This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

New updated COVID vaccines are now available, but who can get them, who should get them, and when? Two updated mRNA COVID vaccines, one by Moderna and the other by Pfizer, have been authorized or approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for those aged 6 months or older.

Both vaccines target Omicron’s KP.2 strain of the JN.1 lineage. An updated protein-based version by Novavax, also directed at JN.1, has been authorized, but only for those aged 12 years or older. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends a dose of the 2024-2025 updated COVID vaccine for everyone aged 6 months or older. This includes people who have never been vaccinated against COVID, those who have been vaccinated, as well as people with previous COVID infection. 

The big question is when, and FDA and CDC have set some parameters. For mRNA updated vaccines, patients should wait at least 2 months after their last dose of any COVID vaccine before getting a dose of the updated vaccine.

If the patient has recently had COVID, the wait time is even longer: Patients can wait 3 months after a COVID infection to be vaccinated, but they don’t have to. FDA’s instructions for the Novavax version are not as straightforward. People can get an updated Novavax dose at least 2 months after their last mRNA COVID vaccine dose, or at least 2 months after completing a Novavax two-dose primary series. Those two Novavax doses should be given at least 3 weeks apart. 

Patients can personalize their vaccine plan. They will have the greatest protection in the first few weeks to months after a vaccine, after which antibodies tend to wane. It is a good idea to time vaccination so that protection peaks at big events like weddings and major meetings.

If patients decide to wait, they run the risk of getting a COVID infection. Also keep in mind which variants are circulating and the amount of local activity. Right now, there is a lot of COVID going around, and most of it is related to JN.1, the target of this year’s updated vaccine. If patients decide to wait, they should avoid crowded indoor settings or wear a high-quality mask for some protection. 

Here’s the bottom line: Most people (more than 95%) have some degree of COVID protection from previous infection, vaccination, or both. But if they haven’t recently had COVID infection and didn’t get a dose of last year’s vaccine, they are sitting ducks for getting sick without updated protection. The best way to stay well is to get a dose of the updated vaccine as soon as possible. This is especially true for those in high-risk groups or who are near someone who is high risk. 

Two thirds of COVID hospitalizations are in those aged 65 or older. Hospitalization rates are highest for those aged 75 or older and among infants under 6 months of age. These babies are too young to be vaccinated, but maternal vaccination during pregnancy and breastfeeding can help protect them. 

We’re still seeing racial and ethnic disparities in COVID-related hospitalizations, which are highest among American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Black populations. People with immunocompromising conditions, those with chronic medical conditions, and people living in long-term care facilities are also at greater risk. Unlike last year, additional mRNA doses are not recommended for those aged 65 or older at this time, but that could change.

Since 2020, we’ve come a long way in our fight against COVID, but the battle is still on. In 2023, nearly a million people were hospitalized from COVID. More than 75,000 died. COVID vaccines help protect us from severe disease, hospitalization, and death. 

Let’s face it — we all have booster fatigue, but COVID is now endemic. It’s here to stay, and it’s much safer to update antibody protection with vaccination than with infection. Another benefit of getting vaccinated is that it decreases the chance of getting long COVID. The uptake of last year’s COVID vaccine was abysmal; only about 23% of adults and 14% of children received it.

But this is a new year and a new vaccine. Please make sure your patients understand that the virus has changed a lot. Antibodies we built from previous infection and previous vaccination don’t work as well against these new variants. Antibody levels wane over time, so even if they missed the last few vaccine doses without getting sick, they really should consider getting a dose of this new vaccine. The 2024-2025 updated COVID vaccine is the best way to catch up, update their immunity, and keep them protected. 

Furthermore, we are now entering respiratory virus season, which means we need to think about, recommend, and administer three shots if indicated: COVID, flu, and RSV. Now is the time. Patients can get all three at the same time, in the same visit, if they choose to do so. 

Your recommendation as a physician is powerful. Adults and children who receive a healthcare provider recommendation are more likely to get vaccinated.

Dr. Fryhofer is an adjunct clinical associate professor of medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. She reported conflicts of interest with the American Medical Association, the Medical Association of Atlanta, the American College of Physicians, and Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

New updated COVID vaccines are now available, but who can get them, who should get them, and when? Two updated mRNA COVID vaccines, one by Moderna and the other by Pfizer, have been authorized or approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for those aged 6 months or older.

Both vaccines target Omicron’s KP.2 strain of the JN.1 lineage. An updated protein-based version by Novavax, also directed at JN.1, has been authorized, but only for those aged 12 years or older. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends a dose of the 2024-2025 updated COVID vaccine for everyone aged 6 months or older. This includes people who have never been vaccinated against COVID, those who have been vaccinated, as well as people with previous COVID infection. 

The big question is when, and FDA and CDC have set some parameters. For mRNA updated vaccines, patients should wait at least 2 months after their last dose of any COVID vaccine before getting a dose of the updated vaccine.

If the patient has recently had COVID, the wait time is even longer: Patients can wait 3 months after a COVID infection to be vaccinated, but they don’t have to. FDA’s instructions for the Novavax version are not as straightforward. People can get an updated Novavax dose at least 2 months after their last mRNA COVID vaccine dose, or at least 2 months after completing a Novavax two-dose primary series. Those two Novavax doses should be given at least 3 weeks apart. 

Patients can personalize their vaccine plan. They will have the greatest protection in the first few weeks to months after a vaccine, after which antibodies tend to wane. It is a good idea to time vaccination so that protection peaks at big events like weddings and major meetings.

If patients decide to wait, they run the risk of getting a COVID infection. Also keep in mind which variants are circulating and the amount of local activity. Right now, there is a lot of COVID going around, and most of it is related to JN.1, the target of this year’s updated vaccine. If patients decide to wait, they should avoid crowded indoor settings or wear a high-quality mask for some protection. 

Here’s the bottom line: Most people (more than 95%) have some degree of COVID protection from previous infection, vaccination, or both. But if they haven’t recently had COVID infection and didn’t get a dose of last year’s vaccine, they are sitting ducks for getting sick without updated protection. The best way to stay well is to get a dose of the updated vaccine as soon as possible. This is especially true for those in high-risk groups or who are near someone who is high risk. 

Two thirds of COVID hospitalizations are in those aged 65 or older. Hospitalization rates are highest for those aged 75 or older and among infants under 6 months of age. These babies are too young to be vaccinated, but maternal vaccination during pregnancy and breastfeeding can help protect them. 

We’re still seeing racial and ethnic disparities in COVID-related hospitalizations, which are highest among American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Black populations. People with immunocompromising conditions, those with chronic medical conditions, and people living in long-term care facilities are also at greater risk. Unlike last year, additional mRNA doses are not recommended for those aged 65 or older at this time, but that could change.

Since 2020, we’ve come a long way in our fight against COVID, but the battle is still on. In 2023, nearly a million people were hospitalized from COVID. More than 75,000 died. COVID vaccines help protect us from severe disease, hospitalization, and death. 

Let’s face it — we all have booster fatigue, but COVID is now endemic. It’s here to stay, and it’s much safer to update antibody protection with vaccination than with infection. Another benefit of getting vaccinated is that it decreases the chance of getting long COVID. The uptake of last year’s COVID vaccine was abysmal; only about 23% of adults and 14% of children received it.

But this is a new year and a new vaccine. Please make sure your patients understand that the virus has changed a lot. Antibodies we built from previous infection and previous vaccination don’t work as well against these new variants. Antibody levels wane over time, so even if they missed the last few vaccine doses without getting sick, they really should consider getting a dose of this new vaccine. The 2024-2025 updated COVID vaccine is the best way to catch up, update their immunity, and keep them protected. 

Furthermore, we are now entering respiratory virus season, which means we need to think about, recommend, and administer three shots if indicated: COVID, flu, and RSV. Now is the time. Patients can get all three at the same time, in the same visit, if they choose to do so. 

Your recommendation as a physician is powerful. Adults and children who receive a healthcare provider recommendation are more likely to get vaccinated.

Dr. Fryhofer is an adjunct clinical associate professor of medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. She reported conflicts of interest with the American Medical Association, the Medical Association of Atlanta, the American College of Physicians, and Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

New updated COVID vaccines are now available, but who can get them, who should get them, and when? Two updated mRNA COVID vaccines, one by Moderna and the other by Pfizer, have been authorized or approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for those aged 6 months or older.

Both vaccines target Omicron’s KP.2 strain of the JN.1 lineage. An updated protein-based version by Novavax, also directed at JN.1, has been authorized, but only for those aged 12 years or older. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends a dose of the 2024-2025 updated COVID vaccine for everyone aged 6 months or older. This includes people who have never been vaccinated against COVID, those who have been vaccinated, as well as people with previous COVID infection. 

The big question is when, and FDA and CDC have set some parameters. For mRNA updated vaccines, patients should wait at least 2 months after their last dose of any COVID vaccine before getting a dose of the updated vaccine.

If the patient has recently had COVID, the wait time is even longer: Patients can wait 3 months after a COVID infection to be vaccinated, but they don’t have to. FDA’s instructions for the Novavax version are not as straightforward. People can get an updated Novavax dose at least 2 months after their last mRNA COVID vaccine dose, or at least 2 months after completing a Novavax two-dose primary series. Those two Novavax doses should be given at least 3 weeks apart. 

Patients can personalize their vaccine plan. They will have the greatest protection in the first few weeks to months after a vaccine, after which antibodies tend to wane. It is a good idea to time vaccination so that protection peaks at big events like weddings and major meetings.

If patients decide to wait, they run the risk of getting a COVID infection. Also keep in mind which variants are circulating and the amount of local activity. Right now, there is a lot of COVID going around, and most of it is related to JN.1, the target of this year’s updated vaccine. If patients decide to wait, they should avoid crowded indoor settings or wear a high-quality mask for some protection. 

Here’s the bottom line: Most people (more than 95%) have some degree of COVID protection from previous infection, vaccination, or both. But if they haven’t recently had COVID infection and didn’t get a dose of last year’s vaccine, they are sitting ducks for getting sick without updated protection. The best way to stay well is to get a dose of the updated vaccine as soon as possible. This is especially true for those in high-risk groups or who are near someone who is high risk. 

Two thirds of COVID hospitalizations are in those aged 65 or older. Hospitalization rates are highest for those aged 75 or older and among infants under 6 months of age. These babies are too young to be vaccinated, but maternal vaccination during pregnancy and breastfeeding can help protect them. 

We’re still seeing racial and ethnic disparities in COVID-related hospitalizations, which are highest among American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Black populations. People with immunocompromising conditions, those with chronic medical conditions, and people living in long-term care facilities are also at greater risk. Unlike last year, additional mRNA doses are not recommended for those aged 65 or older at this time, but that could change.

Since 2020, we’ve come a long way in our fight against COVID, but the battle is still on. In 2023, nearly a million people were hospitalized from COVID. More than 75,000 died. COVID vaccines help protect us from severe disease, hospitalization, and death. 

Let’s face it — we all have booster fatigue, but COVID is now endemic. It’s here to stay, and it’s much safer to update antibody protection with vaccination than with infection. Another benefit of getting vaccinated is that it decreases the chance of getting long COVID. The uptake of last year’s COVID vaccine was abysmal; only about 23% of adults and 14% of children received it.

But this is a new year and a new vaccine. Please make sure your patients understand that the virus has changed a lot. Antibodies we built from previous infection and previous vaccination don’t work as well against these new variants. Antibody levels wane over time, so even if they missed the last few vaccine doses without getting sick, they really should consider getting a dose of this new vaccine. The 2024-2025 updated COVID vaccine is the best way to catch up, update their immunity, and keep them protected. 

Furthermore, we are now entering respiratory virus season, which means we need to think about, recommend, and administer three shots if indicated: COVID, flu, and RSV. Now is the time. Patients can get all three at the same time, in the same visit, if they choose to do so. 

Your recommendation as a physician is powerful. Adults and children who receive a healthcare provider recommendation are more likely to get vaccinated.

Dr. Fryhofer is an adjunct clinical associate professor of medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. She reported conflicts of interest with the American Medical Association, the Medical Association of Atlanta, the American College of Physicians, and Medscape.

