Dermatology News

Sarah Sofka, MD, FACP, noticed a pattern. As program director for the internal medicine (IM) residency at West Virginia University, Morgantown, she was informed when residents were sent to counseling because they were affected by burnout, depression, or anxiety. When trainees returned from these visits, many told her the same thing: They wished they had sought help sooner.

IM residents and their families had access to free counseling at WVU, but few used the resource, says Dr. Sofka. “So, we thought, let’s just schedule all of our residents for a therapy visit so they can go and see what it’s like,” she said. “This will hopefully decrease the stigma for seeking mental health care. If everybody’s going, it’s not a big deal.”

In July 2015, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues launched a universal well-being assessment program for the IM residents at WVU. The program leaders automatically scheduled first- and second-year residents for a visit to the faculty staff assistance program counselors. The visits were not mandatory, and residents could choose not to go; but if they did go, they received the entire day of their visit off from work.

Five and a half years after launching their program, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues conducted one of the first studies of the efficacy of an opt-out approach for resident mental wellness. They found that the program led to more counseling visits that were resident initiated and fewer that were mandated, suggesting that residents were seeking help proactively after having to at least consider it.

Opt-out counseling is a recent concept in residency programs – one that’s attracting interest from training programs across the country. Brown University, Providence, R.I.; the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; and the University of California, San Francisco have at least one residency program that uses the approach.

No time, no access, plenty of stigma

Burnout and mental health are known to be major concerns for health care workers, especially trainees. College graduates starting medical education have lower rates of burnout and depression, compared with demographically matched peers; however, once they’ve started training, medical students, residents, and fellows are more likely to be burned out and exhibit symptoms of depression. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is further fraying the well-being of overworked and traumatized health care professionals, and experts predict a mental health crisis will follow the viral crisis.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education recently mandated that programs offer wellness services to trainees. Yet this doesn’t mean they are always used; well-known barriers stand between residents, medical students, and physicians and their receiving effective mental health treatment.

“A lack of transparency and clear messaging around what is available, who provides the services, and how to access these services can be a major barrier,” says Erene Stergiopoulos, MD, a second-year psychiatry resident at the University of Toronto. In addition, there can be considerable lag between when a resident realizes they need help and when they manage to find a provider and schedule an appointment, says Dr. Meeks.

How the opt-out approach works

“The idea is by making it opt-out, you really normalize it,” says Maneesh Batra, MD, MPH, associate director of the University of Washington, Seattle, Children’s Hospital residency program. Similar approaches have proven effective at shaping human behavior in other health care settings, including boosting testing rates for HIV and increasing immunization rates for childhood vaccines, Dr. Batra says.

In general, opt-out programs acknowledge that people are busy and won’t take that extra step or click that extra button if they don’t have to, says Oana Tomescu, MD, PhD, associate professor of clinical medicine and pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

In 2018, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues at WVU conducted a survey that showed that a majority of residents thought favorably of their opt-out program and said they would return to counseling for follow-up care. In their most recent study, published in the Journal of Graduate Medical Education in 2021, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues found that residents did just that – only 8 of 239 opted out of universally scheduled visits. Resident-initiated visits increased significantly from zero during the 2014-2015 academic year to 23 in 2018-2019. Between those periods, program-mandated visits decreased significantly from 12 to 3.

The initiative has succeeded in creating a culture of openness and caring at WVU, says 2nd-year internal medicine resident Nistha Modi, MD. “It sets the tone for the program – we talk about mental health openly,” says Dr. Modi.

Crucially, the counselors work out of a different building than the hospital where Dr. Modi and her fellow residents work and use a separate electronic medical record system to protect resident privacy. This is hugely important for medical trainees, note Dr. Tomescu, Dr. Gold, and many other experts. The therapists understand residency and medical education, and there is no limit to the number of visits a resident or fellow can make with the program counselors, says Dr. Modi.

Opt-out programs offer a counterbalance to many negative tendencies in residency, says Dr. Meeks. “We’ve normalized so many things that are not healthy and productive. ... We need to counterbalance that with normalizing help seeking. And it’s really difficult to normalize something that’s not part of a system.”
 

Costs, concerns, and systematic support

Providing unlimited, free counseling for trainees can be very beneficial, but it requires adequate funding and personnel resources. Offering unlimited access means that an institution has to follow through in making this degree of care available while also ensuring that the system doesn’t get overwhelmed or is unable to accommodate very sick individuals, says Dr. Gold.

Another concern that experts like Dr. Batra, Dr. Moffit, and Dr. Gold share is that residents who go to their scheduled appointments may not completely buy into the experience because it wasn’t their idea in the first place. Participation alone doesn’t necessarily indicate full acceptance. Program personnel don’t intend for these appointments to be thought of as mandatory, yet residents may still experience them that way. Several leading resident well-being programs instead emphasize outreach to trainees, institutional support, and accessible mental health resources that are – and feel – entirely voluntary.

“If I tell someone that they have to do something, it’s very different than if they arrive at that conclusion for themselves,” says Dr. Batra. “That’s how life works.”

When it comes to cost, a recent study published in Academic Medicine provides encouraging data. At the University of Colorado, an opt-out pilot program for IM and pediatrics interns during the 2017-2018 academic year cost just $940 total, equal to $11.75 per intern. As in West Virginia, the program in Colorado covered the cost of the visit, interns were provided a half day off (whether they attended their appointment or not), and the visits and surveys were entirely optional and confidential. During the 1-year pilot program, 29% of 80 interns attended the scheduled appointment, 56% opted out in advance, and 15% didn’t show up. The majority of interns who were surveyed (85%), however, thought the program should continue and that it had a positive effect on their wellness even if they didn’t attend their appointment.

In West Virginia, program costs are higher. The program has $20,000 in annual funding to cover the opt-out program and unlimited counseling visits for residents and fellows. With that funding, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues were also able to expand the program slightly last year to schedule all the critical care faculty for counseling visits. Cost is a barrier to expanding these services to the entire institution, which Dr. Sofka says she hopes to do one day.

Research in this area is still preliminary. The WVU and Colorado studies provide some of the first evidence in support of an opt-out approach. Eventually, it would be beneficial for multicenter studies and longitudinal research to track the effects of such programs over time, say Dr. Sofka and Ajay Major, MD, MBA, one of the study’s coauthors and a hematology/oncology fellow at the University of Chicago.

Whether a program goes with an opt-out approach or not, the systematic supports – protecting resident privacy, providing flexible scheduling, and more – are crucial.

As Dr. Tomescu notes, wellness shouldn’t be just something trainees have to do. “The key with really working on burnout at a huge level is for all programs and schools to recognize that it’s a shared responsibility.”

“I felt very fortunate that I was able to get some help throughout residency,” says Dr. Modi. “About how to be a better daughter. How to be content with things I have in life. How to be happy, and grateful. With the kind of job we have, I think we sometimes forget to be grateful.”

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

Sarah Sofka, MD, FACP, noticed a pattern. As program director for the internal medicine (IM) residency at West Virginia University, Morgantown, she was informed when residents were sent to counseling because they were affected by burnout, depression, or anxiety. When trainees returned from these visits, many told her the same thing: They wished they had sought help sooner.

IM residents and their families had access to free counseling at WVU, but few used the resource, says Dr. Sofka. “So, we thought, let’s just schedule all of our residents for a therapy visit so they can go and see what it’s like,” she said. “This will hopefully decrease the stigma for seeking mental health care. If everybody’s going, it’s not a big deal.”

In July 2015, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues launched a universal well-being assessment program for the IM residents at WVU. The program leaders automatically scheduled first- and second-year residents for a visit to the faculty staff assistance program counselors. The visits were not mandatory, and residents could choose not to go; but if they did go, they received the entire day of their visit off from work.

Five and a half years after launching their program, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues conducted one of the first studies of the efficacy of an opt-out approach for resident mental wellness. They found that the program led to more counseling visits that were resident initiated and fewer that were mandated, suggesting that residents were seeking help proactively after having to at least consider it.

Opt-out counseling is a recent concept in residency programs – one that’s attracting interest from training programs across the country. Brown University, Providence, R.I.; the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; and the University of California, San Francisco have at least one residency program that uses the approach.

No time, no access, plenty of stigma

Burnout and mental health are known to be major concerns for health care workers, especially trainees. College graduates starting medical education have lower rates of burnout and depression, compared with demographically matched peers; however, once they’ve started training, medical students, residents, and fellows are more likely to be burned out and exhibit symptoms of depression. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is further fraying the well-being of overworked and traumatized health care professionals, and experts predict a mental health crisis will follow the viral crisis.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education recently mandated that programs offer wellness services to trainees. Yet this doesn’t mean they are always used; well-known barriers stand between residents, medical students, and physicians and their receiving effective mental health treatment.

“A lack of transparency and clear messaging around what is available, who provides the services, and how to access these services can be a major barrier,” says Erene Stergiopoulos, MD, a second-year psychiatry resident at the University of Toronto. In addition, there can be considerable lag between when a resident realizes they need help and when they manage to find a provider and schedule an appointment, says Dr. Meeks.

How the opt-out approach works

“The idea is by making it opt-out, you really normalize it,” says Maneesh Batra, MD, MPH, associate director of the University of Washington, Seattle, Children’s Hospital residency program. Similar approaches have proven effective at shaping human behavior in other health care settings, including boosting testing rates for HIV and increasing immunization rates for childhood vaccines, Dr. Batra says.

In general, opt-out programs acknowledge that people are busy and won’t take that extra step or click that extra button if they don’t have to, says Oana Tomescu, MD, PhD, associate professor of clinical medicine and pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

In 2018, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues at WVU conducted a survey that showed that a majority of residents thought favorably of their opt-out program and said they would return to counseling for follow-up care. In their most recent study, published in the Journal of Graduate Medical Education in 2021, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues found that residents did just that – only 8 of 239 opted out of universally scheduled visits. Resident-initiated visits increased significantly from zero during the 2014-2015 academic year to 23 in 2018-2019. Between those periods, program-mandated visits decreased significantly from 12 to 3.

The initiative has succeeded in creating a culture of openness and caring at WVU, says 2nd-year internal medicine resident Nistha Modi, MD. “It sets the tone for the program – we talk about mental health openly,” says Dr. Modi.

Crucially, the counselors work out of a different building than the hospital where Dr. Modi and her fellow residents work and use a separate electronic medical record system to protect resident privacy. This is hugely important for medical trainees, note Dr. Tomescu, Dr. Gold, and many other experts. The therapists understand residency and medical education, and there is no limit to the number of visits a resident or fellow can make with the program counselors, says Dr. Modi.

Opt-out programs offer a counterbalance to many negative tendencies in residency, says Dr. Meeks. “We’ve normalized so many things that are not healthy and productive. ... We need to counterbalance that with normalizing help seeking. And it’s really difficult to normalize something that’s not part of a system.”
 

Costs, concerns, and systematic support

Providing unlimited, free counseling for trainees can be very beneficial, but it requires adequate funding and personnel resources. Offering unlimited access means that an institution has to follow through in making this degree of care available while also ensuring that the system doesn’t get overwhelmed or is unable to accommodate very sick individuals, says Dr. Gold.

Another concern that experts like Dr. Batra, Dr. Moffit, and Dr. Gold share is that residents who go to their scheduled appointments may not completely buy into the experience because it wasn’t their idea in the first place. Participation alone doesn’t necessarily indicate full acceptance. Program personnel don’t intend for these appointments to be thought of as mandatory, yet residents may still experience them that way. Several leading resident well-being programs instead emphasize outreach to trainees, institutional support, and accessible mental health resources that are – and feel – entirely voluntary.

“If I tell someone that they have to do something, it’s very different than if they arrive at that conclusion for themselves,” says Dr. Batra. “That’s how life works.”

When it comes to cost, a recent study published in Academic Medicine provides encouraging data. At the University of Colorado, an opt-out pilot program for IM and pediatrics interns during the 2017-2018 academic year cost just $940 total, equal to $11.75 per intern. As in West Virginia, the program in Colorado covered the cost of the visit, interns were provided a half day off (whether they attended their appointment or not), and the visits and surveys were entirely optional and confidential. During the 1-year pilot program, 29% of 80 interns attended the scheduled appointment, 56% opted out in advance, and 15% didn’t show up. The majority of interns who were surveyed (85%), however, thought the program should continue and that it had a positive effect on their wellness even if they didn’t attend their appointment.

In West Virginia, program costs are higher. The program has $20,000 in annual funding to cover the opt-out program and unlimited counseling visits for residents and fellows. With that funding, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues were also able to expand the program slightly last year to schedule all the critical care faculty for counseling visits. Cost is a barrier to expanding these services to the entire institution, which Dr. Sofka says she hopes to do one day.

Research in this area is still preliminary. The WVU and Colorado studies provide some of the first evidence in support of an opt-out approach. Eventually, it would be beneficial for multicenter studies and longitudinal research to track the effects of such programs over time, say Dr. Sofka and Ajay Major, MD, MBA, one of the study’s coauthors and a hematology/oncology fellow at the University of Chicago.

Whether a program goes with an opt-out approach or not, the systematic supports – protecting resident privacy, providing flexible scheduling, and more – are crucial.

As Dr. Tomescu notes, wellness shouldn’t be just something trainees have to do. “The key with really working on burnout at a huge level is for all programs and schools to recognize that it’s a shared responsibility.”

“I felt very fortunate that I was able to get some help throughout residency,” says Dr. Modi. “About how to be a better daughter. How to be content with things I have in life. How to be happy, and grateful. With the kind of job we have, I think we sometimes forget to be grateful.”

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

Sarah Sofka, MD, FACP, noticed a pattern. As program director for the internal medicine (IM) residency at West Virginia University, Morgantown, she was informed when residents were sent to counseling because they were affected by burnout, depression, or anxiety. When trainees returned from these visits, many told her the same thing: They wished they had sought help sooner.

IM residents and their families had access to free counseling at WVU, but few used the resource, says Dr. Sofka. “So, we thought, let’s just schedule all of our residents for a therapy visit so they can go and see what it’s like,” she said. “This will hopefully decrease the stigma for seeking mental health care. If everybody’s going, it’s not a big deal.”

In July 2015, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues launched a universal well-being assessment program for the IM residents at WVU. The program leaders automatically scheduled first- and second-year residents for a visit to the faculty staff assistance program counselors. The visits were not mandatory, and residents could choose not to go; but if they did go, they received the entire day of their visit off from work.

Five and a half years after launching their program, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues conducted one of the first studies of the efficacy of an opt-out approach for resident mental wellness. They found that the program led to more counseling visits that were resident initiated and fewer that were mandated, suggesting that residents were seeking help proactively after having to at least consider it.

Opt-out counseling is a recent concept in residency programs – one that’s attracting interest from training programs across the country. Brown University, Providence, R.I.; the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; and the University of California, San Francisco have at least one residency program that uses the approach.

No time, no access, plenty of stigma

Burnout and mental health are known to be major concerns for health care workers, especially trainees. College graduates starting medical education have lower rates of burnout and depression, compared with demographically matched peers; however, once they’ve started training, medical students, residents, and fellows are more likely to be burned out and exhibit symptoms of depression. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is further fraying the well-being of overworked and traumatized health care professionals, and experts predict a mental health crisis will follow the viral crisis.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education recently mandated that programs offer wellness services to trainees. Yet this doesn’t mean they are always used; well-known barriers stand between residents, medical students, and physicians and their receiving effective mental health treatment.

“A lack of transparency and clear messaging around what is available, who provides the services, and how to access these services can be a major barrier,” says Erene Stergiopoulos, MD, a second-year psychiatry resident at the University of Toronto. In addition, there can be considerable lag between when a resident realizes they need help and when they manage to find a provider and schedule an appointment, says Dr. Meeks.

