Feature

Immunization of people 70 and older with the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in Israel was associated with a precipitous drop in need for mechanical ventilation, new evidence reveals.

Compared with residents younger than 50 – so far vaccinated at lower rates than those of the higher-risk older people – Israelis 70 and older were 67% less likely to require mechanical ventilation for SARS-CoV-2 infection in February 2021 compared with October-December 2020.

“This study provides preliminary evidence at the population level for the reduction in risk for severe COVID-19, as manifested by need for mechanical ventilation, after vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine,” wrote lead author Ehud Rinott, department of public health, faculty of health sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beer-Sheva, Israel, and colleagues.

The study was published online Feb. 26, 2021, in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The progress of COVID-19 vaccination across Israel presents researchers with a unique opportunity to study effectiveness on a population level. In this study, 84% of residents 70 and older received two-dose vaccinations. In contrast, only 10% of people in Israel younger than 50 received the same vaccine coverage.

Along with senior author Yair Lewis, MD, PhD, and coauthor Ilan Youngster, MD, Mr. Rinott compared mechanical ventilation rates between Oct. 2, 2020, and Feb. 9, 2021. They found that the ratio of people 70 and older compared with those younger than 50 requiring mechanical ventilation changed from 5.8:1 to 1.9:1 between these periods. This translates to the 67% decrease.

The study offers a “real-world” look at vaccination effectiveness, adding to more controlled evidence from clinical trials. “Achieving high vaccination coverage through intensive vaccination campaigns has the potential to substantially reduce COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality,” the researchers wrote.

Israel started a national vaccination program on Dec. 20, 2020, targeting high-risk residents including people 60 and older, health care workers, and those with relevant comorbidities. At the same time, in addition to immunization, Israel has used strategies like stay-at-home orders, school closures, mask mandates, and more.

Potential limitations include a limited ability to account for the effect of the stay-at-home orders, spread of virus variants, and other concomitant factors; a potential for a delayed reporting of cases; and variability in mitigation measures by age group.

Dr. Youngster reported receipt of consulting fees from MyBiotix Ltd.

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

Immunization of people 70 and older with the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in Israel was associated with a precipitous drop in need for mechanical ventilation, new evidence reveals.

Compared with residents younger than 50 – so far vaccinated at lower rates than those of the higher-risk older people – Israelis 70 and older were 67% less likely to require mechanical ventilation for SARS-CoV-2 infection in February 2021 compared with October-December 2020.

“This study provides preliminary evidence at the population level for the reduction in risk for severe COVID-19, as manifested by need for mechanical ventilation, after vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine,” wrote lead author Ehud Rinott, department of public health, faculty of health sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beer-Sheva, Israel, and colleagues.

The study was published online Feb. 26, 2021, in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The progress of COVID-19 vaccination across Israel presents researchers with a unique opportunity to study effectiveness on a population level. In this study, 84% of residents 70 and older received two-dose vaccinations. In contrast, only 10% of people in Israel younger than 50 received the same vaccine coverage.

Along with senior author Yair Lewis, MD, PhD, and coauthor Ilan Youngster, MD, Mr. Rinott compared mechanical ventilation rates between Oct. 2, 2020, and Feb. 9, 2021. They found that the ratio of people 70 and older compared with those younger than 50 requiring mechanical ventilation changed from 5.8:1 to 1.9:1 between these periods. This translates to the 67% decrease.

The study offers a “real-world” look at vaccination effectiveness, adding to more controlled evidence from clinical trials. “Achieving high vaccination coverage through intensive vaccination campaigns has the potential to substantially reduce COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality,” the researchers wrote.

Israel started a national vaccination program on Dec. 20, 2020, targeting high-risk residents including people 60 and older, health care workers, and those with relevant comorbidities. At the same time, in addition to immunization, Israel has used strategies like stay-at-home orders, school closures, mask mandates, and more.

Potential limitations include a limited ability to account for the effect of the stay-at-home orders, spread of virus variants, and other concomitant factors; a potential for a delayed reporting of cases; and variability in mitigation measures by age group.

Dr. Youngster reported receipt of consulting fees from MyBiotix Ltd.

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

Immunization of people 70 and older with the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in Israel was associated with a precipitous drop in need for mechanical ventilation, new evidence reveals.

Compared with residents younger than 50 – so far vaccinated at lower rates than those of the higher-risk older people – Israelis 70 and older were 67% less likely to require mechanical ventilation for SARS-CoV-2 infection in February 2021 compared with October-December 2020.

“This study provides preliminary evidence at the population level for the reduction in risk for severe COVID-19, as manifested by need for mechanical ventilation, after vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine,” wrote lead author Ehud Rinott, department of public health, faculty of health sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beer-Sheva, Israel, and colleagues.

The study was published online Feb. 26, 2021, in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The progress of COVID-19 vaccination across Israel presents researchers with a unique opportunity to study effectiveness on a population level. In this study, 84% of residents 70 and older received two-dose vaccinations. In contrast, only 10% of people in Israel younger than 50 received the same vaccine coverage.

Along with senior author Yair Lewis, MD, PhD, and coauthor Ilan Youngster, MD, Mr. Rinott compared mechanical ventilation rates between Oct. 2, 2020, and Feb. 9, 2021. They found that the ratio of people 70 and older compared with those younger than 50 requiring mechanical ventilation changed from 5.8:1 to 1.9:1 between these periods. This translates to the 67% decrease.

The study offers a “real-world” look at vaccination effectiveness, adding to more controlled evidence from clinical trials. “Achieving high vaccination coverage through intensive vaccination campaigns has the potential to substantially reduce COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality,” the researchers wrote.

Israel started a national vaccination program on Dec. 20, 2020, targeting high-risk residents including people 60 and older, health care workers, and those with relevant comorbidities. At the same time, in addition to immunization, Israel has used strategies like stay-at-home orders, school closures, mask mandates, and more.

Potential limitations include a limited ability to account for the effect of the stay-at-home orders, spread of virus variants, and other concomitant factors; a potential for a delayed reporting of cases; and variability in mitigation measures by age group.

Dr. Youngster reported receipt of consulting fees from MyBiotix Ltd.

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

Restoring movement following a stroke can be challenging, but recent proof-of-concept research may offer an effective way to do just that. Researchers behind the ongoing Cortimo trial successfully performed a procedure on a patient 2 years removed from a stroke, in which microelectrode arrays were implanted into his brain to decode signals driving motor function. These signals then allowed him to operate a powered brace worn on his paralyzed arm.

This news organization spoke with the trial’s principal investigator, Mijail D. Serruya, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of neurology at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, about the trial’s initial findings, what this technology may ultimately look like, and the implications for stroke patients in knowing that restorative interventions may be on the horizon.
 

How did you first get involved with implanting electrodes to help stroke patients with recovery?

I was involved in the first human application of a microelectrode array in a young man who had quadriplegia because of a spinal cord injury. We showed that we could record signal directly from his motor cortex and use it to move a cursor on the screen, and open and close a prosthetic hand and arm.

I was naive and thought that this would soon be a widely available clinical medical device. Now it’s nearly 15 years later, and while it certainly has been safely used in multiple labs to record signals from people with spinal cord injury, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), or locked-in syndrome from a brain stem stroke, it still requires a team of technicians and a percutaneous connector. It really has not gotten out of the university.

A few years ago I spoke with Robert Rosenwasser, MD, chairman of the department of neurosurgery at Thomas Jefferson, who runs a very busy stroke center and performed the surgery in this trial. We put our heads together and said: “Maybe the time is now to see whether we can move this technology to this much more prevalent condition of a hemispheric stroke.” And that’s what we did.
 

How did the idea of using computer brain electrode interfaces begin?

Around 20 years ago, if you had someone who had severe paralysis and you wanted to restore movement, the question was, where can you get a good control signal from? Obviously, if someone can talk, they can use a voice-actuated system with speech recognition and maybe you can track their eye gaze. But if they’re trying to move their limbs, you want a motor control signal.

In someone who has end-stage ALS or a brain stem stroke, you can’t even record residual muscle activity; you have almost nothing to work with. The only thing left is to try to record directly from the brain itself.

It’s important to clarify that brain-computer interfaces are not necessarily stimulating the brain to inject the signal. They’re just recording the endogenous activity that the brain makes. In comparison, a deep brain stimulator is usually not recording anything; it’s just delivering energy to the brain and hoping for the best.

But what we’re doing is asking, if the person is trying to move the paralyzed limb but can’t, can we get to the source of the signal and then do something with it?
 

What’s the process for measuring that in, for example, someone who has a localized lesion in the motor cortex?

The first step is a scan. People have been doing functional MRI on patients who have had a stroke as long as we’ve had fMRI. We know that people can actually activate on MRI areas of their brain around the stroke, but obviously not in the stroke because it’s been lesioned. However, we do know that the circuit adjacent to it and other regions do appear able to be modulated.

So by having a person either imagine trying to do what they want to do or doing what they can do, if they have some tiny residual movement, you can then identify a kind of hot spot on the fMRI where the brain gobbles up all the oxygen because it’s so active. Then that gives you an anatomical target for the surgeon to place the electrode arrays.
 

The Cortimo trial’s enticing findings

What are the most striking results that you’ve seen so far with the device?

The first thing is that we were able to get such recordings at all. We knew from fMRIs that there were fluctuations in oxygen changing when the person was trying to do something they couldn’t do. But nobody knew that you would see this whole population of individual neurons chattering away when you place these electrode arrays in the motor cortex right next to the stroke, and make sense of what we’re recording.

Obviously, that’s very encouraging and gives us hope that many months or years after a stroke, people’s brains are able to maintain this representation of all these different movements and plans. It’s almost like it’s trapped on the other side of the stroke and some of the signals can’t get out.

The other discovery we’re pleased with is that we can actually decode signals in real time and the person can use it to do something, such as trigger the brain to open and close the hand. That’s very different from all the prior research with brain array interfaces.

Furthermore, the gentleman who participated actually had strokes in other parts of his brain affecting his vision; he had homonymous hemianopia. That raised the question of what happens if you affect parts of the brain that have to do with attention and visual processing. Could a system like this work? And again, the answer appears to be yes.
 

What are the next steps for this technology before it can potentially become available in the clinic?

For this to work, the system clearly has to be fully implantable. What we used was percutaneous. The risk-benefit may be acceptable for someone who has quadriplegia because of, for example, spinal cord injury or end-stage ALS who may already have a tracheostomy and a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. But for someone who is hemiparetic and ambulatory, that may not be acceptable. And a fully implantable system would also have much better patient compliance.

Also, when you’re recording from lots and lots of individual brain cells at many, many samples a second on many, many channels, it’s certainly an engineering challenge. It’s not just a single channel that you occasionally query; it’s hundreds of thousands of channels of this complicated data stream.

But these are solvable challenges. People have been making a lot of progress. It’s really a matter of funding and the engineering expertise, rather than some sort of fundamental scientific breakthrough.

With that said, I think it could be within the next 5-10 years that we could actually have a product that expands the toolbox of what can be done for patients who’ve had a stroke, if they’re motivated and there’s no real contraindication.
 

Creating a novel device

On that point, are you partnering with engineering and technology companies?

The hope is that we and other groups working on this can do for the interface sort of what Celera Genomics did for the Human Genome Project. By having enough interest and investment, you may be able to propel the field forward to widespread use rather than just a purely academic, lab-science type of project.

We are in discussion with different companies to see how we can move ahead with this, and we would be pleased to work with whomever is interested. It may be that different companies have different pieces of the puzzle – a better sensor or a better wireless transmitter.

The plan is to move as quickly as we can to a fully implantable system. And then the benchmark for any kind of clinical advancement is to do a prospective trial. With devices, if you can get a big enough effect size, then you sometimes don’t need quite as many patients to prove it. If paralysis is striking enough and you can reverse that, then you can convince the Food and Drug Administration of its safety and efficacy, and the various insurance companies, that it’s actually reasonable and necessary.
 

How long will an implantable device last?

That’s a key question and concern. If you have someone like our participant, who’s in his early 40s, will it keep working 10, 20, 30, 40 years? For the rest of his life? Deep brain stimulators and cochlear implants do function for those long durations, but their designs are quite different. There’s a macroelectrode that’s just delivering current, which is very different from listening in on this microscopic scale. There are different technical considerations.

One possible solution is to make the device out of living tissue, which is something I just wrote about with my colleague D. Kacy Cullen. Living electrodes and amplifiers may seem a bit like science fiction, but on the other hand, we have over a century of plastic surgeons, neurosurgeons, and orthopedic surgeons doing all kinds of complicated modifications of the body, moving nerves and vessels around. It makes you realize that, in a sense, they’ve already done living electrodes by doing a nerve transfer. So the question becomes whether we can refine that living electrode technology, which could then open up more possibilities.
 

Are there any final messages you’d like to share with clinician audience of this news organization?

Regardless of our specialty, we’re always telling our patients about the benefits of things like eating healthy, exercise, and sleep. Now we can point to the fact that, 2 years after stroke, all of these brain areas are still active, and devices that can potentially reverse and unparalyze your limbs may be available in the coming 5- or 10-plus years. That gives clinicians more justification to tell their patients to really stay on top of those things so that they can be in as optimal brain-mind health as possible to someday benefit from them.

Patients and their families need to be part of the conversation of where this is all going. That’s one thing that’s totally different for brain devices versus other devices, where a person’s psychological state doesn’t necessarily matter. But with a brain device, your mental state, psychosocial situation, exercise, sleep – the way you think about and approach it – actually changes to the structure of the brain pretty dramatically.

I don’t want to cause unreasonable hope that we’re going to snap our fingers and it’s going to be cured. But I do think it’s fair to raise a possibility as a way to say that keeping oneself really healthy is justified.

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

Restoring movement following a stroke can be challenging, but recent proof-of-concept research may offer an effective way to do just that. Researchers behind the ongoing Cortimo trial successfully performed a procedure on a patient 2 years removed from a stroke, in which microelectrode arrays were implanted into his brain to decode signals driving motor function. These signals then allowed him to operate a powered brace worn on his paralyzed arm.

This news organization spoke with the trial’s principal investigator, Mijail D. Serruya, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of neurology at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, about the trial’s initial findings, what this technology may ultimately look like, and the implications for stroke patients in knowing that restorative interventions may be on the horizon.
 

How did you first get involved with implanting electrodes to help stroke patients with recovery?

I was involved in the first human application of a microelectrode array in a young man who had quadriplegia because of a spinal cord injury. We showed that we could record signal directly from his motor cortex and use it to move a cursor on the screen, and open and close a prosthetic hand and arm.

I was naive and thought that this would soon be a widely available clinical medical device. Now it’s nearly 15 years later, and while it certainly has been safely used in multiple labs to record signals from people with spinal cord injury, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), or locked-in syndrome from a brain stem stroke, it still requires a team of technicians and a percutaneous connector. It really has not gotten out of the university.

