Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

There is a significant association between routine attendance at annual well-child care visits and a reduction in both total asthma exacerbations and severe exacerbations, Jason E. Lang, MD, MPH, of Duke University, Durham, N.C. reported in a study published in Pediatrics.

Louis-Paul St-Onge/iStockphoto

In a retrospective cohort study of 5,656 pediatric asthma patients under care at the Duke University Health System, Dr. Lang and colleagues sought to determine the effect yearly well-child care (WCC) visits have on the hazard rate of asthma exacerbations occurring during the following year. Patients included in the study were aged 5-17 years and had been receiving care between Jan. 1, 2014, and Dec. 31, 2019.
 

WCC visits demonstrate reduced exacerbations and hospitalizations

Nearly one-third of patients were found to have full WCC visit attendance, half were partially compliant, and 14% did not attend at all. A total of 2,974 asthma exacerbations were reported during the study period. Of those with a WCC visit during the previous year, exacerbations were reduced by 10% and asthma hospitalizations were lowered by 47%. Children with recent WCC visits were also more likely to be prescribed daily preventive medication and to experience an exacerbation in ambulatory care, which could play a crucial role in preventing further progression of the disease.

Of the WCC visits reported, 9.9% represented prescribing of new or changed asthma medication, 28.2% represented delivery of seasonal influenza vaccine, and 11% addressed assessment or management of asthma-related comorbidities. There was no observed difference in attendance between younger and older children.

Given that pediatric WCC visit attendance is “far from optimal,” with attendance improving from 46% in 1996-1998 to almost 60% in 2007-2008, “improving access to and attendance of WCC visits (especially from previously low-adhering families) may be an important public health intervention to reduce the problems of severe exacerbations and outcome disparities,” observed Dr. Lang and colleagues. The Abdus study also found that low WCC attendance appeared to be more common in those with lower income, lower parental education, and African American race.
 

Continuity of care providers across WCC visits plays a crucial role

Primary care pediatricians play a key role in successful management of chronic asthma, as evidenced in several studies showing the importance of continuity of care with the same provider for WCC. Such continuity encourages ongoing dialogue about asthma, and as the researchers speculated, may even reduce asthma hospitalization through better parental understanding of disease management, prevention, and management of comorbid conditions.

Although the study did not include measures of health literacy, the authors did conclude that pediatric asthma patients seen annually are more likely to be more knowledgeable about asthma and in a better position to recognize symptom exacerbation so they can seek timely care. In the past, lower health literacy has demonstrated both lower WCC visit attendance and increased emergency care visits and hospitalizations.

Because the study was conducted in a single university-based health system, the researchers were not able to capture fragmented care data. They also acknowledged the possible omission of confounding factors, especially those related to parental influence behaviors affecting daily disease management. One strength of the study was the ability researchers had to abstract granular data from their EHR system to document the time-varying effects that insurance status, obesity status, and WCC visits may have played. Given that they were able to assess effects according to sociodemographic factors, such as race and insurance status, the results should prove very helpful to other cities and health systems aiming to improve pediatric asthma control, observed Dr. Lang and colleagues.

Future studies should seek to further evaluate the role of WCC visits in promoting asthma control. Making WCC visits a renewed public health priority offers the possibility to limit severe asthma exacerbations, the researchers advised.

In a separate interview, Sydney Leibel, MD, MPH, a pediatric allergist/immunologist at Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego, noted: “The outcomes of this study shine a light on the importance of regular primary care pediatrician follow-up in decreasing asthma-related health care utilization. Childhood asthma is a dynamic condition and follow-up with the pediatrician allows for modification of the treatment plan and reinforcement of good inhaler technique. It also allows for patients to express their concerns and gives the opportunity for subspecialty referral, if symptoms remain uncontrolled.

“This article also highlights the health disparities that exist in pediatric asthma in the United States. In our experience, treating children from lower-socioeconomic communities with difficult-to-control and severe asthma, case management has been very important in making sure our patient population understands our instructions, pick up their medications, and make their scheduled follow-up appointments,” Dr. Leibel continued.

“Regardless of the patient’s background, efforts to improve attendance of WCC visits, where good asthma control can be promoted, would be in our patient’s best interest and could go a long way in preventing unnecessary asthma exacerbations that require an ED visit or hospitalization,” the specialist concluded.

The study was funded by a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Duke Children’s Health & Discovery Initiative, and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Lang and colleagues had no conflicts of interest and no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Leibel said he had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Lang JE et al. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1023.

There is a significant association between routine attendance at annual well-child care visits and a reduction in both total asthma exacerbations and severe exacerbations, Jason E. Lang, MD, MPH, of Duke University, Durham, N.C. reported in a study published in Pediatrics.

Louis-Paul St-Onge/iStockphoto

In a retrospective cohort study of 5,656 pediatric asthma patients under care at the Duke University Health System, Dr. Lang and colleagues sought to determine the effect yearly well-child care (WCC) visits have on the hazard rate of asthma exacerbations occurring during the following year. Patients included in the study were aged 5-17 years and had been receiving care between Jan. 1, 2014, and Dec. 31, 2019.
 

WCC visits demonstrate reduced exacerbations and hospitalizations

Nearly one-third of patients were found to have full WCC visit attendance, half were partially compliant, and 14% did not attend at all. A total of 2,974 asthma exacerbations were reported during the study period. Of those with a WCC visit during the previous year, exacerbations were reduced by 10% and asthma hospitalizations were lowered by 47%. Children with recent WCC visits were also more likely to be prescribed daily preventive medication and to experience an exacerbation in ambulatory care, which could play a crucial role in preventing further progression of the disease.

Of the WCC visits reported, 9.9% represented prescribing of new or changed asthma medication, 28.2% represented delivery of seasonal influenza vaccine, and 11% addressed assessment or management of asthma-related comorbidities. There was no observed difference in attendance between younger and older children.

Given that pediatric WCC visit attendance is “far from optimal,” with attendance improving from 46% in 1996-1998 to almost 60% in 2007-2008, “improving access to and attendance of WCC visits (especially from previously low-adhering families) may be an important public health intervention to reduce the problems of severe exacerbations and outcome disparities,” observed Dr. Lang and colleagues. The Abdus study also found that low WCC attendance appeared to be more common in those with lower income, lower parental education, and African American race.
 

Continuity of care providers across WCC visits plays a crucial role

Primary care pediatricians play a key role in successful management of chronic asthma, as evidenced in several studies showing the importance of continuity of care with the same provider for WCC. Such continuity encourages ongoing dialogue about asthma, and as the researchers speculated, may even reduce asthma hospitalization through better parental understanding of disease management, prevention, and management of comorbid conditions.

Although the study did not include measures of health literacy, the authors did conclude that pediatric asthma patients seen annually are more likely to be more knowledgeable about asthma and in a better position to recognize symptom exacerbation so they can seek timely care. In the past, lower health literacy has demonstrated both lower WCC visit attendance and increased emergency care visits and hospitalizations.

Because the study was conducted in a single university-based health system, the researchers were not able to capture fragmented care data. They also acknowledged the possible omission of confounding factors, especially those related to parental influence behaviors affecting daily disease management. One strength of the study was the ability researchers had to abstract granular data from their EHR system to document the time-varying effects that insurance status, obesity status, and WCC visits may have played. Given that they were able to assess effects according to sociodemographic factors, such as race and insurance status, the results should prove very helpful to other cities and health systems aiming to improve pediatric asthma control, observed Dr. Lang and colleagues.

Future studies should seek to further evaluate the role of WCC visits in promoting asthma control. Making WCC visits a renewed public health priority offers the possibility to limit severe asthma exacerbations, the researchers advised.

In a separate interview, Sydney Leibel, MD, MPH, a pediatric allergist/immunologist at Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego, noted: “The outcomes of this study shine a light on the importance of regular primary care pediatrician follow-up in decreasing asthma-related health care utilization. Childhood asthma is a dynamic condition and follow-up with the pediatrician allows for modification of the treatment plan and reinforcement of good inhaler technique. It also allows for patients to express their concerns and gives the opportunity for subspecialty referral, if symptoms remain uncontrolled.

“This article also highlights the health disparities that exist in pediatric asthma in the United States. In our experience, treating children from lower-socioeconomic communities with difficult-to-control and severe asthma, case management has been very important in making sure our patient population understands our instructions, pick up their medications, and make their scheduled follow-up appointments,” Dr. Leibel continued.

“Regardless of the patient’s background, efforts to improve attendance of WCC visits, where good asthma control can be promoted, would be in our patient’s best interest and could go a long way in preventing unnecessary asthma exacerbations that require an ED visit or hospitalization,” the specialist concluded.

The study was funded by a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Duke Children’s Health & Discovery Initiative, and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Lang and colleagues had no conflicts of interest and no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Leibel said he had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Lang JE et al. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1023.

There is a significant association between routine attendance at annual well-child care visits and a reduction in both total asthma exacerbations and severe exacerbations, Jason E. Lang, MD, MPH, of Duke University, Durham, N.C. reported in a study published in Pediatrics.

Louis-Paul St-Onge/iStockphoto

In a retrospective cohort study of 5,656 pediatric asthma patients under care at the Duke University Health System, Dr. Lang and colleagues sought to determine the effect yearly well-child care (WCC) visits have on the hazard rate of asthma exacerbations occurring during the following year. Patients included in the study were aged 5-17 years and had been receiving care between Jan. 1, 2014, and Dec. 31, 2019.
 

WCC visits demonstrate reduced exacerbations and hospitalizations

Nearly one-third of patients were found to have full WCC visit attendance, half were partially compliant, and 14% did not attend at all. A total of 2,974 asthma exacerbations were reported during the study period. Of those with a WCC visit during the previous year, exacerbations were reduced by 10% and asthma hospitalizations were lowered by 47%. Children with recent WCC visits were also more likely to be prescribed daily preventive medication and to experience an exacerbation in ambulatory care, which could play a crucial role in preventing further progression of the disease.

Of the WCC visits reported, 9.9% represented prescribing of new or changed asthma medication, 28.2% represented delivery of seasonal influenza vaccine, and 11% addressed assessment or management of asthma-related comorbidities. There was no observed difference in attendance between younger and older children.

Given that pediatric WCC visit attendance is “far from optimal,” with attendance improving from 46% in 1996-1998 to almost 60% in 2007-2008, “improving access to and attendance of WCC visits (especially from previously low-adhering families) may be an important public health intervention to reduce the problems of severe exacerbations and outcome disparities,” observed Dr. Lang and colleagues. The Abdus study also found that low WCC attendance appeared to be more common in those with lower income, lower parental education, and African American race.
 

Continuity of care providers across WCC visits plays a crucial role

Primary care pediatricians play a key role in successful management of chronic asthma, as evidenced in several studies showing the importance of continuity of care with the same provider for WCC. Such continuity encourages ongoing dialogue about asthma, and as the researchers speculated, may even reduce asthma hospitalization through better parental understanding of disease management, prevention, and management of comorbid conditions.

Although the study did not include measures of health literacy, the authors did conclude that pediatric asthma patients seen annually are more likely to be more knowledgeable about asthma and in a better position to recognize symptom exacerbation so they can seek timely care. In the past, lower health literacy has demonstrated both lower WCC visit attendance and increased emergency care visits and hospitalizations.

Because the study was conducted in a single university-based health system, the researchers were not able to capture fragmented care data. They also acknowledged the possible omission of confounding factors, especially those related to parental influence behaviors affecting daily disease management. One strength of the study was the ability researchers had to abstract granular data from their EHR system to document the time-varying effects that insurance status, obesity status, and WCC visits may have played. Given that they were able to assess effects according to sociodemographic factors, such as race and insurance status, the results should prove very helpful to other cities and health systems aiming to improve pediatric asthma control, observed Dr. Lang and colleagues.

Future studies should seek to further evaluate the role of WCC visits in promoting asthma control. Making WCC visits a renewed public health priority offers the possibility to limit severe asthma exacerbations, the researchers advised.

In a separate interview, Sydney Leibel, MD, MPH, a pediatric allergist/immunologist at Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego, noted: “The outcomes of this study shine a light on the importance of regular primary care pediatrician follow-up in decreasing asthma-related health care utilization. Childhood asthma is a dynamic condition and follow-up with the pediatrician allows for modification of the treatment plan and reinforcement of good inhaler technique. It also allows for patients to express their concerns and gives the opportunity for subspecialty referral, if symptoms remain uncontrolled.

“This article also highlights the health disparities that exist in pediatric asthma in the United States. In our experience, treating children from lower-socioeconomic communities with difficult-to-control and severe asthma, case management has been very important in making sure our patient population understands our instructions, pick up their medications, and make their scheduled follow-up appointments,” Dr. Leibel continued.

“Regardless of the patient’s background, efforts to improve attendance of WCC visits, where good asthma control can be promoted, would be in our patient’s best interest and could go a long way in preventing unnecessary asthma exacerbations that require an ED visit or hospitalization,” the specialist concluded.

The study was funded by a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Duke Children’s Health & Discovery Initiative, and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Lang and colleagues had no conflicts of interest and no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Leibel said he had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Lang JE et al. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1023.

The majority of women in the United States remain unaware of the benefits breastfeeding offers in reducing the risk of breast cancer, reported Adrienne Hoyt-Austin, DO, and colleagues at University of California, Davis.

oksun70/ThinkStock

Using nationally representative data collected from the 2015-2017 National Survey of Family Growth, Dr. Hoyt-Austin and colleagues analyzed responses to the question: “Do you think that breastfeeding decreases a woman’s chances of getting breast cancer a lot, a little, or not at all, no opinion, or don’t know?” A total of 5,554 female respondents aged 15-49 years participated. The response rate was 66.7%.
 

Multiparous status and education play a role in decreased awareness

Those who had given birth more than once, who had no more than a high school education, or who were U.S.-born Hispanic had the lowest level of awareness, believing that breastfeeding offers only “a little” protection. Of those who were aware of the link, 44% reported that breastfeeding provides “a lot” of protection, and foreign-born participants as well as those who breastfed for more than a year were more likely to conclude that breastfeeding offers “a lot” of protection. The researchers found that neither mammogram or personal family history of breast cancer had any bearing on awareness.

Although multiple studies have found breastfeeding to confer a lower rate of cancer risk, morbidity and mortality, with a 26% lower lifetime risk for those mothers who breastfeed for 12 months or longer, only 36% of women in the United States actually breastfeed.
 

Limited data indicate whether respondents were breastfed themselves

“Public health initiatives must consider the complex roots of disparities in breastfeeding,” noted Dr. Hoyt-Austin and colleagues. They acknowledged the subjectivity of perceptions of “a lot” versus “a little” and noted that the study was limited by a lack of data on whether participants were breastfed themselves.

Clinicians have an opportunity to play a key role in better educating families concerning the benefits of breastfeeding, both for mother and child, they advised. According to one recent study, just 5 minutes of counseling on the benefits of breastfeeding “significantly strengthened women’s intentions to breastfeed.

In a separate interview, Amy E. Cyr, MD, FACS, section of surgical oncology at Washington University, St. Louis, noted that “many breast cancer risk factors – age, sex, family history, and age of menopause – are nonmodifiable.” And while other risk factors, including alcohol use, diet, and exercise are controllable, “pregnancies and breastfeeding don’t always go as planned,” Dr. Cyr added.