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

TOPLINE:

The presence of an operational classification of drug interactions (ORCA) class 3 or 4 drug-drug interactions (DDIs) did not increase the risk for colchicine-related gastrointestinal adverse events or modify the effect of colchicine on death or hospitalization caused by COVID-19 infection in ambulatory patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• This secondary analysis of the COLCORONA trial aimed to evaluate if a potential DDI of colchicine was associated with changes in its pharmacokinetics or modified its clinical safety and efficacy in patients with COVID-19.
• Overall, 4432 ambulatory patients with COVID-19 (median age, 54 years; 54% women) were randomly assigned to receive colchicine 0.5 mg twice daily for 3 days and then 0.5 mg once daily for 27 days (n = 2205) or a placebo (n = 2227).
• All the participants had at least one high-risk criterion such as age ≥ 70 years, diabetes, heart failure, systolic blood pressure ≥ 150 mm Hg, respiratory disease, coronary disease, body temperature ≥ 38.4 °C within the last 48 hours, dyspnea, bicytopenia, pancytopenia, or high neutrophil count with low lymphocyte count.
• The medications that could interact with colchicine were determined and categorized under ORCA classes 1 (contraindicated), 2 (provisionally contraindicated), 3 (conditional use), or 4 (minimal risk).
• The primary outcome was any gastrointestinal adverse event assessed over a 30-day follow-up period.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among all the participants, 1% received medications with an ORCA class 2 interaction, 14% with a class 3 interaction, and 13% with a class 4 interaction; rosuvastatin (12%) and atorvastatin (10%) were the most common interacting medications.
• The odds of any gastrointestinal adverse event were 1.80 times and 1.68 times higher in the colchicine arm than in the placebo arm among those without and with a DDI, respectively, with the effect of colchicine being consistent regardless of the presence of drug interactions (P = .69 for interaction).
• Similarly, DDIs did not influence the effect of colchicine on combined risk for COVID-19 hospitalization or mortality (P = .80 for interaction).

IN PRACTICE:

“Once potential DDIs have been identified through screening, they must be tested,” Hemalkumar B. Mehta, PhD, and G. Caleb Alexander, MD, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, wrote in an invited commentary published online in JAMA Network Open. “Theoretical DDIs may not translate into real-world harms,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lama S. Alfehaid, PharmD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

This study focused on the medications used by participants at baseline, which may not have captured all potential DDIs. The findings did not provide information on rare adverse events, such as rhabdomyolysis, which usually occur months after initiating drug therapy. Furthermore, all the study participants had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, which may have increased their susceptibility to adverse reactions associated with the use of colchicine.

DISCLOSURES:

Some authors were supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, American Heart Association, and other sources. The authors also declared serving on advisory boards or on the board of directors; receiving personal fees, grants, research support, or speaking fees; or having other ties with many pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The presence of an operational classification of drug interactions (ORCA) class 3 or 4 drug-drug interactions (DDIs) did not increase the risk for colchicine-related gastrointestinal adverse events or modify the effect of colchicine on death or hospitalization caused by COVID-19 infection in ambulatory patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• This secondary analysis of the COLCORONA trial aimed to evaluate if a potential DDI of colchicine was associated with changes in its pharmacokinetics or modified its clinical safety and efficacy in patients with COVID-19.
• Overall, 4432 ambulatory patients with COVID-19 (median age, 54 years; 54% women) were randomly assigned to receive colchicine 0.5 mg twice daily for 3 days and then 0.5 mg once daily for 27 days (n = 2205) or a placebo (n = 2227).
• All the participants had at least one high-risk criterion such as age ≥ 70 years, diabetes, heart failure, systolic blood pressure ≥ 150 mm Hg, respiratory disease, coronary disease, body temperature ≥ 38.4 °C within the last 48 hours, dyspnea, bicytopenia, pancytopenia, or high neutrophil count with low lymphocyte count.
• The medications that could interact with colchicine were determined and categorized under ORCA classes 1 (contraindicated), 2 (provisionally contraindicated), 3 (conditional use), or 4 (minimal risk).
• The primary outcome was any gastrointestinal adverse event assessed over a 30-day follow-up period.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among all the participants, 1% received medications with an ORCA class 2 interaction, 14% with a class 3 interaction, and 13% with a class 4 interaction; rosuvastatin (12%) and atorvastatin (10%) were the most common interacting medications.
• The odds of any gastrointestinal adverse event were 1.80 times and 1.68 times higher in the colchicine arm than in the placebo arm among those without and with a DDI, respectively, with the effect of colchicine being consistent regardless of the presence of drug interactions (P = .69 for interaction).
• Similarly, DDIs did not influence the effect of colchicine on combined risk for COVID-19 hospitalization or mortality (P = .80 for interaction).

IN PRACTICE:

“Once potential DDIs have been identified through screening, they must be tested,” Hemalkumar B. Mehta, PhD, and G. Caleb Alexander, MD, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, wrote in an invited commentary published online in JAMA Network Open. “Theoretical DDIs may not translate into real-world harms,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lama S. Alfehaid, PharmD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

This study focused on the medications used by participants at baseline, which may not have captured all potential DDIs. The findings did not provide information on rare adverse events, such as rhabdomyolysis, which usually occur months after initiating drug therapy. Furthermore, all the study participants had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, which may have increased their susceptibility to adverse reactions associated with the use of colchicine.

DISCLOSURES:

Some authors were supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, American Heart Association, and other sources. The authors also declared serving on advisory boards or on the board of directors; receiving personal fees, grants, research support, or speaking fees; or having other ties with many pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The presence of an operational classification of drug interactions (ORCA) class 3 or 4 drug-drug interactions (DDIs) did not increase the risk for colchicine-related gastrointestinal adverse events or modify the effect of colchicine on death or hospitalization caused by COVID-19 infection in ambulatory patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• This secondary analysis of the COLCORONA trial aimed to evaluate if a potential DDI of colchicine was associated with changes in its pharmacokinetics or modified its clinical safety and efficacy in patients with COVID-19.
• Overall, 4432 ambulatory patients with COVID-19 (median age, 54 years; 54% women) were randomly assigned to receive colchicine 0.5 mg twice daily for 3 days and then 0.5 mg once daily for 27 days (n = 2205) or a placebo (n = 2227).
• All the participants had at least one high-risk criterion such as age ≥ 70 years, diabetes, heart failure, systolic blood pressure ≥ 150 mm Hg, respiratory disease, coronary disease, body temperature ≥ 38.4 °C within the last 48 hours, dyspnea, bicytopenia, pancytopenia, or high neutrophil count with low lymphocyte count.
• The medications that could interact with colchicine were determined and categorized under ORCA classes 1 (contraindicated), 2 (provisionally contraindicated), 3 (conditional use), or 4 (minimal risk).
• The primary outcome was any gastrointestinal adverse event assessed over a 30-day follow-up period.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among all the participants, 1% received medications with an ORCA class 2 interaction, 14% with a class 3 interaction, and 13% with a class 4 interaction; rosuvastatin (12%) and atorvastatin (10%) were the most common interacting medications.
• The odds of any gastrointestinal adverse event were 1.80 times and 1.68 times higher in the colchicine arm than in the placebo arm among those without and with a DDI, respectively, with the effect of colchicine being consistent regardless of the presence of drug interactions (P = .69 for interaction).
• Similarly, DDIs did not influence the effect of colchicine on combined risk for COVID-19 hospitalization or mortality (P = .80 for interaction).

IN PRACTICE:

“Once potential DDIs have been identified through screening, they must be tested,” Hemalkumar B. Mehta, PhD, and G. Caleb Alexander, MD, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, wrote in an invited commentary published online in JAMA Network Open. “Theoretical DDIs may not translate into real-world harms,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lama S. Alfehaid, PharmD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

This study focused on the medications used by participants at baseline, which may not have captured all potential DDIs. The findings did not provide information on rare adverse events, such as rhabdomyolysis, which usually occur months after initiating drug therapy. Furthermore, all the study participants had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, which may have increased their susceptibility to adverse reactions associated with the use of colchicine.

DISCLOSURES:

Some authors were supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, American Heart Association, and other sources. The authors also declared serving on advisory boards or on the board of directors; receiving personal fees, grants, research support, or speaking fees; or having other ties with many pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

I suspect that many of you have seen or read about a recent study regarding the “long COVID” enigma. The investigators surveyed the records of more than 4000 pediatric patients who had been infected and nearly 1400 who had not. The researchers then developed models in which 14 symptoms were more common in previous SARS-CoV2–infected individuals in all age groups, compared with the uninfected. There were four additional symptoms in children only and three additional symptoms in the adolescents.

Using these data, the investigators created research indices that “correlated with poor overall health and quality of life” and emphasized “neurocognitive, pain, and gastrointestinal symptoms in school-age children” and a “change or loss in smell or taste, pain, and fatigue/malaise-related symptoms in adolescents.”

So now thanks to these investigators we have research indices for characterizing PASC (post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2, aka. long COVID). What should we to do with them? I’m not sure these results move us any further if our goal is finding something to help patients who believe, or have been told, that they have long COVID.

Even to a non-statistician like myself there appear to be some problems with this study. In an editorial accompanying this study, Suchitra Rao, MBBS, MSCS in the Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, noted the study has the potential for ascertainment bias. For example, the researchers’ subject recruitment procedure resulted in a higher “proportion of neurocognitive/behavioral manifestations” may have skewed the results.

Also, some of the patient evaluations were not done at a consistent interval after the initial infection, which could result in recall bias. And, more importantly, because there were no baseline measurements to determine preinfection status, the investigators had no way of determining to what degree the patients’ underlying conditions may have reflected the quality of life scores.

Although I wouldn’t consider it a bias, I wonder if the investigators have a preconceived vision of what long COVID is going to look like once it is better understood. The fact that they undertook this project suggests that they believe the truth about the phenomenon will be discoverable using data based on collections of vague symptoms.

Or, do the researchers share my vision of long COVID that if it exists it will be something akin to the burst of Parkinson’s disease seen decades later in survivors of the 1918-1920 flu pandemic. Or, maybe it is something like post-polio syndrome, in which survivors in childhood develop atrophy and muscle weakness as they age. Do the researchers believe that COVID survivors are harboring some remnant of SARS-CoV-2 or its genome inside their bodies ticking like a time bomb ready to surface in the future? Think shingles.

I suspect that there are some folks who may or not share my ticking time bomb vision, but who, like me, wonder if there is really such a thing as long COVID – at least one in the form characterized by the work of these investigators. Unfortunately, the $1 billion the National Institutes of Health has invested in the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) initiative is not going to discover delayed sequelae until time is ready to tell us. What researchers are looking at now is a collection of patients, some who were not well to begin with but now describe a collection of vague symptoms, some of which are unique to COVID, but most are not. The loss of taste and smell being the one notable and important exception.

It is easy to understand why patients and their physicians would like to have a diagnosis like “long COVID” to at least validate their symptoms that up until now have eluded explanation or remedy. Not surprisingly, they may feel that, if researchers can’t find a cure, let’s at least have something we can lay the blame on.

A major flaw in this current attempt to characterize long COVID is the lack of a true control group. Yes, the subjects the researchers labeled as “uninfected” lived contemporaneously with the patients unfortunate enough to have acquired the virus. However, this illness was mysterious from its first appearance, continued to be more frightening as we struggled to learn more about it, and was clumsily managed in a way that turned our way of life upside down. This was particularly true for school-age children. It unmasked previously unsuspected underlying conditions and quickly acquired a poorly documented reputation for having a “long” variety.

Of course the “uninfected” also lived through these same tumultuous times. But knowing that you harbored, and may still harbor, this mysterious invader moves the infected and their families into a whole new level of concern and anxiety the rest of us who were more fortunate don’t share.

We must not ignore the fact that patients and their caregivers may receive some comfort when they have something to blame for their symptoms. However, we must shift our focus away from blame hunting, which up to this point has been fruitless. Instead, we must invest our energies into helping those struggling with long COVID find a manageable pathway toward improvement. Each patient should be treated as an individual and not part of a group with similar symptoms cobbled together with data acquired under a cloud of bias.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

I suspect that many of you have seen or read about a recent study regarding the “long COVID” enigma. The investigators surveyed the records of more than 4000 pediatric patients who had been infected and nearly 1400 who had not. The researchers then developed models in which 14 symptoms were more common in previous SARS-CoV2–infected individuals in all age groups, compared with the uninfected. There were four additional symptoms in children only and three additional symptoms in the adolescents.