How the opt-out approach works

“The idea is by making it opt-out, you really normalize it,” says Maneesh Batra, MD, MPH, associate director of the University of Washington, Seattle, Children’s Hospital residency program. Similar approaches have proven effective at shaping human behavior in other health care settings, including boosting testing rates for HIV and increasing immunization rates for childhood vaccines, Dr. Batra says.

In general, opt-out programs acknowledge that people are busy and won’t take that extra step or click that extra button if they don’t have to, says Oana Tomescu, MD, PhD, associate professor of clinical medicine and pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

In 2018, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues at WVU conducted a survey that showed that a majority of residents thought favorably of their opt-out program and said they would return to counseling for follow-up care. In their most recent study, published in the Journal of Graduate Medical Education in 2021, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues found that residents did just that – only 8 of 239 opted out of universally scheduled visits. Resident-initiated visits increased significantly from zero during the 2014-2015 academic year to 23 in 2018-2019. Between those periods, program-mandated visits decreased significantly from 12 to 3.

The initiative has succeeded in creating a culture of openness and caring at WVU, says 2nd-year internal medicine resident Nistha Modi, MD. “It sets the tone for the program – we talk about mental health openly,” says Dr. Modi.

Crucially, the counselors work out of a different building than the hospital where Dr. Modi and her fellow residents work and use a separate electronic medical record system to protect resident privacy. This is hugely important for medical trainees, note Dr. Tomescu, Dr. Gold, and many other experts. The therapists understand residency and medical education, and there is no limit to the number of visits a resident or fellow can make with the program counselors, says Dr. Modi.

Opt-out programs offer a counterbalance to many negative tendencies in residency, says Dr. Meeks. “We’ve normalized so many things that are not healthy and productive. ... We need to counterbalance that with normalizing help seeking. And it’s really difficult to normalize something that’s not part of a system.”
 

Costs, concerns, and systematic support

Providing unlimited, free counseling for trainees can be very beneficial, but it requires adequate funding and personnel resources. Offering unlimited access means that an institution has to follow through in making this degree of care available while also ensuring that the system doesn’t get overwhelmed or is unable to accommodate very sick individuals, says Dr. Gold.

Another concern that experts like Dr. Batra, Dr. Moffit, and Dr. Gold share is that residents who go to their scheduled appointments may not completely buy into the experience because it wasn’t their idea in the first place. Participation alone doesn’t necessarily indicate full acceptance. Program personnel don’t intend for these appointments to be thought of as mandatory, yet residents may still experience them that way. Several leading resident well-being programs instead emphasize outreach to trainees, institutional support, and accessible mental health resources that are – and feel – entirely voluntary.

“If I tell someone that they have to do something, it’s very different than if they arrive at that conclusion for themselves,” says Dr. Batra. “That’s how life works.”

When it comes to cost, a recent study published in Academic Medicine provides encouraging data. At the University of Colorado, an opt-out pilot program for IM and pediatrics interns during the 2017-2018 academic year cost just $940 total, equal to $11.75 per intern. As in West Virginia, the program in Colorado covered the cost of the visit, interns were provided a half day off (whether they attended their appointment or not), and the visits and surveys were entirely optional and confidential. During the 1-year pilot program, 29% of 80 interns attended the scheduled appointment, 56% opted out in advance, and 15% didn’t show up. The majority of interns who were surveyed (85%), however, thought the program should continue and that it had a positive effect on their wellness even if they didn’t attend their appointment.

In West Virginia, program costs are higher. The program has $20,000 in annual funding to cover the opt-out program and unlimited counseling visits for residents and fellows. With that funding, Dr. Sofka and her colleagues were also able to expand the program slightly last year to schedule all the critical care faculty for counseling visits. Cost is a barrier to expanding these services to the entire institution, which Dr. Sofka says she hopes to do one day.

Research in this area is still preliminary. The WVU and Colorado studies provide some of the first evidence in support of an opt-out approach. Eventually, it would be beneficial for multicenter studies and longitudinal research to track the effects of such programs over time, say Dr. Sofka and Ajay Major, MD, MBA, one of the study’s coauthors and a hematology/oncology fellow at the University of Chicago.

Whether a program goes with an opt-out approach or not, the systematic supports – protecting resident privacy, providing flexible scheduling, and more – are crucial.

As Dr. Tomescu notes, wellness shouldn’t be just something trainees have to do. “The key with really working on burnout at a huge level is for all programs and schools to recognize that it’s a shared responsibility.”

“I felt very fortunate that I was able to get some help throughout residency,” says Dr. Modi. “About how to be a better daughter. How to be content with things I have in life. How to be happy, and grateful. With the kind of job we have, I think we sometimes forget to be grateful.”

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

Children with atopic dermatitis (AD) face a significantly greater risk of chronic school absenteeism compared with their peers with psoriasis and without AD or psoriasis.

In addition, parents of children with AD have significantly increased absenteeism from work compared with parents of children without AD.

Those are among key findings from a cross-sectional analysis of data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys (MEPS), reported by Brian T. Cheng and Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH. The results were published online March 1 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“Atopic dermatitis is a debilitating disease that profoundly impacts children and their ability to attend school,” the study’s senior author, Dr. Silverberg, director of clinical research in the department of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview. “This is clinically relevant because school absenteeism is a sign of poorly controlled disease and should prompt clinicians to step up their game and aim for tighter control of the child’s atopic dermatitis.”

In an effort to determine the burden and predictors of chronic school absenteeism in children with AD, Mr. Cheng, a medical student at Northwestern University, Chicago, and Dr. Silverberg conducted a cross-sectional retrospective analysis of 124,267 children, adolescents, and young adults between the ages of 3 and 22 years from the 2000-2015 MEPS, which are representative surveys of the U.S. noninstitutionalized population conducted by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. They used ICD-9 codes to determine a diagnosis of AD, psoriasis, and comorbidities; the primary outcome was chronic school absenteeism, defined as missing 15 or more days per year in the United States. MEPS also recorded the number of workdays that parents missed to care for their children or a relative.

The 124,267 individuals evaluated ranged in age between 3 and 22 years. Of these, 3,132 had AD and 200 had psoriasis. In the full cohort, chronic school absenteeism was higher among females, younger children, and those with lower household incomes, and public insurance.

Among children with AD, and those with psoriasis, 68% and 63% missed one or more day of school due to illness, respectively, while 4% in each group missed 15 days or more. Logistic regression analysis revealed that AD was associated with chronic absenteeism overall (adjusted odds ratio, 1.42), and with more severe disease (aOR, 1.33 for mild to moderate disease; aOR, 2.00 for severe disease).

On the other hand, the researchers did not observe any statistical difference in chronic absenteeism among children with versus those without psoriasis (aOR, 1.26).

The researchers also found that parents of children with versus parents of children without AD had a higher prevalence of absenteeism from work (an aOR of 1.28 among fathers, P = .009; and an aOR of 1.24 among mothers, P = .003).

In other findings, chronic absenteeism among children with AD was associated with poor/near poor/low income (aOR, 4.61) and comorbid disease (aOR, 3.35 for depression and aOR, 3.83 for asthma).

The investigators recommend that clinicians screen for and aim to reduce school absenteeism and parental work absenteeism in children with AD.

“I typically ask ‘Has (child’s name) missed any school because of their eczema?’ and follow-up with ‘What about from asthma or allergies?’ ” Dr. Silverberg said. “If the parent’s answer is yes to the first question, then I follow-up with more open-ended probing questions to understand why. Is it from all the doctor visits? Not sleeping well? Severe itch or pain? Poor sleep? Feeling sad or depressed? An answer of yes to each of these would prompt a potentially different treatment decision.”

The study received financial support from the Dermatology Foundation. The authors reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Children with atopic dermatitis (AD) face a significantly greater risk of chronic school absenteeism compared with their peers with psoriasis and without AD or psoriasis.

In addition, parents of children with AD have significantly increased absenteeism from work compared with parents of children without AD.

Those are among key findings from a cross-sectional analysis of data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys (MEPS), reported by Brian T. Cheng and Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH. The results were published online March 1 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“Atopic dermatitis is a debilitating disease that profoundly impacts children and their ability to attend school,” the study’s senior author, Dr. Silverberg, director of clinical research in the department of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview. “This is clinically relevant because school absenteeism is a sign of poorly controlled disease and should prompt clinicians to step up their game and aim for tighter control of the child’s atopic dermatitis.”

In an effort to determine the burden and predictors of chronic school absenteeism in children with AD, Mr. Cheng, a medical student at Northwestern University, Chicago, and Dr. Silverberg conducted a cross-sectional retrospective analysis of 124,267 children, adolescents, and young adults between the ages of 3 and 22 years from the 2000-2015 MEPS, which are representative surveys of the U.S. noninstitutionalized population conducted by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. They used ICD-9 codes to determine a diagnosis of AD, psoriasis, and comorbidities; the primary outcome was chronic school absenteeism, defined as missing 15 or more days per year in the United States. MEPS also recorded the number of workdays that parents missed to care for their children or a relative.

The 124,267 individuals evaluated ranged in age between 3 and 22 years. Of these, 3,132 had AD and 200 had psoriasis. In the full cohort, chronic school absenteeism was higher among females, younger children, and those with lower household incomes, and public insurance.

Among children with AD, and those with psoriasis, 68% and 63% missed one or more day of school due to illness, respectively, while 4% in each group missed 15 days or more. Logistic regression analysis revealed that AD was associated with chronic absenteeism overall (adjusted odds ratio, 1.42), and with more severe disease (aOR, 1.33 for mild to moderate disease; aOR, 2.00 for severe disease).

On the other hand, the researchers did not observe any statistical difference in chronic absenteeism among children with versus those without psoriasis (aOR, 1.26).

The researchers also found that parents of children with versus parents of children without AD had a higher prevalence of absenteeism from work (an aOR of 1.28 among fathers, P = .009; and an aOR of 1.24 among mothers, P = .003).

In other findings, chronic absenteeism among children with AD was associated with poor/near poor/low income (aOR, 4.61) and comorbid disease (aOR, 3.35 for depression and aOR, 3.83 for asthma).

The investigators recommend that clinicians screen for and aim to reduce school absenteeism and parental work absenteeism in children with AD.

“I typically ask ‘Has (child’s name) missed any school because of their eczema?’ and follow-up with ‘What about from asthma or allergies?’ ” Dr. Silverberg said. “If the parent’s answer is yes to the first question, then I follow-up with more open-ended probing questions to understand why. Is it from all the doctor visits? Not sleeping well? Severe itch or pain? Poor sleep? Feeling sad or depressed? An answer of yes to each of these would prompt a potentially different treatment decision.”

The study received financial support from the Dermatology Foundation. The authors reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Children with atopic dermatitis (AD) face a significantly greater risk of chronic school absenteeism compared with their peers with psoriasis and without AD or psoriasis.

In addition, parents of children with AD have significantly increased absenteeism from work compared with parents of children without AD.

Those are among key findings from a cross-sectional analysis of data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys (MEPS), reported by Brian T. Cheng and Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH. The results were published online March 1 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“Atopic dermatitis is a debilitating disease that profoundly impacts children and their ability to attend school,” the study’s senior author, Dr. Silverberg, director of clinical research in the department of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview. “This is clinically relevant because school absenteeism is a sign of poorly controlled disease and should prompt clinicians to step up their game and aim for tighter control of the child’s atopic dermatitis.”

In an effort to determine the burden and predictors of chronic school absenteeism in children with AD, Mr. Cheng, a medical student at Northwestern University, Chicago, and Dr. Silverberg conducted a cross-sectional retrospective analysis of 124,267 children, adolescents, and young adults between the ages of 3 and 22 years from the 2000-2015 MEPS, which are representative surveys of the U.S. noninstitutionalized population conducted by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. They used ICD-9 codes to determine a diagnosis of AD, psoriasis, and comorbidities; the primary outcome was chronic school absenteeism, defined as missing 15 or more days per year in the United States. MEPS also recorded the number of workdays that parents missed to care for their children or a relative.

The 124,267 individuals evaluated ranged in age between 3 and 22 years. Of these, 3,132 had AD and 200 had psoriasis. In the full cohort, chronic school absenteeism was higher among females, younger children, and those with lower household incomes, and public insurance.

Among children with AD, and those with psoriasis, 68% and 63% missed one or more day of school due to illness, respectively, while 4% in each group missed 15 days or more. Logistic regression analysis revealed that AD was associated with chronic absenteeism overall (adjusted odds ratio, 1.42), and with more severe disease (aOR, 1.33 for mild to moderate disease; aOR, 2.00 for severe disease).

On the other hand, the researchers did not observe any statistical difference in chronic absenteeism among children with versus those without psoriasis (aOR, 1.26).

The researchers also found that parents of children with versus parents of children without AD had a higher prevalence of absenteeism from work (an aOR of 1.28 among fathers, P = .009; and an aOR of 1.24 among mothers, P = .003).

In other findings, chronic absenteeism among children with AD was associated with poor/near poor/low income (aOR, 4.61) and comorbid disease (aOR, 3.35 for depression and aOR, 3.83 for asthma).

The investigators recommend that clinicians screen for and aim to reduce school absenteeism and parental work absenteeism in children with AD.

“I typically ask ‘Has (child’s name) missed any school because of their eczema?’ and follow-up with ‘What about from asthma or allergies?’ ” Dr. Silverberg said. “If the parent’s answer is yes to the first question, then I follow-up with more open-ended probing questions to understand why. Is it from all the doctor visits? Not sleeping well? Severe itch or pain? Poor sleep? Feeling sad or depressed? An answer of yes to each of these would prompt a potentially different treatment decision.”

The study received financial support from the Dermatology Foundation. The authors reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

The numbers are in to back up two policies designed to restrict the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) found that when states lifted restrictions on dining on premises at restaurants, rates of daily COVID-19 cases jumped 41-100 days later. COVID-19-related deaths also increased significantly after 60 days.

On the other hand, the same report demonstrates that state mask mandates slowed the spread of SARS-CoV-2 within a few weeks.

The study was published online March 5 in the CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The investigators did not distinguish between outdoor and indoor restaurant dining. But they did compare COVID-19 case and death rates before and after most states banned restaurants from serving patrons on-premises in March and April 2020.

They found, for example, that COVID-19 daily cases increased by 0.9% at 41-60 days after on-premise dining was permitted. Similarly, rates jumped by 1.2% at 61-80 days, and 1.1% at 81-100 days after the restaurant restrictions were lifted. 

The differences were statistically significant, with P values of .02, <.01, and .04, respectively.

COVID-19–related death rates did not increase significantly at first – but did jump 2.2% between 61 and 80 days after the return of on-premises dining, for example. Deaths also increased by 3% at 81-100 days.

Both these differences were statistically significant (P < .01).

This is not the first report where the CDC announced reservations about in-person dining. In September 2020, CDC investigators implicated the inability to wear a mask while eating and drinking as likely contributing to the heightened risk.
 

Masks make a difference

The CDC report also provided more evidence to back mask-wearing policies for public spaces. Between March 1 and Dec. 31, 2020, 74% of U.S. counties issued mask mandates.

Investigators found that these policies had a more immediate effect, reducing daily COVID-19 cases by 0.5% in the first 20 days. Mask mandates likewise were linked to daily cases dropping 1.1% between 21 and 40 days, 1.5% between 41 and 60 days, 1.7% between 61 and 80 days, and 1.8% between 81 and 100 days.

These decreases in daily COVID-19 cases were statistically significant (P < .01) compared with a reference period before March 1, 2020.

The CDC also linked mask mandates to lower mortality. For example, these state policies were associated with 0.7% fewer deaths at 1-20 days post implementation. The effect increased thereafter – 1.0% drop at 21-40 days, 1.4% decrease at 41-60 days, 1.6% drop between 61 and 80 days, and 1.9% fewer deaths between 81 and 100 days.