“Although Dr. Hoyt-Austin et al. observed that many women aren’t aware that breastfeeding decreases breast cancer risk – or to what extent (they cite a 26% cancer risk reduction after 12 or more months of breastfeeding) – most studies haven’t shown that large a drop in breast cancer risk,“ she pointed out, adding that “I think it’s an overstatement to suggest that breastfeeding reduces cancer risk by ‘a lot,’ as one of the survey choices offered in the study suggests.”

Whether or not a woman breastfeeds depends not only on desire but on social and economic support and biology; for some, breastfeeding simply isn’t an option. “I agree that we should educate women about the benefits of breastfeeding so they can make an informed decision for themselves and their infants, but we also need to acknowledge the complexity of this issue,” she cautioned.

One coauthor reported a travel stipend by the Human Milk Banking Association of North America; Dr. Hoyt-Austin and the other authors had no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Cyr had no conflicts of interest to report.

SOURCE: Hoyt-Austin A et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Dec. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004162.

The majority of women in the United States remain unaware of the benefits breastfeeding offers in reducing the risk of breast cancer, reported Adrienne Hoyt-Austin, DO, and colleagues at University of California, Davis.

oksun70/ThinkStock

Using nationally representative data collected from the 2015-2017 National Survey of Family Growth, Dr. Hoyt-Austin and colleagues analyzed responses to the question: “Do you think that breastfeeding decreases a woman’s chances of getting breast cancer a lot, a little, or not at all, no opinion, or don’t know?” A total of 5,554 female respondents aged 15-49 years participated. The response rate was 66.7%.
 

Multiparous status and education play a role in decreased awareness

Those who had given birth more than once, who had no more than a high school education, or who were U.S.-born Hispanic had the lowest level of awareness, believing that breastfeeding offers only “a little” protection. Of those who were aware of the link, 44% reported that breastfeeding provides “a lot” of protection, and foreign-born participants as well as those who breastfed for more than a year were more likely to conclude that breastfeeding offers “a lot” of protection. The researchers found that neither mammogram or personal family history of breast cancer had any bearing on awareness.

Although multiple studies have found breastfeeding to confer a lower rate of cancer risk, morbidity and mortality, with a 26% lower lifetime risk for those mothers who breastfeed for 12 months or longer, only 36% of women in the United States actually breastfeed.
 

Limited data indicate whether respondents were breastfed themselves

“Public health initiatives must consider the complex roots of disparities in breastfeeding,” noted Dr. Hoyt-Austin and colleagues. They acknowledged the subjectivity of perceptions of “a lot” versus “a little” and noted that the study was limited by a lack of data on whether participants were breastfed themselves.

Clinicians have an opportunity to play a key role in better educating families concerning the benefits of breastfeeding, both for mother and child, they advised. According to one recent study, just 5 minutes of counseling on the benefits of breastfeeding “significantly strengthened women’s intentions to breastfeed.

In a separate interview, Amy E. Cyr, MD, FACS, section of surgical oncology at Washington University, St. Louis, noted that “many breast cancer risk factors – age, sex, family history, and age of menopause – are nonmodifiable.” And while other risk factors, including alcohol use, diet, and exercise are controllable, “pregnancies and breastfeeding don’t always go as planned,” Dr. Cyr added.

“Although Dr. Hoyt-Austin et al. observed that many women aren’t aware that breastfeeding decreases breast cancer risk – or to what extent (they cite a 26% cancer risk reduction after 12 or more months of breastfeeding) – most studies haven’t shown that large a drop in breast cancer risk,“ she pointed out, adding that “I think it’s an overstatement to suggest that breastfeeding reduces cancer risk by ‘a lot,’ as one of the survey choices offered in the study suggests.”

Whether or not a woman breastfeeds depends not only on desire but on social and economic support and biology; for some, breastfeeding simply isn’t an option. “I agree that we should educate women about the benefits of breastfeeding so they can make an informed decision for themselves and their infants, but we also need to acknowledge the complexity of this issue,” she cautioned.

One coauthor reported a travel stipend by the Human Milk Banking Association of North America; Dr. Hoyt-Austin and the other authors had no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Cyr had no conflicts of interest to report.

SOURCE: Hoyt-Austin A et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Dec. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004162.

The majority of women in the United States remain unaware of the benefits breastfeeding offers in reducing the risk of breast cancer, reported Adrienne Hoyt-Austin, DO, and colleagues at University of California, Davis.

oksun70/ThinkStock

Using nationally representative data collected from the 2015-2017 National Survey of Family Growth, Dr. Hoyt-Austin and colleagues analyzed responses to the question: “Do you think that breastfeeding decreases a woman’s chances of getting breast cancer a lot, a little, or not at all, no opinion, or don’t know?” A total of 5,554 female respondents aged 15-49 years participated. The response rate was 66.7%.
 

Multiparous status and education play a role in decreased awareness

Those who had given birth more than once, who had no more than a high school education, or who were U.S.-born Hispanic had the lowest level of awareness, believing that breastfeeding offers only “a little” protection. Of those who were aware of the link, 44% reported that breastfeeding provides “a lot” of protection, and foreign-born participants as well as those who breastfed for more than a year were more likely to conclude that breastfeeding offers “a lot” of protection. The researchers found that neither mammogram or personal family history of breast cancer had any bearing on awareness.

Although multiple studies have found breastfeeding to confer a lower rate of cancer risk, morbidity and mortality, with a 26% lower lifetime risk for those mothers who breastfeed for 12 months or longer, only 36% of women in the United States actually breastfeed.
 

Limited data indicate whether respondents were breastfed themselves

“Public health initiatives must consider the complex roots of disparities in breastfeeding,” noted Dr. Hoyt-Austin and colleagues. They acknowledged the subjectivity of perceptions of “a lot” versus “a little” and noted that the study was limited by a lack of data on whether participants were breastfed themselves.

Clinicians have an opportunity to play a key role in better educating families concerning the benefits of breastfeeding, both for mother and child, they advised. According to one recent study, just 5 minutes of counseling on the benefits of breastfeeding “significantly strengthened women’s intentions to breastfeed.

In a separate interview, Amy E. Cyr, MD, FACS, section of surgical oncology at Washington University, St. Louis, noted that “many breast cancer risk factors – age, sex, family history, and age of menopause – are nonmodifiable.” And while other risk factors, including alcohol use, diet, and exercise are controllable, “pregnancies and breastfeeding don’t always go as planned,” Dr. Cyr added.

“Although Dr. Hoyt-Austin et al. observed that many women aren’t aware that breastfeeding decreases breast cancer risk – or to what extent (they cite a 26% cancer risk reduction after 12 or more months of breastfeeding) – most studies haven’t shown that large a drop in breast cancer risk,“ she pointed out, adding that “I think it’s an overstatement to suggest that breastfeeding reduces cancer risk by ‘a lot,’ as one of the survey choices offered in the study suggests.”

Whether or not a woman breastfeeds depends not only on desire but on social and economic support and biology; for some, breastfeeding simply isn’t an option. “I agree that we should educate women about the benefits of breastfeeding so they can make an informed decision for themselves and their infants, but we also need to acknowledge the complexity of this issue,” she cautioned.

One coauthor reported a travel stipend by the Human Milk Banking Association of North America; Dr. Hoyt-Austin and the other authors had no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Cyr had no conflicts of interest to report.

SOURCE: Hoyt-Austin A et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Dec. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004162.

Racial and ethnic disparities in maternal and infant outcomes persist in the United States, with Black women being 3-4 times more likely to die of pregnancy-related causes, compared with Latina and non-Latina white women, Elizabeth Howell, MD, said in a presentation at the 2020 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 

Location matters, too, and ethnic disparities appear to transcend class, said Dr. Howell of Penn Medicine, Philadelphia. In New York City, for example, Black women are 8-12 times more likely to die than white women regardless of educational attainment.

Dr. Howell cited the definitions of health equity and health disparities as defined by Paula Braveman, MD, in 2014 in the journal Public Health Reports, as follows: “Health equity means social justice in health (i.e., no one is denied the possibility to be healthy for belonging to a group that has historically been economically/socially disadvantaged. Health disparities are the metric we use to measure progress toward achieving health equity.”

Structural racism and discrimination contribute to disparities in maternal and infant morbidity and mortality in several ways, she said. Patient factors include sociodemographics, age, education, poverty, insurance, marital status, language, and literacy. In addition, a patient’s knowledge, beliefs, and health behaviors, as well as stress and self-efficacy are involved. Community factors such as crime, poverty, and community support play a role.

“These factors contribute to the health status of a woman when she becomes pregnant,” Dr. Howell said. “These factors contribute as the woman goes through the health system.”

Then provider factors that impact maternal and infant morbidity and mortality include knowledge, experience, implicit bias, cultural humility, and communication; these factors affect the quality and delivery of neonatal care, and can impact outcomes, Dr. Howell said.

“It is really important to note that many of these pregnancy-related deaths are thought to be preventable,” she said. “They are often caused by delays in diagnosis, problems with communication, and other system failures. Site care has received a great deal of attention” in recent years, the ob.gyn. noted.
 

How hospital quality contributes to health disparities

Dr. Howell shared data from a pair of National Institutes of Health–funded parallel group studies she conducted at New York City hospitals to investigate the contribution of hospital quality to health disparities in severe maternal morbidity and very preterm birth (prior to 32 weeks).

The researchers used vital statistics linked with discharge abstracts for all New York City deliveries between 2011-2013 and 2010-2014. They conducted a logistic regression analysis and ranked hospitals based on metrics of severe maternal morbidity and very preterm birth, and assessed differences by race in each delivery location.

Overall, Black women were almost three times as likely and Latina women were almost twice as likely as White women to experience some type of severe maternal morbidity, with rates of 4.2%, 2.7%, and 1.5%, respectively.

The researchers also ranked hospitals, and found a wide variation; women delivering in the lowest-ranked hospitals had six times the rate of severe maternal morbidity. They also conducted a simulation/thought exercise and determined that the hospital of delivery accounted for approximately 48% of the disparity in severe maternal morbidity between Black and White women.

Results were similar in the parallel study of very preterm birth rates in New York City hospitals, which were 32%, 28%, and 23% for Black, Latina, and White women, respectively.

The researchers also conducted interviews with personnel including chief medical officers, neonatal ICU directors, nurses, and respiratory therapists. The final phase of the research, which is ongoing, is the dissemination of the information, said Dr. Howell.

Overall, the high-performing hospitals were more likely to focus on standards and standardized care, stronger nurse/physician communication, greater awareness of the potential impact of racism on care, and greater sharing of performance data.

Women who participated in focus groups reported a range of experiences, but women of color were likely to report poor communication, feeling traumatized, and not being heard.
 

Study implications

Dr. Howell discussed the implications of her study in a question and answer session. “It is incredibly important for us to think about all the levers that we have to address disparities.”

“It is a complex web of factors, but quality of care is one of those mechanisms, and it is something we can do something about,” she noted.

In response to a question about whether women should know the rates of adverse outcomes at various hospitals, she said, “I think we have a responsibility to come up with quality of care measures that are informative to the women we care for.”

Much of obstetric quality issues focus on overuse of resources, “but that doesn’t help us reduce disparities,” she said.

Dr. Howell had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Racial and ethnic disparities in maternal and infant outcomes persist in the United States, with Black women being 3-4 times more likely to die of pregnancy-related causes, compared with Latina and non-Latina white women, Elizabeth Howell, MD, said in a presentation at the 2020 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 

Location matters, too, and ethnic disparities appear to transcend class, said Dr. Howell of Penn Medicine, Philadelphia. In New York City, for example, Black women are 8-12 times more likely to die than white women regardless of educational attainment.

Dr. Howell cited the definitions of health equity and health disparities as defined by Paula Braveman, MD, in 2014 in the journal Public Health Reports, as follows: “Health equity means social justice in health (i.e., no one is denied the possibility to be healthy for belonging to a group that has historically been economically/socially disadvantaged. Health disparities are the metric we use to measure progress toward achieving health equity.”

Structural racism and discrimination contribute to disparities in maternal and infant morbidity and mortality in several ways, she said. Patient factors include sociodemographics, age, education, poverty, insurance, marital status, language, and literacy. In addition, a patient’s knowledge, beliefs, and health behaviors, as well as stress and self-efficacy are involved. Community factors such as crime, poverty, and community support play a role.

“These factors contribute to the health status of a woman when she becomes pregnant,” Dr. Howell said. “These factors contribute as the woman goes through the health system.”

Then provider factors that impact maternal and infant morbidity and mortality include knowledge, experience, implicit bias, cultural humility, and communication; these factors affect the quality and delivery of neonatal care, and can impact outcomes, Dr. Howell said.

“It is really important to note that many of these pregnancy-related deaths are thought to be preventable,” she said. “They are often caused by delays in diagnosis, problems with communication, and other system failures. Site care has received a great deal of attention” in recent years, the ob.gyn. noted.
 

How hospital quality contributes to health disparities

Dr. Howell shared data from a pair of National Institutes of Health–funded parallel group studies she conducted at New York City hospitals to investigate the contribution of hospital quality to health disparities in severe maternal morbidity and very preterm birth (prior to 32 weeks).

The researchers used vital statistics linked with discharge abstracts for all New York City deliveries between 2011-2013 and 2010-2014. They conducted a logistic regression analysis and ranked hospitals based on metrics of severe maternal morbidity and very preterm birth, and assessed differences by race in each delivery location.

Overall, Black women were almost three times as likely and Latina women were almost twice as likely as White women to experience some type of severe maternal morbidity, with rates of 4.2%, 2.7%, and 1.5%, respectively.

The researchers also ranked hospitals, and found a wide variation; women delivering in the lowest-ranked hospitals had six times the rate of severe maternal morbidity. They also conducted a simulation/thought exercise and determined that the hospital of delivery accounted for approximately 48% of the disparity in severe maternal morbidity between Black and White women.

Results were similar in the parallel study of very preterm birth rates in New York City hospitals, which were 32%, 28%, and 23% for Black, Latina, and White women, respectively.

The researchers also conducted interviews with personnel including chief medical officers, neonatal ICU directors, nurses, and respiratory therapists. The final phase of the research, which is ongoing, is the dissemination of the information, said Dr. Howell.

Overall, the high-performing hospitals were more likely to focus on standards and standardized care, stronger nurse/physician communication, greater awareness of the potential impact of racism on care, and greater sharing of performance data.

Women who participated in focus groups reported a range of experiences, but women of color were likely to report poor communication, feeling traumatized, and not being heard.
 

Study implications

Dr. Howell discussed the implications of her study in a question and answer session. “It is incredibly important for us to think about all the levers that we have to address disparities.”

“It is a complex web of factors, but quality of care is one of those mechanisms, and it is something we can do something about,” she noted.

In response to a question about whether women should know the rates of adverse outcomes at various hospitals, she said, “I think we have a responsibility to come up with quality of care measures that are informative to the women we care for.”

Much of obstetric quality issues focus on overuse of resources, “but that doesn’t help us reduce disparities,” she said.

Dr. Howell had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Racial and ethnic disparities in maternal and infant outcomes persist in the United States, with Black women being 3-4 times more likely to die of pregnancy-related causes, compared with Latina and non-Latina white women, Elizabeth Howell, MD, said in a presentation at the 2020 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 

Location matters, too, and ethnic disparities appear to transcend class, said Dr. Howell of Penn Medicine, Philadelphia. In New York City, for example, Black women are 8-12 times more likely to die than white women regardless of educational attainment.