Using these data, the investigators created research indices that “correlated with poor overall health and quality of life” and emphasized “neurocognitive, pain, and gastrointestinal symptoms in school-age children” and a “change or loss in smell or taste, pain, and fatigue/malaise-related symptoms in adolescents.”

So now thanks to these investigators we have research indices for characterizing PASC (post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2, aka. long COVID). What should we to do with them? I’m not sure these results move us any further if our goal is finding something to help patients who believe, or have been told, that they have long COVID.

Even to a non-statistician like myself there appear to be some problems with this study. In an editorial accompanying this study, Suchitra Rao, MBBS, MSCS in the Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, noted the study has the potential for ascertainment bias. For example, the researchers’ subject recruitment procedure resulted in a higher “proportion of neurocognitive/behavioral manifestations” may have skewed the results.

Also, some of the patient evaluations were not done at a consistent interval after the initial infection, which could result in recall bias. And, more importantly, because there were no baseline measurements to determine preinfection status, the investigators had no way of determining to what degree the patients’ underlying conditions may have reflected the quality of life scores.

Although I wouldn’t consider it a bias, I wonder if the investigators have a preconceived vision of what long COVID is going to look like once it is better understood. The fact that they undertook this project suggests that they believe the truth about the phenomenon will be discoverable using data based on collections of vague symptoms.

Or, do the researchers share my vision of long COVID that if it exists it will be something akin to the burst of Parkinson’s disease seen decades later in survivors of the 1918-1920 flu pandemic. Or, maybe it is something like post-polio syndrome, in which survivors in childhood develop atrophy and muscle weakness as they age. Do the researchers believe that COVID survivors are harboring some remnant of SARS-CoV-2 or its genome inside their bodies ticking like a time bomb ready to surface in the future? Think shingles.

I suspect that there are some folks who may or not share my ticking time bomb vision, but who, like me, wonder if there is really such a thing as long COVID – at least one in the form characterized by the work of these investigators. Unfortunately, the $1 billion the National Institutes of Health has invested in the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) initiative is not going to discover delayed sequelae until time is ready to tell us. What researchers are looking at now is a collection of patients, some who were not well to begin with but now describe a collection of vague symptoms, some of which are unique to COVID, but most are not. The loss of taste and smell being the one notable and important exception.

It is easy to understand why patients and their physicians would like to have a diagnosis like “long COVID” to at least validate their symptoms that up until now have eluded explanation or remedy. Not surprisingly, they may feel that, if researchers can’t find a cure, let’s at least have something we can lay the blame on.

A major flaw in this current attempt to characterize long COVID is the lack of a true control group. Yes, the subjects the researchers labeled as “uninfected” lived contemporaneously with the patients unfortunate enough to have acquired the virus. However, this illness was mysterious from its first appearance, continued to be more frightening as we struggled to learn more about it, and was clumsily managed in a way that turned our way of life upside down. This was particularly true for school-age children. It unmasked previously unsuspected underlying conditions and quickly acquired a poorly documented reputation for having a “long” variety.

Of course the “uninfected” also lived through these same tumultuous times. But knowing that you harbored, and may still harbor, this mysterious invader moves the infected and their families into a whole new level of concern and anxiety the rest of us who were more fortunate don’t share.

We must not ignore the fact that patients and their caregivers may receive some comfort when they have something to blame for their symptoms. However, we must shift our focus away from blame hunting, which up to this point has been fruitless. Instead, we must invest our energies into helping those struggling with long COVID find a manageable pathway toward improvement. Each patient should be treated as an individual and not part of a group with similar symptoms cobbled together with data acquired under a cloud of bias.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

I suspect that many of you have seen or read about a recent study regarding the “long COVID” enigma. The investigators surveyed the records of more than 4000 pediatric patients who had been infected and nearly 1400 who had not. The researchers then developed models in which 14 symptoms were more common in previous SARS-CoV2–infected individuals in all age groups, compared with the uninfected. There were four additional symptoms in children only and three additional symptoms in the adolescents.

Using these data, the investigators created research indices that “correlated with poor overall health and quality of life” and emphasized “neurocognitive, pain, and gastrointestinal symptoms in school-age children” and a “change or loss in smell or taste, pain, and fatigue/malaise-related symptoms in adolescents.”

So now thanks to these investigators we have research indices for characterizing PASC (post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2, aka. long COVID). What should we to do with them? I’m not sure these results move us any further if our goal is finding something to help patients who believe, or have been told, that they have long COVID.

Even to a non-statistician like myself there appear to be some problems with this study. In an editorial accompanying this study, Suchitra Rao, MBBS, MSCS in the Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, noted the study has the potential for ascertainment bias. For example, the researchers’ subject recruitment procedure resulted in a higher “proportion of neurocognitive/behavioral manifestations” may have skewed the results.

Also, some of the patient evaluations were not done at a consistent interval after the initial infection, which could result in recall bias. And, more importantly, because there were no baseline measurements to determine preinfection status, the investigators had no way of determining to what degree the patients’ underlying conditions may have reflected the quality of life scores.

Although I wouldn’t consider it a bias, I wonder if the investigators have a preconceived vision of what long COVID is going to look like once it is better understood. The fact that they undertook this project suggests that they believe the truth about the phenomenon will be discoverable using data based on collections of vague symptoms.

Or, do the researchers share my vision of long COVID that if it exists it will be something akin to the burst of Parkinson’s disease seen decades later in survivors of the 1918-1920 flu pandemic. Or, maybe it is something like post-polio syndrome, in which survivors in childhood develop atrophy and muscle weakness as they age. Do the researchers believe that COVID survivors are harboring some remnant of SARS-CoV-2 or its genome inside their bodies ticking like a time bomb ready to surface in the future? Think shingles.

I suspect that there are some folks who may or not share my ticking time bomb vision, but who, like me, wonder if there is really such a thing as long COVID – at least one in the form characterized by the work of these investigators. Unfortunately, the $1 billion the National Institutes of Health has invested in the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) initiative is not going to discover delayed sequelae until time is ready to tell us. What researchers are looking at now is a collection of patients, some who were not well to begin with but now describe a collection of vague symptoms, some of which are unique to COVID, but most are not. The loss of taste and smell being the one notable and important exception.

It is easy to understand why patients and their physicians would like to have a diagnosis like “long COVID” to at least validate their symptoms that up until now have eluded explanation or remedy. Not surprisingly, they may feel that, if researchers can’t find a cure, let’s at least have something we can lay the blame on.

A major flaw in this current attempt to characterize long COVID is the lack of a true control group. Yes, the subjects the researchers labeled as “uninfected” lived contemporaneously with the patients unfortunate enough to have acquired the virus. However, this illness was mysterious from its first appearance, continued to be more frightening as we struggled to learn more about it, and was clumsily managed in a way that turned our way of life upside down. This was particularly true for school-age children. It unmasked previously unsuspected underlying conditions and quickly acquired a poorly documented reputation for having a “long” variety.

Of course the “uninfected” also lived through these same tumultuous times. But knowing that you harbored, and may still harbor, this mysterious invader moves the infected and their families into a whole new level of concern and anxiety the rest of us who were more fortunate don’t share.

We must not ignore the fact that patients and their caregivers may receive some comfort when they have something to blame for their symptoms. However, we must shift our focus away from blame hunting, which up to this point has been fruitless. Instead, we must invest our energies into helping those struggling with long COVID find a manageable pathway toward improvement. Each patient should be treated as an individual and not part of a group with similar symptoms cobbled together with data acquired under a cloud of bias.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

TOPLINE:

In systemic sclerosis, Raynaud phenomenon is more severe at both high and low temperature extremes, according to new research.

BACKGROUND:

• Raynaud phenomenon, a condition that causes decreased blood flow to extremities, occurs in about 95% of individuals with systemic sclerosis.
• Episodes of Raynaud phenomenon can be triggered by cold exposure and ambient temperature changes.
• In severe cases, it can cause permanent damage to tissues of the fingers and toes.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from 2243 participants with Raynaud phenomenon secondary to systemic sclerosis from the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN) Cohort.
• Participants completed past-week Raynaud phenomenon severity assessments using a 0-10 numerical rating scale at enrollment and every 3 months.
• The study included data from 20,233 Raynaud phenomenon severity assessments between April 15, 2014, and August 1, 2023.
• Researchers used average daily temperature from a weather site close to the participant’s recruiting center and mapped these ambient temperature changes to Raynaud’s phenomenon outcomes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Raynaud’s phenomenon severity was highest at –25 °C (–13 °F), with assessment scores at 6.8 points out of 10.0, and lowest at 25 °C (77 °F), with scores at 2.6.
• Severity scores increased again at temperatures above 35 °C (95 °F), reaching a high of 5.6 out of 10 at 40 °C (104 °F).
• This spike at higher temperatures is presumably due to air conditioning, the authors said.
• In an accompanying commentary, Cutolo et al. posited that increased sweating and hypotension could also lead to a relative hypovolemic state in patients, causing Raynaud-like symptoms.

IN PRACTICE:

“Temperature-related variations in Raynaud’s phenomenon severity scores should be considered in clinical trials to account for normal within-season temperature fluctuations, enhancing the accuracy of treatment outcomes,” wrote Cutolo and colleagues in their commentary.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Gabrielle Virgili-Gervais, MSc, McGill University Health Centre in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. It was published online on August 28 in The Lancet Rheumatology. The accompanying commentary, also published on August 28, was authored by Maurizio Cutolo, MD, and Elvis Hysa, MD, both of University of Genova, Italy, as well as Vanessa Smith, MD, PhD, of Ghent University in Ghent, Belgium.

LIMITATIONS:

The lower number of assessments at extreme temperatures (–25 °C and 40 °C) may affect the robustness of the findings at these ranges. The study did not account for vasodilator use, which could influence participants’ response to temperature. The study also did not account for other potential confounding factors such as sex, smoking status, psychosocial factors, and comorbid conditions like cardiovascular disease.

DISCLOSURES:

A variety of scleroderma-related patient advocacy groups helped to fund research on the SPIN cohort, in addition to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Arthritis Society, the Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research of the Jewish General Hospital, the Jewish General Hospital Foundation, and McGill University. Two authors reported having financial ties with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Cutolo, Dr. Smith, and Dr. Hysa had no disclosures.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In systemic sclerosis, Raynaud phenomenon is more severe at both high and low temperature extremes, according to new research.

BACKGROUND:

• Raynaud phenomenon, a condition that causes decreased blood flow to extremities, occurs in about 95% of individuals with systemic sclerosis.
• Episodes of Raynaud phenomenon can be triggered by cold exposure and ambient temperature changes.
• In severe cases, it can cause permanent damage to tissues of the fingers and toes.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from 2243 participants with Raynaud phenomenon secondary to systemic sclerosis from the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN) Cohort.
• Participants completed past-week Raynaud phenomenon severity assessments using a 0-10 numerical rating scale at enrollment and every 3 months.
• The study included data from 20,233 Raynaud phenomenon severity assessments between April 15, 2014, and August 1, 2023.
• Researchers used average daily temperature from a weather site close to the participant’s recruiting center and mapped these ambient temperature changes to Raynaud’s phenomenon outcomes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Raynaud’s phenomenon severity was highest at –25 °C (–13 °F), with assessment scores at 6.8 points out of 10.0, and lowest at 25 °C (77 °F), with scores at 2.6.
• Severity scores increased again at temperatures above 35 °C (95 °F), reaching a high of 5.6 out of 10 at 40 °C (104 °F).
• This spike at higher temperatures is presumably due to air conditioning, the authors said.
• In an accompanying commentary, Cutolo et al. posited that increased sweating and hypotension could also lead to a relative hypovolemic state in patients, causing Raynaud-like symptoms.