The decrease in deaths was statistically significant at 1-20 days after the mask mandate (P = .03), as well as during the other periods (each P < .01) compared with the reference period.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, reacted to the new findings at a White House press briefing. She cited how increases in COVID-19 cases and death rates “slowed significantly within 20 days of putting mask mandates into place. This is why I’m asking you to double down on prevention measures.

“We have seen this movie before,” Dr. Walensky added. “When prevention measures like mask-wearing mandates are lifted, cases go up.”

Recently, multiple states have announced plans to roll back restrictions related to the pandemic, including mask mandates, which prompted warnings from some public health officials.

These are not the first CDC data to show that mask mandates make a difference.

In February 2021, for example, the agency pointed out that state-wide mask mandates reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations by 5.5% among adults 18-64 years old within 3 weeks of implementation.

Restrictions regarding on-premises restaurant dining and implementation of state-wide mask mandates are two tactics within a more comprehensive CDC strategy to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. The researchers note that “such efforts are increasingly important given the emergence of highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants in the United States.”

The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The numbers are in to back up two policies designed to restrict the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) found that when states lifted restrictions on dining on premises at restaurants, rates of daily COVID-19 cases jumped 41-100 days later. COVID-19-related deaths also increased significantly after 60 days.

On the other hand, the same report demonstrates that state mask mandates slowed the spread of SARS-CoV-2 within a few weeks.

The study was published online March 5 in the CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The investigators did not distinguish between outdoor and indoor restaurant dining. But they did compare COVID-19 case and death rates before and after most states banned restaurants from serving patrons on-premises in March and April 2020.

They found, for example, that COVID-19 daily cases increased by 0.9% at 41-60 days after on-premise dining was permitted. Similarly, rates jumped by 1.2% at 61-80 days, and 1.1% at 81-100 days after the restaurant restrictions were lifted. 

The differences were statistically significant, with P values of .02, <.01, and .04, respectively.

COVID-19–related death rates did not increase significantly at first – but did jump 2.2% between 61 and 80 days after the return of on-premises dining, for example. Deaths also increased by 3% at 81-100 days.

Both these differences were statistically significant (P < .01).

This is not the first report where the CDC announced reservations about in-person dining. In September 2020, CDC investigators implicated the inability to wear a mask while eating and drinking as likely contributing to the heightened risk.
 

Masks make a difference

The CDC report also provided more evidence to back mask-wearing policies for public spaces. Between March 1 and Dec. 31, 2020, 74% of U.S. counties issued mask mandates.

Investigators found that these policies had a more immediate effect, reducing daily COVID-19 cases by 0.5% in the first 20 days. Mask mandates likewise were linked to daily cases dropping 1.1% between 21 and 40 days, 1.5% between 41 and 60 days, 1.7% between 61 and 80 days, and 1.8% between 81 and 100 days.

These decreases in daily COVID-19 cases were statistically significant (P < .01) compared with a reference period before March 1, 2020.

The CDC also linked mask mandates to lower mortality. For example, these state policies were associated with 0.7% fewer deaths at 1-20 days post implementation. The effect increased thereafter – 1.0% drop at 21-40 days, 1.4% decrease at 41-60 days, 1.6% drop between 61 and 80 days, and 1.9% fewer deaths between 81 and 100 days.

The decrease in deaths was statistically significant at 1-20 days after the mask mandate (P = .03), as well as during the other periods (each P < .01) compared with the reference period.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, reacted to the new findings at a White House press briefing. She cited how increases in COVID-19 cases and death rates “slowed significantly within 20 days of putting mask mandates into place. This is why I’m asking you to double down on prevention measures.

“We have seen this movie before,” Dr. Walensky added. “When prevention measures like mask-wearing mandates are lifted, cases go up.”

Recently, multiple states have announced plans to roll back restrictions related to the pandemic, including mask mandates, which prompted warnings from some public health officials.

These are not the first CDC data to show that mask mandates make a difference.

In February 2021, for example, the agency pointed out that state-wide mask mandates reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations by 5.5% among adults 18-64 years old within 3 weeks of implementation.

Restrictions regarding on-premises restaurant dining and implementation of state-wide mask mandates are two tactics within a more comprehensive CDC strategy to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. The researchers note that “such efforts are increasingly important given the emergence of highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants in the United States.”

The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The numbers are in to back up two policies designed to restrict the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) found that when states lifted restrictions on dining on premises at restaurants, rates of daily COVID-19 cases jumped 41-100 days later. COVID-19-related deaths also increased significantly after 60 days.

On the other hand, the same report demonstrates that state mask mandates slowed the spread of SARS-CoV-2 within a few weeks.

The study was published online March 5 in the CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The investigators did not distinguish between outdoor and indoor restaurant dining. But they did compare COVID-19 case and death rates before and after most states banned restaurants from serving patrons on-premises in March and April 2020.

They found, for example, that COVID-19 daily cases increased by 0.9% at 41-60 days after on-premise dining was permitted. Similarly, rates jumped by 1.2% at 61-80 days, and 1.1% at 81-100 days after the restaurant restrictions were lifted. 

The differences were statistically significant, with P values of .02, <.01, and .04, respectively.

COVID-19–related death rates did not increase significantly at first – but did jump 2.2% between 61 and 80 days after the return of on-premises dining, for example. Deaths also increased by 3% at 81-100 days.

Both these differences were statistically significant (P < .01).

This is not the first report where the CDC announced reservations about in-person dining. In September 2020, CDC investigators implicated the inability to wear a mask while eating and drinking as likely contributing to the heightened risk.
 

Masks make a difference

The CDC report also provided more evidence to back mask-wearing policies for public spaces. Between March 1 and Dec. 31, 2020, 74% of U.S. counties issued mask mandates.

Investigators found that these policies had a more immediate effect, reducing daily COVID-19 cases by 0.5% in the first 20 days. Mask mandates likewise were linked to daily cases dropping 1.1% between 21 and 40 days, 1.5% between 41 and 60 days, 1.7% between 61 and 80 days, and 1.8% between 81 and 100 days.

These decreases in daily COVID-19 cases were statistically significant (P < .01) compared with a reference period before March 1, 2020.

The CDC also linked mask mandates to lower mortality. For example, these state policies were associated with 0.7% fewer deaths at 1-20 days post implementation. The effect increased thereafter – 1.0% drop at 21-40 days, 1.4% decrease at 41-60 days, 1.6% drop between 61 and 80 days, and 1.9% fewer deaths between 81 and 100 days.

The decrease in deaths was statistically significant at 1-20 days after the mask mandate (P = .03), as well as during the other periods (each P < .01) compared with the reference period.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, reacted to the new findings at a White House press briefing. She cited how increases in COVID-19 cases and death rates “slowed significantly within 20 days of putting mask mandates into place. This is why I’m asking you to double down on prevention measures.

“We have seen this movie before,” Dr. Walensky added. “When prevention measures like mask-wearing mandates are lifted, cases go up.”

Recently, multiple states have announced plans to roll back restrictions related to the pandemic, including mask mandates, which prompted warnings from some public health officials.

These are not the first CDC data to show that mask mandates make a difference.

In February 2021, for example, the agency pointed out that state-wide mask mandates reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations by 5.5% among adults 18-64 years old within 3 weeks of implementation.

Restrictions regarding on-premises restaurant dining and implementation of state-wide mask mandates are two tactics within a more comprehensive CDC strategy to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. The researchers note that “such efforts are increasingly important given the emergence of highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants in the United States.”

The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A bidirectional relationship between sleep and immunity helps explain why patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) often complain of difficulty sleeping.

Courtesy Dr. Phyllis C. Zee

According to Phyllis C. Zee, MD, PhD, proinflammatory cytokines influence neural processes that affect sleep and circadian rhythm. “It’s almost like when you’re most vulnerable, when you’re sleeping, the immune system is kind of poised for attack,” Dr. Zee, chief of the division of sleep medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, said at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium. “This is normal, and perhaps in some of these inflammatory disorders, it’s gone a little haywire.”

Circulation of interleukins and cytokines are high in the morning, become lower in the afternoon, and then get higher again in the evening hours and into the night during sleep, she continued. “Whereas if you look at something like blood flow, it increases on a diurnal basis,” she said. “It’s higher during the day and a little bit lower during the mid-day, and a little bit higher during the evening. That parallels changes in the sebum production of the skin and the transepidermal water loss, which has been implicated in some of the symptoms of AD. What’s curious about this is that the transdermal/epidermal water loss is really highest during the sleep period. Some of this is sleep gated, but some of this is circadian gated as well. There’s a bidirectional relationship between sleep and immunity.”

Disturbance of sleep can have multiple consequences. It can activate the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis through autonomic activation, increase brain metabolic activity, trigger mood disturbances and cognitive impairment, and cause daytime sleepiness and health consequences that affect cardiometabolic and immunologic health.

One study conducted by Anna B. Fishbein, MD, Dr. Zee, and colleagues at Northwestern examined the effects of sleep duration and sleep disruption and movements in 38 children with and without moderate to severe AD. It found that children with AD get about 1 hour less of sleep per night overall, compared with age-matched healthy controls. “It’s not so much difficulty falling asleep, but more difficulty staying asleep as determined by wake after sleep onset,” said Dr. Zee, who is also a professor of neurology at Northwestern.

Tab1962/iStockphoto.com

A study of 34,613 adults who participated in the 2012 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found that eczema increased the odds of fatigue (odds ratio, 2.97), daytime sleepiness (OR, 2.66), and regular insomnia (OR, 2.36).

“Very importantly, it predicted poor health,” said Dr. Zee, who was one of the study’s coauthors. “This gives us an opportunity to think about how we can improve sleep to improve outcomes.”

Dr. Zee advises dermatologists and primary care clinicians to ask patients with AD about their sleep health by using a screening tool such as the self-reported STOP questionnaire, which consists of the following questions: “Do you snore loudly?” “Do you often feel tired, fatigued, or sleepy during daytime?” “Has anyone observed you stop breathing during your sleep?” “Do you have or are you being treated for high blood pressure?”

Other clinical indicators of a sleep disorder, such as obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), include having a neck circumference of 17 inches or greater in men and 16 inches or greater in women. “You want to also do a brief upper-airway examination, the Mallampati classification where you say to the patient, ‘open your mouth, don’t stick your mouth out too much,’ and you look at how crowded the upper airway is,” Dr. Zee said . “Someone with a Mallampati score of 3 has a very high risk of having sleep apnea.”

She also recommends asking patients with AD if they have difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep 3 or more nights per week, and about the frequency and duration of awakenings. “Maybe they have insomnia as a disorder,” she said. “If they have trouble falling asleep, maybe they have a circadian rhythm disorder. You want to ask about snoring, choking, and stop breathing episodes, because those are symptoms of sleep apnea. You want to ask about itch, uncomfortable sensations in the limbs during sleep or while trying to get to sleep, because that may be something like restless legs syndrome. Sleep disorder assessment is important because it impair daytime function, cognition, attention, and disruptive behavior, especially in children.”

For the management of insomnia, try behavioral approaches first. “You don’t want to try medications from the get-go,” Dr. Zee advised. Techniques include sleep hygiene and stimulus control therapy, “to make the bedroom a safe place to sleep. Lower the temperature a little bit and get rid of the allergens as much as possible. Relaxation and cognitive-behavioral therapy can also help. If you get a lot of light during the day, structure your physical activity, and watch what and when you eat.”

An OSA diagnosis requires evaluation of objective information from a sleep study. Common treatments of mild to moderate OSA include nasal continuous positive airway pressure and oral appliances.

Dr. Zee disclosed that she had received research funding from the National Institutes of Health, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Harmony and Apnimed. She also serves on the scientific advisory board of Eisai, Jazz, CVS-Caremark, Takeda, and Sanofi-Aventis, and holds stock in Teva.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

A bidirectional relationship between sleep and immunity helps explain why patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) often complain of difficulty sleeping.

Courtesy Dr. Phyllis C. Zee

According to Phyllis C. Zee, MD, PhD, proinflammatory cytokines influence neural processes that affect sleep and circadian rhythm. “It’s almost like when you’re most vulnerable, when you’re sleeping, the immune system is kind of poised for attack,” Dr. Zee, chief of the division of sleep medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, said at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium. “This is normal, and perhaps in some of these inflammatory disorders, it’s gone a little haywire.”

Circulation of interleukins and cytokines are high in the morning, become lower in the afternoon, and then get higher again in the evening hours and into the night during sleep, she continued. “Whereas if you look at something like blood flow, it increases on a diurnal basis,” she said. “It’s higher during the day and a little bit lower during the mid-day, and a little bit higher during the evening. That parallels changes in the sebum production of the skin and the transepidermal water loss, which has been implicated in some of the symptoms of AD. What’s curious about this is that the transdermal/epidermal water loss is really highest during the sleep period. Some of this is sleep gated, but some of this is circadian gated as well. There’s a bidirectional relationship between sleep and immunity.”

Disturbance of sleep can have multiple consequences. It can activate the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis through autonomic activation, increase brain metabolic activity, trigger mood disturbances and cognitive impairment, and cause daytime sleepiness and health consequences that affect cardiometabolic and immunologic health.

One study conducted by Anna B. Fishbein, MD, Dr. Zee, and colleagues at Northwestern examined the effects of sleep duration and sleep disruption and movements in 38 children with and without moderate to severe AD. It found that children with AD get about 1 hour less of sleep per night overall, compared with age-matched healthy controls. “It’s not so much difficulty falling asleep, but more difficulty staying asleep as determined by wake after sleep onset,” said Dr. Zee, who is also a professor of neurology at Northwestern.

Tab1962/iStockphoto.com

A study of 34,613 adults who participated in the 2012 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found that eczema increased the odds of fatigue (odds ratio, 2.97), daytime sleepiness (OR, 2.66), and regular insomnia (OR, 2.36).

“Very importantly, it predicted poor health,” said Dr. Zee, who was one of the study’s coauthors. “This gives us an opportunity to think about how we can improve sleep to improve outcomes.”

Dr. Zee advises dermatologists and primary care clinicians to ask patients with AD about their sleep health by using a screening tool such as the self-reported STOP questionnaire, which consists of the following questions: “Do you snore loudly?” “Do you often feel tired, fatigued, or sleepy during daytime?” “Has anyone observed you stop breathing during your sleep?” “Do you have or are you being treated for high blood pressure?”

Other clinical indicators of a sleep disorder, such as obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), include having a neck circumference of 17 inches or greater in men and 16 inches or greater in women. “You want to also do a brief upper-airway examination, the Mallampati classification where you say to the patient, ‘open your mouth, don’t stick your mouth out too much,’ and you look at how crowded the upper airway is,” Dr. Zee said . “Someone with a Mallampati score of 3 has a very high risk of having sleep apnea.”

She also recommends asking patients with AD if they have difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep 3 or more nights per week, and about the frequency and duration of awakenings. “Maybe they have insomnia as a disorder,” she said. “If they have trouble falling asleep, maybe they have a circadian rhythm disorder. You want to ask about snoring, choking, and stop breathing episodes, because those are symptoms of sleep apnea. You want to ask about itch, uncomfortable sensations in the limbs during sleep or while trying to get to sleep, because that may be something like restless legs syndrome. Sleep disorder assessment is important because it impair daytime function, cognition, attention, and disruptive behavior, especially in children.”

For the management of insomnia, try behavioral approaches first. “You don’t want to try medications from the get-go,” Dr. Zee advised. Techniques include sleep hygiene and stimulus control therapy, “to make the bedroom a safe place to sleep. Lower the temperature a little bit and get rid of the allergens as much as possible. Relaxation and cognitive-behavioral therapy can also help. If you get a lot of light during the day, structure your physical activity, and watch what and when you eat.”

An OSA diagnosis requires evaluation of objective information from a sleep study. Common treatments of mild to moderate OSA include nasal continuous positive airway pressure and oral appliances.

