Infectious Disease Practitioner

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me to discuss ways to address and reform the toxic culture associated with medical training is Dr. Amy Faith Ho, senior vice president of clinical informatics and analytics at Integrative Emergency Services in Dallas. Also joining us is Dr. Júlia Loyola Ferreira, a pediatric surgeon originally from Brazil, now practicing at Montreal Children’s and focused on advocacy for gender equity and patient-centered care.

Welcome to both of you. Thanks so much for joining me.

Amy Faith Ho, MD, MPH: Thanks so much for having us, Rob.

Dr. Glatter: Amy, I noticed a tweet recently where you talked about how your career choice was affected by the toxic environment in medical school, affecting your choice of residency. Can you elaborate on that?

Dr. Ho: This is a super-important topic, not in just one specialty but in all of medicine, because what you’re talking about is toxic workplace culture that is certainly directed toward certain groups. In this instance, what we’re talking about is gender, but it can be directed toward any number of other groups as well.

What you’re alluding to is a tweet by Stanford Surgery Group showing the next residency class, and what was really stunning about this residency class was that it was almost all females. And this was something that took off on social media.

When I saw this, I was really brought back to one of my personal experiences that I chose to share, which was basically that, as a medical student, I really wanted to be a surgeon. I’m an emergency medicine doctor now, so you know that didn’t happen.

The story that I was sharing was that when I was a third-year medical student rotating on surgery, we had a male attending who was very well known at that school at the time who basically would take the female medical students, and instead of clinic, he would round us up. He would have us sit around him in the workplace room while everyone else was seeing patients, and he would have you look at news clippings of himself. He would tell you stories about himself, like he was holding court for the ladies.

It was this very weird culture where my takeaway as a med student was like, “Wow, this is kind of abusive patriarchy that is supported,” because everyone knew about it and was complicit. Even though I really liked surgery, this was just one instance and one example of where you see this culture that really resonates into the rest of life that I didn’t really want to be a part of.

I went into emergency medicine and loved it. It’s also highly procedural, and I was very happy with where I was. What was really interesting about this tweet to me, though, is that it really took off and garnered hundreds of thousands of views on a very niche topic, because what was most revealing is that everyone has a story like this.

It is not just surgery. It is definitely not just one specialty and it is not just one school. It is an endemic problem in medicine. Not only does it change the lives of young women, but it also says so much about the complicity and the culture that we have in medicine that many people were upset about just the same way I was.
 

Medical training experience in other countries vs. the United States

Dr. Glatter: Júlia, I want to hear about your experience in medical school, surgery, and then fellowship training and up to the present, if possible.

Júlia Loyola Ferreira, MD: In Brazil, as in many countries now, women have made up the majority of the medical students since 2010. It’s a more female-friendly environment when you’re going through medical school, and I was lucky enough to do rotations in areas of surgery where people were friendly to women.

I lived in this tiny bubble that also gave me the privilege of not facing some things that I can imagine that people in Brazil in different areas and smaller towns face. In Brazil, people try to not talk about this gender agenda. This is something that’s being talked about outside Brazil. But in Brazil, we are years back. People are not really engaging on this conversation. I thought it was going to be hard for me as a woman, because Brazil has around 20% female surgeons.

I knew it was going to be challenging, but I had no idea how bad it was. When I started and things started happening, the list was big. I have an example of everything that is written about – microaggression, implicit bias, discrimination, harassment.

Every time I would try to speak about it and talk to someone, I would be strongly gaslighted. It was the whole training, the whole 5 years. People would say, “Oh, I don’t think it was like that. I think you were overreacting.” People would come with all these different answers for what I was experiencing, and that was frustrating. That was even harder because I had to cope with everything that was happening and I had no one to turn to. I had no mentors.

When I looked up to women who were in surgery, they would be tougher on us young surgeons than the men and they would tell us that we should not complain because in their time it was even harder. Now, it’s getting better and we are supposed to accept whatever comes.

That was at least a little bit of what I experienced in my training. It was only after I finished and started to do research about it that I really encountered a field of people who would echo what I was trying to say to many people in different hospitals that I attended to.

That was the key for me to get out of that situation of being gaslighted and of not being able to really talk about it. Suddenly, I started to publish things about Brazil that nobody was even writing or studying. That gave me a large amount of responsibility, but also motivation to keep going and to see the change.
 

Valuing women in medicine

Dr. Glatter: This is a very important point that you’re raising about the environment of women being hard on other women. We know that men can be very difficult on and also judgmental toward their trainees.

Amy, how would you respond to that? Was your experience similar in emergency medicine training?

Dr. Ho: I actually don’t feel like it was. I think what Júlia is alluding to is this “mean girls” idea, of “I went through it and thus you have to go through it.” I think you do see this in many specialties. One of the classic ones we hear about, and I don’t want to speak to it too much because it’s not my specialty, is ob.gyn., where it is a very female-dominant surgery group. There’s almost a hazing level that you hear about in some of the more malignant workplaces.

I think that you speak to two really important things. Number one is the numbers game. As you were saying, Brazil actually has many women. That’s awesome. That’s actually different from the United States, especially for the historic, existing workplace and less so for the medical students and for residents. I think step one is having minorities like women just present and there.

Step two is actually including and valuing them. While I think it’s really easy to move away from the women discussion, because there are women when you look around in medicine, it doesn’t mean that women are actually being heard, that they’re actually being accepted, or that their viewpoints are being listened to. A big part of it is normalizing not only seeing women in medicine but also normalizing the narrative of women in medicine.

It’s not just about motherhood; it’s about things like normalizing talking about advancement, academic promotions, pay, culture, being called things like “too reactive,” “anxious,” or “too assertive.” These are all classic things that we hear about when we talk about women.

That’s why we’re looking to not only conversations like this, but also structured ways for women to discuss being women in medicine. There are many women in medicine groups in emergency medicine, including: Females Working in Emergency Medicine (FemInEM); the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) women’s groups, which are American Association of Women Emergency Physicians (AAWEP) and Academy for Women in Academic Emergency Medicine (AWAEM), respectively; and the American Medical Women’s Association (AMWA), which is the American Medical Association’s offshoot.

All of these groups are geared toward normalizing women in medicine, normalizing the narrative of women in medicine, and then working on mentoring and educating so that we can advance our initiatives.
 

Gender balance is not gender equity

Dr. Glatter: Amy, you bring up a very critical point that mentoring is sort of the antidote to gender-based discrimination. Júlia had written a paper back in November of 2022 that was published in the Journal of Surgical Research talking exactly about this and how important it is to develop mentoring. Part of her research showed that about 20% of medical students who took the survey, about 1,000 people, had mentors, which was very disturbing.

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Mentorship is one of the ways of changing the reality about gender-based discrimination. Amy’s comment was very strong and we need to really keep saying it, which is that gender balance is not gender equity.

The idea of having more women is not the same as women being recognized as equals, as able as men, and as valued as men. To change this very long culture of male domination, we need support, and this support comes from mentorship.

Although I didn’t have one, I feel that since I started being a mentor for some students, it changed not only them but myself. It gave me strength to keep going, studying, publishing, and going further with this discussion. I feel like the relationship was as good for them as it is for me. That’s how things change.
 

Diversity, equity, and inclusion training

Dr. Glatter: We’re talking about the reality of gender equity in terms of the ability to have equal respect, recognition, opportunities, and access. That’s really an important point to realize, and for our audience, to understand that gender equity is not gender balance.

Amy, I want to talk about medical school curriculums. Are there advances that you’re aware of being made at certain schools, programs, even in residencies, to enforce these things and make it a priority?

Dr. Ho: We’re really lucky that, as a culture in the United States, medical training is certainly very geared toward diversity. Some of that is certainly unofficial. Some of that just means when they’re looking at a medical school class or looking at rank lists for residency, that they’re cognizant of the different backgrounds that people have. That’s still a step. That is a step, that we’re at least acknowledging it.

There are multiple medical schools and residencies that have more formal unconscious-bias training or diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training, both of which are excellent not only for us in the workplace but also for our patients. Almost all of us will see patients of highly diverse backgrounds. I think the biggest push is looking toward the criteria that we use for selecting trainees and students into our programs. Historically, it’s been MCAT, GPA, and so on.

We’ve really started to ask the question of, are these sorts of “objective criteria” actually biased in institutional ways? They talk about this all the time where GPAs will bias against students from underrepresented minorities (URM). I think all medical students and residencies have really acknowledged that. Although there are still test cutoffs, we are putting an inquisitive eye to what those mean, why they exist, and what are the other things that we should consider. This is all very heartening from what I’m seeing in medical training.

Dr. Glatter: There’s no formal rating system for DEI curriculums right now, like ranking of this school, or this program has more advanced recognition in terms of DEI?

Dr. Ho: No, but on the flip side, the U.S. News & World Report was classically one of the major rankings for medical schools. What we saw fairly recently was that very high-tier schools like Harvard and University of Chicago pulled out of that ranking because that ranking did not acknowledge the value of diversity. That was an incredible stance for medical schools to take, to say, “Hey, you are not evaluating an important criterion of ours.”

Dr. Glatter: That’s a great point. Júlia, where are we now in Brazil in terms of awareness of DEI and curriculum in schools and training programs?

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Our reality is not as good as in the U.S., unfortunately. I don’t see much discussion on residency programs or medical schools at the moment. I see many students bringing it out and trying to make their schools engage in that discussion. This is something that is coming from the bottom up and not from the top down. I think it can lead to change as well. It is a step and it’s a beginning. Institutions should take the responsibility of doing this from the beginning. This is something where Brazil is still years behind you guys.

Dr. Glatter: It’s unfortunate, but certainly it’s important to hear that. What about in Canada and certainly your institution, McGill, where you just completed a master’s degree?

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Canada is very much like the U.S. This is something that is really happening and it’s happening fast. I see, at least at McGill, a large amount of DEI inclusion and everything on this discussion. They have institutional courses for us to do as students, and we are all obliged to do many courses, which I think is really educating, especially for people with different cultures and backgrounds.

Dr. Glatter: Amy, where do you think we are in emergency medicine to look at the other side of it? Comparing surgery with emergency medicine, do you think we’re well advanced in terms of DEI, inclusion criteria, respect, and dignity, or are we really far off?

Dr. Ho: I may be biased, but I think emergency medicine is one of the best in terms of this, and I think there are a couple of reasons for it. One is that we are an inherently team-based organization. The attending, the residents, and the students all work in line with one another. There’s less of a hierarchy.

The same is true for our nurses, pharmacists, techs, and EMS. We all work together as a team. Because of that fairly flat structure, it’s really easy for us to value one another as individuals with our diverse backgrounds. In a way, that’s harder for specialties that are more hierarchical, and I think surgery is certainly one of the most hierarchical.

The second reason why emergency medicine is fairly well off in this is that we’re, by nature, a safety-net specialty. We see patients of all-comers, all walks, all backgrounds. I think we both recognize the value of physician-patient concordance. When we share characteristics with our patients, we recognize that value immediately at the bedside.

It exposes us to so much diversity. I see a refugee one day and the next patient is someone who is incarcerated. The next patient after that is an important businessman in society. That diversity and whiplash in the type of patients that we see back-to-back helps us see the playing field in a really flat, diverse way. Because of that, I think our culture is much better, as is our understanding of the value and importance of diversity not only for our programs, but also for our patients.
 

Do female doctors have better patient outcomes?

Dr. Glatter: Specialties working together in the emergency department is so important. Building that team and that togetherness is so critical. Júlia, would you agree?

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Definitely. Something Amy said that is beautiful is that you recognize yourself in these patients. In surgery, we are taught to try to be away from the patients and not to put ourselves in the same position. We are taught to be less engaging, and this is not good. The good thing is when we really have patient-centered care, when we listen to them, and when we are involved with them.

I saw a publication showing that female and male surgeons treating similar patients had the same surgical outcomes. Women are as good as men technically to do surgery and have the same surgical outcomes. However, there is research showing that surgical teams with greater representation of women have improved surgical outcomes because of patient-centered care and the way women conduct bedside attention to patients. And they have better patient experience measures afterward. That is not only from the women who are treating the patients, but the whole environment. Women end up bringing men [into the conversation] and this better improves patient-centered care, and that makes the whole team a better team attending patients. Definitely, we are in the moment of patient experience and satisfaction, and increasing women is a way of achieving better patient satisfaction and experience.

Dr. Ho: There’s much to be said about having female clinicians available for patients. It doesn’t have to be just for female patients, although again, concordance between physicians and patients is certainly beneficial. Besides outcomes benefit, there’s even just a communication benefit. The way that women and men communicate is inherently different. The way women and men experience certain things is also inherently different.

A classic example of this is women who are experiencing a heart attack may not actually have chest pain but present with nausea. As a female who’s sensitive to this, when I see a woman throwing up, I am very attuned to something actually being wrong, knowing that they may not present with classic pain for a syndrome, but actually may be presenting with nausea instead. It doesn’t have to be a woman who takes that knowledge and turns it into something at the bedside. It certainly doesn’t have to, but it is just a natural, easy thing to step into as a female.

While I’m really careful to not step into this “women are better than men” or “men are better than women” argument, there’s something to be said about how the availability of female clinicians for all patients, not just female patients, can have benefit. Again, it’s shown in studies with cardiovascular outcomes and cardiologists, it’s certainly shown in ob.gyn., particularly for underrepresented minorities as well for maternal outcomes of Black mothers. It’s certainly shown again in patient satisfaction, which is concordance.

There is a profound level of research already on this that goes beyond just the idea of stacking the bench and putting more women in there. That’s not the value. We’re not just here to check off the box. We’re here to actually lend some value to our patients and, again, to one another as well.

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. These are excellent points. The point you make about patient presentation is so vital. The fact that women have nausea sometimes in ACS presentations, the research never was really attentive to this. It was biased. The symptoms that women may have that are not “typical” for ACS weren’t included in patient presentations. Educating everyone about, overall, the types of presentations that we can recognize is vital and important.

Dr. Ho: Yes. It’s worth saying that, when you look at how medicine and research developed, classically, who were the research participants? They were often White men. They were college students who, historically, because women were not allowed to go to college, were men.

I say that not to fault the institution, because that was the culture of our history, but to just say it is okay to question things. It is okay to realize that someone’s presenting outside of the box and that maybe we actually need to reframe what even created the walls of the box in the first place.

Dr. Glatter: Thank you again for joining us. I truly appreciate your insight and expertise.

Dr. Glatter is assistant professor of emergency medicine, department of emergency medicine, Hofstra/Northwell, New York. Dr. Ho is senior vice president of clinical informatics & analytics, department of emergency medicine, Integrative Emergency Services, Dallas. Dr. Loyola Ferreira is a master of science candidate, department of experimental surgery, McGill University, Montreal. They reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me to discuss ways to address and reform the toxic culture associated with medical training is Dr. Amy Faith Ho, senior vice president of clinical informatics and analytics at Integrative Emergency Services in Dallas. Also joining us is Dr. Júlia Loyola Ferreira, a pediatric surgeon originally from Brazil, now practicing at Montreal Children’s and focused on advocacy for gender equity and patient-centered care.

Welcome to both of you. Thanks so much for joining me.

Amy Faith Ho, MD, MPH: Thanks so much for having us, Rob.

Dr. Glatter: Amy, I noticed a tweet recently where you talked about how your career choice was affected by the toxic environment in medical school, affecting your choice of residency. Can you elaborate on that?

Dr. Ho: This is a super-important topic, not in just one specialty but in all of medicine, because what you’re talking about is toxic workplace culture that is certainly directed toward certain groups. In this instance, what we’re talking about is gender, but it can be directed toward any number of other groups as well.

What you’re alluding to is a tweet by Stanford Surgery Group showing the next residency class, and what was really stunning about this residency class was that it was almost all females. And this was something that took off on social media.

When I saw this, I was really brought back to one of my personal experiences that I chose to share, which was basically that, as a medical student, I really wanted to be a surgeon. I’m an emergency medicine doctor now, so you know that didn’t happen.

The story that I was sharing was that when I was a third-year medical student rotating on surgery, we had a male attending who was very well known at that school at the time who basically would take the female medical students, and instead of clinic, he would round us up. He would have us sit around him in the workplace room while everyone else was seeing patients, and he would have you look at news clippings of himself. He would tell you stories about himself, like he was holding court for the ladies.