Dr. Howell cited the definitions of health equity and health disparities as defined by Paula Braveman, MD, in 2014 in the journal Public Health Reports, as follows: “Health equity means social justice in health (i.e., no one is denied the possibility to be healthy for belonging to a group that has historically been economically/socially disadvantaged. Health disparities are the metric we use to measure progress toward achieving health equity.”

Structural racism and discrimination contribute to disparities in maternal and infant morbidity and mortality in several ways, she said. Patient factors include sociodemographics, age, education, poverty, insurance, marital status, language, and literacy. In addition, a patient’s knowledge, beliefs, and health behaviors, as well as stress and self-efficacy are involved. Community factors such as crime, poverty, and community support play a role.

“These factors contribute to the health status of a woman when she becomes pregnant,” Dr. Howell said. “These factors contribute as the woman goes through the health system.”

Then provider factors that impact maternal and infant morbidity and mortality include knowledge, experience, implicit bias, cultural humility, and communication; these factors affect the quality and delivery of neonatal care, and can impact outcomes, Dr. Howell said.

“It is really important to note that many of these pregnancy-related deaths are thought to be preventable,” she said. “They are often caused by delays in diagnosis, problems with communication, and other system failures. Site care has received a great deal of attention” in recent years, the ob.gyn. noted.
 

How hospital quality contributes to health disparities

Dr. Howell shared data from a pair of National Institutes of Health–funded parallel group studies she conducted at New York City hospitals to investigate the contribution of hospital quality to health disparities in severe maternal morbidity and very preterm birth (prior to 32 weeks).

The researchers used vital statistics linked with discharge abstracts for all New York City deliveries between 2011-2013 and 2010-2014. They conducted a logistic regression analysis and ranked hospitals based on metrics of severe maternal morbidity and very preterm birth, and assessed differences by race in each delivery location.

Overall, Black women were almost three times as likely and Latina women were almost twice as likely as White women to experience some type of severe maternal morbidity, with rates of 4.2%, 2.7%, and 1.5%, respectively.

The researchers also ranked hospitals, and found a wide variation; women delivering in the lowest-ranked hospitals had six times the rate of severe maternal morbidity. They also conducted a simulation/thought exercise and determined that the hospital of delivery accounted for approximately 48% of the disparity in severe maternal morbidity between Black and White women.

Results were similar in the parallel study of very preterm birth rates in New York City hospitals, which were 32%, 28%, and 23% for Black, Latina, and White women, respectively.

The researchers also conducted interviews with personnel including chief medical officers, neonatal ICU directors, nurses, and respiratory therapists. The final phase of the research, which is ongoing, is the dissemination of the information, said Dr. Howell.

Overall, the high-performing hospitals were more likely to focus on standards and standardized care, stronger nurse/physician communication, greater awareness of the potential impact of racism on care, and greater sharing of performance data.

Women who participated in focus groups reported a range of experiences, but women of color were likely to report poor communication, feeling traumatized, and not being heard.
 

Study implications

Dr. Howell discussed the implications of her study in a question and answer session. “It is incredibly important for us to think about all the levers that we have to address disparities.”

“It is a complex web of factors, but quality of care is one of those mechanisms, and it is something we can do something about,” she noted.

In response to a question about whether women should know the rates of adverse outcomes at various hospitals, she said, “I think we have a responsibility to come up with quality of care measures that are informative to the women we care for.”

Much of obstetric quality issues focus on overuse of resources, “but that doesn’t help us reduce disparities,” she said.

Dr. Howell had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Exercise and a hypocaloric, Mediterranean-style diet remain first-line interventions that can benefit all patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), according to a clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association.

“[W]eight loss is associated with a reduction in liver fat, which provides a potential for reversal of disease progression,” wrote Zobair M. Younossi, MD, MPH, of Inova Fairfax Medical Campus in Falls Church, Va., with his associates. Lifestyle modifications remain “the cornerstone for management” because, even though NAFLD affects approximately 25% of individuals worldwide according to one meta-analytic assessment, interventions such as medications, bariatric endoscopy, and surgery are usually reserved for the subset of patients with severe obesity, comorbid diabetes, or nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) with at least stage 2 fibrosis, the experts wrote in Gastroenterology.

They note that clinically significant weight loss typically requires a hypocaloric diet of 1,200-1,500 kilocalories/day or a decrease of 500-1,000 kilocalories/day from baseline. A Mediterranean diet of fresh vegetables, fruits, legumes, minimally processed whole grains, fish, olive oil, nuts, and seeds is recommended because its antioxidant, anti-inflammatory effects may slow NAFLD progression. This diet minimizes or eliminates sweets, refined grains, and red and processed meats. Fructose from fruit is not associated with NAFLD, but patients should consume little or no commercially prepared fructose, which has been linked to visceral adiposity, insulin resistance, hepatic inflammation, and fibrosis progression. Other hypocaloric diets have not been studied enough to support their routine use in NAFLD treatment, according to the clinical practice update.

For patients with NASH, which is the more severe form of NAFLD and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality caused by complications from cirrhosis, hepatic decompensation, and hepatocellular carcinoma, weight loss also has a big impact: Losing at least 5% of total body weight can decrease hepatic steatosis, losing at least 7% can resolve NASH, and losing at least 10% can lessen or stabilize hepatic fibrosis, according to level 1 evidence cited by the update. Weight loss “can significantly impact all aspects of NAFLD histology including fibrosis, but a goal of 10% total body weight loss should be considered for patients with overweight or obese NAFLD,” the authors wrote. Fat loss also improves liver histology in patients with lean NAFLD (body mass index, 26 kg/m² in non-Asian patients or 24 in Asians), for whom a hypocaloric diet targeting a more modest 3%-5% total body weight loss is recommended.

Because aerobic exercise reduces hepatic fat levels independently of hypocaloric diet, patients with NAFLD should consider a weekly regimen of 150-300 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise or 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity. Resistance training can complement aerobic exercise “but [is] not a replacement,” the authors noted. In addition, patients with NAFLD should restrict alcohol consumption to reduce the risk for liver-related events, and those with advanced hepatic fibrosis should “avoid alcohol entirely.” These recommendations reflect the findings of a large prospective study in which the consumption of even low amounts of alcohol led to worse liver-related outcomes among patients with NAFLD.

Clinicians should screen for and “aggressively” manage common NAFLD comorbidities, including diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and obstructive sleep apnea, according to the clinical practice update. Patients with coexisting metabolic conditions should be risk-stratified for cardiovascular disease and treated based on guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association.

It is believed that sarcopenia affects patients with NASH cirrhosis because their livers cannot effectively store, metabolize, or mobilize carbohydrates, which leads to a catabolic state in which protein and fat are used as energy sources, according to the update. To avoid exacerbations, these patients may need to optimize their protein intake – a minimum of 1.2-1.5 g/kg of body weight is recommended – from sources of branched-chain amino acids, such as chicken, fish, eggs, nuts, lentils, or soy. Patients with sarcopenic NAFLD also should consume small, frequent meals spaced no more than 4-6 hours apart. When possible, they should consult with a specialized nutritionist. Moderate-intensity exercise may also benefit patients experiencing sarcopenia.

The researchers disclosed ties to Gilead Sciences, Intercept, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novo Nordisk, and several other companies. The review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute’s Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board.

SOURCE: Younossi ZM et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Dec 8. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.11.051.

This article was updated Feb. 10, 2021.

Exercise and a hypocaloric, Mediterranean-style diet remain first-line interventions that can benefit all patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), according to a clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association.

“[W]eight loss is associated with a reduction in liver fat, which provides a potential for reversal of disease progression,” wrote Zobair M. Younossi, MD, MPH, of Inova Fairfax Medical Campus in Falls Church, Va., with his associates. Lifestyle modifications remain “the cornerstone for management” because, even though NAFLD affects approximately 25% of individuals worldwide according to one meta-analytic assessment, interventions such as medications, bariatric endoscopy, and surgery are usually reserved for the subset of patients with severe obesity, comorbid diabetes, or nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) with at least stage 2 fibrosis, the experts wrote in Gastroenterology.

They note that clinically significant weight loss typically requires a hypocaloric diet of 1,200-1,500 kilocalories/day or a decrease of 500-1,000 kilocalories/day from baseline. A Mediterranean diet of fresh vegetables, fruits, legumes, minimally processed whole grains, fish, olive oil, nuts, and seeds is recommended because its antioxidant, anti-inflammatory effects may slow NAFLD progression. This diet minimizes or eliminates sweets, refined grains, and red and processed meats. Fructose from fruit is not associated with NAFLD, but patients should consume little or no commercially prepared fructose, which has been linked to visceral adiposity, insulin resistance, hepatic inflammation, and fibrosis progression. Other hypocaloric diets have not been studied enough to support their routine use in NAFLD treatment, according to the clinical practice update.

For patients with NASH, which is the more severe form of NAFLD and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality caused by complications from cirrhosis, hepatic decompensation, and hepatocellular carcinoma, weight loss also has a big impact: Losing at least 5% of total body weight can decrease hepatic steatosis, losing at least 7% can resolve NASH, and losing at least 10% can lessen or stabilize hepatic fibrosis, according to level 1 evidence cited by the update. Weight loss “can significantly impact all aspects of NAFLD histology including fibrosis, but a goal of 10% total body weight loss should be considered for patients with overweight or obese NAFLD,” the authors wrote. Fat loss also improves liver histology in patients with lean NAFLD (body mass index, 26 kg/m² in non-Asian patients or 24 in Asians), for whom a hypocaloric diet targeting a more modest 3%-5% total body weight loss is recommended.

Because aerobic exercise reduces hepatic fat levels independently of hypocaloric diet, patients with NAFLD should consider a weekly regimen of 150-300 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise or 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity. Resistance training can complement aerobic exercise “but [is] not a replacement,” the authors noted. In addition, patients with NAFLD should restrict alcohol consumption to reduce the risk for liver-related events, and those with advanced hepatic fibrosis should “avoid alcohol entirely.” These recommendations reflect the findings of a large prospective study in which the consumption of even low amounts of alcohol led to worse liver-related outcomes among patients with NAFLD.

Clinicians should screen for and “aggressively” manage common NAFLD comorbidities, including diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and obstructive sleep apnea, according to the clinical practice update. Patients with coexisting metabolic conditions should be risk-stratified for cardiovascular disease and treated based on guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association.

It is believed that sarcopenia affects patients with NASH cirrhosis because their livers cannot effectively store, metabolize, or mobilize carbohydrates, which leads to a catabolic state in which protein and fat are used as energy sources, according to the update. To avoid exacerbations, these patients may need to optimize their protein intake – a minimum of 1.2-1.5 g/kg of body weight is recommended – from sources of branched-chain amino acids, such as chicken, fish, eggs, nuts, lentils, or soy. Patients with sarcopenic NAFLD also should consume small, frequent meals spaced no more than 4-6 hours apart. When possible, they should consult with a specialized nutritionist. Moderate-intensity exercise may also benefit patients experiencing sarcopenia.

The researchers disclosed ties to Gilead Sciences, Intercept, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novo Nordisk, and several other companies. The review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute’s Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board.

SOURCE: Younossi ZM et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Dec 8. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.11.051.

This article was updated Feb. 10, 2021.

Exercise and a hypocaloric, Mediterranean-style diet remain first-line interventions that can benefit all patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), according to a clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association.

“[W]eight loss is associated with a reduction in liver fat, which provides a potential for reversal of disease progression,” wrote Zobair M. Younossi, MD, MPH, of Inova Fairfax Medical Campus in Falls Church, Va., with his associates. Lifestyle modifications remain “the cornerstone for management” because, even though NAFLD affects approximately 25% of individuals worldwide according to one meta-analytic assessment, interventions such as medications, bariatric endoscopy, and surgery are usually reserved for the subset of patients with severe obesity, comorbid diabetes, or nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) with at least stage 2 fibrosis, the experts wrote in Gastroenterology.

They note that clinically significant weight loss typically requires a hypocaloric diet of 1,200-1,500 kilocalories/day or a decrease of 500-1,000 kilocalories/day from baseline. A Mediterranean diet of fresh vegetables, fruits, legumes, minimally processed whole grains, fish, olive oil, nuts, and seeds is recommended because its antioxidant, anti-inflammatory effects may slow NAFLD progression. This diet minimizes or eliminates sweets, refined grains, and red and processed meats. Fructose from fruit is not associated with NAFLD, but patients should consume little or no commercially prepared fructose, which has been linked to visceral adiposity, insulin resistance, hepatic inflammation, and fibrosis progression. Other hypocaloric diets have not been studied enough to support their routine use in NAFLD treatment, according to the clinical practice update.

For patients with NASH, which is the more severe form of NAFLD and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality caused by complications from cirrhosis, hepatic decompensation, and hepatocellular carcinoma, weight loss also has a big impact: Losing at least 5% of total body weight can decrease hepatic steatosis, losing at least 7% can resolve NASH, and losing at least 10% can lessen or stabilize hepatic fibrosis, according to level 1 evidence cited by the update. Weight loss “can significantly impact all aspects of NAFLD histology including fibrosis, but a goal of 10% total body weight loss should be considered for patients with overweight or obese NAFLD,” the authors wrote. Fat loss also improves liver histology in patients with lean NAFLD (body mass index, 26 kg/m² in non-Asian patients or 24 in Asians), for whom a hypocaloric diet targeting a more modest 3%-5% total body weight loss is recommended.

Because aerobic exercise reduces hepatic fat levels independently of hypocaloric diet, patients with NAFLD should consider a weekly regimen of 150-300 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise or 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity. Resistance training can complement aerobic exercise “but [is] not a replacement,” the authors noted. In addition, patients with NAFLD should restrict alcohol consumption to reduce the risk for liver-related events, and those with advanced hepatic fibrosis should “avoid alcohol entirely.” These recommendations reflect the findings of a large prospective study in which the consumption of even low amounts of alcohol led to worse liver-related outcomes among patients with NAFLD.

Clinicians should screen for and “aggressively” manage common NAFLD comorbidities, including diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and obstructive sleep apnea, according to the clinical practice update. Patients with coexisting metabolic conditions should be risk-stratified for cardiovascular disease and treated based on guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association.

It is believed that sarcopenia affects patients with NASH cirrhosis because their livers cannot effectively store, metabolize, or mobilize carbohydrates, which leads to a catabolic state in which protein and fat are used as energy sources, according to the update. To avoid exacerbations, these patients may need to optimize their protein intake – a minimum of 1.2-1.5 g/kg of body weight is recommended – from sources of branched-chain amino acids, such as chicken, fish, eggs, nuts, lentils, or soy. Patients with sarcopenic NAFLD also should consume small, frequent meals spaced no more than 4-6 hours apart. When possible, they should consult with a specialized nutritionist. Moderate-intensity exercise may also benefit patients experiencing sarcopenia.

The researchers disclosed ties to Gilead Sciences, Intercept, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novo Nordisk, and several other companies. The review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute’s Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board.

SOURCE: Younossi ZM et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Dec 8. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.11.051.

This article was updated Feb. 10, 2021.

The latest iteration of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease emphasizes a less invasive approach to the management of patients with valvular heart disease (VHD).

