CHEST Physician

I’ve worked locum tenens off and on since 1982. Flexible schedules allowed me to write several books, pursue a parallel career as a medical journalist, lead medical missions in the Philippines, and develop modest expertise as an underwater photographer.

But the recent rise in locum tenens practitioners signals trouble for medicine.
 

A Multibillion-Dollar Industry

Roughly 52,000 US doctors work locum tenens full or part time. In annual reports by CHG Healthcare, two thirds of healthcare facilities surveyed report using locums and more than half expect to maintain or increase their use in 2024.

Another measure of the industry’s growth is that membership of The National Association of Locum Tenens Organizations (NALTO), formed in 2001 to lead this fledgling industry, has doubled since 2019. Currently, NALTO has 148 member agencies.
 

Why Locums?

What used to be the preserve of older physicians transitioning to retirement is now becoming a career choice. According to the 2024 Survey of Locum Tenens Physicians and Advanced Practice Professionals by AMN Healthcare, 81% of respondents said they started taking locum tenens assignments immediately after finishing medical training or in mid-career. What entices doctors to move from place to place, repeatedly adapt to new facilities and electronic medical records, live in cheap hotels, and work without paid vacations, health insurance, or retirement benefits? 

Supplemental income is one reason. But the elephant in the room is clearly burnout. Rates of burnout in practicing doctors and physicians-in-training have exceeded 50%. Burnout results in medical errors, malpractice suits, and increased healthcare costs. 

A recent Doximity poll of 7590 physicians revealed that 63% would not want their children to pursue a medical career. And in a Medscape survey of 7000 physicians, a third of docs under 40 would not choose medicine again if they had a do-over. If a career in medicine brings high income and privileged status, why do so many physicians regret it and discourage their children from taking the same path?
 

Where Is Marcus Welby, MD?

Private practice is an endangered species that no one is trying to save. According to a 2022 AMA survey, 44% of physicians owned their practices compared with 76% of physicians in the 1980s. Even fewer younger physicians are choosing private practice. Among physicians under 45 years of age, only 32% owned their practices. Most physicians are now employees, not employers. They have lost control over their duties and work hours. 

In 2022, barely 13% of physicians were in solo practice. The iconic Dr Marcus Welby of the 1970s TV series has transmuted from an idealized physician to an implausible figure. (My medical students have never heard of him.)

Hospitals and health systems have purchased many private medical groups. Private-equity companies own close to 1000 physician practices and staff up to 40% of emergency rooms. For these firms, profits are paramount.
 

Canary in a Coal Mine

Locum tenens offers physicians unprecedented flexibility where they work, when they work, and how much they work. It provides an escape from overwhelming and unsatisfying clinical practice. While some physicians have fled to nonclinical careers, locums physicians can practice medicine without the burdens of administration, hospital politics, and ever-increasing overhead. 

The locum tenens paradox is that its successful growth indicates a deteriorating traditional healthcare model. Locum tenens is not the problem, but it’s also not the solution. At best, locums is a pair of crutches that helps the current system limp along.

Healthcare is increasingly controlled by those who prioritize profit, not patients. If physicians become nothing more than complicit cogs in a dysfunctional system, burnout will fester. The profession will fail to attract the best and the brightest, the doctor shortage will increase, and the quality of patient care will decline. Everyone will suffer. 

It’s already happening.

Andrew Wilner is an associate professor of neurology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. He reported conflicts of interest from Accordant Health Services.
 

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

I’ve worked locum tenens off and on since 1982. Flexible schedules allowed me to write several books, pursue a parallel career as a medical journalist, lead medical missions in the Philippines, and develop modest expertise as an underwater photographer.

But the recent rise in locum tenens practitioners signals trouble for medicine.
 

A Multibillion-Dollar Industry

Roughly 52,000 US doctors work locum tenens full or part time. In annual reports by CHG Healthcare, two thirds of healthcare facilities surveyed report using locums and more than half expect to maintain or increase their use in 2024.

Another measure of the industry’s growth is that membership of The National Association of Locum Tenens Organizations (NALTO), formed in 2001 to lead this fledgling industry, has doubled since 2019. Currently, NALTO has 148 member agencies.
 

Why Locums?

What used to be the preserve of older physicians transitioning to retirement is now becoming a career choice. According to the 2024 Survey of Locum Tenens Physicians and Advanced Practice Professionals by AMN Healthcare, 81% of respondents said they started taking locum tenens assignments immediately after finishing medical training or in mid-career. What entices doctors to move from place to place, repeatedly adapt to new facilities and electronic medical records, live in cheap hotels, and work without paid vacations, health insurance, or retirement benefits? 

Supplemental income is one reason. But the elephant in the room is clearly burnout. Rates of burnout in practicing doctors and physicians-in-training have exceeded 50%. Burnout results in medical errors, malpractice suits, and increased healthcare costs. 

A recent Doximity poll of 7590 physicians revealed that 63% would not want their children to pursue a medical career. And in a Medscape survey of 7000 physicians, a third of docs under 40 would not choose medicine again if they had a do-over. If a career in medicine brings high income and privileged status, why do so many physicians regret it and discourage their children from taking the same path?
 

Where Is Marcus Welby, MD?

Private practice is an endangered species that no one is trying to save. According to a 2022 AMA survey, 44% of physicians owned their practices compared with 76% of physicians in the 1980s. Even fewer younger physicians are choosing private practice. Among physicians under 45 years of age, only 32% owned their practices. Most physicians are now employees, not employers. They have lost control over their duties and work hours. 

In 2022, barely 13% of physicians were in solo practice. The iconic Dr Marcus Welby of the 1970s TV series has transmuted from an idealized physician to an implausible figure. (My medical students have never heard of him.)

Hospitals and health systems have purchased many private medical groups. Private-equity companies own close to 1000 physician practices and staff up to 40% of emergency rooms. For these firms, profits are paramount.
 

Canary in a Coal Mine

Locum tenens offers physicians unprecedented flexibility where they work, when they work, and how much they work. It provides an escape from overwhelming and unsatisfying clinical practice. While some physicians have fled to nonclinical careers, locums physicians can practice medicine without the burdens of administration, hospital politics, and ever-increasing overhead. 

The locum tenens paradox is that its successful growth indicates a deteriorating traditional healthcare model. Locum tenens is not the problem, but it’s also not the solution. At best, locums is a pair of crutches that helps the current system limp along.

Healthcare is increasingly controlled by those who prioritize profit, not patients. If physicians become nothing more than complicit cogs in a dysfunctional system, burnout will fester. The profession will fail to attract the best and the brightest, the doctor shortage will increase, and the quality of patient care will decline. Everyone will suffer. 

It’s already happening.

Andrew Wilner is an associate professor of neurology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. He reported conflicts of interest from Accordant Health Services.
 

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

I’ve worked locum tenens off and on since 1982. Flexible schedules allowed me to write several books, pursue a parallel career as a medical journalist, lead medical missions in the Philippines, and develop modest expertise as an underwater photographer.

But the recent rise in locum tenens practitioners signals trouble for medicine.
 

A Multibillion-Dollar Industry

Roughly 52,000 US doctors work locum tenens full or part time. In annual reports by CHG Healthcare, two thirds of healthcare facilities surveyed report using locums and more than half expect to maintain or increase their use in 2024.

Another measure of the industry’s growth is that membership of The National Association of Locum Tenens Organizations (NALTO), formed in 2001 to lead this fledgling industry, has doubled since 2019. Currently, NALTO has 148 member agencies.
 

Why Locums?

What used to be the preserve of older physicians transitioning to retirement is now becoming a career choice. According to the 2024 Survey of Locum Tenens Physicians and Advanced Practice Professionals by AMN Healthcare, 81% of respondents said they started taking locum tenens assignments immediately after finishing medical training or in mid-career. What entices doctors to move from place to place, repeatedly adapt to new facilities and electronic medical records, live in cheap hotels, and work without paid vacations, health insurance, or retirement benefits? 

Supplemental income is one reason. But the elephant in the room is clearly burnout. Rates of burnout in practicing doctors and physicians-in-training have exceeded 50%. Burnout results in medical errors, malpractice suits, and increased healthcare costs. 

A recent Doximity poll of 7590 physicians revealed that 63% would not want their children to pursue a medical career. And in a Medscape survey of 7000 physicians, a third of docs under 40 would not choose medicine again if they had a do-over. If a career in medicine brings high income and privileged status, why do so many physicians regret it and discourage their children from taking the same path?
 

Where Is Marcus Welby, MD?

Private practice is an endangered species that no one is trying to save. According to a 2022 AMA survey, 44% of physicians owned their practices compared with 76% of physicians in the 1980s. Even fewer younger physicians are choosing private practice. Among physicians under 45 years of age, only 32% owned their practices. Most physicians are now employees, not employers. They have lost control over their duties and work hours. 

In 2022, barely 13% of physicians were in solo practice. The iconic Dr Marcus Welby of the 1970s TV series has transmuted from an idealized physician to an implausible figure. (My medical students have never heard of him.)

Hospitals and health systems have purchased many private medical groups. Private-equity companies own close to 1000 physician practices and staff up to 40% of emergency rooms. For these firms, profits are paramount.
 

Canary in a Coal Mine

Locum tenens offers physicians unprecedented flexibility where they work, when they work, and how much they work. It provides an escape from overwhelming and unsatisfying clinical practice. While some physicians have fled to nonclinical careers, locums physicians can practice medicine without the burdens of administration, hospital politics, and ever-increasing overhead. 

The locum tenens paradox is that its successful growth indicates a deteriorating traditional healthcare model. Locum tenens is not the problem, but it’s also not the solution. At best, locums is a pair of crutches that helps the current system limp along.

Healthcare is increasingly controlled by those who prioritize profit, not patients. If physicians become nothing more than complicit cogs in a dysfunctional system, burnout will fester. The profession will fail to attract the best and the brightest, the doctor shortage will increase, and the quality of patient care will decline. Everyone will suffer. 

It’s already happening.

Andrew Wilner is an associate professor of neurology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. He reported conflicts of interest from Accordant Health Services.
 

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

Climate change is intensifying the variability of precipitation caused by extreme daily and overall rainfall events. Awareness of the effects of these events is crucial for understanding the complex health consequences of climate change. The connections between health and climate have been recognized by physicians and patients even when climatology did not have the status of an exact science. Physicians have often advised their patients to move to a better climate, and when they did, the recommendation was rarely based on precise scientific knowledge. However, the benefits of changing environments were often so evident that they were indisputable.

Today, advanced models, satellite imagery, and biological approaches such as environmental epigenetics are enhancing our understanding of health risks related to climate change.
 

Extreme Rainfall and Health

The increase in precipitation variability is linked to climate warming, which leads to higher atmospheric humidity and extreme rainfall events. These manifestations can cause rapid weather changes, increasing interactions with harmful aerosols and raising the risk for various cardiovascular and respiratory conditions. However, a full understanding of the association between rain and health has been hindered by conflicting results and methodological issues (limited geographical locations and short observation durations) in studies.

The association between rainfall intensity and health effects is likely nonlinear. Moderate precipitation can mitigate summer heat and help reduce air pollution, an effect that may lower some environmental health risks. Conversely, intense, low-frequency, short-duration rainfall events can have particularly harmful effects on health, as such events can trigger rapid weather changes, increased proliferation of pathogens, and a rise in the risk of various pollutants, potentially exacerbating health conditions.
 

Rain and Mortality

Using an intensity-duration-frequency model of three rainfall indices (high intensity, low frequency, short duration), a study published in October 2024 combined these with mortality data from 34 countries or regions. Researchers estimated associations between mortality (all cause, cardiovascular, and respiratory) and rainfall events with different return periods (the average time expected before an extreme event of a certain magnitude occurs again) and crucial effect modifiers, including climatic, socioeconomic, and urban environmental conditions.

The analysis included 109,954,744 deaths from all causes; 31,164,161 cardiovascular deaths; and 11,817,278 respiratory deaths. During the study period, from 1980 to 2020, a total of 50,913 rainfall events with a 1-year return period, 8362 events with a 2-year return period, and 3301 events with a 5-year return period were identified.

The most significant finding was a global positive association between all-cause mortality and extreme rainfall events with a 5-year return period. One day of extreme rainfall with a 5-year return period was associated with a cumulative relative risk (RRc) of 1.08 (95% CI, 1.05-1.11) for daily mortality from all causes. Rainfall events with a 2-year return period were associated with increased daily respiratory mortality (RRc, 1.14), while no significant effect was observed for cardiovascular mortality during the same period. Rainfall events with a 5-year return period were associated with an increased risk for both cardiovascular mortality (RRc, 1.05) and respiratory mortality (RRc, 1.29), with the respiratory mortality being significantly higher.
 

Points of Concern

According to the authors, moderate to high rainfall can exert protective effects through two main mechanisms: Improving air quality (rainfall can reduce the concentration of particulate matter 2.5 cm in diameter or less in the atmosphere) and behavioral changes in people (more time spent in enclosed environments, reducing direct exposure to outdoor air pollution and nonoptimal temperatures). As rainfall intensity increases, the initial protective effects may be overshadowed by a cascade of negative impacts including:

• Critical resource disruptions: Intense rainfall can cause severe disruptions to access to healthcare, infrastructure damage including power outages, and compromised water and food quality.
• Physiological effects: Increased humidity levels facilitate the growth of airborne pathogens, potentially triggering allergic reactions and respiratory issues, particularly in vulnerable individuals. Rapid shifts in atmospheric pressure and temperature fluctuations can lead to cardiovascular and respiratory complications.
• Indirect effects: Extreme rainfall can have profound effects on mental health, inducing stress and anxiety that may exacerbate pre-existing mental health conditions and indirectly contribute to increased overall mortality from nonexternal causes.

The intensity-response curves for the health effects of heavy rainfall showed a nonlinear trend, transitioning from a protective effect at moderate levels of rainfall to a risk for severe harm when rainfall intensity became extreme. Additionally, the significant effects of extreme events were modified by various types of climate and were more pronounced in areas characterized by low variability in precipitation or sparse vegetation cover.

