The evidence is in: Less is more when it comes to treating uncomplicated community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in young children. Five days of antibiotic therapy resulted in a superior clinical response compared to 10 days of treatment and had the added benefit of a lower risk of inducing antibiotic resistance, according to the randomized, controlled SCOUT-CAP trial.

“Several studies have shown shorter antibiotic courses to be non-inferior to the standard treatment strategy, but in our study, we show that a shortened 5-day course of therapy was superior to standard therapy because the short course achieved similar outcomes with fewer days of antibiotics,” Derek Williams, MD, MPH, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said in an email.

“These data are immediately applicable to frontline clinicians, and we hope this study will shift the paradigm towards more judicious treatment approaches for childhood pneumonia, resulting in care that is safer and more effective,” he added.

The study was published online Jan. 18 in JAMA Pediatrics.
 

Uncomplicated CAP

The study enrolled children aged 6 months to 71 months diagnosed with uncomplicated CAP who demonstrated early clinical improvement in response to 5 days of antibiotic treatment. Participants were prescribed either amoxicillin, amoxicillin and clavulanate, or cefdinir according to standard of care and were randomized on day 6 to another 5 days of their initially prescribed antibiotic course or to placebo.

“Those assessed on day 6 were eligible only if they had not yet received a dose of antibiotic therapy on that day,” the authors write. The primary endpoint was end-of-treatment response, adjusted for the duration of antibiotic risk as assessed by RADAR. As the authors explain, RADAR is a composite endpoint that ranks each child’s clinical response, resolution of symptoms, and antibiotic-associated adverse effects (AEs) in an ordinal desirability of outcome ranking, or DOOR.

“There were no differences between strategies in the DOOR or in its individual components,” Dr. Williams and colleagues point out. A total of 380 children took part in the study. The mean age of participants was 35.7 months, and half were male.

Over 90% of children randomized to active therapy were prescribed amoxicillin. “Fewer than 10% of children in either strategy had an inadequate clinical response,” the authors report.

However, the 5-day antibiotic strategy had a 69% (95% CI, 63%-75%) probability of children achieving a more desirable RADAR outcome compared with the standard, 10-day course, as assessed either on days 6 to 10 at outcome assessment visit one (OAV1) or at OAV2 on days 19 to 25.

There were also no significant differences between the two groups in the percentage of participants with persistent symptoms at either assessment point, they note. At assessment visit one, 40% of children assigned to the short-course strategy and 37% of children assigned to the 10-day strategy reported an antibiotic-related AE, most of which were mild.
 

Resistome analysis

Some 171 children were included in a resistome analysis in which throat swabs were collected between study days 19 and 25 to quantify antibiotic resistance genes in oropharyngeal flora. The total number of resistance genes per prokaryotic cell (RGPC) was significantly lower in children treated with antibiotics for 5 days compared with children who were treated for 10 days.

Specifically, the median number of total RGPC was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.35-2.43) for the short-course strategy and 1.33 (95% CI, 0.46-11.08) for the standard-course strategy (P = .01). Similarly, the median number of β-lactamase RGPC was 0.55 (0.18-1.24) for the short-course strategy and 0.60 (0.21-2.45) for the standard-course strategy (P = .03).

“Providing the shortest duration of antibiotics necessary to effectively treat an infection is a central tenet of antimicrobial stewardship and a convenient and cost-effective strategy for caregivers,” the authors observe. For example, reducing treatment from 10 to 5 days for outpatient CAP could reduce the number of days spent on antibiotics by up to 7.5 million days in the U.S. each year.

“If we can safely reduce antibiotic exposure, we can minimize antibiotic side effects while also helping to slow antibiotic resistance,” Dr. Williams pointed out.

Fewer days of having to give their child repeated doses of antibiotics is also more convenient for families, he added.

Asked to comment on the study, David Greenberg, MD, professor of pediatrics and infectious diseases, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Israel, explained that the length of antibiotic therapy as recommended by various guidelines is more or less arbitrary, some infections being excepted.

“There have been no studies evaluating the recommendation for a 100-day treatment course, and it’s kind of a joke because if you look at the treatment of just about any infection, it’s either for 7 days or 14 days or even 20 days because it’s easy to calculate – it’s not that anybody proved that treatment of whatever infection it is should last this long,” he told this news organization.

Moreover, adherence to a shorter antibiotic course is much better than it is to a longer course. If, for example, physicians tell a mother to take two bottles of antibiotics for a treatment course of 10 days, she’ll finish the first bottle which is good for 5 days and, because the child is fine, “she forgets about the second bottle,” Dr. Greenberg said.

In one of the first studies to compare a short versus long course of antibiotic therapy in uncomplicated CAP in young children, Dr. Greenberg and colleagues initially compared a 3-day course of high-dose amoxicillin to a 10-day course of the same treatment, but the 3-day course was associated with an unacceptable failure rate. (At the time, the World Health Organization was recommending a 3-day course of antibiotics for the treatment of uncomplicated CAP in children.)

They stopped the study and then initiated a second study in which they compared a 5-day course of the same antibiotic to a 10-day course and found the 5-day course was comparable to the 10-day course in terms of clinical cure rates. As a result of his study, Dr. Greenberg has long since prescribed a 5-day course of antibiotics for his own patients.

“Five days is good,” he affirmed. “And if patients start a 10-day course of an antibiotic for, say, a urinary tract infection and a subsequent culture comes back negative, they don’t have to finish the antibiotics either.” Dr. Greenberg said.

Dr. Williams said he has no financial ties to industry. Dr. Greenberg said he has served as a consultant for Pfizer, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, and AstraZeneca. He is also a founder of the company Beyond Air.

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

The evidence is in: Less is more when it comes to treating uncomplicated community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in young children. Five days of antibiotic therapy resulted in a superior clinical response compared to 10 days of treatment and had the added benefit of a lower risk of inducing antibiotic resistance, according to the randomized, controlled SCOUT-CAP trial.

“Several studies have shown shorter antibiotic courses to be non-inferior to the standard treatment strategy, but in our study, we show that a shortened 5-day course of therapy was superior to standard therapy because the short course achieved similar outcomes with fewer days of antibiotics,” Derek Williams, MD, MPH, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said in an email.

“These data are immediately applicable to frontline clinicians, and we hope this study will shift the paradigm towards more judicious treatment approaches for childhood pneumonia, resulting in care that is safer and more effective,” he added.

The study was published online Jan. 18 in JAMA Pediatrics.
 

Uncomplicated CAP

The study enrolled children aged 6 months to 71 months diagnosed with uncomplicated CAP who demonstrated early clinical improvement in response to 5 days of antibiotic treatment. Participants were prescribed either amoxicillin, amoxicillin and clavulanate, or cefdinir according to standard of care and were randomized on day 6 to another 5 days of their initially prescribed antibiotic course or to placebo.

“Those assessed on day 6 were eligible only if they had not yet received a dose of antibiotic therapy on that day,” the authors write. The primary endpoint was end-of-treatment response, adjusted for the duration of antibiotic risk as assessed by RADAR. As the authors explain, RADAR is a composite endpoint that ranks each child’s clinical response, resolution of symptoms, and antibiotic-associated adverse effects (AEs) in an ordinal desirability of outcome ranking, or DOOR.

“There were no differences between strategies in the DOOR or in its individual components,” Dr. Williams and colleagues point out. A total of 380 children took part in the study. The mean age of participants was 35.7 months, and half were male.

Over 90% of children randomized to active therapy were prescribed amoxicillin. “Fewer than 10% of children in either strategy had an inadequate clinical response,” the authors report.

However, the 5-day antibiotic strategy had a 69% (95% CI, 63%-75%) probability of children achieving a more desirable RADAR outcome compared with the standard, 10-day course, as assessed either on days 6 to 10 at outcome assessment visit one (OAV1) or at OAV2 on days 19 to 25.

There were also no significant differences between the two groups in the percentage of participants with persistent symptoms at either assessment point, they note. At assessment visit one, 40% of children assigned to the short-course strategy and 37% of children assigned to the 10-day strategy reported an antibiotic-related AE, most of which were mild.
 

Resistome analysis

Some 171 children were included in a resistome analysis in which throat swabs were collected between study days 19 and 25 to quantify antibiotic resistance genes in oropharyngeal flora. The total number of resistance genes per prokaryotic cell (RGPC) was significantly lower in children treated with antibiotics for 5 days compared with children who were treated for 10 days.

Specifically, the median number of total RGPC was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.35-2.43) for the short-course strategy and 1.33 (95% CI, 0.46-11.08) for the standard-course strategy (P = .01). Similarly, the median number of β-lactamase RGPC was 0.55 (0.18-1.24) for the short-course strategy and 0.60 (0.21-2.45) for the standard-course strategy (P = .03).

“Providing the shortest duration of antibiotics necessary to effectively treat an infection is a central tenet of antimicrobial stewardship and a convenient and cost-effective strategy for caregivers,” the authors observe. For example, reducing treatment from 10 to 5 days for outpatient CAP could reduce the number of days spent on antibiotics by up to 7.5 million days in the U.S. each year.

“If we can safely reduce antibiotic exposure, we can minimize antibiotic side effects while also helping to slow antibiotic resistance,” Dr. Williams pointed out.

Fewer days of having to give their child repeated doses of antibiotics is also more convenient for families, he added.

Asked to comment on the study, David Greenberg, MD, professor of pediatrics and infectious diseases, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Israel, explained that the length of antibiotic therapy as recommended by various guidelines is more or less arbitrary, some infections being excepted.

“There have been no studies evaluating the recommendation for a 100-day treatment course, and it’s kind of a joke because if you look at the treatment of just about any infection, it’s either for 7 days or 14 days or even 20 days because it’s easy to calculate – it’s not that anybody proved that treatment of whatever infection it is should last this long,” he told this news organization.

Moreover, adherence to a shorter antibiotic course is much better than it is to a longer course. If, for example, physicians tell a mother to take two bottles of antibiotics for a treatment course of 10 days, she’ll finish the first bottle which is good for 5 days and, because the child is fine, “she forgets about the second bottle,” Dr. Greenberg said.

In one of the first studies to compare a short versus long course of antibiotic therapy in uncomplicated CAP in young children, Dr. Greenberg and colleagues initially compared a 3-day course of high-dose amoxicillin to a 10-day course of the same treatment, but the 3-day course was associated with an unacceptable failure rate. (At the time, the World Health Organization was recommending a 3-day course of antibiotics for the treatment of uncomplicated CAP in children.)

They stopped the study and then initiated a second study in which they compared a 5-day course of the same antibiotic to a 10-day course and found the 5-day course was comparable to the 10-day course in terms of clinical cure rates. As a result of his study, Dr. Greenberg has long since prescribed a 5-day course of antibiotics for his own patients.

“Five days is good,” he affirmed. “And if patients start a 10-day course of an antibiotic for, say, a urinary tract infection and a subsequent culture comes back negative, they don’t have to finish the antibiotics either.” Dr. Greenberg said.

Dr. Williams said he has no financial ties to industry. Dr. Greenberg said he has served as a consultant for Pfizer, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, and AstraZeneca. He is also a founder of the company Beyond Air.

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

The evidence is in: Less is more when it comes to treating uncomplicated community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in young children. Five days of antibiotic therapy resulted in a superior clinical response compared to 10 days of treatment and had the added benefit of a lower risk of inducing antibiotic resistance, according to the randomized, controlled SCOUT-CAP trial.

“Several studies have shown shorter antibiotic courses to be non-inferior to the standard treatment strategy, but in our study, we show that a shortened 5-day course of therapy was superior to standard therapy because the short course achieved similar outcomes with fewer days of antibiotics,” Derek Williams, MD, MPH, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said in an email.

“These data are immediately applicable to frontline clinicians, and we hope this study will shift the paradigm towards more judicious treatment approaches for childhood pneumonia, resulting in care that is safer and more effective,” he added.

The study was published online Jan. 18 in JAMA Pediatrics.
 

Uncomplicated CAP

The study enrolled children aged 6 months to 71 months diagnosed with uncomplicated CAP who demonstrated early clinical improvement in response to 5 days of antibiotic treatment. Participants were prescribed either amoxicillin, amoxicillin and clavulanate, or cefdinir according to standard of care and were randomized on day 6 to another 5 days of their initially prescribed antibiotic course or to placebo.

“Those assessed on day 6 were eligible only if they had not yet received a dose of antibiotic therapy on that day,” the authors write. The primary endpoint was end-of-treatment response, adjusted for the duration of antibiotic risk as assessed by RADAR. As the authors explain, RADAR is a composite endpoint that ranks each child’s clinical response, resolution of symptoms, and antibiotic-associated adverse effects (AEs) in an ordinal desirability of outcome ranking, or DOOR.

“There were no differences between strategies in the DOOR or in its individual components,” Dr. Williams and colleagues point out. A total of 380 children took part in the study. The mean age of participants was 35.7 months, and half were male.

Over 90% of children randomized to active therapy were prescribed amoxicillin. “Fewer than 10% of children in either strategy had an inadequate clinical response,” the authors report.

However, the 5-day antibiotic strategy had a 69% (95% CI, 63%-75%) probability of children achieving a more desirable RADAR outcome compared with the standard, 10-day course, as assessed either on days 6 to 10 at outcome assessment visit one (OAV1) or at OAV2 on days 19 to 25.

There were also no significant differences between the two groups in the percentage of participants with persistent symptoms at either assessment point, they note. At assessment visit one, 40% of children assigned to the short-course strategy and 37% of children assigned to the 10-day strategy reported an antibiotic-related AE, most of which were mild.
 

Resistome analysis

Some 171 children were included in a resistome analysis in which throat swabs were collected between study days 19 and 25 to quantify antibiotic resistance genes in oropharyngeal flora. The total number of resistance genes per prokaryotic cell (RGPC) was significantly lower in children treated with antibiotics for 5 days compared with children who were treated for 10 days.

Specifically, the median number of total RGPC was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.35-2.43) for the short-course strategy and 1.33 (95% CI, 0.46-11.08) for the standard-course strategy (P = .01). Similarly, the median number of β-lactamase RGPC was 0.55 (0.18-1.24) for the short-course strategy and 0.60 (0.21-2.45) for the standard-course strategy (P = .03).

“Providing the shortest duration of antibiotics necessary to effectively treat an infection is a central tenet of antimicrobial stewardship and a convenient and cost-effective strategy for caregivers,” the authors observe. For example, reducing treatment from 10 to 5 days for outpatient CAP could reduce the number of days spent on antibiotics by up to 7.5 million days in the U.S. each year.

“If we can safely reduce antibiotic exposure, we can minimize antibiotic side effects while also helping to slow antibiotic resistance,” Dr. Williams pointed out.

Fewer days of having to give their child repeated doses of antibiotics is also more convenient for families, he added.

Asked to comment on the study, David Greenberg, MD, professor of pediatrics and infectious diseases, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Israel, explained that the length of antibiotic therapy as recommended by various guidelines is more or less arbitrary, some infections being excepted.

“There have been no studies evaluating the recommendation for a 100-day treatment course, and it’s kind of a joke because if you look at the treatment of just about any infection, it’s either for 7 days or 14 days or even 20 days because it’s easy to calculate – it’s not that anybody proved that treatment of whatever infection it is should last this long,” he told this news organization.

Moreover, adherence to a shorter antibiotic course is much better than it is to a longer course. If, for example, physicians tell a mother to take two bottles of antibiotics for a treatment course of 10 days, she’ll finish the first bottle which is good for 5 days and, because the child is fine, “she forgets about the second bottle,” Dr. Greenberg said.

In one of the first studies to compare a short versus long course of antibiotic therapy in uncomplicated CAP in young children, Dr. Greenberg and colleagues initially compared a 3-day course of high-dose amoxicillin to a 10-day course of the same treatment, but the 3-day course was associated with an unacceptable failure rate. (At the time, the World Health Organization was recommending a 3-day course of antibiotics for the treatment of uncomplicated CAP in children.)

They stopped the study and then initiated a second study in which they compared a 5-day course of the same antibiotic to a 10-day course and found the 5-day course was comparable to the 10-day course in terms of clinical cure rates. As a result of his study, Dr. Greenberg has long since prescribed a 5-day course of antibiotics for his own patients.

“Five days is good,” he affirmed. “And if patients start a 10-day course of an antibiotic for, say, a urinary tract infection and a subsequent culture comes back negative, they don’t have to finish the antibiotics either.” Dr. Greenberg said.

Dr. Williams said he has no financial ties to industry. Dr. Greenberg said he has served as a consultant for Pfizer, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, and AstraZeneca. He is also a founder of the company Beyond Air.

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

A new analysis of data from a major U.S. trial comparing antibiotics with surgery for appendicitis yielded more information that can help patients weigh options for treatment.

The presence of mineralized stool, known as appendicolith, was associated with a nearly twofold increased risk of undergoing appendectomy within 30 days of initiating antibiotics, write David Flum, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and coauthors in a paper published in JAMA Surgery on Jan. 12, 2021.

But the surprise was the lack of an association between appendectomy and factors often presumed to be consistent with more severe appendicitis.

