Even as dozens of state legislature bills attempt to limit the rights of sexual-diverse and gender-diverse youth, researchers are learning more and more that can help pediatricians better support this population in their practices, according to David Inwards-Breland, MD, MPH, a professor of clinical pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego.

Dr. Inwards-Breland highlighted two key studies in recent years during the LGBTQ+ section at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, held virtually in 2020.
 

High suicide rates among sexual minority youth

Past research has found that adolescents who identify as sexual minorities have nearly five times the rate of suicide attempts, compared with their heterosexual peers, Dr. Inwards-Breland said as he introduced a recent study on disparities in adolescent suicide.

“This may be from a disproportionate burden of poor mental health that has been linked to stigma,” he said, adding that an estimated 125 state bills have been introduced in the United States that would restrict the rights of sexual minorities.

The study, published in Pediatrics in March 2020, compiled data from 110,243 adolescents in six states on sexual orientation identity; 25,994 adolescents in four states on same-sex sexual contact and sexual assault; and 20,655 adolescents in three states on sexual orientation identity, the sex of sexual contacts, and sexual assault.

The authors found that heterosexual identity dropped from 93% to 86% between 2009 and 2017, but sexual minority youth accounted for an increasing share of suicide attempts over the same period. A quarter of adolescents who attempted suicide in 2009 were sexual minorities, which increased to 36% in 2017. Similarly, among sexually active teens who attempted suicide, the proportion of those who had same-sex contact nearly doubled, from 16% to 30%.

The good news, Dr. Inwards-Breland said, was that overall suicide attempts declined among sexual minorities, but they remain three times as likely to attempt suicide, compared with their heterosexual counterparts.

“As the number of adolescents increase in our country, there will be increasing numbers of adolescents identifying as sexual minorities or who have had same-sex sexual contact,” Dr. Inwards-Breland said. “Therefore, providing confidential services is even more important to allow youth to feel comfortable with their health care provider.” He also emphasized the importance of consistent universal depression screening and advocacy to eliminate and prevent policies that harm these youth.
 

Using youths’ chosen names

Transgender and nonbinary youth – those who do not identify as male or female – have a higher risk of poor mental health and higher levels of suicidal ideation and behaviors, compared with their “cis” peers, those who identify with the gender they were assigned at birth, Dr. Inwards-Breland said. However, using the chosen, or assertive, name of transgender and nonbinary youth predicted fewer depressive symptoms and less suicidal ideation and behavior in a study published in the Journal of Adolescent Health in October 2018.

“Choosing a name is an important part of social transition of transgender individuals, yet they’re unable to use their name because of interpersonal or institutional barriers,” he said. In addition, using a name other than their legally given name can subject them to discrimination and victimization.

The study, drawing from a larger cohort of LGBTQ youth, involved 129 transgender and nonbinary adolescents, aged 15-21, of whom 74 had a chosen name. No other differences in personal characteristics were associated with depressive symptoms or suicidal ideation besides increased use of their assertive name in different life contexts.

An increase in one context where chosen name could be used predicted a 5.37-unit decrease in depressive symptoms, a 29% decrease in suicidal ideation, and a 56% decrease in suicidal behavior, the study found. All three outcomes were at their lowest levels when chosen names were used in all four contexts explored in the study.

“The chosen name affirms their gender identity,” Dr. Inwards-Breland said, but “the legal name change process is very onerous.” He highlighted the need for institutions to adjust regulations and information systems, for policies that promote the transition process, and for youths’ names to be affirmed in multiple contexts.

“We as pediatricians, specialists, and primary care doctors can support families as they adjust the transition process by helping them with assertive names and pronouns and giving them resources,” Dr. Inwards-Breland said. He also called for school policies and teacher/staff training that promote the use of assertive names and pronouns, and ensuring that the assertive name and pronouns are in the medical record and used by office staff and other medical professionals.
 

‘A light in the dark’ for LGBTQ+ youth

Clair Kronk of the University of Cincinnati and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital and Medical Center attended the LGBTQ+ section at the AAP meeting because of concerns about she and her transgender siblings have been treated by the medical community.

“It has always been important to be ‘on the pulse’ of what is happening in the medical community, especially with new, more discriminatory policies being passed seemingly willy-nilly these days, both in the medical realm and outside of it,” Ms. Kronk said in an interview. “I was overjoyed to see how many people seemed to care so much about the transgender community and LGBTQIA+ people generally.”

As an ontologist and bioinformatician, she did not recall many big clinical takeaways for her particular work, but she appreciated how many areas the session covered, especially given the dearth of instruction about LGBTQ+ care in medical training.

“This session was a bit of a light in the dark given the state of LGBTQIA+ health care rights,” she said. “There is a lot at stake in the next year or so, and providers’ and LGBTQIA+ persons’ voices need to be heard right now more than ever.”

Sonia Khan, MD, a pediatrician and the medical director of the substance use disorder counseling program in the department of health and human services in Fremont, Calif., also attended the session and came away feeling invigorated.

“These data make me feel more optimistic than I have been in ages in terms of increasing the safety of young people being able to come out,” Dr. Khan said in the comments during the session. “These last 4 years felt so regressive. [It’s] good to get the big picture.”

The presenters and commentators had no disclosures.

Even as dozens of state legislature bills attempt to limit the rights of sexual-diverse and gender-diverse youth, researchers are learning more and more that can help pediatricians better support this population in their practices, according to David Inwards-Breland, MD, MPH, a professor of clinical pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego.

Dr. Inwards-Breland highlighted two key studies in recent years during the LGBTQ+ section at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, held virtually in 2020.
 

High suicide rates among sexual minority youth

Past research has found that adolescents who identify as sexual minorities have nearly five times the rate of suicide attempts, compared with their heterosexual peers, Dr. Inwards-Breland said as he introduced a recent study on disparities in adolescent suicide.

“This may be from a disproportionate burden of poor mental health that has been linked to stigma,” he said, adding that an estimated 125 state bills have been introduced in the United States that would restrict the rights of sexual minorities.

The study, published in Pediatrics in March 2020, compiled data from 110,243 adolescents in six states on sexual orientation identity; 25,994 adolescents in four states on same-sex sexual contact and sexual assault; and 20,655 adolescents in three states on sexual orientation identity, the sex of sexual contacts, and sexual assault.

The authors found that heterosexual identity dropped from 93% to 86% between 2009 and 2017, but sexual minority youth accounted for an increasing share of suicide attempts over the same period. A quarter of adolescents who attempted suicide in 2009 were sexual minorities, which increased to 36% in 2017. Similarly, among sexually active teens who attempted suicide, the proportion of those who had same-sex contact nearly doubled, from 16% to 30%.

The good news, Dr. Inwards-Breland said, was that overall suicide attempts declined among sexual minorities, but they remain three times as likely to attempt suicide, compared with their heterosexual counterparts.

“As the number of adolescents increase in our country, there will be increasing numbers of adolescents identifying as sexual minorities or who have had same-sex sexual contact,” Dr. Inwards-Breland said. “Therefore, providing confidential services is even more important to allow youth to feel comfortable with their health care provider.” He also emphasized the importance of consistent universal depression screening and advocacy to eliminate and prevent policies that harm these youth.
 

Using youths’ chosen names

Transgender and nonbinary youth – those who do not identify as male or female – have a higher risk of poor mental health and higher levels of suicidal ideation and behaviors, compared with their “cis” peers, those who identify with the gender they were assigned at birth, Dr. Inwards-Breland said. However, using the chosen, or assertive, name of transgender and nonbinary youth predicted fewer depressive symptoms and less suicidal ideation and behavior in a study published in the Journal of Adolescent Health in October 2018.

“Choosing a name is an important part of social transition of transgender individuals, yet they’re unable to use their name because of interpersonal or institutional barriers,” he said. In addition, using a name other than their legally given name can subject them to discrimination and victimization.

The study, drawing from a larger cohort of LGBTQ youth, involved 129 transgender and nonbinary adolescents, aged 15-21, of whom 74 had a chosen name. No other differences in personal characteristics were associated with depressive symptoms or suicidal ideation besides increased use of their assertive name in different life contexts.

An increase in one context where chosen name could be used predicted a 5.37-unit decrease in depressive symptoms, a 29% decrease in suicidal ideation, and a 56% decrease in suicidal behavior, the study found. All three outcomes were at their lowest levels when chosen names were used in all four contexts explored in the study.

“The chosen name affirms their gender identity,” Dr. Inwards-Breland said, but “the legal name change process is very onerous.” He highlighted the need for institutions to adjust regulations and information systems, for policies that promote the transition process, and for youths’ names to be affirmed in multiple contexts.

“We as pediatricians, specialists, and primary care doctors can support families as they adjust the transition process by helping them with assertive names and pronouns and giving them resources,” Dr. Inwards-Breland said. He also called for school policies and teacher/staff training that promote the use of assertive names and pronouns, and ensuring that the assertive name and pronouns are in the medical record and used by office staff and other medical professionals.
 

‘A light in the dark’ for LGBTQ+ youth

Clair Kronk of the University of Cincinnati and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital and Medical Center attended the LGBTQ+ section at the AAP meeting because of concerns about she and her transgender siblings have been treated by the medical community.

“It has always been important to be ‘on the pulse’ of what is happening in the medical community, especially with new, more discriminatory policies being passed seemingly willy-nilly these days, both in the medical realm and outside of it,” Ms. Kronk said in an interview. “I was overjoyed to see how many people seemed to care so much about the transgender community and LGBTQIA+ people generally.”

As an ontologist and bioinformatician, she did not recall many big clinical takeaways for her particular work, but she appreciated how many areas the session covered, especially given the dearth of instruction about LGBTQ+ care in medical training.

“This session was a bit of a light in the dark given the state of LGBTQIA+ health care rights,” she said. “There is a lot at stake in the next year or so, and providers’ and LGBTQIA+ persons’ voices need to be heard right now more than ever.”

Sonia Khan, MD, a pediatrician and the medical director of the substance use disorder counseling program in the department of health and human services in Fremont, Calif., also attended the session and came away feeling invigorated.

“These data make me feel more optimistic than I have been in ages in terms of increasing the safety of young people being able to come out,” Dr. Khan said in the comments during the session. “These last 4 years felt so regressive. [It’s] good to get the big picture.”

The presenters and commentators had no disclosures.

Even as dozens of state legislature bills attempt to limit the rights of sexual-diverse and gender-diverse youth, researchers are learning more and more that can help pediatricians better support this population in their practices, according to David Inwards-Breland, MD, MPH, a professor of clinical pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego.

Dr. Inwards-Breland highlighted two key studies in recent years during the LGBTQ+ section at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, held virtually in 2020.
 

High suicide rates among sexual minority youth

Past research has found that adolescents who identify as sexual minorities have nearly five times the rate of suicide attempts, compared with their heterosexual peers, Dr. Inwards-Breland said as he introduced a recent study on disparities in adolescent suicide.

“This may be from a disproportionate burden of poor mental health that has been linked to stigma,” he said, adding that an estimated 125 state bills have been introduced in the United States that would restrict the rights of sexual minorities.

The study, published in Pediatrics in March 2020, compiled data from 110,243 adolescents in six states on sexual orientation identity; 25,994 adolescents in four states on same-sex sexual contact and sexual assault; and 20,655 adolescents in three states on sexual orientation identity, the sex of sexual contacts, and sexual assault.

The authors found that heterosexual identity dropped from 93% to 86% between 2009 and 2017, but sexual minority youth accounted for an increasing share of suicide attempts over the same period. A quarter of adolescents who attempted suicide in 2009 were sexual minorities, which increased to 36% in 2017. Similarly, among sexually active teens who attempted suicide, the proportion of those who had same-sex contact nearly doubled, from 16% to 30%.

The good news, Dr. Inwards-Breland said, was that overall suicide attempts declined among sexual minorities, but they remain three times as likely to attempt suicide, compared with their heterosexual counterparts.

“As the number of adolescents increase in our country, there will be increasing numbers of adolescents identifying as sexual minorities or who have had same-sex sexual contact,” Dr. Inwards-Breland said. “Therefore, providing confidential services is even more important to allow youth to feel comfortable with their health care provider.” He also emphasized the importance of consistent universal depression screening and advocacy to eliminate and prevent policies that harm these youth.
 

Using youths’ chosen names

Transgender and nonbinary youth – those who do not identify as male or female – have a higher risk of poor mental health and higher levels of suicidal ideation and behaviors, compared with their “cis” peers, those who identify with the gender they were assigned at birth, Dr. Inwards-Breland said. However, using the chosen, or assertive, name of transgender and nonbinary youth predicted fewer depressive symptoms and less suicidal ideation and behavior in a study published in the Journal of Adolescent Health in October 2018.

“Choosing a name is an important part of social transition of transgender individuals, yet they’re unable to use their name because of interpersonal or institutional barriers,” he said. In addition, using a name other than their legally given name can subject them to discrimination and victimization.

The study, drawing from a larger cohort of LGBTQ youth, involved 129 transgender and nonbinary adolescents, aged 15-21, of whom 74 had a chosen name. No other differences in personal characteristics were associated with depressive symptoms or suicidal ideation besides increased use of their assertive name in different life contexts.

An increase in one context where chosen name could be used predicted a 5.37-unit decrease in depressive symptoms, a 29% decrease in suicidal ideation, and a 56% decrease in suicidal behavior, the study found. All three outcomes were at their lowest levels when chosen names were used in all four contexts explored in the study.

“The chosen name affirms their gender identity,” Dr. Inwards-Breland said, but “the legal name change process is very onerous.” He highlighted the need for institutions to adjust regulations and information systems, for policies that promote the transition process, and for youths’ names to be affirmed in multiple contexts.

“We as pediatricians, specialists, and primary care doctors can support families as they adjust the transition process by helping them with assertive names and pronouns and giving them resources,” Dr. Inwards-Breland said. He also called for school policies and teacher/staff training that promote the use of assertive names and pronouns, and ensuring that the assertive name and pronouns are in the medical record and used by office staff and other medical professionals.
 

‘A light in the dark’ for LGBTQ+ youth

Clair Kronk of the University of Cincinnati and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital and Medical Center attended the LGBTQ+ section at the AAP meeting because of concerns about she and her transgender siblings have been treated by the medical community.

“It has always been important to be ‘on the pulse’ of what is happening in the medical community, especially with new, more discriminatory policies being passed seemingly willy-nilly these days, both in the medical realm and outside of it,” Ms. Kronk said in an interview. “I was overjoyed to see how many people seemed to care so much about the transgender community and LGBTQIA+ people generally.”

As an ontologist and bioinformatician, she did not recall many big clinical takeaways for her particular work, but she appreciated how many areas the session covered, especially given the dearth of instruction about LGBTQ+ care in medical training.

“This session was a bit of a light in the dark given the state of LGBTQIA+ health care rights,” she said. “There is a lot at stake in the next year or so, and providers’ and LGBTQIA+ persons’ voices need to be heard right now more than ever.”

Sonia Khan, MD, a pediatrician and the medical director of the substance use disorder counseling program in the department of health and human services in Fremont, Calif., also attended the session and came away feeling invigorated.

“These data make me feel more optimistic than I have been in ages in terms of increasing the safety of young people being able to come out,” Dr. Khan said in the comments during the session. “These last 4 years felt so regressive. [It’s] good to get the big picture.”

The presenters and commentators had no disclosures.

While it’s important not to think immediately of zebras when hearing hoofbeats, it’s just as important not to assume it’s always a horse. The delicate balance between not jumping to the seemingly obvious diagnosis without overanalyzing and overtesting is familiar to all physicians, and it’s far easier to avoid diagnostic mistakes when you understand the cognitive biases that can lead doctors astray.

sturti/Getty Images

“When these errors are made, it’s not because physicians lack knowledge, but they go down a wrong path in their thinking process,” Richard Scarfone, MD, a pediatric emergency medicine physician at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told attendees at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, held virtually this year. “An important point to be made here is that how physicians think seems to be much more important than what physicians know.”

Dr. Scarfone and Joshua Nagler, MD, MHPEd, director, pediatric emergency medicine fellowship program at Children’s Hospital Boston, presented a session on the cognitive biases that can trip up clinicians when making diagnoses and how to avoid them. Research shows that the rate of diagnostic error is approximately 15%. Although those findings come from studies in adults, the rates are likely similar in pediatrics, Dr. Scarfone said.

A wide range of clinical factors contribute to diagnostic errors: limited information, vague or undifferentiated symptoms, incomplete history, multiple transitions of care, diagnostic uncertainty, daily decision density, and reliance on pattern recognition, among others. Personal contributing factors can play a role as well, such as atypical work hours, fatigue, one’s emotional or affective state, a high cognitive load, and others. On top of all that, medical decision-making can be really complex on its own, Dr. Scarfone said. He compared differential diagnosis with a tree where a single leaf is the correct diagnosis.
 

System 1 thinking: Pros and cons

Dr. Scarfone and Dr. Nagler explained system 1 and system 2 thinking, two different ways of thinking that can influence decision-making that Daniel Kahneman explained in his book “Thinking, Fast and Slow.” System 1 refers to the snap judgments that rely on heuristics while system 2 refers to a more analytic, slower process.

gzorgz/iStock/Getty Images

Neither system 1 nor 2 is inherently “right or wrong,” Dr. Scarfone said. “The diagnostic sweet spot is to try to apply the correct system to the correct patient.”

