Rheumatology News

TOPLINE:

A substantial proportion of older adults with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiate glucocorticoids before receiving care from a rheumatologist. The early initiation of glucocorticoids in this group is associated with prolonged use.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from Medicare claims and Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness registry of the American College of Rheumatology from 2016 to 2018 to assess the relationship between the timing of glucocorticoid initiation and the subsequent duration of glucocorticoid use in older adults with early RA in the United States.
• They included 1733 patients aged ≥ 65 years (mean age, 76 years; 67% women) with early RA.
• Glucocorticoid initiation was defined as the first use between 3 months before and 6 months after entrance into rheumatology care.
• The continuous administration of glucocorticoid therapy was monitored for all individuals who initiated glucocorticoid treatment for up to 12 months after entering rheumatology care.
• The primary outcome was the duration of continuous glucocorticoid use after entering rheumatology care.

TAKEAWAY:

• Glucocorticoids were initiated in 41% of patients, with 65% starting them before the initial RA diagnosis by a rheumatologist. The median duration of glucocorticoid use was 157 days.
• Patients with early RA who initiated glucocorticoids before entering rheumatology care showed a significantly longer duration of glucocorticoid use than those who initiated it later (median, 186 vs 97 days; P < .0001).
• Patients who initiated glucocorticoids before entering rheumatology care were 39% less likely to stop its use within 1 year (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51-0.74).
• The mean daily dose of glucocorticoids was < 5 mg/d for patients who received them for at least 3 months, indicating a trend toward low-dose, long-term use.

IN PRACTICE:

“Initiatives to reduce GC [glucocorticoid] exposure among patients with eRA [early RA] will likely require attention to rheumatology workforce shortages and close collaboration between rheumatologists and primary care clinicians to expedite referrals to rheumatology care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Andriko Palmowski, MD, Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany, and was published online in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational nature of this study limited the ability to establish causality between early glucocorticoid initiation and the prolonged use of glucocorticoids. Moreover, the study population was limited to older adults, which affected the generalizability of the findings to younger populations. It also did not account for the fact that patients with more severe early RA were more likely to start glucocorticoid therapy early and continue it for longer durations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by research grants from the Deutsche Autoimmun-Stiftung and other sources. Some authors declared receiving grant support, consultancy fees, honoraria, and travel expenses and had other ties with various pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A substantial proportion of older adults with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiate glucocorticoids before receiving care from a rheumatologist. The early initiation of glucocorticoids in this group is associated with prolonged use.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from Medicare claims and Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness registry of the American College of Rheumatology from 2016 to 2018 to assess the relationship between the timing of glucocorticoid initiation and the subsequent duration of glucocorticoid use in older adults with early RA in the United States.
• They included 1733 patients aged ≥ 65 years (mean age, 76 years; 67% women) with early RA.
• Glucocorticoid initiation was defined as the first use between 3 months before and 6 months after entrance into rheumatology care.
• The continuous administration of glucocorticoid therapy was monitored for all individuals who initiated glucocorticoid treatment for up to 12 months after entering rheumatology care.
• The primary outcome was the duration of continuous glucocorticoid use after entering rheumatology care.

TAKEAWAY:

• Glucocorticoids were initiated in 41% of patients, with 65% starting them before the initial RA diagnosis by a rheumatologist. The median duration of glucocorticoid use was 157 days.
• Patients with early RA who initiated glucocorticoids before entering rheumatology care showed a significantly longer duration of glucocorticoid use than those who initiated it later (median, 186 vs 97 days; P < .0001).
• Patients who initiated glucocorticoids before entering rheumatology care were 39% less likely to stop its use within 1 year (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51-0.74).
• The mean daily dose of glucocorticoids was < 5 mg/d for patients who received them for at least 3 months, indicating a trend toward low-dose, long-term use.

IN PRACTICE:

“Initiatives to reduce GC [glucocorticoid] exposure among patients with eRA [early RA] will likely require attention to rheumatology workforce shortages and close collaboration between rheumatologists and primary care clinicians to expedite referrals to rheumatology care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Andriko Palmowski, MD, Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany, and was published online in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational nature of this study limited the ability to establish causality between early glucocorticoid initiation and the prolonged use of glucocorticoids. Moreover, the study population was limited to older adults, which affected the generalizability of the findings to younger populations. It also did not account for the fact that patients with more severe early RA were more likely to start glucocorticoid therapy early and continue it for longer durations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by research grants from the Deutsche Autoimmun-Stiftung and other sources. Some authors declared receiving grant support, consultancy fees, honoraria, and travel expenses and had other ties with various pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A substantial proportion of older adults with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiate glucocorticoids before receiving care from a rheumatologist. The early initiation of glucocorticoids in this group is associated with prolonged use.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from Medicare claims and Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness registry of the American College of Rheumatology from 2016 to 2018 to assess the relationship between the timing of glucocorticoid initiation and the subsequent duration of glucocorticoid use in older adults with early RA in the United States.
• They included 1733 patients aged ≥ 65 years (mean age, 76 years; 67% women) with early RA.
• Glucocorticoid initiation was defined as the first use between 3 months before and 6 months after entrance into rheumatology care.
• The continuous administration of glucocorticoid therapy was monitored for all individuals who initiated glucocorticoid treatment for up to 12 months after entering rheumatology care.
• The primary outcome was the duration of continuous glucocorticoid use after entering rheumatology care.

TAKEAWAY:

• Glucocorticoids were initiated in 41% of patients, with 65% starting them before the initial RA diagnosis by a rheumatologist. The median duration of glucocorticoid use was 157 days.
• Patients with early RA who initiated glucocorticoids before entering rheumatology care showed a significantly longer duration of glucocorticoid use than those who initiated it later (median, 186 vs 97 days; P < .0001).
• Patients who initiated glucocorticoids before entering rheumatology care were 39% less likely to stop its use within 1 year (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51-0.74).
• The mean daily dose of glucocorticoids was < 5 mg/d for patients who received them for at least 3 months, indicating a trend toward low-dose, long-term use.

IN PRACTICE:

“Initiatives to reduce GC [glucocorticoid] exposure among patients with eRA [early RA] will likely require attention to rheumatology workforce shortages and close collaboration between rheumatologists and primary care clinicians to expedite referrals to rheumatology care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Andriko Palmowski, MD, Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany, and was published online in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational nature of this study limited the ability to establish causality between early glucocorticoid initiation and the prolonged use of glucocorticoids. Moreover, the study population was limited to older adults, which affected the generalizability of the findings to younger populations. It also did not account for the fact that patients with more severe early RA were more likely to start glucocorticoid therapy early and continue it for longer durations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by research grants from the Deutsche Autoimmun-Stiftung and other sources. Some authors declared receiving grant support, consultancy fees, honoraria, and travel expenses and had other ties with various pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

There are five reasons you do not want to order that notorious antinuclear antibody (ANA) test — when a patient comes into your office and you say, “Let’s just run a wellness check” and you order the ANA test, or the patient comes in and says, “Hey doc, order everything, okay?” — without really thinking these things through.

1. I’m sure you know that the ANA test, if positive, does not exclude other conditions. For instance, older women could have a positive ANA test; it’s very common in this group. 

2. There’s a high false-positive rate for an ANA test. For instance, cancers and viral infections can cause an ANA test to be positive, and certain medications can cause a false-positive ANA test. 

3. Context matters. If you have a patient that has particular symptoms, joint swelling, a strong family history of autoimmune disease, a luminal rash that you can’t understand, hair loss, those kind of things, then yes, when you order that ANA test, it’s going to be valuable. If the patient does not have those symptoms, you are just running down this rabbit hole that causes worry for you and your patient. 

4. The ANA test on its own is not helpful until you order the subtypes. Double-stranded DNA and anti-SSA or anti-SSB antibodies are just a few examples of the subtypes of the ANA test that really help you understand what you ordered. 

5. The elephant in the room: What is the pretest probability of your diagnostic test — all the symptoms, the hair loss, the malar rash, the sores in the mouth, the joint swelling, the blood in the urine? Fluid around the heart, pericarditis, pleurisy, those kinds of symptoms, right? When you have those symptoms and you order an ANA test, then you have basically put directions into your GPS. So now you know that if the test is positive, these are the things you’re going to do with the test going forward.

I hope that these five things have told you: Hey, before you order that ANA test, let’s make sure that we’re not causing unnecessary stress for our patients and also minimizing unnecessary testing.

Dr. Dada, CEO, Overlake Arthritis and Osteoporosis Center, Bellevue, Washington, disclosed ties with Horizon Pharmaceuticals.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

There are five reasons you do not want to order that notorious antinuclear antibody (ANA) test — when a patient comes into your office and you say, “Let’s just run a wellness check” and you order the ANA test, or the patient comes in and says, “Hey doc, order everything, okay?” — without really thinking these things through.

1. I’m sure you know that the ANA test, if positive, does not exclude other conditions. For instance, older women could have a positive ANA test; it’s very common in this group. 

2. There’s a high false-positive rate for an ANA test. For instance, cancers and viral infections can cause an ANA test to be positive, and certain medications can cause a false-positive ANA test. 

3. Context matters. If you have a patient that has particular symptoms, joint swelling, a strong family history of autoimmune disease, a luminal rash that you can’t understand, hair loss, those kind of things, then yes, when you order that ANA test, it’s going to be valuable. If the patient does not have those symptoms, you are just running down this rabbit hole that causes worry for you and your patient. 

4. The ANA test on its own is not helpful until you order the subtypes. Double-stranded DNA and anti-SSA or anti-SSB antibodies are just a few examples of the subtypes of the ANA test that really help you understand what you ordered. 

5. The elephant in the room: What is the pretest probability of your diagnostic test — all the symptoms, the hair loss, the malar rash, the sores in the mouth, the joint swelling, the blood in the urine? Fluid around the heart, pericarditis, pleurisy, those kinds of symptoms, right? When you have those symptoms and you order an ANA test, then you have basically put directions into your GPS. So now you know that if the test is positive, these are the things you’re going to do with the test going forward.

I hope that these five things have told you: Hey, before you order that ANA test, let’s make sure that we’re not causing unnecessary stress for our patients and also minimizing unnecessary testing.

Dr. Dada, CEO, Overlake Arthritis and Osteoporosis Center, Bellevue, Washington, disclosed ties with Horizon Pharmaceuticals.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

There are five reasons you do not want to order that notorious antinuclear antibody (ANA) test — when a patient comes into your office and you say, “Let’s just run a wellness check” and you order the ANA test, or the patient comes in and says, “Hey doc, order everything, okay?” — without really thinking these things through.

1. I’m sure you know that the ANA test, if positive, does not exclude other conditions. For instance, older women could have a positive ANA test; it’s very common in this group. 

2. There’s a high false-positive rate for an ANA test. For instance, cancers and viral infections can cause an ANA test to be positive, and certain medications can cause a false-positive ANA test. 

3. Context matters. If you have a patient that has particular symptoms, joint swelling, a strong family history of autoimmune disease, a luminal rash that you can’t understand, hair loss, those kind of things, then yes, when you order that ANA test, it’s going to be valuable. If the patient does not have those symptoms, you are just running down this rabbit hole that causes worry for you and your patient. 

4. The ANA test on its own is not helpful until you order the subtypes. Double-stranded DNA and anti-SSA or anti-SSB antibodies are just a few examples of the subtypes of the ANA test that really help you understand what you ordered. 

5. The elephant in the room: What is the pretest probability of your diagnostic test — all the symptoms, the hair loss, the malar rash, the sores in the mouth, the joint swelling, the blood in the urine? Fluid around the heart, pericarditis, pleurisy, those kinds of symptoms, right? When you have those symptoms and you order an ANA test, then you have basically put directions into your GPS. So now you know that if the test is positive, these are the things you’re going to do with the test going forward.

I hope that these five things have told you: Hey, before you order that ANA test, let’s make sure that we’re not causing unnecessary stress for our patients and also minimizing unnecessary testing.

Dr. Dada, CEO, Overlake Arthritis and Osteoporosis Center, Bellevue, Washington, disclosed ties with Horizon Pharmaceuticals.