Physicians have had their own ideas about what factors make a patient more likely to need an appendectomy after an initial round of treatment with antibiotics, such as a high white blood cell count or a perforation seen on CT scan, Dr. Flum said in an interview. But the research didn’t support some of these theories.

“This is why we do the studies,” Dr. Flum said. “Sometimes we find out that our hunches were wrong.”

Dr. Flum and coauthors measured the association between different patient factors and disease severity and the need for appendectomy following a course of antibiotics. They used adjusted odds ratios to describe these relationships while accounting for other differences.

An OR of 1.0 – or when the confidence interval around an OR crosses 1 – signals that there is no association between that factor and appendectomy. Positive ORs with confidence intervals that exclude 1.0 suggest the factor was associated with appendectomy.

The OR was 1.99 for the presence of appendicolith, a finding with a 95% confidence interval of 1.28-3.10. The OR was 1.53 (95% CI, 1.01-2.31) for female sex.

But the OR was 1.14 (95% CI, 0.66-1.98) for perforation, abscess, or fat stranding.

The OR was 1.09 (95% CI, 1.00-1.18) for radiographic finding of a larger appendix, as measured by diameter.

And the OR was 1.03 (95% CI, 0.98-1.09) for having a higher white blood cell count, as measured by a 1,000-cells/mcL increase.
 

Appy or not?

This paper draws from the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial (NCT02800785), for which top-line results were published in 2020 in the New England Journal of Medicine. In that paper, Dr. Flum and colleagues reported on results for 1,552 adults (414 with an appendicolith) who were evenly randomized to either antibiotics treatment or appendectomy. After 30 days, antibiotics were found to be noninferior to appendectomy, as reported by this news organization.

The federal Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute funded the CODA research. Dr. Flum said the National Institutes of Health had not appeared interested in funding a look at the different options available to patients experiencing appendicitis. Congress created PCORI as part of the Affordable Care Act of 2010, seeking to encourage researchers to study which treatments best serve patients through direct comparisons. Its support was critical for Dr. Flum and colleagues in seeking to help people weigh their options for treating appendicitis.

The CODA study “models what the patient’s experience is like, and this has not been the focus of NIH as much,” Dr. Flum said.

The CODA team has sought to make it easy for patients to consider what its findings and other research on appendicitis mean for them. They created an online decision-making tool, available at the aptly named http://www.appyornot.org/ website, which has videos in English and Spanish explaining patients’ options in simple terms. The website also asks questions about personal preferences, priorities, and resources to help them choose a treatment based on their individual situation.
 

Shift away from ‘paternalistic framing’

In the past, surgeons focused on the risk for patients from procedures, making the decisions for them about whether or not to proceed. There’s now a drive to shift away from this “paternalistic framing” toward shared decision-making, Dr. Flum said.

Surgeons need to have conversations with their patients about what’s happening in their lives as well as to assess their fears and concerns about treatment options, he said. These are aspects of patient care that were not covered in medical school or surgical training, but they lead to “less paternalistic” treatment. A patient’s decision about whether to choose surgery or antibiotics for appendicitis may hinge on factors such as insurance coverage, access to childcare, and the ability to miss days of work.

Dr. Flum said his fellow surgeons by and large have reacted well to the CODA team’s work.

“To their credit, the surgical community has embraced a healthy skepticism about the role of surgery,” Dr. Flum said.

The guidelines of the American College of Surgeons state that there is “high-quality evidence” that most patients with appendicitis can be managed with antibiotics instead of appendectomy (69% overall avoid appendectomy by 90 days, 75% of those without appendicolith, and 59% of those with appendicolith).

“Based on the surgeon’s judgment, patient preferences, and local resources (e.g., hospital staff, bed, and PPE supply availability) antibiotics are an acceptable first-line treatment, with appendectomy offered for those with worsening or recurrent symptoms,” the ACS guidelines say.

In an interview, Samir M. Fakhry, MD, vice president of HCA Center for Trauma and Acute Care Surgery Research in Nashville, Tenn., agreed with Dr. Flum about the shift taking place in medicine.

The CODA research, including the new paper in JAMA Surgery, makes it easier for physicians to work with patients and their families to reach decisions about how to treat appendicitis, Dr. Fakhry said.

These important discussions take time, he said, and patients must be allowed that time. Patients might feel misled, for example, if a surgeon pressed for appendectomy without explaining that a course of antibiotics may have served them well. Other patients may opt for surgery right away, especially in cases with appendicoliths, to avoid the potential for repeat episodes of medical care.

“You’ve got people who just want to get it done and over with. You’ve got people who want to avoid surgery no matter what,” Dr. Fakhry said. “It’s not just about the science and the data.”

This study was supported by a grant from PCORI. The authors reported having served as consultants or reviewers or have received fees for work outside of this paper from Stryker, Kerecis, Acera, Medline, Shriner’s Research Fund, UpToDate, and Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals Stryker.

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

A new analysis of data from a major U.S. trial comparing antibiotics with surgery for appendicitis yielded more information that can help patients weigh options for treatment.

The presence of mineralized stool, known as appendicolith, was associated with a nearly twofold increased risk of undergoing appendectomy within 30 days of initiating antibiotics, write David Flum, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and coauthors in a paper published in JAMA Surgery on Jan. 12, 2021.

But the surprise was the lack of an association between appendectomy and factors often presumed to be consistent with more severe appendicitis.

Physicians have had their own ideas about what factors make a patient more likely to need an appendectomy after an initial round of treatment with antibiotics, such as a high white blood cell count or a perforation seen on CT scan, Dr. Flum said in an interview. But the research didn’t support some of these theories.

“This is why we do the studies,” Dr. Flum said. “Sometimes we find out that our hunches were wrong.”

Dr. Flum and coauthors measured the association between different patient factors and disease severity and the need for appendectomy following a course of antibiotics. They used adjusted odds ratios to describe these relationships while accounting for other differences.

An OR of 1.0 – or when the confidence interval around an OR crosses 1 – signals that there is no association between that factor and appendectomy. Positive ORs with confidence intervals that exclude 1.0 suggest the factor was associated with appendectomy.

The OR was 1.99 for the presence of appendicolith, a finding with a 95% confidence interval of 1.28-3.10. The OR was 1.53 (95% CI, 1.01-2.31) for female sex.

But the OR was 1.14 (95% CI, 0.66-1.98) for perforation, abscess, or fat stranding.

The OR was 1.09 (95% CI, 1.00-1.18) for radiographic finding of a larger appendix, as measured by diameter.

And the OR was 1.03 (95% CI, 0.98-1.09) for having a higher white blood cell count, as measured by a 1,000-cells/mcL increase.
 

Appy or not?

This paper draws from the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial (NCT02800785), for which top-line results were published in 2020 in the New England Journal of Medicine. In that paper, Dr. Flum and colleagues reported on results for 1,552 adults (414 with an appendicolith) who were evenly randomized to either antibiotics treatment or appendectomy. After 30 days, antibiotics were found to be noninferior to appendectomy, as reported by this news organization.

The federal Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute funded the CODA research. Dr. Flum said the National Institutes of Health had not appeared interested in funding a look at the different options available to patients experiencing appendicitis. Congress created PCORI as part of the Affordable Care Act of 2010, seeking to encourage researchers to study which treatments best serve patients through direct comparisons. Its support was critical for Dr. Flum and colleagues in seeking to help people weigh their options for treating appendicitis.

The CODA study “models what the patient’s experience is like, and this has not been the focus of NIH as much,” Dr. Flum said.

The CODA team has sought to make it easy for patients to consider what its findings and other research on appendicitis mean for them. They created an online decision-making tool, available at the aptly named http://www.appyornot.org/ website, which has videos in English and Spanish explaining patients’ options in simple terms. The website also asks questions about personal preferences, priorities, and resources to help them choose a treatment based on their individual situation.
 

Shift away from ‘paternalistic framing’

In the past, surgeons focused on the risk for patients from procedures, making the decisions for them about whether or not to proceed. There’s now a drive to shift away from this “paternalistic framing” toward shared decision-making, Dr. Flum said.

Surgeons need to have conversations with their patients about what’s happening in their lives as well as to assess their fears and concerns about treatment options, he said. These are aspects of patient care that were not covered in medical school or surgical training, but they lead to “less paternalistic” treatment. A patient’s decision about whether to choose surgery or antibiotics for appendicitis may hinge on factors such as insurance coverage, access to childcare, and the ability to miss days of work.

Dr. Flum said his fellow surgeons by and large have reacted well to the CODA team’s work.

“To their credit, the surgical community has embraced a healthy skepticism about the role of surgery,” Dr. Flum said.

The guidelines of the American College of Surgeons state that there is “high-quality evidence” that most patients with appendicitis can be managed with antibiotics instead of appendectomy (69% overall avoid appendectomy by 90 days, 75% of those without appendicolith, and 59% of those with appendicolith).

“Based on the surgeon’s judgment, patient preferences, and local resources (e.g., hospital staff, bed, and PPE supply availability) antibiotics are an acceptable first-line treatment, with appendectomy offered for those with worsening or recurrent symptoms,” the ACS guidelines say.

In an interview, Samir M. Fakhry, MD, vice president of HCA Center for Trauma and Acute Care Surgery Research in Nashville, Tenn., agreed with Dr. Flum about the shift taking place in medicine.

The CODA research, including the new paper in JAMA Surgery, makes it easier for physicians to work with patients and their families to reach decisions about how to treat appendicitis, Dr. Fakhry said.

These important discussions take time, he said, and patients must be allowed that time. Patients might feel misled, for example, if a surgeon pressed for appendectomy without explaining that a course of antibiotics may have served them well. Other patients may opt for surgery right away, especially in cases with appendicoliths, to avoid the potential for repeat episodes of medical care.

“You’ve got people who just want to get it done and over with. You’ve got people who want to avoid surgery no matter what,” Dr. Fakhry said. “It’s not just about the science and the data.”

This study was supported by a grant from PCORI. The authors reported having served as consultants or reviewers or have received fees for work outside of this paper from Stryker, Kerecis, Acera, Medline, Shriner’s Research Fund, UpToDate, and Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals Stryker.

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

A new analysis of data from a major U.S. trial comparing antibiotics with surgery for appendicitis yielded more information that can help patients weigh options for treatment.

The presence of mineralized stool, known as appendicolith, was associated with a nearly twofold increased risk of undergoing appendectomy within 30 days of initiating antibiotics, write David Flum, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and coauthors in a paper published in JAMA Surgery on Jan. 12, 2021.

But the surprise was the lack of an association between appendectomy and factors often presumed to be consistent with more severe appendicitis.

Physicians have had their own ideas about what factors make a patient more likely to need an appendectomy after an initial round of treatment with antibiotics, such as a high white blood cell count or a perforation seen on CT scan, Dr. Flum said in an interview. But the research didn’t support some of these theories.

“This is why we do the studies,” Dr. Flum said. “Sometimes we find out that our hunches were wrong.”

Dr. Flum and coauthors measured the association between different patient factors and disease severity and the need for appendectomy following a course of antibiotics. They used adjusted odds ratios to describe these relationships while accounting for other differences.

An OR of 1.0 – or when the confidence interval around an OR crosses 1 – signals that there is no association between that factor and appendectomy. Positive ORs with confidence intervals that exclude 1.0 suggest the factor was associated with appendectomy.

The OR was 1.99 for the presence of appendicolith, a finding with a 95% confidence interval of 1.28-3.10. The OR was 1.53 (95% CI, 1.01-2.31) for female sex.

But the OR was 1.14 (95% CI, 0.66-1.98) for perforation, abscess, or fat stranding.

The OR was 1.09 (95% CI, 1.00-1.18) for radiographic finding of a larger appendix, as measured by diameter.

And the OR was 1.03 (95% CI, 0.98-1.09) for having a higher white blood cell count, as measured by a 1,000-cells/mcL increase.
 

Appy or not?

This paper draws from the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial (NCT02800785), for which top-line results were published in 2020 in the New England Journal of Medicine. In that paper, Dr. Flum and colleagues reported on results for 1,552 adults (414 with an appendicolith) who were evenly randomized to either antibiotics treatment or appendectomy. After 30 days, antibiotics were found to be noninferior to appendectomy, as reported by this news organization.

The federal Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute funded the CODA research. Dr. Flum said the National Institutes of Health had not appeared interested in funding a look at the different options available to patients experiencing appendicitis. Congress created PCORI as part of the Affordable Care Act of 2010, seeking to encourage researchers to study which treatments best serve patients through direct comparisons. Its support was critical for Dr. Flum and colleagues in seeking to help people weigh their options for treating appendicitis.

The CODA study “models what the patient’s experience is like, and this has not been the focus of NIH as much,” Dr. Flum said.

The CODA team has sought to make it easy for patients to consider what its findings and other research on appendicitis mean for them. They created an online decision-making tool, available at the aptly named http://www.appyornot.org/ website, which has videos in English and Spanish explaining patients’ options in simple terms. The website also asks questions about personal preferences, priorities, and resources to help them choose a treatment based on their individual situation.
 

Shift away from ‘paternalistic framing’

In the past, surgeons focused on the risk for patients from procedures, making the decisions for them about whether or not to proceed. There’s now a drive to shift away from this “paternalistic framing” toward shared decision-making, Dr. Flum said.

Surgeons need to have conversations with their patients about what’s happening in their lives as well as to assess their fears and concerns about treatment options, he said. These are aspects of patient care that were not covered in medical school or surgical training, but they lead to “less paternalistic” treatment. A patient’s decision about whether to choose surgery or antibiotics for appendicitis may hinge on factors such as insurance coverage, access to childcare, and the ability to miss days of work.

Dr. Flum said his fellow surgeons by and large have reacted well to the CODA team’s work.

“To their credit, the surgical community has embraced a healthy skepticism about the role of surgery,” Dr. Flum said.

The guidelines of the American College of Surgeons state that there is “high-quality evidence” that most patients with appendicitis can be managed with antibiotics instead of appendectomy (69% overall avoid appendectomy by 90 days, 75% of those without appendicolith, and 59% of those with appendicolith).

“Based on the surgeon’s judgment, patient preferences, and local resources (e.g., hospital staff, bed, and PPE supply availability) antibiotics are an acceptable first-line treatment, with appendectomy offered for those with worsening or recurrent symptoms,” the ACS guidelines say.

In an interview, Samir M. Fakhry, MD, vice president of HCA Center for Trauma and Acute Care Surgery Research in Nashville, Tenn., agreed with Dr. Flum about the shift taking place in medicine.

The CODA research, including the new paper in JAMA Surgery, makes it easier for physicians to work with patients and their families to reach decisions about how to treat appendicitis, Dr. Fakhry said.

These important discussions take time, he said, and patients must be allowed that time. Patients might feel misled, for example, if a surgeon pressed for appendectomy without explaining that a course of antibiotics may have served them well. Other patients may opt for surgery right away, especially in cases with appendicoliths, to avoid the potential for repeat episodes of medical care.

“You’ve got people who just want to get it done and over with. You’ve got people who want to avoid surgery no matter what,” Dr. Fakhry said. “It’s not just about the science and the data.”

This study was supported by a grant from PCORI. The authors reported having served as consultants or reviewers or have received fees for work outside of this paper from Stryker, Kerecis, Acera, Medline, Shriner’s Research Fund, UpToDate, and Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals Stryker.

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

Since Canada legalized marijuana in 2018, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of individuals driving while high, new research shows.

Investigators studied over 4,000 drivers treated after a motor vehicle collision in British Columbia trauma centers and found that, before cannabis was legalized, a THC level greater than 0 ng/mL in the blood was present in roughly 10% of drivers. After the drug was legalized this percentage increased to 18%. The percentages of injured drivers with at least 2 ng/mL, the Canadian legal limit, and at least 5 ng/mL more than doubled.

“It’s concerning that we’re seeing such a dramatic increase,” study investigator Jeffrey Brubacher, MD, associate professor, department of emergency medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said in a press release.

“There are serious risks associated with driving after cannabis use and our findings suggest more [work] is needed to deter this dangerous behavior in light of legalization,” he said.

The study was published online Jan. 12 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Impact of legalization?

The investigators note that the Canadian government introduced a law aiming to prevent cannabis-impaired driving by establishing penalties and criminal charges for drivers found with a whole-blood THC level of 2 ng/mL, with more severe penalties for those with a THC level of greater than 5 ng/mL or greater than 2.5 ng/mL combined with a blood alcohol level of .05%.

Cannabis use is “associated with cognitive deficits and psychomotor impairment, and there is evidence that it increases the risk of motor vehicle crashes, especially at higher THC levels,” they noted.

“I’m an emergency physician at Vancouver General Hospital’s trauma center. We’ve been measuring drug levels in injured drivers since 2013 here in British Columbia and, in particular, we’ve been measuring THC levels,” Dr. Brubacher said in an interview. “We thought it would be interesting and important to see what would happen after legalization.”

The investigators studied 4,339 drivers – 3,550 whose accident took place before legalization of cannabis, and 789 after legalization – who had been moderately injured in a motor vehicle collision and presented to four British Columbia trauma centers between January 2013 and March 2020.