Heuristics are the mental shortcuts people use to make decisions based on past experience. They exist because they’re useful, enabling people to focus only on what they need to accomplish everyday tasks, such as driving or brushing teeth. But heuristics can also lead to predictable cognitive errors.

“The good news about heuristics and system 1 thinking is that it’s efficient and simple, and we desire that in a busy practice or ED setting, but we should recognize that the trade-off is that it may be at the expense of accuracy,” Dr. Scarfone said.

The advantage to system 1 thinking is easy, simple, rapid, and efficient decision-making that rejects ambiguity. It’s also usually accurate, which rewards the approach, and accuracy increases with time based on memory, experience, and pattern recognition. Doctors develop “illness scripts” that help in identifying diagnoses.

“Illness scripts are common patterns of clinical presentations that usually lead us to a diagnostic possibility,” Dr. Scarfone said. “A classic illness script might be a 4-week-old firstborn male with forceful vomiting, and immediately your mind may go to pyloric stenosis as a likely diagnosis.” But the patient may have a different diagnosis than the initial impression your system 1 thinking leads you to believe.

“Generally, the more experience a clinician has, the more accurate they’ll be in using system 1,” he said. “Seasoned physicians are much more likely to employ system 1 than a newer physician or trainee,” which is why heuristics shouldn’t be thought of as hindrances. Dr. Scarfone quoted Kevin Eva in a 2005 review on clinical reasoning: “Successful heuristics should be embraced rather than overcome.”

A drawback to system 1 thinking, however, is thinking that “what you see is all there is,” which can lead to cognitive errors. Feeling wrong feels the same as feeling right, so you may not realize when you’re off target and therefore neglect to consider alternatives.

“When we learn a little about our patient’s complaint, it’s easier to fit everything into a coherent explanation,” Dr. Scarfone said, but “don’t ask, don’t tell doesn’t work in medicine.”

Another challenge with system 1 thinking is that pattern recognition can be unreliable because it’s dependent on context. For example, consider the difference in assessing a patient’s sore throat in a primary care office versus a resuscitation bay. “Clearly our consideration of what may be going on with the patient and what the diagnosis may be is likely to vary in those two settings,” he said.
 

System 2 thinking: Of zebras and horses

System 2 is the analytic thinking that involves pondering and seek out the optimal answer rather than the “good-enough” answer.

“The good news about system 2 is that it really can monitor system 1,” said Dr. Nagler, who has a master’s degree in health professions education. “If you spend the time to do analytic reasoning, you can actually mitigate some of those errors that may occur from intuitive judgments from system 1 thinking. System 2 spends the time to say ‘let’s make sure we’re doing this right.’ ” In multiple-choice tests, for example, people are twice as likely to change a wrong answer to a right one than a right one to a wrong one.

System 2 thinking allows for the reasoning to assess questions in the gray zone. It’s vigilant, it’s reliable, it’s effective, it acknowledges uncertainty and doubt, it can be safe in terms of providing care, and it has high scientific rigor. But it also has disadvantages, starting with the fact that it’s slower and more time-consuming. System 2 thinking is resource intensive, requiring a higher cognitive demand and more time and effort.

“Sometimes the quick judgment is the best judgment,” Dr. Nagler said. System 2 thinking also is sometimes unnecessary and counter to value-based care. “If you start to think about all the possibilities of what a presentation may be, all of a sudden you might find yourself wanting to do all kinds of tests and all kinds of referrals and other things, which is not necessarily value-based care.” When system 2 thinking goes astray, it makes us think everything we see is a zebra rather than a horse.

Sonia Khan, MD, a pediatrician in Fremont, Calif., found this session particularly worthwhile.

“It really tries to explain the difference between leaping to conclusions and learning how to hold your horses and do a bit more, to double check that you’re not locking everything into a horse stall and missing a zebra, and avoiding go too far with system 2 and thinking that everything’s a zebra,” Dr. Khan said. “It’s a difficult talk to have because you’re asking pediatricians to look in the mirror and own up, to learn to step back and reconsider the picture, and consider the biases that may come into your decision-making; then learn to extrude them, and rethink the case to be sure your knee-jerk diagnostic response is correct.”
 

Types of cognitive errors

The presenters listed some of the most common cognitive errors, although their list is far from exhaustive.

• Affective error. Avoiding unpleasant but necessary tests or examinations because of sympathy for the patient, such as avoiding blood work to spare a needle stick in a cancer patient with abdominal pain because the mother is convinced it’s constipation from opioids. This is similar to omission bias, which places excessive concern on avoiding a therapy’s adverse effects when the therapy could be highly effective.
• Anchoring. Clinging to an initial impression or salient features of initial presentation, even as conflicting and contradictory data accumulate, such as diagnosing a patient with fever and vomiting with gastroenteritis even when the patient has an oxygen saturation of 94% and tachypnea.
• Attribution errors. Negative stereotypes lead clinicians to ignore or minimize the possibility of serious disease, such as evaluating a confused teen covered in piercings and tattoos for drug ingestion when the actual diagnosis is new-onset diabetic ketoacidosis.
• Availability bias. Overestimating or underestimating the probability of disease because of recent experience, what was most recently “available” to your brain cognitively, such as getting head imaging on several vomiting patients in a row because you recently had one with a new brain tumor diagnosis.
• Bandwagon effect. Accepting the group’s opinion without assessing a clinical situation yourself, such as sending home a crying, vomiting infant with a presumed viral infection only to see the infant return later with intussusception.
• Base rate neglect. Ignoring the true prevalence of disease by either inflating it or reducing it, such as searching for cardiac disease in all pediatric patients with chest pain.
• Commission. A tendency toward action with the belief that harm may only be prevented by action, such as ordering every possible test for a patient with fever to “rule everything out.”
• Confirmation bias. Subconscious cherry-picking: A tendency to look for, notice, and remember information that fits with preexisting expectations while disregarding information that contradicts those expectations.
• Diagnostic momentum. Clinging to that initial diagnostic impression that may have been generated by others, which is particularly common during transitions of care.
• Premature closure. Narrowing down to a diagnosis without thinking about other diagnoses or asking enough questions about other symptoms that may have opened up other diagnostic possibilities.
• Representation bias. Making a decision in the absence of appropriate context by incorrectly comparing two situations because of a perceived similarity between them, or on the flip side, evaluating a situation without comparing it with other situations.
• Overconfidence. Making a decision without enough supportive evidence yet feeling confident about the diagnosis.
• Search satisfying. Stopping the search for additional diagnoses after the anticipated diagnosis has been made.

Cognitive pills for cognitive ills

Being aware of the pitfalls of cognitive errors is the first step to avoiding and mitigating them. “It really does start with preparation and awareness,” Dr. Scarfone said before presenting strategies to build a cognitive “firewall” that can help physicians practice reflectively instead of reflexively.

First, be aware of your cognitive style. People usually have the same thinking pattern in everyday life as in the clinical setting, so determine whether you’re more of a system 1 or system 2 thinker. System 1 thinkers need to watch out for framing (relying too heavily on context), premature closure, diagnostic momentum, anchoring, and confirmation bias. System 2 thinkers need to watch out for commission, availability bias, and base rate neglect.

“Neither system is inherently right or wrong,” Dr. Scarfone reiterated. “In the perfect world, you may use system 1 to form an initial impression, but then system 2 should really act as a check and balance system to cause you to reflect on your initial diagnostic impressions.”

Additional strategies include being a good history taker and performing a meticulous physical exam: be a good listener, clarify unclear aspects of the history, and identify and address the main concern.

“Remember children and families have a story to tell, and if we listen carefully enough, the diagnostic clues are there,” Dr. Scarfone said. “Sometimes they may be quite subtle.” He recommended doctors perform each part of the physical exam as if expecting an abnormality.

Another strategy is using meta-cognition, a forced analysis of the thinking that led to a diagnosis. It involves asking: “If I had to explain my medical decision-making to others, would this make inherent sense?” Dr. Scarfone said. “If you’re testing, try to avoid anchoring and confirmation biases.”

Finally, take a diagnostic time-out with a checklist that asks these questions:

• Does my presumptive diagnosis make sense?
• What evidence supports or refutes it?
• Did I arrive at it via cognitive biases?
• Are there other diagnostic possibilities that should be considered?

One way to do this is creating a table listing the complaint/finding, diagnostic possibilities with system 1 thinking, diagnostic possibilities with system 2 thinking, and then going beyond system 2 – the potential zebras – when even system 2 diagnostic possibilities don’t account for what the patient is saying or what the exam shows.

Enough overlap exists between these cognitive biases and the intrinsic bias related to individual characteristics that Dr. Khan appreciated the talk on another level as well.

“For me, as a brown Muslim immigrant woman of color, I can sometimes see cognitive biases in action with my colleagues and realize that they are oblivious to it,” Dr. Khan said. “It’s really refreshing to see this issue come up and being discussed at the [AAP] National Conference and Exhibition.”

Dr. Scarfone, Dr. Nagler and Dr. Khan have no relevant financial disclosures.

This article was updated 12/8/2020.
 

While it’s important not to think immediately of zebras when hearing hoofbeats, it’s just as important not to assume it’s always a horse. The delicate balance between not jumping to the seemingly obvious diagnosis without overanalyzing and overtesting is familiar to all physicians, and it’s far easier to avoid diagnostic mistakes when you understand the cognitive biases that can lead doctors astray.

sturti/Getty Images

“When these errors are made, it’s not because physicians lack knowledge, but they go down a wrong path in their thinking process,” Richard Scarfone, MD, a pediatric emergency medicine physician at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told attendees at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, held virtually this year. “An important point to be made here is that how physicians think seems to be much more important than what physicians know.”

Dr. Scarfone and Joshua Nagler, MD, MHPEd, director, pediatric emergency medicine fellowship program at Children’s Hospital Boston, presented a session on the cognitive biases that can trip up clinicians when making diagnoses and how to avoid them. Research shows that the rate of diagnostic error is approximately 15%. Although those findings come from studies in adults, the rates are likely similar in pediatrics, Dr. Scarfone said.

A wide range of clinical factors contribute to diagnostic errors: limited information, vague or undifferentiated symptoms, incomplete history, multiple transitions of care, diagnostic uncertainty, daily decision density, and reliance on pattern recognition, among others. Personal contributing factors can play a role as well, such as atypical work hours, fatigue, one’s emotional or affective state, a high cognitive load, and others. On top of all that, medical decision-making can be really complex on its own, Dr. Scarfone said. He compared differential diagnosis with a tree where a single leaf is the correct diagnosis.
 

System 1 thinking: Pros and cons

Dr. Scarfone and Dr. Nagler explained system 1 and system 2 thinking, two different ways of thinking that can influence decision-making that Daniel Kahneman explained in his book “Thinking, Fast and Slow.” System 1 refers to the snap judgments that rely on heuristics while system 2 refers to a more analytic, slower process.

gzorgz/iStock/Getty Images

Neither system 1 nor 2 is inherently “right or wrong,” Dr. Scarfone said. “The diagnostic sweet spot is to try to apply the correct system to the correct patient.”

Heuristics are the mental shortcuts people use to make decisions based on past experience. They exist because they’re useful, enabling people to focus only on what they need to accomplish everyday tasks, such as driving or brushing teeth. But heuristics can also lead to predictable cognitive errors.

“The good news about heuristics and system 1 thinking is that it’s efficient and simple, and we desire that in a busy practice or ED setting, but we should recognize that the trade-off is that it may be at the expense of accuracy,” Dr. Scarfone said.

The advantage to system 1 thinking is easy, simple, rapid, and efficient decision-making that rejects ambiguity. It’s also usually accurate, which rewards the approach, and accuracy increases with time based on memory, experience, and pattern recognition. Doctors develop “illness scripts” that help in identifying diagnoses.

“Illness scripts are common patterns of clinical presentations that usually lead us to a diagnostic possibility,” Dr. Scarfone said. “A classic illness script might be a 4-week-old firstborn male with forceful vomiting, and immediately your mind may go to pyloric stenosis as a likely diagnosis.” But the patient may have a different diagnosis than the initial impression your system 1 thinking leads you to believe.

“Generally, the more experience a clinician has, the more accurate they’ll be in using system 1,” he said. “Seasoned physicians are much more likely to employ system 1 than a newer physician or trainee,” which is why heuristics shouldn’t be thought of as hindrances. Dr. Scarfone quoted Kevin Eva in a 2005 review on clinical reasoning: “Successful heuristics should be embraced rather than overcome.”

A drawback to system 1 thinking, however, is thinking that “what you see is all there is,” which can lead to cognitive errors. Feeling wrong feels the same as feeling right, so you may not realize when you’re off target and therefore neglect to consider alternatives.

“When we learn a little about our patient’s complaint, it’s easier to fit everything into a coherent explanation,” Dr. Scarfone said, but “don’t ask, don’t tell doesn’t work in medicine.”

Another challenge with system 1 thinking is that pattern recognition can be unreliable because it’s dependent on context. For example, consider the difference in assessing a patient’s sore throat in a primary care office versus a resuscitation bay. “Clearly our consideration of what may be going on with the patient and what the diagnosis may be is likely to vary in those two settings,” he said.
 

System 2 thinking: Of zebras and horses

System 2 is the analytic thinking that involves pondering and seek out the optimal answer rather than the “good-enough” answer.

“The good news about system 2 is that it really can monitor system 1,” said Dr. Nagler, who has a master’s degree in health professions education. “If you spend the time to do analytic reasoning, you can actually mitigate some of those errors that may occur from intuitive judgments from system 1 thinking. System 2 spends the time to say ‘let’s make sure we’re doing this right.’ ” In multiple-choice tests, for example, people are twice as likely to change a wrong answer to a right one than a right one to a wrong one.

System 2 thinking allows for the reasoning to assess questions in the gray zone. It’s vigilant, it’s reliable, it’s effective, it acknowledges uncertainty and doubt, it can be safe in terms of providing care, and it has high scientific rigor. But it also has disadvantages, starting with the fact that it’s slower and more time-consuming. System 2 thinking is resource intensive, requiring a higher cognitive demand and more time and effort.

“Sometimes the quick judgment is the best judgment,” Dr. Nagler said. System 2 thinking also is sometimes unnecessary and counter to value-based care. “If you start to think about all the possibilities of what a presentation may be, all of a sudden you might find yourself wanting to do all kinds of tests and all kinds of referrals and other things, which is not necessarily value-based care.” When system 2 thinking goes astray, it makes us think everything we see is a zebra rather than a horse.

Sonia Khan, MD, a pediatrician in Fremont, Calif., found this session particularly worthwhile.

“It really tries to explain the difference between leaping to conclusions and learning how to hold your horses and do a bit more, to double check that you’re not locking everything into a horse stall and missing a zebra, and avoiding go too far with system 2 and thinking that everything’s a zebra,” Dr. Khan said. “It’s a difficult talk to have because you’re asking pediatricians to look in the mirror and own up, to learn to step back and reconsider the picture, and consider the biases that may come into your decision-making; then learn to extrude them, and rethink the case to be sure your knee-jerk diagnostic response is correct.”
 

Types of cognitive errors

The presenters listed some of the most common cognitive errors, although their list is far from exhaustive.

• Affective error. Avoiding unpleasant but necessary tests or examinations because of sympathy for the patient, such as avoiding blood work to spare a needle stick in a cancer patient with abdominal pain because the mother is convinced it’s constipation from opioids. This is similar to omission bias, which places excessive concern on avoiding a therapy’s adverse effects when the therapy could be highly effective.
• Anchoring. Clinging to an initial impression or salient features of initial presentation, even as conflicting and contradictory data accumulate, such as diagnosing a patient with fever and vomiting with gastroenteritis even when the patient has an oxygen saturation of 94% and tachypnea.
• Attribution errors. Negative stereotypes lead clinicians to ignore or minimize the possibility of serious disease, such as evaluating a confused teen covered in piercings and tattoos for drug ingestion when the actual diagnosis is new-onset diabetic ketoacidosis.
• Availability bias. Overestimating or underestimating the probability of disease because of recent experience, what was most recently “available” to your brain cognitively, such as getting head imaging on several vomiting patients in a row because you recently had one with a new brain tumor diagnosis.
• Bandwagon effect. Accepting the group’s opinion without assessing a clinical situation yourself, such as sending home a crying, vomiting infant with a presumed viral infection only to see the infant return later with intussusception.
• Base rate neglect. Ignoring the true prevalence of disease by either inflating it or reducing it, such as searching for cardiac disease in all pediatric patients with chest pain.
• Commission. A tendency toward action with the belief that harm may only be prevented by action, such as ordering every possible test for a patient with fever to “rule everything out.”
• Confirmation bias. Subconscious cherry-picking: A tendency to look for, notice, and remember information that fits with preexisting expectations while disregarding information that contradicts those expectations.
• Diagnostic momentum. Clinging to that initial diagnostic impression that may have been generated by others, which is particularly common during transitions of care.
• Premature closure. Narrowing down to a diagnosis without thinking about other diagnoses or asking enough questions about other symptoms that may have opened up other diagnostic possibilities.
• Representation bias. Making a decision in the absence of appropriate context by incorrectly comparing two situations because of a perceived similarity between them, or on the flip side, evaluating a situation without comparing it with other situations.
• Overconfidence. Making a decision without enough supportive evidence yet feeling confident about the diagnosis.
• Search satisfying. Stopping the search for additional diagnoses after the anticipated diagnosis has been made.

