Pediatric News

Difficulty in accessing a family physician is associated with a higher risk for unplanned return visits to the emergency department among patients aged 75 years and older, new data indicate.

In a prospective, observational study that included almost 2,000 patients in this age group, 16% of participants attempted to contact their family physicians before their ED visits. Of this group, more than half reported having difficulty seeing their physicians for urgent problems, more than 40% had difficulty speaking with their family physicians by telephone, and more than one-third had difficulty booking appointments for new health problems.

“Difficulty in accessing primary care was associated with a higher rate of return visits to the ED within an elderly population,” write study author Marc Afilalo, MD, director of the ED at Jewish General Hospital in Montreal, and colleagues. “Therefore, community-based programs that target patient education and improved access to primary care are necessary not only for reducing return visits to the ED, but also for continuity of care and patient satisfaction.”

The study was published in Canadian Family Physician.
 

Comorbidities increased risk

Researchers have estimated that half of Canadians aged 75 years or older use emergency services. Data indicate that the number of unplanned return visits to the ED is associated with increased functional decline and death. But the question of how patient access to primary care services affects unplanned ED return visits has received little attention, according to the investigators.

They conducted a multicenter study at three tertiary adult teaching hospitals in Montreal. From 2012 to 2014, they recruited patients aged 75 years and older who had visited the ED and who lived in their own homes or in an autonomous residence.

Investigators collected data through structured interviews, administrative databases, and medical chart reviews. They followed up with participants at 3 months by telephone. The study’s main outcome was return visit to the ED.

The researchers identified 4,577 patients and included 1,998 in their analysis. Of that total, 33% were 85 or older, 34% lived alone, and 91% had a family physician. Within 3 months, 562 patients (28%) had made 894 return visits to the ED.

Among patients aged 85 years or older (relative risk, 0.80), as well as those whose triage score was less severe (RR, 0.83) and those who were admitted during the index ED visit (RR, 0.76), rates of return ED visits were lower. Among patients who had trouble booking appointments with their family doctors to address new problems (RR, 1.19), as well as those who had made ED visits within the previous 6 months (RR, 1.47) or had a higher Charlson comorbidity index score (RR, 1.06 for every 1-unit increase), rates of return visits were higher.

Factors associated with a higher likelihood of return visits were visits to the ED in the previous 6 months (odds ratio, 2.11), increased Charlson comorbidity index score (OR, 1.41 for every 1-unit increase), and having received help from local community services (OR, 3.00).
 

Primary care access

The study suggests that improvements in primary care access are needed to decrease return visits to the ED, Samir Sinha, MD, DPhil, director of geriatrics at Mount Sinai and the University Health Network Hospitals in Toronto, told this news organization. Dr. Sinha was not involved in the study.

“It reminds us of the importance of having a strong primary care system,” he added. “Of this population, 91% had primary care providers. And what the paper demonstrates is that those who are having trouble accessing their primary care providers are more likely to be readmitted to an ED. We can only imagine how much worse the outcomes are for people who don’t have a primary care provider.”

Patients are frequently advised to visit the ED when they contact their primary care providers, said Mark Rosenberg, PhD, professor of geography and planning and the Canada Research Chair in Aging, Health, and Development at Queens University in Kingston, Ont., said in an interview. He noted that primary care is organized as an appointment-based system. Dr. Rosenberg did not participate in the study.

“If I were to call my primary care provider in the middle of the afternoon and say that I have got chest pains, they are going to simply tell me to go to emergency,” said Dr. Rosenberg. “It is not just older people. Many people end up in the ED because they are told to go to the ED.”
 

Associations with age

“The higher your Charlson comorbidity index, the more multiple, complex health issues you’re dealing with,” said Sinha. He added that the data suggest the frailty of the study population.

The association between age 85 years or older and a lower rate of a return ED visits might mean that the patient did not return to independent living after the ED visit, Dr. Rosenberg speculated. “If it’s a serious health problem, you’re more likely to end up going into long-term care at that stage, and you are not going back to living in the community in your home,” he said. “You’re likely going into some sort of transition care or alternative care.”

People aged 85 years or older who are hospitalized are more likely not to survive their index hospital admission, compared with patients who are aged 75-85 years. There would be no possibility that such patients would revisit the ED in the future, said Dr. Sinha.
 

Expanding primary care

The major solution to decreasing reliance on the ED lies in revamping primary health care so that it offers an expanded level of care and 24/7 access, said Dr. Rosenberg.

Providing continuity of care, identifying problems, and managing them in the community before they become urgent or require a hospitalization are priorities for primary care and will help shift away from return visits to the ED, which should be a last resort for patients, said Dr. Sinha.

Moreover, patients must be able to access primary care in various ways, be it a telephone consultation, a video consultation, or a face-to-face consultation, he added. Face-to-face consultations can take place in a provider’s office or even in a patient’s home when warranted, he said. “What we need to make sure of is that all three types of consultations are available, so that people can actually get the most appropriate care at the time they’re calling.”

The study had no external funding. Dr. Afilalo, Dr. Sinha, and Dr. Rosenberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Difficulty in accessing a family physician is associated with a higher risk for unplanned return visits to the emergency department among patients aged 75 years and older, new data indicate.

In a prospective, observational study that included almost 2,000 patients in this age group, 16% of participants attempted to contact their family physicians before their ED visits. Of this group, more than half reported having difficulty seeing their physicians for urgent problems, more than 40% had difficulty speaking with their family physicians by telephone, and more than one-third had difficulty booking appointments for new health problems.

“Difficulty in accessing primary care was associated with a higher rate of return visits to the ED within an elderly population,” write study author Marc Afilalo, MD, director of the ED at Jewish General Hospital in Montreal, and colleagues. “Therefore, community-based programs that target patient education and improved access to primary care are necessary not only for reducing return visits to the ED, but also for continuity of care and patient satisfaction.”

The study was published in Canadian Family Physician.
 

Comorbidities increased risk

Researchers have estimated that half of Canadians aged 75 years or older use emergency services. Data indicate that the number of unplanned return visits to the ED is associated with increased functional decline and death. But the question of how patient access to primary care services affects unplanned ED return visits has received little attention, according to the investigators.

They conducted a multicenter study at three tertiary adult teaching hospitals in Montreal. From 2012 to 2014, they recruited patients aged 75 years and older who had visited the ED and who lived in their own homes or in an autonomous residence.

Investigators collected data through structured interviews, administrative databases, and medical chart reviews. They followed up with participants at 3 months by telephone. The study’s main outcome was return visit to the ED.

The researchers identified 4,577 patients and included 1,998 in their analysis. Of that total, 33% were 85 or older, 34% lived alone, and 91% had a family physician. Within 3 months, 562 patients (28%) had made 894 return visits to the ED.

Among patients aged 85 years or older (relative risk, 0.80), as well as those whose triage score was less severe (RR, 0.83) and those who were admitted during the index ED visit (RR, 0.76), rates of return ED visits were lower. Among patients who had trouble booking appointments with their family doctors to address new problems (RR, 1.19), as well as those who had made ED visits within the previous 6 months (RR, 1.47) or had a higher Charlson comorbidity index score (RR, 1.06 for every 1-unit increase), rates of return visits were higher.

Factors associated with a higher likelihood of return visits were visits to the ED in the previous 6 months (odds ratio, 2.11), increased Charlson comorbidity index score (OR, 1.41 for every 1-unit increase), and having received help from local community services (OR, 3.00).
 

Primary care access

The study suggests that improvements in primary care access are needed to decrease return visits to the ED, Samir Sinha, MD, DPhil, director of geriatrics at Mount Sinai and the University Health Network Hospitals in Toronto, told this news organization. Dr. Sinha was not involved in the study.

“It reminds us of the importance of having a strong primary care system,” he added. “Of this population, 91% had primary care providers. And what the paper demonstrates is that those who are having trouble accessing their primary care providers are more likely to be readmitted to an ED. We can only imagine how much worse the outcomes are for people who don’t have a primary care provider.”

Patients are frequently advised to visit the ED when they contact their primary care providers, said Mark Rosenberg, PhD, professor of geography and planning and the Canada Research Chair in Aging, Health, and Development at Queens University in Kingston, Ont., said in an interview. He noted that primary care is organized as an appointment-based system. Dr. Rosenberg did not participate in the study.

“If I were to call my primary care provider in the middle of the afternoon and say that I have got chest pains, they are going to simply tell me to go to emergency,” said Dr. Rosenberg. “It is not just older people. Many people end up in the ED because they are told to go to the ED.”
 

Associations with age

“The higher your Charlson comorbidity index, the more multiple, complex health issues you’re dealing with,” said Sinha. He added that the data suggest the frailty of the study population.

The association between age 85 years or older and a lower rate of a return ED visits might mean that the patient did not return to independent living after the ED visit, Dr. Rosenberg speculated. “If it’s a serious health problem, you’re more likely to end up going into long-term care at that stage, and you are not going back to living in the community in your home,” he said. “You’re likely going into some sort of transition care or alternative care.”

People aged 85 years or older who are hospitalized are more likely not to survive their index hospital admission, compared with patients who are aged 75-85 years. There would be no possibility that such patients would revisit the ED in the future, said Dr. Sinha.
 

Expanding primary care

The major solution to decreasing reliance on the ED lies in revamping primary health care so that it offers an expanded level of care and 24/7 access, said Dr. Rosenberg.

Providing continuity of care, identifying problems, and managing them in the community before they become urgent or require a hospitalization are priorities for primary care and will help shift away from return visits to the ED, which should be a last resort for patients, said Dr. Sinha.

Moreover, patients must be able to access primary care in various ways, be it a telephone consultation, a video consultation, or a face-to-face consultation, he added. Face-to-face consultations can take place in a provider’s office or even in a patient’s home when warranted, he said. “What we need to make sure of is that all three types of consultations are available, so that people can actually get the most appropriate care at the time they’re calling.”

The study had no external funding. Dr. Afilalo, Dr. Sinha, and Dr. Rosenberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Difficulty in accessing a family physician is associated with a higher risk for unplanned return visits to the emergency department among patients aged 75 years and older, new data indicate.

In a prospective, observational study that included almost 2,000 patients in this age group, 16% of participants attempted to contact their family physicians before their ED visits. Of this group, more than half reported having difficulty seeing their physicians for urgent problems, more than 40% had difficulty speaking with their family physicians by telephone, and more than one-third had difficulty booking appointments for new health problems.

“Difficulty in accessing primary care was associated with a higher rate of return visits to the ED within an elderly population,” write study author Marc Afilalo, MD, director of the ED at Jewish General Hospital in Montreal, and colleagues. “Therefore, community-based programs that target patient education and improved access to primary care are necessary not only for reducing return visits to the ED, but also for continuity of care and patient satisfaction.”

The study was published in Canadian Family Physician.
 

Comorbidities increased risk

Researchers have estimated that half of Canadians aged 75 years or older use emergency services. Data indicate that the number of unplanned return visits to the ED is associated with increased functional decline and death. But the question of how patient access to primary care services affects unplanned ED return visits has received little attention, according to the investigators.

They conducted a multicenter study at three tertiary adult teaching hospitals in Montreal. From 2012 to 2014, they recruited patients aged 75 years and older who had visited the ED and who lived in their own homes or in an autonomous residence.

Investigators collected data through structured interviews, administrative databases, and medical chart reviews. They followed up with participants at 3 months by telephone. The study’s main outcome was return visit to the ED.

The researchers identified 4,577 patients and included 1,998 in their analysis. Of that total, 33% were 85 or older, 34% lived alone, and 91% had a family physician. Within 3 months, 562 patients (28%) had made 894 return visits to the ED.

Among patients aged 85 years or older (relative risk, 0.80), as well as those whose triage score was less severe (RR, 0.83) and those who were admitted during the index ED visit (RR, 0.76), rates of return ED visits were lower. Among patients who had trouble booking appointments with their family doctors to address new problems (RR, 1.19), as well as those who had made ED visits within the previous 6 months (RR, 1.47) or had a higher Charlson comorbidity index score (RR, 1.06 for every 1-unit increase), rates of return visits were higher.

Factors associated with a higher likelihood of return visits were visits to the ED in the previous 6 months (odds ratio, 2.11), increased Charlson comorbidity index score (OR, 1.41 for every 1-unit increase), and having received help from local community services (OR, 3.00).
 

Primary care access

The study suggests that improvements in primary care access are needed to decrease return visits to the ED, Samir Sinha, MD, DPhil, director of geriatrics at Mount Sinai and the University Health Network Hospitals in Toronto, told this news organization. Dr. Sinha was not involved in the study.

“It reminds us of the importance of having a strong primary care system,” he added. “Of this population, 91% had primary care providers. And what the paper demonstrates is that those who are having trouble accessing their primary care providers are more likely to be readmitted to an ED. We can only imagine how much worse the outcomes are for people who don’t have a primary care provider.”

Patients are frequently advised to visit the ED when they contact their primary care providers, said Mark Rosenberg, PhD, professor of geography and planning and the Canada Research Chair in Aging, Health, and Development at Queens University in Kingston, Ont., said in an interview. He noted that primary care is organized as an appointment-based system. Dr. Rosenberg did not participate in the study.

“If I were to call my primary care provider in the middle of the afternoon and say that I have got chest pains, they are going to simply tell me to go to emergency,” said Dr. Rosenberg. “It is not just older people. Many people end up in the ED because they are told to go to the ED.”
 

Associations with age

“The higher your Charlson comorbidity index, the more multiple, complex health issues you’re dealing with,” said Sinha. He added that the data suggest the frailty of the study population.

The association between age 85 years or older and a lower rate of a return ED visits might mean that the patient did not return to independent living after the ED visit, Dr. Rosenberg speculated. “If it’s a serious health problem, you’re more likely to end up going into long-term care at that stage, and you are not going back to living in the community in your home,” he said. “You’re likely going into some sort of transition care or alternative care.”

People aged 85 years or older who are hospitalized are more likely not to survive their index hospital admission, compared with patients who are aged 75-85 years. There would be no possibility that such patients would revisit the ED in the future, said Dr. Sinha.
 

Expanding primary care

The major solution to decreasing reliance on the ED lies in revamping primary health care so that it offers an expanded level of care and 24/7 access, said Dr. Rosenberg.

Providing continuity of care, identifying problems, and managing them in the community before they become urgent or require a hospitalization are priorities for primary care and will help shift away from return visits to the ED, which should be a last resort for patients, said Dr. Sinha.

Moreover, patients must be able to access primary care in various ways, be it a telephone consultation, a video consultation, or a face-to-face consultation, he added. Face-to-face consultations can take place in a provider’s office or even in a patient’s home when warranted, he said. “What we need to make sure of is that all three types of consultations are available, so that people can actually get the most appropriate care at the time they’re calling.”

The study had no external funding. Dr. Afilalo, Dr. Sinha, and Dr. Rosenberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There’s little doubt long COVID is real. The federal government recognizes long COVID as a condition and said in two reports issued in August that one in five adult COVID-19 survivors have a health condition related to their illness.

COVID-19 can damage multiple organs in the body. Sometimes this damage leads to long COVID; sometimes other reasons are at play. Doctors are beginning to sort it out.

There’s a difference between long COVID and an acute infection with lasting effects, doctors say.

“COVID itself can actually cause prolonged illness, and we don’t really call that long COVID,” said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, a doctor at UCLA Health in Los Angeles. But if symptoms extend beyond 12 weeks, that puts patients in the realm of long COVID.

Symptoms can range from mild to severe and can keep people from resuming their normal lives and jobs. Sometimes they last for months, according to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
 

Multiorgan damage

Lung scarring and other lung problems are common after COVID, said Leora Horwitz, MD, an internal medicine specialist at New York University. Even after a mild case, people can have breathing issues for months, a team at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, said in an online briefing. One study published in the journal Radiology found damage in people a full year after a COVID-19 diagnosis.

Some people have persistent heart, kidney, liver, and nervous system problems after COVID-19. A study published in 2020 in JAMA Cardiology found 60% of people who had COVID-19 had ongoing signs of heart inflammation. Nearly a third of people hospitalized for COVID-19 get kidney damage that can become chronic, and some end up needing dialysis or a transplant, said C. John Sperati, MD, a kidney specialist at Johns Hopkins Medicine.

This might be, in part, because SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, directly infects the cells in many organs.

Nicole Bhave, MD, a cardiologist at University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor is concerned that COVID-19 appears to increase the risk of heart problems in some people.

“Some of the uptick may just be recognition bias, in that people with symptoms are seeking care,” she said. “But there’s definitely a biological basis by which COVID could tip people over into a new diagnosis of heart failure.”
 

Inflammation

Inflammation is probably a key part of the long-term effects of COVID-19.

