Feature

Halfway through her first round of chemotherapy, with hair falling out, weight down, and her brain in a fog, Carolyn Hackett sat down for a Zoom meeting with a team of oncologists.

She didn’t even want a second opinion, but a friend had insisted that she get one, and she had agreed for the sake of their friendship.

But that Zoom meeting likely saved her life. The team of five specialists who had been reviewing her case for a week explained that she had been misdiagnosed. The original pathologist was mistaken. She didn’t have Hodgkin lymphoma; her cancer was really non-Hodgkin T-cell lymphoma. And the chemotherapy regimen she was in the middle of would do nothing to stop it.

The panel of doctors who populated Hackett’s computer screen during that December 2020 Zoom call were all volunteers with an organization called thesecondopinion, based in San Francisco.

The group, organized in 1969, currently offers free second opinions to at least three California patients with cancer each week. Patients meet for an average of 30-40 minutes – though there is really no limit – with a panel of doctors who have expertise in their specific case.

More than 70 cancer-related specialists, both current and retired, make up the roster of volunteers. A paid staffer rounds up a patient’s medical records, imaging and pathology slides. And a team of four to five doctors spends a week reviewing each case.

Then they meet directly with the patient and their doctor to answer questions and deliver their consensus.

Ms. Hackett was in disbelief after her meeting with thesecondopinion. Her diagnosis had gone from bad to worse, but the new information had changed her life. Without it, she would have surely continued chemotherapy and died.

On top of the new acccurate diagnosis, Ms. Hackett said it was a relief and reassurance when the team of volunteer doctors honored and included her oncologist. “I’m a nurse,” she said, and so she knows through experience that medicine comes with egos and frequent risk of lawsuits. But the team from thesecondopinion never criticized her doctor – after all, it wasn’t his mistake anyway – nor did they suggest legal action. Instead, they immediately included him as part of the team and sent him a letter detailing the panel concensus, she said, which made her feel safe.
 

Second opinions are big business

Medical second opinions are a large and growing industry projected to be worth more than $9.7 billion by 2027. There are already many services across the United States and worldwide devoted to providing second opinions specifically for patients with cancer.

“And rightly so,” says Alan Venook, MD, a professor of medicine at UCSF with experience and expertise in gastrointestinal malignancies who was approached for comment but is not associated with thesecondopinion. Cancer is an increasingly a sub-specialized area, and every patient should get a second opinion, he said in an interview.

What is unique to an appointment with thesecondopinion, however, is the price tag – $0.

By comparison, a virtual second opinion at the Cleveland Clinic comes at a flat rate of $1,850, and at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, the cost is $2,400.

At UCSF, a second opinion from Dr. Venook and his colleagues will cost patients a couple thousand dollars out-of-pocket, he said. “Many patients don’t have the luxury of paying for a second opinion,” he said.
 

More than looking for misdiagnosis

Research shows that getting a second opinion can significantly change the course of a patient’s disease and treatment. A 2017 study by the Mayo Clinic found that at their institution, around 22% of second opinions changed the diagnosis, and 66% of patients received a refined or redefined diagnosis.

However, a misdiagnosis – such the case presented by Ms. Hackett – is a rare occurrence at thesecondopinion, said Howard Kleckner, MD, a medical oncologist and the organization’s medical director.

“We aren’t in the business to look for mistakes,” he said.

More often, thesecondopinion panels are about clarifying and helping patients understand the disease and options they have.”People with cancer need to make a peace with it and make peace with the treatment,” Dr. Kleckner said.

He estimates that 90% of the patients that come to the group already have the right diagnosis and treatment plan because, he says, there are “very good doctors in the state and in the Bay Area in particular.”

And even in the case of the remaining 10% of patients whose second opinion differs from their first, it’s largely a case of differences in the staging the disease or treatment options, Dr. Kleckner said.

“We aren’t coming up with brilliant suggestions. Often we are agreeing with what’s already been said,” said David Lakes, MD, a retired medical oncologist who has been volunteering with thesecondopinion for more than 30 years. “But we often see people understand for the first time.”

Both Dr. Kleckner and Dr. Lakes say that the organization attracts a certain kind of doctor, who tends to be an excellent communicator and really cares about helping the patients.

Many of these doctors are retired, but they want to keep doing the work, and they understand which pieces of information are most important for patients to know, Dr. Kleckner told this news organization. They are also willing to do this kind of work even when they won’t get paid, Dr. Kleckner said.

Part of that comes with gray hair and storied careers, Dr. Lakes added. “Retired people have experience and judgment and communication skills that a lot of younger doctors don’t have,” he commented. They often have more experience with some of the tough stuff, like exploring the goals of treatment, discontinuing treatment, and end-of-life care, and they also have more time to engage patients on their emotional health, he said.

Dr. Venook said that the services provided free-of-charge by these volunteers is “laudable,” and their thorough review of all the diagnostic information is “to their credit.” But he questions whether every second opinion provided by the organization is an expert one, since the doctors are no longer practicing. Oncology is a particularly fast-moving field, with many new developments and novel drugs launched in recent years.

“Second opinions are incredibly helpful but [have] to be [provided] by a knowledgeable expert who gets all the details and gives it serious thought,” Dr. Venook said.

Dr. Lakes says that he is constantly evaluating whether he is entitled to keep offering second opinions when he isn’t practicing; so far the answer remains a yes. Although he now has to spend more time researching treatment options like biologics, he still feels adept at engaging with patients and helping patients understand where they are in their illness and the potential benefits of fourth- or fifth-line treatments.

Another strength of thesecondopinion model lies in numbers. Most of the time second opinions are given by one doctor, Dr. Kleckner pointed out. In contrast, thesecondopinion provides the patient with access to a whole team of specialists.

“Sometimes people on the panels don’t completely agree,” Dr. Lakes said. So, before meeting with the patient on Zoom, the doctors review the case together for about half an hour and come up with a consensus. This way there’s no mixed messaging and as little anxiety for the patient as possible, he said.

The fact that patients have direct access to the panel of experts who review their cases is unique in itself, Dr. Kleckner said.

Many hospitals have tumor boards, but they are reserved for physicians, he pointed out. Patients get to hear the board’s opinion secondhand through their primary doctor or oncologist.

But at thesecondopinion, the patient gets to engage with the doctors directly. There is time to review up to four questions that the patient has submitted before the meeting and also time for any additional questions that may have arisen during the course of the meeting.

In oncology, and medicine in general, patients are often shuffled from one specialist to another, Dr. Lakes said. But often, there is no one who takes a steps back to see the whole picture.

That’s part of what thesecondopinion offers, he said. “We have the time, the experience, and no skin in the game. We can think about [the cases] in an intellectual way without feeling like we are in the hot seat or in charge.”

Thanks to her second opinion, Ms. Hackett was able to get connected with an oncologist in San Francisco who specializes in the type of cancer she actually had. She went on to receive nine rounds of a monoclonal antibody treatment formulated for her specific cancer. She is now in remission 6 months after finishing that therapy.

Scans in late July showed that she was cancer-free and doing really well. “I’m so grateful to them. I’m so impressed with thesecondopinion, I can’t believe it,” she said. “I’m alive because of them.”

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

Halfway through her first round of chemotherapy, with hair falling out, weight down, and her brain in a fog, Carolyn Hackett sat down for a Zoom meeting with a team of oncologists.

She didn’t even want a second opinion, but a friend had insisted that she get one, and she had agreed for the sake of their friendship.

But that Zoom meeting likely saved her life. The team of five specialists who had been reviewing her case for a week explained that she had been misdiagnosed. The original pathologist was mistaken. She didn’t have Hodgkin lymphoma; her cancer was really non-Hodgkin T-cell lymphoma. And the chemotherapy regimen she was in the middle of would do nothing to stop it.

The panel of doctors who populated Hackett’s computer screen during that December 2020 Zoom call were all volunteers with an organization called thesecondopinion, based in San Francisco.

The group, organized in 1969, currently offers free second opinions to at least three California patients with cancer each week. Patients meet for an average of 30-40 minutes – though there is really no limit – with a panel of doctors who have expertise in their specific case.

More than 70 cancer-related specialists, both current and retired, make up the roster of volunteers. A paid staffer rounds up a patient’s medical records, imaging and pathology slides. And a team of four to five doctors spends a week reviewing each case.

Then they meet directly with the patient and their doctor to answer questions and deliver their consensus.

Ms. Hackett was in disbelief after her meeting with thesecondopinion. Her diagnosis had gone from bad to worse, but the new information had changed her life. Without it, she would have surely continued chemotherapy and died.

On top of the new acccurate diagnosis, Ms. Hackett said it was a relief and reassurance when the team of volunteer doctors honored and included her oncologist. “I’m a nurse,” she said, and so she knows through experience that medicine comes with egos and frequent risk of lawsuits. But the team from thesecondopinion never criticized her doctor – after all, it wasn’t his mistake anyway – nor did they suggest legal action. Instead, they immediately included him as part of the team and sent him a letter detailing the panel concensus, she said, which made her feel safe.
 

Second opinions are big business

Medical second opinions are a large and growing industry projected to be worth more than $9.7 billion by 2027. There are already many services across the United States and worldwide devoted to providing second opinions specifically for patients with cancer.

“And rightly so,” says Alan Venook, MD, a professor of medicine at UCSF with experience and expertise in gastrointestinal malignancies who was approached for comment but is not associated with thesecondopinion. Cancer is an increasingly a sub-specialized area, and every patient should get a second opinion, he said in an interview.

What is unique to an appointment with thesecondopinion, however, is the price tag – $0.

By comparison, a virtual second opinion at the Cleveland Clinic comes at a flat rate of $1,850, and at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, the cost is $2,400.

At UCSF, a second opinion from Dr. Venook and his colleagues will cost patients a couple thousand dollars out-of-pocket, he said. “Many patients don’t have the luxury of paying for a second opinion,” he said.
 

More than looking for misdiagnosis

Research shows that getting a second opinion can significantly change the course of a patient’s disease and treatment. A 2017 study by the Mayo Clinic found that at their institution, around 22% of second opinions changed the diagnosis, and 66% of patients received a refined or redefined diagnosis.

However, a misdiagnosis – such the case presented by Ms. Hackett – is a rare occurrence at thesecondopinion, said Howard Kleckner, MD, a medical oncologist and the organization’s medical director.

“We aren’t in the business to look for mistakes,” he said.

More often, thesecondopinion panels are about clarifying and helping patients understand the disease and options they have.”People with cancer need to make a peace with it and make peace with the treatment,” Dr. Kleckner said.

He estimates that 90% of the patients that come to the group already have the right diagnosis and treatment plan because, he says, there are “very good doctors in the state and in the Bay Area in particular.”

And even in the case of the remaining 10% of patients whose second opinion differs from their first, it’s largely a case of differences in the staging the disease or treatment options, Dr. Kleckner said.

“We aren’t coming up with brilliant suggestions. Often we are agreeing with what’s already been said,” said David Lakes, MD, a retired medical oncologist who has been volunteering with thesecondopinion for more than 30 years. “But we often see people understand for the first time.”

Both Dr. Kleckner and Dr. Lakes say that the organization attracts a certain kind of doctor, who tends to be an excellent communicator and really cares about helping the patients.

Many of these doctors are retired, but they want to keep doing the work, and they understand which pieces of information are most important for patients to know, Dr. Kleckner told this news organization. They are also willing to do this kind of work even when they won’t get paid, Dr. Kleckner said.

Part of that comes with gray hair and storied careers, Dr. Lakes added. “Retired people have experience and judgment and communication skills that a lot of younger doctors don’t have,” he commented. They often have more experience with some of the tough stuff, like exploring the goals of treatment, discontinuing treatment, and end-of-life care, and they also have more time to engage patients on their emotional health, he said.

Dr. Venook said that the services provided free-of-charge by these volunteers is “laudable,” and their thorough review of all the diagnostic information is “to their credit.” But he questions whether every second opinion provided by the organization is an expert one, since the doctors are no longer practicing. Oncology is a particularly fast-moving field, with many new developments and novel drugs launched in recent years.

“Second opinions are incredibly helpful but [have] to be [provided] by a knowledgeable expert who gets all the details and gives it serious thought,” Dr. Venook said.

Dr. Lakes says that he is constantly evaluating whether he is entitled to keep offering second opinions when he isn’t practicing; so far the answer remains a yes. Although he now has to spend more time researching treatment options like biologics, he still feels adept at engaging with patients and helping patients understand where they are in their illness and the potential benefits of fourth- or fifth-line treatments.

Another strength of thesecondopinion model lies in numbers. Most of the time second opinions are given by one doctor, Dr. Kleckner pointed out. In contrast, thesecondopinion provides the patient with access to a whole team of specialists.

“Sometimes people on the panels don’t completely agree,” Dr. Lakes said. So, before meeting with the patient on Zoom, the doctors review the case together for about half an hour and come up with a consensus. This way there’s no mixed messaging and as little anxiety for the patient as possible, he said.

The fact that patients have direct access to the panel of experts who review their cases is unique in itself, Dr. Kleckner said.

Many hospitals have tumor boards, but they are reserved for physicians, he pointed out. Patients get to hear the board’s opinion secondhand through their primary doctor or oncologist.

But at thesecondopinion, the patient gets to engage with the doctors directly. There is time to review up to four questions that the patient has submitted before the meeting and also time for any additional questions that may have arisen during the course of the meeting.

In oncology, and medicine in general, patients are often shuffled from one specialist to another, Dr. Lakes said. But often, there is no one who takes a steps back to see the whole picture.

That’s part of what thesecondopinion offers, he said. “We have the time, the experience, and no skin in the game. We can think about [the cases] in an intellectual way without feeling like we are in the hot seat or in charge.”

Thanks to her second opinion, Ms. Hackett was able to get connected with an oncologist in San Francisco who specializes in the type of cancer she actually had. She went on to receive nine rounds of a monoclonal antibody treatment formulated for her specific cancer. She is now in remission 6 months after finishing that therapy.

Scans in late July showed that she was cancer-free and doing really well. “I’m so grateful to them. I’m so impressed with thesecondopinion, I can’t believe it,” she said. “I’m alive because of them.”

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

Halfway through her first round of chemotherapy, with hair falling out, weight down, and her brain in a fog, Carolyn Hackett sat down for a Zoom meeting with a team of oncologists.

She didn’t even want a second opinion, but a friend had insisted that she get one, and she had agreed for the sake of their friendship.

But that Zoom meeting likely saved her life. The team of five specialists who had been reviewing her case for a week explained that she had been misdiagnosed. The original pathologist was mistaken. She didn’t have Hodgkin lymphoma; her cancer was really non-Hodgkin T-cell lymphoma. And the chemotherapy regimen she was in the middle of would do nothing to stop it.

The panel of doctors who populated Hackett’s computer screen during that December 2020 Zoom call were all volunteers with an organization called thesecondopinion, based in San Francisco.

The group, organized in 1969, currently offers free second opinions to at least three California patients with cancer each week. Patients meet for an average of 30-40 minutes – though there is really no limit – with a panel of doctors who have expertise in their specific case.

More than 70 cancer-related specialists, both current and retired, make up the roster of volunteers. A paid staffer rounds up a patient’s medical records, imaging and pathology slides. And a team of four to five doctors spends a week reviewing each case.

Then they meet directly with the patient and their doctor to answer questions and deliver their consensus.

Ms. Hackett was in disbelief after her meeting with thesecondopinion. Her diagnosis had gone from bad to worse, but the new information had changed her life. Without it, she would have surely continued chemotherapy and died.

On top of the new acccurate diagnosis, Ms. Hackett said it was a relief and reassurance when the team of volunteer doctors honored and included her oncologist. “I’m a nurse,” she said, and so she knows through experience that medicine comes with egos and frequent risk of lawsuits. But the team from thesecondopinion never criticized her doctor – after all, it wasn’t his mistake anyway – nor did they suggest legal action. Instead, they immediately included him as part of the team and sent him a letter detailing the panel concensus, she said, which made her feel safe.
 

Second opinions are big business

Medical second opinions are a large and growing industry projected to be worth more than $9.7 billion by 2027. There are already many services across the United States and worldwide devoted to providing second opinions specifically for patients with cancer.

“And rightly so,” says Alan Venook, MD, a professor of medicine at UCSF with experience and expertise in gastrointestinal malignancies who was approached for comment but is not associated with thesecondopinion. Cancer is an increasingly a sub-specialized area, and every patient should get a second opinion, he said in an interview.

What is unique to an appointment with thesecondopinion, however, is the price tag – $0.

By comparison, a virtual second opinion at the Cleveland Clinic comes at a flat rate of $1,850, and at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, the cost is $2,400.

At UCSF, a second opinion from Dr. Venook and his colleagues will cost patients a couple thousand dollars out-of-pocket, he said. “Many patients don’t have the luxury of paying for a second opinion,” he said.
 

More than looking for misdiagnosis

Research shows that getting a second opinion can significantly change the course of a patient’s disease and treatment. A 2017 study by the Mayo Clinic found that at their institution, around 22% of second opinions changed the diagnosis, and 66% of patients received a refined or redefined diagnosis.

However, a misdiagnosis – such the case presented by Ms. Hackett – is a rare occurrence at thesecondopinion, said Howard Kleckner, MD, a medical oncologist and the organization’s medical director.

“We aren’t in the business to look for mistakes,” he said.

More often, thesecondopinion panels are about clarifying and helping patients understand the disease and options they have.”People with cancer need to make a peace with it and make peace with the treatment,” Dr. Kleckner said.

He estimates that 90% of the patients that come to the group already have the right diagnosis and treatment plan because, he says, there are “very good doctors in the state and in the Bay Area in particular.”

And even in the case of the remaining 10% of patients whose second opinion differs from their first, it’s largely a case of differences in the staging the disease or treatment options, Dr. Kleckner said.

“We aren’t coming up with brilliant suggestions. Often we are agreeing with what’s already been said,” said David Lakes, MD, a retired medical oncologist who has been volunteering with thesecondopinion for more than 30 years. “But we often see people understand for the first time.”

Both Dr. Kleckner and Dr. Lakes say that the organization attracts a certain kind of doctor, who tends to be an excellent communicator and really cares about helping the patients.

Many of these doctors are retired, but they want to keep doing the work, and they understand which pieces of information are most important for patients to know, Dr. Kleckner told this news organization. They are also willing to do this kind of work even when they won’t get paid, Dr. Kleckner said.

Part of that comes with gray hair and storied careers, Dr. Lakes added. “Retired people have experience and judgment and communication skills that a lot of younger doctors don’t have,” he commented. They often have more experience with some of the tough stuff, like exploring the goals of treatment, discontinuing treatment, and end-of-life care, and they also have more time to engage patients on their emotional health, he said.

Dr. Venook said that the services provided free-of-charge by these volunteers is “laudable,” and their thorough review of all the diagnostic information is “to their credit.” But he questions whether every second opinion provided by the organization is an expert one, since the doctors are no longer practicing. Oncology is a particularly fast-moving field, with many new developments and novel drugs launched in recent years.

“Second opinions are incredibly helpful but [have] to be [provided] by a knowledgeable expert who gets all the details and gives it serious thought,” Dr. Venook said.

Dr. Lakes says that he is constantly evaluating whether he is entitled to keep offering second opinions when he isn’t practicing; so far the answer remains a yes. Although he now has to spend more time researching treatment options like biologics, he still feels adept at engaging with patients and helping patients understand where they are in their illness and the potential benefits of fourth- or fifth-line treatments.

Another strength of thesecondopinion model lies in numbers. Most of the time second opinions are given by one doctor, Dr. Kleckner pointed out. In contrast, thesecondopinion provides the patient with access to a whole team of specialists.

“Sometimes people on the panels don’t completely agree,” Dr. Lakes said. So, before meeting with the patient on Zoom, the doctors review the case together for about half an hour and come up with a consensus. This way there’s no mixed messaging and as little anxiety for the patient as possible, he said.

The fact that patients have direct access to the panel of experts who review their cases is unique in itself, Dr. Kleckner said.

Many hospitals have tumor boards, but they are reserved for physicians, he pointed out. Patients get to hear the board’s opinion secondhand through their primary doctor or oncologist.

But at thesecondopinion, the patient gets to engage with the doctors directly. There is time to review up to four questions that the patient has submitted before the meeting and also time for any additional questions that may have arisen during the course of the meeting.

In oncology, and medicine in general, patients are often shuffled from one specialist to another, Dr. Lakes said. But often, there is no one who takes a steps back to see the whole picture.

That’s part of what thesecondopinion offers, he said. “We have the time, the experience, and no skin in the game. We can think about [the cases] in an intellectual way without feeling like we are in the hot seat or in charge.”

Thanks to her second opinion, Ms. Hackett was able to get connected with an oncologist in San Francisco who specializes in the type of cancer she actually had. She went on to receive nine rounds of a monoclonal antibody treatment formulated for her specific cancer. She is now in remission 6 months after finishing that therapy.

Scans in late July showed that she was cancer-free and doing really well. “I’m so grateful to them. I’m so impressed with thesecondopinion, I can’t believe it,” she said. “I’m alive because of them.”

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

PARIS – France is boosting its vaccination campaign in response to the increase in cases of monkeypox. After a sluggish start, newly appointed French health minister François Braun has announced the release of 42,000 vaccine doses. At the same time, medical students will be able to lend a helping hand at vaccination sites. However, some experts have criticized the measures taken as being too lax to combat what the World Health Organization has designated a global health emergency.