A few years ago I spoke with Robert Rosenwasser, MD, chairman of the department of neurosurgery at Thomas Jefferson, who runs a very busy stroke center and performed the surgery in this trial. We put our heads together and said: “Maybe the time is now to see whether we can move this technology to this much more prevalent condition of a hemispheric stroke.” And that’s what we did.
 

How did the idea of using computer brain electrode interfaces begin?

Around 20 years ago, if you had someone who had severe paralysis and you wanted to restore movement, the question was, where can you get a good control signal from? Obviously, if someone can talk, they can use a voice-actuated system with speech recognition and maybe you can track their eye gaze. But if they’re trying to move their limbs, you want a motor control signal.

In someone who has end-stage ALS or a brain stem stroke, you can’t even record residual muscle activity; you have almost nothing to work with. The only thing left is to try to record directly from the brain itself.

It’s important to clarify that brain-computer interfaces are not necessarily stimulating the brain to inject the signal. They’re just recording the endogenous activity that the brain makes. In comparison, a deep brain stimulator is usually not recording anything; it’s just delivering energy to the brain and hoping for the best.

But what we’re doing is asking, if the person is trying to move the paralyzed limb but can’t, can we get to the source of the signal and then do something with it?
 

What’s the process for measuring that in, for example, someone who has a localized lesion in the motor cortex?

The first step is a scan. People have been doing functional MRI on patients who have had a stroke as long as we’ve had fMRI. We know that people can actually activate on MRI areas of their brain around the stroke, but obviously not in the stroke because it’s been lesioned. However, we do know that the circuit adjacent to it and other regions do appear able to be modulated.

So by having a person either imagine trying to do what they want to do or doing what they can do, if they have some tiny residual movement, you can then identify a kind of hot spot on the fMRI where the brain gobbles up all the oxygen because it’s so active. Then that gives you an anatomical target for the surgeon to place the electrode arrays.
 

The Cortimo trial’s enticing findings

What are the most striking results that you’ve seen so far with the device?

The first thing is that we were able to get such recordings at all. We knew from fMRIs that there were fluctuations in oxygen changing when the person was trying to do something they couldn’t do. But nobody knew that you would see this whole population of individual neurons chattering away when you place these electrode arrays in the motor cortex right next to the stroke, and make sense of what we’re recording.

Obviously, that’s very encouraging and gives us hope that many months or years after a stroke, people’s brains are able to maintain this representation of all these different movements and plans. It’s almost like it’s trapped on the other side of the stroke and some of the signals can’t get out.

The other discovery we’re pleased with is that we can actually decode signals in real time and the person can use it to do something, such as trigger the brain to open and close the hand. That’s very different from all the prior research with brain array interfaces.

Furthermore, the gentleman who participated actually had strokes in other parts of his brain affecting his vision; he had homonymous hemianopia. That raised the question of what happens if you affect parts of the brain that have to do with attention and visual processing. Could a system like this work? And again, the answer appears to be yes.
 

What are the next steps for this technology before it can potentially become available in the clinic?

For this to work, the system clearly has to be fully implantable. What we used was percutaneous. The risk-benefit may be acceptable for someone who has quadriplegia because of, for example, spinal cord injury or end-stage ALS who may already have a tracheostomy and a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. But for someone who is hemiparetic and ambulatory, that may not be acceptable. And a fully implantable system would also have much better patient compliance.

Also, when you’re recording from lots and lots of individual brain cells at many, many samples a second on many, many channels, it’s certainly an engineering challenge. It’s not just a single channel that you occasionally query; it’s hundreds of thousands of channels of this complicated data stream.

But these are solvable challenges. People have been making a lot of progress. It’s really a matter of funding and the engineering expertise, rather than some sort of fundamental scientific breakthrough.

With that said, I think it could be within the next 5-10 years that we could actually have a product that expands the toolbox of what can be done for patients who’ve had a stroke, if they’re motivated and there’s no real contraindication.
 

Creating a novel device

On that point, are you partnering with engineering and technology companies?

The hope is that we and other groups working on this can do for the interface sort of what Celera Genomics did for the Human Genome Project. By having enough interest and investment, you may be able to propel the field forward to widespread use rather than just a purely academic, lab-science type of project.

We are in discussion with different companies to see how we can move ahead with this, and we would be pleased to work with whomever is interested. It may be that different companies have different pieces of the puzzle – a better sensor or a better wireless transmitter.

The plan is to move as quickly as we can to a fully implantable system. And then the benchmark for any kind of clinical advancement is to do a prospective trial. With devices, if you can get a big enough effect size, then you sometimes don’t need quite as many patients to prove it. If paralysis is striking enough and you can reverse that, then you can convince the Food and Drug Administration of its safety and efficacy, and the various insurance companies, that it’s actually reasonable and necessary.
 

How long will an implantable device last?

That’s a key question and concern. If you have someone like our participant, who’s in his early 40s, will it keep working 10, 20, 30, 40 years? For the rest of his life? Deep brain stimulators and cochlear implants do function for those long durations, but their designs are quite different. There’s a macroelectrode that’s just delivering current, which is very different from listening in on this microscopic scale. There are different technical considerations.

One possible solution is to make the device out of living tissue, which is something I just wrote about with my colleague D. Kacy Cullen. Living electrodes and amplifiers may seem a bit like science fiction, but on the other hand, we have over a century of plastic surgeons, neurosurgeons, and orthopedic surgeons doing all kinds of complicated modifications of the body, moving nerves and vessels around. It makes you realize that, in a sense, they’ve already done living electrodes by doing a nerve transfer. So the question becomes whether we can refine that living electrode technology, which could then open up more possibilities.
 

Are there any final messages you’d like to share with clinician audience of this news organization?

Regardless of our specialty, we’re always telling our patients about the benefits of things like eating healthy, exercise, and sleep. Now we can point to the fact that, 2 years after stroke, all of these brain areas are still active, and devices that can potentially reverse and unparalyze your limbs may be available in the coming 5- or 10-plus years. That gives clinicians more justification to tell their patients to really stay on top of those things so that they can be in as optimal brain-mind health as possible to someday benefit from them.

Patients and their families need to be part of the conversation of where this is all going. That’s one thing that’s totally different for brain devices versus other devices, where a person’s psychological state doesn’t necessarily matter. But with a brain device, your mental state, psychosocial situation, exercise, sleep – the way you think about and approach it – actually changes to the structure of the brain pretty dramatically.

I don’t want to cause unreasonable hope that we’re going to snap our fingers and it’s going to be cured. But I do think it’s fair to raise a possibility as a way to say that keeping oneself really healthy is justified.

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

Restoring movement following a stroke can be challenging, but recent proof-of-concept research may offer an effective way to do just that. Researchers behind the ongoing Cortimo trial successfully performed a procedure on a patient 2 years removed from a stroke, in which microelectrode arrays were implanted into his brain to decode signals driving motor function. These signals then allowed him to operate a powered brace worn on his paralyzed arm.

This news organization spoke with the trial’s principal investigator, Mijail D. Serruya, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of neurology at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, about the trial’s initial findings, what this technology may ultimately look like, and the implications for stroke patients in knowing that restorative interventions may be on the horizon.
 

How did you first get involved with implanting electrodes to help stroke patients with recovery?

I was involved in the first human application of a microelectrode array in a young man who had quadriplegia because of a spinal cord injury. We showed that we could record signal directly from his motor cortex and use it to move a cursor on the screen, and open and close a prosthetic hand and arm.

I was naive and thought that this would soon be a widely available clinical medical device. Now it’s nearly 15 years later, and while it certainly has been safely used in multiple labs to record signals from people with spinal cord injury, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), or locked-in syndrome from a brain stem stroke, it still requires a team of technicians and a percutaneous connector. It really has not gotten out of the university.

A few years ago I spoke with Robert Rosenwasser, MD, chairman of the department of neurosurgery at Thomas Jefferson, who runs a very busy stroke center and performed the surgery in this trial. We put our heads together and said: “Maybe the time is now to see whether we can move this technology to this much more prevalent condition of a hemispheric stroke.” And that’s what we did.
 

How did the idea of using computer brain electrode interfaces begin?

Around 20 years ago, if you had someone who had severe paralysis and you wanted to restore movement, the question was, where can you get a good control signal from? Obviously, if someone can talk, they can use a voice-actuated system with speech recognition and maybe you can track their eye gaze. But if they’re trying to move their limbs, you want a motor control signal.

In someone who has end-stage ALS or a brain stem stroke, you can’t even record residual muscle activity; you have almost nothing to work with. The only thing left is to try to record directly from the brain itself.

It’s important to clarify that brain-computer interfaces are not necessarily stimulating the brain to inject the signal. They’re just recording the endogenous activity that the brain makes. In comparison, a deep brain stimulator is usually not recording anything; it’s just delivering energy to the brain and hoping for the best.

But what we’re doing is asking, if the person is trying to move the paralyzed limb but can’t, can we get to the source of the signal and then do something with it?
 

What’s the process for measuring that in, for example, someone who has a localized lesion in the motor cortex?

The first step is a scan. People have been doing functional MRI on patients who have had a stroke as long as we’ve had fMRI. We know that people can actually activate on MRI areas of their brain around the stroke, but obviously not in the stroke because it’s been lesioned. However, we do know that the circuit adjacent to it and other regions do appear able to be modulated.

So by having a person either imagine trying to do what they want to do or doing what they can do, if they have some tiny residual movement, you can then identify a kind of hot spot on the fMRI where the brain gobbles up all the oxygen because it’s so active. Then that gives you an anatomical target for the surgeon to place the electrode arrays.
 

The Cortimo trial’s enticing findings

What are the most striking results that you’ve seen so far with the device?

The first thing is that we were able to get such recordings at all. We knew from fMRIs that there were fluctuations in oxygen changing when the person was trying to do something they couldn’t do. But nobody knew that you would see this whole population of individual neurons chattering away when you place these electrode arrays in the motor cortex right next to the stroke, and make sense of what we’re recording.

Obviously, that’s very encouraging and gives us hope that many months or years after a stroke, people’s brains are able to maintain this representation of all these different movements and plans. It’s almost like it’s trapped on the other side of the stroke and some of the signals can’t get out.

The other discovery we’re pleased with is that we can actually decode signals in real time and the person can use it to do something, such as trigger the brain to open and close the hand. That’s very different from all the prior research with brain array interfaces.

Furthermore, the gentleman who participated actually had strokes in other parts of his brain affecting his vision; he had homonymous hemianopia. That raised the question of what happens if you affect parts of the brain that have to do with attention and visual processing. Could a system like this work? And again, the answer appears to be yes.
 

What are the next steps for this technology before it can potentially become available in the clinic?

For this to work, the system clearly has to be fully implantable. What we used was percutaneous. The risk-benefit may be acceptable for someone who has quadriplegia because of, for example, spinal cord injury or end-stage ALS who may already have a tracheostomy and a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. But for someone who is hemiparetic and ambulatory, that may not be acceptable. And a fully implantable system would also have much better patient compliance.

Also, when you’re recording from lots and lots of individual brain cells at many, many samples a second on many, many channels, it’s certainly an engineering challenge. It’s not just a single channel that you occasionally query; it’s hundreds of thousands of channels of this complicated data stream.

But these are solvable challenges. People have been making a lot of progress. It’s really a matter of funding and the engineering expertise, rather than some sort of fundamental scientific breakthrough.

With that said, I think it could be within the next 5-10 years that we could actually have a product that expands the toolbox of what can be done for patients who’ve had a stroke, if they’re motivated and there’s no real contraindication.
 

Creating a novel device

On that point, are you partnering with engineering and technology companies?

The hope is that we and other groups working on this can do for the interface sort of what Celera Genomics did for the Human Genome Project. By having enough interest and investment, you may be able to propel the field forward to widespread use rather than just a purely academic, lab-science type of project.

We are in discussion with different companies to see how we can move ahead with this, and we would be pleased to work with whomever is interested. It may be that different companies have different pieces of the puzzle – a better sensor or a better wireless transmitter.

The plan is to move as quickly as we can to a fully implantable system. And then the benchmark for any kind of clinical advancement is to do a prospective trial. With devices, if you can get a big enough effect size, then you sometimes don’t need quite as many patients to prove it. If paralysis is striking enough and you can reverse that, then you can convince the Food and Drug Administration of its safety and efficacy, and the various insurance companies, that it’s actually reasonable and necessary.
 

How long will an implantable device last?

That’s a key question and concern. If you have someone like our participant, who’s in his early 40s, will it keep working 10, 20, 30, 40 years? For the rest of his life? Deep brain stimulators and cochlear implants do function for those long durations, but their designs are quite different. There’s a macroelectrode that’s just delivering current, which is very different from listening in on this microscopic scale. There are different technical considerations.

One possible solution is to make the device out of living tissue, which is something I just wrote about with my colleague D. Kacy Cullen. Living electrodes and amplifiers may seem a bit like science fiction, but on the other hand, we have over a century of plastic surgeons, neurosurgeons, and orthopedic surgeons doing all kinds of complicated modifications of the body, moving nerves and vessels around. It makes you realize that, in a sense, they’ve already done living electrodes by doing a nerve transfer. So the question becomes whether we can refine that living electrode technology, which could then open up more possibilities.
 

Are there any final messages you’d like to share with clinician audience of this news organization?

Regardless of our specialty, we’re always telling our patients about the benefits of things like eating healthy, exercise, and sleep. Now we can point to the fact that, 2 years after stroke, all of these brain areas are still active, and devices that can potentially reverse and unparalyze your limbs may be available in the coming 5- or 10-plus years. That gives clinicians more justification to tell their patients to really stay on top of those things so that they can be in as optimal brain-mind health as possible to someday benefit from them.

Patients and their families need to be part of the conversation of where this is all going. That’s one thing that’s totally different for brain devices versus other devices, where a person’s psychological state doesn’t necessarily matter. But with a brain device, your mental state, psychosocial situation, exercise, sleep – the way you think about and approach it – actually changes to the structure of the brain pretty dramatically.

I don’t want to cause unreasonable hope that we’re going to snap our fingers and it’s going to be cured. But I do think it’s fair to raise a possibility as a way to say that keeping oneself really healthy is justified.

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

The prevalence of asymptomatic central sleep apnea after acute coronary syndrome is high and may be associated with the use of ticagrelor, a new study finds.
Prior studies have suggested that ticagrelor is associated with an increased likelihood of central sleep apnea. The drug’s label notes that two respiratory conditions – central sleep apnea and Cheyne-Stokes respiration – are adverse reactions that were identified after the drug’s approval in the United States in 2011. “Because these reactions are reported voluntarily from a population of an unknown size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship to drug exposure,” the label says. 
Among 80 patients receiving ticagrelor, 24 had central sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (CSAHS), whereas of 41 patients not taking ticagrelor, 3 had this condition (30% vs. 7.3%, P = .004), in the new study published online Jan. 20, 2021, in Sleep Medicine. A multivariable analysis included in the paper found that age and ticagrelor administration were the only two factors associated with the occurrence of CSAHS.

Findings are ‘striking’

The different rates of central sleep apnea in the study are striking, but it is not clear that asymptomatic central sleep apnea in patients taking ticagrelor is a concern, Ofer Jacobowitz, MD, PhD, associate professor of otolaryngology at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y, said in an interview.

