All Content

After declining for 8 consecutive weeks, new cases of COVID-19 rose among children in the United States, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

A total of 57,078 new cases were reported in children during the week of March 12-18, compared with 52,695 for the previous week, ending a streak of declines going back to mid-January, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

Also up for the week was the proportion of all cases occurring in children. The 57,000-plus cases represented 18.7% of the total (304,610) for all ages, and that is the largest share of the new-case burden for the entire pandemic. The previous high, 18.0%, came just 2 weeks earlier, based on data collected from 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Speaking of the entire pandemic, the total number of COVID-19 cases in children is over 3.34 million, and that represents 13.3% of cases among all ages in the United States. The cumulative rate of infection as of March 18 was 4,440 cases per 100,000 children, up from 4,364 per 100,000 a week earlier, the AAP and CHA said.

At the state level, Vermont has now passed the 20% mark (20.1%, to be exact) for children’s proportion of cases and is higher in that measure than any other state. The highest rate of infection (8,763 cases per 100,000) can be found in North Dakota, the AAP/CHA data show.

There were only two new coronavirus-related deaths during the week of March 12-18 after Kansas revised its mortality data, bringing the total to 268 in the 46 jurisdictions (43 states, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam) that are reporting deaths by age, the AAP and CHA said.

[email protected]

After declining for 8 consecutive weeks, new cases of COVID-19 rose among children in the United States, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

A total of 57,078 new cases were reported in children during the week of March 12-18, compared with 52,695 for the previous week, ending a streak of declines going back to mid-January, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

Also up for the week was the proportion of all cases occurring in children. The 57,000-plus cases represented 18.7% of the total (304,610) for all ages, and that is the largest share of the new-case burden for the entire pandemic. The previous high, 18.0%, came just 2 weeks earlier, based on data collected from 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Speaking of the entire pandemic, the total number of COVID-19 cases in children is over 3.34 million, and that represents 13.3% of cases among all ages in the United States. The cumulative rate of infection as of March 18 was 4,440 cases per 100,000 children, up from 4,364 per 100,000 a week earlier, the AAP and CHA said.

At the state level, Vermont has now passed the 20% mark (20.1%, to be exact) for children’s proportion of cases and is higher in that measure than any other state. The highest rate of infection (8,763 cases per 100,000) can be found in North Dakota, the AAP/CHA data show.

There were only two new coronavirus-related deaths during the week of March 12-18 after Kansas revised its mortality data, bringing the total to 268 in the 46 jurisdictions (43 states, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam) that are reporting deaths by age, the AAP and CHA said.

[email protected]

After declining for 8 consecutive weeks, new cases of COVID-19 rose among children in the United States, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

A total of 57,078 new cases were reported in children during the week of March 12-18, compared with 52,695 for the previous week, ending a streak of declines going back to mid-January, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

Also up for the week was the proportion of all cases occurring in children. The 57,000-plus cases represented 18.7% of the total (304,610) for all ages, and that is the largest share of the new-case burden for the entire pandemic. The previous high, 18.0%, came just 2 weeks earlier, based on data collected from 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Speaking of the entire pandemic, the total number of COVID-19 cases in children is over 3.34 million, and that represents 13.3% of cases among all ages in the United States. The cumulative rate of infection as of March 18 was 4,440 cases per 100,000 children, up from 4,364 per 100,000 a week earlier, the AAP and CHA said.

At the state level, Vermont has now passed the 20% mark (20.1%, to be exact) for children’s proportion of cases and is higher in that measure than any other state. The highest rate of infection (8,763 cases per 100,000) can be found in North Dakota, the AAP/CHA data show.

There were only two new coronavirus-related deaths during the week of March 12-18 after Kansas revised its mortality data, bringing the total to 268 in the 46 jurisdictions (43 states, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam) that are reporting deaths by age, the AAP and CHA said.

[email protected]

Background: Depression after ACS is common and is associated with increased mortality. Professional societies have recommended routine depression screening in these patients; however, this has not been consistently implemented because there is a lack of data to support routine screening.

Depression remains a substantial factor in coronary disease and quality of life; however, systematic depression screening appears to have limited population-level benefits.

Bottom line: Systematic depression screening with or without treatment offerings did not alter quality of life, depression-free days, or mortality in patients with ACS.

Citation: Kronish IM et al. Effect of depression screening after acute coronary syndrome on quality of life. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180(1):45-53.

Dr. Ciarkowski is a hospitalist and clinical instructor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Background: Depression after ACS is common and is associated with increased mortality. Professional societies have recommended routine depression screening in these patients; however, this has not been consistently implemented because there is a lack of data to support routine screening.

Depression remains a substantial factor in coronary disease and quality of life; however, systematic depression screening appears to have limited population-level benefits.

Bottom line: Systematic depression screening with or without treatment offerings did not alter quality of life, depression-free days, or mortality in patients with ACS.

Citation: Kronish IM et al. Effect of depression screening after acute coronary syndrome on quality of life. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180(1):45-53.

Dr. Ciarkowski is a hospitalist and clinical instructor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Background: Depression after ACS is common and is associated with increased mortality. Professional societies have recommended routine depression screening in these patients; however, this has not been consistently implemented because there is a lack of data to support routine screening.

Depression remains a substantial factor in coronary disease and quality of life; however, systematic depression screening appears to have limited population-level benefits.

Bottom line: Systematic depression screening with or without treatment offerings did not alter quality of life, depression-free days, or mortality in patients with ACS.

Citation: Kronish IM et al. Effect of depression screening after acute coronary syndrome on quality of life. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180(1):45-53.

Dr. Ciarkowski is a hospitalist and clinical instructor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Federal regulators on March 23 said they were “concerned” that drug maker AstraZeneca included “outdated information” in its announcement the previous day that the company’s COVID-19 vaccine was effective.

The federal Data and Safety Monitoring Board shared those concerns with the company as well as with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, according to a statement from NIAID issued early March 23.

“We urge the company to work with the DSMB to review the efficacy data and ensure the most accurate, up-to-date efficacy data be made public as quickly as possible,” the agency said.

The NIAID statement does not say what data may have been outdated or how it may have changed the results. The company said March 22 it plans to see U.S. authorization for the vaccine in April.

The statement from NIAID comes a day after AstraZeneca said the interim results of their phase III U.S. study found it was 79% effective against symptomatic COVID-19, 80% effective in people 65 years and older, and 100% effective against severe or critical disease and hospitalization.

Company officials and clinical trial investigators on March 22 also addressed the recent concerns about blood clots, how well the vaccine will perform against variants, and provided a timeline for seeking regulatory approval.

“There are many countries in Europe and throughout the world that have already authorized this. The fact that a United States-run study has confirmed the efficacy and safety of this vaccine, I think is an important contribution to global health in general,” Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical advisor to President Joe Biden, said during a White House press briefing March 22.

Andy Slavitt, White House senior advisor for the COVID-19 Response Team, had a more tempered reaction.

“It’s important to remind everyone we cannot and will not get ahead of the FDA,” he said. “While we would certainly call today’s news encouraging, it’s the kind of thing we like to see, we have a rigorous process that will come once an EUA is submitted and that will give us more information.”

With 30 million doses at the ready, the company plans to file for FDA emergency use authorization “within weeks,” Menelas Pangalos, executive vice president of biopharmaceuticals research and development at AstraZeneca, said during a media briefing March 22.
 

Risk of thrombosis addressed

Regarding highly publicized reports of problems with blood clots from the AstraZeneca vaccine, the World Health Organization found the vaccine creates no greater risks, as did the European Medicines Agency

“We’ve had absolute confidence in the efficacy of the vaccine. Seeing this data now I hope gives others increased confidence that this is a very safe and effective vaccine,” Mr. Pangalos said.

“We’re glad this is being investigated really thoroughly,” Magda Sobieszczyk, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Columbia University In New York City, said. “It’s incredibly reassuring that the regulatory agencies have looked at the data thoroughly and there is no enhanced signal above what is seen in the population.”

“There were no concerning signals noted in the U.S. data,” she added.

Regarding the risk of blood clots, “These data are therefore timely in further addressing any safety concerns that could undermine vaccine uptake.” Andrew Garrett, PhD, executive vice president of scientific operations at ICON Clinical Research, agreed.

The vaccine was well-tolerated, the company reported, with no serious adverse events. Temporary pain and tenderness at the injection site, mild-to-moderate headaches, fatigue, chills, fever, muscle aches. and malaise were among the reported reactions.

The phase III interim results show 141 cases of symptomatic COVID-19 in the study of 32,449 adults. “We don’t have the whole breakdown yet . . . these are the high-level results we just got this week,” Mr. Pangalos said. Further information on rates of mild to moderate COVID-19 illness between groups is not yet available, for example.

The company explained that participants were randomly assigned to vaccine or placebo, with twice as many receiving the actual vaccine.

The trial is ongoing, so the FDA will receive information on more than the 141 COVID-19 symptomatic cases when the company submits a full primary analysis to the agency, Mr. Pangalos said.

In the phase III study, patients received two doses 4 weeks apart.

Beyond the U.S. study, the company has additional information, including real-world data from the United Kingdom, that it intends to submit to the FDA. Part of this evidence suggests increased efficacy when a second dose is administered at 3 months
 

‘Robust’ findings

“This is a large study, so these results can be expected to be robust. They could be expected to be even more so if there were more cases to compare between the groups, but 141 is still a substantial number of cases,” said Peter English, MD, of Horsham, United Kingdom, who is immediate past chair of the British Medical Association Public Health Medicine Committee.

Experts welcomed the 80% efficacy in people 65 and older in particular. “Importantly, the trial provides further support for efficacy in the elderly where previous clinical trial data, other than immunologic data, had been lacking,” Dr. Garrett said.

“It is clear this vaccine has very good efficacy. Remember that 60% was, prior to any trials being started, regarded as a good target,” said Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. “This efficacy does not show a notable decline at older ages. This was expected and the speculation that it was ineffective or quasi-ineffective at older ages was totally unjustified.

“This is good news for the global community and one hopes that any political statements around this good news are avoided,” he added.
 

Efficacy against variants?

Regarding virus variants, Mr. Pangalos noted the study was conducted when several variants of concern were in circulation.

“What I can say is given this study was conducted much later in terms of timing, it’s very encouraging that we’ve got such high efficacy numbers when undoubtedly there are variants of concern in circulation in this study,” Mr. Pangalos said.

“It also highlights why we believe that against severe disease, our vaccine will be effective against all variants of concern,” he added.

Once the company submits its EUA to the FDA, the company is ready to immediately distribute 30 million doses of the vaccine and expects to ship 50 million total within the first month, Ruud Dobber, PhD, AstraZeneca executive vice president and president of the AZ Biopharmaceuticals Business Unit, said during the briefing.

The vaccine can be stored at 2 to 8 degrees Celsius for at least 6 months. Like other COVID-19 vaccines already authorized for emergency use, the duration of protection with the AstraZeneca product remains unknown.

This article was updated March 23, 2021.

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

Federal regulators on March 23 said they were “concerned” that drug maker AstraZeneca included “outdated information” in its announcement the previous day that the company’s COVID-19 vaccine was effective.

The federal Data and Safety Monitoring Board shared those concerns with the company as well as with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, according to a statement from NIAID issued early March 23.

“We urge the company to work with the DSMB to review the efficacy data and ensure the most accurate, up-to-date efficacy data be made public as quickly as possible,” the agency said.

The NIAID statement does not say what data may have been outdated or how it may have changed the results. The company said March 22 it plans to see U.S. authorization for the vaccine in April.

The statement from NIAID comes a day after AstraZeneca said the interim results of their phase III U.S. study found it was 79% effective against symptomatic COVID-19, 80% effective in people 65 years and older, and 100% effective against severe or critical disease and hospitalization.

Company officials and clinical trial investigators on March 22 also addressed the recent concerns about blood clots, how well the vaccine will perform against variants, and provided a timeline for seeking regulatory approval.

“There are many countries in Europe and throughout the world that have already authorized this. The fact that a United States-run study has confirmed the efficacy and safety of this vaccine, I think is an important contribution to global health in general,” Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical advisor to President Joe Biden, said during a White House press briefing March 22.

Andy Slavitt, White House senior advisor for the COVID-19 Response Team, had a more tempered reaction.

“It’s important to remind everyone we cannot and will not get ahead of the FDA,” he said. “While we would certainly call today’s news encouraging, it’s the kind of thing we like to see, we have a rigorous process that will come once an EUA is submitted and that will give us more information.”

With 30 million doses at the ready, the company plans to file for FDA emergency use authorization “within weeks,” Menelas Pangalos, executive vice president of biopharmaceuticals research and development at AstraZeneca, said during a media briefing March 22.
 

Risk of thrombosis addressed

Regarding highly publicized reports of problems with blood clots from the AstraZeneca vaccine, the World Health Organization found the vaccine creates no greater risks, as did the European Medicines Agency

“We’ve had absolute confidence in the efficacy of the vaccine. Seeing this data now I hope gives others increased confidence that this is a very safe and effective vaccine,” Mr. Pangalos said.

“We’re glad this is being investigated really thoroughly,” Magda Sobieszczyk, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Columbia University In New York City, said. “It’s incredibly reassuring that the regulatory agencies have looked at the data thoroughly and there is no enhanced signal above what is seen in the population.”

“There were no concerning signals noted in the U.S. data,” she added.

Regarding the risk of blood clots, “These data are therefore timely in further addressing any safety concerns that could undermine vaccine uptake.” Andrew Garrett, PhD, executive vice president of scientific operations at ICON Clinical Research, agreed.

The vaccine was well-tolerated, the company reported, with no serious adverse events. Temporary pain and tenderness at the injection site, mild-to-moderate headaches, fatigue, chills, fever, muscle aches. and malaise were among the reported reactions.

The phase III interim results show 141 cases of symptomatic COVID-19 in the study of 32,449 adults. “We don’t have the whole breakdown yet . . . these are the high-level results we just got this week,” Mr. Pangalos said. Further information on rates of mild to moderate COVID-19 illness between groups is not yet available, for example.