“Moderately injured drivers had injuries or potential injuries significant enough to have blood work done as part of routine clinical care,” said Dr. Brubacher. Drivers included in the study had excess blood remaining after the clinical testing had been completed, which was then used for drug analysis.
 

Insufficient laws

After legalization there was an increased prevalence of drivers with a THC level greater than 0 ng/mL, a TCH level of at least 2 ng/mL, and a THC level of at least 5 ng/mL.

The largest increases in a THC level of at least 2 ng/mL were in drivers 50 years of age or older and among male drivers (adjusted prevalence ratio, 5.18; 95% confidence interval, 2.49-10.78 and aPR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.60-3.74, respectively).

“There were no significant changes in the prevalence of drivers testing positive for alcohol,” the authors reported.

Dr. Brubacher said the evidence suggests these new laws “are not enough to stop everyone from driving after using cannabis.”

The findings have implications for clinicians and patients and for policymakers, he said. “My moderately conservative recommendations are that, if you are going to smoke cannabis, wait at least 4 hours after smoking before you drive. Edibles last longer, and patients should wait least 8 hours after ingesting [edibles] before driving. And of course, if you continue to feel the effects of the THC, you should avoid driving altogether until the time has elapsed and you no longer feel any effects.”

Dr. Brubacher hopes policy makers will use the study’s findings to “design public information campaigns and enforcement measures that encourage drivers, especially older drivers, to separate cannabis use from driving.”

Additionally, “policy makers shouldn’t lose sight of drinking and driving because that’s an even bigger problem than the risk of driving under the influence of cannabis.”
 

Focus on older adults

In a comment, Anees Bahji, MD, an International Collaborative Addiction Medicine research fellow at the British Columbia Centre on Substance Use, called the study “interesting and relevant.”

He raised several questions regarding the “correlation between the level of a substance in a person’s system and the degree of impairment.” For example, “does the same level of THC in the blood affect us all the same way? And to what extent do the levels detected at the time of the analysis correlate with the level in the person’s system at the time of driving?”

An additional consideration “is for individuals with cannabis use disorder and for those who have developed tolerance to the psychoactive effects of THC: Does it affect their driving skills in the same way as someone who is cannabis naive?” asked Dr. Bahji, a clinical assistant professor at the University of Calgary (Alta.) who was not involved with the study.

Also commenting, Eric Sevigny, PhD, associate professor of criminal justice and criminology at Georgia State University, Atlanta, described it as a “well-designed study that adds yet another data point for considering appropriate road safety policy responses alongside ongoing cannabis liberalization.”

However, the findings “cannot say much about whether cannabis legalization leads to an increase in cannabis-impaired driving, because current research finds little correlation between biological THC concentrations and driving performance,” said Dr. Sevigny, who was not involved with the study.

The finding of “higher THC prevalence among older adults is also relevant for road safety, as this population has a number of concomitant risk factors, such as cognitive decline and prescription drug use,” Dr. Sevigny added.

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Brubacher and Dr. Sevigny disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bahji reported receiving research funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Calgary Health Trust, the American Psychiatric Association, NIDA, and the University of Calgary.

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

Since Canada legalized marijuana in 2018, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of individuals driving while high, new research shows.

Investigators studied over 4,000 drivers treated after a motor vehicle collision in British Columbia trauma centers and found that, before cannabis was legalized, a THC level greater than 0 ng/mL in the blood was present in roughly 10% of drivers. After the drug was legalized this percentage increased to 18%. The percentages of injured drivers with at least 2 ng/mL, the Canadian legal limit, and at least 5 ng/mL more than doubled.

“It’s concerning that we’re seeing such a dramatic increase,” study investigator Jeffrey Brubacher, MD, associate professor, department of emergency medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said in a press release.

“There are serious risks associated with driving after cannabis use and our findings suggest more [work] is needed to deter this dangerous behavior in light of legalization,” he said.

The study was published online Jan. 12 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Impact of legalization?

The investigators note that the Canadian government introduced a law aiming to prevent cannabis-impaired driving by establishing penalties and criminal charges for drivers found with a whole-blood THC level of 2 ng/mL, with more severe penalties for those with a THC level of greater than 5 ng/mL or greater than 2.5 ng/mL combined with a blood alcohol level of .05%.

Cannabis use is “associated with cognitive deficits and psychomotor impairment, and there is evidence that it increases the risk of motor vehicle crashes, especially at higher THC levels,” they noted.

“I’m an emergency physician at Vancouver General Hospital’s trauma center. We’ve been measuring drug levels in injured drivers since 2013 here in British Columbia and, in particular, we’ve been measuring THC levels,” Dr. Brubacher said in an interview. “We thought it would be interesting and important to see what would happen after legalization.”

The investigators studied 4,339 drivers – 3,550 whose accident took place before legalization of cannabis, and 789 after legalization – who had been moderately injured in a motor vehicle collision and presented to four British Columbia trauma centers between January 2013 and March 2020.

“Moderately injured drivers had injuries or potential injuries significant enough to have blood work done as part of routine clinical care,” said Dr. Brubacher. Drivers included in the study had excess blood remaining after the clinical testing had been completed, which was then used for drug analysis.
 

Insufficient laws

After legalization there was an increased prevalence of drivers with a THC level greater than 0 ng/mL, a TCH level of at least 2 ng/mL, and a THC level of at least 5 ng/mL.

The largest increases in a THC level of at least 2 ng/mL were in drivers 50 years of age or older and among male drivers (adjusted prevalence ratio, 5.18; 95% confidence interval, 2.49-10.78 and aPR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.60-3.74, respectively).

“There were no significant changes in the prevalence of drivers testing positive for alcohol,” the authors reported.

Dr. Brubacher said the evidence suggests these new laws “are not enough to stop everyone from driving after using cannabis.”

The findings have implications for clinicians and patients and for policymakers, he said. “My moderately conservative recommendations are that, if you are going to smoke cannabis, wait at least 4 hours after smoking before you drive. Edibles last longer, and patients should wait least 8 hours after ingesting [edibles] before driving. And of course, if you continue to feel the effects of the THC, you should avoid driving altogether until the time has elapsed and you no longer feel any effects.”

Dr. Brubacher hopes policy makers will use the study’s findings to “design public information campaigns and enforcement measures that encourage drivers, especially older drivers, to separate cannabis use from driving.”

Additionally, “policy makers shouldn’t lose sight of drinking and driving because that’s an even bigger problem than the risk of driving under the influence of cannabis.”
 

Focus on older adults

In a comment, Anees Bahji, MD, an International Collaborative Addiction Medicine research fellow at the British Columbia Centre on Substance Use, called the study “interesting and relevant.”

He raised several questions regarding the “correlation between the level of a substance in a person’s system and the degree of impairment.” For example, “does the same level of THC in the blood affect us all the same way? And to what extent do the levels detected at the time of the analysis correlate with the level in the person’s system at the time of driving?”

An additional consideration “is for individuals with cannabis use disorder and for those who have developed tolerance to the psychoactive effects of THC: Does it affect their driving skills in the same way as someone who is cannabis naive?” asked Dr. Bahji, a clinical assistant professor at the University of Calgary (Alta.) who was not involved with the study.

Also commenting, Eric Sevigny, PhD, associate professor of criminal justice and criminology at Georgia State University, Atlanta, described it as a “well-designed study that adds yet another data point for considering appropriate road safety policy responses alongside ongoing cannabis liberalization.”

However, the findings “cannot say much about whether cannabis legalization leads to an increase in cannabis-impaired driving, because current research finds little correlation between biological THC concentrations and driving performance,” said Dr. Sevigny, who was not involved with the study.

The finding of “higher THC prevalence among older adults is also relevant for road safety, as this population has a number of concomitant risk factors, such as cognitive decline and prescription drug use,” Dr. Sevigny added.

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Brubacher and Dr. Sevigny disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bahji reported receiving research funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Calgary Health Trust, the American Psychiatric Association, NIDA, and the University of Calgary.

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

Since Canada legalized marijuana in 2018, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of individuals driving while high, new research shows.

Investigators studied over 4,000 drivers treated after a motor vehicle collision in British Columbia trauma centers and found that, before cannabis was legalized, a THC level greater than 0 ng/mL in the blood was present in roughly 10% of drivers. After the drug was legalized this percentage increased to 18%. The percentages of injured drivers with at least 2 ng/mL, the Canadian legal limit, and at least 5 ng/mL more than doubled.

“It’s concerning that we’re seeing such a dramatic increase,” study investigator Jeffrey Brubacher, MD, associate professor, department of emergency medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said in a press release.

“There are serious risks associated with driving after cannabis use and our findings suggest more [work] is needed to deter this dangerous behavior in light of legalization,” he said.

The study was published online Jan. 12 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Impact of legalization?

The investigators note that the Canadian government introduced a law aiming to prevent cannabis-impaired driving by establishing penalties and criminal charges for drivers found with a whole-blood THC level of 2 ng/mL, with more severe penalties for those with a THC level of greater than 5 ng/mL or greater than 2.5 ng/mL combined with a blood alcohol level of .05%.

Cannabis use is “associated with cognitive deficits and psychomotor impairment, and there is evidence that it increases the risk of motor vehicle crashes, especially at higher THC levels,” they noted.

“I’m an emergency physician at Vancouver General Hospital’s trauma center. We’ve been measuring drug levels in injured drivers since 2013 here in British Columbia and, in particular, we’ve been measuring THC levels,” Dr. Brubacher said in an interview. “We thought it would be interesting and important to see what would happen after legalization.”

The investigators studied 4,339 drivers – 3,550 whose accident took place before legalization of cannabis, and 789 after legalization – who had been moderately injured in a motor vehicle collision and presented to four British Columbia trauma centers between January 2013 and March 2020.

“Moderately injured drivers had injuries or potential injuries significant enough to have blood work done as part of routine clinical care,” said Dr. Brubacher. Drivers included in the study had excess blood remaining after the clinical testing had been completed, which was then used for drug analysis.
 

Insufficient laws

After legalization there was an increased prevalence of drivers with a THC level greater than 0 ng/mL, a TCH level of at least 2 ng/mL, and a THC level of at least 5 ng/mL.

The largest increases in a THC level of at least 2 ng/mL were in drivers 50 years of age or older and among male drivers (adjusted prevalence ratio, 5.18; 95% confidence interval, 2.49-10.78 and aPR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.60-3.74, respectively).

“There were no significant changes in the prevalence of drivers testing positive for alcohol,” the authors reported.

Dr. Brubacher said the evidence suggests these new laws “are not enough to stop everyone from driving after using cannabis.”

The findings have implications for clinicians and patients and for policymakers, he said. “My moderately conservative recommendations are that, if you are going to smoke cannabis, wait at least 4 hours after smoking before you drive. Edibles last longer, and patients should wait least 8 hours after ingesting [edibles] before driving. And of course, if you continue to feel the effects of the THC, you should avoid driving altogether until the time has elapsed and you no longer feel any effects.”

Dr. Brubacher hopes policy makers will use the study’s findings to “design public information campaigns and enforcement measures that encourage drivers, especially older drivers, to separate cannabis use from driving.”

Additionally, “policy makers shouldn’t lose sight of drinking and driving because that’s an even bigger problem than the risk of driving under the influence of cannabis.”
 

Focus on older adults

In a comment, Anees Bahji, MD, an International Collaborative Addiction Medicine research fellow at the British Columbia Centre on Substance Use, called the study “interesting and relevant.”

He raised several questions regarding the “correlation between the level of a substance in a person’s system and the degree of impairment.” For example, “does the same level of THC in the blood affect us all the same way? And to what extent do the levels detected at the time of the analysis correlate with the level in the person’s system at the time of driving?”

An additional consideration “is for individuals with cannabis use disorder and for those who have developed tolerance to the psychoactive effects of THC: Does it affect their driving skills in the same way as someone who is cannabis naive?” asked Dr. Bahji, a clinical assistant professor at the University of Calgary (Alta.) who was not involved with the study.

Also commenting, Eric Sevigny, PhD, associate professor of criminal justice and criminology at Georgia State University, Atlanta, described it as a “well-designed study that adds yet another data point for considering appropriate road safety policy responses alongside ongoing cannabis liberalization.”

However, the findings “cannot say much about whether cannabis legalization leads to an increase in cannabis-impaired driving, because current research finds little correlation between biological THC concentrations and driving performance,” said Dr. Sevigny, who was not involved with the study.

The finding of “higher THC prevalence among older adults is also relevant for road safety, as this population has a number of concomitant risk factors, such as cognitive decline and prescription drug use,” Dr. Sevigny added.

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Brubacher and Dr. Sevigny disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bahji reported receiving research funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Calgary Health Trust, the American Psychiatric Association, NIDA, and the University of Calgary.

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

First-year psychiatry resident Jake Goodman, MD, knew he was taking a chance when he opened up on his popular social media platforms about his personal mental health battle. He mulled over the decision for several weeks before deciding to take the plunge.

As he voiced recently on his TikTok page, his biggest social media fanbase, with 1.3 million followers, it felt freeing to get his personal struggle off his chest.

“I’m a doctor in training, and most doctors would advise me not to post this,” the 29-year-old from Miami said in the video last month, which garnered 1.2 million views on TikTok alone. “They would say it’s risky for my career. But I didn’t join the medical field to continue the toxic status quo. I’m part of a new generation of health care professionals that are not afraid to be vulnerable and talk about mental health.”

“Dr. Jake,” as he calls himself on social media, admitted he was a physician who treats mental illness and also takes medication for it. “It felt good to say that. And by the way, I’m proud of it,” he said in the TikTok post.

A champion of mental health throughout the pandemic, Dr. Goodman called attention to the illness in the medical field. In a message on Instagram, he stated, “Opening up about your mental health as a medical professional, especially as a doctor who treats mental illness, can be taboo ... So here’s me leading by example.”

He also cited statistics on the challenge: “1 in 2 people will be diagnosed with a mental health illness at some point in their life. Yet many of us will never take medication that can help correct the chemical imbalance in our brains due to medication stigma: the fear that taking medications for our mental health somehow makes us weak.”

Mental health remains an issue among residents. Nearly 70% of residents polled by Medscape in its 2021 Residents Lifestyle & Happiness Report said they strongly or somewhat agree there’s a stigma against seeking mental health help. And nearly half, or 47% of those polled, said they sometimes (36%) or always/most of the time (11%) were depressed. The latter category rose in the past year.

Dr. Goodman told this news organization that he became passionate about mental health when he lost a college friend to suicide. “It really exposed the stigma” of mental health, he said. “I always knew it was there, but it took me seeing someone lose his life and [asking] why didn’t he feel comfortable talking to us, and why didn’t I feel comfortable talking to him?”
 

Stress of medical training

The decision to pursue psychiatry as his specialty came after a rotation in a clinic for people struggling with substance use disorders. “I was enthralled to see people change their life ... just by mental health care.” It’s why he went into medicine, he tells this news organization. “I always wanted to be in a field to help people [before they hit] rock bottom, when no one else could be there for them.”

Dr. Goodman’s personal battle with mental health didn’t arise until he started residency. “I was not really myself.” He said he felt numb and burned out. “I was not getting as much enjoyment out of things.” A friend pointed out that he might be depressed, so he went to see a therapist and then a psychiatrist and started on medication. “It had a profound impact on how I felt.”

Still, it took a while before Dr. Goodman was comfortable sharing his story with the 1.6 million followers he had already built across his social media platforms.

“I started on social media in 2020 with the goal of advocating for mental health and inspiring future doctors.” He said the message seemed to resonate with people struggling during the early part of the pandemic. On his social media accounts, he also talks about medical school, residency, and being a health care provider. His fiancé is also a resident doctor, in internal medicine.

Dr. Goodman is also trying to create a more realistic image of doctors than the superheroes he believed they were growing up. He wants those who grow up wanting to be doctors and who look up to him to see him as a human being with vulnerabilities, such as mental health.

“You can be a doctor and have mental health issues. Seeking treatment for mental health makes you a better doctor, and for other health care workers suffering in the midst of the pandemic, I want to let them know they are not alone.”

He pointed to the statistic that doctors have one of the highest suicide rates of any professions. “It’s better to talk about that in the early stages of training.”

Students, residents, or attending physicians who have mental health challenges shouldn’t allow their symptoms to go untreated, Dr. Goodman added. “Holding in all the stress and anxiety and feelings in a very traumatic field may be dangerous. Opening up and seeking treatment, that’s the brave thing to do.”

One of his goals is to campaign for the removal of a question on state medical licensing forms requiring doctors to report any mental health diagnosis. It’s why doctors may be afraid to admit that they are struggling. “I’m still here. It didn’t ruin my career.”

Doctors who seek treatment for mental health are theoretically protected under the Americans With Disabilities Act from being refused a license on the basis of that diagnosis. Dr. Goodman hopes to advocate at the state level to reduce discrimination and increase accessibility for doctors to seek mental health care.

Still, Dr. Goodman concedes he was initially fearful of the repercussions. “I opened up about it because this post could save lives. I was doing what I believed in.”

