Infectious Disease Practitioner

Short-term exposure to high outdoor temperatures is associated with an increased inflammatory response and reduction in infection-fighting cells, new research showed.

In this study, blood work from volunteers was examined for immune biomarkers, and the findings mapped against environmental data.

“With rising global temperatures, the association between heat exposure and a temporarily weakened response from the immune system is a concern because temperature and humidity are known to be important environmental drivers of infectious, airborne disease transmission,” lead author Daniel W. Riggs, PhD, with the Christina Lee Brown Envirome Institute, University of Louisville in Louisville, Kentucky, said in a news release.

“In this study, even exposure to relatively modest increases in temperature were associated with acute changes in immune system functioning indexed by low-grade inflammation known to be linked to cardiovascular disorders, as well as potential secondary effects on the ability to optimally protect against infection,” said Rosalind J. Wright, MD, MPH, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“Further elucidation of the effects of both acute and more prolonged heat exposures (heat waves) on immune signaling will be important given potential broad health implications beyond the heart,” said Dr. Wright, dean of public health and professor and chair, Department of Public Health, Mount Sinai Health System.

The study was presented at the American Heart Association (AHA) Epidemiology and Prevention | Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Scientific Sessions 2024.

High Temps Hard on Multiple Organs

Extreme-heat events have been shown to increase mortality, and excessive deaths due to heat waves are overwhelmingly cardiovascular in origin. Many prior studies only considered ambient temperature, which fails to capture the actual heat stress experienced by individuals, Dr. Riggs and colleagues wrote.

They designed their study to gauge how short-term heat exposures are related to markers of inflammation and the immune response.

They recruited 624 adults (mean age 49 years, 59% women) from a neighborhood in Louisville during the summer months, when median temperatures over 24 hours were 24.5 °C (76 °F).

They obtained blood samples to measure circulating cytokines and immune cells during clinic visits. Heat metrics, collected on the same day as blood draws, included 24-hour averages of temperature, net effective temperature, and the Universal Thermal Climate Index (UTCI), a metric that incorporates temperature, humidity, wind speed, and ultraviolet radiation, to determine the physiological comfort of the human body under specific weather conditions.

The results were adjusted for multiple factors, including sex, age, race, education, body mass index, smoking status, anti-inflammatory medication use, and daily air pollution (PM 2.5).

In adjusted analyses, for every five-degree increase in UTCI, there was an increase in levels of several inflammatory markers, including monocytes (4.2%), eosinophils (9.5%), natural killer T cells (9.9%), and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (7.0%) and a decrease in infection-fighting B cells (−6.8%).

Study Raises Important Questions

“We’re finding that heat is associated with health effects across a wide range of organ systems and outcomes, but this study helps start to get at the ‘how,’” said Perry E. Sheffield, MD, MPH, with the Departments of Pediatrics and Environmental Medicine and Public Health, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, who wasn’t involved in the study.

Dr. Sheffield said the study raises “important questions like, Does the timing of heat exposure matter (going in and out of air-conditioned spaces for example)? and Could some people be more vulnerable than others based on things like what they eat, whether they exercise, or their genetics?”

The study comes on the heels of a report released earlier this month from the World Meteorological Organization noting that climate change indicators reached record levels in 2023.

“The most critical challenges facing medicine are occurring at the intersection of climate and health, underscoring the urgent need to understand how climate-related factors, such as exposure to more extreme temperatures, shift key regulatory systems in our bodies to contribute to disease,” Dr. Wright told this news organization.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Dr. Riggs, Dr. Wright, and Sheffield had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Short-term exposure to high outdoor temperatures is associated with an increased inflammatory response and reduction in infection-fighting cells, new research showed.

In this study, blood work from volunteers was examined for immune biomarkers, and the findings mapped against environmental data.

“With rising global temperatures, the association between heat exposure and a temporarily weakened response from the immune system is a concern because temperature and humidity are known to be important environmental drivers of infectious, airborne disease transmission,” lead author Daniel W. Riggs, PhD, with the Christina Lee Brown Envirome Institute, University of Louisville in Louisville, Kentucky, said in a news release.

“In this study, even exposure to relatively modest increases in temperature were associated with acute changes in immune system functioning indexed by low-grade inflammation known to be linked to cardiovascular disorders, as well as potential secondary effects on the ability to optimally protect against infection,” said Rosalind J. Wright, MD, MPH, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“Further elucidation of the effects of both acute and more prolonged heat exposures (heat waves) on immune signaling will be important given potential broad health implications beyond the heart,” said Dr. Wright, dean of public health and professor and chair, Department of Public Health, Mount Sinai Health System.

The study was presented at the American Heart Association (AHA) Epidemiology and Prevention | Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Scientific Sessions 2024.

High Temps Hard on Multiple Organs

Extreme-heat events have been shown to increase mortality, and excessive deaths due to heat waves are overwhelmingly cardiovascular in origin. Many prior studies only considered ambient temperature, which fails to capture the actual heat stress experienced by individuals, Dr. Riggs and colleagues wrote.

They designed their study to gauge how short-term heat exposures are related to markers of inflammation and the immune response.

They recruited 624 adults (mean age 49 years, 59% women) from a neighborhood in Louisville during the summer months, when median temperatures over 24 hours were 24.5 °C (76 °F).

They obtained blood samples to measure circulating cytokines and immune cells during clinic visits. Heat metrics, collected on the same day as blood draws, included 24-hour averages of temperature, net effective temperature, and the Universal Thermal Climate Index (UTCI), a metric that incorporates temperature, humidity, wind speed, and ultraviolet radiation, to determine the physiological comfort of the human body under specific weather conditions.

The results were adjusted for multiple factors, including sex, age, race, education, body mass index, smoking status, anti-inflammatory medication use, and daily air pollution (PM 2.5).

In adjusted analyses, for every five-degree increase in UTCI, there was an increase in levels of several inflammatory markers, including monocytes (4.2%), eosinophils (9.5%), natural killer T cells (9.9%), and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (7.0%) and a decrease in infection-fighting B cells (−6.8%).

Study Raises Important Questions

“We’re finding that heat is associated with health effects across a wide range of organ systems and outcomes, but this study helps start to get at the ‘how,’” said Perry E. Sheffield, MD, MPH, with the Departments of Pediatrics and Environmental Medicine and Public Health, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, who wasn’t involved in the study.

Dr. Sheffield said the study raises “important questions like, Does the timing of heat exposure matter (going in and out of air-conditioned spaces for example)? and Could some people be more vulnerable than others based on things like what they eat, whether they exercise, or their genetics?”

The study comes on the heels of a report released earlier this month from the World Meteorological Organization noting that climate change indicators reached record levels in 2023.

“The most critical challenges facing medicine are occurring at the intersection of climate and health, underscoring the urgent need to understand how climate-related factors, such as exposure to more extreme temperatures, shift key regulatory systems in our bodies to contribute to disease,” Dr. Wright told this news organization.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Dr. Riggs, Dr. Wright, and Sheffield had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Short-term exposure to high outdoor temperatures is associated with an increased inflammatory response and reduction in infection-fighting cells, new research showed.

In this study, blood work from volunteers was examined for immune biomarkers, and the findings mapped against environmental data.

“With rising global temperatures, the association between heat exposure and a temporarily weakened response from the immune system is a concern because temperature and humidity are known to be important environmental drivers of infectious, airborne disease transmission,” lead author Daniel W. Riggs, PhD, with the Christina Lee Brown Envirome Institute, University of Louisville in Louisville, Kentucky, said in a news release.

“In this study, even exposure to relatively modest increases in temperature were associated with acute changes in immune system functioning indexed by low-grade inflammation known to be linked to cardiovascular disorders, as well as potential secondary effects on the ability to optimally protect against infection,” said Rosalind J. Wright, MD, MPH, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“Further elucidation of the effects of both acute and more prolonged heat exposures (heat waves) on immune signaling will be important given potential broad health implications beyond the heart,” said Dr. Wright, dean of public health and professor and chair, Department of Public Health, Mount Sinai Health System.

The study was presented at the American Heart Association (AHA) Epidemiology and Prevention | Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Scientific Sessions 2024.

High Temps Hard on Multiple Organs

Extreme-heat events have been shown to increase mortality, and excessive deaths due to heat waves are overwhelmingly cardiovascular in origin. Many prior studies only considered ambient temperature, which fails to capture the actual heat stress experienced by individuals, Dr. Riggs and colleagues wrote.

They designed their study to gauge how short-term heat exposures are related to markers of inflammation and the immune response.

They recruited 624 adults (mean age 49 years, 59% women) from a neighborhood in Louisville during the summer months, when median temperatures over 24 hours were 24.5 °C (76 °F).

They obtained blood samples to measure circulating cytokines and immune cells during clinic visits. Heat metrics, collected on the same day as blood draws, included 24-hour averages of temperature, net effective temperature, and the Universal Thermal Climate Index (UTCI), a metric that incorporates temperature, humidity, wind speed, and ultraviolet radiation, to determine the physiological comfort of the human body under specific weather conditions.

The results were adjusted for multiple factors, including sex, age, race, education, body mass index, smoking status, anti-inflammatory medication use, and daily air pollution (PM 2.5).

In adjusted analyses, for every five-degree increase in UTCI, there was an increase in levels of several inflammatory markers, including monocytes (4.2%), eosinophils (9.5%), natural killer T cells (9.9%), and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (7.0%) and a decrease in infection-fighting B cells (−6.8%).

Study Raises Important Questions

“We’re finding that heat is associated with health effects across a wide range of organ systems and outcomes, but this study helps start to get at the ‘how,’” said Perry E. Sheffield, MD, MPH, with the Departments of Pediatrics and Environmental Medicine and Public Health, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, who wasn’t involved in the study.

Dr. Sheffield said the study raises “important questions like, Does the timing of heat exposure matter (going in and out of air-conditioned spaces for example)? and Could some people be more vulnerable than others based on things like what they eat, whether they exercise, or their genetics?”

The study comes on the heels of a report released earlier this month from the World Meteorological Organization noting that climate change indicators reached record levels in 2023.

“The most critical challenges facing medicine are occurring at the intersection of climate and health, underscoring the urgent need to understand how climate-related factors, such as exposure to more extreme temperatures, shift key regulatory systems in our bodies to contribute to disease,” Dr. Wright told this news organization.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Dr. Riggs, Dr. Wright, and Sheffield had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Experts worry a recent rise in long COVID cases — fueled by a spike in winter holiday infections and a decline in masking and other measures — could continue into this year.

A sudden rise in long COVID in January has persisted into a second month. About 17.6% of those surveyed by the Census Bureau in January said they have experienced long COVID. The number for February was 17.4.

Compare these new numbers to October 2023 and earlier, when long COVID numbers hovered between 14% and 15% of the US adult population as far back as June 2022.

The Census Bureau and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) regularly query about 70,000 people as part of its ongoing Pulse Survey.

It’s Not Just the Federal Numbers

Independently, advocates, researchers, and clinicians also reported seeing an increase in the number of people who have developed long COVID after a second or third infection.

John Baratta, MD, who runs the COVID Recovery Clinic at the University of North Carolina, said the increase is related to a higher rate of acute cases in the fall and winter of 2023.

In January, the percentage of North Carolinians reporting ever having had long COVD jumped from 12.5% to 20.2% in January and fell to 16.8% in February.

At the same time, many cases are either undetected or unreported by people who tested positive for COVID-19 at home or are not aware they have had it.

Hannah Davis, a member of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative, also linked the increase in long COVID to the wave of new infections at the end of 2023 and the start of 2024.

“It’s absolutely real,” she said via email. “There have been many new cases in the past few months, and we see those new folks in our communities as well.”

Wastewater Remains the Best Indicator

“This results in many cases of COVID flying under the radar,” Dr. Baratta said. “However, we do know from the wastewater monitoring that there was a pretty substantial rise.”

Testing wastewater for COVID levels is becoming one of the most reliable measures of estimating infection, he said. Nationally, viral measure of wastewater followed a similar path: The viral rate started creeping up in October and peaked on December 30, according to CDC measures.

RNA extracted from concentrated wastewater samples offer a good measure of SARS-CoV-2 in the community. In North Carolina and elsewhere, the state measures the virus by calculating gene copies in wastewater per capita — how many for each resident. For most of 2023, North Carolina reported fewer than 10 million viral gene copies per state resident. In late July, that number shot up to 25 million and reached 71 million per capita in March 2023 before starting to go down.