The company explained that participants were randomly assigned to vaccine or placebo, with twice as many receiving the actual vaccine.

The trial is ongoing, so the FDA will receive information on more than the 141 COVID-19 symptomatic cases when the company submits a full primary analysis to the agency, Mr. Pangalos said.

In the phase III study, patients received two doses 4 weeks apart.

Beyond the U.S. study, the company has additional information, including real-world data from the United Kingdom, that it intends to submit to the FDA. Part of this evidence suggests increased efficacy when a second dose is administered at 3 months
 

‘Robust’ findings

“This is a large study, so these results can be expected to be robust. They could be expected to be even more so if there were more cases to compare between the groups, but 141 is still a substantial number of cases,” said Peter English, MD, of Horsham, United Kingdom, who is immediate past chair of the British Medical Association Public Health Medicine Committee.

Experts welcomed the 80% efficacy in people 65 and older in particular. “Importantly, the trial provides further support for efficacy in the elderly where previous clinical trial data, other than immunologic data, had been lacking,” Dr. Garrett said.

“It is clear this vaccine has very good efficacy. Remember that 60% was, prior to any trials being started, regarded as a good target,” said Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. “This efficacy does not show a notable decline at older ages. This was expected and the speculation that it was ineffective or quasi-ineffective at older ages was totally unjustified.

“This is good news for the global community and one hopes that any political statements around this good news are avoided,” he added.
 

Efficacy against variants?

Regarding virus variants, Mr. Pangalos noted the study was conducted when several variants of concern were in circulation.

“What I can say is given this study was conducted much later in terms of timing, it’s very encouraging that we’ve got such high efficacy numbers when undoubtedly there are variants of concern in circulation in this study,” Mr. Pangalos said.

“It also highlights why we believe that against severe disease, our vaccine will be effective against all variants of concern,” he added.

Once the company submits its EUA to the FDA, the company is ready to immediately distribute 30 million doses of the vaccine and expects to ship 50 million total within the first month, Ruud Dobber, PhD, AstraZeneca executive vice president and president of the AZ Biopharmaceuticals Business Unit, said during the briefing.

The vaccine can be stored at 2 to 8 degrees Celsius for at least 6 months. Like other COVID-19 vaccines already authorized for emergency use, the duration of protection with the AstraZeneca product remains unknown.

This article was updated March 23, 2021.

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

Federal regulators on March 23 said they were “concerned” that drug maker AstraZeneca included “outdated information” in its announcement the previous day that the company’s COVID-19 vaccine was effective.

The federal Data and Safety Monitoring Board shared those concerns with the company as well as with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, according to a statement from NIAID issued early March 23.

“We urge the company to work with the DSMB to review the efficacy data and ensure the most accurate, up-to-date efficacy data be made public as quickly as possible,” the agency said.

The NIAID statement does not say what data may have been outdated or how it may have changed the results. The company said March 22 it plans to see U.S. authorization for the vaccine in April.

The statement from NIAID comes a day after AstraZeneca said the interim results of their phase III U.S. study found it was 79% effective against symptomatic COVID-19, 80% effective in people 65 years and older, and 100% effective against severe or critical disease and hospitalization.

Company officials and clinical trial investigators on March 22 also addressed the recent concerns about blood clots, how well the vaccine will perform against variants, and provided a timeline for seeking regulatory approval.

“There are many countries in Europe and throughout the world that have already authorized this. The fact that a United States-run study has confirmed the efficacy and safety of this vaccine, I think is an important contribution to global health in general,” Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical advisor to President Joe Biden, said during a White House press briefing March 22.

Andy Slavitt, White House senior advisor for the COVID-19 Response Team, had a more tempered reaction.

“It’s important to remind everyone we cannot and will not get ahead of the FDA,” he said. “While we would certainly call today’s news encouraging, it’s the kind of thing we like to see, we have a rigorous process that will come once an EUA is submitted and that will give us more information.”

With 30 million doses at the ready, the company plans to file for FDA emergency use authorization “within weeks,” Menelas Pangalos, executive vice president of biopharmaceuticals research and development at AstraZeneca, said during a media briefing March 22.
 

Risk of thrombosis addressed

Regarding highly publicized reports of problems with blood clots from the AstraZeneca vaccine, the World Health Organization found the vaccine creates no greater risks, as did the European Medicines Agency

“We’ve had absolute confidence in the efficacy of the vaccine. Seeing this data now I hope gives others increased confidence that this is a very safe and effective vaccine,” Mr. Pangalos said.

“We’re glad this is being investigated really thoroughly,” Magda Sobieszczyk, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Columbia University In New York City, said. “It’s incredibly reassuring that the regulatory agencies have looked at the data thoroughly and there is no enhanced signal above what is seen in the population.”

“There were no concerning signals noted in the U.S. data,” she added.

Regarding the risk of blood clots, “These data are therefore timely in further addressing any safety concerns that could undermine vaccine uptake.” Andrew Garrett, PhD, executive vice president of scientific operations at ICON Clinical Research, agreed.

The vaccine was well-tolerated, the company reported, with no serious adverse events. Temporary pain and tenderness at the injection site, mild-to-moderate headaches, fatigue, chills, fever, muscle aches. and malaise were among the reported reactions.

The phase III interim results show 141 cases of symptomatic COVID-19 in the study of 32,449 adults. “We don’t have the whole breakdown yet . . . these are the high-level results we just got this week,” Mr. Pangalos said. Further information on rates of mild to moderate COVID-19 illness between groups is not yet available, for example.

The company explained that participants were randomly assigned to vaccine or placebo, with twice as many receiving the actual vaccine.

The trial is ongoing, so the FDA will receive information on more than the 141 COVID-19 symptomatic cases when the company submits a full primary analysis to the agency, Mr. Pangalos said.

In the phase III study, patients received two doses 4 weeks apart.

Beyond the U.S. study, the company has additional information, including real-world data from the United Kingdom, that it intends to submit to the FDA. Part of this evidence suggests increased efficacy when a second dose is administered at 3 months
 

‘Robust’ findings

“This is a large study, so these results can be expected to be robust. They could be expected to be even more so if there were more cases to compare between the groups, but 141 is still a substantial number of cases,” said Peter English, MD, of Horsham, United Kingdom, who is immediate past chair of the British Medical Association Public Health Medicine Committee.

Experts welcomed the 80% efficacy in people 65 and older in particular. “Importantly, the trial provides further support for efficacy in the elderly where previous clinical trial data, other than immunologic data, had been lacking,” Dr. Garrett said.

“It is clear this vaccine has very good efficacy. Remember that 60% was, prior to any trials being started, regarded as a good target,” said Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. “This efficacy does not show a notable decline at older ages. This was expected and the speculation that it was ineffective or quasi-ineffective at older ages was totally unjustified.

“This is good news for the global community and one hopes that any political statements around this good news are avoided,” he added.
 

Efficacy against variants?

Regarding virus variants, Mr. Pangalos noted the study was conducted when several variants of concern were in circulation.

“What I can say is given this study was conducted much later in terms of timing, it’s very encouraging that we’ve got such high efficacy numbers when undoubtedly there are variants of concern in circulation in this study,” Mr. Pangalos said.

“It also highlights why we believe that against severe disease, our vaccine will be effective against all variants of concern,” he added.

Once the company submits its EUA to the FDA, the company is ready to immediately distribute 30 million doses of the vaccine and expects to ship 50 million total within the first month, Ruud Dobber, PhD, AstraZeneca executive vice president and president of the AZ Biopharmaceuticals Business Unit, said during the briefing.

The vaccine can be stored at 2 to 8 degrees Celsius for at least 6 months. Like other COVID-19 vaccines already authorized for emergency use, the duration of protection with the AstraZeneca product remains unknown.

This article was updated March 23, 2021.

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

Background: Acute cholangitis (AC) in its most severe form is associated with a high mortality rate. Most patients respond to medical management involving intravenous hydration and antibiotics, though a sizable portion require biliary drainage. Current guidelines advocate for urgent drainage depending on the severity of AC, though do not specify optimal timing. Existing literature is conflicting on when ERCP should ideally be done for AC.

The studies included in the analysis were observational studies, so no causal relationship can be established. Only two of the nine studies reported outcome differences stratified by severity of presentation. Etiology of the AC was inconsistently reported amongst studies.

Bottom line: Emergent ERCP appears to be associated with reduced mortality and LOS in patients presenting with AC, though larger randomized controlled trials are needed to better delineate the optimal timing for biliary drainage in these patients.

Citation: Iqbal U et al. Emergent versus urgent ERCP in acute cholangitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointes Endosc. 2019 Oct 16. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.09.040.

Dr. Babbel is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Background: Acute cholangitis (AC) in its most severe form is associated with a high mortality rate. Most patients respond to medical management involving intravenous hydration and antibiotics, though a sizable portion require biliary drainage. Current guidelines advocate for urgent drainage depending on the severity of AC, though do not specify optimal timing. Existing literature is conflicting on when ERCP should ideally be done for AC.

The studies included in the analysis were observational studies, so no causal relationship can be established. Only two of the nine studies reported outcome differences stratified by severity of presentation. Etiology of the AC was inconsistently reported amongst studies.

Bottom line: Emergent ERCP appears to be associated with reduced mortality and LOS in patients presenting with AC, though larger randomized controlled trials are needed to better delineate the optimal timing for biliary drainage in these patients.

Citation: Iqbal U et al. Emergent versus urgent ERCP in acute cholangitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointes Endosc. 2019 Oct 16. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.09.040.

Dr. Babbel is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Background: Acute cholangitis (AC) in its most severe form is associated with a high mortality rate. Most patients respond to medical management involving intravenous hydration and antibiotics, though a sizable portion require biliary drainage. Current guidelines advocate for urgent drainage depending on the severity of AC, though do not specify optimal timing. Existing literature is conflicting on when ERCP should ideally be done for AC.

The studies included in the analysis were observational studies, so no causal relationship can be established. Only two of the nine studies reported outcome differences stratified by severity of presentation. Etiology of the AC was inconsistently reported amongst studies.

Bottom line: Emergent ERCP appears to be associated with reduced mortality and LOS in patients presenting with AC, though larger randomized controlled trials are needed to better delineate the optimal timing for biliary drainage in these patients.

Citation: Iqbal U et al. Emergent versus urgent ERCP in acute cholangitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointes Endosc. 2019 Oct 16. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.09.040.

Dr. Babbel is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Background: National guidelines recommend CR after CVS. However, neither enrollment in CR nor its benefits have been well described in this population.

Enrollment rates in CR after CVS were lower than that of heart transplant patients, but higher than that for patients with systolic heart failure or after CABG. Major study limitations were the lack of generalizability to younger patients because all patients examined were older than 64 years.

Bottom line: Racial and geographic factors influence the rate of enrollment in CR for patients undergoing CVS. All patients should be encouraged to participate in CR after CVS because it is associated with reduced 1-year mortality and risk of hospitalization.

Citation: Patel DK et. al. Association of cardiac rehabilitation with decreased hospitalization and mortality risk after cardiac valve surgery. JAMA Cardiol. 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.4032.
 

Dr. Babbel is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Background: National guidelines recommend CR after CVS. However, neither enrollment in CR nor its benefits have been well described in this population.

Enrollment rates in CR after CVS were lower than that of heart transplant patients, but higher than that for patients with systolic heart failure or after CABG. Major study limitations were the lack of generalizability to younger patients because all patients examined were older than 64 years.

Bottom line: Racial and geographic factors influence the rate of enrollment in CR for patients undergoing CVS. All patients should be encouraged to participate in CR after CVS because it is associated with reduced 1-year mortality and risk of hospitalization.

Citation: Patel DK et. al. Association of cardiac rehabilitation with decreased hospitalization and mortality risk after cardiac valve surgery. JAMA Cardiol. 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.4032.
 

Dr. Babbel is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Background: National guidelines recommend CR after CVS. However, neither enrollment in CR nor its benefits have been well described in this population.

Enrollment rates in CR after CVS were lower than that of heart transplant patients, but higher than that for patients with systolic heart failure or after CABG. Major study limitations were the lack of generalizability to younger patients because all patients examined were older than 64 years.

Bottom line: Racial and geographic factors influence the rate of enrollment in CR for patients undergoing CVS. All patients should be encouraged to participate in CR after CVS because it is associated with reduced 1-year mortality and risk of hospitalization.

Citation: Patel DK et. al. Association of cardiac rehabilitation with decreased hospitalization and mortality risk after cardiac valve surgery. JAMA Cardiol. 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.4032.
 

Dr. Babbel is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

In January, as Mississippi health officials planned for their incoming shipments of COVID-19 vaccine, they assessed the state’s most vulnerable: health care workers, of course, and elderly people in nursing homes. But among those who needed urgent protection from the virus ripping across the Magnolia State were 1 million Mississippians with obesity.

Obesity and weight-related illnesses have been deadly liabilities in the COVID era. A report released this month by the World Obesity Federation found that increased body weight is the second-greatest predictor of COVID-related hospitalization and death across the globe, trailing only old age as a risk factor.

As a fixture of life in the American South – home to 9 of the nation’s 12 heaviest states – obesity is playing a role not only in COVID outcomes, but in the calculus of the vaccination rollout. Mississippi was one of the first states to add a body mass index of 30 or more (a rough gauge of obesity tied to height and weight) to the list of qualifying medical conditions for a shot. About 40% of the state’s adults meet that definition, according to federal health survey data, and combined with the risk group already eligible for vaccination – residents 65 and older – that means fully half of Mississippi’s adults are entitled to vie for a restricted allotment of shots.

At least 29 states have green-lighted obesity for inclusion in the first phases of the vaccine rollout, according to KFF – a vast widening of eligibility that has the potential to overwhelm government efforts and heighten competition for scarce doses.

“We have a lifesaving intervention, and we don’t have enough of it,” said Jen Kates, PhD, director of global health and HIV policy for Kaiser Family Foundation. “Hard choices are being made about who should go first, and there is no right answer.”