Dr. Zee disclosed that she had received research funding from the National Institutes of Health, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Harmony and Apnimed. She also serves on the scientific advisory board of Eisai, Jazz, CVS-Caremark, Takeda, and Sanofi-Aventis, and holds stock in Teva.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

A bidirectional relationship between sleep and immunity helps explain why patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) often complain of difficulty sleeping.

Courtesy Dr. Phyllis C. Zee

According to Phyllis C. Zee, MD, PhD, proinflammatory cytokines influence neural processes that affect sleep and circadian rhythm. “It’s almost like when you’re most vulnerable, when you’re sleeping, the immune system is kind of poised for attack,” Dr. Zee, chief of the division of sleep medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, said at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium. “This is normal, and perhaps in some of these inflammatory disorders, it’s gone a little haywire.”

Circulation of interleukins and cytokines are high in the morning, become lower in the afternoon, and then get higher again in the evening hours and into the night during sleep, she continued. “Whereas if you look at something like blood flow, it increases on a diurnal basis,” she said. “It’s higher during the day and a little bit lower during the mid-day, and a little bit higher during the evening. That parallels changes in the sebum production of the skin and the transepidermal water loss, which has been implicated in some of the symptoms of AD. What’s curious about this is that the transdermal/epidermal water loss is really highest during the sleep period. Some of this is sleep gated, but some of this is circadian gated as well. There’s a bidirectional relationship between sleep and immunity.”

Disturbance of sleep can have multiple consequences. It can activate the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis through autonomic activation, increase brain metabolic activity, trigger mood disturbances and cognitive impairment, and cause daytime sleepiness and health consequences that affect cardiometabolic and immunologic health.

One study conducted by Anna B. Fishbein, MD, Dr. Zee, and colleagues at Northwestern examined the effects of sleep duration and sleep disruption and movements in 38 children with and without moderate to severe AD. It found that children with AD get about 1 hour less of sleep per night overall, compared with age-matched healthy controls. “It’s not so much difficulty falling asleep, but more difficulty staying asleep as determined by wake after sleep onset,” said Dr. Zee, who is also a professor of neurology at Northwestern.

Tab1962/iStockphoto.com

A study of 34,613 adults who participated in the 2012 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found that eczema increased the odds of fatigue (odds ratio, 2.97), daytime sleepiness (OR, 2.66), and regular insomnia (OR, 2.36).

“Very importantly, it predicted poor health,” said Dr. Zee, who was one of the study’s coauthors. “This gives us an opportunity to think about how we can improve sleep to improve outcomes.”

Dr. Zee advises dermatologists and primary care clinicians to ask patients with AD about their sleep health by using a screening tool such as the self-reported STOP questionnaire, which consists of the following questions: “Do you snore loudly?” “Do you often feel tired, fatigued, or sleepy during daytime?” “Has anyone observed you stop breathing during your sleep?” “Do you have or are you being treated for high blood pressure?”

Other clinical indicators of a sleep disorder, such as obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), include having a neck circumference of 17 inches or greater in men and 16 inches or greater in women. “You want to also do a brief upper-airway examination, the Mallampati classification where you say to the patient, ‘open your mouth, don’t stick your mouth out too much,’ and you look at how crowded the upper airway is,” Dr. Zee said . “Someone with a Mallampati score of 3 has a very high risk of having sleep apnea.”

She also recommends asking patients with AD if they have difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep 3 or more nights per week, and about the frequency and duration of awakenings. “Maybe they have insomnia as a disorder,” she said. “If they have trouble falling asleep, maybe they have a circadian rhythm disorder. You want to ask about snoring, choking, and stop breathing episodes, because those are symptoms of sleep apnea. You want to ask about itch, uncomfortable sensations in the limbs during sleep or while trying to get to sleep, because that may be something like restless legs syndrome. Sleep disorder assessment is important because it impair daytime function, cognition, attention, and disruptive behavior, especially in children.”

For the management of insomnia, try behavioral approaches first. “You don’t want to try medications from the get-go,” Dr. Zee advised. Techniques include sleep hygiene and stimulus control therapy, “to make the bedroom a safe place to sleep. Lower the temperature a little bit and get rid of the allergens as much as possible. Relaxation and cognitive-behavioral therapy can also help. If you get a lot of light during the day, structure your physical activity, and watch what and when you eat.”

An OSA diagnosis requires evaluation of objective information from a sleep study. Common treatments of mild to moderate OSA include nasal continuous positive airway pressure and oral appliances.

Dr. Zee disclosed that she had received research funding from the National Institutes of Health, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Harmony and Apnimed. She also serves on the scientific advisory board of Eisai, Jazz, CVS-Caremark, Takeda, and Sanofi-Aventis, and holds stock in Teva.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is associated with lower patient satisfaction scores in adults, suggesting there are unmet needs in clinical AD management.

Satisfaction scores were higher when specialists prescribed systemic therapy, but were lower when nonspecialists prescribed systemic therapy and when specialists prescribed only topical therapy.

©aniaostudio/Thinkstock.com

Recognizing that treatment regimens are complex and used differently by provider type, the researchers examined interactions between specialists (dermatologists and allergists) and treatment type. “Previous studies found dermatologists treat more severe, chronic AD,” Mr. Cheng said. “We found here that there was lower satisfaction among those treated with topical therapy and by specialists, which may reflect inadequate disease control. We also found lower satisfaction among those treated with systemic therapy by primary care physicians. This may reflect that these patients are not achieving optimal therapy. We found that satisfaction was highest among those treated with systemic therapy and by dermatologists and allergists.”

Socioeconomic, racial/ethnic, and health care disparities were observed in terms of satisfaction among this cohort. The following characteristics were significantly associated with lower patient satisfaction, compared with the general cohort of adults with AD: poor to low income (aOR, –1.82; P less than .0001), multiracial/other race (aOR, –2.34; P = .0001), Hispanic ethnicity (aOR, –1.40; P = .007), and having no insurance coverage (aOR, –4.53; P less than .0001).

“Moreover, those with multimorbidity had even lower satisfaction,” Mr. Cheng said. “In previous studies, AD has been linked with many other comorbidities. This may reflect that these patients are not being adequately managed overall. So, there’s a need here for multidisciplinary care to ensure that all of these comorbidities and the full spectrum of symptoms are being managed adequately.”

He concluded that future research is needed to determine strategies to optimize patient satisfaction in adults with AD.

“I’m not sure how much more provocative you can get in terms of data,” added Dr. Silverberg, director of clinical research and contact dermatitis at George Washington University, Washington. “It’s really eye-opening. I think many clinicians may feel like they’re doing a perfect job in managing this disease. These data suggest that at least at the national level that may not be the case.”

Mr. Cheng reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Silverberg reported that he is a consultant to and/or an advisory board member for several pharmaceutical companies. He is also a speaker for Regeneron and Sanofi and has received a grant from Galderma.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is associated with lower patient satisfaction scores in adults, suggesting there are unmet needs in clinical AD management.

Satisfaction scores were higher when specialists prescribed systemic therapy, but were lower when nonspecialists prescribed systemic therapy and when specialists prescribed only topical therapy.

©aniaostudio/Thinkstock.com

Recognizing that treatment regimens are complex and used differently by provider type, the researchers examined interactions between specialists (dermatologists and allergists) and treatment type. “Previous studies found dermatologists treat more severe, chronic AD,” Mr. Cheng said. “We found here that there was lower satisfaction among those treated with topical therapy and by specialists, which may reflect inadequate disease control. We also found lower satisfaction among those treated with systemic therapy by primary care physicians. This may reflect that these patients are not achieving optimal therapy. We found that satisfaction was highest among those treated with systemic therapy and by dermatologists and allergists.”

Socioeconomic, racial/ethnic, and health care disparities were observed in terms of satisfaction among this cohort. The following characteristics were significantly associated with lower patient satisfaction, compared with the general cohort of adults with AD: poor to low income (aOR, –1.82; P less than .0001), multiracial/other race (aOR, –2.34; P = .0001), Hispanic ethnicity (aOR, –1.40; P = .007), and having no insurance coverage (aOR, –4.53; P less than .0001).

“Moreover, those with multimorbidity had even lower satisfaction,” Mr. Cheng said. “In previous studies, AD has been linked with many other comorbidities. This may reflect that these patients are not being adequately managed overall. So, there’s a need here for multidisciplinary care to ensure that all of these comorbidities and the full spectrum of symptoms are being managed adequately.”

He concluded that future research is needed to determine strategies to optimize patient satisfaction in adults with AD.

“I’m not sure how much more provocative you can get in terms of data,” added Dr. Silverberg, director of clinical research and contact dermatitis at George Washington University, Washington. “It’s really eye-opening. I think many clinicians may feel like they’re doing a perfect job in managing this disease. These data suggest that at least at the national level that may not be the case.”

Mr. Cheng reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Silverberg reported that he is a consultant to and/or an advisory board member for several pharmaceutical companies. He is also a speaker for Regeneron and Sanofi and has received a grant from Galderma.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is associated with lower patient satisfaction scores in adults, suggesting there are unmet needs in clinical AD management.

Satisfaction scores were higher when specialists prescribed systemic therapy, but were lower when nonspecialists prescribed systemic therapy and when specialists prescribed only topical therapy.

©aniaostudio/Thinkstock.com

Recognizing that treatment regimens are complex and used differently by provider type, the researchers examined interactions between specialists (dermatologists and allergists) and treatment type. “Previous studies found dermatologists treat more severe, chronic AD,” Mr. Cheng said. “We found here that there was lower satisfaction among those treated with topical therapy and by specialists, which may reflect inadequate disease control. We also found lower satisfaction among those treated with systemic therapy by primary care physicians. This may reflect that these patients are not achieving optimal therapy. We found that satisfaction was highest among those treated with systemic therapy and by dermatologists and allergists.”

Socioeconomic, racial/ethnic, and health care disparities were observed in terms of satisfaction among this cohort. The following characteristics were significantly associated with lower patient satisfaction, compared with the general cohort of adults with AD: poor to low income (aOR, –1.82; P less than .0001), multiracial/other race (aOR, –2.34; P = .0001), Hispanic ethnicity (aOR, –1.40; P = .007), and having no insurance coverage (aOR, –4.53; P less than .0001).

“Moreover, those with multimorbidity had even lower satisfaction,” Mr. Cheng said. “In previous studies, AD has been linked with many other comorbidities. This may reflect that these patients are not being adequately managed overall. So, there’s a need here for multidisciplinary care to ensure that all of these comorbidities and the full spectrum of symptoms are being managed adequately.”

He concluded that future research is needed to determine strategies to optimize patient satisfaction in adults with AD.

“I’m not sure how much more provocative you can get in terms of data,” added Dr. Silverberg, director of clinical research and contact dermatitis at George Washington University, Washington. “It’s really eye-opening. I think many clinicians may feel like they’re doing a perfect job in managing this disease. These data suggest that at least at the national level that may not be the case.”

Mr. Cheng reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Silverberg reported that he is a consultant to and/or an advisory board member for several pharmaceutical companies. He is also a speaker for Regeneron and Sanofi and has received a grant from Galderma.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Physicians are going to have to play catch-up when it comes to getting older patients their routine, but important, vaccinations missed during the pandemic.

©Sean Warren/iStockphoto.com

Weekly general vaccination among Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥ 65 year fell by around 80% soon after the national COVID-19 emergency declaration and have recovered only partially and gradually, according to a report by Kai Hong, PhD, and colleagues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. “As the pandemic continues,” the investigators stated, “vaccination providers should continue efforts to resolve disruptions in routine adult vaccination.”

The CDC issued guidance recommending postponement of routine adult vaccination in response to the March 13, 2020, COVID-19 national emergency declaration by the U.S. government and also to state and local shelter-in-place orders. Health care facility operations were restricted because of safety concerns around exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The result was a significant drop in routine medical care including adult vaccinations.

The investigators examined Medicare enrollment and claims data to assess the change in weekly receipt of four routine adult vaccines by Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 during the pandemic: (13-valent pneu­mococcal conjugate vaccine [PCV13], 23-valent pneumococ­cal polysaccharide vaccine [PPSV23], tetanus-diphtheria or tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccine [Td/Tdap], and recombinant zoster vaccine [RZV]). The comparison periods were Jan. 6–July 20, 2019, and Jan. 5–July 18, 2020.

Of the Medicare enrollees in the study sample, 85% were White, 7% Black, 2% Asian, 2% Hispanic, and 4% other racial and ethnic groups. For each of the four vaccines overall, weekly rates of vaccination declined sharply after the emergency declaration, compared with corresponding weeks in 2019. In the period prior to the emergency declaration (Jan. 5–March 14, 2020), weekly percentages of Medicare beneficiaries vaccinated with PPSV23, Td/Tdap, and RZV were consistently higher than rates during the same period in 2019.

After the March 13 declaration, while weekly vaccination rates plummeted 25% for PPSV23 and 62% for RZV in the first week, the greatest weekly declines were during April 5-11, 2020, for PCV13, PPSV23, and Td/Tdap, and during April 12-18, 2020, for RZV. The pandemic weekly vaccination rate nadirs revealed declines of 88% for PCV13, 80% for PPSV23, 70% for Td/Tdap, and 89% for RZV.
 

Routine vaccinations increased midyear

Vaccination rates recovered gradually. For the most recently assessed pandemic week (July 12-18, 2020), the rate for PPSV23 was 8% higher than in the corresponding period in 2019. Weekly corresponding rates for other examined vaccines, however, remained much lower than in 2019: 44% lower for RZV, 24% lower for Td/Tdap and 43% lower for PCV13. The CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted in June 2019 to stop recommending PCV13 for adults aged ≥65 years and so vaccination with PCV13 among this population declined in 2020, compared with that in 2019.

Another significant drop in the rates of adult vaccinations may have occurred because of the surge in COVID-19 infections in the fall of 2020 and subsequent closures and renewal of lockdown in many localities.
 

Disparities in routine vaccination trends

Dr. Hong and colleagues noted that their findings are consistent with prior reports of declines in pediatric vaccine ordering, administration, and coverage during the pandemic. While the reductions were similar across all racial and ethnic groups, the magnitudes of recovery varied, with vaccination rates lower among racial and ethnic minority adults than among White adults.

Physicians are going to have to play catch-up when it comes to getting older patients their routine, but important, vaccinations missed during the pandemic.

©Sean Warren/iStockphoto.com

Weekly general vaccination among Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥ 65 year fell by around 80% soon after the national COVID-19 emergency declaration and have recovered only partially and gradually, according to a report by Kai Hong, PhD, and colleagues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. “As the pandemic continues,” the investigators stated, “vaccination providers should continue efforts to resolve disruptions in routine adult vaccination.”

The CDC issued guidance recommending postponement of routine adult vaccination in response to the March 13, 2020, COVID-19 national emergency declaration by the U.S. government and also to state and local shelter-in-place orders. Health care facility operations were restricted because of safety concerns around exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The result was a significant drop in routine medical care including adult vaccinations.

The investigators examined Medicare enrollment and claims data to assess the change in weekly receipt of four routine adult vaccines by Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 during the pandemic: (13-valent pneu­mococcal conjugate vaccine [PCV13], 23-valent pneumococ­cal polysaccharide vaccine [PPSV23], tetanus-diphtheria or tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccine [Td/Tdap], and recombinant zoster vaccine [RZV]). The comparison periods were Jan. 6–July 20, 2019, and Jan. 5–July 18, 2020.

Of the Medicare enrollees in the study sample, 85% were White, 7% Black, 2% Asian, 2% Hispanic, and 4% other racial and ethnic groups. For each of the four vaccines overall, weekly rates of vaccination declined sharply after the emergency declaration, compared with corresponding weeks in 2019. In the period prior to the emergency declaration (Jan. 5–March 14, 2020), weekly percentages of Medicare beneficiaries vaccinated with PPSV23, Td/Tdap, and RZV were consistently higher than rates during the same period in 2019.

