Hematology News

This year Medscape surveyed more than 2,300 physicians about how they prioritized various social issues. Around half of them rated climate change among their five most important issues. Slightly lower percentages of doctors prioritized domestic violence and immigration/refugee policies that highly, and about 40% did so regarding reproductive rights in the United States.

Survey responses and comments left on the Physicians’ Views on Today’s Divisive Social Issues 2022 report provide insights into doctors’ attitudes and thinking about these four social challenges.
 

Relevance of climate change to health care

In the Medscape report, 61% of physicians described themselves as “very concerned” or “concerned” about climate change, and about 7 in 10 agreed with the statement that it should be a top worldwide priority. “Climate change is the most pressing issue of this century,” a psychiatrist respondent wrote.

What about direct effects on patients’ health? An internist worried that rising temperatures will cause “pathogens to spread and infect disadvantaged people who do not have health access and have immunocompromised conditions.” A family medicine physician predicted “more weather disasters, more asthma, more hormonal changes, and more obesity.”

However, physician viewpoints ran the gamut with an issue that has become politically and emotionally charged. Descriptions such as “overblown,” “hysteria,” “hoax,” and “farce” were used. “Climate change is a natural phenomenon under God’s purview,” an emergency medicine physician said.

And there was some middle-ground thinking. “It’s overstated but quite real,” a pediatrician respondent wrote. Added an ophthalmologist: “It has gone on for ages. We must work to decrease man-made conditions that affect climate change, but it must be done in an intelligent fashion.”
 

Domestic violence: What physicians can do

About 7 in 10 physicians surveyed by Medscape said they don’t think the United States is adequately tackling domestic violence. “It is underrecognized and ignored,” a psychiatrist respondent argued. The problem is “rampant and unacceptable, pushed into a closet and normalized, with associated shame,” an emergency medicine doctor wrote.

Many respondents noted that physicians are under a mandate to report abuse of or a suspicious injury to a patient. Some shared anecdotes about how they reported action they had taken when they suspected it. “I’ve told patients who may be in dangerous situations that I’m a safe person and provide a safe space,” a radiologist added. An internist said, “I’ve recently started to ask about safety at home during triage on every patient.”

Other doctors bemoaned a lack of adequate education on detecting and managing domestic violence and abuse. “Domestic violence is often not recognized by health care providers,” a psychiatrist respondent observed.
 

Expanding legal immigration

In the Medscape report, 34% of physicians felt U.S. immigration/refugee policies need to be tougher, while 28% said they are too restrictive, and about a fifth saw them as appropriate.

“As an immigrant, I can tell you that the system is flawed and needs a complete overhaul, which will take a bipartisan effort,” an endocrinologist respondent wrote.

A number of respondents argued that it’s critical to simplify the process of obtaining U.S. citizenship so that fewer will feel forced to enter the country illegally. “For a country that relies very heavily on immigrants to sustain our health care system, we behave like idiots in denying safe harbor,” a nephrologist asserted.

A neurologist concurred. “Legal immigration needs to be encouraged. It should be easier to exchange visitor or student visa to immigrant visa in order to retain talent in the health care and technology fields, which would alleviate the shortage of workers in health care.”
 

Reproductive rights: No easy answers

Medscape’s survey was conducted before the U.S. Supreme Court in June reversed Roe v. Wade. In the report, 71% of physicians described themselves as very to somewhat concerned about women’s reproductive rights, but their viewpoints became nuanced after that. “There is a big disparity among physicians on this topic,” an oncologist respondent wrote.

At one end of the spectrum, 3% of doctors felt that abortions should never be permitted. “The human baby in the womb is an independent person with the right to life,” a pathologist said. At the other end, nearly one-fourth of physicians believed abortion should be accessible under all circumstances, regardless of trimester or reason. “I am just here to support the woman and make her decision a reality,” an internist said.

While saying an abortion should be granted after “fetal viability” only “in extenuating circumstances,” an ob.gyn. respondent said she is “extremely concerned” about attacks on abortion rights. “Some of us are old enough to remember women coming to the ER in extremis after illegal procedures, prior to Roe v. Wade.”

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

This year Medscape surveyed more than 2,300 physicians about how they prioritized various social issues. Around half of them rated climate change among their five most important issues. Slightly lower percentages of doctors prioritized domestic violence and immigration/refugee policies that highly, and about 40% did so regarding reproductive rights in the United States.

Survey responses and comments left on the Physicians’ Views on Today’s Divisive Social Issues 2022 report provide insights into doctors’ attitudes and thinking about these four social challenges.
 

Relevance of climate change to health care

In the Medscape report, 61% of physicians described themselves as “very concerned” or “concerned” about climate change, and about 7 in 10 agreed with the statement that it should be a top worldwide priority. “Climate change is the most pressing issue of this century,” a psychiatrist respondent wrote.

What about direct effects on patients’ health? An internist worried that rising temperatures will cause “pathogens to spread and infect disadvantaged people who do not have health access and have immunocompromised conditions.” A family medicine physician predicted “more weather disasters, more asthma, more hormonal changes, and more obesity.”

However, physician viewpoints ran the gamut with an issue that has become politically and emotionally charged. Descriptions such as “overblown,” “hysteria,” “hoax,” and “farce” were used. “Climate change is a natural phenomenon under God’s purview,” an emergency medicine physician said.

And there was some middle-ground thinking. “It’s overstated but quite real,” a pediatrician respondent wrote. Added an ophthalmologist: “It has gone on for ages. We must work to decrease man-made conditions that affect climate change, but it must be done in an intelligent fashion.”
 

Domestic violence: What physicians can do

About 7 in 10 physicians surveyed by Medscape said they don’t think the United States is adequately tackling domestic violence. “It is underrecognized and ignored,” a psychiatrist respondent argued. The problem is “rampant and unacceptable, pushed into a closet and normalized, with associated shame,” an emergency medicine doctor wrote.

Many respondents noted that physicians are under a mandate to report abuse of or a suspicious injury to a patient. Some shared anecdotes about how they reported action they had taken when they suspected it. “I’ve told patients who may be in dangerous situations that I’m a safe person and provide a safe space,” a radiologist added. An internist said, “I’ve recently started to ask about safety at home during triage on every patient.”

Other doctors bemoaned a lack of adequate education on detecting and managing domestic violence and abuse. “Domestic violence is often not recognized by health care providers,” a psychiatrist respondent observed.
 

Expanding legal immigration

In the Medscape report, 34% of physicians felt U.S. immigration/refugee policies need to be tougher, while 28% said they are too restrictive, and about a fifth saw them as appropriate.

“As an immigrant, I can tell you that the system is flawed and needs a complete overhaul, which will take a bipartisan effort,” an endocrinologist respondent wrote.

A number of respondents argued that it’s critical to simplify the process of obtaining U.S. citizenship so that fewer will feel forced to enter the country illegally. “For a country that relies very heavily on immigrants to sustain our health care system, we behave like idiots in denying safe harbor,” a nephrologist asserted.

A neurologist concurred. “Legal immigration needs to be encouraged. It should be easier to exchange visitor or student visa to immigrant visa in order to retain talent in the health care and technology fields, which would alleviate the shortage of workers in health care.”
 

Reproductive rights: No easy answers

Medscape’s survey was conducted before the U.S. Supreme Court in June reversed Roe v. Wade. In the report, 71% of physicians described themselves as very to somewhat concerned about women’s reproductive rights, but their viewpoints became nuanced after that. “There is a big disparity among physicians on this topic,” an oncologist respondent wrote.

At one end of the spectrum, 3% of doctors felt that abortions should never be permitted. “The human baby in the womb is an independent person with the right to life,” a pathologist said. At the other end, nearly one-fourth of physicians believed abortion should be accessible under all circumstances, regardless of trimester or reason. “I am just here to support the woman and make her decision a reality,” an internist said.

While saying an abortion should be granted after “fetal viability” only “in extenuating circumstances,” an ob.gyn. respondent said she is “extremely concerned” about attacks on abortion rights. “Some of us are old enough to remember women coming to the ER in extremis after illegal procedures, prior to Roe v. Wade.”

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

This year Medscape surveyed more than 2,300 physicians about how they prioritized various social issues. Around half of them rated climate change among their five most important issues. Slightly lower percentages of doctors prioritized domestic violence and immigration/refugee policies that highly, and about 40% did so regarding reproductive rights in the United States.

Survey responses and comments left on the Physicians’ Views on Today’s Divisive Social Issues 2022 report provide insights into doctors’ attitudes and thinking about these four social challenges.
 

Relevance of climate change to health care

In the Medscape report, 61% of physicians described themselves as “very concerned” or “concerned” about climate change, and about 7 in 10 agreed with the statement that it should be a top worldwide priority. “Climate change is the most pressing issue of this century,” a psychiatrist respondent wrote.

What about direct effects on patients’ health? An internist worried that rising temperatures will cause “pathogens to spread and infect disadvantaged people who do not have health access and have immunocompromised conditions.” A family medicine physician predicted “more weather disasters, more asthma, more hormonal changes, and more obesity.”

However, physician viewpoints ran the gamut with an issue that has become politically and emotionally charged. Descriptions such as “overblown,” “hysteria,” “hoax,” and “farce” were used. “Climate change is a natural phenomenon under God’s purview,” an emergency medicine physician said.

And there was some middle-ground thinking. “It’s overstated but quite real,” a pediatrician respondent wrote. Added an ophthalmologist: “It has gone on for ages. We must work to decrease man-made conditions that affect climate change, but it must be done in an intelligent fashion.”
 

Domestic violence: What physicians can do

About 7 in 10 physicians surveyed by Medscape said they don’t think the United States is adequately tackling domestic violence. “It is underrecognized and ignored,” a psychiatrist respondent argued. The problem is “rampant and unacceptable, pushed into a closet and normalized, with associated shame,” an emergency medicine doctor wrote.

Many respondents noted that physicians are under a mandate to report abuse of or a suspicious injury to a patient. Some shared anecdotes about how they reported action they had taken when they suspected it. “I’ve told patients who may be in dangerous situations that I’m a safe person and provide a safe space,” a radiologist added. An internist said, “I’ve recently started to ask about safety at home during triage on every patient.”

Other doctors bemoaned a lack of adequate education on detecting and managing domestic violence and abuse. “Domestic violence is often not recognized by health care providers,” a psychiatrist respondent observed.
 

Expanding legal immigration

In the Medscape report, 34% of physicians felt U.S. immigration/refugee policies need to be tougher, while 28% said they are too restrictive, and about a fifth saw them as appropriate.

“As an immigrant, I can tell you that the system is flawed and needs a complete overhaul, which will take a bipartisan effort,” an endocrinologist respondent wrote.

A number of respondents argued that it’s critical to simplify the process of obtaining U.S. citizenship so that fewer will feel forced to enter the country illegally. “For a country that relies very heavily on immigrants to sustain our health care system, we behave like idiots in denying safe harbor,” a nephrologist asserted.

A neurologist concurred. “Legal immigration needs to be encouraged. It should be easier to exchange visitor or student visa to immigrant visa in order to retain talent in the health care and technology fields, which would alleviate the shortage of workers in health care.”
 

Reproductive rights: No easy answers

Medscape’s survey was conducted before the U.S. Supreme Court in June reversed Roe v. Wade. In the report, 71% of physicians described themselves as very to somewhat concerned about women’s reproductive rights, but their viewpoints became nuanced after that. “There is a big disparity among physicians on this topic,” an oncologist respondent wrote.

At one end of the spectrum, 3% of doctors felt that abortions should never be permitted. “The human baby in the womb is an independent person with the right to life,” a pathologist said. At the other end, nearly one-fourth of physicians believed abortion should be accessible under all circumstances, regardless of trimester or reason. “I am just here to support the woman and make her decision a reality,” an internist said.

While saying an abortion should be granted after “fetal viability” only “in extenuating circumstances,” an ob.gyn. respondent said she is “extremely concerned” about attacks on abortion rights. “Some of us are old enough to remember women coming to the ER in extremis after illegal procedures, prior to Roe v. Wade.”

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

Staying mentally healthy is essential for everyone, and it’s vital for physicians. As medical professionals, you’re continually exposed to overwork, burnout, stressful situations, and challenging ethical decisions. Yet seeking help for mental health care may be last on your to-do list – or completely off your radar.

That’s sad and dangerous, since the American College of Emergency Physicians said 300-400 physicians die by suicide each year, and the stigma keeps 69% of female physicians from seeking mental health care, according to a prepandemic study.

In the 2022 Medscape Physician Suicide Report, 11% of female doctors and 9% of male doctors said they have had thoughts of suicide, and 64% experienced colloquial depression (feeling down, sad, or blue).

What’s more, physicians are typically seen as strong and capable and are often put on a pedestal by loved ones, patients, and the public and thought of as superhuman. No wonder it isn’t easy when you need to take time away to decompress and treat your mental well-being.

“There is a real fear for physicians when it comes to getting mental health care,” said Emil Tsai, MD, PhD, MAS, professor at the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles, and an internationally reputed scientist in neurosciences and brain disorders.

The fear, said Dr. Tsai, comes from the stigma of mental health issues, potential repercussions to employment, and conceivable medical board suspension or revocation of your medical license.

Dr. Tsai said in an interview that to combat anxiety about “punishment” that many physicians fear when seeking care for their mental health, we must allow physicians to take time away from their day-to-day patient care for respite and treatment without reprisal.

Since the medical profession is high stress and has a high depression and suicide rate, finding solutions is imperative. And physicians must feel supported enough to seek treatment when needed. So how can we normalize seeking mental health care among physicians?
 

Get honest about stress and burnout

The only way to normalize any behavior is to be open and candid, Dr. Tsai said in an interview. The mental health conversation must occur across the board, not just within the medical profession.

“The greatest thing we can do to try and lift the burden that we place on physicians is to be willing to talk and be honest about the stress that physicians deal with and the importance of everyone feeling free to seek treatment and rest to strengthen their mental health,” said Dr. Tsai.

The more we talk about mental health and its treatment, the more we lessen the stigma, said Dr. Tsai. That could be more employer-employee check-ins, counseling as part of physician wellness, and programs structured so as not to construe a penal system.

“Mental health in the medical profession is a big issue and one that has to be met with the same compassion and care as it should be for any patient. We have annual physical checkups. Why don’t we offer annual mental health checkups for all, physicians included?” asked Dr. Tsai.
 

Evaluate the workload

Elizabeth Lombardo, PhD, psychologist, coach, and global keynote speaker, thinks that health care employers should reexamine their physicians’ workloads to see if they’re contributing to mental health issues.

The conversation on mental health in the workplace shouldn’t be about whether a certain person can handle stressors that are “normal” for health care settings. Instead, workplace managers in health care institutions should redefine workloads to ensure that physicians aren’t too heavily burdened with responsibilities that can cause overwork, burnout, and mental health problems,” she said.
 

Lessen the stigma

Even when physicians want to seek help for their psychological struggles, they may be weary of how their colleagues would react if they knew.

Raffaello Antonino, MD, clinical director at Therapy Central in London, said several underlying fears may exist at a physician’s core that prevent them from seeking care – being seen as weak, being judged as unfit to practice medicine, and the notion that “something is wrong with them.”

Dr. Antonino said we need to understand that physicians face challenges of bereavement and trauma derived from losing patients and the inability to save someone’s life. “These issues can easily develop into an accumulation of difficult, unprocessed emotions, later arising in symptoms and signs of PTSD, anxiety, and depression.”

Education is the best way to end this stigma, just like with any form of prejudice and stereotypes. For instance, we know that health care professionals are at risk of developing burnout. So, educating physicians on the symptoms and management of burnout and its consequences and prevention strategies is a must.

“Imagine what could happen if there were regular opportunities to work through the day’s events before signing out from a shift. The idea that individual weekly therapy is the only way to relieve mental distress is false,” said Lori McIsaac Bewsher, MSW, RSW, a trauma therapist and owner of a trauma-focused mental health clinic in New Brunswick.

“There are ways of integrating individual care into our doctor’s offices and hospitals that can be brief, effective, and confidential. The best way to introduce these interventions is early and collectively; no one is immune to the potential impact of exposure to trauma. The earlier these interventions can be accessed, the better the outcomes for everyone,” she said.

Dr. Antonino suggests, perhaps in the future, organizations can have “burnout checks” or mental health wellness checks for physicians akin to how we also have quick examinations for various physical ailments. What if physicians regularly answered a 10-question mental health survey as part of a burnout or trauma prevention strategy?

“Theirs is a profession and an identity which is often linked with a sense of strength, leadership and [benevolent] power: adjectives, which on the surface one might see as incompatible with what instead, unfortunately, and wrongly, may be associated with mental health issues,” said Dr. Antonino.
 

Keep it private

When it comes to removing the stigma from mental health care and treatment for physicians, privacy is top of mind. There needs to be some form of privacy protection for physicians who seek professional help for mental health reasons. Dr. Lombardo said physicians need to have the choice to keep their mental health journeys private. “Ideally, normalization should mean openly conversing about mental health, but for physicians, it can be a matter of life or death for their career, so the choice to remain private is something that should be afforded to them.”

Along those lines, the American Medical Association is pushing for system changes in legislative and regulatory arenas to support the mental health of practicing physicians, residents, and medical students. The organization is also urging health systems and state medical licensing bodies to remove questions on their applications that ask about prior treatment for mental health conditions.

Among many programs across the country, the Foundation of the Pennsylvania Medical Society has also created a Physicians’ Health Program, which provides confidential assessment, counseling, and referral services for physicians with mental health concerns.

“All of these initiatives are important in helping to destigmatize mental health issues among physicians,” said Harold Hong, MD, a board-certified psychiatrist in Raleigh, N.C.
 

Hail the benefits of treatment

Dr. Hong said to continue to destigmatize mental health among physicians and normalize its treatment, we not only have to emphasize how attending to mental health has individual benefits but also how it helps us help our patients.