For Benjamin Davido, MD, MSc, PhD, an infectious disease specialist at the Raymond-Poincaré Hospital (Paris Public Hospital Trust, AP-HP, Garches region), the risks of this disease have been minimized and the measures taken are not adequate, despite the ready availability of the tools needed to manage the epidemic. We must remain alert to the risks posed by this monkeypox epidemic, which seems different from the sporadic outbreaks that usually crop up in Central and West Africa, he said. Dr. Davido recently shared his opinions in an interview.

Question: What do you think about the monkeypox vaccination campaign currently underway in France?

Dr. Davido: It doesn’t go far enough, and I am surprised by the lack of a concrete and specific objective. The effects of the disease are being minimized, and we seem to be in limbo. It seems we have to wait until the fire is out of control before we can call the fire department. We should have been more reactive and taken a more drastic approach from the get-go. In France, as in other countries affected by this epidemic, we are still, unfortunately, in a phase of observation, reassuring ourselves that this will surely not become another pandemic, as that would be really bad luck.

Yet we find ourselves in an unprecedented situation: We have known about the disease in question for a long time, the target population has been identified, and we have a vaccine immediately available. So, we have all the tools and knowledge acquired from the COVID-19 pandemic at our disposal, yet we are choosing to wait and see. We have clearly underestimated the risks of failing after a stalled start to the vaccination campaign.

Question: What exactly are the risks, in your opinion?  Should we already be worried about how the epidemic is progressing?

Dr. Davido: The situation is definitely worrying. I personally am convinced that this disease will be the syphilis of the 21st century. Although the risk is low, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that this could be the start of a new pandemic. For the time being, its spread is limited to at-risk populations, mainly men who have sex with other men and who have multiple partners, which accounts for around 300,000 people in France. However, the risk for heterosexuals must not be minimized; we must not forget that this disease can also be transmitted through contact with an infected person and by respiratory droplets from people living in the same household. There have been recent cases of women and children infected with monkeypox. If monkeypox starts to spread in the community, rather than being a sexually transmitted infection, the epidemic could spread to the rest of the population. With the rise in cases, scientists are also concerned about transmission to animals. Monkeypox could become endemic like it is in Africa, where rodents are the main reservoir of the virus.

Question: What do we know about the dynamics of this epidemic?  What can be done to effectively improve the situation?

Dr. Davido: Experience gained from African countries affected by monkeypox, as well as from the spate of cases that occurred in the United States in 2003, has shown us that the epidemic can be controlled once the cases have been contained. It is hoped that further waves of the epidemic can be avoided, providing the monkeypox vaccine achieves its objectives.

But we need to give ourselves the means to do so. The expansion of the vaccination program to the most at-risk populations in early July was the right decision. We have seen that ring vaccination targeting close-contact cases does not work with monkeypox. The current problem is that this vaccine is nearly exclusively restricted to hospital settings. We are making the same mistakes as [we did] at the start of the COVID-19 epidemic. We don’t have the right infrastructure in place for this vaccination program. We need to get doctors, paramedics, pharmacists, etc., involved. And cut back on the red tape. After embracing digital procedures during COVID-19, we find ourselves having to complete paper copies of documents for every single person attending a vaccination site. It just doesn’t make sense!

Question: You highlighted the lack of a clear objective with this vaccination campaign. What should we be aiming for?

Dr. Davido: During the COVID-19 vaccination campaign, there was a set number of people to be vaccinated within a given time frame. The approach demanded a fast pace and a desired outcome. Yes, it was an ambitious target from the get-go, but it was one that we stuck to. Currently, no figure, no target, has been set for the monkeypox vaccination program. Ideally, we would have completed the vaccination campaign before the start of the new school year to limit new infections.

As it stands now, only 10% of the target population has received the vaccine. There is talk of the summer period not being favorable. Yet I remember that last year, the COVID-19 vaccination program was strengthened in the middle of August. If the monkeypox vaccination campaign is not given a boost by the end of the summer, we run the risk of encouraging transmission of the virus between close contacts when different groups mix after being on holiday at the start of the new school year. I think that, first and foremost, we must make general practitioners aware of the disease and train them in how to diagnose it so that patients can be isolated and vaccinated as quickly as possible.

Question: There has also been talk of increasing the set 28-day period between the two doses, or even getting rid of it entirely. Would this perhaps lead to better vaccine uptake?

Dr. Davido: The United Kingdom has chosen to give a single dose and recommends a second dose after exposure. I am not sure that this is the best strategy. Although the efficacy data are still limited, the results are not as good after a single dose. According to initial data from the French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products (the ANSM), the rate of seroconversion after one dose rises from 10% to 56% on D28 in healthy volunteers, but is between 77% and 89% 2 weeks after the second dose administered on D28.

So, the second dose is needed, especially as immunological memory seems to drop 2 years after the first injection. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention proposes leaving 35 days between the two doses. I think this is a reasonable time frame. So, delaying the second dose makes administration of the first dose even easier because the second often fell in the middle of the holiday period and so we also save precious doses. If the time between doses is longer, we risk vaccinated individuals becoming lax and possibly being tempted to skip the “optional” booster or simply forgetting about it.

Question: Are people who have already had the smallpox vaccine better protected against monkeypox?

Dr. Davido: The efficacy of this vaccine against monkeypox is not perfect on a very long-term basis and, to be honest, we don’t really know the level of protection afforded by first-generation vaccines after 20 years. We must not forget that 20% of people infected with monkeypox were vaccinated against smallpox before mandatory vaccination for this disease was abolished [Editor’s note: The requirement of an initial dose of smallpox vaccine was lifted in 1979, once smallpox had been eradicated].

It is hoped that, as a minimum, this vaccine protects against serious illness. Yet in my department, we regularly see severe cases of monkeypox with widespread lesions in the over 45s, who are said to be vaccinated against smallpox.

Question: By comparison, is it likely that a third-generation vaccine would afford better protection against severe illness?

Dr. Davido: We still don’t have enough data or hindsight to assess the real-world impact of third-generation vaccines. This vaccine has a better tolerance profile than its predecessors, but we currently don’t know if it protects against severe forms of monkeypox. We also need to learn more about the disease causing the current epidemic, since it seems different from the sporadic outbreaks that usually crop up in Central and West Africa. The lesions seen are notably milder. The WHO has given this vaccine an efficacy level of 85% against infection by the monkeypox virus, but we must remain cautious: This figure is based on data from Africa. The epidemic in which we find ourselves is not the same. Overall, we must be wary of overly optimistic rhetoric around this new epidemic.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. The article was translated from the Medscape French edition.

PARIS – France is boosting its vaccination campaign in response to the increase in cases of monkeypox. After a sluggish start, newly appointed French health minister François Braun has announced the release of 42,000 vaccine doses. At the same time, medical students will be able to lend a helping hand at vaccination sites. However, some experts have criticized the measures taken as being too lax to combat what the World Health Organization has designated a global health emergency.

For Benjamin Davido, MD, MSc, PhD, an infectious disease specialist at the Raymond-Poincaré Hospital (Paris Public Hospital Trust, AP-HP, Garches region), the risks of this disease have been minimized and the measures taken are not adequate, despite the ready availability of the tools needed to manage the epidemic. We must remain alert to the risks posed by this monkeypox epidemic, which seems different from the sporadic outbreaks that usually crop up in Central and West Africa, he said. Dr. Davido recently shared his opinions in an interview.

Question: What do you think about the monkeypox vaccination campaign currently underway in France?

Dr. Davido: It doesn’t go far enough, and I am surprised by the lack of a concrete and specific objective. The effects of the disease are being minimized, and we seem to be in limbo. It seems we have to wait until the fire is out of control before we can call the fire department. We should have been more reactive and taken a more drastic approach from the get-go. In France, as in other countries affected by this epidemic, we are still, unfortunately, in a phase of observation, reassuring ourselves that this will surely not become another pandemic, as that would be really bad luck.

Yet we find ourselves in an unprecedented situation: We have known about the disease in question for a long time, the target population has been identified, and we have a vaccine immediately available. So, we have all the tools and knowledge acquired from the COVID-19 pandemic at our disposal, yet we are choosing to wait and see. We have clearly underestimated the risks of failing after a stalled start to the vaccination campaign.

Question: What exactly are the risks, in your opinion?  Should we already be worried about how the epidemic is progressing?

Dr. Davido: The situation is definitely worrying. I personally am convinced that this disease will be the syphilis of the 21st century. Although the risk is low, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that this could be the start of a new pandemic. For the time being, its spread is limited to at-risk populations, mainly men who have sex with other men and who have multiple partners, which accounts for around 300,000 people in France. However, the risk for heterosexuals must not be minimized; we must not forget that this disease can also be transmitted through contact with an infected person and by respiratory droplets from people living in the same household. There have been recent cases of women and children infected with monkeypox. If monkeypox starts to spread in the community, rather than being a sexually transmitted infection, the epidemic could spread to the rest of the population. With the rise in cases, scientists are also concerned about transmission to animals. Monkeypox could become endemic like it is in Africa, where rodents are the main reservoir of the virus.

Question: What do we know about the dynamics of this epidemic?  What can be done to effectively improve the situation?

Dr. Davido: Experience gained from African countries affected by monkeypox, as well as from the spate of cases that occurred in the United States in 2003, has shown us that the epidemic can be controlled once the cases have been contained. It is hoped that further waves of the epidemic can be avoided, providing the monkeypox vaccine achieves its objectives.

But we need to give ourselves the means to do so. The expansion of the vaccination program to the most at-risk populations in early July was the right decision. We have seen that ring vaccination targeting close-contact cases does not work with monkeypox. The current problem is that this vaccine is nearly exclusively restricted to hospital settings. We are making the same mistakes as [we did] at the start of the COVID-19 epidemic. We don’t have the right infrastructure in place for this vaccination program. We need to get doctors, paramedics, pharmacists, etc., involved. And cut back on the red tape. After embracing digital procedures during COVID-19, we find ourselves having to complete paper copies of documents for every single person attending a vaccination site. It just doesn’t make sense!

Question: You highlighted the lack of a clear objective with this vaccination campaign. What should we be aiming for?

Dr. Davido: During the COVID-19 vaccination campaign, there was a set number of people to be vaccinated within a given time frame. The approach demanded a fast pace and a desired outcome. Yes, it was an ambitious target from the get-go, but it was one that we stuck to. Currently, no figure, no target, has been set for the monkeypox vaccination program. Ideally, we would have completed the vaccination campaign before the start of the new school year to limit new infections.

As it stands now, only 10% of the target population has received the vaccine. There is talk of the summer period not being favorable. Yet I remember that last year, the COVID-19 vaccination program was strengthened in the middle of August. If the monkeypox vaccination campaign is not given a boost by the end of the summer, we run the risk of encouraging transmission of the virus between close contacts when different groups mix after being on holiday at the start of the new school year. I think that, first and foremost, we must make general practitioners aware of the disease and train them in how to diagnose it so that patients can be isolated and vaccinated as quickly as possible.

Question: There has also been talk of increasing the set 28-day period between the two doses, or even getting rid of it entirely. Would this perhaps lead to better vaccine uptake?

Dr. Davido: The United Kingdom has chosen to give a single dose and recommends a second dose after exposure. I am not sure that this is the best strategy. Although the efficacy data are still limited, the results are not as good after a single dose. According to initial data from the French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products (the ANSM), the rate of seroconversion after one dose rises from 10% to 56% on D28 in healthy volunteers, but is between 77% and 89% 2 weeks after the second dose administered on D28.

So, the second dose is needed, especially as immunological memory seems to drop 2 years after the first injection. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention proposes leaving 35 days between the two doses. I think this is a reasonable time frame. So, delaying the second dose makes administration of the first dose even easier because the second often fell in the middle of the holiday period and so we also save precious doses. If the time between doses is longer, we risk vaccinated individuals becoming lax and possibly being tempted to skip the “optional” booster or simply forgetting about it.

Question: Are people who have already had the smallpox vaccine better protected against monkeypox?

Dr. Davido: The efficacy of this vaccine against monkeypox is not perfect on a very long-term basis and, to be honest, we don’t really know the level of protection afforded by first-generation vaccines after 20 years. We must not forget that 20% of people infected with monkeypox were vaccinated against smallpox before mandatory vaccination for this disease was abolished [Editor’s note: The requirement of an initial dose of smallpox vaccine was lifted in 1979, once smallpox had been eradicated].

It is hoped that, as a minimum, this vaccine protects against serious illness. Yet in my department, we regularly see severe cases of monkeypox with widespread lesions in the over 45s, who are said to be vaccinated against smallpox.

Question: By comparison, is it likely that a third-generation vaccine would afford better protection against severe illness?

Dr. Davido: We still don’t have enough data or hindsight to assess the real-world impact of third-generation vaccines. This vaccine has a better tolerance profile than its predecessors, but we currently don’t know if it protects against severe forms of monkeypox. We also need to learn more about the disease causing the current epidemic, since it seems different from the sporadic outbreaks that usually crop up in Central and West Africa. The lesions seen are notably milder. The WHO has given this vaccine an efficacy level of 85% against infection by the monkeypox virus, but we must remain cautious: This figure is based on data from Africa. The epidemic in which we find ourselves is not the same. Overall, we must be wary of overly optimistic rhetoric around this new epidemic.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. The article was translated from the Medscape French edition.

PARIS – France is boosting its vaccination campaign in response to the increase in cases of monkeypox. After a sluggish start, newly appointed French health minister François Braun has announced the release of 42,000 vaccine doses. At the same time, medical students will be able to lend a helping hand at vaccination sites. However, some experts have criticized the measures taken as being too lax to combat what the World Health Organization has designated a global health emergency.

For Benjamin Davido, MD, MSc, PhD, an infectious disease specialist at the Raymond-Poincaré Hospital (Paris Public Hospital Trust, AP-HP, Garches region), the risks of this disease have been minimized and the measures taken are not adequate, despite the ready availability of the tools needed to manage the epidemic. We must remain alert to the risks posed by this monkeypox epidemic, which seems different from the sporadic outbreaks that usually crop up in Central and West Africa, he said. Dr. Davido recently shared his opinions in an interview.

Question: What do you think about the monkeypox vaccination campaign currently underway in France?

Dr. Davido: It doesn’t go far enough, and I am surprised by the lack of a concrete and specific objective. The effects of the disease are being minimized, and we seem to be in limbo. It seems we have to wait until the fire is out of control before we can call the fire department. We should have been more reactive and taken a more drastic approach from the get-go. In France, as in other countries affected by this epidemic, we are still, unfortunately, in a phase of observation, reassuring ourselves that this will surely not become another pandemic, as that would be really bad luck.

Yet we find ourselves in an unprecedented situation: We have known about the disease in question for a long time, the target population has been identified, and we have a vaccine immediately available. So, we have all the tools and knowledge acquired from the COVID-19 pandemic at our disposal, yet we are choosing to wait and see. We have clearly underestimated the risks of failing after a stalled start to the vaccination campaign.

Question: What exactly are the risks, in your opinion?  Should we already be worried about how the epidemic is progressing?

Dr. Davido: The situation is definitely worrying. I personally am convinced that this disease will be the syphilis of the 21st century. Although the risk is low, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that this could be the start of a new pandemic. For the time being, its spread is limited to at-risk populations, mainly men who have sex with other men and who have multiple partners, which accounts for around 300,000 people in France. However, the risk for heterosexuals must not be minimized; we must not forget that this disease can also be transmitted through contact with an infected person and by respiratory droplets from people living in the same household. There have been recent cases of women and children infected with monkeypox. If monkeypox starts to spread in the community, rather than being a sexually transmitted infection, the epidemic could spread to the rest of the population. With the rise in cases, scientists are also concerned about transmission to animals. Monkeypox could become endemic like it is in Africa, where rodents are the main reservoir of the virus.

Question: What do we know about the dynamics of this epidemic?  What can be done to effectively improve the situation?

Dr. Davido: Experience gained from African countries affected by monkeypox, as well as from the spate of cases that occurred in the United States in 2003, has shown us that the epidemic can be controlled once the cases have been contained. It is hoped that further waves of the epidemic can be avoided, providing the monkeypox vaccine achieves its objectives.

But we need to give ourselves the means to do so. The expansion of the vaccination program to the most at-risk populations in early July was the right decision. We have seen that ring vaccination targeting close-contact cases does not work with monkeypox. The current problem is that this vaccine is nearly exclusively restricted to hospital settings. We are making the same mistakes as [we did] at the start of the COVID-19 epidemic. We don’t have the right infrastructure in place for this vaccination program. We need to get doctors, paramedics, pharmacists, etc., involved. And cut back on the red tape. After embracing digital procedures during COVID-19, we find ourselves having to complete paper copies of documents for every single person attending a vaccination site. It just doesn’t make sense!

Question: You highlighted the lack of a clear objective with this vaccination campaign. What should we be aiming for?

Dr. Davido: During the COVID-19 vaccination campaign, there was a set number of people to be vaccinated within a given time frame. The approach demanded a fast pace and a desired outcome. Yes, it was an ambitious target from the get-go, but it was one that we stuck to. Currently, no figure, no target, has been set for the monkeypox vaccination program. Ideally, we would have completed the vaccination campaign before the start of the new school year to limit new infections.

As it stands now, only 10% of the target population has received the vaccine. There is talk of the summer period not being favorable. Yet I remember that last year, the COVID-19 vaccination program was strengthened in the middle of August. If the monkeypox vaccination campaign is not given a boost by the end of the summer, we run the risk of encouraging transmission of the virus between close contacts when different groups mix after being on holiday at the start of the new school year. I think that, first and foremost, we must make general practitioners aware of the disease and train them in how to diagnose it so that patients can be isolated and vaccinated as quickly as possible.

Question: There has also been talk of increasing the set 28-day period between the two doses, or even getting rid of it entirely. Would this perhaps lead to better vaccine uptake?

Dr. Davido: The United Kingdom has chosen to give a single dose and recommends a second dose after exposure. I am not sure that this is the best strategy. Although the efficacy data are still limited, the results are not as good after a single dose. According to initial data from the French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products (the ANSM), the rate of seroconversion after one dose rises from 10% to 56% on D28 in healthy volunteers, but is between 77% and 89% 2 weeks after the second dose administered on D28.

So, the second dose is needed, especially as immunological memory seems to drop 2 years after the first injection. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention proposes leaving 35 days between the two doses. I think this is a reasonable time frame. So, delaying the second dose makes administration of the first dose even easier because the second often fell in the middle of the holiday period and so we also save precious doses. If the time between doses is longer, we risk vaccinated individuals becoming lax and possibly being tempted to skip the “optional” booster or simply forgetting about it.

Question: Are people who have already had the smallpox vaccine better protected against monkeypox?

Dr. Davido: The efficacy of this vaccine against monkeypox is not perfect on a very long-term basis and, to be honest, we don’t really know the level of protection afforded by first-generation vaccines after 20 years. We must not forget that 20% of people infected with monkeypox were vaccinated against smallpox before mandatory vaccination for this disease was abolished [Editor’s note: The requirement of an initial dose of smallpox vaccine was lifted in 1979, once smallpox had been eradicated].

It is hoped that, as a minimum, this vaccine protects against serious illness. Yet in my department, we regularly see severe cases of monkeypox with widespread lesions in the over 45s, who are said to be vaccinated against smallpox.

Question: By comparison, is it likely that a third-generation vaccine would afford better protection against severe illness?

Dr. Davido: We still don’t have enough data or hindsight to assess the real-world impact of third-generation vaccines. This vaccine has a better tolerance profile than its predecessors, but we currently don’t know if it protects against severe forms of monkeypox. We also need to learn more about the disease causing the current epidemic, since it seems different from the sporadic outbreaks that usually crop up in Central and West Africa. The lesions seen are notably milder. The WHO has given this vaccine an efficacy level of 85% against infection by the monkeypox virus, but we must remain cautious: This figure is based on data from Africa. The epidemic in which we find ourselves is not the same. Overall, we must be wary of overly optimistic rhetoric around this new epidemic.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. The article was translated from the Medscape French edition.

Researchers in France have discovered monkeypox virus in anal samples of men with no symptoms of the disease, advancing the possibility that asymptomatic carriers may be hidden drivers of the global outbreak.

The findings, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, follow a similar, non–peer-reviewed report from Belgium. Researchers in both studies tested swabs for monkeypox in men who have sex with men. These swabs had been collected for routine STI screening.

It’s unclear whether asymptomatic individuals who test positive for monkeypox can spread the virus, the French team wrote. But if so, public health strategies to vaccinate those with known exposure “may not be sufficient to contain spread.”

In an editorial accompanying their paper, Stuart Isaacs, MD, associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said it “raises the question of whether asymptomatic or subclinical infections are contributing to the current worldwide outbreak.”

Historically, transmission of monkeypox and its close relative, smallpox, was thought to be greatest when a rash was present, Dr. Isaacs wrote. “Long chains of human-to-human transmission were rare” with monkeypox.

That’s changed with the current outbreak, which was first detected in May. On Aug. 17, the World Health Organization reported more than 35,000 cases in 92 countries, with 12 deaths.
 

Research methods

For the French study, researchers conducted polymerase chain reaction tests on 200 anorectal swabs from asymptomatic individuals that had been collected from June 5 to July 11 in order to screen for gonorrhea and chlamydia. Of those, 13 (6.5%) were positive for monkeypox.

During the study period, STI testing had been suspended in individuals with monkeypox symptoms because of safety concerns, the researchers reported.

The research team contacted the 13 monkeypox-positive patients and advised them to limit sexual activity for 21 days following their test and notify recent sexual partners. None reported having developed symptoms, but two subsequently returned to the clinic with symptoms – one had an anal rash and the other a sore throat.

In the Belgian report, posted publicly on June 21 as a preprint, 3 of 224 anal samples collected for STI screening in May tested positive for monkeypox. All three of the men who tested positive said they did not have any symptoms in the weeks before and after the sample was taken.

