MDedge Infectious Disease

While COVID has now claimed more than 1 million lives in the United States alone, these aren’t the only fatalities caused at least in part by the virus. A small but growing number of Americans are surviving acute infections only to succumb months later to the lingering health problems caused by long COVID.

Much of the attention on long COVID has centered on the sometimes debilitating symptoms that strike people with the condition, with no formal diagnostic tests or standard treatments available, and the effect it has on quality of life. But new figures from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that long COVID can also be deadly.

More than 5000 Americans have died from long COVID since the start of the pandemic, according to new estimates from the CDC.

This total, based on death certificate data collected by the CDC, includes a preliminary tally of 1491 long COVID deaths in 2023 in addition to 3544 fatalities previously reported from January 2020 through June 2022.

Guidance issued in 2023 on how to formally report long COVID as a cause of death on death certificates should help get a more accurate count of these fatalities going forward, said Robert Anderson, PhD, chief mortality statistician for the CDC, Atlanta, Georgia.

“We hope that the guidance will help cause of death certifiers be more aware of the impact of long COVID and more likely to report long COVID as a cause of death when appropriate,” Dr. Anderson said. “That said, we do not expect that this guidance will have a dramatic impact on the trend.”

There’s no standard definition or diagnostic test for long COVID. It’s typically diagnosed when people have symptoms at least 3 months after an acute infection that weren’t present before they got sick. As of the end of last year, about 7% of American adults had experienced long COVID at some point, the CDC estimated in September 2023.

The new death tally indicates long COVID remains a significant public health threat and is likely to grow in the years ahead, even though the pandemic may no longer be considered a global health crisis, experts said.

For example, the death certificate figures indicate:

COVID-19 was the third leading cause of American deaths in 2020 and 2021, and the fourth leading cause of death in the United States in 2023.

Nearly 1% of the more than one million deaths related to COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic have been attributed to long COVID, according to data released by the CDC.

The proportion of COVID-related deaths from long COVID peaked in June 2021 at 1.2% and again in April 2022 at 3.8%, according to the CDC. Both of these peaks coincided with periods of declining fatalities from acute infections.

“I do expect that deaths associated with long COVID will make up an increasingly larger proportion of total deaths associated with COVID-19,” said Mark Czeisler, PhD, a researcher at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, who has studied long COVID fatalities. 

Months and even years after an acute infection, long COVID can contribute to serious and potentially life-threatening conditions that impact nearly every major system in the body, according to the CDC guidelines for identifying the condition on death certificates. 

This means long COVID may often be listed as an underlying cause of death when people with this condition die of issues related to their heart, lungs, brain or kidneys, the CDC guidelines noted.

The risk for long COVID fatalities remains elevated for at least 6 months for people with milder acute infections and for at least 2 years in severe cases that require hospitalization, some previous research suggested.

As happens with other acute infections, certain people are more at risk for fatal case of long COVID. Age, race, and ethnicity have all been cited as risk factors by researchers who have been tracking the condition since the start of the pandemic.

Half of long COVID fatalities from July 2021 to June 2022 occurred in people aged 65 years and older, and another 23% were recorded among people aged 50-64 years old, according a report from CDC.

Long COVID death rates also varied by race and ethnicity, from a high of 14.1 cases per million among America Indian and Alaskan natives to a low of 1.5 cases per million among Asian people, the CDC found. Death rates per million were 6.7 for White individuals, 6.4 for Black people, and 4.7 for Hispanic people.

The disproportionate share of Black and Hispanic people who developed and died from severe acute infections may have left fewer survivors to develop long COVID, limiting long COVID fatalities among these groups, the CDC report concluded.

It’s also possible that long COVID fatalities were undercounted in these populations because they faced challenges accessing healthcare or seeing providers who could recognize the hallmark symptoms of long COVID.

It’s also difficult to distinguish between how many deaths related to the virus ultimately occur as a result of long COVID rather than acute infections. That’s because it may depend on a variety of factors, including how consistently medical examiners follow the CDC guidelines, said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, chief of research at the Veterans Affairs, St. Louis Health Care System and a senior clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St. Louis.

“Long COVID remains massively underdiagnosed, and death in people with long COVID is misattributed to other things,” Dr. Al-Aly said.

An accurate test for long COVID could help lead to a more accurate count of these fatalities, Dr. Czeisler said. Some preliminary research suggests that it might one day be possible to diagnose long COVID with a blood test.

“The timeline for such a test and the extent to which it would be widely applied is uncertain,” Dr. Czeisler noted, “though that would certainly be a gamechanger.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

While COVID has now claimed more than 1 million lives in the United States alone, these aren’t the only fatalities caused at least in part by the virus. A small but growing number of Americans are surviving acute infections only to succumb months later to the lingering health problems caused by long COVID.

Much of the attention on long COVID has centered on the sometimes debilitating symptoms that strike people with the condition, with no formal diagnostic tests or standard treatments available, and the effect it has on quality of life. But new figures from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that long COVID can also be deadly.

More than 5000 Americans have died from long COVID since the start of the pandemic, according to new estimates from the CDC.

This total, based on death certificate data collected by the CDC, includes a preliminary tally of 1491 long COVID deaths in 2023 in addition to 3544 fatalities previously reported from January 2020 through June 2022.

Guidance issued in 2023 on how to formally report long COVID as a cause of death on death certificates should help get a more accurate count of these fatalities going forward, said Robert Anderson, PhD, chief mortality statistician for the CDC, Atlanta, Georgia.

“We hope that the guidance will help cause of death certifiers be more aware of the impact of long COVID and more likely to report long COVID as a cause of death when appropriate,” Dr. Anderson said. “That said, we do not expect that this guidance will have a dramatic impact on the trend.”

There’s no standard definition or diagnostic test for long COVID. It’s typically diagnosed when people have symptoms at least 3 months after an acute infection that weren’t present before they got sick. As of the end of last year, about 7% of American adults had experienced long COVID at some point, the CDC estimated in September 2023.

The new death tally indicates long COVID remains a significant public health threat and is likely to grow in the years ahead, even though the pandemic may no longer be considered a global health crisis, experts said.

For example, the death certificate figures indicate:

COVID-19 was the third leading cause of American deaths in 2020 and 2021, and the fourth leading cause of death in the United States in 2023.

Nearly 1% of the more than one million deaths related to COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic have been attributed to long COVID, according to data released by the CDC.

The proportion of COVID-related deaths from long COVID peaked in June 2021 at 1.2% and again in April 2022 at 3.8%, according to the CDC. Both of these peaks coincided with periods of declining fatalities from acute infections.

“I do expect that deaths associated with long COVID will make up an increasingly larger proportion of total deaths associated with COVID-19,” said Mark Czeisler, PhD, a researcher at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, who has studied long COVID fatalities. 

Months and even years after an acute infection, long COVID can contribute to serious and potentially life-threatening conditions that impact nearly every major system in the body, according to the CDC guidelines for identifying the condition on death certificates. 

This means long COVID may often be listed as an underlying cause of death when people with this condition die of issues related to their heart, lungs, brain or kidneys, the CDC guidelines noted.

The risk for long COVID fatalities remains elevated for at least 6 months for people with milder acute infections and for at least 2 years in severe cases that require hospitalization, some previous research suggested.

As happens with other acute infections, certain people are more at risk for fatal case of long COVID. Age, race, and ethnicity have all been cited as risk factors by researchers who have been tracking the condition since the start of the pandemic.

Half of long COVID fatalities from July 2021 to June 2022 occurred in people aged 65 years and older, and another 23% were recorded among people aged 50-64 years old, according a report from CDC.

Long COVID death rates also varied by race and ethnicity, from a high of 14.1 cases per million among America Indian and Alaskan natives to a low of 1.5 cases per million among Asian people, the CDC found. Death rates per million were 6.7 for White individuals, 6.4 for Black people, and 4.7 for Hispanic people.

The disproportionate share of Black and Hispanic people who developed and died from severe acute infections may have left fewer survivors to develop long COVID, limiting long COVID fatalities among these groups, the CDC report concluded.

It’s also possible that long COVID fatalities were undercounted in these populations because they faced challenges accessing healthcare or seeing providers who could recognize the hallmark symptoms of long COVID.

It’s also difficult to distinguish between how many deaths related to the virus ultimately occur as a result of long COVID rather than acute infections. That’s because it may depend on a variety of factors, including how consistently medical examiners follow the CDC guidelines, said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, chief of research at the Veterans Affairs, St. Louis Health Care System and a senior clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St. Louis.

“Long COVID remains massively underdiagnosed, and death in people with long COVID is misattributed to other things,” Dr. Al-Aly said.

An accurate test for long COVID could help lead to a more accurate count of these fatalities, Dr. Czeisler said. Some preliminary research suggests that it might one day be possible to diagnose long COVID with a blood test.

“The timeline for such a test and the extent to which it would be widely applied is uncertain,” Dr. Czeisler noted, “though that would certainly be a gamechanger.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

While COVID has now claimed more than 1 million lives in the United States alone, these aren’t the only fatalities caused at least in part by the virus. A small but growing number of Americans are surviving acute infections only to succumb months later to the lingering health problems caused by long COVID.

Much of the attention on long COVID has centered on the sometimes debilitating symptoms that strike people with the condition, with no formal diagnostic tests or standard treatments available, and the effect it has on quality of life. But new figures from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that long COVID can also be deadly.

More than 5000 Americans have died from long COVID since the start of the pandemic, according to new estimates from the CDC.

This total, based on death certificate data collected by the CDC, includes a preliminary tally of 1491 long COVID deaths in 2023 in addition to 3544 fatalities previously reported from January 2020 through June 2022.

Guidance issued in 2023 on how to formally report long COVID as a cause of death on death certificates should help get a more accurate count of these fatalities going forward, said Robert Anderson, PhD, chief mortality statistician for the CDC, Atlanta, Georgia.

“We hope that the guidance will help cause of death certifiers be more aware of the impact of long COVID and more likely to report long COVID as a cause of death when appropriate,” Dr. Anderson said. “That said, we do not expect that this guidance will have a dramatic impact on the trend.”

There’s no standard definition or diagnostic test for long COVID. It’s typically diagnosed when people have symptoms at least 3 months after an acute infection that weren’t present before they got sick. As of the end of last year, about 7% of American adults had experienced long COVID at some point, the CDC estimated in September 2023.

The new death tally indicates long COVID remains a significant public health threat and is likely to grow in the years ahead, even though the pandemic may no longer be considered a global health crisis, experts said.

For example, the death certificate figures indicate:

COVID-19 was the third leading cause of American deaths in 2020 and 2021, and the fourth leading cause of death in the United States in 2023.

Nearly 1% of the more than one million deaths related to COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic have been attributed to long COVID, according to data released by the CDC.

The proportion of COVID-related deaths from long COVID peaked in June 2021 at 1.2% and again in April 2022 at 3.8%, according to the CDC. Both of these peaks coincided with periods of declining fatalities from acute infections.

“I do expect that deaths associated with long COVID will make up an increasingly larger proportion of total deaths associated with COVID-19,” said Mark Czeisler, PhD, a researcher at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, who has studied long COVID fatalities. 

Months and even years after an acute infection, long COVID can contribute to serious and potentially life-threatening conditions that impact nearly every major system in the body, according to the CDC guidelines for identifying the condition on death certificates. 

This means long COVID may often be listed as an underlying cause of death when people with this condition die of issues related to their heart, lungs, brain or kidneys, the CDC guidelines noted.

The risk for long COVID fatalities remains elevated for at least 6 months for people with milder acute infections and for at least 2 years in severe cases that require hospitalization, some previous research suggested.

As happens with other acute infections, certain people are more at risk for fatal case of long COVID. Age, race, and ethnicity have all been cited as risk factors by researchers who have been tracking the condition since the start of the pandemic.

Half of long COVID fatalities from July 2021 to June 2022 occurred in people aged 65 years and older, and another 23% were recorded among people aged 50-64 years old, according a report from CDC.

Long COVID death rates also varied by race and ethnicity, from a high of 14.1 cases per million among America Indian and Alaskan natives to a low of 1.5 cases per million among Asian people, the CDC found. Death rates per million were 6.7 for White individuals, 6.4 for Black people, and 4.7 for Hispanic people.

The disproportionate share of Black and Hispanic people who developed and died from severe acute infections may have left fewer survivors to develop long COVID, limiting long COVID fatalities among these groups, the CDC report concluded.

It’s also possible that long COVID fatalities were undercounted in these populations because they faced challenges accessing healthcare or seeing providers who could recognize the hallmark symptoms of long COVID.

It’s also difficult to distinguish between how many deaths related to the virus ultimately occur as a result of long COVID rather than acute infections. That’s because it may depend on a variety of factors, including how consistently medical examiners follow the CDC guidelines, said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, chief of research at the Veterans Affairs, St. Louis Health Care System and a senior clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St. Louis.

“Long COVID remains massively underdiagnosed, and death in people with long COVID is misattributed to other things,” Dr. Al-Aly said.

An accurate test for long COVID could help lead to a more accurate count of these fatalities, Dr. Czeisler said. Some preliminary research suggests that it might one day be possible to diagnose long COVID with a blood test.

“The timeline for such a test and the extent to which it would be widely applied is uncertain,” Dr. Czeisler noted, “though that would certainly be a gamechanger.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Ten years ago, Clare Gerada, FRCGP, an advocate for physician well-being and today president of the UK’s Royal College of General Practitioners, made a prediction to the audience at the International Conference on Physician Health.

“We have seen a massive increase in eating disorders [among doctors],” she said. “I’m not sure anybody is quite aware of the tsunami of eating disorders,” she believed would soon strike predominantly female physicians.

That was 2014. Did the tsunami hit?

Quite possibly. Data are limited on the prevalence of eating disorders (EDs) among healthcare workers, but studies do exist. A 2019 global review and meta-analysis determined “the summary prevalence of eating disorder (ED) risk among medical students was 10.4%.”

A 2022 update of that review boosted the estimate to 17.35%.

Tsunami or not, that’s nearly double the 9% rate within the US general public (from a 2020 report from STRIPED and the Academy of Eating Disorders). And while the following stat isn’t an indicator of EDs per se, 19% of doctors admit to unhealthy eating habits, according to a recent Medscape Medical News physician survey.

To her credit, Dr. Gerada, awarded a damehood in 2020, was in a position to know what was coming. Her statement was informed by research showing an increasing number of young doctors seeking treatment for mental health issues, including EDs, through the NHS Practitioner Health program, a mental health service she established in 2008.

So ... what puts doctors at such a high risk for EDs?

Be Careful of ‘Overlap Traits’

As with many mental health issues, EDs have no single cause. Researchers believe they stem from a complex interaction of genetic, biological, behavioral, psychological, and social factors. But the medical field should take note: Some personality traits commonly associated with EDs are often shared by successful physicians.

“I think some of the overlap traits would be being highly driven, goal-oriented and self-critical,” said Lesley Williams, MD, a family medicine physician at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona. “A lot of those traits can make you a very successful physician and physician-in-training but could also potentially spill over into body image and rigidity around food.”

Of course, we want physicians to strive for excellence, and the majority of diligent, driven doctors will not develop an ED.

But when pushed too far, those admirable qualities can easily become perfectionism — which has long been recognized as a risk factor for EDs, an association supported by decades of research.

Medical School: Where EDs Begin and Little Education About Them Happens

“I think medicine in general attracts people that often share similar characteristics to those who struggle with EDs — high-achieving, hardworking perfectionists who put a lot of pressure on themselves,” said Elizabeth McNaught, MD, a general practitioner and medical director at Family Mental Wealth.

Diagnosed with an ED at 14, Dr. McNaught has experienced this firsthand and shared her story in a 2020 memoir, Life Hurts: A Doctor’s Personal Journey Through Anorexia.

Competitive, high-stress environments can also be a trigger, Dr. McNaught explained. “The pressure of medical school,” for example, “can perpetuate an eating disorder if that’s something that you’re struggling with,” she said.

Pressure to perform may not be the only problem. Medical students are taught to view weight as a key indicator of health. Multiple studies suggested that not only does weight stigma exist in healthcare but also it has increased over time and negatively affects patients’ psychological well-being and physical health.

There is far less public discourse about how weight stigma can be harmful to medical students and physicians themselves. Dr. Williams believed the weight-centric paradigm was key.

“For so long, we believed that health presents itself within these confines on a BMI chart and anything outside of that is unhealthy and must be fixed,” she said. “I can say from having gone through medical education, having that continual messaging does make someone feel that if I myself am not within those confines, then I need to do something to fix that immediately if I’m going to continue to care for patients.”

In general, Dr. Williams, and Dr. McNaught agreed that medical training around EDs is lacking, producing doctors who are ill-equipped to diagnose, treat, or even discuss them with patients. Dr. Williams recalled only one lecture on the topic in med school.

“And yet, anorexia carries the second highest death rate of all mental illnesses after opioid-use disorders,” she said, “so it’s astonishing that that just wasn’t included.”

MDs Hiding Mental Health Issues

Claire Anderson, MD (a pseudonym), emphatically stated she would never tell anyone at the hospital where she works in the emergency department that she has an ED.

“There is still a lot of misunderstanding about mental health, and I never want people to doubt my ability to care for people,” Dr. Anderson said. “There’s so much stigma around eating disorders, and I also feel like once it’s out there, I can’t take it back, and I don’t want to feel like people are watching me.”

Melissa Klein, PhD, a clinical psychologist specializing in EDs, has more than 25 years of experience working the inpatient ED unit at New York Presbyterian. Having treated medical professionals, Dr. Klein said they have legitimate concerns about revealing their struggles.

“Sometimes, they do get reported to higher ups — the boards,” Dr. Klein said, “and they’re told that they have to get help in order for them to continue to work in their profession. I think people might be scared to ask for help because of that reason.”

Doctors Often Ignore EDs or Teach ‘Bad Habits’

Dr. Anderson firmly believed that if her early treatment from doctors had been better, she might not be struggling so much today.

The first time Dr. Anderson’s mother brought up her daughter’s sudden weight loss at 14, their family doctor conferred with a chart and said there was no reason to worry; Dr. Anderson’s weight was “normal.” “I was eating like 500 calories a day and swimming for 3 hours, and [by saying that], they assured me I was fine,” she recalls.

At 15, when Dr. Anderson went in for an initial assessment for an ED, she thought she’d be connected with a nutritionist and sent home. “I didn’t have a lot of classic thoughts of wanting to be thin or wanting to lose weight,” she said.

Instead, Dr. Anderson was sent to inpatient care, which she credits with escalating her ED. “I picked up on a lot of really bad habits when I went there — I sort of learned how to have an eating disorder,” she said. “When I left, it was very different than when I went in, which is kind of sad.”

Throughout high school, Dr. Anderson went in and out of so many hospitals and treatment programs that she’s lost track of them. Then, in 2008, she left formal treatment altogether. “I had been really angry with the treatment programs for trying to fit me into their box with a rigid schedule of inpatient and outpatient care,” she recalled. “I didn’t want to live in that world anymore.”

After working with a new psychiatrist, Dr. Anderson’s situation improved until a particularly stressful second year of residency. “That’s when I just tanked,” she said. “Residency, and especially being on my own and with COVID, things have not been great for me.”