Some people have a serious immune reaction to COVID-19 called a cytokine storm, said Nitra Aggarwal Gilotra, MD, a cardiologist at Johns Hopkins Medicine. This release of inflammation-causing molecules called cytokines is meant to attack the invading virus. But it can be so severe that it wreaks havoc on healthy tissues and organs and causes lasting damage – if patients even survive it.

In some people, inflammation can affect the heart, causing myocarditis. Myocarditis symptoms include chest pain, breathlessness, and heart palpitations. Though rare, it can be serious and can raise the risk of other heart problems, including heart failure, down the line.

Long COVID may also trigger an autoimmune condition, said Eline Luning Prak, MD, PhD, a pathologist at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Long COVID can share many hallmark symptoms with autoimmune diseases, including fatigue, widespread pain, memory problems, and mood disorders.
 

Blood clots

Studies have shown the overcharged inflammatory response to COVID-19 can cause blood clots. This sometimes overwhelming clotting was an early hallmark of COVID-19 infection, and when clots restrict blood flow in the brain, lungs, kidneys, or limbs, they can cause long-term damage. Some can be deadly. Researchers in Sweden found patients were at risk of deep vein thrombosis – a blood clot usually in the leg – up to 3 months after infection and at higher risk of a blood clot in the lung, called pulmonary embolism, for as long as 3 months.

Viral reservoirs

The virus itself may also linger in a patient’s body, causing continued symptoms and, potentially, new flare-ups. Zoe Swank, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues reported in a preprint study that they found pieces of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the blood of most patients with long COVID symptoms they tested – some as long as a year after infection. The study has not yet been peer reviewed.

Another team found evidence of the virus in stool up to 7 months later, which suggests the virus hides out in the gut. Other early studies have found bits of viral RNA in the appendix, breast tissue, heart, eyes, and brain.
 

Diabetes

Diabetes is a risk factor for getting severe COVID-19, and multiple studies have shown people can get diabetes both while battling infection and afterward. One study of veterans, published in The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology, found COVID-19 survivors were about 40% more likely to get diabetes over the next year.

There are a few ways this might happen. Insulin-producing cells in the pancreas have SARS-CoV-2 receptors – a type of molecular doorway the coronavirus can attach to. Damage to these cells could make the body less able to produce insulin, which in turn can lead to diabetes. The virus could also disrupt the balance in the body or cause inflammation that leads to insulin resistance, which can develop into diabetes, Ziad Al-Aly, MD, of the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System, and colleagues wrote.
 

Nervous system issues

People who get COVID-19 are also more vulnerable to postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS). This affects what’s known as the autonomic nervous system, which regulates blood circulation, and includes those things that happen in your body without your having to think about them, like breathing, heartbeat, and digestion. POTS can cause common long COVID neurologic symptoms, including headaches, fatigue, brain fog, insomnia, and problems thinking and concentrating. “This was a known condition prior to COVID, but it was incredibly rare,” said Dr. Viswanathan. “After COVID, I’ve seen it with increasing frequency.”

Long-term outlook

Lasting issues after COVID-19 are much more likely after a moderate or severe infection. Still, plenty of people are battling them even after a mild illness. “As for why, that’s the billion-dollar question,” said Dr. Horwitz. “It’s well known that viral infections can cause long-term dysregulation. Why that is, we really just don’t know.”

Whether it’s virus hiding out in the body, long-term organ damage, or an autoimmune reaction likely differs from person to person. “I’m believing, increasingly, that it’s a combination of all of these, just based on how different patients are responding to different medications,” said Dr. Viswanathan. “One patient will respond to something beautifully, and another patient won’t at all.”

But it’s clear a significant number of people are facing long-term health struggles because of COVID-19, which has infected at least 580 million people globally and 92 million – likely many more – in the United States, according to Johns Hopkins University.

Even a small increased risk of conditions like heart disease or diabetes translates to a huge number of people, Dr. Horwitz said. “If even 1% of people getting COVID have long-term symptoms, that’s a major public health crisis, because that’s 1% of pretty much everybody in the country.”

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

There’s little doubt long COVID is real. The federal government recognizes long COVID as a condition and said in two reports issued in August that one in five adult COVID-19 survivors have a health condition related to their illness.

COVID-19 can damage multiple organs in the body. Sometimes this damage leads to long COVID; sometimes other reasons are at play. Doctors are beginning to sort it out.

There’s a difference between long COVID and an acute infection with lasting effects, doctors say.

“COVID itself can actually cause prolonged illness, and we don’t really call that long COVID,” said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, a doctor at UCLA Health in Los Angeles. But if symptoms extend beyond 12 weeks, that puts patients in the realm of long COVID.

Symptoms can range from mild to severe and can keep people from resuming their normal lives and jobs. Sometimes they last for months, according to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
 

Multiorgan damage

Lung scarring and other lung problems are common after COVID, said Leora Horwitz, MD, an internal medicine specialist at New York University. Even after a mild case, people can have breathing issues for months, a team at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, said in an online briefing. One study published in the journal Radiology found damage in people a full year after a COVID-19 diagnosis.

Some people have persistent heart, kidney, liver, and nervous system problems after COVID-19. A study published in 2020 in JAMA Cardiology found 60% of people who had COVID-19 had ongoing signs of heart inflammation. Nearly a third of people hospitalized for COVID-19 get kidney damage that can become chronic, and some end up needing dialysis or a transplant, said C. John Sperati, MD, a kidney specialist at Johns Hopkins Medicine.

This might be, in part, because SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, directly infects the cells in many organs.

Nicole Bhave, MD, a cardiologist at University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor is concerned that COVID-19 appears to increase the risk of heart problems in some people.

“Some of the uptick may just be recognition bias, in that people with symptoms are seeking care,” she said. “But there’s definitely a biological basis by which COVID could tip people over into a new diagnosis of heart failure.”
 

Inflammation

Inflammation is probably a key part of the long-term effects of COVID-19.

Some people have a serious immune reaction to COVID-19 called a cytokine storm, said Nitra Aggarwal Gilotra, MD, a cardiologist at Johns Hopkins Medicine. This release of inflammation-causing molecules called cytokines is meant to attack the invading virus. But it can be so severe that it wreaks havoc on healthy tissues and organs and causes lasting damage – if patients even survive it.

In some people, inflammation can affect the heart, causing myocarditis. Myocarditis symptoms include chest pain, breathlessness, and heart palpitations. Though rare, it can be serious and can raise the risk of other heart problems, including heart failure, down the line.

Long COVID may also trigger an autoimmune condition, said Eline Luning Prak, MD, PhD, a pathologist at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Long COVID can share many hallmark symptoms with autoimmune diseases, including fatigue, widespread pain, memory problems, and mood disorders.
 

Blood clots

Studies have shown the overcharged inflammatory response to COVID-19 can cause blood clots. This sometimes overwhelming clotting was an early hallmark of COVID-19 infection, and when clots restrict blood flow in the brain, lungs, kidneys, or limbs, they can cause long-term damage. Some can be deadly. Researchers in Sweden found patients were at risk of deep vein thrombosis – a blood clot usually in the leg – up to 3 months after infection and at higher risk of a blood clot in the lung, called pulmonary embolism, for as long as 3 months.

Viral reservoirs

The virus itself may also linger in a patient’s body, causing continued symptoms and, potentially, new flare-ups. Zoe Swank, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues reported in a preprint study that they found pieces of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the blood of most patients with long COVID symptoms they tested – some as long as a year after infection. The study has not yet been peer reviewed.

Another team found evidence of the virus in stool up to 7 months later, which suggests the virus hides out in the gut. Other early studies have found bits of viral RNA in the appendix, breast tissue, heart, eyes, and brain.
 

Diabetes

Diabetes is a risk factor for getting severe COVID-19, and multiple studies have shown people can get diabetes both while battling infection and afterward. One study of veterans, published in The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology, found COVID-19 survivors were about 40% more likely to get diabetes over the next year.

There are a few ways this might happen. Insulin-producing cells in the pancreas have SARS-CoV-2 receptors – a type of molecular doorway the coronavirus can attach to. Damage to these cells could make the body less able to produce insulin, which in turn can lead to diabetes. The virus could also disrupt the balance in the body or cause inflammation that leads to insulin resistance, which can develop into diabetes, Ziad Al-Aly, MD, of the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System, and colleagues wrote.
 

Nervous system issues

People who get COVID-19 are also more vulnerable to postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS). This affects what’s known as the autonomic nervous system, which regulates blood circulation, and includes those things that happen in your body without your having to think about them, like breathing, heartbeat, and digestion. POTS can cause common long COVID neurologic symptoms, including headaches, fatigue, brain fog, insomnia, and problems thinking and concentrating. “This was a known condition prior to COVID, but it was incredibly rare,” said Dr. Viswanathan. “After COVID, I’ve seen it with increasing frequency.”

Long-term outlook

Lasting issues after COVID-19 are much more likely after a moderate or severe infection. Still, plenty of people are battling them even after a mild illness. “As for why, that’s the billion-dollar question,” said Dr. Horwitz. “It’s well known that viral infections can cause long-term dysregulation. Why that is, we really just don’t know.”

Whether it’s virus hiding out in the body, long-term organ damage, or an autoimmune reaction likely differs from person to person. “I’m believing, increasingly, that it’s a combination of all of these, just based on how different patients are responding to different medications,” said Dr. Viswanathan. “One patient will respond to something beautifully, and another patient won’t at all.”

But it’s clear a significant number of people are facing long-term health struggles because of COVID-19, which has infected at least 580 million people globally and 92 million – likely many more – in the United States, according to Johns Hopkins University.

Even a small increased risk of conditions like heart disease or diabetes translates to a huge number of people, Dr. Horwitz said. “If even 1% of people getting COVID have long-term symptoms, that’s a major public health crisis, because that’s 1% of pretty much everybody in the country.”

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

There’s little doubt long COVID is real. The federal government recognizes long COVID as a condition and said in two reports issued in August that one in five adult COVID-19 survivors have a health condition related to their illness.

COVID-19 can damage multiple organs in the body. Sometimes this damage leads to long COVID; sometimes other reasons are at play. Doctors are beginning to sort it out.

There’s a difference between long COVID and an acute infection with lasting effects, doctors say.

“COVID itself can actually cause prolonged illness, and we don’t really call that long COVID,” said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, a doctor at UCLA Health in Los Angeles. But if symptoms extend beyond 12 weeks, that puts patients in the realm of long COVID.

Symptoms can range from mild to severe and can keep people from resuming their normal lives and jobs. Sometimes they last for months, according to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
 

Multiorgan damage

Lung scarring and other lung problems are common after COVID, said Leora Horwitz, MD, an internal medicine specialist at New York University. Even after a mild case, people can have breathing issues for months, a team at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, said in an online briefing. One study published in the journal Radiology found damage in people a full year after a COVID-19 diagnosis.

Some people have persistent heart, kidney, liver, and nervous system problems after COVID-19. A study published in 2020 in JAMA Cardiology found 60% of people who had COVID-19 had ongoing signs of heart inflammation. Nearly a third of people hospitalized for COVID-19 get kidney damage that can become chronic, and some end up needing dialysis or a transplant, said C. John Sperati, MD, a kidney specialist at Johns Hopkins Medicine.

This might be, in part, because SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, directly infects the cells in many organs.

Nicole Bhave, MD, a cardiologist at University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor is concerned that COVID-19 appears to increase the risk of heart problems in some people.

“Some of the uptick may just be recognition bias, in that people with symptoms are seeking care,” she said. “But there’s definitely a biological basis by which COVID could tip people over into a new diagnosis of heart failure.”
 

Inflammation

Inflammation is probably a key part of the long-term effects of COVID-19.

Some people have a serious immune reaction to COVID-19 called a cytokine storm, said Nitra Aggarwal Gilotra, MD, a cardiologist at Johns Hopkins Medicine. This release of inflammation-causing molecules called cytokines is meant to attack the invading virus. But it can be so severe that it wreaks havoc on healthy tissues and organs and causes lasting damage – if patients even survive it.

In some people, inflammation can affect the heart, causing myocarditis. Myocarditis symptoms include chest pain, breathlessness, and heart palpitations. Though rare, it can be serious and can raise the risk of other heart problems, including heart failure, down the line.

Long COVID may also trigger an autoimmune condition, said Eline Luning Prak, MD, PhD, a pathologist at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Long COVID can share many hallmark symptoms with autoimmune diseases, including fatigue, widespread pain, memory problems, and mood disorders.
 

Blood clots

Studies have shown the overcharged inflammatory response to COVID-19 can cause blood clots. This sometimes overwhelming clotting was an early hallmark of COVID-19 infection, and when clots restrict blood flow in the brain, lungs, kidneys, or limbs, they can cause long-term damage. Some can be deadly. Researchers in Sweden found patients were at risk of deep vein thrombosis – a blood clot usually in the leg – up to 3 months after infection and at higher risk of a blood clot in the lung, called pulmonary embolism, for as long as 3 months.

Viral reservoirs

The virus itself may also linger in a patient’s body, causing continued symptoms and, potentially, new flare-ups. Zoe Swank, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues reported in a preprint study that they found pieces of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the blood of most patients with long COVID symptoms they tested – some as long as a year after infection. The study has not yet been peer reviewed.

Another team found evidence of the virus in stool up to 7 months later, which suggests the virus hides out in the gut. Other early studies have found bits of viral RNA in the appendix, breast tissue, heart, eyes, and brain.
 

Diabetes

Diabetes is a risk factor for getting severe COVID-19, and multiple studies have shown people can get diabetes both while battling infection and afterward. One study of veterans, published in The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology, found COVID-19 survivors were about 40% more likely to get diabetes over the next year.

There are a few ways this might happen. Insulin-producing cells in the pancreas have SARS-CoV-2 receptors – a type of molecular doorway the coronavirus can attach to. Damage to these cells could make the body less able to produce insulin, which in turn can lead to diabetes. The virus could also disrupt the balance in the body or cause inflammation that leads to insulin resistance, which can develop into diabetes, Ziad Al-Aly, MD, of the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System, and colleagues wrote.
 

Nervous system issues

People who get COVID-19 are also more vulnerable to postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS). This affects what’s known as the autonomic nervous system, which regulates blood circulation, and includes those things that happen in your body without your having to think about them, like breathing, heartbeat, and digestion. POTS can cause common long COVID neurologic symptoms, including headaches, fatigue, brain fog, insomnia, and problems thinking and concentrating. “This was a known condition prior to COVID, but it was incredibly rare,” said Dr. Viswanathan. “After COVID, I’ve seen it with increasing frequency.”

Long-term outlook

Lasting issues after COVID-19 are much more likely after a moderate or severe infection. Still, plenty of people are battling them even after a mild illness. “As for why, that’s the billion-dollar question,” said Dr. Horwitz. “It’s well known that viral infections can cause long-term dysregulation. Why that is, we really just don’t know.”

Whether it’s virus hiding out in the body, long-term organ damage, or an autoimmune reaction likely differs from person to person. “I’m believing, increasingly, that it’s a combination of all of these, just based on how different patients are responding to different medications,” said Dr. Viswanathan. “One patient will respond to something beautifully, and another patient won’t at all.”

But it’s clear a significant number of people are facing long-term health struggles because of COVID-19, which has infected at least 580 million people globally and 92 million – likely many more – in the United States, according to Johns Hopkins University.

Even a small increased risk of conditions like heart disease or diabetes translates to a huge number of people, Dr. Horwitz said. “If even 1% of people getting COVID have long-term symptoms, that’s a major public health crisis, because that’s 1% of pretty much everybody in the country.”

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

Most people with Omicron likely don’t know it.

That’s according to a study in JAMA Network Open, which says 56% of people who have the Omicron variant of the coronavirus are unaware of their infection.

And it has an upside and a downside, depending on how you look at it, according to Time magazine.

“It’s good news, in some ways, since it underscores the fact that Omicron tends to cause relatively mild symptoms (or no symptoms at all) in vaccinated people,” Time says. “The downside is that many people are likely spreading the virus unintentionally.”

The study looked at 210 hospital patients and employees in the Los Angeles area. More than half who tested positive didn’t know it – because they had no symptoms, or they assumed they merely had a cold or allergies.

“The findings support early data from around the world suggesting that throughout the pandemic, anywhere from 25% to 40% of SARS-CoV-2 infections have been asymptomatic, which presents challenges for public health officials trying to control the spread of the virus,” Time reports.

The study found that awareness of infection rose after at-home tests became available this year. About three-quarters of people in January and February didn’t know their status, for example.