Study author continues to prescribe ticagrelor

One of the study authors, Philippe Meurin, MD, said that he continues to prescribe ticagrelor every day and that the side effect is not necessarily important. 
It is possible that central sleep apnea may resolve, although further studies would need to examine central sleep apnea over time to establish the duration of the condition, he added. Nevertheless, awareness of the association could have implications for clinical practice, Dr. Meurin said.
Central sleep apnea is rare, and if doctors detect it during a sleep study, they may perform extensive tests to assess for possible neurologic diseases, for example, when the cause may be attributed to the medication, he said. In addition, if a patient who is taking ticagrelor has dyspnea, the presence of central sleep apnea may suggest that dyspnea could be related to the drug, although this possibility needs further study, he noted.

Study included patients with ACS history, but no heart failure

Dr. Meurin, of Centre de Réadaptation Cardiaque de La Brie, Les Grands Prés, Villeneuve-Saint-Denis, France, and colleagues included in their study patients between 1 week and 1 year after acute coronary syndrome who did not have heart failure or a history of sleep apnea.
After an overnight sleep study, they classified patients as normal, as having CSAHS (i.e., an apnea-hypopnea index of 15 or greater, mostly with central sleep apneas), or as having obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS; i.e., an apnea-hypopnea index of 15 or greater, mostly with obstructive sleep apneas).
The prospective study included 121 consecutive patients between January 2018 and March 2020. Patients had a mean age of 56.8, and 88% were men.

Switching to another P2Y12 inhibitor ‘does not seem appropriate’

“CSAHS could be promoted by the use of ticagrelor, a relatively new drug that modifies the apneic threshold,” the study authors wrote. “Regarding underlying mechanisms, the most probable explanation seems to be increased chemosensitivity to hypercapnia by a direct P2Y12 inhibitory effect on the central nervous system.”
Doctors should not overestimate the severity of the adverse reaction or consider it the same way they do OSASH, they added. 
Among patients with acute coronary syndrome in the PLATO study, ticagrelor, compared with clopidogrel, “significantly reduced the rate of death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke,” Dr. Meurin and colleagues said. “Because in this study more than 9,000 patients received ticagrelor for 12 months, CSAHS (even if it seems frequent in our study) did not seem to impair the good efficacy/tolerance balance of the drug. Therefore, in asymptomatic CSAHS patients, switching from ticagrelor to another P2Y12 inhibitor does not seem appropriate.”
A recent analysis of data from randomized, controlled trials with ticagrelor did not find excess cases of sleep apnea with the drug. But an asymptomatic adverse event such as central sleep apnea “cannot emerge from a post hoc analysis,” Dr. Meurin and colleagues said.
The analysis of randomized trial data was conducted by Marc S. Sabatine, MD, MPH, chairman of the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) Study Group at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and coauthors. It was published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions in April 2020.
They “used the gold standard for medical evidence (randomized, placebo-controlled trials) and found 158 cases of sleep apnea reported, with absolutely no difference between ticagrelor and placebo,” Dr. Sabatine said in an interview. Their analysis examined clinically overt apnea, he noted.
“It is quite clear that when looking at large numbers in placebo-controlled trials, there is no excess,” Dr. Sabatine said. “Meurin et al. are examining a different outcome: the results of a lab test in what may be entirely asymptomatic patients.”
A randomized trial could confirm the association, he said.
“The association may be real, but also may be play of chance or confounded,” said Dr. Sabatine. “To convince the medical community, the next step would be for the investigators to do a randomized trial and test whether ticagrelor increases the risk of central sleep apnea.”
Dr. Meurin and the study coauthors had no disclosures. The analysis of randomized, controlled trial data by Dr. Sabatine and colleagues was funded by AstraZeneca, which distributes ticagrelor under the trade name Brilinta. Dr. Sabatine has been a consultant for AstraZeneca and received research grants through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from AstraZeneca. He has consulted for and received grants through the hospital from other companies as well. Dr. Jacobowitz had no relevant disclosures.
jremaly@mdedge.com 

The prevalence of asymptomatic central sleep apnea after acute coronary syndrome is high and may be associated with the use of ticagrelor, a new study finds.
Prior studies have suggested that ticagrelor is associated with an increased likelihood of central sleep apnea. The drug’s label notes that two respiratory conditions – central sleep apnea and Cheyne-Stokes respiration – are adverse reactions that were identified after the drug’s approval in the United States in 2011. “Because these reactions are reported voluntarily from a population of an unknown size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship to drug exposure,” the label says. 
Among 80 patients receiving ticagrelor, 24 had central sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (CSAHS), whereas of 41 patients not taking ticagrelor, 3 had this condition (30% vs. 7.3%, P = .004), in the new study published online Jan. 20, 2021, in Sleep Medicine. A multivariable analysis included in the paper found that age and ticagrelor administration were the only two factors associated with the occurrence of CSAHS.

Findings are ‘striking’

The different rates of central sleep apnea in the study are striking, but it is not clear that asymptomatic central sleep apnea in patients taking ticagrelor is a concern, Ofer Jacobowitz, MD, PhD, associate professor of otolaryngology at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y, said in an interview.

Study author continues to prescribe ticagrelor

One of the study authors, Philippe Meurin, MD, said that he continues to prescribe ticagrelor every day and that the side effect is not necessarily important. 
It is possible that central sleep apnea may resolve, although further studies would need to examine central sleep apnea over time to establish the duration of the condition, he added. Nevertheless, awareness of the association could have implications for clinical practice, Dr. Meurin said.
Central sleep apnea is rare, and if doctors detect it during a sleep study, they may perform extensive tests to assess for possible neurologic diseases, for example, when the cause may be attributed to the medication, he said. In addition, if a patient who is taking ticagrelor has dyspnea, the presence of central sleep apnea may suggest that dyspnea could be related to the drug, although this possibility needs further study, he noted.

Study included patients with ACS history, but no heart failure

Dr. Meurin, of Centre de Réadaptation Cardiaque de La Brie, Les Grands Prés, Villeneuve-Saint-Denis, France, and colleagues included in their study patients between 1 week and 1 year after acute coronary syndrome who did not have heart failure or a history of sleep apnea.
After an overnight sleep study, they classified patients as normal, as having CSAHS (i.e., an apnea-hypopnea index of 15 or greater, mostly with central sleep apneas), or as having obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS; i.e., an apnea-hypopnea index of 15 or greater, mostly with obstructive sleep apneas).
The prospective study included 121 consecutive patients between January 2018 and March 2020. Patients had a mean age of 56.8, and 88% were men.

Switching to another P2Y12 inhibitor ‘does not seem appropriate’

“CSAHS could be promoted by the use of ticagrelor, a relatively new drug that modifies the apneic threshold,” the study authors wrote. “Regarding underlying mechanisms, the most probable explanation seems to be increased chemosensitivity to hypercapnia by a direct P2Y12 inhibitory effect on the central nervous system.”
Doctors should not overestimate the severity of the adverse reaction or consider it the same way they do OSASH, they added. 
Among patients with acute coronary syndrome in the PLATO study, ticagrelor, compared with clopidogrel, “significantly reduced the rate of death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke,” Dr. Meurin and colleagues said. “Because in this study more than 9,000 patients received ticagrelor for 12 months, CSAHS (even if it seems frequent in our study) did not seem to impair the good efficacy/tolerance balance of the drug. Therefore, in asymptomatic CSAHS patients, switching from ticagrelor to another P2Y12 inhibitor does not seem appropriate.”
A recent analysis of data from randomized, controlled trials with ticagrelor did not find excess cases of sleep apnea with the drug. But an asymptomatic adverse event such as central sleep apnea “cannot emerge from a post hoc analysis,” Dr. Meurin and colleagues said.
The analysis of randomized trial data was conducted by Marc S. Sabatine, MD, MPH, chairman of the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) Study Group at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and coauthors. It was published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions in April 2020.
They “used the gold standard for medical evidence (randomized, placebo-controlled trials) and found 158 cases of sleep apnea reported, with absolutely no difference between ticagrelor and placebo,” Dr. Sabatine said in an interview. Their analysis examined clinically overt apnea, he noted.
“It is quite clear that when looking at large numbers in placebo-controlled trials, there is no excess,” Dr. Sabatine said. “Meurin et al. are examining a different outcome: the results of a lab test in what may be entirely asymptomatic patients.”
A randomized trial could confirm the association, he said.
“The association may be real, but also may be play of chance or confounded,” said Dr. Sabatine. “To convince the medical community, the next step would be for the investigators to do a randomized trial and test whether ticagrelor increases the risk of central sleep apnea.”
Dr. Meurin and the study coauthors had no disclosures. The analysis of randomized, controlled trial data by Dr. Sabatine and colleagues was funded by AstraZeneca, which distributes ticagrelor under the trade name Brilinta. Dr. Sabatine has been a consultant for AstraZeneca and received research grants through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from AstraZeneca. He has consulted for and received grants through the hospital from other companies as well. Dr. Jacobowitz had no relevant disclosures.
jremaly@mdedge.com 

The prevalence of asymptomatic central sleep apnea after acute coronary syndrome is high and may be associated with the use of ticagrelor, a new study finds.
Prior studies have suggested that ticagrelor is associated with an increased likelihood of central sleep apnea. The drug’s label notes that two respiratory conditions – central sleep apnea and Cheyne-Stokes respiration – are adverse reactions that were identified after the drug’s approval in the United States in 2011. “Because these reactions are reported voluntarily from a population of an unknown size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship to drug exposure,” the label says. 
Among 80 patients receiving ticagrelor, 24 had central sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (CSAHS), whereas of 41 patients not taking ticagrelor, 3 had this condition (30% vs. 7.3%, P = .004), in the new study published online Jan. 20, 2021, in Sleep Medicine. A multivariable analysis included in the paper found that age and ticagrelor administration were the only two factors associated with the occurrence of CSAHS.

Findings are ‘striking’

The different rates of central sleep apnea in the study are striking, but it is not clear that asymptomatic central sleep apnea in patients taking ticagrelor is a concern, Ofer Jacobowitz, MD, PhD, associate professor of otolaryngology at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y, said in an interview.

Study author continues to prescribe ticagrelor

One of the study authors, Philippe Meurin, MD, said that he continues to prescribe ticagrelor every day and that the side effect is not necessarily important. 
It is possible that central sleep apnea may resolve, although further studies would need to examine central sleep apnea over time to establish the duration of the condition, he added. Nevertheless, awareness of the association could have implications for clinical practice, Dr. Meurin said.
Central sleep apnea is rare, and if doctors detect it during a sleep study, they may perform extensive tests to assess for possible neurologic diseases, for example, when the cause may be attributed to the medication, he said. In addition, if a patient who is taking ticagrelor has dyspnea, the presence of central sleep apnea may suggest that dyspnea could be related to the drug, although this possibility needs further study, he noted.

Study included patients with ACS history, but no heart failure

Dr. Meurin, of Centre de Réadaptation Cardiaque de La Brie, Les Grands Prés, Villeneuve-Saint-Denis, France, and colleagues included in their study patients between 1 week and 1 year after acute coronary syndrome who did not have heart failure or a history of sleep apnea.
After an overnight sleep study, they classified patients as normal, as having CSAHS (i.e., an apnea-hypopnea index of 15 or greater, mostly with central sleep apneas), or as having obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS; i.e., an apnea-hypopnea index of 15 or greater, mostly with obstructive sleep apneas).
The prospective study included 121 consecutive patients between January 2018 and March 2020. Patients had a mean age of 56.8, and 88% were men.

Switching to another P2Y12 inhibitor ‘does not seem appropriate’

“CSAHS could be promoted by the use of ticagrelor, a relatively new drug that modifies the apneic threshold,” the study authors wrote. “Regarding underlying mechanisms, the most probable explanation seems to be increased chemosensitivity to hypercapnia by a direct P2Y12 inhibitory effect on the central nervous system.”
Doctors should not overestimate the severity of the adverse reaction or consider it the same way they do OSASH, they added. 
Among patients with acute coronary syndrome in the PLATO study, ticagrelor, compared with clopidogrel, “significantly reduced the rate of death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke,” Dr. Meurin and colleagues said. “Because in this study more than 9,000 patients received ticagrelor for 12 months, CSAHS (even if it seems frequent in our study) did not seem to impair the good efficacy/tolerance balance of the drug. Therefore, in asymptomatic CSAHS patients, switching from ticagrelor to another P2Y12 inhibitor does not seem appropriate.”
A recent analysis of data from randomized, controlled trials with ticagrelor did not find excess cases of sleep apnea with the drug. But an asymptomatic adverse event such as central sleep apnea “cannot emerge from a post hoc analysis,” Dr. Meurin and colleagues said.
The analysis of randomized trial data was conducted by Marc S. Sabatine, MD, MPH, chairman of the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) Study Group at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and coauthors. It was published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions in April 2020.
They “used the gold standard for medical evidence (randomized, placebo-controlled trials) and found 158 cases of sleep apnea reported, with absolutely no difference between ticagrelor and placebo,” Dr. Sabatine said in an interview. Their analysis examined clinically overt apnea, he noted.
“It is quite clear that when looking at large numbers in placebo-controlled trials, there is no excess,” Dr. Sabatine said. “Meurin et al. are examining a different outcome: the results of a lab test in what may be entirely asymptomatic patients.”
A randomized trial could confirm the association, he said.
“The association may be real, but also may be play of chance or confounded,” said Dr. Sabatine. “To convince the medical community, the next step would be for the investigators to do a randomized trial and test whether ticagrelor increases the risk of central sleep apnea.”
Dr. Meurin and the study coauthors had no disclosures. The analysis of randomized, controlled trial data by Dr. Sabatine and colleagues was funded by AstraZeneca, which distributes ticagrelor under the trade name Brilinta. Dr. Sabatine has been a consultant for AstraZeneca and received research grants through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from AstraZeneca. He has consulted for and received grants through the hospital from other companies as well. Dr. Jacobowitz had no relevant disclosures.
jremaly@mdedge.com 

Among ob.gyns. who reported burnout in the past year, 82% say they felt burned out before the advent of the coronavirus pandemic, according the Medscape Obstetrician & Gynecologist Lifestyle, Happiness, & Burnout Report.

The past year brought unusual challenges to physicians in all specialties in different ways.

“Whether on the front lines of treating COVID-19 patients, pivoting from in-person to virtual care, or even having to shutter their practices, physicians faced an onslaught of crises, while political tensions, social unrest, and environmental concerns probably affected their lives outside of medicine,” wrote Keith L. Martin and Mary Lyn Koval, both of Medscape Business of Medicine, in the introduction to the report.

Although more physicians said their burnout began prior to the pandemic, 81% of ob.gyns. reported that they were happy outside of work prior to the pandemic. However, those reporting happiness outside of work dropped to 57% after the pandemic started.

