MDedge Cardiology

Life expectancy in the United States plateaued in recent years, and persistent racial disparities vary by state, according to an analysis of death records and Census data from 1990 to 2019.

“Life expectancy is an important measure of the health of the entire population,” corresponding author Gregory Roth, MD, a cardiologist at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “We know race, ethnicity and where you live all affect health, but we wanted to look at the long arc over many decades to understand where subpopulations have been, and where they are headed. Also, it is important to understand how race and place interact, so we looked at race/ethnicity groups within each state to see where disparities exist that need to be addressed.”

In the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers led by Catherine O. Johnson, PhD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, reviewed data from 23 states, using regression models based on Census data and deidentified death records. They examined life expectancy for subgroups of individuals reporting Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, or non-Hispanic White race or ethnicity.

Overall, most states showed an improvement in life expectancy between 1990 and 2019. For women, the mean life expectancy across states increased from 79.3 years in 1990 to 81.3 years in 2019. For men, the mean life expectancy across states increased from 72.6 years in 1990 to 76.3 years in 2019.

However, the researchers found significant disparities across the three racial subgroups between and within states when life expectancy was examined by race/ethnicity, independent of the average life expectancy for an entire state overall. They defined disparity as the difference in life expectancy between states for those in different racial/ethnic groups.

Without considering race/ethnicity, disparities in life expectancy across states decreased from 8.0 years and 12.2 years in 1990 to 7.9 and 7.8 years in 2019, for females and males, respectively.

When race/ethnicity was taken into account, disparities in life expectancy decreased, but the differences across states were greater than when race was not considered; 20.7 years for females and 24.5 years for males in 1990, decreasing to 18.5 years for females and 23.7 years for males in 2019.

Despite the overall improvements, disparities in life expectancy persisted across all states within each race/ethnicity group.

Among females, for example, non-Hispanic Black females had the lowest mean life expectancy across states in 1990 (74.2 years) but had the greatest improvement on average (6.9% increase) by 2019. However, the mean LE for non-Hispanic Black females remained lower than it did for non-Hispanic White and Hispanic females.

Among males, the researchers found differences in life expectancies across states between the people of the three different ethnicities they studied. The greatest difference in life expectancies in 1990 was 24.5 years. This occurred between non-Hispanic Black males in the District of Columbia and Hispanic males in Georgia. The life expectancy for these non-Hispanic Black males was 59.4 years, versus 83.8 years for these Hispanic males that year.

This reduced life expectancy for non-Hispanic Black males persisted, although it improved slightly by 2019. That year, the largest race-based disparity – which was approximately 24 years – occurred between non-Hispanic Black males in the District of Columbia and Hispanic males in Virginia. For the Hispanic males in Virgina, the LE was 90.7 years versus 66.9 years for non-Hispanic Black males in the District of Columbia.

The findings were limited by several factors including the review of data from only 23 states, the focus on life expectancy from birth versus other ages, and the challenges of defining Hispanic ethnicity, the researchers noted. However, the results support that the potential use of state-level analysis that includes race/ethnicity could be a valuable tool for measuring health inequity as part of national average trends, they said.
 

Health has truly stagnated for some in certain states

“Subpopulations in some states have much longer life expectancy now than 30 years ago. But in some states, we were struck by how health has truly stagnated for some,” Dr. Roth said in an interview. “We were surprised by the scale of the overall gap; a difference of about 8 years between states is more than twice that if you drill down to race/ethnicity groups in each state.”

A key message from the study is the need for all clinicians to advocate for improved access to primary care, “which is increasingly hard to obtain for many people,” said Dr. Roth. “So much of health is determined by key risk factors such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, obesity, diabetes, alcohol use, tobacco use. But many of the determinants of health are not in the healthcare system, and include efforts to improve education, interrupt cycles of poverty, and teach healthy behaviors at a very young age. “Racism remains a underdiscussed part of these disparities, and we need better ways to measure the impact of social policies that end up impacting health down the road,” he said.

Looking ahead: “There is a lot to be learned from the states that have improved life expectancy the most. We need researchers to work together to identify and communicate what are those best practices, and what state governments can do to play their part.”

State-level differences reveal variations in health care

“The findings add to our growing knowledge of large and persistent racial/ethnic health disparities and changes in disparities during recent stagnation in U.S. life expectancy,” wrote Hedwig Lee, PhD, of Washington University in St. Louis, and Kathleen M. Harris, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in an accompanying editorial.

The focus on state-level differences provides a unique window into the huge variation in life expectancy by race/ethnicity across the United States. The data suggest that “a person’s life expectancy in the United States may depend more on where you live than it has in the past,” they noted. For example, the editorialists highlighted that life expectancy for non-Hispanic Black men in 2019 averaged 81.1 years in Rhode Island, but 66.9 years in the District of Columbia.

They also noted the study’s lack of data for many states with high mortality rates and high proportions of non-Hispanic Black persons, Hispanic persons, and those with low socioeconomic states. Including data from these areas may have yielded even greater disparities in life expectancy.

“Despite substantial declines in mortality among Black persons during the study period, a non-Hispanic Black person’s life expectancy remained persistently lower than that of non-Hispanic White and Hispanic persons, both within and across states,” the editorialists wrote. “Future research needs to unpack the complex web of factors driving health and well-being by enabling better understanding of the places where we see persistent health disadvantage and advantage and the state-based explanations for these increasingly important differences determining population risk and resilience. We should be outraged by disparities in longevity and called to act to eliminate them.”
 

Identifying the problem is the first step

“In order to address or fix a problem we should first identify and quantify the problem,” Noel Deep, MD, an internal medicine physician in private practice in Antigo, Wisc., said in an interview.

“This study provides us with the information regarding the trends in life expectancy within states and the disparities in life expectancy when race/ ethnicity and gender are factored into the equation,” said Dr. Deep, who was not involved in the study. “Based on previously available data, we are aware of the increase in life expectancy in the United States over the last few decades, as well as differences in life expectancy for the different ethnicities/races and genders, but these data provide averages, not state or geographical differences. By having this knowledge at a state level, we can use that data to make health policies that address those health inequities and allocate appropriate resources at a state or local level.”

Several studies have identified disparities in health care and life expectancy based on the zip codes, such as the U.S. Small-Area Life Expectancy Estimates Project in 2018. The current study “provides further information for health care professionals and policy makers about the disparities in health outcomes and life expectancy based on race as well as gender, and it is quite detailed,” he said. 

“As clinicians, we should strive to ensure that we are addressing these health inequities through our provision of clinical care and through our advocacy on behalf of our patients so that our nation’s health will improve overall,” he said.

“I would like to see future studies look at the socioeconomic status (income), urban versus rural residence, and place of birth (especially for immigrants),” said Dr. Deep. He also emphasized a need for studies to include the demographics for Hispanic populations; given the possible selection error “because of only healthy individuals immigrating to the United States or the older sicker Hispanics who might be migrating back to their homelands and not being included in the data and falsely increasing the life expectancy for this race/ ethnic groups.

“I would also like to see some research into the cultural and social factors that might explain why Hispanic populations might have a higher life expectancy even if their socioeconomic status is poor,” he said.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News and as chair of the AMA’s Council on Science and Public Health.

Life expectancy in the United States plateaued in recent years, and persistent racial disparities vary by state, according to an analysis of death records and Census data from 1990 to 2019.

“Life expectancy is an important measure of the health of the entire population,” corresponding author Gregory Roth, MD, a cardiologist at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “We know race, ethnicity and where you live all affect health, but we wanted to look at the long arc over many decades to understand where subpopulations have been, and where they are headed. Also, it is important to understand how race and place interact, so we looked at race/ethnicity groups within each state to see where disparities exist that need to be addressed.”

In the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers led by Catherine O. Johnson, PhD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, reviewed data from 23 states, using regression models based on Census data and deidentified death records. They examined life expectancy for subgroups of individuals reporting Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, or non-Hispanic White race or ethnicity.

Overall, most states showed an improvement in life expectancy between 1990 and 2019. For women, the mean life expectancy across states increased from 79.3 years in 1990 to 81.3 years in 2019. For men, the mean life expectancy across states increased from 72.6 years in 1990 to 76.3 years in 2019.

However, the researchers found significant disparities across the three racial subgroups between and within states when life expectancy was examined by race/ethnicity, independent of the average life expectancy for an entire state overall. They defined disparity as the difference in life expectancy between states for those in different racial/ethnic groups.

Without considering race/ethnicity, disparities in life expectancy across states decreased from 8.0 years and 12.2 years in 1990 to 7.9 and 7.8 years in 2019, for females and males, respectively.

When race/ethnicity was taken into account, disparities in life expectancy decreased, but the differences across states were greater than when race was not considered; 20.7 years for females and 24.5 years for males in 1990, decreasing to 18.5 years for females and 23.7 years for males in 2019.

Despite the overall improvements, disparities in life expectancy persisted across all states within each race/ethnicity group.

Among females, for example, non-Hispanic Black females had the lowest mean life expectancy across states in 1990 (74.2 years) but had the greatest improvement on average (6.9% increase) by 2019. However, the mean LE for non-Hispanic Black females remained lower than it did for non-Hispanic White and Hispanic females.

Among males, the researchers found differences in life expectancies across states between the people of the three different ethnicities they studied. The greatest difference in life expectancies in 1990 was 24.5 years. This occurred between non-Hispanic Black males in the District of Columbia and Hispanic males in Georgia. The life expectancy for these non-Hispanic Black males was 59.4 years, versus 83.8 years for these Hispanic males that year.

This reduced life expectancy for non-Hispanic Black males persisted, although it improved slightly by 2019. That year, the largest race-based disparity – which was approximately 24 years – occurred between non-Hispanic Black males in the District of Columbia and Hispanic males in Virginia. For the Hispanic males in Virgina, the LE was 90.7 years versus 66.9 years for non-Hispanic Black males in the District of Columbia.

The findings were limited by several factors including the review of data from only 23 states, the focus on life expectancy from birth versus other ages, and the challenges of defining Hispanic ethnicity, the researchers noted. However, the results support that the potential use of state-level analysis that includes race/ethnicity could be a valuable tool for measuring health inequity as part of national average trends, they said.
 

Health has truly stagnated for some in certain states

“Subpopulations in some states have much longer life expectancy now than 30 years ago. But in some states, we were struck by how health has truly stagnated for some,” Dr. Roth said in an interview. “We were surprised by the scale of the overall gap; a difference of about 8 years between states is more than twice that if you drill down to race/ethnicity groups in each state.”

A key message from the study is the need for all clinicians to advocate for improved access to primary care, “which is increasingly hard to obtain for many people,” said Dr. Roth. “So much of health is determined by key risk factors such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, obesity, diabetes, alcohol use, tobacco use. But many of the determinants of health are not in the healthcare system, and include efforts to improve education, interrupt cycles of poverty, and teach healthy behaviors at a very young age. “Racism remains a underdiscussed part of these disparities, and we need better ways to measure the impact of social policies that end up impacting health down the road,” he said.

Looking ahead: “There is a lot to be learned from the states that have improved life expectancy the most. We need researchers to work together to identify and communicate what are those best practices, and what state governments can do to play their part.”

State-level differences reveal variations in health care

“The findings add to our growing knowledge of large and persistent racial/ethnic health disparities and changes in disparities during recent stagnation in U.S. life expectancy,” wrote Hedwig Lee, PhD, of Washington University in St. Louis, and Kathleen M. Harris, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in an accompanying editorial.

The focus on state-level differences provides a unique window into the huge variation in life expectancy by race/ethnicity across the United States. The data suggest that “a person’s life expectancy in the United States may depend more on where you live than it has in the past,” they noted. For example, the editorialists highlighted that life expectancy for non-Hispanic Black men in 2019 averaged 81.1 years in Rhode Island, but 66.9 years in the District of Columbia.

They also noted the study’s lack of data for many states with high mortality rates and high proportions of non-Hispanic Black persons, Hispanic persons, and those with low socioeconomic states. Including data from these areas may have yielded even greater disparities in life expectancy.

“Despite substantial declines in mortality among Black persons during the study period, a non-Hispanic Black person’s life expectancy remained persistently lower than that of non-Hispanic White and Hispanic persons, both within and across states,” the editorialists wrote. “Future research needs to unpack the complex web of factors driving health and well-being by enabling better understanding of the places where we see persistent health disadvantage and advantage and the state-based explanations for these increasingly important differences determining population risk and resilience. We should be outraged by disparities in longevity and called to act to eliminate them.”
 

Identifying the problem is the first step

“In order to address or fix a problem we should first identify and quantify the problem,” Noel Deep, MD, an internal medicine physician in private practice in Antigo, Wisc., said in an interview.

“This study provides us with the information regarding the trends in life expectancy within states and the disparities in life expectancy when race/ ethnicity and gender are factored into the equation,” said Dr. Deep, who was not involved in the study. “Based on previously available data, we are aware of the increase in life expectancy in the United States over the last few decades, as well as differences in life expectancy for the different ethnicities/races and genders, but these data provide averages, not state or geographical differences. By having this knowledge at a state level, we can use that data to make health policies that address those health inequities and allocate appropriate resources at a state or local level.”

Several studies have identified disparities in health care and life expectancy based on the zip codes, such as the U.S. Small-Area Life Expectancy Estimates Project in 2018. The current study “provides further information for health care professionals and policy makers about the disparities in health outcomes and life expectancy based on race as well as gender, and it is quite detailed,” he said. 

“As clinicians, we should strive to ensure that we are addressing these health inequities through our provision of clinical care and through our advocacy on behalf of our patients so that our nation’s health will improve overall,” he said.

“I would like to see future studies look at the socioeconomic status (income), urban versus rural residence, and place of birth (especially for immigrants),” said Dr. Deep. He also emphasized a need for studies to include the demographics for Hispanic populations; given the possible selection error “because of only healthy individuals immigrating to the United States or the older sicker Hispanics who might be migrating back to their homelands and not being included in the data and falsely increasing the life expectancy for this race/ ethnic groups.

“I would also like to see some research into the cultural and social factors that might explain why Hispanic populations might have a higher life expectancy even if their socioeconomic status is poor,” he said.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News and as chair of the AMA’s Council on Science and Public Health.

Life expectancy in the United States plateaued in recent years, and persistent racial disparities vary by state, according to an analysis of death records and Census data from 1990 to 2019.

“Life expectancy is an important measure of the health of the entire population,” corresponding author Gregory Roth, MD, a cardiologist at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “We know race, ethnicity and where you live all affect health, but we wanted to look at the long arc over many decades to understand where subpopulations have been, and where they are headed. Also, it is important to understand how race and place interact, so we looked at race/ethnicity groups within each state to see where disparities exist that need to be addressed.”

In the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers led by Catherine O. Johnson, PhD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, reviewed data from 23 states, using regression models based on Census data and deidentified death records. They examined life expectancy for subgroups of individuals reporting Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, or non-Hispanic White race or ethnicity.

Overall, most states showed an improvement in life expectancy between 1990 and 2019. For women, the mean life expectancy across states increased from 79.3 years in 1990 to 81.3 years in 2019. For men, the mean life expectancy across states increased from 72.6 years in 1990 to 76.3 years in 2019.

However, the researchers found significant disparities across the three racial subgroups between and within states when life expectancy was examined by race/ethnicity, independent of the average life expectancy for an entire state overall. They defined disparity as the difference in life expectancy between states for those in different racial/ethnic groups.

Without considering race/ethnicity, disparities in life expectancy across states decreased from 8.0 years and 12.2 years in 1990 to 7.9 and 7.8 years in 2019, for females and males, respectively.

When race/ethnicity was taken into account, disparities in life expectancy decreased, but the differences across states were greater than when race was not considered; 20.7 years for females and 24.5 years for males in 1990, decreasing to 18.5 years for females and 23.7 years for males in 2019.

Despite the overall improvements, disparities in life expectancy persisted across all states within each race/ethnicity group.

Among females, for example, non-Hispanic Black females had the lowest mean life expectancy across states in 1990 (74.2 years) but had the greatest improvement on average (6.9% increase) by 2019. However, the mean LE for non-Hispanic Black females remained lower than it did for non-Hispanic White and Hispanic females.

Among males, the researchers found differences in life expectancies across states between the people of the three different ethnicities they studied. The greatest difference in life expectancies in 1990 was 24.5 years. This occurred between non-Hispanic Black males in the District of Columbia and Hispanic males in Georgia. The life expectancy for these non-Hispanic Black males was 59.4 years, versus 83.8 years for these Hispanic males that year.

This reduced life expectancy for non-Hispanic Black males persisted, although it improved slightly by 2019. That year, the largest race-based disparity – which was approximately 24 years – occurred between non-Hispanic Black males in the District of Columbia and Hispanic males in Virginia. For the Hispanic males in Virgina, the LE was 90.7 years versus 66.9 years for non-Hispanic Black males in the District of Columbia.

The findings were limited by several factors including the review of data from only 23 states, the focus on life expectancy from birth versus other ages, and the challenges of defining Hispanic ethnicity, the researchers noted. However, the results support that the potential use of state-level analysis that includes race/ethnicity could be a valuable tool for measuring health inequity as part of national average trends, they said.
 

Health has truly stagnated for some in certain states

“Subpopulations in some states have much longer life expectancy now than 30 years ago. But in some states, we were struck by how health has truly stagnated for some,” Dr. Roth said in an interview. “We were surprised by the scale of the overall gap; a difference of about 8 years between states is more than twice that if you drill down to race/ethnicity groups in each state.”

A key message from the study is the need for all clinicians to advocate for improved access to primary care, “which is increasingly hard to obtain for many people,” said Dr. Roth. “So much of health is determined by key risk factors such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, obesity, diabetes, alcohol use, tobacco use. But many of the determinants of health are not in the healthcare system, and include efforts to improve education, interrupt cycles of poverty, and teach healthy behaviors at a very young age. “Racism remains a underdiscussed part of these disparities, and we need better ways to measure the impact of social policies that end up impacting health down the road,” he said.

Looking ahead: “There is a lot to be learned from the states that have improved life expectancy the most. We need researchers to work together to identify and communicate what are those best practices, and what state governments can do to play their part.”

State-level differences reveal variations in health care

“The findings add to our growing knowledge of large and persistent racial/ethnic health disparities and changes in disparities during recent stagnation in U.S. life expectancy,” wrote Hedwig Lee, PhD, of Washington University in St. Louis, and Kathleen M. Harris, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in an accompanying editorial.

The focus on state-level differences provides a unique window into the huge variation in life expectancy by race/ethnicity across the United States. The data suggest that “a person’s life expectancy in the United States may depend more on where you live than it has in the past,” they noted. For example, the editorialists highlighted that life expectancy for non-Hispanic Black men in 2019 averaged 81.1 years in Rhode Island, but 66.9 years in the District of Columbia.

They also noted the study’s lack of data for many states with high mortality rates and high proportions of non-Hispanic Black persons, Hispanic persons, and those with low socioeconomic states. Including data from these areas may have yielded even greater disparities in life expectancy.

“Despite substantial declines in mortality among Black persons during the study period, a non-Hispanic Black person’s life expectancy remained persistently lower than that of non-Hispanic White and Hispanic persons, both within and across states,” the editorialists wrote. “Future research needs to unpack the complex web of factors driving health and well-being by enabling better understanding of the places where we see persistent health disadvantage and advantage and the state-based explanations for these increasingly important differences determining population risk and resilience. We should be outraged by disparities in longevity and called to act to eliminate them.”
 

Identifying the problem is the first step

“In order to address or fix a problem we should first identify and quantify the problem,” Noel Deep, MD, an internal medicine physician in private practice in Antigo, Wisc., said in an interview.

“This study provides us with the information regarding the trends in life expectancy within states and the disparities in life expectancy when race/ ethnicity and gender are factored into the equation,” said Dr. Deep, who was not involved in the study. “Based on previously available data, we are aware of the increase in life expectancy in the United States over the last few decades, as well as differences in life expectancy for the different ethnicities/races and genders, but these data provide averages, not state or geographical differences. By having this knowledge at a state level, we can use that data to make health policies that address those health inequities and allocate appropriate resources at a state or local level.”

Several studies have identified disparities in health care and life expectancy based on the zip codes, such as the U.S. Small-Area Life Expectancy Estimates Project in 2018. The current study “provides further information for health care professionals and policy makers about the disparities in health outcomes and life expectancy based on race as well as gender, and it is quite detailed,” he said. 

“As clinicians, we should strive to ensure that we are addressing these health inequities through our provision of clinical care and through our advocacy on behalf of our patients so that our nation’s health will improve overall,” he said.

“I would like to see future studies look at the socioeconomic status (income), urban versus rural residence, and place of birth (especially for immigrants),” said Dr. Deep. He also emphasized a need for studies to include the demographics for Hispanic populations; given the possible selection error “because of only healthy individuals immigrating to the United States or the older sicker Hispanics who might be migrating back to their homelands and not being included in the data and falsely increasing the life expectancy for this race/ ethnic groups.

