn for the worse, the number of new pediatric cases dropped to its lowest level since October, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report. During the week of April 30 to May 6 – the same week Rhode Island reported a large backlog of cases and increased its total by 30% – the number of new cases went up slightly after 2 weeks of declines.
Other positive indicators come in the form of the proportion of cases occurring in children. The cumulative percentage of cases in children since the start of the pandemic remained at 14.0% for a second consecutive week, and the proportion of new cases in children held at 24.0% and did not increase for the first time in 6 weeks, based on data from 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.
The total number of child COVID-19 cases reported in these jurisdictions is now up to 3.9 million, for a cumulative rate of 5,187 cases per 100,000 children in the United States. Among the states, total counts range from a low of 4,070 in Hawaii to 475,619 in California. Hawaii also has the lowest rate at 1,357 per 100,000 children, while the highest, 9,778 per 100,000, can be found in Rhode Island, the AAP and CHA said.
Deaths in children continue to accumulate at a relatively slow pace, with two more added during the week of May 7-13, bringing the total to 308 for the entire pandemic in 43 states, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam. Children’s share of the mortality burden is currently 0.06%, a figure that has not changed since mid-December, and the death rate for children with COVID-19 is 0.01%, according to the report.
Almost two-thirds (65%) of all deaths have occurred in just nine states – Arizona (31), California (21), Colorado (13), Georgia (10), Illinois (18), Maryland (10), Pennsylvania (10), Tennessee (10), and Texas (52) – and New York City (24), while eight states have not reported any deaths yet, the two groups said.
Just 1 week after it looked like the COVID-19 situation in children might be taking another turn for the worse, the number of new pediatric cases dropped to its lowest level since October, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report. During the week of April 30 to May 6 – the same week Rhode Island reported a large backlog of cases and increased its total by 30% – the number of new cases went up slightly after 2 weeks of declines.
Other positive indicators come in the form of the proportion of cases occurring in children. The cumulative percentage of cases in children since the start of the pandemic remained at 14.0% for a second consecutive week, and the proportion of new cases in children held at 24.0% and did not increase for the first time in 6 weeks, based on data from 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.
The total number of child COVID-19 cases reported in these jurisdictions is now up to 3.9 million, for a cumulative rate of 5,187 cases per 100,000 children in the United States. Among the states, total counts range from a low of 4,070 in Hawaii to 475,619 in California. Hawaii also has the lowest rate at 1,357 per 100,000 children, while the highest, 9,778 per 100,000, can be found in Rhode Island, the AAP and CHA said.
Deaths in children continue to accumulate at a relatively slow pace, with two more added during the week of May 7-13, bringing the total to 308 for the entire pandemic in 43 states, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam. Children’s share of the mortality burden is currently 0.06%, a figure that has not changed since mid-December, and the death rate for children with COVID-19 is 0.01%, according to the report.
Almost two-thirds (65%) of all deaths have occurred in just nine states – Arizona (31), California (21), Colorado (13), Georgia (10), Illinois (18), Maryland (10), Pennsylvania (10), Tennessee (10), and Texas (52) – and New York City (24), while eight states have not reported any deaths yet, the two groups said.
Dr. Fauci: Extraordinary challenges, scientific triumphs with COVID-19
“Vaccines have been the bright light of this extraordinary challenge that we’ve gone through,” said Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
In an address for the opening ceremony of the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference, Dr. Fauci emphasized the role of basic and clinical research and government support for science in helping turn the tide of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“A few weeks ago, I wrote an editorial in Science, because there was some misunderstanding about how and why we were able to go from a realization of a new pathogen in January of 2020, to getting doses of vaccines in the arms of individuals – a highly efficacious vaccine – 11 months later. Truly, an unprecedented accomplishment,” he said.
“But as I said in the editorial, the speed and efficiency with which these highly efficacious vaccines were developed, and their potential for saving millions of lives, are due to an extraordinary multidisciplinary effort, involving basic, preclinical, and clinical science that had been underway – out of the spotlight – for decades and decades before the unfolding of the COVID-19 pandemic, a fact that very few people really appreciate: namely, the importance of investment in biomedical research.”
The general addresses the troops
Perhaps no other audience is so well suited to receive Dr. Fauci’s speech as those who are currently attending (virtually) the ATS conference, including researchers who scrutinize the virus from every angle to describe its workings and identify its vulnerabilities, epidemiologists who study viral transmission and look for ways to thwart it, public health workers who fan out to communities across the country to push vaccine acceptance, and clinicians who specialize in critical care and pulmonary medicine, many of whom staff the respiratory floors and intensive care units where the most severely ill patients are treated.
Speaking about the lessons learned and challenges remaining from the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fauci briefly reviewed the epidemiology, virology and transmission, diagnostics, and clinical course of SARS-CoV-2 infections and the therapeutics and vaccines for COVID-19.
Epidemiology
The pandemic began in December 2019 with recognition of a novel type of pneumonia in the Wuhan District of Central China, Dr. Fauci noted.
“Very quickly thereafter, in the first week of January 2020, the Chinese identified a new strain of coronavirus as [the] source of the outbreak. Fast forward to where we are right now: We have experienced and are experiencing the most devastating pandemic of a respiratory illness in the last 102 years, with already approximately 160 million individuals having been infected – and this is clearly a gross undercounting – and also 3.3 million deaths, again, very likely an undercounting,” he said.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as of May 9, 2021, there were approximately 32.5 million cases of COVID-19 and 578,520 deaths in the United States. Those cases and deaths occurred largely in three surges in the United States, in early spring, early summer, and late fall of 2020.
Virology and transmission
SARS-CoV-2 is a beta-coronavirus in the same subgenus as SARS-CoV-1 and some bat coronaviruses, Dr. Fauci explained. The viral genome is large, about 30,000 kilobases, and it has four structural proteins, most importantly the S or “spike” protein that allows the virus to attach to and fuse with cell membranes by binding to the ACE2 receptor on tissues in the upper and lower respiratory tract, gastrointestinal tract, cardiovascular system, and other organ systems.
The virus is transmitted mainly through exposure to respiratory droplets within 6 feet of an infected person, or sometimes through droplets or particles that remain in the air over time and various distances.
Contact with contaminated surfaces, once feared as a means of transmission, is now understood to be less common.
The virus has been detected in stool, blood, semen, and ocular secretions, although the role of transmission through these sources is still unknown.
“Some very interesting characteristics of this virus, really quite unique compared to other viruses, certainly other respiratory viruses, is [that] about a third to 40% of people who are infected never develop any symptoms,” Dr. Fauci said. “Importantly, and very problematic to what we do to contain it – particularly with regard to identification, isolation, and contract tracing – between 50% and 60% of the transmissions occur either from someone who will never develop symptoms, or someone in the presymptomatic phase of disease.”
The fundamentals of preventing acquisition and transmission are as familiar to most Americans now as the Pledge of Allegiance: universal mask wearing, physical distancing, avoiding crowds and congregate settings, preference for outdoor over indoor settings, and frequent hand washing, he noted.
Diagnostics
Tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection fall into three basic categories: molecular tests such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) that are highly specific and highly sensitive for actual infections, antigen tests that detect the viral protein rather than the nucleic acids, and antibody tests to detect serum proteins made in response to viral infection.
Antigen testing is used largely for broader surveillance of groups of individuals to detect viral penetrance within that group, Dr. Fauci noted.
Clinical course
The clinical course of COVID-19 has some interesting characteristics but is not substantially different from a flu-like syndrome, Dr. Fauci said.
Symptoms and signs common to both types of infections include fever, cough, fatigue, anorexia, dyspnea, and myalgias, but the loss of smell and/or taste preceding the onset of respiratory symptoms is a unique feature of COVID-19.
Dr. Fauci cited data on more than 44,000 individuals with confirmed COVID-19 in China that showed that a large majority (81%) of cases were mild or moderate in nature, but 14% of patients experienced severe disease, and 5% were critically ill. The case-fatality rate in this study was 2.3%.
People at increased risk for severe disease include older adults and those of any age with certain comorbidities.
Manifestations of severe COVID-19 infections in adults can include neurological disorders, hyperinflammation, acute respiratory distress syndrome, cardiac dysfunction, hypercoagulability, and acute kidney injury.
In children, COVID-19 has been associated with a multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) similar to Kawasaki disease.
In a substantial number of cases, the effects of COVID-19 can linger for 6 months or longer, Dr. Fauci said, pointing to a study from the University of Washington in Seattle.
Investigators there found that approximately 30% of patients enrolled at their center reported persistent symptoms for as long as 9 months after the initial illness, with fatigue as the most commonly reported symptom. One-third of outpatients with mild disease also reported persistent symptoms.
Therapeutics
Therapeutics that are either approved by the Food and Drug Administration, have emergency use authorization, or are in clinical trials for early or moderate disease include remdesivir (Veklury, Gilead Sciences), monoclonal antibodies, convalescent plasma, antiviral agents, hyperimmune globulin, anticoagulants, and immunomodulators.
Options for moderate to severe to advanced disease include dexamethasone, baricitinib (Olumiant, Eli Lilly and Company) plus remdesivir, and immunomodulators such as infliximab (Remicade, Janssen Biotech), and biosimilars.
Vaccines
Finally, Dr. Fauci reviewed the current state of vaccines, including the three with emergency use authorization from the FDA as of this writing: two nucleic acid, messenger RNA-based (mRNA) vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech, and an adenoviral vector-based vaccine from Johnson & Johnson.
Other vaccines in development or in use elsewhere in the world include recombinant protein and adjuvant approaches by GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi (in a phase 2 clinical trial launched in February 2021) and by Novavax.
The three vaccines in use in the United States were highly efficacious in both clinical trials, with efficacy of about 95% for the mRNA vaccines and 67% for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
The real-world performance of these vaccines has been even more impressive, however.
For example, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine had 72% efficacy at preventing moderate to severe COVID 19 in the United States, 68% in Brazil, and 64% in South Africa, and 85% efficacy against severe disease across all regions studied, Dr. Fauci said.
He cited a study of 22,234 employees of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas who were vaccinated under a program started on Dec. 15, 2020. The COVID-19 infection rate among these vaccinated employees was 0.05%.
Dr. Fauci recounted the experience in Israel, where the highly transmissible B.1.1.7 strain of SARS-CoV-2 is predominant. A chart of the progress shows clearly that as the vaccine doses delivered steadily increased, the number of COVID-19 cases began a precipitous decline.
Horse race
Fittingly for a speech presented on the day that the Preakness Stakes – the second leg in thoroughbred racing’s Triple Crown – was run, Dr. Fauci closed with a cartoon showing two racehorses, labeled “SARS-CoV-2” and “Vaccines,” nearly neck-and-neck, but with vaccines having a slight lead.
“We are in a race against the virus. The vaccines, and the virus: If we vaccinate the overwhelming proportion of our population, we will without a doubt be able to crush the outbreak in the same way as we have done with other viral-borne diseases like measles, smallpox, and polio.
“So, the message is: Get vaccinated,” he concluded.
“Vaccines have been the bright light of this extraordinary challenge that we’ve gone through,” said Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
In an address for the opening ceremony of the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference, Dr. Fauci emphasized the role of basic and clinical research and government support for science in helping turn the tide of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“A few weeks ago, I wrote an editorial in Science, because there was some misunderstanding about how and why we were able to go from a realization of a new pathogen in January of 2020, to getting doses of vaccines in the arms of individuals – a highly efficacious vaccine – 11 months later. Truly, an unprecedented accomplishment,” he said.
“But as I said in the editorial, the speed and efficiency with which these highly efficacious vaccines were developed, and their potential for saving millions of lives, are due to an extraordinary multidisciplinary effort, involving basic, preclinical, and clinical science that had been underway – out of the spotlight – for decades and decades before the unfolding of the COVID-19 pandemic, a fact that very few people really appreciate: namely, the importance of investment in biomedical research.”
The general addresses the troops
Perhaps no other audience is so well suited to receive Dr. Fauci’s speech as those who are currently attending (virtually) the ATS conference, including researchers who scrutinize the virus from every angle to describe its workings and identify its vulnerabilities, epidemiologists who study viral transmission and look for ways to thwart it, public health workers who fan out to communities across the country to push vaccine acceptance, and clinicians who specialize in critical care and pulmonary medicine, many of whom staff the respiratory floors and intensive care units where the most severely ill patients are treated.
Speaking about the lessons learned and challenges remaining from the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fauci briefly reviewed the epidemiology, virology and transmission, diagnostics, and clinical course of SARS-CoV-2 infections and the therapeutics and vaccines for COVID-19.
Epidemiology
The pandemic began in December 2019 with recognition of a novel type of pneumonia in the Wuhan District of Central China, Dr. Fauci noted.
“Very quickly thereafter, in the first week of January 2020, the Chinese identified a new strain of coronavirus as [the] source of the outbreak. Fast forward to where we are right now: We have experienced and are experiencing the most devastating pandemic of a respiratory illness in the last 102 years, with already approximately 160 million individuals having been infected – and this is clearly a gross undercounting – and also 3.3 million deaths, again, very likely an undercounting,” he said.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as of May 9, 2021, there were approximately 32.5 million cases of COVID-19 and 578,520 deaths in the United States. Those cases and deaths occurred largely in three surges in the United States, in early spring, early summer, and late fall of 2020.
Virology and transmission
SARS-CoV-2 is a beta-coronavirus in the same subgenus as SARS-CoV-1 and some bat coronaviruses, Dr. Fauci explained. The viral genome is large, about 30,000 kilobases, and it has four structural proteins, most importantly the S or “spike” protein that allows the virus to attach to and fuse with cell membranes by binding to the ACE2 receptor on tissues in the upper and lower respiratory tract, gastrointestinal tract, cardiovascular system, and other organ systems.
The virus is transmitted mainly through exposure to respiratory droplets within 6 feet of an infected person, or sometimes through droplets or particles that remain in the air over time and various distances.
Contact with contaminated surfaces, once feared as a means of transmission, is now understood to be less common.
The virus has been detected in stool, blood, semen, and ocular secretions, although the role of transmission through these sources is still unknown.
“Some very interesting characteristics of this virus, really quite unique compared to other viruses, certainly other respiratory viruses, is [that] about a third to 40% of people who are infected never develop any symptoms,” Dr. Fauci said. “Importantly, and very problematic to what we do to contain it – particularly with regard to identification, isolation, and contract tracing – between 50% and 60% of the transmissions occur either from someone who will never develop symptoms, or someone in the presymptomatic phase of disease.”
