Ob.Gyn. News

Among the many tolls inflicted on health care workers by COVID-19 is one that is not as easily measured as rates of death or disease, but is no less tangible: moral injury. This is the term by which we describe the psychological, social, and spiritual impact of high-stakes situations that lead to the betrayal or transgression of our own deeply held moral beliefs and values.

The current pandemic has provided innumerable such situations that can increase the risk for moral injury, whether we deal directly with patients infected by the coronavirus or not. Telling family members they cannot visit critically ill loved ones. Delaying code activities, even momentarily, to get fully protected with personal protective equipment. Seeing patients who have delayed their necessary or preventive care. Using video rather than touch to reassure people.

Knowing that we are following guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not stop our feelings of guilt. The longer this pandemic goes on, the more likely it is that these situations will begin to take a toll on us.

For most of us, being exposed to moral injuries is new; they have historically been most associated with severe traumatic wartime experiences. Soldiers, philosophers, and writers have described the ethical dilemmas inherent in war for as long as recorded history. But the use of this term is a more recent development, which the Moral Injury Project at Syracuse (N.Y.) University describes as probably originating in the Vietnam War–era writings of veteran and peace activist Camillo “Mac” Bica and psychiatrist Jonathan Shay. Examples of wartime events that have been thought to lead to moral injury include: causing the harm or death of civilians, knowingly but without alternatives, or accidentally; failing to provide medical aid to an injured civilian or service member; and following orders that were illegal, immoral, and/or against the rules of engagement or the Geneva Conventions.

However, the occurrence of moral injuries in modern health care is increasingly being reported, primarily as an adverse effect of health care inefficiencies that can contribute to burnout. COVID-19 has now provided an array of additional stressors that can cause moral injuries among health care workers. A recent guidance document on moral injury published by the American Psychiatric Association noted that, in the context of a public health disaster, such as COVID-19, it is sometimes necessary to transition from ordinary standards of care to those more appropriate in a crisis, as in wartime. This forces us all to confront challenging questions for which there may be no clear answers, and to make “lose-lose” choices in which no one involved – patients, family, or clinicians – ends up feeling satisfied or even comfortable.

Moral injuries affect most of us as physicians, as well as our colleagues and families, during this unusual, painful, traumatic, and potentially lethal time. Our lives have been altered significantly, and for many, completely turned upside down by enormous sacrifices and tragic losses. Globally, physicians account for over half of healthcare worker deaths. In the United States alone, over 900 health care workers have died of COVID-19.

Most of us have felt the symptoms of moral injury: frustration, anger, disgust, guilt. A recent report describes three levels of stressors in health care occurring during the pandemic, which are not dissimilar to those wartime events described previously.

• Severe moral stressors, such as the denial of treatment to a COVID-19 patient owing to lack of resources, the inability to provide optimal care to non–COVID-19 patients for many reasons, and concern about passing COVID to loved ones.
• Moderate moral stressors, such as preventing visitors, especially to dying patients, triaging patients for healthcare services with inadequate information, and trying to solve the tension between the need for self-preservation and the need to treat.
• Lower-level but common moral challenges, especially in the community – for example, seeing others not protecting the community by hoarding food, gathering for large parties, and not social distancing or wearing masks. Such stressors lead to frustration and contempt, especially from healthcare workers making personal sacrifices and who may be at risk for infection caused by these behaviors.

Every one of us is affected by these stressors. I certainly am.

What are the outcomes? We know that moral injuries are a risk factor for the development of mental health problems and burnout, and not surprisingly we are seeing that mental health problems, suicidality, and substance use disorders have increased markedly during COVID-19, as recently detailed by the CDC.

• Acknowledge that you, like me, are affected by these stressors. This is not a secret, and you should not be ashamed of your feelings.
• Talk with your colleagues, loved ones, and friends about how you and they are affected. You are not alone. Encourage others to share their thoughts, stories, and feelings.
• Put this topic on your meeting and departmental agendas and discuss these moral issues openly with your colleagues. Allow sufficient time to engage in open dialogue.
• Work out ways of assisting those who are in high-risk situations, especially for moderate to severe injuries. Be supportive toward those affected.
• Modify policies and change rosters and rotate staff between high- and low-stress roles. Protect and support at-risk colleagues.
• Think about difficult ethical decisions in advance so they can be made by groups, not individuals, and certainly not “on the fly.”
• Keep everyone in your workplace constantly informed, especially of impending staff or equipment shortages.
• Maintain your inherent self-care and resilience with rest, good nutrition, sleep, exercise, love, caring, socialization, and work-life balance.
• Be prepared to access the many professional support services available in our community if you are intensely distressed or if the above suggestions are not enough.

Remember, we are in this together and will find strength in each other. This too will pass.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among the many tolls inflicted on health care workers by COVID-19 is one that is not as easily measured as rates of death or disease, but is no less tangible: moral injury. This is the term by which we describe the psychological, social, and spiritual impact of high-stakes situations that lead to the betrayal or transgression of our own deeply held moral beliefs and values.

The current pandemic has provided innumerable such situations that can increase the risk for moral injury, whether we deal directly with patients infected by the coronavirus or not. Telling family members they cannot visit critically ill loved ones. Delaying code activities, even momentarily, to get fully protected with personal protective equipment. Seeing patients who have delayed their necessary or preventive care. Using video rather than touch to reassure people.

Knowing that we are following guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not stop our feelings of guilt. The longer this pandemic goes on, the more likely it is that these situations will begin to take a toll on us.

For most of us, being exposed to moral injuries is new; they have historically been most associated with severe traumatic wartime experiences. Soldiers, philosophers, and writers have described the ethical dilemmas inherent in war for as long as recorded history. But the use of this term is a more recent development, which the Moral Injury Project at Syracuse (N.Y.) University describes as probably originating in the Vietnam War–era writings of veteran and peace activist Camillo “Mac” Bica and psychiatrist Jonathan Shay. Examples of wartime events that have been thought to lead to moral injury include: causing the harm or death of civilians, knowingly but without alternatives, or accidentally; failing to provide medical aid to an injured civilian or service member; and following orders that were illegal, immoral, and/or against the rules of engagement or the Geneva Conventions.

However, the occurrence of moral injuries in modern health care is increasingly being reported, primarily as an adverse effect of health care inefficiencies that can contribute to burnout. COVID-19 has now provided an array of additional stressors that can cause moral injuries among health care workers. A recent guidance document on moral injury published by the American Psychiatric Association noted that, in the context of a public health disaster, such as COVID-19, it is sometimes necessary to transition from ordinary standards of care to those more appropriate in a crisis, as in wartime. This forces us all to confront challenging questions for which there may be no clear answers, and to make “lose-lose” choices in which no one involved – patients, family, or clinicians – ends up feeling satisfied or even comfortable.

Moral injuries affect most of us as physicians, as well as our colleagues and families, during this unusual, painful, traumatic, and potentially lethal time. Our lives have been altered significantly, and for many, completely turned upside down by enormous sacrifices and tragic losses. Globally, physicians account for over half of healthcare worker deaths. In the United States alone, over 900 health care workers have died of COVID-19.

Most of us have felt the symptoms of moral injury: frustration, anger, disgust, guilt. A recent report describes three levels of stressors in health care occurring during the pandemic, which are not dissimilar to those wartime events described previously.

• Severe moral stressors, such as the denial of treatment to a COVID-19 patient owing to lack of resources, the inability to provide optimal care to non–COVID-19 patients for many reasons, and concern about passing COVID to loved ones.
• Moderate moral stressors, such as preventing visitors, especially to dying patients, triaging patients for healthcare services with inadequate information, and trying to solve the tension between the need for self-preservation and the need to treat.
• Lower-level but common moral challenges, especially in the community – for example, seeing others not protecting the community by hoarding food, gathering for large parties, and not social distancing or wearing masks. Such stressors lead to frustration and contempt, especially from healthcare workers making personal sacrifices and who may be at risk for infection caused by these behaviors.

Every one of us is affected by these stressors. I certainly am.

What are the outcomes? We know that moral injuries are a risk factor for the development of mental health problems and burnout, and not surprisingly we are seeing that mental health problems, suicidality, and substance use disorders have increased markedly during COVID-19, as recently detailed by the CDC.

• Acknowledge that you, like me, are affected by these stressors. This is not a secret, and you should not be ashamed of your feelings.
• Talk with your colleagues, loved ones, and friends about how you and they are affected. You are not alone. Encourage others to share their thoughts, stories, and feelings.
• Put this topic on your meeting and departmental agendas and discuss these moral issues openly with your colleagues. Allow sufficient time to engage in open dialogue.
• Work out ways of assisting those who are in high-risk situations, especially for moderate to severe injuries. Be supportive toward those affected.
• Modify policies and change rosters and rotate staff between high- and low-stress roles. Protect and support at-risk colleagues.
• Think about difficult ethical decisions in advance so they can be made by groups, not individuals, and certainly not “on the fly.”
• Keep everyone in your workplace constantly informed, especially of impending staff or equipment shortages.
• Maintain your inherent self-care and resilience with rest, good nutrition, sleep, exercise, love, caring, socialization, and work-life balance.
• Be prepared to access the many professional support services available in our community if you are intensely distressed or if the above suggestions are not enough.

Remember, we are in this together and will find strength in each other. This too will pass.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among the many tolls inflicted on health care workers by COVID-19 is one that is not as easily measured as rates of death or disease, but is no less tangible: moral injury. This is the term by which we describe the psychological, social, and spiritual impact of high-stakes situations that lead to the betrayal or transgression of our own deeply held moral beliefs and values.

The current pandemic has provided innumerable such situations that can increase the risk for moral injury, whether we deal directly with patients infected by the coronavirus or not. Telling family members they cannot visit critically ill loved ones. Delaying code activities, even momentarily, to get fully protected with personal protective equipment. Seeing patients who have delayed their necessary or preventive care. Using video rather than touch to reassure people.

Knowing that we are following guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not stop our feelings of guilt. The longer this pandemic goes on, the more likely it is that these situations will begin to take a toll on us.

For most of us, being exposed to moral injuries is new; they have historically been most associated with severe traumatic wartime experiences. Soldiers, philosophers, and writers have described the ethical dilemmas inherent in war for as long as recorded history. But the use of this term is a more recent development, which the Moral Injury Project at Syracuse (N.Y.) University describes as probably originating in the Vietnam War–era writings of veteran and peace activist Camillo “Mac” Bica and psychiatrist Jonathan Shay. Examples of wartime events that have been thought to lead to moral injury include: causing the harm or death of civilians, knowingly but without alternatives, or accidentally; failing to provide medical aid to an injured civilian or service member; and following orders that were illegal, immoral, and/or against the rules of engagement or the Geneva Conventions.

However, the occurrence of moral injuries in modern health care is increasingly being reported, primarily as an adverse effect of health care inefficiencies that can contribute to burnout. COVID-19 has now provided an array of additional stressors that can cause moral injuries among health care workers. A recent guidance document on moral injury published by the American Psychiatric Association noted that, in the context of a public health disaster, such as COVID-19, it is sometimes necessary to transition from ordinary standards of care to those more appropriate in a crisis, as in wartime. This forces us all to confront challenging questions for which there may be no clear answers, and to make “lose-lose” choices in which no one involved – patients, family, or clinicians – ends up feeling satisfied or even comfortable.

Moral injuries affect most of us as physicians, as well as our colleagues and families, during this unusual, painful, traumatic, and potentially lethal time. Our lives have been altered significantly, and for many, completely turned upside down by enormous sacrifices and tragic losses. Globally, physicians account for over half of healthcare worker deaths. In the United States alone, over 900 health care workers have died of COVID-19.

Most of us have felt the symptoms of moral injury: frustration, anger, disgust, guilt. A recent report describes three levels of stressors in health care occurring during the pandemic, which are not dissimilar to those wartime events described previously.

• Severe moral stressors, such as the denial of treatment to a COVID-19 patient owing to lack of resources, the inability to provide optimal care to non–COVID-19 patients for many reasons, and concern about passing COVID to loved ones.
• Moderate moral stressors, such as preventing visitors, especially to dying patients, triaging patients for healthcare services with inadequate information, and trying to solve the tension between the need for self-preservation and the need to treat.
• Lower-level but common moral challenges, especially in the community – for example, seeing others not protecting the community by hoarding food, gathering for large parties, and not social distancing or wearing masks. Such stressors lead to frustration and contempt, especially from healthcare workers making personal sacrifices and who may be at risk for infection caused by these behaviors.

Every one of us is affected by these stressors. I certainly am.

What are the outcomes? We know that moral injuries are a risk factor for the development of mental health problems and burnout, and not surprisingly we are seeing that mental health problems, suicidality, and substance use disorders have increased markedly during COVID-19, as recently detailed by the CDC.

• Acknowledge that you, like me, are affected by these stressors. This is not a secret, and you should not be ashamed of your feelings.
• Talk with your colleagues, loved ones, and friends about how you and they are affected. You are not alone. Encourage others to share their thoughts, stories, and feelings.
• Put this topic on your meeting and departmental agendas and discuss these moral issues openly with your colleagues. Allow sufficient time to engage in open dialogue.
• Work out ways of assisting those who are in high-risk situations, especially for moderate to severe injuries. Be supportive toward those affected.
• Modify policies and change rosters and rotate staff between high- and low-stress roles. Protect and support at-risk colleagues.
• Think about difficult ethical decisions in advance so they can be made by groups, not individuals, and certainly not “on the fly.”
• Keep everyone in your workplace constantly informed, especially of impending staff or equipment shortages.
• Maintain your inherent self-care and resilience with rest, good nutrition, sleep, exercise, love, caring, socialization, and work-life balance.
• Be prepared to access the many professional support services available in our community if you are intensely distressed or if the above suggestions are not enough.

