Rebecca Chester, MD, an Arizona-based interventional cardiologist, recently left her position in a private practice and started employment at a hospital system.

“When I was negotiating my previous contract with the private practice, I found that navigating contracts from the standpoint of a woman still in childbearing years was a little disappointing and challenging,” Dr. Chester told this news organization.

“I wanted to have more children and hired a lawyer recommended by a male colleague to help me not only understand the contract but also negotiate time off and maternity leave, but the lawyer discouraged me from advocating for maternity leave, feeling that it might stigmatize me and prevent me from getting a job,” she says.

He also didn’t explain very much. “He just said it falls under ‘disability leave’ and left it at that.”

Fortunately, Dr. Chester had a good experience with the group. “As things turned out, I did have a child later that year, and they treated me well – I actually got time off – and they didn’t make me take extra call. But it might have turned out very differently because I didn’t know what I was getting into. If I hadn’t worked for such a conscientious group, I might have been in a much tougher situation.”

Since then, Dr. Chester has spoken to female colleagues who received “more support from their legal advisors regarding maternity leave.” She suggests turning to female physicians for recommendations to a lawyer.

Although the central components of a contract (for example, noncompete covenants, malpractice “tail” coverage, bonus structure, vacation time, disability, and call) are relevant to physicians of all genders, the needs of women and men are often different.

Dennis Hursh, managing partner of Physician Agreements Health Law, a Pennsylvania-based law firm that represents physicians, told this news organization that women physicians have “several issues that need special attention when negotiating their physician employment agreements.”
 

It starts with the interview

“Women have to be sensitive to the interviewer’s casual ‘let’s-get-to-know-each-other’ types of questions that may seem natural but really are unlawful to bring into an employment interview,” said Mr. Hursh.

He warned women to beware of questions such as “Are you married? Do you have kids? Are you planning to start a family?” These may be friendly chit-chat for male interviewees but there may be other agendas when asked to a prospective female employee.

Many of Mr. Hursh’s female clients have been asked this type of question, which “should be regarded as a ‘red flag.’ Yes, it may be an innocent, well-intentioned ice-breaker, but it’s actually unlawful to bring that up in an employment setting and, according to the Equal Opportunity Commission, can be seen as a form of discrimination.” He advises female physicians not to engage with the question and simply to refocus the discussion.
 

Know your worth and go for it

Medscape’s Physician Compensation surveys have consistently found discrepancies in earnings between male and female physicians, both in primary care and in specialties. In 2022, male primary care physicians earned 23% more than their female counterparts, whereas male specialists earned 31% more.

One reason may be that women tend to be more timid about negotiating for better compensation packages. Amanda Hill of Hill Health Law, a health care practice based in Austin, Tex., told this news organization that in her experience one of the most “overarching” features of female physicians is “that they either don’t know what they’re worth or they undersell themselves.”

In contrast to men, “many women are afraid of coming across as greedy or crass, or even demanding or bossy. But it’s a misperception that if you ask for more money, your future employer will hate you or won’t hire you,” said Ms. Hill.

Ms. Hill and Mr. Hursh encourage physicians to find out what they’re worth, which varies by region and specialty, by consulting benchmarks provided by companies such as Medical Group Management Association.

Jon Appino, MBA, principal and founder of Contract Diagnostics, a Kansas City–based consulting company that specializes in physician employment contract reviews, told this news organization that it’s important to look beyond the salary at other aspects of the position. For example, some figures “don’t take into account how much call a physician is taking. You may know what the average ob.gyn. is making, but an ob.gyn. may be working 3 days a week, while another one is working 6 days a week, one may be on call 15 times per month and another may be on call 15 times a quarter.” Other components of compensation include relative value unit (RVU) thresholds and bonuses.

Once you have that information, “don’t be intimidated, even if you’re sitting in front of several executives who are savvy about negotiations, and don’t worry about coming across as ‘high-maintenance’ or ‘all about money,’ ” Mr. Appino says. Proceed with confidence, knowing your worth and pursuing it.
 

Part-time vs. full-time

Mr. Appino has seen “more female than male physicians who want to work less than full-time. So it’s important to clarify whether that’s a possibility now or in the future and to understand the implications of working part-time.”

He explained that a full-time employee typically puts in a 40-hour work week, which translates into 1.0 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE), or one unit of work. “For example, if a person wants to work 0.8 FTEs – 4 days a week – is vacation time pro-rated? At what point is there a medical insurance fall-off or a higher monthly premium?”

In medical settings, FTEs may be tied to different metrics rather than the number of weekly hours – for example, for a hospitalist, it might be a certain number of shifts and might also vary by specialty. And it affects the call schedule too. “Call is hard to pro-rate. Many hospital bylaws mandate that call be divided equally, but if one surgeon is working 1.0 FTEs and another is working 0.8 FTEs, how does that call schedule get divided?”
 

Maternity leave: A tricky question

Many attorneys counsel against raising the question out of fear of scaring away potential employers.

“On the one hand, it is and should be absolutely reasonable to ask about the maternity leave policy or even negotiate for paid leave or additional leave, but it also highlights that you’re planning to have a baby and be out for months,” said Ms. Hill.

“And as much as we want people to be fair and reasonable, on the side of the employer, bias still very much exists, especially in a situation where revenue is based on group numbers. So suddenly, the employer thinks up some ‘nondiscriminatory’ reason why that person isn’t a great fit for the organization.”

Andrew Knoll, MD, JD, a former hospitalist who is now a partner with Cohen Compagni Beckman Appler & Knoll PLLC in Syracuse, N.Y., said that maternity leave is “rare” in an employment agreement, except sometimes in small private practice groups, because it often falls under the purview of “disability leave,” and “from a legal perspective, it’s no different than any other type of disability leave.”

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which applies if a group is large enough, allows employees 12 weeks of unpaid leave, during which time their job is protected and their benefits maintained. And some states require employers to offer paid family leave.

“During this time, the woman can take time off – albeit without pay sometimes – to bond with the baby,” Dr. Knoll says. “Since there are statutory laws that protect the employee’s job, offering specific paid maternity leave is very unlikely.”

Ms. Hill advises carefully examining the employer’s comprehensive benefits plan to ascertain if paid maternity leave is included in the benefits. “But unless you’re currently pregnant and want to start off the relationship with true transparency – ‘I’m due in April and curious how we can handle that if you hire me now’ – I would keep the family planning questions to yourself before you get the job.”

Mr. Hursh, author of “The Final Hurdle: A Physician’s Guide to Negotiating a Fair Employment Agreement” (Charleston, S.C.: Advantage, 2012), has a different perspective. “I think all women, no matter how old they are, should ask about maternity leave, whether or not they’re planning a family,” he said.

“The employer may say, ‘We treat maternity leave like any other disability; our policy is such-and-such.’ If they cite an unacceptable policy, it’s a red flag about how they treat women, and should give a woman pause before accepting a position at that organization. Even if your rights are protected under the law and the organization’s policy is violating the law, no one wants to go to battle with HR or to have to go to court.”
 

Do you want partnership?

Not all female physicians entering a private practice want to advance to becoming partners. Many who are balancing family and work commitments “would prefer to just go into the office, perform their clinical responsibilities, go home, and be done” without the extra headaches, tasks, and time involved with business leadership, says Mr. Appino.

Some private practices have different contracts for those on partnership vs. nonpartnership tracks, so “you should ascertain this information and make sure it’s not automatically assumed that you would like to be on a partnership track,” says Mr. Appino.

On the other hand, you may want to become a partner. “I always suggest asking about the possibility of obtaining a leadership position in an organization or becoming an owner in a private practice,” says Mr. Hursh. “You may be told, ‘We’ve never had a woman in leadership before.’ This might be innocent if you’re the first woman hired, but it might be a red flag as to how women are regarded.” Either way, it’s important to have the information and know what your options are.
 

The impact of shift schedule

Mr. Hursh advises drilling down into the specifics of the schedule if you’re considering becoming a hospitalist. “Does a ‘week-on/week-off’ shift schedule assume you’ll be taking your vacation time or completing your CME requirements during the week off? This is important for all physicians, but especially for women who might want to use their weeks off to attend to children and family.”

Moreover, “there should be limits on shifts. You shouldn’t have a full day shift followed by a night shift. And there should be a limit on the number of shifts you work without time off. Twelve would be a brutal schedule. Seven is a reasonable amount. Make sure this is in writing and that the contract protects you. Don’t allow the employer to say, ‘We expect you to do the work we assign’ and leave it vague.”

Often, hospitalists will receive an annual salary under the assumption that a certain minimum number of shifts will be completed, but there is no maximum. “It’s important that the salary includes the minimum number of shifts, but that a compensation structure is created so that additional shifts receive additional compensation,” Mr. Hursh said.
 

Removing the ‘golden handcuffs’

Ms. Hill observes that there are some “really terrible contracts out there, which physicians – especially women – often feel pressured into signing.” They’re told, “This is our standard contract. You won’t find anything better.” Or, “Don’t worry about the small print and legalese.” The physician “gets scared or is artificially reassured, signs an overwhelmingly unfair contract, and then feels stuck.”

Being stuck in a bad contract “is debilitating and adds to burnout, feeling of depression, and the sense that there is no recourse and nowhere to go, especially if your family depends on you,” Ms. Hill said.

“More women than men feel hamstrung or are resigned to being harassed – which is not uncommon in the medical setting, especially in surgical specialties – or just accept poor treatment,” Ms. Hill added. Yes, you can “fight the system and go to HR, but fighting the system is very hard.”

She urges women “not to feel stuck or imprisoned by the ‘golden handcuffs’ but to consult a good lawyer, even if you have to break the contract.” Be aware of the reasons for your unhappiness and bring them to your lawyer – perhaps the system has engaged in fraud, perhaps there has been sexual or racial harassment, perhaps the organization hasn’t followed its own compliance policies.

Dr. Chester consulted Ms. Hill before signing the contract for her current position. “I wanted someone who could give me personalized advice, not only generic advice, and who understood my needs as a woman.”

Ms. Hill helped her to understand “what was and wasn’t fair and reasonable, what changes I could request based on my goals and whether they were realistic, and how to pick my battles. For example, I tried to negotiate tail coverage up front in my previous job but was unsuccessful. The new employer paid tail for me, both from my previous employment and for my current employment.”

Dr. Chester advises other female physicians “never to sign anything without having a lawyer review it and to make sure that the lawyer is sensitive to their specific needs.”

It can be hard to be a female physician. Having the right knowledge and ammunition and knowing how to negotiate well paves the way for success and thriving in an often male-dominated market.

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

Rebecca Chester, MD, an Arizona-based interventional cardiologist, recently left her position in a private practice and started employment at a hospital system.

“When I was negotiating my previous contract with the private practice, I found that navigating contracts from the standpoint of a woman still in childbearing years was a little disappointing and challenging,” Dr. Chester told this news organization.

“I wanted to have more children and hired a lawyer recommended by a male colleague to help me not only understand the contract but also negotiate time off and maternity leave, but the lawyer discouraged me from advocating for maternity leave, feeling that it might stigmatize me and prevent me from getting a job,” she says.

He also didn’t explain very much. “He just said it falls under ‘disability leave’ and left it at that.”

Fortunately, Dr. Chester had a good experience with the group. “As things turned out, I did have a child later that year, and they treated me well – I actually got time off – and they didn’t make me take extra call. But it might have turned out very differently because I didn’t know what I was getting into. If I hadn’t worked for such a conscientious group, I might have been in a much tougher situation.”

Since then, Dr. Chester has spoken to female colleagues who received “more support from their legal advisors regarding maternity leave.” She suggests turning to female physicians for recommendations to a lawyer.

Although the central components of a contract (for example, noncompete covenants, malpractice “tail” coverage, bonus structure, vacation time, disability, and call) are relevant to physicians of all genders, the needs of women and men are often different.

Dennis Hursh, managing partner of Physician Agreements Health Law, a Pennsylvania-based law firm that represents physicians, told this news organization that women physicians have “several issues that need special attention when negotiating their physician employment agreements.”
 

It starts with the interview

“Women have to be sensitive to the interviewer’s casual ‘let’s-get-to-know-each-other’ types of questions that may seem natural but really are unlawful to bring into an employment interview,” said Mr. Hursh.

He warned women to beware of questions such as “Are you married? Do you have kids? Are you planning to start a family?” These may be friendly chit-chat for male interviewees but there may be other agendas when asked to a prospective female employee.

Many of Mr. Hursh’s female clients have been asked this type of question, which “should be regarded as a ‘red flag.’ Yes, it may be an innocent, well-intentioned ice-breaker, but it’s actually unlawful to bring that up in an employment setting and, according to the Equal Opportunity Commission, can be seen as a form of discrimination.” He advises female physicians not to engage with the question and simply to refocus the discussion.
 

Know your worth and go for it

Medscape’s Physician Compensation surveys have consistently found discrepancies in earnings between male and female physicians, both in primary care and in specialties. In 2022, male primary care physicians earned 23% more than their female counterparts, whereas male specialists earned 31% more.

One reason may be that women tend to be more timid about negotiating for better compensation packages. Amanda Hill of Hill Health Law, a health care practice based in Austin, Tex., told this news organization that in her experience one of the most “overarching” features of female physicians is “that they either don’t know what they’re worth or they undersell themselves.”

In contrast to men, “many women are afraid of coming across as greedy or crass, or even demanding or bossy. But it’s a misperception that if you ask for more money, your future employer will hate you or won’t hire you,” said Ms. Hill.

Ms. Hill and Mr. Hursh encourage physicians to find out what they’re worth, which varies by region and specialty, by consulting benchmarks provided by companies such as Medical Group Management Association.

Jon Appino, MBA, principal and founder of Contract Diagnostics, a Kansas City–based consulting company that specializes in physician employment contract reviews, told this news organization that it’s important to look beyond the salary at other aspects of the position. For example, some figures “don’t take into account how much call a physician is taking. You may know what the average ob.gyn. is making, but an ob.gyn. may be working 3 days a week, while another one is working 6 days a week, one may be on call 15 times per month and another may be on call 15 times a quarter.” Other components of compensation include relative value unit (RVU) thresholds and bonuses.

Once you have that information, “don’t be intimidated, even if you’re sitting in front of several executives who are savvy about negotiations, and don’t worry about coming across as ‘high-maintenance’ or ‘all about money,’ ” Mr. Appino says. Proceed with confidence, knowing your worth and pursuing it.
 

Part-time vs. full-time

Mr. Appino has seen “more female than male physicians who want to work less than full-time. So it’s important to clarify whether that’s a possibility now or in the future and to understand the implications of working part-time.”

He explained that a full-time employee typically puts in a 40-hour work week, which translates into 1.0 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE), or one unit of work. “For example, if a person wants to work 0.8 FTEs – 4 days a week – is vacation time pro-rated? At what point is there a medical insurance fall-off or a higher monthly premium?”

In medical settings, FTEs may be tied to different metrics rather than the number of weekly hours – for example, for a hospitalist, it might be a certain number of shifts and might also vary by specialty. And it affects the call schedule too. “Call is hard to pro-rate. Many hospital bylaws mandate that call be divided equally, but if one surgeon is working 1.0 FTEs and another is working 0.8 FTEs, how does that call schedule get divided?”
 

Maternity leave: A tricky question

Many attorneys counsel against raising the question out of fear of scaring away potential employers.

“On the one hand, it is and should be absolutely reasonable to ask about the maternity leave policy or even negotiate for paid leave or additional leave, but it also highlights that you’re planning to have a baby and be out for months,” said Ms. Hill.

“And as much as we want people to be fair and reasonable, on the side of the employer, bias still very much exists, especially in a situation where revenue is based on group numbers. So suddenly, the employer thinks up some ‘nondiscriminatory’ reason why that person isn’t a great fit for the organization.”

Andrew Knoll, MD, JD, a former hospitalist who is now a partner with Cohen Compagni Beckman Appler & Knoll PLLC in Syracuse, N.Y., said that maternity leave is “rare” in an employment agreement, except sometimes in small private practice groups, because it often falls under the purview of “disability leave,” and “from a legal perspective, it’s no different than any other type of disability leave.”

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which applies if a group is large enough, allows employees 12 weeks of unpaid leave, during which time their job is protected and their benefits maintained. And some states require employers to offer paid family leave.

“During this time, the woman can take time off – albeit without pay sometimes – to bond with the baby,” Dr. Knoll says. “Since there are statutory laws that protect the employee’s job, offering specific paid maternity leave is very unlikely.”

Ms. Hill advises carefully examining the employer’s comprehensive benefits plan to ascertain if paid maternity leave is included in the benefits. “But unless you’re currently pregnant and want to start off the relationship with true transparency – ‘I’m due in April and curious how we can handle that if you hire me now’ – I would keep the family planning questions to yourself before you get the job.”

Mr. Hursh, author of “The Final Hurdle: A Physician’s Guide to Negotiating a Fair Employment Agreement” (Charleston, S.C.: Advantage, 2012), has a different perspective. “I think all women, no matter how old they are, should ask about maternity leave, whether or not they’re planning a family,” he said.