The fundamentals of preventing acquisition and transmission are as familiar to most Americans now as the Pledge of Allegiance: universal mask wearing, physical distancing, avoiding crowds and congregate settings, preference for outdoor over indoor settings, and frequent hand washing, he noted.
Diagnostics
Tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection fall into three basic categories: molecular tests such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) that are highly specific and highly sensitive for actual infections, antigen tests that detect the viral protein rather than the nucleic acids, and antibody tests to detect serum proteins made in response to viral infection.
Antigen testing is used largely for broader surveillance of groups of individuals to detect viral penetrance within that group, Dr. Fauci noted.
Clinical course
The clinical course of COVID-19 has some interesting characteristics but is not substantially different from a flu-like syndrome, Dr. Fauci said.
Symptoms and signs common to both types of infections include fever, cough, fatigue, anorexia, dyspnea, and myalgias, but the loss of smell and/or taste preceding the onset of respiratory symptoms is a unique feature of COVID-19.
Dr. Fauci cited data on more than 44,000 individuals with confirmed COVID-19 in China that showed that a large majority (81%) of cases were mild or moderate in nature, but 14% of patients experienced severe disease, and 5% were critically ill. The case-fatality rate in this study was 2.3%.
People at increased risk for severe disease include older adults and those of any age with certain comorbidities.
Manifestations of severe COVID-19 infections in adults can include neurological disorders, hyperinflammation, acute respiratory distress syndrome, cardiac dysfunction, hypercoagulability, and acute kidney injury.
In children, COVID-19 has been associated with a multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) similar to Kawasaki disease.
In a substantial number of cases, the effects of COVID-19 can linger for 6 months or longer, Dr. Fauci said, pointing to a study from the University of Washington in Seattle.
Investigators there found that approximately 30% of patients enrolled at their center reported persistent symptoms for as long as 9 months after the initial illness, with fatigue as the most commonly reported symptom. One-third of outpatients with mild disease also reported persistent symptoms.
Therapeutics
Therapeutics that are either approved by the Food and Drug Administration, have emergency use authorization, or are in clinical trials for early or moderate disease include remdesivir (Veklury, Gilead Sciences), monoclonal antibodies, convalescent plasma, antiviral agents, hyperimmune globulin, anticoagulants, and immunomodulators.
Options for moderate to severe to advanced disease include dexamethasone, baricitinib (Olumiant, Eli Lilly and Company) plus remdesivir, and immunomodulators such as infliximab (Remicade, Janssen Biotech), and biosimilars.
Vaccines
Finally, Dr. Fauci reviewed the current state of vaccines, including the three with emergency use authorization from the FDA as of this writing: two nucleic acid, messenger RNA-based (mRNA) vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech, and an adenoviral vector-based vaccine from Johnson & Johnson.
Other vaccines in development or in use elsewhere in the world include recombinant protein and adjuvant approaches by GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi (in a phase 2 clinical trial launched in February 2021) and by Novavax.
The three vaccines in use in the United States were highly efficacious in both clinical trials, with efficacy of about 95% for the mRNA vaccines and 67% for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
The real-world performance of these vaccines has been even more impressive, however.
For example, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine had 72% efficacy at preventing moderate to severe COVID 19 in the United States, 68% in Brazil, and 64% in South Africa, and 85% efficacy against severe disease across all regions studied, Dr. Fauci said.
He cited a study of 22,234 employees of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas who were vaccinated under a program started on Dec. 15, 2020. The COVID-19 infection rate among these vaccinated employees was 0.05%.
Dr. Fauci recounted the experience in Israel, where the highly transmissible B.1.1.7 strain of SARS-CoV-2 is predominant. A chart of the progress shows clearly that as the vaccine doses delivered steadily increased, the number of COVID-19 cases began a precipitous decline.
Horse race
Fittingly for a speech presented on the day that the Preakness Stakes – the second leg in thoroughbred racing’s Triple Crown – was run, Dr. Fauci closed with a cartoon showing two racehorses, labeled “SARS-CoV-2” and “Vaccines,” nearly neck-and-neck, but with vaccines having a slight lead.
“We are in a race against the virus. The vaccines, and the virus: If we vaccinate the overwhelming proportion of our population, we will without a doubt be able to crush the outbreak in the same way as we have done with other viral-borne diseases like measles, smallpox, and polio.
“So, the message is: Get vaccinated,” he concluded.
“Vaccines have been the bright light of this extraordinary challenge that we’ve gone through,” said Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
In an address for the opening ceremony of the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference, Dr. Fauci emphasized the role of basic and clinical research and government support for science in helping turn the tide of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“A few weeks ago, I wrote an editorial in Science, because there was some misunderstanding about how and why we were able to go from a realization of a new pathogen in January of 2020, to getting doses of vaccines in the arms of individuals – a highly efficacious vaccine – 11 months later. Truly, an unprecedented accomplishment,” he said.
“But as I said in the editorial, the speed and efficiency with which these highly efficacious vaccines were developed, and their potential for saving millions of lives, are due to an extraordinary multidisciplinary effort, involving basic, preclinical, and clinical science that had been underway – out of the spotlight – for decades and decades before the unfolding of the COVID-19 pandemic, a fact that very few people really appreciate: namely, the importance of investment in biomedical research.”
The general addresses the troops
Perhaps no other audience is so well suited to receive Dr. Fauci’s speech as those who are currently attending (virtually) the ATS conference, including researchers who scrutinize the virus from every angle to describe its workings and identify its vulnerabilities, epidemiologists who study viral transmission and look for ways to thwart it, public health workers who fan out to communities across the country to push vaccine acceptance, and clinicians who specialize in critical care and pulmonary medicine, many of whom staff the respiratory floors and intensive care units where the most severely ill patients are treated.
Speaking about the lessons learned and challenges remaining from the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fauci briefly reviewed the epidemiology, virology and transmission, diagnostics, and clinical course of SARS-CoV-2 infections and the therapeutics and vaccines for COVID-19.
Epidemiology
The pandemic began in December 2019 with recognition of a novel type of pneumonia in the Wuhan District of Central China, Dr. Fauci noted.
“Very quickly thereafter, in the first week of January 2020, the Chinese identified a new strain of coronavirus as [the] source of the outbreak. Fast forward to where we are right now: We have experienced and are experiencing the most devastating pandemic of a respiratory illness in the last 102 years, with already approximately 160 million individuals having been infected – and this is clearly a gross undercounting – and also 3.3 million deaths, again, very likely an undercounting,” he said.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as of May 9, 2021, there were approximately 32.5 million cases of COVID-19 and 578,520 deaths in the United States. Those cases and deaths occurred largely in three surges in the United States, in early spring, early summer, and late fall of 2020.
Virology and transmission
SARS-CoV-2 is a beta-coronavirus in the same subgenus as SARS-CoV-1 and some bat coronaviruses, Dr. Fauci explained. The viral genome is large, about 30,000 kilobases, and it has four structural proteins, most importantly the S or “spike” protein that allows the virus to attach to and fuse with cell membranes by binding to the ACE2 receptor on tissues in the upper and lower respiratory tract, gastrointestinal tract, cardiovascular system, and other organ systems.
The virus is transmitted mainly through exposure to respiratory droplets within 6 feet of an infected person, or sometimes through droplets or particles that remain in the air over time and various distances.
Contact with contaminated surfaces, once feared as a means of transmission, is now understood to be less common.
The virus has been detected in stool, blood, semen, and ocular secretions, although the role of transmission through these sources is still unknown.
“Some very interesting characteristics of this virus, really quite unique compared to other viruses, certainly other respiratory viruses, is [that] about a third to 40% of people who are infected never develop any symptoms,” Dr. Fauci said. “Importantly, and very problematic to what we do to contain it – particularly with regard to identification, isolation, and contract tracing – between 50% and 60% of the transmissions occur either from someone who will never develop symptoms, or someone in the presymptomatic phase of disease.”
The fundamentals of preventing acquisition and transmission are as familiar to most Americans now as the Pledge of Allegiance: universal mask wearing, physical distancing, avoiding crowds and congregate settings, preference for outdoor over indoor settings, and frequent hand washing, he noted.
Diagnostics
Tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection fall into three basic categories: molecular tests such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) that are highly specific and highly sensitive for actual infections, antigen tests that detect the viral protein rather than the nucleic acids, and antibody tests to detect serum proteins made in response to viral infection.
Antigen testing is used largely for broader surveillance of groups of individuals to detect viral penetrance within that group, Dr. Fauci noted.
Clinical course
The clinical course of COVID-19 has some interesting characteristics but is not substantially different from a flu-like syndrome, Dr. Fauci said.
Symptoms and signs common to both types of infections include fever, cough, fatigue, anorexia, dyspnea, and myalgias, but the loss of smell and/or taste preceding the onset of respiratory symptoms is a unique feature of COVID-19.
Dr. Fauci cited data on more than 44,000 individuals with confirmed COVID-19 in China that showed that a large majority (81%) of cases were mild or moderate in nature, but 14% of patients experienced severe disease, and 5% were critically ill. The case-fatality rate in this study was 2.3%.
People at increased risk for severe disease include older adults and those of any age with certain comorbidities.
Manifestations of severe COVID-19 infections in adults can include neurological disorders, hyperinflammation, acute respiratory distress syndrome, cardiac dysfunction, hypercoagulability, and acute kidney injury.
In children, COVID-19 has been associated with a multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) similar to Kawasaki disease.
In a substantial number of cases, the effects of COVID-19 can linger for 6 months or longer, Dr. Fauci said, pointing to a study from the University of Washington in Seattle.
Investigators there found that approximately 30% of patients enrolled at their center reported persistent symptoms for as long as 9 months after the initial illness, with fatigue as the most commonly reported symptom. One-third of outpatients with mild disease also reported persistent symptoms.
Therapeutics
Therapeutics that are either approved by the Food and Drug Administration, have emergency use authorization, or are in clinical trials for early or moderate disease include remdesivir (Veklury, Gilead Sciences), monoclonal antibodies, convalescent plasma, antiviral agents, hyperimmune globulin, anticoagulants, and immunomodulators.
Options for moderate to severe to advanced disease include dexamethasone, baricitinib (Olumiant, Eli Lilly and Company) plus remdesivir, and immunomodulators such as infliximab (Remicade, Janssen Biotech), and biosimilars.
Vaccines
Finally, Dr. Fauci reviewed the current state of vaccines, including the three with emergency use authorization from the FDA as of this writing: two nucleic acid, messenger RNA-based (mRNA) vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech, and an adenoviral vector-based vaccine from Johnson & Johnson.
Other vaccines in development or in use elsewhere in the world include recombinant protein and adjuvant approaches by GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi (in a phase 2 clinical trial launched in February 2021) and by Novavax.
The three vaccines in use in the United States were highly efficacious in both clinical trials, with efficacy of about 95% for the mRNA vaccines and 67% for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
The real-world performance of these vaccines has been even more impressive, however.
For example, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine had 72% efficacy at preventing moderate to severe COVID 19 in the United States, 68% in Brazil, and 64% in South Africa, and 85% efficacy against severe disease across all regions studied, Dr. Fauci said.
He cited a study of 22,234 employees of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas who were vaccinated under a program started on Dec. 15, 2020. The COVID-19 infection rate among these vaccinated employees was 0.05%.
Dr. Fauci recounted the experience in Israel, where the highly transmissible B.1.1.7 strain of SARS-CoV-2 is predominant. A chart of the progress shows clearly that as the vaccine doses delivered steadily increased, the number of COVID-19 cases began a precipitous decline.
Horse race
Fittingly for a speech presented on the day that the Preakness Stakes – the second leg in thoroughbred racing’s Triple Crown – was run, Dr. Fauci closed with a cartoon showing two racehorses, labeled “SARS-CoV-2” and “Vaccines,” nearly neck-and-neck, but with vaccines having a slight lead.
“We are in a race against the virus. The vaccines, and the virus: If we vaccinate the overwhelming proportion of our population, we will without a doubt be able to crush the outbreak in the same way as we have done with other viral-borne diseases like measles, smallpox, and polio.
“So, the message is: Get vaccinated,” he concluded.
Internists’ patient visits rebound to near pre-COVID norms: Pay down slightly from previous year
Internists are seeing only 3% fewer patients than they did before the COVID-19 pandemic (72 per week on average now vs. 74 before the pandemic). Comparatively, for pediatricians, patient volume remains down 18%. Dermatologists, otolaryngologists, and orthopedists report that visits are down by about 15%.
The number of hours worked also rebounded for internists. In fact, some report working slightly more hours now than they did before the pandemic (52 hours a week, up from 50).
Pay for internists continues to hover near the bottom of the scale among specialties. In this year’s Medscape Internist Compensation Report 2021, internists averaged $248,000, down from $251,000 last year. Pediatricians were the lowest paid, at $221,000, followed by family physicians, at $236,000. Plastic surgeons made the most, at $526,000, followed by orthopedists, at $511,000.
It helped to be self-employed. These internists made $276,000 on average, compared with $238,000 for their employed counterparts.
Half say pay is fair
Internists are also near the bottom among specialists who feel they are fairly compensated. As in last year’s survey, just more than half of internists (52%) said they felt that they were fairly paid this year. By comparison, 79% of oncologists reported they were fairly compensated, which is on the high end regarding satisfaction, but only 44% of infectious diseases specialists felt that way.
Some indicators in the survey responses may help explain the dissatisfaction.
Internists are near the top in time spent on paperwork. On average, they spent 19.7 hours on paperwork and administration this year, up slightly from 18.5 last year. Infectious disease physicians spent the most time on those tasks (24.2 hours a week), and anesthesiologists spent the fewest, at 10.1 hours per week.
Administrative work was among many frustrations internists reported. The following are the top five most challenging aspects of the job, according to the respondents:
- Having so many rules and regulations (24%)
- Having to work long hours (16%)
- Dealing with difficult patients (16%)
- Working with electronic health records systems (11%)
- Danger/risk associated with treating COVID-19 patients (10%)
Conversely, the most rewarding aspects were “gratitude/relationships with patients” (31%); “knowing that I’m making the world a better place” (26%); and “being very good at what I do” (20%).
More than one-third lost income
More than one-third of internists (36%) reported that they lost some income during the past year.
Among those who lost income, 81% said they expect income to return to prepandemic levels within 3 years. Half of that group expected the rebound would come within the next year.
Slightly more than one-third of internists said they would participate in the merit-based incentive payment system (MIPS), and 12% said they would participate in advanced alternative payment models. The rest either said they would participate in neither, or they hadn’t decided.