It was this very weird culture where my takeaway as a med student was like, “Wow, this is kind of abusive patriarchy that is supported,” because everyone knew about it and was complicit. Even though I really liked surgery, this was just one instance and one example of where you see this culture that really resonates into the rest of life that I didn’t really want to be a part of.

I went into emergency medicine and loved it. It’s also highly procedural, and I was very happy with where I was. What was really interesting about this tweet to me, though, is that it really took off and garnered hundreds of thousands of views on a very niche topic, because what was most revealing is that everyone has a story like this.

It is not just surgery. It is definitely not just one specialty and it is not just one school. It is an endemic problem in medicine. Not only does it change the lives of young women, but it also says so much about the complicity and the culture that we have in medicine that many people were upset about just the same way I was.
 

Medical training experience in other countries vs. the United States

Dr. Glatter: Júlia, I want to hear about your experience in medical school, surgery, and then fellowship training and up to the present, if possible.

Júlia Loyola Ferreira, MD: In Brazil, as in many countries now, women have made up the majority of the medical students since 2010. It’s a more female-friendly environment when you’re going through medical school, and I was lucky enough to do rotations in areas of surgery where people were friendly to women.

I lived in this tiny bubble that also gave me the privilege of not facing some things that I can imagine that people in Brazil in different areas and smaller towns face. In Brazil, people try to not talk about this gender agenda. This is something that’s being talked about outside Brazil. But in Brazil, we are years back. People are not really engaging on this conversation. I thought it was going to be hard for me as a woman, because Brazil has around 20% female surgeons.

I knew it was going to be challenging, but I had no idea how bad it was. When I started and things started happening, the list was big. I have an example of everything that is written about – microaggression, implicit bias, discrimination, harassment.

Every time I would try to speak about it and talk to someone, I would be strongly gaslighted. It was the whole training, the whole 5 years. People would say, “Oh, I don’t think it was like that. I think you were overreacting.” People would come with all these different answers for what I was experiencing, and that was frustrating. That was even harder because I had to cope with everything that was happening and I had no one to turn to. I had no mentors.

When I looked up to women who were in surgery, they would be tougher on us young surgeons than the men and they would tell us that we should not complain because in their time it was even harder. Now, it’s getting better and we are supposed to accept whatever comes.

That was at least a little bit of what I experienced in my training. It was only after I finished and started to do research about it that I really encountered a field of people who would echo what I was trying to say to many people in different hospitals that I attended to.

That was the key for me to get out of that situation of being gaslighted and of not being able to really talk about it. Suddenly, I started to publish things about Brazil that nobody was even writing or studying. That gave me a large amount of responsibility, but also motivation to keep going and to see the change.
 

Valuing women in medicine

Dr. Glatter: This is a very important point that you’re raising about the environment of women being hard on other women. We know that men can be very difficult on and also judgmental toward their trainees.

Amy, how would you respond to that? Was your experience similar in emergency medicine training?

Dr. Ho: I actually don’t feel like it was. I think what Júlia is alluding to is this “mean girls” idea, of “I went through it and thus you have to go through it.” I think you do see this in many specialties. One of the classic ones we hear about, and I don’t want to speak to it too much because it’s not my specialty, is ob.gyn., where it is a very female-dominant surgery group. There’s almost a hazing level that you hear about in some of the more malignant workplaces.

I think that you speak to two really important things. Number one is the numbers game. As you were saying, Brazil actually has many women. That’s awesome. That’s actually different from the United States, especially for the historic, existing workplace and less so for the medical students and for residents. I think step one is having minorities like women just present and there.

Step two is actually including and valuing them. While I think it’s really easy to move away from the women discussion, because there are women when you look around in medicine, it doesn’t mean that women are actually being heard, that they’re actually being accepted, or that their viewpoints are being listened to. A big part of it is normalizing not only seeing women in medicine but also normalizing the narrative of women in medicine.

It’s not just about motherhood; it’s about things like normalizing talking about advancement, academic promotions, pay, culture, being called things like “too reactive,” “anxious,” or “too assertive.” These are all classic things that we hear about when we talk about women.

That’s why we’re looking to not only conversations like this, but also structured ways for women to discuss being women in medicine. There are many women in medicine groups in emergency medicine, including: Females Working in Emergency Medicine (FemInEM); the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) women’s groups, which are American Association of Women Emergency Physicians (AAWEP) and Academy for Women in Academic Emergency Medicine (AWAEM), respectively; and the American Medical Women’s Association (AMWA), which is the American Medical Association’s offshoot.

All of these groups are geared toward normalizing women in medicine, normalizing the narrative of women in medicine, and then working on mentoring and educating so that we can advance our initiatives.
 

Gender balance is not gender equity

Dr. Glatter: Amy, you bring up a very critical point that mentoring is sort of the antidote to gender-based discrimination. Júlia had written a paper back in November of 2022 that was published in the Journal of Surgical Research talking exactly about this and how important it is to develop mentoring. Part of her research showed that about 20% of medical students who took the survey, about 1,000 people, had mentors, which was very disturbing.

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Mentorship is one of the ways of changing the reality about gender-based discrimination. Amy’s comment was very strong and we need to really keep saying it, which is that gender balance is not gender equity.

The idea of having more women is not the same as women being recognized as equals, as able as men, and as valued as men. To change this very long culture of male domination, we need support, and this support comes from mentorship.

Although I didn’t have one, I feel that since I started being a mentor for some students, it changed not only them but myself. It gave me strength to keep going, studying, publishing, and going further with this discussion. I feel like the relationship was as good for them as it is for me. That’s how things change.
 

Diversity, equity, and inclusion training

Dr. Glatter: We’re talking about the reality of gender equity in terms of the ability to have equal respect, recognition, opportunities, and access. That’s really an important point to realize, and for our audience, to understand that gender equity is not gender balance.

Amy, I want to talk about medical school curriculums. Are there advances that you’re aware of being made at certain schools, programs, even in residencies, to enforce these things and make it a priority?

Dr. Ho: We’re really lucky that, as a culture in the United States, medical training is certainly very geared toward diversity. Some of that is certainly unofficial. Some of that just means when they’re looking at a medical school class or looking at rank lists for residency, that they’re cognizant of the different backgrounds that people have. That’s still a step. That is a step, that we’re at least acknowledging it.

There are multiple medical schools and residencies that have more formal unconscious-bias training or diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training, both of which are excellent not only for us in the workplace but also for our patients. Almost all of us will see patients of highly diverse backgrounds. I think the biggest push is looking toward the criteria that we use for selecting trainees and students into our programs. Historically, it’s been MCAT, GPA, and so on.

We’ve really started to ask the question of, are these sorts of “objective criteria” actually biased in institutional ways? They talk about this all the time where GPAs will bias against students from underrepresented minorities (URM). I think all medical students and residencies have really acknowledged that. Although there are still test cutoffs, we are putting an inquisitive eye to what those mean, why they exist, and what are the other things that we should consider. This is all very heartening from what I’m seeing in medical training.

Dr. Glatter: There’s no formal rating system for DEI curriculums right now, like ranking of this school, or this program has more advanced recognition in terms of DEI?

Dr. Ho: No, but on the flip side, the U.S. News & World Report was classically one of the major rankings for medical schools. What we saw fairly recently was that very high-tier schools like Harvard and University of Chicago pulled out of that ranking because that ranking did not acknowledge the value of diversity. That was an incredible stance for medical schools to take, to say, “Hey, you are not evaluating an important criterion of ours.”

Dr. Glatter: That’s a great point. Júlia, where are we now in Brazil in terms of awareness of DEI and curriculum in schools and training programs?

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Our reality is not as good as in the U.S., unfortunately. I don’t see much discussion on residency programs or medical schools at the moment. I see many students bringing it out and trying to make their schools engage in that discussion. This is something that is coming from the bottom up and not from the top down. I think it can lead to change as well. It is a step and it’s a beginning. Institutions should take the responsibility of doing this from the beginning. This is something where Brazil is still years behind you guys.

Dr. Glatter: It’s unfortunate, but certainly it’s important to hear that. What about in Canada and certainly your institution, McGill, where you just completed a master’s degree?

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Canada is very much like the U.S. This is something that is really happening and it’s happening fast. I see, at least at McGill, a large amount of DEI inclusion and everything on this discussion. They have institutional courses for us to do as students, and we are all obliged to do many courses, which I think is really educating, especially for people with different cultures and backgrounds.

Dr. Glatter: Amy, where do you think we are in emergency medicine to look at the other side of it? Comparing surgery with emergency medicine, do you think we’re well advanced in terms of DEI, inclusion criteria, respect, and dignity, or are we really far off?

Dr. Ho: I may be biased, but I think emergency medicine is one of the best in terms of this, and I think there are a couple of reasons for it. One is that we are an inherently team-based organization. The attending, the residents, and the students all work in line with one another. There’s less of a hierarchy.

The same is true for our nurses, pharmacists, techs, and EMS. We all work together as a team. Because of that fairly flat structure, it’s really easy for us to value one another as individuals with our diverse backgrounds. In a way, that’s harder for specialties that are more hierarchical, and I think surgery is certainly one of the most hierarchical.

The second reason why emergency medicine is fairly well off in this is that we’re, by nature, a safety-net specialty. We see patients of all-comers, all walks, all backgrounds. I think we both recognize the value of physician-patient concordance. When we share characteristics with our patients, we recognize that value immediately at the bedside.

It exposes us to so much diversity. I see a refugee one day and the next patient is someone who is incarcerated. The next patient after that is an important businessman in society. That diversity and whiplash in the type of patients that we see back-to-back helps us see the playing field in a really flat, diverse way. Because of that, I think our culture is much better, as is our understanding of the value and importance of diversity not only for our programs, but also for our patients.
 

Do female doctors have better patient outcomes?

Dr. Glatter: Specialties working together in the emergency department is so important. Building that team and that togetherness is so critical. Júlia, would you agree?

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Definitely. Something Amy said that is beautiful is that you recognize yourself in these patients. In surgery, we are taught to try to be away from the patients and not to put ourselves in the same position. We are taught to be less engaging, and this is not good. The good thing is when we really have patient-centered care, when we listen to them, and when we are involved with them.

I saw a publication showing that female and male surgeons treating similar patients had the same surgical outcomes. Women are as good as men technically to do surgery and have the same surgical outcomes. However, there is research showing that surgical teams with greater representation of women have improved surgical outcomes because of patient-centered care and the way women conduct bedside attention to patients. And they have better patient experience measures afterward. That is not only from the women who are treating the patients, but the whole environment. Women end up bringing men [into the conversation] and this better improves patient-centered care, and that makes the whole team a better team attending patients. Definitely, we are in the moment of patient experience and satisfaction, and increasing women is a way of achieving better patient satisfaction and experience.

Dr. Ho: There’s much to be said about having female clinicians available for patients. It doesn’t have to be just for female patients, although again, concordance between physicians and patients is certainly beneficial. Besides outcomes benefit, there’s even just a communication benefit. The way that women and men communicate is inherently different. The way women and men experience certain things is also inherently different.

A classic example of this is women who are experiencing a heart attack may not actually have chest pain but present with nausea. As a female who’s sensitive to this, when I see a woman throwing up, I am very attuned to something actually being wrong, knowing that they may not present with classic pain for a syndrome, but actually may be presenting with nausea instead. It doesn’t have to be a woman who takes that knowledge and turns it into something at the bedside. It certainly doesn’t have to, but it is just a natural, easy thing to step into as a female.

While I’m really careful to not step into this “women are better than men” or “men are better than women” argument, there’s something to be said about how the availability of female clinicians for all patients, not just female patients, can have benefit. Again, it’s shown in studies with cardiovascular outcomes and cardiologists, it’s certainly shown in ob.gyn., particularly for underrepresented minorities as well for maternal outcomes of Black mothers. It’s certainly shown again in patient satisfaction, which is concordance.

There is a profound level of research already on this that goes beyond just the idea of stacking the bench and putting more women in there. That’s not the value. We’re not just here to check off the box. We’re here to actually lend some value to our patients and, again, to one another as well.

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. These are excellent points. The point you make about patient presentation is so vital. The fact that women have nausea sometimes in ACS presentations, the research never was really attentive to this. It was biased. The symptoms that women may have that are not “typical” for ACS weren’t included in patient presentations. Educating everyone about, overall, the types of presentations that we can recognize is vital and important.

Dr. Ho: Yes. It’s worth saying that, when you look at how medicine and research developed, classically, who were the research participants? They were often White men. They were college students who, historically, because women were not allowed to go to college, were men.

I say that not to fault the institution, because that was the culture of our history, but to just say it is okay to question things. It is okay to realize that someone’s presenting outside of the box and that maybe we actually need to reframe what even created the walls of the box in the first place.

Dr. Glatter: Thank you again for joining us. I truly appreciate your insight and expertise.

Dr. Glatter is assistant professor of emergency medicine, department of emergency medicine, Hofstra/Northwell, New York. Dr. Ho is senior vice president of clinical informatics & analytics, department of emergency medicine, Integrative Emergency Services, Dallas. Dr. Loyola Ferreira is a master of science candidate, department of experimental surgery, McGill University, Montreal. They reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me to discuss ways to address and reform the toxic culture associated with medical training is Dr. Amy Faith Ho, senior vice president of clinical informatics and analytics at Integrative Emergency Services in Dallas. Also joining us is Dr. Júlia Loyola Ferreira, a pediatric surgeon originally from Brazil, now practicing at Montreal Children’s and focused on advocacy for gender equity and patient-centered care.

Welcome to both of you. Thanks so much for joining me.

Amy Faith Ho, MD, MPH: Thanks so much for having us, Rob.

Dr. Glatter: Amy, I noticed a tweet recently where you talked about how your career choice was affected by the toxic environment in medical school, affecting your choice of residency. Can you elaborate on that?

Dr. Ho: This is a super-important topic, not in just one specialty but in all of medicine, because what you’re talking about is toxic workplace culture that is certainly directed toward certain groups. In this instance, what we’re talking about is gender, but it can be directed toward any number of other groups as well.

What you’re alluding to is a tweet by Stanford Surgery Group showing the next residency class, and what was really stunning about this residency class was that it was almost all females. And this was something that took off on social media.

When I saw this, I was really brought back to one of my personal experiences that I chose to share, which was basically that, as a medical student, I really wanted to be a surgeon. I’m an emergency medicine doctor now, so you know that didn’t happen.

The story that I was sharing was that when I was a third-year medical student rotating on surgery, we had a male attending who was very well known at that school at the time who basically would take the female medical students, and instead of clinic, he would round us up. He would have us sit around him in the workplace room while everyone else was seeing patients, and he would have you look at news clippings of himself. He would tell you stories about himself, like he was holding court for the ladies.

It was this very weird culture where my takeaway as a med student was like, “Wow, this is kind of abusive patriarchy that is supported,” because everyone knew about it and was complicit. Even though I really liked surgery, this was just one instance and one example of where you see this culture that really resonates into the rest of life that I didn’t really want to be a part of.

I went into emergency medicine and loved it. It’s also highly procedural, and I was very happy with where I was. What was really interesting about this tweet to me, though, is that it really took off and garnered hundreds of thousands of views on a very niche topic, because what was most revealing is that everyone has a story like this.

It is not just surgery. It is definitely not just one specialty and it is not just one school. It is an endemic problem in medicine. Not only does it change the lives of young women, but it also says so much about the complicity and the culture that we have in medicine that many people were upset about just the same way I was.
 

Medical training experience in other countries vs. the United States

Dr. Glatter: Júlia, I want to hear about your experience in medical school, surgery, and then fellowship training and up to the present, if possible.

Júlia Loyola Ferreira, MD: In Brazil, as in many countries now, women have made up the majority of the medical students since 2010. It’s a more female-friendly environment when you’re going through medical school, and I was lucky enough to do rotations in areas of surgery where people were friendly to women.

I lived in this tiny bubble that also gave me the privilege of not facing some things that I can imagine that people in Brazil in different areas and smaller towns face. In Brazil, people try to not talk about this gender agenda. This is something that’s being talked about outside Brazil. But in Brazil, we are years back. People are not really engaging on this conversation. I thought it was going to be hard for me as a woman, because Brazil has around 20% female surgeons.

I knew it was going to be challenging, but I had no idea how bad it was. When I started and things started happening, the list was big. I have an example of everything that is written about – microaggression, implicit bias, discrimination, harassment.