“The employer may say, ‘We treat maternity leave like any other disability; our policy is such-and-such.’ If they cite an unacceptable policy, it’s a red flag about how they treat women, and should give a woman pause before accepting a position at that organization. Even if your rights are protected under the law and the organization’s policy is violating the law, no one wants to go to battle with HR or to have to go to court.”
 

Do you want partnership?

Not all female physicians entering a private practice want to advance to becoming partners. Many who are balancing family and work commitments “would prefer to just go into the office, perform their clinical responsibilities, go home, and be done” without the extra headaches, tasks, and time involved with business leadership, says Mr. Appino.

Some private practices have different contracts for those on partnership vs. nonpartnership tracks, so “you should ascertain this information and make sure it’s not automatically assumed that you would like to be on a partnership track,” says Mr. Appino.

On the other hand, you may want to become a partner. “I always suggest asking about the possibility of obtaining a leadership position in an organization or becoming an owner in a private practice,” says Mr. Hursh. “You may be told, ‘We’ve never had a woman in leadership before.’ This might be innocent if you’re the first woman hired, but it might be a red flag as to how women are regarded.” Either way, it’s important to have the information and know what your options are.
 

The impact of shift schedule

Mr. Hursh advises drilling down into the specifics of the schedule if you’re considering becoming a hospitalist. “Does a ‘week-on/week-off’ shift schedule assume you’ll be taking your vacation time or completing your CME requirements during the week off? This is important for all physicians, but especially for women who might want to use their weeks off to attend to children and family.”

Moreover, “there should be limits on shifts. You shouldn’t have a full day shift followed by a night shift. And there should be a limit on the number of shifts you work without time off. Twelve would be a brutal schedule. Seven is a reasonable amount. Make sure this is in writing and that the contract protects you. Don’t allow the employer to say, ‘We expect you to do the work we assign’ and leave it vague.”

Often, hospitalists will receive an annual salary under the assumption that a certain minimum number of shifts will be completed, but there is no maximum. “It’s important that the salary includes the minimum number of shifts, but that a compensation structure is created so that additional shifts receive additional compensation,” Mr. Hursh said.
 

Removing the ‘golden handcuffs’

Ms. Hill observes that there are some “really terrible contracts out there, which physicians – especially women – often feel pressured into signing.” They’re told, “This is our standard contract. You won’t find anything better.” Or, “Don’t worry about the small print and legalese.” The physician “gets scared or is artificially reassured, signs an overwhelmingly unfair contract, and then feels stuck.”

Being stuck in a bad contract “is debilitating and adds to burnout, feeling of depression, and the sense that there is no recourse and nowhere to go, especially if your family depends on you,” Ms. Hill said.

“More women than men feel hamstrung or are resigned to being harassed – which is not uncommon in the medical setting, especially in surgical specialties – or just accept poor treatment,” Ms. Hill added. Yes, you can “fight the system and go to HR, but fighting the system is very hard.”

She urges women “not to feel stuck or imprisoned by the ‘golden handcuffs’ but to consult a good lawyer, even if you have to break the contract.” Be aware of the reasons for your unhappiness and bring them to your lawyer – perhaps the system has engaged in fraud, perhaps there has been sexual or racial harassment, perhaps the organization hasn’t followed its own compliance policies.

Dr. Chester consulted Ms. Hill before signing the contract for her current position. “I wanted someone who could give me personalized advice, not only generic advice, and who understood my needs as a woman.”

Ms. Hill helped her to understand “what was and wasn’t fair and reasonable, what changes I could request based on my goals and whether they were realistic, and how to pick my battles. For example, I tried to negotiate tail coverage up front in my previous job but was unsuccessful. The new employer paid tail for me, both from my previous employment and for my current employment.”

Dr. Chester advises other female physicians “never to sign anything without having a lawyer review it and to make sure that the lawyer is sensitive to their specific needs.”

It can be hard to be a female physician. Having the right knowledge and ammunition and knowing how to negotiate well paves the way for success and thriving in an often male-dominated market.

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

Rebecca Chester, MD, an Arizona-based interventional cardiologist, recently left her position in a private practice and started employment at a hospital system.

“When I was negotiating my previous contract with the private practice, I found that navigating contracts from the standpoint of a woman still in childbearing years was a little disappointing and challenging,” Dr. Chester told this news organization.

“I wanted to have more children and hired a lawyer recommended by a male colleague to help me not only understand the contract but also negotiate time off and maternity leave, but the lawyer discouraged me from advocating for maternity leave, feeling that it might stigmatize me and prevent me from getting a job,” she says.

He also didn’t explain very much. “He just said it falls under ‘disability leave’ and left it at that.”

Fortunately, Dr. Chester had a good experience with the group. “As things turned out, I did have a child later that year, and they treated me well – I actually got time off – and they didn’t make me take extra call. But it might have turned out very differently because I didn’t know what I was getting into. If I hadn’t worked for such a conscientious group, I might have been in a much tougher situation.”

Since then, Dr. Chester has spoken to female colleagues who received “more support from their legal advisors regarding maternity leave.” She suggests turning to female physicians for recommendations to a lawyer.

Although the central components of a contract (for example, noncompete covenants, malpractice “tail” coverage, bonus structure, vacation time, disability, and call) are relevant to physicians of all genders, the needs of women and men are often different.

Dennis Hursh, managing partner of Physician Agreements Health Law, a Pennsylvania-based law firm that represents physicians, told this news organization that women physicians have “several issues that need special attention when negotiating their physician employment agreements.”
 

It starts with the interview

“Women have to be sensitive to the interviewer’s casual ‘let’s-get-to-know-each-other’ types of questions that may seem natural but really are unlawful to bring into an employment interview,” said Mr. Hursh.

He warned women to beware of questions such as “Are you married? Do you have kids? Are you planning to start a family?” These may be friendly chit-chat for male interviewees but there may be other agendas when asked to a prospective female employee.

Many of Mr. Hursh’s female clients have been asked this type of question, which “should be regarded as a ‘red flag.’ Yes, it may be an innocent, well-intentioned ice-breaker, but it’s actually unlawful to bring that up in an employment setting and, according to the Equal Opportunity Commission, can be seen as a form of discrimination.” He advises female physicians not to engage with the question and simply to refocus the discussion.
 

Know your worth and go for it

Medscape’s Physician Compensation surveys have consistently found discrepancies in earnings between male and female physicians, both in primary care and in specialties. In 2022, male primary care physicians earned 23% more than their female counterparts, whereas male specialists earned 31% more.

One reason may be that women tend to be more timid about negotiating for better compensation packages. Amanda Hill of Hill Health Law, a health care practice based in Austin, Tex., told this news organization that in her experience one of the most “overarching” features of female physicians is “that they either don’t know what they’re worth or they undersell themselves.”

In contrast to men, “many women are afraid of coming across as greedy or crass, or even demanding or bossy. But it’s a misperception that if you ask for more money, your future employer will hate you or won’t hire you,” said Ms. Hill.

Ms. Hill and Mr. Hursh encourage physicians to find out what they’re worth, which varies by region and specialty, by consulting benchmarks provided by companies such as Medical Group Management Association.

Jon Appino, MBA, principal and founder of Contract Diagnostics, a Kansas City–based consulting company that specializes in physician employment contract reviews, told this news organization that it’s important to look beyond the salary at other aspects of the position. For example, some figures “don’t take into account how much call a physician is taking. You may know what the average ob.gyn. is making, but an ob.gyn. may be working 3 days a week, while another one is working 6 days a week, one may be on call 15 times per month and another may be on call 15 times a quarter.” Other components of compensation include relative value unit (RVU) thresholds and bonuses.

Once you have that information, “don’t be intimidated, even if you’re sitting in front of several executives who are savvy about negotiations, and don’t worry about coming across as ‘high-maintenance’ or ‘all about money,’ ” Mr. Appino says. Proceed with confidence, knowing your worth and pursuing it.
 

Part-time vs. full-time

Mr. Appino has seen “more female than male physicians who want to work less than full-time. So it’s important to clarify whether that’s a possibility now or in the future and to understand the implications of working part-time.”

He explained that a full-time employee typically puts in a 40-hour work week, which translates into 1.0 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE), or one unit of work. “For example, if a person wants to work 0.8 FTEs – 4 days a week – is vacation time pro-rated? At what point is there a medical insurance fall-off or a higher monthly premium?”

In medical settings, FTEs may be tied to different metrics rather than the number of weekly hours – for example, for a hospitalist, it might be a certain number of shifts and might also vary by specialty. And it affects the call schedule too. “Call is hard to pro-rate. Many hospital bylaws mandate that call be divided equally, but if one surgeon is working 1.0 FTEs and another is working 0.8 FTEs, how does that call schedule get divided?”
 

Maternity leave: A tricky question

Many attorneys counsel against raising the question out of fear of scaring away potential employers.

“On the one hand, it is and should be absolutely reasonable to ask about the maternity leave policy or even negotiate for paid leave or additional leave, but it also highlights that you’re planning to have a baby and be out for months,” said Ms. Hill.

“And as much as we want people to be fair and reasonable, on the side of the employer, bias still very much exists, especially in a situation where revenue is based on group numbers. So suddenly, the employer thinks up some ‘nondiscriminatory’ reason why that person isn’t a great fit for the organization.”

Andrew Knoll, MD, JD, a former hospitalist who is now a partner with Cohen Compagni Beckman Appler & Knoll PLLC in Syracuse, N.Y., said that maternity leave is “rare” in an employment agreement, except sometimes in small private practice groups, because it often falls under the purview of “disability leave,” and “from a legal perspective, it’s no different than any other type of disability leave.”

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which applies if a group is large enough, allows employees 12 weeks of unpaid leave, during which time their job is protected and their benefits maintained. And some states require employers to offer paid family leave.

“During this time, the woman can take time off – albeit without pay sometimes – to bond with the baby,” Dr. Knoll says. “Since there are statutory laws that protect the employee’s job, offering specific paid maternity leave is very unlikely.”

Ms. Hill advises carefully examining the employer’s comprehensive benefits plan to ascertain if paid maternity leave is included in the benefits. “But unless you’re currently pregnant and want to start off the relationship with true transparency – ‘I’m due in April and curious how we can handle that if you hire me now’ – I would keep the family planning questions to yourself before you get the job.”

Mr. Hursh, author of “The Final Hurdle: A Physician’s Guide to Negotiating a Fair Employment Agreement” (Charleston, S.C.: Advantage, 2012), has a different perspective. “I think all women, no matter how old they are, should ask about maternity leave, whether or not they’re planning a family,” he said.

“The employer may say, ‘We treat maternity leave like any other disability; our policy is such-and-such.’ If they cite an unacceptable policy, it’s a red flag about how they treat women, and should give a woman pause before accepting a position at that organization. Even if your rights are protected under the law and the organization’s policy is violating the law, no one wants to go to battle with HR or to have to go to court.”
 

Do you want partnership?

Not all female physicians entering a private practice want to advance to becoming partners. Many who are balancing family and work commitments “would prefer to just go into the office, perform their clinical responsibilities, go home, and be done” without the extra headaches, tasks, and time involved with business leadership, says Mr. Appino.

Some private practices have different contracts for those on partnership vs. nonpartnership tracks, so “you should ascertain this information and make sure it’s not automatically assumed that you would like to be on a partnership track,” says Mr. Appino.

On the other hand, you may want to become a partner. “I always suggest asking about the possibility of obtaining a leadership position in an organization or becoming an owner in a private practice,” says Mr. Hursh. “You may be told, ‘We’ve never had a woman in leadership before.’ This might be innocent if you’re the first woman hired, but it might be a red flag as to how women are regarded.” Either way, it’s important to have the information and know what your options are.
 

The impact of shift schedule

Mr. Hursh advises drilling down into the specifics of the schedule if you’re considering becoming a hospitalist. “Does a ‘week-on/week-off’ shift schedule assume you’ll be taking your vacation time or completing your CME requirements during the week off? This is important for all physicians, but especially for women who might want to use their weeks off to attend to children and family.”

Moreover, “there should be limits on shifts. You shouldn’t have a full day shift followed by a night shift. And there should be a limit on the number of shifts you work without time off. Twelve would be a brutal schedule. Seven is a reasonable amount. Make sure this is in writing and that the contract protects you. Don’t allow the employer to say, ‘We expect you to do the work we assign’ and leave it vague.”

Often, hospitalists will receive an annual salary under the assumption that a certain minimum number of shifts will be completed, but there is no maximum. “It’s important that the salary includes the minimum number of shifts, but that a compensation structure is created so that additional shifts receive additional compensation,” Mr. Hursh said.
 

Removing the ‘golden handcuffs’

Ms. Hill observes that there are some “really terrible contracts out there, which physicians – especially women – often feel pressured into signing.” They’re told, “This is our standard contract. You won’t find anything better.” Or, “Don’t worry about the small print and legalese.” The physician “gets scared or is artificially reassured, signs an overwhelmingly unfair contract, and then feels stuck.”

Being stuck in a bad contract “is debilitating and adds to burnout, feeling of depression, and the sense that there is no recourse and nowhere to go, especially if your family depends on you,” Ms. Hill said.

“More women than men feel hamstrung or are resigned to being harassed – which is not uncommon in the medical setting, especially in surgical specialties – or just accept poor treatment,” Ms. Hill added. Yes, you can “fight the system and go to HR, but fighting the system is very hard.”

She urges women “not to feel stuck or imprisoned by the ‘golden handcuffs’ but to consult a good lawyer, even if you have to break the contract.” Be aware of the reasons for your unhappiness and bring them to your lawyer – perhaps the system has engaged in fraud, perhaps there has been sexual or racial harassment, perhaps the organization hasn’t followed its own compliance policies.

Dr. Chester consulted Ms. Hill before signing the contract for her current position. “I wanted someone who could give me personalized advice, not only generic advice, and who understood my needs as a woman.”

Ms. Hill helped her to understand “what was and wasn’t fair and reasonable, what changes I could request based on my goals and whether they were realistic, and how to pick my battles. For example, I tried to negotiate tail coverage up front in my previous job but was unsuccessful. The new employer paid tail for me, both from my previous employment and for my current employment.”

Dr. Chester advises other female physicians “never to sign anything without having a lawyer review it and to make sure that the lawyer is sensitive to their specific needs.”

It can be hard to be a female physician. Having the right knowledge and ammunition and knowing how to negotiate well paves the way for success and thriving in an often male-dominated market.

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

The early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic caused an average treatment delay of 3.2 months for 53% of patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), results from a retrospective study of nine international centers showed. However, among patients with CTCL diagnosed with COVID-19 during that time, no cases were acquired from outpatient visits.

“Delays in therapy for patients with cutaneous lymphomas should likely be avoided,” two of the study authors, Larisa J. Geskin, MD, of the department of dermatology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and Bradley D. Kwinta, a medical student at Columbia University, told this news organization in a combined response via email.

“Continuing treatment and maintenance therapy appears critical to avoiding disease progression, highlighting the importance of maintenance therapy in CTCL,” they said. “These patients can be safely treated according to established treatment protocols while practicing physical distancing and using personal protective equipment without significantly increasing their risk of COVID-19 infection.”

The United States Cutaneous Lymphoma Consortium and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer developed emergency guidelines for the management of patients with cutaneous lymphomas during the pandemic to ensure patient safety, and the International Society for Cutaneous Lymphomas created an International Cutaneous Lymphomas Pandemic Section to collect data to assess the impact of these guidelines.

“Using this data, we can determine if these measures were effective in preventing COVID-19 infection, what the impact was of maintenance therapy, and how delays in treatment affected disease outcomes in CTCL patients,” the authors and their colleagues wrote in the study, which was published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

They retrospectively analyzed data from the electronic medical records of 149 patients with CTCL who were being managed at one of nine international academic medical centers in seven countries from March to October 2020. Slightly more than half (56%) were male, 70% were White, 18% were Black, 52% had stage IA-IIA disease, and 19% acquired COVID-19 during the study period.

Of the 149 patients, 79 (53%) experienced a mean treatment delay of 3.2 months (range, 10 days to 10 months). After adjusting for age, race, biological sex, COVID-19 status, and disease stage, treatment delay was associated with a significant risk of disease relapse or progression across all stages (odds ratio, 5.00; P < .001). Specifically, for each additional month that a patient experienced treatment delay, the odds of disease progression increased by 37% (OR, 1.37; P < .001).

A total of 28 patients with CTCL (19%) were diagnosed with COVID-19, but none were acquired from outpatient office visits. Patients who contracted COVID-19 did not have a statistically significant increase in odds of disease progression, compared with COVID-negative patients (OR, 0.41; P = .07).