“I would also like to see some research into the cultural and social factors that might explain why Hispanic populations might have a higher life expectancy even if their socioeconomic status is poor,” he said.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News and as chair of the AMA’s Council on Science and Public Health.

Cardiologist Martha Gulati, from the American Society for Preventive Cardiology, offers insight on the key findings in diabetes and heart disease presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.  

First, Dr Gulati shares updates from the SCORED trial, which looked at SGLT2 inhibitors and cardiovascular and renal event reduction in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease.  

Next, she shares insight on CHAP, an important study about chronic hypertension in pregnancy. Researchers found that more aggressive blood pressure control reduced adverse pregnancy outcomes.  

She then discusses the SuperWIN trial, which looked at various types of educational interventions regarding heart-healthy diet provided in supermarkets. The goal of this study was to assess adherence to the DASH diet.  

Dr Gulati closes her report with the PROMPT-HF trial, which aimed at improving the use of guideline-directed medical therapy in outpatients with heart failure. 

--

President, American Society for Preventive Cardiology, Jacksonville, Florida 

Martha Gulati, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

Cardiologist Martha Gulati, from the American Society for Preventive Cardiology, offers insight on the key findings in diabetes and heart disease presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.  

First, Dr Gulati shares updates from the SCORED trial, which looked at SGLT2 inhibitors and cardiovascular and renal event reduction in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease.  

Next, she shares insight on CHAP, an important study about chronic hypertension in pregnancy. Researchers found that more aggressive blood pressure control reduced adverse pregnancy outcomes.  

She then discusses the SuperWIN trial, which looked at various types of educational interventions regarding heart-healthy diet provided in supermarkets. The goal of this study was to assess adherence to the DASH diet.  

Dr Gulati closes her report with the PROMPT-HF trial, which aimed at improving the use of guideline-directed medical therapy in outpatients with heart failure. 

--

President, American Society for Preventive Cardiology, Jacksonville, Florida 

Martha Gulati, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

Cardiologist Martha Gulati, from the American Society for Preventive Cardiology, offers insight on the key findings in diabetes and heart disease presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.  

First, Dr Gulati shares updates from the SCORED trial, which looked at SGLT2 inhibitors and cardiovascular and renal event reduction in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease.  

Next, she shares insight on CHAP, an important study about chronic hypertension in pregnancy. Researchers found that more aggressive blood pressure control reduced adverse pregnancy outcomes.  

She then discusses the SuperWIN trial, which looked at various types of educational interventions regarding heart-healthy diet provided in supermarkets. The goal of this study was to assess adherence to the DASH diet.  

Dr Gulati closes her report with the PROMPT-HF trial, which aimed at improving the use of guideline-directed medical therapy in outpatients with heart failure. 

--

President, American Society for Preventive Cardiology, Jacksonville, Florida 

Martha Gulati, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

Pregnancy termination for medical reasons had been part of the fabric of everyday health care in the United States since the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which the current high court overturned in a ruling announced on June 24.

That means many clinicians across specialties are entering uncharted territory with the country’s new patchwork of abortion legality. Some specialties, cardiology among them, may feel the impact more than others.

javi_indy/ Thinkstock

“Unfortunately,” Dr. Haythe said, “many of the states that are going to make or have made abortion illegal are not providing that kind of preconception counseling or good prenatal care to women.”

Cardiologists can provide such counseling to their female patients of childbearing age who have high-risk cardiac conditions, “but not everybody knows that they have a heart problem when they get pregnant, and not everybody is getting screened for heart problems when they’re of childbearing age,” Dr. Haythe said.

“Sometimes it’s not clear whether the problems could have been picked up until a woman is pregnant and has started to have symptoms.” For example, “a lot of women with poor access to health care have rheumatic heart disease. They may have no idea that they have severe aortic stenosis, and it’s not until their second trimester that they start to feel really short of breath.” Often that can be treated in the cath lab, “but again, that’s putting the woman and the baby at risk.”

Cardiologists in states where abortion is illegal will still present the option to their patients with high-risk pregnancies, noted Dr. Haythe. But the conversation may sound something like, “you are at very high risk, termination of the pregnancy takes that risk away, but you’ll have to find a state where it’s legal to do that.”

Dr. Park said such a situation, when abortion is recommended but locally unavailable, is much like any other in cardiology for which the patient may want a second opinion. If a center “doesn’t have the capability or the technology to offer a certain treatment, the patient can opt to seek another opinion at another center,” she said. “Patients will often travel out of state to get the care they need.”

A requirement for out-of-state travel to obtain abortions is likely to worsen socioeconomic disparities in health care, Dr. Bond observed, “because we know that those who are low-income won’t be able to afford that travel.”

Dr. Bond is cosignatory on a statement from the Association of Black Cardiologists (ABC) responding to the high court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson. “This decision will isolate the poor, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and minority populations specifically, widening the already large gaps in health care for our most vulnerable communities,” it states.

“The loss of broad protections supporting the medical and often lifesaving procedure of abortions is likely to have a real impact on the maternal mortality rate, especially in those with congenital and/or acquired cardiovascular conditions where evidence-based guidelines advise at times on termination of such high-risk pregnancies.”

The ABC, it states, “believes that every woman, and every person, should be afforded the right to safe, accessible, legal, timely, patient-centered, equitable, and affordable health care.”

The American College of Cardiology (ACC) released a statement on the matter June 24, signed by its president, Edward T.A. Fry, MD, along with five former ACC presidents. “While the ACC has no official policy on abortion, clinical practice guidelines and other clinical guidance tools address the dangers of pregnancy in certain patient populations at higher risk of death or serious cardiac events.”

The college, it states, is “deeply concerned about the potential implications of the Supreme Court decision regarding Roe vs. Wade on the ability of patients and clinicians to engage in important shared discussions about maternal health, or to remove previously available health care options.”

Dr. Bond proposed that a “vocal stance” from medical societies involved in women’s health, “perhaps even a collective stance from our cardiovascular societies and our obstetrics societies,” would also perhaps reach “the masses of doctors in private practice who are dealing with these patients.”

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

Pregnancy termination for medical reasons had been part of the fabric of everyday health care in the United States since the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which the current high court overturned in a ruling announced on June 24.

That means many clinicians across specialties are entering uncharted territory with the country’s new patchwork of abortion legality. Some specialties, cardiology among them, may feel the impact more than others.

javi_indy/ Thinkstock

“Unfortunately,” Dr. Haythe said, “many of the states that are going to make or have made abortion illegal are not providing that kind of preconception counseling or good prenatal care to women.”

Cardiologists can provide such counseling to their female patients of childbearing age who have high-risk cardiac conditions, “but not everybody knows that they have a heart problem when they get pregnant, and not everybody is getting screened for heart problems when they’re of childbearing age,” Dr. Haythe said.

“Sometimes it’s not clear whether the problems could have been picked up until a woman is pregnant and has started to have symptoms.” For example, “a lot of women with poor access to health care have rheumatic heart disease. They may have no idea that they have severe aortic stenosis, and it’s not until their second trimester that they start to feel really short of breath.” Often that can be treated in the cath lab, “but again, that’s putting the woman and the baby at risk.”

Cardiologists in states where abortion is illegal will still present the option to their patients with high-risk pregnancies, noted Dr. Haythe. But the conversation may sound something like, “you are at very high risk, termination of the pregnancy takes that risk away, but you’ll have to find a state where it’s legal to do that.”

Dr. Park said such a situation, when abortion is recommended but locally unavailable, is much like any other in cardiology for which the patient may want a second opinion. If a center “doesn’t have the capability or the technology to offer a certain treatment, the patient can opt to seek another opinion at another center,” she said. “Patients will often travel out of state to get the care they need.”

A requirement for out-of-state travel to obtain abortions is likely to worsen socioeconomic disparities in health care, Dr. Bond observed, “because we know that those who are low-income won’t be able to afford that travel.”

Dr. Bond is cosignatory on a statement from the Association of Black Cardiologists (ABC) responding to the high court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson. “This decision will isolate the poor, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and minority populations specifically, widening the already large gaps in health care for our most vulnerable communities,” it states.

“The loss of broad protections supporting the medical and often lifesaving procedure of abortions is likely to have a real impact on the maternal mortality rate, especially in those with congenital and/or acquired cardiovascular conditions where evidence-based guidelines advise at times on termination of such high-risk pregnancies.”

The ABC, it states, “believes that every woman, and every person, should be afforded the right to safe, accessible, legal, timely, patient-centered, equitable, and affordable health care.”

The American College of Cardiology (ACC) released a statement on the matter June 24, signed by its president, Edward T.A. Fry, MD, along with five former ACC presidents. “While the ACC has no official policy on abortion, clinical practice guidelines and other clinical guidance tools address the dangers of pregnancy in certain patient populations at higher risk of death or serious cardiac events.”

The college, it states, is “deeply concerned about the potential implications of the Supreme Court decision regarding Roe vs. Wade on the ability of patients and clinicians to engage in important shared discussions about maternal health, or to remove previously available health care options.”

Dr. Bond proposed that a “vocal stance” from medical societies involved in women’s health, “perhaps even a collective stance from our cardiovascular societies and our obstetrics societies,” would also perhaps reach “the masses of doctors in private practice who are dealing with these patients.”

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

Pregnancy termination for medical reasons had been part of the fabric of everyday health care in the United States since the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which the current high court overturned in a ruling announced on June 24.

That means many clinicians across specialties are entering uncharted territory with the country’s new patchwork of abortion legality. Some specialties, cardiology among them, may feel the impact more than others.

javi_indy/ Thinkstock

“Unfortunately,” Dr. Haythe said, “many of the states that are going to make or have made abortion illegal are not providing that kind of preconception counseling or good prenatal care to women.”

Cardiologists can provide such counseling to their female patients of childbearing age who have high-risk cardiac conditions, “but not everybody knows that they have a heart problem when they get pregnant, and not everybody is getting screened for heart problems when they’re of childbearing age,” Dr. Haythe said.

“Sometimes it’s not clear whether the problems could have been picked up until a woman is pregnant and has started to have symptoms.” For example, “a lot of women with poor access to health care have rheumatic heart disease. They may have no idea that they have severe aortic stenosis, and it’s not until their second trimester that they start to feel really short of breath.” Often that can be treated in the cath lab, “but again, that’s putting the woman and the baby at risk.”

Cardiologists in states where abortion is illegal will still present the option to their patients with high-risk pregnancies, noted Dr. Haythe. But the conversation may sound something like, “you are at very high risk, termination of the pregnancy takes that risk away, but you’ll have to find a state where it’s legal to do that.”

Dr. Park said such a situation, when abortion is recommended but locally unavailable, is much like any other in cardiology for which the patient may want a second opinion. If a center “doesn’t have the capability or the technology to offer a certain treatment, the patient can opt to seek another opinion at another center,” she said. “Patients will often travel out of state to get the care they need.”

A requirement for out-of-state travel to obtain abortions is likely to worsen socioeconomic disparities in health care, Dr. Bond observed, “because we know that those who are low-income won’t be able to afford that travel.”

Dr. Bond is cosignatory on a statement from the Association of Black Cardiologists (ABC) responding to the high court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson. “This decision will isolate the poor, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and minority populations specifically, widening the already large gaps in health care for our most vulnerable communities,” it states.

“The loss of broad protections supporting the medical and often lifesaving procedure of abortions is likely to have a real impact on the maternal mortality rate, especially in those with congenital and/or acquired cardiovascular conditions where evidence-based guidelines advise at times on termination of such high-risk pregnancies.”

The ABC, it states, “believes that every woman, and every person, should be afforded the right to safe, accessible, legal, timely, patient-centered, equitable, and affordable health care.”

The American College of Cardiology (ACC) released a statement on the matter June 24, signed by its president, Edward T.A. Fry, MD, along with five former ACC presidents. “While the ACC has no official policy on abortion, clinical practice guidelines and other clinical guidance tools address the dangers of pregnancy in certain patient populations at higher risk of death or serious cardiac events.”

The college, it states, is “deeply concerned about the potential implications of the Supreme Court decision regarding Roe vs. Wade on the ability of patients and clinicians to engage in important shared discussions about maternal health, or to remove previously available health care options.”

Dr. Bond proposed that a “vocal stance” from medical societies involved in women’s health, “perhaps even a collective stance from our cardiovascular societies and our obstetrics societies,” would also perhaps reach “the masses of doctors in private practice who are dealing with these patients.”

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

Hydroxychloroquine should be initiated with caution in older patients with rheumatoid arthritis who also have heart failure or are at risk for it, say the authors of a study suggesting that the drug could increase their risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), compared with methotrexate.

A cohort study published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology looked at outcomes in 54,462 patients with RA aged 65 years or older and not previously treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Half were initiated on methotrexate and half on hydroxychloroquine, making 27,231 propensity-matched pairs.

Across the entire cohort, hydroxychloroquine was not associated with a higher risk for sudden cardiac arrest, ventricular arrhythmia, or MACE, compared with methotrexate. When broken down into individual cardiovascular events, the data suggested a statistically significant 17% increase in the risk for cardiovascular mortality and 10% increase in all-cause mortality with hydroxychloroquine, although there were no differences in the risks for myocardial infarction or stroke.

However, a subgroup analysis revealed a significant 30% increase in the risk for MACE among patients starting hydroxychloroquine who also had a history of heart failure, compared with patients taking methotrexate. The researchers found no difference between the two drugs in patients without a history of heart failure. The study also suggested an overall 41% increase in the risk for hospitalization with heart failure with hydroxychloroquine, regardless of heart failure history.

Hydroxychloroquine was also associated with a 34% increase in the risk for cardiovascular mortality, a 22% increase in the risk for all-cause mortality, and a 74% increase in the risk for MI.

The lead author of the study, Elvira D’Andrea, MD, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, said that hydroxychloroquine is used as a first-line treatment for RA, but there was limited evidence on its cardiovascular risks. The pandemic in particular shined a spotlight on these concerns and prompted the researchers to extend their original prepandemic study to encompass additional cardiovascular outcomes.

“The emerging concerns on its cardiovascular safety in early 2020 has led the rheumatological community, and patients regularly taking hydroxychloroquine for rheumatoid arthritis, to confusion,” Dr. D’Andrea said in an interview.

She advised that clinicians be cautious when initiating hydroxychloroquine in older patients with existing heart failure or who have risk factors for it. “Although heart failure is a known concern for hydroxychloroquine use, these findings helped to clarify the relationship between the use of hydroxychloroquine or methotrexate and heart failure. Clinicians should pay careful attention to clinical manifestations of cardiomyopathy or heart failure in older patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with hydroxychloroquine.”

Hydroxychloroquine is associated with cardiotoxicity, particularly cardiomyopathy, which may help precipitate MACE or heart failure exacerbations in patients who already have deterioration of their cardiac tissue, the authors suggested.

Short follow-up period leaves risk attribution under question

In an accompanying editorial, Elizabeth Blair Solow, MD, and Bonnie L. Bermas, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, commented that the lack of an increased risk for arrhythmic events or MACE in the overall cohort taking hydroxychloroquine was reassuring. They also suggested the subgroup analysis findings among patients with preexisting heart failure were still “exploratory and hypothesis-generating” and should be interpreted with caution.

They noted that the follow-up time of the study was relatively short – a median of 209 days – given that hydroxychloroquine does not reach a steady-state level for 6 months.

“Evidence to date suggests cardiomyopathy from HCQ [hydroxychloroquine] takes years to develop, many months beyond the exposures described here, bringing into question as to whether HCQ itself increased HF hospitalizations,” the editorialists wrote.

The editorial also raised the question of whether the association observed in the study was related to a possible cardioprotective effect of methotrexate, given that previous studies have suggested this effect in older patients with RA.

The study authors did an exploratory analysis comparing hydroxychloroquine with sulfasalazine, which appeared to support their main findings of a possible cardiovascular effect of hydroxychloroquine. However, they qualified this by pointing out that the analysis involved small numbers of patients.

Senior investigator Seoyoung C. Kim, MD, ScD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, also noted that the study only looked at outcomes in patients aged 65 years and older.

“It would be clinically important to further examine the cardiovascular safety of hydroxychloroquine versus methotrexate in a younger population with rheumatic conditions,” she said.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School. Four authors declared unrelated research grants from the pharmaceutical sector, with one also declaring stock options and consulting work with the pharmaceutical sector. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

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

Hydroxychloroquine should be initiated with caution in older patients with rheumatoid arthritis who also have heart failure or are at risk for it, say the authors of a study suggesting that the drug could increase their risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), compared with methotrexate.

A cohort study published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology looked at outcomes in 54,462 patients with RA aged 65 years or older and not previously treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Half were initiated on methotrexate and half on hydroxychloroquine, making 27,231 propensity-matched pairs.

Across the entire cohort, hydroxychloroquine was not associated with a higher risk for sudden cardiac arrest, ventricular arrhythmia, or MACE, compared with methotrexate. When broken down into individual cardiovascular events, the data suggested a statistically significant 17% increase in the risk for cardiovascular mortality and 10% increase in all-cause mortality with hydroxychloroquine, although there were no differences in the risks for myocardial infarction or stroke.

However, a subgroup analysis revealed a significant 30% increase in the risk for MACE among patients starting hydroxychloroquine who also had a history of heart failure, compared with patients taking methotrexate. The researchers found no difference between the two drugs in patients without a history of heart failure. The study also suggested an overall 41% increase in the risk for hospitalization with heart failure with hydroxychloroquine, regardless of heart failure history.

Hydroxychloroquine was also associated with a 34% increase in the risk for cardiovascular mortality, a 22% increase in the risk for all-cause mortality, and a 74% increase in the risk for MI.

The lead author of the study, Elvira D’Andrea, MD, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, said that hydroxychloroquine is used as a first-line treatment for RA, but there was limited evidence on its cardiovascular risks. The pandemic in particular shined a spotlight on these concerns and prompted the researchers to extend their original prepandemic study to encompass additional cardiovascular outcomes.

“The emerging concerns on its cardiovascular safety in early 2020 has led the rheumatological community, and patients regularly taking hydroxychloroquine for rheumatoid arthritis, to confusion,” Dr. D’Andrea said in an interview.

She advised that clinicians be cautious when initiating hydroxychloroquine in older patients with existing heart failure or who have risk factors for it. “Although heart failure is a known concern for hydroxychloroquine use, these findings helped to clarify the relationship between the use of hydroxychloroquine or methotrexate and heart failure. Clinicians should pay careful attention to clinical manifestations of cardiomyopathy or heart failure in older patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with hydroxychloroquine.”

Hydroxychloroquine is associated with cardiotoxicity, particularly cardiomyopathy, which may help precipitate MACE or heart failure exacerbations in patients who already have deterioration of their cardiac tissue, the authors suggested.

Short follow-up period leaves risk attribution under question

In an accompanying editorial, Elizabeth Blair Solow, MD, and Bonnie L. Bermas, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, commented that the lack of an increased risk for arrhythmic events or MACE in the overall cohort taking hydroxychloroquine was reassuring. They also suggested the subgroup analysis findings among patients with preexisting heart failure were still “exploratory and hypothesis-generating” and should be interpreted with caution.

They noted that the follow-up time of the study was relatively short – a median of 209 days – given that hydroxychloroquine does not reach a steady-state level for 6 months.

“Evidence to date suggests cardiomyopathy from HCQ [hydroxychloroquine] takes years to develop, many months beyond the exposures described here, bringing into question as to whether HCQ itself increased HF hospitalizations,” the editorialists wrote.

The editorial also raised the question of whether the association observed in the study was related to a possible cardioprotective effect of methotrexate, given that previous studies have suggested this effect in older patients with RA.

The study authors did an exploratory analysis comparing hydroxychloroquine with sulfasalazine, which appeared to support their main findings of a possible cardiovascular effect of hydroxychloroquine. However, they qualified this by pointing out that the analysis involved small numbers of patients.

Senior investigator Seoyoung C. Kim, MD, ScD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, also noted that the study only looked at outcomes in patients aged 65 years and older.

“It would be clinically important to further examine the cardiovascular safety of hydroxychloroquine versus methotrexate in a younger population with rheumatic conditions,” she said.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School. Four authors declared unrelated research grants from the pharmaceutical sector, with one also declaring stock options and consulting work with the pharmaceutical sector. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

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

Hydroxychloroquine should be initiated with caution in older patients with rheumatoid arthritis who also have heart failure or are at risk for it, say the authors of a study suggesting that the drug could increase their risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), compared with methotrexate.

A cohort study published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology looked at outcomes in 54,462 patients with RA aged 65 years or older and not previously treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Half were initiated on methotrexate and half on hydroxychloroquine, making 27,231 propensity-matched pairs.

