Tara Haelle

Like hundreds of other medical experts, Leana Wen, MD, an emergency physician and former Baltimore health commissioner, was an early and avid supporter of COVID vaccines and their ability to prevent severe disease, hospitalization, and death from SARS-CoV-2 infections.

When 51-year-old Scott Eli Harris, of Aubrey, Tex., heard of Dr. Wen’s stance in July 2021, the self-described “fifth-generation U.S. Army veteran and a sniper” sent Dr. Wen an electronic invective laden with racist language and very specific threats to shoot her.

Mr. Harris pled guilty to transmitting threats via interstate commerce last February and began serving 6 months in federal prison in the fall of 2022, but his threats wouldn’t be the last for Dr. Wen. Just 2 days after Mr. Harris was sentenced, charges were unsealed against another man in Massachusetts, who threatened that Dr. Wen would “end up in pieces” if she continued “pushing” her thoughts publicly.’

Dr. Wen has plenty of company. In an August 2022 survey of emergency doctors conducted by the American College of Emergency Physicians, 85% of respondents said violence against them is increasing. One in four doctors said they’re being assaulted by patients and their family and friends multiple times a week, compared with just 8% of doctors who said as much in 2018. About 64% of emergency physicians reported receiving verbal assaults and threats of violence; 40% reported being hit or slapped, and 26% were kicked.

This uptick of violence and threats against physicians didn’t come out of nowhere; violence against health care workers has been gradually increasing over the past decade. Health care providers can attest to the hostility that particular topics have sparked for years: vaccines in pediatrics, abortion in ob.gyn., and gender-affirming care in endocrinology.

But the pandemic fueled the fire. While there have always been hot-button issues in medicine, the ire they arouse today is more intense than ever before. The proliferation of misinformation (often via social media) and the politicization of public health and medicine are at the center of the problem.
 

‘The people attacking are themselves victims’

The misinformation problem first came to a head in one area of public health: vaccines. The pandemic accelerated antagonism in medicine – thanks, in part, to decades of antivaccine activism.

The antivaccine movement, which has ebbed and flowed in the United States and across the globe since the first vaccine, experienced a new wave in the early 2000s with the combination of concerns about thimerosal in vaccines and a now disproven link between autism and the MMR vaccine. But that movement grew. It picked up steam when activists gained political clout after a 2014 measles outbreak at Disneyland led California schools to tighten up policies regarding vaccinations for kids who enrolled. These stronger public school vaccination laws ran up against religious freedom arguments from antivaccine advocates.

Use of social media continues to grow, and with it, the spread of misinformation. A recent study found that Facebook “users’ social media habits doubled, and in some cases, tripled the amount of fake news they shared.”

In the face of growing confusion, health care providers and public health experts have often struggled to treat their patients – and communicate to the public – without appearing political.

“The people that are doing the attacking are in some ways themselves victims,” said Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. “They’re victims of the antiscience, antihealth ecosystem coming out of Fox News, the House Freedom Caucus, the CPAC conference, coming out of contrarian intellectuals.”

Many of Dr. Hotez’s colleagues don’t want to talk about the political right as an enabler of scientific disinformation, he said, but that doesn’t change what the evidence shows. The vast majority of state and national bills opposing vaccination, gender-affirming care, comprehensive reproductive care, and other evidence-based medical care often come from Republican legislators.
 

When politics and health care collide

“We’re in an incredible status quo,” said William Schaffner, MD, the previous director of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and a professor of infectious diseases and preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. “You can’t get away from the politics, because you have [political] candidates espousing certain concepts that are antithetical to good public health.”

In March 2023, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s surgeon general, Joseph Ladapo, MD, PhD, warned that COVID vaccines are harmful to young men, prompting rebukes from federal health authorities. It later came out that Dr. Ladapo had changed some of the results of the study before issuing his warning. But long before 2023, there emerged an increasing gap in COVID deaths between red states and blue states, mirroring the vaccination rates in those states. The redder the state, the higher the death toll.

It’s not just Republican Party culture warriors; medical misinformation is also finding increasing purchase on the far left. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Marianne Williamson, both of whom have launched long-shot challenges to President Biden for the 2024 Democratic nomination, had promoted antivaccine ideas long before the COVID pandemic. Mr. Kennedy continues to spread misinformation.

In June 2023, Joe Rogan hosted Mr. Kennedy, on his podcast. During the episode, Mr. Rogan listened uncritically as Mr. Kennedy told his millions of listeners that vaccines cause autism and that 5G causes cancer, among other fringe, often-debunked theories.

Dr. Hotez, a prominent misinformation debunker who was also part of a team that designed a low-cost COVID-19 vaccine, wrote on Twitter that the episode was “just awful.”

The backlash began almost immediately. Mr. Rogan, who has over 11 million followers on Twitter, responded with a public challenge for Dr. Hotez to debate Mr. Kennedy on Mr. Rogan’s show, with a reward of $100,000 to the charity of Dr. Hotez’s choice. More offers streamed in, including from Elon Musk, who tweeted that Dr. Hotez was “afraid of a public debate, because he knows he’s wrong.” More supporters of Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Rogan piled on.

Vaccine skeptics even showed up at Dr. Hotez’s house, filming him as he was returning from buying a Father’s Day cake and taunting him to debate Mr. Kennedy.
 

A turn in the pandemic

For a precious few weeks at the start of the pandemic, it felt as though the country was all in this together. There were arguments against closing schools and shutting down businesses, but for the most part, the nation had about 4 solid weeks of solidarity.

As masking mandates changed and the public health establishment lost the confidence of Americans, the veneer of solidarity began to chip away.

“Things were changing so rapidly during the pandemic that it was very hard for staff and patients to understand the changing guidelines, whether it was visitor constraints or masking,” said Carrie Nelson, the chief medical officer at the telehealth company AmWell, who worked as a supervisor at a large health care system in the Midwest until 2021.

In the midst of the public health crisis, former President Trump was downplaying the severity of the disease and was silencing officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, such as Nancy Messonier, who warned from the very beginning of the pandemic’s potential.

When the vaccines came out, the latent antivaccine movement flared up once again. And this time – unlike in decades past – the debate over vaccines had become partisan.

“Before the pandemic,” said Christopher Thomas, an emergency physician on the West Coast who requested that a pseudonym be used because of personal threats he has received, “patients wouldn’t really challenge me or throw out weird questions.” It’s not that he never encountered pushback, but the stakes felt lower, and people largely deferred to his medical expertise. “If we got a parent who had not vaccinated their child, I would totally engage back then,” Dr. Thomas said.

But the pandemic – and America’s response to it – changed the conversation. “The rhetoric ... switched from downplaying the virus to demonizing the vaccines,” Dr. Thomas said.
 

The toll on health care professionals

By the time vaccines were available, the public had begun to conflate doctors with public health experts, since both were “pushing” the vaccine.

“Most people probably don’t really know the difference between clinical medicine and public health,” said Richard Pan, MD, MPH, a pediatrician and California legislator who sponsored two bills – now laws – that strengthened state childhood vaccination requirements.

At first, it was clearly public health officials, such as Anthony Fauci, MD, who were the face of measures to mitigate the virus. But as doctors became the enforcers of those measures, the line between physicians and public health officials blurred.

A lot of the anger then shifted toward doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals, Dr. Pan said, “because we were, of course, the ones who would be administering the vaccines. They don’t really think of their doctor as a government person until your doctor is carrying a [government] message.”

Given the pressures and struggles of the past few years, it’s no surprise that burnout among health care professionals is high. According to an April 2023 study by the National Council of State Boards of Nursing and the National Forum of State Nursing Workforce Centers, an estimated 800,000 nurses expect to leave the profession by 2027, driven first and foremost by “stress and burnout.”

All of these departures in medicine’s “great resignation” have left hospitals and health care organizations even more short staffed, thereby increasing even more the pressure and burnout on those left.

The pandemic had already badly exacerbated the already widespread problem of burnout in the medical field, which Ms. Nelson said has contributed to the tension.

“The burnout problem that we have in health care is not a good basis for the development of a good therapeutic relationship,” Ms. Nelson said. “Burnout is fraught with apathy and desensitization to human emotions. It takes away the empathy that we once had for people that we see.”
 

What comes next?

Almost exactly 3 years after the world learned about SARS-CoV-2, Biden declared an end to the coronavirus public health emergency in April 2023. Yet, Americans continue to die from COVID, and the anger that bloomed and spread has not abated.

“I think we’re in a new steady state of violence in health care settings,” Ms. Nelson said. “It’s not gone down, because people are still very distressed.” That’s evident from the high prevalence of mental health conditions, the financial strain of first the pandemic and then inflation, and the overall traumatic impact the pandemic had on people, whether they recognize it or not.

The first step to solving any problem is, as the saying goes, to admit that there is a problem.

“I think people need to start stepping out of their comfort bubbles and start to look at things that make them uncomfortable,” Dr. Thomas said, but he doesn’t see that happening any time soon. “I’ve been very let down by physicians and embarrassed by the American physician organizations.”

The medical board in his state, he said, has stood by as some doctors continue misrepresenting medical evidence. “That’s been really, really hard on me. I didn’t think that the medical boards would go so far as to look the other way for something that was this tremendously bad.”

There are others who can take the lead – if they’re willing.

“There are some things the medical societies and academic health centers can do,” Dr. Hotez said, “starting with building up a culture of physicians and health care providers feeling comfortable in the public domain.” He said the messaging when he was getting his degrees was not to engage the public and not to talk to journalists because that was “self-promotion” or “grandstanding.” But the world is different now. Health care professionals need training in public engagement and communication, he said, and the culture needs to change so that health care providers feel comfortable speaking out without feeling “the sword of Damocles over their heads” every time they talk to a reporter, Dr. Hotez said.

There may be no silver bullet to solve the big-picture trust problem in medicine and public health. No TV appearance or quote in an article can solve it. But on an individual level — through careful relationship building with patients – doctors can strengthen that trust.

Telehealth may help with that, but there’s a fine balance there, Ms. Nelson cautioned. On the one hand, with the doctor and the patient each in their own private spaces, where they feel safe and comfortable, the overall experience can be more therapeutic and less stressful. At the same time, telehealth can pile on change-management tasks that can exacerbate burnout, “so it’s a delicate thing we have to approach.”

One very thin silver lining that could emerge from the way in which patients have begun to try to take charge of their care.

“They should fully understand the reasoning behind the recommendations that physicians are making,” Ms. Nelson said. “I’d like to see us get to a happy medium where it’s a partnership. We can’t go back to the old school where the doctor knows best and you don’t ever question him.

“What we need is the partnership, and I would love to see that as the silver lining, but the anger has got to settle down in order for that kind of productive thing to happen.”

As for the big picture? There’s a limit to what even society’s “miracle workers” can do. “The biggest priority right now for the health system is to protect their staff whatever way they can and do some training in deescalation,” Ms. Nelson said. “But I don’t think health care can solve the societal issues that seem to be creating this.”

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

Like hundreds of other medical experts, Leana Wen, MD, an emergency physician and former Baltimore health commissioner, was an early and avid supporter of COVID vaccines and their ability to prevent severe disease, hospitalization, and death from SARS-CoV-2 infections.

When 51-year-old Scott Eli Harris, of Aubrey, Tex., heard of Dr. Wen’s stance in July 2021, the self-described “fifth-generation U.S. Army veteran and a sniper” sent Dr. Wen an electronic invective laden with racist language and very specific threats to shoot her.

Mr. Harris pled guilty to transmitting threats via interstate commerce last February and began serving 6 months in federal prison in the fall of 2022, but his threats wouldn’t be the last for Dr. Wen. Just 2 days after Mr. Harris was sentenced, charges were unsealed against another man in Massachusetts, who threatened that Dr. Wen would “end up in pieces” if she continued “pushing” her thoughts publicly.’

Dr. Wen has plenty of company. In an August 2022 survey of emergency doctors conducted by the American College of Emergency Physicians, 85% of respondents said violence against them is increasing. One in four doctors said they’re being assaulted by patients and their family and friends multiple times a week, compared with just 8% of doctors who said as much in 2018. About 64% of emergency physicians reported receiving verbal assaults and threats of violence; 40% reported being hit or slapped, and 26% were kicked.

This uptick of violence and threats against physicians didn’t come out of nowhere; violence against health care workers has been gradually increasing over the past decade. Health care providers can attest to the hostility that particular topics have sparked for years: vaccines in pediatrics, abortion in ob.gyn., and gender-affirming care in endocrinology.

But the pandemic fueled the fire. While there have always been hot-button issues in medicine, the ire they arouse today is more intense than ever before. The proliferation of misinformation (often via social media) and the politicization of public health and medicine are at the center of the problem.
 

‘The people attacking are themselves victims’

The misinformation problem first came to a head in one area of public health: vaccines. The pandemic accelerated antagonism in medicine – thanks, in part, to decades of antivaccine activism.

The antivaccine movement, which has ebbed and flowed in the United States and across the globe since the first vaccine, experienced a new wave in the early 2000s with the combination of concerns about thimerosal in vaccines and a now disproven link between autism and the MMR vaccine. But that movement grew. It picked up steam when activists gained political clout after a 2014 measles outbreak at Disneyland led California schools to tighten up policies regarding vaccinations for kids who enrolled. These stronger public school vaccination laws ran up against religious freedom arguments from antivaccine advocates.

Use of social media continues to grow, and with it, the spread of misinformation. A recent study found that Facebook “users’ social media habits doubled, and in some cases, tripled the amount of fake news they shared.”

In the face of growing confusion, health care providers and public health experts have often struggled to treat their patients – and communicate to the public – without appearing political.

“The people that are doing the attacking are in some ways themselves victims,” said Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. “They’re victims of the antiscience, antihealth ecosystem coming out of Fox News, the House Freedom Caucus, the CPAC conference, coming out of contrarian intellectuals.”

Many of Dr. Hotez’s colleagues don’t want to talk about the political right as an enabler of scientific disinformation, he said, but that doesn’t change what the evidence shows. The vast majority of state and national bills opposing vaccination, gender-affirming care, comprehensive reproductive care, and other evidence-based medical care often come from Republican legislators.
 

When politics and health care collide

“We’re in an incredible status quo,” said William Schaffner, MD, the previous director of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and a professor of infectious diseases and preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. “You can’t get away from the politics, because you have [political] candidates espousing certain concepts that are antithetical to good public health.”

In March 2023, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s surgeon general, Joseph Ladapo, MD, PhD, warned that COVID vaccines are harmful to young men, prompting rebukes from federal health authorities. It later came out that Dr. Ladapo had changed some of the results of the study before issuing his warning. But long before 2023, there emerged an increasing gap in COVID deaths between red states and blue states, mirroring the vaccination rates in those states. The redder the state, the higher the death toll.

It’s not just Republican Party culture warriors; medical misinformation is also finding increasing purchase on the far left. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Marianne Williamson, both of whom have launched long-shot challenges to President Biden for the 2024 Democratic nomination, had promoted antivaccine ideas long before the COVID pandemic. Mr. Kennedy continues to spread misinformation.

In June 2023, Joe Rogan hosted Mr. Kennedy, on his podcast. During the episode, Mr. Rogan listened uncritically as Mr. Kennedy told his millions of listeners that vaccines cause autism and that 5G causes cancer, among other fringe, often-debunked theories.

Dr. Hotez, a prominent misinformation debunker who was also part of a team that designed a low-cost COVID-19 vaccine, wrote on Twitter that the episode was “just awful.”

The backlash began almost immediately. Mr. Rogan, who has over 11 million followers on Twitter, responded with a public challenge for Dr. Hotez to debate Mr. Kennedy on Mr. Rogan’s show, with a reward of $100,000 to the charity of Dr. Hotez’s choice. More offers streamed in, including from Elon Musk, who tweeted that Dr. Hotez was “afraid of a public debate, because he knows he’s wrong.” More supporters of Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Rogan piled on.

Vaccine skeptics even showed up at Dr. Hotez’s house, filming him as he was returning from buying a Father’s Day cake and taunting him to debate Mr. Kennedy.
 

A turn in the pandemic

For a precious few weeks at the start of the pandemic, it felt as though the country was all in this together. There were arguments against closing schools and shutting down businesses, but for the most part, the nation had about 4 solid weeks of solidarity.

As masking mandates changed and the public health establishment lost the confidence of Americans, the veneer of solidarity began to chip away.

“Things were changing so rapidly during the pandemic that it was very hard for staff and patients to understand the changing guidelines, whether it was visitor constraints or masking,” said Carrie Nelson, the chief medical officer at the telehealth company AmWell, who worked as a supervisor at a large health care system in the Midwest until 2021.

In the midst of the public health crisis, former President Trump was downplaying the severity of the disease and was silencing officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, such as Nancy Messonier, who warned from the very beginning of the pandemic’s potential.

When the vaccines came out, the latent antivaccine movement flared up once again. And this time – unlike in decades past – the debate over vaccines had become partisan.

“Before the pandemic,” said Christopher Thomas, an emergency physician on the West Coast who requested that a pseudonym be used because of personal threats he has received, “patients wouldn’t really challenge me or throw out weird questions.” It’s not that he never encountered pushback, but the stakes felt lower, and people largely deferred to his medical expertise. “If we got a parent who had not vaccinated their child, I would totally engage back then,” Dr. Thomas said.

But the pandemic – and America’s response to it – changed the conversation. “The rhetoric ... switched from downplaying the virus to demonizing the vaccines,” Dr. Thomas said.
 

The toll on health care professionals

By the time vaccines were available, the public had begun to conflate doctors with public health experts, since both were “pushing” the vaccine.

“Most people probably don’t really know the difference between clinical medicine and public health,” said Richard Pan, MD, MPH, a pediatrician and California legislator who sponsored two bills – now laws – that strengthened state childhood vaccination requirements.

At first, it was clearly public health officials, such as Anthony Fauci, MD, who were the face of measures to mitigate the virus. But as doctors became the enforcers of those measures, the line between physicians and public health officials blurred.

A lot of the anger then shifted toward doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals, Dr. Pan said, “because we were, of course, the ones who would be administering the vaccines. They don’t really think of their doctor as a government person until your doctor is carrying a [government] message.”

Given the pressures and struggles of the past few years, it’s no surprise that burnout among health care professionals is high. According to an April 2023 study by the National Council of State Boards of Nursing and the National Forum of State Nursing Workforce Centers, an estimated 800,000 nurses expect to leave the profession by 2027, driven first and foremost by “stress and burnout.”

All of these departures in medicine’s “great resignation” have left hospitals and health care organizations even more short staffed, thereby increasing even more the pressure and burnout on those left.

The pandemic had already badly exacerbated the already widespread problem of burnout in the medical field, which Ms. Nelson said has contributed to the tension.

“The burnout problem that we have in health care is not a good basis for the development of a good therapeutic relationship,” Ms. Nelson said. “Burnout is fraught with apathy and desensitization to human emotions. It takes away the empathy that we once had for people that we see.”
 

What comes next?

Almost exactly 3 years after the world learned about SARS-CoV-2, Biden declared an end to the coronavirus public health emergency in April 2023. Yet, Americans continue to die from COVID, and the anger that bloomed and spread has not abated.

“I think we’re in a new steady state of violence in health care settings,” Ms. Nelson said. “It’s not gone down, because people are still very distressed.” That’s evident from the high prevalence of mental health conditions, the financial strain of first the pandemic and then inflation, and the overall traumatic impact the pandemic had on people, whether they recognize it or not.

The first step to solving any problem is, as the saying goes, to admit that there is a problem.

“I think people need to start stepping out of their comfort bubbles and start to look at things that make them uncomfortable,” Dr. Thomas said, but he doesn’t see that happening any time soon. “I’ve been very let down by physicians and embarrassed by the American physician organizations.”

The medical board in his state, he said, has stood by as some doctors continue misrepresenting medical evidence. “That’s been really, really hard on me. I didn’t think that the medical boards would go so far as to look the other way for something that was this tremendously bad.”

There are others who can take the lead – if they’re willing.

“There are some things the medical societies and academic health centers can do,” Dr. Hotez said, “starting with building up a culture of physicians and health care providers feeling comfortable in the public domain.” He said the messaging when he was getting his degrees was not to engage the public and not to talk to journalists because that was “self-promotion” or “grandstanding.” But the world is different now. Health care professionals need training in public engagement and communication, he said, and the culture needs to change so that health care providers feel comfortable speaking out without feeling “the sword of Damocles over their heads” every time they talk to a reporter, Dr. Hotez said.

There may be no silver bullet to solve the big-picture trust problem in medicine and public health. No TV appearance or quote in an article can solve it. But on an individual level — through careful relationship building with patients – doctors can strengthen that trust.

Telehealth may help with that, but there’s a fine balance there, Ms. Nelson cautioned. On the one hand, with the doctor and the patient each in their own private spaces, where they feel safe and comfortable, the overall experience can be more therapeutic and less stressful. At the same time, telehealth can pile on change-management tasks that can exacerbate burnout, “so it’s a delicate thing we have to approach.”

One very thin silver lining that could emerge from the way in which patients have begun to try to take charge of their care.

“They should fully understand the reasoning behind the recommendations that physicians are making,” Ms. Nelson said. “I’d like to see us get to a happy medium where it’s a partnership. We can’t go back to the old school where the doctor knows best and you don’t ever question him.

“What we need is the partnership, and I would love to see that as the silver lining, but the anger has got to settle down in order for that kind of productive thing to happen.”

As for the big picture? There’s a limit to what even society’s “miracle workers” can do. “The biggest priority right now for the health system is to protect their staff whatever way they can and do some training in deescalation,” Ms. Nelson said. “But I don’t think health care can solve the societal issues that seem to be creating this.”

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

Like hundreds of other medical experts, Leana Wen, MD, an emergency physician and former Baltimore health commissioner, was an early and avid supporter of COVID vaccines and their ability to prevent severe disease, hospitalization, and death from SARS-CoV-2 infections.

When 51-year-old Scott Eli Harris, of Aubrey, Tex., heard of Dr. Wen’s stance in July 2021, the self-described “fifth-generation U.S. Army veteran and a sniper” sent Dr. Wen an electronic invective laden with racist language and very specific threats to shoot her.

Mr. Harris pled guilty to transmitting threats via interstate commerce last February and began serving 6 months in federal prison in the fall of 2022, but his threats wouldn’t be the last for Dr. Wen. Just 2 days after Mr. Harris was sentenced, charges were unsealed against another man in Massachusetts, who threatened that Dr. Wen would “end up in pieces” if she continued “pushing” her thoughts publicly.’

Dr. Wen has plenty of company. In an August 2022 survey of emergency doctors conducted by the American College of Emergency Physicians, 85% of respondents said violence against them is increasing. One in four doctors said they’re being assaulted by patients and their family and friends multiple times a week, compared with just 8% of doctors who said as much in 2018. About 64% of emergency physicians reported receiving verbal assaults and threats of violence; 40% reported being hit or slapped, and 26% were kicked.

This uptick of violence and threats against physicians didn’t come out of nowhere; violence against health care workers has been gradually increasing over the past decade. Health care providers can attest to the hostility that particular topics have sparked for years: vaccines in pediatrics, abortion in ob.gyn., and gender-affirming care in endocrinology.

But the pandemic fueled the fire. While there have always been hot-button issues in medicine, the ire they arouse today is more intense than ever before. The proliferation of misinformation (often via social media) and the politicization of public health and medicine are at the center of the problem.
 

‘The people attacking are themselves victims’

The misinformation problem first came to a head in one area of public health: vaccines. The pandemic accelerated antagonism in medicine – thanks, in part, to decades of antivaccine activism.

The antivaccine movement, which has ebbed and flowed in the United States and across the globe since the first vaccine, experienced a new wave in the early 2000s with the combination of concerns about thimerosal in vaccines and a now disproven link between autism and the MMR vaccine. But that movement grew. It picked up steam when activists gained political clout after a 2014 measles outbreak at Disneyland led California schools to tighten up policies regarding vaccinations for kids who enrolled. These stronger public school vaccination laws ran up against religious freedom arguments from antivaccine advocates.

Use of social media continues to grow, and with it, the spread of misinformation. A recent study found that Facebook “users’ social media habits doubled, and in some cases, tripled the amount of fake news they shared.”

In the face of growing confusion, health care providers and public health experts have often struggled to treat their patients – and communicate to the public – without appearing political.

“The people that are doing the attacking are in some ways themselves victims,” said Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. “They’re victims of the antiscience, antihealth ecosystem coming out of Fox News, the House Freedom Caucus, the CPAC conference, coming out of contrarian intellectuals.”

Many of Dr. Hotez’s colleagues don’t want to talk about the political right as an enabler of scientific disinformation, he said, but that doesn’t change what the evidence shows. The vast majority of state and national bills opposing vaccination, gender-affirming care, comprehensive reproductive care, and other evidence-based medical care often come from Republican legislators.
 