So if he runs into barriers to receive his medical license because of his admission, “that’s a serious problem,” he said. “There is already a shortage of doctors. We’ll see what happens in a few years. I am not the only one who will answer ‘yes’ to having sought treatment for a mental illness. The questions do not really need to be there.”

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

First-year psychiatry resident Jake Goodman, MD, knew he was taking a chance when he opened up on his popular social media platforms about his personal mental health battle. He mulled over the decision for several weeks before deciding to take the plunge.

As he voiced recently on his TikTok page, his biggest social media fanbase, with 1.3 million followers, it felt freeing to get his personal struggle off his chest.

“I’m a doctor in training, and most doctors would advise me not to post this,” the 29-year-old from Miami said in the video last month, which garnered 1.2 million views on TikTok alone. “They would say it’s risky for my career. But I didn’t join the medical field to continue the toxic status quo. I’m part of a new generation of health care professionals that are not afraid to be vulnerable and talk about mental health.”

“Dr. Jake,” as he calls himself on social media, admitted he was a physician who treats mental illness and also takes medication for it. “It felt good to say that. And by the way, I’m proud of it,” he said in the TikTok post.

A champion of mental health throughout the pandemic, Dr. Goodman called attention to the illness in the medical field. In a message on Instagram, he stated, “Opening up about your mental health as a medical professional, especially as a doctor who treats mental illness, can be taboo ... So here’s me leading by example.”

He also cited statistics on the challenge: “1 in 2 people will be diagnosed with a mental health illness at some point in their life. Yet many of us will never take medication that can help correct the chemical imbalance in our brains due to medication stigma: the fear that taking medications for our mental health somehow makes us weak.”

Mental health remains an issue among residents. Nearly 70% of residents polled by Medscape in its 2021 Residents Lifestyle & Happiness Report said they strongly or somewhat agree there’s a stigma against seeking mental health help. And nearly half, or 47% of those polled, said they sometimes (36%) or always/most of the time (11%) were depressed. The latter category rose in the past year.

Dr. Goodman told this news organization that he became passionate about mental health when he lost a college friend to suicide. “It really exposed the stigma” of mental health, he said. “I always knew it was there, but it took me seeing someone lose his life and [asking] why didn’t he feel comfortable talking to us, and why didn’t I feel comfortable talking to him?”
 

Stress of medical training

The decision to pursue psychiatry as his specialty came after a rotation in a clinic for people struggling with substance use disorders. “I was enthralled to see people change their life ... just by mental health care.” It’s why he went into medicine, he tells this news organization. “I always wanted to be in a field to help people [before they hit] rock bottom, when no one else could be there for them.”

Dr. Goodman’s personal battle with mental health didn’t arise until he started residency. “I was not really myself.” He said he felt numb and burned out. “I was not getting as much enjoyment out of things.” A friend pointed out that he might be depressed, so he went to see a therapist and then a psychiatrist and started on medication. “It had a profound impact on how I felt.”

Still, it took a while before Dr. Goodman was comfortable sharing his story with the 1.6 million followers he had already built across his social media platforms.

“I started on social media in 2020 with the goal of advocating for mental health and inspiring future doctors.” He said the message seemed to resonate with people struggling during the early part of the pandemic. On his social media accounts, he also talks about medical school, residency, and being a health care provider. His fiancé is also a resident doctor, in internal medicine.

Dr. Goodman is also trying to create a more realistic image of doctors than the superheroes he believed they were growing up. He wants those who grow up wanting to be doctors and who look up to him to see him as a human being with vulnerabilities, such as mental health.

“You can be a doctor and have mental health issues. Seeking treatment for mental health makes you a better doctor, and for other health care workers suffering in the midst of the pandemic, I want to let them know they are not alone.”

He pointed to the statistic that doctors have one of the highest suicide rates of any professions. “It’s better to talk about that in the early stages of training.”

Students, residents, or attending physicians who have mental health challenges shouldn’t allow their symptoms to go untreated, Dr. Goodman added. “Holding in all the stress and anxiety and feelings in a very traumatic field may be dangerous. Opening up and seeking treatment, that’s the brave thing to do.”

One of his goals is to campaign for the removal of a question on state medical licensing forms requiring doctors to report any mental health diagnosis. It’s why doctors may be afraid to admit that they are struggling. “I’m still here. It didn’t ruin my career.”

Doctors who seek treatment for mental health are theoretically protected under the Americans With Disabilities Act from being refused a license on the basis of that diagnosis. Dr. Goodman hopes to advocate at the state level to reduce discrimination and increase accessibility for doctors to seek mental health care.

Still, Dr. Goodman concedes he was initially fearful of the repercussions. “I opened up about it because this post could save lives. I was doing what I believed in.”

So if he runs into barriers to receive his medical license because of his admission, “that’s a serious problem,” he said. “There is already a shortage of doctors. We’ll see what happens in a few years. I am not the only one who will answer ‘yes’ to having sought treatment for a mental illness. The questions do not really need to be there.”

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

First-year psychiatry resident Jake Goodman, MD, knew he was taking a chance when he opened up on his popular social media platforms about his personal mental health battle. He mulled over the decision for several weeks before deciding to take the plunge.

As he voiced recently on his TikTok page, his biggest social media fanbase, with 1.3 million followers, it felt freeing to get his personal struggle off his chest.

“I’m a doctor in training, and most doctors would advise me not to post this,” the 29-year-old from Miami said in the video last month, which garnered 1.2 million views on TikTok alone. “They would say it’s risky for my career. But I didn’t join the medical field to continue the toxic status quo. I’m part of a new generation of health care professionals that are not afraid to be vulnerable and talk about mental health.”

“Dr. Jake,” as he calls himself on social media, admitted he was a physician who treats mental illness and also takes medication for it. “It felt good to say that. And by the way, I’m proud of it,” he said in the TikTok post.

A champion of mental health throughout the pandemic, Dr. Goodman called attention to the illness in the medical field. In a message on Instagram, he stated, “Opening up about your mental health as a medical professional, especially as a doctor who treats mental illness, can be taboo ... So here’s me leading by example.”

He also cited statistics on the challenge: “1 in 2 people will be diagnosed with a mental health illness at some point in their life. Yet many of us will never take medication that can help correct the chemical imbalance in our brains due to medication stigma: the fear that taking medications for our mental health somehow makes us weak.”

Mental health remains an issue among residents. Nearly 70% of residents polled by Medscape in its 2021 Residents Lifestyle & Happiness Report said they strongly or somewhat agree there’s a stigma against seeking mental health help. And nearly half, or 47% of those polled, said they sometimes (36%) or always/most of the time (11%) were depressed. The latter category rose in the past year.

Dr. Goodman told this news organization that he became passionate about mental health when he lost a college friend to suicide. “It really exposed the stigma” of mental health, he said. “I always knew it was there, but it took me seeing someone lose his life and [asking] why didn’t he feel comfortable talking to us, and why didn’t I feel comfortable talking to him?”
 

Stress of medical training

The decision to pursue psychiatry as his specialty came after a rotation in a clinic for people struggling with substance use disorders. “I was enthralled to see people change their life ... just by mental health care.” It’s why he went into medicine, he tells this news organization. “I always wanted to be in a field to help people [before they hit] rock bottom, when no one else could be there for them.”

Dr. Goodman’s personal battle with mental health didn’t arise until he started residency. “I was not really myself.” He said he felt numb and burned out. “I was not getting as much enjoyment out of things.” A friend pointed out that he might be depressed, so he went to see a therapist and then a psychiatrist and started on medication. “It had a profound impact on how I felt.”

Still, it took a while before Dr. Goodman was comfortable sharing his story with the 1.6 million followers he had already built across his social media platforms.

“I started on social media in 2020 with the goal of advocating for mental health and inspiring future doctors.” He said the message seemed to resonate with people struggling during the early part of the pandemic. On his social media accounts, he also talks about medical school, residency, and being a health care provider. His fiancé is also a resident doctor, in internal medicine.

Dr. Goodman is also trying to create a more realistic image of doctors than the superheroes he believed they were growing up. He wants those who grow up wanting to be doctors and who look up to him to see him as a human being with vulnerabilities, such as mental health.

“You can be a doctor and have mental health issues. Seeking treatment for mental health makes you a better doctor, and for other health care workers suffering in the midst of the pandemic, I want to let them know they are not alone.”

He pointed to the statistic that doctors have one of the highest suicide rates of any professions. “It’s better to talk about that in the early stages of training.”

Students, residents, or attending physicians who have mental health challenges shouldn’t allow their symptoms to go untreated, Dr. Goodman added. “Holding in all the stress and anxiety and feelings in a very traumatic field may be dangerous. Opening up and seeking treatment, that’s the brave thing to do.”

One of his goals is to campaign for the removal of a question on state medical licensing forms requiring doctors to report any mental health diagnosis. It’s why doctors may be afraid to admit that they are struggling. “I’m still here. It didn’t ruin my career.”

Doctors who seek treatment for mental health are theoretically protected under the Americans With Disabilities Act from being refused a license on the basis of that diagnosis. Dr. Goodman hopes to advocate at the state level to reduce discrimination and increase accessibility for doctors to seek mental health care.

Still, Dr. Goodman concedes he was initially fearful of the repercussions. “I opened up about it because this post could save lives. I was doing what I believed in.”

So if he runs into barriers to receive his medical license because of his admission, “that’s a serious problem,” he said. “There is already a shortage of doctors. We’ll see what happens in a few years. I am not the only one who will answer ‘yes’ to having sought treatment for a mental illness. The questions do not really need to be there.”

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

I am hearing more and more often from colleagues about the number of rheumatologists taking early retirement because of the frustration of having doctor-patient shared decision-making taken out of their hands and given to the insurance companies and their pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). Often the right medication for the patient is not available on the formulary, causing unnecessary administrative barriers to providing care. When you put that together with the decreased reimbursement and the many obstacles to the “buy-and-bill” model, many rheumatologists have just had enough and called it quits earlier than they thought they would. This is a significant contributor to the growing workforce problem in rheumatology.

Many of the issues affecting the availability of medications happen throughout the development and distribution of a drug treatment – regulatory approval and obstacles to commercial launch, such as patent thickets, “pay for delay,” and other anticompetitive tactics by the manufacturers. And once a medication is launched on to the marketplace, rheumatologists are at the mercy of the health plans and PBMs as to whether, when, and even where a medication can be used. Here is where much of the frustration begins, amplified by the knowledge that profit for the PBM is the driving force behind formulary construction.
 

To support rheumatologists in addressing these challenges, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations started a “Reporting Insurance/Payer Issues” page. Here, rheumatologists can describe issues or complaints they have with payers regarding patient care. The responses we’ve received so far always have a sense of urgency and frustration in the description of whatever obstacle to care is being thrown up by an insurance company or PBM.

One of the recent issues that has arisen via the CSRO’s reporting form involves a new policy for an insurance plan that removes the availability of the intravenous formulation of a medication if it has a subcutaneous (sub Q) formulation. It is a commercial version of the Medicare self-administered drug list, but worse. At least Medicare takes the time to look at the actual usage of a formulation before moving it from Part B to Part D. This new policy flatly states that no patients will have access to the IV formulation until the sub Q formulation has been tried. This includes switching all stable IV patients over to the sub Q formulation. Because the IV formulation is weight based, switching patients from IV to sub Q can reduce their dosage by more than 50%. It appears that loss of disease control is a small price to pay for increased PBM profits (called “savings” by the PBM). Notably, IV medications through physician “buy and bill” offer no revenue to the insurance company, while sub Q medications increase profits through rebates, fees, and other price concessions.

The CSRO outlined these concerns in its Jan. 18, 2022, response to the insurance company’s reply to the coalition’s original letter, urging them to value patients over profits. In this response, the CSRO addressed nonmedical switching, site of care cost, outcome documentation, and grandfathering stable patients, and finished with a discussion on ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) protections.

While our Reporting Insurance/Payer Issues form cannot handle reimbursement issues, there needs to be a word about money and profit when it comes to physicians. Physicians whose specialties have few to no procedures, including rheumatologists, rely on office visits and ancillary services such as infusion suites for income. That income sustains their practice and maintains all their attendant expenses. Many of the recent policies put forth by health plans not only intrude on the doctor-patient relationship in treatment decisions, but also reduce reimbursements and place obstacles to “buy and bill,” shifting revenue from the physician to the insurance company.

All these insurance/payer issues boil down to a version of “death by a thousand cuts.” These cuts harm patients and impede rheumatologists’ ability to sustain their practices. They are a type of moral injury (among the many we see in health care providers) that are causing rheumatologists to retire early. Clearly, these issues ultimately affect the workforce. We need advocacy on many levels if we have any hope of dulling the knives that are delivering these “cuts.”

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is President of the CSRO, past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines, and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].

I am hearing more and more often from colleagues about the number of rheumatologists taking early retirement because of the frustration of having doctor-patient shared decision-making taken out of their hands and given to the insurance companies and their pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). Often the right medication for the patient is not available on the formulary, causing unnecessary administrative barriers to providing care. When you put that together with the decreased reimbursement and the many obstacles to the “buy-and-bill” model, many rheumatologists have just had enough and called it quits earlier than they thought they would. This is a significant contributor to the growing workforce problem in rheumatology.

Many of the issues affecting the availability of medications happen throughout the development and distribution of a drug treatment – regulatory approval and obstacles to commercial launch, such as patent thickets, “pay for delay,” and other anticompetitive tactics by the manufacturers. And once a medication is launched on to the marketplace, rheumatologists are at the mercy of the health plans and PBMs as to whether, when, and even where a medication can be used. Here is where much of the frustration begins, amplified by the knowledge that profit for the PBM is the driving force behind formulary construction.
 

To support rheumatologists in addressing these challenges, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations started a “Reporting Insurance/Payer Issues” page. Here, rheumatologists can describe issues or complaints they have with payers regarding patient care. The responses we’ve received so far always have a sense of urgency and frustration in the description of whatever obstacle to care is being thrown up by an insurance company or PBM.

One of the recent issues that has arisen via the CSRO’s reporting form involves a new policy for an insurance plan that removes the availability of the intravenous formulation of a medication if it has a subcutaneous (sub Q) formulation. It is a commercial version of the Medicare self-administered drug list, but worse. At least Medicare takes the time to look at the actual usage of a formulation before moving it from Part B to Part D. This new policy flatly states that no patients will have access to the IV formulation until the sub Q formulation has been tried. This includes switching all stable IV patients over to the sub Q formulation. Because the IV formulation is weight based, switching patients from IV to sub Q can reduce their dosage by more than 50%. It appears that loss of disease control is a small price to pay for increased PBM profits (called “savings” by the PBM). Notably, IV medications through physician “buy and bill” offer no revenue to the insurance company, while sub Q medications increase profits through rebates, fees, and other price concessions.

The CSRO outlined these concerns in its Jan. 18, 2022, response to the insurance company’s reply to the coalition’s original letter, urging them to value patients over profits. In this response, the CSRO addressed nonmedical switching, site of care cost, outcome documentation, and grandfathering stable patients, and finished with a discussion on ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) protections.

While our Reporting Insurance/Payer Issues form cannot handle reimbursement issues, there needs to be a word about money and profit when it comes to physicians. Physicians whose specialties have few to no procedures, including rheumatologists, rely on office visits and ancillary services such as infusion suites for income. That income sustains their practice and maintains all their attendant expenses. Many of the recent policies put forth by health plans not only intrude on the doctor-patient relationship in treatment decisions, but also reduce reimbursements and place obstacles to “buy and bill,” shifting revenue from the physician to the insurance company.

All these insurance/payer issues boil down to a version of “death by a thousand cuts.” These cuts harm patients and impede rheumatologists’ ability to sustain their practices. They are a type of moral injury (among the many we see in health care providers) that are causing rheumatologists to retire early. Clearly, these issues ultimately affect the workforce. We need advocacy on many levels if we have any hope of dulling the knives that are delivering these “cuts.”

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is President of the CSRO, past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines, and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].

I am hearing more and more often from colleagues about the number of rheumatologists taking early retirement because of the frustration of having doctor-patient shared decision-making taken out of their hands and given to the insurance companies and their pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). Often the right medication for the patient is not available on the formulary, causing unnecessary administrative barriers to providing care. When you put that together with the decreased reimbursement and the many obstacles to the “buy-and-bill” model, many rheumatologists have just had enough and called it quits earlier than they thought they would. This is a significant contributor to the growing workforce problem in rheumatology.

Many of the issues affecting the availability of medications happen throughout the development and distribution of a drug treatment – regulatory approval and obstacles to commercial launch, such as patent thickets, “pay for delay,” and other anticompetitive tactics by the manufacturers. And once a medication is launched on to the marketplace, rheumatologists are at the mercy of the health plans and PBMs as to whether, when, and even where a medication can be used. Here is where much of the frustration begins, amplified by the knowledge that profit for the PBM is the driving force behind formulary construction.
 

To support rheumatologists in addressing these challenges, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations started a “Reporting Insurance/Payer Issues” page. Here, rheumatologists can describe issues or complaints they have with payers regarding patient care. The responses we’ve received so far always have a sense of urgency and frustration in the description of whatever obstacle to care is being thrown up by an insurance company or PBM.