Cognitive pills for cognitive ills

Being aware of the pitfalls of cognitive errors is the first step to avoiding and mitigating them. “It really does start with preparation and awareness,” Dr. Scarfone said before presenting strategies to build a cognitive “firewall” that can help physicians practice reflectively instead of reflexively.

First, be aware of your cognitive style. People usually have the same thinking pattern in everyday life as in the clinical setting, so determine whether you’re more of a system 1 or system 2 thinker. System 1 thinkers need to watch out for framing (relying too heavily on context), premature closure, diagnostic momentum, anchoring, and confirmation bias. System 2 thinkers need to watch out for commission, availability bias, and base rate neglect.

“Neither system is inherently right or wrong,” Dr. Scarfone reiterated. “In the perfect world, you may use system 1 to form an initial impression, but then system 2 should really act as a check and balance system to cause you to reflect on your initial diagnostic impressions.”

Additional strategies include being a good history taker and performing a meticulous physical exam: be a good listener, clarify unclear aspects of the history, and identify and address the main concern.

“Remember children and families have a story to tell, and if we listen carefully enough, the diagnostic clues are there,” Dr. Scarfone said. “Sometimes they may be quite subtle.” He recommended doctors perform each part of the physical exam as if expecting an abnormality.

Another strategy is using meta-cognition, a forced analysis of the thinking that led to a diagnosis. It involves asking: “If I had to explain my medical decision-making to others, would this make inherent sense?” Dr. Scarfone said. “If you’re testing, try to avoid anchoring and confirmation biases.”

Finally, take a diagnostic time-out with a checklist that asks these questions:

• Does my presumptive diagnosis make sense?
• What evidence supports or refutes it?
• Did I arrive at it via cognitive biases?
• Are there other diagnostic possibilities that should be considered?

One way to do this is creating a table listing the complaint/finding, diagnostic possibilities with system 1 thinking, diagnostic possibilities with system 2 thinking, and then going beyond system 2 – the potential zebras – when even system 2 diagnostic possibilities don’t account for what the patient is saying or what the exam shows.

Enough overlap exists between these cognitive biases and the intrinsic bias related to individual characteristics that Dr. Khan appreciated the talk on another level as well.

“For me, as a brown Muslim immigrant woman of color, I can sometimes see cognitive biases in action with my colleagues and realize that they are oblivious to it,” Dr. Khan said. “It’s really refreshing to see this issue come up and being discussed at the [AAP] National Conference and Exhibition.”

Dr. Scarfone, Dr. Nagler and Dr. Khan have no relevant financial disclosures.

This article was updated 12/8/2020.
 

While it’s important not to think immediately of zebras when hearing hoofbeats, it’s just as important not to assume it’s always a horse. The delicate balance between not jumping to the seemingly obvious diagnosis without overanalyzing and overtesting is familiar to all physicians, and it’s far easier to avoid diagnostic mistakes when you understand the cognitive biases that can lead doctors astray.

sturti/Getty Images

“When these errors are made, it’s not because physicians lack knowledge, but they go down a wrong path in their thinking process,” Richard Scarfone, MD, a pediatric emergency medicine physician at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told attendees at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, held virtually this year. “An important point to be made here is that how physicians think seems to be much more important than what physicians know.”

Dr. Scarfone and Joshua Nagler, MD, MHPEd, director, pediatric emergency medicine fellowship program at Children’s Hospital Boston, presented a session on the cognitive biases that can trip up clinicians when making diagnoses and how to avoid them. Research shows that the rate of diagnostic error is approximately 15%. Although those findings come from studies in adults, the rates are likely similar in pediatrics, Dr. Scarfone said.

A wide range of clinical factors contribute to diagnostic errors: limited information, vague or undifferentiated symptoms, incomplete history, multiple transitions of care, diagnostic uncertainty, daily decision density, and reliance on pattern recognition, among others. Personal contributing factors can play a role as well, such as atypical work hours, fatigue, one’s emotional or affective state, a high cognitive load, and others. On top of all that, medical decision-making can be really complex on its own, Dr. Scarfone said. He compared differential diagnosis with a tree where a single leaf is the correct diagnosis.
 

System 1 thinking: Pros and cons

Dr. Scarfone and Dr. Nagler explained system 1 and system 2 thinking, two different ways of thinking that can influence decision-making that Daniel Kahneman explained in his book “Thinking, Fast and Slow.” System 1 refers to the snap judgments that rely on heuristics while system 2 refers to a more analytic, slower process.

gzorgz/iStock/Getty Images

Neither system 1 nor 2 is inherently “right or wrong,” Dr. Scarfone said. “The diagnostic sweet spot is to try to apply the correct system to the correct patient.”

Heuristics are the mental shortcuts people use to make decisions based on past experience. They exist because they’re useful, enabling people to focus only on what they need to accomplish everyday tasks, such as driving or brushing teeth. But heuristics can also lead to predictable cognitive errors.

“The good news about heuristics and system 1 thinking is that it’s efficient and simple, and we desire that in a busy practice or ED setting, but we should recognize that the trade-off is that it may be at the expense of accuracy,” Dr. Scarfone said.

The advantage to system 1 thinking is easy, simple, rapid, and efficient decision-making that rejects ambiguity. It’s also usually accurate, which rewards the approach, and accuracy increases with time based on memory, experience, and pattern recognition. Doctors develop “illness scripts” that help in identifying diagnoses.

“Illness scripts are common patterns of clinical presentations that usually lead us to a diagnostic possibility,” Dr. Scarfone said. “A classic illness script might be a 4-week-old firstborn male with forceful vomiting, and immediately your mind may go to pyloric stenosis as a likely diagnosis.” But the patient may have a different diagnosis than the initial impression your system 1 thinking leads you to believe.

“Generally, the more experience a clinician has, the more accurate they’ll be in using system 1,” he said. “Seasoned physicians are much more likely to employ system 1 than a newer physician or trainee,” which is why heuristics shouldn’t be thought of as hindrances. Dr. Scarfone quoted Kevin Eva in a 2005 review on clinical reasoning: “Successful heuristics should be embraced rather than overcome.”

A drawback to system 1 thinking, however, is thinking that “what you see is all there is,” which can lead to cognitive errors. Feeling wrong feels the same as feeling right, so you may not realize when you’re off target and therefore neglect to consider alternatives.

“When we learn a little about our patient’s complaint, it’s easier to fit everything into a coherent explanation,” Dr. Scarfone said, but “don’t ask, don’t tell doesn’t work in medicine.”

Another challenge with system 1 thinking is that pattern recognition can be unreliable because it’s dependent on context. For example, consider the difference in assessing a patient’s sore throat in a primary care office versus a resuscitation bay. “Clearly our consideration of what may be going on with the patient and what the diagnosis may be is likely to vary in those two settings,” he said.
 

System 2 thinking: Of zebras and horses

System 2 is the analytic thinking that involves pondering and seek out the optimal answer rather than the “good-enough” answer.

“The good news about system 2 is that it really can monitor system 1,” said Dr. Nagler, who has a master’s degree in health professions education. “If you spend the time to do analytic reasoning, you can actually mitigate some of those errors that may occur from intuitive judgments from system 1 thinking. System 2 spends the time to say ‘let’s make sure we’re doing this right.’ ” In multiple-choice tests, for example, people are twice as likely to change a wrong answer to a right one than a right one to a wrong one.

System 2 thinking allows for the reasoning to assess questions in the gray zone. It’s vigilant, it’s reliable, it’s effective, it acknowledges uncertainty and doubt, it can be safe in terms of providing care, and it has high scientific rigor. But it also has disadvantages, starting with the fact that it’s slower and more time-consuming. System 2 thinking is resource intensive, requiring a higher cognitive demand and more time and effort.

“Sometimes the quick judgment is the best judgment,” Dr. Nagler said. System 2 thinking also is sometimes unnecessary and counter to value-based care. “If you start to think about all the possibilities of what a presentation may be, all of a sudden you might find yourself wanting to do all kinds of tests and all kinds of referrals and other things, which is not necessarily value-based care.” When system 2 thinking goes astray, it makes us think everything we see is a zebra rather than a horse.

Sonia Khan, MD, a pediatrician in Fremont, Calif., found this session particularly worthwhile.

“It really tries to explain the difference between leaping to conclusions and learning how to hold your horses and do a bit more, to double check that you’re not locking everything into a horse stall and missing a zebra, and avoiding go too far with system 2 and thinking that everything’s a zebra,” Dr. Khan said. “It’s a difficult talk to have because you’re asking pediatricians to look in the mirror and own up, to learn to step back and reconsider the picture, and consider the biases that may come into your decision-making; then learn to extrude them, and rethink the case to be sure your knee-jerk diagnostic response is correct.”
 

Types of cognitive errors

The presenters listed some of the most common cognitive errors, although their list is far from exhaustive.

• Affective error. Avoiding unpleasant but necessary tests or examinations because of sympathy for the patient, such as avoiding blood work to spare a needle stick in a cancer patient with abdominal pain because the mother is convinced it’s constipation from opioids. This is similar to omission bias, which places excessive concern on avoiding a therapy’s adverse effects when the therapy could be highly effective.
• Anchoring. Clinging to an initial impression or salient features of initial presentation, even as conflicting and contradictory data accumulate, such as diagnosing a patient with fever and vomiting with gastroenteritis even when the patient has an oxygen saturation of 94% and tachypnea.
• Attribution errors. Negative stereotypes lead clinicians to ignore or minimize the possibility of serious disease, such as evaluating a confused teen covered in piercings and tattoos for drug ingestion when the actual diagnosis is new-onset diabetic ketoacidosis.
• Availability bias. Overestimating or underestimating the probability of disease because of recent experience, what was most recently “available” to your brain cognitively, such as getting head imaging on several vomiting patients in a row because you recently had one with a new brain tumor diagnosis.
• Bandwagon effect. Accepting the group’s opinion without assessing a clinical situation yourself, such as sending home a crying, vomiting infant with a presumed viral infection only to see the infant return later with intussusception.
• Base rate neglect. Ignoring the true prevalence of disease by either inflating it or reducing it, such as searching for cardiac disease in all pediatric patients with chest pain.
• Commission. A tendency toward action with the belief that harm may only be prevented by action, such as ordering every possible test for a patient with fever to “rule everything out.”
• Confirmation bias. Subconscious cherry-picking: A tendency to look for, notice, and remember information that fits with preexisting expectations while disregarding information that contradicts those expectations.
• Diagnostic momentum. Clinging to that initial diagnostic impression that may have been generated by others, which is particularly common during transitions of care.
• Premature closure. Narrowing down to a diagnosis without thinking about other diagnoses or asking enough questions about other symptoms that may have opened up other diagnostic possibilities.
• Representation bias. Making a decision in the absence of appropriate context by incorrectly comparing two situations because of a perceived similarity between them, or on the flip side, evaluating a situation without comparing it with other situations.
• Overconfidence. Making a decision without enough supportive evidence yet feeling confident about the diagnosis.
• Search satisfying. Stopping the search for additional diagnoses after the anticipated diagnosis has been made.

Cognitive pills for cognitive ills

Being aware of the pitfalls of cognitive errors is the first step to avoiding and mitigating them. “It really does start with preparation and awareness,” Dr. Scarfone said before presenting strategies to build a cognitive “firewall” that can help physicians practice reflectively instead of reflexively.

First, be aware of your cognitive style. People usually have the same thinking pattern in everyday life as in the clinical setting, so determine whether you’re more of a system 1 or system 2 thinker. System 1 thinkers need to watch out for framing (relying too heavily on context), premature closure, diagnostic momentum, anchoring, and confirmation bias. System 2 thinkers need to watch out for commission, availability bias, and base rate neglect.

“Neither system is inherently right or wrong,” Dr. Scarfone reiterated. “In the perfect world, you may use system 1 to form an initial impression, but then system 2 should really act as a check and balance system to cause you to reflect on your initial diagnostic impressions.”

Additional strategies include being a good history taker and performing a meticulous physical exam: be a good listener, clarify unclear aspects of the history, and identify and address the main concern.

“Remember children and families have a story to tell, and if we listen carefully enough, the diagnostic clues are there,” Dr. Scarfone said. “Sometimes they may be quite subtle.” He recommended doctors perform each part of the physical exam as if expecting an abnormality.

Another strategy is using meta-cognition, a forced analysis of the thinking that led to a diagnosis. It involves asking: “If I had to explain my medical decision-making to others, would this make inherent sense?” Dr. Scarfone said. “If you’re testing, try to avoid anchoring and confirmation biases.”

Finally, take a diagnostic time-out with a checklist that asks these questions:

• Does my presumptive diagnosis make sense?
• What evidence supports or refutes it?
• Did I arrive at it via cognitive biases?
• Are there other diagnostic possibilities that should be considered?

One way to do this is creating a table listing the complaint/finding, diagnostic possibilities with system 1 thinking, diagnostic possibilities with system 2 thinking, and then going beyond system 2 – the potential zebras – when even system 2 diagnostic possibilities don’t account for what the patient is saying or what the exam shows.

Enough overlap exists between these cognitive biases and the intrinsic bias related to individual characteristics that Dr. Khan appreciated the talk on another level as well.

“For me, as a brown Muslim immigrant woman of color, I can sometimes see cognitive biases in action with my colleagues and realize that they are oblivious to it,” Dr. Khan said. “It’s really refreshing to see this issue come up and being discussed at the [AAP] National Conference and Exhibition.”

Dr. Scarfone, Dr. Nagler and Dr. Khan have no relevant financial disclosures.

This article was updated 12/8/2020.
 

Many survivors of localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) experience fear of cancer recurrence (FCR), according to a survey.

About 55% of survivors surveyed expressed this fear, which is higher than the average prevalence among patients diagnosed with other cancers.

Younger and female RCC survivors appear to be at particular risk, but disease stage and time since diagnosis are not associated with FCR, according to the survey.

The results were published in JCO Oncology Practice.

The majority of existing studies concerning FCR have been of survivors of breast, prostate, and gynecologic cancers. For the first time, researchers examined this issue in RCC survivors in a large trial.

More than 1,000 survivors of localized RCC were asked to participate in a survey through social media by the Kidney Cancer Research Alliance.

A total of 412 survivors were included in the analysis. They had a median age of 54 years (range, 30-80 years), were mostly female (79.4%), were mostly well educated (58.3%), and had a median of 17.5 months’ time since diagnosis.

More than half of patients were diagnosed with stage I disease, and about two-thirds had a clear understanding of their diagnosis.
 

Results: FCR persists in RCC

Two-thirds of the survivors had a high prevalence of moderate to severe distress, and 54.9% reported FCR.

“This is the first study to assess fear of cancer recurrence in RCC,” said lead study author Cristiane Decat Bergerot, PhD, who conducted the research during a fellowship at City of Hope in Duarte, Calif. She is now director of the department of psycho-oncology at CETTRO Cancer Research Hospital in Brasilia, Brazil.

“RCC patients really experience this emotion,” Dr. Bergerot said. “Other emotional symptoms, even stress, tend to lower over time. This does not happen with FCR in RCC patients. More than 3 years later, they still had the same prevalence of FCR.”

The prevalence of FCR was not associated with race, education level, country, residential area, cancer care facility type, travel time to hospital, or clinical characteristics such as disease stage and time since diagnosis.

However, higher FCR was associated with female gender, younger age, and lack of understanding of diagnosis. For younger and female patients, the social and emotional consequences of RCC may make it hard for them to keep up with daily activities. Younger patients may have multiple social roles and responsibilities, and an RCC diagnosis interrupts their life.

Even though RCC is more prevalent in males, “females traditionally have no fear of saying they are not doing well with diagnosis or treatment. Women appear to be more open to support,” Dr. Bergerot said.
 

Interventions and support

Psychosocial support with targeted interventions can help address FCR for RCC patients, according to Dr. Bergerot. For example, researchers are developing an app to allow for psychosocial intervention at home to help patients cope with FCR, she said, noting that clinicians in cancer centers more often see metastatic disease, not localized disease.

“Clinicians can teach patients to be more comfortable and feel less anxious about their prognosis and also help them participate in treatment decision-making,” Dr. Bergerot said. “When a RCC patient worries too much about cancer recurrence, refer the patient to a psychosocial team. The patient can receive practical advice to balance emotional symptoms, learn more about their current situation, and find more information through cancer support groups.”

“FCR is a key factor underlying emotional and behavioral difficulties faced by survivors of cancer,” said Daniel L. Hall, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, who was not involved in this study. “Clinicians treating cancer survivors are well positioned to assess and intervene on FCR, distress, and health behaviors.”  

Dr. Hall noted that these fears are a near-ubiquitous concern for cancer survivors.