When politics and health care collide

“We’re in an incredible status quo,” said William Schaffner, MD, the previous director of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and a professor of infectious diseases and preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. “You can’t get away from the politics, because you have [political] candidates espousing certain concepts that are antithetical to good public health.”

In March 2023, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s surgeon general, Joseph Ladapo, MD, PhD, warned that COVID vaccines are harmful to young men, prompting rebukes from federal health authorities. It later came out that Dr. Ladapo had changed some of the results of the study before issuing his warning. But long before 2023, there emerged an increasing gap in COVID deaths between red states and blue states, mirroring the vaccination rates in those states. The redder the state, the higher the death toll.

It’s not just Republican Party culture warriors; medical misinformation is also finding increasing purchase on the far left. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Marianne Williamson, both of whom have launched long-shot challenges to President Biden for the 2024 Democratic nomination, had promoted antivaccine ideas long before the COVID pandemic. Mr. Kennedy continues to spread misinformation.

In June 2023, Joe Rogan hosted Mr. Kennedy, on his podcast. During the episode, Mr. Rogan listened uncritically as Mr. Kennedy told his millions of listeners that vaccines cause autism and that 5G causes cancer, among other fringe, often-debunked theories.

Dr. Hotez, a prominent misinformation debunker who was also part of a team that designed a low-cost COVID-19 vaccine, wrote on Twitter that the episode was “just awful.”

The backlash began almost immediately. Mr. Rogan, who has over 11 million followers on Twitter, responded with a public challenge for Dr. Hotez to debate Mr. Kennedy on Mr. Rogan’s show, with a reward of $100,000 to the charity of Dr. Hotez’s choice. More offers streamed in, including from Elon Musk, who tweeted that Dr. Hotez was “afraid of a public debate, because he knows he’s wrong.” More supporters of Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Rogan piled on.

Vaccine skeptics even showed up at Dr. Hotez’s house, filming him as he was returning from buying a Father’s Day cake and taunting him to debate Mr. Kennedy.
 

A turn in the pandemic

For a precious few weeks at the start of the pandemic, it felt as though the country was all in this together. There were arguments against closing schools and shutting down businesses, but for the most part, the nation had about 4 solid weeks of solidarity.

As masking mandates changed and the public health establishment lost the confidence of Americans, the veneer of solidarity began to chip away.

“Things were changing so rapidly during the pandemic that it was very hard for staff and patients to understand the changing guidelines, whether it was visitor constraints or masking,” said Carrie Nelson, the chief medical officer at the telehealth company AmWell, who worked as a supervisor at a large health care system in the Midwest until 2021.

In the midst of the public health crisis, former President Trump was downplaying the severity of the disease and was silencing officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, such as Nancy Messonier, who warned from the very beginning of the pandemic’s potential.

When the vaccines came out, the latent antivaccine movement flared up once again. And this time – unlike in decades past – the debate over vaccines had become partisan.

“Before the pandemic,” said Christopher Thomas, an emergency physician on the West Coast who requested that a pseudonym be used because of personal threats he has received, “patients wouldn’t really challenge me or throw out weird questions.” It’s not that he never encountered pushback, but the stakes felt lower, and people largely deferred to his medical expertise. “If we got a parent who had not vaccinated their child, I would totally engage back then,” Dr. Thomas said.

But the pandemic – and America’s response to it – changed the conversation. “The rhetoric ... switched from downplaying the virus to demonizing the vaccines,” Dr. Thomas said.
 

The toll on health care professionals

By the time vaccines were available, the public had begun to conflate doctors with public health experts, since both were “pushing” the vaccine.

“Most people probably don’t really know the difference between clinical medicine and public health,” said Richard Pan, MD, MPH, a pediatrician and California legislator who sponsored two bills – now laws – that strengthened state childhood vaccination requirements.

At first, it was clearly public health officials, such as Anthony Fauci, MD, who were the face of measures to mitigate the virus. But as doctors became the enforcers of those measures, the line between physicians and public health officials blurred.

A lot of the anger then shifted toward doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals, Dr. Pan said, “because we were, of course, the ones who would be administering the vaccines. They don’t really think of their doctor as a government person until your doctor is carrying a [government] message.”

Given the pressures and struggles of the past few years, it’s no surprise that burnout among health care professionals is high. According to an April 2023 study by the National Council of State Boards of Nursing and the National Forum of State Nursing Workforce Centers, an estimated 800,000 nurses expect to leave the profession by 2027, driven first and foremost by “stress and burnout.”

All of these departures in medicine’s “great resignation” have left hospitals and health care organizations even more short staffed, thereby increasing even more the pressure and burnout on those left.

The pandemic had already badly exacerbated the already widespread problem of burnout in the medical field, which Ms. Nelson said has contributed to the tension.

“The burnout problem that we have in health care is not a good basis for the development of a good therapeutic relationship,” Ms. Nelson said. “Burnout is fraught with apathy and desensitization to human emotions. It takes away the empathy that we once had for people that we see.”
 

What comes next?

Almost exactly 3 years after the world learned about SARS-CoV-2, Biden declared an end to the coronavirus public health emergency in April 2023. Yet, Americans continue to die from COVID, and the anger that bloomed and spread has not abated.

“I think we’re in a new steady state of violence in health care settings,” Ms. Nelson said. “It’s not gone down, because people are still very distressed.” That’s evident from the high prevalence of mental health conditions, the financial strain of first the pandemic and then inflation, and the overall traumatic impact the pandemic had on people, whether they recognize it or not.

The first step to solving any problem is, as the saying goes, to admit that there is a problem.

“I think people need to start stepping out of their comfort bubbles and start to look at things that make them uncomfortable,” Dr. Thomas said, but he doesn’t see that happening any time soon. “I’ve been very let down by physicians and embarrassed by the American physician organizations.”

The medical board in his state, he said, has stood by as some doctors continue misrepresenting medical evidence. “That’s been really, really hard on me. I didn’t think that the medical boards would go so far as to look the other way for something that was this tremendously bad.”

There are others who can take the lead – if they’re willing.

“There are some things the medical societies and academic health centers can do,” Dr. Hotez said, “starting with building up a culture of physicians and health care providers feeling comfortable in the public domain.” He said the messaging when he was getting his degrees was not to engage the public and not to talk to journalists because that was “self-promotion” or “grandstanding.” But the world is different now. Health care professionals need training in public engagement and communication, he said, and the culture needs to change so that health care providers feel comfortable speaking out without feeling “the sword of Damocles over their heads” every time they talk to a reporter, Dr. Hotez said.

There may be no silver bullet to solve the big-picture trust problem in medicine and public health. No TV appearance or quote in an article can solve it. But on an individual level — through careful relationship building with patients – doctors can strengthen that trust.

Telehealth may help with that, but there’s a fine balance there, Ms. Nelson cautioned. On the one hand, with the doctor and the patient each in their own private spaces, where they feel safe and comfortable, the overall experience can be more therapeutic and less stressful. At the same time, telehealth can pile on change-management tasks that can exacerbate burnout, “so it’s a delicate thing we have to approach.”

One very thin silver lining that could emerge from the way in which patients have begun to try to take charge of their care.

“They should fully understand the reasoning behind the recommendations that physicians are making,” Ms. Nelson said. “I’d like to see us get to a happy medium where it’s a partnership. We can’t go back to the old school where the doctor knows best and you don’t ever question him.

“What we need is the partnership, and I would love to see that as the silver lining, but the anger has got to settle down in order for that kind of productive thing to happen.”

As for the big picture? There’s a limit to what even society’s “miracle workers” can do. “The biggest priority right now for the health system is to protect their staff whatever way they can and do some training in deescalation,” Ms. Nelson said. “But I don’t think health care can solve the societal issues that seem to be creating this.”

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

Growing up in south India, Deepu Madduri, MD, chose her career path to emulate an ear-nose-throat doctor who kept helping her recover. Today she belongs to a pioneering team of women hematologic oncologists who research innovative multiple myeloma treatments while mentoring the next generation of women in their field.

Inspired in childhood to study medicine, Dr. Madduri chose to specialize in oncology after losing a grandparent to cancer. After moving to the United States as a fifth grader, she went back to India every summer. While visiting as a college student, Dr. Madduri found her grandmother pale, with symptoms such as blood in the stool. Diagnosed with stage IV colon cancer, the grandmother died 6 months later.

courtesy Janssen Oncology

“I realized I really wanted to be an oncologist because I wanted to see what I could have done to help my grandma,” Dr. Madduri said in an interview.

Today, as a senior medical director at Janssen Oncology, Dr. Madduri joins her colleague Lisa Kallenbach, MD, and others on a team of hematologist oncologists who are working to advance the treatment of multiple myeloma with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. She and Dr. Kallenbach also mentor other blood cancer specialists through a company-sponsored Women in Hematology program.

Dr. Kallenbach, group medical director at the firm, had also long wanted to become a doctor. Unlike Dr. Madduri, however, Dr. Kallenbach took a “long and winding road” and didn’t start med school until age 30.

Put off by college premed requirements, Dr. Kallenbach majored in anthropology and suppressed her desire to study medicine while she got a master’s degree in public administration, worked in public health, and volunteered with the Peace Corps. Ultimately, she decided to do a postbaccalaureate program, entered Brown University in Providence, R.I., and loved it.

“No one in my family was a doctor, so it was all very mystical to me,” she said. “It wasn’t until I worked for a doctor where it was demystified, and I thought, ‘Ah, they’re not any smarter. They just work really hard, and I can work hard. I always do.’”
 

Time for a change

Hard work brought both Dr. Kallenbach and Dr. Madduri to Janssen at roughly the same time, for similar reasons.

Dr. Madduri had been a junior faculty member at Mount Sinai, where she followed her mentor’s advice and fought hard to become principal investigator of the CARTITUDE-1 trial, which she presented at the annual meetings of the American Society of Hematology in 2019 and 2020. This research led to the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the CAR T therapy Carvykti for multiple myeloma. Dr. Madduri also launched the CAR T program at Mount Sinai and quickly gained prominence in her field, despite being the hospital’s youngest faculty member for myeloma. But when the pandemic hit, she decided to try something different.

“I was helping one person at a time as a physician, but [Janssen] gave me the opportunity to help people in a much broader sense,” said Dr. Madduri, who joined the firm in April 2021. “I’m now the one designing the trials and looking at what the needs are in myeloma.”

“Janssen’s CAR T product [Carvykti] revolutionized the space because after a one-time treatment, patients are in a deep and durable remission and living much longer,” she said. Furthermore, Janssen offered Dr. Madduri the chance to design the trials toward that long-held goal.

“I want to be part of the team where they’re really dedicated to curing myeloma,” Dr. Madduri said. And she continues to see patients as an adjunct assistant professor at Stanford (Calif.) University, where she did a blood & marrow transplantation fellowship.

courtesy Janssen Oncology

Dr. Kallenbach was also drawn to Janssen because of her pandemic experiences – and the promise of broader opportunities, including a better work-life balance. One patient at a time, she was treating a variety of hematologic disorders and malignancies. Although she enjoyed it, she just needed a change.

“It had been 9 months of COVID, and it was just a really busy time and stressful,” Dr. Kallenbach said. When a friend shared the Janssen job posting, she took it as a sign. “I thought, I could really make an impact here. Now I’ve gone from treating one patient at a time to treating tons of patients and helping to get this drug [Carvykti] to patients who can really use it.”
 

A cancer field with potential

While it was Dr. Madduri’s grandmother’s illness that drew her to study oncology, she chose not to work on the colon cancer that killed her grandmother. It felt too personal, and she didn’t foresee being able to help patients in the ways she wanted. Instead of sending them to hospice when treatment options ran out, Dr. Madduri saw the myeloma landscape advancing rapidly, with more drugs becoming available.

“What really interests me is that this field is going somewhere, and we can potentially find something to cure these patients,” Dr. Madduri said. “There’s great need, but there’s rapid advancement happening as well. I wanted to go into something where I could really make a difference and help these patients that I couldn’t help before.”

She’s currently managing CARTITUDE-6, a head-to-head frontline trial testing CAR T-cell therapy (Carvykti) in patients eligible for transplant. “Right now the standard of care is transplant, so there’s a lot of excitement” with the idea of replacing transplant with CAR T in newly diagnosed patients, something that’s never been done. Dr. Madduri hopes this will move patients into deeper remission and eventually help pave the path to a cure. “We have to change the landscape. We have to push the boundaries, right?”

Similarly, Dr. Kallenbach was drawn to myeloma because of the rush of new therapies.

“From the time I was training to the time I was practicing, the treatments completely changed,” she said. “That’s always exciting when you’re making that much progress on a disease, to see these enormous changes. Now you’re actually seeing people who’ve had tons of prior therapies have responses that I’ve just never seen before.”

Dr. Kallenbach also found fulfillment through patient care. “People really connect with their oncologist, and that relationship is really special,” she said. “The other thing is that you really learn from cancer patients how to live your life, like what’s important. People’s priorities become very clear.”
 

Importance of mentorship

Both women credit part of their success to finding excellent mentors early on, and both are paying it forward by mentoring other women in their field.

Dr. Madduri met her mentor, Sundar Jagannath, MBBS, when he interviewed her at Icahn School of Medicine’s Tisch Cancer Institute in New York, where he’s director of the multiple myeloma program and the Myeloma Center of Excellence. Noting her enthusiasm and excellent training, Dr. Jagannath recruited Dr. Madduri and quickly discovered her organizational skills. When she expressed interest in running the CAR T program, he let her run with it, while advising her on how to ensure that she got respect and credit for her work.

“You have to do your part, but if you don’t have the right mentor telling you, it’d be really hard for someone who’s just starting out to know what to do,” Dr. Madduri said.

Dr. Jagannath’s guidance paid off. “When she made the ASH presentation, everybody was impressed,” he said. “She captured the attention of my peers who have been in the field for a long time, so she immediately made a national splash.”

Just a few years out of her own fellowship, Dr. Madduri had already begun mentoring other fellows. Through Women in Hematology, she helps gather data about the roles women play in her field and how to further their advancement. “The myeloma field is slowly starting to shift” toward more gender balance, she said – progress she feels happy to support.

Dr. Kallenbach’s mentoring is less formal, yet it makes a deep impact on those she takes under her wing. Her mentees are mostly the students she’s met on the Bryn Mawr College campus where she walks her two Labradors. That’s how she met Louise Breen, who, after a postbaccalaureate there, just graduated from University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and is headed for residency at Mass General Hospital, Boston.

Dr. Breen said her mentor’s greatest gift has been “showing many of us that it’s possible to do it and what life could look like.” While fostering students’ self-confidence as they wrangle with imposter syndrome, Dr. Kallenbach has also demonstrated what a work-life balance in medicine can look like. She learned that from her own mentor, Hedy Smith, MD, PhD, now clinical director of inpatient hematology/oncology at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, and previously an associate professor at Tufts Medical Center.

Dr. Kallenbach quickly made an impression on Dr. Smith by coming to her door in tears one day.

“She was so devastated at the additions I made in her notes,” recalled Dr. Smith. “She felt that she had presented me with this less-than-adequate document. ... I told her, ‘this really says the world about who you are, who you’re going to become in oncology.’ I was struck by her character, a dedication to her work, and her desire to perfect it.”

Three years later, Dr. Smith remembers Dr. Kallenbach coming to her office with a big smile and saying: “Look at this. You didn’t make any changes.” Then Dr. Smith knew that her mentee was ready for the next chapter of her career.

They have kept in touch, with Dr. Kallenbach periodically calling to discuss a difficult case or to plan to meet up at conferences. “It always puts a smile on my face because this person who was once my student has now undergone this metamorphosis, and here we are, now truly equals and colleagues attending the meetings together,” Dr. Smith remarked.

Dr. Kallenbach feels grateful about finding a strong female mentor early in her medical career, especially given some of the everyday sexism she has encountered. A male colleague at a conference once expressed shock that she was practicing medicine full time while also being a mother. Dr. Kallenbach hasn’t encountered such attitudes while working in the pharmaceutical industry.

“I feel more valued as a doctor now than I ever did in practice,” she said. While before, she felt respected, “here, I feel like your expertise is valued, and you can actually help shape programs and inform how doctors practice.”

Dr. Madduri, too, feels like she’s where she’s supposed to be. “I went into the field because I really wanted to help people and make a difference,” she said. “I’m doing everything that I wanted to do.”

Growing up in south India, Deepu Madduri, MD, chose her career path to emulate an ear-nose-throat doctor who kept helping her recover. Today she belongs to a pioneering team of women hematologic oncologists who research innovative multiple myeloma treatments while mentoring the next generation of women in their field.

Inspired in childhood to study medicine, Dr. Madduri chose to specialize in oncology after losing a grandparent to cancer. After moving to the United States as a fifth grader, she went back to India every summer. While visiting as a college student, Dr. Madduri found her grandmother pale, with symptoms such as blood in the stool. Diagnosed with stage IV colon cancer, the grandmother died 6 months later.

courtesy Janssen Oncology

“I realized I really wanted to be an oncologist because I wanted to see what I could have done to help my grandma,” Dr. Madduri said in an interview.

Today, as a senior medical director at Janssen Oncology, Dr. Madduri joins her colleague Lisa Kallenbach, MD, and others on a team of hematologist oncologists who are working to advance the treatment of multiple myeloma with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. She and Dr. Kallenbach also mentor other blood cancer specialists through a company-sponsored Women in Hematology program.

Dr. Kallenbach, group medical director at the firm, had also long wanted to become a doctor. Unlike Dr. Madduri, however, Dr. Kallenbach took a “long and winding road” and didn’t start med school until age 30.

Put off by college premed requirements, Dr. Kallenbach majored in anthropology and suppressed her desire to study medicine while she got a master’s degree in public administration, worked in public health, and volunteered with the Peace Corps. Ultimately, she decided to do a postbaccalaureate program, entered Brown University in Providence, R.I., and loved it.

“No one in my family was a doctor, so it was all very mystical to me,” she said. “It wasn’t until I worked for a doctor where it was demystified, and I thought, ‘Ah, they’re not any smarter. They just work really hard, and I can work hard. I always do.’”
 

Time for a change

Hard work brought both Dr. Kallenbach and Dr. Madduri to Janssen at roughly the same time, for similar reasons.

Dr. Madduri had been a junior faculty member at Mount Sinai, where she followed her mentor’s advice and fought hard to become principal investigator of the CARTITUDE-1 trial, which she presented at the annual meetings of the American Society of Hematology in 2019 and 2020. This research led to the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the CAR T therapy Carvykti for multiple myeloma. Dr. Madduri also launched the CAR T program at Mount Sinai and quickly gained prominence in her field, despite being the hospital’s youngest faculty member for myeloma. But when the pandemic hit, she decided to try something different.

“I was helping one person at a time as a physician, but [Janssen] gave me the opportunity to help people in a much broader sense,” said Dr. Madduri, who joined the firm in April 2021. “I’m now the one designing the trials and looking at what the needs are in myeloma.”

“Janssen’s CAR T product [Carvykti] revolutionized the space because after a one-time treatment, patients are in a deep and durable remission and living much longer,” she said. Furthermore, Janssen offered Dr. Madduri the chance to design the trials toward that long-held goal.

“I want to be part of the team where they’re really dedicated to curing myeloma,” Dr. Madduri said. And she continues to see patients as an adjunct assistant professor at Stanford (Calif.) University, where she did a blood & marrow transplantation fellowship.

courtesy Janssen Oncology

Dr. Kallenbach was also drawn to Janssen because of her pandemic experiences – and the promise of broader opportunities, including a better work-life balance. One patient at a time, she was treating a variety of hematologic disorders and malignancies. Although she enjoyed it, she just needed a change.

“It had been 9 months of COVID, and it was just a really busy time and stressful,” Dr. Kallenbach said. When a friend shared the Janssen job posting, she took it as a sign. “I thought, I could really make an impact here. Now I’ve gone from treating one patient at a time to treating tons of patients and helping to get this drug [Carvykti] to patients who can really use it.”
 

A cancer field with potential

While it was Dr. Madduri’s grandmother’s illness that drew her to study oncology, she chose not to work on the colon cancer that killed her grandmother. It felt too personal, and she didn’t foresee being able to help patients in the ways she wanted. Instead of sending them to hospice when treatment options ran out, Dr. Madduri saw the myeloma landscape advancing rapidly, with more drugs becoming available.

“What really interests me is that this field is going somewhere, and we can potentially find something to cure these patients,” Dr. Madduri said. “There’s great need, but there’s rapid advancement happening as well. I wanted to go into something where I could really make a difference and help these patients that I couldn’t help before.”

She’s currently managing CARTITUDE-6, a head-to-head frontline trial testing CAR T-cell therapy (Carvykti) in patients eligible for transplant. “Right now the standard of care is transplant, so there’s a lot of excitement” with the idea of replacing transplant with CAR T in newly diagnosed patients, something that’s never been done. Dr. Madduri hopes this will move patients into deeper remission and eventually help pave the path to a cure. “We have to change the landscape. We have to push the boundaries, right?”

Similarly, Dr. Kallenbach was drawn to myeloma because of the rush of new therapies.

“From the time I was training to the time I was practicing, the treatments completely changed,” she said. “That’s always exciting when you’re making that much progress on a disease, to see these enormous changes. Now you’re actually seeing people who’ve had tons of prior therapies have responses that I’ve just never seen before.”

Dr. Kallenbach also found fulfillment through patient care. “People really connect with their oncologist, and that relationship is really special,” she said. “The other thing is that you really learn from cancer patients how to live your life, like what’s important. People’s priorities become very clear.”
 

Importance of mentorship

Both women credit part of their success to finding excellent mentors early on, and both are paying it forward by mentoring other women in their field.

Dr. Madduri met her mentor, Sundar Jagannath, MBBS, when he interviewed her at Icahn School of Medicine’s Tisch Cancer Institute in New York, where he’s director of the multiple myeloma program and the Myeloma Center of Excellence. Noting her enthusiasm and excellent training, Dr. Jagannath recruited Dr. Madduri and quickly discovered her organizational skills. When she expressed interest in running the CAR T program, he let her run with it, while advising her on how to ensure that she got respect and credit for her work.

“You have to do your part, but if you don’t have the right mentor telling you, it’d be really hard for someone who’s just starting out to know what to do,” Dr. Madduri said.

Dr. Jagannath’s guidance paid off. “When she made the ASH presentation, everybody was impressed,” he said. “She captured the attention of my peers who have been in the field for a long time, so she immediately made a national splash.”

Just a few years out of her own fellowship, Dr. Madduri had already begun mentoring other fellows. Through Women in Hematology, she helps gather data about the roles women play in her field and how to further their advancement. “The myeloma field is slowly starting to shift” toward more gender balance, she said – progress she feels happy to support.

Dr. Kallenbach’s mentoring is less formal, yet it makes a deep impact on those she takes under her wing. Her mentees are mostly the students she’s met on the Bryn Mawr College campus where she walks her two Labradors. That’s how she met Louise Breen, who, after a postbaccalaureate there, just graduated from University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and is headed for residency at Mass General Hospital, Boston.

Dr. Breen said her mentor’s greatest gift has been “showing many of us that it’s possible to do it and what life could look like.” While fostering students’ self-confidence as they wrangle with imposter syndrome, Dr. Kallenbach has also demonstrated what a work-life balance in medicine can look like. She learned that from her own mentor, Hedy Smith, MD, PhD, now clinical director of inpatient hematology/oncology at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, and previously an associate professor at Tufts Medical Center.

Dr. Kallenbach quickly made an impression on Dr. Smith by coming to her door in tears one day.

“She was so devastated at the additions I made in her notes,” recalled Dr. Smith. “She felt that she had presented me with this less-than-adequate document. ... I told her, ‘this really says the world about who you are, who you’re going to become in oncology.’ I was struck by her character, a dedication to her work, and her desire to perfect it.”

Three years later, Dr. Smith remembers Dr. Kallenbach coming to her office with a big smile and saying: “Look at this. You didn’t make any changes.” Then Dr. Smith knew that her mentee was ready for the next chapter of her career.

They have kept in touch, with Dr. Kallenbach periodically calling to discuss a difficult case or to plan to meet up at conferences. “It always puts a smile on my face because this person who was once my student has now undergone this metamorphosis, and here we are, now truly equals and colleagues attending the meetings together,” Dr. Smith remarked.

Dr. Kallenbach feels grateful about finding a strong female mentor early in her medical career, especially given some of the everyday sexism she has encountered. A male colleague at a conference once expressed shock that she was practicing medicine full time while also being a mother. Dr. Kallenbach hasn’t encountered such attitudes while working in the pharmaceutical industry.

“I feel more valued as a doctor now than I ever did in practice,” she said. While before, she felt respected, “here, I feel like your expertise is valued, and you can actually help shape programs and inform how doctors practice.”

Dr. Madduri, too, feels like she’s where she’s supposed to be. “I went into the field because I really wanted to help people and make a difference,” she said. “I’m doing everything that I wanted to do.”