“Findings of this study suggest that low rates of Omicron variant infection awareness may be a key contributor to rapid transmission of the virus within communities,” the authors wrote. “Given that unawareness of active infection precludes self-initiated interventions, such as testing and self-isolation, even modest levels of undiagnosed infection can contribute to substantial population-level transmission.”

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

Most people with Omicron likely don’t know it.

That’s according to a study in JAMA Network Open, which says 56% of people who have the Omicron variant of the coronavirus are unaware of their infection.

And it has an upside and a downside, depending on how you look at it, according to Time magazine.

“It’s good news, in some ways, since it underscores the fact that Omicron tends to cause relatively mild symptoms (or no symptoms at all) in vaccinated people,” Time says. “The downside is that many people are likely spreading the virus unintentionally.”

The study looked at 210 hospital patients and employees in the Los Angeles area. More than half who tested positive didn’t know it – because they had no symptoms, or they assumed they merely had a cold or allergies.

“The findings support early data from around the world suggesting that throughout the pandemic, anywhere from 25% to 40% of SARS-CoV-2 infections have been asymptomatic, which presents challenges for public health officials trying to control the spread of the virus,” Time reports.

The study found that awareness of infection rose after at-home tests became available this year. About three-quarters of people in January and February didn’t know their status, for example.

“Findings of this study suggest that low rates of Omicron variant infection awareness may be a key contributor to rapid transmission of the virus within communities,” the authors wrote. “Given that unawareness of active infection precludes self-initiated interventions, such as testing and self-isolation, even modest levels of undiagnosed infection can contribute to substantial population-level transmission.”

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

Most people with Omicron likely don’t know it.

That’s according to a study in JAMA Network Open, which says 56% of people who have the Omicron variant of the coronavirus are unaware of their infection.

And it has an upside and a downside, depending on how you look at it, according to Time magazine.

“It’s good news, in some ways, since it underscores the fact that Omicron tends to cause relatively mild symptoms (or no symptoms at all) in vaccinated people,” Time says. “The downside is that many people are likely spreading the virus unintentionally.”

The study looked at 210 hospital patients and employees in the Los Angeles area. More than half who tested positive didn’t know it – because they had no symptoms, or they assumed they merely had a cold or allergies.

“The findings support early data from around the world suggesting that throughout the pandemic, anywhere from 25% to 40% of SARS-CoV-2 infections have been asymptomatic, which presents challenges for public health officials trying to control the spread of the virus,” Time reports.

The study found that awareness of infection rose after at-home tests became available this year. About three-quarters of people in January and February didn’t know their status, for example.

“Findings of this study suggest that low rates of Omicron variant infection awareness may be a key contributor to rapid transmission of the virus within communities,” the authors wrote. “Given that unawareness of active infection precludes self-initiated interventions, such as testing and self-isolation, even modest levels of undiagnosed infection can contribute to substantial population-level transmission.”

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

Many medical associations have publicly announced their determination to help eliminate racial disparities – from health care outcomes, from the level and quality of patient treatment, from their own memberships. How have those pronouncements translated into programs that could have, or even have had, positive impacts?

For this article, this news organization asked several associations about tangible actions behind their vows to combat racism in health care. Meanwhile, a recent Medscape report focused on the degree to which physicians prioritize racial disparities as a leading social issue.
 

American Academy of Family Physicians

The American Academy of Family Physicians’ approach is to integrate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts into all existing and new projects rather than tackle racial disparities as a discrete problem.

“Our policies, our advocacy efforts, everything our commissions and staff do ... is through a lens of diversity, equity, and inclusiveness,” said AAFP Board Chair Ada D. Stewart, MD, FAAP.

That lens is ground by a DEI center the AAFP created in 2017. Run by AAFP staff, members, and chapters, the center focuses on five areas: policy, education and training, practice, diversifying the workplace, and strategic partnerships.

The center has established a special project called EveryONE to provide AAFP members with relevant research, policy templates, and other resources to address patient needs. One example is the Neighborhood Navigator, an online tool that shows food, housing, transportation, and other needs in a patient’s neighborhood.

Meanwhile, the DEI center has created training programs for AAFP members on topics like unconscious and implicit racial biases. And the AAFP has implemented several relevant governing policies regarding pushes to improve childbirth conditions and limit race-based treatment, among other areas.

In January, the AAFP established a new DEI commission for family medicine to set the academy’s agenda on racial issues moving forward. “We only had 10 physician positions available on the commission, and over 100 individuals applied, which gave us comfort that we were going in the right direction,” Dr. Stewart said.
 

Association of American Medical Colleges

The Association of American Medical Colleges, which represents nearly 600 U.S. and Canadian medical schools and teaching hospitals, has a “longstanding” focus on racial equity, said Philip Alberti, founder of the AAMC Center for Health Justice. However, in 2020 that focus became more detailed and layered.

Those layers include:

• Encouraging self-reflection by members on how personal racial biases and stereotypes can lead to systemic racism in health care.
• Working on the AAMC organizational structure. Priorities range from hiring a consultant to help guide antiracism efforts, to establishing a DEI council and advisors, to regularly seeking input from staff. In 2021, the AAMC launched a Center for Health Justice to work more closely with communities.
• Ramping up collaboration with national and local academic medicine organizations and partners. As one example, the AAMC and American Medical Association released a guide for physicians and health care professionals on language that could be interpreted as racist or disrespectful.
• Continuing to be outspoken about racial disparities in health care in society generally.

Meanwhile, the AAMC is supporting more specific, localized health equity efforts in cities such as Cincinnati and Boston.

Cincinnati Children’s Hospital research has found that children in poor neighborhoods are five times more likely to need hospital stays. AAMC members have helped identify “hot spots” for social needs among children and focused specifically on two neighborhoods in the city. The initiative has roped in partnerships with community and social service organizations as well as health care providers, and proponents say the number of child hospital stays in those neighborhoods has dropped by 20%.

Boston Medical Center researchers learned that Black and Latino patients experiencing problems with heart failure were less likely to be referred to a cardiologist. AAMC members assisted with a program to encourage physicians to make medically necessary referrals more often.
 

National Health Council

The National Health Council, an umbrella association of health organizations, similarly has made a “commitment, not just around policy work but anytime and anything the NHC is doing, to build around trying to identify and solve issues of health equity,” CEO Randall Rutta said.

The NHC has identified four strategic policy areas including race and in 2021 issued a statement signed by 45 other health care organizations vowing to take on systemic racism and advance equity, through public policy and law.

In relation to policy, Mr. Rutta said his organization is lobbying Congress and federal agencies to diversify clinical trials.

“We want to make sure that clinical trials are inclusive of people from different racial and ethnic groups, in order to understand how [they are] affected by a particular condition,” he said. “As you would imagine, some conditions hit certain groups harder than others for genetic or other reasons, or it may just be a reflection of other disparities that occur across health care.”

The organization has issued suggestions for policy change in the Food and Drug Administration’s clinical trial policy and separately targeted telemedicine policy to promote equity and greater patient access. For example, one initiative aims to ensure patients’ privacy and civil rights as telemedicine’s popularity grows after the COVID-19 pandemic. The NHC presented the initiative in a congressional briefing last year.
 

American Public Health Association

The American Public Health Association says it started focusing on racial disparities in health care in 2015, following a series of racially fueled violent acts. The APHA started with a four-part webinar series on racism in health (more than 10,000 live participants and 40,000 replays to date).

Shortly afterward, then-APHA President Camara Jones, MD, MPH, PhD, launched a national campaign encouraging APHA members, affiliates, and partners to name and address racism as a determinant of health.

More recently in 2021, the APHA adopted a “Truth, Racial Healing & Transformation” guiding framework and “Healing Through Policy” initiative that offer local leaders policy templates and best practices.

“We have identified a suite of policies that have actually been implemented successfully and are advancing racial equity,” said Regina Davis Moss, APHA’s associate executive director of health policy and practice. “You can’t advance health without having a policy that supports it.”

Montgomery County, Md., is one community that has used the framework (for racial equity training of county employees). Leaders in Evanston, Ill., also used it in crafting a resolution to end structural racism in the city.

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

Many medical associations have publicly announced their determination to help eliminate racial disparities – from health care outcomes, from the level and quality of patient treatment, from their own memberships. How have those pronouncements translated into programs that could have, or even have had, positive impacts?

For this article, this news organization asked several associations about tangible actions behind their vows to combat racism in health care. Meanwhile, a recent Medscape report focused on the degree to which physicians prioritize racial disparities as a leading social issue.
 

American Academy of Family Physicians

The American Academy of Family Physicians’ approach is to integrate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts into all existing and new projects rather than tackle racial disparities as a discrete problem.

“Our policies, our advocacy efforts, everything our commissions and staff do ... is through a lens of diversity, equity, and inclusiveness,” said AAFP Board Chair Ada D. Stewart, MD, FAAP.

That lens is ground by a DEI center the AAFP created in 2017. Run by AAFP staff, members, and chapters, the center focuses on five areas: policy, education and training, practice, diversifying the workplace, and strategic partnerships.

The center has established a special project called EveryONE to provide AAFP members with relevant research, policy templates, and other resources to address patient needs. One example is the Neighborhood Navigator, an online tool that shows food, housing, transportation, and other needs in a patient’s neighborhood.

Meanwhile, the DEI center has created training programs for AAFP members on topics like unconscious and implicit racial biases. And the AAFP has implemented several relevant governing policies regarding pushes to improve childbirth conditions and limit race-based treatment, among other areas.

In January, the AAFP established a new DEI commission for family medicine to set the academy’s agenda on racial issues moving forward. “We only had 10 physician positions available on the commission, and over 100 individuals applied, which gave us comfort that we were going in the right direction,” Dr. Stewart said.
 

Association of American Medical Colleges

The Association of American Medical Colleges, which represents nearly 600 U.S. and Canadian medical schools and teaching hospitals, has a “longstanding” focus on racial equity, said Philip Alberti, founder of the AAMC Center for Health Justice. However, in 2020 that focus became more detailed and layered.

Those layers include:

• Encouraging self-reflection by members on how personal racial biases and stereotypes can lead to systemic racism in health care.
• Working on the AAMC organizational structure. Priorities range from hiring a consultant to help guide antiracism efforts, to establishing a DEI council and advisors, to regularly seeking input from staff. In 2021, the AAMC launched a Center for Health Justice to work more closely with communities.
• Ramping up collaboration with national and local academic medicine organizations and partners. As one example, the AAMC and American Medical Association released a guide for physicians and health care professionals on language that could be interpreted as racist or disrespectful.
• Continuing to be outspoken about racial disparities in health care in society generally.

Meanwhile, the AAMC is supporting more specific, localized health equity efforts in cities such as Cincinnati and Boston.

Cincinnati Children’s Hospital research has found that children in poor neighborhoods are five times more likely to need hospital stays. AAMC members have helped identify “hot spots” for social needs among children and focused specifically on two neighborhoods in the city. The initiative has roped in partnerships with community and social service organizations as well as health care providers, and proponents say the number of child hospital stays in those neighborhoods has dropped by 20%.

Boston Medical Center researchers learned that Black and Latino patients experiencing problems with heart failure were less likely to be referred to a cardiologist. AAMC members assisted with a program to encourage physicians to make medically necessary referrals more often.
 

National Health Council

The National Health Council, an umbrella association of health organizations, similarly has made a “commitment, not just around policy work but anytime and anything the NHC is doing, to build around trying to identify and solve issues of health equity,” CEO Randall Rutta said.

The NHC has identified four strategic policy areas including race and in 2021 issued a statement signed by 45 other health care organizations vowing to take on systemic racism and advance equity, through public policy and law.

In relation to policy, Mr. Rutta said his organization is lobbying Congress and federal agencies to diversify clinical trials.

“We want to make sure that clinical trials are inclusive of people from different racial and ethnic groups, in order to understand how [they are] affected by a particular condition,” he said. “As you would imagine, some conditions hit certain groups harder than others for genetic or other reasons, or it may just be a reflection of other disparities that occur across health care.”

The organization has issued suggestions for policy change in the Food and Drug Administration’s clinical trial policy and separately targeted telemedicine policy to promote equity and greater patient access. For example, one initiative aims to ensure patients’ privacy and civil rights as telemedicine’s popularity grows after the COVID-19 pandemic. The NHC presented the initiative in a congressional briefing last year.
 

American Public Health Association

The American Public Health Association says it started focusing on racial disparities in health care in 2015, following a series of racially fueled violent acts. The APHA started with a four-part webinar series on racism in health (more than 10,000 live participants and 40,000 replays to date).

Shortly afterward, then-APHA President Camara Jones, MD, MPH, PhD, launched a national campaign encouraging APHA members, affiliates, and partners to name and address racism as a determinant of health.

More recently in 2021, the APHA adopted a “Truth, Racial Healing & Transformation” guiding framework and “Healing Through Policy” initiative that offer local leaders policy templates and best practices.

“We have identified a suite of policies that have actually been implemented successfully and are advancing racial equity,” said Regina Davis Moss, APHA’s associate executive director of health policy and practice. “You can’t advance health without having a policy that supports it.”

Montgomery County, Md., is one community that has used the framework (for racial equity training of county employees). Leaders in Evanston, Ill., also used it in crafting a resolution to end structural racism in the city.

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

Many medical associations have publicly announced their determination to help eliminate racial disparities – from health care outcomes, from the level and quality of patient treatment, from their own memberships. How have those pronouncements translated into programs that could have, or even have had, positive impacts?

For this article, this news organization asked several associations about tangible actions behind their vows to combat racism in health care. Meanwhile, a recent Medscape report focused on the degree to which physicians prioritize racial disparities as a leading social issue.
 

American Academy of Family Physicians

The American Academy of Family Physicians’ approach is to integrate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts into all existing and new projects rather than tackle racial disparities as a discrete problem.

“Our policies, our advocacy efforts, everything our commissions and staff do ... is through a lens of diversity, equity, and inclusiveness,” said AAFP Board Chair Ada D. Stewart, MD, FAAP.

That lens is ground by a DEI center the AAFP created in 2017. Run by AAFP staff, members, and chapters, the center focuses on five areas: policy, education and training, practice, diversifying the workplace, and strategic partnerships.

The center has established a special project called EveryONE to provide AAFP members with relevant research, policy templates, and other resources to address patient needs. One example is the Neighborhood Navigator, an online tool that shows food, housing, transportation, and other needs in a patient’s neighborhood.

Meanwhile, the DEI center has created training programs for AAFP members on topics like unconscious and implicit racial biases. And the AAFP has implemented several relevant governing policies regarding pushes to improve childbirth conditions and limit race-based treatment, among other areas.

In January, the AAFP established a new DEI commission for family medicine to set the academy’s agenda on racial issues moving forward. “We only had 10 physician positions available on the commission, and over 100 individuals applied, which gave us comfort that we were going in the right direction,” Dr. Stewart said.
 

Association of American Medical Colleges

The Association of American Medical Colleges, which represents nearly 600 U.S. and Canadian medical schools and teaching hospitals, has a “longstanding” focus on racial equity, said Philip Alberti, founder of the AAMC Center for Health Justice. However, in 2020 that focus became more detailed and layered.

Those layers include:

• Encouraging self-reflection by members on how personal racial biases and stereotypes can lead to systemic racism in health care.
• Working on the AAMC organizational structure. Priorities range from hiring a consultant to help guide antiracism efforts, to establishing a DEI council and advisors, to regularly seeking input from staff. In 2021, the AAMC launched a Center for Health Justice to work more closely with communities.
• Ramping up collaboration with national and local academic medicine organizations and partners. As one example, the AAMC and American Medical Association released a guide for physicians and health care professionals on language that could be interpreted as racist or disrespectful.
• Continuing to be outspoken about racial disparities in health care in society generally.

Meanwhile, the AAMC is supporting more specific, localized health equity efforts in cities such as Cincinnati and Boston.

Cincinnati Children’s Hospital research has found that children in poor neighborhoods are five times more likely to need hospital stays. AAMC members have helped identify “hot spots” for social needs among children and focused specifically on two neighborhoods in the city. The initiative has roped in partnerships with community and social service organizations as well as health care providers, and proponents say the number of child hospital stays in those neighborhoods has dropped by 20%.

Boston Medical Center researchers learned that Black and Latino patients experiencing problems with heart failure were less likely to be referred to a cardiologist. AAMC members assisted with a program to encourage physicians to make medically necessary referrals more often.
 

National Health Council

The National Health Council, an umbrella association of health organizations, similarly has made a “commitment, not just around policy work but anytime and anything the NHC is doing, to build around trying to identify and solve issues of health equity,” CEO Randall Rutta said.

The NHC has identified four strategic policy areas including race and in 2021 issued a statement signed by 45 other health care organizations vowing to take on systemic racism and advance equity, through public policy and law.