“Inherently, managing FCR requires acknowledging and facing the uncertainty about one’s future health, which, of course, for all of us is unpredictable, ambiguous, and ever-changing. Although many patients who fear recurrence are fortunate to have a low objective risk of recurrence, I believe patients facing cancer, regardless of demographic or medical characteristics, can feel afraid when facing an unknown, possibly dangerous future,” Dr. Hall said. 

Calls for interventions targeting FCR have emphasized the need for evidence-based treatments and multimodal interventions that teach a variety of targeted skills. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and mind-body interventions are being studied to address FCR.

“Our team conducted a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of these interventions and found that pooled effects were significant, yet small, suggesting the need for further intervention development,” Dr. Hall said. “Through funding from the NIH’s National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, we are currently evaluating a multimodal, group-based intervention that integrates many of the most effective FCR management skills: CBT, mindfulness meditation, relaxation response training, and positive psychology.”

Harvard researchers recently published encouraging results from a small pilot study of a group intervention. The next step is to test a remote, synchronous program in a randomized trial, with recruitment anticipated in early 2021.

“In addition to our work, other groups are developing asynchronous interventions that cancer survivors can use by accessing a website, which may appeal to survivors looking for information quickly or who may not be interested in participating in a group intervention,” Dr. Hall said.

The current study did not receive specific funding. The authors disclosed relationships with many companies, which can be found in the paper. Dr. Hall has no disclosures.

SOURCE: Bergerot CD et al. JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Nov;16(11):e1264-71.

Many survivors of localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) experience fear of cancer recurrence (FCR), according to a survey.

About 55% of survivors surveyed expressed this fear, which is higher than the average prevalence among patients diagnosed with other cancers.

Younger and female RCC survivors appear to be at particular risk, but disease stage and time since diagnosis are not associated with FCR, according to the survey.

The results were published in JCO Oncology Practice.

The majority of existing studies concerning FCR have been of survivors of breast, prostate, and gynecologic cancers. For the first time, researchers examined this issue in RCC survivors in a large trial.

More than 1,000 survivors of localized RCC were asked to participate in a survey through social media by the Kidney Cancer Research Alliance.

A total of 412 survivors were included in the analysis. They had a median age of 54 years (range, 30-80 years), were mostly female (79.4%), were mostly well educated (58.3%), and had a median of 17.5 months’ time since diagnosis.

More than half of patients were diagnosed with stage I disease, and about two-thirds had a clear understanding of their diagnosis.
 

Results: FCR persists in RCC

Two-thirds of the survivors had a high prevalence of moderate to severe distress, and 54.9% reported FCR.

“This is the first study to assess fear of cancer recurrence in RCC,” said lead study author Cristiane Decat Bergerot, PhD, who conducted the research during a fellowship at City of Hope in Duarte, Calif. She is now director of the department of psycho-oncology at CETTRO Cancer Research Hospital in Brasilia, Brazil.

“RCC patients really experience this emotion,” Dr. Bergerot said. “Other emotional symptoms, even stress, tend to lower over time. This does not happen with FCR in RCC patients. More than 3 years later, they still had the same prevalence of FCR.”

The prevalence of FCR was not associated with race, education level, country, residential area, cancer care facility type, travel time to hospital, or clinical characteristics such as disease stage and time since diagnosis.

However, higher FCR was associated with female gender, younger age, and lack of understanding of diagnosis. For younger and female patients, the social and emotional consequences of RCC may make it hard for them to keep up with daily activities. Younger patients may have multiple social roles and responsibilities, and an RCC diagnosis interrupts their life.

Even though RCC is more prevalent in males, “females traditionally have no fear of saying they are not doing well with diagnosis or treatment. Women appear to be more open to support,” Dr. Bergerot said.
 

Interventions and support

Psychosocial support with targeted interventions can help address FCR for RCC patients, according to Dr. Bergerot. For example, researchers are developing an app to allow for psychosocial intervention at home to help patients cope with FCR, she said, noting that clinicians in cancer centers more often see metastatic disease, not localized disease.

“Clinicians can teach patients to be more comfortable and feel less anxious about their prognosis and also help them participate in treatment decision-making,” Dr. Bergerot said. “When a RCC patient worries too much about cancer recurrence, refer the patient to a psychosocial team. The patient can receive practical advice to balance emotional symptoms, learn more about their current situation, and find more information through cancer support groups.”

“FCR is a key factor underlying emotional and behavioral difficulties faced by survivors of cancer,” said Daniel L. Hall, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, who was not involved in this study. “Clinicians treating cancer survivors are well positioned to assess and intervene on FCR, distress, and health behaviors.”  

Dr. Hall noted that these fears are a near-ubiquitous concern for cancer survivors.

“Inherently, managing FCR requires acknowledging and facing the uncertainty about one’s future health, which, of course, for all of us is unpredictable, ambiguous, and ever-changing. Although many patients who fear recurrence are fortunate to have a low objective risk of recurrence, I believe patients facing cancer, regardless of demographic or medical characteristics, can feel afraid when facing an unknown, possibly dangerous future,” Dr. Hall said. 

Calls for interventions targeting FCR have emphasized the need for evidence-based treatments and multimodal interventions that teach a variety of targeted skills. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and mind-body interventions are being studied to address FCR.

“Our team conducted a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of these interventions and found that pooled effects were significant, yet small, suggesting the need for further intervention development,” Dr. Hall said. “Through funding from the NIH’s National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, we are currently evaluating a multimodal, group-based intervention that integrates many of the most effective FCR management skills: CBT, mindfulness meditation, relaxation response training, and positive psychology.”

Harvard researchers recently published encouraging results from a small pilot study of a group intervention. The next step is to test a remote, synchronous program in a randomized trial, with recruitment anticipated in early 2021.

“In addition to our work, other groups are developing asynchronous interventions that cancer survivors can use by accessing a website, which may appeal to survivors looking for information quickly or who may not be interested in participating in a group intervention,” Dr. Hall said.

The current study did not receive specific funding. The authors disclosed relationships with many companies, which can be found in the paper. Dr. Hall has no disclosures.

SOURCE: Bergerot CD et al. JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Nov;16(11):e1264-71.

Many survivors of localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) experience fear of cancer recurrence (FCR), according to a survey.

About 55% of survivors surveyed expressed this fear, which is higher than the average prevalence among patients diagnosed with other cancers.

Younger and female RCC survivors appear to be at particular risk, but disease stage and time since diagnosis are not associated with FCR, according to the survey.

The results were published in JCO Oncology Practice.

The majority of existing studies concerning FCR have been of survivors of breast, prostate, and gynecologic cancers. For the first time, researchers examined this issue in RCC survivors in a large trial.

More than 1,000 survivors of localized RCC were asked to participate in a survey through social media by the Kidney Cancer Research Alliance.

A total of 412 survivors were included in the analysis. They had a median age of 54 years (range, 30-80 years), were mostly female (79.4%), were mostly well educated (58.3%), and had a median of 17.5 months’ time since diagnosis.

More than half of patients were diagnosed with stage I disease, and about two-thirds had a clear understanding of their diagnosis.
 

Results: FCR persists in RCC

Two-thirds of the survivors had a high prevalence of moderate to severe distress, and 54.9% reported FCR.

“This is the first study to assess fear of cancer recurrence in RCC,” said lead study author Cristiane Decat Bergerot, PhD, who conducted the research during a fellowship at City of Hope in Duarte, Calif. She is now director of the department of psycho-oncology at CETTRO Cancer Research Hospital in Brasilia, Brazil.

“RCC patients really experience this emotion,” Dr. Bergerot said. “Other emotional symptoms, even stress, tend to lower over time. This does not happen with FCR in RCC patients. More than 3 years later, they still had the same prevalence of FCR.”

The prevalence of FCR was not associated with race, education level, country, residential area, cancer care facility type, travel time to hospital, or clinical characteristics such as disease stage and time since diagnosis.

However, higher FCR was associated with female gender, younger age, and lack of understanding of diagnosis. For younger and female patients, the social and emotional consequences of RCC may make it hard for them to keep up with daily activities. Younger patients may have multiple social roles and responsibilities, and an RCC diagnosis interrupts their life.

Even though RCC is more prevalent in males, “females traditionally have no fear of saying they are not doing well with diagnosis or treatment. Women appear to be more open to support,” Dr. Bergerot said.
 

Interventions and support

Psychosocial support with targeted interventions can help address FCR for RCC patients, according to Dr. Bergerot. For example, researchers are developing an app to allow for psychosocial intervention at home to help patients cope with FCR, she said, noting that clinicians in cancer centers more often see metastatic disease, not localized disease.

“Clinicians can teach patients to be more comfortable and feel less anxious about their prognosis and also help them participate in treatment decision-making,” Dr. Bergerot said. “When a RCC patient worries too much about cancer recurrence, refer the patient to a psychosocial team. The patient can receive practical advice to balance emotional symptoms, learn more about their current situation, and find more information through cancer support groups.”

“FCR is a key factor underlying emotional and behavioral difficulties faced by survivors of cancer,” said Daniel L. Hall, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, who was not involved in this study. “Clinicians treating cancer survivors are well positioned to assess and intervene on FCR, distress, and health behaviors.”  

Dr. Hall noted that these fears are a near-ubiquitous concern for cancer survivors.

“Inherently, managing FCR requires acknowledging and facing the uncertainty about one’s future health, which, of course, for all of us is unpredictable, ambiguous, and ever-changing. Although many patients who fear recurrence are fortunate to have a low objective risk of recurrence, I believe patients facing cancer, regardless of demographic or medical characteristics, can feel afraid when facing an unknown, possibly dangerous future,” Dr. Hall said. 

Calls for interventions targeting FCR have emphasized the need for evidence-based treatments and multimodal interventions that teach a variety of targeted skills. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and mind-body interventions are being studied to address FCR.

“Our team conducted a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of these interventions and found that pooled effects were significant, yet small, suggesting the need for further intervention development,” Dr. Hall said. “Through funding from the NIH’s National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, we are currently evaluating a multimodal, group-based intervention that integrates many of the most effective FCR management skills: CBT, mindfulness meditation, relaxation response training, and positive psychology.”

Harvard researchers recently published encouraging results from a small pilot study of a group intervention. The next step is to test a remote, synchronous program in a randomized trial, with recruitment anticipated in early 2021.

“In addition to our work, other groups are developing asynchronous interventions that cancer survivors can use by accessing a website, which may appeal to survivors looking for information quickly or who may not be interested in participating in a group intervention,” Dr. Hall said.

The current study did not receive specific funding. The authors disclosed relationships with many companies, which can be found in the paper. Dr. Hall has no disclosures.

SOURCE: Bergerot CD et al. JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Nov;16(11):e1264-71.

Adults older than 65 years with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) had significantly higher rates of inpatient mortality, compared with those younger than 65 years, independent of factors including disease severity, based on data from more than 200,000 hospital admissions.

Older adults use a disproportionate share of health care resources, but data on outcomes among hospitalized older adults with gastrointestinal illness are limited, Jeffrey Schwartz, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues wrote in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.

“In particular, there remains a significant concern that elderly patients are more susceptible to the development of opportunistic infections and malignancy in the setting of biological therapy, which has evolved into the standard of care for IBD over the past 10 years,” they wrote.

In their study, the researchers identified 162,800 hospital admissions for Crohn’s disease and 96,450 admissions for ulcerative colitis. Of these, 20% and 30%, respectively, were older than 65 years, which the researchers designated as the geriatric group.

In a multivariate analysis, age older than 65 years was significantly associated with increased mortality in both Crohn’s disease (odds ratio, 3.47; 95% confidence interval, 2.72-4.44; P < .001) and ulcerative colitis (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 2.16-3.49; P < .001). The association was independent of factors included comorbidities, admission type, hospital type, inpatient surgery, and IBD subtype.

The most frequent cause of death in both groups across all ages and disease subtypes was infections (approximately 80% for all groups). The total hospital length of stay was significantly longer for geriatric patients, compared with younger patients with Crohn’s disease, in multivariate analysis (average increase, 0.19 days; P = .009). The total charges also were significantly higher among geriatric Crohn’s disease patients, compared with younger patients (average increase, $2,467; P = .012). No significant differences in hospital stay or total charges appeared between geriatric and younger patients with ulcerative colitis.

The study findings were limited by several factors such as the inclusion of older patients with IBD who were hospitalized for other reasons and by the potential for increased mortality because of comorbidities among elderly patients, the researchers noted. However, the findings support the limited data from similar previous studies and showed greater inpatient mortality for older adults with IBD, compared with hospital inpatients overall.

“Given the high prevalence of IBD patients that require inpatient admission, as well as the rapidly aging nature of the U.S. population, further studies are needed targeting geriatric patients with UC [ulcerative colitis] and CD [Crohn’s disease] to improve their overall management and quality of care to determine if this mortality risk can be reduced,” they concluded.
 

Tune in to risks in older adults

The study is important because the percentage of the population older than 65 years has been increasing; “at the same time, we are seeing more elderly patients being newly diagnosed with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis,” said Russell D. Cohen, MD, of the University of Chicago, in an interview. “These patients are more vulnerable to complications of the diseases, such as infections, as well as complications from the medications used to treat these diseases.” However, older adults are often excluded from clinical trials and even from many observational studies in IBD, he noted.

“We have known from past studies that infections such as sepsis are a leading cause of death in our IBD patients,” said Dr. Cohen. “It is also understandable that those patients who have had complicated courses and those with other comorbidities have a higher mortality rate. However, what was surprising in the current study is that, even when the authors controlled for these factors, the geriatric patients still had two and three-quarters to three and a half times the mortality than those who were younger.”

The take-home message for clinicians is that “the geriatric patient with IBD is at a much higher rate for inpatient mortality, most commonly from infectious complications, than younger patients,” Dr. Cohen emphasized. “Quicker attention to what may seem minor but could become a potentially life-threatening infection is imperative. Caution with the use of multiple immune suppressing medications in older patients is paramount, as is timely surgical intervention in IBD patients in whom medications simply are not working.”
 

Focus research on infection prevention, cost burden

“More research should be directed at finding out whether these deadly infections could be prevented, perhaps by preventative ‘prophylactic’ antibiotics in the elderly patients, especially those on multiple immunosuppressive agents,” said Dr. Cohen. “In addition, research into the undue cost burden that these patients place on our health care system and counter that with better access to the newer, safer biological therapies [most of which Medicare does not cover] rather than corticosteroids.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Cohen disclosed relationships with multiple companies including AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and UCB Pharma.

SOURCE: Schwartz J et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2020 Nov 23. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001458.

Adults older than 65 years with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) had significantly higher rates of inpatient mortality, compared with those younger than 65 years, independent of factors including disease severity, based on data from more than 200,000 hospital admissions.

Older adults use a disproportionate share of health care resources, but data on outcomes among hospitalized older adults with gastrointestinal illness are limited, Jeffrey Schwartz, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues wrote in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.

“In particular, there remains a significant concern that elderly patients are more susceptible to the development of opportunistic infections and malignancy in the setting of biological therapy, which has evolved into the standard of care for IBD over the past 10 years,” they wrote.

In their study, the researchers identified 162,800 hospital admissions for Crohn’s disease and 96,450 admissions for ulcerative colitis. Of these, 20% and 30%, respectively, were older than 65 years, which the researchers designated as the geriatric group.

In a multivariate analysis, age older than 65 years was significantly associated with increased mortality in both Crohn’s disease (odds ratio, 3.47; 95% confidence interval, 2.72-4.44; P < .001) and ulcerative colitis (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 2.16-3.49; P < .001). The association was independent of factors included comorbidities, admission type, hospital type, inpatient surgery, and IBD subtype.

The most frequent cause of death in both groups across all ages and disease subtypes was infections (approximately 80% for all groups). The total hospital length of stay was significantly longer for geriatric patients, compared with younger patients with Crohn’s disease, in multivariate analysis (average increase, 0.19 days; P = .009). The total charges also were significantly higher among geriatric Crohn’s disease patients, compared with younger patients (average increase, $2,467; P = .012). No significant differences in hospital stay or total charges appeared between geriatric and younger patients with ulcerative colitis.

The study findings were limited by several factors such as the inclusion of older patients with IBD who were hospitalized for other reasons and by the potential for increased mortality because of comorbidities among elderly patients, the researchers noted. However, the findings support the limited data from similar previous studies and showed greater inpatient mortality for older adults with IBD, compared with hospital inpatients overall.

“Given the high prevalence of IBD patients that require inpatient admission, as well as the rapidly aging nature of the U.S. population, further studies are needed targeting geriatric patients with UC [ulcerative colitis] and CD [Crohn’s disease] to improve their overall management and quality of care to determine if this mortality risk can be reduced,” they concluded.
 

Tune in to risks in older adults

The study is important because the percentage of the population older than 65 years has been increasing; “at the same time, we are seeing more elderly patients being newly diagnosed with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis,” said Russell D. Cohen, MD, of the University of Chicago, in an interview. “These patients are more vulnerable to complications of the diseases, such as infections, as well as complications from the medications used to treat these diseases.” However, older adults are often excluded from clinical trials and even from many observational studies in IBD, he noted.

“We have known from past studies that infections such as sepsis are a leading cause of death in our IBD patients,” said Dr. Cohen. “It is also understandable that those patients who have had complicated courses and those with other comorbidities have a higher mortality rate. However, what was surprising in the current study is that, even when the authors controlled for these factors, the geriatric patients still had two and three-quarters to three and a half times the mortality than those who were younger.”