Repeat Infections, Vaccine Apathy Driving Numbers

Dr. Baratta said COVID remains a problem in rural areas. In Maine, wastewater virus counts have been much higher than the national average. There, the percentage of people who reported currently experiencing long COVID rose from 5.7% in October to 9.2% in January. The percentage reporting ever experiencing long COVID rose from 13.8% to 21% in that period.

Other factors play a role. Dr. Baratta said he is seeing patients with long COVID who have refused the vaccine or developed long COVID after a second or third infection.

He said he thinks that attitudes toward the pandemic have resulted in relaxed protection and prevention efforts.

“There is low booster vaccination rate and additional masking is utilized less that before,” he said. About 20% of the population has received the latest vaccine booster, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The increase in long COVID has many causes including “infection, reinfection (eg, people getting COVID after a second, third, or fourth infection), low vaccination rates, waning immunity, and decline in the use of antivirals (such as Paxlovid),” said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, chief of research at Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care and clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri.

“All of these could contribute to the rise in burden of long COVID,” he said.

Not all states reported an increase. Massachusetts and Hawaii saw long COVD rates drop slightly, according to the CDC.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Experts worry a recent rise in long COVID cases — fueled by a spike in winter holiday infections and a decline in masking and other measures — could continue into this year.

A sudden rise in long COVID in January has persisted into a second month. About 17.6% of those surveyed by the Census Bureau in January said they have experienced long COVID. The number for February was 17.4.

Compare these new numbers to October 2023 and earlier, when long COVID numbers hovered between 14% and 15% of the US adult population as far back as June 2022.

The Census Bureau and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) regularly query about 70,000 people as part of its ongoing Pulse Survey.

It’s Not Just the Federal Numbers

Independently, advocates, researchers, and clinicians also reported seeing an increase in the number of people who have developed long COVID after a second or third infection.

John Baratta, MD, who runs the COVID Recovery Clinic at the University of North Carolina, said the increase is related to a higher rate of acute cases in the fall and winter of 2023.

In January, the percentage of North Carolinians reporting ever having had long COVD jumped from 12.5% to 20.2% in January and fell to 16.8% in February.

At the same time, many cases are either undetected or unreported by people who tested positive for COVID-19 at home or are not aware they have had it.

Hannah Davis, a member of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative, also linked the increase in long COVID to the wave of new infections at the end of 2023 and the start of 2024.

“It’s absolutely real,” she said via email. “There have been many new cases in the past few months, and we see those new folks in our communities as well.”

Wastewater Remains the Best Indicator

“This results in many cases of COVID flying under the radar,” Dr. Baratta said. “However, we do know from the wastewater monitoring that there was a pretty substantial rise.”

Testing wastewater for COVID levels is becoming one of the most reliable measures of estimating infection, he said. Nationally, viral measure of wastewater followed a similar path: The viral rate started creeping up in October and peaked on December 30, according to CDC measures.

RNA extracted from concentrated wastewater samples offer a good measure of SARS-CoV-2 in the community. In North Carolina and elsewhere, the state measures the virus by calculating gene copies in wastewater per capita — how many for each resident. For most of 2023, North Carolina reported fewer than 10 million viral gene copies per state resident. In late July, that number shot up to 25 million and reached 71 million per capita in March 2023 before starting to go down.

Repeat Infections, Vaccine Apathy Driving Numbers

Dr. Baratta said COVID remains a problem in rural areas. In Maine, wastewater virus counts have been much higher than the national average. There, the percentage of people who reported currently experiencing long COVID rose from 5.7% in October to 9.2% in January. The percentage reporting ever experiencing long COVID rose from 13.8% to 21% in that period.

Other factors play a role. Dr. Baratta said he is seeing patients with long COVID who have refused the vaccine or developed long COVID after a second or third infection.

He said he thinks that attitudes toward the pandemic have resulted in relaxed protection and prevention efforts.

“There is low booster vaccination rate and additional masking is utilized less that before,” he said. About 20% of the population has received the latest vaccine booster, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The increase in long COVID has many causes including “infection, reinfection (eg, people getting COVID after a second, third, or fourth infection), low vaccination rates, waning immunity, and decline in the use of antivirals (such as Paxlovid),” said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, chief of research at Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care and clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri.

“All of these could contribute to the rise in burden of long COVID,” he said.

Not all states reported an increase. Massachusetts and Hawaii saw long COVD rates drop slightly, according to the CDC.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Experts worry a recent rise in long COVID cases — fueled by a spike in winter holiday infections and a decline in masking and other measures — could continue into this year.

A sudden rise in long COVID in January has persisted into a second month. About 17.6% of those surveyed by the Census Bureau in January said they have experienced long COVID. The number for February was 17.4.

Compare these new numbers to October 2023 and earlier, when long COVID numbers hovered between 14% and 15% of the US adult population as far back as June 2022.

The Census Bureau and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) regularly query about 70,000 people as part of its ongoing Pulse Survey.

It’s Not Just the Federal Numbers

Independently, advocates, researchers, and clinicians also reported seeing an increase in the number of people who have developed long COVID after a second or third infection.

John Baratta, MD, who runs the COVID Recovery Clinic at the University of North Carolina, said the increase is related to a higher rate of acute cases in the fall and winter of 2023.

In January, the percentage of North Carolinians reporting ever having had long COVD jumped from 12.5% to 20.2% in January and fell to 16.8% in February.

At the same time, many cases are either undetected or unreported by people who tested positive for COVID-19 at home or are not aware they have had it.

Hannah Davis, a member of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative, also linked the increase in long COVID to the wave of new infections at the end of 2023 and the start of 2024.

“It’s absolutely real,” she said via email. “There have been many new cases in the past few months, and we see those new folks in our communities as well.”

Wastewater Remains the Best Indicator

“This results in many cases of COVID flying under the radar,” Dr. Baratta said. “However, we do know from the wastewater monitoring that there was a pretty substantial rise.”

Testing wastewater for COVID levels is becoming one of the most reliable measures of estimating infection, he said. Nationally, viral measure of wastewater followed a similar path: The viral rate started creeping up in October and peaked on December 30, according to CDC measures.

RNA extracted from concentrated wastewater samples offer a good measure of SARS-CoV-2 in the community. In North Carolina and elsewhere, the state measures the virus by calculating gene copies in wastewater per capita — how many for each resident. For most of 2023, North Carolina reported fewer than 10 million viral gene copies per state resident. In late July, that number shot up to 25 million and reached 71 million per capita in March 2023 before starting to go down.

Repeat Infections, Vaccine Apathy Driving Numbers

Dr. Baratta said COVID remains a problem in rural areas. In Maine, wastewater virus counts have been much higher than the national average. There, the percentage of people who reported currently experiencing long COVID rose from 5.7% in October to 9.2% in January. The percentage reporting ever experiencing long COVID rose from 13.8% to 21% in that period.

Other factors play a role. Dr. Baratta said he is seeing patients with long COVID who have refused the vaccine or developed long COVID after a second or third infection.

He said he thinks that attitudes toward the pandemic have resulted in relaxed protection and prevention efforts.

“There is low booster vaccination rate and additional masking is utilized less that before,” he said. About 20% of the population has received the latest vaccine booster, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The increase in long COVID has many causes including “infection, reinfection (eg, people getting COVID after a second, third, or fourth infection), low vaccination rates, waning immunity, and decline in the use of antivirals (such as Paxlovid),” said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, chief of research at Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care and clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri.

“All of these could contribute to the rise in burden of long COVID,” he said.

Not all states reported an increase. Massachusetts and Hawaii saw long COVD rates drop slightly, according to the CDC.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A study involving more than 260,000 patients found that neither text messages nor reminders in patient portals significantly increased rates of influenza vaccination.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study was conducted from September 2022 to April 2023 in the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) health system, involving 262,085 patients across 79 primary care practices.
• Patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups: A control group that received usual care, a group that received reminders through the patient portal, and a group that received reminders via text message.
• The primary outcome was the influenza vaccination rate by April 30, 2023, including vaccinations from pharmacies and other sources.

TAKEAWAY:

• Neither intervention significantly improved influenza vaccination rates, which remained around 47% for all the groups.
• Preappointment text reminders appeared to have a slight effect on unvaccinated patients who had scheduled appointments, suggesting potential for targeted use in this population, according to the researchers.

IN PRACTICE:

“Health systems should consider the potential opportunity costs of sending reminders for influenza vaccination and may decide on other, more intensive interventions, such as improving access to vaccinations (eg, Saturday or after-hour clinics) or communication training for clinicians to address vaccine hesitancy,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Peter G. Szilagyi, MD, MPH, with the Department of Pediatrics at UCLA Mattel Children’s Hospital, University of California, Los Angeles. It was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was confined to a single health system and did not assess patients’ reasons for not getting vaccinated.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Coauthors disclosed financial ties to pharmacy and pharmaceutical companies and the Pediatric Infectious Disease Society.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A study involving more than 260,000 patients found that neither text messages nor reminders in patient portals significantly increased rates of influenza vaccination.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study was conducted from September 2022 to April 2023 in the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) health system, involving 262,085 patients across 79 primary care practices.
• Patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups: A control group that received usual care, a group that received reminders through the patient portal, and a group that received reminders via text message.
• The primary outcome was the influenza vaccination rate by April 30, 2023, including vaccinations from pharmacies and other sources.

TAKEAWAY:

• Neither intervention significantly improved influenza vaccination rates, which remained around 47% for all the groups.
• Preappointment text reminders appeared to have a slight effect on unvaccinated patients who had scheduled appointments, suggesting potential for targeted use in this population, according to the researchers.

IN PRACTICE:

“Health systems should consider the potential opportunity costs of sending reminders for influenza vaccination and may decide on other, more intensive interventions, such as improving access to vaccinations (eg, Saturday or after-hour clinics) or communication training for clinicians to address vaccine hesitancy,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Peter G. Szilagyi, MD, MPH, with the Department of Pediatrics at UCLA Mattel Children’s Hospital, University of California, Los Angeles. It was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was confined to a single health system and did not assess patients’ reasons for not getting vaccinated.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Coauthors disclosed financial ties to pharmacy and pharmaceutical companies and the Pediatric Infectious Disease Society.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A study involving more than 260,000 patients found that neither text messages nor reminders in patient portals significantly increased rates of influenza vaccination.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study was conducted from September 2022 to April 2023 in the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) health system, involving 262,085 patients across 79 primary care practices.
• Patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups: A control group that received usual care, a group that received reminders through the patient portal, and a group that received reminders via text message.
• The primary outcome was the influenza vaccination rate by April 30, 2023, including vaccinations from pharmacies and other sources.

TAKEAWAY:

• Neither intervention significantly improved influenza vaccination rates, which remained around 47% for all the groups.
• Preappointment text reminders appeared to have a slight effect on unvaccinated patients who had scheduled appointments, suggesting potential for targeted use in this population, according to the researchers.

IN PRACTICE:

“Health systems should consider the potential opportunity costs of sending reminders for influenza vaccination and may decide on other, more intensive interventions, such as improving access to vaccinations (eg, Saturday or after-hour clinics) or communication training for clinicians to address vaccine hesitancy,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Peter G. Szilagyi, MD, MPH, with the Department of Pediatrics at UCLA Mattel Children’s Hospital, University of California, Los Angeles. It was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was confined to a single health system and did not assess patients’ reasons for not getting vaccinated.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Coauthors disclosed financial ties to pharmacy and pharmaceutical companies and the Pediatric Infectious Disease Society.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Data from the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) underscore the often poor reliability of a clinical diagnosis of varicella (chickenpox) in children without laboratory test confirmation, according to a report featured in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Only about half of clinically diagnosed varicella cases — cases diagnosed by examining rashes without laboratory testing — were positive for the varicella-zoster virus (VZV), suggesting lab testing is important to avoid consequences such as children being kept out of school longer than necessary.

Clinical diagnosis continues to be the primary method for diagnosing varicella, said authors of the report, led by Alison Ruprecht, MPH, a state epidemiologist with the MDH. But the signs and symptoms of those who have received the varicella vaccine (including fewer skin lesions, mostly maculopapular) make it difficult to diagnose.
 

Minnesota Offers Free Tests

In December 2016, the MDH expanded polymerase chain reaction (PCR) laboratory testing for varicella in the state. The program reached out to clinicians through newsletters, webinars, advisories, and conferences describing the importance of lab testing when clinicians suspect a patient’s rash is varicella. The department also offered free testing at MDH Public Health Laboratory (PHL) through an agreement with the CDC and follow-up, if needed, with clinicians on testing practices.