The sheer prevalence of obesity in the nation – two in three Americans exceed what is considered a healthy weight – was a public health concern well before the pandemic. But COVID-19 dramatically fast-tracked the discussion from warnings about the long-term damage excess fat tissue can pose to heart, lung and metabolic functions to far more immediate threats.

In the United Kingdom, for example, overweight COVID patients were 67% more likely to require intensive care, and obese patients three times likelier, according to the World Obesity Federation report. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study released Monday found a similar trend among U.S. patients and noted that the risk of COVID-related hospitalization, ventilation and death increased with patients’ obesity level.

The counties that hug the southern Mississippi River are home to some of the most concentrated pockets of extreme obesity in the United States. Coronavirus infections began surging in Southern states early last summer, and hospitalizations rose in step.

Deaths in rural stretches of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee have been overshadowed by the sheer number of deaths in metropolitan areas like New York, Los Angeles, and Essex County, N.J. But as a share of the population, the coronavirus has been similarly unsparing in many Southern communities. In sparsely populated Claiborne County, Miss., on the floodplains of the Mississippi River, 30 residents – about 1 in 300 – had died as of early March. In East Feliciana Parish, La., north of Baton Rouge, with 106 deaths, about 1 in 180 had died by then.

“It’s just math. If the population is more obese and obesity clearly contributes to worse outcomes, then neighborhoods, cities, states and countries that are more obese will have a greater toll from COVID,” said Dr. James de Lemos, MD, a professor of internal medicine at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas who led a study of hospitalized COVID patients published in the medical journal Circulation.

And, because in the U.S. obesity rates tend to be relatively high among African Americans and Latinos who are poor, with diminished access to health care, “it’s a triple whammy,” Dr. de Lemos said. “All these things intersect.”

Poverty and limited access to medical care are common features in the South, where residents like Michelle Antonyshyn, a former registered nurse and mother of seven in Salem, Ark., say they are afraid of the virus. Ms. Antonyshyn, 49, has obesity and debilitating pain in her knees and back, though she does not have high blood pressure or diabetes, two underlying conditions that federal health officials have determined are added risk factors for severe cases of COVID-19.

Still, she said, she “was very concerned just knowing that being obese puts you more at risk for bad outcomes such as being on a ventilator and death.” As a precaution, Ms. Antonyshyn said, she and her large brood locked down early and stopped attending church services in person, watching online instead.

“It’s not the same as having fellowship, but the risk for me was enough,” said Ms. Antonyshyn.

Governors throughout the South seem to recognize that weight can contribute to COVID-19 complications and have pushed for vaccine eligibility rules that prioritize obesity. But on the ground, local health officials are girding for having to tell newly eligible people who qualify as obese that there aren’t enough shots to go around.

In Port Gibson, Miss., Mheja Williams, MD, medical director of the Claiborne County Family Health Center, has been receiving barely enough doses to inoculate the health workers and oldest seniors in her county of 9,600. One week in early February, she received 100 doses.

Obesity and extreme obesity are endemic in Claiborne County, and health officials say the “normalization” of obesity means people often don’t register their weight as a risk factor, whether for COVID or other health issues. The risks are exacerbated by a general flouting of pandemic etiquette: Dr. Williams said that middle-aged and younger residents are not especially vigilant about physical distancing and that mask use is rare.

The rise of obesity in the United States is well documented over the past half-century, as the nation turned from a diet of fruits, vegetables and limited meats to one laden with ultra-processed foods and rich with salt, fat, sugar, and flavorings, along with copious amounts of meat, fast food, and soda. The U.S. has generally led the global obesity race, setting records as even toddlers and young children grew implausibly, dangerously overweight.

Well before COVID, obesity was a leading cause of preventable death in the United States. The National Institutes of Health declared it a disease in 1998, one that fosters heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, and breast, colon, and other cancers.

Researchers say it is no coincidence that nations like the United States, the United Kingdom, and Italy, with relatively high obesity rates, have proved particularly vulnerable to the novel coronavirus.

They believe the virus may exploit underlying metabolic and physiological impairments that often exist in concert with obesity. Extra fat can lead to a cascade of metabolic disruptions, chronic systemic inflammation, and hormonal dysregulation that may thwart the body’s response to infection.

Other respiratory viruses, like influenza and SARS, which appeared in China in 2002, rely on cholesterol to spread enveloped RNA virus to neighboring cells, and researchers have proposed that a similar mechanism may play a role in the spread of the novel coronavirus.

There are also practical problems for coronavirus patients with obesity admitted to the hospital. They can be more difficult to intubate because of excess central weight pressing down on the diaphragm, making breathing with infected lungs even more difficult.

Physicians who specialize in treating patients with obesity say public health officials need to be more forthright and urgent in their messaging, telegraphing the risks of this COVID era.

“It should be explicit and direct,” said Fatima Stanford, MD, an obesity medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and a Harvard Medical School instructor.

Dr. Stanford denounces the fat-shaming and bullying that people with obesity often experience. But telling patients – and the public – that obesity increases the risk of hospitalization and death is crucial, she said.

“I don’t think it’s stigmatizing,” she said. “If you tell them in that way, it’s not to scare you, it’s just giving information. Sometimes people are just unaware.”



KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

In January, as Mississippi health officials planned for their incoming shipments of COVID-19 vaccine, they assessed the state’s most vulnerable: health care workers, of course, and elderly people in nursing homes. But among those who needed urgent protection from the virus ripping across the Magnolia State were 1 million Mississippians with obesity.

Obesity and weight-related illnesses have been deadly liabilities in the COVID era. A report released this month by the World Obesity Federation found that increased body weight is the second-greatest predictor of COVID-related hospitalization and death across the globe, trailing only old age as a risk factor.

As a fixture of life in the American South – home to 9 of the nation’s 12 heaviest states – obesity is playing a role not only in COVID outcomes, but in the calculus of the vaccination rollout. Mississippi was one of the first states to add a body mass index of 30 or more (a rough gauge of obesity tied to height and weight) to the list of qualifying medical conditions for a shot. About 40% of the state’s adults meet that definition, according to federal health survey data, and combined with the risk group already eligible for vaccination – residents 65 and older – that means fully half of Mississippi’s adults are entitled to vie for a restricted allotment of shots.

At least 29 states have green-lighted obesity for inclusion in the first phases of the vaccine rollout, according to KFF – a vast widening of eligibility that has the potential to overwhelm government efforts and heighten competition for scarce doses.

“We have a lifesaving intervention, and we don’t have enough of it,” said Jen Kates, PhD, director of global health and HIV policy for Kaiser Family Foundation. “Hard choices are being made about who should go first, and there is no right answer.”

The sheer prevalence of obesity in the nation – two in three Americans exceed what is considered a healthy weight – was a public health concern well before the pandemic. But COVID-19 dramatically fast-tracked the discussion from warnings about the long-term damage excess fat tissue can pose to heart, lung and metabolic functions to far more immediate threats.

In the United Kingdom, for example, overweight COVID patients were 67% more likely to require intensive care, and obese patients three times likelier, according to the World Obesity Federation report. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study released Monday found a similar trend among U.S. patients and noted that the risk of COVID-related hospitalization, ventilation and death increased with patients’ obesity level.

The counties that hug the southern Mississippi River are home to some of the most concentrated pockets of extreme obesity in the United States. Coronavirus infections began surging in Southern states early last summer, and hospitalizations rose in step.

Deaths in rural stretches of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee have been overshadowed by the sheer number of deaths in metropolitan areas like New York, Los Angeles, and Essex County, N.J. But as a share of the population, the coronavirus has been similarly unsparing in many Southern communities. In sparsely populated Claiborne County, Miss., on the floodplains of the Mississippi River, 30 residents – about 1 in 300 – had died as of early March. In East Feliciana Parish, La., north of Baton Rouge, with 106 deaths, about 1 in 180 had died by then.

“It’s just math. If the population is more obese and obesity clearly contributes to worse outcomes, then neighborhoods, cities, states and countries that are more obese will have a greater toll from COVID,” said Dr. James de Lemos, MD, a professor of internal medicine at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas who led a study of hospitalized COVID patients published in the medical journal Circulation.

And, because in the U.S. obesity rates tend to be relatively high among African Americans and Latinos who are poor, with diminished access to health care, “it’s a triple whammy,” Dr. de Lemos said. “All these things intersect.”

Poverty and limited access to medical care are common features in the South, where residents like Michelle Antonyshyn, a former registered nurse and mother of seven in Salem, Ark., say they are afraid of the virus. Ms. Antonyshyn, 49, has obesity and debilitating pain in her knees and back, though she does not have high blood pressure or diabetes, two underlying conditions that federal health officials have determined are added risk factors for severe cases of COVID-19.

Still, she said, she “was very concerned just knowing that being obese puts you more at risk for bad outcomes such as being on a ventilator and death.” As a precaution, Ms. Antonyshyn said, she and her large brood locked down early and stopped attending church services in person, watching online instead.

“It’s not the same as having fellowship, but the risk for me was enough,” said Ms. Antonyshyn.

Governors throughout the South seem to recognize that weight can contribute to COVID-19 complications and have pushed for vaccine eligibility rules that prioritize obesity. But on the ground, local health officials are girding for having to tell newly eligible people who qualify as obese that there aren’t enough shots to go around.

In Port Gibson, Miss., Mheja Williams, MD, medical director of the Claiborne County Family Health Center, has been receiving barely enough doses to inoculate the health workers and oldest seniors in her county of 9,600. One week in early February, she received 100 doses.

Obesity and extreme obesity are endemic in Claiborne County, and health officials say the “normalization” of obesity means people often don’t register their weight as a risk factor, whether for COVID or other health issues. The risks are exacerbated by a general flouting of pandemic etiquette: Dr. Williams said that middle-aged and younger residents are not especially vigilant about physical distancing and that mask use is rare.

The rise of obesity in the United States is well documented over the past half-century, as the nation turned from a diet of fruits, vegetables and limited meats to one laden with ultra-processed foods and rich with salt, fat, sugar, and flavorings, along with copious amounts of meat, fast food, and soda. The U.S. has generally led the global obesity race, setting records as even toddlers and young children grew implausibly, dangerously overweight.

Well before COVID, obesity was a leading cause of preventable death in the United States. The National Institutes of Health declared it a disease in 1998, one that fosters heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, and breast, colon, and other cancers.

Researchers say it is no coincidence that nations like the United States, the United Kingdom, and Italy, with relatively high obesity rates, have proved particularly vulnerable to the novel coronavirus.

They believe the virus may exploit underlying metabolic and physiological impairments that often exist in concert with obesity. Extra fat can lead to a cascade of metabolic disruptions, chronic systemic inflammation, and hormonal dysregulation that may thwart the body’s response to infection.

Other respiratory viruses, like influenza and SARS, which appeared in China in 2002, rely on cholesterol to spread enveloped RNA virus to neighboring cells, and researchers have proposed that a similar mechanism may play a role in the spread of the novel coronavirus.

There are also practical problems for coronavirus patients with obesity admitted to the hospital. They can be more difficult to intubate because of excess central weight pressing down on the diaphragm, making breathing with infected lungs even more difficult.

Physicians who specialize in treating patients with obesity say public health officials need to be more forthright and urgent in their messaging, telegraphing the risks of this COVID era.

“It should be explicit and direct,” said Fatima Stanford, MD, an obesity medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and a Harvard Medical School instructor.

Dr. Stanford denounces the fat-shaming and bullying that people with obesity often experience. But telling patients – and the public – that obesity increases the risk of hospitalization and death is crucial, she said.

“I don’t think it’s stigmatizing,” she said. “If you tell them in that way, it’s not to scare you, it’s just giving information. Sometimes people are just unaware.”



KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

In January, as Mississippi health officials planned for their incoming shipments of COVID-19 vaccine, they assessed the state’s most vulnerable: health care workers, of course, and elderly people in nursing homes. But among those who needed urgent protection from the virus ripping across the Magnolia State were 1 million Mississippians with obesity.

Obesity and weight-related illnesses have been deadly liabilities in the COVID era. A report released this month by the World Obesity Federation found that increased body weight is the second-greatest predictor of COVID-related hospitalization and death across the globe, trailing only old age as a risk factor.

As a fixture of life in the American South – home to 9 of the nation’s 12 heaviest states – obesity is playing a role not only in COVID outcomes, but in the calculus of the vaccination rollout. Mississippi was one of the first states to add a body mass index of 30 or more (a rough gauge of obesity tied to height and weight) to the list of qualifying medical conditions for a shot. About 40% of the state’s adults meet that definition, according to federal health survey data, and combined with the risk group already eligible for vaccination – residents 65 and older – that means fully half of Mississippi’s adults are entitled to vie for a restricted allotment of shots.

At least 29 states have green-lighted obesity for inclusion in the first phases of the vaccine rollout, according to KFF – a vast widening of eligibility that has the potential to overwhelm government efforts and heighten competition for scarce doses.

“We have a lifesaving intervention, and we don’t have enough of it,” said Jen Kates, PhD, director of global health and HIV policy for Kaiser Family Foundation. “Hard choices are being made about who should go first, and there is no right answer.”

The sheer prevalence of obesity in the nation – two in three Americans exceed what is considered a healthy weight – was a public health concern well before the pandemic. But COVID-19 dramatically fast-tracked the discussion from warnings about the long-term damage excess fat tissue can pose to heart, lung and metabolic functions to far more immediate threats.

In the United Kingdom, for example, overweight COVID patients were 67% more likely to require intensive care, and obese patients three times likelier, according to the World Obesity Federation report. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study released Monday found a similar trend among U.S. patients and noted that the risk of COVID-related hospitalization, ventilation and death increased with patients’ obesity level.

The counties that hug the southern Mississippi River are home to some of the most concentrated pockets of extreme obesity in the United States. Coronavirus infections began surging in Southern states early last summer, and hospitalizations rose in step.

Deaths in rural stretches of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee have been overshadowed by the sheer number of deaths in metropolitan areas like New York, Los Angeles, and Essex County, N.J. But as a share of the population, the coronavirus has been similarly unsparing in many Southern communities. In sparsely populated Claiborne County, Miss., on the floodplains of the Mississippi River, 30 residents – about 1 in 300 – had died as of early March. In East Feliciana Parish, La., north of Baton Rouge, with 106 deaths, about 1 in 180 had died by then.

