MDedge Infectious Disease

It’s tough being on the receiving end of care. I’ve tried to avoid it as much as possible, being ever mindful of the law from Samuel Shem’s The House of God: “They can always hurt you more.”

I recently had several medical encounters at three different facilities, highlighting systemic problems in medical care. Fortunately, each procedure went more smoothly than the prior one.

The first was not so elective. I had some uncomfortable symptoms while exercising and, not wanting to totally be in denial, contacted my doctor to ensure that it was not cardiac in origin since symptoms are often atypical in women.

My physician promptly saw me, then scheduled a nuclear stress test. There was a series of needless glitches. Registration at the diagnostic center had me on their schedule but did not have an order. They would have canceled the procedure had I not been able to get hold of the doctor’s office. Why isn’t an order automatically entered when the physician schedules the test?

While I was given the euphemistic “Patient Rights” brochure, asking to have reports sent to a physician outside of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center empire is apparently not included.

The staff canceled the stress test because I was not fasting. I had received no instructions from diagnostic cardiology. They suggested it was my internist’s responsibility.

I deliberately ate (2 hours earlier) because my trainer always wants me to eat a light meal so I don’t get hypoglycemic during our workouts, and an exercise stress test, is, of course, a workout. The nurse practitioner said that they were concerned I would vomit. I offered to sign a waiver. She parried, saying they would not be able to get adequate images, so I was out of luck.

When I expressed concern about getting hypoglycemic and having difficulty with the test if fasting, the tech said I should bring a soda and snack. Who tells a “borderline” diabetic to bring a soda?

The tech also said she had called our home to give instructions but encountered a busy signal and had not had time to call back. I had not left the house during the prior week (or most of the past 2 years), so this was a pretty lame excuse.

I suggested to the administration that the hospital offer to email the patient instructions well ahead of time (and perhaps ask for confirmation of receipt). If calling, they should try more than once. They should also have patient instruction sheets at the physician’s office and perhaps have them on their website.

It turns out that the hospital mailed me instructions, not on the date it was ordered, but with the postmark being the day of the procedure itself. With Trump donor Louis DeJoy in charge of the U.S. Postal Service, mail across town now has to travel to Baltimore, 3 hours away, be sorted, and returned.

I did finally have the stress test, which was reassuringly normal. I was not surprised, given that the fury I felt on the first attempt had not precipitated symptoms. The hospital sent a patient ombudsman to meet me there to discuss my previous complaints. I have no idea if they implemented any of the changes I had suggested. In 2021, when I urgently had to take my husband to the ED, I couldn’t see the sign pointing toward the ED and had to ask for directions at the main entrance. They said they would fix that promptly but still have not improved the signage. How I miss the friendly community hospital we had before!

Next was trigger-finger surgery. I had developed that in 1978 from using crutches after a fall. I figured that the relative lull in COVID and my activities made it as good a time as any to finally have it fixed. The surgicenter was great; the surgeon was someone I had worked with and respected for decades. The only glitch was not really knowing how long I was going to be out of commission.

The third encounter (at yet another institution) went really well, despite some early administrative glitches. My major complaint was with the lack of communication between preoperative anesthesia and the operating room and the lack of personalization of preoperative instructions. Despite EPIC, medicines were not correctly reconciled between the different encounters, even on the same day!

After about 15 years of diplopia, which has been gradually worsening, my eye doc had suggested that I consider strabismus surgery as a sort of last-ditch effort to improve my quality of life.

Anesthesiology has stock instructions, which they made no effort to individualize. For example, there is no reason to stop NSAIDs a week before such minor surgery. That’s a problem if you depend on NSAIDs for pain control. Similarly, nothing by mouth after midnight is passé and could be tailored for the patient. I felt particularly inconvenienced that I had to go out of town for the preoperative visit and then have a redundant preoperative clearance by my physician.

The nurses in the preoperative area made me feel quite comfortable and as relaxed as I could be under the circumstances. They had a good sense of humor, which helped too. And from the time I met him a few weeks earlier, I instantly liked my surgeon and felt very comfortable with him and had complete trust.

I was pleased that the chief anesthesiologist responded promptly and undefensively to my letter expressing concerns. I do believe that he will try to improve the systemic problems.

The best part: The surgery appears to have been successful and I should have a significantly improved quality of life.

Hospitals could do so much better by improving communications with patients and by viewing them as customers whose loyalty they must earn and will value. With monopolies growing, memories of such care are quickly fading, soon to be as extinct as the family doc who made house calls.

Dr. Stone is an infectious disease specialist and author of Resilience: One Family’s Story of Hope and Triumph over Evil and Conducting Clinical Research: A Practical Guide. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s tough being on the receiving end of care. I’ve tried to avoid it as much as possible, being ever mindful of the law from Samuel Shem’s The House of God: “They can always hurt you more.”

I recently had several medical encounters at three different facilities, highlighting systemic problems in medical care. Fortunately, each procedure went more smoothly than the prior one.

The first was not so elective. I had some uncomfortable symptoms while exercising and, not wanting to totally be in denial, contacted my doctor to ensure that it was not cardiac in origin since symptoms are often atypical in women.

My physician promptly saw me, then scheduled a nuclear stress test. There was a series of needless glitches. Registration at the diagnostic center had me on their schedule but did not have an order. They would have canceled the procedure had I not been able to get hold of the doctor’s office. Why isn’t an order automatically entered when the physician schedules the test?

While I was given the euphemistic “Patient Rights” brochure, asking to have reports sent to a physician outside of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center empire is apparently not included.

The staff canceled the stress test because I was not fasting. I had received no instructions from diagnostic cardiology. They suggested it was my internist’s responsibility.

I deliberately ate (2 hours earlier) because my trainer always wants me to eat a light meal so I don’t get hypoglycemic during our workouts, and an exercise stress test, is, of course, a workout. The nurse practitioner said that they were concerned I would vomit. I offered to sign a waiver. She parried, saying they would not be able to get adequate images, so I was out of luck.

When I expressed concern about getting hypoglycemic and having difficulty with the test if fasting, the tech said I should bring a soda and snack. Who tells a “borderline” diabetic to bring a soda?

The tech also said she had called our home to give instructions but encountered a busy signal and had not had time to call back. I had not left the house during the prior week (or most of the past 2 years), so this was a pretty lame excuse.

I suggested to the administration that the hospital offer to email the patient instructions well ahead of time (and perhaps ask for confirmation of receipt). If calling, they should try more than once. They should also have patient instruction sheets at the physician’s office and perhaps have them on their website.

It turns out that the hospital mailed me instructions, not on the date it was ordered, but with the postmark being the day of the procedure itself. With Trump donor Louis DeJoy in charge of the U.S. Postal Service, mail across town now has to travel to Baltimore, 3 hours away, be sorted, and returned.

I did finally have the stress test, which was reassuringly normal. I was not surprised, given that the fury I felt on the first attempt had not precipitated symptoms. The hospital sent a patient ombudsman to meet me there to discuss my previous complaints. I have no idea if they implemented any of the changes I had suggested. In 2021, when I urgently had to take my husband to the ED, I couldn’t see the sign pointing toward the ED and had to ask for directions at the main entrance. They said they would fix that promptly but still have not improved the signage. How I miss the friendly community hospital we had before!

Next was trigger-finger surgery. I had developed that in 1978 from using crutches after a fall. I figured that the relative lull in COVID and my activities made it as good a time as any to finally have it fixed. The surgicenter was great; the surgeon was someone I had worked with and respected for decades. The only glitch was not really knowing how long I was going to be out of commission.

The third encounter (at yet another institution) went really well, despite some early administrative glitches. My major complaint was with the lack of communication between preoperative anesthesia and the operating room and the lack of personalization of preoperative instructions. Despite EPIC, medicines were not correctly reconciled between the different encounters, even on the same day!

After about 15 years of diplopia, which has been gradually worsening, my eye doc had suggested that I consider strabismus surgery as a sort of last-ditch effort to improve my quality of life.

Anesthesiology has stock instructions, which they made no effort to individualize. For example, there is no reason to stop NSAIDs a week before such minor surgery. That’s a problem if you depend on NSAIDs for pain control. Similarly, nothing by mouth after midnight is passé and could be tailored for the patient. I felt particularly inconvenienced that I had to go out of town for the preoperative visit and then have a redundant preoperative clearance by my physician.

The nurses in the preoperative area made me feel quite comfortable and as relaxed as I could be under the circumstances. They had a good sense of humor, which helped too. And from the time I met him a few weeks earlier, I instantly liked my surgeon and felt very comfortable with him and had complete trust.

I was pleased that the chief anesthesiologist responded promptly and undefensively to my letter expressing concerns. I do believe that he will try to improve the systemic problems.

The best part: The surgery appears to have been successful and I should have a significantly improved quality of life.

Hospitals could do so much better by improving communications with patients and by viewing them as customers whose loyalty they must earn and will value. With monopolies growing, memories of such care are quickly fading, soon to be as extinct as the family doc who made house calls.

Dr. Stone is an infectious disease specialist and author of Resilience: One Family’s Story of Hope and Triumph over Evil and Conducting Clinical Research: A Practical Guide. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s tough being on the receiving end of care. I’ve tried to avoid it as much as possible, being ever mindful of the law from Samuel Shem’s The House of God: “They can always hurt you more.”

I recently had several medical encounters at three different facilities, highlighting systemic problems in medical care. Fortunately, each procedure went more smoothly than the prior one.

The first was not so elective. I had some uncomfortable symptoms while exercising and, not wanting to totally be in denial, contacted my doctor to ensure that it was not cardiac in origin since symptoms are often atypical in women.

My physician promptly saw me, then scheduled a nuclear stress test. There was a series of needless glitches. Registration at the diagnostic center had me on their schedule but did not have an order. They would have canceled the procedure had I not been able to get hold of the doctor’s office. Why isn’t an order automatically entered when the physician schedules the test?

While I was given the euphemistic “Patient Rights” brochure, asking to have reports sent to a physician outside of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center empire is apparently not included.

The staff canceled the stress test because I was not fasting. I had received no instructions from diagnostic cardiology. They suggested it was my internist’s responsibility.

I deliberately ate (2 hours earlier) because my trainer always wants me to eat a light meal so I don’t get hypoglycemic during our workouts, and an exercise stress test, is, of course, a workout. The nurse practitioner said that they were concerned I would vomit. I offered to sign a waiver. She parried, saying they would not be able to get adequate images, so I was out of luck.

When I expressed concern about getting hypoglycemic and having difficulty with the test if fasting, the tech said I should bring a soda and snack. Who tells a “borderline” diabetic to bring a soda?

The tech also said she had called our home to give instructions but encountered a busy signal and had not had time to call back. I had not left the house during the prior week (or most of the past 2 years), so this was a pretty lame excuse.

I suggested to the administration that the hospital offer to email the patient instructions well ahead of time (and perhaps ask for confirmation of receipt). If calling, they should try more than once. They should also have patient instruction sheets at the physician’s office and perhaps have them on their website.

It turns out that the hospital mailed me instructions, not on the date it was ordered, but with the postmark being the day of the procedure itself. With Trump donor Louis DeJoy in charge of the U.S. Postal Service, mail across town now has to travel to Baltimore, 3 hours away, be sorted, and returned.

I did finally have the stress test, which was reassuringly normal. I was not surprised, given that the fury I felt on the first attempt had not precipitated symptoms. The hospital sent a patient ombudsman to meet me there to discuss my previous complaints. I have no idea if they implemented any of the changes I had suggested. In 2021, when I urgently had to take my husband to the ED, I couldn’t see the sign pointing toward the ED and had to ask for directions at the main entrance. They said they would fix that promptly but still have not improved the signage. How I miss the friendly community hospital we had before!

Next was trigger-finger surgery. I had developed that in 1978 from using crutches after a fall. I figured that the relative lull in COVID and my activities made it as good a time as any to finally have it fixed. The surgicenter was great; the surgeon was someone I had worked with and respected for decades. The only glitch was not really knowing how long I was going to be out of commission.

The third encounter (at yet another institution) went really well, despite some early administrative glitches. My major complaint was with the lack of communication between preoperative anesthesia and the operating room and the lack of personalization of preoperative instructions. Despite EPIC, medicines were not correctly reconciled between the different encounters, even on the same day!

After about 15 years of diplopia, which has been gradually worsening, my eye doc had suggested that I consider strabismus surgery as a sort of last-ditch effort to improve my quality of life.

Anesthesiology has stock instructions, which they made no effort to individualize. For example, there is no reason to stop NSAIDs a week before such minor surgery. That’s a problem if you depend on NSAIDs for pain control. Similarly, nothing by mouth after midnight is passé and could be tailored for the patient. I felt particularly inconvenienced that I had to go out of town for the preoperative visit and then have a redundant preoperative clearance by my physician.

The nurses in the preoperative area made me feel quite comfortable and as relaxed as I could be under the circumstances. They had a good sense of humor, which helped too. And from the time I met him a few weeks earlier, I instantly liked my surgeon and felt very comfortable with him and had complete trust.

I was pleased that the chief anesthesiologist responded promptly and undefensively to my letter expressing concerns. I do believe that he will try to improve the systemic problems.

The best part: The surgery appears to have been successful and I should have a significantly improved quality of life.

Hospitals could do so much better by improving communications with patients and by viewing them as customers whose loyalty they must earn and will value. With monopolies growing, memories of such care are quickly fading, soon to be as extinct as the family doc who made house calls.

Dr. Stone is an infectious disease specialist and author of Resilience: One Family’s Story of Hope and Triumph over Evil and Conducting Clinical Research: A Practical Guide. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The 5 days that she spent at her mother’s bedside were eye-opening for an oncologist used to being on the other side of the clinician–patient relationship.

“As a physician, I thought I had a unique perspective of things that were done well – and things that were not,” commented Pamela Kunz, MD.

Dr. Kunz, who was named the 2021 Woman Oncologist of the Year, is director of the Center for Gastrointestinal Cancers at Smilow Cancer Hospital and of the Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn.

But she was propelled into quite a different role when her mother was admitted to the hospital.

Her mom, who has trouble hearing, was easily confused by jargon and by “all of the people coming in and out with no introductions,” she explained.

“She needed someone to translate what was going on because she didn’t feel well,” she added.

Seeing inpatient care through her mother’s eyes was enlightening, and at times it was “shocking to be on the other side.”

Physicians get used to “checking boxes, getting through the day,” she said. “It’s easy to forget the human side.”

“Seeing a loved one sick, [struggling] through this – I just wished I had seen things done differently,” added Dr. Kunz.

The experience prompted Dr. Kunz to share several “communication pearls” via Twitter. Her thread has since garnered thousands of “likes” and scores of comments and retweets.

She began the Twitter thread explaining what prompted her comments:

“I spent many hours last week observing the practice of medicine while sitting at my mom’s hospital bedside and was reminded of some important communication pearls. Some musings ...”

“1. Introduce yourself by full name, role, and team and have ID badges visible. It can get very confusing for [patients] and family members with the number of people in and out of rooms. E.g. ‘My name is Dr. X. I’m the intern on the primary internal medicine team.’

2.  End your patient visit with a summary of the plan for the day.

3. Avoid medical jargon & speak slowly, clearly, and logically. Remember you are a teacher for your [patients] and their family.

4. Masks make it harder to hear, especially for [patients] with hearing loss (and they no longer have the aid of lip reading).

5. Many older [patients] get confused in the hospital. Repetition is a good thing.

6. Speak to a family member at least once per day to relay the plan.

7. Try to avoid last minute or surprise discharges – they make [patients] and family members anxious. Talk about discharge planning from day 1 and what milestones must occur prior to a safe discharge. ‘In order for you to leave the hospital, X, Y, X must happen.’

8. Talk with your [patients] about something other than what brought them to the hospital (a tip I once learned from a wise mentor).

9.  When possible, sit at eye level with your patient (I love these stools from @YNHH).

10. Take time to listen.”

Dr. Kunz closed with her golden rule: “Lastly, treat your patients how you would want your own family member treated.”

Twitter user @BrunaPellini replied: “I love this, especially ‘Treat your patients how you would want your own family member treated.’ My mom and grandma always said that to me since I was a med student, and this is definitely one of my core values.”

Other clinicians shared similar experiences, and some added to Dr. Kunz’s list.

“Agree entirely, love the list – and while none of us can always practice perfectly, my experiences with my own mother’s illness taught me an enormous amount about communication,” @hoperugo responded.

Twitter user @mariejacork added: “Everyone in health care please read ... if you are lucky enough to not have had a loved one unwell in hospital, these may get forgotten. Having sat with my dad for a few days before he died a few years ago, I felt a lot of these, and it changed my practice forever.”

@bjcohenmd provided additional advice: “And use the dry erase board that should be in every room. Never start a medication without explaining it. Many docs will see the patient and then go to the computer, decide to order a med, but never go back to explain it.”

Patients also shared experiences and offered suggestions.

“As a chronic pain patient I’d add – we know it’s frustrating you can’t cure us but PLEASE do not SIGH if we say something didn’t work or [tell] us to be more positive. Just say ‘I know this is very hard, I’m here to listen.’ We don’t expect a cure, we do expect to be believed,” said @ppenguinsmt. “It makes me feel like I’m causing distress to you if I say the pain has been unrelenting. I leave feeling worse. ...You may have heard 10 [people] in pain before me but this is MY only [appointment].”