At follow-up testing, 21-37 days after the initial samples were taken, all patients who had previously tested positive were negative. This was “likely as a consequence of spontaneous clearance of the infection,” the authors of that paper wrote.
 

Clinical implications of findings are uncertain

Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview that the clinical implications of the findings are uncertain because it’s not known how much viral transmission results from asymptomatic individuals.

Nevertheless, Dr. Gandhi said that “vaccinating all gay men for monkeypox who will accept the vaccine is prudent,” compared with a less aggressive strategy of only vaccinating those with known exposure, which is called ring vaccination. That way, “we can be assured to provide immunity to large swaths of the at-risk population.”

Dr. Gandhi said that movement toward mass vaccination of gay men is occurring in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia, despite limited vaccine supply.

She added that, although monkeypox has been concentrated in communities of men who have sex with men, “anyone with multiple sexual partners should be vaccinated given the data.”

However, a WHO official recently cautioned that reports of breakthrough infections in individuals who were vaccinated against monkeypox constitute a reminder that “vaccine is not a silver bullet.”
 

Non-vaccine interventions are also needed

Other experts stressed the need for nonvaccine interventions.

In his editorial, Dr. Isaacs said an “expanded” ring vaccination strategy in communities of high risk is likely needed, but ultimately the outbreak will only be controlled if vaccination is accompanied by other measures such as identifying and isolating cases, making treatment available, and educating individuals about how to reduce their risk.

Aileen Marty, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at Florida International University, Miami, said in an interview that the new evidence makes it “incredibly important” to inform people that they might be infected by a sex partner even if that person does not have telltale lesions.

Dr. Marty said she has been advising men who have sex with men to “reduce or eliminate situations in which they find themselves with multiple anonymous individuals.”

Although most individuals recover from monkeypox, the disease can lead to hospitalization, disfigurement, blindness, and even death, Dr. Marty noted, adding that monkeypox is “absolutely a disease to avoid.”

Authors of the French study reported financial relationships with Gilead Sciences, Viiv Healthcare, MSD, AstraZeneca, Theratechnologies, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, and bioMérieux. Dr. Isaacs reported grants from the Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Institutes of Health and royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Marty reported no relevant financial interests.

Researchers in France have discovered monkeypox virus in anal samples of men with no symptoms of the disease, advancing the possibility that asymptomatic carriers may be hidden drivers of the global outbreak.

The findings, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, follow a similar, non–peer-reviewed report from Belgium. Researchers in both studies tested swabs for monkeypox in men who have sex with men. These swabs had been collected for routine STI screening.

It’s unclear whether asymptomatic individuals who test positive for monkeypox can spread the virus, the French team wrote. But if so, public health strategies to vaccinate those with known exposure “may not be sufficient to contain spread.”

In an editorial accompanying their paper, Stuart Isaacs, MD, associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said it “raises the question of whether asymptomatic or subclinical infections are contributing to the current worldwide outbreak.”

Historically, transmission of monkeypox and its close relative, smallpox, was thought to be greatest when a rash was present, Dr. Isaacs wrote. “Long chains of human-to-human transmission were rare” with monkeypox.

That’s changed with the current outbreak, which was first detected in May. On Aug. 17, the World Health Organization reported more than 35,000 cases in 92 countries, with 12 deaths.
 

Research methods

For the French study, researchers conducted polymerase chain reaction tests on 200 anorectal swabs from asymptomatic individuals that had been collected from June 5 to July 11 in order to screen for gonorrhea and chlamydia. Of those, 13 (6.5%) were positive for monkeypox.

During the study period, STI testing had been suspended in individuals with monkeypox symptoms because of safety concerns, the researchers reported.

The research team contacted the 13 monkeypox-positive patients and advised them to limit sexual activity for 21 days following their test and notify recent sexual partners. None reported having developed symptoms, but two subsequently returned to the clinic with symptoms – one had an anal rash and the other a sore throat.

In the Belgian report, posted publicly on June 21 as a preprint, 3 of 224 anal samples collected for STI screening in May tested positive for monkeypox. All three of the men who tested positive said they did not have any symptoms in the weeks before and after the sample was taken.

At follow-up testing, 21-37 days after the initial samples were taken, all patients who had previously tested positive were negative. This was “likely as a consequence of spontaneous clearance of the infection,” the authors of that paper wrote.
 

Clinical implications of findings are uncertain

Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview that the clinical implications of the findings are uncertain because it’s not known how much viral transmission results from asymptomatic individuals.

Nevertheless, Dr. Gandhi said that “vaccinating all gay men for monkeypox who will accept the vaccine is prudent,” compared with a less aggressive strategy of only vaccinating those with known exposure, which is called ring vaccination. That way, “we can be assured to provide immunity to large swaths of the at-risk population.”

Dr. Gandhi said that movement toward mass vaccination of gay men is occurring in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia, despite limited vaccine supply.

She added that, although monkeypox has been concentrated in communities of men who have sex with men, “anyone with multiple sexual partners should be vaccinated given the data.”

However, a WHO official recently cautioned that reports of breakthrough infections in individuals who were vaccinated against monkeypox constitute a reminder that “vaccine is not a silver bullet.”
 

Non-vaccine interventions are also needed

Other experts stressed the need for nonvaccine interventions.

In his editorial, Dr. Isaacs said an “expanded” ring vaccination strategy in communities of high risk is likely needed, but ultimately the outbreak will only be controlled if vaccination is accompanied by other measures such as identifying and isolating cases, making treatment available, and educating individuals about how to reduce their risk.

Aileen Marty, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at Florida International University, Miami, said in an interview that the new evidence makes it “incredibly important” to inform people that they might be infected by a sex partner even if that person does not have telltale lesions.

Dr. Marty said she has been advising men who have sex with men to “reduce or eliminate situations in which they find themselves with multiple anonymous individuals.”

Although most individuals recover from monkeypox, the disease can lead to hospitalization, disfigurement, blindness, and even death, Dr. Marty noted, adding that monkeypox is “absolutely a disease to avoid.”

Authors of the French study reported financial relationships with Gilead Sciences, Viiv Healthcare, MSD, AstraZeneca, Theratechnologies, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, and bioMérieux. Dr. Isaacs reported grants from the Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Institutes of Health and royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Marty reported no relevant financial interests.

Researchers in France have discovered monkeypox virus in anal samples of men with no symptoms of the disease, advancing the possibility that asymptomatic carriers may be hidden drivers of the global outbreak.

The findings, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, follow a similar, non–peer-reviewed report from Belgium. Researchers in both studies tested swabs for monkeypox in men who have sex with men. These swabs had been collected for routine STI screening.

It’s unclear whether asymptomatic individuals who test positive for monkeypox can spread the virus, the French team wrote. But if so, public health strategies to vaccinate those with known exposure “may not be sufficient to contain spread.”

In an editorial accompanying their paper, Stuart Isaacs, MD, associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said it “raises the question of whether asymptomatic or subclinical infections are contributing to the current worldwide outbreak.”

Historically, transmission of monkeypox and its close relative, smallpox, was thought to be greatest when a rash was present, Dr. Isaacs wrote. “Long chains of human-to-human transmission were rare” with monkeypox.

That’s changed with the current outbreak, which was first detected in May. On Aug. 17, the World Health Organization reported more than 35,000 cases in 92 countries, with 12 deaths.
 

Research methods

For the French study, researchers conducted polymerase chain reaction tests on 200 anorectal swabs from asymptomatic individuals that had been collected from June 5 to July 11 in order to screen for gonorrhea and chlamydia. Of those, 13 (6.5%) were positive for monkeypox.

During the study period, STI testing had been suspended in individuals with monkeypox symptoms because of safety concerns, the researchers reported.

The research team contacted the 13 monkeypox-positive patients and advised them to limit sexual activity for 21 days following their test and notify recent sexual partners. None reported having developed symptoms, but two subsequently returned to the clinic with symptoms – one had an anal rash and the other a sore throat.

In the Belgian report, posted publicly on June 21 as a preprint, 3 of 224 anal samples collected for STI screening in May tested positive for monkeypox. All three of the men who tested positive said they did not have any symptoms in the weeks before and after the sample was taken.

At follow-up testing, 21-37 days after the initial samples were taken, all patients who had previously tested positive were negative. This was “likely as a consequence of spontaneous clearance of the infection,” the authors of that paper wrote.
 

Clinical implications of findings are uncertain

Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview that the clinical implications of the findings are uncertain because it’s not known how much viral transmission results from asymptomatic individuals.

Nevertheless, Dr. Gandhi said that “vaccinating all gay men for monkeypox who will accept the vaccine is prudent,” compared with a less aggressive strategy of only vaccinating those with known exposure, which is called ring vaccination. That way, “we can be assured to provide immunity to large swaths of the at-risk population.”

Dr. Gandhi said that movement toward mass vaccination of gay men is occurring in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia, despite limited vaccine supply.

She added that, although monkeypox has been concentrated in communities of men who have sex with men, “anyone with multiple sexual partners should be vaccinated given the data.”

However, a WHO official recently cautioned that reports of breakthrough infections in individuals who were vaccinated against monkeypox constitute a reminder that “vaccine is not a silver bullet.”
 

Non-vaccine interventions are also needed

Other experts stressed the need for nonvaccine interventions.

In his editorial, Dr. Isaacs said an “expanded” ring vaccination strategy in communities of high risk is likely needed, but ultimately the outbreak will only be controlled if vaccination is accompanied by other measures such as identifying and isolating cases, making treatment available, and educating individuals about how to reduce their risk.

Aileen Marty, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at Florida International University, Miami, said in an interview that the new evidence makes it “incredibly important” to inform people that they might be infected by a sex partner even if that person does not have telltale lesions.

Dr. Marty said she has been advising men who have sex with men to “reduce or eliminate situations in which they find themselves with multiple anonymous individuals.”

Although most individuals recover from monkeypox, the disease can lead to hospitalization, disfigurement, blindness, and even death, Dr. Marty noted, adding that monkeypox is “absolutely a disease to avoid.”

Authors of the French study reported financial relationships with Gilead Sciences, Viiv Healthcare, MSD, AstraZeneca, Theratechnologies, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, and bioMérieux. Dr. Isaacs reported grants from the Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Institutes of Health and royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Marty reported no relevant financial interests.

Watching TV may increase your risk of dementia, while using a computer may lower it, new research suggests.

The relationship to dementia with these activities remained strong no matter how much physical activity a person did, the authors wrote in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Both watching TV and using a computer have been linked to increased risk of chronic disease and mortality, while exercise and physical activity (PA) have shown benefit in reducing cognitive decline, structural brain atrophy, and dementia risk in older adults, the authors wrote.

The authors said they wanted to try to understand the effects of watching TV and using computers on dementia risk, because people in the United States and Europe have been engaging in both of these activities more often.

They concluded that it’s not the sitting part of sedentary behavior (SB) that potentially has the effect on dementia but what people are doing while sitting.

Some of the results were surprising, lead author David Raichlen, PhD, professor of Human and Evolutionary Biology at University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

Previous literature on sedentary behaviors have documented their negative effects on a wide range of health outcomes, rather than finding positive associations, he explained.
 

More than 140,000 included in study

The researchers conducted their prospective cohort study using data from the United Kingdom Biobank. After excluding people younger than 60, those with prevalent dementia at the start of follow-up, and those without complete data, 146,651 participants were included.

The participants were followed from their baseline visit until they received a dementia diagnosis, died, were lost to follow-up, or were last admitted to the hospital.

TV-watching time was linked with an increased risk of incident dementia (HR [95% confidence interval] = 1.31 [1.23-1.40]), and computer use was linked with a reduced risk of incident dementia HR [95% CI] = 0.80 [0.76-0.85]).

TV’s link with higher dementia risk increased in those who had the highest use, compared with those who had the lowest use (HR [95% CI] = 1.28 [1.18-1.39].

Similarly, the link with risk reduction for dementia with computer use increased with more use.

Both medium and high computer time were associated with reduced risk of incident dementia (HR [95% CI] = 0.70 [0.64-0.76] and HR [95% CI] = 0.76 [0.70-0.83] respectively).

Dr. Raichlen pointed out that the high use of TV in this study was 4 or more hours a day and computer use – which included leisure use, not work use – had benefits on dementia risk after just half an hour.

These results remained significant after researchers adjusted for demographic, health, and lifestyle variables, including time spent on physical activity, sleeping, obesity, alcohol consumption, smoking status, diet scores, education level, body mass index, and employment type.
 

Physical is still better than sedentary activity

One potential reason for the different effects on dementia risk in the two activities studied, the authors write, is that sitting down to watch TV is associated with “uniquely low levels of muscle activity and energy expenditure, compared with sitting to use a computer.”

Andrew Budson, MD, chief of Cognitive & Behavioral Neurology and Associate Chief of Staff for Education for the VA Boston Healthcare System, Mass., who was not part of the study, said he thinks a more likely explanation for the study findings lies in the active versus passive tasks required in the two kinds of viewing that the authors reference.

“When we’re doing cognitive activity involving using the computer, we’re using large parts of our cortex to carry out that activity, whereas when we’re watching TV, there are probably relatively small amounts of our brain that are actually active,” Dr. Budson, author of Seven Steps to Managing Your Memory, explained in an interview.

“This is one of the first times I’ve been convinced that even when the computer activity isn’t completely new and novel, it may be beneficial,” Dr. Budson said.

It would be much better to do physical activity, but if the choice is sedentary activity, active cognitive activities, such as computer use, are better than TV watching, he continued.

The results of the current study are consistent with previous work showing that the type of sedentary behavior matters, according to the authors.

“Several studies have shown that TV time is associated with mortality and poor cardiometabolic biomarkers, whereas computer time is not,” they wrote.

A limitation of the study is that sedentary behaviors were self-reported via questionnaires, and there may be errors in recall.

“The use of objective methods for measuring both SB and PA are needed in future studies,” they write.

The authors receive support from the National Institutes of Health, the State of Arizona, the Arizona Department of Health Services, and the McKnight Brain Research Foundation. Neither the authors nor Dr. Budson declared relevant financial relationships.

Watching TV may increase your risk of dementia, while using a computer may lower it, new research suggests.

The relationship to dementia with these activities remained strong no matter how much physical activity a person did, the authors wrote in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Both watching TV and using a computer have been linked to increased risk of chronic disease and mortality, while exercise and physical activity (PA) have shown benefit in reducing cognitive decline, structural brain atrophy, and dementia risk in older adults, the authors wrote.

The authors said they wanted to try to understand the effects of watching TV and using computers on dementia risk, because people in the United States and Europe have been engaging in both of these activities more often.

They concluded that it’s not the sitting part of sedentary behavior (SB) that potentially has the effect on dementia but what people are doing while sitting.

Some of the results were surprising, lead author David Raichlen, PhD, professor of Human and Evolutionary Biology at University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

Previous literature on sedentary behaviors have documented their negative effects on a wide range of health outcomes, rather than finding positive associations, he explained.
 

More than 140,000 included in study

The researchers conducted their prospective cohort study using data from the United Kingdom Biobank. After excluding people younger than 60, those with prevalent dementia at the start of follow-up, and those without complete data, 146,651 participants were included.

The participants were followed from their baseline visit until they received a dementia diagnosis, died, were lost to follow-up, or were last admitted to the hospital.

TV-watching time was linked with an increased risk of incident dementia (HR [95% confidence interval] = 1.31 [1.23-1.40]), and computer use was linked with a reduced risk of incident dementia HR [95% CI] = 0.80 [0.76-0.85]).

TV’s link with higher dementia risk increased in those who had the highest use, compared with those who had the lowest use (HR [95% CI] = 1.28 [1.18-1.39].

Similarly, the link with risk reduction for dementia with computer use increased with more use.

Both medium and high computer time were associated with reduced risk of incident dementia (HR [95% CI] = 0.70 [0.64-0.76] and HR [95% CI] = 0.76 [0.70-0.83] respectively).

Dr. Raichlen pointed out that the high use of TV in this study was 4 or more hours a day and computer use – which included leisure use, not work use – had benefits on dementia risk after just half an hour.

These results remained significant after researchers adjusted for demographic, health, and lifestyle variables, including time spent on physical activity, sleeping, obesity, alcohol consumption, smoking status, diet scores, education level, body mass index, and employment type.
 

Physical is still better than sedentary activity

One potential reason for the different effects on dementia risk in the two activities studied, the authors write, is that sitting down to watch TV is associated with “uniquely low levels of muscle activity and energy expenditure, compared with sitting to use a computer.”

Andrew Budson, MD, chief of Cognitive & Behavioral Neurology and Associate Chief of Staff for Education for the VA Boston Healthcare System, Mass., who was not part of the study, said he thinks a more likely explanation for the study findings lies in the active versus passive tasks required in the two kinds of viewing that the authors reference.

“When we’re doing cognitive activity involving using the computer, we’re using large parts of our cortex to carry out that activity, whereas when we’re watching TV, there are probably relatively small amounts of our brain that are actually active,” Dr. Budson, author of Seven Steps to Managing Your Memory, explained in an interview.

“This is one of the first times I’ve been convinced that even when the computer activity isn’t completely new and novel, it may be beneficial,” Dr. Budson said.

It would be much better to do physical activity, but if the choice is sedentary activity, active cognitive activities, such as computer use, are better than TV watching, he continued.

The results of the current study are consistent with previous work showing that the type of sedentary behavior matters, according to the authors.

“Several studies have shown that TV time is associated with mortality and poor cardiometabolic biomarkers, whereas computer time is not,” they wrote.

A limitation of the study is that sedentary behaviors were self-reported via questionnaires, and there may be errors in recall.

“The use of objective methods for measuring both SB and PA are needed in future studies,” they write.

The authors receive support from the National Institutes of Health, the State of Arizona, the Arizona Department of Health Services, and the McKnight Brain Research Foundation. Neither the authors nor Dr. Budson declared relevant financial relationships.

Watching TV may increase your risk of dementia, while using a computer may lower it, new research suggests.

The relationship to dementia with these activities remained strong no matter how much physical activity a person did, the authors wrote in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Both watching TV and using a computer have been linked to increased risk of chronic disease and mortality, while exercise and physical activity (PA) have shown benefit in reducing cognitive decline, structural brain atrophy, and dementia risk in older adults, the authors wrote.

The authors said they wanted to try to understand the effects of watching TV and using computers on dementia risk, because people in the United States and Europe have been engaging in both of these activities more often.

They concluded that it’s not the sitting part of sedentary behavior (SB) that potentially has the effect on dementia but what people are doing while sitting.

Some of the results were surprising, lead author David Raichlen, PhD, professor of Human and Evolutionary Biology at University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

Previous literature on sedentary behaviors have documented their negative effects on a wide range of health outcomes, rather than finding positive associations, he explained.
 

More than 140,000 included in study

The researchers conducted their prospective cohort study using data from the United Kingdom Biobank. After excluding people younger than 60, those with prevalent dementia at the start of follow-up, and those without complete data, 146,651 participants were included.

The participants were followed from their baseline visit until they received a dementia diagnosis, died, were lost to follow-up, or were last admitted to the hospital.

TV-watching time was linked with an increased risk of incident dementia (HR [95% confidence interval] = 1.31 [1.23-1.40]), and computer use was linked with a reduced risk of incident dementia HR [95% CI] = 0.80 [0.76-0.85]).

TV’s link with higher dementia risk increased in those who had the highest use, compared with those who had the lowest use (HR [95% CI] = 1.28 [1.18-1.39].

Similarly, the link with risk reduction for dementia with computer use increased with more use.

Both medium and high computer time were associated with reduced risk of incident dementia (HR [95% CI] = 0.70 [0.64-0.76] and HR [95% CI] = 0.76 [0.70-0.83] respectively).

Dr. Raichlen pointed out that the high use of TV in this study was 4 or more hours a day and computer use – which included leisure use, not work use – had benefits on dementia risk after just half an hour.

These results remained significant after researchers adjusted for demographic, health, and lifestyle variables, including time spent on physical activity, sleeping, obesity, alcohol consumption, smoking status, diet scores, education level, body mass index, and employment type.
 

Physical is still better than sedentary activity

One potential reason for the different effects on dementia risk in the two activities studied, the authors write, is that sitting down to watch TV is associated with “uniquely low levels of muscle activity and energy expenditure, compared with sitting to use a computer.”

Andrew Budson, MD, chief of Cognitive & Behavioral Neurology and Associate Chief of Staff for Education for the VA Boston Healthcare System, Mass., who was not part of the study, said he thinks a more likely explanation for the study findings lies in the active versus passive tasks required in the two kinds of viewing that the authors reference.

“When we’re doing cognitive activity involving using the computer, we’re using large parts of our cortex to carry out that activity, whereas when we’re watching TV, there are probably relatively small amounts of our brain that are actually active,” Dr. Budson, author of Seven Steps to Managing Your Memory, explained in an interview.

“This is one of the first times I’ve been convinced that even when the computer activity isn’t completely new and novel, it may be beneficial,” Dr. Budson said.

It would be much better to do physical activity, but if the choice is sedentary activity, active cognitive activities, such as computer use, are better than TV watching, he continued.

The results of the current study are consistent with previous work showing that the type of sedentary behavior matters, according to the authors.

“Several studies have shown that TV time is associated with mortality and poor cardiometabolic biomarkers, whereas computer time is not,” they wrote.

A limitation of the study is that sedentary behaviors were self-reported via questionnaires, and there may be errors in recall.

“The use of objective methods for measuring both SB and PA are needed in future studies,” they write.