“One key aspect that perhaps underpins this issue is the still present separation between mental and physical health, between mind and body, Dr. Hong said in an interview. “Feeling sad or angry or anxious should become a fact of life, a characteristic of being human, just like catching a cold or breaking a leg.”

It’s a normalization that, perhaps more than anything else, can lead the way for improving physicians’ mental health outcomes while also improving them for the rest of society. When society can finally see the health and well-being of someone in both their psychological and physical status, some of the stigmas may dissipate, and perhaps more physicians’ lives can be saved.

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

Staying mentally healthy is essential for everyone, and it’s vital for physicians. As medical professionals, you’re continually exposed to overwork, burnout, stressful situations, and challenging ethical decisions. Yet seeking help for mental health care may be last on your to-do list – or completely off your radar.

That’s sad and dangerous, since the American College of Emergency Physicians said 300-400 physicians die by suicide each year, and the stigma keeps 69% of female physicians from seeking mental health care, according to a prepandemic study.

In the 2022 Medscape Physician Suicide Report, 11% of female doctors and 9% of male doctors said they have had thoughts of suicide, and 64% experienced colloquial depression (feeling down, sad, or blue).

What’s more, physicians are typically seen as strong and capable and are often put on a pedestal by loved ones, patients, and the public and thought of as superhuman. No wonder it isn’t easy when you need to take time away to decompress and treat your mental well-being.

“There is a real fear for physicians when it comes to getting mental health care,” said Emil Tsai, MD, PhD, MAS, professor at the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles, and an internationally reputed scientist in neurosciences and brain disorders.

The fear, said Dr. Tsai, comes from the stigma of mental health issues, potential repercussions to employment, and conceivable medical board suspension or revocation of your medical license.

Dr. Tsai said in an interview that to combat anxiety about “punishment” that many physicians fear when seeking care for their mental health, we must allow physicians to take time away from their day-to-day patient care for respite and treatment without reprisal.

Since the medical profession is high stress and has a high depression and suicide rate, finding solutions is imperative. And physicians must feel supported enough to seek treatment when needed. So how can we normalize seeking mental health care among physicians?
 

Get honest about stress and burnout

The only way to normalize any behavior is to be open and candid, Dr. Tsai said in an interview. The mental health conversation must occur across the board, not just within the medical profession.

“The greatest thing we can do to try and lift the burden that we place on physicians is to be willing to talk and be honest about the stress that physicians deal with and the importance of everyone feeling free to seek treatment and rest to strengthen their mental health,” said Dr. Tsai.

The more we talk about mental health and its treatment, the more we lessen the stigma, said Dr. Tsai. That could be more employer-employee check-ins, counseling as part of physician wellness, and programs structured so as not to construe a penal system.

“Mental health in the medical profession is a big issue and one that has to be met with the same compassion and care as it should be for any patient. We have annual physical checkups. Why don’t we offer annual mental health checkups for all, physicians included?” asked Dr. Tsai.
 

Evaluate the workload

Elizabeth Lombardo, PhD, psychologist, coach, and global keynote speaker, thinks that health care employers should reexamine their physicians’ workloads to see if they’re contributing to mental health issues.

The conversation on mental health in the workplace shouldn’t be about whether a certain person can handle stressors that are “normal” for health care settings. Instead, workplace managers in health care institutions should redefine workloads to ensure that physicians aren’t too heavily burdened with responsibilities that can cause overwork, burnout, and mental health problems,” she said.
 

Lessen the stigma

Even when physicians want to seek help for their psychological struggles, they may be weary of how their colleagues would react if they knew.

Raffaello Antonino, MD, clinical director at Therapy Central in London, said several underlying fears may exist at a physician’s core that prevent them from seeking care – being seen as weak, being judged as unfit to practice medicine, and the notion that “something is wrong with them.”

Dr. Antonino said we need to understand that physicians face challenges of bereavement and trauma derived from losing patients and the inability to save someone’s life. “These issues can easily develop into an accumulation of difficult, unprocessed emotions, later arising in symptoms and signs of PTSD, anxiety, and depression.”

Education is the best way to end this stigma, just like with any form of prejudice and stereotypes. For instance, we know that health care professionals are at risk of developing burnout. So, educating physicians on the symptoms and management of burnout and its consequences and prevention strategies is a must.

“Imagine what could happen if there were regular opportunities to work through the day’s events before signing out from a shift. The idea that individual weekly therapy is the only way to relieve mental distress is false,” said Lori McIsaac Bewsher, MSW, RSW, a trauma therapist and owner of a trauma-focused mental health clinic in New Brunswick.

“There are ways of integrating individual care into our doctor’s offices and hospitals that can be brief, effective, and confidential. The best way to introduce these interventions is early and collectively; no one is immune to the potential impact of exposure to trauma. The earlier these interventions can be accessed, the better the outcomes for everyone,” she said.

Dr. Antonino suggests, perhaps in the future, organizations can have “burnout checks” or mental health wellness checks for physicians akin to how we also have quick examinations for various physical ailments. What if physicians regularly answered a 10-question mental health survey as part of a burnout or trauma prevention strategy?

“Theirs is a profession and an identity which is often linked with a sense of strength, leadership and [benevolent] power: adjectives, which on the surface one might see as incompatible with what instead, unfortunately, and wrongly, may be associated with mental health issues,” said Dr. Antonino.
 

Keep it private

When it comes to removing the stigma from mental health care and treatment for physicians, privacy is top of mind. There needs to be some form of privacy protection for physicians who seek professional help for mental health reasons. Dr. Lombardo said physicians need to have the choice to keep their mental health journeys private. “Ideally, normalization should mean openly conversing about mental health, but for physicians, it can be a matter of life or death for their career, so the choice to remain private is something that should be afforded to them.”

Along those lines, the American Medical Association is pushing for system changes in legislative and regulatory arenas to support the mental health of practicing physicians, residents, and medical students. The organization is also urging health systems and state medical licensing bodies to remove questions on their applications that ask about prior treatment for mental health conditions.

Among many programs across the country, the Foundation of the Pennsylvania Medical Society has also created a Physicians’ Health Program, which provides confidential assessment, counseling, and referral services for physicians with mental health concerns.

“All of these initiatives are important in helping to destigmatize mental health issues among physicians,” said Harold Hong, MD, a board-certified psychiatrist in Raleigh, N.C.
 

Hail the benefits of treatment

Dr. Hong said to continue to destigmatize mental health among physicians and normalize its treatment, we not only have to emphasize how attending to mental health has individual benefits but also how it helps us help our patients.

“One key aspect that perhaps underpins this issue is the still present separation between mental and physical health, between mind and body, Dr. Hong said in an interview. “Feeling sad or angry or anxious should become a fact of life, a characteristic of being human, just like catching a cold or breaking a leg.”

It’s a normalization that, perhaps more than anything else, can lead the way for improving physicians’ mental health outcomes while also improving them for the rest of society. When society can finally see the health and well-being of someone in both their psychological and physical status, some of the stigmas may dissipate, and perhaps more physicians’ lives can be saved.

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

Staying mentally healthy is essential for everyone, and it’s vital for physicians. As medical professionals, you’re continually exposed to overwork, burnout, stressful situations, and challenging ethical decisions. Yet seeking help for mental health care may be last on your to-do list – or completely off your radar.

That’s sad and dangerous, since the American College of Emergency Physicians said 300-400 physicians die by suicide each year, and the stigma keeps 69% of female physicians from seeking mental health care, according to a prepandemic study.

In the 2022 Medscape Physician Suicide Report, 11% of female doctors and 9% of male doctors said they have had thoughts of suicide, and 64% experienced colloquial depression (feeling down, sad, or blue).

What’s more, physicians are typically seen as strong and capable and are often put on a pedestal by loved ones, patients, and the public and thought of as superhuman. No wonder it isn’t easy when you need to take time away to decompress and treat your mental well-being.

“There is a real fear for physicians when it comes to getting mental health care,” said Emil Tsai, MD, PhD, MAS, professor at the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles, and an internationally reputed scientist in neurosciences and brain disorders.

The fear, said Dr. Tsai, comes from the stigma of mental health issues, potential repercussions to employment, and conceivable medical board suspension or revocation of your medical license.

Dr. Tsai said in an interview that to combat anxiety about “punishment” that many physicians fear when seeking care for their mental health, we must allow physicians to take time away from their day-to-day patient care for respite and treatment without reprisal.

Since the medical profession is high stress and has a high depression and suicide rate, finding solutions is imperative. And physicians must feel supported enough to seek treatment when needed. So how can we normalize seeking mental health care among physicians?
 

Get honest about stress and burnout

The only way to normalize any behavior is to be open and candid, Dr. Tsai said in an interview. The mental health conversation must occur across the board, not just within the medical profession.

“The greatest thing we can do to try and lift the burden that we place on physicians is to be willing to talk and be honest about the stress that physicians deal with and the importance of everyone feeling free to seek treatment and rest to strengthen their mental health,” said Dr. Tsai.

The more we talk about mental health and its treatment, the more we lessen the stigma, said Dr. Tsai. That could be more employer-employee check-ins, counseling as part of physician wellness, and programs structured so as not to construe a penal system.

“Mental health in the medical profession is a big issue and one that has to be met with the same compassion and care as it should be for any patient. We have annual physical checkups. Why don’t we offer annual mental health checkups for all, physicians included?” asked Dr. Tsai.
 

Evaluate the workload

Elizabeth Lombardo, PhD, psychologist, coach, and global keynote speaker, thinks that health care employers should reexamine their physicians’ workloads to see if they’re contributing to mental health issues.

The conversation on mental health in the workplace shouldn’t be about whether a certain person can handle stressors that are “normal” for health care settings. Instead, workplace managers in health care institutions should redefine workloads to ensure that physicians aren’t too heavily burdened with responsibilities that can cause overwork, burnout, and mental health problems,” she said.
 

Lessen the stigma

Even when physicians want to seek help for their psychological struggles, they may be weary of how their colleagues would react if they knew.

Raffaello Antonino, MD, clinical director at Therapy Central in London, said several underlying fears may exist at a physician’s core that prevent them from seeking care – being seen as weak, being judged as unfit to practice medicine, and the notion that “something is wrong with them.”

Dr. Antonino said we need to understand that physicians face challenges of bereavement and trauma derived from losing patients and the inability to save someone’s life. “These issues can easily develop into an accumulation of difficult, unprocessed emotions, later arising in symptoms and signs of PTSD, anxiety, and depression.”

Education is the best way to end this stigma, just like with any form of prejudice and stereotypes. For instance, we know that health care professionals are at risk of developing burnout. So, educating physicians on the symptoms and management of burnout and its consequences and prevention strategies is a must.

“Imagine what could happen if there were regular opportunities to work through the day’s events before signing out from a shift. The idea that individual weekly therapy is the only way to relieve mental distress is false,” said Lori McIsaac Bewsher, MSW, RSW, a trauma therapist and owner of a trauma-focused mental health clinic in New Brunswick.

“There are ways of integrating individual care into our doctor’s offices and hospitals that can be brief, effective, and confidential. The best way to introduce these interventions is early and collectively; no one is immune to the potential impact of exposure to trauma. The earlier these interventions can be accessed, the better the outcomes for everyone,” she said.

Dr. Antonino suggests, perhaps in the future, organizations can have “burnout checks” or mental health wellness checks for physicians akin to how we also have quick examinations for various physical ailments. What if physicians regularly answered a 10-question mental health survey as part of a burnout or trauma prevention strategy?

“Theirs is a profession and an identity which is often linked with a sense of strength, leadership and [benevolent] power: adjectives, which on the surface one might see as incompatible with what instead, unfortunately, and wrongly, may be associated with mental health issues,” said Dr. Antonino.
 

Keep it private

When it comes to removing the stigma from mental health care and treatment for physicians, privacy is top of mind. There needs to be some form of privacy protection for physicians who seek professional help for mental health reasons. Dr. Lombardo said physicians need to have the choice to keep their mental health journeys private. “Ideally, normalization should mean openly conversing about mental health, but for physicians, it can be a matter of life or death for their career, so the choice to remain private is something that should be afforded to them.”

Along those lines, the American Medical Association is pushing for system changes in legislative and regulatory arenas to support the mental health of practicing physicians, residents, and medical students. The organization is also urging health systems and state medical licensing bodies to remove questions on their applications that ask about prior treatment for mental health conditions.

Among many programs across the country, the Foundation of the Pennsylvania Medical Society has also created a Physicians’ Health Program, which provides confidential assessment, counseling, and referral services for physicians with mental health concerns.

“All of these initiatives are important in helping to destigmatize mental health issues among physicians,” said Harold Hong, MD, a board-certified psychiatrist in Raleigh, N.C.
 

Hail the benefits of treatment

Dr. Hong said to continue to destigmatize mental health among physicians and normalize its treatment, we not only have to emphasize how attending to mental health has individual benefits but also how it helps us help our patients.

“One key aspect that perhaps underpins this issue is the still present separation between mental and physical health, between mind and body, Dr. Hong said in an interview. “Feeling sad or angry or anxious should become a fact of life, a characteristic of being human, just like catching a cold or breaking a leg.”

It’s a normalization that, perhaps more than anything else, can lead the way for improving physicians’ mental health outcomes while also improving them for the rest of society. When society can finally see the health and well-being of someone in both their psychological and physical status, some of the stigmas may dissipate, and perhaps more physicians’ lives can be saved.

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

The National Resident Matching Program’s (NRMP) decision to nix a proposal for a 2-day medical resident matching process has left some students scratching their heads about why the organization discounted the opinions of the majority of respondents – mostly medical students, residents, and fellows – who supported the change.

The program’s decision comes after nearly 3 months of feedback from the public, medical students, and education community. Although about 60% of public respondents believed the change could reduce stress and allow students more time for momentous career decisions, the program’s board of directors decided the disadvantages were “of greater consequence,” according to a Oct. 28 statement.

Those disadvantages included introducing application or interview behaviors that could increase students’ stress; potentially identifying partially matched or unmatched applicants, which could lead to bias; and extending the match process time for those applicants.

In addition, members of 12 medical education and student organizations raised other concerns, such as the proposed change not addressing high application numbers, according to the statement. NRMP has reported record numbers of applicants over the past few years, typically with more applicants than available program slots.

“While the testimony gave nod to the positive aspects of the proposal ... there was substantially more concern voiced about the potential negative consequences identified in the public comments,” NRMP President and CEO Donna L. Lamb, DHSc, MBA, BSN, told this news organization. Some of those issues could not be addressed without further study, so the board decided not to proceed with the proposal, she explained.

The proposal would have separated the Main Residency Match into two phases and replaced the Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP), in which unmatched or partially matched applicants apply for unfilled residency positions. Under the proposed change, each phase would have operated the same way, from rank order lists and using a matching algorithm to a pair of Match Days instead of a single day.

The two-phase process would have given students who didn’t match more time to carefully weigh residency programs – they can apply to up to 45 placements as part of SOAP – that will guide their career path for the next few years, PGY-1 intern Asim A., who asked not to be identified further, told this news organization. The alternative is a hasty decision once students learn which residency spots are available, he added. “Applicants would have breathing room to make a more informed decision.”

Asim, who is Canadian, said he is participating in a transitional year in internal medicine in the hopes of being matched into internal medicine or psychiatry. He said Canada’s two-phase match is a “lot less stressful” than the U.S. system.

Meanwhile, students on Reddit’s medical school community also questioned NRMP’s decision.

“A significant majority of those surveyed thought it would be beneficial. But NRMP decides to not go through with it,” one Reddit user wrote. Another posted, “The one thing that could have improved the match and they chose not to do it.”

Others supported the decision to retain a 1-day match.

“I think this was the right call,” Bryan Carmody, MD, an outspoken medical education blogger, tweeted after learning of NRMP’s decision. Dr. Carmody, a pediatric nephrologist, previously expressed to this news organization misgivings about whether the two-phase match would make it difficult for programs to thoroughly review candidates and vice versa. He was concerned that it would compress the interview season and pressure programs to rapidly review applicants and conduct interviews.

More than 8,000 people responded to the public survey that began in August and ran for a month. Nearly two-thirds of the respondents (60%) were students, residents, or fellows. About 25% included faculty, program directors, and staff. Among the survey findings, respondents were equally divided between whether the two-phase match would be modestly advantageous (30%) or significantly advantageous (30%) compared to 20% who viewed it as modestly or significantly disadvantageous.

The NRMP said it would continue engaging with the community through focus groups and other means to improve the match experience and transition to residency.

“It is important to remember that a proposal is just that,” Dr. Lamb told this news orgnization, “an opportunity to discuss the pros and cons of an idea or framework ... and to mitigate unwanted consequences determined to be detrimental to learners and programs.”

The NRMP will involve the community in future discussions “to continue to give learners a voice,” she said.

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

The National Resident Matching Program’s (NRMP) decision to nix a proposal for a 2-day medical resident matching process has left some students scratching their heads about why the organization discounted the opinions of the majority of respondents – mostly medical students, residents, and fellows – who supported the change.

The program’s decision comes after nearly 3 months of feedback from the public, medical students, and education community. Although about 60% of public respondents believed the change could reduce stress and allow students more time for momentous career decisions, the program’s board of directors decided the disadvantages were “of greater consequence,” according to a Oct. 28 statement.

Those disadvantages included introducing application or interview behaviors that could increase students’ stress; potentially identifying partially matched or unmatched applicants, which could lead to bias; and extending the match process time for those applicants.

In addition, members of 12 medical education and student organizations raised other concerns, such as the proposed change not addressing high application numbers, according to the statement. NRMP has reported record numbers of applicants over the past few years, typically with more applicants than available program slots.

“While the testimony gave nod to the positive aspects of the proposal ... there was substantially more concern voiced about the potential negative consequences identified in the public comments,” NRMP President and CEO Donna L. Lamb, DHSc, MBA, BSN, told this news organization. Some of those issues could not be addressed without further study, so the board decided not to proceed with the proposal, she explained.