After the March 13 declaration, while weekly vaccination rates plummeted 25% for PPSV23 and 62% for RZV in the first week, the greatest weekly declines were during April 5-11, 2020, for PCV13, PPSV23, and Td/Tdap, and during April 12-18, 2020, for RZV. The pandemic weekly vaccination rate nadirs revealed declines of 88% for PCV13, 80% for PPSV23, 70% for Td/Tdap, and 89% for RZV.
 

Routine vaccinations increased midyear

Vaccination rates recovered gradually. For the most recently assessed pandemic week (July 12-18, 2020), the rate for PPSV23 was 8% higher than in the corresponding period in 2019. Weekly corresponding rates for other examined vaccines, however, remained much lower than in 2019: 44% lower for RZV, 24% lower for Td/Tdap and 43% lower for PCV13. The CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted in June 2019 to stop recommending PCV13 for adults aged ≥65 years and so vaccination with PCV13 among this population declined in 2020, compared with that in 2019.

Another significant drop in the rates of adult vaccinations may have occurred because of the surge in COVID-19 infections in the fall of 2020 and subsequent closures and renewal of lockdown in many localities.
 

Disparities in routine vaccination trends

Dr. Hong and colleagues noted that their findings are consistent with prior reports of declines in pediatric vaccine ordering, administration, and coverage during the pandemic. While the reductions were similar across all racial and ethnic groups, the magnitudes of recovery varied, with vaccination rates lower among racial and ethnic minority adults than among White adults.

Physicians are going to have to play catch-up when it comes to getting older patients their routine, but important, vaccinations missed during the pandemic.

©Sean Warren/iStockphoto.com

Weekly general vaccination among Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥ 65 year fell by around 80% soon after the national COVID-19 emergency declaration and have recovered only partially and gradually, according to a report by Kai Hong, PhD, and colleagues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. “As the pandemic continues,” the investigators stated, “vaccination providers should continue efforts to resolve disruptions in routine adult vaccination.”

The CDC issued guidance recommending postponement of routine adult vaccination in response to the March 13, 2020, COVID-19 national emergency declaration by the U.S. government and also to state and local shelter-in-place orders. Health care facility operations were restricted because of safety concerns around exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The result was a significant drop in routine medical care including adult vaccinations.

The investigators examined Medicare enrollment and claims data to assess the change in weekly receipt of four routine adult vaccines by Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 during the pandemic: (13-valent pneu­mococcal conjugate vaccine [PCV13], 23-valent pneumococ­cal polysaccharide vaccine [PPSV23], tetanus-diphtheria or tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccine [Td/Tdap], and recombinant zoster vaccine [RZV]). The comparison periods were Jan. 6–July 20, 2019, and Jan. 5–July 18, 2020.

Of the Medicare enrollees in the study sample, 85% were White, 7% Black, 2% Asian, 2% Hispanic, and 4% other racial and ethnic groups. For each of the four vaccines overall, weekly rates of vaccination declined sharply after the emergency declaration, compared with corresponding weeks in 2019. In the period prior to the emergency declaration (Jan. 5–March 14, 2020), weekly percentages of Medicare beneficiaries vaccinated with PPSV23, Td/Tdap, and RZV were consistently higher than rates during the same period in 2019.

After the March 13 declaration, while weekly vaccination rates plummeted 25% for PPSV23 and 62% for RZV in the first week, the greatest weekly declines were during April 5-11, 2020, for PCV13, PPSV23, and Td/Tdap, and during April 12-18, 2020, for RZV. The pandemic weekly vaccination rate nadirs revealed declines of 88% for PCV13, 80% for PPSV23, 70% for Td/Tdap, and 89% for RZV.
 

Routine vaccinations increased midyear

Vaccination rates recovered gradually. For the most recently assessed pandemic week (July 12-18, 2020), the rate for PPSV23 was 8% higher than in the corresponding period in 2019. Weekly corresponding rates for other examined vaccines, however, remained much lower than in 2019: 44% lower for RZV, 24% lower for Td/Tdap and 43% lower for PCV13. The CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted in June 2019 to stop recommending PCV13 for adults aged ≥65 years and so vaccination with PCV13 among this population declined in 2020, compared with that in 2019.

Another significant drop in the rates of adult vaccinations may have occurred because of the surge in COVID-19 infections in the fall of 2020 and subsequent closures and renewal of lockdown in many localities.
 

Disparities in routine vaccination trends

Dr. Hong and colleagues noted that their findings are consistent with prior reports of declines in pediatric vaccine ordering, administration, and coverage during the pandemic. While the reductions were similar across all racial and ethnic groups, the magnitudes of recovery varied, with vaccination rates lower among racial and ethnic minority adults than among White adults.

The capacity to mount humoral immune responses to COVID-19 vaccinations may be reduced among people who are heavier, older, and male, new findings suggest.

South_agency/Getty Images

The data pertain specifically to the mRNA vaccine, BNT162b2, developed by BioNTech and Pfizer. The study was conducted by Italian researchers and was published Feb. 26 as a preprint.

The study involved 248 health care workers who each received two doses of the vaccine. Of the participants, 99.5% developed a humoral immune response after the second dose. Those responses varied by body mass index (BMI), age, and sex.

“The findings imply that female, lean, and young people have an increased capacity to mount humoral immune responses, compared to male, overweight, and older populations,” Raul Pellini, MD, professor at the IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, and colleagues said.

“To our knowledge, this study is the first to analyze Covid-19 vaccine response in correlation to BMI,” they noted.

“Although further studies are needed, this data may have important implications to the development of vaccination strategies for COVID-19, particularly in obese people,” they wrote. If the data are confirmed by larger studies, “giving obese people an extra dose of the vaccine or a higher dose could be options to be evaluated in this population.”
 

Results contrast with Pfizer trials of vaccine

The BMI finding seemingly contrasts with final data from the phase 3 clinical trial of the vaccine, which were reported in a supplement to an article published Dec. 31, 2020, in the New England Journal of Medicine. In that study, vaccine efficacy did not differ by obesity status.

Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, professor of immunology at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and an investigator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., noted that, although the current Italian study showed somewhat lower levels of antibodies in people with obesity, compared with people who did not have obesity, the phase 3 trial found no difference in symptomatic infection rates.

“These results indicate that even with a slightly lower level of antibody induced in obese people, that level was sufficient to protect against symptomatic infection,” Dr. Iwasaki said in an interview.

Indeed, Dr. Pellini and colleagues pointed out that responses to vaccines against influenza, hepatitis B, and rabies are also reduced in those with obesity, compared with lean individuals.

However, they said, it was especially important to study the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in people with obesity, because obesity is a major risk factor for morbidity and mortality in COVID-19.

“The constant state of low-grade inflammation, present in overweight people, can weaken some immune responses, including those launched by T cells, which can directly kill infected cells,” the authors noted.
 

Findings reported in British newspapers

The findings of the Italian study were widely covered in the lay press in the United Kingdom, with headlines such as “Pfizer Vaccine May Be Less Effective in People With Obesity, Says Study” and “Pfizer Vaccine: Overweight People Might Need Bigger Dose, Italian Study Says.” In tabloid newspapers, some headlines were slightly more stigmatizing.

The reports do stress that the Italian research was published as a preprint and has not been peer reviewed, or “is yet to be scrutinized by fellow scientists.”

Most make the point that there were only 26 people with obesity among the 248 persons in the study.

“We always knew that BMI was an enormous predictor of poor immune response to vaccines, so this paper is definitely interesting, although it is based on a rather small preliminary dataset,” Danny Altmann, PhD, a professor of immunology at Imperial College London, told the Guardian.

“It confirms that having a vaccinated population isn’t synonymous with having an immune population, especially in a country with high obesity, and emphasizes the vital need for long-term immune monitoring programs,” he added.
 

Antibody responses differ by BMI, age, and sex

In the Italian study, the participants – 158 women and 90 men – were assigned to receive a priming BNT162b2 vaccine dose with a booster at day 21. Blood and nasopharyngeal swabs were collected at baseline and 7 days after the second vaccine dose.

After the second dose, 99.5% of participants developed a humoral immune response; one person did not respond. None tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

Titers of SARS-CoV-2–binding antibodies were greater in younger than in older participants. There were statistically significant differences between those aged 37 years and younger (453.5 AU/mL) and those aged 47-56 years (239.8 AU/mL; P = .005), those aged 37 years and younger versus those older than 56 years (453.5 vs 182.4 AU/mL; P < .0001), and those aged 37-47 years versus those older than 56 years (330.9 vs. 182.4 AU/mL; P = .01).

Antibody response was significantly greater for women than for men (338.5 vs. 212.6 AU/mL; P = .001).

Humoral responses were greater in persons of normal-weight BMI (18.5-24.9 kg/m2; 325.8 AU/mL) and those of underweight BMI (<18.5 kg/m2; 455.4 AU/mL), compared with persons with preobesity, defined as BMI of 25-29.9 (222.4 AU/mL), and those with obesity (BMI ≥30; 167.0 AU/mL; P < .0001). This association remained after adjustment for age (P = .003).

“Our data stresses the importance of close vaccination monitoring of obese people, considering the growing list of countries with obesity problems,” the researchers noted.

Hypertension was also associated with lower antibody titers (P = .006), but that lost statistical significance after matching for age (P = .22).

“We strongly believe that our results are extremely encouraging and useful for the scientific community,” Dr. Pellini and colleagues concluded.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Iwasaki is a cofounder of RIGImmune and is a member of its scientific advisory board.

This article was updated on 3/8/21.

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

The capacity to mount humoral immune responses to COVID-19 vaccinations may be reduced among people who are heavier, older, and male, new findings suggest.

South_agency/Getty Images

The data pertain specifically to the mRNA vaccine, BNT162b2, developed by BioNTech and Pfizer. The study was conducted by Italian researchers and was published Feb. 26 as a preprint.

The study involved 248 health care workers who each received two doses of the vaccine. Of the participants, 99.5% developed a humoral immune response after the second dose. Those responses varied by body mass index (BMI), age, and sex.

“The findings imply that female, lean, and young people have an increased capacity to mount humoral immune responses, compared to male, overweight, and older populations,” Raul Pellini, MD, professor at the IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, and colleagues said.

“To our knowledge, this study is the first to analyze Covid-19 vaccine response in correlation to BMI,” they noted.

“Although further studies are needed, this data may have important implications to the development of vaccination strategies for COVID-19, particularly in obese people,” they wrote. If the data are confirmed by larger studies, “giving obese people an extra dose of the vaccine or a higher dose could be options to be evaluated in this population.”
 

Results contrast with Pfizer trials of vaccine

The BMI finding seemingly contrasts with final data from the phase 3 clinical trial of the vaccine, which were reported in a supplement to an article published Dec. 31, 2020, in the New England Journal of Medicine. In that study, vaccine efficacy did not differ by obesity status.

Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, professor of immunology at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and an investigator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., noted that, although the current Italian study showed somewhat lower levels of antibodies in people with obesity, compared with people who did not have obesity, the phase 3 trial found no difference in symptomatic infection rates.

“These results indicate that even with a slightly lower level of antibody induced in obese people, that level was sufficient to protect against symptomatic infection,” Dr. Iwasaki said in an interview.

Indeed, Dr. Pellini and colleagues pointed out that responses to vaccines against influenza, hepatitis B, and rabies are also reduced in those with obesity, compared with lean individuals.

However, they said, it was especially important to study the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in people with obesity, because obesity is a major risk factor for morbidity and mortality in COVID-19.

“The constant state of low-grade inflammation, present in overweight people, can weaken some immune responses, including those launched by T cells, which can directly kill infected cells,” the authors noted.
 

Findings reported in British newspapers

The findings of the Italian study were widely covered in the lay press in the United Kingdom, with headlines such as “Pfizer Vaccine May Be Less Effective in People With Obesity, Says Study” and “Pfizer Vaccine: Overweight People Might Need Bigger Dose, Italian Study Says.” In tabloid newspapers, some headlines were slightly more stigmatizing.

The reports do stress that the Italian research was published as a preprint and has not been peer reviewed, or “is yet to be scrutinized by fellow scientists.”

Most make the point that there were only 26 people with obesity among the 248 persons in the study.

“We always knew that BMI was an enormous predictor of poor immune response to vaccines, so this paper is definitely interesting, although it is based on a rather small preliminary dataset,” Danny Altmann, PhD, a professor of immunology at Imperial College London, told the Guardian.

“It confirms that having a vaccinated population isn’t synonymous with having an immune population, especially in a country with high obesity, and emphasizes the vital need for long-term immune monitoring programs,” he added.
 

Antibody responses differ by BMI, age, and sex

In the Italian study, the participants – 158 women and 90 men – were assigned to receive a priming BNT162b2 vaccine dose with a booster at day 21. Blood and nasopharyngeal swabs were collected at baseline and 7 days after the second vaccine dose.

After the second dose, 99.5% of participants developed a humoral immune response; one person did not respond. None tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

Titers of SARS-CoV-2–binding antibodies were greater in younger than in older participants. There were statistically significant differences between those aged 37 years and younger (453.5 AU/mL) and those aged 47-56 years (239.8 AU/mL; P = .005), those aged 37 years and younger versus those older than 56 years (453.5 vs 182.4 AU/mL; P < .0001), and those aged 37-47 years versus those older than 56 years (330.9 vs. 182.4 AU/mL; P = .01).

Antibody response was significantly greater for women than for men (338.5 vs. 212.6 AU/mL; P = .001).

Humoral responses were greater in persons of normal-weight BMI (18.5-24.9 kg/m2; 325.8 AU/mL) and those of underweight BMI (<18.5 kg/m2; 455.4 AU/mL), compared with persons with preobesity, defined as BMI of 25-29.9 (222.4 AU/mL), and those with obesity (BMI ≥30; 167.0 AU/mL; P < .0001). This association remained after adjustment for age (P = .003).

“Our data stresses the importance of close vaccination monitoring of obese people, considering the growing list of countries with obesity problems,” the researchers noted.

Hypertension was also associated with lower antibody titers (P = .006), but that lost statistical significance after matching for age (P = .22).

“We strongly believe that our results are extremely encouraging and useful for the scientific community,” Dr. Pellini and colleagues concluded.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Iwasaki is a cofounder of RIGImmune and is a member of its scientific advisory board.

This article was updated on 3/8/21.

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

The capacity to mount humoral immune responses to COVID-19 vaccinations may be reduced among people who are heavier, older, and male, new findings suggest.

South_agency/Getty Images

The data pertain specifically to the mRNA vaccine, BNT162b2, developed by BioNTech and Pfizer. The study was conducted by Italian researchers and was published Feb. 26 as a preprint.

The study involved 248 health care workers who each received two doses of the vaccine. Of the participants, 99.5% developed a humoral immune response after the second dose. Those responses varied by body mass index (BMI), age, and sex.

“The findings imply that female, lean, and young people have an increased capacity to mount humoral immune responses, compared to male, overweight, and older populations,” Raul Pellini, MD, professor at the IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, and colleagues said.

“To our knowledge, this study is the first to analyze Covid-19 vaccine response in correlation to BMI,” they noted.

“Although further studies are needed, this data may have important implications to the development of vaccination strategies for COVID-19, particularly in obese people,” they wrote. If the data are confirmed by larger studies, “giving obese people an extra dose of the vaccine or a higher dose could be options to be evaluated in this population.”
 

Results contrast with Pfizer trials of vaccine

The BMI finding seemingly contrasts with final data from the phase 3 clinical trial of the vaccine, which were reported in a supplement to an article published Dec. 31, 2020, in the New England Journal of Medicine. In that study, vaccine efficacy did not differ by obesity status.

Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, professor of immunology at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and an investigator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., noted that, although the current Italian study showed somewhat lower levels of antibodies in people with obesity, compared with people who did not have obesity, the phase 3 trial found no difference in symptomatic infection rates.