The authors receive support from the National Institutes of Health, the State of Arizona, the Arizona Department of Health Services, and the McKnight Brain Research Foundation. Neither the authors nor Dr. Budson declared relevant financial relationships.

On a Monday morning, a group of obstetrics and gynecology residents, dressed in blue scrubs and white coats, gathered in an auditorium at Indiana University, Indianapolis. After the usual updates and announcements, Nicole Scott, MD, the residency program director, addressed the elephant in the room. “Any more abortion care questions?” she asked the trainees.

After a few moments of silence, one resident asked: “How’s Dr. Bernard doing?”

“Bernard is actually in really good spirits – I mean, relatively,” Dr. Scott answered. “She has 24/7 security, has her own lawyer.”

They were talking about Caitlin Bernard, MD, an Indiana ob.gyn. who provides abortions and trains residents at the university hospital. Dr. Bernard was recently caught in a political whirlwind after she spoke about an abortion she provided to a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio. Dr. Bernard was the target of false accusations made on national television by pundits and political leaders, including Indiana’s attorney general.

The doctors interviewed for this article said that they are not speaking on behalf of their school of medicine but rather about their personal experiences during a tumultuous moment that they worry will affect the way they care for their patients.

The vitriol directed at Dr. Bernard hit home for this group of residents. She has mentored most of them for years. Many of the young doctors were certain they wanted to practice in Indiana after their training. But lately, some have been ambivalent about that prospect.

Beatrice Soderholm, DO, a fourth-year ob.gyn. resident, said watching what Dr. Bernard went through was “scary.” “I think that was part of the point for those who were putting her through that,” Dr. Soderholm said. They were trying “to scare other people out of doing the work that she does.”

In early August, Gov. Eric Holcomb, a Republican, signed a near-total abortion ban into law, making Indiana the first state to adopt new restrictions on abortion access since the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade in June. When the ban takes effect Sept. 15, medical providers who violate the law risk losing their licenses or serving up to six years in prison.

These days, Dr. Scott, the residency program director, uses some meeting time with residents to fill them in on political updates and available mental health services. She also reminds them that legal counsel is on call round the clock to help if they’re ever unsure about the care they should provide a patient.

“Our residents are devastated,” Dr. Scott said, holding back tears. “They signed up to provide comprehensive health care to women, and they are being told that they can’t do that.”

She expects this will “deeply impact” how Indiana hospitals recruit and retain medical professionals.

A 2018 report from the March of Dimes found that 27% of Indiana counties are considered maternity care deserts, with no or limited access to maternal care. The state has one of the nation’s highest maternal mortality rates.

Dr. Scott said new laws restricting abortion will only worsen those statistics.

Dr. Scott shared results from a recent survey of nearly 1,400 residents and fellows across all specialties at IU, nearly 80% of the trainees said they were less likely to stay and practice in Indiana after the abortion ban.

Wendy Tian, MD, a third-year resident, said she is worried about her safety. Dr. Tian grew up and went to medical school in Chicago and chose to do her residency in Indiana because the program has a strong family-planning focus. She was open to practicing in Indiana when she completed her training.

But that’s changed.

“I, for sure, don’t know if I would be able to stay in Indiana post graduation with what’s going on,” Dr. Tian said.

Still, she feels guilty for “giving up” on Indiana’s most vulnerable patients.

Even before Roe fell, Dr. Tian said, the climate in Indiana could be hostile and frustrating for ob.gyns. Indiana, like other states with abortion restrictions, allows nearly all health care providers to opt out of providing care to patients having an abortion.

“We encounter other people who we work with on a daily basis who are opposed to what we do,” Dr. Tian said, adding that she and her colleagues have had to cancel scheduled procedures because the nurses on call were not comfortable assisting during an abortion.

Dr. Scott said the ob.gyn. program at the IU has provided residents with comprehensive training, including on abortion care and family planning. Since miscarriages are managed the same way as first-trimester abortions, she said, the training gives residents lots of hands-on experience. “What termination procedures allow you to do is that kind of repetition and that understanding of the female anatomy and how to manage complications that may happen with miscarriages.”

The ban on abortions dramatically reduces the hands-on opportunities for ob.gyn. residents, and that’s a huge concern, she said.

The program is exploring ways to offer training. One option is to send residents to learn in states without abortion restrictions, but Dr. Scott said that would be a logistical nightmare. “This is not as simple as just showing up to an office and saying: ‘Can I observe?’ This includes getting a medical license for out-of-state trainees. This includes funding for travel and lodging,” Dr. Scott said. “It adds a lot to what we already do to educate future ob.gyns.”

Four in 10 of all ob.gyn. residents in the United States are in states where abortion is banned or likely to be banned, so there could be a surge of residents looking to go out of state to make up for lost training opportunities. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, the body that accredits residency programs, proposed modifications to the graduation requirements for ob.gyn. residents to account for the changing landscape.

For some of the Indiana ob.gyn. residents – including Veronica Santana, MD, a first-year resident – these political hurdles are a challenge they’re more than willing to take on. Dr. Santana is Latina, grew up in Seattle, and has been involved in community organizing since she was a teenager. One reason she chose obstetrics and gynecology was because of how the field intersects with social justice. “It’s political. It always has been, and it continues to be,” she said, “And, obviously, especially now.”

After Roe was overturned, Dr. Santana, alongside other residents and mentors, took to the streets of Indianapolis to participate in rallies in support of abortion rights.

Indiana could be the perfect battleground for Dr. Santana’s advocacy and social activism. But lately, she said, she is “very unsure” whether staying in Indiana to practice after residency makes sense, since she wants to provide the entire range of ob.gyn. services.

Dr. Soderholm, who grew up in Minnesota, has felt a strong connection to patients at the county hospital in Indianapolis. She had been certain she wanted to practice in Indiana. But her family in Minnesota – where abortion remains largely protected – has recently questioned why she would stay in a state with such a hostile climate for ob.gyns. “There’s been a lot of hesitation,” she said. But the patients make leaving difficult. “Sorry,” she said, starting to cry.

It’s for those patients that Dr. Soderholm decided she’ll likely stay. Other young doctors may make a different decision.

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

On a Monday morning, a group of obstetrics and gynecology residents, dressed in blue scrubs and white coats, gathered in an auditorium at Indiana University, Indianapolis. After the usual updates and announcements, Nicole Scott, MD, the residency program director, addressed the elephant in the room. “Any more abortion care questions?” she asked the trainees.

After a few moments of silence, one resident asked: “How’s Dr. Bernard doing?”

“Bernard is actually in really good spirits – I mean, relatively,” Dr. Scott answered. “She has 24/7 security, has her own lawyer.”

They were talking about Caitlin Bernard, MD, an Indiana ob.gyn. who provides abortions and trains residents at the university hospital. Dr. Bernard was recently caught in a political whirlwind after she spoke about an abortion she provided to a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio. Dr. Bernard was the target of false accusations made on national television by pundits and political leaders, including Indiana’s attorney general.

The doctors interviewed for this article said that they are not speaking on behalf of their school of medicine but rather about their personal experiences during a tumultuous moment that they worry will affect the way they care for their patients.

The vitriol directed at Dr. Bernard hit home for this group of residents. She has mentored most of them for years. Many of the young doctors were certain they wanted to practice in Indiana after their training. But lately, some have been ambivalent about that prospect.

Beatrice Soderholm, DO, a fourth-year ob.gyn. resident, said watching what Dr. Bernard went through was “scary.” “I think that was part of the point for those who were putting her through that,” Dr. Soderholm said. They were trying “to scare other people out of doing the work that she does.”

In early August, Gov. Eric Holcomb, a Republican, signed a near-total abortion ban into law, making Indiana the first state to adopt new restrictions on abortion access since the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade in June. When the ban takes effect Sept. 15, medical providers who violate the law risk losing their licenses or serving up to six years in prison.

These days, Dr. Scott, the residency program director, uses some meeting time with residents to fill them in on political updates and available mental health services. She also reminds them that legal counsel is on call round the clock to help if they’re ever unsure about the care they should provide a patient.

“Our residents are devastated,” Dr. Scott said, holding back tears. “They signed up to provide comprehensive health care to women, and they are being told that they can’t do that.”

She expects this will “deeply impact” how Indiana hospitals recruit and retain medical professionals.

A 2018 report from the March of Dimes found that 27% of Indiana counties are considered maternity care deserts, with no or limited access to maternal care. The state has one of the nation’s highest maternal mortality rates.

Dr. Scott said new laws restricting abortion will only worsen those statistics.

Dr. Scott shared results from a recent survey of nearly 1,400 residents and fellows across all specialties at IU, nearly 80% of the trainees said they were less likely to stay and practice in Indiana after the abortion ban.

Wendy Tian, MD, a third-year resident, said she is worried about her safety. Dr. Tian grew up and went to medical school in Chicago and chose to do her residency in Indiana because the program has a strong family-planning focus. She was open to practicing in Indiana when she completed her training.

But that’s changed.

“I, for sure, don’t know if I would be able to stay in Indiana post graduation with what’s going on,” Dr. Tian said.

Still, she feels guilty for “giving up” on Indiana’s most vulnerable patients.

Even before Roe fell, Dr. Tian said, the climate in Indiana could be hostile and frustrating for ob.gyns. Indiana, like other states with abortion restrictions, allows nearly all health care providers to opt out of providing care to patients having an abortion.

“We encounter other people who we work with on a daily basis who are opposed to what we do,” Dr. Tian said, adding that she and her colleagues have had to cancel scheduled procedures because the nurses on call were not comfortable assisting during an abortion.

Dr. Scott said the ob.gyn. program at the IU has provided residents with comprehensive training, including on abortion care and family planning. Since miscarriages are managed the same way as first-trimester abortions, she said, the training gives residents lots of hands-on experience. “What termination procedures allow you to do is that kind of repetition and that understanding of the female anatomy and how to manage complications that may happen with miscarriages.”

The ban on abortions dramatically reduces the hands-on opportunities for ob.gyn. residents, and that’s a huge concern, she said.

The program is exploring ways to offer training. One option is to send residents to learn in states without abortion restrictions, but Dr. Scott said that would be a logistical nightmare. “This is not as simple as just showing up to an office and saying: ‘Can I observe?’ This includes getting a medical license for out-of-state trainees. This includes funding for travel and lodging,” Dr. Scott said. “It adds a lot to what we already do to educate future ob.gyns.”

Four in 10 of all ob.gyn. residents in the United States are in states where abortion is banned or likely to be banned, so there could be a surge of residents looking to go out of state to make up for lost training opportunities. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, the body that accredits residency programs, proposed modifications to the graduation requirements for ob.gyn. residents to account for the changing landscape.

For some of the Indiana ob.gyn. residents – including Veronica Santana, MD, a first-year resident – these political hurdles are a challenge they’re more than willing to take on. Dr. Santana is Latina, grew up in Seattle, and has been involved in community organizing since she was a teenager. One reason she chose obstetrics and gynecology was because of how the field intersects with social justice. “It’s political. It always has been, and it continues to be,” she said, “And, obviously, especially now.”

After Roe was overturned, Dr. Santana, alongside other residents and mentors, took to the streets of Indianapolis to participate in rallies in support of abortion rights.

Indiana could be the perfect battleground for Dr. Santana’s advocacy and social activism. But lately, she said, she is “very unsure” whether staying in Indiana to practice after residency makes sense, since she wants to provide the entire range of ob.gyn. services.

Dr. Soderholm, who grew up in Minnesota, has felt a strong connection to patients at the county hospital in Indianapolis. She had been certain she wanted to practice in Indiana. But her family in Minnesota – where abortion remains largely protected – has recently questioned why she would stay in a state with such a hostile climate for ob.gyns. “There’s been a lot of hesitation,” she said. But the patients make leaving difficult. “Sorry,” she said, starting to cry.

It’s for those patients that Dr. Soderholm decided she’ll likely stay. Other young doctors may make a different decision.

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

On a Monday morning, a group of obstetrics and gynecology residents, dressed in blue scrubs and white coats, gathered in an auditorium at Indiana University, Indianapolis. After the usual updates and announcements, Nicole Scott, MD, the residency program director, addressed the elephant in the room. “Any more abortion care questions?” she asked the trainees.

After a few moments of silence, one resident asked: “How’s Dr. Bernard doing?”

“Bernard is actually in really good spirits – I mean, relatively,” Dr. Scott answered. “She has 24/7 security, has her own lawyer.”

They were talking about Caitlin Bernard, MD, an Indiana ob.gyn. who provides abortions and trains residents at the university hospital. Dr. Bernard was recently caught in a political whirlwind after she spoke about an abortion she provided to a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio. Dr. Bernard was the target of false accusations made on national television by pundits and political leaders, including Indiana’s attorney general.

The doctors interviewed for this article said that they are not speaking on behalf of their school of medicine but rather about their personal experiences during a tumultuous moment that they worry will affect the way they care for their patients.

The vitriol directed at Dr. Bernard hit home for this group of residents. She has mentored most of them for years. Many of the young doctors were certain they wanted to practice in Indiana after their training. But lately, some have been ambivalent about that prospect.

Beatrice Soderholm, DO, a fourth-year ob.gyn. resident, said watching what Dr. Bernard went through was “scary.” “I think that was part of the point for those who were putting her through that,” Dr. Soderholm said. They were trying “to scare other people out of doing the work that she does.”

In early August, Gov. Eric Holcomb, a Republican, signed a near-total abortion ban into law, making Indiana the first state to adopt new restrictions on abortion access since the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade in June. When the ban takes effect Sept. 15, medical providers who violate the law risk losing their licenses or serving up to six years in prison.

These days, Dr. Scott, the residency program director, uses some meeting time with residents to fill them in on political updates and available mental health services. She also reminds them that legal counsel is on call round the clock to help if they’re ever unsure about the care they should provide a patient.

“Our residents are devastated,” Dr. Scott said, holding back tears. “They signed up to provide comprehensive health care to women, and they are being told that they can’t do that.”

She expects this will “deeply impact” how Indiana hospitals recruit and retain medical professionals.

A 2018 report from the March of Dimes found that 27% of Indiana counties are considered maternity care deserts, with no or limited access to maternal care. The state has one of the nation’s highest maternal mortality rates.

Dr. Scott said new laws restricting abortion will only worsen those statistics.

Dr. Scott shared results from a recent survey of nearly 1,400 residents and fellows across all specialties at IU, nearly 80% of the trainees said they were less likely to stay and practice in Indiana after the abortion ban.

Wendy Tian, MD, a third-year resident, said she is worried about her safety. Dr. Tian grew up and went to medical school in Chicago and chose to do her residency in Indiana because the program has a strong family-planning focus. She was open to practicing in Indiana when she completed her training.

But that’s changed.

“I, for sure, don’t know if I would be able to stay in Indiana post graduation with what’s going on,” Dr. Tian said.

Still, she feels guilty for “giving up” on Indiana’s most vulnerable patients.

Even before Roe fell, Dr. Tian said, the climate in Indiana could be hostile and frustrating for ob.gyns. Indiana, like other states with abortion restrictions, allows nearly all health care providers to opt out of providing care to patients having an abortion.

“We encounter other people who we work with on a daily basis who are opposed to what we do,” Dr. Tian said, adding that she and her colleagues have had to cancel scheduled procedures because the nurses on call were not comfortable assisting during an abortion.

Dr. Scott said the ob.gyn. program at the IU has provided residents with comprehensive training, including on abortion care and family planning. Since miscarriages are managed the same way as first-trimester abortions, she said, the training gives residents lots of hands-on experience. “What termination procedures allow you to do is that kind of repetition and that understanding of the female anatomy and how to manage complications that may happen with miscarriages.”

The ban on abortions dramatically reduces the hands-on opportunities for ob.gyn. residents, and that’s a huge concern, she said.

The program is exploring ways to offer training. One option is to send residents to learn in states without abortion restrictions, but Dr. Scott said that would be a logistical nightmare. “This is not as simple as just showing up to an office and saying: ‘Can I observe?’ This includes getting a medical license for out-of-state trainees. This includes funding for travel and lodging,” Dr. Scott said. “It adds a lot to what we already do to educate future ob.gyns.”

Four in 10 of all ob.gyn. residents in the United States are in states where abortion is banned or likely to be banned, so there could be a surge of residents looking to go out of state to make up for lost training opportunities. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, the body that accredits residency programs, proposed modifications to the graduation requirements for ob.gyn. residents to account for the changing landscape.

For some of the Indiana ob.gyn. residents – including Veronica Santana, MD, a first-year resident – these political hurdles are a challenge they’re more than willing to take on. Dr. Santana is Latina, grew up in Seattle, and has been involved in community organizing since she was a teenager. One reason she chose obstetrics and gynecology was because of how the field intersects with social justice. “It’s political. It always has been, and it continues to be,” she said, “And, obviously, especially now.”

After Roe was overturned, Dr. Santana, alongside other residents and mentors, took to the streets of Indianapolis to participate in rallies in support of abortion rights.

Indiana could be the perfect battleground for Dr. Santana’s advocacy and social activism. But lately, she said, she is “very unsure” whether staying in Indiana to practice after residency makes sense, since she wants to provide the entire range of ob.gyn. services.

Dr. Soderholm, who grew up in Minnesota, has felt a strong connection to patients at the county hospital in Indianapolis. She had been certain she wanted to practice in Indiana. But her family in Minnesota – where abortion remains largely protected – has recently questioned why she would stay in a state with such a hostile climate for ob.gyns. “There’s been a lot of hesitation,” she said. But the patients make leaving difficult. “Sorry,” she said, starting to cry.

It’s for those patients that Dr. Soderholm decided she’ll likely stay. Other young doctors may make a different decision.

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

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.

“A sad day. A new low point in the spiral of hate, violence, and lies. Behind every account, there is a person. Do not forget that. In loving memory,” a Twitter user wrote about the death of Lisa-Maria Kellermayr, MD.

“This outcome is very saddening indeed. It should cause everyone to reflect. About interactions in our society, about ‘social’ media, about tolerance, about consideration, and about freedom,” tweeted Dirk Heinrich, MD, chair of the Virchow Association.

The suspected suicide of Dr. Kellermayr, an Austrian vaccinator, is stirring emotions in Germany, too. The active exponent and supporter of COVID-19 measures had been seriously threatened by anti-vaxxers and pandemic deniers. Thousands of people in Vienna said goodbye to her with a solemn vigil. Dr. Kellermayr’s death raises the question of how life-threatening online hatred can be.

Dr. Kellermayr, a vaccination campaigner, had received hateful comments and death threats since the start of the pandemic. But a single post on Twitter changed everything. On Nov. 16, 2021, anti-vaxxers held a demonstration outside the Wels-Grieskirchen Hospital. Dr. Kellermayr tweeted in disgust, “Today in Wels: A demonstration by conspiracy theorists spills into the street under the gaze of the authorities and blocks both the main hospital entrance and the Red Cross ambulance exit.”

At the time of her tweet, Dr. Kellermayr was not aware of additional access that had been made available for ambulances. The police reacted to her tweet, calling it a “false report.” As Florian Klenk writes in the Austrian journal Falter, the police basically criticized Dr. Kellermayr publicly, including in front of the 12,000 Twitter users who follow the police on Twitter.

A screenshot of Dr. Kellermayr’s tweet and the authorities’ response went viral on relevant Telegram forums and triggered a flood of hatred. A COVID denier immediately posted her address online.

Dr. Kellermayr deleted her tweet and asked the police to also delete their tweet, but they did not respond, and the tweet remained online. The country physician was inundated with insults, slurs, and death threats. She was beset by alleged patients who came only to disrupt her work, take videos on their cell phones, and share the photos in anti-vaxxer groups. She privately paid for a security guard, who confiscated butterfly knives from multiple “patients” on their way into the waiting room. Dr. Kellermayr looked for help from the medical association, the police, and the Office for the Protection of the Constitution. She made her problem public.
 

Police recommend supervision

Dr. Kellermayr received emails in which the senders described in detail how they would kill her and her practice team. The physician took the threats seriously; the police did not. The officers investigated. With the evidence that the perpetrators were operating via the dark web, the officers insinuated to Dr. Kellermayr that it was not possible to find them, Klenk reported.

Dr. Kellermayr filed a complaint for the first time on Nov. 22, 2021. The law enforcement authorities in Upper Austria said they did not have domestic jurisdiction. The Austrian authorities launched another investigation. The German prosecution authorities joined the search for those posting death threats on social media. Even the Munich chief public prosecutor’s office and the Berlin public prosecutor’s office investigated the case.

According to some reports, Dr. Kellermayr did not receive police protection; a patrol was sent over from time to time. According to the police, she should “not be afraid,” and if she was, she should just call them. She was also advised to undergo supervision -- in other words, psychological treatment.

Those who had the power to help her provided no support. On the contrary, the spokesperson for the Upper Austria Police said in the Ö1 Mittagsjournal radio program that Dr. Kellermayr was “putting herself in the public eye for her own selfish benefit.” Even Peter Niedermoser, president of the Medical Association of Upper Austria, told the Austrian daily newspaper Standard, “I understand that you have to defend yourself, but it is a whole other question as to whether you have to discuss every topic to excess on Twitter. Sometimes it’s better to step away.”
 

Leaving Twitter

A German network specialist who hunts pedophiles online offered Dr. Kellermayr her help and was quickly on the trail of suspects, including a neo-Nazi from the Berlin area and a man from Upper Bavaria. Then the Office for the Protection of the Constitution stepped in. Omar Haijawi-Pirchner, head of the Austrian State Security and Intelligence Directorate, stated that the evidence provided by the network specialist would be pursued.

At the end of June, Dr. Kellermayr closed her practice. The situation was no longer tolerable for her staff, and the costs for security, €100,000 up to that point, were no longer manageable. At the start of July, she announced that she wanted to reopen the practice.