Growing up in south India, Deepu Madduri, MD, chose her career path to emulate an ear-nose-throat doctor who kept helping her recover. Today she belongs to a pioneering team of women hematologic oncologists who research innovative multiple myeloma treatments while mentoring the next generation of women in their field.

Inspired in childhood to study medicine, Dr. Madduri chose to specialize in oncology after losing a grandparent to cancer. After moving to the United States as a fifth grader, she went back to India every summer. While visiting as a college student, Dr. Madduri found her grandmother pale, with symptoms such as blood in the stool. Diagnosed with stage IV colon cancer, the grandmother died 6 months later.

courtesy Janssen Oncology

“I realized I really wanted to be an oncologist because I wanted to see what I could have done to help my grandma,” Dr. Madduri said in an interview.

Today, as a senior medical director at Janssen Oncology, Dr. Madduri joins her colleague Lisa Kallenbach, MD, and others on a team of hematologist oncologists who are working to advance the treatment of multiple myeloma with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. She and Dr. Kallenbach also mentor other blood cancer specialists through a company-sponsored Women in Hematology program.

Dr. Kallenbach, group medical director at the firm, had also long wanted to become a doctor. Unlike Dr. Madduri, however, Dr. Kallenbach took a “long and winding road” and didn’t start med school until age 30.

Put off by college premed requirements, Dr. Kallenbach majored in anthropology and suppressed her desire to study medicine while she got a master’s degree in public administration, worked in public health, and volunteered with the Peace Corps. Ultimately, she decided to do a postbaccalaureate program, entered Brown University in Providence, R.I., and loved it.

“No one in my family was a doctor, so it was all very mystical to me,” she said. “It wasn’t until I worked for a doctor where it was demystified, and I thought, ‘Ah, they’re not any smarter. They just work really hard, and I can work hard. I always do.’”
 

Time for a change

Hard work brought both Dr. Kallenbach and Dr. Madduri to Janssen at roughly the same time, for similar reasons.

Dr. Madduri had been a junior faculty member at Mount Sinai, where she followed her mentor’s advice and fought hard to become principal investigator of the CARTITUDE-1 trial, which she presented at the annual meetings of the American Society of Hematology in 2019 and 2020. This research led to the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the CAR T therapy Carvykti for multiple myeloma. Dr. Madduri also launched the CAR T program at Mount Sinai and quickly gained prominence in her field, despite being the hospital’s youngest faculty member for myeloma. But when the pandemic hit, she decided to try something different.

“I was helping one person at a time as a physician, but [Janssen] gave me the opportunity to help people in a much broader sense,” said Dr. Madduri, who joined the firm in April 2021. “I’m now the one designing the trials and looking at what the needs are in myeloma.”

“Janssen’s CAR T product [Carvykti] revolutionized the space because after a one-time treatment, patients are in a deep and durable remission and living much longer,” she said. Furthermore, Janssen offered Dr. Madduri the chance to design the trials toward that long-held goal.

“I want to be part of the team where they’re really dedicated to curing myeloma,” Dr. Madduri said. And she continues to see patients as an adjunct assistant professor at Stanford (Calif.) University, where she did a blood & marrow transplantation fellowship.

courtesy Janssen Oncology

Dr. Kallenbach was also drawn to Janssen because of her pandemic experiences – and the promise of broader opportunities, including a better work-life balance. One patient at a time, she was treating a variety of hematologic disorders and malignancies. Although she enjoyed it, she just needed a change.

“It had been 9 months of COVID, and it was just a really busy time and stressful,” Dr. Kallenbach said. When a friend shared the Janssen job posting, she took it as a sign. “I thought, I could really make an impact here. Now I’ve gone from treating one patient at a time to treating tons of patients and helping to get this drug [Carvykti] to patients who can really use it.”
 

A cancer field with potential

While it was Dr. Madduri’s grandmother’s illness that drew her to study oncology, she chose not to work on the colon cancer that killed her grandmother. It felt too personal, and she didn’t foresee being able to help patients in the ways she wanted. Instead of sending them to hospice when treatment options ran out, Dr. Madduri saw the myeloma landscape advancing rapidly, with more drugs becoming available.

“What really interests me is that this field is going somewhere, and we can potentially find something to cure these patients,” Dr. Madduri said. “There’s great need, but there’s rapid advancement happening as well. I wanted to go into something where I could really make a difference and help these patients that I couldn’t help before.”

She’s currently managing CARTITUDE-6, a head-to-head frontline trial testing CAR T-cell therapy (Carvykti) in patients eligible for transplant. “Right now the standard of care is transplant, so there’s a lot of excitement” with the idea of replacing transplant with CAR T in newly diagnosed patients, something that’s never been done. Dr. Madduri hopes this will move patients into deeper remission and eventually help pave the path to a cure. “We have to change the landscape. We have to push the boundaries, right?”

Similarly, Dr. Kallenbach was drawn to myeloma because of the rush of new therapies.

“From the time I was training to the time I was practicing, the treatments completely changed,” she said. “That’s always exciting when you’re making that much progress on a disease, to see these enormous changes. Now you’re actually seeing people who’ve had tons of prior therapies have responses that I’ve just never seen before.”

Dr. Kallenbach also found fulfillment through patient care. “People really connect with their oncologist, and that relationship is really special,” she said. “The other thing is that you really learn from cancer patients how to live your life, like what’s important. People’s priorities become very clear.”
 

Importance of mentorship

Both women credit part of their success to finding excellent mentors early on, and both are paying it forward by mentoring other women in their field.

Dr. Madduri met her mentor, Sundar Jagannath, MBBS, when he interviewed her at Icahn School of Medicine’s Tisch Cancer Institute in New York, where he’s director of the multiple myeloma program and the Myeloma Center of Excellence. Noting her enthusiasm and excellent training, Dr. Jagannath recruited Dr. Madduri and quickly discovered her organizational skills. When she expressed interest in running the CAR T program, he let her run with it, while advising her on how to ensure that she got respect and credit for her work.

“You have to do your part, but if you don’t have the right mentor telling you, it’d be really hard for someone who’s just starting out to know what to do,” Dr. Madduri said.

Dr. Jagannath’s guidance paid off. “When she made the ASH presentation, everybody was impressed,” he said. “She captured the attention of my peers who have been in the field for a long time, so she immediately made a national splash.”

Just a few years out of her own fellowship, Dr. Madduri had already begun mentoring other fellows. Through Women in Hematology, she helps gather data about the roles women play in her field and how to further their advancement. “The myeloma field is slowly starting to shift” toward more gender balance, she said – progress she feels happy to support.

Dr. Kallenbach’s mentoring is less formal, yet it makes a deep impact on those she takes under her wing. Her mentees are mostly the students she’s met on the Bryn Mawr College campus where she walks her two Labradors. That’s how she met Louise Breen, who, after a postbaccalaureate there, just graduated from University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and is headed for residency at Mass General Hospital, Boston.

Dr. Breen said her mentor’s greatest gift has been “showing many of us that it’s possible to do it and what life could look like.” While fostering students’ self-confidence as they wrangle with imposter syndrome, Dr. Kallenbach has also demonstrated what a work-life balance in medicine can look like. She learned that from her own mentor, Hedy Smith, MD, PhD, now clinical director of inpatient hematology/oncology at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, and previously an associate professor at Tufts Medical Center.

Dr. Kallenbach quickly made an impression on Dr. Smith by coming to her door in tears one day.

“She was so devastated at the additions I made in her notes,” recalled Dr. Smith. “She felt that she had presented me with this less-than-adequate document. ... I told her, ‘this really says the world about who you are, who you’re going to become in oncology.’ I was struck by her character, a dedication to her work, and her desire to perfect it.”

Three years later, Dr. Smith remembers Dr. Kallenbach coming to her office with a big smile and saying: “Look at this. You didn’t make any changes.” Then Dr. Smith knew that her mentee was ready for the next chapter of her career.

They have kept in touch, with Dr. Kallenbach periodically calling to discuss a difficult case or to plan to meet up at conferences. “It always puts a smile on my face because this person who was once my student has now undergone this metamorphosis, and here we are, now truly equals and colleagues attending the meetings together,” Dr. Smith remarked.

Dr. Kallenbach feels grateful about finding a strong female mentor early in her medical career, especially given some of the everyday sexism she has encountered. A male colleague at a conference once expressed shock that she was practicing medicine full time while also being a mother. Dr. Kallenbach hasn’t encountered such attitudes while working in the pharmaceutical industry.

“I feel more valued as a doctor now than I ever did in practice,” she said. While before, she felt respected, “here, I feel like your expertise is valued, and you can actually help shape programs and inform how doctors practice.”

Dr. Madduri, too, feels like she’s where she’s supposed to be. “I went into the field because I really wanted to help people and make a difference,” she said. “I’m doing everything that I wanted to do.”

DENVER – Taking ozanimod for relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) at the same time as taking antidepressants that increase serotonin levels does not appear to increase the risk for hypertension or any other adverse events related to serotonin toxicity, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

“Depression and anxiety are prevalent comorbidities occurring in up to 54% of patients with multiple sclerosis, and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs)/serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) are first-line treatments for depression and anxiety disorders,” Robert T. Naismith, MD, of Washington University in St. Louis, and his colleagues reported.

“Coadministration of ozanimod with drugs that increase serotonin could hypothetically lead to serotonin accumulation,” which can increase the likelihood of hypertension. U.S. prescribing information recommends that patients taking both ozanimod and medications that increase norepinephrine or serotonin be monitored for hypertension, an adverse reaction reported in 3.9% of patients receiving ozanimod in the phase 3 trials for relapsing MS.
 

Clarifying the risk

“It’s important to be aware of potential drug interactions and risks from MS disease modifying therapies,” Lauren Gluck, MD, an assistant professor and director of the division of multiple sclerosis at Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, said in an interview. Dr. Gluck was not involved in this study but described some of the history that revealed the value of this type of research. For example, the first sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor (S1PR) modulator approved for MS, fingolimod (Gilenya), has a risk of cardiac conduction dysfunction with QTc prolongation, so people taking fingolimod with other medications that prolong QTc, such as SSRIs, need additional monitoring.

“Ozanimod is a newer, more selective S1PR modulator that initially raised concerns about interaction with serotonin-increasing drugs based on in vitro studies,” Dr. Gluck said. “This could mean that people on ozanimod and other serotonin-increasing medicine could be at risk for dangerous events like serotonin syndrome. However, in vitro studies do not always translate to how something affects the human body, so it is not clear how much risk truly exists.”
 

Examining open-label extension trial data

The researchers therefore evaluated the safety of taking ozanimod and SSRIs or SNRIs in a subset of patients with relapsing MS who participated in the DAYBREAK open-label extension trial. The phase 3 parent trials compared 30 mcg once weekly of intramuscular interferon beta-1a with 0.92 mg of once-daily oral ozanimod and 0.46 mg of once-daily oral ozanimod. In the DAYBREAK open-label extension, 2,256 participants underwent a dose escalation over one week until all reached 0.92 mg of ozanimod, where they remained for an average of just under 5 years of follow-up. Nearly all the participants (99.4%) were White, and two-thirds (66.5%) were female.

The researchers searched the study data for terms related to serotonin toxicity and compared the rates of adverse events related with those terms and the rates of hypertension in the 274 participants who were and the 2,032 participant who were not taking antidepressants at the same time as ozanimod.

They found that 13.9% of patients taking SSRIs or SNRIs experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event related to their search criteria, compared with 17.7% of patients not taking SSRIs or SNRIs. Similarly, 9.2% of trial participants not taking SSRIs or SNRIs had hypertension, compared with 4.7% of participants who were taking antidepressants. The authors further noted that “similar trends were observed when 6 weeks after the end date of concomitant SSRIs/SNRI use were included in the ‘on SSRI/SNRI’ analysis period.”

When the researchers searched specifically for three terms directly related to serotonin toxicity – “serotonin syndrome,” “neuroleptic malignant syndrome,” and “hyperthermia malignant” – they did not find any patients who had treatment-emergent adverse events related to those terms.

“SSRIs/SNRIs were freely allowed as concomitant medications in the DAYBREAK open-label extension, and among the patients from SUNBEAM or RADIANCE who were followed for up to 6 years, there have been no reported safety concerns during the concurrent administration of serotonergic antidepressants and ozanimod in patients with relapsing MS as of the data cutoff,” concluded the authors, though they also noted that the overall rate of SSRI and SNRI use was low in the extension trial.
 

A reassuring finding for clinicians and patients alike

“It is reassuring, if not unexpected, that there were no clinically significant rates of symptoms associated with excess serotonin in patients on ozanimod and SSRI/SNRIs,” Dr. Gluck commented. “These findings are important for both clinicians and patients – they can help [both] feel comfortable considering ozanimod if SSRI/SNRIs are already being used. There is also freedom to use SSRI/SNRIs for symptom management in patients already on ozanimod.”

The research was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Naismith reported consulting for Abata Therapeutics, Banner Life Sciences, BeiGene, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Genentech, Genzyme, GW Therapeutics, Janssen, Horizon Therapeutics, Lundbeck, NervGen, and TG Therapeutics. Six other authors reported disclosures for various pharmaceutical companies, and six other authors are employees and/or shareholders of Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Gluck has served on advisory boards with Genentech and EMD Serono.
 

DENVER – Taking ozanimod for relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) at the same time as taking antidepressants that increase serotonin levels does not appear to increase the risk for hypertension or any other adverse events related to serotonin toxicity, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

“Depression and anxiety are prevalent comorbidities occurring in up to 54% of patients with multiple sclerosis, and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs)/serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) are first-line treatments for depression and anxiety disorders,” Robert T. Naismith, MD, of Washington University in St. Louis, and his colleagues reported.

“Coadministration of ozanimod with drugs that increase serotonin could hypothetically lead to serotonin accumulation,” which can increase the likelihood of hypertension. U.S. prescribing information recommends that patients taking both ozanimod and medications that increase norepinephrine or serotonin be monitored for hypertension, an adverse reaction reported in 3.9% of patients receiving ozanimod in the phase 3 trials for relapsing MS.
 

Clarifying the risk

“It’s important to be aware of potential drug interactions and risks from MS disease modifying therapies,” Lauren Gluck, MD, an assistant professor and director of the division of multiple sclerosis at Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, said in an interview. Dr. Gluck was not involved in this study but described some of the history that revealed the value of this type of research. For example, the first sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor (S1PR) modulator approved for MS, fingolimod (Gilenya), has a risk of cardiac conduction dysfunction with QTc prolongation, so people taking fingolimod with other medications that prolong QTc, such as SSRIs, need additional monitoring.

“Ozanimod is a newer, more selective S1PR modulator that initially raised concerns about interaction with serotonin-increasing drugs based on in vitro studies,” Dr. Gluck said. “This could mean that people on ozanimod and other serotonin-increasing medicine could be at risk for dangerous events like serotonin syndrome. However, in vitro studies do not always translate to how something affects the human body, so it is not clear how much risk truly exists.”
 

Examining open-label extension trial data

The researchers therefore evaluated the safety of taking ozanimod and SSRIs or SNRIs in a subset of patients with relapsing MS who participated in the DAYBREAK open-label extension trial. The phase 3 parent trials compared 30 mcg once weekly of intramuscular interferon beta-1a with 0.92 mg of once-daily oral ozanimod and 0.46 mg of once-daily oral ozanimod. In the DAYBREAK open-label extension, 2,256 participants underwent a dose escalation over one week until all reached 0.92 mg of ozanimod, where they remained for an average of just under 5 years of follow-up. Nearly all the participants (99.4%) were White, and two-thirds (66.5%) were female.

The researchers searched the study data for terms related to serotonin toxicity and compared the rates of adverse events related with those terms and the rates of hypertension in the 274 participants who were and the 2,032 participant who were not taking antidepressants at the same time as ozanimod.

They found that 13.9% of patients taking SSRIs or SNRIs experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event related to their search criteria, compared with 17.7% of patients not taking SSRIs or SNRIs. Similarly, 9.2% of trial participants not taking SSRIs or SNRIs had hypertension, compared with 4.7% of participants who were taking antidepressants. The authors further noted that “similar trends were observed when 6 weeks after the end date of concomitant SSRIs/SNRI use were included in the ‘on SSRI/SNRI’ analysis period.”

When the researchers searched specifically for three terms directly related to serotonin toxicity – “serotonin syndrome,” “neuroleptic malignant syndrome,” and “hyperthermia malignant” – they did not find any patients who had treatment-emergent adverse events related to those terms.

“SSRIs/SNRIs were freely allowed as concomitant medications in the DAYBREAK open-label extension, and among the patients from SUNBEAM or RADIANCE who were followed for up to 6 years, there have been no reported safety concerns during the concurrent administration of serotonergic antidepressants and ozanimod in patients with relapsing MS as of the data cutoff,” concluded the authors, though they also noted that the overall rate of SSRI and SNRI use was low in the extension trial.
 

A reassuring finding for clinicians and patients alike

“It is reassuring, if not unexpected, that there were no clinically significant rates of symptoms associated with excess serotonin in patients on ozanimod and SSRI/SNRIs,” Dr. Gluck commented. “These findings are important for both clinicians and patients – they can help [both] feel comfortable considering ozanimod if SSRI/SNRIs are already being used. There is also freedom to use SSRI/SNRIs for symptom management in patients already on ozanimod.”

The research was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Naismith reported consulting for Abata Therapeutics, Banner Life Sciences, BeiGene, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Genentech, Genzyme, GW Therapeutics, Janssen, Horizon Therapeutics, Lundbeck, NervGen, and TG Therapeutics. Six other authors reported disclosures for various pharmaceutical companies, and six other authors are employees and/or shareholders of Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Gluck has served on advisory boards with Genentech and EMD Serono.
 

DENVER – Taking ozanimod for relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) at the same time as taking antidepressants that increase serotonin levels does not appear to increase the risk for hypertension or any other adverse events related to serotonin toxicity, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

“Depression and anxiety are prevalent comorbidities occurring in up to 54% of patients with multiple sclerosis, and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs)/serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) are first-line treatments for depression and anxiety disorders,” Robert T. Naismith, MD, of Washington University in St. Louis, and his colleagues reported.

“Coadministration of ozanimod with drugs that increase serotonin could hypothetically lead to serotonin accumulation,” which can increase the likelihood of hypertension. U.S. prescribing information recommends that patients taking both ozanimod and medications that increase norepinephrine or serotonin be monitored for hypertension, an adverse reaction reported in 3.9% of patients receiving ozanimod in the phase 3 trials for relapsing MS.
 

Clarifying the risk

“It’s important to be aware of potential drug interactions and risks from MS disease modifying therapies,” Lauren Gluck, MD, an assistant professor and director of the division of multiple sclerosis at Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, said in an interview. Dr. Gluck was not involved in this study but described some of the history that revealed the value of this type of research. For example, the first sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor (S1PR) modulator approved for MS, fingolimod (Gilenya), has a risk of cardiac conduction dysfunction with QTc prolongation, so people taking fingolimod with other medications that prolong QTc, such as SSRIs, need additional monitoring.

“Ozanimod is a newer, more selective S1PR modulator that initially raised concerns about interaction with serotonin-increasing drugs based on in vitro studies,” Dr. Gluck said. “This could mean that people on ozanimod and other serotonin-increasing medicine could be at risk for dangerous events like serotonin syndrome. However, in vitro studies do not always translate to how something affects the human body, so it is not clear how much risk truly exists.”
 

Examining open-label extension trial data

The researchers therefore evaluated the safety of taking ozanimod and SSRIs or SNRIs in a subset of patients with relapsing MS who participated in the DAYBREAK open-label extension trial. The phase 3 parent trials compared 30 mcg once weekly of intramuscular interferon beta-1a with 0.92 mg of once-daily oral ozanimod and 0.46 mg of once-daily oral ozanimod. In the DAYBREAK open-label extension, 2,256 participants underwent a dose escalation over one week until all reached 0.92 mg of ozanimod, where they remained for an average of just under 5 years of follow-up. Nearly all the participants (99.4%) were White, and two-thirds (66.5%) were female.

The researchers searched the study data for terms related to serotonin toxicity and compared the rates of adverse events related with those terms and the rates of hypertension in the 274 participants who were and the 2,032 participant who were not taking antidepressants at the same time as ozanimod.

They found that 13.9% of patients taking SSRIs or SNRIs experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event related to their search criteria, compared with 17.7% of patients not taking SSRIs or SNRIs. Similarly, 9.2% of trial participants not taking SSRIs or SNRIs had hypertension, compared with 4.7% of participants who were taking antidepressants. The authors further noted that “similar trends were observed when 6 weeks after the end date of concomitant SSRIs/SNRI use were included in the ‘on SSRI/SNRI’ analysis period.”

When the researchers searched specifically for three terms directly related to serotonin toxicity – “serotonin syndrome,” “neuroleptic malignant syndrome,” and “hyperthermia malignant” – they did not find any patients who had treatment-emergent adverse events related to those terms.

“SSRIs/SNRIs were freely allowed as concomitant medications in the DAYBREAK open-label extension, and among the patients from SUNBEAM or RADIANCE who were followed for up to 6 years, there have been no reported safety concerns during the concurrent administration of serotonergic antidepressants and ozanimod in patients with relapsing MS as of the data cutoff,” concluded the authors, though they also noted that the overall rate of SSRI and SNRI use was low in the extension trial.
 

A reassuring finding for clinicians and patients alike

“It is reassuring, if not unexpected, that there were no clinically significant rates of symptoms associated with excess serotonin in patients on ozanimod and SSRI/SNRIs,” Dr. Gluck commented. “These findings are important for both clinicians and patients – they can help [both] feel comfortable considering ozanimod if SSRI/SNRIs are already being used. There is also freedom to use SSRI/SNRIs for symptom management in patients already on ozanimod.”

The research was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Naismith reported consulting for Abata Therapeutics, Banner Life Sciences, BeiGene, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Genentech, Genzyme, GW Therapeutics, Janssen, Horizon Therapeutics, Lundbeck, NervGen, and TG Therapeutics. Six other authors reported disclosures for various pharmaceutical companies, and six other authors are employees and/or shareholders of Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Gluck has served on advisory boards with Genentech and EMD Serono.
 

DENVER – Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who switched from anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody therapy to fumarates showed no significant differences in relapse rates or total health care encounters, compared with those who remained on anti-CD20 mAbs, according to a retrospective study presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. Those who switched did, however, experience a lower rate of inpatient infection-related health care visits per year than those who continued anti-CD20 mAbs.

“As MS is a chronic disease requiring long-term treatment, switching between disease-modifying therapies [DMTs] is a common clinical strategy to optimize individual patient outcomes,” lead author Aliza Ben-Zacharia, PhD, DNP, RN, an assistant professor at the Phillips School of Nursing at Mount Sinai and Hunter College, both in New York, and colleagues reported. They noted that anti-CD20 mAbs are considered high-efficacy DMTs while fumarates are considered moderate-efficacy DMTs.

The researchers used data from the Komodo Health Sentinel Claims Database to track and compare 108 patients who were clinically stable on anti-CD20 mAbs and then switched to fumarates with 540 patients who remained on anti-CD20 mAbs for a follow-up period of approximately 1 year.

The study included adults with a diagnosis of MS between January 2015 and August 2022, and only those with a gap of no more than 9 months between anti-CD20 mAbs and fumarates were included as switchers. The researchers also required that switchers had not had any relapses in the previous year on anti-CD20 mAbs before switching, and had to have been on fumarates for at least 3 months after switching.

Women made up 70% of both groups, and both had an average age of 49 years. The racial/ethnic demographics were similar in both groups, and the average MS severity score was 5.5 in the switching group and 5.6 in the staying group. Most patients had been taking or remained on ocrelizumab (93.5%) with a smaller proportion on rituximab (5.6%). Just over a third of those who switched therapy took diroximel fumarate while 64% took dimethyl fumarate.

The researchers noted that patients who stayed on anti-CD20 mAbs had “slightly higher use of other mAbs prior to anti-CD20 mAbs.” Further, “a higher proportion of patients were DMT naive prior to anti-CD20 mAb initiation, compared with those in the switchers group.”

Patients who switched had been on anti-CD20 mAbs an average 730 days before switching to fumarates, and the average time between their last anti-CD20 mAbs dose and starting fumarates was 274 days. Average exposure to fumarates was 341 days.

The 10.2% of patients who relapsed during follow-up after switching to fumarates was not significantly statistically different than the 6.7% of patients who relapsed while remaining on anti-CD20 mAbs (P = .17). A relapse was considered “an MS-related inpatient claim with a primary diagnosis of MS or an outpatient MS-related diagnosis and a prescription claim for an intravenous steroid, adrenocorticotropic hormone, total plasma exchange, or a high-dose oral corticosteroid 7 days or sooner after the outpatient visit,” the researchers explained. The researchers could not track mild relapses that didn’t involve a health care interaction.