In relation to policy, Mr. Rutta said his organization is lobbying Congress and federal agencies to diversify clinical trials.

“We want to make sure that clinical trials are inclusive of people from different racial and ethnic groups, in order to understand how [they are] affected by a particular condition,” he said. “As you would imagine, some conditions hit certain groups harder than others for genetic or other reasons, or it may just be a reflection of other disparities that occur across health care.”

The organization has issued suggestions for policy change in the Food and Drug Administration’s clinical trial policy and separately targeted telemedicine policy to promote equity and greater patient access. For example, one initiative aims to ensure patients’ privacy and civil rights as telemedicine’s popularity grows after the COVID-19 pandemic. The NHC presented the initiative in a congressional briefing last year.
 

American Public Health Association

The American Public Health Association says it started focusing on racial disparities in health care in 2015, following a series of racially fueled violent acts. The APHA started with a four-part webinar series on racism in health (more than 10,000 live participants and 40,000 replays to date).

Shortly afterward, then-APHA President Camara Jones, MD, MPH, PhD, launched a national campaign encouraging APHA members, affiliates, and partners to name and address racism as a determinant of health.

More recently in 2021, the APHA adopted a “Truth, Racial Healing & Transformation” guiding framework and “Healing Through Policy” initiative that offer local leaders policy templates and best practices.

“We have identified a suite of policies that have actually been implemented successfully and are advancing racial equity,” said Regina Davis Moss, APHA’s associate executive director of health policy and practice. “You can’t advance health without having a policy that supports it.”

Montgomery County, Md., is one community that has used the framework (for racial equity training of county employees). Leaders in Evanston, Ill., also used it in crafting a resolution to end structural racism in the city.

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

It seems that everyone’s nerves are on edge right now, and people are often behaving in surprising ways. Physicians are no exception.

“The days of surgeons throwing retractors across the OR and screaming at nurses and medical students are hopefully gone now,” said Barron Lerner, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at New York University Langone Health and author of “The Good Doctor: A Father, a Son, and the Evolution of Medical Ethics” (Boston: Beacon Press, 2014). “We’re not going to tolerate that as an institution.”

But, Dr. Lerner said, bad behavior still happens. And according to a recent Medscape survey, it seems to be on the rise.

For the 2022 Physicians Behaving Badly Report, more than 1,500 physicians shared how often they see fellow doctors misbehaving in person or on social media, and shared some of the worse behavior they’ve seen.

Though misconduct is still relatively uncommon among doctors, and most physicians say they’re proud of the high standards and attitudes of their colleagues, respondents to the survey did say that they’re seeing more frequent incidents of other doctors acting disrespectfully toward patients and coworkers, taking too casual an approach to patient privacy, and even acting angrily or aggressively at work. While the uptick is not substantial, it’s nonetheless worrying.

“I have increased concern for my colleagues,” said Drew Ramsey, MD, an assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York. “People forget that COVID has made the physician workplace incredibly stressful. Physicians are struggling with their mental health.”
 

Bullying and harassment top bad behavior

When it comes to what kind of bad behavior was reported, bullying or harassing clinicians and staff was the runaway winner, with 86% of respondents saying they’d seen this type of behavior at work at some time. Making fun of or disparaging patients behind their backs was a close second, at 82%.

Dr. Ramsey thinks that these figures may reflect a deeper understanding of and sensitivity to harassment and bullying. “Five years ago, we weren’t talking about microaggression,” he said. This heightened awareness might explain the fact that doctors reported witnessing physicians mistreating other medical personnel and/or bullying or harassing patients somewhat more often than in 2021’s report.

Docs were caught using racist language by 55% of respondents, and 44% reported seeing colleagues becoming physically aggressive with patients, clinicians, or staff. Other disturbing behaviors respondents witnessed included bullying or harassing patients (45%), inebriation at work (43%), lying about credentials (34%), trying to date a patient (30%), and committing a crime, such as embezzling or stealing (27%).

Women were seen misbehaving about one-third as often as their male counterparts. This could be because women are more likely to seek help, rather than the bottle, when the stress piles up. “Some misbehavior stems from alcohol abuse, and a higher percentage of men have an alcoholism problem,” Dr. Ramsey pointed out. “Also, male physicians have historically been reluctant to seek mental health assistance.”
 

Speaking up

Doctors are behaving badly slightly more often, and their colleagues are slightly more willing to speak up about that behavior. In 2021, 35% of physicians said they did nothing upon witnessing inappropriate behavior. In 2022’s survey, that number fell to 29%.

Respondents largely agreed (49%) that doctors should be verbally warned when they’ve behaved badly at work, yet only 39% reported speaking to a colleague who acted inappropriately, and only 27% reported the bad behavior to an authority.

Dr. Lerner pointed out that it is very difficult for doctors to speak up, even though they know they should. There are several reasons for their reticence.

“For one thing, we all have bad days, and the reporting physician may worry that he or she could do something similar in the future,” he said. “Also, there is the liability question. A doctor might think: ‘What if I’m wrong? What if I think someone has a drinking problem and they don’t, or I can’t prove it?’ If you’re the doctor who reported the misbehavior, you’re potentially opening a can of worms. So there’s all sorts of reasons people convince themselves they don’t have to report it.” But, he added, “if you see it and don’t report it, you’re in the wrong.”
 

Off the job

Work isn’t the only place where doctors observe their colleagues misbehaving. About 66% of respondents had seen disparaging behavior, and 42% had heard racist language, away from the hospital or clinic, according to the survey.

Bullying and harassment weren’t limited to work, either, with 45% reporting seeing a colleague engage in this behavior off campus, and 52% reporting witnessing a colleague inebriated in public. That’s actually down from 2021 when 58% of respondents said they witnessed inebriated doctors in public.

The public sphere has broadened in recent years to include social media, and there, too, doctors sometimes behave badly. However, 47% of doctors surveyed said they saw more inappropriate behavior in person than on social media.

When doctors do act out online, they make the same mistakes other professionals make. One respondent reported seeing a fellow physician “copying and posting an interoffice memo from work and badmouthing the company and the person who wrote the memo.” Another said: “Someone got fired and stalked the supervisor and posted aggressive things.”

Not all social media transgressions were work related. One respondent reported that “a physician posted pictures of herself at a bar with multiple ER staff members, without masks during COVID restriction,” and another reported a colleague posting “unbelievable, antiscientific information expressed as valid, factual material.”

Though posting nonfactual, unscientific, and potentially unsafe information is clearly an ethics violation, Dr. Lerner said, the boundaries around posting personal peccadillos are less clear. This is a part of “digital professionalism,” he explained, adding that there is a broad range of opinions on this. “I think it’s important to discuss these things. Interestingly, while the rules for behavior at the hospital have become more strict, the culture has become less strict.”

As one respondent put it: “What exactly is bad behavior? If you’re saying physicians should be allowed to sexually assault people and use drugs, then no. Can they wear a tiny bathing suit on vacation and drink cocktails with friends? Yeah.”

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

It seems that everyone’s nerves are on edge right now, and people are often behaving in surprising ways. Physicians are no exception.

“The days of surgeons throwing retractors across the OR and screaming at nurses and medical students are hopefully gone now,” said Barron Lerner, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at New York University Langone Health and author of “The Good Doctor: A Father, a Son, and the Evolution of Medical Ethics” (Boston: Beacon Press, 2014). “We’re not going to tolerate that as an institution.”

But, Dr. Lerner said, bad behavior still happens. And according to a recent Medscape survey, it seems to be on the rise.

For the 2022 Physicians Behaving Badly Report, more than 1,500 physicians shared how often they see fellow doctors misbehaving in person or on social media, and shared some of the worse behavior they’ve seen.

Though misconduct is still relatively uncommon among doctors, and most physicians say they’re proud of the high standards and attitudes of their colleagues, respondents to the survey did say that they’re seeing more frequent incidents of other doctors acting disrespectfully toward patients and coworkers, taking too casual an approach to patient privacy, and even acting angrily or aggressively at work. While the uptick is not substantial, it’s nonetheless worrying.

“I have increased concern for my colleagues,” said Drew Ramsey, MD, an assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York. “People forget that COVID has made the physician workplace incredibly stressful. Physicians are struggling with their mental health.”
 

Bullying and harassment top bad behavior

When it comes to what kind of bad behavior was reported, bullying or harassing clinicians and staff was the runaway winner, with 86% of respondents saying they’d seen this type of behavior at work at some time. Making fun of or disparaging patients behind their backs was a close second, at 82%.

Dr. Ramsey thinks that these figures may reflect a deeper understanding of and sensitivity to harassment and bullying. “Five years ago, we weren’t talking about microaggression,” he said. This heightened awareness might explain the fact that doctors reported witnessing physicians mistreating other medical personnel and/or bullying or harassing patients somewhat more often than in 2021’s report.

Docs were caught using racist language by 55% of respondents, and 44% reported seeing colleagues becoming physically aggressive with patients, clinicians, or staff. Other disturbing behaviors respondents witnessed included bullying or harassing patients (45%), inebriation at work (43%), lying about credentials (34%), trying to date a patient (30%), and committing a crime, such as embezzling or stealing (27%).

Women were seen misbehaving about one-third as often as their male counterparts. This could be because women are more likely to seek help, rather than the bottle, when the stress piles up. “Some misbehavior stems from alcohol abuse, and a higher percentage of men have an alcoholism problem,” Dr. Ramsey pointed out. “Also, male physicians have historically been reluctant to seek mental health assistance.”
 

Speaking up

Doctors are behaving badly slightly more often, and their colleagues are slightly more willing to speak up about that behavior. In 2021, 35% of physicians said they did nothing upon witnessing inappropriate behavior. In 2022’s survey, that number fell to 29%.

Respondents largely agreed (49%) that doctors should be verbally warned when they’ve behaved badly at work, yet only 39% reported speaking to a colleague who acted inappropriately, and only 27% reported the bad behavior to an authority.

Dr. Lerner pointed out that it is very difficult for doctors to speak up, even though they know they should. There are several reasons for their reticence.

“For one thing, we all have bad days, and the reporting physician may worry that he or she could do something similar in the future,” he said. “Also, there is the liability question. A doctor might think: ‘What if I’m wrong? What if I think someone has a drinking problem and they don’t, or I can’t prove it?’ If you’re the doctor who reported the misbehavior, you’re potentially opening a can of worms. So there’s all sorts of reasons people convince themselves they don’t have to report it.” But, he added, “if you see it and don’t report it, you’re in the wrong.”
 

Off the job

Work isn’t the only place where doctors observe their colleagues misbehaving. About 66% of respondents had seen disparaging behavior, and 42% had heard racist language, away from the hospital or clinic, according to the survey.

Bullying and harassment weren’t limited to work, either, with 45% reporting seeing a colleague engage in this behavior off campus, and 52% reporting witnessing a colleague inebriated in public. That’s actually down from 2021 when 58% of respondents said they witnessed inebriated doctors in public.

The public sphere has broadened in recent years to include social media, and there, too, doctors sometimes behave badly. However, 47% of doctors surveyed said they saw more inappropriate behavior in person than on social media.

When doctors do act out online, they make the same mistakes other professionals make. One respondent reported seeing a fellow physician “copying and posting an interoffice memo from work and badmouthing the company and the person who wrote the memo.” Another said: “Someone got fired and stalked the supervisor and posted aggressive things.”

Not all social media transgressions were work related. One respondent reported that “a physician posted pictures of herself at a bar with multiple ER staff members, without masks during COVID restriction,” and another reported a colleague posting “unbelievable, antiscientific information expressed as valid, factual material.”

Though posting nonfactual, unscientific, and potentially unsafe information is clearly an ethics violation, Dr. Lerner said, the boundaries around posting personal peccadillos are less clear. This is a part of “digital professionalism,” he explained, adding that there is a broad range of opinions on this. “I think it’s important to discuss these things. Interestingly, while the rules for behavior at the hospital have become more strict, the culture has become less strict.”

As one respondent put it: “What exactly is bad behavior? If you’re saying physicians should be allowed to sexually assault people and use drugs, then no. Can they wear a tiny bathing suit on vacation and drink cocktails with friends? Yeah.”

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

It seems that everyone’s nerves are on edge right now, and people are often behaving in surprising ways. Physicians are no exception.

“The days of surgeons throwing retractors across the OR and screaming at nurses and medical students are hopefully gone now,” said Barron Lerner, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at New York University Langone Health and author of “The Good Doctor: A Father, a Son, and the Evolution of Medical Ethics” (Boston: Beacon Press, 2014). “We’re not going to tolerate that as an institution.”

But, Dr. Lerner said, bad behavior still happens. And according to a recent Medscape survey, it seems to be on the rise.

For the 2022 Physicians Behaving Badly Report, more than 1,500 physicians shared how often they see fellow doctors misbehaving in person or on social media, and shared some of the worse behavior they’ve seen.

Though misconduct is still relatively uncommon among doctors, and most physicians say they’re proud of the high standards and attitudes of their colleagues, respondents to the survey did say that they’re seeing more frequent incidents of other doctors acting disrespectfully toward patients and coworkers, taking too casual an approach to patient privacy, and even acting angrily or aggressively at work. While the uptick is not substantial, it’s nonetheless worrying.

“I have increased concern for my colleagues,” said Drew Ramsey, MD, an assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York. “People forget that COVID has made the physician workplace incredibly stressful. Physicians are struggling with their mental health.”
 

Bullying and harassment top bad behavior

When it comes to what kind of bad behavior was reported, bullying or harassing clinicians and staff was the runaway winner, with 86% of respondents saying they’d seen this type of behavior at work at some time. Making fun of or disparaging patients behind their backs was a close second, at 82%.

Dr. Ramsey thinks that these figures may reflect a deeper understanding of and sensitivity to harassment and bullying. “Five years ago, we weren’t talking about microaggression,” he said. This heightened awareness might explain the fact that doctors reported witnessing physicians mistreating other medical personnel and/or bullying or harassing patients somewhat more often than in 2021’s report.

Docs were caught using racist language by 55% of respondents, and 44% reported seeing colleagues becoming physically aggressive with patients, clinicians, or staff. Other disturbing behaviors respondents witnessed included bullying or harassing patients (45%), inebriation at work (43%), lying about credentials (34%), trying to date a patient (30%), and committing a crime, such as embezzling or stealing (27%).

Women were seen misbehaving about one-third as often as their male counterparts. This could be because women are more likely to seek help, rather than the bottle, when the stress piles up. “Some misbehavior stems from alcohol abuse, and a higher percentage of men have an alcoholism problem,” Dr. Ramsey pointed out. “Also, male physicians have historically been reluctant to seek mental health assistance.”
 

Speaking up

Doctors are behaving badly slightly more often, and their colleagues are slightly more willing to speak up about that behavior. In 2021, 35% of physicians said they did nothing upon witnessing inappropriate behavior. In 2022’s survey, that number fell to 29%.

Respondents largely agreed (49%) that doctors should be verbally warned when they’ve behaved badly at work, yet only 39% reported speaking to a colleague who acted inappropriately, and only 27% reported the bad behavior to an authority.

Dr. Lerner pointed out that it is very difficult for doctors to speak up, even though they know they should. There are several reasons for their reticence.

“For one thing, we all have bad days, and the reporting physician may worry that he or she could do something similar in the future,” he said. “Also, there is the liability question. A doctor might think: ‘What if I’m wrong? What if I think someone has a drinking problem and they don’t, or I can’t prove it?’ If you’re the doctor who reported the misbehavior, you’re potentially opening a can of worms. So there’s all sorts of reasons people convince themselves they don’t have to report it.” But, he added, “if you see it and don’t report it, you’re in the wrong.”
 

Off the job

Work isn’t the only place where doctors observe their colleagues misbehaving. About 66% of respondents had seen disparaging behavior, and 42% had heard racist language, away from the hospital or clinic, according to the survey.

Bullying and harassment weren’t limited to work, either, with 45% reporting seeing a colleague engage in this behavior off campus, and 52% reporting witnessing a colleague inebriated in public. That’s actually down from 2021 when 58% of respondents said they witnessed inebriated doctors in public.

The public sphere has broadened in recent years to include social media, and there, too, doctors sometimes behave badly. However, 47% of doctors surveyed said they saw more inappropriate behavior in person than on social media.

When doctors do act out online, they make the same mistakes other professionals make. One respondent reported seeing a fellow physician “copying and posting an interoffice memo from work and badmouthing the company and the person who wrote the memo.” Another said: “Someone got fired and stalked the supervisor and posted aggressive things.”

Not all social media transgressions were work related. One respondent reported that “a physician posted pictures of herself at a bar with multiple ER staff members, without masks during COVID restriction,” and another reported a colleague posting “unbelievable, antiscientific information expressed as valid, factual material.”