Every time I would try to speak about it and talk to someone, I would be strongly gaslighted. It was the whole training, the whole 5 years. People would say, “Oh, I don’t think it was like that. I think you were overreacting.” People would come with all these different answers for what I was experiencing, and that was frustrating. That was even harder because I had to cope with everything that was happening and I had no one to turn to. I had no mentors.

When I looked up to women who were in surgery, they would be tougher on us young surgeons than the men and they would tell us that we should not complain because in their time it was even harder. Now, it’s getting better and we are supposed to accept whatever comes.

That was at least a little bit of what I experienced in my training. It was only after I finished and started to do research about it that I really encountered a field of people who would echo what I was trying to say to many people in different hospitals that I attended to.

That was the key for me to get out of that situation of being gaslighted and of not being able to really talk about it. Suddenly, I started to publish things about Brazil that nobody was even writing or studying. That gave me a large amount of responsibility, but also motivation to keep going and to see the change.
 

Valuing women in medicine

Dr. Glatter: This is a very important point that you’re raising about the environment of women being hard on other women. We know that men can be very difficult on and also judgmental toward their trainees.

Amy, how would you respond to that? Was your experience similar in emergency medicine training?

Dr. Ho: I actually don’t feel like it was. I think what Júlia is alluding to is this “mean girls” idea, of “I went through it and thus you have to go through it.” I think you do see this in many specialties. One of the classic ones we hear about, and I don’t want to speak to it too much because it’s not my specialty, is ob.gyn., where it is a very female-dominant surgery group. There’s almost a hazing level that you hear about in some of the more malignant workplaces.

I think that you speak to two really important things. Number one is the numbers game. As you were saying, Brazil actually has many women. That’s awesome. That’s actually different from the United States, especially for the historic, existing workplace and less so for the medical students and for residents. I think step one is having minorities like women just present and there.

Step two is actually including and valuing them. While I think it’s really easy to move away from the women discussion, because there are women when you look around in medicine, it doesn’t mean that women are actually being heard, that they’re actually being accepted, or that their viewpoints are being listened to. A big part of it is normalizing not only seeing women in medicine but also normalizing the narrative of women in medicine.

It’s not just about motherhood; it’s about things like normalizing talking about advancement, academic promotions, pay, culture, being called things like “too reactive,” “anxious,” or “too assertive.” These are all classic things that we hear about when we talk about women.

That’s why we’re looking to not only conversations like this, but also structured ways for women to discuss being women in medicine. There are many women in medicine groups in emergency medicine, including: Females Working in Emergency Medicine (FemInEM); the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) women’s groups, which are American Association of Women Emergency Physicians (AAWEP) and Academy for Women in Academic Emergency Medicine (AWAEM), respectively; and the American Medical Women’s Association (AMWA), which is the American Medical Association’s offshoot.

All of these groups are geared toward normalizing women in medicine, normalizing the narrative of women in medicine, and then working on mentoring and educating so that we can advance our initiatives.
 

Gender balance is not gender equity

Dr. Glatter: Amy, you bring up a very critical point that mentoring is sort of the antidote to gender-based discrimination. Júlia had written a paper back in November of 2022 that was published in the Journal of Surgical Research talking exactly about this and how important it is to develop mentoring. Part of her research showed that about 20% of medical students who took the survey, about 1,000 people, had mentors, which was very disturbing.

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Mentorship is one of the ways of changing the reality about gender-based discrimination. Amy’s comment was very strong and we need to really keep saying it, which is that gender balance is not gender equity.

The idea of having more women is not the same as women being recognized as equals, as able as men, and as valued as men. To change this very long culture of male domination, we need support, and this support comes from mentorship.

Although I didn’t have one, I feel that since I started being a mentor for some students, it changed not only them but myself. It gave me strength to keep going, studying, publishing, and going further with this discussion. I feel like the relationship was as good for them as it is for me. That’s how things change.
 

Diversity, equity, and inclusion training

Dr. Glatter: We’re talking about the reality of gender equity in terms of the ability to have equal respect, recognition, opportunities, and access. That’s really an important point to realize, and for our audience, to understand that gender equity is not gender balance.

Amy, I want to talk about medical school curriculums. Are there advances that you’re aware of being made at certain schools, programs, even in residencies, to enforce these things and make it a priority?

Dr. Ho: We’re really lucky that, as a culture in the United States, medical training is certainly very geared toward diversity. Some of that is certainly unofficial. Some of that just means when they’re looking at a medical school class or looking at rank lists for residency, that they’re cognizant of the different backgrounds that people have. That’s still a step. That is a step, that we’re at least acknowledging it.

There are multiple medical schools and residencies that have more formal unconscious-bias training or diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training, both of which are excellent not only for us in the workplace but also for our patients. Almost all of us will see patients of highly diverse backgrounds. I think the biggest push is looking toward the criteria that we use for selecting trainees and students into our programs. Historically, it’s been MCAT, GPA, and so on.

We’ve really started to ask the question of, are these sorts of “objective criteria” actually biased in institutional ways? They talk about this all the time where GPAs will bias against students from underrepresented minorities (URM). I think all medical students and residencies have really acknowledged that. Although there are still test cutoffs, we are putting an inquisitive eye to what those mean, why they exist, and what are the other things that we should consider. This is all very heartening from what I’m seeing in medical training.

Dr. Glatter: There’s no formal rating system for DEI curriculums right now, like ranking of this school, or this program has more advanced recognition in terms of DEI?

Dr. Ho: No, but on the flip side, the U.S. News & World Report was classically one of the major rankings for medical schools. What we saw fairly recently was that very high-tier schools like Harvard and University of Chicago pulled out of that ranking because that ranking did not acknowledge the value of diversity. That was an incredible stance for medical schools to take, to say, “Hey, you are not evaluating an important criterion of ours.”

Dr. Glatter: That’s a great point. Júlia, where are we now in Brazil in terms of awareness of DEI and curriculum in schools and training programs?

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Our reality is not as good as in the U.S., unfortunately. I don’t see much discussion on residency programs or medical schools at the moment. I see many students bringing it out and trying to make their schools engage in that discussion. This is something that is coming from the bottom up and not from the top down. I think it can lead to change as well. It is a step and it’s a beginning. Institutions should take the responsibility of doing this from the beginning. This is something where Brazil is still years behind you guys.

Dr. Glatter: It’s unfortunate, but certainly it’s important to hear that. What about in Canada and certainly your institution, McGill, where you just completed a master’s degree?

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Canada is very much like the U.S. This is something that is really happening and it’s happening fast. I see, at least at McGill, a large amount of DEI inclusion and everything on this discussion. They have institutional courses for us to do as students, and we are all obliged to do many courses, which I think is really educating, especially for people with different cultures and backgrounds.

Dr. Glatter: Amy, where do you think we are in emergency medicine to look at the other side of it? Comparing surgery with emergency medicine, do you think we’re well advanced in terms of DEI, inclusion criteria, respect, and dignity, or are we really far off?

Dr. Ho: I may be biased, but I think emergency medicine is one of the best in terms of this, and I think there are a couple of reasons for it. One is that we are an inherently team-based organization. The attending, the residents, and the students all work in line with one another. There’s less of a hierarchy.

The same is true for our nurses, pharmacists, techs, and EMS. We all work together as a team. Because of that fairly flat structure, it’s really easy for us to value one another as individuals with our diverse backgrounds. In a way, that’s harder for specialties that are more hierarchical, and I think surgery is certainly one of the most hierarchical.

The second reason why emergency medicine is fairly well off in this is that we’re, by nature, a safety-net specialty. We see patients of all-comers, all walks, all backgrounds. I think we both recognize the value of physician-patient concordance. When we share characteristics with our patients, we recognize that value immediately at the bedside.

It exposes us to so much diversity. I see a refugee one day and the next patient is someone who is incarcerated. The next patient after that is an important businessman in society. That diversity and whiplash in the type of patients that we see back-to-back helps us see the playing field in a really flat, diverse way. Because of that, I think our culture is much better, as is our understanding of the value and importance of diversity not only for our programs, but also for our patients.
 

Do female doctors have better patient outcomes?

Dr. Glatter: Specialties working together in the emergency department is so important. Building that team and that togetherness is so critical. Júlia, would you agree?

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Definitely. Something Amy said that is beautiful is that you recognize yourself in these patients. In surgery, we are taught to try to be away from the patients and not to put ourselves in the same position. We are taught to be less engaging, and this is not good. The good thing is when we really have patient-centered care, when we listen to them, and when we are involved with them.

I saw a publication showing that female and male surgeons treating similar patients had the same surgical outcomes. Women are as good as men technically to do surgery and have the same surgical outcomes. However, there is research showing that surgical teams with greater representation of women have improved surgical outcomes because of patient-centered care and the way women conduct bedside attention to patients. And they have better patient experience measures afterward. That is not only from the women who are treating the patients, but the whole environment. Women end up bringing men [into the conversation] and this better improves patient-centered care, and that makes the whole team a better team attending patients. Definitely, we are in the moment of patient experience and satisfaction, and increasing women is a way of achieving better patient satisfaction and experience.

Dr. Ho: There’s much to be said about having female clinicians available for patients. It doesn’t have to be just for female patients, although again, concordance between physicians and patients is certainly beneficial. Besides outcomes benefit, there’s even just a communication benefit. The way that women and men communicate is inherently different. The way women and men experience certain things is also inherently different.

A classic example of this is women who are experiencing a heart attack may not actually have chest pain but present with nausea. As a female who’s sensitive to this, when I see a woman throwing up, I am very attuned to something actually being wrong, knowing that they may not present with classic pain for a syndrome, but actually may be presenting with nausea instead. It doesn’t have to be a woman who takes that knowledge and turns it into something at the bedside. It certainly doesn’t have to, but it is just a natural, easy thing to step into as a female.

While I’m really careful to not step into this “women are better than men” or “men are better than women” argument, there’s something to be said about how the availability of female clinicians for all patients, not just female patients, can have benefit. Again, it’s shown in studies with cardiovascular outcomes and cardiologists, it’s certainly shown in ob.gyn., particularly for underrepresented minorities as well for maternal outcomes of Black mothers. It’s certainly shown again in patient satisfaction, which is concordance.

There is a profound level of research already on this that goes beyond just the idea of stacking the bench and putting more women in there. That’s not the value. We’re not just here to check off the box. We’re here to actually lend some value to our patients and, again, to one another as well.

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. These are excellent points. The point you make about patient presentation is so vital. The fact that women have nausea sometimes in ACS presentations, the research never was really attentive to this. It was biased. The symptoms that women may have that are not “typical” for ACS weren’t included in patient presentations. Educating everyone about, overall, the types of presentations that we can recognize is vital and important.

Dr. Ho: Yes. It’s worth saying that, when you look at how medicine and research developed, classically, who were the research participants? They were often White men. They were college students who, historically, because women were not allowed to go to college, were men.

I say that not to fault the institution, because that was the culture of our history, but to just say it is okay to question things. It is okay to realize that someone’s presenting outside of the box and that maybe we actually need to reframe what even created the walls of the box in the first place.

Dr. Glatter: Thank you again for joining us. I truly appreciate your insight and expertise.

Dr. Glatter is assistant professor of emergency medicine, department of emergency medicine, Hofstra/Northwell, New York. Dr. Ho is senior vice president of clinical informatics & analytics, department of emergency medicine, Integrative Emergency Services, Dallas. Dr. Loyola Ferreira is a master of science candidate, department of experimental surgery, McGill University, Montreal. They reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

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

As doctors and researchers learn more about long COVID, an interesting fact has emerged: Women experiencing menopause and perimenopause appear to be more likely to experience serious complications from the virus.
 

British researchers have noted that women at midlife who have long COVID seem to get specific, and severe, symptoms, including brain fog, fatigue, new-onset dizziness, and difficulty sleeping through the night. 

Doctors also think it’s possible that long COVID worsens the symptoms of perimenopause and menopause. Lower levels of estrogen and testosterone appear to be the reason.

“A long COVID theory is that there is a temporary disruption to physiological ovarian steroid hormone production, which could [worsen] symptoms of perimenopause and menopause,” said JoAnn V. Pinkerton, MD, professor of obstetrics at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and executive director of the North American Menopause Society.

Long COVID symptoms and menopause symptoms can also be very hard to tell apart. 

Another U.K. study cautions that because of this kind of symptom overlap, women at midlife may be misdiagnosed. Research from the North American Menopause Society shows that many women may have trouble recovering from long COVID unless their hormone deficiency is treated. 
 

What are the symptoms of long COVID?

There are over 200 symptoms that have been associated with long COVID, according to the American Medical Association. Some common symptoms are currently defined as the following: feeling extremely tired, feeling depleted after exertion, cognitive issues such as brain fog, heart beating over 100 times a minute, and a loss of sense of smell and taste. 

Long COVID symptoms begin a few weeks to a few months after a COVID infection. They can last an indefinite amount of time, but “the hope is that long COVID will not be lifelong,” said Clare Flannery, MD, an endocrinologist and associate professor in the departments of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences and internal medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. 
 

What are the symptoms of menopause?

Some symptoms of menopause include vaginal infections, irregular bleeding, urinary problems, and sexual problems.

Women in their middle years have other symptoms that can be the same as perimenopause/menopause symptoms. 

“Common symptoms of perimenopause and menopause which may also be symptoms ascribed to long COVID include hot flashes, night sweats, disrupted sleep, low mood, depression or anxiety, decreased concentration, memory problems, joint and muscle pains, and headaches,” Dr. Pinkerton said. 
 

Can long COVID actually bring on menopause? 

In short: Possibly.

A new study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology/Patient-Led Research Collaborative/University of California, San Francisco, found that long COVID can cause disruptions to a woman’s menstrual cycle, ovaries, fertility, and menopause itself. 

This could be caused by chronic inflammation caused by long COVID on hormones as well. This kind of inflammatory response could explain irregularities in a woman’s menstrual cycle, according to the Newson Health Research and Education study. For instance, “when the body has inflammation, ovulation can happen,” Dr. Flannery said. 

The mechanism for how long COVID could spur menopause can also involve a woman’s ovaries. 

“Since the theory is that COVID affects the ovary with declines in ovarian reserve and ovarian function, it makes sense that long COVID could bring on symptoms of perimenopause or menopause more acutely or more severely and lengthen the symptoms of the perimenopause and menopausal transition,” Dr. Pinkerton said. 
 

How can hormone replacement therapy benefit women dealing with long COVID during menopause?

Estradiol, the strongest estrogen hormone in a woman’s body, has already been shown to have a positive effect against COVID.

“Estradiol therapy treats symptoms more aggressively in the setting of long COVID,” said Dr. Flannery.

Estradiol is also a form of hormone therapy for menopause symptoms. 

“Estradiol has been shown to help hot flashes, night sweats, and sleep and improve mood during perimenopause,” said Dr. Pinkerton. “So it’s likely that perimenopausal or menopausal women with long COVID would see improvements both due to the action of estradiol on the ovary seen during COVID and the improvements in symptoms.”

Estrogen-based hormone therapy has been linked to an increased risk for endometrial, breast, and ovarian cancer, according to the American Cancer Society. This means you should carefully consider how comfortable you are with those additional risks before starting this kind of therapy.

“Which of your symptoms are the most difficult to manage? You may see if you can navigate one to three of them. What are you willing to do for your symptoms? If a woman is willing to favor her sleep for the next 6 months to a year, she may be willing to change how she perceives her risk for cancer,” Dr. Flannery said. “What risk is a woman willing to take? I think if someone has a very low concern about a risk of cancer, and she’s suffering a disrupted life, then taking estradiol in a 1- to 2-year trial period could be critical to help.” 
 

What else can help ease long COVID during menopause? 

Getting the COVID vaccine, as well as getting a booster, could help. Not only will this help prevent people from being reinfected with COVID, which can worsen symptoms, but a new Swedish study says there is no evidence that it will cause postmenopausal problems like irregular bleeding.

“Weak and inconsistent associations were observed between SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and healthcare contacts for bleeding in women who are postmenopausal, and even less evidence was recorded of an association for menstrual disturbance or bleeding in women who were premenopausal,” said study coauthor Rickard Ljung, MD, PhD, MPH, professor and acting head of the pharmacoepidemiology and analysis department in the division of use and information of the Swedish Medical Products Agency in Uppsala.