Across the entire cohort, hydroxychloroquine was not associated with a higher risk for sudden cardiac arrest, ventricular arrhythmia, or MACE, compared with methotrexate. When broken down into individual cardiovascular events, the data suggested a statistically significant 17% increase in the risk for cardiovascular mortality and 10% increase in all-cause mortality with hydroxychloroquine, although there were no differences in the risks for myocardial infarction or stroke.

However, a subgroup analysis revealed a significant 30% increase in the risk for MACE among patients starting hydroxychloroquine who also had a history of heart failure, compared with patients taking methotrexate. The researchers found no difference between the two drugs in patients without a history of heart failure. The study also suggested an overall 41% increase in the risk for hospitalization with heart failure with hydroxychloroquine, regardless of heart failure history.

Hydroxychloroquine was also associated with a 34% increase in the risk for cardiovascular mortality, a 22% increase in the risk for all-cause mortality, and a 74% increase in the risk for MI.

The lead author of the study, Elvira D’Andrea, MD, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, said that hydroxychloroquine is used as a first-line treatment for RA, but there was limited evidence on its cardiovascular risks. The pandemic in particular shined a spotlight on these concerns and prompted the researchers to extend their original prepandemic study to encompass additional cardiovascular outcomes.

“The emerging concerns on its cardiovascular safety in early 2020 has led the rheumatological community, and patients regularly taking hydroxychloroquine for rheumatoid arthritis, to confusion,” Dr. D’Andrea said in an interview.

She advised that clinicians be cautious when initiating hydroxychloroquine in older patients with existing heart failure or who have risk factors for it. “Although heart failure is a known concern for hydroxychloroquine use, these findings helped to clarify the relationship between the use of hydroxychloroquine or methotrexate and heart failure. Clinicians should pay careful attention to clinical manifestations of cardiomyopathy or heart failure in older patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with hydroxychloroquine.”

Hydroxychloroquine is associated with cardiotoxicity, particularly cardiomyopathy, which may help precipitate MACE or heart failure exacerbations in patients who already have deterioration of their cardiac tissue, the authors suggested.

Short follow-up period leaves risk attribution under question

In an accompanying editorial, Elizabeth Blair Solow, MD, and Bonnie L. Bermas, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, commented that the lack of an increased risk for arrhythmic events or MACE in the overall cohort taking hydroxychloroquine was reassuring. They also suggested the subgroup analysis findings among patients with preexisting heart failure were still “exploratory and hypothesis-generating” and should be interpreted with caution.

They noted that the follow-up time of the study was relatively short – a median of 209 days – given that hydroxychloroquine does not reach a steady-state level for 6 months.

“Evidence to date suggests cardiomyopathy from HCQ [hydroxychloroquine] takes years to develop, many months beyond the exposures described here, bringing into question as to whether HCQ itself increased HF hospitalizations,” the editorialists wrote.

The editorial also raised the question of whether the association observed in the study was related to a possible cardioprotective effect of methotrexate, given that previous studies have suggested this effect in older patients with RA.

The study authors did an exploratory analysis comparing hydroxychloroquine with sulfasalazine, which appeared to support their main findings of a possible cardiovascular effect of hydroxychloroquine. However, they qualified this by pointing out that the analysis involved small numbers of patients.

Senior investigator Seoyoung C. Kim, MD, ScD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, also noted that the study only looked at outcomes in patients aged 65 years and older.

“It would be clinically important to further examine the cardiovascular safety of hydroxychloroquine versus methotrexate in a younger population with rheumatic conditions,” she said.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School. Four authors declared unrelated research grants from the pharmaceutical sector, with one also declaring stock options and consulting work with the pharmaceutical sector. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

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

A real-world analysis reveals that women are consistently less likely to undergo intracoronary imaging as part of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), even though it benefits both sexes equally.

Results from nearly all PCIs performed in England and Wales between 2006 and 2019 showed the absolute rate of intracoronary imaging with either intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) or optical coherence tomography (OCT) was 5% lower in the later study years among women at 14.5%, compared with 19.6% in men (P < .001).

After adjustment, female sex was an independent predictor of lower intracoronary imaging use (odds ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-0.96), according to the study, published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

“One of the thoughts I had when we were running this analysis was, well, maybe the indications for that imaging, as recommended by guidelines, are less common in women,” Mamas Mamas, MD, told this news organization. “So what we did was to look at just cases where imaging is recommended by the EAPCI [European Association of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention].”

Again, the use of intracoronary imaging was consistently lower among women than among men for all of the following EAPCI-recommended indications:

• Acute coronary syndrome: 11.6% vs. 12.3% (P < .01).
• Stent thrombosis: 30.9% vs. 34.9% (P < .01).
• Long lesions: 13.1% vs. 16.3% (P < .01).
• Chronic total occlusions: 16.2% vs. 18.3% (P < .01).
• Left main stem PCI: 55.1% vs. 57.5% (P < .01).
• In-stent restenosis: 28.0% vs. 30.7%.
• Calcified lesions: 36.6% vs. 40.1% (P < .01).
• Renal disease: 17.4% vs. 19.5% (P < .01).

As to what might be driving the lower use, Dr. Mamas dismissed the argument that women undergo much simpler PCI, which wouldn’t benefit from imaging. Women do have smaller coronary arteries, however, and there is a belief that it’s easier to eyeball the size of vessels that are smaller rather than larger.

“I’m not convinced that’s entirely true,” he said. “I don’t have a good answer for you, I’m afraid. I don’t really know why we’re seeing it. I just think it’s one of those disparities that is important to highlight.”

Central to this belief is that the benefits of intracoronary imaging were found to be similar in men and women. Intracoronary imaging was associated with lower adjusted odds of in-hospital mortality (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.48-0.64) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.91) in women and men (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.44-0.53 and OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.71-0.80, respectively), compared with nonimaging groups.

“This really should be a call to arms, particularly given that we show this disparity persists, even in guideline-recommended cases where we should be using it,” said Dr. Mamas, from the Keele (England) Cardiovascular Research Group, Keele University, and Royal Stoke University Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent, England.

“Actually, I would argue that we should be using more imaging in women than men anyway because many of the presentations for acute coronary syndromes in women, like spontaneous coronary artery dissection or MINOCA [MI with nonobstructive coronary arteries], you often need intracoronary imaging to make that kind of diagnosis,” he observed.
 

Getting worse, not better

Previous studies have shown that women are less likely than men in acute coronary syndromes to receive the transradial approach and P2Y12 inhibitors, but none have specifically looked at intracoronary imaging, Dr. Mamas said.

To fill the gap, the researchers drew on data from 994,478 patients in the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society registry, of whom, 8.4% of 738,616 men and 7.9% of 255,862 women received intracoronary imaging.

Women in the imaging group were older, more likely to be an ethnic minority, and more likely to undergo PCI for non–ST-segment elevation MI than their male counterparts.

One of the more surprising findings was that rates of IVUS and OCT were superimposable between the sexes at the start of the study but quickly diverged starting in around 2012, when the technology took off, Dr. Mamas said. In the most recent data, use was about 3% lower in women overall and rising to 6% in those with stable angina.

“Whilst the disparities between men and women are significant, the bigger question is why are we using so little imaging in guideline-recommended cases where there is a benefit?” he said.

Possible actionable items, he suggested, include providing older physicians who didn’t have access to intracoronary imaging during their training with opportunities in their cath lab or with industry sponsors to increase their skills and confidence. Intracoronary imaging use could also be routinely captured in U.S. and European PCI registries and used as a quality metric.

“In left main, you see a massive difference between centers, and that’s the kind of data that drives discussion,” Dr. Mamas said. “If we start reporting quality metrics, such as radial use, intracoronary imaging, P2Y12 inhibitors by center, then you’ve got something to benchmark centers against.”

Nathaniel Smilowitz, MD, an interventional cardiologist at New York Langone Health, who was not associated with the study, said that it’s troubling to see that the utilization intravascular imaging is so low, despite randomized trials and large meta-analyses showing a mortality benefit associated with its use in PCI.

“Even among men, only 19.6% in the later years were getting intravascular imaging performed to guide their coronary intervention, so one out of five,” he said. “There are opportunities to improve.”

Dr. Smilowitz said he’s also perplexed as to why adoption would be lower in women but that the findings echo those in other domains where women receive less intensive cardiovascular therapy.

“There’s no biological, really plausible, mechanism as to why the need for intravascular imaging would be lower and, particularly, because they showed in stent thrombosis, for example, where intravascular imaging is tremendously important, there were still sex differences,” he said. “So even with clear indications for imaging, women just received the optimal therapy less often than men. It’s disappointing.”

Dr. Smilowitz agreed that there may be a need to incorporate intravascular imaging into metrics, which are reported back to physicians, potentially even for comparisons with peers or regional rates to incentivize physicians to improve uptake.

“As a society, we’ve been quite slow to integrate intravascular imaging to guide PCI and we can do better,” he said.

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

A real-world analysis reveals that women are consistently less likely to undergo intracoronary imaging as part of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), even though it benefits both sexes equally.

Results from nearly all PCIs performed in England and Wales between 2006 and 2019 showed the absolute rate of intracoronary imaging with either intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) or optical coherence tomography (OCT) was 5% lower in the later study years among women at 14.5%, compared with 19.6% in men (P < .001).

After adjustment, female sex was an independent predictor of lower intracoronary imaging use (odds ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-0.96), according to the study, published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

“One of the thoughts I had when we were running this analysis was, well, maybe the indications for that imaging, as recommended by guidelines, are less common in women,” Mamas Mamas, MD, told this news organization. “So what we did was to look at just cases where imaging is recommended by the EAPCI [European Association of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention].”

Again, the use of intracoronary imaging was consistently lower among women than among men for all of the following EAPCI-recommended indications:

• Acute coronary syndrome: 11.6% vs. 12.3% (P < .01).
• Stent thrombosis: 30.9% vs. 34.9% (P < .01).
• Long lesions: 13.1% vs. 16.3% (P < .01).
• Chronic total occlusions: 16.2% vs. 18.3% (P < .01).
• Left main stem PCI: 55.1% vs. 57.5% (P < .01).
• In-stent restenosis: 28.0% vs. 30.7%.
• Calcified lesions: 36.6% vs. 40.1% (P < .01).
• Renal disease: 17.4% vs. 19.5% (P < .01).

As to what might be driving the lower use, Dr. Mamas dismissed the argument that women undergo much simpler PCI, which wouldn’t benefit from imaging. Women do have smaller coronary arteries, however, and there is a belief that it’s easier to eyeball the size of vessels that are smaller rather than larger.

“I’m not convinced that’s entirely true,” he said. “I don’t have a good answer for you, I’m afraid. I don’t really know why we’re seeing it. I just think it’s one of those disparities that is important to highlight.”

Central to this belief is that the benefits of intracoronary imaging were found to be similar in men and women. Intracoronary imaging was associated with lower adjusted odds of in-hospital mortality (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.48-0.64) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.91) in women and men (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.44-0.53 and OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.71-0.80, respectively), compared with nonimaging groups.

“This really should be a call to arms, particularly given that we show this disparity persists, even in guideline-recommended cases where we should be using it,” said Dr. Mamas, from the Keele (England) Cardiovascular Research Group, Keele University, and Royal Stoke University Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent, England.

“Actually, I would argue that we should be using more imaging in women than men anyway because many of the presentations for acute coronary syndromes in women, like spontaneous coronary artery dissection or MINOCA [MI with nonobstructive coronary arteries], you often need intracoronary imaging to make that kind of diagnosis,” he observed.
 

Getting worse, not better

Previous studies have shown that women are less likely than men in acute coronary syndromes to receive the transradial approach and P2Y12 inhibitors, but none have specifically looked at intracoronary imaging, Dr. Mamas said.

To fill the gap, the researchers drew on data from 994,478 patients in the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society registry, of whom, 8.4% of 738,616 men and 7.9% of 255,862 women received intracoronary imaging.

Women in the imaging group were older, more likely to be an ethnic minority, and more likely to undergo PCI for non–ST-segment elevation MI than their male counterparts.

One of the more surprising findings was that rates of IVUS and OCT were superimposable between the sexes at the start of the study but quickly diverged starting in around 2012, when the technology took off, Dr. Mamas said. In the most recent data, use was about 3% lower in women overall and rising to 6% in those with stable angina.

“Whilst the disparities between men and women are significant, the bigger question is why are we using so little imaging in guideline-recommended cases where there is a benefit?” he said.

Possible actionable items, he suggested, include providing older physicians who didn’t have access to intracoronary imaging during their training with opportunities in their cath lab or with industry sponsors to increase their skills and confidence. Intracoronary imaging use could also be routinely captured in U.S. and European PCI registries and used as a quality metric.

“In left main, you see a massive difference between centers, and that’s the kind of data that drives discussion,” Dr. Mamas said. “If we start reporting quality metrics, such as radial use, intracoronary imaging, P2Y12 inhibitors by center, then you’ve got something to benchmark centers against.”

Nathaniel Smilowitz, MD, an interventional cardiologist at New York Langone Health, who was not associated with the study, said that it’s troubling to see that the utilization intravascular imaging is so low, despite randomized trials and large meta-analyses showing a mortality benefit associated with its use in PCI.

“Even among men, only 19.6% in the later years were getting intravascular imaging performed to guide their coronary intervention, so one out of five,” he said. “There are opportunities to improve.”

Dr. Smilowitz said he’s also perplexed as to why adoption would be lower in women but that the findings echo those in other domains where women receive less intensive cardiovascular therapy.

“There’s no biological, really plausible, mechanism as to why the need for intravascular imaging would be lower and, particularly, because they showed in stent thrombosis, for example, where intravascular imaging is tremendously important, there were still sex differences,” he said. “So even with clear indications for imaging, women just received the optimal therapy less often than men. It’s disappointing.”

Dr. Smilowitz agreed that there may be a need to incorporate intravascular imaging into metrics, which are reported back to physicians, potentially even for comparisons with peers or regional rates to incentivize physicians to improve uptake.

“As a society, we’ve been quite slow to integrate intravascular imaging to guide PCI and we can do better,” he said.

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

A real-world analysis reveals that women are consistently less likely to undergo intracoronary imaging as part of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), even though it benefits both sexes equally.

Results from nearly all PCIs performed in England and Wales between 2006 and 2019 showed the absolute rate of intracoronary imaging with either intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) or optical coherence tomography (OCT) was 5% lower in the later study years among women at 14.5%, compared with 19.6% in men (P < .001).

After adjustment, female sex was an independent predictor of lower intracoronary imaging use (odds ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-0.96), according to the study, published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

“One of the thoughts I had when we were running this analysis was, well, maybe the indications for that imaging, as recommended by guidelines, are less common in women,” Mamas Mamas, MD, told this news organization. “So what we did was to look at just cases where imaging is recommended by the EAPCI [European Association of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention].”

Again, the use of intracoronary imaging was consistently lower among women than among men for all of the following EAPCI-recommended indications:

• Acute coronary syndrome: 11.6% vs. 12.3% (P < .01).
• Stent thrombosis: 30.9% vs. 34.9% (P < .01).
• Long lesions: 13.1% vs. 16.3% (P < .01).
• Chronic total occlusions: 16.2% vs. 18.3% (P < .01).
• Left main stem PCI: 55.1% vs. 57.5% (P < .01).
• In-stent restenosis: 28.0% vs. 30.7%.
• Calcified lesions: 36.6% vs. 40.1% (P < .01).
• Renal disease: 17.4% vs. 19.5% (P < .01).

As to what might be driving the lower use, Dr. Mamas dismissed the argument that women undergo much simpler PCI, which wouldn’t benefit from imaging. Women do have smaller coronary arteries, however, and there is a belief that it’s easier to eyeball the size of vessels that are smaller rather than larger.

“I’m not convinced that’s entirely true,” he said. “I don’t have a good answer for you, I’m afraid. I don’t really know why we’re seeing it. I just think it’s one of those disparities that is important to highlight.”

Central to this belief is that the benefits of intracoronary imaging were found to be similar in men and women. Intracoronary imaging was associated with lower adjusted odds of in-hospital mortality (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.48-0.64) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.91) in women and men (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.44-0.53 and OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.71-0.80, respectively), compared with nonimaging groups.

“This really should be a call to arms, particularly given that we show this disparity persists, even in guideline-recommended cases where we should be using it,” said Dr. Mamas, from the Keele (England) Cardiovascular Research Group, Keele University, and Royal Stoke University Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent, England.

“Actually, I would argue that we should be using more imaging in women than men anyway because many of the presentations for acute coronary syndromes in women, like spontaneous coronary artery dissection or MINOCA [MI with nonobstructive coronary arteries], you often need intracoronary imaging to make that kind of diagnosis,” he observed.
 

Getting worse, not better

Previous studies have shown that women are less likely than men in acute coronary syndromes to receive the transradial approach and P2Y12 inhibitors, but none have specifically looked at intracoronary imaging, Dr. Mamas said.

To fill the gap, the researchers drew on data from 994,478 patients in the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society registry, of whom, 8.4% of 738,616 men and 7.9% of 255,862 women received intracoronary imaging.

Women in the imaging group were older, more likely to be an ethnic minority, and more likely to undergo PCI for non–ST-segment elevation MI than their male counterparts.

One of the more surprising findings was that rates of IVUS and OCT were superimposable between the sexes at the start of the study but quickly diverged starting in around 2012, when the technology took off, Dr. Mamas said. In the most recent data, use was about 3% lower in women overall and rising to 6% in those with stable angina.

“Whilst the disparities between men and women are significant, the bigger question is why are we using so little imaging in guideline-recommended cases where there is a benefit?” he said.

Possible actionable items, he suggested, include providing older physicians who didn’t have access to intracoronary imaging during their training with opportunities in their cath lab or with industry sponsors to increase their skills and confidence. Intracoronary imaging use could also be routinely captured in U.S. and European PCI registries and used as a quality metric.

“In left main, you see a massive difference between centers, and that’s the kind of data that drives discussion,” Dr. Mamas said. “If we start reporting quality metrics, such as radial use, intracoronary imaging, P2Y12 inhibitors by center, then you’ve got something to benchmark centers against.”

Nathaniel Smilowitz, MD, an interventional cardiologist at New York Langone Health, who was not associated with the study, said that it’s troubling to see that the utilization intravascular imaging is so low, despite randomized trials and large meta-analyses showing a mortality benefit associated with its use in PCI.

“Even among men, only 19.6% in the later years were getting intravascular imaging performed to guide their coronary intervention, so one out of five,” he said. “There are opportunities to improve.”

Dr. Smilowitz said he’s also perplexed as to why adoption would be lower in women but that the findings echo those in other domains where women receive less intensive cardiovascular therapy.

“There’s no biological, really plausible, mechanism as to why the need for intravascular imaging would be lower and, particularly, because they showed in stent thrombosis, for example, where intravascular imaging is tremendously important, there were still sex differences,” he said. “So even with clear indications for imaging, women just received the optimal therapy less often than men. It’s disappointing.”

Dr. Smilowitz agreed that there may be a need to incorporate intravascular imaging into metrics, which are reported back to physicians, potentially even for comparisons with peers or regional rates to incentivize physicians to improve uptake.

“As a society, we’ve been quite slow to integrate intravascular imaging to guide PCI and we can do better,” he said.

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

It’s a given that the case of David Bennett, Sr, and his transplanted, genetically modified porcine heart will have a lot to teach, and the peer-reviewed publication this week lends welcome authority to some of its earliest lessons.

Mr. Bennett lived for 2 months after receiving the heart in the pioneering surgery, and the new case report compiles the available clinical, anatomic, and histologic evidence and other potential clues to the underlying cause or causes of death.

It also describes a mystery that came to light at autopsy: a grossly enlarged heart attributable to pervasive interstitial edema, and at the cellular level, a peculiar pattern of myocardial damage that included microvascular deterioration and, potentially as a result, cellular necrosis, according to the new report.

The myocardium itself was described as “thickened and stiff,” consistent with the “diastolic heart failure” that characterized Mr. Bennett’s final 10 days and the likely convergence of several underlying processes. Missing, however, was any conventional sign of graft rejection as it is understood clinically or in animal models, the report states.

If a form of tissue rejection was the cause of graft failure, any implicating cellular evidence may simply have been unrecognizable, given the unprecedented nature of the first pig-to-human heart transplantation, the donor animal’s multiple anti-inflammatory gene deletions, and partly investigational immunosuppression regimen, speculated Bartley P. Griffith, MD, University of Maryland, College Park.

“I’m betting against it being a fulminant rejection,” he told this news organization, “because we saw nothing like the [characteristic] platelet deposition or thrombosis of the capillaries.”

Dr. Griffith, who performed the xenotransplant surgery and led Mr. Bennett’s postoperative care, is lead author on the case report published in the New England Journal of Medicine. “Additional studies are underway to characterize the pathophysiologic mechanisms that resulted in this damage,” the report states.

