In its final report on the E-2020 initiative, the World Health Organization touted its progress on its goal of eliminating malaria throughout the world. But critics are charging that progress has stalled.

The E-2020 initiative supported the efforts of 21 countries in eliminating malaria. In a remarkable achievement, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, eight E-2020 member countries reported zero cases of malaria in 2020. The WHO’s next target is the elimination of malaria in 20 of those countries by 2025.

While applauding these successes, in an interview with this news organization, Sir Nicholas J. White, FRS, professor of tropical medicine, Mahidol University, Salaya, Thailand, and Oxford (England) University, also put those successes in perspective. For one thing, the original 2020 goal was the elimination of malaria in 10 countries. Prof. White acknowledged that there had been very “substantial reductions in global morbidity and mortality” from 2000 to 2015, but he pointed out that those advances have not been sustained.

Prof. White added, “There has never been a really good, detailed inquiry as to why progress has stalled” in the high-burden countries.

Prof. White also provided important historical context, explaining that “100 years ago, malaria was pretty much a global disease. There were few places in the world which did not have malaria. You had malaria up to the Arctic Circle. You had malaria in the United States, particularly in the Tennessee Valley in the southeastern part of the United States. The Centers for Disease Control was formed specifically to counter malaria and malaria interfering with the building of the Erie and Ottawa canals.”

Kim Lindblade, PhD, malaria elimination team lead of the WHO’s Global Malaria Program, addressed those concerns with this news organization. “It’s not completely clear why [progress] has stalled,” she said. “There are lots of potential reasons for it, including stagnating funding.”

Dr. Lindblade added that high-burden countries are “facing big challenges. [Since 2015] there’s this stagnation. We’re fighting against population growth, and countries need to get back on track to continue to decrease their malaria burden. So that’s the big focus right now, to reorganize efforts to help countries achieve the goals of the World Health Assembly.”

Asked how these countries might approach the problem differently, Dr. Lindblade said that in the recent past, there was “almost a one-size-fits-all strategy. Now we’re looking much more carefully at conditions at the district level or provincial level and saying, What is it that this particular district or province needs? … It’s becoming much more tailored to the environment and to the specific epidemiological situation. … and I think that’s gotten a lot of people very excited.”

Because of travel restrictions and lockdowns because of COVID-19, the number of imported cases of malaria has declined. That’s the good news. But the pandemic has made elimination more difficult in other ways. For example, the delivery of insecticide-treated bed nets has been delayed in some areas, as has targeted indoor spraying. People in many areas have put off seeking medical care. Diagnostic capabilities have been reduced because of health care personnel having been diverted to address the COVID-19 crisis.

Still, some of the successes in eliminating malaria have been striking. Iran, for example, reduced its cases from about 98,000 in 1991 to 12,000 just 10 years later. Since then, Iran has established rapid response teams equipped with insecticide-impregnated nets, rapid diagnostic tests, and antimalarials. A network of more than 3,700 community health volunteers has been trained and deployed throughout the country.

A key element of Iran’s success – and that of some of the other countries – is the political will to tackle malaria. This translates to funding. Notably, the most successful countries provide free primary health care to everyone, regardless of their legal or residency status. Volunteer migrant workers are trained to diagnose malaria and to educate fellow migrants about the disease and prevention strategies.

Malaysia and China are examples of two countries at risk of importing malaria through their many people who work abroad in malaria-endemic regions. They have had to increase their surveillance.

Although Malaysia has eliminated most malaria species – those transmitted through people – they still have problems with the malaria parasite hosted by monkeys.

The WHO report stresses the lessons learned through their E-2020 program. Two key criteria are political commitment and associated funding. Next are surveillance and efforts to reach everyone, even in geographically remote or marginalized communities. Close surveillance also enables strategies to be modified to local needs.

Countries need to cooperate, especially along border areas and in regard to communications. The WHO stressed the need for countries to have an integrated response in their approach to malaria, including accurate surveillance, diagnostic testing, treatment, and robust education in preventive measures.

Although these successes were not as evident in some high-burden countries, Prof. White applauded their perseverance, noting, “It’s quite difficult to sustain the political momentum. … That endgame to keep the motivation, keep the support, to getting rid of something is hard.”

Prof. White and Dr. Lindberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In its final report on the E-2020 initiative, the World Health Organization touted its progress on its goal of eliminating malaria throughout the world. But critics are charging that progress has stalled.

The E-2020 initiative supported the efforts of 21 countries in eliminating malaria. In a remarkable achievement, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, eight E-2020 member countries reported zero cases of malaria in 2020. The WHO’s next target is the elimination of malaria in 20 of those countries by 2025.

While applauding these successes, in an interview with this news organization, Sir Nicholas J. White, FRS, professor of tropical medicine, Mahidol University, Salaya, Thailand, and Oxford (England) University, also put those successes in perspective. For one thing, the original 2020 goal was the elimination of malaria in 10 countries. Prof. White acknowledged that there had been very “substantial reductions in global morbidity and mortality” from 2000 to 2015, but he pointed out that those advances have not been sustained.

Prof. White added, “There has never been a really good, detailed inquiry as to why progress has stalled” in the high-burden countries.

Prof. White also provided important historical context, explaining that “100 years ago, malaria was pretty much a global disease. There were few places in the world which did not have malaria. You had malaria up to the Arctic Circle. You had malaria in the United States, particularly in the Tennessee Valley in the southeastern part of the United States. The Centers for Disease Control was formed specifically to counter malaria and malaria interfering with the building of the Erie and Ottawa canals.”

Kim Lindblade, PhD, malaria elimination team lead of the WHO’s Global Malaria Program, addressed those concerns with this news organization. “It’s not completely clear why [progress] has stalled,” she said. “There are lots of potential reasons for it, including stagnating funding.”

Dr. Lindblade added that high-burden countries are “facing big challenges. [Since 2015] there’s this stagnation. We’re fighting against population growth, and countries need to get back on track to continue to decrease their malaria burden. So that’s the big focus right now, to reorganize efforts to help countries achieve the goals of the World Health Assembly.”

Asked how these countries might approach the problem differently, Dr. Lindblade said that in the recent past, there was “almost a one-size-fits-all strategy. Now we’re looking much more carefully at conditions at the district level or provincial level and saying, What is it that this particular district or province needs? … It’s becoming much more tailored to the environment and to the specific epidemiological situation. … and I think that’s gotten a lot of people very excited.”

Because of travel restrictions and lockdowns because of COVID-19, the number of imported cases of malaria has declined. That’s the good news. But the pandemic has made elimination more difficult in other ways. For example, the delivery of insecticide-treated bed nets has been delayed in some areas, as has targeted indoor spraying. People in many areas have put off seeking medical care. Diagnostic capabilities have been reduced because of health care personnel having been diverted to address the COVID-19 crisis.

Still, some of the successes in eliminating malaria have been striking. Iran, for example, reduced its cases from about 98,000 in 1991 to 12,000 just 10 years later. Since then, Iran has established rapid response teams equipped with insecticide-impregnated nets, rapid diagnostic tests, and antimalarials. A network of more than 3,700 community health volunteers has been trained and deployed throughout the country.

A key element of Iran’s success – and that of some of the other countries – is the political will to tackle malaria. This translates to funding. Notably, the most successful countries provide free primary health care to everyone, regardless of their legal or residency status. Volunteer migrant workers are trained to diagnose malaria and to educate fellow migrants about the disease and prevention strategies.

Malaysia and China are examples of two countries at risk of importing malaria through their many people who work abroad in malaria-endemic regions. They have had to increase their surveillance.

Although Malaysia has eliminated most malaria species – those transmitted through people – they still have problems with the malaria parasite hosted by monkeys.

The WHO report stresses the lessons learned through their E-2020 program. Two key criteria are political commitment and associated funding. Next are surveillance and efforts to reach everyone, even in geographically remote or marginalized communities. Close surveillance also enables strategies to be modified to local needs.

Countries need to cooperate, especially along border areas and in regard to communications. The WHO stressed the need for countries to have an integrated response in their approach to malaria, including accurate surveillance, diagnostic testing, treatment, and robust education in preventive measures.

Although these successes were not as evident in some high-burden countries, Prof. White applauded their perseverance, noting, “It’s quite difficult to sustain the political momentum. … That endgame to keep the motivation, keep the support, to getting rid of something is hard.”

Prof. White and Dr. Lindberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In its final report on the E-2020 initiative, the World Health Organization touted its progress on its goal of eliminating malaria throughout the world. But critics are charging that progress has stalled.

The E-2020 initiative supported the efforts of 21 countries in eliminating malaria. In a remarkable achievement, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, eight E-2020 member countries reported zero cases of malaria in 2020. The WHO’s next target is the elimination of malaria in 20 of those countries by 2025.

While applauding these successes, in an interview with this news organization, Sir Nicholas J. White, FRS, professor of tropical medicine, Mahidol University, Salaya, Thailand, and Oxford (England) University, also put those successes in perspective. For one thing, the original 2020 goal was the elimination of malaria in 10 countries. Prof. White acknowledged that there had been very “substantial reductions in global morbidity and mortality” from 2000 to 2015, but he pointed out that those advances have not been sustained.

Prof. White added, “There has never been a really good, detailed inquiry as to why progress has stalled” in the high-burden countries.

Prof. White also provided important historical context, explaining that “100 years ago, malaria was pretty much a global disease. There were few places in the world which did not have malaria. You had malaria up to the Arctic Circle. You had malaria in the United States, particularly in the Tennessee Valley in the southeastern part of the United States. The Centers for Disease Control was formed specifically to counter malaria and malaria interfering with the building of the Erie and Ottawa canals.”

Kim Lindblade, PhD, malaria elimination team lead of the WHO’s Global Malaria Program, addressed those concerns with this news organization. “It’s not completely clear why [progress] has stalled,” she said. “There are lots of potential reasons for it, including stagnating funding.”

Dr. Lindblade added that high-burden countries are “facing big challenges. [Since 2015] there’s this stagnation. We’re fighting against population growth, and countries need to get back on track to continue to decrease their malaria burden. So that’s the big focus right now, to reorganize efforts to help countries achieve the goals of the World Health Assembly.”

Asked how these countries might approach the problem differently, Dr. Lindblade said that in the recent past, there was “almost a one-size-fits-all strategy. Now we’re looking much more carefully at conditions at the district level or provincial level and saying, What is it that this particular district or province needs? … It’s becoming much more tailored to the environment and to the specific epidemiological situation. … and I think that’s gotten a lot of people very excited.”

Because of travel restrictions and lockdowns because of COVID-19, the number of imported cases of malaria has declined. That’s the good news. But the pandemic has made elimination more difficult in other ways. For example, the delivery of insecticide-treated bed nets has been delayed in some areas, as has targeted indoor spraying. People in many areas have put off seeking medical care. Diagnostic capabilities have been reduced because of health care personnel having been diverted to address the COVID-19 crisis.

Still, some of the successes in eliminating malaria have been striking. Iran, for example, reduced its cases from about 98,000 in 1991 to 12,000 just 10 years later. Since then, Iran has established rapid response teams equipped with insecticide-impregnated nets, rapid diagnostic tests, and antimalarials. A network of more than 3,700 community health volunteers has been trained and deployed throughout the country.

A key element of Iran’s success – and that of some of the other countries – is the political will to tackle malaria. This translates to funding. Notably, the most successful countries provide free primary health care to everyone, regardless of their legal or residency status. Volunteer migrant workers are trained to diagnose malaria and to educate fellow migrants about the disease and prevention strategies.

Malaysia and China are examples of two countries at risk of importing malaria through their many people who work abroad in malaria-endemic regions. They have had to increase their surveillance.

Although Malaysia has eliminated most malaria species – those transmitted through people – they still have problems with the malaria parasite hosted by monkeys.

The WHO report stresses the lessons learned through their E-2020 program. Two key criteria are political commitment and associated funding. Next are surveillance and efforts to reach everyone, even in geographically remote or marginalized communities. Close surveillance also enables strategies to be modified to local needs.

Countries need to cooperate, especially along border areas and in regard to communications. The WHO stressed the need for countries to have an integrated response in their approach to malaria, including accurate surveillance, diagnostic testing, treatment, and robust education in preventive measures.

Although these successes were not as evident in some high-burden countries, Prof. White applauded their perseverance, noting, “It’s quite difficult to sustain the political momentum. … That endgame to keep the motivation, keep the support, to getting rid of something is hard.”

Prof. White and Dr. Lindberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines should be considered as the preferable option in the United States rather than Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) Janssen COVID-19 vaccine in women aged under 50 years, according to one group of experts.

The group made their recommendation in an editorial in JAMA published online April 30, 2021, accompanying a paper describing details of 12 case reports of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) with thrombocytopenia following the J&J COVID-19 vaccine, also known as the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine.

The editorialists are Ruth A. Karron, MD, professor of international health at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore; Nigel S. Key, MD, professor of hematology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; and Joshua M. Sharfstein, MD, associate dean for public health practice at Johns Hopkins

They noted that, after an initial pause following reports of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) linked to the J&J vaccine, and on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the United States has permitted the use of the J&J vaccine in all adults with information on the risk of TTS added to educational materials.

The editorialists pointed out that no cases of TTS have been confirmed following administration of more than 180 million doses of the mRNA vaccines in the United States.

They said that, while the J&J vaccine will still be needed for individuals with allergies to components of the mRNA vaccines and for those who live in remote locations where the cold chain for transport and storage of mRNA vaccines cannot be maintained, “U.S. public health agencies and clinicians should consider recommending mRNA vaccines as safer options for those who may be at substantially higher risk for TTS after Ad26.COV2.S vaccination, currently women younger than 50 years.”

In the main JAMA paper, a group led by Isaac See, MD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Response Team, reported full details of 12 cases of CVST with thrombocytopenia following the J&J COVID-19 vaccine reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

The 12 U.S. case reports, 3 of which were fatal, show many similarities to cases described in Europe after the AstraZeneca vaccine.

The authors noted that, by April 12, approximately 7 million doses of the J&J vaccine had been given in the United States. The 12 cases of CVST and thrombocytopenia following receipt of the vaccine were reported to VAERS between March 2 and April 21. All 12 cases were in White women, 11 of whom were aged under 50 years.

As of April 25, a further two cases have been confirmed and reported to VAERS; one in a man younger than 40 years, the other in a woman aged between 40 and 59 years.

In the 12 cases reported in detail, symptoms started between 6 and 15 days post vaccination.

At least one risk factor for CVST was identified in seven patients (obesity in six, hypothyroidism in one, and use of combined oral contraceptives in one). None of the patients was pregnant or within 12 weeks post partum, had prior thrombosis, a personal or family history of thrombophilia, or documented prior exposure to heparin.

In addition to CVST, seven patients had intracerebral hemorrhage and eight had non-CVST thromboses.

One patient reported a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection approximately 4 months prior to vaccination. Of the other 11 patients, 4 had negative serologic tests and 7 were not tested.

All 12 patients were hospitalized and 10 were admitted to an ICU. At the time of the last follow-up, three patients had died (all of whom had intraparenchymal hemorrhage), three remained in the ICU, two were still hospitalized but not in an ICU, and four had been discharged home.

The authors pointed out that the U.S. cases of CVST with thrombocytopenia following the J&J vaccine have many similarities to those reported in Europe after the AstraZeneca vaccine, occurring primarily in women younger than 40 years and in patients without diagnosed thrombophilia. Both European and U.S. patients had a median platelet nadir count of 19 x 103/mcL and several also had non-CVST large-vessel thrombosis.

In the European cases of CVST with thrombocytopenia, 50% of patients died, compared with 25% of U.S. patients.

Like the European cases, the U.S. cases had positive heparin-PF4 HIT antibody enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay tests in the absence of prior exposure to heparin, as would be seen in autoimmune HIT.

However, in the initial European CVST reports, 88% of patients tested with functional platelet HIT antibody tests had positive results, compared with only 11% of the U.S. cases. But the authors noted that lack of standardization in functional platelet HIT antibody assays may lead to differences in results by different laboratories.

“It may be important to notify testing laboratories that postvaccination TTS is being evaluated, so that testing methods can be adjusted if needed,” they said.

They concluded that these case reports suggest that the pathogenesis of TTS may be similar to autoimmune HIT, triggered by the formation of antibodies directed against PF4, a constituent of platelet alpha granules released during platelet activation. In contrast to classic HIT in which exogenous heparin triggers antibody formation, in autoimmune HIT, an endogenous polyanion triggers PF4 antibody formation.

They noted that the precise mechanism of TTS in relation to COVID-19 vaccination has not yet been established. The Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety has stated that a platform-specific mechanism related to adenovirus vector vaccines cannot be excluded. Both the J&J and AstraZeneca vaccines use an adenoviral vector, but they are different; J&J uses a human vector, while AstraZeneca uses a chimpanzee vector.

They also pointed out that CVST and thrombocytopenia following SARS-CoV-2 infection has been reported in at least two cases, but HIT testing was not done in these cases. There have not so far been any reports to VAERS of CVST with thrombocytopenia following mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

The authors said these findings have important clinical and public health implications, noting that the CDC has updated its interim clinical considerations for use of authorized COVID-19 vaccines to indicate that women aged 18-49 years should be aware of the increased risk of TTS after receipt of the J&J vaccine, and to use a nonheparin anticoagulant in suspected cases.

They noted that a subacute presentation of headache is present in 90% of patients with typical CVST. While headache is a common symptom after the J&J vaccination, most headaches begin and resolve within 2 days. Whereas in the U.S. cases of CVST after vaccination, headache symptoms began at least 6 days after vaccination and persisted for at least a week for most.

“Urgent consultation with a neurologist is prudent when a patient is suspected or confirmed to have CVST. In addition, since the median time from symptom onset to hospitalization was 7 days in the U.S. CVST case series, patient and clinician education might shorten the time to clinical evaluation and therefore treatment,” they stated.

The authors also note that VAERS is a passive surveillance system, so cases of CVST with thrombocytopenia may be underreported.

In their accompanying editorial, Dr. Karron and colleagues pointed out that, in addition to the 12 patients with CVST with thrombocytopenia described in this case series, at least three patients without CVST but meeting diagnostic criteria for TTS have been reported to VAERS (as of April 21), all in women aged 18-59 years (median age, 37 years).

The editorialists reported that the rate of CVST with thrombocytopenia after the J&J vaccine is approximately 5 per million women aged 18-50 years. This is compared with a background rate of approximately 0.05-0.13 per million per month.

They said that the availability of an interim standardized case definition of this adverse effect will facilitate prospective case ascertainment through review of large linked databases and active case finding.

This will also permit greater understanding of whether individuals who are otherwise at increased risk for hypercoagulation in general and for CVST in particular (for example, women taking hormonal contraceptive medications or who are pregnant) are also at increased risk for TTS.

Obtaining this information will support dynamic country-specific assessments of the risks of each vaccine, compared with the risk of COVID-19 disease for their populations and subpopulations, they added.