Though posting nonfactual, unscientific, and potentially unsafe information is clearly an ethics violation, Dr. Lerner said, the boundaries around posting personal peccadillos are less clear. This is a part of “digital professionalism,” he explained, adding that there is a broad range of opinions on this. “I think it’s important to discuss these things. Interestingly, while the rules for behavior at the hospital have become more strict, the culture has become less strict.”

As one respondent put it: “What exactly is bad behavior? If you’re saying physicians should be allowed to sexually assault people and use drugs, then no. Can they wear a tiny bathing suit on vacation and drink cocktails with friends? Yeah.”

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

Siblings of children with chronic health conditions could be at an increased risk for depression, according to a new report.

In a systematic review of 34 studies, siblings of children with chronic health conditions had significantly higher scores on depressive rating scales than individuals without a sibling with a chronic health condition (standardized mean difference = 0.53; P < .001). Findings related to other clinical health outcomes, such as physical health conditions or mortality, were inconsistent.

“We’ve known for a long time that siblings of kids with chronic conditions undergo stress, and there have been conflicting data on how that stress is manifested in terms of their own health,” senior study author Eyal Cohen, MD, program head for child health evaluative sciences at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, told this news organization.

“For some siblings, having the experience of being raised with a child with a chronic condition may be an asset and build resiliency, while other siblings may feel strong negative emotions, such as sadness, anger, and fear,” he said. “Although we know that this experience is stressful for many siblings, it is important to know whether it changes their health outcomes, so that appropriate support can be put in place for those who need it.”

The study was published online in the Journal of Pediatrics.
 

Risk for psychological challenges

About a quarter of children in the United States have a mental, emotional, developmental, or behavioral condition, and more than a third have at least one current or lifelong health condition, the study authors write. A childhood chronic health condition can affect family members through worse mental health outcomes, increased stress, and poorer health-related quality of life.

Dr. Cohen and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the clinical mental and physical health outcomes of siblings of children with chronic health conditions in comparison with siblings of healthy children or normative data.

The research team included English-language studies that reported on clinically diagnosable mental or physical health outcomes among siblings of persons younger than 18 years who had a chronic health condition. They included a comparison group and used an experimental or observational design for their study. The researchers analyzed 34 studies, including 28 that reported on mental health, 3 that reported on physical health, and 3 that reported on mortality.

Overall, siblings of children with chronic health conditions had significantly higher scores on depression rating scales than their comparison groups. Siblings’ anxiety scores weren’t substantially higher, however (standard mean difference = 0.21; P = .07).

The effects for confirmed psychiatric diagnoses, physical health outcomes, and mortality could not be included in the meta-analysis, owing to the limited number of studies and the high level of heterogeneity among the studies.

Dr. Cohen noted that although the researchers weren’t surprised that siblings may be at increased risk of mental health challenges, they were surprised by the limited data regarding physical health.

“At a minimum, our findings support the importance of asking open-ended questions about how a family is doing during clinical encounters,” he said. “These siblings may also benefit from programs such as support groups or summer camps, which have been shown to improve mental health and behavioral outcomes in siblings of children with chronic health conditions, such as cancer and neurodevelopmental disabilities.”

Future studies should assess the specific risk factors for mental health problems in siblings of children with chronic health conditions, Dr. Cohen said. Additional research could also investigate the design and effectiveness of interventions that address these concerns.
 

Message of inclusiveness

“The message that resonates with me is about the interventions and resources needed to support siblings,” Linda Nguyen, a doctoral student in rehabilitation science and researcher with the CanChild Center for Childhood Disability Research at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization.

Ms. Nguyen, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched the resources available to siblings in Canada and has found a lack of support options, particularly when it comes to specific health care management roles.

“Consistently throughout my research, I’ve seen the need for resources that go beyond a focus on siblings’ well-being and instead support them in their different roles,” she said. “Some want to be friends, mentors, supporters, and caregivers for their siblings in the future.”

Siblings often adopt different roles as they form their own identity, Ms. Nguyen noted, which becomes a larger part of the health care conversation as children with chronic conditions make the transition from pediatric to adult health care. Siblings want to be asked how they’d like to be involved, she said. Some would like to be involved with health care appointments, the chronic condition community, research, and policy making.

“At the societal level and public level, there’s also a message of inclusiveness and making sure that we’re welcoming youth with disabilities and chronic conditions,” Jan Willem Gorter, MD, PhD, a professor of pediatrics and scientist for CanChild at McMaster University, told this news organization.

Dr. Gorter, who also was not involved with this study, noted that children with chronic conditions often feel left behind, which can influence the involvement of their siblings as well.

“There are a lot of places in the world where children with disabilities go to special schools, and they spend a lot of time in a different world, with different experiences than their siblings,” he said. “At the public health level, we want to advocate for an inclusive society and support the whole family, which benefits everybody.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the CHILD-BRIGHT Network summer studentship, which is supported by the Canadian Institute for Health Research Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research. Dr. Cohen, Ms. Nguyen, and Dr. Gorter have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Siblings of children with chronic health conditions could be at an increased risk for depression, according to a new report.

In a systematic review of 34 studies, siblings of children with chronic health conditions had significantly higher scores on depressive rating scales than individuals without a sibling with a chronic health condition (standardized mean difference = 0.53; P < .001). Findings related to other clinical health outcomes, such as physical health conditions or mortality, were inconsistent.

“We’ve known for a long time that siblings of kids with chronic conditions undergo stress, and there have been conflicting data on how that stress is manifested in terms of their own health,” senior study author Eyal Cohen, MD, program head for child health evaluative sciences at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, told this news organization.

“For some siblings, having the experience of being raised with a child with a chronic condition may be an asset and build resiliency, while other siblings may feel strong negative emotions, such as sadness, anger, and fear,” he said. “Although we know that this experience is stressful for many siblings, it is important to know whether it changes their health outcomes, so that appropriate support can be put in place for those who need it.”

The study was published online in the Journal of Pediatrics.
 

Risk for psychological challenges

About a quarter of children in the United States have a mental, emotional, developmental, or behavioral condition, and more than a third have at least one current or lifelong health condition, the study authors write. A childhood chronic health condition can affect family members through worse mental health outcomes, increased stress, and poorer health-related quality of life.

Dr. Cohen and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the clinical mental and physical health outcomes of siblings of children with chronic health conditions in comparison with siblings of healthy children or normative data.

The research team included English-language studies that reported on clinically diagnosable mental or physical health outcomes among siblings of persons younger than 18 years who had a chronic health condition. They included a comparison group and used an experimental or observational design for their study. The researchers analyzed 34 studies, including 28 that reported on mental health, 3 that reported on physical health, and 3 that reported on mortality.

Overall, siblings of children with chronic health conditions had significantly higher scores on depression rating scales than their comparison groups. Siblings’ anxiety scores weren’t substantially higher, however (standard mean difference = 0.21; P = .07).

The effects for confirmed psychiatric diagnoses, physical health outcomes, and mortality could not be included in the meta-analysis, owing to the limited number of studies and the high level of heterogeneity among the studies.

Dr. Cohen noted that although the researchers weren’t surprised that siblings may be at increased risk of mental health challenges, they were surprised by the limited data regarding physical health.

“At a minimum, our findings support the importance of asking open-ended questions about how a family is doing during clinical encounters,” he said. “These siblings may also benefit from programs such as support groups or summer camps, which have been shown to improve mental health and behavioral outcomes in siblings of children with chronic health conditions, such as cancer and neurodevelopmental disabilities.”

Future studies should assess the specific risk factors for mental health problems in siblings of children with chronic health conditions, Dr. Cohen said. Additional research could also investigate the design and effectiveness of interventions that address these concerns.
 

Message of inclusiveness

“The message that resonates with me is about the interventions and resources needed to support siblings,” Linda Nguyen, a doctoral student in rehabilitation science and researcher with the CanChild Center for Childhood Disability Research at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization.

Ms. Nguyen, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched the resources available to siblings in Canada and has found a lack of support options, particularly when it comes to specific health care management roles.

“Consistently throughout my research, I’ve seen the need for resources that go beyond a focus on siblings’ well-being and instead support them in their different roles,” she said. “Some want to be friends, mentors, supporters, and caregivers for their siblings in the future.”

Siblings often adopt different roles as they form their own identity, Ms. Nguyen noted, which becomes a larger part of the health care conversation as children with chronic conditions make the transition from pediatric to adult health care. Siblings want to be asked how they’d like to be involved, she said. Some would like to be involved with health care appointments, the chronic condition community, research, and policy making.

“At the societal level and public level, there’s also a message of inclusiveness and making sure that we’re welcoming youth with disabilities and chronic conditions,” Jan Willem Gorter, MD, PhD, a professor of pediatrics and scientist for CanChild at McMaster University, told this news organization.

Dr. Gorter, who also was not involved with this study, noted that children with chronic conditions often feel left behind, which can influence the involvement of their siblings as well.

“There are a lot of places in the world where children with disabilities go to special schools, and they spend a lot of time in a different world, with different experiences than their siblings,” he said. “At the public health level, we want to advocate for an inclusive society and support the whole family, which benefits everybody.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the CHILD-BRIGHT Network summer studentship, which is supported by the Canadian Institute for Health Research Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research. Dr. Cohen, Ms. Nguyen, and Dr. Gorter have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Siblings of children with chronic health conditions could be at an increased risk for depression, according to a new report.

In a systematic review of 34 studies, siblings of children with chronic health conditions had significantly higher scores on depressive rating scales than individuals without a sibling with a chronic health condition (standardized mean difference = 0.53; P < .001). Findings related to other clinical health outcomes, such as physical health conditions or mortality, were inconsistent.

“We’ve known for a long time that siblings of kids with chronic conditions undergo stress, and there have been conflicting data on how that stress is manifested in terms of their own health,” senior study author Eyal Cohen, MD, program head for child health evaluative sciences at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, told this news organization.

“For some siblings, having the experience of being raised with a child with a chronic condition may be an asset and build resiliency, while other siblings may feel strong negative emotions, such as sadness, anger, and fear,” he said. “Although we know that this experience is stressful for many siblings, it is important to know whether it changes their health outcomes, so that appropriate support can be put in place for those who need it.”

The study was published online in the Journal of Pediatrics.
 

Risk for psychological challenges

About a quarter of children in the United States have a mental, emotional, developmental, or behavioral condition, and more than a third have at least one current or lifelong health condition, the study authors write. A childhood chronic health condition can affect family members through worse mental health outcomes, increased stress, and poorer health-related quality of life.

Dr. Cohen and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the clinical mental and physical health outcomes of siblings of children with chronic health conditions in comparison with siblings of healthy children or normative data.

The research team included English-language studies that reported on clinically diagnosable mental or physical health outcomes among siblings of persons younger than 18 years who had a chronic health condition. They included a comparison group and used an experimental or observational design for their study. The researchers analyzed 34 studies, including 28 that reported on mental health, 3 that reported on physical health, and 3 that reported on mortality.

Overall, siblings of children with chronic health conditions had significantly higher scores on depression rating scales than their comparison groups. Siblings’ anxiety scores weren’t substantially higher, however (standard mean difference = 0.21; P = .07).

The effects for confirmed psychiatric diagnoses, physical health outcomes, and mortality could not be included in the meta-analysis, owing to the limited number of studies and the high level of heterogeneity among the studies.

Dr. Cohen noted that although the researchers weren’t surprised that siblings may be at increased risk of mental health challenges, they were surprised by the limited data regarding physical health.

“At a minimum, our findings support the importance of asking open-ended questions about how a family is doing during clinical encounters,” he said. “These siblings may also benefit from programs such as support groups or summer camps, which have been shown to improve mental health and behavioral outcomes in siblings of children with chronic health conditions, such as cancer and neurodevelopmental disabilities.”

Future studies should assess the specific risk factors for mental health problems in siblings of children with chronic health conditions, Dr. Cohen said. Additional research could also investigate the design and effectiveness of interventions that address these concerns.
 

Message of inclusiveness

“The message that resonates with me is about the interventions and resources needed to support siblings,” Linda Nguyen, a doctoral student in rehabilitation science and researcher with the CanChild Center for Childhood Disability Research at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization.

Ms. Nguyen, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched the resources available to siblings in Canada and has found a lack of support options, particularly when it comes to specific health care management roles.

“Consistently throughout my research, I’ve seen the need for resources that go beyond a focus on siblings’ well-being and instead support them in their different roles,” she said. “Some want to be friends, mentors, supporters, and caregivers for their siblings in the future.”

Siblings often adopt different roles as they form their own identity, Ms. Nguyen noted, which becomes a larger part of the health care conversation as children with chronic conditions make the transition from pediatric to adult health care. Siblings want to be asked how they’d like to be involved, she said. Some would like to be involved with health care appointments, the chronic condition community, research, and policy making.

“At the societal level and public level, there’s also a message of inclusiveness and making sure that we’re welcoming youth with disabilities and chronic conditions,” Jan Willem Gorter, MD, PhD, a professor of pediatrics and scientist for CanChild at McMaster University, told this news organization.

Dr. Gorter, who also was not involved with this study, noted that children with chronic conditions often feel left behind, which can influence the involvement of their siblings as well.

“There are a lot of places in the world where children with disabilities go to special schools, and they spend a lot of time in a different world, with different experiences than their siblings,” he said. “At the public health level, we want to advocate for an inclusive society and support the whole family, which benefits everybody.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the CHILD-BRIGHT Network summer studentship, which is supported by the Canadian Institute for Health Research Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research. Dr. Cohen, Ms. Nguyen, and Dr. Gorter have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study of educational attainment among U.K. primary and secondary schoolchildren born prematurely now provides some reassurance about the longer-term outcomes for many of these children.

For the study, published in the open-access journal PLOS ONE, researchers from the University of Oxford with colleagues from the University of Leicester and City University, London, used data from 11,695 children in the population-based UK Millennium Cohort Study, which included children born in England from Sept. 1, 2000 to Aug. 31, 2001. They analyzed data on educational attainment in primary school, at age 11, for 6,950 pupils and in secondary school, at age 16, for 7,131 pupils.

Preterm birth is a known risk factor for developmental impairment, lower educational performance and reduced academic attainment, with the impact proportional to the degree of prematurity. Not every child born prematurely will experience learning or developmental challenges, but studies of children born before 34 weeks gestation have shown that they are more likely to have cognitive difficulties, particularly poorer reading and maths skills, at primary school, and to have special educational needs by the end of primary education.
 

Elevated risk of all preterm children in primary school

Until now, few studies have followed these children through secondary school or examined the full spectrum of gestational ages at birth. Yet as neonatal care advances and more premature babies now survive, an average primary class in the United Kingdom now includes two preterm children.

Among the primary school children overall, 17.7% had not achieved their expected level in English and mathematics at age 11. Children born very preterm, before 32 weeks or at 32-33 weeks gestation, were more than twice as likely as full term children to fail to meet these benchmarks, with adjusted relative risks of 2.06 and 2.13, respectively. Those born late preterm, at 34-36 weeks, or early term, at 37-38 weeks, were at lesser risk, with RRs of 1.18 and 1.21, respectively.

By the end of secondary school, 45.2% of pupils had not passed the benchmark of at least five General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) examinations, including English and mathematics. The RR for children born very preterm, compared with full term children, was 1.26, with 60% of students in this group failing to achieve five GCSEs. However, children born at gestations between 32 and 38 weeks were not at elevated risk, compared with children born at full term.
 

Risk persists to secondary level only for very preterm children

A similar pattern was seen with English and mathematics analyzed separately, with no additional risk of not passing among children born at 32 weeks or above, but adjusted RRs of 1.33 for not passing English and 1.42 for not passing maths among pupils who had been born very preterm, compared with full term children.

“All children born before full term are more likely to have poorer attainment during primary school, compared with children born full term (39-41 weeks), but only children born very preterm (before 32 weeks) remain at risk of poor attainment at the end of secondary schooling,” the researchers concluded.

“Further studies are needed in order to confirm this result,” they acknowledge. They suggested their results could be explained by catch-up in academic attainment among children born moderately or late preterm or at early term. However, “very preterm children appear to be a high-risk group with persistent difficulties in terms of educational outcomes,” they said, noting that even this risk was of lower magnitude than the reduced attainment scores they found among pupils eligible for free school meals, meaning those from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds.
 

Extra educational support needed

The researchers concluded: “Children born very preterm may benefit from screening for cognitive and language difficulties prior to school entry to guide the provision of additional support during schooling.” In addition, those born very preterm “may require additional educational support throughout compulsory schooling.”