According to Dr. Geskin, who is also director of the Comprehensive Skin Cancer Center in the division of cutaneous oncology in the department of dermatology at Columbia, and Mr. Kwinta, no clinical trials exist to inform maintenance protocols in patients with cutaneous lymphomas. “There are also no randomized and controlled observational studies that demonstrate the impact that therapy delay may have on disease outcomes,” they said in the email. “In fact, the need for maintenance therapy for CTCL is often debated. Our findings demonstrate the importance of continuing treatment and the use of maintenance therapy in avoiding disease progression in these incurable lymphomas.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its retrospective observational design. “Therefore, we cannot establish a definitive causal link between treatment delay and disease progression,” they said. “Our cohort of patients were on various and often multiple therapies, making it hard to extrapolate our data to discern which maintenance therapies were most effective in preventing disease progression.”

In addition, their data only includes patients from March to October 2020, “before the discovery of new variants and the development of COVID-19 vaccines,” they added. “Additional studies would be required to draw conclusions on how COVID-19 vaccines may affect patients with CTCL, including outcomes in the setting of new variants.”

The authors reported having no financial disclosures.

The early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic caused an average treatment delay of 3.2 months for 53% of patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), results from a retrospective study of nine international centers showed. However, among patients with CTCL diagnosed with COVID-19 during that time, no cases were acquired from outpatient visits.

“Delays in therapy for patients with cutaneous lymphomas should likely be avoided,” two of the study authors, Larisa J. Geskin, MD, of the department of dermatology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and Bradley D. Kwinta, a medical student at Columbia University, told this news organization in a combined response via email.

“Continuing treatment and maintenance therapy appears critical to avoiding disease progression, highlighting the importance of maintenance therapy in CTCL,” they said. “These patients can be safely treated according to established treatment protocols while practicing physical distancing and using personal protective equipment without significantly increasing their risk of COVID-19 infection.”

The United States Cutaneous Lymphoma Consortium and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer developed emergency guidelines for the management of patients with cutaneous lymphomas during the pandemic to ensure patient safety, and the International Society for Cutaneous Lymphomas created an International Cutaneous Lymphomas Pandemic Section to collect data to assess the impact of these guidelines.

“Using this data, we can determine if these measures were effective in preventing COVID-19 infection, what the impact was of maintenance therapy, and how delays in treatment affected disease outcomes in CTCL patients,” the authors and their colleagues wrote in the study, which was published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

They retrospectively analyzed data from the electronic medical records of 149 patients with CTCL who were being managed at one of nine international academic medical centers in seven countries from March to October 2020. Slightly more than half (56%) were male, 70% were White, 18% were Black, 52% had stage IA-IIA disease, and 19% acquired COVID-19 during the study period.

Of the 149 patients, 79 (53%) experienced a mean treatment delay of 3.2 months (range, 10 days to 10 months). After adjusting for age, race, biological sex, COVID-19 status, and disease stage, treatment delay was associated with a significant risk of disease relapse or progression across all stages (odds ratio, 5.00; P < .001). Specifically, for each additional month that a patient experienced treatment delay, the odds of disease progression increased by 37% (OR, 1.37; P < .001).

A total of 28 patients with CTCL (19%) were diagnosed with COVID-19, but none were acquired from outpatient office visits. Patients who contracted COVID-19 did not have a statistically significant increase in odds of disease progression, compared with COVID-negative patients (OR, 0.41; P = .07).

According to Dr. Geskin, who is also director of the Comprehensive Skin Cancer Center in the division of cutaneous oncology in the department of dermatology at Columbia, and Mr. Kwinta, no clinical trials exist to inform maintenance protocols in patients with cutaneous lymphomas. “There are also no randomized and controlled observational studies that demonstrate the impact that therapy delay may have on disease outcomes,” they said in the email. “In fact, the need for maintenance therapy for CTCL is often debated. Our findings demonstrate the importance of continuing treatment and the use of maintenance therapy in avoiding disease progression in these incurable lymphomas.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its retrospective observational design. “Therefore, we cannot establish a definitive causal link between treatment delay and disease progression,” they said. “Our cohort of patients were on various and often multiple therapies, making it hard to extrapolate our data to discern which maintenance therapies were most effective in preventing disease progression.”

In addition, their data only includes patients from March to October 2020, “before the discovery of new variants and the development of COVID-19 vaccines,” they added. “Additional studies would be required to draw conclusions on how COVID-19 vaccines may affect patients with CTCL, including outcomes in the setting of new variants.”

The authors reported having no financial disclosures.

The early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic caused an average treatment delay of 3.2 months for 53% of patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), results from a retrospective study of nine international centers showed. However, among patients with CTCL diagnosed with COVID-19 during that time, no cases were acquired from outpatient visits.

“Delays in therapy for patients with cutaneous lymphomas should likely be avoided,” two of the study authors, Larisa J. Geskin, MD, of the department of dermatology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and Bradley D. Kwinta, a medical student at Columbia University, told this news organization in a combined response via email.

“Continuing treatment and maintenance therapy appears critical to avoiding disease progression, highlighting the importance of maintenance therapy in CTCL,” they said. “These patients can be safely treated according to established treatment protocols while practicing physical distancing and using personal protective equipment without significantly increasing their risk of COVID-19 infection.”

The United States Cutaneous Lymphoma Consortium and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer developed emergency guidelines for the management of patients with cutaneous lymphomas during the pandemic to ensure patient safety, and the International Society for Cutaneous Lymphomas created an International Cutaneous Lymphomas Pandemic Section to collect data to assess the impact of these guidelines.

“Using this data, we can determine if these measures were effective in preventing COVID-19 infection, what the impact was of maintenance therapy, and how delays in treatment affected disease outcomes in CTCL patients,” the authors and their colleagues wrote in the study, which was published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

They retrospectively analyzed data from the electronic medical records of 149 patients with CTCL who were being managed at one of nine international academic medical centers in seven countries from March to October 2020. Slightly more than half (56%) were male, 70% were White, 18% were Black, 52% had stage IA-IIA disease, and 19% acquired COVID-19 during the study period.

Of the 149 patients, 79 (53%) experienced a mean treatment delay of 3.2 months (range, 10 days to 10 months). After adjusting for age, race, biological sex, COVID-19 status, and disease stage, treatment delay was associated with a significant risk of disease relapse or progression across all stages (odds ratio, 5.00; P < .001). Specifically, for each additional month that a patient experienced treatment delay, the odds of disease progression increased by 37% (OR, 1.37; P < .001).

A total of 28 patients with CTCL (19%) were diagnosed with COVID-19, but none were acquired from outpatient office visits. Patients who contracted COVID-19 did not have a statistically significant increase in odds of disease progression, compared with COVID-negative patients (OR, 0.41; P = .07).

According to Dr. Geskin, who is also director of the Comprehensive Skin Cancer Center in the division of cutaneous oncology in the department of dermatology at Columbia, and Mr. Kwinta, no clinical trials exist to inform maintenance protocols in patients with cutaneous lymphomas. “There are also no randomized and controlled observational studies that demonstrate the impact that therapy delay may have on disease outcomes,” they said in the email. “In fact, the need for maintenance therapy for CTCL is often debated. Our findings demonstrate the importance of continuing treatment and the use of maintenance therapy in avoiding disease progression in these incurable lymphomas.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its retrospective observational design. “Therefore, we cannot establish a definitive causal link between treatment delay and disease progression,” they said. “Our cohort of patients were on various and often multiple therapies, making it hard to extrapolate our data to discern which maintenance therapies were most effective in preventing disease progression.”

In addition, their data only includes patients from March to October 2020, “before the discovery of new variants and the development of COVID-19 vaccines,” they added. “Additional studies would be required to draw conclusions on how COVID-19 vaccines may affect patients with CTCL, including outcomes in the setting of new variants.”

The authors reported having no financial disclosures.

An early and influential paper on long COVID that appeared in The Lancet has been flagged with an expression of concern while the journal investigates “data errors” brought to light by a reader.

An editorial that accompanied the paper when it was published in January of last year described it as “the first large cohort study with 6-months’ follow-up” of people hospitalized with COVID-19. The article has received plenty of attention since then.

Titled “6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study,” the paper has been cited nearly 1,600 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. Altmetric finds references to it in multiple documents from the World Health Organization.

According to the expression of concern, dated November 24, a reader found inconsistencies between the data in the article and a later paper describing the same cohort of patients after a year of follow-up. That discovery sparked an investigation that is still ongoing:

• On Jan 8, 2021, The Lancet published an Article, 6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study, by Chaolin Huang and colleagues. 1 On Aug 28, 2021, The Lancet published an Article, 1-year outcomes in hospital survivors with COVID-19: a longitudinal cohort study, by Lixue Huang and colleagues. 2 We received an inquiry from a researcher on data inconsistencies between these two Articles, and we sought an explanation from the corresponding author of the two papers. On Nov 7, 2022, Lancet editors were informed that inconsistencies between the 6-month and the 1-year data were due to “some variables in the dataset used for the 6-month paper were mistakenly disrupted in order”. In view of the extent of these data errors, we now issue an Expression of Concern about the 6-month paper 1 while we investigate further, including further statistical and clinical review of the corrected data. We will update this notice as soon as we have further information.

The corresponding author of both papers, Bin Cao of China’s National Center for Respiratory Medicine and the China-Japan Friendship Hospital in Beijing, has not responded to our request for comment.

A profile of Cao published in Lancet Infectious Diseases last March described him as “a leading researcher in pneumonia and influenza” who “has been instrumental in increasing knowledge about COVID-19.” In addition to the follow-up study of hospitalized COVID patients:

• Cao’s seminal papers during the COVID-19 pandemic include the first report of the clinical characteristics of COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, the description of the risk factors for mortality for adult inpatients, and the results of trials testing the use of antiviral drugs, including lopinavir-ritonavir, to treat COVID-19 in China.

We reached out to The Lancet’s press office and Richard Horton, the journal’s editor-in-chief, and received this statement:

• The Lancet Group treats all communications between editors and authors or readers as confidential. Investigations are continuing, and the Expression of Concern will be updated as soon as we have further information to share. More information about our policies is available here: 

This year, The Lancet overtook the New England Journal of Medicine as the medical journal with the highest impact factor, in large part due to the papers it published about COVID-19.

We’ve counted retractions for three of those papers, most notably a paper about the use of the drug hydroxychloroquine that claimed to use medical data from a company called Surgisphere. As Retraction Watch readers may remember, the article was retracted after sleuths questioned if the data were real, and the company would not produce it for review.

This article first appeared on Retraction Watch.

An early and influential paper on long COVID that appeared in The Lancet has been flagged with an expression of concern while the journal investigates “data errors” brought to light by a reader.

An editorial that accompanied the paper when it was published in January of last year described it as “the first large cohort study with 6-months’ follow-up” of people hospitalized with COVID-19. The article has received plenty of attention since then.

Titled “6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study,” the paper has been cited nearly 1,600 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. Altmetric finds references to it in multiple documents from the World Health Organization.

According to the expression of concern, dated November 24, a reader found inconsistencies between the data in the article and a later paper describing the same cohort of patients after a year of follow-up. That discovery sparked an investigation that is still ongoing:

• On Jan 8, 2021, The Lancet published an Article, 6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study, by Chaolin Huang and colleagues. 1 On Aug 28, 2021, The Lancet published an Article, 1-year outcomes in hospital survivors with COVID-19: a longitudinal cohort study, by Lixue Huang and colleagues. 2 We received an inquiry from a researcher on data inconsistencies between these two Articles, and we sought an explanation from the corresponding author of the two papers. On Nov 7, 2022, Lancet editors were informed that inconsistencies between the 6-month and the 1-year data were due to “some variables in the dataset used for the 6-month paper were mistakenly disrupted in order”. In view of the extent of these data errors, we now issue an Expression of Concern about the 6-month paper 1 while we investigate further, including further statistical and clinical review of the corrected data. We will update this notice as soon as we have further information.

The corresponding author of both papers, Bin Cao of China’s National Center for Respiratory Medicine and the China-Japan Friendship Hospital in Beijing, has not responded to our request for comment.

A profile of Cao published in Lancet Infectious Diseases last March described him as “a leading researcher in pneumonia and influenza” who “has been instrumental in increasing knowledge about COVID-19.” In addition to the follow-up study of hospitalized COVID patients:

• Cao’s seminal papers during the COVID-19 pandemic include the first report of the clinical characteristics of COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, the description of the risk factors for mortality for adult inpatients, and the results of trials testing the use of antiviral drugs, including lopinavir-ritonavir, to treat COVID-19 in China.

We reached out to The Lancet’s press office and Richard Horton, the journal’s editor-in-chief, and received this statement:

• The Lancet Group treats all communications between editors and authors or readers as confidential. Investigations are continuing, and the Expression of Concern will be updated as soon as we have further information to share. More information about our policies is available here: 

This year, The Lancet overtook the New England Journal of Medicine as the medical journal with the highest impact factor, in large part due to the papers it published about COVID-19.

We’ve counted retractions for three of those papers, most notably a paper about the use of the drug hydroxychloroquine that claimed to use medical data from a company called Surgisphere. As Retraction Watch readers may remember, the article was retracted after sleuths questioned if the data were real, and the company would not produce it for review.

This article first appeared on Retraction Watch.

An early and influential paper on long COVID that appeared in The Lancet has been flagged with an expression of concern while the journal investigates “data errors” brought to light by a reader.

An editorial that accompanied the paper when it was published in January of last year described it as “the first large cohort study with 6-months’ follow-up” of people hospitalized with COVID-19. The article has received plenty of attention since then.

Titled “6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study,” the paper has been cited nearly 1,600 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. Altmetric finds references to it in multiple documents from the World Health Organization.

According to the expression of concern, dated November 24, a reader found inconsistencies between the data in the article and a later paper describing the same cohort of patients after a year of follow-up. That discovery sparked an investigation that is still ongoing:

• On Jan 8, 2021, The Lancet published an Article, 6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study, by Chaolin Huang and colleagues. 1 On Aug 28, 2021, The Lancet published an Article, 1-year outcomes in hospital survivors with COVID-19: a longitudinal cohort study, by Lixue Huang and colleagues. 2 We received an inquiry from a researcher on data inconsistencies between these two Articles, and we sought an explanation from the corresponding author of the two papers. On Nov 7, 2022, Lancet editors were informed that inconsistencies between the 6-month and the 1-year data were due to “some variables in the dataset used for the 6-month paper were mistakenly disrupted in order”. In view of the extent of these data errors, we now issue an Expression of Concern about the 6-month paper 1 while we investigate further, including further statistical and clinical review of the corrected data. We will update this notice as soon as we have further information.

The corresponding author of both papers, Bin Cao of China’s National Center for Respiratory Medicine and the China-Japan Friendship Hospital in Beijing, has not responded to our request for comment.

A profile of Cao published in Lancet Infectious Diseases last March described him as “a leading researcher in pneumonia and influenza” who “has been instrumental in increasing knowledge about COVID-19.” In addition to the follow-up study of hospitalized COVID patients:

• Cao’s seminal papers during the COVID-19 pandemic include the first report of the clinical characteristics of COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, the description of the risk factors for mortality for adult inpatients, and the results of trials testing the use of antiviral drugs, including lopinavir-ritonavir, to treat COVID-19 in China.

We reached out to The Lancet’s press office and Richard Horton, the journal’s editor-in-chief, and received this statement:

• The Lancet Group treats all communications between editors and authors or readers as confidential. Investigations are continuing, and the Expression of Concern will be updated as soon as we have further information to share. More information about our policies is available here: 

This year, The Lancet overtook the New England Journal of Medicine as the medical journal with the highest impact factor, in large part due to the papers it published about COVID-19.

We’ve counted retractions for three of those papers, most notably a paper about the use of the drug hydroxychloroquine that claimed to use medical data from a company called Surgisphere. As Retraction Watch readers may remember, the article was retracted after sleuths questioned if the data were real, and the company would not produce it for review.

This article first appeared on Retraction Watch.

Individuals with a primary melanoma may be more likely to develop a second primary melanoma if they have certain characteristics, a new study suggests.

In a cohort study of more than 38,000 patients, those diagnosed with a second primary melanoma were significantly more likely to have a “nevus-prone” phenotype and a high polygenic risk score for melanoma.

Notably, the researchers also found only limited evidence that elevated levels of sun exposure contributed to second melanoma risk.

Overall, the findings suggest that “within the general population, the presence of many nevi and having a high genetic predisposition to melanoma were associated with the highest risks of developing second primary melanoma,” Catherine M. Olsen, PhD, of the University of Queensland, Australia, and colleagues concluded.

The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

People with melanoma are believed to be at high risk for developing subsequent tumors, yet most never do. Population-based studies indicate that only about 8%-18% of patients are diagnosed with a second primary melanoma.

Previous studies using modified case-control design have identified several factors associated with developing multiple primary melanomas, including older age, male sex, a family history of melanoma, high nevus counts or presence of atypical nevi, higher ambient UV radiation and personal sun exposure, as well as certain inherited genetic variants.

However, these studies aren’t equipped to assess the magnitude of risk of developing multiple melanomas among those who have not yet had melanoma.