“These results indicate that even with a slightly lower level of antibody induced in obese people, that level was sufficient to protect against symptomatic infection,” Dr. Iwasaki said in an interview.

Indeed, Dr. Pellini and colleagues pointed out that responses to vaccines against influenza, hepatitis B, and rabies are also reduced in those with obesity, compared with lean individuals.

However, they said, it was especially important to study the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in people with obesity, because obesity is a major risk factor for morbidity and mortality in COVID-19.

“The constant state of low-grade inflammation, present in overweight people, can weaken some immune responses, including those launched by T cells, which can directly kill infected cells,” the authors noted.
 

Findings reported in British newspapers

The findings of the Italian study were widely covered in the lay press in the United Kingdom, with headlines such as “Pfizer Vaccine May Be Less Effective in People With Obesity, Says Study” and “Pfizer Vaccine: Overweight People Might Need Bigger Dose, Italian Study Says.” In tabloid newspapers, some headlines were slightly more stigmatizing.

The reports do stress that the Italian research was published as a preprint and has not been peer reviewed, or “is yet to be scrutinized by fellow scientists.”

Most make the point that there were only 26 people with obesity among the 248 persons in the study.

“We always knew that BMI was an enormous predictor of poor immune response to vaccines, so this paper is definitely interesting, although it is based on a rather small preliminary dataset,” Danny Altmann, PhD, a professor of immunology at Imperial College London, told the Guardian.

“It confirms that having a vaccinated population isn’t synonymous with having an immune population, especially in a country with high obesity, and emphasizes the vital need for long-term immune monitoring programs,” he added.
 

Antibody responses differ by BMI, age, and sex

In the Italian study, the participants – 158 women and 90 men – were assigned to receive a priming BNT162b2 vaccine dose with a booster at day 21. Blood and nasopharyngeal swabs were collected at baseline and 7 days after the second vaccine dose.

After the second dose, 99.5% of participants developed a humoral immune response; one person did not respond. None tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

Titers of SARS-CoV-2–binding antibodies were greater in younger than in older participants. There were statistically significant differences between those aged 37 years and younger (453.5 AU/mL) and those aged 47-56 years (239.8 AU/mL; P = .005), those aged 37 years and younger versus those older than 56 years (453.5 vs 182.4 AU/mL; P < .0001), and those aged 37-47 years versus those older than 56 years (330.9 vs. 182.4 AU/mL; P = .01).

Antibody response was significantly greater for women than for men (338.5 vs. 212.6 AU/mL; P = .001).

Humoral responses were greater in persons of normal-weight BMI (18.5-24.9 kg/m2; 325.8 AU/mL) and those of underweight BMI (<18.5 kg/m2; 455.4 AU/mL), compared with persons with preobesity, defined as BMI of 25-29.9 (222.4 AU/mL), and those with obesity (BMI ≥30; 167.0 AU/mL; P < .0001). This association remained after adjustment for age (P = .003).

“Our data stresses the importance of close vaccination monitoring of obese people, considering the growing list of countries with obesity problems,” the researchers noted.

Hypertension was also associated with lower antibody titers (P = .006), but that lost statistical significance after matching for age (P = .22).

“We strongly believe that our results are extremely encouraging and useful for the scientific community,” Dr. Pellini and colleagues concluded.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Iwasaki is a cofounder of RIGImmune and is a member of its scientific advisory board.

This article was updated on 3/8/21.

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

When treating rosacea/telangiectasia with energy-based devices, the 595-nm pulsed dye laser (PDL) or the 532-nm potassium titanyl phosphate (KTP) laser are the first line options, according to a 2020 international consensus publication that Jeremy B. Green, MD, reviewed during a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy.

During his presentation, he also reviewed laser treatment of scars. “Erythema is an indicator of scar activity,” said Dr. Green, a dermatologist in Coral Gables, Fla. “So, with flat, red scars, vascular devices are the first choice. If you’re going to treat with multiple lasers in a single session, use the vascular laser first, followed by a resurfacing laser if needed. If you treat with a resurfacing laser first, you’ll cause erythema and edema and you’ll obscure that blood vessel target.”

The manuscript, which was created by a panel of 26 dermatologists and plastic and reconstructive surgeons from 13 different countries, also calls for using scar treatment settings that are lower than those used for port wine stains, with mild purpura as the clinical endpoint to strive for.

Vascular lasers are also the expert panel’s first choice when a scar is painful or pruritic, while the second choice is an ablative fractional laser with intralesional triamcinolone and/or 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). “If the scar is hypertrophic, I will combine a vascular laser, then a nonablative or an ablative fractional laser, then intralesional triamcinolone mixed with 5-FU,” said Dr. Green, who was not involved in drafting the recommendations.

As for the first treatment of choice, 80% of the experts chose a pulsed dye laser, while others chose the KTP laser, intense pulsed light (IPL) and the neodymium yttrium aluminum garnet (Nd:YAG) laser. With regard to settings, when using a PDL and a 10-mm spot size, 41% of experts recommend a fluence of 5-6 J/cm², 27% recommend a fluence of 4-5 J/cm², and 27% recommend a fluence of 6-7 J/cm². Pertaining to pulse duration, 50% favor 1.5 milliseconds, 18% use 3 milliseconds, and 18% use .45 milliseconds.

As for timing post surgery, 70% report treating less than 1 week after surgery and 90% report treating within 1 month post surgery. “I prefer to treat about 1 week after sutures are removed so the skin is re-epithelialized,” Dr. Green said. “The bottom line is, with postsurgical, posttraumatic scars, once the skin is healed, the sooner you get at it, the better.”
 

Rosacea

He also discussed the microvascular effects of PDL in combination with oxymetazoline 1% cream, an alpha_1A adrenoceptor agonist, which is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of persistent facial erythema associated with rosacea. “This has been a hot topic lately,” Dr. Green said. “When the studies were done for FDA approval, there was an observation that vasodilation occurs 5 minutes after application of oxymetazoline, so the venule diameter increases. Sixty minutes after application, vasoconstriction happens, which is the desired clinical effect for patients with facial erythema.”

In a mouse study, researchers led by Bernard Choi, PhD, and Kristin M. Kelly, MD, of the Beckman Laser Institute and Medical Clinic, University of California, Irvine, found that the combination protocol of oxymetazoline application, followed 5 minutes later by PDL, induced persistent vascular shutdown 7 days after irradiation. Vascular shutdown occurred in 67% of vessels treated with oxymetazoline plus PDL at day 7 vs. 17% in those treated with saline plus PDL.

“This is fascinating,” Dr. Green said during the meeting, which was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine. “There is no publication I’m aware of in humans that has explored this timing, but I have used oxymetazoline in my clinic in patients with stubborn erythema and treated them with the vascular laser 5 minutes later.”

In a separate open-label study of 46 patients with moderate to severe facial erythema associated with rosacea, researchers found that oxymetazoline 1% as adjunctive therapy with energy-based therapy was safe and well tolerated, and reduced facial erythema in patients with moderate to severe persistent facial erythema associated with rosacea. Energy sources used were the PDL, KTP, or IPL.

In a study presented during the 2020 American Society for Laser Medicine & Surgery meeting, researchers led by Pooja Sodha, MD, of George Washington University, Washington, conducted a pilot trial of PDL plus oxymetazoline 1% cream for erythematotelangiectatic rosacea. Between baseline and 6 months’ follow-up the Clinician’s Erythema Assessment score fell from 4 to 2.

“Of note, I would also throw the kitchen sink at these patients medically, meaning I love topical ivermectin 1% cream,” Dr. Green said. “In some cases I’ll even use oral ivermectin and an oral tetracycline class antibiotic.”

He reported having received research funding and/or consulting fees from numerous device and pharmaceutical companies.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

When treating rosacea/telangiectasia with energy-based devices, the 595-nm pulsed dye laser (PDL) or the 532-nm potassium titanyl phosphate (KTP) laser are the first line options, according to a 2020 international consensus publication that Jeremy B. Green, MD, reviewed during a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy.

During his presentation, he also reviewed laser treatment of scars. “Erythema is an indicator of scar activity,” said Dr. Green, a dermatologist in Coral Gables, Fla. “So, with flat, red scars, vascular devices are the first choice. If you’re going to treat with multiple lasers in a single session, use the vascular laser first, followed by a resurfacing laser if needed. If you treat with a resurfacing laser first, you’ll cause erythema and edema and you’ll obscure that blood vessel target.”

The manuscript, which was created by a panel of 26 dermatologists and plastic and reconstructive surgeons from 13 different countries, also calls for using scar treatment settings that are lower than those used for port wine stains, with mild purpura as the clinical endpoint to strive for.

Vascular lasers are also the expert panel’s first choice when a scar is painful or pruritic, while the second choice is an ablative fractional laser with intralesional triamcinolone and/or 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). “If the scar is hypertrophic, I will combine a vascular laser, then a nonablative or an ablative fractional laser, then intralesional triamcinolone mixed with 5-FU,” said Dr. Green, who was not involved in drafting the recommendations.

As for the first treatment of choice, 80% of the experts chose a pulsed dye laser, while others chose the KTP laser, intense pulsed light (IPL) and the neodymium yttrium aluminum garnet (Nd:YAG) laser. With regard to settings, when using a PDL and a 10-mm spot size, 41% of experts recommend a fluence of 5-6 J/cm², 27% recommend a fluence of 4-5 J/cm², and 27% recommend a fluence of 6-7 J/cm². Pertaining to pulse duration, 50% favor 1.5 milliseconds, 18% use 3 milliseconds, and 18% use .45 milliseconds.

As for timing post surgery, 70% report treating less than 1 week after surgery and 90% report treating within 1 month post surgery. “I prefer to treat about 1 week after sutures are removed so the skin is re-epithelialized,” Dr. Green said. “The bottom line is, with postsurgical, posttraumatic scars, once the skin is healed, the sooner you get at it, the better.”
 

Rosacea

He also discussed the microvascular effects of PDL in combination with oxymetazoline 1% cream, an alpha_1A adrenoceptor agonist, which is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of persistent facial erythema associated with rosacea. “This has been a hot topic lately,” Dr. Green said. “When the studies were done for FDA approval, there was an observation that vasodilation occurs 5 minutes after application of oxymetazoline, so the venule diameter increases. Sixty minutes after application, vasoconstriction happens, which is the desired clinical effect for patients with facial erythema.”

In a mouse study, researchers led by Bernard Choi, PhD, and Kristin M. Kelly, MD, of the Beckman Laser Institute and Medical Clinic, University of California, Irvine, found that the combination protocol of oxymetazoline application, followed 5 minutes later by PDL, induced persistent vascular shutdown 7 days after irradiation. Vascular shutdown occurred in 67% of vessels treated with oxymetazoline plus PDL at day 7 vs. 17% in those treated with saline plus PDL.

“This is fascinating,” Dr. Green said during the meeting, which was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine. “There is no publication I’m aware of in humans that has explored this timing, but I have used oxymetazoline in my clinic in patients with stubborn erythema and treated them with the vascular laser 5 minutes later.”

In a separate open-label study of 46 patients with moderate to severe facial erythema associated with rosacea, researchers found that oxymetazoline 1% as adjunctive therapy with energy-based therapy was safe and well tolerated, and reduced facial erythema in patients with moderate to severe persistent facial erythema associated with rosacea. Energy sources used were the PDL, KTP, or IPL.

In a study presented during the 2020 American Society for Laser Medicine & Surgery meeting, researchers led by Pooja Sodha, MD, of George Washington University, Washington, conducted a pilot trial of PDL plus oxymetazoline 1% cream for erythematotelangiectatic rosacea. Between baseline and 6 months’ follow-up the Clinician’s Erythema Assessment score fell from 4 to 2.

“Of note, I would also throw the kitchen sink at these patients medically, meaning I love topical ivermectin 1% cream,” Dr. Green said. “In some cases I’ll even use oral ivermectin and an oral tetracycline class antibiotic.”

He reported having received research funding and/or consulting fees from numerous device and pharmaceutical companies.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

When treating rosacea/telangiectasia with energy-based devices, the 595-nm pulsed dye laser (PDL) or the 532-nm potassium titanyl phosphate (KTP) laser are the first line options, according to a 2020 international consensus publication that Jeremy B. Green, MD, reviewed during a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy.

During his presentation, he also reviewed laser treatment of scars. “Erythema is an indicator of scar activity,” said Dr. Green, a dermatologist in Coral Gables, Fla. “So, with flat, red scars, vascular devices are the first choice. If you’re going to treat with multiple lasers in a single session, use the vascular laser first, followed by a resurfacing laser if needed. If you treat with a resurfacing laser first, you’ll cause erythema and edema and you’ll obscure that blood vessel target.”

The manuscript, which was created by a panel of 26 dermatologists and plastic and reconstructive surgeons from 13 different countries, also calls for using scar treatment settings that are lower than those used for port wine stains, with mild purpura as the clinical endpoint to strive for.

Vascular lasers are also the expert panel’s first choice when a scar is painful or pruritic, while the second choice is an ablative fractional laser with intralesional triamcinolone and/or 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). “If the scar is hypertrophic, I will combine a vascular laser, then a nonablative or an ablative fractional laser, then intralesional triamcinolone mixed with 5-FU,” said Dr. Green, who was not involved in drafting the recommendations.

As for the first treatment of choice, 80% of the experts chose a pulsed dye laser, while others chose the KTP laser, intense pulsed light (IPL) and the neodymium yttrium aluminum garnet (Nd:YAG) laser. With regard to settings, when using a PDL and a 10-mm spot size, 41% of experts recommend a fluence of 5-6 J/cm², 27% recommend a fluence of 4-5 J/cm², and 27% recommend a fluence of 6-7 J/cm². Pertaining to pulse duration, 50% favor 1.5 milliseconds, 18% use 3 milliseconds, and 18% use .45 milliseconds.

As for timing post surgery, 70% report treating less than 1 week after surgery and 90% report treating within 1 month post surgery. “I prefer to treat about 1 week after sutures are removed so the skin is re-epithelialized,” Dr. Green said. “The bottom line is, with postsurgical, posttraumatic scars, once the skin is healed, the sooner you get at it, the better.”
 

Rosacea

He also discussed the microvascular effects of PDL in combination with oxymetazoline 1% cream, an alpha_1A adrenoceptor agonist, which is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of persistent facial erythema associated with rosacea. “This has been a hot topic lately,” Dr. Green said. “When the studies were done for FDA approval, there was an observation that vasodilation occurs 5 minutes after application of oxymetazoline, so the venule diameter increases. Sixty minutes after application, vasoconstriction happens, which is the desired clinical effect for patients with facial erythema.”

In a mouse study, researchers led by Bernard Choi, PhD, and Kristin M. Kelly, MD, of the Beckman Laser Institute and Medical Clinic, University of California, Irvine, found that the combination protocol of oxymetazoline application, followed 5 minutes later by PDL, induced persistent vascular shutdown 7 days after irradiation. Vascular shutdown occurred in 67% of vessels treated with oxymetazoline plus PDL at day 7 vs. 17% in those treated with saline plus PDL.

“This is fascinating,” Dr. Green said during the meeting, which was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine. “There is no publication I’m aware of in humans that has explored this timing, but I have used oxymetazoline in my clinic in patients with stubborn erythema and treated them with the vascular laser 5 minutes later.”

In a separate open-label study of 46 patients with moderate to severe facial erythema associated with rosacea, researchers found that oxymetazoline 1% as adjunctive therapy with energy-based therapy was safe and well tolerated, and reduced facial erythema in patients with moderate to severe persistent facial erythema associated with rosacea. Energy sources used were the PDL, KTP, or IPL.