“It’s just math. If the population is more obese and obesity clearly contributes to worse outcomes, then neighborhoods, cities, states and countries that are more obese will have a greater toll from COVID,” said Dr. James de Lemos, MD, a professor of internal medicine at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas who led a study of hospitalized COVID patients published in the medical journal Circulation.

And, because in the U.S. obesity rates tend to be relatively high among African Americans and Latinos who are poor, with diminished access to health care, “it’s a triple whammy,” Dr. de Lemos said. “All these things intersect.”

Poverty and limited access to medical care are common features in the South, where residents like Michelle Antonyshyn, a former registered nurse and mother of seven in Salem, Ark., say they are afraid of the virus. Ms. Antonyshyn, 49, has obesity and debilitating pain in her knees and back, though she does not have high blood pressure or diabetes, two underlying conditions that federal health officials have determined are added risk factors for severe cases of COVID-19.

Still, she said, she “was very concerned just knowing that being obese puts you more at risk for bad outcomes such as being on a ventilator and death.” As a precaution, Ms. Antonyshyn said, she and her large brood locked down early and stopped attending church services in person, watching online instead.

“It’s not the same as having fellowship, but the risk for me was enough,” said Ms. Antonyshyn.

Governors throughout the South seem to recognize that weight can contribute to COVID-19 complications and have pushed for vaccine eligibility rules that prioritize obesity. But on the ground, local health officials are girding for having to tell newly eligible people who qualify as obese that there aren’t enough shots to go around.

In Port Gibson, Miss., Mheja Williams, MD, medical director of the Claiborne County Family Health Center, has been receiving barely enough doses to inoculate the health workers and oldest seniors in her county of 9,600. One week in early February, she received 100 doses.

Obesity and extreme obesity are endemic in Claiborne County, and health officials say the “normalization” of obesity means people often don’t register their weight as a risk factor, whether for COVID or other health issues. The risks are exacerbated by a general flouting of pandemic etiquette: Dr. Williams said that middle-aged and younger residents are not especially vigilant about physical distancing and that mask use is rare.

The rise of obesity in the United States is well documented over the past half-century, as the nation turned from a diet of fruits, vegetables and limited meats to one laden with ultra-processed foods and rich with salt, fat, sugar, and flavorings, along with copious amounts of meat, fast food, and soda. The U.S. has generally led the global obesity race, setting records as even toddlers and young children grew implausibly, dangerously overweight.

Well before COVID, obesity was a leading cause of preventable death in the United States. The National Institutes of Health declared it a disease in 1998, one that fosters heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, and breast, colon, and other cancers.

Researchers say it is no coincidence that nations like the United States, the United Kingdom, and Italy, with relatively high obesity rates, have proved particularly vulnerable to the novel coronavirus.

They believe the virus may exploit underlying metabolic and physiological impairments that often exist in concert with obesity. Extra fat can lead to a cascade of metabolic disruptions, chronic systemic inflammation, and hormonal dysregulation that may thwart the body’s response to infection.

Other respiratory viruses, like influenza and SARS, which appeared in China in 2002, rely on cholesterol to spread enveloped RNA virus to neighboring cells, and researchers have proposed that a similar mechanism may play a role in the spread of the novel coronavirus.

There are also practical problems for coronavirus patients with obesity admitted to the hospital. They can be more difficult to intubate because of excess central weight pressing down on the diaphragm, making breathing with infected lungs even more difficult.

Physicians who specialize in treating patients with obesity say public health officials need to be more forthright and urgent in their messaging, telegraphing the risks of this COVID era.

“It should be explicit and direct,” said Fatima Stanford, MD, an obesity medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and a Harvard Medical School instructor.

Dr. Stanford denounces the fat-shaming and bullying that people with obesity often experience. But telling patients – and the public – that obesity increases the risk of hospitalization and death is crucial, she said.

“I don’t think it’s stigmatizing,” she said. “If you tell them in that way, it’s not to scare you, it’s just giving information. Sometimes people are just unaware.”



KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The first large study of its kind reveals that SARS-CoV-2 reinfections remain rare, although people older than 65 are at higher risk.

When researchers analyzed test results of 4 million people in Denmark, they found that less than 1% of those who tested positive experienced reinfection.

Initial infection was associated with about 80% protection overall against getting SARS-CoV-2 again. However, among those older than 65, the protection plummeted to 47%.

“Not everybody is protected against reinfection after a first infection. Older people are at higher risk of catching it again,” co–lead author Daniela Michlmayr, PhD, said in an interview. “Our findings emphasize the importance of policies to protect the elderly and of adhering to infection control measures and restrictions, even if previously infected with COVID-19.”
 

Verifying the need for vaccination

“The findings also highlight the need to vaccinate people who had COVID-19 before, as natural immunity to infection – especially among the elderly 65 and older – cannot be relied upon,” added Dr. Michlmayr, a researcher in the department of bacteria, parasites, and fungi at the Staten Serums Institut, Copenhagen.

The population-based observational study was published online March 17 in The Lancet.

“The findings make sense, as patients who are immunocompromised or of advanced age may not mount an immune response that is as long-lasting,” David Hirschwerk, MD, said in an interview. “It does underscore the importance of vaccination for people of more advanced age, even if they previously were infected with COVID.

“For those who were infected last spring and have not yet been vaccinated, this helps to support the value of still pursuing the vaccine,” added Dr. Hirschwerk, an infectious disease specialist at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y.

Evidence on reinfection risk was limited prior to this study. “Little is known about protection against SARS-CoV-2 repeat infections, but two studies in the UK have found that immunity could last at least 5 to 6 months after infection,” the authors noted.

Along with co–lead author Christian Holm Hansen, PhD, Dr. Michlmayr and colleagues found that 2.11% of 525,339 individuals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the first surge in Denmark from March to May 2020. Within this group, 0.65% tested positive during a second surge from September to December.

By the end of 2020, more than 10 million people had undergone free polymerase chain reaction testing by the Danish government or through the national TestDenmark program.

“My overall take is that it is great to have such a big dataset looking at this question,” E. John Wherry, PhD, said in an interview. The findings support “what we’ve seen in previous, smaller studies.”

Natural protection against reinfection of approximately 80% “is not as good as the vaccines, but not bad,” added Dr. Wherry, director of the Institute for Immunology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
 

Age alters immunity?

“Our finding that older people were more likely than younger people to test positive again if they had already tested positive could be explained by natural age-related changes in the immune system of older adults, also referred to as immune senescence,” the authors noted.

The investigators found no significant differences in reinfection rates between women and men.

As with the previous research, this study also indicates that an initial bout with SARS-CoV-2 infection appears to confer protection for at least 6 months. The researchers found no significant differences between people who were followed for 3-6 months and those followed for 7 months or longer.
 

Variants not included

To account for possible bias among people who got tested repeatedly, Dr. Michlmayr and colleagues performed a sensitivity analysis in a subgroup. They assessed reinfection rates among people who underwent testing frequently and routinely – nurses, doctors, social workers, and health care assistants – and found that 1.2% tested positive a second time during the second surge.

A limitation of the study was the inability to correlate symptoms with risk for reinfection. Also, the researchers did not account for SARS-CoV-2 variants, noting that “during the study period, such variants were not yet established in Denmark; although into 2021 this pattern is changing.”

Asked to speculate whether the results would be different had the study accounted for variants, Dr. Hirschwerk said, “It depends upon the variant, but certainly for the B.1.351 variant, there already has been data clearly demonstrating risk of reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 despite prior infection with the original strain of virus.”

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern that could escape natural and vaccine-related immunity “complicates matters further,” Rosemary J. Boyton, MBBS, and Daniel M. Altmann, PhD, both of Imperial College London, wrote in an accompanying comment in The Lancet.

“Emerging variants of concern might shift immunity below a protective margin, prompting the need for updated vaccines. Interestingly, vaccine responses even after single dose are substantially enhanced in individuals with a history of infection with SARS-CoV-2,” they added.

The current study confirms that “the hope of protective immunity through natural infections might not be within our reach, and a global vaccination program with high efficacy vaccines is the enduring solution,” Dr. Boyton and Dr. Altmann noted.

Cause for alarm?

Despite evidence that reinfection is relatively rare, “many will find the data reported by Hansen and colleagues about protection through natural infection relatively alarming,” Dr. Boyton and Dr. Altmann wrote in their commentary. The 80% protection rate from reinfection in general and the 47% rate among people aged 65 and older “are more concerning figures than offered by previous studies.”

Vaccines appear to provide better quality, quantity, and durability of protection against repeated infection – measured in terms of neutralizing antibodies and T cells – compared with previous infection with SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Boyton and Dr. Altmann wrote.
 

More research needed

The duration of natural protection against reinfection remains an unanswered question, the researchers noted, “because too little time has elapsed since the beginning of the pandemic.”

Future prospective and longitudinal cohort studies coupled with molecular surveillance are needed to characterize antibody titers and waning of protection against repeat infections, the authors noted. Furthermore, more answers are needed regarding how some virus variants might contribute to reinfection risk.

No funding for the study has been reported. Dr. Michlmayr, Dr. Hirschwerk, Dr. Wherry, Dr. Boyton, and Dr. Altmann have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The first large study of its kind reveals that SARS-CoV-2 reinfections remain rare, although people older than 65 are at higher risk.

When researchers analyzed test results of 4 million people in Denmark, they found that less than 1% of those who tested positive experienced reinfection.

Initial infection was associated with about 80% protection overall against getting SARS-CoV-2 again. However, among those older than 65, the protection plummeted to 47%.

“Not everybody is protected against reinfection after a first infection. Older people are at higher risk of catching it again,” co–lead author Daniela Michlmayr, PhD, said in an interview. “Our findings emphasize the importance of policies to protect the elderly and of adhering to infection control measures and restrictions, even if previously infected with COVID-19.”
 

Verifying the need for vaccination

“The findings also highlight the need to vaccinate people who had COVID-19 before, as natural immunity to infection – especially among the elderly 65 and older – cannot be relied upon,” added Dr. Michlmayr, a researcher in the department of bacteria, parasites, and fungi at the Staten Serums Institut, Copenhagen.

The population-based observational study was published online March 17 in The Lancet.

“The findings make sense, as patients who are immunocompromised or of advanced age may not mount an immune response that is as long-lasting,” David Hirschwerk, MD, said in an interview. “It does underscore the importance of vaccination for people of more advanced age, even if they previously were infected with COVID.

“For those who were infected last spring and have not yet been vaccinated, this helps to support the value of still pursuing the vaccine,” added Dr. Hirschwerk, an infectious disease specialist at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y.

Evidence on reinfection risk was limited prior to this study. “Little is known about protection against SARS-CoV-2 repeat infections, but two studies in the UK have found that immunity could last at least 5 to 6 months after infection,” the authors noted.

Along with co–lead author Christian Holm Hansen, PhD, Dr. Michlmayr and colleagues found that 2.11% of 525,339 individuals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the first surge in Denmark from March to May 2020. Within this group, 0.65% tested positive during a second surge from September to December.

By the end of 2020, more than 10 million people had undergone free polymerase chain reaction testing by the Danish government or through the national TestDenmark program.

“My overall take is that it is great to have such a big dataset looking at this question,” E. John Wherry, PhD, said in an interview. The findings support “what we’ve seen in previous, smaller studies.”

Natural protection against reinfection of approximately 80% “is not as good as the vaccines, but not bad,” added Dr. Wherry, director of the Institute for Immunology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
 

Age alters immunity?

“Our finding that older people were more likely than younger people to test positive again if they had already tested positive could be explained by natural age-related changes in the immune system of older adults, also referred to as immune senescence,” the authors noted.

The investigators found no significant differences in reinfection rates between women and men.

As with the previous research, this study also indicates that an initial bout with SARS-CoV-2 infection appears to confer protection for at least 6 months. The researchers found no significant differences between people who were followed for 3-6 months and those followed for 7 months or longer.
 

Variants not included

To account for possible bias among people who got tested repeatedly, Dr. Michlmayr and colleagues performed a sensitivity analysis in a subgroup. They assessed reinfection rates among people who underwent testing frequently and routinely – nurses, doctors, social workers, and health care assistants – and found that 1.2% tested positive a second time during the second surge.

A limitation of the study was the inability to correlate symptoms with risk for reinfection. Also, the researchers did not account for SARS-CoV-2 variants, noting that “during the study period, such variants were not yet established in Denmark; although into 2021 this pattern is changing.”

Asked to speculate whether the results would be different had the study accounted for variants, Dr. Hirschwerk said, “It depends upon the variant, but certainly for the B.1.351 variant, there already has been data clearly demonstrating risk of reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 despite prior infection with the original strain of virus.”

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern that could escape natural and vaccine-related immunity “complicates matters further,” Rosemary J. Boyton, MBBS, and Daniel M. Altmann, PhD, both of Imperial College London, wrote in an accompanying comment in The Lancet.

“Emerging variants of concern might shift immunity below a protective margin, prompting the need for updated vaccines. Interestingly, vaccine responses even after single dose are substantially enhanced in individuals with a history of infection with SARS-CoV-2,” they added.

The current study confirms that “the hope of protective immunity through natural infections might not be within our reach, and a global vaccination program with high efficacy vaccines is the enduring solution,” Dr. Boyton and Dr. Altmann noted.

Cause for alarm?

Despite evidence that reinfection is relatively rare, “many will find the data reported by Hansen and colleagues about protection through natural infection relatively alarming,” Dr. Boyton and Dr. Altmann wrote in their commentary. The 80% protection rate from reinfection in general and the 47% rate among people aged 65 and older “are more concerning figures than offered by previous studies.”

Vaccines appear to provide better quality, quantity, and durability of protection against repeated infection – measured in terms of neutralizing antibodies and T cells – compared with previous infection with SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Boyton and Dr. Altmann wrote.
 

More research needed

The duration of natural protection against reinfection remains an unanswered question, the researchers noted, “because too little time has elapsed since the beginning of the pandemic.”