The study demonstrated that various local factors, such as climatic conditions, climate type, and vegetation cover, can potentially influence cardiovascular and respiratory mortality and all-cause mortality related to precipitation. The findings may help physicians convey to their patients the impact of climate change on their health.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Climate change is intensifying the variability of precipitation caused by extreme daily and overall rainfall events. Awareness of the effects of these events is crucial for understanding the complex health consequences of climate change. The connections between health and climate have been recognized by physicians and patients even when climatology did not have the status of an exact science. Physicians have often advised their patients to move to a better climate, and when they did, the recommendation was rarely based on precise scientific knowledge. However, the benefits of changing environments were often so evident that they were indisputable.

Today, advanced models, satellite imagery, and biological approaches such as environmental epigenetics are enhancing our understanding of health risks related to climate change.
 

Extreme Rainfall and Health

The increase in precipitation variability is linked to climate warming, which leads to higher atmospheric humidity and extreme rainfall events. These manifestations can cause rapid weather changes, increasing interactions with harmful aerosols and raising the risk for various cardiovascular and respiratory conditions. However, a full understanding of the association between rain and health has been hindered by conflicting results and methodological issues (limited geographical locations and short observation durations) in studies.

The association between rainfall intensity and health effects is likely nonlinear. Moderate precipitation can mitigate summer heat and help reduce air pollution, an effect that may lower some environmental health risks. Conversely, intense, low-frequency, short-duration rainfall events can have particularly harmful effects on health, as such events can trigger rapid weather changes, increased proliferation of pathogens, and a rise in the risk of various pollutants, potentially exacerbating health conditions.
 

Rain and Mortality

Using an intensity-duration-frequency model of three rainfall indices (high intensity, low frequency, short duration), a study published in October 2024 combined these with mortality data from 34 countries or regions. Researchers estimated associations between mortality (all cause, cardiovascular, and respiratory) and rainfall events with different return periods (the average time expected before an extreme event of a certain magnitude occurs again) and crucial effect modifiers, including climatic, socioeconomic, and urban environmental conditions.

The analysis included 109,954,744 deaths from all causes; 31,164,161 cardiovascular deaths; and 11,817,278 respiratory deaths. During the study period, from 1980 to 2020, a total of 50,913 rainfall events with a 1-year return period, 8362 events with a 2-year return period, and 3301 events with a 5-year return period were identified.

The most significant finding was a global positive association between all-cause mortality and extreme rainfall events with a 5-year return period. One day of extreme rainfall with a 5-year return period was associated with a cumulative relative risk (RRc) of 1.08 (95% CI, 1.05-1.11) for daily mortality from all causes. Rainfall events with a 2-year return period were associated with increased daily respiratory mortality (RRc, 1.14), while no significant effect was observed for cardiovascular mortality during the same period. Rainfall events with a 5-year return period were associated with an increased risk for both cardiovascular mortality (RRc, 1.05) and respiratory mortality (RRc, 1.29), with the respiratory mortality being significantly higher.
 

Points of Concern

According to the authors, moderate to high rainfall can exert protective effects through two main mechanisms: Improving air quality (rainfall can reduce the concentration of particulate matter 2.5 cm in diameter or less in the atmosphere) and behavioral changes in people (more time spent in enclosed environments, reducing direct exposure to outdoor air pollution and nonoptimal temperatures). As rainfall intensity increases, the initial protective effects may be overshadowed by a cascade of negative impacts including:

• Critical resource disruptions: Intense rainfall can cause severe disruptions to access to healthcare, infrastructure damage including power outages, and compromised water and food quality.
• Physiological effects: Increased humidity levels facilitate the growth of airborne pathogens, potentially triggering allergic reactions and respiratory issues, particularly in vulnerable individuals. Rapid shifts in atmospheric pressure and temperature fluctuations can lead to cardiovascular and respiratory complications.
• Indirect effects: Extreme rainfall can have profound effects on mental health, inducing stress and anxiety that may exacerbate pre-existing mental health conditions and indirectly contribute to increased overall mortality from nonexternal causes.

The intensity-response curves for the health effects of heavy rainfall showed a nonlinear trend, transitioning from a protective effect at moderate levels of rainfall to a risk for severe harm when rainfall intensity became extreme. Additionally, the significant effects of extreme events were modified by various types of climate and were more pronounced in areas characterized by low variability in precipitation or sparse vegetation cover.

The study demonstrated that various local factors, such as climatic conditions, climate type, and vegetation cover, can potentially influence cardiovascular and respiratory mortality and all-cause mortality related to precipitation. The findings may help physicians convey to their patients the impact of climate change on their health.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Climate change is intensifying the variability of precipitation caused by extreme daily and overall rainfall events. Awareness of the effects of these events is crucial for understanding the complex health consequences of climate change. The connections between health and climate have been recognized by physicians and patients even when climatology did not have the status of an exact science. Physicians have often advised their patients to move to a better climate, and when they did, the recommendation was rarely based on precise scientific knowledge. However, the benefits of changing environments were often so evident that they were indisputable.

Today, advanced models, satellite imagery, and biological approaches such as environmental epigenetics are enhancing our understanding of health risks related to climate change.
 

Extreme Rainfall and Health

The increase in precipitation variability is linked to climate warming, which leads to higher atmospheric humidity and extreme rainfall events. These manifestations can cause rapid weather changes, increasing interactions with harmful aerosols and raising the risk for various cardiovascular and respiratory conditions. However, a full understanding of the association between rain and health has been hindered by conflicting results and methodological issues (limited geographical locations and short observation durations) in studies.

The association between rainfall intensity and health effects is likely nonlinear. Moderate precipitation can mitigate summer heat and help reduce air pollution, an effect that may lower some environmental health risks. Conversely, intense, low-frequency, short-duration rainfall events can have particularly harmful effects on health, as such events can trigger rapid weather changes, increased proliferation of pathogens, and a rise in the risk of various pollutants, potentially exacerbating health conditions.
 

Rain and Mortality

Using an intensity-duration-frequency model of three rainfall indices (high intensity, low frequency, short duration), a study published in October 2024 combined these with mortality data from 34 countries or regions. Researchers estimated associations between mortality (all cause, cardiovascular, and respiratory) and rainfall events with different return periods (the average time expected before an extreme event of a certain magnitude occurs again) and crucial effect modifiers, including climatic, socioeconomic, and urban environmental conditions.

The analysis included 109,954,744 deaths from all causes; 31,164,161 cardiovascular deaths; and 11,817,278 respiratory deaths. During the study period, from 1980 to 2020, a total of 50,913 rainfall events with a 1-year return period, 8362 events with a 2-year return period, and 3301 events with a 5-year return period were identified.

The most significant finding was a global positive association between all-cause mortality and extreme rainfall events with a 5-year return period. One day of extreme rainfall with a 5-year return period was associated with a cumulative relative risk (RRc) of 1.08 (95% CI, 1.05-1.11) for daily mortality from all causes. Rainfall events with a 2-year return period were associated with increased daily respiratory mortality (RRc, 1.14), while no significant effect was observed for cardiovascular mortality during the same period. Rainfall events with a 5-year return period were associated with an increased risk for both cardiovascular mortality (RRc, 1.05) and respiratory mortality (RRc, 1.29), with the respiratory mortality being significantly higher.
 

Points of Concern

According to the authors, moderate to high rainfall can exert protective effects through two main mechanisms: Improving air quality (rainfall can reduce the concentration of particulate matter 2.5 cm in diameter or less in the atmosphere) and behavioral changes in people (more time spent in enclosed environments, reducing direct exposure to outdoor air pollution and nonoptimal temperatures). As rainfall intensity increases, the initial protective effects may be overshadowed by a cascade of negative impacts including:

• Critical resource disruptions: Intense rainfall can cause severe disruptions to access to healthcare, infrastructure damage including power outages, and compromised water and food quality.
• Physiological effects: Increased humidity levels facilitate the growth of airborne pathogens, potentially triggering allergic reactions and respiratory issues, particularly in vulnerable individuals. Rapid shifts in atmospheric pressure and temperature fluctuations can lead to cardiovascular and respiratory complications.
• Indirect effects: Extreme rainfall can have profound effects on mental health, inducing stress and anxiety that may exacerbate pre-existing mental health conditions and indirectly contribute to increased overall mortality from nonexternal causes.

The intensity-response curves for the health effects of heavy rainfall showed a nonlinear trend, transitioning from a protective effect at moderate levels of rainfall to a risk for severe harm when rainfall intensity became extreme. Additionally, the significant effects of extreme events were modified by various types of climate and were more pronounced in areas characterized by low variability in precipitation or sparse vegetation cover.

The study demonstrated that various local factors, such as climatic conditions, climate type, and vegetation cover, can potentially influence cardiovascular and respiratory mortality and all-cause mortality related to precipitation. The findings may help physicians convey to their patients the impact of climate change on their health.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Aspirin. Once upon a time, everybody over age 50 years was supposed to take a baby aspirin. Now we make it a point to tell people to stop. What is going on?  

Our recommendations vis-à-vis aspirin have evolved at a dizzying pace. The young’uns watching us right now don’t know what things were like in the 1980s. The Reagan era was a wild, heady time where nuclear war was imminent and we didn’t prescribe aspirin to patients. 

That only started in 1988, which was a banner year in human history. Not because a number of doves were incinerated by the lighting of the Olympic torch at the Seoul Olympics — look it up if you don’t know what I’m talking about — but because 1988 saw the publication of the ISIS-2 trial, which first showed a mortality benefit to prescribing aspirin post–myocardial infarction (MI).

Giving patients aspirin during or after a heart attack is not controversial. It’s one of the few things in this business that isn’t, but that’s secondary prevention — treating somebody after they develop a disease. Primary prevention, treating them before they have their incident event, is a very different ballgame. Here, things are messy. 

For one thing, the doses used have been very inconsistent. We should point out that the reason for 81 mg of aspirin is very arbitrary and is rooted in the old apothecary system of weights and measurements. A standard dose of aspirin was 5 grains, where 20 grains made 1 scruple, 3 scruples made 1 dram, 8 drams made 1 oz, and 12 oz made 1 lb - because screw you, metric system. Therefore, 5 grains was 325 mg of aspirin, and 1 quarter of the standard dose became 81 mg if you rounded out the decimal. 

People have tried all kinds of dosing structures with aspirin prophylaxis. The Physicians’ Health Study used a full-dose aspirin, 325 mg every 2 days, while the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) trial tested 75 mg daily and the Women’s Health Study tested 100 mg, but every other day. 

Ironically, almost no one has studied 81 mg every day, which is weird if you think about it. The bigger problem here is not the variability of doses used, but the discrepancy when you look at older vs newer studies.

Older studies, like the Physicians’ Health Study, did show a benefit, at least in the subgroup of patients over age 50 years, which is probably where the “everybody over 50 should be taking an aspirin” idea comes from, at least as near as I can tell. 

More recent studies, like the Women’s Health Study, ASPREE, or ASPIRE, didn’t show a benefit. I know what you’re thinking: Newer stuff is always better. That’s why you should never trust anybody over age 40 years. The context of primary prevention studies has changed. In the ‘80s and ‘90s, people smoked more and we didn’t have the same medications that we have today. We talked about all this in the beta-blocker video to explain why beta-blockers don’t seem to have a benefit post MI.

We have a similar issue here. The magnitude of the benefit with aspirin primary prevention has decreased because we’re all just healthier overall. So, yay! Progress! Here’s where the numbers matter. No one is saying that aspirin doesn’t help. It does. 

If we look at the 2019 meta-analysis published in JAMA, there is a cardiovascular benefit. The numbers bear that out. I know you’re all here for the math, so here we go. Aspirin reduced the composite cardiovascular endpoint from 65.2 to 60.2 events per 10,000 patient-years; or to put it more meaningfully in absolute risk reduction terms, because that’s my jam, an absolute risk reduction of 0.41%, which means a number needed to treat of 241, which is okay-ish. It’s not super-great, but it may be justifiable for something that costs next to nothing. 

The tradeoff is bleeding. Major bleeding increased from 16.4 to 23.1 bleeds per 10,000 patient-years, or an absolute risk increase of 0.47%, which is a number needed to harm of 210. That’s the problem. Aspirin does prevent heart disease. The benefit is small, for sure, but the real problem is that it’s outweighed by the risk of bleeding, so you’re not really coming out ahead. 

The real tragedy here is that the public is locked into this idea of everyone over age 50 years should be taking an aspirin. Even today, even though guidelines have recommended against aspirin for primary prevention for some time, data from the National Health Interview Survey sample found that nearly one in three older adults take aspirin for primary prevention when they shouldn’t be. That’s a large number of people. That’s millions of Americans — and Canadians, but nobody cares about us. It’s fine. 

That’s the point. We’re not debunking aspirin. It does work. The benefits are just really small in a primary prevention population and offset by the admittedly also really small risks of bleeding. It’s a tradeoff that doesn’t really work in your favor.

But that’s aspirin for cardiovascular disease. When it comes to cancer or DVT prophylaxis, that’s another really interesting story. We might have to save that for another time. Do I know how to tease a sequel or what?

Labos, a cardiologist at Kirkland Medical Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Aspirin. Once upon a time, everybody over age 50 years was supposed to take a baby aspirin. Now we make it a point to tell people to stop. What is going on?  

Our recommendations vis-à-vis aspirin have evolved at a dizzying pace. The young’uns watching us right now don’t know what things were like in the 1980s. The Reagan era was a wild, heady time where nuclear war was imminent and we didn’t prescribe aspirin to patients. 

That only started in 1988, which was a banner year in human history. Not because a number of doves were incinerated by the lighting of the Olympic torch at the Seoul Olympics — look it up if you don’t know what I’m talking about — but because 1988 saw the publication of the ISIS-2 trial, which first showed a mortality benefit to prescribing aspirin post–myocardial infarction (MI).