Dr. Anderson now sees an eating disorder specialist, but she pays for this out-of-pocket. “I have terrible insurance,” she said with a laugh, aware of that irony.

If You Are Struggling, Don’t Be Ashamed

Some physicians who’ve experienced EDs firsthand are working to improve training on diagnosing and treating the conditions. Dr. McNaught has developed and launched a new eLearning program for healthcare workers on how to recognize the early signs and symptoms of an ED and provide support.

“It’s not only so they can recognize it in their patients but also if colleagues and family and friends are struggling,” she said.

In 2021, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) approved the APA Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients With Eating Disorders, which aims to improve patient care and treatment outcomes.

But Dr. Klein is concerned that increased stress since the COVID-19 pandemic may be putting healthcare workers at even greater risk.

“When people are under stress or when they feel like there are things in their life that maybe they can’t control, sometimes turning to an eating disorder is a way to cope,” she said, “In that sense, the stress on medical professionals is something that could lead to eating disorder behaviors.”

Dr. Klein’s message to healthcare workers: Don’t be ashamed. She described an ED as “a monster that takes over your brain. Once it starts, it’s very hard to turn it around on your own. So, I hope anyone who is suffering, in whatever field they’re in, that they are able to ask for help.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Ten years ago, Clare Gerada, FRCGP, an advocate for physician well-being and today president of the UK’s Royal College of General Practitioners, made a prediction to the audience at the International Conference on Physician Health.

“We have seen a massive increase in eating disorders [among doctors],” she said. “I’m not sure anybody is quite aware of the tsunami of eating disorders,” she believed would soon strike predominantly female physicians.

That was 2014. Did the tsunami hit?

Quite possibly. Data are limited on the prevalence of eating disorders (EDs) among healthcare workers, but studies do exist. A 2019 global review and meta-analysis determined “the summary prevalence of eating disorder (ED) risk among medical students was 10.4%.”

A 2022 update of that review boosted the estimate to 17.35%.

Tsunami or not, that’s nearly double the 9% rate within the US general public (from a 2020 report from STRIPED and the Academy of Eating Disorders). And while the following stat isn’t an indicator of EDs per se, 19% of doctors admit to unhealthy eating habits, according to a recent Medscape Medical News physician survey.

To her credit, Dr. Gerada, awarded a damehood in 2020, was in a position to know what was coming. Her statement was informed by research showing an increasing number of young doctors seeking treatment for mental health issues, including EDs, through the NHS Practitioner Health program, a mental health service she established in 2008.

So ... what puts doctors at such a high risk for EDs?

Be Careful of ‘Overlap Traits’

As with many mental health issues, EDs have no single cause. Researchers believe they stem from a complex interaction of genetic, biological, behavioral, psychological, and social factors. But the medical field should take note: Some personality traits commonly associated with EDs are often shared by successful physicians.

“I think some of the overlap traits would be being highly driven, goal-oriented and self-critical,” said Lesley Williams, MD, a family medicine physician at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona. “A lot of those traits can make you a very successful physician and physician-in-training but could also potentially spill over into body image and rigidity around food.”

Of course, we want physicians to strive for excellence, and the majority of diligent, driven doctors will not develop an ED.

But when pushed too far, those admirable qualities can easily become perfectionism — which has long been recognized as a risk factor for EDs, an association supported by decades of research.

Medical School: Where EDs Begin and Little Education About Them Happens

“I think medicine in general attracts people that often share similar characteristics to those who struggle with EDs — high-achieving, hardworking perfectionists who put a lot of pressure on themselves,” said Elizabeth McNaught, MD, a general practitioner and medical director at Family Mental Wealth.

Diagnosed with an ED at 14, Dr. McNaught has experienced this firsthand and shared her story in a 2020 memoir, Life Hurts: A Doctor’s Personal Journey Through Anorexia.

Competitive, high-stress environments can also be a trigger, Dr. McNaught explained. “The pressure of medical school,” for example, “can perpetuate an eating disorder if that’s something that you’re struggling with,” she said.

Pressure to perform may not be the only problem. Medical students are taught to view weight as a key indicator of health. Multiple studies suggested that not only does weight stigma exist in healthcare but also it has increased over time and negatively affects patients’ psychological well-being and physical health.

There is far less public discourse about how weight stigma can be harmful to medical students and physicians themselves. Dr. Williams believed the weight-centric paradigm was key.

“For so long, we believed that health presents itself within these confines on a BMI chart and anything outside of that is unhealthy and must be fixed,” she said. “I can say from having gone through medical education, having that continual messaging does make someone feel that if I myself am not within those confines, then I need to do something to fix that immediately if I’m going to continue to care for patients.”

In general, Dr. Williams, and Dr. McNaught agreed that medical training around EDs is lacking, producing doctors who are ill-equipped to diagnose, treat, or even discuss them with patients. Dr. Williams recalled only one lecture on the topic in med school.

“And yet, anorexia carries the second highest death rate of all mental illnesses after opioid-use disorders,” she said, “so it’s astonishing that that just wasn’t included.”

MDs Hiding Mental Health Issues

Claire Anderson, MD (a pseudonym), emphatically stated she would never tell anyone at the hospital where she works in the emergency department that she has an ED.

“There is still a lot of misunderstanding about mental health, and I never want people to doubt my ability to care for people,” Dr. Anderson said. “There’s so much stigma around eating disorders, and I also feel like once it’s out there, I can’t take it back, and I don’t want to feel like people are watching me.”

Melissa Klein, PhD, a clinical psychologist specializing in EDs, has more than 25 years of experience working the inpatient ED unit at New York Presbyterian. Having treated medical professionals, Dr. Klein said they have legitimate concerns about revealing their struggles.

“Sometimes, they do get reported to higher ups — the boards,” Dr. Klein said, “and they’re told that they have to get help in order for them to continue to work in their profession. I think people might be scared to ask for help because of that reason.”

Doctors Often Ignore EDs or Teach ‘Bad Habits’

Dr. Anderson firmly believed that if her early treatment from doctors had been better, she might not be struggling so much today.

The first time Dr. Anderson’s mother brought up her daughter’s sudden weight loss at 14, their family doctor conferred with a chart and said there was no reason to worry; Dr. Anderson’s weight was “normal.” “I was eating like 500 calories a day and swimming for 3 hours, and [by saying that], they assured me I was fine,” she recalls.

At 15, when Dr. Anderson went in for an initial assessment for an ED, she thought she’d be connected with a nutritionist and sent home. “I didn’t have a lot of classic thoughts of wanting to be thin or wanting to lose weight,” she said.

Instead, Dr. Anderson was sent to inpatient care, which she credits with escalating her ED. “I picked up on a lot of really bad habits when I went there — I sort of learned how to have an eating disorder,” she said. “When I left, it was very different than when I went in, which is kind of sad.”

Throughout high school, Dr. Anderson went in and out of so many hospitals and treatment programs that she’s lost track of them. Then, in 2008, she left formal treatment altogether. “I had been really angry with the treatment programs for trying to fit me into their box with a rigid schedule of inpatient and outpatient care,” she recalled. “I didn’t want to live in that world anymore.”

After working with a new psychiatrist, Dr. Anderson’s situation improved until a particularly stressful second year of residency. “That’s when I just tanked,” she said. “Residency, and especially being on my own and with COVID, things have not been great for me.”

Dr. Anderson now sees an eating disorder specialist, but she pays for this out-of-pocket. “I have terrible insurance,” she said with a laugh, aware of that irony.

If You Are Struggling, Don’t Be Ashamed

Some physicians who’ve experienced EDs firsthand are working to improve training on diagnosing and treating the conditions. Dr. McNaught has developed and launched a new eLearning program for healthcare workers on how to recognize the early signs and symptoms of an ED and provide support.

“It’s not only so they can recognize it in their patients but also if colleagues and family and friends are struggling,” she said.

In 2021, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) approved the APA Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients With Eating Disorders, which aims to improve patient care and treatment outcomes.

But Dr. Klein is concerned that increased stress since the COVID-19 pandemic may be putting healthcare workers at even greater risk.

“When people are under stress or when they feel like there are things in their life that maybe they can’t control, sometimes turning to an eating disorder is a way to cope,” she said, “In that sense, the stress on medical professionals is something that could lead to eating disorder behaviors.”

Dr. Klein’s message to healthcare workers: Don’t be ashamed. She described an ED as “a monster that takes over your brain. Once it starts, it’s very hard to turn it around on your own. So, I hope anyone who is suffering, in whatever field they’re in, that they are able to ask for help.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Ten years ago, Clare Gerada, FRCGP, an advocate for physician well-being and today president of the UK’s Royal College of General Practitioners, made a prediction to the audience at the International Conference on Physician Health.

“We have seen a massive increase in eating disorders [among doctors],” she said. “I’m not sure anybody is quite aware of the tsunami of eating disorders,” she believed would soon strike predominantly female physicians.

That was 2014. Did the tsunami hit?

Quite possibly. Data are limited on the prevalence of eating disorders (EDs) among healthcare workers, but studies do exist. A 2019 global review and meta-analysis determined “the summary prevalence of eating disorder (ED) risk among medical students was 10.4%.”

A 2022 update of that review boosted the estimate to 17.35%.

Tsunami or not, that’s nearly double the 9% rate within the US general public (from a 2020 report from STRIPED and the Academy of Eating Disorders). And while the following stat isn’t an indicator of EDs per se, 19% of doctors admit to unhealthy eating habits, according to a recent Medscape Medical News physician survey.

To her credit, Dr. Gerada, awarded a damehood in 2020, was in a position to know what was coming. Her statement was informed by research showing an increasing number of young doctors seeking treatment for mental health issues, including EDs, through the NHS Practitioner Health program, a mental health service she established in 2008.

So ... what puts doctors at such a high risk for EDs?

Be Careful of ‘Overlap Traits’

As with many mental health issues, EDs have no single cause. Researchers believe they stem from a complex interaction of genetic, biological, behavioral, psychological, and social factors. But the medical field should take note: Some personality traits commonly associated with EDs are often shared by successful physicians.

“I think some of the overlap traits would be being highly driven, goal-oriented and self-critical,” said Lesley Williams, MD, a family medicine physician at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona. “A lot of those traits can make you a very successful physician and physician-in-training but could also potentially spill over into body image and rigidity around food.”

Of course, we want physicians to strive for excellence, and the majority of diligent, driven doctors will not develop an ED.

But when pushed too far, those admirable qualities can easily become perfectionism — which has long been recognized as a risk factor for EDs, an association supported by decades of research.

Medical School: Where EDs Begin and Little Education About Them Happens

“I think medicine in general attracts people that often share similar characteristics to those who struggle with EDs — high-achieving, hardworking perfectionists who put a lot of pressure on themselves,” said Elizabeth McNaught, MD, a general practitioner and medical director at Family Mental Wealth.

Diagnosed with an ED at 14, Dr. McNaught has experienced this firsthand and shared her story in a 2020 memoir, Life Hurts: A Doctor’s Personal Journey Through Anorexia.

Competitive, high-stress environments can also be a trigger, Dr. McNaught explained. “The pressure of medical school,” for example, “can perpetuate an eating disorder if that’s something that you’re struggling with,” she said.

Pressure to perform may not be the only problem. Medical students are taught to view weight as a key indicator of health. Multiple studies suggested that not only does weight stigma exist in healthcare but also it has increased over time and negatively affects patients’ psychological well-being and physical health.

There is far less public discourse about how weight stigma can be harmful to medical students and physicians themselves. Dr. Williams believed the weight-centric paradigm was key.

“For so long, we believed that health presents itself within these confines on a BMI chart and anything outside of that is unhealthy and must be fixed,” she said. “I can say from having gone through medical education, having that continual messaging does make someone feel that if I myself am not within those confines, then I need to do something to fix that immediately if I’m going to continue to care for patients.”

In general, Dr. Williams, and Dr. McNaught agreed that medical training around EDs is lacking, producing doctors who are ill-equipped to diagnose, treat, or even discuss them with patients. Dr. Williams recalled only one lecture on the topic in med school.

“And yet, anorexia carries the second highest death rate of all mental illnesses after opioid-use disorders,” she said, “so it’s astonishing that that just wasn’t included.”

MDs Hiding Mental Health Issues

Claire Anderson, MD (a pseudonym), emphatically stated she would never tell anyone at the hospital where she works in the emergency department that she has an ED.

“There is still a lot of misunderstanding about mental health, and I never want people to doubt my ability to care for people,” Dr. Anderson said. “There’s so much stigma around eating disorders, and I also feel like once it’s out there, I can’t take it back, and I don’t want to feel like people are watching me.”

Melissa Klein, PhD, a clinical psychologist specializing in EDs, has more than 25 years of experience working the inpatient ED unit at New York Presbyterian. Having treated medical professionals, Dr. Klein said they have legitimate concerns about revealing their struggles.

“Sometimes, they do get reported to higher ups — the boards,” Dr. Klein said, “and they’re told that they have to get help in order for them to continue to work in their profession. I think people might be scared to ask for help because of that reason.”

Doctors Often Ignore EDs or Teach ‘Bad Habits’

Dr. Anderson firmly believed that if her early treatment from doctors had been better, she might not be struggling so much today.

The first time Dr. Anderson’s mother brought up her daughter’s sudden weight loss at 14, their family doctor conferred with a chart and said there was no reason to worry; Dr. Anderson’s weight was “normal.” “I was eating like 500 calories a day and swimming for 3 hours, and [by saying that], they assured me I was fine,” she recalls.

At 15, when Dr. Anderson went in for an initial assessment for an ED, she thought she’d be connected with a nutritionist and sent home. “I didn’t have a lot of classic thoughts of wanting to be thin or wanting to lose weight,” she said.

Instead, Dr. Anderson was sent to inpatient care, which she credits with escalating her ED. “I picked up on a lot of really bad habits when I went there — I sort of learned how to have an eating disorder,” she said. “When I left, it was very different than when I went in, which is kind of sad.”

Throughout high school, Dr. Anderson went in and out of so many hospitals and treatment programs that she’s lost track of them. Then, in 2008, she left formal treatment altogether. “I had been really angry with the treatment programs for trying to fit me into their box with a rigid schedule of inpatient and outpatient care,” she recalled. “I didn’t want to live in that world anymore.”

After working with a new psychiatrist, Dr. Anderson’s situation improved until a particularly stressful second year of residency. “That’s when I just tanked,” she said. “Residency, and especially being on my own and with COVID, things have not been great for me.”

Dr. Anderson now sees an eating disorder specialist, but she pays for this out-of-pocket. “I have terrible insurance,” she said with a laugh, aware of that irony.

If You Are Struggling, Don’t Be Ashamed

Some physicians who’ve experienced EDs firsthand are working to improve training on diagnosing and treating the conditions. Dr. McNaught has developed and launched a new eLearning program for healthcare workers on how to recognize the early signs and symptoms of an ED and provide support.

“It’s not only so they can recognize it in their patients but also if colleagues and family and friends are struggling,” she said.

In 2021, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) approved the APA Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients With Eating Disorders, which aims to improve patient care and treatment outcomes.

But Dr. Klein is concerned that increased stress since the COVID-19 pandemic may be putting healthcare workers at even greater risk.

“When people are under stress or when they feel like there are things in their life that maybe they can’t control, sometimes turning to an eating disorder is a way to cope,” she said, “In that sense, the stress on medical professionals is something that could lead to eating disorder behaviors.”

Dr. Klein’s message to healthcare workers: Don’t be ashamed. She described an ED as “a monster that takes over your brain. Once it starts, it’s very hard to turn it around on your own. So, I hope anyone who is suffering, in whatever field they’re in, that they are able to ask for help.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of oral amoxicillin-clavulanic acid for 5 days was noninferior to a 10-day course of treatment among children with noncomplicated febrile urinary tract infections (UTIs), according to new research.

Well-appearing children with febrile UTIs are generally treated with a 10-day course of oral antibiotics, but the effectiveness of a 5-day course has not been evaluated, wrote Giovanni Montini, MD, of the University of Milan, Milan, Italy, and colleagues.

Robert W. Frenck Jr, MD, a director of the Center for Vaccine Research at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Ohio, said he was not surprised that the shorter course was sufficient to treat these cases. The antibiotic concentration in the urine often significantly exceeds the levels in the blood, he said.

Dr. Frenck, who was not involved in the study, said that he saw no real barriers to the use of a shorter course of therapy in clinical practice.

“I think both parents and the medical team would be happy to be able to use a shorter course of therapy,” he said.

In the study published in Pediatrics , researchers randomized 142 children aged 3 months to 5 years with uncomplicated febrile UTIs to 50 mg/kg/d of amoxicillin-clavulanate for either the short or standard period. The study took place at eight pediatric emergency departments in Italy between May 2020 and September 2022. All patients received prescriptions for 5 days of antibiotics, and those randomized to the standard course received a second prescription after randomization.

The primary endpoint was recurrence of the UTI within 30 days of completion of therapy. Secondary endpoints included clinical recovery at the end of treatment, adverse events related to the therapy, and signs of antibiotic resistance.

The UTI recurrence rate within 30 days of treatment completion was 2.8% in the short-course group and 14.3% in the standard group. A post hoc analysis excluding patients with vesicoureteral reflux and non–Escherichia coli UTIs further confirmed the noninferiority of short-course treatment.

“It is a bit surprising that the short-course group had fewer relapses within 30 days of discontinuing antibiotics,” Dr. Frenck said. “However, the differences may be due to small sample sizes and do not appear to be statistically significant differences in recurrence rates.”

Resolution of symptoms was similar between the short-course and standard groups (97.2% and 92.9%, respectively), and indications of antibiotic resistance were similar between the groups. No adverse events were reported in the standard group, and one case of diarrhea occurred in the short-course group.

The findings were limited by the study’s unblinded randomization, so parents were aware of the trial and were potentially sensitized to look for signs of infection. Researchers also relied on parent reports of adverse drug effects rather than through a standardized questionnaire, the researchers noted.

Dr. Frenck said a potential benefit to shortening treatment is that adherence usually increases.

“But you only want to decrease the length of a course of medicine if you can do so without compromising the effectiveness of the treatment,” Dr. Frenck said.

Dr. Frenck also noted a recent study, which demonstrated that 5 days of antibiotics had equivalent efficacy as 10 days for uncomplicated pneumonia.

“The current paper further demonstrates that shorter courses of antibiotics may be possible for other mild forms of infections.”

Looking ahead, researchers could evaluate the use of short-course antibiotics for other common infections such as otitis media, he noted.

The study was supported by the Ministry of Health, Rome, Italy, in collaboration with the Institute for Maternal and Child Health IRCCS Burlo Garofolo, Trieste, Italy. The researchers report no financial conflicts. Dr. Frenck disclosed conducting clinical trials for Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Merck, and GSK; none of those trials were for antibiotics or urinary tract infections.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of oral amoxicillin-clavulanic acid for 5 days was noninferior to a 10-day course of treatment among children with noncomplicated febrile urinary tract infections (UTIs), according to new research.