Future prospective and longitudinal cohort studies coupled with molecular surveillance are needed to characterize antibody titers and waning of protection against repeat infections, the authors noted. Furthermore, more answers are needed regarding how some virus variants might contribute to reinfection risk.

No funding for the study has been reported. Dr. Michlmayr, Dr. Hirschwerk, Dr. Wherry, Dr. Boyton, and Dr. Altmann have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The first large study of its kind reveals that SARS-CoV-2 reinfections remain rare, although people older than 65 are at higher risk.

When researchers analyzed test results of 4 million people in Denmark, they found that less than 1% of those who tested positive experienced reinfection.

Initial infection was associated with about 80% protection overall against getting SARS-CoV-2 again. However, among those older than 65, the protection plummeted to 47%.

“Not everybody is protected against reinfection after a first infection. Older people are at higher risk of catching it again,” co–lead author Daniela Michlmayr, PhD, said in an interview. “Our findings emphasize the importance of policies to protect the elderly and of adhering to infection control measures and restrictions, even if previously infected with COVID-19.”
 

Verifying the need for vaccination

“The findings also highlight the need to vaccinate people who had COVID-19 before, as natural immunity to infection – especially among the elderly 65 and older – cannot be relied upon,” added Dr. Michlmayr, a researcher in the department of bacteria, parasites, and fungi at the Staten Serums Institut, Copenhagen.

The population-based observational study was published online March 17 in The Lancet.

“The findings make sense, as patients who are immunocompromised or of advanced age may not mount an immune response that is as long-lasting,” David Hirschwerk, MD, said in an interview. “It does underscore the importance of vaccination for people of more advanced age, even if they previously were infected with COVID.

“For those who were infected last spring and have not yet been vaccinated, this helps to support the value of still pursuing the vaccine,” added Dr. Hirschwerk, an infectious disease specialist at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y.

Evidence on reinfection risk was limited prior to this study. “Little is known about protection against SARS-CoV-2 repeat infections, but two studies in the UK have found that immunity could last at least 5 to 6 months after infection,” the authors noted.

Along with co–lead author Christian Holm Hansen, PhD, Dr. Michlmayr and colleagues found that 2.11% of 525,339 individuals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the first surge in Denmark from March to May 2020. Within this group, 0.65% tested positive during a second surge from September to December.

By the end of 2020, more than 10 million people had undergone free polymerase chain reaction testing by the Danish government or through the national TestDenmark program.

“My overall take is that it is great to have such a big dataset looking at this question,” E. John Wherry, PhD, said in an interview. The findings support “what we’ve seen in previous, smaller studies.”

Natural protection against reinfection of approximately 80% “is not as good as the vaccines, but not bad,” added Dr. Wherry, director of the Institute for Immunology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
 

Age alters immunity?

“Our finding that older people were more likely than younger people to test positive again if they had already tested positive could be explained by natural age-related changes in the immune system of older adults, also referred to as immune senescence,” the authors noted.

The investigators found no significant differences in reinfection rates between women and men.

As with the previous research, this study also indicates that an initial bout with SARS-CoV-2 infection appears to confer protection for at least 6 months. The researchers found no significant differences between people who were followed for 3-6 months and those followed for 7 months or longer.
 

Variants not included

To account for possible bias among people who got tested repeatedly, Dr. Michlmayr and colleagues performed a sensitivity analysis in a subgroup. They assessed reinfection rates among people who underwent testing frequently and routinely – nurses, doctors, social workers, and health care assistants – and found that 1.2% tested positive a second time during the second surge.

A limitation of the study was the inability to correlate symptoms with risk for reinfection. Also, the researchers did not account for SARS-CoV-2 variants, noting that “during the study period, such variants were not yet established in Denmark; although into 2021 this pattern is changing.”

Asked to speculate whether the results would be different had the study accounted for variants, Dr. Hirschwerk said, “It depends upon the variant, but certainly for the B.1.351 variant, there already has been data clearly demonstrating risk of reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 despite prior infection with the original strain of virus.”

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern that could escape natural and vaccine-related immunity “complicates matters further,” Rosemary J. Boyton, MBBS, and Daniel M. Altmann, PhD, both of Imperial College London, wrote in an accompanying comment in The Lancet.

“Emerging variants of concern might shift immunity below a protective margin, prompting the need for updated vaccines. Interestingly, vaccine responses even after single dose are substantially enhanced in individuals with a history of infection with SARS-CoV-2,” they added.

The current study confirms that “the hope of protective immunity through natural infections might not be within our reach, and a global vaccination program with high efficacy vaccines is the enduring solution,” Dr. Boyton and Dr. Altmann noted.

Cause for alarm?

Despite evidence that reinfection is relatively rare, “many will find the data reported by Hansen and colleagues about protection through natural infection relatively alarming,” Dr. Boyton and Dr. Altmann wrote in their commentary. The 80% protection rate from reinfection in general and the 47% rate among people aged 65 and older “are more concerning figures than offered by previous studies.”

Vaccines appear to provide better quality, quantity, and durability of protection against repeated infection – measured in terms of neutralizing antibodies and T cells – compared with previous infection with SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Boyton and Dr. Altmann wrote.
 

More research needed

The duration of natural protection against reinfection remains an unanswered question, the researchers noted, “because too little time has elapsed since the beginning of the pandemic.”

Future prospective and longitudinal cohort studies coupled with molecular surveillance are needed to characterize antibody titers and waning of protection against repeat infections, the authors noted. Furthermore, more answers are needed regarding how some virus variants might contribute to reinfection risk.

No funding for the study has been reported. Dr. Michlmayr, Dr. Hirschwerk, Dr. Wherry, Dr. Boyton, and Dr. Altmann have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Have you ever thought you could be a leader, in your hospitalist group, in hospital administration, or at another institution? The reasons to seek a leadership role as a hospitalist are many, but there are also many drawbacks. According to hospitalists who have reached high rungs on the leadership ladder, you will need a blend of desire, enthusiasm, education, and experience if you want to succeed in leadership.

The right reasons

“People who make good leaders have a sense of purpose and want to make a difference,” said Eric Howell, MD, MHM, CEO of the Society of Hospital Medicine, and former chief of medical units at Johns Hopkins Bayview in Baltimore. “I think most hospitalists have that sense of wanting to help patients and society, so that’s a strong mission in itself. Just by training and the very design of our health care system, hospitalists are often natural leaders, and in leadership roles, because they run teams of clinicians and train medical students.”

Danielle Scheurer, MD, SFHM, chief quality officer and professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, and current president of SHM, said some hospitalists end up in leadership roles almost by accident – because there is a leadership “void” in the health system where they work, and no one else wants to step up. Others disconnect from the leadership track and are happy to simply be part of a team.

“If you are yearning to make a difference and that’s your motivation then you will find leadership is more fulfilling than difficult,” she said. “But if you take a leadership role to fill a void or think you just want to take some nonclinical time, it’s probably not a good idea. Some people think administrative leadership is easier than being a hospitalist, but it is not. Leadership should not be about getting away from something else. It should be a thoughtful career move, and if it is, being a leader can be meaningful and fulfilling.”

Nancy Spector, MD, the vice dean for faculty and executive director of the Executive Leadership in Academic Medicine program at Drexel University College of Medicine in Philadelphia, said a willingness to fail is vital for a leader. “You have to be open to successes, yes, but also to making mistakes,” she said. “It’s about honing the skills that leadership requires and be open to development and change.”

Kierstin Cates Kennedy, MD, SFHM, chief of hospital medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said that a hospitalist fresh out of residency will gain insight into whether leadership is the right path by acquiring a deeper understanding of how health care institutions work.

Still up for it?

If you think you have the commitment and desire for leadership as an early career hospitalist, how would you continue down the leadership path?

“A great way is to find a person you want to be like, who could be a mentor. Find a successful leader that you admire, and one who is willing to guide you,” Dr. Howell said. “Books are helpful as well, and I still find I’m learning today – I have a list that includes Drive by Daniel Pink and Good to Great by Jim Collins. There are Malcolm Gladwell books that also have terrific knowledge to impart.”

Mark W. Shen, MD, SFHM, associate professor at Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at Austin and former president of St. Louis Children’s Hospital, said potential hospitalist leaders must be aware of their fellow clinicians.

“Pay attention to the needs of the hospitalist group as they are articulated by the lead hospitalist, the administration, and the patients,” he said. “There are so many activities that come up on a day-in, day-out basis. You should jump in and volunteer to take the lead on some of those activities. Leading your peers is often one of the most challenging parts of leadership. I think taking on even just a small activity like, say, working on a clinical pathway for the group, will result in a lot of preparation for future leadership roles.”

An example of an early career activity that Dr. Shen felt was valuable to future leaders was helping in the development of a hospitalist core curriculum. “We would use the core curriculum to educate students and residents coming through our rotation and have some degree of commonality or standardization,” he said. “So even though I wasn’t an explicit leader of the hospitalist group at the time, I’d say that helping develop the core curriculum aided me in understanding what leadership was all about.”

Getting started in a leadership role, Dr. Spector said, can be helped by embracing a knowledge of the business of medicine. “Business and finance are a reality you shouldn’t avoid,” she said. “Another way to learn is to partner with your local administrators or whoever is running your division or your department. There are business managers and business partners in every institution, and you can learn a great deal from them. It’s important to network and get to know people because we’re a people business, and opportunity comes when people know who you are.”

Dr. Howell noted that advocating for yourself is sometimes hard, and it can be a red flag in some circumstances, but you should tell your bosses where you want to go professionally.

“You can say that you want to grow professionally, and let’s face it, there are naturally-inclined leaders. We all need to be transparent in goal paths,” he said. “But if you want a leadership role for power, money, and prestige then you’re not applying the right thinking. If you want to help others and you have a mission you believe in, then communicate that to your bosses.”

Dr. Scheurer believes choosing between clinical and administrative leadership is not so clear cut, because in the health care setting they tend to morph into each other. “Many times clinicians will end up taking on a leadership role that has a significant administrative component to it,” she said. “I do think if clinicians make a career move and get the right training then they can be exemplary leaders in health care, but I do worry a little about clinicians going into leadership roles without any formal training. They are usually well-intentioned but that’s not enough. It’s not any different than medical training. If you want to be a good leader you need training to develop your skills, and a lot of those skills do not come naturally or easily. We thrust good clinicians into leadership roles because they are good clinicians, but if they don’t have the right skills, being a leader can be a problem.”
 

How do leaders improve?

If you have made it to a leadership position, and have been in that role for a while, you might start to feel you are stuck in your growth trajectory. If so, how do you continue to improve?

According to Dr. Kennedy, whether you are looking to get into leadership or want to improve, focusing on emotional intelligence is important. “A book like Emotional Intelligence 2.0 by Travis Bradbury is a great introduction,” she said. “With my leadership team, we did a book club where we read Primal Leadership, which is focused on emotional intelligence and on aspects like setting a culture.”

Dr. Howell said that to grow as a leader, be careful what you say no to. “I used to talk about having a tag line that was ‘just say yes,’” he said. “At least try to say yes most of the time because it opens up opportunities and shows you are looking to do more, not less.”

Also, Dr. Howell recommends that leaders look for tools that minimize blind spots and get information from staff through survey assessments. “Get the input of others on your strengths and weaknesses,” he said. “Nurses, doctors, and sometimes patients can give you good information that will help you grow as a leader. Don’t be afraid of feedback.”
 

Never stop learning

Dr. Scheurer said it is important to recognize that you are never finished learning when you are a leader.

“See leadership as a continuous learning journey. You can never be too good of a leader in medicine,” she said. “Never stop learning, because the field keeps changing and you have to constantly learn and find pleasure in that learning. You should look at leadership the same way. A lot of leadership theories change with the times and you should always try to get good advice. You don’t take every piece of advice – just like in medicine when you read an article and you try to apply it to patients in your practice. Take some advice, leave some advice, and develop a leadership style that is genuine and authentic.”

Dr. Kennedy believes that a hospitalist’s leadership potential may be limited if you see continued learning as a chore, rather than an opportunity.

“If you resent it learning about leadership, then is it really for you?” she asked. “I find myself reading on the topic or talking about it, and it’s fun. How do you make an environment work better, how do you inspire people, how do you help them grow? These are some of the most important questions leaders face. Isn’t it fun if you can find some answers?”
 

Have you ever thought you could be a leader, in your hospitalist group, in hospital administration, or at another institution? The reasons to seek a leadership role as a hospitalist are many, but there are also many drawbacks. According to hospitalists who have reached high rungs on the leadership ladder, you will need a blend of desire, enthusiasm, education, and experience if you want to succeed in leadership.

The right reasons

“People who make good leaders have a sense of purpose and want to make a difference,” said Eric Howell, MD, MHM, CEO of the Society of Hospital Medicine, and former chief of medical units at Johns Hopkins Bayview in Baltimore. “I think most hospitalists have that sense of wanting to help patients and society, so that’s a strong mission in itself. Just by training and the very design of our health care system, hospitalists are often natural leaders, and in leadership roles, because they run teams of clinicians and train medical students.”

Danielle Scheurer, MD, SFHM, chief quality officer and professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, and current president of SHM, said some hospitalists end up in leadership roles almost by accident – because there is a leadership “void” in the health system where they work, and no one else wants to step up. Others disconnect from the leadership track and are happy to simply be part of a team.

“If you are yearning to make a difference and that’s your motivation then you will find leadership is more fulfilling than difficult,” she said. “But if you take a leadership role to fill a void or think you just want to take some nonclinical time, it’s probably not a good idea. Some people think administrative leadership is easier than being a hospitalist, but it is not. Leadership should not be about getting away from something else. It should be a thoughtful career move, and if it is, being a leader can be meaningful and fulfilling.”

Nancy Spector, MD, the vice dean for faculty and executive director of the Executive Leadership in Academic Medicine program at Drexel University College of Medicine in Philadelphia, said a willingness to fail is vital for a leader. “You have to be open to successes, yes, but also to making mistakes,” she said. “It’s about honing the skills that leadership requires and be open to development and change.”