The proposal would have separated the Main Residency Match into two phases and replaced the Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP), in which unmatched or partially matched applicants apply for unfilled residency positions. Under the proposed change, each phase would have operated the same way, from rank order lists and using a matching algorithm to a pair of Match Days instead of a single day.

The two-phase process would have given students who didn’t match more time to carefully weigh residency programs – they can apply to up to 45 placements as part of SOAP – that will guide their career path for the next few years, PGY-1 intern Asim A., who asked not to be identified further, told this news organization. The alternative is a hasty decision once students learn which residency spots are available, he added. “Applicants would have breathing room to make a more informed decision.”

Asim, who is Canadian, said he is participating in a transitional year in internal medicine in the hopes of being matched into internal medicine or psychiatry. He said Canada’s two-phase match is a “lot less stressful” than the U.S. system.

Meanwhile, students on Reddit’s medical school community also questioned NRMP’s decision.

“A significant majority of those surveyed thought it would be beneficial. But NRMP decides to not go through with it,” one Reddit user wrote. Another posted, “The one thing that could have improved the match and they chose not to do it.”

Others supported the decision to retain a 1-day match.

“I think this was the right call,” Bryan Carmody, MD, an outspoken medical education blogger, tweeted after learning of NRMP’s decision. Dr. Carmody, a pediatric nephrologist, previously expressed to this news organization misgivings about whether the two-phase match would make it difficult for programs to thoroughly review candidates and vice versa. He was concerned that it would compress the interview season and pressure programs to rapidly review applicants and conduct interviews.

More than 8,000 people responded to the public survey that began in August and ran for a month. Nearly two-thirds of the respondents (60%) were students, residents, or fellows. About 25% included faculty, program directors, and staff. Among the survey findings, respondents were equally divided between whether the two-phase match would be modestly advantageous (30%) or significantly advantageous (30%) compared to 20% who viewed it as modestly or significantly disadvantageous.

The NRMP said it would continue engaging with the community through focus groups and other means to improve the match experience and transition to residency.

“It is important to remember that a proposal is just that,” Dr. Lamb told this news orgnization, “an opportunity to discuss the pros and cons of an idea or framework ... and to mitigate unwanted consequences determined to be detrimental to learners and programs.”

The NRMP will involve the community in future discussions “to continue to give learners a voice,” she said.

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

The National Resident Matching Program’s (NRMP) decision to nix a proposal for a 2-day medical resident matching process has left some students scratching their heads about why the organization discounted the opinions of the majority of respondents – mostly medical students, residents, and fellows – who supported the change.

The program’s decision comes after nearly 3 months of feedback from the public, medical students, and education community. Although about 60% of public respondents believed the change could reduce stress and allow students more time for momentous career decisions, the program’s board of directors decided the disadvantages were “of greater consequence,” according to a Oct. 28 statement.

Those disadvantages included introducing application or interview behaviors that could increase students’ stress; potentially identifying partially matched or unmatched applicants, which could lead to bias; and extending the match process time for those applicants.

In addition, members of 12 medical education and student organizations raised other concerns, such as the proposed change not addressing high application numbers, according to the statement. NRMP has reported record numbers of applicants over the past few years, typically with more applicants than available program slots.

“While the testimony gave nod to the positive aspects of the proposal ... there was substantially more concern voiced about the potential negative consequences identified in the public comments,” NRMP President and CEO Donna L. Lamb, DHSc, MBA, BSN, told this news organization. Some of those issues could not be addressed without further study, so the board decided not to proceed with the proposal, she explained.

The proposal would have separated the Main Residency Match into two phases and replaced the Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP), in which unmatched or partially matched applicants apply for unfilled residency positions. Under the proposed change, each phase would have operated the same way, from rank order lists and using a matching algorithm to a pair of Match Days instead of a single day.

The two-phase process would have given students who didn’t match more time to carefully weigh residency programs – they can apply to up to 45 placements as part of SOAP – that will guide their career path for the next few years, PGY-1 intern Asim A., who asked not to be identified further, told this news organization. The alternative is a hasty decision once students learn which residency spots are available, he added. “Applicants would have breathing room to make a more informed decision.”

Asim, who is Canadian, said he is participating in a transitional year in internal medicine in the hopes of being matched into internal medicine or psychiatry. He said Canada’s two-phase match is a “lot less stressful” than the U.S. system.

Meanwhile, students on Reddit’s medical school community also questioned NRMP’s decision.

“A significant majority of those surveyed thought it would be beneficial. But NRMP decides to not go through with it,” one Reddit user wrote. Another posted, “The one thing that could have improved the match and they chose not to do it.”

Others supported the decision to retain a 1-day match.

“I think this was the right call,” Bryan Carmody, MD, an outspoken medical education blogger, tweeted after learning of NRMP’s decision. Dr. Carmody, a pediatric nephrologist, previously expressed to this news organization misgivings about whether the two-phase match would make it difficult for programs to thoroughly review candidates and vice versa. He was concerned that it would compress the interview season and pressure programs to rapidly review applicants and conduct interviews.

More than 8,000 people responded to the public survey that began in August and ran for a month. Nearly two-thirds of the respondents (60%) were students, residents, or fellows. About 25% included faculty, program directors, and staff. Among the survey findings, respondents were equally divided between whether the two-phase match would be modestly advantageous (30%) or significantly advantageous (30%) compared to 20% who viewed it as modestly or significantly disadvantageous.

The NRMP said it would continue engaging with the community through focus groups and other means to improve the match experience and transition to residency.

“It is important to remember that a proposal is just that,” Dr. Lamb told this news orgnization, “an opportunity to discuss the pros and cons of an idea or framework ... and to mitigate unwanted consequences determined to be detrimental to learners and programs.”

The NRMP will involve the community in future discussions “to continue to give learners a voice,” she said.

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

CHICAGO – A clinical decision-support tool designed to identify hospitalized patients who need thromboembolism prophylaxis and embedded in a hospital’s electronic health record led to significantly more appropriate prophylaxis, compared with usual care, and significantly cut the 30-day rate of thromboembolism in a randomized, multicenter trial with more than 10,000 patients.

“This is the first time that a clinical decision support tool not only changed [thromboprophylaxis prescribing] behavior but also affected hard outcomes. That’s remarkable,” lead investigator Alex C. Spyropoulos, MD, said in an interview.

Even so, outside experts expressed concerns about certain results and the trial design.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Use of the decision-support risk calculator for thromboembolism in the IMPROVE-DD VTE trial significantly boosted use of appropriate inpatient thromboprophylaxis starting at hospital admission by a relative 52%, and significantly increased outpatient thromboprophylaxis prescribed at discharge by a relative 93% in the study’s two primary endpoints, Dr. Spyropoulos reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

This intervention led to a significant 29% relative reduction in the incidence of total thromboembolic events, both venous and arterial, during hospitalization and through 30 days post discharge.

The absolute thromboembolic event rates were 2.9% among 5,249 patients treated at either of two U.S. hospitals that used the EHR-based risk calculator and 4.0% in 5,450 patients seen at either of two other U.S. hospitals that served as controls and where usual care method identified patients who needed thromboprophylaxis, said Dr. Spyropoulos, professor and director of the anticoagulation and clinical thrombosis services for Northwell Health in New York. This included a 2.7% rate of venous thromboembolism and a 0.25% rate of arterial thromboembolism in the intervention patients, and a 3.3% rate of venous events and a 0.7% rate of arterial events in the controls.

Patients treated at the hospitals that used the EHR-embedded risk calculator also has a numerically lower rate of major bleeding events during hospitalization and 30-day postdischarge follow-up, a 0.15% rate compared with a 0.22% rate in the control patients, a difference that was not significant.
 

A ‘powerful message’

“It’s a powerful message to see an absolute 1.1% difference in the rate of thromboembolism and a trend to fewer major bleeds. I think this will change practice,” Dr. Spyropoulos added in the interview. “The next step is dissemination.”

But thromboprophylaxis experts cautioned that, while the results looked promising, the findings need more analysis and review, and the intervention may need further testing before it’s ready for widespread use.

For example, one unexpected result was an unexpected 2.1 percentage point increase in all-cause mortality linked with use of the decision-support tool. Total deaths from admission to 30 days after discharge occurred in 9.1% of the patients treated at the two hospitals that used the risk calculator and 7.0% among the control patients, a difference that Dr, Spyropoulos said was likely the result of unbalanced outcomes from COVID-19 infections that had no relevance to the tested intervention. The trial ran during December 2020–January 2022.
 

But wait – more detail and analysis needed

“I’d like to see more analysis of the data from this trial,” and “there is the issue of increased mortality,” commented Gregory Piazza, MD, director of vascular medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and a specialist in thromboembolism prevention and management. He also highlighted the need for greater detail on the arterial thromboembolic events tallied during the study.

With more details and analysis of these findings “we’ll learn more about the true impact” of this intervention, Dr. Piazza said in an interview.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The increased mortality in the intervention group may have been due to differential treatment and decision-making and confounding and warrants further investigation,” commented Elaine M. Hylek, MD, a professor at Boston University and designated discussant for the report. Selection bias may have contributed to this possible confounding, Dr. Hylek noted.

Other limitations of the study cited by Dr. Hylek included its reliance on individual clinician decision-making to actually prescribe thromboprophylaxis, a lack of information on patient adherence to their thromboprophylaxis prescription, and an overall low rate of appropriate thromboprophylaxis prescribed to patients at discharge. The rates were 7.5% among the controls and 13.6% among patients in the intervention arm. For prescription at the time of hospitalization, the rates were 72.5% among control patients and 80.1% for patients seen at the two hospitals that used the decision-support tool.
 

The IMPROVE-DD VTE risk assessment tool

The clinical decision-support tool tested is called the IMPROVE-DD VTE risk assessment model, developed over several years by Dr. Spyropoulos and associates; they have also performed multiple validation studies. The model includes eight factors that score 1-3 points if positive that can add up to total scores of 0-14. A score of 0 or 1 is considered low risk, 2 or 3 intermediate risk, and 4 or more high risk. One of the scoring factors is the result of a D-dimer test, which explains the DD part of the name.

The eight factors and point assignments are prior venous thromboembolism: 3 points; known thrombophilia: 2 points; lower limb paralysis: 2 points; current cancer: 2 points; d-dimer level more than twofold the upper limit of normal: 2 points; immobilized for at least 7 days: 1 point; admitted to the ICU or coronary care unit: 1 point; and age greater than 60 years old: 1 point.

Development of the IMPROVE-DD VTE risk calculator received most of its funding from the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the risk tool will be available for hospitals and health systems to access at no charge through the agency’s website, Dr. Spyropoulos said. The researchers designed the calculator to operate in any EHR product.

IMPROVE-DD VTE “is a very valid, high-quality tool,” commented Dr. Piazza. “We’ve used some rather blunt tools in the past,” and especially praised inclusion of D-dimer results into the IMPROVE-DD VTE model.

“It’s nice to use a biomarker in addition to clinical factors,” he said. “A biomarker provides a more holistic picture; we can’t do genetic testing on every patient.”

Enrollment focused on higher-risk patients

The study ran at four academic, tertiary-care hospitals in the Northwell Health network in the New York region. It enrolled patients aged more than 60 years who were hospitalized for any of five diagnoses: heart failure; acute respiratory insufficiency, including chronic obstructive lung disease or asthma; acute infectious disease, including COVID-19; acute inflammatory disease, including rheumatic disease; or acute stroke. The study excluded patients with a history of atrial fibrillation, those who used an anticoagulant at home, or those who had received therapeutic anticoagulation within 24 hours of their hospital admission.

The anticoagulant prophylaxis that patients received depended on their calculated risk level – intermediate or high – and whether they were inpatients or being discharged. The anticoagulants that clinicians could prescribe included unfractionated heparin, enoxaparin, fondaparinux, rivaroxaban, and apixaban.

“We’ve been looking for a long time for a tool for medically ill patients that’s like the CHA2DS2-VASc score” for patients with atrial fibrillation. “These powerful data say we now have this, and the EHR provides a vehicle to easily implement it,” Dr. Spyropoulos said.

The IMPROVE-DD VTE study received partial funding from Janssen. Dr. Spyropoulos has been a consultant to Nayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, and Sanofi; adviser to the ATLAS Group; and has received research support from Janssen. Dr. Piazza has received research funding from Bayer, BIG/EKOS, BMS, Janssen, and Portola. Dr. Hylek had been a consultant to Bayer and Ionis, and has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim and Pfizer.

CHICAGO – A clinical decision-support tool designed to identify hospitalized patients who need thromboembolism prophylaxis and embedded in a hospital’s electronic health record led to significantly more appropriate prophylaxis, compared with usual care, and significantly cut the 30-day rate of thromboembolism in a randomized, multicenter trial with more than 10,000 patients.

“This is the first time that a clinical decision support tool not only changed [thromboprophylaxis prescribing] behavior but also affected hard outcomes. That’s remarkable,” lead investigator Alex C. Spyropoulos, MD, said in an interview.

Even so, outside experts expressed concerns about certain results and the trial design.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Use of the decision-support risk calculator for thromboembolism in the IMPROVE-DD VTE trial significantly boosted use of appropriate inpatient thromboprophylaxis starting at hospital admission by a relative 52%, and significantly increased outpatient thromboprophylaxis prescribed at discharge by a relative 93% in the study’s two primary endpoints, Dr. Spyropoulos reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

This intervention led to a significant 29% relative reduction in the incidence of total thromboembolic events, both venous and arterial, during hospitalization and through 30 days post discharge.

The absolute thromboembolic event rates were 2.9% among 5,249 patients treated at either of two U.S. hospitals that used the EHR-based risk calculator and 4.0% in 5,450 patients seen at either of two other U.S. hospitals that served as controls and where usual care method identified patients who needed thromboprophylaxis, said Dr. Spyropoulos, professor and director of the anticoagulation and clinical thrombosis services for Northwell Health in New York. This included a 2.7% rate of venous thromboembolism and a 0.25% rate of arterial thromboembolism in the intervention patients, and a 3.3% rate of venous events and a 0.7% rate of arterial events in the controls.

Patients treated at the hospitals that used the EHR-embedded risk calculator also has a numerically lower rate of major bleeding events during hospitalization and 30-day postdischarge follow-up, a 0.15% rate compared with a 0.22% rate in the control patients, a difference that was not significant.
 

A ‘powerful message’

“It’s a powerful message to see an absolute 1.1% difference in the rate of thromboembolism and a trend to fewer major bleeds. I think this will change practice,” Dr. Spyropoulos added in the interview. “The next step is dissemination.”

But thromboprophylaxis experts cautioned that, while the results looked promising, the findings need more analysis and review, and the intervention may need further testing before it’s ready for widespread use.

For example, one unexpected result was an unexpected 2.1 percentage point increase in all-cause mortality linked with use of the decision-support tool. Total deaths from admission to 30 days after discharge occurred in 9.1% of the patients treated at the two hospitals that used the risk calculator and 7.0% among the control patients, a difference that Dr, Spyropoulos said was likely the result of unbalanced outcomes from COVID-19 infections that had no relevance to the tested intervention. The trial ran during December 2020–January 2022.
 

But wait – more detail and analysis needed

“I’d like to see more analysis of the data from this trial,” and “there is the issue of increased mortality,” commented Gregory Piazza, MD, director of vascular medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and a specialist in thromboembolism prevention and management. He also highlighted the need for greater detail on the arterial thromboembolic events tallied during the study.

With more details and analysis of these findings “we’ll learn more about the true impact” of this intervention, Dr. Piazza said in an interview.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The increased mortality in the intervention group may have been due to differential treatment and decision-making and confounding and warrants further investigation,” commented Elaine M. Hylek, MD, a professor at Boston University and designated discussant for the report. Selection bias may have contributed to this possible confounding, Dr. Hylek noted.

Other limitations of the study cited by Dr. Hylek included its reliance on individual clinician decision-making to actually prescribe thromboprophylaxis, a lack of information on patient adherence to their thromboprophylaxis prescription, and an overall low rate of appropriate thromboprophylaxis prescribed to patients at discharge. The rates were 7.5% among the controls and 13.6% among patients in the intervention arm. For prescription at the time of hospitalization, the rates were 72.5% among control patients and 80.1% for patients seen at the two hospitals that used the decision-support tool.
 

The IMPROVE-DD VTE risk assessment tool

The clinical decision-support tool tested is called the IMPROVE-DD VTE risk assessment model, developed over several years by Dr. Spyropoulos and associates; they have also performed multiple validation studies. The model includes eight factors that score 1-3 points if positive that can add up to total scores of 0-14. A score of 0 or 1 is considered low risk, 2 or 3 intermediate risk, and 4 or more high risk. One of the scoring factors is the result of a D-dimer test, which explains the DD part of the name.

The eight factors and point assignments are prior venous thromboembolism: 3 points; known thrombophilia: 2 points; lower limb paralysis: 2 points; current cancer: 2 points; d-dimer level more than twofold the upper limit of normal: 2 points; immobilized for at least 7 days: 1 point; admitted to the ICU or coronary care unit: 1 point; and age greater than 60 years old: 1 point.

Development of the IMPROVE-DD VTE risk calculator received most of its funding from the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the risk tool will be available for hospitals and health systems to access at no charge through the agency’s website, Dr. Spyropoulos said. The researchers designed the calculator to operate in any EHR product.

IMPROVE-DD VTE “is a very valid, high-quality tool,” commented Dr. Piazza. “We’ve used some rather blunt tools in the past,” and especially praised inclusion of D-dimer results into the IMPROVE-DD VTE model.

“It’s nice to use a biomarker in addition to clinical factors,” he said. “A biomarker provides a more holistic picture; we can’t do genetic testing on every patient.”