The 2020 ACC/AHA guideline now recommends transcatheter aortic valve implantation over surgical implantation for older individuals, a transcatheter edge-to-edge repair of the mitral valve for patients who are at high risk for surgery, and referral of patients with complicated conditions to designated centers.

The guideline was published online Dec. 17 in Circulation and was simultaneously published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. It replaces the 2014 guideline and the 2017 focused update of the guideline, both published in Circulation.

“A huge amount has changed,” Catherine M. Otto, MD, J. Ward Kennedy-Hamilton Endowed Chair in Cardiology and professor of medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

Dr. Otto cochaired the 2020 Guideline Writing Committee with Rick A. Nishimura, MD, professor of medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
 

Expanded use of transcatheter procedures

“One major change is that the transcatheter valve, rather than the surgical valve, is now recommended for a large number of patients, primarily based upon the likelihood that the durability of the transcatheter valve is appropriate for the patient’s life expectancy. So, in most older adults, the transcatheter valve, rather than a surgical valve, would be the treatment for severe aortic stenosis,” she said.

“That’s a huge change,” she added. “Previously, patients had to have surgery to place a prosthetic valve, but now, many patients, particularly older adults, can have a nonsurgical approach when they are only in the hospital overnight, or sometimes even just for the day, to get their valve replaced.”

The 2020 guideline also recommends the transcatheter approach over the surgical approach for mitral valve repair or replacement for individuals who are not candidates for surgery.

“We continue to recommend surgical valve repair for the mitral valve, because we know that there are excellent long-term outcomes with surgical repair,” Dr. Otto said. “But, for people who are at high risk or prohibitive risk for surgery, we now have the option of again using a transcatheter approach or a transcatheter edge-to-edge repair of the valve. It’s a simpler procedure, doesn’t require a big incision, [and] doesn’t require a long hospital stay. Those two procedures are really changing patient management,” she said.
 

A tiered approach to VHD care

A third key change is a recommendation that the U.S. health care system move to a tiered approach, whereby patients with more complex conditions undergo their procedure at comprehensive, high-volume centers, and patients with simpler conditions undergo treatment at primary heart valve centers.

“More complex patients often require multidisciplinary care in order to be managed appropriately. It makes more sense to send them to a center that has the expertise and the teams in place already,” Dr. Otto said.

“Patients needing more straightforward, common procedures could be seen at a primary valve center. Those needing a more complicated procedure would go to the centers with higher volumes. So an important part of what this guideline is trying to do is to get doctors to refer their patients to the appropriate center,” she said.
 

Eagerly anticipated

The 2020 AHA/ACC guideline has been “eagerly anticipated,” Anthony A. Bavry, MD, MPH, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, and George J. Arnaoutakis, MD, University of Florida Health, Gainesville, wrote in a perspective article published with the guideline in Circulation.

Dr. Bavry and Dr. Arnaoutakis endorse the guideline recommendation that the U.S. health care system move to a tiered approach.

“To balance excellent outcomes and not compromise access to care, the 2020 Guideline recommends that our health care system move to a tiered approach in the treatment of valve disease, where we recognize level 1 and level 2 Centers,” they wrote.

“The level 1 Comprehensive Heart Valve Center is an important and new introduction to the Guideline,” they noted. “The level 1 Center is defined by the depth and breadth of the procedures offered. While excellent outcomes are possible at lower volume centers, literature supports that higher center and operator volumes of valve procedures are associated with excellent results and low mortality.”

The authors pointed out that level 2 primary valve centers offer many of the same valve procedures as the level 1 centers but are limited by the scope of procedures they can offer.

“For example, specialized procedures such as alternative access TAVR, valve-in-valve TAVR, transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repair, paravalvular leak closure, and percutaneous mitral balloon commissurotomy are recommended to be performed at a level 1 Center,” they wrote.

Transcatheter valve therapies remain “an exciting and dynamic field which offers patients a less invasive treatment option,” Dr. Bavry and Dr. Arnaoutakis concluded. They also cautioned that the pros and cons of the newer, less invasive therapies need to be weighed against the benefits of surgical procedures that have been studied and refined for more than 50 years.

Patients with VHD have many choices and will require help making informed decisions about such things as a mechanical valve vs. a bioprosthetic valve or undergoing a traditional surgical procedure vs. a catheter-based approach. “Other patients, at the extremes of age or risk status, will lean more clearly to one direction or another,” Dr. Bavry and Dr. Arnaoutakis add.

“Overall, the 2020 Guideline is a comprehensive document that should provide a useful framework for the Heart Valve Team,” they concluded.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The latest iteration of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease emphasizes a less invasive approach to the management of patients with valvular heart disease (VHD).

The 2020 ACC/AHA guideline now recommends transcatheter aortic valve implantation over surgical implantation for older individuals, a transcatheter edge-to-edge repair of the mitral valve for patients who are at high risk for surgery, and referral of patients with complicated conditions to designated centers.

The guideline was published online Dec. 17 in Circulation and was simultaneously published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. It replaces the 2014 guideline and the 2017 focused update of the guideline, both published in Circulation.

“A huge amount has changed,” Catherine M. Otto, MD, J. Ward Kennedy-Hamilton Endowed Chair in Cardiology and professor of medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

Dr. Otto cochaired the 2020 Guideline Writing Committee with Rick A. Nishimura, MD, professor of medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
 

Expanded use of transcatheter procedures

“One major change is that the transcatheter valve, rather than the surgical valve, is now recommended for a large number of patients, primarily based upon the likelihood that the durability of the transcatheter valve is appropriate for the patient’s life expectancy. So, in most older adults, the transcatheter valve, rather than a surgical valve, would be the treatment for severe aortic stenosis,” she said.

“That’s a huge change,” she added. “Previously, patients had to have surgery to place a prosthetic valve, but now, many patients, particularly older adults, can have a nonsurgical approach when they are only in the hospital overnight, or sometimes even just for the day, to get their valve replaced.”

The 2020 guideline also recommends the transcatheter approach over the surgical approach for mitral valve repair or replacement for individuals who are not candidates for surgery.

“We continue to recommend surgical valve repair for the mitral valve, because we know that there are excellent long-term outcomes with surgical repair,” Dr. Otto said. “But, for people who are at high risk or prohibitive risk for surgery, we now have the option of again using a transcatheter approach or a transcatheter edge-to-edge repair of the valve. It’s a simpler procedure, doesn’t require a big incision, [and] doesn’t require a long hospital stay. Those two procedures are really changing patient management,” she said.
 

A tiered approach to VHD care

A third key change is a recommendation that the U.S. health care system move to a tiered approach, whereby patients with more complex conditions undergo their procedure at comprehensive, high-volume centers, and patients with simpler conditions undergo treatment at primary heart valve centers.

“More complex patients often require multidisciplinary care in order to be managed appropriately. It makes more sense to send them to a center that has the expertise and the teams in place already,” Dr. Otto said.

“Patients needing more straightforward, common procedures could be seen at a primary valve center. Those needing a more complicated procedure would go to the centers with higher volumes. So an important part of what this guideline is trying to do is to get doctors to refer their patients to the appropriate center,” she said.
 

Eagerly anticipated

The 2020 AHA/ACC guideline has been “eagerly anticipated,” Anthony A. Bavry, MD, MPH, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, and George J. Arnaoutakis, MD, University of Florida Health, Gainesville, wrote in a perspective article published with the guideline in Circulation.

Dr. Bavry and Dr. Arnaoutakis endorse the guideline recommendation that the U.S. health care system move to a tiered approach.

“To balance excellent outcomes and not compromise access to care, the 2020 Guideline recommends that our health care system move to a tiered approach in the treatment of valve disease, where we recognize level 1 and level 2 Centers,” they wrote.

“The level 1 Comprehensive Heart Valve Center is an important and new introduction to the Guideline,” they noted. “The level 1 Center is defined by the depth and breadth of the procedures offered. While excellent outcomes are possible at lower volume centers, literature supports that higher center and operator volumes of valve procedures are associated with excellent results and low mortality.”

The authors pointed out that level 2 primary valve centers offer many of the same valve procedures as the level 1 centers but are limited by the scope of procedures they can offer.

“For example, specialized procedures such as alternative access TAVR, valve-in-valve TAVR, transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repair, paravalvular leak closure, and percutaneous mitral balloon commissurotomy are recommended to be performed at a level 1 Center,” they wrote.

Transcatheter valve therapies remain “an exciting and dynamic field which offers patients a less invasive treatment option,” Dr. Bavry and Dr. Arnaoutakis concluded. They also cautioned that the pros and cons of the newer, less invasive therapies need to be weighed against the benefits of surgical procedures that have been studied and refined for more than 50 years.

Patients with VHD have many choices and will require help making informed decisions about such things as a mechanical valve vs. a bioprosthetic valve or undergoing a traditional surgical procedure vs. a catheter-based approach. “Other patients, at the extremes of age or risk status, will lean more clearly to one direction or another,” Dr. Bavry and Dr. Arnaoutakis add.

“Overall, the 2020 Guideline is a comprehensive document that should provide a useful framework for the Heart Valve Team,” they concluded.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The latest iteration of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease emphasizes a less invasive approach to the management of patients with valvular heart disease (VHD).

The 2020 ACC/AHA guideline now recommends transcatheter aortic valve implantation over surgical implantation for older individuals, a transcatheter edge-to-edge repair of the mitral valve for patients who are at high risk for surgery, and referral of patients with complicated conditions to designated centers.

The guideline was published online Dec. 17 in Circulation and was simultaneously published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. It replaces the 2014 guideline and the 2017 focused update of the guideline, both published in Circulation.

“A huge amount has changed,” Catherine M. Otto, MD, J. Ward Kennedy-Hamilton Endowed Chair in Cardiology and professor of medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

Dr. Otto cochaired the 2020 Guideline Writing Committee with Rick A. Nishimura, MD, professor of medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
 

Expanded use of transcatheter procedures

“One major change is that the transcatheter valve, rather than the surgical valve, is now recommended for a large number of patients, primarily based upon the likelihood that the durability of the transcatheter valve is appropriate for the patient’s life expectancy. So, in most older adults, the transcatheter valve, rather than a surgical valve, would be the treatment for severe aortic stenosis,” she said.

“That’s a huge change,” she added. “Previously, patients had to have surgery to place a prosthetic valve, but now, many patients, particularly older adults, can have a nonsurgical approach when they are only in the hospital overnight, or sometimes even just for the day, to get their valve replaced.”

The 2020 guideline also recommends the transcatheter approach over the surgical approach for mitral valve repair or replacement for individuals who are not candidates for surgery.

“We continue to recommend surgical valve repair for the mitral valve, because we know that there are excellent long-term outcomes with surgical repair,” Dr. Otto said. “But, for people who are at high risk or prohibitive risk for surgery, we now have the option of again using a transcatheter approach or a transcatheter edge-to-edge repair of the valve. It’s a simpler procedure, doesn’t require a big incision, [and] doesn’t require a long hospital stay. Those two procedures are really changing patient management,” she said.
 

A tiered approach to VHD care

A third key change is a recommendation that the U.S. health care system move to a tiered approach, whereby patients with more complex conditions undergo their procedure at comprehensive, high-volume centers, and patients with simpler conditions undergo treatment at primary heart valve centers.

“More complex patients often require multidisciplinary care in order to be managed appropriately. It makes more sense to send them to a center that has the expertise and the teams in place already,” Dr. Otto said.

“Patients needing more straightforward, common procedures could be seen at a primary valve center. Those needing a more complicated procedure would go to the centers with higher volumes. So an important part of what this guideline is trying to do is to get doctors to refer their patients to the appropriate center,” she said.
 

Eagerly anticipated

The 2020 AHA/ACC guideline has been “eagerly anticipated,” Anthony A. Bavry, MD, MPH, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, and George J. Arnaoutakis, MD, University of Florida Health, Gainesville, wrote in a perspective article published with the guideline in Circulation.

Dr. Bavry and Dr. Arnaoutakis endorse the guideline recommendation that the U.S. health care system move to a tiered approach.

“To balance excellent outcomes and not compromise access to care, the 2020 Guideline recommends that our health care system move to a tiered approach in the treatment of valve disease, where we recognize level 1 and level 2 Centers,” they wrote.

“The level 1 Comprehensive Heart Valve Center is an important and new introduction to the Guideline,” they noted. “The level 1 Center is defined by the depth and breadth of the procedures offered. While excellent outcomes are possible at lower volume centers, literature supports that higher center and operator volumes of valve procedures are associated with excellent results and low mortality.”

The authors pointed out that level 2 primary valve centers offer many of the same valve procedures as the level 1 centers but are limited by the scope of procedures they can offer.

“For example, specialized procedures such as alternative access TAVR, valve-in-valve TAVR, transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repair, paravalvular leak closure, and percutaneous mitral balloon commissurotomy are recommended to be performed at a level 1 Center,” they wrote.

Transcatheter valve therapies remain “an exciting and dynamic field which offers patients a less invasive treatment option,” Dr. Bavry and Dr. Arnaoutakis concluded. They also cautioned that the pros and cons of the newer, less invasive therapies need to be weighed against the benefits of surgical procedures that have been studied and refined for more than 50 years.

Patients with VHD have many choices and will require help making informed decisions about such things as a mechanical valve vs. a bioprosthetic valve or undergoing a traditional surgical procedure vs. a catheter-based approach. “Other patients, at the extremes of age or risk status, will lean more clearly to one direction or another,” Dr. Bavry and Dr. Arnaoutakis add.

“Overall, the 2020 Guideline is a comprehensive document that should provide a useful framework for the Heart Valve Team,” they concluded.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A proposal to delay administration of the second dose of COVID-19 vaccines – suggested as a strategy to boost the number of people who get some degree of protection from a single immunization with the Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna vaccines – is inciting a strong debate among clinicians and public health officials.

Proponents argue that getting some degree of protection to a greater number of Americans is worthwhile, particularly as case numbers and hospitalizations continue to rise and with the emergence of a more contagious variant.

Opponents raise concerns about diverting from the two-dose schedule evaluated in clinical trials, including a lack of data on long-term protection from a single dose. They also suggest a longer interval between dosing could increase resistance of SARS-CoV-2 virus.

It is time to consider delaying the second dose, Robert M. Wachter, MD, at the University of California San Francisco, and Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, at Brown University in Providence, R.I., wrote in an opinion piece in The Washington Post Jan. 3. 

The two experts state that supply constraints, distribution bottlenecks, and hundreds of thousands of new infections daily prompted them to change their stance on administering COVID-19 vaccines according to the two-dose clinical trial regimen. Furthermore, they cited a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that suggests 80%-90% efficacy for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection following one dose of the Moderna vaccine. 

Not everyone agrees one dose is a good idea. “Clinical trials with specific schedules for vaccine dosing – that’s the whole basis of the scientific evidence,” Maria Elena Bottazzi, PhD, associate dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said in an interview.

After one dose “the immune system is learning, but it’s not ideal. That’s why you need the second dose,” Dr. Bottazzi said. “I appreciate the urgency and the anxiety ... but the data support [that] clinical efficacy requires two doses.”

Another proposed strategy to extend the current supply of COVID-19 vaccines to more Americans involves splitting the current dosage of the Moderna vaccine in half. Officials in the United States and the United Kingdom are reportedly considering this approach. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration would have to approve any dosing change.
 