One of the recent issues that has arisen via the CSRO’s reporting form involves a new policy for an insurance plan that removes the availability of the intravenous formulation of a medication if it has a subcutaneous (sub Q) formulation. It is a commercial version of the Medicare self-administered drug list, but worse. At least Medicare takes the time to look at the actual usage of a formulation before moving it from Part B to Part D. This new policy flatly states that no patients will have access to the IV formulation until the sub Q formulation has been tried. This includes switching all stable IV patients over to the sub Q formulation. Because the IV formulation is weight based, switching patients from IV to sub Q can reduce their dosage by more than 50%. It appears that loss of disease control is a small price to pay for increased PBM profits (called “savings” by the PBM). Notably, IV medications through physician “buy and bill” offer no revenue to the insurance company, while sub Q medications increase profits through rebates, fees, and other price concessions.

The CSRO outlined these concerns in its Jan. 18, 2022, response to the insurance company’s reply to the coalition’s original letter, urging them to value patients over profits. In this response, the CSRO addressed nonmedical switching, site of care cost, outcome documentation, and grandfathering stable patients, and finished with a discussion on ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) protections.

While our Reporting Insurance/Payer Issues form cannot handle reimbursement issues, there needs to be a word about money and profit when it comes to physicians. Physicians whose specialties have few to no procedures, including rheumatologists, rely on office visits and ancillary services such as infusion suites for income. That income sustains their practice and maintains all their attendant expenses. Many of the recent policies put forth by health plans not only intrude on the doctor-patient relationship in treatment decisions, but also reduce reimbursements and place obstacles to “buy and bill,” shifting revenue from the physician to the insurance company.

All these insurance/payer issues boil down to a version of “death by a thousand cuts.” These cuts harm patients and impede rheumatologists’ ability to sustain their practices. They are a type of moral injury (among the many we see in health care providers) that are causing rheumatologists to retire early. Clearly, these issues ultimately affect the workforce. We need advocacy on many levels if we have any hope of dulling the knives that are delivering these “cuts.”

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is President of the CSRO, past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines, and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].

Most children with multisystem inflammatory syndrome related to COVID-19 infection show recovery of cardiac function by 3 months, but longer term follow-up is still needed, suggests a new retrospective longitudinal cohort study.

While 80%-85% of children with multisystem inflammatory syndrome have cardiovascular involvement, “lack of knowledge about the short-term consequences of MIS-C has led to uncertainty among physicians in making recommendations about follow-up,” Daisuke Matsubara, MD, PhD, and colleagues wrote in their paper, which was published in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

Dr. Matsubara, of the department of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and colleagues examined cardiac outcomes among 60 patients aged 18 years or under admitted to two Philadelphia hospitals with MIS-C between April 2020 and January 2021. They compared those with outcomes in 60 age-matched healthy children who had undergone echocardiography for a range of non–COVID-related conditions such as chest pain or syncope.

The study used echocardiography, MRI, biochemistry, and functional and clinical parameters to assess the degree of change and damage to the heart at 3 months after admission.

When the patients first presented to a hospital, 42 had biochemical signs of myocardial injury, such as elevated brain-type natriuretic peptide and troponin levels. However, most patients’ symptoms were no longer present by the time they were discharged from hospital.

The researchers found that 81% of patients who presented with myocardial injury had lost the left atrial contraction phase. This dropped to 51% during the subacute phase, then 30% at 1 month. By 3-4 months, all patients achieved normal left atrial contraction phase.

At 1 month after admission, all MIS-C patients had significant signs of cardiac strain, compared with controls, including changes to global longitudinal strain, global circumferential strain, circumferential early diastolic strain rate, and right ventricular free wall longitudinal strain.
 

Parameters of strain normalized by 3 months

All parameters of strain had normalized, compared with controls, by 3 months. In the case of global longitudinal strain and left atrial strain, the median time to normalization was 6 days. For left ventricular ejection fraction the median time to normalization was 8 days and for right ventricular free wall longitudinal strain it was 9 days.

A small difference persisted with global longitudinal strain, but the authors said the difference was within the range of normal published values and not clinically relevant. The dysfunction appeared to be spread evenly across the heart rather than varying between segments, they noted.

“Deformation analysis could detect subtle myocardial changes; therefore, our study suggests the absence of persistent subclinical myocardial dysfunction after 3-4 months,” Dr. Matsubara said in an interview.

Four patients experienced small coronary aneurysms during the acute phase of MIS-C, but all had resolved within 2 months and none experienced any further lesions.

Among the 14 patients who underwent cardiac MRI at presentation, 2 had evidence of myocardial edema and fibrosis during the subacute phase of illness, despite having normal left ventricular systolic function and conventional echocardiography.

At follow-up, only one patient had residual edema; this individual had no evidence of fibrosis and had normal systolic function.
 

Study provides reassurance, but longer follow-up needed

Commenting on the study, pediatric cardiologist Devyani Chowdhury, MD, director of Cardiology Care for Children in Lancaster, Pa., said that overall it provided reassurance that most children do recover from MIS-C – and fits with her own clinical experience of the condition – but cautioned that longer-term follow-up was still needed.

“Three months is really not long term for a child,” Dr. Chowdhury said in an interview. “I’ve had a couple of patients whose MRIs have not normalized even after 1 year.”

Dr. Chowdhury also noted that it was a relatively small sample size, and it was also not yet possible to work out what host factors might play a role in increasing the risk of longer-term effects of MIS-C.

“I think it is a disease in evolution and we have to give it time, but in the very short term at least these kids are not dying, they are recovering, going home, and returning to activity and the heart is getting better,” she said.

The study authors suggested their findings could provide an evidence base for recommendations on when children with MIS-C can return to sports and physical activity, given that current consensus statements on the issue treat MIS-C as being equivalent to myocarditis in adults.

Dr. Matsubara noted that the cardiac outcomes of MIS-C were very different from those in COVID-19–affected adults, where echocardiography and MRI show longer-term evidence of myocardial impairments.

“This finding is also different from that of adult COVID-19, where the high troponin is reported to be the prognostic factor,” he said, suggesting this could explain different mechanisms of myocardial injury between MIS-C and COVID-19 myocarditis.

One author was supported by the National Institutes of Health. No conflicts of interest were declared.

Most children with multisystem inflammatory syndrome related to COVID-19 infection show recovery of cardiac function by 3 months, but longer term follow-up is still needed, suggests a new retrospective longitudinal cohort study.

While 80%-85% of children with multisystem inflammatory syndrome have cardiovascular involvement, “lack of knowledge about the short-term consequences of MIS-C has led to uncertainty among physicians in making recommendations about follow-up,” Daisuke Matsubara, MD, PhD, and colleagues wrote in their paper, which was published in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

Dr. Matsubara, of the department of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and colleagues examined cardiac outcomes among 60 patients aged 18 years or under admitted to two Philadelphia hospitals with MIS-C between April 2020 and January 2021. They compared those with outcomes in 60 age-matched healthy children who had undergone echocardiography for a range of non–COVID-related conditions such as chest pain or syncope.

The study used echocardiography, MRI, biochemistry, and functional and clinical parameters to assess the degree of change and damage to the heart at 3 months after admission.

When the patients first presented to a hospital, 42 had biochemical signs of myocardial injury, such as elevated brain-type natriuretic peptide and troponin levels. However, most patients’ symptoms were no longer present by the time they were discharged from hospital.

The researchers found that 81% of patients who presented with myocardial injury had lost the left atrial contraction phase. This dropped to 51% during the subacute phase, then 30% at 1 month. By 3-4 months, all patients achieved normal left atrial contraction phase.

At 1 month after admission, all MIS-C patients had significant signs of cardiac strain, compared with controls, including changes to global longitudinal strain, global circumferential strain, circumferential early diastolic strain rate, and right ventricular free wall longitudinal strain.
 

Parameters of strain normalized by 3 months

All parameters of strain had normalized, compared with controls, by 3 months. In the case of global longitudinal strain and left atrial strain, the median time to normalization was 6 days. For left ventricular ejection fraction the median time to normalization was 8 days and for right ventricular free wall longitudinal strain it was 9 days.

A small difference persisted with global longitudinal strain, but the authors said the difference was within the range of normal published values and not clinically relevant. The dysfunction appeared to be spread evenly across the heart rather than varying between segments, they noted.

“Deformation analysis could detect subtle myocardial changes; therefore, our study suggests the absence of persistent subclinical myocardial dysfunction after 3-4 months,” Dr. Matsubara said in an interview.

Four patients experienced small coronary aneurysms during the acute phase of MIS-C, but all had resolved within 2 months and none experienced any further lesions.

Among the 14 patients who underwent cardiac MRI at presentation, 2 had evidence of myocardial edema and fibrosis during the subacute phase of illness, despite having normal left ventricular systolic function and conventional echocardiography.

At follow-up, only one patient had residual edema; this individual had no evidence of fibrosis and had normal systolic function.
 

Study provides reassurance, but longer follow-up needed

Commenting on the study, pediatric cardiologist Devyani Chowdhury, MD, director of Cardiology Care for Children in Lancaster, Pa., said that overall it provided reassurance that most children do recover from MIS-C – and fits with her own clinical experience of the condition – but cautioned that longer-term follow-up was still needed.

“Three months is really not long term for a child,” Dr. Chowdhury said in an interview. “I’ve had a couple of patients whose MRIs have not normalized even after 1 year.”

Dr. Chowdhury also noted that it was a relatively small sample size, and it was also not yet possible to work out what host factors might play a role in increasing the risk of longer-term effects of MIS-C.

“I think it is a disease in evolution and we have to give it time, but in the very short term at least these kids are not dying, they are recovering, going home, and returning to activity and the heart is getting better,” she said.

The study authors suggested their findings could provide an evidence base for recommendations on when children with MIS-C can return to sports and physical activity, given that current consensus statements on the issue treat MIS-C as being equivalent to myocarditis in adults.

Dr. Matsubara noted that the cardiac outcomes of MIS-C were very different from those in COVID-19–affected adults, where echocardiography and MRI show longer-term evidence of myocardial impairments.

“This finding is also different from that of adult COVID-19, where the high troponin is reported to be the prognostic factor,” he said, suggesting this could explain different mechanisms of myocardial injury between MIS-C and COVID-19 myocarditis.

One author was supported by the National Institutes of Health. No conflicts of interest were declared.

Most children with multisystem inflammatory syndrome related to COVID-19 infection show recovery of cardiac function by 3 months, but longer term follow-up is still needed, suggests a new retrospective longitudinal cohort study.

While 80%-85% of children with multisystem inflammatory syndrome have cardiovascular involvement, “lack of knowledge about the short-term consequences of MIS-C has led to uncertainty among physicians in making recommendations about follow-up,” Daisuke Matsubara, MD, PhD, and colleagues wrote in their paper, which was published in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

Dr. Matsubara, of the department of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and colleagues examined cardiac outcomes among 60 patients aged 18 years or under admitted to two Philadelphia hospitals with MIS-C between April 2020 and January 2021. They compared those with outcomes in 60 age-matched healthy children who had undergone echocardiography for a range of non–COVID-related conditions such as chest pain or syncope.

The study used echocardiography, MRI, biochemistry, and functional and clinical parameters to assess the degree of change and damage to the heart at 3 months after admission.

When the patients first presented to a hospital, 42 had biochemical signs of myocardial injury, such as elevated brain-type natriuretic peptide and troponin levels. However, most patients’ symptoms were no longer present by the time they were discharged from hospital.

The researchers found that 81% of patients who presented with myocardial injury had lost the left atrial contraction phase. This dropped to 51% during the subacute phase, then 30% at 1 month. By 3-4 months, all patients achieved normal left atrial contraction phase.

At 1 month after admission, all MIS-C patients had significant signs of cardiac strain, compared with controls, including changes to global longitudinal strain, global circumferential strain, circumferential early diastolic strain rate, and right ventricular free wall longitudinal strain.
 

Parameters of strain normalized by 3 months

All parameters of strain had normalized, compared with controls, by 3 months. In the case of global longitudinal strain and left atrial strain, the median time to normalization was 6 days. For left ventricular ejection fraction the median time to normalization was 8 days and for right ventricular free wall longitudinal strain it was 9 days.

A small difference persisted with global longitudinal strain, but the authors said the difference was within the range of normal published values and not clinically relevant. The dysfunction appeared to be spread evenly across the heart rather than varying between segments, they noted.

“Deformation analysis could detect subtle myocardial changes; therefore, our study suggests the absence of persistent subclinical myocardial dysfunction after 3-4 months,” Dr. Matsubara said in an interview.

Four patients experienced small coronary aneurysms during the acute phase of MIS-C, but all had resolved within 2 months and none experienced any further lesions.

Among the 14 patients who underwent cardiac MRI at presentation, 2 had evidence of myocardial edema and fibrosis during the subacute phase of illness, despite having normal left ventricular systolic function and conventional echocardiography.

At follow-up, only one patient had residual edema; this individual had no evidence of fibrosis and had normal systolic function.
 

Study provides reassurance, but longer follow-up needed

Commenting on the study, pediatric cardiologist Devyani Chowdhury, MD, director of Cardiology Care for Children in Lancaster, Pa., said that overall it provided reassurance that most children do recover from MIS-C – and fits with her own clinical experience of the condition – but cautioned that longer-term follow-up was still needed.

“Three months is really not long term for a child,” Dr. Chowdhury said in an interview. “I’ve had a couple of patients whose MRIs have not normalized even after 1 year.”

Dr. Chowdhury also noted that it was a relatively small sample size, and it was also not yet possible to work out what host factors might play a role in increasing the risk of longer-term effects of MIS-C.

“I think it is a disease in evolution and we have to give it time, but in the very short term at least these kids are not dying, they are recovering, going home, and returning to activity and the heart is getting better,” she said.

The study authors suggested their findings could provide an evidence base for recommendations on when children with MIS-C can return to sports and physical activity, given that current consensus statements on the issue treat MIS-C as being equivalent to myocarditis in adults.

Dr. Matsubara noted that the cardiac outcomes of MIS-C were very different from those in COVID-19–affected adults, where echocardiography and MRI show longer-term evidence of myocardial impairments.

“This finding is also different from that of adult COVID-19, where the high troponin is reported to be the prognostic factor,” he said, suggesting this could explain different mechanisms of myocardial injury between MIS-C and COVID-19 myocarditis.

One author was supported by the National Institutes of Health. No conflicts of interest were declared.

A patient swore at me the other day. Not as in “she used a curse word.” As in she spewed fury, spitting out a vulgar, adverbial word before “... terrible doctor” while jabbing her finger toward me. In my 15 years of practice, I’d never had that happen before. Equally surprising, I was not surprised by her outburst. The level of incivility from patients is at an all-time high.

Her anger was misdirected. She wanted me to write a letter to her employer excusing her from getting a vaccine. It was neither indicated nor ethical for me to do so. I did my best to redirect her, but without success. As our chief of service, I often help with service concerns and am happy to see patients who want another opinion or want to speak with the department head (aka, “the manager”). Usually I can help. Lately, it’s become harder.

Not only are such rude incidents more frequent, but they are also more dramatic and inappropriate. For example, I cannot imagine writing a complaint against a doctor stating that she must be a foreign medical grad (as it happens, she’s Ivy League-trained) or demanding money back when a biopsy result turned out to be benign, or threatening to report a doctor to the medical board because he failed to schedule a follow-up appointment (that doctor had been retired for months). Patients have hung up on our staff mid-sentence and slammed a clinic door when they left in a huff. Why are so many previously sensible people throwing childlike tantrums?

It’s the same phenomenon happening to our fellow service agents across all industries. The Federal Aviation Administration’s graph of unruly passenger incidents is a flat line from 1995 to 2019, then it goes straight vertical. A recent survey showed that Americans’ sense of civility is low and worse, that people’s expectations that civility will improve is going down. It’s palpable. Last month, I witnessed a man and woman screaming at each other over Christmas lights in a busy store. An army of aproned walkie-talkie staff surrounded them and escorted them out – their coordination and efficiency clearly indicated they’d done this before. Customers everywhere are mad, frustrated, disenfranchised. Lately, a lot of things just are not working out for them. Supplies are out. Kids are sent home from school. No elective surgery appointments are available. The insta-gratification they’ve grown accustomed to from Amazon and DoorDash is colliding with the reality that not everything works that way.

The word “patient’’ you’ll recall comes from the Latin “patior,” meaning to suffer or bear. With virus variants raging, inflation growing, and call center wait times approaching infinity, many of our patients, it seems, cannot bear any more. I’m confident this situation will improve and our patients will be more reasonable in their expectations, but I am afraid that, in the end, we’ll have lost some decorum and dignity that we may never find again in medicine.

For my potty-mouthed patient, I made an excuse to leave the room to get my dermatoscope and walked out. It gave her time to calm down. I returned in a few minutes to do a skin exam. As I was wrapping up, I advised her that she cannot raise her voice or use offensive language and that she should know that I and everyone in our office cares about her and wants to help. She did apologize for her behavior, but then had to add that, if I really cared, I’d write the letter for her.