“The stakes for the Quality Payment Program – the program that incorporates MIPS – are high, with a 9% penalty applied to all Medicare reimbursement for failure to participate,” says Elizabeth Woodcock, MBA, CPC, president of the physician practice consulting firm Woodcock and Associates, in Atlanta, Georgia.
“With margins already slim,” she told this news organization, “most physicians can’t afford this massive penalty.”
If they could choose again, most internists (76%) said they would choose medicine, which was almost the same number as physicians overall who would pick medicine again. Oncologists (88%) and ophthalmologists (87%) were the specialists most likely to choose medicine again. Those in physical medicine and rehabilitation were least likely to choose medicine again, at 67%.
But asked about their specialty, internists’ enthusiasm decreased. Only 68% said that they would make that same choice again.
That was up considerably, however, from the 2015 survey: For that year, only 25% said they would choose internal medicine again.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Internists are seeing only 3% fewer patients than they did before the COVID-19 pandemic (72 per week on average now vs. 74 before the pandemic). Comparatively, for pediatricians, patient volume remains down 18%. Dermatologists, otolaryngologists, and orthopedists report that visits are down by about 15%.
The number of hours worked also rebounded for internists. In fact, some report working slightly more hours now than they did before the pandemic (52 hours a week, up from 50).
Pay for internists continues to hover near the bottom of the scale among specialties. In this year’s Medscape Internist Compensation Report 2021, internists averaged $248,000, down from $251,000 last year. Pediatricians were the lowest paid, at $221,000, followed by family physicians, at $236,000. Plastic surgeons made the most, at $526,000, followed by orthopedists, at $511,000.
It helped to be self-employed. These internists made $276,000 on average, compared with $238,000 for their employed counterparts.
Half say pay is fair
Internists are also near the bottom among specialists who feel they are fairly compensated. As in last year’s survey, just more than half of internists (52%) said they felt that they were fairly paid this year. By comparison, 79% of oncologists reported they were fairly compensated, which is on the high end regarding satisfaction, but only 44% of infectious diseases specialists felt that way.
Some indicators in the survey responses may help explain the dissatisfaction.
Internists are near the top in time spent on paperwork. On average, they spent 19.7 hours on paperwork and administration this year, up slightly from 18.5 last year. Infectious disease physicians spent the most time on those tasks (24.2 hours a week), and anesthesiologists spent the fewest, at 10.1 hours per week.
Administrative work was among many frustrations internists reported. The following are the top five most challenging aspects of the job, according to the respondents:
- Having so many rules and regulations (24%)
- Having to work long hours (16%)
- Dealing with difficult patients (16%)
- Working with electronic health records systems (11%)
- Danger/risk associated with treating COVID-19 patients (10%)
Conversely, the most rewarding aspects were “gratitude/relationships with patients” (31%); “knowing that I’m making the world a better place” (26%); and “being very good at what I do” (20%).
More than one-third lost income
More than one-third of internists (36%) reported that they lost some income during the past year.
Among those who lost income, 81% said they expect income to return to prepandemic levels within 3 years. Half of that group expected the rebound would come within the next year.
Slightly more than one-third of internists said they would participate in the merit-based incentive payment system (MIPS), and 12% said they would participate in advanced alternative payment models. The rest either said they would participate in neither, or they hadn’t decided.
“The stakes for the Quality Payment Program – the program that incorporates MIPS – are high, with a 9% penalty applied to all Medicare reimbursement for failure to participate,” says Elizabeth Woodcock, MBA, CPC, president of the physician practice consulting firm Woodcock and Associates, in Atlanta, Georgia.
“With margins already slim,” she told this news organization, “most physicians can’t afford this massive penalty.”
If they could choose again, most internists (76%) said they would choose medicine, which was almost the same number as physicians overall who would pick medicine again. Oncologists (88%) and ophthalmologists (87%) were the specialists most likely to choose medicine again. Those in physical medicine and rehabilitation were least likely to choose medicine again, at 67%.
But asked about their specialty, internists’ enthusiasm decreased. Only 68% said that they would make that same choice again.
That was up considerably, however, from the 2015 survey: For that year, only 25% said they would choose internal medicine again.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Internists are seeing only 3% fewer patients than they did before the COVID-19 pandemic (72 per week on average now vs. 74 before the pandemic). Comparatively, for pediatricians, patient volume remains down 18%. Dermatologists, otolaryngologists, and orthopedists report that visits are down by about 15%.
The number of hours worked also rebounded for internists. In fact, some report working slightly more hours now than they did before the pandemic (52 hours a week, up from 50).
Pay for internists continues to hover near the bottom of the scale among specialties. In this year’s Medscape Internist Compensation Report 2021, internists averaged $248,000, down from $251,000 last year. Pediatricians were the lowest paid, at $221,000, followed by family physicians, at $236,000. Plastic surgeons made the most, at $526,000, followed by orthopedists, at $511,000.
It helped to be self-employed. These internists made $276,000 on average, compared with $238,000 for their employed counterparts.
Half say pay is fair
Internists are also near the bottom among specialists who feel they are fairly compensated. As in last year’s survey, just more than half of internists (52%) said they felt that they were fairly paid this year. By comparison, 79% of oncologists reported they were fairly compensated, which is on the high end regarding satisfaction, but only 44% of infectious diseases specialists felt that way.
Some indicators in the survey responses may help explain the dissatisfaction.
Internists are near the top in time spent on paperwork. On average, they spent 19.7 hours on paperwork and administration this year, up slightly from 18.5 last year. Infectious disease physicians spent the most time on those tasks (24.2 hours a week), and anesthesiologists spent the fewest, at 10.1 hours per week.
Administrative work was among many frustrations internists reported. The following are the top five most challenging aspects of the job, according to the respondents:
- Having so many rules and regulations (24%)
- Having to work long hours (16%)
- Dealing with difficult patients (16%)
- Working with electronic health records systems (11%)
- Danger/risk associated with treating COVID-19 patients (10%)
Conversely, the most rewarding aspects were “gratitude/relationships with patients” (31%); “knowing that I’m making the world a better place” (26%); and “being very good at what I do” (20%).
More than one-third lost income
More than one-third of internists (36%) reported that they lost some income during the past year.
Among those who lost income, 81% said they expect income to return to prepandemic levels within 3 years. Half of that group expected the rebound would come within the next year.
Slightly more than one-third of internists said they would participate in the merit-based incentive payment system (MIPS), and 12% said they would participate in advanced alternative payment models. The rest either said they would participate in neither, or they hadn’t decided.
“The stakes for the Quality Payment Program – the program that incorporates MIPS – are high, with a 9% penalty applied to all Medicare reimbursement for failure to participate,” says Elizabeth Woodcock, MBA, CPC, president of the physician practice consulting firm Woodcock and Associates, in Atlanta, Georgia.
“With margins already slim,” she told this news organization, “most physicians can’t afford this massive penalty.”
If they could choose again, most internists (76%) said they would choose medicine, which was almost the same number as physicians overall who would pick medicine again. Oncologists (88%) and ophthalmologists (87%) were the specialists most likely to choose medicine again. Those in physical medicine and rehabilitation were least likely to choose medicine again, at 67%.
But asked about their specialty, internists’ enthusiasm decreased. Only 68% said that they would make that same choice again.
That was up considerably, however, from the 2015 survey: For that year, only 25% said they would choose internal medicine again.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Dapagliflozin misses as treatment for COVID-19 but leaves intriguing signal for benefit
In patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection, the sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin showed a trend for benefit relative to placebo on multiple outcomes, including the primary outcome of time to organ failure or death, according to results from the randomized DARE-19 trial.
Because of the failure to reach statistical significance, these results have no immediate relevance, but the trends support interest in further testing SGLT2 inhibitors in acute diseases posing a high risk for organ failure, according to Mikhail Kosiborod, MD.
In a trial that did not meet its primary endpoint, Dr. Kosiborod acknowledged that positive interpretations are speculative, but he does believe that there is one immediate take-home message.
“Our results do not support discontinuation of SGLT2 inhibitors in the setting of COVID-19 as long as patients are monitored,” said Dr. Kosiborod, director of cardiometabolic research at Saint Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo.
At many institutions, it has been common to discontinue SGLT2 inhibitors in patients admitted with COVID-19. One reason was the concern that drugs in this class could exacerbate organ damage, particularly if they were to induced ketoacidosis. However, only 2 (0.003%) of 613 patients treated with dapagliflozin developed ketoacidosis, and the signal for organ protection overall, although not significant, was consistent.
“Numerically, fewer patients treated with dapagliflozin experienced organ failure and death, and this was consistent across systems, including the kidney,” Dr. Kosiborod said in presenting the study at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
Overall, the study suggests that, in the context of COVID-19, dapagliflozin did not show harm and might have potential benefit, he added.
DARE-19 was rapidly conceived, designed, and implemented during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on prior evidence that SGLT2 inhibitors “favorably affect a number of pathophysiologic pathways disrupted during acute illness” and that drugs in this class have provided organ protection in the context of heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and other cardiometabolic conditions, the study was designed to test the hypothesis that this mechanism might improve outcomes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, Dr. Kosiborod said.
The entry criteria included confirmed or suspected COVID-19 with an onset of 4 days of fewer and one additional risk factor, such as atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, hypertension, or type 2 diabetes. Patients with significant renal impairment or a history of diabetic ketoacidosis were excluded.
On top of standard treatments for COVID-19, patients were randomized to 10 mg dapagliflozin or placebo once daily. There were two primary endpoints. That of prevention was time to criteria for respiratory, cardiovascular, or renal organ failure or death. The second primary outcome, for recovery, was a hierarchical composite for four endpoints: death, organ failure, status at 30 days if hospitalized, and time to discharge if this occurred before day 30.
Of the 1,250 patients randomized at 95 sites in seven countries, 617 in the dapagliflozin group and 620 patients in the placebo group completed the study. Baseline characteristics, which included a mean of age of 62 years; types of comorbidities; and types of treatments were similar.
Results for two primary endpoints
The curves for the primary outcome of prevention had already separated by day 3 and continued to widen over the 30 days in which outcomes were compared. At the end of 30 days, 11.2% of the dapagliflozin group and 13.8% of the placebo group had an event. By hazard ratio, dapagliflozin was linked to 20% nonsignificant relative protection from events (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.10).
The trend (P = .168) for the primary endpoint for prevention was reflected in the individual components. For dapagliflozin related to placebo, there were generally similar or greater reductions in new or worsening organ failure (HR, 0.80), cardiac decompensation (HR, 0.81), respiratory decompensation (HR, 0.85), and kidney decompensation (HR, 0.65). None were statistically significant, but the confidence intervals were tight with the upper end never exceeding 1.20.
Moreover, the relative risk reduction for all-cause mortality moved in the same direction (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.52-1.16).
In the hierarchical composite endpoint of recovery, there was no significant difference in the time to discharge, but again many recovery metrics numerically favored dapagliflozin with an overall difference producing a statistical trend (P = .14) similar to organ failure events and death.
In safety analyses, dapagliflozin consistently outperformed placebo across a broad array of safety measure, including any severe adverse event (65% vs. 82%), any adverse event with an outcome of death (32% vs. 48%), discontinuation caused by an adverse event (44% vs. 55%), and acute kidney injury (21% vs. 34%).
Data could fuel related studies
According to Ana Barac, MD, PhD, director of the cardio-oncology program in the Medstar Heart and Vascular Institute, Washington, these data are “thought provoking.” Although this was a negative trial, she said that it generates an “exciting hypothesis” about the potential of SGLT2 inhibitors to provide organ protection. She called for studies to pursue this path of research.
More immediately, Dr. Barac agreed that these data argue against stopping SGLT2 inhibitors in patients admitted to a hospital for COVID-19 infection.
“These data show that these drugs are not going to lead to harm, but they might lead to benefit,” she said.
For James Januzzi, MD, a cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, DARE-19 was perhaps most impressive because of its rigorous design and execution in the midst of a pandemic.
Over the past year, “the medical literature was flooded with grossly underpowered, poorly designed, single-center studies” yielding results that have been hard to interpret, Dr. Januzzi said. Despite the fact that this study failed to confirm its hypothesis, he said the investigators deserve praise for the quality of the work.
Dr. Januzzi also believes the study is not without clinically relevant findings, particularly the fact that dapagliflozin was associated with a lower rate of adverse events than placebo. This, at least, provides reassurance about the safety of this drug in the setting of COVID-19 infection.
Dr. Kosiborod reported financial relationships with more than 10 pharmaceutical companies, including AstraZeneca, which provided funding for DARE-19. Dr. Barac reported financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb and CTI BioPharma. Dr. Januzzi reported financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, GE Healthcare, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche.
In patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection, the sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin showed a trend for benefit relative to placebo on multiple outcomes, including the primary outcome of time to organ failure or death, according to results from the randomized DARE-19 trial.
Because of the failure to reach statistical significance, these results have no immediate relevance, but the trends support interest in further testing SGLT2 inhibitors in acute diseases posing a high risk for organ failure, according to Mikhail Kosiborod, MD.
In a trial that did not meet its primary endpoint, Dr. Kosiborod acknowledged that positive interpretations are speculative, but he does believe that there is one immediate take-home message.
“Our results do not support discontinuation of SGLT2 inhibitors in the setting of COVID-19 as long as patients are monitored,” said Dr. Kosiborod, director of cardiometabolic research at Saint Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo.
At many institutions, it has been common to discontinue SGLT2 inhibitors in patients admitted with COVID-19. One reason was the concern that drugs in this class could exacerbate organ damage, particularly if they were to induced ketoacidosis. However, only 2 (0.003%) of 613 patients treated with dapagliflozin developed ketoacidosis, and the signal for organ protection overall, although not significant, was consistent.
“Numerically, fewer patients treated with dapagliflozin experienced organ failure and death, and this was consistent across systems, including the kidney,” Dr. Kosiborod said in presenting the study at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
Overall, the study suggests that, in the context of COVID-19, dapagliflozin did not show harm and might have potential benefit, he added.
DARE-19 was rapidly conceived, designed, and implemented during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on prior evidence that SGLT2 inhibitors “favorably affect a number of pathophysiologic pathways disrupted during acute illness” and that drugs in this class have provided organ protection in the context of heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and other cardiometabolic conditions, the study was designed to test the hypothesis that this mechanism might improve outcomes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, Dr. Kosiborod said.
The entry criteria included confirmed or suspected COVID-19 with an onset of 4 days of fewer and one additional risk factor, such as atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, hypertension, or type 2 diabetes. Patients with significant renal impairment or a history of diabetic ketoacidosis were excluded.