MDH also provided specimen collection kits (containing a collection swab for vesicular fluid and slides for collection of scabs or scraping of maculopapular lesions) to clinics. Free testing was available for people with suspected varicella, including those who had been clinically diagnosed, or people who self-reported suspected varicella or whose school or child care reported the suspected cases. In addition to testing for varicella, MDH-PHL performed PCR testing for herpes simplex virus 1 (HSV-1), herpes simplex virus 2 (HSV-2), and enterovirus on all samples.

The state then saw lab-confirmed varicella cases double from 17% (235 of 1,426) during January 2013–November 2016 to 36% (619 of 1,717) during December 2016–March 2023 (P < .001).

During December 2016–March 2023, MDH-PHL tested specimens for 420 patients with suspected varicella; the median patient age was 5 years (range = 0-68 years). Of those, 23% provided specimens collected at home.
 

Clinical Diagnosis Versus Lab Test Confirmation

The researchers found that among 208 patients receiving a clinical diagnosis of varicella after only examination at a medical facility, fewer than half (45%) had positive varicella-zoster virus (VZV) lab test results. VZV detection was 66% lower in those who received varicella vaccine compared with those who did not.

The researchers acknowledged that outreach, at-home specimen collection, and free testing likely increased lab testing numbers.

They added that, “This increase in varicella testing likely also contributed to an increase in appropriate clinical management and school exclusion recommendations for suspect varicella cases.

“Clinicians should incorporate routine laboratory testing whenever varicella is suspected,” the researchers wrote. “Public health and school health professionals should emphasize the importance of laboratory confirmation in their recommendations to clinicians and parents.”
 

Presentation May Also Be Different in Immunocompromised

Sam Dominguez, MD, infectious disease specialist at Children’s Colorado in Aurora, who was not part of the research, said in addition to presentation being harder to recognize in those who are vaccinated, varicella is harder to diagnose in the immunocompromised population, where the rash may not be as prominent or more localized or appear in any number of atypical presentations.

In addition, he said, clinicians don’t see many cases these days. “Providers aren’t as familiar with what varicella looks like, especially younger providers who weren’t trained in the prevaccination era,” he said.

Cost is often an issue with lab testing as well as turn-around time and access, he said, and those factors can be barriers.

Dr. Dominguez said some classic presentations are easily diagnosed as varicella. “If you have a normal, healthy kid, who you’re seeing in the outpatient world who presents with a very classic rash for chickenpox, I don’t think laboratory testing is necessarily warranted in that scenario.”

But when clinicians aren’t confident in their diagnosis, “I think in those scenarios, testing can be very helpful in terms of management from a treatment standpoint as well as a potential infection control standpoint,” he said.

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Dominguez is a consultant for diagnostic companies Karius and BioFire. He has grant support from Pfizer and BioFire.

Data from the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) underscore the often poor reliability of a clinical diagnosis of varicella (chickenpox) in children without laboratory test confirmation, according to a report featured in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Only about half of clinically diagnosed varicella cases — cases diagnosed by examining rashes without laboratory testing — were positive for the varicella-zoster virus (VZV), suggesting lab testing is important to avoid consequences such as children being kept out of school longer than necessary.

Clinical diagnosis continues to be the primary method for diagnosing varicella, said authors of the report, led by Alison Ruprecht, MPH, a state epidemiologist with the MDH. But the signs and symptoms of those who have received the varicella vaccine (including fewer skin lesions, mostly maculopapular) make it difficult to diagnose.
 

Minnesota Offers Free Tests

In December 2016, the MDH expanded polymerase chain reaction (PCR) laboratory testing for varicella in the state. The program reached out to clinicians through newsletters, webinars, advisories, and conferences describing the importance of lab testing when clinicians suspect a patient’s rash is varicella. The department also offered free testing at MDH Public Health Laboratory (PHL) through an agreement with the CDC and follow-up, if needed, with clinicians on testing practices.

MDH also provided specimen collection kits (containing a collection swab for vesicular fluid and slides for collection of scabs or scraping of maculopapular lesions) to clinics. Free testing was available for people with suspected varicella, including those who had been clinically diagnosed, or people who self-reported suspected varicella or whose school or child care reported the suspected cases. In addition to testing for varicella, MDH-PHL performed PCR testing for herpes simplex virus 1 (HSV-1), herpes simplex virus 2 (HSV-2), and enterovirus on all samples.

The state then saw lab-confirmed varicella cases double from 17% (235 of 1,426) during January 2013–November 2016 to 36% (619 of 1,717) during December 2016–March 2023 (P < .001).

During December 2016–March 2023, MDH-PHL tested specimens for 420 patients with suspected varicella; the median patient age was 5 years (range = 0-68 years). Of those, 23% provided specimens collected at home.
 

Clinical Diagnosis Versus Lab Test Confirmation

The researchers found that among 208 patients receiving a clinical diagnosis of varicella after only examination at a medical facility, fewer than half (45%) had positive varicella-zoster virus (VZV) lab test results. VZV detection was 66% lower in those who received varicella vaccine compared with those who did not.

The researchers acknowledged that outreach, at-home specimen collection, and free testing likely increased lab testing numbers.

They added that, “This increase in varicella testing likely also contributed to an increase in appropriate clinical management and school exclusion recommendations for suspect varicella cases.

“Clinicians should incorporate routine laboratory testing whenever varicella is suspected,” the researchers wrote. “Public health and school health professionals should emphasize the importance of laboratory confirmation in their recommendations to clinicians and parents.”
 

Presentation May Also Be Different in Immunocompromised

Sam Dominguez, MD, infectious disease specialist at Children’s Colorado in Aurora, who was not part of the research, said in addition to presentation being harder to recognize in those who are vaccinated, varicella is harder to diagnose in the immunocompromised population, where the rash may not be as prominent or more localized or appear in any number of atypical presentations.

In addition, he said, clinicians don’t see many cases these days. “Providers aren’t as familiar with what varicella looks like, especially younger providers who weren’t trained in the prevaccination era,” he said.

Cost is often an issue with lab testing as well as turn-around time and access, he said, and those factors can be barriers.

Dr. Dominguez said some classic presentations are easily diagnosed as varicella. “If you have a normal, healthy kid, who you’re seeing in the outpatient world who presents with a very classic rash for chickenpox, I don’t think laboratory testing is necessarily warranted in that scenario.”

But when clinicians aren’t confident in their diagnosis, “I think in those scenarios, testing can be very helpful in terms of management from a treatment standpoint as well as a potential infection control standpoint,” he said.

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Dominguez is a consultant for diagnostic companies Karius and BioFire. He has grant support from Pfizer and BioFire.

Data from the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) underscore the often poor reliability of a clinical diagnosis of varicella (chickenpox) in children without laboratory test confirmation, according to a report featured in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Only about half of clinically diagnosed varicella cases — cases diagnosed by examining rashes without laboratory testing — were positive for the varicella-zoster virus (VZV), suggesting lab testing is important to avoid consequences such as children being kept out of school longer than necessary.

Clinical diagnosis continues to be the primary method for diagnosing varicella, said authors of the report, led by Alison Ruprecht, MPH, a state epidemiologist with the MDH. But the signs and symptoms of those who have received the varicella vaccine (including fewer skin lesions, mostly maculopapular) make it difficult to diagnose.
 

Minnesota Offers Free Tests

In December 2016, the MDH expanded polymerase chain reaction (PCR) laboratory testing for varicella in the state. The program reached out to clinicians through newsletters, webinars, advisories, and conferences describing the importance of lab testing when clinicians suspect a patient’s rash is varicella. The department also offered free testing at MDH Public Health Laboratory (PHL) through an agreement with the CDC and follow-up, if needed, with clinicians on testing practices.

MDH also provided specimen collection kits (containing a collection swab for vesicular fluid and slides for collection of scabs or scraping of maculopapular lesions) to clinics. Free testing was available for people with suspected varicella, including those who had been clinically diagnosed, or people who self-reported suspected varicella or whose school or child care reported the suspected cases. In addition to testing for varicella, MDH-PHL performed PCR testing for herpes simplex virus 1 (HSV-1), herpes simplex virus 2 (HSV-2), and enterovirus on all samples.

The state then saw lab-confirmed varicella cases double from 17% (235 of 1,426) during January 2013–November 2016 to 36% (619 of 1,717) during December 2016–March 2023 (P < .001).

During December 2016–March 2023, MDH-PHL tested specimens for 420 patients with suspected varicella; the median patient age was 5 years (range = 0-68 years). Of those, 23% provided specimens collected at home.
 

Clinical Diagnosis Versus Lab Test Confirmation

The researchers found that among 208 patients receiving a clinical diagnosis of varicella after only examination at a medical facility, fewer than half (45%) had positive varicella-zoster virus (VZV) lab test results. VZV detection was 66% lower in those who received varicella vaccine compared with those who did not.

The researchers acknowledged that outreach, at-home specimen collection, and free testing likely increased lab testing numbers.

They added that, “This increase in varicella testing likely also contributed to an increase in appropriate clinical management and school exclusion recommendations for suspect varicella cases.

“Clinicians should incorporate routine laboratory testing whenever varicella is suspected,” the researchers wrote. “Public health and school health professionals should emphasize the importance of laboratory confirmation in their recommendations to clinicians and parents.”
 

Presentation May Also Be Different in Immunocompromised

Sam Dominguez, MD, infectious disease specialist at Children’s Colorado in Aurora, who was not part of the research, said in addition to presentation being harder to recognize in those who are vaccinated, varicella is harder to diagnose in the immunocompromised population, where the rash may not be as prominent or more localized or appear in any number of atypical presentations.

In addition, he said, clinicians don’t see many cases these days. “Providers aren’t as familiar with what varicella looks like, especially younger providers who weren’t trained in the prevaccination era,” he said.

Cost is often an issue with lab testing as well as turn-around time and access, he said, and those factors can be barriers.

Dr. Dominguez said some classic presentations are easily diagnosed as varicella. “If you have a normal, healthy kid, who you’re seeing in the outpatient world who presents with a very classic rash for chickenpox, I don’t think laboratory testing is necessarily warranted in that scenario.”

But when clinicians aren’t confident in their diagnosis, “I think in those scenarios, testing can be very helpful in terms of management from a treatment standpoint as well as a potential infection control standpoint,” he said.

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Dominguez is a consultant for diagnostic companies Karius and BioFire. He has grant support from Pfizer and BioFire.

TOPLINE:

Receipt of the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine was not associated with an increased stroke risk in the first 6 weeks after vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, a new study of Medicare beneficiaries showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• The analysis included 5.4 million people age ≥ 65 years who received either the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 bivalent vaccine or the Moderna bivalent vaccine, or the Pfizer vaccine and a high-dose or adjuvanted concomitant influenza vaccine (ie, administered on the same day).
• A total of 11,001 of the cohort experienced a stroke in the first 90 days after vaccination.
• The main outcome was stroke risk (nonhemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack [TIA], or hemorrhagic stroke) during the 1- to 21-day or 22- to 42-day window after vaccination vs the 43- to 90-day control window.
• The mean age of participants was 74 years, and 56% were female.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was no statistically significant association with either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine or any of the stroke outcomes during the 1- to 21-day or 22- to 42-day risk window compared with the 43- to 90-day control window (incidence rate ratio [IRR] range, 0.72-1.12).
• Vaccination with COVID-19 bivalent vaccine plus a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine (n = 4596) was associated with a significantly greater risk for nonhemorrhagic stroke 22-42 days after vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech (IRR, 1.20; risk difference/100,000 doses, 3.13) and an increase in TIA risk 1-21 days after vaccination with Moderna (IRR, 1.35; risk difference/100,000 doses, 3.33).
• There was a significant association between vaccination with a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine (n = 21,345) and nonhemorrhagic stroke 22-42 days after vaccination (IRR, 1.09; risk difference/100,000 doses, 1.65).

IN PRACTICE:

“The clinical significance of the risk of stroke after vaccination must be carefully considered together with the significant benefits of receiving an influenza vaccination,” the authors wrote. “Because the framework of the current self-controlled case series study does not compare the populations who were vaccinated vs those who were unvaccinated, it does not account for the reduced rate of severe influenza after vaccination. More studies are needed to better understand the association between high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccination and stroke.”