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

While she cared deeply about her work, Melissa Adams*, a family nurse practitioner (NP) in Madison, Alabama, was being frequently triple-booked, didn’t feel respected by her office manager, and started to worry about becoming burned out. When she sought help, “the administration was tone-deaf,” she said. “When I asked about what I could do to prevent burnout, they sent me an article about it. It was clear to me that asking for respite from triple-booking and asking to be respected by my office manager wasn’t being heard ... so I thought, ‘how do I fly under the radar and get by with what I can?’ ” That meant focusing on patient care and refusing to take on additional responsibilities, like training new hires or working with students.

“You’re overworked and underpaid, and you start giving less and less of yourself,” Ms. Adams said in an interview.

Quiet quitting, defined as performing only the assigned tasks of the job without making any extra effort or going the proverbial extra mile, has gained attention in the press in recent years. A Gallup poll found that about 50% of the workforce were “quiet quitters” or disengaged.

It may be even more prevalent in healthcare, where a recent survey found that 57% of frontline medical staff, including NPs and physician assistants (PAs), report being disengaged at work.
 

The Causes of Quiet Quitting

Potential causes of quiet quitting among PAs and NPs include:

• Unrealistic care expectations. They ask you to give your all to patients, handle everything, and do it all in under 15 minutes since that’s how much time the appointment allows, Ms. Adams said.
• Lack of trust or respect. Physicians don’t always respect the role that PAs and NPs play in a practice.
• Dissatisfaction with leadership or administration. There’s often a feeling that the PA or NP isn’t “heard” or appreciated.
• Dissatisfaction with pay or working conditions.
• Moral injury. “There’s no way to escape being morally injured when you work with an at-risk population,” said Ms. Adams. “You may see someone who has 20-24 determinants of health, and you’re expected to schlep them through in 8 minutes — you know you’re not able to do what they need.”

What Quiet Quitting Looks Like

Terri Smith*, an NP at an academic medical center outpatient clinic in rural Vermont, said that, while she feels appreciated by her patients and her team, there’s poor communication from the administration, which has caused her to quietly quit.

“I stopped saying ‘yes’ to all the normal committee work and the extra stuff that used to add a lot to my professional enjoyment,” she said. “The last couple of years, my whole motto is to nod and smile when administration says to do something — to put your head down and take care of your patients.”

While the term “quiet quitting” may be new, the issue is not, said Bridget Roberts, PhD, a healthcare executive who ran a large physician’s group of 100 healthcare providers in Jacksonville, Florida, for a decade. “Quiet quitting is a fancy title for employees who are completely disengaged,” said Dr. Roberts. “When they’re on the way out, they ‘check the box’. That’s not a new thing.”

“Typically, the first thing you see is a lot of frustration in that they aren’t able to complete the tasks they have at hand,” said Rebecca Day, PMNHP, a doctoral-educated NP and director of nursing practice at a Federally Qualified Health Center in Corbin, Kentucky. “Staff may be overworked and not have enough time to do what’s required of them with patient care as well as the paperwork required behind the scenes. It [quiet quitting] is doing just enough to get by, but shortcutting as much as they can to try to save some time.”
 

Addressing Quiet Quitting

Those kinds of shortcuts may affect patients, admits Ms. Smith. “I do think it starts to seep into patient care,” she said. “And that really doesn’t feel good ... at our institution, I’m not just an NP — I’m the nurse, the doctor, the secretary — I’m everybody, and for the last year, almost every single day in clinic, I’m apologizing [to a patient] because we can’t do something.”

Watching for this frustration can help alert administrators to NPs and PAs who may be “checking out” at work. Open lines of communication can help you address the issue. “Ask questions like ‘What could we do differently to make your day easier?’” said Dr. Roberts. Understanding the day-to-day issues NPs and PAs face at work can help in developing a plan to address disengagement.

When Dr. Day sees quiet quitting at her practice, she talks with the advance practice provider about what’s causing the issue. “’Are you overworked? Are you understaffed? Are there problems at home? Do you feel you’re receiving inadequate pay?’ ” she said. “The first thing to do is address that and find mutual ground on the issues…deal with the person as a person and then go back and deal with the person as an employee. If your staff isn’t happy, your clinic isn’t going to be productive.”

Finally, while reasons for quiet quitting may vary, cultivating a collaborative atmosphere where NPs and PAs feel appreciated and valued can help reduce the risk for quiet quitting. “Get to know your advanced practice providers,” said Ms. Adams. “Understand their strengths and what they’re about. It’s not an ‘us vs them’ ... there is a lot more commonality when we approach it that way.” Respect for the integral role that NPs and PAs play in your practice can help reduce the risk for quiet quitting — and help provide better patient care.

*Names have been changed.

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

While she cared deeply about her work, Melissa Adams*, a family nurse practitioner (NP) in Madison, Alabama, was being frequently triple-booked, didn’t feel respected by her office manager, and started to worry about becoming burned out. When she sought help, “the administration was tone-deaf,” she said. “When I asked about what I could do to prevent burnout, they sent me an article about it. It was clear to me that asking for respite from triple-booking and asking to be respected by my office manager wasn’t being heard ... so I thought, ‘how do I fly under the radar and get by with what I can?’ ” That meant focusing on patient care and refusing to take on additional responsibilities, like training new hires or working with students.

“You’re overworked and underpaid, and you start giving less and less of yourself,” Ms. Adams said in an interview.

Quiet quitting, defined as performing only the assigned tasks of the job without making any extra effort or going the proverbial extra mile, has gained attention in the press in recent years. A Gallup poll found that about 50% of the workforce were “quiet quitters” or disengaged.

It may be even more prevalent in healthcare, where a recent survey found that 57% of frontline medical staff, including NPs and physician assistants (PAs), report being disengaged at work.
 

The Causes of Quiet Quitting

Potential causes of quiet quitting among PAs and NPs include:

• Unrealistic care expectations. They ask you to give your all to patients, handle everything, and do it all in under 15 minutes since that’s how much time the appointment allows, Ms. Adams said.
• Lack of trust or respect. Physicians don’t always respect the role that PAs and NPs play in a practice.
• Dissatisfaction with leadership or administration. There’s often a feeling that the PA or NP isn’t “heard” or appreciated.
• Dissatisfaction with pay or working conditions.
• Moral injury. “There’s no way to escape being morally injured when you work with an at-risk population,” said Ms. Adams. “You may see someone who has 20-24 determinants of health, and you’re expected to schlep them through in 8 minutes — you know you’re not able to do what they need.”

What Quiet Quitting Looks Like

Terri Smith*, an NP at an academic medical center outpatient clinic in rural Vermont, said that, while she feels appreciated by her patients and her team, there’s poor communication from the administration, which has caused her to quietly quit.

“I stopped saying ‘yes’ to all the normal committee work and the extra stuff that used to add a lot to my professional enjoyment,” she said. “The last couple of years, my whole motto is to nod and smile when administration says to do something — to put your head down and take care of your patients.”

While the term “quiet quitting” may be new, the issue is not, said Bridget Roberts, PhD, a healthcare executive who ran a large physician’s group of 100 healthcare providers in Jacksonville, Florida, for a decade. “Quiet quitting is a fancy title for employees who are completely disengaged,” said Dr. Roberts. “When they’re on the way out, they ‘check the box’. That’s not a new thing.”

“Typically, the first thing you see is a lot of frustration in that they aren’t able to complete the tasks they have at hand,” said Rebecca Day, PMNHP, a doctoral-educated NP and director of nursing practice at a Federally Qualified Health Center in Corbin, Kentucky. “Staff may be overworked and not have enough time to do what’s required of them with patient care as well as the paperwork required behind the scenes. It [quiet quitting] is doing just enough to get by, but shortcutting as much as they can to try to save some time.”
 

Addressing Quiet Quitting

Those kinds of shortcuts may affect patients, admits Ms. Smith. “I do think it starts to seep into patient care,” she said. “And that really doesn’t feel good ... at our institution, I’m not just an NP — I’m the nurse, the doctor, the secretary — I’m everybody, and for the last year, almost every single day in clinic, I’m apologizing [to a patient] because we can’t do something.”

Watching for this frustration can help alert administrators to NPs and PAs who may be “checking out” at work. Open lines of communication can help you address the issue. “Ask questions like ‘What could we do differently to make your day easier?’” said Dr. Roberts. Understanding the day-to-day issues NPs and PAs face at work can help in developing a plan to address disengagement.

When Dr. Day sees quiet quitting at her practice, she talks with the advance practice provider about what’s causing the issue. “’Are you overworked? Are you understaffed? Are there problems at home? Do you feel you’re receiving inadequate pay?’ ” she said. “The first thing to do is address that and find mutual ground on the issues…deal with the person as a person and then go back and deal with the person as an employee. If your staff isn’t happy, your clinic isn’t going to be productive.”

Finally, while reasons for quiet quitting may vary, cultivating a collaborative atmosphere where NPs and PAs feel appreciated and valued can help reduce the risk for quiet quitting. “Get to know your advanced practice providers,” said Ms. Adams. “Understand their strengths and what they’re about. It’s not an ‘us vs them’ ... there is a lot more commonality when we approach it that way.” Respect for the integral role that NPs and PAs play in your practice can help reduce the risk for quiet quitting — and help provide better patient care.

*Names have been changed.

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

While she cared deeply about her work, Melissa Adams*, a family nurse practitioner (NP) in Madison, Alabama, was being frequently triple-booked, didn’t feel respected by her office manager, and started to worry about becoming burned out. When she sought help, “the administration was tone-deaf,” she said. “When I asked about what I could do to prevent burnout, they sent me an article about it. It was clear to me that asking for respite from triple-booking and asking to be respected by my office manager wasn’t being heard ... so I thought, ‘how do I fly under the radar and get by with what I can?’ ” That meant focusing on patient care and refusing to take on additional responsibilities, like training new hires or working with students.

“You’re overworked and underpaid, and you start giving less and less of yourself,” Ms. Adams said in an interview.

Quiet quitting, defined as performing only the assigned tasks of the job without making any extra effort or going the proverbial extra mile, has gained attention in the press in recent years. A Gallup poll found that about 50% of the workforce were “quiet quitters” or disengaged.

It may be even more prevalent in healthcare, where a recent survey found that 57% of frontline medical staff, including NPs and physician assistants (PAs), report being disengaged at work.
 

The Causes of Quiet Quitting

Potential causes of quiet quitting among PAs and NPs include:

• Unrealistic care expectations. They ask you to give your all to patients, handle everything, and do it all in under 15 minutes since that’s how much time the appointment allows, Ms. Adams said.
• Lack of trust or respect. Physicians don’t always respect the role that PAs and NPs play in a practice.
• Dissatisfaction with leadership or administration. There’s often a feeling that the PA or NP isn’t “heard” or appreciated.
• Dissatisfaction with pay or working conditions.
• Moral injury. “There’s no way to escape being morally injured when you work with an at-risk population,” said Ms. Adams. “You may see someone who has 20-24 determinants of health, and you’re expected to schlep them through in 8 minutes — you know you’re not able to do what they need.”

What Quiet Quitting Looks Like

Terri Smith*, an NP at an academic medical center outpatient clinic in rural Vermont, said that, while she feels appreciated by her patients and her team, there’s poor communication from the administration, which has caused her to quietly quit.

“I stopped saying ‘yes’ to all the normal committee work and the extra stuff that used to add a lot to my professional enjoyment,” she said. “The last couple of years, my whole motto is to nod and smile when administration says to do something — to put your head down and take care of your patients.”

While the term “quiet quitting” may be new, the issue is not, said Bridget Roberts, PhD, a healthcare executive who ran a large physician’s group of 100 healthcare providers in Jacksonville, Florida, for a decade. “Quiet quitting is a fancy title for employees who are completely disengaged,” said Dr. Roberts. “When they’re on the way out, they ‘check the box’. That’s not a new thing.”