In the current analysis, Dr. Olsen and colleagues set out to understand the level of risk using a prospective cohort study design. The cohort comprised participants in the QSkin Sun and Health Study and included 38,845 patients with a baseline median age of 56 years, followed for a median of 7.4 years. Among these participants, 1,212 (3.1%) had only one primary melanoma diagnosis, and 245 (0.6%) had two or more primary melanomas. Of those with more primary melanomas, 59 had synchronous primary melanoma, meaning first and second primary melanomas were diagnosed on the same day.

The investigators compared the clinical characteristics of patients with first and second melanomas, looking at demographic, phenotypic, sun exposure, and genetic factors. The team found that the median time between first and second melanoma, excluding cases of synchronous primary melanoma, was 18.4 months.

Those who developed second melanomas were older at baseline than those who developed only one (59.3 years vs. 58.2 years, respectively; P < .001), and were more likely to have a sun-sensitive phenotype, a self-reported history of excisions for nonmelanoma skin cancers, and a high polygenic risk score for melanoma. Among people who developed second primary melanomas, the second melanomas were more likely to be in situ and of the lentigo maligna subtype.

Notably, factors including age, sex, sunburn tendency, and family history of melanoma had similarly elevated effect sizes among those diagnosed with first and second melanomas. The authors also found similar associations with baseline measures for personal sun exposure – including sunburns and cumulative sun exposure; however, the number of past skin cancer excisions was more strongly associated with second primaries (P = .05).

The team did identify two factors associated with a higher risk of developing a second primary melanoma. A nevus phenotype was more strongly associated with developing a second primary melanoma (hazard ratio, 6.36) than the initial one (HR, 3.46). And second primary melanomas had stronger associations with high melanoma polygenic risk scores than first primary melanomas (HR, 3.28 vs HR, 2.06; P = .03).

The authors noted several limitations to the study, including the generalizability of the findings outside of Australia and the relatively small number of people with second primary melanomas.

Still, the investigators note that the data “offer unique insights that differ from earlier efforts.” Namely, the “findings showed that many of the classic phenotypic risk factors for melanoma were similarly associated with risk of first and second melanomas; however, high numbers of nevi and high genetic predisposition were more strongly associated with second [rather] than first primary melanomas.”

This work was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr. Olsen reports no relevant financial relationships. Coauthor Rachel Neale, PhD, reported grants from Viatris and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia outside the submitted work. Coauthor David Whiteman, MBBS, PhD, reported personal fees from Pierre Fabre (speaker fees for conference presentation) outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

Individuals with a primary melanoma may be more likely to develop a second primary melanoma if they have certain characteristics, a new study suggests.

In a cohort study of more than 38,000 patients, those diagnosed with a second primary melanoma were significantly more likely to have a “nevus-prone” phenotype and a high polygenic risk score for melanoma.

Notably, the researchers also found only limited evidence that elevated levels of sun exposure contributed to second melanoma risk.

Overall, the findings suggest that “within the general population, the presence of many nevi and having a high genetic predisposition to melanoma were associated with the highest risks of developing second primary melanoma,” Catherine M. Olsen, PhD, of the University of Queensland, Australia, and colleagues concluded.

The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

People with melanoma are believed to be at high risk for developing subsequent tumors, yet most never do. Population-based studies indicate that only about 8%-18% of patients are diagnosed with a second primary melanoma.

Previous studies using modified case-control design have identified several factors associated with developing multiple primary melanomas, including older age, male sex, a family history of melanoma, high nevus counts or presence of atypical nevi, higher ambient UV radiation and personal sun exposure, as well as certain inherited genetic variants.

However, these studies aren’t equipped to assess the magnitude of risk of developing multiple melanomas among those who have not yet had melanoma.

In the current analysis, Dr. Olsen and colleagues set out to understand the level of risk using a prospective cohort study design. The cohort comprised participants in the QSkin Sun and Health Study and included 38,845 patients with a baseline median age of 56 years, followed for a median of 7.4 years. Among these participants, 1,212 (3.1%) had only one primary melanoma diagnosis, and 245 (0.6%) had two or more primary melanomas. Of those with more primary melanomas, 59 had synchronous primary melanoma, meaning first and second primary melanomas were diagnosed on the same day.

The investigators compared the clinical characteristics of patients with first and second melanomas, looking at demographic, phenotypic, sun exposure, and genetic factors. The team found that the median time between first and second melanoma, excluding cases of synchronous primary melanoma, was 18.4 months.

Those who developed second melanomas were older at baseline than those who developed only one (59.3 years vs. 58.2 years, respectively; P < .001), and were more likely to have a sun-sensitive phenotype, a self-reported history of excisions for nonmelanoma skin cancers, and a high polygenic risk score for melanoma. Among people who developed second primary melanomas, the second melanomas were more likely to be in situ and of the lentigo maligna subtype.

Notably, factors including age, sex, sunburn tendency, and family history of melanoma had similarly elevated effect sizes among those diagnosed with first and second melanomas. The authors also found similar associations with baseline measures for personal sun exposure – including sunburns and cumulative sun exposure; however, the number of past skin cancer excisions was more strongly associated with second primaries (P = .05).

The team did identify two factors associated with a higher risk of developing a second primary melanoma. A nevus phenotype was more strongly associated with developing a second primary melanoma (hazard ratio, 6.36) than the initial one (HR, 3.46). And second primary melanomas had stronger associations with high melanoma polygenic risk scores than first primary melanomas (HR, 3.28 vs HR, 2.06; P = .03).

The authors noted several limitations to the study, including the generalizability of the findings outside of Australia and the relatively small number of people with second primary melanomas.

Still, the investigators note that the data “offer unique insights that differ from earlier efforts.” Namely, the “findings showed that many of the classic phenotypic risk factors for melanoma were similarly associated with risk of first and second melanomas; however, high numbers of nevi and high genetic predisposition were more strongly associated with second [rather] than first primary melanomas.”

This work was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr. Olsen reports no relevant financial relationships. Coauthor Rachel Neale, PhD, reported grants from Viatris and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia outside the submitted work. Coauthor David Whiteman, MBBS, PhD, reported personal fees from Pierre Fabre (speaker fees for conference presentation) outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

Individuals with a primary melanoma may be more likely to develop a second primary melanoma if they have certain characteristics, a new study suggests.

In a cohort study of more than 38,000 patients, those diagnosed with a second primary melanoma were significantly more likely to have a “nevus-prone” phenotype and a high polygenic risk score for melanoma.

Notably, the researchers also found only limited evidence that elevated levels of sun exposure contributed to second melanoma risk.

Overall, the findings suggest that “within the general population, the presence of many nevi and having a high genetic predisposition to melanoma were associated with the highest risks of developing second primary melanoma,” Catherine M. Olsen, PhD, of the University of Queensland, Australia, and colleagues concluded.

The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

People with melanoma are believed to be at high risk for developing subsequent tumors, yet most never do. Population-based studies indicate that only about 8%-18% of patients are diagnosed with a second primary melanoma.

Previous studies using modified case-control design have identified several factors associated with developing multiple primary melanomas, including older age, male sex, a family history of melanoma, high nevus counts or presence of atypical nevi, higher ambient UV radiation and personal sun exposure, as well as certain inherited genetic variants.

However, these studies aren’t equipped to assess the magnitude of risk of developing multiple melanomas among those who have not yet had melanoma.

In the current analysis, Dr. Olsen and colleagues set out to understand the level of risk using a prospective cohort study design. The cohort comprised participants in the QSkin Sun and Health Study and included 38,845 patients with a baseline median age of 56 years, followed for a median of 7.4 years. Among these participants, 1,212 (3.1%) had only one primary melanoma diagnosis, and 245 (0.6%) had two or more primary melanomas. Of those with more primary melanomas, 59 had synchronous primary melanoma, meaning first and second primary melanomas were diagnosed on the same day.

The investigators compared the clinical characteristics of patients with first and second melanomas, looking at demographic, phenotypic, sun exposure, and genetic factors. The team found that the median time between first and second melanoma, excluding cases of synchronous primary melanoma, was 18.4 months.

Those who developed second melanomas were older at baseline than those who developed only one (59.3 years vs. 58.2 years, respectively; P < .001), and were more likely to have a sun-sensitive phenotype, a self-reported history of excisions for nonmelanoma skin cancers, and a high polygenic risk score for melanoma. Among people who developed second primary melanomas, the second melanomas were more likely to be in situ and of the lentigo maligna subtype.

Notably, factors including age, sex, sunburn tendency, and family history of melanoma had similarly elevated effect sizes among those diagnosed with first and second melanomas. The authors also found similar associations with baseline measures for personal sun exposure – including sunburns and cumulative sun exposure; however, the number of past skin cancer excisions was more strongly associated with second primaries (P = .05).

The team did identify two factors associated with a higher risk of developing a second primary melanoma. A nevus phenotype was more strongly associated with developing a second primary melanoma (hazard ratio, 6.36) than the initial one (HR, 3.46). And second primary melanomas had stronger associations with high melanoma polygenic risk scores than first primary melanomas (HR, 3.28 vs HR, 2.06; P = .03).

The authors noted several limitations to the study, including the generalizability of the findings outside of Australia and the relatively small number of people with second primary melanomas.

Still, the investigators note that the data “offer unique insights that differ from earlier efforts.” Namely, the “findings showed that many of the classic phenotypic risk factors for melanoma were similarly associated with risk of first and second melanomas; however, high numbers of nevi and high genetic predisposition were more strongly associated with second [rather] than first primary melanomas.”

This work was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr. Olsen reports no relevant financial relationships. Coauthor Rachel Neale, PhD, reported grants from Viatris and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia outside the submitted work. Coauthor David Whiteman, MBBS, PhD, reported personal fees from Pierre Fabre (speaker fees for conference presentation) outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

Outcomes were similar for comatose patients who received 36 versus 72 hours of device-based temperature control after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, a randomized trial shows.

“Since 2005, active fever prevention in comatose patients has been advocated by the guidelines for 72 hours after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest,” Christian Hassager, MD, of the University of Copenhagen, told this news organization. “Our study is the first randomized trial ever on this subject – and it challenges the guidelines.”

At 90 days, a primary endpoint – a composite of death from any cause or hospital discharge with a high Cerebral Performance Category score – occurred in 32.4% of those in the 36-hour group and 33.6% of those in the 72-hour group; mortality was 29.5% versus 30.3%, respectively.

The study was published online  in The New England Journal of Medicine. The results were also presented at the Resuscitation Science Symposium during the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
 

No significant differences

Assessment of the two device-based fever-prevention strategies for the duration was a predefined, additional randomly assigned open-label intervention in the Blood Pressure and Oxygenation Targets in Post Resuscitation Care (BOX) trial, which involved comatose adult patients who had been resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest at two Danish cardiac arrest centers.

The main BOX analysis compared different primary strategies in these patients in a two-by-two factorial design: higher versus lower blood pressure targets and higher versus lower oxygenation targets. They found no difference between the various strategies in terms of death and discharge from hospital in a poor neurologic state. Those results were presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress on Aug. 27, and simultaneously published in separate articles in The New England Journal of Medicine.

For this current analysis, a total of 789 comatose patients (mean age, 62; 80% men) received device-based temperature control targeting 36° C for 24 hours followed by 37° C for either 12 or 48 hours (total intervention times, 36 and 72 hours, respectively) or until the patient regained consciousness.

Patients were kept sedated and were receiving mechanical ventilation during the temperature control at 36° C, the authors note. Target core body temperature was controlled using commercially available surface cooling at one of the sites in 286 patients (Criticool and Allon, Belmont Medical Technologies) and using intravenous cooling in 503 patients at the other site (Thermogard XP, and Cool Line Catheter, Zoll).

Body temperature was maintained at 37° C with the same type of device that had been used for 36° C during the initial 24 hours. If the patient awakened, cooling was terminated.

Physicians in both groups were permitted to use non–device-based fever treatment (that is, for a body temperature > 37.5° C) with drugs such as paracetamol, by uncovering the patient’s body, or both, at the discretion of the treating physician. Ice packs or pads were not used.

The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause or hospital discharge with a Cerebral Performance Category of 3 or 4 (range, 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating more severe disability) within 90 days after randomization.

Secondary outcomes at 90 days included death from any cause and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment score (range, 0 to 30, with higher scores indicating better cognitive ability).

A primary endpoint event occurred in 32.3% of patients in the 36-hour group and in 33.6% of those in the 72-hour group (hazard ratio, 0.99). Mortality was 29.5% in the 36-hour group and 30.3% in the 72-hour group.

The median Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores were 26 and 27, respectively. No significant between-group differences in the incidence of adverse events were observed.

The authors concluded that “active device-based fever prevention for 36 or 72 hours after cardiac arrest did not result in significantly different percentages of patients dying or having severe disability or coma.”

Dr. Hassager added, “We will continue with a new trial where we will randomize to treatment as usual or immediate wakeup call and no temperature intervention at all.”
 

Findings ‘very persuasive’

Intensivist Ken Parhar, MD, clinical associate professor, Critical Care Medicine at the University of Calgary (Alta.) and Alberta Health Services, Edmonton, and medical director, Cardiovascular Intensive Care Unit, commented on the study.

“The findings are very clear and very persuasive,” he said. “I think this should be incorporated into future guidelines, though it would be nice to see the trial repeated in another center.”

Dr. Parhar has kept comatose patients under temperature control for less than 72 hours, but mainly because those patients started to wake up. “This study provides clarity on the safety of that process – that we don’t have to unnecessarily keep somebody sedated just for an arbitrary timeline,” he said. “Beyond 36 hours, we need to continue to use our judgment.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation, as was the work of one of the coauthors. Dr. Hassager’s work was funded by a grant from the Lundbeck Foundation; he also received an individual research grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation, as well as honoraria from ABIOMED. No other disclosures were declared.

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

Outcomes were similar for comatose patients who received 36 versus 72 hours of device-based temperature control after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, a randomized trial shows.

“Since 2005, active fever prevention in comatose patients has been advocated by the guidelines for 72 hours after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest,” Christian Hassager, MD, of the University of Copenhagen, told this news organization. “Our study is the first randomized trial ever on this subject – and it challenges the guidelines.”

At 90 days, a primary endpoint – a composite of death from any cause or hospital discharge with a high Cerebral Performance Category score – occurred in 32.4% of those in the 36-hour group and 33.6% of those in the 72-hour group; mortality was 29.5% versus 30.3%, respectively.

The study was published online  in The New England Journal of Medicine. The results were also presented at the Resuscitation Science Symposium during the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
 

No significant differences

Assessment of the two device-based fever-prevention strategies for the duration was a predefined, additional randomly assigned open-label intervention in the Blood Pressure and Oxygenation Targets in Post Resuscitation Care (BOX) trial, which involved comatose adult patients who had been resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest at two Danish cardiac arrest centers.

The main BOX analysis compared different primary strategies in these patients in a two-by-two factorial design: higher versus lower blood pressure targets and higher versus lower oxygenation targets. They found no difference between the various strategies in terms of death and discharge from hospital in a poor neurologic state. Those results were presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress on Aug. 27, and simultaneously published in separate articles in The New England Journal of Medicine.

For this current analysis, a total of 789 comatose patients (mean age, 62; 80% men) received device-based temperature control targeting 36° C for 24 hours followed by 37° C for either 12 or 48 hours (total intervention times, 36 and 72 hours, respectively) or until the patient regained consciousness.

Patients were kept sedated and were receiving mechanical ventilation during the temperature control at 36° C, the authors note. Target core body temperature was controlled using commercially available surface cooling at one of the sites in 286 patients (Criticool and Allon, Belmont Medical Technologies) and using intravenous cooling in 503 patients at the other site (Thermogard XP, and Cool Line Catheter, Zoll).

Body temperature was maintained at 37° C with the same type of device that had been used for 36° C during the initial 24 hours. If the patient awakened, cooling was terminated.

Physicians in both groups were permitted to use non–device-based fever treatment (that is, for a body temperature > 37.5° C) with drugs such as paracetamol, by uncovering the patient’s body, or both, at the discretion of the treating physician. Ice packs or pads were not used.

The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause or hospital discharge with a Cerebral Performance Category of 3 or 4 (range, 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating more severe disability) within 90 days after randomization.

Secondary outcomes at 90 days included death from any cause and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment score (range, 0 to 30, with higher scores indicating better cognitive ability).

A primary endpoint event occurred in 32.3% of patients in the 36-hour group and in 33.6% of those in the 72-hour group (hazard ratio, 0.99). Mortality was 29.5% in the 36-hour group and 30.3% in the 72-hour group.

The median Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores were 26 and 27, respectively. No significant between-group differences in the incidence of adverse events were observed.

The authors concluded that “active device-based fever prevention for 36 or 72 hours after cardiac arrest did not result in significantly different percentages of patients dying or having severe disability or coma.”

Dr. Hassager added, “We will continue with a new trial where we will randomize to treatment as usual or immediate wakeup call and no temperature intervention at all.”
 

Findings ‘very persuasive’

Intensivist Ken Parhar, MD, clinical associate professor, Critical Care Medicine at the University of Calgary (Alta.) and Alberta Health Services, Edmonton, and medical director, Cardiovascular Intensive Care Unit, commented on the study.