SOURCE:

Yun Lu, PhD, of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online on March 19 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

Some stroke cases may have been missed or misclassified. The study included only vaccinated individuals — a population considered to have health-seeking behaviors — which may limit the generalizability of the findings. The study was conducted using COVID-19 bivalent vaccines, which are no longer available.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was funded by the US Food and Drug Administration through an interagency agreement with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Dr. Lu reported no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Receipt of the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine was not associated with an increased stroke risk in the first 6 weeks after vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, a new study of Medicare beneficiaries showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• The analysis included 5.4 million people age ≥ 65 years who received either the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 bivalent vaccine or the Moderna bivalent vaccine, or the Pfizer vaccine and a high-dose or adjuvanted concomitant influenza vaccine (ie, administered on the same day).
• A total of 11,001 of the cohort experienced a stroke in the first 90 days after vaccination.
• The main outcome was stroke risk (nonhemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack [TIA], or hemorrhagic stroke) during the 1- to 21-day or 22- to 42-day window after vaccination vs the 43- to 90-day control window.
• The mean age of participants was 74 years, and 56% were female.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was no statistically significant association with either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine or any of the stroke outcomes during the 1- to 21-day or 22- to 42-day risk window compared with the 43- to 90-day control window (incidence rate ratio [IRR] range, 0.72-1.12).
• Vaccination with COVID-19 bivalent vaccine plus a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine (n = 4596) was associated with a significantly greater risk for nonhemorrhagic stroke 22-42 days after vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech (IRR, 1.20; risk difference/100,000 doses, 3.13) and an increase in TIA risk 1-21 days after vaccination with Moderna (IRR, 1.35; risk difference/100,000 doses, 3.33).
• There was a significant association between vaccination with a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine (n = 21,345) and nonhemorrhagic stroke 22-42 days after vaccination (IRR, 1.09; risk difference/100,000 doses, 1.65).

IN PRACTICE:

“The clinical significance of the risk of stroke after vaccination must be carefully considered together with the significant benefits of receiving an influenza vaccination,” the authors wrote. “Because the framework of the current self-controlled case series study does not compare the populations who were vaccinated vs those who were unvaccinated, it does not account for the reduced rate of severe influenza after vaccination. More studies are needed to better understand the association between high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccination and stroke.”

SOURCE:

Yun Lu, PhD, of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online on March 19 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

Some stroke cases may have been missed or misclassified. The study included only vaccinated individuals — a population considered to have health-seeking behaviors — which may limit the generalizability of the findings. The study was conducted using COVID-19 bivalent vaccines, which are no longer available.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was funded by the US Food and Drug Administration through an interagency agreement with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Dr. Lu reported no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Receipt of the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine was not associated with an increased stroke risk in the first 6 weeks after vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, a new study of Medicare beneficiaries showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• The analysis included 5.4 million people age ≥ 65 years who received either the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 bivalent vaccine or the Moderna bivalent vaccine, or the Pfizer vaccine and a high-dose or adjuvanted concomitant influenza vaccine (ie, administered on the same day).
• A total of 11,001 of the cohort experienced a stroke in the first 90 days after vaccination.
• The main outcome was stroke risk (nonhemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack [TIA], or hemorrhagic stroke) during the 1- to 21-day or 22- to 42-day window after vaccination vs the 43- to 90-day control window.
• The mean age of participants was 74 years, and 56% were female.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was no statistically significant association with either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine or any of the stroke outcomes during the 1- to 21-day or 22- to 42-day risk window compared with the 43- to 90-day control window (incidence rate ratio [IRR] range, 0.72-1.12).
• Vaccination with COVID-19 bivalent vaccine plus a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine (n = 4596) was associated with a significantly greater risk for nonhemorrhagic stroke 22-42 days after vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech (IRR, 1.20; risk difference/100,000 doses, 3.13) and an increase in TIA risk 1-21 days after vaccination with Moderna (IRR, 1.35; risk difference/100,000 doses, 3.33).
• There was a significant association between vaccination with a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine (n = 21,345) and nonhemorrhagic stroke 22-42 days after vaccination (IRR, 1.09; risk difference/100,000 doses, 1.65).

IN PRACTICE:

“The clinical significance of the risk of stroke after vaccination must be carefully considered together with the significant benefits of receiving an influenza vaccination,” the authors wrote. “Because the framework of the current self-controlled case series study does not compare the populations who were vaccinated vs those who were unvaccinated, it does not account for the reduced rate of severe influenza after vaccination. More studies are needed to better understand the association between high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccination and stroke.”

SOURCE:

Yun Lu, PhD, of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online on March 19 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

Some stroke cases may have been missed or misclassified. The study included only vaccinated individuals — a population considered to have health-seeking behaviors — which may limit the generalizability of the findings. The study was conducted using COVID-19 bivalent vaccines, which are no longer available.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was funded by the US Food and Drug Administration through an interagency agreement with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Dr. Lu reported no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Please note that this is a commentary, an opinion piece: my opinion. The statements here do not necessarily represent those of this news organization or any of the myriad people or institutions that comprise this corner of the human universe.

Some days, speaking as a long-time physician and editor, I wish that there were no such things as race or ethnicity or even geographic origin for that matter. We can’t get away from sex, gender, disability, age, or culture. I’m not sure about religion. I wish people were just people.

But race is deeply embedded in the American experience — an almost invisible but inevitable presence in all of our thoughts and expressions about human activities.

In medical education (for eons it seems) the student has been taught to mention race in the first sentence of a given patient presentation, along with age and sex. In human epidemiologic research, race is almost always a studied variable. In clinical and basic medical research, looking at the impact of race on this, that, or the other is commonplace. “Mixed race not otherwise specified” is ubiquitous in the United States yet blithely ignored by most who tally these statistics. Race is rarely gene-specific. It is more of a social and cultural construct but with plainly visible overt phenotypic markers — an almost infinite mix of daily reality.

Our country, and much of Western civilization in 2024, is based on the principle that all men are created equal, although the originators of that notion were unaware of their own “equity-challenged” situation.

Many organizations, in and out of government, are now understanding, developing, and implementing programs (and thought/language patterns) to socialize diversity, equity, and inclusion (known as DEI) into their culture. It should not be surprising that many who prefer the status quo are not happy with the pressure from this movement and are using whatever methods are available to them to prevent full DEI. Such it always is.

The trusty Copilot from Bing provides these definitions:

• Diversity refers to the presence of variety within the organizational workforce. This includes aspects such as gender, culture, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, and opinion.
• Equity encompasses concepts of fairness and justice. It involves fair compensation, substantive equality, and addressing societal disparities. Equity also considers unique circumstances and adjusts treatment to achieve equal outcomes.
• Inclusion focuses on creating an organizational culture where all employees feel heard, fostering a sense of belonging and integration.

I am more than proud that my old domain of peer-reviewed, primary source, medical (and science) journals is taking a leading role in this noble, necessary, and long overdue movement for medicine.

As the central repository and transmitter of new medical information, including scientific studies, clinical medicine reports, ethics measures, and education, medical journals (including those deemed prestigious) have historically been among the worst offenders in perpetuating non-DEI objectives in their leadership, staffing, focus, instructions for authors, style manuals, and published materials.

This issue came to a head in March 2021 when a JAMA podcast about racism in American medicine was followed by this promotional tweet: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care?”

Reactions and actions were rapid, strong, and decisive. After an interregnum at JAMA, a new editor in chief, Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, PhD, MD, MAS, was named. She and her large staff of editors and editorial board members from the multijournal JAMA Network joined a worldwide movement of (currently) 56 publishing organizations representing 15,000 journals called the Joint Commitment for Action on Inclusion and Diversity in Publishing.

A recent JAMA editorial with 29 authors describes the entire commitment initiative of publishers-editors. It reports JAMA Network data from 2023 and 2024 from surveys of 455 editors (a 91% response rate) about their own gender (five choices), ethnic origins or geographic ancestry (13 choices), and race (eight choices), demonstrating considerable progress toward DEI goals. The survey’s complex multinational classifications may not jibe with the categorizations used in some countries (too bad that “mixed” is not “mixed in” — a missed opportunity).

This encouraging movement will not fix it all. But when people of certain groups are represented at the table, that point of view is far more likely to make it into the lexicon, language, and omnipresent work products, potentially changing cultural norms. Even the measurement of movement related to disparity in healthcare is marred by frequent variations of data accuracy. More consistency in what to measure can help a lot, and the medical literature can be very influential.

A personal anecdote: When I was a professor at UC Davis in 1978, Allan Bakke, MD, was my student. Some of you will remember the saga of affirmative action on admissions, which was just revisited in the light of a recent decision by the US Supreme Court.

Back in 1978, the dean at UC Davis told me that he kept two file folders on the admission processes in different desk drawers. One categorized all applicants and enrollees by race, and the other did not. Depending on who came to visit and ask questions, he would choose one or the other file to share once he figured out what they were looking for (this is not a joke).

The strength of the current active political pushback against the entire DEI movement has deep roots and should not be underestimated. There will be a lot of to-ing and fro-ing.

French writer Victor Hugo is credited with stating, “There is nothing as powerful as an idea whose time has come.” A majority of Americans, physicians, and other healthcare professionals believe in basic fairness. The time for DEI in all aspects of medicine is now.

Dr. Lundberg, editor in chief of Cancer Commons, disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Please note that this is a commentary, an opinion piece: my opinion. The statements here do not necessarily represent those of this news organization or any of the myriad people or institutions that comprise this corner of the human universe.

Some days, speaking as a long-time physician and editor, I wish that there were no such things as race or ethnicity or even geographic origin for that matter. We can’t get away from sex, gender, disability, age, or culture. I’m not sure about religion. I wish people were just people.

But race is deeply embedded in the American experience — an almost invisible but inevitable presence in all of our thoughts and expressions about human activities.

In medical education (for eons it seems) the student has been taught to mention race in the first sentence of a given patient presentation, along with age and sex. In human epidemiologic research, race is almost always a studied variable. In clinical and basic medical research, looking at the impact of race on this, that, or the other is commonplace. “Mixed race not otherwise specified” is ubiquitous in the United States yet blithely ignored by most who tally these statistics. Race is rarely gene-specific. It is more of a social and cultural construct but with plainly visible overt phenotypic markers — an almost infinite mix of daily reality.

Our country, and much of Western civilization in 2024, is based on the principle that all men are created equal, although the originators of that notion were unaware of their own “equity-challenged” situation.

Many organizations, in and out of government, are now understanding, developing, and implementing programs (and thought/language patterns) to socialize diversity, equity, and inclusion (known as DEI) into their culture. It should not be surprising that many who prefer the status quo are not happy with the pressure from this movement and are using whatever methods are available to them to prevent full DEI. Such it always is.

The trusty Copilot from Bing provides these definitions:

• Diversity refers to the presence of variety within the organizational workforce. This includes aspects such as gender, culture, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, and opinion.
• Equity encompasses concepts of fairness and justice. It involves fair compensation, substantive equality, and addressing societal disparities. Equity also considers unique circumstances and adjusts treatment to achieve equal outcomes.
• Inclusion focuses on creating an organizational culture where all employees feel heard, fostering a sense of belonging and integration.

I am more than proud that my old domain of peer-reviewed, primary source, medical (and science) journals is taking a leading role in this noble, necessary, and long overdue movement for medicine.

As the central repository and transmitter of new medical information, including scientific studies, clinical medicine reports, ethics measures, and education, medical journals (including those deemed prestigious) have historically been among the worst offenders in perpetuating non-DEI objectives in their leadership, staffing, focus, instructions for authors, style manuals, and published materials.

This issue came to a head in March 2021 when a JAMA podcast about racism in American medicine was followed by this promotional tweet: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care?”

Reactions and actions were rapid, strong, and decisive. After an interregnum at JAMA, a new editor in chief, Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, PhD, MD, MAS, was named. She and her large staff of editors and editorial board members from the multijournal JAMA Network joined a worldwide movement of (currently) 56 publishing organizations representing 15,000 journals called the Joint Commitment for Action on Inclusion and Diversity in Publishing.

A recent JAMA editorial with 29 authors describes the entire commitment initiative of publishers-editors. It reports JAMA Network data from 2023 and 2024 from surveys of 455 editors (a 91% response rate) about their own gender (five choices), ethnic origins or geographic ancestry (13 choices), and race (eight choices), demonstrating considerable progress toward DEI goals. The survey’s complex multinational classifications may not jibe with the categorizations used in some countries (too bad that “mixed” is not “mixed in” — a missed opportunity).