Twitter user @KatieCahoots added: “These are perfect. I wish doctors would do this not only in the hospital but in the doctor’s office, as well. I would add one caveat: When you try not to use medical jargon, don’t dumb it down as though I don’t know anything about science or haven’t done any of my own research.”

Dr. Kunz said she was taken aback but pleased by the response to her Tweet.

“It’s an example of the human side of medicine, so it resonates with physicians and with patients,” she commented. Seeing through her mom’s eyes how care was provided made her realize that medical training should include more emphasis on communication, including “real-time feedback to interns, residents, fellows, and students.”

Yes, it takes time, and “we don’t all have a lot of extra time,” she acknowledged.

“But some of these elements don’t take that much more time to do. They can help build trust and can, in the long run, actually save time if patients understand and family members feel engaged and like they are participants,” she said. “I think a little time investment will go a long way.”

In her case, she very much appreciated the one trainee who tried to call her and update her about her mother’s care each afternoon. “I really valued that,” she said.

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

The 5 days that she spent at her mother’s bedside were eye-opening for an oncologist used to being on the other side of the clinician–patient relationship.

“As a physician, I thought I had a unique perspective of things that were done well – and things that were not,” commented Pamela Kunz, MD.

Dr. Kunz, who was named the 2021 Woman Oncologist of the Year, is director of the Center for Gastrointestinal Cancers at Smilow Cancer Hospital and of the Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn.

But she was propelled into quite a different role when her mother was admitted to the hospital.

Her mom, who has trouble hearing, was easily confused by jargon and by “all of the people coming in and out with no introductions,” she explained.

“She needed someone to translate what was going on because she didn’t feel well,” she added.

Seeing inpatient care through her mother’s eyes was enlightening, and at times it was “shocking to be on the other side.”

Physicians get used to “checking boxes, getting through the day,” she said. “It’s easy to forget the human side.”

“Seeing a loved one sick, [struggling] through this – I just wished I had seen things done differently,” added Dr. Kunz.

The experience prompted Dr. Kunz to share several “communication pearls” via Twitter. Her thread has since garnered thousands of “likes” and scores of comments and retweets.

She began the Twitter thread explaining what prompted her comments:

“I spent many hours last week observing the practice of medicine while sitting at my mom’s hospital bedside and was reminded of some important communication pearls. Some musings ...”

“1. Introduce yourself by full name, role, and team and have ID badges visible. It can get very confusing for [patients] and family members with the number of people in and out of rooms. E.g. ‘My name is Dr. X. I’m the intern on the primary internal medicine team.’

2.  End your patient visit with a summary of the plan for the day.

3. Avoid medical jargon & speak slowly, clearly, and logically. Remember you are a teacher for your [patients] and their family.

4. Masks make it harder to hear, especially for [patients] with hearing loss (and they no longer have the aid of lip reading).

5. Many older [patients] get confused in the hospital. Repetition is a good thing.

6. Speak to a family member at least once per day to relay the plan.

7. Try to avoid last minute or surprise discharges – they make [patients] and family members anxious. Talk about discharge planning from day 1 and what milestones must occur prior to a safe discharge. ‘In order for you to leave the hospital, X, Y, X must happen.’

8. Talk with your [patients] about something other than what brought them to the hospital (a tip I once learned from a wise mentor).

9.  When possible, sit at eye level with your patient (I love these stools from @YNHH).

10. Take time to listen.”

Dr. Kunz closed with her golden rule: “Lastly, treat your patients how you would want your own family member treated.”

Twitter user @BrunaPellini replied: “I love this, especially ‘Treat your patients how you would want your own family member treated.’ My mom and grandma always said that to me since I was a med student, and this is definitely one of my core values.”

Other clinicians shared similar experiences, and some added to Dr. Kunz’s list.

“Agree entirely, love the list – and while none of us can always practice perfectly, my experiences with my own mother’s illness taught me an enormous amount about communication,” @hoperugo responded.

Twitter user @mariejacork added: “Everyone in health care please read ... if you are lucky enough to not have had a loved one unwell in hospital, these may get forgotten. Having sat with my dad for a few days before he died a few years ago, I felt a lot of these, and it changed my practice forever.”

@bjcohenmd provided additional advice: “And use the dry erase board that should be in every room. Never start a medication without explaining it. Many docs will see the patient and then go to the computer, decide to order a med, but never go back to explain it.”

Patients also shared experiences and offered suggestions.

“As a chronic pain patient I’d add – we know it’s frustrating you can’t cure us but PLEASE do not SIGH if we say something didn’t work or [tell] us to be more positive. Just say ‘I know this is very hard, I’m here to listen.’ We don’t expect a cure, we do expect to be believed,” said @ppenguinsmt. “It makes me feel like I’m causing distress to you if I say the pain has been unrelenting. I leave feeling worse. ...You may have heard 10 [people] in pain before me but this is MY only [appointment].”

Twitter user @KatieCahoots added: “These are perfect. I wish doctors would do this not only in the hospital but in the doctor’s office, as well. I would add one caveat: When you try not to use medical jargon, don’t dumb it down as though I don’t know anything about science or haven’t done any of my own research.”

Dr. Kunz said she was taken aback but pleased by the response to her Tweet.

“It’s an example of the human side of medicine, so it resonates with physicians and with patients,” she commented. Seeing through her mom’s eyes how care was provided made her realize that medical training should include more emphasis on communication, including “real-time feedback to interns, residents, fellows, and students.”

Yes, it takes time, and “we don’t all have a lot of extra time,” she acknowledged.

“But some of these elements don’t take that much more time to do. They can help build trust and can, in the long run, actually save time if patients understand and family members feel engaged and like they are participants,” she said. “I think a little time investment will go a long way.”

In her case, she very much appreciated the one trainee who tried to call her and update her about her mother’s care each afternoon. “I really valued that,” she said.

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

The 5 days that she spent at her mother’s bedside were eye-opening for an oncologist used to being on the other side of the clinician–patient relationship.

“As a physician, I thought I had a unique perspective of things that were done well – and things that were not,” commented Pamela Kunz, MD.

Dr. Kunz, who was named the 2021 Woman Oncologist of the Year, is director of the Center for Gastrointestinal Cancers at Smilow Cancer Hospital and of the Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn.

But she was propelled into quite a different role when her mother was admitted to the hospital.

Her mom, who has trouble hearing, was easily confused by jargon and by “all of the people coming in and out with no introductions,” she explained.

“She needed someone to translate what was going on because she didn’t feel well,” she added.

Seeing inpatient care through her mother’s eyes was enlightening, and at times it was “shocking to be on the other side.”

Physicians get used to “checking boxes, getting through the day,” she said. “It’s easy to forget the human side.”

“Seeing a loved one sick, [struggling] through this – I just wished I had seen things done differently,” added Dr. Kunz.

The experience prompted Dr. Kunz to share several “communication pearls” via Twitter. Her thread has since garnered thousands of “likes” and scores of comments and retweets.

She began the Twitter thread explaining what prompted her comments:

“I spent many hours last week observing the practice of medicine while sitting at my mom’s hospital bedside and was reminded of some important communication pearls. Some musings ...”

“1. Introduce yourself by full name, role, and team and have ID badges visible. It can get very confusing for [patients] and family members with the number of people in and out of rooms. E.g. ‘My name is Dr. X. I’m the intern on the primary internal medicine team.’

2.  End your patient visit with a summary of the plan for the day.

3. Avoid medical jargon & speak slowly, clearly, and logically. Remember you are a teacher for your [patients] and their family.

4. Masks make it harder to hear, especially for [patients] with hearing loss (and they no longer have the aid of lip reading).

5. Many older [patients] get confused in the hospital. Repetition is a good thing.

6. Speak to a family member at least once per day to relay the plan.

7. Try to avoid last minute or surprise discharges – they make [patients] and family members anxious. Talk about discharge planning from day 1 and what milestones must occur prior to a safe discharge. ‘In order for you to leave the hospital, X, Y, X must happen.’

8. Talk with your [patients] about something other than what brought them to the hospital (a tip I once learned from a wise mentor).

9.  When possible, sit at eye level with your patient (I love these stools from @YNHH).

10. Take time to listen.”

Dr. Kunz closed with her golden rule: “Lastly, treat your patients how you would want your own family member treated.”

Twitter user @BrunaPellini replied: “I love this, especially ‘Treat your patients how you would want your own family member treated.’ My mom and grandma always said that to me since I was a med student, and this is definitely one of my core values.”

Other clinicians shared similar experiences, and some added to Dr. Kunz’s list.

“Agree entirely, love the list – and while none of us can always practice perfectly, my experiences with my own mother’s illness taught me an enormous amount about communication,” @hoperugo responded.

Twitter user @mariejacork added: “Everyone in health care please read ... if you are lucky enough to not have had a loved one unwell in hospital, these may get forgotten. Having sat with my dad for a few days before he died a few years ago, I felt a lot of these, and it changed my practice forever.”

@bjcohenmd provided additional advice: “And use the dry erase board that should be in every room. Never start a medication without explaining it. Many docs will see the patient and then go to the computer, decide to order a med, but never go back to explain it.”

Patients also shared experiences and offered suggestions.

“As a chronic pain patient I’d add – we know it’s frustrating you can’t cure us but PLEASE do not SIGH if we say something didn’t work or [tell] us to be more positive. Just say ‘I know this is very hard, I’m here to listen.’ We don’t expect a cure, we do expect to be believed,” said @ppenguinsmt. “It makes me feel like I’m causing distress to you if I say the pain has been unrelenting. I leave feeling worse. ...You may have heard 10 [people] in pain before me but this is MY only [appointment].”

Twitter user @KatieCahoots added: “These are perfect. I wish doctors would do this not only in the hospital but in the doctor’s office, as well. I would add one caveat: When you try not to use medical jargon, don’t dumb it down as though I don’t know anything about science or haven’t done any of my own research.”

Dr. Kunz said she was taken aback but pleased by the response to her Tweet.

“It’s an example of the human side of medicine, so it resonates with physicians and with patients,” she commented. Seeing through her mom’s eyes how care was provided made her realize that medical training should include more emphasis on communication, including “real-time feedback to interns, residents, fellows, and students.”

Yes, it takes time, and “we don’t all have a lot of extra time,” she acknowledged.

“But some of these elements don’t take that much more time to do. They can help build trust and can, in the long run, actually save time if patients understand and family members feel engaged and like they are participants,” she said. “I think a little time investment will go a long way.”

In her case, she very much appreciated the one trainee who tried to call her and update her about her mother’s care each afternoon. “I really valued that,” she said.

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

WASHINGTON – Patients with heart failure who received an annual influenza vaccine for 3 years running had significantly fewer all-cause hospitalizations and significantly fewer cases of pneumonia during that time, compared with placebo-treated patients with heart failure, in a prospective, randomized, global trial with 5,129 participants.

Although the results failed to show a significant reduction in all-cause deaths linked to influenza vaccination, compared with controls during the entire 3 years of the study, the results did show a significant 21% relative mortality-risk reduction by vaccination during periods of peak influenza circulation, and a significant 23% reduction in cardiovascular deaths, compared with controls during peak seasons.

courtesy Dr. Mark Loeb

“This is the first randomized, controlled trial of influenza vaccine in patients with heart failure, and we showed that vaccination reduces deaths” during peak influenza seasons, Mark Loeb, MD, said during a press briefing at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. The results send “an important global message that patients with heart failure should receive the influenza vaccine,” said Dr. Loeb, a professor at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who specializes in clinical epidemiology and infectious diseases.

Dr. Loeb admitted that he and his associates erred when they picked the time window to assess the two primary endpoints for the trial: the combined rate of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke, and this combined endpoint plus hospitalizations for heart failure.

The time window they selected was the entirety of all 3 years following three annual immunizations. That was a mistake.
 

No flu vaccine benefit outside flu season

“We know that the influenza vaccine will not have any effect outside of when influenza is circulating. In retrospect, we should have done that,” Dr. Loeb bemoaned during his talk. He chalked up the bad choice to concern over collecting enough endpoints to see a significant between-group difference when the researchers designed the study.

For the entire 3 years of follow-up, influenza vaccination was tied to a nonsignificant 7% relative risk reduction for the first primary endpoint, and a nonsignificant 9% relative risk reduction for the second primary endpoint, he reported.

But Dr. Loeb lobbied for the relevance of several significant secondary endpoints that collectively showed a compelling pattern of benefit during his talk. These included, for the full 3-years of follow-up, important, significant reductions relative to placebo of 16% for first all-cause hospitalizations (P = .01), and a 42% relative risk reduction in first cases of pneumonia (P = .0006).

Then there were the benefits that appeared during influenza season. In that analysis, first events for the first primary endpoint fell after vaccination by a significant 18% relative to placebo. The in-season analysis also showed the significant cuts in both all-cause and cardiovascular deaths.

Despite the neutral primary endpoints, “if you look at these data as a whole I think they speak to the importance of vaccinating patients with heart failure against influenza,” Dr. Loeb maintained.



‘Totality of evidence supports vaccination’

“I agree that the totality of evidence supports influenza vaccination,” commented Mark H. Drazner, MD, professor and clinical chief of cardiology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who was designated discussant for the report.

“The message should be to offer influenza vaccine to patients with heart failure,” Dr. Drazner said in an interview. “Previous data on influenza vaccine in patients with heart failure were largely observational. This was a randomized, prospective, placebo-controlled trial. That’s a step forward. Proving efficacy in a randomized trial is important.”

Dr Drazner added that his institution already promotes a “strong mandate” to vaccinate patients with heart failure against influenza.

“The influenza vaccine is a very effective and cost-efficient public health measure. Preventing hospitalizations of patients with heart failure has so many benefits,” commented Craig Beavers, PharmD, vice president of professional services at Baptist Health in Paducah, Ky., and a discussant during the press briefing.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The Influenza Vaccine To Prevent Adverse Vascular Events (IVVE) trial enrolled people with heart failure in New York Heart Association functional class II, III, or IV from any of 10 low- and middle-income countries including China, India, the Philippines, and multiple countries from Africa and the Middle East. They averaged 57 years of age, and slightly more than half were women.

IVVE was sponsored by McMaster University; the only commercial support that IVVE received was a free supply of influenza vaccine from Sanofi Pasteur. Dr. Loeb, Dr. Drazner, and Dr. Beavers had no disclosures.

WASHINGTON – Patients with heart failure who received an annual influenza vaccine for 3 years running had significantly fewer all-cause hospitalizations and significantly fewer cases of pneumonia during that time, compared with placebo-treated patients with heart failure, in a prospective, randomized, global trial with 5,129 participants.

Although the results failed to show a significant reduction in all-cause deaths linked to influenza vaccination, compared with controls during the entire 3 years of the study, the results did show a significant 21% relative mortality-risk reduction by vaccination during periods of peak influenza circulation, and a significant 23% reduction in cardiovascular deaths, compared with controls during peak seasons.

courtesy Dr. Mark Loeb

“This is the first randomized, controlled trial of influenza vaccine in patients with heart failure, and we showed that vaccination reduces deaths” during peak influenza seasons, Mark Loeb, MD, said during a press briefing at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. The results send “an important global message that patients with heart failure should receive the influenza vaccine,” said Dr. Loeb, a professor at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who specializes in clinical epidemiology and infectious diseases.

Dr. Loeb admitted that he and his associates erred when they picked the time window to assess the two primary endpoints for the trial: the combined rate of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke, and this combined endpoint plus hospitalizations for heart failure.

The time window they selected was the entirety of all 3 years following three annual immunizations. That was a mistake.
 

No flu vaccine benefit outside flu season

“We know that the influenza vaccine will not have any effect outside of when influenza is circulating. In retrospect, we should have done that,” Dr. Loeb bemoaned during his talk. He chalked up the bad choice to concern over collecting enough endpoints to see a significant between-group difference when the researchers designed the study.

For the entire 3 years of follow-up, influenza vaccination was tied to a nonsignificant 7% relative risk reduction for the first primary endpoint, and a nonsignificant 9% relative risk reduction for the second primary endpoint, he reported.

But Dr. Loeb lobbied for the relevance of several significant secondary endpoints that collectively showed a compelling pattern of benefit during his talk. These included, for the full 3-years of follow-up, important, significant reductions relative to placebo of 16% for first all-cause hospitalizations (P = .01), and a 42% relative risk reduction in first cases of pneumonia (P = .0006).

Then there were the benefits that appeared during influenza season. In that analysis, first events for the first primary endpoint fell after vaccination by a significant 18% relative to placebo. The in-season analysis also showed the significant cuts in both all-cause and cardiovascular deaths.

Despite the neutral primary endpoints, “if you look at these data as a whole I think they speak to the importance of vaccinating patients with heart failure against influenza,” Dr. Loeb maintained.



‘Totality of evidence supports vaccination’

“I agree that the totality of evidence supports influenza vaccination,” commented Mark H. Drazner, MD, professor and clinical chief of cardiology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who was designated discussant for the report.

“The message should be to offer influenza vaccine to patients with heart failure,” Dr. Drazner said in an interview. “Previous data on influenza vaccine in patients with heart failure were largely observational. This was a randomized, prospective, placebo-controlled trial. That’s a step forward. Proving efficacy in a randomized trial is important.”