“The findings are very clear and very persuasive,” he said. “I think this should be incorporated into future guidelines, though it would be nice to see the trial repeated in another center.”

Dr. Parhar has kept comatose patients under temperature control for less than 72 hours, but mainly because those patients started to wake up. “This study provides clarity on the safety of that process – that we don’t have to unnecessarily keep somebody sedated just for an arbitrary timeline,” he said. “Beyond 36 hours, we need to continue to use our judgment.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation, as was the work of one of the coauthors. Dr. Hassager’s work was funded by a grant from the Lundbeck Foundation; he also received an individual research grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation, as well as honoraria from ABIOMED. No other disclosures were declared.

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

Outcomes were similar for comatose patients who received 36 versus 72 hours of device-based temperature control after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, a randomized trial shows.

“Since 2005, active fever prevention in comatose patients has been advocated by the guidelines for 72 hours after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest,” Christian Hassager, MD, of the University of Copenhagen, told this news organization. “Our study is the first randomized trial ever on this subject – and it challenges the guidelines.”

At 90 days, a primary endpoint – a composite of death from any cause or hospital discharge with a high Cerebral Performance Category score – occurred in 32.4% of those in the 36-hour group and 33.6% of those in the 72-hour group; mortality was 29.5% versus 30.3%, respectively.

The study was published online  in The New England Journal of Medicine. The results were also presented at the Resuscitation Science Symposium during the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
 

No significant differences

Assessment of the two device-based fever-prevention strategies for the duration was a predefined, additional randomly assigned open-label intervention in the Blood Pressure and Oxygenation Targets in Post Resuscitation Care (BOX) trial, which involved comatose adult patients who had been resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest at two Danish cardiac arrest centers.

The main BOX analysis compared different primary strategies in these patients in a two-by-two factorial design: higher versus lower blood pressure targets and higher versus lower oxygenation targets. They found no difference between the various strategies in terms of death and discharge from hospital in a poor neurologic state. Those results were presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress on Aug. 27, and simultaneously published in separate articles in The New England Journal of Medicine.

For this current analysis, a total of 789 comatose patients (mean age, 62; 80% men) received device-based temperature control targeting 36° C for 24 hours followed by 37° C for either 12 or 48 hours (total intervention times, 36 and 72 hours, respectively) or until the patient regained consciousness.

Patients were kept sedated and were receiving mechanical ventilation during the temperature control at 36° C, the authors note. Target core body temperature was controlled using commercially available surface cooling at one of the sites in 286 patients (Criticool and Allon, Belmont Medical Technologies) and using intravenous cooling in 503 patients at the other site (Thermogard XP, and Cool Line Catheter, Zoll).

Body temperature was maintained at 37° C with the same type of device that had been used for 36° C during the initial 24 hours. If the patient awakened, cooling was terminated.

Physicians in both groups were permitted to use non–device-based fever treatment (that is, for a body temperature > 37.5° C) with drugs such as paracetamol, by uncovering the patient’s body, or both, at the discretion of the treating physician. Ice packs or pads were not used.

The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause or hospital discharge with a Cerebral Performance Category of 3 or 4 (range, 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating more severe disability) within 90 days after randomization.

Secondary outcomes at 90 days included death from any cause and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment score (range, 0 to 30, with higher scores indicating better cognitive ability).

A primary endpoint event occurred in 32.3% of patients in the 36-hour group and in 33.6% of those in the 72-hour group (hazard ratio, 0.99). Mortality was 29.5% in the 36-hour group and 30.3% in the 72-hour group.

The median Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores were 26 and 27, respectively. No significant between-group differences in the incidence of adverse events were observed.

The authors concluded that “active device-based fever prevention for 36 or 72 hours after cardiac arrest did not result in significantly different percentages of patients dying or having severe disability or coma.”

Dr. Hassager added, “We will continue with a new trial where we will randomize to treatment as usual or immediate wakeup call and no temperature intervention at all.”
 

Findings ‘very persuasive’

Intensivist Ken Parhar, MD, clinical associate professor, Critical Care Medicine at the University of Calgary (Alta.) and Alberta Health Services, Edmonton, and medical director, Cardiovascular Intensive Care Unit, commented on the study.

“The findings are very clear and very persuasive,” he said. “I think this should be incorporated into future guidelines, though it would be nice to see the trial repeated in another center.”

Dr. Parhar has kept comatose patients under temperature control for less than 72 hours, but mainly because those patients started to wake up. “This study provides clarity on the safety of that process – that we don’t have to unnecessarily keep somebody sedated just for an arbitrary timeline,” he said. “Beyond 36 hours, we need to continue to use our judgment.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation, as was the work of one of the coauthors. Dr. Hassager’s work was funded by a grant from the Lundbeck Foundation; he also received an individual research grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation, as well as honoraria from ABIOMED. No other disclosures were declared.

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

Sitting across from a patient explaining a complicated treatment proposal, protocol, or medication may be one of the most complex yet crucial tasks you have as a physician. Although informed consent is at the forefront of shared decisions between you and your patient, there’s a fine line between providing enough information on the risks and benefits of a particular treatment and knowing you’ve explained it well enough to fully educate your patient about their choices.

According to the Medscape “Right and Wrong in Medicine: Life, Death, and Wrenching Choices” report, how you handle the informed consent process can be the difference between a positive outcome and a negative one.

“It is a bit of a fine line because unless your patient happens to be a health care provider, medicine is complicated for patients to understand,” said David L. Feldman, MD, chief medical officer at The Doctors Company, the nation’s largest medical malpractice insurer in New York.

In addition, documenting the interaction is critical, said James Giordano, PhD, MPhil, professor in the departments of neurology and biochemistry and chief of the neuroethics studies program at the Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington.

“As with anything in medicine, the key rule is that if it’s not documented, it’s not done,” he said. “This also means diligent documentation in all aspects of the medical record, including the electronic medical record and the written one.”

That said, it’s important to know what’s enough and what’s too granular when you discuss a procedure with your patients, said Erum N. Ilyas, MD, a board-certified dermatologist at Schweiger Dermatology and a bioethicist near Philadelphia.

“One of the most challenging aspects of informed consent, especially for young physicians, is how to discuss a procedure or a medication in a manner that is both relevant and concise,” Dr. llyas said. “I’ve had residents about to perform a skin biopsy spend several minutes covering every aspect of every potential outcome of a routine skin biopsy. The patient is left traumatized and confused as to whether they should proceed with the small procedure.”

Instead, the goal of informed consent is to ensure that the patient has a general overview of the procedure and is empowered, knowing that the decision to proceed is, indeed, part of their decision-making process.

How long an informed consent discussion takes depends on the procedure.

“When I was in practice as a plastic surgeon, the conversations varied from the straightforward ‘I’m taking this mole off your cheek, and there’s a risk of scarring and bleeding’ to talking about a mastectomy and breast reconstruction, which could take an hour or more to discuss,” Dr. Feldman said.

Ultimately, it’s as essential for doctors to explain the risks associated with a procedure as it is for patients to understand precisely what’s involved, Dr. Ilyas added.

She also recommends creating a flow to the conversation that places the discussion of risks within the context of why the procedure is being performed. This way, clarity about both the risks and the need for the treatment or procedure can be achieved.

When doing so, it’s critical to make sure you’re speaking your patient’s language – literally.

“Have a translator in the room if needed,” Dr. Feldman added. “If your patient is hearing or sight impaired, you need to have every contingency ready to ensure that everyone is in complete communication.”
 

Document, document, document!

To best protect yourself, the patient must consent to each procedure and intervention via active, informed consent, said Dr. Giordano.

“It’s not enough to hand a patient a piece of paper and say sign it,” he said. “There should be some documented evidence that the patient has not only read the document but that the key parts of the document have been explained and that the patient’s level of comprehension has been assessed and verified.”

It is vital if the patient has a disability, a neurological impairment, or a neurocognitive or psychiatric condition that might impede his or her ability to understand the consent that’s being sought.

In addition, it’s best if a ‘clinical proxy’ handles the consent (for example, a nurse, office worker, or case manager).

“This can be very helpful because it means you’ve had third-party documentation of informed consent,” Dr. Giordano said. “It should then be re-documented with you as the clinician and stated that the patient has affirmatively and actively agreed to treatment.”
 

What happens when things go wrong?

If you’re sued over informed consent, with the patient claiming that you didn’t fully explain the potential risks, the first thing to consider is why this happened.

“Very often, these situations occur if there was some difficulty or competency of communication,” Dr. Giordano said. “You may have done everything right, but somehow the patient hasn’t gained an understanding of the procedure required.”

Physicians must take a hard look at how they’re explaining risks and possible side effects. For doctors who perform these procedures regularly, the risks may seem small, and they may unconsciously minimize them to the patient. But when something goes wrong, the patient may then feel that they didn’t fully understand the frequency of poor outcomes, or the potential severity.

Next, it’s important to perform a ‘gap analysis’ to assess why something went awry. That means, look at all the potential factors involved to identify which one was the weak link.

“It might be that the patient was on a signing frenzy and signed away but didn’t receive active and informed content,” Dr. Giordano said. “The goal is to learn how to close the gap for this case and for future cases.”

To protect yourself, consider using technology to your advantage, especially since lawsuits over informed consent usually happen several years after the procedure. This is when a patient might argue that you didn’t tell them about possible complications and that they might have opted out of the procedure if they had known about those issues ahead of time.

“Even before the statute of limitations is up for a lawsuit, it could be five years from the time the procedure occurred due to the length of time a lawsuit can take,” Dr. Feldman said. “That’s why it’s important to take a video of your conversation or make a recording of the informed consent conversation. This way if there’s a question of what you said, there’s a video of it.”

For many physicians, this would be a big change – to video record and then store all their informed consent conversations. It could most likely help you if a lawsuit occurs, but some physicians may feel that process to be cumbersome and time-consuming, and they’d rather find another way to ensure that patients understand the risks.

Ultimately, however, if there’s a legal question involved with informed consent, the general thinking is that the effect on the patient must be harmful for it to stand up.

“The question becomes whether the outcome rendered that gap in the consenting process forgivable,” Dr. Giordano said. “The hope is that there was nothing harmful to the patient and that the benefit of the procedure was demonstrable despite any gaps in the informed consent process.”

In the end, informed consent should be a matter of good communication before, during, and after any treatment or procedure.

“When you form a relationship with a patient who needs any procedure, small or large, you’re going to be guiding them through a very scary thing,” Dr. Feldman said. “You want to make patients feel like you care about them and that, while neither you nor the system is perfect, you’ll take care of them. That’s the bottom line.”

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

Sitting across from a patient explaining a complicated treatment proposal, protocol, or medication may be one of the most complex yet crucial tasks you have as a physician. Although informed consent is at the forefront of shared decisions between you and your patient, there’s a fine line between providing enough information on the risks and benefits of a particular treatment and knowing you’ve explained it well enough to fully educate your patient about their choices.

According to the Medscape “Right and Wrong in Medicine: Life, Death, and Wrenching Choices” report, how you handle the informed consent process can be the difference between a positive outcome and a negative one.

“It is a bit of a fine line because unless your patient happens to be a health care provider, medicine is complicated for patients to understand,” said David L. Feldman, MD, chief medical officer at The Doctors Company, the nation’s largest medical malpractice insurer in New York.

In addition, documenting the interaction is critical, said James Giordano, PhD, MPhil, professor in the departments of neurology and biochemistry and chief of the neuroethics studies program at the Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington.

“As with anything in medicine, the key rule is that if it’s not documented, it’s not done,” he said. “This also means diligent documentation in all aspects of the medical record, including the electronic medical record and the written one.”

That said, it’s important to know what’s enough and what’s too granular when you discuss a procedure with your patients, said Erum N. Ilyas, MD, a board-certified dermatologist at Schweiger Dermatology and a bioethicist near Philadelphia.

“One of the most challenging aspects of informed consent, especially for young physicians, is how to discuss a procedure or a medication in a manner that is both relevant and concise,” Dr. llyas said. “I’ve had residents about to perform a skin biopsy spend several minutes covering every aspect of every potential outcome of a routine skin biopsy. The patient is left traumatized and confused as to whether they should proceed with the small procedure.”

Instead, the goal of informed consent is to ensure that the patient has a general overview of the procedure and is empowered, knowing that the decision to proceed is, indeed, part of their decision-making process.

How long an informed consent discussion takes depends on the procedure.

“When I was in practice as a plastic surgeon, the conversations varied from the straightforward ‘I’m taking this mole off your cheek, and there’s a risk of scarring and bleeding’ to talking about a mastectomy and breast reconstruction, which could take an hour or more to discuss,” Dr. Feldman said.

Ultimately, it’s as essential for doctors to explain the risks associated with a procedure as it is for patients to understand precisely what’s involved, Dr. Ilyas added.

She also recommends creating a flow to the conversation that places the discussion of risks within the context of why the procedure is being performed. This way, clarity about both the risks and the need for the treatment or procedure can be achieved.

When doing so, it’s critical to make sure you’re speaking your patient’s language – literally.

“Have a translator in the room if needed,” Dr. Feldman added. “If your patient is hearing or sight impaired, you need to have every contingency ready to ensure that everyone is in complete communication.”
 

Document, document, document!

To best protect yourself, the patient must consent to each procedure and intervention via active, informed consent, said Dr. Giordano.

“It’s not enough to hand a patient a piece of paper and say sign it,” he said. “There should be some documented evidence that the patient has not only read the document but that the key parts of the document have been explained and that the patient’s level of comprehension has been assessed and verified.”

It is vital if the patient has a disability, a neurological impairment, or a neurocognitive or psychiatric condition that might impede his or her ability to understand the consent that’s being sought.

In addition, it’s best if a ‘clinical proxy’ handles the consent (for example, a nurse, office worker, or case manager).

“This can be very helpful because it means you’ve had third-party documentation of informed consent,” Dr. Giordano said. “It should then be re-documented with you as the clinician and stated that the patient has affirmatively and actively agreed to treatment.”
 

What happens when things go wrong?

If you’re sued over informed consent, with the patient claiming that you didn’t fully explain the potential risks, the first thing to consider is why this happened.

“Very often, these situations occur if there was some difficulty or competency of communication,” Dr. Giordano said. “You may have done everything right, but somehow the patient hasn’t gained an understanding of the procedure required.”

Physicians must take a hard look at how they’re explaining risks and possible side effects. For doctors who perform these procedures regularly, the risks may seem small, and they may unconsciously minimize them to the patient. But when something goes wrong, the patient may then feel that they didn’t fully understand the frequency of poor outcomes, or the potential severity.

Next, it’s important to perform a ‘gap analysis’ to assess why something went awry. That means, look at all the potential factors involved to identify which one was the weak link.

“It might be that the patient was on a signing frenzy and signed away but didn’t receive active and informed content,” Dr. Giordano said. “The goal is to learn how to close the gap for this case and for future cases.”

To protect yourself, consider using technology to your advantage, especially since lawsuits over informed consent usually happen several years after the procedure. This is when a patient might argue that you didn’t tell them about possible complications and that they might have opted out of the procedure if they had known about those issues ahead of time.

“Even before the statute of limitations is up for a lawsuit, it could be five years from the time the procedure occurred due to the length of time a lawsuit can take,” Dr. Feldman said. “That’s why it’s important to take a video of your conversation or make a recording of the informed consent conversation. This way if there’s a question of what you said, there’s a video of it.”

For many physicians, this would be a big change – to video record and then store all their informed consent conversations. It could most likely help you if a lawsuit occurs, but some physicians may feel that process to be cumbersome and time-consuming, and they’d rather find another way to ensure that patients understand the risks.

Ultimately, however, if there’s a legal question involved with informed consent, the general thinking is that the effect on the patient must be harmful for it to stand up.

“The question becomes whether the outcome rendered that gap in the consenting process forgivable,” Dr. Giordano said. “The hope is that there was nothing harmful to the patient and that the benefit of the procedure was demonstrable despite any gaps in the informed consent process.”

In the end, informed consent should be a matter of good communication before, during, and after any treatment or procedure.

“When you form a relationship with a patient who needs any procedure, small or large, you’re going to be guiding them through a very scary thing,” Dr. Feldman said. “You want to make patients feel like you care about them and that, while neither you nor the system is perfect, you’ll take care of them. That’s the bottom line.”

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

Sitting across from a patient explaining a complicated treatment proposal, protocol, or medication may be one of the most complex yet crucial tasks you have as a physician. Although informed consent is at the forefront of shared decisions between you and your patient, there’s a fine line between providing enough information on the risks and benefits of a particular treatment and knowing you’ve explained it well enough to fully educate your patient about their choices.

According to the Medscape “Right and Wrong in Medicine: Life, Death, and Wrenching Choices” report, how you handle the informed consent process can be the difference between a positive outcome and a negative one.

“It is a bit of a fine line because unless your patient happens to be a health care provider, medicine is complicated for patients to understand,” said David L. Feldman, MD, chief medical officer at The Doctors Company, the nation’s largest medical malpractice insurer in New York.