This encouraging movement will not fix it all. But when people of certain groups are represented at the table, that point of view is far more likely to make it into the lexicon, language, and omnipresent work products, potentially changing cultural norms. Even the measurement of movement related to disparity in healthcare is marred by frequent variations of data accuracy. More consistency in what to measure can help a lot, and the medical literature can be very influential.

A personal anecdote: When I was a professor at UC Davis in 1978, Allan Bakke, MD, was my student. Some of you will remember the saga of affirmative action on admissions, which was just revisited in the light of a recent decision by the US Supreme Court.

Back in 1978, the dean at UC Davis told me that he kept two file folders on the admission processes in different desk drawers. One categorized all applicants and enrollees by race, and the other did not. Depending on who came to visit and ask questions, he would choose one or the other file to share once he figured out what they were looking for (this is not a joke).

The strength of the current active political pushback against the entire DEI movement has deep roots and should not be underestimated. There will be a lot of to-ing and fro-ing.

French writer Victor Hugo is credited with stating, “There is nothing as powerful as an idea whose time has come.” A majority of Americans, physicians, and other healthcare professionals believe in basic fairness. The time for DEI in all aspects of medicine is now.

Dr. Lundberg, editor in chief of Cancer Commons, disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Please note that this is a commentary, an opinion piece: my opinion. The statements here do not necessarily represent those of this news organization or any of the myriad people or institutions that comprise this corner of the human universe.

Some days, speaking as a long-time physician and editor, I wish that there were no such things as race or ethnicity or even geographic origin for that matter. We can’t get away from sex, gender, disability, age, or culture. I’m not sure about religion. I wish people were just people.

But race is deeply embedded in the American experience — an almost invisible but inevitable presence in all of our thoughts and expressions about human activities.

In medical education (for eons it seems) the student has been taught to mention race in the first sentence of a given patient presentation, along with age and sex. In human epidemiologic research, race is almost always a studied variable. In clinical and basic medical research, looking at the impact of race on this, that, or the other is commonplace. “Mixed race not otherwise specified” is ubiquitous in the United States yet blithely ignored by most who tally these statistics. Race is rarely gene-specific. It is more of a social and cultural construct but with plainly visible overt phenotypic markers — an almost infinite mix of daily reality.

Our country, and much of Western civilization in 2024, is based on the principle that all men are created equal, although the originators of that notion were unaware of their own “equity-challenged” situation.

Many organizations, in and out of government, are now understanding, developing, and implementing programs (and thought/language patterns) to socialize diversity, equity, and inclusion (known as DEI) into their culture. It should not be surprising that many who prefer the status quo are not happy with the pressure from this movement and are using whatever methods are available to them to prevent full DEI. Such it always is.

The trusty Copilot from Bing provides these definitions:

• Diversity refers to the presence of variety within the organizational workforce. This includes aspects such as gender, culture, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, and opinion.
• Equity encompasses concepts of fairness and justice. It involves fair compensation, substantive equality, and addressing societal disparities. Equity also considers unique circumstances and adjusts treatment to achieve equal outcomes.
• Inclusion focuses on creating an organizational culture where all employees feel heard, fostering a sense of belonging and integration.

I am more than proud that my old domain of peer-reviewed, primary source, medical (and science) journals is taking a leading role in this noble, necessary, and long overdue movement for medicine.

As the central repository and transmitter of new medical information, including scientific studies, clinical medicine reports, ethics measures, and education, medical journals (including those deemed prestigious) have historically been among the worst offenders in perpetuating non-DEI objectives in their leadership, staffing, focus, instructions for authors, style manuals, and published materials.

This issue came to a head in March 2021 when a JAMA podcast about racism in American medicine was followed by this promotional tweet: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care?”

Reactions and actions were rapid, strong, and decisive. After an interregnum at JAMA, a new editor in chief, Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, PhD, MD, MAS, was named. She and her large staff of editors and editorial board members from the multijournal JAMA Network joined a worldwide movement of (currently) 56 publishing organizations representing 15,000 journals called the Joint Commitment for Action on Inclusion and Diversity in Publishing.

A recent JAMA editorial with 29 authors describes the entire commitment initiative of publishers-editors. It reports JAMA Network data from 2023 and 2024 from surveys of 455 editors (a 91% response rate) about their own gender (five choices), ethnic origins or geographic ancestry (13 choices), and race (eight choices), demonstrating considerable progress toward DEI goals. The survey’s complex multinational classifications may not jibe with the categorizations used in some countries (too bad that “mixed” is not “mixed in” — a missed opportunity).

This encouraging movement will not fix it all. But when people of certain groups are represented at the table, that point of view is far more likely to make it into the lexicon, language, and omnipresent work products, potentially changing cultural norms. Even the measurement of movement related to disparity in healthcare is marred by frequent variations of data accuracy. More consistency in what to measure can help a lot, and the medical literature can be very influential.

A personal anecdote: When I was a professor at UC Davis in 1978, Allan Bakke, MD, was my student. Some of you will remember the saga of affirmative action on admissions, which was just revisited in the light of a recent decision by the US Supreme Court.

Back in 1978, the dean at UC Davis told me that he kept two file folders on the admission processes in different desk drawers. One categorized all applicants and enrollees by race, and the other did not. Depending on who came to visit and ask questions, he would choose one or the other file to share once he figured out what they were looking for (this is not a joke).

The strength of the current active political pushback against the entire DEI movement has deep roots and should not be underestimated. There will be a lot of to-ing and fro-ing.

French writer Victor Hugo is credited with stating, “There is nothing as powerful as an idea whose time has come.” A majority of Americans, physicians, and other healthcare professionals believe in basic fairness. The time for DEI in all aspects of medicine is now.

Dr. Lundberg, editor in chief of Cancer Commons, disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In most Western countries, professional standards dictate that physicians should practice medicine with compassion. Patients also expect compassionate care from physicians because it represents a model capable of providing greater patient satisfaction, fostering better doctor-patient relationships, and enabling better psychological states among patients.

The etymology of the term “compassion” derives from the Latin roots “com,” meaning “together with,” and “pati,” meaning “to endure or suffer.” When discussing compassion, it is necessary to distinguish it from empathy, a term generally used to refer to cognitive or emotional processes in which the perspective of the other (in this case, the patient) is taken. Compassion implies or requires empathy and includes the desire to help or alleviate the suffering of others. Compassion in the medical context is likely a specific instance of a more complex adaptive system that has evolved, not only among humans, to motivate recognition and assistance when others suffer.
 

Compassion Fatigue

Physicians’ compassion is expected by patients and the profession. It is fundamental for effective clinical practice. Although compassion is central to medical practice, most research related to the topic has focused on “compassion fatigue,” which is understood as a specific type of professional burnout, as if physicians had a limited reserve of compassion that dwindles or becomes exhausted with use or overuse. This is one aspect of a much more complex problem, in which compassion represents the endpoint of a dynamic process that encompasses the influences of the physician, the patient, the clinic, and the institution.

Compassion Capacity: Conditioning Factors

Chronic exposure of physicians to conflicting work demands may be associated with the depletion of their psychological resources and, consequently, emotional and cognitive fatigue that can contribute to poorer work outcomes, including the ability to express compassion.

Rates of professional burnout in medicine are increasing. The driving factors of this phenomenon are largely rooted in organizations and healthcare systems and include excessive workloads, inefficient work processes, administrative burdens, and lack of input or control by physicians regarding issues concerning their work life. The outcome often is early retirement of physicians, a current, increasingly widespread phenomenon and a critical issue not only for the Italian National Health Service but also for other healthcare systems worldwide.
 

Organizational and Personal Values

There is no clear empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis that working in healthcare environments experienced as discrepant with one’s own values has negative effects on key professional outcomes. However, a study published in the Journal of Internal Medicine highlighted the overall negative effect of misalignment between system values and physicians’ personal values, including impaired ability to provide compassionate care, as well as reduced job satisfaction, burnout, absenteeism, and considering the possibility of early retirement. Results from 1000 surveyed professionals indicate that physicians’ subjective competence in providing compassionate care may remain high, but their ability to express it is compromised. From data analysis, the authors hypothesize that when working in environments with discrepant values, occupational contingencies may repeatedly require physicians to set aside their personal values, which can lead them to refrain from using available skills to keep their performance in line with organizational requirements.

These results and hypotheses are not consistent with the notion of compassion fatigue as a reflection of the cost of care resulting from exposure to repeated suffering. Previous evidence shows that expressing compassion in healthcare facilitates greater understanding, suggesting that providing compassion does not impoverish physicians but rather supports them in the effectiveness of interventions and in their satisfaction.

In summary, this study suggests that what prevents compassion is the inability to provide it when hindered by factors related to the situation in which the physician operates. Improving compassion does not simply depend on motivating individual professionals to be more compassionate or on promoting fundamental skills, but probably on the creation of organizational and clinical conditions in which physician compassion can thrive.

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

In most Western countries, professional standards dictate that physicians should practice medicine with compassion. Patients also expect compassionate care from physicians because it represents a model capable of providing greater patient satisfaction, fostering better doctor-patient relationships, and enabling better psychological states among patients.

The etymology of the term “compassion” derives from the Latin roots “com,” meaning “together with,” and “pati,” meaning “to endure or suffer.” When discussing compassion, it is necessary to distinguish it from empathy, a term generally used to refer to cognitive or emotional processes in which the perspective of the other (in this case, the patient) is taken. Compassion implies or requires empathy and includes the desire to help or alleviate the suffering of others. Compassion in the medical context is likely a specific instance of a more complex adaptive system that has evolved, not only among humans, to motivate recognition and assistance when others suffer.
 

Compassion Fatigue

Physicians’ compassion is expected by patients and the profession. It is fundamental for effective clinical practice. Although compassion is central to medical practice, most research related to the topic has focused on “compassion fatigue,” which is understood as a specific type of professional burnout, as if physicians had a limited reserve of compassion that dwindles or becomes exhausted with use or overuse. This is one aspect of a much more complex problem, in which compassion represents the endpoint of a dynamic process that encompasses the influences of the physician, the patient, the clinic, and the institution.

Compassion Capacity: Conditioning Factors

Chronic exposure of physicians to conflicting work demands may be associated with the depletion of their psychological resources and, consequently, emotional and cognitive fatigue that can contribute to poorer work outcomes, including the ability to express compassion.

Rates of professional burnout in medicine are increasing. The driving factors of this phenomenon are largely rooted in organizations and healthcare systems and include excessive workloads, inefficient work processes, administrative burdens, and lack of input or control by physicians regarding issues concerning their work life. The outcome often is early retirement of physicians, a current, increasingly widespread phenomenon and a critical issue not only for the Italian National Health Service but also for other healthcare systems worldwide.
 

Organizational and Personal Values

There is no clear empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis that working in healthcare environments experienced as discrepant with one’s own values has negative effects on key professional outcomes. However, a study published in the Journal of Internal Medicine highlighted the overall negative effect of misalignment between system values and physicians’ personal values, including impaired ability to provide compassionate care, as well as reduced job satisfaction, burnout, absenteeism, and considering the possibility of early retirement. Results from 1000 surveyed professionals indicate that physicians’ subjective competence in providing compassionate care may remain high, but their ability to express it is compromised. From data analysis, the authors hypothesize that when working in environments with discrepant values, occupational contingencies may repeatedly require physicians to set aside their personal values, which can lead them to refrain from using available skills to keep their performance in line with organizational requirements.

These results and hypotheses are not consistent with the notion of compassion fatigue as a reflection of the cost of care resulting from exposure to repeated suffering. Previous evidence shows that expressing compassion in healthcare facilitates greater understanding, suggesting that providing compassion does not impoverish physicians but rather supports them in the effectiveness of interventions and in their satisfaction.

In summary, this study suggests that what prevents compassion is the inability to provide it when hindered by factors related to the situation in which the physician operates. Improving compassion does not simply depend on motivating individual professionals to be more compassionate or on promoting fundamental skills, but probably on the creation of organizational and clinical conditions in which physician compassion can thrive.

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

In most Western countries, professional standards dictate that physicians should practice medicine with compassion. Patients also expect compassionate care from physicians because it represents a model capable of providing greater patient satisfaction, fostering better doctor-patient relationships, and enabling better psychological states among patients.

The etymology of the term “compassion” derives from the Latin roots “com,” meaning “together with,” and “pati,” meaning “to endure or suffer.” When discussing compassion, it is necessary to distinguish it from empathy, a term generally used to refer to cognitive or emotional processes in which the perspective of the other (in this case, the patient) is taken. Compassion implies or requires empathy and includes the desire to help or alleviate the suffering of others. Compassion in the medical context is likely a specific instance of a more complex adaptive system that has evolved, not only among humans, to motivate recognition and assistance when others suffer.
 