“One does not have to do a ‘deep dive’ to understand the top reasons reported for burnout,” said Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of Fertility CARE: The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, in an interview. “Many conversations I have with colleagues are about the frustration of learning and managing electronic health records, insurance reimbursements, and a work-life balance. In addition, more physician practices are being purchased by hospitals or private-equity networks [that are] reducing and/or eliminating the autonomy of physicians.

“While all [respondents] exhibited a dramatic decline in ‘happiness’ prepandemic, compared with our current situation, ob.gyns. were no exception,” he added.

Burnout and suicidal thoughts

Overall, 26% of ob.gyn. survey respondents reported being burned out, 6% reported being depressed, and 18% reported being both burned out and depressed. Of those who reported burnout, 52% said burnout had “a strong or severe impact on my life,” while 20% reported a moderate impact and 28% reported little or no impact.

More than half (56%) of ob.gyns. who reported either depression or burnout said they had not sought professional help, although 17% reported receiving professional care in the past.

The main reason given for not seeking professional help was that burnout and depressive symptoms were not severe enough to merit it, according to 50% of respondents who reported burnout or depression but were not seeking help. In addition, 43% said they were too busy to seek help, 36% said they could deal with their symptoms without professional help, and 24% said they did not want to risk disclosure of their symptoms.

The most common cause of burnout was an overload of bureaucratic tasks, reported by 52% of respondents, followed by “lack of respect from administrators/employers, colleagues, or staff” (43%), and insufficient compensation or reimbursement (39%).

Notably, 19% of ob.gyns. reported suicidal thoughts, and 1% said they had attempted suicide.

“The most concerning statistic from this survey was in reference to suicidal ideation,” said Dr. Trolice. “Approximately one in five ob.gyns. have contemplated suicide, compared with 4.8% of adults age 18 and older in the U.S. reporting in 2019.”

Dr. Trolice said he was not surprised that relatively few ob.gyns. sought help for mental health issues. “Physicians are very private and usually do not seek help from colleagues, presumably from hubris. While this is unfortunate, all hospitals and health care organization should implement regular assessments of physicians’ health to ensure optimal performance from a professional and personal basis.”
 

Balance and self-care

The top workplace concern, by a large margin, was for work-life balance, reported by 44% of respondents, followed by compensation (19%), combining work and parenting (18%), and relationships with staff and colleagues (8%).

Approximately one-third (36%) of the ob.gyn. respondents said they made time to focus on personal well-being, compared with 35% of physicians overall. Although only 13% reported exercising every day, a total of 69% exercised at least twice a week, similar to the 70% of physicians overall who reported exercising at least twice a week.

“Work-life balance is high on the list of concerns, but physicians are split 50/50 on whether they would accept a salary reduction to improve this aspect of their lives,” Dr. Trolice said.

“Social relationships are a proven value to mental health, yet nearly 50% of ob.gyns. who reported feeling burnout use isolationism as their coping skill, citing a lack of severity to require treatment,” he noted. Nevertheless, more than 80% of responders were married and described their relationship as “good or very good.”

Address burnout at individual and organizational levels

“Sadly, the findings are not surprising,” said Iris Krisha, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, in an interview. “Burnout rates have been steadily increasing among physicians across all specialties.” Barriers to reducing burnout exist at the organizational and individual level, therefore strategies to reduce burnout should address individual and organizational solutions, Dr. Krishna emphasized. “At the organizational level, solutions may include developing manageable workloads, creating fair productivity targets, encouraging physician engagement in work structure, supporting flexible work schedules, and allowing for protected time for education and exercise. On the individual level, physicians can work to develop stress management strategies, engage in mindfulness and self-care.”

To reduce the burden of bureaucratic tasks, “health care organizations can work toward optimizing electronic medical records and hire staff to offload clerical work, and physicians can seek training in efficiency,” said Dr. Krishna. In addition, “health care organizations can reduce the stigma that may surround burnout or mental health issues, as well as promote a culture of wellness and resilience,” to help reduce and prevent burnout.  
 

Find positivity and purpose

Improving the workplace experience so physicians feel engaged and in control as they navigate their many responsibilities may help reduce burnout, said Dr. Trolice. On the individual level, “finding your purpose to give you more meaning at work, discovering the power of hope to embrace optimism, and building friendships at work for greater engagement with others,” can help as well.

“In the face of adversity and setbacks, people in happier workplaces tend to be better at coping with and recovering from work pressure and at reconciling conflict,” Dr. Trolice emphasized. “The practice of medicine has dramatically changed for many physicians compared with the original expectations when they applied to medical school. Nevertheless, it behooves physician to adapt to 21^st century medical care as they remind themselves of their purpose.”

The report included responses from 12,339 physicians across 29 specialties who completed a 10-minute online survey between Aug. 30 and Nov. 5, 2020. Participants were required to be practicing U.S. physicians.

Among ob.gyns. who reported burnout in the past year, 82% say they felt burned out before the advent of the coronavirus pandemic, according the Medscape Obstetrician & Gynecologist Lifestyle, Happiness, & Burnout Report.

The past year brought unusual challenges to physicians in all specialties in different ways.

“Whether on the front lines of treating COVID-19 patients, pivoting from in-person to virtual care, or even having to shutter their practices, physicians faced an onslaught of crises, while political tensions, social unrest, and environmental concerns probably affected their lives outside of medicine,” wrote Keith L. Martin and Mary Lyn Koval, both of Medscape Business of Medicine, in the introduction to the report.

Although more physicians said their burnout began prior to the pandemic, 81% of ob.gyns. reported that they were happy outside of work prior to the pandemic. However, those reporting happiness outside of work dropped to 57% after the pandemic started.

“One does not have to do a ‘deep dive’ to understand the top reasons reported for burnout,” said Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of Fertility CARE: The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, in an interview. “Many conversations I have with colleagues are about the frustration of learning and managing electronic health records, insurance reimbursements, and a work-life balance. In addition, more physician practices are being purchased by hospitals or private-equity networks [that are] reducing and/or eliminating the autonomy of physicians.

“While all [respondents] exhibited a dramatic decline in ‘happiness’ prepandemic, compared with our current situation, ob.gyns. were no exception,” he added.

Burnout and suicidal thoughts

Overall, 26% of ob.gyn. survey respondents reported being burned out, 6% reported being depressed, and 18% reported being both burned out and depressed. Of those who reported burnout, 52% said burnout had “a strong or severe impact on my life,” while 20% reported a moderate impact and 28% reported little or no impact.

More than half (56%) of ob.gyns. who reported either depression or burnout said they had not sought professional help, although 17% reported receiving professional care in the past.

The main reason given for not seeking professional help was that burnout and depressive symptoms were not severe enough to merit it, according to 50% of respondents who reported burnout or depression but were not seeking help. In addition, 43% said they were too busy to seek help, 36% said they could deal with their symptoms without professional help, and 24% said they did not want to risk disclosure of their symptoms.

The most common cause of burnout was an overload of bureaucratic tasks, reported by 52% of respondents, followed by “lack of respect from administrators/employers, colleagues, or staff” (43%), and insufficient compensation or reimbursement (39%).

Notably, 19% of ob.gyns. reported suicidal thoughts, and 1% said they had attempted suicide.

“The most concerning statistic from this survey was in reference to suicidal ideation,” said Dr. Trolice. “Approximately one in five ob.gyns. have contemplated suicide, compared with 4.8% of adults age 18 and older in the U.S. reporting in 2019.”

Dr. Trolice said he was not surprised that relatively few ob.gyns. sought help for mental health issues. “Physicians are very private and usually do not seek help from colleagues, presumably from hubris. While this is unfortunate, all hospitals and health care organization should implement regular assessments of physicians’ health to ensure optimal performance from a professional and personal basis.”
 

Balance and self-care

The top workplace concern, by a large margin, was for work-life balance, reported by 44% of respondents, followed by compensation (19%), combining work and parenting (18%), and relationships with staff and colleagues (8%).

Approximately one-third (36%) of the ob.gyn. respondents said they made time to focus on personal well-being, compared with 35% of physicians overall. Although only 13% reported exercising every day, a total of 69% exercised at least twice a week, similar to the 70% of physicians overall who reported exercising at least twice a week.

“Work-life balance is high on the list of concerns, but physicians are split 50/50 on whether they would accept a salary reduction to improve this aspect of their lives,” Dr. Trolice said.

“Social relationships are a proven value to mental health, yet nearly 50% of ob.gyns. who reported feeling burnout use isolationism as their coping skill, citing a lack of severity to require treatment,” he noted. Nevertheless, more than 80% of responders were married and described their relationship as “good or very good.”

Address burnout at individual and organizational levels

“Sadly, the findings are not surprising,” said Iris Krisha, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, in an interview. “Burnout rates have been steadily increasing among physicians across all specialties.” Barriers to reducing burnout exist at the organizational and individual level, therefore strategies to reduce burnout should address individual and organizational solutions, Dr. Krishna emphasized. “At the organizational level, solutions may include developing manageable workloads, creating fair productivity targets, encouraging physician engagement in work structure, supporting flexible work schedules, and allowing for protected time for education and exercise. On the individual level, physicians can work to develop stress management strategies, engage in mindfulness and self-care.”

To reduce the burden of bureaucratic tasks, “health care organizations can work toward optimizing electronic medical records and hire staff to offload clerical work, and physicians can seek training in efficiency,” said Dr. Krishna. In addition, “health care organizations can reduce the stigma that may surround burnout or mental health issues, as well as promote a culture of wellness and resilience,” to help reduce and prevent burnout.  
 

Find positivity and purpose

Improving the workplace experience so physicians feel engaged and in control as they navigate their many responsibilities may help reduce burnout, said Dr. Trolice. On the individual level, “finding your purpose to give you more meaning at work, discovering the power of hope to embrace optimism, and building friendships at work for greater engagement with others,” can help as well.

“In the face of adversity and setbacks, people in happier workplaces tend to be better at coping with and recovering from work pressure and at reconciling conflict,” Dr. Trolice emphasized. “The practice of medicine has dramatically changed for many physicians compared with the original expectations when they applied to medical school. Nevertheless, it behooves physician to adapt to 21^st century medical care as they remind themselves of their purpose.”

The report included responses from 12,339 physicians across 29 specialties who completed a 10-minute online survey between Aug. 30 and Nov. 5, 2020. Participants were required to be practicing U.S. physicians.

Among ob.gyns. who reported burnout in the past year, 82% say they felt burned out before the advent of the coronavirus pandemic, according the Medscape Obstetrician & Gynecologist Lifestyle, Happiness, & Burnout Report.

The past year brought unusual challenges to physicians in all specialties in different ways.

“Whether on the front lines of treating COVID-19 patients, pivoting from in-person to virtual care, or even having to shutter their practices, physicians faced an onslaught of crises, while political tensions, social unrest, and environmental concerns probably affected their lives outside of medicine,” wrote Keith L. Martin and Mary Lyn Koval, both of Medscape Business of Medicine, in the introduction to the report.

Although more physicians said their burnout began prior to the pandemic, 81% of ob.gyns. reported that they were happy outside of work prior to the pandemic. However, those reporting happiness outside of work dropped to 57% after the pandemic started.

“One does not have to do a ‘deep dive’ to understand the top reasons reported for burnout,” said Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of Fertility CARE: The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, in an interview. “Many conversations I have with colleagues are about the frustration of learning and managing electronic health records, insurance reimbursements, and a work-life balance. In addition, more physician practices are being purchased by hospitals or private-equity networks [that are] reducing and/or eliminating the autonomy of physicians.

“While all [respondents] exhibited a dramatic decline in ‘happiness’ prepandemic, compared with our current situation, ob.gyns. were no exception,” he added.

Burnout and suicidal thoughts

Overall, 26% of ob.gyn. survey respondents reported being burned out, 6% reported being depressed, and 18% reported being both burned out and depressed. Of those who reported burnout, 52% said burnout had “a strong or severe impact on my life,” while 20% reported a moderate impact and 28% reported little or no impact.

More than half (56%) of ob.gyns. who reported either depression or burnout said they had not sought professional help, although 17% reported receiving professional care in the past.

The main reason given for not seeking professional help was that burnout and depressive symptoms were not severe enough to merit it, according to 50% of respondents who reported burnout or depression but were not seeking help. In addition, 43% said they were too busy to seek help, 36% said they could deal with their symptoms without professional help, and 24% said they did not want to risk disclosure of their symptoms.

The most common cause of burnout was an overload of bureaucratic tasks, reported by 52% of respondents, followed by “lack of respect from administrators/employers, colleagues, or staff” (43%), and insufficient compensation or reimbursement (39%).

Notably, 19% of ob.gyns. reported suicidal thoughts, and 1% said they had attempted suicide.

“The most concerning statistic from this survey was in reference to suicidal ideation,” said Dr. Trolice. “Approximately one in five ob.gyns. have contemplated suicide, compared with 4.8% of adults age 18 and older in the U.S. reporting in 2019.”

Dr. Trolice said he was not surprised that relatively few ob.gyns. sought help for mental health issues. “Physicians are very private and usually do not seek help from colleagues, presumably from hubris. While this is unfortunate, all hospitals and health care organization should implement regular assessments of physicians’ health to ensure optimal performance from a professional and personal basis.”
 

Balance and self-care

The top workplace concern, by a large margin, was for work-life balance, reported by 44% of respondents, followed by compensation (19%), combining work and parenting (18%), and relationships with staff and colleagues (8%).

Approximately one-third (36%) of the ob.gyn. respondents said they made time to focus on personal well-being, compared with 35% of physicians overall. Although only 13% reported exercising every day, a total of 69% exercised at least twice a week, similar to the 70% of physicians overall who reported exercising at least twice a week.

“Work-life balance is high on the list of concerns, but physicians are split 50/50 on whether they would accept a salary reduction to improve this aspect of their lives,” Dr. Trolice said.

“Social relationships are a proven value to mental health, yet nearly 50% of ob.gyns. who reported feeling burnout use isolationism as their coping skill, citing a lack of severity to require treatment,” he noted. Nevertheless, more than 80% of responders were married and described their relationship as “good or very good.”

Address burnout at individual and organizational levels

“Sadly, the findings are not surprising,” said Iris Krisha, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, in an interview. “Burnout rates have been steadily increasing among physicians across all specialties.” Barriers to reducing burnout exist at the organizational and individual level, therefore strategies to reduce burnout should address individual and organizational solutions, Dr. Krishna emphasized. “At the organizational level, solutions may include developing manageable workloads, creating fair productivity targets, encouraging physician engagement in work structure, supporting flexible work schedules, and allowing for protected time for education and exercise. On the individual level, physicians can work to develop stress management strategies, engage in mindfulness and self-care.”

To reduce the burden of bureaucratic tasks, “health care organizations can work toward optimizing electronic medical records and hire staff to offload clerical work, and physicians can seek training in efficiency,” said Dr. Krishna. In addition, “health care organizations can reduce the stigma that may surround burnout or mental health issues, as well as promote a culture of wellness and resilience,” to help reduce and prevent burnout.  
 