Remember, we are in this together and will find strength in each other. This too will pass.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“Many physicians would assume that prevention of cancer, especially cancer as serious as ovarian cancer, trumps all other decision making, but when we really listen to high-risk women, they want to have options,” Karen Lu, MD, chair of gynecologic oncology and reproductive medicine at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, told Medscape Medical News.

She was commenting on the findings from a UK survey conducted among women at an increased risk for ovarian cancer (OC), some of whom had already undergone salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO), a standard risk-reducing surgery that involves removal of fallopian tubes and ovaries.

The survey found that these women were just as likely to consider an alternative two-stage surgical approach in which the fallopian tubes are removed but removal of the ovaries is delayed ― risk-reducing early salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy (RRESDO).

In the survey, women were asked which option they would theorectically prefer. At present, the two-step surgery is recommended only within the context of a research trial (several of which are ongoing).

The UK survey was published online August 16 in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.

It found that premenopausal women concerned about the sexual dysfunction that can occur after RRSO were most likely to embrace the two-step surgery option.

The likelihood of finding this option acceptable was nearly three times higher among this subgroup of patients (odds ratio [RR], 2.9). It was more than five times higher among patients who had already undergone RRSO and had experienced sexual dysfunction after the surgery (OR, 5.3), the authors report.

These findings largely mirror those from a 2014 survey of US women, which set the stage for the Women Choosing Surgical Prevention (WISP) study.

The WISP investigators, led by Lu, are assessing quality-of-life outcomes related to sexual function with RRESDO vs RRSO.

Final results from the WISP study and from a similar Dutch study, TUBA, which is evaluating RRESDO’s effects on menopause-related quality of life, are anticipated in late 2020 or early 2021.

The investigators from both the WISP and the TUBA trials are planning a joint trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of RRESDO, Lu told Medscape Medical News.

The PROTECTOR study, in the United Kingdom, is currently enrolling patients. Like WISP, its primary endpoint will be quality-of-life measures related to sexual function. The PROTECTOR trial will offer the option of RRESDO to the “large proportion of eligible women” who are interested in this two-stage approach, as evidenced by the UK survey, said Faiza Gaba, MBB, first author on the survey results. Gaba is affiliated with the Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine at the Queen Mary University of London and the Department of Gynaecological Oncology at St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London, United Kingdom.

Survey findings

The 39-item survey was offered from October 2017 to June 2019 at multiple clinics in the United Kingdom and to members of a support group for BRCA gene carriers. Of the 683 respondents, 346 had undergone RRSO and 337 had not. Those who had not were significantly younger (38.3 years vs 51.5 years); 262 were premenopausal.

Overall, 88.8% of the premenopausal and 95.2% of the postmenopausal women who had undergone RRSO were satisfied with their decision, but, respectively, 9.4% and 1.2% of these women regretted their decision.

More than half (55.3%) said they would consider participating in a study offering RRESDO, 20.2% said they wouldn’t consider it, and 24% weren’t sure.

Among the premenopausal respondents who had not undergone RRSO, 69.1% said they would consider it, and 30.9% said they would not.

Those wanting to delay hot flashes were five times more likely to find RRESDO acceptable (OR, 5.0).

Willingness to undergo RRESDO in a trial setting was also higher among those who considered it acceptable to undergo two surgeries (OR, 444.1), to undergo interval monitoring between surgeries (OR, 59.0), to have uncertainty about the level of OC risk reduction with RRESDO (OR, 14.6), and to potentially experience interval OC between the two surgeries (OR, 9.6).

Notably, 74.1% of the premenopausal RRSO patients used hormone replacement therapy (HRT), and most said it reduced symptoms of vaginal dryness. HRT use was not significantly associated with satisfaction or regret regarding decisions to undergo RRSO, the authors found.

Rather, the high regret rates among premenopausal women who underwent RRSO were driven largely by certain symptoms. Regret was highest among those who experienced night sweats (OR, 13.8), sleep disturbance (OR, 18.8), sexual dysfunction (OR, 5.3), or urinary incontinence (OR 17.2). More of those women than those who did not experience these symptoms said they regretted their decision (OR, 6.4) and that RRSO did them a lot of harm (OR, 3.9). These women were also significantly more likely to say they would have opted for RRESDO instead of RRSO had they been given the option, whereas those with hot flashes, osteoporosis, or fatigue after RRSO were less likely, retrospectively, to choose RRESDO.

The findings suggest “there is a range of tolerability and acceptability of various symptoms among women which affects surgical decision making,” the authors comment.

RRSO remains the gold standard for OC risk reduction, but about 10% of premenopausal women regret having undergone RRSO, mainly because of the menopausal sequelae, they note.

RRESDO could offer an alternative for relatively young women who wish to delay the onset of menopause, they suggest.

The approach is supported by evidence that most high-grade, serous OC originates in the fallopian tubes, meaning delayed oophorectomy with RRESDO may have a favorable risk-benefit profile for those wishing to avoid surgical menopause.

Preliminary reports from WISP and TUBA were presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology in 2019. These initial results showed, as expected, that menopausal symptoms were worse with RRSO. This was true even among those who used HRT, WISP lead investigator Lu told Medscape Medical News.

She applauded the work by Gaba and colleagues, saying that the survey shows that women appreciate having options.

“It’s quite a daunting dilemma” for a woman at high risk but who is without cancer ― a “previvor” ― to be told that the standard-of-care recommendation is to undergo surgical menopause years earlier than would occur naturally, Lu added.

However, it is most important to know whether a given approach is safe and effective, and that’s where the joint international study planned by her team and the TUBA study investigators comes in.

“Acceptability is important; showing the impact on menopausal symptoms and sexual function is important,” she said. “But ultimately, we really need to know that [RRESDO] protects women from ovarian cancer.”

The UK survey was funded by a grant from Rosetrees Trust. Gaba and Lu have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“Many physicians would assume that prevention of cancer, especially cancer as serious as ovarian cancer, trumps all other decision making, but when we really listen to high-risk women, they want to have options,” Karen Lu, MD, chair of gynecologic oncology and reproductive medicine at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, told Medscape Medical News.

She was commenting on the findings from a UK survey conducted among women at an increased risk for ovarian cancer (OC), some of whom had already undergone salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO), a standard risk-reducing surgery that involves removal of fallopian tubes and ovaries.

The survey found that these women were just as likely to consider an alternative two-stage surgical approach in which the fallopian tubes are removed but removal of the ovaries is delayed ― risk-reducing early salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy (RRESDO).

In the survey, women were asked which option they would theorectically prefer. At present, the two-step surgery is recommended only within the context of a research trial (several of which are ongoing).

The UK survey was published online August 16 in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.

It found that premenopausal women concerned about the sexual dysfunction that can occur after RRSO were most likely to embrace the two-step surgery option.

The likelihood of finding this option acceptable was nearly three times higher among this subgroup of patients (odds ratio [RR], 2.9). It was more than five times higher among patients who had already undergone RRSO and had experienced sexual dysfunction after the surgery (OR, 5.3), the authors report.

These findings largely mirror those from a 2014 survey of US women, which set the stage for the Women Choosing Surgical Prevention (WISP) study.

The WISP investigators, led by Lu, are assessing quality-of-life outcomes related to sexual function with RRESDO vs RRSO.

Final results from the WISP study and from a similar Dutch study, TUBA, which is evaluating RRESDO’s effects on menopause-related quality of life, are anticipated in late 2020 or early 2021.

The investigators from both the WISP and the TUBA trials are planning a joint trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of RRESDO, Lu told Medscape Medical News.

The PROTECTOR study, in the United Kingdom, is currently enrolling patients. Like WISP, its primary endpoint will be quality-of-life measures related to sexual function. The PROTECTOR trial will offer the option of RRESDO to the “large proportion of eligible women” who are interested in this two-stage approach, as evidenced by the UK survey, said Faiza Gaba, MBB, first author on the survey results. Gaba is affiliated with the Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine at the Queen Mary University of London and the Department of Gynaecological Oncology at St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London, United Kingdom.

Survey findings

The 39-item survey was offered from October 2017 to June 2019 at multiple clinics in the United Kingdom and to members of a support group for BRCA gene carriers. Of the 683 respondents, 346 had undergone RRSO and 337 had not. Those who had not were significantly younger (38.3 years vs 51.5 years); 262 were premenopausal.

Overall, 88.8% of the premenopausal and 95.2% of the postmenopausal women who had undergone RRSO were satisfied with their decision, but, respectively, 9.4% and 1.2% of these women regretted their decision.

More than half (55.3%) said they would consider participating in a study offering RRESDO, 20.2% said they wouldn’t consider it, and 24% weren’t sure.

Among the premenopausal respondents who had not undergone RRSO, 69.1% said they would consider it, and 30.9% said they would not.

Those wanting to delay hot flashes were five times more likely to find RRESDO acceptable (OR, 5.0).

Willingness to undergo RRESDO in a trial setting was also higher among those who considered it acceptable to undergo two surgeries (OR, 444.1), to undergo interval monitoring between surgeries (OR, 59.0), to have uncertainty about the level of OC risk reduction with RRESDO (OR, 14.6), and to potentially experience interval OC between the two surgeries (OR, 9.6).

Notably, 74.1% of the premenopausal RRSO patients used hormone replacement therapy (HRT), and most said it reduced symptoms of vaginal dryness. HRT use was not significantly associated with satisfaction or regret regarding decisions to undergo RRSO, the authors found.

Rather, the high regret rates among premenopausal women who underwent RRSO were driven largely by certain symptoms. Regret was highest among those who experienced night sweats (OR, 13.8), sleep disturbance (OR, 18.8), sexual dysfunction (OR, 5.3), or urinary incontinence (OR 17.2). More of those women than those who did not experience these symptoms said they regretted their decision (OR, 6.4) and that RRSO did them a lot of harm (OR, 3.9). These women were also significantly more likely to say they would have opted for RRESDO instead of RRSO had they been given the option, whereas those with hot flashes, osteoporosis, or fatigue after RRSO were less likely, retrospectively, to choose RRESDO.

The findings suggest “there is a range of tolerability and acceptability of various symptoms among women which affects surgical decision making,” the authors comment.

RRSO remains the gold standard for OC risk reduction, but about 10% of premenopausal women regret having undergone RRSO, mainly because of the menopausal sequelae, they note.

RRESDO could offer an alternative for relatively young women who wish to delay the onset of menopause, they suggest.

The approach is supported by evidence that most high-grade, serous OC originates in the fallopian tubes, meaning delayed oophorectomy with RRESDO may have a favorable risk-benefit profile for those wishing to avoid surgical menopause.

Preliminary reports from WISP and TUBA were presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology in 2019. These initial results showed, as expected, that menopausal symptoms were worse with RRSO. This was true even among those who used HRT, WISP lead investigator Lu told Medscape Medical News.

She applauded the work by Gaba and colleagues, saying that the survey shows that women appreciate having options.

“It’s quite a daunting dilemma” for a woman at high risk but who is without cancer ― a “previvor” ― to be told that the standard-of-care recommendation is to undergo surgical menopause years earlier than would occur naturally, Lu added.

However, it is most important to know whether a given approach is safe and effective, and that’s where the joint international study planned by her team and the TUBA study investigators comes in.

“Acceptability is important; showing the impact on menopausal symptoms and sexual function is important,” she said. “But ultimately, we really need to know that [RRESDO] protects women from ovarian cancer.”

The UK survey was funded by a grant from Rosetrees Trust. Gaba and Lu have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“Many physicians would assume that prevention of cancer, especially cancer as serious as ovarian cancer, trumps all other decision making, but when we really listen to high-risk women, they want to have options,” Karen Lu, MD, chair of gynecologic oncology and reproductive medicine at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, told Medscape Medical News.

She was commenting on the findings from a UK survey conducted among women at an increased risk for ovarian cancer (OC), some of whom had already undergone salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO), a standard risk-reducing surgery that involves removal of fallopian tubes and ovaries.

The survey found that these women were just as likely to consider an alternative two-stage surgical approach in which the fallopian tubes are removed but removal of the ovaries is delayed ― risk-reducing early salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy (RRESDO).

In the survey, women were asked which option they would theorectically prefer. At present, the two-step surgery is recommended only within the context of a research trial (several of which are ongoing).

The UK survey was published online August 16 in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.

It found that premenopausal women concerned about the sexual dysfunction that can occur after RRSO were most likely to embrace the two-step surgery option.

The likelihood of finding this option acceptable was nearly three times higher among this subgroup of patients (odds ratio [RR], 2.9). It was more than five times higher among patients who had already undergone RRSO and had experienced sexual dysfunction after the surgery (OR, 5.3), the authors report.

These findings largely mirror those from a 2014 survey of US women, which set the stage for the Women Choosing Surgical Prevention (WISP) study.

The WISP investigators, led by Lu, are assessing quality-of-life outcomes related to sexual function with RRESDO vs RRSO.

Final results from the WISP study and from a similar Dutch study, TUBA, which is evaluating RRESDO’s effects on menopause-related quality of life, are anticipated in late 2020 or early 2021.

The investigators from both the WISP and the TUBA trials are planning a joint trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of RRESDO, Lu told Medscape Medical News.

The PROTECTOR study, in the United Kingdom, is currently enrolling patients. Like WISP, its primary endpoint will be quality-of-life measures related to sexual function. The PROTECTOR trial will offer the option of RRESDO to the “large proportion of eligible women” who are interested in this two-stage approach, as evidenced by the UK survey, said Faiza Gaba, MBB, first author on the survey results. Gaba is affiliated with the Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine at the Queen Mary University of London and the Department of Gynaecological Oncology at St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London, United Kingdom.