In addition, documenting the interaction is critical, said James Giordano, PhD, MPhil, professor in the departments of neurology and biochemistry and chief of the neuroethics studies program at the Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington.

“As with anything in medicine, the key rule is that if it’s not documented, it’s not done,” he said. “This also means diligent documentation in all aspects of the medical record, including the electronic medical record and the written one.”

That said, it’s important to know what’s enough and what’s too granular when you discuss a procedure with your patients, said Erum N. Ilyas, MD, a board-certified dermatologist at Schweiger Dermatology and a bioethicist near Philadelphia.

“One of the most challenging aspects of informed consent, especially for young physicians, is how to discuss a procedure or a medication in a manner that is both relevant and concise,” Dr. llyas said. “I’ve had residents about to perform a skin biopsy spend several minutes covering every aspect of every potential outcome of a routine skin biopsy. The patient is left traumatized and confused as to whether they should proceed with the small procedure.”

Instead, the goal of informed consent is to ensure that the patient has a general overview of the procedure and is empowered, knowing that the decision to proceed is, indeed, part of their decision-making process.

How long an informed consent discussion takes depends on the procedure.

“When I was in practice as a plastic surgeon, the conversations varied from the straightforward ‘I’m taking this mole off your cheek, and there’s a risk of scarring and bleeding’ to talking about a mastectomy and breast reconstruction, which could take an hour or more to discuss,” Dr. Feldman said.

Ultimately, it’s as essential for doctors to explain the risks associated with a procedure as it is for patients to understand precisely what’s involved, Dr. Ilyas added.

She also recommends creating a flow to the conversation that places the discussion of risks within the context of why the procedure is being performed. This way, clarity about both the risks and the need for the treatment or procedure can be achieved.

When doing so, it’s critical to make sure you’re speaking your patient’s language – literally.

“Have a translator in the room if needed,” Dr. Feldman added. “If your patient is hearing or sight impaired, you need to have every contingency ready to ensure that everyone is in complete communication.”
 

Document, document, document!

To best protect yourself, the patient must consent to each procedure and intervention via active, informed consent, said Dr. Giordano.

“It’s not enough to hand a patient a piece of paper and say sign it,” he said. “There should be some documented evidence that the patient has not only read the document but that the key parts of the document have been explained and that the patient’s level of comprehension has been assessed and verified.”

It is vital if the patient has a disability, a neurological impairment, or a neurocognitive or psychiatric condition that might impede his or her ability to understand the consent that’s being sought.

In addition, it’s best if a ‘clinical proxy’ handles the consent (for example, a nurse, office worker, or case manager).

“This can be very helpful because it means you’ve had third-party documentation of informed consent,” Dr. Giordano said. “It should then be re-documented with you as the clinician and stated that the patient has affirmatively and actively agreed to treatment.”
 

What happens when things go wrong?

If you’re sued over informed consent, with the patient claiming that you didn’t fully explain the potential risks, the first thing to consider is why this happened.

“Very often, these situations occur if there was some difficulty or competency of communication,” Dr. Giordano said. “You may have done everything right, but somehow the patient hasn’t gained an understanding of the procedure required.”

Physicians must take a hard look at how they’re explaining risks and possible side effects. For doctors who perform these procedures regularly, the risks may seem small, and they may unconsciously minimize them to the patient. But when something goes wrong, the patient may then feel that they didn’t fully understand the frequency of poor outcomes, or the potential severity.

Next, it’s important to perform a ‘gap analysis’ to assess why something went awry. That means, look at all the potential factors involved to identify which one was the weak link.

“It might be that the patient was on a signing frenzy and signed away but didn’t receive active and informed content,” Dr. Giordano said. “The goal is to learn how to close the gap for this case and for future cases.”

To protect yourself, consider using technology to your advantage, especially since lawsuits over informed consent usually happen several years after the procedure. This is when a patient might argue that you didn’t tell them about possible complications and that they might have opted out of the procedure if they had known about those issues ahead of time.

“Even before the statute of limitations is up for a lawsuit, it could be five years from the time the procedure occurred due to the length of time a lawsuit can take,” Dr. Feldman said. “That’s why it’s important to take a video of your conversation or make a recording of the informed consent conversation. This way if there’s a question of what you said, there’s a video of it.”

For many physicians, this would be a big change – to video record and then store all their informed consent conversations. It could most likely help you if a lawsuit occurs, but some physicians may feel that process to be cumbersome and time-consuming, and they’d rather find another way to ensure that patients understand the risks.

Ultimately, however, if there’s a legal question involved with informed consent, the general thinking is that the effect on the patient must be harmful for it to stand up.

“The question becomes whether the outcome rendered that gap in the consenting process forgivable,” Dr. Giordano said. “The hope is that there was nothing harmful to the patient and that the benefit of the procedure was demonstrable despite any gaps in the informed consent process.”

In the end, informed consent should be a matter of good communication before, during, and after any treatment or procedure.

“When you form a relationship with a patient who needs any procedure, small or large, you’re going to be guiding them through a very scary thing,” Dr. Feldman said. “You want to make patients feel like you care about them and that, while neither you nor the system is perfect, you’ll take care of them. That’s the bottom line.”

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

In a study published online, researchers used artificial intelligence to analyze more than 1.4 million electronic health record emails to physicians – and the results aren’t pretty.

Among the emails, 43% were from patients; the remainder were mostly from other physicians or clinicians, or automated. The content of the messages wasn’t associated with doctor burnout, as the researchers had hypothesized. And only about 5% of the messages had negative sentiment.

But the researchers were struck by the hostility of that sentiment, displayed in messages like these that surely would be distressing for physicians to read:

“I hope and expect that you will spend eternity in he**. You are an abusive, nasty, cheap person.”

“Your office is full of liars, hypocrites and I will do everything in my power to prevent anyone from going to your bullsh** office again.”

About 5% of emails had an overall negative sentiment, with high-frequency words like “cancel,” “pain,” or “problem.” Among patient messages, 3% were negative and contained words and expletives suggesting hatred, hostility, or violence.

“F***” was the most common expletive used by patients.

Researchers provided examples of profanity-laced messages, including one patient who said, “I am so upset that I was told the blood work would include the gender of the baby. I have been waiting 5 [days] to find it, and it wasn’t even fu**ing tested!!!! What a disappointment in your office and the bullsh** I was told. I will be switching plans because this is sh**!”

Researchers also noted some high-frequency words associated with violence, such as “shoot,” “fight,” and “kill.”

“This is concerning, especially given documentation of patient-inflicted violence against physicians. Health systems should be proactive in ensuring that the in-basket does not become a venue for physician abuse and cyberbullying,” the researchers wrote in JAMA Network Open.

“Posting reminders in EHR patient portals to use kind language when sending messages, applying filters for expletives or threatening words, and creating frameworks for identifying patients who frequently send negative messages are potential strategies for mitigating this risk.”

Using a form of artificial intelligence technology called natural language processing (NLP), researchers at the University of California, San Diego, analyzed the characteristics of more than 1.4 million emails received by the university’s physicians, 43% of them from patients. They specifically looked at the volume of messages, word count, and overall sentiment.

Whereas other studies have examined the growing burden of EHR messaging for doctors, this type of email sentiment analysis could help in creating solutions. Researchers say that one such solution could involve applying filters for expletives or threatening words. It also could help identify fixable health system issues that make patients so angry, the researchers say.

Among the emails from physicians to physicians, just over half reported burnout, which correlated to the following phrases: “I am beginning to burn out and have one or more symptoms of burnout” and “I feel completely burned out [and] am at the point where I may need to seek help.”

On average, physicians who reported burnout received a greater volume of patient messages. The odds of burnout were significantly higher among Hispanic/Latinx physicians and females. Physicians with more than 15 years of clinical practice had markedly lower burnout.

Despite physicians now spending more time on EHR in-basket tasks than they did before the pandemic, the study found no significant associations between message characteristics and burnout.

Data for the cross-sectional study were collected from multiple specialties from April to September 2020. Physicians then completed a survey and assessed their burnout on a 5-point scale. Of the 609 physician responses, approximately 49% of participants were women, 56% were White, and 64% worked in outpatient settings. About 70% of the doctors had been in practice for 15 years or less.

The sentiment score was based on word content as well as the use of negation, punctuation, degree modifiers, all caps, emoticons, emojis, and acronyms. Positive patient messages were more likely to convey gratitude and thanks, along with casual expressions, such as “fyi” and “lol.”

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

In a study published online, researchers used artificial intelligence to analyze more than 1.4 million electronic health record emails to physicians – and the results aren’t pretty.

Among the emails, 43% were from patients; the remainder were mostly from other physicians or clinicians, or automated. The content of the messages wasn’t associated with doctor burnout, as the researchers had hypothesized. And only about 5% of the messages had negative sentiment.

But the researchers were struck by the hostility of that sentiment, displayed in messages like these that surely would be distressing for physicians to read:

“I hope and expect that you will spend eternity in he**. You are an abusive, nasty, cheap person.”

“Your office is full of liars, hypocrites and I will do everything in my power to prevent anyone from going to your bullsh** office again.”

About 5% of emails had an overall negative sentiment, with high-frequency words like “cancel,” “pain,” or “problem.” Among patient messages, 3% were negative and contained words and expletives suggesting hatred, hostility, or violence.

“F***” was the most common expletive used by patients.

Researchers provided examples of profanity-laced messages, including one patient who said, “I am so upset that I was told the blood work would include the gender of the baby. I have been waiting 5 [days] to find it, and it wasn’t even fu**ing tested!!!! What a disappointment in your office and the bullsh** I was told. I will be switching plans because this is sh**!”

Researchers also noted some high-frequency words associated with violence, such as “shoot,” “fight,” and “kill.”

“This is concerning, especially given documentation of patient-inflicted violence against physicians. Health systems should be proactive in ensuring that the in-basket does not become a venue for physician abuse and cyberbullying,” the researchers wrote in JAMA Network Open.

“Posting reminders in EHR patient portals to use kind language when sending messages, applying filters for expletives or threatening words, and creating frameworks for identifying patients who frequently send negative messages are potential strategies for mitigating this risk.”

Using a form of artificial intelligence technology called natural language processing (NLP), researchers at the University of California, San Diego, analyzed the characteristics of more than 1.4 million emails received by the university’s physicians, 43% of them from patients. They specifically looked at the volume of messages, word count, and overall sentiment.

Whereas other studies have examined the growing burden of EHR messaging for doctors, this type of email sentiment analysis could help in creating solutions. Researchers say that one such solution could involve applying filters for expletives or threatening words. It also could help identify fixable health system issues that make patients so angry, the researchers say.

Among the emails from physicians to physicians, just over half reported burnout, which correlated to the following phrases: “I am beginning to burn out and have one or more symptoms of burnout” and “I feel completely burned out [and] am at the point where I may need to seek help.”

On average, physicians who reported burnout received a greater volume of patient messages. The odds of burnout were significantly higher among Hispanic/Latinx physicians and females. Physicians with more than 15 years of clinical practice had markedly lower burnout.

Despite physicians now spending more time on EHR in-basket tasks than they did before the pandemic, the study found no significant associations between message characteristics and burnout.

Data for the cross-sectional study were collected from multiple specialties from April to September 2020. Physicians then completed a survey and assessed their burnout on a 5-point scale. Of the 609 physician responses, approximately 49% of participants were women, 56% were White, and 64% worked in outpatient settings. About 70% of the doctors had been in practice for 15 years or less.

The sentiment score was based on word content as well as the use of negation, punctuation, degree modifiers, all caps, emoticons, emojis, and acronyms. Positive patient messages were more likely to convey gratitude and thanks, along with casual expressions, such as “fyi” and “lol.”

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

In a study published online, researchers used artificial intelligence to analyze more than 1.4 million electronic health record emails to physicians – and the results aren’t pretty.

Among the emails, 43% were from patients; the remainder were mostly from other physicians or clinicians, or automated. The content of the messages wasn’t associated with doctor burnout, as the researchers had hypothesized. And only about 5% of the messages had negative sentiment.

But the researchers were struck by the hostility of that sentiment, displayed in messages like these that surely would be distressing for physicians to read:

“I hope and expect that you will spend eternity in he**. You are an abusive, nasty, cheap person.”

“Your office is full of liars, hypocrites and I will do everything in my power to prevent anyone from going to your bullsh** office again.”

About 5% of emails had an overall negative sentiment, with high-frequency words like “cancel,” “pain,” or “problem.” Among patient messages, 3% were negative and contained words and expletives suggesting hatred, hostility, or violence.

“F***” was the most common expletive used by patients.

Researchers provided examples of profanity-laced messages, including one patient who said, “I am so upset that I was told the blood work would include the gender of the baby. I have been waiting 5 [days] to find it, and it wasn’t even fu**ing tested!!!! What a disappointment in your office and the bullsh** I was told. I will be switching plans because this is sh**!”

Researchers also noted some high-frequency words associated with violence, such as “shoot,” “fight,” and “kill.”

“This is concerning, especially given documentation of patient-inflicted violence against physicians. Health systems should be proactive in ensuring that the in-basket does not become a venue for physician abuse and cyberbullying,” the researchers wrote in JAMA Network Open.

“Posting reminders in EHR patient portals to use kind language when sending messages, applying filters for expletives or threatening words, and creating frameworks for identifying patients who frequently send negative messages are potential strategies for mitigating this risk.”

Using a form of artificial intelligence technology called natural language processing (NLP), researchers at the University of California, San Diego, analyzed the characteristics of more than 1.4 million emails received by the university’s physicians, 43% of them from patients. They specifically looked at the volume of messages, word count, and overall sentiment.

Whereas other studies have examined the growing burden of EHR messaging for doctors, this type of email sentiment analysis could help in creating solutions. Researchers say that one such solution could involve applying filters for expletives or threatening words. It also could help identify fixable health system issues that make patients so angry, the researchers say.

Among the emails from physicians to physicians, just over half reported burnout, which correlated to the following phrases: “I am beginning to burn out and have one or more symptoms of burnout” and “I feel completely burned out [and] am at the point where I may need to seek help.”

On average, physicians who reported burnout received a greater volume of patient messages. The odds of burnout were significantly higher among Hispanic/Latinx physicians and females. Physicians with more than 15 years of clinical practice had markedly lower burnout.

Despite physicians now spending more time on EHR in-basket tasks than they did before the pandemic, the study found no significant associations between message characteristics and burnout.

Data for the cross-sectional study were collected from multiple specialties from April to September 2020. Physicians then completed a survey and assessed their burnout on a 5-point scale. Of the 609 physician responses, approximately 49% of participants were women, 56% were White, and 64% worked in outpatient settings. About 70% of the doctors had been in practice for 15 years or less.

The sentiment score was based on word content as well as the use of negation, punctuation, degree modifiers, all caps, emoticons, emojis, and acronyms. Positive patient messages were more likely to convey gratitude and thanks, along with casual expressions, such as “fyi” and “lol.”

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

CHICAGO – A single chest x-ray could predict a patient’s 10-year risk of dying from a heart attack or stroke, say researchers who presented the results of their deep-learning model at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

Current American College of Cardiologists and American Heart Association guidelines recommend estimating 10-year risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) to determine whether a patient should receive statins to help prevent atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Statins are recommended for patients with a 10-year risk of 7.5% or higher, the authors noted.

The current ASCVD risk score is determined with nine factors: age, sex, race, systolic blood pressure, hypertension treatment, smoking, type 2 diabetes, and a lipid panel.
 

Not all data points available in EHR

But not all of those data points may be available through the electronic health record, “which makes novel and easier approaches for population-wide screening desirable,” said lead researcher Jakob Weiss, MD, a radiologist affiliated with the Cardiovascular Imaging Research Center at Massachusetts General Hospital and the AI in medicine program at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Chest x-ray images, on the other hand, are commonly available. The images carry rich information beyond diagnostic data but have not been used in this type of prediction model because AI models have been lacking, Dr. Weiss said.

The researchers trained a deep-learning model with single chest x-rays only.

They used 147,497 chest x-rays from 40,643 participants in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer (PLCO) Screening Trial, a multicenter, randomized controlled trial designed and sponsored by the National Cancer Institute.

Dr. Weiss acknowledged that the population used to train the model was heavily White and that should be a consideration in validating the model.

They compared their model’s ability to predict 10-year ASCVD risk with the standard ACC/AHA model.

“Based on a single chest radiograph image, deep learning can predict the risk of future cardiovascular events independent of cardiovascular risk factors and with similar performance to the established and guideline-recommended ASCVD risk score,” Dr. Weiss said.
 

Tested against independent group

They tested the model against an independent group of 11,430 outpatients (average age, 60 years; 42.9% male) who underwent a routine outpatient chest x-ray at Mass General Brigham and were potentially eligible to receive statins.

Of those 11,430 patients, 1,096 (9.6%) had a major adverse cardiac event over the median follow-up of 10.3 years.