Compassion Fatigue

Physicians’ compassion is expected by patients and the profession. It is fundamental for effective clinical practice. Although compassion is central to medical practice, most research related to the topic has focused on “compassion fatigue,” which is understood as a specific type of professional burnout, as if physicians had a limited reserve of compassion that dwindles or becomes exhausted with use or overuse. This is one aspect of a much more complex problem, in which compassion represents the endpoint of a dynamic process that encompasses the influences of the physician, the patient, the clinic, and the institution.

Compassion Capacity: Conditioning Factors

Chronic exposure of physicians to conflicting work demands may be associated with the depletion of their psychological resources and, consequently, emotional and cognitive fatigue that can contribute to poorer work outcomes, including the ability to express compassion.

Rates of professional burnout in medicine are increasing. The driving factors of this phenomenon are largely rooted in organizations and healthcare systems and include excessive workloads, inefficient work processes, administrative burdens, and lack of input or control by physicians regarding issues concerning their work life. The outcome often is early retirement of physicians, a current, increasingly widespread phenomenon and a critical issue not only for the Italian National Health Service but also for other healthcare systems worldwide.
 

Organizational and Personal Values

There is no clear empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis that working in healthcare environments experienced as discrepant with one’s own values has negative effects on key professional outcomes. However, a study published in the Journal of Internal Medicine highlighted the overall negative effect of misalignment between system values and physicians’ personal values, including impaired ability to provide compassionate care, as well as reduced job satisfaction, burnout, absenteeism, and considering the possibility of early retirement. Results from 1000 surveyed professionals indicate that physicians’ subjective competence in providing compassionate care may remain high, but their ability to express it is compromised. From data analysis, the authors hypothesize that when working in environments with discrepant values, occupational contingencies may repeatedly require physicians to set aside their personal values, which can lead them to refrain from using available skills to keep their performance in line with organizational requirements.

These results and hypotheses are not consistent with the notion of compassion fatigue as a reflection of the cost of care resulting from exposure to repeated suffering. Previous evidence shows that expressing compassion in healthcare facilitates greater understanding, suggesting that providing compassion does not impoverish physicians but rather supports them in the effectiveness of interventions and in their satisfaction.

In summary, this study suggests that what prevents compassion is the inability to provide it when hindered by factors related to the situation in which the physician operates. Improving compassion does not simply depend on motivating individual professionals to be more compassionate or on promoting fundamental skills, but probably on the creation of organizational and clinical conditions in which physician compassion can thrive.

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

TOPLINE:

Hospitalization for influenza is linked to a greater risk for subsequent neurologic disorders including migraine, stroke, or epilepsy than is hospitalization for COVID-19, results of a large study show.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used healthcare claims data to compare 77,300 people hospitalized with COVID-19 with 77,300 hospitalized with influenza. The study did not include individuals with long COVID.
• In the final sample of 154,500 participants, the mean age was 51 years, and more than half (58%) were female.
• Investigators followed participants from both cohorts for a year to find out how many of them had medical care for six of the most common neurologic disorders: migraine, epilepsy, stroke, neuropathy, movement disorders, and dementia.
• If participants had one of these neurologic disorders prior to the original hospitalization, the primary outcome involved subsequent healthcare encounters for the neurologic diagnosis.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants hospitalized with COVID-19 versus influenza were significantly less likely to require care in the following year for migraine (2% vs 3.2%), epilepsy (1.6% vs 2.1%), neuropathy (1.9% vs 3.6%), movement disorders (1.5% vs 2.5%), stroke (2% vs 2.4%), and dementia (2% vs 2.3%) (all P < .001).
• After adjusting for age, sex, and other health conditions, researchers found that people hospitalized with COVID-19 had a 35% lower risk of receiving care for migraine, a 22% lower risk of receiving care for epilepsy, and a 44% lower risk of receiving care for neuropathy than those with influenza. They also had a 36% lower risk of receiving care for movement disorders, a 10% lower risk for stroke (all P < .001), as well as a 7% lower risk for dementia (P = .0007).
• In participants who did not have a preexisting neurologic condition at the time of hospitalization for either COVID-19 or influenza, 2.8% hospitalized with COVID-19 developed one in the next year compared with 5% of those hospitalized with influenza.

IN PRACTICE:

“While the results were not what we expected to find, they are reassuring in that we found being hospitalized with COVID did not lead to more care for common neurologic conditions when compared to being hospitalized with influenza,” study investigator Brian C. Callaghan, MD, of University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

Adam de Havenon, MD, of Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, led the study, which was published online on March 20 in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on ICD codes in health claims databases, which could introduce misclassification bias. Also, by selecting only individuals who had associated hospital-based care, there may have been a selection bias based on disease severity.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. De Havenon reported receiving consultant fees from Integra and Novo Nordisk and royalty fees from UpToDate and has equity in Titin KM and Certus. Dr. Callaghan has consulted for DynaMed and the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Other disclosures were noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Hospitalization for influenza is linked to a greater risk for subsequent neurologic disorders including migraine, stroke, or epilepsy than is hospitalization for COVID-19, results of a large study show.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used healthcare claims data to compare 77,300 people hospitalized with COVID-19 with 77,300 hospitalized with influenza. The study did not include individuals with long COVID.
• In the final sample of 154,500 participants, the mean age was 51 years, and more than half (58%) were female.
• Investigators followed participants from both cohorts for a year to find out how many of them had medical care for six of the most common neurologic disorders: migraine, epilepsy, stroke, neuropathy, movement disorders, and dementia.
• If participants had one of these neurologic disorders prior to the original hospitalization, the primary outcome involved subsequent healthcare encounters for the neurologic diagnosis.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants hospitalized with COVID-19 versus influenza were significantly less likely to require care in the following year for migraine (2% vs 3.2%), epilepsy (1.6% vs 2.1%), neuropathy (1.9% vs 3.6%), movement disorders (1.5% vs 2.5%), stroke (2% vs 2.4%), and dementia (2% vs 2.3%) (all P < .001).
• After adjusting for age, sex, and other health conditions, researchers found that people hospitalized with COVID-19 had a 35% lower risk of receiving care for migraine, a 22% lower risk of receiving care for epilepsy, and a 44% lower risk of receiving care for neuropathy than those with influenza. They also had a 36% lower risk of receiving care for movement disorders, a 10% lower risk for stroke (all P < .001), as well as a 7% lower risk for dementia (P = .0007).
• In participants who did not have a preexisting neurologic condition at the time of hospitalization for either COVID-19 or influenza, 2.8% hospitalized with COVID-19 developed one in the next year compared with 5% of those hospitalized with influenza.

IN PRACTICE:

“While the results were not what we expected to find, they are reassuring in that we found being hospitalized with COVID did not lead to more care for common neurologic conditions when compared to being hospitalized with influenza,” study investigator Brian C. Callaghan, MD, of University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

Adam de Havenon, MD, of Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, led the study, which was published online on March 20 in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on ICD codes in health claims databases, which could introduce misclassification bias. Also, by selecting only individuals who had associated hospital-based care, there may have been a selection bias based on disease severity.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. De Havenon reported receiving consultant fees from Integra and Novo Nordisk and royalty fees from UpToDate and has equity in Titin KM and Certus. Dr. Callaghan has consulted for DynaMed and the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Other disclosures were noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Hospitalization for influenza is linked to a greater risk for subsequent neurologic disorders including migraine, stroke, or epilepsy than is hospitalization for COVID-19, results of a large study show.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used healthcare claims data to compare 77,300 people hospitalized with COVID-19 with 77,300 hospitalized with influenza. The study did not include individuals with long COVID.
• In the final sample of 154,500 participants, the mean age was 51 years, and more than half (58%) were female.
• Investigators followed participants from both cohorts for a year to find out how many of them had medical care for six of the most common neurologic disorders: migraine, epilepsy, stroke, neuropathy, movement disorders, and dementia.
• If participants had one of these neurologic disorders prior to the original hospitalization, the primary outcome involved subsequent healthcare encounters for the neurologic diagnosis.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants hospitalized with COVID-19 versus influenza were significantly less likely to require care in the following year for migraine (2% vs 3.2%), epilepsy (1.6% vs 2.1%), neuropathy (1.9% vs 3.6%), movement disorders (1.5% vs 2.5%), stroke (2% vs 2.4%), and dementia (2% vs 2.3%) (all P < .001).
• After adjusting for age, sex, and other health conditions, researchers found that people hospitalized with COVID-19 had a 35% lower risk of receiving care for migraine, a 22% lower risk of receiving care for epilepsy, and a 44% lower risk of receiving care for neuropathy than those with influenza. They also had a 36% lower risk of receiving care for movement disorders, a 10% lower risk for stroke (all P < .001), as well as a 7% lower risk for dementia (P = .0007).
• In participants who did not have a preexisting neurologic condition at the time of hospitalization for either COVID-19 or influenza, 2.8% hospitalized with COVID-19 developed one in the next year compared with 5% of those hospitalized with influenza.

IN PRACTICE:

“While the results were not what we expected to find, they are reassuring in that we found being hospitalized with COVID did not lead to more care for common neurologic conditions when compared to being hospitalized with influenza,” study investigator Brian C. Callaghan, MD, of University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

Adam de Havenon, MD, of Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, led the study, which was published online on March 20 in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on ICD codes in health claims databases, which could introduce misclassification bias. Also, by selecting only individuals who had associated hospital-based care, there may have been a selection bias based on disease severity.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. De Havenon reported receiving consultant fees from Integra and Novo Nordisk and royalty fees from UpToDate and has equity in Titin KM and Certus. Dr. Callaghan has consulted for DynaMed and the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Other disclosures were noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Just over 2 months into 2024, measles cases in the United States aren’t looking great. 

The recent rise in cases across the U.S. is linked to unvaccinated travelers, lower than ideal vaccination rates, and misinformation, experts said. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has identified 45 cases of measles in 17 jurisdictions across the U.S. As of March 7, the federal health agency reported measles cases in Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York City, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington.

As for the 45 cases, “that’s almost as many as we had for the entire calendar year of 2023,” said Sarah Lim, MD, a medical specialist at the Minnesota Department of Health. “So we’re really not off to a great start.” (For context, there were 58 officially reported measles cases last year.) 

Chicago is having a measles outbreak — with eight cases reported so far. All but one case has been linked to a migrant child at a city shelter. Given the potential for rapid spread — measles is relatively rare here but potentially very serious — the CDC sent a team of experts to investigate and to help keep this outbreak from growing further.


 

Sometimes Deadly

About 30% of children have measles symptoms and about 25% end up hospitalized. Complications include diarrhea, a whole-body rash, ear infections that can lead to permanent deafness, and pneumonia. Pneumonia with measles can be so serious that 1 in 20 affected children die. Measles can also cause inflammation of the brain called encephalitis in about 1 in 1,000 children, sometimes causing epilepsy or permanent brain damage.

As with long COVID, some effects can last beyond the early infection. For example, measles “can wipe out immune memory that protects you against other bacterial and viral pathogens,” Dr. Lim said at a media briefing sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. This vulnerability to other infections can last up to 3 years after the early infection, she noted. 

Overall, measles kills between 1 and 3 people infected per thousand, mostly children.
 

Vaccine Misinformation Playing a Role

Vaccine misinformation is partly behind the uptick, and while many cases are mild, “this can be a devastating disease,” said Joshua Barocas, MD, associate professor of medicine in the divisions of General Internal Medicine and Infectious Diseases at the University of Colorado School of Medicine.

“I’m a parent myself. Parents are flooded with tons of information, some of that time being misinformation,” he said at the media briefing. “If you are a parent who’s been on the fence [about vaccination], now is the time, given the outbreak potential and the outbreaks that we’re seeing.” 

Vaccine misinformation “is about as old as vaccines themselves,” Dr. Lim said. Concerns about the MMR vaccine, which includes measles protection, are not new.

“It does seem to change periodically — new things bubble up, new ideas bubble up, and the problem is that it is like the old saying that ‘a lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.’ ” Social media helps to amplify vaccine misinformation, she said. 

“You don’t want to scare people unnecessarily — but reminding people what these childhood diseases really look like and what they do is incredibly important,” Dr. Lim said. “It’s so much easier to see stories about potential side effects of vaccines than it is to see stories about parents whose children were in intensive care for 2 weeks with pneumonia because of a severe case of measles.”