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

Use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines should be considered as the preferable option in the United States rather than Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) Janssen COVID-19 vaccine in women aged under 50 years, according to one group of experts.

The group made their recommendation in an editorial in JAMA published online April 30, 2021, accompanying a paper describing details of 12 case reports of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) with thrombocytopenia following the J&J COVID-19 vaccine, also known as the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine.

The editorialists are Ruth A. Karron, MD, professor of international health at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore; Nigel S. Key, MD, professor of hematology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; and Joshua M. Sharfstein, MD, associate dean for public health practice at Johns Hopkins

They noted that, after an initial pause following reports of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) linked to the J&J vaccine, and on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the United States has permitted the use of the J&J vaccine in all adults with information on the risk of TTS added to educational materials.

The editorialists pointed out that no cases of TTS have been confirmed following administration of more than 180 million doses of the mRNA vaccines in the United States.

They said that, while the J&J vaccine will still be needed for individuals with allergies to components of the mRNA vaccines and for those who live in remote locations where the cold chain for transport and storage of mRNA vaccines cannot be maintained, “U.S. public health agencies and clinicians should consider recommending mRNA vaccines as safer options for those who may be at substantially higher risk for TTS after Ad26.COV2.S vaccination, currently women younger than 50 years.”

In the main JAMA paper, a group led by Isaac See, MD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Response Team, reported full details of 12 cases of CVST with thrombocytopenia following the J&J COVID-19 vaccine reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

The 12 U.S. case reports, 3 of which were fatal, show many similarities to cases described in Europe after the AstraZeneca vaccine.

The authors noted that, by April 12, approximately 7 million doses of the J&J vaccine had been given in the United States. The 12 cases of CVST and thrombocytopenia following receipt of the vaccine were reported to VAERS between March 2 and April 21. All 12 cases were in White women, 11 of whom were aged under 50 years.

As of April 25, a further two cases have been confirmed and reported to VAERS; one in a man younger than 40 years, the other in a woman aged between 40 and 59 years.

In the 12 cases reported in detail, symptoms started between 6 and 15 days post vaccination.

At least one risk factor for CVST was identified in seven patients (obesity in six, hypothyroidism in one, and use of combined oral contraceptives in one). None of the patients was pregnant or within 12 weeks post partum, had prior thrombosis, a personal or family history of thrombophilia, or documented prior exposure to heparin.

In addition to CVST, seven patients had intracerebral hemorrhage and eight had non-CVST thromboses.

One patient reported a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection approximately 4 months prior to vaccination. Of the other 11 patients, 4 had negative serologic tests and 7 were not tested.

All 12 patients were hospitalized and 10 were admitted to an ICU. At the time of the last follow-up, three patients had died (all of whom had intraparenchymal hemorrhage), three remained in the ICU, two were still hospitalized but not in an ICU, and four had been discharged home.

The authors pointed out that the U.S. cases of CVST with thrombocytopenia following the J&J vaccine have many similarities to those reported in Europe after the AstraZeneca vaccine, occurring primarily in women younger than 40 years and in patients without diagnosed thrombophilia. Both European and U.S. patients had a median platelet nadir count of 19 x 103/mcL and several also had non-CVST large-vessel thrombosis.

In the European cases of CVST with thrombocytopenia, 50% of patients died, compared with 25% of U.S. patients.

Like the European cases, the U.S. cases had positive heparin-PF4 HIT antibody enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay tests in the absence of prior exposure to heparin, as would be seen in autoimmune HIT.

However, in the initial European CVST reports, 88% of patients tested with functional platelet HIT antibody tests had positive results, compared with only 11% of the U.S. cases. But the authors noted that lack of standardization in functional platelet HIT antibody assays may lead to differences in results by different laboratories.

“It may be important to notify testing laboratories that postvaccination TTS is being evaluated, so that testing methods can be adjusted if needed,” they said.

They concluded that these case reports suggest that the pathogenesis of TTS may be similar to autoimmune HIT, triggered by the formation of antibodies directed against PF4, a constituent of platelet alpha granules released during platelet activation. In contrast to classic HIT in which exogenous heparin triggers antibody formation, in autoimmune HIT, an endogenous polyanion triggers PF4 antibody formation.

They noted that the precise mechanism of TTS in relation to COVID-19 vaccination has not yet been established. The Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety has stated that a platform-specific mechanism related to adenovirus vector vaccines cannot be excluded. Both the J&J and AstraZeneca vaccines use an adenoviral vector, but they are different; J&J uses a human vector, while AstraZeneca uses a chimpanzee vector.

They also pointed out that CVST and thrombocytopenia following SARS-CoV-2 infection has been reported in at least two cases, but HIT testing was not done in these cases. There have not so far been any reports to VAERS of CVST with thrombocytopenia following mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

The authors said these findings have important clinical and public health implications, noting that the CDC has updated its interim clinical considerations for use of authorized COVID-19 vaccines to indicate that women aged 18-49 years should be aware of the increased risk of TTS after receipt of the J&J vaccine, and to use a nonheparin anticoagulant in suspected cases.

They noted that a subacute presentation of headache is present in 90% of patients with typical CVST. While headache is a common symptom after the J&J vaccination, most headaches begin and resolve within 2 days. Whereas in the U.S. cases of CVST after vaccination, headache symptoms began at least 6 days after vaccination and persisted for at least a week for most.

“Urgent consultation with a neurologist is prudent when a patient is suspected or confirmed to have CVST. In addition, since the median time from symptom onset to hospitalization was 7 days in the U.S. CVST case series, patient and clinician education might shorten the time to clinical evaluation and therefore treatment,” they stated.

The authors also note that VAERS is a passive surveillance system, so cases of CVST with thrombocytopenia may be underreported.

In their accompanying editorial, Dr. Karron and colleagues pointed out that, in addition to the 12 patients with CVST with thrombocytopenia described in this case series, at least three patients without CVST but meeting diagnostic criteria for TTS have been reported to VAERS (as of April 21), all in women aged 18-59 years (median age, 37 years).

The editorialists reported that the rate of CVST with thrombocytopenia after the J&J vaccine is approximately 5 per million women aged 18-50 years. This is compared with a background rate of approximately 0.05-0.13 per million per month.

They said that the availability of an interim standardized case definition of this adverse effect will facilitate prospective case ascertainment through review of large linked databases and active case finding.

This will also permit greater understanding of whether individuals who are otherwise at increased risk for hypercoagulation in general and for CVST in particular (for example, women taking hormonal contraceptive medications or who are pregnant) are also at increased risk for TTS.

Obtaining this information will support dynamic country-specific assessments of the risks of each vaccine, compared with the risk of COVID-19 disease for their populations and subpopulations, they added.

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

Use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines should be considered as the preferable option in the United States rather than Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) Janssen COVID-19 vaccine in women aged under 50 years, according to one group of experts.

The group made their recommendation in an editorial in JAMA published online April 30, 2021, accompanying a paper describing details of 12 case reports of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) with thrombocytopenia following the J&J COVID-19 vaccine, also known as the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine.

The editorialists are Ruth A. Karron, MD, professor of international health at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore; Nigel S. Key, MD, professor of hematology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; and Joshua M. Sharfstein, MD, associate dean for public health practice at Johns Hopkins

They noted that, after an initial pause following reports of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) linked to the J&J vaccine, and on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the United States has permitted the use of the J&J vaccine in all adults with information on the risk of TTS added to educational materials.

The editorialists pointed out that no cases of TTS have been confirmed following administration of more than 180 million doses of the mRNA vaccines in the United States.

They said that, while the J&J vaccine will still be needed for individuals with allergies to components of the mRNA vaccines and for those who live in remote locations where the cold chain for transport and storage of mRNA vaccines cannot be maintained, “U.S. public health agencies and clinicians should consider recommending mRNA vaccines as safer options for those who may be at substantially higher risk for TTS after Ad26.COV2.S vaccination, currently women younger than 50 years.”

In the main JAMA paper, a group led by Isaac See, MD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Response Team, reported full details of 12 cases of CVST with thrombocytopenia following the J&J COVID-19 vaccine reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

The 12 U.S. case reports, 3 of which were fatal, show many similarities to cases described in Europe after the AstraZeneca vaccine.

The authors noted that, by April 12, approximately 7 million doses of the J&J vaccine had been given in the United States. The 12 cases of CVST and thrombocytopenia following receipt of the vaccine were reported to VAERS between March 2 and April 21. All 12 cases were in White women, 11 of whom were aged under 50 years.

As of April 25, a further two cases have been confirmed and reported to VAERS; one in a man younger than 40 years, the other in a woman aged between 40 and 59 years.

In the 12 cases reported in detail, symptoms started between 6 and 15 days post vaccination.

At least one risk factor for CVST was identified in seven patients (obesity in six, hypothyroidism in one, and use of combined oral contraceptives in one). None of the patients was pregnant or within 12 weeks post partum, had prior thrombosis, a personal or family history of thrombophilia, or documented prior exposure to heparin.

In addition to CVST, seven patients had intracerebral hemorrhage and eight had non-CVST thromboses.

One patient reported a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection approximately 4 months prior to vaccination. Of the other 11 patients, 4 had negative serologic tests and 7 were not tested.

All 12 patients were hospitalized and 10 were admitted to an ICU. At the time of the last follow-up, three patients had died (all of whom had intraparenchymal hemorrhage), three remained in the ICU, two were still hospitalized but not in an ICU, and four had been discharged home.

The authors pointed out that the U.S. cases of CVST with thrombocytopenia following the J&J vaccine have many similarities to those reported in Europe after the AstraZeneca vaccine, occurring primarily in women younger than 40 years and in patients without diagnosed thrombophilia. Both European and U.S. patients had a median platelet nadir count of 19 x 103/mcL and several also had non-CVST large-vessel thrombosis.

In the European cases of CVST with thrombocytopenia, 50% of patients died, compared with 25% of U.S. patients.

Like the European cases, the U.S. cases had positive heparin-PF4 HIT antibody enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay tests in the absence of prior exposure to heparin, as would be seen in autoimmune HIT.

However, in the initial European CVST reports, 88% of patients tested with functional platelet HIT antibody tests had positive results, compared with only 11% of the U.S. cases. But the authors noted that lack of standardization in functional platelet HIT antibody assays may lead to differences in results by different laboratories.

“It may be important to notify testing laboratories that postvaccination TTS is being evaluated, so that testing methods can be adjusted if needed,” they said.

They concluded that these case reports suggest that the pathogenesis of TTS may be similar to autoimmune HIT, triggered by the formation of antibodies directed against PF4, a constituent of platelet alpha granules released during platelet activation. In contrast to classic HIT in which exogenous heparin triggers antibody formation, in autoimmune HIT, an endogenous polyanion triggers PF4 antibody formation.

They noted that the precise mechanism of TTS in relation to COVID-19 vaccination has not yet been established. The Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety has stated that a platform-specific mechanism related to adenovirus vector vaccines cannot be excluded. Both the J&J and AstraZeneca vaccines use an adenoviral vector, but they are different; J&J uses a human vector, while AstraZeneca uses a chimpanzee vector.

They also pointed out that CVST and thrombocytopenia following SARS-CoV-2 infection has been reported in at least two cases, but HIT testing was not done in these cases. There have not so far been any reports to VAERS of CVST with thrombocytopenia following mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

The authors said these findings have important clinical and public health implications, noting that the CDC has updated its interim clinical considerations for use of authorized COVID-19 vaccines to indicate that women aged 18-49 years should be aware of the increased risk of TTS after receipt of the J&J vaccine, and to use a nonheparin anticoagulant in suspected cases.

They noted that a subacute presentation of headache is present in 90% of patients with typical CVST. While headache is a common symptom after the J&J vaccination, most headaches begin and resolve within 2 days. Whereas in the U.S. cases of CVST after vaccination, headache symptoms began at least 6 days after vaccination and persisted for at least a week for most.

“Urgent consultation with a neurologist is prudent when a patient is suspected or confirmed to have CVST. In addition, since the median time from symptom onset to hospitalization was 7 days in the U.S. CVST case series, patient and clinician education might shorten the time to clinical evaluation and therefore treatment,” they stated.

The authors also note that VAERS is a passive surveillance system, so cases of CVST with thrombocytopenia may be underreported.

In their accompanying editorial, Dr. Karron and colleagues pointed out that, in addition to the 12 patients with CVST with thrombocytopenia described in this case series, at least three patients without CVST but meeting diagnostic criteria for TTS have been reported to VAERS (as of April 21), all in women aged 18-59 years (median age, 37 years).

The editorialists reported that the rate of CVST with thrombocytopenia after the J&J vaccine is approximately 5 per million women aged 18-50 years. This is compared with a background rate of approximately 0.05-0.13 per million per month.

They said that the availability of an interim standardized case definition of this adverse effect will facilitate prospective case ascertainment through review of large linked databases and active case finding.

This will also permit greater understanding of whether individuals who are otherwise at increased risk for hypercoagulation in general and for CVST in particular (for example, women taking hormonal contraceptive medications or who are pregnant) are also at increased risk for TTS.

Obtaining this information will support dynamic country-specific assessments of the risks of each vaccine, compared with the risk of COVID-19 disease for their populations and subpopulations, they added.

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

Sexual dysfunction is a common problem among breast cancer survivors, but it’s also an issue inadequately addressed by either ob.gyns. or hematologists and oncologists, according to Erin Keyser, MD, the program director of the San Antonio Uniformed Services Health Education Consortium. Dr. Keyser discussed management of sexual dysfunction and a variety of other issues frequently faced by women who have survived breast cancer at the at the 2021 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Despite the fact that no specialty is better qualified to render care for this consequence of cancer treatments, many obstetrician-gynecologists feel uncomfortable or ill-equipped to address sexual pain in women affected by cancer,” Dr. Keyser quoted from a 2016 article in Obstetrics & Gynecology about the sexual health of women affected by cancer. As a breast cancer survivor herself, Dr. Keyser said hematologists and oncologists are even less equipped to discuss sexual health, “so oftentimes patients get punted between their hem-onc and their gyn,” with each telling the patient to ask the other specialist.

“There’s plenty of data in chronic health disease that maintaining sexual function for women is an indicator of the overall quality of life and that many women really don’t want to bring this up,” Dr. Keyser told attendees, so the onus is on the ob.gyn. to bring it up.

The effects of breast cancer treatment can impact women’s body image, fertility, menopause, sexual function, osteoporosis, and cardiovascular disease, but the bulk of Dr. Keyser’s talk focused on sexual health and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO).

Lauren Streicher, MD, a clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Northwestern University, Chicago, thought Dr. Keyser’s talk was useful for the general gynecologist but had some concerns about a few parts.

“She gave a very thoughtful analysis of whether someone should have their ovaries removed or not in a breast cancer diagnosis, ” Dr. Streicher said in an interview. “I would have liked to hear more about the consequences of an early menopause in women in terms of heart health, bone health, and cognitive function.”

Dr. Keyser noted that her talk pertained mostly to survivors of estrogen receptor (ER)–positive breast cancer since that population tends to struggle most with side effects of treatment. The most common medications used in this population are tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors – such as anastrazole, letrozole, and exemestane – and these medications can affect management of different concerns.
 

Current guidance on ovarian removal

For women with a BRCA mutation, ACOG clinical guidance already exists regarding BSO. For other women, the complementary TEXT and SOFT trials changed the management of breast cancer treatment in premenopausal women, Dr. Keyser said.

Before these trials, postmenopausal hormone receptor–positive women began aromatase inhibitors and premenopausal HR-positive women began tamoxifen. These trials found that premenopausal women with HR-positive early breast cancer were less likely to experience recurrence when receiving adjuvant treatment with exemestane plus ovarian suppression compared to tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression. Ovarian suppression was achieved by either GnRH agonist injections, surgical removal of the ovaries, or radiation therapy to the ovaries.

The side effects of these treatments included hot flushes (92%), depression (87%), musculoskeletal symptoms (89%), vaginal dryness (52%), decreased libido (45%), dyspareunia (31%), osteoporosis (39%), insomnia (58%), and fatigue (61%). These are all quality of life concerns, Dr. Keyser said, and these findings raise questions about the consequences of long-term ovarian suppression. Findings from the Nurses’ Health Study showed that BSO before age 47.5 years resulted in lower mortality from ovarian cancer and breast cancer but was linked in women under 50 to increased all-cause mortality and mortality from coronary heart disease, lung cancer, and colorectal cancer, compared with ovarian conservation. Further, 74% of women who undergo risk-reducing BSO experience sexual dysfunction.

The bottom line, Dr. Keyser said, is that “premature removal of ovaries is not completely benign.” Her own recommendation is to follow ACOG guidance for women with BRCA mutations and, for women aged under 35 years, use ovarian suppression for 5-10 years, after which ovarian function may resume along with improved quality of life. In women aged over 40, remove ovaries since, after 5-10 years of treatment, there’s likely no benefit of retaining ovaries.
 

Addressing sexual health

Dyspareunia affects up to 45% of cancer survivors, Dr. Keyser said, and multiple treatment options exist for breast cancer survivors. The therapies she discussed included lubricants, moisturizers, local vaginal estrogen, DHEA, ospemifene, and CO₂ laser therapy.

Though Dr. Keyser briefly touched on vaginal lubricants and moisturizers, Dr. Streicher was disappointed that Dr. Keyser did not clearly define and differentiate between lubricants and moisturizers or mention hyaluronic acid products. Dr. Streicher also disagreed with the way Dr. Keyser represented the benefits of coconut oil as a lubricant. “Oils are not condom compatible and are known to potentially increase the risk of infection, and not just from poor handwashing,” Dr. Streicher said.

Small retrospective studies support the safety of topical vaginal estrogen in breast cancer survivors, Dr. Keyser said, and the 10-mcg Vagifem tablet and vaginal estradiol ring appear to have the lowest systemic absorption. ACOG guidance recommends that women taking aromatase inhibitors who don’t respond to nonhormonal approaches may benefit from switching temporarily to tamoxifen with vaginal estrogen and then returning to aromatase inhibitors. However, Dr. Keyser said there’s plenty of data to support using vaginal estrogen in patients taking aromatase inhibitors.

“I do feel that it’s safe for patients, whether they’re on tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors, to take vaginal estrogen,” Dr. Keyser said. “I usually stick with the estradiol vaginal ring or the estradiol tablet, and I base that on a patient’s comfort with placing and removing a ring.” She also, instead of asking the patient’s hematologist-oncologist, simply notifies them of the treatment since most hematologist-oncologists are less familiar with the data.

Another effective option is vaginal DHEA/prasterone, which can significantly improve sexual desire, arousal, pain, and overall sexual function. Although breast cancer patients were included in early studies on DHEA, Intrarosa manufacturers excluded breast cancer patients in their Food and Drug Administration application, resulting in a package stating that “use of exogenous estrogen is contraindicated in women with a known or suspected history of breast cancer” and that “Intrarosa has not been studied in women with a history of breast cancer.” While that’s true for Intrarosa specifically, DHEA has been studied in breast cancer patients, Dr. Keyser said, so she expects to see more research in this area.

