Silver, Julie

Abstract Background In 2021, the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation established the Multi‐Disciplinary Post‐Acute Sequelae of SARS‐CoV‐2 Infection Collaborative to provide guidance from established Long COVID clinics for the evaluation and management of Long COVID. The collaborative previously published eight Long COVID consensus guidance statements using a primarily symptom‐based approach. However, Long COVID symptoms most often do not occur in isolation. Aims This compendium aims to equip clinicians with an efficient, up‐to‐date clinical resource for evaluating and managing adults experiencing Long COVID symptoms. The primary intended audience includes physiatrists, primary care physicians, and other clinicians who provide first‐line assessment and management of Long COVID symptoms, especially in settings where subspecialty care is not readily available. This compendium provides a holistic framework for assessment and management, symptom‐specific considerations, and updates on prevalence, health equity, disability considerations, pathophysiology, and emerging evidence regarding treatments under investigation. Because Long COVID closely resembles other infection‐associated chronic conditions (IACCs) such as myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome, the guidance in this compendium may also be helpful for clinicians managing these related conditions. Methods Guidance in this compendium was developed by the collaborative's established modified Delphi approach. The collaborative is a multidisciplinary group whose members include physiatrists, primary care physicians, pulmonologists, cardiologists, psychiatrists, neuropsychologists, neurologists, occupational therapists, physical therapists, speech and language pathologists, patients, and government representatives. Over 40 Long COVID centers are represented in the collaborative. Results Long COVID is defined by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine as “an IACC that occurs after SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and is present for at least 3 months as a continuous, relapsing and remitting, or progressive disease state that affects one or more organ systems.” The current global prevalence of Long COVID is estimated to be 6%. Higher prevalence has been identified among female gender, certain racial and ethnic groups, and individuals who live in nonurban areas. However, anyone can develop Long COVID after being infected with the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus. Long COVID can present as a wide variety of symptom clusters. The most common symptoms include exaggerated fatigue and diminished energy windows, postexertional malaise (PEM)/postexertional symptom exacerbation (PESE), cognitive impairment (brain fog), dysautonomia, pain/myalgias, and smell and taste alterations. Holistic assessment should include a traditional history, physical examination, and additional diagnostic testing, as indicated. A positive COVID‐19 test during acute SARS‐CoV‐2 infection is not required to diagnose Long COVID, and currently, there is no single laboratory finding that is definitively diagnostic for confirming or ruling out the diagnosis of Long COVID. A basic laboratory assessment is recommended for all patients with possible Long COVID, and consideration for additional labs and diagnostic procedures is guided by the patient's specific symptoms. Current management strategies focus on symptom‐based supportive care. Critical considerations include energy conservation strategies and addressing comorbidities and modifiable risk factors. Additionally, (1) it is essential to validate the patient's experience and provide reassurance that their symptoms are being taken seriously because many patients have had their symptoms dismissed by loved ones and clinicians; (2) physical activity recommendations must be carefully tailored to the patient's current activity tolerance because overly intense activity can trigger PEM/PESE and worsened muscle damage; and (3) treatment recommendations should be delivered with humility because there are many persistent unknowns related to Long COVID. To date, there are limited data to guide medication management specifically in the context of Long COVID. As such, medication use generally follows standard practice regarding indications and dosing, with extra attention to prioritize (1) patient preference via shared decision‐making and (2) cautious use of medications that may improve some symptoms (eg, cognitive/attention impairment) but may worsen other symptoms (eg, PEM/PESE). Numerous clinical trials are investigating additional treatments. The return‐to‐work process for individuals with Long COVID can be challenging because symptoms can fluctuate, vary in nature, affect multiple functional areas (eg, physical and cognitive), and often manifest as an “invisible disability” that may not be readily acknowledged by employers or coworkers. Clinicians can help patients return to work by identifying suitable workplace accommodations and resources, providing necessary documentation, and recommending occupational or vocational therapy when needed. If these efforts are unsuccessful and work significantly worsens Long COVID symptoms or impedes recovery, applying for disability may be warranted. Long COVID is recognized as a potential disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Conclusion To contribute to the overall health and well‐being for all patients, Long COVID care should be delivered in a holistic manner that acknowledges challenges faced by the patient and uncertainties in the field. For more detailed information on assessment and management of specific Long COVID symptoms, readers can reference the collaborative's symptom‐specific consensus guidance statements.

Background and Objectives: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have significantly influenced medical practice worldwide. Nevertheless, the authorship of CPGs produced by several medical societies has not been representative of the field and population they address, as women and individuals from racial and ethnic minority groups have been underrepresented as authors. We hypothesized that women and individuals from minoritized racial and ethnic groups would also be underrepresented as authors of CPGs produced by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). Methods: In this cross-sectional study, the gender, race, and ethnic composition of authors and subcommittee participants of AAP-produced CPGs published from January 2010 through May 2023 were analyzed and compared to the 2010 and 2021 U.S. population and 2010 and 2022 U.S. medical school pediatric faculty. Results: Women (39.7%, 127/320 of all positions, and 42.5%, 85/200 of named author positions) and women physicians (35.2%, 101/287 of all positions, and 36.4%, 64/176 of named author positions) were significantly underrepresented—while men and men physicians were significantly overrepresented—from their respective composition in the U.S. Census and pediatric faculty. Women and women physicians from all racial and ethnic groups and men and men physicians from minority racial and ethnic groups were significantly underrepresented—from their respective composition in the U.S. Census and pediatric faculty. No Black man was identified as an author. Conclusions: Medical societies that produce CPGs should be cognizant of these inequities and ensure appropriate authorship diversity.

AbstractBackgroundAs the proportion of women and individuals who are underrepresented in medicine slowly rises, disparities persist in numerous arenas and specialties. In physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R), there is a continued need to focus on diversity among trainees. This study aims to evaluate diversity among PM&R applicants and residents over the past 6 years.ObjectiveTo describe the demographic trends in PM&R over the last 6 years and compare those findings with trends in other specialties.DesignSurveillance.SettingAnalyses of national databases from self‐reported questionnaires.ParticipantsThe study consists of 126,833 medical school matriculants, 374,185 resident applicants, and 326,134 resident trainees over the last 6 years.Main outcome measuresSelf‐reported demographic data from the Association of American Medical Colleges and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education were analyzed for medical school matriculants, PM&R applicants, and current residents for the cycles of 2014–2015 to 2019–2020. The data were then comparatively reviewed between PM&R and other medical specialties.ResultsIn the 6 cycles evaluated, women accounted for 36%–39% of PM&R residents, but 47%–48% in non‐PM&R specialties. Women applicants to the PM&R specialty averaged 34.4% over the 6 years analyzed, which was the fourth lowest of the 11 specialties examined. Black or African American and Hispanic, Latino, or of Spanish Origin populations each accounted for only 6% of PM&R residents. PM&R demonstrated a noticeably higher proportion of White (62.1% vs. 60.3%) and an observably lower proportion of Black or African American (6.0% vs. 7.1%) and Hispanic, Latino, or of Spanish Origin (6.3% vs. 7.9%) residents compared with non‐PM&R specialties.ConclusionThere is underrepresentation of women and multiple racial and ethnic minority groups in the field of PM&R from applicants to trainees demonstrating a need to improve recruitment efforts.