The report builds on recent meeting presentations on the case, which, as previously reported, gave cursory details regarding the organ damage and other clinical developments during and after the surgery, including evidence that the transplanted heart contained porcine cytomegalovirus (PCMV).

Similar details also appeared in a third-person account based in part on personal communication with Dr. Griffith. The cardiac XTx review that focused on this University of Maryland experience was published June 15 in JACC: Basic to Translational Science, with lead author Jacinthe Boulet, MD, CM, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart, Boston.

“The question of how to move XTx forward remains uncertain, and appropriate selection of patients for experimental XTx will be one of the most important challenges to be addressed. The first issue we must contend with is whether we are ready to move to the next XTx in a human. We strongly believe this to be the case,” the review states. “Once early experience is gained, with successive iterations of XTx, the bar for success can be raised with maturation of the technology.”

Evidence has so far not implicated several other potential mechanisms underlying the graft failure that had been the focus of early speculations. For example, the transplanted pig heart was infected with PCMV, as previously reported. Mr. Bennett showed traces of PCMV DNA in his circulation, but no actual virus in his native cells. Still, PCMV remains a suspect.

Mr. Bennett also received intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) on several occasions to fight rejection, and also severe infections, including a nasty episode of sepsis. A reaction to the IVIG, derived from pooled donor antibodies, could potentially have caused the unusual myocardial damage seen by the University of Maryland team, Dr. Griffith observed. Alternatively, the damage might have been partly related to the patient’s overall severely diminished condition even before the transplant surgery or his rocky postoperative clinical course.

Indeed, Mr. Bennett’s condition worsened dramatically on postoperative day 50, and echocardiography showed a striking degree of myocardial wall thickening and heart enlargement, determined to be from edema. “The heart got amazingly stiff but maintained a systolic function that wasn›t too terrible, even to the very end. But his heart seemed as though it had swollen overnight,” Dr. Griffith said. “We had never seen that type of process, the suddenness of this swelling, in our nonhuman primate studies.”

The damage to the heart muscle appeared irreversible, based on myocardial biopsy results, so the decision was made to withdraw life support 60 days after the transplant surgery, the report notes.

Among the experience’s apparent lessons for future cardiac xenotransplantation, Dr. Griffith said, would be to select patients for the surgery who are in a bit more robust condition than Mr. Bennett was, who are perhaps ambulatory, not sarcopenic, and not recently on prolonged mechanical circulatory support. “We’re going to try to pick a patient who, on the front end, is less critically ill but who is just as likely not to benefit from continued medical therapy” and who isn’t a candidate for conventional heart transplantation, he said.

Because of universal efforts to manage conditions like diabetes, hypertension, and vascular disease in the population, and “because these conditions cause many of the cases of organ failure and fuel demand for transplantation, one might wonder whether the advances reported by Dr. Griffith and colleagues presage a decreasing demand for organ transplantation,” speculates an accompanying editorialfrom Jeffrey L. Platt, MD, and Marilia Cascalho, MD, PhD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“We think the answer is no. Since aging is associated with progressive decline in the function of the heart, kidneys, and other organs, advances that extend life expectancy will ultimately increase the prevalence of organ failure and potentially the demand for transplantation.”

The donor pig was developed and provided by Revivicor, and the investigational KPL-404 antibody drug used in the experience was provided by Kiniksa. Other disclosures for the case report and editorial from Dr. Platt and Dr. Cascalho are available at NEJM.com. Dr. Boulet reports no relevant relationships; disclosures for the other authors are in their report.

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

It’s a given that the case of David Bennett, Sr, and his transplanted, genetically modified porcine heart will have a lot to teach, and the peer-reviewed publication this week lends welcome authority to some of its earliest lessons.

Mr. Bennett lived for 2 months after receiving the heart in the pioneering surgery, and the new case report compiles the available clinical, anatomic, and histologic evidence and other potential clues to the underlying cause or causes of death.

It also describes a mystery that came to light at autopsy: a grossly enlarged heart attributable to pervasive interstitial edema, and at the cellular level, a peculiar pattern of myocardial damage that included microvascular deterioration and, potentially as a result, cellular necrosis, according to the new report.

The myocardium itself was described as “thickened and stiff,” consistent with the “diastolic heart failure” that characterized Mr. Bennett’s final 10 days and the likely convergence of several underlying processes. Missing, however, was any conventional sign of graft rejection as it is understood clinically or in animal models, the report states.

If a form of tissue rejection was the cause of graft failure, any implicating cellular evidence may simply have been unrecognizable, given the unprecedented nature of the first pig-to-human heart transplantation, the donor animal’s multiple anti-inflammatory gene deletions, and partly investigational immunosuppression regimen, speculated Bartley P. Griffith, MD, University of Maryland, College Park.

“I’m betting against it being a fulminant rejection,” he told this news organization, “because we saw nothing like the [characteristic] platelet deposition or thrombosis of the capillaries.”

Dr. Griffith, who performed the xenotransplant surgery and led Mr. Bennett’s postoperative care, is lead author on the case report published in the New England Journal of Medicine. “Additional studies are underway to characterize the pathophysiologic mechanisms that resulted in this damage,” the report states.

The report builds on recent meeting presentations on the case, which, as previously reported, gave cursory details regarding the organ damage and other clinical developments during and after the surgery, including evidence that the transplanted heart contained porcine cytomegalovirus (PCMV).

Similar details also appeared in a third-person account based in part on personal communication with Dr. Griffith. The cardiac XTx review that focused on this University of Maryland experience was published June 15 in JACC: Basic to Translational Science, with lead author Jacinthe Boulet, MD, CM, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart, Boston.

“The question of how to move XTx forward remains uncertain, and appropriate selection of patients for experimental XTx will be one of the most important challenges to be addressed. The first issue we must contend with is whether we are ready to move to the next XTx in a human. We strongly believe this to be the case,” the review states. “Once early experience is gained, with successive iterations of XTx, the bar for success can be raised with maturation of the technology.”

Evidence has so far not implicated several other potential mechanisms underlying the graft failure that had been the focus of early speculations. For example, the transplanted pig heart was infected with PCMV, as previously reported. Mr. Bennett showed traces of PCMV DNA in his circulation, but no actual virus in his native cells. Still, PCMV remains a suspect.

Mr. Bennett also received intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) on several occasions to fight rejection, and also severe infections, including a nasty episode of sepsis. A reaction to the IVIG, derived from pooled donor antibodies, could potentially have caused the unusual myocardial damage seen by the University of Maryland team, Dr. Griffith observed. Alternatively, the damage might have been partly related to the patient’s overall severely diminished condition even before the transplant surgery or his rocky postoperative clinical course.

Indeed, Mr. Bennett’s condition worsened dramatically on postoperative day 50, and echocardiography showed a striking degree of myocardial wall thickening and heart enlargement, determined to be from edema. “The heart got amazingly stiff but maintained a systolic function that wasn›t too terrible, even to the very end. But his heart seemed as though it had swollen overnight,” Dr. Griffith said. “We had never seen that type of process, the suddenness of this swelling, in our nonhuman primate studies.”

The damage to the heart muscle appeared irreversible, based on myocardial biopsy results, so the decision was made to withdraw life support 60 days after the transplant surgery, the report notes.

Among the experience’s apparent lessons for future cardiac xenotransplantation, Dr. Griffith said, would be to select patients for the surgery who are in a bit more robust condition than Mr. Bennett was, who are perhaps ambulatory, not sarcopenic, and not recently on prolonged mechanical circulatory support. “We’re going to try to pick a patient who, on the front end, is less critically ill but who is just as likely not to benefit from continued medical therapy” and who isn’t a candidate for conventional heart transplantation, he said.

Because of universal efforts to manage conditions like diabetes, hypertension, and vascular disease in the population, and “because these conditions cause many of the cases of organ failure and fuel demand for transplantation, one might wonder whether the advances reported by Dr. Griffith and colleagues presage a decreasing demand for organ transplantation,” speculates an accompanying editorialfrom Jeffrey L. Platt, MD, and Marilia Cascalho, MD, PhD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“We think the answer is no. Since aging is associated with progressive decline in the function of the heart, kidneys, and other organs, advances that extend life expectancy will ultimately increase the prevalence of organ failure and potentially the demand for transplantation.”

The donor pig was developed and provided by Revivicor, and the investigational KPL-404 antibody drug used in the experience was provided by Kiniksa. Other disclosures for the case report and editorial from Dr. Platt and Dr. Cascalho are available at NEJM.com. Dr. Boulet reports no relevant relationships; disclosures for the other authors are in their report.

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

It’s a given that the case of David Bennett, Sr, and his transplanted, genetically modified porcine heart will have a lot to teach, and the peer-reviewed publication this week lends welcome authority to some of its earliest lessons.

Mr. Bennett lived for 2 months after receiving the heart in the pioneering surgery, and the new case report compiles the available clinical, anatomic, and histologic evidence and other potential clues to the underlying cause or causes of death.

It also describes a mystery that came to light at autopsy: a grossly enlarged heart attributable to pervasive interstitial edema, and at the cellular level, a peculiar pattern of myocardial damage that included microvascular deterioration and, potentially as a result, cellular necrosis, according to the new report.

The myocardium itself was described as “thickened and stiff,” consistent with the “diastolic heart failure” that characterized Mr. Bennett’s final 10 days and the likely convergence of several underlying processes. Missing, however, was any conventional sign of graft rejection as it is understood clinically or in animal models, the report states.

If a form of tissue rejection was the cause of graft failure, any implicating cellular evidence may simply have been unrecognizable, given the unprecedented nature of the first pig-to-human heart transplantation, the donor animal’s multiple anti-inflammatory gene deletions, and partly investigational immunosuppression regimen, speculated Bartley P. Griffith, MD, University of Maryland, College Park.

“I’m betting against it being a fulminant rejection,” he told this news organization, “because we saw nothing like the [characteristic] platelet deposition or thrombosis of the capillaries.”

Dr. Griffith, who performed the xenotransplant surgery and led Mr. Bennett’s postoperative care, is lead author on the case report published in the New England Journal of Medicine. “Additional studies are underway to characterize the pathophysiologic mechanisms that resulted in this damage,” the report states.

The report builds on recent meeting presentations on the case, which, as previously reported, gave cursory details regarding the organ damage and other clinical developments during and after the surgery, including evidence that the transplanted heart contained porcine cytomegalovirus (PCMV).

Similar details also appeared in a third-person account based in part on personal communication with Dr. Griffith. The cardiac XTx review that focused on this University of Maryland experience was published June 15 in JACC: Basic to Translational Science, with lead author Jacinthe Boulet, MD, CM, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart, Boston.

“The question of how to move XTx forward remains uncertain, and appropriate selection of patients for experimental XTx will be one of the most important challenges to be addressed. The first issue we must contend with is whether we are ready to move to the next XTx in a human. We strongly believe this to be the case,” the review states. “Once early experience is gained, with successive iterations of XTx, the bar for success can be raised with maturation of the technology.”

Evidence has so far not implicated several other potential mechanisms underlying the graft failure that had been the focus of early speculations. For example, the transplanted pig heart was infected with PCMV, as previously reported. Mr. Bennett showed traces of PCMV DNA in his circulation, but no actual virus in his native cells. Still, PCMV remains a suspect.

Mr. Bennett also received intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) on several occasions to fight rejection, and also severe infections, including a nasty episode of sepsis. A reaction to the IVIG, derived from pooled donor antibodies, could potentially have caused the unusual myocardial damage seen by the University of Maryland team, Dr. Griffith observed. Alternatively, the damage might have been partly related to the patient’s overall severely diminished condition even before the transplant surgery or his rocky postoperative clinical course.

Indeed, Mr. Bennett’s condition worsened dramatically on postoperative day 50, and echocardiography showed a striking degree of myocardial wall thickening and heart enlargement, determined to be from edema. “The heart got amazingly stiff but maintained a systolic function that wasn›t too terrible, even to the very end. But his heart seemed as though it had swollen overnight,” Dr. Griffith said. “We had never seen that type of process, the suddenness of this swelling, in our nonhuman primate studies.”

The damage to the heart muscle appeared irreversible, based on myocardial biopsy results, so the decision was made to withdraw life support 60 days after the transplant surgery, the report notes.

Among the experience’s apparent lessons for future cardiac xenotransplantation, Dr. Griffith said, would be to select patients for the surgery who are in a bit more robust condition than Mr. Bennett was, who are perhaps ambulatory, not sarcopenic, and not recently on prolonged mechanical circulatory support. “We’re going to try to pick a patient who, on the front end, is less critically ill but who is just as likely not to benefit from continued medical therapy” and who isn’t a candidate for conventional heart transplantation, he said.

Because of universal efforts to manage conditions like diabetes, hypertension, and vascular disease in the population, and “because these conditions cause many of the cases of organ failure and fuel demand for transplantation, one might wonder whether the advances reported by Dr. Griffith and colleagues presage a decreasing demand for organ transplantation,” speculates an accompanying editorialfrom Jeffrey L. Platt, MD, and Marilia Cascalho, MD, PhD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“We think the answer is no. Since aging is associated with progressive decline in the function of the heart, kidneys, and other organs, advances that extend life expectancy will ultimately increase the prevalence of organ failure and potentially the demand for transplantation.”

The donor pig was developed and provided by Revivicor, and the investigational KPL-404 antibody drug used in the experience was provided by Kiniksa. Other disclosures for the case report and editorial from Dr. Platt and Dr. Cascalho are available at NEJM.com. Dr. Boulet reports no relevant relationships; disclosures for the other authors are in their report.

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

The country’s top medical organizations condemned the overturning of Roe v. Wade, saying the removal of federal protections for women to access abortion services marks a “dark day.”

“It is unfathomable. It is unfair. It is wrong,” said the President of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Iffath Abbasi Hoskins, MD.

“Today is a very dark day in health care. It is a dark day, indeed, for the tens of millions of patients who have suddenly and unfairly lost access to safe legal and evidence-based abortion care,” Dr. Hoskins said at a press conference June 24 sponsored by ACOG. 

“It is dark for the thousands of clinicians who now, instead of focusing on providing health care to their patients, have to live with the threats of legal, civil, and even professional penalties,” Dr. Hoskins added.

ACOG has 62,000 members and is the leading group of doctors that provides obstetric and gynecologic care.
 

Dilemma for some doctors?

“I’d like to take a moment to talk about the future of the medical profession,” said ACOG Chief Executive Officer Maureen G. Phipps, MD, MPH. “[The] decision is, as Dr. Hoskins clearly said, a tragic one for our patients in states across the country, but the harm does not end there.”

Dr. Phipps described overturning Roe v. Wade as “the boldest act of legislative interference that we have seen in this country. It will allow state legislators to tell physicians what care they can and cannot provide to their patients.”

“It will leave physicians looking over our shoulders, wondering if a patient is in enough of a crisis to permit an exception to a law,” Dr. Phipps added. “This is an affront to all that drew my colleagues and me into medicine.”

Although the impact on doctor training remains to be seen, she said 44% of ob.gyn. residents are trained in states now empowered to ban abortions.

The effect of the Supreme Court decision on miscarriage management is another unknown.

“It’s going to be very difficult for us, the clinicians, to manage miscarriage,” Dr. Hoskins said. “Many miscarriages could be what we call ‘incomplete’ in the beginning,” where there is still a heartbeat and the patient is cramping and/or bleeding.

In that instance, Dr. Hoskins said, clinicians may be thinking that they have to wait.

“They may be needing to get additional opinions, whether it’s a legal opinion ... or another medical opinion.”

“It’s going to have a devastating effect on every aspect of a woman’s health care, including if she is spontaneously miscarrying,” Dr. Hoskins predicted.

Physician protect thyself?

To what extent doctors can shield themselves from potential prosecution “is a hard question to answer,” Molly Meegan, JD, ACOG’s chief legal officer and general counsel, said.

Ms. Meegan recommended members speak to the risk managers at their individual institutions for guidance.

“It is a real patchwork [of laws] out there, she said. “And that patchwork itself is a danger to people as they seek essential reproductive health care.”

Also, she added, “If a doctor can’t tell what the law is at the time they’re trying to provide the care, it has a terribly chilling effect on medical care.”

Another potential threat to doctors in states that still allow abortion services is action from a neighboring state.

“We are going to be advocating very strongly that states do not have extra-territorial jurisdiction to reach beyond the edges of their state.”

The worry is if a doctor in New Mexico, where abortion is legal, performs an abortion for a person from Texas, where it will soon be illegal, is then prosecuted by Texas, for example.
 

Medication abortion

Asked about any potential effects on medication abortions, ACOG’s Jen Villavicencio, MD, said it remains to be seen.

“Certainly many of the laws that we have seen, including trigger ban laws, encompass medication abortion,” she said. Several states have these so-called trigger laws, which put into effect laws passed to ban abortion in case Roe was overturned.

This means, she said, that any abortion option, whether it’s procedural or medication, could be and will be banned in some of these states.

Ms. Meegan added that ACOG will continue to support access to medication abortion and that it should be decided by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and not individual states.
 

Maternal mortality may rise

“Maternal mortality in and of itself is a very difficult topic,” Dr. Hoskins said, but [the] decision amplifies the implications. “I think of the patients who will have to manage severe complications and mental health challenges while they are carrying a pregnancy that they are forced to carry.”

“I also think of the patients who need to end their pregnancies in order to save their own lives,” Dr. Hoskins added.

Dr. Hoskins said the United States already has a high maternal mortality rate. This new law, she added, could force women into higher-risk situations if they experience high blood pressure, preeclampsia, or bleeding after the birth of the baby.
 

Growing inequality possible?

“The grievous inequities that exist in this country will grow and expand unchecked without safe access to legal abortion,” Dr. Phipps said.

She noted that women, based on location, will continue “to have protected access to safe evidence-based abortion. Others will have the means and resources and opportunities to secure the care.”

But the same may not be true for women in underserved or disadvantaged communities, Dr. Phipps added.
 

American Medical Association

ACOG was not the only group to react. “The American Medical Association is deeply disturbed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn nearly a half century of precedent protecting patients’ right to critical reproductive health care,” President Jack Resneck Jr., MD, said in a statement.

The decision represents “an egregious allowance of government intrusion into the medical examination room, a direct attack on the practice of medicine and the patient-physician relationship, and a brazen violation of patients’ rights to evidence-based reproductive health services.”

American Academy of Family Physicians

“The American Academy of Family Physicians is disappointed and disheartened by the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down longstanding protections afforded by Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey,” President Sterling N. Ransone Jr., MD, said in a statement.

The organization has 127,600 physician and medical student members.

“This decision negatively impacts our practices and our patients by undermining the patient-physician relationship and potentially criminalizing evidence-based medical care,” added Dr. Ransone.
 

American College of Physicians

“A patient’s decision about whether to continue a pregnancy should be a private decision made in consultation with a physician or other health care professional, without interference from the government,” President Ryan D. Mire, MD, said in a statement. “We strongly oppose medically unnecessary government restrictions on any health care services,” added Dr. Mire on behalf of the group’s 161,000 members.

American Academy of Pediatrics

“This decision carries grave consequences for our adolescent patients, who already face many more barriers than adults in accessing comprehensive reproductive health care services and abortion care,” President Moira Szilagyi, MD, PhD, said in a statement. 

“In the wake of this ruling, the American Academy of Pediatrics will continue to support our chapters as states consider policies affecting access to abortion care, and pediatricians will continue to support our patients,” Dr. Szilagyi added.
 

American Public Health Association

The court’s decision “is a catastrophic judicial failure that will reverberate differently in each state and portends to jeopardize the health and lives of all Americans,” Executive Director Georges C. Benjamin, MD, said in a statement.

American Urogynecologic Society

“The American Urogynecologic Society opposes any ruling that restricts a person’s access to health care and criminalizes the practice of medicine,” the group said in a statement. “This ruling ultimately poses a serious threat to the patient-provider relationship and subsequent decisionmaking necessary to ensure optimal outcomes for patients. As practitioners, we should be free to provide what is in the best interest of our patients.”

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

The country’s top medical organizations condemned the overturning of Roe v. Wade, saying the removal of federal protections for women to access abortion services marks a “dark day.”

“It is unfathomable. It is unfair. It is wrong,” said the President of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Iffath Abbasi Hoskins, MD.

“Today is a very dark day in health care. It is a dark day, indeed, for the tens of millions of patients who have suddenly and unfairly lost access to safe legal and evidence-based abortion care,” Dr. Hoskins said at a press conference June 24 sponsored by ACOG. 

“It is dark for the thousands of clinicians who now, instead of focusing on providing health care to their patients, have to live with the threats of legal, civil, and even professional penalties,” Dr. Hoskins added.

ACOG has 62,000 members and is the leading group of doctors that provides obstetric and gynecologic care.
 

Dilemma for some doctors?

“I’d like to take a moment to talk about the future of the medical profession,” said ACOG Chief Executive Officer Maureen G. Phipps, MD, MPH. “[The] decision is, as Dr. Hoskins clearly said, a tragic one for our patients in states across the country, but the harm does not end there.”