Ospemifene is another option for improving vulvovaginal atrophy but cannot be taken at the same time as tamoxifen. It has similar chemopreventive effects as tamoxifen in rat studies, but it’s not as effective. It’s a reasonable option in women with refractory genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) who have completed their 5-10 years of adjuvant therapy and have no history of venous thromboembolism.

Dr. Keyser said CO₂ laser therapy is still being studied for treating GSM, and current data have shown benefits for dyspareunia and vaginal dryness without documented harms. There have now been randomized, controlled trials; however, since it’s not FDA approved, it’s not covered by insurance and costs approximately $5,000 for three treatments.

Dr. Streicher was glad to see Dr. Keyser’s discussion of the safety and types of local vaginal estrogen, “although she neglected to mention the 4-mcg vaginal suppository, Imvexxy, which has the lowest systemic absorption,” Dr. Streicher said. Dr. Streicher also felt the inclusion of DHEA/prasterone and ospemifene were also important, especially since the latter is “underutilized in breast cancer patients.”

The information provided on CO₂ laser therapy, however, was problematic, Dr. Streicher said, given that long-term and randomized, controlled studies have now been published. Dr. Streicher also noted that two of the devices listed on the presentation slide, Thermiva and Voltiva, are radiofrequency, not laser devices.

Aside from these treatment options, the most consistent predictor of satisfying sexual experiences in women with breast cancer is the quality of their relationships, Dr. Keyser said, so couples counseling is recommended, and treatments in general are more effective with regularly sexual activity.

In discussing nonhormonal options for treating vasomotor symptoms, Dr. Keyser recommended venlafaxine, gabapentin, and low-dose paroxetine (though SSRIs and tamoxifen are contraindicated since they may reduce tamoxifen’s efficacy).

These are all off label, Dr. Streicher said it was important to note, and she would have liked to have seen a mention of the development of KNdy neurokinin disrupters along with a more in-depth discussion about which lifestyle modifications and botanicals have been shown in randomized, controlled trials to mitigate vasomotor symptoms.

Dr. Keyser wrapped up with a few additional notes and takeaways:

• The only safe reversible long-term option for contraception in HR-positive breast cancer survivors is the Paraguard IUD.
• It’s important to discuss fertility with breast cancer patients and survivors since a majority report unmet needs in this area.
• Patients taking tamoxifen need to be sure to report any vaginal spotting or bleeding since it increases risk of endometrial cancer in postmenopausal women.
• Screen for depression and anxiety.
• Ask women about sexual health and hot flashes.
• Ensure that they’re getting bone screening.
• A recommended resource is Living Beyond Breast Cancer.

Dr. Keyser had no disclosures. Dr. Streicher has consulted for Astellas Pharma and Church & Dwight, and she owns investments in InControl Medical and Sermonix Pharmaceuticals.

Sexual dysfunction is a common problem among breast cancer survivors, but it’s also an issue inadequately addressed by either ob.gyns. or hematologists and oncologists, according to Erin Keyser, MD, the program director of the San Antonio Uniformed Services Health Education Consortium. Dr. Keyser discussed management of sexual dysfunction and a variety of other issues frequently faced by women who have survived breast cancer at the at the 2021 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Despite the fact that no specialty is better qualified to render care for this consequence of cancer treatments, many obstetrician-gynecologists feel uncomfortable or ill-equipped to address sexual pain in women affected by cancer,” Dr. Keyser quoted from a 2016 article in Obstetrics & Gynecology about the sexual health of women affected by cancer. As a breast cancer survivor herself, Dr. Keyser said hematologists and oncologists are even less equipped to discuss sexual health, “so oftentimes patients get punted between their hem-onc and their gyn,” with each telling the patient to ask the other specialist.

“There’s plenty of data in chronic health disease that maintaining sexual function for women is an indicator of the overall quality of life and that many women really don’t want to bring this up,” Dr. Keyser told attendees, so the onus is on the ob.gyn. to bring it up.

The effects of breast cancer treatment can impact women’s body image, fertility, menopause, sexual function, osteoporosis, and cardiovascular disease, but the bulk of Dr. Keyser’s talk focused on sexual health and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO).

Lauren Streicher, MD, a clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Northwestern University, Chicago, thought Dr. Keyser’s talk was useful for the general gynecologist but had some concerns about a few parts.

“She gave a very thoughtful analysis of whether someone should have their ovaries removed or not in a breast cancer diagnosis, ” Dr. Streicher said in an interview. “I would have liked to hear more about the consequences of an early menopause in women in terms of heart health, bone health, and cognitive function.”

Dr. Keyser noted that her talk pertained mostly to survivors of estrogen receptor (ER)–positive breast cancer since that population tends to struggle most with side effects of treatment. The most common medications used in this population are tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors – such as anastrazole, letrozole, and exemestane – and these medications can affect management of different concerns.
 

Current guidance on ovarian removal

For women with a BRCA mutation, ACOG clinical guidance already exists regarding BSO. For other women, the complementary TEXT and SOFT trials changed the management of breast cancer treatment in premenopausal women, Dr. Keyser said.

Before these trials, postmenopausal hormone receptor–positive women began aromatase inhibitors and premenopausal HR-positive women began tamoxifen. These trials found that premenopausal women with HR-positive early breast cancer were less likely to experience recurrence when receiving adjuvant treatment with exemestane plus ovarian suppression compared to tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression. Ovarian suppression was achieved by either GnRH agonist injections, surgical removal of the ovaries, or radiation therapy to the ovaries.

The side effects of these treatments included hot flushes (92%), depression (87%), musculoskeletal symptoms (89%), vaginal dryness (52%), decreased libido (45%), dyspareunia (31%), osteoporosis (39%), insomnia (58%), and fatigue (61%). These are all quality of life concerns, Dr. Keyser said, and these findings raise questions about the consequences of long-term ovarian suppression. Findings from the Nurses’ Health Study showed that BSO before age 47.5 years resulted in lower mortality from ovarian cancer and breast cancer but was linked in women under 50 to increased all-cause mortality and mortality from coronary heart disease, lung cancer, and colorectal cancer, compared with ovarian conservation. Further, 74% of women who undergo risk-reducing BSO experience sexual dysfunction.

The bottom line, Dr. Keyser said, is that “premature removal of ovaries is not completely benign.” Her own recommendation is to follow ACOG guidance for women with BRCA mutations and, for women aged under 35 years, use ovarian suppression for 5-10 years, after which ovarian function may resume along with improved quality of life. In women aged over 40, remove ovaries since, after 5-10 years of treatment, there’s likely no benefit of retaining ovaries.
 

Addressing sexual health

Dyspareunia affects up to 45% of cancer survivors, Dr. Keyser said, and multiple treatment options exist for breast cancer survivors. The therapies she discussed included lubricants, moisturizers, local vaginal estrogen, DHEA, ospemifene, and CO₂ laser therapy.

Though Dr. Keyser briefly touched on vaginal lubricants and moisturizers, Dr. Streicher was disappointed that Dr. Keyser did not clearly define and differentiate between lubricants and moisturizers or mention hyaluronic acid products. Dr. Streicher also disagreed with the way Dr. Keyser represented the benefits of coconut oil as a lubricant. “Oils are not condom compatible and are known to potentially increase the risk of infection, and not just from poor handwashing,” Dr. Streicher said.

Small retrospective studies support the safety of topical vaginal estrogen in breast cancer survivors, Dr. Keyser said, and the 10-mcg Vagifem tablet and vaginal estradiol ring appear to have the lowest systemic absorption. ACOG guidance recommends that women taking aromatase inhibitors who don’t respond to nonhormonal approaches may benefit from switching temporarily to tamoxifen with vaginal estrogen and then returning to aromatase inhibitors. However, Dr. Keyser said there’s plenty of data to support using vaginal estrogen in patients taking aromatase inhibitors.

“I do feel that it’s safe for patients, whether they’re on tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors, to take vaginal estrogen,” Dr. Keyser said. “I usually stick with the estradiol vaginal ring or the estradiol tablet, and I base that on a patient’s comfort with placing and removing a ring.” She also, instead of asking the patient’s hematologist-oncologist, simply notifies them of the treatment since most hematologist-oncologists are less familiar with the data.

Another effective option is vaginal DHEA/prasterone, which can significantly improve sexual desire, arousal, pain, and overall sexual function. Although breast cancer patients were included in early studies on DHEA, Intrarosa manufacturers excluded breast cancer patients in their Food and Drug Administration application, resulting in a package stating that “use of exogenous estrogen is contraindicated in women with a known or suspected history of breast cancer” and that “Intrarosa has not been studied in women with a history of breast cancer.” While that’s true for Intrarosa specifically, DHEA has been studied in breast cancer patients, Dr. Keyser said, so she expects to see more research in this area.

Ospemifene is another option for improving vulvovaginal atrophy but cannot be taken at the same time as tamoxifen. It has similar chemopreventive effects as tamoxifen in rat studies, but it’s not as effective. It’s a reasonable option in women with refractory genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) who have completed their 5-10 years of adjuvant therapy and have no history of venous thromboembolism.

Dr. Keyser said CO₂ laser therapy is still being studied for treating GSM, and current data have shown benefits for dyspareunia and vaginal dryness without documented harms. There have now been randomized, controlled trials; however, since it’s not FDA approved, it’s not covered by insurance and costs approximately $5,000 for three treatments.

Dr. Streicher was glad to see Dr. Keyser’s discussion of the safety and types of local vaginal estrogen, “although she neglected to mention the 4-mcg vaginal suppository, Imvexxy, which has the lowest systemic absorption,” Dr. Streicher said. Dr. Streicher also felt the inclusion of DHEA/prasterone and ospemifene were also important, especially since the latter is “underutilized in breast cancer patients.”

The information provided on CO₂ laser therapy, however, was problematic, Dr. Streicher said, given that long-term and randomized, controlled studies have now been published. Dr. Streicher also noted that two of the devices listed on the presentation slide, Thermiva and Voltiva, are radiofrequency, not laser devices.

Aside from these treatment options, the most consistent predictor of satisfying sexual experiences in women with breast cancer is the quality of their relationships, Dr. Keyser said, so couples counseling is recommended, and treatments in general are more effective with regularly sexual activity.

In discussing nonhormonal options for treating vasomotor symptoms, Dr. Keyser recommended venlafaxine, gabapentin, and low-dose paroxetine (though SSRIs and tamoxifen are contraindicated since they may reduce tamoxifen’s efficacy).

These are all off label, Dr. Streicher said it was important to note, and she would have liked to have seen a mention of the development of KNdy neurokinin disrupters along with a more in-depth discussion about which lifestyle modifications and botanicals have been shown in randomized, controlled trials to mitigate vasomotor symptoms.

Dr. Keyser wrapped up with a few additional notes and takeaways:

• The only safe reversible long-term option for contraception in HR-positive breast cancer survivors is the Paraguard IUD.
• It’s important to discuss fertility with breast cancer patients and survivors since a majority report unmet needs in this area.
• Patients taking tamoxifen need to be sure to report any vaginal spotting or bleeding since it increases risk of endometrial cancer in postmenopausal women.
• Screen for depression and anxiety.
• Ask women about sexual health and hot flashes.
• Ensure that they’re getting bone screening.
• A recommended resource is Living Beyond Breast Cancer.

Dr. Keyser had no disclosures. Dr. Streicher has consulted for Astellas Pharma and Church & Dwight, and she owns investments in InControl Medical and Sermonix Pharmaceuticals.

Sexual dysfunction is a common problem among breast cancer survivors, but it’s also an issue inadequately addressed by either ob.gyns. or hematologists and oncologists, according to Erin Keyser, MD, the program director of the San Antonio Uniformed Services Health Education Consortium. Dr. Keyser discussed management of sexual dysfunction and a variety of other issues frequently faced by women who have survived breast cancer at the at the 2021 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Despite the fact that no specialty is better qualified to render care for this consequence of cancer treatments, many obstetrician-gynecologists feel uncomfortable or ill-equipped to address sexual pain in women affected by cancer,” Dr. Keyser quoted from a 2016 article in Obstetrics & Gynecology about the sexual health of women affected by cancer. As a breast cancer survivor herself, Dr. Keyser said hematologists and oncologists are even less equipped to discuss sexual health, “so oftentimes patients get punted between their hem-onc and their gyn,” with each telling the patient to ask the other specialist.

“There’s plenty of data in chronic health disease that maintaining sexual function for women is an indicator of the overall quality of life and that many women really don’t want to bring this up,” Dr. Keyser told attendees, so the onus is on the ob.gyn. to bring it up.

The effects of breast cancer treatment can impact women’s body image, fertility, menopause, sexual function, osteoporosis, and cardiovascular disease, but the bulk of Dr. Keyser’s talk focused on sexual health and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO).

Lauren Streicher, MD, a clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Northwestern University, Chicago, thought Dr. Keyser’s talk was useful for the general gynecologist but had some concerns about a few parts.

“She gave a very thoughtful analysis of whether someone should have their ovaries removed or not in a breast cancer diagnosis, ” Dr. Streicher said in an interview. “I would have liked to hear more about the consequences of an early menopause in women in terms of heart health, bone health, and cognitive function.”

Dr. Keyser noted that her talk pertained mostly to survivors of estrogen receptor (ER)–positive breast cancer since that population tends to struggle most with side effects of treatment. The most common medications used in this population are tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors – such as anastrazole, letrozole, and exemestane – and these medications can affect management of different concerns.
 

Current guidance on ovarian removal

For women with a BRCA mutation, ACOG clinical guidance already exists regarding BSO. For other women, the complementary TEXT and SOFT trials changed the management of breast cancer treatment in premenopausal women, Dr. Keyser said.

Before these trials, postmenopausal hormone receptor–positive women began aromatase inhibitors and premenopausal HR-positive women began tamoxifen. These trials found that premenopausal women with HR-positive early breast cancer were less likely to experience recurrence when receiving adjuvant treatment with exemestane plus ovarian suppression compared to tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression. Ovarian suppression was achieved by either GnRH agonist injections, surgical removal of the ovaries, or radiation therapy to the ovaries.

The side effects of these treatments included hot flushes (92%), depression (87%), musculoskeletal symptoms (89%), vaginal dryness (52%), decreased libido (45%), dyspareunia (31%), osteoporosis (39%), insomnia (58%), and fatigue (61%). These are all quality of life concerns, Dr. Keyser said, and these findings raise questions about the consequences of long-term ovarian suppression. Findings from the Nurses’ Health Study showed that BSO before age 47.5 years resulted in lower mortality from ovarian cancer and breast cancer but was linked in women under 50 to increased all-cause mortality and mortality from coronary heart disease, lung cancer, and colorectal cancer, compared with ovarian conservation. Further, 74% of women who undergo risk-reducing BSO experience sexual dysfunction.

The bottom line, Dr. Keyser said, is that “premature removal of ovaries is not completely benign.” Her own recommendation is to follow ACOG guidance for women with BRCA mutations and, for women aged under 35 years, use ovarian suppression for 5-10 years, after which ovarian function may resume along with improved quality of life. In women aged over 40, remove ovaries since, after 5-10 years of treatment, there’s likely no benefit of retaining ovaries.
 

Addressing sexual health

Dyspareunia affects up to 45% of cancer survivors, Dr. Keyser said, and multiple treatment options exist for breast cancer survivors. The therapies she discussed included lubricants, moisturizers, local vaginal estrogen, DHEA, ospemifene, and CO₂ laser therapy.

Though Dr. Keyser briefly touched on vaginal lubricants and moisturizers, Dr. Streicher was disappointed that Dr. Keyser did not clearly define and differentiate between lubricants and moisturizers or mention hyaluronic acid products. Dr. Streicher also disagreed with the way Dr. Keyser represented the benefits of coconut oil as a lubricant. “Oils are not condom compatible and are known to potentially increase the risk of infection, and not just from poor handwashing,” Dr. Streicher said.

Small retrospective studies support the safety of topical vaginal estrogen in breast cancer survivors, Dr. Keyser said, and the 10-mcg Vagifem tablet and vaginal estradiol ring appear to have the lowest systemic absorption. ACOG guidance recommends that women taking aromatase inhibitors who don’t respond to nonhormonal approaches may benefit from switching temporarily to tamoxifen with vaginal estrogen and then returning to aromatase inhibitors. However, Dr. Keyser said there’s plenty of data to support using vaginal estrogen in patients taking aromatase inhibitors.

“I do feel that it’s safe for patients, whether they’re on tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors, to take vaginal estrogen,” Dr. Keyser said. “I usually stick with the estradiol vaginal ring or the estradiol tablet, and I base that on a patient’s comfort with placing and removing a ring.” She also, instead of asking the patient’s hematologist-oncologist, simply notifies them of the treatment since most hematologist-oncologists are less familiar with the data.

Another effective option is vaginal DHEA/prasterone, which can significantly improve sexual desire, arousal, pain, and overall sexual function. Although breast cancer patients were included in early studies on DHEA, Intrarosa manufacturers excluded breast cancer patients in their Food and Drug Administration application, resulting in a package stating that “use of exogenous estrogen is contraindicated in women with a known or suspected history of breast cancer” and that “Intrarosa has not been studied in women with a history of breast cancer.” While that’s true for Intrarosa specifically, DHEA has been studied in breast cancer patients, Dr. Keyser said, so she expects to see more research in this area.

Ospemifene is another option for improving vulvovaginal atrophy but cannot be taken at the same time as tamoxifen. It has similar chemopreventive effects as tamoxifen in rat studies, but it’s not as effective. It’s a reasonable option in women with refractory genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) who have completed their 5-10 years of adjuvant therapy and have no history of venous thromboembolism.

Dr. Keyser said CO₂ laser therapy is still being studied for treating GSM, and current data have shown benefits for dyspareunia and vaginal dryness without documented harms. There have now been randomized, controlled trials; however, since it’s not FDA approved, it’s not covered by insurance and costs approximately $5,000 for three treatments.

Dr. Streicher was glad to see Dr. Keyser’s discussion of the safety and types of local vaginal estrogen, “although she neglected to mention the 4-mcg vaginal suppository, Imvexxy, which has the lowest systemic absorption,” Dr. Streicher said. Dr. Streicher also felt the inclusion of DHEA/prasterone and ospemifene were also important, especially since the latter is “underutilized in breast cancer patients.”

The information provided on CO₂ laser therapy, however, was problematic, Dr. Streicher said, given that long-term and randomized, controlled studies have now been published. Dr. Streicher also noted that two of the devices listed on the presentation slide, Thermiva and Voltiva, are radiofrequency, not laser devices.

Aside from these treatment options, the most consistent predictor of satisfying sexual experiences in women with breast cancer is the quality of their relationships, Dr. Keyser said, so couples counseling is recommended, and treatments in general are more effective with regularly sexual activity.