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

As doctors and researchers learn more about long COVID, an interesting fact has emerged: Women experiencing menopause and perimenopause appear to be more likely to experience serious complications from the virus.
 

British researchers have noted that women at midlife who have long COVID seem to get specific, and severe, symptoms, including brain fog, fatigue, new-onset dizziness, and difficulty sleeping through the night. 

Doctors also think it’s possible that long COVID worsens the symptoms of perimenopause and menopause. Lower levels of estrogen and testosterone appear to be the reason.

“A long COVID theory is that there is a temporary disruption to physiological ovarian steroid hormone production, which could [worsen] symptoms of perimenopause and menopause,” said JoAnn V. Pinkerton, MD, professor of obstetrics at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and executive director of the North American Menopause Society.

Long COVID symptoms and menopause symptoms can also be very hard to tell apart. 

Another U.K. study cautions that because of this kind of symptom overlap, women at midlife may be misdiagnosed. Research from the North American Menopause Society shows that many women may have trouble recovering from long COVID unless their hormone deficiency is treated. 
 

What are the symptoms of long COVID?

There are over 200 symptoms that have been associated with long COVID, according to the American Medical Association. Some common symptoms are currently defined as the following: feeling extremely tired, feeling depleted after exertion, cognitive issues such as brain fog, heart beating over 100 times a minute, and a loss of sense of smell and taste. 

Long COVID symptoms begin a few weeks to a few months after a COVID infection. They can last an indefinite amount of time, but “the hope is that long COVID will not be lifelong,” said Clare Flannery, MD, an endocrinologist and associate professor in the departments of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences and internal medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. 
 

What are the symptoms of menopause?

Some symptoms of menopause include vaginal infections, irregular bleeding, urinary problems, and sexual problems.

Women in their middle years have other symptoms that can be the same as perimenopause/menopause symptoms. 

“Common symptoms of perimenopause and menopause which may also be symptoms ascribed to long COVID include hot flashes, night sweats, disrupted sleep, low mood, depression or anxiety, decreased concentration, memory problems, joint and muscle pains, and headaches,” Dr. Pinkerton said. 
 

Can long COVID actually bring on menopause? 

In short: Possibly.

A new study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology/Patient-Led Research Collaborative/University of California, San Francisco, found that long COVID can cause disruptions to a woman’s menstrual cycle, ovaries, fertility, and menopause itself. 

This could be caused by chronic inflammation caused by long COVID on hormones as well. This kind of inflammatory response could explain irregularities in a woman’s menstrual cycle, according to the Newson Health Research and Education study. For instance, “when the body has inflammation, ovulation can happen,” Dr. Flannery said. 

The mechanism for how long COVID could spur menopause can also involve a woman’s ovaries. 

“Since the theory is that COVID affects the ovary with declines in ovarian reserve and ovarian function, it makes sense that long COVID could bring on symptoms of perimenopause or menopause more acutely or more severely and lengthen the symptoms of the perimenopause and menopausal transition,” Dr. Pinkerton said. 
 

How can hormone replacement therapy benefit women dealing with long COVID during menopause?

Estradiol, the strongest estrogen hormone in a woman’s body, has already been shown to have a positive effect against COVID.

“Estradiol therapy treats symptoms more aggressively in the setting of long COVID,” said Dr. Flannery.

Estradiol is also a form of hormone therapy for menopause symptoms. 

“Estradiol has been shown to help hot flashes, night sweats, and sleep and improve mood during perimenopause,” said Dr. Pinkerton. “So it’s likely that perimenopausal or menopausal women with long COVID would see improvements both due to the action of estradiol on the ovary seen during COVID and the improvements in symptoms.”

Estrogen-based hormone therapy has been linked to an increased risk for endometrial, breast, and ovarian cancer, according to the American Cancer Society. This means you should carefully consider how comfortable you are with those additional risks before starting this kind of therapy.

“Which of your symptoms are the most difficult to manage? You may see if you can navigate one to three of them. What are you willing to do for your symptoms? If a woman is willing to favor her sleep for the next 6 months to a year, she may be willing to change how she perceives her risk for cancer,” Dr. Flannery said. “What risk is a woman willing to take? I think if someone has a very low concern about a risk of cancer, and she’s suffering a disrupted life, then taking estradiol in a 1- to 2-year trial period could be critical to help.” 
 

What else can help ease long COVID during menopause? 

Getting the COVID vaccine, as well as getting a booster, could help. Not only will this help prevent people from being reinfected with COVID, which can worsen symptoms, but a new Swedish study says there is no evidence that it will cause postmenopausal problems like irregular bleeding.

“Weak and inconsistent associations were observed between SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and healthcare contacts for bleeding in women who are postmenopausal, and even less evidence was recorded of an association for menstrual disturbance or bleeding in women who were premenopausal,” said study coauthor Rickard Ljung, MD, PhD, MPH, professor and acting head of the pharmacoepidemiology and analysis department in the division of use and information of the Swedish Medical Products Agency in Uppsala.

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

As doctors and researchers learn more about long COVID, an interesting fact has emerged: Women experiencing menopause and perimenopause appear to be more likely to experience serious complications from the virus.
 

British researchers have noted that women at midlife who have long COVID seem to get specific, and severe, symptoms, including brain fog, fatigue, new-onset dizziness, and difficulty sleeping through the night. 

Doctors also think it’s possible that long COVID worsens the symptoms of perimenopause and menopause. Lower levels of estrogen and testosterone appear to be the reason.

“A long COVID theory is that there is a temporary disruption to physiological ovarian steroid hormone production, which could [worsen] symptoms of perimenopause and menopause,” said JoAnn V. Pinkerton, MD, professor of obstetrics at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and executive director of the North American Menopause Society.

Long COVID symptoms and menopause symptoms can also be very hard to tell apart. 

Another U.K. study cautions that because of this kind of symptom overlap, women at midlife may be misdiagnosed. Research from the North American Menopause Society shows that many women may have trouble recovering from long COVID unless their hormone deficiency is treated. 
 

What are the symptoms of long COVID?

There are over 200 symptoms that have been associated with long COVID, according to the American Medical Association. Some common symptoms are currently defined as the following: feeling extremely tired, feeling depleted after exertion, cognitive issues such as brain fog, heart beating over 100 times a minute, and a loss of sense of smell and taste. 

Long COVID symptoms begin a few weeks to a few months after a COVID infection. They can last an indefinite amount of time, but “the hope is that long COVID will not be lifelong,” said Clare Flannery, MD, an endocrinologist and associate professor in the departments of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences and internal medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. 
 

What are the symptoms of menopause?

Some symptoms of menopause include vaginal infections, irregular bleeding, urinary problems, and sexual problems.

Women in their middle years have other symptoms that can be the same as perimenopause/menopause symptoms. 

“Common symptoms of perimenopause and menopause which may also be symptoms ascribed to long COVID include hot flashes, night sweats, disrupted sleep, low mood, depression or anxiety, decreased concentration, memory problems, joint and muscle pains, and headaches,” Dr. Pinkerton said. 
 

Can long COVID actually bring on menopause? 

In short: Possibly.

A new study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology/Patient-Led Research Collaborative/University of California, San Francisco, found that long COVID can cause disruptions to a woman’s menstrual cycle, ovaries, fertility, and menopause itself. 

This could be caused by chronic inflammation caused by long COVID on hormones as well. This kind of inflammatory response could explain irregularities in a woman’s menstrual cycle, according to the Newson Health Research and Education study. For instance, “when the body has inflammation, ovulation can happen,” Dr. Flannery said. 

The mechanism for how long COVID could spur menopause can also involve a woman’s ovaries. 

“Since the theory is that COVID affects the ovary with declines in ovarian reserve and ovarian function, it makes sense that long COVID could bring on symptoms of perimenopause or menopause more acutely or more severely and lengthen the symptoms of the perimenopause and menopausal transition,” Dr. Pinkerton said. 
 

How can hormone replacement therapy benefit women dealing with long COVID during menopause?

Estradiol, the strongest estrogen hormone in a woman’s body, has already been shown to have a positive effect against COVID.

“Estradiol therapy treats symptoms more aggressively in the setting of long COVID,” said Dr. Flannery.

Estradiol is also a form of hormone therapy for menopause symptoms. 

“Estradiol has been shown to help hot flashes, night sweats, and sleep and improve mood during perimenopause,” said Dr. Pinkerton. “So it’s likely that perimenopausal or menopausal women with long COVID would see improvements both due to the action of estradiol on the ovary seen during COVID and the improvements in symptoms.”

Estrogen-based hormone therapy has been linked to an increased risk for endometrial, breast, and ovarian cancer, according to the American Cancer Society. This means you should carefully consider how comfortable you are with those additional risks before starting this kind of therapy.

“Which of your symptoms are the most difficult to manage? You may see if you can navigate one to three of them. What are you willing to do for your symptoms? If a woman is willing to favor her sleep for the next 6 months to a year, she may be willing to change how she perceives her risk for cancer,” Dr. Flannery said. “What risk is a woman willing to take? I think if someone has a very low concern about a risk of cancer, and she’s suffering a disrupted life, then taking estradiol in a 1- to 2-year trial period could be critical to help.” 
 

What else can help ease long COVID during menopause? 

Getting the COVID vaccine, as well as getting a booster, could help. Not only will this help prevent people from being reinfected with COVID, which can worsen symptoms, but a new Swedish study says there is no evidence that it will cause postmenopausal problems like irregular bleeding.

“Weak and inconsistent associations were observed between SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and healthcare contacts for bleeding in women who are postmenopausal, and even less evidence was recorded of an association for menstrual disturbance or bleeding in women who were premenopausal,” said study coauthor Rickard Ljung, MD, PhD, MPH, professor and acting head of the pharmacoepidemiology and analysis department in the division of use and information of the Swedish Medical Products Agency in Uppsala.

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

TOPLINE:

COVID-19 vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech are safe for children under age 5 years, according to findings from a study funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

METHODOLOGY:

• Data came from the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which gathers information from eight health systems in the United States.
• Analyzed data from 135,005 doses given to children age 4 and younger who received the Pfizer-BioNTech , and 112,006 doses given to children aged 5 and younger who received the Moderna version.
• Assessed for 23 safety outcomes, including myocarditis, pericarditis, and seizures.

TAKEAWAY:

• None of the adverse outcomes, including myocarditis or pericarditis, was detected among the children in the 21 days following receipt of either vaccine.
• One case of hemorrhagic stroke and one case of pulmonary embolism occurred after vaccination but these were linked to preexisting congenital abnormalities.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results can provide reassurance to clinicians, parents, and policymakers alike.”

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was led by Kristin Goddard, MPH, a researcher at the Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center in Oakland, Calif., and was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers reported low statistical power for early analysis, especially for rare outcomes. In addition, fewer than 25% of children in the database had received a vaccine at the time of analysis.  

DISCLOSURES:

A coauthor reported receiving funding from Janssen Vaccines and Prevention for a study unrelated to COVID-19 vaccines. Another coauthor reported receiving grants from Pfizer in 2019 for clinical trials for coronavirus vaccines, and from Merck, GSK, and Sanofi Pasteur for unrelated research.

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

TOPLINE:

COVID-19 vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech are safe for children under age 5 years, according to findings from a study funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

METHODOLOGY:

• Data came from the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which gathers information from eight health systems in the United States.
• Analyzed data from 135,005 doses given to children age 4 and younger who received the Pfizer-BioNTech , and 112,006 doses given to children aged 5 and younger who received the Moderna version.
• Assessed for 23 safety outcomes, including myocarditis, pericarditis, and seizures.

TAKEAWAY:

• None of the adverse outcomes, including myocarditis or pericarditis, was detected among the children in the 21 days following receipt of either vaccine.
• One case of hemorrhagic stroke and one case of pulmonary embolism occurred after vaccination but these were linked to preexisting congenital abnormalities.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results can provide reassurance to clinicians, parents, and policymakers alike.”

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was led by Kristin Goddard, MPH, a researcher at the Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center in Oakland, Calif., and was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers reported low statistical power for early analysis, especially for rare outcomes. In addition, fewer than 25% of children in the database had received a vaccine at the time of analysis.  

DISCLOSURES:

A coauthor reported receiving funding from Janssen Vaccines and Prevention for a study unrelated to COVID-19 vaccines. Another coauthor reported receiving grants from Pfizer in 2019 for clinical trials for coronavirus vaccines, and from Merck, GSK, and Sanofi Pasteur for unrelated research.

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

TOPLINE:

COVID-19 vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech are safe for children under age 5 years, according to findings from a study funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

METHODOLOGY:

• Data came from the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which gathers information from eight health systems in the United States.
• Analyzed data from 135,005 doses given to children age 4 and younger who received the Pfizer-BioNTech , and 112,006 doses given to children aged 5 and younger who received the Moderna version.
• Assessed for 23 safety outcomes, including myocarditis, pericarditis, and seizures.

TAKEAWAY:

• None of the adverse outcomes, including myocarditis or pericarditis, was detected among the children in the 21 days following receipt of either vaccine.
• One case of hemorrhagic stroke and one case of pulmonary embolism occurred after vaccination but these were linked to preexisting congenital abnormalities.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results can provide reassurance to clinicians, parents, and policymakers alike.”

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was led by Kristin Goddard, MPH, a researcher at the Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center in Oakland, Calif., and was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers reported low statistical power for early analysis, especially for rare outcomes. In addition, fewer than 25% of children in the database had received a vaccine at the time of analysis.  

DISCLOSURES:

A coauthor reported receiving funding from Janssen Vaccines and Prevention for a study unrelated to COVID-19 vaccines. Another coauthor reported receiving grants from Pfizer in 2019 for clinical trials for coronavirus vaccines, and from Merck, GSK, and Sanofi Pasteur for unrelated research.

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

At the end of 2022, the European Medicines Agency’s Emergency Task Force warned European regulatory bodies, governments, and doctors that monoclonal antibodies authorized for COVID-19 are unlikely to be effective against emerging strains of SARS-CoV-2. Antiviral drugs remain available but have many limitations. And, of course, there are still vaccines, which can significantly reduce (but not remove) the risk of severe cases and decrease the number of deaths, although they have lost the efficacy that they once had in countering the original virus.

Research therefore continues. Immunologists continue to search for new targets to synthesize broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibodies for treating or preventing the infection. These results could also lead to new vaccines that induce longer-lasting immunity not only against the thousands of subvariants and recombinant versions of SARS-CoV-2 being identified around the world, but also possibly against other coronaviruses that could emerge in the coming years. A study conducted at Stanford (Calif.) University and published in the journal Science Translational Medicine has afforded a glimmer of hope by discovering the broadly neutralizing efficacy of some antibodies produced by macaque monkeys in response to vaccination with AS03 (squalene) adjuvanted monovalent subunit vaccines.

The speed with which the virus continues to evolve has rendered the plan for annual vaccine updates, which initially was envisioned early in the pandemic, unfeasible for the time being. In 2020, scientists were considering updating vaccines annually based on the prevalent variants of the disease, similar to the approach to the flu. Perhaps that day will come, but in the meantime, laboratories are pursuing other routes: finding spike epitopes that are preserved more than others each time the virus evolves or focusing on other virus proteins that still manage to induce a neutralizing antibody response.

Eventually, artificial intelligence might be able to custom design monoclonal antibodies that are even more effective than natural ones. Or researchers could completely change tack and shift their attention to the host, rather than the virus itself.

This is the approach taken by one study published in Nature Microbiology, which starts from a simple assumption: SARS-CoV-2 continues to modify its spike protein because of the evolutionary pressure of the antibodies produced by millions of infected people, but all these variants and subvariants, both present and future, enter cells by binding – not solely, but mostly – to the ACE2 receptor. Instead of neutralizing the virus, why not try to block its access to the cells occupying its route in? In this way, we could also be ready for future emerging sarbecoviruses that will have a spike sequence that cannot yet be predicted.

Researchers at Rockefeller University, New York, have generated six human monoclonal antibodies that bind to the ACE2 receptor, rather than to the spike, preventing infection by all sarbecoviruses tested, even at low concentrations, including the virus that originated in Wuhan, China; the aggressive Delta variant; and various forms of Omicron.