The take-home message for clinicians is that “the geriatric patient with IBD is at a much higher rate for inpatient mortality, most commonly from infectious complications, than younger patients,” Dr. Cohen emphasized. “Quicker attention to what may seem minor but could become a potentially life-threatening infection is imperative. Caution with the use of multiple immune suppressing medications in older patients is paramount, as is timely surgical intervention in IBD patients in whom medications simply are not working.”
 

Focus research on infection prevention, cost burden

“More research should be directed at finding out whether these deadly infections could be prevented, perhaps by preventative ‘prophylactic’ antibiotics in the elderly patients, especially those on multiple immunosuppressive agents,” said Dr. Cohen. “In addition, research into the undue cost burden that these patients place on our health care system and counter that with better access to the newer, safer biological therapies [most of which Medicare does not cover] rather than corticosteroids.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Cohen disclosed relationships with multiple companies including AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and UCB Pharma.

SOURCE: Schwartz J et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2020 Nov 23. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001458.

Adults older than 65 years with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) had significantly higher rates of inpatient mortality, compared with those younger than 65 years, independent of factors including disease severity, based on data from more than 200,000 hospital admissions.

Older adults use a disproportionate share of health care resources, but data on outcomes among hospitalized older adults with gastrointestinal illness are limited, Jeffrey Schwartz, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues wrote in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.

“In particular, there remains a significant concern that elderly patients are more susceptible to the development of opportunistic infections and malignancy in the setting of biological therapy, which has evolved into the standard of care for IBD over the past 10 years,” they wrote.

In their study, the researchers identified 162,800 hospital admissions for Crohn’s disease and 96,450 admissions for ulcerative colitis. Of these, 20% and 30%, respectively, were older than 65 years, which the researchers designated as the geriatric group.

In a multivariate analysis, age older than 65 years was significantly associated with increased mortality in both Crohn’s disease (odds ratio, 3.47; 95% confidence interval, 2.72-4.44; P < .001) and ulcerative colitis (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 2.16-3.49; P < .001). The association was independent of factors included comorbidities, admission type, hospital type, inpatient surgery, and IBD subtype.

The most frequent cause of death in both groups across all ages and disease subtypes was infections (approximately 80% for all groups). The total hospital length of stay was significantly longer for geriatric patients, compared with younger patients with Crohn’s disease, in multivariate analysis (average increase, 0.19 days; P = .009). The total charges also were significantly higher among geriatric Crohn’s disease patients, compared with younger patients (average increase, $2,467; P = .012). No significant differences in hospital stay or total charges appeared between geriatric and younger patients with ulcerative colitis.

The study findings were limited by several factors such as the inclusion of older patients with IBD who were hospitalized for other reasons and by the potential for increased mortality because of comorbidities among elderly patients, the researchers noted. However, the findings support the limited data from similar previous studies and showed greater inpatient mortality for older adults with IBD, compared with hospital inpatients overall.

“Given the high prevalence of IBD patients that require inpatient admission, as well as the rapidly aging nature of the U.S. population, further studies are needed targeting geriatric patients with UC [ulcerative colitis] and CD [Crohn’s disease] to improve their overall management and quality of care to determine if this mortality risk can be reduced,” they concluded.
 

Tune in to risks in older adults

The study is important because the percentage of the population older than 65 years has been increasing; “at the same time, we are seeing more elderly patients being newly diagnosed with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis,” said Russell D. Cohen, MD, of the University of Chicago, in an interview. “These patients are more vulnerable to complications of the diseases, such as infections, as well as complications from the medications used to treat these diseases.” However, older adults are often excluded from clinical trials and even from many observational studies in IBD, he noted.

“We have known from past studies that infections such as sepsis are a leading cause of death in our IBD patients,” said Dr. Cohen. “It is also understandable that those patients who have had complicated courses and those with other comorbidities have a higher mortality rate. However, what was surprising in the current study is that, even when the authors controlled for these factors, the geriatric patients still had two and three-quarters to three and a half times the mortality than those who were younger.”

The take-home message for clinicians is that “the geriatric patient with IBD is at a much higher rate for inpatient mortality, most commonly from infectious complications, than younger patients,” Dr. Cohen emphasized. “Quicker attention to what may seem minor but could become a potentially life-threatening infection is imperative. Caution with the use of multiple immune suppressing medications in older patients is paramount, as is timely surgical intervention in IBD patients in whom medications simply are not working.”
 

Focus research on infection prevention, cost burden

“More research should be directed at finding out whether these deadly infections could be prevented, perhaps by preventative ‘prophylactic’ antibiotics in the elderly patients, especially those on multiple immunosuppressive agents,” said Dr. Cohen. “In addition, research into the undue cost burden that these patients place on our health care system and counter that with better access to the newer, safer biological therapies [most of which Medicare does not cover] rather than corticosteroids.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Cohen disclosed relationships with multiple companies including AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and UCB Pharma.

SOURCE: Schwartz J et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2020 Nov 23. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001458.

Obesity and hypoxia at the time of hospital admission predicted more severe disease in children diagnosed with COVID-19, based on data from 281 patients at 8 locations.

Manifestations of COVID-19 in children include respiratory disease similar to that seen in adults, but the full spectrum of disease in children has been studied mainly in single settings or with a focus on one clinical manifestation, wrote Danielle M. Fernandes, MD, of Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Journal of Pediatrics, the researchers identified 281 children hospitalized with COVID-19 and/or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) at 8 sites in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. A total of 143 (51%) had respiratory disease, 69 (25%) had MIS-C, and 69 (25%) had other manifestations of illness including 32 patients with gastrointestinal problems, 21 infants with fever, 6 cases of neurologic disease, 6 cases of diabetic ketoacidosis, and 4 patients with other indications. The median age of the patients was 10 years, 60% were male, 51% were Hispanic, and 23% were non-Hispanic Black. The most common comorbidities were obesity (34%) and asthma (14%).
 

Independent predictors of disease severity in children found

After controlling for multiple variables, obesity and hypoxia at hospital admission were significant independent predictors of severe respiratory disease, with odds ratios of 3.39 and 4.01, respectively. In addition, lower absolute lymphocyte count (OR, 8.33 per unit decrease in 10⁹ cells/L) and higher C-reactive protein (OR, 1.06 per unit increase in mg/dL) were significantly predictive of severe MIS-C (P = .001 and P = .017, respectively).

“The association between weight and severe respiratory COVID-19 is consistent with the adult literature; however, the mechanisms of this association require further study,” Dr. Fernandes and associates noted.

Overall, children with MIS-C were significantly more likely to be non-Hispanic Black, compared with children with respiratory disease, an 18% difference. However, neither race/ethnicity nor socioeconomic status were significant predictors of disease severity, the researchers wrote.

During the study period, 7 patients (2%) died and 114 (41%) were admitted to the ICU.

“We found a wide array of clinical manifestations in children and youth hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2,” Dr. Fernandes and associates wrote. Notably, gastrointestinal symptoms, ocular symptoms, and dermatologic symptoms have rarely been noted in adults with COVID-19, but occurred in more than 30% of the pediatric patients.

“We also found that SARS-CoV-2 can be an incidental finding in a substantial number of hospitalized pediatric patients,” the researchers said.

The findings were limited by several factors including a population of patients only from Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York, and the possibility that decisions on hospital and ICU admission may have varied by location, the researchers said. In addition, approaches may have varied in the absence of data on the optimal treatment of MIS-C.

“This study builds on the growing body of evidence showing that mortality in hospitalized pediatric patients is low, compared with adults,” Dr. Fernandes and associates said. “However, it highlights that the young population is not universally spared from morbidity, and that even previously healthy children and youth can develop severe disease requiring supportive therapy.”
 

Findings confirm other clinical experience

The study was important to show that, “although most children are spared severe illness from COVID-19, some children are hospitalized both with acute COVID-19 respiratory disease, with MIS-C and with a range of other complications,” Adrienne Randolph, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

Dr. Randolph said she was not surprised by the study findings, “as we are also seeing these types of complications at Boston Children’s Hospital where I work.”

Additional research is needed on the outcomes of these patients, “especially the longer-term sequelae of having COVID-19 or MIS-C early in life,” she emphasized.

The take-home message to clinicians from the findings at this time is to be aware that children and adolescents can become severely ill from COVID-19–related complications, said Dr. Randolph. “Some of the laboratory values on presentation appear to be associated with disease severity.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Randolph disclosed funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to lead the Overcoming COVID-19 Study in U.S. Children and Adults.

SOURCE: Fernandes DM et al. J Pediatr. 2020 Nov 13. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.11.016.

Obesity and hypoxia at the time of hospital admission predicted more severe disease in children diagnosed with COVID-19, based on data from 281 patients at 8 locations.

Manifestations of COVID-19 in children include respiratory disease similar to that seen in adults, but the full spectrum of disease in children has been studied mainly in single settings or with a focus on one clinical manifestation, wrote Danielle M. Fernandes, MD, of Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Journal of Pediatrics, the researchers identified 281 children hospitalized with COVID-19 and/or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) at 8 sites in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. A total of 143 (51%) had respiratory disease, 69 (25%) had MIS-C, and 69 (25%) had other manifestations of illness including 32 patients with gastrointestinal problems, 21 infants with fever, 6 cases of neurologic disease, 6 cases of diabetic ketoacidosis, and 4 patients with other indications. The median age of the patients was 10 years, 60% were male, 51% were Hispanic, and 23% were non-Hispanic Black. The most common comorbidities were obesity (34%) and asthma (14%).
 

Independent predictors of disease severity in children found

After controlling for multiple variables, obesity and hypoxia at hospital admission were significant independent predictors of severe respiratory disease, with odds ratios of 3.39 and 4.01, respectively. In addition, lower absolute lymphocyte count (OR, 8.33 per unit decrease in 10⁹ cells/L) and higher C-reactive protein (OR, 1.06 per unit increase in mg/dL) were significantly predictive of severe MIS-C (P = .001 and P = .017, respectively).

“The association between weight and severe respiratory COVID-19 is consistent with the adult literature; however, the mechanisms of this association require further study,” Dr. Fernandes and associates noted.

Overall, children with MIS-C were significantly more likely to be non-Hispanic Black, compared with children with respiratory disease, an 18% difference. However, neither race/ethnicity nor socioeconomic status were significant predictors of disease severity, the researchers wrote.

During the study period, 7 patients (2%) died and 114 (41%) were admitted to the ICU.

“We found a wide array of clinical manifestations in children and youth hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2,” Dr. Fernandes and associates wrote. Notably, gastrointestinal symptoms, ocular symptoms, and dermatologic symptoms have rarely been noted in adults with COVID-19, but occurred in more than 30% of the pediatric patients.

“We also found that SARS-CoV-2 can be an incidental finding in a substantial number of hospitalized pediatric patients,” the researchers said.

The findings were limited by several factors including a population of patients only from Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York, and the possibility that decisions on hospital and ICU admission may have varied by location, the researchers said. In addition, approaches may have varied in the absence of data on the optimal treatment of MIS-C.

“This study builds on the growing body of evidence showing that mortality in hospitalized pediatric patients is low, compared with adults,” Dr. Fernandes and associates said. “However, it highlights that the young population is not universally spared from morbidity, and that even previously healthy children and youth can develop severe disease requiring supportive therapy.”
 

Findings confirm other clinical experience

The study was important to show that, “although most children are spared severe illness from COVID-19, some children are hospitalized both with acute COVID-19 respiratory disease, with MIS-C and with a range of other complications,” Adrienne Randolph, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

Dr. Randolph said she was not surprised by the study findings, “as we are also seeing these types of complications at Boston Children’s Hospital where I work.”

Additional research is needed on the outcomes of these patients, “especially the longer-term sequelae of having COVID-19 or MIS-C early in life,” she emphasized.

The take-home message to clinicians from the findings at this time is to be aware that children and adolescents can become severely ill from COVID-19–related complications, said Dr. Randolph. “Some of the laboratory values on presentation appear to be associated with disease severity.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Randolph disclosed funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to lead the Overcoming COVID-19 Study in U.S. Children and Adults.

SOURCE: Fernandes DM et al. J Pediatr. 2020 Nov 13. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.11.016.

Obesity and hypoxia at the time of hospital admission predicted more severe disease in children diagnosed with COVID-19, based on data from 281 patients at 8 locations.

Manifestations of COVID-19 in children include respiratory disease similar to that seen in adults, but the full spectrum of disease in children has been studied mainly in single settings or with a focus on one clinical manifestation, wrote Danielle M. Fernandes, MD, of Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Journal of Pediatrics, the researchers identified 281 children hospitalized with COVID-19 and/or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) at 8 sites in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. A total of 143 (51%) had respiratory disease, 69 (25%) had MIS-C, and 69 (25%) had other manifestations of illness including 32 patients with gastrointestinal problems, 21 infants with fever, 6 cases of neurologic disease, 6 cases of diabetic ketoacidosis, and 4 patients with other indications. The median age of the patients was 10 years, 60% were male, 51% were Hispanic, and 23% were non-Hispanic Black. The most common comorbidities were obesity (34%) and asthma (14%).
 

Independent predictors of disease severity in children found

After controlling for multiple variables, obesity and hypoxia at hospital admission were significant independent predictors of severe respiratory disease, with odds ratios of 3.39 and 4.01, respectively. In addition, lower absolute lymphocyte count (OR, 8.33 per unit decrease in 10⁹ cells/L) and higher C-reactive protein (OR, 1.06 per unit increase in mg/dL) were significantly predictive of severe MIS-C (P = .001 and P = .017, respectively).

“The association between weight and severe respiratory COVID-19 is consistent with the adult literature; however, the mechanisms of this association require further study,” Dr. Fernandes and associates noted.

Overall, children with MIS-C were significantly more likely to be non-Hispanic Black, compared with children with respiratory disease, an 18% difference. However, neither race/ethnicity nor socioeconomic status were significant predictors of disease severity, the researchers wrote.

During the study period, 7 patients (2%) died and 114 (41%) were admitted to the ICU.

“We found a wide array of clinical manifestations in children and youth hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2,” Dr. Fernandes and associates wrote. Notably, gastrointestinal symptoms, ocular symptoms, and dermatologic symptoms have rarely been noted in adults with COVID-19, but occurred in more than 30% of the pediatric patients.

“We also found that SARS-CoV-2 can be an incidental finding in a substantial number of hospitalized pediatric patients,” the researchers said.

The findings were limited by several factors including a population of patients only from Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York, and the possibility that decisions on hospital and ICU admission may have varied by location, the researchers said. In addition, approaches may have varied in the absence of data on the optimal treatment of MIS-C.

“This study builds on the growing body of evidence showing that mortality in hospitalized pediatric patients is low, compared with adults,” Dr. Fernandes and associates said. “However, it highlights that the young population is not universally spared from morbidity, and that even previously healthy children and youth can develop severe disease requiring supportive therapy.”
 

Findings confirm other clinical experience

The study was important to show that, “although most children are spared severe illness from COVID-19, some children are hospitalized both with acute COVID-19 respiratory disease, with MIS-C and with a range of other complications,” Adrienne Randolph, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

Dr. Randolph said she was not surprised by the study findings, “as we are also seeing these types of complications at Boston Children’s Hospital where I work.”

Additional research is needed on the outcomes of these patients, “especially the longer-term sequelae of having COVID-19 or MIS-C early in life,” she emphasized.

The take-home message to clinicians from the findings at this time is to be aware that children and adolescents can become severely ill from COVID-19–related complications, said Dr. Randolph. “Some of the laboratory values on presentation appear to be associated with disease severity.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Randolph disclosed funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to lead the Overcoming COVID-19 Study in U.S. Children and Adults.

SOURCE: Fernandes DM et al. J Pediatr. 2020 Nov 13. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.11.016.

Background: New-onset POAF occurs with 10% of noncardiac surgery and 15%-42% of cardiac surgery. POAF is believed to be self-limiting and most patients revert to sinus rhythm before hospital discharge. Previous studies on this topic are both limited and conflicting, but several suggest there is an association of stroke and mortality with POAF.

New-onset POAF was associated with increased risk of early stroke (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.47-1.80) and early mortality (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.11-1.88). POAF also was associated with risk for long-term stroke (hazard ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.07-1.77) and long-term mortality (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.27-1.49). The risk of long-term stroke from new-onset POAF was highest among patients who received noncardiac surgery.

Despite identifying high-quality studies with thoughtful analysis, some data had the potential for publication bias. The representative sample did not report paroxysmal vs. persistent atrial fibrillation separately. Furthermore, the study had the potential to be confounded by detection bias of preexisting atrial fibrillation.

Bottom line: New-onset POAF is associated with early and long-term risk of stroke and mortality. Subsequent strategies to reduce this risk have yet to be determined.

Citation: Lin MH et al. Perioperative/postoperative atrial fibrillation and risk of subsequent stroke and/or mortality. Stroke. 2019 May;50:1364-71.

Dr. Mayer is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at St. Louis University School of Medicine.