In discussing nonhormonal options for treating vasomotor symptoms, Dr. Keyser recommended venlafaxine, gabapentin, and low-dose paroxetine (though SSRIs and tamoxifen are contraindicated since they may reduce tamoxifen’s efficacy).

These are all off label, Dr. Streicher said it was important to note, and she would have liked to have seen a mention of the development of KNdy neurokinin disrupters along with a more in-depth discussion about which lifestyle modifications and botanicals have been shown in randomized, controlled trials to mitigate vasomotor symptoms.

Dr. Keyser wrapped up with a few additional notes and takeaways:

• The only safe reversible long-term option for contraception in HR-positive breast cancer survivors is the Paraguard IUD.
• It’s important to discuss fertility with breast cancer patients and survivors since a majority report unmet needs in this area.
• Patients taking tamoxifen need to be sure to report any vaginal spotting or bleeding since it increases risk of endometrial cancer in postmenopausal women.
• Screen for depression and anxiety.
• Ask women about sexual health and hot flashes.
• Ensure that they’re getting bone screening.
• A recommended resource is Living Beyond Breast Cancer.

Dr. Keyser had no disclosures. Dr. Streicher has consulted for Astellas Pharma and Church & Dwight, and she owns investments in InControl Medical and Sermonix Pharmaceuticals.

Survivors of childhood cancers are at increased risk for prescription opioid misuse compared with their peers, a review of a claims database revealed.

Among more than 8,000 patients age 21 or younger who had completed treatment for hematologic, central nervous system, bone, or gonadal cancers, survivors were significantly more likely than were their peers to have an opioid prescription, longer duration of prescription, and higher daily doses of opioids, and to have opioid prescriptions overlapping for a week or more, reported Xu Ji, PhD, of Emory University in Atlanta.

Teenage and young adult patients were at higher risk than were patients younger than 12, and the risk was highest among patients who had been treated for bone malignancies, as well as those who had undergone any hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

“These findings suggest that health care providers who regularly see survivors should explore nonopioid options to help prevent opioid misuse, and screen for potential misuse in those who actually receive opioids,” she said in an oral abstract presented during the annual meeting of the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology.

“This is a really important topic, and something that’s probably been underinvestigated and underexplored in our patient population,” said session comoderator Sheri Spunt, MD, Endowed Professor of Pediatric Cancer at Stanford (Calif.) University.
 

Database review

Dr. Ji and colleagues used the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database from 2009 to 2018 to examine prescription opioid use, potential misuse, and substance use disorders in pediatric cancer survivors in the first year after completion of therapy, and to identify factors associated with risk for misuse or substance use disorders. Specifically, the period of interest was the first year after completion of all treatments, including surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, and stem cell transplant (Abstract 2015).

They looked at deidentified records on any opioid prescription and for treatment of any opioid use or substance use disorder (alcohol, psychotherapeutic drugs, marijuana, or illicit drug use disorders).

They defined indicators of potential misuse as either prescriptions for long-acting or extended-release opioids for acute pain conditions; opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions overlapping by a week or more; opioid prescriptions overlapping by a week or more; high daily opioid dosage (prescribed daily dose of 100 or greater morphine milligram equivalent [MME]; and/or opioid dose escalation (an increase of at least 50% in mean MMEs per month twice consecutively within 1 year).

They compared outcomes between a total of 8,635 survivors and 44,175 controls, matched on a 1:5 basis with survivors by age, sex, and region, and continuous enrollment during the 1-year posttherapy period.

In each of three age categories – 0 to 11 years, 12 to 17 years, and 18 years and older – survivors were significantly more likely to have received an opioid prescription, at 15% for the youngest survivors vs. 2% of controls, 25% vs. 8% for 12- to 17-year-olds, and 28% vs. 12% for those 18 and older (P < .01 for all three comparisons).

Survivors were also significantly more likely to have any indicator of potential misuse (1.6% vs. 0.1%, 4.6% vs. 0.5%, and 7.4% vs. 1.2%, respectively, P < .001 for all) and both the youngest and oldest groups (but not 12- to 17-year-olds) were significantly more like to have opioid or substance use disorder (0.4% vs. 0% for 0-11 years, 5.76% vs. 4.2% for 18 years and older, P < .001 for both).

Among patients with any opioid prescription, survivors were significantly more likely than were controls of any age to have indicators for potential misuse. For example, 13% of survivors aged 18 years and older had prescriptions for high opioid doses, compared with 5% of controls, and 12% had prescription overlap, vs. 2%.

Compared with patients with leukemia, patients treated for bone malignancies had a 6% greater risk for having any indicator of misuse, while patients with other malignancies were at slightly lower risk for misuse than those who completed leukemia therapy.

Patients who received any stem cell transplant had an 8.4% greater risk for misuse compared with patients who had surgery only.
 

Opioids pre- and posttreatment?

“Being someone who takes care of a lot of bone cancer patients, I do see patients with these issues,” Dr. Spunt said.

Audience member Jack H. Staddon, MD, PhD, of the Billings (Montana) Clinic, noted the possibility that opioid use during treatment may have been carried on into the posttreatment period, and asked whether use of narcotics during treatment was an independent risk factor for posttreatment narcotic use or misuse.

The researchers plan to investigate this question in future studies, Dr. Ji replied.

They did not report a study funding source. Dr. Ji and coauthors and Dr. Staddon reported no relevant disclosures.

Survivors of childhood cancers are at increased risk for prescription opioid misuse compared with their peers, a review of a claims database revealed.

Among more than 8,000 patients age 21 or younger who had completed treatment for hematologic, central nervous system, bone, or gonadal cancers, survivors were significantly more likely than were their peers to have an opioid prescription, longer duration of prescription, and higher daily doses of opioids, and to have opioid prescriptions overlapping for a week or more, reported Xu Ji, PhD, of Emory University in Atlanta.

Teenage and young adult patients were at higher risk than were patients younger than 12, and the risk was highest among patients who had been treated for bone malignancies, as well as those who had undergone any hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

“These findings suggest that health care providers who regularly see survivors should explore nonopioid options to help prevent opioid misuse, and screen for potential misuse in those who actually receive opioids,” she said in an oral abstract presented during the annual meeting of the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology.

“This is a really important topic, and something that’s probably been underinvestigated and underexplored in our patient population,” said session comoderator Sheri Spunt, MD, Endowed Professor of Pediatric Cancer at Stanford (Calif.) University.
 

Database review

Dr. Ji and colleagues used the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database from 2009 to 2018 to examine prescription opioid use, potential misuse, and substance use disorders in pediatric cancer survivors in the first year after completion of therapy, and to identify factors associated with risk for misuse or substance use disorders. Specifically, the period of interest was the first year after completion of all treatments, including surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, and stem cell transplant (Abstract 2015).

They looked at deidentified records on any opioid prescription and for treatment of any opioid use or substance use disorder (alcohol, psychotherapeutic drugs, marijuana, or illicit drug use disorders).

They defined indicators of potential misuse as either prescriptions for long-acting or extended-release opioids for acute pain conditions; opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions overlapping by a week or more; opioid prescriptions overlapping by a week or more; high daily opioid dosage (prescribed daily dose of 100 or greater morphine milligram equivalent [MME]; and/or opioid dose escalation (an increase of at least 50% in mean MMEs per month twice consecutively within 1 year).

They compared outcomes between a total of 8,635 survivors and 44,175 controls, matched on a 1:5 basis with survivors by age, sex, and region, and continuous enrollment during the 1-year posttherapy period.

In each of three age categories – 0 to 11 years, 12 to 17 years, and 18 years and older – survivors were significantly more likely to have received an opioid prescription, at 15% for the youngest survivors vs. 2% of controls, 25% vs. 8% for 12- to 17-year-olds, and 28% vs. 12% for those 18 and older (P < .01 for all three comparisons).

Survivors were also significantly more likely to have any indicator of potential misuse (1.6% vs. 0.1%, 4.6% vs. 0.5%, and 7.4% vs. 1.2%, respectively, P < .001 for all) and both the youngest and oldest groups (but not 12- to 17-year-olds) were significantly more like to have opioid or substance use disorder (0.4% vs. 0% for 0-11 years, 5.76% vs. 4.2% for 18 years and older, P < .001 for both).

Among patients with any opioid prescription, survivors were significantly more likely than were controls of any age to have indicators for potential misuse. For example, 13% of survivors aged 18 years and older had prescriptions for high opioid doses, compared with 5% of controls, and 12% had prescription overlap, vs. 2%.

Compared with patients with leukemia, patients treated for bone malignancies had a 6% greater risk for having any indicator of misuse, while patients with other malignancies were at slightly lower risk for misuse than those who completed leukemia therapy.

Patients who received any stem cell transplant had an 8.4% greater risk for misuse compared with patients who had surgery only.
 

Opioids pre- and posttreatment?

“Being someone who takes care of a lot of bone cancer patients, I do see patients with these issues,” Dr. Spunt said.

Audience member Jack H. Staddon, MD, PhD, of the Billings (Montana) Clinic, noted the possibility that opioid use during treatment may have been carried on into the posttreatment period, and asked whether use of narcotics during treatment was an independent risk factor for posttreatment narcotic use or misuse.

The researchers plan to investigate this question in future studies, Dr. Ji replied.

They did not report a study funding source. Dr. Ji and coauthors and Dr. Staddon reported no relevant disclosures.

Survivors of childhood cancers are at increased risk for prescription opioid misuse compared with their peers, a review of a claims database revealed.

Among more than 8,000 patients age 21 or younger who had completed treatment for hematologic, central nervous system, bone, or gonadal cancers, survivors were significantly more likely than were their peers to have an opioid prescription, longer duration of prescription, and higher daily doses of opioids, and to have opioid prescriptions overlapping for a week or more, reported Xu Ji, PhD, of Emory University in Atlanta.

Teenage and young adult patients were at higher risk than were patients younger than 12, and the risk was highest among patients who had been treated for bone malignancies, as well as those who had undergone any hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

“These findings suggest that health care providers who regularly see survivors should explore nonopioid options to help prevent opioid misuse, and screen for potential misuse in those who actually receive opioids,” she said in an oral abstract presented during the annual meeting of the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology.

“This is a really important topic, and something that’s probably been underinvestigated and underexplored in our patient population,” said session comoderator Sheri Spunt, MD, Endowed Professor of Pediatric Cancer at Stanford (Calif.) University.
 

Database review

Dr. Ji and colleagues used the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database from 2009 to 2018 to examine prescription opioid use, potential misuse, and substance use disorders in pediatric cancer survivors in the first year after completion of therapy, and to identify factors associated with risk for misuse or substance use disorders. Specifically, the period of interest was the first year after completion of all treatments, including surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, and stem cell transplant (Abstract 2015).

They looked at deidentified records on any opioid prescription and for treatment of any opioid use or substance use disorder (alcohol, psychotherapeutic drugs, marijuana, or illicit drug use disorders).

They defined indicators of potential misuse as either prescriptions for long-acting or extended-release opioids for acute pain conditions; opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions overlapping by a week or more; opioid prescriptions overlapping by a week or more; high daily opioid dosage (prescribed daily dose of 100 or greater morphine milligram equivalent [MME]; and/or opioid dose escalation (an increase of at least 50% in mean MMEs per month twice consecutively within 1 year).

They compared outcomes between a total of 8,635 survivors and 44,175 controls, matched on a 1:5 basis with survivors by age, sex, and region, and continuous enrollment during the 1-year posttherapy period.

In each of three age categories – 0 to 11 years, 12 to 17 years, and 18 years and older – survivors were significantly more likely to have received an opioid prescription, at 15% for the youngest survivors vs. 2% of controls, 25% vs. 8% for 12- to 17-year-olds, and 28% vs. 12% for those 18 and older (P < .01 for all three comparisons).

Survivors were also significantly more likely to have any indicator of potential misuse (1.6% vs. 0.1%, 4.6% vs. 0.5%, and 7.4% vs. 1.2%, respectively, P < .001 for all) and both the youngest and oldest groups (but not 12- to 17-year-olds) were significantly more like to have opioid or substance use disorder (0.4% vs. 0% for 0-11 years, 5.76% vs. 4.2% for 18 years and older, P < .001 for both).

Among patients with any opioid prescription, survivors were significantly more likely than were controls of any age to have indicators for potential misuse. For example, 13% of survivors aged 18 years and older had prescriptions for high opioid doses, compared with 5% of controls, and 12% had prescription overlap, vs. 2%.

Compared with patients with leukemia, patients treated for bone malignancies had a 6% greater risk for having any indicator of misuse, while patients with other malignancies were at slightly lower risk for misuse than those who completed leukemia therapy.

Patients who received any stem cell transplant had an 8.4% greater risk for misuse compared with patients who had surgery only.
 

Opioids pre- and posttreatment?

“Being someone who takes care of a lot of bone cancer patients, I do see patients with these issues,” Dr. Spunt said.

Audience member Jack H. Staddon, MD, PhD, of the Billings (Montana) Clinic, noted the possibility that opioid use during treatment may have been carried on into the posttreatment period, and asked whether use of narcotics during treatment was an independent risk factor for posttreatment narcotic use or misuse.

The researchers plan to investigate this question in future studies, Dr. Ji replied.

They did not report a study funding source. Dr. Ji and coauthors and Dr. Staddon reported no relevant disclosures.

A novel program that coaches healthcare workers effectively bolsters wellness and resilience in the face of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Investigators found the program they developed successfully reduced the severity of mental health threats in healthcare workers.

The pandemic has been “an enormous threat to the resilience of healthcare workers,” said program leader Benjamin Rosen, MD, assistant professor, department of psychiatry, University of Toronto, and staff psychiatrist at Sinai Health in Toronto.

“Working at a hospital this year, you’re not only worried about battling COVID, but you’re also enduring uncertainty and fear and moral distress, which has contributed to unprecedented levels of burnout,” Dr. Rosen added.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, held virtually this year.
 

‘Psychological PPE’

Building on previous experience supporting colleagues through the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak in Toronto, Dr. Rosen’s team designed and implemented an initiative to support colleagues’ wellness and resilience early in the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Resilience Coaching for Healthcare Workers program is designed to support psychological well-being during times of chronic stress and help healthcare workers “keep their heads in the game so that they can sustain the focus and the rigor that they need to do their work,” Dr. Rosen said during a press briefing.

Participating coaches are mental health clinicians with training in psychological first aid, resilience, and psychotherapy to provide peer support to units and teams working on the front line. The program provides a kind of “psychological PPE” to complement other protective measures, Dr. Rosen explained.

There are currently 15 coaches working with 17 units and clinical teams at Sinai Health, which encompasses Mount Sinai Hospital and Bridgepoint Active Health, both in Toronto. Most coaches provide support to groups of up to 15 people either virtually or in person. More than 5,300 staff members have received coaching support since the program’s launch in April 2020.  

Mary Preisman, MD, consultation liaison psychiatrist at Mount Sinai Hospital, who is involved with the program, said it’s important to note that coaches are not in clinical relationships with healthcare providers, but rather are applying diverse psychotherapeutic tools to deliver collegial support. When clinical support is requested, coaches facilitate connection with other psychiatrists.
 

‘An excellent model’

Preliminary analysis of qualitative data, which includes interviews with coaches and providers, suggests that coaching is successful in mitigating the severity of mental health threats that healthcare workers face.

“The feedback so far is that coaching has really helped to strengthen team cohesiveness and resilience, which has been really encouraging for us,” Dr. Rosen said.

For example, some participants said the coaching improved relationships with their colleagues, decreased loneliness, and increased the sense of support from their employer.

Others commented on the value of regularly scheduled coaching “huddles” that are embedded within the work environment.

Dr. Rosen said the program is funded by academic grants through the end of next year, which is key given that Toronto is currently in the middle of a third wave of the pandemic.

“One of the things that we learned from previous pandemics is that the psychological impact on healthcare workers usually exceeds the infectious outbreak. There have been studies that show, even years after a pandemic or an epidemic has ended, the psychological consequences of anxiety and distress persist,” Dr. Rosen said.

Briefing moderator Jeffrey Borenstein, MD, president and CEO, Brain & Behavior Research Foundation and editor-in-chief, Psychiatric News, said the Toronto team has developed “an excellent model that could be used around the world to support the well-being of healthcare workers who are on the front lines of a pandemic.”

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Rosen, Dr. Preisman, and Dr. Borenstein have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A novel program that coaches healthcare workers effectively bolsters wellness and resilience in the face of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Investigators found the program they developed successfully reduced the severity of mental health threats in healthcare workers.

The pandemic has been “an enormous threat to the resilience of healthcare workers,” said program leader Benjamin Rosen, MD, assistant professor, department of psychiatry, University of Toronto, and staff psychiatrist at Sinai Health in Toronto.

“Working at a hospital this year, you’re not only worried about battling COVID, but you’re also enduring uncertainty and fear and moral distress, which has contributed to unprecedented levels of burnout,” Dr. Rosen added.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, held virtually this year.
 

‘Psychological PPE’

Building on previous experience supporting colleagues through the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak in Toronto, Dr. Rosen’s team designed and implemented an initiative to support colleagues’ wellness and resilience early in the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Resilience Coaching for Healthcare Workers program is designed to support psychological well-being during times of chronic stress and help healthcare workers “keep their heads in the game so that they can sustain the focus and the rigor that they need to do their work,” Dr. Rosen said during a press briefing.

Participating coaches are mental health clinicians with training in psychological first aid, resilience, and psychotherapy to provide peer support to units and teams working on the front line. The program provides a kind of “psychological PPE” to complement other protective measures, Dr. Rosen explained.

There are currently 15 coaches working with 17 units and clinical teams at Sinai Health, which encompasses Mount Sinai Hospital and Bridgepoint Active Health, both in Toronto. Most coaches provide support to groups of up to 15 people either virtually or in person. More than 5,300 staff members have received coaching support since the program’s launch in April 2020.  

Mary Preisman, MD, consultation liaison psychiatrist at Mount Sinai Hospital, who is involved with the program, said it’s important to note that coaches are not in clinical relationships with healthcare providers, but rather are applying diverse psychotherapeutic tools to deliver collegial support. When clinical support is requested, coaches facilitate connection with other psychiatrists.
 

‘An excellent model’

Preliminary analysis of qualitative data, which includes interviews with coaches and providers, suggests that coaching is successful in mitigating the severity of mental health threats that healthcare workers face.

“The feedback so far is that coaching has really helped to strengthen team cohesiveness and resilience, which has been really encouraging for us,” Dr. Rosen said.

For example, some participants said the coaching improved relationships with their colleagues, decreased loneliness, and increased the sense of support from their employer.

Others commented on the value of regularly scheduled coaching “huddles” that are embedded within the work environment.

Dr. Rosen said the program is funded by academic grants through the end of next year, which is key given that Toronto is currently in the middle of a third wave of the pandemic.