There was also no significant difference in overall average health care encounters between those who switched (7.85 encounters) and those who stayed (8.08; P = .57). Further, average health care costs were statistically similar between those who switched ($22,512) and those who stayed ($20,634; P = 0.59).

The likelihood of having more than one infection-related health care encounter was greater for those who remained on anti-CD20 mAbs, but the difference was not statistically significant. The annual rate of infection-related health care encounters was also not statistically different for outpatient and ED visits, but those who switched did have a statistically lower rate of annual infection-related inpatient visits (P = .03).

Among those who switched, 2.8% were hospitalized for infections, compared with 6.5% who stayed on anti-CD20 mAbs. Urinary tract infections, sepsis, and Escherichia coli were the most common infections among those who switched to fumarates, compared with COVID-19, sepsis, and pneumonia, among those who stayed on anti-CD20 mAbs.

The research was sponsored by and funded by Biogen. Six of the authors are Biogen employees who hold stock options in the company. The other three authors reported combined consulting fees from Biogen, EMD Serono, Greenwich Biosciences, TG Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Horizon, and Novartis; research funding from Genentech and Novartis; and stock options in Pfizer.

DENVER – Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who switched from anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody therapy to fumarates showed no significant differences in relapse rates or total health care encounters, compared with those who remained on anti-CD20 mAbs, according to a retrospective study presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. Those who switched did, however, experience a lower rate of inpatient infection-related health care visits per year than those who continued anti-CD20 mAbs.

“As MS is a chronic disease requiring long-term treatment, switching between disease-modifying therapies [DMTs] is a common clinical strategy to optimize individual patient outcomes,” lead author Aliza Ben-Zacharia, PhD, DNP, RN, an assistant professor at the Phillips School of Nursing at Mount Sinai and Hunter College, both in New York, and colleagues reported. They noted that anti-CD20 mAbs are considered high-efficacy DMTs while fumarates are considered moderate-efficacy DMTs.

The researchers used data from the Komodo Health Sentinel Claims Database to track and compare 108 patients who were clinically stable on anti-CD20 mAbs and then switched to fumarates with 540 patients who remained on anti-CD20 mAbs for a follow-up period of approximately 1 year.

The study included adults with a diagnosis of MS between January 2015 and August 2022, and only those with a gap of no more than 9 months between anti-CD20 mAbs and fumarates were included as switchers. The researchers also required that switchers had not had any relapses in the previous year on anti-CD20 mAbs before switching, and had to have been on fumarates for at least 3 months after switching.

Women made up 70% of both groups, and both had an average age of 49 years. The racial/ethnic demographics were similar in both groups, and the average MS severity score was 5.5 in the switching group and 5.6 in the staying group. Most patients had been taking or remained on ocrelizumab (93.5%) with a smaller proportion on rituximab (5.6%). Just over a third of those who switched therapy took diroximel fumarate while 64% took dimethyl fumarate.

The researchers noted that patients who stayed on anti-CD20 mAbs had “slightly higher use of other mAbs prior to anti-CD20 mAbs.” Further, “a higher proportion of patients were DMT naive prior to anti-CD20 mAb initiation, compared with those in the switchers group.”

Patients who switched had been on anti-CD20 mAbs an average 730 days before switching to fumarates, and the average time between their last anti-CD20 mAbs dose and starting fumarates was 274 days. Average exposure to fumarates was 341 days.

The 10.2% of patients who relapsed during follow-up after switching to fumarates was not significantly statistically different than the 6.7% of patients who relapsed while remaining on anti-CD20 mAbs (P = .17). A relapse was considered “an MS-related inpatient claim with a primary diagnosis of MS or an outpatient MS-related diagnosis and a prescription claim for an intravenous steroid, adrenocorticotropic hormone, total plasma exchange, or a high-dose oral corticosteroid 7 days or sooner after the outpatient visit,” the researchers explained. The researchers could not track mild relapses that didn’t involve a health care interaction.

There was also no significant difference in overall average health care encounters between those who switched (7.85 encounters) and those who stayed (8.08; P = .57). Further, average health care costs were statistically similar between those who switched ($22,512) and those who stayed ($20,634; P = 0.59).

The likelihood of having more than one infection-related health care encounter was greater for those who remained on anti-CD20 mAbs, but the difference was not statistically significant. The annual rate of infection-related health care encounters was also not statistically different for outpatient and ED visits, but those who switched did have a statistically lower rate of annual infection-related inpatient visits (P = .03).

Among those who switched, 2.8% were hospitalized for infections, compared with 6.5% who stayed on anti-CD20 mAbs. Urinary tract infections, sepsis, and Escherichia coli were the most common infections among those who switched to fumarates, compared with COVID-19, sepsis, and pneumonia, among those who stayed on anti-CD20 mAbs.

The research was sponsored by and funded by Biogen. Six of the authors are Biogen employees who hold stock options in the company. The other three authors reported combined consulting fees from Biogen, EMD Serono, Greenwich Biosciences, TG Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Horizon, and Novartis; research funding from Genentech and Novartis; and stock options in Pfizer.

DENVER – Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who switched from anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody therapy to fumarates showed no significant differences in relapse rates or total health care encounters, compared with those who remained on anti-CD20 mAbs, according to a retrospective study presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. Those who switched did, however, experience a lower rate of inpatient infection-related health care visits per year than those who continued anti-CD20 mAbs.

“As MS is a chronic disease requiring long-term treatment, switching between disease-modifying therapies [DMTs] is a common clinical strategy to optimize individual patient outcomes,” lead author Aliza Ben-Zacharia, PhD, DNP, RN, an assistant professor at the Phillips School of Nursing at Mount Sinai and Hunter College, both in New York, and colleagues reported. They noted that anti-CD20 mAbs are considered high-efficacy DMTs while fumarates are considered moderate-efficacy DMTs.

The researchers used data from the Komodo Health Sentinel Claims Database to track and compare 108 patients who were clinically stable on anti-CD20 mAbs and then switched to fumarates with 540 patients who remained on anti-CD20 mAbs for a follow-up period of approximately 1 year.

The study included adults with a diagnosis of MS between January 2015 and August 2022, and only those with a gap of no more than 9 months between anti-CD20 mAbs and fumarates were included as switchers. The researchers also required that switchers had not had any relapses in the previous year on anti-CD20 mAbs before switching, and had to have been on fumarates for at least 3 months after switching.

Women made up 70% of both groups, and both had an average age of 49 years. The racial/ethnic demographics were similar in both groups, and the average MS severity score was 5.5 in the switching group and 5.6 in the staying group. Most patients had been taking or remained on ocrelizumab (93.5%) with a smaller proportion on rituximab (5.6%). Just over a third of those who switched therapy took diroximel fumarate while 64% took dimethyl fumarate.

The researchers noted that patients who stayed on anti-CD20 mAbs had “slightly higher use of other mAbs prior to anti-CD20 mAbs.” Further, “a higher proportion of patients were DMT naive prior to anti-CD20 mAb initiation, compared with those in the switchers group.”

Patients who switched had been on anti-CD20 mAbs an average 730 days before switching to fumarates, and the average time between their last anti-CD20 mAbs dose and starting fumarates was 274 days. Average exposure to fumarates was 341 days.

The 10.2% of patients who relapsed during follow-up after switching to fumarates was not significantly statistically different than the 6.7% of patients who relapsed while remaining on anti-CD20 mAbs (P = .17). A relapse was considered “an MS-related inpatient claim with a primary diagnosis of MS or an outpatient MS-related diagnosis and a prescription claim for an intravenous steroid, adrenocorticotropic hormone, total plasma exchange, or a high-dose oral corticosteroid 7 days or sooner after the outpatient visit,” the researchers explained. The researchers could not track mild relapses that didn’t involve a health care interaction.

There was also no significant difference in overall average health care encounters between those who switched (7.85 encounters) and those who stayed (8.08; P = .57). Further, average health care costs were statistically similar between those who switched ($22,512) and those who stayed ($20,634; P = 0.59).

The likelihood of having more than one infection-related health care encounter was greater for those who remained on anti-CD20 mAbs, but the difference was not statistically significant. The annual rate of infection-related health care encounters was also not statistically different for outpatient and ED visits, but those who switched did have a statistically lower rate of annual infection-related inpatient visits (P = .03).

Among those who switched, 2.8% were hospitalized for infections, compared with 6.5% who stayed on anti-CD20 mAbs. Urinary tract infections, sepsis, and Escherichia coli were the most common infections among those who switched to fumarates, compared with COVID-19, sepsis, and pneumonia, among those who stayed on anti-CD20 mAbs.

The research was sponsored by and funded by Biogen. Six of the authors are Biogen employees who hold stock options in the company. The other three authors reported combined consulting fees from Biogen, EMD Serono, Greenwich Biosciences, TG Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Horizon, and Novartis; research funding from Genentech and Novartis; and stock options in Pfizer.

DENVER – Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) are significantly more likely to develop herpes zoster infections than immunocompetent individuals, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. “Herpes zoster and its complications are associated with increased health care cost and decreased quality of life,” lead author Nikita Stempniewicz, MSc, director of U.S. Health Outcomes & Epidemiology at GSK Vaccines, Alexandria, Va., reported.

“The take-home finding is that herpes zoster incidence is high among people with MS overall,” Mr. Stempniewicz said in an interview. “We also found that herpes zoster incidence is numerically higher among MS patients with higher levels of baseline immunosuppression, so another conclusion is that herpes zoster prevention may be warranted among this population given the high level of immunosuppression and the high risk of developing herpes zoster infection.” GSK manufactures Shingrix, the only currently approved and recommended herpes zoster vaccine available in the United States

Lawrence Steinman, MD, a professor of neurology and neurological sciences, pediatrics, and genetics at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine, was not involved in the research but said in an interview that the findings “raise the issue of whether not enough individuals with MS are getting Shingrix, and also whether there is a need for rapid intervention with an antiviral, for those individuals who develop shingles.”
 

Real-world data

For the study, researchers analyzed U.S. administrative claims data from the Optum Research Database between October 2015 and March 2022 to compare shingles infections between adults with MS (and no other immunocompromising conditions) and a random sample of one million people without any immunocompromising conditions. The study excluded anyone who had been vaccinated against herpes zoster or diagnosed with it in the year before October 2015.

Among the 42,185 adults with MS included in the cohort, just over half (53%) were commercially insured, and 47% had Medicare Advantage. Their average age was 53, and 75% were female. Just over half the cohort (55%) had no immunosuppression because of medications while 35% had low immunosuppression from MS therapy and 10% had high immunosuppression from therapy. High suppression meant patients were taking fingolimod, siponimod, ozanimod, ponesimod, cladribine, or a monoclonal antibody except natalizumab. Those with low suppression were taking natalizumab, fumarates, IVIG, glatiramer acetate, interferon beta or a related drug, teriflunomide, azathioprine, methotrexate, or mycophenolate mofetil.

The rate of shingles infections in the MS patient population was 13.8 per 1,000 people per year, compared with 5.6 infections per 1,000 immunocompetent people per year (adjusted incident rate ratio, 1.69; 95% confidenceinterval, 1.58-1.81. When broken down by age, younger adults aged 18-49 with MS were more than three times more likely to develop shingles (incidence rate, 11.6 per 1,000 people per year) than immunocompetent younger adults (IR, 3.5). The gap was narrower for those age 50 and older, where adults with MS had a rate of 15.2 infections per 1,000 people per year versus 8.6 per 1,000 immunocompetent people per year.

Although MS patients with a higher baseline level of immunosuppression from therapy had higher herpes zoster infection rates (18 cases per 1,000 people per year) than those with low immunosuppression (14 cases per 1,000 people per year) or no immunosuppression from medication (13 cases per 1,000 people per year), rates for all three remained higher than for the immunocompetent population.
 

Herpes and MS: Some questions still unanswered

“We’ve known that herpes zoster is more common in people with MS, and we’ve known that it is seen in people on MS therapies,” Robert Fox, MD, a staff neurologist at the Mellen Center for MS and vice-chair for research at the Neurological Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview. “What we haven’t known is just how much more common it is in people with MS than the rest of the adult population and whether it truly is more common in people taking MS therapies than people not taking MS therapies. This study puts real, population-based numbers on the incidence rates.”

Dr. Fox, who was not involved in the research, noted that a limitation of the study was the inability to know the risk of shingles according to specific MS therapies since all the therapies were grouped together.

”So I can’t say to a patient that their particular therapy increases their risk,” Dr. Fox said. “Similarly with the MS therapies listed in the ‘high’ immunosuppression category: We don’t know that each of the therapies listed do in fact increase the rate of herpes zoster. We just know that the group of MS therapies bunched into the ‘high’ category, on the whole, increase the rate of herpes zoster.”

The study does not provide any information about the impact of Shingrix vaccination, he added, since vaccinated individuals were excluded from the analysis.
 

Timing the vaccination with MS therapy

Dr. Steinman said in an interview that he recommends herpes zoster vaccination to his patients with MS.

“The mistake that people make with MS is that they don’t want to take the [herpes zoster] vaccine, and they should be taking it,”

Dr. Steinman said. “In a perfect world, they would get it before they went on their [immunosuppressive] drug. But now we’ll have a lot of people who didn’t take the vaccine; they can get it while they’re on their drug.” Although it depends on the particular therapy they’re taking, Dr. Steinman said that most people can get the shingles vaccine while continuing their medication.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that adults who are or will be immunodeficient or immunosuppressed because of a disease or therapy get two doses of the Shingrix vaccine against herpes zoster, regardless of whether they have previously been vaccinated with Zostavax or have ever had shingles. The agency has also issued detailed clinical guidance regarding how to administer the vaccine to individuals taking immunosuppressive therapy, including the option to administer the second dose 1-2 months after the first instead of 2-6 months to “facilitate avoiding vaccination during periods of more intense immunosuppression,” the agency wrote.

The research was sponsored, funded, and analyzed by GSK, which manufactures the shingles vaccine Shingrix, and Mr. Stempniewicz is a GSK employee. Two other authors are GSK employees, and three authors are employees of Optum who received fees from GSK for this study. Dr. Steinman and Dr. Fox reported no relevant disclosures.

DENVER – Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) are significantly more likely to develop herpes zoster infections than immunocompetent individuals, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. “Herpes zoster and its complications are associated with increased health care cost and decreased quality of life,” lead author Nikita Stempniewicz, MSc, director of U.S. Health Outcomes & Epidemiology at GSK Vaccines, Alexandria, Va., reported.

“The take-home finding is that herpes zoster incidence is high among people with MS overall,” Mr. Stempniewicz said in an interview. “We also found that herpes zoster incidence is numerically higher among MS patients with higher levels of baseline immunosuppression, so another conclusion is that herpes zoster prevention may be warranted among this population given the high level of immunosuppression and the high risk of developing herpes zoster infection.” GSK manufactures Shingrix, the only currently approved and recommended herpes zoster vaccine available in the United States

Lawrence Steinman, MD, a professor of neurology and neurological sciences, pediatrics, and genetics at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine, was not involved in the research but said in an interview that the findings “raise the issue of whether not enough individuals with MS are getting Shingrix, and also whether there is a need for rapid intervention with an antiviral, for those individuals who develop shingles.”
 

Real-world data

For the study, researchers analyzed U.S. administrative claims data from the Optum Research Database between October 2015 and March 2022 to compare shingles infections between adults with MS (and no other immunocompromising conditions) and a random sample of one million people without any immunocompromising conditions. The study excluded anyone who had been vaccinated against herpes zoster or diagnosed with it in the year before October 2015.

Among the 42,185 adults with MS included in the cohort, just over half (53%) were commercially insured, and 47% had Medicare Advantage. Their average age was 53, and 75% were female. Just over half the cohort (55%) had no immunosuppression because of medications while 35% had low immunosuppression from MS therapy and 10% had high immunosuppression from therapy. High suppression meant patients were taking fingolimod, siponimod, ozanimod, ponesimod, cladribine, or a monoclonal antibody except natalizumab. Those with low suppression were taking natalizumab, fumarates, IVIG, glatiramer acetate, interferon beta or a related drug, teriflunomide, azathioprine, methotrexate, or mycophenolate mofetil.

The rate of shingles infections in the MS patient population was 13.8 per 1,000 people per year, compared with 5.6 infections per 1,000 immunocompetent people per year (adjusted incident rate ratio, 1.69; 95% confidenceinterval, 1.58-1.81. When broken down by age, younger adults aged 18-49 with MS were more than three times more likely to develop shingles (incidence rate, 11.6 per 1,000 people per year) than immunocompetent younger adults (IR, 3.5). The gap was narrower for those age 50 and older, where adults with MS had a rate of 15.2 infections per 1,000 people per year versus 8.6 per 1,000 immunocompetent people per year.

Although MS patients with a higher baseline level of immunosuppression from therapy had higher herpes zoster infection rates (18 cases per 1,000 people per year) than those with low immunosuppression (14 cases per 1,000 people per year) or no immunosuppression from medication (13 cases per 1,000 people per year), rates for all three remained higher than for the immunocompetent population.
 

Herpes and MS: Some questions still unanswered

“We’ve known that herpes zoster is more common in people with MS, and we’ve known that it is seen in people on MS therapies,” Robert Fox, MD, a staff neurologist at the Mellen Center for MS and vice-chair for research at the Neurological Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview. “What we haven’t known is just how much more common it is in people with MS than the rest of the adult population and whether it truly is more common in people taking MS therapies than people not taking MS therapies. This study puts real, population-based numbers on the incidence rates.”

Dr. Fox, who was not involved in the research, noted that a limitation of the study was the inability to know the risk of shingles according to specific MS therapies since all the therapies were grouped together.

”So I can’t say to a patient that their particular therapy increases their risk,” Dr. Fox said. “Similarly with the MS therapies listed in the ‘high’ immunosuppression category: We don’t know that each of the therapies listed do in fact increase the rate of herpes zoster. We just know that the group of MS therapies bunched into the ‘high’ category, on the whole, increase the rate of herpes zoster.”

The study does not provide any information about the impact of Shingrix vaccination, he added, since vaccinated individuals were excluded from the analysis.
 

Timing the vaccination with MS therapy

Dr. Steinman said in an interview that he recommends herpes zoster vaccination to his patients with MS.

“The mistake that people make with MS is that they don’t want to take the [herpes zoster] vaccine, and they should be taking it,”

Dr. Steinman said. “In a perfect world, they would get it before they went on their [immunosuppressive] drug. But now we’ll have a lot of people who didn’t take the vaccine; they can get it while they’re on their drug.” Although it depends on the particular therapy they’re taking, Dr. Steinman said that most people can get the shingles vaccine while continuing their medication.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that adults who are or will be immunodeficient or immunosuppressed because of a disease or therapy get two doses of the Shingrix vaccine against herpes zoster, regardless of whether they have previously been vaccinated with Zostavax or have ever had shingles. The agency has also issued detailed clinical guidance regarding how to administer the vaccine to individuals taking immunosuppressive therapy, including the option to administer the second dose 1-2 months after the first instead of 2-6 months to “facilitate avoiding vaccination during periods of more intense immunosuppression,” the agency wrote.

The research was sponsored, funded, and analyzed by GSK, which manufactures the shingles vaccine Shingrix, and Mr. Stempniewicz is a GSK employee. Two other authors are GSK employees, and three authors are employees of Optum who received fees from GSK for this study. Dr. Steinman and Dr. Fox reported no relevant disclosures.

DENVER – Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) are significantly more likely to develop herpes zoster infections than immunocompetent individuals, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. “Herpes zoster and its complications are associated with increased health care cost and decreased quality of life,” lead author Nikita Stempniewicz, MSc, director of U.S. Health Outcomes & Epidemiology at GSK Vaccines, Alexandria, Va., reported.

“The take-home finding is that herpes zoster incidence is high among people with MS overall,” Mr. Stempniewicz said in an interview. “We also found that herpes zoster incidence is numerically higher among MS patients with higher levels of baseline immunosuppression, so another conclusion is that herpes zoster prevention may be warranted among this population given the high level of immunosuppression and the high risk of developing herpes zoster infection.” GSK manufactures Shingrix, the only currently approved and recommended herpes zoster vaccine available in the United States

Lawrence Steinman, MD, a professor of neurology and neurological sciences, pediatrics, and genetics at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine, was not involved in the research but said in an interview that the findings “raise the issue of whether not enough individuals with MS are getting Shingrix, and also whether there is a need for rapid intervention with an antiviral, for those individuals who develop shingles.”
 

Real-world data

For the study, researchers analyzed U.S. administrative claims data from the Optum Research Database between October 2015 and March 2022 to compare shingles infections between adults with MS (and no other immunocompromising conditions) and a random sample of one million people without any immunocompromising conditions. The study excluded anyone who had been vaccinated against herpes zoster or diagnosed with it in the year before October 2015.

Among the 42,185 adults with MS included in the cohort, just over half (53%) were commercially insured, and 47% had Medicare Advantage. Their average age was 53, and 75% were female. Just over half the cohort (55%) had no immunosuppression because of medications while 35% had low immunosuppression from MS therapy and 10% had high immunosuppression from therapy. High suppression meant patients were taking fingolimod, siponimod, ozanimod, ponesimod, cladribine, or a monoclonal antibody except natalizumab. Those with low suppression were taking natalizumab, fumarates, IVIG, glatiramer acetate, interferon beta or a related drug, teriflunomide, azathioprine, methotrexate, or mycophenolate mofetil.

The rate of shingles infections in the MS patient population was 13.8 per 1,000 people per year, compared with 5.6 infections per 1,000 immunocompetent people per year (adjusted incident rate ratio, 1.69; 95% confidenceinterval, 1.58-1.81. When broken down by age, younger adults aged 18-49 with MS were more than three times more likely to develop shingles (incidence rate, 11.6 per 1,000 people per year) than immunocompetent younger adults (IR, 3.5). The gap was narrower for those age 50 and older, where adults with MS had a rate of 15.2 infections per 1,000 people per year versus 8.6 per 1,000 immunocompetent people per year.

Although MS patients with a higher baseline level of immunosuppression from therapy had higher herpes zoster infection rates (18 cases per 1,000 people per year) than those with low immunosuppression (14 cases per 1,000 people per year) or no immunosuppression from medication (13 cases per 1,000 people per year), rates for all three remained higher than for the immunocompetent population.
 

Herpes and MS: Some questions still unanswered

“We’ve known that herpes zoster is more common in people with MS, and we’ve known that it is seen in people on MS therapies,” Robert Fox, MD, a staff neurologist at the Mellen Center for MS and vice-chair for research at the Neurological Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview. “What we haven’t known is just how much more common it is in people with MS than the rest of the adult population and whether it truly is more common in people taking MS therapies than people not taking MS therapies. This study puts real, population-based numbers on the incidence rates.”

Dr. Fox, who was not involved in the research, noted that a limitation of the study was the inability to know the risk of shingles according to specific MS therapies since all the therapies were grouped together.

”So I can’t say to a patient that their particular therapy increases their risk,” Dr. Fox said. “Similarly with the MS therapies listed in the ‘high’ immunosuppression category: We don’t know that each of the therapies listed do in fact increase the rate of herpes zoster. We just know that the group of MS therapies bunched into the ‘high’ category, on the whole, increase the rate of herpes zoster.”

The study does not provide any information about the impact of Shingrix vaccination, he added, since vaccinated individuals were excluded from the analysis.
 

Timing the vaccination with MS therapy

Dr. Steinman said in an interview that he recommends herpes zoster vaccination to his patients with MS.

“The mistake that people make with MS is that they don’t want to take the [herpes zoster] vaccine, and they should be taking it,”

Dr. Steinman said. “In a perfect world, they would get it before they went on their [immunosuppressive] drug. But now we’ll have a lot of people who didn’t take the vaccine; they can get it while they’re on their drug.” Although it depends on the particular therapy they’re taking, Dr. Steinman said that most people can get the shingles vaccine while continuing their medication.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that adults who are or will be immunodeficient or immunosuppressed because of a disease or therapy get two doses of the Shingrix vaccine against herpes zoster, regardless of whether they have previously been vaccinated with Zostavax or have ever had shingles. The agency has also issued detailed clinical guidance regarding how to administer the vaccine to individuals taking immunosuppressive therapy, including the option to administer the second dose 1-2 months after the first instead of 2-6 months to “facilitate avoiding vaccination during periods of more intense immunosuppression,” the agency wrote.

The research was sponsored, funded, and analyzed by GSK, which manufactures the shingles vaccine Shingrix, and Mr. Stempniewicz is a GSK employee. Two other authors are GSK employees, and three authors are employees of Optum who received fees from GSK for this study. Dr. Steinman and Dr. Fox reported no relevant disclosures.