Kierstin Cates Kennedy, MD, SFHM, chief of hospital medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said that a hospitalist fresh out of residency will gain insight into whether leadership is the right path by acquiring a deeper understanding of how health care institutions work.

Still up for it?

If you think you have the commitment and desire for leadership as an early career hospitalist, how would you continue down the leadership path?

“A great way is to find a person you want to be like, who could be a mentor. Find a successful leader that you admire, and one who is willing to guide you,” Dr. Howell said. “Books are helpful as well, and I still find I’m learning today – I have a list that includes Drive by Daniel Pink and Good to Great by Jim Collins. There are Malcolm Gladwell books that also have terrific knowledge to impart.”

Mark W. Shen, MD, SFHM, associate professor at Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at Austin and former president of St. Louis Children’s Hospital, said potential hospitalist leaders must be aware of their fellow clinicians.

“Pay attention to the needs of the hospitalist group as they are articulated by the lead hospitalist, the administration, and the patients,” he said. “There are so many activities that come up on a day-in, day-out basis. You should jump in and volunteer to take the lead on some of those activities. Leading your peers is often one of the most challenging parts of leadership. I think taking on even just a small activity like, say, working on a clinical pathway for the group, will result in a lot of preparation for future leadership roles.”

An example of an early career activity that Dr. Shen felt was valuable to future leaders was helping in the development of a hospitalist core curriculum. “We would use the core curriculum to educate students and residents coming through our rotation and have some degree of commonality or standardization,” he said. “So even though I wasn’t an explicit leader of the hospitalist group at the time, I’d say that helping develop the core curriculum aided me in understanding what leadership was all about.”

Getting started in a leadership role, Dr. Spector said, can be helped by embracing a knowledge of the business of medicine. “Business and finance are a reality you shouldn’t avoid,” she said. “Another way to learn is to partner with your local administrators or whoever is running your division or your department. There are business managers and business partners in every institution, and you can learn a great deal from them. It’s important to network and get to know people because we’re a people business, and opportunity comes when people know who you are.”

Dr. Howell noted that advocating for yourself is sometimes hard, and it can be a red flag in some circumstances, but you should tell your bosses where you want to go professionally.

“You can say that you want to grow professionally, and let’s face it, there are naturally-inclined leaders. We all need to be transparent in goal paths,” he said. “But if you want a leadership role for power, money, and prestige then you’re not applying the right thinking. If you want to help others and you have a mission you believe in, then communicate that to your bosses.”

Dr. Scheurer believes choosing between clinical and administrative leadership is not so clear cut, because in the health care setting they tend to morph into each other. “Many times clinicians will end up taking on a leadership role that has a significant administrative component to it,” she said. “I do think if clinicians make a career move and get the right training then they can be exemplary leaders in health care, but I do worry a little about clinicians going into leadership roles without any formal training. They are usually well-intentioned but that’s not enough. It’s not any different than medical training. If you want to be a good leader you need training to develop your skills, and a lot of those skills do not come naturally or easily. We thrust good clinicians into leadership roles because they are good clinicians, but if they don’t have the right skills, being a leader can be a problem.”
 

How do leaders improve?

If you have made it to a leadership position, and have been in that role for a while, you might start to feel you are stuck in your growth trajectory. If so, how do you continue to improve?

According to Dr. Kennedy, whether you are looking to get into leadership or want to improve, focusing on emotional intelligence is important. “A book like Emotional Intelligence 2.0 by Travis Bradbury is a great introduction,” she said. “With my leadership team, we did a book club where we read Primal Leadership, which is focused on emotional intelligence and on aspects like setting a culture.”

Dr. Howell said that to grow as a leader, be careful what you say no to. “I used to talk about having a tag line that was ‘just say yes,’” he said. “At least try to say yes most of the time because it opens up opportunities and shows you are looking to do more, not less.”

Also, Dr. Howell recommends that leaders look for tools that minimize blind spots and get information from staff through survey assessments. “Get the input of others on your strengths and weaknesses,” he said. “Nurses, doctors, and sometimes patients can give you good information that will help you grow as a leader. Don’t be afraid of feedback.”
 

Never stop learning

Dr. Scheurer said it is important to recognize that you are never finished learning when you are a leader.

“See leadership as a continuous learning journey. You can never be too good of a leader in medicine,” she said. “Never stop learning, because the field keeps changing and you have to constantly learn and find pleasure in that learning. You should look at leadership the same way. A lot of leadership theories change with the times and you should always try to get good advice. You don’t take every piece of advice – just like in medicine when you read an article and you try to apply it to patients in your practice. Take some advice, leave some advice, and develop a leadership style that is genuine and authentic.”

Dr. Kennedy believes that a hospitalist’s leadership potential may be limited if you see continued learning as a chore, rather than an opportunity.

“If you resent it learning about leadership, then is it really for you?” she asked. “I find myself reading on the topic or talking about it, and it’s fun. How do you make an environment work better, how do you inspire people, how do you help them grow? These are some of the most important questions leaders face. Isn’t it fun if you can find some answers?”
 

Have you ever thought you could be a leader, in your hospitalist group, in hospital administration, or at another institution? The reasons to seek a leadership role as a hospitalist are many, but there are also many drawbacks. According to hospitalists who have reached high rungs on the leadership ladder, you will need a blend of desire, enthusiasm, education, and experience if you want to succeed in leadership.

The right reasons

“People who make good leaders have a sense of purpose and want to make a difference,” said Eric Howell, MD, MHM, CEO of the Society of Hospital Medicine, and former chief of medical units at Johns Hopkins Bayview in Baltimore. “I think most hospitalists have that sense of wanting to help patients and society, so that’s a strong mission in itself. Just by training and the very design of our health care system, hospitalists are often natural leaders, and in leadership roles, because they run teams of clinicians and train medical students.”

Danielle Scheurer, MD, SFHM, chief quality officer and professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, and current president of SHM, said some hospitalists end up in leadership roles almost by accident – because there is a leadership “void” in the health system where they work, and no one else wants to step up. Others disconnect from the leadership track and are happy to simply be part of a team.

“If you are yearning to make a difference and that’s your motivation then you will find leadership is more fulfilling than difficult,” she said. “But if you take a leadership role to fill a void or think you just want to take some nonclinical time, it’s probably not a good idea. Some people think administrative leadership is easier than being a hospitalist, but it is not. Leadership should not be about getting away from something else. It should be a thoughtful career move, and if it is, being a leader can be meaningful and fulfilling.”

Nancy Spector, MD, the vice dean for faculty and executive director of the Executive Leadership in Academic Medicine program at Drexel University College of Medicine in Philadelphia, said a willingness to fail is vital for a leader. “You have to be open to successes, yes, but also to making mistakes,” she said. “It’s about honing the skills that leadership requires and be open to development and change.”

Kierstin Cates Kennedy, MD, SFHM, chief of hospital medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said that a hospitalist fresh out of residency will gain insight into whether leadership is the right path by acquiring a deeper understanding of how health care institutions work.

Still up for it?

If you think you have the commitment and desire for leadership as an early career hospitalist, how would you continue down the leadership path?

“A great way is to find a person you want to be like, who could be a mentor. Find a successful leader that you admire, and one who is willing to guide you,” Dr. Howell said. “Books are helpful as well, and I still find I’m learning today – I have a list that includes Drive by Daniel Pink and Good to Great by Jim Collins. There are Malcolm Gladwell books that also have terrific knowledge to impart.”

Mark W. Shen, MD, SFHM, associate professor at Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at Austin and former president of St. Louis Children’s Hospital, said potential hospitalist leaders must be aware of their fellow clinicians.

“Pay attention to the needs of the hospitalist group as they are articulated by the lead hospitalist, the administration, and the patients,” he said. “There are so many activities that come up on a day-in, day-out basis. You should jump in and volunteer to take the lead on some of those activities. Leading your peers is often one of the most challenging parts of leadership. I think taking on even just a small activity like, say, working on a clinical pathway for the group, will result in a lot of preparation for future leadership roles.”

An example of an early career activity that Dr. Shen felt was valuable to future leaders was helping in the development of a hospitalist core curriculum. “We would use the core curriculum to educate students and residents coming through our rotation and have some degree of commonality or standardization,” he said. “So even though I wasn’t an explicit leader of the hospitalist group at the time, I’d say that helping develop the core curriculum aided me in understanding what leadership was all about.”

Getting started in a leadership role, Dr. Spector said, can be helped by embracing a knowledge of the business of medicine. “Business and finance are a reality you shouldn’t avoid,” she said. “Another way to learn is to partner with your local administrators or whoever is running your division or your department. There are business managers and business partners in every institution, and you can learn a great deal from them. It’s important to network and get to know people because we’re a people business, and opportunity comes when people know who you are.”

Dr. Howell noted that advocating for yourself is sometimes hard, and it can be a red flag in some circumstances, but you should tell your bosses where you want to go professionally.

“You can say that you want to grow professionally, and let’s face it, there are naturally-inclined leaders. We all need to be transparent in goal paths,” he said. “But if you want a leadership role for power, money, and prestige then you’re not applying the right thinking. If you want to help others and you have a mission you believe in, then communicate that to your bosses.”

Dr. Scheurer believes choosing between clinical and administrative leadership is not so clear cut, because in the health care setting they tend to morph into each other. “Many times clinicians will end up taking on a leadership role that has a significant administrative component to it,” she said. “I do think if clinicians make a career move and get the right training then they can be exemplary leaders in health care, but I do worry a little about clinicians going into leadership roles without any formal training. They are usually well-intentioned but that’s not enough. It’s not any different than medical training. If you want to be a good leader you need training to develop your skills, and a lot of those skills do not come naturally or easily. We thrust good clinicians into leadership roles because they are good clinicians, but if they don’t have the right skills, being a leader can be a problem.”
 

How do leaders improve?

If you have made it to a leadership position, and have been in that role for a while, you might start to feel you are stuck in your growth trajectory. If so, how do you continue to improve?

According to Dr. Kennedy, whether you are looking to get into leadership or want to improve, focusing on emotional intelligence is important. “A book like Emotional Intelligence 2.0 by Travis Bradbury is a great introduction,” she said. “With my leadership team, we did a book club where we read Primal Leadership, which is focused on emotional intelligence and on aspects like setting a culture.”

Dr. Howell said that to grow as a leader, be careful what you say no to. “I used to talk about having a tag line that was ‘just say yes,’” he said. “At least try to say yes most of the time because it opens up opportunities and shows you are looking to do more, not less.”

Also, Dr. Howell recommends that leaders look for tools that minimize blind spots and get information from staff through survey assessments. “Get the input of others on your strengths and weaknesses,” he said. “Nurses, doctors, and sometimes patients can give you good information that will help you grow as a leader. Don’t be afraid of feedback.”
 

Never stop learning

Dr. Scheurer said it is important to recognize that you are never finished learning when you are a leader.

“See leadership as a continuous learning journey. You can never be too good of a leader in medicine,” she said. “Never stop learning, because the field keeps changing and you have to constantly learn and find pleasure in that learning. You should look at leadership the same way. A lot of leadership theories change with the times and you should always try to get good advice. You don’t take every piece of advice – just like in medicine when you read an article and you try to apply it to patients in your practice. Take some advice, leave some advice, and develop a leadership style that is genuine and authentic.”

Dr. Kennedy believes that a hospitalist’s leadership potential may be limited if you see continued learning as a chore, rather than an opportunity.

“If you resent it learning about leadership, then is it really for you?” she asked. “I find myself reading on the topic or talking about it, and it’s fun. How do you make an environment work better, how do you inspire people, how do you help them grow? These are some of the most important questions leaders face. Isn’t it fun if you can find some answers?”
 

Editor’s note: National Hospitalist Day occurs the first Thursday in March annually, and serves to celebrate the fastest growing specialty in modern medicine and hospitalists’ enduring contributions to the evolving health care landscape. On National Hospitalist Day in 2021, SHM convened a virtual roundtable with a diverse group of hospitalists to discuss skill set, wellness, and other key issues for hospitalists. To listen to the entire roundtable discussion, visit this Explore The Space podcast episode.

A hospitalist isn’t just a physician who happens to work in a hospital. They are medical professionals with a robust skill set that they use both inside and outside the hospital setting. But what skill sets do hospitalists need to become successful in their careers? And what skill sets does a “pluripotent” hospitalist need in their armamentarium?

These were the issues discussed by participants of a virtual roundtable discussion on National Hospitalist Day – March 4, 2021 – as part of a joint effort of the Society of Hospital Medicine and the Explore the Space podcast.

Maylyn S. Martinez, MD, clinician-researcher and clinical associate at the University of Chicago, sees her hospitalist and research skill sets as two “buckets” of skills she can sort through, with diagnostic, knowledge-based care coordination, and interpersonal skills as lanes where she can focus and improve. “I’m always trying to work in, and sharpen, and find ways to get better at something in each of those every day,” she said.

For Anika Kumar, MD, FHM, pediatric editor of the Hospitalist and clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, much of her work is focused on problem solving. “I approach that as: ‘How do I come up with my differential diagnosis, and how do I diagnose the patient?’ I think that the lanes are a little bit different, but there is some overlap.”

Adaptability is another important part of the skill set for the hospitalist, Ndidi Unaka, MD, MEd, associate professor in the division of hospital medicine at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, said during the discussion. “I think we all really value teamwork, and we take on the role of being the coordinator and making sure things are getting done in a seamless and thoughtful manner. Communicating with families, communicating with our research team, communicating with primary care physicians. I think that is something we’re very used to doing, and I think we do it well. I think we don’t shy away from difficult conversations with consultants. And I think that’s what makes being a hospitalist so amazing.”
 

Achieving wellness as a hospitalist

Another topic discussed during the roundtable was “comprehensive care for the hospitalist” and how they can achieve a sense of wellness for themselves. Gurpreet Dhaliwal, MD, clinician-educator and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said long-term satisfaction in one’s career is less about compensation and more about autonomy, mastery, and purpose.

“Autonomy is shrinking a little bit in health care. But if we connect to our purpose – ‘what are we doing here and how do we connect?’ – it’s either learning about patients and their stories, being with a team of people that you work with, that really builds that purpose,” he said.