Agreeing to disagree

Dr. Wachter shared a link to his opinion piece on Twitter, stating that “We both came to this view because of the slow rollout & the new variant. But it’s a tough call and reasonable people will disagree.”

As predicted, the tweet elicited a number of strong opinions.

“There are no correct answers but there’s data deficiency, plenty of fodder and need for healthy, intellectual debate. That wouldn’t be occurring if there was an ample supply of vaccines,” Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Translational Science Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape, tweeted on Jan. 3.

“If the problem were with the supply of the vaccine, one might make an argument for focusing on 1st dose. But the problem is in distribution of the vaccine & giving actual doses,” John Grohol, PsyD, tweeted.

“Right now we don’t have a supply issue, we have a distribution issue,” Angela Shen, ScD, MPH, a research scientist in the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview. Emergency use authorization for the Johnson & Johnson and other COVID-19 vaccines in development could further boost available supplies, she added.

“The clinical trials studied two doses,” Dr. Shen said. “We don’t have data that one dose is going to have lasting protection.” 
 

Does new variant change equation?

Dr. Wachter and Dr. Jha, in their editorial, cited a quote from former boxing champion Mike Tyson: “Everybody has a plan until they’ve been punched in the mouth.” ‘Punches’ such as the new variant, the high number of cases and deaths in the United States, and other problems prompted them to advocate for the delayed dosing strategy.

“Appreciate the concern for the new variant – I think it’s worth noting that we’re punching ourselves in the mouth with the slow vaccine rollout, which is the first problem to solve,” Jake Quinton, MD, an internist at UCLA Health in Los Angeles, noted on Twitter.

 

Vaccine and public resistance raised

“I agree with the problem but not with the proposed solution, which is guesswork not based on data,” the Jan Grimm Lab at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York responded to Dr. Wachter and Dr. Jha on Twitter. “There ARE data though that show that 1 shot alone did not elicit sufficient T-cell nor antibody response. This might also lead to mutations resistant to the vaccines. Dangerous!”

Other physicians took to Twitter to point out that changing the recommendations at this point could further erode public confidence in COVID-19 immunization. For example, Deirdre Habermehl, MD, wrote, “We’ve spent months telling the public the best route is to follow the science and now without data think a course correction based on a guesstimate is ok? Public confidence is low enough and the real issue is logistics at this point.”

Dr. Shen and Dr. Bottazzi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A proposal to delay administration of the second dose of COVID-19 vaccines – suggested as a strategy to boost the number of people who get some degree of protection from a single immunization with the Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna vaccines – is inciting a strong debate among clinicians and public health officials.

Proponents argue that getting some degree of protection to a greater number of Americans is worthwhile, particularly as case numbers and hospitalizations continue to rise and with the emergence of a more contagious variant.

Opponents raise concerns about diverting from the two-dose schedule evaluated in clinical trials, including a lack of data on long-term protection from a single dose. They also suggest a longer interval between dosing could increase resistance of SARS-CoV-2 virus.

It is time to consider delaying the second dose, Robert M. Wachter, MD, at the University of California San Francisco, and Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, at Brown University in Providence, R.I., wrote in an opinion piece in The Washington Post Jan. 3. 

The two experts state that supply constraints, distribution bottlenecks, and hundreds of thousands of new infections daily prompted them to change their stance on administering COVID-19 vaccines according to the two-dose clinical trial regimen. Furthermore, they cited a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that suggests 80%-90% efficacy for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection following one dose of the Moderna vaccine. 

Not everyone agrees one dose is a good idea. “Clinical trials with specific schedules for vaccine dosing – that’s the whole basis of the scientific evidence,” Maria Elena Bottazzi, PhD, associate dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said in an interview.

After one dose “the immune system is learning, but it’s not ideal. That’s why you need the second dose,” Dr. Bottazzi said. “I appreciate the urgency and the anxiety ... but the data support [that] clinical efficacy requires two doses.”

Another proposed strategy to extend the current supply of COVID-19 vaccines to more Americans involves splitting the current dosage of the Moderna vaccine in half. Officials in the United States and the United Kingdom are reportedly considering this approach. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration would have to approve any dosing change.
 

Agreeing to disagree

Dr. Wachter shared a link to his opinion piece on Twitter, stating that “We both came to this view because of the slow rollout & the new variant. But it’s a tough call and reasonable people will disagree.”

As predicted, the tweet elicited a number of strong opinions.

“There are no correct answers but there’s data deficiency, plenty of fodder and need for healthy, intellectual debate. That wouldn’t be occurring if there was an ample supply of vaccines,” Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Translational Science Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape, tweeted on Jan. 3.

“If the problem were with the supply of the vaccine, one might make an argument for focusing on 1st dose. But the problem is in distribution of the vaccine & giving actual doses,” John Grohol, PsyD, tweeted.

“Right now we don’t have a supply issue, we have a distribution issue,” Angela Shen, ScD, MPH, a research scientist in the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview. Emergency use authorization for the Johnson & Johnson and other COVID-19 vaccines in development could further boost available supplies, she added.

“The clinical trials studied two doses,” Dr. Shen said. “We don’t have data that one dose is going to have lasting protection.” 
 

Does new variant change equation?

Dr. Wachter and Dr. Jha, in their editorial, cited a quote from former boxing champion Mike Tyson: “Everybody has a plan until they’ve been punched in the mouth.” ‘Punches’ such as the new variant, the high number of cases and deaths in the United States, and other problems prompted them to advocate for the delayed dosing strategy.

“Appreciate the concern for the new variant – I think it’s worth noting that we’re punching ourselves in the mouth with the slow vaccine rollout, which is the first problem to solve,” Jake Quinton, MD, an internist at UCLA Health in Los Angeles, noted on Twitter.

 

Vaccine and public resistance raised

“I agree with the problem but not with the proposed solution, which is guesswork not based on data,” the Jan Grimm Lab at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York responded to Dr. Wachter and Dr. Jha on Twitter. “There ARE data though that show that 1 shot alone did not elicit sufficient T-cell nor antibody response. This might also lead to mutations resistant to the vaccines. Dangerous!”

Other physicians took to Twitter to point out that changing the recommendations at this point could further erode public confidence in COVID-19 immunization. For example, Deirdre Habermehl, MD, wrote, “We’ve spent months telling the public the best route is to follow the science and now without data think a course correction based on a guesstimate is ok? Public confidence is low enough and the real issue is logistics at this point.”

Dr. Shen and Dr. Bottazzi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A proposal to delay administration of the second dose of COVID-19 vaccines – suggested as a strategy to boost the number of people who get some degree of protection from a single immunization with the Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna vaccines – is inciting a strong debate among clinicians and public health officials.

Proponents argue that getting some degree of protection to a greater number of Americans is worthwhile, particularly as case numbers and hospitalizations continue to rise and with the emergence of a more contagious variant.

Opponents raise concerns about diverting from the two-dose schedule evaluated in clinical trials, including a lack of data on long-term protection from a single dose. They also suggest a longer interval between dosing could increase resistance of SARS-CoV-2 virus.

It is time to consider delaying the second dose, Robert M. Wachter, MD, at the University of California San Francisco, and Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, at Brown University in Providence, R.I., wrote in an opinion piece in The Washington Post Jan. 3. 

The two experts state that supply constraints, distribution bottlenecks, and hundreds of thousands of new infections daily prompted them to change their stance on administering COVID-19 vaccines according to the two-dose clinical trial regimen. Furthermore, they cited a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that suggests 80%-90% efficacy for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection following one dose of the Moderna vaccine. 

Not everyone agrees one dose is a good idea. “Clinical trials with specific schedules for vaccine dosing – that’s the whole basis of the scientific evidence,” Maria Elena Bottazzi, PhD, associate dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said in an interview.

After one dose “the immune system is learning, but it’s not ideal. That’s why you need the second dose,” Dr. Bottazzi said. “I appreciate the urgency and the anxiety ... but the data support [that] clinical efficacy requires two doses.”

Another proposed strategy to extend the current supply of COVID-19 vaccines to more Americans involves splitting the current dosage of the Moderna vaccine in half. Officials in the United States and the United Kingdom are reportedly considering this approach. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration would have to approve any dosing change.
 

Agreeing to disagree

Dr. Wachter shared a link to his opinion piece on Twitter, stating that “We both came to this view because of the slow rollout & the new variant. But it’s a tough call and reasonable people will disagree.”

As predicted, the tweet elicited a number of strong opinions.

“There are no correct answers but there’s data deficiency, plenty of fodder and need for healthy, intellectual debate. That wouldn’t be occurring if there was an ample supply of vaccines,” Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Translational Science Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape, tweeted on Jan. 3.

“If the problem were with the supply of the vaccine, one might make an argument for focusing on 1st dose. But the problem is in distribution of the vaccine & giving actual doses,” John Grohol, PsyD, tweeted.

“Right now we don’t have a supply issue, we have a distribution issue,” Angela Shen, ScD, MPH, a research scientist in the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview. Emergency use authorization for the Johnson & Johnson and other COVID-19 vaccines in development could further boost available supplies, she added.

“The clinical trials studied two doses,” Dr. Shen said. “We don’t have data that one dose is going to have lasting protection.” 
 

Does new variant change equation?

Dr. Wachter and Dr. Jha, in their editorial, cited a quote from former boxing champion Mike Tyson: “Everybody has a plan until they’ve been punched in the mouth.” ‘Punches’ such as the new variant, the high number of cases and deaths in the United States, and other problems prompted them to advocate for the delayed dosing strategy.

“Appreciate the concern for the new variant – I think it’s worth noting that we’re punching ourselves in the mouth with the slow vaccine rollout, which is the first problem to solve,” Jake Quinton, MD, an internist at UCLA Health in Los Angeles, noted on Twitter.

 

Vaccine and public resistance raised

“I agree with the problem but not with the proposed solution, which is guesswork not based on data,” the Jan Grimm Lab at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York responded to Dr. Wachter and Dr. Jha on Twitter. “There ARE data though that show that 1 shot alone did not elicit sufficient T-cell nor antibody response. This might also lead to mutations resistant to the vaccines. Dangerous!”

Other physicians took to Twitter to point out that changing the recommendations at this point could further erode public confidence in COVID-19 immunization. For example, Deirdre Habermehl, MD, wrote, “We’ve spent months telling the public the best route is to follow the science and now without data think a course correction based on a guesstimate is ok? Public confidence is low enough and the real issue is logistics at this point.”

Dr. Shen and Dr. Bottazzi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

SARS-CoV-2 can invade the brain and directly act on brain cells, causing neuroinflammation, new animal research suggests. Investigators injected spike 1 (S1), which is found on the tufts of the “red spikes” of the virus, into mice and found that it crossed the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and was taken up not only by brain regions and the brain space but also by other organs – specifically, the lungs, spleen, liver, and kidneys.

“We found that the S1 protein, which is the protein COVID-19 uses to ‘grab onto’ cells, crosses the BBB and is a good model of what the virus does when it enters the brain,” lead author William A. Banks, MD, professor of medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

“When proteins such as the S1 protein become detached from the virus, they can enter the brain and cause mayhem, causing the brain to release cytokines, which, in turn, cause inflammation and subsequent neurotoxicity,” said Dr. Banks, associate chief of staff and a researcher at the Puget Sound Veterans Affairs Healthcare System.

The study was published online in Nature Neuroscience.
 

Neurologic symptoms

COVID-19 is associated with a variety of central nervous system symptoms, including the loss of taste and smell, headaches, confusion, stroke, and cerebral hemorrhage, the investigators noted.

Dr. Banks explained that SARS-CoV-2 may enter the brain by crossing the BBB, acting directly on the brain centers responsible for other body functions. The respiratory symptoms of COVID-19 may therefore result partly from the invasion of the areas of the brain responsible for respiratory functions, not only from the virus’ action at the site of the lungs.

The researchers set out to assess whether a particular viral protein – S1, which is a subunit of the viral spike protein – could cross the BBB or enter other organs when injected into mice. They found that, when intravenously injected S1 (I-S1) was cleared from the blood, tissues in multiple organs, including the lung, spleen, kidney, and liver, took it up.

Notably, uptake of I-S1 was higher in the liver, “suggesting that this protein is cleared from the blood predominantly by the liver,” Dr. Banks said. In addition, uptake by the lungs is “important, because that’s where many of the effects of the virus are,” he added.

The researchers found that I-S1 in the brains of the mice was “mostly degraded” 30 minutes following injection. “This indicates that I-S1 enters the BBB intact but is eventually degraded in the brain,” they wrote.

Moreover, by 30 minutes, more than half of the I-S1 proteins had crossed the capillary wall and had fully entered into the brain parenchymal and interstitial fluid spaces, as well as other regions.
 

More severe outcomes in men

The researchers then induced an inflammatory state in the mice through injection of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and found that inflammation increased I-S1 uptake in both the brain and the lung (where uptake was increased by 101%). “These results show that inflammation could increase S1 toxicity for lung tissue by increasing its uptake,” the authors suggested. Moreover, inflammation also increased the entry of I-S1 into the brain, “likely due to BBB disruption.”

In human beings, male sex and APOE4 genotype are risk factors for both contracting COVID-19 and having a poor outcome, the authors noted. As a result, they examined I-S1 uptake in male and female mice that expressed human APOE3 or APOE4 (induced by a mouse ApoE promoter).

Multiple-comparison tests showed that among male mice that expressed human APOE3, the “fastest I-S1 uptake” was in the olfactory bulb, liver, and kidney. Female mice displayed increased APOE3 uptake in the spleen.

“This observation might relate to the increased susceptibility of men to more severe COVID-19 outcomes,” coauthor Jacob Raber, PhD, professor, departments of behavioral neuroscience, neurology, and radiation medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in a press release.

In addition to intravenous I-S1 injection, the researchers also investigated the effects of intranasal administration. They found that, although it also entered the brain, it did so at levels roughly 10 times lower than those induced by intravenous administration.
 

“Frightening tricks”

Dr. Banks said his laboratory has studied the BBB in conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease, obesity, diabetes, and HIV. “Our experience with viruses is that they do an incredible number of things and have a frightening number of tricks,” he said. In this case, “the virus is probably causing inflammation by releasing cytokines elsewhere in the body that get into the brain through the BBB.” Conversely, “the virus itself may enter the brain by crossing the BBB and directly cause brain cells to release their own cytokines,” he added.

An additional finding of the study is that, whatever the S1 protein does in the brain is a model for what the entire virus itself does, because these proteins often bring the viruses along with them, he added.

Dr. Banks said the clinical implications of the findings are that antibodies from those who have already had COVID-19 could potentially be directed against S1. Similarly, he added, so can COVID-19 vaccines, which induce production of S1.

“When an antibody locks onto something, it prevents it from crossing the BBB,” Dr. Banks noted.
 

Confirmatory findings

Commenting on the study, Howard E. Gendelman, MD, Margaret R. Larson Professor of Internal Medicine and Infectious Diseases and professor and chair of the department of pharmacology and experimental neuroscience, University of Nebraska, Omaha, said the study is confirmatory.

“What this paper highlights, and we have known for a long time, is that COVID-19 is a systemic, not only a respiratory, disease involving many organs and tissues and can yield not only pulmonary problems but also a whole host of cardiac, brain, and kidney problems,” he said.