AURORA, COLO. – Long-term use of ozanimod for multiple sclerosis (MS) was well-tolerated across multiple age groups, though risk of certain infections and other treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) did increase with age, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

Research from the phase 3 DAYBREAK trial had already shown the safety of ozanimod, and the Food and Drug Administration approved the drug as an oral disease-modifying therapy for relapsing forms of MS in 2020.

“In the DAYBREAK study, we already have shown that the clinical and radiological disease was quite low in these patients who received the higher dose of ozanimod, and those who switched from the lower dose of the interferon to this active treatment also had decreases in their annualized relapse rate and their MRI lesion counts,” Sarah Morrow, MD, associate professor of neurology at Western University in London, Ontario, told attendees. She presented the data on behalf of senior author Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and clinical research director at the University of California, San Francisco, Multiple Sclerosis Center, and the other authors. “But what was not known was whether there’s a difference in efficacy based on age, and we know that disease activity can differ based on age in person with relapsing multiple sclerosis.”
 

Examining efficacy by age

Analysis of data from DAYBREAK and an open-label extension study revealed that respiratory infections were more common in patients younger than 35, and urinary tract infections, dizziness, and treatment-emergent depressive symptoms became were common in patients age 50 and older. “Serious infections did not vary by age, and there were too few serious events to identify any age-related trends by specific TEAE,” the authors reported. During the open-label extension of the study, no new adverse events emerged, “confirming the ozanimod safety profile reported in the parent trials,” SUNBEAM and RADIANCE, the authors reported.

The phase 3 parent trials compared 30 mcg once weekly of intramuscular interferon beta-1a to 0.92 mg of once-daily oral ozanimod and 0.46 mg of once-daily oral ozanimod. In the DAYBREAK open-label extension, 2,256 participants underwent a dose escalation over 1 week until all reached 0.92 mg of ozanimod, where they remained for approximately 5 years of follow-up. The researchers then analyzed TEAEs, serious adverse events, and TEAEs leading to discontinuation in four age categories: 18-25, 26-35, 36-49, and 50 and older.

Respiratory infections occurred more often in those aged 18-25 (10.9%) and 26-35 (6.1%) than in those 36-49 (5.8%) and 50 and older (3.4%). However, UTIs occurred most in those age 50 and older (9.2%), versus occurring in 6.6% of those 36-49, 4.3% of those aged 26-35, and 4.6% of those 18-25.

High cholesterol occurred significantly less often in those 18-25 (1.4%) and 26-35 (2%) than in those 36-49 (5%) and 50 and older (8%), and hypertension showed a similar pattern: 2% in the youngest group, 4.7% in those aged 26-35, 12.8% in those aged 36-49, and 16.7% in those aged 50 and older.

Other TEAEs that occurred more often in older patients included depression/depressive symptoms, dizziness, back pain, joint pain, osteoarthritis, and high gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT) levels. Overall cardiac and vascular disorders and malignancies were also more common as participants’ age increased.
 

Bigger concerns?

The increase in malignancy risk by age surprised Shailee Shah, MD, assistant professor of neuroimmunology and neurology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., who was not involved in the research. This increase in risk was “not expanded upon much in this abstract or compared to population estimates, as this may ultimately be one of the bigger concerns with long-term use of this drug,” Dr. Shah said.

She further noted that “older patients may be at higher risk of infections and multiple cardiovascular risk factors, and so if patients already have comorbid disease, I may be less inclined to use this agent and likely less so in older individuals.”

Dr. Shah said these drugs are often recommended to individuals in their 20s and 30s at time of diagnosis. “If a patient is given this drug and tolerates it and finds it efficacious, we might continue this indefinitely, so looking at how the risk profile of young patients on this drug changes over time will be important,” Dr. Shah said. “I am also concerned about the malignancy risk and would want this elaborated upon.”
 

Overall efficacy across age groups

Serious infections occurred at relatively similar rates across all age groups. Incidence of any serious adverse event was 27 per 1,000 people per year in the youngest group compared with 24 events in the 26-35 group, 35 events in the 36-49 group, and 62 events per 1,000 people per year in those 50 and older.

“Patients in the 50 and older age group had a numerically lower adjusted annualized relapse rate and less gadolinium-enhancing lesions and new or enlarging T2 lesions per scan and were generally more likely to be free of gadolinium-enhancing lesions or new or enlarging T2 lesions than the 25 and younger age group,” Dr. Morrow told attendees, “but we feel that that’s more in keeping with the natural history of disease. And, overall, ozanimod, regardless of the age group, showed decreasing disease activity in the inflammatory part of disease, showing with annualized relapse rate, gad-enhancing lesions, and T2 lesions.”

Older participants were substantially more likely to withdraw from the trial because of adverse events. While 8% of the youngest group and 7.6% of participants aged 26-35 withdrew because of adverse events, 24.5% of those aged 36-49 and 18.5% of those aged 50 and older withdrew because of adverse events.

Dr. Shah said it was reassuring that no new safety signals emerged, “but based on this data, you would be concerned that long-term risk of cardiovascular disease may result in more serious adverse events over a longer period of time and will need to be considered as we see people increasingly on this drug.”

The research was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. The authors reported a wide range of financial disclosures, including personal fees, research funding, advisory board, and speakers fees, for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, and five authors are employees and/or shareholders of the company. Dr. Shah has served on advisory boards for Alexion, Genentech, and Horizon.

AURORA, COLO. – Long-term use of ozanimod for multiple sclerosis (MS) was well-tolerated across multiple age groups, though risk of certain infections and other treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) did increase with age, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

Research from the phase 3 DAYBREAK trial had already shown the safety of ozanimod, and the Food and Drug Administration approved the drug as an oral disease-modifying therapy for relapsing forms of MS in 2020.

“In the DAYBREAK study, we already have shown that the clinical and radiological disease was quite low in these patients who received the higher dose of ozanimod, and those who switched from the lower dose of the interferon to this active treatment also had decreases in their annualized relapse rate and their MRI lesion counts,” Sarah Morrow, MD, associate professor of neurology at Western University in London, Ontario, told attendees. She presented the data on behalf of senior author Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and clinical research director at the University of California, San Francisco, Multiple Sclerosis Center, and the other authors. “But what was not known was whether there’s a difference in efficacy based on age, and we know that disease activity can differ based on age in person with relapsing multiple sclerosis.”
 

Examining efficacy by age

Analysis of data from DAYBREAK and an open-label extension study revealed that respiratory infections were more common in patients younger than 35, and urinary tract infections, dizziness, and treatment-emergent depressive symptoms became were common in patients age 50 and older. “Serious infections did not vary by age, and there were too few serious events to identify any age-related trends by specific TEAE,” the authors reported. During the open-label extension of the study, no new adverse events emerged, “confirming the ozanimod safety profile reported in the parent trials,” SUNBEAM and RADIANCE, the authors reported.

The phase 3 parent trials compared 30 mcg once weekly of intramuscular interferon beta-1a to 0.92 mg of once-daily oral ozanimod and 0.46 mg of once-daily oral ozanimod. In the DAYBREAK open-label extension, 2,256 participants underwent a dose escalation over 1 week until all reached 0.92 mg of ozanimod, where they remained for approximately 5 years of follow-up. The researchers then analyzed TEAEs, serious adverse events, and TEAEs leading to discontinuation in four age categories: 18-25, 26-35, 36-49, and 50 and older.

Respiratory infections occurred more often in those aged 18-25 (10.9%) and 26-35 (6.1%) than in those 36-49 (5.8%) and 50 and older (3.4%). However, UTIs occurred most in those age 50 and older (9.2%), versus occurring in 6.6% of those 36-49, 4.3% of those aged 26-35, and 4.6% of those 18-25.

High cholesterol occurred significantly less often in those 18-25 (1.4%) and 26-35 (2%) than in those 36-49 (5%) and 50 and older (8%), and hypertension showed a similar pattern: 2% in the youngest group, 4.7% in those aged 26-35, 12.8% in those aged 36-49, and 16.7% in those aged 50 and older.

Other TEAEs that occurred more often in older patients included depression/depressive symptoms, dizziness, back pain, joint pain, osteoarthritis, and high gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT) levels. Overall cardiac and vascular disorders and malignancies were also more common as participants’ age increased.
 

Bigger concerns?

The increase in malignancy risk by age surprised Shailee Shah, MD, assistant professor of neuroimmunology and neurology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., who was not involved in the research. This increase in risk was “not expanded upon much in this abstract or compared to population estimates, as this may ultimately be one of the bigger concerns with long-term use of this drug,” Dr. Shah said.

She further noted that “older patients may be at higher risk of infections and multiple cardiovascular risk factors, and so if patients already have comorbid disease, I may be less inclined to use this agent and likely less so in older individuals.”

Dr. Shah said these drugs are often recommended to individuals in their 20s and 30s at time of diagnosis. “If a patient is given this drug and tolerates it and finds it efficacious, we might continue this indefinitely, so looking at how the risk profile of young patients on this drug changes over time will be important,” Dr. Shah said. “I am also concerned about the malignancy risk and would want this elaborated upon.”
 

Overall efficacy across age groups

Serious infections occurred at relatively similar rates across all age groups. Incidence of any serious adverse event was 27 per 1,000 people per year in the youngest group compared with 24 events in the 26-35 group, 35 events in the 36-49 group, and 62 events per 1,000 people per year in those 50 and older.

“Patients in the 50 and older age group had a numerically lower adjusted annualized relapse rate and less gadolinium-enhancing lesions and new or enlarging T2 lesions per scan and were generally more likely to be free of gadolinium-enhancing lesions or new or enlarging T2 lesions than the 25 and younger age group,” Dr. Morrow told attendees, “but we feel that that’s more in keeping with the natural history of disease. And, overall, ozanimod, regardless of the age group, showed decreasing disease activity in the inflammatory part of disease, showing with annualized relapse rate, gad-enhancing lesions, and T2 lesions.”

Older participants were substantially more likely to withdraw from the trial because of adverse events. While 8% of the youngest group and 7.6% of participants aged 26-35 withdrew because of adverse events, 24.5% of those aged 36-49 and 18.5% of those aged 50 and older withdrew because of adverse events.

Dr. Shah said it was reassuring that no new safety signals emerged, “but based on this data, you would be concerned that long-term risk of cardiovascular disease may result in more serious adverse events over a longer period of time and will need to be considered as we see people increasingly on this drug.”

The research was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. The authors reported a wide range of financial disclosures, including personal fees, research funding, advisory board, and speakers fees, for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, and five authors are employees and/or shareholders of the company. Dr. Shah has served on advisory boards for Alexion, Genentech, and Horizon.

AURORA, COLO. – Long-term use of ozanimod for multiple sclerosis (MS) was well-tolerated across multiple age groups, though risk of certain infections and other treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) did increase with age, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

Research from the phase 3 DAYBREAK trial had already shown the safety of ozanimod, and the Food and Drug Administration approved the drug as an oral disease-modifying therapy for relapsing forms of MS in 2020.

“In the DAYBREAK study, we already have shown that the clinical and radiological disease was quite low in these patients who received the higher dose of ozanimod, and those who switched from the lower dose of the interferon to this active treatment also had decreases in their annualized relapse rate and their MRI lesion counts,” Sarah Morrow, MD, associate professor of neurology at Western University in London, Ontario, told attendees. She presented the data on behalf of senior author Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and clinical research director at the University of California, San Francisco, Multiple Sclerosis Center, and the other authors. “But what was not known was whether there’s a difference in efficacy based on age, and we know that disease activity can differ based on age in person with relapsing multiple sclerosis.”
 

Examining efficacy by age

Analysis of data from DAYBREAK and an open-label extension study revealed that respiratory infections were more common in patients younger than 35, and urinary tract infections, dizziness, and treatment-emergent depressive symptoms became were common in patients age 50 and older. “Serious infections did not vary by age, and there were too few serious events to identify any age-related trends by specific TEAE,” the authors reported. During the open-label extension of the study, no new adverse events emerged, “confirming the ozanimod safety profile reported in the parent trials,” SUNBEAM and RADIANCE, the authors reported.

The phase 3 parent trials compared 30 mcg once weekly of intramuscular interferon beta-1a to 0.92 mg of once-daily oral ozanimod and 0.46 mg of once-daily oral ozanimod. In the DAYBREAK open-label extension, 2,256 participants underwent a dose escalation over 1 week until all reached 0.92 mg of ozanimod, where they remained for approximately 5 years of follow-up. The researchers then analyzed TEAEs, serious adverse events, and TEAEs leading to discontinuation in four age categories: 18-25, 26-35, 36-49, and 50 and older.

Respiratory infections occurred more often in those aged 18-25 (10.9%) and 26-35 (6.1%) than in those 36-49 (5.8%) and 50 and older (3.4%). However, UTIs occurred most in those age 50 and older (9.2%), versus occurring in 6.6% of those 36-49, 4.3% of those aged 26-35, and 4.6% of those 18-25.

High cholesterol occurred significantly less often in those 18-25 (1.4%) and 26-35 (2%) than in those 36-49 (5%) and 50 and older (8%), and hypertension showed a similar pattern: 2% in the youngest group, 4.7% in those aged 26-35, 12.8% in those aged 36-49, and 16.7% in those aged 50 and older.

Other TEAEs that occurred more often in older patients included depression/depressive symptoms, dizziness, back pain, joint pain, osteoarthritis, and high gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT) levels. Overall cardiac and vascular disorders and malignancies were also more common as participants’ age increased.
 

Bigger concerns?

The increase in malignancy risk by age surprised Shailee Shah, MD, assistant professor of neuroimmunology and neurology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., who was not involved in the research. This increase in risk was “not expanded upon much in this abstract or compared to population estimates, as this may ultimately be one of the bigger concerns with long-term use of this drug,” Dr. Shah said.

She further noted that “older patients may be at higher risk of infections and multiple cardiovascular risk factors, and so if patients already have comorbid disease, I may be less inclined to use this agent and likely less so in older individuals.”

Dr. Shah said these drugs are often recommended to individuals in their 20s and 30s at time of diagnosis. “If a patient is given this drug and tolerates it and finds it efficacious, we might continue this indefinitely, so looking at how the risk profile of young patients on this drug changes over time will be important,” Dr. Shah said. “I am also concerned about the malignancy risk and would want this elaborated upon.”
 

Overall efficacy across age groups

Serious infections occurred at relatively similar rates across all age groups. Incidence of any serious adverse event was 27 per 1,000 people per year in the youngest group compared with 24 events in the 26-35 group, 35 events in the 36-49 group, and 62 events per 1,000 people per year in those 50 and older.

“Patients in the 50 and older age group had a numerically lower adjusted annualized relapse rate and less gadolinium-enhancing lesions and new or enlarging T2 lesions per scan and were generally more likely to be free of gadolinium-enhancing lesions or new or enlarging T2 lesions than the 25 and younger age group,” Dr. Morrow told attendees, “but we feel that that’s more in keeping with the natural history of disease. And, overall, ozanimod, regardless of the age group, showed decreasing disease activity in the inflammatory part of disease, showing with annualized relapse rate, gad-enhancing lesions, and T2 lesions.”

Older participants were substantially more likely to withdraw from the trial because of adverse events. While 8% of the youngest group and 7.6% of participants aged 26-35 withdrew because of adverse events, 24.5% of those aged 36-49 and 18.5% of those aged 50 and older withdrew because of adverse events.

Dr. Shah said it was reassuring that no new safety signals emerged, “but based on this data, you would be concerned that long-term risk of cardiovascular disease may result in more serious adverse events over a longer period of time and will need to be considered as we see people increasingly on this drug.”

The research was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. The authors reported a wide range of financial disclosures, including personal fees, research funding, advisory board, and speakers fees, for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, and five authors are employees and/or shareholders of the company. Dr. Shah has served on advisory boards for Alexion, Genentech, and Horizon.

Aurora, Colo. – The access to and quality of multiple sclerosis (MS) care varies substantially depending on a patient’s race, ethnicity, gender, and geography, according to research on patient-reported health inequities presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

”Equal access to and quality of care are critical for managing a progressive disease such as multiple sclerosis,” said Chris Hardy, of Publicis Health Media, and her associates. “Despite increased awareness of health outcome disparities in the U.S., certain patients still experience inequities in care.”

The researchers sent emails to members of MyMSTeam, an online support network of more than 197,000 members, to request completion of a 34-question online survey. Questions addressed respondents’ ability to access care, resources in their neighborhood, and their interactions with their health care providers. Questions also addressed the burden of MS on individuals’ quality of life, which was considerable across all demographics. The 1,935 patients with MS who responded were overwhelmingly White, though the demographics varied by question.
 

A ‘widespread and significant problem’

“This study is important in pointing out the unfortunate, obvious [fact] that lack of access and lack of availability to treatment is still a widespread and significant problem in this country,” commented Mark Gudesblatt, MD, a neurologist at South Shore Neurologic Associates who was not involved in the study. “Improving effective treatment of disease requires a more granular understanding of disease impact on a quantitative, multidimensional, objective patient-centric approach,” he added. “Racial and ethnic barriers to effective treatment cannot be allowed nor tolerated. We need to be more acutely aware that outreach, digital health, and remote assessments are tools that we need to incorporate to improve access and do better.”

The pervasive impact of MS

Overall, 85% of respondents reported that MS made it harder to do everyday chores, and 84% said their MS made it harder to exercise and interfered with their everyday life. Similarly high proportions of respondents reported that their MS causes them a lot of stress (80%), makes them feel anxious or depressed (77%), disrupts their work/employment (75%), and interferes with their social life (75%). In addition, more than half said their diagnosis negatively affects their family (59%) and makes them feel judged (53%).

Deanne Power, RN, MSCN, the lead nurse care partner at Octave Bioscience, who spoke as a representative of the study authors, said it’s critical that clinicians be aware of the health inequities that exist among their patient population.

“Some patients have lower income or language issues where English is not their primary language, and they don’t have access and are even afraid to call doctor or reach out [for help],” Ms. Power said. “If providers aren’t actively aware of these situations and talk to their patients, they can’t just say, ‘Oh, well, I just want you to go fill this prescription,’ when they don’t have money to put food on their table. Providers have got to know their patients as [more than] just an MS patient. This is a human being in front of you, and you better know what their life is like, because it’s impacting their MS.”
 

Access to care varied by race

Among the 1,906 respondents who answered questions about access to care, 9% were Black, 5% were Hispanic, and the rest were White. In these questions, differences between demographics arose when it came to individuals’ ability to conveniently see an MS specialist and their subsequent use of emergency services. For example, only 64% of Hispanic respondents reported convenient access to a health care provider specializing in MS, compared with 76% of White and 78% of Black respondents.

A significantly higher proportion of Hispanics also reported that they could not take time off from work when they were sick (25%) or to attend a doctor appointment (20%), compared with White (15% and 9%, respectively) and Black (18% and 12%) respondents. Meanwhile, a significantly higher proportion of Hispanics (35%) reported visiting the emergency department in the past year for MS-related issues, compared with White (19%) or Black (25%) respondents.

White respondents consistently had greater convenient access to dental offices, healthy foods, outpatient care, gyms, and parks and trails, compared with Black and Hispanic patients’ access. For example, 85% of White patients had convenient access to dental offices and 72% had access to outpatient care, compared with Black (74% and 65%) and Hispanic (78% and 52%) patients. Two-thirds of Hispanic respondents (67%) reported access to healthy foods and to gyms, parks, or trails, compared with more than three-quarters of both White and Black patients.
 

Other barriers to MS care

Both racial/ethnic and gender disparities emerged in how patients felt treated by their health care providers. Men were significantly more likely (70%) than women (65%) to say their health care provider listens to and understands them. A statistically significant higher proportion of men (71%) also said their clinician explained their MS test results to them, compared with women (62%), and only 28% of women, versus 37% of men, said their provider developed a long-term plan for them.

Anne Foelsch, the vice president of strategic partnerships at MyHealthTeam, who works with the authors, noted the large discrepancy that was seen particularly for Hispanic patients in terms of how they felt treated by their health care provider.

“Doctors might perceive that the relationship is the same with all of their patients when their patients have a very different perception of what that relationship is and whether they’re not being heard,” Ms. Foelsch said. “It’s important that clinicians take a little bit of time and learn a little bit more about a patient’s perspective and what it’s like when they have a chronic condition like MS and how it impacts their life, looking for those nuances that are different based on your ethnicity.”

Just over half of Hispanic patients (54%) said their provider explained their MS test results, compared with nearly two-thirds of White patients (65%) and 61% of Black patients. Hispanic patients were also less likely (55%) to say they felt their provider listens to and understands them than White (67%) or Black (65%) patients. Two-thirds of White respondents (67%) said their doctor recommended regular check-ups, compared with just over half of Black and Hispanic respondents (55%).

Other statistically significant disparities by race/ethnicity, where a higher proportion of White patients responded affirmatively than Black or Hispanic patients, included feeling treated with respect by their health care provider, feeling their provider is nonjudgmental, and saying their provider spends enough time with them, addresses their MS symptoms, and encourages shared decision-making.

“This study nicely documents and points out that despite our best intentions, we need to do much better as a community to help those with chronic and potentially disabling diseases like MS,” Dr. Gudesblatt said. “The racial, ethnic, and gender disparities only result in greater disability and societal costs by those who can least afford it. All therapies fail due to nonadherence, limited access, lack of insurance coverage, limited insurance coverage, high copays, long waits, cultural biases, and more.”

The researchers acknowledged that their survey respondents may not be representative of all patients with MS because the survey relied on those who chose to respond to the online survey.

The study authors were all employees of Publicis Health Media or MyHealthTeam. Dr. Gudesblatt reported no disclosures.
 

Aurora, Colo. – The access to and quality of multiple sclerosis (MS) care varies substantially depending on a patient’s race, ethnicity, gender, and geography, according to research on patient-reported health inequities presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

”Equal access to and quality of care are critical for managing a progressive disease such as multiple sclerosis,” said Chris Hardy, of Publicis Health Media, and her associates. “Despite increased awareness of health outcome disparities in the U.S., certain patients still experience inequities in care.”

The researchers sent emails to members of MyMSTeam, an online support network of more than 197,000 members, to request completion of a 34-question online survey. Questions addressed respondents’ ability to access care, resources in their neighborhood, and their interactions with their health care providers. Questions also addressed the burden of MS on individuals’ quality of life, which was considerable across all demographics. The 1,935 patients with MS who responded were overwhelmingly White, though the demographics varied by question.
 

A ‘widespread and significant problem’

“This study is important in pointing out the unfortunate, obvious [fact] that lack of access and lack of availability to treatment is still a widespread and significant problem in this country,” commented Mark Gudesblatt, MD, a neurologist at South Shore Neurologic Associates who was not involved in the study. “Improving effective treatment of disease requires a more granular understanding of disease impact on a quantitative, multidimensional, objective patient-centric approach,” he added. “Racial and ethnic barriers to effective treatment cannot be allowed nor tolerated. We need to be more acutely aware that outreach, digital health, and remote assessments are tools that we need to incorporate to improve access and do better.”

The pervasive impact of MS

Overall, 85% of respondents reported that MS made it harder to do everyday chores, and 84% said their MS made it harder to exercise and interfered with their everyday life. Similarly high proportions of respondents reported that their MS causes them a lot of stress (80%), makes them feel anxious or depressed (77%), disrupts their work/employment (75%), and interferes with their social life (75%). In addition, more than half said their diagnosis negatively affects their family (59%) and makes them feel judged (53%).

Deanne Power, RN, MSCN, the lead nurse care partner at Octave Bioscience, who spoke as a representative of the study authors, said it’s critical that clinicians be aware of the health inequities that exist among their patient population.

“Some patients have lower income or language issues where English is not their primary language, and they don’t have access and are even afraid to call doctor or reach out [for help],” Ms. Power said. “If providers aren’t actively aware of these situations and talk to their patients, they can’t just say, ‘Oh, well, I just want you to go fill this prescription,’ when they don’t have money to put food on their table. Providers have got to know their patients as [more than] just an MS patient. This is a human being in front of you, and you better know what their life is like, because it’s impacting their MS.”
 

Access to care varied by race

Among the 1,906 respondents who answered questions about access to care, 9% were Black, 5% were Hispanic, and the rest were White. In these questions, differences between demographics arose when it came to individuals’ ability to conveniently see an MS specialist and their subsequent use of emergency services. For example, only 64% of Hispanic respondents reported convenient access to a health care provider specializing in MS, compared with 76% of White and 78% of Black respondents.

A significantly higher proportion of Hispanics also reported that they could not take time off from work when they were sick (25%) or to attend a doctor appointment (20%), compared with White (15% and 9%, respectively) and Black (18% and 12%) respondents. Meanwhile, a significantly higher proportion of Hispanics (35%) reported visiting the emergency department in the past year for MS-related issues, compared with White (19%) or Black (25%) respondents.