Survey findings

The 39-item survey was offered from October 2017 to June 2019 at multiple clinics in the United Kingdom and to members of a support group for BRCA gene carriers. Of the 683 respondents, 346 had undergone RRSO and 337 had not. Those who had not were significantly younger (38.3 years vs 51.5 years); 262 were premenopausal.

Overall, 88.8% of the premenopausal and 95.2% of the postmenopausal women who had undergone RRSO were satisfied with their decision, but, respectively, 9.4% and 1.2% of these women regretted their decision.

More than half (55.3%) said they would consider participating in a study offering RRESDO, 20.2% said they wouldn’t consider it, and 24% weren’t sure.

Among the premenopausal respondents who had not undergone RRSO, 69.1% said they would consider it, and 30.9% said they would not.

Those wanting to delay hot flashes were five times more likely to find RRESDO acceptable (OR, 5.0).

Willingness to undergo RRESDO in a trial setting was also higher among those who considered it acceptable to undergo two surgeries (OR, 444.1), to undergo interval monitoring between surgeries (OR, 59.0), to have uncertainty about the level of OC risk reduction with RRESDO (OR, 14.6), and to potentially experience interval OC between the two surgeries (OR, 9.6).

Notably, 74.1% of the premenopausal RRSO patients used hormone replacement therapy (HRT), and most said it reduced symptoms of vaginal dryness. HRT use was not significantly associated with satisfaction or regret regarding decisions to undergo RRSO, the authors found.

Rather, the high regret rates among premenopausal women who underwent RRSO were driven largely by certain symptoms. Regret was highest among those who experienced night sweats (OR, 13.8), sleep disturbance (OR, 18.8), sexual dysfunction (OR, 5.3), or urinary incontinence (OR 17.2). More of those women than those who did not experience these symptoms said they regretted their decision (OR, 6.4) and that RRSO did them a lot of harm (OR, 3.9). These women were also significantly more likely to say they would have opted for RRESDO instead of RRSO had they been given the option, whereas those with hot flashes, osteoporosis, or fatigue after RRSO were less likely, retrospectively, to choose RRESDO.

The findings suggest “there is a range of tolerability and acceptability of various symptoms among women which affects surgical decision making,” the authors comment.

RRSO remains the gold standard for OC risk reduction, but about 10% of premenopausal women regret having undergone RRSO, mainly because of the menopausal sequelae, they note.

RRESDO could offer an alternative for relatively young women who wish to delay the onset of menopause, they suggest.

The approach is supported by evidence that most high-grade, serous OC originates in the fallopian tubes, meaning delayed oophorectomy with RRESDO may have a favorable risk-benefit profile for those wishing to avoid surgical menopause.

Preliminary reports from WISP and TUBA were presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology in 2019. These initial results showed, as expected, that menopausal symptoms were worse with RRSO. This was true even among those who used HRT, WISP lead investigator Lu told Medscape Medical News.

She applauded the work by Gaba and colleagues, saying that the survey shows that women appreciate having options.

“It’s quite a daunting dilemma” for a woman at high risk but who is without cancer ― a “previvor” ― to be told that the standard-of-care recommendation is to undergo surgical menopause years earlier than would occur naturally, Lu added.

However, it is most important to know whether a given approach is safe and effective, and that’s where the joint international study planned by her team and the TUBA study investigators comes in.

“Acceptability is important; showing the impact on menopausal symptoms and sexual function is important,” she said. “But ultimately, we really need to know that [RRESDO] protects women from ovarian cancer.”

The UK survey was funded by a grant from Rosetrees Trust. Gaba and Lu have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A video that advertised scrubs but denigrated women and DOs has been removed from the company’s website after fierce backlash.

On Tuesday Kevin Klauer, DO, EJD, directed this tweet to the medical uniform company Figs: “@wearfigs REMOVE YOUR DO offensive web ad immediately or the @AOAforDOs will proceed promptly with a defamation lawsuit on behalf of our members and profession.”

Also on Tuesday, the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine demanded a public apology. 

The video ad featured a woman carrying a “Medical Terminology for Dummies” book upside down while modeling the pink scrubs from all angles and dancing. At one point in the ad, the camera zooms in on the badge clipped to her waistband that read “DO.”

Agnieszka Solberg, MD, a vascular and interventional radiologist and assistant clinical professor at the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks, was among those voicing pointed criticism on social media.

“This was another hit for our DO colleagues,” she said in an interview, emphasizing that MDs and DOs provide the same level of care.

AACOM tweeted: “We are outraged women physicians & doctors of osteopathic medicine are still attacked in ignorant marketing campaigns. A company like @wearfigs should be ashamed for promoting these stereotypes. We demand the respect we’ve earned AND a public apology.”

Dr. Solberg says this is not the first offense by the company. She said she had stopped buying the company’s scrubs a year ago because the ads “have been portraying female providers as dumb and silly. This was the final straw.”

She said the timing of the ad is suspect as DOs had been swept into a storm of negativity earlier this month, as Medscape Medical News reported, when some questioned the qualifications of President Donald Trump’s physician, Sean Conley, who is a DO.

The scrubs ad ignited criticism across specialties, provider levels, and genders.

Jessica K. Willett, MD, tweeted: “As women physicians in 2020, we still struggle to be taken seriously compared to our male counterparts, as we battle stereotypes like THIS EXACT ONE. We expect the brands we support to reflect the badasses we are.”

The company responded to her tweet: “Thank you so much for the feedback! Totally not our intent – we’re taking down both the men’s and women’s versions of this ASAP! I really appreciate you taking the time to share this.”

The company did not respond to a request for comment but issued an apology on social media: “A lot of you guys have pointed out an insensitive video we had on our site – we are incredibly sorry for any hurt this has caused you, especially our female DOs (who are amazing!) FIGS is a female founded company whose only mission is to make you guys feel awesome.”

The Los Angeles–based company, which Forbes estimated will make $250 million in sales this year, was founded by co-CEOs Heather Hasson and Trina Spear.

A med student wrote on Twitter: “As a female and a DO student, how would I ever “feel awesome” about myself knowing that this is how you view me??? And how you want others to view me??? Women and DO’s have fought stereotypes way too long for you to go ahead and put this out there. Do better.”

Even the company’s apology was tinged with disrespect, some noted, with the use of “you guys” and for what it didn’t include.

As Liesl Young, MD, tweeted: “We are not “guys”, we are women. MD = DO. We stand together.”

Dr. Solberg said the apology came across as an apology that feelings were hurt. It should have detailed the changes the company would make to prevent another incident and address the processes that led to the video.

Dr. Solberg said she is seeing something positive come from the whole incident in that, “women are taking up the torch of feminism in such a volatile and divisive time.”

Dr. Solberg reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A video that advertised scrubs but denigrated women and DOs has been removed from the company’s website after fierce backlash.

On Tuesday Kevin Klauer, DO, EJD, directed this tweet to the medical uniform company Figs: “@wearfigs REMOVE YOUR DO offensive web ad immediately or the @AOAforDOs will proceed promptly with a defamation lawsuit on behalf of our members and profession.”

Also on Tuesday, the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine demanded a public apology. 

The video ad featured a woman carrying a “Medical Terminology for Dummies” book upside down while modeling the pink scrubs from all angles and dancing. At one point in the ad, the camera zooms in on the badge clipped to her waistband that read “DO.”

Agnieszka Solberg, MD, a vascular and interventional radiologist and assistant clinical professor at the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks, was among those voicing pointed criticism on social media.

“This was another hit for our DO colleagues,” she said in an interview, emphasizing that MDs and DOs provide the same level of care.

AACOM tweeted: “We are outraged women physicians & doctors of osteopathic medicine are still attacked in ignorant marketing campaigns. A company like @wearfigs should be ashamed for promoting these stereotypes. We demand the respect we’ve earned AND a public apology.”

Dr. Solberg says this is not the first offense by the company. She said she had stopped buying the company’s scrubs a year ago because the ads “have been portraying female providers as dumb and silly. This was the final straw.”

She said the timing of the ad is suspect as DOs had been swept into a storm of negativity earlier this month, as Medscape Medical News reported, when some questioned the qualifications of President Donald Trump’s physician, Sean Conley, who is a DO.

The scrubs ad ignited criticism across specialties, provider levels, and genders.

Jessica K. Willett, MD, tweeted: “As women physicians in 2020, we still struggle to be taken seriously compared to our male counterparts, as we battle stereotypes like THIS EXACT ONE. We expect the brands we support to reflect the badasses we are.”

The company responded to her tweet: “Thank you so much for the feedback! Totally not our intent – we’re taking down both the men’s and women’s versions of this ASAP! I really appreciate you taking the time to share this.”

The company did not respond to a request for comment but issued an apology on social media: “A lot of you guys have pointed out an insensitive video we had on our site – we are incredibly sorry for any hurt this has caused you, especially our female DOs (who are amazing!) FIGS is a female founded company whose only mission is to make you guys feel awesome.”

The Los Angeles–based company, which Forbes estimated will make $250 million in sales this year, was founded by co-CEOs Heather Hasson and Trina Spear.

A med student wrote on Twitter: “As a female and a DO student, how would I ever “feel awesome” about myself knowing that this is how you view me??? And how you want others to view me??? Women and DO’s have fought stereotypes way too long for you to go ahead and put this out there. Do better.”

Even the company’s apology was tinged with disrespect, some noted, with the use of “you guys” and for what it didn’t include.

As Liesl Young, MD, tweeted: “We are not “guys”, we are women. MD = DO. We stand together.”

Dr. Solberg said the apology came across as an apology that feelings were hurt. It should have detailed the changes the company would make to prevent another incident and address the processes that led to the video.

Dr. Solberg said she is seeing something positive come from the whole incident in that, “women are taking up the torch of feminism in such a volatile and divisive time.”

Dr. Solberg reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A video that advertised scrubs but denigrated women and DOs has been removed from the company’s website after fierce backlash.

On Tuesday Kevin Klauer, DO, EJD, directed this tweet to the medical uniform company Figs: “@wearfigs REMOVE YOUR DO offensive web ad immediately or the @AOAforDOs will proceed promptly with a defamation lawsuit on behalf of our members and profession.”

Also on Tuesday, the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine demanded a public apology. 

The video ad featured a woman carrying a “Medical Terminology for Dummies” book upside down while modeling the pink scrubs from all angles and dancing. At one point in the ad, the camera zooms in on the badge clipped to her waistband that read “DO.”

Agnieszka Solberg, MD, a vascular and interventional radiologist and assistant clinical professor at the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks, was among those voicing pointed criticism on social media.

“This was another hit for our DO colleagues,” she said in an interview, emphasizing that MDs and DOs provide the same level of care.

AACOM tweeted: “We are outraged women physicians & doctors of osteopathic medicine are still attacked in ignorant marketing campaigns. A company like @wearfigs should be ashamed for promoting these stereotypes. We demand the respect we’ve earned AND a public apology.”

Dr. Solberg says this is not the first offense by the company. She said she had stopped buying the company’s scrubs a year ago because the ads “have been portraying female providers as dumb and silly. This was the final straw.”

She said the timing of the ad is suspect as DOs had been swept into a storm of negativity earlier this month, as Medscape Medical News reported, when some questioned the qualifications of President Donald Trump’s physician, Sean Conley, who is a DO.

The scrubs ad ignited criticism across specialties, provider levels, and genders.

Jessica K. Willett, MD, tweeted: “As women physicians in 2020, we still struggle to be taken seriously compared to our male counterparts, as we battle stereotypes like THIS EXACT ONE. We expect the brands we support to reflect the badasses we are.”

The company responded to her tweet: “Thank you so much for the feedback! Totally not our intent – we’re taking down both the men’s and women’s versions of this ASAP! I really appreciate you taking the time to share this.”

The company did not respond to a request for comment but issued an apology on social media: “A lot of you guys have pointed out an insensitive video we had on our site – we are incredibly sorry for any hurt this has caused you, especially our female DOs (who are amazing!) FIGS is a female founded company whose only mission is to make you guys feel awesome.”

The Los Angeles–based company, which Forbes estimated will make $250 million in sales this year, was founded by co-CEOs Heather Hasson and Trina Spear.

A med student wrote on Twitter: “As a female and a DO student, how would I ever “feel awesome” about myself knowing that this is how you view me??? And how you want others to view me??? Women and DO’s have fought stereotypes way too long for you to go ahead and put this out there. Do better.”

Even the company’s apology was tinged with disrespect, some noted, with the use of “you guys” and for what it didn’t include.

As Liesl Young, MD, tweeted: “We are not “guys”, we are women. MD = DO. We stand together.”

Dr. Solberg said the apology came across as an apology that feelings were hurt. It should have detailed the changes the company would make to prevent another incident and address the processes that led to the video.

Dr. Solberg said she is seeing something positive come from the whole incident in that, “women are taking up the torch of feminism in such a volatile and divisive time.”

Dr. Solberg reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Neither diabetes per se nor hyperglycemia appear to impair the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2, suggesting that a COVID-19 vaccine would be just as effective in people with diabetes as in those without, new research finds.

Results from a study involving 480 patients with confirmed COVID-19 seen at an Italian hospital between February 25 and April 19 were published online October 8 in Diabetologia by Vito Lampasona, MD, and colleagues.

Antibody responses against multiple SARS-CoV-2 antigens among the 27% of patients with COVID-19 and diabetes (preexisting and newly diagnosed) were similar with regard to timing, titers, and classes to those of patients with COVID-19 and without diabetes, and the results did not differ by glucose levels.