There was a significant association of CXR-CVD risk and MACE among patients eligible to receive statins, the researchers found (hazard ratio, 2.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.81-2.30; P < .001), which remained significant after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors (adjusted HR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.43-1.86; P < .001).

Some of the variables were missing in the standard model, but in a subgroup of 2,401 patients, all the variables were available.

They calculated ASCVD risk in that subgroup using the standard model and the CXR model and found that the performance was similar (c-statistic, 0.64 vs. 0.65; P = .48) to the ASCVD risk score (aHR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.20-2.09; P = .001).

Ritu R. Gill MD, MPH, associate professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School in Boston, who was not part of the study, said in an interview that “the predictive algorithm is promising and potentially translatable and could enhance the annual medical checkup in a select population.

“The algorithm was developed using the PLCO cohort with radiographs, which are likely subjects in the lung cancer screening arm,” she said. “This cohort would be at high risk of cardiovascular diseases, as smoking is a known risk factor for atherosclerotic disease, and therefore the results are expected.

“The algorithm needs to be validated in an independent database with inclusion of subjects with younger age groups and adjusted for gender and racial diversity,” Gill said.

David Cho, MD, a cardiologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who also was not part of the study, said in an interview that “this work is a great example of AI being able to detect clinically relevant outcomes with a widely used and low-cost screening test.

“The volume of data needed to train these models is already out there,” Dr. Cho said. “It just needs to be mined.”

He noted that this tool, if validated in randomized trials, could help determine risk among patients living in places where access to specialized cardiac care is limited.

Dr. Weiss and Dr. Cho disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gill has received research support from Cannon Inc and consultant fees from Imbio and WorldCare.

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

CHICAGO – A single chest x-ray could predict a patient’s 10-year risk of dying from a heart attack or stroke, say researchers who presented the results of their deep-learning model at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

Current American College of Cardiologists and American Heart Association guidelines recommend estimating 10-year risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) to determine whether a patient should receive statins to help prevent atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Statins are recommended for patients with a 10-year risk of 7.5% or higher, the authors noted.

The current ASCVD risk score is determined with nine factors: age, sex, race, systolic blood pressure, hypertension treatment, smoking, type 2 diabetes, and a lipid panel.
 

Not all data points available in EHR

But not all of those data points may be available through the electronic health record, “which makes novel and easier approaches for population-wide screening desirable,” said lead researcher Jakob Weiss, MD, a radiologist affiliated with the Cardiovascular Imaging Research Center at Massachusetts General Hospital and the AI in medicine program at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Chest x-ray images, on the other hand, are commonly available. The images carry rich information beyond diagnostic data but have not been used in this type of prediction model because AI models have been lacking, Dr. Weiss said.

The researchers trained a deep-learning model with single chest x-rays only.

They used 147,497 chest x-rays from 40,643 participants in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer (PLCO) Screening Trial, a multicenter, randomized controlled trial designed and sponsored by the National Cancer Institute.

Dr. Weiss acknowledged that the population used to train the model was heavily White and that should be a consideration in validating the model.

They compared their model’s ability to predict 10-year ASCVD risk with the standard ACC/AHA model.

“Based on a single chest radiograph image, deep learning can predict the risk of future cardiovascular events independent of cardiovascular risk factors and with similar performance to the established and guideline-recommended ASCVD risk score,” Dr. Weiss said.
 

Tested against independent group

They tested the model against an independent group of 11,430 outpatients (average age, 60 years; 42.9% male) who underwent a routine outpatient chest x-ray at Mass General Brigham and were potentially eligible to receive statins.

Of those 11,430 patients, 1,096 (9.6%) had a major adverse cardiac event over the median follow-up of 10.3 years.

There was a significant association of CXR-CVD risk and MACE among patients eligible to receive statins, the researchers found (hazard ratio, 2.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.81-2.30; P < .001), which remained significant after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors (adjusted HR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.43-1.86; P < .001).

Some of the variables were missing in the standard model, but in a subgroup of 2,401 patients, all the variables were available.

They calculated ASCVD risk in that subgroup using the standard model and the CXR model and found that the performance was similar (c-statistic, 0.64 vs. 0.65; P = .48) to the ASCVD risk score (aHR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.20-2.09; P = .001).

Ritu R. Gill MD, MPH, associate professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School in Boston, who was not part of the study, said in an interview that “the predictive algorithm is promising and potentially translatable and could enhance the annual medical checkup in a select population.

“The algorithm was developed using the PLCO cohort with radiographs, which are likely subjects in the lung cancer screening arm,” she said. “This cohort would be at high risk of cardiovascular diseases, as smoking is a known risk factor for atherosclerotic disease, and therefore the results are expected.

“The algorithm needs to be validated in an independent database with inclusion of subjects with younger age groups and adjusted for gender and racial diversity,” Gill said.

David Cho, MD, a cardiologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who also was not part of the study, said in an interview that “this work is a great example of AI being able to detect clinically relevant outcomes with a widely used and low-cost screening test.

“The volume of data needed to train these models is already out there,” Dr. Cho said. “It just needs to be mined.”

He noted that this tool, if validated in randomized trials, could help determine risk among patients living in places where access to specialized cardiac care is limited.

Dr. Weiss and Dr. Cho disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gill has received research support from Cannon Inc and consultant fees from Imbio and WorldCare.

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

CHICAGO – A single chest x-ray could predict a patient’s 10-year risk of dying from a heart attack or stroke, say researchers who presented the results of their deep-learning model at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

Current American College of Cardiologists and American Heart Association guidelines recommend estimating 10-year risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) to determine whether a patient should receive statins to help prevent atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Statins are recommended for patients with a 10-year risk of 7.5% or higher, the authors noted.

The current ASCVD risk score is determined with nine factors: age, sex, race, systolic blood pressure, hypertension treatment, smoking, type 2 diabetes, and a lipid panel.
 

Not all data points available in EHR

But not all of those data points may be available through the electronic health record, “which makes novel and easier approaches for population-wide screening desirable,” said lead researcher Jakob Weiss, MD, a radiologist affiliated with the Cardiovascular Imaging Research Center at Massachusetts General Hospital and the AI in medicine program at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Chest x-ray images, on the other hand, are commonly available. The images carry rich information beyond diagnostic data but have not been used in this type of prediction model because AI models have been lacking, Dr. Weiss said.

The researchers trained a deep-learning model with single chest x-rays only.

They used 147,497 chest x-rays from 40,643 participants in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer (PLCO) Screening Trial, a multicenter, randomized controlled trial designed and sponsored by the National Cancer Institute.

Dr. Weiss acknowledged that the population used to train the model was heavily White and that should be a consideration in validating the model.

They compared their model’s ability to predict 10-year ASCVD risk with the standard ACC/AHA model.

“Based on a single chest radiograph image, deep learning can predict the risk of future cardiovascular events independent of cardiovascular risk factors and with similar performance to the established and guideline-recommended ASCVD risk score,” Dr. Weiss said.
 

Tested against independent group

They tested the model against an independent group of 11,430 outpatients (average age, 60 years; 42.9% male) who underwent a routine outpatient chest x-ray at Mass General Brigham and were potentially eligible to receive statins.

Of those 11,430 patients, 1,096 (9.6%) had a major adverse cardiac event over the median follow-up of 10.3 years.

There was a significant association of CXR-CVD risk and MACE among patients eligible to receive statins, the researchers found (hazard ratio, 2.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.81-2.30; P < .001), which remained significant after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors (adjusted HR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.43-1.86; P < .001).

Some of the variables were missing in the standard model, but in a subgroup of 2,401 patients, all the variables were available.

They calculated ASCVD risk in that subgroup using the standard model and the CXR model and found that the performance was similar (c-statistic, 0.64 vs. 0.65; P = .48) to the ASCVD risk score (aHR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.20-2.09; P = .001).

Ritu R. Gill MD, MPH, associate professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School in Boston, who was not part of the study, said in an interview that “the predictive algorithm is promising and potentially translatable and could enhance the annual medical checkup in a select population.

“The algorithm was developed using the PLCO cohort with radiographs, which are likely subjects in the lung cancer screening arm,” she said. “This cohort would be at high risk of cardiovascular diseases, as smoking is a known risk factor for atherosclerotic disease, and therefore the results are expected.

“The algorithm needs to be validated in an independent database with inclusion of subjects with younger age groups and adjusted for gender and racial diversity,” Gill said.

David Cho, MD, a cardiologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who also was not part of the study, said in an interview that “this work is a great example of AI being able to detect clinically relevant outcomes with a widely used and low-cost screening test.

“The volume of data needed to train these models is already out there,” Dr. Cho said. “It just needs to be mined.”

He noted that this tool, if validated in randomized trials, could help determine risk among patients living in places where access to specialized cardiac care is limited.

Dr. Weiss and Dr. Cho disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gill has received research support from Cannon Inc and consultant fees from Imbio and WorldCare.

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

COVID-19 vaccines retained the ability to prevent deaths from COVID-19 in children and adolescents regardless of the dominant circulating variant, in a new study.

The vaccine’s effectiveness against infection in the short term has been established, as has the waning effectiveness of the vaccine over time, wrote Juan Manuel Castelli, MD, of the Ministry of Health of Argentina, Buenos Aires, and colleagues, in the British Medical Journal.

However, data on the impact of vaccine effectiveness on mortality in children and adolescents are limited, especially during periods of omicron variant dominance, the researchers said.

In their new study, the researchers reviewed data from 844,460 children and adolescents aged 3-17 years from the National Surveillance System and the Nominalized Federal Vaccination Registry of Argentina, during a time that included a period of omicron dominance.

Argentina began vaccinating adolescents aged 12-17 years against COVID-19 in August 2021 and added children aged 3-11 years in October 2021. Those aged 12-17 years who were considered fully vaccinated received two doses of either Pfizer-BioNTech and/or Moderna vaccines, and fully-vaccinated 3- to 11-year-olds received two doses of Sinopharm vaccine.

The average time from the second vaccine dose to a COVID-19 test was 66 days for those aged 12-17 years and 54 days for 3- to 11-year-olds. The researchers matched COVID-19 cases with uninfected controls, and a total of 139,321 cases were included in the analysis.

Overall, the estimated vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 was 64.2% during a period of delta dominance (61.2% in children aged 3-11 years and 66.8% in adolescents aged 12-17 years).

During a period of omicron dominance, estimated vaccine effectiveness was 19.9% across all ages (15.9% and 26.0% for younger and older age groups, respectively).

Effectiveness of the vaccine decreased over time, regardless of the dominant variant, but the decline was greater during the omicron dominant period, the researchers noted. During the omicron period, effectiveness in children aged 3-11 years decreased from 37.6% at 15-30 days postvaccination to 2.0% at 60 days or longer after vaccination. In adolescents aged 12-17 years, vaccine effectiveness during the omicron period decreased from 55.8% at 15-30 days postvaccination to 12.4% at 60 days or longer after vaccination.

Despite the waning protection against infection, the vaccine’s effectiveness against death from COVID-19 was 66.9% in children aged 3-11 years and 97.6% in adolescents aged 12-17 during the period of omicron dominance, the researchers noted.

The results are consistent with similar studies showing a decreased vaccine effectiveness against infection but a persistent effectiveness against deaths over time, the researchers wrote in the discussion section of their paper.

“Our results suggest that the primary vaccination schedule is effective in preventing mortality in children and adolescents with COVID-19 regardless of the circulating SARS-CoV-2 variant,” the researchers said.
 

Study limitations and strengths

The study was limited by several factors including the incomplete data on symptoms and hospital admissions, the possible impact of unmeasured confounding variables, and the observational design that prevents conclusions of causality, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and access to detailed vaccination records, they said.

Both heterologous and homologous mRNA vaccine schedules showed similar effectiveness in preventing short-term infection and mortality from COVID-19 during periods of differing dominant variants, they noted.

The study findings support the vaccination of children against COVID-19 as an important public health measure to prevent mortality in children and adolescents, they concluded.
 

Data support value of vaccination, outside experts say

“COVID vaccines may not be as effective over time as the gene variants in the SARS-CoV-2 virus change,” Adrienne G. Randolph, MD, a pediatrician at Harvard Medical School and Boston Children’s Hospital, said in an interview. “Therefore, it is essential to assess vaccine effectiveness over time to look at effectiveness against variants and duration of effectiveness.” Dr. Randolph, who was not involved in the study, said she was not surprised by the findings, which she described as consistent with data from the United States. “COVID vaccines are very effective against preventing life-threatening disease, but the effectiveness against less severe illness for COVID vaccines is not as effective against Omicron,” she noted. 

The take-home message for clinicians is that it’s important to get children vaccinated against COVID to prevent severe and life-threatening illness, said Dr. Randolph. “Although these cases are uncommon in children, it is not possible to predict which children will be the most severely affected by COVID,” she emphasized.

However, “we need more data on the new COVID booster vaccines in children that are designed to be more effective against Omicron’s newer variants,” Dr. Randolph said in an interview. “We also need more data on COVID vaccine effectiveness in the youngest children, under 5 years of age, and data on vaccinating mothers to prevent COVID in infants,” she said.

Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician who practices a combination of internal medicine and pediatrics, agreed that future research should continue to assess how the new COVID boosters are faring against new variants, noting that the current study did not include data from children who received the new bivalent vaccine.

“The methodology of this study uses a test negative case control design which is common for estimating vaccine effectiveness post-release of a vaccine, but is subject to biases,” Dr. Joos explained. “These are not the clean effectiveness numbers of the prospective randomized control trials that we are used to hearing about when a vaccine is first being approved.”

“Nevertheless, the study reinforces the initial manufacturers’ studies that the vaccines are effective at preventing infection in the pediatric population,” Dr. Joos said in an interview. The current study also reinforces the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing “the rare but devastating mortality from COVID-19 in the pediatric population.”

Commenting on other research showing an increasing ratio of COVID deaths among vaccinated individuals compared to total COVID deaths, he noted that this finding is “likely reflecting a denominator effect of rapidly declining COVID deaths overall,” partly from the vaccines and partly from immunity after previous natural infection.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers, Dr. Randolph, and Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.

COVID-19 vaccines retained the ability to prevent deaths from COVID-19 in children and adolescents regardless of the dominant circulating variant, in a new study.

The vaccine’s effectiveness against infection in the short term has been established, as has the waning effectiveness of the vaccine over time, wrote Juan Manuel Castelli, MD, of the Ministry of Health of Argentina, Buenos Aires, and colleagues, in the British Medical Journal.

However, data on the impact of vaccine effectiveness on mortality in children and adolescents are limited, especially during periods of omicron variant dominance, the researchers said.

In their new study, the researchers reviewed data from 844,460 children and adolescents aged 3-17 years from the National Surveillance System and the Nominalized Federal Vaccination Registry of Argentina, during a time that included a period of omicron dominance.

Argentina began vaccinating adolescents aged 12-17 years against COVID-19 in August 2021 and added children aged 3-11 years in October 2021. Those aged 12-17 years who were considered fully vaccinated received two doses of either Pfizer-BioNTech and/or Moderna vaccines, and fully-vaccinated 3- to 11-year-olds received two doses of Sinopharm vaccine.

The average time from the second vaccine dose to a COVID-19 test was 66 days for those aged 12-17 years and 54 days for 3- to 11-year-olds. The researchers matched COVID-19 cases with uninfected controls, and a total of 139,321 cases were included in the analysis.

Overall, the estimated vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 was 64.2% during a period of delta dominance (61.2% in children aged 3-11 years and 66.8% in adolescents aged 12-17 years).

During a period of omicron dominance, estimated vaccine effectiveness was 19.9% across all ages (15.9% and 26.0% for younger and older age groups, respectively).

Effectiveness of the vaccine decreased over time, regardless of the dominant variant, but the decline was greater during the omicron dominant period, the researchers noted. During the omicron period, effectiveness in children aged 3-11 years decreased from 37.6% at 15-30 days postvaccination to 2.0% at 60 days or longer after vaccination. In adolescents aged 12-17 years, vaccine effectiveness during the omicron period decreased from 55.8% at 15-30 days postvaccination to 12.4% at 60 days or longer after vaccination.

Despite the waning protection against infection, the vaccine’s effectiveness against death from COVID-19 was 66.9% in children aged 3-11 years and 97.6% in adolescents aged 12-17 during the period of omicron dominance, the researchers noted.

The results are consistent with similar studies showing a decreased vaccine effectiveness against infection but a persistent effectiveness against deaths over time, the researchers wrote in the discussion section of their paper.

“Our results suggest that the primary vaccination schedule is effective in preventing mortality in children and adolescents with COVID-19 regardless of the circulating SARS-CoV-2 variant,” the researchers said.
 

Study limitations and strengths

The study was limited by several factors including the incomplete data on symptoms and hospital admissions, the possible impact of unmeasured confounding variables, and the observational design that prevents conclusions of causality, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and access to detailed vaccination records, they said.

Both heterologous and homologous mRNA vaccine schedules showed similar effectiveness in preventing short-term infection and mortality from COVID-19 during periods of differing dominant variants, they noted.