White respondents consistently had greater convenient access to dental offices, healthy foods, outpatient care, gyms, and parks and trails, compared with Black and Hispanic patients’ access. For example, 85% of White patients had convenient access to dental offices and 72% had access to outpatient care, compared with Black (74% and 65%) and Hispanic (78% and 52%) patients. Two-thirds of Hispanic respondents (67%) reported access to healthy foods and to gyms, parks, or trails, compared with more than three-quarters of both White and Black patients.
 

Other barriers to MS care

Both racial/ethnic and gender disparities emerged in how patients felt treated by their health care providers. Men were significantly more likely (70%) than women (65%) to say their health care provider listens to and understands them. A statistically significant higher proportion of men (71%) also said their clinician explained their MS test results to them, compared with women (62%), and only 28% of women, versus 37% of men, said their provider developed a long-term plan for them.

Anne Foelsch, the vice president of strategic partnerships at MyHealthTeam, who works with the authors, noted the large discrepancy that was seen particularly for Hispanic patients in terms of how they felt treated by their health care provider.

“Doctors might perceive that the relationship is the same with all of their patients when their patients have a very different perception of what that relationship is and whether they’re not being heard,” Ms. Foelsch said. “It’s important that clinicians take a little bit of time and learn a little bit more about a patient’s perspective and what it’s like when they have a chronic condition like MS and how it impacts their life, looking for those nuances that are different based on your ethnicity.”

Just over half of Hispanic patients (54%) said their provider explained their MS test results, compared with nearly two-thirds of White patients (65%) and 61% of Black patients. Hispanic patients were also less likely (55%) to say they felt their provider listens to and understands them than White (67%) or Black (65%) patients. Two-thirds of White respondents (67%) said their doctor recommended regular check-ups, compared with just over half of Black and Hispanic respondents (55%).

Other statistically significant disparities by race/ethnicity, where a higher proportion of White patients responded affirmatively than Black or Hispanic patients, included feeling treated with respect by their health care provider, feeling their provider is nonjudgmental, and saying their provider spends enough time with them, addresses their MS symptoms, and encourages shared decision-making.

“This study nicely documents and points out that despite our best intentions, we need to do much better as a community to help those with chronic and potentially disabling diseases like MS,” Dr. Gudesblatt said. “The racial, ethnic, and gender disparities only result in greater disability and societal costs by those who can least afford it. All therapies fail due to nonadherence, limited access, lack of insurance coverage, limited insurance coverage, high copays, long waits, cultural biases, and more.”

The researchers acknowledged that their survey respondents may not be representative of all patients with MS because the survey relied on those who chose to respond to the online survey.

The study authors were all employees of Publicis Health Media or MyHealthTeam. Dr. Gudesblatt reported no disclosures.
 

Aurora, Colo. – The access to and quality of multiple sclerosis (MS) care varies substantially depending on a patient’s race, ethnicity, gender, and geography, according to research on patient-reported health inequities presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

”Equal access to and quality of care are critical for managing a progressive disease such as multiple sclerosis,” said Chris Hardy, of Publicis Health Media, and her associates. “Despite increased awareness of health outcome disparities in the U.S., certain patients still experience inequities in care.”

The researchers sent emails to members of MyMSTeam, an online support network of more than 197,000 members, to request completion of a 34-question online survey. Questions addressed respondents’ ability to access care, resources in their neighborhood, and their interactions with their health care providers. Questions also addressed the burden of MS on individuals’ quality of life, which was considerable across all demographics. The 1,935 patients with MS who responded were overwhelmingly White, though the demographics varied by question.
 

A ‘widespread and significant problem’

“This study is important in pointing out the unfortunate, obvious [fact] that lack of access and lack of availability to treatment is still a widespread and significant problem in this country,” commented Mark Gudesblatt, MD, a neurologist at South Shore Neurologic Associates who was not involved in the study. “Improving effective treatment of disease requires a more granular understanding of disease impact on a quantitative, multidimensional, objective patient-centric approach,” he added. “Racial and ethnic barriers to effective treatment cannot be allowed nor tolerated. We need to be more acutely aware that outreach, digital health, and remote assessments are tools that we need to incorporate to improve access and do better.”

The pervasive impact of MS

Overall, 85% of respondents reported that MS made it harder to do everyday chores, and 84% said their MS made it harder to exercise and interfered with their everyday life. Similarly high proportions of respondents reported that their MS causes them a lot of stress (80%), makes them feel anxious or depressed (77%), disrupts their work/employment (75%), and interferes with their social life (75%). In addition, more than half said their diagnosis negatively affects their family (59%) and makes them feel judged (53%).

Deanne Power, RN, MSCN, the lead nurse care partner at Octave Bioscience, who spoke as a representative of the study authors, said it’s critical that clinicians be aware of the health inequities that exist among their patient population.

“Some patients have lower income or language issues where English is not their primary language, and they don’t have access and are even afraid to call doctor or reach out [for help],” Ms. Power said. “If providers aren’t actively aware of these situations and talk to their patients, they can’t just say, ‘Oh, well, I just want you to go fill this prescription,’ when they don’t have money to put food on their table. Providers have got to know their patients as [more than] just an MS patient. This is a human being in front of you, and you better know what their life is like, because it’s impacting their MS.”
 

Access to care varied by race

Among the 1,906 respondents who answered questions about access to care, 9% were Black, 5% were Hispanic, and the rest were White. In these questions, differences between demographics arose when it came to individuals’ ability to conveniently see an MS specialist and their subsequent use of emergency services. For example, only 64% of Hispanic respondents reported convenient access to a health care provider specializing in MS, compared with 76% of White and 78% of Black respondents.

A significantly higher proportion of Hispanics also reported that they could not take time off from work when they were sick (25%) or to attend a doctor appointment (20%), compared with White (15% and 9%, respectively) and Black (18% and 12%) respondents. Meanwhile, a significantly higher proportion of Hispanics (35%) reported visiting the emergency department in the past year for MS-related issues, compared with White (19%) or Black (25%) respondents.

White respondents consistently had greater convenient access to dental offices, healthy foods, outpatient care, gyms, and parks and trails, compared with Black and Hispanic patients’ access. For example, 85% of White patients had convenient access to dental offices and 72% had access to outpatient care, compared with Black (74% and 65%) and Hispanic (78% and 52%) patients. Two-thirds of Hispanic respondents (67%) reported access to healthy foods and to gyms, parks, or trails, compared with more than three-quarters of both White and Black patients.
 

Other barriers to MS care

Both racial/ethnic and gender disparities emerged in how patients felt treated by their health care providers. Men were significantly more likely (70%) than women (65%) to say their health care provider listens to and understands them. A statistically significant higher proportion of men (71%) also said their clinician explained their MS test results to them, compared with women (62%), and only 28% of women, versus 37% of men, said their provider developed a long-term plan for them.

Anne Foelsch, the vice president of strategic partnerships at MyHealthTeam, who works with the authors, noted the large discrepancy that was seen particularly for Hispanic patients in terms of how they felt treated by their health care provider.

“Doctors might perceive that the relationship is the same with all of their patients when their patients have a very different perception of what that relationship is and whether they’re not being heard,” Ms. Foelsch said. “It’s important that clinicians take a little bit of time and learn a little bit more about a patient’s perspective and what it’s like when they have a chronic condition like MS and how it impacts their life, looking for those nuances that are different based on your ethnicity.”

Just over half of Hispanic patients (54%) said their provider explained their MS test results, compared with nearly two-thirds of White patients (65%) and 61% of Black patients. Hispanic patients were also less likely (55%) to say they felt their provider listens to and understands them than White (67%) or Black (65%) patients. Two-thirds of White respondents (67%) said their doctor recommended regular check-ups, compared with just over half of Black and Hispanic respondents (55%).

Other statistically significant disparities by race/ethnicity, where a higher proportion of White patients responded affirmatively than Black or Hispanic patients, included feeling treated with respect by their health care provider, feeling their provider is nonjudgmental, and saying their provider spends enough time with them, addresses their MS symptoms, and encourages shared decision-making.

“This study nicely documents and points out that despite our best intentions, we need to do much better as a community to help those with chronic and potentially disabling diseases like MS,” Dr. Gudesblatt said. “The racial, ethnic, and gender disparities only result in greater disability and societal costs by those who can least afford it. All therapies fail due to nonadherence, limited access, lack of insurance coverage, limited insurance coverage, high copays, long waits, cultural biases, and more.”

The researchers acknowledged that their survey respondents may not be representative of all patients with MS because the survey relied on those who chose to respond to the online survey.

The study authors were all employees of Publicis Health Media or MyHealthTeam. Dr. Gudesblatt reported no disclosures.
 

BALTIMORE – Poor prenatal sleep may increase the risk of postpartum depression, and prenatal depression may reduce the likelihood of mothers coming to their prenatal appointments, according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Together, the two studies suggest that commonly overlooked experiences in the prenatal period can have negative effects down the line if clinicians aren’t asking patients about them and addressing the issue.

”I think the national conversation around mental health in general will hopefully carry us forward to better supporting the patients who are coming in with preexisting conditions,” lead author Minnie Jang, a 4th-year medical student at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

Most of the attention on mood disorders of pregnancy focus on the postpartum period, but preexisting or new-onset depression during pregnancy deserves more attention, Ms. Jang told attendees. ACOG recommends that clinicians screen all patients at least once during the perinatal period, but that could be anywhere from early pregnancy to the postpartum period. Ms. Jang would like to see recommendations addressing both early pregnancy and the postpartum period.

“I think there’s this framing that postpartum depression is a distinct entity from other mental health conditions whereas it’s really part of a continuum,” Ms. Jang said in an interview.

She retrospectively analyzed the medical records of all pregnant women who completed the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) during their first or second trimesters between 2002 and 2021 at Johns Hopkins Hospital. Among the 718 women who were screened in early pregnancy, 44.6% were Black or African American, 39.7% were white, and 15.7% were of a different race. Nearly all (94%) were not Hispanic/Latino.

Most (59%) were partnered, employed (68%), and had private insurance (58%). Only 7% used tobacco while 11% used alcohol and 6% used illicit drugs.

Twelve percent of the patients scored positive for depression, with a score of at least 10 or an affirmative answer to question 10 regarding self-harm. These women tended to be younger (P = .034), with an median age of 28 at their first visit versus 31 for those who screened negative, and were more likely to be publicly insured (P = .013) and without a partner (P = .005).

Patients who screened positive were more likely to have a history of substance use or history of a previous psychiatric diagnosis (P < .0001 for both). In addition, more patients who screened positive (49%) than those who screened negative (26%) had fetal complications (P < .001).

”There are some interesting subgroups of patients who are screening positive for depressive symptoms early on in pregnancy,” Ms. Jang said. Some come into pregnancy with preexisting mental health conditions while others have situational depressive symptoms, such as the subgroup referred to social work who had diagnosed fetal complications, she said. “Then there’s a whole other group of patients who are developing new symptoms during pregnancy.”

Patients who screened positive tended to start prenatal care later, at a median 12.3 weeks gestational age, than patients who screened negative, at a median 10.7 weeks gestational age (P = .002), the analysis found.

The number of routine prenatal care visits did not significantly differ between those who screened positive and those who screened negative, but patients with positive depression screens were almost half as likely to complete glucose tolerance testing (odds ratio, 0.6) or group B streptococcus testing (OR, 0.56) after adjusting for insurance status, gravidity, and gestational age at the patient’s first visit.

The researchers also identified a significant positive association between higher EPDS scores and the number of labor and delivery triage visits (P = .006). There were no significant differences in the rates of Tdap vaccination or screening for sexually transmitted infections between the two groups.
 

Poor sleep linked to later depression

The other study was prospective, using data from the PATCH Prenatal Care and Maternal and Child Health Outcomes study, which initially “compared health outcomes and satisfaction with prenatal care between patients receiving Centering Pregnancy group prenatal care and patients receiving traditional prenatal care,” the authors explained. This secondary analysis looked at sleep problems and postpartum depression.

“We don’t routinely ask patients about sleep or screen patients for sleeping issues,” lead author Carolyn Sinow, MD, a 4th-year resident at Kaiser Permanente Santa Clara (Calif.) Medical Center, said in an interview. “I think that we need to take sleep complaints more seriously overall, especially in early pregnancy.” While sleep problems in the third trimester often have more to do with discomforts from pregnancy itself, better sleep “in the first and second trimester is something we can really target with good sleep hygiene,” she added.

The 336 pregnant participants were recruited from Health Connect as long as they had a singleton pregnancy, were receiving prenatal care from Kaiser Permanente Northern California, and completed baseline questionnaires about their sleep and depression and anxiety symptoms during their first trimester between August 2020 and April 2021. Those with clinical depression or a high-risk pregnancy were excluded. The participants then completed the questionnaires again between 4 and 8 weeks post partum.

After adjusting for baseline depression and potential confounders, patients with poor sleep quality, indicated by a score greater than 5 on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), were 12% more likely to develop postpartum depression, indicated by a score on the Patient Health Questionnaire depression scale (PHQ-8) of 10 or greater (relative risk, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.25).

The two aspects of sleep that specifically correlated with postpartum depression were sleep quality and sleep latency, or taking a long time to fall asleep. Those reporting poor sleep quality were twice as likely to develop postpartum depression (relative risk, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.22-3.91), and those who took a while to fall asleep were 52% more likely to develop postpartum depression (RR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.06-2.17).

Though the study also found prenatal sleep problems correlated with higher postpartum anxiety scores on the General Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7), the results were not statistically significant.

Kathleen Morrell, MD, MPH, an ob.gyn. in New York, was not involved in the study and said she was surprised it wasn’t something that had been studied much before because it makes sense.

“I always like it when studies confirm what we think should make sense, so it’s nice to see it,” Dr. Morrell said in an interview. “I think anytime you put something out, research it, and define it with numbers for doctors, that sometimes allows us to [realize], ‘Oh, that’s probably something we should be paying more attention to, especially if we have available treatments for it,’” she added.

“The clinical takeaway is that we really need to be screening for sleep pattern disruptions early in pregnancy, because even though it makes logical sense, it might not be something on our radar to think about,” Dr. Morrell said. “If people aren’t sleeping, well, their mental health is negatively affected.”

The most promising therapy for sleep issues currently is cognitive-behavioral therapy, which can accessed through various apps, Dr. Sinow said in an interview. “There are also safe interventions, such as melatonin and Unisom, that are totally safe in pregnancy that we can use to target sleep in early pregnancy.”

Dr. Morrell added that vitamin B6, often taken for nausea and vomiting during pregnancy, can also sometimes help people sleep and is safe during pregnancy.

“We know that postpartum depression does not necessarily only have a negative effect on the mother, but also has a negative effect on the infant and the family dynamic as well,” Dr. Morrell said. “So, we should be looking and screening for it so that we can offer people potential treatment because we know it can have long-term effects.”

Ms. Jang and Dr. Sinow did not have any disclosures. Dr. Morrell has done training for Nexplanon. Neither study noted external funding.

BALTIMORE – Poor prenatal sleep may increase the risk of postpartum depression, and prenatal depression may reduce the likelihood of mothers coming to their prenatal appointments, according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Together, the two studies suggest that commonly overlooked experiences in the prenatal period can have negative effects down the line if clinicians aren’t asking patients about them and addressing the issue.

”I think the national conversation around mental health in general will hopefully carry us forward to better supporting the patients who are coming in with preexisting conditions,” lead author Minnie Jang, a 4th-year medical student at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

Most of the attention on mood disorders of pregnancy focus on the postpartum period, but preexisting or new-onset depression during pregnancy deserves more attention, Ms. Jang told attendees. ACOG recommends that clinicians screen all patients at least once during the perinatal period, but that could be anywhere from early pregnancy to the postpartum period. Ms. Jang would like to see recommendations addressing both early pregnancy and the postpartum period.

“I think there’s this framing that postpartum depression is a distinct entity from other mental health conditions whereas it’s really part of a continuum,” Ms. Jang said in an interview.

She retrospectively analyzed the medical records of all pregnant women who completed the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) during their first or second trimesters between 2002 and 2021 at Johns Hopkins Hospital. Among the 718 women who were screened in early pregnancy, 44.6% were Black or African American, 39.7% were white, and 15.7% were of a different race. Nearly all (94%) were not Hispanic/Latino.

Most (59%) were partnered, employed (68%), and had private insurance (58%). Only 7% used tobacco while 11% used alcohol and 6% used illicit drugs.

Twelve percent of the patients scored positive for depression, with a score of at least 10 or an affirmative answer to question 10 regarding self-harm. These women tended to be younger (P = .034), with an median age of 28 at their first visit versus 31 for those who screened negative, and were more likely to be publicly insured (P = .013) and without a partner (P = .005).

Patients who screened positive were more likely to have a history of substance use or history of a previous psychiatric diagnosis (P < .0001 for both). In addition, more patients who screened positive (49%) than those who screened negative (26%) had fetal complications (P < .001).

”There are some interesting subgroups of patients who are screening positive for depressive symptoms early on in pregnancy,” Ms. Jang said. Some come into pregnancy with preexisting mental health conditions while others have situational depressive symptoms, such as the subgroup referred to social work who had diagnosed fetal complications, she said. “Then there’s a whole other group of patients who are developing new symptoms during pregnancy.”

Patients who screened positive tended to start prenatal care later, at a median 12.3 weeks gestational age, than patients who screened negative, at a median 10.7 weeks gestational age (P = .002), the analysis found.

The number of routine prenatal care visits did not significantly differ between those who screened positive and those who screened negative, but patients with positive depression screens were almost half as likely to complete glucose tolerance testing (odds ratio, 0.6) or group B streptococcus testing (OR, 0.56) after adjusting for insurance status, gravidity, and gestational age at the patient’s first visit.

The researchers also identified a significant positive association between higher EPDS scores and the number of labor and delivery triage visits (P = .006). There were no significant differences in the rates of Tdap vaccination or screening for sexually transmitted infections between the two groups.
 

Poor sleep linked to later depression

The other study was prospective, using data from the PATCH Prenatal Care and Maternal and Child Health Outcomes study, which initially “compared health outcomes and satisfaction with prenatal care between patients receiving Centering Pregnancy group prenatal care and patients receiving traditional prenatal care,” the authors explained. This secondary analysis looked at sleep problems and postpartum depression.

“We don’t routinely ask patients about sleep or screen patients for sleeping issues,” lead author Carolyn Sinow, MD, a 4th-year resident at Kaiser Permanente Santa Clara (Calif.) Medical Center, said in an interview. “I think that we need to take sleep complaints more seriously overall, especially in early pregnancy.” While sleep problems in the third trimester often have more to do with discomforts from pregnancy itself, better sleep “in the first and second trimester is something we can really target with good sleep hygiene,” she added.

The 336 pregnant participants were recruited from Health Connect as long as they had a singleton pregnancy, were receiving prenatal care from Kaiser Permanente Northern California, and completed baseline questionnaires about their sleep and depression and anxiety symptoms during their first trimester between August 2020 and April 2021. Those with clinical depression or a high-risk pregnancy were excluded. The participants then completed the questionnaires again between 4 and 8 weeks post partum.

After adjusting for baseline depression and potential confounders, patients with poor sleep quality, indicated by a score greater than 5 on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), were 12% more likely to develop postpartum depression, indicated by a score on the Patient Health Questionnaire depression scale (PHQ-8) of 10 or greater (relative risk, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.25).

The two aspects of sleep that specifically correlated with postpartum depression were sleep quality and sleep latency, or taking a long time to fall asleep. Those reporting poor sleep quality were twice as likely to develop postpartum depression (relative risk, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.22-3.91), and those who took a while to fall asleep were 52% more likely to develop postpartum depression (RR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.06-2.17).

Though the study also found prenatal sleep problems correlated with higher postpartum anxiety scores on the General Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7), the results were not statistically significant.

Kathleen Morrell, MD, MPH, an ob.gyn. in New York, was not involved in the study and said she was surprised it wasn’t something that had been studied much before because it makes sense.

“I always like it when studies confirm what we think should make sense, so it’s nice to see it,” Dr. Morrell said in an interview. “I think anytime you put something out, research it, and define it with numbers for doctors, that sometimes allows us to [realize], ‘Oh, that’s probably something we should be paying more attention to, especially if we have available treatments for it,’” she added.

“The clinical takeaway is that we really need to be screening for sleep pattern disruptions early in pregnancy, because even though it makes logical sense, it might not be something on our radar to think about,” Dr. Morrell said. “If people aren’t sleeping, well, their mental health is negatively affected.”

The most promising therapy for sleep issues currently is cognitive-behavioral therapy, which can accessed through various apps, Dr. Sinow said in an interview. “There are also safe interventions, such as melatonin and Unisom, that are totally safe in pregnancy that we can use to target sleep in early pregnancy.”

Dr. Morrell added that vitamin B6, often taken for nausea and vomiting during pregnancy, can also sometimes help people sleep and is safe during pregnancy.

“We know that postpartum depression does not necessarily only have a negative effect on the mother, but also has a negative effect on the infant and the family dynamic as well,” Dr. Morrell said. “So, we should be looking and screening for it so that we can offer people potential treatment because we know it can have long-term effects.”

Ms. Jang and Dr. Sinow did not have any disclosures. Dr. Morrell has done training for Nexplanon. Neither study noted external funding.

BALTIMORE – Poor prenatal sleep may increase the risk of postpartum depression, and prenatal depression may reduce the likelihood of mothers coming to their prenatal appointments, according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Together, the two studies suggest that commonly overlooked experiences in the prenatal period can have negative effects down the line if clinicians aren’t asking patients about them and addressing the issue.

”I think the national conversation around mental health in general will hopefully carry us forward to better supporting the patients who are coming in with preexisting conditions,” lead author Minnie Jang, a 4th-year medical student at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

Most of the attention on mood disorders of pregnancy focus on the postpartum period, but preexisting or new-onset depression during pregnancy deserves more attention, Ms. Jang told attendees. ACOG recommends that clinicians screen all patients at least once during the perinatal period, but that could be anywhere from early pregnancy to the postpartum period. Ms. Jang would like to see recommendations addressing both early pregnancy and the postpartum period.

“I think there’s this framing that postpartum depression is a distinct entity from other mental health conditions whereas it’s really part of a continuum,” Ms. Jang said in an interview.

She retrospectively analyzed the medical records of all pregnant women who completed the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) during their first or second trimesters between 2002 and 2021 at Johns Hopkins Hospital. Among the 718 women who were screened in early pregnancy, 44.6% were Black or African American, 39.7% were white, and 15.7% were of a different race. Nearly all (94%) were not Hispanic/Latino.

Most (59%) were partnered, employed (68%), and had private insurance (58%). Only 7% used tobacco while 11% used alcohol and 6% used illicit drugs.

Twelve percent of the patients scored positive for depression, with a score of at least 10 or an affirmative answer to question 10 regarding self-harm. These women tended to be younger (P = .034), with an median age of 28 at their first visit versus 31 for those who screened negative, and were more likely to be publicly insured (P = .013) and without a partner (P = .005).

Patients who screened positive were more likely to have a history of substance use or history of a previous psychiatric diagnosis (P < .0001 for both). In addition, more patients who screened positive (49%) than those who screened negative (26%) had fetal complications (P < .001).

”There are some interesting subgroups of patients who are screening positive for depressive symptoms early on in pregnancy,” Ms. Jang said. Some come into pregnancy with preexisting mental health conditions while others have situational depressive symptoms, such as the subgroup referred to social work who had diagnosed fetal complications, she said. “Then there’s a whole other group of patients who are developing new symptoms during pregnancy.”

Patients who screened positive tended to start prenatal care later, at a median 12.3 weeks gestational age, than patients who screened negative, at a median 10.7 weeks gestational age (P = .002), the analysis found.

The number of routine prenatal care visits did not significantly differ between those who screened positive and those who screened negative, but patients with positive depression screens were almost half as likely to complete glucose tolerance testing (odds ratio, 0.6) or group B streptococcus testing (OR, 0.56) after adjusting for insurance status, gravidity, and gestational age at the patient’s first visit.

The researchers also identified a significant positive association between higher EPDS scores and the number of labor and delivery triage visits (P = .006). There were no significant differences in the rates of Tdap vaccination or screening for sexually transmitted infections between the two groups.
 

Poor sleep linked to later depression

The other study was prospective, using data from the PATCH Prenatal Care and Maternal and Child Health Outcomes study, which initially “compared health outcomes and satisfaction with prenatal care between patients receiving Centering Pregnancy group prenatal care and patients receiving traditional prenatal care,” the authors explained. This secondary analysis looked at sleep problems and postpartum depression.

“We don’t routinely ask patients about sleep or screen patients for sleeping issues,” lead author Carolyn Sinow, MD, a 4th-year resident at Kaiser Permanente Santa Clara (Calif.) Medical Center, said in an interview. “I think that we need to take sleep complaints more seriously overall, especially in early pregnancy.” While sleep problems in the third trimester often have more to do with discomforts from pregnancy itself, better sleep “in the first and second trimester is something we can really target with good sleep hygiene,” she added.