I guess the customer is not always right.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected]

A patient swore at me the other day. Not as in “she used a curse word.” As in she spewed fury, spitting out a vulgar, adverbial word before “... terrible doctor” while jabbing her finger toward me. In my 15 years of practice, I’d never had that happen before. Equally surprising, I was not surprised by her outburst. The level of incivility from patients is at an all-time high.

Her anger was misdirected. She wanted me to write a letter to her employer excusing her from getting a vaccine. It was neither indicated nor ethical for me to do so. I did my best to redirect her, but without success. As our chief of service, I often help with service concerns and am happy to see patients who want another opinion or want to speak with the department head (aka, “the manager”). Usually I can help. Lately, it’s become harder.

Not only are such rude incidents more frequent, but they are also more dramatic and inappropriate. For example, I cannot imagine writing a complaint against a doctor stating that she must be a foreign medical grad (as it happens, she’s Ivy League-trained) or demanding money back when a biopsy result turned out to be benign, or threatening to report a doctor to the medical board because he failed to schedule a follow-up appointment (that doctor had been retired for months). Patients have hung up on our staff mid-sentence and slammed a clinic door when they left in a huff. Why are so many previously sensible people throwing childlike tantrums?

It’s the same phenomenon happening to our fellow service agents across all industries. The Federal Aviation Administration’s graph of unruly passenger incidents is a flat line from 1995 to 2019, then it goes straight vertical. A recent survey showed that Americans’ sense of civility is low and worse, that people’s expectations that civility will improve is going down. It’s palpable. Last month, I witnessed a man and woman screaming at each other over Christmas lights in a busy store. An army of aproned walkie-talkie staff surrounded them and escorted them out – their coordination and efficiency clearly indicated they’d done this before. Customers everywhere are mad, frustrated, disenfranchised. Lately, a lot of things just are not working out for them. Supplies are out. Kids are sent home from school. No elective surgery appointments are available. The insta-gratification they’ve grown accustomed to from Amazon and DoorDash is colliding with the reality that not everything works that way.

The word “patient’’ you’ll recall comes from the Latin “patior,” meaning to suffer or bear. With virus variants raging, inflation growing, and call center wait times approaching infinity, many of our patients, it seems, cannot bear any more. I’m confident this situation will improve and our patients will be more reasonable in their expectations, but I am afraid that, in the end, we’ll have lost some decorum and dignity that we may never find again in medicine.

For my potty-mouthed patient, I made an excuse to leave the room to get my dermatoscope and walked out. It gave her time to calm down. I returned in a few minutes to do a skin exam. As I was wrapping up, I advised her that she cannot raise her voice or use offensive language and that she should know that I and everyone in our office cares about her and wants to help. She did apologize for her behavior, but then had to add that, if I really cared, I’d write the letter for her.

I guess the customer is not always right.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected]

A patient swore at me the other day. Not as in “she used a curse word.” As in she spewed fury, spitting out a vulgar, adverbial word before “... terrible doctor” while jabbing her finger toward me. In my 15 years of practice, I’d never had that happen before. Equally surprising, I was not surprised by her outburst. The level of incivility from patients is at an all-time high.

Her anger was misdirected. She wanted me to write a letter to her employer excusing her from getting a vaccine. It was neither indicated nor ethical for me to do so. I did my best to redirect her, but without success. As our chief of service, I often help with service concerns and am happy to see patients who want another opinion or want to speak with the department head (aka, “the manager”). Usually I can help. Lately, it’s become harder.

Not only are such rude incidents more frequent, but they are also more dramatic and inappropriate. For example, I cannot imagine writing a complaint against a doctor stating that she must be a foreign medical grad (as it happens, she’s Ivy League-trained) or demanding money back when a biopsy result turned out to be benign, or threatening to report a doctor to the medical board because he failed to schedule a follow-up appointment (that doctor had been retired for months). Patients have hung up on our staff mid-sentence and slammed a clinic door when they left in a huff. Why are so many previously sensible people throwing childlike tantrums?

It’s the same phenomenon happening to our fellow service agents across all industries. The Federal Aviation Administration’s graph of unruly passenger incidents is a flat line from 1995 to 2019, then it goes straight vertical. A recent survey showed that Americans’ sense of civility is low and worse, that people’s expectations that civility will improve is going down. It’s palpable. Last month, I witnessed a man and woman screaming at each other over Christmas lights in a busy store. An army of aproned walkie-talkie staff surrounded them and escorted them out – their coordination and efficiency clearly indicated they’d done this before. Customers everywhere are mad, frustrated, disenfranchised. Lately, a lot of things just are not working out for them. Supplies are out. Kids are sent home from school. No elective surgery appointments are available. The insta-gratification they’ve grown accustomed to from Amazon and DoorDash is colliding with the reality that not everything works that way.

The word “patient’’ you’ll recall comes from the Latin “patior,” meaning to suffer or bear. With virus variants raging, inflation growing, and call center wait times approaching infinity, many of our patients, it seems, cannot bear any more. I’m confident this situation will improve and our patients will be more reasonable in their expectations, but I am afraid that, in the end, we’ll have lost some decorum and dignity that we may never find again in medicine.

For my potty-mouthed patient, I made an excuse to leave the room to get my dermatoscope and walked out. It gave her time to calm down. I returned in a few minutes to do a skin exam. As I was wrapping up, I advised her that she cannot raise her voice or use offensive language and that she should know that I and everyone in our office cares about her and wants to help. She did apologize for her behavior, but then had to add that, if I really cared, I’d write the letter for her.

I guess the customer is not always right.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected]

The White Coat Ceremony is an enduring memory from my medical school years. Amidst the tumult of memories of seemingly endless sleepless nights spent in libraries and cramming for clerkship examinations between surgical cases, I recall a sunny spring day in 2016 where I gathered with my classmates, family, and friends in the medical school campus courtyard. There were several short, mostly forgotten speeches after which proud fathers and mothers, partners, or siblings slipped the all-important white coat onto the shoulders of the physicians-to-be. At that moment, I felt the weight of tradition centuries in the making resting on my shoulders. Of course, the pomp of the ceremony might have felt a tad overblown had I known that the whole thing had fewer years under its belt than the movie Die Hard.

That’s right, the first White Coat Ceremony was held 5 years after the release of that Bruce Willis classic. Dr. Arnold Gold, a pediatric neurologist on faculty at Columbia University, conceived the ceremony in 1993, and it spread rapidly to medical schools—and later nursing schools—across the United States.¹ Although the values highlighted by the White Coat Ceremony—humanism and compassion in medicine—are timeless, the ceremony itself is a more modern undertaking. What, then, of the white coat itself? Is it the timeless symbol of doctoring—of medicine—that we all presume it to be? Or is it a symbol of modern marketing, just a trend that caught on? And is it encountering its twilight—as trends often do—in the face of changing fashion and, more fundamentally, in changes to who our physicians are and to their roles in our society?

The Cleanliness of the White Coat

Until the end of the 19th century, physicians in the Western world most frequently dressed in black formal wear. The rationale behind this attire seems to have been twofold. First, society as a whole perceived the physician’s work as a serious and formal matter, and any medical encounter had to reflect the gravity of the occasion. Additionally, physicians’ visits often were a portent of impending demise, as physicians in the era prior to antibiotics and antisepsis frequently had little to offer their patients outside of—at best—anecdotal treatments and—at worst—sheer quackery.² Black may have seemed a respectful choice for patients who likely faced dire outcomes regardless of the treatment afforded.³

With the turn of the century came a new understanding of the concepts of antisepsis and disease transmission. While Joseph Lister first published on the use of antisepsis in 1867, his practices did not become commonplace until the early 1900s.⁴ Around the same time came the Flexner report,⁵ the publication of William Osler’s Principles and Practice of Medicine,⁶ and the establishment of the modern medical residency, all of which contributed to the shift from the patient’s own bedside and to the hospital as the house of medicine, with cleanliness and antisepsis as part of its core principles.⁷ The white coat arose as a symbol of purity and freedom from disease. Throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, it has remained the predominant symbol of cleanliness and professionalism for the medical practitioner.

Patient Preference of Physician Attire

Although the white coat may serve as a professional symbol and is well respected medicine, it also plays an important role in the layperson’s perception of their health care providers.⁸ There is little denying that patients prefer their physicians, almost uniformly, to wear a white coat. A systematic review of physician attire that included 30 studies mainly from North America, Europe, and the United Kingdom found that patient preference for formal attire and white coats is near universal.⁹ Patients routinely rate physicians wearing a white coat as more intelligent and trustworthy and feel more confident in the care they will receive.^10-13 They also freely admit that a physician’s appearance influences their satisfaction with their care.¹⁴ The recent adoption of the fleece, or softshell, jacket has not yet pervaded patients’ perceptions of what is considered appropriate physician attire. A 500-respondent survey found that patients were more likely to rate a model wearing a white coat as more professional and experienced compared to the same model wearing a fleece or softshell jacket or other formal attire sans white coat.¹⁵

Closer examination of the same data, however, reveals results reproduced with startling consistency across several studies, which suggest those of us adopting other attire need not dig those white coats out of the closet just yet. First, while many studies point to patient preference for white coats, this preference is uniformly strongest in older patients, beginning around age 40 years and becoming an entrenched preference in those older than 65 years.^9,14,16-18 On the other hand, younger patient populations display little to no such preference, and some studies indicate that younger patients actually prefer scrubs over formal attire in specific settings such as surgical offices, procedural spaces, or the emergency department.^12,14,19 This suggests that bias in favor of traditional physician garb may be more linked to age demographics and may continue to shift as the overall population ages. Additionally, although patients might profess a strong preference for physician attire in theory, it often does not translate into any impact on the patient’s perception of the physician following a clinic visit. The large systematic review on the topic noted that only 25% of studies that surveyed patients about a clinical visit following the encounter reported that physician attire influenced their satisfaction with that visit, suggesting that attire may be less likely to influence patients in the real-world context of receiving care.⁹ In fact, a prospective study of patient perception of medical staff and interactions found that staff style of dress not only had no bearing on the perception of staff or visit satisfaction but that patients often failed to even accurately recall physician attire when surveyed.²⁰ Another survey study echoed these conclusions, finding that physician attire had no effect on the perception of a proposed treatment plan.²¹

What do we know about patient perception of physician attire in the dermatology setting specifically, where visits can be unique in their tendency to transition from medical to procedural in the span of a 15-minute encounter depending on the patient’s chief concern? A survey study of dermatology patients at the general, surgical, and wound care dermatology clinics of an academic medical center (Miami, Florida) found that professional attire with a white coat was strongly preferred across a litany of scenarios assessing many aspects of dermatologic care.²¹ Similarly, a study of patients visiting a single institution’s dermatology and pediatric dermatology clinics surveyed patients and parents regarding attire prior to an appointment and specifically asked if a white coat should be worn.¹³ Fifty-four percent of the adult patients (n=176) surveyed professed a preference for physicians in white coats, with a stronger preference for white coats reported by those 50 years and older (55%; n=113). Parents or guardians presenting to the pediatric dermatology clinic, on the other hand, favored less formal attire.¹³ A recent, real-world study performed at an outpatient dermatology clinic examined the influence of changing physician attire on a patient’s perceptions of care received during clinic encounters. They found no substantial difference in patient satisfaction scores before and following the adoption of a new clinic uniform that transitioned from formal attire to fitted scrubs.²²

With any study of preference, there is the underlying concern over respondent bias. Many of the studies discussed here have found secondarily that a patient’s implicit bias does not end at the clothes their physician is wearing. The survey study of dermatology patients from the academic medical center in Miami, Florida, found that patients preferred that Black physicians of either sex be garbed in professional attire at all times but generally were more accepting of White physicians in less formal attire.²¹ Adamson et al²³ published a response to the study’s findings urging dermatologists to recognize that a physician’s race and gender influence patients’ perceptions in much the same way that physician attire seems to and encouraged the development of a more diverse dermatologic workforce to help combat this prejudice. The issue of bias is not limited to the specialty of dermatology; the recent survey study by Xun et al¹⁵ found that respondents consistently rated female models garbed in physician attire as less professional than male model counterparts. Additionally, female models wearing white coats were mistakenly identified as medical technicians, physician assistants, or nurses with substantially more frequency than males, despite being clothed in the traditional physician garb. Several other publications on the subject have uncovered implicit bias, though it is rarely, if ever, the principle focus of the study.^10,24,25 As is unfortunately true in many professions, female physicians and physicians from ethnic minorities face barriers to being perceived as fully competent physicians.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Finally, of course, there is the ever-present question of the effect of the pandemic. Although the exact role of the white coat as a fomite for infection—and especially for the spread of viral illness—remains controversial, the perception nonetheless has helped catalyze the movement to alternatives such as short-sleeved white coats, technical jackets, and more recently, fitted scrubs.^26-29 As with much in this realm, facts seem less important than perceptions; Zahrina et al³⁰ found that when patients were presented with information regarding the risk for microbial contamination associated with white coats, preference for physicians in professional garb plummeted from 72% to only 22%. To date no articles have examined patient perceptions of the white coat in the context of microbial transmission in the age of COVID-19, but future articles on this topic are likely and may serve to further the demise of the white coat.

Final Thoughts

From my vantage point, it seems the white coat will be claimed by the outgoing tide. During this most recent residency interview season, I do not recall a single medical student wearing a short white coat. The closest I came was a quick glimpse of a crumpled white jacket slung over an arm or stuffed in a shoulder bag. Rotating interns and residents from other services on rotation in our department present in softshell or fleece jackets. Fitted scrubs in the newest trendy colors speckle a previously all-white canvas. I, for one, have not donned my own white coat in at least a year, and perhaps it is all for the best. Physician attire is one small aspect of the practice of medicine and likely bears little, if any, relation to the wearer’s qualifications. Our focus should be on building rapport with our patients, providing high-quality care, reducing the risk for nosocomial infection, and developing a health care system that is fair and equitable for patients and health care workers alike, not on who is wearing what. Perhaps the introduction of new physician attire is a small part of the disruption we need to help address persistent gender and racial biases in our field and help shepherd our patients and colleagues to a worldview that is more open and accepting of physicians of diverse backgrounds.

The White Coat Ceremony is an enduring memory from my medical school years. Amidst the tumult of memories of seemingly endless sleepless nights spent in libraries and cramming for clerkship examinations between surgical cases, I recall a sunny spring day in 2016 where I gathered with my classmates, family, and friends in the medical school campus courtyard. There were several short, mostly forgotten speeches after which proud fathers and mothers, partners, or siblings slipped the all-important white coat onto the shoulders of the physicians-to-be. At that moment, I felt the weight of tradition centuries in the making resting on my shoulders. Of course, the pomp of the ceremony might have felt a tad overblown had I known that the whole thing had fewer years under its belt than the movie Die Hard.

That’s right, the first White Coat Ceremony was held 5 years after the release of that Bruce Willis classic. Dr. Arnold Gold, a pediatric neurologist on faculty at Columbia University, conceived the ceremony in 1993, and it spread rapidly to medical schools—and later nursing schools—across the United States.¹ Although the values highlighted by the White Coat Ceremony—humanism and compassion in medicine—are timeless, the ceremony itself is a more modern undertaking. What, then, of the white coat itself? Is it the timeless symbol of doctoring—of medicine—that we all presume it to be? Or is it a symbol of modern marketing, just a trend that caught on? And is it encountering its twilight—as trends often do—in the face of changing fashion and, more fundamentally, in changes to who our physicians are and to their roles in our society?

The Cleanliness of the White Coat

Until the end of the 19th century, physicians in the Western world most frequently dressed in black formal wear. The rationale behind this attire seems to have been twofold. First, society as a whole perceived the physician’s work as a serious and formal matter, and any medical encounter had to reflect the gravity of the occasion. Additionally, physicians’ visits often were a portent of impending demise, as physicians in the era prior to antibiotics and antisepsis frequently had little to offer their patients outside of—at best—anecdotal treatments and—at worst—sheer quackery.² Black may have seemed a respectful choice for patients who likely faced dire outcomes regardless of the treatment afforded.³

With the turn of the century came a new understanding of the concepts of antisepsis and disease transmission. While Joseph Lister first published on the use of antisepsis in 1867, his practices did not become commonplace until the early 1900s.⁴ Around the same time came the Flexner report,⁵ the publication of William Osler’s Principles and Practice of Medicine,⁶ and the establishment of the modern medical residency, all of which contributed to the shift from the patient’s own bedside and to the hospital as the house of medicine, with cleanliness and antisepsis as part of its core principles.⁷ The white coat arose as a symbol of purity and freedom from disease. Throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, it has remained the predominant symbol of cleanliness and professionalism for the medical practitioner.