Enrollment focused on higher-risk patients

The study ran at four academic, tertiary-care hospitals in the Northwell Health network in the New York region. It enrolled patients aged more than 60 years who were hospitalized for any of five diagnoses: heart failure; acute respiratory insufficiency, including chronic obstructive lung disease or asthma; acute infectious disease, including COVID-19; acute inflammatory disease, including rheumatic disease; or acute stroke. The study excluded patients with a history of atrial fibrillation, those who used an anticoagulant at home, or those who had received therapeutic anticoagulation within 24 hours of their hospital admission.

The anticoagulant prophylaxis that patients received depended on their calculated risk level – intermediate or high – and whether they were inpatients or being discharged. The anticoagulants that clinicians could prescribe included unfractionated heparin, enoxaparin, fondaparinux, rivaroxaban, and apixaban.

“We’ve been looking for a long time for a tool for medically ill patients that’s like the CHA2DS2-VASc score” for patients with atrial fibrillation. “These powerful data say we now have this, and the EHR provides a vehicle to easily implement it,” Dr. Spyropoulos said.

The IMPROVE-DD VTE study received partial funding from Janssen. Dr. Spyropoulos has been a consultant to Nayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, and Sanofi; adviser to the ATLAS Group; and has received research support from Janssen. Dr. Piazza has received research funding from Bayer, BIG/EKOS, BMS, Janssen, and Portola. Dr. Hylek had been a consultant to Bayer and Ionis, and has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim and Pfizer.

CHICAGO – A clinical decision-support tool designed to identify hospitalized patients who need thromboembolism prophylaxis and embedded in a hospital’s electronic health record led to significantly more appropriate prophylaxis, compared with usual care, and significantly cut the 30-day rate of thromboembolism in a randomized, multicenter trial with more than 10,000 patients.

“This is the first time that a clinical decision support tool not only changed [thromboprophylaxis prescribing] behavior but also affected hard outcomes. That’s remarkable,” lead investigator Alex C. Spyropoulos, MD, said in an interview.

Even so, outside experts expressed concerns about certain results and the trial design.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Use of the decision-support risk calculator for thromboembolism in the IMPROVE-DD VTE trial significantly boosted use of appropriate inpatient thromboprophylaxis starting at hospital admission by a relative 52%, and significantly increased outpatient thromboprophylaxis prescribed at discharge by a relative 93% in the study’s two primary endpoints, Dr. Spyropoulos reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

This intervention led to a significant 29% relative reduction in the incidence of total thromboembolic events, both venous and arterial, during hospitalization and through 30 days post discharge.

The absolute thromboembolic event rates were 2.9% among 5,249 patients treated at either of two U.S. hospitals that used the EHR-based risk calculator and 4.0% in 5,450 patients seen at either of two other U.S. hospitals that served as controls and where usual care method identified patients who needed thromboprophylaxis, said Dr. Spyropoulos, professor and director of the anticoagulation and clinical thrombosis services for Northwell Health in New York. This included a 2.7% rate of venous thromboembolism and a 0.25% rate of arterial thromboembolism in the intervention patients, and a 3.3% rate of venous events and a 0.7% rate of arterial events in the controls.

Patients treated at the hospitals that used the EHR-embedded risk calculator also has a numerically lower rate of major bleeding events during hospitalization and 30-day postdischarge follow-up, a 0.15% rate compared with a 0.22% rate in the control patients, a difference that was not significant.
 

A ‘powerful message’

“It’s a powerful message to see an absolute 1.1% difference in the rate of thromboembolism and a trend to fewer major bleeds. I think this will change practice,” Dr. Spyropoulos added in the interview. “The next step is dissemination.”

But thromboprophylaxis experts cautioned that, while the results looked promising, the findings need more analysis and review, and the intervention may need further testing before it’s ready for widespread use.

For example, one unexpected result was an unexpected 2.1 percentage point increase in all-cause mortality linked with use of the decision-support tool. Total deaths from admission to 30 days after discharge occurred in 9.1% of the patients treated at the two hospitals that used the risk calculator and 7.0% among the control patients, a difference that Dr, Spyropoulos said was likely the result of unbalanced outcomes from COVID-19 infections that had no relevance to the tested intervention. The trial ran during December 2020–January 2022.
 

But wait – more detail and analysis needed

“I’d like to see more analysis of the data from this trial,” and “there is the issue of increased mortality,” commented Gregory Piazza, MD, director of vascular medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and a specialist in thromboembolism prevention and management. He also highlighted the need for greater detail on the arterial thromboembolic events tallied during the study.

With more details and analysis of these findings “we’ll learn more about the true impact” of this intervention, Dr. Piazza said in an interview.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The increased mortality in the intervention group may have been due to differential treatment and decision-making and confounding and warrants further investigation,” commented Elaine M. Hylek, MD, a professor at Boston University and designated discussant for the report. Selection bias may have contributed to this possible confounding, Dr. Hylek noted.

Other limitations of the study cited by Dr. Hylek included its reliance on individual clinician decision-making to actually prescribe thromboprophylaxis, a lack of information on patient adherence to their thromboprophylaxis prescription, and an overall low rate of appropriate thromboprophylaxis prescribed to patients at discharge. The rates were 7.5% among the controls and 13.6% among patients in the intervention arm. For prescription at the time of hospitalization, the rates were 72.5% among control patients and 80.1% for patients seen at the two hospitals that used the decision-support tool.
 

The IMPROVE-DD VTE risk assessment tool

The clinical decision-support tool tested is called the IMPROVE-DD VTE risk assessment model, developed over several years by Dr. Spyropoulos and associates; they have also performed multiple validation studies. The model includes eight factors that score 1-3 points if positive that can add up to total scores of 0-14. A score of 0 or 1 is considered low risk, 2 or 3 intermediate risk, and 4 or more high risk. One of the scoring factors is the result of a D-dimer test, which explains the DD part of the name.

The eight factors and point assignments are prior venous thromboembolism: 3 points; known thrombophilia: 2 points; lower limb paralysis: 2 points; current cancer: 2 points; d-dimer level more than twofold the upper limit of normal: 2 points; immobilized for at least 7 days: 1 point; admitted to the ICU or coronary care unit: 1 point; and age greater than 60 years old: 1 point.

Development of the IMPROVE-DD VTE risk calculator received most of its funding from the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the risk tool will be available for hospitals and health systems to access at no charge through the agency’s website, Dr. Spyropoulos said. The researchers designed the calculator to operate in any EHR product.

IMPROVE-DD VTE “is a very valid, high-quality tool,” commented Dr. Piazza. “We’ve used some rather blunt tools in the past,” and especially praised inclusion of D-dimer results into the IMPROVE-DD VTE model.

“It’s nice to use a biomarker in addition to clinical factors,” he said. “A biomarker provides a more holistic picture; we can’t do genetic testing on every patient.”

Enrollment focused on higher-risk patients

The study ran at four academic, tertiary-care hospitals in the Northwell Health network in the New York region. It enrolled patients aged more than 60 years who were hospitalized for any of five diagnoses: heart failure; acute respiratory insufficiency, including chronic obstructive lung disease or asthma; acute infectious disease, including COVID-19; acute inflammatory disease, including rheumatic disease; or acute stroke. The study excluded patients with a history of atrial fibrillation, those who used an anticoagulant at home, or those who had received therapeutic anticoagulation within 24 hours of their hospital admission.

The anticoagulant prophylaxis that patients received depended on their calculated risk level – intermediate or high – and whether they were inpatients or being discharged. The anticoagulants that clinicians could prescribe included unfractionated heparin, enoxaparin, fondaparinux, rivaroxaban, and apixaban.

“We’ve been looking for a long time for a tool for medically ill patients that’s like the CHA2DS2-VASc score” for patients with atrial fibrillation. “These powerful data say we now have this, and the EHR provides a vehicle to easily implement it,” Dr. Spyropoulos said.

The IMPROVE-DD VTE study received partial funding from Janssen. Dr. Spyropoulos has been a consultant to Nayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, and Sanofi; adviser to the ATLAS Group; and has received research support from Janssen. Dr. Piazza has received research funding from Bayer, BIG/EKOS, BMS, Janssen, and Portola. Dr. Hylek had been a consultant to Bayer and Ionis, and has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim and Pfizer.

While assessment of minimal residual disease at a single time point is useful for predicting outcomes in patients treated for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), multiple assessments over time may offer a more accurate prognostic approach, the results of a recent randomized, phase 3 trial suggest.

Single assessments of minimal residual disease (MRD) effectively prognosticated relapse risks in patients with MCL treated with chemoimmunotherapy and transplantation, according to investigators.

However, by evaluating MRD status over time, disease progression could be predicted with greater certainty, according to study lead author Simone Ferrero, MD, assistant professor of hematology at the University of Torino (Italy).

“The most important message is that MRD is predictive, and then in particular, if you want to study MRD, you have to do a repeated MRD analysis in order to have a better picture of the disease course and to determine the prognosis of each single patient,” Dr. Ferrero said in an interview.
 

Predictive power of MRD

Piers Blombery, MBBS, hematologist and medical lead of the Molecular Hematology Laboratory at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, said these study findings illustrate how the predictive power of MRD is enhanced when it is evaluated longitudinally, over the course of a patient’s disease.

“We need to be prepared to have models of MRD that take into account changes in values across time,” Dr. Blombery said in an interview.

“Conventionally, we have looked at single time points in disease, such as end of induction therapy or post autologous stem cell transplant,” said Dr. Blombery, “but we may need now to have more complex models that can integrate values over multiple time points to guide intervention.”

Dr. Blombery, who was not involved in the study, coauthored an independent commentary on the results that was also published in Blood.
 

Tools to predict relapse

Although initial MCL treatment is often effective, most patients will relapse. Accordingly, there have been considerable efforts to develop tools that identify patients at high risk of relapse, according to Dr. Ferrero and coauthors.

Among these tools is the Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (MIPI), which risk-stratifies patients on the basis of age, performance status, leukocyte count, and lactate dehydrogenase.

More recently, in several published studies, MRD has been demonstrated a high predictive value in MCL. However, the best way to evaluate MRD has yet to be worked out. There are differences in testing methods, sampling (that is, bone marrow versus peripheral blood), and time points that are evaluated.

In some recent studies, investigators have pooled MRD samples taken at different time points, according to Dr. Ferrero and colleagues. Furthermore, there had been no prior systematic attempts to compare the prognostic performance of MRD data evaluated over time, as compared with MRD at a single time point.
 

Exploiting MRD data

The analysis by Dr. Ferrero and coauthors, which appears in the journal Blood, is a substudy of FIL MCL0208, a recent multicenter, randomized, phase 3 clinical trial that demonstrated the benefit of lenalidomide maintenance over observation following autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) among 300 patients with MCL in Italy and Portugal.

In the study, investigators monitored MRD in both peripheral blood and bone marrow at 10 fixed time points throughout treatment (including induction, consolidation, post ASCT, and then every 6 months during maintenance and follow-up), yielding 4,351 individual MRD results.

Individual MRD analyses were prognostic in MCL, according to the investigators, with results that were relevant to disease progression right after ASCT, and were most predictive starting at 6 months after ASCT.

However, the best way to exploit the bulk of MRD information that had been collected, investigators said, was a model that combined regularly updated MRD results with MIPI scores.

This MIPI-adjusted model, based on MRD assessed in bone marrow by real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RQ-PCR), outperformed both MIPI and a MIPI-adjusted single time-point analysis in terms of predicting time to progression.

The predictive power of the MIPI-adjusted bone marrow RQ-PCR analysis was illustrated by an area under the curve of 0.85-0.87, compared with an AUC of just 0.60-0.63 for classic MIPI analysis, 0.62-0.65 for MIPI-adjusted MRD at a post-ASCT time-point analysis, and 0.74-0.77 for MIPI-adjusted MRD at 6 months from transplant.
 

Peripheral blood ‘easier to collect’

Although bone marrow analysis performed best in the single-point MRD evaluations, looking at MRD over time greatly improved the predictive power of the peripheral blood MRD results, yielding an AUC up to 0.81, according to the report.

This enhancement of peripheral blood performance is a finding that may have important clinical implications, according to Dr. Ferrero, considering that peripheral blood monitoring is more practical for long-term, repeated MRD monitoring.

“It is interesting, because peripheral blood is easier to collect than bone marrow,” Dr. Ferrero said. “So if you plan in your analysis to monitor MRD in peripheral blood every 6 months, then you can have a predictive value similar to that of one single point in bone marrow.”

Dr. Ferrero provided disclosures related to Janssen, EUSA Pharma, Gilead, Morphosys, Incyte, Clinigen, Servier, and Gentili. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

While assessment of minimal residual disease at a single time point is useful for predicting outcomes in patients treated for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), multiple assessments over time may offer a more accurate prognostic approach, the results of a recent randomized, phase 3 trial suggest.

Single assessments of minimal residual disease (MRD) effectively prognosticated relapse risks in patients with MCL treated with chemoimmunotherapy and transplantation, according to investigators.

However, by evaluating MRD status over time, disease progression could be predicted with greater certainty, according to study lead author Simone Ferrero, MD, assistant professor of hematology at the University of Torino (Italy).

“The most important message is that MRD is predictive, and then in particular, if you want to study MRD, you have to do a repeated MRD analysis in order to have a better picture of the disease course and to determine the prognosis of each single patient,” Dr. Ferrero said in an interview.
 

Predictive power of MRD

Piers Blombery, MBBS, hematologist and medical lead of the Molecular Hematology Laboratory at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, said these study findings illustrate how the predictive power of MRD is enhanced when it is evaluated longitudinally, over the course of a patient’s disease.

“We need to be prepared to have models of MRD that take into account changes in values across time,” Dr. Blombery said in an interview.

“Conventionally, we have looked at single time points in disease, such as end of induction therapy or post autologous stem cell transplant,” said Dr. Blombery, “but we may need now to have more complex models that can integrate values over multiple time points to guide intervention.”

Dr. Blombery, who was not involved in the study, coauthored an independent commentary on the results that was also published in Blood.
 

Tools to predict relapse

Although initial MCL treatment is often effective, most patients will relapse. Accordingly, there have been considerable efforts to develop tools that identify patients at high risk of relapse, according to Dr. Ferrero and coauthors.

Among these tools is the Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (MIPI), which risk-stratifies patients on the basis of age, performance status, leukocyte count, and lactate dehydrogenase.

More recently, in several published studies, MRD has been demonstrated a high predictive value in MCL. However, the best way to evaluate MRD has yet to be worked out. There are differences in testing methods, sampling (that is, bone marrow versus peripheral blood), and time points that are evaluated.

In some recent studies, investigators have pooled MRD samples taken at different time points, according to Dr. Ferrero and colleagues. Furthermore, there had been no prior systematic attempts to compare the prognostic performance of MRD data evaluated over time, as compared with MRD at a single time point.
 

Exploiting MRD data

The analysis by Dr. Ferrero and coauthors, which appears in the journal Blood, is a substudy of FIL MCL0208, a recent multicenter, randomized, phase 3 clinical trial that demonstrated the benefit of lenalidomide maintenance over observation following autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) among 300 patients with MCL in Italy and Portugal.

In the study, investigators monitored MRD in both peripheral blood and bone marrow at 10 fixed time points throughout treatment (including induction, consolidation, post ASCT, and then every 6 months during maintenance and follow-up), yielding 4,351 individual MRD results.

Individual MRD analyses were prognostic in MCL, according to the investigators, with results that were relevant to disease progression right after ASCT, and were most predictive starting at 6 months after ASCT.

However, the best way to exploit the bulk of MRD information that had been collected, investigators said, was a model that combined regularly updated MRD results with MIPI scores.

This MIPI-adjusted model, based on MRD assessed in bone marrow by real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RQ-PCR), outperformed both MIPI and a MIPI-adjusted single time-point analysis in terms of predicting time to progression.

The predictive power of the MIPI-adjusted bone marrow RQ-PCR analysis was illustrated by an area under the curve of 0.85-0.87, compared with an AUC of just 0.60-0.63 for classic MIPI analysis, 0.62-0.65 for MIPI-adjusted MRD at a post-ASCT time-point analysis, and 0.74-0.77 for MIPI-adjusted MRD at 6 months from transplant.
 

Peripheral blood ‘easier to collect’

Although bone marrow analysis performed best in the single-point MRD evaluations, looking at MRD over time greatly improved the predictive power of the peripheral blood MRD results, yielding an AUC up to 0.81, according to the report.

This enhancement of peripheral blood performance is a finding that may have important clinical implications, according to Dr. Ferrero, considering that peripheral blood monitoring is more practical for long-term, repeated MRD monitoring.

“It is interesting, because peripheral blood is easier to collect than bone marrow,” Dr. Ferrero said. “So if you plan in your analysis to monitor MRD in peripheral blood every 6 months, then you can have a predictive value similar to that of one single point in bone marrow.”

Dr. Ferrero provided disclosures related to Janssen, EUSA Pharma, Gilead, Morphosys, Incyte, Clinigen, Servier, and Gentili. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

While assessment of minimal residual disease at a single time point is useful for predicting outcomes in patients treated for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), multiple assessments over time may offer a more accurate prognostic approach, the results of a recent randomized, phase 3 trial suggest.

Single assessments of minimal residual disease (MRD) effectively prognosticated relapse risks in patients with MCL treated with chemoimmunotherapy and transplantation, according to investigators.

However, by evaluating MRD status over time, disease progression could be predicted with greater certainty, according to study lead author Simone Ferrero, MD, assistant professor of hematology at the University of Torino (Italy).

“The most important message is that MRD is predictive, and then in particular, if you want to study MRD, you have to do a repeated MRD analysis in order to have a better picture of the disease course and to determine the prognosis of each single patient,” Dr. Ferrero said in an interview.
 

Predictive power of MRD

Piers Blombery, MBBS, hematologist and medical lead of the Molecular Hematology Laboratory at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, said these study findings illustrate how the predictive power of MRD is enhanced when it is evaluated longitudinally, over the course of a patient’s disease.