Dr Drazner added that his institution already promotes a “strong mandate” to vaccinate patients with heart failure against influenza.

“The influenza vaccine is a very effective and cost-efficient public health measure. Preventing hospitalizations of patients with heart failure has so many benefits,” commented Craig Beavers, PharmD, vice president of professional services at Baptist Health in Paducah, Ky., and a discussant during the press briefing.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The Influenza Vaccine To Prevent Adverse Vascular Events (IVVE) trial enrolled people with heart failure in New York Heart Association functional class II, III, or IV from any of 10 low- and middle-income countries including China, India, the Philippines, and multiple countries from Africa and the Middle East. They averaged 57 years of age, and slightly more than half were women.

IVVE was sponsored by McMaster University; the only commercial support that IVVE received was a free supply of influenza vaccine from Sanofi Pasteur. Dr. Loeb, Dr. Drazner, and Dr. Beavers had no disclosures.

WASHINGTON – Patients with heart failure who received an annual influenza vaccine for 3 years running had significantly fewer all-cause hospitalizations and significantly fewer cases of pneumonia during that time, compared with placebo-treated patients with heart failure, in a prospective, randomized, global trial with 5,129 participants.

Although the results failed to show a significant reduction in all-cause deaths linked to influenza vaccination, compared with controls during the entire 3 years of the study, the results did show a significant 21% relative mortality-risk reduction by vaccination during periods of peak influenza circulation, and a significant 23% reduction in cardiovascular deaths, compared with controls during peak seasons.

courtesy Dr. Mark Loeb

“This is the first randomized, controlled trial of influenza vaccine in patients with heart failure, and we showed that vaccination reduces deaths” during peak influenza seasons, Mark Loeb, MD, said during a press briefing at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. The results send “an important global message that patients with heart failure should receive the influenza vaccine,” said Dr. Loeb, a professor at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who specializes in clinical epidemiology and infectious diseases.

Dr. Loeb admitted that he and his associates erred when they picked the time window to assess the two primary endpoints for the trial: the combined rate of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke, and this combined endpoint plus hospitalizations for heart failure.

The time window they selected was the entirety of all 3 years following three annual immunizations. That was a mistake.
 

No flu vaccine benefit outside flu season

“We know that the influenza vaccine will not have any effect outside of when influenza is circulating. In retrospect, we should have done that,” Dr. Loeb bemoaned during his talk. He chalked up the bad choice to concern over collecting enough endpoints to see a significant between-group difference when the researchers designed the study.

For the entire 3 years of follow-up, influenza vaccination was tied to a nonsignificant 7% relative risk reduction for the first primary endpoint, and a nonsignificant 9% relative risk reduction for the second primary endpoint, he reported.

But Dr. Loeb lobbied for the relevance of several significant secondary endpoints that collectively showed a compelling pattern of benefit during his talk. These included, for the full 3-years of follow-up, important, significant reductions relative to placebo of 16% for first all-cause hospitalizations (P = .01), and a 42% relative risk reduction in first cases of pneumonia (P = .0006).

Then there were the benefits that appeared during influenza season. In that analysis, first events for the first primary endpoint fell after vaccination by a significant 18% relative to placebo. The in-season analysis also showed the significant cuts in both all-cause and cardiovascular deaths.

Despite the neutral primary endpoints, “if you look at these data as a whole I think they speak to the importance of vaccinating patients with heart failure against influenza,” Dr. Loeb maintained.



‘Totality of evidence supports vaccination’

“I agree that the totality of evidence supports influenza vaccination,” commented Mark H. Drazner, MD, professor and clinical chief of cardiology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who was designated discussant for the report.

“The message should be to offer influenza vaccine to patients with heart failure,” Dr. Drazner said in an interview. “Previous data on influenza vaccine in patients with heart failure were largely observational. This was a randomized, prospective, placebo-controlled trial. That’s a step forward. Proving efficacy in a randomized trial is important.”

Dr Drazner added that his institution already promotes a “strong mandate” to vaccinate patients with heart failure against influenza.

“The influenza vaccine is a very effective and cost-efficient public health measure. Preventing hospitalizations of patients with heart failure has so many benefits,” commented Craig Beavers, PharmD, vice president of professional services at Baptist Health in Paducah, Ky., and a discussant during the press briefing.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The Influenza Vaccine To Prevent Adverse Vascular Events (IVVE) trial enrolled people with heart failure in New York Heart Association functional class II, III, or IV from any of 10 low- and middle-income countries including China, India, the Philippines, and multiple countries from Africa and the Middle East. They averaged 57 years of age, and slightly more than half were women.

IVVE was sponsored by McMaster University; the only commercial support that IVVE received was a free supply of influenza vaccine from Sanofi Pasteur. Dr. Loeb, Dr. Drazner, and Dr. Beavers had no disclosures.

Every day we see stark images of the war in Ukraine – bombed-out buildings, explosions, and bodies lying in the streets. But there’s another, less visible war against the bacteria and viruses that are gathering their forces together. They, too, will infect parts of the population and may spread throughout Europe. Here’s what Ukrainians, and their neighbors, are facing on the infectious disease front.

Andrey Zinchuk, MD, MHS, a pulmonary/critical care physician at Yale and a native of Ukraine who immigrated to the U.S. at the age of 14 with his family, set the background for understanding this crisis. He said that TB and HIV rates in Ukraine have long been especially high, even before the current conflict: “Part of the challenge of the health care system in Ukraine is that it’s difficult to maintain a steady policy because of political instability,” he said. “We’ve had three revolutions in the last 20 years,” not counting the current Russian invasion.

The first was the breakup of the Soviet Union, which led to “an epidemic of people with HIV, hepatitis, and opioid use.” Next was the Orange Revolution in 2004 over fraud during a presidential election. In 2014 came the Maiden Revolution, after the government chose closer ties to Russia rather than Europe. Then-president Viktor Yanukovych fled to Russia.

“That’s when Russia annexed Crimea. There was essentially infiltration in Russian propaganda in the east of the country,” Dr. Zinchuk said. “This helped the Russians manufacture uprisings there to create a separatist state (the Luhansk and Donetsk People’s Republics) which were mostly Russian-speaking parts of the country,” an area known as the Donbas. This resulted in a war in eastern Ukraine that began 2014, with more than 10,000 deaths.

After the 2014 revolution, Dr. Zinchuk said, “There was a tremendous change in the way ... medical care was provided, and tremendous growth and stability in the medical supply for those chronic medical conditions.”

Nevertheless, health care expenditures in Ukraine have been quite low. Even before the current conflict, Dr. Zinchuk noted, annual health care expenditures in Ukraine were about $600 per capita. In comparison, it’s about $4,500 per person in Germany and $12,530 in the United States.

Despite those low per-capita expenditures in Ukraine, access to medicines – such as insulin for diabetes and antibiotics for tuberculosis – was stable before the war. But now, Dr. Zinchuk said, his aunt and uncle have had to flee Kyiv for the countryside and, while safe, they have “no plumbing and have to heat the house by burning firewood.” More significantly, their supply of medicine is unstable.

Asked what infections are of most immediate concern, Sten Vermund, MD, PhD, Dean of the Yale School of Public Health, told this news organization that it was “diarrheal diseases, especially in kids ... The water supply [of Mariupol] is no longer potable, but people are drinking it anyway. And sewage systems are destroyed, and raw sewage is just released into the rivers and streams. So the whole family of diarrheal diseases and war are bedfellows. So are respiratory diseases, whenever we have mass migrations and mixing of ... homeless people and transients.” 

There is one notable piece of good news that may reduce the spread of infectious diseases. Unlike the aftermath of World War II or the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia, refugees from the war in Ukraine are being taken into individual households throughout Poland, Germany, and other countries and are not being held in large displaced-persons camps. Dr. Vermund added, “The Syrian refugee camps in Lebanon are just tent camps with a million, 2 million people in them ... In theory, what the Poles are doing is a good thing from the point of view of preventing the spread of infection.”

One way of examining infections in war zones is by considering them based on how they are spread.
 

Respiratory infections

Although not as high on the list of concerns as TB or HIV, COVID-19 remains a big problem for infectious disease experts. Last fall, Ukraine ranked just behind the U.S. and Russia in deaths from COVID and in the top 10 in infections. Despite these dismal numbers, only 35% of people had completed the initial vaccination series.

The same conditions that fuel TB and COVID – crowding, especially in poorly ventilated settings – could lead to another measles outbreak. One occurred in Ukraine from 2017-2020, resulting in more than 115,000 cases. Even though the immunization rate for measles has now reached about 80%, the CDC considers Ukraine at high risk for another large outbreak since measles is so highly contagious.

According to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), Ukraine reported the second-highest number of TB cases in Europe (28,539). It is also one of the top 10 countries globally with the highest burden of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) – 27%. Equally disturbing is its ranking as having the second-highest rate of HIV/TB co-infection (26%) even before the war. Experts say war is a perfect breeding ground for TB, since starvation and overcrowding in poorly ventilated spaces encourages its spread.

Before the war, COVID had already caused severe disruptions in TB diagnosis and treatment access in Ukraine, and the World Health Organization suggested that the pandemic has set back efforts to end TB by more than a decade. 

Drug-resistant TB has been one of the biggest worries. In their report on TB in Ukraine, British tuberculosis experts Tom Wingfield, MBChB, PhD, from the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, and Jessica Potter MBBCh, PhD, from Queen Mary University of London, pointed out that “drug resistance thrives on fractured health systems and sporadic medicine supply.”

Frederick Altice, MD, a Yale epidemiologist and addiction specialist, noted, “[if] medication for tuberculosis is discontinued, that not only causes potential recurrence of disease but multidrug-resistant TB disease,” and patients could become infectious again.

Dr. Wingfield expressed concern that people will not seek care because they see it as unaffordable, although he told this news organization that he’s impressed at the Polish government’s efforts to ensure care. Especially with the triad of HIV, TB, and opioid use, Dr. Wingfield and Dr. Potter emphasized that these problems reflect the social determinants of health – “the experiences and conditions in which people live.” These medical conditions are all quite treatable with support, and once treated they pose no risk to others.
 

HIV and opioid use

Before the war, an estimated 260,000 people were living with HIV in Ukraine. Their rate of new HIV diagnoses in 2017 was second highest in the world – 37 out of every 100,000, exceeded only by Russia, with 71 out of 100,000.

Dr. Vermund told this news organization that “when Crimea was seized by the Russians in 2014, there was an immediate crisis among injection drug users who were in drug treatment programs, because it’s illegal in Russia to use buprenorphine or methadone ... So immediately, those programs were shut down, and all the drug users who were holding jobs, supporting their families, were withdrawing from their addictions and searching for a replacement, which was illegal heroin.”

Dr. Altice added that of 800 patients in the region who had to go cold turkey, “ten percent were dead within 6 months. Dependent on unreliable street drugs, some overdosed or committed suicide because they could not get treatment. They went through terrible withdrawal and stress.”

And as they relapsed, the HIV rate soared. “Fifty percent of the methadone patients have got HIV,” Dr. Altice said, “and if they stop taking the methadone, they’re going to stop taking their HIV medications as well. Their lives will become chaotic and very destabilized.”

This experience may soon repeat itself. There were two methadone factories in Ukraine – in Odessa and Kharkiv – that are now shut down by the war. Although there are efforts to import methadone and many other drugs, supply chain issues are “devastating,” Dr. Altice said. “If their medication for tuberculosis is discontinued, that not only causes potential recurrence of disease but multidrug-resistant TB disease,” and they could become infectious again. “[With a] lack of medication, lack of sterile syringes, people will be sharing syringes; they’ll be desperate. So as the desperation level goes up, the risk environment goes up, so that people have decreased opportunities to protect themselves,” and there will be an explosion in HIV.

Dr. Altice observed that with the immigration to Poland and the west, many Ukrainian refugees “are relying on the kindness of strangers.” They are likely to be “fearful to disclose either their HIV or their TB treatment status,” being afraid of being regarded as modern-day lepers, even though they are likely not infectious. Both Dr. Altice and Dr. Potter emphasized the need for the governments of Poland and other receiving countries to provide the refugees with “reassurance that their health information will not be shared with others.” Dr. Altice emphasized that “this is one of the things that I would say that these other countries have to get right.”

Dr. Potter echoed that, noting that extraordinary care needs to be taken so that shared information is not used for deportation.

When refugees are housed with rural hosts, transportation problems sometimes arise, creating major barriers to accessing care and treatment. In particular, refugees with TB, HIV, and addiction who are placed in small, remote locations may have difficulty securing transportation to sites where treatments for their complex illnesses are available, including specialists and medications.

Ukrainian-born microbiologist Olena Rzhepishevska, PhD, of Umeå University in Sweden, said in an interview that a network of European TB researchers have developed a database on TBNet where patients with TB can be specifically placed with understanding and helpful hosts outside of Ukraine. They can receive housing and medication through this network.

So far, 4 million Ukrainians have fled the country and millions more have been displaced internally. Dr. Altice noted that there is an “increased vulnerability beyond the vulnerability that they already [have] just by being a refugee” that we generally don’t recognize. Additionally, Poland and Hungary are not very progressive about methadone therapy nor are those nations well-equipped to provide it.

Dr. Altice explained that even within Ukraine, those who want to move to better their chance of getting their methadone are then at risk of being conscripted. He spoke of the grave calculations men must make, choosing to become internally displaced and risk conscription or losing life-saving methadone or medicines for HIV or TB.

One other unfortunate consequence of war might be a spike in rape, sexual abuse, prostitution, unwanted pregnancies, HIV, and sexually transmitted infections.

There were an estimated 80,100 female sex workers in Ukraine in 2016, with 5.2% HIV positive. In times of war, with no home or income, some women turn to prostitution to survive. Others are victims of sex trafficking, both within Ukraine and as refugees. The Russian invasion increased the risks of a surge in HIV infections, unwanted pregnancies, and abortions. Women who find themselves pregnant due to rape (a common tool of war) or sex trafficking may also struggle to access safe abortions. Poland, for example, has severe restrictions on abortion, and Ukrainian women may turn to unsafe, back-alley abortions, with their resulting high risk of infection.
 

Waterborne infections

Another concern involves waterborne infections. In addition to the common diarrheal diseases such as E coli, which can be expected from poor sanitation, polio is a significant concern. In the fall of 2021, Ukraine had an outbreak of vaccine-derived polio, with two cases of paralysis and 20 additional cases. As polio only paralyzes 1 person in 200 of those infected, many other cases were likely undetected. A vaccination campaign was just beginning when the war began.

Wound infections and antimicrobial resistance

The ECDC also reports high rates of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in Ukraine, particularly involving common gram-negative bacteria, including Escherichia coli (53% resistance to third-generation cephalosporins), Klebsiella pneumoniae (54% resistance to carbapenems), and Acinetobacter spp. (77% resistance to carbapenems). Because of this, they recommend refugees requiring hospital admission be isolated on admission and screened for AMR. These AMR often complicate traumatic injuries of war.

Prevention

Many of these potential problems stemming from the war in Ukraine and the displacement of millions of its citizens can be avoided.

Attempts are being made to immunize refugees. WHO has made working with countries receiving refugees a priority, particularly by vaccinating children against measles, rubella, and COVID. The European Union has also purchased vaccines for polio and tuberculosis.

But Russia has waged an active anti-vaccine campaign against COVID in Ukraine, while at the same time advocating for vaccines in Russia. According to UNICEF, other countries with relatively low vaccination rates and high vaccine skepticism – Moldova, Romania, and Bulgaria – are at higher risk of polio and measles than those with high vaccination levels.

The continuing war in Ukraine has exacerbated the medical challenges the citizens of Ukraine face at home and as refugees fleeing to neighboring countries. Improving communication among agencies and governments and building trust with the refugees could go a long way toward limiting the spread of preventable infectious diseases as a result of the war.

Continuing to try to keep supply chains open within Ukraine and ensuring adequate supplies of medications and vaccines to refugees will also be essential. But, of course, the better solution is to end the war.

Dr. Altice, Dr. Potter, Dr. Wingfield, Dr. Vermund, and Dr. Zinchuk all report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Every day we see stark images of the war in Ukraine – bombed-out buildings, explosions, and bodies lying in the streets. But there’s another, less visible war against the bacteria and viruses that are gathering their forces together. They, too, will infect parts of the population and may spread throughout Europe. Here’s what Ukrainians, and their neighbors, are facing on the infectious disease front.

Andrey Zinchuk, MD, MHS, a pulmonary/critical care physician at Yale and a native of Ukraine who immigrated to the U.S. at the age of 14 with his family, set the background for understanding this crisis. He said that TB and HIV rates in Ukraine have long been especially high, even before the current conflict: “Part of the challenge of the health care system in Ukraine is that it’s difficult to maintain a steady policy because of political instability,” he said. “We’ve had three revolutions in the last 20 years,” not counting the current Russian invasion.

The first was the breakup of the Soviet Union, which led to “an epidemic of people with HIV, hepatitis, and opioid use.” Next was the Orange Revolution in 2004 over fraud during a presidential election. In 2014 came the Maiden Revolution, after the government chose closer ties to Russia rather than Europe. Then-president Viktor Yanukovych fled to Russia.