In a study presented during the 2020 American Society for Laser Medicine & Surgery meeting, researchers led by Pooja Sodha, MD, of George Washington University, Washington, conducted a pilot trial of PDL plus oxymetazoline 1% cream for erythematotelangiectatic rosacea. Between baseline and 6 months’ follow-up the Clinician’s Erythema Assessment score fell from 4 to 2.

“Of note, I would also throw the kitchen sink at these patients medically, meaning I love topical ivermectin 1% cream,” Dr. Green said. “In some cases I’ll even use oral ivermectin and an oral tetracycline class antibiotic.”

He reported having received research funding and/or consulting fees from numerous device and pharmaceutical companies.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

A 16-minute podcast from JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association that attempts to discuss structural racism in the U.S. health care system has stirred conversation on social media about the handling and promotion of the episode.

Published on Feb. 23, the episode is hosted on JAMA’s learning platform for doctors and is available for continuing medical education credits.

“No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast,” JAMA wrote in a Twitter post to promote the episode. That tweet has since been deleted.

“Systemic and interpersonal racism both still exist in our country — they must be rooted out. I do not share the JAMA host’s belief of doing away with the word ‘racism’ will help us be more successful in ending inequities that exists across racial and ethnic lines,” Dr. Katz said. “Further, I believe that we will only produce an equitable society when social and political structures do not continue to produce and perpetuate disparate results based on social race and ethnicity.”

Dr. Katz reiterated that both interpersonal and structural racism continue to exist in the United States, “and it is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it.”

He also recommended JAMA use this controversy “as a learning opportunity for continued dialogue and create another podcast series as an open conversation that invites diverse experts in the field to have an open discussion about structural racism in healthcare.”

The podcast and JAMA’s tweet promoting it were widely criticized on Twitter. In interviews with WebMD, many doctors expressed disbelief that such a respected journal would lend its name to this podcast episode.

B. Bobby Chiong, MD, a radiologist in New York, said although JAMA’s effort to engage with its audience about racism is laudable, it missed the mark.

“I think the backlash comes from how they tried to make a podcast about the subject and somehow made themselves an example of unconscious bias and unfamiliarity with just how embedded in our system is structural racism,” he said. 

Perhaps the podcast’s worst offense was its failure to address the painful history of racial bias in this country that still permeates the medical community, says Tamara Saint-Surin, MD, assistant professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“For physicians in leadership to have the belief that structural racism does not exist in medicine, they don’t really appreciate what affects their patients and what their patients were dealing with,” Dr. Saint-Surin said in an interview. “It was a very harmful podcast and goes to show we still have so much work to do.”

Along with a flawed premise, she says, the podcast was not nearly long enough to address such a nuanced issue. And Dr. Livingston focused on interpersonal racism rather than structural racism, she said, failing to address widespread problems such as higher rates of asthma among Black populations living in areas with poor air quality.

The number of Black doctors remains low and the lack of representation adds to an environment already rife with racism, according to many medical professionals.

Shirlene Obuobi, MD, an internal medicine doctor in Chicago, said JAMA failed to live up to its own standards by publishing material that lacked research and expertise.

“I can’t submit a clinical trial to JAMA without them combing through methods with a fine-tooth comb,” Dr. Obuobi said. “They didn’t uphold the standards they normally apply to anyone else.”

Both the editor of JAMA and the head of the American Medical Association issued statements criticizing the episode and the tweet that promoted it.

JAMA Editor-in-Chief Howard Bauchner, MD, said, “The language of the tweet, and some portions of the podcast, do not reflect my commitment as editorial leader of JAMA and JAMA Network to call out and discuss the adverse effects of injustice, inequity, and racism in society and medicine as JAMA has done for many years.” He said JAMA will schedule a future podcast to address the concerns raised about the recent episode.

AMA CEO James L. Madara, MD, said, “The AMA’s House of Delegates passed policy stating that racism is structural, systemic, cultural, and interpersonal, and we are deeply disturbed – and angered – by a recent JAMA podcast that questioned the existence of structural racism and the affiliated tweet that promoted the podcast and stated ‘no physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care?’ ”

He continued: “JAMA has editorial independence from AMA, but this tweet and podcast are inconsistent with the policies and views of AMA, and I’m concerned about and acknowledge the harms they have caused. Structural racism in health care and our society exists, and it is incumbent on all of us to fix it.”

This article was updated 3/5/21.

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

A 16-minute podcast from JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association that attempts to discuss structural racism in the U.S. health care system has stirred conversation on social media about the handling and promotion of the episode.

Published on Feb. 23, the episode is hosted on JAMA’s learning platform for doctors and is available for continuing medical education credits.

“No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast,” JAMA wrote in a Twitter post to promote the episode. That tweet has since been deleted.

“Systemic and interpersonal racism both still exist in our country — they must be rooted out. I do not share the JAMA host’s belief of doing away with the word ‘racism’ will help us be more successful in ending inequities that exists across racial and ethnic lines,” Dr. Katz said. “Further, I believe that we will only produce an equitable society when social and political structures do not continue to produce and perpetuate disparate results based on social race and ethnicity.”

Dr. Katz reiterated that both interpersonal and structural racism continue to exist in the United States, “and it is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it.”

He also recommended JAMA use this controversy “as a learning opportunity for continued dialogue and create another podcast series as an open conversation that invites diverse experts in the field to have an open discussion about structural racism in healthcare.”

The podcast and JAMA’s tweet promoting it were widely criticized on Twitter. In interviews with WebMD, many doctors expressed disbelief that such a respected journal would lend its name to this podcast episode.

B. Bobby Chiong, MD, a radiologist in New York, said although JAMA’s effort to engage with its audience about racism is laudable, it missed the mark.

“I think the backlash comes from how they tried to make a podcast about the subject and somehow made themselves an example of unconscious bias and unfamiliarity with just how embedded in our system is structural racism,” he said. 

Perhaps the podcast’s worst offense was its failure to address the painful history of racial bias in this country that still permeates the medical community, says Tamara Saint-Surin, MD, assistant professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“For physicians in leadership to have the belief that structural racism does not exist in medicine, they don’t really appreciate what affects their patients and what their patients were dealing with,” Dr. Saint-Surin said in an interview. “It was a very harmful podcast and goes to show we still have so much work to do.”

Along with a flawed premise, she says, the podcast was not nearly long enough to address such a nuanced issue. And Dr. Livingston focused on interpersonal racism rather than structural racism, she said, failing to address widespread problems such as higher rates of asthma among Black populations living in areas with poor air quality.

The number of Black doctors remains low and the lack of representation adds to an environment already rife with racism, according to many medical professionals.

Shirlene Obuobi, MD, an internal medicine doctor in Chicago, said JAMA failed to live up to its own standards by publishing material that lacked research and expertise.

“I can’t submit a clinical trial to JAMA without them combing through methods with a fine-tooth comb,” Dr. Obuobi said. “They didn’t uphold the standards they normally apply to anyone else.”

Both the editor of JAMA and the head of the American Medical Association issued statements criticizing the episode and the tweet that promoted it.

JAMA Editor-in-Chief Howard Bauchner, MD, said, “The language of the tweet, and some portions of the podcast, do not reflect my commitment as editorial leader of JAMA and JAMA Network to call out and discuss the adverse effects of injustice, inequity, and racism in society and medicine as JAMA has done for many years.” He said JAMA will schedule a future podcast to address the concerns raised about the recent episode.

AMA CEO James L. Madara, MD, said, “The AMA’s House of Delegates passed policy stating that racism is structural, systemic, cultural, and interpersonal, and we are deeply disturbed – and angered – by a recent JAMA podcast that questioned the existence of structural racism and the affiliated tweet that promoted the podcast and stated ‘no physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care?’ ”

He continued: “JAMA has editorial independence from AMA, but this tweet and podcast are inconsistent with the policies and views of AMA, and I’m concerned about and acknowledge the harms they have caused. Structural racism in health care and our society exists, and it is incumbent on all of us to fix it.”

This article was updated 3/5/21.

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

A 16-minute podcast from JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association that attempts to discuss structural racism in the U.S. health care system has stirred conversation on social media about the handling and promotion of the episode.

Published on Feb. 23, the episode is hosted on JAMA’s learning platform for doctors and is available for continuing medical education credits.

“No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast,” JAMA wrote in a Twitter post to promote the episode. That tweet has since been deleted.

“Systemic and interpersonal racism both still exist in our country — they must be rooted out. I do not share the JAMA host’s belief of doing away with the word ‘racism’ will help us be more successful in ending inequities that exists across racial and ethnic lines,” Dr. Katz said. “Further, I believe that we will only produce an equitable society when social and political structures do not continue to produce and perpetuate disparate results based on social race and ethnicity.”

Dr. Katz reiterated that both interpersonal and structural racism continue to exist in the United States, “and it is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it.”

He also recommended JAMA use this controversy “as a learning opportunity for continued dialogue and create another podcast series as an open conversation that invites diverse experts in the field to have an open discussion about structural racism in healthcare.”

The podcast and JAMA’s tweet promoting it were widely criticized on Twitter. In interviews with WebMD, many doctors expressed disbelief that such a respected journal would lend its name to this podcast episode.

B. Bobby Chiong, MD, a radiologist in New York, said although JAMA’s effort to engage with its audience about racism is laudable, it missed the mark.

“I think the backlash comes from how they tried to make a podcast about the subject and somehow made themselves an example of unconscious bias and unfamiliarity with just how embedded in our system is structural racism,” he said. 

Perhaps the podcast’s worst offense was its failure to address the painful history of racial bias in this country that still permeates the medical community, says Tamara Saint-Surin, MD, assistant professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“For physicians in leadership to have the belief that structural racism does not exist in medicine, they don’t really appreciate what affects their patients and what their patients were dealing with,” Dr. Saint-Surin said in an interview. “It was a very harmful podcast and goes to show we still have so much work to do.”

Along with a flawed premise, she says, the podcast was not nearly long enough to address such a nuanced issue. And Dr. Livingston focused on interpersonal racism rather than structural racism, she said, failing to address widespread problems such as higher rates of asthma among Black populations living in areas with poor air quality.

The number of Black doctors remains low and the lack of representation adds to an environment already rife with racism, according to many medical professionals.

Shirlene Obuobi, MD, an internal medicine doctor in Chicago, said JAMA failed to live up to its own standards by publishing material that lacked research and expertise.

“I can’t submit a clinical trial to JAMA without them combing through methods with a fine-tooth comb,” Dr. Obuobi said. “They didn’t uphold the standards they normally apply to anyone else.”

Both the editor of JAMA and the head of the American Medical Association issued statements criticizing the episode and the tweet that promoted it.

JAMA Editor-in-Chief Howard Bauchner, MD, said, “The language of the tweet, and some portions of the podcast, do not reflect my commitment as editorial leader of JAMA and JAMA Network to call out and discuss the adverse effects of injustice, inequity, and racism in society and medicine as JAMA has done for many years.” He said JAMA will schedule a future podcast to address the concerns raised about the recent episode.

AMA CEO James L. Madara, MD, said, “The AMA’s House of Delegates passed policy stating that racism is structural, systemic, cultural, and interpersonal, and we are deeply disturbed – and angered – by a recent JAMA podcast that questioned the existence of structural racism and the affiliated tweet that promoted the podcast and stated ‘no physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care?’ ”

He continued: “JAMA has editorial independence from AMA, but this tweet and podcast are inconsistent with the policies and views of AMA, and I’m concerned about and acknowledge the harms they have caused. Structural racism in health care and our society exists, and it is incumbent on all of us to fix it.”

This article was updated 3/5/21.

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

One of the biggest conundrums of the COVID-19 pandemic has been the simultaneous panic-hiring of medical professionals in hot spots and significant downsizing of staff across the country. From huge hospital systems to private practices, the stoppage of breast reductions and knee replacements, not to mention the drops in motor vehicle accidents and bar fights, have quieted operating rooms and emergency departments and put doctors’ jobs on the chopping block. A widely cited survey suggests that 21% of doctors have had a work reduction due to COVID-19.

For many American doctors, this is their first extended period of unemployment. Unlike engineers or those with MBAs who might see their fortunes rise and fall with the whims of recessions and boom times, physicians are not exactly accustomed to being laid off. However, doctors were already smarting for years due to falling salaries and decreased autonomy, punctuated by endless clicks on electronic medical records software.

Now, the twin shock of income loss and feeling unwanted in a pandemic – when, you know, medicine might seem especially essential – has doctors resorting to a bizarre array of side gigs, “fun-employment” activities, or outright career overhauls.

Stephanie Eschenbach Morgan, MD, a breast radiologist in North Carolina, trained for 10 years after college before earning a true physician’s salary.

“Being furloughed was awful. Initially, it was only going to be 2 weeks, and then it turned into 2 months with no pay,” she reflected.

Dr. Eschenbach Morgan and her surgeon husband, who lost a full quarter’s salary, had to ask for grace periods on their credit card and mortgage payments because they had paid a large tax bill right before the pandemic began. “We couldn’t get any stimulus help, so that added insult to injury,” she said.

With her time spent waiting in a holding pattern, Dr. Eschenbach Morgan homeschooled her two young children and started putting a home gym together. She went on a home organizing spree, started a garden, and, perhaps most impressively, caught up with 5 years of photo albums.

A bonus she noted: “I didn’t set an alarm for 2 months.”

Shella Farooki, MD, a radiologist in California, was also focused on homeschooling, itself a demanding job, and veered toward retirement. When one of her work contracts furloughed her (“at one point, I made $30K a month for [their business]”), she started saving money at home, teaching the kids, and applied for a Paycheck Protection Program loan. Her husband, a hospitalist, had had his shifts cut. Dr. Farooki tried a radiology artificial intelligence firm but backed out when she was asked to read 9,200 studies for them for $2,000 per month.

Now, she thinks about leaving medicine “every day.”

Some doctors are questioning whether they should be in medicine in the first place. Family medicine physician Jonathan Polak, MD, faced with his own pink slip, turned to pink T-shirts instead. His girlfriend manages an outlet of the teen fashion retailer Justice. Dr. Polak, who finished his residency just 2 years ago, didn’t hesitate to take a $10-an-hour gig as a stock doc, once even finding himself delivering a shelving unit from the shuttering store to a physician fleeing the city for rural New Hampshire to “escape.”

There’s no escape for him – yet. Saddled with “astronomical” student loans, he had considered grocery store work as well. Dr. Polak knows he can’t work part time or go into teaching long term, as he might like.

Even so, he’s doing everything he can to not be in patient care for the long haul – it’s just not what he thought it would be.

“The culture of medicine, bureaucracy, endless paperwork and charting, and threat of litigation sucks a lot of the joy out of it to the point that I don’t see myself doing it forever when imagining myself 5-10 years into it.”

Still, he recently took an 18-month hospital contract that will force him to move to Florida, but he’s also been turning himself into a veritable Renaissance man; composing music, training for an ultramarathon, studying the latest medical findings, roadtripping, and launching a podcast about dog grooming with a master groomer. “We found parallels between medicine and dog grooming,” he says, somewhat convincingly.

Also working the ruff life is Jen Tserng, MD, a former forensic pathologist who landed on news websites in recent years for becoming a professional dogwalker and housesitter without a permanent home. Dr. Tserng knows doctors were restless and unhappy before COVID-19, their thoughts wandering where the grass might be greener.

As her profile grew, she found her inbox gathering messages from disaffected medical minions: students with a fear of failing or staring down residency application season and employed doctors sick of the constant grind. As she recounted those de facto life coach conversations (“What do you really enjoy?” “Do you really like dogs?”) by phone from New York, she said matter-of-factly, “They don’t call because of COVID. They call because they hate their lives.”

Michelle Mudge-Riley, MD, a physician in Texas, has been seeing this shift for some time as well. She recently held a virtual version of her Physicians Helping Physicians conference, where doctors hear from their peers working successfully in fields like pharmaceuticals and real estate investing.