Commenting on the study, Caroline Lee-Davey, chief executive of premature baby charity Bliss, told this news organization: “Every child who is born premature is unique, and their development and achievements will be individual to them. However, these new findings are significant and add to our understanding of how prematurity is related to longer-term educational attainment, particularly for children who were born very preterm.”

“Most importantly, they highlight the need for all children who were born premature – and particularly those who were born before 32 weeks – to have access to early support. This means ensuring all eligible babies receive a follow-up check at 2 and 4 years as recommended by NICE and for early years and educational professionals to be aware of the relationship between premature birth and development.”

“We know how concerning these findings might be for families with babies and very young children right now. That’s why Bliss has developed a suite of information to support families as they make choices about their child’s education.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

A new study of educational attainment among U.K. primary and secondary schoolchildren born prematurely now provides some reassurance about the longer-term outcomes for many of these children.

For the study, published in the open-access journal PLOS ONE, researchers from the University of Oxford with colleagues from the University of Leicester and City University, London, used data from 11,695 children in the population-based UK Millennium Cohort Study, which included children born in England from Sept. 1, 2000 to Aug. 31, 2001. They analyzed data on educational attainment in primary school, at age 11, for 6,950 pupils and in secondary school, at age 16, for 7,131 pupils.

Preterm birth is a known risk factor for developmental impairment, lower educational performance and reduced academic attainment, with the impact proportional to the degree of prematurity. Not every child born prematurely will experience learning or developmental challenges, but studies of children born before 34 weeks gestation have shown that they are more likely to have cognitive difficulties, particularly poorer reading and maths skills, at primary school, and to have special educational needs by the end of primary education.
 

Elevated risk of all preterm children in primary school

Until now, few studies have followed these children through secondary school or examined the full spectrum of gestational ages at birth. Yet as neonatal care advances and more premature babies now survive, an average primary class in the United Kingdom now includes two preterm children.

Among the primary school children overall, 17.7% had not achieved their expected level in English and mathematics at age 11. Children born very preterm, before 32 weeks or at 32-33 weeks gestation, were more than twice as likely as full term children to fail to meet these benchmarks, with adjusted relative risks of 2.06 and 2.13, respectively. Those born late preterm, at 34-36 weeks, or early term, at 37-38 weeks, were at lesser risk, with RRs of 1.18 and 1.21, respectively.

By the end of secondary school, 45.2% of pupils had not passed the benchmark of at least five General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) examinations, including English and mathematics. The RR for children born very preterm, compared with full term children, was 1.26, with 60% of students in this group failing to achieve five GCSEs. However, children born at gestations between 32 and 38 weeks were not at elevated risk, compared with children born at full term.
 

Risk persists to secondary level only for very preterm children

A similar pattern was seen with English and mathematics analyzed separately, with no additional risk of not passing among children born at 32 weeks or above, but adjusted RRs of 1.33 for not passing English and 1.42 for not passing maths among pupils who had been born very preterm, compared with full term children.

“All children born before full term are more likely to have poorer attainment during primary school, compared with children born full term (39-41 weeks), but only children born very preterm (before 32 weeks) remain at risk of poor attainment at the end of secondary schooling,” the researchers concluded.

“Further studies are needed in order to confirm this result,” they acknowledge. They suggested their results could be explained by catch-up in academic attainment among children born moderately or late preterm or at early term. However, “very preterm children appear to be a high-risk group with persistent difficulties in terms of educational outcomes,” they said, noting that even this risk was of lower magnitude than the reduced attainment scores they found among pupils eligible for free school meals, meaning those from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds.
 

Extra educational support needed

The researchers concluded: “Children born very preterm may benefit from screening for cognitive and language difficulties prior to school entry to guide the provision of additional support during schooling.” In addition, those born very preterm “may require additional educational support throughout compulsory schooling.”

Commenting on the study, Caroline Lee-Davey, chief executive of premature baby charity Bliss, told this news organization: “Every child who is born premature is unique, and their development and achievements will be individual to them. However, these new findings are significant and add to our understanding of how prematurity is related to longer-term educational attainment, particularly for children who were born very preterm.”

“Most importantly, they highlight the need for all children who were born premature – and particularly those who were born before 32 weeks – to have access to early support. This means ensuring all eligible babies receive a follow-up check at 2 and 4 years as recommended by NICE and for early years and educational professionals to be aware of the relationship between premature birth and development.”

“We know how concerning these findings might be for families with babies and very young children right now. That’s why Bliss has developed a suite of information to support families as they make choices about their child’s education.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

A new study of educational attainment among U.K. primary and secondary schoolchildren born prematurely now provides some reassurance about the longer-term outcomes for many of these children.

For the study, published in the open-access journal PLOS ONE, researchers from the University of Oxford with colleagues from the University of Leicester and City University, London, used data from 11,695 children in the population-based UK Millennium Cohort Study, which included children born in England from Sept. 1, 2000 to Aug. 31, 2001. They analyzed data on educational attainment in primary school, at age 11, for 6,950 pupils and in secondary school, at age 16, for 7,131 pupils.

Preterm birth is a known risk factor for developmental impairment, lower educational performance and reduced academic attainment, with the impact proportional to the degree of prematurity. Not every child born prematurely will experience learning or developmental challenges, but studies of children born before 34 weeks gestation have shown that they are more likely to have cognitive difficulties, particularly poorer reading and maths skills, at primary school, and to have special educational needs by the end of primary education.
 

Elevated risk of all preterm children in primary school

Until now, few studies have followed these children through secondary school or examined the full spectrum of gestational ages at birth. Yet as neonatal care advances and more premature babies now survive, an average primary class in the United Kingdom now includes two preterm children.

Among the primary school children overall, 17.7% had not achieved their expected level in English and mathematics at age 11. Children born very preterm, before 32 weeks or at 32-33 weeks gestation, were more than twice as likely as full term children to fail to meet these benchmarks, with adjusted relative risks of 2.06 and 2.13, respectively. Those born late preterm, at 34-36 weeks, or early term, at 37-38 weeks, were at lesser risk, with RRs of 1.18 and 1.21, respectively.

By the end of secondary school, 45.2% of pupils had not passed the benchmark of at least five General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) examinations, including English and mathematics. The RR for children born very preterm, compared with full term children, was 1.26, with 60% of students in this group failing to achieve five GCSEs. However, children born at gestations between 32 and 38 weeks were not at elevated risk, compared with children born at full term.
 

Risk persists to secondary level only for very preterm children

A similar pattern was seen with English and mathematics analyzed separately, with no additional risk of not passing among children born at 32 weeks or above, but adjusted RRs of 1.33 for not passing English and 1.42 for not passing maths among pupils who had been born very preterm, compared with full term children.

“All children born before full term are more likely to have poorer attainment during primary school, compared with children born full term (39-41 weeks), but only children born very preterm (before 32 weeks) remain at risk of poor attainment at the end of secondary schooling,” the researchers concluded.

“Further studies are needed in order to confirm this result,” they acknowledge. They suggested their results could be explained by catch-up in academic attainment among children born moderately or late preterm or at early term. However, “very preterm children appear to be a high-risk group with persistent difficulties in terms of educational outcomes,” they said, noting that even this risk was of lower magnitude than the reduced attainment scores they found among pupils eligible for free school meals, meaning those from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds.
 

Extra educational support needed

The researchers concluded: “Children born very preterm may benefit from screening for cognitive and language difficulties prior to school entry to guide the provision of additional support during schooling.” In addition, those born very preterm “may require additional educational support throughout compulsory schooling.”

Commenting on the study, Caroline Lee-Davey, chief executive of premature baby charity Bliss, told this news organization: “Every child who is born premature is unique, and their development and achievements will be individual to them. However, these new findings are significant and add to our understanding of how prematurity is related to longer-term educational attainment, particularly for children who were born very preterm.”

“Most importantly, they highlight the need for all children who were born premature – and particularly those who were born before 32 weeks – to have access to early support. This means ensuring all eligible babies receive a follow-up check at 2 and 4 years as recommended by NICE and for early years and educational professionals to be aware of the relationship between premature birth and development.”

“We know how concerning these findings might be for families with babies and very young children right now. That’s why Bliss has developed a suite of information to support families as they make choices about their child’s education.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

A sweeping study of 85,000 infants found no link between mRNA COVID vaccination in pregnancy and greater risk of preterm birth, babies being born small for their gestational age, or stillbirth.

The research team wrote in the BMJ that their reassuring findings – drawn from a registry of all births in Ontario over an 8-month period – “can inform evidence-based decision-making” about COVID vaccination during pregnancy.

Previous research has found that pregnant patients are at higher risk of severe complications and death if they become infected with COVID and that vaccination before or during pregnancy prevents such outcomes and reduces the risk of newborn infection, noted Jeffrey Ecker, chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

This new study “adds to a growing body of information arguing clearly and reassuringly that vaccination during pregnancy is not associated with complications during pregnancy,” said Dr. Ecker, who was not involved in the new study.

He added that it “should help obstetric providers further reassure those who are hesitant that vaccination is safe and best both for the pregnant patient and their pregnancy.”
 

Methods and results

For the new study, researchers tapped a provincial registry of all live and stillborn infants with a gestational age of at least 20 weeks or birth weight of at least 500 g. Unique health card numbers were used to link birth records to a database of COVID vaccinations.

Of 85,162 infants born from May through December of 2021, 43,099 (50.6%) were born to individuals who received at least one vaccine dose during pregnancy. Among those, 99.7% received an mRNA vaccine such as Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna.

Vaccination during pregnancy was not associated with greater risk of overall preterm birth (6.5% among vaccinated individuals versus 6.9% among unvaccinated; hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.08), spontaneous preterm birth (3.7% versus 4.4%; hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.90-1.03) or very preterm birth (0.59% versus 0.89%; hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67-0.95).

Likewise, no increase was observed in the risk of an infant being small for gestational age at birth (9.1% versus 9.2%; hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93-1.03).

The researchers observed a reduction in the risk of stillbirth, even after adjusting for potential confounders. Stillbirths occurred in 0.25% of vaccinated individuals, compared with 0.44% of unvaccinated individuals (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.84).

A reduced risk of stillbirth – albeit to a smaller degree – was also found in a Scandinavian registry study that included 28,506 babies born to individuals who were vaccinated during pregnancy.

“Collectively, the findings from these two studies are reassuring and are consistent with no increased risk of stillbirth after COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. In contrast, COVID-19 disease during pregnancy has been associated with an increased risk of stillbirth,” the researchers wrote.

Findings did not vary by which mRNA vaccine a mother received, the number of doses she received, or the trimester in which a vaccine was given, the researchers reported.
 

Stillbirth findings will be ‘very reassuring’ for patients

The lead investigator, Deshayne Fell, PhD, said in an interview, the fact that the study comprised the entire population of pregnant people in Ontario during the study period “increases our confidence” about the validity and relevance of the findings for other geographic settings.

Dr. Fell, an associate professor in epidemiology and public health at the University of Ottawa and a scientist at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, said the evaluation of stillbirth in particular, “a rare but devastating outcome,” will be “very reassuring and useful for clinical counseling.”

A limitation cited by the research team included a lack of data on vaccination prior to pregnancy.

In the new study, Dr, Ecker said, “Though the investigators were able to adjust for many variables they cannot be certain that some unmeasured variable that, accordingly, was not adjusted for does not hide a small risk. This seems very unlikely, however.”

The Canadian research team said similar studies of non-mRNA COVID vaccines “should be a research priority.” However, such studies are not underway in Canada, where only mRNA vaccines are used in pregnancy, Dr. Fell said.

This study was supported by the Public Health Agency of Canada.

Dr. Fell and Dr. Ecker reported no competing financial interests.

A sweeping study of 85,000 infants found no link between mRNA COVID vaccination in pregnancy and greater risk of preterm birth, babies being born small for their gestational age, or stillbirth.

The research team wrote in the BMJ that their reassuring findings – drawn from a registry of all births in Ontario over an 8-month period – “can inform evidence-based decision-making” about COVID vaccination during pregnancy.

Previous research has found that pregnant patients are at higher risk of severe complications and death if they become infected with COVID and that vaccination before or during pregnancy prevents such outcomes and reduces the risk of newborn infection, noted Jeffrey Ecker, chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

This new study “adds to a growing body of information arguing clearly and reassuringly that vaccination during pregnancy is not associated with complications during pregnancy,” said Dr. Ecker, who was not involved in the new study.

He added that it “should help obstetric providers further reassure those who are hesitant that vaccination is safe and best both for the pregnant patient and their pregnancy.”
 

Methods and results

For the new study, researchers tapped a provincial registry of all live and stillborn infants with a gestational age of at least 20 weeks or birth weight of at least 500 g. Unique health card numbers were used to link birth records to a database of COVID vaccinations.

Of 85,162 infants born from May through December of 2021, 43,099 (50.6%) were born to individuals who received at least one vaccine dose during pregnancy. Among those, 99.7% received an mRNA vaccine such as Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna.

Vaccination during pregnancy was not associated with greater risk of overall preterm birth (6.5% among vaccinated individuals versus 6.9% among unvaccinated; hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.08), spontaneous preterm birth (3.7% versus 4.4%; hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.90-1.03) or very preterm birth (0.59% versus 0.89%; hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67-0.95).

Likewise, no increase was observed in the risk of an infant being small for gestational age at birth (9.1% versus 9.2%; hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93-1.03).

The researchers observed a reduction in the risk of stillbirth, even after adjusting for potential confounders. Stillbirths occurred in 0.25% of vaccinated individuals, compared with 0.44% of unvaccinated individuals (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.84).

A reduced risk of stillbirth – albeit to a smaller degree – was also found in a Scandinavian registry study that included 28,506 babies born to individuals who were vaccinated during pregnancy.

“Collectively, the findings from these two studies are reassuring and are consistent with no increased risk of stillbirth after COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. In contrast, COVID-19 disease during pregnancy has been associated with an increased risk of stillbirth,” the researchers wrote.

Findings did not vary by which mRNA vaccine a mother received, the number of doses she received, or the trimester in which a vaccine was given, the researchers reported.
 

Stillbirth findings will be ‘very reassuring’ for patients

The lead investigator, Deshayne Fell, PhD, said in an interview, the fact that the study comprised the entire population of pregnant people in Ontario during the study period “increases our confidence” about the validity and relevance of the findings for other geographic settings.

Dr. Fell, an associate professor in epidemiology and public health at the University of Ottawa and a scientist at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, said the evaluation of stillbirth in particular, “a rare but devastating outcome,” will be “very reassuring and useful for clinical counseling.”

A limitation cited by the research team included a lack of data on vaccination prior to pregnancy.

In the new study, Dr, Ecker said, “Though the investigators were able to adjust for many variables they cannot be certain that some unmeasured variable that, accordingly, was not adjusted for does not hide a small risk. This seems very unlikely, however.”

The Canadian research team said similar studies of non-mRNA COVID vaccines “should be a research priority.” However, such studies are not underway in Canada, where only mRNA vaccines are used in pregnancy, Dr. Fell said.

This study was supported by the Public Health Agency of Canada.

Dr. Fell and Dr. Ecker reported no competing financial interests.

A sweeping study of 85,000 infants found no link between mRNA COVID vaccination in pregnancy and greater risk of preterm birth, babies being born small for their gestational age, or stillbirth.

The research team wrote in the BMJ that their reassuring findings – drawn from a registry of all births in Ontario over an 8-month period – “can inform evidence-based decision-making” about COVID vaccination during pregnancy.

Previous research has found that pregnant patients are at higher risk of severe complications and death if they become infected with COVID and that vaccination before or during pregnancy prevents such outcomes and reduces the risk of newborn infection, noted Jeffrey Ecker, chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

This new study “adds to a growing body of information arguing clearly and reassuringly that vaccination during pregnancy is not associated with complications during pregnancy,” said Dr. Ecker, who was not involved in the new study.

He added that it “should help obstetric providers further reassure those who are hesitant that vaccination is safe and best both for the pregnant patient and their pregnancy.”
 

Methods and results

For the new study, researchers tapped a provincial registry of all live and stillborn infants with a gestational age of at least 20 weeks or birth weight of at least 500 g. Unique health card numbers were used to link birth records to a database of COVID vaccinations.

Of 85,162 infants born from May through December of 2021, 43,099 (50.6%) were born to individuals who received at least one vaccine dose during pregnancy. Among those, 99.7% received an mRNA vaccine such as Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna.

Vaccination during pregnancy was not associated with greater risk of overall preterm birth (6.5% among vaccinated individuals versus 6.9% among unvaccinated; hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.08), spontaneous preterm birth (3.7% versus 4.4%; hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.90-1.03) or very preterm birth (0.59% versus 0.89%; hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67-0.95).

Likewise, no increase was observed in the risk of an infant being small for gestational age at birth (9.1% versus 9.2%; hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93-1.03).