“That’s when Russia annexed Crimea. There was essentially infiltration in Russian propaganda in the east of the country,” Dr. Zinchuk said. “This helped the Russians manufacture uprisings there to create a separatist state (the Luhansk and Donetsk People’s Republics) which were mostly Russian-speaking parts of the country,” an area known as the Donbas. This resulted in a war in eastern Ukraine that began 2014, with more than 10,000 deaths.

After the 2014 revolution, Dr. Zinchuk said, “There was a tremendous change in the way ... medical care was provided, and tremendous growth and stability in the medical supply for those chronic medical conditions.”

Nevertheless, health care expenditures in Ukraine have been quite low. Even before the current conflict, Dr. Zinchuk noted, annual health care expenditures in Ukraine were about $600 per capita. In comparison, it’s about $4,500 per person in Germany and $12,530 in the United States.

Despite those low per-capita expenditures in Ukraine, access to medicines – such as insulin for diabetes and antibiotics for tuberculosis – was stable before the war. But now, Dr. Zinchuk said, his aunt and uncle have had to flee Kyiv for the countryside and, while safe, they have “no plumbing and have to heat the house by burning firewood.” More significantly, their supply of medicine is unstable.

Asked what infections are of most immediate concern, Sten Vermund, MD, PhD, Dean of the Yale School of Public Health, told this news organization that it was “diarrheal diseases, especially in kids ... The water supply [of Mariupol] is no longer potable, but people are drinking it anyway. And sewage systems are destroyed, and raw sewage is just released into the rivers and streams. So the whole family of diarrheal diseases and war are bedfellows. So are respiratory diseases, whenever we have mass migrations and mixing of ... homeless people and transients.” 

There is one notable piece of good news that may reduce the spread of infectious diseases. Unlike the aftermath of World War II or the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia, refugees from the war in Ukraine are being taken into individual households throughout Poland, Germany, and other countries and are not being held in large displaced-persons camps. Dr. Vermund added, “The Syrian refugee camps in Lebanon are just tent camps with a million, 2 million people in them ... In theory, what the Poles are doing is a good thing from the point of view of preventing the spread of infection.”

One way of examining infections in war zones is by considering them based on how they are spread.
 

Respiratory infections

Although not as high on the list of concerns as TB or HIV, COVID-19 remains a big problem for infectious disease experts. Last fall, Ukraine ranked just behind the U.S. and Russia in deaths from COVID and in the top 10 in infections. Despite these dismal numbers, only 35% of people had completed the initial vaccination series.

The same conditions that fuel TB and COVID – crowding, especially in poorly ventilated settings – could lead to another measles outbreak. One occurred in Ukraine from 2017-2020, resulting in more than 115,000 cases. Even though the immunization rate for measles has now reached about 80%, the CDC considers Ukraine at high risk for another large outbreak since measles is so highly contagious.

According to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), Ukraine reported the second-highest number of TB cases in Europe (28,539). It is also one of the top 10 countries globally with the highest burden of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) – 27%. Equally disturbing is its ranking as having the second-highest rate of HIV/TB co-infection (26%) even before the war. Experts say war is a perfect breeding ground for TB, since starvation and overcrowding in poorly ventilated spaces encourages its spread.

Before the war, COVID had already caused severe disruptions in TB diagnosis and treatment access in Ukraine, and the World Health Organization suggested that the pandemic has set back efforts to end TB by more than a decade. 

Drug-resistant TB has been one of the biggest worries. In their report on TB in Ukraine, British tuberculosis experts Tom Wingfield, MBChB, PhD, from the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, and Jessica Potter MBBCh, PhD, from Queen Mary University of London, pointed out that “drug resistance thrives on fractured health systems and sporadic medicine supply.”

Frederick Altice, MD, a Yale epidemiologist and addiction specialist, noted, “[if] medication for tuberculosis is discontinued, that not only causes potential recurrence of disease but multidrug-resistant TB disease,” and patients could become infectious again.

Dr. Wingfield expressed concern that people will not seek care because they see it as unaffordable, although he told this news organization that he’s impressed at the Polish government’s efforts to ensure care. Especially with the triad of HIV, TB, and opioid use, Dr. Wingfield and Dr. Potter emphasized that these problems reflect the social determinants of health – “the experiences and conditions in which people live.” These medical conditions are all quite treatable with support, and once treated they pose no risk to others.
 

HIV and opioid use

Before the war, an estimated 260,000 people were living with HIV in Ukraine. Their rate of new HIV diagnoses in 2017 was second highest in the world – 37 out of every 100,000, exceeded only by Russia, with 71 out of 100,000.

Dr. Vermund told this news organization that “when Crimea was seized by the Russians in 2014, there was an immediate crisis among injection drug users who were in drug treatment programs, because it’s illegal in Russia to use buprenorphine or methadone ... So immediately, those programs were shut down, and all the drug users who were holding jobs, supporting their families, were withdrawing from their addictions and searching for a replacement, which was illegal heroin.”

Dr. Altice added that of 800 patients in the region who had to go cold turkey, “ten percent were dead within 6 months. Dependent on unreliable street drugs, some overdosed or committed suicide because they could not get treatment. They went through terrible withdrawal and stress.”

And as they relapsed, the HIV rate soared. “Fifty percent of the methadone patients have got HIV,” Dr. Altice said, “and if they stop taking the methadone, they’re going to stop taking their HIV medications as well. Their lives will become chaotic and very destabilized.”

This experience may soon repeat itself. There were two methadone factories in Ukraine – in Odessa and Kharkiv – that are now shut down by the war. Although there are efforts to import methadone and many other drugs, supply chain issues are “devastating,” Dr. Altice said. “If their medication for tuberculosis is discontinued, that not only causes potential recurrence of disease but multidrug-resistant TB disease,” and they could become infectious again. “[With a] lack of medication, lack of sterile syringes, people will be sharing syringes; they’ll be desperate. So as the desperation level goes up, the risk environment goes up, so that people have decreased opportunities to protect themselves,” and there will be an explosion in HIV.

Dr. Altice observed that with the immigration to Poland and the west, many Ukrainian refugees “are relying on the kindness of strangers.” They are likely to be “fearful to disclose either their HIV or their TB treatment status,” being afraid of being regarded as modern-day lepers, even though they are likely not infectious. Both Dr. Altice and Dr. Potter emphasized the need for the governments of Poland and other receiving countries to provide the refugees with “reassurance that their health information will not be shared with others.” Dr. Altice emphasized that “this is one of the things that I would say that these other countries have to get right.”

Dr. Potter echoed that, noting that extraordinary care needs to be taken so that shared information is not used for deportation.

When refugees are housed with rural hosts, transportation problems sometimes arise, creating major barriers to accessing care and treatment. In particular, refugees with TB, HIV, and addiction who are placed in small, remote locations may have difficulty securing transportation to sites where treatments for their complex illnesses are available, including specialists and medications.

Ukrainian-born microbiologist Olena Rzhepishevska, PhD, of Umeå University in Sweden, said in an interview that a network of European TB researchers have developed a database on TBNet where patients with TB can be specifically placed with understanding and helpful hosts outside of Ukraine. They can receive housing and medication through this network.

So far, 4 million Ukrainians have fled the country and millions more have been displaced internally. Dr. Altice noted that there is an “increased vulnerability beyond the vulnerability that they already [have] just by being a refugee” that we generally don’t recognize. Additionally, Poland and Hungary are not very progressive about methadone therapy nor are those nations well-equipped to provide it.

Dr. Altice explained that even within Ukraine, those who want to move to better their chance of getting their methadone are then at risk of being conscripted. He spoke of the grave calculations men must make, choosing to become internally displaced and risk conscription or losing life-saving methadone or medicines for HIV or TB.

One other unfortunate consequence of war might be a spike in rape, sexual abuse, prostitution, unwanted pregnancies, HIV, and sexually transmitted infections.

There were an estimated 80,100 female sex workers in Ukraine in 2016, with 5.2% HIV positive. In times of war, with no home or income, some women turn to prostitution to survive. Others are victims of sex trafficking, both within Ukraine and as refugees. The Russian invasion increased the risks of a surge in HIV infections, unwanted pregnancies, and abortions. Women who find themselves pregnant due to rape (a common tool of war) or sex trafficking may also struggle to access safe abortions. Poland, for example, has severe restrictions on abortion, and Ukrainian women may turn to unsafe, back-alley abortions, with their resulting high risk of infection.
 

Waterborne infections

Another concern involves waterborne infections. In addition to the common diarrheal diseases such as E coli, which can be expected from poor sanitation, polio is a significant concern. In the fall of 2021, Ukraine had an outbreak of vaccine-derived polio, with two cases of paralysis and 20 additional cases. As polio only paralyzes 1 person in 200 of those infected, many other cases were likely undetected. A vaccination campaign was just beginning when the war began.

Wound infections and antimicrobial resistance

The ECDC also reports high rates of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in Ukraine, particularly involving common gram-negative bacteria, including Escherichia coli (53% resistance to third-generation cephalosporins), Klebsiella pneumoniae (54% resistance to carbapenems), and Acinetobacter spp. (77% resistance to carbapenems). Because of this, they recommend refugees requiring hospital admission be isolated on admission and screened for AMR. These AMR often complicate traumatic injuries of war.

Prevention

Many of these potential problems stemming from the war in Ukraine and the displacement of millions of its citizens can be avoided.

Attempts are being made to immunize refugees. WHO has made working with countries receiving refugees a priority, particularly by vaccinating children against measles, rubella, and COVID. The European Union has also purchased vaccines for polio and tuberculosis.

But Russia has waged an active anti-vaccine campaign against COVID in Ukraine, while at the same time advocating for vaccines in Russia. According to UNICEF, other countries with relatively low vaccination rates and high vaccine skepticism – Moldova, Romania, and Bulgaria – are at higher risk of polio and measles than those with high vaccination levels.

The continuing war in Ukraine has exacerbated the medical challenges the citizens of Ukraine face at home and as refugees fleeing to neighboring countries. Improving communication among agencies and governments and building trust with the refugees could go a long way toward limiting the spread of preventable infectious diseases as a result of the war.

Continuing to try to keep supply chains open within Ukraine and ensuring adequate supplies of medications and vaccines to refugees will also be essential. But, of course, the better solution is to end the war.

Dr. Altice, Dr. Potter, Dr. Wingfield, Dr. Vermund, and Dr. Zinchuk all report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Every day we see stark images of the war in Ukraine – bombed-out buildings, explosions, and bodies lying in the streets. But there’s another, less visible war against the bacteria and viruses that are gathering their forces together. They, too, will infect parts of the population and may spread throughout Europe. Here’s what Ukrainians, and their neighbors, are facing on the infectious disease front.

Andrey Zinchuk, MD, MHS, a pulmonary/critical care physician at Yale and a native of Ukraine who immigrated to the U.S. at the age of 14 with his family, set the background for understanding this crisis. He said that TB and HIV rates in Ukraine have long been especially high, even before the current conflict: “Part of the challenge of the health care system in Ukraine is that it’s difficult to maintain a steady policy because of political instability,” he said. “We’ve had three revolutions in the last 20 years,” not counting the current Russian invasion.

The first was the breakup of the Soviet Union, which led to “an epidemic of people with HIV, hepatitis, and opioid use.” Next was the Orange Revolution in 2004 over fraud during a presidential election. In 2014 came the Maiden Revolution, after the government chose closer ties to Russia rather than Europe. Then-president Viktor Yanukovych fled to Russia.

“That’s when Russia annexed Crimea. There was essentially infiltration in Russian propaganda in the east of the country,” Dr. Zinchuk said. “This helped the Russians manufacture uprisings there to create a separatist state (the Luhansk and Donetsk People’s Republics) which were mostly Russian-speaking parts of the country,” an area known as the Donbas. This resulted in a war in eastern Ukraine that began 2014, with more than 10,000 deaths.

After the 2014 revolution, Dr. Zinchuk said, “There was a tremendous change in the way ... medical care was provided, and tremendous growth and stability in the medical supply for those chronic medical conditions.”

Nevertheless, health care expenditures in Ukraine have been quite low. Even before the current conflict, Dr. Zinchuk noted, annual health care expenditures in Ukraine were about $600 per capita. In comparison, it’s about $4,500 per person in Germany and $12,530 in the United States.

Despite those low per-capita expenditures in Ukraine, access to medicines – such as insulin for diabetes and antibiotics for tuberculosis – was stable before the war. But now, Dr. Zinchuk said, his aunt and uncle have had to flee Kyiv for the countryside and, while safe, they have “no plumbing and have to heat the house by burning firewood.” More significantly, their supply of medicine is unstable.

Asked what infections are of most immediate concern, Sten Vermund, MD, PhD, Dean of the Yale School of Public Health, told this news organization that it was “diarrheal diseases, especially in kids ... The water supply [of Mariupol] is no longer potable, but people are drinking it anyway. And sewage systems are destroyed, and raw sewage is just released into the rivers and streams. So the whole family of diarrheal diseases and war are bedfellows. So are respiratory diseases, whenever we have mass migrations and mixing of ... homeless people and transients.” 

There is one notable piece of good news that may reduce the spread of infectious diseases. Unlike the aftermath of World War II or the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia, refugees from the war in Ukraine are being taken into individual households throughout Poland, Germany, and other countries and are not being held in large displaced-persons camps. Dr. Vermund added, “The Syrian refugee camps in Lebanon are just tent camps with a million, 2 million people in them ... In theory, what the Poles are doing is a good thing from the point of view of preventing the spread of infection.”

One way of examining infections in war zones is by considering them based on how they are spread.
 

Respiratory infections

Although not as high on the list of concerns as TB or HIV, COVID-19 remains a big problem for infectious disease experts. Last fall, Ukraine ranked just behind the U.S. and Russia in deaths from COVID and in the top 10 in infections. Despite these dismal numbers, only 35% of people had completed the initial vaccination series.

The same conditions that fuel TB and COVID – crowding, especially in poorly ventilated settings – could lead to another measles outbreak. One occurred in Ukraine from 2017-2020, resulting in more than 115,000 cases. Even though the immunization rate for measles has now reached about 80%, the CDC considers Ukraine at high risk for another large outbreak since measles is so highly contagious.

According to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), Ukraine reported the second-highest number of TB cases in Europe (28,539). It is also one of the top 10 countries globally with the highest burden of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) – 27%. Equally disturbing is its ranking as having the second-highest rate of HIV/TB co-infection (26%) even before the war. Experts say war is a perfect breeding ground for TB, since starvation and overcrowding in poorly ventilated spaces encourages its spread.

Before the war, COVID had already caused severe disruptions in TB diagnosis and treatment access in Ukraine, and the World Health Organization suggested that the pandemic has set back efforts to end TB by more than a decade. 

Drug-resistant TB has been one of the biggest worries. In their report on TB in Ukraine, British tuberculosis experts Tom Wingfield, MBChB, PhD, from the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, and Jessica Potter MBBCh, PhD, from Queen Mary University of London, pointed out that “drug resistance thrives on fractured health systems and sporadic medicine supply.”

Frederick Altice, MD, a Yale epidemiologist and addiction specialist, noted, “[if] medication for tuberculosis is discontinued, that not only causes potential recurrence of disease but multidrug-resistant TB disease,” and patients could become infectious again.

Dr. Wingfield expressed concern that people will not seek care because they see it as unaffordable, although he told this news organization that he’s impressed at the Polish government’s efforts to ensure care. Especially with the triad of HIV, TB, and opioid use, Dr. Wingfield and Dr. Potter emphasized that these problems reflect the social determinants of health – “the experiences and conditions in which people live.” These medical conditions are all quite treatable with support, and once treated they pose no risk to others.
 

HIV and opioid use

Before the war, an estimated 260,000 people were living with HIV in Ukraine. Their rate of new HIV diagnoses in 2017 was second highest in the world – 37 out of every 100,000, exceeded only by Russia, with 71 out of 100,000.

Dr. Vermund told this news organization that “when Crimea was seized by the Russians in 2014, there was an immediate crisis among injection drug users who were in drug treatment programs, because it’s illegal in Russia to use buprenorphine or methadone ... So immediately, those programs were shut down, and all the drug users who were holding jobs, supporting their families, were withdrawing from their addictions and searching for a replacement, which was illegal heroin.”

Dr. Altice added that of 800 patients in the region who had to go cold turkey, “ten percent were dead within 6 months. Dependent on unreliable street drugs, some overdosed or committed suicide because they could not get treatment. They went through terrible withdrawal and stress.”

And as they relapsed, the HIV rate soared. “Fifty percent of the methadone patients have got HIV,” Dr. Altice said, “and if they stop taking the methadone, they’re going to stop taking their HIV medications as well. Their lives will become chaotic and very destabilized.”

This experience may soon repeat itself. There were two methadone factories in Ukraine – in Odessa and Kharkiv – that are now shut down by the war. Although there are efforts to import methadone and many other drugs, supply chain issues are “devastating,” Dr. Altice said. “If their medication for tuberculosis is discontinued, that not only causes potential recurrence of disease but multidrug-resistant TB disease,” and they could become infectious again. “[With a] lack of medication, lack of sterile syringes, people will be sharing syringes; they’ll be desperate. So as the desperation level goes up, the risk environment goes up, so that people have decreased opportunities to protect themselves,” and there will be an explosion in HIV.