Giving patients aspirin during or after a heart attack is not controversial. It’s one of the few things in this business that isn’t, but that’s secondary prevention — treating somebody after they develop a disease. Primary prevention, treating them before they have their incident event, is a very different ballgame. Here, things are messy. 

For one thing, the doses used have been very inconsistent. We should point out that the reason for 81 mg of aspirin is very arbitrary and is rooted in the old apothecary system of weights and measurements. A standard dose of aspirin was 5 grains, where 20 grains made 1 scruple, 3 scruples made 1 dram, 8 drams made 1 oz, and 12 oz made 1 lb - because screw you, metric system. Therefore, 5 grains was 325 mg of aspirin, and 1 quarter of the standard dose became 81 mg if you rounded out the decimal. 

People have tried all kinds of dosing structures with aspirin prophylaxis. The Physicians’ Health Study used a full-dose aspirin, 325 mg every 2 days, while the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) trial tested 75 mg daily and the Women’s Health Study tested 100 mg, but every other day. 

Ironically, almost no one has studied 81 mg every day, which is weird if you think about it. The bigger problem here is not the variability of doses used, but the discrepancy when you look at older vs newer studies.

Older studies, like the Physicians’ Health Study, did show a benefit, at least in the subgroup of patients over age 50 years, which is probably where the “everybody over 50 should be taking an aspirin” idea comes from, at least as near as I can tell. 

More recent studies, like the Women’s Health Study, ASPREE, or ASPIRE, didn’t show a benefit. I know what you’re thinking: Newer stuff is always better. That’s why you should never trust anybody over age 40 years. The context of primary prevention studies has changed. In the ‘80s and ‘90s, people smoked more and we didn’t have the same medications that we have today. We talked about all this in the beta-blocker video to explain why beta-blockers don’t seem to have a benefit post MI.

We have a similar issue here. The magnitude of the benefit with aspirin primary prevention has decreased because we’re all just healthier overall. So, yay! Progress! Here’s where the numbers matter. No one is saying that aspirin doesn’t help. It does. 

If we look at the 2019 meta-analysis published in JAMA, there is a cardiovascular benefit. The numbers bear that out. I know you’re all here for the math, so here we go. Aspirin reduced the composite cardiovascular endpoint from 65.2 to 60.2 events per 10,000 patient-years; or to put it more meaningfully in absolute risk reduction terms, because that’s my jam, an absolute risk reduction of 0.41%, which means a number needed to treat of 241, which is okay-ish. It’s not super-great, but it may be justifiable for something that costs next to nothing. 

The tradeoff is bleeding. Major bleeding increased from 16.4 to 23.1 bleeds per 10,000 patient-years, or an absolute risk increase of 0.47%, which is a number needed to harm of 210. That’s the problem. Aspirin does prevent heart disease. The benefit is small, for sure, but the real problem is that it’s outweighed by the risk of bleeding, so you’re not really coming out ahead. 

The real tragedy here is that the public is locked into this idea of everyone over age 50 years should be taking an aspirin. Even today, even though guidelines have recommended against aspirin for primary prevention for some time, data from the National Health Interview Survey sample found that nearly one in three older adults take aspirin for primary prevention when they shouldn’t be. That’s a large number of people. That’s millions of Americans — and Canadians, but nobody cares about us. It’s fine. 

That’s the point. We’re not debunking aspirin. It does work. The benefits are just really small in a primary prevention population and offset by the admittedly also really small risks of bleeding. It’s a tradeoff that doesn’t really work in your favor.

But that’s aspirin for cardiovascular disease. When it comes to cancer or DVT prophylaxis, that’s another really interesting story. We might have to save that for another time. Do I know how to tease a sequel or what?

Labos, a cardiologist at Kirkland Medical Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Aspirin. Once upon a time, everybody over age 50 years was supposed to take a baby aspirin. Now we make it a point to tell people to stop. What is going on?  

Our recommendations vis-à-vis aspirin have evolved at a dizzying pace. The young’uns watching us right now don’t know what things were like in the 1980s. The Reagan era was a wild, heady time where nuclear war was imminent and we didn’t prescribe aspirin to patients. 

That only started in 1988, which was a banner year in human history. Not because a number of doves were incinerated by the lighting of the Olympic torch at the Seoul Olympics — look it up if you don’t know what I’m talking about — but because 1988 saw the publication of the ISIS-2 trial, which first showed a mortality benefit to prescribing aspirin post–myocardial infarction (MI).

Giving patients aspirin during or after a heart attack is not controversial. It’s one of the few things in this business that isn’t, but that’s secondary prevention — treating somebody after they develop a disease. Primary prevention, treating them before they have their incident event, is a very different ballgame. Here, things are messy. 

For one thing, the doses used have been very inconsistent. We should point out that the reason for 81 mg of aspirin is very arbitrary and is rooted in the old apothecary system of weights and measurements. A standard dose of aspirin was 5 grains, where 20 grains made 1 scruple, 3 scruples made 1 dram, 8 drams made 1 oz, and 12 oz made 1 lb - because screw you, metric system. Therefore, 5 grains was 325 mg of aspirin, and 1 quarter of the standard dose became 81 mg if you rounded out the decimal. 

People have tried all kinds of dosing structures with aspirin prophylaxis. The Physicians’ Health Study used a full-dose aspirin, 325 mg every 2 days, while the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) trial tested 75 mg daily and the Women’s Health Study tested 100 mg, but every other day. 

Ironically, almost no one has studied 81 mg every day, which is weird if you think about it. The bigger problem here is not the variability of doses used, but the discrepancy when you look at older vs newer studies.

Older studies, like the Physicians’ Health Study, did show a benefit, at least in the subgroup of patients over age 50 years, which is probably where the “everybody over 50 should be taking an aspirin” idea comes from, at least as near as I can tell. 

More recent studies, like the Women’s Health Study, ASPREE, or ASPIRE, didn’t show a benefit. I know what you’re thinking: Newer stuff is always better. That’s why you should never trust anybody over age 40 years. The context of primary prevention studies has changed. In the ‘80s and ‘90s, people smoked more and we didn’t have the same medications that we have today. We talked about all this in the beta-blocker video to explain why beta-blockers don’t seem to have a benefit post MI.

We have a similar issue here. The magnitude of the benefit with aspirin primary prevention has decreased because we’re all just healthier overall. So, yay! Progress! Here’s where the numbers matter. No one is saying that aspirin doesn’t help. It does. 

If we look at the 2019 meta-analysis published in JAMA, there is a cardiovascular benefit. The numbers bear that out. I know you’re all here for the math, so here we go. Aspirin reduced the composite cardiovascular endpoint from 65.2 to 60.2 events per 10,000 patient-years; or to put it more meaningfully in absolute risk reduction terms, because that’s my jam, an absolute risk reduction of 0.41%, which means a number needed to treat of 241, which is okay-ish. It’s not super-great, but it may be justifiable for something that costs next to nothing. 

The tradeoff is bleeding. Major bleeding increased from 16.4 to 23.1 bleeds per 10,000 patient-years, or an absolute risk increase of 0.47%, which is a number needed to harm of 210. That’s the problem. Aspirin does prevent heart disease. The benefit is small, for sure, but the real problem is that it’s outweighed by the risk of bleeding, so you’re not really coming out ahead. 

The real tragedy here is that the public is locked into this idea of everyone over age 50 years should be taking an aspirin. Even today, even though guidelines have recommended against aspirin for primary prevention for some time, data from the National Health Interview Survey sample found that nearly one in three older adults take aspirin for primary prevention when they shouldn’t be. That’s a large number of people. That’s millions of Americans — and Canadians, but nobody cares about us. It’s fine. 

That’s the point. We’re not debunking aspirin. It does work. The benefits are just really small in a primary prevention population and offset by the admittedly also really small risks of bleeding. It’s a tradeoff that doesn’t really work in your favor.

But that’s aspirin for cardiovascular disease. When it comes to cancer or DVT prophylaxis, that’s another really interesting story. We might have to save that for another time. Do I know how to tease a sequel or what?

Labos, a cardiologist at Kirkland Medical Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Only 12% of the nurses providing patient care at hospitals and health clinics today are men. Although the percentage of nurses has increased — men made up just 2.7% of nurses in 1970 — nursing is still considered a “pink collar” profession, a female-dominated field.

“We’ve made strides over the last couple of decades, but [the number of men pursuing nursing careers] is leveling out,” said Jason Dunne, DNP, MSN, RN, chief academic officer at the Arizona College of Nursing, Phoenix. “There continues to be persistent gender stereotypes that [have] discouraged men from entering the profession.”

A nationwide nursing shortage has led to increased efforts to attract more men to the profession and ensure that men in nursing feel valued and supported and want to continue their careers long term.

“The nursing shortage is very real,” Dunne said. “We need to be highly focused on the shortage and look at opportunities to bring diversity into the profession, and one big way to solve it is bringing more men into nursing.”
 

Representation Matters

Colleges recognize the need to diversify their nursing student population and have turned their attention to increasing the number of men attending informational sessions and career days. Dunne believes, “There is a general lack of awareness of nursing as a career choice [for men].”

The Nursing Consortium of Florida hosts a “Day in the Life of a Nurse” program to introduce high school students to nursing careers, and the University of Virginia School of Nursing invites male nursing students to speak at educational events to promote workforce diversity.

“When I was growing up, the males wouldn’t have been included in those sessions,” said Melissa Gilbert Gomes, PhD, APRN, PMHNP-BC, FNAP, FAAN, associate dean for diversity, equity, and inclusion at the University of Virginia School of Nursing, Charlottesville, Virginia. “It was nice to see their interest and to have a male student there for them to ask questions and to help them see that this could be a place for them.”

Nursing schools have also engaged in other efforts to encourage more men to consider nursing careers, from highlighting male nurses in marketing materials and engaging with men at career fairs to updating course curriculum to include content on men’s health and connecting male nursing students with men in nursing faculty or clinical settings.

Focusing on nursing as a lucrative career choice could also attract more men to the profession. On average, male registered nurses (RNs) make $7300 per year more than their female counterparts due to the gender pay gap. The median wage for male RNs in acute care, cardiology, and perioperative specialties is $90,000 annually.

At the University of Virginia School of Nursing, which the American Association for Men in Nursing (AAMN) named “Best School for Men in Nursing” in 2023, 20% of nursing students are men.

The school has a Men Advancing Nursing club and is in the process of chartering a new AAMN chapter. The goal, according to Gomes, is to create an environment where male nursing students feel represented and supported.

“Valuing the perspective that men bring [to nursing] is important,” she said. “Coming together [and] having that camaraderie and intrinsic motivation to specifically speak to areas that impact men ... is important.”
 

Promoting Patient Care

Highlighting the diversity of career options within the nursing profession is also essential. RNs can pursue careers in specialties ranging from pediatrics, orthopedics, and occupational health to anesthesia, cardiology, and nephrology. The specialty with the highest number of male RNs tends to be acute care, which encompasses emergency/trauma and medical-surgical.

John Schmidt, DNP, MSN, BSN, faculty member and program lead for the acute care nurse practitioner program at Purdue Global School of Nursing, refers to these specialties as having a high excitement factor.

“Men gravitate to nursing to help people,” he said. “In critical care, there is instant gratification. You see patients get better. It’s the same in the [intensive care unit] and the emergency department. We take care of them and can see how we made a difference.”

When hospitals and health systems create environments that support men in nursing, patients also benefit. Research shows that patients often prefer nurses of the same gender, and a more diverse healthcare workforce has been linked to improved patient outcomes. Reducing gender inequities among nursing staff could also improve job satisfaction and retention rates for men in nursing.

“When you’re in a vulnerable space as a patient ... it’s important to know that your care provider understands you [and] having men as nurses is a part of that,” said Gomes. “Even though patients might not be used to having a male nurse at the bedside, once they have the experience, it challenges preconceived notions [and] that connection is important.”

Hospitals must proactively support men in nursing to achieve the benefits of greater gender diversity in the nursing workforce. Male nurses have fewer role models and report higher levels of loneliness, isolation, and role strain.

Groups such as NYC Men in Nursing and mentorship programs such as Men in Nursing at RUSH University College of Nursing and RUSH University Medical Center, and the North Carolina Healthcare Association Diverse Healthcare Leaders Mentorship Program were designed to provide coaching, education, and networking opportunities and connect men in nursing.

Male nurses, Dunne added, must be role models and must take the lead in changing the conversations about gender roles in nursing. Establishing support systems and mentorship opportunities is instrumental in inspiring men to pursue nursing careers and creating visibility into the profession and “would create a level of parity for men in the profession and encourage them to want to stay in nursing as a long-term career.”

He told this news organization that creating scholarships for men enrolled in nursing school, increasing the involvement of male nurse leaders in recruitment efforts, and updating curriculum to ensure men are reflected in the materials is also essential.

“We’ve got to be willing and open to having the conversations to end the stereotypes that have plagued the profession,” said Dunne. “And we’ve got to push men in nursing to be front and center so folks see that there are opportunities for men in nursing.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Only 12% of the nurses providing patient care at hospitals and health clinics today are men. Although the percentage of nurses has increased — men made up just 2.7% of nurses in 1970 — nursing is still considered a “pink collar” profession, a female-dominated field.

“We’ve made strides over the last couple of decades, but [the number of men pursuing nursing careers] is leveling out,” said Jason Dunne, DNP, MSN, RN, chief academic officer at the Arizona College of Nursing, Phoenix. “There continues to be persistent gender stereotypes that [have] discouraged men from entering the profession.”

A nationwide nursing shortage has led to increased efforts to attract more men to the profession and ensure that men in nursing feel valued and supported and want to continue their careers long term.

“The nursing shortage is very real,” Dunne said. “We need to be highly focused on the shortage and look at opportunities to bring diversity into the profession, and one big way to solve it is bringing more men into nursing.”
 