When COVID-19 hit, Dr. Mudge-Riley quickly pivoted to a virtual platform, where the MDs and DOs huddled in breakout rooms having honest chats about their fears and tentative hopes about their new careers.

“There has been increased interest in nonclinical exploration into full- and part-time careers, as well as side hustles, since COVID began,” she said. “Many physicians have had their hours or pay cut, and some have been laid off. Others are furloughed. Some just want out of an environment where they don’t feel safe.”

An ear, nose, and throat surgeon, Maansi Doshi, MD, from central California, didn’t feel safe – so she left. She had returned from India sick with a mystery virus right as the pandemic began (she said her COVID-19 tests were all negative) and was waiting to get well enough to go back to her private practice job. However, she said she clashed with Trump-supporting colleagues she feared might not be taking the pandemic seriously enough.

Finally getting over a relapse of her mystery virus, Dr. Doshi emailed her resignation in May. Her husband, family practice doctor Mark Mangiapane, MD, gave his job notice weeks later in solidarity because he worked in the same building. Together, they have embraced gardening, a Peloton splurge, and learning business skills to open private practices – solo primary care for him; ENT with a focus on her favorite surgery, rhinoplasty, for her.

Dr. Mangiapane had considered editing medical brochures and also tried to apply for a job as a county public health officer in rural California, but he received his own shock when he learned the county intended to open schools in the midst of the pandemic despite advisement to the contrary by the former health officer.

He retreated from job listings altogether after hearing his would-be peers were getting death threats – targeting their children.

Both doctors felt COVID-19 pushed them beyond their comfort zones. “If COVID hadn’t happened, I would be working. ... Be ‘owned.’ In a weird way, COVID made me more independent and take a risk with my career.”

Obstetrician Kwandaa Roberts, MD, certainly did; she took a budding interest in decorating dollhouses straight to Instagram and national news fame, and she is now a TV-show expert on “Sell This House.”

Like Dr. Doshi and Dr. Mangiapane, Dr. Polak wants to be more in control of his future – even if selling T-shirts at a mall means a certain loss of status along the way.

“Aside from my passion to learn and to have that connection with people, I went into medicine ... because of the job security I thought existed,” he said. “I would say that my getting furloughed has changed my view of the United States in a dramatic way. I do not feel as confident in the U.S. economy and general way of life as I did a year ago. And I am taking a number of steps to put myself in a more fluid, adaptable position in case another crisis like this occurs or if the current state of things worsens.”

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

One of the biggest conundrums of the COVID-19 pandemic has been the simultaneous panic-hiring of medical professionals in hot spots and significant downsizing of staff across the country. From huge hospital systems to private practices, the stoppage of breast reductions and knee replacements, not to mention the drops in motor vehicle accidents and bar fights, have quieted operating rooms and emergency departments and put doctors’ jobs on the chopping block. A widely cited survey suggests that 21% of doctors have had a work reduction due to COVID-19.

For many American doctors, this is their first extended period of unemployment. Unlike engineers or those with MBAs who might see their fortunes rise and fall with the whims of recessions and boom times, physicians are not exactly accustomed to being laid off. However, doctors were already smarting for years due to falling salaries and decreased autonomy, punctuated by endless clicks on electronic medical records software.

Now, the twin shock of income loss and feeling unwanted in a pandemic – when, you know, medicine might seem especially essential – has doctors resorting to a bizarre array of side gigs, “fun-employment” activities, or outright career overhauls.

Stephanie Eschenbach Morgan, MD, a breast radiologist in North Carolina, trained for 10 years after college before earning a true physician’s salary.

“Being furloughed was awful. Initially, it was only going to be 2 weeks, and then it turned into 2 months with no pay,” she reflected.

Dr. Eschenbach Morgan and her surgeon husband, who lost a full quarter’s salary, had to ask for grace periods on their credit card and mortgage payments because they had paid a large tax bill right before the pandemic began. “We couldn’t get any stimulus help, so that added insult to injury,” she said.

With her time spent waiting in a holding pattern, Dr. Eschenbach Morgan homeschooled her two young children and started putting a home gym together. She went on a home organizing spree, started a garden, and, perhaps most impressively, caught up with 5 years of photo albums.

A bonus she noted: “I didn’t set an alarm for 2 months.”

Shella Farooki, MD, a radiologist in California, was also focused on homeschooling, itself a demanding job, and veered toward retirement. When one of her work contracts furloughed her (“at one point, I made $30K a month for [their business]”), she started saving money at home, teaching the kids, and applied for a Paycheck Protection Program loan. Her husband, a hospitalist, had had his shifts cut. Dr. Farooki tried a radiology artificial intelligence firm but backed out when she was asked to read 9,200 studies for them for $2,000 per month.

Now, she thinks about leaving medicine “every day.”

Some doctors are questioning whether they should be in medicine in the first place. Family medicine physician Jonathan Polak, MD, faced with his own pink slip, turned to pink T-shirts instead. His girlfriend manages an outlet of the teen fashion retailer Justice. Dr. Polak, who finished his residency just 2 years ago, didn’t hesitate to take a $10-an-hour gig as a stock doc, once even finding himself delivering a shelving unit from the shuttering store to a physician fleeing the city for rural New Hampshire to “escape.”

There’s no escape for him – yet. Saddled with “astronomical” student loans, he had considered grocery store work as well. Dr. Polak knows he can’t work part time or go into teaching long term, as he might like.

Even so, he’s doing everything he can to not be in patient care for the long haul – it’s just not what he thought it would be.

“The culture of medicine, bureaucracy, endless paperwork and charting, and threat of litigation sucks a lot of the joy out of it to the point that I don’t see myself doing it forever when imagining myself 5-10 years into it.”

Still, he recently took an 18-month hospital contract that will force him to move to Florida, but he’s also been turning himself into a veritable Renaissance man; composing music, training for an ultramarathon, studying the latest medical findings, roadtripping, and launching a podcast about dog grooming with a master groomer. “We found parallels between medicine and dog grooming,” he says, somewhat convincingly.

Also working the ruff life is Jen Tserng, MD, a former forensic pathologist who landed on news websites in recent years for becoming a professional dogwalker and housesitter without a permanent home. Dr. Tserng knows doctors were restless and unhappy before COVID-19, their thoughts wandering where the grass might be greener.

As her profile grew, she found her inbox gathering messages from disaffected medical minions: students with a fear of failing or staring down residency application season and employed doctors sick of the constant grind. As she recounted those de facto life coach conversations (“What do you really enjoy?” “Do you really like dogs?”) by phone from New York, she said matter-of-factly, “They don’t call because of COVID. They call because they hate their lives.”

Michelle Mudge-Riley, MD, a physician in Texas, has been seeing this shift for some time as well. She recently held a virtual version of her Physicians Helping Physicians conference, where doctors hear from their peers working successfully in fields like pharmaceuticals and real estate investing.

When COVID-19 hit, Dr. Mudge-Riley quickly pivoted to a virtual platform, where the MDs and DOs huddled in breakout rooms having honest chats about their fears and tentative hopes about their new careers.

“There has been increased interest in nonclinical exploration into full- and part-time careers, as well as side hustles, since COVID began,” she said. “Many physicians have had their hours or pay cut, and some have been laid off. Others are furloughed. Some just want out of an environment where they don’t feel safe.”

An ear, nose, and throat surgeon, Maansi Doshi, MD, from central California, didn’t feel safe – so she left. She had returned from India sick with a mystery virus right as the pandemic began (she said her COVID-19 tests were all negative) and was waiting to get well enough to go back to her private practice job. However, she said she clashed with Trump-supporting colleagues she feared might not be taking the pandemic seriously enough.

Finally getting over a relapse of her mystery virus, Dr. Doshi emailed her resignation in May. Her husband, family practice doctor Mark Mangiapane, MD, gave his job notice weeks later in solidarity because he worked in the same building. Together, they have embraced gardening, a Peloton splurge, and learning business skills to open private practices – solo primary care for him; ENT with a focus on her favorite surgery, rhinoplasty, for her.

Dr. Mangiapane had considered editing medical brochures and also tried to apply for a job as a county public health officer in rural California, but he received his own shock when he learned the county intended to open schools in the midst of the pandemic despite advisement to the contrary by the former health officer.

He retreated from job listings altogether after hearing his would-be peers were getting death threats – targeting their children.

Both doctors felt COVID-19 pushed them beyond their comfort zones. “If COVID hadn’t happened, I would be working. ... Be ‘owned.’ In a weird way, COVID made me more independent and take a risk with my career.”

Obstetrician Kwandaa Roberts, MD, certainly did; she took a budding interest in decorating dollhouses straight to Instagram and national news fame, and she is now a TV-show expert on “Sell This House.”

Like Dr. Doshi and Dr. Mangiapane, Dr. Polak wants to be more in control of his future – even if selling T-shirts at a mall means a certain loss of status along the way.

“Aside from my passion to learn and to have that connection with people, I went into medicine ... because of the job security I thought existed,” he said. “I would say that my getting furloughed has changed my view of the United States in a dramatic way. I do not feel as confident in the U.S. economy and general way of life as I did a year ago. And I am taking a number of steps to put myself in a more fluid, adaptable position in case another crisis like this occurs or if the current state of things worsens.”

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

One of the biggest conundrums of the COVID-19 pandemic has been the simultaneous panic-hiring of medical professionals in hot spots and significant downsizing of staff across the country. From huge hospital systems to private practices, the stoppage of breast reductions and knee replacements, not to mention the drops in motor vehicle accidents and bar fights, have quieted operating rooms and emergency departments and put doctors’ jobs on the chopping block. A widely cited survey suggests that 21% of doctors have had a work reduction due to COVID-19.

For many American doctors, this is their first extended period of unemployment. Unlike engineers or those with MBAs who might see their fortunes rise and fall with the whims of recessions and boom times, physicians are not exactly accustomed to being laid off. However, doctors were already smarting for years due to falling salaries and decreased autonomy, punctuated by endless clicks on electronic medical records software.

Now, the twin shock of income loss and feeling unwanted in a pandemic – when, you know, medicine might seem especially essential – has doctors resorting to a bizarre array of side gigs, “fun-employment” activities, or outright career overhauls.

Stephanie Eschenbach Morgan, MD, a breast radiologist in North Carolina, trained for 10 years after college before earning a true physician’s salary.

“Being furloughed was awful. Initially, it was only going to be 2 weeks, and then it turned into 2 months with no pay,” she reflected.

Dr. Eschenbach Morgan and her surgeon husband, who lost a full quarter’s salary, had to ask for grace periods on their credit card and mortgage payments because they had paid a large tax bill right before the pandemic began. “We couldn’t get any stimulus help, so that added insult to injury,” she said.

With her time spent waiting in a holding pattern, Dr. Eschenbach Morgan homeschooled her two young children and started putting a home gym together. She went on a home organizing spree, started a garden, and, perhaps most impressively, caught up with 5 years of photo albums.

A bonus she noted: “I didn’t set an alarm for 2 months.”

Shella Farooki, MD, a radiologist in California, was also focused on homeschooling, itself a demanding job, and veered toward retirement. When one of her work contracts furloughed her (“at one point, I made $30K a month for [their business]”), she started saving money at home, teaching the kids, and applied for a Paycheck Protection Program loan. Her husband, a hospitalist, had had his shifts cut. Dr. Farooki tried a radiology artificial intelligence firm but backed out when she was asked to read 9,200 studies for them for $2,000 per month.

Now, she thinks about leaving medicine “every day.”

Some doctors are questioning whether they should be in medicine in the first place. Family medicine physician Jonathan Polak, MD, faced with his own pink slip, turned to pink T-shirts instead. His girlfriend manages an outlet of the teen fashion retailer Justice. Dr. Polak, who finished his residency just 2 years ago, didn’t hesitate to take a $10-an-hour gig as a stock doc, once even finding himself delivering a shelving unit from the shuttering store to a physician fleeing the city for rural New Hampshire to “escape.”

There’s no escape for him – yet. Saddled with “astronomical” student loans, he had considered grocery store work as well. Dr. Polak knows he can’t work part time or go into teaching long term, as he might like.

Even so, he’s doing everything he can to not be in patient care for the long haul – it’s just not what he thought it would be.

“The culture of medicine, bureaucracy, endless paperwork and charting, and threat of litigation sucks a lot of the joy out of it to the point that I don’t see myself doing it forever when imagining myself 5-10 years into it.”

Still, he recently took an 18-month hospital contract that will force him to move to Florida, but he’s also been turning himself into a veritable Renaissance man; composing music, training for an ultramarathon, studying the latest medical findings, roadtripping, and launching a podcast about dog grooming with a master groomer. “We found parallels between medicine and dog grooming,” he says, somewhat convincingly.

Also working the ruff life is Jen Tserng, MD, a former forensic pathologist who landed on news websites in recent years for becoming a professional dogwalker and housesitter without a permanent home. Dr. Tserng knows doctors were restless and unhappy before COVID-19, their thoughts wandering where the grass might be greener.

As her profile grew, she found her inbox gathering messages from disaffected medical minions: students with a fear of failing or staring down residency application season and employed doctors sick of the constant grind. As she recounted those de facto life coach conversations (“What do you really enjoy?” “Do you really like dogs?”) by phone from New York, she said matter-of-factly, “They don’t call because of COVID. They call because they hate their lives.”

Michelle Mudge-Riley, MD, a physician in Texas, has been seeing this shift for some time as well. She recently held a virtual version of her Physicians Helping Physicians conference, where doctors hear from their peers working successfully in fields like pharmaceuticals and real estate investing.

When COVID-19 hit, Dr. Mudge-Riley quickly pivoted to a virtual platform, where the MDs and DOs huddled in breakout rooms having honest chats about their fears and tentative hopes about their new careers.

“There has been increased interest in nonclinical exploration into full- and part-time careers, as well as side hustles, since COVID began,” she said. “Many physicians have had their hours or pay cut, and some have been laid off. Others are furloughed. Some just want out of an environment where they don’t feel safe.”

An ear, nose, and throat surgeon, Maansi Doshi, MD, from central California, didn’t feel safe – so she left. She had returned from India sick with a mystery virus right as the pandemic began (she said her COVID-19 tests were all negative) and was waiting to get well enough to go back to her private practice job. However, she said she clashed with Trump-supporting colleagues she feared might not be taking the pandemic seriously enough.

Finally getting over a relapse of her mystery virus, Dr. Doshi emailed her resignation in May. Her husband, family practice doctor Mark Mangiapane, MD, gave his job notice weeks later in solidarity because he worked in the same building. Together, they have embraced gardening, a Peloton splurge, and learning business skills to open private practices – solo primary care for him; ENT with a focus on her favorite surgery, rhinoplasty, for her.

Dr. Mangiapane had considered editing medical brochures and also tried to apply for a job as a county public health officer in rural California, but he received his own shock when he learned the county intended to open schools in the midst of the pandemic despite advisement to the contrary by the former health officer.

He retreated from job listings altogether after hearing his would-be peers were getting death threats – targeting their children.

Both doctors felt COVID-19 pushed them beyond their comfort zones. “If COVID hadn’t happened, I would be working. ... Be ‘owned.’ In a weird way, COVID made me more independent and take a risk with my career.”

Obstetrician Kwandaa Roberts, MD, certainly did; she took a budding interest in decorating dollhouses straight to Instagram and national news fame, and she is now a TV-show expert on “Sell This House.”

Like Dr. Doshi and Dr. Mangiapane, Dr. Polak wants to be more in control of his future – even if selling T-shirts at a mall means a certain loss of status along the way.

“Aside from my passion to learn and to have that connection with people, I went into medicine ... because of the job security I thought existed,” he said. “I would say that my getting furloughed has changed my view of the United States in a dramatic way. I do not feel as confident in the U.S. economy and general way of life as I did a year ago. And I am taking a number of steps to put myself in a more fluid, adaptable position in case another crisis like this occurs or if the current state of things worsens.”

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