In her suicide note to the Upper Austria State Police Department, she wrote “that there was a lot of talking, but no one did anything.” In her letter to her medical association, she also made it clear that she had felt abandoned.

“Every suicide is a tragedy. This one more so: a woman in need was abandoned by the police and authorities. That is a social failure,” tweeted physicist and author Florian Aigner.

“Threatened. Ruined. Left alone by the state. Because she did her job. Because she got involved. Because she spread information. Because many want to be understanding for the self-styled ‘unconventional thinkers,’ the ‘Querdenker.’ Because many did not want to take the threat seriously. Because we tolerate them,” tweeted the intensive care physician Lämêth.

“Many colleagues using their real names get all of this outside of Twitter too: emails, phone calls, letters, or even visits by radical fanatics. If you are lucky, there is police protection, or a few reports, but often not a lot happens juridically,” tweeted Flow, anesthetist and emergency physician.

“More and more of the people who shaped Twitter by spreading reliable information voluntarily are now backing out. As long as the concept of freedom is abused here for hate and intimidation, individual responsibility can only mean self-defense. Sad,” wrote Christian Lübbers, MD, on Twitter. Since the ENT physician started vaccinating patients against COVID-19, he has been tormented with insults and death threats from anti-vaxxers and COVID deniers, this news organization has reported.

Examples of people who have backed out and deactivated their account are the virologist Isabella Eckerlek, MD, PhD, of the University of Geneva, and Natalie Grams, MD, spokesperson for the Information Network Homeopathy. For a long time, they spread information about COVID-19, corrected false assertions, and were increasingly faced with insults and hostility.

General practitioner Christian Kröner, MD, has repeatedly been the target of threats and insults and has been under police protection from time to time. He made a statement regarding Dr. Kellermayr’s death and has shut down his account for the first time following multiple instances of hostility.
 

Harassment continues

The hatred, harassment, and slander have not stopped, even after Dr. Kellermayr’s death. Harald Laatsch, who sits in the Berlin house of representatives for the Alternative for Germany party, commented that it seems “much more likely that she could no longer live with the heavy guilt of being a vaccine propagandist.”

“It is repulsive how the Querdenker deride a medical colleague who was driven to death by harassment and violence. She lost her life by saving the lives of others. Others are continuing her work. The state must protect people like her,” tweeted Karl Lauterbach, MD, PhD, who has also been overrun with hate campaigns by Querdenker and COVID deniers.

The page “Ich habe mitgemacht” – Das Archiv für Corona-Unrecht [“I Joined In” – The Archive for COVID Injustice] probably did not help to deescalate the situation on Twitter. Anonymous archivists there collect allegedly ostracizing quotes and share them, along with names. The context in which these statements were given at the time is not mentioned. Some politicians and journalists have given this online pillory the name, “We joined in! We have ostracized, defamed...”

Being humiliated and defamed is par for the course for those who spread information across social media. As doctor and politician Rainer Röver, MD, wrote, “Whoever is involved in spreading information, science, fighting against fake news, and protecting the patients, pupils, clients, or mandates entrusted to them is being shouted down, threatened in writing, or driven to suicide.” The lying, baiting mob is taking over sovereignty of the discussion. According to Röver, the politicians are doing nothing “to actually put a stop to the violent mob.”

For some time now, the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) of Germany has considered anti-vaxxers or COVID deniers as a “relevant risk” in connection with attacks on vaccination centers or medical practices.
 

Increasing aggression

At the start of November last year, participants at the 125th German Medical Assembly demanded that violence against health care professionals be outlawed, Mark Berger, deputy spokesperson of the German Medical Association (BÄK), recollected. At the assembly, various medical associations shared reports of an increase in aggression during the pandemic.

The State Medical Chamber of Physicians of Saxony confirmed threats of violence against physicians, death threats against employees of the Vaccination Committee of Saxony, and criminal damage to medical practices that administer vaccinations. Physicians who administer vaccines in schools receive abuse.

Owing to the increasing amount of aggression, the State Medical Association of Thuringia has set up a special email address as a first point of contact to report violence for those who are affected. “In recent months, we have received a large number of reports from physicians who have received threatening letters in relation to the COVID vaccination, or letters purporting to be liability information or notices of liability,” explained the association. In the cases of which the association becomes aware, a criminal charge is issued most of the time. The investigative proceedings are ongoing.

The State Medical Association of Hesse has devised a reporting form with which it can obtain information on the forms of violence inflicted against physicians and their teams. The reporting is anonymous, and the data are statistically analyzed.

Peter Bobbert, MD, PhD, president of the Berlin Medical Association, provided reports of threat scenarios, “the kind and frequency of which we have never experienced.” He received many messages from physicians asking for help because they had received threatening letters or because their addresses had been posted on social networks.

To date, there have only been isolated cases, said Oliver Erens, MD, spokesperson of the State Medical Association of Baden-Württemberg. “But it is true that some colleagues have already had these kinds of experiences.” Those affected have primarily reported “discussions, debates, and verbal altercations with patients on the topic of the COVID vaccination, compliance with the mask mandate, and other COVID-containment measures – definitely with a high potential for aggression from some of the patients,” said Dr. Erens. Cases of physical violence have not been reported to date.

Above all, there has been a need for advice over the phone, predominantly in the legal department of the regional medical associations. “All physicians and their teams are being recommended by their associations to consistently prosecute any cases of threat of, or use of, violence against them,” Dr. Erens said. In October 2021, the University of Heidelberg started a study on the victimization of physicians. The analysis is ongoing.
 

Staying on Twitter

Lübbers considered leaving Twitter but decided against it. “I decided not to do it and to carry on spreading information about pseudo-medicine and vaccination. I see this as necessary civic courage and will not give way to hate,” Lübbers tweeted.

As understandable as any departure is, “we must not surrender Twitter to the trolls and harassers. Who is still here? #Iamstaying,” wrote Flow. Others wrote, “I will stay on Twitter as a physician. With my real name, too. [...] We must not surrender it to the Querdenker, idiots, Nazis, and enemies of freedom.”

“We need people to share information, we need voices of reason, just as Kellermayr was. How can you say that it would be better to remain silent? Does everyone who is against idiocy, Querdenker, and conspiracy theorists now have to remain silent?” asked Janos Hegedüs, MD, in his podcast.

Hegedüs, who uncovers fake news about COVID-19 and vaccination, was and remains a frequent target of insults and threats. His attempts to take action against them has had only limited success. His conclusion is sobering. “If you decide to spread information, you should know: You are alone. You will get all of the hate and when you have a problem with it, no one will help you.”

Media attorney Chan-jo Jun, who for many years has taken a stand against hate and harassment, has deactivated his Twitter account. However, this is not a retreat, as he clarified in an interview with the German radio station Deutschlandfunk. “I do not intend to give up the fight against hate, harassment, and misinformation, but I will do it in a different place.”

He sees Dr. Kellermayr’s death as a turning point. “I thought that we had learned something after Lübcke [i.e., politician Walter Lübcke, who was murdered by a neo-Nazi]. But we are seeing that the death of a political opponent is not just the goal, but also a success for the other side. And that is shocking.”

The judicial means of taking action against hate are still not effective, said Mr. Jun. He also sees the platform operators as responsible, since they are not obliged to remove unlawful content. “German law and the German constitution hold no sway on Twitter.”
 

Right-wing extremism

What happened to Lisa-Maria Kellermayr is the same as targeted terrorism. An organized group set out to annihilate her. Social psychologist Pia Lamberty has spoken, in the context of COVID, about a pandemic of violence, the threatening nature of which has barely been recognized, both in the virtual and analog world.

In an article for the Jüdische Allgemeine, Dr. Lamberty criticizes the fact that “the mistakes made with Pegida [i.e., a far-right, Islamophobic political movement in Germany] are being made once again” in the classification of Querdenker and COVID deniers. From the very start, the protests against the COVID measures have been a rallying point in the mobilization of right-wing extremists. “The Querdenker movement is unifying radical, right-wing extremist elements. Antisemitism and racism were always welcome.” Still, the right-wing extremist motivation has not been clearly labeled as such.

The classification is not just a question of statistics. “It is also about analyzing the potential for danger and deriving political measures from this. And there is an urgent need for action here: The right-wing extremists will utilize the climate crisis, but also the war in Ukraine, attacks against refugees, and LGBTQ rights for further mobilization. Rather than the state, the focus of the attacks will be people who are labeled as the bogeyman. This also must be clearly labeled for what it is,” said Dr. Lamberty.
She wrote on Twitter, “The COVID-related attacks that took place in the last two years will not simply stop, they will shift. If we do not want more and more people to stop expressing themselves publicly, something urgently has to happen.” She added, “Once more: The next few months will be very difficult. This will probably also be accompanied by an increased level of threat for socially engaged people. More protection is urgently required.”

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

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition.

“A sad day. A new low point in the spiral of hate, violence, and lies. Behind every account, there is a person. Do not forget that. In loving memory,” a Twitter user wrote about the death of Lisa-Maria Kellermayr, MD.

“This outcome is very saddening indeed. It should cause everyone to reflect. About interactions in our society, about ‘social’ media, about tolerance, about consideration, and about freedom,” tweeted Dirk Heinrich, MD, chair of the Virchow Association.

The suspected suicide of Dr. Kellermayr, an Austrian vaccinator, is stirring emotions in Germany, too. The active exponent and supporter of COVID-19 measures had been seriously threatened by anti-vaxxers and pandemic deniers. Thousands of people in Vienna said goodbye to her with a solemn vigil. Dr. Kellermayr’s death raises the question of how life-threatening online hatred can be.

Dr. Kellermayr, a vaccination campaigner, had received hateful comments and death threats since the start of the pandemic. But a single post on Twitter changed everything. On Nov. 16, 2021, anti-vaxxers held a demonstration outside the Wels-Grieskirchen Hospital. Dr. Kellermayr tweeted in disgust, “Today in Wels: A demonstration by conspiracy theorists spills into the street under the gaze of the authorities and blocks both the main hospital entrance and the Red Cross ambulance exit.”

At the time of her tweet, Dr. Kellermayr was not aware of additional access that had been made available for ambulances. The police reacted to her tweet, calling it a “false report.” As Florian Klenk writes in the Austrian journal Falter, the police basically criticized Dr. Kellermayr publicly, including in front of the 12,000 Twitter users who follow the police on Twitter.

A screenshot of Dr. Kellermayr’s tweet and the authorities’ response went viral on relevant Telegram forums and triggered a flood of hatred. A COVID denier immediately posted her address online.

Dr. Kellermayr deleted her tweet and asked the police to also delete their tweet, but they did not respond, and the tweet remained online. The country physician was inundated with insults, slurs, and death threats. She was beset by alleged patients who came only to disrupt her work, take videos on their cell phones, and share the photos in anti-vaxxer groups. She privately paid for a security guard, who confiscated butterfly knives from multiple “patients” on their way into the waiting room. Dr. Kellermayr looked for help from the medical association, the police, and the Office for the Protection of the Constitution. She made her problem public.
 

Police recommend supervision

Dr. Kellermayr received emails in which the senders described in detail how they would kill her and her practice team. The physician took the threats seriously; the police did not. The officers investigated. With the evidence that the perpetrators were operating via the dark web, the officers insinuated to Dr. Kellermayr that it was not possible to find them, Klenk reported.

Dr. Kellermayr filed a complaint for the first time on Nov. 22, 2021. The law enforcement authorities in Upper Austria said they did not have domestic jurisdiction. The Austrian authorities launched another investigation. The German prosecution authorities joined the search for those posting death threats on social media. Even the Munich chief public prosecutor’s office and the Berlin public prosecutor’s office investigated the case.

According to some reports, Dr. Kellermayr did not receive police protection; a patrol was sent over from time to time. According to the police, she should “not be afraid,” and if she was, she should just call them. She was also advised to undergo supervision -- in other words, psychological treatment.

Those who had the power to help her provided no support. On the contrary, the spokesperson for the Upper Austria Police said in the Ö1 Mittagsjournal radio program that Dr. Kellermayr was “putting herself in the public eye for her own selfish benefit.” Even Peter Niedermoser, president of the Medical Association of Upper Austria, told the Austrian daily newspaper Standard, “I understand that you have to defend yourself, but it is a whole other question as to whether you have to discuss every topic to excess on Twitter. Sometimes it’s better to step away.”
 

Leaving Twitter

A German network specialist who hunts pedophiles online offered Dr. Kellermayr her help and was quickly on the trail of suspects, including a neo-Nazi from the Berlin area and a man from Upper Bavaria. Then the Office for the Protection of the Constitution stepped in. Omar Haijawi-Pirchner, head of the Austrian State Security and Intelligence Directorate, stated that the evidence provided by the network specialist would be pursued.

At the end of June, Dr. Kellermayr closed her practice. The situation was no longer tolerable for her staff, and the costs for security, €100,000 up to that point, were no longer manageable. At the start of July, she announced that she wanted to reopen the practice.

In her suicide note to the Upper Austria State Police Department, she wrote “that there was a lot of talking, but no one did anything.” In her letter to her medical association, she also made it clear that she had felt abandoned.

“Every suicide is a tragedy. This one more so: a woman in need was abandoned by the police and authorities. That is a social failure,” tweeted physicist and author Florian Aigner.

“Threatened. Ruined. Left alone by the state. Because she did her job. Because she got involved. Because she spread information. Because many want to be understanding for the self-styled ‘unconventional thinkers,’ the ‘Querdenker.’ Because many did not want to take the threat seriously. Because we tolerate them,” tweeted the intensive care physician Lämêth.

“Many colleagues using their real names get all of this outside of Twitter too: emails, phone calls, letters, or even visits by radical fanatics. If you are lucky, there is police protection, or a few reports, but often not a lot happens juridically,” tweeted Flow, anesthetist and emergency physician.

“More and more of the people who shaped Twitter by spreading reliable information voluntarily are now backing out. As long as the concept of freedom is abused here for hate and intimidation, individual responsibility can only mean self-defense. Sad,” wrote Christian Lübbers, MD, on Twitter. Since the ENT physician started vaccinating patients against COVID-19, he has been tormented with insults and death threats from anti-vaxxers and COVID deniers, this news organization has reported.

Examples of people who have backed out and deactivated their account are the virologist Isabella Eckerlek, MD, PhD, of the University of Geneva, and Natalie Grams, MD, spokesperson for the Information Network Homeopathy. For a long time, they spread information about COVID-19, corrected false assertions, and were increasingly faced with insults and hostility.

General practitioner Christian Kröner, MD, has repeatedly been the target of threats and insults and has been under police protection from time to time. He made a statement regarding Dr. Kellermayr’s death and has shut down his account for the first time following multiple instances of hostility.
 

Harassment continues

The hatred, harassment, and slander have not stopped, even after Dr. Kellermayr’s death. Harald Laatsch, who sits in the Berlin house of representatives for the Alternative for Germany party, commented that it seems “much more likely that she could no longer live with the heavy guilt of being a vaccine propagandist.”

“It is repulsive how the Querdenker deride a medical colleague who was driven to death by harassment and violence. She lost her life by saving the lives of others. Others are continuing her work. The state must protect people like her,” tweeted Karl Lauterbach, MD, PhD, who has also been overrun with hate campaigns by Querdenker and COVID deniers.

The page “Ich habe mitgemacht” – Das Archiv für Corona-Unrecht [“I Joined In” – The Archive for COVID Injustice] probably did not help to deescalate the situation on Twitter. Anonymous archivists there collect allegedly ostracizing quotes and share them, along with names. The context in which these statements were given at the time is not mentioned. Some politicians and journalists have given this online pillory the name, “We joined in! We have ostracized, defamed...”

Being humiliated and defamed is par for the course for those who spread information across social media. As doctor and politician Rainer Röver, MD, wrote, “Whoever is involved in spreading information, science, fighting against fake news, and protecting the patients, pupils, clients, or mandates entrusted to them is being shouted down, threatened in writing, or driven to suicide.” The lying, baiting mob is taking over sovereignty of the discussion. According to Röver, the politicians are doing nothing “to actually put a stop to the violent mob.”

For some time now, the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) of Germany has considered anti-vaxxers or COVID deniers as a “relevant risk” in connection with attacks on vaccination centers or medical practices.
 

Increasing aggression

At the start of November last year, participants at the 125th German Medical Assembly demanded that violence against health care professionals be outlawed, Mark Berger, deputy spokesperson of the German Medical Association (BÄK), recollected. At the assembly, various medical associations shared reports of an increase in aggression during the pandemic.

The State Medical Chamber of Physicians of Saxony confirmed threats of violence against physicians, death threats against employees of the Vaccination Committee of Saxony, and criminal damage to medical practices that administer vaccinations. Physicians who administer vaccines in schools receive abuse.

Owing to the increasing amount of aggression, the State Medical Association of Thuringia has set up a special email address as a first point of contact to report violence for those who are affected. “In recent months, we have received a large number of reports from physicians who have received threatening letters in relation to the COVID vaccination, or letters purporting to be liability information or notices of liability,” explained the association. In the cases of which the association becomes aware, a criminal charge is issued most of the time. The investigative proceedings are ongoing.

The State Medical Association of Hesse has devised a reporting form with which it can obtain information on the forms of violence inflicted against physicians and their teams. The reporting is anonymous, and the data are statistically analyzed.

Peter Bobbert, MD, PhD, president of the Berlin Medical Association, provided reports of threat scenarios, “the kind and frequency of which we have never experienced.” He received many messages from physicians asking for help because they had received threatening letters or because their addresses had been posted on social networks.

To date, there have only been isolated cases, said Oliver Erens, MD, spokesperson of the State Medical Association of Baden-Württemberg. “But it is true that some colleagues have already had these kinds of experiences.” Those affected have primarily reported “discussions, debates, and verbal altercations with patients on the topic of the COVID vaccination, compliance with the mask mandate, and other COVID-containment measures – definitely with a high potential for aggression from some of the patients,” said Dr. Erens. Cases of physical violence have not been reported to date.

Above all, there has been a need for advice over the phone, predominantly in the legal department of the regional medical associations. “All physicians and their teams are being recommended by their associations to consistently prosecute any cases of threat of, or use of, violence against them,” Dr. Erens said. In October 2021, the University of Heidelberg started a study on the victimization of physicians. The analysis is ongoing.
 

Staying on Twitter

Lübbers considered leaving Twitter but decided against it. “I decided not to do it and to carry on spreading information about pseudo-medicine and vaccination. I see this as necessary civic courage and will not give way to hate,” Lübbers tweeted.

As understandable as any departure is, “we must not surrender Twitter to the trolls and harassers. Who is still here? #Iamstaying,” wrote Flow. Others wrote, “I will stay on Twitter as a physician. With my real name, too. [...] We must not surrender it to the Querdenker, idiots, Nazis, and enemies of freedom.”

“We need people to share information, we need voices of reason, just as Kellermayr was. How can you say that it would be better to remain silent? Does everyone who is against idiocy, Querdenker, and conspiracy theorists now have to remain silent?” asked Janos Hegedüs, MD, in his podcast.

Hegedüs, who uncovers fake news about COVID-19 and vaccination, was and remains a frequent target of insults and threats. His attempts to take action against them has had only limited success. His conclusion is sobering. “If you decide to spread information, you should know: You are alone. You will get all of the hate and when you have a problem with it, no one will help you.”

Media attorney Chan-jo Jun, who for many years has taken a stand against hate and harassment, has deactivated his Twitter account. However, this is not a retreat, as he clarified in an interview with the German radio station Deutschlandfunk. “I do not intend to give up the fight against hate, harassment, and misinformation, but I will do it in a different place.”

He sees Dr. Kellermayr’s death as a turning point. “I thought that we had learned something after Lübcke [i.e., politician Walter Lübcke, who was murdered by a neo-Nazi]. But we are seeing that the death of a political opponent is not just the goal, but also a success for the other side. And that is shocking.”

The judicial means of taking action against hate are still not effective, said Mr. Jun. He also sees the platform operators as responsible, since they are not obliged to remove unlawful content. “German law and the German constitution hold no sway on Twitter.”
 

Right-wing extremism

What happened to Lisa-Maria Kellermayr is the same as targeted terrorism. An organized group set out to annihilate her. Social psychologist Pia Lamberty has spoken, in the context of COVID, about a pandemic of violence, the threatening nature of which has barely been recognized, both in the virtual and analog world.

In an article for the Jüdische Allgemeine, Dr. Lamberty criticizes the fact that “the mistakes made with Pegida [i.e., a far-right, Islamophobic political movement in Germany] are being made once again” in the classification of Querdenker and COVID deniers. From the very start, the protests against the COVID measures have been a rallying point in the mobilization of right-wing extremists. “The Querdenker movement is unifying radical, right-wing extremist elements. Antisemitism and racism were always welcome.” Still, the right-wing extremist motivation has not been clearly labeled as such.

The classification is not just a question of statistics. “It is also about analyzing the potential for danger and deriving political measures from this. And there is an urgent need for action here: The right-wing extremists will utilize the climate crisis, but also the war in Ukraine, attacks against refugees, and LGBTQ rights for further mobilization. Rather than the state, the focus of the attacks will be people who are labeled as the bogeyman. This also must be clearly labeled for what it is,” said Dr. Lamberty.
She wrote on Twitter, “The COVID-related attacks that took place in the last two years will not simply stop, they will shift. If we do not want more and more people to stop expressing themselves publicly, something urgently has to happen.” She added, “Once more: The next few months will be very difficult. This will probably also be accompanied by an increased level of threat for socially engaged people. More protection is urgently required.”

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

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition.