“So the fact that these proteins are getting in [the brain] and are able to induce a reaction in the brain itself, and this is part of the complex progressive nature of COVID-19, is an important finding,” added Dr. Gendelman, director of the center for neurodegenerative disorders at the university. He was not involved with the study.

The study was supported by the Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Healthcare System and by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors and Dr. Gendelman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

SARS-CoV-2 can invade the brain and directly act on brain cells, causing neuroinflammation, new animal research suggests. Investigators injected spike 1 (S1), which is found on the tufts of the “red spikes” of the virus, into mice and found that it crossed the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and was taken up not only by brain regions and the brain space but also by other organs – specifically, the lungs, spleen, liver, and kidneys.

“We found that the S1 protein, which is the protein COVID-19 uses to ‘grab onto’ cells, crosses the BBB and is a good model of what the virus does when it enters the brain,” lead author William A. Banks, MD, professor of medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

“When proteins such as the S1 protein become detached from the virus, they can enter the brain and cause mayhem, causing the brain to release cytokines, which, in turn, cause inflammation and subsequent neurotoxicity,” said Dr. Banks, associate chief of staff and a researcher at the Puget Sound Veterans Affairs Healthcare System.

The study was published online in Nature Neuroscience.
 

Neurologic symptoms

COVID-19 is associated with a variety of central nervous system symptoms, including the loss of taste and smell, headaches, confusion, stroke, and cerebral hemorrhage, the investigators noted.

Dr. Banks explained that SARS-CoV-2 may enter the brain by crossing the BBB, acting directly on the brain centers responsible for other body functions. The respiratory symptoms of COVID-19 may therefore result partly from the invasion of the areas of the brain responsible for respiratory functions, not only from the virus’ action at the site of the lungs.

The researchers set out to assess whether a particular viral protein – S1, which is a subunit of the viral spike protein – could cross the BBB or enter other organs when injected into mice. They found that, when intravenously injected S1 (I-S1) was cleared from the blood, tissues in multiple organs, including the lung, spleen, kidney, and liver, took it up.

Notably, uptake of I-S1 was higher in the liver, “suggesting that this protein is cleared from the blood predominantly by the liver,” Dr. Banks said. In addition, uptake by the lungs is “important, because that’s where many of the effects of the virus are,” he added.

The researchers found that I-S1 in the brains of the mice was “mostly degraded” 30 minutes following injection. “This indicates that I-S1 enters the BBB intact but is eventually degraded in the brain,” they wrote.

Moreover, by 30 minutes, more than half of the I-S1 proteins had crossed the capillary wall and had fully entered into the brain parenchymal and interstitial fluid spaces, as well as other regions.
 

More severe outcomes in men

The researchers then induced an inflammatory state in the mice through injection of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and found that inflammation increased I-S1 uptake in both the brain and the lung (where uptake was increased by 101%). “These results show that inflammation could increase S1 toxicity for lung tissue by increasing its uptake,” the authors suggested. Moreover, inflammation also increased the entry of I-S1 into the brain, “likely due to BBB disruption.”

In human beings, male sex and APOE4 genotype are risk factors for both contracting COVID-19 and having a poor outcome, the authors noted. As a result, they examined I-S1 uptake in male and female mice that expressed human APOE3 or APOE4 (induced by a mouse ApoE promoter).

Multiple-comparison tests showed that among male mice that expressed human APOE3, the “fastest I-S1 uptake” was in the olfactory bulb, liver, and kidney. Female mice displayed increased APOE3 uptake in the spleen.

“This observation might relate to the increased susceptibility of men to more severe COVID-19 outcomes,” coauthor Jacob Raber, PhD, professor, departments of behavioral neuroscience, neurology, and radiation medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in a press release.

In addition to intravenous I-S1 injection, the researchers also investigated the effects of intranasal administration. They found that, although it also entered the brain, it did so at levels roughly 10 times lower than those induced by intravenous administration.
 

“Frightening tricks”

Dr. Banks said his laboratory has studied the BBB in conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease, obesity, diabetes, and HIV. “Our experience with viruses is that they do an incredible number of things and have a frightening number of tricks,” he said. In this case, “the virus is probably causing inflammation by releasing cytokines elsewhere in the body that get into the brain through the BBB.” Conversely, “the virus itself may enter the brain by crossing the BBB and directly cause brain cells to release their own cytokines,” he added.

An additional finding of the study is that, whatever the S1 protein does in the brain is a model for what the entire virus itself does, because these proteins often bring the viruses along with them, he added.

Dr. Banks said the clinical implications of the findings are that antibodies from those who have already had COVID-19 could potentially be directed against S1. Similarly, he added, so can COVID-19 vaccines, which induce production of S1.

“When an antibody locks onto something, it prevents it from crossing the BBB,” Dr. Banks noted.
 

Confirmatory findings

Commenting on the study, Howard E. Gendelman, MD, Margaret R. Larson Professor of Internal Medicine and Infectious Diseases and professor and chair of the department of pharmacology and experimental neuroscience, University of Nebraska, Omaha, said the study is confirmatory.

“What this paper highlights, and we have known for a long time, is that COVID-19 is a systemic, not only a respiratory, disease involving many organs and tissues and can yield not only pulmonary problems but also a whole host of cardiac, brain, and kidney problems,” he said.

“So the fact that these proteins are getting in [the brain] and are able to induce a reaction in the brain itself, and this is part of the complex progressive nature of COVID-19, is an important finding,” added Dr. Gendelman, director of the center for neurodegenerative disorders at the university. He was not involved with the study.

The study was supported by the Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Healthcare System and by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors and Dr. Gendelman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

SARS-CoV-2 can invade the brain and directly act on brain cells, causing neuroinflammation, new animal research suggests. Investigators injected spike 1 (S1), which is found on the tufts of the “red spikes” of the virus, into mice and found that it crossed the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and was taken up not only by brain regions and the brain space but also by other organs – specifically, the lungs, spleen, liver, and kidneys.

“We found that the S1 protein, which is the protein COVID-19 uses to ‘grab onto’ cells, crosses the BBB and is a good model of what the virus does when it enters the brain,” lead author William A. Banks, MD, professor of medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

“When proteins such as the S1 protein become detached from the virus, they can enter the brain and cause mayhem, causing the brain to release cytokines, which, in turn, cause inflammation and subsequent neurotoxicity,” said Dr. Banks, associate chief of staff and a researcher at the Puget Sound Veterans Affairs Healthcare System.

The study was published online in Nature Neuroscience.
 

Neurologic symptoms

COVID-19 is associated with a variety of central nervous system symptoms, including the loss of taste and smell, headaches, confusion, stroke, and cerebral hemorrhage, the investigators noted.

Dr. Banks explained that SARS-CoV-2 may enter the brain by crossing the BBB, acting directly on the brain centers responsible for other body functions. The respiratory symptoms of COVID-19 may therefore result partly from the invasion of the areas of the brain responsible for respiratory functions, not only from the virus’ action at the site of the lungs.

The researchers set out to assess whether a particular viral protein – S1, which is a subunit of the viral spike protein – could cross the BBB or enter other organs when injected into mice. They found that, when intravenously injected S1 (I-S1) was cleared from the blood, tissues in multiple organs, including the lung, spleen, kidney, and liver, took it up.

Notably, uptake of I-S1 was higher in the liver, “suggesting that this protein is cleared from the blood predominantly by the liver,” Dr. Banks said. In addition, uptake by the lungs is “important, because that’s where many of the effects of the virus are,” he added.

The researchers found that I-S1 in the brains of the mice was “mostly degraded” 30 minutes following injection. “This indicates that I-S1 enters the BBB intact but is eventually degraded in the brain,” they wrote.

Moreover, by 30 minutes, more than half of the I-S1 proteins had crossed the capillary wall and had fully entered into the brain parenchymal and interstitial fluid spaces, as well as other regions.
 

More severe outcomes in men

The researchers then induced an inflammatory state in the mice through injection of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and found that inflammation increased I-S1 uptake in both the brain and the lung (where uptake was increased by 101%). “These results show that inflammation could increase S1 toxicity for lung tissue by increasing its uptake,” the authors suggested. Moreover, inflammation also increased the entry of I-S1 into the brain, “likely due to BBB disruption.”

In human beings, male sex and APOE4 genotype are risk factors for both contracting COVID-19 and having a poor outcome, the authors noted. As a result, they examined I-S1 uptake in male and female mice that expressed human APOE3 or APOE4 (induced by a mouse ApoE promoter).

Multiple-comparison tests showed that among male mice that expressed human APOE3, the “fastest I-S1 uptake” was in the olfactory bulb, liver, and kidney. Female mice displayed increased APOE3 uptake in the spleen.

“This observation might relate to the increased susceptibility of men to more severe COVID-19 outcomes,” coauthor Jacob Raber, PhD, professor, departments of behavioral neuroscience, neurology, and radiation medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in a press release.

In addition to intravenous I-S1 injection, the researchers also investigated the effects of intranasal administration. They found that, although it also entered the brain, it did so at levels roughly 10 times lower than those induced by intravenous administration.
 

“Frightening tricks”

Dr. Banks said his laboratory has studied the BBB in conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease, obesity, diabetes, and HIV. “Our experience with viruses is that they do an incredible number of things and have a frightening number of tricks,” he said. In this case, “the virus is probably causing inflammation by releasing cytokines elsewhere in the body that get into the brain through the BBB.” Conversely, “the virus itself may enter the brain by crossing the BBB and directly cause brain cells to release their own cytokines,” he added.

An additional finding of the study is that, whatever the S1 protein does in the brain is a model for what the entire virus itself does, because these proteins often bring the viruses along with them, he added.

Dr. Banks said the clinical implications of the findings are that antibodies from those who have already had COVID-19 could potentially be directed against S1. Similarly, he added, so can COVID-19 vaccines, which induce production of S1.

“When an antibody locks onto something, it prevents it from crossing the BBB,” Dr. Banks noted.
 

Confirmatory findings

Commenting on the study, Howard E. Gendelman, MD, Margaret R. Larson Professor of Internal Medicine and Infectious Diseases and professor and chair of the department of pharmacology and experimental neuroscience, University of Nebraska, Omaha, said the study is confirmatory.

“What this paper highlights, and we have known for a long time, is that COVID-19 is a systemic, not only a respiratory, disease involving many organs and tissues and can yield not only pulmonary problems but also a whole host of cardiac, brain, and kidney problems,” he said.

“So the fact that these proteins are getting in [the brain] and are able to induce a reaction in the brain itself, and this is part of the complex progressive nature of COVID-19, is an important finding,” added Dr. Gendelman, director of the center for neurodegenerative disorders at the university. He was not involved with the study.

The study was supported by the Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Healthcare System and by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors and Dr. Gendelman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The United States started 2021 they way it ended 2020: Setting new records amidst the coronavirus pandemic.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

The country passed the 20 million mark for coronavirus cases on Friday, setting the mark sometime around noon, according to Johns Hopkins University’s COVID-19 tracker. The total is nearly twice as many as the next worst country – India, which has 10.28 million cases.

Along with the case count, more than 346,000 Americans have now died of COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. That is 77% more fatalities than Brazil, which ranks second globally with 194,949 deaths.

More than 125,370 coronavirus patients were hospitalized on Thursday, the fourth record-setting day in a row, according to the COVID Tracking Project.

Going by official tallies, it took 292 days for the United States to reach its first 10 million cases, and just 54 more days to double it, CNN reported.

Meanwhile, 12.41 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been distributed in the United States as of Wednesday, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Yet only 2.8 million people have received the first of a two-shot regimen.

The slower-than-hoped-for rollout of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines comes as a new variant of the coronavirus has emerged in a third state. Florida officials announced a confirmed case of the new variant – believed to have originated in the United Kingdom – in Martin County in southeast Florida.

The state health department said on Twitter that the patient is a man in his 20s with no history of travel. The department said it is working with the CDC to investigate.

The variant has also been confirmed in cases in Colorado and California. It is believed to be more contagious. The BBC reported that the new variant increases the reproduction, or “R number,” by 0.4 and 0.7. The UK’s most recent R number has been estimated at 1.1-1.3, meaning anyone who has the coronavirus could be assumed to spread it to up to 1.3 people.

The R number needs to be below 1.0 for the spread of the virus to fall.

“There is a huge difference in how easily the variant virus spreads,” Professor Axel Gandy of London’s Imperial College told BBC News. “This is the most serious change in the virus since the epidemic began.”

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

The United States started 2021 they way it ended 2020: Setting new records amidst the coronavirus pandemic.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

The country passed the 20 million mark for coronavirus cases on Friday, setting the mark sometime around noon, according to Johns Hopkins University’s COVID-19 tracker. The total is nearly twice as many as the next worst country – India, which has 10.28 million cases.

Along with the case count, more than 346,000 Americans have now died of COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. That is 77% more fatalities than Brazil, which ranks second globally with 194,949 deaths.

More than 125,370 coronavirus patients were hospitalized on Thursday, the fourth record-setting day in a row, according to the COVID Tracking Project.

Going by official tallies, it took 292 days for the United States to reach its first 10 million cases, and just 54 more days to double it, CNN reported.

Meanwhile, 12.41 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been distributed in the United States as of Wednesday, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Yet only 2.8 million people have received the first of a two-shot regimen.

The slower-than-hoped-for rollout of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines comes as a new variant of the coronavirus has emerged in a third state. Florida officials announced a confirmed case of the new variant – believed to have originated in the United Kingdom – in Martin County in southeast Florida.

The state health department said on Twitter that the patient is a man in his 20s with no history of travel. The department said it is working with the CDC to investigate.

The variant has also been confirmed in cases in Colorado and California. It is believed to be more contagious. The BBC reported that the new variant increases the reproduction, or “R number,” by 0.4 and 0.7. The UK’s most recent R number has been estimated at 1.1-1.3, meaning anyone who has the coronavirus could be assumed to spread it to up to 1.3 people.

The R number needs to be below 1.0 for the spread of the virus to fall.

“There is a huge difference in how easily the variant virus spreads,” Professor Axel Gandy of London’s Imperial College told BBC News. “This is the most serious change in the virus since the epidemic began.”

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

The United States started 2021 they way it ended 2020: Setting new records amidst the coronavirus pandemic.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

The country passed the 20 million mark for coronavirus cases on Friday, setting the mark sometime around noon, according to Johns Hopkins University’s COVID-19 tracker. The total is nearly twice as many as the next worst country – India, which has 10.28 million cases.

Along with the case count, more than 346,000 Americans have now died of COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. That is 77% more fatalities than Brazil, which ranks second globally with 194,949 deaths.

More than 125,370 coronavirus patients were hospitalized on Thursday, the fourth record-setting day in a row, according to the COVID Tracking Project.

Going by official tallies, it took 292 days for the United States to reach its first 10 million cases, and just 54 more days to double it, CNN reported.

Meanwhile, 12.41 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been distributed in the United States as of Wednesday, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Yet only 2.8 million people have received the first of a two-shot regimen.

The slower-than-hoped-for rollout of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines comes as a new variant of the coronavirus has emerged in a third state. Florida officials announced a confirmed case of the new variant – believed to have originated in the United Kingdom – in Martin County in southeast Florida.

The state health department said on Twitter that the patient is a man in his 20s with no history of travel. The department said it is working with the CDC to investigate.