Moreover, positivity for immunoglobulin G (IgG) against the SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor-binding domain (RBD) was associated with improved survival regardless of diabetes status.

And as previously shown, high blood glucose levels were strongly associated with greater COVID-19 mortality even in those without diabetes.

This is the first study of the immunologic humoral response against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with hyperglycemia, the authors say.

“The immunological response to a future SARS-CoV-2 vaccine will be assessed when the vaccine becomes available. However, our data allow a cautious optimism regarding effective immunization in individuals with diabetes, as well as in the general population,” wrote Dr. Lampasona of San Raffaele Diabetes Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele in Milan, and colleagues.
 

Diabetes and hyperglycemia worsen COVID-19 outcomes

The investigators analyzed the presence of three types of antibody to multiple SARS-CoV-2 antigens in 509 participants: IgG, which is evidence of past infection; IgM, which indicates more recent or current infection; and IgA, which is involved in the mucosal immune response, for example, in the nose where the virus enters the body.

Overall, 452 (88.8%) patients were hospitalized, 79 (15.5%) patients were admitted to intensive care, and 93 (18.3%) patients died during follow-up.

Of the 139 patients with diabetes, 90 (17.7% of the study cohort) already had a diagnosis of diabetes, and 49 (9.6%) were newly diagnosed.

Those with diabetes were older, had a higher body mass index (BMI), and were more likely to have cardiovascular comorbidities, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease. As has been previously reported for diabetes and COVID-19, diabetes was also associated with increased levels of inflammatory biomarkers, hypercoagulopathy, leukocytosis, and neutrophilia.

In multivariate analysis, diabetes status (hazard ratio, 2.32; P = .001), mean fasting plasma glucose (P < .001), and glucose variability (P = .002) were all independently associated with increased mortality and ICU admission. And fasting plasma glucose was associated with increased mortality risk even among those without diabetes (P < .001).
 

Antibody response similar in patients with and without diabetes

The humoral response against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with diabetes was present and superimposable in terms of timing and antibody titers to that of patients without diabetes, with marginal differences, and was not influenced by glucose levels.

After adjustment for sex, age, and diabetes status and stratification by symptom duration at time of sampling, the development of SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgG antibodies was associated with improved survival, with an HR for time to death of 0.4 (P = .002).

“Of the measured antibody responses, positivity for IgG against the SARS-CoV-2 spike RBD was predictive of survival rate, both in the presence or absence of diabetes,” the authors stressed, with similar HRs for those with diabetes (0.37; P = .013) and without diabetes (0.43; P = .038).

These data confirm “the relevance for patient survival rate of the specific antigen response against spike RBD even in the presence of diabetes, and it underlines how the mechanism explaining the worse clinical outcome in patients with diabetes is unrelated to the antibody response,” they explain.

They added, “This, together with evidence that increased blood glucose levels do predict a poor prognosis even in nondiabetic individuals and the association with increased levels of inflammatory biomarkers and hypercoagulopathy, as well as leukocytosis and neutrophilia, support the speculation that glucose per se could be an independent biological negative factor, acting as a direct regulator of innate immunity.”

“The observed increased severity and mortality risk of COVID-19 pneumonia in patients with hyperglycemia was not the result of an impaired humoral response against SARS-CoV-2.”

“RBD IgG positivity was associated with a remarkable protective effect, allowing for a cautious optimism about the efficacy of future vaccines against SARS-COV-2 in people with diabetes,” they reiterated.

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Neither diabetes per se nor hyperglycemia appear to impair the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2, suggesting that a COVID-19 vaccine would be just as effective in people with diabetes as in those without, new research finds.

Results from a study involving 480 patients with confirmed COVID-19 seen at an Italian hospital between February 25 and April 19 were published online October 8 in Diabetologia by Vito Lampasona, MD, and colleagues.

Antibody responses against multiple SARS-CoV-2 antigens among the 27% of patients with COVID-19 and diabetes (preexisting and newly diagnosed) were similar with regard to timing, titers, and classes to those of patients with COVID-19 and without diabetes, and the results did not differ by glucose levels.

Moreover, positivity for immunoglobulin G (IgG) against the SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor-binding domain (RBD) was associated with improved survival regardless of diabetes status.

And as previously shown, high blood glucose levels were strongly associated with greater COVID-19 mortality even in those without diabetes.

This is the first study of the immunologic humoral response against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with hyperglycemia, the authors say.

“The immunological response to a future SARS-CoV-2 vaccine will be assessed when the vaccine becomes available. However, our data allow a cautious optimism regarding effective immunization in individuals with diabetes, as well as in the general population,” wrote Dr. Lampasona of San Raffaele Diabetes Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele in Milan, and colleagues.
 

Diabetes and hyperglycemia worsen COVID-19 outcomes

The investigators analyzed the presence of three types of antibody to multiple SARS-CoV-2 antigens in 509 participants: IgG, which is evidence of past infection; IgM, which indicates more recent or current infection; and IgA, which is involved in the mucosal immune response, for example, in the nose where the virus enters the body.

Overall, 452 (88.8%) patients were hospitalized, 79 (15.5%) patients were admitted to intensive care, and 93 (18.3%) patients died during follow-up.

Of the 139 patients with diabetes, 90 (17.7% of the study cohort) already had a diagnosis of diabetes, and 49 (9.6%) were newly diagnosed.

Those with diabetes were older, had a higher body mass index (BMI), and were more likely to have cardiovascular comorbidities, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease. As has been previously reported for diabetes and COVID-19, diabetes was also associated with increased levels of inflammatory biomarkers, hypercoagulopathy, leukocytosis, and neutrophilia.

In multivariate analysis, diabetes status (hazard ratio, 2.32; P = .001), mean fasting plasma glucose (P < .001), and glucose variability (P = .002) were all independently associated with increased mortality and ICU admission. And fasting plasma glucose was associated with increased mortality risk even among those without diabetes (P < .001).
 

Antibody response similar in patients with and without diabetes

The humoral response against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with diabetes was present and superimposable in terms of timing and antibody titers to that of patients without diabetes, with marginal differences, and was not influenced by glucose levels.

After adjustment for sex, age, and diabetes status and stratification by symptom duration at time of sampling, the development of SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgG antibodies was associated with improved survival, with an HR for time to death of 0.4 (P = .002).

“Of the measured antibody responses, positivity for IgG against the SARS-CoV-2 spike RBD was predictive of survival rate, both in the presence or absence of diabetes,” the authors stressed, with similar HRs for those with diabetes (0.37; P = .013) and without diabetes (0.43; P = .038).

These data confirm “the relevance for patient survival rate of the specific antigen response against spike RBD even in the presence of diabetes, and it underlines how the mechanism explaining the worse clinical outcome in patients with diabetes is unrelated to the antibody response,” they explain.

They added, “This, together with evidence that increased blood glucose levels do predict a poor prognosis even in nondiabetic individuals and the association with increased levels of inflammatory biomarkers and hypercoagulopathy, as well as leukocytosis and neutrophilia, support the speculation that glucose per se could be an independent biological negative factor, acting as a direct regulator of innate immunity.”

“The observed increased severity and mortality risk of COVID-19 pneumonia in patients with hyperglycemia was not the result of an impaired humoral response against SARS-CoV-2.”

“RBD IgG positivity was associated with a remarkable protective effect, allowing for a cautious optimism about the efficacy of future vaccines against SARS-COV-2 in people with diabetes,” they reiterated.

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Neither diabetes per se nor hyperglycemia appear to impair the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2, suggesting that a COVID-19 vaccine would be just as effective in people with diabetes as in those without, new research finds.

Results from a study involving 480 patients with confirmed COVID-19 seen at an Italian hospital between February 25 and April 19 were published online October 8 in Diabetologia by Vito Lampasona, MD, and colleagues.

Antibody responses against multiple SARS-CoV-2 antigens among the 27% of patients with COVID-19 and diabetes (preexisting and newly diagnosed) were similar with regard to timing, titers, and classes to those of patients with COVID-19 and without diabetes, and the results did not differ by glucose levels.

Moreover, positivity for immunoglobulin G (IgG) against the SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor-binding domain (RBD) was associated with improved survival regardless of diabetes status.

And as previously shown, high blood glucose levels were strongly associated with greater COVID-19 mortality even in those without diabetes.

This is the first study of the immunologic humoral response against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with hyperglycemia, the authors say.

“The immunological response to a future SARS-CoV-2 vaccine will be assessed when the vaccine becomes available. However, our data allow a cautious optimism regarding effective immunization in individuals with diabetes, as well as in the general population,” wrote Dr. Lampasona of San Raffaele Diabetes Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele in Milan, and colleagues.
 

Diabetes and hyperglycemia worsen COVID-19 outcomes

The investigators analyzed the presence of three types of antibody to multiple SARS-CoV-2 antigens in 509 participants: IgG, which is evidence of past infection; IgM, which indicates more recent or current infection; and IgA, which is involved in the mucosal immune response, for example, in the nose where the virus enters the body.

Overall, 452 (88.8%) patients were hospitalized, 79 (15.5%) patients were admitted to intensive care, and 93 (18.3%) patients died during follow-up.

Of the 139 patients with diabetes, 90 (17.7% of the study cohort) already had a diagnosis of diabetes, and 49 (9.6%) were newly diagnosed.

Those with diabetes were older, had a higher body mass index (BMI), and were more likely to have cardiovascular comorbidities, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease. As has been previously reported for diabetes and COVID-19, diabetes was also associated with increased levels of inflammatory biomarkers, hypercoagulopathy, leukocytosis, and neutrophilia.

In multivariate analysis, diabetes status (hazard ratio, 2.32; P = .001), mean fasting plasma glucose (P < .001), and glucose variability (P = .002) were all independently associated with increased mortality and ICU admission. And fasting plasma glucose was associated with increased mortality risk even among those without diabetes (P < .001).
 

Antibody response similar in patients with and without diabetes

The humoral response against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with diabetes was present and superimposable in terms of timing and antibody titers to that of patients without diabetes, with marginal differences, and was not influenced by glucose levels.

After adjustment for sex, age, and diabetes status and stratification by symptom duration at time of sampling, the development of SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgG antibodies was associated with improved survival, with an HR for time to death of 0.4 (P = .002).

“Of the measured antibody responses, positivity for IgG against the SARS-CoV-2 spike RBD was predictive of survival rate, both in the presence or absence of diabetes,” the authors stressed, with similar HRs for those with diabetes (0.37; P = .013) and without diabetes (0.43; P = .038).

These data confirm “the relevance for patient survival rate of the specific antigen response against spike RBD even in the presence of diabetes, and it underlines how the mechanism explaining the worse clinical outcome in patients with diabetes is unrelated to the antibody response,” they explain.

They added, “This, together with evidence that increased blood glucose levels do predict a poor prognosis even in nondiabetic individuals and the association with increased levels of inflammatory biomarkers and hypercoagulopathy, as well as leukocytosis and neutrophilia, support the speculation that glucose per se could be an independent biological negative factor, acting as a direct regulator of innate immunity.”

“The observed increased severity and mortality risk of COVID-19 pneumonia in patients with hyperglycemia was not the result of an impaired humoral response against SARS-CoV-2.”

“RBD IgG positivity was associated with a remarkable protective effect, allowing for a cautious optimism about the efficacy of future vaccines against SARS-COV-2 in people with diabetes,” they reiterated.

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Patients with B-cell lymphoma are immunocompromised because of the disease and its treatments. This presents the question of their outcomes upon infection with SARS-CoV-2. Researchers assessed the characteristics of patients with lymphoma hospitalized for COVID-19 and analyzed determinants of mortality in a retrospective database study. The investigators looked at data from adult patients with lymphoma who were hospitalized for COVID-19 in March and April 2020 in three French regions.

CoRus13/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons 4.0

Older age and relapsed/refractory (r/r) disease in B-cell lymphoma patients were both found to be independent risk factors of increased death rate from COVID-19, according to the online report in EClinicalMedicine, published by The Lancet.

These results encourage “the application of standard Covid-19 treatment, including intubation, for lymphoma patients with Covid-19 lymphoma diagnosis, under first- or second-line chemotherapy, or in remission,” according to Sylvain Lamure, MD, of Montellier (France) University, and colleagues.

The study examined a series of 89 consecutive patients from three French regions who had lymphoma and were hospitalized for COVID-19 in March and April 2020. The population was homogeneous; most patients were diagnosed with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and had been treated for their lymphoma within 1 year.
 

Promising results for many

There were a significant associations between 30-day mortality and increasing age (over age 70 years) and r/r lymphoma. However, in the absence of those factors, mortality of the lymphoma patients with COVID-19 was comparable with that of the reference French COVID-19 population. In addition, there was no significant impact of active lymphoma treatment that had been given within 1 year, except for those patients who received bendamustine, which was associated with greater mortality, according to the researchers.

With a median follow-up of 33 days from admission, the Kaplan-Meier estimate of 30-day overall survival was 71% (95% confidence interval, 62%-81%). According to histological type of the lymphoma, 30-day overall survival rates were 80% (95% CI, 45%-100%) for Hodgkin lymphoma, 71% (95% CI, 61%-82%) for B-cell non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, and 71% (95% CI, 38%-100%) for T-cell non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.

The main factors associated with mortality were age 70 years and older (hazard ratio, 3.78; 95% CI, 1.73-8.25; P = .0009), hypertension (HR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.06-4.59; P = .03), previous cancer (HR, 2.11; 95% CI, 0.90-4.92; P = .08), use of bendamustine within 12 months before admission to hospital (HR, 3.05; 95% CI, 1.31-7.11; P = .01), and r/r lymphoma (HR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.20-5.72; P = .02).