“One of the things that we learned from previous pandemics is that the psychological impact on healthcare workers usually exceeds the infectious outbreak. There have been studies that show, even years after a pandemic or an epidemic has ended, the psychological consequences of anxiety and distress persist,” Dr. Rosen said.

Briefing moderator Jeffrey Borenstein, MD, president and CEO, Brain & Behavior Research Foundation and editor-in-chief, Psychiatric News, said the Toronto team has developed “an excellent model that could be used around the world to support the well-being of healthcare workers who are on the front lines of a pandemic.”

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Rosen, Dr. Preisman, and Dr. Borenstein have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A novel program that coaches healthcare workers effectively bolsters wellness and resilience in the face of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Investigators found the program they developed successfully reduced the severity of mental health threats in healthcare workers.

The pandemic has been “an enormous threat to the resilience of healthcare workers,” said program leader Benjamin Rosen, MD, assistant professor, department of psychiatry, University of Toronto, and staff psychiatrist at Sinai Health in Toronto.

“Working at a hospital this year, you’re not only worried about battling COVID, but you’re also enduring uncertainty and fear and moral distress, which has contributed to unprecedented levels of burnout,” Dr. Rosen added.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, held virtually this year.
 

‘Psychological PPE’

Building on previous experience supporting colleagues through the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak in Toronto, Dr. Rosen’s team designed and implemented an initiative to support colleagues’ wellness and resilience early in the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Resilience Coaching for Healthcare Workers program is designed to support psychological well-being during times of chronic stress and help healthcare workers “keep their heads in the game so that they can sustain the focus and the rigor that they need to do their work,” Dr. Rosen said during a press briefing.

Participating coaches are mental health clinicians with training in psychological first aid, resilience, and psychotherapy to provide peer support to units and teams working on the front line. The program provides a kind of “psychological PPE” to complement other protective measures, Dr. Rosen explained.

There are currently 15 coaches working with 17 units and clinical teams at Sinai Health, which encompasses Mount Sinai Hospital and Bridgepoint Active Health, both in Toronto. Most coaches provide support to groups of up to 15 people either virtually or in person. More than 5,300 staff members have received coaching support since the program’s launch in April 2020.  

Mary Preisman, MD, consultation liaison psychiatrist at Mount Sinai Hospital, who is involved with the program, said it’s important to note that coaches are not in clinical relationships with healthcare providers, but rather are applying diverse psychotherapeutic tools to deliver collegial support. When clinical support is requested, coaches facilitate connection with other psychiatrists.
 

‘An excellent model’

Preliminary analysis of qualitative data, which includes interviews with coaches and providers, suggests that coaching is successful in mitigating the severity of mental health threats that healthcare workers face.

“The feedback so far is that coaching has really helped to strengthen team cohesiveness and resilience, which has been really encouraging for us,” Dr. Rosen said.

For example, some participants said the coaching improved relationships with their colleagues, decreased loneliness, and increased the sense of support from their employer.

Others commented on the value of regularly scheduled coaching “huddles” that are embedded within the work environment.

Dr. Rosen said the program is funded by academic grants through the end of next year, which is key given that Toronto is currently in the middle of a third wave of the pandemic.

“One of the things that we learned from previous pandemics is that the psychological impact on healthcare workers usually exceeds the infectious outbreak. There have been studies that show, even years after a pandemic or an epidemic has ended, the psychological consequences of anxiety and distress persist,” Dr. Rosen said.

Briefing moderator Jeffrey Borenstein, MD, president and CEO, Brain & Behavior Research Foundation and editor-in-chief, Psychiatric News, said the Toronto team has developed “an excellent model that could be used around the world to support the well-being of healthcare workers who are on the front lines of a pandemic.”

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Rosen, Dr. Preisman, and Dr. Borenstein have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Working to mitigate racial and gender inequity in hospital medicine may seem like a daunting task, but every physician can play a role in turning the tide toward equity, according to Jorge Ganem, MD, FAAP.

“Talking about bias, racism, sexism, gender inequity, and health disparities is difficult,” Dr. Ganem, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Texas at Austin and director of pediatric hospital medicine at Dell Children’s Medical Center in Austin, said May 5 at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine. “There certainly comes a heavy weight and responsibility that we all feel. But I believe that we should approach gender inequities and racial disparities through a quality and patient safety lens, and looking through that lens.”

Dr. Ganem – along with Vanessa Durand, DO, FAAP, of St. Christopher’s Hospital for Children in Philadelphia, and Yemisi O. Jones, MD, FAAP, FHM, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital – devised the concept of “functional allyship” as one way to improve representation in hospital medicine. The approach consists of three categories: listeners, amplifiers, and champions. Listeners are “those who take the time to listen and give space to the voices who are oppressed and disadvantaged,” Dr. Ganem said. “Action may not always be possible, but the space gives those who are marginalized validation to the feelings that the oppression produces.”

He described amplifiers as those who use their position of privilege to spread the message by educating their colleagues and other peers. “This includes elevating those from marginalized communities to speak on their own behalf and giving them the spotlight, given their expertise,” he said.

Champions are those who actively work to dismantle the oppression within systems. Dr. Ganem cited organizations such as ADVANCE PHM, FEMinEM and HeForShe as examples of national and global efforts, “but this also includes those working in committees that are addressing diversity and inclusion in their workplace and coming up with policies and procedures to increase equity,” he said.

Finding opportunities to practice mentorship and sponsorship are also important. “Positive mentorship relationships are key in avoiding burnout and decreasing attrition,” he said. “The development of successful mentorship programs are a must in order to retain women physicians and ‘underrepresented in medicine’ physicians in your organization.” He described a “sponsor” as someone who is in a position of influence and power who actively supports the career of a “protégé” whom they have identified as having high potential. “The sponsor may advance a protégé’s career by nominating them for leadership opportunities and introducing them into career networks,” he said.

Dr. Durand discussed additional ways to improve disparities of gender, race, and ethnicity. “It can all start with measuring the data,” said Dr. Durand, also an assistant professor of pediatrics at Drexel University, Philadelphia. “This means looking at gender and race and ethnicity data by unit or section at your institution, as well as leadership positions.” In 2017, authors led by Hilary Sanfey, MBBBCh, MHPE, FACS, published an article addressing strategies to identify and close the gender salary gap in surgery (J Am Coll Surg. 2017;225[2]:333-8). Their recommendations included changing policies, transparency, oversight of metrics, promoting women to senior leadership positions, and evaluating the organizational culture. “It goes back to culture, because it leads to accountability,” Dr. Durand said. “Behavior change comes with accountability.”

Part of holding people accountable within a culture change includes addressing microaggressions, or indirect expressions of prejudice. In 2016, authors led by Floyd Cheung, PhD., established a framework using the acronym A.C.T.I.O.N., which identifies a microaggression without being aggressive or evoking defensiveness towards the person communicating the microaggression. A.C.T.I.O.N. stands for Ask clarifying questions; Come from curiosity, not judgment; Tell what you observed in a factual manner; Impact exploration – discuss what the impact was; Own your own thoughts and feelings around the situation; and discuss Next steps.

“Granted, this might take a little time, but when we state microaggressions, most of us don’t realize that those statements could be hurtful or uncomfortable for the person receiving them,” Dr. Durand said.

Another strategy to address disparities involves partially blinding the interview process for trainees. “You can do this by not giving any ‘cognitive information’ to your interviewers – such as United States Medical Licensing Examination Step scores – that may anchor their position prior to the interview taking place,” she explained. “You can also standardize one or two questions that all interviewees have to answer, to have a more objective way to compare answers horizontally rather than vertically.”

This complements the notion of the Association of American Medical Colleges’ “holistic review,” a principle that it describes as allowing admissions committees “to consider the ‘whole’ applicant, rather than disproportionately focusing on any one factor.”

“The overall concept is to evaluate what are criteria of the position you are hiring for,” Dr. Durand said. “Different criteria will have different levels of importance. You would take into consideration the values of the group or the institution and make sure those criteria are most important for selection, at the forefront.”

Dr. Ganem and Dr. Durand reported having no financial disclosures.

Working to mitigate racial and gender inequity in hospital medicine may seem like a daunting task, but every physician can play a role in turning the tide toward equity, according to Jorge Ganem, MD, FAAP.

“Talking about bias, racism, sexism, gender inequity, and health disparities is difficult,” Dr. Ganem, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Texas at Austin and director of pediatric hospital medicine at Dell Children’s Medical Center in Austin, said May 5 at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine. “There certainly comes a heavy weight and responsibility that we all feel. But I believe that we should approach gender inequities and racial disparities through a quality and patient safety lens, and looking through that lens.”

Dr. Ganem – along with Vanessa Durand, DO, FAAP, of St. Christopher’s Hospital for Children in Philadelphia, and Yemisi O. Jones, MD, FAAP, FHM, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital – devised the concept of “functional allyship” as one way to improve representation in hospital medicine. The approach consists of three categories: listeners, amplifiers, and champions. Listeners are “those who take the time to listen and give space to the voices who are oppressed and disadvantaged,” Dr. Ganem said. “Action may not always be possible, but the space gives those who are marginalized validation to the feelings that the oppression produces.”

He described amplifiers as those who use their position of privilege to spread the message by educating their colleagues and other peers. “This includes elevating those from marginalized communities to speak on their own behalf and giving them the spotlight, given their expertise,” he said.

Champions are those who actively work to dismantle the oppression within systems. Dr. Ganem cited organizations such as ADVANCE PHM, FEMinEM and HeForShe as examples of national and global efforts, “but this also includes those working in committees that are addressing diversity and inclusion in their workplace and coming up with policies and procedures to increase equity,” he said.

Finding opportunities to practice mentorship and sponsorship are also important. “Positive mentorship relationships are key in avoiding burnout and decreasing attrition,” he said. “The development of successful mentorship programs are a must in order to retain women physicians and ‘underrepresented in medicine’ physicians in your organization.” He described a “sponsor” as someone who is in a position of influence and power who actively supports the career of a “protégé” whom they have identified as having high potential. “The sponsor may advance a protégé’s career by nominating them for leadership opportunities and introducing them into career networks,” he said.

Dr. Durand discussed additional ways to improve disparities of gender, race, and ethnicity. “It can all start with measuring the data,” said Dr. Durand, also an assistant professor of pediatrics at Drexel University, Philadelphia. “This means looking at gender and race and ethnicity data by unit or section at your institution, as well as leadership positions.” In 2017, authors led by Hilary Sanfey, MBBBCh, MHPE, FACS, published an article addressing strategies to identify and close the gender salary gap in surgery (J Am Coll Surg. 2017;225[2]:333-8). Their recommendations included changing policies, transparency, oversight of metrics, promoting women to senior leadership positions, and evaluating the organizational culture. “It goes back to culture, because it leads to accountability,” Dr. Durand said. “Behavior change comes with accountability.”

Part of holding people accountable within a culture change includes addressing microaggressions, or indirect expressions of prejudice. In 2016, authors led by Floyd Cheung, PhD., established a framework using the acronym A.C.T.I.O.N., which identifies a microaggression without being aggressive or evoking defensiveness towards the person communicating the microaggression. A.C.T.I.O.N. stands for Ask clarifying questions; Come from curiosity, not judgment; Tell what you observed in a factual manner; Impact exploration – discuss what the impact was; Own your own thoughts and feelings around the situation; and discuss Next steps.

“Granted, this might take a little time, but when we state microaggressions, most of us don’t realize that those statements could be hurtful or uncomfortable for the person receiving them,” Dr. Durand said.

Another strategy to address disparities involves partially blinding the interview process for trainees. “You can do this by not giving any ‘cognitive information’ to your interviewers – such as United States Medical Licensing Examination Step scores – that may anchor their position prior to the interview taking place,” she explained. “You can also standardize one or two questions that all interviewees have to answer, to have a more objective way to compare answers horizontally rather than vertically.”

This complements the notion of the Association of American Medical Colleges’ “holistic review,” a principle that it describes as allowing admissions committees “to consider the ‘whole’ applicant, rather than disproportionately focusing on any one factor.”

“The overall concept is to evaluate what are criteria of the position you are hiring for,” Dr. Durand said. “Different criteria will have different levels of importance. You would take into consideration the values of the group or the institution and make sure those criteria are most important for selection, at the forefront.”

Dr. Ganem and Dr. Durand reported having no financial disclosures.

Working to mitigate racial and gender inequity in hospital medicine may seem like a daunting task, but every physician can play a role in turning the tide toward equity, according to Jorge Ganem, MD, FAAP.

“Talking about bias, racism, sexism, gender inequity, and health disparities is difficult,” Dr. Ganem, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Texas at Austin and director of pediatric hospital medicine at Dell Children’s Medical Center in Austin, said May 5 at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine. “There certainly comes a heavy weight and responsibility that we all feel. But I believe that we should approach gender inequities and racial disparities through a quality and patient safety lens, and looking through that lens.”

Dr. Ganem – along with Vanessa Durand, DO, FAAP, of St. Christopher’s Hospital for Children in Philadelphia, and Yemisi O. Jones, MD, FAAP, FHM, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital – devised the concept of “functional allyship” as one way to improve representation in hospital medicine. The approach consists of three categories: listeners, amplifiers, and champions. Listeners are “those who take the time to listen and give space to the voices who are oppressed and disadvantaged,” Dr. Ganem said. “Action may not always be possible, but the space gives those who are marginalized validation to the feelings that the oppression produces.”

He described amplifiers as those who use their position of privilege to spread the message by educating their colleagues and other peers. “This includes elevating those from marginalized communities to speak on their own behalf and giving them the spotlight, given their expertise,” he said.

Champions are those who actively work to dismantle the oppression within systems. Dr. Ganem cited organizations such as ADVANCE PHM, FEMinEM and HeForShe as examples of national and global efforts, “but this also includes those working in committees that are addressing diversity and inclusion in their workplace and coming up with policies and procedures to increase equity,” he said.

Finding opportunities to practice mentorship and sponsorship are also important. “Positive mentorship relationships are key in avoiding burnout and decreasing attrition,” he said. “The development of successful mentorship programs are a must in order to retain women physicians and ‘underrepresented in medicine’ physicians in your organization.” He described a “sponsor” as someone who is in a position of influence and power who actively supports the career of a “protégé” whom they have identified as having high potential. “The sponsor may advance a protégé’s career by nominating them for leadership opportunities and introducing them into career networks,” he said.

Dr. Durand discussed additional ways to improve disparities of gender, race, and ethnicity. “It can all start with measuring the data,” said Dr. Durand, also an assistant professor of pediatrics at Drexel University, Philadelphia. “This means looking at gender and race and ethnicity data by unit or section at your institution, as well as leadership positions.” In 2017, authors led by Hilary Sanfey, MBBBCh, MHPE, FACS, published an article addressing strategies to identify and close the gender salary gap in surgery (J Am Coll Surg. 2017;225[2]:333-8). Their recommendations included changing policies, transparency, oversight of metrics, promoting women to senior leadership positions, and evaluating the organizational culture. “It goes back to culture, because it leads to accountability,” Dr. Durand said. “Behavior change comes with accountability.”

Part of holding people accountable within a culture change includes addressing microaggressions, or indirect expressions of prejudice. In 2016, authors led by Floyd Cheung, PhD., established a framework using the acronym A.C.T.I.O.N., which identifies a microaggression without being aggressive or evoking defensiveness towards the person communicating the microaggression. A.C.T.I.O.N. stands for Ask clarifying questions; Come from curiosity, not judgment; Tell what you observed in a factual manner; Impact exploration – discuss what the impact was; Own your own thoughts and feelings around the situation; and discuss Next steps.

“Granted, this might take a little time, but when we state microaggressions, most of us don’t realize that those statements could be hurtful or uncomfortable for the person receiving them,” Dr. Durand said.

Another strategy to address disparities involves partially blinding the interview process for trainees. “You can do this by not giving any ‘cognitive information’ to your interviewers – such as United States Medical Licensing Examination Step scores – that may anchor their position prior to the interview taking place,” she explained. “You can also standardize one or two questions that all interviewees have to answer, to have a more objective way to compare answers horizontally rather than vertically.”

This complements the notion of the Association of American Medical Colleges’ “holistic review,” a principle that it describes as allowing admissions committees “to consider the ‘whole’ applicant, rather than disproportionately focusing on any one factor.”

“The overall concept is to evaluate what are criteria of the position you are hiring for,” Dr. Durand said. “Different criteria will have different levels of importance. You would take into consideration the values of the group or the institution and make sure those criteria are most important for selection, at the forefront.”

Dr. Ganem and Dr. Durand reported having no financial disclosures.

When starting a new loop diuretic for a patient with heart failure, strongly consider torsemide over furosemide, Anthony C. Breu, MD, advised at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

“Whether or not you take a patient who’s already on furosemide and you make the switch to torsemide is a little bit tougher for me to advocate, though that has happened in clinical trials,” said Dr. Breu, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who spoke May 5 at the Converge session “Things We Do for No Reason.” He co-presented the session with Leonard Feldman, MD, SFHM, director of the Osler Medical Residency Urban Health Track and associate professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

“If you consider doing this it would make sense to do so concert with the outpatient primary doctor and the outpatient cardiologist,” Dr. Breu said. “But in my review of the literature, it’s at least worth having these discussions, particularly for a patient who has multiple readmissions for heart failure. That may be a time to pause and ask: ‘Could torsemide be of benefit here?’ ”

In Dr. Breu’s opinion, there are at least three reasons why consider torsemide should be considered a first-line treatment for heart failure. For one thing, the current evidence says so. In a trial published in 2001, researchers randomized 234 patients with heart failure to receive torsemide or furosemide for 1 year. The percentage of patients who had one or more hospital readmissions was lower among those who received torsemide, compared with those who received furosemide in the torsemide group for heart failure (17% vs. 32%, respectively; P < .01) and for other cardiovascular causes (44% vs. 59%; P = .03). In addition, the number of total admissions was numerically lower for patients in the torsemide group, compared with the furosemide group for heart failure (23 vs. 61; P < .01) and for cardiovascular causes (78 vs. 130; P = .02).

In a separate study, researchers conducted an open-label trial of 237 patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-IV heart failure who were randomized to torsemide or furosemide. They found that a significantly higher percentage of patients in the torsemide group improved by one or more NYHA heart failure class, compared with those in the furosemide group (40%; P = .001 vs. 31%; P = .3). Moreover, patients treated with furosemide had more restrictions of daily life at 9 months, compared with those treated with torsemide (P < .001).

A separate, open-label, nonrandomized, postmarketing surveillance trial also found benefits of torsemide over furosemide or other agents used for patients with NYHA class III and IV heart failure. Patients treated with torsemide had a lower total mortality, compared with those treated with furosemide or other agents (2.2% vs. 4.5%, respectively; P < .05) as well as a lower cardiac mortality (1.4% vs. 3.5%; P < .05). They were also more likely to improve by one or more heart failure class (46% vs. 37%; P < .01) and less likely to have potassium levels less than 3.5 mEq/L or greater than 5.0 mEq/L (13% vs. 18%; P = .01).