“Typically, the first thing you see is a lot of frustration in that they aren’t able to complete the tasks they have at hand,” said Rebecca Day, PMNHP, a doctoral-educated NP and director of nursing practice at a Federally Qualified Health Center in Corbin, Kentucky. “Staff may be overworked and not have enough time to do what’s required of them with patient care as well as the paperwork required behind the scenes. It [quiet quitting] is doing just enough to get by, but shortcutting as much as they can to try to save some time.”
 

Addressing Quiet Quitting

Those kinds of shortcuts may affect patients, admits Ms. Smith. “I do think it starts to seep into patient care,” she said. “And that really doesn’t feel good ... at our institution, I’m not just an NP — I’m the nurse, the doctor, the secretary — I’m everybody, and for the last year, almost every single day in clinic, I’m apologizing [to a patient] because we can’t do something.”

Watching for this frustration can help alert administrators to NPs and PAs who may be “checking out” at work. Open lines of communication can help you address the issue. “Ask questions like ‘What could we do differently to make your day easier?’” said Dr. Roberts. Understanding the day-to-day issues NPs and PAs face at work can help in developing a plan to address disengagement.

When Dr. Day sees quiet quitting at her practice, she talks with the advance practice provider about what’s causing the issue. “’Are you overworked? Are you understaffed? Are there problems at home? Do you feel you’re receiving inadequate pay?’ ” she said. “The first thing to do is address that and find mutual ground on the issues…deal with the person as a person and then go back and deal with the person as an employee. If your staff isn’t happy, your clinic isn’t going to be productive.”

Finally, while reasons for quiet quitting may vary, cultivating a collaborative atmosphere where NPs and PAs feel appreciated and valued can help reduce the risk for quiet quitting. “Get to know your advanced practice providers,” said Ms. Adams. “Understand their strengths and what they’re about. It’s not an ‘us vs them’ ... there is a lot more commonality when we approach it that way.” Respect for the integral role that NPs and PAs play in your practice can help reduce the risk for quiet quitting — and help provide better patient care.

*Names have been changed.

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

TOPLINE:

Current use of hydroxychloroquine is associated with a lower risk for myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and other thromboembolic events in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). This protective effect diminishes after discontinuation of hydroxychloroquine treatment.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used a nested case-control design to evaluate the association between exposure to hydroxychloroquine and the risk for cardiovascular events in patients with SLE.
• They included 52,883 adults with SLE (mean age, 44.23 years; 86.6% women) identified from the National System of Health Databases, which includes 99% of the French population.
• Among these, 1981 individuals with composite cardiovascular conditions were matched with 16,892 control individuals without cardiovascular conditions.
• Patients were categorized on the basis of hydroxychloroquine exposure into current users (last exposure within 90 days before a cardiovascular event), remote users (91-365 days before), and nonusers (no exposure within 365 days).
• The study outcomes included a composite of cardiovascular events, including MI, stroke (including transient ischemic attack), and other thromboembolic events such as phlebitis, thrombophlebitis, venous thrombosis, venous thromboembolism, and pulmonary embolism.

TAKEAWAY:

• Current hydroxychloroquine users had lower odds of experiencing a composite cardiovascular outcome than nonusers (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.57-0.70).
• The odds of MI (aOR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.87), stroke (aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.61-0.83), and other thromboembolic events (aOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.48-0.69) were also lower among current users than among nonusers.
• No significant association was found for remote hydroxychloroquine exposure and the risk for composite cardiovascular events, MI, stroke, and other thromboembolic events.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings support the protective association of hydroxychloroquine against CV [cardiovascular] events and underscore the importance of continuous hydroxychloroquine therapy for patients diagnosed with SLE,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lamiae Grimaldi-Bensouda, PharmD, PhD, Department of Pharmacology, Hospital Group Paris-Saclay, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, France. It was published online on August 30, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational nature of the study may have introduced confounding. Current hydroxychloroquine users were younger than nonusers, with an average age difference of almost 5 years. Current hydroxychloroquine users had a twofold longer duration of onset of SLE and had a higher prevalence of chronic kidney disease compared with nonusers.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the Banque pour l’Investissement, Deeptech. Some authors declared having financial ties with various institutions and companies outside of the current study.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Current use of hydroxychloroquine is associated with a lower risk for myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and other thromboembolic events in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). This protective effect diminishes after discontinuation of hydroxychloroquine treatment.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used a nested case-control design to evaluate the association between exposure to hydroxychloroquine and the risk for cardiovascular events in patients with SLE.
• They included 52,883 adults with SLE (mean age, 44.23 years; 86.6% women) identified from the National System of Health Databases, which includes 99% of the French population.
• Among these, 1981 individuals with composite cardiovascular conditions were matched with 16,892 control individuals without cardiovascular conditions.
• Patients were categorized on the basis of hydroxychloroquine exposure into current users (last exposure within 90 days before a cardiovascular event), remote users (91-365 days before), and nonusers (no exposure within 365 days).
• The study outcomes included a composite of cardiovascular events, including MI, stroke (including transient ischemic attack), and other thromboembolic events such as phlebitis, thrombophlebitis, venous thrombosis, venous thromboembolism, and pulmonary embolism.

TAKEAWAY:

• Current hydroxychloroquine users had lower odds of experiencing a composite cardiovascular outcome than nonusers (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.57-0.70).
• The odds of MI (aOR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.87), stroke (aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.61-0.83), and other thromboembolic events (aOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.48-0.69) were also lower among current users than among nonusers.
• No significant association was found for remote hydroxychloroquine exposure and the risk for composite cardiovascular events, MI, stroke, and other thromboembolic events.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings support the protective association of hydroxychloroquine against CV [cardiovascular] events and underscore the importance of continuous hydroxychloroquine therapy for patients diagnosed with SLE,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lamiae Grimaldi-Bensouda, PharmD, PhD, Department of Pharmacology, Hospital Group Paris-Saclay, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, France. It was published online on August 30, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational nature of the study may have introduced confounding. Current hydroxychloroquine users were younger than nonusers, with an average age difference of almost 5 years. Current hydroxychloroquine users had a twofold longer duration of onset of SLE and had a higher prevalence of chronic kidney disease compared with nonusers.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the Banque pour l’Investissement, Deeptech. Some authors declared having financial ties with various institutions and companies outside of the current study.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Current use of hydroxychloroquine is associated with a lower risk for myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and other thromboembolic events in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). This protective effect diminishes after discontinuation of hydroxychloroquine treatment.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used a nested case-control design to evaluate the association between exposure to hydroxychloroquine and the risk for cardiovascular events in patients with SLE.
• They included 52,883 adults with SLE (mean age, 44.23 years; 86.6% women) identified from the National System of Health Databases, which includes 99% of the French population.
• Among these, 1981 individuals with composite cardiovascular conditions were matched with 16,892 control individuals without cardiovascular conditions.
• Patients were categorized on the basis of hydroxychloroquine exposure into current users (last exposure within 90 days before a cardiovascular event), remote users (91-365 days before), and nonusers (no exposure within 365 days).
• The study outcomes included a composite of cardiovascular events, including MI, stroke (including transient ischemic attack), and other thromboembolic events such as phlebitis, thrombophlebitis, venous thrombosis, venous thromboembolism, and pulmonary embolism.

TAKEAWAY:

• Current hydroxychloroquine users had lower odds of experiencing a composite cardiovascular outcome than nonusers (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.57-0.70).
• The odds of MI (aOR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.87), stroke (aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.61-0.83), and other thromboembolic events (aOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.48-0.69) were also lower among current users than among nonusers.
• No significant association was found for remote hydroxychloroquine exposure and the risk for composite cardiovascular events, MI, stroke, and other thromboembolic events.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings support the protective association of hydroxychloroquine against CV [cardiovascular] events and underscore the importance of continuous hydroxychloroquine therapy for patients diagnosed with SLE,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lamiae Grimaldi-Bensouda, PharmD, PhD, Department of Pharmacology, Hospital Group Paris-Saclay, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, France. It was published online on August 30, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational nature of the study may have introduced confounding. Current hydroxychloroquine users were younger than nonusers, with an average age difference of almost 5 years. Current hydroxychloroquine users had a twofold longer duration of onset of SLE and had a higher prevalence of chronic kidney disease compared with nonusers.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the Banque pour l’Investissement, Deeptech. Some authors declared having financial ties with various institutions and companies outside of the current study.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

MRI-derived abdominal adipose tissue is linked to chronic musculoskeletal pain in multiple sites. The association is stronger in women, suggesting sex differences in fat distribution and hormones.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used data from the UK Biobank, a large population-based cohort study, to investigate the associations between MRI-measured abdominal adipose tissue and chronic musculoskeletal pain.
• A total of 32,409 participants (50.8% women; mean age, 55.0 ± 7.4 years) were included in the analysis, with abdominal MRI scans performed at two imaging visits.
• Pain in the neck/shoulder, back, hip, knee, or “all over the body” was assessed, and participants were categorized based on the number of chronic pain sites.
• Mixed-effects ordinal, multinomial, and logistic regression models were used to analyze the associations between visceral adipose tissue (VAT), subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), and their ratio with chronic pain.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, there was a dose-response association between VAT, SAT, and their ratio with the number of chronic pain sites in both women and men.
• Higher levels of abdominal adipose tissue were associated with greater odds of reporting chronic pain in both sexes, with effect estimates being relatively larger in women.
• The researchers found that the VAT/SAT ratio was associated with the number of chronic pain sites and chronic pain in both sexes, reflecting differences in fat distribution and hormones.
• The study suggested that excessive abdominal adipose tissue may be involved in the pathogenesis of multisite and widespread chronic musculoskeletal pain.

IN PRACTICE:

“Abdominal adipose tissue was associated with chronic musculoskeletal pain, suggesting that excessive and ectopic fat depositions may be involved in the pathogenesis of multisite and widespread chronic musculoskeletal pain,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Zemene Demelash Kifle, University of Tasmania Menzies Institute for Medical Research in Hobart, Australia. It was published online in Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s limitations included the use of a pain questionnaire that did not assess pain severity, which limited the ability to examine the relationship between fat measures and pain severity. Additionally, MRI was conducted on only two occasions, which may have not captured patterns and fluctuations in chronic pain sites. The relatively small size of the imaging sample, compared with the original baseline sample limited the generalizability of the findings. The predominant White ethnicity of participants also limited the generalizability to diverse populations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Mr. Kifle disclosed receiving grants from the Australian NHMRC. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

MRI-derived abdominal adipose tissue is linked to chronic musculoskeletal pain in multiple sites. The association is stronger in women, suggesting sex differences in fat distribution and hormones.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used data from the UK Biobank, a large population-based cohort study, to investigate the associations between MRI-measured abdominal adipose tissue and chronic musculoskeletal pain.
• A total of 32,409 participants (50.8% women; mean age, 55.0 ± 7.4 years) were included in the analysis, with abdominal MRI scans performed at two imaging visits.
• Pain in the neck/shoulder, back, hip, knee, or “all over the body” was assessed, and participants were categorized based on the number of chronic pain sites.
• Mixed-effects ordinal, multinomial, and logistic regression models were used to analyze the associations between visceral adipose tissue (VAT), subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), and their ratio with chronic pain.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, there was a dose-response association between VAT, SAT, and their ratio with the number of chronic pain sites in both women and men.
• Higher levels of abdominal adipose tissue were associated with greater odds of reporting chronic pain in both sexes, with effect estimates being relatively larger in women.
• The researchers found that the VAT/SAT ratio was associated with the number of chronic pain sites and chronic pain in both sexes, reflecting differences in fat distribution and hormones.
• The study suggested that excessive abdominal adipose tissue may be involved in the pathogenesis of multisite and widespread chronic musculoskeletal pain.