On top of standard treatments for COVID-19, patients were randomized to 10 mg dapagliflozin or placebo once daily. There were two primary endpoints. That of prevention was time to criteria for respiratory, cardiovascular, or renal organ failure or death. The second primary outcome, for recovery, was a hierarchical composite for four endpoints: death, organ failure, status at 30 days if hospitalized, and time to discharge if this occurred before day 30.
Of the 1,250 patients randomized at 95 sites in seven countries, 617 in the dapagliflozin group and 620 patients in the placebo group completed the study. Baseline characteristics, which included a mean of age of 62 years; types of comorbidities; and types of treatments were similar.
Results for two primary endpoints
The curves for the primary outcome of prevention had already separated by day 3 and continued to widen over the 30 days in which outcomes were compared. At the end of 30 days, 11.2% of the dapagliflozin group and 13.8% of the placebo group had an event. By hazard ratio, dapagliflozin was linked to 20% nonsignificant relative protection from events (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.10).
The trend (P = .168) for the primary endpoint for prevention was reflected in the individual components. For dapagliflozin related to placebo, there were generally similar or greater reductions in new or worsening organ failure (HR, 0.80), cardiac decompensation (HR, 0.81), respiratory decompensation (HR, 0.85), and kidney decompensation (HR, 0.65). None were statistically significant, but the confidence intervals were tight with the upper end never exceeding 1.20.
Moreover, the relative risk reduction for all-cause mortality moved in the same direction (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.52-1.16).
In the hierarchical composite endpoint of recovery, there was no significant difference in the time to discharge, but again many recovery metrics numerically favored dapagliflozin with an overall difference producing a statistical trend (P = .14) similar to organ failure events and death.
In safety analyses, dapagliflozin consistently outperformed placebo across a broad array of safety measure, including any severe adverse event (65% vs. 82%), any adverse event with an outcome of death (32% vs. 48%), discontinuation caused by an adverse event (44% vs. 55%), and acute kidney injury (21% vs. 34%).
Data could fuel related studies
According to Ana Barac, MD, PhD, director of the cardio-oncology program in the Medstar Heart and Vascular Institute, Washington, these data are “thought provoking.” Although this was a negative trial, she said that it generates an “exciting hypothesis” about the potential of SGLT2 inhibitors to provide organ protection. She called for studies to pursue this path of research.
More immediately, Dr. Barac agreed that these data argue against stopping SGLT2 inhibitors in patients admitted to a hospital for COVID-19 infection.
“These data show that these drugs are not going to lead to harm, but they might lead to benefit,” she said.
For James Januzzi, MD, a cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, DARE-19 was perhaps most impressive because of its rigorous design and execution in the midst of a pandemic.
Over the past year, “the medical literature was flooded with grossly underpowered, poorly designed, single-center studies” yielding results that have been hard to interpret, Dr. Januzzi said. Despite the fact that this study failed to confirm its hypothesis, he said the investigators deserve praise for the quality of the work.
Dr. Januzzi also believes the study is not without clinically relevant findings, particularly the fact that dapagliflozin was associated with a lower rate of adverse events than placebo. This, at least, provides reassurance about the safety of this drug in the setting of COVID-19 infection.
Dr. Kosiborod reported financial relationships with more than 10 pharmaceutical companies, including AstraZeneca, which provided funding for DARE-19. Dr. Barac reported financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb and CTI BioPharma. Dr. Januzzi reported financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, GE Healthcare, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche.
In patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection, the sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin showed a trend for benefit relative to placebo on multiple outcomes, including the primary outcome of time to organ failure or death, according to results from the randomized DARE-19 trial.
Because of the failure to reach statistical significance, these results have no immediate relevance, but the trends support interest in further testing SGLT2 inhibitors in acute diseases posing a high risk for organ failure, according to Mikhail Kosiborod, MD.
In a trial that did not meet its primary endpoint, Dr. Kosiborod acknowledged that positive interpretations are speculative, but he does believe that there is one immediate take-home message.
“Our results do not support discontinuation of SGLT2 inhibitors in the setting of COVID-19 as long as patients are monitored,” said Dr. Kosiborod, director of cardiometabolic research at Saint Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo.
At many institutions, it has been common to discontinue SGLT2 inhibitors in patients admitted with COVID-19. One reason was the concern that drugs in this class could exacerbate organ damage, particularly if they were to induced ketoacidosis. However, only 2 (0.003%) of 613 patients treated with dapagliflozin developed ketoacidosis, and the signal for organ protection overall, although not significant, was consistent.
“Numerically, fewer patients treated with dapagliflozin experienced organ failure and death, and this was consistent across systems, including the kidney,” Dr. Kosiborod said in presenting the study at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
Overall, the study suggests that, in the context of COVID-19, dapagliflozin did not show harm and might have potential benefit, he added.
DARE-19 was rapidly conceived, designed, and implemented during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on prior evidence that SGLT2 inhibitors “favorably affect a number of pathophysiologic pathways disrupted during acute illness” and that drugs in this class have provided organ protection in the context of heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and other cardiometabolic conditions, the study was designed to test the hypothesis that this mechanism might improve outcomes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, Dr. Kosiborod said.
The entry criteria included confirmed or suspected COVID-19 with an onset of 4 days of fewer and one additional risk factor, such as atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, hypertension, or type 2 diabetes. Patients with significant renal impairment or a history of diabetic ketoacidosis were excluded.
On top of standard treatments for COVID-19, patients were randomized to 10 mg dapagliflozin or placebo once daily. There were two primary endpoints. That of prevention was time to criteria for respiratory, cardiovascular, or renal organ failure or death. The second primary outcome, for recovery, was a hierarchical composite for four endpoints: death, organ failure, status at 30 days if hospitalized, and time to discharge if this occurred before day 30.
Of the 1,250 patients randomized at 95 sites in seven countries, 617 in the dapagliflozin group and 620 patients in the placebo group completed the study. Baseline characteristics, which included a mean of age of 62 years; types of comorbidities; and types of treatments were similar.
Results for two primary endpoints
The curves for the primary outcome of prevention had already separated by day 3 and continued to widen over the 30 days in which outcomes were compared. At the end of 30 days, 11.2% of the dapagliflozin group and 13.8% of the placebo group had an event. By hazard ratio, dapagliflozin was linked to 20% nonsignificant relative protection from events (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.10).
The trend (P = .168) for the primary endpoint for prevention was reflected in the individual components. For dapagliflozin related to placebo, there were generally similar or greater reductions in new or worsening organ failure (HR, 0.80), cardiac decompensation (HR, 0.81), respiratory decompensation (HR, 0.85), and kidney decompensation (HR, 0.65). None were statistically significant, but the confidence intervals were tight with the upper end never exceeding 1.20.
Moreover, the relative risk reduction for all-cause mortality moved in the same direction (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.52-1.16).
In the hierarchical composite endpoint of recovery, there was no significant difference in the time to discharge, but again many recovery metrics numerically favored dapagliflozin with an overall difference producing a statistical trend (P = .14) similar to organ failure events and death.
In safety analyses, dapagliflozin consistently outperformed placebo across a broad array of safety measure, including any severe adverse event (65% vs. 82%), any adverse event with an outcome of death (32% vs. 48%), discontinuation caused by an adverse event (44% vs. 55%), and acute kidney injury (21% vs. 34%).
Data could fuel related studies
According to Ana Barac, MD, PhD, director of the cardio-oncology program in the Medstar Heart and Vascular Institute, Washington, these data are “thought provoking.” Although this was a negative trial, she said that it generates an “exciting hypothesis” about the potential of SGLT2 inhibitors to provide organ protection. She called for studies to pursue this path of research.
More immediately, Dr. Barac agreed that these data argue against stopping SGLT2 inhibitors in patients admitted to a hospital for COVID-19 infection.
“These data show that these drugs are not going to lead to harm, but they might lead to benefit,” she said.
For James Januzzi, MD, a cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, DARE-19 was perhaps most impressive because of its rigorous design and execution in the midst of a pandemic.
Over the past year, “the medical literature was flooded with grossly underpowered, poorly designed, single-center studies” yielding results that have been hard to interpret, Dr. Januzzi said. Despite the fact that this study failed to confirm its hypothesis, he said the investigators deserve praise for the quality of the work.
Dr. Januzzi also believes the study is not without clinically relevant findings, particularly the fact that dapagliflozin was associated with a lower rate of adverse events than placebo. This, at least, provides reassurance about the safety of this drug in the setting of COVID-19 infection.
Dr. Kosiborod reported financial relationships with more than 10 pharmaceutical companies, including AstraZeneca, which provided funding for DARE-19. Dr. Barac reported financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb and CTI BioPharma. Dr. Januzzi reported financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, GE Healthcare, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche.
FROM ACC 2021
Less ambulatory care occurred than expected in pandemic, according to study
according to an analysis of national claims data from Jan. 1, 2019, to Oct. 31, 2020.
“The COVID-19 pandemic has seriously disrupted access to U.S. ambulatory care, endangering population health,” said John N. Mafi, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.
Dr. Mafi and colleagues conducted the analysis, which included 20 monthly cohorts, and measured outpatient visit rates per 100 members across all 20 study months. The researchers used a “difference-in-differences study design” and compared changes in rates of ambulatory care visits in January-February 2019 through September-October 2019 with the same periods in 2020.
They found that overall utilization fell to 68.9% of expected rates. This number increased to 82.6% of expected rates by May-June 2020 and to 87.7% of expected rates by July-August 2020.
To examine the impact of COVID-19 on U.S. ambulatory care patterns, the researchers identified 10.4 million individuals aged 18 years and older using the MedInsight research claims database. This database included Medicaid, commercial, dual eligible (receiving both Medicare and Medicaid benefits), Medicare Advantage (MA), and Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) patients. The average age of the individuals studied was 52 years, and 55% of the population were women. The researchers measured outpatient visit rates per 100 beneficiaries for several types of ambulatory care visits: emergency, urgent care, office, physical exams, preventive, alcohol/drug, and psychiatric care.
The researchers verified parallel trends in visits between 2018 and 2019 to establish a historical benchmark and divided the patient population into three groups based on insurance enrollment (continuously enrolled, not continuously enrolled, and fully enrolled) to account for new members adding insurance and disrupted coverage caused by job losses or other factors. The trends in ambulatory care utilization were similar between cohorts across the groups.
The rebound seen by the summer of 2020 showed variation when broken out by insurance type: 94.0% for Medicare FFS; 88.9% for commercial insurance; 86.3% for Medicare Advantage; 83.6% for dual eligible; and 78.0% for Medicaid.
“The big picture is that utilization looks similar across the three groups and has not attained prepandemic levels,” Dr. Mafi said.
When the results were divided by service type, utilization rates remained below expected rates while needs remain similar for U.S. Preventive Services Task Force–recommended preventive screening services, Dr. Mafi noted. The demand for psychiatric and substance use services has increased, but use rates are below expected rates. In addition, both avoidable and nonavoidable ED utilization both remained below expected rates.
In-person visits are down across insurance groups, but virtual visits are skyrocketing, across all insurance groups, Dr. Mafi added. However, virtual care visits have not completely compensated for declines in in-person visits, notably among dual-eligible and Medicaid insurance members.
Takeaways for policy makers include the fact that, while some reductions in unnecessary care, such as avoidable ED visits, may be beneficial, the “reduced USPSTF-recommended cancer and other evidence-based disease prevention may worsen health outcomes, particularly for Medicaid beneficiaries,” he said.
Outreach and outcomes
The study is important because “understanding ambulatory care patterns during the pandemic can highlight vulnerabilities and opportunities in our health care system,” Dr. Mafi said in an interview.
“While the COVID-19 pandemic has seriously disrupted access to U.S. ambulatory care, most studies have focused on the early months of the pandemic,” he noted.
Dr. Mafi said he was not surprised that ambulatory care utilization has not rebounded among Medicaid beneficiaries relative to other insurance groups.
“Medicaid beneficiaries are underresourced individuals who are disproportionately racial/ethnic minorities, and they historically have had difficulties accessing care. Our data suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic may be widening these preexisting inequities in access to ambulatory care,” he observed.
The study findings were limited by the use of the MedInsight research dataset, which is a convenience sample; and, therefore, the results might not be generalizable nationally, Dr. Mafi said. “However, it does include beneficiaries from all major insurance types across all 50 U.S. states. Additionally, our analysis was completed at the population level rather than the patient level, and so we were unable to account for patient-level characteristics such as clinical complexity,” he explained.
“The take-home message for clinicians is that our patients with Medicaid insurance may need additional efforts to overcome barriers to accessing ambulatory care, such as creating robust telemedicine outreach programs,” said Dr. Mafi. “Policy makers should also consider providing additional support and resources to safety net health systems who disproportionately care for Medicaid beneficiaries, such as higher reimbursements for both in-person and telemedicine visits.”
More research is needed, he emphasized. “We urgently need further inquiry into the impact of this persistently deferred ambulatory care utilization on important health outcomes such as preventable death/disability and quality of care.”
COVID consequences challenge ambulatory care
“These study findings mirror what we are seeing in primary care settings,” Maureen Lyons, MD, of Washington University. St. Louis, said in an interview. “With the pandemic, there are many additional barriers for patients accessing care, and these barriers have disproportionately impacted those who are already disadvantaged.
“From clinical experience, there are barriers directly related to COVID-19, such as the risk of infection or discomfort being in a clinic setting with other people. However, there also are barriers related to change in financial situation or insurance related to changes or loss of employment,” she said.
“Additionally, many patients have needed to take on increased responsibilities in other areas of their lives, such as caring for an ill family member or being responsible for children’s virtual school,” she said. These new responsibilities can lead people to skip or postpone ambulatory care visits.
“Loss of ambulatory care is likely to lead to increases in preventable illnesses with long-lasting effects,” Dr. Lyons noted. “Studying this in a robust fashion, as Dr. Mafi and colleagues have done, is a critical step in understanding and addressing this urgent need.”
Dr. Mafi noted that the data he presented is preliminary, and that he and his team hope to publish finalized estimates of ambulatory utilization rates in a forthcoming scientific paper.
The study was a collaboration between UCLA and Millman MedInsight, an actuarial health analytics company. Several coauthors are Millman employees. Dr. Mafi and the other researchers had no other relevant financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Lyons had no financial conflicts to disclose.
according to an analysis of national claims data from Jan. 1, 2019, to Oct. 31, 2020.