Dr. Altice observed that with the immigration to Poland and the west, many Ukrainian refugees “are relying on the kindness of strangers.” They are likely to be “fearful to disclose either their HIV or their TB treatment status,” being afraid of being regarded as modern-day lepers, even though they are likely not infectious. Both Dr. Altice and Dr. Potter emphasized the need for the governments of Poland and other receiving countries to provide the refugees with “reassurance that their health information will not be shared with others.” Dr. Altice emphasized that “this is one of the things that I would say that these other countries have to get right.”

Dr. Potter echoed that, noting that extraordinary care needs to be taken so that shared information is not used for deportation.

When refugees are housed with rural hosts, transportation problems sometimes arise, creating major barriers to accessing care and treatment. In particular, refugees with TB, HIV, and addiction who are placed in small, remote locations may have difficulty securing transportation to sites where treatments for their complex illnesses are available, including specialists and medications.

Ukrainian-born microbiologist Olena Rzhepishevska, PhD, of Umeå University in Sweden, said in an interview that a network of European TB researchers have developed a database on TBNet where patients with TB can be specifically placed with understanding and helpful hosts outside of Ukraine. They can receive housing and medication through this network.

So far, 4 million Ukrainians have fled the country and millions more have been displaced internally. Dr. Altice noted that there is an “increased vulnerability beyond the vulnerability that they already [have] just by being a refugee” that we generally don’t recognize. Additionally, Poland and Hungary are not very progressive about methadone therapy nor are those nations well-equipped to provide it.

Dr. Altice explained that even within Ukraine, those who want to move to better their chance of getting their methadone are then at risk of being conscripted. He spoke of the grave calculations men must make, choosing to become internally displaced and risk conscription or losing life-saving methadone or medicines for HIV or TB.

One other unfortunate consequence of war might be a spike in rape, sexual abuse, prostitution, unwanted pregnancies, HIV, and sexually transmitted infections.

There were an estimated 80,100 female sex workers in Ukraine in 2016, with 5.2% HIV positive. In times of war, with no home or income, some women turn to prostitution to survive. Others are victims of sex trafficking, both within Ukraine and as refugees. The Russian invasion increased the risks of a surge in HIV infections, unwanted pregnancies, and abortions. Women who find themselves pregnant due to rape (a common tool of war) or sex trafficking may also struggle to access safe abortions. Poland, for example, has severe restrictions on abortion, and Ukrainian women may turn to unsafe, back-alley abortions, with their resulting high risk of infection.
 

Waterborne infections

Another concern involves waterborne infections. In addition to the common diarrheal diseases such as E coli, which can be expected from poor sanitation, polio is a significant concern. In the fall of 2021, Ukraine had an outbreak of vaccine-derived polio, with two cases of paralysis and 20 additional cases. As polio only paralyzes 1 person in 200 of those infected, many other cases were likely undetected. A vaccination campaign was just beginning when the war began.

Wound infections and antimicrobial resistance

The ECDC also reports high rates of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in Ukraine, particularly involving common gram-negative bacteria, including Escherichia coli (53% resistance to third-generation cephalosporins), Klebsiella pneumoniae (54% resistance to carbapenems), and Acinetobacter spp. (77% resistance to carbapenems). Because of this, they recommend refugees requiring hospital admission be isolated on admission and screened for AMR. These AMR often complicate traumatic injuries of war.

Prevention

Many of these potential problems stemming from the war in Ukraine and the displacement of millions of its citizens can be avoided.

Attempts are being made to immunize refugees. WHO has made working with countries receiving refugees a priority, particularly by vaccinating children against measles, rubella, and COVID. The European Union has also purchased vaccines for polio and tuberculosis.

But Russia has waged an active anti-vaccine campaign against COVID in Ukraine, while at the same time advocating for vaccines in Russia. According to UNICEF, other countries with relatively low vaccination rates and high vaccine skepticism – Moldova, Romania, and Bulgaria – are at higher risk of polio and measles than those with high vaccination levels.

The continuing war in Ukraine has exacerbated the medical challenges the citizens of Ukraine face at home and as refugees fleeing to neighboring countries. Improving communication among agencies and governments and building trust with the refugees could go a long way toward limiting the spread of preventable infectious diseases as a result of the war.

Continuing to try to keep supply chains open within Ukraine and ensuring adequate supplies of medications and vaccines to refugees will also be essential. But, of course, the better solution is to end the war.

Dr. Altice, Dr. Potter, Dr. Wingfield, Dr. Vermund, and Dr. Zinchuk all report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that all adults aged 19-59 years receive a vaccination for hepatitis B.

It also added that adults aged 60 years or older without known risk factors for hepatitis B may get vaccinated.

The agency earlier recommended the vaccination for all infants and children under the age of 19 years and for adults aged 60 years or older with known risk factors.

The CDC said it wants to expand vaccinations because, after decades of progress, the number of new hepatitis B infections is increasing among adults. Acute hepatitis B infections among adults lead to chronic hepatitis B disease in an estimated 2%-6% of cases, and can result in cirrhosis, liver cancer, and death.

Among adults aged 40-49 years, the rate of cases increased from 1.9 per 100,000 people in 2011 to 2.7 per 100,000 in 2019. Among adults aged 50-59 years, the rate increased during this period from 1.1 to 1.6 per 100,000.

Most adults aren’t vaccinated. Among adults aged 19 years or older, only 30.0% reported that they’d received at least the three recommended doses of the vaccine. The rate was 40.3% for adults aged 19-49 years, and 19.1% for adults aged 50 years or older.

Hepatitis B infection rates are particularly elevated among African Americans.

Even among adults with chronic liver disease, the vaccination rate is only 33.0%. And, among travelers to countries where the virus has been endemic since 1995, only 38.9% were vaccinated.

In a 2018 survey of internal medicine and family physicians, 68% said their patients had not told them about risk factors, making it difficult to assess whether the patients needed the vaccine according to the recommendations at the time. These risk factors include injection drug use, incarceration, and multiple sex partners, experiences the patients may not have been willing to discuss.

CDC researchers calculated that universal adult hepatitis B vaccination would cost $153,000 for every quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. For adults aged 19-59 years, a QALY would cost $117,000 because infections are more prevalent in that age group.

The CDC specified that it intends its new guidelines to prompt physicians to offer the vaccine to adults aged 60 years or older rather than wait for them to request it.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved both three-dose and two-dose hepatitis B vaccines, with evidence showing similar seroprotection and adverse events.

People who have already completed their vaccination or have a history of hepatitis B infection should only receive additional vaccinations in specific cases, as detailed in the CDC’s 2018 recommendations.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that all adults aged 19-59 years receive a vaccination for hepatitis B.

It also added that adults aged 60 years or older without known risk factors for hepatitis B may get vaccinated.

The agency earlier recommended the vaccination for all infants and children under the age of 19 years and for adults aged 60 years or older with known risk factors.

The CDC said it wants to expand vaccinations because, after decades of progress, the number of new hepatitis B infections is increasing among adults. Acute hepatitis B infections among adults lead to chronic hepatitis B disease in an estimated 2%-6% of cases, and can result in cirrhosis, liver cancer, and death.

Among adults aged 40-49 years, the rate of cases increased from 1.9 per 100,000 people in 2011 to 2.7 per 100,000 in 2019. Among adults aged 50-59 years, the rate increased during this period from 1.1 to 1.6 per 100,000.

Most adults aren’t vaccinated. Among adults aged 19 years or older, only 30.0% reported that they’d received at least the three recommended doses of the vaccine. The rate was 40.3% for adults aged 19-49 years, and 19.1% for adults aged 50 years or older.

Hepatitis B infection rates are particularly elevated among African Americans.

Even among adults with chronic liver disease, the vaccination rate is only 33.0%. And, among travelers to countries where the virus has been endemic since 1995, only 38.9% were vaccinated.

In a 2018 survey of internal medicine and family physicians, 68% said their patients had not told them about risk factors, making it difficult to assess whether the patients needed the vaccine according to the recommendations at the time. These risk factors include injection drug use, incarceration, and multiple sex partners, experiences the patients may not have been willing to discuss.

CDC researchers calculated that universal adult hepatitis B vaccination would cost $153,000 for every quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. For adults aged 19-59 years, a QALY would cost $117,000 because infections are more prevalent in that age group.

The CDC specified that it intends its new guidelines to prompt physicians to offer the vaccine to adults aged 60 years or older rather than wait for them to request it.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved both three-dose and two-dose hepatitis B vaccines, with evidence showing similar seroprotection and adverse events.

People who have already completed their vaccination or have a history of hepatitis B infection should only receive additional vaccinations in specific cases, as detailed in the CDC’s 2018 recommendations.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that all adults aged 19-59 years receive a vaccination for hepatitis B.

It also added that adults aged 60 years or older without known risk factors for hepatitis B may get vaccinated.

The agency earlier recommended the vaccination for all infants and children under the age of 19 years and for adults aged 60 years or older with known risk factors.

The CDC said it wants to expand vaccinations because, after decades of progress, the number of new hepatitis B infections is increasing among adults. Acute hepatitis B infections among adults lead to chronic hepatitis B disease in an estimated 2%-6% of cases, and can result in cirrhosis, liver cancer, and death.

Among adults aged 40-49 years, the rate of cases increased from 1.9 per 100,000 people in 2011 to 2.7 per 100,000 in 2019. Among adults aged 50-59 years, the rate increased during this period from 1.1 to 1.6 per 100,000.

Most adults aren’t vaccinated. Among adults aged 19 years or older, only 30.0% reported that they’d received at least the three recommended doses of the vaccine. The rate was 40.3% for adults aged 19-49 years, and 19.1% for adults aged 50 years or older.

Hepatitis B infection rates are particularly elevated among African Americans.

Even among adults with chronic liver disease, the vaccination rate is only 33.0%. And, among travelers to countries where the virus has been endemic since 1995, only 38.9% were vaccinated.

In a 2018 survey of internal medicine and family physicians, 68% said their patients had not told them about risk factors, making it difficult to assess whether the patients needed the vaccine according to the recommendations at the time. These risk factors include injection drug use, incarceration, and multiple sex partners, experiences the patients may not have been willing to discuss.

CDC researchers calculated that universal adult hepatitis B vaccination would cost $153,000 for every quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. For adults aged 19-59 years, a QALY would cost $117,000 because infections are more prevalent in that age group.

The CDC specified that it intends its new guidelines to prompt physicians to offer the vaccine to adults aged 60 years or older rather than wait for them to request it.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved both three-dose and two-dose hepatitis B vaccines, with evidence showing similar seroprotection and adverse events.

People who have already completed their vaccination or have a history of hepatitis B infection should only receive additional vaccinations in specific cases, as detailed in the CDC’s 2018 recommendations.

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

A small droplet that contains the coronavirus can infect someone with COVID-19, according to recent results from the first COVID-19 human challenge study, which were published in Nature Medicine.

Human challenge trials deliberately infect healthy volunteers to understand how an infection occurs and develops. In the first human challenge study for COVID-19, people were infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus to better understand what has happened during the pandemic.

“Really, there’s no other type of study where you can do that, because normally, patients only come to your attention if they have developed symptoms, and so you miss all of those preceding days when the infection is brewing,” Christopher Chiu, MD, PhD, the lead study author and an infectious disease doctor and immunologist at Imperial College London, told CNN.

Starting in March 2021, Dr. Chiu and colleagues carefully selected 36 volunteers aged 18-30 years who didn’t have any risk factors for severe COVID-19, such as being overweight or having kidney, liver, heart, lung or blood problems. Participants also signed an extensive informed consent form, CNN reported.

The researchers conducted the trial in phases for safety. The first 10 participants who were infected received remdesivir, the antiviral drug, to reduce their chances of progressing to severe COVID-19. The research team also had monoclonal antibodies on hand in case any volunteers developed more severe symptoms. Ultimately, the researchers said, remdesivir was unnecessary, and they didn’t need to use the antibodies.

As part of the study, the participants had a small droplet of fluid that contained the original coronavirus strain inserted into their nose through a long tube. They stayed at London’s Royal Free Hospital for 2 weeks and were monitored by doctors 24 hours a day in rooms that had special air flow to keep the virus from spreading.

Of the 36 participants, 18 became infected, including two who never developed symptoms. The others had mild cases with symptoms such as congestion, sneezing, stuffy nose, and sore throat. Some also had headaches, muscle and joint pain, fatigue, and fever.

About 83% of participants who contracted COVID-19 lost their sense of smell to some degree, and nine people couldn’t smell at all. The symptom improved for most participants within 90 days, though one person still hadn’t fully regained their sense of smell about six months after the study ended.

The research team reported several other findings:

• Small amounts of the virus can make someone sick. About 10 mcm, or the amount in a single droplet that someone sneezes or coughs, can lead to infection.
• About 40 hours after the virus was inserted into a participant’s nose, the virus could be detected in the back of the throat.
• It took about 58 hours for the virus to appear on swabs from the nose, where the viral load eventually increased even more.
• COVID-19 has a short incubation period. It takes about 2 days after infection for someone to begin shedding the virus to others.
• People become contagious and shed high amounts of the virus before they show symptoms.
• In addition, infected people can shed high levels of the virus even if they don’t develop any symptoms.
• The study volunteers shed the virus for about 6 days on average, though some shed the virus for up to 12 days, even if they didn’t have symptoms.
• Lateral flow tests, which are used for rapid at-home tests, work well when an infected person is contagious. These tests could diagnose infection before 70%-80% of the viable virus had been generated.

The findings emphasized the importance of contagious people covering their mouth and nose when sick to protect others, Dr. Chiu told CNN.

None of the study volunteers developed lung issues as part of their infection, CNN reported. Dr. Chiu said that’s likely because they were young, healthy and received tiny amounts of the virus. All of the participants will be followed for a year to monitor for potential long-term effects.

Throughout the study, the research team also conducted cognitive tests to check the participants’ short-term memory and reaction time. The researchers are still analyzing the data, but the results “will really be informative,” Dr. Chiu told CNN.

Now the research team will conduct another human challenge trial, which will include vaccinated people who will be infected with the Delta variant. The researchers intend to study participants’ immune responses, which could provide valuable insights about new variants and vaccines.

“While there are differences in transmissibility due to the emergence of variants, such as Delta and Omicron, fundamentally, this is the same disease and the same factors will be responsible for protecting it,” Dr. Chiu said in a statement.

The research team will also study the 18 participants who didn’t get sick in the first human challenge trial. They didn’t develop antibodies, Dr. Chiu told CNN, despite receiving the same dose of the virus as those who got sick.

Before the study, all of the participants were screened for antibodies to other viruses, such as the original SARS virus. That means the volunteers weren’t cross-protected, and other factors may play into why some people don’t contract COVID-19. Future studies could help researchers provide better advice about protection if new variants emerge or a future pandemic occurs.

“There are lots of other things that help protect us,” Dr. Chiu said. “There are barriers in the nose. There are different kinds of proteins and things which are very ancient, primordial, protective systems ... and we’re really interested in trying to understand what those are.”

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

A small droplet that contains the coronavirus can infect someone with COVID-19, according to recent results from the first COVID-19 human challenge study, which were published in Nature Medicine.

Human challenge trials deliberately infect healthy volunteers to understand how an infection occurs and develops. In the first human challenge study for COVID-19, people were infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus to better understand what has happened during the pandemic.

“Really, there’s no other type of study where you can do that, because normally, patients only come to your attention if they have developed symptoms, and so you miss all of those preceding days when the infection is brewing,” Christopher Chiu, MD, PhD, the lead study author and an infectious disease doctor and immunologist at Imperial College London, told CNN.

Starting in March 2021, Dr. Chiu and colleagues carefully selected 36 volunteers aged 18-30 years who didn’t have any risk factors for severe COVID-19, such as being overweight or having kidney, liver, heart, lung or blood problems. Participants also signed an extensive informed consent form, CNN reported.

The researchers conducted the trial in phases for safety. The first 10 participants who were infected received remdesivir, the antiviral drug, to reduce their chances of progressing to severe COVID-19. The research team also had monoclonal antibodies on hand in case any volunteers developed more severe symptoms. Ultimately, the researchers said, remdesivir was unnecessary, and they didn’t need to use the antibodies.

As part of the study, the participants had a small droplet of fluid that contained the original coronavirus strain inserted into their nose through a long tube. They stayed at London’s Royal Free Hospital for 2 weeks and were monitored by doctors 24 hours a day in rooms that had special air flow to keep the virus from spreading.

Of the 36 participants, 18 became infected, including two who never developed symptoms. The others had mild cases with symptoms such as congestion, sneezing, stuffy nose, and sore throat. Some also had headaches, muscle and joint pain, fatigue, and fever.

About 83% of participants who contracted COVID-19 lost their sense of smell to some degree, and nine people couldn’t smell at all. The symptom improved for most participants within 90 days, though one person still hadn’t fully regained their sense of smell about six months after the study ended.

The research team reported several other findings:

• Small amounts of the virus can make someone sick. About 10 mcm, or the amount in a single droplet that someone sneezes or coughs, can lead to infection.
• About 40 hours after the virus was inserted into a participant’s nose, the virus could be detected in the back of the throat.
• It took about 58 hours for the virus to appear on swabs from the nose, where the viral load eventually increased even more.
• COVID-19 has a short incubation period. It takes about 2 days after infection for someone to begin shedding the virus to others.
• People become contagious and shed high amounts of the virus before they show symptoms.
• In addition, infected people can shed high levels of the virus even if they don’t develop any symptoms.
• The study volunteers shed the virus for about 6 days on average, though some shed the virus for up to 12 days, even if they didn’t have symptoms.
• Lateral flow tests, which are used for rapid at-home tests, work well when an infected person is contagious. These tests could diagnose infection before 70%-80% of the viable virus had been generated.