The variant has also been confirmed in cases in Colorado and California. It is believed to be more contagious. The BBC reported that the new variant increases the reproduction, or “R number,” by 0.4 and 0.7. The UK’s most recent R number has been estimated at 1.1-1.3, meaning anyone who has the coronavirus could be assumed to spread it to up to 1.3 people.

The R number needs to be below 1.0 for the spread of the virus to fall.

“There is a huge difference in how easily the variant virus spreads,” Professor Axel Gandy of London’s Imperial College told BBC News. “This is the most serious change in the virus since the epidemic began.”

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

The practice of medical students giving unconsented pelvic exams to women patients under anesthesia seems to be continuing, although recent new laws aim to change the situation.

“When I was doing ob.gyn. as a med student, the attending would have me do a pelvic right after the patient was under and before we started surgery,” said one participant in an online forum. “We didn’t exactly get permission but it was for teaching purposes.”

Yet others don’t see what the commotion is about. “There are a hundred things that are done during a surgery that don’t require your specific consent (some of them much more ‘humiliating’ than a pelvic exam). ... There’s not really much left to be shy about during a gyn/rectal/prostate surgery, let me put it that way,” one doctor wrote.

However, many physicians are adamantly opposed to the practice, and laws intended to stop or limit it are being enacted throughout the nation.
 

Renewed concerns have prompted new state laws

A few states have required consent for pelvic exams for many years, beginning with California in 2003. But up until 2019, providing pelvic exams without informed consent was illegal in only six states.

Continuing reports of unauthorized pelvic exams indicate that the practice has not disappeared. University of Michigan professor Maya M. Hammoud, MD, past president of the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics, and many others attribute renewed interest in the issue to a 2018 article in the journal Bioethics by Phoebe Friesen, a medical ethicist at McGill University, Montreal, that laid out the ethical arguments against the practice.

Starting in 2019, an outpouring of new state bills have been introduced, and nine more states have passed laws. In addition, 14 other states considered similar bills but did not pass them, in some cases because teaching institutions argued that they were already dealing with the issue. This happened in Connecticut and Massachusetts, after representatives of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., met with legislators.

Laws against the practice have been passed by 15 states, including California, Florida, Illinois, and New York. Some teaching institutions have recently been clamping down on the practice, while many teaching physicians insist that at this point, it has all but ended.
 

A practice that may still continue

For many years, ethicists, women’s rights groups, state legislators, and organized medicine have been trying to eliminate the practice of unauthorized pelvic exams by medical students. Several key medical groups have come out against it, including the American Medical Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Fifteen years ago, studies found a substantial number of cases, but my sense is that most of that has stopped,” said Dr. Hammoud. 

Yet despite these changes, there are some disturbing signs that the practice persists.

“I don’t have data, but anecdotally I see it still going on,” said Peter Ubel, MD, a professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., who was involved in one of those early studies. “Every so often when I’m making a speech, a medical student tells me about performing a pelvic exam without getting permission.

“Perhaps in some cases the attending [physician] did get permission and didn’t tell the medical student, but that would also be a problem,” Dr. Ubel said. “The medical student should be informed that permission was given. This helps them be sensitive to the need to get consent.”

In a 2019 survey of medical students, 92% said they performed a pelvic exam on an anesthetized female patient, and of those, 61% did so without explicit patient consent.

The survey – involving 101 medical students at seven U.S. medical schools – also found that 11% of the medical students said they were extremely uncomfortable with the practice. But nearly one-third of the medical students said that opting out might jeopardize their grades and future careers.

“I tried to opt out once from doing a pelvic exam when I hadn’t met the patient beforehand,” one of them wrote. “The resident told me no.”
 

Some physicians defend the practice

Why do many medical students and doctors think that getting consent for pelvic exams is not necessary?

Some argue that patients implicitly give consent when they walk through the doors of a teaching hospital. “Sorry, but you inherently agree to that when you’re seen in an academic teaching hospital,” wrote one participant in a Student Doctor Network forum. “You agree to have residents and medical students participate in your care, not just an attending. If you just want an attending, then you are free to go to a nonteaching hospital. That’s the deal.”

Others argued that since the anesthetized patient couldn’t feel what was going on, it shouldn’t matter. “Things like pelvic exams, rectal exams, or even heroic trauma surgery occur for training purposes when there is no memory, no sensation and no harm to be done [and] society gains a better practitioner of the art of medicine,” a physician in Columbus, Ohio, wrote on Quora, an online forum.

Some doctors argue that they don’t ask for specific consent when they touch a variety of other body parts, and pelvic exams should be no different. Pelvic exams are needed before surgery of the pelvic area, but they have also been given to women undergoing surgery in a different part of the body.

In 2019 a woman told Deseret News in Utah that she had been recovering from stomach surgery when a resident physician mentioned something she had noticed “when we looked at your cervix.” When she asked why the physician had examined her cervix to prepare for stomach surgery, “no one could give her a good answer.”
 

A ‘positive goal’ doesn’t make it okay

What is missing in many defenses of the practice is any recognition that genitals are the most intimate part of the body, and that a patient’s desire for privacy ought to come first. In a survey of women undergoing gynecologic surgery, 72% expected to be asked for consent before medical students undertook pelvic examinations under anesthesia.

Overruling patients’ concerns about their own privacy is unethical, said Eli Y. Adashi, MD, professor of medical science and former dean of medicine and biological sciences at Brown University, Providence, R.I.

Dr. Adashi said the principle of patient autonomy in medical ethics directs that patients must be involved in decision-making about their care – even when caretakers are pursuing a positive goal, such as helping to educate future doctors.

“Conducting pelvic exams on unconscious women without their specific consent is simply untenable and never has been tenable, and it ought to be discontinued if it hasn’t been already,” says Dr. Adashi, who wrote an opinion piece on the issue for JAMA.

Furthermore, it has been shown that ignoring the need to get consent for pelvic exams makes physicians less concerned about getting patient consent in general. A study led by Dr. Ubel found that medical students who had completed an ob.gyn. clerkship thought getting patients’ consent was significantly less important than those who had not completed that clerkship.
 

Why give pelvic exams to anesthetized women?

Despite the controversy, a number of medical educators continue to direct medical students to perform pelvic exams on anesthetized women. Why is that?

“Pelvic exams are not easy to do,” Dr. Hammoud said. “Learners need to keep working on them; they have to do a lot of them in order to do them well.”

To teach pelvic exams, most medical schools provide standardized patients – paid volunteers who submit to exams and critique the medical student’s work afterwards – but these encounters are limited because of their cost, says Guy Benrubi, MD, professor and emeritus chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Florida, Jacksonville.

He said teaching programs therefore need to supplement exams on standardized patients with exams on unpaid volunteers who provide consent. Programs prefer anesthetized patients, Dr. Benrubi said, because they are easier for novices to work on. “With patients under anesthesia, the muscles are relaxed and it’s easier for learners to detect organs. All the same, you need to get consent.”
 

Teaching institutions stiffen consent requirements

Faced with growing opposition to pelvic exams without consent, teaching institutions as well as gynecologic educators have recently been tightening their policies.

Dr. Hammoud said she has always informed patients orally about the possibility of medical students performing pelvic exams on them, but now some institutions, including her own, want a more involved process. The university recently began consent in writing for pelvic exams.

In addition, the university also now requires that medical students meet patients before performing pelvic exams and that teaching physicians explain the students’ involvement.

Dr. Hammoud said some institutions now require a separate consent form for pelvic exams, but the University of Michigan simply directs that the possibility of the patient getting a pelvic exam be part of the consent form.

This requirement, called “explicit consent,” was endorsed by APGO. It differs from having a separate consent form for pelvic exams, which would highlight the possibility of a pelvic exam, as many women’s rights activists are calling for.

Why not have a separate form? Dr. Hammoud is concerned that it would unnecessarily alarm patients. “When you point out a certain issue, you’re in effect saying to the patient that this is not normal,” she said, noting that, when asked for consent to do the exams, most women agree to it.
 

New wave of state laws prompted by renewed concerns

Dr. Hammoud thinks the laws are unnecessary. “These laws are excessive for the vast majority of physicians who practice ethically. The profession should come up with its own standards rather than having a plethora of laws.”

Several of the more recent laws have a broader scope than the original laws. The original laws simply state that medical students or physicians must get informed consent, but they did not stipulate how informed consent should be obtained. (The laws also typically prohibit pelvic exams when surgery will be in a different area of the body.)

The new laws often follow this format, but some go well beyond it. Some also apply to rectal exams (Maine and Maryland), to men as well as women (Utah and Maryland) requires separate consent (Utah), and require consent for all pelvic exams (Florida). 
 

The struggle over Florida’s law

The original Florida bill was drafted in 2019 by state Sen. Lauren Book, a Democrat who is a victims’ rights advocate working with women who have undergone sexual trauma. In written comments for this article, she says not getting consent for pelvic exams is still going on.

“This disturbing practice is commonplace at medical schools and teaching hospitals across the country – including several Florida universities, based on accounts from current and former medical students and faculty,” Sen. Book stated. “At best, these exams have been wrongful learning experiences for medical students or at worst, the equivalent of a sexual assault.”

Dr. Ubel took exception to linking the teaching activities to sexual assault. “I understand why many women would be horrified by this practice, but it’s not as bad as it seems,” he said. “There is nothing sexual or prurient about these exams, and they are motivated purely by a desire to teach people to be better doctors. That said, patients have the right to say, ‘I don’t want it done to me.’ ” 

In early 2020, Dr. Benrubi was part of a coalition of medical groups that was trying to influence Sen. Book’s bill as it went through the legislature. Sen. Book’s original bill was relatively mild, “but then, late in the process, it was changed into a more sweeping bill with some unclear language,” he said.

The final version was passed and signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis, a conservative Republican, in June.

Dr. Benrubi said that a large number of state legislators, including Sen. Book, have been agreeable to fixing the bill. This was supposed to happen in a special session in the fall, but that never materialized, and so the fix will have to wait until the regular session in early 2021.

“The law should not apply to patients undergoing routine pelvic exams,” Dr. Benrubi said. “It should only apply to women patients under anesthesia.”

But while organized medicine wants to walk back the law, Dr. Book wants to expand it. “This upcoming session, I look forward to working with physicians to continue to hone this new law, and to work toward inclusion for males. Everyone has a right to consent.”

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

The practice of medical students giving unconsented pelvic exams to women patients under anesthesia seems to be continuing, although recent new laws aim to change the situation.

“When I was doing ob.gyn. as a med student, the attending would have me do a pelvic right after the patient was under and before we started surgery,” said one participant in an online forum. “We didn’t exactly get permission but it was for teaching purposes.”

Yet others don’t see what the commotion is about. “There are a hundred things that are done during a surgery that don’t require your specific consent (some of them much more ‘humiliating’ than a pelvic exam). ... There’s not really much left to be shy about during a gyn/rectal/prostate surgery, let me put it that way,” one doctor wrote.

However, many physicians are adamantly opposed to the practice, and laws intended to stop or limit it are being enacted throughout the nation.
 

Renewed concerns have prompted new state laws

A few states have required consent for pelvic exams for many years, beginning with California in 2003. But up until 2019, providing pelvic exams without informed consent was illegal in only six states.

Continuing reports of unauthorized pelvic exams indicate that the practice has not disappeared. University of Michigan professor Maya M. Hammoud, MD, past president of the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics, and many others attribute renewed interest in the issue to a 2018 article in the journal Bioethics by Phoebe Friesen, a medical ethicist at McGill University, Montreal, that laid out the ethical arguments against the practice.

Starting in 2019, an outpouring of new state bills have been introduced, and nine more states have passed laws. In addition, 14 other states considered similar bills but did not pass them, in some cases because teaching institutions argued that they were already dealing with the issue. This happened in Connecticut and Massachusetts, after representatives of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., met with legislators.

Laws against the practice have been passed by 15 states, including California, Florida, Illinois, and New York. Some teaching institutions have recently been clamping down on the practice, while many teaching physicians insist that at this point, it has all but ended.
 

A practice that may still continue

For many years, ethicists, women’s rights groups, state legislators, and organized medicine have been trying to eliminate the practice of unauthorized pelvic exams by medical students. Several key medical groups have come out against it, including the American Medical Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Fifteen years ago, studies found a substantial number of cases, but my sense is that most of that has stopped,” said Dr. Hammoud. 

Yet despite these changes, there are some disturbing signs that the practice persists.

“I don’t have data, but anecdotally I see it still going on,” said Peter Ubel, MD, a professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., who was involved in one of those early studies. “Every so often when I’m making a speech, a medical student tells me about performing a pelvic exam without getting permission.

“Perhaps in some cases the attending [physician] did get permission and didn’t tell the medical student, but that would also be a problem,” Dr. Ubel said. “The medical student should be informed that permission was given. This helps them be sensitive to the need to get consent.”

In a 2019 survey of medical students, 92% said they performed a pelvic exam on an anesthetized female patient, and of those, 61% did so without explicit patient consent.

The survey – involving 101 medical students at seven U.S. medical schools – also found that 11% of the medical students said they were extremely uncomfortable with the practice. But nearly one-third of the medical students said that opting out might jeopardize their grades and future careers.

“I tried to opt out once from doing a pelvic exam when I hadn’t met the patient beforehand,” one of them wrote. “The resident told me no.”
 

Some physicians defend the practice

Why do many medical students and doctors think that getting consent for pelvic exams is not necessary?

Some argue that patients implicitly give consent when they walk through the doors of a teaching hospital. “Sorry, but you inherently agree to that when you’re seen in an academic teaching hospital,” wrote one participant in a Student Doctor Network forum. “You agree to have residents and medical students participate in your care, not just an attending. If you just want an attending, then you are free to go to a nonteaching hospital. That’s the deal.”

Others argued that since the anesthetized patient couldn’t feel what was going on, it shouldn’t matter. “Things like pelvic exams, rectal exams, or even heroic trauma surgery occur for training purposes when there is no memory, no sensation and no harm to be done [and] society gains a better practitioner of the art of medicine,” a physician in Columbus, Ohio, wrote on Quora, an online forum.

Some doctors argue that they don’t ask for specific consent when they touch a variety of other body parts, and pelvic exams should be no different. Pelvic exams are needed before surgery of the pelvic area, but they have also been given to women undergoing surgery in a different part of the body.

In 2019 a woman told Deseret News in Utah that she had been recovering from stomach surgery when a resident physician mentioned something she had noticed “when we looked at your cervix.” When she asked why the physician had examined her cervix to prepare for stomach surgery, “no one could give her a good answer.”
 

A ‘positive goal’ doesn’t make it okay

What is missing in many defenses of the practice is any recognition that genitals are the most intimate part of the body, and that a patient’s desire for privacy ought to come first. In a survey of women undergoing gynecologic surgery, 72% expected to be asked for consent before medical students undertook pelvic examinations under anesthesia.

Overruling patients’ concerns about their own privacy is unethical, said Eli Y. Adashi, MD, professor of medical science and former dean of medicine and biological sciences at Brown University, Providence, R.I.

Dr. Adashi said the principle of patient autonomy in medical ethics directs that patients must be involved in decision-making about their care – even when caretakers are pursuing a positive goal, such as helping to educate future doctors.

“Conducting pelvic exams on unconscious women without their specific consent is simply untenable and never has been tenable, and it ought to be discontinued if it hasn’t been already,” says Dr. Adashi, who wrote an opinion piece on the issue for JAMA.