Dr. Phipps described overturning Roe v. Wade as “the boldest act of legislative interference that we have seen in this country. It will allow state legislators to tell physicians what care they can and cannot provide to their patients.”

“It will leave physicians looking over our shoulders, wondering if a patient is in enough of a crisis to permit an exception to a law,” Dr. Phipps added. “This is an affront to all that drew my colleagues and me into medicine.”

Although the impact on doctor training remains to be seen, she said 44% of ob.gyn. residents are trained in states now empowered to ban abortions.

The effect of the Supreme Court decision on miscarriage management is another unknown.

“It’s going to be very difficult for us, the clinicians, to manage miscarriage,” Dr. Hoskins said. “Many miscarriages could be what we call ‘incomplete’ in the beginning,” where there is still a heartbeat and the patient is cramping and/or bleeding.

In that instance, Dr. Hoskins said, clinicians may be thinking that they have to wait.

“They may be needing to get additional opinions, whether it’s a legal opinion ... or another medical opinion.”

“It’s going to have a devastating effect on every aspect of a woman’s health care, including if she is spontaneously miscarrying,” Dr. Hoskins predicted.

Physician protect thyself?

To what extent doctors can shield themselves from potential prosecution “is a hard question to answer,” Molly Meegan, JD, ACOG’s chief legal officer and general counsel, said.

Ms. Meegan recommended members speak to the risk managers at their individual institutions for guidance.

“It is a real patchwork [of laws] out there, she said. “And that patchwork itself is a danger to people as they seek essential reproductive health care.”

Also, she added, “If a doctor can’t tell what the law is at the time they’re trying to provide the care, it has a terribly chilling effect on medical care.”

Another potential threat to doctors in states that still allow abortion services is action from a neighboring state.

“We are going to be advocating very strongly that states do not have extra-territorial jurisdiction to reach beyond the edges of their state.”

The worry is if a doctor in New Mexico, where abortion is legal, performs an abortion for a person from Texas, where it will soon be illegal, is then prosecuted by Texas, for example.
 

Medication abortion

Asked about any potential effects on medication abortions, ACOG’s Jen Villavicencio, MD, said it remains to be seen.

“Certainly many of the laws that we have seen, including trigger ban laws, encompass medication abortion,” she said. Several states have these so-called trigger laws, which put into effect laws passed to ban abortion in case Roe was overturned.

This means, she said, that any abortion option, whether it’s procedural or medication, could be and will be banned in some of these states.

Ms. Meegan added that ACOG will continue to support access to medication abortion and that it should be decided by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and not individual states.
 

Maternal mortality may rise

“Maternal mortality in and of itself is a very difficult topic,” Dr. Hoskins said, but [the] decision amplifies the implications. “I think of the patients who will have to manage severe complications and mental health challenges while they are carrying a pregnancy that they are forced to carry.”

“I also think of the patients who need to end their pregnancies in order to save their own lives,” Dr. Hoskins added.

Dr. Hoskins said the United States already has a high maternal mortality rate. This new law, she added, could force women into higher-risk situations if they experience high blood pressure, preeclampsia, or bleeding after the birth of the baby.
 

Growing inequality possible?

“The grievous inequities that exist in this country will grow and expand unchecked without safe access to legal abortion,” Dr. Phipps said.

She noted that women, based on location, will continue “to have protected access to safe evidence-based abortion. Others will have the means and resources and opportunities to secure the care.”

But the same may not be true for women in underserved or disadvantaged communities, Dr. Phipps added.
 

American Medical Association

ACOG was not the only group to react. “The American Medical Association is deeply disturbed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn nearly a half century of precedent protecting patients’ right to critical reproductive health care,” President Jack Resneck Jr., MD, said in a statement.

The decision represents “an egregious allowance of government intrusion into the medical examination room, a direct attack on the practice of medicine and the patient-physician relationship, and a brazen violation of patients’ rights to evidence-based reproductive health services.”

American Academy of Family Physicians

“The American Academy of Family Physicians is disappointed and disheartened by the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down longstanding protections afforded by Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey,” President Sterling N. Ransone Jr., MD, said in a statement.

The organization has 127,600 physician and medical student members.

“This decision negatively impacts our practices and our patients by undermining the patient-physician relationship and potentially criminalizing evidence-based medical care,” added Dr. Ransone.
 

American College of Physicians

“A patient’s decision about whether to continue a pregnancy should be a private decision made in consultation with a physician or other health care professional, without interference from the government,” President Ryan D. Mire, MD, said in a statement. “We strongly oppose medically unnecessary government restrictions on any health care services,” added Dr. Mire on behalf of the group’s 161,000 members.

American Academy of Pediatrics

“This decision carries grave consequences for our adolescent patients, who already face many more barriers than adults in accessing comprehensive reproductive health care services and abortion care,” President Moira Szilagyi, MD, PhD, said in a statement. 

“In the wake of this ruling, the American Academy of Pediatrics will continue to support our chapters as states consider policies affecting access to abortion care, and pediatricians will continue to support our patients,” Dr. Szilagyi added.
 

American Public Health Association

The court’s decision “is a catastrophic judicial failure that will reverberate differently in each state and portends to jeopardize the health and lives of all Americans,” Executive Director Georges C. Benjamin, MD, said in a statement.

American Urogynecologic Society

“The American Urogynecologic Society opposes any ruling that restricts a person’s access to health care and criminalizes the practice of medicine,” the group said in a statement. “This ruling ultimately poses a serious threat to the patient-provider relationship and subsequent decisionmaking necessary to ensure optimal outcomes for patients. As practitioners, we should be free to provide what is in the best interest of our patients.”

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

The country’s top medical organizations condemned the overturning of Roe v. Wade, saying the removal of federal protections for women to access abortion services marks a “dark day.”

“It is unfathomable. It is unfair. It is wrong,” said the President of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Iffath Abbasi Hoskins, MD.

“Today is a very dark day in health care. It is a dark day, indeed, for the tens of millions of patients who have suddenly and unfairly lost access to safe legal and evidence-based abortion care,” Dr. Hoskins said at a press conference June 24 sponsored by ACOG. 

“It is dark for the thousands of clinicians who now, instead of focusing on providing health care to their patients, have to live with the threats of legal, civil, and even professional penalties,” Dr. Hoskins added.

ACOG has 62,000 members and is the leading group of doctors that provides obstetric and gynecologic care.
 

Dilemma for some doctors?

“I’d like to take a moment to talk about the future of the medical profession,” said ACOG Chief Executive Officer Maureen G. Phipps, MD, MPH. “[The] decision is, as Dr. Hoskins clearly said, a tragic one for our patients in states across the country, but the harm does not end there.”

Dr. Phipps described overturning Roe v. Wade as “the boldest act of legislative interference that we have seen in this country. It will allow state legislators to tell physicians what care they can and cannot provide to their patients.”

“It will leave physicians looking over our shoulders, wondering if a patient is in enough of a crisis to permit an exception to a law,” Dr. Phipps added. “This is an affront to all that drew my colleagues and me into medicine.”

Although the impact on doctor training remains to be seen, she said 44% of ob.gyn. residents are trained in states now empowered to ban abortions.

The effect of the Supreme Court decision on miscarriage management is another unknown.

“It’s going to be very difficult for us, the clinicians, to manage miscarriage,” Dr. Hoskins said. “Many miscarriages could be what we call ‘incomplete’ in the beginning,” where there is still a heartbeat and the patient is cramping and/or bleeding.

In that instance, Dr. Hoskins said, clinicians may be thinking that they have to wait.

“They may be needing to get additional opinions, whether it’s a legal opinion ... or another medical opinion.”

“It’s going to have a devastating effect on every aspect of a woman’s health care, including if she is spontaneously miscarrying,” Dr. Hoskins predicted.

Physician protect thyself?

To what extent doctors can shield themselves from potential prosecution “is a hard question to answer,” Molly Meegan, JD, ACOG’s chief legal officer and general counsel, said.

Ms. Meegan recommended members speak to the risk managers at their individual institutions for guidance.

“It is a real patchwork [of laws] out there, she said. “And that patchwork itself is a danger to people as they seek essential reproductive health care.”

Also, she added, “If a doctor can’t tell what the law is at the time they’re trying to provide the care, it has a terribly chilling effect on medical care.”

Another potential threat to doctors in states that still allow abortion services is action from a neighboring state.

“We are going to be advocating very strongly that states do not have extra-territorial jurisdiction to reach beyond the edges of their state.”

The worry is if a doctor in New Mexico, where abortion is legal, performs an abortion for a person from Texas, where it will soon be illegal, is then prosecuted by Texas, for example.
 

Medication abortion

Asked about any potential effects on medication abortions, ACOG’s Jen Villavicencio, MD, said it remains to be seen.

“Certainly many of the laws that we have seen, including trigger ban laws, encompass medication abortion,” she said. Several states have these so-called trigger laws, which put into effect laws passed to ban abortion in case Roe was overturned.

This means, she said, that any abortion option, whether it’s procedural or medication, could be and will be banned in some of these states.

Ms. Meegan added that ACOG will continue to support access to medication abortion and that it should be decided by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and not individual states.
 

Maternal mortality may rise

“Maternal mortality in and of itself is a very difficult topic,” Dr. Hoskins said, but [the] decision amplifies the implications. “I think of the patients who will have to manage severe complications and mental health challenges while they are carrying a pregnancy that they are forced to carry.”

“I also think of the patients who need to end their pregnancies in order to save their own lives,” Dr. Hoskins added.

Dr. Hoskins said the United States already has a high maternal mortality rate. This new law, she added, could force women into higher-risk situations if they experience high blood pressure, preeclampsia, or bleeding after the birth of the baby.
 

Growing inequality possible?

“The grievous inequities that exist in this country will grow and expand unchecked without safe access to legal abortion,” Dr. Phipps said.

She noted that women, based on location, will continue “to have protected access to safe evidence-based abortion. Others will have the means and resources and opportunities to secure the care.”

But the same may not be true for women in underserved or disadvantaged communities, Dr. Phipps added.
 

American Medical Association

ACOG was not the only group to react. “The American Medical Association is deeply disturbed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn nearly a half century of precedent protecting patients’ right to critical reproductive health care,” President Jack Resneck Jr., MD, said in a statement.

The decision represents “an egregious allowance of government intrusion into the medical examination room, a direct attack on the practice of medicine and the patient-physician relationship, and a brazen violation of patients’ rights to evidence-based reproductive health services.”

American Academy of Family Physicians

“The American Academy of Family Physicians is disappointed and disheartened by the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down longstanding protections afforded by Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey,” President Sterling N. Ransone Jr., MD, said in a statement.

The organization has 127,600 physician and medical student members.

“This decision negatively impacts our practices and our patients by undermining the patient-physician relationship and potentially criminalizing evidence-based medical care,” added Dr. Ransone.
 

American College of Physicians

“A patient’s decision about whether to continue a pregnancy should be a private decision made in consultation with a physician or other health care professional, without interference from the government,” President Ryan D. Mire, MD, said in a statement. “We strongly oppose medically unnecessary government restrictions on any health care services,” added Dr. Mire on behalf of the group’s 161,000 members.

American Academy of Pediatrics

“This decision carries grave consequences for our adolescent patients, who already face many more barriers than adults in accessing comprehensive reproductive health care services and abortion care,” President Moira Szilagyi, MD, PhD, said in a statement. 

“In the wake of this ruling, the American Academy of Pediatrics will continue to support our chapters as states consider policies affecting access to abortion care, and pediatricians will continue to support our patients,” Dr. Szilagyi added.
 

American Public Health Association

The court’s decision “is a catastrophic judicial failure that will reverberate differently in each state and portends to jeopardize the health and lives of all Americans,” Executive Director Georges C. Benjamin, MD, said in a statement.

American Urogynecologic Society

“The American Urogynecologic Society opposes any ruling that restricts a person’s access to health care and criminalizes the practice of medicine,” the group said in a statement. “This ruling ultimately poses a serious threat to the patient-provider relationship and subsequent decisionmaking necessary to ensure optimal outcomes for patients. As practitioners, we should be free to provide what is in the best interest of our patients.”

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

Infertility, pregnancy loss, and stillbirth increased women’s later risk of both nonfatal and fatal stroke, based on data from more than 600,000 women.

“To date, multiple studies have generated an expanding body of evidence on the association between pregnancy complications (e.g., gestational diabetes and preeclampsia) and the long-term risk of stroke, but studies on associations with infertility, miscarriage, or stillbirth have produced mixed evidence,” Chen Liang, a PhD candidate at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, and colleagues wrote.

In a study published in the BMJ, the researchers reviewed data from eight observational cohort studies across seven countries (Australia, China, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States). The participants were part of the InterLACE (International Collaboration for a Life Course Approach to Reproductive Health and Chronic Disease Events) consortium established in 2021. Most observational studies included in the analysis began between 1990 and 2000.

The study population included 618,851 women aged 32-73 years at baseline for whom data on infertility, miscarriage, or stillbirth, were available. The primary outcome was the association of infertility, recurrent miscarriage, and stillbirth with risk of first fatal or nonfatal stroke, and the results were further stratified by subtype. Stroke was identified through self-reports, linked hospital data, national patient registers, or death registry data. Baseline was defined as the first incidence of infertility, miscarriage, or stillbirth. The exception was the National Survey of Health and Development, a British birth cohort started in 1946, that collected data retrospectively.

The median follow-up period was 13 years for nonfatal stroke and 9.4 years for fatal stroke.

Overall, 17.2%, 16.6%, and 4.6% of the women experienced infertility, miscarriage, and stillbirth, respectively.

Women with a history of infertility had a significantly higher nonfatal stroke risk, compared with those without infertility (hazard ratio, 1.14). Further analysis by stroke subtypes showed an increased association between miscarriage and ischemic stroke (HR, 1.15).

Those with a history of miscarriage also had an increased risk of nonfatal stroke, compared with those without miscarriages (HR, 1.11). In the miscarriage group, the risk of stroke increased with the number of miscarriages, with adjusted HRs of 1.07, 1.12, and 1.35 for women with one, two, and three or more miscarriages, respectively. When stratified by stroke subtype, women with three or more miscarriages were more likely than women with no miscarriages to experience ischemic and hemorrhagic nonfatal strokes.

Associations were similar between miscarriage history and fatal stroke risk. Women with one, two, and three or more miscarriages had increased risk of fatal stroke, compared with those with no miscarriages (aHR, 1.08, 1.26, and 1.82, respectively, and women with three or more miscarriages had a higher risk of ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke (aHR, 1.83 and 1.84, respectively).

Women with a history of stillbirth had an approximately 31% increased risk of nonfatal stroke, compared with those with no history of stillbirth, with aHRs similar for single and recurrent stillbirths (1.32 and 1.29, respectively). Ischemic nonfatal stroke risk was higher in women with any stillbirth, compared with those without stillbirth (aHR, 1.77). Fatal stroke risk also was higher in women with any stillbirth, compared with those without, and this risk increased with the number of stillbirths (HR, 0.97 and HR, 1.26 for those with one stillbirth and two or more, respectively).

“The increased risk of stroke associated with infertility or recurrent stillbirths was mainly driven by a single subtype of stroke (nonfatal ischemic stroke or fatal hemorrhagic stroke, respectively), whereas the risk of stroke associated with recurrent miscarriages was driven by both subtypes,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers cited endothelial dysfunction as a potential underlying mechanism for increased stroke risk associated with pregnancy complications. “Endothelial dysfunction might lead to pregnancy loss through placentation-related defects, persist after a complicated pregnancy, and contribute to the development of stroke through reduced vasodilation, proinflammatory status, and prothrombic properties,” and that history of recurrent pregnancy loss might be a female-specific risk factor for stroke.

To mitigate this risk, they advised early monitoring of women with a history of recurrent miscarriages and stillbirths for stroke risk factors such as high blood pressure, blood sugar levels, and lipid levels.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of questionnaires to collect information on infertility, miscarriage, and stillbirth, and the potential variation in definitions of infertility, miscarriage, and stillbirth across the included studies, and a lack of data on the effect of different causes or treatments based on reproductive histories, the researchers noted. Other limitations include incomplete data on stroke subtypes and inability to adjust for all covariates such as thyroid disorders and endometriosis. However, the results were strengthened by the large study size and geographically and racially diverse population, extend the current knowledge on associations between infertility, miscarriage, and stillbirth with stroke, and highlight the need for more research on underlying mechanisms.
 

Data support gender-specific stroke risk stratification

“Studies that seek to understand gender differences and disparities in adverse outcomes, such as stroke risk, are extremely important given that women historically were excluded from research studies,” Catherine M. Albright, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “By doing these studies, we are able to better risk stratify people in order to better predict and modify risks,” added Dr. Albright, who was not involved in the current study.

“It is well known than adverse pregnancy outcomes such as hypertension in pregnancy, fetal growth restriction, and preterm birth, lead to increased risk of cardiovascular disease and stroke later in life, so the general findings of an association between other adverse reproductive and pregnancy outcomes leads to increased stroke risk are not surprising,” she said.

“The take-home message is that outcomes for pregnancy really do provide a window to future health,” said Dr. Albright. “For clinicians, especially non-ob.gyns., knowing a complete pregnancy history for any new patient is important and can help risk-stratify patients, especially as we continue to gain knowledge like what is shown in this study.”

However, “this study did not evaluate why individual patients may have had infertility, recurrent pregnancy loss, or stillbirth, so research to look further into this association to determine if there is an underlying medical condition that could be treated and therefore possibly reduce both pregnancy complications and future stroke risks would be important,” Dr. Albright noted.

The study was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Centres of Research Excellence; one corresponding author was supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator grant. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Albright had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Infertility, pregnancy loss, and stillbirth increased women’s later risk of both nonfatal and fatal stroke, based on data from more than 600,000 women.

“To date, multiple studies have generated an expanding body of evidence on the association between pregnancy complications (e.g., gestational diabetes and preeclampsia) and the long-term risk of stroke, but studies on associations with infertility, miscarriage, or stillbirth have produced mixed evidence,” Chen Liang, a PhD candidate at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, and colleagues wrote.

In a study published in the BMJ, the researchers reviewed data from eight observational cohort studies across seven countries (Australia, China, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States). The participants were part of the InterLACE (International Collaboration for a Life Course Approach to Reproductive Health and Chronic Disease Events) consortium established in 2021. Most observational studies included in the analysis began between 1990 and 2000.

The study population included 618,851 women aged 32-73 years at baseline for whom data on infertility, miscarriage, or stillbirth, were available. The primary outcome was the association of infertility, recurrent miscarriage, and stillbirth with risk of first fatal or nonfatal stroke, and the results were further stratified by subtype. Stroke was identified through self-reports, linked hospital data, national patient registers, or death registry data. Baseline was defined as the first incidence of infertility, miscarriage, or stillbirth. The exception was the National Survey of Health and Development, a British birth cohort started in 1946, that collected data retrospectively.

The median follow-up period was 13 years for nonfatal stroke and 9.4 years for fatal stroke.

Overall, 17.2%, 16.6%, and 4.6% of the women experienced infertility, miscarriage, and stillbirth, respectively.

Women with a history of infertility had a significantly higher nonfatal stroke risk, compared with those without infertility (hazard ratio, 1.14). Further analysis by stroke subtypes showed an increased association between miscarriage and ischemic stroke (HR, 1.15).

Those with a history of miscarriage also had an increased risk of nonfatal stroke, compared with those without miscarriages (HR, 1.11). In the miscarriage group, the risk of stroke increased with the number of miscarriages, with adjusted HRs of 1.07, 1.12, and 1.35 for women with one, two, and three or more miscarriages, respectively. When stratified by stroke subtype, women with three or more miscarriages were more likely than women with no miscarriages to experience ischemic and hemorrhagic nonfatal strokes.

Associations were similar between miscarriage history and fatal stroke risk. Women with one, two, and three or more miscarriages had increased risk of fatal stroke, compared with those with no miscarriages (aHR, 1.08, 1.26, and 1.82, respectively, and women with three or more miscarriages had a higher risk of ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke (aHR, 1.83 and 1.84, respectively).

Women with a history of stillbirth had an approximately 31% increased risk of nonfatal stroke, compared with those with no history of stillbirth, with aHRs similar for single and recurrent stillbirths (1.32 and 1.29, respectively). Ischemic nonfatal stroke risk was higher in women with any stillbirth, compared with those without stillbirth (aHR, 1.77). Fatal stroke risk also was higher in women with any stillbirth, compared with those without, and this risk increased with the number of stillbirths (HR, 0.97 and HR, 1.26 for those with one stillbirth and two or more, respectively).