Regarding mastery, there’s “tremendous joy if you’re in an environment where people value your mastery, whether it is working in a team or communicating or diagnosing or doing a procedure. If you think of setting up the work environment and those things are in place, I think a lot of wellness can actually happen at work, even though another component, of course, is balancing your life outside of work,” Dr. Dhaliwal said.

This may seem out of reach during COVID-19, but wellness is still achievable during the pandemic, Dr. Martinez said. Her time is spent 75% as a researcher and 25% as a clinician, which is her ideal balance. “I enjoy doing my research, doing my own statistics and writing grants and just learning about this problem that I’ve developed an interest in,” she said. “I just think that’s an important piece for people to focus on as far as health care for the hospitalist, is that there’s no no-one-size-fits-all, that’s for sure.”

Dr. Kumar noted that her clinical time gives her energy for nonclinical work. “I love my clinical time. It’s one of my favorite things that I do,” she said. Although she is tired at the end of the week, “I feel like I am not only giving back to my patients and my team, but I’m also giving back to myself and reminding myself why it is I do what I do every day,” she said.

Wellness for Dr. Unaka meant remembering what drew her to medicine. “It was definitely the opportunity to build strong relationships with patients and families,” she said. While these encounters can sometimes be heavy and stay with a hospitalist, “the fact that we’re in it with them is something that gives a lot of us purpose. I think that when I reflect on all of those things, I’m so happy that I’m in the role that I am.”
 

Unique skills during COVID-19

Mark Shapiro, MD, hospitalist and host of the roundtable and the Explore the Space podcast, also asked the panelists what skills they unexpectedly leveraged during the pandemic. Communication – with colleagues and with the community they serve – was a universal answer among the panelists.

“I learned – really from seeing some of our senior leaders here do it so well – the importance of being visible, particularly at a time when people were not together and more isolated,” Dr. Unaka said. “I think being able to be visible when you can, in order to deliver really complicated or tough news or communicate about uncertainty, for instance. Being here for our residents – many of our interns moved here sight unseen. I think they needed to feel like they had some sense of normalcy and a sense of community. I really learned how important it was to be visible, and available, and how important the little things mattered.”

Dr. Martinez said that worrying about her patients with COVID-19 in the hospital and the uncertainty around the disease kept her up at night. “I think we always have a hard time leaving work at work and getting a good night’s sleep. I just could not let go of worrying about these patients and having terrible insomnia, trying to leave work at work and I couldn’t – even after they were discharged.”

Dr. Shapiro said the skill he most needed to work on during the pandemic was his courage. “I remember the first time I took care of COVID patients. I was scared. I have no problems saying that out loud. That was a scary experience.”

The demeanor of the nurses on his unit, who had already seen patients with COVID-19, helped ground him during those moments and gave him the courage to move forward. “They’d already been doing it and they were the same. Same affect, same jokes, same everything,” he said. “That actually really helped, and I’ve leaned on that every time I’ve been back on our COVID service.”
 

Importance of mental health

The COVID-19 pandemic has also shined a light on the importance of mental health. “I think it is important to acknowledge that as hospitalists who have been out on the bleeding edge for a year, mental health is critically important, and we know that we face shortages in that space for the public at large and also for our profession,” Dr. Shapiro said.

When asked about what mental health and self-care looks like for her, Dr. Kumar referenced the need for exercise, meditation, and yoga. “My mental health was better knowing that the people closest to me – whether they be colleagues or friends or family – their mental health was also in a good place and they were also in a good place. And that helped to build me up,” she said.

Dr. Unaka called attention to the stigma around mental health, particularly among physicians, and the lack of resources to address the issue. “It’s a real problem,” she said. “I think it’s at a point where we as a profession need to advocate on behalf of each other and on behalf of our trainees. And honestly, I think we need to view mental health as just ‘health’ and stop separating it out in order for us to move to a place where people feel like they can access what they need without feeling shame about it.”
 

Editor’s note: National Hospitalist Day occurs the first Thursday in March annually, and serves to celebrate the fastest growing specialty in modern medicine and hospitalists’ enduring contributions to the evolving health care landscape. On National Hospitalist Day in 2021, SHM convened a virtual roundtable with a diverse group of hospitalists to discuss skill set, wellness, and other key issues for hospitalists. To listen to the entire roundtable discussion, visit this Explore The Space podcast episode.

A hospitalist isn’t just a physician who happens to work in a hospital. They are medical professionals with a robust skill set that they use both inside and outside the hospital setting. But what skill sets do hospitalists need to become successful in their careers? And what skill sets does a “pluripotent” hospitalist need in their armamentarium?

These were the issues discussed by participants of a virtual roundtable discussion on National Hospitalist Day – March 4, 2021 – as part of a joint effort of the Society of Hospital Medicine and the Explore the Space podcast.

Maylyn S. Martinez, MD, clinician-researcher and clinical associate at the University of Chicago, sees her hospitalist and research skill sets as two “buckets” of skills she can sort through, with diagnostic, knowledge-based care coordination, and interpersonal skills as lanes where she can focus and improve. “I’m always trying to work in, and sharpen, and find ways to get better at something in each of those every day,” she said.

For Anika Kumar, MD, FHM, pediatric editor of the Hospitalist and clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, much of her work is focused on problem solving. “I approach that as: ‘How do I come up with my differential diagnosis, and how do I diagnose the patient?’ I think that the lanes are a little bit different, but there is some overlap.”

Adaptability is another important part of the skill set for the hospitalist, Ndidi Unaka, MD, MEd, associate professor in the division of hospital medicine at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, said during the discussion. “I think we all really value teamwork, and we take on the role of being the coordinator and making sure things are getting done in a seamless and thoughtful manner. Communicating with families, communicating with our research team, communicating with primary care physicians. I think that is something we’re very used to doing, and I think we do it well. I think we don’t shy away from difficult conversations with consultants. And I think that’s what makes being a hospitalist so amazing.”
 

Achieving wellness as a hospitalist

Another topic discussed during the roundtable was “comprehensive care for the hospitalist” and how they can achieve a sense of wellness for themselves. Gurpreet Dhaliwal, MD, clinician-educator and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said long-term satisfaction in one’s career is less about compensation and more about autonomy, mastery, and purpose.

“Autonomy is shrinking a little bit in health care. But if we connect to our purpose – ‘what are we doing here and how do we connect?’ – it’s either learning about patients and their stories, being with a team of people that you work with, that really builds that purpose,” he said.

Regarding mastery, there’s “tremendous joy if you’re in an environment where people value your mastery, whether it is working in a team or communicating or diagnosing or doing a procedure. If you think of setting up the work environment and those things are in place, I think a lot of wellness can actually happen at work, even though another component, of course, is balancing your life outside of work,” Dr. Dhaliwal said.

This may seem out of reach during COVID-19, but wellness is still achievable during the pandemic, Dr. Martinez said. Her time is spent 75% as a researcher and 25% as a clinician, which is her ideal balance. “I enjoy doing my research, doing my own statistics and writing grants and just learning about this problem that I’ve developed an interest in,” she said. “I just think that’s an important piece for people to focus on as far as health care for the hospitalist, is that there’s no no-one-size-fits-all, that’s for sure.”

Dr. Kumar noted that her clinical time gives her energy for nonclinical work. “I love my clinical time. It’s one of my favorite things that I do,” she said. Although she is tired at the end of the week, “I feel like I am not only giving back to my patients and my team, but I’m also giving back to myself and reminding myself why it is I do what I do every day,” she said.

Wellness for Dr. Unaka meant remembering what drew her to medicine. “It was definitely the opportunity to build strong relationships with patients and families,” she said. While these encounters can sometimes be heavy and stay with a hospitalist, “the fact that we’re in it with them is something that gives a lot of us purpose. I think that when I reflect on all of those things, I’m so happy that I’m in the role that I am.”
 

Unique skills during COVID-19

Mark Shapiro, MD, hospitalist and host of the roundtable and the Explore the Space podcast, also asked the panelists what skills they unexpectedly leveraged during the pandemic. Communication – with colleagues and with the community they serve – was a universal answer among the panelists.

“I learned – really from seeing some of our senior leaders here do it so well – the importance of being visible, particularly at a time when people were not together and more isolated,” Dr. Unaka said. “I think being able to be visible when you can, in order to deliver really complicated or tough news or communicate about uncertainty, for instance. Being here for our residents – many of our interns moved here sight unseen. I think they needed to feel like they had some sense of normalcy and a sense of community. I really learned how important it was to be visible, and available, and how important the little things mattered.”

Dr. Martinez said that worrying about her patients with COVID-19 in the hospital and the uncertainty around the disease kept her up at night. “I think we always have a hard time leaving work at work and getting a good night’s sleep. I just could not let go of worrying about these patients and having terrible insomnia, trying to leave work at work and I couldn’t – even after they were discharged.”

Dr. Shapiro said the skill he most needed to work on during the pandemic was his courage. “I remember the first time I took care of COVID patients. I was scared. I have no problems saying that out loud. That was a scary experience.”

The demeanor of the nurses on his unit, who had already seen patients with COVID-19, helped ground him during those moments and gave him the courage to move forward. “They’d already been doing it and they were the same. Same affect, same jokes, same everything,” he said. “That actually really helped, and I’ve leaned on that every time I’ve been back on our COVID service.”
 

Importance of mental health

The COVID-19 pandemic has also shined a light on the importance of mental health. “I think it is important to acknowledge that as hospitalists who have been out on the bleeding edge for a year, mental health is critically important, and we know that we face shortages in that space for the public at large and also for our profession,” Dr. Shapiro said.

When asked about what mental health and self-care looks like for her, Dr. Kumar referenced the need for exercise, meditation, and yoga. “My mental health was better knowing that the people closest to me – whether they be colleagues or friends or family – their mental health was also in a good place and they were also in a good place. And that helped to build me up,” she said.

Dr. Unaka called attention to the stigma around mental health, particularly among physicians, and the lack of resources to address the issue. “It’s a real problem,” she said. “I think it’s at a point where we as a profession need to advocate on behalf of each other and on behalf of our trainees. And honestly, I think we need to view mental health as just ‘health’ and stop separating it out in order for us to move to a place where people feel like they can access what they need without feeling shame about it.”
 

Editor’s note: National Hospitalist Day occurs the first Thursday in March annually, and serves to celebrate the fastest growing specialty in modern medicine and hospitalists’ enduring contributions to the evolving health care landscape. On National Hospitalist Day in 2021, SHM convened a virtual roundtable with a diverse group of hospitalists to discuss skill set, wellness, and other key issues for hospitalists. To listen to the entire roundtable discussion, visit this Explore The Space podcast episode.

A hospitalist isn’t just a physician who happens to work in a hospital. They are medical professionals with a robust skill set that they use both inside and outside the hospital setting. But what skill sets do hospitalists need to become successful in their careers? And what skill sets does a “pluripotent” hospitalist need in their armamentarium?

These were the issues discussed by participants of a virtual roundtable discussion on National Hospitalist Day – March 4, 2021 – as part of a joint effort of the Society of Hospital Medicine and the Explore the Space podcast.

Maylyn S. Martinez, MD, clinician-researcher and clinical associate at the University of Chicago, sees her hospitalist and research skill sets as two “buckets” of skills she can sort through, with diagnostic, knowledge-based care coordination, and interpersonal skills as lanes where she can focus and improve. “I’m always trying to work in, and sharpen, and find ways to get better at something in each of those every day,” she said.

For Anika Kumar, MD, FHM, pediatric editor of the Hospitalist and clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, much of her work is focused on problem solving. “I approach that as: ‘How do I come up with my differential diagnosis, and how do I diagnose the patient?’ I think that the lanes are a little bit different, but there is some overlap.”

Adaptability is another important part of the skill set for the hospitalist, Ndidi Unaka, MD, MEd, associate professor in the division of hospital medicine at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, said during the discussion. “I think we all really value teamwork, and we take on the role of being the coordinator and making sure things are getting done in a seamless and thoughtful manner. Communicating with families, communicating with our research team, communicating with primary care physicians. I think that is something we’re very used to doing, and I think we do it well. I think we don’t shy away from difficult conversations with consultants. And I think that’s what makes being a hospitalist so amazing.”
 

Achieving wellness as a hospitalist

Another topic discussed during the roundtable was “comprehensive care for the hospitalist” and how they can achieve a sense of wellness for themselves. Gurpreet Dhaliwal, MD, clinician-educator and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said long-term satisfaction in one’s career is less about compensation and more about autonomy, mastery, and purpose.

“Autonomy is shrinking a little bit in health care. But if we connect to our purpose – ‘what are we doing here and how do we connect?’ – it’s either learning about patients and their stories, being with a team of people that you work with, that really builds that purpose,” he said.

Regarding mastery, there’s “tremendous joy if you’re in an environment where people value your mastery, whether it is working in a team or communicating or diagnosing or doing a procedure. If you think of setting up the work environment and those things are in place, I think a lot of wellness can actually happen at work, even though another component, of course, is balancing your life outside of work,” Dr. Dhaliwal said.

This may seem out of reach during COVID-19, but wellness is still achievable during the pandemic, Dr. Martinez said. Her time is spent 75% as a researcher and 25% as a clinician, which is her ideal balance. “I enjoy doing my research, doing my own statistics and writing grants and just learning about this problem that I’ve developed an interest in,” she said. “I just think that’s an important piece for people to focus on as far as health care for the hospitalist, is that there’s no no-one-size-fits-all, that’s for sure.”

Dr. Kumar noted that her clinical time gives her energy for nonclinical work. “I love my clinical time. It’s one of my favorite things that I do,” she said. Although she is tired at the end of the week, “I feel like I am not only giving back to my patients and my team, but I’m also giving back to myself and reminding myself why it is I do what I do every day,” she said.

Wellness for Dr. Unaka meant remembering what drew her to medicine. “It was definitely the opportunity to build strong relationships with patients and families,” she said. While these encounters can sometimes be heavy and stay with a hospitalist, “the fact that we’re in it with them is something that gives a lot of us purpose. I think that when I reflect on all of those things, I’m so happy that I’m in the role that I am.”
 