IN PRACTICE:

“Temperature-related variations in Raynaud’s phenomenon severity scores should be considered in clinical trials to account for normal within-season temperature fluctuations, enhancing the accuracy of treatment outcomes,” wrote Cutolo and colleagues in their commentary.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Gabrielle Virgili-Gervais, MSc, McGill University Health Centre in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. It was published online on August 28 in The Lancet Rheumatology. The accompanying commentary, also published on August 28, was authored by Maurizio Cutolo, MD, and Elvis Hysa, MD, both of University of Genova, Italy, as well as Vanessa Smith, MD, PhD, of Ghent University in Ghent, Belgium.

LIMITATIONS:

The lower number of assessments at extreme temperatures (–25 °C and 40 °C) may affect the robustness of the findings at these ranges. The study did not account for vasodilator use, which could influence participants’ response to temperature. The study also did not account for other potential confounding factors such as sex, smoking status, psychosocial factors, and comorbid conditions like cardiovascular disease.

DISCLOSURES:

A variety of scleroderma-related patient advocacy groups helped to fund research on the SPIN cohort, in addition to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Arthritis Society, the Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research of the Jewish General Hospital, the Jewish General Hospital Foundation, and McGill University. Two authors reported having financial ties with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Cutolo, Dr. Smith, and Dr. Hysa had no disclosures.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In systemic sclerosis, Raynaud phenomenon is more severe at both high and low temperature extremes, according to new research.

BACKGROUND:

• Raynaud phenomenon, a condition that causes decreased blood flow to extremities, occurs in about 95% of individuals with systemic sclerosis.
• Episodes of Raynaud phenomenon can be triggered by cold exposure and ambient temperature changes.
• In severe cases, it can cause permanent damage to tissues of the fingers and toes.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from 2243 participants with Raynaud phenomenon secondary to systemic sclerosis from the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN) Cohort.
• Participants completed past-week Raynaud phenomenon severity assessments using a 0-10 numerical rating scale at enrollment and every 3 months.
• The study included data from 20,233 Raynaud phenomenon severity assessments between April 15, 2014, and August 1, 2023.
• Researchers used average daily temperature from a weather site close to the participant’s recruiting center and mapped these ambient temperature changes to Raynaud’s phenomenon outcomes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Raynaud’s phenomenon severity was highest at –25 °C (–13 °F), with assessment scores at 6.8 points out of 10.0, and lowest at 25 °C (77 °F), with scores at 2.6.
• Severity scores increased again at temperatures above 35 °C (95 °F), reaching a high of 5.6 out of 10 at 40 °C (104 °F).
• This spike at higher temperatures is presumably due to air conditioning, the authors said.
• In an accompanying commentary, Cutolo et al. posited that increased sweating and hypotension could also lead to a relative hypovolemic state in patients, causing Raynaud-like symptoms.

IN PRACTICE:

“Temperature-related variations in Raynaud’s phenomenon severity scores should be considered in clinical trials to account for normal within-season temperature fluctuations, enhancing the accuracy of treatment outcomes,” wrote Cutolo and colleagues in their commentary.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Gabrielle Virgili-Gervais, MSc, McGill University Health Centre in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. It was published online on August 28 in The Lancet Rheumatology. The accompanying commentary, also published on August 28, was authored by Maurizio Cutolo, MD, and Elvis Hysa, MD, both of University of Genova, Italy, as well as Vanessa Smith, MD, PhD, of Ghent University in Ghent, Belgium.

LIMITATIONS:

The lower number of assessments at extreme temperatures (–25 °C and 40 °C) may affect the robustness of the findings at these ranges. The study did not account for vasodilator use, which could influence participants’ response to temperature. The study also did not account for other potential confounding factors such as sex, smoking status, psychosocial factors, and comorbid conditions like cardiovascular disease.

DISCLOSURES:

A variety of scleroderma-related patient advocacy groups helped to fund research on the SPIN cohort, in addition to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Arthritis Society, the Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research of the Jewish General Hospital, the Jewish General Hospital Foundation, and McGill University. Two authors reported having financial ties with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Cutolo, Dr. Smith, and Dr. Hysa had no disclosures.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a recent study, patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) had half the rate of amyloid beta pathology versus matched controls without MS, supporting authors’ suspicion that MS may protect against Alzheimer’s disease. Understanding how MS does this may drive new treatment strategies, said the authors of the study, which was published online in Annals of Neurology. Regarding current treatments, they added, the availability of new disease-modifying Alzheimer’s disease therapies increases the importance of early diagnosis in cognitively impaired people including those with MS.

Confirmatory Studies Needed

“Replication and confirmation of these findings, including in studies representative of the real-world Alzheimer’s population in race/ethnicity and sex/gender, are needed before any clinical implications can be drawn,” said Claire Sexton, DPhil, Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific programs and outreach. She was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

The study’s most important immediate implication, said Dr. Sexton, is that it “opens the door to questions about why MS may be associated with Alzheimer’s risk.”

Alzheimer's Association

Anecdotal Observation

Although life expectancy for people with MS is increasing, the authors, led by Matthew R. Brier, MD, PhD, an assistant professor at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, said they have seen no concomitant rise in Alzheimer’s disease dementia among their patients with MS. This anecdotal observation fueled their hypothesis that Alzheimer’s disease pathology occurs less frequently in this population.

To test their hypothesis, the investigators sequentially enrolled 100 patients with MS (age 60 years or older), along with 300 non-MS controls matched for age, sex, apolipoprotein E (apoE) proteotype, and cognitive status. All participants underwent the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and PrecivityAD2 (C2N Diagnostics) blood testing.

Washngton University

Possible Explanations

The authors hypothesized that the lower rate of amyloid pathology observed in their patients with MS may stem from the following possibly overlapping mechanisms:

• MS components, such as persistent perilesional immune activity, may inhibit amyloid beta deposition or facilitate its clearance.
• Exposure to MS drugs may impact Alzheimer’s disease pathology. Most study patients with MS were exposed to beta interferons or glatiramer acetate, the authors noted, and 39 had switched to high-efficacy medications such as B-cell depleting therapies and natalizumab.
• MS’s genetic signature may protect against AD.

“Investigating these ideas would advance our understanding of the relationship between MS and Alzheimer’s, and potentially inform avenues for treatment,” said Dr. Sexton. In this regard, the Alzheimer’s Association has funded an ongoing study examining a drug currently used to promote myelin formation in individuals with MS in genetically engineered Alzheimer’s-like mice. Additional Association-funded studies that examine inflammation also may improve understanding of the mechanisms that may link these diseases, said Dr. Sexton. 

The study authors added that unusual cases, such as a study patient who had high amyloid burden by PET but negative APS2 and tau PET, also may shed light on interactions between MS, amyloid pathology, and tau pathology.

Limitations of the present study include the fact that plasma Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers are potentially affected by other conditions as well, according to a study published in Nature Medicine. Additional shortcomings include the MS cohort’s relatively small size and lack of diagnostic confirmation by cerebrospinal fluid. Although MMSE scores among patients with MS were slightly lower, the authors added, this disparity would lead one to expect more, not less, amyloid pathology among these patients if their cognitive impairment resulted from Alzheimer’s disease.

Dr. Sexton reported no relevant financial interests.

The study was supported by the Hope Center for Neurological Disorders at Washington University in St. Louis and by C2N Diagnostics. Washington University in St. Louis holds equity in C2N Diagnostics and may receive royalties resulting from use of PrecivityAD2.

In a recent study, patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) had half the rate of amyloid beta pathology versus matched controls without MS, supporting authors’ suspicion that MS may protect against Alzheimer’s disease. Understanding how MS does this may drive new treatment strategies, said the authors of the study, which was published online in Annals of Neurology. Regarding current treatments, they added, the availability of new disease-modifying Alzheimer’s disease therapies increases the importance of early diagnosis in cognitively impaired people including those with MS.

Confirmatory Studies Needed

“Replication and confirmation of these findings, including in studies representative of the real-world Alzheimer’s population in race/ethnicity and sex/gender, are needed before any clinical implications can be drawn,” said Claire Sexton, DPhil, Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific programs and outreach. She was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

The study’s most important immediate implication, said Dr. Sexton, is that it “opens the door to questions about why MS may be associated with Alzheimer’s risk.”

Alzheimer's Association

Anecdotal Observation

Although life expectancy for people with MS is increasing, the authors, led by Matthew R. Brier, MD, PhD, an assistant professor at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, said they have seen no concomitant rise in Alzheimer’s disease dementia among their patients with MS. This anecdotal observation fueled their hypothesis that Alzheimer’s disease pathology occurs less frequently in this population.

To test their hypothesis, the investigators sequentially enrolled 100 patients with MS (age 60 years or older), along with 300 non-MS controls matched for age, sex, apolipoprotein E (apoE) proteotype, and cognitive status. All participants underwent the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and PrecivityAD2 (C2N Diagnostics) blood testing.

Washngton University

Possible Explanations

The authors hypothesized that the lower rate of amyloid pathology observed in their patients with MS may stem from the following possibly overlapping mechanisms:

• MS components, such as persistent perilesional immune activity, may inhibit amyloid beta deposition or facilitate its clearance.
• Exposure to MS drugs may impact Alzheimer’s disease pathology. Most study patients with MS were exposed to beta interferons or glatiramer acetate, the authors noted, and 39 had switched to high-efficacy medications such as B-cell depleting therapies and natalizumab.
• MS’s genetic signature may protect against AD.

“Investigating these ideas would advance our understanding of the relationship between MS and Alzheimer’s, and potentially inform avenues for treatment,” said Dr. Sexton. In this regard, the Alzheimer’s Association has funded an ongoing study examining a drug currently used to promote myelin formation in individuals with MS in genetically engineered Alzheimer’s-like mice. Additional Association-funded studies that examine inflammation also may improve understanding of the mechanisms that may link these diseases, said Dr. Sexton. 

The study authors added that unusual cases, such as a study patient who had high amyloid burden by PET but negative APS2 and tau PET, also may shed light on interactions between MS, amyloid pathology, and tau pathology.

Limitations of the present study include the fact that plasma Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers are potentially affected by other conditions as well, according to a study published in Nature Medicine. Additional shortcomings include the MS cohort’s relatively small size and lack of diagnostic confirmation by cerebrospinal fluid. Although MMSE scores among patients with MS were slightly lower, the authors added, this disparity would lead one to expect more, not less, amyloid pathology among these patients if their cognitive impairment resulted from Alzheimer’s disease.

Dr. Sexton reported no relevant financial interests.

The study was supported by the Hope Center for Neurological Disorders at Washington University in St. Louis and by C2N Diagnostics. Washington University in St. Louis holds equity in C2N Diagnostics and may receive royalties resulting from use of PrecivityAD2.

In a recent study, patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) had half the rate of amyloid beta pathology versus matched controls without MS, supporting authors’ suspicion that MS may protect against Alzheimer’s disease. Understanding how MS does this may drive new treatment strategies, said the authors of the study, which was published online in Annals of Neurology. Regarding current treatments, they added, the availability of new disease-modifying Alzheimer’s disease therapies increases the importance of early diagnosis in cognitively impaired people including those with MS.

Confirmatory Studies Needed

“Replication and confirmation of these findings, including in studies representative of the real-world Alzheimer’s population in race/ethnicity and sex/gender, are needed before any clinical implications can be drawn,” said Claire Sexton, DPhil, Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific programs and outreach. She was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

The study’s most important immediate implication, said Dr. Sexton, is that it “opens the door to questions about why MS may be associated with Alzheimer’s risk.”

Alzheimer's Association

Anecdotal Observation

Although life expectancy for people with MS is increasing, the authors, led by Matthew R. Brier, MD, PhD, an assistant professor at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, said they have seen no concomitant rise in Alzheimer’s disease dementia among their patients with MS. This anecdotal observation fueled their hypothesis that Alzheimer’s disease pathology occurs less frequently in this population.

To test their hypothesis, the investigators sequentially enrolled 100 patients with MS (age 60 years or older), along with 300 non-MS controls matched for age, sex, apolipoprotein E (apoE) proteotype, and cognitive status. All participants underwent the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and PrecivityAD2 (C2N Diagnostics) blood testing.