Dr. Barocas said misinformation is sometimes deliberate, sometimes not. Regardless, “our job as infectious disease physicians and public health professionals is not necessarily to put the counternarrative out there, but to continue to advocate for what we know works based on the best science and the best evidence.”

“And there is no reason to believe that vaccines are anything but helpful when it comes to preventing measles,” he noted. 
 

Lifelong Protection in Most Cases

The MMR vaccine, typically given as two doses in childhood, offers 93% and then 97% protection against the highly contagious virus. During the 2022-to-2023 school year, the measles vaccination rate among kindergarten children nationwide was 92%. That sounds like a high rate, Dr. Lim said, “but because measles is so contagious, vaccination rates need to be 95% or higher to contain transmission.”

One person with measles can infect anywhere from 12 to 18 other people, she said. When an infected person coughs or sneezes, tiny droplets spread through the air. “And if someone is unvaccinated and exposed, 9 times out of 10, that person will go on to develop the disease.” She said given the high transmission rate, measles often spreads within families to infect multiple children. 

If you know you’re not vaccinated but exposed, the advice is to get the measles shot as quickly as possible. “There is a recommendation to receive the MMR vaccine within 72 hours as post-exposure prophylaxis,” Dr. Lim said. “That’s a tight time window, but if you can do that, it reduces the risk of developing measles significantly.”

If you’re unsure or do not remember getting vaccinated against measles as a young child, your health care provider may be able to search state registries for an answer. If that doesn’t work, getting revaccinated with the MMR vaccine as an adult is an option. “There is no shame in getting caught up now,” Dr. Barocas said.

Dr. Lim agreed. “There is really no downside to getting additional doses.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Just over 2 months into 2024, measles cases in the United States aren’t looking great. 

The recent rise in cases across the U.S. is linked to unvaccinated travelers, lower than ideal vaccination rates, and misinformation, experts said. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has identified 45 cases of measles in 17 jurisdictions across the U.S. As of March 7, the federal health agency reported measles cases in Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York City, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington.

As for the 45 cases, “that’s almost as many as we had for the entire calendar year of 2023,” said Sarah Lim, MD, a medical specialist at the Minnesota Department of Health. “So we’re really not off to a great start.” (For context, there were 58 officially reported measles cases last year.) 

Chicago is having a measles outbreak — with eight cases reported so far. All but one case has been linked to a migrant child at a city shelter. Given the potential for rapid spread — measles is relatively rare here but potentially very serious — the CDC sent a team of experts to investigate and to help keep this outbreak from growing further.


 

Sometimes Deadly

About 30% of children have measles symptoms and about 25% end up hospitalized. Complications include diarrhea, a whole-body rash, ear infections that can lead to permanent deafness, and pneumonia. Pneumonia with measles can be so serious that 1 in 20 affected children die. Measles can also cause inflammation of the brain called encephalitis in about 1 in 1,000 children, sometimes causing epilepsy or permanent brain damage.

As with long COVID, some effects can last beyond the early infection. For example, measles “can wipe out immune memory that protects you against other bacterial and viral pathogens,” Dr. Lim said at a media briefing sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. This vulnerability to other infections can last up to 3 years after the early infection, she noted. 

Overall, measles kills between 1 and 3 people infected per thousand, mostly children.
 

Vaccine Misinformation Playing a Role

Vaccine misinformation is partly behind the uptick, and while many cases are mild, “this can be a devastating disease,” said Joshua Barocas, MD, associate professor of medicine in the divisions of General Internal Medicine and Infectious Diseases at the University of Colorado School of Medicine.

“I’m a parent myself. Parents are flooded with tons of information, some of that time being misinformation,” he said at the media briefing. “If you are a parent who’s been on the fence [about vaccination], now is the time, given the outbreak potential and the outbreaks that we’re seeing.” 

Vaccine misinformation “is about as old as vaccines themselves,” Dr. Lim said. Concerns about the MMR vaccine, which includes measles protection, are not new.

“It does seem to change periodically — new things bubble up, new ideas bubble up, and the problem is that it is like the old saying that ‘a lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.’ ” Social media helps to amplify vaccine misinformation, she said. 

“You don’t want to scare people unnecessarily — but reminding people what these childhood diseases really look like and what they do is incredibly important,” Dr. Lim said. “It’s so much easier to see stories about potential side effects of vaccines than it is to see stories about parents whose children were in intensive care for 2 weeks with pneumonia because of a severe case of measles.”

Dr. Barocas said misinformation is sometimes deliberate, sometimes not. Regardless, “our job as infectious disease physicians and public health professionals is not necessarily to put the counternarrative out there, but to continue to advocate for what we know works based on the best science and the best evidence.”

“And there is no reason to believe that vaccines are anything but helpful when it comes to preventing measles,” he noted. 
 

Lifelong Protection in Most Cases

The MMR vaccine, typically given as two doses in childhood, offers 93% and then 97% protection against the highly contagious virus. During the 2022-to-2023 school year, the measles vaccination rate among kindergarten children nationwide was 92%. That sounds like a high rate, Dr. Lim said, “but because measles is so contagious, vaccination rates need to be 95% or higher to contain transmission.”

One person with measles can infect anywhere from 12 to 18 other people, she said. When an infected person coughs or sneezes, tiny droplets spread through the air. “And if someone is unvaccinated and exposed, 9 times out of 10, that person will go on to develop the disease.” She said given the high transmission rate, measles often spreads within families to infect multiple children. 

If you know you’re not vaccinated but exposed, the advice is to get the measles shot as quickly as possible. “There is a recommendation to receive the MMR vaccine within 72 hours as post-exposure prophylaxis,” Dr. Lim said. “That’s a tight time window, but if you can do that, it reduces the risk of developing measles significantly.”

If you’re unsure or do not remember getting vaccinated against measles as a young child, your health care provider may be able to search state registries for an answer. If that doesn’t work, getting revaccinated with the MMR vaccine as an adult is an option. “There is no shame in getting caught up now,” Dr. Barocas said.

Dr. Lim agreed. “There is really no downside to getting additional doses.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Just over 2 months into 2024, measles cases in the United States aren’t looking great. 

The recent rise in cases across the U.S. is linked to unvaccinated travelers, lower than ideal vaccination rates, and misinformation, experts said. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has identified 45 cases of measles in 17 jurisdictions across the U.S. As of March 7, the federal health agency reported measles cases in Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York City, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington.

As for the 45 cases, “that’s almost as many as we had for the entire calendar year of 2023,” said Sarah Lim, MD, a medical specialist at the Minnesota Department of Health. “So we’re really not off to a great start.” (For context, there were 58 officially reported measles cases last year.) 

Chicago is having a measles outbreak — with eight cases reported so far. All but one case has been linked to a migrant child at a city shelter. Given the potential for rapid spread — measles is relatively rare here but potentially very serious — the CDC sent a team of experts to investigate and to help keep this outbreak from growing further.


 

Sometimes Deadly

About 30% of children have measles symptoms and about 25% end up hospitalized. Complications include diarrhea, a whole-body rash, ear infections that can lead to permanent deafness, and pneumonia. Pneumonia with measles can be so serious that 1 in 20 affected children die. Measles can also cause inflammation of the brain called encephalitis in about 1 in 1,000 children, sometimes causing epilepsy or permanent brain damage.

As with long COVID, some effects can last beyond the early infection. For example, measles “can wipe out immune memory that protects you against other bacterial and viral pathogens,” Dr. Lim said at a media briefing sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. This vulnerability to other infections can last up to 3 years after the early infection, she noted. 

Overall, measles kills between 1 and 3 people infected per thousand, mostly children.
 

Vaccine Misinformation Playing a Role

Vaccine misinformation is partly behind the uptick, and while many cases are mild, “this can be a devastating disease,” said Joshua Barocas, MD, associate professor of medicine in the divisions of General Internal Medicine and Infectious Diseases at the University of Colorado School of Medicine.

“I’m a parent myself. Parents are flooded with tons of information, some of that time being misinformation,” he said at the media briefing. “If you are a parent who’s been on the fence [about vaccination], now is the time, given the outbreak potential and the outbreaks that we’re seeing.” 

Vaccine misinformation “is about as old as vaccines themselves,” Dr. Lim said. Concerns about the MMR vaccine, which includes measles protection, are not new.

“It does seem to change periodically — new things bubble up, new ideas bubble up, and the problem is that it is like the old saying that ‘a lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.’ ” Social media helps to amplify vaccine misinformation, she said. 

“You don’t want to scare people unnecessarily — but reminding people what these childhood diseases really look like and what they do is incredibly important,” Dr. Lim said. “It’s so much easier to see stories about potential side effects of vaccines than it is to see stories about parents whose children were in intensive care for 2 weeks with pneumonia because of a severe case of measles.”

Dr. Barocas said misinformation is sometimes deliberate, sometimes not. Regardless, “our job as infectious disease physicians and public health professionals is not necessarily to put the counternarrative out there, but to continue to advocate for what we know works based on the best science and the best evidence.”

“And there is no reason to believe that vaccines are anything but helpful when it comes to preventing measles,” he noted. 
 

Lifelong Protection in Most Cases

The MMR vaccine, typically given as two doses in childhood, offers 93% and then 97% protection against the highly contagious virus. During the 2022-to-2023 school year, the measles vaccination rate among kindergarten children nationwide was 92%. That sounds like a high rate, Dr. Lim said, “but because measles is so contagious, vaccination rates need to be 95% or higher to contain transmission.”

One person with measles can infect anywhere from 12 to 18 other people, she said. When an infected person coughs or sneezes, tiny droplets spread through the air. “And if someone is unvaccinated and exposed, 9 times out of 10, that person will go on to develop the disease.” She said given the high transmission rate, measles often spreads within families to infect multiple children. 

If you know you’re not vaccinated but exposed, the advice is to get the measles shot as quickly as possible. “There is a recommendation to receive the MMR vaccine within 72 hours as post-exposure prophylaxis,” Dr. Lim said. “That’s a tight time window, but if you can do that, it reduces the risk of developing measles significantly.”

If you’re unsure or do not remember getting vaccinated against measles as a young child, your health care provider may be able to search state registries for an answer. If that doesn’t work, getting revaccinated with the MMR vaccine as an adult is an option. “There is no shame in getting caught up now,” Dr. Barocas said.

Dr. Lim agreed. “There is really no downside to getting additional doses.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

No matter how much we’d like to leave it in the dust, COVID-19 remains prevalent and potent. Tens of thousands of people still contract COVID per week in the United States. Hundreds die. And those who don’t may still develop long COVID.

Pleas from public health officials for people to get a COVID vaccine or booster shot have been ignored by many people. About 80% of eligible Americans haven’t taken any kind of COVID booster. Meantime, the virus continues to mutate, eroding the efficacy of the vaccine’s past versions.

How to get more people to get the jab? Vaccine hesitancy, said infectious disease specialist William Schaffner, MD, is likely rooted in a lack of trust in authority, whether it’s public health officials or politicians.

Dr. Schaffner, professor of infectious diseases at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee, and former medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, recommended five strategies physicians can try when discussing the importance of staying up to date on COVID vaccines with patients.
 

#1: Be Patient With Your Patient

First and foremost, if doctors are feeling reluctance from their patients, they need to know “what they shouldn’t do,” Dr. Schaffner said.

When a patient initially doesn’t want the vaccine, doctors shouldn’t express surprise. “Do not scold or berate or belittle. Do not give the impression the patient is somehow wrong or has failed a test of some sort,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Step back and affirm that they understand what the patient is saying so they feel reassured, even if they don’t agree or it’s based on falsehoods about the vaccine.

He said patients need to feel “the doctor heard them; it’s okay to tell the doctor this.” When you affirm what the patient says, it puts them at ease and provides a smoother road to eventually getting them to say “yes.”

But if there’s still a roadblock, don’t bulldoze them. “You don’t want to punish the patient ... let them know you’ll continue to hear them,” Dr. Schaffner said.
 

#2: Always Acknowledge a Concern

Fear of side effects is great among some patients, even if the risks are low, Dr. Schaffner said. Patients may be hesitant because they’re afraid they’ll become one of the “two or three in a million” who suffer extremely rare side effects from the vaccine, Dr. Schaffner said.

In that case, doctors should acknowledge their concern is valid, he said. Never be dismissive. Ask the patients how they feel about the vaccine, listen to their responses, and let them know “I hear you. This is a new mRNA vaccine…you have concern about that,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Doctors can segue into how there’s little reason to wait for some elusive perfectly risk-free vaccine when they can help themselves right now.