Well-appearing children with febrile UTIs are generally treated with a 10-day course of oral antibiotics, but the effectiveness of a 5-day course has not been evaluated, wrote Giovanni Montini, MD, of the University of Milan, Milan, Italy, and colleagues.

Robert W. Frenck Jr, MD, a director of the Center for Vaccine Research at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Ohio, said he was not surprised that the shorter course was sufficient to treat these cases. The antibiotic concentration in the urine often significantly exceeds the levels in the blood, he said.

Dr. Frenck, who was not involved in the study, said that he saw no real barriers to the use of a shorter course of therapy in clinical practice.

“I think both parents and the medical team would be happy to be able to use a shorter course of therapy,” he said.

In the study published in Pediatrics , researchers randomized 142 children aged 3 months to 5 years with uncomplicated febrile UTIs to 50 mg/kg/d of amoxicillin-clavulanate for either the short or standard period. The study took place at eight pediatric emergency departments in Italy between May 2020 and September 2022. All patients received prescriptions for 5 days of antibiotics, and those randomized to the standard course received a second prescription after randomization.

The primary endpoint was recurrence of the UTI within 30 days of completion of therapy. Secondary endpoints included clinical recovery at the end of treatment, adverse events related to the therapy, and signs of antibiotic resistance.

The UTI recurrence rate within 30 days of treatment completion was 2.8% in the short-course group and 14.3% in the standard group. A post hoc analysis excluding patients with vesicoureteral reflux and non–Escherichia coli UTIs further confirmed the noninferiority of short-course treatment.

“It is a bit surprising that the short-course group had fewer relapses within 30 days of discontinuing antibiotics,” Dr. Frenck said. “However, the differences may be due to small sample sizes and do not appear to be statistically significant differences in recurrence rates.”

Resolution of symptoms was similar between the short-course and standard groups (97.2% and 92.9%, respectively), and indications of antibiotic resistance were similar between the groups. No adverse events were reported in the standard group, and one case of diarrhea occurred in the short-course group.

The findings were limited by the study’s unblinded randomization, so parents were aware of the trial and were potentially sensitized to look for signs of infection. Researchers also relied on parent reports of adverse drug effects rather than through a standardized questionnaire, the researchers noted.

Dr. Frenck said a potential benefit to shortening treatment is that adherence usually increases.

“But you only want to decrease the length of a course of medicine if you can do so without compromising the effectiveness of the treatment,” Dr. Frenck said.

Dr. Frenck also noted a recent study, which demonstrated that 5 days of antibiotics had equivalent efficacy as 10 days for uncomplicated pneumonia.

“The current paper further demonstrates that shorter courses of antibiotics may be possible for other mild forms of infections.”

Looking ahead, researchers could evaluate the use of short-course antibiotics for other common infections such as otitis media, he noted.

The study was supported by the Ministry of Health, Rome, Italy, in collaboration with the Institute for Maternal and Child Health IRCCS Burlo Garofolo, Trieste, Italy. The researchers report no financial conflicts. Dr. Frenck disclosed conducting clinical trials for Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Merck, and GSK; none of those trials were for antibiotics or urinary tract infections.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of oral amoxicillin-clavulanic acid for 5 days was noninferior to a 10-day course of treatment among children with noncomplicated febrile urinary tract infections (UTIs), according to new research.

Well-appearing children with febrile UTIs are generally treated with a 10-day course of oral antibiotics, but the effectiveness of a 5-day course has not been evaluated, wrote Giovanni Montini, MD, of the University of Milan, Milan, Italy, and colleagues.

Robert W. Frenck Jr, MD, a director of the Center for Vaccine Research at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Ohio, said he was not surprised that the shorter course was sufficient to treat these cases. The antibiotic concentration in the urine often significantly exceeds the levels in the blood, he said.

Dr. Frenck, who was not involved in the study, said that he saw no real barriers to the use of a shorter course of therapy in clinical practice.

“I think both parents and the medical team would be happy to be able to use a shorter course of therapy,” he said.

In the study published in Pediatrics , researchers randomized 142 children aged 3 months to 5 years with uncomplicated febrile UTIs to 50 mg/kg/d of amoxicillin-clavulanate for either the short or standard period. The study took place at eight pediatric emergency departments in Italy between May 2020 and September 2022. All patients received prescriptions for 5 days of antibiotics, and those randomized to the standard course received a second prescription after randomization.

The primary endpoint was recurrence of the UTI within 30 days of completion of therapy. Secondary endpoints included clinical recovery at the end of treatment, adverse events related to the therapy, and signs of antibiotic resistance.

The UTI recurrence rate within 30 days of treatment completion was 2.8% in the short-course group and 14.3% in the standard group. A post hoc analysis excluding patients with vesicoureteral reflux and non–Escherichia coli UTIs further confirmed the noninferiority of short-course treatment.

“It is a bit surprising that the short-course group had fewer relapses within 30 days of discontinuing antibiotics,” Dr. Frenck said. “However, the differences may be due to small sample sizes and do not appear to be statistically significant differences in recurrence rates.”

Resolution of symptoms was similar between the short-course and standard groups (97.2% and 92.9%, respectively), and indications of antibiotic resistance were similar between the groups. No adverse events were reported in the standard group, and one case of diarrhea occurred in the short-course group.

The findings were limited by the study’s unblinded randomization, so parents were aware of the trial and were potentially sensitized to look for signs of infection. Researchers also relied on parent reports of adverse drug effects rather than through a standardized questionnaire, the researchers noted.

Dr. Frenck said a potential benefit to shortening treatment is that adherence usually increases.

“But you only want to decrease the length of a course of medicine if you can do so without compromising the effectiveness of the treatment,” Dr. Frenck said.

Dr. Frenck also noted a recent study, which demonstrated that 5 days of antibiotics had equivalent efficacy as 10 days for uncomplicated pneumonia.

“The current paper further demonstrates that shorter courses of antibiotics may be possible for other mild forms of infections.”

Looking ahead, researchers could evaluate the use of short-course antibiotics for other common infections such as otitis media, he noted.

The study was supported by the Ministry of Health, Rome, Italy, in collaboration with the Institute for Maternal and Child Health IRCCS Burlo Garofolo, Trieste, Italy. The researchers report no financial conflicts. Dr. Frenck disclosed conducting clinical trials for Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Merck, and GSK; none of those trials were for antibiotics or urinary tract infections.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Hospital-acquired adverse events or conditions including falls and infections increased by approximately 25% after hospitals’ acquisition by private equity compared with control hospitals, on the basis of a study of Medicare claims for more than 4,500,000 hospitalizations.

“Prior research on private equity in health care showed that acquisition is associated with higher charges, prices, and spending; however, the implications for quality of care and patient outcomes remained less understood,” corresponding author Zirui Song, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “This was particularly true for measures of clinical quality that were less susceptible to changes in patient mix or coding behavior, such as hospital-acquired adverse events.”

In the study, published in JAMA, the researchers compared data from 100% Medicare Part A claims for 662,095 hospitalizations at 51 hospitals acquired by private equities and 4,160,720 hospitalizations at 259 control hospitals. The hospitalizations occurred between 2009 and 2019. The researchers also used a difference-in-differences design to evaluate hospitalizations from 3 years before to 3 years after acquisition, controlling for patient and hospital attributes.

Hospital-acquired adverse events as defined by the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services included falls, infections, stage III or IV pressure ulcers, foreign objects retained after surgery, air embolism, and blood incompatibility.

Overall, Medicare patients in private equity hospitals experienced a 25.4% increase in hospital-acquired conditions compared with those in control hospitals through a period of up to 3 years after acquisition, with a difference of 4.6 additional hospital-acquired conditions per 10,000 hospitalizations (P = .004). Central line-associated bloodstream infections accounted for 37.7% of the increase (P = .04), despite a 16.2% decrease in placement of central lines, and falls accounted for 27.3% (P = .02).

Notably, the incidence of surgical site infections increased from 10.8 per 10,000 hospitalizations before acquisition to 21.6 per 10,000 hospitalizations after acquisition, despite a reduction of 8.1% in surgical volume. By contrast, surgical site infections decreased at control hospitals over the study period.

In-hospital mortality decreased slightly at private equity hospitals compared with the control hospitals, but there was no differential change in mortality by 30 days after hospital discharge. The slight difference might be caused by the trend in slightly younger Medicare beneficiaries treated at private equity hospitals; these patients were less likely to be eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare and were more likely to be transferred to other hospitals, the researchers noted.

The findings were limited by several factors including the lack of generalizability to all private equity-acquired hospitals and to non-Medicare patients, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the use of the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) and Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes that might have failed to capture all hospital-acquired conditions and the inability to account for all confounding factors.

However, the results suggest that private equity acquisition was associated with increased hospital-acquired adverse events and highlight concerns about the impact of private equity ownership on healthcare delivery, the researchers concluded.

In a related story published in July 2023, this news organization described a report showing an association between private equity ownership of medical practices and increased consumer prices for multiple medical specialties.

“Medicare patients admitted to private equity-owned hospitals experienced, on average, an 25% increase in hospital-acquired adverse events after the hospital was bought compared to similar patients at hospitals not acquired by private equity firms. We were surprised by the extent of this change relative to the comparison (non-private equity) hospitals, including the sizable increase in central line-associated bloodstream infections and the doubling of surgical site infections at private equity hospitals — both of which went down at the comparison hospitals during the same period,” Dr. Song said in an interview.

“A key implication is that patients, providers, and policymakers might be more attuned to the potential clinical impact of private equity ownership in the delivery system. Given that a plausible explanation for these findings is reductions in clinician staffing, clinical organizations and policymakers might also be more aware of cost-cutting strategies after acquisition,” Dr. Song said. “Prior research has shown that hospitals, nursing homes, and physician practices experience staffing cuts after private equity acquisition, which is a common way to reduce operating costs and boost the profitability of acquired entities,” he noted.

“More research is needed to understand the impact of private equity acquisitions across health care settings and the potential effects of policy levers that aim to protect patients and societal resources,” said Dr. Song, who coauthored an article outlining a policy framework for addressing private equity in healthcare, published in JAMA in April 2023. “Potential regulatory remedies include minimum staffing ratios, antitrust enforcement, mitigating the financial risk of such acquisitions, increasing the transparency of these acquisitions, and protecting patients and society from the higher prices of care attributed to this model of provider ownership,” he said.
 

Patients Pay the Price of Private Equity Acquisition

“The exponential growth in private equity ownership in hospital and physician practices in the past few decades has left a majority of health care providers disillusioned with cost-cutting practices resulting in staffing reductions and ratios that sacrifice patient care as part of their approach to running clinical operations ‘lean,’ ” Robert Glatter, MD, an emergency medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, NY, said in an interview.

“While private equity companies argue that such practices are essential to meet their bottom line and increase operating margins, it doesn’t translate into ideal care for patients; lean practices in staffing which focus on profits at the expense of patient safety and quality of care.

“When you look at patient outcomes, it is the patients who ultimately pay the price — not the shareholders,” Dr. Glatter said. “This translates to higher risks of hospital-acquired complications including falls and blood-borne infections, including surgical site infections, as noted by the authors of the current study when private equity took over operations in hospitals.

Dr. Glatter said he was not surprised by the findings. “In my world, patient care and safety come first. Period,” he said. “Would you want your family’s health and well-being sacrificed in the name of company profits? I think it’s a rhetorical question, but one that every health care provider who works in a hospital or practice run by private equity must consider.”

Despite a decline in utilization at private equity hospitals as noted in the current study, hospital-acquired infections and adverse outcomes still increased, illustrating a decline in quality of care, said Dr. Glatter. “While these disparities were not evident when looking at 30-day outcomes, they demonstrate how operational changes impact patient outcomes in the near term. Having younger and healthier patients, and fewer Medicare and Medicaid patients combined with more hospital transfers to non–private equity run hospitals, resulted in lower in-hospital mortality in the near term, which was not apparent at 30 days post discharge,” he said.

“The explosion of hospital mergers and consolidation in the past several decades has led to skyrocketing health care costs at the expense of patient satisfaction, but also health care providers’ autonomy to manage and maintain quality care for their patients,” Dr. Glatter said.

“It’s important to understand that private equity’s interests are primarily aligned with their shareholder’s interests, as opposed to patients’ outcomes and interests,” Dr. Glatter told this news organization. “Within 5-7 years, the goal is to increase operating margins and profits and then sell a practice or hospital, which is ultimately part of a ‘health care portfolio,’ ” he said.

Additional research is needed to examine whether other hospital-acquired conditions including pressure sores, catheter-associated UTIs, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections, Clostridium difficile infections, and nosocomial pneumonia have increased in hospitals following private equity acquisition, given the overall national decline in these events, he said.

“At the same time, it is vital to also look at management and readmission rates for patients with strokes, heart attacks, and congestive heart failure in hospitals that are run by private equity,” Dr. Glatter noted. “These are important benchmarks of care monitored by CMS that reflect the quality of care that payers ultimately factor into reimbursement.”

Examining the metrics associated with these diagnoses will help in understanding whether private equity-managed facilities are leading to adverse outcomes and mortality, increased length of stay, hospital readmissions, and increased nosocomial infections, apart from other aspects of patient experience, Dr. Glatter added.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Institute on Aging, and Arnold Ventures. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Glatter had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Medscape Emergency Medicine Editorial Board.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Hospital-acquired adverse events or conditions including falls and infections increased by approximately 25% after hospitals’ acquisition by private equity compared with control hospitals, on the basis of a study of Medicare claims for more than 4,500,000 hospitalizations.

“Prior research on private equity in health care showed that acquisition is associated with higher charges, prices, and spending; however, the implications for quality of care and patient outcomes remained less understood,” corresponding author Zirui Song, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “This was particularly true for measures of clinical quality that were less susceptible to changes in patient mix or coding behavior, such as hospital-acquired adverse events.”

In the study, published in JAMA, the researchers compared data from 100% Medicare Part A claims for 662,095 hospitalizations at 51 hospitals acquired by private equities and 4,160,720 hospitalizations at 259 control hospitals. The hospitalizations occurred between 2009 and 2019. The researchers also used a difference-in-differences design to evaluate hospitalizations from 3 years before to 3 years after acquisition, controlling for patient and hospital attributes.

Hospital-acquired adverse events as defined by the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services included falls, infections, stage III or IV pressure ulcers, foreign objects retained after surgery, air embolism, and blood incompatibility.

Overall, Medicare patients in private equity hospitals experienced a 25.4% increase in hospital-acquired conditions compared with those in control hospitals through a period of up to 3 years after acquisition, with a difference of 4.6 additional hospital-acquired conditions per 10,000 hospitalizations (P = .004). Central line-associated bloodstream infections accounted for 37.7% of the increase (P = .04), despite a 16.2% decrease in placement of central lines, and falls accounted for 27.3% (P = .02).

Notably, the incidence of surgical site infections increased from 10.8 per 10,000 hospitalizations before acquisition to 21.6 per 10,000 hospitalizations after acquisition, despite a reduction of 8.1% in surgical volume. By contrast, surgical site infections decreased at control hospitals over the study period.

In-hospital mortality decreased slightly at private equity hospitals compared with the control hospitals, but there was no differential change in mortality by 30 days after hospital discharge. The slight difference might be caused by the trend in slightly younger Medicare beneficiaries treated at private equity hospitals; these patients were less likely to be eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare and were more likely to be transferred to other hospitals, the researchers noted.

The findings were limited by several factors including the lack of generalizability to all private equity-acquired hospitals and to non-Medicare patients, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the use of the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) and Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes that might have failed to capture all hospital-acquired conditions and the inability to account for all confounding factors.

However, the results suggest that private equity acquisition was associated with increased hospital-acquired adverse events and highlight concerns about the impact of private equity ownership on healthcare delivery, the researchers concluded.

In a related story published in July 2023, this news organization described a report showing an association between private equity ownership of medical practices and increased consumer prices for multiple medical specialties.

“Medicare patients admitted to private equity-owned hospitals experienced, on average, an 25% increase in hospital-acquired adverse events after the hospital was bought compared to similar patients at hospitals not acquired by private equity firms. We were surprised by the extent of this change relative to the comparison (non-private equity) hospitals, including the sizable increase in central line-associated bloodstream infections and the doubling of surgical site infections at private equity hospitals — both of which went down at the comparison hospitals during the same period,” Dr. Song said in an interview.

“A key implication is that patients, providers, and policymakers might be more attuned to the potential clinical impact of private equity ownership in the delivery system. Given that a plausible explanation for these findings is reductions in clinician staffing, clinical organizations and policymakers might also be more aware of cost-cutting strategies after acquisition,” Dr. Song said. “Prior research has shown that hospitals, nursing homes, and physician practices experience staffing cuts after private equity acquisition, which is a common way to reduce operating costs and boost the profitability of acquired entities,” he noted.

“More research is needed to understand the impact of private equity acquisitions across health care settings and the potential effects of policy levers that aim to protect patients and societal resources,” said Dr. Song, who coauthored an article outlining a policy framework for addressing private equity in healthcare, published in JAMA in April 2023. “Potential regulatory remedies include minimum staffing ratios, antitrust enforcement, mitigating the financial risk of such acquisitions, increasing the transparency of these acquisitions, and protecting patients and society from the higher prices of care attributed to this model of provider ownership,” he said.
 

Patients Pay the Price of Private Equity Acquisition

“The exponential growth in private equity ownership in hospital and physician practices in the past few decades has left a majority of health care providers disillusioned with cost-cutting practices resulting in staffing reductions and ratios that sacrifice patient care as part of their approach to running clinical operations ‘lean,’ ” Robert Glatter, MD, an emergency medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, NY, said in an interview.

“While private equity companies argue that such practices are essential to meet their bottom line and increase operating margins, it doesn’t translate into ideal care for patients; lean practices in staffing which focus on profits at the expense of patient safety and quality of care.

“When you look at patient outcomes, it is the patients who ultimately pay the price — not the shareholders,” Dr. Glatter said. “This translates to higher risks of hospital-acquired complications including falls and blood-borne infections, including surgical site infections, as noted by the authors of the current study when private equity took over operations in hospitals.

Dr. Glatter said he was not surprised by the findings. “In my world, patient care and safety come first. Period,” he said. “Would you want your family’s health and well-being sacrificed in the name of company profits? I think it’s a rhetorical question, but one that every health care provider who works in a hospital or practice run by private equity must consider.”

Despite a decline in utilization at private equity hospitals as noted in the current study, hospital-acquired infections and adverse outcomes still increased, illustrating a decline in quality of care, said Dr. Glatter. “While these disparities were not evident when looking at 30-day outcomes, they demonstrate how operational changes impact patient outcomes in the near term. Having younger and healthier patients, and fewer Medicare and Medicaid patients combined with more hospital transfers to non–private equity run hospitals, resulted in lower in-hospital mortality in the near term, which was not apparent at 30 days post discharge,” he said.

“The explosion of hospital mergers and consolidation in the past several decades has led to skyrocketing health care costs at the expense of patient satisfaction, but also health care providers’ autonomy to manage and maintain quality care for their patients,” Dr. Glatter said.

“It’s important to understand that private equity’s interests are primarily aligned with their shareholder’s interests, as opposed to patients’ outcomes and interests,” Dr. Glatter told this news organization. “Within 5-7 years, the goal is to increase operating margins and profits and then sell a practice or hospital, which is ultimately part of a ‘health care portfolio,’ ” he said.