The researchers observed a reduction in the risk of stillbirth, even after adjusting for potential confounders. Stillbirths occurred in 0.25% of vaccinated individuals, compared with 0.44% of unvaccinated individuals (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.84).

A reduced risk of stillbirth – albeit to a smaller degree – was also found in a Scandinavian registry study that included 28,506 babies born to individuals who were vaccinated during pregnancy.

“Collectively, the findings from these two studies are reassuring and are consistent with no increased risk of stillbirth after COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. In contrast, COVID-19 disease during pregnancy has been associated with an increased risk of stillbirth,” the researchers wrote.

Findings did not vary by which mRNA vaccine a mother received, the number of doses she received, or the trimester in which a vaccine was given, the researchers reported.
 

Stillbirth findings will be ‘very reassuring’ for patients

The lead investigator, Deshayne Fell, PhD, said in an interview, the fact that the study comprised the entire population of pregnant people in Ontario during the study period “increases our confidence” about the validity and relevance of the findings for other geographic settings.

Dr. Fell, an associate professor in epidemiology and public health at the University of Ottawa and a scientist at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, said the evaluation of stillbirth in particular, “a rare but devastating outcome,” will be “very reassuring and useful for clinical counseling.”

A limitation cited by the research team included a lack of data on vaccination prior to pregnancy.

In the new study, Dr, Ecker said, “Though the investigators were able to adjust for many variables they cannot be certain that some unmeasured variable that, accordingly, was not adjusted for does not hide a small risk. This seems very unlikely, however.”

The Canadian research team said similar studies of non-mRNA COVID vaccines “should be a research priority.” However, such studies are not underway in Canada, where only mRNA vaccines are used in pregnancy, Dr. Fell said.

This study was supported by the Public Health Agency of Canada.

Dr. Fell and Dr. Ecker reported no competing financial interests.

Taking ‘not enough hours in the day’ to new heights

It’s no secret that there’s a big doctor shortage in the United States. Going through medical school is long, expensive, and stressful, and it’s not like those long, stressful hours stop once you finally do get that degree. There is, however, an excellent reason to take that dive into doctorhood: You’ll gain mastery over time itself.

A study from the University of Chicago, Johns Hopkins University, and Imperial College London has revealed the truth. By using data pulled from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, the researchers found that primary care physicians who see an average number of patients and follow all the current national guidelines for preventive care, chronic disease care, and acute care – plus administrative tasks – must work 26.7 hours a day. That works out to 14.1 hours of preventive care, 7.2 hours of chronic disease care, 2.2 hours of acute care, and 3.2 hours of documentation and inbox management.

liseykina/thinkstockphotos

Astute readers may note that this is a bit more than the traditional 8-hour workday. It is, in fact, more hours than there actually are in a day. As it turns out, Doctor Strange is more of a documentary than …

Hang on, we’re receiving word that doctors are not in fact wizards who can bend time and space to their will, nor are they sitting on a stash of Time-Turners they saved from the Ministry of Magic before Voldemort destroyed them all. They are, according to the study, overworked and overburdened with too many things and too little time. This is why outcomes haven’t improved despite technological advances and why burnout is so common. We’d be burned out too, having to work temporally impossible hours.

The study authors suggested a team-based approach to medicine that would spread the workload out to nurses, physician assistants, dietitians, etc., estimating that about two-thirds of what a primary care physician does can be handled by someone else. A team-based approach would reduce the physician’s required hours down to 9.3 hours a day, which is at least physically possible. It’s either that or we make the day longer, which sounds like the plot of an episode of Futurama. Swap overwork for global warming and a longer day for a longer year and it is actually the plot of an episode of Futurama.
 

After a hard day of thinking, brains need their rest

Do you ever feel like you have no more capacity to think or make any more decisions after a long day at work? Do you need a few extra cups of coffee to even make it through the day, even though you’re mostly just sitting around talking and typing? Have we got the research for you: Mental exhaustion is an actual thing. Imagine that double whammy of having a job that’s physically and mentally demanding.

A recent study in Current Biology explained why we feel so exhausted after doing something mentally demanding for several hours. Over that time, glutamate builds up in synapses of the prefrontal cortex, which affects our decision making and leads to cognitive lethargy. Your brain eventually becomes more interested in tasks that are less mentally fatiguing, and that’s probably why you’re reading this LOTME right now instead of getting back to work.

“Our findings show that cognitive work results in a true functional alteration – accumulation of noxious substances – so fatigue would indeed be a signal that makes us stop working but for a different purpose: to preserve the integrity of brain functioning,” senior author Mathias Pessiglione of Pitié-Salpêtrière University, Paris, said in a written statement.

©thinkstockphotos.com

The group of researchers conducted studies by using magnetic resonance spectroscopy to look at two groups of people over the course of a workday: One group had mentally tasking jobs and one didn’t. Those who had to think harder for their jobs had more signs of fatigue, such as reduced pupil dilation and glutamate in synapses of the prefrontal cortex. They also looked for more rewards that required less thinking.

For those whose mentally exhausting jobs probably won’t get better or change, the researchers suggest getting as much rest as possible. Those who don’t have that option will have to continue drinking those 7 cups of coffee a day. ... and reading LOTME.

Hmm, might be a new tagline for us in there somewhere. LOTME: Tired brains love us? When you’re too tired to think, think of LOTME? You can’t spell mental exhaustion without L-O-T-M-E?
 

Testosterone shows its warm and fuzzy side

Stereotypically, men are loud, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals. The hair coming out of our faces is kind of a dead giveaway, right? We grunt, we scratch, we start wars, we watch sports on TV. But why? It’s the testosterone. Everyone knows that. Testosterone makes men aggressive … or does it?

Since this sort of research generally isn’t done with actual men, investigators at Emory University used Mongolian gerbils. The advantage being that males exhibit cuddling behavior after females become pregnant and they don’t watch a lot of sports on TV. They introduced a male and female gerbil, who then formed a pair bond and the female became pregnant. When the male started displaying cuddling behaviors, the researchers injected him with testosterone, expecting to see his antisocial side.

“Instead, we were surprised that a male gerbil became even more cuddly and prosocial with his partner. He became like ‘super partner,’ ” lead author Aubrey Kelly, PhD, said in a written statement from the university.

Aubrey Kelly

For the next experiment, the female was removed and another male was introduced to a male who had already received a testosterone injection. That male was surprisingly unaggressive toward the intruder, at least initially. Then he received a second injection of testosterone. “It was like they suddenly woke up and realized they weren’t supposed to be friendly in that context,” Dr. Kelly said.

The testosterone seemed to influence the activity of oxytocin, the so-called “love hormone,” the investigators suggested. “It’s surprising because normally we think of testosterone as increasing sexual behaviors and aggression. But we’ve shown that it can have more nuanced effects, depending on the social context.”

The researchers were not as surprised when their use of the phrase “super partner” led to a bidding war between DC and Marvel. Then came the contact from the Department of Defense, wondering about weaponized testosterone: Would it be possible for some sort of bomb to turn Vlad “the Impaler” Putin into Vlad “the Cuddler” Putin?
 

Are instruments spreading the sounds of COVID?

COVID restrictions are practically a thing of the past now. With more people laxed on being in close proximity to each other and the CDC not even recommending social distancing anymore, live concerts and events are back in full swing. But with new variants on the rise and people being a little more cautious, should we be worried about musical instruments spreading COVID?

Yes and no.

A study published in Physics of Fluids looked at wind instruments specifically and how much aerosol is produced and dispersed when playing them. For the study, the investigators measured fog particles with a laser and aerosol concentration with a particle counter to see how fast these particles decay in the air from the distance of the instrument.

PxHere

Musicians in an orchestra typically would sit close together to produce the best sound, but with COVID that became an issue, senior author Paulo Arratia of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, noted in a separate written statement. By looking at the distance traveled by the particles coming from a single instrument and how quickly they decayed, they could determine if sitting in close proximity is an actual threat.

Well, the threat was no greater than talking to someone face to face. Particle exit speeds were lower than for a cough or a sneeze, and the maximum decay length was 2 meters from the instrument’s opening.

But that’s just one instrument: What kind of impact does a whole orchestra have on a space? The researchers are looking into that too, but for now they suggest that musicians continue to stay 6 feet away from each other.

So, yeah, there is a threat, but it’s probably safer for you to see that orchestra than have someone sneeze on you.

Music to our ears.

Taking ‘not enough hours in the day’ to new heights

It’s no secret that there’s a big doctor shortage in the United States. Going through medical school is long, expensive, and stressful, and it’s not like those long, stressful hours stop once you finally do get that degree. There is, however, an excellent reason to take that dive into doctorhood: You’ll gain mastery over time itself.

A study from the University of Chicago, Johns Hopkins University, and Imperial College London has revealed the truth. By using data pulled from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, the researchers found that primary care physicians who see an average number of patients and follow all the current national guidelines for preventive care, chronic disease care, and acute care – plus administrative tasks – must work 26.7 hours a day. That works out to 14.1 hours of preventive care, 7.2 hours of chronic disease care, 2.2 hours of acute care, and 3.2 hours of documentation and inbox management.

liseykina/thinkstockphotos

Astute readers may note that this is a bit more than the traditional 8-hour workday. It is, in fact, more hours than there actually are in a day. As it turns out, Doctor Strange is more of a documentary than …

Hang on, we’re receiving word that doctors are not in fact wizards who can bend time and space to their will, nor are they sitting on a stash of Time-Turners they saved from the Ministry of Magic before Voldemort destroyed them all. They are, according to the study, overworked and overburdened with too many things and too little time. This is why outcomes haven’t improved despite technological advances and why burnout is so common. We’d be burned out too, having to work temporally impossible hours.

The study authors suggested a team-based approach to medicine that would spread the workload out to nurses, physician assistants, dietitians, etc., estimating that about two-thirds of what a primary care physician does can be handled by someone else. A team-based approach would reduce the physician’s required hours down to 9.3 hours a day, which is at least physically possible. It’s either that or we make the day longer, which sounds like the plot of an episode of Futurama. Swap overwork for global warming and a longer day for a longer year and it is actually the plot of an episode of Futurama.
 

After a hard day of thinking, brains need their rest

Do you ever feel like you have no more capacity to think or make any more decisions after a long day at work? Do you need a few extra cups of coffee to even make it through the day, even though you’re mostly just sitting around talking and typing? Have we got the research for you: Mental exhaustion is an actual thing. Imagine that double whammy of having a job that’s physically and mentally demanding.

A recent study in Current Biology explained why we feel so exhausted after doing something mentally demanding for several hours. Over that time, glutamate builds up in synapses of the prefrontal cortex, which affects our decision making and leads to cognitive lethargy. Your brain eventually becomes more interested in tasks that are less mentally fatiguing, and that’s probably why you’re reading this LOTME right now instead of getting back to work.

“Our findings show that cognitive work results in a true functional alteration – accumulation of noxious substances – so fatigue would indeed be a signal that makes us stop working but for a different purpose: to preserve the integrity of brain functioning,” senior author Mathias Pessiglione of Pitié-Salpêtrière University, Paris, said in a written statement.

©thinkstockphotos.com

The group of researchers conducted studies by using magnetic resonance spectroscopy to look at two groups of people over the course of a workday: One group had mentally tasking jobs and one didn’t. Those who had to think harder for their jobs had more signs of fatigue, such as reduced pupil dilation and glutamate in synapses of the prefrontal cortex. They also looked for more rewards that required less thinking.

For those whose mentally exhausting jobs probably won’t get better or change, the researchers suggest getting as much rest as possible. Those who don’t have that option will have to continue drinking those 7 cups of coffee a day. ... and reading LOTME.

Hmm, might be a new tagline for us in there somewhere. LOTME: Tired brains love us? When you’re too tired to think, think of LOTME? You can’t spell mental exhaustion without L-O-T-M-E?
 

Testosterone shows its warm and fuzzy side

Stereotypically, men are loud, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals. The hair coming out of our faces is kind of a dead giveaway, right? We grunt, we scratch, we start wars, we watch sports on TV. But why? It’s the testosterone. Everyone knows that. Testosterone makes men aggressive … or does it?

Since this sort of research generally isn’t done with actual men, investigators at Emory University used Mongolian gerbils. The advantage being that males exhibit cuddling behavior after females become pregnant and they don’t watch a lot of sports on TV. They introduced a male and female gerbil, who then formed a pair bond and the female became pregnant. When the male started displaying cuddling behaviors, the researchers injected him with testosterone, expecting to see his antisocial side.

“Instead, we were surprised that a male gerbil became even more cuddly and prosocial with his partner. He became like ‘super partner,’ ” lead author Aubrey Kelly, PhD, said in a written statement from the university.

Aubrey Kelly

For the next experiment, the female was removed and another male was introduced to a male who had already received a testosterone injection. That male was surprisingly unaggressive toward the intruder, at least initially. Then he received a second injection of testosterone. “It was like they suddenly woke up and realized they weren’t supposed to be friendly in that context,” Dr. Kelly said.

The testosterone seemed to influence the activity of oxytocin, the so-called “love hormone,” the investigators suggested. “It’s surprising because normally we think of testosterone as increasing sexual behaviors and aggression. But we’ve shown that it can have more nuanced effects, depending on the social context.”

The researchers were not as surprised when their use of the phrase “super partner” led to a bidding war between DC and Marvel. Then came the contact from the Department of Defense, wondering about weaponized testosterone: Would it be possible for some sort of bomb to turn Vlad “the Impaler” Putin into Vlad “the Cuddler” Putin?
 

Are instruments spreading the sounds of COVID?

COVID restrictions are practically a thing of the past now. With more people laxed on being in close proximity to each other and the CDC not even recommending social distancing anymore, live concerts and events are back in full swing. But with new variants on the rise and people being a little more cautious, should we be worried about musical instruments spreading COVID?

Yes and no.

A study published in Physics of Fluids looked at wind instruments specifically and how much aerosol is produced and dispersed when playing them. For the study, the investigators measured fog particles with a laser and aerosol concentration with a particle counter to see how fast these particles decay in the air from the distance of the instrument.

PxHere

Musicians in an orchestra typically would sit close together to produce the best sound, but with COVID that became an issue, senior author Paulo Arratia of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, noted in a separate written statement. By looking at the distance traveled by the particles coming from a single instrument and how quickly they decayed, they could determine if sitting in close proximity is an actual threat.

Well, the threat was no greater than talking to someone face to face. Particle exit speeds were lower than for a cough or a sneeze, and the maximum decay length was 2 meters from the instrument’s opening.

But that’s just one instrument: What kind of impact does a whole orchestra have on a space? The researchers are looking into that too, but for now they suggest that musicians continue to stay 6 feet away from each other.

So, yeah, there is a threat, but it’s probably safer for you to see that orchestra than have someone sneeze on you.

Music to our ears.

Taking ‘not enough hours in the day’ to new heights

It’s no secret that there’s a big doctor shortage in the United States. Going through medical school is long, expensive, and stressful, and it’s not like those long, stressful hours stop once you finally do get that degree. There is, however, an excellent reason to take that dive into doctorhood: You’ll gain mastery over time itself.

A study from the University of Chicago, Johns Hopkins University, and Imperial College London has revealed the truth. By using data pulled from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, the researchers found that primary care physicians who see an average number of patients and follow all the current national guidelines for preventive care, chronic disease care, and acute care – plus administrative tasks – must work 26.7 hours a day. That works out to 14.1 hours of preventive care, 7.2 hours of chronic disease care, 2.2 hours of acute care, and 3.2 hours of documentation and inbox management.

liseykina/thinkstockphotos

Astute readers may note that this is a bit more than the traditional 8-hour workday. It is, in fact, more hours than there actually are in a day. As it turns out, Doctor Strange is more of a documentary than …

Hang on, we’re receiving word that doctors are not in fact wizards who can bend time and space to their will, nor are they sitting on a stash of Time-Turners they saved from the Ministry of Magic before Voldemort destroyed them all. They are, according to the study, overworked and overburdened with too many things and too little time. This is why outcomes haven’t improved despite technological advances and why burnout is so common. We’d be burned out too, having to work temporally impossible hours.

The study authors suggested a team-based approach to medicine that would spread the workload out to nurses, physician assistants, dietitians, etc., estimating that about two-thirds of what a primary care physician does can be handled by someone else. A team-based approach would reduce the physician’s required hours down to 9.3 hours a day, which is at least physically possible. It’s either that or we make the day longer, which sounds like the plot of an episode of Futurama. Swap overwork for global warming and a longer day for a longer year and it is actually the plot of an episode of Futurama.
 