“The COVID-19 pandemic has seriously disrupted access to U.S. ambulatory care, endangering population health,” said John N. Mafi, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.
Dr. Mafi and colleagues conducted the analysis, which included 20 monthly cohorts, and measured outpatient visit rates per 100 members across all 20 study months. The researchers used a “difference-in-differences study design” and compared changes in rates of ambulatory care visits in January-February 2019 through September-October 2019 with the same periods in 2020.
They found that overall utilization fell to 68.9% of expected rates. This number increased to 82.6% of expected rates by May-June 2020 and to 87.7% of expected rates by July-August 2020.
To examine the impact of COVID-19 on U.S. ambulatory care patterns, the researchers identified 10.4 million individuals aged 18 years and older using the MedInsight research claims database. This database included Medicaid, commercial, dual eligible (receiving both Medicare and Medicaid benefits), Medicare Advantage (MA), and Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) patients. The average age of the individuals studied was 52 years, and 55% of the population were women. The researchers measured outpatient visit rates per 100 beneficiaries for several types of ambulatory care visits: emergency, urgent care, office, physical exams, preventive, alcohol/drug, and psychiatric care.
The researchers verified parallel trends in visits between 2018 and 2019 to establish a historical benchmark and divided the patient population into three groups based on insurance enrollment (continuously enrolled, not continuously enrolled, and fully enrolled) to account for new members adding insurance and disrupted coverage caused by job losses or other factors. The trends in ambulatory care utilization were similar between cohorts across the groups.
The rebound seen by the summer of 2020 showed variation when broken out by insurance type: 94.0% for Medicare FFS; 88.9% for commercial insurance; 86.3% for Medicare Advantage; 83.6% for dual eligible; and 78.0% for Medicaid.
“The big picture is that utilization looks similar across the three groups and has not attained prepandemic levels,” Dr. Mafi said.
When the results were divided by service type, utilization rates remained below expected rates while needs remain similar for U.S. Preventive Services Task Force–recommended preventive screening services, Dr. Mafi noted. The demand for psychiatric and substance use services has increased, but use rates are below expected rates. In addition, both avoidable and nonavoidable ED utilization both remained below expected rates.
In-person visits are down across insurance groups, but virtual visits are skyrocketing, across all insurance groups, Dr. Mafi added. However, virtual care visits have not completely compensated for declines in in-person visits, notably among dual-eligible and Medicaid insurance members.
Takeaways for policy makers include the fact that, while some reductions in unnecessary care, such as avoidable ED visits, may be beneficial, the “reduced USPSTF-recommended cancer and other evidence-based disease prevention may worsen health outcomes, particularly for Medicaid beneficiaries,” he said.
Outreach and outcomes
The study is important because “understanding ambulatory care patterns during the pandemic can highlight vulnerabilities and opportunities in our health care system,” Dr. Mafi said in an interview.
“While the COVID-19 pandemic has seriously disrupted access to U.S. ambulatory care, most studies have focused on the early months of the pandemic,” he noted.
Dr. Mafi said he was not surprised that ambulatory care utilization has not rebounded among Medicaid beneficiaries relative to other insurance groups.
“Medicaid beneficiaries are underresourced individuals who are disproportionately racial/ethnic minorities, and they historically have had difficulties accessing care. Our data suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic may be widening these preexisting inequities in access to ambulatory care,” he observed.
The study findings were limited by the use of the MedInsight research dataset, which is a convenience sample; and, therefore, the results might not be generalizable nationally, Dr. Mafi said. “However, it does include beneficiaries from all major insurance types across all 50 U.S. states. Additionally, our analysis was completed at the population level rather than the patient level, and so we were unable to account for patient-level characteristics such as clinical complexity,” he explained.
“The take-home message for clinicians is that our patients with Medicaid insurance may need additional efforts to overcome barriers to accessing ambulatory care, such as creating robust telemedicine outreach programs,” said Dr. Mafi. “Policy makers should also consider providing additional support and resources to safety net health systems who disproportionately care for Medicaid beneficiaries, such as higher reimbursements for both in-person and telemedicine visits.”
More research is needed, he emphasized. “We urgently need further inquiry into the impact of this persistently deferred ambulatory care utilization on important health outcomes such as preventable death/disability and quality of care.”
COVID consequences challenge ambulatory care
“These study findings mirror what we are seeing in primary care settings,” Maureen Lyons, MD, of Washington University. St. Louis, said in an interview. “With the pandemic, there are many additional barriers for patients accessing care, and these barriers have disproportionately impacted those who are already disadvantaged.
“From clinical experience, there are barriers directly related to COVID-19, such as the risk of infection or discomfort being in a clinic setting with other people. However, there also are barriers related to change in financial situation or insurance related to changes or loss of employment,” she said.
“Additionally, many patients have needed to take on increased responsibilities in other areas of their lives, such as caring for an ill family member or being responsible for children’s virtual school,” she said. These new responsibilities can lead people to skip or postpone ambulatory care visits.
“Loss of ambulatory care is likely to lead to increases in preventable illnesses with long-lasting effects,” Dr. Lyons noted. “Studying this in a robust fashion, as Dr. Mafi and colleagues have done, is a critical step in understanding and addressing this urgent need.”
Dr. Mafi noted that the data he presented is preliminary, and that he and his team hope to publish finalized estimates of ambulatory utilization rates in a forthcoming scientific paper.
The study was a collaboration between UCLA and Millman MedInsight, an actuarial health analytics company. Several coauthors are Millman employees. Dr. Mafi and the other researchers had no other relevant financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Lyons had no financial conflicts to disclose.
according to an analysis of national claims data from Jan. 1, 2019, to Oct. 31, 2020.
“The COVID-19 pandemic has seriously disrupted access to U.S. ambulatory care, endangering population health,” said John N. Mafi, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.
Dr. Mafi and colleagues conducted the analysis, which included 20 monthly cohorts, and measured outpatient visit rates per 100 members across all 20 study months. The researchers used a “difference-in-differences study design” and compared changes in rates of ambulatory care visits in January-February 2019 through September-October 2019 with the same periods in 2020.
They found that overall utilization fell to 68.9% of expected rates. This number increased to 82.6% of expected rates by May-June 2020 and to 87.7% of expected rates by July-August 2020.
To examine the impact of COVID-19 on U.S. ambulatory care patterns, the researchers identified 10.4 million individuals aged 18 years and older using the MedInsight research claims database. This database included Medicaid, commercial, dual eligible (receiving both Medicare and Medicaid benefits), Medicare Advantage (MA), and Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) patients. The average age of the individuals studied was 52 years, and 55% of the population were women. The researchers measured outpatient visit rates per 100 beneficiaries for several types of ambulatory care visits: emergency, urgent care, office, physical exams, preventive, alcohol/drug, and psychiatric care.
The researchers verified parallel trends in visits between 2018 and 2019 to establish a historical benchmark and divided the patient population into three groups based on insurance enrollment (continuously enrolled, not continuously enrolled, and fully enrolled) to account for new members adding insurance and disrupted coverage caused by job losses or other factors. The trends in ambulatory care utilization were similar between cohorts across the groups.
The rebound seen by the summer of 2020 showed variation when broken out by insurance type: 94.0% for Medicare FFS; 88.9% for commercial insurance; 86.3% for Medicare Advantage; 83.6% for dual eligible; and 78.0% for Medicaid.
“The big picture is that utilization looks similar across the three groups and has not attained prepandemic levels,” Dr. Mafi said.
When the results were divided by service type, utilization rates remained below expected rates while needs remain similar for U.S. Preventive Services Task Force–recommended preventive screening services, Dr. Mafi noted. The demand for psychiatric and substance use services has increased, but use rates are below expected rates. In addition, both avoidable and nonavoidable ED utilization both remained below expected rates.
In-person visits are down across insurance groups, but virtual visits are skyrocketing, across all insurance groups, Dr. Mafi added. However, virtual care visits have not completely compensated for declines in in-person visits, notably among dual-eligible and Medicaid insurance members.
Takeaways for policy makers include the fact that, while some reductions in unnecessary care, such as avoidable ED visits, may be beneficial, the “reduced USPSTF-recommended cancer and other evidence-based disease prevention may worsen health outcomes, particularly for Medicaid beneficiaries,” he said.
Outreach and outcomes
The study is important because “understanding ambulatory care patterns during the pandemic can highlight vulnerabilities and opportunities in our health care system,” Dr. Mafi said in an interview.
“While the COVID-19 pandemic has seriously disrupted access to U.S. ambulatory care, most studies have focused on the early months of the pandemic,” he noted.
Dr. Mafi said he was not surprised that ambulatory care utilization has not rebounded among Medicaid beneficiaries relative to other insurance groups.
“Medicaid beneficiaries are underresourced individuals who are disproportionately racial/ethnic minorities, and they historically have had difficulties accessing care. Our data suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic may be widening these preexisting inequities in access to ambulatory care,” he observed.
The study findings were limited by the use of the MedInsight research dataset, which is a convenience sample; and, therefore, the results might not be generalizable nationally, Dr. Mafi said. “However, it does include beneficiaries from all major insurance types across all 50 U.S. states. Additionally, our analysis was completed at the population level rather than the patient level, and so we were unable to account for patient-level characteristics such as clinical complexity,” he explained.
“The take-home message for clinicians is that our patients with Medicaid insurance may need additional efforts to overcome barriers to accessing ambulatory care, such as creating robust telemedicine outreach programs,” said Dr. Mafi. “Policy makers should also consider providing additional support and resources to safety net health systems who disproportionately care for Medicaid beneficiaries, such as higher reimbursements for both in-person and telemedicine visits.”
More research is needed, he emphasized. “We urgently need further inquiry into the impact of this persistently deferred ambulatory care utilization on important health outcomes such as preventable death/disability and quality of care.”
COVID consequences challenge ambulatory care
“These study findings mirror what we are seeing in primary care settings,” Maureen Lyons, MD, of Washington University. St. Louis, said in an interview. “With the pandemic, there are many additional barriers for patients accessing care, and these barriers have disproportionately impacted those who are already disadvantaged.
“From clinical experience, there are barriers directly related to COVID-19, such as the risk of infection or discomfort being in a clinic setting with other people. However, there also are barriers related to change in financial situation or insurance related to changes or loss of employment,” she said.
“Additionally, many patients have needed to take on increased responsibilities in other areas of their lives, such as caring for an ill family member or being responsible for children’s virtual school,” she said. These new responsibilities can lead people to skip or postpone ambulatory care visits.
“Loss of ambulatory care is likely to lead to increases in preventable illnesses with long-lasting effects,” Dr. Lyons noted. “Studying this in a robust fashion, as Dr. Mafi and colleagues have done, is a critical step in understanding and addressing this urgent need.”
Dr. Mafi noted that the data he presented is preliminary, and that he and his team hope to publish finalized estimates of ambulatory utilization rates in a forthcoming scientific paper.
The study was a collaboration between UCLA and Millman MedInsight, an actuarial health analytics company. Several coauthors are Millman employees. Dr. Mafi and the other researchers had no other relevant financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Lyons had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM SGIM 2021
Omics analysis links blood type to COVID-19
A new analysis of gene expression and protein content in lung and blood tissue suggests that certain variants of the ABO gene, which plays a central role in determining blood type, may also influence susceptibility to COVID-19. Researchers at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, analyzed data from three studies to link gene and protein expression in lungs and blood with genetic regions associated with COVID-19 susceptibility.
“These genes may also prove to be good markers for disease as well as potential drug targets,” said lead author Ana Hernandez Cordero, PhD, postdoctoral fellow with the Center for Heart Lung Innovation, University of British Columbia, in a statement. Dr. Cordero presented the study at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference.
Dr. Cordero noted that genomewide association studies have been used to identify genetic regions associated with COVID-19 susceptibility, but they cannot be used to identify specific genes. To pinpoint genes, the researchers employed integrated genomics, which combines Bayesian colocalization summary-based Mendelian randomization and Mendelian randomization.
Searching for candidate genes
The researchers combined genetic data and transcriptomics data, which are a measurement of the messenger RNA produced in a cell. Messenger RNA is used as a blueprint for protein production. The genetics data came from the COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative genomewide association meta-analysis version 4 (patients with COVID-19 vs. patients without COVID-19). Blood transcriptomics data came from the INTERVAL study (n = 3301), and lung transcriptomics data came from the Lung eQTL study (n = 1038). “From the integration of these three datasets we identified the candidate genes that are most likely to influence COVID-19 through gene expression. We further investigated the most consistent candidate genes and tested the causal association between their plasma protein levels and COVID-19 susceptibility using Bayesian colocalization and Mendelian randomization,” said Dr. Cordero during her talk.
Susceptibility drivers
The researchers identified six genes expressed in the lung and five expressed in blood that colocalized with COVID-19 susceptibility loci. They found that an increase in plasma levels of ABO was associated with greater risk for COVID-19 (Mendelian randomization, P = .000025) and that expression of the SLC6A20 gene in the lung was also associated with higher COVID-19 risk. They also found novel associations at genes associated with respiratory diseases, such as asthma, as well as genes associated with the host immune responses, such as neutrophil and eosinophil counts.
Possibly protective?
Within the ABO gene, the research also turned up evidence that blood type O may be protective against COVID-19. “The most significant variant used for the Mendelian randomization test was in complete linkage disagreement with the variant responsible for the blood type O genotype, conferring reduced risk,” said Dr. Cordero.
The study’s method is a powerful technique, said Jeremy Alexander Hirota, PhD, who was asked to comment. “The present study uses integrative omics to determine COVID-19 susceptibility factors which would have been challenging to identify with a single technology,” said Dr. Hirota, who is an assistant professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; an adjunct professor of biology at the University of Waterloo (Ont.); and an affiliate professor of medicine at the University of British Columbia. He trained with the senior author of the study but was not directly involved in the research.
The host response is widely believed to be most responsible for the symptoms of COVID-19, so it isn’t surprising that host genes can be identified, according to Dr. Hirota. The identification of variants in the ABO protein is interesting, though. It suggests ‘that systemic effects beyond respiratory mucosal immunity are a driver for susceptibility.’ To my understanding, ABO protein is not expressed in the respiratory mucosa, which is a common site of first contact for SARS-CoV-2. The links between blood ABO levels and initial infection of the respiratory mucosa by SARS-CoV-2 are unclear,” he said.