Overall, the Kaplan-Meier estimates of 30-day overall survival were 61% for patients with r/r lymphoma, 52% in patients age 70 years with non–r/r lymphoma, and 88% for patients younger than 70 years with non–r/r, which was comparable with general population survival data among French populations, according to the researchers.

“Longer term clinical follow-up and biological monitoring of immune responses is warranted to explore the impact of lymphoma and its treatment on the immunity and prolonged outcome of Covid-19 patients,” they concluded.

The study was unsponsored. Several of the authors reported financial relationships with a number of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lamure S et al. EClinicalMedicine. 2020 Oct 12. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100549.

Patients with B-cell lymphoma are immunocompromised because of the disease and its treatments. This presents the question of their outcomes upon infection with SARS-CoV-2. Researchers assessed the characteristics of patients with lymphoma hospitalized for COVID-19 and analyzed determinants of mortality in a retrospective database study. The investigators looked at data from adult patients with lymphoma who were hospitalized for COVID-19 in March and April 2020 in three French regions.

CoRus13/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons 4.0

Older age and relapsed/refractory (r/r) disease in B-cell lymphoma patients were both found to be independent risk factors of increased death rate from COVID-19, according to the online report in EClinicalMedicine, published by The Lancet.

These results encourage “the application of standard Covid-19 treatment, including intubation, for lymphoma patients with Covid-19 lymphoma diagnosis, under first- or second-line chemotherapy, or in remission,” according to Sylvain Lamure, MD, of Montellier (France) University, and colleagues.

The study examined a series of 89 consecutive patients from three French regions who had lymphoma and were hospitalized for COVID-19 in March and April 2020. The population was homogeneous; most patients were diagnosed with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and had been treated for their lymphoma within 1 year.
 

Promising results for many

There were a significant associations between 30-day mortality and increasing age (over age 70 years) and r/r lymphoma. However, in the absence of those factors, mortality of the lymphoma patients with COVID-19 was comparable with that of the reference French COVID-19 population. In addition, there was no significant impact of active lymphoma treatment that had been given within 1 year, except for those patients who received bendamustine, which was associated with greater mortality, according to the researchers.

With a median follow-up of 33 days from admission, the Kaplan-Meier estimate of 30-day overall survival was 71% (95% confidence interval, 62%-81%). According to histological type of the lymphoma, 30-day overall survival rates were 80% (95% CI, 45%-100%) for Hodgkin lymphoma, 71% (95% CI, 61%-82%) for B-cell non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, and 71% (95% CI, 38%-100%) for T-cell non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.

The main factors associated with mortality were age 70 years and older (hazard ratio, 3.78; 95% CI, 1.73-8.25; P = .0009), hypertension (HR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.06-4.59; P = .03), previous cancer (HR, 2.11; 95% CI, 0.90-4.92; P = .08), use of bendamustine within 12 months before admission to hospital (HR, 3.05; 95% CI, 1.31-7.11; P = .01), and r/r lymphoma (HR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.20-5.72; P = .02).

Overall, the Kaplan-Meier estimates of 30-day overall survival were 61% for patients with r/r lymphoma, 52% in patients age 70 years with non–r/r lymphoma, and 88% for patients younger than 70 years with non–r/r, which was comparable with general population survival data among French populations, according to the researchers.

“Longer term clinical follow-up and biological monitoring of immune responses is warranted to explore the impact of lymphoma and its treatment on the immunity and prolonged outcome of Covid-19 patients,” they concluded.

The study was unsponsored. Several of the authors reported financial relationships with a number of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lamure S et al. EClinicalMedicine. 2020 Oct 12. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100549.

Patients with B-cell lymphoma are immunocompromised because of the disease and its treatments. This presents the question of their outcomes upon infection with SARS-CoV-2. Researchers assessed the characteristics of patients with lymphoma hospitalized for COVID-19 and analyzed determinants of mortality in a retrospective database study. The investigators looked at data from adult patients with lymphoma who were hospitalized for COVID-19 in March and April 2020 in three French regions.

CoRus13/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons 4.0

Older age and relapsed/refractory (r/r) disease in B-cell lymphoma patients were both found to be independent risk factors of increased death rate from COVID-19, according to the online report in EClinicalMedicine, published by The Lancet.

These results encourage “the application of standard Covid-19 treatment, including intubation, for lymphoma patients with Covid-19 lymphoma diagnosis, under first- or second-line chemotherapy, or in remission,” according to Sylvain Lamure, MD, of Montellier (France) University, and colleagues.

The study examined a series of 89 consecutive patients from three French regions who had lymphoma and were hospitalized for COVID-19 in March and April 2020. The population was homogeneous; most patients were diagnosed with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and had been treated for their lymphoma within 1 year.
 

Promising results for many

There were a significant associations between 30-day mortality and increasing age (over age 70 years) and r/r lymphoma. However, in the absence of those factors, mortality of the lymphoma patients with COVID-19 was comparable with that of the reference French COVID-19 population. In addition, there was no significant impact of active lymphoma treatment that had been given within 1 year, except for those patients who received bendamustine, which was associated with greater mortality, according to the researchers.

With a median follow-up of 33 days from admission, the Kaplan-Meier estimate of 30-day overall survival was 71% (95% confidence interval, 62%-81%). According to histological type of the lymphoma, 30-day overall survival rates were 80% (95% CI, 45%-100%) for Hodgkin lymphoma, 71% (95% CI, 61%-82%) for B-cell non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, and 71% (95% CI, 38%-100%) for T-cell non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.

The main factors associated with mortality were age 70 years and older (hazard ratio, 3.78; 95% CI, 1.73-8.25; P = .0009), hypertension (HR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.06-4.59; P = .03), previous cancer (HR, 2.11; 95% CI, 0.90-4.92; P = .08), use of bendamustine within 12 months before admission to hospital (HR, 3.05; 95% CI, 1.31-7.11; P = .01), and r/r lymphoma (HR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.20-5.72; P = .02).

Overall, the Kaplan-Meier estimates of 30-day overall survival were 61% for patients with r/r lymphoma, 52% in patients age 70 years with non–r/r lymphoma, and 88% for patients younger than 70 years with non–r/r, which was comparable with general population survival data among French populations, according to the researchers.

“Longer term clinical follow-up and biological monitoring of immune responses is warranted to explore the impact of lymphoma and its treatment on the immunity and prolonged outcome of Covid-19 patients,” they concluded.

The study was unsponsored. Several of the authors reported financial relationships with a number of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lamure S et al. EClinicalMedicine. 2020 Oct 12. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100549.

We can “stop putting money on vitamin D” to help patients who require critical care, said Todd Rice, MD, FCCP.

“Results from vitamin D trials have not been uniformly one way, but they have been pretty uniformly disappointing,” Dr. Rice, from Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Low levels of vitamin D in critically ill COVID-19 patients have been reported in numerous recent studies, and researchers are looking for ways to boost those levels and improve outcomes.

We are seeing “the exact same story” in the critically ill COVID-19 population as we see in the general ICU population, said Dr. Rice. “The whole scenario is repeating itself. I’m pessimistic.”

Still, vitamin D levels can be elevated so, in theory, “the concept makes sense,” he said. There is evidence that, “when given enterally, the levels rise nicely” and vitamin D is absorbed reasonably well.” But is that enough?

When patients are admitted to the ICU, some biomarkers in the body are too high and others are too low. Vitamin D is often too low. So far, though, “supplementing vitamin D in the ICU has not significantly improved outcomes,” said Dr. Rice.

In the Vitamin D to Improve Outcomes by Leveraging Early Treatment (VIOLET) trial, Dr. Rice and colleagues found no statistical benefit when a 540,000 IU boost of vitamin D was administered to 2,624 critically ill patients, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

“Early administration of high-dose enteral vitamin D₃ did not provide an advantage over placebo with respect to 90-day mortality or other nonfatal outcomes among critically ill, vitamin D–deficient patients,” the researchers write in their recent report.

In fact, VIOLET ended before enrollment had reached the planned 3,000-patient cohort because the statistical analysis clearly did not show benefit. Those enrolled were in the ICU because of, among other things, pneumonia, sepsis, the need for mechanical ventilation or vasopressors, and risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome.

“It doesn’t look like vitamin D is going to be the answer to our critical care problems,” Dr. Rice said in an interview.
 

Maintenance dose needed?

One theory suggests that VIOLET might have failed because a maintenance dose is needed after the initial boost of vitamin D.

In the ongoing VITDALIZE trial, critically ill patients with severe vitamin D deficiency (12 ng/mL or less at admission) receive an initial 540,000-IU dose followed by 4,000 IU per day.

The highly anticipated VITDALIZE results are expected in the middle of next year, Dr. Rice reported, so “let’s wait to see.”

“Vitamin D may not have an acute effect,” he theorized. “We can raise your levels, but that doesn’t give you all the benefits of having a sufficient level for a long period of time.”

Another theory suggests that a low level of vitamin D is simply a signal of the severity of disease, not a direct influence on disease pathology.

Some observational data have shown an association between low levels of vitamin D and outcomes in COVID-19 patients (Nutrients. 2020 May 9;12[5]:1359; medRxiv 2020 Apr 24. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.24.20075838; JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[9]:e2019722; FEBS J. 2020 Jul 23;10.1111/febs.15495; Clin Endocrinol [Oxf]. 2020 Jul 3;10.1111/cen.14276), but some have shown no association (medRxiv. 2020 Jun 26. doi: 10.1101/2020.06.26.20140921; J Public Health [Oxf]. 2020 Aug 18;42[3]:451-60).

Dr. Rice conducted a search of Clinicaltrials.gov immediately before his presentation on Sunday, and found 41 ongoing interventional studies – “not observational studies” – looking at COVID-19 and vitamin D.

“They’re recruiting, they’re enrolling; hopefully we’ll have data soon,” he said.

Researchers have checked a lot of boxes with a resounding yes on the vitamin D question, so there’s reason to think an association does exist for ICU patients, whether or not they have COVID-19.

“Is there a theoretical benefit of vitamin D in the ICU?” Dr. Rice asked. “Yes. Is vitamin D deficient in patients in the ICU? Yes. Is that deficiency associated with poor outcomes? Yes. Can it be replaced safely? Yes.”

However, “we’re not really sure that it improves outcomes,” he said.
 

A chronic issue?

“Do you think it’s really an issue of the patients being critically ill with vitamin D,” or is it “a chronic issue of having low vitamin D?” asked session moderator Antine Stenbit, MD, PhD, from the University of California, San Diego.

“We don’t know for sure,” Dr. Rice said. Vitamin D might not have a lot of acute effects; it might have effects that are chronic, that work with levels over a period of time, he explained.

“It’s not clear we can correct that with a single dose or with a few days of giving a level that is adequate,” he acknowledged.

Dr. Rice is an investigator in the PETAL network. Dr. Stenbit disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

We can “stop putting money on vitamin D” to help patients who require critical care, said Todd Rice, MD, FCCP.

“Results from vitamin D trials have not been uniformly one way, but they have been pretty uniformly disappointing,” Dr. Rice, from Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Low levels of vitamin D in critically ill COVID-19 patients have been reported in numerous recent studies, and researchers are looking for ways to boost those levels and improve outcomes.

We are seeing “the exact same story” in the critically ill COVID-19 population as we see in the general ICU population, said Dr. Rice. “The whole scenario is repeating itself. I’m pessimistic.”

Still, vitamin D levels can be elevated so, in theory, “the concept makes sense,” he said. There is evidence that, “when given enterally, the levels rise nicely” and vitamin D is absorbed reasonably well.” But is that enough?

When patients are admitted to the ICU, some biomarkers in the body are too high and others are too low. Vitamin D is often too low. So far, though, “supplementing vitamin D in the ICU has not significantly improved outcomes,” said Dr. Rice.

In the Vitamin D to Improve Outcomes by Leveraging Early Treatment (VIOLET) trial, Dr. Rice and colleagues found no statistical benefit when a 540,000 IU boost of vitamin D was administered to 2,624 critically ill patients, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

“Early administration of high-dose enteral vitamin D₃ did not provide an advantage over placebo with respect to 90-day mortality or other nonfatal outcomes among critically ill, vitamin D–deficient patients,” the researchers write in their recent report.

In fact, VIOLET ended before enrollment had reached the planned 3,000-patient cohort because the statistical analysis clearly did not show benefit. Those enrolled were in the ICU because of, among other things, pneumonia, sepsis, the need for mechanical ventilation or vasopressors, and risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome.

“It doesn’t look like vitamin D is going to be the answer to our critical care problems,” Dr. Rice said in an interview.
 

Maintenance dose needed?

One theory suggests that VIOLET might have failed because a maintenance dose is needed after the initial boost of vitamin D.

In the ongoing VITDALIZE trial, critically ill patients with severe vitamin D deficiency (12 ng/mL or less at admission) receive an initial 540,000-IU dose followed by 4,000 IU per day.

The highly anticipated VITDALIZE results are expected in the middle of next year, Dr. Rice reported, so “let’s wait to see.”

“Vitamin D may not have an acute effect,” he theorized. “We can raise your levels, but that doesn’t give you all the benefits of having a sufficient level for a long period of time.”

Another theory suggests that a low level of vitamin D is simply a signal of the severity of disease, not a direct influence on disease pathology.