Representation Matters

Colleges recognize the need to diversify their nursing student population and have turned their attention to increasing the number of men attending informational sessions and career days. Dunne believes, “There is a general lack of awareness of nursing as a career choice [for men].”

The Nursing Consortium of Florida hosts a “Day in the Life of a Nurse” program to introduce high school students to nursing careers, and the University of Virginia School of Nursing invites male nursing students to speak at educational events to promote workforce diversity.

“When I was growing up, the males wouldn’t have been included in those sessions,” said Melissa Gilbert Gomes, PhD, APRN, PMHNP-BC, FNAP, FAAN, associate dean for diversity, equity, and inclusion at the University of Virginia School of Nursing, Charlottesville, Virginia. “It was nice to see their interest and to have a male student there for them to ask questions and to help them see that this could be a place for them.”

Nursing schools have also engaged in other efforts to encourage more men to consider nursing careers, from highlighting male nurses in marketing materials and engaging with men at career fairs to updating course curriculum to include content on men’s health and connecting male nursing students with men in nursing faculty or clinical settings.

Focusing on nursing as a lucrative career choice could also attract more men to the profession. On average, male registered nurses (RNs) make $7300 per year more than their female counterparts due to the gender pay gap. The median wage for male RNs in acute care, cardiology, and perioperative specialties is $90,000 annually.

At the University of Virginia School of Nursing, which the American Association for Men in Nursing (AAMN) named “Best School for Men in Nursing” in 2023, 20% of nursing students are men.

The school has a Men Advancing Nursing club and is in the process of chartering a new AAMN chapter. The goal, according to Gomes, is to create an environment where male nursing students feel represented and supported.

“Valuing the perspective that men bring [to nursing] is important,” she said. “Coming together [and] having that camaraderie and intrinsic motivation to specifically speak to areas that impact men ... is important.”
 

Promoting Patient Care

Highlighting the diversity of career options within the nursing profession is also essential. RNs can pursue careers in specialties ranging from pediatrics, orthopedics, and occupational health to anesthesia, cardiology, and nephrology. The specialty with the highest number of male RNs tends to be acute care, which encompasses emergency/trauma and medical-surgical.

John Schmidt, DNP, MSN, BSN, faculty member and program lead for the acute care nurse practitioner program at Purdue Global School of Nursing, refers to these specialties as having a high excitement factor.

“Men gravitate to nursing to help people,” he said. “In critical care, there is instant gratification. You see patients get better. It’s the same in the [intensive care unit] and the emergency department. We take care of them and can see how we made a difference.”

When hospitals and health systems create environments that support men in nursing, patients also benefit. Research shows that patients often prefer nurses of the same gender, and a more diverse healthcare workforce has been linked to improved patient outcomes. Reducing gender inequities among nursing staff could also improve job satisfaction and retention rates for men in nursing.

“When you’re in a vulnerable space as a patient ... it’s important to know that your care provider understands you [and] having men as nurses is a part of that,” said Gomes. “Even though patients might not be used to having a male nurse at the bedside, once they have the experience, it challenges preconceived notions [and] that connection is important.”

Hospitals must proactively support men in nursing to achieve the benefits of greater gender diversity in the nursing workforce. Male nurses have fewer role models and report higher levels of loneliness, isolation, and role strain.

Groups such as NYC Men in Nursing and mentorship programs such as Men in Nursing at RUSH University College of Nursing and RUSH University Medical Center, and the North Carolina Healthcare Association Diverse Healthcare Leaders Mentorship Program were designed to provide coaching, education, and networking opportunities and connect men in nursing.

Male nurses, Dunne added, must be role models and must take the lead in changing the conversations about gender roles in nursing. Establishing support systems and mentorship opportunities is instrumental in inspiring men to pursue nursing careers and creating visibility into the profession and “would create a level of parity for men in the profession and encourage them to want to stay in nursing as a long-term career.”

He told this news organization that creating scholarships for men enrolled in nursing school, increasing the involvement of male nurse leaders in recruitment efforts, and updating curriculum to ensure men are reflected in the materials is also essential.

“We’ve got to be willing and open to having the conversations to end the stereotypes that have plagued the profession,” said Dunne. “And we’ve got to push men in nursing to be front and center so folks see that there are opportunities for men in nursing.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Only 12% of the nurses providing patient care at hospitals and health clinics today are men. Although the percentage of nurses has increased — men made up just 2.7% of nurses in 1970 — nursing is still considered a “pink collar” profession, a female-dominated field.

“We’ve made strides over the last couple of decades, but [the number of men pursuing nursing careers] is leveling out,” said Jason Dunne, DNP, MSN, RN, chief academic officer at the Arizona College of Nursing, Phoenix. “There continues to be persistent gender stereotypes that [have] discouraged men from entering the profession.”

A nationwide nursing shortage has led to increased efforts to attract more men to the profession and ensure that men in nursing feel valued and supported and want to continue their careers long term.

“The nursing shortage is very real,” Dunne said. “We need to be highly focused on the shortage and look at opportunities to bring diversity into the profession, and one big way to solve it is bringing more men into nursing.”
 

Representation Matters

Colleges recognize the need to diversify their nursing student population and have turned their attention to increasing the number of men attending informational sessions and career days. Dunne believes, “There is a general lack of awareness of nursing as a career choice [for men].”

The Nursing Consortium of Florida hosts a “Day in the Life of a Nurse” program to introduce high school students to nursing careers, and the University of Virginia School of Nursing invites male nursing students to speak at educational events to promote workforce diversity.

“When I was growing up, the males wouldn’t have been included in those sessions,” said Melissa Gilbert Gomes, PhD, APRN, PMHNP-BC, FNAP, FAAN, associate dean for diversity, equity, and inclusion at the University of Virginia School of Nursing, Charlottesville, Virginia. “It was nice to see their interest and to have a male student there for them to ask questions and to help them see that this could be a place for them.”

Nursing schools have also engaged in other efforts to encourage more men to consider nursing careers, from highlighting male nurses in marketing materials and engaging with men at career fairs to updating course curriculum to include content on men’s health and connecting male nursing students with men in nursing faculty or clinical settings.

Focusing on nursing as a lucrative career choice could also attract more men to the profession. On average, male registered nurses (RNs) make $7300 per year more than their female counterparts due to the gender pay gap. The median wage for male RNs in acute care, cardiology, and perioperative specialties is $90,000 annually.

At the University of Virginia School of Nursing, which the American Association for Men in Nursing (AAMN) named “Best School for Men in Nursing” in 2023, 20% of nursing students are men.

The school has a Men Advancing Nursing club and is in the process of chartering a new AAMN chapter. The goal, according to Gomes, is to create an environment where male nursing students feel represented and supported.

“Valuing the perspective that men bring [to nursing] is important,” she said. “Coming together [and] having that camaraderie and intrinsic motivation to specifically speak to areas that impact men ... is important.”
 

Promoting Patient Care

Highlighting the diversity of career options within the nursing profession is also essential. RNs can pursue careers in specialties ranging from pediatrics, orthopedics, and occupational health to anesthesia, cardiology, and nephrology. The specialty with the highest number of male RNs tends to be acute care, which encompasses emergency/trauma and medical-surgical.

John Schmidt, DNP, MSN, BSN, faculty member and program lead for the acute care nurse practitioner program at Purdue Global School of Nursing, refers to these specialties as having a high excitement factor.

“Men gravitate to nursing to help people,” he said. “In critical care, there is instant gratification. You see patients get better. It’s the same in the [intensive care unit] and the emergency department. We take care of them and can see how we made a difference.”

When hospitals and health systems create environments that support men in nursing, patients also benefit. Research shows that patients often prefer nurses of the same gender, and a more diverse healthcare workforce has been linked to improved patient outcomes. Reducing gender inequities among nursing staff could also improve job satisfaction and retention rates for men in nursing.

“When you’re in a vulnerable space as a patient ... it’s important to know that your care provider understands you [and] having men as nurses is a part of that,” said Gomes. “Even though patients might not be used to having a male nurse at the bedside, once they have the experience, it challenges preconceived notions [and] that connection is important.”

Hospitals must proactively support men in nursing to achieve the benefits of greater gender diversity in the nursing workforce. Male nurses have fewer role models and report higher levels of loneliness, isolation, and role strain.

Groups such as NYC Men in Nursing and mentorship programs such as Men in Nursing at RUSH University College of Nursing and RUSH University Medical Center, and the North Carolina Healthcare Association Diverse Healthcare Leaders Mentorship Program were designed to provide coaching, education, and networking opportunities and connect men in nursing.

Male nurses, Dunne added, must be role models and must take the lead in changing the conversations about gender roles in nursing. Establishing support systems and mentorship opportunities is instrumental in inspiring men to pursue nursing careers and creating visibility into the profession and “would create a level of parity for men in the profession and encourage them to want to stay in nursing as a long-term career.”

He told this news organization that creating scholarships for men enrolled in nursing school, increasing the involvement of male nurse leaders in recruitment efforts, and updating curriculum to ensure men are reflected in the materials is also essential.

“We’ve got to be willing and open to having the conversations to end the stereotypes that have plagued the profession,” said Dunne. “And we’ve got to push men in nursing to be front and center so folks see that there are opportunities for men in nursing.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Federal lawmakers are rushing to soften the blow of Medicare’s 2025 effective pay cut for doctors in 2025, introducing a bill that could limit the cut. But they have little time to act.

In 2025, the conversion factor used to calculate payment to doctors and hospitals caring for Medicare patients will drop to $32.35, a nearly 3% decrease from the current level. 

Congress likely will act before the cuts take effect, said Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD (R-IN), who specialized in cardiothoracic surgery before joining Congress. Lawmakers in past years have typically tinkered with the Medicare physician fee schedule at the last minute, tucking in fixes to December legislative packages and spending bills. 

“I’m pretty optimistic that a good portion of the fee cuts will be mitigated and they won’t go through,” Bucshon told this news organization in an interview.

Bruce A. Scott, MD, president of the American Medical Association (AMA) said in a statement that CMS’ release of the final fee schedule on November 1 should trigger serious work on a change to the 2025 Medicare physician fee schedule.

“The fee schedule rule released [on November 1] starts the clock — with January 1 looming,” Scott said. “A legislative remedy will require hard work and compromise. The 66 million patients who rely on Medicare are counting on that.”

Both Bucshon and Scott also joined many lawmakers and medical associations in calling on Congress for a larger overhaul of the Medicare physician fee schedule, well beyond whatever temporary adjustment may be made in the months ahead to avoid or soften the 2025 cuts.

The physician fee schedule sets formulas and rules regarding how the largest US buyer of health services pays the almost 1.3 million clinicians who bill Medicare. Of these, 51% are physicians. The physician fee schedule also covers payments for nurse practitioners, physician assistants, physical therapists, and other health professionals.
 

Last Major Overhaul Unpopular

There’s broad dissatisfaction with Congress’ last major overhaul of the Medicare physician fee schedule. The 2015 Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) aimed to shift clinicians toward programs tying pay increases to quality measures. But the implementation of that aim through the Merit-based Incentive Payment System is widely considered a disappointment.

MACRA was intended to end the need for annual “doc fixes,” as Congress’ last-minute Medicare adjustments are known. Seventeen such tweaks passed before MACRA took effect. 

But MACRA did not include a broad-based inflation adjuster, and some clinicians’ incomes are lagging as inflation rates — and practice costs — have risen. Scott said the Medicare Economic Index, which is a measure used to gauge increases in practice costs for clinicians, is expected to rise by 3.5%.

“To put it bluntly, Medicare plans to pay us less while costs go up. You don’t have to be an economist to know that is an unsustainable trend, though one that has been going on for decades,” Scott said. “For physician practices operating on small margins already, this means it is harder to acquire new equipment, harder to retain staff, harder to take on new Medicare patients, and harder to keep the doors open, particularly in rural and underserved areas.”

In a statement, Jen Brull, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, noted that this likely will be the fifth year in a row that Congress will need to do a patch to prevent cuts in pay to clinicians. 

Bucshon, who will retire from the House in January, said he expects Congress to pass legislation tying Medicare payment rates to inflation — eventually.

“People want to find a way to fix this problem, but also do it in a way that does not cut benefits to anyone, and that’s the key,” Bucshon said. “We’re going to have to find a way to make sure that providers are properly reimbursed.”

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

Federal lawmakers are rushing to soften the blow of Medicare’s 2025 effective pay cut for doctors in 2025, introducing a bill that could limit the cut. But they have little time to act.

In 2025, the conversion factor used to calculate payment to doctors and hospitals caring for Medicare patients will drop to $32.35, a nearly 3% decrease from the current level. 

Congress likely will act before the cuts take effect, said Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD (R-IN), who specialized in cardiothoracic surgery before joining Congress. Lawmakers in past years have typically tinkered with the Medicare physician fee schedule at the last minute, tucking in fixes to December legislative packages and spending bills. 

“I’m pretty optimistic that a good portion of the fee cuts will be mitigated and they won’t go through,” Bucshon told this news organization in an interview.

Bruce A. Scott, MD, president of the American Medical Association (AMA) said in a statement that CMS’ release of the final fee schedule on November 1 should trigger serious work on a change to the 2025 Medicare physician fee schedule.

“The fee schedule rule released [on November 1] starts the clock — with January 1 looming,” Scott said. “A legislative remedy will require hard work and compromise. The 66 million patients who rely on Medicare are counting on that.”

Both Bucshon and Scott also joined many lawmakers and medical associations in calling on Congress for a larger overhaul of the Medicare physician fee schedule, well beyond whatever temporary adjustment may be made in the months ahead to avoid or soften the 2025 cuts.

The physician fee schedule sets formulas and rules regarding how the largest US buyer of health services pays the almost 1.3 million clinicians who bill Medicare. Of these, 51% are physicians. The physician fee schedule also covers payments for nurse practitioners, physician assistants, physical therapists, and other health professionals.
 