“A sad day. A new low point in the spiral of hate, violence, and lies. Behind every account, there is a person. Do not forget that. In loving memory,” a Twitter user wrote about the death of Lisa-Maria Kellermayr, MD.

“This outcome is very saddening indeed. It should cause everyone to reflect. About interactions in our society, about ‘social’ media, about tolerance, about consideration, and about freedom,” tweeted Dirk Heinrich, MD, chair of the Virchow Association.

The suspected suicide of Dr. Kellermayr, an Austrian vaccinator, is stirring emotions in Germany, too. The active exponent and supporter of COVID-19 measures had been seriously threatened by anti-vaxxers and pandemic deniers. Thousands of people in Vienna said goodbye to her with a solemn vigil. Dr. Kellermayr’s death raises the question of how life-threatening online hatred can be.

Dr. Kellermayr, a vaccination campaigner, had received hateful comments and death threats since the start of the pandemic. But a single post on Twitter changed everything. On Nov. 16, 2021, anti-vaxxers held a demonstration outside the Wels-Grieskirchen Hospital. Dr. Kellermayr tweeted in disgust, “Today in Wels: A demonstration by conspiracy theorists spills into the street under the gaze of the authorities and blocks both the main hospital entrance and the Red Cross ambulance exit.”

At the time of her tweet, Dr. Kellermayr was not aware of additional access that had been made available for ambulances. The police reacted to her tweet, calling it a “false report.” As Florian Klenk writes in the Austrian journal Falter, the police basically criticized Dr. Kellermayr publicly, including in front of the 12,000 Twitter users who follow the police on Twitter.

A screenshot of Dr. Kellermayr’s tweet and the authorities’ response went viral on relevant Telegram forums and triggered a flood of hatred. A COVID denier immediately posted her address online.

Dr. Kellermayr deleted her tweet and asked the police to also delete their tweet, but they did not respond, and the tweet remained online. The country physician was inundated with insults, slurs, and death threats. She was beset by alleged patients who came only to disrupt her work, take videos on their cell phones, and share the photos in anti-vaxxer groups. She privately paid for a security guard, who confiscated butterfly knives from multiple “patients” on their way into the waiting room. Dr. Kellermayr looked for help from the medical association, the police, and the Office for the Protection of the Constitution. She made her problem public.
 

Police recommend supervision

Dr. Kellermayr received emails in which the senders described in detail how they would kill her and her practice team. The physician took the threats seriously; the police did not. The officers investigated. With the evidence that the perpetrators were operating via the dark web, the officers insinuated to Dr. Kellermayr that it was not possible to find them, Klenk reported.

Dr. Kellermayr filed a complaint for the first time on Nov. 22, 2021. The law enforcement authorities in Upper Austria said they did not have domestic jurisdiction. The Austrian authorities launched another investigation. The German prosecution authorities joined the search for those posting death threats on social media. Even the Munich chief public prosecutor’s office and the Berlin public prosecutor’s office investigated the case.

According to some reports, Dr. Kellermayr did not receive police protection; a patrol was sent over from time to time. According to the police, she should “not be afraid,” and if she was, she should just call them. She was also advised to undergo supervision -- in other words, psychological treatment.

Those who had the power to help her provided no support. On the contrary, the spokesperson for the Upper Austria Police said in the Ö1 Mittagsjournal radio program that Dr. Kellermayr was “putting herself in the public eye for her own selfish benefit.” Even Peter Niedermoser, president of the Medical Association of Upper Austria, told the Austrian daily newspaper Standard, “I understand that you have to defend yourself, but it is a whole other question as to whether you have to discuss every topic to excess on Twitter. Sometimes it’s better to step away.”
 

Leaving Twitter

A German network specialist who hunts pedophiles online offered Dr. Kellermayr her help and was quickly on the trail of suspects, including a neo-Nazi from the Berlin area and a man from Upper Bavaria. Then the Office for the Protection of the Constitution stepped in. Omar Haijawi-Pirchner, head of the Austrian State Security and Intelligence Directorate, stated that the evidence provided by the network specialist would be pursued.

At the end of June, Dr. Kellermayr closed her practice. The situation was no longer tolerable for her staff, and the costs for security, €100,000 up to that point, were no longer manageable. At the start of July, she announced that she wanted to reopen the practice.

In her suicide note to the Upper Austria State Police Department, she wrote “that there was a lot of talking, but no one did anything.” In her letter to her medical association, she also made it clear that she had felt abandoned.

“Every suicide is a tragedy. This one more so: a woman in need was abandoned by the police and authorities. That is a social failure,” tweeted physicist and author Florian Aigner.

“Threatened. Ruined. Left alone by the state. Because she did her job. Because she got involved. Because she spread information. Because many want to be understanding for the self-styled ‘unconventional thinkers,’ the ‘Querdenker.’ Because many did not want to take the threat seriously. Because we tolerate them,” tweeted the intensive care physician Lämêth.

“Many colleagues using their real names get all of this outside of Twitter too: emails, phone calls, letters, or even visits by radical fanatics. If you are lucky, there is police protection, or a few reports, but often not a lot happens juridically,” tweeted Flow, anesthetist and emergency physician.

“More and more of the people who shaped Twitter by spreading reliable information voluntarily are now backing out. As long as the concept of freedom is abused here for hate and intimidation, individual responsibility can only mean self-defense. Sad,” wrote Christian Lübbers, MD, on Twitter. Since the ENT physician started vaccinating patients against COVID-19, he has been tormented with insults and death threats from anti-vaxxers and COVID deniers, this news organization has reported.

Examples of people who have backed out and deactivated their account are the virologist Isabella Eckerlek, MD, PhD, of the University of Geneva, and Natalie Grams, MD, spokesperson for the Information Network Homeopathy. For a long time, they spread information about COVID-19, corrected false assertions, and were increasingly faced with insults and hostility.

General practitioner Christian Kröner, MD, has repeatedly been the target of threats and insults and has been under police protection from time to time. He made a statement regarding Dr. Kellermayr’s death and has shut down his account for the first time following multiple instances of hostility.
 

Harassment continues

The hatred, harassment, and slander have not stopped, even after Dr. Kellermayr’s death. Harald Laatsch, who sits in the Berlin house of representatives for the Alternative for Germany party, commented that it seems “much more likely that she could no longer live with the heavy guilt of being a vaccine propagandist.”

“It is repulsive how the Querdenker deride a medical colleague who was driven to death by harassment and violence. She lost her life by saving the lives of others. Others are continuing her work. The state must protect people like her,” tweeted Karl Lauterbach, MD, PhD, who has also been overrun with hate campaigns by Querdenker and COVID deniers.

The page “Ich habe mitgemacht” – Das Archiv für Corona-Unrecht [“I Joined In” – The Archive for COVID Injustice] probably did not help to deescalate the situation on Twitter. Anonymous archivists there collect allegedly ostracizing quotes and share them, along with names. The context in which these statements were given at the time is not mentioned. Some politicians and journalists have given this online pillory the name, “We joined in! We have ostracized, defamed...”

Being humiliated and defamed is par for the course for those who spread information across social media. As doctor and politician Rainer Röver, MD, wrote, “Whoever is involved in spreading information, science, fighting against fake news, and protecting the patients, pupils, clients, or mandates entrusted to them is being shouted down, threatened in writing, or driven to suicide.” The lying, baiting mob is taking over sovereignty of the discussion. According to Röver, the politicians are doing nothing “to actually put a stop to the violent mob.”

For some time now, the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) of Germany has considered anti-vaxxers or COVID deniers as a “relevant risk” in connection with attacks on vaccination centers or medical practices.
 

Increasing aggression

At the start of November last year, participants at the 125th German Medical Assembly demanded that violence against health care professionals be outlawed, Mark Berger, deputy spokesperson of the German Medical Association (BÄK), recollected. At the assembly, various medical associations shared reports of an increase in aggression during the pandemic.

The State Medical Chamber of Physicians of Saxony confirmed threats of violence against physicians, death threats against employees of the Vaccination Committee of Saxony, and criminal damage to medical practices that administer vaccinations. Physicians who administer vaccines in schools receive abuse.

Owing to the increasing amount of aggression, the State Medical Association of Thuringia has set up a special email address as a first point of contact to report violence for those who are affected. “In recent months, we have received a large number of reports from physicians who have received threatening letters in relation to the COVID vaccination, or letters purporting to be liability information or notices of liability,” explained the association. In the cases of which the association becomes aware, a criminal charge is issued most of the time. The investigative proceedings are ongoing.

The State Medical Association of Hesse has devised a reporting form with which it can obtain information on the forms of violence inflicted against physicians and their teams. The reporting is anonymous, and the data are statistically analyzed.

Peter Bobbert, MD, PhD, president of the Berlin Medical Association, provided reports of threat scenarios, “the kind and frequency of which we have never experienced.” He received many messages from physicians asking for help because they had received threatening letters or because their addresses had been posted on social networks.

To date, there have only been isolated cases, said Oliver Erens, MD, spokesperson of the State Medical Association of Baden-Württemberg. “But it is true that some colleagues have already had these kinds of experiences.” Those affected have primarily reported “discussions, debates, and verbal altercations with patients on the topic of the COVID vaccination, compliance with the mask mandate, and other COVID-containment measures – definitely with a high potential for aggression from some of the patients,” said Dr. Erens. Cases of physical violence have not been reported to date.

Above all, there has been a need for advice over the phone, predominantly in the legal department of the regional medical associations. “All physicians and their teams are being recommended by their associations to consistently prosecute any cases of threat of, or use of, violence against them,” Dr. Erens said. In October 2021, the University of Heidelberg started a study on the victimization of physicians. The analysis is ongoing.
 

Staying on Twitter

Lübbers considered leaving Twitter but decided against it. “I decided not to do it and to carry on spreading information about pseudo-medicine and vaccination. I see this as necessary civic courage and will not give way to hate,” Lübbers tweeted.

As understandable as any departure is, “we must not surrender Twitter to the trolls and harassers. Who is still here? #Iamstaying,” wrote Flow. Others wrote, “I will stay on Twitter as a physician. With my real name, too. [...] We must not surrender it to the Querdenker, idiots, Nazis, and enemies of freedom.”

“We need people to share information, we need voices of reason, just as Kellermayr was. How can you say that it would be better to remain silent? Does everyone who is against idiocy, Querdenker, and conspiracy theorists now have to remain silent?” asked Janos Hegedüs, MD, in his podcast.

Hegedüs, who uncovers fake news about COVID-19 and vaccination, was and remains a frequent target of insults and threats. His attempts to take action against them has had only limited success. His conclusion is sobering. “If you decide to spread information, you should know: You are alone. You will get all of the hate and when you have a problem with it, no one will help you.”

Media attorney Chan-jo Jun, who for many years has taken a stand against hate and harassment, has deactivated his Twitter account. However, this is not a retreat, as he clarified in an interview with the German radio station Deutschlandfunk. “I do not intend to give up the fight against hate, harassment, and misinformation, but I will do it in a different place.”

He sees Dr. Kellermayr’s death as a turning point. “I thought that we had learned something after Lübcke [i.e., politician Walter Lübcke, who was murdered by a neo-Nazi]. But we are seeing that the death of a political opponent is not just the goal, but also a success for the other side. And that is shocking.”

The judicial means of taking action against hate are still not effective, said Mr. Jun. He also sees the platform operators as responsible, since they are not obliged to remove unlawful content. “German law and the German constitution hold no sway on Twitter.”
 

Right-wing extremism

What happened to Lisa-Maria Kellermayr is the same as targeted terrorism. An organized group set out to annihilate her. Social psychologist Pia Lamberty has spoken, in the context of COVID, about a pandemic of violence, the threatening nature of which has barely been recognized, both in the virtual and analog world.

In an article for the Jüdische Allgemeine, Dr. Lamberty criticizes the fact that “the mistakes made with Pegida [i.e., a far-right, Islamophobic political movement in Germany] are being made once again” in the classification of Querdenker and COVID deniers. From the very start, the protests against the COVID measures have been a rallying point in the mobilization of right-wing extremists. “The Querdenker movement is unifying radical, right-wing extremist elements. Antisemitism and racism were always welcome.” Still, the right-wing extremist motivation has not been clearly labeled as such.

The classification is not just a question of statistics. “It is also about analyzing the potential for danger and deriving political measures from this. And there is an urgent need for action here: The right-wing extremists will utilize the climate crisis, but also the war in Ukraine, attacks against refugees, and LGBTQ rights for further mobilization. Rather than the state, the focus of the attacks will be people who are labeled as the bogeyman. This also must be clearly labeled for what it is,” said Dr. Lamberty.
She wrote on Twitter, “The COVID-related attacks that took place in the last two years will not simply stop, they will shift. If we do not want more and more people to stop expressing themselves publicly, something urgently has to happen.” She added, “Once more: The next few months will be very difficult. This will probably also be accompanied by an increased level of threat for socially engaged people. More protection is urgently required.”

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

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition.

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.

For about the past year, Priya Goel, MD, can be seen cruising around the island of Manhattan as she makes her way between visits to some of New York City’s most treasured residents: a small but essential group of patients born before the Empire State Building scraped the sky and the old Yankee Stadium had become the House That Ruth Built.

Dr. Goel, a family physician, works for Heal, a national home health care company that primarily serves people older than 65. Her practice has 10 patients older than 100 – the oldest is a 108-year-old man – whom she visits monthly.
 

The gray wave

Dr. Goel’s charges are among America’s latest baby boom – babies born a century ago, that is.

Between 1980 and 2019, the share of American centenarians, those aged 100 and up, grew faster than the total population. In 2019, 100,322 persons in the United States were at least 100 years old – more than triple the 1980 figure of 32,194, according to the U.S. Administration on Aging. By 2060, experts predict, the U.S. centenarian population will reach nearly 600,000.

Although some of the ultra-aged live in nursing homes, many continue to live independently. They require both routine and acute medical care. So, what does it take to be a physician for a centenarian?

Dr. Goel, who is in her mid-30s and could well be the great-granddaughter of some of her patients, urged her colleagues not to stereotype patients on the basis of age.

“You have to consider their functional and cognitive abilities, their ability to understand disease processes and make decisions for themselves,” Dr. Goel said. “Age is just one factor in the grand scheme of things.”

Visiting patients in their homes provides her with insights into how well they’re doing, including the safety of their environments and the depth of their social networks.

New York City has its peculiar demands. Heal provides Dr. Goel with a driver who chauffeurs her to her patient visits. She takes notes between stops.

“The idea is to have these patients remain in an environment where they’re comfortable, in surroundings where they’ve grown up or lived for many years,” she said. “A lot of them are in elevator buildings and they are wheelchair-bound or bed-bound and they physically can’t leave.”

She said she gets a far different view of the patient than does an office-based physician.

“When you go into their home, it’s very personal. You’re seeing what their daily environment is like, what their diet is like. You can see their food on the counter. You can see the level of hygiene,” Dr. Goel said. “You get to see their social support. Are their kids involved? Are they hoarding? Stuff that they wouldn’t just necessarily disclose but on a visit you get to see going into the home. It’s an extra layer of understanding that patient.”

Dr. Goel contrasted home care from care in a nursing home, where the patients are seen daily. On the basis of her observations, she decides whether to see her patients every month or every 3 months.

She applies this strategy to everyone from age 60 to over 100.
 

Tracking a growing group

Since 1995, geriatrician Thomas Perls, MD, has directed the New England Centenarian Study at Boston University. The study, largely funded by the National Institute on Aging, has enrolled 2,599 centenarian persons and 700 of their offspring. At any given time in the study, about 10% of the centenarians are alive. The study has a high mortality rate.

The people in Dr. Perls’s study range in age, but they top out at 119, the third oldest person ever in the world. Most centenarians are women.

“When we first began the study in 1995, the prevalence of centenarians in the United States was about 1 per 10,000 in the population,” Perls told this news organization. “And now, that prevalence has doubled to 1 per 5,000.”

Even if no one has achieved the record of Methuselah, the Biblical patriarch who was purported to have lived to the age of 969, some people always have lived into their 90s and beyond. Dr. Perls attributed the increase in longevity to control at the turn of the 20th century of typhoid fever, diphtheria, and other infectious diseases with effective public health measures, including the availability of clean water and improvement in socioeconomic conditions.

“Infant mortality just plummeted. So, come around 1915, 1920, we were no longer losing a quarter of our population to these diseases. That meant a quarter more of the population could age into adulthood and middle age,” he said. “A certain component of that group was, therefore, able to continue to age to a very, very old age.”

Other advances, such as antibiotics and vaccinations in the 1960s; the availability in the 1970s of much better detection and effective treatment of high blood pressure; the recognition of the harms of smoking; and much more effective treatment of cardiovascular disease and cancer have allowed many people who would have otherwise died in their 70s and 80s to live much longer. “I think what this means is that there is a substantial proportion of the population that has the biology to get to 100,” Dr. Perls said.

Perls said the Latino population and Blacks have a better track record than Whites in reaching the 100-year milestone. “The average life expectancy might be lower in these populations because of socioeconomic factors, but if they are able to get to around their early 80s, compared to Whites, their ability to get to 100 is actually better,” he said.

Asians fare best when it comes to longevity. While around 1% of White women in the United States live to 100, 10% of Asian women in Hong Kong hit that mark.

“I think some of that is better environment and health habits in Hong Kong than in the United States,” Dr. Perls said. “I think another piece may be a genetic advantage in East Asians. We’re looking into that.”

Dr. Perls said he agreed with Dr. Goel that health care providers and the lay public should not make assumptions on the basis of age alone as to how a person is doing. “People can age so very differently from one another,” he said.

Up to about age 90, the vast majority of those differences are determined by our health behaviors, such as smoking, alcohol use, exercise, sleep, the effect of our diets on weight, and access to good health care, including regular screening for problems such as high blood pressure, diabetes, and cancer. “People who are able to do everything right generally add healthy years to their lives, while those who do not have shorter life expectancies and longer periods of chronic diseases,” Dr. Perls said.

Paying diligent attention to these behaviors over the long run can have a huge payoff.

Dr. Perls’s team has found that to live beyond age 90 and on into the early 100s, protective genes can play a strong role. These genes help slow aging and decrease one’s risk for aging-related diseases. Centenarians usually have a history of aging very slowly and greatly delaying aging-related diseases and disability toward the ends of their lives.

Centenarians are the antithesis of the misguided belief that the older you get, the sicker you get. Quite the opposite occurs. For Dr. Perls, “the older you get, the healthier you’ve been.”
 

MD bias against the elderly?

Care of elderly patients is becoming essential in the practice of primary care physicians – but not all of them enjoy the work.

To be effective, physicians who treat centenarians must get a better idea of the individual patient’s functional status and comorbidities. “You absolutely cannot make assumptions on age alone,” Dr. Perls said.

The so-called “normal” temperature, 98.6° F, can spell trouble for centenarians and other very old patients, warned Natalie Baker, DNP, CRNP, an associate professor of nursing at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, and president of the 3,000-member Gerontological Advanced Practice Nurses Association.

“We have to be very cognizant of what we call a typical presentation of disease or illness and that a very subtle change in an older adult can signal a serious infection or illness,” Dr. Baker said. “If your patient has a high fever, that is a potential problem.”

The average temperature of an older adult is lower than the accepted 98.6° F, and their body’s response to an infection is slow to exhibit an increase in temperature, Dr. Baker said. “When treating centenarians, clinicians must be cognizant of other subtle signs of infection, such as decreased appetite or change in mentation,” she cautioned.

A decline in appetite or insomnia may be a subtle sign that these patients need to be evaluated, she added.
 

COVID-19 and centenarians

Three-quarters of the 1 million U.S. deaths from COVID-19 occurred in people aged 65 and older. However, Dr. Perls said centenarians may be a special subpopulation when it comes to COVID.

The Japanese Health Ministry, which follows the large centenarian population in that country, noted a marked jump in the number of centenarians during the pandemic – although the reasons for the increase aren’t clear.

Centenarians may be a bit different. Dr. Perls said some evidence suggests that the over-100 crowd may have better immune systems than younger people. “Part of the trick of getting to 100 is having a pretty good immune system,” he said.
 

Don’t mess with success

“There is no need at that point for us to try to alter their diet to what we think it might be,” Dr. Baker said. “There’s no need to start with diabetic education. They may tell you their secret is a shot of vodka every day. Why should we stop it at that age? Accept their lifestyles, because they’ve done something right to get to that age.”

Opinions differ on how to approach screening for centenarians.

Dr. Goel said guidelines for routine screening, such as colonoscopies, mammograms, and PAP smears, drop off for patients starting at 75. Dr. Perls said this strategy stems from the belief that people will die from other things first, so screening is no longer needed. Dr. Perls said he disagrees with this approach.

“Again, we can’t base our screening and health care decisions on age alone. If I have an independently functioning and robust 95-year-old man in my office, you can be sure I am going to continue recommending regular screening for colon cancer and other screenings that are normal for people who are 30 years younger,” he said.

Justin Zaghi, MD, chief medical officer at Heal, said screening patients in their late 90s and 100s for cancer generally doesn’t make sense except in some rare circumstances in which the cancer would be unlikely to be a cause of death. “However, if we are talking about screening for fall risks, hearing difficulties, poor vision, pain, and malnutrition, those screenings still absolutely make sense for patients in their late 90s and 100s,” Dr. Zaghi said.

One high-functioning 104-year-old patient of Dr. Perls underwent a total hip replacement for a hip fracture and is faring well. “Obviously, if she had end-stage dementia, we’d do everything to keep the person comfortable, or if they had medical problems that made surgery too high risk, then you don’t do it,” he said. “But if they’re otherwise, I would proceed.”
 