The monoclonal antibodies bind to the ACE2 receptor at a part of the protein that is distal to the active enzyme portion that converts angiotensin and does not modify its expression on the cell surface. Therefore, no adverse effects are expected at this level. In animal models, these monoclonal antibodies succeed in stopping the infection. Moving into the clinical phase will be needed to find out if it will be possible to create products adapted to preventing and treating all SARS-CoV-2 variants, and perhaps also the next coronavirus large enough to spill over into a new epidemic that threatens the human race.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

At the end of 2022, the European Medicines Agency’s Emergency Task Force warned European regulatory bodies, governments, and doctors that monoclonal antibodies authorized for COVID-19 are unlikely to be effective against emerging strains of SARS-CoV-2. Antiviral drugs remain available but have many limitations. And, of course, there are still vaccines, which can significantly reduce (but not remove) the risk of severe cases and decrease the number of deaths, although they have lost the efficacy that they once had in countering the original virus.

Research therefore continues. Immunologists continue to search for new targets to synthesize broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibodies for treating or preventing the infection. These results could also lead to new vaccines that induce longer-lasting immunity not only against the thousands of subvariants and recombinant versions of SARS-CoV-2 being identified around the world, but also possibly against other coronaviruses that could emerge in the coming years. A study conducted at Stanford (Calif.) University and published in the journal Science Translational Medicine has afforded a glimmer of hope by discovering the broadly neutralizing efficacy of some antibodies produced by macaque monkeys in response to vaccination with AS03 (squalene) adjuvanted monovalent subunit vaccines.

The speed with which the virus continues to evolve has rendered the plan for annual vaccine updates, which initially was envisioned early in the pandemic, unfeasible for the time being. In 2020, scientists were considering updating vaccines annually based on the prevalent variants of the disease, similar to the approach to the flu. Perhaps that day will come, but in the meantime, laboratories are pursuing other routes: finding spike epitopes that are preserved more than others each time the virus evolves or focusing on other virus proteins that still manage to induce a neutralizing antibody response.

Eventually, artificial intelligence might be able to custom design monoclonal antibodies that are even more effective than natural ones. Or researchers could completely change tack and shift their attention to the host, rather than the virus itself.

This is the approach taken by one study published in Nature Microbiology, which starts from a simple assumption: SARS-CoV-2 continues to modify its spike protein because of the evolutionary pressure of the antibodies produced by millions of infected people, but all these variants and subvariants, both present and future, enter cells by binding – not solely, but mostly – to the ACE2 receptor. Instead of neutralizing the virus, why not try to block its access to the cells occupying its route in? In this way, we could also be ready for future emerging sarbecoviruses that will have a spike sequence that cannot yet be predicted.

Researchers at Rockefeller University, New York, have generated six human monoclonal antibodies that bind to the ACE2 receptor, rather than to the spike, preventing infection by all sarbecoviruses tested, even at low concentrations, including the virus that originated in Wuhan, China; the aggressive Delta variant; and various forms of Omicron.

The monoclonal antibodies bind to the ACE2 receptor at a part of the protein that is distal to the active enzyme portion that converts angiotensin and does not modify its expression on the cell surface. Therefore, no adverse effects are expected at this level. In animal models, these monoclonal antibodies succeed in stopping the infection. Moving into the clinical phase will be needed to find out if it will be possible to create products adapted to preventing and treating all SARS-CoV-2 variants, and perhaps also the next coronavirus large enough to spill over into a new epidemic that threatens the human race.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

At the end of 2022, the European Medicines Agency’s Emergency Task Force warned European regulatory bodies, governments, and doctors that monoclonal antibodies authorized for COVID-19 are unlikely to be effective against emerging strains of SARS-CoV-2. Antiviral drugs remain available but have many limitations. And, of course, there are still vaccines, which can significantly reduce (but not remove) the risk of severe cases and decrease the number of deaths, although they have lost the efficacy that they once had in countering the original virus.

Research therefore continues. Immunologists continue to search for new targets to synthesize broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibodies for treating or preventing the infection. These results could also lead to new vaccines that induce longer-lasting immunity not only against the thousands of subvariants and recombinant versions of SARS-CoV-2 being identified around the world, but also possibly against other coronaviruses that could emerge in the coming years. A study conducted at Stanford (Calif.) University and published in the journal Science Translational Medicine has afforded a glimmer of hope by discovering the broadly neutralizing efficacy of some antibodies produced by macaque monkeys in response to vaccination with AS03 (squalene) adjuvanted monovalent subunit vaccines.

The speed with which the virus continues to evolve has rendered the plan for annual vaccine updates, which initially was envisioned early in the pandemic, unfeasible for the time being. In 2020, scientists were considering updating vaccines annually based on the prevalent variants of the disease, similar to the approach to the flu. Perhaps that day will come, but in the meantime, laboratories are pursuing other routes: finding spike epitopes that are preserved more than others each time the virus evolves or focusing on other virus proteins that still manage to induce a neutralizing antibody response.

Eventually, artificial intelligence might be able to custom design monoclonal antibodies that are even more effective than natural ones. Or researchers could completely change tack and shift their attention to the host, rather than the virus itself.

This is the approach taken by one study published in Nature Microbiology, which starts from a simple assumption: SARS-CoV-2 continues to modify its spike protein because of the evolutionary pressure of the antibodies produced by millions of infected people, but all these variants and subvariants, both present and future, enter cells by binding – not solely, but mostly – to the ACE2 receptor. Instead of neutralizing the virus, why not try to block its access to the cells occupying its route in? In this way, we could also be ready for future emerging sarbecoviruses that will have a spike sequence that cannot yet be predicted.

Researchers at Rockefeller University, New York, have generated six human monoclonal antibodies that bind to the ACE2 receptor, rather than to the spike, preventing infection by all sarbecoviruses tested, even at low concentrations, including the virus that originated in Wuhan, China; the aggressive Delta variant; and various forms of Omicron.

The monoclonal antibodies bind to the ACE2 receptor at a part of the protein that is distal to the active enzyme portion that converts angiotensin and does not modify its expression on the cell surface. Therefore, no adverse effects are expected at this level. In animal models, these monoclonal antibodies succeed in stopping the infection. Moving into the clinical phase will be needed to find out if it will be possible to create products adapted to preventing and treating all SARS-CoV-2 variants, and perhaps also the next coronavirus large enough to spill over into a new epidemic that threatens the human race.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Lack of vaccination against COVID-19 was associated with a significantly higher risk for hospitalization, compared with vaccinated status and boosted status, new evidence suggests.

A retrospective, population-based cohort study in Alberta, Edmonton, found that between late September 2021 and late January 2022, eligible unvaccinated patients with COVID-19 had a nearly 10-fold higher risk for hospitalization than did patients who were fully vaccinated with two doses. Unvaccinated patients had a nearly 21-fold higher risk than did patients who were boosted with three doses.

“We have shown that eligible nonvaccinated persons, especially in the age strata 50-79 years, accounted for 3,000-4,000 potentially avoidable hospitalizations, 35,000-40,000 avoidable bed-days, and $100–$110 million [Canadian dollars] in avoidable health care costs during a 120-day period coinciding with the fourth (Delta) and fifth (Omicron) COVID-19 waves, respectively,” wrote Sean M. Bagshaw, MD, chair of critical care medicine at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, and colleagues.

The findings were published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health.
 

‘Unsatisfactory’ vaccine uptake

While a previous study by Dr. Bagshaw and colleagues recently showed that higher vaccine uptake could have avoided significant intensive care unit admissions and costs, the researchers sought to expand their analysis to include non-ICU use.

The current study examined data from the government of Alberta and the Discharge Abstract Database to assess vaccination status and hospitalization with confirmed SARS-CoV-2. Secondary outcomes included avoidable hospitalizations, avoidable hospital bed-days, and the potential cost avoidance related to COVID-19. 

During the study period, “societal factors contributed to an unsatisfactory voluntary vaccine uptake, particularly in the province of Alberta,” wrote the authors, adding that “only 63.7% and 2.7% of the eligible population in Alberta [had] received two (full) and three (boosted) COVID-19 vaccine doses as of September 27, 2021.” 

The analysis found the highest number of hospitalizations among unvaccinated patients (n = 3,835), compared with vaccinated (n = 1,907) and boosted patients (n = 481). This finding yielded a risk ratio (RR) of hospitalization of 9.7 for unvaccinated patients, compared with fully vaccinated patients, and an RR of 20.6, compared with patients who were boosted. Unvaccinated patients aged 60-69 years had the highest RR for hospitalization, compared with vaccinated (RR, 16.4) and boosted patients (RR, 151.9).

The estimated number of avoidable hospitalizations for unvaccinated patients was 3,439 (total of 36,331 bed-days), compared with vaccinated patients, and 3,764 (total of 40,185 bed-days), compared with boosted patients. 

The avoidable hospitalization-related costs for unvaccinated patients totaled $101.4 million (Canadian dollars) if they had been vaccinated and $110.24 million if they had been boosted.

“Moreover, strained hospital systems and the widespread adoption of crisis standards of care in response to surges in COVID-19 hospitalizations have contributed to unnecessary excess deaths,” wrote the authors. “These are preventable and missed public health opportunities that provoked massive health system disruptions and resource diversions, including deferral of routine health services (e.g., cancer and chronic disease screening and monitoring and scheduled vaccinations), postponement of scheduled procedures and surgeries, and redeployment of health care professionals.” 

Dr. Bagshaw said in an interview that he was not surprised by the findings. “However, I wonder whether the public and those who direct policy and make decisions about the health system would be interested in better understanding the scope and sheer disruption the health system suffered due to COVID-19,” he said.

The current study suggests that “at least some of this could have been avoided,” said Dr. Bagshaw. “I hope we – that is the public, users of the health system, decision-makers and health care professionals – can learn from our experiences.” Studies such as the current analysis “will reinforce the importance of timely and clearly articulated public health promotion, education, and policy,” he added.
 

Economic benefit underestimated

Commenting on the study, David Fisman, MD, MPH, an epidemiologist and professor at the University of Toronto, said: “The approach these investigators have taken is clear and straightforward. It is easy to reproduce. It is also entirely consistent with what other scientific groups have been demonstrating for a couple of years now.” Dr. Fisman was not involved with the study.

A group led by Dr. Fisman as senior author has just completed a study examining the effectiveness of the Canadian pandemic response, compared with responses in four peer countries. In the as-yet unpublished paper, the researchers concluded that “relative to the United States, United Kingdom, and France, the Canadian pandemic response was estimated to have averted 94,492, 64,306, and 13,641 deaths, respectively, with more than 480,000 hospitalizations averted and 1 million QALY [quality-adjusted life-years] saved, relative to the United States. A United States pandemic response applied to Canada would have resulted in more than $40 billion in economic losses due to healthcare expenditures and lost QALY; losses relative to the United Kingdom and France would have been $21 billion and $5 billion, respectively. By contrast, an Australian pandemic response would have averted over 28,000 additional deaths and averted nearly $9 billion in costs in Canada.”

Dr. Fisman added that while the current researchers focused their study on the direct protective effects of vaccines, “we know that, even with initial waves of Omicron, vaccinated individuals continued to be protected against infection as well as disease, and even if they were infected, we know from household contact studies that they were less infectious to others. That means that even though the implicit estimate of cost savings that could have been achieved through better coverage are pretty high in this paper, the economic benefit of vaccination is underestimated in this analysis, because we can’t quantify the infections that never happened because of vaccination.”

The study was supported by the Strategic Clinical Networks, Alberta Health Services. Dr. Bagshaw declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fisman has taken part in advisory boards for Seqirus, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, and Merck vaccines during the past 3 years.

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

Lack of vaccination against COVID-19 was associated with a significantly higher risk for hospitalization, compared with vaccinated status and boosted status, new evidence suggests.

A retrospective, population-based cohort study in Alberta, Edmonton, found that between late September 2021 and late January 2022, eligible unvaccinated patients with COVID-19 had a nearly 10-fold higher risk for hospitalization than did patients who were fully vaccinated with two doses. Unvaccinated patients had a nearly 21-fold higher risk than did patients who were boosted with three doses.

“We have shown that eligible nonvaccinated persons, especially in the age strata 50-79 years, accounted for 3,000-4,000 potentially avoidable hospitalizations, 35,000-40,000 avoidable bed-days, and $100–$110 million [Canadian dollars] in avoidable health care costs during a 120-day period coinciding with the fourth (Delta) and fifth (Omicron) COVID-19 waves, respectively,” wrote Sean M. Bagshaw, MD, chair of critical care medicine at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, and colleagues.

The findings were published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health.
 

‘Unsatisfactory’ vaccine uptake

While a previous study by Dr. Bagshaw and colleagues recently showed that higher vaccine uptake could have avoided significant intensive care unit admissions and costs, the researchers sought to expand their analysis to include non-ICU use.

The current study examined data from the government of Alberta and the Discharge Abstract Database to assess vaccination status and hospitalization with confirmed SARS-CoV-2. Secondary outcomes included avoidable hospitalizations, avoidable hospital bed-days, and the potential cost avoidance related to COVID-19. 

During the study period, “societal factors contributed to an unsatisfactory voluntary vaccine uptake, particularly in the province of Alberta,” wrote the authors, adding that “only 63.7% and 2.7% of the eligible population in Alberta [had] received two (full) and three (boosted) COVID-19 vaccine doses as of September 27, 2021.” 

The analysis found the highest number of hospitalizations among unvaccinated patients (n = 3,835), compared with vaccinated (n = 1,907) and boosted patients (n = 481). This finding yielded a risk ratio (RR) of hospitalization of 9.7 for unvaccinated patients, compared with fully vaccinated patients, and an RR of 20.6, compared with patients who were boosted. Unvaccinated patients aged 60-69 years had the highest RR for hospitalization, compared with vaccinated (RR, 16.4) and boosted patients (RR, 151.9).

The estimated number of avoidable hospitalizations for unvaccinated patients was 3,439 (total of 36,331 bed-days), compared with vaccinated patients, and 3,764 (total of 40,185 bed-days), compared with boosted patients. 

The avoidable hospitalization-related costs for unvaccinated patients totaled $101.4 million (Canadian dollars) if they had been vaccinated and $110.24 million if they had been boosted.

“Moreover, strained hospital systems and the widespread adoption of crisis standards of care in response to surges in COVID-19 hospitalizations have contributed to unnecessary excess deaths,” wrote the authors. “These are preventable and missed public health opportunities that provoked massive health system disruptions and resource diversions, including deferral of routine health services (e.g., cancer and chronic disease screening and monitoring and scheduled vaccinations), postponement of scheduled procedures and surgeries, and redeployment of health care professionals.” 

Dr. Bagshaw said in an interview that he was not surprised by the findings. “However, I wonder whether the public and those who direct policy and make decisions about the health system would be interested in better understanding the scope and sheer disruption the health system suffered due to COVID-19,” he said.

The current study suggests that “at least some of this could have been avoided,” said Dr. Bagshaw. “I hope we – that is the public, users of the health system, decision-makers and health care professionals – can learn from our experiences.” Studies such as the current analysis “will reinforce the importance of timely and clearly articulated public health promotion, education, and policy,” he added.
 

Economic benefit underestimated

Commenting on the study, David Fisman, MD, MPH, an epidemiologist and professor at the University of Toronto, said: “The approach these investigators have taken is clear and straightforward. It is easy to reproduce. It is also entirely consistent with what other scientific groups have been demonstrating for a couple of years now.” Dr. Fisman was not involved with the study.

A group led by Dr. Fisman as senior author has just completed a study examining the effectiveness of the Canadian pandemic response, compared with responses in four peer countries. In the as-yet unpublished paper, the researchers concluded that “relative to the United States, United Kingdom, and France, the Canadian pandemic response was estimated to have averted 94,492, 64,306, and 13,641 deaths, respectively, with more than 480,000 hospitalizations averted and 1 million QALY [quality-adjusted life-years] saved, relative to the United States. A United States pandemic response applied to Canada would have resulted in more than $40 billion in economic losses due to healthcare expenditures and lost QALY; losses relative to the United Kingdom and France would have been $21 billion and $5 billion, respectively. By contrast, an Australian pandemic response would have averted over 28,000 additional deaths and averted nearly $9 billion in costs in Canada.”

Dr. Fisman added that while the current researchers focused their study on the direct protective effects of vaccines, “we know that, even with initial waves of Omicron, vaccinated individuals continued to be protected against infection as well as disease, and even if they were infected, we know from household contact studies that they were less infectious to others. That means that even though the implicit estimate of cost savings that could have been achieved through better coverage are pretty high in this paper, the economic benefit of vaccination is underestimated in this analysis, because we can’t quantify the infections that never happened because of vaccination.”