According to Dr. Breu, meta-analyses of this topic consistently show that the NYHA class improved more with torsemide than with furosemide. “Some meta-analyses find a mortality benefit, while others find a readmissions benefit,” he said. “None of them show a benefit of furosemide over torsemide.”

A second reason to use torsemide as a first-line treatment for heart failure is that it has superior pharmacokinetics/dynamics, compared with furosemide. “We’ve all heard that furosemide has variable bioavailability,” said Dr. Breu, who also deputy editor of the Journal of Hospital Medicine’s “Things We Do For No Reason” article series. “Torsemide and bumetanide are much more reliably absorbed, partially because they are not affected by food, whereas furosemide is. That could be potentially problematic for patients who take their diuretic with meals. The fact that torsemide has less renal clearance is a benefit, because patients with heart failure have changing renal function.” In addition, the half-life of torsemide is 3-4 hours and the duration of action is 12 hours, “which are both longer than those for furosemide or bumetanide,” he added.

He also pointed out that torsemide has been shown to block the aldosterone receptor in vitro and in rat models – an effect that has not been observed with other loop diuretics. A randomized trial of patients with chronic heart failure found that levels of renin and aldosterone increased more with torsemide, compared with furosemide, supporting the hypothesis of aldosterone receptor blockade.

A third main reason to use torsemide as your go-to for heart failure has to do with its purported antifibrotic effects, “so that it could be more than a diuretic,” Dr. Breu said. “In heart failure, myocardial fibrosis occurs from increased collagen synthesis and turnover. Aldosterone has been shown to play a role in this myocardial fibrosis. Spironolactone has been shown to mitigate this to some extent. If torsemide acts a little like spironolactone, maybe that could explain some of the long-term effects that we see in these studies.”

A study supporting this notion found that torsemide but not furosemide reduced levels of serum carboxyl-terminal peptide of procollagen type I, which is associated with exaggerated myocardial deposition of collagen type I fibers in cardiac diseases.

Going forward, a study known as TRANSFORM-HF, which is currently recruiting about 6,000 patients, should bring more clarity to the topic. The primary objective is to compare the treatment strategy of torsemide versus furosemide on clinical outcomes over 12 months in patients with heart failure who are hospitalized. The estimated completion is mid-2022.

Dr. Breu and Dr. Feldman reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

When starting a new loop diuretic for a patient with heart failure, strongly consider torsemide over furosemide, Anthony C. Breu, MD, advised at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

“Whether or not you take a patient who’s already on furosemide and you make the switch to torsemide is a little bit tougher for me to advocate, though that has happened in clinical trials,” said Dr. Breu, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who spoke May 5 at the Converge session “Things We Do for No Reason.” He co-presented the session with Leonard Feldman, MD, SFHM, director of the Osler Medical Residency Urban Health Track and associate professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

“If you consider doing this it would make sense to do so concert with the outpatient primary doctor and the outpatient cardiologist,” Dr. Breu said. “But in my review of the literature, it’s at least worth having these discussions, particularly for a patient who has multiple readmissions for heart failure. That may be a time to pause and ask: ‘Could torsemide be of benefit here?’ ”

In Dr. Breu’s opinion, there are at least three reasons why consider torsemide should be considered a first-line treatment for heart failure. For one thing, the current evidence says so. In a trial published in 2001, researchers randomized 234 patients with heart failure to receive torsemide or furosemide for 1 year. The percentage of patients who had one or more hospital readmissions was lower among those who received torsemide, compared with those who received furosemide in the torsemide group for heart failure (17% vs. 32%, respectively; P < .01) and for other cardiovascular causes (44% vs. 59%; P = .03). In addition, the number of total admissions was numerically lower for patients in the torsemide group, compared with the furosemide group for heart failure (23 vs. 61; P < .01) and for cardiovascular causes (78 vs. 130; P = .02).

In a separate study, researchers conducted an open-label trial of 237 patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-IV heart failure who were randomized to torsemide or furosemide. They found that a significantly higher percentage of patients in the torsemide group improved by one or more NYHA heart failure class, compared with those in the furosemide group (40%; P = .001 vs. 31%; P = .3). Moreover, patients treated with furosemide had more restrictions of daily life at 9 months, compared with those treated with torsemide (P < .001).

A separate, open-label, nonrandomized, postmarketing surveillance trial also found benefits of torsemide over furosemide or other agents used for patients with NYHA class III and IV heart failure. Patients treated with torsemide had a lower total mortality, compared with those treated with furosemide or other agents (2.2% vs. 4.5%, respectively; P < .05) as well as a lower cardiac mortality (1.4% vs. 3.5%; P < .05). They were also more likely to improve by one or more heart failure class (46% vs. 37%; P < .01) and less likely to have potassium levels less than 3.5 mEq/L or greater than 5.0 mEq/L (13% vs. 18%; P = .01).

According to Dr. Breu, meta-analyses of this topic consistently show that the NYHA class improved more with torsemide than with furosemide. “Some meta-analyses find a mortality benefit, while others find a readmissions benefit,” he said. “None of them show a benefit of furosemide over torsemide.”

A second reason to use torsemide as a first-line treatment for heart failure is that it has superior pharmacokinetics/dynamics, compared with furosemide. “We’ve all heard that furosemide has variable bioavailability,” said Dr. Breu, who also deputy editor of the Journal of Hospital Medicine’s “Things We Do For No Reason” article series. “Torsemide and bumetanide are much more reliably absorbed, partially because they are not affected by food, whereas furosemide is. That could be potentially problematic for patients who take their diuretic with meals. The fact that torsemide has less renal clearance is a benefit, because patients with heart failure have changing renal function.” In addition, the half-life of torsemide is 3-4 hours and the duration of action is 12 hours, “which are both longer than those for furosemide or bumetanide,” he added.

He also pointed out that torsemide has been shown to block the aldosterone receptor in vitro and in rat models – an effect that has not been observed with other loop diuretics. A randomized trial of patients with chronic heart failure found that levels of renin and aldosterone increased more with torsemide, compared with furosemide, supporting the hypothesis of aldosterone receptor blockade.

A third main reason to use torsemide as your go-to for heart failure has to do with its purported antifibrotic effects, “so that it could be more than a diuretic,” Dr. Breu said. “In heart failure, myocardial fibrosis occurs from increased collagen synthesis and turnover. Aldosterone has been shown to play a role in this myocardial fibrosis. Spironolactone has been shown to mitigate this to some extent. If torsemide acts a little like spironolactone, maybe that could explain some of the long-term effects that we see in these studies.”

A study supporting this notion found that torsemide but not furosemide reduced levels of serum carboxyl-terminal peptide of procollagen type I, which is associated with exaggerated myocardial deposition of collagen type I fibers in cardiac diseases.

Going forward, a study known as TRANSFORM-HF, which is currently recruiting about 6,000 patients, should bring more clarity to the topic. The primary objective is to compare the treatment strategy of torsemide versus furosemide on clinical outcomes over 12 months in patients with heart failure who are hospitalized. The estimated completion is mid-2022.

Dr. Breu and Dr. Feldman reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

When starting a new loop diuretic for a patient with heart failure, strongly consider torsemide over furosemide, Anthony C. Breu, MD, advised at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

“Whether or not you take a patient who’s already on furosemide and you make the switch to torsemide is a little bit tougher for me to advocate, though that has happened in clinical trials,” said Dr. Breu, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who spoke May 5 at the Converge session “Things We Do for No Reason.” He co-presented the session with Leonard Feldman, MD, SFHM, director of the Osler Medical Residency Urban Health Track and associate professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

“If you consider doing this it would make sense to do so concert with the outpatient primary doctor and the outpatient cardiologist,” Dr. Breu said. “But in my review of the literature, it’s at least worth having these discussions, particularly for a patient who has multiple readmissions for heart failure. That may be a time to pause and ask: ‘Could torsemide be of benefit here?’ ”

In Dr. Breu’s opinion, there are at least three reasons why consider torsemide should be considered a first-line treatment for heart failure. For one thing, the current evidence says so. In a trial published in 2001, researchers randomized 234 patients with heart failure to receive torsemide or furosemide for 1 year. The percentage of patients who had one or more hospital readmissions was lower among those who received torsemide, compared with those who received furosemide in the torsemide group for heart failure (17% vs. 32%, respectively; P < .01) and for other cardiovascular causes (44% vs. 59%; P = .03). In addition, the number of total admissions was numerically lower for patients in the torsemide group, compared with the furosemide group for heart failure (23 vs. 61; P < .01) and for cardiovascular causes (78 vs. 130; P = .02).

In a separate study, researchers conducted an open-label trial of 237 patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-IV heart failure who were randomized to torsemide or furosemide. They found that a significantly higher percentage of patients in the torsemide group improved by one or more NYHA heart failure class, compared with those in the furosemide group (40%; P = .001 vs. 31%; P = .3). Moreover, patients treated with furosemide had more restrictions of daily life at 9 months, compared with those treated with torsemide (P < .001).

A separate, open-label, nonrandomized, postmarketing surveillance trial also found benefits of torsemide over furosemide or other agents used for patients with NYHA class III and IV heart failure. Patients treated with torsemide had a lower total mortality, compared with those treated with furosemide or other agents (2.2% vs. 4.5%, respectively; P < .05) as well as a lower cardiac mortality (1.4% vs. 3.5%; P < .05). They were also more likely to improve by one or more heart failure class (46% vs. 37%; P < .01) and less likely to have potassium levels less than 3.5 mEq/L or greater than 5.0 mEq/L (13% vs. 18%; P = .01).

According to Dr. Breu, meta-analyses of this topic consistently show that the NYHA class improved more with torsemide than with furosemide. “Some meta-analyses find a mortality benefit, while others find a readmissions benefit,” he said. “None of them show a benefit of furosemide over torsemide.”

A second reason to use torsemide as a first-line treatment for heart failure is that it has superior pharmacokinetics/dynamics, compared with furosemide. “We’ve all heard that furosemide has variable bioavailability,” said Dr. Breu, who also deputy editor of the Journal of Hospital Medicine’s “Things We Do For No Reason” article series. “Torsemide and bumetanide are much more reliably absorbed, partially because they are not affected by food, whereas furosemide is. That could be potentially problematic for patients who take their diuretic with meals. The fact that torsemide has less renal clearance is a benefit, because patients with heart failure have changing renal function.” In addition, the half-life of torsemide is 3-4 hours and the duration of action is 12 hours, “which are both longer than those for furosemide or bumetanide,” he added.

He also pointed out that torsemide has been shown to block the aldosterone receptor in vitro and in rat models – an effect that has not been observed with other loop diuretics. A randomized trial of patients with chronic heart failure found that levels of renin and aldosterone increased more with torsemide, compared with furosemide, supporting the hypothesis of aldosterone receptor blockade.

A third main reason to use torsemide as your go-to for heart failure has to do with its purported antifibrotic effects, “so that it could be more than a diuretic,” Dr. Breu said. “In heart failure, myocardial fibrosis occurs from increased collagen synthesis and turnover. Aldosterone has been shown to play a role in this myocardial fibrosis. Spironolactone has been shown to mitigate this to some extent. If torsemide acts a little like spironolactone, maybe that could explain some of the long-term effects that we see in these studies.”

A study supporting this notion found that torsemide but not furosemide reduced levels of serum carboxyl-terminal peptide of procollagen type I, which is associated with exaggerated myocardial deposition of collagen type I fibers in cardiac diseases.

Going forward, a study known as TRANSFORM-HF, which is currently recruiting about 6,000 patients, should bring more clarity to the topic. The primary objective is to compare the treatment strategy of torsemide versus furosemide on clinical outcomes over 12 months in patients with heart failure who are hospitalized. The estimated completion is mid-2022.

Dr. Breu and Dr. Feldman reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

This year, the Society of Hospital Medicine will induct three new Masters in Hospital Medicine (MHM), the society’s highest professional honor.

SHM first introduced the MHM designation in 2010. The honor is reserved for hospitalists who have uniquely distinguished themselves in the specialty through the excellence and significance of their contributions to hospital medicine specifically and healthcare as a whole. SHM members are nominated for MHM consideration, and the SHM Board of Directors rigorously reviews qualifications and selects each year’s MHM class.

The three hospitalists receiving the MHM designation at SHM Converge 2021 are Dr. Nasim Afsar, Dr. Shaun D. Frost, and Dr. Jeffrey L. Schnipper.
 

Nasim Afsar, MD, MBA, MHM

Dr. Nasim Afsar has been elected a Master in Hospital Medicine, honoring her unwavering dedication to hospital medicine and the Society as an accomplished medical leader.

She is known for her accomplishments in establishing and optimizing complex systems of care in the ambulatory and inpatient settings. Her contributions to hospital medicine can be seen through her extensive leadership experience in health care operations, quality, finance, and management.

Dr. Afsar received her MD from the UC Davis School of Medicine, and went on to complete her residency and internship at UCSD and UCLA, internal medicine programs. She currently serves as the chief operating officer for ambulatory care for UCI Health, with the vision of delivering flawless care for the population of patients in Orange County, Calif.

Over her career, Dr. Afsar has led the development and successful implementation of forward-thinking and ambitious healthcare quality strategies across multiple organizations. Her work in patient safety and quality improvement has earned her numerous accolades and awards, including the 2011 John M. Eisenberg Award.

She served on SHM’s Board of Directors from April 2012 through April 2020, including as president and treasurer. During her time on the board, she was instrumental in defining SHM’s role in population health.

Dr. Afsar has held a variety of positions within the Society, including as chair of SHM’s Hospital Quality & Patient Safety Committee, founder and past copresident of SHM’s Los Angeles Chapter, and as faculty at numerous annual conferences. She was an esteemed mentor within SHM’s Project BOOST, a program within SHM’s Center for Quality Improvement focused on care transitions, and served as an associate editor of the Journal of Hospital Medicine for nearly 13 years.

Dr. Afsar is a hospital medicine leader and true champion for our Society and for our specialty. She epitomizes what it means to be a passionate, driven, and accomplished hospital medicine pioneer.
 

Shaun D. Frost, MD, MHM

Dr. Shaun D. Frost has been elected a Master in Hospital Medicine, celebrating his enduring commitment to hospital medicine and to the Society for more than 20 years.

After completing his internal medicine residency at the University of Texas, Southwestern Medical School in 1998, he launched his career at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, where he was a clinical assistant professor of internal medicine at Penn State’s College of Medicine.

His contributions to hospital medicine can be seen through his comprehensive leadership background, commitment to medical education, innovation in hospitalist program operations, and various publications. He is also well known for his mentorship of young hospitalist leaders.

Dr. Frost currently serves as the associate medical director of care delivery systems at HealthPartners Health Insurance Plan. He is a practicing hospitalist at Regions Hospital in St. Paul, Minn., and is assistant professor at the University of Minnesota’s Medical School. Prior to this role, he worked at the Cleveland Clinic as the director of Nonteaching Inpatient Services for 6 years, and also served as the Northeast Region chief medical officer of Cogent Healthcare from 2006 to 2012 where he standardized program operations through structured leadership training according to phased priorities and critical functions.

Dr. Frost is well known for his expansive contributions to the Society of Hospital Medicine, and was recognized by SHM in 2005 with the National Award for Clinical Excellence.

Dr. Frost joined the Society in 1999, and soon thereafter founded and led the Northeast Ohio Chapter. His influence, leadership, and guidance helped to shape the creation of SHM’s Chapter Program, which is an integral part of the Society, connecting hospitalists at the local level.

He served on SHM’s Board of Directors for 6 years, including as president and treasurer. He has spoken at many of SHM’s annual conferences, participated on annual meeting planning committees, and served as course director for the annual meeting’s Perioperative Medicine Precourse. He also has served as a facilitator at SHM’s Leadership Academies.

Dr. Frost has led and actively participated in numerous SHM committees, councils, and workgroups, including service as the chair of SHM’s Membership Committee for 5 years. In fact, the SHM fellow designations, including this very distinction, the Master in Hospital Medicine, originated within this committee under his leadership.

During his tenure as SHM president in 2012-2013, he helped to focus the organization’s work to define hospital medicine’s strengths and benefits to healthcare, culminating in the publication of the “Key Principles and Characteristics of an Effective Hospital Medicine Group.”

Dr. Frost is a specialty vanguard, innovator, and SHM leader. He demonstrates what it means to be a passionate and dedicated hospital medicine professional in his community and within the field at-large.
 

Jeffrey L. Schnipper, MD, MPH, MHM

Dr. Jeffrey L. Schnipper has been elected a Master in Hospital Medicine, honoring his commitment to hospital medicine as an accomplished hospitalist, researcher, and quality improvement enthusiast.

He graduated from Harvard Medical School in 1996 and went on to receive his master’s degree in public health from the Harvard School of Public Health in 2001. Dr. Schnipper also completed his residency, along with a General Medicine Fellowship, at Massachusetts General Hospital in 2001.

Dr. Schnipper currently serves as the director of clinical research in Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s Hospital Medicine Unit. He also serves as the research director of its General Internal Medicine and Primary Care Division and the fellowship director of the Harvard-Brigham Research Fellowship in Hospital Medicine. He is an associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and is professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

His contributions to hospital medicine are demonstrated through his research efforts focused on improving the quality of healthcare delivery for general medical patients, including inpatient diabetes management, care transitions, medication reconciliation, and hospital at home care. His medication reconciliation research project (known as MARQUIS) was funded through AHRQ and led to a 5+ year partnership with the SHM Center for Quality Improvement. When Dr. Schnipper obtained a second AHRQ grant for the MARQUIS2 study, he also partnered with SHM’s Center for Quality Improvement.

Dr. Schnipper joined the Society in 2005 and remains an engaged member of the Boston Association of Academic Hospital Medicine Chapter. He has been a member of SHM’s Annual Conference Committee and serves on the editorial team of the Journal of Hospital Medicine as an associate editor. He has been invited to speak at numerous SHM annual conferences. His research efforts and impact on the medical field can be found in over 150 peer-reviewed publications including JHM, JAMA Internal Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association.

Dr. Schnipper has received numerous awards and honors throughout his career, including SHM’s Excellence in Research Award in 2013. He is an established researcher, educator, and physician with a broad spectrum of clinical interests that embody what it means to be a hospitalist leader and a top-notch patient care provider.

This year, the Society of Hospital Medicine will induct three new Masters in Hospital Medicine (MHM), the society’s highest professional honor.

SHM first introduced the MHM designation in 2010. The honor is reserved for hospitalists who have uniquely distinguished themselves in the specialty through the excellence and significance of their contributions to hospital medicine specifically and healthcare as a whole. SHM members are nominated for MHM consideration, and the SHM Board of Directors rigorously reviews qualifications and selects each year’s MHM class.

The three hospitalists receiving the MHM designation at SHM Converge 2021 are Dr. Nasim Afsar, Dr. Shaun D. Frost, and Dr. Jeffrey L. Schnipper.
 