Find positivity and purpose

Improving the workplace experience so physicians feel engaged and in control as they navigate their many responsibilities may help reduce burnout, said Dr. Trolice. On the individual level, “finding your purpose to give you more meaning at work, discovering the power of hope to embrace optimism, and building friendships at work for greater engagement with others,” can help as well.

“In the face of adversity and setbacks, people in happier workplaces tend to be better at coping with and recovering from work pressure and at reconciling conflict,” Dr. Trolice emphasized. “The practice of medicine has dramatically changed for many physicians compared with the original expectations when they applied to medical school. Nevertheless, it behooves physician to adapt to 21^st century medical care as they remind themselves of their purpose.”

The report included responses from 12,339 physicians across 29 specialties who completed a 10-minute online survey between Aug. 30 and Nov. 5, 2020. Participants were required to be practicing U.S. physicians.

People with rheumatic diseases should get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 as soon as possible, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) recommends.

Choreograph/iStock/Getty Images

“It may be that people with rheumatic diseases are at increased risk of developing COVID or serious COVID-related complications,” Jonathan Hausmann, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an ACR podcast. “So the need to prevent COVID-19 is incredibly important in this group of patients.”

The guidelines recommend a delay in vaccination only in rare circumstances, such as for patients with very severe illness or who have recently been administered rituximab, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, MPH, lead author of the guidelines, said in the podcast.

“Our members have been inundated with questions and concerns from their patients on whether they should receive the vaccine,” ACR President David Karp, MD, PhD, said in a press release.

So the ACR convened a panel of nine rheumatologists, two infectious disease specialists, and two public health experts. Over the course of 8 weeks, the task force reviewed the literature and agreed on recommendations. The organization posted a summary of the guidelines on its website after its board of directors approved it Feb. 8. The paper is pending journal peer review.
 

Some risks are real

The task force confined its research to the COVID-19 vaccines being offered by Pfizer and Moderna because they are currently the only ones approved by the Food and Drug Administration. It found no reason to distinguish between the two vaccines in its recommendations.

Because little research has directly addressed the question concerning COVID-19 vaccination for patients with rheumatic diseases, the task force extrapolated from data on other vaccinations in people with rheumatic disease and on the COVID-19 vaccinations in other populations.

It analyzed reports that other types of vaccination, such as for influenza, triggered flares of rheumatic conditions. “It is really individual case reports or small cohorts where there may be a somewhat higher incidence of flare, but it’s usually not very large in its magnitude nor duration,” said Dr. Curtis of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The task force also considered the possibility that vaccinations could lead to a new autoimmune disorder, such as Guillain-Barré syndrome or Bell palsy. The risk is real, the task force decided, but not significant enough to influence their recommendations.

Likewise, in immunocompromised people, vaccinations with live virus, such as those for shingles, might trigger the infection the vaccination is meant to prevent. But this can’t happen with the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines because they contain messenger RNA instead of live viruses, Dr. Curtis said.

Courtesy University of Alabama at Birmingham

How well does it work?

One unanswered question is whether the COVID-19 vaccines work as well for patients with rheumatic diseases. The task force was reassured by data showing efficacy across a range of subgroups, including some with immunosenescence, Dr. Curtis said. “But until we have data in rheumatology patients, we’re just not going to know,” he said.

The guidelines specify that some drug regimens be modified when patients are vaccinated.

For patients taking rituximab, vaccination should be delayed, but only for those who are able to maintain safe social distancing to reduce the risk for COVID-19 exposure, Dr. Curtis said. “If somebody has just gotten rituximab recently, it might be more ideal to complete the vaccine series about 2-4 weeks before the next rituximab dose,” he said. “So if you are giving that therapy, say, at 6-month intervals, if you could vaccinate them at around month 5 from the most recent rituximab cycle, that might be more ideal.”

The guidance calls for withholding JAK inhibitors for a week after each vaccine dose is administered.

It calls for holding SQ abatacept 1 week prior and 1 week after the first COVID-19 vaccine dose, with no interruption after the second dose.

For abatacept IV, clinicians should “time vaccine administration so that the first vaccination will occur 4 weeks after abatacept infusion (i.e., the entire dosing interval), and postpone the subsequent abatacept infusion by 1 week (i.e., a 5-week gap in total).” It recommends no medication adjustment for the second vaccine dose.

For cyclophosphamide, the guidance recommends timing administration to occur about a week after each vaccine dose, when feasible.

None of this advice should supersede clinical judgment, Dr. Curtis said.

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

People with rheumatic diseases should get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 as soon as possible, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) recommends.

Choreograph/iStock/Getty Images

“It may be that people with rheumatic diseases are at increased risk of developing COVID or serious COVID-related complications,” Jonathan Hausmann, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an ACR podcast. “So the need to prevent COVID-19 is incredibly important in this group of patients.”

The guidelines recommend a delay in vaccination only in rare circumstances, such as for patients with very severe illness or who have recently been administered rituximab, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, MPH, lead author of the guidelines, said in the podcast.

“Our members have been inundated with questions and concerns from their patients on whether they should receive the vaccine,” ACR President David Karp, MD, PhD, said in a press release.

So the ACR convened a panel of nine rheumatologists, two infectious disease specialists, and two public health experts. Over the course of 8 weeks, the task force reviewed the literature and agreed on recommendations. The organization posted a summary of the guidelines on its website after its board of directors approved it Feb. 8. The paper is pending journal peer review.
 

Some risks are real

The task force confined its research to the COVID-19 vaccines being offered by Pfizer and Moderna because they are currently the only ones approved by the Food and Drug Administration. It found no reason to distinguish between the two vaccines in its recommendations.

Because little research has directly addressed the question concerning COVID-19 vaccination for patients with rheumatic diseases, the task force extrapolated from data on other vaccinations in people with rheumatic disease and on the COVID-19 vaccinations in other populations.

It analyzed reports that other types of vaccination, such as for influenza, triggered flares of rheumatic conditions. “It is really individual case reports or small cohorts where there may be a somewhat higher incidence of flare, but it’s usually not very large in its magnitude nor duration,” said Dr. Curtis of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The task force also considered the possibility that vaccinations could lead to a new autoimmune disorder, such as Guillain-Barré syndrome or Bell palsy. The risk is real, the task force decided, but not significant enough to influence their recommendations.

Likewise, in immunocompromised people, vaccinations with live virus, such as those for shingles, might trigger the infection the vaccination is meant to prevent. But this can’t happen with the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines because they contain messenger RNA instead of live viruses, Dr. Curtis said.

Courtesy University of Alabama at Birmingham

How well does it work?

One unanswered question is whether the COVID-19 vaccines work as well for patients with rheumatic diseases. The task force was reassured by data showing efficacy across a range of subgroups, including some with immunosenescence, Dr. Curtis said. “But until we have data in rheumatology patients, we’re just not going to know,” he said.

The guidelines specify that some drug regimens be modified when patients are vaccinated.

For patients taking rituximab, vaccination should be delayed, but only for those who are able to maintain safe social distancing to reduce the risk for COVID-19 exposure, Dr. Curtis said. “If somebody has just gotten rituximab recently, it might be more ideal to complete the vaccine series about 2-4 weeks before the next rituximab dose,” he said. “So if you are giving that therapy, say, at 6-month intervals, if you could vaccinate them at around month 5 from the most recent rituximab cycle, that might be more ideal.”

The guidance calls for withholding JAK inhibitors for a week after each vaccine dose is administered.

It calls for holding SQ abatacept 1 week prior and 1 week after the first COVID-19 vaccine dose, with no interruption after the second dose.

For abatacept IV, clinicians should “time vaccine administration so that the first vaccination will occur 4 weeks after abatacept infusion (i.e., the entire dosing interval), and postpone the subsequent abatacept infusion by 1 week (i.e., a 5-week gap in total).” It recommends no medication adjustment for the second vaccine dose.

For cyclophosphamide, the guidance recommends timing administration to occur about a week after each vaccine dose, when feasible.

None of this advice should supersede clinical judgment, Dr. Curtis said.

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

People with rheumatic diseases should get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 as soon as possible, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) recommends.

Choreograph/iStock/Getty Images

“It may be that people with rheumatic diseases are at increased risk of developing COVID or serious COVID-related complications,” Jonathan Hausmann, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an ACR podcast. “So the need to prevent COVID-19 is incredibly important in this group of patients.”

The guidelines recommend a delay in vaccination only in rare circumstances, such as for patients with very severe illness or who have recently been administered rituximab, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, MPH, lead author of the guidelines, said in the podcast.

“Our members have been inundated with questions and concerns from their patients on whether they should receive the vaccine,” ACR President David Karp, MD, PhD, said in a press release.

So the ACR convened a panel of nine rheumatologists, two infectious disease specialists, and two public health experts. Over the course of 8 weeks, the task force reviewed the literature and agreed on recommendations. The organization posted a summary of the guidelines on its website after its board of directors approved it Feb. 8. The paper is pending journal peer review.
 

Some risks are real

The task force confined its research to the COVID-19 vaccines being offered by Pfizer and Moderna because they are currently the only ones approved by the Food and Drug Administration. It found no reason to distinguish between the two vaccines in its recommendations.

Because little research has directly addressed the question concerning COVID-19 vaccination for patients with rheumatic diseases, the task force extrapolated from data on other vaccinations in people with rheumatic disease and on the COVID-19 vaccinations in other populations.

It analyzed reports that other types of vaccination, such as for influenza, triggered flares of rheumatic conditions. “It is really individual case reports or small cohorts where there may be a somewhat higher incidence of flare, but it’s usually not very large in its magnitude nor duration,” said Dr. Curtis of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The task force also considered the possibility that vaccinations could lead to a new autoimmune disorder, such as Guillain-Barré syndrome or Bell palsy. The risk is real, the task force decided, but not significant enough to influence their recommendations.

Likewise, in immunocompromised people, vaccinations with live virus, such as those for shingles, might trigger the infection the vaccination is meant to prevent. But this can’t happen with the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines because they contain messenger RNA instead of live viruses, Dr. Curtis said.

Courtesy University of Alabama at Birmingham

How well does it work?

One unanswered question is whether the COVID-19 vaccines work as well for patients with rheumatic diseases. The task force was reassured by data showing efficacy across a range of subgroups, including some with immunosenescence, Dr. Curtis said. “But until we have data in rheumatology patients, we’re just not going to know,” he said.

The guidelines specify that some drug regimens be modified when patients are vaccinated.

For patients taking rituximab, vaccination should be delayed, but only for those who are able to maintain safe social distancing to reduce the risk for COVID-19 exposure, Dr. Curtis said. “If somebody has just gotten rituximab recently, it might be more ideal to complete the vaccine series about 2-4 weeks before the next rituximab dose,” he said. “So if you are giving that therapy, say, at 6-month intervals, if you could vaccinate them at around month 5 from the most recent rituximab cycle, that might be more ideal.”

The guidance calls for withholding JAK inhibitors for a week after each vaccine dose is administered.

It calls for holding SQ abatacept 1 week prior and 1 week after the first COVID-19 vaccine dose, with no interruption after the second dose.

For abatacept IV, clinicians should “time vaccine administration so that the first vaccination will occur 4 weeks after abatacept infusion (i.e., the entire dosing interval), and postpone the subsequent abatacept infusion by 1 week (i.e., a 5-week gap in total).” It recommends no medication adjustment for the second vaccine dose.

For cyclophosphamide, the guidance recommends timing administration to occur about a week after each vaccine dose, when feasible.

None of this advice should supersede clinical judgment, Dr. Curtis said.

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

Events of the past year have taken a huge toll on the happiness, wellness, and lifestyles of many, but especially those in the health care field, including psychiatrists.

olm26250/Thinkstock

The newly released Medscape Psychiatrist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2021 reveals how psychiatrists are coping with burnout and trying to maintain personal wellness, and how they view their workplaces and their futures amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Before the pandemic hit in March 2020, 84% of psychiatrists who responded to the survey reported being happy outside of work, similar to the percentage (82%) of physicians overall.

But as the pandemic has worn on, feelings have shifted, and there are clear signs of strain on those in the health care field. Now, just over half (55%) of psychiatrists say they are happy outside of work, similar to the percentage (58%) of physicians overall.

Perhaps not surprising given the specific challenges of COVID-19, infectious disease physicians, pulmonologists, rheumatologists, and intensivists currently rank lowest in happiness outside of work.
 

Anxiety, depression, burnout

With the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, more than three quarters (77%) of psychiatrists surveyed report experiencing some degree of anxiety about their future, the same percentage as for physicians overall.

This year, more psychiatrists reported being either burned out or burned out and depressed (41% vs. 35% last year). About two-thirds of psychiatrists said burnout has had at least a moderate impact on their lives; 5% consider the impact so severe that they are thinking of leaving medicine altogether.

The majority of burned-out psychiatrists (63%) said they felt that way even before the pandemic began; for about one-third (37%), burnout set in after the pandemic began.

The top factor contributing to burnout among psychiatrists is too many bureaucratic tasks (62%), followed by lack of respect from colleagues in the workplace (39%) and spending too many hours at work (37%).

Psychiatrists’ top tactic to cope with burnout is talking with family or friends (53%), followed by isolating themselves from others (51%), sleeping (45%), and exercising (43%); 42% said they eat junk food to cope; 35% play music; and 25% drink alcohol.

Most psychiatrists (63%) suffering burnout and/or depression don’t plan on seeking professional help. About one-third are currently seeking help or plan to do so, the highest proportion among all specialties.

Considering their symptoms not severe enough (57%) and feeling that they could deal with the problem on their own (41%) are the top reasons for not seeking professional help; 36% said they were too busy to get help, and 17% said they didn’t want to risk disclosing a problem.

Fifteen percent of psychiatrists who are burned out, depressed, or both have contemplated suicide, and 2% have attempted suicide.
 

Striving for work-life balance

Work-life balance is the most pressing workplace issue for 45% of psychiatrists, and 44% would sacrifice some of their salary for better work-life balance. These figures are about the same for physicians overall.

Forty-seven percent of psychiatrists take 3-4 weeks of vacation each year; 16% take 5 or more weeks. In this there was no change from last year’s report.

About one-third (35%) of psychiatrists generally make time to focus on their own well-being, the same proportion as physicians overall.

About two-thirds (68%) of psychiatrists exercise two or more times per week. Half of psychiatrists said they are currently trying to lose weight; about one-quarter are trying to maintain their current weight.

About one-quarter (26%) of psychiatrists said they do not drink alcohol at all; 17% have five or more drinks per week.

Most psychiatrists are currently in a committed relationship, with 81% either married or living with a partner. Among psychiatrists who are married or living with a partner, 43% are with someone who also works in medicine. About 81% of psychiatrists say their marriages are very good or good. These percentages are similar to those of physicians overall (85%).

Most psychiatrists (58%) spend up to 10 hours per week online for personal reasons; 82% spend this amount of time online each week for work.

It’s likely that the amount of time spent online for work will increase, given the pandemic-fueled surge in telemedicine. Yet even when their personal and professional Internet use are combined, psychiatrists, on average, spend far less time online than the nearly 7 hours per day of the average Internet user, according to recent data.