The study was supported by the Strategic Clinical Networks, Alberta Health Services. Dr. Bagshaw declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fisman has taken part in advisory boards for Seqirus, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, and Merck vaccines during the past 3 years.

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

Lack of vaccination against COVID-19 was associated with a significantly higher risk for hospitalization, compared with vaccinated status and boosted status, new evidence suggests.

A retrospective, population-based cohort study in Alberta, Edmonton, found that between late September 2021 and late January 2022, eligible unvaccinated patients with COVID-19 had a nearly 10-fold higher risk for hospitalization than did patients who were fully vaccinated with two doses. Unvaccinated patients had a nearly 21-fold higher risk than did patients who were boosted with three doses.

“We have shown that eligible nonvaccinated persons, especially in the age strata 50-79 years, accounted for 3,000-4,000 potentially avoidable hospitalizations, 35,000-40,000 avoidable bed-days, and $100–$110 million [Canadian dollars] in avoidable health care costs during a 120-day period coinciding with the fourth (Delta) and fifth (Omicron) COVID-19 waves, respectively,” wrote Sean M. Bagshaw, MD, chair of critical care medicine at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, and colleagues.

The findings were published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health.
 

‘Unsatisfactory’ vaccine uptake

While a previous study by Dr. Bagshaw and colleagues recently showed that higher vaccine uptake could have avoided significant intensive care unit admissions and costs, the researchers sought to expand their analysis to include non-ICU use.

The current study examined data from the government of Alberta and the Discharge Abstract Database to assess vaccination status and hospitalization with confirmed SARS-CoV-2. Secondary outcomes included avoidable hospitalizations, avoidable hospital bed-days, and the potential cost avoidance related to COVID-19. 

During the study period, “societal factors contributed to an unsatisfactory voluntary vaccine uptake, particularly in the province of Alberta,” wrote the authors, adding that “only 63.7% and 2.7% of the eligible population in Alberta [had] received two (full) and three (boosted) COVID-19 vaccine doses as of September 27, 2021.” 

The analysis found the highest number of hospitalizations among unvaccinated patients (n = 3,835), compared with vaccinated (n = 1,907) and boosted patients (n = 481). This finding yielded a risk ratio (RR) of hospitalization of 9.7 for unvaccinated patients, compared with fully vaccinated patients, and an RR of 20.6, compared with patients who were boosted. Unvaccinated patients aged 60-69 years had the highest RR for hospitalization, compared with vaccinated (RR, 16.4) and boosted patients (RR, 151.9).

The estimated number of avoidable hospitalizations for unvaccinated patients was 3,439 (total of 36,331 bed-days), compared with vaccinated patients, and 3,764 (total of 40,185 bed-days), compared with boosted patients. 

The avoidable hospitalization-related costs for unvaccinated patients totaled $101.4 million (Canadian dollars) if they had been vaccinated and $110.24 million if they had been boosted.

“Moreover, strained hospital systems and the widespread adoption of crisis standards of care in response to surges in COVID-19 hospitalizations have contributed to unnecessary excess deaths,” wrote the authors. “These are preventable and missed public health opportunities that provoked massive health system disruptions and resource diversions, including deferral of routine health services (e.g., cancer and chronic disease screening and monitoring and scheduled vaccinations), postponement of scheduled procedures and surgeries, and redeployment of health care professionals.” 

Dr. Bagshaw said in an interview that he was not surprised by the findings. “However, I wonder whether the public and those who direct policy and make decisions about the health system would be interested in better understanding the scope and sheer disruption the health system suffered due to COVID-19,” he said.

The current study suggests that “at least some of this could have been avoided,” said Dr. Bagshaw. “I hope we – that is the public, users of the health system, decision-makers and health care professionals – can learn from our experiences.” Studies such as the current analysis “will reinforce the importance of timely and clearly articulated public health promotion, education, and policy,” he added.
 

Economic benefit underestimated

Commenting on the study, David Fisman, MD, MPH, an epidemiologist and professor at the University of Toronto, said: “The approach these investigators have taken is clear and straightforward. It is easy to reproduce. It is also entirely consistent with what other scientific groups have been demonstrating for a couple of years now.” Dr. Fisman was not involved with the study.

A group led by Dr. Fisman as senior author has just completed a study examining the effectiveness of the Canadian pandemic response, compared with responses in four peer countries. In the as-yet unpublished paper, the researchers concluded that “relative to the United States, United Kingdom, and France, the Canadian pandemic response was estimated to have averted 94,492, 64,306, and 13,641 deaths, respectively, with more than 480,000 hospitalizations averted and 1 million QALY [quality-adjusted life-years] saved, relative to the United States. A United States pandemic response applied to Canada would have resulted in more than $40 billion in economic losses due to healthcare expenditures and lost QALY; losses relative to the United Kingdom and France would have been $21 billion and $5 billion, respectively. By contrast, an Australian pandemic response would have averted over 28,000 additional deaths and averted nearly $9 billion in costs in Canada.”

Dr. Fisman added that while the current researchers focused their study on the direct protective effects of vaccines, “we know that, even with initial waves of Omicron, vaccinated individuals continued to be protected against infection as well as disease, and even if they were infected, we know from household contact studies that they were less infectious to others. That means that even though the implicit estimate of cost savings that could have been achieved through better coverage are pretty high in this paper, the economic benefit of vaccination is underestimated in this analysis, because we can’t quantify the infections that never happened because of vaccination.”

The study was supported by the Strategic Clinical Networks, Alberta Health Services. Dr. Bagshaw declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fisman has taken part in advisory boards for Seqirus, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, and Merck vaccines during the past 3 years.

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

More than 600,000 Americans have lost Medicaid coverage since pandemic protections ended on April 1. And a KFF Health News analysis of state data shows the vast majority were removed from state rolls for not completing paperwork.

Under normal circumstances, states review their Medicaid enrollment lists regularly to ensure every recipient qualifies for coverage. But because of a nationwide pause in those reviews during the pandemic, the health insurance program for low-income and disabled Americans kept people covered even if they no longer qualified.

Now, in what’s known as the Medicaid unwinding, states are combing through rolls and deciding who stays and who goes. People who are no longer eligible or don’t complete paperwork in time will be dropped.

The overwhelming majority of people who have lost coverage in most states were dropped because of technicalities, not because state officials determined they no longer meet Medicaid income limits. Four out of every five people dropped so far either never returned the paperwork or omitted required documents, according to a KFF Health News analysis of data from 11 states that provided details on recent cancellations. Now, lawmakers and advocates are expressing alarm over the volume of people losing coverage and, in some states, calling to pause the process.

KFF Health News sought data from the 19 states that started cancellations by May 1. Based on records from 14 states that provided detailed numbers, either in response to a public records request or by posting online, 36% of people whose eligibility was reviewed have been disenrolled.

In Indiana, 53,000 residents lost coverage in the first month of the unwinding, 89% for procedural reasons like not returning renewal forms. State Rep. Ed Clere, a Republican, expressed dismay at those “staggering numbers” in a May 24 Medicaid advisory group meeting, repeatedly questioning state officials about forms mailed to out-of-date addresses and urging them to give people more than 2 weeks’ notice before canceling their coverage.

Rep. Clere warned that the cancellations set in motion an avoidable revolving door. Some people dropped from Medicaid will have to forgo filling prescriptions and cancel doctor visits because they can’t afford care. Months down the line, after untreated chronic illnesses spiral out of control, they’ll end up in the emergency room where social workers will need to again help them join the program, he said.

Before the unwinding, more than one in four Americans – 93 million – were covered by Medicaid or CHIP, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, according to KFF Health News’ analysis of the latest enrollment data. Half of all kids are covered by the programs.

About 15 million people will be dropped over the next year as states review participants’ eligibility in monthly tranches.

Most people will find health coverage through new jobs or qualify for subsidized plans through the Affordable Care Act. But millions of others, including many children, will become uninsured and unable to afford basic prescriptions or preventive care. The uninsured rate among those under 65 is projected to rise from a historical low of 8.3% today to 9.3% next year, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Because each state is handling the unwinding differently, the share of enrollees dropped in the first weeks varies widely.

Several states are first reviewing people officials believe are no longer eligible or who haven’t recently used their insurance. High cancellation rates in those states should level out as the agencies move on to people who likely still qualify.

In Utah, nearly 56% of people included in early reviews were dropped. In New Hampshire, 44% received cancellation letters within the first 2 months – almost all for procedural reasons, like not returning paperwork.

But New Hampshire officials found that thousands of people who didn’t fill out the forms indeed earn too much to qualify, according to Henry Lipman, the state’s Medicaid director. They would have been denied anyway. Even so, more people than he expected are not returning renewal forms. “That tells us that we need to change up our strategy,” said Mr. Lipman.

In other states, like Virginia and Nebraska, which aren’t prioritizing renewals by likely eligibility, about 90% have been renewed.

Because of the 3-year pause in renewals, many people on Medicaid have never been through the process or aren’t aware they may need to fill out long verification forms, as a recent KFF poll found. Some people moved and didn’t update their contact information.

And while agencies are required to assist enrollees who don’t speak English well, many are sending the forms in only a few common languages.

Tens of thousands of children are losing coverage, as researchers have warned, even though some may still qualify for Medicaid or CHIP. In its first month of reviews, South Dakota ended coverage for 10% of all Medicaid and CHIP enrollees in the state. More than half of them were children. In Arkansas, about 40% were kids.

Many parents don’t know that limits on household income are significantly higher for children than adults. Parents should fill out renewal forms even if they don’t qualify themselves, said Joan Alker, executive director of the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families, Washington.

New Hampshire has moved most families with children to the end of the review process. Mr. Lipman said his biggest worry is that a child will end up uninsured. Florida also planned to push kids with serious health conditions and other vulnerable groups to the end of the review line.

But according to Miriam Harmatz, advocacy director and founder of the Florida Health Justice Project, state officials sent cancellation letters to several clients with disabled children who probably still qualify. She’s helping those families appeal.

Nearly 250,000 Floridians reviewed in the first month of the unwinding lost coverage, 82% of them for reasons like incomplete paperwork, the state reported to federal authorities. House Democrats from the state petitioned Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis to pause the unwinding.

Advocacy coalitions in both Florida and Arkansas also have called for investigations into the review process and a pause on cancellations.

The state is contacting enrollees by phone, email, and text, and continues to process late applications, said Tori Cuddy, a spokesperson for the Florida Department of Children and Families. Ms. Cuddy did not respond to questions about issues raised in the petitions.

Federal officials are investigating those complaints and any other problems that emerge, said Dan Tsai, director of the Center for Medicaid & CHIP Services. “If we find that the rules are not being followed, we will take action.”

His agency has directed states to automatically reenroll residents using data from other government programs like unemployment and food assistance when possible. Anyone who can’t be approved through that process must act quickly.

“For the past 3 years, people have been told to ignore the mail around this, that the renewal was not going to lead to a termination.” Suddenly that mail matters, he said.

Federal law requires states to tell people why they’re losing Medicaid coverage and how to appeal the decision.

Ms. Harmatz said some cancellation notices in Florida are vague and could violate due process rules. Letters that she’s seen say “your Medicaid for this period is ending” rather than providing a specific reason for disenrollment, like having too high an income or incomplete paperwork.
If a person requests a hearing before their cancellation takes effect, they can stay covered during the appeals process. Even after being disenrolled, many still have a 90-day window to restore coverage.

In New Hampshire, 13% of people deemed ineligible in the first month have asked for extra time to provide the necessary records. “If you’re eligible for Medicaid, we don’t want you to lose it,” said Mr. Lipman.

Rep. Clere pushed Indiana’s Medicaid officials during the May meeting to immediately make changes to avoid people unnecessarily becoming uninsured. One official responded that they’ll learn and improve over time.

“I’m just concerned that we’re going to be ‘learning’ as a result of people losing coverage,” Rep. Clere replied. “So I don’t want to learn at their expense.”

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

More than 600,000 Americans have lost Medicaid coverage since pandemic protections ended on April 1. And a KFF Health News analysis of state data shows the vast majority were removed from state rolls for not completing paperwork.

Under normal circumstances, states review their Medicaid enrollment lists regularly to ensure every recipient qualifies for coverage. But because of a nationwide pause in those reviews during the pandemic, the health insurance program for low-income and disabled Americans kept people covered even if they no longer qualified.

Now, in what’s known as the Medicaid unwinding, states are combing through rolls and deciding who stays and who goes. People who are no longer eligible or don’t complete paperwork in time will be dropped.

The overwhelming majority of people who have lost coverage in most states were dropped because of technicalities, not because state officials determined they no longer meet Medicaid income limits. Four out of every five people dropped so far either never returned the paperwork or omitted required documents, according to a KFF Health News analysis of data from 11 states that provided details on recent cancellations. Now, lawmakers and advocates are expressing alarm over the volume of people losing coverage and, in some states, calling to pause the process.

KFF Health News sought data from the 19 states that started cancellations by May 1. Based on records from 14 states that provided detailed numbers, either in response to a public records request or by posting online, 36% of people whose eligibility was reviewed have been disenrolled.

In Indiana, 53,000 residents lost coverage in the first month of the unwinding, 89% for procedural reasons like not returning renewal forms. State Rep. Ed Clere, a Republican, expressed dismay at those “staggering numbers” in a May 24 Medicaid advisory group meeting, repeatedly questioning state officials about forms mailed to out-of-date addresses and urging them to give people more than 2 weeks’ notice before canceling their coverage.

Rep. Clere warned that the cancellations set in motion an avoidable revolving door. Some people dropped from Medicaid will have to forgo filling prescriptions and cancel doctor visits because they can’t afford care. Months down the line, after untreated chronic illnesses spiral out of control, they’ll end up in the emergency room where social workers will need to again help them join the program, he said.

Before the unwinding, more than one in four Americans – 93 million – were covered by Medicaid or CHIP, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, according to KFF Health News’ analysis of the latest enrollment data. Half of all kids are covered by the programs.

About 15 million people will be dropped over the next year as states review participants’ eligibility in monthly tranches.

Most people will find health coverage through new jobs or qualify for subsidized plans through the Affordable Care Act. But millions of others, including many children, will become uninsured and unable to afford basic prescriptions or preventive care. The uninsured rate among those under 65 is projected to rise from a historical low of 8.3% today to 9.3% next year, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Because each state is handling the unwinding differently, the share of enrollees dropped in the first weeks varies widely.

Several states are first reviewing people officials believe are no longer eligible or who haven’t recently used their insurance. High cancellation rates in those states should level out as the agencies move on to people who likely still qualify.

In Utah, nearly 56% of people included in early reviews were dropped. In New Hampshire, 44% received cancellation letters within the first 2 months – almost all for procedural reasons, like not returning paperwork.

But New Hampshire officials found that thousands of people who didn’t fill out the forms indeed earn too much to qualify, according to Henry Lipman, the state’s Medicaid director. They would have been denied anyway. Even so, more people than he expected are not returning renewal forms. “That tells us that we need to change up our strategy,” said Mr. Lipman.

In other states, like Virginia and Nebraska, which aren’t prioritizing renewals by likely eligibility, about 90% have been renewed.

Because of the 3-year pause in renewals, many people on Medicaid have never been through the process or aren’t aware they may need to fill out long verification forms, as a recent KFF poll found. Some people moved and didn’t update their contact information.

And while agencies are required to assist enrollees who don’t speak English well, many are sending the forms in only a few common languages.

Tens of thousands of children are losing coverage, as researchers have warned, even though some may still qualify for Medicaid or CHIP. In its first month of reviews, South Dakota ended coverage for 10% of all Medicaid and CHIP enrollees in the state. More than half of them were children. In Arkansas, about 40% were kids.

Many parents don’t know that limits on household income are significantly higher for children than adults. Parents should fill out renewal forms even if they don’t qualify themselves, said Joan Alker, executive director of the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families, Washington.

New Hampshire has moved most families with children to the end of the review process. Mr. Lipman said his biggest worry is that a child will end up uninsured. Florida also planned to push kids with serious health conditions and other vulnerable groups to the end of the review line.