Additional research is needed to examine whether other hospital-acquired conditions including pressure sores, catheter-associated UTIs, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections, Clostridium difficile infections, and nosocomial pneumonia have increased in hospitals following private equity acquisition, given the overall national decline in these events, he said.

“At the same time, it is vital to also look at management and readmission rates for patients with strokes, heart attacks, and congestive heart failure in hospitals that are run by private equity,” Dr. Glatter noted. “These are important benchmarks of care monitored by CMS that reflect the quality of care that payers ultimately factor into reimbursement.”

Examining the metrics associated with these diagnoses will help in understanding whether private equity-managed facilities are leading to adverse outcomes and mortality, increased length of stay, hospital readmissions, and increased nosocomial infections, apart from other aspects of patient experience, Dr. Glatter added.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Institute on Aging, and Arnold Ventures. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Glatter had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Medscape Emergency Medicine Editorial Board.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Hospital-acquired adverse events or conditions including falls and infections increased by approximately 25% after hospitals’ acquisition by private equity compared with control hospitals, on the basis of a study of Medicare claims for more than 4,500,000 hospitalizations.

“Prior research on private equity in health care showed that acquisition is associated with higher charges, prices, and spending; however, the implications for quality of care and patient outcomes remained less understood,” corresponding author Zirui Song, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “This was particularly true for measures of clinical quality that were less susceptible to changes in patient mix or coding behavior, such as hospital-acquired adverse events.”

In the study, published in JAMA, the researchers compared data from 100% Medicare Part A claims for 662,095 hospitalizations at 51 hospitals acquired by private equities and 4,160,720 hospitalizations at 259 control hospitals. The hospitalizations occurred between 2009 and 2019. The researchers also used a difference-in-differences design to evaluate hospitalizations from 3 years before to 3 years after acquisition, controlling for patient and hospital attributes.

Hospital-acquired adverse events as defined by the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services included falls, infections, stage III or IV pressure ulcers, foreign objects retained after surgery, air embolism, and blood incompatibility.

Overall, Medicare patients in private equity hospitals experienced a 25.4% increase in hospital-acquired conditions compared with those in control hospitals through a period of up to 3 years after acquisition, with a difference of 4.6 additional hospital-acquired conditions per 10,000 hospitalizations (P = .004). Central line-associated bloodstream infections accounted for 37.7% of the increase (P = .04), despite a 16.2% decrease in placement of central lines, and falls accounted for 27.3% (P = .02).

Notably, the incidence of surgical site infections increased from 10.8 per 10,000 hospitalizations before acquisition to 21.6 per 10,000 hospitalizations after acquisition, despite a reduction of 8.1% in surgical volume. By contrast, surgical site infections decreased at control hospitals over the study period.

In-hospital mortality decreased slightly at private equity hospitals compared with the control hospitals, but there was no differential change in mortality by 30 days after hospital discharge. The slight difference might be caused by the trend in slightly younger Medicare beneficiaries treated at private equity hospitals; these patients were less likely to be eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare and were more likely to be transferred to other hospitals, the researchers noted.

The findings were limited by several factors including the lack of generalizability to all private equity-acquired hospitals and to non-Medicare patients, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the use of the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) and Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes that might have failed to capture all hospital-acquired conditions and the inability to account for all confounding factors.

However, the results suggest that private equity acquisition was associated with increased hospital-acquired adverse events and highlight concerns about the impact of private equity ownership on healthcare delivery, the researchers concluded.

In a related story published in July 2023, this news organization described a report showing an association between private equity ownership of medical practices and increased consumer prices for multiple medical specialties.

“Medicare patients admitted to private equity-owned hospitals experienced, on average, an 25% increase in hospital-acquired adverse events after the hospital was bought compared to similar patients at hospitals not acquired by private equity firms. We were surprised by the extent of this change relative to the comparison (non-private equity) hospitals, including the sizable increase in central line-associated bloodstream infections and the doubling of surgical site infections at private equity hospitals — both of which went down at the comparison hospitals during the same period,” Dr. Song said in an interview.

“A key implication is that patients, providers, and policymakers might be more attuned to the potential clinical impact of private equity ownership in the delivery system. Given that a plausible explanation for these findings is reductions in clinician staffing, clinical organizations and policymakers might also be more aware of cost-cutting strategies after acquisition,” Dr. Song said. “Prior research has shown that hospitals, nursing homes, and physician practices experience staffing cuts after private equity acquisition, which is a common way to reduce operating costs and boost the profitability of acquired entities,” he noted.

“More research is needed to understand the impact of private equity acquisitions across health care settings and the potential effects of policy levers that aim to protect patients and societal resources,” said Dr. Song, who coauthored an article outlining a policy framework for addressing private equity in healthcare, published in JAMA in April 2023. “Potential regulatory remedies include minimum staffing ratios, antitrust enforcement, mitigating the financial risk of such acquisitions, increasing the transparency of these acquisitions, and protecting patients and society from the higher prices of care attributed to this model of provider ownership,” he said.
 

Patients Pay the Price of Private Equity Acquisition

“The exponential growth in private equity ownership in hospital and physician practices in the past few decades has left a majority of health care providers disillusioned with cost-cutting practices resulting in staffing reductions and ratios that sacrifice patient care as part of their approach to running clinical operations ‘lean,’ ” Robert Glatter, MD, an emergency medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, NY, said in an interview.

“While private equity companies argue that such practices are essential to meet their bottom line and increase operating margins, it doesn’t translate into ideal care for patients; lean practices in staffing which focus on profits at the expense of patient safety and quality of care.

“When you look at patient outcomes, it is the patients who ultimately pay the price — not the shareholders,” Dr. Glatter said. “This translates to higher risks of hospital-acquired complications including falls and blood-borne infections, including surgical site infections, as noted by the authors of the current study when private equity took over operations in hospitals.

Dr. Glatter said he was not surprised by the findings. “In my world, patient care and safety come first. Period,” he said. “Would you want your family’s health and well-being sacrificed in the name of company profits? I think it’s a rhetorical question, but one that every health care provider who works in a hospital or practice run by private equity must consider.”

Despite a decline in utilization at private equity hospitals as noted in the current study, hospital-acquired infections and adverse outcomes still increased, illustrating a decline in quality of care, said Dr. Glatter. “While these disparities were not evident when looking at 30-day outcomes, they demonstrate how operational changes impact patient outcomes in the near term. Having younger and healthier patients, and fewer Medicare and Medicaid patients combined with more hospital transfers to non–private equity run hospitals, resulted in lower in-hospital mortality in the near term, which was not apparent at 30 days post discharge,” he said.

“The explosion of hospital mergers and consolidation in the past several decades has led to skyrocketing health care costs at the expense of patient satisfaction, but also health care providers’ autonomy to manage and maintain quality care for their patients,” Dr. Glatter said.

“It’s important to understand that private equity’s interests are primarily aligned with their shareholder’s interests, as opposed to patients’ outcomes and interests,” Dr. Glatter told this news organization. “Within 5-7 years, the goal is to increase operating margins and profits and then sell a practice or hospital, which is ultimately part of a ‘health care portfolio,’ ” he said.

Additional research is needed to examine whether other hospital-acquired conditions including pressure sores, catheter-associated UTIs, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections, Clostridium difficile infections, and nosocomial pneumonia have increased in hospitals following private equity acquisition, given the overall national decline in these events, he said.

“At the same time, it is vital to also look at management and readmission rates for patients with strokes, heart attacks, and congestive heart failure in hospitals that are run by private equity,” Dr. Glatter noted. “These are important benchmarks of care monitored by CMS that reflect the quality of care that payers ultimately factor into reimbursement.”

Examining the metrics associated with these diagnoses will help in understanding whether private equity-managed facilities are leading to adverse outcomes and mortality, increased length of stay, hospital readmissions, and increased nosocomial infections, apart from other aspects of patient experience, Dr. Glatter added.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Institute on Aging, and Arnold Ventures. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Glatter had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Medscape Emergency Medicine Editorial Board.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Healthcare costs for patients undergoing common surgical procedures are significantly higher when the surgery is performed by a male surgeon rather than a female surgeon, data suggested.

A retrospective, population-based cohort study that included more than 1 million adults undergoing any of 25 common surgical procedures found that total healthcare costs assessed at 1 year following surgery were more than $6000 higher when the surgery was performed by a male surgeon. Costs were also higher at 30 and 90 days for patients treated by male surgeons.

“As a male surgeon, I think our results should cause me and my colleagues to pause and consider why this may be,” said lead author Christopher J. D. Wallis, MD, PhD, assistant professor of surgery at the University of Toronto.

“None of us believe that the presence of a Y chromosome in surgeons means there are worse outcomes, it’s just that generally speaking, men and women, as we have known for decades, practice medicine a little differently. Things like communication style, time they spend with their patients, and even things like guideline adherence are different, and understanding how those differences translate into patient outcomes is the goal of this whole body of work,” said Wallis.

The study was published online November 29 in JAMA Surgery.

Explanation Is Elusive

In earlier work, Dr. Wallis and his team reported that patients treated by female surgeons had a small but statistically significant decrease in 30-day mortality, were less likely to be readmitted to the hospital, and had fewer complications than those treated by male surgeons. In another study, they found worse outcomes among female patients treated by male surgeons.

In the current study, the researchers examined the association between surgeon sex and healthcare costs among patients undergoing various surgical procedures, including coronary artery bypass grafting, appendectomy, hysterectomy, anterior spinal decompression, and knee replacement. They included all adult patients who underwent these procedures at hospitals in Ontario, Canada, between January 2007 and December 2019 in their analysis.

The study sample included 1,165,711 patients. Of this group, 151,054 patients were treated by a female surgeon, and 1,014,657 were treated by a male surgeon.

After adjusting for patient-, surgeon-, anesthesiologist-, and hospital-related factors, they found that 1-year total healthcare costs were $24,882 for patients treated by male surgeons vs $18,517 for patients treated by female surgeons. Healthcare costs were also higher at 30 days (adjusted absolute difference, $3115) and at 90 days (adjusted absolute difference, $4228).

“This translates into a 9%-10% higher risk of costs with male surgeons compared with women surgeons at these time points,” said Dr. Wallis.

“This study cannot provide a specific answer as to why these differences are occurring,” Dr. Wallis said.

“We are currently undertaking more research to better understand the reasons. Our previous studies have shown that patients treated by male physicians have higher rates of death, readmission, and complications. Managing these adverse postoperative events is costly and likely contributes to these differences. Given the size of our study and similar training pathways, we do not think there are technical differences between male and female surgeons. Rather, we are hypothesizing that there may be differences in how physicians practice, make decisions, and consult with patients,” he said.

Ultimately, Dr. Wallis said he would like his research to prompt “a moment of introspection” among his surgical colleagues.

“Hopefully, these data will provide the impetus for further efforts to make surgery, and medicine in general, a field that is welcoming to women,” he said.

Potential Confounding Factors

This study expands the evidence suggesting significant practice differences between male and female surgeons, Ursula Adams, MD, a resident; Caprice C. Greenberg, MD, MPH, chair; and Jared Gallaher, MD, MPH, adjunct assistant professor, all from the Department of Surgery at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

They cautioned, however, that “there are many potential confounding factors and possible explanatory mechanisms associated with surgeon sex that make it challenging to untangle influences on costs. Sex may be an easily captured data point, but is understanding the mechanism by which it affects cost the right next step? Surgeons control how and where they practice; they do not have control over their own demographics.”

The editorialists added that while recruiting and retaining women in surgery is important, it is not a solution to controlling costs.

“We must provide surgeons with better data to understand how practice approach and decisions affect cost and support for practice improvement. Only with these insights will we ensure patients of male surgeons receive care that is just as cost-effective as that provided by female surgeons, while also helping to bend the cost curve and improve the quality of surgical care,” they concluded.

‘Admirable’ Data Use

Commenting on the findings, Oluwadamilola “Lola” Fayanju, MD, chief of breast surgery at Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, said, “It is interesting that the study was performed in Canada with its different healthcare system.” Dr. Fayanju did not participate in the study.

“They used administrative data from a national database, and it is admirable that they were able to do that. These data allow us to make large-scale geographical assessments, although they are subject to errors and unmeasured confounders,” said Dr. Fayanju.

Women surgeons may do things that result in better outcomes, she suggested. “In this study, the women were younger and so perhaps were more up to date. They might have optimized management of their patients in the pre-op phase, including better patient selection, which led to better costs. Or in the post-op phase, they might have made themselves readily accessible. For instance, I remove all barriers about getting in touch with me, and I tell my students to make sure the patient can reach you easily,” said Dr. Fayanju.

The study was supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care, and the Data Sciences Institute at the University of Toronto. Dr. Wallis, Dr. Adams, Dr. Greenberg, Dr. Gallaher, and Dr. Fayanju reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Healthcare costs for patients undergoing common surgical procedures are significantly higher when the surgery is performed by a male surgeon rather than a female surgeon, data suggested.

A retrospective, population-based cohort study that included more than 1 million adults undergoing any of 25 common surgical procedures found that total healthcare costs assessed at 1 year following surgery were more than $6000 higher when the surgery was performed by a male surgeon. Costs were also higher at 30 and 90 days for patients treated by male surgeons.

“As a male surgeon, I think our results should cause me and my colleagues to pause and consider why this may be,” said lead author Christopher J. D. Wallis, MD, PhD, assistant professor of surgery at the University of Toronto.

“None of us believe that the presence of a Y chromosome in surgeons means there are worse outcomes, it’s just that generally speaking, men and women, as we have known for decades, practice medicine a little differently. Things like communication style, time they spend with their patients, and even things like guideline adherence are different, and understanding how those differences translate into patient outcomes is the goal of this whole body of work,” said Wallis.

The study was published online November 29 in JAMA Surgery.

Explanation Is Elusive

In earlier work, Dr. Wallis and his team reported that patients treated by female surgeons had a small but statistically significant decrease in 30-day mortality, were less likely to be readmitted to the hospital, and had fewer complications than those treated by male surgeons. In another study, they found worse outcomes among female patients treated by male surgeons.

In the current study, the researchers examined the association between surgeon sex and healthcare costs among patients undergoing various surgical procedures, including coronary artery bypass grafting, appendectomy, hysterectomy, anterior spinal decompression, and knee replacement. They included all adult patients who underwent these procedures at hospitals in Ontario, Canada, between January 2007 and December 2019 in their analysis.

The study sample included 1,165,711 patients. Of this group, 151,054 patients were treated by a female surgeon, and 1,014,657 were treated by a male surgeon.

After adjusting for patient-, surgeon-, anesthesiologist-, and hospital-related factors, they found that 1-year total healthcare costs were $24,882 for patients treated by male surgeons vs $18,517 for patients treated by female surgeons. Healthcare costs were also higher at 30 days (adjusted absolute difference, $3115) and at 90 days (adjusted absolute difference, $4228).

“This translates into a 9%-10% higher risk of costs with male surgeons compared with women surgeons at these time points,” said Dr. Wallis.

“This study cannot provide a specific answer as to why these differences are occurring,” Dr. Wallis said.

“We are currently undertaking more research to better understand the reasons. Our previous studies have shown that patients treated by male physicians have higher rates of death, readmission, and complications. Managing these adverse postoperative events is costly and likely contributes to these differences. Given the size of our study and similar training pathways, we do not think there are technical differences between male and female surgeons. Rather, we are hypothesizing that there may be differences in how physicians practice, make decisions, and consult with patients,” he said.

Ultimately, Dr. Wallis said he would like his research to prompt “a moment of introspection” among his surgical colleagues.

“Hopefully, these data will provide the impetus for further efforts to make surgery, and medicine in general, a field that is welcoming to women,” he said.

Potential Confounding Factors

This study expands the evidence suggesting significant practice differences between male and female surgeons, Ursula Adams, MD, a resident; Caprice C. Greenberg, MD, MPH, chair; and Jared Gallaher, MD, MPH, adjunct assistant professor, all from the Department of Surgery at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

They cautioned, however, that “there are many potential confounding factors and possible explanatory mechanisms associated with surgeon sex that make it challenging to untangle influences on costs. Sex may be an easily captured data point, but is understanding the mechanism by which it affects cost the right next step? Surgeons control how and where they practice; they do not have control over their own demographics.”

The editorialists added that while recruiting and retaining women in surgery is important, it is not a solution to controlling costs.

“We must provide surgeons with better data to understand how practice approach and decisions affect cost and support for practice improvement. Only with these insights will we ensure patients of male surgeons receive care that is just as cost-effective as that provided by female surgeons, while also helping to bend the cost curve and improve the quality of surgical care,” they concluded.

‘Admirable’ Data Use

Commenting on the findings, Oluwadamilola “Lola” Fayanju, MD, chief of breast surgery at Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, said, “It is interesting that the study was performed in Canada with its different healthcare system.” Dr. Fayanju did not participate in the study.

“They used administrative data from a national database, and it is admirable that they were able to do that. These data allow us to make large-scale geographical assessments, although they are subject to errors and unmeasured confounders,” said Dr. Fayanju.

Women surgeons may do things that result in better outcomes, she suggested. “In this study, the women were younger and so perhaps were more up to date. They might have optimized management of their patients in the pre-op phase, including better patient selection, which led to better costs. Or in the post-op phase, they might have made themselves readily accessible. For instance, I remove all barriers about getting in touch with me, and I tell my students to make sure the patient can reach you easily,” said Dr. Fayanju.

The study was supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care, and the Data Sciences Institute at the University of Toronto. Dr. Wallis, Dr. Adams, Dr. Greenberg, Dr. Gallaher, and Dr. Fayanju reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Healthcare costs for patients undergoing common surgical procedures are significantly higher when the surgery is performed by a male surgeon rather than a female surgeon, data suggested.

A retrospective, population-based cohort study that included more than 1 million adults undergoing any of 25 common surgical procedures found that total healthcare costs assessed at 1 year following surgery were more than $6000 higher when the surgery was performed by a male surgeon. Costs were also higher at 30 and 90 days for patients treated by male surgeons.

“As a male surgeon, I think our results should cause me and my colleagues to pause and consider why this may be,” said lead author Christopher J. D. Wallis, MD, PhD, assistant professor of surgery at the University of Toronto.

“None of us believe that the presence of a Y chromosome in surgeons means there are worse outcomes, it’s just that generally speaking, men and women, as we have known for decades, practice medicine a little differently. Things like communication style, time they spend with their patients, and even things like guideline adherence are different, and understanding how those differences translate into patient outcomes is the goal of this whole body of work,” said Wallis.

The study was published online November 29 in JAMA Surgery.

Explanation Is Elusive

In earlier work, Dr. Wallis and his team reported that patients treated by female surgeons had a small but statistically significant decrease in 30-day mortality, were less likely to be readmitted to the hospital, and had fewer complications than those treated by male surgeons. In another study, they found worse outcomes among female patients treated by male surgeons.