The findings emphasized the importance of contagious people covering their mouth and nose when sick to protect others, Dr. Chiu told CNN.

None of the study volunteers developed lung issues as part of their infection, CNN reported. Dr. Chiu said that’s likely because they were young, healthy and received tiny amounts of the virus. All of the participants will be followed for a year to monitor for potential long-term effects.

Throughout the study, the research team also conducted cognitive tests to check the participants’ short-term memory and reaction time. The researchers are still analyzing the data, but the results “will really be informative,” Dr. Chiu told CNN.

Now the research team will conduct another human challenge trial, which will include vaccinated people who will be infected with the Delta variant. The researchers intend to study participants’ immune responses, which could provide valuable insights about new variants and vaccines.

“While there are differences in transmissibility due to the emergence of variants, such as Delta and Omicron, fundamentally, this is the same disease and the same factors will be responsible for protecting it,” Dr. Chiu said in a statement.

The research team will also study the 18 participants who didn’t get sick in the first human challenge trial. They didn’t develop antibodies, Dr. Chiu told CNN, despite receiving the same dose of the virus as those who got sick.

Before the study, all of the participants were screened for antibodies to other viruses, such as the original SARS virus. That means the volunteers weren’t cross-protected, and other factors may play into why some people don’t contract COVID-19. Future studies could help researchers provide better advice about protection if new variants emerge or a future pandemic occurs.

“There are lots of other things that help protect us,” Dr. Chiu said. “There are barriers in the nose. There are different kinds of proteins and things which are very ancient, primordial, protective systems ... and we’re really interested in trying to understand what those are.”

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

A small droplet that contains the coronavirus can infect someone with COVID-19, according to recent results from the first COVID-19 human challenge study, which were published in Nature Medicine.

Human challenge trials deliberately infect healthy volunteers to understand how an infection occurs and develops. In the first human challenge study for COVID-19, people were infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus to better understand what has happened during the pandemic.

“Really, there’s no other type of study where you can do that, because normally, patients only come to your attention if they have developed symptoms, and so you miss all of those preceding days when the infection is brewing,” Christopher Chiu, MD, PhD, the lead study author and an infectious disease doctor and immunologist at Imperial College London, told CNN.

Starting in March 2021, Dr. Chiu and colleagues carefully selected 36 volunteers aged 18-30 years who didn’t have any risk factors for severe COVID-19, such as being overweight or having kidney, liver, heart, lung or blood problems. Participants also signed an extensive informed consent form, CNN reported.

The researchers conducted the trial in phases for safety. The first 10 participants who were infected received remdesivir, the antiviral drug, to reduce their chances of progressing to severe COVID-19. The research team also had monoclonal antibodies on hand in case any volunteers developed more severe symptoms. Ultimately, the researchers said, remdesivir was unnecessary, and they didn’t need to use the antibodies.

As part of the study, the participants had a small droplet of fluid that contained the original coronavirus strain inserted into their nose through a long tube. They stayed at London’s Royal Free Hospital for 2 weeks and were monitored by doctors 24 hours a day in rooms that had special air flow to keep the virus from spreading.

Of the 36 participants, 18 became infected, including two who never developed symptoms. The others had mild cases with symptoms such as congestion, sneezing, stuffy nose, and sore throat. Some also had headaches, muscle and joint pain, fatigue, and fever.

About 83% of participants who contracted COVID-19 lost their sense of smell to some degree, and nine people couldn’t smell at all. The symptom improved for most participants within 90 days, though one person still hadn’t fully regained their sense of smell about six months after the study ended.

The research team reported several other findings:

• Small amounts of the virus can make someone sick. About 10 mcm, or the amount in a single droplet that someone sneezes or coughs, can lead to infection.
• About 40 hours after the virus was inserted into a participant’s nose, the virus could be detected in the back of the throat.
• It took about 58 hours for the virus to appear on swabs from the nose, where the viral load eventually increased even more.
• COVID-19 has a short incubation period. It takes about 2 days after infection for someone to begin shedding the virus to others.
• People become contagious and shed high amounts of the virus before they show symptoms.
• In addition, infected people can shed high levels of the virus even if they don’t develop any symptoms.
• The study volunteers shed the virus for about 6 days on average, though some shed the virus for up to 12 days, even if they didn’t have symptoms.
• Lateral flow tests, which are used for rapid at-home tests, work well when an infected person is contagious. These tests could diagnose infection before 70%-80% of the viable virus had been generated.

The findings emphasized the importance of contagious people covering their mouth and nose when sick to protect others, Dr. Chiu told CNN.

None of the study volunteers developed lung issues as part of their infection, CNN reported. Dr. Chiu said that’s likely because they were young, healthy and received tiny amounts of the virus. All of the participants will be followed for a year to monitor for potential long-term effects.

Throughout the study, the research team also conducted cognitive tests to check the participants’ short-term memory and reaction time. The researchers are still analyzing the data, but the results “will really be informative,” Dr. Chiu told CNN.

Now the research team will conduct another human challenge trial, which will include vaccinated people who will be infected with the Delta variant. The researchers intend to study participants’ immune responses, which could provide valuable insights about new variants and vaccines.

“While there are differences in transmissibility due to the emergence of variants, such as Delta and Omicron, fundamentally, this is the same disease and the same factors will be responsible for protecting it,” Dr. Chiu said in a statement.

The research team will also study the 18 participants who didn’t get sick in the first human challenge trial. They didn’t develop antibodies, Dr. Chiu told CNN, despite receiving the same dose of the virus as those who got sick.

Before the study, all of the participants were screened for antibodies to other viruses, such as the original SARS virus. That means the volunteers weren’t cross-protected, and other factors may play into why some people don’t contract COVID-19. Future studies could help researchers provide better advice about protection if new variants emerge or a future pandemic occurs.

“There are lots of other things that help protect us,” Dr. Chiu said. “There are barriers in the nose. There are different kinds of proteins and things which are very ancient, primordial, protective systems ... and we’re really interested in trying to understand what those are.”

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

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug that became popular as an alternative treatment for COVID-19, showed no signs of quelling the disease or reducing patients’ risk of hospitalization, according to results from a large clinical trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The findings pretty much rule out the drug as a treatment for COVID-19, the study authors wrote.

“There’s really no sign of any benefit,” David Boulware, MD, one of the coauthors and an infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the New York Times.

The researchers shared a summary of the results in August 2021 during an online presentation hosted by the National Institutes of Health. The full data hadn’t been published until now.

“Now that people can dive into the details and the data, hopefully that will steer the majority of doctors away from ivermectin toward other therapies,” Dr. Boulware said.

In the trial, the research team compared more than 1,350 people infected with the coronavirus in Brazil who received either ivermectin or a placebo as treatment.

Between March and August 2021, 679 patients received a daily dose of ivermectin over the course of 3 days. The researchers found that ivermectin didn’t reduce the risk that people with COVID-19 would be hospitalized or go to an ED within 28 days after treatment.

In addition, the researchers looked at particular groups to understand if some patients benefited for some reason, such as taking ivermectin sooner after testing positive for COVID-19. But those who took the drug during the first 3 days after a positive coronavirus test ended up doing worse than those in the placebo group. The drug also didn’t help patients recover sooner.

The researchers found “no important effects” of treatment with ivermectin on the number of days people spent in the hospital, the number of days hospitalized people needed mechanical ventilation, or the risk of death.

Ivermectin has become a controversial focal point during the pandemic.

For decades, the drug has been widely used to treat parasitic infections. At the beginning of the pandemic, researchers checked thousands of existing drugs against the coronavirus to determine if a potential treatment already existed. Laboratory experiments on cells suggested that ivermectin might work, the New York Times reported.

But some researchers noted that the experiments worked because a high concentration of ivermectin was used, a much higher dose than would be safe for people. Despite the concerns, some doctors began prescribing ivermectin to patients. After receiving reports of people who needed medical attention, particularly after using formulations intended for livestock, the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that the drug wasn’t approved to be used for COVID-19.

Researchers around the world have done small clinical trials to understand whether ivermectin treats COVID-19, the newspaper reported. At the end of 2020, Andrew Hill, MD, a virologist at the University of Liverpool in England, reviewed the results from 23 trials and concluded that the drug could lower the risk of death from COVID-19. He published the results in July 2021, but later reports found that many of the studies were flawed, and at least one was fraudulent.

Dr. Hill retracted his original study and began another analysis, which was published in January 2022. In this review, he and his colleagues focused on studies that were least likely to be biased. They found that ivermectin was not helpful.

Recently, Dr. Hill and associates ran another analysis using the new data from the Brazil trial, and once again they saw no benefit.

Several clinical trials are still testing ivermectin as a treatment, the New York Times reported, with results expected in upcoming months. After reviewing the data from the Brazil trial, which tested ivermectin and a variety of other drugs against COVID-19, some infectious disease experts say they’ll likely see more of the same – that ivermectin doesn’t help people with COVID-19.

“I welcome the results of the other clinical trials and will view them with an open mind,” Paul Sax, MD, an infectious disease expert at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who has been watching the data on the drug throughout the pandemic, told the New York Times.

“But at some point, it will become a waste of resources to continue studying an unpromising approach,” he said.

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

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug that became popular as an alternative treatment for COVID-19, showed no signs of quelling the disease or reducing patients’ risk of hospitalization, according to results from a large clinical trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The findings pretty much rule out the drug as a treatment for COVID-19, the study authors wrote.

“There’s really no sign of any benefit,” David Boulware, MD, one of the coauthors and an infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the New York Times.

The researchers shared a summary of the results in August 2021 during an online presentation hosted by the National Institutes of Health. The full data hadn’t been published until now.

“Now that people can dive into the details and the data, hopefully that will steer the majority of doctors away from ivermectin toward other therapies,” Dr. Boulware said.

In the trial, the research team compared more than 1,350 people infected with the coronavirus in Brazil who received either ivermectin or a placebo as treatment.

Between March and August 2021, 679 patients received a daily dose of ivermectin over the course of 3 days. The researchers found that ivermectin didn’t reduce the risk that people with COVID-19 would be hospitalized or go to an ED within 28 days after treatment.

In addition, the researchers looked at particular groups to understand if some patients benefited for some reason, such as taking ivermectin sooner after testing positive for COVID-19. But those who took the drug during the first 3 days after a positive coronavirus test ended up doing worse than those in the placebo group. The drug also didn’t help patients recover sooner.

The researchers found “no important effects” of treatment with ivermectin on the number of days people spent in the hospital, the number of days hospitalized people needed mechanical ventilation, or the risk of death.

Ivermectin has become a controversial focal point during the pandemic.

For decades, the drug has been widely used to treat parasitic infections. At the beginning of the pandemic, researchers checked thousands of existing drugs against the coronavirus to determine if a potential treatment already existed. Laboratory experiments on cells suggested that ivermectin might work, the New York Times reported.

But some researchers noted that the experiments worked because a high concentration of ivermectin was used, a much higher dose than would be safe for people. Despite the concerns, some doctors began prescribing ivermectin to patients. After receiving reports of people who needed medical attention, particularly after using formulations intended for livestock, the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that the drug wasn’t approved to be used for COVID-19.

Researchers around the world have done small clinical trials to understand whether ivermectin treats COVID-19, the newspaper reported. At the end of 2020, Andrew Hill, MD, a virologist at the University of Liverpool in England, reviewed the results from 23 trials and concluded that the drug could lower the risk of death from COVID-19. He published the results in July 2021, but later reports found that many of the studies were flawed, and at least one was fraudulent.

Dr. Hill retracted his original study and began another analysis, which was published in January 2022. In this review, he and his colleagues focused on studies that were least likely to be biased. They found that ivermectin was not helpful.

Recently, Dr. Hill and associates ran another analysis using the new data from the Brazil trial, and once again they saw no benefit.

Several clinical trials are still testing ivermectin as a treatment, the New York Times reported, with results expected in upcoming months. After reviewing the data from the Brazil trial, which tested ivermectin and a variety of other drugs against COVID-19, some infectious disease experts say they’ll likely see more of the same – that ivermectin doesn’t help people with COVID-19.

“I welcome the results of the other clinical trials and will view them with an open mind,” Paul Sax, MD, an infectious disease expert at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who has been watching the data on the drug throughout the pandemic, told the New York Times.

“But at some point, it will become a waste of resources to continue studying an unpromising approach,” he said.

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

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug that became popular as an alternative treatment for COVID-19, showed no signs of quelling the disease or reducing patients’ risk of hospitalization, according to results from a large clinical trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The findings pretty much rule out the drug as a treatment for COVID-19, the study authors wrote.

“There’s really no sign of any benefit,” David Boulware, MD, one of the coauthors and an infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the New York Times.

The researchers shared a summary of the results in August 2021 during an online presentation hosted by the National Institutes of Health. The full data hadn’t been published until now.

“Now that people can dive into the details and the data, hopefully that will steer the majority of doctors away from ivermectin toward other therapies,” Dr. Boulware said.

In the trial, the research team compared more than 1,350 people infected with the coronavirus in Brazil who received either ivermectin or a placebo as treatment.

Between March and August 2021, 679 patients received a daily dose of ivermectin over the course of 3 days. The researchers found that ivermectin didn’t reduce the risk that people with COVID-19 would be hospitalized or go to an ED within 28 days after treatment.

In addition, the researchers looked at particular groups to understand if some patients benefited for some reason, such as taking ivermectin sooner after testing positive for COVID-19. But those who took the drug during the first 3 days after a positive coronavirus test ended up doing worse than those in the placebo group. The drug also didn’t help patients recover sooner.

The researchers found “no important effects” of treatment with ivermectin on the number of days people spent in the hospital, the number of days hospitalized people needed mechanical ventilation, or the risk of death.

Ivermectin has become a controversial focal point during the pandemic.

For decades, the drug has been widely used to treat parasitic infections. At the beginning of the pandemic, researchers checked thousands of existing drugs against the coronavirus to determine if a potential treatment already existed. Laboratory experiments on cells suggested that ivermectin might work, the New York Times reported.

But some researchers noted that the experiments worked because a high concentration of ivermectin was used, a much higher dose than would be safe for people. Despite the concerns, some doctors began prescribing ivermectin to patients. After receiving reports of people who needed medical attention, particularly after using formulations intended for livestock, the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that the drug wasn’t approved to be used for COVID-19.

Researchers around the world have done small clinical trials to understand whether ivermectin treats COVID-19, the newspaper reported. At the end of 2020, Andrew Hill, MD, a virologist at the University of Liverpool in England, reviewed the results from 23 trials and concluded that the drug could lower the risk of death from COVID-19. He published the results in July 2021, but later reports found that many of the studies were flawed, and at least one was fraudulent.

Dr. Hill retracted his original study and began another analysis, which was published in January 2022. In this review, he and his colleagues focused on studies that were least likely to be biased. They found that ivermectin was not helpful.

Recently, Dr. Hill and associates ran another analysis using the new data from the Brazil trial, and once again they saw no benefit.

Several clinical trials are still testing ivermectin as a treatment, the New York Times reported, with results expected in upcoming months. After reviewing the data from the Brazil trial, which tested ivermectin and a variety of other drugs against COVID-19, some infectious disease experts say they’ll likely see more of the same – that ivermectin doesn’t help people with COVID-19.

“I welcome the results of the other clinical trials and will view them with an open mind,” Paul Sax, MD, an infectious disease expert at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who has been watching the data on the drug throughout the pandemic, told the New York Times.

“But at some point, it will become a waste of resources to continue studying an unpromising approach,” he said.

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

Pointing a finger at COVID-19

The battle against COVID-19 is seemingly never ending. It’s been 2 years and still we struggle against the virus. But now, a new hero rises against the eternal menace, a powerful weapon against this scourge of humanity. And that weapon? Finger length.

Before you break out the sad trombone, hear us out. One of the big questions around COVID-19 is the role testosterone plays in its severity: Does low testosterone increase or decrease the odds of contracting severe COVID-19? To help answer that question, English researchers have published a study analyzing finger length ratios in both COVID-19 patients and a healthy control group. That seems random, but high testosterone in the womb leads to longer ring fingers in adulthood, while high estrogen leads to longer index fingers.

PxHere

According to the researchers, those who had significant left hand–right hand differences in the ratio between the second and fourth digits, as well as the third and fifth digits, were significantly more likely to have severe COVID-19 compared with those with more even ratios. Those with “feminized” short little fingers were also at risk. Those large ratio differences indicate low testosterone and high estrogen, which may explain why elderly men are at such high risk for severe COVID-19. Testosterone naturally falls off as men get older.

The results add credence to clinical trials looking to use testosterone-boosting drugs against COVID-19, the researchers said. It also gives credence to LOTME’s brand-new 12-step finger strength fitness routine and our branded finger weights. Now just $19.95! It’s the bargain of the century! Boost your testosterone naturally and protect yourself from COVID-19! We promise it’s not a scam.
 