“We need to be prepared to have models of MRD that take into account changes in values across time,” Dr. Blombery said in an interview.

“Conventionally, we have looked at single time points in disease, such as end of induction therapy or post autologous stem cell transplant,” said Dr. Blombery, “but we may need now to have more complex models that can integrate values over multiple time points to guide intervention.”

Dr. Blombery, who was not involved in the study, coauthored an independent commentary on the results that was also published in Blood.
 

Tools to predict relapse

Although initial MCL treatment is often effective, most patients will relapse. Accordingly, there have been considerable efforts to develop tools that identify patients at high risk of relapse, according to Dr. Ferrero and coauthors.

Among these tools is the Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (MIPI), which risk-stratifies patients on the basis of age, performance status, leukocyte count, and lactate dehydrogenase.

More recently, in several published studies, MRD has been demonstrated a high predictive value in MCL. However, the best way to evaluate MRD has yet to be worked out. There are differences in testing methods, sampling (that is, bone marrow versus peripheral blood), and time points that are evaluated.

In some recent studies, investigators have pooled MRD samples taken at different time points, according to Dr. Ferrero and colleagues. Furthermore, there had been no prior systematic attempts to compare the prognostic performance of MRD data evaluated over time, as compared with MRD at a single time point.
 

Exploiting MRD data

The analysis by Dr. Ferrero and coauthors, which appears in the journal Blood, is a substudy of FIL MCL0208, a recent multicenter, randomized, phase 3 clinical trial that demonstrated the benefit of lenalidomide maintenance over observation following autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) among 300 patients with MCL in Italy and Portugal.

In the study, investigators monitored MRD in both peripheral blood and bone marrow at 10 fixed time points throughout treatment (including induction, consolidation, post ASCT, and then every 6 months during maintenance and follow-up), yielding 4,351 individual MRD results.

Individual MRD analyses were prognostic in MCL, according to the investigators, with results that were relevant to disease progression right after ASCT, and were most predictive starting at 6 months after ASCT.

However, the best way to exploit the bulk of MRD information that had been collected, investigators said, was a model that combined regularly updated MRD results with MIPI scores.

This MIPI-adjusted model, based on MRD assessed in bone marrow by real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RQ-PCR), outperformed both MIPI and a MIPI-adjusted single time-point analysis in terms of predicting time to progression.

The predictive power of the MIPI-adjusted bone marrow RQ-PCR analysis was illustrated by an area under the curve of 0.85-0.87, compared with an AUC of just 0.60-0.63 for classic MIPI analysis, 0.62-0.65 for MIPI-adjusted MRD at a post-ASCT time-point analysis, and 0.74-0.77 for MIPI-adjusted MRD at 6 months from transplant.
 

Peripheral blood ‘easier to collect’

Although bone marrow analysis performed best in the single-point MRD evaluations, looking at MRD over time greatly improved the predictive power of the peripheral blood MRD results, yielding an AUC up to 0.81, according to the report.

This enhancement of peripheral blood performance is a finding that may have important clinical implications, according to Dr. Ferrero, considering that peripheral blood monitoring is more practical for long-term, repeated MRD monitoring.

“It is interesting, because peripheral blood is easier to collect than bone marrow,” Dr. Ferrero said. “So if you plan in your analysis to monitor MRD in peripheral blood every 6 months, then you can have a predictive value similar to that of one single point in bone marrow.”

Dr. Ferrero provided disclosures related to Janssen, EUSA Pharma, Gilead, Morphosys, Incyte, Clinigen, Servier, and Gentili. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Medicare’s recently announced 2023 physician payment rule likely trims doctors’ pay even as it aims to expand patients’ access to behavioral health services, chronic pain management, and hearing screening. The rule also seeks to ease financial and administrative burdens on accountable care organizations (ACOs).

But physician groups’ initial reactions centered on what the American Medical Association describes as a “damaging across-the-board reduction” of 4.4% in a base calculation, known as a conversion factor.

The reduction is only one of the current threats to physician’s finances, Jack Resneck Jr, MD, AMA’s president, said in a statement. Medicare payment rates also fail to account for inflation in practice costs and COVID-related challenges. Physician’s Medicare payments could be cut by nearly 8.5% in 2023, factoring in other budget cuts, Dr. Resneck said in the statement.

That “would severely impede patient access to care due to the forced closure of physician practices and put further strain on those that remained open during the pandemic,” he said.

A key driver of these cuts is a law that was intended to resolve budget battles between Congress and physicians, while also transitioning Medicare away from fee-for-service payments and pegging reimbursement to judgments about value of care provided. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services thus had little choice about cuts mandated by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) of 2015.

For AMA and other physician groups, the finalization of the Medicare rule served as a rallying point to build support for pending legislation intended to stave off at least some payment cuts.

Federal officials should act soon to block the expected cuts before this season of Congress ends in January, said Anders Gilberg, senior vice president for government affairs at the Medical Group Management Association, in a statement.

“This cannot wait until next Congress – there are claims-processing implications for retroactively applying these policies,” Mr. Gilberg said.

He said MGMA would work with Congress and CMS “to mitigate these cuts and develop sustainable payment policies to allow physician practices to focus on treating patients instead of scrambling to keep their doors open.”
 

Chronic budget battles

Once seen as a promising resolution to chronic annual budget battles between physicians and Medicare, MACRA has proven a near-universal disappointment. A federal advisory commission in 2018 recommended that Congress scrap MACRA’s  Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and replace it with a new approach for attempting to tie reimbursement to judgments about the quality of medical care.

MACRA replaced an earlier budgeting approach on Medicare physician pay, known as the sustainable growth rate (SGR). Physician groups successfully lobbied Congress for many years to block threatened Medicare payment cuts. Between 2003 and April 2014, Congress passed 17 laws overriding the cuts to physician pay that the lawmakers earlier mandated through the SGR.

A similar pattern has emerged as Congress now acts on short-term fixes to stave off MACRA-mandated cuts. A law passed last December postponed cuts in physician pay from MACRA and federal budget laws.

And more than 70 members of the House support a bill (HR 8800) intended to block a slated 4.4% MACRA-related cut in physician pay for 2023. Two physicians, Rep. Ami Bera, MD, (D-CA) and Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-IN) sponsored the bill.

Among the groups backing the bill are the AMA, American Academy of Family Physicians, and American College of Physicians. The lawmakers may try to attach this bill to a large spending measure, known as an omnibus, that Congress will try to clear in December to avoid a partial government shutdown.

In a statement, Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, MBA, the president of AAFP, urged Congress to factor in inflation in setting physician reimbursement and to reconsider Medicare’s approach to paying physicians.

“It’s past time to end the untenable physician payment cuts – which have now become an annual threat to the stability of physician practices – caused by Medicare budget neutrality requirements and the ongoing freeze in annual payment updates,” Dr. Iroku-Malize said.

Congress also needs to retool its approach to alternative payment models (APMs) intended to improve the quality of patient care, Dr. Iroku-Malize said.

“Physicians in APMs are better equipped to address unmet social needs and provide other enhanced services that are not supported by fee-for-service payment rates,” Dr. Iroku-Malize said. “However, insufficient Medicare fee-for-service payment rates, inadequate support, and burdensome timelines are undermining the move to value-based care and exacerbating our nation’s underinvestment in primary care.”
 

Policy changes

But the new rule did have some good news for family physicians, Dr. Iroku-Malize told this news organization in an email.

CMS said it will pay psychologists and social workers to help manage behavioral health needs as part of the primary care team, in addition to their own services. This change will give primary care practices more flexibility to coordinate with behavioral health professionals, Dr. Iroku-Malize noted.

“We know that primary care physicians are the first point of contact for many patients, and behavioral health integration increases critical access to mental health care, decreases stigma for patients, and can prevent more severe medical and behavioral health events,” she wrote.

CMS also eased a supervision requirement for nonphysicians providing behavioral health services.

It intends to allow certain health professionals to provide this care without requiring that a supervising physician or nurse practitioner be physically on site. This shift from direct supervision to what’s called general supervision applies to marriage and family therapists, licensed professional counselors, addiction counselors, certified peer recovery specialists, and behavioral health specialists, CMS said.

Other major policy changes include:

Medicare will pay for telehealth opioid treatment programs allowing patients to initiate treatment with buprenorphine. CMS also clarified that certain programs can bill for opioid use disorder treatment services provided through mobile units, such as vans.

Medicare enrollees may see audiologists for nonacute hearing conditions without an order from a physician or nurse practitioner. The policy is meant to allow audiologists to examine patients to prescribe, fit, or change hearing aids, or to provide hearing tests unrelated to disequilibrium.

CMS created new reimbursement codes for chronic pain management and treatment services to encourage clinicians to see patients with this condition. The codes also are meant to encourage practitioners already treating Medicare patients with chronic pain to spend more time helping them manage their condition “within a trusting, supportive, and ongoing care partnership,” CMS said.

CMS also made changes to the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) intended to reduce administrative burdens and offer more financial support to practices involved in ACOs. These steps include expanding opportunities for certain low-revenue ACOs to share in savings even if they do not meet a target rate.

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

Medicare’s recently announced 2023 physician payment rule likely trims doctors’ pay even as it aims to expand patients’ access to behavioral health services, chronic pain management, and hearing screening. The rule also seeks to ease financial and administrative burdens on accountable care organizations (ACOs).

But physician groups’ initial reactions centered on what the American Medical Association describes as a “damaging across-the-board reduction” of 4.4% in a base calculation, known as a conversion factor.

The reduction is only one of the current threats to physician’s finances, Jack Resneck Jr, MD, AMA’s president, said in a statement. Medicare payment rates also fail to account for inflation in practice costs and COVID-related challenges. Physician’s Medicare payments could be cut by nearly 8.5% in 2023, factoring in other budget cuts, Dr. Resneck said in the statement.

That “would severely impede patient access to care due to the forced closure of physician practices and put further strain on those that remained open during the pandemic,” he said.

A key driver of these cuts is a law that was intended to resolve budget battles between Congress and physicians, while also transitioning Medicare away from fee-for-service payments and pegging reimbursement to judgments about value of care provided. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services thus had little choice about cuts mandated by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) of 2015.

For AMA and other physician groups, the finalization of the Medicare rule served as a rallying point to build support for pending legislation intended to stave off at least some payment cuts.

Federal officials should act soon to block the expected cuts before this season of Congress ends in January, said Anders Gilberg, senior vice president for government affairs at the Medical Group Management Association, in a statement.

“This cannot wait until next Congress – there are claims-processing implications for retroactively applying these policies,” Mr. Gilberg said.

He said MGMA would work with Congress and CMS “to mitigate these cuts and develop sustainable payment policies to allow physician practices to focus on treating patients instead of scrambling to keep their doors open.”
 

Chronic budget battles

Once seen as a promising resolution to chronic annual budget battles between physicians and Medicare, MACRA has proven a near-universal disappointment. A federal advisory commission in 2018 recommended that Congress scrap MACRA’s  Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and replace it with a new approach for attempting to tie reimbursement to judgments about the quality of medical care.

MACRA replaced an earlier budgeting approach on Medicare physician pay, known as the sustainable growth rate (SGR). Physician groups successfully lobbied Congress for many years to block threatened Medicare payment cuts. Between 2003 and April 2014, Congress passed 17 laws overriding the cuts to physician pay that the lawmakers earlier mandated through the SGR.

A similar pattern has emerged as Congress now acts on short-term fixes to stave off MACRA-mandated cuts. A law passed last December postponed cuts in physician pay from MACRA and federal budget laws.

And more than 70 members of the House support a bill (HR 8800) intended to block a slated 4.4% MACRA-related cut in physician pay for 2023. Two physicians, Rep. Ami Bera, MD, (D-CA) and Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-IN) sponsored the bill.

Among the groups backing the bill are the AMA, American Academy of Family Physicians, and American College of Physicians. The lawmakers may try to attach this bill to a large spending measure, known as an omnibus, that Congress will try to clear in December to avoid a partial government shutdown.

In a statement, Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, MBA, the president of AAFP, urged Congress to factor in inflation in setting physician reimbursement and to reconsider Medicare’s approach to paying physicians.

“It’s past time to end the untenable physician payment cuts – which have now become an annual threat to the stability of physician practices – caused by Medicare budget neutrality requirements and the ongoing freeze in annual payment updates,” Dr. Iroku-Malize said.

Congress also needs to retool its approach to alternative payment models (APMs) intended to improve the quality of patient care, Dr. Iroku-Malize said.

“Physicians in APMs are better equipped to address unmet social needs and provide other enhanced services that are not supported by fee-for-service payment rates,” Dr. Iroku-Malize said. “However, insufficient Medicare fee-for-service payment rates, inadequate support, and burdensome timelines are undermining the move to value-based care and exacerbating our nation’s underinvestment in primary care.”
 

Policy changes

But the new rule did have some good news for family physicians, Dr. Iroku-Malize told this news organization in an email.

CMS said it will pay psychologists and social workers to help manage behavioral health needs as part of the primary care team, in addition to their own services. This change will give primary care practices more flexibility to coordinate with behavioral health professionals, Dr. Iroku-Malize noted.

“We know that primary care physicians are the first point of contact for many patients, and behavioral health integration increases critical access to mental health care, decreases stigma for patients, and can prevent more severe medical and behavioral health events,” she wrote.

CMS also eased a supervision requirement for nonphysicians providing behavioral health services.

It intends to allow certain health professionals to provide this care without requiring that a supervising physician or nurse practitioner be physically on site. This shift from direct supervision to what’s called general supervision applies to marriage and family therapists, licensed professional counselors, addiction counselors, certified peer recovery specialists, and behavioral health specialists, CMS said.

Other major policy changes include:

Medicare will pay for telehealth opioid treatment programs allowing patients to initiate treatment with buprenorphine. CMS also clarified that certain programs can bill for opioid use disorder treatment services provided through mobile units, such as vans.

Medicare enrollees may see audiologists for nonacute hearing conditions without an order from a physician or nurse practitioner. The policy is meant to allow audiologists to examine patients to prescribe, fit, or change hearing aids, or to provide hearing tests unrelated to disequilibrium.

CMS created new reimbursement codes for chronic pain management and treatment services to encourage clinicians to see patients with this condition. The codes also are meant to encourage practitioners already treating Medicare patients with chronic pain to spend more time helping them manage their condition “within a trusting, supportive, and ongoing care partnership,” CMS said.

CMS also made changes to the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) intended to reduce administrative burdens and offer more financial support to practices involved in ACOs. These steps include expanding opportunities for certain low-revenue ACOs to share in savings even if they do not meet a target rate.

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

Medicare’s recently announced 2023 physician payment rule likely trims doctors’ pay even as it aims to expand patients’ access to behavioral health services, chronic pain management, and hearing screening. The rule also seeks to ease financial and administrative burdens on accountable care organizations (ACOs).

But physician groups’ initial reactions centered on what the American Medical Association describes as a “damaging across-the-board reduction” of 4.4% in a base calculation, known as a conversion factor.

The reduction is only one of the current threats to physician’s finances, Jack Resneck Jr, MD, AMA’s president, said in a statement. Medicare payment rates also fail to account for inflation in practice costs and COVID-related challenges. Physician’s Medicare payments could be cut by nearly 8.5% in 2023, factoring in other budget cuts, Dr. Resneck said in the statement.

That “would severely impede patient access to care due to the forced closure of physician practices and put further strain on those that remained open during the pandemic,” he said.

A key driver of these cuts is a law that was intended to resolve budget battles between Congress and physicians, while also transitioning Medicare away from fee-for-service payments and pegging reimbursement to judgments about value of care provided. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services thus had little choice about cuts mandated by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) of 2015.

For AMA and other physician groups, the finalization of the Medicare rule served as a rallying point to build support for pending legislation intended to stave off at least some payment cuts.

Federal officials should act soon to block the expected cuts before this season of Congress ends in January, said Anders Gilberg, senior vice president for government affairs at the Medical Group Management Association, in a statement.

“This cannot wait until next Congress – there are claims-processing implications for retroactively applying these policies,” Mr. Gilberg said.

He said MGMA would work with Congress and CMS “to mitigate these cuts and develop sustainable payment policies to allow physician practices to focus on treating patients instead of scrambling to keep their doors open.”
 

Chronic budget battles

Once seen as a promising resolution to chronic annual budget battles between physicians and Medicare, MACRA has proven a near-universal disappointment. A federal advisory commission in 2018 recommended that Congress scrap MACRA’s  Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and replace it with a new approach for attempting to tie reimbursement to judgments about the quality of medical care.

MACRA replaced an earlier budgeting approach on Medicare physician pay, known as the sustainable growth rate (SGR). Physician groups successfully lobbied Congress for many years to block threatened Medicare payment cuts. Between 2003 and April 2014, Congress passed 17 laws overriding the cuts to physician pay that the lawmakers earlier mandated through the SGR.

A similar pattern has emerged as Congress now acts on short-term fixes to stave off MACRA-mandated cuts. A law passed last December postponed cuts in physician pay from MACRA and federal budget laws.

And more than 70 members of the House support a bill (HR 8800) intended to block a slated 4.4% MACRA-related cut in physician pay for 2023. Two physicians, Rep. Ami Bera, MD, (D-CA) and Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-IN) sponsored the bill.

Among the groups backing the bill are the AMA, American Academy of Family Physicians, and American College of Physicians. The lawmakers may try to attach this bill to a large spending measure, known as an omnibus, that Congress will try to clear in December to avoid a partial government shutdown.

In a statement, Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, MBA, the president of AAFP, urged Congress to factor in inflation in setting physician reimbursement and to reconsider Medicare’s approach to paying physicians.

“It’s past time to end the untenable physician payment cuts – which have now become an annual threat to the stability of physician practices – caused by Medicare budget neutrality requirements and the ongoing freeze in annual payment updates,” Dr. Iroku-Malize said.