But according to Miriam Harmatz, advocacy director and founder of the Florida Health Justice Project, state officials sent cancellation letters to several clients with disabled children who probably still qualify. She’s helping those families appeal.

Nearly 250,000 Floridians reviewed in the first month of the unwinding lost coverage, 82% of them for reasons like incomplete paperwork, the state reported to federal authorities. House Democrats from the state petitioned Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis to pause the unwinding.

Advocacy coalitions in both Florida and Arkansas also have called for investigations into the review process and a pause on cancellations.

The state is contacting enrollees by phone, email, and text, and continues to process late applications, said Tori Cuddy, a spokesperson for the Florida Department of Children and Families. Ms. Cuddy did not respond to questions about issues raised in the petitions.

Federal officials are investigating those complaints and any other problems that emerge, said Dan Tsai, director of the Center for Medicaid & CHIP Services. “If we find that the rules are not being followed, we will take action.”

His agency has directed states to automatically reenroll residents using data from other government programs like unemployment and food assistance when possible. Anyone who can’t be approved through that process must act quickly.

“For the past 3 years, people have been told to ignore the mail around this, that the renewal was not going to lead to a termination.” Suddenly that mail matters, he said.

Federal law requires states to tell people why they’re losing Medicaid coverage and how to appeal the decision.

Ms. Harmatz said some cancellation notices in Florida are vague and could violate due process rules. Letters that she’s seen say “your Medicaid for this period is ending” rather than providing a specific reason for disenrollment, like having too high an income or incomplete paperwork.
If a person requests a hearing before their cancellation takes effect, they can stay covered during the appeals process. Even after being disenrolled, many still have a 90-day window to restore coverage.

In New Hampshire, 13% of people deemed ineligible in the first month have asked for extra time to provide the necessary records. “If you’re eligible for Medicaid, we don’t want you to lose it,” said Mr. Lipman.

Rep. Clere pushed Indiana’s Medicaid officials during the May meeting to immediately make changes to avoid people unnecessarily becoming uninsured. One official responded that they’ll learn and improve over time.

“I’m just concerned that we’re going to be ‘learning’ as a result of people losing coverage,” Rep. Clere replied. “So I don’t want to learn at their expense.”

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

More than 600,000 Americans have lost Medicaid coverage since pandemic protections ended on April 1. And a KFF Health News analysis of state data shows the vast majority were removed from state rolls for not completing paperwork.

Under normal circumstances, states review their Medicaid enrollment lists regularly to ensure every recipient qualifies for coverage. But because of a nationwide pause in those reviews during the pandemic, the health insurance program for low-income and disabled Americans kept people covered even if they no longer qualified.

Now, in what’s known as the Medicaid unwinding, states are combing through rolls and deciding who stays and who goes. People who are no longer eligible or don’t complete paperwork in time will be dropped.

The overwhelming majority of people who have lost coverage in most states were dropped because of technicalities, not because state officials determined they no longer meet Medicaid income limits. Four out of every five people dropped so far either never returned the paperwork or omitted required documents, according to a KFF Health News analysis of data from 11 states that provided details on recent cancellations. Now, lawmakers and advocates are expressing alarm over the volume of people losing coverage and, in some states, calling to pause the process.

KFF Health News sought data from the 19 states that started cancellations by May 1. Based on records from 14 states that provided detailed numbers, either in response to a public records request or by posting online, 36% of people whose eligibility was reviewed have been disenrolled.

In Indiana, 53,000 residents lost coverage in the first month of the unwinding, 89% for procedural reasons like not returning renewal forms. State Rep. Ed Clere, a Republican, expressed dismay at those “staggering numbers” in a May 24 Medicaid advisory group meeting, repeatedly questioning state officials about forms mailed to out-of-date addresses and urging them to give people more than 2 weeks’ notice before canceling their coverage.

Rep. Clere warned that the cancellations set in motion an avoidable revolving door. Some people dropped from Medicaid will have to forgo filling prescriptions and cancel doctor visits because they can’t afford care. Months down the line, after untreated chronic illnesses spiral out of control, they’ll end up in the emergency room where social workers will need to again help them join the program, he said.

Before the unwinding, more than one in four Americans – 93 million – were covered by Medicaid or CHIP, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, according to KFF Health News’ analysis of the latest enrollment data. Half of all kids are covered by the programs.

About 15 million people will be dropped over the next year as states review participants’ eligibility in monthly tranches.

Most people will find health coverage through new jobs or qualify for subsidized plans through the Affordable Care Act. But millions of others, including many children, will become uninsured and unable to afford basic prescriptions or preventive care. The uninsured rate among those under 65 is projected to rise from a historical low of 8.3% today to 9.3% next year, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Because each state is handling the unwinding differently, the share of enrollees dropped in the first weeks varies widely.

Several states are first reviewing people officials believe are no longer eligible or who haven’t recently used their insurance. High cancellation rates in those states should level out as the agencies move on to people who likely still qualify.

In Utah, nearly 56% of people included in early reviews were dropped. In New Hampshire, 44% received cancellation letters within the first 2 months – almost all for procedural reasons, like not returning paperwork.

But New Hampshire officials found that thousands of people who didn’t fill out the forms indeed earn too much to qualify, according to Henry Lipman, the state’s Medicaid director. They would have been denied anyway. Even so, more people than he expected are not returning renewal forms. “That tells us that we need to change up our strategy,” said Mr. Lipman.

In other states, like Virginia and Nebraska, which aren’t prioritizing renewals by likely eligibility, about 90% have been renewed.

Because of the 3-year pause in renewals, many people on Medicaid have never been through the process or aren’t aware they may need to fill out long verification forms, as a recent KFF poll found. Some people moved and didn’t update their contact information.

And while agencies are required to assist enrollees who don’t speak English well, many are sending the forms in only a few common languages.

Tens of thousands of children are losing coverage, as researchers have warned, even though some may still qualify for Medicaid or CHIP. In its first month of reviews, South Dakota ended coverage for 10% of all Medicaid and CHIP enrollees in the state. More than half of them were children. In Arkansas, about 40% were kids.

Many parents don’t know that limits on household income are significantly higher for children than adults. Parents should fill out renewal forms even if they don’t qualify themselves, said Joan Alker, executive director of the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families, Washington.

New Hampshire has moved most families with children to the end of the review process. Mr. Lipman said his biggest worry is that a child will end up uninsured. Florida also planned to push kids with serious health conditions and other vulnerable groups to the end of the review line.

But according to Miriam Harmatz, advocacy director and founder of the Florida Health Justice Project, state officials sent cancellation letters to several clients with disabled children who probably still qualify. She’s helping those families appeal.

Nearly 250,000 Floridians reviewed in the first month of the unwinding lost coverage, 82% of them for reasons like incomplete paperwork, the state reported to federal authorities. House Democrats from the state petitioned Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis to pause the unwinding.

Advocacy coalitions in both Florida and Arkansas also have called for investigations into the review process and a pause on cancellations.

The state is contacting enrollees by phone, email, and text, and continues to process late applications, said Tori Cuddy, a spokesperson for the Florida Department of Children and Families. Ms. Cuddy did not respond to questions about issues raised in the petitions.

Federal officials are investigating those complaints and any other problems that emerge, said Dan Tsai, director of the Center for Medicaid & CHIP Services. “If we find that the rules are not being followed, we will take action.”

His agency has directed states to automatically reenroll residents using data from other government programs like unemployment and food assistance when possible. Anyone who can’t be approved through that process must act quickly.

“For the past 3 years, people have been told to ignore the mail around this, that the renewal was not going to lead to a termination.” Suddenly that mail matters, he said.

Federal law requires states to tell people why they’re losing Medicaid coverage and how to appeal the decision.

Ms. Harmatz said some cancellation notices in Florida are vague and could violate due process rules. Letters that she’s seen say “your Medicaid for this period is ending” rather than providing a specific reason for disenrollment, like having too high an income or incomplete paperwork.
If a person requests a hearing before their cancellation takes effect, they can stay covered during the appeals process. Even after being disenrolled, many still have a 90-day window to restore coverage.

In New Hampshire, 13% of people deemed ineligible in the first month have asked for extra time to provide the necessary records. “If you’re eligible for Medicaid, we don’t want you to lose it,” said Mr. Lipman.

Rep. Clere pushed Indiana’s Medicaid officials during the May meeting to immediately make changes to avoid people unnecessarily becoming uninsured. One official responded that they’ll learn and improve over time.

“I’m just concerned that we’re going to be ‘learning’ as a result of people losing coverage,” Rep. Clere replied. “So I don’t want to learn at their expense.”

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

About 10% of people infected with Omicron reported having long COVID, a lower percentage than estimated for people infected with earlier strains of the coronavirus, according to a study published in JAMA. 

The research team looked at data from 8,646 adults infected with COVID-19 at different times of the pandemic and 1,118 who did not have COVID. 

“Based on a subset of 2,231 patients in this analysis who had a first COVID-19 infection on or after Dec. 1, 2021, when the Omicron variant was circulating, about 10% experienced long-term symptoms or long COVID after 6 months,” the National Institutes of Health said in a news release. 

People who were unvaccinated or got COVID before Omicron were more likely to have long COVID and had more severe cases, the NIH said.

Previous studies have come up with higher figures than 10% for people who have long COVID. 

For instance, in June 2022 the CDC said one in five Americans who had COVID reported having long COVID. And a University of Oxford study published in September 2021 found more than a third of patients had long COVID symptoms.

The scientists in the most recent study identified 12 symptoms that distinguished people who did and didn’t have COVID. The scientists developed a scoring system for the symptoms to set a threshold to identify people who had long COVID, the NIH said.

The symptoms were fatigue, brain fog, dizziness, stomach upset, heart palpitations, issues with sexual desire or capacity, loss of smell or taste, thirst, chronic coughing, chest pain, and abnormal movements. Another symptom was postexertional malaise, or worse symptoms after mental or physical exertion. 

Scientists still have many questions about long COVID, such as how many people get it and why some people get it and others don’t. 

The study was coordinated through the NIH’s RECOVER (Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery) initiative, which aims to find out how to define, detect, and treat long COVID.

“The researchers hope this study is the next step toward potential treatments for long COVID, which affects the health and wellbeing of millions of Americans,” the NIH said.

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

About 10% of people infected with Omicron reported having long COVID, a lower percentage than estimated for people infected with earlier strains of the coronavirus, according to a study published in JAMA. 

The research team looked at data from 8,646 adults infected with COVID-19 at different times of the pandemic and 1,118 who did not have COVID. 

“Based on a subset of 2,231 patients in this analysis who had a first COVID-19 infection on or after Dec. 1, 2021, when the Omicron variant was circulating, about 10% experienced long-term symptoms or long COVID after 6 months,” the National Institutes of Health said in a news release. 

People who were unvaccinated or got COVID before Omicron were more likely to have long COVID and had more severe cases, the NIH said.

Previous studies have come up with higher figures than 10% for people who have long COVID. 

For instance, in June 2022 the CDC said one in five Americans who had COVID reported having long COVID. And a University of Oxford study published in September 2021 found more than a third of patients had long COVID symptoms.

The scientists in the most recent study identified 12 symptoms that distinguished people who did and didn’t have COVID. The scientists developed a scoring system for the symptoms to set a threshold to identify people who had long COVID, the NIH said.

The symptoms were fatigue, brain fog, dizziness, stomach upset, heart palpitations, issues with sexual desire or capacity, loss of smell or taste, thirst, chronic coughing, chest pain, and abnormal movements. Another symptom was postexertional malaise, or worse symptoms after mental or physical exertion. 

Scientists still have many questions about long COVID, such as how many people get it and why some people get it and others don’t. 

The study was coordinated through the NIH’s RECOVER (Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery) initiative, which aims to find out how to define, detect, and treat long COVID.

“The researchers hope this study is the next step toward potential treatments for long COVID, which affects the health and wellbeing of millions of Americans,” the NIH said.

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

About 10% of people infected with Omicron reported having long COVID, a lower percentage than estimated for people infected with earlier strains of the coronavirus, according to a study published in JAMA. 

The research team looked at data from 8,646 adults infected with COVID-19 at different times of the pandemic and 1,118 who did not have COVID. 

“Based on a subset of 2,231 patients in this analysis who had a first COVID-19 infection on or after Dec. 1, 2021, when the Omicron variant was circulating, about 10% experienced long-term symptoms or long COVID after 6 months,” the National Institutes of Health said in a news release. 

People who were unvaccinated or got COVID before Omicron were more likely to have long COVID and had more severe cases, the NIH said.

Previous studies have come up with higher figures than 10% for people who have long COVID. 

For instance, in June 2022 the CDC said one in five Americans who had COVID reported having long COVID. And a University of Oxford study published in September 2021 found more than a third of patients had long COVID symptoms.

The scientists in the most recent study identified 12 symptoms that distinguished people who did and didn’t have COVID. The scientists developed a scoring system for the symptoms to set a threshold to identify people who had long COVID, the NIH said.

The symptoms were fatigue, brain fog, dizziness, stomach upset, heart palpitations, issues with sexual desire or capacity, loss of smell or taste, thirst, chronic coughing, chest pain, and abnormal movements. Another symptom was postexertional malaise, or worse symptoms after mental or physical exertion. 

Scientists still have many questions about long COVID, such as how many people get it and why some people get it and others don’t. 

The study was coordinated through the NIH’s RECOVER (Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery) initiative, which aims to find out how to define, detect, and treat long COVID.

“The researchers hope this study is the next step toward potential treatments for long COVID, which affects the health and wellbeing of millions of Americans,” the NIH said.

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

COVID-19 boosters are not linked to an increased chance of miscarriage, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers were seeking to learn whether a booster in early pregnancy, before 20 weeks, was associated with greater likelihood of spontaneous abortion.

They examined more than 100,000 pregnancies at 6-19 weeks from eight health systems in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). They found that receiving a COVID-19 booster shot in a 28-day or 42-day exposure window did not increase the chances of miscarriage.

“These findings support the safety of COVID-19 booster vaccination in early pregnancy,” they wrote.

The VSD is a collaboration between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Immunization Safety Office and large health care systems. The “observational, case-control, surveillance study” was conducted from Nov. 1, 2021, to June 12, 2022.

“COVID infection during pregnancy increases risk of poor outcomes, yet many people who are pregnant or thinking about getting pregnant are hesitant to get a booster dose because of questions about safety,” said Elyse Kharbanda, MD, senior investigator at HealthPartners Institute and lead author of the study in a press release.

The University of Minnesota reported that “previous studies have shown COIVD-19 primary vaccination is safe in pregnancy and not associated with an increased risk for miscarriage. Several studies have also shown COVID-19 can be more severe in pregnancy and lead to worse outcomes for the mother.”

The study was funded by the CDC. Five study authors reported conflicts of interest with Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, and Sanofi Pasteur.

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

COVID-19 boosters are not linked to an increased chance of miscarriage, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers were seeking to learn whether a booster in early pregnancy, before 20 weeks, was associated with greater likelihood of spontaneous abortion.

They examined more than 100,000 pregnancies at 6-19 weeks from eight health systems in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). They found that receiving a COVID-19 booster shot in a 28-day or 42-day exposure window did not increase the chances of miscarriage.

“These findings support the safety of COVID-19 booster vaccination in early pregnancy,” they wrote.

The VSD is a collaboration between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Immunization Safety Office and large health care systems. The “observational, case-control, surveillance study” was conducted from Nov. 1, 2021, to June 12, 2022.

“COVID infection during pregnancy increases risk of poor outcomes, yet many people who are pregnant or thinking about getting pregnant are hesitant to get a booster dose because of questions about safety,” said Elyse Kharbanda, MD, senior investigator at HealthPartners Institute and lead author of the study in a press release.

The University of Minnesota reported that “previous studies have shown COIVD-19 primary vaccination is safe in pregnancy and not associated with an increased risk for miscarriage. Several studies have also shown COVID-19 can be more severe in pregnancy and lead to worse outcomes for the mother.”

The study was funded by the CDC. Five study authors reported conflicts of interest with Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, and Sanofi Pasteur.

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

COVID-19 boosters are not linked to an increased chance of miscarriage, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers were seeking to learn whether a booster in early pregnancy, before 20 weeks, was associated with greater likelihood of spontaneous abortion.

They examined more than 100,000 pregnancies at 6-19 weeks from eight health systems in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). They found that receiving a COVID-19 booster shot in a 28-day or 42-day exposure window did not increase the chances of miscarriage.