After a hard day of thinking, brains need their rest

Do you ever feel like you have no more capacity to think or make any more decisions after a long day at work? Do you need a few extra cups of coffee to even make it through the day, even though you’re mostly just sitting around talking and typing? Have we got the research for you: Mental exhaustion is an actual thing. Imagine that double whammy of having a job that’s physically and mentally demanding.

A recent study in Current Biology explained why we feel so exhausted after doing something mentally demanding for several hours. Over that time, glutamate builds up in synapses of the prefrontal cortex, which affects our decision making and leads to cognitive lethargy. Your brain eventually becomes more interested in tasks that are less mentally fatiguing, and that’s probably why you’re reading this LOTME right now instead of getting back to work.

“Our findings show that cognitive work results in a true functional alteration – accumulation of noxious substances – so fatigue would indeed be a signal that makes us stop working but for a different purpose: to preserve the integrity of brain functioning,” senior author Mathias Pessiglione of Pitié-Salpêtrière University, Paris, said in a written statement.

©thinkstockphotos.com

The group of researchers conducted studies by using magnetic resonance spectroscopy to look at two groups of people over the course of a workday: One group had mentally tasking jobs and one didn’t. Those who had to think harder for their jobs had more signs of fatigue, such as reduced pupil dilation and glutamate in synapses of the prefrontal cortex. They also looked for more rewards that required less thinking.

For those whose mentally exhausting jobs probably won’t get better or change, the researchers suggest getting as much rest as possible. Those who don’t have that option will have to continue drinking those 7 cups of coffee a day. ... and reading LOTME.

Hmm, might be a new tagline for us in there somewhere. LOTME: Tired brains love us? When you’re too tired to think, think of LOTME? You can’t spell mental exhaustion without L-O-T-M-E?
 

Testosterone shows its warm and fuzzy side

Stereotypically, men are loud, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals. The hair coming out of our faces is kind of a dead giveaway, right? We grunt, we scratch, we start wars, we watch sports on TV. But why? It’s the testosterone. Everyone knows that. Testosterone makes men aggressive … or does it?

Since this sort of research generally isn’t done with actual men, investigators at Emory University used Mongolian gerbils. The advantage being that males exhibit cuddling behavior after females become pregnant and they don’t watch a lot of sports on TV. They introduced a male and female gerbil, who then formed a pair bond and the female became pregnant. When the male started displaying cuddling behaviors, the researchers injected him with testosterone, expecting to see his antisocial side.

“Instead, we were surprised that a male gerbil became even more cuddly and prosocial with his partner. He became like ‘super partner,’ ” lead author Aubrey Kelly, PhD, said in a written statement from the university.

Aubrey Kelly

For the next experiment, the female was removed and another male was introduced to a male who had already received a testosterone injection. That male was surprisingly unaggressive toward the intruder, at least initially. Then he received a second injection of testosterone. “It was like they suddenly woke up and realized they weren’t supposed to be friendly in that context,” Dr. Kelly said.

The testosterone seemed to influence the activity of oxytocin, the so-called “love hormone,” the investigators suggested. “It’s surprising because normally we think of testosterone as increasing sexual behaviors and aggression. But we’ve shown that it can have more nuanced effects, depending on the social context.”

The researchers were not as surprised when their use of the phrase “super partner” led to a bidding war between DC and Marvel. Then came the contact from the Department of Defense, wondering about weaponized testosterone: Would it be possible for some sort of bomb to turn Vlad “the Impaler” Putin into Vlad “the Cuddler” Putin?
 

Are instruments spreading the sounds of COVID?

COVID restrictions are practically a thing of the past now. With more people laxed on being in close proximity to each other and the CDC not even recommending social distancing anymore, live concerts and events are back in full swing. But with new variants on the rise and people being a little more cautious, should we be worried about musical instruments spreading COVID?

Yes and no.

A study published in Physics of Fluids looked at wind instruments specifically and how much aerosol is produced and dispersed when playing them. For the study, the investigators measured fog particles with a laser and aerosol concentration with a particle counter to see how fast these particles decay in the air from the distance of the instrument.

PxHere

Musicians in an orchestra typically would sit close together to produce the best sound, but with COVID that became an issue, senior author Paulo Arratia of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, noted in a separate written statement. By looking at the distance traveled by the particles coming from a single instrument and how quickly they decayed, they could determine if sitting in close proximity is an actual threat.

Well, the threat was no greater than talking to someone face to face. Particle exit speeds were lower than for a cough or a sneeze, and the maximum decay length was 2 meters from the instrument’s opening.

But that’s just one instrument: What kind of impact does a whole orchestra have on a space? The researchers are looking into that too, but for now they suggest that musicians continue to stay 6 feet away from each other.

So, yeah, there is a threat, but it’s probably safer for you to see that orchestra than have someone sneeze on you.

Music to our ears.

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is an engineering marvel. Costing over $10 billion, it should be. The project cost overrun was 900%. The launch was delayed by more than a decade. The Human Genome Project from 1990 to 2003 was completed slightly ahead of schedule and for less than the $4-$5 billion original estimates. This HGP success story is partly because of private entrepreneurial involvement. The Superconducting Super Collider in Texas spent $2 billion but never got off the ground. Successfully shepherding huge public projects like these involves the art of politics and management as well as science.

Whatever the earlier missteps, the JWST project is now performing above expectations. It has launched, taken up residence a million miles from Earth, deployed its mirrors (a process that had more than 300 possible single points of failure, any one of which would reduce the thing to scrap metal), and been calibrated. The JWST has even been dented by a micrometeoroid – sort of like a parking lot ding on the door of your brand new car. The first images are visually amazing and producing new scientific insights. This is a pinnacle of scientific achievement.

What characteristics enable such an achievement? How do we foster those same characteristics in the practice of medicine and medical research? Will the success of the JWST increase and restore the public’s trust in science and scientists?

After all the bickering over vaccines and masks for the past 2+ years, medical science could use a boost. The gravitas of scientists, and indeed all experts, has diminished over the 5 decades since humans walked on the moon. It has been harmed by mercenary scientists who sought to sow doubt about whether smoking caused cancer and whether fossil fuels created climate change. No proof was needed, just doubt.

The trust in science has also been harmed by the vast amount of published medical research that is wrong. An effort was made 20 years ago to rid research of the bias of taking money from drug companies. To my observation, that change produced only a small benefit that has been overwhelmed by the unintended harms. The large, well-funded academic labs of full-time researchers have been replaced with unfunded, undertrained, and inadequately supported part-time junior faculty trying to publish enough articles to be promoted. In my opinion, this change is worse than funding from Big Pharma. (Disclosure – I worked in industry prior to graduate school.)

The pressure to publish reduces skepticism, so more incorrect data are published. The small size of these amateur studies produces unconvincing conclusions that feed an industry of meta-analysis that tries to overcome the deficiencies of the individual studies. This fragmented, biased approach is not how you build, launch, deploy, and operate the JWST, which requires very high reliability.

This approach is not working well for pediatrics either. I look at the history of the recommended workup of the febrile young infant from the 1980s until today. I see constant changes to the guidelines but no real progress toward a validated, evidence-based approach. A similar history is behind treatment of neonatal hyperbilirubinemia. In the 1994 publication, there was a movement toward being less aggressive. The 2004 and 2009 editions increased the frequency of screening and phototherapy. Now, the 2022 guidelines have moved in the direction we were headed in the 1990s. The workup of infants and children with possible urinary tract infections has undergone a similar trajectory. So has the screening for neonatal herpes infections. The practice changes are more like Brownian motion than real progress. This inconsistency has led me to be skeptical of the process the American Academy of Pediatrics uses to create guidelines.

Part of solving complex problems is allowing all stakeholders’ voices to be heard. On Jan. 28, 1986, seconds after liftoff, the space shuttle Challenger exploded. In the aftermath, it was determined that some engineers had expressed concern about the very cold weather that morning. The rubber in the O-ring would not be as flexible as designed. Their objection was not listened to. The O-ring failed, the fuel tank exploded, and the ship and crew were lost. It is a lesson many engineers of my generation took to heart. Do not suppress voices.

For example, 1 year ago (September 2021), the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists published a position statement, “Recognising and addressing the mental health needs of people experiencing gender dysphoria/gender incongruence.” The statement expressed concern about the marked increase in incidence of rapid-onset gender dysphoria and therefore urged more thorough assessment by psychiatry before embarking on puberty-blocking therapies. The RANZCP position is at variance with recent trends in the United States. The topic was censored at the 2021 AAP national conference. Lately, I have heard the words disinformation and homophobic used to describe my RANZCP colleagues. I have been comparing AAP, Britain’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne guidelines for 20 years. The variation is enlightening. I do not know the correct answer to treating gender dysphoria, but I know suppressing viewpoints and debate leads to exploding spaceships.
 

Dr. Powell is a retired pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is an engineering marvel. Costing over $10 billion, it should be. The project cost overrun was 900%. The launch was delayed by more than a decade. The Human Genome Project from 1990 to 2003 was completed slightly ahead of schedule and for less than the $4-$5 billion original estimates. This HGP success story is partly because of private entrepreneurial involvement. The Superconducting Super Collider in Texas spent $2 billion but never got off the ground. Successfully shepherding huge public projects like these involves the art of politics and management as well as science.

Whatever the earlier missteps, the JWST project is now performing above expectations. It has launched, taken up residence a million miles from Earth, deployed its mirrors (a process that had more than 300 possible single points of failure, any one of which would reduce the thing to scrap metal), and been calibrated. The JWST has even been dented by a micrometeoroid – sort of like a parking lot ding on the door of your brand new car. The first images are visually amazing and producing new scientific insights. This is a pinnacle of scientific achievement.

What characteristics enable such an achievement? How do we foster those same characteristics in the practice of medicine and medical research? Will the success of the JWST increase and restore the public’s trust in science and scientists?

After all the bickering over vaccines and masks for the past 2+ years, medical science could use a boost. The gravitas of scientists, and indeed all experts, has diminished over the 5 decades since humans walked on the moon. It has been harmed by mercenary scientists who sought to sow doubt about whether smoking caused cancer and whether fossil fuels created climate change. No proof was needed, just doubt.

The trust in science has also been harmed by the vast amount of published medical research that is wrong. An effort was made 20 years ago to rid research of the bias of taking money from drug companies. To my observation, that change produced only a small benefit that has been overwhelmed by the unintended harms. The large, well-funded academic labs of full-time researchers have been replaced with unfunded, undertrained, and inadequately supported part-time junior faculty trying to publish enough articles to be promoted. In my opinion, this change is worse than funding from Big Pharma. (Disclosure – I worked in industry prior to graduate school.)

The pressure to publish reduces skepticism, so more incorrect data are published. The small size of these amateur studies produces unconvincing conclusions that feed an industry of meta-analysis that tries to overcome the deficiencies of the individual studies. This fragmented, biased approach is not how you build, launch, deploy, and operate the JWST, which requires very high reliability.

This approach is not working well for pediatrics either. I look at the history of the recommended workup of the febrile young infant from the 1980s until today. I see constant changes to the guidelines but no real progress toward a validated, evidence-based approach. A similar history is behind treatment of neonatal hyperbilirubinemia. In the 1994 publication, there was a movement toward being less aggressive. The 2004 and 2009 editions increased the frequency of screening and phototherapy. Now, the 2022 guidelines have moved in the direction we were headed in the 1990s. The workup of infants and children with possible urinary tract infections has undergone a similar trajectory. So has the screening for neonatal herpes infections. The practice changes are more like Brownian motion than real progress. This inconsistency has led me to be skeptical of the process the American Academy of Pediatrics uses to create guidelines.

Part of solving complex problems is allowing all stakeholders’ voices to be heard. On Jan. 28, 1986, seconds after liftoff, the space shuttle Challenger exploded. In the aftermath, it was determined that some engineers had expressed concern about the very cold weather that morning. The rubber in the O-ring would not be as flexible as designed. Their objection was not listened to. The O-ring failed, the fuel tank exploded, and the ship and crew were lost. It is a lesson many engineers of my generation took to heart. Do not suppress voices.

For example, 1 year ago (September 2021), the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists published a position statement, “Recognising and addressing the mental health needs of people experiencing gender dysphoria/gender incongruence.” The statement expressed concern about the marked increase in incidence of rapid-onset gender dysphoria and therefore urged more thorough assessment by psychiatry before embarking on puberty-blocking therapies. The RANZCP position is at variance with recent trends in the United States. The topic was censored at the 2021 AAP national conference. Lately, I have heard the words disinformation and homophobic used to describe my RANZCP colleagues. I have been comparing AAP, Britain’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne guidelines for 20 years. The variation is enlightening. I do not know the correct answer to treating gender dysphoria, but I know suppressing viewpoints and debate leads to exploding spaceships.
 

Dr. Powell is a retired pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is an engineering marvel. Costing over $10 billion, it should be. The project cost overrun was 900%. The launch was delayed by more than a decade. The Human Genome Project from 1990 to 2003 was completed slightly ahead of schedule and for less than the $4-$5 billion original estimates. This HGP success story is partly because of private entrepreneurial involvement. The Superconducting Super Collider in Texas spent $2 billion but never got off the ground. Successfully shepherding huge public projects like these involves the art of politics and management as well as science.

Whatever the earlier missteps, the JWST project is now performing above expectations. It has launched, taken up residence a million miles from Earth, deployed its mirrors (a process that had more than 300 possible single points of failure, any one of which would reduce the thing to scrap metal), and been calibrated. The JWST has even been dented by a micrometeoroid – sort of like a parking lot ding on the door of your brand new car. The first images are visually amazing and producing new scientific insights. This is a pinnacle of scientific achievement.

What characteristics enable such an achievement? How do we foster those same characteristics in the practice of medicine and medical research? Will the success of the JWST increase and restore the public’s trust in science and scientists?

After all the bickering over vaccines and masks for the past 2+ years, medical science could use a boost. The gravitas of scientists, and indeed all experts, has diminished over the 5 decades since humans walked on the moon. It has been harmed by mercenary scientists who sought to sow doubt about whether smoking caused cancer and whether fossil fuels created climate change. No proof was needed, just doubt.

The trust in science has also been harmed by the vast amount of published medical research that is wrong. An effort was made 20 years ago to rid research of the bias of taking money from drug companies. To my observation, that change produced only a small benefit that has been overwhelmed by the unintended harms. The large, well-funded academic labs of full-time researchers have been replaced with unfunded, undertrained, and inadequately supported part-time junior faculty trying to publish enough articles to be promoted. In my opinion, this change is worse than funding from Big Pharma. (Disclosure – I worked in industry prior to graduate school.)

The pressure to publish reduces skepticism, so more incorrect data are published. The small size of these amateur studies produces unconvincing conclusions that feed an industry of meta-analysis that tries to overcome the deficiencies of the individual studies. This fragmented, biased approach is not how you build, launch, deploy, and operate the JWST, which requires very high reliability.

This approach is not working well for pediatrics either. I look at the history of the recommended workup of the febrile young infant from the 1980s until today. I see constant changes to the guidelines but no real progress toward a validated, evidence-based approach. A similar history is behind treatment of neonatal hyperbilirubinemia. In the 1994 publication, there was a movement toward being less aggressive. The 2004 and 2009 editions increased the frequency of screening and phototherapy. Now, the 2022 guidelines have moved in the direction we were headed in the 1990s. The workup of infants and children with possible urinary tract infections has undergone a similar trajectory. So has the screening for neonatal herpes infections. The practice changes are more like Brownian motion than real progress. This inconsistency has led me to be skeptical of the process the American Academy of Pediatrics uses to create guidelines.

Part of solving complex problems is allowing all stakeholders’ voices to be heard. On Jan. 28, 1986, seconds after liftoff, the space shuttle Challenger exploded. In the aftermath, it was determined that some engineers had expressed concern about the very cold weather that morning. The rubber in the O-ring would not be as flexible as designed. Their objection was not listened to. The O-ring failed, the fuel tank exploded, and the ship and crew were lost. It is a lesson many engineers of my generation took to heart. Do not suppress voices.

For example, 1 year ago (September 2021), the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists published a position statement, “Recognising and addressing the mental health needs of people experiencing gender dysphoria/gender incongruence.” The statement expressed concern about the marked increase in incidence of rapid-onset gender dysphoria and therefore urged more thorough assessment by psychiatry before embarking on puberty-blocking therapies. The RANZCP position is at variance with recent trends in the United States. The topic was censored at the 2021 AAP national conference. Lately, I have heard the words disinformation and homophobic used to describe my RANZCP colleagues. I have been comparing AAP, Britain’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne guidelines for 20 years. The variation is enlightening. I do not know the correct answer to treating gender dysphoria, but I know suppressing viewpoints and debate leads to exploding spaceships.
 

Dr. Powell is a retired pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.