Patient Preference of Physician Attire

Although the white coat may serve as a professional symbol and is well respected medicine, it also plays an important role in the layperson’s perception of their health care providers.⁸ There is little denying that patients prefer their physicians, almost uniformly, to wear a white coat. A systematic review of physician attire that included 30 studies mainly from North America, Europe, and the United Kingdom found that patient preference for formal attire and white coats is near universal.⁹ Patients routinely rate physicians wearing a white coat as more intelligent and trustworthy and feel more confident in the care they will receive.^10-13 They also freely admit that a physician’s appearance influences their satisfaction with their care.¹⁴ The recent adoption of the fleece, or softshell, jacket has not yet pervaded patients’ perceptions of what is considered appropriate physician attire. A 500-respondent survey found that patients were more likely to rate a model wearing a white coat as more professional and experienced compared to the same model wearing a fleece or softshell jacket or other formal attire sans white coat.¹⁵

Closer examination of the same data, however, reveals results reproduced with startling consistency across several studies, which suggest those of us adopting other attire need not dig those white coats out of the closet just yet. First, while many studies point to patient preference for white coats, this preference is uniformly strongest in older patients, beginning around age 40 years and becoming an entrenched preference in those older than 65 years.^9,14,16-18 On the other hand, younger patient populations display little to no such preference, and some studies indicate that younger patients actually prefer scrubs over formal attire in specific settings such as surgical offices, procedural spaces, or the emergency department.^12,14,19 This suggests that bias in favor of traditional physician garb may be more linked to age demographics and may continue to shift as the overall population ages. Additionally, although patients might profess a strong preference for physician attire in theory, it often does not translate into any impact on the patient’s perception of the physician following a clinic visit. The large systematic review on the topic noted that only 25% of studies that surveyed patients about a clinical visit following the encounter reported that physician attire influenced their satisfaction with that visit, suggesting that attire may be less likely to influence patients in the real-world context of receiving care.⁹ In fact, a prospective study of patient perception of medical staff and interactions found that staff style of dress not only had no bearing on the perception of staff or visit satisfaction but that patients often failed to even accurately recall physician attire when surveyed.²⁰ Another survey study echoed these conclusions, finding that physician attire had no effect on the perception of a proposed treatment plan.²¹

What do we know about patient perception of physician attire in the dermatology setting specifically, where visits can be unique in their tendency to transition from medical to procedural in the span of a 15-minute encounter depending on the patient’s chief concern? A survey study of dermatology patients at the general, surgical, and wound care dermatology clinics of an academic medical center (Miami, Florida) found that professional attire with a white coat was strongly preferred across a litany of scenarios assessing many aspects of dermatologic care.²¹ Similarly, a study of patients visiting a single institution’s dermatology and pediatric dermatology clinics surveyed patients and parents regarding attire prior to an appointment and specifically asked if a white coat should be worn.¹³ Fifty-four percent of the adult patients (n=176) surveyed professed a preference for physicians in white coats, with a stronger preference for white coats reported by those 50 years and older (55%; n=113). Parents or guardians presenting to the pediatric dermatology clinic, on the other hand, favored less formal attire.¹³ A recent, real-world study performed at an outpatient dermatology clinic examined the influence of changing physician attire on a patient’s perceptions of care received during clinic encounters. They found no substantial difference in patient satisfaction scores before and following the adoption of a new clinic uniform that transitioned from formal attire to fitted scrubs.²²

With any study of preference, there is the underlying concern over respondent bias. Many of the studies discussed here have found secondarily that a patient’s implicit bias does not end at the clothes their physician is wearing. The survey study of dermatology patients from the academic medical center in Miami, Florida, found that patients preferred that Black physicians of either sex be garbed in professional attire at all times but generally were more accepting of White physicians in less formal attire.²¹ Adamson et al²³ published a response to the study’s findings urging dermatologists to recognize that a physician’s race and gender influence patients’ perceptions in much the same way that physician attire seems to and encouraged the development of a more diverse dermatologic workforce to help combat this prejudice. The issue of bias is not limited to the specialty of dermatology; the recent survey study by Xun et al¹⁵ found that respondents consistently rated female models garbed in physician attire as less professional than male model counterparts. Additionally, female models wearing white coats were mistakenly identified as medical technicians, physician assistants, or nurses with substantially more frequency than males, despite being clothed in the traditional physician garb. Several other publications on the subject have uncovered implicit bias, though it is rarely, if ever, the principle focus of the study.^10,24,25 As is unfortunately true in many professions, female physicians and physicians from ethnic minorities face barriers to being perceived as fully competent physicians.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Finally, of course, there is the ever-present question of the effect of the pandemic. Although the exact role of the white coat as a fomite for infection—and especially for the spread of viral illness—remains controversial, the perception nonetheless has helped catalyze the movement to alternatives such as short-sleeved white coats, technical jackets, and more recently, fitted scrubs.^26-29 As with much in this realm, facts seem less important than perceptions; Zahrina et al³⁰ found that when patients were presented with information regarding the risk for microbial contamination associated with white coats, preference for physicians in professional garb plummeted from 72% to only 22%. To date no articles have examined patient perceptions of the white coat in the context of microbial transmission in the age of COVID-19, but future articles on this topic are likely and may serve to further the demise of the white coat.

Final Thoughts

From my vantage point, it seems the white coat will be claimed by the outgoing tide. During this most recent residency interview season, I do not recall a single medical student wearing a short white coat. The closest I came was a quick glimpse of a crumpled white jacket slung over an arm or stuffed in a shoulder bag. Rotating interns and residents from other services on rotation in our department present in softshell or fleece jackets. Fitted scrubs in the newest trendy colors speckle a previously all-white canvas. I, for one, have not donned my own white coat in at least a year, and perhaps it is all for the best. Physician attire is one small aspect of the practice of medicine and likely bears little, if any, relation to the wearer’s qualifications. Our focus should be on building rapport with our patients, providing high-quality care, reducing the risk for nosocomial infection, and developing a health care system that is fair and equitable for patients and health care workers alike, not on who is wearing what. Perhaps the introduction of new physician attire is a small part of the disruption we need to help address persistent gender and racial biases in our field and help shepherd our patients and colleagues to a worldview that is more open and accepting of physicians of diverse backgrounds.

The White Coat Ceremony is an enduring memory from my medical school years. Amidst the tumult of memories of seemingly endless sleepless nights spent in libraries and cramming for clerkship examinations between surgical cases, I recall a sunny spring day in 2016 where I gathered with my classmates, family, and friends in the medical school campus courtyard. There were several short, mostly forgotten speeches after which proud fathers and mothers, partners, or siblings slipped the all-important white coat onto the shoulders of the physicians-to-be. At that moment, I felt the weight of tradition centuries in the making resting on my shoulders. Of course, the pomp of the ceremony might have felt a tad overblown had I known that the whole thing had fewer years under its belt than the movie Die Hard.

That’s right, the first White Coat Ceremony was held 5 years after the release of that Bruce Willis classic. Dr. Arnold Gold, a pediatric neurologist on faculty at Columbia University, conceived the ceremony in 1993, and it spread rapidly to medical schools—and later nursing schools—across the United States.¹ Although the values highlighted by the White Coat Ceremony—humanism and compassion in medicine—are timeless, the ceremony itself is a more modern undertaking. What, then, of the white coat itself? Is it the timeless symbol of doctoring—of medicine—that we all presume it to be? Or is it a symbol of modern marketing, just a trend that caught on? And is it encountering its twilight—as trends often do—in the face of changing fashion and, more fundamentally, in changes to who our physicians are and to their roles in our society?

The Cleanliness of the White Coat

Until the end of the 19th century, physicians in the Western world most frequently dressed in black formal wear. The rationale behind this attire seems to have been twofold. First, society as a whole perceived the physician’s work as a serious and formal matter, and any medical encounter had to reflect the gravity of the occasion. Additionally, physicians’ visits often were a portent of impending demise, as physicians in the era prior to antibiotics and antisepsis frequently had little to offer their patients outside of—at best—anecdotal treatments and—at worst—sheer quackery.² Black may have seemed a respectful choice for patients who likely faced dire outcomes regardless of the treatment afforded.³

With the turn of the century came a new understanding of the concepts of antisepsis and disease transmission. While Joseph Lister first published on the use of antisepsis in 1867, his practices did not become commonplace until the early 1900s.⁴ Around the same time came the Flexner report,⁵ the publication of William Osler’s Principles and Practice of Medicine,⁶ and the establishment of the modern medical residency, all of which contributed to the shift from the patient’s own bedside and to the hospital as the house of medicine, with cleanliness and antisepsis as part of its core principles.⁷ The white coat arose as a symbol of purity and freedom from disease. Throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, it has remained the predominant symbol of cleanliness and professionalism for the medical practitioner.

Patient Preference of Physician Attire

Although the white coat may serve as a professional symbol and is well respected medicine, it also plays an important role in the layperson’s perception of their health care providers.⁸ There is little denying that patients prefer their physicians, almost uniformly, to wear a white coat. A systematic review of physician attire that included 30 studies mainly from North America, Europe, and the United Kingdom found that patient preference for formal attire and white coats is near universal.⁹ Patients routinely rate physicians wearing a white coat as more intelligent and trustworthy and feel more confident in the care they will receive.^10-13 They also freely admit that a physician’s appearance influences their satisfaction with their care.¹⁴ The recent adoption of the fleece, or softshell, jacket has not yet pervaded patients’ perceptions of what is considered appropriate physician attire. A 500-respondent survey found that patients were more likely to rate a model wearing a white coat as more professional and experienced compared to the same model wearing a fleece or softshell jacket or other formal attire sans white coat.¹⁵

Closer examination of the same data, however, reveals results reproduced with startling consistency across several studies, which suggest those of us adopting other attire need not dig those white coats out of the closet just yet. First, while many studies point to patient preference for white coats, this preference is uniformly strongest in older patients, beginning around age 40 years and becoming an entrenched preference in those older than 65 years.^9,14,16-18 On the other hand, younger patient populations display little to no such preference, and some studies indicate that younger patients actually prefer scrubs over formal attire in specific settings such as surgical offices, procedural spaces, or the emergency department.^12,14,19 This suggests that bias in favor of traditional physician garb may be more linked to age demographics and may continue to shift as the overall population ages. Additionally, although patients might profess a strong preference for physician attire in theory, it often does not translate into any impact on the patient’s perception of the physician following a clinic visit. The large systematic review on the topic noted that only 25% of studies that surveyed patients about a clinical visit following the encounter reported that physician attire influenced their satisfaction with that visit, suggesting that attire may be less likely to influence patients in the real-world context of receiving care.⁹ In fact, a prospective study of patient perception of medical staff and interactions found that staff style of dress not only had no bearing on the perception of staff or visit satisfaction but that patients often failed to even accurately recall physician attire when surveyed.²⁰ Another survey study echoed these conclusions, finding that physician attire had no effect on the perception of a proposed treatment plan.²¹

What do we know about patient perception of physician attire in the dermatology setting specifically, where visits can be unique in their tendency to transition from medical to procedural in the span of a 15-minute encounter depending on the patient’s chief concern? A survey study of dermatology patients at the general, surgical, and wound care dermatology clinics of an academic medical center (Miami, Florida) found that professional attire with a white coat was strongly preferred across a litany of scenarios assessing many aspects of dermatologic care.²¹ Similarly, a study of patients visiting a single institution’s dermatology and pediatric dermatology clinics surveyed patients and parents regarding attire prior to an appointment and specifically asked if a white coat should be worn.¹³ Fifty-four percent of the adult patients (n=176) surveyed professed a preference for physicians in white coats, with a stronger preference for white coats reported by those 50 years and older (55%; n=113). Parents or guardians presenting to the pediatric dermatology clinic, on the other hand, favored less formal attire.¹³ A recent, real-world study performed at an outpatient dermatology clinic examined the influence of changing physician attire on a patient’s perceptions of care received during clinic encounters. They found no substantial difference in patient satisfaction scores before and following the adoption of a new clinic uniform that transitioned from formal attire to fitted scrubs.²²

With any study of preference, there is the underlying concern over respondent bias. Many of the studies discussed here have found secondarily that a patient’s implicit bias does not end at the clothes their physician is wearing. The survey study of dermatology patients from the academic medical center in Miami, Florida, found that patients preferred that Black physicians of either sex be garbed in professional attire at all times but generally were more accepting of White physicians in less formal attire.²¹ Adamson et al²³ published a response to the study’s findings urging dermatologists to recognize that a physician’s race and gender influence patients’ perceptions in much the same way that physician attire seems to and encouraged the development of a more diverse dermatologic workforce to help combat this prejudice. The issue of bias is not limited to the specialty of dermatology; the recent survey study by Xun et al¹⁵ found that respondents consistently rated female models garbed in physician attire as less professional than male model counterparts. Additionally, female models wearing white coats were mistakenly identified as medical technicians, physician assistants, or nurses with substantially more frequency than males, despite being clothed in the traditional physician garb. Several other publications on the subject have uncovered implicit bias, though it is rarely, if ever, the principle focus of the study.^10,24,25 As is unfortunately true in many professions, female physicians and physicians from ethnic minorities face barriers to being perceived as fully competent physicians.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Finally, of course, there is the ever-present question of the effect of the pandemic. Although the exact role of the white coat as a fomite for infection—and especially for the spread of viral illness—remains controversial, the perception nonetheless has helped catalyze the movement to alternatives such as short-sleeved white coats, technical jackets, and more recently, fitted scrubs.^26-29 As with much in this realm, facts seem less important than perceptions; Zahrina et al³⁰ found that when patients were presented with information regarding the risk for microbial contamination associated with white coats, preference for physicians in professional garb plummeted from 72% to only 22%. To date no articles have examined patient perceptions of the white coat in the context of microbial transmission in the age of COVID-19, but future articles on this topic are likely and may serve to further the demise of the white coat.

Final Thoughts

From my vantage point, it seems the white coat will be claimed by the outgoing tide. During this most recent residency interview season, I do not recall a single medical student wearing a short white coat. The closest I came was a quick glimpse of a crumpled white jacket slung over an arm or stuffed in a shoulder bag. Rotating interns and residents from other services on rotation in our department present in softshell or fleece jackets. Fitted scrubs in the newest trendy colors speckle a previously all-white canvas. I, for one, have not donned my own white coat in at least a year, and perhaps it is all for the best. Physician attire is one small aspect of the practice of medicine and likely bears little, if any, relation to the wearer’s qualifications. Our focus should be on building rapport with our patients, providing high-quality care, reducing the risk for nosocomial infection, and developing a health care system that is fair and equitable for patients and health care workers alike, not on who is wearing what. Perhaps the introduction of new physician attire is a small part of the disruption we need to help address persistent gender and racial biases in our field and help shepherd our patients and colleagues to a worldview that is more open and accepting of physicians of diverse backgrounds.

Behavior problems, anxiety, and depression in youths were associated with these individuals participating in remote schooling during broader social lockdowns in a new study.

The systematic review, which was published in JAMA Pediatrics on Jan. 18, 2022, was based on data from 36 studies from 11 countries on mental health, physical health, and well-being in children and adolescents aged 0-18 years. The total population included 79,781 children and 18,028 parents or caregivers. The studies reflected the first wave of pandemic school closures and lockdowns from February to July 2020, with the duration of school closure ranging from 1 week to 3 months.

“There are strong theoretical reasons to suggest that school closures may have contributed to a considerable proportion of the harms identified here, particularly mental health harms, through reduction in social contacts with peers and teachers,” Russell Viner, PhD, of UCL Great Ormond St Institute of Child Health, London, and colleagues wrote in their paper.

The researchers included 9 longitudinal pre-post studies, 5 cohort studies, 21 cross-sectional studies, and 1 modeling study in their analysis. Overall, approximately one-third of the studies (36%) were considered high quality, and approximately two-thirds (64%) of the studies were published in journals. Twenty-five of the reports analyzed focused on mental health and well-being.

Schools provide not only education, but also services including meals, health care, and health supplies. Schools also serve as a safety net and source of social support for children, the researchers noted.

The losses children may have experienced during school closures occurred during a time when more than 167,000 children younger than 18 years lost a parent or caregiver to COVID-19, according to a recent report titled “Hidden Pain” by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, Nemours Children’s Health, and the COVID Collaborative. Although not addressed in the current study, school closures would prevent bereaved children from receiving social-emotional support from friends and teachers. This crisis of loss also prompted the American Academy of Pediatrics to issue a National State of Emergency in Children’s Mental Health in October 2021.
 

New study results

These studies identified associations between school closures during broader lockdowns and increased emotional and behavioral problems, as well as increased restlessness and inattention. Across these studies, 18%-60% of children and adolescents scored higher than the risk thresholds for diagnoses of distress, especially depressive symptoms and anxiety.

Although two studies showed no significant association with suicide in response to school closures during lockdowns, three studies suggested increased use of screen time, two studies reported increased social media use, and six studies reported lower levels of physical activity.

Three studies of child abuse showed decreases in notifications during lockdowns, likely driven by lack of referrals from schools, the authors noted. A total of 10 studies on sleep and 5 studies on diet showed inconsistent evidence of harm during the specific period of school closures and social lockdowns.

“The contrast of rises in distress with decreases in presentations suggests that there was an escalation of unmet mental health need during lockdowns in already vulnerable children and adolescents,” the researchers wrote. “More troubling still is evidence of a reduction in the ability of the health and social care systems to protect children in many countries, as shown by the large falls in child protection referrals seen in high-quality cohort studies.”
 