“The increased risk of stroke associated with infertility or recurrent stillbirths was mainly driven by a single subtype of stroke (nonfatal ischemic stroke or fatal hemorrhagic stroke, respectively), whereas the risk of stroke associated with recurrent miscarriages was driven by both subtypes,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers cited endothelial dysfunction as a potential underlying mechanism for increased stroke risk associated with pregnancy complications. “Endothelial dysfunction might lead to pregnancy loss through placentation-related defects, persist after a complicated pregnancy, and contribute to the development of stroke through reduced vasodilation, proinflammatory status, and prothrombic properties,” and that history of recurrent pregnancy loss might be a female-specific risk factor for stroke.

To mitigate this risk, they advised early monitoring of women with a history of recurrent miscarriages and stillbirths for stroke risk factors such as high blood pressure, blood sugar levels, and lipid levels.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of questionnaires to collect information on infertility, miscarriage, and stillbirth, and the potential variation in definitions of infertility, miscarriage, and stillbirth across the included studies, and a lack of data on the effect of different causes or treatments based on reproductive histories, the researchers noted. Other limitations include incomplete data on stroke subtypes and inability to adjust for all covariates such as thyroid disorders and endometriosis. However, the results were strengthened by the large study size and geographically and racially diverse population, extend the current knowledge on associations between infertility, miscarriage, and stillbirth with stroke, and highlight the need for more research on underlying mechanisms.
 

Data support gender-specific stroke risk stratification

“Studies that seek to understand gender differences and disparities in adverse outcomes, such as stroke risk, are extremely important given that women historically were excluded from research studies,” Catherine M. Albright, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “By doing these studies, we are able to better risk stratify people in order to better predict and modify risks,” added Dr. Albright, who was not involved in the current study.

“It is well known than adverse pregnancy outcomes such as hypertension in pregnancy, fetal growth restriction, and preterm birth, lead to increased risk of cardiovascular disease and stroke later in life, so the general findings of an association between other adverse reproductive and pregnancy outcomes leads to increased stroke risk are not surprising,” she said.

“The take-home message is that outcomes for pregnancy really do provide a window to future health,” said Dr. Albright. “For clinicians, especially non-ob.gyns., knowing a complete pregnancy history for any new patient is important and can help risk-stratify patients, especially as we continue to gain knowledge like what is shown in this study.”

However, “this study did not evaluate why individual patients may have had infertility, recurrent pregnancy loss, or stillbirth, so research to look further into this association to determine if there is an underlying medical condition that could be treated and therefore possibly reduce both pregnancy complications and future stroke risks would be important,” Dr. Albright noted.

The study was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Centres of Research Excellence; one corresponding author was supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator grant. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Albright had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Infertility, pregnancy loss, and stillbirth increased women’s later risk of both nonfatal and fatal stroke, based on data from more than 600,000 women.

“To date, multiple studies have generated an expanding body of evidence on the association between pregnancy complications (e.g., gestational diabetes and preeclampsia) and the long-term risk of stroke, but studies on associations with infertility, miscarriage, or stillbirth have produced mixed evidence,” Chen Liang, a PhD candidate at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, and colleagues wrote.

In a study published in the BMJ, the researchers reviewed data from eight observational cohort studies across seven countries (Australia, China, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States). The participants were part of the InterLACE (International Collaboration for a Life Course Approach to Reproductive Health and Chronic Disease Events) consortium established in 2021. Most observational studies included in the analysis began between 1990 and 2000.

The study population included 618,851 women aged 32-73 years at baseline for whom data on infertility, miscarriage, or stillbirth, were available. The primary outcome was the association of infertility, recurrent miscarriage, and stillbirth with risk of first fatal or nonfatal stroke, and the results were further stratified by subtype. Stroke was identified through self-reports, linked hospital data, national patient registers, or death registry data. Baseline was defined as the first incidence of infertility, miscarriage, or stillbirth. The exception was the National Survey of Health and Development, a British birth cohort started in 1946, that collected data retrospectively.

The median follow-up period was 13 years for nonfatal stroke and 9.4 years for fatal stroke.

Overall, 17.2%, 16.6%, and 4.6% of the women experienced infertility, miscarriage, and stillbirth, respectively.

Women with a history of infertility had a significantly higher nonfatal stroke risk, compared with those without infertility (hazard ratio, 1.14). Further analysis by stroke subtypes showed an increased association between miscarriage and ischemic stroke (HR, 1.15).

Those with a history of miscarriage also had an increased risk of nonfatal stroke, compared with those without miscarriages (HR, 1.11). In the miscarriage group, the risk of stroke increased with the number of miscarriages, with adjusted HRs of 1.07, 1.12, and 1.35 for women with one, two, and three or more miscarriages, respectively. When stratified by stroke subtype, women with three or more miscarriages were more likely than women with no miscarriages to experience ischemic and hemorrhagic nonfatal strokes.

Associations were similar between miscarriage history and fatal stroke risk. Women with one, two, and three or more miscarriages had increased risk of fatal stroke, compared with those with no miscarriages (aHR, 1.08, 1.26, and 1.82, respectively, and women with three or more miscarriages had a higher risk of ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke (aHR, 1.83 and 1.84, respectively).

Women with a history of stillbirth had an approximately 31% increased risk of nonfatal stroke, compared with those with no history of stillbirth, with aHRs similar for single and recurrent stillbirths (1.32 and 1.29, respectively). Ischemic nonfatal stroke risk was higher in women with any stillbirth, compared with those without stillbirth (aHR, 1.77). Fatal stroke risk also was higher in women with any stillbirth, compared with those without, and this risk increased with the number of stillbirths (HR, 0.97 and HR, 1.26 for those with one stillbirth and two or more, respectively).

“The increased risk of stroke associated with infertility or recurrent stillbirths was mainly driven by a single subtype of stroke (nonfatal ischemic stroke or fatal hemorrhagic stroke, respectively), whereas the risk of stroke associated with recurrent miscarriages was driven by both subtypes,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers cited endothelial dysfunction as a potential underlying mechanism for increased stroke risk associated with pregnancy complications. “Endothelial dysfunction might lead to pregnancy loss through placentation-related defects, persist after a complicated pregnancy, and contribute to the development of stroke through reduced vasodilation, proinflammatory status, and prothrombic properties,” and that history of recurrent pregnancy loss might be a female-specific risk factor for stroke.

To mitigate this risk, they advised early monitoring of women with a history of recurrent miscarriages and stillbirths for stroke risk factors such as high blood pressure, blood sugar levels, and lipid levels.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of questionnaires to collect information on infertility, miscarriage, and stillbirth, and the potential variation in definitions of infertility, miscarriage, and stillbirth across the included studies, and a lack of data on the effect of different causes or treatments based on reproductive histories, the researchers noted. Other limitations include incomplete data on stroke subtypes and inability to adjust for all covariates such as thyroid disorders and endometriosis. However, the results were strengthened by the large study size and geographically and racially diverse population, extend the current knowledge on associations between infertility, miscarriage, and stillbirth with stroke, and highlight the need for more research on underlying mechanisms.
 

Data support gender-specific stroke risk stratification

“Studies that seek to understand gender differences and disparities in adverse outcomes, such as stroke risk, are extremely important given that women historically were excluded from research studies,” Catherine M. Albright, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “By doing these studies, we are able to better risk stratify people in order to better predict and modify risks,” added Dr. Albright, who was not involved in the current study.

“It is well known than adverse pregnancy outcomes such as hypertension in pregnancy, fetal growth restriction, and preterm birth, lead to increased risk of cardiovascular disease and stroke later in life, so the general findings of an association between other adverse reproductive and pregnancy outcomes leads to increased stroke risk are not surprising,” she said.

“The take-home message is that outcomes for pregnancy really do provide a window to future health,” said Dr. Albright. “For clinicians, especially non-ob.gyns., knowing a complete pregnancy history for any new patient is important and can help risk-stratify patients, especially as we continue to gain knowledge like what is shown in this study.”

However, “this study did not evaluate why individual patients may have had infertility, recurrent pregnancy loss, or stillbirth, so research to look further into this association to determine if there is an underlying medical condition that could be treated and therefore possibly reduce both pregnancy complications and future stroke risks would be important,” Dr. Albright noted.

The study was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Centres of Research Excellence; one corresponding author was supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator grant. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Albright had no financial conflicts to disclose.

It took Michael Golden, MD, 5 years to decide to switch to a concierge practice, in which patients pay a monthly or annual fee for more personalized care. Dr. Golden, an internist in Beverly, Mass., changed course in 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“I’m not sure why I hesitated for so long,” said Dr. Golden.

Once they take the plunge into concierge practice or direct primary care (DPC) – a related form of retainer-based practice – many doctors are delighted with the change. But taking the plunge is a big step that they sometimes put off for years.

“The main factors for waiting are fear, uncertainty, and doubt,” said Leigh “Jack” Forbush, DO, a family physician who runs a DPC practice in Hampden, Maine, and mentors doctors contemplating the switch.

According to Dr. Forbush, the critical questions doctors ask themselves are, “Will I be able to find enough paying patients?” and – in the case of DPC practices, which cancel insurance – “Can I live without the money I get from insurers?”

Terry Bauer, CEO of Specialdocs Consultants in Highland Park, Ill., which helps doctors move to a concierge practice, said many of his clients put off the decision for as long as 15 years.

“Clients became progressively worn out – or even burnt out – by the demands of fee-for-service medicine,” said Dr. Bauer. “For women, the tipping point can be when their kids ask, ‘Mom, do you like your job better than me?’ For men, it may be more about feeling tired and unsatisfied with their work.”

But once these doctors make the switch, it’s with all their heart. “A client recently told me that if he couldn’t open a concierge practice, he might have to quit medicine,” Dr. Bauer said. “And he’s only 51.”
 

Few doctors regret switching

A 2020 survey of DPC physicians for the Society of Actuaries found that 99% reported having better or much better overall personal and professional satisfaction.

Retainer-based physicians report feeling much more relaxed after they start a concierge practice. On many workdays, Dr. Golden takes a walk on a trail in the woods behind his office. “That’s something I couldn’t do before,” he said. “And I go to my kids’ soccer games. I’m able to be present in their lives now.”

Since retainer-based doctors have markedly fewer patients, they can form personal relationships with each one. When Dr. Golden switched, he “went from having a couple of thousand patients to a few hundred,” he said.

“I know each patient now,” said Dorothy Cohen Serna, MD, an internist in Cypress, Tex., who moved to concierge in 2017. “I don’t need to look at their chart to know who they are.”

Dr. Serna said patients’ close relationship with her helped them get through the worst months of the pandemic. “They were scared, depressed, and concerned, and they needed a lot of individual attention,” she said.

Because they see fewer patients, concierge doctors can lengthen appointment times to about 30 minutes – or longer, if necessary. They no longer have a problem answering patients’ “doorknob questions” – wholly new concerns brought up at the end of the visit.

“The appointment might be for a sprained ankle, and then the patient might mention they haven’t been sleeping well,” Dr. Golden said. “I have time to talk about that without worrying that my schedule is getting backed up.”
 

Why patients sign up

Retainer-based practices are still an exotic concept in many areas, but patients are beginning to understand the value, said Shalini Kaneriya, MD, an internist in Herndon, Va,, who switched her practice to concierge in 2018.

Several hundred patients followed her into her new practice because “people realized their care would be better if they had a concierge doctor,” she said. Two years ago, partly because of growing demand, she recruited another physician as an associate.

“People want a relationship with their doctor,” Dr. Serna added. “It’s hard to provide that in a regular practice.”

Todd Granger, MD, an internist who opened a DPC practice in Chapel Hill, N.C., in 2016, said new patients often mention feeling rushed through appointments with their previous doctors. Also, “it’s hard to get to see a doctor around here.”

Scott Bernstein, MD, an internist who runs a DPC practice in Scottsdale, Ariz., said he can arrange to have patients see specialists much faster than if they try to make appointments on their own. “I personally call specialists and then prep my patients on how to deal with the appointment,” he said.

Retainer-based practices tend to have a greater number of older and chronically ill patients, but they also attract patients who need less care. “The healthier patients find value in our proactive approach to prevention and wellness,” Dr. Serna said.

Some concierge physicians charge higher fees to patients who need more care, but many decide this is too complicated and charge everyone the same fee. Dr. Granger said he initially had a variable fee schedule, but when some lower-paying patients began to need more visits, he had to consider charging them extra. “Now I basically have just one fee,” he said.
 

Not a good fit for many physicians

Dr. Bauer said a lot of physicians are interested in retainer-based practice, but many of them might not make the income they had hoped for. Specialdocs interviews physicians who inquire about the model and ultimately doesn’t contract with 80% of them, Dr. Bauer said.

To be able to sign up and retain enough patients, the doctor’s attitude is important. “You have to be driven by the desire to go deep with patients -- to work hard with them and deal with their issues,” said Erika Bliss, MD, who runs a DPC practice in Seattle.

Dr. Bernstein said retainer-based physicians have to be interested in lifestyle issues, such as diet, exercise, and sleep. “I spend a lot of time dealing with issues like how to incorporate physical activity into daily routines,” he said. “Some doctors wouldn’t enjoy doing that.”

Also, concierge physicians have to be available all the time. “Patients have my cell phone number,” Dr. Granger said. “They could call in the middle of the night, but they usually don’t.”

To ensure that they get some time off, many concierge physicians have partners. Dr. Bernstein and another DPC doctor maintain separate practices but cover for each other. Each takes every other weekend off plus 6 weeks every year.
 

Can you attract enough patients?

A key challenge is finding enough patients to sustain a concierge practice. Planning the switch involves setting a target number of patients needed for the doctor to make a decent income after paying practice expenses. For example, a doctor charging $300 a month to 250 patients would gross $900,000 per year, and then pay practice expenses from that.

Attracting the target number of patients can take months or even years. After almost 6 years, Dr. Granger said, he has around 240 patients ― well below his target number of 440.

Partly because the practice model is not well known in North Carolina, Dr. Granger set his fee very low, at $60 a month, then raised it to $75. That means his practice has been grossing just $216,000 a year. But he is not about to give up. He plans to raise his fee in July and hopes that word of mouth will add more patients.

If physicians cannot earn enough in their concierge practice, Dr. Bauer said, they may moonlight at a local hospital or work for a telemedicine company. He hasn’t heard of physicians closing their concierge practice and returning to their previous practice model. “They didn’t like what they were doing before,” he said.
 

Opening up to lower-income patients

Dr. Granger’s $75 monthly fee is an example of how retainer-based medicine has transformed itself from a gold-plated service for rich people to a service that middle-class and even lower-income people can afford. DPC practices like Dr. Granger’s have dramatically lowered expenses by cutting out the need to bill insurance companies. Some DPC practices further reduce expenses by not having any staff and by renting out office space.

Dr. Forbush’s Pine Tree State patients are mostly blue-collar workers – electricians, plumbers, people who work in small businesses. He charges them $150 a month, which most patients who don’t have health insurance can afford. He said three-quarters of his patients lack health insurance, although some have back-up finances, such as health savings accounts.

Since his patients have to pay out of pocket for tests and specialists, Dr. Forbush keeps referrals in check by handling many problems himself. “Since I have more time to spend with the patient, I can often work out issues that other doctors might ask specialists to deal with,” he said.

He has learned some dermatologic procedures. “There are plenty of things I can handle on my own,” he said.

Dr. Granger adds that by examining patients during longer appointments, expensive diagnostic exams are not always necessary.
 

The challenges for this model

Many experts warn that retainer-based practices won’t work for doctors who want to leave employment or for doctors fresh out of residency. Not having your own patients to bring into the new practice is a big minus, because this is the best way to start the new practice.

Still, there are other ways to find patients. Dr. Bauer said physicians can advertise online, make themselves known by giving speeches in the community, or contract with small employers to treat their workers.

Dr. Bauer said some of his clients were employed physicians, and he thinks they will become a bigger factor now that fewer doctors remain in private practice. The chief barrier for employed physicians is the restrictive covenant that prevents them from setting up a practice nearby. But Dr. Bauer said some employers are willing to waive restrictive covenants for retainer-based doctors.

New physicians are also adopting the concierge model. Dr. Forbush said physicians straight out of residency have set up DPC practices in Maine. They signed up patients for their new practices even before they graduated, he said.

Retainer-based medicine is still mainly limited to primary care physicians, but according to Dr. Bauer, it can also work for specialists who have long-term relationships with patients, such as cardiologists, ob.gyns., rheumatologists, neurologists, and endocrinologists.
 

No going back

Most doctors who make the switch to retainer-based practice understand that there’s likely no going back. When Dr. Bernstein switched, he announced the change to patients and canceled insurance contracts. “It was make or break,” he said. “I had no parachute.”

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

It took Michael Golden, MD, 5 years to decide to switch to a concierge practice, in which patients pay a monthly or annual fee for more personalized care. Dr. Golden, an internist in Beverly, Mass., changed course in 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“I’m not sure why I hesitated for so long,” said Dr. Golden.

Once they take the plunge into concierge practice or direct primary care (DPC) – a related form of retainer-based practice – many doctors are delighted with the change. But taking the plunge is a big step that they sometimes put off for years.

“The main factors for waiting are fear, uncertainty, and doubt,” said Leigh “Jack” Forbush, DO, a family physician who runs a DPC practice in Hampden, Maine, and mentors doctors contemplating the switch.

According to Dr. Forbush, the critical questions doctors ask themselves are, “Will I be able to find enough paying patients?” and – in the case of DPC practices, which cancel insurance – “Can I live without the money I get from insurers?”

Terry Bauer, CEO of Specialdocs Consultants in Highland Park, Ill., which helps doctors move to a concierge practice, said many of his clients put off the decision for as long as 15 years.

“Clients became progressively worn out – or even burnt out – by the demands of fee-for-service medicine,” said Dr. Bauer. “For women, the tipping point can be when their kids ask, ‘Mom, do you like your job better than me?’ For men, it may be more about feeling tired and unsatisfied with their work.”

But once these doctors make the switch, it’s with all their heart. “A client recently told me that if he couldn’t open a concierge practice, he might have to quit medicine,” Dr. Bauer said. “And he’s only 51.”
 

Few doctors regret switching

A 2020 survey of DPC physicians for the Society of Actuaries found that 99% reported having better or much better overall personal and professional satisfaction.

Retainer-based physicians report feeling much more relaxed after they start a concierge practice. On many workdays, Dr. Golden takes a walk on a trail in the woods behind his office. “That’s something I couldn’t do before,” he said. “And I go to my kids’ soccer games. I’m able to be present in their lives now.”

Since retainer-based doctors have markedly fewer patients, they can form personal relationships with each one. When Dr. Golden switched, he “went from having a couple of thousand patients to a few hundred,” he said.

“I know each patient now,” said Dorothy Cohen Serna, MD, an internist in Cypress, Tex., who moved to concierge in 2017. “I don’t need to look at their chart to know who they are.”

Dr. Serna said patients’ close relationship with her helped them get through the worst months of the pandemic. “They were scared, depressed, and concerned, and they needed a lot of individual attention,” she said.

Because they see fewer patients, concierge doctors can lengthen appointment times to about 30 minutes – or longer, if necessary. They no longer have a problem answering patients’ “doorknob questions” – wholly new concerns brought up at the end of the visit.

“The appointment might be for a sprained ankle, and then the patient might mention they haven’t been sleeping well,” Dr. Golden said. “I have time to talk about that without worrying that my schedule is getting backed up.”
 

Why patients sign up

Retainer-based practices are still an exotic concept in many areas, but patients are beginning to understand the value, said Shalini Kaneriya, MD, an internist in Herndon, Va,, who switched her practice to concierge in 2018.

Several hundred patients followed her into her new practice because “people realized their care would be better if they had a concierge doctor,” she said. Two years ago, partly because of growing demand, she recruited another physician as an associate.

“People want a relationship with their doctor,” Dr. Serna added. “It’s hard to provide that in a regular practice.”

Todd Granger, MD, an internist who opened a DPC practice in Chapel Hill, N.C., in 2016, said new patients often mention feeling rushed through appointments with their previous doctors. Also, “it’s hard to get to see a doctor around here.”

Scott Bernstein, MD, an internist who runs a DPC practice in Scottsdale, Ariz., said he can arrange to have patients see specialists much faster than if they try to make appointments on their own. “I personally call specialists and then prep my patients on how to deal with the appointment,” he said.

Retainer-based practices tend to have a greater number of older and chronically ill patients, but they also attract patients who need less care. “The healthier patients find value in our proactive approach to prevention and wellness,” Dr. Serna said.

Some concierge physicians charge higher fees to patients who need more care, but many decide this is too complicated and charge everyone the same fee. Dr. Granger said he initially had a variable fee schedule, but when some lower-paying patients began to need more visits, he had to consider charging them extra. “Now I basically have just one fee,” he said.
 

Not a good fit for many physicians

Dr. Bauer said a lot of physicians are interested in retainer-based practice, but many of them might not make the income they had hoped for. Specialdocs interviews physicians who inquire about the model and ultimately doesn’t contract with 80% of them, Dr. Bauer said.