“These findings support the safety of COVID-19 booster vaccination in early pregnancy,” they wrote.

The VSD is a collaboration between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Immunization Safety Office and large health care systems. The “observational, case-control, surveillance study” was conducted from Nov. 1, 2021, to June 12, 2022.

“COVID infection during pregnancy increases risk of poor outcomes, yet many people who are pregnant or thinking about getting pregnant are hesitant to get a booster dose because of questions about safety,” said Elyse Kharbanda, MD, senior investigator at HealthPartners Institute and lead author of the study in a press release.

The University of Minnesota reported that “previous studies have shown COIVD-19 primary vaccination is safe in pregnancy and not associated with an increased risk for miscarriage. Several studies have also shown COVID-19 can be more severe in pregnancy and lead to worse outcomes for the mother.”

The study was funded by the CDC. Five study authors reported conflicts of interest with Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, and Sanofi Pasteur.

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

Even the plague wanted to visit Stonehenge

We’re about to blow your mind: The history you learned in school was often inaccurate. Shocking, we know, so we’ll give you a minute to process this incredible news.

Better? Good. Now, let’s look back at high school European history. The Black Death, specifically. The common narrative is that the Mongols, while besieging a Crimean city belonging to the Genoese, catapulted dead bodies infected with some mystery disease that turned out to be the plague. The Genoese then brought the plague back to Italy, and from there, we all know the rest of the story.

Ian Hodkinson, [email protected]

The Black Death was certainly extremely important to the development of modern Europe as we know it, but the history books gloss over the much longer history of the plague. Yersinia pestis did not suddenly appear unbidden in a Mongol war camp in 1347. The Black Death wasn’t even the first horrific, continent-wide pandemic caused by the plague; the Plague of Justinian 800 years earlier crippled the Byzantine Empire during an expansionist phase and killed anywhere between 15 million and 100 million.

Today, though, LOTME looks even deeper into history, nearly beyond even history itself, back into the depths of early Bronze Age northern Europe. Specifically, to two ancient burial sites in England, where researchers have identified three 4,000-year-old cases of Y. pestis, the first recorded incidence of the disease in Britain.

Two of the individuals, identified through analysis of dental pulp, were young children buried at a mass grave in Somerset, while the third, a middle-aged woman, was found in a ring cairn in Cumbria. These sites are hundreds of miles apart, yet carbon dating suggests all three people lived and died at roughly the same time. The strain found is very similar to other samples of plague found across central and western Europe starting around 3,000 BCE, suggesting a single, easily spread disease affecting a large area in a relatively small period of time. In other words, a pandemic. Even in these ancient times, the world was connected. Not even the island of Britain could escape.

Beyond that though, the research helps confirm the cyclical nature of the plague; over time, it loses its effectiveness and goes into hiding, only to mutate and come roaring back. This is a story with absolutely no relevance at all to the modern world. Nope, no plagues or pandemics going around right now, no viruses fading into the background in any way. What a ridiculous inference to make.
 

Uncovering the invisible with artificial intelligence

This week in “What Else Can AI Do?” new research shows that a computer program can reveal brain injury that couldn’t be seen before with typical MRI.

The hot new AI, birthed by researchers at New York University, could potentially be a game changer by linking repeated head impacts with tiny, structural changes in the brains of athletes who have not been diagnosed with a concussion. By using machine learning to train the AI, the researchers were, for the first time, able to distinguish the brain of athletes who played contact sports (football, soccer, lacrosse) from those participating in noncontact sports such as baseball, basketball, and cross-country.

Andrea Danti/Thinkstock

How did they do it? The investigators “designed statistical techniques that gave their computer program the ability to ‘learn’ how to predict exposure to repeated head impacts using mathematical models,” they explained in a written statement. Adding in data from the MRI scans of 81 male athletes with no known concussion diagnosis and the ability to identify unusual brain features between athletes with and without head trauma allowed the AI to predict results with accuracy even Miss Cleo would envy.

“This method may provide an important diagnostic tool not only for concussion, but also for detecting the damage that stems from subtler and more frequent head impacts,” said lead author Junbo Chen, an engineering doctoral candidate at NYU. That could make this new AI a valuable asset to science and medicine.

There are many things the human brain can do that AI can’t, and delegation could be one of them. Examining the data that represent the human brain in minute detail? Maybe we leave that to the machine.
 

Talk about your field promotions

If you’re a surgeon doing an amputation, the list of possible assistants pretty much starts and ends in only one place: Not the closest available janitor.

That may seem like an oddly obvious thing for us to say, but there’s at least one former Mainz (Germany) University Hospital physician who really needed to get this bit of advice before he attempted an unassisted toe amputation back in October of 2020. Yes, that does seem like kind of a long time ago for us to be reporting it now, but the details of the incident only just came to light a few days ago, thanks to German public broadcaster SWR.

Ente75/Wikipedia

Since it was just a toe, the surgeon thought he could perform the operation without any help. The toe, unfortunately, had other plans. The partially anesthetized patient got restless in the operating room, but with no actual trained nurse in the vicinity, the surgeon asked the closest available person – that would be the janitor – to lend a hand.

The surgical manager heard about these goings-on and got to the operating room too late to stop the procedure but soon enough to see the cleaning staffer “at the operating table with a bloody suction cup and a bloody compress in their hands,” SWR recently reported.

The incident was reported to the hospital’s medical director and the surgeon was fired, but since the patient experienced no complications not much fuss was made about it at the time.

Well, guess what? It’s toe-tally our job to make a fuss about these kinds of things. Or could it be that our job, much like the surgeon’s employment and the patient’s digit, is here toe-day and gone toe-morrow?

Even the plague wanted to visit Stonehenge

We’re about to blow your mind: The history you learned in school was often inaccurate. Shocking, we know, so we’ll give you a minute to process this incredible news.

Better? Good. Now, let’s look back at high school European history. The Black Death, specifically. The common narrative is that the Mongols, while besieging a Crimean city belonging to the Genoese, catapulted dead bodies infected with some mystery disease that turned out to be the plague. The Genoese then brought the plague back to Italy, and from there, we all know the rest of the story.

Ian Hodkinson, [email protected]

The Black Death was certainly extremely important to the development of modern Europe as we know it, but the history books gloss over the much longer history of the plague. Yersinia pestis did not suddenly appear unbidden in a Mongol war camp in 1347. The Black Death wasn’t even the first horrific, continent-wide pandemic caused by the plague; the Plague of Justinian 800 years earlier crippled the Byzantine Empire during an expansionist phase and killed anywhere between 15 million and 100 million.

Today, though, LOTME looks even deeper into history, nearly beyond even history itself, back into the depths of early Bronze Age northern Europe. Specifically, to two ancient burial sites in England, where researchers have identified three 4,000-year-old cases of Y. pestis, the first recorded incidence of the disease in Britain.

Two of the individuals, identified through analysis of dental pulp, were young children buried at a mass grave in Somerset, while the third, a middle-aged woman, was found in a ring cairn in Cumbria. These sites are hundreds of miles apart, yet carbon dating suggests all three people lived and died at roughly the same time. The strain found is very similar to other samples of plague found across central and western Europe starting around 3,000 BCE, suggesting a single, easily spread disease affecting a large area in a relatively small period of time. In other words, a pandemic. Even in these ancient times, the world was connected. Not even the island of Britain could escape.

Beyond that though, the research helps confirm the cyclical nature of the plague; over time, it loses its effectiveness and goes into hiding, only to mutate and come roaring back. This is a story with absolutely no relevance at all to the modern world. Nope, no plagues or pandemics going around right now, no viruses fading into the background in any way. What a ridiculous inference to make.
 

Uncovering the invisible with artificial intelligence

This week in “What Else Can AI Do?” new research shows that a computer program can reveal brain injury that couldn’t be seen before with typical MRI.

The hot new AI, birthed by researchers at New York University, could potentially be a game changer by linking repeated head impacts with tiny, structural changes in the brains of athletes who have not been diagnosed with a concussion. By using machine learning to train the AI, the researchers were, for the first time, able to distinguish the brain of athletes who played contact sports (football, soccer, lacrosse) from those participating in noncontact sports such as baseball, basketball, and cross-country.

Andrea Danti/Thinkstock

How did they do it? The investigators “designed statistical techniques that gave their computer program the ability to ‘learn’ how to predict exposure to repeated head impacts using mathematical models,” they explained in a written statement. Adding in data from the MRI scans of 81 male athletes with no known concussion diagnosis and the ability to identify unusual brain features between athletes with and without head trauma allowed the AI to predict results with accuracy even Miss Cleo would envy.

“This method may provide an important diagnostic tool not only for concussion, but also for detecting the damage that stems from subtler and more frequent head impacts,” said lead author Junbo Chen, an engineering doctoral candidate at NYU. That could make this new AI a valuable asset to science and medicine.

There are many things the human brain can do that AI can’t, and delegation could be one of them. Examining the data that represent the human brain in minute detail? Maybe we leave that to the machine.
 

Talk about your field promotions

If you’re a surgeon doing an amputation, the list of possible assistants pretty much starts and ends in only one place: Not the closest available janitor.

That may seem like an oddly obvious thing for us to say, but there’s at least one former Mainz (Germany) University Hospital physician who really needed to get this bit of advice before he attempted an unassisted toe amputation back in October of 2020. Yes, that does seem like kind of a long time ago for us to be reporting it now, but the details of the incident only just came to light a few days ago, thanks to German public broadcaster SWR.

Ente75/Wikipedia

Since it was just a toe, the surgeon thought he could perform the operation without any help. The toe, unfortunately, had other plans. The partially anesthetized patient got restless in the operating room, but with no actual trained nurse in the vicinity, the surgeon asked the closest available person – that would be the janitor – to lend a hand.

The surgical manager heard about these goings-on and got to the operating room too late to stop the procedure but soon enough to see the cleaning staffer “at the operating table with a bloody suction cup and a bloody compress in their hands,” SWR recently reported.

The incident was reported to the hospital’s medical director and the surgeon was fired, but since the patient experienced no complications not much fuss was made about it at the time.

Well, guess what? It’s toe-tally our job to make a fuss about these kinds of things. Or could it be that our job, much like the surgeon’s employment and the patient’s digit, is here toe-day and gone toe-morrow?

Even the plague wanted to visit Stonehenge

We’re about to blow your mind: The history you learned in school was often inaccurate. Shocking, we know, so we’ll give you a minute to process this incredible news.

Better? Good. Now, let’s look back at high school European history. The Black Death, specifically. The common narrative is that the Mongols, while besieging a Crimean city belonging to the Genoese, catapulted dead bodies infected with some mystery disease that turned out to be the plague. The Genoese then brought the plague back to Italy, and from there, we all know the rest of the story.

Ian Hodkinson, [email protected]

The Black Death was certainly extremely important to the development of modern Europe as we know it, but the history books gloss over the much longer history of the plague. Yersinia pestis did not suddenly appear unbidden in a Mongol war camp in 1347. The Black Death wasn’t even the first horrific, continent-wide pandemic caused by the plague; the Plague of Justinian 800 years earlier crippled the Byzantine Empire during an expansionist phase and killed anywhere between 15 million and 100 million.

Today, though, LOTME looks even deeper into history, nearly beyond even history itself, back into the depths of early Bronze Age northern Europe. Specifically, to two ancient burial sites in England, where researchers have identified three 4,000-year-old cases of Y. pestis, the first recorded incidence of the disease in Britain.

Two of the individuals, identified through analysis of dental pulp, were young children buried at a mass grave in Somerset, while the third, a middle-aged woman, was found in a ring cairn in Cumbria. These sites are hundreds of miles apart, yet carbon dating suggests all three people lived and died at roughly the same time. The strain found is very similar to other samples of plague found across central and western Europe starting around 3,000 BCE, suggesting a single, easily spread disease affecting a large area in a relatively small period of time. In other words, a pandemic. Even in these ancient times, the world was connected. Not even the island of Britain could escape.

Beyond that though, the research helps confirm the cyclical nature of the plague; over time, it loses its effectiveness and goes into hiding, only to mutate and come roaring back. This is a story with absolutely no relevance at all to the modern world. Nope, no plagues or pandemics going around right now, no viruses fading into the background in any way. What a ridiculous inference to make.
 

Uncovering the invisible with artificial intelligence

This week in “What Else Can AI Do?” new research shows that a computer program can reveal brain injury that couldn’t be seen before with typical MRI.

The hot new AI, birthed by researchers at New York University, could potentially be a game changer by linking repeated head impacts with tiny, structural changes in the brains of athletes who have not been diagnosed with a concussion. By using machine learning to train the AI, the researchers were, for the first time, able to distinguish the brain of athletes who played contact sports (football, soccer, lacrosse) from those participating in noncontact sports such as baseball, basketball, and cross-country.

Andrea Danti/Thinkstock

How did they do it? The investigators “designed statistical techniques that gave their computer program the ability to ‘learn’ how to predict exposure to repeated head impacts using mathematical models,” they explained in a written statement. Adding in data from the MRI scans of 81 male athletes with no known concussion diagnosis and the ability to identify unusual brain features between athletes with and without head trauma allowed the AI to predict results with accuracy even Miss Cleo would envy.

“This method may provide an important diagnostic tool not only for concussion, but also for detecting the damage that stems from subtler and more frequent head impacts,” said lead author Junbo Chen, an engineering doctoral candidate at NYU. That could make this new AI a valuable asset to science and medicine.

There are many things the human brain can do that AI can’t, and delegation could be one of them. Examining the data that represent the human brain in minute detail? Maybe we leave that to the machine.
 

Talk about your field promotions

If you’re a surgeon doing an amputation, the list of possible assistants pretty much starts and ends in only one place: Not the closest available janitor.

That may seem like an oddly obvious thing for us to say, but there’s at least one former Mainz (Germany) University Hospital physician who really needed to get this bit of advice before he attempted an unassisted toe amputation back in October of 2020. Yes, that does seem like kind of a long time ago for us to be reporting it now, but the details of the incident only just came to light a few days ago, thanks to German public broadcaster SWR.

Ente75/Wikipedia

Since it was just a toe, the surgeon thought he could perform the operation without any help. The toe, unfortunately, had other plans. The partially anesthetized patient got restless in the operating room, but with no actual trained nurse in the vicinity, the surgeon asked the closest available person – that would be the janitor – to lend a hand.

The surgical manager heard about these goings-on and got to the operating room too late to stop the procedure but soon enough to see the cleaning staffer “at the operating table with a bloody suction cup and a bloody compress in their hands,” SWR recently reported.

The incident was reported to the hospital’s medical director and the surgeon was fired, but since the patient experienced no complications not much fuss was made about it at the time.

Well, guess what? It’s toe-tally our job to make a fuss about these kinds of things. Or could it be that our job, much like the surgeon’s employment and the patient’s digit, is here toe-day and gone toe-morrow?

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study.

I am here today to talk about the effectiveness of COVID vaccine boosters in the midst of 2023. The reason I want to talk about this isn’t necessarily to dig into exactly how effective vaccines are. This is an area that’s been trod upon multiple times. But it does give me an opportunity to talk about a neat study design called the “test-negative case-control” design, which has some unique properties when you’re trying to evaluate the effect of something outside of the context of a randomized trial.

So, just a little bit of background to remind everyone where we are. These are the number of doses of COVID vaccines administered over time throughout the pandemic.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study.

I am here today to talk about the effectiveness of COVID vaccine boosters in the midst of 2023. The reason I want to talk about this isn’t necessarily to dig into exactly how effective vaccines are. This is an area that’s been trod upon multiple times. But it does give me an opportunity to talk about a neat study design called the “test-negative case-control” design, which has some unique properties when you’re trying to evaluate the effect of something outside of the context of a randomized trial.

So, just a little bit of background to remind everyone where we are. These are the number of doses of COVID vaccines administered over time throughout the pandemic.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study.

I am here today to talk about the effectiveness of COVID vaccine boosters in the midst of 2023. The reason I want to talk about this isn’t necessarily to dig into exactly how effective vaccines are. This is an area that’s been trod upon multiple times. But it does give me an opportunity to talk about a neat study design called the “test-negative case-control” design, which has some unique properties when you’re trying to evaluate the effect of something outside of the context of a randomized trial.

So, just a little bit of background to remind everyone where we are. These are the number of doses of COVID vaccines administered over time throughout the pandemic.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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