IN PRACTICE:

“Abdominal adipose tissue was associated with chronic musculoskeletal pain, suggesting that excessive and ectopic fat depositions may be involved in the pathogenesis of multisite and widespread chronic musculoskeletal pain,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Zemene Demelash Kifle, University of Tasmania Menzies Institute for Medical Research in Hobart, Australia. It was published online in Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s limitations included the use of a pain questionnaire that did not assess pain severity, which limited the ability to examine the relationship between fat measures and pain severity. Additionally, MRI was conducted on only two occasions, which may have not captured patterns and fluctuations in chronic pain sites. The relatively small size of the imaging sample, compared with the original baseline sample limited the generalizability of the findings. The predominant White ethnicity of participants also limited the generalizability to diverse populations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Mr. Kifle disclosed receiving grants from the Australian NHMRC. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

MRI-derived abdominal adipose tissue is linked to chronic musculoskeletal pain in multiple sites. The association is stronger in women, suggesting sex differences in fat distribution and hormones.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used data from the UK Biobank, a large population-based cohort study, to investigate the associations between MRI-measured abdominal adipose tissue and chronic musculoskeletal pain.
• A total of 32,409 participants (50.8% women; mean age, 55.0 ± 7.4 years) were included in the analysis, with abdominal MRI scans performed at two imaging visits.
• Pain in the neck/shoulder, back, hip, knee, or “all over the body” was assessed, and participants were categorized based on the number of chronic pain sites.
• Mixed-effects ordinal, multinomial, and logistic regression models were used to analyze the associations between visceral adipose tissue (VAT), subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), and their ratio with chronic pain.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, there was a dose-response association between VAT, SAT, and their ratio with the number of chronic pain sites in both women and men.
• Higher levels of abdominal adipose tissue were associated with greater odds of reporting chronic pain in both sexes, with effect estimates being relatively larger in women.
• The researchers found that the VAT/SAT ratio was associated with the number of chronic pain sites and chronic pain in both sexes, reflecting differences in fat distribution and hormones.
• The study suggested that excessive abdominal adipose tissue may be involved in the pathogenesis of multisite and widespread chronic musculoskeletal pain.

IN PRACTICE:

“Abdominal adipose tissue was associated with chronic musculoskeletal pain, suggesting that excessive and ectopic fat depositions may be involved in the pathogenesis of multisite and widespread chronic musculoskeletal pain,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Zemene Demelash Kifle, University of Tasmania Menzies Institute for Medical Research in Hobart, Australia. It was published online in Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s limitations included the use of a pain questionnaire that did not assess pain severity, which limited the ability to examine the relationship between fat measures and pain severity. Additionally, MRI was conducted on only two occasions, which may have not captured patterns and fluctuations in chronic pain sites. The relatively small size of the imaging sample, compared with the original baseline sample limited the generalizability of the findings. The predominant White ethnicity of participants also limited the generalizability to diverse populations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Mr. Kifle disclosed receiving grants from the Australian NHMRC. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Physicians are called to record clinical details of patients with asthma undergoing biologic therapy to monitor clinical remission and keep an eye on eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) symptoms as patients come off the medications, according to pulmonary experts presenting at the European Respiratory Society (ERS) 2024 International Congress.

Biologics have revolutionized the treatment of severe asthma, significantly improving patient outcomes. However, the focus has recently shifted toward achieving more comprehensive disease control. Remission, already a well-established goal in conditions like rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease, is now being explored in patients with asthma receiving biologics.

Peter Howarth, medical director at Global Medical, Specialty Medicine, GSK, in Brentford, England, said that new clinical remission criteria in asthma may be overly rigid and of little use. He said that more attainable limits must be created. Meanwhile, clinicians should collect clinical data more thoroughly.

In parallel, studies have also raised questions about the role of biologics in the emergence of EGPA.
 

Defining Clinical Remission in Asthma

Last year, a working group, including members from the American Thoracic Society and the American College and Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, proposed new guidelines to define clinical remission in asthma. These guidelines extended beyond the typical outcomes of no severe exacerbations, no maintenance oral corticosteroid use, good asthma control, and stable lung function. The additional recommendations included no missed work or school due to asthma, limited use of rescue medication (no more than once a month), and reduced inhaled corticosteroid use to low or medium doses.

To explore the feasibility of achieving these clinical remission outcomes, GSK partnered with the Mayo Clinic for a retrospective analysis of the medical records of 700 patients with asthma undergoing various biologic therapies. The study revealed that essential data for determining clinical remission, such as asthma control and exacerbation records, were inconsistently documented. While some data were recorded, such as maintenance corticosteroid use in 50%-60% of cases, other key measures, like asthma control, were recorded in less than a quarter of the patients.

GSK researchers analyzed available data and found that around 30% of patients on any biologic therapy met three components of remission. Mepolizumab performed better than other corticosteroids, with over 40% of those receiving the drug meeting these criteria. However, when stricter definitions were applied, such as requiring four or more remission components, fewer patients achieved remission — less than 10% for four components, with no patients meeting the full seven-point criteria proposed by the working group.

An ongoing ERS Task Force is now exploring what clinical remission outcomes are practical to achieve, as the current definitions may be too aspirational, said Mr. Howarth. “It’s a matter of defying what is practical to achieve because if you can’t achieve it, then it won’t be valuable.”

He also pointed out that biologics are often used for the most severe cases of asthma after other treatments have failed. Evidence suggests that introducing biologics earlier in the disease, before chronic damage occurs, may result in better patient outcomes.
 

Biologics and EGPA

In a retrospective study, clinical details of 27 patients with adult-onset asthma from 28 countries, all on biologic therapy, were analyzed. The study, a multicounty collaboration, was led by ERS Severe Heterogeneous Asthma Research Collaboration, Patient-centred (SHARP), and aimed to understand the role of biologics in the emergence of EGPA.

The most significant finding presented at the ERS 2024 International Congress was that EGPA was not associated with maintenance corticosteroids; instead, it often emerged when corticosteroid doses were reduced or tapered off. “This might suggest that steroid withdrawal may unmask the underlying disease,” said Hitasha Rupani, MD, a consultant respiratory physician at the University Hospital Southampton, in Southampton, England. Importantly, the rate at which steroids were tapered did not influence the onset of EGPA, indicating that the tapering process, rather than its speed, may be the critical factor. However, due to the small sample size, this remains a hypothesis, Dr. Rupani explained.

The study also found that when clinicians had a clinical suspicion of EGPA before starting biologic therapy, the diagnosis was made earlier than in cases without such suspicion. Dr. Rupani concluded that this underscores the importance of clinical vigilance and the need to monitor patients closely for EGPA symptoms, especially during corticosteroid tapering.

The study was funded by GSK. Mr. Howarth is an employee at GSK. Dr. Rupani reports no relevant financial relationships. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Physicians are called to record clinical details of patients with asthma undergoing biologic therapy to monitor clinical remission and keep an eye on eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) symptoms as patients come off the medications, according to pulmonary experts presenting at the European Respiratory Society (ERS) 2024 International Congress.

Biologics have revolutionized the treatment of severe asthma, significantly improving patient outcomes. However, the focus has recently shifted toward achieving more comprehensive disease control. Remission, already a well-established goal in conditions like rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease, is now being explored in patients with asthma receiving biologics.

Peter Howarth, medical director at Global Medical, Specialty Medicine, GSK, in Brentford, England, said that new clinical remission criteria in asthma may be overly rigid and of little use. He said that more attainable limits must be created. Meanwhile, clinicians should collect clinical data more thoroughly.

In parallel, studies have also raised questions about the role of biologics in the emergence of EGPA.
 

Defining Clinical Remission in Asthma

Last year, a working group, including members from the American Thoracic Society and the American College and Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, proposed new guidelines to define clinical remission in asthma. These guidelines extended beyond the typical outcomes of no severe exacerbations, no maintenance oral corticosteroid use, good asthma control, and stable lung function. The additional recommendations included no missed work or school due to asthma, limited use of rescue medication (no more than once a month), and reduced inhaled corticosteroid use to low or medium doses.

To explore the feasibility of achieving these clinical remission outcomes, GSK partnered with the Mayo Clinic for a retrospective analysis of the medical records of 700 patients with asthma undergoing various biologic therapies. The study revealed that essential data for determining clinical remission, such as asthma control and exacerbation records, were inconsistently documented. While some data were recorded, such as maintenance corticosteroid use in 50%-60% of cases, other key measures, like asthma control, were recorded in less than a quarter of the patients.

GSK researchers analyzed available data and found that around 30% of patients on any biologic therapy met three components of remission. Mepolizumab performed better than other corticosteroids, with over 40% of those receiving the drug meeting these criteria. However, when stricter definitions were applied, such as requiring four or more remission components, fewer patients achieved remission — less than 10% for four components, with no patients meeting the full seven-point criteria proposed by the working group.

An ongoing ERS Task Force is now exploring what clinical remission outcomes are practical to achieve, as the current definitions may be too aspirational, said Mr. Howarth. “It’s a matter of defying what is practical to achieve because if you can’t achieve it, then it won’t be valuable.”

He also pointed out that biologics are often used for the most severe cases of asthma after other treatments have failed. Evidence suggests that introducing biologics earlier in the disease, before chronic damage occurs, may result in better patient outcomes.
 

Biologics and EGPA

In a retrospective study, clinical details of 27 patients with adult-onset asthma from 28 countries, all on biologic therapy, were analyzed. The study, a multicounty collaboration, was led by ERS Severe Heterogeneous Asthma Research Collaboration, Patient-centred (SHARP), and aimed to understand the role of biologics in the emergence of EGPA.

The most significant finding presented at the ERS 2024 International Congress was that EGPA was not associated with maintenance corticosteroids; instead, it often emerged when corticosteroid doses were reduced or tapered off. “This might suggest that steroid withdrawal may unmask the underlying disease,” said Hitasha Rupani, MD, a consultant respiratory physician at the University Hospital Southampton, in Southampton, England. Importantly, the rate at which steroids were tapered did not influence the onset of EGPA, indicating that the tapering process, rather than its speed, may be the critical factor. However, due to the small sample size, this remains a hypothesis, Dr. Rupani explained.

The study also found that when clinicians had a clinical suspicion of EGPA before starting biologic therapy, the diagnosis was made earlier than in cases without such suspicion. Dr. Rupani concluded that this underscores the importance of clinical vigilance and the need to monitor patients closely for EGPA symptoms, especially during corticosteroid tapering.

The study was funded by GSK. Mr. Howarth is an employee at GSK. Dr. Rupani reports no relevant financial relationships. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Physicians are called to record clinical details of patients with asthma undergoing biologic therapy to monitor clinical remission and keep an eye on eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) symptoms as patients come off the medications, according to pulmonary experts presenting at the European Respiratory Society (ERS) 2024 International Congress.

Biologics have revolutionized the treatment of severe asthma, significantly improving patient outcomes. However, the focus has recently shifted toward achieving more comprehensive disease control. Remission, already a well-established goal in conditions like rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease, is now being explored in patients with asthma receiving biologics.

Peter Howarth, medical director at Global Medical, Specialty Medicine, GSK, in Brentford, England, said that new clinical remission criteria in asthma may be overly rigid and of little use. He said that more attainable limits must be created. Meanwhile, clinicians should collect clinical data more thoroughly.

In parallel, studies have also raised questions about the role of biologics in the emergence of EGPA.
 

Defining Clinical Remission in Asthma

Last year, a working group, including members from the American Thoracic Society and the American College and Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, proposed new guidelines to define clinical remission in asthma. These guidelines extended beyond the typical outcomes of no severe exacerbations, no maintenance oral corticosteroid use, good asthma control, and stable lung function. The additional recommendations included no missed work or school due to asthma, limited use of rescue medication (no more than once a month), and reduced inhaled corticosteroid use to low or medium doses.

To explore the feasibility of achieving these clinical remission outcomes, GSK partnered with the Mayo Clinic for a retrospective analysis of the medical records of 700 patients with asthma undergoing various biologic therapies. The study revealed that essential data for determining clinical remission, such as asthma control and exacerbation records, were inconsistently documented. While some data were recorded, such as maintenance corticosteroid use in 50%-60% of cases, other key measures, like asthma control, were recorded in less than a quarter of the patients.

GSK researchers analyzed available data and found that around 30% of patients on any biologic therapy met three components of remission. Mepolizumab performed better than other corticosteroids, with over 40% of those receiving the drug meeting these criteria. However, when stricter definitions were applied, such as requiring four or more remission components, fewer patients achieved remission — less than 10% for four components, with no patients meeting the full seven-point criteria proposed by the working group.