Last Major Overhaul Unpopular

There’s broad dissatisfaction with Congress’ last major overhaul of the Medicare physician fee schedule. The 2015 Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) aimed to shift clinicians toward programs tying pay increases to quality measures. But the implementation of that aim through the Merit-based Incentive Payment System is widely considered a disappointment.

MACRA was intended to end the need for annual “doc fixes,” as Congress’ last-minute Medicare adjustments are known. Seventeen such tweaks passed before MACRA took effect. 

But MACRA did not include a broad-based inflation adjuster, and some clinicians’ incomes are lagging as inflation rates — and practice costs — have risen. Scott said the Medicare Economic Index, which is a measure used to gauge increases in practice costs for clinicians, is expected to rise by 3.5%.

“To put it bluntly, Medicare plans to pay us less while costs go up. You don’t have to be an economist to know that is an unsustainable trend, though one that has been going on for decades,” Scott said. “For physician practices operating on small margins already, this means it is harder to acquire new equipment, harder to retain staff, harder to take on new Medicare patients, and harder to keep the doors open, particularly in rural and underserved areas.”

In a statement, Jen Brull, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, noted that this likely will be the fifth year in a row that Congress will need to do a patch to prevent cuts in pay to clinicians. 

Bucshon, who will retire from the House in January, said he expects Congress to pass legislation tying Medicare payment rates to inflation — eventually.

“People want to find a way to fix this problem, but also do it in a way that does not cut benefits to anyone, and that’s the key,” Bucshon said. “We’re going to have to find a way to make sure that providers are properly reimbursed.”

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

Federal lawmakers are rushing to soften the blow of Medicare’s 2025 effective pay cut for doctors in 2025, introducing a bill that could limit the cut. But they have little time to act.

In 2025, the conversion factor used to calculate payment to doctors and hospitals caring for Medicare patients will drop to $32.35, a nearly 3% decrease from the current level. 

Congress likely will act before the cuts take effect, said Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD (R-IN), who specialized in cardiothoracic surgery before joining Congress. Lawmakers in past years have typically tinkered with the Medicare physician fee schedule at the last minute, tucking in fixes to December legislative packages and spending bills. 

“I’m pretty optimistic that a good portion of the fee cuts will be mitigated and they won’t go through,” Bucshon told this news organization in an interview.

Bruce A. Scott, MD, president of the American Medical Association (AMA) said in a statement that CMS’ release of the final fee schedule on November 1 should trigger serious work on a change to the 2025 Medicare physician fee schedule.

“The fee schedule rule released [on November 1] starts the clock — with January 1 looming,” Scott said. “A legislative remedy will require hard work and compromise. The 66 million patients who rely on Medicare are counting on that.”

Both Bucshon and Scott also joined many lawmakers and medical associations in calling on Congress for a larger overhaul of the Medicare physician fee schedule, well beyond whatever temporary adjustment may be made in the months ahead to avoid or soften the 2025 cuts.

The physician fee schedule sets formulas and rules regarding how the largest US buyer of health services pays the almost 1.3 million clinicians who bill Medicare. Of these, 51% are physicians. The physician fee schedule also covers payments for nurse practitioners, physician assistants, physical therapists, and other health professionals.
 

Last Major Overhaul Unpopular

There’s broad dissatisfaction with Congress’ last major overhaul of the Medicare physician fee schedule. The 2015 Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) aimed to shift clinicians toward programs tying pay increases to quality measures. But the implementation of that aim through the Merit-based Incentive Payment System is widely considered a disappointment.

MACRA was intended to end the need for annual “doc fixes,” as Congress’ last-minute Medicare adjustments are known. Seventeen such tweaks passed before MACRA took effect. 

But MACRA did not include a broad-based inflation adjuster, and some clinicians’ incomes are lagging as inflation rates — and practice costs — have risen. Scott said the Medicare Economic Index, which is a measure used to gauge increases in practice costs for clinicians, is expected to rise by 3.5%.

“To put it bluntly, Medicare plans to pay us less while costs go up. You don’t have to be an economist to know that is an unsustainable trend, though one that has been going on for decades,” Scott said. “For physician practices operating on small margins already, this means it is harder to acquire new equipment, harder to retain staff, harder to take on new Medicare patients, and harder to keep the doors open, particularly in rural and underserved areas.”

In a statement, Jen Brull, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, noted that this likely will be the fifth year in a row that Congress will need to do a patch to prevent cuts in pay to clinicians. 

Bucshon, who will retire from the House in January, said he expects Congress to pass legislation tying Medicare payment rates to inflation — eventually.

“People want to find a way to fix this problem, but also do it in a way that does not cut benefits to anyone, and that’s the key,” Bucshon said. “We’re going to have to find a way to make sure that providers are properly reimbursed.”

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

BOSTON — Social adversity is associated with worse survival among patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH), according to a new retrospective study of a New York City population. Among HIV+ patients with heart failure, PH was associated with about a threefold increase in all-cause mortality, but that risk increased to about sevenfold when social adversity, identified by a licensed social worker, was also present.

A sub-analysis of both HIV+ and HIV– patients showed worse mortality outcomes with social adversity in both groups.

“Almost the majority of patients that we treat have either some social adversity or no insurance or are undocumented, so as a group of residents, we decided to study the impact of these factors on their health and the care that can be provided. We started using the two cohorts and now we keep it going with every new resident,” said Luca Biavati, MD, who presented the study at the CHEST Annual Meeting.

“The presence of any form of socioeconomic disadvantage is negatively impacting care and for a large part of the population, there are some factors that could probably be addressed by either an institutional or hospital policy,” said Dr. Biavati, who is an internal medicine resident at Jacobi Medical Center, New York.

Other factors are more difficult to address, such as lack of education. “[Some patients] don’t understand the gravity of their issue and medical condition until it’s too late, and then they’re not fit enough for the treatment, or just because of the social situation, they cannot qualify for advanced therapies,” said Dr. Biavati.

The researchers established two cohorts: One consisting of patients with HIV and heart failure who may or may not have had PH and one comprising patients with PH with or without HIV and heart failure. In the HIV/heart failure group, PH without social adversity was associated with a nearly threefold increase in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 2.83; P = .004), whereas PH with social adversity was linked to a more than sevenfold increase in all-cause mortality (HR, 7.14; P < .001). Social adversity without PA was associated with a more than fourfold increase (HR, 4.47; P < .001).

Within the PH cohort, social adversity was associated with lower survival (P < .001). When the researchers broke down the results by types of social adversity, they found statistically significant relationships between greater mortality risk and economic instability within the HIV+ population (HR, 2.59; P = .040), transportation issues within the HIV– population (HR, 12.8; P < .001), and lack of social or family support within both the HIV– (HR, 5.49; P < .001) and the HIV+ population (HR, 2.03; P = .028). 

The research has prompted interventions, which are now being studied at the institution, according to Dr. Biavati. “We have a policy of giving medications in bags when we discharge a patient with a social adversity. We literally go to the pharmacy, bring up the bag of medication, and we [put it] in their hands before they leave the hospital. They get a 1- or 3-month supply, depending on the medication, and then we usually discharge them with a clinical appointment already scheduled with either a pulmonary or primary care provider, and we usually call them before every appointment to confirm that they’re coming. That increases the chances of some success, but there’s still a very long way to go,” said Dr. Biavati.

Dr. Biavati was blinded to the results of the intervention, so he could not report on whether it was working. “But I can tell you that I’ve had busier clinics, so hopefully that means that they’re showing up more,” he said.

The problem is complex, according to Sandeep Jain, MD, who moderated the session. “Social adversity means lack of education. Lack of education means lack of compliance. Lack of compliance means what can you do if people are not taking medications? So it’s all matched together. It’s all lack of education and lack of money, lack of family support. And these drugs they have to take every single day. It’s not that easy. It’s very easy for us to say I had antiretroviral treatment for 6 months. It is almost impossible to continue regular treatment for that long [for a patient with social adversity]. You can’t blame them if they aren’t taking treatments. It’s very difficult for them,” said Dr. Jain.

That underscores the need for interventions that can address the needs of patients with social adversity. “We have to [practice] medicine considering the social situation of the patient and not just the medicine that we study in books. That’s kind of what we are faced with every day. We have therapies, and then life happens. It’s much harder to care for those patients,” said Dr. Biavati.

Dr. Biavati and Dr. Jain reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

BOSTON — Social adversity is associated with worse survival among patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH), according to a new retrospective study of a New York City population. Among HIV+ patients with heart failure, PH was associated with about a threefold increase in all-cause mortality, but that risk increased to about sevenfold when social adversity, identified by a licensed social worker, was also present.

A sub-analysis of both HIV+ and HIV– patients showed worse mortality outcomes with social adversity in both groups.

“Almost the majority of patients that we treat have either some social adversity or no insurance or are undocumented, so as a group of residents, we decided to study the impact of these factors on their health and the care that can be provided. We started using the two cohorts and now we keep it going with every new resident,” said Luca Biavati, MD, who presented the study at the CHEST Annual Meeting.

“The presence of any form of socioeconomic disadvantage is negatively impacting care and for a large part of the population, there are some factors that could probably be addressed by either an institutional or hospital policy,” said Dr. Biavati, who is an internal medicine resident at Jacobi Medical Center, New York.

Other factors are more difficult to address, such as lack of education. “[Some patients] don’t understand the gravity of their issue and medical condition until it’s too late, and then they’re not fit enough for the treatment, or just because of the social situation, they cannot qualify for advanced therapies,” said Dr. Biavati.

The researchers established two cohorts: One consisting of patients with HIV and heart failure who may or may not have had PH and one comprising patients with PH with or without HIV and heart failure. In the HIV/heart failure group, PH without social adversity was associated with a nearly threefold increase in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 2.83; P = .004), whereas PH with social adversity was linked to a more than sevenfold increase in all-cause mortality (HR, 7.14; P < .001). Social adversity without PA was associated with a more than fourfold increase (HR, 4.47; P < .001).

Within the PH cohort, social adversity was associated with lower survival (P < .001). When the researchers broke down the results by types of social adversity, they found statistically significant relationships between greater mortality risk and economic instability within the HIV+ population (HR, 2.59; P = .040), transportation issues within the HIV– population (HR, 12.8; P < .001), and lack of social or family support within both the HIV– (HR, 5.49; P < .001) and the HIV+ population (HR, 2.03; P = .028). 

The research has prompted interventions, which are now being studied at the institution, according to Dr. Biavati. “We have a policy of giving medications in bags when we discharge a patient with a social adversity. We literally go to the pharmacy, bring up the bag of medication, and we [put it] in their hands before they leave the hospital. They get a 1- or 3-month supply, depending on the medication, and then we usually discharge them with a clinical appointment already scheduled with either a pulmonary or primary care provider, and we usually call them before every appointment to confirm that they’re coming. That increases the chances of some success, but there’s still a very long way to go,” said Dr. Biavati.

Dr. Biavati was blinded to the results of the intervention, so he could not report on whether it was working. “But I can tell you that I’ve had busier clinics, so hopefully that means that they’re showing up more,” he said.

The problem is complex, according to Sandeep Jain, MD, who moderated the session. “Social adversity means lack of education. Lack of education means lack of compliance. Lack of compliance means what can you do if people are not taking medications? So it’s all matched together. It’s all lack of education and lack of money, lack of family support. And these drugs they have to take every single day. It’s not that easy. It’s very easy for us to say I had antiretroviral treatment for 6 months. It is almost impossible to continue regular treatment for that long [for a patient with social adversity]. You can’t blame them if they aren’t taking treatments. It’s very difficult for them,” said Dr. Jain.

That underscores the need for interventions that can address the needs of patients with social adversity. “We have to [practice] medicine considering the social situation of the patient and not just the medicine that we study in books. That’s kind of what we are faced with every day. We have therapies, and then life happens. It’s much harder to care for those patients,” said Dr. Biavati.

Dr. Biavati and Dr. Jain reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

BOSTON — Social adversity is associated with worse survival among patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH), according to a new retrospective study of a New York City population. Among HIV+ patients with heart failure, PH was associated with about a threefold increase in all-cause mortality, but that risk increased to about sevenfold when social adversity, identified by a licensed social worker, was also present.

A sub-analysis of both HIV+ and HIV– patients showed worse mortality outcomes with social adversity in both groups.

“Almost the majority of patients that we treat have either some social adversity or no insurance or are undocumented, so as a group of residents, we decided to study the impact of these factors on their health and the care that can be provided. We started using the two cohorts and now we keep it going with every new resident,” said Luca Biavati, MD, who presented the study at the CHEST Annual Meeting.

“The presence of any form of socioeconomic disadvantage is negatively impacting care and for a large part of the population, there are some factors that could probably be addressed by either an institutional or hospital policy,” said Dr. Biavati, who is an internal medicine resident at Jacobi Medical Center, New York.

Other factors are more difficult to address, such as lack of education. “[Some patients] don’t understand the gravity of their issue and medical condition until it’s too late, and then they’re not fit enough for the treatment, or just because of the social situation, they cannot qualify for advanced therapies,” said Dr. Biavati.

The researchers established two cohorts: One consisting of patients with HIV and heart failure who may or may not have had PH and one comprising patients with PH with or without HIV and heart failure. In the HIV/heart failure group, PH without social adversity was associated with a nearly threefold increase in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 2.83; P = .004), whereas PH with social adversity was linked to a more than sevenfold increase in all-cause mortality (HR, 7.14; P < .001). Social adversity without PA was associated with a more than fourfold increase (HR, 4.47; P < .001).

Within the PH cohort, social adversity was associated with lower survival (P < .001). When the researchers broke down the results by types of social adversity, they found statistically significant relationships between greater mortality risk and economic instability within the HIV+ population (HR, 2.59; P = .040), transportation issues within the HIV– population (HR, 12.8; P < .001), and lack of social or family support within both the HIV– (HR, 5.49; P < .001) and the HIV+ population (HR, 2.03; P = .028). 