In the current study, the researchers examined the association between surgeon sex and healthcare costs among patients undergoing various surgical procedures, including coronary artery bypass grafting, appendectomy, hysterectomy, anterior spinal decompression, and knee replacement. They included all adult patients who underwent these procedures at hospitals in Ontario, Canada, between January 2007 and December 2019 in their analysis.

The study sample included 1,165,711 patients. Of this group, 151,054 patients were treated by a female surgeon, and 1,014,657 were treated by a male surgeon.

After adjusting for patient-, surgeon-, anesthesiologist-, and hospital-related factors, they found that 1-year total healthcare costs were $24,882 for patients treated by male surgeons vs $18,517 for patients treated by female surgeons. Healthcare costs were also higher at 30 days (adjusted absolute difference, $3115) and at 90 days (adjusted absolute difference, $4228).

“This translates into a 9%-10% higher risk of costs with male surgeons compared with women surgeons at these time points,” said Dr. Wallis.

“This study cannot provide a specific answer as to why these differences are occurring,” Dr. Wallis said.

“We are currently undertaking more research to better understand the reasons. Our previous studies have shown that patients treated by male physicians have higher rates of death, readmission, and complications. Managing these adverse postoperative events is costly and likely contributes to these differences. Given the size of our study and similar training pathways, we do not think there are technical differences between male and female surgeons. Rather, we are hypothesizing that there may be differences in how physicians practice, make decisions, and consult with patients,” he said.

Ultimately, Dr. Wallis said he would like his research to prompt “a moment of introspection” among his surgical colleagues.

“Hopefully, these data will provide the impetus for further efforts to make surgery, and medicine in general, a field that is welcoming to women,” he said.

Potential Confounding Factors

This study expands the evidence suggesting significant practice differences between male and female surgeons, Ursula Adams, MD, a resident; Caprice C. Greenberg, MD, MPH, chair; and Jared Gallaher, MD, MPH, adjunct assistant professor, all from the Department of Surgery at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

They cautioned, however, that “there are many potential confounding factors and possible explanatory mechanisms associated with surgeon sex that make it challenging to untangle influences on costs. Sex may be an easily captured data point, but is understanding the mechanism by which it affects cost the right next step? Surgeons control how and where they practice; they do not have control over their own demographics.”

The editorialists added that while recruiting and retaining women in surgery is important, it is not a solution to controlling costs.

“We must provide surgeons with better data to understand how practice approach and decisions affect cost and support for practice improvement. Only with these insights will we ensure patients of male surgeons receive care that is just as cost-effective as that provided by female surgeons, while also helping to bend the cost curve and improve the quality of surgical care,” they concluded.

‘Admirable’ Data Use

Commenting on the findings, Oluwadamilola “Lola” Fayanju, MD, chief of breast surgery at Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, said, “It is interesting that the study was performed in Canada with its different healthcare system.” Dr. Fayanju did not participate in the study.

“They used administrative data from a national database, and it is admirable that they were able to do that. These data allow us to make large-scale geographical assessments, although they are subject to errors and unmeasured confounders,” said Dr. Fayanju.

Women surgeons may do things that result in better outcomes, she suggested. “In this study, the women were younger and so perhaps were more up to date. They might have optimized management of their patients in the pre-op phase, including better patient selection, which led to better costs. Or in the post-op phase, they might have made themselves readily accessible. For instance, I remove all barriers about getting in touch with me, and I tell my students to make sure the patient can reach you easily,” said Dr. Fayanju.

The study was supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care, and the Data Sciences Institute at the University of Toronto. Dr. Wallis, Dr. Adams, Dr. Greenberg, Dr. Gallaher, and Dr. Fayanju reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The past year brought major changes in preventive standards for anxiety, HIV, and RSV along with new guidelines for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. For insight into the effect on internal medicine, we turned to Sarah Candler, MD, MPH, a Houston internist who specializes in the care of high-risk older adults.


Q: Which new prevention guidelines had the most impact on you over the past year?

A: I’m a primary care doctor, and most of the internal medicine updates that are interesting to me focus on how we can keep people from getting sick in the first place. That’s especially important in light of the fact that we had a decrease in life expectancy of 2 years [it finally rose slightly in 2022] and widening of the gender gap in life expectancy for men and women.

I’m excited to see new recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, including a new one about using PREP [pre-exposure prophylaxis] to preventively treat anyone who’s at risk for getting HIV. That’s a big one because it’s one of the first times that we’ve identified at-risk groups for screening based on social risk factors, not gender, age, or genetics.

The new recommendation is PREP for anyone who’s at risk for getting HIV because they have a partner with HIV, had an sexually transmitted infection in the last 6 months, or a history of inconsistent or no condom use with partners with unknown HIV status.

PREP therapy is something that most primary care physicians can either do or learn how to do pretty easily. But the treatment does require maintenance and monitoring.
 

Q: How firm is this recommendation?

A: The task force gives different grades for their recommendations based on how strong the evidence is. For the guidelines about PREP, they give a grade of A. That means this is top of the class: You should definitely do this.


Q: What are the best strategies to ask patients personal questions about their sex lives in order to evaluate their risk?

A: A lot of internal medicine physicians are getting pretty good at this. We see it as part of our job just the same way as we asked things like, “How often are you walking?” and “Have you been feeling down?”

There’s no one right way to have a conversation like that. But it’s key to say, as I do to my patients, that “I’m not here to judge anything. I am truly here to gather information and make recommendations to you as a partner in your care.”  
 

Q: What other guidelines made an impact in 2023?

A: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force made a recommendation to screen adults aged 18-64 for anxiety, and this guidance got a B grade. [The task force said there’s not enough evidence to support routine anxiety screening in adults 65 and older.]

The new recommendations is a sign that we’re doing a better job at making treatment of those diseases more acceptable. This is also another example of the medical community recognizing that internal medicine physicians are pretty good at identifying and treating mental health.
 

Q: How do you figure out whether to treat depression/anxiety yourself or refer patients to specialists?

A: As a primary care physician, I feel comfortable diagnosing and managing some mental health disease in my own practice. There are FDA-approved medications for both anxiety and depression that are easily managed by a primary care physician.

And there’s something to the therapeutic relationship, to naming and identifying these conditions with your patients. Some patients feel a bit of relief just knowing that they have a diagnosis.
 

Q: What should internists know about the new CDC guidelines that promote discussing RSV vaccines with patients who are over 60?

A: The vaccines are recommended for folks who have underlying conditions like lung disease or heart disease. Those are the ones who end up getting really, really sick. There are two adult vaccines that are available, and there’s not a preference for one over the other.

The vaccines are both protein-based, like the old-school versions of vaccines, not the mRNA vaccines that we’ve all been hearing more about through COVID. Anybody who’s reluctant to take an mRNA vaccine can rest assured that the RSV is not protein-based. And they are single-dose vaccines, which is helpful.  
 

Q: What else should internists know about that was new in 2023?

A: I’m super excited about how cardiologists are thinking about atrial fibrillation. In 2023, the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association came up with a giant overhaul of how they look at atrial fibrillation. They classify it in stages and allows us to think about stopping it before it starts.

They’re talking about something they’re calling preclinical or subclinical atrial fibrillation, which you may detect on wearables like somebody’s watch or another tool used to monitor heart rate or exercise. It might be the first harbinger that there’s something wrong with the heart rate, and they may not even have symptoms of it. [A 2023 study in The New England Journal of Medicine linked the anticoagulant apixaban, or Eliquis, to a 37% lower risk of stroke and systemic embolism rates in older patients with subclinical atrial fibrillation but an 80% higher risk of major bleeding vs. aspirin therapy.]

And they’re now recommending early rhythm control.
 

Q: What does early rhythm control mean for patients and physicians?

A: For the longest time, we have thought about atrial fibrillation treatment in terms of rate control and not worrying too much about the rhythm. But now we recognize that it’s actually really important that we get the rhythm under control because physical changes to the heart can lead to permanent damage.

So now they’re recommending catheter ablation as first-line therapy in some patients as a class 1 recommendation because heart function is already decreased. Improving the ability of the heart to beat with a regular rhythm can lead to improvement of function. This was unheard of even 5 years ago.
 

Q: Should internists be more willing to refer patients with atrial fibrillation to cardiologists?

A: Yes, I think so. One of the biggest changes for me is that I am going to refer new diagnoses of atrial fibrillation to a cardiologist. And I’m going to ask patients if they have wearable devices because sometimes those things might tell me about something like subclinical atrial fibrillation.

Q: There’s also detailed data about atrial fibrillation risk factors, which include older age, smoking, sedentary lifestyle, alcohol use, diabetes, height, obesity, diabetes, and others. Is this information useful?

A: It’s a really great tool to have in the arsenal because it helps me have shared decision-making conversations with my patients in a way that’s much more convincing. A patient might say, “Why do you care if I drink so much? My liver levels are fine.” And I can say, “It’s going to be a risk factor for having problems with your heart.”

For better or worse, people really take the heart very seriously, I am an internal medicine physician, so I love all the organs equally. But man, people get pretty scared when you tell them something can affect their heart. So when I talk to patients about their risk factors, it’s going to really be helpful that I can remind them of the impact that some of these lifestyle behaviors can have on their heart health.
 

Dr. Candler has no disclosures.

The past year brought major changes in preventive standards for anxiety, HIV, and RSV along with new guidelines for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. For insight into the effect on internal medicine, we turned to Sarah Candler, MD, MPH, a Houston internist who specializes in the care of high-risk older adults.


Q: Which new prevention guidelines had the most impact on you over the past year?

A: I’m a primary care doctor, and most of the internal medicine updates that are interesting to me focus on how we can keep people from getting sick in the first place. That’s especially important in light of the fact that we had a decrease in life expectancy of 2 years [it finally rose slightly in 2022] and widening of the gender gap in life expectancy for men and women.

I’m excited to see new recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, including a new one about using PREP [pre-exposure prophylaxis] to preventively treat anyone who’s at risk for getting HIV. That’s a big one because it’s one of the first times that we’ve identified at-risk groups for screening based on social risk factors, not gender, age, or genetics.

The new recommendation is PREP for anyone who’s at risk for getting HIV because they have a partner with HIV, had an sexually transmitted infection in the last 6 months, or a history of inconsistent or no condom use with partners with unknown HIV status.

PREP therapy is something that most primary care physicians can either do or learn how to do pretty easily. But the treatment does require maintenance and monitoring.
 

Q: How firm is this recommendation?

A: The task force gives different grades for their recommendations based on how strong the evidence is. For the guidelines about PREP, they give a grade of A. That means this is top of the class: You should definitely do this.


Q: What are the best strategies to ask patients personal questions about their sex lives in order to evaluate their risk?

A: A lot of internal medicine physicians are getting pretty good at this. We see it as part of our job just the same way as we asked things like, “How often are you walking?” and “Have you been feeling down?”

There’s no one right way to have a conversation like that. But it’s key to say, as I do to my patients, that “I’m not here to judge anything. I am truly here to gather information and make recommendations to you as a partner in your care.”  
 

Q: What other guidelines made an impact in 2023?

A: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force made a recommendation to screen adults aged 18-64 for anxiety, and this guidance got a B grade. [The task force said there’s not enough evidence to support routine anxiety screening in adults 65 and older.]

The new recommendations is a sign that we’re doing a better job at making treatment of those diseases more acceptable. This is also another example of the medical community recognizing that internal medicine physicians are pretty good at identifying and treating mental health.
 

Q: How do you figure out whether to treat depression/anxiety yourself or refer patients to specialists?

A: As a primary care physician, I feel comfortable diagnosing and managing some mental health disease in my own practice. There are FDA-approved medications for both anxiety and depression that are easily managed by a primary care physician.

And there’s something to the therapeutic relationship, to naming and identifying these conditions with your patients. Some patients feel a bit of relief just knowing that they have a diagnosis.
 

Q: What should internists know about the new CDC guidelines that promote discussing RSV vaccines with patients who are over 60?

A: The vaccines are recommended for folks who have underlying conditions like lung disease or heart disease. Those are the ones who end up getting really, really sick. There are two adult vaccines that are available, and there’s not a preference for one over the other.

The vaccines are both protein-based, like the old-school versions of vaccines, not the mRNA vaccines that we’ve all been hearing more about through COVID. Anybody who’s reluctant to take an mRNA vaccine can rest assured that the RSV is not protein-based. And they are single-dose vaccines, which is helpful.  
 

Q: What else should internists know about that was new in 2023?

A: I’m super excited about how cardiologists are thinking about atrial fibrillation. In 2023, the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association came up with a giant overhaul of how they look at atrial fibrillation. They classify it in stages and allows us to think about stopping it before it starts.

They’re talking about something they’re calling preclinical or subclinical atrial fibrillation, which you may detect on wearables like somebody’s watch or another tool used to monitor heart rate or exercise. It might be the first harbinger that there’s something wrong with the heart rate, and they may not even have symptoms of it. [A 2023 study in The New England Journal of Medicine linked the anticoagulant apixaban, or Eliquis, to a 37% lower risk of stroke and systemic embolism rates in older patients with subclinical atrial fibrillation but an 80% higher risk of major bleeding vs. aspirin therapy.]

And they’re now recommending early rhythm control.
 

Q: What does early rhythm control mean for patients and physicians?

A: For the longest time, we have thought about atrial fibrillation treatment in terms of rate control and not worrying too much about the rhythm. But now we recognize that it’s actually really important that we get the rhythm under control because physical changes to the heart can lead to permanent damage.

So now they’re recommending catheter ablation as first-line therapy in some patients as a class 1 recommendation because heart function is already decreased. Improving the ability of the heart to beat with a regular rhythm can lead to improvement of function. This was unheard of even 5 years ago.
 

Q: Should internists be more willing to refer patients with atrial fibrillation to cardiologists?

A: Yes, I think so. One of the biggest changes for me is that I am going to refer new diagnoses of atrial fibrillation to a cardiologist. And I’m going to ask patients if they have wearable devices because sometimes those things might tell me about something like subclinical atrial fibrillation.

Q: There’s also detailed data about atrial fibrillation risk factors, which include older age, smoking, sedentary lifestyle, alcohol use, diabetes, height, obesity, diabetes, and others. Is this information useful?

A: It’s a really great tool to have in the arsenal because it helps me have shared decision-making conversations with my patients in a way that’s much more convincing. A patient might say, “Why do you care if I drink so much? My liver levels are fine.” And I can say, “It’s going to be a risk factor for having problems with your heart.”

For better or worse, people really take the heart very seriously, I am an internal medicine physician, so I love all the organs equally. But man, people get pretty scared when you tell them something can affect their heart. So when I talk to patients about their risk factors, it’s going to really be helpful that I can remind them of the impact that some of these lifestyle behaviors can have on their heart health.
 

Dr. Candler has no disclosures.

The past year brought major changes in preventive standards for anxiety, HIV, and RSV along with new guidelines for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. For insight into the effect on internal medicine, we turned to Sarah Candler, MD, MPH, a Houston internist who specializes in the care of high-risk older adults.


Q: Which new prevention guidelines had the most impact on you over the past year?

A: I’m a primary care doctor, and most of the internal medicine updates that are interesting to me focus on how we can keep people from getting sick in the first place. That’s especially important in light of the fact that we had a decrease in life expectancy of 2 years [it finally rose slightly in 2022] and widening of the gender gap in life expectancy for men and women.

I’m excited to see new recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, including a new one about using PREP [pre-exposure prophylaxis] to preventively treat anyone who’s at risk for getting HIV. That’s a big one because it’s one of the first times that we’ve identified at-risk groups for screening based on social risk factors, not gender, age, or genetics.

The new recommendation is PREP for anyone who’s at risk for getting HIV because they have a partner with HIV, had an sexually transmitted infection in the last 6 months, or a history of inconsistent or no condom use with partners with unknown HIV status.

PREP therapy is something that most primary care physicians can either do or learn how to do pretty easily. But the treatment does require maintenance and monitoring.
 

Q: How firm is this recommendation?

A: The task force gives different grades for their recommendations based on how strong the evidence is. For the guidelines about PREP, they give a grade of A. That means this is top of the class: You should definitely do this.


Q: What are the best strategies to ask patients personal questions about their sex lives in order to evaluate their risk?

A: A lot of internal medicine physicians are getting pretty good at this. We see it as part of our job just the same way as we asked things like, “How often are you walking?” and “Have you been feeling down?”

There’s no one right way to have a conversation like that. But it’s key to say, as I do to my patients, that “I’m not here to judge anything. I am truly here to gather information and make recommendations to you as a partner in your care.”  
 

Q: What other guidelines made an impact in 2023?

A: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force made a recommendation to screen adults aged 18-64 for anxiety, and this guidance got a B grade. [The task force said there’s not enough evidence to support routine anxiety screening in adults 65 and older.]

The new recommendations is a sign that we’re doing a better job at making treatment of those diseases more acceptable. This is also another example of the medical community recognizing that internal medicine physicians are pretty good at identifying and treating mental health.
 

Q: How do you figure out whether to treat depression/anxiety yourself or refer patients to specialists?

A: As a primary care physician, I feel comfortable diagnosing and managing some mental health disease in my own practice. There are FDA-approved medications for both anxiety and depression that are easily managed by a primary care physician.

And there’s something to the therapeutic relationship, to naming and identifying these conditions with your patients. Some patients feel a bit of relief just knowing that they have a diagnosis.
 

Q: What should internists know about the new CDC guidelines that promote discussing RSV vaccines with patients who are over 60?

A: The vaccines are recommended for folks who have underlying conditions like lung disease or heart disease. Those are the ones who end up getting really, really sick. There are two adult vaccines that are available, and there’s not a preference for one over the other.

The vaccines are both protein-based, like the old-school versions of vaccines, not the mRNA vaccines that we’ve all been hearing more about through COVID. Anybody who’s reluctant to take an mRNA vaccine can rest assured that the RSV is not protein-based. And they are single-dose vaccines, which is helpful.  
 

Q: What else should internists know about that was new in 2023?

A: I’m super excited about how cardiologists are thinking about atrial fibrillation. In 2023, the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association came up with a giant overhaul of how they look at atrial fibrillation. They classify it in stages and allows us to think about stopping it before it starts.

They’re talking about something they’re calling preclinical or subclinical atrial fibrillation, which you may detect on wearables like somebody’s watch or another tool used to monitor heart rate or exercise. It might be the first harbinger that there’s something wrong with the heart rate, and they may not even have symptoms of it. [A 2023 study in The New England Journal of Medicine linked the anticoagulant apixaban, or Eliquis, to a 37% lower risk of stroke and systemic embolism rates in older patients with subclinical atrial fibrillation but an 80% higher risk of major bleeding vs. aspirin therapy.]

And they’re now recommending early rhythm control.
 

Q: What does early rhythm control mean for patients and physicians?

A: For the longest time, we have thought about atrial fibrillation treatment in terms of rate control and not worrying too much about the rhythm. But now we recognize that it’s actually really important that we get the rhythm under control because physical changes to the heart can lead to permanent damage.

So now they’re recommending catheter ablation as first-line therapy in some patients as a class 1 recommendation because heart function is already decreased. Improving the ability of the heart to beat with a regular rhythm can lead to improvement of function. This was unheard of even 5 years ago.
 

Q: Should internists be more willing to refer patients with atrial fibrillation to cardiologists?