An ongoing ERS Task Force is now exploring what clinical remission outcomes are practical to achieve, as the current definitions may be too aspirational, said Mr. Howarth. “It’s a matter of defying what is practical to achieve because if you can’t achieve it, then it won’t be valuable.”

He also pointed out that biologics are often used for the most severe cases of asthma after other treatments have failed. Evidence suggests that introducing biologics earlier in the disease, before chronic damage occurs, may result in better patient outcomes.
 

Biologics and EGPA

In a retrospective study, clinical details of 27 patients with adult-onset asthma from 28 countries, all on biologic therapy, were analyzed. The study, a multicounty collaboration, was led by ERS Severe Heterogeneous Asthma Research Collaboration, Patient-centred (SHARP), and aimed to understand the role of biologics in the emergence of EGPA.

The most significant finding presented at the ERS 2024 International Congress was that EGPA was not associated with maintenance corticosteroids; instead, it often emerged when corticosteroid doses were reduced or tapered off. “This might suggest that steroid withdrawal may unmask the underlying disease,” said Hitasha Rupani, MD, a consultant respiratory physician at the University Hospital Southampton, in Southampton, England. Importantly, the rate at which steroids were tapered did not influence the onset of EGPA, indicating that the tapering process, rather than its speed, may be the critical factor. However, due to the small sample size, this remains a hypothesis, Dr. Rupani explained.

The study also found that when clinicians had a clinical suspicion of EGPA before starting biologic therapy, the diagnosis was made earlier than in cases without such suspicion. Dr. Rupani concluded that this underscores the importance of clinical vigilance and the need to monitor patients closely for EGPA symptoms, especially during corticosteroid tapering.

The study was funded by GSK. Mr. Howarth is an employee at GSK. Dr. Rupani reports no relevant financial relationships. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A higher alcohol consumption is associated with an increased risk for gout, more strongly in men than in women. This sex-specific difference may be attributed to the different types of alcohol consumed by men and women, rather than biologic variations.

METHODOLOGY:

• This prospective cohort study investigated the association between total and specific alcohol consumption and the long-term risk for incident gout in 179,828 men (mean age, 56.0 years) and 221,300 women (mean age, 56.0 years) from the UK Biobank who did not have gout at baseline.
• Alcohol consumption was assessed using a computer-assisted touch screen system. Among men, 2.9%, 3.6%, and 93.6% were identified as never, former, and current drinkers, respectively. Among women, 5.9%, 3.6%, and 90.5% were identified as never, former, and current drinkers, respectively.
• Participants were also required to share details about their weekly alcohol intake and the types of alcoholic beverages they consumed (red wine, champagne or white wine, beer or cider, spirits, or fortified wine).
• The median follow-up duration of this study was 12.7 years.
• Cases of incident gout during the follow-up period were identified using hospital records and the International Classification of Diseases codes.

TAKEAWAY:

• The risk for gout was 69% higher in men who were current drinkers than in those who were never drinkers (hazard ratio [HR], 1.69; 95% CI, 1.30-2.18), while an inverse association was observed in women who were current drinkers, although it was not statistically significant. A significant interaction was observed between drinking status and sex (P < .001 for interaction).
• Among current drinkers, more frequent alcohol consumption was associated with a higher risk for gout among both sexes, with the association being stronger in men (HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.84-2.30) than in women (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.12-1.61).
• The consumption of beer or cider was higher in men than in women (4.2 vs 0.4 pints/wk).
• Among all alcoholic beverages, the consumption of beer or cider (per 1 pint/d) showed the strongest association with the risk for gout in both men (HR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.53-1.67) and women (HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.02-2.57).

IN PRACTICE:

“The observed sex-specific difference in the association of total alcohol consumption with incident gout may be owing to differences between men and women in the types of alcohol consumed rather than biological differences,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jie-Qiong Lyu, MPH, Department of Nutrition and Food Hygiene, School of Public Health, Suzhou Medical College of Soochow University in China. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The frequency of alcohol consumption was self-reported, leading to potential misclassification. Incident cases of gout were identified from hospital records, which may have caused some undiagnosed cases or those diagnosed only in primary care settings to be missed. Most participants were of European descent and relatively healthier than the general population, limiting generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by the Gusu Leading Talent Plan for Scientific and Technological Innovation and Entrepreneurship. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A higher alcohol consumption is associated with an increased risk for gout, more strongly in men than in women. This sex-specific difference may be attributed to the different types of alcohol consumed by men and women, rather than biologic variations.

METHODOLOGY:

• This prospective cohort study investigated the association between total and specific alcohol consumption and the long-term risk for incident gout in 179,828 men (mean age, 56.0 years) and 221,300 women (mean age, 56.0 years) from the UK Biobank who did not have gout at baseline.
• Alcohol consumption was assessed using a computer-assisted touch screen system. Among men, 2.9%, 3.6%, and 93.6% were identified as never, former, and current drinkers, respectively. Among women, 5.9%, 3.6%, and 90.5% were identified as never, former, and current drinkers, respectively.
• Participants were also required to share details about their weekly alcohol intake and the types of alcoholic beverages they consumed (red wine, champagne or white wine, beer or cider, spirits, or fortified wine).
• The median follow-up duration of this study was 12.7 years.
• Cases of incident gout during the follow-up period were identified using hospital records and the International Classification of Diseases codes.

TAKEAWAY:

• The risk for gout was 69% higher in men who were current drinkers than in those who were never drinkers (hazard ratio [HR], 1.69; 95% CI, 1.30-2.18), while an inverse association was observed in women who were current drinkers, although it was not statistically significant. A significant interaction was observed between drinking status and sex (P < .001 for interaction).
• Among current drinkers, more frequent alcohol consumption was associated with a higher risk for gout among both sexes, with the association being stronger in men (HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.84-2.30) than in women (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.12-1.61).
• The consumption of beer or cider was higher in men than in women (4.2 vs 0.4 pints/wk).
• Among all alcoholic beverages, the consumption of beer or cider (per 1 pint/d) showed the strongest association with the risk for gout in both men (HR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.53-1.67) and women (HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.02-2.57).

IN PRACTICE:

“The observed sex-specific difference in the association of total alcohol consumption with incident gout may be owing to differences between men and women in the types of alcohol consumed rather than biological differences,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jie-Qiong Lyu, MPH, Department of Nutrition and Food Hygiene, School of Public Health, Suzhou Medical College of Soochow University in China. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The frequency of alcohol consumption was self-reported, leading to potential misclassification. Incident cases of gout were identified from hospital records, which may have caused some undiagnosed cases or those diagnosed only in primary care settings to be missed. Most participants were of European descent and relatively healthier than the general population, limiting generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by the Gusu Leading Talent Plan for Scientific and Technological Innovation and Entrepreneurship. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A higher alcohol consumption is associated with an increased risk for gout, more strongly in men than in women. This sex-specific difference may be attributed to the different types of alcohol consumed by men and women, rather than biologic variations.

METHODOLOGY:

• This prospective cohort study investigated the association between total and specific alcohol consumption and the long-term risk for incident gout in 179,828 men (mean age, 56.0 years) and 221,300 women (mean age, 56.0 years) from the UK Biobank who did not have gout at baseline.
• Alcohol consumption was assessed using a computer-assisted touch screen system. Among men, 2.9%, 3.6%, and 93.6% were identified as never, former, and current drinkers, respectively. Among women, 5.9%, 3.6%, and 90.5% were identified as never, former, and current drinkers, respectively.
• Participants were also required to share details about their weekly alcohol intake and the types of alcoholic beverages they consumed (red wine, champagne or white wine, beer or cider, spirits, or fortified wine).
• The median follow-up duration of this study was 12.7 years.
• Cases of incident gout during the follow-up period were identified using hospital records and the International Classification of Diseases codes.

TAKEAWAY:

• The risk for gout was 69% higher in men who were current drinkers than in those who were never drinkers (hazard ratio [HR], 1.69; 95% CI, 1.30-2.18), while an inverse association was observed in women who were current drinkers, although it was not statistically significant. A significant interaction was observed between drinking status and sex (P < .001 for interaction).
• Among current drinkers, more frequent alcohol consumption was associated with a higher risk for gout among both sexes, with the association being stronger in men (HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.84-2.30) than in women (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.12-1.61).
• The consumption of beer or cider was higher in men than in women (4.2 vs 0.4 pints/wk).
• Among all alcoholic beverages, the consumption of beer or cider (per 1 pint/d) showed the strongest association with the risk for gout in both men (HR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.53-1.67) and women (HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.02-2.57).

IN PRACTICE:

“The observed sex-specific difference in the association of total alcohol consumption with incident gout may be owing to differences between men and women in the types of alcohol consumed rather than biological differences,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jie-Qiong Lyu, MPH, Department of Nutrition and Food Hygiene, School of Public Health, Suzhou Medical College of Soochow University in China. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The frequency of alcohol consumption was self-reported, leading to potential misclassification. Incident cases of gout were identified from hospital records, which may have caused some undiagnosed cases or those diagnosed only in primary care settings to be missed. Most participants were of European descent and relatively healthier than the general population, limiting generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by the Gusu Leading Talent Plan for Scientific and Technological Innovation and Entrepreneurship. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New COVID-19 vaccines formulated for better protection against the currently circulating variants have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.

The COVID vaccines available this fall have been updated to better match the currently circulating COVID strains, said William Schaffner, MD, professor of medicine in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, in an interview.

“The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines — both mRNA vaccines — target the KP.2 variant, while the Novavax vaccine targets the JN.1 variant, which is a predecessor to KP.2,” said Dr. Schaffner, who also serves as a spokesperson for the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. “The Novavax vaccine is a protein adjuvant vaccine made in a more traditional fashion and may appeal to those who remain hesitant about receiving an mRNA vaccine,” he explained. However, all three vaccines are designed to protect against severe COVID illness and reduce the likelihood of hospitalization, he said.
 

Who Needs It?

“The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) continues to recommend that everyone in the United States who is age 6 months and older receive the updated COVID vaccine this fall, along with influenza vaccine,” Dr. Schaffner said.

“This was not a surprise because COVID will produce a sizable winter outbreak,” he predicted. Although older people and those who have chronic medical conditions such as heart or lung disease, diabetes, or other immunocompromising conditions suffer the most serious impact of COVID, he said. “The virus can strike anyone, even the young and healthy.” The risk for long COVID persists as well, he pointed out.

The ACIP recommendation is endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics and other professional organizations, Dr. Shaffner said.

A frequently asked question is whether the COVID and flu vaccines can be given at the same time, and the answer is yes, according to a statement from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

“The optimal time to be vaccinated is late September and anytime during October in order to get the benefit of protection through the winter,” Dr. Schaffner said.

As with earlier versions of the COVID-19 vaccine, side effects vary from person to person. Reported side effects of the updated vaccine are similar to those seen with earlier versions and may include injection site pain, redness and swelling, fatigue, headache, muscle pain, chills, nausea, and fever, but most of these are short-lived, according to the CDC.
 

Clinical Guidance

The CDC’s clinical guidance for COVID-19 vaccination outlines more specific guidance for vaccination based on age, vaccination history, and immunocompromised status and will be updated as needed.

A notable difference in the latest guidance is the recommendation of only one shot for adults aged 65 years and older who are NOT moderately or severely immunocompromised. For those who are moderately or severely immunocompromised, the CDC recommends two to three doses of the same brand of vaccine.

Dr. Schaffner strongly encouraged clinicians to recommend the COVID-19 vaccination for all eligible patients. “COVID is a nasty virus that can cause serious disease in anyone,” and protection from previous vaccination or prior infection has likely waned, he said.

Dr. Schaffner also encouraged healthcare professionals and their families to lead by example. “We should all be vaccinated and let our patients know that we are vaccinated and that we want all our patents to be protected,” he said.