Background: New-onset POAF occurs with 10% of noncardiac surgery and 15%-42% of cardiac surgery. POAF is believed to be self-limiting and most patients revert to sinus rhythm before hospital discharge. Previous studies on this topic are both limited and conflicting, but several suggest there is an association of stroke and mortality with POAF.

New-onset POAF was associated with increased risk of early stroke (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.47-1.80) and early mortality (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.11-1.88). POAF also was associated with risk for long-term stroke (hazard ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.07-1.77) and long-term mortality (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.27-1.49). The risk of long-term stroke from new-onset POAF was highest among patients who received noncardiac surgery.

Despite identifying high-quality studies with thoughtful analysis, some data had the potential for publication bias. The representative sample did not report paroxysmal vs. persistent atrial fibrillation separately. Furthermore, the study had the potential to be confounded by detection bias of preexisting atrial fibrillation.

Bottom line: New-onset POAF is associated with early and long-term risk of stroke and mortality. Subsequent strategies to reduce this risk have yet to be determined.

Citation: Lin MH et al. Perioperative/postoperative atrial fibrillation and risk of subsequent stroke and/or mortality. Stroke. 2019 May;50:1364-71.

Dr. Mayer is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at St. Louis University School of Medicine.

Background: New-onset POAF occurs with 10% of noncardiac surgery and 15%-42% of cardiac surgery. POAF is believed to be self-limiting and most patients revert to sinus rhythm before hospital discharge. Previous studies on this topic are both limited and conflicting, but several suggest there is an association of stroke and mortality with POAF.

New-onset POAF was associated with increased risk of early stroke (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.47-1.80) and early mortality (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.11-1.88). POAF also was associated with risk for long-term stroke (hazard ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.07-1.77) and long-term mortality (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.27-1.49). The risk of long-term stroke from new-onset POAF was highest among patients who received noncardiac surgery.

Despite identifying high-quality studies with thoughtful analysis, some data had the potential for publication bias. The representative sample did not report paroxysmal vs. persistent atrial fibrillation separately. Furthermore, the study had the potential to be confounded by detection bias of preexisting atrial fibrillation.

Bottom line: New-onset POAF is associated with early and long-term risk of stroke and mortality. Subsequent strategies to reduce this risk have yet to be determined.

Citation: Lin MH et al. Perioperative/postoperative atrial fibrillation and risk of subsequent stroke and/or mortality. Stroke. 2019 May;50:1364-71.

Dr. Mayer is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at St. Louis University School of Medicine.

Older adults should be recommended for hospital-based lifestyle interventions to reduce weight, say U.K. investigators after finding there was no difference in weight loss between older and younger individuals in their program for those with morbid obesity.

Thomas M. Barber, PhD, and colleagues looked back at nearly 250 randomly selected adults who attended their obesity service over an 11-year period.

Older individuals, defined as aged 60 years and over, had higher rates of type 2 diabetes but experienced a similar percentage weight loss and reduction in body mass index (BMI) as younger patients over the course of around 40 months.

“Age should be no barrier to lifestyle management of obesity,” said Dr. Barber, of University Hospitals Coventry (England) and Warwickshire, in a news release from his institution. “Rather than putting up barriers to older people accessing weight-loss programs, we should be proactively facilitating that process. To do otherwise would risk further and unnecessary neglect of older people through societal ageist misconceptions.”

He urged service providers and policy makers to “appreciate the importance of weight loss in older people with obesity for the maintenance of health and well-being and the facilitation of healthy aging. Furthermore, age per se should not contribute toward clinical decisions regarding the implementation of lifestyle management of older people.”

The research was published online Nov. 22 in Clinical Endocrinology.
 

Real-world data will inform clinical practice

Jason Halford, PhD, a professor of biological psychology and health behavior, said in an interview: “The fear is that older patients are perceived not to respond” to lifestyle interventions to control obesity, “and that’s clearly a fallacy, according to this study.”

The findings are strengthened by the fact that these are real-world data, “and so it will inform clinical practice,” he added.

And one of the “more interesting” findings was that [type 2] diabetes was “more prevalent” in the older group “but they’re still losing weight,” he noted.

“Traditionally it’s been thought that people with type 2 diabetes find it more difficult to lose weight because you’re trying to manage two conditions,” said Dr. Halford, of the University of Leeds (England), who is also president-elect of the European Association for the Study of Obesity.
 

Don’t discount older patients

The researchers note that many of the comorbidities associated with obesity “develop over time” and that “no one is immune to obesity,” regardless of their age, sex, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.

Barber said there are “a number of reasons” why health care professionals “may discount weight loss in older people,” including “an ‘ageist’ perspective that weight-loss is not relevant to older people and misconceptions of reduced ability of older people to lose weight through dietary modification and increased exercise.”

And “older people may feel that hospital-based obesity services are not for them,” he noted.

To determine the effect of age on the ability to lose weight through lifestyle interventions, Dr. Barber and colleagues randomly selected 242 patients with morbid obesity who attended their hospital-based service between 2005 and 2016.

Of these, 167 were aged 18-60 years and 75 were aged 60 years and older. Most participants were women (75.4% of the younger patients and 60.0% of the older patients).

The proportion of patients with confirmed diabetes was markedly higher in the older group, compared with the younger group, at 62.7% versus 35.3%, although older patients had a significantly lower baseline BMI, at 46.9 versus 49.7 kg/m² (P < .05).

The average duration of the lifestyle intervention was over 3 years (41.5 months) in the younger patients and 33.6 months in the older patients.

There was no significant difference in percentage weight loss between younger and older patients, at 6.9% and 7.3%, respectively, and no difference in percentage reduction in BMI, at 8.1% versus 7.8%.

Further analysis demonstrated that there was no significant correlation between age at referral to the hospital-based service and percentage weight loss (correlation coefficient, –0.13).

Dr. Halford said it would have been “useful” to know the proportion of patients achieving 5% and 10% weight loss because, if a third of patients lost more than 10% of their weight, “even in an elderly population, that would suggest there’d be real benefits in terms of things like type 2 diabetes,” he noted.

And he would like to have seen more data around how long participants had been struggling with obesity, as it’s “just an assumption that the second group is further down the path because they’re older, but we can’t be 100% sure.”

The team noted the study is limited by being retrospective and including a random selection of patients attending the service rather than the entire cohort.

Dr. Halford agreed but said the analysis is a “starting point” and could be used as a platform to conduct “much more systematic research on this area.”

No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

Older adults should be recommended for hospital-based lifestyle interventions to reduce weight, say U.K. investigators after finding there was no difference in weight loss between older and younger individuals in their program for those with morbid obesity.

Thomas M. Barber, PhD, and colleagues looked back at nearly 250 randomly selected adults who attended their obesity service over an 11-year period.

Older individuals, defined as aged 60 years and over, had higher rates of type 2 diabetes but experienced a similar percentage weight loss and reduction in body mass index (BMI) as younger patients over the course of around 40 months.

“Age should be no barrier to lifestyle management of obesity,” said Dr. Barber, of University Hospitals Coventry (England) and Warwickshire, in a news release from his institution. “Rather than putting up barriers to older people accessing weight-loss programs, we should be proactively facilitating that process. To do otherwise would risk further and unnecessary neglect of older people through societal ageist misconceptions.”

He urged service providers and policy makers to “appreciate the importance of weight loss in older people with obesity for the maintenance of health and well-being and the facilitation of healthy aging. Furthermore, age per se should not contribute toward clinical decisions regarding the implementation of lifestyle management of older people.”

The research was published online Nov. 22 in Clinical Endocrinology.
 

Real-world data will inform clinical practice

Jason Halford, PhD, a professor of biological psychology and health behavior, said in an interview: “The fear is that older patients are perceived not to respond” to lifestyle interventions to control obesity, “and that’s clearly a fallacy, according to this study.”

The findings are strengthened by the fact that these are real-world data, “and so it will inform clinical practice,” he added.

And one of the “more interesting” findings was that [type 2] diabetes was “more prevalent” in the older group “but they’re still losing weight,” he noted.

“Traditionally it’s been thought that people with type 2 diabetes find it more difficult to lose weight because you’re trying to manage two conditions,” said Dr. Halford, of the University of Leeds (England), who is also president-elect of the European Association for the Study of Obesity.
 

Don’t discount older patients

The researchers note that many of the comorbidities associated with obesity “develop over time” and that “no one is immune to obesity,” regardless of their age, sex, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.

Barber said there are “a number of reasons” why health care professionals “may discount weight loss in older people,” including “an ‘ageist’ perspective that weight-loss is not relevant to older people and misconceptions of reduced ability of older people to lose weight through dietary modification and increased exercise.”

And “older people may feel that hospital-based obesity services are not for them,” he noted.

To determine the effect of age on the ability to lose weight through lifestyle interventions, Dr. Barber and colleagues randomly selected 242 patients with morbid obesity who attended their hospital-based service between 2005 and 2016.

Of these, 167 were aged 18-60 years and 75 were aged 60 years and older. Most participants were women (75.4% of the younger patients and 60.0% of the older patients).

The proportion of patients with confirmed diabetes was markedly higher in the older group, compared with the younger group, at 62.7% versus 35.3%, although older patients had a significantly lower baseline BMI, at 46.9 versus 49.7 kg/m² (P < .05).

The average duration of the lifestyle intervention was over 3 years (41.5 months) in the younger patients and 33.6 months in the older patients.

There was no significant difference in percentage weight loss between younger and older patients, at 6.9% and 7.3%, respectively, and no difference in percentage reduction in BMI, at 8.1% versus 7.8%.

Further analysis demonstrated that there was no significant correlation between age at referral to the hospital-based service and percentage weight loss (correlation coefficient, –0.13).

Dr. Halford said it would have been “useful” to know the proportion of patients achieving 5% and 10% weight loss because, if a third of patients lost more than 10% of their weight, “even in an elderly population, that would suggest there’d be real benefits in terms of things like type 2 diabetes,” he noted.

And he would like to have seen more data around how long participants had been struggling with obesity, as it’s “just an assumption that the second group is further down the path because they’re older, but we can’t be 100% sure.”

The team noted the study is limited by being retrospective and including a random selection of patients attending the service rather than the entire cohort.

Dr. Halford agreed but said the analysis is a “starting point” and could be used as a platform to conduct “much more systematic research on this area.”

No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

Older adults should be recommended for hospital-based lifestyle interventions to reduce weight, say U.K. investigators after finding there was no difference in weight loss between older and younger individuals in their program for those with morbid obesity.

Thomas M. Barber, PhD, and colleagues looked back at nearly 250 randomly selected adults who attended their obesity service over an 11-year period.

Older individuals, defined as aged 60 years and over, had higher rates of type 2 diabetes but experienced a similar percentage weight loss and reduction in body mass index (BMI) as younger patients over the course of around 40 months.

“Age should be no barrier to lifestyle management of obesity,” said Dr. Barber, of University Hospitals Coventry (England) and Warwickshire, in a news release from his institution. “Rather than putting up barriers to older people accessing weight-loss programs, we should be proactively facilitating that process. To do otherwise would risk further and unnecessary neglect of older people through societal ageist misconceptions.”

He urged service providers and policy makers to “appreciate the importance of weight loss in older people with obesity for the maintenance of health and well-being and the facilitation of healthy aging. Furthermore, age per se should not contribute toward clinical decisions regarding the implementation of lifestyle management of older people.”

The research was published online Nov. 22 in Clinical Endocrinology.
 

Real-world data will inform clinical practice

Jason Halford, PhD, a professor of biological psychology and health behavior, said in an interview: “The fear is that older patients are perceived not to respond” to lifestyle interventions to control obesity, “and that’s clearly a fallacy, according to this study.”

The findings are strengthened by the fact that these are real-world data, “and so it will inform clinical practice,” he added.

And one of the “more interesting” findings was that [type 2] diabetes was “more prevalent” in the older group “but they’re still losing weight,” he noted.

“Traditionally it’s been thought that people with type 2 diabetes find it more difficult to lose weight because you’re trying to manage two conditions,” said Dr. Halford, of the University of Leeds (England), who is also president-elect of the European Association for the Study of Obesity.
 

Don’t discount older patients

The researchers note that many of the comorbidities associated with obesity “develop over time” and that “no one is immune to obesity,” regardless of their age, sex, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.

Barber said there are “a number of reasons” why health care professionals “may discount weight loss in older people,” including “an ‘ageist’ perspective that weight-loss is not relevant to older people and misconceptions of reduced ability of older people to lose weight through dietary modification and increased exercise.”

And “older people may feel that hospital-based obesity services are not for them,” he noted.

To determine the effect of age on the ability to lose weight through lifestyle interventions, Dr. Barber and colleagues randomly selected 242 patients with morbid obesity who attended their hospital-based service between 2005 and 2016.

Of these, 167 were aged 18-60 years and 75 were aged 60 years and older. Most participants were women (75.4% of the younger patients and 60.0% of the older patients).

The proportion of patients with confirmed diabetes was markedly higher in the older group, compared with the younger group, at 62.7% versus 35.3%, although older patients had a significantly lower baseline BMI, at 46.9 versus 49.7 kg/m² (P < .05).

The average duration of the lifestyle intervention was over 3 years (41.5 months) in the younger patients and 33.6 months in the older patients.

There was no significant difference in percentage weight loss between younger and older patients, at 6.9% and 7.3%, respectively, and no difference in percentage reduction in BMI, at 8.1% versus 7.8%.

Further analysis demonstrated that there was no significant correlation between age at referral to the hospital-based service and percentage weight loss (correlation coefficient, –0.13).

Dr. Halford said it would have been “useful” to know the proportion of patients achieving 5% and 10% weight loss because, if a third of patients lost more than 10% of their weight, “even in an elderly population, that would suggest there’d be real benefits in terms of things like type 2 diabetes,” he noted.

And he would like to have seen more data around how long participants had been struggling with obesity, as it’s “just an assumption that the second group is further down the path because they’re older, but we can’t be 100% sure.”

The team noted the study is limited by being retrospective and including a random selection of patients attending the service rather than the entire cohort.

Dr. Halford agreed but said the analysis is a “starting point” and could be used as a platform to conduct “much more systematic research on this area.”

No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

A phenotype-guided strategy for systematically matching weight-loss patients to their potentially ideal weight-loss drug roughly doubled treatment efficacy, compared with usual practice, in a single-center, randomized study with 268 patients.

After classifying 68 patients into one of four obesity phenotypes through a series of tests and then tailoring drug treatment to the identified phenotype of each patient, researchers observed a 79% rate of greater than 10% weight loss versus baseline after 12 months. In contrast, in 200 patients who received weight loss–drug therapy selected by routine means, 35% achieved greater than 10% loss compared with their starting weight, Andres J. Acosta, MD, said at the virtual ObesityWeek® Interactive 2020 meeting.

The phenotype-guided strategy also led to an average 16% weight loss from baseline after 12 months, compared with a 9% average loss among the usual-care controls, reported Dr. Acosta, a gastroenterologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

A “one-size-fits-all approach to weight loss treatment is not working,” he declared. “Our long-term goal is to develop a personalized approach to obesity management.”

Personalized weight loss treatment isn’t new

“The better we can match treatment to a patient’s needs, the more likely it will succeed. That’s not a brand new idea. They are trying to standardize the way that we classify the disorders that play a role in why a person gains weight or has trouble losing weight,” commented John D. Clark III, MD, an internal medicine physician and weight-management specialist at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

The increased weight loss levels that Dr. Acosta reported in patients who underwent the study’s phenotyping protocol and received tailored treatment “are similar to the numbers we see when a patient’s treatment is the right fit for them. You see weight loss in these ranges,” Dr. Clark said in an interview.

The study run by Dr. Acosta and his associates consisted of two phases. First, they established normal and abnormal ranges for four different obesity phenotypes by studying 100 patients with obesity. The patients underwent an extensive and uniform workup designed to classify their obesity phenotype.

Four obesity phenotypes

The researchers categorized patients into one of four types:

• Disordered initial eating satiation, called ‘hungry brain,” and assessed by measuring food intake at a buffet, ad libidum meal.
• Disordered maintenance of satiety, called “hungry gut,” assessed by both a gastric-emptying study as well as patient self-assessment for postprandial fullness.
• “Emotional hunger,” assessed with two questionnaires.
• Disordered energy expenditure, called “slow burn,” assessed by measuring basal metabolic rate, and self-reports of both exercise and nonexercise activity.

Dr. Acosta estimated that the complete workup to assess all four potential phenotypes costs about $1,200.

The researchers then applied the 75th percentile value from each of these assessments to 450 patients with obesity in their clinic to see the prevalence of the four phenotypes. They identified a single phenotype in 58% of these patients, including 18% with hungry gut, 16% with hungry brain, 12% with emotional hunger, and 12% with slow burn. An additional 27% of the patients were positive for two or more phenotypes (including 9% who were positive for all four phenotypes), and 15% did not test positive for any of the four phenotypes.

Phenotype-guided treatments

They then applied their findings in a prospective randomized study that matched a drug intervention to each of the four phenotypes during a year-long, comprehensive weight-loss program at the Mayo Clinic’s Weight Management Clinic. The study randomized 100 patients to the phenotype-driven arm, with 68 of these patients receiving their assigned drug, and 200 patients served as controls. Patients averaged about 47 years old, and their average body mass index was about 41 kg/m².