The research has prompted interventions, which are now being studied at the institution, according to Dr. Biavati. “We have a policy of giving medications in bags when we discharge a patient with a social adversity. We literally go to the pharmacy, bring up the bag of medication, and we [put it] in their hands before they leave the hospital. They get a 1- or 3-month supply, depending on the medication, and then we usually discharge them with a clinical appointment already scheduled with either a pulmonary or primary care provider, and we usually call them before every appointment to confirm that they’re coming. That increases the chances of some success, but there’s still a very long way to go,” said Dr. Biavati.

Dr. Biavati was blinded to the results of the intervention, so he could not report on whether it was working. “But I can tell you that I’ve had busier clinics, so hopefully that means that they’re showing up more,” he said.

The problem is complex, according to Sandeep Jain, MD, who moderated the session. “Social adversity means lack of education. Lack of education means lack of compliance. Lack of compliance means what can you do if people are not taking medications? So it’s all matched together. It’s all lack of education and lack of money, lack of family support. And these drugs they have to take every single day. It’s not that easy. It’s very easy for us to say I had antiretroviral treatment for 6 months. It is almost impossible to continue regular treatment for that long [for a patient with social adversity]. You can’t blame them if they aren’t taking treatments. It’s very difficult for them,” said Dr. Jain.

That underscores the need for interventions that can address the needs of patients with social adversity. “We have to [practice] medicine considering the social situation of the patient and not just the medicine that we study in books. That’s kind of what we are faced with every day. We have therapies, and then life happens. It’s much harder to care for those patients,” said Dr. Biavati.

Dr. Biavati and Dr. Jain reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

LOS ANGELES — Metformin prescribed within a week of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with a 53% reduction in long COVID or death over 6 months in people without diabetes or prediabetes, according to data presented at the Infectious Disease Week (IDWeek) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Long COVID was determined by using the diagnostic code U09.9 or a computable phenotype based on symptoms and conditions. Most participants in this study were infected with the Omicron variant.

Researchers, led by Carolyn Bramante, MD, MPH, an internist, pediatrician, and obesity medicine specialist at the University of Minnesota Medical School in Minneapolis, simulated a randomized controlled trial of metformin vs control using the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) Electronic Health Record Database.

The intervention was a prescription for metformin within 6 days of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Those in the control group, which was designed to mimic placebo, had a prescription for fluvoxamine, fluticasone, ivermectin, or montelukast (all drugs that have been used off-label for COVID but have shown no effect on acute COVID outcomes in clinical trials). Exclusions included anyone with a previous metformin prescription or a comparator prescription; any indication for chronic metformin use; or a contraindication for metformin.
 

Why Study Metformin for Long COVID?

Dr. Bramante led a previous randomized controlled trial, COVID-OUT, with 1323 people that indicated metformin showed possible benefit for preventing the more severe components of COVID-19. She also led a 2020 review, in which she examined electronic health records from adults with type 2 diabetes or obesity. The researchers found that women taking metformin before they developed COVID-19 were significantly less likely to die after being hospitalized — although men didn’t see the same protective effect. Another randomized trial of 20 people found that 60% of those taking metformin vs 100% of those given a placebo had detectable SARS-CoV-2 viral load by day 4.

Other trials have highlighted the anti-inflammatory and antiviral properties of metformin. The existing evidence coupled with metformin’s well-established safety profile, led Dr. Bramante’s team to conduct the current simulated trial in people without diabetes or prediabetes. Dr. Bramante noted that metformin’s only US Food and Drug Administration–approved indication is for diabetes.

The current study featured a similar racial/ethnic makeup in the metformin and control groups: 16% and 17% were Black and 16% and 13% were Hispanic, respectively. Within 6 months, 4.0% in the metformin group developed long COVID or died compared with 8.5% in the control group (Relative Risk [RR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.25-0.89). For prescriptions made on days 0-1 relative to infection, the RR was 0.39 (95% CI, 0.12-1.24). When metformin was prescribed on days 0-14, the RR was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.52-1.08).

The reason it’s important to have an active comparator is to control for things that can’t be measured, such as engagement in healthcare and the placebo effect, Dr. Bramante said.

Emily Erbelding, MD, MPH, director of the Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who was not part of the study, noted the potential implications of the findings.
 

Proven Safety and Low Cost of Metformin 

“We don’t have therapies for long COVID, and we don’t know how to prevent it in people who have SARS-CoV-2 infections,” Dr. Erbelding noted. “This analysis points to metformin, a drug that millions of people have taken safely for their diabetes or their borderline diabetes. It’s licensed, it’s out there, and it’s inexpensive. The fact that we have data that point to this potentially being a therapy is important. I think that’s the power of this.”

Dr. Erbelding said a strength of the study is the size of the N3C Electronic Health Record Database (with data on nearly 9 million COVID cases) the researchers used to simulate the randomized controlled trial.

“(These results) gives us a reason to think about doing a large randomized controlled study with metformin,” she said. However, there are some limitations, she noted.

“The definition of long COVID may not have been applied exactly the same way across all the patients and you don’t know what led the prescribers to prescribe metformin. There might have been confounders that couldn’t be controlled for or weren’t evident in the way they approached the data.”

This study has “relatively rigorous methodology for an observational study,” Dr. Erbelding said. “It’s novel to try to simulate a randomized controlled trial through a large, observational, electronic record–based cohort. Maybe we should be doing more of this because these bioinformatic systems exist now. And we need to get all the public health use out of them that we can.” 

“The fact that they may be unlocking something new here that needs follow-up in a truly randomized controlled trial is important as well because there are a lot of people out there suffering from long COVID.”

Bramante and Erbelding disclosed no relevant financial relationships. This research was supported in part by the intramural/extramural research program of the National Center for Advancing Translational Science, National Institutes of Health.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LOS ANGELES — Metformin prescribed within a week of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with a 53% reduction in long COVID or death over 6 months in people without diabetes or prediabetes, according to data presented at the Infectious Disease Week (IDWeek) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Long COVID was determined by using the diagnostic code U09.9 or a computable phenotype based on symptoms and conditions. Most participants in this study were infected with the Omicron variant.

Researchers, led by Carolyn Bramante, MD, MPH, an internist, pediatrician, and obesity medicine specialist at the University of Minnesota Medical School in Minneapolis, simulated a randomized controlled trial of metformin vs control using the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) Electronic Health Record Database.

The intervention was a prescription for metformin within 6 days of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Those in the control group, which was designed to mimic placebo, had a prescription for fluvoxamine, fluticasone, ivermectin, or montelukast (all drugs that have been used off-label for COVID but have shown no effect on acute COVID outcomes in clinical trials). Exclusions included anyone with a previous metformin prescription or a comparator prescription; any indication for chronic metformin use; or a contraindication for metformin.
 

Why Study Metformin for Long COVID?

Dr. Bramante led a previous randomized controlled trial, COVID-OUT, with 1323 people that indicated metformin showed possible benefit for preventing the more severe components of COVID-19. She also led a 2020 review, in which she examined electronic health records from adults with type 2 diabetes or obesity. The researchers found that women taking metformin before they developed COVID-19 were significantly less likely to die after being hospitalized — although men didn’t see the same protective effect. Another randomized trial of 20 people found that 60% of those taking metformin vs 100% of those given a placebo had detectable SARS-CoV-2 viral load by day 4.

Other trials have highlighted the anti-inflammatory and antiviral properties of metformin. The existing evidence coupled with metformin’s well-established safety profile, led Dr. Bramante’s team to conduct the current simulated trial in people without diabetes or prediabetes. Dr. Bramante noted that metformin’s only US Food and Drug Administration–approved indication is for diabetes.

The current study featured a similar racial/ethnic makeup in the metformin and control groups: 16% and 17% were Black and 16% and 13% were Hispanic, respectively. Within 6 months, 4.0% in the metformin group developed long COVID or died compared with 8.5% in the control group (Relative Risk [RR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.25-0.89). For prescriptions made on days 0-1 relative to infection, the RR was 0.39 (95% CI, 0.12-1.24). When metformin was prescribed on days 0-14, the RR was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.52-1.08).

The reason it’s important to have an active comparator is to control for things that can’t be measured, such as engagement in healthcare and the placebo effect, Dr. Bramante said.

Emily Erbelding, MD, MPH, director of the Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who was not part of the study, noted the potential implications of the findings.
 

Proven Safety and Low Cost of Metformin 

“We don’t have therapies for long COVID, and we don’t know how to prevent it in people who have SARS-CoV-2 infections,” Dr. Erbelding noted. “This analysis points to metformin, a drug that millions of people have taken safely for their diabetes or their borderline diabetes. It’s licensed, it’s out there, and it’s inexpensive. The fact that we have data that point to this potentially being a therapy is important. I think that’s the power of this.”

Dr. Erbelding said a strength of the study is the size of the N3C Electronic Health Record Database (with data on nearly 9 million COVID cases) the researchers used to simulate the randomized controlled trial.

“(These results) gives us a reason to think about doing a large randomized controlled study with metformin,” she said. However, there are some limitations, she noted.

“The definition of long COVID may not have been applied exactly the same way across all the patients and you don’t know what led the prescribers to prescribe metformin. There might have been confounders that couldn’t be controlled for or weren’t evident in the way they approached the data.”

This study has “relatively rigorous methodology for an observational study,” Dr. Erbelding said. “It’s novel to try to simulate a randomized controlled trial through a large, observational, electronic record–based cohort. Maybe we should be doing more of this because these bioinformatic systems exist now. And we need to get all the public health use out of them that we can.” 

“The fact that they may be unlocking something new here that needs follow-up in a truly randomized controlled trial is important as well because there are a lot of people out there suffering from long COVID.”

Bramante and Erbelding disclosed no relevant financial relationships. This research was supported in part by the intramural/extramural research program of the National Center for Advancing Translational Science, National Institutes of Health.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LOS ANGELES — Metformin prescribed within a week of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with a 53% reduction in long COVID or death over 6 months in people without diabetes or prediabetes, according to data presented at the Infectious Disease Week (IDWeek) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Long COVID was determined by using the diagnostic code U09.9 or a computable phenotype based on symptoms and conditions. Most participants in this study were infected with the Omicron variant.

Researchers, led by Carolyn Bramante, MD, MPH, an internist, pediatrician, and obesity medicine specialist at the University of Minnesota Medical School in Minneapolis, simulated a randomized controlled trial of metformin vs control using the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) Electronic Health Record Database.

The intervention was a prescription for metformin within 6 days of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Those in the control group, which was designed to mimic placebo, had a prescription for fluvoxamine, fluticasone, ivermectin, or montelukast (all drugs that have been used off-label for COVID but have shown no effect on acute COVID outcomes in clinical trials). Exclusions included anyone with a previous metformin prescription or a comparator prescription; any indication for chronic metformin use; or a contraindication for metformin.
 

Why Study Metformin for Long COVID?

Dr. Bramante led a previous randomized controlled trial, COVID-OUT, with 1323 people that indicated metformin showed possible benefit for preventing the more severe components of COVID-19. She also led a 2020 review, in which she examined electronic health records from adults with type 2 diabetes or obesity. The researchers found that women taking metformin before they developed COVID-19 were significantly less likely to die after being hospitalized — although men didn’t see the same protective effect. Another randomized trial of 20 people found that 60% of those taking metformin vs 100% of those given a placebo had detectable SARS-CoV-2 viral load by day 4.

Other trials have highlighted the anti-inflammatory and antiviral properties of metformin. The existing evidence coupled with metformin’s well-established safety profile, led Dr. Bramante’s team to conduct the current simulated trial in people without diabetes or prediabetes. Dr. Bramante noted that metformin’s only US Food and Drug Administration–approved indication is for diabetes.

The current study featured a similar racial/ethnic makeup in the metformin and control groups: 16% and 17% were Black and 16% and 13% were Hispanic, respectively. Within 6 months, 4.0% in the metformin group developed long COVID or died compared with 8.5% in the control group (Relative Risk [RR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.25-0.89). For prescriptions made on days 0-1 relative to infection, the RR was 0.39 (95% CI, 0.12-1.24). When metformin was prescribed on days 0-14, the RR was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.52-1.08).

The reason it’s important to have an active comparator is to control for things that can’t be measured, such as engagement in healthcare and the placebo effect, Dr. Bramante said.

Emily Erbelding, MD, MPH, director of the Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who was not part of the study, noted the potential implications of the findings.
 

Proven Safety and Low Cost of Metformin 

“We don’t have therapies for long COVID, and we don’t know how to prevent it in people who have SARS-CoV-2 infections,” Dr. Erbelding noted. “This analysis points to metformin, a drug that millions of people have taken safely for their diabetes or their borderline diabetes. It’s licensed, it’s out there, and it’s inexpensive. The fact that we have data that point to this potentially being a therapy is important. I think that’s the power of this.”

Dr. Erbelding said a strength of the study is the size of the N3C Electronic Health Record Database (with data on nearly 9 million COVID cases) the researchers used to simulate the randomized controlled trial.

“(These results) gives us a reason to think about doing a large randomized controlled study with metformin,” she said. However, there are some limitations, she noted.

“The definition of long COVID may not have been applied exactly the same way across all the patients and you don’t know what led the prescribers to prescribe metformin. There might have been confounders that couldn’t be controlled for or weren’t evident in the way they approached the data.”

This study has “relatively rigorous methodology for an observational study,” Dr. Erbelding said. “It’s novel to try to simulate a randomized controlled trial through a large, observational, electronic record–based cohort. Maybe we should be doing more of this because these bioinformatic systems exist now. And we need to get all the public health use out of them that we can.” 

“The fact that they may be unlocking something new here that needs follow-up in a truly randomized controlled trial is important as well because there are a lot of people out there suffering from long COVID.”