The updated COVID-19 vaccination recommendations have become much simpler for clinicians and patients, with a single messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine required for anyone older than 5 years, said David J. Cennimo, MD, associate professor of medicine and pediatrics in the Division of Infectious Disease at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, in an interview.

“The recommendations are a bit more complex for children under 5 years old receiving their first vaccination; they require two to three doses depending on the brand,” he said. “It is important to review the latest recommendations to plan the doses with the correct interval timing. Considering the doses may be 3-4 weeks apart, start early,” he advised.
 

One-Time Dosing

Although the updated mRNA vaccine is currently recommended as a one-time dose, Dr. Cennimo said he can envision a scenario later in the season when a second dose is recommended for the elderly and those at high risk for severe illness. Dr. Cennimo said that he strongly agrees with the recommendations that everyone aged 6 months and older receive an updated COVID-19 vaccine. Older age remains the prime risk factor, but anyone can become infected, he said.

Predicting a prime time to get vaccinated is tricky because no one knows when the expected rise in winter cases will occur, said Dr. Cennimo.

“We know from years of flu vaccine data that some number of people who delay the vaccine will never return and will miss protection,” he said. Therefore, delaying vaccination is not recommended. Dr. Cennimo plans to follow his habit of getting vaccinated in early October. “I anticipate the maximal effectiveness of the vaccine will carry me through the winter,” he said.

Data support the safety and effectiveness for both flu and COVID vaccines if they are given together, and some research on earlier versions of COVID vaccines suggested that receiving flu and COVID vaccines together might increase the antibody response against COVID, but similar studies of the updated version have not been done, Dr. Cennimo said.

Clinicians may have to overcome the barrier of COVID fatigue to encourage vaccination, Dr. Cennimo said. Many people say they “want it to be over,” he said, but SARS-CoV-2, established as a viral respiratory infection, shows no signs of disappearing. In addition, new data continue to show higher mortality associated with COVID-19 than with influenza, he said.

“We need to explain to our patients that COVID-19 is still here and is still dangerous. The yearly influenza vaccination campaigns should have established and normalized the idea of an updated vaccine targeted for the season’s predicated strains is expected,” he emphasized. “We now have years of safety data behind these vaccines, and we need to make a strong recommendation for this protection,” he said.

COVID-19 vaccines are covered by private insurance, as well as by Medicare and Medicaid, according to the CDC. Vaccination for uninsured children is covered through the Vaccines for Children Program.

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

New COVID-19 vaccines formulated for better protection against the currently circulating variants have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.

The COVID vaccines available this fall have been updated to better match the currently circulating COVID strains, said William Schaffner, MD, professor of medicine in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, in an interview.

“The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines — both mRNA vaccines — target the KP.2 variant, while the Novavax vaccine targets the JN.1 variant, which is a predecessor to KP.2,” said Dr. Schaffner, who also serves as a spokesperson for the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. “The Novavax vaccine is a protein adjuvant vaccine made in a more traditional fashion and may appeal to those who remain hesitant about receiving an mRNA vaccine,” he explained. However, all three vaccines are designed to protect against severe COVID illness and reduce the likelihood of hospitalization, he said.
 

Who Needs It?

“The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) continues to recommend that everyone in the United States who is age 6 months and older receive the updated COVID vaccine this fall, along with influenza vaccine,” Dr. Schaffner said.

“This was not a surprise because COVID will produce a sizable winter outbreak,” he predicted. Although older people and those who have chronic medical conditions such as heart or lung disease, diabetes, or other immunocompromising conditions suffer the most serious impact of COVID, he said. “The virus can strike anyone, even the young and healthy.” The risk for long COVID persists as well, he pointed out.

The ACIP recommendation is endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics and other professional organizations, Dr. Shaffner said.

A frequently asked question is whether the COVID and flu vaccines can be given at the same time, and the answer is yes, according to a statement from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

“The optimal time to be vaccinated is late September and anytime during October in order to get the benefit of protection through the winter,” Dr. Schaffner said.

As with earlier versions of the COVID-19 vaccine, side effects vary from person to person. Reported side effects of the updated vaccine are similar to those seen with earlier versions and may include injection site pain, redness and swelling, fatigue, headache, muscle pain, chills, nausea, and fever, but most of these are short-lived, according to the CDC.
 

Clinical Guidance

The CDC’s clinical guidance for COVID-19 vaccination outlines more specific guidance for vaccination based on age, vaccination history, and immunocompromised status and will be updated as needed.

A notable difference in the latest guidance is the recommendation of only one shot for adults aged 65 years and older who are NOT moderately or severely immunocompromised. For those who are moderately or severely immunocompromised, the CDC recommends two to three doses of the same brand of vaccine.

Dr. Schaffner strongly encouraged clinicians to recommend the COVID-19 vaccination for all eligible patients. “COVID is a nasty virus that can cause serious disease in anyone,” and protection from previous vaccination or prior infection has likely waned, he said.

Dr. Schaffner also encouraged healthcare professionals and their families to lead by example. “We should all be vaccinated and let our patients know that we are vaccinated and that we want all our patents to be protected,” he said.

The updated COVID-19 vaccination recommendations have become much simpler for clinicians and patients, with a single messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine required for anyone older than 5 years, said David J. Cennimo, MD, associate professor of medicine and pediatrics in the Division of Infectious Disease at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, in an interview.

“The recommendations are a bit more complex for children under 5 years old receiving their first vaccination; they require two to three doses depending on the brand,” he said. “It is important to review the latest recommendations to plan the doses with the correct interval timing. Considering the doses may be 3-4 weeks apart, start early,” he advised.
 

One-Time Dosing

Although the updated mRNA vaccine is currently recommended as a one-time dose, Dr. Cennimo said he can envision a scenario later in the season when a second dose is recommended for the elderly and those at high risk for severe illness. Dr. Cennimo said that he strongly agrees with the recommendations that everyone aged 6 months and older receive an updated COVID-19 vaccine. Older age remains the prime risk factor, but anyone can become infected, he said.

Predicting a prime time to get vaccinated is tricky because no one knows when the expected rise in winter cases will occur, said Dr. Cennimo.

“We know from years of flu vaccine data that some number of people who delay the vaccine will never return and will miss protection,” he said. Therefore, delaying vaccination is not recommended. Dr. Cennimo plans to follow his habit of getting vaccinated in early October. “I anticipate the maximal effectiveness of the vaccine will carry me through the winter,” he said.

Data support the safety and effectiveness for both flu and COVID vaccines if they are given together, and some research on earlier versions of COVID vaccines suggested that receiving flu and COVID vaccines together might increase the antibody response against COVID, but similar studies of the updated version have not been done, Dr. Cennimo said.

Clinicians may have to overcome the barrier of COVID fatigue to encourage vaccination, Dr. Cennimo said. Many people say they “want it to be over,” he said, but SARS-CoV-2, established as a viral respiratory infection, shows no signs of disappearing. In addition, new data continue to show higher mortality associated with COVID-19 than with influenza, he said.

“We need to explain to our patients that COVID-19 is still here and is still dangerous. The yearly influenza vaccination campaigns should have established and normalized the idea of an updated vaccine targeted for the season’s predicated strains is expected,” he emphasized. “We now have years of safety data behind these vaccines, and we need to make a strong recommendation for this protection,” he said.

COVID-19 vaccines are covered by private insurance, as well as by Medicare and Medicaid, according to the CDC. Vaccination for uninsured children is covered through the Vaccines for Children Program.

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

New COVID-19 vaccines formulated for better protection against the currently circulating variants have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.

The COVID vaccines available this fall have been updated to better match the currently circulating COVID strains, said William Schaffner, MD, professor of medicine in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, in an interview.

“The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines — both mRNA vaccines — target the KP.2 variant, while the Novavax vaccine targets the JN.1 variant, which is a predecessor to KP.2,” said Dr. Schaffner, who also serves as a spokesperson for the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. “The Novavax vaccine is a protein adjuvant vaccine made in a more traditional fashion and may appeal to those who remain hesitant about receiving an mRNA vaccine,” he explained. However, all three vaccines are designed to protect against severe COVID illness and reduce the likelihood of hospitalization, he said.
 

Who Needs It?

“The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) continues to recommend that everyone in the United States who is age 6 months and older receive the updated COVID vaccine this fall, along with influenza vaccine,” Dr. Schaffner said.

“This was not a surprise because COVID will produce a sizable winter outbreak,” he predicted. Although older people and those who have chronic medical conditions such as heart or lung disease, diabetes, or other immunocompromising conditions suffer the most serious impact of COVID, he said. “The virus can strike anyone, even the young and healthy.” The risk for long COVID persists as well, he pointed out.

The ACIP recommendation is endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics and other professional organizations, Dr. Shaffner said.

A frequently asked question is whether the COVID and flu vaccines can be given at the same time, and the answer is yes, according to a statement from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

“The optimal time to be vaccinated is late September and anytime during October in order to get the benefit of protection through the winter,” Dr. Schaffner said.

As with earlier versions of the COVID-19 vaccine, side effects vary from person to person. Reported side effects of the updated vaccine are similar to those seen with earlier versions and may include injection site pain, redness and swelling, fatigue, headache, muscle pain, chills, nausea, and fever, but most of these are short-lived, according to the CDC.
 

Clinical Guidance

The CDC’s clinical guidance for COVID-19 vaccination outlines more specific guidance for vaccination based on age, vaccination history, and immunocompromised status and will be updated as needed.

A notable difference in the latest guidance is the recommendation of only one shot for adults aged 65 years and older who are NOT moderately or severely immunocompromised. For those who are moderately or severely immunocompromised, the CDC recommends two to three doses of the same brand of vaccine.

Dr. Schaffner strongly encouraged clinicians to recommend the COVID-19 vaccination for all eligible patients. “COVID is a nasty virus that can cause serious disease in anyone,” and protection from previous vaccination or prior infection has likely waned, he said.

Dr. Schaffner also encouraged healthcare professionals and their families to lead by example. “We should all be vaccinated and let our patients know that we are vaccinated and that we want all our patents to be protected,” he said.

The updated COVID-19 vaccination recommendations have become much simpler for clinicians and patients, with a single messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine required for anyone older than 5 years, said David J. Cennimo, MD, associate professor of medicine and pediatrics in the Division of Infectious Disease at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, in an interview.

“The recommendations are a bit more complex for children under 5 years old receiving their first vaccination; they require two to three doses depending on the brand,” he said. “It is important to review the latest recommendations to plan the doses with the correct interval timing. Considering the doses may be 3-4 weeks apart, start early,” he advised.
 

One-Time Dosing

Although the updated mRNA vaccine is currently recommended as a one-time dose, Dr. Cennimo said he can envision a scenario later in the season when a second dose is recommended for the elderly and those at high risk for severe illness. Dr. Cennimo said that he strongly agrees with the recommendations that everyone aged 6 months and older receive an updated COVID-19 vaccine. Older age remains the prime risk factor, but anyone can become infected, he said.

Predicting a prime time to get vaccinated is tricky because no one knows when the expected rise in winter cases will occur, said Dr. Cennimo.

“We know from years of flu vaccine data that some number of people who delay the vaccine will never return and will miss protection,” he said. Therefore, delaying vaccination is not recommended. Dr. Cennimo plans to follow his habit of getting vaccinated in early October. “I anticipate the maximal effectiveness of the vaccine will carry me through the winter,” he said.

Data support the safety and effectiveness for both flu and COVID vaccines if they are given together, and some research on earlier versions of COVID vaccines suggested that receiving flu and COVID vaccines together might increase the antibody response against COVID, but similar studies of the updated version have not been done, Dr. Cennimo said.

Clinicians may have to overcome the barrier of COVID fatigue to encourage vaccination, Dr. Cennimo said. Many people say they “want it to be over,” he said, but SARS-CoV-2, established as a viral respiratory infection, shows no signs of disappearing. In addition, new data continue to show higher mortality associated with COVID-19 than with influenza, he said.

“We need to explain to our patients that COVID-19 is still here and is still dangerous. The yearly influenza vaccination campaigns should have established and normalized the idea of an updated vaccine targeted for the season’s predicated strains is expected,” he emphasized. “We now have years of safety data behind these vaccines, and we need to make a strong recommendation for this protection,” he said.