Some emergencies need a superhero

Last week, we learned about the most boring person in the world. This week just happens to be opposite week, so we’re looking at a candidate for the most interesting person. Someone who can swoop down from the sky to save the injured and helpless. Someone who can go where helicopters fear to tread. Someone with jet engines for arms. Superhero-type stuff.

Richard Browning/Gravity Industries

The Great North Air Ambulance Service (GNAAS), a charitable organization located in the United Kingdom, recently announced that one of its members has completed training on the Gravity Industries Jet Suit. The suit “has two engines on each arm and a larger engine on the back [that] provide up to 317 pounds of thrust,” Interesting Engineering explained.

GNAAS is putting the suit into operation in England’s Lake District National Park, which includes mountainous terrain that is not very hospitable to helicopter landings. A paramedic using the suit can reach hikers stranded on mountainsides much faster than rescuers who have to run or hike from the nearest helicopter landing site.

“Everyone looks at the wow factor and the fact we are the world’s first jet suit paramedics, but for us, it’s about delivering patient care,” GNAAS’ Andy Mawson told Interesting Engineering. Sounds like superhero-speak to us.

So if you’re in the Lake District and have taken a bit of a tumble, you can call a superhero on your cell phone or you can use this to summon one.
 

Why we’re rejecting food as medicine

Humans have been using food to treat ailments much longer than we’ve had the advances of modern medicine. So why have we rejected its worth in our treatment processes? And what can be done to change that? The Center for Food as Medicine and the Hunter College NYC Food Policy Center just released a 335-page report that answers those questions.

phototake/ThinkStock

First, the why: Meals in health care settings are not medically designed to help with the specific needs of the patient. Produce-prescription and nutrition-incentive programs don’t have the government funds to fully support them. And a lot of medical schools don’t even require students to take a basic nutrition course. So there’s a lack of knowledge and a disconnect between health care providers and food as a resource.

Then there’s a lack of trust in the food industry and their validity. Social media uses food as a means of promoting “pseudoscientific alternative medicine” or spreading false info, pushing away legitimate providers. The food industry has had its fingers in food science studies and an almost mafia-esque chokehold on American dietary guidelines. No wonder food for medicine is getting the boot!

To change the situation, the report offers 10 key recommendations on how to advance the idea of incorporating food into medicine for treatment and prevention. They include boosting the funding for research, making hospitals more food-as-medicine focused, expanding federal programs, and improving public awareness on the role nutrition can play in medical treatment or prevention.

So maybe instead of rejecting food outright, we should be looking a little deeper at how we can use it to our advantage. Just a thought: Ice cream as an antidepressant.
 

Being rude is a good thing, apparently

If you’ve ever been called argumentative, stubborn, or unpleasant, then this LOTME is for you. Researchers at the University of Geneva have found that people who are more stubborn and hate to conform have brains that are more protected against Alzheimer’s disease. That type of personality seems to preserve the part of the brain that usually deteriorates as we grow older.

Piqsels

The original hypothesis that personality may have a protective effect against brain degeneration led the investigators to conduct cognitive and personality assessments of 65 elderly participants over a 5-year period. Researchers have been attempting to create vaccines to protect against Alzheimer’s disease, but these new findings offer a nonbiological way to help.

“For a long time, the brain is able to compensate by activating alternative networks; when the first clinical signs appear, however, it is unfortunately often too late. The identification of early biomarkers is therefore essential for … effective disease management,” lead author Panteleimon Giannakopoulos, MD, said in a Study Finds report.

You may be wondering how people with more agreeable and less confrontational personalities can seek help. Well, researchers are working on that, too. It’s a complex situation, but as always, we’re rooting for you, science!

At least now you can take solace in the fact that your elderly next-door neighbor who yells at you for stepping on his lawn is probably more protected against Alzheimer’s disease.

Pointing a finger at COVID-19

The battle against COVID-19 is seemingly never ending. It’s been 2 years and still we struggle against the virus. But now, a new hero rises against the eternal menace, a powerful weapon against this scourge of humanity. And that weapon? Finger length.

Before you break out the sad trombone, hear us out. One of the big questions around COVID-19 is the role testosterone plays in its severity: Does low testosterone increase or decrease the odds of contracting severe COVID-19? To help answer that question, English researchers have published a study analyzing finger length ratios in both COVID-19 patients and a healthy control group. That seems random, but high testosterone in the womb leads to longer ring fingers in adulthood, while high estrogen leads to longer index fingers.

PxHere

According to the researchers, those who had significant left hand–right hand differences in the ratio between the second and fourth digits, as well as the third and fifth digits, were significantly more likely to have severe COVID-19 compared with those with more even ratios. Those with “feminized” short little fingers were also at risk. Those large ratio differences indicate low testosterone and high estrogen, which may explain why elderly men are at such high risk for severe COVID-19. Testosterone naturally falls off as men get older.

The results add credence to clinical trials looking to use testosterone-boosting drugs against COVID-19, the researchers said. It also gives credence to LOTME’s brand-new 12-step finger strength fitness routine and our branded finger weights. Now just $19.95! It’s the bargain of the century! Boost your testosterone naturally and protect yourself from COVID-19! We promise it’s not a scam.
 

Some emergencies need a superhero

Last week, we learned about the most boring person in the world. This week just happens to be opposite week, so we’re looking at a candidate for the most interesting person. Someone who can swoop down from the sky to save the injured and helpless. Someone who can go where helicopters fear to tread. Someone with jet engines for arms. Superhero-type stuff.

Richard Browning/Gravity Industries

The Great North Air Ambulance Service (GNAAS), a charitable organization located in the United Kingdom, recently announced that one of its members has completed training on the Gravity Industries Jet Suit. The suit “has two engines on each arm and a larger engine on the back [that] provide up to 317 pounds of thrust,” Interesting Engineering explained.

GNAAS is putting the suit into operation in England’s Lake District National Park, which includes mountainous terrain that is not very hospitable to helicopter landings. A paramedic using the suit can reach hikers stranded on mountainsides much faster than rescuers who have to run or hike from the nearest helicopter landing site.

“Everyone looks at the wow factor and the fact we are the world’s first jet suit paramedics, but for us, it’s about delivering patient care,” GNAAS’ Andy Mawson told Interesting Engineering. Sounds like superhero-speak to us.

So if you’re in the Lake District and have taken a bit of a tumble, you can call a superhero on your cell phone or you can use this to summon one.
 

Why we’re rejecting food as medicine

Humans have been using food to treat ailments much longer than we’ve had the advances of modern medicine. So why have we rejected its worth in our treatment processes? And what can be done to change that? The Center for Food as Medicine and the Hunter College NYC Food Policy Center just released a 335-page report that answers those questions.

phototake/ThinkStock

First, the why: Meals in health care settings are not medically designed to help with the specific needs of the patient. Produce-prescription and nutrition-incentive programs don’t have the government funds to fully support them. And a lot of medical schools don’t even require students to take a basic nutrition course. So there’s a lack of knowledge and a disconnect between health care providers and food as a resource.

Then there’s a lack of trust in the food industry and their validity. Social media uses food as a means of promoting “pseudoscientific alternative medicine” or spreading false info, pushing away legitimate providers. The food industry has had its fingers in food science studies and an almost mafia-esque chokehold on American dietary guidelines. No wonder food for medicine is getting the boot!

To change the situation, the report offers 10 key recommendations on how to advance the idea of incorporating food into medicine for treatment and prevention. They include boosting the funding for research, making hospitals more food-as-medicine focused, expanding federal programs, and improving public awareness on the role nutrition can play in medical treatment or prevention.

So maybe instead of rejecting food outright, we should be looking a little deeper at how we can use it to our advantage. Just a thought: Ice cream as an antidepressant.
 

Being rude is a good thing, apparently

If you’ve ever been called argumentative, stubborn, or unpleasant, then this LOTME is for you. Researchers at the University of Geneva have found that people who are more stubborn and hate to conform have brains that are more protected against Alzheimer’s disease. That type of personality seems to preserve the part of the brain that usually deteriorates as we grow older.

Piqsels

The original hypothesis that personality may have a protective effect against brain degeneration led the investigators to conduct cognitive and personality assessments of 65 elderly participants over a 5-year period. Researchers have been attempting to create vaccines to protect against Alzheimer’s disease, but these new findings offer a nonbiological way to help.

“For a long time, the brain is able to compensate by activating alternative networks; when the first clinical signs appear, however, it is unfortunately often too late. The identification of early biomarkers is therefore essential for … effective disease management,” lead author Panteleimon Giannakopoulos, MD, said in a Study Finds report.

You may be wondering how people with more agreeable and less confrontational personalities can seek help. Well, researchers are working on that, too. It’s a complex situation, but as always, we’re rooting for you, science!

At least now you can take solace in the fact that your elderly next-door neighbor who yells at you for stepping on his lawn is probably more protected against Alzheimer’s disease.

Pointing a finger at COVID-19

The battle against COVID-19 is seemingly never ending. It’s been 2 years and still we struggle against the virus. But now, a new hero rises against the eternal menace, a powerful weapon against this scourge of humanity. And that weapon? Finger length.

Before you break out the sad trombone, hear us out. One of the big questions around COVID-19 is the role testosterone plays in its severity: Does low testosterone increase or decrease the odds of contracting severe COVID-19? To help answer that question, English researchers have published a study analyzing finger length ratios in both COVID-19 patients and a healthy control group. That seems random, but high testosterone in the womb leads to longer ring fingers in adulthood, while high estrogen leads to longer index fingers.

PxHere

According to the researchers, those who had significant left hand–right hand differences in the ratio between the second and fourth digits, as well as the third and fifth digits, were significantly more likely to have severe COVID-19 compared with those with more even ratios. Those with “feminized” short little fingers were also at risk. Those large ratio differences indicate low testosterone and high estrogen, which may explain why elderly men are at such high risk for severe COVID-19. Testosterone naturally falls off as men get older.

The results add credence to clinical trials looking to use testosterone-boosting drugs against COVID-19, the researchers said. It also gives credence to LOTME’s brand-new 12-step finger strength fitness routine and our branded finger weights. Now just $19.95! It’s the bargain of the century! Boost your testosterone naturally and protect yourself from COVID-19! We promise it’s not a scam.
 

Some emergencies need a superhero

Last week, we learned about the most boring person in the world. This week just happens to be opposite week, so we’re looking at a candidate for the most interesting person. Someone who can swoop down from the sky to save the injured and helpless. Someone who can go where helicopters fear to tread. Someone with jet engines for arms. Superhero-type stuff.

Richard Browning/Gravity Industries

The Great North Air Ambulance Service (GNAAS), a charitable organization located in the United Kingdom, recently announced that one of its members has completed training on the Gravity Industries Jet Suit. The suit “has two engines on each arm and a larger engine on the back [that] provide up to 317 pounds of thrust,” Interesting Engineering explained.

GNAAS is putting the suit into operation in England’s Lake District National Park, which includes mountainous terrain that is not very hospitable to helicopter landings. A paramedic using the suit can reach hikers stranded on mountainsides much faster than rescuers who have to run or hike from the nearest helicopter landing site.

“Everyone looks at the wow factor and the fact we are the world’s first jet suit paramedics, but for us, it’s about delivering patient care,” GNAAS’ Andy Mawson told Interesting Engineering. Sounds like superhero-speak to us.

So if you’re in the Lake District and have taken a bit of a tumble, you can call a superhero on your cell phone or you can use this to summon one.
 

Why we’re rejecting food as medicine

Humans have been using food to treat ailments much longer than we’ve had the advances of modern medicine. So why have we rejected its worth in our treatment processes? And what can be done to change that? The Center for Food as Medicine and the Hunter College NYC Food Policy Center just released a 335-page report that answers those questions.

phototake/ThinkStock

First, the why: Meals in health care settings are not medically designed to help with the specific needs of the patient. Produce-prescription and nutrition-incentive programs don’t have the government funds to fully support them. And a lot of medical schools don’t even require students to take a basic nutrition course. So there’s a lack of knowledge and a disconnect between health care providers and food as a resource.

Then there’s a lack of trust in the food industry and their validity. Social media uses food as a means of promoting “pseudoscientific alternative medicine” or spreading false info, pushing away legitimate providers. The food industry has had its fingers in food science studies and an almost mafia-esque chokehold on American dietary guidelines. No wonder food for medicine is getting the boot!

To change the situation, the report offers 10 key recommendations on how to advance the idea of incorporating food into medicine for treatment and prevention. They include boosting the funding for research, making hospitals more food-as-medicine focused, expanding federal programs, and improving public awareness on the role nutrition can play in medical treatment or prevention.

So maybe instead of rejecting food outright, we should be looking a little deeper at how we can use it to our advantage. Just a thought: Ice cream as an antidepressant.
 

Being rude is a good thing, apparently

If you’ve ever been called argumentative, stubborn, or unpleasant, then this LOTME is for you. Researchers at the University of Geneva have found that people who are more stubborn and hate to conform have brains that are more protected against Alzheimer’s disease. That type of personality seems to preserve the part of the brain that usually deteriorates as we grow older.

Piqsels

The original hypothesis that personality may have a protective effect against brain degeneration led the investigators to conduct cognitive and personality assessments of 65 elderly participants over a 5-year period. Researchers have been attempting to create vaccines to protect against Alzheimer’s disease, but these new findings offer a nonbiological way to help.

“For a long time, the brain is able to compensate by activating alternative networks; when the first clinical signs appear, however, it is unfortunately often too late. The identification of early biomarkers is therefore essential for … effective disease management,” lead author Panteleimon Giannakopoulos, MD, said in a Study Finds report.

You may be wondering how people with more agreeable and less confrontational personalities can seek help. Well, researchers are working on that, too. It’s a complex situation, but as always, we’re rooting for you, science!

At least now you can take solace in the fact that your elderly next-door neighbor who yells at you for stepping on his lawn is probably more protected against Alzheimer’s disease.

Outcomes for patients with bacteremic Streptococcus pneumoniae were significantly worse than those for patients with Legionnaires disease (LD), based on data from 106 individuals.

Reported cases of LD in the United States have increased in recent decades, but they are likely under-reported, wrote Sima Salahie, MD, of Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, and Central Michigan University College of Medicine, Grosse Pointe Woods, and colleagues.

Clinical presentations may be similar for both conditions, but different antimicrobial therapies are needed; therefore, identifying distinguishing factors can promote better management of hospitalized patients, they reported.

In a retrospective case companion study published in the American Journal of the Medical Sciences, the researchers reviewed data from 51 adults with LD and 55 with bacteremic S. pneumoniae pneumonia (SP) who were hospitalized at a single center between 2013 and 2018. Diagnoses were confirmed by laboratory and radiology results. In addition, data were collected on clinical features including body mass index, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, pulse, respiratory rate, and temperature.

Overall, patients with SP were significantly more likely than those with LD to require mechanical ventilation (P = .04), intensive care unit stay (P = .004), and to die (P = .002). Patients with SP also had higher rates of septic shock compared to LD patients, although this difference fell short of statistical significance (49.1% vs. 30.4%; P = .06).

In a multivariate analysis, male sex, diarrhea, higher body mass index, hyponatremia, and lower Charleston Weighted Index of Comorbidity (CWIC) score were significant independent predictors of LD, with odds ratios of 21.6, 4.5, 1.13, 5.6, and 0.61, respectively.

The incidence of LD peaked in summer, while the incidence of SP peaked in the winter, the researchers noted. “Seasonality is a variable that has not always been included in previous scoring systems but should be considered in future modeling,” they said.

“Noteworthy is that LD represented almost as many cases as documented bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “This occurred at a time when there was no outbreak of L. pneumophila in our community, and as these were all community acquired, there was no evidence of a nosocomial outbreak in our institution,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the possible underestimation of SP because of the requirement for positive blood cultures and the lack of other methods of diagnosing SP, the researchers noted.

“However, the data suggest variables to distinguish LD from SP,” they said. “Establishing reliable clinical and laboratory parameters embedded in a simple diagnostic score that can accurately identify patients with LD may be helpful in aiding physicians’ early diagnosis in distinguishing LD from SP but will need to be defined.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.

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

Outcomes for patients with bacteremic Streptococcus pneumoniae were significantly worse than those for patients with Legionnaires disease (LD), based on data from 106 individuals.

Reported cases of LD in the United States have increased in recent decades, but they are likely under-reported, wrote Sima Salahie, MD, of Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, and Central Michigan University College of Medicine, Grosse Pointe Woods, and colleagues.

Clinical presentations may be similar for both conditions, but different antimicrobial therapies are needed; therefore, identifying distinguishing factors can promote better management of hospitalized patients, they reported.

In a retrospective case companion study published in the American Journal of the Medical Sciences, the researchers reviewed data from 51 adults with LD and 55 with bacteremic S. pneumoniae pneumonia (SP) who were hospitalized at a single center between 2013 and 2018. Diagnoses were confirmed by laboratory and radiology results. In addition, data were collected on clinical features including body mass index, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, pulse, respiratory rate, and temperature.

Overall, patients with SP were significantly more likely than those with LD to require mechanical ventilation (P = .04), intensive care unit stay (P = .004), and to die (P = .002). Patients with SP also had higher rates of septic shock compared to LD patients, although this difference fell short of statistical significance (49.1% vs. 30.4%; P = .06).