“The adverse events that occur with vaccines occur within 2 months [and are typically mild]. I don’t know of a single vaccine that has genuinely long-term implications,” Dr. Schaffner said. “We should remember that old French philosopher Voltaire. He admonished us: Waiting for perfection is the great enemy of the current good.”
 

#3: Make a Strong Recommendation

Here’s something that may seem obvious: Don’t treat the vaccine as an afterthought. “Survey after survey tells us this ... it has everything to do with the strength of the recommendation,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Doctors typically make strong treatment recommendations such conditions as diabetes or high blood pressure, but “when it comes to vaccines, they’re often rather nonchalant,” he said.

If a patient is eligible for a vaccine, doctors should tell the patient they need to get it — not that you think they should get it. “Doctors have to make a firm recommendation: ‘You’re eligible for a vaccine ... and you need to get it ... you’ll receive it on your way out.’ It then becomes a distinct and strong recommendation,” he said.
 

#4: Appeal to Patients’ Hearts, Not Their Minds

In the opening of Charles Dickens’s novel “Hard Times,” the stern school superintendent, Mr. Gradgrind, scolds his students by beating their brow with the notion that, “Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else and root out everything else.”

The idea that facts alone can sway a vaccine-resistant patient is wrong. “It often doesn’t happen that way,” Dr. Schaffner said. “I don’t think facts do that. Psychologists tell us, yes, information is important, but it’s rarely sufficient to change behavior.”

Data and studies are foundational to medicine, but the key is to change how a patient feels about the data they’re presented with, not how they think about it. “Don’t attack their brain so much but their heart,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Dr. Schaffner has stressed with his patients that the COVID vaccine has become “the social norm,” suggesting virtually everyone he knows has received it and had no problem.

Once questions have been answered about whether the vaccine works and its various side effects, doctors could remind the patient, “You know, everyone in my office is getting the vaccine, and we’re trying to provide this protection to every patient,” he said.

You’re then delving deeper into their emotions and crossing a barrier that facts alone can’t breach.
 

#5: Make it Personal

Lead by example and personalize the fight against the virus. This allows doctors to act as if they’re building an alliance with their patients by framing the vaccine not as something that only affects them but can also confer benefits to a broader social circle.

Even after using these methods, patients may remain resistant, apprehensive, or even indifferent. In cases like these, Dr. Schaffner said it’s a good idea to let it go for the time being.

Let the patient know they “have access to you and can keep speaking with you about it” in the future, he said. “It takes more time, and you have to be cognizant of the nature of the conversation.”

Everybody is unique, but with trust, patience, and awareness of the patient’s feelings, doctors have a better shot at finding common ground with their patients and convincing them the vaccine is in their best interest, he said.

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

No matter how much we’d like to leave it in the dust, COVID-19 remains prevalent and potent. Tens of thousands of people still contract COVID per week in the United States. Hundreds die. And those who don’t may still develop long COVID.

Pleas from public health officials for people to get a COVID vaccine or booster shot have been ignored by many people. About 80% of eligible Americans haven’t taken any kind of COVID booster. Meantime, the virus continues to mutate, eroding the efficacy of the vaccine’s past versions.

How to get more people to get the jab? Vaccine hesitancy, said infectious disease specialist William Schaffner, MD, is likely rooted in a lack of trust in authority, whether it’s public health officials or politicians.

Dr. Schaffner, professor of infectious diseases at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee, and former medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, recommended five strategies physicians can try when discussing the importance of staying up to date on COVID vaccines with patients.
 

#1: Be Patient With Your Patient

First and foremost, if doctors are feeling reluctance from their patients, they need to know “what they shouldn’t do,” Dr. Schaffner said.

When a patient initially doesn’t want the vaccine, doctors shouldn’t express surprise. “Do not scold or berate or belittle. Do not give the impression the patient is somehow wrong or has failed a test of some sort,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Step back and affirm that they understand what the patient is saying so they feel reassured, even if they don’t agree or it’s based on falsehoods about the vaccine.

He said patients need to feel “the doctor heard them; it’s okay to tell the doctor this.” When you affirm what the patient says, it puts them at ease and provides a smoother road to eventually getting them to say “yes.”

But if there’s still a roadblock, don’t bulldoze them. “You don’t want to punish the patient ... let them know you’ll continue to hear them,” Dr. Schaffner said.
 

#2: Always Acknowledge a Concern

Fear of side effects is great among some patients, even if the risks are low, Dr. Schaffner said. Patients may be hesitant because they’re afraid they’ll become one of the “two or three in a million” who suffer extremely rare side effects from the vaccine, Dr. Schaffner said.

In that case, doctors should acknowledge their concern is valid, he said. Never be dismissive. Ask the patients how they feel about the vaccine, listen to their responses, and let them know “I hear you. This is a new mRNA vaccine…you have concern about that,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Doctors can segue into how there’s little reason to wait for some elusive perfectly risk-free vaccine when they can help themselves right now.

“The adverse events that occur with vaccines occur within 2 months [and are typically mild]. I don’t know of a single vaccine that has genuinely long-term implications,” Dr. Schaffner said. “We should remember that old French philosopher Voltaire. He admonished us: Waiting for perfection is the great enemy of the current good.”
 

#3: Make a Strong Recommendation

Here’s something that may seem obvious: Don’t treat the vaccine as an afterthought. “Survey after survey tells us this ... it has everything to do with the strength of the recommendation,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Doctors typically make strong treatment recommendations such conditions as diabetes or high blood pressure, but “when it comes to vaccines, they’re often rather nonchalant,” he said.

If a patient is eligible for a vaccine, doctors should tell the patient they need to get it — not that you think they should get it. “Doctors have to make a firm recommendation: ‘You’re eligible for a vaccine ... and you need to get it ... you’ll receive it on your way out.’ It then becomes a distinct and strong recommendation,” he said.
 

#4: Appeal to Patients’ Hearts, Not Their Minds

In the opening of Charles Dickens’s novel “Hard Times,” the stern school superintendent, Mr. Gradgrind, scolds his students by beating their brow with the notion that, “Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else and root out everything else.”

The idea that facts alone can sway a vaccine-resistant patient is wrong. “It often doesn’t happen that way,” Dr. Schaffner said. “I don’t think facts do that. Psychologists tell us, yes, information is important, but it’s rarely sufficient to change behavior.”

Data and studies are foundational to medicine, but the key is to change how a patient feels about the data they’re presented with, not how they think about it. “Don’t attack their brain so much but their heart,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Dr. Schaffner has stressed with his patients that the COVID vaccine has become “the social norm,” suggesting virtually everyone he knows has received it and had no problem.

Once questions have been answered about whether the vaccine works and its various side effects, doctors could remind the patient, “You know, everyone in my office is getting the vaccine, and we’re trying to provide this protection to every patient,” he said.

You’re then delving deeper into their emotions and crossing a barrier that facts alone can’t breach.
 

#5: Make it Personal

Lead by example and personalize the fight against the virus. This allows doctors to act as if they’re building an alliance with their patients by framing the vaccine not as something that only affects them but can also confer benefits to a broader social circle.

Even after using these methods, patients may remain resistant, apprehensive, or even indifferent. In cases like these, Dr. Schaffner said it’s a good idea to let it go for the time being.

Let the patient know they “have access to you and can keep speaking with you about it” in the future, he said. “It takes more time, and you have to be cognizant of the nature of the conversation.”

Everybody is unique, but with trust, patience, and awareness of the patient’s feelings, doctors have a better shot at finding common ground with their patients and convincing them the vaccine is in their best interest, he said.

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

No matter how much we’d like to leave it in the dust, COVID-19 remains prevalent and potent. Tens of thousands of people still contract COVID per week in the United States. Hundreds die. And those who don’t may still develop long COVID.

Pleas from public health officials for people to get a COVID vaccine or booster shot have been ignored by many people. About 80% of eligible Americans haven’t taken any kind of COVID booster. Meantime, the virus continues to mutate, eroding the efficacy of the vaccine’s past versions.

How to get more people to get the jab? Vaccine hesitancy, said infectious disease specialist William Schaffner, MD, is likely rooted in a lack of trust in authority, whether it’s public health officials or politicians.

Dr. Schaffner, professor of infectious diseases at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee, and former medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, recommended five strategies physicians can try when discussing the importance of staying up to date on COVID vaccines with patients.
 

#1: Be Patient With Your Patient

First and foremost, if doctors are feeling reluctance from their patients, they need to know “what they shouldn’t do,” Dr. Schaffner said.

When a patient initially doesn’t want the vaccine, doctors shouldn’t express surprise. “Do not scold or berate or belittle. Do not give the impression the patient is somehow wrong or has failed a test of some sort,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Step back and affirm that they understand what the patient is saying so they feel reassured, even if they don’t agree or it’s based on falsehoods about the vaccine.

He said patients need to feel “the doctor heard them; it’s okay to tell the doctor this.” When you affirm what the patient says, it puts them at ease and provides a smoother road to eventually getting them to say “yes.”

But if there’s still a roadblock, don’t bulldoze them. “You don’t want to punish the patient ... let them know you’ll continue to hear them,” Dr. Schaffner said.
 

#2: Always Acknowledge a Concern

Fear of side effects is great among some patients, even if the risks are low, Dr. Schaffner said. Patients may be hesitant because they’re afraid they’ll become one of the “two or three in a million” who suffer extremely rare side effects from the vaccine, Dr. Schaffner said.

In that case, doctors should acknowledge their concern is valid, he said. Never be dismissive. Ask the patients how they feel about the vaccine, listen to their responses, and let them know “I hear you. This is a new mRNA vaccine…you have concern about that,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Doctors can segue into how there’s little reason to wait for some elusive perfectly risk-free vaccine when they can help themselves right now.

“The adverse events that occur with vaccines occur within 2 months [and are typically mild]. I don’t know of a single vaccine that has genuinely long-term implications,” Dr. Schaffner said. “We should remember that old French philosopher Voltaire. He admonished us: Waiting for perfection is the great enemy of the current good.”
 

#3: Make a Strong Recommendation

Here’s something that may seem obvious: Don’t treat the vaccine as an afterthought. “Survey after survey tells us this ... it has everything to do with the strength of the recommendation,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Doctors typically make strong treatment recommendations such conditions as diabetes or high blood pressure, but “when it comes to vaccines, they’re often rather nonchalant,” he said.

If a patient is eligible for a vaccine, doctors should tell the patient they need to get it — not that you think they should get it. “Doctors have to make a firm recommendation: ‘You’re eligible for a vaccine ... and you need to get it ... you’ll receive it on your way out.’ It then becomes a distinct and strong recommendation,” he said.
 

#4: Appeal to Patients’ Hearts, Not Their Minds

In the opening of Charles Dickens’s novel “Hard Times,” the stern school superintendent, Mr. Gradgrind, scolds his students by beating their brow with the notion that, “Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else and root out everything else.”

The idea that facts alone can sway a vaccine-resistant patient is wrong. “It often doesn’t happen that way,” Dr. Schaffner said. “I don’t think facts do that. Psychologists tell us, yes, information is important, but it’s rarely sufficient to change behavior.”

Data and studies are foundational to medicine, but the key is to change how a patient feels about the data they’re presented with, not how they think about it. “Don’t attack their brain so much but their heart,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Dr. Schaffner has stressed with his patients that the COVID vaccine has become “the social norm,” suggesting virtually everyone he knows has received it and had no problem.

Once questions have been answered about whether the vaccine works and its various side effects, doctors could remind the patient, “You know, everyone in my office is getting the vaccine, and we’re trying to provide this protection to every patient,” he said.

You’re then delving deeper into their emotions and crossing a barrier that facts alone can’t breach.
 

#5: Make it Personal

Lead by example and personalize the fight against the virus. This allows doctors to act as if they’re building an alliance with their patients by framing the vaccine not as something that only affects them but can also confer benefits to a broader social circle.

Even after using these methods, patients may remain resistant, apprehensive, or even indifferent. In cases like these, Dr. Schaffner said it’s a good idea to let it go for the time being.

Let the patient know they “have access to you and can keep speaking with you about it” in the future, he said. “It takes more time, and you have to be cognizant of the nature of the conversation.”

Everybody is unique, but with trust, patience, and awareness of the patient’s feelings, doctors have a better shot at finding common ground with their patients and convincing them the vaccine is in their best interest, he said.

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