Congress also needs to retool its approach to alternative payment models (APMs) intended to improve the quality of patient care, Dr. Iroku-Malize said.

“Physicians in APMs are better equipped to address unmet social needs and provide other enhanced services that are not supported by fee-for-service payment rates,” Dr. Iroku-Malize said. “However, insufficient Medicare fee-for-service payment rates, inadequate support, and burdensome timelines are undermining the move to value-based care and exacerbating our nation’s underinvestment in primary care.”
 

Policy changes

But the new rule did have some good news for family physicians, Dr. Iroku-Malize told this news organization in an email.

CMS said it will pay psychologists and social workers to help manage behavioral health needs as part of the primary care team, in addition to their own services. This change will give primary care practices more flexibility to coordinate with behavioral health professionals, Dr. Iroku-Malize noted.

“We know that primary care physicians are the first point of contact for many patients, and behavioral health integration increases critical access to mental health care, decreases stigma for patients, and can prevent more severe medical and behavioral health events,” she wrote.

CMS also eased a supervision requirement for nonphysicians providing behavioral health services.

It intends to allow certain health professionals to provide this care without requiring that a supervising physician or nurse practitioner be physically on site. This shift from direct supervision to what’s called general supervision applies to marriage and family therapists, licensed professional counselors, addiction counselors, certified peer recovery specialists, and behavioral health specialists, CMS said.

Other major policy changes include:

Medicare will pay for telehealth opioid treatment programs allowing patients to initiate treatment with buprenorphine. CMS also clarified that certain programs can bill for opioid use disorder treatment services provided through mobile units, such as vans.

Medicare enrollees may see audiologists for nonacute hearing conditions without an order from a physician or nurse practitioner. The policy is meant to allow audiologists to examine patients to prescribe, fit, or change hearing aids, or to provide hearing tests unrelated to disequilibrium.

CMS created new reimbursement codes for chronic pain management and treatment services to encourage clinicians to see patients with this condition. The codes also are meant to encourage practitioners already treating Medicare patients with chronic pain to spend more time helping them manage their condition “within a trusting, supportive, and ongoing care partnership,” CMS said.

CMS also made changes to the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) intended to reduce administrative burdens and offer more financial support to practices involved in ACOs. These steps include expanding opportunities for certain low-revenue ACOs to share in savings even if they do not meet a target rate.

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

Before the pandemic, physicians came to work sick, as people do in many other professions. The reasons are likely as varied as, “you weren’t feeling bad enough to miss work,” “you couldn’t afford to miss pay,” “you had too many patients to see,” or “too much work to do.”

In Medscape’s Employed Physicians Report: Loving the Focus, Hating the Bureaucracy, 61% of physicians reported that they sometimes or often come to work sick. Only 2% of respondents said they never come to work unwell.

Medscape wanted to know more about how often you call in sick, how often you come to work feeling unwell, what symptoms you have, and the dogma of your workplace culture regarding sick days. Not to mention the brutal ethos that starts in medical school, in which calling in sick shows weakness or is unacceptable.

So, we polled 2,347 physicians in the United States and abroad and asked them about their sniffling, sneezing, cold, flu, and fever symptoms, and, of course, COVID. Results were split about 50-50 among male and female physicians. The poll ran from Sept. 28 through Oct. 11.
 

Coming to work sick

It’s no surprise that the majority of physicians who were polled (85%) have come to work sick in 2022. In the last prepandemic year (2019), about 70% came to work feeling sick one to five times, and 13% worked while sick six to ten times.

When asked about the symptoms that they’ve previously come to work with, 48% of U.S. physicians said multiple symptoms. They gave high marks for runny nose, cough, congestion, and sore throat. Only 27% have worked with a fever, 22% have worked with other symptoms, and 7% have worked with both strep throat and COVID.

“My workplace, especially in the COVID years, accommodates persons who honestly do not feel well enough to report. Sooner or later, everyone covers for someone else who has to be out,” says Kenneth Abbott, MD, an oncologist in Maryland.
 

The culture of working while sick

Why doctors come to work when they’re sick is complicated. The overwhelming majority of U.S. respondents cited professional obligations; 73% noted that they feel a professional obligation to their patients, and 72% feel a professional obligation to their co-workers. Half of the polled U.S. physicians said they didn’t feel bad enough to stay home, while 48% said they had too much work to do to stay home.

Some 45% said the expectation at their workplace is to come to work unless seriously ill; 43% had too many patients to see; and 18% didn’t think they were contagious when they headed to work sick. Unfortunately, 15% chose to work while sick because otherwise they would lose pay.

In light of these responses, it’s not surprising that 93% reported they’d seen other medical professionals working when sick.

“My schedule is almost always booked weeks in advance. If someone misses or has to cancel their appointment, they typically have 2-4 weeks to wait to get back in. If I was sick and a full day of patients (or God forbid more than a day) had to be canceled because I called in, it’s so much more work when I return,” says Caitlin Briggs, MD, a psychiatrist in Lexington, Ky.
 

Doctors’ workplace sick day policy

Most employees’ benefits allow at least a few sick days, but doctors who treat society’s ill patients don’t seem to stay home from work when they’re suffering. So, we asked physicians, official policy aside, whether they thought going to work sick was expected in their workplace. The majority (76%) said yes, while 24% said no.

“Unless I’m dying or extremely contagious, I usually work. At least now, I have the telehealth option. Not saying any of this is right, but it’s the reality we deal with and the choice we must make,” says Dr. Briggs.

Additionally, 58% of polled physicians said their workplace did not have a clearly defined policy against coming to work sick, while 20% said theirs did, and 22% weren’t sure.

“The first thing I heard on the subject as a medical student was that sick people come to the hospital, so if you’re sick, then you come to the hospital too ... to work. If you can’t work, then you will be admitted. Another aphorism was from Churchill, that ‘most of the world’s work is done by people who don’t feel very well,’ ” says Paul Andreason, MD, a psychiatrist in Bethesda, Md.
 

Working in the time of COVID

Working while ill during ordinary times is one thing, but what about working in the time of COVID? Has the pandemic changed the culture of coming to work sick because medical facilities, such as doctor’s offices and hospitals, don’t want their staff coming in when they have COVID?

Surprisingly, when we asked physicians whether the pandemic has made it more or less acceptable to come to work sick, only 61% thought COVID has made it less acceptable to work while sick, while 16% thought it made it more acceptable, and 23% said there’s no change.

“I draw the line at fevers/chills, feeling like you’ve just been run over, or significant enteritis,” says Dr. Abbott. “Also, if I have to take palliative meds that interfere with alertness, I’m not doing my patients any favors.”

While a minority of physicians may call in sick, most still suffer through their sneezing, coughing, chills, and fever while seeing patients as usual.

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

Before the pandemic, physicians came to work sick, as people do in many other professions. The reasons are likely as varied as, “you weren’t feeling bad enough to miss work,” “you couldn’t afford to miss pay,” “you had too many patients to see,” or “too much work to do.”

In Medscape’s Employed Physicians Report: Loving the Focus, Hating the Bureaucracy, 61% of physicians reported that they sometimes or often come to work sick. Only 2% of respondents said they never come to work unwell.

Medscape wanted to know more about how often you call in sick, how often you come to work feeling unwell, what symptoms you have, and the dogma of your workplace culture regarding sick days. Not to mention the brutal ethos that starts in medical school, in which calling in sick shows weakness or is unacceptable.

So, we polled 2,347 physicians in the United States and abroad and asked them about their sniffling, sneezing, cold, flu, and fever symptoms, and, of course, COVID. Results were split about 50-50 among male and female physicians. The poll ran from Sept. 28 through Oct. 11.
 

Coming to work sick

It’s no surprise that the majority of physicians who were polled (85%) have come to work sick in 2022. In the last prepandemic year (2019), about 70% came to work feeling sick one to five times, and 13% worked while sick six to ten times.

When asked about the symptoms that they’ve previously come to work with, 48% of U.S. physicians said multiple symptoms. They gave high marks for runny nose, cough, congestion, and sore throat. Only 27% have worked with a fever, 22% have worked with other symptoms, and 7% have worked with both strep throat and COVID.

“My workplace, especially in the COVID years, accommodates persons who honestly do not feel well enough to report. Sooner or later, everyone covers for someone else who has to be out,” says Kenneth Abbott, MD, an oncologist in Maryland.
 

The culture of working while sick

Why doctors come to work when they’re sick is complicated. The overwhelming majority of U.S. respondents cited professional obligations; 73% noted that they feel a professional obligation to their patients, and 72% feel a professional obligation to their co-workers. Half of the polled U.S. physicians said they didn’t feel bad enough to stay home, while 48% said they had too much work to do to stay home.

Some 45% said the expectation at their workplace is to come to work unless seriously ill; 43% had too many patients to see; and 18% didn’t think they were contagious when they headed to work sick. Unfortunately, 15% chose to work while sick because otherwise they would lose pay.

In light of these responses, it’s not surprising that 93% reported they’d seen other medical professionals working when sick.

“My schedule is almost always booked weeks in advance. If someone misses or has to cancel their appointment, they typically have 2-4 weeks to wait to get back in. If I was sick and a full day of patients (or God forbid more than a day) had to be canceled because I called in, it’s so much more work when I return,” says Caitlin Briggs, MD, a psychiatrist in Lexington, Ky.
 

Doctors’ workplace sick day policy

Most employees’ benefits allow at least a few sick days, but doctors who treat society’s ill patients don’t seem to stay home from work when they’re suffering. So, we asked physicians, official policy aside, whether they thought going to work sick was expected in their workplace. The majority (76%) said yes, while 24% said no.

“Unless I’m dying or extremely contagious, I usually work. At least now, I have the telehealth option. Not saying any of this is right, but it’s the reality we deal with and the choice we must make,” says Dr. Briggs.

Additionally, 58% of polled physicians said their workplace did not have a clearly defined policy against coming to work sick, while 20% said theirs did, and 22% weren’t sure.

“The first thing I heard on the subject as a medical student was that sick people come to the hospital, so if you’re sick, then you come to the hospital too ... to work. If you can’t work, then you will be admitted. Another aphorism was from Churchill, that ‘most of the world’s work is done by people who don’t feel very well,’ ” says Paul Andreason, MD, a psychiatrist in Bethesda, Md.
 

Working in the time of COVID

Working while ill during ordinary times is one thing, but what about working in the time of COVID? Has the pandemic changed the culture of coming to work sick because medical facilities, such as doctor’s offices and hospitals, don’t want their staff coming in when they have COVID?

Surprisingly, when we asked physicians whether the pandemic has made it more or less acceptable to come to work sick, only 61% thought COVID has made it less acceptable to work while sick, while 16% thought it made it more acceptable, and 23% said there’s no change.

“I draw the line at fevers/chills, feeling like you’ve just been run over, or significant enteritis,” says Dr. Abbott. “Also, if I have to take palliative meds that interfere with alertness, I’m not doing my patients any favors.”

While a minority of physicians may call in sick, most still suffer through their sneezing, coughing, chills, and fever while seeing patients as usual.

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

Before the pandemic, physicians came to work sick, as people do in many other professions. The reasons are likely as varied as, “you weren’t feeling bad enough to miss work,” “you couldn’t afford to miss pay,” “you had too many patients to see,” or “too much work to do.”

In Medscape’s Employed Physicians Report: Loving the Focus, Hating the Bureaucracy, 61% of physicians reported that they sometimes or often come to work sick. Only 2% of respondents said they never come to work unwell.

Medscape wanted to know more about how often you call in sick, how often you come to work feeling unwell, what symptoms you have, and the dogma of your workplace culture regarding sick days. Not to mention the brutal ethos that starts in medical school, in which calling in sick shows weakness or is unacceptable.

So, we polled 2,347 physicians in the United States and abroad and asked them about their sniffling, sneezing, cold, flu, and fever symptoms, and, of course, COVID. Results were split about 50-50 among male and female physicians. The poll ran from Sept. 28 through Oct. 11.
 

Coming to work sick

It’s no surprise that the majority of physicians who were polled (85%) have come to work sick in 2022. In the last prepandemic year (2019), about 70% came to work feeling sick one to five times, and 13% worked while sick six to ten times.

When asked about the symptoms that they’ve previously come to work with, 48% of U.S. physicians said multiple symptoms. They gave high marks for runny nose, cough, congestion, and sore throat. Only 27% have worked with a fever, 22% have worked with other symptoms, and 7% have worked with both strep throat and COVID.

“My workplace, especially in the COVID years, accommodates persons who honestly do not feel well enough to report. Sooner or later, everyone covers for someone else who has to be out,” says Kenneth Abbott, MD, an oncologist in Maryland.
 

The culture of working while sick

Why doctors come to work when they’re sick is complicated. The overwhelming majority of U.S. respondents cited professional obligations; 73% noted that they feel a professional obligation to their patients, and 72% feel a professional obligation to their co-workers. Half of the polled U.S. physicians said they didn’t feel bad enough to stay home, while 48% said they had too much work to do to stay home.

Some 45% said the expectation at their workplace is to come to work unless seriously ill; 43% had too many patients to see; and 18% didn’t think they were contagious when they headed to work sick. Unfortunately, 15% chose to work while sick because otherwise they would lose pay.

In light of these responses, it’s not surprising that 93% reported they’d seen other medical professionals working when sick.

“My schedule is almost always booked weeks in advance. If someone misses or has to cancel their appointment, they typically have 2-4 weeks to wait to get back in. If I was sick and a full day of patients (or God forbid more than a day) had to be canceled because I called in, it’s so much more work when I return,” says Caitlin Briggs, MD, a psychiatrist in Lexington, Ky.
 

Doctors’ workplace sick day policy

Most employees’ benefits allow at least a few sick days, but doctors who treat society’s ill patients don’t seem to stay home from work when they’re suffering. So, we asked physicians, official policy aside, whether they thought going to work sick was expected in their workplace. The majority (76%) said yes, while 24% said no.

“Unless I’m dying or extremely contagious, I usually work. At least now, I have the telehealth option. Not saying any of this is right, but it’s the reality we deal with and the choice we must make,” says Dr. Briggs.

Additionally, 58% of polled physicians said their workplace did not have a clearly defined policy against coming to work sick, while 20% said theirs did, and 22% weren’t sure.

“The first thing I heard on the subject as a medical student was that sick people come to the hospital, so if you’re sick, then you come to the hospital too ... to work. If you can’t work, then you will be admitted. Another aphorism was from Churchill, that ‘most of the world’s work is done by people who don’t feel very well,’ ” says Paul Andreason, MD, a psychiatrist in Bethesda, Md.
 

Working in the time of COVID

Working while ill during ordinary times is one thing, but what about working in the time of COVID? Has the pandemic changed the culture of coming to work sick because medical facilities, such as doctor’s offices and hospitals, don’t want their staff coming in when they have COVID?

Surprisingly, when we asked physicians whether the pandemic has made it more or less acceptable to come to work sick, only 61% thought COVID has made it less acceptable to work while sick, while 16% thought it made it more acceptable, and 23% said there’s no change.

“I draw the line at fevers/chills, feeling like you’ve just been run over, or significant enteritis,” says Dr. Abbott. “Also, if I have to take palliative meds that interfere with alertness, I’m not doing my patients any favors.”

While a minority of physicians may call in sick, most still suffer through their sneezing, coughing, chills, and fever while seeing patients as usual.

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

A study evaluating a new approach using a combination of two thrombolytics designed to reduce bleeding risk in patients with acute ischemic stroke has not shown any benefit on the primary outcome of all intracranial hemorrhage (ICH).

However, there were some encouraging findings including a trend towards a reduction in symptomatic ICH, researchers report, and the combination approach did not show any depletion of fibrinogen levels, which suggests a potential lower bleeding risk.

“Although the main results of this study are neutral, we are encouraged that the combination approach with a low dose of alteplase followed by the new mutant pro-urokinase product looked as effective as full-dose alteplase alone, and there were some promising signs signaling a potential lower bleeding risk,” senior investigator, Diederik Dippel, MD, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, told this news organization.  

The DUMAS study (Dual Thrombolytic Therapy With Mutant Pro-Urokinase and Low Dose Alteplase for Ischemic Stroke) was presented at the World Stroke Congress in Singapore by study coauthor Nadinda van der Ende, MD, also from Erasmus University Medical Center. 

She pointed out that thrombolysis with intravenous alteplase increases the likelihood of a good outcome in acute ischemic stroke but can cause symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, which can be associated with death and major disability.

Mutant pro-urokinase is a new thrombolytic agent, in development by Thrombolytic Science, Cambridge, Mass., formed by changing one amino acid in pro-urokinase to make it more stable. It is more fibrin specific than alteplase and therefore believed to have a lower risk of intracranial hemorrhage.

Fibrin is formed as the last step in the clotting process, and the precursor of fibrin in the blood is fibrinogen, Dr. van der Ende noted. Alteplase depletes fibrinogen, contributing to its increased bleeding risk, but mutant pro-urokinase is not believed to affect fibrinogen.

“Mutant pro-urokinase does not bind to intact fibrin. It only binds to fibrin that has already been primed by alteplase,” she explained.

The hypothesis behind the current study is that giving a small dose of alteplase will break down fibrin in the clot enough to expose the binding sites for mutant pro-urokinase, which can then be given to continue to lyse the clot.  

As alteplase has a short half-life, it disappears quickly, and new fibrin is not affected. As mutant pro-urokinase can only lyse fibrin that is primed with alteplase, new hemostatic clots should stay intact. Animal studies have shown less bleeding from distant sites with this approach, Dr. van der Ende said.

The primary analysis of the phase 2 DUMAS study included 238 patients with mild ischemic stroke (median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] score 3) who met the standard criteria for IV alteplase.

They were randomized to alteplase alone at the regular dose of 0.9 mg/kg (max 90 mg) with a 10% bolus and the remaining given over 60 minutes; or to a combination of a 5-mg bolus of IV alteplase followed by mutant pro-urokinase at a dose of 40 mg given over 60 minutes.