The investigational arm included 30 patients classified as having a hungry brain, with 20 of these patients treated with phentermine plus topiramate and 10 treated with lorcaserin (before it was withdrawn by the Food and Drug Administration); 12 with hungry gut and treated with liraglutide (Saxenda); 19 with emotional hunger who received naltrexone SR/bupropion SR (Contrave); and seven with slow burn who received phentermine.

The control arm included 200 patients seeking weight loss treatment at Mayo who did not undergo phenotyping and received their drug treatment based on their personal preference in consultation with their Mayo physician. In this group, drug treatment broke down as 106 patients (53%) on phentermine plus topiramate, 41 (21%) on liraglutide, 34 (17%) on phentermine alone, 14 (7%) on naltrexone SR/bupropion SR, and 5 patients (3%) on locaserin (percentages total 101% because of rounding).

Overall, phenotyping led to more patients treated with naltrexone SR/buproprion SR and lorcaserin and fewer treated with phentermine or phentermine and topiramate ER. All patients were eligible to also receive behavioral interventions as needed.

“We do a lot of testing to identify the phenotype,” in addition to gathering additional clues from a detailed history, said Dr. Acosta. Patients identified with more than one phenotype in routine practice at Mayo are often begun on more than one drug. When phenotyping fails to classify a patient, Dr. Acosta puts the patient on a low-calorie diet and then does a follow-up assessment “to see if the phenotype pops up as a metabolic adaptation.”

“This is something we’re all working toward” in the obesity management field. “How can we better identify the underlying causes in a way that can fit into the work flow. How can we move from research to things we can use daily in the clinic,” observed Dr. Clark. “We need a lot more investigation to determine how well this works in the real world. Are there other tools we can use that are not as expensive” as what Dr. Acosta used for this study?

“For this proof of concept study, it made sense to be very rigorous, but that probably is not realistic for every patient. What are other ways to get this information, or perhaps only use an extensive workup when initial weight loss attempts are unsuccessful,” Dr. Clark suggested.

[email protected]

A phenotype-guided strategy for systematically matching weight-loss patients to their potentially ideal weight-loss drug roughly doubled treatment efficacy, compared with usual practice, in a single-center, randomized study with 268 patients.

After classifying 68 patients into one of four obesity phenotypes through a series of tests and then tailoring drug treatment to the identified phenotype of each patient, researchers observed a 79% rate of greater than 10% weight loss versus baseline after 12 months. In contrast, in 200 patients who received weight loss–drug therapy selected by routine means, 35% achieved greater than 10% loss compared with their starting weight, Andres J. Acosta, MD, said at the virtual ObesityWeek® Interactive 2020 meeting.

The phenotype-guided strategy also led to an average 16% weight loss from baseline after 12 months, compared with a 9% average loss among the usual-care controls, reported Dr. Acosta, a gastroenterologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

A “one-size-fits-all approach to weight loss treatment is not working,” he declared. “Our long-term goal is to develop a personalized approach to obesity management.”

Personalized weight loss treatment isn’t new

“The better we can match treatment to a patient’s needs, the more likely it will succeed. That’s not a brand new idea. They are trying to standardize the way that we classify the disorders that play a role in why a person gains weight or has trouble losing weight,” commented John D. Clark III, MD, an internal medicine physician and weight-management specialist at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

The increased weight loss levels that Dr. Acosta reported in patients who underwent the study’s phenotyping protocol and received tailored treatment “are similar to the numbers we see when a patient’s treatment is the right fit for them. You see weight loss in these ranges,” Dr. Clark said in an interview.

The study run by Dr. Acosta and his associates consisted of two phases. First, they established normal and abnormal ranges for four different obesity phenotypes by studying 100 patients with obesity. The patients underwent an extensive and uniform workup designed to classify their obesity phenotype.

Four obesity phenotypes

The researchers categorized patients into one of four types:

• Disordered initial eating satiation, called ‘hungry brain,” and assessed by measuring food intake at a buffet, ad libidum meal.
• Disordered maintenance of satiety, called “hungry gut,” assessed by both a gastric-emptying study as well as patient self-assessment for postprandial fullness.
• “Emotional hunger,” assessed with two questionnaires.
• Disordered energy expenditure, called “slow burn,” assessed by measuring basal metabolic rate, and self-reports of both exercise and nonexercise activity.

Dr. Acosta estimated that the complete workup to assess all four potential phenotypes costs about $1,200.

The researchers then applied the 75th percentile value from each of these assessments to 450 patients with obesity in their clinic to see the prevalence of the four phenotypes. They identified a single phenotype in 58% of these patients, including 18% with hungry gut, 16% with hungry brain, 12% with emotional hunger, and 12% with slow burn. An additional 27% of the patients were positive for two or more phenotypes (including 9% who were positive for all four phenotypes), and 15% did not test positive for any of the four phenotypes.

Phenotype-guided treatments

They then applied their findings in a prospective randomized study that matched a drug intervention to each of the four phenotypes during a year-long, comprehensive weight-loss program at the Mayo Clinic’s Weight Management Clinic. The study randomized 100 patients to the phenotype-driven arm, with 68 of these patients receiving their assigned drug, and 200 patients served as controls. Patients averaged about 47 years old, and their average body mass index was about 41 kg/m².

The investigational arm included 30 patients classified as having a hungry brain, with 20 of these patients treated with phentermine plus topiramate and 10 treated with lorcaserin (before it was withdrawn by the Food and Drug Administration); 12 with hungry gut and treated with liraglutide (Saxenda); 19 with emotional hunger who received naltrexone SR/bupropion SR (Contrave); and seven with slow burn who received phentermine.

The control arm included 200 patients seeking weight loss treatment at Mayo who did not undergo phenotyping and received their drug treatment based on their personal preference in consultation with their Mayo physician. In this group, drug treatment broke down as 106 patients (53%) on phentermine plus topiramate, 41 (21%) on liraglutide, 34 (17%) on phentermine alone, 14 (7%) on naltrexone SR/bupropion SR, and 5 patients (3%) on locaserin (percentages total 101% because of rounding).

Overall, phenotyping led to more patients treated with naltrexone SR/buproprion SR and lorcaserin and fewer treated with phentermine or phentermine and topiramate ER. All patients were eligible to also receive behavioral interventions as needed.

“We do a lot of testing to identify the phenotype,” in addition to gathering additional clues from a detailed history, said Dr. Acosta. Patients identified with more than one phenotype in routine practice at Mayo are often begun on more than one drug. When phenotyping fails to classify a patient, Dr. Acosta puts the patient on a low-calorie diet and then does a follow-up assessment “to see if the phenotype pops up as a metabolic adaptation.”

“This is something we’re all working toward” in the obesity management field. “How can we better identify the underlying causes in a way that can fit into the work flow. How can we move from research to things we can use daily in the clinic,” observed Dr. Clark. “We need a lot more investigation to determine how well this works in the real world. Are there other tools we can use that are not as expensive” as what Dr. Acosta used for this study?

“For this proof of concept study, it made sense to be very rigorous, but that probably is not realistic for every patient. What are other ways to get this information, or perhaps only use an extensive workup when initial weight loss attempts are unsuccessful,” Dr. Clark suggested.

[email protected]

A phenotype-guided strategy for systematically matching weight-loss patients to their potentially ideal weight-loss drug roughly doubled treatment efficacy, compared with usual practice, in a single-center, randomized study with 268 patients.

After classifying 68 patients into one of four obesity phenotypes through a series of tests and then tailoring drug treatment to the identified phenotype of each patient, researchers observed a 79% rate of greater than 10% weight loss versus baseline after 12 months. In contrast, in 200 patients who received weight loss–drug therapy selected by routine means, 35% achieved greater than 10% loss compared with their starting weight, Andres J. Acosta, MD, said at the virtual ObesityWeek® Interactive 2020 meeting.

The phenotype-guided strategy also led to an average 16% weight loss from baseline after 12 months, compared with a 9% average loss among the usual-care controls, reported Dr. Acosta, a gastroenterologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

A “one-size-fits-all approach to weight loss treatment is not working,” he declared. “Our long-term goal is to develop a personalized approach to obesity management.”

Personalized weight loss treatment isn’t new

“The better we can match treatment to a patient’s needs, the more likely it will succeed. That’s not a brand new idea. They are trying to standardize the way that we classify the disorders that play a role in why a person gains weight or has trouble losing weight,” commented John D. Clark III, MD, an internal medicine physician and weight-management specialist at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

The increased weight loss levels that Dr. Acosta reported in patients who underwent the study’s phenotyping protocol and received tailored treatment “are similar to the numbers we see when a patient’s treatment is the right fit for them. You see weight loss in these ranges,” Dr. Clark said in an interview.

The study run by Dr. Acosta and his associates consisted of two phases. First, they established normal and abnormal ranges for four different obesity phenotypes by studying 100 patients with obesity. The patients underwent an extensive and uniform workup designed to classify their obesity phenotype.

Four obesity phenotypes

The researchers categorized patients into one of four types:

• Disordered initial eating satiation, called ‘hungry brain,” and assessed by measuring food intake at a buffet, ad libidum meal.
• Disordered maintenance of satiety, called “hungry gut,” assessed by both a gastric-emptying study as well as patient self-assessment for postprandial fullness.
• “Emotional hunger,” assessed with two questionnaires.
• Disordered energy expenditure, called “slow burn,” assessed by measuring basal metabolic rate, and self-reports of both exercise and nonexercise activity.

Dr. Acosta estimated that the complete workup to assess all four potential phenotypes costs about $1,200.

The researchers then applied the 75th percentile value from each of these assessments to 450 patients with obesity in their clinic to see the prevalence of the four phenotypes. They identified a single phenotype in 58% of these patients, including 18% with hungry gut, 16% with hungry brain, 12% with emotional hunger, and 12% with slow burn. An additional 27% of the patients were positive for two or more phenotypes (including 9% who were positive for all four phenotypes), and 15% did not test positive for any of the four phenotypes.

Phenotype-guided treatments

They then applied their findings in a prospective randomized study that matched a drug intervention to each of the four phenotypes during a year-long, comprehensive weight-loss program at the Mayo Clinic’s Weight Management Clinic. The study randomized 100 patients to the phenotype-driven arm, with 68 of these patients receiving their assigned drug, and 200 patients served as controls. Patients averaged about 47 years old, and their average body mass index was about 41 kg/m².

The investigational arm included 30 patients classified as having a hungry brain, with 20 of these patients treated with phentermine plus topiramate and 10 treated with lorcaserin (before it was withdrawn by the Food and Drug Administration); 12 with hungry gut and treated with liraglutide (Saxenda); 19 with emotional hunger who received naltrexone SR/bupropion SR (Contrave); and seven with slow burn who received phentermine.

The control arm included 200 patients seeking weight loss treatment at Mayo who did not undergo phenotyping and received their drug treatment based on their personal preference in consultation with their Mayo physician. In this group, drug treatment broke down as 106 patients (53%) on phentermine plus topiramate, 41 (21%) on liraglutide, 34 (17%) on phentermine alone, 14 (7%) on naltrexone SR/bupropion SR, and 5 patients (3%) on locaserin (percentages total 101% because of rounding).

Overall, phenotyping led to more patients treated with naltrexone SR/buproprion SR and lorcaserin and fewer treated with phentermine or phentermine and topiramate ER. All patients were eligible to also receive behavioral interventions as needed.

“We do a lot of testing to identify the phenotype,” in addition to gathering additional clues from a detailed history, said Dr. Acosta. Patients identified with more than one phenotype in routine practice at Mayo are often begun on more than one drug. When phenotyping fails to classify a patient, Dr. Acosta puts the patient on a low-calorie diet and then does a follow-up assessment “to see if the phenotype pops up as a metabolic adaptation.”

“This is something we’re all working toward” in the obesity management field. “How can we better identify the underlying causes in a way that can fit into the work flow. How can we move from research to things we can use daily in the clinic,” observed Dr. Clark. “We need a lot more investigation to determine how well this works in the real world. Are there other tools we can use that are not as expensive” as what Dr. Acosta used for this study?

“For this proof of concept study, it made sense to be very rigorous, but that probably is not realistic for every patient. What are other ways to get this information, or perhaps only use an extensive workup when initial weight loss attempts are unsuccessful,” Dr. Clark suggested.

[email protected]

On Dec. 1, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released the 2021 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, which finalized proposed changes to Medicare reimbursement rates, including a significant negative budget neutrality adjustment. For hospitalists, the Society of Hospital Medicine estimates that the adjustment will amount to an estimated 8% reduction in Medicare reimbursement rates, which will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2021.

“These cuts are coming at the exact wrong time. During the chaos of 2020, when hospitalists have been essential to responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, they should not be met with a significant pay reduction in 2021,” said Eric E. Howell, MD, MHM, chief executive officer of the Society of Hospital Medicine. “While we at SHM support increasing pay for outpatient primary care, which is driving these cuts, we do not believe now is the right time to make significant adjustments to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. We now call on Congress to do the right thing for hospitalists and other frontline providers who have otherwise been lauded as heroes.”

SHM will continue to fight for hospitalists and to advocate to reverse these cuts. To send a message of support to your representatives, visit SHM’s Legislative Action Center and click on “Support the Holding Providers Harmless from Medicare Cuts During COVID-19 Act of 2020.” To learn more about and become involved with SHM’s advocacy efforts, visit hospitalmedicine.org/advocacy.

On Dec. 1, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released the 2021 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, which finalized proposed changes to Medicare reimbursement rates, including a significant negative budget neutrality adjustment. For hospitalists, the Society of Hospital Medicine estimates that the adjustment will amount to an estimated 8% reduction in Medicare reimbursement rates, which will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2021.

“These cuts are coming at the exact wrong time. During the chaos of 2020, when hospitalists have been essential to responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, they should not be met with a significant pay reduction in 2021,” said Eric E. Howell, MD, MHM, chief executive officer of the Society of Hospital Medicine. “While we at SHM support increasing pay for outpatient primary care, which is driving these cuts, we do not believe now is the right time to make significant adjustments to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. We now call on Congress to do the right thing for hospitalists and other frontline providers who have otherwise been lauded as heroes.”

SHM will continue to fight for hospitalists and to advocate to reverse these cuts. To send a message of support to your representatives, visit SHM’s Legislative Action Center and click on “Support the Holding Providers Harmless from Medicare Cuts During COVID-19 Act of 2020.” To learn more about and become involved with SHM’s advocacy efforts, visit hospitalmedicine.org/advocacy.

On Dec. 1, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released the 2021 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, which finalized proposed changes to Medicare reimbursement rates, including a significant negative budget neutrality adjustment. For hospitalists, the Society of Hospital Medicine estimates that the adjustment will amount to an estimated 8% reduction in Medicare reimbursement rates, which will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2021.

“These cuts are coming at the exact wrong time. During the chaos of 2020, when hospitalists have been essential to responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, they should not be met with a significant pay reduction in 2021,” said Eric E. Howell, MD, MHM, chief executive officer of the Society of Hospital Medicine. “While we at SHM support increasing pay for outpatient primary care, which is driving these cuts, we do not believe now is the right time to make significant adjustments to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. We now call on Congress to do the right thing for hospitalists and other frontline providers who have otherwise been lauded as heroes.”

SHM will continue to fight for hospitalists and to advocate to reverse these cuts. To send a message of support to your representatives, visit SHM’s Legislative Action Center and click on “Support the Holding Providers Harmless from Medicare Cuts During COVID-19 Act of 2020.” To learn more about and become involved with SHM’s advocacy efforts, visit hospitalmedicine.org/advocacy.

As I write this, we are entering the third surge of the COVID-19 pandemic, with new cases, hospitalizations, and deaths from COVID-19 skyrocketing around the country. Worst of all, this surge has been most severely affecting areas of the nation least prepared to handle it (rural) and populations already marginalized by the health care system (Latinx and Black). Despite the onslaught of COVID-19, “pandemic fatigue” has begun to set in amongst colleagues, friends, and family, leading to challenges in adhering to social distancing and other infection-control measures, both at work and home.

Royal Geographic Society, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

In the face of the pandemic’s onslaught, hospitalists – who have faced the brunt of caring for patients with COVID-19, despite the absence of reporting about the subspecialty’s role – are faced with mustering the grit to respond with resolve, coordinated action, and empathy. Luckily, hospitalists are equipped with the very characteristics needed to lead teams, groups, and hospitals through the crisis of this pandemic. Ask yourself, why did you become a hospitalist? If you wanted steady predictability and control, there were many office-based specialties you could have chosen. You chose to become a hospitalist because you seek the challenges of clinical variety, problem-solving, systems improvement, and you are a natural team leader, whether you have been designated as such or not. In the words of John Quincy Adams, “if your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more, and become more, you are a leader.”

As a leader, how can you lead your team through the series of trials and tribulations that this year has thrown at you? From COVID-19 to racism directed against Black and Latinx people to the behavioral health crisis, 2020 has likely made you feel as if you’re stuck in a ghoulish carnival fun house without an exit.