Avoid the ED

Dr. Goel said doctors should avoid sending patients to the emergency department, an often chaotic place that is especially unfriendly to centenarians and the very old. “Sometimes I’ve seen older patients who are being rushed to the ER, and I ask, What are the goals of care?” she said.

Clinicians caring for seniors should keep in mind that infections can cause seniors to appear confused – and this may lead the clinician to think the patient has dementia. Or, Dr. Goel said, a patient with dementia may suddenly experience much worse dementia.

“In either case, you want to make sure you’re not dealing with any underlying infection, like urinary tract infection, or pneumonia brewing, or skin infections,” she said. “Their skin is so much frailer. You want to make sure there are no bedsores.”

She has had patients whose children report that their usually placid centenarian parents are suddenly acting out. “We’ll do a urinary test and it definitely shows a urinary tract infection. You want to make sure you’re not missing out on something else before you attribute it to dementia,” she said.

Environmental changes, such as moving a patient to a new room in a hospital setting, can trigger an acute mental status change, such as delirium, she added. Helping older patients feel in control as much as possible is important.

“You want to make sure you’re orienting them to the time of day. Make sure they get up at the same time, go to bed at the same time, have clocks and calendars present – just making sure that they feel like they’re still in control of their body and their day,” she said.

Physicians should be aware of potential depression in these patients, whose experience of loss – an unavoidable consequence of outliving family and friends – can result in problems with sleep and diet, as well as a sense of social isolation.

Neal Flomenbaum, MD, professor and emergency physician-in-chief emeritus, New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York, said sometimes the best thing for these very elderly patients is to “get them in and out of ED as quickly as possible, and do what you can diagnostically.”

He noted that EDs have been making accommodations to serve the elderly, such as using LEDs that replicate outdoor lighting conditions, as well as providing seniors with separate rooms with glass doors to protect them from noise, separate air handlers to prevent infections, and adequate space for visitors.

These patients often are subject to trauma from falls.

“The bones don’t heal as well as in younger people, and treating their comorbidities is essential. Once they have trouble with one area and they’re lying in bed and can’t move much, they can get bedsores,” Dr. Flomenbaum said. “In the hospital, they are vulnerable to infections. So, you’re thinking of all of these things at the same time and how to treat them appropriately and then get them out of the hospital as soon as possible with whatever care that they need in their own homes if at all possible.”

“I always err on the side of less is more,” Dr. Goel said. “Obviously, if there is something – if they have a cough, they need an x-ray. That’s very basic. We want to take care of that. Give them the antibiotic if they need that. But rushing them in and out of the hospital doesn’t add to their quality of life.”

Dr. Flomenbaum, a pioneer in geriatric emergency medicine, says physicians need to be aware that centenarians and other very old patients don’t present the same way as younger adults.

He began to notice more than 20 years ago that every night, patients would turn up in his ED who were in their late 90s into their 100s. Some would come in with what their children identified as sudden-onset dementia – they didn’t know their own names and couldn’t identify their kids. They didn’t know the time or day. Dr. Flomenbaum said the children often asked whether their parents should enter a nursing home.

“And I’d say, ‘Not so fast. Well, let’s take a look at this.’ You don’t develop that kind of dementia overnight. It usually takes a while,” he said.

He said he ordered complete blood cell counts and oxygen saturation tests that frequently turned out to be abnormal. They didn’t have a fever, and infiltrates initially weren’t seen on chest x-rays.

With rehydration and supplemental oxygen, their symptoms started to improve, and it became obvious that the symptoms were not of dementia but of pneumonia, and that they required antibiotics, Dr. Flomenbaum said.
 

Dementia dilemma

Too often, on the basis of age, doctors assume patients have dementia or other cognitive impairments.

“What a shock and a surprise when doctors actually talk to folks and do a neurocognitive screen and find they’re just fine,” Dr. Perls said.

The decline in hearing and vision can lead to a misdiagnosis of cognitive impairment because the patients are not able to hear what you’re asking them. “It’s really important that the person can hear you – whether you use an amplifying device or they have hearing aids, that’s critical,” he said. “You just have to be a good doctor.”

Often the physical toll of aging exacerbates social difficulties. Poor hearing, for example, can accelerate cognitive impairment and cause people to interact less often, and less meaningfully, with their environment. For some, wearing hearing aids seems demeaning – until they hear what they’ve been missing.

“I get them to wear their hearing aids and, lo and behold, they’re a whole new person because they’re now able to take in their environment and interact with others,” Dr. Perls said.

Dr. Flomenbaum said alcohol abuse and drug reactions can cause delirium, which, unlike dementia, is potentially reversible. Yet many physicians cannot reliably differentiate between dementia and delirium, he added.

The geriatric specialists talk about the lessons they’ve learned and the gratification they get from caring for centenarians.

“I have come to realize the importance of family, of having a close circle, whether that’s through friends or neighbors,” Dr. Goel said. “This work is very rewarding because, if it wasn’t for homebound organizations, how would these people get care or get access to care?”

For Dr. Baker, a joy of the job is hearing centenarians share their life stories.

“I love to hear their stories about how they’ve overcome adversity, living through the depression and living through different wars,” she said. “I love talking to veterans, and I think that oftentimes, we do not value our older adults in our society as we should. Sometimes they are dismissed because they move slowly or are hard to communicate with due to hearing deficits. But they are, I think, a very important part of our lives.”
 

‘They’ve already won’

Most centenarians readily offer the secrets to their longevity. Aline Jacobsohn, of Boca Raton, Fla., is no different.

Ms. Jacobsohn, who will be 101 in October, thinks a diet of small portions of fish, vegetables, and fruit, which she has followed since her husband Leo died in 1982, has helped keep her healthy. She eats lots of salmon and herring and is a fan of spinach sautéed with olive oil. “The only thing I don’t eat is meat,” the trim and active Ms. Jacobsohn said in a recent interview over Zoom.

Her other secret: “Doctors. I like to stay away from them as much as possible.”

Shari Rosenbaum, MD, Jacobsohn’s internist, doesn’t dismiss that approach. She uses a version of it when managing her three centenarian patients, the oldest of whom is 103.

“Let them smoke! Let them drink! They’re happy. It’s not causing harm. Let them eat cake! They’ve already won,” said Dr. Rosenbaum, who is affiliated with Boca Raton–based MDVIP, a national membership-based network of 1,100 primary care physicians serving 368,000 patients. Of those, nearly 460 are centenarians.

“You’re not preventing those problems in this population,” she said. “They’re here to enjoy every moment that they have, and they might as well.”

Dr. Rosenbaum sees a divergence in her patients – those who will reach very old age, and those who won’t – starting in their 60s.

“The centenarians don’t have medical problems,” she said. “They don’t get cancer. They don’t get diabetes. Some of them take good care of themselves. Some don’t take such good care of themselves. But they are all optimists. They all see the glass half full. They all participate in life. They all have excellent support systems. They have good genes, a positive attitude toward life, and a strong social network.”

Ms. Jacobsohn – whose surname at the time was Bakst – grew up in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, during the rise of the Nazi regime. The family fled to Columbia in 1938, where she met and eventually married her husband, Leo, who ran a business importing clocks and watches in Cali.

In 1989, the Jacobsohns and their three children moved to south Florida to escape the dangers of kidnappings and ransoms posed by the drug cartels.

Ms. Jacobsohn agreed that she appears to have longevity genes – “good stock,” she calls it. “My mother died 23 days before she was 100. My grandmother lived till 99, almost 100,” she said.

Two years ago, she donated her car to a charity and stopped driving in the interest of her own safety and that of other drivers and pedestrians.

Ms. Jacobsohn has a strong support system. Two of her children live nearby and visit her nearly every day. A live-in companion helps her with the activities of daily life, including preparing meals.

Ms. Jacobsohn plays bridge regularly, and well. “I’m sorry to say that I’m a very good bridge player,” she said, frankly. “How is it possible that I’ve played bridge so well and then I don’t remember what I had for lunch yesterday?”

She reads, mainly a diet of history but occasionally novels, too. “They have to be engaging,” she said.

The loss of loved ones is an inevitable part of very old age. Her husband of 47 years died of emphysema, and one of her sons died in his 70s of prostate cancer.

She knows well the fate that awaits us all and accepts it philosophically.

“It’s a very normal thing that people die. You don’t live forever. So, whenever it comes, it’s okay. Enough is enough. Dayenu,” she said, using the Hebrew word for, “It would have been enough” – a favorite in the Passover Seder celebrating the ancient Jews’ liberation from slavery in Egypt.

Ms. Jacobsohn sang the song and then took a reporter on a Zoom tour of her tidy home and her large flower garden featuring Cattleya orchids from Colombia.

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

For about the past year, Priya Goel, MD, can be seen cruising around the island of Manhattan as she makes her way between visits to some of New York City’s most treasured residents: a small but essential group of patients born before the Empire State Building scraped the sky and the old Yankee Stadium had become the House That Ruth Built.

Dr. Goel, a family physician, works for Heal, a national home health care company that primarily serves people older than 65. Her practice has 10 patients older than 100 – the oldest is a 108-year-old man – whom she visits monthly.
 

The gray wave

Dr. Goel’s charges are among America’s latest baby boom – babies born a century ago, that is.

Between 1980 and 2019, the share of American centenarians, those aged 100 and up, grew faster than the total population. In 2019, 100,322 persons in the United States were at least 100 years old – more than triple the 1980 figure of 32,194, according to the U.S. Administration on Aging. By 2060, experts predict, the U.S. centenarian population will reach nearly 600,000.

Although some of the ultra-aged live in nursing homes, many continue to live independently. They require both routine and acute medical care. So, what does it take to be a physician for a centenarian?

Dr. Goel, who is in her mid-30s and could well be the great-granddaughter of some of her patients, urged her colleagues not to stereotype patients on the basis of age.

“You have to consider their functional and cognitive abilities, their ability to understand disease processes and make decisions for themselves,” Dr. Goel said. “Age is just one factor in the grand scheme of things.”

Visiting patients in their homes provides her with insights into how well they’re doing, including the safety of their environments and the depth of their social networks.

New York City has its peculiar demands. Heal provides Dr. Goel with a driver who chauffeurs her to her patient visits. She takes notes between stops.

“The idea is to have these patients remain in an environment where they’re comfortable, in surroundings where they’ve grown up or lived for many years,” she said. “A lot of them are in elevator buildings and they are wheelchair-bound or bed-bound and they physically can’t leave.”

She said she gets a far different view of the patient than does an office-based physician.

“When you go into their home, it’s very personal. You’re seeing what their daily environment is like, what their diet is like. You can see their food on the counter. You can see the level of hygiene,” Dr. Goel said. “You get to see their social support. Are their kids involved? Are they hoarding? Stuff that they wouldn’t just necessarily disclose but on a visit you get to see going into the home. It’s an extra layer of understanding that patient.”

Dr. Goel contrasted home care from care in a nursing home, where the patients are seen daily. On the basis of her observations, she decides whether to see her patients every month or every 3 months.

She applies this strategy to everyone from age 60 to over 100.
 

Tracking a growing group

Since 1995, geriatrician Thomas Perls, MD, has directed the New England Centenarian Study at Boston University. The study, largely funded by the National Institute on Aging, has enrolled 2,599 centenarian persons and 700 of their offspring. At any given time in the study, about 10% of the centenarians are alive. The study has a high mortality rate.

The people in Dr. Perls’s study range in age, but they top out at 119, the third oldest person ever in the world. Most centenarians are women.

“When we first began the study in 1995, the prevalence of centenarians in the United States was about 1 per 10,000 in the population,” Perls told this news organization. “And now, that prevalence has doubled to 1 per 5,000.”

Even if no one has achieved the record of Methuselah, the Biblical patriarch who was purported to have lived to the age of 969, some people always have lived into their 90s and beyond. Dr. Perls attributed the increase in longevity to control at the turn of the 20th century of typhoid fever, diphtheria, and other infectious diseases with effective public health measures, including the availability of clean water and improvement in socioeconomic conditions.

“Infant mortality just plummeted. So, come around 1915, 1920, we were no longer losing a quarter of our population to these diseases. That meant a quarter more of the population could age into adulthood and middle age,” he said. “A certain component of that group was, therefore, able to continue to age to a very, very old age.”

Other advances, such as antibiotics and vaccinations in the 1960s; the availability in the 1970s of much better detection and effective treatment of high blood pressure; the recognition of the harms of smoking; and much more effective treatment of cardiovascular disease and cancer have allowed many people who would have otherwise died in their 70s and 80s to live much longer. “I think what this means is that there is a substantial proportion of the population that has the biology to get to 100,” Dr. Perls said.

Perls said the Latino population and Blacks have a better track record than Whites in reaching the 100-year milestone. “The average life expectancy might be lower in these populations because of socioeconomic factors, but if they are able to get to around their early 80s, compared to Whites, their ability to get to 100 is actually better,” he said.

Asians fare best when it comes to longevity. While around 1% of White women in the United States live to 100, 10% of Asian women in Hong Kong hit that mark.

“I think some of that is better environment and health habits in Hong Kong than in the United States,” Dr. Perls said. “I think another piece may be a genetic advantage in East Asians. We’re looking into that.”

Dr. Perls said he agreed with Dr. Goel that health care providers and the lay public should not make assumptions on the basis of age alone as to how a person is doing. “People can age so very differently from one another,” he said.

Up to about age 90, the vast majority of those differences are determined by our health behaviors, such as smoking, alcohol use, exercise, sleep, the effect of our diets on weight, and access to good health care, including regular screening for problems such as high blood pressure, diabetes, and cancer. “People who are able to do everything right generally add healthy years to their lives, while those who do not have shorter life expectancies and longer periods of chronic diseases,” Dr. Perls said.

Paying diligent attention to these behaviors over the long run can have a huge payoff.

Dr. Perls’s team has found that to live beyond age 90 and on into the early 100s, protective genes can play a strong role. These genes help slow aging and decrease one’s risk for aging-related diseases. Centenarians usually have a history of aging very slowly and greatly delaying aging-related diseases and disability toward the ends of their lives.

Centenarians are the antithesis of the misguided belief that the older you get, the sicker you get. Quite the opposite occurs. For Dr. Perls, “the older you get, the healthier you’ve been.”
 

MD bias against the elderly?

Care of elderly patients is becoming essential in the practice of primary care physicians – but not all of them enjoy the work.

To be effective, physicians who treat centenarians must get a better idea of the individual patient’s functional status and comorbidities. “You absolutely cannot make assumptions on age alone,” Dr. Perls said.

The so-called “normal” temperature, 98.6° F, can spell trouble for centenarians and other very old patients, warned Natalie Baker, DNP, CRNP, an associate professor of nursing at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, and president of the 3,000-member Gerontological Advanced Practice Nurses Association.

“We have to be very cognizant of what we call a typical presentation of disease or illness and that a very subtle change in an older adult can signal a serious infection or illness,” Dr. Baker said. “If your patient has a high fever, that is a potential problem.”

The average temperature of an older adult is lower than the accepted 98.6° F, and their body’s response to an infection is slow to exhibit an increase in temperature, Dr. Baker said. “When treating centenarians, clinicians must be cognizant of other subtle signs of infection, such as decreased appetite or change in mentation,” she cautioned.

A decline in appetite or insomnia may be a subtle sign that these patients need to be evaluated, she added.
 

COVID-19 and centenarians

Three-quarters of the 1 million U.S. deaths from COVID-19 occurred in people aged 65 and older. However, Dr. Perls said centenarians may be a special subpopulation when it comes to COVID.

The Japanese Health Ministry, which follows the large centenarian population in that country, noted a marked jump in the number of centenarians during the pandemic – although the reasons for the increase aren’t clear.

Centenarians may be a bit different. Dr. Perls said some evidence suggests that the over-100 crowd may have better immune systems than younger people. “Part of the trick of getting to 100 is having a pretty good immune system,” he said.
 

Don’t mess with success

“There is no need at that point for us to try to alter their diet to what we think it might be,” Dr. Baker said. “There’s no need to start with diabetic education. They may tell you their secret is a shot of vodka every day. Why should we stop it at that age? Accept their lifestyles, because they’ve done something right to get to that age.”

Opinions differ on how to approach screening for centenarians.

Dr. Goel said guidelines for routine screening, such as colonoscopies, mammograms, and PAP smears, drop off for patients starting at 75. Dr. Perls said this strategy stems from the belief that people will die from other things first, so screening is no longer needed. Dr. Perls said he disagrees with this approach.

“Again, we can’t base our screening and health care decisions on age alone. If I have an independently functioning and robust 95-year-old man in my office, you can be sure I am going to continue recommending regular screening for colon cancer and other screenings that are normal for people who are 30 years younger,” he said.

Justin Zaghi, MD, chief medical officer at Heal, said screening patients in their late 90s and 100s for cancer generally doesn’t make sense except in some rare circumstances in which the cancer would be unlikely to be a cause of death. “However, if we are talking about screening for fall risks, hearing difficulties, poor vision, pain, and malnutrition, those screenings still absolutely make sense for patients in their late 90s and 100s,” Dr. Zaghi said.

One high-functioning 104-year-old patient of Dr. Perls underwent a total hip replacement for a hip fracture and is faring well. “Obviously, if she had end-stage dementia, we’d do everything to keep the person comfortable, or if they had medical problems that made surgery too high risk, then you don’t do it,” he said. “But if they’re otherwise, I would proceed.”
 

Avoid the ED

Dr. Goel said doctors should avoid sending patients to the emergency department, an often chaotic place that is especially unfriendly to centenarians and the very old. “Sometimes I’ve seen older patients who are being rushed to the ER, and I ask, What are the goals of care?” she said.

Clinicians caring for seniors should keep in mind that infections can cause seniors to appear confused – and this may lead the clinician to think the patient has dementia. Or, Dr. Goel said, a patient with dementia may suddenly experience much worse dementia.

“In either case, you want to make sure you’re not dealing with any underlying infection, like urinary tract infection, or pneumonia brewing, or skin infections,” she said. “Their skin is so much frailer. You want to make sure there are no bedsores.”

She has had patients whose children report that their usually placid centenarian parents are suddenly acting out. “We’ll do a urinary test and it definitely shows a urinary tract infection. You want to make sure you’re not missing out on something else before you attribute it to dementia,” she said.

Environmental changes, such as moving a patient to a new room in a hospital setting, can trigger an acute mental status change, such as delirium, she added. Helping older patients feel in control as much as possible is important.

“You want to make sure you’re orienting them to the time of day. Make sure they get up at the same time, go to bed at the same time, have clocks and calendars present – just making sure that they feel like they’re still in control of their body and their day,” she said.

Physicians should be aware of potential depression in these patients, whose experience of loss – an unavoidable consequence of outliving family and friends – can result in problems with sleep and diet, as well as a sense of social isolation.

Neal Flomenbaum, MD, professor and emergency physician-in-chief emeritus, New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York, said sometimes the best thing for these very elderly patients is to “get them in and out of ED as quickly as possible, and do what you can diagnostically.”

He noted that EDs have been making accommodations to serve the elderly, such as using LEDs that replicate outdoor lighting conditions, as well as providing seniors with separate rooms with glass doors to protect them from noise, separate air handlers to prevent infections, and adequate space for visitors.

These patients often are subject to trauma from falls.

“The bones don’t heal as well as in younger people, and treating their comorbidities is essential. Once they have trouble with one area and they’re lying in bed and can’t move much, they can get bedsores,” Dr. Flomenbaum said. “In the hospital, they are vulnerable to infections. So, you’re thinking of all of these things at the same time and how to treat them appropriately and then get them out of the hospital as soon as possible with whatever care that they need in their own homes if at all possible.”

“I always err on the side of less is more,” Dr. Goel said. “Obviously, if there is something – if they have a cough, they need an x-ray. That’s very basic. We want to take care of that. Give them the antibiotic if they need that. But rushing them in and out of the hospital doesn’t add to their quality of life.”

Dr. Flomenbaum, a pioneer in geriatric emergency medicine, says physicians need to be aware that centenarians and other very old patients don’t present the same way as younger adults.

He began to notice more than 20 years ago that every night, patients would turn up in his ED who were in their late 90s into their 100s. Some would come in with what their children identified as sudden-onset dementia – they didn’t know their own names and couldn’t identify their kids. They didn’t know the time or day. Dr. Flomenbaum said the children often asked whether their parents should enter a nursing home.

“And I’d say, ‘Not so fast. Well, let’s take a look at this.’ You don’t develop that kind of dementia overnight. It usually takes a while,” he said.

He said he ordered complete blood cell counts and oxygen saturation tests that frequently turned out to be abnormal. They didn’t have a fever, and infiltrates initially weren’t seen on chest x-rays.

With rehydration and supplemental oxygen, their symptoms started to improve, and it became obvious that the symptoms were not of dementia but of pneumonia, and that they required antibiotics, Dr. Flomenbaum said.
 

Dementia dilemma

Too often, on the basis of age, doctors assume patients have dementia or other cognitive impairments.

“What a shock and a surprise when doctors actually talk to folks and do a neurocognitive screen and find they’re just fine,” Dr. Perls said.

The decline in hearing and vision can lead to a misdiagnosis of cognitive impairment because the patients are not able to hear what you’re asking them. “It’s really important that the person can hear you – whether you use an amplifying device or they have hearing aids, that’s critical,” he said. “You just have to be a good doctor.”

Often the physical toll of aging exacerbates social difficulties. Poor hearing, for example, can accelerate cognitive impairment and cause people to interact less often, and less meaningfully, with their environment. For some, wearing hearing aids seems demeaning – until they hear what they’ve been missing.