Findings from the latest happiness, wellness, and lifestyle survey are based on 12,339 Medscape member physicians practicing in the United States who completed an online survey conducted between Aug. 30 and Nov. 5, 2020.

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

Events of the past year have taken a huge toll on the happiness, wellness, and lifestyles of many, but especially those in the health care field, including psychiatrists.

olm26250/Thinkstock

The newly released Medscape Psychiatrist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2021 reveals how psychiatrists are coping with burnout and trying to maintain personal wellness, and how they view their workplaces and their futures amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Before the pandemic hit in March 2020, 84% of psychiatrists who responded to the survey reported being happy outside of work, similar to the percentage (82%) of physicians overall.

But as the pandemic has worn on, feelings have shifted, and there are clear signs of strain on those in the health care field. Now, just over half (55%) of psychiatrists say they are happy outside of work, similar to the percentage (58%) of physicians overall.

Perhaps not surprising given the specific challenges of COVID-19, infectious disease physicians, pulmonologists, rheumatologists, and intensivists currently rank lowest in happiness outside of work.
 

Anxiety, depression, burnout

With the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, more than three quarters (77%) of psychiatrists surveyed report experiencing some degree of anxiety about their future, the same percentage as for physicians overall.

This year, more psychiatrists reported being either burned out or burned out and depressed (41% vs. 35% last year). About two-thirds of psychiatrists said burnout has had at least a moderate impact on their lives; 5% consider the impact so severe that they are thinking of leaving medicine altogether.

The majority of burned-out psychiatrists (63%) said they felt that way even before the pandemic began; for about one-third (37%), burnout set in after the pandemic began.

The top factor contributing to burnout among psychiatrists is too many bureaucratic tasks (62%), followed by lack of respect from colleagues in the workplace (39%) and spending too many hours at work (37%).

Psychiatrists’ top tactic to cope with burnout is talking with family or friends (53%), followed by isolating themselves from others (51%), sleeping (45%), and exercising (43%); 42% said they eat junk food to cope; 35% play music; and 25% drink alcohol.

Most psychiatrists (63%) suffering burnout and/or depression don’t plan on seeking professional help. About one-third are currently seeking help or plan to do so, the highest proportion among all specialties.

Considering their symptoms not severe enough (57%) and feeling that they could deal with the problem on their own (41%) are the top reasons for not seeking professional help; 36% said they were too busy to get help, and 17% said they didn’t want to risk disclosing a problem.

Fifteen percent of psychiatrists who are burned out, depressed, or both have contemplated suicide, and 2% have attempted suicide.
 

Striving for work-life balance

Work-life balance is the most pressing workplace issue for 45% of psychiatrists, and 44% would sacrifice some of their salary for better work-life balance. These figures are about the same for physicians overall.

Forty-seven percent of psychiatrists take 3-4 weeks of vacation each year; 16% take 5 or more weeks. In this there was no change from last year’s report.

About one-third (35%) of psychiatrists generally make time to focus on their own well-being, the same proportion as physicians overall.

About two-thirds (68%) of psychiatrists exercise two or more times per week. Half of psychiatrists said they are currently trying to lose weight; about one-quarter are trying to maintain their current weight.

About one-quarter (26%) of psychiatrists said they do not drink alcohol at all; 17% have five or more drinks per week.

Most psychiatrists are currently in a committed relationship, with 81% either married or living with a partner. Among psychiatrists who are married or living with a partner, 43% are with someone who also works in medicine. About 81% of psychiatrists say their marriages are very good or good. These percentages are similar to those of physicians overall (85%).

Most psychiatrists (58%) spend up to 10 hours per week online for personal reasons; 82% spend this amount of time online each week for work.

It’s likely that the amount of time spent online for work will increase, given the pandemic-fueled surge in telemedicine. Yet even when their personal and professional Internet use are combined, psychiatrists, on average, spend far less time online than the nearly 7 hours per day of the average Internet user, according to recent data.

Findings from the latest happiness, wellness, and lifestyle survey are based on 12,339 Medscape member physicians practicing in the United States who completed an online survey conducted between Aug. 30 and Nov. 5, 2020.

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

Events of the past year have taken a huge toll on the happiness, wellness, and lifestyles of many, but especially those in the health care field, including psychiatrists.

olm26250/Thinkstock

The newly released Medscape Psychiatrist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2021 reveals how psychiatrists are coping with burnout and trying to maintain personal wellness, and how they view their workplaces and their futures amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Before the pandemic hit in March 2020, 84% of psychiatrists who responded to the survey reported being happy outside of work, similar to the percentage (82%) of physicians overall.

But as the pandemic has worn on, feelings have shifted, and there are clear signs of strain on those in the health care field. Now, just over half (55%) of psychiatrists say they are happy outside of work, similar to the percentage (58%) of physicians overall.

Perhaps not surprising given the specific challenges of COVID-19, infectious disease physicians, pulmonologists, rheumatologists, and intensivists currently rank lowest in happiness outside of work.
 

Anxiety, depression, burnout

With the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, more than three quarters (77%) of psychiatrists surveyed report experiencing some degree of anxiety about their future, the same percentage as for physicians overall.

This year, more psychiatrists reported being either burned out or burned out and depressed (41% vs. 35% last year). About two-thirds of psychiatrists said burnout has had at least a moderate impact on their lives; 5% consider the impact so severe that they are thinking of leaving medicine altogether.

The majority of burned-out psychiatrists (63%) said they felt that way even before the pandemic began; for about one-third (37%), burnout set in after the pandemic began.

The top factor contributing to burnout among psychiatrists is too many bureaucratic tasks (62%), followed by lack of respect from colleagues in the workplace (39%) and spending too many hours at work (37%).

Psychiatrists’ top tactic to cope with burnout is talking with family or friends (53%), followed by isolating themselves from others (51%), sleeping (45%), and exercising (43%); 42% said they eat junk food to cope; 35% play music; and 25% drink alcohol.

Most psychiatrists (63%) suffering burnout and/or depression don’t plan on seeking professional help. About one-third are currently seeking help or plan to do so, the highest proportion among all specialties.

Considering their symptoms not severe enough (57%) and feeling that they could deal with the problem on their own (41%) are the top reasons for not seeking professional help; 36% said they were too busy to get help, and 17% said they didn’t want to risk disclosing a problem.

Fifteen percent of psychiatrists who are burned out, depressed, or both have contemplated suicide, and 2% have attempted suicide.
 

Striving for work-life balance

Work-life balance is the most pressing workplace issue for 45% of psychiatrists, and 44% would sacrifice some of their salary for better work-life balance. These figures are about the same for physicians overall.

Forty-seven percent of psychiatrists take 3-4 weeks of vacation each year; 16% take 5 or more weeks. In this there was no change from last year’s report.

About one-third (35%) of psychiatrists generally make time to focus on their own well-being, the same proportion as physicians overall.

About two-thirds (68%) of psychiatrists exercise two or more times per week. Half of psychiatrists said they are currently trying to lose weight; about one-quarter are trying to maintain their current weight.

About one-quarter (26%) of psychiatrists said they do not drink alcohol at all; 17% have five or more drinks per week.

Most psychiatrists are currently in a committed relationship, with 81% either married or living with a partner. Among psychiatrists who are married or living with a partner, 43% are with someone who also works in medicine. About 81% of psychiatrists say their marriages are very good or good. These percentages are similar to those of physicians overall (85%).

Most psychiatrists (58%) spend up to 10 hours per week online for personal reasons; 82% spend this amount of time online each week for work.

It’s likely that the amount of time spent online for work will increase, given the pandemic-fueled surge in telemedicine. Yet even when their personal and professional Internet use are combined, psychiatrists, on average, spend far less time online than the nearly 7 hours per day of the average Internet user, according to recent data.

Findings from the latest happiness, wellness, and lifestyle survey are based on 12,339 Medscape member physicians practicing in the United States who completed an online survey conducted between Aug. 30 and Nov. 5, 2020.

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

The fifth consecutive week with a decline has the number of new COVID-19 cases in children at its lowest level since late October, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New child cases totaled 70,640 for the week of Feb. 12-18, down from 99,000 the previous week, making for the lowest count since the week of Oct. 23-29, when 61,000 cases were reported, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

The cumulative number of COVID-19 cases in children is now just over 3.1 million, which represents 13.1% of cases among all ages in the United States, based on data gathered from the health departments of 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

More children in California (439,000) have been infected than in any other state, while Illinois (176,000), Florida (145,000), Tennessee (137,000), Arizona (127,000), Ohio (121,000), and Pennsylvania (111,000) are the only other states with more than 100,000 cases, the AAP/CHA report shows.

Proportionally, the children of Wyoming have been hardest hit: Pediatric cases represent 19.4% of all cases in the state. The other four states with proportions of 18% or more are Alaska, Vermont, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Cumulative rates, however, tell a somewhat different story, as North Dakota leads with just over 8,500 cases per 100,000 children, followed by Tennessee (7,700 per 100,000) and Rhode Island (7,000 per 100,000), the AAP and CHA said.

Deaths in children, which had not been following the trend of fewer new cases over the last few weeks, dropped below double digits for the first time in a month. The six deaths that occurred during the week of Feb. 12-18 bring the total to 247 since the start of the pandemic in the 43 states, along with New York City and Guam, that are reporting such data, according to the report.

rfranki@mdedge.com

The fifth consecutive week with a decline has the number of new COVID-19 cases in children at its lowest level since late October, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New child cases totaled 70,640 for the week of Feb. 12-18, down from 99,000 the previous week, making for the lowest count since the week of Oct. 23-29, when 61,000 cases were reported, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

The cumulative number of COVID-19 cases in children is now just over 3.1 million, which represents 13.1% of cases among all ages in the United States, based on data gathered from the health departments of 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

More children in California (439,000) have been infected than in any other state, while Illinois (176,000), Florida (145,000), Tennessee (137,000), Arizona (127,000), Ohio (121,000), and Pennsylvania (111,000) are the only other states with more than 100,000 cases, the AAP/CHA report shows.

Proportionally, the children of Wyoming have been hardest hit: Pediatric cases represent 19.4% of all cases in the state. The other four states with proportions of 18% or more are Alaska, Vermont, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Cumulative rates, however, tell a somewhat different story, as North Dakota leads with just over 8,500 cases per 100,000 children, followed by Tennessee (7,700 per 100,000) and Rhode Island (7,000 per 100,000), the AAP and CHA said.

Deaths in children, which had not been following the trend of fewer new cases over the last few weeks, dropped below double digits for the first time in a month. The six deaths that occurred during the week of Feb. 12-18 bring the total to 247 since the start of the pandemic in the 43 states, along with New York City and Guam, that are reporting such data, according to the report.

rfranki@mdedge.com

The fifth consecutive week with a decline has the number of new COVID-19 cases in children at its lowest level since late October, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New child cases totaled 70,640 for the week of Feb. 12-18, down from 99,000 the previous week, making for the lowest count since the week of Oct. 23-29, when 61,000 cases were reported, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

The cumulative number of COVID-19 cases in children is now just over 3.1 million, which represents 13.1% of cases among all ages in the United States, based on data gathered from the health departments of 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

More children in California (439,000) have been infected than in any other state, while Illinois (176,000), Florida (145,000), Tennessee (137,000), Arizona (127,000), Ohio (121,000), and Pennsylvania (111,000) are the only other states with more than 100,000 cases, the AAP/CHA report shows.

Proportionally, the children of Wyoming have been hardest hit: Pediatric cases represent 19.4% of all cases in the state. The other four states with proportions of 18% or more are Alaska, Vermont, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Cumulative rates, however, tell a somewhat different story, as North Dakota leads with just over 8,500 cases per 100,000 children, followed by Tennessee (7,700 per 100,000) and Rhode Island (7,000 per 100,000), the AAP and CHA said.

Deaths in children, which had not been following the trend of fewer new cases over the last few weeks, dropped below double digits for the first time in a month. The six deaths that occurred during the week of Feb. 12-18 bring the total to 247 since the start of the pandemic in the 43 states, along with New York City and Guam, that are reporting such data, according to the report.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Before the pandemic, a large majority of internists reported that they were generally happy with life outside of work, although by specialty, they were near the bottom in happiness.

But this year’s Medscape Internist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2021 shows a sharp drop, with just 55% of respondents saying they are somewhat or very happy in life outside work, compared with 78% last year.

Internists were not alone among the more than 12,000 physicians who responded to the survey. The contrast from last year’s report was clear for physicians in general and reflects COVID-19’s substantial toll on clinicians.

Burnout has ‘strong impact on lives’

The percentage of internists who reported burnout or depression, however, has stayed fairly consistent. This year, 46% reported being either burned out or burned out and depressed, as opposed to 44% last year.

More than half (52%) said that burnout had a strong or severe impact on their lives, and nearly 1 in 10 said it was severe enough that they are considering leaving medicine.

One percent of the internists who responded to the survey said they had attempted suicide, and 12% said they had thoughts of suicide but had not attempted it.

Most of those reporting burnout (82%) said it started before the COVID-19 pandemic, but 18% said it began with the pandemic.

Notably, though, physicians ranked problems related to stress from COVID-19 near the bottom among burnout drivers. The top factor, by far, again, was “too many bureaucratic tasks.”

 A large majority (78%) of internists work online for up to 10 hours a week, a number that could grow as telemedicine grows.
 

Exercise is top coping method

Responses gave a peek into how physicians are coping with burnout. Among internists, 49% put exercise at the top. Isolating themselves from others was the next most popular choice, at 45%. Eating junk food and drinking alcohol were further down the list, at 34% and 24%, respectively.

Few internists said they drink alcohol daily, a finding consistent with past years. In fact, 29% said they don’t drink at all, and 26% said they have fewer than one alcoholic drink per week. Only 7% said they had seven or more drinks per week.

The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism advises that men not have more than 14 alcoholic drinks per week and that women not have more than 7.
 

Work-life balance topped list of concerns

By far, internists said work-life balance was their top workplace concern. Nearly half (48%) chose that answer, more than twice the percentage who said compensation was the biggest concern (21%).

Asked whether they would take a salary cut for more work-life balance, a similar proportion (46%) said yes.

Forty-three percent of internists manage to take 3-4 weeks of vacation, and 10% take at least 5 weeks, similar to reported vacation time in last year’s survey.

The vast majority are in committed relationships, with 79% reporting that they are married, and 5% reporting that they are living with a partner. Of those who are married, 48% described the marriage as very good; 32%, good; 16%, fair; 2%, poor; and 1%, very poor; 1% preferred not to answer.

One in five internists said their spouse was a physician, and 24% said their spouse worked in the health care field but not as a physician.

Pandemic has increased burnout

Douglas S. Paauw, MD, and Eileen Barrett, MD, two members of the Internal Medicine News editorial advisory board, said they were not surprised by the survey findings.

“There is more burnout since the pandemic,” said Dr. Paauw, professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. “People may be working more hours, higher stress, but also, some may be working less hours, are socially isolated, taking on a new role of helping their kids in virtual education, andn living in cramped quarters with family that they may not be accustomed to spending so much time with.”