Yet this is where some leaders hit their stride, in what Bennis and Thomas describe as the “crucible of leadership.”¹ There are many types of “crucibles of leadership,” according to Bennis and Thomas, and this year has thrown most of these at us: prejudice/bias, physical fatigue and illness, sudden elevation of responsibility to lead new processes, not to mention family stressors. Leaders who succeed in guiding their colleagues through these challenges have manifested critical skills: engaging others in shared meaning, having a distinctive and compelling voice, displaying integrity, and having adaptive capacity.

What exactly is adaptive capacity, the most important of these, in my opinion? Adaptive capacity requires understanding the new context of a crisis and how it has shifted team members’ needs and perceptions. It also requires what Bennis and Thomas call hardiness and what I call grit – the ability to face adversity, get knocked down, get up, and do it again.

There is probably no better example of a crisis leader with extraordinary adaptive capacity than Anglo-Irish explorer Sir Ernest Shackleton. Bitten by the bug of exploration, Shackleton failed at reaching the South Pole (1908-1909) but subsequently attempted to cross the Antarctic, departing South Georgia Island on Dec. 5, 1914. Depressingly for Shackleton, his ship, the Endurance, became stuck in sea ice on Jan. 19, 1915 before even reaching the continent. Drifting with the ice floe, his crew had set up a winter station hoping to be released from the ice later, but the Endurance was crushed by the pressure of sea ice and sank on Nov. 21, 1915. From there, Shackleton hoped to drift north to Paulet Island, 250 miles away, but eventually was forced to take his crew on lifeboats to the nearest land, Elephant Island, 346 miles from where the Endurance sank. He then took five of his men on an open boat, 828-mile journey to South Georgia Island. Encountering hurricane-force winds, the team landed on South Georgia Island 15 days later, only to face a climb of 32 miles over mountainous terrain to reach a whaling station. Shackleton eventually organized his men’s rescue on Elephant Island, reaching them on Aug. 30, 1916, 4½ months after he had set out for South Georgia Island. His entire crew survived, only to have two of them killed later in World War I.

You might consider Shackleton a failure for not even coming close to his original goal, but his success in saving his crew is regarded as the epitome of crisis leadership. As Harvard Business School professor Nancy F. Koehn, PhD, whose case study of Shackleton is one of the most popular at HBS, stated, “He thought he was going to be an entrepreneur of exploration, but he became an entrepreneur of survival.”² Upon realizing the futility of his original mission, he pivoted immediately to the survival of his crew. “A man must shape himself to a new mark directly the old one goes to ground,” wrote Shackleton in his diary.³

Realizing that preserving his crew’s morale was critical, he maintained the crew’s everyday activities, despite the prospect of dying on the ice. He realized that he needed to keep up his own courage and confidence as well as that of his crew. Despite his ability to share the strategic focus of getting to safety with his men, he didn’t lose sight of day-to-day needs, such as keeping the crew entertained. When he encountered crew members who seemed problematic to his mission goals, he assigned them to his own tent.

Despite the extreme cold, his decision-making did not freeze – he acted decisively. He took risks when he thought appropriate, twice needing to abandon his efforts to drag a lifeboat full of supplies with his men toward the sea. “You can’t be afraid to make smart mistakes,” says Dr. Koehn. “That’s something we have no training in.”⁴ Most importantly, Shackleton took ultimate responsibility for his men’s survival, never resting until they had all been rescued. And he modeled a culture of shared responsibility for one another⁵ – he had once offered his only biscuit of the day on a prior expedition to his fellow explorer Frank Wild.

As winter arrives in 2020 and deepens into 2021, we will all be faced with leading our teams across the ice and to the safety of spring, and hopefully a vaccine. Whether we can get there with our entire crew depends on effective crisis leadership. But we can draw on the lessons provided by Shackleton and other crisis leaders in the past to guide us in the present.

Author disclosure: I studied the HBS case study “Leadership in Crisis: Ernest Shackleton and the Epic Voyage of the Endurance” as part of a 12-month certificate course in Safety, Quality, Informatics, and Leadership (SQIL) offered by Harvard Medical School.
 

Dr. Chang is chief of pediatric hospital medicine at Baystate Children’s Hospital in Springfield, Mass., and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Massachusetts, also in Springfield.

References

1. HBR’s 10 must reads on leadership. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press, 2011.

2. Lagace M. Shackleton: An entrepreneur of survival. Harvard Business School. Working Knowledge website. Published 2003. Accessed 2020 Nov 19.

3. Koehn N. Leadership lessons from the Shackleton Expedition. The New York Times. 2011 Dec 25.

4. Potier B. Shackleton in business school. Harvard Public Affairs and Communications. The Harvard Gazette website. Published 2004. Accessed 2020 Nov 19.

5. Perkins D. 4 Lessons in crisis leadership from Shackleton’s expedition. In Leadership Essentials by HarpersCollins Leadership. Vol 2020. New York: HarpersCollins, 2020.

As I write this, we are entering the third surge of the COVID-19 pandemic, with new cases, hospitalizations, and deaths from COVID-19 skyrocketing around the country. Worst of all, this surge has been most severely affecting areas of the nation least prepared to handle it (rural) and populations already marginalized by the health care system (Latinx and Black). Despite the onslaught of COVID-19, “pandemic fatigue” has begun to set in amongst colleagues, friends, and family, leading to challenges in adhering to social distancing and other infection-control measures, both at work and home.

Royal Geographic Society, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

In the face of the pandemic’s onslaught, hospitalists – who have faced the brunt of caring for patients with COVID-19, despite the absence of reporting about the subspecialty’s role – are faced with mustering the grit to respond with resolve, coordinated action, and empathy. Luckily, hospitalists are equipped with the very characteristics needed to lead teams, groups, and hospitals through the crisis of this pandemic. Ask yourself, why did you become a hospitalist? If you wanted steady predictability and control, there were many office-based specialties you could have chosen. You chose to become a hospitalist because you seek the challenges of clinical variety, problem-solving, systems improvement, and you are a natural team leader, whether you have been designated as such or not. In the words of John Quincy Adams, “if your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more, and become more, you are a leader.”

As a leader, how can you lead your team through the series of trials and tribulations that this year has thrown at you? From COVID-19 to racism directed against Black and Latinx people to the behavioral health crisis, 2020 has likely made you feel as if you’re stuck in a ghoulish carnival fun house without an exit.

Yet this is where some leaders hit their stride, in what Bennis and Thomas describe as the “crucible of leadership.”¹ There are many types of “crucibles of leadership,” according to Bennis and Thomas, and this year has thrown most of these at us: prejudice/bias, physical fatigue and illness, sudden elevation of responsibility to lead new processes, not to mention family stressors. Leaders who succeed in guiding their colleagues through these challenges have manifested critical skills: engaging others in shared meaning, having a distinctive and compelling voice, displaying integrity, and having adaptive capacity.

What exactly is adaptive capacity, the most important of these, in my opinion? Adaptive capacity requires understanding the new context of a crisis and how it has shifted team members’ needs and perceptions. It also requires what Bennis and Thomas call hardiness and what I call grit – the ability to face adversity, get knocked down, get up, and do it again.

There is probably no better example of a crisis leader with extraordinary adaptive capacity than Anglo-Irish explorer Sir Ernest Shackleton. Bitten by the bug of exploration, Shackleton failed at reaching the South Pole (1908-1909) but subsequently attempted to cross the Antarctic, departing South Georgia Island on Dec. 5, 1914. Depressingly for Shackleton, his ship, the Endurance, became stuck in sea ice on Jan. 19, 1915 before even reaching the continent. Drifting with the ice floe, his crew had set up a winter station hoping to be released from the ice later, but the Endurance was crushed by the pressure of sea ice and sank on Nov. 21, 1915. From there, Shackleton hoped to drift north to Paulet Island, 250 miles away, but eventually was forced to take his crew on lifeboats to the nearest land, Elephant Island, 346 miles from where the Endurance sank. He then took five of his men on an open boat, 828-mile journey to South Georgia Island. Encountering hurricane-force winds, the team landed on South Georgia Island 15 days later, only to face a climb of 32 miles over mountainous terrain to reach a whaling station. Shackleton eventually organized his men’s rescue on Elephant Island, reaching them on Aug. 30, 1916, 4½ months after he had set out for South Georgia Island. His entire crew survived, only to have two of them killed later in World War I.

You might consider Shackleton a failure for not even coming close to his original goal, but his success in saving his crew is regarded as the epitome of crisis leadership. As Harvard Business School professor Nancy F. Koehn, PhD, whose case study of Shackleton is one of the most popular at HBS, stated, “He thought he was going to be an entrepreneur of exploration, but he became an entrepreneur of survival.”² Upon realizing the futility of his original mission, he pivoted immediately to the survival of his crew. “A man must shape himself to a new mark directly the old one goes to ground,” wrote Shackleton in his diary.³

Realizing that preserving his crew’s morale was critical, he maintained the crew’s everyday activities, despite the prospect of dying on the ice. He realized that he needed to keep up his own courage and confidence as well as that of his crew. Despite his ability to share the strategic focus of getting to safety with his men, he didn’t lose sight of day-to-day needs, such as keeping the crew entertained. When he encountered crew members who seemed problematic to his mission goals, he assigned them to his own tent.

Despite the extreme cold, his decision-making did not freeze – he acted decisively. He took risks when he thought appropriate, twice needing to abandon his efforts to drag a lifeboat full of supplies with his men toward the sea. “You can’t be afraid to make smart mistakes,” says Dr. Koehn. “That’s something we have no training in.”⁴ Most importantly, Shackleton took ultimate responsibility for his men’s survival, never resting until they had all been rescued. And he modeled a culture of shared responsibility for one another⁵ – he had once offered his only biscuit of the day on a prior expedition to his fellow explorer Frank Wild.

As winter arrives in 2020 and deepens into 2021, we will all be faced with leading our teams across the ice and to the safety of spring, and hopefully a vaccine. Whether we can get there with our entire crew depends on effective crisis leadership. But we can draw on the lessons provided by Shackleton and other crisis leaders in the past to guide us in the present.

Author disclosure: I studied the HBS case study “Leadership in Crisis: Ernest Shackleton and the Epic Voyage of the Endurance” as part of a 12-month certificate course in Safety, Quality, Informatics, and Leadership (SQIL) offered by Harvard Medical School.
 

Dr. Chang is chief of pediatric hospital medicine at Baystate Children’s Hospital in Springfield, Mass., and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Massachusetts, also in Springfield.

References

1. HBR’s 10 must reads on leadership. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press, 2011.

2. Lagace M. Shackleton: An entrepreneur of survival. Harvard Business School. Working Knowledge website. Published 2003. Accessed 2020 Nov 19.

3. Koehn N. Leadership lessons from the Shackleton Expedition. The New York Times. 2011 Dec 25.

4. Potier B. Shackleton in business school. Harvard Public Affairs and Communications. The Harvard Gazette website. Published 2004. Accessed 2020 Nov 19.

5. Perkins D. 4 Lessons in crisis leadership from Shackleton’s expedition. In Leadership Essentials by HarpersCollins Leadership. Vol 2020. New York: HarpersCollins, 2020.

As I write this, we are entering the third surge of the COVID-19 pandemic, with new cases, hospitalizations, and deaths from COVID-19 skyrocketing around the country. Worst of all, this surge has been most severely affecting areas of the nation least prepared to handle it (rural) and populations already marginalized by the health care system (Latinx and Black). Despite the onslaught of COVID-19, “pandemic fatigue” has begun to set in amongst colleagues, friends, and family, leading to challenges in adhering to social distancing and other infection-control measures, both at work and home.

Royal Geographic Society, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

In the face of the pandemic’s onslaught, hospitalists – who have faced the brunt of caring for patients with COVID-19, despite the absence of reporting about the subspecialty’s role – are faced with mustering the grit to respond with resolve, coordinated action, and empathy. Luckily, hospitalists are equipped with the very characteristics needed to lead teams, groups, and hospitals through the crisis of this pandemic. Ask yourself, why did you become a hospitalist? If you wanted steady predictability and control, there were many office-based specialties you could have chosen. You chose to become a hospitalist because you seek the challenges of clinical variety, problem-solving, systems improvement, and you are a natural team leader, whether you have been designated as such or not. In the words of John Quincy Adams, “if your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more, and become more, you are a leader.”

As a leader, how can you lead your team through the series of trials and tribulations that this year has thrown at you? From COVID-19 to racism directed against Black and Latinx people to the behavioral health crisis, 2020 has likely made you feel as if you’re stuck in a ghoulish carnival fun house without an exit.

Yet this is where some leaders hit their stride, in what Bennis and Thomas describe as the “crucible of leadership.”¹ There are many types of “crucibles of leadership,” according to Bennis and Thomas, and this year has thrown most of these at us: prejudice/bias, physical fatigue and illness, sudden elevation of responsibility to lead new processes, not to mention family stressors. Leaders who succeed in guiding their colleagues through these challenges have manifested critical skills: engaging others in shared meaning, having a distinctive and compelling voice, displaying integrity, and having adaptive capacity.

What exactly is adaptive capacity, the most important of these, in my opinion? Adaptive capacity requires understanding the new context of a crisis and how it has shifted team members’ needs and perceptions. It also requires what Bennis and Thomas call hardiness and what I call grit – the ability to face adversity, get knocked down, get up, and do it again.

There is probably no better example of a crisis leader with extraordinary adaptive capacity than Anglo-Irish explorer Sir Ernest Shackleton. Bitten by the bug of exploration, Shackleton failed at reaching the South Pole (1908-1909) but subsequently attempted to cross the Antarctic, departing South Georgia Island on Dec. 5, 1914. Depressingly for Shackleton, his ship, the Endurance, became stuck in sea ice on Jan. 19, 1915 before even reaching the continent. Drifting with the ice floe, his crew had set up a winter station hoping to be released from the ice later, but the Endurance was crushed by the pressure of sea ice and sank on Nov. 21, 1915. From there, Shackleton hoped to drift north to Paulet Island, 250 miles away, but eventually was forced to take his crew on lifeboats to the nearest land, Elephant Island, 346 miles from where the Endurance sank. He then took five of his men on an open boat, 828-mile journey to South Georgia Island. Encountering hurricane-force winds, the team landed on South Georgia Island 15 days later, only to face a climb of 32 miles over mountainous terrain to reach a whaling station. Shackleton eventually organized his men’s rescue on Elephant Island, reaching them on Aug. 30, 1916, 4½ months after he had set out for South Georgia Island. His entire crew survived, only to have two of them killed later in World War I.

You might consider Shackleton a failure for not even coming close to his original goal, but his success in saving his crew is regarded as the epitome of crisis leadership. As Harvard Business School professor Nancy F. Koehn, PhD, whose case study of Shackleton is one of the most popular at HBS, stated, “He thought he was going to be an entrepreneur of exploration, but he became an entrepreneur of survival.”² Upon realizing the futility of his original mission, he pivoted immediately to the survival of his crew. “A man must shape himself to a new mark directly the old one goes to ground,” wrote Shackleton in his diary.³

Realizing that preserving his crew’s morale was critical, he maintained the crew’s everyday activities, despite the prospect of dying on the ice. He realized that he needed to keep up his own courage and confidence as well as that of his crew. Despite his ability to share the strategic focus of getting to safety with his men, he didn’t lose sight of day-to-day needs, such as keeping the crew entertained. When he encountered crew members who seemed problematic to his mission goals, he assigned them to his own tent.

Despite the extreme cold, his decision-making did not freeze – he acted decisively. He took risks when he thought appropriate, twice needing to abandon his efforts to drag a lifeboat full of supplies with his men toward the sea. “You can’t be afraid to make smart mistakes,” says Dr. Koehn. “That’s something we have no training in.”⁴ Most importantly, Shackleton took ultimate responsibility for his men’s survival, never resting until they had all been rescued. And he modeled a culture of shared responsibility for one another⁵ – he had once offered his only biscuit of the day on a prior expedition to his fellow explorer Frank Wild.

As winter arrives in 2020 and deepens into 2021, we will all be faced with leading our teams across the ice and to the safety of spring, and hopefully a vaccine. Whether we can get there with our entire crew depends on effective crisis leadership. But we can draw on the lessons provided by Shackleton and other crisis leaders in the past to guide us in the present.

Author disclosure: I studied the HBS case study “Leadership in Crisis: Ernest Shackleton and the Epic Voyage of the Endurance” as part of a 12-month certificate course in Safety, Quality, Informatics, and Leadership (SQIL) offered by Harvard Medical School.
 

Dr. Chang is chief of pediatric hospital medicine at Baystate Children’s Hospital in Springfield, Mass., and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Massachusetts, also in Springfield.

References

1. HBR’s 10 must reads on leadership. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press, 2011.

2. Lagace M. Shackleton: An entrepreneur of survival. Harvard Business School. Working Knowledge website. Published 2003. Accessed 2020 Nov 19.

3. Koehn N. Leadership lessons from the Shackleton Expedition. The New York Times. 2011 Dec 25.

4. Potier B. Shackleton in business school. Harvard Public Affairs and Communications. The Harvard Gazette website. Published 2004. Accessed 2020 Nov 19.

5. Perkins D. 4 Lessons in crisis leadership from Shackleton’s expedition. In Leadership Essentials by HarpersCollins Leadership. Vol 2020. New York: HarpersCollins, 2020.