Severity link needed
Dr. Hirota also said that although the study points toward associations with susceptibility to COVID-19, it isn’t clear from the available data whether such associations are related to severity of disease. “If the [patients with gene variants] are more susceptible but [the disease is] less severe, then the results need to be interpreted accordingly. If the susceptibility is increased and the severity is also increased, maybe measured by increased risk for ICU admission, ventilator use, or mortality, then the work carries a much more important message. Future studies extending this work and integrating measures of severity are warranted to better understand the clinical utility of these findings for managing COVID-19 patients optimally,” said Dr. Hirota.
It’s also unclear whether the study populations are reflective of the populations that are currently at highest risk for COVID-19, such as residents of India, where the burden of disease is currently severe.
Dr. Cordero and Dr. Hirota disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new analysis of gene expression and protein content in lung and blood tissue suggests that certain variants of the ABO gene, which plays a central role in determining blood type, may also influence susceptibility to COVID-19. Researchers at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, analyzed data from three studies to link gene and protein expression in lungs and blood with genetic regions associated with COVID-19 susceptibility.
“These genes may also prove to be good markers for disease as well as potential drug targets,” said lead author Ana Hernandez Cordero, PhD, postdoctoral fellow with the Center for Heart Lung Innovation, University of British Columbia, in a statement. Dr. Cordero presented the study at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference.
Dr. Cordero noted that genomewide association studies have been used to identify genetic regions associated with COVID-19 susceptibility, but they cannot be used to identify specific genes. To pinpoint genes, the researchers employed integrated genomics, which combines Bayesian colocalization summary-based Mendelian randomization and Mendelian randomization.
Searching for candidate genes
The researchers combined genetic data and transcriptomics data, which are a measurement of the messenger RNA produced in a cell. Messenger RNA is used as a blueprint for protein production. The genetics data came from the COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative genomewide association meta-analysis version 4 (patients with COVID-19 vs. patients without COVID-19). Blood transcriptomics data came from the INTERVAL study (n = 3301), and lung transcriptomics data came from the Lung eQTL study (n = 1038). “From the integration of these three datasets we identified the candidate genes that are most likely to influence COVID-19 through gene expression. We further investigated the most consistent candidate genes and tested the causal association between their plasma protein levels and COVID-19 susceptibility using Bayesian colocalization and Mendelian randomization,” said Dr. Cordero during her talk.
Susceptibility drivers
The researchers identified six genes expressed in the lung and five expressed in blood that colocalized with COVID-19 susceptibility loci. They found that an increase in plasma levels of ABO was associated with greater risk for COVID-19 (Mendelian randomization, P = .000025) and that expression of the SLC6A20 gene in the lung was also associated with higher COVID-19 risk. They also found novel associations at genes associated with respiratory diseases, such as asthma, as well as genes associated with the host immune responses, such as neutrophil and eosinophil counts.
Possibly protective?
Within the ABO gene, the research also turned up evidence that blood type O may be protective against COVID-19. “The most significant variant used for the Mendelian randomization test was in complete linkage disagreement with the variant responsible for the blood type O genotype, conferring reduced risk,” said Dr. Cordero.
The study’s method is a powerful technique, said Jeremy Alexander Hirota, PhD, who was asked to comment. “The present study uses integrative omics to determine COVID-19 susceptibility factors which would have been challenging to identify with a single technology,” said Dr. Hirota, who is an assistant professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; an adjunct professor of biology at the University of Waterloo (Ont.); and an affiliate professor of medicine at the University of British Columbia. He trained with the senior author of the study but was not directly involved in the research.
The host response is widely believed to be most responsible for the symptoms of COVID-19, so it isn’t surprising that host genes can be identified, according to Dr. Hirota. The identification of variants in the ABO protein is interesting, though. It suggests ‘that systemic effects beyond respiratory mucosal immunity are a driver for susceptibility.’ To my understanding, ABO protein is not expressed in the respiratory mucosa, which is a common site of first contact for SARS-CoV-2. The links between blood ABO levels and initial infection of the respiratory mucosa by SARS-CoV-2 are unclear,” he said.
Severity link needed
Dr. Hirota also said that although the study points toward associations with susceptibility to COVID-19, it isn’t clear from the available data whether such associations are related to severity of disease. “If the [patients with gene variants] are more susceptible but [the disease is] less severe, then the results need to be interpreted accordingly. If the susceptibility is increased and the severity is also increased, maybe measured by increased risk for ICU admission, ventilator use, or mortality, then the work carries a much more important message. Future studies extending this work and integrating measures of severity are warranted to better understand the clinical utility of these findings for managing COVID-19 patients optimally,” said Dr. Hirota.
It’s also unclear whether the study populations are reflective of the populations that are currently at highest risk for COVID-19, such as residents of India, where the burden of disease is currently severe.
Dr. Cordero and Dr. Hirota disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new analysis of gene expression and protein content in lung and blood tissue suggests that certain variants of the ABO gene, which plays a central role in determining blood type, may also influence susceptibility to COVID-19. Researchers at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, analyzed data from three studies to link gene and protein expression in lungs and blood with genetic regions associated with COVID-19 susceptibility.
“These genes may also prove to be good markers for disease as well as potential drug targets,” said lead author Ana Hernandez Cordero, PhD, postdoctoral fellow with the Center for Heart Lung Innovation, University of British Columbia, in a statement. Dr. Cordero presented the study at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference.
Dr. Cordero noted that genomewide association studies have been used to identify genetic regions associated with COVID-19 susceptibility, but they cannot be used to identify specific genes. To pinpoint genes, the researchers employed integrated genomics, which combines Bayesian colocalization summary-based Mendelian randomization and Mendelian randomization.
Searching for candidate genes
The researchers combined genetic data and transcriptomics data, which are a measurement of the messenger RNA produced in a cell. Messenger RNA is used as a blueprint for protein production. The genetics data came from the COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative genomewide association meta-analysis version 4 (patients with COVID-19 vs. patients without COVID-19). Blood transcriptomics data came from the INTERVAL study (n = 3301), and lung transcriptomics data came from the Lung eQTL study (n = 1038). “From the integration of these three datasets we identified the candidate genes that are most likely to influence COVID-19 through gene expression. We further investigated the most consistent candidate genes and tested the causal association between their plasma protein levels and COVID-19 susceptibility using Bayesian colocalization and Mendelian randomization,” said Dr. Cordero during her talk.
Susceptibility drivers
The researchers identified six genes expressed in the lung and five expressed in blood that colocalized with COVID-19 susceptibility loci. They found that an increase in plasma levels of ABO was associated with greater risk for COVID-19 (Mendelian randomization, P = .000025) and that expression of the SLC6A20 gene in the lung was also associated with higher COVID-19 risk. They also found novel associations at genes associated with respiratory diseases, such as asthma, as well as genes associated with the host immune responses, such as neutrophil and eosinophil counts.
Possibly protective?
Within the ABO gene, the research also turned up evidence that blood type O may be protective against COVID-19. “The most significant variant used for the Mendelian randomization test was in complete linkage disagreement with the variant responsible for the blood type O genotype, conferring reduced risk,” said Dr. Cordero.
The study’s method is a powerful technique, said Jeremy Alexander Hirota, PhD, who was asked to comment. “The present study uses integrative omics to determine COVID-19 susceptibility factors which would have been challenging to identify with a single technology,” said Dr. Hirota, who is an assistant professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; an adjunct professor of biology at the University of Waterloo (Ont.); and an affiliate professor of medicine at the University of British Columbia. He trained with the senior author of the study but was not directly involved in the research.
The host response is widely believed to be most responsible for the symptoms of COVID-19, so it isn’t surprising that host genes can be identified, according to Dr. Hirota. The identification of variants in the ABO protein is interesting, though. It suggests ‘that systemic effects beyond respiratory mucosal immunity are a driver for susceptibility.’ To my understanding, ABO protein is not expressed in the respiratory mucosa, which is a common site of first contact for SARS-CoV-2. The links between blood ABO levels and initial infection of the respiratory mucosa by SARS-CoV-2 are unclear,” he said.
Severity link needed
Dr. Hirota also said that although the study points toward associations with susceptibility to COVID-19, it isn’t clear from the available data whether such associations are related to severity of disease. “If the [patients with gene variants] are more susceptible but [the disease is] less severe, then the results need to be interpreted accordingly. If the susceptibility is increased and the severity is also increased, maybe measured by increased risk for ICU admission, ventilator use, or mortality, then the work carries a much more important message. Future studies extending this work and integrating measures of severity are warranted to better understand the clinical utility of these findings for managing COVID-19 patients optimally,” said Dr. Hirota.
It’s also unclear whether the study populations are reflective of the populations that are currently at highest risk for COVID-19, such as residents of India, where the burden of disease is currently severe.
Dr. Cordero and Dr. Hirota disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pediatricians see drop in income during the pandemic
The average income for pediatricians declined slightly from 2019 to 2020, according to the Medscape Pediatrician Compensation Report 2021.
The report, which was conducted between October 2020 and February 2021, found that the average pediatrician income was down $11,000 – from $232,000 in 2019 to $221,000 in 2020, with 48% of pediatricians reporting at least some decline in compensation.
The specialty also earned the least amount of money in 2020, compared with all of the other specialties, which isn’t surprising since pediatricians have been among the lowest-paid physician specialties since 2013. The highest-earning specialty was plastic surgery with an average income of $526,000 annually.
Most pediatricians who saw a drop in income cited pandemic-related issues such as job loss, fewer hours, and fewer patients.
Jesse Hackell, MD, vice president and chief operating officer of Ponoma Pediatrics in New York, said in an interview the reduced wages pediatricians saw in 2020 didn’t surprise him because many pediatric offices saw a huge drop in visits that were not urgent.
“[The report] shows that procedural specialties tended to do a lot better than the nonprocedural specialties,” Dr. Hackell said. “That’s because, during the shutdown, if you broke your leg, you still needed the orthopedist. And even though the hospitals weren’t doing elective surgeries, they were certainly doing the emergency stuff.”
Meanwhile, in pediatrician offices, where Dr. Hackell said office visits dropped 70%-80% at the beginning of the pandemic, “parents weren’t going to bring a healthy kid out for routine visits and they weren’t going to bring a kid out for minor illnesses and expose them to possibly communicable diseases in the office.”
About 52% of pediatricians who lost income because of the pandemic believe their income levels will return to normal in 2-3 years. Meanwhile 30% of pediatricians expect their income to return to normal within a year, and 8% believe it will take 4 years for them to bounce back.
Physician work hours generally declined for some time during the pandemic, according to the report. However, most pediatricians are working about the same number of hours as they did before the pandemic, which is 47 hours per week.
Despite working the same number of hours per week that they did prepandemic, they are seeing fewer patients. They are currently seeing on average 64 patients per week, compared with the 78 patients they used to see weekly before the pandemic.
Dr. Hackell said that might be because pediatric offices are trying to make up the loss of revenue during the beginning of the pandemic, from the reduced number of well visits and immunizations, in the second half of the year with outreach.
“Since about June 2020, we’ve been making concerted efforts to remind parents that preventing other infectious diseases is critically important,” Dr. Hackell explained. “And so actually, for the second half of the year, many of us saw more well visits and immunization volume than in 2019 as we sought to make up the gap. It wasn’t that we were seeing more overall, but we’re trying to make up the gap that happened from March, April, May, [and] June.”
Most pediatricians find their work rewarding. One-third say the most rewarding part of their job is gratitude from and relationships with their patients. Meanwhile, 31% of pediatricians said knowing they are making the world a better place was a rewarding part of their job. Only 8% of them said making money was a rewarding part of their job.
Dr. Hackell said he did not go into pediatrics to make money, it was because he found it stimulating and has “no complaints.”
“I’ve been a pediatrician for 40 years and I wouldn’t do anything else,” Dr. Hackell said. “I don’t know that there’s anything that I would find as rewarding as the relationships that I’ve had over 40 years with my patients. You know, getting invited to weddings of kids who I saw when they were newborns is pretty impressive. It’s the gratification of having ongoing relationships with families.”
Furthermore, the report revealed that 77% of pediatricians said they would pick medicine again if they had a choice, and 82% said they would choose the same specialty.
The experts disclosed no relevant financial interests.
*This story was updated on 5/18/2021.
The average income for pediatricians declined slightly from 2019 to 2020, according to the Medscape Pediatrician Compensation Report 2021.
The report, which was conducted between October 2020 and February 2021, found that the average pediatrician income was down $11,000 – from $232,000 in 2019 to $221,000 in 2020, with 48% of pediatricians reporting at least some decline in compensation.
The specialty also earned the least amount of money in 2020, compared with all of the other specialties, which isn’t surprising since pediatricians have been among the lowest-paid physician specialties since 2013. The highest-earning specialty was plastic surgery with an average income of $526,000 annually.
Most pediatricians who saw a drop in income cited pandemic-related issues such as job loss, fewer hours, and fewer patients.
Jesse Hackell, MD, vice president and chief operating officer of Ponoma Pediatrics in New York, said in an interview the reduced wages pediatricians saw in 2020 didn’t surprise him because many pediatric offices saw a huge drop in visits that were not urgent.
“[The report] shows that procedural specialties tended to do a lot better than the nonprocedural specialties,” Dr. Hackell said. “That’s because, during the shutdown, if you broke your leg, you still needed the orthopedist. And even though the hospitals weren’t doing elective surgeries, they were certainly doing the emergency stuff.”
Meanwhile, in pediatrician offices, where Dr. Hackell said office visits dropped 70%-80% at the beginning of the pandemic, “parents weren’t going to bring a healthy kid out for routine visits and they weren’t going to bring a kid out for minor illnesses and expose them to possibly communicable diseases in the office.”
About 52% of pediatricians who lost income because of the pandemic believe their income levels will return to normal in 2-3 years. Meanwhile 30% of pediatricians expect their income to return to normal within a year, and 8% believe it will take 4 years for them to bounce back.
Physician work hours generally declined for some time during the pandemic, according to the report. However, most pediatricians are working about the same number of hours as they did before the pandemic, which is 47 hours per week.
Despite working the same number of hours per week that they did prepandemic, they are seeing fewer patients. They are currently seeing on average 64 patients per week, compared with the 78 patients they used to see weekly before the pandemic.
Dr. Hackell said that might be because pediatric offices are trying to make up the loss of revenue during the beginning of the pandemic, from the reduced number of well visits and immunizations, in the second half of the year with outreach.
“Since about June 2020, we’ve been making concerted efforts to remind parents that preventing other infectious diseases is critically important,” Dr. Hackell explained. “And so actually, for the second half of the year, many of us saw more well visits and immunization volume than in 2019 as we sought to make up the gap. It wasn’t that we were seeing more overall, but we’re trying to make up the gap that happened from March, April, May, [and] June.”