“Also, most physicians love travel, to detress, get back in balance, and that has by and large been taken away by the pandemic,” Dr. Paauw noted. “Unfortunately, bureaucracy did not go away during the pandemic!

Dr. Barrett, an internal medicine hospitalist, said, “It is most concerning to me today that 12% have had thoughts of suicide, and yet 39% are too busy to seek care for depression or burnout, and 17% aren’t seeking due to fear it will be disclosed,”

“Credentialing, medical license applications, and malpractice insurance applications can and must be changed posthaste to support physicians and stop stigmatizing mental health diagnoses and mental health care,” she said. “Removing application questions about physician mental health will be consistent with recommendations from the Federation of State Medical Boards, medical professional societies, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, and is something actionable and achievable for every organization to do in 2021.” “From a public policy perspective, I am deeply concerned about the physician workforce and how patients will be able to receive care from exhausted, burned out physicians who may be reducing their clinical hours to restore their personal happiness – understandably so,” added Dr. Barrett, who is associate professor in the division of hospital medicine, department of internal medicine, at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

She pointed out that there are mental health resources available for physicians that don’t go through their employers or insurance such as www.emotionalppe.org/.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Katie Lennon contributed to this report.

Before the pandemic, a large majority of internists reported that they were generally happy with life outside of work, although by specialty, they were near the bottom in happiness.

But this year’s Medscape Internist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2021 shows a sharp drop, with just 55% of respondents saying they are somewhat or very happy in life outside work, compared with 78% last year.

Internists were not alone among the more than 12,000 physicians who responded to the survey. The contrast from last year’s report was clear for physicians in general and reflects COVID-19’s substantial toll on clinicians.

Burnout has ‘strong impact on lives’

The percentage of internists who reported burnout or depression, however, has stayed fairly consistent. This year, 46% reported being either burned out or burned out and depressed, as opposed to 44% last year.

More than half (52%) said that burnout had a strong or severe impact on their lives, and nearly 1 in 10 said it was severe enough that they are considering leaving medicine.

One percent of the internists who responded to the survey said they had attempted suicide, and 12% said they had thoughts of suicide but had not attempted it.

Most of those reporting burnout (82%) said it started before the COVID-19 pandemic, but 18% said it began with the pandemic.

Notably, though, physicians ranked problems related to stress from COVID-19 near the bottom among burnout drivers. The top factor, by far, again, was “too many bureaucratic tasks.”

 A large majority (78%) of internists work online for up to 10 hours a week, a number that could grow as telemedicine grows.
 

Exercise is top coping method

Responses gave a peek into how physicians are coping with burnout. Among internists, 49% put exercise at the top. Isolating themselves from others was the next most popular choice, at 45%. Eating junk food and drinking alcohol were further down the list, at 34% and 24%, respectively.

Few internists said they drink alcohol daily, a finding consistent with past years. In fact, 29% said they don’t drink at all, and 26% said they have fewer than one alcoholic drink per week. Only 7% said they had seven or more drinks per week.

The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism advises that men not have more than 14 alcoholic drinks per week and that women not have more than 7.
 

Work-life balance topped list of concerns

By far, internists said work-life balance was their top workplace concern. Nearly half (48%) chose that answer, more than twice the percentage who said compensation was the biggest concern (21%).

Asked whether they would take a salary cut for more work-life balance, a similar proportion (46%) said yes.

Forty-three percent of internists manage to take 3-4 weeks of vacation, and 10% take at least 5 weeks, similar to reported vacation time in last year’s survey.

The vast majority are in committed relationships, with 79% reporting that they are married, and 5% reporting that they are living with a partner. Of those who are married, 48% described the marriage as very good; 32%, good; 16%, fair; 2%, poor; and 1%, very poor; 1% preferred not to answer.

One in five internists said their spouse was a physician, and 24% said their spouse worked in the health care field but not as a physician.

Pandemic has increased burnout

Douglas S. Paauw, MD, and Eileen Barrett, MD, two members of the Internal Medicine News editorial advisory board, said they were not surprised by the survey findings.

“There is more burnout since the pandemic,” said Dr. Paauw, professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. “People may be working more hours, higher stress, but also, some may be working less hours, are socially isolated, taking on a new role of helping their kids in virtual education, andn living in cramped quarters with family that they may not be accustomed to spending so much time with.”

“Also, most physicians love travel, to detress, get back in balance, and that has by and large been taken away by the pandemic,” Dr. Paauw noted. “Unfortunately, bureaucracy did not go away during the pandemic!

Dr. Barrett, an internal medicine hospitalist, said, “It is most concerning to me today that 12% have had thoughts of suicide, and yet 39% are too busy to seek care for depression or burnout, and 17% aren’t seeking due to fear it will be disclosed,”

“Credentialing, medical license applications, and malpractice insurance applications can and must be changed posthaste to support physicians and stop stigmatizing mental health diagnoses and mental health care,” she said. “Removing application questions about physician mental health will be consistent with recommendations from the Federation of State Medical Boards, medical professional societies, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, and is something actionable and achievable for every organization to do in 2021.” “From a public policy perspective, I am deeply concerned about the physician workforce and how patients will be able to receive care from exhausted, burned out physicians who may be reducing their clinical hours to restore their personal happiness – understandably so,” added Dr. Barrett, who is associate professor in the division of hospital medicine, department of internal medicine, at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

She pointed out that there are mental health resources available for physicians that don’t go through their employers or insurance such as www.emotionalppe.org/.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Katie Lennon contributed to this report.

Before the pandemic, a large majority of internists reported that they were generally happy with life outside of work, although by specialty, they were near the bottom in happiness.

But this year’s Medscape Internist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2021 shows a sharp drop, with just 55% of respondents saying they are somewhat or very happy in life outside work, compared with 78% last year.

Internists were not alone among the more than 12,000 physicians who responded to the survey. The contrast from last year’s report was clear for physicians in general and reflects COVID-19’s substantial toll on clinicians.

Burnout has ‘strong impact on lives’

The percentage of internists who reported burnout or depression, however, has stayed fairly consistent. This year, 46% reported being either burned out or burned out and depressed, as opposed to 44% last year.

More than half (52%) said that burnout had a strong or severe impact on their lives, and nearly 1 in 10 said it was severe enough that they are considering leaving medicine.

One percent of the internists who responded to the survey said they had attempted suicide, and 12% said they had thoughts of suicide but had not attempted it.

Most of those reporting burnout (82%) said it started before the COVID-19 pandemic, but 18% said it began with the pandemic.

Notably, though, physicians ranked problems related to stress from COVID-19 near the bottom among burnout drivers. The top factor, by far, again, was “too many bureaucratic tasks.”

 A large majority (78%) of internists work online for up to 10 hours a week, a number that could grow as telemedicine grows.
 

Exercise is top coping method

Responses gave a peek into how physicians are coping with burnout. Among internists, 49% put exercise at the top. Isolating themselves from others was the next most popular choice, at 45%. Eating junk food and drinking alcohol were further down the list, at 34% and 24%, respectively.

Few internists said they drink alcohol daily, a finding consistent with past years. In fact, 29% said they don’t drink at all, and 26% said they have fewer than one alcoholic drink per week. Only 7% said they had seven or more drinks per week.

The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism advises that men not have more than 14 alcoholic drinks per week and that women not have more than 7.
 

Work-life balance topped list of concerns

By far, internists said work-life balance was their top workplace concern. Nearly half (48%) chose that answer, more than twice the percentage who said compensation was the biggest concern (21%).

Asked whether they would take a salary cut for more work-life balance, a similar proportion (46%) said yes.

Forty-three percent of internists manage to take 3-4 weeks of vacation, and 10% take at least 5 weeks, similar to reported vacation time in last year’s survey.

The vast majority are in committed relationships, with 79% reporting that they are married, and 5% reporting that they are living with a partner. Of those who are married, 48% described the marriage as very good; 32%, good; 16%, fair; 2%, poor; and 1%, very poor; 1% preferred not to answer.

One in five internists said their spouse was a physician, and 24% said their spouse worked in the health care field but not as a physician.

Pandemic has increased burnout

Douglas S. Paauw, MD, and Eileen Barrett, MD, two members of the Internal Medicine News editorial advisory board, said they were not surprised by the survey findings.

“There is more burnout since the pandemic,” said Dr. Paauw, professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. “People may be working more hours, higher stress, but also, some may be working less hours, are socially isolated, taking on a new role of helping their kids in virtual education, andn living in cramped quarters with family that they may not be accustomed to spending so much time with.”

“Also, most physicians love travel, to detress, get back in balance, and that has by and large been taken away by the pandemic,” Dr. Paauw noted. “Unfortunately, bureaucracy did not go away during the pandemic!

Dr. Barrett, an internal medicine hospitalist, said, “It is most concerning to me today that 12% have had thoughts of suicide, and yet 39% are too busy to seek care for depression or burnout, and 17% aren’t seeking due to fear it will be disclosed,”

“Credentialing, medical license applications, and malpractice insurance applications can and must be changed posthaste to support physicians and stop stigmatizing mental health diagnoses and mental health care,” she said. “Removing application questions about physician mental health will be consistent with recommendations from the Federation of State Medical Boards, medical professional societies, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, and is something actionable and achievable for every organization to do in 2021.” “From a public policy perspective, I am deeply concerned about the physician workforce and how patients will be able to receive care from exhausted, burned out physicians who may be reducing their clinical hours to restore their personal happiness – understandably so,” added Dr. Barrett, who is associate professor in the division of hospital medicine, department of internal medicine, at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

She pointed out that there are mental health resources available for physicians that don’t go through their employers or insurance such as www.emotionalppe.org/.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Katie Lennon contributed to this report.

Nearly half (47%) of family physicians who reported experiencing burnout in a Medscape survey said the burnout had had a strong or a severe impact on their lives, and 1 in 10 said it was serious enough to make them consider leaving medicine.

Yet, responses to the Medscape Family Medicine Physician Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2021 also indicate that family physicians are in the middle of the pack again this year in rankings by specialty of physician happiness outside work. Overall, more than 12,000 physicians from more than 29 specialties responded to this year’s survey, conducted between Aug. 30 and Nov. 5, 2020.
 

Happiness levels sink for physicians

In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, happiness levels took a sharp drop among physicians across the board. Last year, for instance, the happiness level was highest for physicians practicing in diabetes and endocrinology, at 89%. They remain the happiest this year, but the proportion saying they were happy dropped to 73%. Infectious disease physicians were the least happy outside work both last year and this year, with the proportion reporting they were happy dropping from 69% to 45%.

For family physicians, happiness levels outside work plunged from 79% last year to 57% this year.

Burnout and depression levels, however, remained steady. The portion saying they were either burned out or burned out and depressed was up only 1 percentage point, rising to 47%.

Fifteen percent of family physicians have had thoughts of suicide, and 1% said they had attempted it, according to the survey responses.

The most common strategy for coping with burnout, reported by 48% of family physicians, is talking with family members and close friends, followed closely by exercise, reported by 46%.

Sixty-eight percent of family physicians say they exercise at least twice a week, and 12% exercise every day.

However, not all coping strategies were as positive: Forty-five percent said they cope by isolating themselves from others; 40% turned to junk food; and 23%-24% said they drank alcohol or were binge-eating to cope. Respondents could choose more than one answer.

Among family physicians, 75% expressed anxiety about their futures, given the pandemic, which is similar to the proportion among physicians overall (77%) who had the same worries.
 

Work-life balance biggest worry

The survey also asked what workplace issues concern family physicians the most. The biggest concern, by far, was work-life balance, chosen by 51%. Next highest was compensation, at 19%, followed by combining parenthood and work (9%) and relationships with colleagues/staff (6%).

More than half (52%) of family doctors said they would take a cut in pay to have better work-life balance.

A little more than a third (36%) of family physicians – about the same percentage as physicians overall – said they always or most of the time spend enough time on their own health and wellness. One in five said they rarely or never do.

Most in committed, satisfying relationships

Most family medicine physicians are juggling committed relationships with work life. In this survey, 78% said they were married, and another 5% said they were living with a partner.

A little more than half of married family doctors described their marriages as very good (51%). The rest were good (32%); fair (13%); poor (2%); and very poor (2%). Some (15%) had spouses who were also physicians, and 25% said their spouses worked in the health care field but were not physicians.

Almost all family physicians were able to take some vacation time during this reporting period – 43% took 3-4 weeks; 35% took 1-2 weeks; 10% took less than 1 week; 9% took 5-6 weeks; and 4% took more than 6 weeks.

If they drove to vacation destinations, they were likely to be in their favorite make of vehicle, which for family physicians were Toyotas (22%), Hondas (14%) and Fords (11%), according to the survey responses. Physicians overall favored Toyotas, Hondas, and BMWs.

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

Nearly half (47%) of family physicians who reported experiencing burnout in a Medscape survey said the burnout had had a strong or a severe impact on their lives, and 1 in 10 said it was serious enough to make them consider leaving medicine.

Yet, responses to the Medscape Family Medicine Physician Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2021 also indicate that family physicians are in the middle of the pack again this year in rankings by specialty of physician happiness outside work. Overall, more than 12,000 physicians from more than 29 specialties responded to this year’s survey, conducted between Aug. 30 and Nov. 5, 2020.
 

Happiness levels sink for physicians

In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, happiness levels took a sharp drop among physicians across the board. Last year, for instance, the happiness level was highest for physicians practicing in diabetes and endocrinology, at 89%. They remain the happiest this year, but the proportion saying they were happy dropped to 73%. Infectious disease physicians were the least happy outside work both last year and this year, with the proportion reporting they were happy dropping from 69% to 45%.

For family physicians, happiness levels outside work plunged from 79% last year to 57% this year.

Burnout and depression levels, however, remained steady. The portion saying they were either burned out or burned out and depressed was up only 1 percentage point, rising to 47%.

Fifteen percent of family physicians have had thoughts of suicide, and 1% said they had attempted it, according to the survey responses.

The most common strategy for coping with burnout, reported by 48% of family physicians, is talking with family members and close friends, followed closely by exercise, reported by 46%.

Sixty-eight percent of family physicians say they exercise at least twice a week, and 12% exercise every day.

However, not all coping strategies were as positive: Forty-five percent said they cope by isolating themselves from others; 40% turned to junk food; and 23%-24% said they drank alcohol or were binge-eating to cope. Respondents could choose more than one answer.

Among family physicians, 75% expressed anxiety about their futures, given the pandemic, which is similar to the proportion among physicians overall (77%) who had the same worries.
 

Work-life balance biggest worry

The survey also asked what workplace issues concern family physicians the most. The biggest concern, by far, was work-life balance, chosen by 51%. Next highest was compensation, at 19%, followed by combining parenthood and work (9%) and relationships with colleagues/staff (6%).

More than half (52%) of family doctors said they would take a cut in pay to have better work-life balance.

A little more than a third (36%) of family physicians – about the same percentage as physicians overall – said they always or most of the time spend enough time on their own health and wellness. One in five said they rarely or never do.