A: Yes, I think so. One of the biggest changes for me is that I am going to refer new diagnoses of atrial fibrillation to a cardiologist. And I’m going to ask patients if they have wearable devices because sometimes those things might tell me about something like subclinical atrial fibrillation.

Q: There’s also detailed data about atrial fibrillation risk factors, which include older age, smoking, sedentary lifestyle, alcohol use, diabetes, height, obesity, diabetes, and others. Is this information useful?

A: It’s a really great tool to have in the arsenal because it helps me have shared decision-making conversations with my patients in a way that’s much more convincing. A patient might say, “Why do you care if I drink so much? My liver levels are fine.” And I can say, “It’s going to be a risk factor for having problems with your heart.”

For better or worse, people really take the heart very seriously, I am an internal medicine physician, so I love all the organs equally. But man, people get pretty scared when you tell them something can affect their heart. So when I talk to patients about their risk factors, it’s going to really be helpful that I can remind them of the impact that some of these lifestyle behaviors can have on their heart health.
 

Dr. Candler has no disclosures.

BETHESDA, MD — New research into the mechanisms underlying myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and long COVID is aimed at identifying potential approaches to treatment of the two overlapping illnesses.

According to a new data brief from the National Center for Health Statistics, in 2021-2022, 1.3% of US adults had ME/CFS, a complex, multisystem illness characterized by activity-limiting fatigue, worsening of symptoms after exertion, unrefreshing sleep, and other symptoms.

A 2-day conference, Advancing ME/CFS Research: Identifying Targets for Potential Intervention and Learning from Long COVID, was held in December 12-13 on the main campus of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and was livestreamed. The last such meeting, also featuring results from NIH-funded research, was held in April 2019.

“Things have changed since 2019 ... The idea of this meeting is to try and identify pathways that will be treatable and druggable and really make an impact for patients based on the things that we’ve learned over the last number of years and including, fortunately or unfortunately, the huge number of people who are suffering from long COVID, where the symptoms overlap so much with those who have been suffering for a long time with ME/CFS,” said Conference Chair Joe Breen, PhD, of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

As in 2019, the meeting was preceded by a day of research presentations from young investigators, some of whom also presented their findings at the main meeting. New this year were four “lived experience” speakers who described their physical, emotional, and financial struggles with ME/CFS or long COVID. Two of them presented virtually because they were too ill to travel.

Social worker and patient advocate Terri Wilder of Minneapolis, Minnesota, reported some feedback she received on social media after she asked people with ME/CFS about their priorities for the research and clinical communities.

Among the top responses were the need to recognize and study the phenomenon of “post-exertional malaise” and to stop recommending exercise for people with these illnesses, to accelerate research to find effective treatments, and to put an end to stigma around the condition. “People don’t believe us when we tell them we’re sick, people make fun of us, misperceptions persist,” Wilder said.

One person commented, “[Clinicians] shouldn’t be afraid to try off-label meds with us if needed. There may be some secondary effects, but they are better options than us taking our own lives because we can’t stand the suffering.”

Research areas covered at the conference included immunology, virology, metabolism, gene regulation, and neurology of both ME/CFS and long COVID, as well as the latest findings regarding the overlap between the two conditions.
 

Oxidative Stress in Both ME/CFS and Long COVID: A Role for Metformin?

Mark M. Davis, PhD, professor and director of the Institute for Immunity, Transplantation, and Infection at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, summarized published data suggesting that oxidative stress is a shared characteristic of both ME/CFS and long COVID. Most cellular reactive oxygen species (ROS) are produced in the cell’s mitochondria, and T-cell activation is ROS-dependent.

Women in particular with ME/CFS show high ROS levels with consistent T-cell hyperproliferation, “which can be suppressed with specific drugs such as metformin. This raises the prospect of optimizing drug treatment and drug discovery with a simple in vitro assay of the effects on a patient’s lymphocytes,” Dr. Davis said. He also cited a study suggesting that metformin may help prevent long COVID.

Asked to comment on that, longtime ME/CFS researcher Anthony L. Komaroff, MD, of Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, cautioned that although metformin is used safely by millions of people with type 2 diabetes worldwide, it’s possible that some people with ME/CFS may be more likely to experience its known adverse effects such as lactic acidosis.

To repurpose metformin or any other already-marketed drugs for ME/CFS and/or long COVID, Dr. Komaroff said, “We should entertain treatment trials.” However, as he and many others lamented at the conference, funding for off-patent drugs often isn’t forthcoming.
 

Addressing the Microbiome, Innate Immunity

W. Ian Lipkin, MD, of Columbia University, New York, NY, was one of two speakers who discussed the role of disruptions in the microbiome and innate immunity in ME/CFS. He presented data suggesting that “dysregulation of the gut microbiome in ME/CFS may interfere with butyrate production, resulting in inflammation and porosity to bacteria and bacterial products that trigger innate immunity.”

Dr. Lipkin highlighted a “really intriguing” paper in which exogenous administration of interleukin 37 (IL-37), a naturally occurring inhibitor of inflammation, reversed the decrease in exercise performance observed during inflammation-induced fatigue and increased exercise performance, both in mice.

“Although we do not fully understand the pathophysiology of ME/CFS, it is not premature to consider randomized clinical trials of pro- and pre-biotics that address dysbiosis as well as drugs that modify innate immune responses such as poly (I:C) and IL-37,” Dr. Lipkin said.
 

Alleviating Endoplasmic Reticulum (ER) Stress: A Strategy to Increase Energy?

Paul M. Hwang, MD, PhD, from the Cardiovascular Branch of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, described work that he and his colleagues recently published around a case of a 38-year-old woman with Li-Fraumeni syndrome, a genetic early-onset cancer, who also had extensive fatigue, exercise intolerance, and post-exertional malaise that began after she contracted mononucleosis as a teenager.

Testing revealed that her cells had increased expression of Wiskott-Aldrich Syndrome Protein Family Member 3 (WASF3), a “top candidate” gene found to be associated with ME/CFS in a bioinformatics study published more than a decade ago. Moreover, immunoblotting of deidentified skeletal muscle biopsy samples obtained from patients with postinfectious ME/CFS also revealed significantly increased WASF3 levels.

Hwang and colleagues showed in mice that ER stress–induced WASF3 protein localizes to mitochondria and disrupts respiratory supercomplex assembly, leading to decreased oxygen consumption and exercise endurance.

However, use of the investigational protein phosphatase 1 inhibitor salubrinal in the female patient’s cells inhibited the ER stress, which in turn decreased WASF3 expression and improved mitochondrial supercomplex formation and respiration, “suggesting a treatment strategy in ME/CFS,” Dr. Hwang said.
 

Neurovascular Dysregulation During Exercise: A Role for Pyridostigmine?

David M. Systrom, MD, a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, gave an update of his work investigating neurovascular dysregulation during exercise in both ME/CFS and long COVID using invasive cardiopulmonary testing.

In a 2021 publication, Dr. Systrom and his colleagues identified the mechanism of “preload failure,” or lower filling pressures of blood in the heart chambers because of insufficient vein constriction and reduced return of blood to the right side of the heart in people with ME/CFS, compared with healthy controls.

Subsequently, in a randomized trial of 45 patients with ME/CFS, Systrom and his colleagues published in November 2022, use of the cholinesterase inhibitor pyridostigmine, currently approved for treating myasthenia gravis and related conditions, improved peak Vo2 by increasing cardiac output and filling pressures.

Now, Dr. Systrom’s team is conducting a randomized trial comparing 60 mg pyridostigmine with or without low-dose naltrexone (LDN) vs placebo in 160 patients with ME/CFS for 3 months. Metabolomic, transcriptomic, proteomic, and other assessments will be conducted on urine and blood samples. Participants will also wear devices that measure steps, sleep, heart rate, and other metrics.

Komaroff cautioned that pyridostigmine, too, has potential adverse effects. “I’m not sure pyridostigmine is ready for prime time ... It’s a drug developed for a very different purpose ... Now will it hold up in a larger trial, and will there be any side effects that turn up in larger studies? It’s not unreasonable to study.”
 

Brain Inflammation: Measuring and Treating It

Hannah F. Bues, clinical research coordinator at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, presented data now in preprint (ie, not yet peer-reviewed) in which researchers used [11C]PBR28 PET neuroimaging, a marker of neuroinflammation, to compare 12 individuals with long COVID vs 43 healthy controls. They found significantly increased neuroinflammation in several different brain regions in the long COVID group compared with controls.

Samples of peripheral blood plasma also showed significant correlations between neuroinflammation and circulating analytes related to vascular dysfunction. This work is ongoing in both long COVID and pre-COVID ME/CFS populations, Bues said.

Jarred Younger, PhD, of the Neuroinflammation, Pain, and Fatigue Laboratory at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, also gave an update of his ongoing work demonstrating significant brain inflammation seen in neuroimaging of people with ME/CFS compared with healthy controls.

Dr. Younger has been investigating the use of LDN for pain in fibromyalgia. Anecdotally, there have been reports of fatigue reduction with LDN in ME/CFS.

Dr. Younger conducted a post hoc analysis of his previous trial of LDN for 12 weeks in 30 patients with fibromyalgia. Of those, 16 met older CFS criteria. There was a significant reduction in their fatigue severity, with P <.0001 from baseline and P < .009 compared with placebo. The P values were high because the data included daily symptom reports. The average fatigue reduction was 25%.

“It wasn’t a study designed for ME/CFS, but I think it’s compelling evidence and enough with the other types of data we have to say we need to do a proper clinical trial of low-dose naltrexone in ME/CFS now,” Dr. Younger said.
 

‘We Need to Do Something’ About the Underfunding

Another NIH-funded ME/CFS researcher, Maureen Hanson, PhD, of Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, noted that the NIH currently funds ME/CFS research at about $13 million compared with $1.15 billion for the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery Initiative granted to NIH by Congress for “post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC)” in 2021 “because of the urgency of studying this. Most of us here are well aware of the underfunding of ME/CFS relative to the burden of illness,” she said.

Current 2024 funding for AIDS research is $3294 million. “There are 1.2 million individuals living with HIV in the United States, and there are over 3 million who are barely living with ME/CFS in the United States. We need to do something about this ... It’s certainly possible that future funding for PASC is now going to disappear,” Dr. Hanson cautioned.

Wilder, the patient advocate, reminded the audience that “There is a cohort of people with ME who got sick in the 1980s and 1990s in the prime of their life ... They have dreamed of a day when there would be a major announcement that a treatment has been discovered to take away the suffering of this disease ... They keep waiting and waiting, year after year, missing more and more of their lives with each passing day ... We’re all depending on you.”

Dr. Systrom has received funding from the Solve ME/CFS Initiative, Department of Defense, and Open Medicine Foundation. Dr. Younger’s work is funded by the NIH, Department of Defense, SolveME, the American Fibromyalgia Association, and ME Research UK. Dr. Lipkin and Dr. Hanson receive NIH funding. Dr. Komaroff has no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BETHESDA, MD — New research into the mechanisms underlying myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and long COVID is aimed at identifying potential approaches to treatment of the two overlapping illnesses.

According to a new data brief from the National Center for Health Statistics, in 2021-2022, 1.3% of US adults had ME/CFS, a complex, multisystem illness characterized by activity-limiting fatigue, worsening of symptoms after exertion, unrefreshing sleep, and other symptoms.

A 2-day conference, Advancing ME/CFS Research: Identifying Targets for Potential Intervention and Learning from Long COVID, was held in December 12-13 on the main campus of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and was livestreamed. The last such meeting, also featuring results from NIH-funded research, was held in April 2019.

“Things have changed since 2019 ... The idea of this meeting is to try and identify pathways that will be treatable and druggable and really make an impact for patients based on the things that we’ve learned over the last number of years and including, fortunately or unfortunately, the huge number of people who are suffering from long COVID, where the symptoms overlap so much with those who have been suffering for a long time with ME/CFS,” said Conference Chair Joe Breen, PhD, of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

As in 2019, the meeting was preceded by a day of research presentations from young investigators, some of whom also presented their findings at the main meeting. New this year were four “lived experience” speakers who described their physical, emotional, and financial struggles with ME/CFS or long COVID. Two of them presented virtually because they were too ill to travel.

Social worker and patient advocate Terri Wilder of Minneapolis, Minnesota, reported some feedback she received on social media after she asked people with ME/CFS about their priorities for the research and clinical communities.

Among the top responses were the need to recognize and study the phenomenon of “post-exertional malaise” and to stop recommending exercise for people with these illnesses, to accelerate research to find effective treatments, and to put an end to stigma around the condition. “People don’t believe us when we tell them we’re sick, people make fun of us, misperceptions persist,” Wilder said.

One person commented, “[Clinicians] shouldn’t be afraid to try off-label meds with us if needed. There may be some secondary effects, but they are better options than us taking our own lives because we can’t stand the suffering.”

Research areas covered at the conference included immunology, virology, metabolism, gene regulation, and neurology of both ME/CFS and long COVID, as well as the latest findings regarding the overlap between the two conditions.
 

Oxidative Stress in Both ME/CFS and Long COVID: A Role for Metformin?

Mark M. Davis, PhD, professor and director of the Institute for Immunity, Transplantation, and Infection at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, summarized published data suggesting that oxidative stress is a shared characteristic of both ME/CFS and long COVID. Most cellular reactive oxygen species (ROS) are produced in the cell’s mitochondria, and T-cell activation is ROS-dependent.

Women in particular with ME/CFS show high ROS levels with consistent T-cell hyperproliferation, “which can be suppressed with specific drugs such as metformin. This raises the prospect of optimizing drug treatment and drug discovery with a simple in vitro assay of the effects on a patient’s lymphocytes,” Dr. Davis said. He also cited a study suggesting that metformin may help prevent long COVID.

Asked to comment on that, longtime ME/CFS researcher Anthony L. Komaroff, MD, of Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, cautioned that although metformin is used safely by millions of people with type 2 diabetes worldwide, it’s possible that some people with ME/CFS may be more likely to experience its known adverse effects such as lactic acidosis.

To repurpose metformin or any other already-marketed drugs for ME/CFS and/or long COVID, Dr. Komaroff said, “We should entertain treatment trials.” However, as he and many others lamented at the conference, funding for off-patent drugs often isn’t forthcoming.
 

Addressing the Microbiome, Innate Immunity

W. Ian Lipkin, MD, of Columbia University, New York, NY, was one of two speakers who discussed the role of disruptions in the microbiome and innate immunity in ME/CFS. He presented data suggesting that “dysregulation of the gut microbiome in ME/CFS may interfere with butyrate production, resulting in inflammation and porosity to bacteria and bacterial products that trigger innate immunity.”

Dr. Lipkin highlighted a “really intriguing” paper in which exogenous administration of interleukin 37 (IL-37), a naturally occurring inhibitor of inflammation, reversed the decrease in exercise performance observed during inflammation-induced fatigue and increased exercise performance, both in mice.

“Although we do not fully understand the pathophysiology of ME/CFS, it is not premature to consider randomized clinical trials of pro- and pre-biotics that address dysbiosis as well as drugs that modify innate immune responses such as poly (I:C) and IL-37,” Dr. Lipkin said.
 

Alleviating Endoplasmic Reticulum (ER) Stress: A Strategy to Increase Energy?

Paul M. Hwang, MD, PhD, from the Cardiovascular Branch of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, described work that he and his colleagues recently published around a case of a 38-year-old woman with Li-Fraumeni syndrome, a genetic early-onset cancer, who also had extensive fatigue, exercise intolerance, and post-exertional malaise that began after she contracted mononucleosis as a teenager.

Testing revealed that her cells had increased expression of Wiskott-Aldrich Syndrome Protein Family Member 3 (WASF3), a “top candidate” gene found to be associated with ME/CFS in a bioinformatics study published more than a decade ago. Moreover, immunoblotting of deidentified skeletal muscle biopsy samples obtained from patients with postinfectious ME/CFS also revealed significantly increased WASF3 levels.

Hwang and colleagues showed in mice that ER stress–induced WASF3 protein localizes to mitochondria and disrupts respiratory supercomplex assembly, leading to decreased oxygen consumption and exercise endurance.

However, use of the investigational protein phosphatase 1 inhibitor salubrinal in the female patient’s cells inhibited the ER stress, which in turn decreased WASF3 expression and improved mitochondrial supercomplex formation and respiration, “suggesting a treatment strategy in ME/CFS,” Dr. Hwang said.
 

Neurovascular Dysregulation During Exercise: A Role for Pyridostigmine?

David M. Systrom, MD, a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, gave an update of his work investigating neurovascular dysregulation during exercise in both ME/CFS and long COVID using invasive cardiopulmonary testing.

In a 2021 publication, Dr. Systrom and his colleagues identified the mechanism of “preload failure,” or lower filling pressures of blood in the heart chambers because of insufficient vein constriction and reduced return of blood to the right side of the heart in people with ME/CFS, compared with healthy controls.

Subsequently, in a randomized trial of 45 patients with ME/CFS, Systrom and his colleagues published in November 2022, use of the cholinesterase inhibitor pyridostigmine, currently approved for treating myasthenia gravis and related conditions, improved peak Vo2 by increasing cardiac output and filling pressures.

Now, Dr. Systrom’s team is conducting a randomized trial comparing 60 mg pyridostigmine with or without low-dose naltrexone (LDN) vs placebo in 160 patients with ME/CFS for 3 months. Metabolomic, transcriptomic, proteomic, and other assessments will be conducted on urine and blood samples. Participants will also wear devices that measure steps, sleep, heart rate, and other metrics.

Komaroff cautioned that pyridostigmine, too, has potential adverse effects. “I’m not sure pyridostigmine is ready for prime time ... It’s a drug developed for a very different purpose ... Now will it hold up in a larger trial, and will there be any side effects that turn up in larger studies? It’s not unreasonable to study.”
 

Brain Inflammation: Measuring and Treating It

Hannah F. Bues, clinical research coordinator at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, presented data now in preprint (ie, not yet peer-reviewed) in which researchers used [11C]PBR28 PET neuroimaging, a marker of neuroinflammation, to compare 12 individuals with long COVID vs 43 healthy controls. They found significantly increased neuroinflammation in several different brain regions in the long COVID group compared with controls.

Samples of peripheral blood plasma also showed significant correlations between neuroinflammation and circulating analytes related to vascular dysfunction. This work is ongoing in both long COVID and pre-COVID ME/CFS populations, Bues said.

Jarred Younger, PhD, of the Neuroinflammation, Pain, and Fatigue Laboratory at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, also gave an update of his ongoing work demonstrating significant brain inflammation seen in neuroimaging of people with ME/CFS compared with healthy controls.

Dr. Younger has been investigating the use of LDN for pain in fibromyalgia. Anecdotally, there have been reports of fatigue reduction with LDN in ME/CFS.

Dr. Younger conducted a post hoc analysis of his previous trial of LDN for 12 weeks in 30 patients with fibromyalgia. Of those, 16 met older CFS criteria. There was a significant reduction in their fatigue severity, with P <.0001 from baseline and P < .009 compared with placebo. The P values were high because the data included daily symptom reports. The average fatigue reduction was 25%.