Some observational data have shown an association between low levels of vitamin D and outcomes in COVID-19 patients (Nutrients. 2020 May 9;12[5]:1359; medRxiv 2020 Apr 24. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.24.20075838; JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[9]:e2019722; FEBS J. 2020 Jul 23;10.1111/febs.15495; Clin Endocrinol [Oxf]. 2020 Jul 3;10.1111/cen.14276), but some have shown no association (medRxiv. 2020 Jun 26. doi: 10.1101/2020.06.26.20140921; J Public Health [Oxf]. 2020 Aug 18;42[3]:451-60).

Dr. Rice conducted a search of Clinicaltrials.gov immediately before his presentation on Sunday, and found 41 ongoing interventional studies – “not observational studies” – looking at COVID-19 and vitamin D.

“They’re recruiting, they’re enrolling; hopefully we’ll have data soon,” he said.

Researchers have checked a lot of boxes with a resounding yes on the vitamin D question, so there’s reason to think an association does exist for ICU patients, whether or not they have COVID-19.

“Is there a theoretical benefit of vitamin D in the ICU?” Dr. Rice asked. “Yes. Is vitamin D deficient in patients in the ICU? Yes. Is that deficiency associated with poor outcomes? Yes. Can it be replaced safely? Yes.”

However, “we’re not really sure that it improves outcomes,” he said.
 

A chronic issue?

“Do you think it’s really an issue of the patients being critically ill with vitamin D,” or is it “a chronic issue of having low vitamin D?” asked session moderator Antine Stenbit, MD, PhD, from the University of California, San Diego.

“We don’t know for sure,” Dr. Rice said. Vitamin D might not have a lot of acute effects; it might have effects that are chronic, that work with levels over a period of time, he explained.

“It’s not clear we can correct that with a single dose or with a few days of giving a level that is adequate,” he acknowledged.

Dr. Rice is an investigator in the PETAL network. Dr. Stenbit disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

We can “stop putting money on vitamin D” to help patients who require critical care, said Todd Rice, MD, FCCP.

“Results from vitamin D trials have not been uniformly one way, but they have been pretty uniformly disappointing,” Dr. Rice, from Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Low levels of vitamin D in critically ill COVID-19 patients have been reported in numerous recent studies, and researchers are looking for ways to boost those levels and improve outcomes.

We are seeing “the exact same story” in the critically ill COVID-19 population as we see in the general ICU population, said Dr. Rice. “The whole scenario is repeating itself. I’m pessimistic.”

Still, vitamin D levels can be elevated so, in theory, “the concept makes sense,” he said. There is evidence that, “when given enterally, the levels rise nicely” and vitamin D is absorbed reasonably well.” But is that enough?

When patients are admitted to the ICU, some biomarkers in the body are too high and others are too low. Vitamin D is often too low. So far, though, “supplementing vitamin D in the ICU has not significantly improved outcomes,” said Dr. Rice.

In the Vitamin D to Improve Outcomes by Leveraging Early Treatment (VIOLET) trial, Dr. Rice and colleagues found no statistical benefit when a 540,000 IU boost of vitamin D was administered to 2,624 critically ill patients, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

“Early administration of high-dose enteral vitamin D₃ did not provide an advantage over placebo with respect to 90-day mortality or other nonfatal outcomes among critically ill, vitamin D–deficient patients,” the researchers write in their recent report.

In fact, VIOLET ended before enrollment had reached the planned 3,000-patient cohort because the statistical analysis clearly did not show benefit. Those enrolled were in the ICU because of, among other things, pneumonia, sepsis, the need for mechanical ventilation or vasopressors, and risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome.

“It doesn’t look like vitamin D is going to be the answer to our critical care problems,” Dr. Rice said in an interview.
 

Maintenance dose needed?

One theory suggests that VIOLET might have failed because a maintenance dose is needed after the initial boost of vitamin D.

In the ongoing VITDALIZE trial, critically ill patients with severe vitamin D deficiency (12 ng/mL or less at admission) receive an initial 540,000-IU dose followed by 4,000 IU per day.

The highly anticipated VITDALIZE results are expected in the middle of next year, Dr. Rice reported, so “let’s wait to see.”

“Vitamin D may not have an acute effect,” he theorized. “We can raise your levels, but that doesn’t give you all the benefits of having a sufficient level for a long period of time.”

Another theory suggests that a low level of vitamin D is simply a signal of the severity of disease, not a direct influence on disease pathology.

Some observational data have shown an association between low levels of vitamin D and outcomes in COVID-19 patients (Nutrients. 2020 May 9;12[5]:1359; medRxiv 2020 Apr 24. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.24.20075838; JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[9]:e2019722; FEBS J. 2020 Jul 23;10.1111/febs.15495; Clin Endocrinol [Oxf]. 2020 Jul 3;10.1111/cen.14276), but some have shown no association (medRxiv. 2020 Jun 26. doi: 10.1101/2020.06.26.20140921; J Public Health [Oxf]. 2020 Aug 18;42[3]:451-60).

Dr. Rice conducted a search of Clinicaltrials.gov immediately before his presentation on Sunday, and found 41 ongoing interventional studies – “not observational studies” – looking at COVID-19 and vitamin D.

“They’re recruiting, they’re enrolling; hopefully we’ll have data soon,” he said.

Researchers have checked a lot of boxes with a resounding yes on the vitamin D question, so there’s reason to think an association does exist for ICU patients, whether or not they have COVID-19.

“Is there a theoretical benefit of vitamin D in the ICU?” Dr. Rice asked. “Yes. Is vitamin D deficient in patients in the ICU? Yes. Is that deficiency associated with poor outcomes? Yes. Can it be replaced safely? Yes.”

However, “we’re not really sure that it improves outcomes,” he said.
 

A chronic issue?

“Do you think it’s really an issue of the patients being critically ill with vitamin D,” or is it “a chronic issue of having low vitamin D?” asked session moderator Antine Stenbit, MD, PhD, from the University of California, San Diego.

“We don’t know for sure,” Dr. Rice said. Vitamin D might not have a lot of acute effects; it might have effects that are chronic, that work with levels over a period of time, he explained.

“It’s not clear we can correct that with a single dose or with a few days of giving a level that is adequate,” he acknowledged.

Dr. Rice is an investigator in the PETAL network. Dr. Stenbit disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has thrown a monkey wrench into the medical education landscape across the entire health care spectrum, disrupting the plans of medical students, residents, fellows, and program directors.

As cases of COVID-19 spread across the United States in early 2020, it became clear to training program directors that immediate action was required to meet the needs of medical learners. The challenges were unlike those surrounding the Ebola virus in 2014, “where we could more easily prevent students and trainees from exposure due to the fact that there were simply not significant numbers of cases in the United States,” Tiffany Murano, MD, said at a Society for Critical Care virtual meeting: COVID-19: What’s Next. Dr. Murano is professor of emergency medicine at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, and president-elect of the Council of Residency Directors in Emergency Medicine. “COVID was a completely different scenario. We quickly realized that not only was personal protective equipment in short supply, but we also lacked the testing and tracking capabilities for potential exposures. Medical students and other supportive workers who were considered nonessential were removed from the clinical setting. This was after a trial of limiting who the students saw, essentially dampening the risk of exposure. But this proved to be flawed as COVID patients presented with symptoms that were unexpected.”

To complicate matters, she continued, many medical clinics either shut down, had limited access, or converted to telemedicine. Elective surgeries were canceled. This led to an overall pause in clinical medical student rotations and no direct patient care activities. As social distancing mandates were instituted, licensing examination testing centers were closed, and exams and on-campus activities were postponed.
 

Limiting trainee exposure

On the graduate medical education front, some training programs attempted to limit exposure of their trainees to persons under investigation for COVID-19. “As the number of COVID cases grew and encompassed most of what we were seeing in the hospital, it was obvious that residents had to play a vital part in the care of these patients,” said Dr. Murano, who is also a member of the American Council of Graduate Medical Education’s emergency review and recognition committee. “However, there was a consensus among all of the specialties that the procedures that posed the highest risk of exposure would be limited to the most senior or experienced trainees or professionals, and closely supervised by the faculty.”

ACGME activities such as accreditation site visits, clinical environment learning reviews, self-study, and resident and faculty surveys were suspended, postponed, or modified in some way, she said. The ACGME created stages of COVID status to guide sponsoring institutions to suspend learning curricula in order for patients to be cared for. Stage 1 was business as usual, “so there was no significant impact on patient care,” Dr. Murano said. “Stage 2 was increased but manageable clinical demand, while stage 3 was pandemic emergency status, where there were extraordinary circumstances where the clinical demand was so high and strenuous that the routine patient care and education really needed to be reconfigured in order to care for the patients.”

New requirements to manage training

The ACGME also implemented four requirements to manage training that were consistent among institutions, regardless of their COVID stage status. These included making sure that trainees continued to be held to work-hour limit requirements, ensuring adequate resources for training, ensuring that all residents had the appropriate level of supervision at all times, and allowing fellows to function in the core specialty in which they completed their residency training. “This was only possible if the fellows were ABMS [American Board of Medical Specialties] or AOA [American Osteopathic Association] board-eligible, or certified in their core specialty,” Dr. Murano said. “The fellows had to be appointed to the medical staff at the sponsoring institution, and their time spent on the core specialty service would be limited to 20% of their annual education time in any academic year.”

Mindful that there may have been trainees who required a 2-week quarantine period following exposure or potential exposure to COVID-19, some specialty boards showed leniency in residency time required to sit for the written exam. “Testing centers were being forced to close to observe social distancing requirements and heed sanitation recommendations, so exams were either canceled or postponed,” Dr. Murano said. “This posed a special concern for the board certification process, and those specialties with oral examinations had to make a heavy decision regarding whether or not they would allow these exams to take place. Naturally, travel among institutions was suspended or limited, or had quarantine requirements upon returning home from endemic areas. Conferences were either being canceled or converted to virtual formats.”

Subani Chandra, MD, FCCP, of the division of pulmonary, allergy, and critical care medicine at Columbia University, New York, is the internal medicine residency program director and the associate vice-chair of education for the department of medicine, and she recognized the problem created for medical trainees by the changes necessitated by the pandemic.

“The variability in caseloads and clinical exposure has given thrust to the move toward competency-based assessments rather than number- or time-based criteria for determining proficiency and graduation,” she wrote in an email interview. In addition, she noted the impact on medical meetings and the need to adapt. “Early on, before large regional and national conferences adapted to a virtual format, many were canceled altogether. Students, residents, and fellows expecting to have the opportunity to present their scholarly work were suddenly no longer able to do so. Understanding the importance of scholarly interaction, the virtual format of CHEST 2020 is designed with opportunities to present, interact with experts in the field, ask questions, network, and meet mentors.”

No return to ‘normal’

By April 2020, cases in the northeast continued to rise, particularly in the New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut region. “These states were essentially shut down in order to contain spread of the virus,” she said. “This was a real turning point because we realized that things were not going to return to ‘normal’ in the foreseeable future.” With the clinical experience essentially halted for medical students during this time, some medical schools allowed their senior students who met requirements to graduate early. “There were a lot of mixed feelings about this, recognizing that PPE [personal protective equipment] was still in short supply in many areas,” Dr. Murano said. “So, institutions took on these early graduates into roles in which they were not learners in particular, but rather medical workers. They were helping with informatics and technology, telehealth, virtual or telephone call follow-ups, and other tasks like this. There was a movement to virtual learning for the preclinical undergraduate learners, so classes were now online, recorded, or livestreamed.”
 

Early graduation, matching, and residencies

On April 3, the ACGME released a statement regarding graduating students early and appointing them early to the clinical learning environment. “They pointed out that institutions that were in emergency pandemic status lacked the ability to offer the comprehensive orientation and training in PPE and direct supervision required for new residents at the start of their residency,” Dr. Murano said. “Their opinion maintained that graduating medical students matriculate in their previously matched program, the National Resident Match Program start date, or other date that would be nationally determined to be the beginning of the 2020-2021 academic year.”

As May 2020 rolled around, the overriding feeling was uncertainty regarding when, if, and how medical schools were going to open in the early summer and fall. “There was also uncertainty about how graduating medical students were going to function in their new role as residents,” she said. “Same for the graduating residents. There were some who had signed contracts for jobs months before, and had them rescinded, and physicians were being furloughed due to financial hardships that institutions faced. There was also postponement of board certification exams, so people were uncertain about when they would become board certified.”

July 2020 ushered in what Dr. Murano characterized as “a whole new level of stress.” For medical students in particular, “we were entering the application season for residency positions,” she said. “Due to travel restrictions placed by various states and institutions, away rotations were limited or nonexistent. Application release dates through the Electronic Residency Application Service were moved to later in the year. The United States Medical Licensing Examination clinical skills exam was suspended, and there were modifications made for Education Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates requirements. Letters of recommendation were also going to be limited, so there had to be some degree of leniency within specialties to take a more holistic approach to review of applications for residencies.”

On the graduate medical education front, the ACGME sunsetted the initial stages and created two categories: nonemergency, which was formerly stages 1 and 2, and emergency, which was formerly stage 3. “All emergency stages are applied for and granted at 1-month intervals,” Dr. Murano said. Board certification exams were modified to accommodate either later exams or online formats, and specialties with oral examinations faced the task of potentially creating virtual oral exams.

Despite the challenges, Dr. Chandra has seen medical training programs respond with new ideas. “The flexibility and agile adaptability of the entire educational enterprise has been remarkable. The inherent uncertainty in a very dynamic and changing learning environment can be challenging. Recognizing this, many programs are creating additional ways to support the mental, emotional, physical, and financial health of students, residents, and fellows and all health care workers. The importance of this innovative response cannot be overstated.”
 