COVID-19 vaccines are covered by private insurance, as well as by Medicare and Medicaid, according to the CDC. Vaccination for uninsured children is covered through the Vaccines for Children Program.

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

TOPLINE:

Gastrointestinal involvement is common in childhood-onset lupus, with more than half of the patients presenting with gastrointestinal symptoms at diagnosis. Abdominal pain and elevated hepatic transaminases are the most common initial signs.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study to explore the prevalence and characteristics of gastrointestinal involvement in childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).
• They included 123 patients aged ≤ 18 years (82.1% girls) with childhood-onset SLE from 16 referral departments of pediatric rheumatology in Turkey who showed gastrointestinal system (GIS) involvement either during diagnosis or the course of the disease.
• The mean age at diagnosis was 12.5 years, and the median follow-up duration was 44.5 months.
• Demographic information, clinical manifestations, laboratory findings, radiological and endoscopic assessments, histopathologic analyses, treatments, and clinical outcomes were retrospectively extracted from patient records; disease activity and cumulative organ damage were also assessed.

TAKEAWAY:

• At the time of SLE diagnosis, 63.4% of patients presented with gastrointestinal involvement, while others (36.6%) developed gastrointestinal symptoms after a median of 12 months.
• Abdominal pain was the most common initial symptom, observed in 62.6% of patients, followed by elevated hepatic transaminases in 56.9%.
• The most common type of gastrointestinal involvement was autoimmune hepatitis (25.2%), followed by hepatic steatosis (13%), and lupus hepatitis (11.3%).
• The gastrointestinal manifestations were directly attributed to SLE in 82 patients, were drug related in 35 patients, and caused by comorbidities in 6 patients.

IN PRACTICE:

“It is crucial to consider SLE in the differential diagnosis of GIS [gastrointestinal system] manifestations in children. The inclusion of GIS involvement as a new diagnostic criterion may be warranted, given its potential prevalence that might be higher than currently recognized,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Hafize Emine Sönmez, MD, Department of Pediatric Rheumatology, Kocaeli University, İzmit, Turkey, and was published online in Lupus. 

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective nature of the study may have limited the ability to establish causality between gastrointestinal symptoms and SLE. This study also did not include a comparison between patients with childhood-onset SLE with gastrointestinal involvement and those without. Moreover, the study relied on patient records for data collection, which may have introduced bias.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not receive any financial support. The authors declared no potential conflict of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Gastrointestinal involvement is common in childhood-onset lupus, with more than half of the patients presenting with gastrointestinal symptoms at diagnosis. Abdominal pain and elevated hepatic transaminases are the most common initial signs.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study to explore the prevalence and characteristics of gastrointestinal involvement in childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).
• They included 123 patients aged ≤ 18 years (82.1% girls) with childhood-onset SLE from 16 referral departments of pediatric rheumatology in Turkey who showed gastrointestinal system (GIS) involvement either during diagnosis or the course of the disease.
• The mean age at diagnosis was 12.5 years, and the median follow-up duration was 44.5 months.
• Demographic information, clinical manifestations, laboratory findings, radiological and endoscopic assessments, histopathologic analyses, treatments, and clinical outcomes were retrospectively extracted from patient records; disease activity and cumulative organ damage were also assessed.

TAKEAWAY:

• At the time of SLE diagnosis, 63.4% of patients presented with gastrointestinal involvement, while others (36.6%) developed gastrointestinal symptoms after a median of 12 months.
• Abdominal pain was the most common initial symptom, observed in 62.6% of patients, followed by elevated hepatic transaminases in 56.9%.
• The most common type of gastrointestinal involvement was autoimmune hepatitis (25.2%), followed by hepatic steatosis (13%), and lupus hepatitis (11.3%).
• The gastrointestinal manifestations were directly attributed to SLE in 82 patients, were drug related in 35 patients, and caused by comorbidities in 6 patients.

IN PRACTICE:

“It is crucial to consider SLE in the differential diagnosis of GIS [gastrointestinal system] manifestations in children. The inclusion of GIS involvement as a new diagnostic criterion may be warranted, given its potential prevalence that might be higher than currently recognized,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Hafize Emine Sönmez, MD, Department of Pediatric Rheumatology, Kocaeli University, İzmit, Turkey, and was published online in Lupus. 

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective nature of the study may have limited the ability to establish causality between gastrointestinal symptoms and SLE. This study also did not include a comparison between patients with childhood-onset SLE with gastrointestinal involvement and those without. Moreover, the study relied on patient records for data collection, which may have introduced bias.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not receive any financial support. The authors declared no potential conflict of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Gastrointestinal involvement is common in childhood-onset lupus, with more than half of the patients presenting with gastrointestinal symptoms at diagnosis. Abdominal pain and elevated hepatic transaminases are the most common initial signs.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study to explore the prevalence and characteristics of gastrointestinal involvement in childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).
• They included 123 patients aged ≤ 18 years (82.1% girls) with childhood-onset SLE from 16 referral departments of pediatric rheumatology in Turkey who showed gastrointestinal system (GIS) involvement either during diagnosis or the course of the disease.
• The mean age at diagnosis was 12.5 years, and the median follow-up duration was 44.5 months.
• Demographic information, clinical manifestations, laboratory findings, radiological and endoscopic assessments, histopathologic analyses, treatments, and clinical outcomes were retrospectively extracted from patient records; disease activity and cumulative organ damage were also assessed.

TAKEAWAY:

• At the time of SLE diagnosis, 63.4% of patients presented with gastrointestinal involvement, while others (36.6%) developed gastrointestinal symptoms after a median of 12 months.
• Abdominal pain was the most common initial symptom, observed in 62.6% of patients, followed by elevated hepatic transaminases in 56.9%.
• The most common type of gastrointestinal involvement was autoimmune hepatitis (25.2%), followed by hepatic steatosis (13%), and lupus hepatitis (11.3%).
• The gastrointestinal manifestations were directly attributed to SLE in 82 patients, were drug related in 35 patients, and caused by comorbidities in 6 patients.

IN PRACTICE:

“It is crucial to consider SLE in the differential diagnosis of GIS [gastrointestinal system] manifestations in children. The inclusion of GIS involvement as a new diagnostic criterion may be warranted, given its potential prevalence that might be higher than currently recognized,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Hafize Emine Sönmez, MD, Department of Pediatric Rheumatology, Kocaeli University, İzmit, Turkey, and was published online in Lupus. 

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective nature of the study may have limited the ability to establish causality between gastrointestinal symptoms and SLE. This study also did not include a comparison between patients with childhood-onset SLE with gastrointestinal involvement and those without. Moreover, the study relied on patient records for data collection, which may have introduced bias.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not receive any financial support. The authors declared no potential conflict of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

With huge shifts over the past decade in the way doctors are employed — half of all doctors now work for a health system or large medical group — the idea of unionizing is not only being explored but gaining traction within the profession. In fact, 8% of the physician workforce (or 70,000 physicians) belong to a union, according to statistics gathered in 2022.

Exact numbers are hard to come by, and, interestingly, although the American Medical Association (AMA) “ supports the right of physicians to engage in collective bargaining,” the organization doesn’t track union membership among physicians, according to an AMA spokesperson. 
 

Forming a Union

One challenge is that forming a union is not only time-consuming but also difficult, owing to several barriers. For starters, the laws dictating unionization differ by state, and the rules governing unionization vary if a hospital is public or private. If there’s enough momentum from doctors leading unionization efforts, approval from hospital leaders is required before an official election can be requested from the National Labor Relations Board.

That said, for doctors who are in a union — the two most popular are the Union of American Physicians and Dentists and the Doctors Council branch of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)—the benefits are immense, especially because union members can focus on what matters, such as providing the best patient care possible.

For a profession that historically has not been unionized, this year alone, nine medical residency programs at hospitals such as Stanford Health, Montefiore Medical Center, and the University of Pennsylvania, formed unions, reported WBUR in Boston.
 

Belonging Matters 

“When you build a relationship with your patients, it’s special, and that connection isn’t replaceable,” said Nicholas VenOsdel, MD, a pediatrician at Allina Health Primary Care in Hastings, Minnesota, and a union member of the Doctors Council. “However, a lot of us have felt like that hasn’t been respected as the climate of healthcare has changed so fast.”

In fact, autonomy over how much time doctors spend with patients is driving a lot of interest in unionization.

“We don’t necessarily have that autonomy now,” said Amber Higgins, MD, an emergency physician and an obstetrician at ChristianaCare, a hospital network in Newark, Delaware, and a member of the Doctors Council. “There are so many other demands, whether it’s billing, patient documentation, or other demands from the employer, and all of that takes time away from patient care.”

Another primary driver of physician unionization is the physician burnout epidemic. Physicians collectively complain that they spend more time on electronic health record documentation and bureaucratic administration. Yet if unions can improve these working conditions, the benefit to physicians and their patients would be a welcome change.

Union members are bullish and believe that having a cohesive voice will make a difference.

“We need to use our collective voices to get back to focusing on patient care instead of staring at a computer screen for 80% of the day,” Dr. Higgins told this news organization. “So much of medicine involves getting to the correct diagnosis, listening to patients, observing them, and building a relationship with them. We need time to build that.”

With corporate consolidation and a profit-driven mandate by healthcare systems, doctors are increasingly frustrated and feel that their voices haven’t been heard enough when it comes to issues like workplace safety, working hours, and benefits, said Stuart Bussey, MD, JD, a family practice physician and president of the Union of American Physicians and Dentists in Sacramento, California. 

However, he adds that urging doctors to join together to fight for a better working environment hasn’t been easy.

“Doctors are individualists, and they don’t know how to work in packs like hospital administrators do,” said Dr. Bussey. “They’re hard to organize, but I want them to understand that unless they join hands, sign petitions, and speak as one voice, they’re going to lose out on an amazing opportunity.”
 

Overcoming Misperceptions About Unions

One barrier to doctors getting involved is the sentiment that unions might do the opposite of what’s intended — that is, they might further reduce a doctor’s autonomy and work flexibility. Or there may be a perception that the drive to join a union is predicated on making more money. 

Though he’s now in a union, Dr. VenOsdel, who has been in a hospital-based practice for 7 years, admits that he initially felt very differently about unions than he does today.

“Even though I have family members in healthcare unions, I had a neutral to even slightly negative view of unions,” said Dr. VenOsdel. “It took me working directly with the Minnesota Nurses Association and the Doctors Council to learn the other side of the story.”

Armed with more information, he began lobbying for stricter rules about how his state’s large healthcare systems were closing hospitals and ending much-needed community services.

“I remember standing at the Capitol in Minnesota and telling one of the members that I once felt negatively about unions,” he added. “I realized then that I only knew what employers were telling me via such things as emails about strikes — that information was all being shared from the employers’ perspective.”

The other misperception is that unions only exist to argue against management, including against colleagues who are also part of the management structure, said Dr. Higgins.

“Some doctors perceive being in a union as ‘how can those same leaders also be in a union,’” she said. She feels that they currently don’t have leadership representing them that can help with such things as restructuring their support teams or getting them help with certain tasks. “That’s another way unions can help.” 
 

Social Justice Plays a Role

For Dr. VenOsdel, being part of a union has helped him return to what he calls the “art” of medicine.

“Philosophically, the union gave me an option for change in what felt like a hopeless situation,” he said. “It wasn’t just that I was tossing the keys to someone else and saying, ‘I can’t fix this.’ Instead, we’re taking the reins back and fixing things ourselves.”

Bussey argues that as the uneven balance between administrators and providers in many healthcare organizations grows, the time to consider forming a union is now.

“We’re in a $4 trillion medical industrial revolution,” he said. “Administrators and bureaucrats are multiplying 30-fold times vs providers, and most of that $4 trillion supports things that don’t contribute to the doctor-patient relationship.”

Furthermore, union proponents say that where a one-on-one relationship between doctor and patient once existed, that has now been “triangulated” to include administrators.