The primary outcome was the rate of all intracranial hemorrhage (symptomatic and asymptomatic) detected by neuroimaging.  

This occurred in 14% of patients in the full-dose alteplase group vs. 13% of patients in the combined alteplase/mutant pro-urokinase group, a nonsignificant difference: adjusted odds ratio, 0.99 (95% confidence interval, 0.46-2.14).

Secondary outcomes showed no significant differences in NIHSS scores at 24 hours or 5-7 days; functional outcome as measured by a shift analysis of the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS); final infarct volume; or perfusion deficit.

However, blood fibrinogen levels were not depleted and significantly higher in the alteplase/mutant pro-urokinase group than in the full-dose alteplase alone group.

In terms of safety, symptomatic ICH occurred in three patients in the alteplase group (3%) and in none (0%) in the combined alteplase/mutant pro-urokinase group; death occurred in 4% vs. 2% patients respectively; and major extracranial hemorrhage occurred in 1% in both groups.

Dr. Van der Ende concluded that the study showed an overall low rate of ICH; a combination of alteplase and mutant pro-urokinase was not superior to alteplase alone in reducing ICH rates in this population of patients with minor stroke; and mutant pro-urokinase appeared to be safe and, unlike alteplase, did not show any reduction in fibrinogen levels.

“We think the lack of an effect on fibrinogen with this new combination of a small alteplase bolus followed by mutant pro-urokinase infusion is promising,” Dr. Dippel commented. “The fact that there was no symptomatic ICH with the combination treatment is also encouraging. Although the primary endpoint of this trial was neutral, we still believe this is a very interesting approach, with the potential for reduced bleeding, compared with alteplase alone, but we need larger numbers to see an effect on outcomes.”

Dr. Dippel also pointed out that the study included only patients with minor stroke who were not eligible for endovascular therapy, and these patients have a low risk of a poor outcome and a low bleeding risk. 

They are hoping to do another study in patients with more severe stroke, who have a higher bleeding risk and would have more to gain from this combination approach.

Because many patients with severe stroke now have immediate thrombectomy if they present to a comprehensive stroke center, a trial in severe stroke patients would have to be done in primary stroke centers, so if the patents are referred to thrombectomy, the thrombolytic would have a chance to work, Dr. Dippel added.

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Stefan Kiechl, MD, Medical University of Innsbruck (Austria), who is cochair of the World Stroke Congress scientific committee, said, “Alteplase is not fibrin specific, and also causes a degeneration of fibrinogen, which results in ‘fibrinogen depletion coagulopathy.’ It is assumed that 20%-40% of intracerebral bleeding after thrombolysis with alteplase is caused by this problem. DUMAS tests the combination of a substantially reduced alteplase [5 mg] dose plus mutant pro-urokinase to avoid this problem.”

The new thrombolysis protocol, however, did not result in a lower bleeding risk, compared to the comparator alteplase,” he added. “The main limitation of this study is that mainly patients with minor strokes were included. Patients with moderate and severe strokes, who have a substantial risk of bleeding, were not adequately addressed.”

The DUMAS trial was funded by an unrestricted grant from Thrombolytic Science, paid to the institution. Dr. Van der Ende and Dr. Dippel report no relevant disclosures.
 

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

A study evaluating a new approach using a combination of two thrombolytics designed to reduce bleeding risk in patients with acute ischemic stroke has not shown any benefit on the primary outcome of all intracranial hemorrhage (ICH).

However, there were some encouraging findings including a trend towards a reduction in symptomatic ICH, researchers report, and the combination approach did not show any depletion of fibrinogen levels, which suggests a potential lower bleeding risk.

“Although the main results of this study are neutral, we are encouraged that the combination approach with a low dose of alteplase followed by the new mutant pro-urokinase product looked as effective as full-dose alteplase alone, and there were some promising signs signaling a potential lower bleeding risk,” senior investigator, Diederik Dippel, MD, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, told this news organization.  

The DUMAS study (Dual Thrombolytic Therapy With Mutant Pro-Urokinase and Low Dose Alteplase for Ischemic Stroke) was presented at the World Stroke Congress in Singapore by study coauthor Nadinda van der Ende, MD, also from Erasmus University Medical Center. 

She pointed out that thrombolysis with intravenous alteplase increases the likelihood of a good outcome in acute ischemic stroke but can cause symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, which can be associated with death and major disability.

Mutant pro-urokinase is a new thrombolytic agent, in development by Thrombolytic Science, Cambridge, Mass., formed by changing one amino acid in pro-urokinase to make it more stable. It is more fibrin specific than alteplase and therefore believed to have a lower risk of intracranial hemorrhage.

Fibrin is formed as the last step in the clotting process, and the precursor of fibrin in the blood is fibrinogen, Dr. van der Ende noted. Alteplase depletes fibrinogen, contributing to its increased bleeding risk, but mutant pro-urokinase is not believed to affect fibrinogen.

“Mutant pro-urokinase does not bind to intact fibrin. It only binds to fibrin that has already been primed by alteplase,” she explained.

The hypothesis behind the current study is that giving a small dose of alteplase will break down fibrin in the clot enough to expose the binding sites for mutant pro-urokinase, which can then be given to continue to lyse the clot.  

As alteplase has a short half-life, it disappears quickly, and new fibrin is not affected. As mutant pro-urokinase can only lyse fibrin that is primed with alteplase, new hemostatic clots should stay intact. Animal studies have shown less bleeding from distant sites with this approach, Dr. van der Ende said.

The primary analysis of the phase 2 DUMAS study included 238 patients with mild ischemic stroke (median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] score 3) who met the standard criteria for IV alteplase.

They were randomized to alteplase alone at the regular dose of 0.9 mg/kg (max 90 mg) with a 10% bolus and the remaining given over 60 minutes; or to a combination of a 5-mg bolus of IV alteplase followed by mutant pro-urokinase at a dose of 40 mg given over 60 minutes.

The primary outcome was the rate of all intracranial hemorrhage (symptomatic and asymptomatic) detected by neuroimaging.  

This occurred in 14% of patients in the full-dose alteplase group vs. 13% of patients in the combined alteplase/mutant pro-urokinase group, a nonsignificant difference: adjusted odds ratio, 0.99 (95% confidence interval, 0.46-2.14).

Secondary outcomes showed no significant differences in NIHSS scores at 24 hours or 5-7 days; functional outcome as measured by a shift analysis of the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS); final infarct volume; or perfusion deficit.

However, blood fibrinogen levels were not depleted and significantly higher in the alteplase/mutant pro-urokinase group than in the full-dose alteplase alone group.

In terms of safety, symptomatic ICH occurred in three patients in the alteplase group (3%) and in none (0%) in the combined alteplase/mutant pro-urokinase group; death occurred in 4% vs. 2% patients respectively; and major extracranial hemorrhage occurred in 1% in both groups.

Dr. Van der Ende concluded that the study showed an overall low rate of ICH; a combination of alteplase and mutant pro-urokinase was not superior to alteplase alone in reducing ICH rates in this population of patients with minor stroke; and mutant pro-urokinase appeared to be safe and, unlike alteplase, did not show any reduction in fibrinogen levels.

“We think the lack of an effect on fibrinogen with this new combination of a small alteplase bolus followed by mutant pro-urokinase infusion is promising,” Dr. Dippel commented. “The fact that there was no symptomatic ICH with the combination treatment is also encouraging. Although the primary endpoint of this trial was neutral, we still believe this is a very interesting approach, with the potential for reduced bleeding, compared with alteplase alone, but we need larger numbers to see an effect on outcomes.”

Dr. Dippel also pointed out that the study included only patients with minor stroke who were not eligible for endovascular therapy, and these patients have a low risk of a poor outcome and a low bleeding risk. 

They are hoping to do another study in patients with more severe stroke, who have a higher bleeding risk and would have more to gain from this combination approach.

Because many patients with severe stroke now have immediate thrombectomy if they present to a comprehensive stroke center, a trial in severe stroke patients would have to be done in primary stroke centers, so if the patents are referred to thrombectomy, the thrombolytic would have a chance to work, Dr. Dippel added.

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Stefan Kiechl, MD, Medical University of Innsbruck (Austria), who is cochair of the World Stroke Congress scientific committee, said, “Alteplase is not fibrin specific, and also causes a degeneration of fibrinogen, which results in ‘fibrinogen depletion coagulopathy.’ It is assumed that 20%-40% of intracerebral bleeding after thrombolysis with alteplase is caused by this problem. DUMAS tests the combination of a substantially reduced alteplase [5 mg] dose plus mutant pro-urokinase to avoid this problem.”

The new thrombolysis protocol, however, did not result in a lower bleeding risk, compared to the comparator alteplase,” he added. “The main limitation of this study is that mainly patients with minor strokes were included. Patients with moderate and severe strokes, who have a substantial risk of bleeding, were not adequately addressed.”

The DUMAS trial was funded by an unrestricted grant from Thrombolytic Science, paid to the institution. Dr. Van der Ende and Dr. Dippel report no relevant disclosures.
 

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

A study evaluating a new approach using a combination of two thrombolytics designed to reduce bleeding risk in patients with acute ischemic stroke has not shown any benefit on the primary outcome of all intracranial hemorrhage (ICH).

However, there were some encouraging findings including a trend towards a reduction in symptomatic ICH, researchers report, and the combination approach did not show any depletion of fibrinogen levels, which suggests a potential lower bleeding risk.

“Although the main results of this study are neutral, we are encouraged that the combination approach with a low dose of alteplase followed by the new mutant pro-urokinase product looked as effective as full-dose alteplase alone, and there were some promising signs signaling a potential lower bleeding risk,” senior investigator, Diederik Dippel, MD, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, told this news organization.  

The DUMAS study (Dual Thrombolytic Therapy With Mutant Pro-Urokinase and Low Dose Alteplase for Ischemic Stroke) was presented at the World Stroke Congress in Singapore by study coauthor Nadinda van der Ende, MD, also from Erasmus University Medical Center. 

She pointed out that thrombolysis with intravenous alteplase increases the likelihood of a good outcome in acute ischemic stroke but can cause symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, which can be associated with death and major disability.

Mutant pro-urokinase is a new thrombolytic agent, in development by Thrombolytic Science, Cambridge, Mass., formed by changing one amino acid in pro-urokinase to make it more stable. It is more fibrin specific than alteplase and therefore believed to have a lower risk of intracranial hemorrhage.

Fibrin is formed as the last step in the clotting process, and the precursor of fibrin in the blood is fibrinogen, Dr. van der Ende noted. Alteplase depletes fibrinogen, contributing to its increased bleeding risk, but mutant pro-urokinase is not believed to affect fibrinogen.

“Mutant pro-urokinase does not bind to intact fibrin. It only binds to fibrin that has already been primed by alteplase,” she explained.

The hypothesis behind the current study is that giving a small dose of alteplase will break down fibrin in the clot enough to expose the binding sites for mutant pro-urokinase, which can then be given to continue to lyse the clot.  

As alteplase has a short half-life, it disappears quickly, and new fibrin is not affected. As mutant pro-urokinase can only lyse fibrin that is primed with alteplase, new hemostatic clots should stay intact. Animal studies have shown less bleeding from distant sites with this approach, Dr. van der Ende said.

The primary analysis of the phase 2 DUMAS study included 238 patients with mild ischemic stroke (median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] score 3) who met the standard criteria for IV alteplase.

They were randomized to alteplase alone at the regular dose of 0.9 mg/kg (max 90 mg) with a 10% bolus and the remaining given over 60 minutes; or to a combination of a 5-mg bolus of IV alteplase followed by mutant pro-urokinase at a dose of 40 mg given over 60 minutes.

The primary outcome was the rate of all intracranial hemorrhage (symptomatic and asymptomatic) detected by neuroimaging.  

This occurred in 14% of patients in the full-dose alteplase group vs. 13% of patients in the combined alteplase/mutant pro-urokinase group, a nonsignificant difference: adjusted odds ratio, 0.99 (95% confidence interval, 0.46-2.14).

Secondary outcomes showed no significant differences in NIHSS scores at 24 hours or 5-7 days; functional outcome as measured by a shift analysis of the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS); final infarct volume; or perfusion deficit.

However, blood fibrinogen levels were not depleted and significantly higher in the alteplase/mutant pro-urokinase group than in the full-dose alteplase alone group.

In terms of safety, symptomatic ICH occurred in three patients in the alteplase group (3%) and in none (0%) in the combined alteplase/mutant pro-urokinase group; death occurred in 4% vs. 2% patients respectively; and major extracranial hemorrhage occurred in 1% in both groups.

Dr. Van der Ende concluded that the study showed an overall low rate of ICH; a combination of alteplase and mutant pro-urokinase was not superior to alteplase alone in reducing ICH rates in this population of patients with minor stroke; and mutant pro-urokinase appeared to be safe and, unlike alteplase, did not show any reduction in fibrinogen levels.

“We think the lack of an effect on fibrinogen with this new combination of a small alteplase bolus followed by mutant pro-urokinase infusion is promising,” Dr. Dippel commented. “The fact that there was no symptomatic ICH with the combination treatment is also encouraging. Although the primary endpoint of this trial was neutral, we still believe this is a very interesting approach, with the potential for reduced bleeding, compared with alteplase alone, but we need larger numbers to see an effect on outcomes.”

Dr. Dippel also pointed out that the study included only patients with minor stroke who were not eligible for endovascular therapy, and these patients have a low risk of a poor outcome and a low bleeding risk. 

They are hoping to do another study in patients with more severe stroke, who have a higher bleeding risk and would have more to gain from this combination approach.

Because many patients with severe stroke now have immediate thrombectomy if they present to a comprehensive stroke center, a trial in severe stroke patients would have to be done in primary stroke centers, so if the patents are referred to thrombectomy, the thrombolytic would have a chance to work, Dr. Dippel added.

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Stefan Kiechl, MD, Medical University of Innsbruck (Austria), who is cochair of the World Stroke Congress scientific committee, said, “Alteplase is not fibrin specific, and also causes a degeneration of fibrinogen, which results in ‘fibrinogen depletion coagulopathy.’ It is assumed that 20%-40% of intracerebral bleeding after thrombolysis with alteplase is caused by this problem. DUMAS tests the combination of a substantially reduced alteplase [5 mg] dose plus mutant pro-urokinase to avoid this problem.”

The new thrombolysis protocol, however, did not result in a lower bleeding risk, compared to the comparator alteplase,” he added. “The main limitation of this study is that mainly patients with minor strokes were included. Patients with moderate and severe strokes, who have a substantial risk of bleeding, were not adequately addressed.”

The DUMAS trial was funded by an unrestricted grant from Thrombolytic Science, paid to the institution. Dr. Van der Ende and Dr. Dippel report no relevant disclosures.
 

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

Bad drinking consequence No. 87: Joining the LOTME team

Alcohol and college students go together like peanut butter and jelly. Or peanut butter and chocolate. Or peanut butter and toothpaste. Peanut butter goes with a lot of things.

Naturally, when you combine alcohol and college students, bad decisions are sure to follow. But have you ever wondered just how many bad decisions alcohol causes? A team of researchers from Penn State University, the undisputed champion of poor drinking decisions (trust us, we know), sure has. They’ve even conducted a 4-year study of 1,700 students as they carved a drunken swath through the many fine local drinking establishments, such as East Halls or that one frat house that hosts medieval battle–style ping pong tournaments.

elevate/PxHere

The students were surveyed twice a year throughout the study, and the researchers compiled a list of all the various consequences their subjects experienced. Ultimately, college students will experience an average of 102 consequences from drinking during their 4-year college careers, which is an impressive number. Try thinking up a hundred consequences for anything.

Some consequences are less common than others – we imagine “missing the Renaissance Faire because you felt drunker the morning after than while you were drinking” is pretty low on the list – but more than 96% of students reported that they’d experienced a hangover and that drinking had caused them to say or do embarrassing things. Also, more than 70% said they needed additional alcohol to feel any effect, a potential sign of alcohol use disorder.

Once they had their list, the researchers focused on 12 of the more common and severe consequences, such as blacking out, hangovers, and missing work/class, and asked the study participants how their parents would react to their drinking and those specific consequences. Students who believed their parents would disapprove of alcohol-related consequences actually experienced fewer consequences overall.

College students, it seems, really do care what their parents think, even if they don’t express it, the researchers said. That gives space for parents to offer advice about the consequences of hard drinking, making decisions while drunk, or bringing godawful Fireball whiskey to parties. Seriously, don’t do that. Stuff’s bad, and you should feel bad for bringing it. Your parents raised you better than that.
 

COVID ‘expert’ discusses data sharing

We interrupt our regularly scheduled programming to bring you this special news event. Elon Musk, the world’s second-most annoying human, is holding a press conference to discuss, of all things, COVID-19.

Reporter: Hey, Mr. Musketeer, what qualifies you to talk about a global pandemic?

EM: As the official king of the Twitterverse, I’m pretty much an expert on any topic.

Reporter: Okay then, Mr. Muskmelon, what can you tell us about the new study in Agricultural Economics, which looked at consumers’ knowledge of local COVID infection rates and their willingness to eat at restaurants?

Dmitry Zvolskiy

That’s all the time I have to chat with you today. I’m off to fire some more Twitter employees.

In case you hadn’t already guessed, Vlad Putin is officially more annoying than Elon Musk. We now return to this week’s typical LOTME shenanigans, already in progress.
 

The deadliest month

With climate change making the world hotter, leading to more heat stroke and organ failure, you would think the summer months would be the most deadly. In reality, though, it’s quite the opposite.

Nothing Ahead

There are multiple factors that make January the most deadly month out of the year, as LiveScience discovered in a recent analysis.

Let’s go through them, shall we?