New learning formats

The pandemic forced Dr. Murano and other medical educators to consider unorthodox learning formats, and virtual learning took center stage. “Residency programs had shared national livestream conferences and grand rounds, and there were virtual curricula made for medical students as well as virtual simulation,” she said. “Telemedicine and telehealth really became important parts of education as well, as this may have been the only face-to-face contact that students and residents had with patients who had non–COVID-related complaints.”

To level the playing field for medical residents during this unprecedented time, a work group of the Coalition for Physician Accountability developed a set of recommendations that include limiting the number of letters of recommendation accepted, limiting the number of away rotations, and allowing alternative or less conventional letters of recommendation. “Keeping an open mind and taking a more holistic approach to applicants has really been needed during this time,” Dr. Murano said. “Virtual interview days have been agreed upon for all specialties. They’re safer, and they allow for students to virtually meet faculty and residents from distant programs that in the past would have been a deterrent due to distance and travel costs. This is not without its own downside, as it’s difficult to determine how well a student will fit into a program without [him or her] actually visiting the institution.”

Dr. Chandra agreed that virtual interviews are necessary but have inherent limitations. However, “we will all learn a lot, and very likely the future process will blend the benefits of both virtual and in-person interviews.”
 

‘We need to keep moving forward’

Dr. Murano concluded her presentation by noting that the COVID-19 pandemic has created opportunities for growth and innovation in medical education, “so we need to keep moving forward. I’ve heard many say that they can’t wait for things to go back to normal. But I think it’s important to go ahead to new and better ways of learning. We’re now thinking outside of the typical education model and are embracing technology and alternative means of education. We don’t know yet if this education is better, worse, or equivalent to traditional methods, but that will be determined and studied in months and years to come, so we’re certainly looking to the future.”

Dr. Murano and Dr. Chandra reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

The COVID-19 pandemic has thrown a monkey wrench into the medical education landscape across the entire health care spectrum, disrupting the plans of medical students, residents, fellows, and program directors.

As cases of COVID-19 spread across the United States in early 2020, it became clear to training program directors that immediate action was required to meet the needs of medical learners. The challenges were unlike those surrounding the Ebola virus in 2014, “where we could more easily prevent students and trainees from exposure due to the fact that there were simply not significant numbers of cases in the United States,” Tiffany Murano, MD, said at a Society for Critical Care virtual meeting: COVID-19: What’s Next. Dr. Murano is professor of emergency medicine at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, and president-elect of the Council of Residency Directors in Emergency Medicine. “COVID was a completely different scenario. We quickly realized that not only was personal protective equipment in short supply, but we also lacked the testing and tracking capabilities for potential exposures. Medical students and other supportive workers who were considered nonessential were removed from the clinical setting. This was after a trial of limiting who the students saw, essentially dampening the risk of exposure. But this proved to be flawed as COVID patients presented with symptoms that were unexpected.”

To complicate matters, she continued, many medical clinics either shut down, had limited access, or converted to telemedicine. Elective surgeries were canceled. This led to an overall pause in clinical medical student rotations and no direct patient care activities. As social distancing mandates were instituted, licensing examination testing centers were closed, and exams and on-campus activities were postponed.
 

Limiting trainee exposure

On the graduate medical education front, some training programs attempted to limit exposure of their trainees to persons under investigation for COVID-19. “As the number of COVID cases grew and encompassed most of what we were seeing in the hospital, it was obvious that residents had to play a vital part in the care of these patients,” said Dr. Murano, who is also a member of the American Council of Graduate Medical Education’s emergency review and recognition committee. “However, there was a consensus among all of the specialties that the procedures that posed the highest risk of exposure would be limited to the most senior or experienced trainees or professionals, and closely supervised by the faculty.”

ACGME activities such as accreditation site visits, clinical environment learning reviews, self-study, and resident and faculty surveys were suspended, postponed, or modified in some way, she said. The ACGME created stages of COVID status to guide sponsoring institutions to suspend learning curricula in order for patients to be cared for. Stage 1 was business as usual, “so there was no significant impact on patient care,” Dr. Murano said. “Stage 2 was increased but manageable clinical demand, while stage 3 was pandemic emergency status, where there were extraordinary circumstances where the clinical demand was so high and strenuous that the routine patient care and education really needed to be reconfigured in order to care for the patients.”

New requirements to manage training

The ACGME also implemented four requirements to manage training that were consistent among institutions, regardless of their COVID stage status. These included making sure that trainees continued to be held to work-hour limit requirements, ensuring adequate resources for training, ensuring that all residents had the appropriate level of supervision at all times, and allowing fellows to function in the core specialty in which they completed their residency training. “This was only possible if the fellows were ABMS [American Board of Medical Specialties] or AOA [American Osteopathic Association] board-eligible, or certified in their core specialty,” Dr. Murano said. “The fellows had to be appointed to the medical staff at the sponsoring institution, and their time spent on the core specialty service would be limited to 20% of their annual education time in any academic year.”

Mindful that there may have been trainees who required a 2-week quarantine period following exposure or potential exposure to COVID-19, some specialty boards showed leniency in residency time required to sit for the written exam. “Testing centers were being forced to close to observe social distancing requirements and heed sanitation recommendations, so exams were either canceled or postponed,” Dr. Murano said. “This posed a special concern for the board certification process, and those specialties with oral examinations had to make a heavy decision regarding whether or not they would allow these exams to take place. Naturally, travel among institutions was suspended or limited, or had quarantine requirements upon returning home from endemic areas. Conferences were either being canceled or converted to virtual formats.”

Subani Chandra, MD, FCCP, of the division of pulmonary, allergy, and critical care medicine at Columbia University, New York, is the internal medicine residency program director and the associate vice-chair of education for the department of medicine, and she recognized the problem created for medical trainees by the changes necessitated by the pandemic.

“The variability in caseloads and clinical exposure has given thrust to the move toward competency-based assessments rather than number- or time-based criteria for determining proficiency and graduation,” she wrote in an email interview. In addition, she noted the impact on medical meetings and the need to adapt. “Early on, before large regional and national conferences adapted to a virtual format, many were canceled altogether. Students, residents, and fellows expecting to have the opportunity to present their scholarly work were suddenly no longer able to do so. Understanding the importance of scholarly interaction, the virtual format of CHEST 2020 is designed with opportunities to present, interact with experts in the field, ask questions, network, and meet mentors.”

No return to ‘normal’

By April 2020, cases in the northeast continued to rise, particularly in the New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut region. “These states were essentially shut down in order to contain spread of the virus,” she said. “This was a real turning point because we realized that things were not going to return to ‘normal’ in the foreseeable future.” With the clinical experience essentially halted for medical students during this time, some medical schools allowed their senior students who met requirements to graduate early. “There were a lot of mixed feelings about this, recognizing that PPE [personal protective equipment] was still in short supply in many areas,” Dr. Murano said. “So, institutions took on these early graduates into roles in which they were not learners in particular, but rather medical workers. They were helping with informatics and technology, telehealth, virtual or telephone call follow-ups, and other tasks like this. There was a movement to virtual learning for the preclinical undergraduate learners, so classes were now online, recorded, or livestreamed.”
 

Early graduation, matching, and residencies

On April 3, the ACGME released a statement regarding graduating students early and appointing them early to the clinical learning environment. “They pointed out that institutions that were in emergency pandemic status lacked the ability to offer the comprehensive orientation and training in PPE and direct supervision required for new residents at the start of their residency,” Dr. Murano said. “Their opinion maintained that graduating medical students matriculate in their previously matched program, the National Resident Match Program start date, or other date that would be nationally determined to be the beginning of the 2020-2021 academic year.”

As May 2020 rolled around, the overriding feeling was uncertainty regarding when, if, and how medical schools were going to open in the early summer and fall. “There was also uncertainty about how graduating medical students were going to function in their new role as residents,” she said. “Same for the graduating residents. There were some who had signed contracts for jobs months before, and had them rescinded, and physicians were being furloughed due to financial hardships that institutions faced. There was also postponement of board certification exams, so people were uncertain about when they would become board certified.”

July 2020 ushered in what Dr. Murano characterized as “a whole new level of stress.” For medical students in particular, “we were entering the application season for residency positions,” she said. “Due to travel restrictions placed by various states and institutions, away rotations were limited or nonexistent. Application release dates through the Electronic Residency Application Service were moved to later in the year. The United States Medical Licensing Examination clinical skills exam was suspended, and there were modifications made for Education Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates requirements. Letters of recommendation were also going to be limited, so there had to be some degree of leniency within specialties to take a more holistic approach to review of applications for residencies.”

On the graduate medical education front, the ACGME sunsetted the initial stages and created two categories: nonemergency, which was formerly stages 1 and 2, and emergency, which was formerly stage 3. “All emergency stages are applied for and granted at 1-month intervals,” Dr. Murano said. Board certification exams were modified to accommodate either later exams or online formats, and specialties with oral examinations faced the task of potentially creating virtual oral exams.

Despite the challenges, Dr. Chandra has seen medical training programs respond with new ideas. “The flexibility and agile adaptability of the entire educational enterprise has been remarkable. The inherent uncertainty in a very dynamic and changing learning environment can be challenging. Recognizing this, many programs are creating additional ways to support the mental, emotional, physical, and financial health of students, residents, and fellows and all health care workers. The importance of this innovative response cannot be overstated.”
 

New learning formats

The pandemic forced Dr. Murano and other medical educators to consider unorthodox learning formats, and virtual learning took center stage. “Residency programs had shared national livestream conferences and grand rounds, and there were virtual curricula made for medical students as well as virtual simulation,” she said. “Telemedicine and telehealth really became important parts of education as well, as this may have been the only face-to-face contact that students and residents had with patients who had non–COVID-related complaints.”

To level the playing field for medical residents during this unprecedented time, a work group of the Coalition for Physician Accountability developed a set of recommendations that include limiting the number of letters of recommendation accepted, limiting the number of away rotations, and allowing alternative or less conventional letters of recommendation. “Keeping an open mind and taking a more holistic approach to applicants has really been needed during this time,” Dr. Murano said. “Virtual interview days have been agreed upon for all specialties. They’re safer, and they allow for students to virtually meet faculty and residents from distant programs that in the past would have been a deterrent due to distance and travel costs. This is not without its own downside, as it’s difficult to determine how well a student will fit into a program without [him or her] actually visiting the institution.”

Dr. Chandra agreed that virtual interviews are necessary but have inherent limitations. However, “we will all learn a lot, and very likely the future process will blend the benefits of both virtual and in-person interviews.”
 

‘We need to keep moving forward’

Dr. Murano concluded her presentation by noting that the COVID-19 pandemic has created opportunities for growth and innovation in medical education, “so we need to keep moving forward. I’ve heard many say that they can’t wait for things to go back to normal. But I think it’s important to go ahead to new and better ways of learning. We’re now thinking outside of the typical education model and are embracing technology and alternative means of education. We don’t know yet if this education is better, worse, or equivalent to traditional methods, but that will be determined and studied in months and years to come, so we’re certainly looking to the future.”

Dr. Murano and Dr. Chandra reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

The COVID-19 pandemic has thrown a monkey wrench into the medical education landscape across the entire health care spectrum, disrupting the plans of medical students, residents, fellows, and program directors.

As cases of COVID-19 spread across the United States in early 2020, it became clear to training program directors that immediate action was required to meet the needs of medical learners. The challenges were unlike those surrounding the Ebola virus in 2014, “where we could more easily prevent students and trainees from exposure due to the fact that there were simply not significant numbers of cases in the United States,” Tiffany Murano, MD, said at a Society for Critical Care virtual meeting: COVID-19: What’s Next. Dr. Murano is professor of emergency medicine at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, and president-elect of the Council of Residency Directors in Emergency Medicine. “COVID was a completely different scenario. We quickly realized that not only was personal protective equipment in short supply, but we also lacked the testing and tracking capabilities for potential exposures. Medical students and other supportive workers who were considered nonessential were removed from the clinical setting. This was after a trial of limiting who the students saw, essentially dampening the risk of exposure. But this proved to be flawed as COVID patients presented with symptoms that were unexpected.”

To complicate matters, she continued, many medical clinics either shut down, had limited access, or converted to telemedicine. Elective surgeries were canceled. This led to an overall pause in clinical medical student rotations and no direct patient care activities. As social distancing mandates were instituted, licensing examination testing centers were closed, and exams and on-campus activities were postponed.
 

Limiting trainee exposure

On the graduate medical education front, some training programs attempted to limit exposure of their trainees to persons under investigation for COVID-19. “As the number of COVID cases grew and encompassed most of what we were seeing in the hospital, it was obvious that residents had to play a vital part in the care of these patients,” said Dr. Murano, who is also a member of the American Council of Graduate Medical Education’s emergency review and recognition committee. “However, there was a consensus among all of the specialties that the procedures that posed the highest risk of exposure would be limited to the most senior or experienced trainees or professionals, and closely supervised by the faculty.”

ACGME activities such as accreditation site visits, clinical environment learning reviews, self-study, and resident and faculty surveys were suspended, postponed, or modified in some way, she said. The ACGME created stages of COVID status to guide sponsoring institutions to suspend learning curricula in order for patients to be cared for. Stage 1 was business as usual, “so there was no significant impact on patient care,” Dr. Murano said. “Stage 2 was increased but manageable clinical demand, while stage 3 was pandemic emergency status, where there were extraordinary circumstances where the clinical demand was so high and strenuous that the routine patient care and education really needed to be reconfigured in order to care for the patients.”