Washngton University

Possible Explanations

The authors hypothesized that the lower rate of amyloid pathology observed in their patients with MS may stem from the following possibly overlapping mechanisms:

• MS components, such as persistent perilesional immune activity, may inhibit amyloid beta deposition or facilitate its clearance.
• Exposure to MS drugs may impact Alzheimer’s disease pathology. Most study patients with MS were exposed to beta interferons or glatiramer acetate, the authors noted, and 39 had switched to high-efficacy medications such as B-cell depleting therapies and natalizumab.
• MS’s genetic signature may protect against AD.

“Investigating these ideas would advance our understanding of the relationship between MS and Alzheimer’s, and potentially inform avenues for treatment,” said Dr. Sexton. In this regard, the Alzheimer’s Association has funded an ongoing study examining a drug currently used to promote myelin formation in individuals with MS in genetically engineered Alzheimer’s-like mice. Additional Association-funded studies that examine inflammation also may improve understanding of the mechanisms that may link these diseases, said Dr. Sexton. 

The study authors added that unusual cases, such as a study patient who had high amyloid burden by PET but negative APS2 and tau PET, also may shed light on interactions between MS, amyloid pathology, and tau pathology.

Limitations of the present study include the fact that plasma Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers are potentially affected by other conditions as well, according to a study published in Nature Medicine. Additional shortcomings include the MS cohort’s relatively small size and lack of diagnostic confirmation by cerebrospinal fluid. Although MMSE scores among patients with MS were slightly lower, the authors added, this disparity would lead one to expect more, not less, amyloid pathology among these patients if their cognitive impairment resulted from Alzheimer’s disease.

Dr. Sexton reported no relevant financial interests.

The study was supported by the Hope Center for Neurological Disorders at Washington University in St. Louis and by C2N Diagnostics. Washington University in St. Louis holds equity in C2N Diagnostics and may receive royalties resulting from use of PrecivityAD2.

TOPLINE:

Middle-aged adults who consume more ultra-processed foods have an elevated risk for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) that is mediated in part through circulating biomarkers.

METHODOLOGY: 

• Investigators conducted a retrospective cohort study of 207,012 middle-aged adults without RA from the UK Biobank who completed 24-hour dietary recalls.
• Foods and beverages were classified as (1) unprocessed or minimally processed foods, (2) processed culinary ingredients, (3) processed foods, or (4) ultra-processed foods (eg, soft drinks, sweet or savory packaged snacks, reconstituted meat products, pre-prepared frozen dishes).
• The main outcome was the incident RA based on hospital diagnoses.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 0.9% of participants received an RA diagnosis during a median follow-up of about 12 years.
• Relative to peers in the lowest quintile of ultra-processed food consumption, participants in the highest quintile had a 17% greater adjusted risk for RA.
• The risk rose across quintile (P < .05) and increased by 6% with each standard deviation increase in ultra-processed food intake.
• Mediation analyses suggested that inflammatory, lipid, and liver enzyme biomarkers explained 3.1%-14.8% of the association between ultra-processed food intake and RA risk.
• Findings were similar regardless of participants’ age, sex, body mass index, smoking status, household income, and healthy diet score.

IN PRACTICE: 

“Lower [ultra-processed food] consumption is recommended to reduce RA incidence,” the authors wrote, noting that up to half of the food consumed in the United Kingdom now falls into the ultra-processed category. “Dietary guidelines should prominently feature the detrimental effects of [ultra-processed foods], and recommendations to curtail their consumption should be integrated into public health initiatives, to mitigate the risk of RA,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Haodong Zhao, Soochow University, Suzhou, China, and was published online in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included possible recall and social desirability biases, potential residual confounding, and uncertain causality of the observed associations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and other institutions. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Middle-aged adults who consume more ultra-processed foods have an elevated risk for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) that is mediated in part through circulating biomarkers.

METHODOLOGY: 

• Investigators conducted a retrospective cohort study of 207,012 middle-aged adults without RA from the UK Biobank who completed 24-hour dietary recalls.
• Foods and beverages were classified as (1) unprocessed or minimally processed foods, (2) processed culinary ingredients, (3) processed foods, or (4) ultra-processed foods (eg, soft drinks, sweet or savory packaged snacks, reconstituted meat products, pre-prepared frozen dishes).
• The main outcome was the incident RA based on hospital diagnoses.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 0.9% of participants received an RA diagnosis during a median follow-up of about 12 years.
• Relative to peers in the lowest quintile of ultra-processed food consumption, participants in the highest quintile had a 17% greater adjusted risk for RA.
• The risk rose across quintile (P < .05) and increased by 6% with each standard deviation increase in ultra-processed food intake.
• Mediation analyses suggested that inflammatory, lipid, and liver enzyme biomarkers explained 3.1%-14.8% of the association between ultra-processed food intake and RA risk.
• Findings were similar regardless of participants’ age, sex, body mass index, smoking status, household income, and healthy diet score.

IN PRACTICE: 

“Lower [ultra-processed food] consumption is recommended to reduce RA incidence,” the authors wrote, noting that up to half of the food consumed in the United Kingdom now falls into the ultra-processed category. “Dietary guidelines should prominently feature the detrimental effects of [ultra-processed foods], and recommendations to curtail their consumption should be integrated into public health initiatives, to mitigate the risk of RA,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Haodong Zhao, Soochow University, Suzhou, China, and was published online in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included possible recall and social desirability biases, potential residual confounding, and uncertain causality of the observed associations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and other institutions. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Middle-aged adults who consume more ultra-processed foods have an elevated risk for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) that is mediated in part through circulating biomarkers.

METHODOLOGY: 

• Investigators conducted a retrospective cohort study of 207,012 middle-aged adults without RA from the UK Biobank who completed 24-hour dietary recalls.
• Foods and beverages were classified as (1) unprocessed or minimally processed foods, (2) processed culinary ingredients, (3) processed foods, or (4) ultra-processed foods (eg, soft drinks, sweet or savory packaged snacks, reconstituted meat products, pre-prepared frozen dishes).
• The main outcome was the incident RA based on hospital diagnoses.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 0.9% of participants received an RA diagnosis during a median follow-up of about 12 years.
• Relative to peers in the lowest quintile of ultra-processed food consumption, participants in the highest quintile had a 17% greater adjusted risk for RA.
• The risk rose across quintile (P < .05) and increased by 6% with each standard deviation increase in ultra-processed food intake.
• Mediation analyses suggested that inflammatory, lipid, and liver enzyme biomarkers explained 3.1%-14.8% of the association between ultra-processed food intake and RA risk.
• Findings were similar regardless of participants’ age, sex, body mass index, smoking status, household income, and healthy diet score.

IN PRACTICE: 

“Lower [ultra-processed food] consumption is recommended to reduce RA incidence,” the authors wrote, noting that up to half of the food consumed in the United Kingdom now falls into the ultra-processed category. “Dietary guidelines should prominently feature the detrimental effects of [ultra-processed foods], and recommendations to curtail their consumption should be integrated into public health initiatives, to mitigate the risk of RA,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Haodong Zhao, Soochow University, Suzhou, China, and was published online in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included possible recall and social desirability biases, potential residual confounding, and uncertain causality of the observed associations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and other institutions. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Our son works for a Maine-based company that produces and sells clothing and outdoor recreation equipment. One of its tag lines is “Be an Outsider.” In his role as chief marketing officer, he was recently given an app for his phone that can calculate how many minutes he spends outside each day. He assured me: “Dad, you don’t need one of these on your phone. Your weather-beaten skin says you are already logging in way more than enough minutes outdoors.”

But, it got me thinking about several avenues of research where an app like that would be useful. As luck would have it, the following week I stumbled across a paper describing just such a study.

Researchers in Shanghai, China, placed smartwatches with technology similar to my son’s phone on nearly 3000 children and found “that outdoor exposure patterns characterized by a continuous period of at least 15 minutes, accompanied by a sunlight intensity of more than 2000 lux, were associated with less myopic shift.” In other words, children getting more time outside were less likely to become nearsighted.” Whether this was an effect of being outside instead of staring at a screen indoors is an interesting question.

I have alway suspected that being outdoors was important for wellness and this paper meshed nicely with an article I had recently read in The Washington Post titled, “How time in nature builds happier, healthier and more social children” (Jamie Friedlander Serrano, 2024 Aug 4). The reporter quotes numerous experts in child health and includes links to several articles that tout the benefits of outdoor experiences, particularly ones in a natural environment. There are the vitamin D effects on growth and bone health. There are studies suggesting that being out in nature can reduce stress, anxiety, and aggression, and improve working memory and attention.

In this country there is a small but growing group of schools modeling themselves after the “Forest kindergartens” that have become popular in Europe in which a large portion of the students’ days are spent outside surrounded by nature. It will be interesting to see how robustly this trend grows here in the United States. However, in a nation like ours in which the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the average American spends 90% of his day indoors, it’s going to require a seismic shift in our societal norms.

I think my mother always knew that being outdoors was healthy for children. I also suspect that she and most my friends’ mothers were primarily motivated by a desire to have the house to themselves. This was primarily to allow them to get the housework done unimpeded by pestering children. But, there may have been times when a busy housewife simply needed to sit down with a book in the peace and quiet of a childless environment. We kids were told to get out of the house and return for lunch and dinner, hopefully not in the tow of a police officer. There were few rules and for the most part we were left to invent our own amusement.

Yes, you’ve heard this old-fogey legend before. But it was true. Those were the halcyon days of the 1950s in a small suburban town of 5000 of a little more than 1 square mile with its own swimming pool. My particular idyll was aptly named Pleasantville but I know we were not alone as the only community where children were allowed – or let’s say “encouraged” – to be outdoors if they weren’t in school. It was a different time.

I am not so naive to believe that we will ever return to those good old days when children roamed free, but it is worth considering what has changed to drive children inside and away from all the health benefits of being outdoors. Is there anything we can do to reverse this unfortunate trend?

First, we must first face up to the reality that our society has become so focused on the potential downsides of everything that we seem to be driven primarily by risk avoidance. We hear how things can go terribly wrong in the world outside, a world we can’t control. Although the data from the pandemic don’t support it, more of us believe children are safer indoors. Parents in particular seem to worry more now than they did 75 years ago. I don’t think we can point to a single event such as the tragedies of September 11 to explain the shift.

While bad news has always traveled fast, today (with communication being almost instantaneous) a story about a child abduction at 6 in the morning in Nevada can be on my local TV channel by lunchtime here in Maine. Parents worry that if bad stuff can happen to a child in Mount Elsewhere, it could happen to my child playing in the backyard across the street.

I think we pediatricians should consider how large a role we may be playing in driving parental anxiety with our frequent warnings about the dangers a child can encounter outdoors whether they come in the form of accidents or exposure to the elements.

While parents have grown more hesitant to send their children outside to play, as a society we have failed to adequately acknowledge and respond to the role that unhealthy attraction of indoor alternatives to outdoor play may be contributing to indoorism. Here we’re talking about television, smartphones, and the internet.

So, what can we do as pediatricians to get our patients outside? First, we can set an example and cover our office walls with pictures of ourselves and our families enjoying the outdoors. We can be vocal advocates for creating and maintaining accessible outdoor spaces in our community. We can advocate for more outside time during recess in school and encourage the school officials to consider having more courses taught outside.

We can be more diligent in asking families about their screen use and not be afraid to express our concern when we hear how little outdoor time their child is getting. Finally, we can strive for more balance in our messaging. For example for every warning we give about playing outside on poor air quality days there should be a reminder of the health benefits of being outdoors on the other days. Every message about the importance of sunscreen should be preceded by a few sentences promoting outdoor activities in wooded environments where sun exposure is less of a concern.

We should all be looking for ways in which our communities can remove the barriers that prevent our patients for reaping the health benefits of being outdoors. Being an outsider is just as important as getting enough sleep, eating the right food and staying physically active.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Our son works for a Maine-based company that produces and sells clothing and outdoor recreation equipment. One of its tag lines is “Be an Outsider.” In his role as chief marketing officer, he was recently given an app for his phone that can calculate how many minutes he spends outside each day. He assured me: “Dad, you don’t need one of these on your phone. Your weather-beaten skin says you are already logging in way more than enough minutes outdoors.”

But, it got me thinking about several avenues of research where an app like that would be useful. As luck would have it, the following week I stumbled across a paper describing just such a study.