Respiratory viruses: Robert Glatter, MD, of Lenox Hill Hospital in New York, told LiveScence that winter is the time for illnesses like the flu, bacterial pneumonia, and RSV. Millions of people worldwide die from the flu, according to the CDC. And the World Health Organization reported lower respiratory infections as the fourth-leading cause of death worldwide before COVID came along.

Heart disease: Heart conditions are actually more fatal in the winter months, according to a study published in Circulation. The cold puts more stress on the heart to keep the body warm, which can be a challenge for people who already have preexisting heart conditions.

Space heaters: Dr. Glatter also told Live Science that the use of space heaters could be a factor in the cold winter months since they can lead to carbon monoxide poisoning and even fires. Silent killers.

Holiday season: A time for joy and merriment, certainly, but Christmas et al. have their downsides. By January we’re coming off a 3-month food and alcohol binge, which leads to cardiac stress. There’s also the psychological stress that comes with the season. Sometimes the most wonderful time of the year just isn’t.

So even though summer is hot, fall has hurricanes, and spring tends to have the highest suicide rate, winter still ends up being the deadliest season.

Bad drinking consequence No. 87: Joining the LOTME team

Alcohol and college students go together like peanut butter and jelly. Or peanut butter and chocolate. Or peanut butter and toothpaste. Peanut butter goes with a lot of things.

Naturally, when you combine alcohol and college students, bad decisions are sure to follow. But have you ever wondered just how many bad decisions alcohol causes? A team of researchers from Penn State University, the undisputed champion of poor drinking decisions (trust us, we know), sure has. They’ve even conducted a 4-year study of 1,700 students as they carved a drunken swath through the many fine local drinking establishments, such as East Halls or that one frat house that hosts medieval battle–style ping pong tournaments.

elevate/PxHere

The students were surveyed twice a year throughout the study, and the researchers compiled a list of all the various consequences their subjects experienced. Ultimately, college students will experience an average of 102 consequences from drinking during their 4-year college careers, which is an impressive number. Try thinking up a hundred consequences for anything.

Some consequences are less common than others – we imagine “missing the Renaissance Faire because you felt drunker the morning after than while you were drinking” is pretty low on the list – but more than 96% of students reported that they’d experienced a hangover and that drinking had caused them to say or do embarrassing things. Also, more than 70% said they needed additional alcohol to feel any effect, a potential sign of alcohol use disorder.

Once they had their list, the researchers focused on 12 of the more common and severe consequences, such as blacking out, hangovers, and missing work/class, and asked the study participants how their parents would react to their drinking and those specific consequences. Students who believed their parents would disapprove of alcohol-related consequences actually experienced fewer consequences overall.

College students, it seems, really do care what their parents think, even if they don’t express it, the researchers said. That gives space for parents to offer advice about the consequences of hard drinking, making decisions while drunk, or bringing godawful Fireball whiskey to parties. Seriously, don’t do that. Stuff’s bad, and you should feel bad for bringing it. Your parents raised you better than that.
 

COVID ‘expert’ discusses data sharing

We interrupt our regularly scheduled programming to bring you this special news event. Elon Musk, the world’s second-most annoying human, is holding a press conference to discuss, of all things, COVID-19.

Reporter: Hey, Mr. Musketeer, what qualifies you to talk about a global pandemic?

EM: As the official king of the Twitterverse, I’m pretty much an expert on any topic.

Reporter: Okay then, Mr. Muskmelon, what can you tell us about the new study in Agricultural Economics, which looked at consumers’ knowledge of local COVID infection rates and their willingness to eat at restaurants?

Dmitry Zvolskiy

That’s all the time I have to chat with you today. I’m off to fire some more Twitter employees.

In case you hadn’t already guessed, Vlad Putin is officially more annoying than Elon Musk. We now return to this week’s typical LOTME shenanigans, already in progress.
 

The deadliest month

With climate change making the world hotter, leading to more heat stroke and organ failure, you would think the summer months would be the most deadly. In reality, though, it’s quite the opposite.

Nothing Ahead

There are multiple factors that make January the most deadly month out of the year, as LiveScience discovered in a recent analysis.

Let’s go through them, shall we?

Respiratory viruses: Robert Glatter, MD, of Lenox Hill Hospital in New York, told LiveScence that winter is the time for illnesses like the flu, bacterial pneumonia, and RSV. Millions of people worldwide die from the flu, according to the CDC. And the World Health Organization reported lower respiratory infections as the fourth-leading cause of death worldwide before COVID came along.

Heart disease: Heart conditions are actually more fatal in the winter months, according to a study published in Circulation. The cold puts more stress on the heart to keep the body warm, which can be a challenge for people who already have preexisting heart conditions.

Space heaters: Dr. Glatter also told Live Science that the use of space heaters could be a factor in the cold winter months since they can lead to carbon monoxide poisoning and even fires. Silent killers.

Holiday season: A time for joy and merriment, certainly, but Christmas et al. have their downsides. By January we’re coming off a 3-month food and alcohol binge, which leads to cardiac stress. There’s also the psychological stress that comes with the season. Sometimes the most wonderful time of the year just isn’t.

So even though summer is hot, fall has hurricanes, and spring tends to have the highest suicide rate, winter still ends up being the deadliest season.

Bad drinking consequence No. 87: Joining the LOTME team

Alcohol and college students go together like peanut butter and jelly. Or peanut butter and chocolate. Or peanut butter and toothpaste. Peanut butter goes with a lot of things.

Naturally, when you combine alcohol and college students, bad decisions are sure to follow. But have you ever wondered just how many bad decisions alcohol causes? A team of researchers from Penn State University, the undisputed champion of poor drinking decisions (trust us, we know), sure has. They’ve even conducted a 4-year study of 1,700 students as they carved a drunken swath through the many fine local drinking establishments, such as East Halls or that one frat house that hosts medieval battle–style ping pong tournaments.

elevate/PxHere

The students were surveyed twice a year throughout the study, and the researchers compiled a list of all the various consequences their subjects experienced. Ultimately, college students will experience an average of 102 consequences from drinking during their 4-year college careers, which is an impressive number. Try thinking up a hundred consequences for anything.

Some consequences are less common than others – we imagine “missing the Renaissance Faire because you felt drunker the morning after than while you were drinking” is pretty low on the list – but more than 96% of students reported that they’d experienced a hangover and that drinking had caused them to say or do embarrassing things. Also, more than 70% said they needed additional alcohol to feel any effect, a potential sign of alcohol use disorder.

Once they had their list, the researchers focused on 12 of the more common and severe consequences, such as blacking out, hangovers, and missing work/class, and asked the study participants how their parents would react to their drinking and those specific consequences. Students who believed their parents would disapprove of alcohol-related consequences actually experienced fewer consequences overall.

College students, it seems, really do care what their parents think, even if they don’t express it, the researchers said. That gives space for parents to offer advice about the consequences of hard drinking, making decisions while drunk, or bringing godawful Fireball whiskey to parties. Seriously, don’t do that. Stuff’s bad, and you should feel bad for bringing it. Your parents raised you better than that.
 

COVID ‘expert’ discusses data sharing

We interrupt our regularly scheduled programming to bring you this special news event. Elon Musk, the world’s second-most annoying human, is holding a press conference to discuss, of all things, COVID-19.

Reporter: Hey, Mr. Musketeer, what qualifies you to talk about a global pandemic?

EM: As the official king of the Twitterverse, I’m pretty much an expert on any topic.

Reporter: Okay then, Mr. Muskmelon, what can you tell us about the new study in Agricultural Economics, which looked at consumers’ knowledge of local COVID infection rates and their willingness to eat at restaurants?

Dmitry Zvolskiy

That’s all the time I have to chat with you today. I’m off to fire some more Twitter employees.

In case you hadn’t already guessed, Vlad Putin is officially more annoying than Elon Musk. We now return to this week’s typical LOTME shenanigans, already in progress.
 

The deadliest month

With climate change making the world hotter, leading to more heat stroke and organ failure, you would think the summer months would be the most deadly. In reality, though, it’s quite the opposite.

Nothing Ahead

There are multiple factors that make January the most deadly month out of the year, as LiveScience discovered in a recent analysis.

Let’s go through them, shall we?

Respiratory viruses: Robert Glatter, MD, of Lenox Hill Hospital in New York, told LiveScence that winter is the time for illnesses like the flu, bacterial pneumonia, and RSV. Millions of people worldwide die from the flu, according to the CDC. And the World Health Organization reported lower respiratory infections as the fourth-leading cause of death worldwide before COVID came along.

Heart disease: Heart conditions are actually more fatal in the winter months, according to a study published in Circulation. The cold puts more stress on the heart to keep the body warm, which can be a challenge for people who already have preexisting heart conditions.

Space heaters: Dr. Glatter also told Live Science that the use of space heaters could be a factor in the cold winter months since they can lead to carbon monoxide poisoning and even fires. Silent killers.

Holiday season: A time for joy and merriment, certainly, but Christmas et al. have their downsides. By January we’re coming off a 3-month food and alcohol binge, which leads to cardiac stress. There’s also the psychological stress that comes with the season. Sometimes the most wonderful time of the year just isn’t.

So even though summer is hot, fall has hurricanes, and spring tends to have the highest suicide rate, winter still ends up being the deadliest season.

A commonly prescribed direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) has the lowest risk of bleeding, say researchers. Used to prevent strokes in those with atrial fibrillation (AFib), DOACs have recently become more common than warfarin, the previous standard treatment, as they do not require as much follow-up monitoring – which was “particularly valuable” during the COVID-19 pandemic – and have “less risk” of side effects, highlighted the authors of a new study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

However, the authors explained that, although current guidelines recommend using DOACs over warfarin in patients with AFib, “head-to-head trial data do not exist to guide the choice of DOAC.” So, they set out to try and fill this evidence gap by doing a large-scale comparison between all DOACs – apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban – in routine clinical practice.

Wallis Lau, PhD, University College London, and co–lead author, said: “Direct oral anticoagulants have been prescribed with increasing frequency worldwide in recent years, but evidence comparing them directly has been limited.”
 

One drug stood out

For the multinational population-based cohort study the researchers compared the efficacy and risk of side effects for the four most common DOACs. They reviewed data – from five standardized electronic health care databases that covered 221 million people in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the United States – of 527,226 patients who had been newly diagnosed with AFib between 2010 and 2019, and who had received a new DOAC prescription. The study included 281,320 apixaban users, 61,008 dabigatran users, 12,722 edoxaban users, and 172,176 rivaroxaban users.

Database-specific hazard ratios of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, intracranial hemorrhage, gastrointestinal bleeding, and all-cause mortality between DOACs were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by propensity score and pooled using a random-effects model.

In total, 9,530 ischemic stroke or systemic embolism events, 841 intercranial hemorrhage events, 8,319 gastrointestinal bleeding events, and 1,476 deaths were identified over the study follow-up. The researchers found that all four drugs were comparable on outcomes for ischemic stroke, intercranial hemorrhage, and all-cause mortality.

However, they identified a difference in the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, which they highlighted “is one of the most common and concerning side effects of DOACs.”

“Apixaban stood out as having lower risk of gastrointestinal bleeding,” said the authors, with a 19%-28% lower risk when compared directly with each of the other three DOACs. Specifically, apixaban use was associated with lower risk for gastrointestinal bleeding than use of dabigatran (HR, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.94), edoxaban (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66-0.91), or rivaroxaban (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.66-0.79).

The researchers also highlighted that their findings held true when looking at data only from those aged over 80, and those with chronic kidney disease, two groups that are “often underrepresented” in clinical trials.
 

Apixaban may be preferable

The researchers concluded that, among patients with AFib, apixaban use was associated with lower risk for gastrointestinal bleeding and similar rates of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, intracranial hemorrhage and all-cause mortality, compared with dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban.

“Our results indicate that apixaban may be preferable to other blood thinners because of the lower rate of gastrointestinal bleeding and similar rates of stroke, a finding that we hope will be supported by randomized controlled trials,” said Dr. Lau.

However, he emphasized that, “as with all medications, potential risks and benefits can differ between people, so considering the full spectrum of outcomes and side effects will still be necessary for each individual patient.”

The authors all declared no conflicting interests.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

A commonly prescribed direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) has the lowest risk of bleeding, say researchers. Used to prevent strokes in those with atrial fibrillation (AFib), DOACs have recently become more common than warfarin, the previous standard treatment, as they do not require as much follow-up monitoring – which was “particularly valuable” during the COVID-19 pandemic – and have “less risk” of side effects, highlighted the authors of a new study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

However, the authors explained that, although current guidelines recommend using DOACs over warfarin in patients with AFib, “head-to-head trial data do not exist to guide the choice of DOAC.” So, they set out to try and fill this evidence gap by doing a large-scale comparison between all DOACs – apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban – in routine clinical practice.

Wallis Lau, PhD, University College London, and co–lead author, said: “Direct oral anticoagulants have been prescribed with increasing frequency worldwide in recent years, but evidence comparing them directly has been limited.”
 

One drug stood out

For the multinational population-based cohort study the researchers compared the efficacy and risk of side effects for the four most common DOACs. They reviewed data – from five standardized electronic health care databases that covered 221 million people in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the United States – of 527,226 patients who had been newly diagnosed with AFib between 2010 and 2019, and who had received a new DOAC prescription. The study included 281,320 apixaban users, 61,008 dabigatran users, 12,722 edoxaban users, and 172,176 rivaroxaban users.

Database-specific hazard ratios of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, intracranial hemorrhage, gastrointestinal bleeding, and all-cause mortality between DOACs were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by propensity score and pooled using a random-effects model.

In total, 9,530 ischemic stroke or systemic embolism events, 841 intercranial hemorrhage events, 8,319 gastrointestinal bleeding events, and 1,476 deaths were identified over the study follow-up. The researchers found that all four drugs were comparable on outcomes for ischemic stroke, intercranial hemorrhage, and all-cause mortality.

However, they identified a difference in the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, which they highlighted “is one of the most common and concerning side effects of DOACs.”

“Apixaban stood out as having lower risk of gastrointestinal bleeding,” said the authors, with a 19%-28% lower risk when compared directly with each of the other three DOACs. Specifically, apixaban use was associated with lower risk for gastrointestinal bleeding than use of dabigatran (HR, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.94), edoxaban (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66-0.91), or rivaroxaban (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.66-0.79).

The researchers also highlighted that their findings held true when looking at data only from those aged over 80, and those with chronic kidney disease, two groups that are “often underrepresented” in clinical trials.
 

Apixaban may be preferable

The researchers concluded that, among patients with AFib, apixaban use was associated with lower risk for gastrointestinal bleeding and similar rates of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, intracranial hemorrhage and all-cause mortality, compared with dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban.

“Our results indicate that apixaban may be preferable to other blood thinners because of the lower rate of gastrointestinal bleeding and similar rates of stroke, a finding that we hope will be supported by randomized controlled trials,” said Dr. Lau.

However, he emphasized that, “as with all medications, potential risks and benefits can differ between people, so considering the full spectrum of outcomes and side effects will still be necessary for each individual patient.”

The authors all declared no conflicting interests.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

A commonly prescribed direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) has the lowest risk of bleeding, say researchers. Used to prevent strokes in those with atrial fibrillation (AFib), DOACs have recently become more common than warfarin, the previous standard treatment, as they do not require as much follow-up monitoring – which was “particularly valuable” during the COVID-19 pandemic – and have “less risk” of side effects, highlighted the authors of a new study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

However, the authors explained that, although current guidelines recommend using DOACs over warfarin in patients with AFib, “head-to-head trial data do not exist to guide the choice of DOAC.” So, they set out to try and fill this evidence gap by doing a large-scale comparison between all DOACs – apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban – in routine clinical practice.

Wallis Lau, PhD, University College London, and co–lead author, said: “Direct oral anticoagulants have been prescribed with increasing frequency worldwide in recent years, but evidence comparing them directly has been limited.”
 

One drug stood out

For the multinational population-based cohort study the researchers compared the efficacy and risk of side effects for the four most common DOACs. They reviewed data – from five standardized electronic health care databases that covered 221 million people in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the United States – of 527,226 patients who had been newly diagnosed with AFib between 2010 and 2019, and who had received a new DOAC prescription. The study included 281,320 apixaban users, 61,008 dabigatran users, 12,722 edoxaban users, and 172,176 rivaroxaban users.

Database-specific hazard ratios of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, intracranial hemorrhage, gastrointestinal bleeding, and all-cause mortality between DOACs were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by propensity score and pooled using a random-effects model.

In total, 9,530 ischemic stroke or systemic embolism events, 841 intercranial hemorrhage events, 8,319 gastrointestinal bleeding events, and 1,476 deaths were identified over the study follow-up. The researchers found that all four drugs were comparable on outcomes for ischemic stroke, intercranial hemorrhage, and all-cause mortality.

However, they identified a difference in the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, which they highlighted “is one of the most common and concerning side effects of DOACs.”

“Apixaban stood out as having lower risk of gastrointestinal bleeding,” said the authors, with a 19%-28% lower risk when compared directly with each of the other three DOACs. Specifically, apixaban use was associated with lower risk for gastrointestinal bleeding than use of dabigatran (HR, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.94), edoxaban (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66-0.91), or rivaroxaban (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.66-0.79).

The researchers also highlighted that their findings held true when looking at data only from those aged over 80, and those with chronic kidney disease, two groups that are “often underrepresented” in clinical trials.
 

Apixaban may be preferable

The researchers concluded that, among patients with AFib, apixaban use was associated with lower risk for gastrointestinal bleeding and similar rates of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, intracranial hemorrhage and all-cause mortality, compared with dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban.

“Our results indicate that apixaban may be preferable to other blood thinners because of the lower rate of gastrointestinal bleeding and similar rates of stroke, a finding that we hope will be supported by randomized controlled trials,” said Dr. Lau.

However, he emphasized that, “as with all medications, potential risks and benefits can differ between people, so considering the full spectrum of outcomes and side effects will still be necessary for each individual patient.”

The authors all declared no conflicting interests.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.