“I get them to wear their hearing aids and, lo and behold, they’re a whole new person because they’re now able to take in their environment and interact with others,” Dr. Perls said.

Dr. Flomenbaum said alcohol abuse and drug reactions can cause delirium, which, unlike dementia, is potentially reversible. Yet many physicians cannot reliably differentiate between dementia and delirium, he added.

The geriatric specialists talk about the lessons they’ve learned and the gratification they get from caring for centenarians.

“I have come to realize the importance of family, of having a close circle, whether that’s through friends or neighbors,” Dr. Goel said. “This work is very rewarding because, if it wasn’t for homebound organizations, how would these people get care or get access to care?”

For Dr. Baker, a joy of the job is hearing centenarians share their life stories.

“I love to hear their stories about how they’ve overcome adversity, living through the depression and living through different wars,” she said. “I love talking to veterans, and I think that oftentimes, we do not value our older adults in our society as we should. Sometimes they are dismissed because they move slowly or are hard to communicate with due to hearing deficits. But they are, I think, a very important part of our lives.”
 

‘They’ve already won’

Most centenarians readily offer the secrets to their longevity. Aline Jacobsohn, of Boca Raton, Fla., is no different.

Ms. Jacobsohn, who will be 101 in October, thinks a diet of small portions of fish, vegetables, and fruit, which she has followed since her husband Leo died in 1982, has helped keep her healthy. She eats lots of salmon and herring and is a fan of spinach sautéed with olive oil. “The only thing I don’t eat is meat,” the trim and active Ms. Jacobsohn said in a recent interview over Zoom.

Her other secret: “Doctors. I like to stay away from them as much as possible.”

Shari Rosenbaum, MD, Jacobsohn’s internist, doesn’t dismiss that approach. She uses a version of it when managing her three centenarian patients, the oldest of whom is 103.

“Let them smoke! Let them drink! They’re happy. It’s not causing harm. Let them eat cake! They’ve already won,” said Dr. Rosenbaum, who is affiliated with Boca Raton–based MDVIP, a national membership-based network of 1,100 primary care physicians serving 368,000 patients. Of those, nearly 460 are centenarians.

“You’re not preventing those problems in this population,” she said. “They’re here to enjoy every moment that they have, and they might as well.”

Dr. Rosenbaum sees a divergence in her patients – those who will reach very old age, and those who won’t – starting in their 60s.

“The centenarians don’t have medical problems,” she said. “They don’t get cancer. They don’t get diabetes. Some of them take good care of themselves. Some don’t take such good care of themselves. But they are all optimists. They all see the glass half full. They all participate in life. They all have excellent support systems. They have good genes, a positive attitude toward life, and a strong social network.”

Ms. Jacobsohn – whose surname at the time was Bakst – grew up in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, during the rise of the Nazi regime. The family fled to Columbia in 1938, where she met and eventually married her husband, Leo, who ran a business importing clocks and watches in Cali.

In 1989, the Jacobsohns and their three children moved to south Florida to escape the dangers of kidnappings and ransoms posed by the drug cartels.

Ms. Jacobsohn agreed that she appears to have longevity genes – “good stock,” she calls it. “My mother died 23 days before she was 100. My grandmother lived till 99, almost 100,” she said.

Two years ago, she donated her car to a charity and stopped driving in the interest of her own safety and that of other drivers and pedestrians.

Ms. Jacobsohn has a strong support system. Two of her children live nearby and visit her nearly every day. A live-in companion helps her with the activities of daily life, including preparing meals.

Ms. Jacobsohn plays bridge regularly, and well. “I’m sorry to say that I’m a very good bridge player,” she said, frankly. “How is it possible that I’ve played bridge so well and then I don’t remember what I had for lunch yesterday?”

She reads, mainly a diet of history but occasionally novels, too. “They have to be engaging,” she said.

The loss of loved ones is an inevitable part of very old age. Her husband of 47 years died of emphysema, and one of her sons died in his 70s of prostate cancer.

She knows well the fate that awaits us all and accepts it philosophically.

“It’s a very normal thing that people die. You don’t live forever. So, whenever it comes, it’s okay. Enough is enough. Dayenu,” she said, using the Hebrew word for, “It would have been enough” – a favorite in the Passover Seder celebrating the ancient Jews’ liberation from slavery in Egypt.

Ms. Jacobsohn sang the song and then took a reporter on a Zoom tour of her tidy home and her large flower garden featuring Cattleya orchids from Colombia.

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

For about the past year, Priya Goel, MD, can be seen cruising around the island of Manhattan as she makes her way between visits to some of New York City’s most treasured residents: a small but essential group of patients born before the Empire State Building scraped the sky and the old Yankee Stadium had become the House That Ruth Built.

Dr. Goel, a family physician, works for Heal, a national home health care company that primarily serves people older than 65. Her practice has 10 patients older than 100 – the oldest is a 108-year-old man – whom she visits monthly.
 

The gray wave

Dr. Goel’s charges are among America’s latest baby boom – babies born a century ago, that is.

Between 1980 and 2019, the share of American centenarians, those aged 100 and up, grew faster than the total population. In 2019, 100,322 persons in the United States were at least 100 years old – more than triple the 1980 figure of 32,194, according to the U.S. Administration on Aging. By 2060, experts predict, the U.S. centenarian population will reach nearly 600,000.

Although some of the ultra-aged live in nursing homes, many continue to live independently. They require both routine and acute medical care. So, what does it take to be a physician for a centenarian?

Dr. Goel, who is in her mid-30s and could well be the great-granddaughter of some of her patients, urged her colleagues not to stereotype patients on the basis of age.

“You have to consider their functional and cognitive abilities, their ability to understand disease processes and make decisions for themselves,” Dr. Goel said. “Age is just one factor in the grand scheme of things.”

Visiting patients in their homes provides her with insights into how well they’re doing, including the safety of their environments and the depth of their social networks.

New York City has its peculiar demands. Heal provides Dr. Goel with a driver who chauffeurs her to her patient visits. She takes notes between stops.

“The idea is to have these patients remain in an environment where they’re comfortable, in surroundings where they’ve grown up or lived for many years,” she said. “A lot of them are in elevator buildings and they are wheelchair-bound or bed-bound and they physically can’t leave.”

She said she gets a far different view of the patient than does an office-based physician.

“When you go into their home, it’s very personal. You’re seeing what their daily environment is like, what their diet is like. You can see their food on the counter. You can see the level of hygiene,” Dr. Goel said. “You get to see their social support. Are their kids involved? Are they hoarding? Stuff that they wouldn’t just necessarily disclose but on a visit you get to see going into the home. It’s an extra layer of understanding that patient.”

Dr. Goel contrasted home care from care in a nursing home, where the patients are seen daily. On the basis of her observations, she decides whether to see her patients every month or every 3 months.

She applies this strategy to everyone from age 60 to over 100.
 

Tracking a growing group

Since 1995, geriatrician Thomas Perls, MD, has directed the New England Centenarian Study at Boston University. The study, largely funded by the National Institute on Aging, has enrolled 2,599 centenarian persons and 700 of their offspring. At any given time in the study, about 10% of the centenarians are alive. The study has a high mortality rate.

The people in Dr. Perls’s study range in age, but they top out at 119, the third oldest person ever in the world. Most centenarians are women.

“When we first began the study in 1995, the prevalence of centenarians in the United States was about 1 per 10,000 in the population,” Perls told this news organization. “And now, that prevalence has doubled to 1 per 5,000.”

Even if no one has achieved the record of Methuselah, the Biblical patriarch who was purported to have lived to the age of 969, some people always have lived into their 90s and beyond. Dr. Perls attributed the increase in longevity to control at the turn of the 20th century of typhoid fever, diphtheria, and other infectious diseases with effective public health measures, including the availability of clean water and improvement in socioeconomic conditions.

“Infant mortality just plummeted. So, come around 1915, 1920, we were no longer losing a quarter of our population to these diseases. That meant a quarter more of the population could age into adulthood and middle age,” he said. “A certain component of that group was, therefore, able to continue to age to a very, very old age.”

Other advances, such as antibiotics and vaccinations in the 1960s; the availability in the 1970s of much better detection and effective treatment of high blood pressure; the recognition of the harms of smoking; and much more effective treatment of cardiovascular disease and cancer have allowed many people who would have otherwise died in their 70s and 80s to live much longer. “I think what this means is that there is a substantial proportion of the population that has the biology to get to 100,” Dr. Perls said.

Perls said the Latino population and Blacks have a better track record than Whites in reaching the 100-year milestone. “The average life expectancy might be lower in these populations because of socioeconomic factors, but if they are able to get to around their early 80s, compared to Whites, their ability to get to 100 is actually better,” he said.

Asians fare best when it comes to longevity. While around 1% of White women in the United States live to 100, 10% of Asian women in Hong Kong hit that mark.

“I think some of that is better environment and health habits in Hong Kong than in the United States,” Dr. Perls said. “I think another piece may be a genetic advantage in East Asians. We’re looking into that.”

Dr. Perls said he agreed with Dr. Goel that health care providers and the lay public should not make assumptions on the basis of age alone as to how a person is doing. “People can age so very differently from one another,” he said.

Up to about age 90, the vast majority of those differences are determined by our health behaviors, such as smoking, alcohol use, exercise, sleep, the effect of our diets on weight, and access to good health care, including regular screening for problems such as high blood pressure, diabetes, and cancer. “People who are able to do everything right generally add healthy years to their lives, while those who do not have shorter life expectancies and longer periods of chronic diseases,” Dr. Perls said.

Paying diligent attention to these behaviors over the long run can have a huge payoff.

Dr. Perls’s team has found that to live beyond age 90 and on into the early 100s, protective genes can play a strong role. These genes help slow aging and decrease one’s risk for aging-related diseases. Centenarians usually have a history of aging very slowly and greatly delaying aging-related diseases and disability toward the ends of their lives.

Centenarians are the antithesis of the misguided belief that the older you get, the sicker you get. Quite the opposite occurs. For Dr. Perls, “the older you get, the healthier you’ve been.”
 

MD bias against the elderly?

Care of elderly patients is becoming essential in the practice of primary care physicians – but not all of them enjoy the work.

To be effective, physicians who treat centenarians must get a better idea of the individual patient’s functional status and comorbidities. “You absolutely cannot make assumptions on age alone,” Dr. Perls said.

The so-called “normal” temperature, 98.6° F, can spell trouble for centenarians and other very old patients, warned Natalie Baker, DNP, CRNP, an associate professor of nursing at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, and president of the 3,000-member Gerontological Advanced Practice Nurses Association.

“We have to be very cognizant of what we call a typical presentation of disease or illness and that a very subtle change in an older adult can signal a serious infection or illness,” Dr. Baker said. “If your patient has a high fever, that is a potential problem.”

The average temperature of an older adult is lower than the accepted 98.6° F, and their body’s response to an infection is slow to exhibit an increase in temperature, Dr. Baker said. “When treating centenarians, clinicians must be cognizant of other subtle signs of infection, such as decreased appetite or change in mentation,” she cautioned.

A decline in appetite or insomnia may be a subtle sign that these patients need to be evaluated, she added.
 

COVID-19 and centenarians

Three-quarters of the 1 million U.S. deaths from COVID-19 occurred in people aged 65 and older. However, Dr. Perls said centenarians may be a special subpopulation when it comes to COVID.

The Japanese Health Ministry, which follows the large centenarian population in that country, noted a marked jump in the number of centenarians during the pandemic – although the reasons for the increase aren’t clear.

Centenarians may be a bit different. Dr. Perls said some evidence suggests that the over-100 crowd may have better immune systems than younger people. “Part of the trick of getting to 100 is having a pretty good immune system,” he said.
 

Don’t mess with success

“There is no need at that point for us to try to alter their diet to what we think it might be,” Dr. Baker said. “There’s no need to start with diabetic education. They may tell you their secret is a shot of vodka every day. Why should we stop it at that age? Accept their lifestyles, because they’ve done something right to get to that age.”

Opinions differ on how to approach screening for centenarians.

Dr. Goel said guidelines for routine screening, such as colonoscopies, mammograms, and PAP smears, drop off for patients starting at 75. Dr. Perls said this strategy stems from the belief that people will die from other things first, so screening is no longer needed. Dr. Perls said he disagrees with this approach.

“Again, we can’t base our screening and health care decisions on age alone. If I have an independently functioning and robust 95-year-old man in my office, you can be sure I am going to continue recommending regular screening for colon cancer and other screenings that are normal for people who are 30 years younger,” he said.

Justin Zaghi, MD, chief medical officer at Heal, said screening patients in their late 90s and 100s for cancer generally doesn’t make sense except in some rare circumstances in which the cancer would be unlikely to be a cause of death. “However, if we are talking about screening for fall risks, hearing difficulties, poor vision, pain, and malnutrition, those screenings still absolutely make sense for patients in their late 90s and 100s,” Dr. Zaghi said.

One high-functioning 104-year-old patient of Dr. Perls underwent a total hip replacement for a hip fracture and is faring well. “Obviously, if she had end-stage dementia, we’d do everything to keep the person comfortable, or if they had medical problems that made surgery too high risk, then you don’t do it,” he said. “But if they’re otherwise, I would proceed.”
 

Avoid the ED

Dr. Goel said doctors should avoid sending patients to the emergency department, an often chaotic place that is especially unfriendly to centenarians and the very old. “Sometimes I’ve seen older patients who are being rushed to the ER, and I ask, What are the goals of care?” she said.

Clinicians caring for seniors should keep in mind that infections can cause seniors to appear confused – and this may lead the clinician to think the patient has dementia. Or, Dr. Goel said, a patient with dementia may suddenly experience much worse dementia.

“In either case, you want to make sure you’re not dealing with any underlying infection, like urinary tract infection, or pneumonia brewing, or skin infections,” she said. “Their skin is so much frailer. You want to make sure there are no bedsores.”

She has had patients whose children report that their usually placid centenarian parents are suddenly acting out. “We’ll do a urinary test and it definitely shows a urinary tract infection. You want to make sure you’re not missing out on something else before you attribute it to dementia,” she said.

Environmental changes, such as moving a patient to a new room in a hospital setting, can trigger an acute mental status change, such as delirium, she added. Helping older patients feel in control as much as possible is important.

“You want to make sure you’re orienting them to the time of day. Make sure they get up at the same time, go to bed at the same time, have clocks and calendars present – just making sure that they feel like they’re still in control of their body and their day,” she said.

Physicians should be aware of potential depression in these patients, whose experience of loss – an unavoidable consequence of outliving family and friends – can result in problems with sleep and diet, as well as a sense of social isolation.

Neal Flomenbaum, MD, professor and emergency physician-in-chief emeritus, New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York, said sometimes the best thing for these very elderly patients is to “get them in and out of ED as quickly as possible, and do what you can diagnostically.”

He noted that EDs have been making accommodations to serve the elderly, such as using LEDs that replicate outdoor lighting conditions, as well as providing seniors with separate rooms with glass doors to protect them from noise, separate air handlers to prevent infections, and adequate space for visitors.

These patients often are subject to trauma from falls.

“The bones don’t heal as well as in younger people, and treating their comorbidities is essential. Once they have trouble with one area and they’re lying in bed and can’t move much, they can get bedsores,” Dr. Flomenbaum said. “In the hospital, they are vulnerable to infections. So, you’re thinking of all of these things at the same time and how to treat them appropriately and then get them out of the hospital as soon as possible with whatever care that they need in their own homes if at all possible.”

“I always err on the side of less is more,” Dr. Goel said. “Obviously, if there is something – if they have a cough, they need an x-ray. That’s very basic. We want to take care of that. Give them the antibiotic if they need that. But rushing them in and out of the hospital doesn’t add to their quality of life.”

Dr. Flomenbaum, a pioneer in geriatric emergency medicine, says physicians need to be aware that centenarians and other very old patients don’t present the same way as younger adults.

He began to notice more than 20 years ago that every night, patients would turn up in his ED who were in their late 90s into their 100s. Some would come in with what their children identified as sudden-onset dementia – they didn’t know their own names and couldn’t identify their kids. They didn’t know the time or day. Dr. Flomenbaum said the children often asked whether their parents should enter a nursing home.

“And I’d say, ‘Not so fast. Well, let’s take a look at this.’ You don’t develop that kind of dementia overnight. It usually takes a while,” he said.

He said he ordered complete blood cell counts and oxygen saturation tests that frequently turned out to be abnormal. They didn’t have a fever, and infiltrates initially weren’t seen on chest x-rays.

With rehydration and supplemental oxygen, their symptoms started to improve, and it became obvious that the symptoms were not of dementia but of pneumonia, and that they required antibiotics, Dr. Flomenbaum said.
 

Dementia dilemma

Too often, on the basis of age, doctors assume patients have dementia or other cognitive impairments.

“What a shock and a surprise when doctors actually talk to folks and do a neurocognitive screen and find they’re just fine,” Dr. Perls said.

The decline in hearing and vision can lead to a misdiagnosis of cognitive impairment because the patients are not able to hear what you’re asking them. “It’s really important that the person can hear you – whether you use an amplifying device or they have hearing aids, that’s critical,” he said. “You just have to be a good doctor.”

Often the physical toll of aging exacerbates social difficulties. Poor hearing, for example, can accelerate cognitive impairment and cause people to interact less often, and less meaningfully, with their environment. For some, wearing hearing aids seems demeaning – until they hear what they’ve been missing.

“I get them to wear their hearing aids and, lo and behold, they’re a whole new person because they’re now able to take in their environment and interact with others,” Dr. Perls said.

Dr. Flomenbaum said alcohol abuse and drug reactions can cause delirium, which, unlike dementia, is potentially reversible. Yet many physicians cannot reliably differentiate between dementia and delirium, he added.

The geriatric specialists talk about the lessons they’ve learned and the gratification they get from caring for centenarians.

“I have come to realize the importance of family, of having a close circle, whether that’s through friends or neighbors,” Dr. Goel said. “This work is very rewarding because, if it wasn’t for homebound organizations, how would these people get care or get access to care?”

For Dr. Baker, a joy of the job is hearing centenarians share their life stories.

“I love to hear their stories about how they’ve overcome adversity, living through the depression and living through different wars,” she said. “I love talking to veterans, and I think that oftentimes, we do not value our older adults in our society as we should. Sometimes they are dismissed because they move slowly or are hard to communicate with due to hearing deficits. But they are, I think, a very important part of our lives.”
 

‘They’ve already won’

Most centenarians readily offer the secrets to their longevity. Aline Jacobsohn, of Boca Raton, Fla., is no different.

Ms. Jacobsohn, who will be 101 in October, thinks a diet of small portions of fish, vegetables, and fruit, which she has followed since her husband Leo died in 1982, has helped keep her healthy. She eats lots of salmon and herring and is a fan of spinach sautéed with olive oil. “The only thing I don’t eat is meat,” the trim and active Ms. Jacobsohn said in a recent interview over Zoom.

Her other secret: “Doctors. I like to stay away from them as much as possible.”

Shari Rosenbaum, MD, Jacobsohn’s internist, doesn’t dismiss that approach. She uses a version of it when managing her three centenarian patients, the oldest of whom is 103.

“Let them smoke! Let them drink! They’re happy. It’s not causing harm. Let them eat cake! They’ve already won,” said Dr. Rosenbaum, who is affiliated with Boca Raton–based MDVIP, a national membership-based network of 1,100 primary care physicians serving 368,000 patients. Of those, nearly 460 are centenarians.

“You’re not preventing those problems in this population,” she said. “They’re here to enjoy every moment that they have, and they might as well.”

Dr. Rosenbaum sees a divergence in her patients – those who will reach very old age, and those who won’t – starting in their 60s.

“The centenarians don’t have medical problems,” she said. “They don’t get cancer. They don’t get diabetes. Some of them take good care of themselves. Some don’t take such good care of themselves. But they are all optimists. They all see the glass half full. They all participate in life. They all have excellent support systems. They have good genes, a positive attitude toward life, and a strong social network.”

Ms. Jacobsohn – whose surname at the time was Bakst – grew up in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, during the rise of the Nazi regime. The family fled to Columbia in 1938, where she met and eventually married her husband, Leo, who ran a business importing clocks and watches in Cali.

In 1989, the Jacobsohns and their three children moved to south Florida to escape the dangers of kidnappings and ransoms posed by the drug cartels.

Ms. Jacobsohn agreed that she appears to have longevity genes – “good stock,” she calls it. “My mother died 23 days before she was 100. My grandmother lived till 99, almost 100,” she said.

Two years ago, she donated her car to a charity and stopped driving in the interest of her own safety and that of other drivers and pedestrians.

Ms. Jacobsohn has a strong support system. Two of her children live nearby and visit her nearly every day. A live-in companion helps her with the activities of daily life, including preparing meals.

Ms. Jacobsohn plays bridge regularly, and well. “I’m sorry to say that I’m a very good bridge player,” she said, frankly. “How is it possible that I’ve played bridge so well and then I don’t remember what I had for lunch yesterday?”

She reads, mainly a diet of history but occasionally novels, too. “They have to be engaging,” she said.

The loss of loved ones is an inevitable part of very old age. Her husband of 47 years died of emphysema, and one of her sons died in his 70s of prostate cancer.

She knows well the fate that awaits us all and accepts it philosophically.

“It’s a very normal thing that people die. You don’t live forever. So, whenever it comes, it’s okay. Enough is enough. Dayenu,” she said, using the Hebrew word for, “It would have been enough” – a favorite in the Passover Seder celebrating the ancient Jews’ liberation from slavery in Egypt.

Ms. Jacobsohn sang the song and then took a reporter on a Zoom tour of her tidy home and her large flower garden featuring Cattleya orchids from Colombia.

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

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.