Most in committed, satisfying relationships

Most family medicine physicians are juggling committed relationships with work life. In this survey, 78% said they were married, and another 5% said they were living with a partner.

A little more than half of married family doctors described their marriages as very good (51%). The rest were good (32%); fair (13%); poor (2%); and very poor (2%). Some (15%) had spouses who were also physicians, and 25% said their spouses worked in the health care field but were not physicians.

Almost all family physicians were able to take some vacation time during this reporting period – 43% took 3-4 weeks; 35% took 1-2 weeks; 10% took less than 1 week; 9% took 5-6 weeks; and 4% took more than 6 weeks.

If they drove to vacation destinations, they were likely to be in their favorite make of vehicle, which for family physicians were Toyotas (22%), Hondas (14%) and Fords (11%), according to the survey responses. Physicians overall favored Toyotas, Hondas, and BMWs.

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

Nearly half (47%) of family physicians who reported experiencing burnout in a Medscape survey said the burnout had had a strong or a severe impact on their lives, and 1 in 10 said it was serious enough to make them consider leaving medicine.

Yet, responses to the Medscape Family Medicine Physician Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2021 also indicate that family physicians are in the middle of the pack again this year in rankings by specialty of physician happiness outside work. Overall, more than 12,000 physicians from more than 29 specialties responded to this year’s survey, conducted between Aug. 30 and Nov. 5, 2020.
 

Happiness levels sink for physicians

In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, happiness levels took a sharp drop among physicians across the board. Last year, for instance, the happiness level was highest for physicians practicing in diabetes and endocrinology, at 89%. They remain the happiest this year, but the proportion saying they were happy dropped to 73%. Infectious disease physicians were the least happy outside work both last year and this year, with the proportion reporting they were happy dropping from 69% to 45%.

For family physicians, happiness levels outside work plunged from 79% last year to 57% this year.

Burnout and depression levels, however, remained steady. The portion saying they were either burned out or burned out and depressed was up only 1 percentage point, rising to 47%.

Fifteen percent of family physicians have had thoughts of suicide, and 1% said they had attempted it, according to the survey responses.

The most common strategy for coping with burnout, reported by 48% of family physicians, is talking with family members and close friends, followed closely by exercise, reported by 46%.

Sixty-eight percent of family physicians say they exercise at least twice a week, and 12% exercise every day.

However, not all coping strategies were as positive: Forty-five percent said they cope by isolating themselves from others; 40% turned to junk food; and 23%-24% said they drank alcohol or were binge-eating to cope. Respondents could choose more than one answer.

Among family physicians, 75% expressed anxiety about their futures, given the pandemic, which is similar to the proportion among physicians overall (77%) who had the same worries.
 

Work-life balance biggest worry

The survey also asked what workplace issues concern family physicians the most. The biggest concern, by far, was work-life balance, chosen by 51%. Next highest was compensation, at 19%, followed by combining parenthood and work (9%) and relationships with colleagues/staff (6%).

More than half (52%) of family doctors said they would take a cut in pay to have better work-life balance.

A little more than a third (36%) of family physicians – about the same percentage as physicians overall – said they always or most of the time spend enough time on their own health and wellness. One in five said they rarely or never do.

Most in committed, satisfying relationships

Most family medicine physicians are juggling committed relationships with work life. In this survey, 78% said they were married, and another 5% said they were living with a partner.

A little more than half of married family doctors described their marriages as very good (51%). The rest were good (32%); fair (13%); poor (2%); and very poor (2%). Some (15%) had spouses who were also physicians, and 25% said their spouses worked in the health care field but were not physicians.

Almost all family physicians were able to take some vacation time during this reporting period – 43% took 3-4 weeks; 35% took 1-2 weeks; 10% took less than 1 week; 9% took 5-6 weeks; and 4% took more than 6 weeks.

If they drove to vacation destinations, they were likely to be in their favorite make of vehicle, which for family physicians were Toyotas (22%), Hondas (14%) and Fords (11%), according to the survey responses. Physicians overall favored Toyotas, Hondas, and BMWs.

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

Long-term use of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) was associated with higher self-reported physical activity levels in adults with co-occurring obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and cardiovascular disease (CVD), in new research.

“The aim of this study was to determine whether long-term CPAP treatment affects self-reported physical activity among participants with moderate-severe OSA and comorbid CV disease,” wrote David Stevens, PhD, of Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia, and his colleagues. The findings were recently published in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine.

Researchers conducted a secondary analysis of the Sleep apnea cardiovascular endpoints (SAVE) trial that enrolled 2,687 adults aged 45-75 years old with OSA and confirmed CVD. In the study, participants were randomized to receive either CPAP plus usual care or usual care alone.

Physical activity levels were self-reported using the Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire (LTEQ) at baseline and at 6-, 24-, and 48-month follow-up intervals. The physical functioning subscale of the 36-item short form questionnaire (SF-36) was used to determine if activity levels were consistent with expert recommendations and to evaluate the effects on any self-perceived limitation of physical activity.
 

Moderate physical activity was higher among CPAP users

After a mean follow-up duration of 3.7 years, participants in the CPAP arm had approximately 20% higher levels of moderate physical activity, compared with the control arm (adjusted mean scores]: 8.7 points vs. 7.3 points; 95% confidence interval, 7.5-9.9 vs. 6.1-8.5; P = .003).

However, no significant difference was observed between treatment arms for mild physical activity (adjusted mean scores, 14.4 points vs. 14.2 points; 95% CI, 13.5-15.3 vs. 13.3-15.1; P = 0.599) or vigorous physical activity (adjusted mean scores, 3.4 points vs. 2.9 points; 95% CI 2.6-4.2 vs. 2.1-3.7; P = .125).

In addition, participants in the CPAP group reported less limitation in physical activity (adjusted between-group difference in SF-36 physical functioning subscale score = 1.66; 95% CI, 0.87-2.45; P < .001) and were more likely to report activity levels consistent with guideline recommendations.

“We were pleasantly surprised to find that people assigned to CPAP reported more physical activity than their counterparts who received usual care, despite being given no specific exercise instructions,” Kelly A. Loffler, PhD, a coauthor of the study, said in an interview.

“While I don’t think this will result in any immediate changes to guidelines, it is a helpful reminder to clinicians who are treating such patients, that the symptomatic benefits people experience with CPAP present a window of opportunity to improve health more holistically,” Dr. Loffler explained.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the use of self-reported outcome measures. In future studies, they recommended that recent technological innovations, such as the availability of activity tracking devices, should be used to measure physical activity.

They also noted that patients with excessive sleepiness and severe hypoxemia were excluded from the SAVE trial; thus, the findings may not be generalizable to all patients.
 

Study reinforces CPAP’s health benefits

Emerson M. Wickwire, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, explained that CPAP treatment is associated with well-documented health benefits among patients with CVD, as well as enhanced quality of life.

“These results provide further evidence that treating OSA can provide direct and indirect health benefits, suggesting that increased physical activity can be a vital pathway to improved cardiovascular health and enjoyment of life,” Dr. Wickwire, who is also director of the Insomnia Program at the University of Maryland Midtown Medical Center, Baltimore, said in an interview.

Steven M. Scharf, MD, a pulmonologist who is director of the Sleep Disorders Center (Adults) at the University of Maryland, also said the study findings were consistent with previous research involving patients treated for OSA.

“It is no surprise that treatment of OSA improves patient’s daily physical functioning,” explained Dr. Scharf, who is also a clinical professor, in an interview. “These results are expected, but very welcome, and I was glad to see them.”

The study was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Respironics Sleep and Respiratory Research Foundation, and Philips Respironics. Some authors reported financial affiliations with medical device and pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Loffler, Dr. Wickwire, and Dr. Scharf reported no conflicts of interest related to this work.

Long-term use of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) was associated with higher self-reported physical activity levels in adults with co-occurring obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and cardiovascular disease (CVD), in new research.

“The aim of this study was to determine whether long-term CPAP treatment affects self-reported physical activity among participants with moderate-severe OSA and comorbid CV disease,” wrote David Stevens, PhD, of Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia, and his colleagues. The findings were recently published in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine.

Researchers conducted a secondary analysis of the Sleep apnea cardiovascular endpoints (SAVE) trial that enrolled 2,687 adults aged 45-75 years old with OSA and confirmed CVD. In the study, participants were randomized to receive either CPAP plus usual care or usual care alone.

Physical activity levels were self-reported using the Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire (LTEQ) at baseline and at 6-, 24-, and 48-month follow-up intervals. The physical functioning subscale of the 36-item short form questionnaire (SF-36) was used to determine if activity levels were consistent with expert recommendations and to evaluate the effects on any self-perceived limitation of physical activity.
 

Moderate physical activity was higher among CPAP users

After a mean follow-up duration of 3.7 years, participants in the CPAP arm had approximately 20% higher levels of moderate physical activity, compared with the control arm (adjusted mean scores]: 8.7 points vs. 7.3 points; 95% confidence interval, 7.5-9.9 vs. 6.1-8.5; P = .003).

However, no significant difference was observed between treatment arms for mild physical activity (adjusted mean scores, 14.4 points vs. 14.2 points; 95% CI, 13.5-15.3 vs. 13.3-15.1; P = 0.599) or vigorous physical activity (adjusted mean scores, 3.4 points vs. 2.9 points; 95% CI 2.6-4.2 vs. 2.1-3.7; P = .125).

In addition, participants in the CPAP group reported less limitation in physical activity (adjusted between-group difference in SF-36 physical functioning subscale score = 1.66; 95% CI, 0.87-2.45; P < .001) and were more likely to report activity levels consistent with guideline recommendations.

“We were pleasantly surprised to find that people assigned to CPAP reported more physical activity than their counterparts who received usual care, despite being given no specific exercise instructions,” Kelly A. Loffler, PhD, a coauthor of the study, said in an interview.

“While I don’t think this will result in any immediate changes to guidelines, it is a helpful reminder to clinicians who are treating such patients, that the symptomatic benefits people experience with CPAP present a window of opportunity to improve health more holistically,” Dr. Loffler explained.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the use of self-reported outcome measures. In future studies, they recommended that recent technological innovations, such as the availability of activity tracking devices, should be used to measure physical activity.

They also noted that patients with excessive sleepiness and severe hypoxemia were excluded from the SAVE trial; thus, the findings may not be generalizable to all patients.
 

Study reinforces CPAP’s health benefits

Emerson M. Wickwire, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, explained that CPAP treatment is associated with well-documented health benefits among patients with CVD, as well as enhanced quality of life.

“These results provide further evidence that treating OSA can provide direct and indirect health benefits, suggesting that increased physical activity can be a vital pathway to improved cardiovascular health and enjoyment of life,” Dr. Wickwire, who is also director of the Insomnia Program at the University of Maryland Midtown Medical Center, Baltimore, said in an interview.

Steven M. Scharf, MD, a pulmonologist who is director of the Sleep Disorders Center (Adults) at the University of Maryland, also said the study findings were consistent with previous research involving patients treated for OSA.

“It is no surprise that treatment of OSA improves patient’s daily physical functioning,” explained Dr. Scharf, who is also a clinical professor, in an interview. “These results are expected, but very welcome, and I was glad to see them.”

The study was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Respironics Sleep and Respiratory Research Foundation, and Philips Respironics. Some authors reported financial affiliations with medical device and pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Loffler, Dr. Wickwire, and Dr. Scharf reported no conflicts of interest related to this work.

Long-term use of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) was associated with higher self-reported physical activity levels in adults with co-occurring obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and cardiovascular disease (CVD), in new research.

“The aim of this study was to determine whether long-term CPAP treatment affects self-reported physical activity among participants with moderate-severe OSA and comorbid CV disease,” wrote David Stevens, PhD, of Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia, and his colleagues. The findings were recently published in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine.

Researchers conducted a secondary analysis of the Sleep apnea cardiovascular endpoints (SAVE) trial that enrolled 2,687 adults aged 45-75 years old with OSA and confirmed CVD. In the study, participants were randomized to receive either CPAP plus usual care or usual care alone.

Physical activity levels were self-reported using the Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire (LTEQ) at baseline and at 6-, 24-, and 48-month follow-up intervals. The physical functioning subscale of the 36-item short form questionnaire (SF-36) was used to determine if activity levels were consistent with expert recommendations and to evaluate the effects on any self-perceived limitation of physical activity.
 

Moderate physical activity was higher among CPAP users

After a mean follow-up duration of 3.7 years, participants in the CPAP arm had approximately 20% higher levels of moderate physical activity, compared with the control arm (adjusted mean scores]: 8.7 points vs. 7.3 points; 95% confidence interval, 7.5-9.9 vs. 6.1-8.5; P = .003).

However, no significant difference was observed between treatment arms for mild physical activity (adjusted mean scores, 14.4 points vs. 14.2 points; 95% CI, 13.5-15.3 vs. 13.3-15.1; P = 0.599) or vigorous physical activity (adjusted mean scores, 3.4 points vs. 2.9 points; 95% CI 2.6-4.2 vs. 2.1-3.7; P = .125).

In addition, participants in the CPAP group reported less limitation in physical activity (adjusted between-group difference in SF-36 physical functioning subscale score = 1.66; 95% CI, 0.87-2.45; P < .001) and were more likely to report activity levels consistent with guideline recommendations.

“We were pleasantly surprised to find that people assigned to CPAP reported more physical activity than their counterparts who received usual care, despite being given no specific exercise instructions,” Kelly A. Loffler, PhD, a coauthor of the study, said in an interview.

“While I don’t think this will result in any immediate changes to guidelines, it is a helpful reminder to clinicians who are treating such patients, that the symptomatic benefits people experience with CPAP present a window of opportunity to improve health more holistically,” Dr. Loffler explained.

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the use of self-reported outcome measures. In future studies, they recommended that recent technological innovations, such as the availability of activity tracking devices, should be used to measure physical activity.

They also noted that patients with excessive sleepiness and severe hypoxemia were excluded from the SAVE trial; thus, the findings may not be generalizable to all patients.
 

Study reinforces CPAP’s health benefits

Emerson M. Wickwire, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, explained that CPAP treatment is associated with well-documented health benefits among patients with CVD, as well as enhanced quality of life.

“These results provide further evidence that treating OSA can provide direct and indirect health benefits, suggesting that increased physical activity can be a vital pathway to improved cardiovascular health and enjoyment of life,” Dr. Wickwire, who is also director of the Insomnia Program at the University of Maryland Midtown Medical Center, Baltimore, said in an interview.

Steven M. Scharf, MD, a pulmonologist who is director of the Sleep Disorders Center (Adults) at the University of Maryland, also said the study findings were consistent with previous research involving patients treated for OSA.

“It is no surprise that treatment of OSA improves patient’s daily physical functioning,” explained Dr. Scharf, who is also a clinical professor, in an interview. “These results are expected, but very welcome, and I was glad to see them.”

The study was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Respironics Sleep and Respiratory Research Foundation, and Philips Respironics. Some authors reported financial affiliations with medical device and pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Loffler, Dr. Wickwire, and Dr. Scharf reported no conflicts of interest related to this work.