Unique skills during COVID-19

Mark Shapiro, MD, hospitalist and host of the roundtable and the Explore the Space podcast, also asked the panelists what skills they unexpectedly leveraged during the pandemic. Communication – with colleagues and with the community they serve – was a universal answer among the panelists.

“I learned – really from seeing some of our senior leaders here do it so well – the importance of being visible, particularly at a time when people were not together and more isolated,” Dr. Unaka said. “I think being able to be visible when you can, in order to deliver really complicated or tough news or communicate about uncertainty, for instance. Being here for our residents – many of our interns moved here sight unseen. I think they needed to feel like they had some sense of normalcy and a sense of community. I really learned how important it was to be visible, and available, and how important the little things mattered.”

Dr. Martinez said that worrying about her patients with COVID-19 in the hospital and the uncertainty around the disease kept her up at night. “I think we always have a hard time leaving work at work and getting a good night’s sleep. I just could not let go of worrying about these patients and having terrible insomnia, trying to leave work at work and I couldn’t – even after they were discharged.”

Dr. Shapiro said the skill he most needed to work on during the pandemic was his courage. “I remember the first time I took care of COVID patients. I was scared. I have no problems saying that out loud. That was a scary experience.”

The demeanor of the nurses on his unit, who had already seen patients with COVID-19, helped ground him during those moments and gave him the courage to move forward. “They’d already been doing it and they were the same. Same affect, same jokes, same everything,” he said. “That actually really helped, and I’ve leaned on that every time I’ve been back on our COVID service.”
 

Importance of mental health

The COVID-19 pandemic has also shined a light on the importance of mental health. “I think it is important to acknowledge that as hospitalists who have been out on the bleeding edge for a year, mental health is critically important, and we know that we face shortages in that space for the public at large and also for our profession,” Dr. Shapiro said.

When asked about what mental health and self-care looks like for her, Dr. Kumar referenced the need for exercise, meditation, and yoga. “My mental health was better knowing that the people closest to me – whether they be colleagues or friends or family – their mental health was also in a good place and they were also in a good place. And that helped to build me up,” she said.

Dr. Unaka called attention to the stigma around mental health, particularly among physicians, and the lack of resources to address the issue. “It’s a real problem,” she said. “I think it’s at a point where we as a profession need to advocate on behalf of each other and on behalf of our trainees. And honestly, I think we need to view mental health as just ‘health’ and stop separating it out in order for us to move to a place where people feel like they can access what they need without feeling shame about it.”
 

In a placebo-controlled randomized trial, a preprocedural dose of colchicine administered immediately before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for an acute ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) did not reduce the no-reflow phenomenon or improve outcomes.

No-reflow, in which insufficient myocardial perfusion is present even though the coronary artery appears patent, was the primary outcome, and the proportion of patients experiencing this event was exactly the same (14.4%) in the colchicine and placebo groups, reported Yaser Jenab, MD, at CRT 2021 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

The hypothesis that colchicine would offer benefit in this setting was largely based on the Colchicine Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial (COLCOT). In that study, colchicine was associated with a 23% reduction in risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) relative to placebo when administered within 30 days after a myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.77; P = .02).

The benefit in that trial was attributed to an anti-inflammatory effect, according to Dr. Jenab, associate professor of cardiology at Tehran (Iran) Heart Center. In particular as it relates to vascular disease, he cited experimental studies associating colchicine with a reduction in neutrophil activation and adherence to vascular endothelium.

The rationale for a preprocedural approach to colchicine was supplied by a subsequent time-to-treatment COLCOT analysis. In this study, MACE risk reduction for colchicine climbed to 48% (HR 0.52) for those treated within 3 days of the MI but largely disappeared (HR 0.96) if treatment was started at least 8 days post MI.
 

PodCAST-PCI trial

In the preprocedural study, called the PodCAST-PCI trial, 321 acute STEMI patients were randomized. Patients received a 1-mg dose of oral colchicine or placebo at the time PCI was scheduled. Another dose of colchicine (0.5 mg) or placebo was administered 1 hour after the procedure.

Of secondary outcomes, which included MACE at 1 month and 1 year, ST-segment resolution at 1 month, and change in inflammatory markers at 1 month, none were significant. Few even trended for significance.

For MACE, which included cardiac death, stroke, nonfatal MI, new hospitalization due to heart failure, or target vessel revascularization, the rates were lower in the colchicine group at 1 month (4.3% vs. 7.5%) and 1 year (9.3% vs. 11.2%), but neither approached significance.

For ST-segment resolution, the proportions were generally comparable among the colchicine and placebo groups, respectively, for the proportion below 50% (18.6% vs. 23.1%), between 50% and 70% (16.8% vs. 15.6%), and above 70% (64.6% vs. 61.3%).

The average troponin levels were nonsignificantly lower at 6 hours (1,847 vs. 2,883 ng/mL) in the colchicine group but higher at 48 hours (1,197 vs. 1,147 ng/mL). The average C-reactive protein (CRP) levels at 48 hours were nonsignificantly lower on colchicine (176.5 vs. 244.5 mg/L).

There were no significant differences in postprocedural perfusion, as measured with TIMI blood flow, or in the rate of stent thrombosis, which occurred in roughly 3% of each group of patients.

The small sample size was one limitation of this study, Dr. Jenab acknowledged. For this and other reasons, he cautioned that these data are not definitive and do not preclude a benefit on clinical outcomes in a study with a larger size, a different design, or different dosing.
 

Timing might be the issue

However, even if colchicine has a potential benefit in this setting, timing might be a major obstacle, according to Binata Shah, MD, associate director of research for the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory at New York University.

“We have learned from our rheumatology colleagues that peak plasma levels of colchicine are not achieved for at least 1 hour after the full loading dose,” Dr. Shah said. “With us moving so quickly in a primary PCI setting, it is hard to imagine that colchicine would have had time to really kick in and exert its anti-inflammatory effect.”

Indeed, the problem might be worse than reaching the peak plasma level.

“Even though peak plasma levels occur as early as 1 hour after a full loading dose, we see that it takes about 24 hours to really see the effects translate downstream into more systemic inflammatory markers such as CRP and interleukin-6,” she added. If lowering these signals of inflammation is predictive of benefit, than this might be the biggest obstacle to benefit from colchicine in an urgent treatment setting.

Dr. Jenab and Dr. Shah reported no potential conflicts of interest.

In a placebo-controlled randomized trial, a preprocedural dose of colchicine administered immediately before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for an acute ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) did not reduce the no-reflow phenomenon or improve outcomes.

No-reflow, in which insufficient myocardial perfusion is present even though the coronary artery appears patent, was the primary outcome, and the proportion of patients experiencing this event was exactly the same (14.4%) in the colchicine and placebo groups, reported Yaser Jenab, MD, at CRT 2021 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

The hypothesis that colchicine would offer benefit in this setting was largely based on the Colchicine Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial (COLCOT). In that study, colchicine was associated with a 23% reduction in risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) relative to placebo when administered within 30 days after a myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.77; P = .02).

The benefit in that trial was attributed to an anti-inflammatory effect, according to Dr. Jenab, associate professor of cardiology at Tehran (Iran) Heart Center. In particular as it relates to vascular disease, he cited experimental studies associating colchicine with a reduction in neutrophil activation and adherence to vascular endothelium.

The rationale for a preprocedural approach to colchicine was supplied by a subsequent time-to-treatment COLCOT analysis. In this study, MACE risk reduction for colchicine climbed to 48% (HR 0.52) for those treated within 3 days of the MI but largely disappeared (HR 0.96) if treatment was started at least 8 days post MI.
 

PodCAST-PCI trial

In the preprocedural study, called the PodCAST-PCI trial, 321 acute STEMI patients were randomized. Patients received a 1-mg dose of oral colchicine or placebo at the time PCI was scheduled. Another dose of colchicine (0.5 mg) or placebo was administered 1 hour after the procedure.

Of secondary outcomes, which included MACE at 1 month and 1 year, ST-segment resolution at 1 month, and change in inflammatory markers at 1 month, none were significant. Few even trended for significance.

For MACE, which included cardiac death, stroke, nonfatal MI, new hospitalization due to heart failure, or target vessel revascularization, the rates were lower in the colchicine group at 1 month (4.3% vs. 7.5%) and 1 year (9.3% vs. 11.2%), but neither approached significance.

For ST-segment resolution, the proportions were generally comparable among the colchicine and placebo groups, respectively, for the proportion below 50% (18.6% vs. 23.1%), between 50% and 70% (16.8% vs. 15.6%), and above 70% (64.6% vs. 61.3%).

The average troponin levels were nonsignificantly lower at 6 hours (1,847 vs. 2,883 ng/mL) in the colchicine group but higher at 48 hours (1,197 vs. 1,147 ng/mL). The average C-reactive protein (CRP) levels at 48 hours were nonsignificantly lower on colchicine (176.5 vs. 244.5 mg/L).

There were no significant differences in postprocedural perfusion, as measured with TIMI blood flow, or in the rate of stent thrombosis, which occurred in roughly 3% of each group of patients.

The small sample size was one limitation of this study, Dr. Jenab acknowledged. For this and other reasons, he cautioned that these data are not definitive and do not preclude a benefit on clinical outcomes in a study with a larger size, a different design, or different dosing.
 

Timing might be the issue

However, even if colchicine has a potential benefit in this setting, timing might be a major obstacle, according to Binata Shah, MD, associate director of research for the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory at New York University.

“We have learned from our rheumatology colleagues that peak plasma levels of colchicine are not achieved for at least 1 hour after the full loading dose,” Dr. Shah said. “With us moving so quickly in a primary PCI setting, it is hard to imagine that colchicine would have had time to really kick in and exert its anti-inflammatory effect.”

Indeed, the problem might be worse than reaching the peak plasma level.

“Even though peak plasma levels occur as early as 1 hour after a full loading dose, we see that it takes about 24 hours to really see the effects translate downstream into more systemic inflammatory markers such as CRP and interleukin-6,” she added. If lowering these signals of inflammation is predictive of benefit, than this might be the biggest obstacle to benefit from colchicine in an urgent treatment setting.

Dr. Jenab and Dr. Shah reported no potential conflicts of interest.

In a placebo-controlled randomized trial, a preprocedural dose of colchicine administered immediately before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for an acute ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) did not reduce the no-reflow phenomenon or improve outcomes.

No-reflow, in which insufficient myocardial perfusion is present even though the coronary artery appears patent, was the primary outcome, and the proportion of patients experiencing this event was exactly the same (14.4%) in the colchicine and placebo groups, reported Yaser Jenab, MD, at CRT 2021 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

The hypothesis that colchicine would offer benefit in this setting was largely based on the Colchicine Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial (COLCOT). In that study, colchicine was associated with a 23% reduction in risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) relative to placebo when administered within 30 days after a myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.77; P = .02).

The benefit in that trial was attributed to an anti-inflammatory effect, according to Dr. Jenab, associate professor of cardiology at Tehran (Iran) Heart Center. In particular as it relates to vascular disease, he cited experimental studies associating colchicine with a reduction in neutrophil activation and adherence to vascular endothelium.

The rationale for a preprocedural approach to colchicine was supplied by a subsequent time-to-treatment COLCOT analysis. In this study, MACE risk reduction for colchicine climbed to 48% (HR 0.52) for those treated within 3 days of the MI but largely disappeared (HR 0.96) if treatment was started at least 8 days post MI.
 

PodCAST-PCI trial

In the preprocedural study, called the PodCAST-PCI trial, 321 acute STEMI patients were randomized. Patients received a 1-mg dose of oral colchicine or placebo at the time PCI was scheduled. Another dose of colchicine (0.5 mg) or placebo was administered 1 hour after the procedure.

Of secondary outcomes, which included MACE at 1 month and 1 year, ST-segment resolution at 1 month, and change in inflammatory markers at 1 month, none were significant. Few even trended for significance.

For MACE, which included cardiac death, stroke, nonfatal MI, new hospitalization due to heart failure, or target vessel revascularization, the rates were lower in the colchicine group at 1 month (4.3% vs. 7.5%) and 1 year (9.3% vs. 11.2%), but neither approached significance.

For ST-segment resolution, the proportions were generally comparable among the colchicine and placebo groups, respectively, for the proportion below 50% (18.6% vs. 23.1%), between 50% and 70% (16.8% vs. 15.6%), and above 70% (64.6% vs. 61.3%).

The average troponin levels were nonsignificantly lower at 6 hours (1,847 vs. 2,883 ng/mL) in the colchicine group but higher at 48 hours (1,197 vs. 1,147 ng/mL). The average C-reactive protein (CRP) levels at 48 hours were nonsignificantly lower on colchicine (176.5 vs. 244.5 mg/L).

There were no significant differences in postprocedural perfusion, as measured with TIMI blood flow, or in the rate of stent thrombosis, which occurred in roughly 3% of each group of patients.

The small sample size was one limitation of this study, Dr. Jenab acknowledged. For this and other reasons, he cautioned that these data are not definitive and do not preclude a benefit on clinical outcomes in a study with a larger size, a different design, or different dosing.
 

Timing might be the issue

However, even if colchicine has a potential benefit in this setting, timing might be a major obstacle, according to Binata Shah, MD, associate director of research for the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory at New York University.

“We have learned from our rheumatology colleagues that peak plasma levels of colchicine are not achieved for at least 1 hour after the full loading dose,” Dr. Shah said. “With us moving so quickly in a primary PCI setting, it is hard to imagine that colchicine would have had time to really kick in and exert its anti-inflammatory effect.”

Indeed, the problem might be worse than reaching the peak plasma level.

“Even though peak plasma levels occur as early as 1 hour after a full loading dose, we see that it takes about 24 hours to really see the effects translate downstream into more systemic inflammatory markers such as CRP and interleukin-6,” she added. If lowering these signals of inflammation is predictive of benefit, than this might be the biggest obstacle to benefit from colchicine in an urgent treatment setting.

Dr. Jenab and Dr. Shah reported no potential conflicts of interest.