Nasim Afsar, MD, MBA, MHM

Dr. Nasim Afsar has been elected a Master in Hospital Medicine, honoring her unwavering dedication to hospital medicine and the Society as an accomplished medical leader.

She is known for her accomplishments in establishing and optimizing complex systems of care in the ambulatory and inpatient settings. Her contributions to hospital medicine can be seen through her extensive leadership experience in health care operations, quality, finance, and management.

Dr. Afsar received her MD from the UC Davis School of Medicine, and went on to complete her residency and internship at UCSD and UCLA, internal medicine programs. She currently serves as the chief operating officer for ambulatory care for UCI Health, with the vision of delivering flawless care for the population of patients in Orange County, Calif.

Over her career, Dr. Afsar has led the development and successful implementation of forward-thinking and ambitious healthcare quality strategies across multiple organizations. Her work in patient safety and quality improvement has earned her numerous accolades and awards, including the 2011 John M. Eisenberg Award.

She served on SHM’s Board of Directors from April 2012 through April 2020, including as president and treasurer. During her time on the board, she was instrumental in defining SHM’s role in population health.

Dr. Afsar has held a variety of positions within the Society, including as chair of SHM’s Hospital Quality & Patient Safety Committee, founder and past copresident of SHM’s Los Angeles Chapter, and as faculty at numerous annual conferences. She was an esteemed mentor within SHM’s Project BOOST, a program within SHM’s Center for Quality Improvement focused on care transitions, and served as an associate editor of the Journal of Hospital Medicine for nearly 13 years.

Dr. Afsar is a hospital medicine leader and true champion for our Society and for our specialty. She epitomizes what it means to be a passionate, driven, and accomplished hospital medicine pioneer.
 

Shaun D. Frost, MD, MHM

Dr. Shaun D. Frost has been elected a Master in Hospital Medicine, celebrating his enduring commitment to hospital medicine and to the Society for more than 20 years.

After completing his internal medicine residency at the University of Texas, Southwestern Medical School in 1998, he launched his career at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, where he was a clinical assistant professor of internal medicine at Penn State’s College of Medicine.

His contributions to hospital medicine can be seen through his comprehensive leadership background, commitment to medical education, innovation in hospitalist program operations, and various publications. He is also well known for his mentorship of young hospitalist leaders.

Dr. Frost currently serves as the associate medical director of care delivery systems at HealthPartners Health Insurance Plan. He is a practicing hospitalist at Regions Hospital in St. Paul, Minn., and is assistant professor at the University of Minnesota’s Medical School. Prior to this role, he worked at the Cleveland Clinic as the director of Nonteaching Inpatient Services for 6 years, and also served as the Northeast Region chief medical officer of Cogent Healthcare from 2006 to 2012 where he standardized program operations through structured leadership training according to phased priorities and critical functions.

Dr. Frost is well known for his expansive contributions to the Society of Hospital Medicine, and was recognized by SHM in 2005 with the National Award for Clinical Excellence.

Dr. Frost joined the Society in 1999, and soon thereafter founded and led the Northeast Ohio Chapter. His influence, leadership, and guidance helped to shape the creation of SHM’s Chapter Program, which is an integral part of the Society, connecting hospitalists at the local level.

He served on SHM’s Board of Directors for 6 years, including as president and treasurer. He has spoken at many of SHM’s annual conferences, participated on annual meeting planning committees, and served as course director for the annual meeting’s Perioperative Medicine Precourse. He also has served as a facilitator at SHM’s Leadership Academies.

Dr. Frost has led and actively participated in numerous SHM committees, councils, and workgroups, including service as the chair of SHM’s Membership Committee for 5 years. In fact, the SHM fellow designations, including this very distinction, the Master in Hospital Medicine, originated within this committee under his leadership.

During his tenure as SHM president in 2012-2013, he helped to focus the organization’s work to define hospital medicine’s strengths and benefits to healthcare, culminating in the publication of the “Key Principles and Characteristics of an Effective Hospital Medicine Group.”

Dr. Frost is a specialty vanguard, innovator, and SHM leader. He demonstrates what it means to be a passionate and dedicated hospital medicine professional in his community and within the field at-large.
 

Jeffrey L. Schnipper, MD, MPH, MHM

Dr. Jeffrey L. Schnipper has been elected a Master in Hospital Medicine, honoring his commitment to hospital medicine as an accomplished hospitalist, researcher, and quality improvement enthusiast.

He graduated from Harvard Medical School in 1996 and went on to receive his master’s degree in public health from the Harvard School of Public Health in 2001. Dr. Schnipper also completed his residency, along with a General Medicine Fellowship, at Massachusetts General Hospital in 2001.

Dr. Schnipper currently serves as the director of clinical research in Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s Hospital Medicine Unit. He also serves as the research director of its General Internal Medicine and Primary Care Division and the fellowship director of the Harvard-Brigham Research Fellowship in Hospital Medicine. He is an associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and is professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

His contributions to hospital medicine are demonstrated through his research efforts focused on improving the quality of healthcare delivery for general medical patients, including inpatient diabetes management, care transitions, medication reconciliation, and hospital at home care. His medication reconciliation research project (known as MARQUIS) was funded through AHRQ and led to a 5+ year partnership with the SHM Center for Quality Improvement. When Dr. Schnipper obtained a second AHRQ grant for the MARQUIS2 study, he also partnered with SHM’s Center for Quality Improvement.

Dr. Schnipper joined the Society in 2005 and remains an engaged member of the Boston Association of Academic Hospital Medicine Chapter. He has been a member of SHM’s Annual Conference Committee and serves on the editorial team of the Journal of Hospital Medicine as an associate editor. He has been invited to speak at numerous SHM annual conferences. His research efforts and impact on the medical field can be found in over 150 peer-reviewed publications including JHM, JAMA Internal Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association.

Dr. Schnipper has received numerous awards and honors throughout his career, including SHM’s Excellence in Research Award in 2013. He is an established researcher, educator, and physician with a broad spectrum of clinical interests that embody what it means to be a hospitalist leader and a top-notch patient care provider.

This year, the Society of Hospital Medicine will induct three new Masters in Hospital Medicine (MHM), the society’s highest professional honor.

SHM first introduced the MHM designation in 2010. The honor is reserved for hospitalists who have uniquely distinguished themselves in the specialty through the excellence and significance of their contributions to hospital medicine specifically and healthcare as a whole. SHM members are nominated for MHM consideration, and the SHM Board of Directors rigorously reviews qualifications and selects each year’s MHM class.

The three hospitalists receiving the MHM designation at SHM Converge 2021 are Dr. Nasim Afsar, Dr. Shaun D. Frost, and Dr. Jeffrey L. Schnipper.
 

Nasim Afsar, MD, MBA, MHM

Dr. Nasim Afsar has been elected a Master in Hospital Medicine, honoring her unwavering dedication to hospital medicine and the Society as an accomplished medical leader.

She is known for her accomplishments in establishing and optimizing complex systems of care in the ambulatory and inpatient settings. Her contributions to hospital medicine can be seen through her extensive leadership experience in health care operations, quality, finance, and management.

Dr. Afsar received her MD from the UC Davis School of Medicine, and went on to complete her residency and internship at UCSD and UCLA, internal medicine programs. She currently serves as the chief operating officer for ambulatory care for UCI Health, with the vision of delivering flawless care for the population of patients in Orange County, Calif.

Over her career, Dr. Afsar has led the development and successful implementation of forward-thinking and ambitious healthcare quality strategies across multiple organizations. Her work in patient safety and quality improvement has earned her numerous accolades and awards, including the 2011 John M. Eisenberg Award.

She served on SHM’s Board of Directors from April 2012 through April 2020, including as president and treasurer. During her time on the board, she was instrumental in defining SHM’s role in population health.

Dr. Afsar has held a variety of positions within the Society, including as chair of SHM’s Hospital Quality & Patient Safety Committee, founder and past copresident of SHM’s Los Angeles Chapter, and as faculty at numerous annual conferences. She was an esteemed mentor within SHM’s Project BOOST, a program within SHM’s Center for Quality Improvement focused on care transitions, and served as an associate editor of the Journal of Hospital Medicine for nearly 13 years.

Dr. Afsar is a hospital medicine leader and true champion for our Society and for our specialty. She epitomizes what it means to be a passionate, driven, and accomplished hospital medicine pioneer.
 

Shaun D. Frost, MD, MHM

Dr. Shaun D. Frost has been elected a Master in Hospital Medicine, celebrating his enduring commitment to hospital medicine and to the Society for more than 20 years.

After completing his internal medicine residency at the University of Texas, Southwestern Medical School in 1998, he launched his career at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, where he was a clinical assistant professor of internal medicine at Penn State’s College of Medicine.

His contributions to hospital medicine can be seen through his comprehensive leadership background, commitment to medical education, innovation in hospitalist program operations, and various publications. He is also well known for his mentorship of young hospitalist leaders.

Dr. Frost currently serves as the associate medical director of care delivery systems at HealthPartners Health Insurance Plan. He is a practicing hospitalist at Regions Hospital in St. Paul, Minn., and is assistant professor at the University of Minnesota’s Medical School. Prior to this role, he worked at the Cleveland Clinic as the director of Nonteaching Inpatient Services for 6 years, and also served as the Northeast Region chief medical officer of Cogent Healthcare from 2006 to 2012 where he standardized program operations through structured leadership training according to phased priorities and critical functions.

Dr. Frost is well known for his expansive contributions to the Society of Hospital Medicine, and was recognized by SHM in 2005 with the National Award for Clinical Excellence.

Dr. Frost joined the Society in 1999, and soon thereafter founded and led the Northeast Ohio Chapter. His influence, leadership, and guidance helped to shape the creation of SHM’s Chapter Program, which is an integral part of the Society, connecting hospitalists at the local level.

He served on SHM’s Board of Directors for 6 years, including as president and treasurer. He has spoken at many of SHM’s annual conferences, participated on annual meeting planning committees, and served as course director for the annual meeting’s Perioperative Medicine Precourse. He also has served as a facilitator at SHM’s Leadership Academies.

Dr. Frost has led and actively participated in numerous SHM committees, councils, and workgroups, including service as the chair of SHM’s Membership Committee for 5 years. In fact, the SHM fellow designations, including this very distinction, the Master in Hospital Medicine, originated within this committee under his leadership.

During his tenure as SHM president in 2012-2013, he helped to focus the organization’s work to define hospital medicine’s strengths and benefits to healthcare, culminating in the publication of the “Key Principles and Characteristics of an Effective Hospital Medicine Group.”

Dr. Frost is a specialty vanguard, innovator, and SHM leader. He demonstrates what it means to be a passionate and dedicated hospital medicine professional in his community and within the field at-large.
 

Jeffrey L. Schnipper, MD, MPH, MHM

Dr. Jeffrey L. Schnipper has been elected a Master in Hospital Medicine, honoring his commitment to hospital medicine as an accomplished hospitalist, researcher, and quality improvement enthusiast.

He graduated from Harvard Medical School in 1996 and went on to receive his master’s degree in public health from the Harvard School of Public Health in 2001. Dr. Schnipper also completed his residency, along with a General Medicine Fellowship, at Massachusetts General Hospital in 2001.

Dr. Schnipper currently serves as the director of clinical research in Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s Hospital Medicine Unit. He also serves as the research director of its General Internal Medicine and Primary Care Division and the fellowship director of the Harvard-Brigham Research Fellowship in Hospital Medicine. He is an associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and is professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

His contributions to hospital medicine are demonstrated through his research efforts focused on improving the quality of healthcare delivery for general medical patients, including inpatient diabetes management, care transitions, medication reconciliation, and hospital at home care. His medication reconciliation research project (known as MARQUIS) was funded through AHRQ and led to a 5+ year partnership with the SHM Center for Quality Improvement. When Dr. Schnipper obtained a second AHRQ grant for the MARQUIS2 study, he also partnered with SHM’s Center for Quality Improvement.

Dr. Schnipper joined the Society in 2005 and remains an engaged member of the Boston Association of Academic Hospital Medicine Chapter. He has been a member of SHM’s Annual Conference Committee and serves on the editorial team of the Journal of Hospital Medicine as an associate editor. He has been invited to speak at numerous SHM annual conferences. His research efforts and impact on the medical field can be found in over 150 peer-reviewed publications including JHM, JAMA Internal Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association.

Dr. Schnipper has received numerous awards and honors throughout his career, including SHM’s Excellence in Research Award in 2013. He is an established researcher, educator, and physician with a broad spectrum of clinical interests that embody what it means to be a hospitalist leader and a top-notch patient care provider.

For gay and lesbian individuals, consistency in parents’ attitudes toward their child’s sexual orientation, even when they are negative, is an important factor in positive mental health outcomes, new research shows.

Study investigator Matthew Verdun, MS, a licensed marriage and family therapist and doctoral student at the Chicago School of Professional Psychology at Los Angeles, California, found that gays and lesbians whose parents were not supportive of their sexual orientation could still have good outcomes.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, which was held as a virtual live event.
 

High rates of mental illness

Research shows that members of the gay and lesbian community experience higher rates of mental illness and substance use disorders and that psychological well-being declines during periods close to when sexual orientation is disclosed.

Mr. Verdun referred to a theory in the literature of homosexual identity formation that describes how individuals go through six stages: confusion, comparison, tolerance, acceptance, pride, and synthesis.

Research shows a U-shaped relationship between subjective reports of well-being at these six stages. The lowest rates occur during the identity comparison and identity tolerance stages.

“Those stages roughly correspond with the time when people would disclose their sexual orientation to parents and family members. The time when a person discloses is probably one of the most anxious times in their life; it’s also where their rate of well-being is the lowest,” said Mr. Verdun.

Mr. Verdun said he “wanted to know what happens when a parent is supportive or rejecting at that moment, but also what happens over time.”

To determine whether parental support affects depression, anxiety, or substance abuse in members of the gay and lesbian community, Mr. Verdun studied 175 individuals who self-identified as gay or lesbian (77 males and 98 females) and were recruited via social media. Most (70.3%) were of White race or ethnicity.

Participants completed surveys asking about their parents’ initial and current level of support regarding their sexual orientation. They also completed the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), the seven-item General Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7), and the 20-item Drug Abuse Screening Tool (DAST-20).

The investigators categorized participants into one of three groups on the basis of parental support:

• Consistently positive.
• Negative to positive.
• Consistently negative.

A fourth group, positive to negative, was excluded from the analysis because it was too small.

Mr. Verdun was unable analyze results for substance abuse. “The DAST-20 results violated the assumption of homogeneity of variances, which meant the analysis could result in error,” he explained.

Analyses for the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 showed that the consistently positive group had the lowest symptom scores.

“People whose parents were accepting had the lowest scores for anxiety and depression,” said Mr. Verdun.

For both the PHQ and GAD, the findings were significant (P < .05) for the consistently positive and the consistently negative groups in comparison with the negative to positive group.

The difference between the consistently positive and the consistently negative groups was not statistically significant.
 

Surprise finding

Previous research has shown that current levels of parental support relate to better mental health, so Mr. Verdun initially thought children whose parents were consistently supportive or those whose parents became supportive over time would have the best mental health outcomes.

“But, interestingly, what I found was that people whose parents vacillated between being accepting and rejecting over time actually had significantly more mental health symptoms at the time of the assessment than people whose parents were consistently accepting or consistently rejecting,” he said.

Although the study provided evidence of better outcomes for those with consistently unsupportive parents, Mr. Verdun believes some hypotheses are worthy of further research.

One is that people with unsupportive parents receive support elsewhere and could, for example, turn to peers, teachers, or other community members, including faith leaders, and that symptoms of mental illness may improve with such support, said Mr. Verdun.

These individuals may also develop ways to “buffer their mental health symptoms,” possibly by cultivating meaningful relationships “where they’re seen as a complete and total person, not just in terms of their sexual orientation,” he said.

Gay and lesbian individuals may also benefit from “healing activities,” which might include engagement and involvement in their community, such as performing volunteer work and learning about the history of their community, said Mr. Verdun.

Mental health providers can play a role in creating a positive environment by referring patients to support groups, to centers that cater to gays and lesbians, to faith communities, or by encouraging recreational activities, said Mr. Verdun.

Clinicians can also help gay and lesbian patients determine how and when to safely disclose their sexual orientation, he said.

The study did not include bisexual or transsexual individuals because processes of identifying sexual orientation differ for those persons, said Mr. Verdun.

“I would like to conduct future research that includes bisexual, trans people, and intersectional groups within the LGBTQIA [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual] community,” he said.
 

Important research

Commenting on the study, Jeffrey Borenstein, MD, president and CEO of the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation and editor-in-chief of Psychiatric News, said the work is “extremely important and that it has the potential to lead to clinical guidance.”

The finding that levels of depression and anxiety were lower in children whose parents were accepting of their sexual orientation is not surprising, said Dr. Borenstein. “It’s common sense, but it’s always good to have such a finding demonstrate it,” he said.

Parents who understand this relationship may be better able to help their child who is depressed or anxious, he added.

Dr. Borenstein agreed that further research is needed regarding the finding of benefits from consistent parenting, even when that parenting involves rejection.

Such research might uncover “what types of other supports these individuals have that allow for lower levels of depression and anxiety,” he said.

“For this population, the risk of mental health issues is higher, and the risk of suicide is higher, so anything we can do to provide support and improved treatment is extremely important,” he said.

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

For gay and lesbian individuals, consistency in parents’ attitudes toward their child’s sexual orientation, even when they are negative, is an important factor in positive mental health outcomes, new research shows.

Study investigator Matthew Verdun, MS, a licensed marriage and family therapist and doctoral student at the Chicago School of Professional Psychology at Los Angeles, California, found that gays and lesbians whose parents were not supportive of their sexual orientation could still have good outcomes.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, which was held as a virtual live event.
 

High rates of mental illness

Research shows that members of the gay and lesbian community experience higher rates of mental illness and substance use disorders and that psychological well-being declines during periods close to when sexual orientation is disclosed.

Mr. Verdun referred to a theory in the literature of homosexual identity formation that describes how individuals go through six stages: confusion, comparison, tolerance, acceptance, pride, and synthesis.

Research shows a U-shaped relationship between subjective reports of well-being at these six stages. The lowest rates occur during the identity comparison and identity tolerance stages.

“Those stages roughly correspond with the time when people would disclose their sexual orientation to parents and family members. The time when a person discloses is probably one of the most anxious times in their life; it’s also where their rate of well-being is the lowest,” said Mr. Verdun.

Mr. Verdun said he “wanted to know what happens when a parent is supportive or rejecting at that moment, but also what happens over time.”

To determine whether parental support affects depression, anxiety, or substance abuse in members of the gay and lesbian community, Mr. Verdun studied 175 individuals who self-identified as gay or lesbian (77 males and 98 females) and were recruited via social media. Most (70.3%) were of White race or ethnicity.