The 336 pregnant participants were recruited from Health Connect as long as they had a singleton pregnancy, were receiving prenatal care from Kaiser Permanente Northern California, and completed baseline questionnaires about their sleep and depression and anxiety symptoms during their first trimester between August 2020 and April 2021. Those with clinical depression or a high-risk pregnancy were excluded. The participants then completed the questionnaires again between 4 and 8 weeks post partum.

After adjusting for baseline depression and potential confounders, patients with poor sleep quality, indicated by a score greater than 5 on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), were 12% more likely to develop postpartum depression, indicated by a score on the Patient Health Questionnaire depression scale (PHQ-8) of 10 or greater (relative risk, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.25).

The two aspects of sleep that specifically correlated with postpartum depression were sleep quality and sleep latency, or taking a long time to fall asleep. Those reporting poor sleep quality were twice as likely to develop postpartum depression (relative risk, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.22-3.91), and those who took a while to fall asleep were 52% more likely to develop postpartum depression (RR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.06-2.17).

Though the study also found prenatal sleep problems correlated with higher postpartum anxiety scores on the General Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7), the results were not statistically significant.

Kathleen Morrell, MD, MPH, an ob.gyn. in New York, was not involved in the study and said she was surprised it wasn’t something that had been studied much before because it makes sense.

“I always like it when studies confirm what we think should make sense, so it’s nice to see it,” Dr. Morrell said in an interview. “I think anytime you put something out, research it, and define it with numbers for doctors, that sometimes allows us to [realize], ‘Oh, that’s probably something we should be paying more attention to, especially if we have available treatments for it,’” she added.

“The clinical takeaway is that we really need to be screening for sleep pattern disruptions early in pregnancy, because even though it makes logical sense, it might not be something on our radar to think about,” Dr. Morrell said. “If people aren’t sleeping, well, their mental health is negatively affected.”

The most promising therapy for sleep issues currently is cognitive-behavioral therapy, which can accessed through various apps, Dr. Sinow said in an interview. “There are also safe interventions, such as melatonin and Unisom, that are totally safe in pregnancy that we can use to target sleep in early pregnancy.”

Dr. Morrell added that vitamin B6, often taken for nausea and vomiting during pregnancy, can also sometimes help people sleep and is safe during pregnancy.

“We know that postpartum depression does not necessarily only have a negative effect on the mother, but also has a negative effect on the infant and the family dynamic as well,” Dr. Morrell said. “So, we should be looking and screening for it so that we can offer people potential treatment because we know it can have long-term effects.”

Ms. Jang and Dr. Sinow did not have any disclosures. Dr. Morrell has done training for Nexplanon. Neither study noted external funding.

DENVER – The use of mindfulness-based interventions for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), whether delivered in person or through online video conferencing, resulted in improved cognitive function and reduced symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

Two studies assessed the effects of two mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) programs, one primarily in person until the pandemic forced a move to online participation, and the other exclusively online. The in-person course also found, in a subset of the participants, that blood inflammation markers matched the patients’ reported reduction in stress and loneliness.
 

Putting mindfulness to the test

Previous research has found that life stressors are linked to clinical MS flares, Chris Hemond, MD, an assistant professor of neurology at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, told attendees. He also noted previous research exploring possible explanations for how MBSR programs might improve clinical symptoms of MS. One hypothesis involves an effect on the “forebrain limbic areas responsible for the neurobiological stress response.” Part of this study therefore involved looking for possible MRI changes before and after the MBSR program to test this hypothesis.

The study involved 23 patients, all women with relapsing remitting MS with an median age of 45, and 57% of whom were taking B cell–depleting agents. The patients’ average Expanded Disability Status Scale score was 2, and none experienced any new clinical or MRI disease activity during a 12-week observation period.

Patients volunteered to participate in the free 8-week MBSR program. Half attended MBSR classes in person while the other half had to attend virtual classes due to the pandemic. The program involved eight weekly 2.5-hour classes with daily homework assignments. The program, developed by Jon Kabat-Zinn at the University of Massachusetts, is intended to be “mental training for nonjudgmental awareness of moment-to-moment experience” that aims to “improve accuracy of perception, acceptance of intractable health-related changes, realistic sense of control, and appreciation of available life experiences,” Dr. Hemond said.

Among the 91% of participants who completed the course, 57% underwent both pre- and postcourse structural MRI scans, and 83% completed both the pre- and postcourse questionnaires. A subset of patients (53%) also provided blood samples for analysis of inflammatory gene expression markers.

“The conserved transcriptional response to adversity (CTRA) score was determined using well-established methods from 53 prespecified blood gene expression markers representing a composite of inflammation, interferon response, and immunoglobulin expression,” Dr. Hemond explained.

Participants’ average scores both pre- and post questionnaires revealed statistically significant improvements in stress, anxiety, depression, fatigue, loneliness, well-being, and interoceptive awareness (P < .01 for all).

Although precise values were not provided in the presentation, patients’ scores significantly decreased on the Brief Inventory of Perceived Stress (BIPS) for “lack of control,” “pushed,” and “conflict” (P < .03). Average scores also improved (decreased) on the Modified Fatigue Inventory Scale, the UCLA Loneliness Scale, and all three subscales of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales assessment (P <.01). Participants’ scores increased on the Mental Health Continuum “hedonic” and “eudaimonic well-being” scales (P < .05).

Improvements on the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness included self-regulation, attention regulation, “noticing” (P = .02), “not worrying” (P < .01), “emotional awareness” (P < .01), “body listening” (P < .01), and “trusting” (P < .01).

After adjustment for age, race, body mass index, medical therapy and time, the researchers found changes in inflammatory gene expression in the 12 participants who provided blood samples, and these changes correlated inversely with changes in their reported loneliness (P =.002), pain (P <.001), several interoception aspects (P < .01), and stress (P < .0001), particularly regarding feeling a lack of control.

Although no structural MRI changes were observed in the amygdala or prefrontal cortex, the researchers did see a 1% volume increase on the right-side hippocampus. Though the increase was significant (P < .01) and right hippocampal enlargement has been linked with MBSR in past studies, Dr. Hemond acknowledged the study’s small sample size and urged caution in interpreting that finding.

Dr. Hemond also reported that interaction between higher CTRA and the MSBR training attenuated the right hippocampal volume increase that was seen with MBSR, a finding which raises more questions than it answers.

The primary finding, however, was that “mindfulness-based stress reduction was associated with substantial improvement in multiple patient-reported outcomes of the debilitating ‘silent symptoms’ of MS,” Dr. Hemond told attendees. Though the study is limited by its small sample size, observational biases, and missing data, the findings suggest the possibility that MBSR is also associated with structural limbic brain changes, especially in the right hippocampus.
 

Another tool for managing MS

Ellen Mowry, MD, MCR, a professor of neurology and epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who attended the presentation, said she was very enthusiastic about this research.

“People with MS often are seeking ways that they can have self-efficacy and managing the symptoms of their disease, and we know that the disease-modifying therapies make a big difference, but we need additional therapies that can help people feel better and live better with MS,” Dr. Mowry commented.

She also acknowledged the challenges, however, in developing a mindfulness program that is accessible by a broad range of MS patients. This particular program involved several hours of work per day.

“People with MS often are either on the younger side, and they’re working and raising their family and doing all the same stuff that everybody else is doing, or they might be quite disabled and have more fatigue and other things that might make it really challenging to persist through that long of an intervention,” Dr. Mowry said.

The ideal program would be one that’s financially accessible, either through insurance, society more broadly, or another source, and which is logistically feasible for a wide range of patients. Finding a “sweet spot” with a program that doesn’t “require such a lengthy amount of time in order to see a success would be really great,” Dr. Mowry said. “You have to start somewhere, though, and you have to start with a program that’s already been tried and true and work from there.”
 

An online-only mindfulness program

One possible way to find that sweet spot is through an all-online program that patients access from home, similar to the 8-week MBSR program offered by Concord (N.H.) Hospital featured in the second study. The program was conducted via Zoom during once weekly synchronous meetings throughout 2021 and 2022 for eight cohorts of 5-15 participants each. The time of day the program was offered alternated between evening and daytime courses each quarter and was free for patients because of a hospital grant, according to Nicole Delcourt, BSN, RN, MSCN, of Concord Hospital Neurology, who facilitated patient sign-ups for the program.

Before and after each 8-week course, participants completed the PHQ-9, the PROMIS Cognitive Function, the PROMIS Fatigue–MS, and the Wasson Health Confidence assessments. Among the total 77 participating adults with MS, the completion rate was 81%, with 73% completing the preprogram assessments and 53% completed the postprogram assessments.

The assessments revealed a statistically significant increase in cognitive function and health confidence and decrease in depressive symptoms and fatigue following the program. Participants’ average PROMIS Cognitive Function scores increased from 16.7 before the program to 22.4 after, and their average Wasson Health Confidence score increased from 13.6 to 15.3 (P < .01 for both). Meanwhile, improvement in depressive symptoms was seen in participants’ decrease in Patient Health Questionnaire–9 scores from an average 6.9 to 4.6 (P = .01), and their average PROMIS Fatigue scores fell slightly but significantly from 59.3 to 55.3 (P < .05).

The participants “really felt like they were more in touch with their own feelings and emotions, and it helped them self-regulate,” Ms. Delcourt sad, “so it was really exciting.”

Patients also expressed satisfaction more subjectively in their feedback surveys. “I feel more aware of my body’s reactions to food and movement, and things that make me feel better physically,” one participant said. Another said that the class’s “lasting value ... will be to remember my own needs and how to become one with them.” Another participant praised the relevance of the printed and course materials, the speed of feedback on homework, and the quality of the video conference.

Dr. Hemond owns stock in VIVIO health. No other authors of either study reported other disclosures. Dr. Mowry has received grant funding from Biogen and Genentech. Ms. Delcourt had no disclosures. The in-person program study was funded by CMSC. Funding information for the Concord online program was unavailable.

DENVER – The use of mindfulness-based interventions for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), whether delivered in person or through online video conferencing, resulted in improved cognitive function and reduced symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

Two studies assessed the effects of two mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) programs, one primarily in person until the pandemic forced a move to online participation, and the other exclusively online. The in-person course also found, in a subset of the participants, that blood inflammation markers matched the patients’ reported reduction in stress and loneliness.
 

Putting mindfulness to the test

Previous research has found that life stressors are linked to clinical MS flares, Chris Hemond, MD, an assistant professor of neurology at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, told attendees. He also noted previous research exploring possible explanations for how MBSR programs might improve clinical symptoms of MS. One hypothesis involves an effect on the “forebrain limbic areas responsible for the neurobiological stress response.” Part of this study therefore involved looking for possible MRI changes before and after the MBSR program to test this hypothesis.

The study involved 23 patients, all women with relapsing remitting MS with an median age of 45, and 57% of whom were taking B cell–depleting agents. The patients’ average Expanded Disability Status Scale score was 2, and none experienced any new clinical or MRI disease activity during a 12-week observation period.

Patients volunteered to participate in the free 8-week MBSR program. Half attended MBSR classes in person while the other half had to attend virtual classes due to the pandemic. The program involved eight weekly 2.5-hour classes with daily homework assignments. The program, developed by Jon Kabat-Zinn at the University of Massachusetts, is intended to be “mental training for nonjudgmental awareness of moment-to-moment experience” that aims to “improve accuracy of perception, acceptance of intractable health-related changes, realistic sense of control, and appreciation of available life experiences,” Dr. Hemond said.

Among the 91% of participants who completed the course, 57% underwent both pre- and postcourse structural MRI scans, and 83% completed both the pre- and postcourse questionnaires. A subset of patients (53%) also provided blood samples for analysis of inflammatory gene expression markers.

“The conserved transcriptional response to adversity (CTRA) score was determined using well-established methods from 53 prespecified blood gene expression markers representing a composite of inflammation, interferon response, and immunoglobulin expression,” Dr. Hemond explained.

Participants’ average scores both pre- and post questionnaires revealed statistically significant improvements in stress, anxiety, depression, fatigue, loneliness, well-being, and interoceptive awareness (P < .01 for all).

Although precise values were not provided in the presentation, patients’ scores significantly decreased on the Brief Inventory of Perceived Stress (BIPS) for “lack of control,” “pushed,” and “conflict” (P < .03). Average scores also improved (decreased) on the Modified Fatigue Inventory Scale, the UCLA Loneliness Scale, and all three subscales of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales assessment (P <.01). Participants’ scores increased on the Mental Health Continuum “hedonic” and “eudaimonic well-being” scales (P < .05).

Improvements on the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness included self-regulation, attention regulation, “noticing” (P = .02), “not worrying” (P < .01), “emotional awareness” (P < .01), “body listening” (P < .01), and “trusting” (P < .01).

After adjustment for age, race, body mass index, medical therapy and time, the researchers found changes in inflammatory gene expression in the 12 participants who provided blood samples, and these changes correlated inversely with changes in their reported loneliness (P =.002), pain (P <.001), several interoception aspects (P < .01), and stress (P < .0001), particularly regarding feeling a lack of control.

Although no structural MRI changes were observed in the amygdala or prefrontal cortex, the researchers did see a 1% volume increase on the right-side hippocampus. Though the increase was significant (P < .01) and right hippocampal enlargement has been linked with MBSR in past studies, Dr. Hemond acknowledged the study’s small sample size and urged caution in interpreting that finding.

Dr. Hemond also reported that interaction between higher CTRA and the MSBR training attenuated the right hippocampal volume increase that was seen with MBSR, a finding which raises more questions than it answers.

The primary finding, however, was that “mindfulness-based stress reduction was associated with substantial improvement in multiple patient-reported outcomes of the debilitating ‘silent symptoms’ of MS,” Dr. Hemond told attendees. Though the study is limited by its small sample size, observational biases, and missing data, the findings suggest the possibility that MBSR is also associated with structural limbic brain changes, especially in the right hippocampus.
 

Another tool for managing MS

Ellen Mowry, MD, MCR, a professor of neurology and epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who attended the presentation, said she was very enthusiastic about this research.

“People with MS often are seeking ways that they can have self-efficacy and managing the symptoms of their disease, and we know that the disease-modifying therapies make a big difference, but we need additional therapies that can help people feel better and live better with MS,” Dr. Mowry commented.

She also acknowledged the challenges, however, in developing a mindfulness program that is accessible by a broad range of MS patients. This particular program involved several hours of work per day.

“People with MS often are either on the younger side, and they’re working and raising their family and doing all the same stuff that everybody else is doing, or they might be quite disabled and have more fatigue and other things that might make it really challenging to persist through that long of an intervention,” Dr. Mowry said.

The ideal program would be one that’s financially accessible, either through insurance, society more broadly, or another source, and which is logistically feasible for a wide range of patients. Finding a “sweet spot” with a program that doesn’t “require such a lengthy amount of time in order to see a success would be really great,” Dr. Mowry said. “You have to start somewhere, though, and you have to start with a program that’s already been tried and true and work from there.”
 

An online-only mindfulness program

One possible way to find that sweet spot is through an all-online program that patients access from home, similar to the 8-week MBSR program offered by Concord (N.H.) Hospital featured in the second study. The program was conducted via Zoom during once weekly synchronous meetings throughout 2021 and 2022 for eight cohorts of 5-15 participants each. The time of day the program was offered alternated between evening and daytime courses each quarter and was free for patients because of a hospital grant, according to Nicole Delcourt, BSN, RN, MSCN, of Concord Hospital Neurology, who facilitated patient sign-ups for the program.

Before and after each 8-week course, participants completed the PHQ-9, the PROMIS Cognitive Function, the PROMIS Fatigue–MS, and the Wasson Health Confidence assessments. Among the total 77 participating adults with MS, the completion rate was 81%, with 73% completing the preprogram assessments and 53% completed the postprogram assessments.

The assessments revealed a statistically significant increase in cognitive function and health confidence and decrease in depressive symptoms and fatigue following the program. Participants’ average PROMIS Cognitive Function scores increased from 16.7 before the program to 22.4 after, and their average Wasson Health Confidence score increased from 13.6 to 15.3 (P < .01 for both). Meanwhile, improvement in depressive symptoms was seen in participants’ decrease in Patient Health Questionnaire–9 scores from an average 6.9 to 4.6 (P = .01), and their average PROMIS Fatigue scores fell slightly but significantly from 59.3 to 55.3 (P < .05).

The participants “really felt like they were more in touch with their own feelings and emotions, and it helped them self-regulate,” Ms. Delcourt sad, “so it was really exciting.”

Patients also expressed satisfaction more subjectively in their feedback surveys. “I feel more aware of my body’s reactions to food and movement, and things that make me feel better physically,” one participant said. Another said that the class’s “lasting value ... will be to remember my own needs and how to become one with them.” Another participant praised the relevance of the printed and course materials, the speed of feedback on homework, and the quality of the video conference.

Dr. Hemond owns stock in VIVIO health. No other authors of either study reported other disclosures. Dr. Mowry has received grant funding from Biogen and Genentech. Ms. Delcourt had no disclosures. The in-person program study was funded by CMSC. Funding information for the Concord online program was unavailable.

DENVER – The use of mindfulness-based interventions for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), whether delivered in person or through online video conferencing, resulted in improved cognitive function and reduced symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

Two studies assessed the effects of two mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) programs, one primarily in person until the pandemic forced a move to online participation, and the other exclusively online. The in-person course also found, in a subset of the participants, that blood inflammation markers matched the patients’ reported reduction in stress and loneliness.
 

Putting mindfulness to the test

Previous research has found that life stressors are linked to clinical MS flares, Chris Hemond, MD, an assistant professor of neurology at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, told attendees. He also noted previous research exploring possible explanations for how MBSR programs might improve clinical symptoms of MS. One hypothesis involves an effect on the “forebrain limbic areas responsible for the neurobiological stress response.” Part of this study therefore involved looking for possible MRI changes before and after the MBSR program to test this hypothesis.

The study involved 23 patients, all women with relapsing remitting MS with an median age of 45, and 57% of whom were taking B cell–depleting agents. The patients’ average Expanded Disability Status Scale score was 2, and none experienced any new clinical or MRI disease activity during a 12-week observation period.

Patients volunteered to participate in the free 8-week MBSR program. Half attended MBSR classes in person while the other half had to attend virtual classes due to the pandemic. The program involved eight weekly 2.5-hour classes with daily homework assignments. The program, developed by Jon Kabat-Zinn at the University of Massachusetts, is intended to be “mental training for nonjudgmental awareness of moment-to-moment experience” that aims to “improve accuracy of perception, acceptance of intractable health-related changes, realistic sense of control, and appreciation of available life experiences,” Dr. Hemond said.

Among the 91% of participants who completed the course, 57% underwent both pre- and postcourse structural MRI scans, and 83% completed both the pre- and postcourse questionnaires. A subset of patients (53%) also provided blood samples for analysis of inflammatory gene expression markers.

“The conserved transcriptional response to adversity (CTRA) score was determined using well-established methods from 53 prespecified blood gene expression markers representing a composite of inflammation, interferon response, and immunoglobulin expression,” Dr. Hemond explained.

Participants’ average scores both pre- and post questionnaires revealed statistically significant improvements in stress, anxiety, depression, fatigue, loneliness, well-being, and interoceptive awareness (P < .01 for all).

Although precise values were not provided in the presentation, patients’ scores significantly decreased on the Brief Inventory of Perceived Stress (BIPS) for “lack of control,” “pushed,” and “conflict” (P < .03). Average scores also improved (decreased) on the Modified Fatigue Inventory Scale, the UCLA Loneliness Scale, and all three subscales of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales assessment (P <.01). Participants’ scores increased on the Mental Health Continuum “hedonic” and “eudaimonic well-being” scales (P < .05).

Improvements on the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness included self-regulation, attention regulation, “noticing” (P = .02), “not worrying” (P < .01), “emotional awareness” (P < .01), “body listening” (P < .01), and “trusting” (P < .01).

After adjustment for age, race, body mass index, medical therapy and time, the researchers found changes in inflammatory gene expression in the 12 participants who provided blood samples, and these changes correlated inversely with changes in their reported loneliness (P =.002), pain (P <.001), several interoception aspects (P < .01), and stress (P < .0001), particularly regarding feeling a lack of control.

Although no structural MRI changes were observed in the amygdala or prefrontal cortex, the researchers did see a 1% volume increase on the right-side hippocampus. Though the increase was significant (P < .01) and right hippocampal enlargement has been linked with MBSR in past studies, Dr. Hemond acknowledged the study’s small sample size and urged caution in interpreting that finding.

Dr. Hemond also reported that interaction between higher CTRA and the MSBR training attenuated the right hippocampal volume increase that was seen with MBSR, a finding which raises more questions than it answers.

The primary finding, however, was that “mindfulness-based stress reduction was associated with substantial improvement in multiple patient-reported outcomes of the debilitating ‘silent symptoms’ of MS,” Dr. Hemond told attendees. Though the study is limited by its small sample size, observational biases, and missing data, the findings suggest the possibility that MBSR is also associated with structural limbic brain changes, especially in the right hippocampus.
 

Another tool for managing MS

Ellen Mowry, MD, MCR, a professor of neurology and epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who attended the presentation, said she was very enthusiastic about this research.

“People with MS often are seeking ways that they can have self-efficacy and managing the symptoms of their disease, and we know that the disease-modifying therapies make a big difference, but we need additional therapies that can help people feel better and live better with MS,” Dr. Mowry commented.

She also acknowledged the challenges, however, in developing a mindfulness program that is accessible by a broad range of MS patients. This particular program involved several hours of work per day.

“People with MS often are either on the younger side, and they’re working and raising their family and doing all the same stuff that everybody else is doing, or they might be quite disabled and have more fatigue and other things that might make it really challenging to persist through that long of an intervention,” Dr. Mowry said.

The ideal program would be one that’s financially accessible, either through insurance, society more broadly, or another source, and which is logistically feasible for a wide range of patients. Finding a “sweet spot” with a program that doesn’t “require such a lengthy amount of time in order to see a success would be really great,” Dr. Mowry said. “You have to start somewhere, though, and you have to start with a program that’s already been tried and true and work from there.”
 

An online-only mindfulness program

One possible way to find that sweet spot is through an all-online program that patients access from home, similar to the 8-week MBSR program offered by Concord (N.H.) Hospital featured in the second study. The program was conducted via Zoom during once weekly synchronous meetings throughout 2021 and 2022 for eight cohorts of 5-15 participants each. The time of day the program was offered alternated between evening and daytime courses each quarter and was free for patients because of a hospital grant, according to Nicole Delcourt, BSN, RN, MSCN, of Concord Hospital Neurology, who facilitated patient sign-ups for the program.

Before and after each 8-week course, participants completed the PHQ-9, the PROMIS Cognitive Function, the PROMIS Fatigue–MS, and the Wasson Health Confidence assessments. Among the total 77 participating adults with MS, the completion rate was 81%, with 73% completing the preprogram assessments and 53% completed the postprogram assessments.

The assessments revealed a statistically significant increase in cognitive function and health confidence and decrease in depressive symptoms and fatigue following the program. Participants’ average PROMIS Cognitive Function scores increased from 16.7 before the program to 22.4 after, and their average Wasson Health Confidence score increased from 13.6 to 15.3 (P < .01 for both). Meanwhile, improvement in depressive symptoms was seen in participants’ decrease in Patient Health Questionnaire–9 scores from an average 6.9 to 4.6 (P = .01), and their average PROMIS Fatigue scores fell slightly but significantly from 59.3 to 55.3 (P < .05).

The participants “really felt like they were more in touch with their own feelings and emotions, and it helped them self-regulate,” Ms. Delcourt sad, “so it was really exciting.”

Patients also expressed satisfaction more subjectively in their feedback surveys. “I feel more aware of my body’s reactions to food and movement, and things that make me feel better physically,” one participant said. Another said that the class’s “lasting value ... will be to remember my own needs and how to become one with them.” Another participant praised the relevance of the printed and course materials, the speed of feedback on homework, and the quality of the video conference.

Dr. Hemond owns stock in VIVIO health. No other authors of either study reported other disclosures. Dr. Mowry has received grant funding from Biogen and Genentech. Ms. Delcourt had no disclosures. The in-person program study was funded by CMSC. Funding information for the Concord online program was unavailable.

BALTIMORE – Training hospitals that have state or institutional abortion restrictions are less likely to follow the evidence-based standard of care in diagnosing and managing miscarriages, including taking patient preferences into account, according to a cross-sectional study presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The results revealed that “abortion restrictions have far-reaching effects on early pregnancy loss care and on resident education,” the researchers concluded.

“Abortion restrictions don’t just affect people seeking abortions; they affect people also suffering from early pregnancy loss,” Aurora Phillips, MD, an ob.gyn. resident at Albany (N.Y.) Medical Center, said in an interview. “It’s harder to make that diagnosis and to be able to offer interventions, and these institutions that had restrictions also were less likely to have mifepristone or office based human aspiration, which are the most efficient and cost-effective interventions that we have.”