Bramante and Erbelding disclosed no relevant financial relationships. This research was supported in part by the intramural/extramural research program of the National Center for Advancing Translational Science, National Institutes of Health.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A “digital twin” model successfully predicted adverse outcomes in intensive care unit (ICU) patients treated for sepsis. The research used an adaptive approach, updating time-sensitive values such as blood pressure and vitals every 15 minutes. The approach also took into account treatment decisions and has potential as a decision-making and educational tool.

The digital twin could reduce the risk for some interventions, according to Amos Lal, MD, who presented the study at the CHEST Annual Meeting. That’s because the model can predict the outcome. “You don’t actually have to make an intervention to the patient, which might be risky. By doing that, you can actually prevent a lot of harm,” said Dr. Lal, assistant professor of medicine at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

The researchers used a one-dimensional convolutional neural network (CNN), similar to two-dimensional CNNs that are used to classify images, substituting the color channels used in imaging with 38 time-dependent variables. They applied it to predicting outcomes in the ICU, focusing on data generated within the first 24 hours of admission. The team made the model dynamic by adding time-sensitive data like vitals, laboratory values, and interventions every 15 minutes. That contrasts with existing models that are usually static, relying on values at admission or at 24 hours, for example. It also takes into account time-insensitive data like age, gender, and comorbidities. “Combining these two and coming up with the prediction model in real time can give you a more informed decision about how these patients are going to perform over a period of 2 weeks or 4 weeks of their stay within the ICU. And of course, as we get more and more data within the first 24 hours, the performance of the model improves as well,” said Dr. Lal.

The researchers tested the model by creating a virtual model of the patient and then performing an intervention on the patient and a simulated intervention on the virtual patient. “Then we advance the clock and the patient either improved or deteriorated, and we compared how the digital twin performed, whether the changes were concordant or discordant [between the virtual and real-world patients],” said Dr. Lal.

The model was designed to predict which patients with sepsis would be at greater risk for death or ICU stays longer than 14 days. It was created using data from 28,617 patients with critical care sepsis at a single hospital who were treated between 2011 and 2018, with 70% used as a training set, 20% as a test set, and 10% as a validation set. The researchers conducted an external validation using MIMIC-IV data on 30,903 patients from the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. The model included 31 time-independent variables and 38 time-dependent variables that were collected every 15 minutes at the Mayo Clinic and every 60 minutes at Beth Israel Deaconess. Surgical patients represented 24% of the Mayo dataset and 58% of the MIMIC-IV dataset, but otherwise the two groups were demographically similar.

At 24 hours, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for predicting 14-day mortality was −0.82 in the Mayo validation cohort and −0.78 in the MIMIC validation cohort. The model improved in accuracy over time as more data were accumulated.

The session’s co-moderators, Sandeep Jain, MD, and Casey Cable, MD, praised the work. Dr. Cable, associate professor of pulmonary care medicine at VCU Health, Richmond, Virginia, noted that the model used both surgical patients and medical patients with sepsis, and the two groups can present quite differently. Another variable was the COVID pandemic, where some patients presented at the hospital when they were quite sick. “I’m curious how different starting points would play into it,” she said.

She called for institutions to develop such models on their own rather than relying on companies that might develop software solutions. “I think that this needs to be clinician-led, from the ground up,” said Dr. Cable.

Dr. Jain, an associate professor of pulmonary care medicine at Broward Health, suggested that such models might need to be individualized for each institution, but “my fear is it could become too expensive, so I think a group like CHEST could come together and [create] an open source system to have their researchers jumpstart the research on this,” he said.

Dr. Lal, Dr. Jain, and Dr. Cable reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A “digital twin” model successfully predicted adverse outcomes in intensive care unit (ICU) patients treated for sepsis. The research used an adaptive approach, updating time-sensitive values such as blood pressure and vitals every 15 minutes. The approach also took into account treatment decisions and has potential as a decision-making and educational tool.

The digital twin could reduce the risk for some interventions, according to Amos Lal, MD, who presented the study at the CHEST Annual Meeting. That’s because the model can predict the outcome. “You don’t actually have to make an intervention to the patient, which might be risky. By doing that, you can actually prevent a lot of harm,” said Dr. Lal, assistant professor of medicine at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

The researchers used a one-dimensional convolutional neural network (CNN), similar to two-dimensional CNNs that are used to classify images, substituting the color channels used in imaging with 38 time-dependent variables. They applied it to predicting outcomes in the ICU, focusing on data generated within the first 24 hours of admission. The team made the model dynamic by adding time-sensitive data like vitals, laboratory values, and interventions every 15 minutes. That contrasts with existing models that are usually static, relying on values at admission or at 24 hours, for example. It also takes into account time-insensitive data like age, gender, and comorbidities. “Combining these two and coming up with the prediction model in real time can give you a more informed decision about how these patients are going to perform over a period of 2 weeks or 4 weeks of their stay within the ICU. And of course, as we get more and more data within the first 24 hours, the performance of the model improves as well,” said Dr. Lal.

The researchers tested the model by creating a virtual model of the patient and then performing an intervention on the patient and a simulated intervention on the virtual patient. “Then we advance the clock and the patient either improved or deteriorated, and we compared how the digital twin performed, whether the changes were concordant or discordant [between the virtual and real-world patients],” said Dr. Lal.

The model was designed to predict which patients with sepsis would be at greater risk for death or ICU stays longer than 14 days. It was created using data from 28,617 patients with critical care sepsis at a single hospital who were treated between 2011 and 2018, with 70% used as a training set, 20% as a test set, and 10% as a validation set. The researchers conducted an external validation using MIMIC-IV data on 30,903 patients from the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. The model included 31 time-independent variables and 38 time-dependent variables that were collected every 15 minutes at the Mayo Clinic and every 60 minutes at Beth Israel Deaconess. Surgical patients represented 24% of the Mayo dataset and 58% of the MIMIC-IV dataset, but otherwise the two groups were demographically similar.

At 24 hours, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for predicting 14-day mortality was −0.82 in the Mayo validation cohort and −0.78 in the MIMIC validation cohort. The model improved in accuracy over time as more data were accumulated.

The session’s co-moderators, Sandeep Jain, MD, and Casey Cable, MD, praised the work. Dr. Cable, associate professor of pulmonary care medicine at VCU Health, Richmond, Virginia, noted that the model used both surgical patients and medical patients with sepsis, and the two groups can present quite differently. Another variable was the COVID pandemic, where some patients presented at the hospital when they were quite sick. “I’m curious how different starting points would play into it,” she said.

She called for institutions to develop such models on their own rather than relying on companies that might develop software solutions. “I think that this needs to be clinician-led, from the ground up,” said Dr. Cable.

Dr. Jain, an associate professor of pulmonary care medicine at Broward Health, suggested that such models might need to be individualized for each institution, but “my fear is it could become too expensive, so I think a group like CHEST could come together and [create] an open source system to have their researchers jumpstart the research on this,” he said.

Dr. Lal, Dr. Jain, and Dr. Cable reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A “digital twin” model successfully predicted adverse outcomes in intensive care unit (ICU) patients treated for sepsis. The research used an adaptive approach, updating time-sensitive values such as blood pressure and vitals every 15 minutes. The approach also took into account treatment decisions and has potential as a decision-making and educational tool.

The digital twin could reduce the risk for some interventions, according to Amos Lal, MD, who presented the study at the CHEST Annual Meeting. That’s because the model can predict the outcome. “You don’t actually have to make an intervention to the patient, which might be risky. By doing that, you can actually prevent a lot of harm,” said Dr. Lal, assistant professor of medicine at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

The researchers used a one-dimensional convolutional neural network (CNN), similar to two-dimensional CNNs that are used to classify images, substituting the color channels used in imaging with 38 time-dependent variables. They applied it to predicting outcomes in the ICU, focusing on data generated within the first 24 hours of admission. The team made the model dynamic by adding time-sensitive data like vitals, laboratory values, and interventions every 15 minutes. That contrasts with existing models that are usually static, relying on values at admission or at 24 hours, for example. It also takes into account time-insensitive data like age, gender, and comorbidities. “Combining these two and coming up with the prediction model in real time can give you a more informed decision about how these patients are going to perform over a period of 2 weeks or 4 weeks of their stay within the ICU. And of course, as we get more and more data within the first 24 hours, the performance of the model improves as well,” said Dr. Lal.

The researchers tested the model by creating a virtual model of the patient and then performing an intervention on the patient and a simulated intervention on the virtual patient. “Then we advance the clock and the patient either improved or deteriorated, and we compared how the digital twin performed, whether the changes were concordant or discordant [between the virtual and real-world patients],” said Dr. Lal.

The model was designed to predict which patients with sepsis would be at greater risk for death or ICU stays longer than 14 days. It was created using data from 28,617 patients with critical care sepsis at a single hospital who were treated between 2011 and 2018, with 70% used as a training set, 20% as a test set, and 10% as a validation set. The researchers conducted an external validation using MIMIC-IV data on 30,903 patients from the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. The model included 31 time-independent variables and 38 time-dependent variables that were collected every 15 minutes at the Mayo Clinic and every 60 minutes at Beth Israel Deaconess. Surgical patients represented 24% of the Mayo dataset and 58% of the MIMIC-IV dataset, but otherwise the two groups were demographically similar.

At 24 hours, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for predicting 14-day mortality was −0.82 in the Mayo validation cohort and −0.78 in the MIMIC validation cohort. The model improved in accuracy over time as more data were accumulated.

The session’s co-moderators, Sandeep Jain, MD, and Casey Cable, MD, praised the work. Dr. Cable, associate professor of pulmonary care medicine at VCU Health, Richmond, Virginia, noted that the model used both surgical patients and medical patients with sepsis, and the two groups can present quite differently. Another variable was the COVID pandemic, where some patients presented at the hospital when they were quite sick. “I’m curious how different starting points would play into it,” she said.

She called for institutions to develop such models on their own rather than relying on companies that might develop software solutions. “I think that this needs to be clinician-led, from the ground up,” said Dr. Cable.

Dr. Jain, an associate professor of pulmonary care medicine at Broward Health, suggested that such models might need to be individualized for each institution, but “my fear is it could become too expensive, so I think a group like CHEST could come together and [create] an open source system to have their researchers jumpstart the research on this,” he said.

Dr. Lal, Dr. Jain, and Dr. Cable reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — Patients with COPD are at an increased risk for fatal pulmonary embolism (PE) and may require personalized, targeted thromboprophylaxis. Those are the conclusions of investigators who analyzed public health data and found that patients with COPD have a markedly increased risk for PE-related death, particularly among those aged 65-85 years.

The data suggest that “maybe we should start thinking about if we are admitting a patient with COPD in that specific age group, higher thromboprophylaxis for PE,” said Marwa Oudah, MD, a pulmonary hypertension fellow at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. She presented her group’s findings in a rapid-fire oral abstract session at the CHEST Annual Meeting.
 

Known Risk Factor

COPD is a known risk factor for PE. To estimate how the obstructive lung disease may contribute to PE-related deaths among patients of varying ages, Oudah and colleagues drew data on deaths due to an underlying cause of PE from 1999 to 2020 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s WONDER database.

They stratified the patients into two groups — those with or without COPD — whose data were included in the Multiple Causes of Death dataset, according to age groups ranging from 35 years to over 100 years. The investigators calculated proportional mortality ratios in the non-COPD group and applied these to the COPD-positive group among different age ranges to estimate the observed vs expected number of deaths.

A total of 10,434 persons who died from PE and had COPD listed among causes of death were identified. The sample was evenly divided by sex. The peak range of deaths was among those aged 75-84 years.

The authors saw an increase in PE-related mortality among patients with COPD aged 65-85 years (P < .001).

The ratios of observed-to-expected deaths among patients in this age range were “substantially greater than 1” said Oudah, with patients aged 75-79 years at highest risk for PE-related death, with an observed-to-expected ratio of 1.443.

In contrast, the rate of observed deaths among patients aged 85-89 years was similar to the expected rate, suggesting that the COPD-PE interaction may wane among older patients, she said.

Among patients aged 35-64 years, the risk for death from PE was not significantly higher for any of the 5-year age categories.

The investigators emphasized that “given the observed trend, individualized patient assessments are imperative to optimize preventable measures against PE in the aging COPD population.”
 

Confounding Comorbidities

In an interview, a pulmonary specialist who was not involved in the study commented that older persons with COPD tend to have multiple comorbidities that may contribute to the risk for PE.

“Older patients have so many comorbidities, and their risk for pulmonary embolism and thromboembolic disease is pretty high, so I’m not surprised that 75 to 79 years olds are having a higher mortality from PE, but it’s a little difficult to say whether that’s due to COPD,” said Krishna Sundar, MBBS, MD, FCCP, a pulmonary, sleep medicine, and critical care medicine specialist at St. John’s Medical Center in Jackson, Wyoming, who moderated the session.

The authors did not report a study funding source. Oudah and Sundar reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOSTON — Patients with COPD are at an increased risk for fatal pulmonary embolism (PE) and may require personalized, targeted thromboprophylaxis. Those are the conclusions of investigators who analyzed public health data and found that patients with COPD have a markedly increased risk for PE-related death, particularly among those aged 65-85 years.

The data suggest that “maybe we should start thinking about if we are admitting a patient with COPD in that specific age group, higher thromboprophylaxis for PE,” said Marwa Oudah, MD, a pulmonary hypertension fellow at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. She presented her group’s findings in a rapid-fire oral abstract session at the CHEST Annual Meeting.
 

Known Risk Factor

COPD is a known risk factor for PE. To estimate how the obstructive lung disease may contribute to PE-related deaths among patients of varying ages, Oudah and colleagues drew data on deaths due to an underlying cause of PE from 1999 to 2020 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s WONDER database.

They stratified the patients into two groups — those with or without COPD — whose data were included in the Multiple Causes of Death dataset, according to age groups ranging from 35 years to over 100 years. The investigators calculated proportional mortality ratios in the non-COPD group and applied these to the COPD-positive group among different age ranges to estimate the observed vs expected number of deaths.