Most pediatricians find their work rewarding. One-third say the most rewarding part of their job is gratitude from and relationships with their patients. Meanwhile, 31% of pediatricians said knowing they are making the world a better place was a rewarding part of their job. Only 8% of them said making money was a rewarding part of their job.
Dr. Hackell said he did not go into pediatrics to make money, it was because he found it stimulating and has “no complaints.”
“I’ve been a pediatrician for 40 years and I wouldn’t do anything else,” Dr. Hackell said. “I don’t know that there’s anything that I would find as rewarding as the relationships that I’ve had over 40 years with my patients. You know, getting invited to weddings of kids who I saw when they were newborns is pretty impressive. It’s the gratification of having ongoing relationships with families.”
Furthermore, the report revealed that 77% of pediatricians said they would pick medicine again if they had a choice, and 82% said they would choose the same specialty.
The experts disclosed no relevant financial interests.
*This story was updated on 5/18/2021.
The average income for pediatricians declined slightly from 2019 to 2020, according to the Medscape Pediatrician Compensation Report 2021.
The report, which was conducted between October 2020 and February 2021, found that the average pediatrician income was down $11,000 – from $232,000 in 2019 to $221,000 in 2020, with 48% of pediatricians reporting at least some decline in compensation.
The specialty also earned the least amount of money in 2020, compared with all of the other specialties, which isn’t surprising since pediatricians have been among the lowest-paid physician specialties since 2013. The highest-earning specialty was plastic surgery with an average income of $526,000 annually.
Most pediatricians who saw a drop in income cited pandemic-related issues such as job loss, fewer hours, and fewer patients.
Jesse Hackell, MD, vice president and chief operating officer of Ponoma Pediatrics in New York, said in an interview the reduced wages pediatricians saw in 2020 didn’t surprise him because many pediatric offices saw a huge drop in visits that were not urgent.
“[The report] shows that procedural specialties tended to do a lot better than the nonprocedural specialties,” Dr. Hackell said. “That’s because, during the shutdown, if you broke your leg, you still needed the orthopedist. And even though the hospitals weren’t doing elective surgeries, they were certainly doing the emergency stuff.”
Meanwhile, in pediatrician offices, where Dr. Hackell said office visits dropped 70%-80% at the beginning of the pandemic, “parents weren’t going to bring a healthy kid out for routine visits and they weren’t going to bring a kid out for minor illnesses and expose them to possibly communicable diseases in the office.”
About 52% of pediatricians who lost income because of the pandemic believe their income levels will return to normal in 2-3 years. Meanwhile 30% of pediatricians expect their income to return to normal within a year, and 8% believe it will take 4 years for them to bounce back.
Physician work hours generally declined for some time during the pandemic, according to the report. However, most pediatricians are working about the same number of hours as they did before the pandemic, which is 47 hours per week.
Despite working the same number of hours per week that they did prepandemic, they are seeing fewer patients. They are currently seeing on average 64 patients per week, compared with the 78 patients they used to see weekly before the pandemic.
Dr. Hackell said that might be because pediatric offices are trying to make up the loss of revenue during the beginning of the pandemic, from the reduced number of well visits and immunizations, in the second half of the year with outreach.
“Since about June 2020, we’ve been making concerted efforts to remind parents that preventing other infectious diseases is critically important,” Dr. Hackell explained. “And so actually, for the second half of the year, many of us saw more well visits and immunization volume than in 2019 as we sought to make up the gap. It wasn’t that we were seeing more overall, but we’re trying to make up the gap that happened from March, April, May, [and] June.”
Most pediatricians find their work rewarding. One-third say the most rewarding part of their job is gratitude from and relationships with their patients. Meanwhile, 31% of pediatricians said knowing they are making the world a better place was a rewarding part of their job. Only 8% of them said making money was a rewarding part of their job.
Dr. Hackell said he did not go into pediatrics to make money, it was because he found it stimulating and has “no complaints.”
“I’ve been a pediatrician for 40 years and I wouldn’t do anything else,” Dr. Hackell said. “I don’t know that there’s anything that I would find as rewarding as the relationships that I’ve had over 40 years with my patients. You know, getting invited to weddings of kids who I saw when they were newborns is pretty impressive. It’s the gratification of having ongoing relationships with families.”
Furthermore, the report revealed that 77% of pediatricians said they would pick medicine again if they had a choice, and 82% said they would choose the same specialty.
The experts disclosed no relevant financial interests.
*This story was updated on 5/18/2021.
Patients with CLL have significantly reduced response to COVID-19 vaccine
Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have increased risk for severe COVID-19 disease as well as mortality.
Such patients are likely to have compromised immune systems, making them respond poorly to vaccines, as has been seen in studies involving pneumococcal, hepatitis B, and influenza A and B vaccination.
In order to determine if vaccination against COVID-19 disease will be effective among these patients, researchers performed a study to determine the efficacy of a single COVID-19 vaccine in patients with CLL. They found that the response rate of patients with CLL to vaccination was significantly lower than that of healthy controls, according to the study published in Blood Advances.
Study details
The study (NCT04746092) assessed the humoral immune responses to BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 (Pfizer) vaccination in adult patients with CLL and compared responses with those obtained in age-matched healthy controls. Patients received two vaccine doses, 21 days apart, and antibody titers were measured 2-3 weeks after administration of the second dose, according to Yair Herishanu, MD, of the Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv University, and colleagues.
Troubling results
The researchers found an antibody-mediated response to the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in only 66 of 167 (39.5%) of all patients with CLL. The response rate of 52 of these responding patients with CLL to the vaccine was significantly lower than that occurring in 52 age- and sex-matched healthy controls (52% vs. 100%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 0.010; 95% confidence interval, 0.001-0.162; P < .001).
Among the patients with CLL, the response rate was highest in those who obtained clinical remission after treatment (79.2%), followed by 55.2% in treatment-naive patients, and it was only 16% in patients under treatment at the time of vaccination.
In patients treated with either BTK inhibitors or venetoclax with and without anti-CD20 antibody, response rates were low (16.0% and 13.6%, respectively). In particular, none of the patients exposed to anti-CD20 antibodies less than 12 months prior to vaccination responded, according to the researchers.
Multivariate analysis showed that the independent predictors of a vaccine response were age (65 years or younger; odds ratio, 3.17; P = .025), sex (women; OR, 3.66; P = .006), lack of active therapy (including treatment naive and previously treated patients; OR 6.59; P < .001), IgG levels 550 mg/dL or greater (OR, 3.70; P = .037), and IgM levels 40mg/dL or greater (OR, 2.92; P = .017).
Within a median follow-up period of 75 days since the first vaccine dose, none of the CLL patients developed COVID-19 infection, the researchers reported.
“Vaccinated patients with CLL should continue to adhere to masking, social distancing, and vaccination of their close contacts should be strongly recommended. Serological tests after the second injection of the COVID-19 vaccine can provide valuable information to the individual patient and perhaps, may be integrated in future clinical decisions,” the researchers concluded.
The study was sponsored by the Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center. The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.
Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have increased risk for severe COVID-19 disease as well as mortality.
Such patients are likely to have compromised immune systems, making them respond poorly to vaccines, as has been seen in studies involving pneumococcal, hepatitis B, and influenza A and B vaccination.
In order to determine if vaccination against COVID-19 disease will be effective among these patients, researchers performed a study to determine the efficacy of a single COVID-19 vaccine in patients with CLL. They found that the response rate of patients with CLL to vaccination was significantly lower than that of healthy controls, according to the study published in Blood Advances.
Study details
The study (NCT04746092) assessed the humoral immune responses to BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 (Pfizer) vaccination in adult patients with CLL and compared responses with those obtained in age-matched healthy controls. Patients received two vaccine doses, 21 days apart, and antibody titers were measured 2-3 weeks after administration of the second dose, according to Yair Herishanu, MD, of the Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv University, and colleagues.
Troubling results
The researchers found an antibody-mediated response to the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in only 66 of 167 (39.5%) of all patients with CLL. The response rate of 52 of these responding patients with CLL to the vaccine was significantly lower than that occurring in 52 age- and sex-matched healthy controls (52% vs. 100%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 0.010; 95% confidence interval, 0.001-0.162; P < .001).
Among the patients with CLL, the response rate was highest in those who obtained clinical remission after treatment (79.2%), followed by 55.2% in treatment-naive patients, and it was only 16% in patients under treatment at the time of vaccination.
In patients treated with either BTK inhibitors or venetoclax with and without anti-CD20 antibody, response rates were low (16.0% and 13.6%, respectively). In particular, none of the patients exposed to anti-CD20 antibodies less than 12 months prior to vaccination responded, according to the researchers.
Multivariate analysis showed that the independent predictors of a vaccine response were age (65 years or younger; odds ratio, 3.17; P = .025), sex (women; OR, 3.66; P = .006), lack of active therapy (including treatment naive and previously treated patients; OR 6.59; P < .001), IgG levels 550 mg/dL or greater (OR, 3.70; P = .037), and IgM levels 40mg/dL or greater (OR, 2.92; P = .017).
Within a median follow-up period of 75 days since the first vaccine dose, none of the CLL patients developed COVID-19 infection, the researchers reported.
“Vaccinated patients with CLL should continue to adhere to masking, social distancing, and vaccination of their close contacts should be strongly recommended. Serological tests after the second injection of the COVID-19 vaccine can provide valuable information to the individual patient and perhaps, may be integrated in future clinical decisions,” the researchers concluded.
The study was sponsored by the Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center. The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.
Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have increased risk for severe COVID-19 disease as well as mortality.
Such patients are likely to have compromised immune systems, making them respond poorly to vaccines, as has been seen in studies involving pneumococcal, hepatitis B, and influenza A and B vaccination.
In order to determine if vaccination against COVID-19 disease will be effective among these patients, researchers performed a study to determine the efficacy of a single COVID-19 vaccine in patients with CLL. They found that the response rate of patients with CLL to vaccination was significantly lower than that of healthy controls, according to the study published in Blood Advances.
Study details
The study (NCT04746092) assessed the humoral immune responses to BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 (Pfizer) vaccination in adult patients with CLL and compared responses with those obtained in age-matched healthy controls. Patients received two vaccine doses, 21 days apart, and antibody titers were measured 2-3 weeks after administration of the second dose, according to Yair Herishanu, MD, of the Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv University, and colleagues.
Troubling results
The researchers found an antibody-mediated response to the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in only 66 of 167 (39.5%) of all patients with CLL. The response rate of 52 of these responding patients with CLL to the vaccine was significantly lower than that occurring in 52 age- and sex-matched healthy controls (52% vs. 100%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 0.010; 95% confidence interval, 0.001-0.162; P < .001).
Among the patients with CLL, the response rate was highest in those who obtained clinical remission after treatment (79.2%), followed by 55.2% in treatment-naive patients, and it was only 16% in patients under treatment at the time of vaccination.
In patients treated with either BTK inhibitors or venetoclax with and without anti-CD20 antibody, response rates were low (16.0% and 13.6%, respectively). In particular, none of the patients exposed to anti-CD20 antibodies less than 12 months prior to vaccination responded, according to the researchers.
Multivariate analysis showed that the independent predictors of a vaccine response were age (65 years or younger; odds ratio, 3.17; P = .025), sex (women; OR, 3.66; P = .006), lack of active therapy (including treatment naive and previously treated patients; OR 6.59; P < .001), IgG levels 550 mg/dL or greater (OR, 3.70; P = .037), and IgM levels 40mg/dL or greater (OR, 2.92; P = .017).
Within a median follow-up period of 75 days since the first vaccine dose, none of the CLL patients developed COVID-19 infection, the researchers reported.
“Vaccinated patients with CLL should continue to adhere to masking, social distancing, and vaccination of their close contacts should be strongly recommended. Serological tests after the second injection of the COVID-19 vaccine can provide valuable information to the individual patient and perhaps, may be integrated in future clinical decisions,” the researchers concluded.
The study was sponsored by the Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center. The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.
FROM BLOOD ADVANCES
How to improve our response to COVID’s mental tolls
We have no way of precisely knowing how many lives might have been saved, and how much grief and loneliness spared and economic ruin contained during COVID-19 if we had risen to its myriad challenges in a timely fashion. However, I feel we can safely say that the United States deserves to be graded with an “F” for its management of the pandemic.
To render this grade, we need only to read the countless verified reports of how critically needed public health measures were not taken soon enough, or sufficiently, to substantially mitigate human and societal suffering.
This began with the failure to protect doctors, nurses, and technicians, who did not have the personal protective equipment needed to prevent infection and spare risk to their loved ones. It soon extended to the country’s failure to adequately protect all its citizens and residents. COVID-19 then rained its grievous consequences disproportionately upon people of color, those living in poverty, and those with housing and food insecurity – those already greatly foreclosed from opportunities to exit from their circumstances.
We all have heard, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”
Bear witness, colleagues and friends: It will be our shared shame if we too continue to fail in our response to COVID-19. But failure need not happen because protecting ourselves and our country is a solvable problem; complex and demanding for sure, but solvable.
To battle trauma, we must first define it
The sine qua non of a disaster is its psychic and social trauma. I asked Maureen Sayres Van Niel, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Minority and Underrepresented Caucus and a former steering committee member of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, to define trauma. She said, “It is [the product of] a catastrophic, unexpected event over which we have little control, with grave consequences to the lives and psychological functioning of those individuals and groups affected.”
The COVID-19 pandemic is a massively amplified traumatic event because of the virulence and contagious properties of the virus and its variants; the absence of end date on the horizon; its effect as a proverbial ax that disproportionately falls on the majority of the populace experiencing racial and social inequities; and the ironic yet necessary imperative to distance ourselves from those we care about and who care about us.
Four interdependent factors drive the magnitude of the traumatic impact of a disaster: the degree of exposure to the life-threatening event; the duration and threat of recurrence; an individual’s preexisting (natural and human-made) trauma and mental and addictive disorders; and the adequacy of family and fundamental resources such as housing, food, safety, and access to health care (the social dimensions of health and mental health). These factors underline the “who,” “what,” “where,” and “how” of what should have been (and continue to be) an effective public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Yet existing categories that we have used to predict risk for trauma no longer hold. The gravity, prevalence, and persistence of COVID-19’s horrors erase any differences among victims, witnesses, and bystanders. Dr Sayres Van Niel asserts that we have a “collective, national trauma.” In April, the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Vaccine Monitor reported that 24% of U.S. adults had a close friend or family member who died of COVID-19. That’s 82 million Americans! Our country has eclipsed individual victimization and trauma because we are all in its maw.