Researchers in Shanghai, China, placed smartwatches with technology similar to my son’s phone on nearly 3000 children and found “that outdoor exposure patterns characterized by a continuous period of at least 15 minutes, accompanied by a sunlight intensity of more than 2000 lux, were associated with less myopic shift.” In other words, children getting more time outside were less likely to become nearsighted.” Whether this was an effect of being outside instead of staring at a screen indoors is an interesting question.

I have alway suspected that being outdoors was important for wellness and this paper meshed nicely with an article I had recently read in The Washington Post titled, “How time in nature builds happier, healthier and more social children” (Jamie Friedlander Serrano, 2024 Aug 4). The reporter quotes numerous experts in child health and includes links to several articles that tout the benefits of outdoor experiences, particularly ones in a natural environment. There are the vitamin D effects on growth and bone health. There are studies suggesting that being out in nature can reduce stress, anxiety, and aggression, and improve working memory and attention.

In this country there is a small but growing group of schools modeling themselves after the “Forest kindergartens” that have become popular in Europe in which a large portion of the students’ days are spent outside surrounded by nature. It will be interesting to see how robustly this trend grows here in the United States. However, in a nation like ours in which the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the average American spends 90% of his day indoors, it’s going to require a seismic shift in our societal norms.

I think my mother always knew that being outdoors was healthy for children. I also suspect that she and most my friends’ mothers were primarily motivated by a desire to have the house to themselves. This was primarily to allow them to get the housework done unimpeded by pestering children. But, there may have been times when a busy housewife simply needed to sit down with a book in the peace and quiet of a childless environment. We kids were told to get out of the house and return for lunch and dinner, hopefully not in the tow of a police officer. There were few rules and for the most part we were left to invent our own amusement.

Yes, you’ve heard this old-fogey legend before. But it was true. Those were the halcyon days of the 1950s in a small suburban town of 5000 of a little more than 1 square mile with its own swimming pool. My particular idyll was aptly named Pleasantville but I know we were not alone as the only community where children were allowed – or let’s say “encouraged” – to be outdoors if they weren’t in school. It was a different time.

I am not so naive to believe that we will ever return to those good old days when children roamed free, but it is worth considering what has changed to drive children inside and away from all the health benefits of being outdoors. Is there anything we can do to reverse this unfortunate trend?

First, we must first face up to the reality that our society has become so focused on the potential downsides of everything that we seem to be driven primarily by risk avoidance. We hear how things can go terribly wrong in the world outside, a world we can’t control. Although the data from the pandemic don’t support it, more of us believe children are safer indoors. Parents in particular seem to worry more now than they did 75 years ago. I don’t think we can point to a single event such as the tragedies of September 11 to explain the shift.

While bad news has always traveled fast, today (with communication being almost instantaneous) a story about a child abduction at 6 in the morning in Nevada can be on my local TV channel by lunchtime here in Maine. Parents worry that if bad stuff can happen to a child in Mount Elsewhere, it could happen to my child playing in the backyard across the street.

I think we pediatricians should consider how large a role we may be playing in driving parental anxiety with our frequent warnings about the dangers a child can encounter outdoors whether they come in the form of accidents or exposure to the elements.

While parents have grown more hesitant to send their children outside to play, as a society we have failed to adequately acknowledge and respond to the role that unhealthy attraction of indoor alternatives to outdoor play may be contributing to indoorism. Here we’re talking about television, smartphones, and the internet.

So, what can we do as pediatricians to get our patients outside? First, we can set an example and cover our office walls with pictures of ourselves and our families enjoying the outdoors. We can be vocal advocates for creating and maintaining accessible outdoor spaces in our community. We can advocate for more outside time during recess in school and encourage the school officials to consider having more courses taught outside.

We can be more diligent in asking families about their screen use and not be afraid to express our concern when we hear how little outdoor time their child is getting. Finally, we can strive for more balance in our messaging. For example for every warning we give about playing outside on poor air quality days there should be a reminder of the health benefits of being outdoors on the other days. Every message about the importance of sunscreen should be preceded by a few sentences promoting outdoor activities in wooded environments where sun exposure is less of a concern.

We should all be looking for ways in which our communities can remove the barriers that prevent our patients for reaping the health benefits of being outdoors. Being an outsider is just as important as getting enough sleep, eating the right food and staying physically active.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Our son works for a Maine-based company that produces and sells clothing and outdoor recreation equipment. One of its tag lines is “Be an Outsider.” In his role as chief marketing officer, he was recently given an app for his phone that can calculate how many minutes he spends outside each day. He assured me: “Dad, you don’t need one of these on your phone. Your weather-beaten skin says you are already logging in way more than enough minutes outdoors.”

But, it got me thinking about several avenues of research where an app like that would be useful. As luck would have it, the following week I stumbled across a paper describing just such a study.

Researchers in Shanghai, China, placed smartwatches with technology similar to my son’s phone on nearly 3000 children and found “that outdoor exposure patterns characterized by a continuous period of at least 15 minutes, accompanied by a sunlight intensity of more than 2000 lux, were associated with less myopic shift.” In other words, children getting more time outside were less likely to become nearsighted.” Whether this was an effect of being outside instead of staring at a screen indoors is an interesting question.

I have alway suspected that being outdoors was important for wellness and this paper meshed nicely with an article I had recently read in The Washington Post titled, “How time in nature builds happier, healthier and more social children” (Jamie Friedlander Serrano, 2024 Aug 4). The reporter quotes numerous experts in child health and includes links to several articles that tout the benefits of outdoor experiences, particularly ones in a natural environment. There are the vitamin D effects on growth and bone health. There are studies suggesting that being out in nature can reduce stress, anxiety, and aggression, and improve working memory and attention.

In this country there is a small but growing group of schools modeling themselves after the “Forest kindergartens” that have become popular in Europe in which a large portion of the students’ days are spent outside surrounded by nature. It will be interesting to see how robustly this trend grows here in the United States. However, in a nation like ours in which the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the average American spends 90% of his day indoors, it’s going to require a seismic shift in our societal norms.

I think my mother always knew that being outdoors was healthy for children. I also suspect that she and most my friends’ mothers were primarily motivated by a desire to have the house to themselves. This was primarily to allow them to get the housework done unimpeded by pestering children. But, there may have been times when a busy housewife simply needed to sit down with a book in the peace and quiet of a childless environment. We kids were told to get out of the house and return for lunch and dinner, hopefully not in the tow of a police officer. There were few rules and for the most part we were left to invent our own amusement.

Yes, you’ve heard this old-fogey legend before. But it was true. Those were the halcyon days of the 1950s in a small suburban town of 5000 of a little more than 1 square mile with its own swimming pool. My particular idyll was aptly named Pleasantville but I know we were not alone as the only community where children were allowed – or let’s say “encouraged” – to be outdoors if they weren’t in school. It was a different time.

I am not so naive to believe that we will ever return to those good old days when children roamed free, but it is worth considering what has changed to drive children inside and away from all the health benefits of being outdoors. Is there anything we can do to reverse this unfortunate trend?

First, we must first face up to the reality that our society has become so focused on the potential downsides of everything that we seem to be driven primarily by risk avoidance. We hear how things can go terribly wrong in the world outside, a world we can’t control. Although the data from the pandemic don’t support it, more of us believe children are safer indoors. Parents in particular seem to worry more now than they did 75 years ago. I don’t think we can point to a single event such as the tragedies of September 11 to explain the shift.

While bad news has always traveled fast, today (with communication being almost instantaneous) a story about a child abduction at 6 in the morning in Nevada can be on my local TV channel by lunchtime here in Maine. Parents worry that if bad stuff can happen to a child in Mount Elsewhere, it could happen to my child playing in the backyard across the street.

I think we pediatricians should consider how large a role we may be playing in driving parental anxiety with our frequent warnings about the dangers a child can encounter outdoors whether they come in the form of accidents or exposure to the elements.

While parents have grown more hesitant to send their children outside to play, as a society we have failed to adequately acknowledge and respond to the role that unhealthy attraction of indoor alternatives to outdoor play may be contributing to indoorism. Here we’re talking about television, smartphones, and the internet.

So, what can we do as pediatricians to get our patients outside? First, we can set an example and cover our office walls with pictures of ourselves and our families enjoying the outdoors. We can be vocal advocates for creating and maintaining accessible outdoor spaces in our community. We can advocate for more outside time during recess in school and encourage the school officials to consider having more courses taught outside.

We can be more diligent in asking families about their screen use and not be afraid to express our concern when we hear how little outdoor time their child is getting. Finally, we can strive for more balance in our messaging. For example for every warning we give about playing outside on poor air quality days there should be a reminder of the health benefits of being outdoors on the other days. Every message about the importance of sunscreen should be preceded by a few sentences promoting outdoor activities in wooded environments where sun exposure is less of a concern.

We should all be looking for ways in which our communities can remove the barriers that prevent our patients for reaping the health benefits of being outdoors. Being an outsider is just as important as getting enough sleep, eating the right food and staying physically active.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

TOPLINE:

Older adults with acute uncomplicated appendicitis who were operated on within 1 day of admission were less likely to die in the hospital compared with those who were treated with nonsurgical management or who had a delayed surgery.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study of 24,320 older adults (median age, 72 years; 50.9% women; 75.6% White) with uncomplicated appendicitis over a 2-year period starting in 2016; of these, 7290 patients were frail.
• Patients received nonsurgical treatment, immediate appendectomy within 1 day of admission, or delayed surgery after more than 1 day of admission.
• The clinical outcomes included infectious complications using a composite, cardiopulmonary complications, in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, and total hospital costs.
• Frailty of patients was assessed using a claims-based index producing a score ranging from 0 to 1 on the basis of 93 variables.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with frailty had higher rates of infections (1.3% vs 0.4%), cardiopulmonary complications (24.1% vs 6.3%), overall complications (57.1% vs 28.8%), in-hospital deaths (3.9% vs 0.3%), longer hospital stays (6 vs 4 days), and higher hospital costs ($67,000 vs $42,000) than those without frailty (P < .001).
• Patients with frailty who had immediate surgery had lower risk for death than those who received nonsurgical treatment (odds ratio [OR], 2.89; P = .004) and delayed surgery (OR, 3.80; P = .001).
• In patients without frailty, immediate surgery was linked to a higher risk for hospital complications than nonsurgical treatment (OR, 0.77; P = .009), but it was linked to a lower risk than delayed appendectomy (OR, 2.05; P < .001).
• Black patients were less likely to receive immediate appendectomy compared with White patients (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that treatment of older adults with acute uncomplicated appendicitis may benefit from risk stratification based on patient frailty status,” the authors wrote. “Routine frailty assessments should be incorporated in the care of older adult patients to guide discussions for shared decision-making,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Matthew Ashbrook, MD, MPH, of the Department of Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Modification of the frailty index and reliance on discharge diagnosis could have resulted in misclassification bias. The timing of presentation of symptoms was not assessed. Also, lack of long-term data prevented tracking of readmissions and related complications.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Older adults with acute uncomplicated appendicitis who were operated on within 1 day of admission were less likely to die in the hospital compared with those who were treated with nonsurgical management or who had a delayed surgery.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study of 24,320 older adults (median age, 72 years; 50.9% women; 75.6% White) with uncomplicated appendicitis over a 2-year period starting in 2016; of these, 7290 patients were frail.
• Patients received nonsurgical treatment, immediate appendectomy within 1 day of admission, or delayed surgery after more than 1 day of admission.
• The clinical outcomes included infectious complications using a composite, cardiopulmonary complications, in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, and total hospital costs.
• Frailty of patients was assessed using a claims-based index producing a score ranging from 0 to 1 on the basis of 93 variables.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with frailty had higher rates of infections (1.3% vs 0.4%), cardiopulmonary complications (24.1% vs 6.3%), overall complications (57.1% vs 28.8%), in-hospital deaths (3.9% vs 0.3%), longer hospital stays (6 vs 4 days), and higher hospital costs ($67,000 vs $42,000) than those without frailty (P < .001).
• Patients with frailty who had immediate surgery had lower risk for death than those who received nonsurgical treatment (odds ratio [OR], 2.89; P = .004) and delayed surgery (OR, 3.80; P = .001).
• In patients without frailty, immediate surgery was linked to a higher risk for hospital complications than nonsurgical treatment (OR, 0.77; P = .009), but it was linked to a lower risk than delayed appendectomy (OR, 2.05; P < .001).
• Black patients were less likely to receive immediate appendectomy compared with White patients (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that treatment of older adults with acute uncomplicated appendicitis may benefit from risk stratification based on patient frailty status,” the authors wrote. “Routine frailty assessments should be incorporated in the care of older adult patients to guide discussions for shared decision-making,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Matthew Ashbrook, MD, MPH, of the Department of Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Modification of the frailty index and reliance on discharge diagnosis could have resulted in misclassification bias. The timing of presentation of symptoms was not assessed. Also, lack of long-term data prevented tracking of readmissions and related complications.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Older adults with acute uncomplicated appendicitis who were operated on within 1 day of admission were less likely to die in the hospital compared with those who were treated with nonsurgical management or who had a delayed surgery.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study of 24,320 older adults (median age, 72 years; 50.9% women; 75.6% White) with uncomplicated appendicitis over a 2-year period starting in 2016; of these, 7290 patients were frail.
• Patients received nonsurgical treatment, immediate appendectomy within 1 day of admission, or delayed surgery after more than 1 day of admission.
• The clinical outcomes included infectious complications using a composite, cardiopulmonary complications, in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, and total hospital costs.
• Frailty of patients was assessed using a claims-based index producing a score ranging from 0 to 1 on the basis of 93 variables.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with frailty had higher rates of infections (1.3% vs 0.4%), cardiopulmonary complications (24.1% vs 6.3%), overall complications (57.1% vs 28.8%), in-hospital deaths (3.9% vs 0.3%), longer hospital stays (6 vs 4 days), and higher hospital costs ($67,000 vs $42,000) than those without frailty (P < .001).
• Patients with frailty who had immediate surgery had lower risk for death than those who received nonsurgical treatment (odds ratio [OR], 2.89; P = .004) and delayed surgery (OR, 3.80; P = .001).
• In patients without frailty, immediate surgery was linked to a higher risk for hospital complications than nonsurgical treatment (OR, 0.77; P = .009), but it was linked to a lower risk than delayed appendectomy (OR, 2.05; P < .001).
• Black patients were less likely to receive immediate appendectomy compared with White patients (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that treatment of older adults with acute uncomplicated appendicitis may benefit from risk stratification based on patient frailty status,” the authors wrote. “Routine frailty assessments should be incorporated in the care of older adult patients to guide discussions for shared decision-making,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Matthew Ashbrook, MD, MPH, of the Department of Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Modification of the frailty index and reliance on discharge diagnosis could have resulted in misclassification bias. The timing of presentation of symptoms was not assessed. Also, lack of long-term data prevented tracking of readmissions and related complications.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA — Posting on social media may not be your cup of tea, but in the opinion of Jessica G. Labadie, MD, avoiding a presence on platforms like Facebook, X, Instagram, or YouTube means missing an opportunity to educate patients about dermatologic procedures and to dispel misinformation from nonmedical influencers.