“It wasn’t a study designed for ME/CFS, but I think it’s compelling evidence and enough with the other types of data we have to say we need to do a proper clinical trial of low-dose naltrexone in ME/CFS now,” Dr. Younger said.
 

‘We Need to Do Something’ About the Underfunding

Another NIH-funded ME/CFS researcher, Maureen Hanson, PhD, of Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, noted that the NIH currently funds ME/CFS research at about $13 million compared with $1.15 billion for the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery Initiative granted to NIH by Congress for “post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC)” in 2021 “because of the urgency of studying this. Most of us here are well aware of the underfunding of ME/CFS relative to the burden of illness,” she said.

Current 2024 funding for AIDS research is $3294 million. “There are 1.2 million individuals living with HIV in the United States, and there are over 3 million who are barely living with ME/CFS in the United States. We need to do something about this ... It’s certainly possible that future funding for PASC is now going to disappear,” Dr. Hanson cautioned.

Wilder, the patient advocate, reminded the audience that “There is a cohort of people with ME who got sick in the 1980s and 1990s in the prime of their life ... They have dreamed of a day when there would be a major announcement that a treatment has been discovered to take away the suffering of this disease ... They keep waiting and waiting, year after year, missing more and more of their lives with each passing day ... We’re all depending on you.”

Dr. Systrom has received funding from the Solve ME/CFS Initiative, Department of Defense, and Open Medicine Foundation. Dr. Younger’s work is funded by the NIH, Department of Defense, SolveME, the American Fibromyalgia Association, and ME Research UK. Dr. Lipkin and Dr. Hanson receive NIH funding. Dr. Komaroff has no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BETHESDA, MD — New research into the mechanisms underlying myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and long COVID is aimed at identifying potential approaches to treatment of the two overlapping illnesses.

According to a new data brief from the National Center for Health Statistics, in 2021-2022, 1.3% of US adults had ME/CFS, a complex, multisystem illness characterized by activity-limiting fatigue, worsening of symptoms after exertion, unrefreshing sleep, and other symptoms.

A 2-day conference, Advancing ME/CFS Research: Identifying Targets for Potential Intervention and Learning from Long COVID, was held in December 12-13 on the main campus of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and was livestreamed. The last such meeting, also featuring results from NIH-funded research, was held in April 2019.

“Things have changed since 2019 ... The idea of this meeting is to try and identify pathways that will be treatable and druggable and really make an impact for patients based on the things that we’ve learned over the last number of years and including, fortunately or unfortunately, the huge number of people who are suffering from long COVID, where the symptoms overlap so much with those who have been suffering for a long time with ME/CFS,” said Conference Chair Joe Breen, PhD, of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

As in 2019, the meeting was preceded by a day of research presentations from young investigators, some of whom also presented their findings at the main meeting. New this year were four “lived experience” speakers who described their physical, emotional, and financial struggles with ME/CFS or long COVID. Two of them presented virtually because they were too ill to travel.

Social worker and patient advocate Terri Wilder of Minneapolis, Minnesota, reported some feedback she received on social media after she asked people with ME/CFS about their priorities for the research and clinical communities.

Among the top responses were the need to recognize and study the phenomenon of “post-exertional malaise” and to stop recommending exercise for people with these illnesses, to accelerate research to find effective treatments, and to put an end to stigma around the condition. “People don’t believe us when we tell them we’re sick, people make fun of us, misperceptions persist,” Wilder said.

One person commented, “[Clinicians] shouldn’t be afraid to try off-label meds with us if needed. There may be some secondary effects, but they are better options than us taking our own lives because we can’t stand the suffering.”

Research areas covered at the conference included immunology, virology, metabolism, gene regulation, and neurology of both ME/CFS and long COVID, as well as the latest findings regarding the overlap between the two conditions.
 

Oxidative Stress in Both ME/CFS and Long COVID: A Role for Metformin?

Mark M. Davis, PhD, professor and director of the Institute for Immunity, Transplantation, and Infection at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, summarized published data suggesting that oxidative stress is a shared characteristic of both ME/CFS and long COVID. Most cellular reactive oxygen species (ROS) are produced in the cell’s mitochondria, and T-cell activation is ROS-dependent.

Women in particular with ME/CFS show high ROS levels with consistent T-cell hyperproliferation, “which can be suppressed with specific drugs such as metformin. This raises the prospect of optimizing drug treatment and drug discovery with a simple in vitro assay of the effects on a patient’s lymphocytes,” Dr. Davis said. He also cited a study suggesting that metformin may help prevent long COVID.

Asked to comment on that, longtime ME/CFS researcher Anthony L. Komaroff, MD, of Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, cautioned that although metformin is used safely by millions of people with type 2 diabetes worldwide, it’s possible that some people with ME/CFS may be more likely to experience its known adverse effects such as lactic acidosis.

To repurpose metformin or any other already-marketed drugs for ME/CFS and/or long COVID, Dr. Komaroff said, “We should entertain treatment trials.” However, as he and many others lamented at the conference, funding for off-patent drugs often isn’t forthcoming.
 

Addressing the Microbiome, Innate Immunity

W. Ian Lipkin, MD, of Columbia University, New York, NY, was one of two speakers who discussed the role of disruptions in the microbiome and innate immunity in ME/CFS. He presented data suggesting that “dysregulation of the gut microbiome in ME/CFS may interfere with butyrate production, resulting in inflammation and porosity to bacteria and bacterial products that trigger innate immunity.”

Dr. Lipkin highlighted a “really intriguing” paper in which exogenous administration of interleukin 37 (IL-37), a naturally occurring inhibitor of inflammation, reversed the decrease in exercise performance observed during inflammation-induced fatigue and increased exercise performance, both in mice.

“Although we do not fully understand the pathophysiology of ME/CFS, it is not premature to consider randomized clinical trials of pro- and pre-biotics that address dysbiosis as well as drugs that modify innate immune responses such as poly (I:C) and IL-37,” Dr. Lipkin said.
 

Alleviating Endoplasmic Reticulum (ER) Stress: A Strategy to Increase Energy?

Paul M. Hwang, MD, PhD, from the Cardiovascular Branch of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, described work that he and his colleagues recently published around a case of a 38-year-old woman with Li-Fraumeni syndrome, a genetic early-onset cancer, who also had extensive fatigue, exercise intolerance, and post-exertional malaise that began after she contracted mononucleosis as a teenager.

Testing revealed that her cells had increased expression of Wiskott-Aldrich Syndrome Protein Family Member 3 (WASF3), a “top candidate” gene found to be associated with ME/CFS in a bioinformatics study published more than a decade ago. Moreover, immunoblotting of deidentified skeletal muscle biopsy samples obtained from patients with postinfectious ME/CFS also revealed significantly increased WASF3 levels.

Hwang and colleagues showed in mice that ER stress–induced WASF3 protein localizes to mitochondria and disrupts respiratory supercomplex assembly, leading to decreased oxygen consumption and exercise endurance.

However, use of the investigational protein phosphatase 1 inhibitor salubrinal in the female patient’s cells inhibited the ER stress, which in turn decreased WASF3 expression and improved mitochondrial supercomplex formation and respiration, “suggesting a treatment strategy in ME/CFS,” Dr. Hwang said.
 

Neurovascular Dysregulation During Exercise: A Role for Pyridostigmine?

David M. Systrom, MD, a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, gave an update of his work investigating neurovascular dysregulation during exercise in both ME/CFS and long COVID using invasive cardiopulmonary testing.

In a 2021 publication, Dr. Systrom and his colleagues identified the mechanism of “preload failure,” or lower filling pressures of blood in the heart chambers because of insufficient vein constriction and reduced return of blood to the right side of the heart in people with ME/CFS, compared with healthy controls.

Subsequently, in a randomized trial of 45 patients with ME/CFS, Systrom and his colleagues published in November 2022, use of the cholinesterase inhibitor pyridostigmine, currently approved for treating myasthenia gravis and related conditions, improved peak Vo2 by increasing cardiac output and filling pressures.

Now, Dr. Systrom’s team is conducting a randomized trial comparing 60 mg pyridostigmine with or without low-dose naltrexone (LDN) vs placebo in 160 patients with ME/CFS for 3 months. Metabolomic, transcriptomic, proteomic, and other assessments will be conducted on urine and blood samples. Participants will also wear devices that measure steps, sleep, heart rate, and other metrics.

Komaroff cautioned that pyridostigmine, too, has potential adverse effects. “I’m not sure pyridostigmine is ready for prime time ... It’s a drug developed for a very different purpose ... Now will it hold up in a larger trial, and will there be any side effects that turn up in larger studies? It’s not unreasonable to study.”
 

Brain Inflammation: Measuring and Treating It

Hannah F. Bues, clinical research coordinator at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, presented data now in preprint (ie, not yet peer-reviewed) in which researchers used [11C]PBR28 PET neuroimaging, a marker of neuroinflammation, to compare 12 individuals with long COVID vs 43 healthy controls. They found significantly increased neuroinflammation in several different brain regions in the long COVID group compared with controls.

Samples of peripheral blood plasma also showed significant correlations between neuroinflammation and circulating analytes related to vascular dysfunction. This work is ongoing in both long COVID and pre-COVID ME/CFS populations, Bues said.

Jarred Younger, PhD, of the Neuroinflammation, Pain, and Fatigue Laboratory at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, also gave an update of his ongoing work demonstrating significant brain inflammation seen in neuroimaging of people with ME/CFS compared with healthy controls.

Dr. Younger has been investigating the use of LDN for pain in fibromyalgia. Anecdotally, there have been reports of fatigue reduction with LDN in ME/CFS.

Dr. Younger conducted a post hoc analysis of his previous trial of LDN for 12 weeks in 30 patients with fibromyalgia. Of those, 16 met older CFS criteria. There was a significant reduction in their fatigue severity, with P <.0001 from baseline and P < .009 compared with placebo. The P values were high because the data included daily symptom reports. The average fatigue reduction was 25%.

“It wasn’t a study designed for ME/CFS, but I think it’s compelling evidence and enough with the other types of data we have to say we need to do a proper clinical trial of low-dose naltrexone in ME/CFS now,” Dr. Younger said.
 

‘We Need to Do Something’ About the Underfunding

Another NIH-funded ME/CFS researcher, Maureen Hanson, PhD, of Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, noted that the NIH currently funds ME/CFS research at about $13 million compared with $1.15 billion for the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery Initiative granted to NIH by Congress for “post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC)” in 2021 “because of the urgency of studying this. Most of us here are well aware of the underfunding of ME/CFS relative to the burden of illness,” she said.

Current 2024 funding for AIDS research is $3294 million. “There are 1.2 million individuals living with HIV in the United States, and there are over 3 million who are barely living with ME/CFS in the United States. We need to do something about this ... It’s certainly possible that future funding for PASC is now going to disappear,” Dr. Hanson cautioned.

Wilder, the patient advocate, reminded the audience that “There is a cohort of people with ME who got sick in the 1980s and 1990s in the prime of their life ... They have dreamed of a day when there would be a major announcement that a treatment has been discovered to take away the suffering of this disease ... They keep waiting and waiting, year after year, missing more and more of their lives with each passing day ... We’re all depending on you.”

Dr. Systrom has received funding from the Solve ME/CFS Initiative, Department of Defense, and Open Medicine Foundation. Dr. Younger’s work is funded by the NIH, Department of Defense, SolveME, the American Fibromyalgia Association, and ME Research UK. Dr. Lipkin and Dr. Hanson receive NIH funding. Dr. Komaroff has no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients aged 50 years or older with clinically apparent Helicobacter pylori infection (CAHPI) have an 11% increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease (AD), results of a large and lengthy population-based study suggest.

METHODOLOGY: 

• Researchers identified all cases with a first-time diagnosis of AD and matched each AD case to up to 40 AD-free control cases on the basis of age, sex, cohort entry date, and duration of follow-up.
• The exposure of interest was CAHPI, defined based on an algorithm using clinical guidelines and recommendations on the management of H pylori (HP) infection, with researchers focusing on infected individuals presenting with symptoms or developing serious complications from the infection.
• Researchers performed several sensitivity analyses, which included repeating the primary analysis using alternate lag periods, restricting the cohort to participants with AD (not vascular, alcoholic, and unspecified dementia), and using salmonellosis, an infection not previously associated with AD, as a negative control exposure.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Compared with no exposure to CAHPI, exposure to CAHPI was associated with a moderately increased risk for AD (odds ratio [OR], 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01-1.21), with no major effect modification by demographics or socioeconomic status.
• The increased risk peaked 7.3-10.8 years after CAHPI onset (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.05-1.47) before decreasing.
• Sensitivity analyses yielded findings that were overall consistent with those of the primary analysis.
• The analysis with salmonellosis as a negative control exposure showed no association with the risk for AD (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.82-1.29).

IN PRACTICE:

“These results support the notion of HP infection as a potential modifiable risk factor of AD” and “pave the way for future randomized controlled trials that would assess the impact and cost-effectiveness of population-based targeted interventions such as individualized HP eradication programs, on the development of AD,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Antonios Douros, Department of Medicine, and Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and colleagues. It was published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

LIMITATIONS:

Given the observational nature of the study, residual confounding is possible. Because the exposure definition was on the basis of CAHPI recorded by general practitioners, exposure misclassification due to symptomatic patients not seeking primary care is possible, as is outcome misclassification. The authors can’t rule out the possibility of an association between asymptomatic H pylori infection and AD risk.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Douros has no relevant conflicts of interest; see paper for disclosures of other authors.

Pauline Anderson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients aged 50 years or older with clinically apparent Helicobacter pylori infection (CAHPI) have an 11% increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease (AD), results of a large and lengthy population-based study suggest.

METHODOLOGY: 

• Researchers identified all cases with a first-time diagnosis of AD and matched each AD case to up to 40 AD-free control cases on the basis of age, sex, cohort entry date, and duration of follow-up.
• The exposure of interest was CAHPI, defined based on an algorithm using clinical guidelines and recommendations on the management of H pylori (HP) infection, with researchers focusing on infected individuals presenting with symptoms or developing serious complications from the infection.
• Researchers performed several sensitivity analyses, which included repeating the primary analysis using alternate lag periods, restricting the cohort to participants with AD (not vascular, alcoholic, and unspecified dementia), and using salmonellosis, an infection not previously associated with AD, as a negative control exposure.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Compared with no exposure to CAHPI, exposure to CAHPI was associated with a moderately increased risk for AD (odds ratio [OR], 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01-1.21), with no major effect modification by demographics or socioeconomic status.
• The increased risk peaked 7.3-10.8 years after CAHPI onset (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.05-1.47) before decreasing.
• Sensitivity analyses yielded findings that were overall consistent with those of the primary analysis.
• The analysis with salmonellosis as a negative control exposure showed no association with the risk for AD (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.82-1.29).

IN PRACTICE:

“These results support the notion of HP infection as a potential modifiable risk factor of AD” and “pave the way for future randomized controlled trials that would assess the impact and cost-effectiveness of population-based targeted interventions such as individualized HP eradication programs, on the development of AD,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Antonios Douros, Department of Medicine, and Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and colleagues. It was published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

LIMITATIONS:

Given the observational nature of the study, residual confounding is possible. Because the exposure definition was on the basis of CAHPI recorded by general practitioners, exposure misclassification due to symptomatic patients not seeking primary care is possible, as is outcome misclassification. The authors can’t rule out the possibility of an association between asymptomatic H pylori infection and AD risk.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Douros has no relevant conflicts of interest; see paper for disclosures of other authors.

Pauline Anderson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients aged 50 years or older with clinically apparent Helicobacter pylori infection (CAHPI) have an 11% increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease (AD), results of a large and lengthy population-based study suggest.

METHODOLOGY: 

• Researchers identified all cases with a first-time diagnosis of AD and matched each AD case to up to 40 AD-free control cases on the basis of age, sex, cohort entry date, and duration of follow-up.
• The exposure of interest was CAHPI, defined based on an algorithm using clinical guidelines and recommendations on the management of H pylori (HP) infection, with researchers focusing on infected individuals presenting with symptoms or developing serious complications from the infection.
• Researchers performed several sensitivity analyses, which included repeating the primary analysis using alternate lag periods, restricting the cohort to participants with AD (not vascular, alcoholic, and unspecified dementia), and using salmonellosis, an infection not previously associated with AD, as a negative control exposure.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Compared with no exposure to CAHPI, exposure to CAHPI was associated with a moderately increased risk for AD (odds ratio [OR], 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01-1.21), with no major effect modification by demographics or socioeconomic status.
• The increased risk peaked 7.3-10.8 years after CAHPI onset (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.05-1.47) before decreasing.
• Sensitivity analyses yielded findings that were overall consistent with those of the primary analysis.
• The analysis with salmonellosis as a negative control exposure showed no association with the risk for AD (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.82-1.29).

IN PRACTICE:

“These results support the notion of HP infection as a potential modifiable risk factor of AD” and “pave the way for future randomized controlled trials that would assess the impact and cost-effectiveness of population-based targeted interventions such as individualized HP eradication programs, on the development of AD,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Antonios Douros, Department of Medicine, and Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and colleagues. It was published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

LIMITATIONS:

Given the observational nature of the study, residual confounding is possible. Because the exposure definition was on the basis of CAHPI recorded by general practitioners, exposure misclassification due to symptomatic patients not seeking primary care is possible, as is outcome misclassification. The authors can’t rule out the possibility of an association between asymptomatic H pylori infection and AD risk.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Douros has no relevant conflicts of interest; see paper for disclosures of other authors.

Pauline Anderson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new federal rule opens the door for physicians in California and Texas to take advantage of student loan forgiveness, possibly bringing much-needed relief to those with cumbersome debt loads after repayments resumed last month. However, the timing is critical, as some doctors may need to consolidate their loans by December 31 to remain eligible.

Updated guidelines for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program (PSLF) took effect in July, expanding the number of potential borrowers who could have their federal student loan balances wiped clean after working full time in a government or nonprofit role and making 120 monthly loan payments.

But loan forgiveness also hinges on having the correct employment type and requires applicants to be a “direct hire” of the organization. State laws in California and Texas prohibit nonprofit hospitals and health care entities from directly hiring physicians — a loophole that has barred doctors in those locations from applying.

Both states’ medical and hospital associations worked with the US Department of Education (DOE) to offer an exception. California and Texas physicians can now satisfy the employment type condition by having a written contract or medical staff privileges with a nonprofit hospital or facility, even if the physician is part of a for-profit sole proprietorship, partnership, or medical group.

Eligible loans cannot be in default and must have been received through the Direct Loan Program, which includes Parent PLUS loans. Doctors with non-qualifying student loans, such as Federal Family Education Loans, can become PSLF-eligible and have past time worked counted toward the requirements if they consolidate into a direct loan by December 31.

The California Medical Association (CMA) has an online guide to help doctors and employers navigate the new rules.

The change comes just in time because California and Texas need to expand their physician workforces by tens of thousands over the next decade. “This program will allow us to retain and recruit new physicians to our states to address our growing physician shortages and access to care challenges for the patients who need us most,” Texas Medical Association president Rick W. Snyder II, MD, said in a statement.