In a multivariate analysis, male sex, diarrhea, higher body mass index, hyponatremia, and lower Charleston Weighted Index of Comorbidity (CWIC) score were significant independent predictors of LD, with odds ratios of 21.6, 4.5, 1.13, 5.6, and 0.61, respectively.

The incidence of LD peaked in summer, while the incidence of SP peaked in the winter, the researchers noted. “Seasonality is a variable that has not always been included in previous scoring systems but should be considered in future modeling,” they said.

“Noteworthy is that LD represented almost as many cases as documented bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “This occurred at a time when there was no outbreak of L. pneumophila in our community, and as these were all community acquired, there was no evidence of a nosocomial outbreak in our institution,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the possible underestimation of SP because of the requirement for positive blood cultures and the lack of other methods of diagnosing SP, the researchers noted.

“However, the data suggest variables to distinguish LD from SP,” they said. “Establishing reliable clinical and laboratory parameters embedded in a simple diagnostic score that can accurately identify patients with LD may be helpful in aiding physicians’ early diagnosis in distinguishing LD from SP but will need to be defined.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.

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

Outcomes for patients with bacteremic Streptococcus pneumoniae were significantly worse than those for patients with Legionnaires disease (LD), based on data from 106 individuals.

Reported cases of LD in the United States have increased in recent decades, but they are likely under-reported, wrote Sima Salahie, MD, of Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, and Central Michigan University College of Medicine, Grosse Pointe Woods, and colleagues.

Clinical presentations may be similar for both conditions, but different antimicrobial therapies are needed; therefore, identifying distinguishing factors can promote better management of hospitalized patients, they reported.

In a retrospective case companion study published in the American Journal of the Medical Sciences, the researchers reviewed data from 51 adults with LD and 55 with bacteremic S. pneumoniae pneumonia (SP) who were hospitalized at a single center between 2013 and 2018. Diagnoses were confirmed by laboratory and radiology results. In addition, data were collected on clinical features including body mass index, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, pulse, respiratory rate, and temperature.

Overall, patients with SP were significantly more likely than those with LD to require mechanical ventilation (P = .04), intensive care unit stay (P = .004), and to die (P = .002). Patients with SP also had higher rates of septic shock compared to LD patients, although this difference fell short of statistical significance (49.1% vs. 30.4%; P = .06).

In a multivariate analysis, male sex, diarrhea, higher body mass index, hyponatremia, and lower Charleston Weighted Index of Comorbidity (CWIC) score were significant independent predictors of LD, with odds ratios of 21.6, 4.5, 1.13, 5.6, and 0.61, respectively.

The incidence of LD peaked in summer, while the incidence of SP peaked in the winter, the researchers noted. “Seasonality is a variable that has not always been included in previous scoring systems but should be considered in future modeling,” they said.

“Noteworthy is that LD represented almost as many cases as documented bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “This occurred at a time when there was no outbreak of L. pneumophila in our community, and as these were all community acquired, there was no evidence of a nosocomial outbreak in our institution,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the possible underestimation of SP because of the requirement for positive blood cultures and the lack of other methods of diagnosing SP, the researchers noted.

“However, the data suggest variables to distinguish LD from SP,” they said. “Establishing reliable clinical and laboratory parameters embedded in a simple diagnostic score that can accurately identify patients with LD may be helpful in aiding physicians’ early diagnosis in distinguishing LD from SP but will need to be defined.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.

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

Thousands of doctors get a shout out every year when they make the “Top Doctor” lists in various magazines. Some may be your colleagues or competitors. Should you be concerned if you’re not on the list?

Best Doctor lists are clearly popular with readers and make money for the magazines.  They can also bring in patient revenue for doctors and their employers who promote them in news releases and on their websites.

For doctors on some of the top lists, the recognition can bring not only patients, but national or international visibility.

But many doctors don’t make it onto these lists. Will they lose business or prestige?

While the dollar value is hard to come by, some doctors say that these lists have attracted new patients to their practice.

Sarah St. Louis, MD, a physician manager of Associates in Urogynecology, is one of Orlando Style magazine’s Doctors of the Year and Orlando Family Magazine’s Top Doctors.

Several new patients have told her that they read about her in the magazines’ Top Doctor lists. “Urogynecology is not a well-known specialty – it’s a helpful way to get the word out about the women’s health specialty and what I do,” said Dr. St. Louis, an early career physician who started her practice in 2017.

The additional patient revenue has been worth the cost of displaying her profile in Orlando Style, which was about $800 for a half-page spread with her photo.

Top Doctor lists also work well for specialty practices whose patients can self-refer, such as plastic surgery, dermatology, orthopedics, gastroenterology, and geriatric medicine, said Andrea Eliscu, RN, founder and president of Medical Marketing in Orlando.

Being in a competitive market also matters. If a practice is the only one in town, those doctors may not need the publicity as much as doctors in an urban practice that faces stiff competition.
 

How do doctors get on these lists?

In most cases, doctors have to be nominated by their peers, a process that some say is flawed because it may shut out doctors who are less popular or well-connected. 

Forty-eight regional magazines, including Chicago magazine and Philadelphia Magazine , partner with Castle Connolly to use their online Top Doctor database of more than 61,000 physicians in every major metropolitan area, said Steve Leibforth, managing director of Castle Connolly’s Top Doctors.

The company says it sends annual surveys to tens of thousands of practicing doctors asking them to nominate colleagues in their specialty. The nominated doctors are vetted by Castle Connolly’s physician-led research team on several criteria including professional qualifications, education, hospital and faculty appointments, research leadership, professional reputation and disciplinary history, and outcomes data when available, said Mr. Leibforth.

Washingtonian magazine says it sends annual online surveys to 13,500 physicians in the DC metro area asking them to nominate one colleague in their specialty. The top vote-getters in each of 39 categories are designated Top Doctors.

Orlando Family Magazine  says its annual Top Doctor selections are based on reader polls and doctor nominations.

Consumers’ Research Council of America uses a point system based on each year the doctor has been in practice, education and continuing education, board certification, and membership in professional medical societies. 

Doctors have many ways to promote that they’re listed as a “top” doctor. Dr. St. Louis takes advantage of the magazine’s free reprints, which she puts in her waiting room.

Others buy plaques to hang up in their waiting rooms or offices and announce the distinction on their websites, blogs, or social media. “They have to maximize the magazine distinction or it’s worthless,” said Ms. Eliscu.

Employers also like to spread the word when their doctors make it on “Top Doctor” lists.

“With Emory physicians making up nearly 50 percent of the list, that’s more than any other health system in Atlanta,” said an Emory University press release after nearly half of the university’s doctors made the Top Doctors list in Atlanta magazine.
 

Patients may be impressed: What about your peers?

Dr. St. Louis said that making some of these lists is less impressive than having a peer-reviewed journal article or receiving professional awards.

“Just because a physician is listed in a magazine as a ‘top doctor’ does not mean they are the best. There are far more medical, clinical, and scientific points to consider than just a pretty picture in a style magazine,” she said.  

Wanda Filer, MD, MBA, who practiced family medicine until last year when she became chief medical officer for VaxCare in Orlando, said she ignores the many congratulatory letters in the mail announcing that she’s made one list or another.

“I don’t put much credence in the lists. I get notifications fairly often, and to me it always looks like they’re trying to sell a plaque. I’d rather let my work speak for itself.”

Arlen Meyers, MD, MBA, president and CEO of the Society of Physician Entrepreneurs and a paid strategic adviser to RYTE, a data-driven site for “best doctors” and “best hospitals,” said he received several of these “top doctor” awards when he was a professor of otolaryngology at the University of Colorado. 

He has been critical of these awards for some time. “These doctor beauty pageants may be good for business but have little value for patients.”

He would like to see a new approach that is driven by data and what patients value. “If I have a lump in my thyroid, I want to know the best doctor to treat me based on outcomes data.”

He said a good rating system would include a data-driven approach based on treatment outcomes, publicly available data, price transparency, and patient values.

Whether a physician feels honored to be named a top physician or sees little value in it, most doctors are aware of the list’s marketing value for their practices and many choose to make use of it.

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

Thousands of doctors get a shout out every year when they make the “Top Doctor” lists in various magazines. Some may be your colleagues or competitors. Should you be concerned if you’re not on the list?

Best Doctor lists are clearly popular with readers and make money for the magazines.  They can also bring in patient revenue for doctors and their employers who promote them in news releases and on their websites.

For doctors on some of the top lists, the recognition can bring not only patients, but national or international visibility.

But many doctors don’t make it onto these lists. Will they lose business or prestige?

While the dollar value is hard to come by, some doctors say that these lists have attracted new patients to their practice.

Sarah St. Louis, MD, a physician manager of Associates in Urogynecology, is one of Orlando Style magazine’s Doctors of the Year and Orlando Family Magazine’s Top Doctors.

Several new patients have told her that they read about her in the magazines’ Top Doctor lists. “Urogynecology is not a well-known specialty – it’s a helpful way to get the word out about the women’s health specialty and what I do,” said Dr. St. Louis, an early career physician who started her practice in 2017.

The additional patient revenue has been worth the cost of displaying her profile in Orlando Style, which was about $800 for a half-page spread with her photo.

Top Doctor lists also work well for specialty practices whose patients can self-refer, such as plastic surgery, dermatology, orthopedics, gastroenterology, and geriatric medicine, said Andrea Eliscu, RN, founder and president of Medical Marketing in Orlando.

Being in a competitive market also matters. If a practice is the only one in town, those doctors may not need the publicity as much as doctors in an urban practice that faces stiff competition.
 

How do doctors get on these lists?

In most cases, doctors have to be nominated by their peers, a process that some say is flawed because it may shut out doctors who are less popular or well-connected. 

Forty-eight regional magazines, including Chicago magazine and Philadelphia Magazine , partner with Castle Connolly to use their online Top Doctor database of more than 61,000 physicians in every major metropolitan area, said Steve Leibforth, managing director of Castle Connolly’s Top Doctors.

The company says it sends annual surveys to tens of thousands of practicing doctors asking them to nominate colleagues in their specialty. The nominated doctors are vetted by Castle Connolly’s physician-led research team on several criteria including professional qualifications, education, hospital and faculty appointments, research leadership, professional reputation and disciplinary history, and outcomes data when available, said Mr. Leibforth.

Washingtonian magazine says it sends annual online surveys to 13,500 physicians in the DC metro area asking them to nominate one colleague in their specialty. The top vote-getters in each of 39 categories are designated Top Doctors.

Orlando Family Magazine  says its annual Top Doctor selections are based on reader polls and doctor nominations.

Consumers’ Research Council of America uses a point system based on each year the doctor has been in practice, education and continuing education, board certification, and membership in professional medical societies. 

Doctors have many ways to promote that they’re listed as a “top” doctor. Dr. St. Louis takes advantage of the magazine’s free reprints, which she puts in her waiting room.

Others buy plaques to hang up in their waiting rooms or offices and announce the distinction on their websites, blogs, or social media. “They have to maximize the magazine distinction or it’s worthless,” said Ms. Eliscu.

Employers also like to spread the word when their doctors make it on “Top Doctor” lists.

“With Emory physicians making up nearly 50 percent of the list, that’s more than any other health system in Atlanta,” said an Emory University press release after nearly half of the university’s doctors made the Top Doctors list in Atlanta magazine.
 

Patients may be impressed: What about your peers?

Dr. St. Louis said that making some of these lists is less impressive than having a peer-reviewed journal article or receiving professional awards.

“Just because a physician is listed in a magazine as a ‘top doctor’ does not mean they are the best. There are far more medical, clinical, and scientific points to consider than just a pretty picture in a style magazine,” she said.  

Wanda Filer, MD, MBA, who practiced family medicine until last year when she became chief medical officer for VaxCare in Orlando, said she ignores the many congratulatory letters in the mail announcing that she’s made one list or another.

“I don’t put much credence in the lists. I get notifications fairly often, and to me it always looks like they’re trying to sell a plaque. I’d rather let my work speak for itself.”

Arlen Meyers, MD, MBA, president and CEO of the Society of Physician Entrepreneurs and a paid strategic adviser to RYTE, a data-driven site for “best doctors” and “best hospitals,” said he received several of these “top doctor” awards when he was a professor of otolaryngology at the University of Colorado. 

He has been critical of these awards for some time. “These doctor beauty pageants may be good for business but have little value for patients.”

He would like to see a new approach that is driven by data and what patients value. “If I have a lump in my thyroid, I want to know the best doctor to treat me based on outcomes data.”

He said a good rating system would include a data-driven approach based on treatment outcomes, publicly available data, price transparency, and patient values.

Whether a physician feels honored to be named a top physician or sees little value in it, most doctors are aware of the list’s marketing value for their practices and many choose to make use of it.

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

Thousands of doctors get a shout out every year when they make the “Top Doctor” lists in various magazines. Some may be your colleagues or competitors. Should you be concerned if you’re not on the list?

Best Doctor lists are clearly popular with readers and make money for the magazines.  They can also bring in patient revenue for doctors and their employers who promote them in news releases and on their websites.

For doctors on some of the top lists, the recognition can bring not only patients, but national or international visibility.

But many doctors don’t make it onto these lists. Will they lose business or prestige?

While the dollar value is hard to come by, some doctors say that these lists have attracted new patients to their practice.

Sarah St. Louis, MD, a physician manager of Associates in Urogynecology, is one of Orlando Style magazine’s Doctors of the Year and Orlando Family Magazine’s Top Doctors.

Several new patients have told her that they read about her in the magazines’ Top Doctor lists. “Urogynecology is not a well-known specialty – it’s a helpful way to get the word out about the women’s health specialty and what I do,” said Dr. St. Louis, an early career physician who started her practice in 2017.

The additional patient revenue has been worth the cost of displaying her profile in Orlando Style, which was about $800 for a half-page spread with her photo.

Top Doctor lists also work well for specialty practices whose patients can self-refer, such as plastic surgery, dermatology, orthopedics, gastroenterology, and geriatric medicine, said Andrea Eliscu, RN, founder and president of Medical Marketing in Orlando.

Being in a competitive market also matters. If a practice is the only one in town, those doctors may not need the publicity as much as doctors in an urban practice that faces stiff competition.
 

How do doctors get on these lists?

In most cases, doctors have to be nominated by their peers, a process that some say is flawed because it may shut out doctors who are less popular or well-connected. 

Forty-eight regional magazines, including Chicago magazine and Philadelphia Magazine , partner with Castle Connolly to use their online Top Doctor database of more than 61,000 physicians in every major metropolitan area, said Steve Leibforth, managing director of Castle Connolly’s Top Doctors.

The company says it sends annual surveys to tens of thousands of practicing doctors asking them to nominate colleagues in their specialty. The nominated doctors are vetted by Castle Connolly’s physician-led research team on several criteria including professional qualifications, education, hospital and faculty appointments, research leadership, professional reputation and disciplinary history, and outcomes data when available, said Mr. Leibforth.

Washingtonian magazine says it sends annual online surveys to 13,500 physicians in the DC metro area asking them to nominate one colleague in their specialty. The top vote-getters in each of 39 categories are designated Top Doctors.

Orlando Family Magazine  says its annual Top Doctor selections are based on reader polls and doctor nominations.

Consumers’ Research Council of America uses a point system based on each year the doctor has been in practice, education and continuing education, board certification, and membership in professional medical societies. 

Doctors have many ways to promote that they’re listed as a “top” doctor. Dr. St. Louis takes advantage of the magazine’s free reprints, which she puts in her waiting room.

Others buy plaques to hang up in their waiting rooms or offices and announce the distinction on their websites, blogs, or social media. “They have to maximize the magazine distinction or it’s worthless,” said Ms. Eliscu.

Employers also like to spread the word when their doctors make it on “Top Doctor” lists.

“With Emory physicians making up nearly 50 percent of the list, that’s more than any other health system in Atlanta,” said an Emory University press release after nearly half of the university’s doctors made the Top Doctors list in Atlanta magazine.
 

Patients may be impressed: What about your peers?

Dr. St. Louis said that making some of these lists is less impressive than having a peer-reviewed journal article or receiving professional awards.

“Just because a physician is listed in a magazine as a ‘top doctor’ does not mean they are the best. There are far more medical, clinical, and scientific points to consider than just a pretty picture in a style magazine,” she said.  

Wanda Filer, MD, MBA, who practiced family medicine until last year when she became chief medical officer for VaxCare in Orlando, said she ignores the many congratulatory letters in the mail announcing that she’s made one list or another.

“I don’t put much credence in the lists. I get notifications fairly often, and to me it always looks like they’re trying to sell a plaque. I’d rather let my work speak for itself.”

Arlen Meyers, MD, MBA, president and CEO of the Society of Physician Entrepreneurs and a paid strategic adviser to RYTE, a data-driven site for “best doctors” and “best hospitals,” said he received several of these “top doctor” awards when he was a professor of otolaryngology at the University of Colorado. 

He has been critical of these awards for some time. “These doctor beauty pageants may be good for business but have little value for patients.”

He would like to see a new approach that is driven by data and what patients value. “If I have a lump in my thyroid, I want to know the best doctor to treat me based on outcomes data.”

He said a good rating system would include a data-driven approach based on treatment outcomes, publicly available data, price transparency, and patient values.

Whether a physician feels honored to be named a top physician or sees little value in it, most doctors are aware of the list’s marketing value for their practices and many choose to make use of it.

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