“Over the past 2 decades, there has been a surge in social media use,” Dr. Labadie, a dermatologist who practices in Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, said at the Controversies & Conversations in Laser & Cosmetic Surgery symposium. “Most of our patients use social media to find their doctors, and it plays a role in how our patients form their decision about whether to have a cosmetic procedure or not. Doctors, especially dermatologists, continue to actively participate in this ‘skinfluencer’ trend.”

courtesy Dr. Jessica G. Labadie

According to a review of social media’s impact on aesthetic medicine, use of social media by American adults increased from 5% in 2005 to 72% in 2020, and 77% of patients search for a physician online. The review’s authors cited YouTube as the most popular platform among adults and noted that social media ranks as the sixth top factor for a patient deciding whether to have a laser procedure.

Dr. Labadie, who is also an assistant professor of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, said several factors should be considered when establishing and maintaining a social media presence, starting with personal ones. “Your followers are not your patients yet, and just because you may have thousands of followers does not necessarily mean that you’re busier in the clinic,” she said. “Be careful if you combine professional and personal accounts; be careful of those parasocial relationships that can form. Your followers tend to learn a lot about you. Posting can take a lot of time; it can take away from your clinical duties. Do you want to make your account private or public? There are pros and cons to both.”

Ethics also play a role. “Be transparent in your disclosure forms, especially if you’re posting ‘before’ and ‘after’ images of patients,” advised Dr. Labadie, who described herself as a social media minimalist. “Stay true to yourself in your posts, and always prioritize safety over posting.”

Don’t forget legal obligations. “Social media can facilitate a passive income, but make sure this isn’t impacting any conflicts of interest, and make sure that you meticulously follow any Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act regulations,” she said. She also cautioned against violating intellectual property rights and making false claims about a product or procedure.

Deciding which platforms to use and what voice or tone to adopt requires some soul-searching. “What is your brand?” Dr. Labadie asked. “How do you want to portray yourself? Does your social media brand match your office brand? Does it match who you are as a provider and the type of patient you wish to attract? Would you prefer to have one collective social media presence as an office or multiple provider accounts?”

Being mindful of how your patients perceive and use social media in relation to their dermatologic concerns is also important. “What are your patients viewing on social media, and how is it affecting their decisions?” Dr. Labadie asked. “Are they coming in asking for something that is not right for what they need? At the end of the day, you are their doctor, and it’s your duty to treat the patients and not the trend.”

She encouraged dermatologists to “aim for high value and accurate posts coupled with high popularity and reach.” She added that “this is really the future of getting our research out there to the public. Academic notoriety is not enough. Our professional societies and skinfluencer colleagues need to get involved to help promote our expert research.”

Dr. Labadie reported having no financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA — Posting on social media may not be your cup of tea, but in the opinion of Jessica G. Labadie, MD, avoiding a presence on platforms like Facebook, X, Instagram, or YouTube means missing an opportunity to educate patients about dermatologic procedures and to dispel misinformation from nonmedical influencers.

“Over the past 2 decades, there has been a surge in social media use,” Dr. Labadie, a dermatologist who practices in Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, said at the Controversies & Conversations in Laser & Cosmetic Surgery symposium. “Most of our patients use social media to find their doctors, and it plays a role in how our patients form their decision about whether to have a cosmetic procedure or not. Doctors, especially dermatologists, continue to actively participate in this ‘skinfluencer’ trend.”

courtesy Dr. Jessica G. Labadie

According to a review of social media’s impact on aesthetic medicine, use of social media by American adults increased from 5% in 2005 to 72% in 2020, and 77% of patients search for a physician online. The review’s authors cited YouTube as the most popular platform among adults and noted that social media ranks as the sixth top factor for a patient deciding whether to have a laser procedure.

Dr. Labadie, who is also an assistant professor of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, said several factors should be considered when establishing and maintaining a social media presence, starting with personal ones. “Your followers are not your patients yet, and just because you may have thousands of followers does not necessarily mean that you’re busier in the clinic,” she said. “Be careful if you combine professional and personal accounts; be careful of those parasocial relationships that can form. Your followers tend to learn a lot about you. Posting can take a lot of time; it can take away from your clinical duties. Do you want to make your account private or public? There are pros and cons to both.”

Ethics also play a role. “Be transparent in your disclosure forms, especially if you’re posting ‘before’ and ‘after’ images of patients,” advised Dr. Labadie, who described herself as a social media minimalist. “Stay true to yourself in your posts, and always prioritize safety over posting.”

Don’t forget legal obligations. “Social media can facilitate a passive income, but make sure this isn’t impacting any conflicts of interest, and make sure that you meticulously follow any Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act regulations,” she said. She also cautioned against violating intellectual property rights and making false claims about a product or procedure.

Deciding which platforms to use and what voice or tone to adopt requires some soul-searching. “What is your brand?” Dr. Labadie asked. “How do you want to portray yourself? Does your social media brand match your office brand? Does it match who you are as a provider and the type of patient you wish to attract? Would you prefer to have one collective social media presence as an office or multiple provider accounts?”

Being mindful of how your patients perceive and use social media in relation to their dermatologic concerns is also important. “What are your patients viewing on social media, and how is it affecting their decisions?” Dr. Labadie asked. “Are they coming in asking for something that is not right for what they need? At the end of the day, you are their doctor, and it’s your duty to treat the patients and not the trend.”

She encouraged dermatologists to “aim for high value and accurate posts coupled with high popularity and reach.” She added that “this is really the future of getting our research out there to the public. Academic notoriety is not enough. Our professional societies and skinfluencer colleagues need to get involved to help promote our expert research.”

Dr. Labadie reported having no financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA — Posting on social media may not be your cup of tea, but in the opinion of Jessica G. Labadie, MD, avoiding a presence on platforms like Facebook, X, Instagram, or YouTube means missing an opportunity to educate patients about dermatologic procedures and to dispel misinformation from nonmedical influencers.

“Over the past 2 decades, there has been a surge in social media use,” Dr. Labadie, a dermatologist who practices in Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, said at the Controversies & Conversations in Laser & Cosmetic Surgery symposium. “Most of our patients use social media to find their doctors, and it plays a role in how our patients form their decision about whether to have a cosmetic procedure or not. Doctors, especially dermatologists, continue to actively participate in this ‘skinfluencer’ trend.”

courtesy Dr. Jessica G. Labadie

According to a review of social media’s impact on aesthetic medicine, use of social media by American adults increased from 5% in 2005 to 72% in 2020, and 77% of patients search for a physician online. The review’s authors cited YouTube as the most popular platform among adults and noted that social media ranks as the sixth top factor for a patient deciding whether to have a laser procedure.

Dr. Labadie, who is also an assistant professor of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, said several factors should be considered when establishing and maintaining a social media presence, starting with personal ones. “Your followers are not your patients yet, and just because you may have thousands of followers does not necessarily mean that you’re busier in the clinic,” she said. “Be careful if you combine professional and personal accounts; be careful of those parasocial relationships that can form. Your followers tend to learn a lot about you. Posting can take a lot of time; it can take away from your clinical duties. Do you want to make your account private or public? There are pros and cons to both.”

Ethics also play a role. “Be transparent in your disclosure forms, especially if you’re posting ‘before’ and ‘after’ images of patients,” advised Dr. Labadie, who described herself as a social media minimalist. “Stay true to yourself in your posts, and always prioritize safety over posting.”

Don’t forget legal obligations. “Social media can facilitate a passive income, but make sure this isn’t impacting any conflicts of interest, and make sure that you meticulously follow any Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act regulations,” she said. She also cautioned against violating intellectual property rights and making false claims about a product or procedure.

Deciding which platforms to use and what voice or tone to adopt requires some soul-searching. “What is your brand?” Dr. Labadie asked. “How do you want to portray yourself? Does your social media brand match your office brand? Does it match who you are as a provider and the type of patient you wish to attract? Would you prefer to have one collective social media presence as an office or multiple provider accounts?”

Being mindful of how your patients perceive and use social media in relation to their dermatologic concerns is also important. “What are your patients viewing on social media, and how is it affecting their decisions?” Dr. Labadie asked. “Are they coming in asking for something that is not right for what they need? At the end of the day, you are their doctor, and it’s your duty to treat the patients and not the trend.”

She encouraged dermatologists to “aim for high value and accurate posts coupled with high popularity and reach.” She added that “this is really the future of getting our research out there to the public. Academic notoriety is not enough. Our professional societies and skinfluencer colleagues need to get involved to help promote our expert research.”

Dr. Labadie reported having no financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A surprising new report by the Mercer consulting firm projects that the American healthcare workforce will face a small shortfall in 2028 — a shortage of less than 1% of all employees. The report even projects a surplus of tens of thousands of registered nurses and home health aides — and even a small surplus of physicians in some states.

Mercer’s projections are rosier than federal workforce projections, which paint a grimmer picture of impending shortages.

“The labor market is a little more stabilized right now, and most healthcare systems are seeing less turnover,” Dan Lezotte, PhD, a partner with Mercer, said in an interview. But he noted “critical shortages” are still expected in some areas.

Mercer last projected workforce numbers in a 2020-2021 report released during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, “the labor market is drastically different,” Dr. Lezotte said. Health workforce shortages and surpluses have long varied significantly by region across the country.