Vital lessons from the past
In a previous column, I described my role as New York City’s mental health commissioner after 9/11 and the many lessons we learned during that multiyear process. Our work served as a template for other disasters to follow, such as Hurricane Sandy. Its value to COVID-19 is equally apparent.
We learned that those most at risk of developing symptomatic, functionally impairing mental illness had prior traumatic experiences (for example, from childhood abuse or neglect, violence, war, and forced displacement from their native land) and/or a preexisting mental or substance use disorder.
Once these individuals and communities were identified, we could prioritize their treatment and care. Doing so required mobilizing both inner and external (social) resources, which can be used before disaster strikes or in its wake.
For individuals, adaptive resources include developing any of a number of mind-body activities (for example, meditation, mindfulness, slow breathing, and yoga); sufficient but not necessarily excessive levels of exercise (as has been said, if exercise were a pill, it would be the most potent of medicines); nourishing diets; sleep, nature’s restorative state; and perhaps most important, attachment and human connection to people who care about you and whom you care about and trust.
This does not necessarily mean holding or following an institutional religion or belonging to house of worship (though, of course, that melds and augments faith with community). For a great many, myself included, there is spirituality, the belief in a greater power, which need not be a God yet instills a sense of the vastness, universality, and continuity of life.
For communities, adaptive resources include safe homes and neighborhoods; diminishing housing and food insecurity; education, including pre-K; employment, with a livable wage; ridding human interactions of the endless, so-called microaggressions (which are not micro at all, because they accrue) of race, ethnic, class, and age discrimination and injustice; and ready access to quality and affordable health care, now more than ever for the rising tide of mental and substance use disorders that COVID-19 has unleashed.
Every gain we make to ablate racism, social injustice, discrimination, and widely and deeply spread resource and opportunity inequities means more cohesion among the members of our collective tribe. Greater cohesion, a love for thy neighbor, and equity (in action, not polemics) will fuel the resilience we will need to withstand more of COVID-19’s ongoing trauma; that of other, inescapable disasters and losses; and the wear and tear of everyday life. The rewards of equity are priceless and include the dignity that derives from fairness and justice – given and received.
An unprecedented disaster requires a bold response
My, what a list. But to me, the encompassing nature of what’s needed means that we can make differences anywhere, everywhere, and in countless and continuous ways.
The measure of any society is in how it cares for those who are foreclosed, through no fault of their own, from what we all want: a life safe from violence, secure in housing and food, with loving relationships and the pride that comes of making contributions, each in our own, wonderfully unique way.
Where will we all be in a year, 2, or 3 from now? Prepared, or not? Emotionally inoculated, or not? Better equipped, or not? As divided, or more cohesive?
Well, I imagine that depends on each and every one of us.
Lloyd I. Sederer, MD, is a psychiatrist, public health doctor, and writer. He is an adjunct professor at the Columbia University School of Public Health, director of Columbia Psychiatry Media, chief medical officer of Bongo Media, and chair of the advisory board of Get Help. He has been chief medical officer of McLean Hospital, a Harvard teaching hospital; mental health commissioner of New York City (in the Bloomberg administration); and chief medical officer of the New York State Office of Mental Health, the nation’s largest state mental health agency.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
We have no way of precisely knowing how many lives might have been saved, and how much grief and loneliness spared and economic ruin contained during COVID-19 if we had risen to its myriad challenges in a timely fashion. However, I feel we can safely say that the United States deserves to be graded with an “F” for its management of the pandemic.
To render this grade, we need only to read the countless verified reports of how critically needed public health measures were not taken soon enough, or sufficiently, to substantially mitigate human and societal suffering.
This began with the failure to protect doctors, nurses, and technicians, who did not have the personal protective equipment needed to prevent infection and spare risk to their loved ones. It soon extended to the country’s failure to adequately protect all its citizens and residents. COVID-19 then rained its grievous consequences disproportionately upon people of color, those living in poverty, and those with housing and food insecurity – those already greatly foreclosed from opportunities to exit from their circumstances.
We all have heard, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”
Bear witness, colleagues and friends: It will be our shared shame if we too continue to fail in our response to COVID-19. But failure need not happen because protecting ourselves and our country is a solvable problem; complex and demanding for sure, but solvable.
To battle trauma, we must first define it
The sine qua non of a disaster is its psychic and social trauma. I asked Maureen Sayres Van Niel, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Minority and Underrepresented Caucus and a former steering committee member of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, to define trauma. She said, “It is [the product of] a catastrophic, unexpected event over which we have little control, with grave consequences to the lives and psychological functioning of those individuals and groups affected.”
The COVID-19 pandemic is a massively amplified traumatic event because of the virulence and contagious properties of the virus and its variants; the absence of end date on the horizon; its effect as a proverbial ax that disproportionately falls on the majority of the populace experiencing racial and social inequities; and the ironic yet necessary imperative to distance ourselves from those we care about and who care about us.
Four interdependent factors drive the magnitude of the traumatic impact of a disaster: the degree of exposure to the life-threatening event; the duration and threat of recurrence; an individual’s preexisting (natural and human-made) trauma and mental and addictive disorders; and the adequacy of family and fundamental resources such as housing, food, safety, and access to health care (the social dimensions of health and mental health). These factors underline the “who,” “what,” “where,” and “how” of what should have been (and continue to be) an effective public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Yet existing categories that we have used to predict risk for trauma no longer hold. The gravity, prevalence, and persistence of COVID-19’s horrors erase any differences among victims, witnesses, and bystanders. Dr Sayres Van Niel asserts that we have a “collective, national trauma.” In April, the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Vaccine Monitor reported that 24% of U.S. adults had a close friend or family member who died of COVID-19. That’s 82 million Americans! Our country has eclipsed individual victimization and trauma because we are all in its maw.
Vital lessons from the past
In a previous column, I described my role as New York City’s mental health commissioner after 9/11 and the many lessons we learned during that multiyear process. Our work served as a template for other disasters to follow, such as Hurricane Sandy. Its value to COVID-19 is equally apparent.
We learned that those most at risk of developing symptomatic, functionally impairing mental illness had prior traumatic experiences (for example, from childhood abuse or neglect, violence, war, and forced displacement from their native land) and/or a preexisting mental or substance use disorder.
Once these individuals and communities were identified, we could prioritize their treatment and care. Doing so required mobilizing both inner and external (social) resources, which can be used before disaster strikes or in its wake.
For individuals, adaptive resources include developing any of a number of mind-body activities (for example, meditation, mindfulness, slow breathing, and yoga); sufficient but not necessarily excessive levels of exercise (as has been said, if exercise were a pill, it would be the most potent of medicines); nourishing diets; sleep, nature’s restorative state; and perhaps most important, attachment and human connection to people who care about you and whom you care about and trust.
This does not necessarily mean holding or following an institutional religion or belonging to house of worship (though, of course, that melds and augments faith with community). For a great many, myself included, there is spirituality, the belief in a greater power, which need not be a God yet instills a sense of the vastness, universality, and continuity of life.
For communities, adaptive resources include safe homes and neighborhoods; diminishing housing and food insecurity; education, including pre-K; employment, with a livable wage; ridding human interactions of the endless, so-called microaggressions (which are not micro at all, because they accrue) of race, ethnic, class, and age discrimination and injustice; and ready access to quality and affordable health care, now more than ever for the rising tide of mental and substance use disorders that COVID-19 has unleashed.
Every gain we make to ablate racism, social injustice, discrimination, and widely and deeply spread resource and opportunity inequities means more cohesion among the members of our collective tribe. Greater cohesion, a love for thy neighbor, and equity (in action, not polemics) will fuel the resilience we will need to withstand more of COVID-19’s ongoing trauma; that of other, inescapable disasters and losses; and the wear and tear of everyday life. The rewards of equity are priceless and include the dignity that derives from fairness and justice – given and received.
An unprecedented disaster requires a bold response
My, what a list. But to me, the encompassing nature of what’s needed means that we can make differences anywhere, everywhere, and in countless and continuous ways.
The measure of any society is in how it cares for those who are foreclosed, through no fault of their own, from what we all want: a life safe from violence, secure in housing and food, with loving relationships and the pride that comes of making contributions, each in our own, wonderfully unique way.
Where will we all be in a year, 2, or 3 from now? Prepared, or not? Emotionally inoculated, or not? Better equipped, or not? As divided, or more cohesive?
Well, I imagine that depends on each and every one of us.
Lloyd I. Sederer, MD, is a psychiatrist, public health doctor, and writer. He is an adjunct professor at the Columbia University School of Public Health, director of Columbia Psychiatry Media, chief medical officer of Bongo Media, and chair of the advisory board of Get Help. He has been chief medical officer of McLean Hospital, a Harvard teaching hospital; mental health commissioner of New York City (in the Bloomberg administration); and chief medical officer of the New York State Office of Mental Health, the nation’s largest state mental health agency.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
We have no way of precisely knowing how many lives might have been saved, and how much grief and loneliness spared and economic ruin contained during COVID-19 if we had risen to its myriad challenges in a timely fashion. However, I feel we can safely say that the United States deserves to be graded with an “F” for its management of the pandemic.
To render this grade, we need only to read the countless verified reports of how critically needed public health measures were not taken soon enough, or sufficiently, to substantially mitigate human and societal suffering.
This began with the failure to protect doctors, nurses, and technicians, who did not have the personal protective equipment needed to prevent infection and spare risk to their loved ones. It soon extended to the country’s failure to adequately protect all its citizens and residents. COVID-19 then rained its grievous consequences disproportionately upon people of color, those living in poverty, and those with housing and food insecurity – those already greatly foreclosed from opportunities to exit from their circumstances.
We all have heard, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”
Bear witness, colleagues and friends: It will be our shared shame if we too continue to fail in our response to COVID-19. But failure need not happen because protecting ourselves and our country is a solvable problem; complex and demanding for sure, but solvable.
To battle trauma, we must first define it
The sine qua non of a disaster is its psychic and social trauma. I asked Maureen Sayres Van Niel, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Minority and Underrepresented Caucus and a former steering committee member of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, to define trauma. She said, “It is [the product of] a catastrophic, unexpected event over which we have little control, with grave consequences to the lives and psychological functioning of those individuals and groups affected.”
The COVID-19 pandemic is a massively amplified traumatic event because of the virulence and contagious properties of the virus and its variants; the absence of end date on the horizon; its effect as a proverbial ax that disproportionately falls on the majority of the populace experiencing racial and social inequities; and the ironic yet necessary imperative to distance ourselves from those we care about and who care about us.
Four interdependent factors drive the magnitude of the traumatic impact of a disaster: the degree of exposure to the life-threatening event; the duration and threat of recurrence; an individual’s preexisting (natural and human-made) trauma and mental and addictive disorders; and the adequacy of family and fundamental resources such as housing, food, safety, and access to health care (the social dimensions of health and mental health). These factors underline the “who,” “what,” “where,” and “how” of what should have been (and continue to be) an effective public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Yet existing categories that we have used to predict risk for trauma no longer hold. The gravity, prevalence, and persistence of COVID-19’s horrors erase any differences among victims, witnesses, and bystanders. Dr Sayres Van Niel asserts that we have a “collective, national trauma.” In April, the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Vaccine Monitor reported that 24% of U.S. adults had a close friend or family member who died of COVID-19. That’s 82 million Americans! Our country has eclipsed individual victimization and trauma because we are all in its maw.
Vital lessons from the past
In a previous column, I described my role as New York City’s mental health commissioner after 9/11 and the many lessons we learned during that multiyear process. Our work served as a template for other disasters to follow, such as Hurricane Sandy. Its value to COVID-19 is equally apparent.
We learned that those most at risk of developing symptomatic, functionally impairing mental illness had prior traumatic experiences (for example, from childhood abuse or neglect, violence, war, and forced displacement from their native land) and/or a preexisting mental or substance use disorder.
Once these individuals and communities were identified, we could prioritize their treatment and care. Doing so required mobilizing both inner and external (social) resources, which can be used before disaster strikes or in its wake.
For individuals, adaptive resources include developing any of a number of mind-body activities (for example, meditation, mindfulness, slow breathing, and yoga); sufficient but not necessarily excessive levels of exercise (as has been said, if exercise were a pill, it would be the most potent of medicines); nourishing diets; sleep, nature’s restorative state; and perhaps most important, attachment and human connection to people who care about you and whom you care about and trust.
This does not necessarily mean holding or following an institutional religion or belonging to house of worship (though, of course, that melds and augments faith with community). For a great many, myself included, there is spirituality, the belief in a greater power, which need not be a God yet instills a sense of the vastness, universality, and continuity of life.
For communities, adaptive resources include safe homes and neighborhoods; diminishing housing and food insecurity; education, including pre-K; employment, with a livable wage; ridding human interactions of the endless, so-called microaggressions (which are not micro at all, because they accrue) of race, ethnic, class, and age discrimination and injustice; and ready access to quality and affordable health care, now more than ever for the rising tide of mental and substance use disorders that COVID-19 has unleashed.
Every gain we make to ablate racism, social injustice, discrimination, and widely and deeply spread resource and opportunity inequities means more cohesion among the members of our collective tribe. Greater cohesion, a love for thy neighbor, and equity (in action, not polemics) will fuel the resilience we will need to withstand more of COVID-19’s ongoing trauma; that of other, inescapable disasters and losses; and the wear and tear of everyday life. The rewards of equity are priceless and include the dignity that derives from fairness and justice – given and received.
An unprecedented disaster requires a bold response
My, what a list. But to me, the encompassing nature of what’s needed means that we can make differences anywhere, everywhere, and in countless and continuous ways.
The measure of any society is in how it cares for those who are foreclosed, through no fault of their own, from what we all want: a life safe from violence, secure in housing and food, with loving relationships and the pride that comes of making contributions, each in our own, wonderfully unique way.
Where will we all be in a year, 2, or 3 from now? Prepared, or not? Emotionally inoculated, or not? Better equipped, or not? As divided, or more cohesive?
Well, I imagine that depends on each and every one of us.
Lloyd I. Sederer, MD, is a psychiatrist, public health doctor, and writer. He is an adjunct professor at the Columbia University School of Public Health, director of Columbia Psychiatry Media, chief medical officer of Bongo Media, and chair of the advisory board of Get Help. He has been chief medical officer of McLean Hospital, a Harvard teaching hospital; mental health commissioner of New York City (in the Bloomberg administration); and chief medical officer of the New York State Office of Mental Health, the nation’s largest state mental health agency.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.