Participants completed surveys asking about their parents’ initial and current level of support regarding their sexual orientation. They also completed the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), the seven-item General Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7), and the 20-item Drug Abuse Screening Tool (DAST-20).

The investigators categorized participants into one of three groups on the basis of parental support:

• Consistently positive.
• Negative to positive.
• Consistently negative.

A fourth group, positive to negative, was excluded from the analysis because it was too small.

Mr. Verdun was unable analyze results for substance abuse. “The DAST-20 results violated the assumption of homogeneity of variances, which meant the analysis could result in error,” he explained.

Analyses for the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 showed that the consistently positive group had the lowest symptom scores.

“People whose parents were accepting had the lowest scores for anxiety and depression,” said Mr. Verdun.

For both the PHQ and GAD, the findings were significant (P < .05) for the consistently positive and the consistently negative groups in comparison with the negative to positive group.

The difference between the consistently positive and the consistently negative groups was not statistically significant.
 

Surprise finding

Previous research has shown that current levels of parental support relate to better mental health, so Mr. Verdun initially thought children whose parents were consistently supportive or those whose parents became supportive over time would have the best mental health outcomes.

“But, interestingly, what I found was that people whose parents vacillated between being accepting and rejecting over time actually had significantly more mental health symptoms at the time of the assessment than people whose parents were consistently accepting or consistently rejecting,” he said.

Although the study provided evidence of better outcomes for those with consistently unsupportive parents, Mr. Verdun believes some hypotheses are worthy of further research.

One is that people with unsupportive parents receive support elsewhere and could, for example, turn to peers, teachers, or other community members, including faith leaders, and that symptoms of mental illness may improve with such support, said Mr. Verdun.

These individuals may also develop ways to “buffer their mental health symptoms,” possibly by cultivating meaningful relationships “where they’re seen as a complete and total person, not just in terms of their sexual orientation,” he said.

Gay and lesbian individuals may also benefit from “healing activities,” which might include engagement and involvement in their community, such as performing volunteer work and learning about the history of their community, said Mr. Verdun.

Mental health providers can play a role in creating a positive environment by referring patients to support groups, to centers that cater to gays and lesbians, to faith communities, or by encouraging recreational activities, said Mr. Verdun.

Clinicians can also help gay and lesbian patients determine how and when to safely disclose their sexual orientation, he said.

The study did not include bisexual or transsexual individuals because processes of identifying sexual orientation differ for those persons, said Mr. Verdun.

“I would like to conduct future research that includes bisexual, trans people, and intersectional groups within the LGBTQIA [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual] community,” he said.
 

Important research

Commenting on the study, Jeffrey Borenstein, MD, president and CEO of the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation and editor-in-chief of Psychiatric News, said the work is “extremely important and that it has the potential to lead to clinical guidance.”

The finding that levels of depression and anxiety were lower in children whose parents were accepting of their sexual orientation is not surprising, said Dr. Borenstein. “It’s common sense, but it’s always good to have such a finding demonstrate it,” he said.

Parents who understand this relationship may be better able to help their child who is depressed or anxious, he added.

Dr. Borenstein agreed that further research is needed regarding the finding of benefits from consistent parenting, even when that parenting involves rejection.

Such research might uncover “what types of other supports these individuals have that allow for lower levels of depression and anxiety,” he said.

“For this population, the risk of mental health issues is higher, and the risk of suicide is higher, so anything we can do to provide support and improved treatment is extremely important,” he said.

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

For gay and lesbian individuals, consistency in parents’ attitudes toward their child’s sexual orientation, even when they are negative, is an important factor in positive mental health outcomes, new research shows.

Study investigator Matthew Verdun, MS, a licensed marriage and family therapist and doctoral student at the Chicago School of Professional Psychology at Los Angeles, California, found that gays and lesbians whose parents were not supportive of their sexual orientation could still have good outcomes.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, which was held as a virtual live event.
 

High rates of mental illness

Research shows that members of the gay and lesbian community experience higher rates of mental illness and substance use disorders and that psychological well-being declines during periods close to when sexual orientation is disclosed.

Mr. Verdun referred to a theory in the literature of homosexual identity formation that describes how individuals go through six stages: confusion, comparison, tolerance, acceptance, pride, and synthesis.

Research shows a U-shaped relationship between subjective reports of well-being at these six stages. The lowest rates occur during the identity comparison and identity tolerance stages.

“Those stages roughly correspond with the time when people would disclose their sexual orientation to parents and family members. The time when a person discloses is probably one of the most anxious times in their life; it’s also where their rate of well-being is the lowest,” said Mr. Verdun.

Mr. Verdun said he “wanted to know what happens when a parent is supportive or rejecting at that moment, but also what happens over time.”

To determine whether parental support affects depression, anxiety, or substance abuse in members of the gay and lesbian community, Mr. Verdun studied 175 individuals who self-identified as gay or lesbian (77 males and 98 females) and were recruited via social media. Most (70.3%) were of White race or ethnicity.

Participants completed surveys asking about their parents’ initial and current level of support regarding their sexual orientation. They also completed the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), the seven-item General Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7), and the 20-item Drug Abuse Screening Tool (DAST-20).

The investigators categorized participants into one of three groups on the basis of parental support:

• Consistently positive.
• Negative to positive.
• Consistently negative.

A fourth group, positive to negative, was excluded from the analysis because it was too small.

Mr. Verdun was unable analyze results for substance abuse. “The DAST-20 results violated the assumption of homogeneity of variances, which meant the analysis could result in error,” he explained.

Analyses for the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 showed that the consistently positive group had the lowest symptom scores.

“People whose parents were accepting had the lowest scores for anxiety and depression,” said Mr. Verdun.

For both the PHQ and GAD, the findings were significant (P < .05) for the consistently positive and the consistently negative groups in comparison with the negative to positive group.

The difference between the consistently positive and the consistently negative groups was not statistically significant.
 

Surprise finding

Previous research has shown that current levels of parental support relate to better mental health, so Mr. Verdun initially thought children whose parents were consistently supportive or those whose parents became supportive over time would have the best mental health outcomes.

“But, interestingly, what I found was that people whose parents vacillated between being accepting and rejecting over time actually had significantly more mental health symptoms at the time of the assessment than people whose parents were consistently accepting or consistently rejecting,” he said.

Although the study provided evidence of better outcomes for those with consistently unsupportive parents, Mr. Verdun believes some hypotheses are worthy of further research.

One is that people with unsupportive parents receive support elsewhere and could, for example, turn to peers, teachers, or other community members, including faith leaders, and that symptoms of mental illness may improve with such support, said Mr. Verdun.

These individuals may also develop ways to “buffer their mental health symptoms,” possibly by cultivating meaningful relationships “where they’re seen as a complete and total person, not just in terms of their sexual orientation,” he said.

Gay and lesbian individuals may also benefit from “healing activities,” which might include engagement and involvement in their community, such as performing volunteer work and learning about the history of their community, said Mr. Verdun.

Mental health providers can play a role in creating a positive environment by referring patients to support groups, to centers that cater to gays and lesbians, to faith communities, or by encouraging recreational activities, said Mr. Verdun.

Clinicians can also help gay and lesbian patients determine how and when to safely disclose their sexual orientation, he said.

The study did not include bisexual or transsexual individuals because processes of identifying sexual orientation differ for those persons, said Mr. Verdun.

“I would like to conduct future research that includes bisexual, trans people, and intersectional groups within the LGBTQIA [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual] community,” he said.
 

Important research

Commenting on the study, Jeffrey Borenstein, MD, president and CEO of the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation and editor-in-chief of Psychiatric News, said the work is “extremely important and that it has the potential to lead to clinical guidance.”

The finding that levels of depression and anxiety were lower in children whose parents were accepting of their sexual orientation is not surprising, said Dr. Borenstein. “It’s common sense, but it’s always good to have such a finding demonstrate it,” he said.

Parents who understand this relationship may be better able to help their child who is depressed or anxious, he added.

Dr. Borenstein agreed that further research is needed regarding the finding of benefits from consistent parenting, even when that parenting involves rejection.

Such research might uncover “what types of other supports these individuals have that allow for lower levels of depression and anxiety,” he said.

“For this population, the risk of mental health issues is higher, and the risk of suicide is higher, so anything we can do to provide support and improved treatment is extremely important,” he said.

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

After navigating a pandemic that turned the world – including the world of hospital medicine – upside down for so long, the very idea of returning to a “normal” career and way of life can seem strange.

Vineet Arora, MD, MAPP, MHM, assistant dean for scholarship and discovery and associate chief medical officer for clinical learning environment at the University of Chicago, offered guidance to hospitalists on the transition from pandemic life to postpandemic life on May 5 at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

The pandemic, Dr. Arora said, showed how important it is to develop trust. When resources were scarce as dire COVID-19 cases flooded hospitals, a culture of trust was essential to getting through the crisis.

“My team expects me to speak up on their behalf – it’s how we do things. It’s so germane to safety,” Dr. Arora said. “This is what you’re looking for in your organization – a place of psychological safety and trust.”

Surveys show that patients do trust their physicians, and healthcare providers “got a big bump” in trust during the pandemic, she said, which offers a unique opportunity.

“Doctors are trusted messengers for the COVID vaccine,” she said. “It really does matter.” But clinicians should also advocate for social justice, she said. “We must speak up even louder to fight everyday racism.”

As hospitalists move into the postpandemic medical world, Dr. Arora encouraged them to “get rid of delusions of grandeur,” expecting incredible accomplishments around every corner.

“Amazing things do happen, but oftentimes they happen because we sustain the things we start,” Dr. Arora said. For instance, physicians should consider small changes in workflow, but then sustain those changes. Maintaining pushes for change is not necessarily the norm, she said, adding that all hospitalists are probably familiar with quality improvement projects that generate only 3 months of data, because of lost focus.

Hospitalists should also “seek out information brokers” in the postpandemic medical world, or those interacting with a variety of groups who are often good sources of ideas. Hospitalists, she said, are “natural information brokers,” communicating routinely with a wide variety of specialists and healthcare professionals.

“You’ve got to know what’s important to your organization and to your patients and to everybody else,” Dr. Arora said.

She suggested that hospitalists find “zero-gravity thinkers,” and even to be this type of thinker themselves – one who stays open to new ideas and has diverse interests and experiences.

It is easy to settle into the same ways we’ve always done things, Dr. Arora said.

“The truth is there are ways that it can be better,” she said. “But we sometimes have to seek out new ideas and maintain an open mind – and sometimes we need someone to do it for us.”

Often, those closest to us are the least valuable in this regard, she said, referring to them as “innovation killers.”

“They’re not going to give you the next breakthrough idea,” she said. “You have to get outside of your network to understand where the good ideas are coming from.”

With the trauma that hospitalists have experienced for more than a year, well-being might never have been a more vital topic than it is now, Dr. Arora said.

“We’re done with online wellness modules,” she said. “Fix the system and not the person because we all know the system is not working for us. As hospitalists, we actually are experts at fixing systems.”

Dr. Arora said that one way to think of how to improve hospitalist well-being is by emphasizing “the Four Ts” – teamwork (such as the use of scribes and good communication), time (consider new work schedule models), transitions (refining workflows) and tech (technology that works for clinicians rather than creating a burden).

As hospitalists attempt to move ahead in their post–COVID-19 careers, the key is finding new challenges and never stopping the learning process, Dr. Arora said. Referring to a concept described by career coach May Busch, she said physicians can consider successful careers as a “series of S curves” – at the beginning, there is a lot of work without much advancement, followed by a rapid rise, and then arrival at the destination, which brings you to a new plateau higher up the ladder. At the higher plateau, hospitalists should “jump to a new S curve,” learning a new skill and embarking on a new endeavor, which will lift them even higher.

“Success,” Dr. Arora said, “is defined by continuous growth and learning.”

Dr. Arora reported having no financial disclosures.

After navigating a pandemic that turned the world – including the world of hospital medicine – upside down for so long, the very idea of returning to a “normal” career and way of life can seem strange.

Vineet Arora, MD, MAPP, MHM, assistant dean for scholarship and discovery and associate chief medical officer for clinical learning environment at the University of Chicago, offered guidance to hospitalists on the transition from pandemic life to postpandemic life on May 5 at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

The pandemic, Dr. Arora said, showed how important it is to develop trust. When resources were scarce as dire COVID-19 cases flooded hospitals, a culture of trust was essential to getting through the crisis.

“My team expects me to speak up on their behalf – it’s how we do things. It’s so germane to safety,” Dr. Arora said. “This is what you’re looking for in your organization – a place of psychological safety and trust.”

Surveys show that patients do trust their physicians, and healthcare providers “got a big bump” in trust during the pandemic, she said, which offers a unique opportunity.

“Doctors are trusted messengers for the COVID vaccine,” she said. “It really does matter.” But clinicians should also advocate for social justice, she said. “We must speak up even louder to fight everyday racism.”

As hospitalists move into the postpandemic medical world, Dr. Arora encouraged them to “get rid of delusions of grandeur,” expecting incredible accomplishments around every corner.

“Amazing things do happen, but oftentimes they happen because we sustain the things we start,” Dr. Arora said. For instance, physicians should consider small changes in workflow, but then sustain those changes. Maintaining pushes for change is not necessarily the norm, she said, adding that all hospitalists are probably familiar with quality improvement projects that generate only 3 months of data, because of lost focus.

Hospitalists should also “seek out information brokers” in the postpandemic medical world, or those interacting with a variety of groups who are often good sources of ideas. Hospitalists, she said, are “natural information brokers,” communicating routinely with a wide variety of specialists and healthcare professionals.

“You’ve got to know what’s important to your organization and to your patients and to everybody else,” Dr. Arora said.

She suggested that hospitalists find “zero-gravity thinkers,” and even to be this type of thinker themselves – one who stays open to new ideas and has diverse interests and experiences.

It is easy to settle into the same ways we’ve always done things, Dr. Arora said.

“The truth is there are ways that it can be better,” she said. “But we sometimes have to seek out new ideas and maintain an open mind – and sometimes we need someone to do it for us.”

Often, those closest to us are the least valuable in this regard, she said, referring to them as “innovation killers.”

“They’re not going to give you the next breakthrough idea,” she said. “You have to get outside of your network to understand where the good ideas are coming from.”

With the trauma that hospitalists have experienced for more than a year, well-being might never have been a more vital topic than it is now, Dr. Arora said.

“We’re done with online wellness modules,” she said. “Fix the system and not the person because we all know the system is not working for us. As hospitalists, we actually are experts at fixing systems.”

Dr. Arora said that one way to think of how to improve hospitalist well-being is by emphasizing “the Four Ts” – teamwork (such as the use of scribes and good communication), time (consider new work schedule models), transitions (refining workflows) and tech (technology that works for clinicians rather than creating a burden).

As hospitalists attempt to move ahead in their post–COVID-19 careers, the key is finding new challenges and never stopping the learning process, Dr. Arora said. Referring to a concept described by career coach May Busch, she said physicians can consider successful careers as a “series of S curves” – at the beginning, there is a lot of work without much advancement, followed by a rapid rise, and then arrival at the destination, which brings you to a new plateau higher up the ladder. At the higher plateau, hospitalists should “jump to a new S curve,” learning a new skill and embarking on a new endeavor, which will lift them even higher.

“Success,” Dr. Arora said, “is defined by continuous growth and learning.”

Dr. Arora reported having no financial disclosures.

After navigating a pandemic that turned the world – including the world of hospital medicine – upside down for so long, the very idea of returning to a “normal” career and way of life can seem strange.

Vineet Arora, MD, MAPP, MHM, assistant dean for scholarship and discovery and associate chief medical officer for clinical learning environment at the University of Chicago, offered guidance to hospitalists on the transition from pandemic life to postpandemic life on May 5 at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

The pandemic, Dr. Arora said, showed how important it is to develop trust. When resources were scarce as dire COVID-19 cases flooded hospitals, a culture of trust was essential to getting through the crisis.

“My team expects me to speak up on their behalf – it’s how we do things. It’s so germane to safety,” Dr. Arora said. “This is what you’re looking for in your organization – a place of psychological safety and trust.”

Surveys show that patients do trust their physicians, and healthcare providers “got a big bump” in trust during the pandemic, she said, which offers a unique opportunity.

“Doctors are trusted messengers for the COVID vaccine,” she said. “It really does matter.” But clinicians should also advocate for social justice, she said. “We must speak up even louder to fight everyday racism.”

As hospitalists move into the postpandemic medical world, Dr. Arora encouraged them to “get rid of delusions of grandeur,” expecting incredible accomplishments around every corner.

“Amazing things do happen, but oftentimes they happen because we sustain the things we start,” Dr. Arora said. For instance, physicians should consider small changes in workflow, but then sustain those changes. Maintaining pushes for change is not necessarily the norm, she said, adding that all hospitalists are probably familiar with quality improvement projects that generate only 3 months of data, because of lost focus.

Hospitalists should also “seek out information brokers” in the postpandemic medical world, or those interacting with a variety of groups who are often good sources of ideas. Hospitalists, she said, are “natural information brokers,” communicating routinely with a wide variety of specialists and healthcare professionals.

“You’ve got to know what’s important to your organization and to your patients and to everybody else,” Dr. Arora said.

She suggested that hospitalists find “zero-gravity thinkers,” and even to be this type of thinker themselves – one who stays open to new ideas and has diverse interests and experiences.

It is easy to settle into the same ways we’ve always done things, Dr. Arora said.

“The truth is there are ways that it can be better,” she said. “But we sometimes have to seek out new ideas and maintain an open mind – and sometimes we need someone to do it for us.”

Often, those closest to us are the least valuable in this regard, she said, referring to them as “innovation killers.”

“They’re not going to give you the next breakthrough idea,” she said. “You have to get outside of your network to understand where the good ideas are coming from.”

With the trauma that hospitalists have experienced for more than a year, well-being might never have been a more vital topic than it is now, Dr. Arora said.

“We’re done with online wellness modules,” she said. “Fix the system and not the person because we all know the system is not working for us. As hospitalists, we actually are experts at fixing systems.”

Dr. Arora said that one way to think of how to improve hospitalist well-being is by emphasizing “the Four Ts” – teamwork (such as the use of scribes and good communication), time (consider new work schedule models), transitions (refining workflows) and tech (technology that works for clinicians rather than creating a burden).

As hospitalists attempt to move ahead in their post–COVID-19 careers, the key is finding new challenges and never stopping the learning process, Dr. Arora said. Referring to a concept described by career coach May Busch, she said physicians can consider successful careers as a “series of S curves” – at the beginning, there is a lot of work without much advancement, followed by a rapid rise, and then arrival at the destination, which brings you to a new plateau higher up the ladder. At the higher plateau, hospitalists should “jump to a new S curve,” learning a new skill and embarking on a new endeavor, which will lift them even higher.

“Success,” Dr. Arora said, “is defined by continuous growth and learning.”

Dr. Arora reported having no financial disclosures.