The report forecasts a small surplus of physicians in 2028 but not in states such as California, New York, and Texas. The upper Midwest states will largely see doctor surpluses while Southern states face shortages. Some states with general physician surpluses may still experience shortages of specialists.

A surplus of nearly 30,000 registered nurses is expected, but New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut are projected to have a combined shortage of 16,000 nurses.

Overall, the report projects a shortage of more than 100,000 healthcare workers nationally by 2028. That’s less than 1% of the entire healthcare workforce of 18.6 million expected by then.

The report also predicts a shortage of nurse practitioners, especially in California and New York, and a shortage of 73,000 nursing assistants, especially in California, New York, and Texas.

“Healthcare systems are having the most difficulty hiring and hanging on to those workers who are supposed to take up the load off physicians and nurses,” Dr. Lezotte said. “They’re competing not only with other healthcare systems but with other industries like Amazon warehouses or McDonald’s in California paying $20 an hour. Healthcare was a little slow to keep up with that. In a lot of healthcare systems, that’s their biggest headache right now.”

On the other hand, the report projects a national surplus of 48,000 home health/personal care aides.

That surprised Bianca K. Frogner, PhD, director of the Center for Health Workforce Studies at the University of Washington, Seattle.

“We are seeing increasing movement of investments toward moving patients out of skilled nursing facilities and keeping them in the home and community, which requires many more home health aides,” Dr. Frogner said. “Given such high turnover in this occupation, it’s hard to know if the surplus is really a surplus or if they will quickly be employed.”

Dr. Frogner receives grants and contracts from not-for-profit entities to investigate issues related to the health workforce.

Dr. Lezotte said the report’s findings are based on data from sources such as public and private databases and job postings. According to the report, “projections were made up to 2028 based on historical data up to 2023,” and “supply projections were derived using a linear autoregressive model based on historical supply within each occupation and geography.”

It’s not clear why some states like New York are expected to have huge shortages, but migration might be a factor, along with a lack of nearby nursing schools, Dr. Lezotte said.

As for shortages, Dr. Lezotte said healthcare systems will have to understand their local workforce situation and adapt. “They’ll need to be more proactive about their employee value proposition” via competitive pay and benefits Flexibility regarding scheduling is also important.

“They’re going to have to figure out how to up their game,” he said.

What about states with surpluses? They might be target-rich environments for states facing shortages, he said.
 

Positive Outlook Not Shared by Other Researchers

Other workforce projections conflict with Mercer’s, according to Jean Moore, DrPH, and Gaetano Forte, MS, director and assistant director of the Center for Health Workforce Studies, School of Public Health, University at Albany, New York.

The National Center for Health Workforce Analysis projects a 10% shortage of registered nurses and a 13% shortage of physicians in 2031. The agency didn’t make projections for home health aides because that workforce is in flux.

Why are Mercer’s projections so different? Dr. Lezotte said other projections assume that equity efforts will bring healthcare to everyone who needs it. The report assumes this won’t happen, he said. As a result, it expects there will be fewer patients who need to be served by workers.

Other projections expect a shortage of 300,000 registered nurses by 2035, Mr. Forte said. But the number of nurse practitioners in New York is growing quickly, Dr. Moore said.

Dr. Moore said it’s difficult to interpret Mercer’s findings because the company doesn’t provide enough information about its methodology.

“At some level, it’s not particularly useful regarding what the next steps are,” she said. “Projections should make you think about what you should do to change and improve, to create more of what you need.”

The Center for Health Workforce Studies at the University of Albany has provided consulting services to multiple companies that provide healthcare workforce projections. It has no relationship with Mercer.

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

A surprising new report by the Mercer consulting firm projects that the American healthcare workforce will face a small shortfall in 2028 — a shortage of less than 1% of all employees. The report even projects a surplus of tens of thousands of registered nurses and home health aides — and even a small surplus of physicians in some states.

Mercer’s projections are rosier than federal workforce projections, which paint a grimmer picture of impending shortages.

“The labor market is a little more stabilized right now, and most healthcare systems are seeing less turnover,” Dan Lezotte, PhD, a partner with Mercer, said in an interview. But he noted “critical shortages” are still expected in some areas.

Mercer last projected workforce numbers in a 2020-2021 report released during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, “the labor market is drastically different,” Dr. Lezotte said. Health workforce shortages and surpluses have long varied significantly by region across the country.

The report forecasts a small surplus of physicians in 2028 but not in states such as California, New York, and Texas. The upper Midwest states will largely see doctor surpluses while Southern states face shortages. Some states with general physician surpluses may still experience shortages of specialists.

A surplus of nearly 30,000 registered nurses is expected, but New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut are projected to have a combined shortage of 16,000 nurses.

Overall, the report projects a shortage of more than 100,000 healthcare workers nationally by 2028. That’s less than 1% of the entire healthcare workforce of 18.6 million expected by then.

The report also predicts a shortage of nurse practitioners, especially in California and New York, and a shortage of 73,000 nursing assistants, especially in California, New York, and Texas.

“Healthcare systems are having the most difficulty hiring and hanging on to those workers who are supposed to take up the load off physicians and nurses,” Dr. Lezotte said. “They’re competing not only with other healthcare systems but with other industries like Amazon warehouses or McDonald’s in California paying $20 an hour. Healthcare was a little slow to keep up with that. In a lot of healthcare systems, that’s their biggest headache right now.”

On the other hand, the report projects a national surplus of 48,000 home health/personal care aides.

That surprised Bianca K. Frogner, PhD, director of the Center for Health Workforce Studies at the University of Washington, Seattle.

“We are seeing increasing movement of investments toward moving patients out of skilled nursing facilities and keeping them in the home and community, which requires many more home health aides,” Dr. Frogner said. “Given such high turnover in this occupation, it’s hard to know if the surplus is really a surplus or if they will quickly be employed.”

Dr. Frogner receives grants and contracts from not-for-profit entities to investigate issues related to the health workforce.

Dr. Lezotte said the report’s findings are based on data from sources such as public and private databases and job postings. According to the report, “projections were made up to 2028 based on historical data up to 2023,” and “supply projections were derived using a linear autoregressive model based on historical supply within each occupation and geography.”

It’s not clear why some states like New York are expected to have huge shortages, but migration might be a factor, along with a lack of nearby nursing schools, Dr. Lezotte said.

As for shortages, Dr. Lezotte said healthcare systems will have to understand their local workforce situation and adapt. “They’ll need to be more proactive about their employee value proposition” via competitive pay and benefits Flexibility regarding scheduling is also important.

“They’re going to have to figure out how to up their game,” he said.

What about states with surpluses? They might be target-rich environments for states facing shortages, he said.
 

Positive Outlook Not Shared by Other Researchers

Other workforce projections conflict with Mercer’s, according to Jean Moore, DrPH, and Gaetano Forte, MS, director and assistant director of the Center for Health Workforce Studies, School of Public Health, University at Albany, New York.

The National Center for Health Workforce Analysis projects a 10% shortage of registered nurses and a 13% shortage of physicians in 2031. The agency didn’t make projections for home health aides because that workforce is in flux.

Why are Mercer’s projections so different? Dr. Lezotte said other projections assume that equity efforts will bring healthcare to everyone who needs it. The report assumes this won’t happen, he said. As a result, it expects there will be fewer patients who need to be served by workers.

Other projections expect a shortage of 300,000 registered nurses by 2035, Mr. Forte said. But the number of nurse practitioners in New York is growing quickly, Dr. Moore said.

Dr. Moore said it’s difficult to interpret Mercer’s findings because the company doesn’t provide enough information about its methodology.

“At some level, it’s not particularly useful regarding what the next steps are,” she said. “Projections should make you think about what you should do to change and improve, to create more of what you need.”

The Center for Health Workforce Studies at the University of Albany has provided consulting services to multiple companies that provide healthcare workforce projections. It has no relationship with Mercer.

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

A surprising new report by the Mercer consulting firm projects that the American healthcare workforce will face a small shortfall in 2028 — a shortage of less than 1% of all employees. The report even projects a surplus of tens of thousands of registered nurses and home health aides — and even a small surplus of physicians in some states.

Mercer’s projections are rosier than federal workforce projections, which paint a grimmer picture of impending shortages.

“The labor market is a little more stabilized right now, and most healthcare systems are seeing less turnover,” Dan Lezotte, PhD, a partner with Mercer, said in an interview. But he noted “critical shortages” are still expected in some areas.

Mercer last projected workforce numbers in a 2020-2021 report released during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, “the labor market is drastically different,” Dr. Lezotte said. Health workforce shortages and surpluses have long varied significantly by region across the country.

The report forecasts a small surplus of physicians in 2028 but not in states such as California, New York, and Texas. The upper Midwest states will largely see doctor surpluses while Southern states face shortages. Some states with general physician surpluses may still experience shortages of specialists.

A surplus of nearly 30,000 registered nurses is expected, but New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut are projected to have a combined shortage of 16,000 nurses.

Overall, the report projects a shortage of more than 100,000 healthcare workers nationally by 2028. That’s less than 1% of the entire healthcare workforce of 18.6 million expected by then.

The report also predicts a shortage of nurse practitioners, especially in California and New York, and a shortage of 73,000 nursing assistants, especially in California, New York, and Texas.

“Healthcare systems are having the most difficulty hiring and hanging on to those workers who are supposed to take up the load off physicians and nurses,” Dr. Lezotte said. “They’re competing not only with other healthcare systems but with other industries like Amazon warehouses or McDonald’s in California paying $20 an hour. Healthcare was a little slow to keep up with that. In a lot of healthcare systems, that’s their biggest headache right now.”

On the other hand, the report projects a national surplus of 48,000 home health/personal care aides.

That surprised Bianca K. Frogner, PhD, director of the Center for Health Workforce Studies at the University of Washington, Seattle.

“We are seeing increasing movement of investments toward moving patients out of skilled nursing facilities and keeping them in the home and community, which requires many more home health aides,” Dr. Frogner said. “Given such high turnover in this occupation, it’s hard to know if the surplus is really a surplus or if they will quickly be employed.”

Dr. Frogner receives grants and contracts from not-for-profit entities to investigate issues related to the health workforce.

Dr. Lezotte said the report’s findings are based on data from sources such as public and private databases and job postings. According to the report, “projections were made up to 2028 based on historical data up to 2023,” and “supply projections were derived using a linear autoregressive model based on historical supply within each occupation and geography.”

It’s not clear why some states like New York are expected to have huge shortages, but migration might be a factor, along with a lack of nearby nursing schools, Dr. Lezotte said.

As for shortages, Dr. Lezotte said healthcare systems will have to understand their local workforce situation and adapt. “They’ll need to be more proactive about their employee value proposition” via competitive pay and benefits Flexibility regarding scheduling is also important.

“They’re going to have to figure out how to up their game,” he said.

What about states with surpluses? They might be target-rich environments for states facing shortages, he said.
 

Positive Outlook Not Shared by Other Researchers

Other workforce projections conflict with Mercer’s, according to Jean Moore, DrPH, and Gaetano Forte, MS, director and assistant director of the Center for Health Workforce Studies, School of Public Health, University at Albany, New York.

The National Center for Health Workforce Analysis projects a 10% shortage of registered nurses and a 13% shortage of physicians in 2031. The agency didn’t make projections for home health aides because that workforce is in flux.

Why are Mercer’s projections so different? Dr. Lezotte said other projections assume that equity efforts will bring healthcare to everyone who needs it. The report assumes this won’t happen, he said. As a result, it expects there will be fewer patients who need to be served by workers.

Other projections expect a shortage of 300,000 registered nurses by 2035, Mr. Forte said. But the number of nurse practitioners in New York is growing quickly, Dr. Moore said.

Dr. Moore said it’s difficult to interpret Mercer’s findings because the company doesn’t provide enough information about its methodology.

“At some level, it’s not particularly useful regarding what the next steps are,” she said. “Projections should make you think about what you should do to change and improve, to create more of what you need.”

The Center for Health Workforce Studies at the University of Albany has provided consulting services to multiple companies that provide healthcare workforce projections. It has no relationship with Mercer.

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