“We’ve lost power in every way,” Dr. Bussey said. “We have the degrees, the liability, and the knowledge — we should have more power to make our workplaces safer and better.”

Ultimately, for some unionized doctors, the very holding of a union card is rooted in supporting social justice issues.

“When doctors realize how powerful a tool a union can be for social justice and change, this will alter perceptions of unions within our profession,” Dr. VenOsdel said. “Our union helps give us a voice to stand up for other staff who aren’t unionized and, most importantly, to stand up for the patients who need us.”
 

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

With huge shifts over the past decade in the way doctors are employed — half of all doctors now work for a health system or large medical group — the idea of unionizing is not only being explored but gaining traction within the profession. In fact, 8% of the physician workforce (or 70,000 physicians) belong to a union, according to statistics gathered in 2022.

Exact numbers are hard to come by, and, interestingly, although the American Medical Association (AMA) “ supports the right of physicians to engage in collective bargaining,” the organization doesn’t track union membership among physicians, according to an AMA spokesperson. 
 

Forming a Union

One challenge is that forming a union is not only time-consuming but also difficult, owing to several barriers. For starters, the laws dictating unionization differ by state, and the rules governing unionization vary if a hospital is public or private. If there’s enough momentum from doctors leading unionization efforts, approval from hospital leaders is required before an official election can be requested from the National Labor Relations Board.

That said, for doctors who are in a union — the two most popular are the Union of American Physicians and Dentists and the Doctors Council branch of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)—the benefits are immense, especially because union members can focus on what matters, such as providing the best patient care possible.

For a profession that historically has not been unionized, this year alone, nine medical residency programs at hospitals such as Stanford Health, Montefiore Medical Center, and the University of Pennsylvania, formed unions, reported WBUR in Boston.
 

Belonging Matters 

“When you build a relationship with your patients, it’s special, and that connection isn’t replaceable,” said Nicholas VenOsdel, MD, a pediatrician at Allina Health Primary Care in Hastings, Minnesota, and a union member of the Doctors Council. “However, a lot of us have felt like that hasn’t been respected as the climate of healthcare has changed so fast.”

In fact, autonomy over how much time doctors spend with patients is driving a lot of interest in unionization.

“We don’t necessarily have that autonomy now,” said Amber Higgins, MD, an emergency physician and an obstetrician at ChristianaCare, a hospital network in Newark, Delaware, and a member of the Doctors Council. “There are so many other demands, whether it’s billing, patient documentation, or other demands from the employer, and all of that takes time away from patient care.”

Another primary driver of physician unionization is the physician burnout epidemic. Physicians collectively complain that they spend more time on electronic health record documentation and bureaucratic administration. Yet if unions can improve these working conditions, the benefit to physicians and their patients would be a welcome change.

Union members are bullish and believe that having a cohesive voice will make a difference.

“We need to use our collective voices to get back to focusing on patient care instead of staring at a computer screen for 80% of the day,” Dr. Higgins told this news organization. “So much of medicine involves getting to the correct diagnosis, listening to patients, observing them, and building a relationship with them. We need time to build that.”

With corporate consolidation and a profit-driven mandate by healthcare systems, doctors are increasingly frustrated and feel that their voices haven’t been heard enough when it comes to issues like workplace safety, working hours, and benefits, said Stuart Bussey, MD, JD, a family practice physician and president of the Union of American Physicians and Dentists in Sacramento, California. 

However, he adds that urging doctors to join together to fight for a better working environment hasn’t been easy.

“Doctors are individualists, and they don’t know how to work in packs like hospital administrators do,” said Dr. Bussey. “They’re hard to organize, but I want them to understand that unless they join hands, sign petitions, and speak as one voice, they’re going to lose out on an amazing opportunity.”
 

Overcoming Misperceptions About Unions

One barrier to doctors getting involved is the sentiment that unions might do the opposite of what’s intended — that is, they might further reduce a doctor’s autonomy and work flexibility. Or there may be a perception that the drive to join a union is predicated on making more money. 

Though he’s now in a union, Dr. VenOsdel, who has been in a hospital-based practice for 7 years, admits that he initially felt very differently about unions than he does today.

“Even though I have family members in healthcare unions, I had a neutral to even slightly negative view of unions,” said Dr. VenOsdel. “It took me working directly with the Minnesota Nurses Association and the Doctors Council to learn the other side of the story.”

Armed with more information, he began lobbying for stricter rules about how his state’s large healthcare systems were closing hospitals and ending much-needed community services.

“I remember standing at the Capitol in Minnesota and telling one of the members that I once felt negatively about unions,” he added. “I realized then that I only knew what employers were telling me via such things as emails about strikes — that information was all being shared from the employers’ perspective.”

The other misperception is that unions only exist to argue against management, including against colleagues who are also part of the management structure, said Dr. Higgins.

“Some doctors perceive being in a union as ‘how can those same leaders also be in a union,’” she said. She feels that they currently don’t have leadership representing them that can help with such things as restructuring their support teams or getting them help with certain tasks. “That’s another way unions can help.” 
 

Social Justice Plays a Role

For Dr. VenOsdel, being part of a union has helped him return to what he calls the “art” of medicine.

“Philosophically, the union gave me an option for change in what felt like a hopeless situation,” he said. “It wasn’t just that I was tossing the keys to someone else and saying, ‘I can’t fix this.’ Instead, we’re taking the reins back and fixing things ourselves.”

Bussey argues that as the uneven balance between administrators and providers in many healthcare organizations grows, the time to consider forming a union is now.

“We’re in a $4 trillion medical industrial revolution,” he said. “Administrators and bureaucrats are multiplying 30-fold times vs providers, and most of that $4 trillion supports things that don’t contribute to the doctor-patient relationship.”

Furthermore, union proponents say that where a one-on-one relationship between doctor and patient once existed, that has now been “triangulated” to include administrators.

“We’ve lost power in every way,” Dr. Bussey said. “We have the degrees, the liability, and the knowledge — we should have more power to make our workplaces safer and better.”

Ultimately, for some unionized doctors, the very holding of a union card is rooted in supporting social justice issues.

“When doctors realize how powerful a tool a union can be for social justice and change, this will alter perceptions of unions within our profession,” Dr. VenOsdel said. “Our union helps give us a voice to stand up for other staff who aren’t unionized and, most importantly, to stand up for the patients who need us.”
 

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

With huge shifts over the past decade in the way doctors are employed — half of all doctors now work for a health system or large medical group — the idea of unionizing is not only being explored but gaining traction within the profession. In fact, 8% of the physician workforce (or 70,000 physicians) belong to a union, according to statistics gathered in 2022.

Exact numbers are hard to come by, and, interestingly, although the American Medical Association (AMA) “ supports the right of physicians to engage in collective bargaining,” the organization doesn’t track union membership among physicians, according to an AMA spokesperson. 
 

Forming a Union

One challenge is that forming a union is not only time-consuming but also difficult, owing to several barriers. For starters, the laws dictating unionization differ by state, and the rules governing unionization vary if a hospital is public or private. If there’s enough momentum from doctors leading unionization efforts, approval from hospital leaders is required before an official election can be requested from the National Labor Relations Board.

That said, for doctors who are in a union — the two most popular are the Union of American Physicians and Dentists and the Doctors Council branch of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)—the benefits are immense, especially because union members can focus on what matters, such as providing the best patient care possible.

For a profession that historically has not been unionized, this year alone, nine medical residency programs at hospitals such as Stanford Health, Montefiore Medical Center, and the University of Pennsylvania, formed unions, reported WBUR in Boston.
 

Belonging Matters 

“When you build a relationship with your patients, it’s special, and that connection isn’t replaceable,” said Nicholas VenOsdel, MD, a pediatrician at Allina Health Primary Care in Hastings, Minnesota, and a union member of the Doctors Council. “However, a lot of us have felt like that hasn’t been respected as the climate of healthcare has changed so fast.”

In fact, autonomy over how much time doctors spend with patients is driving a lot of interest in unionization.

“We don’t necessarily have that autonomy now,” said Amber Higgins, MD, an emergency physician and an obstetrician at ChristianaCare, a hospital network in Newark, Delaware, and a member of the Doctors Council. “There are so many other demands, whether it’s billing, patient documentation, or other demands from the employer, and all of that takes time away from patient care.”

Another primary driver of physician unionization is the physician burnout epidemic. Physicians collectively complain that they spend more time on electronic health record documentation and bureaucratic administration. Yet if unions can improve these working conditions, the benefit to physicians and their patients would be a welcome change.

Union members are bullish and believe that having a cohesive voice will make a difference.

“We need to use our collective voices to get back to focusing on patient care instead of staring at a computer screen for 80% of the day,” Dr. Higgins told this news organization. “So much of medicine involves getting to the correct diagnosis, listening to patients, observing them, and building a relationship with them. We need time to build that.”

With corporate consolidation and a profit-driven mandate by healthcare systems, doctors are increasingly frustrated and feel that their voices haven’t been heard enough when it comes to issues like workplace safety, working hours, and benefits, said Stuart Bussey, MD, JD, a family practice physician and president of the Union of American Physicians and Dentists in Sacramento, California. 

However, he adds that urging doctors to join together to fight for a better working environment hasn’t been easy.

“Doctors are individualists, and they don’t know how to work in packs like hospital administrators do,” said Dr. Bussey. “They’re hard to organize, but I want them to understand that unless they join hands, sign petitions, and speak as one voice, they’re going to lose out on an amazing opportunity.”
 

Overcoming Misperceptions About Unions

One barrier to doctors getting involved is the sentiment that unions might do the opposite of what’s intended — that is, they might further reduce a doctor’s autonomy and work flexibility. Or there may be a perception that the drive to join a union is predicated on making more money. 

Though he’s now in a union, Dr. VenOsdel, who has been in a hospital-based practice for 7 years, admits that he initially felt very differently about unions than he does today.

“Even though I have family members in healthcare unions, I had a neutral to even slightly negative view of unions,” said Dr. VenOsdel. “It took me working directly with the Minnesota Nurses Association and the Doctors Council to learn the other side of the story.”

Armed with more information, he began lobbying for stricter rules about how his state’s large healthcare systems were closing hospitals and ending much-needed community services.

“I remember standing at the Capitol in Minnesota and telling one of the members that I once felt negatively about unions,” he added. “I realized then that I only knew what employers were telling me via such things as emails about strikes — that information was all being shared from the employers’ perspective.”

The other misperception is that unions only exist to argue against management, including against colleagues who are also part of the management structure, said Dr. Higgins.

“Some doctors perceive being in a union as ‘how can those same leaders also be in a union,’” she said. She feels that they currently don’t have leadership representing them that can help with such things as restructuring their support teams or getting them help with certain tasks. “That’s another way unions can help.” 
 

Social Justice Plays a Role

For Dr. VenOsdel, being part of a union has helped him return to what he calls the “art” of medicine.

“Philosophically, the union gave me an option for change in what felt like a hopeless situation,” he said. “It wasn’t just that I was tossing the keys to someone else and saying, ‘I can’t fix this.’ Instead, we’re taking the reins back and fixing things ourselves.”

Bussey argues that as the uneven balance between administrators and providers in many healthcare organizations grows, the time to consider forming a union is now.

“We’re in a $4 trillion medical industrial revolution,” he said. “Administrators and bureaucrats are multiplying 30-fold times vs providers, and most of that $4 trillion supports things that don’t contribute to the doctor-patient relationship.”

Furthermore, union proponents say that where a one-on-one relationship between doctor and patient once existed, that has now been “triangulated” to include administrators.

“We’ve lost power in every way,” Dr. Bussey said. “We have the degrees, the liability, and the knowledge — we should have more power to make our workplaces safer and better.”

Ultimately, for some unionized doctors, the very holding of a union card is rooted in supporting social justice issues.

“When doctors realize how powerful a tool a union can be for social justice and change, this will alter perceptions of unions within our profession,” Dr. VenOsdel said. “Our union helps give us a voice to stand up for other staff who aren’t unionized and, most importantly, to stand up for the patients who need us.”
 

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