A total of 10,434 persons who died from PE and had COPD listed among causes of death were identified. The sample was evenly divided by sex. The peak range of deaths was among those aged 75-84 years.

The authors saw an increase in PE-related mortality among patients with COPD aged 65-85 years (P < .001).

The ratios of observed-to-expected deaths among patients in this age range were “substantially greater than 1” said Oudah, with patients aged 75-79 years at highest risk for PE-related death, with an observed-to-expected ratio of 1.443.

In contrast, the rate of observed deaths among patients aged 85-89 years was similar to the expected rate, suggesting that the COPD-PE interaction may wane among older patients, she said.

Among patients aged 35-64 years, the risk for death from PE was not significantly higher for any of the 5-year age categories.

The investigators emphasized that “given the observed trend, individualized patient assessments are imperative to optimize preventable measures against PE in the aging COPD population.”
 

Confounding Comorbidities

In an interview, a pulmonary specialist who was not involved in the study commented that older persons with COPD tend to have multiple comorbidities that may contribute to the risk for PE.

“Older patients have so many comorbidities, and their risk for pulmonary embolism and thromboembolic disease is pretty high, so I’m not surprised that 75 to 79 years olds are having a higher mortality from PE, but it’s a little difficult to say whether that’s due to COPD,” said Krishna Sundar, MBBS, MD, FCCP, a pulmonary, sleep medicine, and critical care medicine specialist at St. John’s Medical Center in Jackson, Wyoming, who moderated the session.

The authors did not report a study funding source. Oudah and Sundar reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOSTON — Patients with COPD are at an increased risk for fatal pulmonary embolism (PE) and may require personalized, targeted thromboprophylaxis. Those are the conclusions of investigators who analyzed public health data and found that patients with COPD have a markedly increased risk for PE-related death, particularly among those aged 65-85 years.

The data suggest that “maybe we should start thinking about if we are admitting a patient with COPD in that specific age group, higher thromboprophylaxis for PE,” said Marwa Oudah, MD, a pulmonary hypertension fellow at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. She presented her group’s findings in a rapid-fire oral abstract session at the CHEST Annual Meeting.
 

Known Risk Factor

COPD is a known risk factor for PE. To estimate how the obstructive lung disease may contribute to PE-related deaths among patients of varying ages, Oudah and colleagues drew data on deaths due to an underlying cause of PE from 1999 to 2020 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s WONDER database.

They stratified the patients into two groups — those with or without COPD — whose data were included in the Multiple Causes of Death dataset, according to age groups ranging from 35 years to over 100 years. The investigators calculated proportional mortality ratios in the non-COPD group and applied these to the COPD-positive group among different age ranges to estimate the observed vs expected number of deaths.

A total of 10,434 persons who died from PE and had COPD listed among causes of death were identified. The sample was evenly divided by sex. The peak range of deaths was among those aged 75-84 years.

The authors saw an increase in PE-related mortality among patients with COPD aged 65-85 years (P < .001).

The ratios of observed-to-expected deaths among patients in this age range were “substantially greater than 1” said Oudah, with patients aged 75-79 years at highest risk for PE-related death, with an observed-to-expected ratio of 1.443.

In contrast, the rate of observed deaths among patients aged 85-89 years was similar to the expected rate, suggesting that the COPD-PE interaction may wane among older patients, she said.

Among patients aged 35-64 years, the risk for death from PE was not significantly higher for any of the 5-year age categories.

The investigators emphasized that “given the observed trend, individualized patient assessments are imperative to optimize preventable measures against PE in the aging COPD population.”
 

Confounding Comorbidities

In an interview, a pulmonary specialist who was not involved in the study commented that older persons with COPD tend to have multiple comorbidities that may contribute to the risk for PE.

“Older patients have so many comorbidities, and their risk for pulmonary embolism and thromboembolic disease is pretty high, so I’m not surprised that 75 to 79 years olds are having a higher mortality from PE, but it’s a little difficult to say whether that’s due to COPD,” said Krishna Sundar, MBBS, MD, FCCP, a pulmonary, sleep medicine, and critical care medicine specialist at St. John’s Medical Center in Jackson, Wyoming, who moderated the session.

The authors did not report a study funding source. Oudah and Sundar reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOSTON — Patients with COPD who have exacerbations requiring hospitalization should be monitored for cardiac arrhythmias, investigators said.

This recommendation is based on results of a study of medical records showing that among more than 20,000 hospitalizations for patients with COPD without concurrent heart failure (HF), 40% patients had at least 6 minutes of daily atrial fibrillation (AF) burden, and nearly half of these patients had at least an hour of daily AF burden; patients with COPD and concurrent HF had similar daily AF burdens, reported Trent Fischer, MD, MS, senior principal scientist at Medtronic in Minneapolis.

“We can conclude that AF burden increases in the weeks after a hospitalization for COPD if they don’t have a concurrent diagnosis of heart failure. Also, having concurrent heart failure increases the risk of atrial fibrillation and increases the atrial fibrillation burden around the time of COPD hospitalization,” he said in a rapid-fire oral abstract session at the CHEST Annual Meeting.

The findings indicated a need for increased vigilance for AF around the time of a serious COPD exacerbation and may explain at least some of the increased risks for stroke observed in patients who are hospitalized for COPD exacerbations, he said.
 

Retrospective Study

Dr. Fischer and colleagues conducted the study to characterize the AF burden among patients both with and without HF who were hospitalized for acute COPD exacerbation and to determine the temporal relationship between AF and hospitalization.

They drew data from 2007 through 2021 on patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, pacemakers, and implantable cardiac monitors, using the Optum de-identified electronic health record dataset linked with Medtronic’s CareLink database to conduct a retrospective analysis.

They looked at admissions for COPD linked to available device diagnostic parameters between 30 days prior to and 60 days after admission for COPD.

They identified a total of 20,056 COPD hospitalizations for patients with concurrent HF and 3877 for those without HF.

Among patients with HF, 43% had a daily AF burden of at least 6 minutes, and 22% had at least 1 hour of irregular rhythms. Among patients without HF, 40% had at least 6 minutes of irregular rhythms daily, and 18% had at least 1 hour.

Among patients with HF, the daily average AF burden increased from a baseline of 158 min/d 30 days before an admission to 170 min/d at admission, returning to baseline by 20 days after hospitalization.

For patients without HF, the AF burden increased from 107 min/d at baseline to 113 min/d during hospitalization and returned to baseline by 20 days after hospitalization.
 

Confounding Factor?

In the Q&A, session moderator Krishna Sundar, MBBS, MD, FCCP, a pulmonary, sleep medicine, and critical care medicine specialist at St. John’s Medical Center in Jackson, Wyoming, said that when patients with HF get admitted for COPD exacerbations, their HF typically worsens and asked Dr. Fischer how he could tell the difference.

“I know there’s a lot of interaction between heart failure and COPD. They’re well-know comorbidities, and the exacerbation of one can bring on worsening of the other. At least with this database, we can’t really tease out any sort of differences,” Dr. Fischer replied.

“I think that a diagnosis of COPD exacerbation is pretty well laid out, but it’s sometimes difficult to separate worsening of heart failure in these patients, and often these patients get treated for both problems. It’s clear that it’s the heart failure patients who are having more atrial fibrillation episodes, which is not surprising, but the question is how much is the COPD exacerbation contributing to the atrial fibrillation?” said Dr. Sundar.

The study was supported by Medtronic. Dr. Fischer is employed by the company. Dr. Sundar reported no relevant financial relationships.



A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — Patients with COPD who have exacerbations requiring hospitalization should be monitored for cardiac arrhythmias, investigators said.

This recommendation is based on results of a study of medical records showing that among more than 20,000 hospitalizations for patients with COPD without concurrent heart failure (HF), 40% patients had at least 6 minutes of daily atrial fibrillation (AF) burden, and nearly half of these patients had at least an hour of daily AF burden; patients with COPD and concurrent HF had similar daily AF burdens, reported Trent Fischer, MD, MS, senior principal scientist at Medtronic in Minneapolis.

“We can conclude that AF burden increases in the weeks after a hospitalization for COPD if they don’t have a concurrent diagnosis of heart failure. Also, having concurrent heart failure increases the risk of atrial fibrillation and increases the atrial fibrillation burden around the time of COPD hospitalization,” he said in a rapid-fire oral abstract session at the CHEST Annual Meeting.

The findings indicated a need for increased vigilance for AF around the time of a serious COPD exacerbation and may explain at least some of the increased risks for stroke observed in patients who are hospitalized for COPD exacerbations, he said.
 

Retrospective Study

Dr. Fischer and colleagues conducted the study to characterize the AF burden among patients both with and without HF who were hospitalized for acute COPD exacerbation and to determine the temporal relationship between AF and hospitalization.

They drew data from 2007 through 2021 on patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, pacemakers, and implantable cardiac monitors, using the Optum de-identified electronic health record dataset linked with Medtronic’s CareLink database to conduct a retrospective analysis.

They looked at admissions for COPD linked to available device diagnostic parameters between 30 days prior to and 60 days after admission for COPD.

They identified a total of 20,056 COPD hospitalizations for patients with concurrent HF and 3877 for those without HF.

Among patients with HF, 43% had a daily AF burden of at least 6 minutes, and 22% had at least 1 hour of irregular rhythms. Among patients without HF, 40% had at least 6 minutes of irregular rhythms daily, and 18% had at least 1 hour.

Among patients with HF, the daily average AF burden increased from a baseline of 158 min/d 30 days before an admission to 170 min/d at admission, returning to baseline by 20 days after hospitalization.

For patients without HF, the AF burden increased from 107 min/d at baseline to 113 min/d during hospitalization and returned to baseline by 20 days after hospitalization.
 

Confounding Factor?

In the Q&A, session moderator Krishna Sundar, MBBS, MD, FCCP, a pulmonary, sleep medicine, and critical care medicine specialist at St. John’s Medical Center in Jackson, Wyoming, said that when patients with HF get admitted for COPD exacerbations, their HF typically worsens and asked Dr. Fischer how he could tell the difference.

“I know there’s a lot of interaction between heart failure and COPD. They’re well-know comorbidities, and the exacerbation of one can bring on worsening of the other. At least with this database, we can’t really tease out any sort of differences,” Dr. Fischer replied.

“I think that a diagnosis of COPD exacerbation is pretty well laid out, but it’s sometimes difficult to separate worsening of heart failure in these patients, and often these patients get treated for both problems. It’s clear that it’s the heart failure patients who are having more atrial fibrillation episodes, which is not surprising, but the question is how much is the COPD exacerbation contributing to the atrial fibrillation?” said Dr. Sundar.

The study was supported by Medtronic. Dr. Fischer is employed by the company. Dr. Sundar reported no relevant financial relationships.



A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — Patients with COPD who have exacerbations requiring hospitalization should be monitored for cardiac arrhythmias, investigators said.

This recommendation is based on results of a study of medical records showing that among more than 20,000 hospitalizations for patients with COPD without concurrent heart failure (HF), 40% patients had at least 6 minutes of daily atrial fibrillation (AF) burden, and nearly half of these patients had at least an hour of daily AF burden; patients with COPD and concurrent HF had similar daily AF burdens, reported Trent Fischer, MD, MS, senior principal scientist at Medtronic in Minneapolis.

“We can conclude that AF burden increases in the weeks after a hospitalization for COPD if they don’t have a concurrent diagnosis of heart failure. Also, having concurrent heart failure increases the risk of atrial fibrillation and increases the atrial fibrillation burden around the time of COPD hospitalization,” he said in a rapid-fire oral abstract session at the CHEST Annual Meeting.

The findings indicated a need for increased vigilance for AF around the time of a serious COPD exacerbation and may explain at least some of the increased risks for stroke observed in patients who are hospitalized for COPD exacerbations, he said.
 

Retrospective Study

Dr. Fischer and colleagues conducted the study to characterize the AF burden among patients both with and without HF who were hospitalized for acute COPD exacerbation and to determine the temporal relationship between AF and hospitalization.

They drew data from 2007 through 2021 on patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, pacemakers, and implantable cardiac monitors, using the Optum de-identified electronic health record dataset linked with Medtronic’s CareLink database to conduct a retrospective analysis.

They looked at admissions for COPD linked to available device diagnostic parameters between 30 days prior to and 60 days after admission for COPD.

They identified a total of 20,056 COPD hospitalizations for patients with concurrent HF and 3877 for those without HF.

Among patients with HF, 43% had a daily AF burden of at least 6 minutes, and 22% had at least 1 hour of irregular rhythms. Among patients without HF, 40% had at least 6 minutes of irregular rhythms daily, and 18% had at least 1 hour.

Among patients with HF, the daily average AF burden increased from a baseline of 158 min/d 30 days before an admission to 170 min/d at admission, returning to baseline by 20 days after hospitalization.

For patients without HF, the AF burden increased from 107 min/d at baseline to 113 min/d during hospitalization and returned to baseline by 20 days after hospitalization.
 

Confounding Factor?

In the Q&A, session moderator Krishna Sundar, MBBS, MD, FCCP, a pulmonary, sleep medicine, and critical care medicine specialist at St. John’s Medical Center in Jackson, Wyoming, said that when patients with HF get admitted for COPD exacerbations, their HF typically worsens and asked Dr. Fischer how he could tell the difference.

“I know there’s a lot of interaction between heart failure and COPD. They’re well-know comorbidities, and the exacerbation of one can bring on worsening of the other. At least with this database, we can’t really tease out any sort of differences,” Dr. Fischer replied.

“I think that a diagnosis of COPD exacerbation is pretty well laid out, but it’s sometimes difficult to separate worsening of heart failure in these patients, and often these patients get treated for both problems. It’s clear that it’s the heart failure patients who are having more atrial fibrillation episodes, which is not surprising, but the question is how much is the COPD exacerbation contributing to the atrial fibrillation?” said Dr. Sundar.

The study was supported by Medtronic. Dr. Fischer is employed by the company. Dr. Sundar reported no relevant financial relationships.



A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.