‘Study presents concrete assessments rather than speculation’

“Concerns have been widely expressed in the lay media and beyond that school closures could negatively impact the mental and physical health of children and adolescents,” M. Susan Jay, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said in an interview. “The authors presented a narrative synthesis summarizing available evidence for the first wave of COVID-19 on school closures during the broader social lockdown occurring during this period.”

The “importance” of this research is that “it is not a single convenience sample study, but a systematic review from 11 countries including the United States, United Kingdom, China, and Turkey, among others, and that the quality of the information was graded,” Dr. Jay said. “Although not a meta-analysis, the study presents concrete assessments rather than speculation and overviews its limitations so that the clinician can weigh this information. Importantly, the authors excluded closure of schools with transmission of infection.

“Clearly, school lockdowns as a measure of controlling infectious disease needs balance with potential of negative health behaviors in children and adolescents. Ongoing prospective longitudinal studies are needed as sequential waves of the pandemic continue,” she emphasized.

“Clinically, this study highlights the need for clinicians to consider [asking] about the impact of school closures and remote versus hybrid versus in-person education [as part of their] patients and families question inventory,” Dr. Jay said. “Also, the use of depression inventories can be offered to youth to assess their mental health state at a visit, either via telemedicine or in person, and ideally at sequential visits for a more in-depth assessment.”
 

Schools play key role in social and emotional development

“It was important to conduct this study now, because this current time is unprecedented,” Peter L. Loper Jr., MD, of the University of South Carolina, Columbia, said in an interview. “We know based on evolutionary biology, anthropology, and developmental psychology, among other disciplines, that meaningful interpersonal interactions embedded in the context of community are vital to supporting human well-being.

“In our current time, the primary framework of community for our children is the school setting; it is the predominant space where they engage in the interpersonal interactions necessary for developing resilience, their sense of purpose, belonging, and fidelity,” he emphasized.

“Rarely in the course of human existence have kids been removed from the broader context of community to this extent and for this duration,” Dr. Loper said. “This study capitalizes on this unprecedented moment to begin to further understand how compromises in our sociocultural infrastructure of community, like school closures and lockdowns, may manifest as mental health problems in children and adolescents. More importantly, it contributes to the exploration of potential unintended consequences of our current infection control measures so we can adapt to support the overall well-being of our children in this ‘new normal.’ ”

Dr. Loper added that he was not surprised by the new study’s findings.

“We were already seeing a decline in pediatric mental health and overall well-being in the years preceding COVID-19 because of the ‘isolation epidemic’ involving many of the factors that this study explored,” he said. “I think this review further illustrates the vital necessity of community to support the health and well-being of humans, and specifically children and adolescents.”

From a clinical standpoint, “we need to be intentional and consistent in balancing infection control measures with our kids’ fundamental psychosocial needs,” Dr. Loper said.

“We need to recognize that, when children and adolescents are isolated from community, their fundamental psychosocial needs go unmet,” he emphasized. “If children and adolescents cannot access the meaningful interpersonal interactions necessary for resilience, then they cannot overcome or navigate distress. They will exhibit the avoidance and withdrawal behaviors that accumulate to manifest as adverse mental health symptoms like anxiety and depression.

“Additional research is needed to further explore how compromises in the psychosocial infrastructure of community manifest as downstream symptom indicators such as anxiety and depression,” which are often manifestations of unmet needs, Dr. Loper said.
 

Limitations and strengths, according to authors

The findings were limited by several factors, including a lack of examination of school closures’ effects on mental health independent of broader social lockdowns, according to the researchers. Other limitations included the authors potentially having missed studies, inclusion of cross-sectional studies with relatively weak evidence, potential bias from studies using parent reports, and a focus on the first COVID-19 wave, during which many school closures were of limited duration. Also, the researchers said they did not include studies focused on particular groups, such as children with learning difficulties or autism.

The use of large databases from education as well as health care in studies analyzed were strengths of the new research, they said. The investigators received no outside funding for their study. The researchers, Dr. Jay, and Dr. Loper had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Jay serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Behavior problems, anxiety, and depression in youths were associated with these individuals participating in remote schooling during broader social lockdowns in a new study.

The systematic review, which was published in JAMA Pediatrics on Jan. 18, 2022, was based on data from 36 studies from 11 countries on mental health, physical health, and well-being in children and adolescents aged 0-18 years. The total population included 79,781 children and 18,028 parents or caregivers. The studies reflected the first wave of pandemic school closures and lockdowns from February to July 2020, with the duration of school closure ranging from 1 week to 3 months.

“There are strong theoretical reasons to suggest that school closures may have contributed to a considerable proportion of the harms identified here, particularly mental health harms, through reduction in social contacts with peers and teachers,” Russell Viner, PhD, of UCL Great Ormond St Institute of Child Health, London, and colleagues wrote in their paper.

The researchers included 9 longitudinal pre-post studies, 5 cohort studies, 21 cross-sectional studies, and 1 modeling study in their analysis. Overall, approximately one-third of the studies (36%) were considered high quality, and approximately two-thirds (64%) of the studies were published in journals. Twenty-five of the reports analyzed focused on mental health and well-being.

Schools provide not only education, but also services including meals, health care, and health supplies. Schools also serve as a safety net and source of social support for children, the researchers noted.

The losses children may have experienced during school closures occurred during a time when more than 167,000 children younger than 18 years lost a parent or caregiver to COVID-19, according to a recent report titled “Hidden Pain” by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, Nemours Children’s Health, and the COVID Collaborative. Although not addressed in the current study, school closures would prevent bereaved children from receiving social-emotional support from friends and teachers. This crisis of loss also prompted the American Academy of Pediatrics to issue a National State of Emergency in Children’s Mental Health in October 2021.
 

New study results

These studies identified associations between school closures during broader lockdowns and increased emotional and behavioral problems, as well as increased restlessness and inattention. Across these studies, 18%-60% of children and adolescents scored higher than the risk thresholds for diagnoses of distress, especially depressive symptoms and anxiety.

Although two studies showed no significant association with suicide in response to school closures during lockdowns, three studies suggested increased use of screen time, two studies reported increased social media use, and six studies reported lower levels of physical activity.

Three studies of child abuse showed decreases in notifications during lockdowns, likely driven by lack of referrals from schools, the authors noted. A total of 10 studies on sleep and 5 studies on diet showed inconsistent evidence of harm during the specific period of school closures and social lockdowns.

“The contrast of rises in distress with decreases in presentations suggests that there was an escalation of unmet mental health need during lockdowns in already vulnerable children and adolescents,” the researchers wrote. “More troubling still is evidence of a reduction in the ability of the health and social care systems to protect children in many countries, as shown by the large falls in child protection referrals seen in high-quality cohort studies.”
 

‘Study presents concrete assessments rather than speculation’

“Concerns have been widely expressed in the lay media and beyond that school closures could negatively impact the mental and physical health of children and adolescents,” M. Susan Jay, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said in an interview. “The authors presented a narrative synthesis summarizing available evidence for the first wave of COVID-19 on school closures during the broader social lockdown occurring during this period.”

The “importance” of this research is that “it is not a single convenience sample study, but a systematic review from 11 countries including the United States, United Kingdom, China, and Turkey, among others, and that the quality of the information was graded,” Dr. Jay said. “Although not a meta-analysis, the study presents concrete assessments rather than speculation and overviews its limitations so that the clinician can weigh this information. Importantly, the authors excluded closure of schools with transmission of infection.

“Clearly, school lockdowns as a measure of controlling infectious disease needs balance with potential of negative health behaviors in children and adolescents. Ongoing prospective longitudinal studies are needed as sequential waves of the pandemic continue,” she emphasized.

“Clinically, this study highlights the need for clinicians to consider [asking] about the impact of school closures and remote versus hybrid versus in-person education [as part of their] patients and families question inventory,” Dr. Jay said. “Also, the use of depression inventories can be offered to youth to assess their mental health state at a visit, either via telemedicine or in person, and ideally at sequential visits for a more in-depth assessment.”
 

Schools play key role in social and emotional development

“It was important to conduct this study now, because this current time is unprecedented,” Peter L. Loper Jr., MD, of the University of South Carolina, Columbia, said in an interview. “We know based on evolutionary biology, anthropology, and developmental psychology, among other disciplines, that meaningful interpersonal interactions embedded in the context of community are vital to supporting human well-being.

“In our current time, the primary framework of community for our children is the school setting; it is the predominant space where they engage in the interpersonal interactions necessary for developing resilience, their sense of purpose, belonging, and fidelity,” he emphasized.

“Rarely in the course of human existence have kids been removed from the broader context of community to this extent and for this duration,” Dr. Loper said. “This study capitalizes on this unprecedented moment to begin to further understand how compromises in our sociocultural infrastructure of community, like school closures and lockdowns, may manifest as mental health problems in children and adolescents. More importantly, it contributes to the exploration of potential unintended consequences of our current infection control measures so we can adapt to support the overall well-being of our children in this ‘new normal.’ ”

Dr. Loper added that he was not surprised by the new study’s findings.

“We were already seeing a decline in pediatric mental health and overall well-being in the years preceding COVID-19 because of the ‘isolation epidemic’ involving many of the factors that this study explored,” he said. “I think this review further illustrates the vital necessity of community to support the health and well-being of humans, and specifically children and adolescents.”

From a clinical standpoint, “we need to be intentional and consistent in balancing infection control measures with our kids’ fundamental psychosocial needs,” Dr. Loper said.

“We need to recognize that, when children and adolescents are isolated from community, their fundamental psychosocial needs go unmet,” he emphasized. “If children and adolescents cannot access the meaningful interpersonal interactions necessary for resilience, then they cannot overcome or navigate distress. They will exhibit the avoidance and withdrawal behaviors that accumulate to manifest as adverse mental health symptoms like anxiety and depression.

“Additional research is needed to further explore how compromises in the psychosocial infrastructure of community manifest as downstream symptom indicators such as anxiety and depression,” which are often manifestations of unmet needs, Dr. Loper said.
 

Limitations and strengths, according to authors

The findings were limited by several factors, including a lack of examination of school closures’ effects on mental health independent of broader social lockdowns, according to the researchers. Other limitations included the authors potentially having missed studies, inclusion of cross-sectional studies with relatively weak evidence, potential bias from studies using parent reports, and a focus on the first COVID-19 wave, during which many school closures were of limited duration. Also, the researchers said they did not include studies focused on particular groups, such as children with learning difficulties or autism.

The use of large databases from education as well as health care in studies analyzed were strengths of the new research, they said. The investigators received no outside funding for their study. The researchers, Dr. Jay, and Dr. Loper had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Jay serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Behavior problems, anxiety, and depression in youths were associated with these individuals participating in remote schooling during broader social lockdowns in a new study.

The systematic review, which was published in JAMA Pediatrics on Jan. 18, 2022, was based on data from 36 studies from 11 countries on mental health, physical health, and well-being in children and adolescents aged 0-18 years. The total population included 79,781 children and 18,028 parents or caregivers. The studies reflected the first wave of pandemic school closures and lockdowns from February to July 2020, with the duration of school closure ranging from 1 week to 3 months.

“There are strong theoretical reasons to suggest that school closures may have contributed to a considerable proportion of the harms identified here, particularly mental health harms, through reduction in social contacts with peers and teachers,” Russell Viner, PhD, of UCL Great Ormond St Institute of Child Health, London, and colleagues wrote in their paper.

The researchers included 9 longitudinal pre-post studies, 5 cohort studies, 21 cross-sectional studies, and 1 modeling study in their analysis. Overall, approximately one-third of the studies (36%) were considered high quality, and approximately two-thirds (64%) of the studies were published in journals. Twenty-five of the reports analyzed focused on mental health and well-being.

Schools provide not only education, but also services including meals, health care, and health supplies. Schools also serve as a safety net and source of social support for children, the researchers noted.

The losses children may have experienced during school closures occurred during a time when more than 167,000 children younger than 18 years lost a parent or caregiver to COVID-19, according to a recent report titled “Hidden Pain” by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, Nemours Children’s Health, and the COVID Collaborative. Although not addressed in the current study, school closures would prevent bereaved children from receiving social-emotional support from friends and teachers. This crisis of loss also prompted the American Academy of Pediatrics to issue a National State of Emergency in Children’s Mental Health in October 2021.
 

New study results

These studies identified associations between school closures during broader lockdowns and increased emotional and behavioral problems, as well as increased restlessness and inattention. Across these studies, 18%-60% of children and adolescents scored higher than the risk thresholds for diagnoses of distress, especially depressive symptoms and anxiety.

Although two studies showed no significant association with suicide in response to school closures during lockdowns, three studies suggested increased use of screen time, two studies reported increased social media use, and six studies reported lower levels of physical activity.

Three studies of child abuse showed decreases in notifications during lockdowns, likely driven by lack of referrals from schools, the authors noted. A total of 10 studies on sleep and 5 studies on diet showed inconsistent evidence of harm during the specific period of school closures and social lockdowns.

“The contrast of rises in distress with decreases in presentations suggests that there was an escalation of unmet mental health need during lockdowns in already vulnerable children and adolescents,” the researchers wrote. “More troubling still is evidence of a reduction in the ability of the health and social care systems to protect children in many countries, as shown by the large falls in child protection referrals seen in high-quality cohort studies.”
 

‘Study presents concrete assessments rather than speculation’

“Concerns have been widely expressed in the lay media and beyond that school closures could negatively impact the mental and physical health of children and adolescents,” M. Susan Jay, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said in an interview. “The authors presented a narrative synthesis summarizing available evidence for the first wave of COVID-19 on school closures during the broader social lockdown occurring during this period.”

The “importance” of this research is that “it is not a single convenience sample study, but a systematic review from 11 countries including the United States, United Kingdom, China, and Turkey, among others, and that the quality of the information was graded,” Dr. Jay said. “Although not a meta-analysis, the study presents concrete assessments rather than speculation and overviews its limitations so that the clinician can weigh this information. Importantly, the authors excluded closure of schools with transmission of infection.

“Clearly, school lockdowns as a measure of controlling infectious disease needs balance with potential of negative health behaviors in children and adolescents. Ongoing prospective longitudinal studies are needed as sequential waves of the pandemic continue,” she emphasized.

“Clinically, this study highlights the need for clinicians to consider [asking] about the impact of school closures and remote versus hybrid versus in-person education [as part of their] patients and families question inventory,” Dr. Jay said. “Also, the use of depression inventories can be offered to youth to assess their mental health state at a visit, either via telemedicine or in person, and ideally at sequential visits for a more in-depth assessment.”
 

Schools play key role in social and emotional development

“It was important to conduct this study now, because this current time is unprecedented,” Peter L. Loper Jr., MD, of the University of South Carolina, Columbia, said in an interview. “We know based on evolutionary biology, anthropology, and developmental psychology, among other disciplines, that meaningful interpersonal interactions embedded in the context of community are vital to supporting human well-being.

“In our current time, the primary framework of community for our children is the school setting; it is the predominant space where they engage in the interpersonal interactions necessary for developing resilience, their sense of purpose, belonging, and fidelity,” he emphasized.

“Rarely in the course of human existence have kids been removed from the broader context of community to this extent and for this duration,” Dr. Loper said. “This study capitalizes on this unprecedented moment to begin to further understand how compromises in our sociocultural infrastructure of community, like school closures and lockdowns, may manifest as mental health problems in children and adolescents. More importantly, it contributes to the exploration of potential unintended consequences of our current infection control measures so we can adapt to support the overall well-being of our children in this ‘new normal.’ ”

Dr. Loper added that he was not surprised by the new study’s findings.

“We were already seeing a decline in pediatric mental health and overall well-being in the years preceding COVID-19 because of the ‘isolation epidemic’ involving many of the factors that this study explored,” he said. “I think this review further illustrates the vital necessity of community to support the health and well-being of humans, and specifically children and adolescents.”

From a clinical standpoint, “we need to be intentional and consistent in balancing infection control measures with our kids’ fundamental psychosocial needs,” Dr. Loper said.

“We need to recognize that, when children and adolescents are isolated from community, their fundamental psychosocial needs go unmet,” he emphasized. “If children and adolescents cannot access the meaningful interpersonal interactions necessary for resilience, then they cannot overcome or navigate distress. They will exhibit the avoidance and withdrawal behaviors that accumulate to manifest as adverse mental health symptoms like anxiety and depression.

“Additional research is needed to further explore how compromises in the psychosocial infrastructure of community manifest as downstream symptom indicators such as anxiety and depression,” which are often manifestations of unmet needs, Dr. Loper said.
 

Limitations and strengths, according to authors

The findings were limited by several factors, including a lack of examination of school closures’ effects on mental health independent of broader social lockdowns, according to the researchers. Other limitations included the authors potentially having missed studies, inclusion of cross-sectional studies with relatively weak evidence, potential bias from studies using parent reports, and a focus on the first COVID-19 wave, during which many school closures were of limited duration. Also, the researchers said they did not include studies focused on particular groups, such as children with learning difficulties or autism.

The use of large databases from education as well as health care in studies analyzed were strengths of the new research, they said. The investigators received no outside funding for their study. The researchers, Dr. Jay, and Dr. Loper had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Jay serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.