To be able to sign up and retain enough patients, the doctor’s attitude is important. “You have to be driven by the desire to go deep with patients -- to work hard with them and deal with their issues,” said Erika Bliss, MD, who runs a DPC practice in Seattle.

Dr. Bernstein said retainer-based physicians have to be interested in lifestyle issues, such as diet, exercise, and sleep. “I spend a lot of time dealing with issues like how to incorporate physical activity into daily routines,” he said. “Some doctors wouldn’t enjoy doing that.”

Also, concierge physicians have to be available all the time. “Patients have my cell phone number,” Dr. Granger said. “They could call in the middle of the night, but they usually don’t.”

To ensure that they get some time off, many concierge physicians have partners. Dr. Bernstein and another DPC doctor maintain separate practices but cover for each other. Each takes every other weekend off plus 6 weeks every year.
 

Can you attract enough patients?

A key challenge is finding enough patients to sustain a concierge practice. Planning the switch involves setting a target number of patients needed for the doctor to make a decent income after paying practice expenses. For example, a doctor charging $300 a month to 250 patients would gross $900,000 per year, and then pay practice expenses from that.

Attracting the target number of patients can take months or even years. After almost 6 years, Dr. Granger said, he has around 240 patients ― well below his target number of 440.

Partly because the practice model is not well known in North Carolina, Dr. Granger set his fee very low, at $60 a month, then raised it to $75. That means his practice has been grossing just $216,000 a year. But he is not about to give up. He plans to raise his fee in July and hopes that word of mouth will add more patients.

If physicians cannot earn enough in their concierge practice, Dr. Bauer said, they may moonlight at a local hospital or work for a telemedicine company. He hasn’t heard of physicians closing their concierge practice and returning to their previous practice model. “They didn’t like what they were doing before,” he said.
 

Opening up to lower-income patients

Dr. Granger’s $75 monthly fee is an example of how retainer-based medicine has transformed itself from a gold-plated service for rich people to a service that middle-class and even lower-income people can afford. DPC practices like Dr. Granger’s have dramatically lowered expenses by cutting out the need to bill insurance companies. Some DPC practices further reduce expenses by not having any staff and by renting out office space.

Dr. Forbush’s Pine Tree State patients are mostly blue-collar workers – electricians, plumbers, people who work in small businesses. He charges them $150 a month, which most patients who don’t have health insurance can afford. He said three-quarters of his patients lack health insurance, although some have back-up finances, such as health savings accounts.

Since his patients have to pay out of pocket for tests and specialists, Dr. Forbush keeps referrals in check by handling many problems himself. “Since I have more time to spend with the patient, I can often work out issues that other doctors might ask specialists to deal with,” he said.

He has learned some dermatologic procedures. “There are plenty of things I can handle on my own,” he said.

Dr. Granger adds that by examining patients during longer appointments, expensive diagnostic exams are not always necessary.
 

The challenges for this model

Many experts warn that retainer-based practices won’t work for doctors who want to leave employment or for doctors fresh out of residency. Not having your own patients to bring into the new practice is a big minus, because this is the best way to start the new practice.

Still, there are other ways to find patients. Dr. Bauer said physicians can advertise online, make themselves known by giving speeches in the community, or contract with small employers to treat their workers.

Dr. Bauer said some of his clients were employed physicians, and he thinks they will become a bigger factor now that fewer doctors remain in private practice. The chief barrier for employed physicians is the restrictive covenant that prevents them from setting up a practice nearby. But Dr. Bauer said some employers are willing to waive restrictive covenants for retainer-based doctors.

New physicians are also adopting the concierge model. Dr. Forbush said physicians straight out of residency have set up DPC practices in Maine. They signed up patients for their new practices even before they graduated, he said.

Retainer-based medicine is still mainly limited to primary care physicians, but according to Dr. Bauer, it can also work for specialists who have long-term relationships with patients, such as cardiologists, ob.gyns., rheumatologists, neurologists, and endocrinologists.
 

No going back

Most doctors who make the switch to retainer-based practice understand that there’s likely no going back. When Dr. Bernstein switched, he announced the change to patients and canceled insurance contracts. “It was make or break,” he said. “I had no parachute.”

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

It took Michael Golden, MD, 5 years to decide to switch to a concierge practice, in which patients pay a monthly or annual fee for more personalized care. Dr. Golden, an internist in Beverly, Mass., changed course in 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“I’m not sure why I hesitated for so long,” said Dr. Golden.

Once they take the plunge into concierge practice or direct primary care (DPC) – a related form of retainer-based practice – many doctors are delighted with the change. But taking the plunge is a big step that they sometimes put off for years.

“The main factors for waiting are fear, uncertainty, and doubt,” said Leigh “Jack” Forbush, DO, a family physician who runs a DPC practice in Hampden, Maine, and mentors doctors contemplating the switch.

According to Dr. Forbush, the critical questions doctors ask themselves are, “Will I be able to find enough paying patients?” and – in the case of DPC practices, which cancel insurance – “Can I live without the money I get from insurers?”

Terry Bauer, CEO of Specialdocs Consultants in Highland Park, Ill., which helps doctors move to a concierge practice, said many of his clients put off the decision for as long as 15 years.

“Clients became progressively worn out – or even burnt out – by the demands of fee-for-service medicine,” said Dr. Bauer. “For women, the tipping point can be when their kids ask, ‘Mom, do you like your job better than me?’ For men, it may be more about feeling tired and unsatisfied with their work.”

But once these doctors make the switch, it’s with all their heart. “A client recently told me that if he couldn’t open a concierge practice, he might have to quit medicine,” Dr. Bauer said. “And he’s only 51.”
 

Few doctors regret switching

A 2020 survey of DPC physicians for the Society of Actuaries found that 99% reported having better or much better overall personal and professional satisfaction.

Retainer-based physicians report feeling much more relaxed after they start a concierge practice. On many workdays, Dr. Golden takes a walk on a trail in the woods behind his office. “That’s something I couldn’t do before,” he said. “And I go to my kids’ soccer games. I’m able to be present in their lives now.”

Since retainer-based doctors have markedly fewer patients, they can form personal relationships with each one. When Dr. Golden switched, he “went from having a couple of thousand patients to a few hundred,” he said.

“I know each patient now,” said Dorothy Cohen Serna, MD, an internist in Cypress, Tex., who moved to concierge in 2017. “I don’t need to look at their chart to know who they are.”

Dr. Serna said patients’ close relationship with her helped them get through the worst months of the pandemic. “They were scared, depressed, and concerned, and they needed a lot of individual attention,” she said.

Because they see fewer patients, concierge doctors can lengthen appointment times to about 30 minutes – or longer, if necessary. They no longer have a problem answering patients’ “doorknob questions” – wholly new concerns brought up at the end of the visit.

“The appointment might be for a sprained ankle, and then the patient might mention they haven’t been sleeping well,” Dr. Golden said. “I have time to talk about that without worrying that my schedule is getting backed up.”
 

Why patients sign up

Retainer-based practices are still an exotic concept in many areas, but patients are beginning to understand the value, said Shalini Kaneriya, MD, an internist in Herndon, Va,, who switched her practice to concierge in 2018.

Several hundred patients followed her into her new practice because “people realized their care would be better if they had a concierge doctor,” she said. Two years ago, partly because of growing demand, she recruited another physician as an associate.

“People want a relationship with their doctor,” Dr. Serna added. “It’s hard to provide that in a regular practice.”

Todd Granger, MD, an internist who opened a DPC practice in Chapel Hill, N.C., in 2016, said new patients often mention feeling rushed through appointments with their previous doctors. Also, “it’s hard to get to see a doctor around here.”

Scott Bernstein, MD, an internist who runs a DPC practice in Scottsdale, Ariz., said he can arrange to have patients see specialists much faster than if they try to make appointments on their own. “I personally call specialists and then prep my patients on how to deal with the appointment,” he said.

Retainer-based practices tend to have a greater number of older and chronically ill patients, but they also attract patients who need less care. “The healthier patients find value in our proactive approach to prevention and wellness,” Dr. Serna said.

Some concierge physicians charge higher fees to patients who need more care, but many decide this is too complicated and charge everyone the same fee. Dr. Granger said he initially had a variable fee schedule, but when some lower-paying patients began to need more visits, he had to consider charging them extra. “Now I basically have just one fee,” he said.
 

Not a good fit for many physicians

Dr. Bauer said a lot of physicians are interested in retainer-based practice, but many of them might not make the income they had hoped for. Specialdocs interviews physicians who inquire about the model and ultimately doesn’t contract with 80% of them, Dr. Bauer said.

To be able to sign up and retain enough patients, the doctor’s attitude is important. “You have to be driven by the desire to go deep with patients -- to work hard with them and deal with their issues,” said Erika Bliss, MD, who runs a DPC practice in Seattle.

Dr. Bernstein said retainer-based physicians have to be interested in lifestyle issues, such as diet, exercise, and sleep. “I spend a lot of time dealing with issues like how to incorporate physical activity into daily routines,” he said. “Some doctors wouldn’t enjoy doing that.”

Also, concierge physicians have to be available all the time. “Patients have my cell phone number,” Dr. Granger said. “They could call in the middle of the night, but they usually don’t.”

To ensure that they get some time off, many concierge physicians have partners. Dr. Bernstein and another DPC doctor maintain separate practices but cover for each other. Each takes every other weekend off plus 6 weeks every year.
 

Can you attract enough patients?

A key challenge is finding enough patients to sustain a concierge practice. Planning the switch involves setting a target number of patients needed for the doctor to make a decent income after paying practice expenses. For example, a doctor charging $300 a month to 250 patients would gross $900,000 per year, and then pay practice expenses from that.

Attracting the target number of patients can take months or even years. After almost 6 years, Dr. Granger said, he has around 240 patients ― well below his target number of 440.

Partly because the practice model is not well known in North Carolina, Dr. Granger set his fee very low, at $60 a month, then raised it to $75. That means his practice has been grossing just $216,000 a year. But he is not about to give up. He plans to raise his fee in July and hopes that word of mouth will add more patients.

If physicians cannot earn enough in their concierge practice, Dr. Bauer said, they may moonlight at a local hospital or work for a telemedicine company. He hasn’t heard of physicians closing their concierge practice and returning to their previous practice model. “They didn’t like what they were doing before,” he said.
 

Opening up to lower-income patients

Dr. Granger’s $75 monthly fee is an example of how retainer-based medicine has transformed itself from a gold-plated service for rich people to a service that middle-class and even lower-income people can afford. DPC practices like Dr. Granger’s have dramatically lowered expenses by cutting out the need to bill insurance companies. Some DPC practices further reduce expenses by not having any staff and by renting out office space.

Dr. Forbush’s Pine Tree State patients are mostly blue-collar workers – electricians, plumbers, people who work in small businesses. He charges them $150 a month, which most patients who don’t have health insurance can afford. He said three-quarters of his patients lack health insurance, although some have back-up finances, such as health savings accounts.

Since his patients have to pay out of pocket for tests and specialists, Dr. Forbush keeps referrals in check by handling many problems himself. “Since I have more time to spend with the patient, I can often work out issues that other doctors might ask specialists to deal with,” he said.

He has learned some dermatologic procedures. “There are plenty of things I can handle on my own,” he said.

Dr. Granger adds that by examining patients during longer appointments, expensive diagnostic exams are not always necessary.
 

The challenges for this model

Many experts warn that retainer-based practices won’t work for doctors who want to leave employment or for doctors fresh out of residency. Not having your own patients to bring into the new practice is a big minus, because this is the best way to start the new practice.

Still, there are other ways to find patients. Dr. Bauer said physicians can advertise online, make themselves known by giving speeches in the community, or contract with small employers to treat their workers.

Dr. Bauer said some of his clients were employed physicians, and he thinks they will become a bigger factor now that fewer doctors remain in private practice. The chief barrier for employed physicians is the restrictive covenant that prevents them from setting up a practice nearby. But Dr. Bauer said some employers are willing to waive restrictive covenants for retainer-based doctors.

New physicians are also adopting the concierge model. Dr. Forbush said physicians straight out of residency have set up DPC practices in Maine. They signed up patients for their new practices even before they graduated, he said.

Retainer-based medicine is still mainly limited to primary care physicians, but according to Dr. Bauer, it can also work for specialists who have long-term relationships with patients, such as cardiologists, ob.gyns., rheumatologists, neurologists, and endocrinologists.
 

No going back

Most doctors who make the switch to retainer-based practice understand that there’s likely no going back. When Dr. Bernstein switched, he announced the change to patients and canceled insurance contracts. “It was make or break,” he said. “I had no parachute.”

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

Kip Wenger, DO, an emergency physician and systems medical director of Team Health, Knoxville, Tenn., was asked to see a patient in the emergency department. He was shocked when he realized who the patient was – a 33-year-old female physician friend and colleague.

She was bleeding from multiple self-inflicted injuries and ultimately died. “I was devastated and couldn’t wrap my head around what had just happened,” Dr. Wenger told this news organization.

It’s important for physicians to be aware of warning signs in their colleagues, such as showing up late, being irritable and short-tempered with staff, missing shifts, making mistakes, or receiving an increasing number of patient complaints, Dr. Wenger says.

Dr. Wenger had had dinner with her several weeks earlier and saw some subtle changes. He had known her as a “positive, upbeat person,” but her demeanor was different during dinner.

“There were no typical telltale signs – she was talking about her plans for the future, including buying a new bicycle – but she wasn’t herself and seemed to become tearful when I hugged her at the end of the evening,” he said. He later heard from another colleague that she had shared feeling “hopeless.”
 

The scope of the problem

According to the American Society for Suicide Prevention, roughly 300-400 physicians die by suicide annually. Although one study suggests a lower number, official reports likely underestimate suicides, study author Katherine Gold, MD, MSW, associate professor of family medicine, obstetrics, and gynecology, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

Peter Yellowlees, MD, MBBS, professor of psychiatry, University of California, Davis, concurs, suggesting that some single-car accidents involving physicians might be suicides. Perry Lin, MD, assistant clinical professor, Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine, Ohio University, Athens, and national co-chair of the Physician Suicide Awareness Committee of the American Association of Suicidology, says that some death certificates state that the deceased died of “accidental causes” because the physician who completes the certificate, possibly a colleague, is reluctant to list the actual cause of death to protect his colleague’s memory or the family’s feelings.

In general, and among physicians, White men older than 65 “represent the largest percentage of people who die from suicide nationwide,” says Dr. Lin.

But younger people are also susceptible, Dr. Lin adds. One of the most vulnerable periods for potential suicide is during the first few months of residency. This dovetails with the findings of Medscape’s 2022 report Suicide: A Tragedy of the Profession. In that report, a difference was found between frequency of suicidal thoughts in younger physicians, compared with older physicians (14% in those < 35 years vs. 8% for those ≥ 45 years).
 

Hurdles to preventing physician suicide

“The best thing that can happen in our profession is upstream intervention – if people seek help before they get to the point of suicidality, recognizing they’re under stress and duress and that they might be going down a bad pathway,” says Dr. Lin. But research suggests that many physicians don’t do so.

Gary Price, MD, attending surgeon and clinical assistant professor of surgery, Yale–New Haven Hospital, Connecticut, and president of the Physicians Foundation, says his organization has identified barriers that prevent physicians from seeking help.

The major concern is that, in many states, licensing applications still ask whether the physician has been in treatment for a mental health condition. Physicians feel they may put their licensure at risk if they admit to receiving help for mental issues. These concerns were expressed by respondents in Medscape’s above mentioned 2022 report, many of whom didn’t seek treatment for depression, burnout, or suicidal thoughts lest it affect their professional standing when renewing their license or seeking credentialing.

Although organizations and societies are advocating against these questions, a recent study found that almost 70% of U.S. states and territories continue to ask physicians about their mental health, and 28% ask for diagnoses (beyond current impairments) – a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

“Mental health illness is different from mental health impairment,” Ryan Mire, MD, a Nashville, Tenn.–based internist, said in an interview. “As physicians, we’re comfortable with licensing boards asking whether the physician has any condition that might impair their care for patients, but not about a history of mental illness.”

The second barrier, says Dr. Price, is that hospital credentialing committees sometimes ask similar questions, as do commercial and malpractice insurers.

Another roadblock is that in some states, undergoing treatment for a mental health problem could be subject to discovery by a plaintiff’s attorney in a malpractice case, even if the physician’s mental health history had no effect on patient care. But that’s uncommon, says Daniel Shapiro, PhD, author of “Delivering Doctor Amelia,” a book about his treatment of a suicidal physician who underwent a malpractice lawsuit. “I’ve never seen that happen.”

A final barrier is that many employers require employees to receive treatment within their own institution or health system. “Physicians may be reluctant to get help where they work, with colleagues and friends knowing about their illness or being involved with their care,” says Dr. Price.

In 2022, the American College of Physicians (ACP) issued a toolkit to help members encourage licensing and credentialing boards to remove questions about mental health on applications and include language that supports receiving treatment, Dr. Mire says.
 

Layers of vulnerability

There are few data regarding relative risk among particular races or ethnicities, “but we know racism is a social stressor,” says Dr. Mire. “Obviously, people from historically disadvantaged populations tend to have societal stressors like discrimination and racism that add an extra layer of burden.”

Intersectionality – having multiple intersecting risk factors – may confer even higher risk. “For example, if you’re a female physician from a historically marginalized race and a resident dealing with the ‘hidden curriculum’ of trying to be resilient, you have multiple layers of vulnerability.”

There are also limited data regarding which specialties or work environments are associated with highest risk. “Obviously, challenges exist in every segment of medicine and at different ages, stages, and work environments, and they intersect with each individual physician’s personal risk factors,” says Dr. Mire, president of the ACP and assistant clinical professor of clinical medical education, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis.

Pamela Wible, MD, is an Oregon-based retired physician who herself went through a suicidal period about 11 years into her career that motivated her to embrace a new vision of clinical practice and change her practice model. After a series of physician suicides in her area, she began to speak and write openly about physician suicide, and since her retirement from clinical practice, she makes herself available on a full-time basis to distressed physicians. “When I address a conference of a particular medical specialty or a group in a particular geographical region, I focus on the specific vulnerabilities in that specialty or region,” she says.
 

What increases the chances of suicide?

“Many factors, both within and outside the professional setting, affect someone’s decision to die by suicide – after all, physicians have the same stressors as other people, like family, finances, and their own health,” Dr. Mire says. When it comes to non–work-related factors, marital stressors and comorbid psychiatric illness particularly raise the risk, says Dr. Lin.

But certain drivers are specific to the practice of medicine, with burnout and depression first in line.

Dr. Shapiro, who is vice dean for faculty and administrative affairs, Penn State University, Hershey, and the Garner James Cline Professor of Medical Humanism, conducts burnout evaluations throughout the country. “Simple depression screeners prior to the pandemic showed about a 10% major depression rate in physicians,” he told this news organization. “Now, we’re seeing a 30%-33% depression rate, even in those who weren’t frontline providers during the pandemic.”

Dr. Price agrees, noting that burnout in physicians has gone from 40% to 60% since the pandemic. But burnout doesn’t always lead to suicide. It’s when burnout progresses to depression, becomes more severe, and is untreated that the suicidal risk arises, he emphasizes.

Additionally, being a doctor isn’t “just a profession” but a “calling and identity,” says Dr. Gold. Job-related problems (for example, a malpractice suit, complaints to the medical board, loss of autonomy, changing work demands) can raise suicidal risk.

And job-related problems can inform the location of suicide, says Dr. Wible, who is the author of “Physicians Suicide Letters – Answered.”

“A work-related catalyst makes it more likely that the person will attempt or complete suicide in the work setting. Physicians have stepped off hospital rooftops, shot or stabbed themselves in hospital parking lots, or [hanged] themselves in hospital chapels. Perhaps it’s because they’re choosing to die in the place where they’ve been most wounded.”
 

You are not at fault

“If you’re feeling suicidal, you might feel utterly alone, but if there’s one message I can give you, it’s that you’re not alone, and there are many things you can do to mitigate your pain and despair,” Dr. Wible says. “And you’re not defective. It’s the health care system that’s defective. You have nothing to be ashamed of.”

Some institutions have a “buddy system” that pairs clinicians to provide mutual peer support. A partner who notices concerning signs can refer the other partner for help. Physicians can also be paired with a “buddy,” even without a formal institutional structure.

A “buddy” is a step in the right direction, but Dr. Shapiro cautions it might be necessary to consult a trained professional for serious depression or suicidality. Several states provide connection to local resources. Employee assistance programs (EAPs) might be helpful, although many physicians don’t trust their institution’s EAP. Or physicians can ask colleagues to recommend a “doctor’s doctor” who specializes in treating physicians, suggests Dr. Yellowlees, author of “Physician Suicide: Cases and Commentaries.”

In Medscape’s 2022 report, almost all respondents who reported having suicidal colleagues said they offered help, including emotional support, practical assistance, referrals, speaking to family members, or even personally taking the colleague to the ED or to a therapist.