For example, less than half the programs surveyed offered mifepristone to help manage a miscarriage, “with availability varying inversely with abortion restrictions,” they found. After considering all characteristics of residency programs, “institutional abortion restrictions and bans were more important than state policies or religious affiliation in determining whether evidence-based early pregnancy loss treatments were available,” the researchers found, though their findings predated the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade. “Training institutions with a commitment to evidence-based family planning care and education are able to ensure access to the most evidence-based, cost-effective, and timely treatments for pregnancy loss even in the face of state abortion restrictions, thereby preserving patient safety, physician competency, and health care system sustainability,” they wrote.
 

Reduced access leads to higher risk interventions

An estimated 10%-20% of pregnancies result in early miscarriage, totaling more than one million cases in the U.S. each year. But since treatments for miscarriage often overlap with those for abortion, the researchers wondered whether differences existed in how providers managed miscarriages in states or institutions with strict abortion restrictions versus management in hospitals without restrictions.

They also looked at how closely the management strategies adhered to ACOG’s recommendations, which advise that providers consider both ultrasound imaging and other factors, including clinical reasoning and patient preferences, before diagnosing early pregnancy loss and considering possible interventions.

For imaging guidelines, ACOG endorses the criteria established for ultrasound diagnosis of first trimester pregnancy loss from the Society of Radiologists in 2012. But, the authors note, these guidelines are very conservative, exceeding previous measurements that had a 99%-100% predictive value for pregnancy loss, in the interest of “[prioritizing preservation of] fetal potential over facilitating expeditious care.” Hence the reason ACOG advises providers to include clinical judgment and patient preferences in their approach to care.

”In places where abortion is heavily regulated, clinicians managing miscarriages may cautiously rely on the strictest criteria to differentiate early pregnancy loss from potentially viable pregnancy and may not offer certain treatments commonly associated with abortion,” the authors noted. ACOG recommends surgical aspiration and medical treatment with both mifepristone and misoprostol as the safest and most effective options in managing miscarriages.

“Treating early pregnancy loss without the use of mifepristone is more likely to fail, is more likely to require an unscheduled procedure, and people who choose medication management for their miscarriages are usually trying to avoid a procedure, so that is the downside of not using mifepristone,” coauthor Rachel M. Flink-Bochacki, MD, an associate professor at Albany (N.Y.) Medical Center, said in an interview.

“Office-based uterine aspiration has the same safety profile as uterine aspiration in the operating room minus the risks of anesthesia and also helps patients get in faster because they don’t need to wait for OR time,” Dr. Flink-Bochacki explained. “So again, for a patient who wants an aspiration and does not want to pass the pregnancy at home, not having access to office-based aspiration could lead them to miscarry at home, which has higher risks and is not what they wanted.”
 

Reduced access to miscarriage care options in ‘hostile’ states

Among all 296 U.S. ob.gyn. residency programs that were contacted between November 2021 and January 2022, half (50.3%) responded to the researchers’ survey about their institutional practices around miscarriage, including location of diagnosis, use of ultrasound diagnostic guidelines, treatment options offered by their institution, and institutional restrictions on abortions based on indication.

The survey also collected characteristics of each program, including its state, setting, religious affiliation, and affiliation with the Ryan Training Program in Abortion and Family Planning. The responding sample had similar geographic distribution and state abortion policies as those who did not respond, but the responding programs were slightly more likely to be academic programs and to be affiliated with the Ryan program.

At the time of the study, prior to the Dobbs ruling, more than half the U.S. states had legislation restricting abortion care, and 57% of national teaching hospitals had internal restrictions that limited care based on gestational age and indication, particularly if the indication was elective, the authors reported. The researchers relied on designations from the Guttmacher Institute in December 2020 to categorize states as “hostile” to abortion (very hostile, hostile, and leans hostile) or non-hostile (neutral, leans supportive, supportive, and very supportive).

Most of the programs (80%) had no religious affiliation, but 11% had a Catholic affiliation and 5% had a different Christian affiliation. Institutional policies either had no restrictions on abortion care (38%), had restrictions (39%) based on certain maternal or fetal indications, or completely banned abortion services unless the mother’s life was threatened (23%). Among the Christian-affiliated programs, 60% had bans and 40% had restrictions.

Half (49.7%) of the responding programs relied rigidly on ultrasound criteria before offering any intervention for suspected early pregnancy loss, regardless of patient preferences. The other half (50.3%) incorporated ultrasound criteria and other factors, including clinical judgment and patient preferences, into a holistic determination of what options to present to the patient.

Before accounting for other factors, the researchers found that only a third (33%) of programs in states with severe abortion restrictions considered additional factors besides imaging when offering patients options for miscarriage management. In states without such abortion restrictions, 79% of programs considered both imaging and other factors (P < .001).

In states with “hostile abortion legislation,” only 32% of the programs used mifepristone for miscarriage management, compared with 75% of the programs in states without onerous abortion restrictions (P < .001). The results were similar for use of office-based suction aspiration: Just under half the programs (48%) in states with severe abortion restrictions included this technique as part of standard miscarriage management, compared with 68% of programs in states without such restrictions (P = .014).

Those findings match up with the experience of Cara Heuser, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist from Salt Lake City, who was not involved in this study.

“We had a lot of restrictions even before Roe fell,” including heavy regulation of mifepristone, Dr. Heuser said in an interview. “In non-restricted states, it’s pretty easy to get, but even before Roe in our state, it was very, very difficult to get institutions and individual doctor’s offices to carry mifepristone to treat miscarriages. They were still treating miscarriages in a way that was known to be less effective.” Adding mifepristone to misoprostol reduces the risk of needing an evacuation surgery procedure, she explained, “so adding the mifepristone makes it safer.”
 

Institutional policies had the strongest impact

Before accounting for the state a hospital was in, 27% of institutions with restrictive abortion policies looked at more than imaging in determining how to proceed, compared with 88% of institutions without abortion restrictions that included clinical judgment and patient preferences in their management.

After controlling for state policies and affiliation with a family planning training program or a religious entity, the odds of an institution relying solely on imaging guidelines were over 12 times greater for institutions with abortion restrictions or bans (odds ratio, 12.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.2-47.9). Specifically, the odds were 9 times greater for institutions with restrictions and 27 times greater for institutions with bans.

Only 12% of the institutions without restrictions relied solely on ultrasound criteria, compared with 67% of the institutions with restrictions and 82% of the institutions that banned all abortions except to save the life of the pregnant individual (P < .001).

Only one in four (25%) of the programs with institutional abortion restrictions used mifepristone, compared with 86% of unrestricted programs (P < .001), and 40% of programs with institutional abortion restrictions used office-based aspiration, compared with 81% of unrestricted programs (P < .001).

Without access to all evidence-based treatments, doctors are often forced to choose expectant management for miscarriages. “So you’re kind of forced to have them to pass the pregnancy at home, which can be traumatic for patients” if that’s not what they wanted, Dr. Phillips said.

Dr. Flink-Bochacki further noted that this patient population is already particularly vulnerable.

“Especially for patients with early pregnancy loss, it’s such a feeling of powerlessness already, so the mental state that many of these patients are in is already quite fraught,” Dr. Flink-Bochacki said. “Then to not even have power to choose the interventions that you want or to be able to access interventions in a timely fashion because you’re being held to some arbitrary guideline further takes away the power and further exacerbates the trauma of the experience.”

The biggest factor likely driving the reduced access to those interventions is the fear that the care could be confused with providing an abortion instead of simply managing a miscarriage, Dr. Flink-Bochacki said. “I think that’s why a lot of these programs don’t have mifepristone and don’t offer outpatient uterine aspiration,” she said. “Because those are so widely used in abortion and the connotation is with abortion, they’re just kind of steering clear of it, but meanwhile, patients with pregnancy loss are suffering because they’re being unnecessarily restrictive.”

The research did not use any external funding, and the authors and Dr. Heuser had no disclosures.

BALTIMORE – Training hospitals that have state or institutional abortion restrictions are less likely to follow the evidence-based standard of care in diagnosing and managing miscarriages, including taking patient preferences into account, according to a cross-sectional study presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The results revealed that “abortion restrictions have far-reaching effects on early pregnancy loss care and on resident education,” the researchers concluded.

“Abortion restrictions don’t just affect people seeking abortions; they affect people also suffering from early pregnancy loss,” Aurora Phillips, MD, an ob.gyn. resident at Albany (N.Y.) Medical Center, said in an interview. “It’s harder to make that diagnosis and to be able to offer interventions, and these institutions that had restrictions also were less likely to have mifepristone or office based human aspiration, which are the most efficient and cost-effective interventions that we have.”

For example, less than half the programs surveyed offered mifepristone to help manage a miscarriage, “with availability varying inversely with abortion restrictions,” they found. After considering all characteristics of residency programs, “institutional abortion restrictions and bans were more important than state policies or religious affiliation in determining whether evidence-based early pregnancy loss treatments were available,” the researchers found, though their findings predated the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade. “Training institutions with a commitment to evidence-based family planning care and education are able to ensure access to the most evidence-based, cost-effective, and timely treatments for pregnancy loss even in the face of state abortion restrictions, thereby preserving patient safety, physician competency, and health care system sustainability,” they wrote.
 

Reduced access leads to higher risk interventions

An estimated 10%-20% of pregnancies result in early miscarriage, totaling more than one million cases in the U.S. each year. But since treatments for miscarriage often overlap with those for abortion, the researchers wondered whether differences existed in how providers managed miscarriages in states or institutions with strict abortion restrictions versus management in hospitals without restrictions.

They also looked at how closely the management strategies adhered to ACOG’s recommendations, which advise that providers consider both ultrasound imaging and other factors, including clinical reasoning and patient preferences, before diagnosing early pregnancy loss and considering possible interventions.

For imaging guidelines, ACOG endorses the criteria established for ultrasound diagnosis of first trimester pregnancy loss from the Society of Radiologists in 2012. But, the authors note, these guidelines are very conservative, exceeding previous measurements that had a 99%-100% predictive value for pregnancy loss, in the interest of “[prioritizing preservation of] fetal potential over facilitating expeditious care.” Hence the reason ACOG advises providers to include clinical judgment and patient preferences in their approach to care.

”In places where abortion is heavily regulated, clinicians managing miscarriages may cautiously rely on the strictest criteria to differentiate early pregnancy loss from potentially viable pregnancy and may not offer certain treatments commonly associated with abortion,” the authors noted. ACOG recommends surgical aspiration and medical treatment with both mifepristone and misoprostol as the safest and most effective options in managing miscarriages.

“Treating early pregnancy loss without the use of mifepristone is more likely to fail, is more likely to require an unscheduled procedure, and people who choose medication management for their miscarriages are usually trying to avoid a procedure, so that is the downside of not using mifepristone,” coauthor Rachel M. Flink-Bochacki, MD, an associate professor at Albany (N.Y.) Medical Center, said in an interview.

“Office-based uterine aspiration has the same safety profile as uterine aspiration in the operating room minus the risks of anesthesia and also helps patients get in faster because they don’t need to wait for OR time,” Dr. Flink-Bochacki explained. “So again, for a patient who wants an aspiration and does not want to pass the pregnancy at home, not having access to office-based aspiration could lead them to miscarry at home, which has higher risks and is not what they wanted.”
 

Reduced access to miscarriage care options in ‘hostile’ states

Among all 296 U.S. ob.gyn. residency programs that were contacted between November 2021 and January 2022, half (50.3%) responded to the researchers’ survey about their institutional practices around miscarriage, including location of diagnosis, use of ultrasound diagnostic guidelines, treatment options offered by their institution, and institutional restrictions on abortions based on indication.

The survey also collected characteristics of each program, including its state, setting, religious affiliation, and affiliation with the Ryan Training Program in Abortion and Family Planning. The responding sample had similar geographic distribution and state abortion policies as those who did not respond, but the responding programs were slightly more likely to be academic programs and to be affiliated with the Ryan program.

At the time of the study, prior to the Dobbs ruling, more than half the U.S. states had legislation restricting abortion care, and 57% of national teaching hospitals had internal restrictions that limited care based on gestational age and indication, particularly if the indication was elective, the authors reported. The researchers relied on designations from the Guttmacher Institute in December 2020 to categorize states as “hostile” to abortion (very hostile, hostile, and leans hostile) or non-hostile (neutral, leans supportive, supportive, and very supportive).

Most of the programs (80%) had no religious affiliation, but 11% had a Catholic affiliation and 5% had a different Christian affiliation. Institutional policies either had no restrictions on abortion care (38%), had restrictions (39%) based on certain maternal or fetal indications, or completely banned abortion services unless the mother’s life was threatened (23%). Among the Christian-affiliated programs, 60% had bans and 40% had restrictions.

Half (49.7%) of the responding programs relied rigidly on ultrasound criteria before offering any intervention for suspected early pregnancy loss, regardless of patient preferences. The other half (50.3%) incorporated ultrasound criteria and other factors, including clinical judgment and patient preferences, into a holistic determination of what options to present to the patient.

Before accounting for other factors, the researchers found that only a third (33%) of programs in states with severe abortion restrictions considered additional factors besides imaging when offering patients options for miscarriage management. In states without such abortion restrictions, 79% of programs considered both imaging and other factors (P < .001).

In states with “hostile abortion legislation,” only 32% of the programs used mifepristone for miscarriage management, compared with 75% of the programs in states without onerous abortion restrictions (P < .001). The results were similar for use of office-based suction aspiration: Just under half the programs (48%) in states with severe abortion restrictions included this technique as part of standard miscarriage management, compared with 68% of programs in states without such restrictions (P = .014).

Those findings match up with the experience of Cara Heuser, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist from Salt Lake City, who was not involved in this study.

“We had a lot of restrictions even before Roe fell,” including heavy regulation of mifepristone, Dr. Heuser said in an interview. “In non-restricted states, it’s pretty easy to get, but even before Roe in our state, it was very, very difficult to get institutions and individual doctor’s offices to carry mifepristone to treat miscarriages. They were still treating miscarriages in a way that was known to be less effective.” Adding mifepristone to misoprostol reduces the risk of needing an evacuation surgery procedure, she explained, “so adding the mifepristone makes it safer.”
 

Institutional policies had the strongest impact

Before accounting for the state a hospital was in, 27% of institutions with restrictive abortion policies looked at more than imaging in determining how to proceed, compared with 88% of institutions without abortion restrictions that included clinical judgment and patient preferences in their management.

After controlling for state policies and affiliation with a family planning training program or a religious entity, the odds of an institution relying solely on imaging guidelines were over 12 times greater for institutions with abortion restrictions or bans (odds ratio, 12.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.2-47.9). Specifically, the odds were 9 times greater for institutions with restrictions and 27 times greater for institutions with bans.

Only 12% of the institutions without restrictions relied solely on ultrasound criteria, compared with 67% of the institutions with restrictions and 82% of the institutions that banned all abortions except to save the life of the pregnant individual (P < .001).

Only one in four (25%) of the programs with institutional abortion restrictions used mifepristone, compared with 86% of unrestricted programs (P < .001), and 40% of programs with institutional abortion restrictions used office-based aspiration, compared with 81% of unrestricted programs (P < .001).

Without access to all evidence-based treatments, doctors are often forced to choose expectant management for miscarriages. “So you’re kind of forced to have them to pass the pregnancy at home, which can be traumatic for patients” if that’s not what they wanted, Dr. Phillips said.

Dr. Flink-Bochacki further noted that this patient population is already particularly vulnerable.

“Especially for patients with early pregnancy loss, it’s such a feeling of powerlessness already, so the mental state that many of these patients are in is already quite fraught,” Dr. Flink-Bochacki said. “Then to not even have power to choose the interventions that you want or to be able to access interventions in a timely fashion because you’re being held to some arbitrary guideline further takes away the power and further exacerbates the trauma of the experience.”

The biggest factor likely driving the reduced access to those interventions is the fear that the care could be confused with providing an abortion instead of simply managing a miscarriage, Dr. Flink-Bochacki said. “I think that’s why a lot of these programs don’t have mifepristone and don’t offer outpatient uterine aspiration,” she said. “Because those are so widely used in abortion and the connotation is with abortion, they’re just kind of steering clear of it, but meanwhile, patients with pregnancy loss are suffering because they’re being unnecessarily restrictive.”

The research did not use any external funding, and the authors and Dr. Heuser had no disclosures.

BALTIMORE – Training hospitals that have state or institutional abortion restrictions are less likely to follow the evidence-based standard of care in diagnosing and managing miscarriages, including taking patient preferences into account, according to a cross-sectional study presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The results revealed that “abortion restrictions have far-reaching effects on early pregnancy loss care and on resident education,” the researchers concluded.

“Abortion restrictions don’t just affect people seeking abortions; they affect people also suffering from early pregnancy loss,” Aurora Phillips, MD, an ob.gyn. resident at Albany (N.Y.) Medical Center, said in an interview. “It’s harder to make that diagnosis and to be able to offer interventions, and these institutions that had restrictions also were less likely to have mifepristone or office based human aspiration, which are the most efficient and cost-effective interventions that we have.”

For example, less than half the programs surveyed offered mifepristone to help manage a miscarriage, “with availability varying inversely with abortion restrictions,” they found. After considering all characteristics of residency programs, “institutional abortion restrictions and bans were more important than state policies or religious affiliation in determining whether evidence-based early pregnancy loss treatments were available,” the researchers found, though their findings predated the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade. “Training institutions with a commitment to evidence-based family planning care and education are able to ensure access to the most evidence-based, cost-effective, and timely treatments for pregnancy loss even in the face of state abortion restrictions, thereby preserving patient safety, physician competency, and health care system sustainability,” they wrote.
 

Reduced access leads to higher risk interventions

An estimated 10%-20% of pregnancies result in early miscarriage, totaling more than one million cases in the U.S. each year. But since treatments for miscarriage often overlap with those for abortion, the researchers wondered whether differences existed in how providers managed miscarriages in states or institutions with strict abortion restrictions versus management in hospitals without restrictions.

They also looked at how closely the management strategies adhered to ACOG’s recommendations, which advise that providers consider both ultrasound imaging and other factors, including clinical reasoning and patient preferences, before diagnosing early pregnancy loss and considering possible interventions.

For imaging guidelines, ACOG endorses the criteria established for ultrasound diagnosis of first trimester pregnancy loss from the Society of Radiologists in 2012. But, the authors note, these guidelines are very conservative, exceeding previous measurements that had a 99%-100% predictive value for pregnancy loss, in the interest of “[prioritizing preservation of] fetal potential over facilitating expeditious care.” Hence the reason ACOG advises providers to include clinical judgment and patient preferences in their approach to care.

”In places where abortion is heavily regulated, clinicians managing miscarriages may cautiously rely on the strictest criteria to differentiate early pregnancy loss from potentially viable pregnancy and may not offer certain treatments commonly associated with abortion,” the authors noted. ACOG recommends surgical aspiration and medical treatment with both mifepristone and misoprostol as the safest and most effective options in managing miscarriages.

“Treating early pregnancy loss without the use of mifepristone is more likely to fail, is more likely to require an unscheduled procedure, and people who choose medication management for their miscarriages are usually trying to avoid a procedure, so that is the downside of not using mifepristone,” coauthor Rachel M. Flink-Bochacki, MD, an associate professor at Albany (N.Y.) Medical Center, said in an interview.

“Office-based uterine aspiration has the same safety profile as uterine aspiration in the operating room minus the risks of anesthesia and also helps patients get in faster because they don’t need to wait for OR time,” Dr. Flink-Bochacki explained. “So again, for a patient who wants an aspiration and does not want to pass the pregnancy at home, not having access to office-based aspiration could lead them to miscarry at home, which has higher risks and is not what they wanted.”
 

Reduced access to miscarriage care options in ‘hostile’ states

Among all 296 U.S. ob.gyn. residency programs that were contacted between November 2021 and January 2022, half (50.3%) responded to the researchers’ survey about their institutional practices around miscarriage, including location of diagnosis, use of ultrasound diagnostic guidelines, treatment options offered by their institution, and institutional restrictions on abortions based on indication.

The survey also collected characteristics of each program, including its state, setting, religious affiliation, and affiliation with the Ryan Training Program in Abortion and Family Planning. The responding sample had similar geographic distribution and state abortion policies as those who did not respond, but the responding programs were slightly more likely to be academic programs and to be affiliated with the Ryan program.

At the time of the study, prior to the Dobbs ruling, more than half the U.S. states had legislation restricting abortion care, and 57% of national teaching hospitals had internal restrictions that limited care based on gestational age and indication, particularly if the indication was elective, the authors reported. The researchers relied on designations from the Guttmacher Institute in December 2020 to categorize states as “hostile” to abortion (very hostile, hostile, and leans hostile) or non-hostile (neutral, leans supportive, supportive, and very supportive).

Most of the programs (80%) had no religious affiliation, but 11% had a Catholic affiliation and 5% had a different Christian affiliation. Institutional policies either had no restrictions on abortion care (38%), had restrictions (39%) based on certain maternal or fetal indications, or completely banned abortion services unless the mother’s life was threatened (23%). Among the Christian-affiliated programs, 60% had bans and 40% had restrictions.

Half (49.7%) of the responding programs relied rigidly on ultrasound criteria before offering any intervention for suspected early pregnancy loss, regardless of patient preferences. The other half (50.3%) incorporated ultrasound criteria and other factors, including clinical judgment and patient preferences, into a holistic determination of what options to present to the patient.

Before accounting for other factors, the researchers found that only a third (33%) of programs in states with severe abortion restrictions considered additional factors besides imaging when offering patients options for miscarriage management. In states without such abortion restrictions, 79% of programs considered both imaging and other factors (P < .001).

In states with “hostile abortion legislation,” only 32% of the programs used mifepristone for miscarriage management, compared with 75% of the programs in states without onerous abortion restrictions (P < .001). The results were similar for use of office-based suction aspiration: Just under half the programs (48%) in states with severe abortion restrictions included this technique as part of standard miscarriage management, compared with 68% of programs in states without such restrictions (P = .014).

Those findings match up with the experience of Cara Heuser, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist from Salt Lake City, who was not involved in this study.

“We had a lot of restrictions even before Roe fell,” including heavy regulation of mifepristone, Dr. Heuser said in an interview. “In non-restricted states, it’s pretty easy to get, but even before Roe in our state, it was very, very difficult to get institutions and individual doctor’s offices to carry mifepristone to treat miscarriages. They were still treating miscarriages in a way that was known to be less effective.” Adding mifepristone to misoprostol reduces the risk of needing an evacuation surgery procedure, she explained, “so adding the mifepristone makes it safer.”
 

Institutional policies had the strongest impact

Before accounting for the state a hospital was in, 27% of institutions with restrictive abortion policies looked at more than imaging in determining how to proceed, compared with 88% of institutions without abortion restrictions that included clinical judgment and patient preferences in their management.

After controlling for state policies and affiliation with a family planning training program or a religious entity, the odds of an institution relying solely on imaging guidelines were over 12 times greater for institutions with abortion restrictions or bans (odds ratio, 12.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.2-47.9). Specifically, the odds were 9 times greater for institutions with restrictions and 27 times greater for institutions with bans.

Only 12% of the institutions without restrictions relied solely on ultrasound criteria, compared with 67% of the institutions with restrictions and 82% of the institutions that banned all abortions except to save the life of the pregnant individual (P < .001).

Only one in four (25%) of the programs with institutional abortion restrictions used mifepristone, compared with 86% of unrestricted programs (P < .001), and 40% of programs with institutional abortion restrictions used office-based aspiration, compared with 81% of unrestricted programs (P < .001).

Without access to all evidence-based treatments, doctors are often forced to choose expectant management for miscarriages. “So you’re kind of forced to have them to pass the pregnancy at home, which can be traumatic for patients” if that’s not what they wanted, Dr. Phillips said.

Dr. Flink-Bochacki further noted that this patient population is already particularly vulnerable.

“Especially for patients with early pregnancy loss, it’s such a feeling of powerlessness already, so the mental state that many of these patients are in is already quite fraught,” Dr. Flink-Bochacki said. “Then to not even have power to choose the interventions that you want or to be able to access interventions in a timely fashion because you’re being held to some arbitrary guideline further takes away the power and further exacerbates the trauma of the experience.”

The biggest factor likely driving the reduced access to those interventions is the fear that the care could be confused with providing an abortion instead of simply managing a miscarriage, Dr. Flink-Bochacki said. “I think that’s why a lot of these programs don’t have mifepristone and don’t offer outpatient uterine aspiration,” she said. “Because those are so widely used in abortion and the connotation is with abortion, they’re just kind of steering clear of it, but meanwhile, patients with pregnancy loss are suffering because they’re being unnecessarily restrictive.”

The research did not use any external funding, and the authors and Dr. Heuser had no disclosures.