New requirements to manage training

The ACGME also implemented four requirements to manage training that were consistent among institutions, regardless of their COVID stage status. These included making sure that trainees continued to be held to work-hour limit requirements, ensuring adequate resources for training, ensuring that all residents had the appropriate level of supervision at all times, and allowing fellows to function in the core specialty in which they completed their residency training. “This was only possible if the fellows were ABMS [American Board of Medical Specialties] or AOA [American Osteopathic Association] board-eligible, or certified in their core specialty,” Dr. Murano said. “The fellows had to be appointed to the medical staff at the sponsoring institution, and their time spent on the core specialty service would be limited to 20% of their annual education time in any academic year.”

Mindful that there may have been trainees who required a 2-week quarantine period following exposure or potential exposure to COVID-19, some specialty boards showed leniency in residency time required to sit for the written exam. “Testing centers were being forced to close to observe social distancing requirements and heed sanitation recommendations, so exams were either canceled or postponed,” Dr. Murano said. “This posed a special concern for the board certification process, and those specialties with oral examinations had to make a heavy decision regarding whether or not they would allow these exams to take place. Naturally, travel among institutions was suspended or limited, or had quarantine requirements upon returning home from endemic areas. Conferences were either being canceled or converted to virtual formats.”

Subani Chandra, MD, FCCP, of the division of pulmonary, allergy, and critical care medicine at Columbia University, New York, is the internal medicine residency program director and the associate vice-chair of education for the department of medicine, and she recognized the problem created for medical trainees by the changes necessitated by the pandemic.

“The variability in caseloads and clinical exposure has given thrust to the move toward competency-based assessments rather than number- or time-based criteria for determining proficiency and graduation,” she wrote in an email interview. In addition, she noted the impact on medical meetings and the need to adapt. “Early on, before large regional and national conferences adapted to a virtual format, many were canceled altogether. Students, residents, and fellows expecting to have the opportunity to present their scholarly work were suddenly no longer able to do so. Understanding the importance of scholarly interaction, the virtual format of CHEST 2020 is designed with opportunities to present, interact with experts in the field, ask questions, network, and meet mentors.”

No return to ‘normal’

By April 2020, cases in the northeast continued to rise, particularly in the New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut region. “These states were essentially shut down in order to contain spread of the virus,” she said. “This was a real turning point because we realized that things were not going to return to ‘normal’ in the foreseeable future.” With the clinical experience essentially halted for medical students during this time, some medical schools allowed their senior students who met requirements to graduate early. “There were a lot of mixed feelings about this, recognizing that PPE [personal protective equipment] was still in short supply in many areas,” Dr. Murano said. “So, institutions took on these early graduates into roles in which they were not learners in particular, but rather medical workers. They were helping with informatics and technology, telehealth, virtual or telephone call follow-ups, and other tasks like this. There was a movement to virtual learning for the preclinical undergraduate learners, so classes were now online, recorded, or livestreamed.”
 

Early graduation, matching, and residencies

On April 3, the ACGME released a statement regarding graduating students early and appointing them early to the clinical learning environment. “They pointed out that institutions that were in emergency pandemic status lacked the ability to offer the comprehensive orientation and training in PPE and direct supervision required for new residents at the start of their residency,” Dr. Murano said. “Their opinion maintained that graduating medical students matriculate in their previously matched program, the National Resident Match Program start date, or other date that would be nationally determined to be the beginning of the 2020-2021 academic year.”

As May 2020 rolled around, the overriding feeling was uncertainty regarding when, if, and how medical schools were going to open in the early summer and fall. “There was also uncertainty about how graduating medical students were going to function in their new role as residents,” she said. “Same for the graduating residents. There were some who had signed contracts for jobs months before, and had them rescinded, and physicians were being furloughed due to financial hardships that institutions faced. There was also postponement of board certification exams, so people were uncertain about when they would become board certified.”

July 2020 ushered in what Dr. Murano characterized as “a whole new level of stress.” For medical students in particular, “we were entering the application season for residency positions,” she said. “Due to travel restrictions placed by various states and institutions, away rotations were limited or nonexistent. Application release dates through the Electronic Residency Application Service were moved to later in the year. The United States Medical Licensing Examination clinical skills exam was suspended, and there were modifications made for Education Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates requirements. Letters of recommendation were also going to be limited, so there had to be some degree of leniency within specialties to take a more holistic approach to review of applications for residencies.”

On the graduate medical education front, the ACGME sunsetted the initial stages and created two categories: nonemergency, which was formerly stages 1 and 2, and emergency, which was formerly stage 3. “All emergency stages are applied for and granted at 1-month intervals,” Dr. Murano said. Board certification exams were modified to accommodate either later exams or online formats, and specialties with oral examinations faced the task of potentially creating virtual oral exams.

Despite the challenges, Dr. Chandra has seen medical training programs respond with new ideas. “The flexibility and agile adaptability of the entire educational enterprise has been remarkable. The inherent uncertainty in a very dynamic and changing learning environment can be challenging. Recognizing this, many programs are creating additional ways to support the mental, emotional, physical, and financial health of students, residents, and fellows and all health care workers. The importance of this innovative response cannot be overstated.”
 

New learning formats

The pandemic forced Dr. Murano and other medical educators to consider unorthodox learning formats, and virtual learning took center stage. “Residency programs had shared national livestream conferences and grand rounds, and there were virtual curricula made for medical students as well as virtual simulation,” she said. “Telemedicine and telehealth really became important parts of education as well, as this may have been the only face-to-face contact that students and residents had with patients who had non–COVID-related complaints.”

To level the playing field for medical residents during this unprecedented time, a work group of the Coalition for Physician Accountability developed a set of recommendations that include limiting the number of letters of recommendation accepted, limiting the number of away rotations, and allowing alternative or less conventional letters of recommendation. “Keeping an open mind and taking a more holistic approach to applicants has really been needed during this time,” Dr. Murano said. “Virtual interview days have been agreed upon for all specialties. They’re safer, and they allow for students to virtually meet faculty and residents from distant programs that in the past would have been a deterrent due to distance and travel costs. This is not without its own downside, as it’s difficult to determine how well a student will fit into a program without [him or her] actually visiting the institution.”

Dr. Chandra agreed that virtual interviews are necessary but have inherent limitations. However, “we will all learn a lot, and very likely the future process will blend the benefits of both virtual and in-person interviews.”
 

‘We need to keep moving forward’

Dr. Murano concluded her presentation by noting that the COVID-19 pandemic has created opportunities for growth and innovation in medical education, “so we need to keep moving forward. I’ve heard many say that they can’t wait for things to go back to normal. But I think it’s important to go ahead to new and better ways of learning. We’re now thinking outside of the typical education model and are embracing technology and alternative means of education. We don’t know yet if this education is better, worse, or equivalent to traditional methods, but that will be determined and studied in months and years to come, so we’re certainly looking to the future.”

Dr. Murano and Dr. Chandra reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

In late March, shortly after New York state closed nonessential businesses and asked people to stay home, Ashley Laderer began waking each morning with a throbbing headache.

“The pressure was so intense it felt like my head was going to explode,” recalled the 27-year-old freelance writer from Long Island.

klebercordeiro/Getty Images

She tried spending less time on the computer and taking over-the-counter pain medication, but the pounding kept breaking through – a constant drumbeat to accompany her equally incessant worries about COVID-19.

“Every day I lived in fear that I was going to get it and I was going to infect my whole family,” she said.

After a month and a half, Ms. Laderer decided to visit a neurologist, who ordered an MRI. But the doctor found no physical cause. The scan was clear.

Then he asked: “Are you under a lot of stress?”

Throughout the pandemic, people who never had the coronavirus have been reporting a host of seemingly unrelated symptoms: excruciating headaches, episodes of hair loss, upset stomach for weeks on end, sudden outbreaks of shingles, and flare-ups of autoimmune disorders. The disparate symptoms, often in otherwise-healthy individuals, have puzzled doctors and patients alike, sometimes resulting in a series of visits to specialists with few answers. But it turns out there’s a common thread among many of these conditions, one that has been months in the making: chronic stress.

Although people often underestimate the influence of the mind on the body, a growing catalog of research shows that high levels of stress over an extended time can drastically alter physical function and affect nearly every organ system.

Now, at least 8 months into the pandemic, alongside a divisive election cycle and racial unrest, those effects are showing up in a variety of symptoms.

“The mental health component of COVID is starting to come like a tsunami,” said Jennifer Love, MD, a California-based psychiatrist and coauthor of an upcoming book on how to heal from chronic stress.

Nationwide, surveys have found increasing rates of depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts during the pandemic. But many medical experts said it’s too soon to measure the related physical symptoms, since they generally appear months after the stress begins.

Still, some early research, such as a small Chinese study and an online survey of more than 500 people in Turkey, points to an uptick.

In the United States, data from FAIR Health, a nonprofit database that provides cost information to the health industry and consumers, showed slight to moderate increases in the percentage of medical claims related to conditions triggered or exacerbated by stress, like multiple sclerosis and shingles. The portion of claims for the autoimmune disease lupus, for example, showed one of the biggest increases – 12% this year – compared with the same period last year (January to August).

Express Scripts, a major pharmacy benefit manager, reported that prescriptions for anti-insomnia medications increased 15% early in the pandemic.

Perhaps the strongest indicator comes from doctors reporting a growing number of patients with physical symptoms for which they can’t determine a cause.

Shilpi Khetarpal, MD, a dermatologist at the Cleveland Clinic, used to see about five patients a week with stress-related hair loss. Since mid-June, that number has jumped to 20 or 25. Mostly women, ages 20-80, are reporting hair coming out in fistfuls, Dr. Khetarpal said.

In Houston, at least a dozen patients have told fertility specialist Rashmi Kudesia, MD, they’re having irregular menstrual cycles, changes in cervical discharge and breast tenderness, despite normal hormone levels.

Stress is also the culprit dentists are pointing to for the rapid increase in patients with teeth grinding, teeth fractures, and temporomandibular joint dysfunction.

“We, as humans, like to have the idea that we are in control of our minds and that stress isn’t a big deal,” Dr. Love said. “But it’s simply not true.”
 

How mental stress becomes physical

Stress causes physical changes in the body that can affect nearly every organ system.

Although symptoms of chronic stress are often dismissed as being in one’s head, the pain is very real, said Kate Harkness, PhD, a professor of psychology and psychiatry at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

When the body feels unsafe – whether it’s a physical threat of attack or a psychological fear of losing a job or catching a disease – the brain signals adrenal glands to pump stress hormones. Adrenaline and cortisol flood the body, activating the fight-or-flight response. They also disrupt bodily functions that aren’t necessary for immediate survival, like digestion and reproduction.

When the danger is over, the hormones return to normal levels. But during times of chronic stress, like a pandemic, the body keeps pumping out stress hormones until it tires itself out. This leads to increased inflammation throughout the body and brain, and a poorly functioning immune system.

Studies link chronic stress to heart disease, muscle tension, gastrointestinal issues and even physical shrinking of the hippocampus, an area of the brain associated with memory and learning. As the immune system acts up, some people can even develop new allergic reactions, Dr. Harkness said.

The good news is that many of these symptoms are reversible. But it’s important to recognize them early, especially when it comes to the brain, said Barbara Sahakian, FBA, FMedSci, a professor of clinical neuropsychology at the University of Cambridge (England).

“The brain is plastic, so we can to some extent modify it,” Dr. Sahakian said. “But we don’t know if there’s a cliff beyond which you can’t reverse a change. So the sooner you catch something, the better.”
 

The day-to-day impact

In some ways, mental health awareness has increased during the pandemic. TV shows are flush with ads for therapy and meditation apps, like Talkspace and Calm, and companies are announcing mental health days off for staff. But those spurts of attention fail to reveal the full impact of poor mental health on people’s daily lives.

For Alex Kostka, pandemic-related stress has brought on mood swings, nightmares, and jaw pain.

He’d been working at a Whole Foods coffee bar in New York City for only about a month before the pandemic hit, suddenly anointing him an essential worker. As deaths in the city soared, Mr. Kostka continued riding the subway to work, interacting with coworkers in the store and working longer hours for just a $2-per-hour wage increase. (Months later, he’d get a $500 bonus.) It left the 28-year-old feeling constantly unsafe and helpless.

“It was hard not to break down on the subway the minute I got on it,” Mr. Kostka said.

Soon he began waking in the middle of the night with pain from clenching his jaw so tightly. Often his teeth grinding and chomping were loud enough to wake his girlfriend.

Mr. Kostka tried Talkspace, but found texting about his troubles felt impersonal. By the end of the summer, he decided to start using the seven free counseling sessions offered by his employer. That’s helped, he said. But as the sessions run out, he worries the symptoms might return if he’s unable to find a new therapist covered by his insurance.

“Eventually, I will be able to leave this behind me, but it will take time,” Mr. Kostka said. “I’m still very much a work in progress.”
 

How to mitigate chronic stress

When it comes to chronic stress, seeing a doctor for stomach pain, headaches, or skin rashes may address those physical symptoms. But the root cause is mental, medical experts said.

That means the solution will often involve stress-management techniques. And there’s plenty we can do to feel better:

• Exercise. Even low- to moderate-intensity physical activity can help counteract stress-induced inflammation in the body. It can also increase neuronal connections in the brain.
• Meditation and mindfulness. Research shows this can lead to positive, structural, and functional changes in the brain.
• Fostering social connections. Talking to family and friends, even virtually, or staring into a pet’s eyes can release a hormone that may counteract inflammation.
• Learning something new. Whether it’s a formal class or taking up a casual hobby, learning supports brain plasticity, the ability to change and adapt as a result of experience, which can be protective against depression and other mental illness.

“We shouldn’t think of this stressful situation as a negative sentence for the brain,” said Dr. Harkness. “Because stress changes the brain, that means positive stuff can change the brain, too. And there is plenty we can do to help ourselves feel better in the face of adversity.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.