To enhance physicians’ ability to help each other, Dr. Lin recommends “gatekeeper training,” which has been shown to reduce suicide. “This strategy utilizes a peer-to-peer model, but, rather than a single ‘peer buddy,’ everyone is a ‘gatekeeper’ trained in approaches, such as QPR – Question, Persuade, Refer. ‘Gatekeepers’ are taught how to recognize warning signs of suicide, question the potentially suicidal individual, persuade him/her to get help, and provide referrals.”
 

Other ways to prevent suicide

Dr. Lin advises physicians to “create a personalized safety plan and write down signs and clues that they may be going down the wrong path and what they can do – like breathing exercises, relaxation – and identifying people to talk to, places to go, or phone numbers to call, if those initial measures aren’t enough.” The plan is private and allows the physician to determine at what point help is needed and who should be consulted. “Sometimes, when a person is in acute stress, even looking up a phone number can seem insurmountable. But having it on paper lowers the barrier, making it more achievable.”

Resources should be posted in places where physicians gather so that those who don’t already have a safety plan have easy access to that information, he suggests.

In addition, consideration may be given to reaching out for support if a colleague has died by suicide, experts suggest. Whether offered by one’s institution, a peer arrangement, spiritual counseling, or psychotherapy, one may need help dealing with the trauma, guilt, and grief that often accompany this type of loss.

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

Kip Wenger, DO, an emergency physician and systems medical director of Team Health, Knoxville, Tenn., was asked to see a patient in the emergency department. He was shocked when he realized who the patient was – a 33-year-old female physician friend and colleague.

She was bleeding from multiple self-inflicted injuries and ultimately died. “I was devastated and couldn’t wrap my head around what had just happened,” Dr. Wenger told this news organization.

It’s important for physicians to be aware of warning signs in their colleagues, such as showing up late, being irritable and short-tempered with staff, missing shifts, making mistakes, or receiving an increasing number of patient complaints, Dr. Wenger says.

Dr. Wenger had had dinner with her several weeks earlier and saw some subtle changes. He had known her as a “positive, upbeat person,” but her demeanor was different during dinner.

“There were no typical telltale signs – she was talking about her plans for the future, including buying a new bicycle – but she wasn’t herself and seemed to become tearful when I hugged her at the end of the evening,” he said. He later heard from another colleague that she had shared feeling “hopeless.”
 

The scope of the problem

According to the American Society for Suicide Prevention, roughly 300-400 physicians die by suicide annually. Although one study suggests a lower number, official reports likely underestimate suicides, study author Katherine Gold, MD, MSW, associate professor of family medicine, obstetrics, and gynecology, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

Peter Yellowlees, MD, MBBS, professor of psychiatry, University of California, Davis, concurs, suggesting that some single-car accidents involving physicians might be suicides. Perry Lin, MD, assistant clinical professor, Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine, Ohio University, Athens, and national co-chair of the Physician Suicide Awareness Committee of the American Association of Suicidology, says that some death certificates state that the deceased died of “accidental causes” because the physician who completes the certificate, possibly a colleague, is reluctant to list the actual cause of death to protect his colleague’s memory or the family’s feelings.

In general, and among physicians, White men older than 65 “represent the largest percentage of people who die from suicide nationwide,” says Dr. Lin.

But younger people are also susceptible, Dr. Lin adds. One of the most vulnerable periods for potential suicide is during the first few months of residency. This dovetails with the findings of Medscape’s 2022 report Suicide: A Tragedy of the Profession. In that report, a difference was found between frequency of suicidal thoughts in younger physicians, compared with older physicians (14% in those < 35 years vs. 8% for those ≥ 45 years).
 

Hurdles to preventing physician suicide

“The best thing that can happen in our profession is upstream intervention – if people seek help before they get to the point of suicidality, recognizing they’re under stress and duress and that they might be going down a bad pathway,” says Dr. Lin. But research suggests that many physicians don’t do so.

Gary Price, MD, attending surgeon and clinical assistant professor of surgery, Yale–New Haven Hospital, Connecticut, and president of the Physicians Foundation, says his organization has identified barriers that prevent physicians from seeking help.

The major concern is that, in many states, licensing applications still ask whether the physician has been in treatment for a mental health condition. Physicians feel they may put their licensure at risk if they admit to receiving help for mental issues. These concerns were expressed by respondents in Medscape’s above mentioned 2022 report, many of whom didn’t seek treatment for depression, burnout, or suicidal thoughts lest it affect their professional standing when renewing their license or seeking credentialing.

Although organizations and societies are advocating against these questions, a recent study found that almost 70% of U.S. states and territories continue to ask physicians about their mental health, and 28% ask for diagnoses (beyond current impairments) – a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

“Mental health illness is different from mental health impairment,” Ryan Mire, MD, a Nashville, Tenn.–based internist, said in an interview. “As physicians, we’re comfortable with licensing boards asking whether the physician has any condition that might impair their care for patients, but not about a history of mental illness.”

The second barrier, says Dr. Price, is that hospital credentialing committees sometimes ask similar questions, as do commercial and malpractice insurers.

Another roadblock is that in some states, undergoing treatment for a mental health problem could be subject to discovery by a plaintiff’s attorney in a malpractice case, even if the physician’s mental health history had no effect on patient care. But that’s uncommon, says Daniel Shapiro, PhD, author of “Delivering Doctor Amelia,” a book about his treatment of a suicidal physician who underwent a malpractice lawsuit. “I’ve never seen that happen.”

A final barrier is that many employers require employees to receive treatment within their own institution or health system. “Physicians may be reluctant to get help where they work, with colleagues and friends knowing about their illness or being involved with their care,” says Dr. Price.

In 2022, the American College of Physicians (ACP) issued a toolkit to help members encourage licensing and credentialing boards to remove questions about mental health on applications and include language that supports receiving treatment, Dr. Mire says.
 

Layers of vulnerability

There are few data regarding relative risk among particular races or ethnicities, “but we know racism is a social stressor,” says Dr. Mire. “Obviously, people from historically disadvantaged populations tend to have societal stressors like discrimination and racism that add an extra layer of burden.”

Intersectionality – having multiple intersecting risk factors – may confer even higher risk. “For example, if you’re a female physician from a historically marginalized race and a resident dealing with the ‘hidden curriculum’ of trying to be resilient, you have multiple layers of vulnerability.”

There are also limited data regarding which specialties or work environments are associated with highest risk. “Obviously, challenges exist in every segment of medicine and at different ages, stages, and work environments, and they intersect with each individual physician’s personal risk factors,” says Dr. Mire, president of the ACP and assistant clinical professor of clinical medical education, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis.

Pamela Wible, MD, is an Oregon-based retired physician who herself went through a suicidal period about 11 years into her career that motivated her to embrace a new vision of clinical practice and change her practice model. After a series of physician suicides in her area, she began to speak and write openly about physician suicide, and since her retirement from clinical practice, she makes herself available on a full-time basis to distressed physicians. “When I address a conference of a particular medical specialty or a group in a particular geographical region, I focus on the specific vulnerabilities in that specialty or region,” she says.
 

What increases the chances of suicide?

“Many factors, both within and outside the professional setting, affect someone’s decision to die by suicide – after all, physicians have the same stressors as other people, like family, finances, and their own health,” Dr. Mire says. When it comes to non–work-related factors, marital stressors and comorbid psychiatric illness particularly raise the risk, says Dr. Lin.

But certain drivers are specific to the practice of medicine, with burnout and depression first in line.

Dr. Shapiro, who is vice dean for faculty and administrative affairs, Penn State University, Hershey, and the Garner James Cline Professor of Medical Humanism, conducts burnout evaluations throughout the country. “Simple depression screeners prior to the pandemic showed about a 10% major depression rate in physicians,” he told this news organization. “Now, we’re seeing a 30%-33% depression rate, even in those who weren’t frontline providers during the pandemic.”

Dr. Price agrees, noting that burnout in physicians has gone from 40% to 60% since the pandemic. But burnout doesn’t always lead to suicide. It’s when burnout progresses to depression, becomes more severe, and is untreated that the suicidal risk arises, he emphasizes.

Additionally, being a doctor isn’t “just a profession” but a “calling and identity,” says Dr. Gold. Job-related problems (for example, a malpractice suit, complaints to the medical board, loss of autonomy, changing work demands) can raise suicidal risk.

And job-related problems can inform the location of suicide, says Dr. Wible, who is the author of “Physicians Suicide Letters – Answered.”

“A work-related catalyst makes it more likely that the person will attempt or complete suicide in the work setting. Physicians have stepped off hospital rooftops, shot or stabbed themselves in hospital parking lots, or [hanged] themselves in hospital chapels. Perhaps it’s because they’re choosing to die in the place where they’ve been most wounded.”
 

You are not at fault

“If you’re feeling suicidal, you might feel utterly alone, but if there’s one message I can give you, it’s that you’re not alone, and there are many things you can do to mitigate your pain and despair,” Dr. Wible says. “And you’re not defective. It’s the health care system that’s defective. You have nothing to be ashamed of.”

Some institutions have a “buddy system” that pairs clinicians to provide mutual peer support. A partner who notices concerning signs can refer the other partner for help. Physicians can also be paired with a “buddy,” even without a formal institutional structure.

A “buddy” is a step in the right direction, but Dr. Shapiro cautions it might be necessary to consult a trained professional for serious depression or suicidality. Several states provide connection to local resources. Employee assistance programs (EAPs) might be helpful, although many physicians don’t trust their institution’s EAP. Or physicians can ask colleagues to recommend a “doctor’s doctor” who specializes in treating physicians, suggests Dr. Yellowlees, author of “Physician Suicide: Cases and Commentaries.”

In Medscape’s 2022 report, almost all respondents who reported having suicidal colleagues said they offered help, including emotional support, practical assistance, referrals, speaking to family members, or even personally taking the colleague to the ED or to a therapist.

To enhance physicians’ ability to help each other, Dr. Lin recommends “gatekeeper training,” which has been shown to reduce suicide. “This strategy utilizes a peer-to-peer model, but, rather than a single ‘peer buddy,’ everyone is a ‘gatekeeper’ trained in approaches, such as QPR – Question, Persuade, Refer. ‘Gatekeepers’ are taught how to recognize warning signs of suicide, question the potentially suicidal individual, persuade him/her to get help, and provide referrals.”
 

Other ways to prevent suicide

Dr. Lin advises physicians to “create a personalized safety plan and write down signs and clues that they may be going down the wrong path and what they can do – like breathing exercises, relaxation – and identifying people to talk to, places to go, or phone numbers to call, if those initial measures aren’t enough.” The plan is private and allows the physician to determine at what point help is needed and who should be consulted. “Sometimes, when a person is in acute stress, even looking up a phone number can seem insurmountable. But having it on paper lowers the barrier, making it more achievable.”

Resources should be posted in places where physicians gather so that those who don’t already have a safety plan have easy access to that information, he suggests.

In addition, consideration may be given to reaching out for support if a colleague has died by suicide, experts suggest. Whether offered by one’s institution, a peer arrangement, spiritual counseling, or psychotherapy, one may need help dealing with the trauma, guilt, and grief that often accompany this type of loss.

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

Kip Wenger, DO, an emergency physician and systems medical director of Team Health, Knoxville, Tenn., was asked to see a patient in the emergency department. He was shocked when he realized who the patient was – a 33-year-old female physician friend and colleague.

She was bleeding from multiple self-inflicted injuries and ultimately died. “I was devastated and couldn’t wrap my head around what had just happened,” Dr. Wenger told this news organization.

It’s important for physicians to be aware of warning signs in their colleagues, such as showing up late, being irritable and short-tempered with staff, missing shifts, making mistakes, or receiving an increasing number of patient complaints, Dr. Wenger says.

Dr. Wenger had had dinner with her several weeks earlier and saw some subtle changes. He had known her as a “positive, upbeat person,” but her demeanor was different during dinner.

“There were no typical telltale signs – she was talking about her plans for the future, including buying a new bicycle – but she wasn’t herself and seemed to become tearful when I hugged her at the end of the evening,” he said. He later heard from another colleague that she had shared feeling “hopeless.”
 

The scope of the problem

According to the American Society for Suicide Prevention, roughly 300-400 physicians die by suicide annually. Although one study suggests a lower number, official reports likely underestimate suicides, study author Katherine Gold, MD, MSW, associate professor of family medicine, obstetrics, and gynecology, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

Peter Yellowlees, MD, MBBS, professor of psychiatry, University of California, Davis, concurs, suggesting that some single-car accidents involving physicians might be suicides. Perry Lin, MD, assistant clinical professor, Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine, Ohio University, Athens, and national co-chair of the Physician Suicide Awareness Committee of the American Association of Suicidology, says that some death certificates state that the deceased died of “accidental causes” because the physician who completes the certificate, possibly a colleague, is reluctant to list the actual cause of death to protect his colleague’s memory or the family’s feelings.

In general, and among physicians, White men older than 65 “represent the largest percentage of people who die from suicide nationwide,” says Dr. Lin.

But younger people are also susceptible, Dr. Lin adds. One of the most vulnerable periods for potential suicide is during the first few months of residency. This dovetails with the findings of Medscape’s 2022 report Suicide: A Tragedy of the Profession. In that report, a difference was found between frequency of suicidal thoughts in younger physicians, compared with older physicians (14% in those < 35 years vs. 8% for those ≥ 45 years).
 

Hurdles to preventing physician suicide

“The best thing that can happen in our profession is upstream intervention – if people seek help before they get to the point of suicidality, recognizing they’re under stress and duress and that they might be going down a bad pathway,” says Dr. Lin. But research suggests that many physicians don’t do so.

Gary Price, MD, attending surgeon and clinical assistant professor of surgery, Yale–New Haven Hospital, Connecticut, and president of the Physicians Foundation, says his organization has identified barriers that prevent physicians from seeking help.

The major concern is that, in many states, licensing applications still ask whether the physician has been in treatment for a mental health condition. Physicians feel they may put their licensure at risk if they admit to receiving help for mental issues. These concerns were expressed by respondents in Medscape’s above mentioned 2022 report, many of whom didn’t seek treatment for depression, burnout, or suicidal thoughts lest it affect their professional standing when renewing their license or seeking credentialing.

Although organizations and societies are advocating against these questions, a recent study found that almost 70% of U.S. states and territories continue to ask physicians about their mental health, and 28% ask for diagnoses (beyond current impairments) – a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

“Mental health illness is different from mental health impairment,” Ryan Mire, MD, a Nashville, Tenn.–based internist, said in an interview. “As physicians, we’re comfortable with licensing boards asking whether the physician has any condition that might impair their care for patients, but not about a history of mental illness.”

The second barrier, says Dr. Price, is that hospital credentialing committees sometimes ask similar questions, as do commercial and malpractice insurers.

Another roadblock is that in some states, undergoing treatment for a mental health problem could be subject to discovery by a plaintiff’s attorney in a malpractice case, even if the physician’s mental health history had no effect on patient care. But that’s uncommon, says Daniel Shapiro, PhD, author of “Delivering Doctor Amelia,” a book about his treatment of a suicidal physician who underwent a malpractice lawsuit. “I’ve never seen that happen.”

A final barrier is that many employers require employees to receive treatment within their own institution or health system. “Physicians may be reluctant to get help where they work, with colleagues and friends knowing about their illness or being involved with their care,” says Dr. Price.

In 2022, the American College of Physicians (ACP) issued a toolkit to help members encourage licensing and credentialing boards to remove questions about mental health on applications and include language that supports receiving treatment, Dr. Mire says.
 

Layers of vulnerability

There are few data regarding relative risk among particular races or ethnicities, “but we know racism is a social stressor,” says Dr. Mire. “Obviously, people from historically disadvantaged populations tend to have societal stressors like discrimination and racism that add an extra layer of burden.”

Intersectionality – having multiple intersecting risk factors – may confer even higher risk. “For example, if you’re a female physician from a historically marginalized race and a resident dealing with the ‘hidden curriculum’ of trying to be resilient, you have multiple layers of vulnerability.”

There are also limited data regarding which specialties or work environments are associated with highest risk. “Obviously, challenges exist in every segment of medicine and at different ages, stages, and work environments, and they intersect with each individual physician’s personal risk factors,” says Dr. Mire, president of the ACP and assistant clinical professor of clinical medical education, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis.

Pamela Wible, MD, is an Oregon-based retired physician who herself went through a suicidal period about 11 years into her career that motivated her to embrace a new vision of clinical practice and change her practice model. After a series of physician suicides in her area, she began to speak and write openly about physician suicide, and since her retirement from clinical practice, she makes herself available on a full-time basis to distressed physicians. “When I address a conference of a particular medical specialty or a group in a particular geographical region, I focus on the specific vulnerabilities in that specialty or region,” she says.
 

What increases the chances of suicide?

“Many factors, both within and outside the professional setting, affect someone’s decision to die by suicide – after all, physicians have the same stressors as other people, like family, finances, and their own health,” Dr. Mire says. When it comes to non–work-related factors, marital stressors and comorbid psychiatric illness particularly raise the risk, says Dr. Lin.

But certain drivers are specific to the practice of medicine, with burnout and depression first in line.

Dr. Shapiro, who is vice dean for faculty and administrative affairs, Penn State University, Hershey, and the Garner James Cline Professor of Medical Humanism, conducts burnout evaluations throughout the country. “Simple depression screeners prior to the pandemic showed about a 10% major depression rate in physicians,” he told this news organization. “Now, we’re seeing a 30%-33% depression rate, even in those who weren’t frontline providers during the pandemic.”

Dr. Price agrees, noting that burnout in physicians has gone from 40% to 60% since the pandemic. But burnout doesn’t always lead to suicide. It’s when burnout progresses to depression, becomes more severe, and is untreated that the suicidal risk arises, he emphasizes.

Additionally, being a doctor isn’t “just a profession” but a “calling and identity,” says Dr. Gold. Job-related problems (for example, a malpractice suit, complaints to the medical board, loss of autonomy, changing work demands) can raise suicidal risk.

And job-related problems can inform the location of suicide, says Dr. Wible, who is the author of “Physicians Suicide Letters – Answered.”

“A work-related catalyst makes it more likely that the person will attempt or complete suicide in the work setting. Physicians have stepped off hospital rooftops, shot or stabbed themselves in hospital parking lots, or [hanged] themselves in hospital chapels. Perhaps it’s because they’re choosing to die in the place where they’ve been most wounded.”
 

You are not at fault

“If you’re feeling suicidal, you might feel utterly alone, but if there’s one message I can give you, it’s that you’re not alone, and there are many things you can do to mitigate your pain and despair,” Dr. Wible says. “And you’re not defective. It’s the health care system that’s defective. You have nothing to be ashamed of.”

Some institutions have a “buddy system” that pairs clinicians to provide mutual peer support. A partner who notices concerning signs can refer the other partner for help. Physicians can also be paired with a “buddy,” even without a formal institutional structure.

A “buddy” is a step in the right direction, but Dr. Shapiro cautions it might be necessary to consult a trained professional for serious depression or suicidality. Several states provide connection to local resources. Employee assistance programs (EAPs) might be helpful, although many physicians don’t trust their institution’s EAP. Or physicians can ask colleagues to recommend a “doctor’s doctor” who specializes in treating physicians, suggests Dr. Yellowlees, author of “Physician Suicide: Cases and Commentaries.”

In Medscape’s 2022 report, almost all respondents who reported having suicidal colleagues said they offered help, including emotional support, practical assistance, referrals, speaking to family members, or even personally taking the colleague to the ED or to a therapist.

To enhance physicians’ ability to help each other, Dr. Lin recommends “gatekeeper training,” which has been shown to reduce suicide. “This strategy utilizes a peer-to-peer model, but, rather than a single ‘peer buddy,’ everyone is a ‘gatekeeper’ trained in approaches, such as QPR – Question, Persuade, Refer. ‘Gatekeepers’ are taught how to recognize warning signs of suicide, question the potentially suicidal individual, persuade him/her to get help, and provide referrals.”
 

Other ways to prevent suicide

Dr. Lin advises physicians to “create a personalized safety plan and write down signs and clues that they may be going down the wrong path and what they can do – like breathing exercises, relaxation – and identifying people to talk to, places to go, or phone numbers to call, if those initial measures aren’t enough.” The plan is private and allows the physician to determine at what point help is needed and who should be consulted. “Sometimes, when a person is in acute stress, even looking up a phone number can seem insurmountable. But having it on paper lowers the barrier, making it more achievable.”

Resources should be posted in places where physicians gather so that those who don’t already have a safety plan have easy access to that information, he suggests.

In addition, consideration may be given to reaching out for support if a colleague has died by suicide, experts suggest. Whether offered by one’s institution, a peer arrangement, spiritual counseling, or psychotherapy, one may need help dealing with the trauma, guilt, and grief that often accompany this type of loss.

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