Physicians should use the PSLF Help Tool to complete the forgiveness application, said Ashley Harrington, senior advisor at the DOE. During a free on-demand webinar hosted by CMA, she said the form has been streamlined and will ask applicants to list the nonprofit entity where they provide care, its employer identification number, the length of time worked there, and the average hours worked per week. The employer must sign to certify the physician’s reported hours.

Ideally, physicians should submit a PSLF form annually or each time they change jobs, but they can also wait until the end of the 10 years to submit the form, said Ms. Harrington.

With the average medical education loan debt exceeding $200,000, CMA president Donaldo Hernandez, MD, said the rule will ensure low-income and minority students can consider medical careers.

California family medicine physician Ashley Paydar, DO, said that she has already applied for PSLF and found the process relatively easy. While she awaits final approval, she’s planning for the future. “Loan forgiveness will allow me to do a fellowship and save for my children›s college so they can pursue higher education without the debt,” she said.

Still, employers have no legal obligation to certify physicians’ hours, and many may express hesitation as they try to understand the new guidelines, said Long Do, JD, partner at Athene Law in San Francisco and speaker during the webinar. He urged physicians to have patience when working through the application process.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new federal rule opens the door for physicians in California and Texas to take advantage of student loan forgiveness, possibly bringing much-needed relief to those with cumbersome debt loads after repayments resumed last month. However, the timing is critical, as some doctors may need to consolidate their loans by December 31 to remain eligible.

Updated guidelines for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program (PSLF) took effect in July, expanding the number of potential borrowers who could have their federal student loan balances wiped clean after working full time in a government or nonprofit role and making 120 monthly loan payments.

But loan forgiveness also hinges on having the correct employment type and requires applicants to be a “direct hire” of the organization. State laws in California and Texas prohibit nonprofit hospitals and health care entities from directly hiring physicians — a loophole that has barred doctors in those locations from applying.

Both states’ medical and hospital associations worked with the US Department of Education (DOE) to offer an exception. California and Texas physicians can now satisfy the employment type condition by having a written contract or medical staff privileges with a nonprofit hospital or facility, even if the physician is part of a for-profit sole proprietorship, partnership, or medical group.

Eligible loans cannot be in default and must have been received through the Direct Loan Program, which includes Parent PLUS loans. Doctors with non-qualifying student loans, such as Federal Family Education Loans, can become PSLF-eligible and have past time worked counted toward the requirements if they consolidate into a direct loan by December 31.

The California Medical Association (CMA) has an online guide to help doctors and employers navigate the new rules.

The change comes just in time because California and Texas need to expand their physician workforces by tens of thousands over the next decade. “This program will allow us to retain and recruit new physicians to our states to address our growing physician shortages and access to care challenges for the patients who need us most,” Texas Medical Association president Rick W. Snyder II, MD, said in a statement.

Physicians should use the PSLF Help Tool to complete the forgiveness application, said Ashley Harrington, senior advisor at the DOE. During a free on-demand webinar hosted by CMA, she said the form has been streamlined and will ask applicants to list the nonprofit entity where they provide care, its employer identification number, the length of time worked there, and the average hours worked per week. The employer must sign to certify the physician’s reported hours.

Ideally, physicians should submit a PSLF form annually or each time they change jobs, but they can also wait until the end of the 10 years to submit the form, said Ms. Harrington.

With the average medical education loan debt exceeding $200,000, CMA president Donaldo Hernandez, MD, said the rule will ensure low-income and minority students can consider medical careers.

California family medicine physician Ashley Paydar, DO, said that she has already applied for PSLF and found the process relatively easy. While she awaits final approval, she’s planning for the future. “Loan forgiveness will allow me to do a fellowship and save for my children›s college so they can pursue higher education without the debt,” she said.

Still, employers have no legal obligation to certify physicians’ hours, and many may express hesitation as they try to understand the new guidelines, said Long Do, JD, partner at Athene Law in San Francisco and speaker during the webinar. He urged physicians to have patience when working through the application process.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new federal rule opens the door for physicians in California and Texas to take advantage of student loan forgiveness, possibly bringing much-needed relief to those with cumbersome debt loads after repayments resumed last month. However, the timing is critical, as some doctors may need to consolidate their loans by December 31 to remain eligible.

Updated guidelines for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program (PSLF) took effect in July, expanding the number of potential borrowers who could have their federal student loan balances wiped clean after working full time in a government or nonprofit role and making 120 monthly loan payments.

But loan forgiveness also hinges on having the correct employment type and requires applicants to be a “direct hire” of the organization. State laws in California and Texas prohibit nonprofit hospitals and health care entities from directly hiring physicians — a loophole that has barred doctors in those locations from applying.

Both states’ medical and hospital associations worked with the US Department of Education (DOE) to offer an exception. California and Texas physicians can now satisfy the employment type condition by having a written contract or medical staff privileges with a nonprofit hospital or facility, even if the physician is part of a for-profit sole proprietorship, partnership, or medical group.

Eligible loans cannot be in default and must have been received through the Direct Loan Program, which includes Parent PLUS loans. Doctors with non-qualifying student loans, such as Federal Family Education Loans, can become PSLF-eligible and have past time worked counted toward the requirements if they consolidate into a direct loan by December 31.

The California Medical Association (CMA) has an online guide to help doctors and employers navigate the new rules.

The change comes just in time because California and Texas need to expand their physician workforces by tens of thousands over the next decade. “This program will allow us to retain and recruit new physicians to our states to address our growing physician shortages and access to care challenges for the patients who need us most,” Texas Medical Association president Rick W. Snyder II, MD, said in a statement.

Physicians should use the PSLF Help Tool to complete the forgiveness application, said Ashley Harrington, senior advisor at the DOE. During a free on-demand webinar hosted by CMA, she said the form has been streamlined and will ask applicants to list the nonprofit entity where they provide care, its employer identification number, the length of time worked there, and the average hours worked per week. The employer must sign to certify the physician’s reported hours.

Ideally, physicians should submit a PSLF form annually or each time they change jobs, but they can also wait until the end of the 10 years to submit the form, said Ms. Harrington.

With the average medical education loan debt exceeding $200,000, CMA president Donaldo Hernandez, MD, said the rule will ensure low-income and minority students can consider medical careers.

California family medicine physician Ashley Paydar, DO, said that she has already applied for PSLF and found the process relatively easy. While she awaits final approval, she’s planning for the future. “Loan forgiveness will allow me to do a fellowship and save for my children›s college so they can pursue higher education without the debt,” she said.

Still, employers have no legal obligation to certify physicians’ hours, and many may express hesitation as they try to understand the new guidelines, said Long Do, JD, partner at Athene Law in San Francisco and speaker during the webinar. He urged physicians to have patience when working through the application process.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Sandra Fryhofer, MD, highlights updates in the 2024 Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Adult Immunization Schedule.

The biggest change for 2024 is that you don’t need to wait till January 1, 2024, for these schedules go into effect. Both schedules were published and became available in November 2023 and became effective immediately. They include ACIP recommendations approved by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director through October 23, 2023.

Subsequent recommendations (before publication of the 2025 schedule) will be added to the addendum, a new Step 5, Section 5 in the schedule. The addendum should make Affordable Care Act (ACA)–compliant insurance plans cover ACIP-recommended immunizations sooner.

This year’s schedule includes more vaccines with new recommendations and new color code keys for the schedule’s vaccine tables. The newest vaccine additions to the 2024 schedule include respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines, the mpox vaccine (Jynneos), a new MenACWY-MenB combo vaccine (Penbraya), and the new 2023-2024 formulation of the updated COVID vaccine (both mRNA and protein-based adjuvanted versions).

These are listed on the cover page (in alphabetical order) by name, abbreviation, and trade name. Vaccine-specific details can be found in the (Step 3) Notes section, also organized alphabetically.
 

The Tables

Step 1 is Table 1: Vaccinations by Age. Step 2 is Table 2: Vaccinations by Medical Conditions or Other Indications. The table names haven’t changed. However, their color code legends have been adjusted and refined. Also, the legends for the some of the same colors are not the same for both tables.

The order of and conditions covered in the columns on Table 2 have been reorganized.

Even for vaccines whose recommendations have not changed, the color code keys reflecting the recommendations have changed. For this reason, the 2024 version of Table 2 looks very different from the 2023 version. Also, much of the wording on overlays has been removed, which means you have to rely more heavily on the Notes section.

The color brown has been introduced on Table 2 to spotlight groups and conditions that require recurrent revaccination:

• Give Tdap in each and every pregnancy at 27-36 weeks.
• Revaccinate people living with HIV with MenACWY every 5 years.
• Revaccinate those with asplenia and/or complement deficiency with MenACWY every 5 years and MenB every 2-3 years.
• Stem cell transplant recipients need three doses of Hib.

Vaccine order is the same on both tables.

The rows for 2023-2024 formulations of COVID and flu vaccines are at the top of both tables are coded yellow, meaning everyone needs a dose of both vaccines.

Both tables have added a row for RSV vaccines and mpox vaccines.
 

Notes Section

The notes have been edited for clarity and reveal who needs what and when and include special vaccine-specific sections for special circumstances.

COVID vaccines. The COVID vaccine note embraces the updated 2023-2024 formula. Everyone aged 6 months or older needs a dose of the updated COVID vaccine. Specifics of who needs what (and when) depend on what they have already received, as well as their immune status. Detailed recommendations for both mRNA and protein-based adjuvanted versions are included in the notes.

RSV vaccines. The notes also give vital details about RSV vaccines for pregnant people and for older adults. There are two RSV vaccines. Both are preF RSV vaccines. They’re identified by trade names for clarity. Arexvy contains an adjuvant. Abrysvo does not contain an adjuvant. The RSV vaccine note explains that only Abyrsvo (the vaccine without the adjuvant) can be given to pregnant people, only at 32-36 weeks, and only to those whose baby would be born during RSV season.

ACIP recommends a dose of either vaccine for adults aged 60 or older, under shared clinical decision-making (meaning you and your patients have to discuss and decide). The notes link to additional guidance for making that decision.

Mpox vaccines. For the mpox vaccine, all adults in any age group at increased risk of getting mpox should get a two-dose series of the vaccine. The mpox vaccine notes include a list of mpox risk factors.
 

Other Features of the 2024 Adult Immunization Schedule

The schedule has useful links to helpful information:

• Vaccine information statements
• Complete ACIP recommendations
• CDC’s General Best Practice Guidelines for Immunizations.
• VAERS (CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System)

A new “Additional Information” section in the Notes links to:

• Travel vaccination requirements
• Best practices guidelines for vaccinating persons with immunodeficiency
• The National Vaccine Injury Compensation program (for resolving any vaccine injury claims)

The cover page has links to:

• CDC’s vaccine app
• QR code to access the schedule online.

With all these tools literally at your fingertips, there’s no reason not to know which vaccines your patients need and when. The challenge now is making it happen: getting those needed vaccines into arms.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Sandra Fryhofer, MD, highlights updates in the 2024 Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Adult Immunization Schedule.

The biggest change for 2024 is that you don’t need to wait till January 1, 2024, for these schedules go into effect. Both schedules were published and became available in November 2023 and became effective immediately. They include ACIP recommendations approved by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director through October 23, 2023.

Subsequent recommendations (before publication of the 2025 schedule) will be added to the addendum, a new Step 5, Section 5 in the schedule. The addendum should make Affordable Care Act (ACA)–compliant insurance plans cover ACIP-recommended immunizations sooner.

This year’s schedule includes more vaccines with new recommendations and new color code keys for the schedule’s vaccine tables. The newest vaccine additions to the 2024 schedule include respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines, the mpox vaccine (Jynneos), a new MenACWY-MenB combo vaccine (Penbraya), and the new 2023-2024 formulation of the updated COVID vaccine (both mRNA and protein-based adjuvanted versions).

These are listed on the cover page (in alphabetical order) by name, abbreviation, and trade name. Vaccine-specific details can be found in the (Step 3) Notes section, also organized alphabetically.
 

The Tables

Step 1 is Table 1: Vaccinations by Age. Step 2 is Table 2: Vaccinations by Medical Conditions or Other Indications. The table names haven’t changed. However, their color code legends have been adjusted and refined. Also, the legends for the some of the same colors are not the same for both tables.

The order of and conditions covered in the columns on Table 2 have been reorganized.

Even for vaccines whose recommendations have not changed, the color code keys reflecting the recommendations have changed. For this reason, the 2024 version of Table 2 looks very different from the 2023 version. Also, much of the wording on overlays has been removed, which means you have to rely more heavily on the Notes section.

The color brown has been introduced on Table 2 to spotlight groups and conditions that require recurrent revaccination:

• Give Tdap in each and every pregnancy at 27-36 weeks.
• Revaccinate people living with HIV with MenACWY every 5 years.
• Revaccinate those with asplenia and/or complement deficiency with MenACWY every 5 years and MenB every 2-3 years.
• Stem cell transplant recipients need three doses of Hib.

Vaccine order is the same on both tables.

The rows for 2023-2024 formulations of COVID and flu vaccines are at the top of both tables are coded yellow, meaning everyone needs a dose of both vaccines.

Both tables have added a row for RSV vaccines and mpox vaccines.
 

Notes Section

The notes have been edited for clarity and reveal who needs what and when and include special vaccine-specific sections for special circumstances.

COVID vaccines. The COVID vaccine note embraces the updated 2023-2024 formula. Everyone aged 6 months or older needs a dose of the updated COVID vaccine. Specifics of who needs what (and when) depend on what they have already received, as well as their immune status. Detailed recommendations for both mRNA and protein-based adjuvanted versions are included in the notes.

RSV vaccines. The notes also give vital details about RSV vaccines for pregnant people and for older adults. There are two RSV vaccines. Both are preF RSV vaccines. They’re identified by trade names for clarity. Arexvy contains an adjuvant. Abrysvo does not contain an adjuvant. The RSV vaccine note explains that only Abyrsvo (the vaccine without the adjuvant) can be given to pregnant people, only at 32-36 weeks, and only to those whose baby would be born during RSV season.

ACIP recommends a dose of either vaccine for adults aged 60 or older, under shared clinical decision-making (meaning you and your patients have to discuss and decide). The notes link to additional guidance for making that decision.

Mpox vaccines. For the mpox vaccine, all adults in any age group at increased risk of getting mpox should get a two-dose series of the vaccine. The mpox vaccine notes include a list of mpox risk factors.
 

Other Features of the 2024 Adult Immunization Schedule

The schedule has useful links to helpful information:

• Vaccine information statements
• Complete ACIP recommendations
• CDC’s General Best Practice Guidelines for Immunizations.
• VAERS (CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System)

A new “Additional Information” section in the Notes links to:

• Travel vaccination requirements
• Best practices guidelines for vaccinating persons with immunodeficiency
• The National Vaccine Injury Compensation program (for resolving any vaccine injury claims)

The cover page has links to:

• CDC’s vaccine app
• QR code to access the schedule online.

With all these tools literally at your fingertips, there’s no reason not to know which vaccines your patients need and when. The challenge now is making it happen: getting those needed vaccines into arms.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Sandra Fryhofer, MD, highlights updates in the 2024 Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Adult Immunization Schedule.

The biggest change for 2024 is that you don’t need to wait till January 1, 2024, for these schedules go into effect. Both schedules were published and became available in November 2023 and became effective immediately. They include ACIP recommendations approved by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director through October 23, 2023.

Subsequent recommendations (before publication of the 2025 schedule) will be added to the addendum, a new Step 5, Section 5 in the schedule. The addendum should make Affordable Care Act (ACA)–compliant insurance plans cover ACIP-recommended immunizations sooner.

This year’s schedule includes more vaccines with new recommendations and new color code keys for the schedule’s vaccine tables. The newest vaccine additions to the 2024 schedule include respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines, the mpox vaccine (Jynneos), a new MenACWY-MenB combo vaccine (Penbraya), and the new 2023-2024 formulation of the updated COVID vaccine (both mRNA and protein-based adjuvanted versions).

These are listed on the cover page (in alphabetical order) by name, abbreviation, and trade name. Vaccine-specific details can be found in the (Step 3) Notes section, also organized alphabetically.
 

The Tables

Step 1 is Table 1: Vaccinations by Age. Step 2 is Table 2: Vaccinations by Medical Conditions or Other Indications. The table names haven’t changed. However, their color code legends have been adjusted and refined. Also, the legends for the some of the same colors are not the same for both tables.

The order of and conditions covered in the columns on Table 2 have been reorganized.

Even for vaccines whose recommendations have not changed, the color code keys reflecting the recommendations have changed. For this reason, the 2024 version of Table 2 looks very different from the 2023 version. Also, much of the wording on overlays has been removed, which means you have to rely more heavily on the Notes section.

The color brown has been introduced on Table 2 to spotlight groups and conditions that require recurrent revaccination:

• Give Tdap in each and every pregnancy at 27-36 weeks.
• Revaccinate people living with HIV with MenACWY every 5 years.
• Revaccinate those with asplenia and/or complement deficiency with MenACWY every 5 years and MenB every 2-3 years.
• Stem cell transplant recipients need three doses of Hib.

Vaccine order is the same on both tables.

The rows for 2023-2024 formulations of COVID and flu vaccines are at the top of both tables are coded yellow, meaning everyone needs a dose of both vaccines.

Both tables have added a row for RSV vaccines and mpox vaccines.
 

Notes Section

The notes have been edited for clarity and reveal who needs what and when and include special vaccine-specific sections for special circumstances.

COVID vaccines. The COVID vaccine note embraces the updated 2023-2024 formula. Everyone aged 6 months or older needs a dose of the updated COVID vaccine. Specifics of who needs what (and when) depend on what they have already received, as well as their immune status. Detailed recommendations for both mRNA and protein-based adjuvanted versions are included in the notes.

RSV vaccines. The notes also give vital details about RSV vaccines for pregnant people and for older adults. There are two RSV vaccines. Both are preF RSV vaccines. They’re identified by trade names for clarity. Arexvy contains an adjuvant. Abrysvo does not contain an adjuvant. The RSV vaccine note explains that only Abyrsvo (the vaccine without the adjuvant) can be given to pregnant people, only at 32-36 weeks, and only to those whose baby would be born during RSV season.

ACIP recommends a dose of either vaccine for adults aged 60 or older, under shared clinical decision-making (meaning you and your patients have to discuss and decide). The notes link to additional guidance for making that decision.

Mpox vaccines. For the mpox vaccine, all adults in any age group at increased risk of getting mpox should get a two-dose series of the vaccine. The mpox vaccine notes include a list of mpox risk factors.
 

Other Features of the 2024 Adult Immunization Schedule

The schedule has useful links to helpful information:

• Vaccine information statements
• Complete ACIP recommendations
• CDC’s General Best Practice Guidelines for Immunizations.
• VAERS (CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System)

A new “Additional Information” section in the Notes links to:

• Travel vaccination requirements
• Best practices guidelines for vaccinating persons with immunodeficiency
• The National Vaccine Injury Compensation program (for resolving any vaccine injury claims)

The cover page has links to:

• CDC’s vaccine app
• QR code to access the schedule online.

With all these tools literally at your fingertips, there’s no reason not to know which vaccines your patients need and when. The challenge now is making it happen: getting those needed vaccines into arms.

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