The study findings support the vaccination of children against COVID-19 as an important public health measure to prevent mortality in children and adolescents, they concluded.
 

Data support value of vaccination, outside experts say

“COVID vaccines may not be as effective over time as the gene variants in the SARS-CoV-2 virus change,” Adrienne G. Randolph, MD, a pediatrician at Harvard Medical School and Boston Children’s Hospital, said in an interview. “Therefore, it is essential to assess vaccine effectiveness over time to look at effectiveness against variants and duration of effectiveness.” Dr. Randolph, who was not involved in the study, said she was not surprised by the findings, which she described as consistent with data from the United States. “COVID vaccines are very effective against preventing life-threatening disease, but the effectiveness against less severe illness for COVID vaccines is not as effective against Omicron,” she noted. 

The take-home message for clinicians is that it’s important to get children vaccinated against COVID to prevent severe and life-threatening illness, said Dr. Randolph. “Although these cases are uncommon in children, it is not possible to predict which children will be the most severely affected by COVID,” she emphasized.

However, “we need more data on the new COVID booster vaccines in children that are designed to be more effective against Omicron’s newer variants,” Dr. Randolph said in an interview. “We also need more data on COVID vaccine effectiveness in the youngest children, under 5 years of age, and data on vaccinating mothers to prevent COVID in infants,” she said.

Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician who practices a combination of internal medicine and pediatrics, agreed that future research should continue to assess how the new COVID boosters are faring against new variants, noting that the current study did not include data from children who received the new bivalent vaccine.

“The methodology of this study uses a test negative case control design which is common for estimating vaccine effectiveness post-release of a vaccine, but is subject to biases,” Dr. Joos explained. “These are not the clean effectiveness numbers of the prospective randomized control trials that we are used to hearing about when a vaccine is first being approved.”

“Nevertheless, the study reinforces the initial manufacturers’ studies that the vaccines are effective at preventing infection in the pediatric population,” Dr. Joos said in an interview. The current study also reinforces the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing “the rare but devastating mortality from COVID-19 in the pediatric population.”

Commenting on other research showing an increasing ratio of COVID deaths among vaccinated individuals compared to total COVID deaths, he noted that this finding is “likely reflecting a denominator effect of rapidly declining COVID deaths overall,” partly from the vaccines and partly from immunity after previous natural infection.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers, Dr. Randolph, and Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.

COVID-19 vaccines retained the ability to prevent deaths from COVID-19 in children and adolescents regardless of the dominant circulating variant, in a new study.

The vaccine’s effectiveness against infection in the short term has been established, as has the waning effectiveness of the vaccine over time, wrote Juan Manuel Castelli, MD, of the Ministry of Health of Argentina, Buenos Aires, and colleagues, in the British Medical Journal.

However, data on the impact of vaccine effectiveness on mortality in children and adolescents are limited, especially during periods of omicron variant dominance, the researchers said.

In their new study, the researchers reviewed data from 844,460 children and adolescents aged 3-17 years from the National Surveillance System and the Nominalized Federal Vaccination Registry of Argentina, during a time that included a period of omicron dominance.

Argentina began vaccinating adolescents aged 12-17 years against COVID-19 in August 2021 and added children aged 3-11 years in October 2021. Those aged 12-17 years who were considered fully vaccinated received two doses of either Pfizer-BioNTech and/or Moderna vaccines, and fully-vaccinated 3- to 11-year-olds received two doses of Sinopharm vaccine.

The average time from the second vaccine dose to a COVID-19 test was 66 days for those aged 12-17 years and 54 days for 3- to 11-year-olds. The researchers matched COVID-19 cases with uninfected controls, and a total of 139,321 cases were included in the analysis.

Overall, the estimated vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 was 64.2% during a period of delta dominance (61.2% in children aged 3-11 years and 66.8% in adolescents aged 12-17 years).

During a period of omicron dominance, estimated vaccine effectiveness was 19.9% across all ages (15.9% and 26.0% for younger and older age groups, respectively).

Effectiveness of the vaccine decreased over time, regardless of the dominant variant, but the decline was greater during the omicron dominant period, the researchers noted. During the omicron period, effectiveness in children aged 3-11 years decreased from 37.6% at 15-30 days postvaccination to 2.0% at 60 days or longer after vaccination. In adolescents aged 12-17 years, vaccine effectiveness during the omicron period decreased from 55.8% at 15-30 days postvaccination to 12.4% at 60 days or longer after vaccination.

Despite the waning protection against infection, the vaccine’s effectiveness against death from COVID-19 was 66.9% in children aged 3-11 years and 97.6% in adolescents aged 12-17 during the period of omicron dominance, the researchers noted.

The results are consistent with similar studies showing a decreased vaccine effectiveness against infection but a persistent effectiveness against deaths over time, the researchers wrote in the discussion section of their paper.

“Our results suggest that the primary vaccination schedule is effective in preventing mortality in children and adolescents with COVID-19 regardless of the circulating SARS-CoV-2 variant,” the researchers said.
 

Study limitations and strengths

The study was limited by several factors including the incomplete data on symptoms and hospital admissions, the possible impact of unmeasured confounding variables, and the observational design that prevents conclusions of causality, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and access to detailed vaccination records, they said.

Both heterologous and homologous mRNA vaccine schedules showed similar effectiveness in preventing short-term infection and mortality from COVID-19 during periods of differing dominant variants, they noted.

The study findings support the vaccination of children against COVID-19 as an important public health measure to prevent mortality in children and adolescents, they concluded.
 

Data support value of vaccination, outside experts say

“COVID vaccines may not be as effective over time as the gene variants in the SARS-CoV-2 virus change,” Adrienne G. Randolph, MD, a pediatrician at Harvard Medical School and Boston Children’s Hospital, said in an interview. “Therefore, it is essential to assess vaccine effectiveness over time to look at effectiveness against variants and duration of effectiveness.” Dr. Randolph, who was not involved in the study, said she was not surprised by the findings, which she described as consistent with data from the United States. “COVID vaccines are very effective against preventing life-threatening disease, but the effectiveness against less severe illness for COVID vaccines is not as effective against Omicron,” she noted. 

The take-home message for clinicians is that it’s important to get children vaccinated against COVID to prevent severe and life-threatening illness, said Dr. Randolph. “Although these cases are uncommon in children, it is not possible to predict which children will be the most severely affected by COVID,” she emphasized.

However, “we need more data on the new COVID booster vaccines in children that are designed to be more effective against Omicron’s newer variants,” Dr. Randolph said in an interview. “We also need more data on COVID vaccine effectiveness in the youngest children, under 5 years of age, and data on vaccinating mothers to prevent COVID in infants,” she said.

Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician who practices a combination of internal medicine and pediatrics, agreed that future research should continue to assess how the new COVID boosters are faring against new variants, noting that the current study did not include data from children who received the new bivalent vaccine.

“The methodology of this study uses a test negative case control design which is common for estimating vaccine effectiveness post-release of a vaccine, but is subject to biases,” Dr. Joos explained. “These are not the clean effectiveness numbers of the prospective randomized control trials that we are used to hearing about when a vaccine is first being approved.”

“Nevertheless, the study reinforces the initial manufacturers’ studies that the vaccines are effective at preventing infection in the pediatric population,” Dr. Joos said in an interview. The current study also reinforces the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing “the rare but devastating mortality from COVID-19 in the pediatric population.”

Commenting on other research showing an increasing ratio of COVID deaths among vaccinated individuals compared to total COVID deaths, he noted that this finding is “likely reflecting a denominator effect of rapidly declining COVID deaths overall,” partly from the vaccines and partly from immunity after previous natural infection.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers, Dr. Randolph, and Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.

An individual patient data meta-analysis of patients undergoing stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy for primary renal cell carcinoma gives support for SABR as a treatment option for patients unwilling or unfit to undergo surgery, shows a study published in The Lancet Oncology.

The analysis, led by Shankar Siva, PhD, of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, also showed that single-fraction SABR might yield less local failure than multifraction SABR.

The incidence of renal cell carcinoma is rising especially in patients older than 70 years, particularly among those with a greater burden of medical comorbidities who face additional risks from anesthesia and major surgery. As alternatives to radical or partial nephrectomy, guidelines recommend nephron-sparing approaches such as thermal ablation and SABR, a noninvasive procedure that avoids anesthesia. While a 2019 meta-analysis revealed promising safety and efficacy for SABR in patients with comorbidities, tumors of stage T1b or higher (that is, ≥ 4 cm) and in solitary kidneys, follow-up was only 28 months and long term outcome data have been awaited.

The current study assessed 5-year outcomes after SABR in primary renal cell carcinoma from the International Radiosurgery Consortium of the Kidney database plus patient data from 12 new contributing institutions in Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan and the United States. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed local failure. Among 190 patients (median age, 73.6 years), 81 patients (43%) received single-fraction SABR and 109 (57%) received multifraction SABR, with all fractions greater than 5 Gy. Median tumor diameter was 4.0 cm (interquartile range, 2.8-4.9). Among patients with operability details available, referring urologists deemed 75% inoperable; 29% had a solitary kidney.

The cumulative incidence of local failure at 5 years was 5.5% (95% confidence interval, 2.8%–9.5%) overall. Patients receiving single-fraction SABR were observed to have improved local failure and progression-free survival, but not cancer-specific survival, compared with those receiving multifraction SABR.

“We found that multifraction SABR was associated with a 6-times higher risk of local failure after adjustment for baseline characteristics. This data is provocative and needs to be tested in a randomized trial,” Dr. Siva said in a Lancet Oncology podcast interview. There were no grade 3 toxic effects or treatment-related deaths. One patient developed an acute grade 4 duodenal ulcer and late grade 4 gastritis.

Reductions in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), from a median of 60.0 mL/min per 1.73 m2 at baseline were 10.0 mL/min per 1.73 m² at 3 years and by 14.2 mL/min per 1.73 m² at 5 years post SABR. “Most of these patients had severe chronic kidney disease, the median eGFR being only 33 mL/min,” Dr. Siva stated. “So overall the kidney function declines were quite acceptable.”

The results show, Dr. Siva and colleagues stated, that SABR is effective and safe in the long term for patients with primary renal cell carcinoma, and lend further support for renal SABR as a treatment option for patients unwilling or unfit to undergo surgery. In the audio interview, Dr. Siva said, “I would suggest that we consider SABR for those patients who have larger, inoperable kidney cancers. SABR, in this context, is particularly attractive because these patients don’t have any alternative cure or treatment options. In my opinion, this group should be given compassionate access to SABR. It would be a great place to start.”

The authors acknowledged that because toxicity data were collected retrospectively, low rates of treatment-related toxic effects might be caused by underreporting.

Dr. Siva and colleagues reported no outside funding. Dr. Siva was supported by the Cancer Council Victoria Colebatch Fellowship.

An individual patient data meta-analysis of patients undergoing stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy for primary renal cell carcinoma gives support for SABR as a treatment option for patients unwilling or unfit to undergo surgery, shows a study published in The Lancet Oncology.

The analysis, led by Shankar Siva, PhD, of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, also showed that single-fraction SABR might yield less local failure than multifraction SABR.

The incidence of renal cell carcinoma is rising especially in patients older than 70 years, particularly among those with a greater burden of medical comorbidities who face additional risks from anesthesia and major surgery. As alternatives to radical or partial nephrectomy, guidelines recommend nephron-sparing approaches such as thermal ablation and SABR, a noninvasive procedure that avoids anesthesia. While a 2019 meta-analysis revealed promising safety and efficacy for SABR in patients with comorbidities, tumors of stage T1b or higher (that is, ≥ 4 cm) and in solitary kidneys, follow-up was only 28 months and long term outcome data have been awaited.

The current study assessed 5-year outcomes after SABR in primary renal cell carcinoma from the International Radiosurgery Consortium of the Kidney database plus patient data from 12 new contributing institutions in Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan and the United States. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed local failure. Among 190 patients (median age, 73.6 years), 81 patients (43%) received single-fraction SABR and 109 (57%) received multifraction SABR, with all fractions greater than 5 Gy. Median tumor diameter was 4.0 cm (interquartile range, 2.8-4.9). Among patients with operability details available, referring urologists deemed 75% inoperable; 29% had a solitary kidney.

The cumulative incidence of local failure at 5 years was 5.5% (95% confidence interval, 2.8%–9.5%) overall. Patients receiving single-fraction SABR were observed to have improved local failure and progression-free survival, but not cancer-specific survival, compared with those receiving multifraction SABR.

“We found that multifraction SABR was associated with a 6-times higher risk of local failure after adjustment for baseline characteristics. This data is provocative and needs to be tested in a randomized trial,” Dr. Siva said in a Lancet Oncology podcast interview. There were no grade 3 toxic effects or treatment-related deaths. One patient developed an acute grade 4 duodenal ulcer and late grade 4 gastritis.

Reductions in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), from a median of 60.0 mL/min per 1.73 m2 at baseline were 10.0 mL/min per 1.73 m² at 3 years and by 14.2 mL/min per 1.73 m² at 5 years post SABR. “Most of these patients had severe chronic kidney disease, the median eGFR being only 33 mL/min,” Dr. Siva stated. “So overall the kidney function declines were quite acceptable.”

The results show, Dr. Siva and colleagues stated, that SABR is effective and safe in the long term for patients with primary renal cell carcinoma, and lend further support for renal SABR as a treatment option for patients unwilling or unfit to undergo surgery. In the audio interview, Dr. Siva said, “I would suggest that we consider SABR for those patients who have larger, inoperable kidney cancers. SABR, in this context, is particularly attractive because these patients don’t have any alternative cure or treatment options. In my opinion, this group should be given compassionate access to SABR. It would be a great place to start.”

The authors acknowledged that because toxicity data were collected retrospectively, low rates of treatment-related toxic effects might be caused by underreporting.

Dr. Siva and colleagues reported no outside funding. Dr. Siva was supported by the Cancer Council Victoria Colebatch Fellowship.

An individual patient data meta-analysis of patients undergoing stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy for primary renal cell carcinoma gives support for SABR as a treatment option for patients unwilling or unfit to undergo surgery, shows a study published in The Lancet Oncology.

The analysis, led by Shankar Siva, PhD, of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, also showed that single-fraction SABR might yield less local failure than multifraction SABR.

The incidence of renal cell carcinoma is rising especially in patients older than 70 years, particularly among those with a greater burden of medical comorbidities who face additional risks from anesthesia and major surgery. As alternatives to radical or partial nephrectomy, guidelines recommend nephron-sparing approaches such as thermal ablation and SABR, a noninvasive procedure that avoids anesthesia. While a 2019 meta-analysis revealed promising safety and efficacy for SABR in patients with comorbidities, tumors of stage T1b or higher (that is, ≥ 4 cm) and in solitary kidneys, follow-up was only 28 months and long term outcome data have been awaited.

The current study assessed 5-year outcomes after SABR in primary renal cell carcinoma from the International Radiosurgery Consortium of the Kidney database plus patient data from 12 new contributing institutions in Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan and the United States. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed local failure. Among 190 patients (median age, 73.6 years), 81 patients (43%) received single-fraction SABR and 109 (57%) received multifraction SABR, with all fractions greater than 5 Gy. Median tumor diameter was 4.0 cm (interquartile range, 2.8-4.9). Among patients with operability details available, referring urologists deemed 75% inoperable; 29% had a solitary kidney.

The cumulative incidence of local failure at 5 years was 5.5% (95% confidence interval, 2.8%–9.5%) overall. Patients receiving single-fraction SABR were observed to have improved local failure and progression-free survival, but not cancer-specific survival, compared with those receiving multifraction SABR.

“We found that multifraction SABR was associated with a 6-times higher risk of local failure after adjustment for baseline characteristics. This data is provocative and needs to be tested in a randomized trial,” Dr. Siva said in a Lancet Oncology podcast interview. There were no grade 3 toxic effects or treatment-related deaths. One patient developed an acute grade 4 duodenal ulcer and late grade 4 gastritis.

Reductions in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), from a median of 60.0 mL/min per 1.73 m2 at baseline were 10.0 mL/min per 1.73 m² at 3 years and by 14.2 mL/min per 1.73 m² at 5 years post SABR. “Most of these patients had severe chronic kidney disease, the median eGFR being only 33 mL/min,” Dr. Siva stated. “So overall the kidney function declines were quite acceptable.”

The results show, Dr. Siva and colleagues stated, that SABR is effective and safe in the long term for patients with primary renal cell carcinoma, and lend further support for renal SABR as a treatment option for patients unwilling or unfit to undergo surgery. In the audio interview, Dr. Siva said, “I would suggest that we consider SABR for those patients who have larger, inoperable kidney cancers. SABR, in this context, is particularly attractive because these patients don’t have any alternative cure or treatment options. In my opinion, this group should be given compassionate access to SABR. It would be a great place to start.”

The authors acknowledged that because toxicity data were collected retrospectively, low rates of treatment-related toxic effects might be caused by underreporting.

Dr. Siva and colleagues reported no outside funding. Dr. Siva was supported by the Cancer Council Victoria Colebatch Fellowship.