Furthermore, it has been shown that ignoring the need to get consent for pelvic exams makes physicians less concerned about getting patient consent in general. A study led by Dr. Ubel found that medical students who had completed an ob.gyn. clerkship thought getting patients’ consent was significantly less important than those who had not completed that clerkship.
 

Why give pelvic exams to anesthetized women?

Despite the controversy, a number of medical educators continue to direct medical students to perform pelvic exams on anesthetized women. Why is that?

“Pelvic exams are not easy to do,” Dr. Hammoud said. “Learners need to keep working on them; they have to do a lot of them in order to do them well.”

To teach pelvic exams, most medical schools provide standardized patients – paid volunteers who submit to exams and critique the medical student’s work afterwards – but these encounters are limited because of their cost, says Guy Benrubi, MD, professor and emeritus chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Florida, Jacksonville.

He said teaching programs therefore need to supplement exams on standardized patients with exams on unpaid volunteers who provide consent. Programs prefer anesthetized patients, Dr. Benrubi said, because they are easier for novices to work on. “With patients under anesthesia, the muscles are relaxed and it’s easier for learners to detect organs. All the same, you need to get consent.”
 

Teaching institutions stiffen consent requirements

Faced with growing opposition to pelvic exams without consent, teaching institutions as well as gynecologic educators have recently been tightening their policies.

Dr. Hammoud said she has always informed patients orally about the possibility of medical students performing pelvic exams on them, but now some institutions, including her own, want a more involved process. The university recently began consent in writing for pelvic exams.

In addition, the university also now requires that medical students meet patients before performing pelvic exams and that teaching physicians explain the students’ involvement.

Dr. Hammoud said some institutions now require a separate consent form for pelvic exams, but the University of Michigan simply directs that the possibility of the patient getting a pelvic exam be part of the consent form.

This requirement, called “explicit consent,” was endorsed by APGO. It differs from having a separate consent form for pelvic exams, which would highlight the possibility of a pelvic exam, as many women’s rights activists are calling for.

Why not have a separate form? Dr. Hammoud is concerned that it would unnecessarily alarm patients. “When you point out a certain issue, you’re in effect saying to the patient that this is not normal,” she said, noting that, when asked for consent to do the exams, most women agree to it.
 

New wave of state laws prompted by renewed concerns

Dr. Hammoud thinks the laws are unnecessary. “These laws are excessive for the vast majority of physicians who practice ethically. The profession should come up with its own standards rather than having a plethora of laws.”

Several of the more recent laws have a broader scope than the original laws. The original laws simply state that medical students or physicians must get informed consent, but they did not stipulate how informed consent should be obtained. (The laws also typically prohibit pelvic exams when surgery will be in a different area of the body.)

The new laws often follow this format, but some go well beyond it. Some also apply to rectal exams (Maine and Maryland), to men as well as women (Utah and Maryland) requires separate consent (Utah), and require consent for all pelvic exams (Florida). 
 

The struggle over Florida’s law

The original Florida bill was drafted in 2019 by state Sen. Lauren Book, a Democrat who is a victims’ rights advocate working with women who have undergone sexual trauma. In written comments for this article, she says not getting consent for pelvic exams is still going on.

“This disturbing practice is commonplace at medical schools and teaching hospitals across the country – including several Florida universities, based on accounts from current and former medical students and faculty,” Sen. Book stated. “At best, these exams have been wrongful learning experiences for medical students or at worst, the equivalent of a sexual assault.”

Dr. Ubel took exception to linking the teaching activities to sexual assault. “I understand why many women would be horrified by this practice, but it’s not as bad as it seems,” he said. “There is nothing sexual or prurient about these exams, and they are motivated purely by a desire to teach people to be better doctors. That said, patients have the right to say, ‘I don’t want it done to me.’ ” 

In early 2020, Dr. Benrubi was part of a coalition of medical groups that was trying to influence Sen. Book’s bill as it went through the legislature. Sen. Book’s original bill was relatively mild, “but then, late in the process, it was changed into a more sweeping bill with some unclear language,” he said.

The final version was passed and signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis, a conservative Republican, in June.

Dr. Benrubi said that a large number of state legislators, including Sen. Book, have been agreeable to fixing the bill. This was supposed to happen in a special session in the fall, but that never materialized, and so the fix will have to wait until the regular session in early 2021.

“The law should not apply to patients undergoing routine pelvic exams,” Dr. Benrubi said. “It should only apply to women patients under anesthesia.”

But while organized medicine wants to walk back the law, Dr. Book wants to expand it. “This upcoming session, I look forward to working with physicians to continue to hone this new law, and to work toward inclusion for males. Everyone has a right to consent.”

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

The practice of medical students giving unconsented pelvic exams to women patients under anesthesia seems to be continuing, although recent new laws aim to change the situation.

“When I was doing ob.gyn. as a med student, the attending would have me do a pelvic right after the patient was under and before we started surgery,” said one participant in an online forum. “We didn’t exactly get permission but it was for teaching purposes.”

Yet others don’t see what the commotion is about. “There are a hundred things that are done during a surgery that don’t require your specific consent (some of them much more ‘humiliating’ than a pelvic exam). ... There’s not really much left to be shy about during a gyn/rectal/prostate surgery, let me put it that way,” one doctor wrote.

However, many physicians are adamantly opposed to the practice, and laws intended to stop or limit it are being enacted throughout the nation.
 

Renewed concerns have prompted new state laws

A few states have required consent for pelvic exams for many years, beginning with California in 2003. But up until 2019, providing pelvic exams without informed consent was illegal in only six states.

Continuing reports of unauthorized pelvic exams indicate that the practice has not disappeared. University of Michigan professor Maya M. Hammoud, MD, past president of the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics, and many others attribute renewed interest in the issue to a 2018 article in the journal Bioethics by Phoebe Friesen, a medical ethicist at McGill University, Montreal, that laid out the ethical arguments against the practice.

Starting in 2019, an outpouring of new state bills have been introduced, and nine more states have passed laws. In addition, 14 other states considered similar bills but did not pass them, in some cases because teaching institutions argued that they were already dealing with the issue. This happened in Connecticut and Massachusetts, after representatives of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., met with legislators.

Laws against the practice have been passed by 15 states, including California, Florida, Illinois, and New York. Some teaching institutions have recently been clamping down on the practice, while many teaching physicians insist that at this point, it has all but ended.
 

A practice that may still continue

For many years, ethicists, women’s rights groups, state legislators, and organized medicine have been trying to eliminate the practice of unauthorized pelvic exams by medical students. Several key medical groups have come out against it, including the American Medical Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Fifteen years ago, studies found a substantial number of cases, but my sense is that most of that has stopped,” said Dr. Hammoud. 

Yet despite these changes, there are some disturbing signs that the practice persists.

“I don’t have data, but anecdotally I see it still going on,” said Peter Ubel, MD, a professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., who was involved in one of those early studies. “Every so often when I’m making a speech, a medical student tells me about performing a pelvic exam without getting permission.

“Perhaps in some cases the attending [physician] did get permission and didn’t tell the medical student, but that would also be a problem,” Dr. Ubel said. “The medical student should be informed that permission was given. This helps them be sensitive to the need to get consent.”

In a 2019 survey of medical students, 92% said they performed a pelvic exam on an anesthetized female patient, and of those, 61% did so without explicit patient consent.

The survey – involving 101 medical students at seven U.S. medical schools – also found that 11% of the medical students said they were extremely uncomfortable with the practice. But nearly one-third of the medical students said that opting out might jeopardize their grades and future careers.

“I tried to opt out once from doing a pelvic exam when I hadn’t met the patient beforehand,” one of them wrote. “The resident told me no.”
 

Some physicians defend the practice

Why do many medical students and doctors think that getting consent for pelvic exams is not necessary?

Some argue that patients implicitly give consent when they walk through the doors of a teaching hospital. “Sorry, but you inherently agree to that when you’re seen in an academic teaching hospital,” wrote one participant in a Student Doctor Network forum. “You agree to have residents and medical students participate in your care, not just an attending. If you just want an attending, then you are free to go to a nonteaching hospital. That’s the deal.”

Others argued that since the anesthetized patient couldn’t feel what was going on, it shouldn’t matter. “Things like pelvic exams, rectal exams, or even heroic trauma surgery occur for training purposes when there is no memory, no sensation and no harm to be done [and] society gains a better practitioner of the art of medicine,” a physician in Columbus, Ohio, wrote on Quora, an online forum.

Some doctors argue that they don’t ask for specific consent when they touch a variety of other body parts, and pelvic exams should be no different. Pelvic exams are needed before surgery of the pelvic area, but they have also been given to women undergoing surgery in a different part of the body.

In 2019 a woman told Deseret News in Utah that she had been recovering from stomach surgery when a resident physician mentioned something she had noticed “when we looked at your cervix.” When she asked why the physician had examined her cervix to prepare for stomach surgery, “no one could give her a good answer.”
 

A ‘positive goal’ doesn’t make it okay

What is missing in many defenses of the practice is any recognition that genitals are the most intimate part of the body, and that a patient’s desire for privacy ought to come first. In a survey of women undergoing gynecologic surgery, 72% expected to be asked for consent before medical students undertook pelvic examinations under anesthesia.

Overruling patients’ concerns about their own privacy is unethical, said Eli Y. Adashi, MD, professor of medical science and former dean of medicine and biological sciences at Brown University, Providence, R.I.

Dr. Adashi said the principle of patient autonomy in medical ethics directs that patients must be involved in decision-making about their care – even when caretakers are pursuing a positive goal, such as helping to educate future doctors.

“Conducting pelvic exams on unconscious women without their specific consent is simply untenable and never has been tenable, and it ought to be discontinued if it hasn’t been already,” says Dr. Adashi, who wrote an opinion piece on the issue for JAMA.

Furthermore, it has been shown that ignoring the need to get consent for pelvic exams makes physicians less concerned about getting patient consent in general. A study led by Dr. Ubel found that medical students who had completed an ob.gyn. clerkship thought getting patients’ consent was significantly less important than those who had not completed that clerkship.
 

Why give pelvic exams to anesthetized women?

Despite the controversy, a number of medical educators continue to direct medical students to perform pelvic exams on anesthetized women. Why is that?

“Pelvic exams are not easy to do,” Dr. Hammoud said. “Learners need to keep working on them; they have to do a lot of them in order to do them well.”

To teach pelvic exams, most medical schools provide standardized patients – paid volunteers who submit to exams and critique the medical student’s work afterwards – but these encounters are limited because of their cost, says Guy Benrubi, MD, professor and emeritus chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Florida, Jacksonville.

He said teaching programs therefore need to supplement exams on standardized patients with exams on unpaid volunteers who provide consent. Programs prefer anesthetized patients, Dr. Benrubi said, because they are easier for novices to work on. “With patients under anesthesia, the muscles are relaxed and it’s easier for learners to detect organs. All the same, you need to get consent.”
 

Teaching institutions stiffen consent requirements

Faced with growing opposition to pelvic exams without consent, teaching institutions as well as gynecologic educators have recently been tightening their policies.

Dr. Hammoud said she has always informed patients orally about the possibility of medical students performing pelvic exams on them, but now some institutions, including her own, want a more involved process. The university recently began consent in writing for pelvic exams.

In addition, the university also now requires that medical students meet patients before performing pelvic exams and that teaching physicians explain the students’ involvement.

Dr. Hammoud said some institutions now require a separate consent form for pelvic exams, but the University of Michigan simply directs that the possibility of the patient getting a pelvic exam be part of the consent form.

This requirement, called “explicit consent,” was endorsed by APGO. It differs from having a separate consent form for pelvic exams, which would highlight the possibility of a pelvic exam, as many women’s rights activists are calling for.

Why not have a separate form? Dr. Hammoud is concerned that it would unnecessarily alarm patients. “When you point out a certain issue, you’re in effect saying to the patient that this is not normal,” she said, noting that, when asked for consent to do the exams, most women agree to it.
 

New wave of state laws prompted by renewed concerns

Dr. Hammoud thinks the laws are unnecessary. “These laws are excessive for the vast majority of physicians who practice ethically. The profession should come up with its own standards rather than having a plethora of laws.”

Several of the more recent laws have a broader scope than the original laws. The original laws simply state that medical students or physicians must get informed consent, but they did not stipulate how informed consent should be obtained. (The laws also typically prohibit pelvic exams when surgery will be in a different area of the body.)

The new laws often follow this format, but some go well beyond it. Some also apply to rectal exams (Maine and Maryland), to men as well as women (Utah and Maryland) requires separate consent (Utah), and require consent for all pelvic exams (Florida). 
 

The struggle over Florida’s law

The original Florida bill was drafted in 2019 by state Sen. Lauren Book, a Democrat who is a victims’ rights advocate working with women who have undergone sexual trauma. In written comments for this article, she says not getting consent for pelvic exams is still going on.

“This disturbing practice is commonplace at medical schools and teaching hospitals across the country – including several Florida universities, based on accounts from current and former medical students and faculty,” Sen. Book stated. “At best, these exams have been wrongful learning experiences for medical students or at worst, the equivalent of a sexual assault.”

Dr. Ubel took exception to linking the teaching activities to sexual assault. “I understand why many women would be horrified by this practice, but it’s not as bad as it seems,” he said. “There is nothing sexual or prurient about these exams, and they are motivated purely by a desire to teach people to be better doctors. That said, patients have the right to say, ‘I don’t want it done to me.’ ” 

In early 2020, Dr. Benrubi was part of a coalition of medical groups that was trying to influence Sen. Book’s bill as it went through the legislature. Sen. Book’s original bill was relatively mild, “but then, late in the process, it was changed into a more sweeping bill with some unclear language,” he said.

The final version was passed and signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis, a conservative Republican, in June.

Dr. Benrubi said that a large number of state legislators, including Sen. Book, have been agreeable to fixing the bill. This was supposed to happen in a special session in the fall, but that never materialized, and so the fix will have to wait until the regular session in early 2021.

“The law should not apply to patients undergoing routine pelvic exams,” Dr. Benrubi said. “It should only apply to women patients under anesthesia.”

But while organized medicine wants to walk back the law, Dr. Book wants to expand it. “This upcoming session, I look forward to working with physicians to continue to hone this new law, and to work toward inclusion for males. Everyone has a right to consent.”

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

Congress has ordered the holdouts among U.S. states to have their Medicaid programs cover expenses related to participation in certain clinical trials, a move that was hailed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other groups as a boost to trials as well as to patients with serious illness who have lower incomes.

A massive wrap-up spending/COVID-19 relief bill that was signed into law Dec. 27 carried with it a mandate on Medicaid. States are ordered to put in place Medicaid payment policies for routine items and services, such as the cost of physician visits or laboratory tests, that are provided in connection with participation in clinical trials for serious and life-threatening conditions. The law includes a January 2022 target date for this coverage through Medicaid.

Medicare and other large insurers already pick up the tab for these kinds of expenses, leaving Medicaid as an outlier, ASCO noted in a press statement. ASCO and other cancer groups have for years pressed Medicaid to cover routine expenses for people participating in clinical trials. Already, 15 states, including California, require their Medicaid programs to cover these expenses, according to ASCO.

“We believe that the trials can bring extra benefits to patients,” said Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. Dr. Bertagnolli has worked for years to secure Medicaid coverage for expenses connected to clinical trials.

Although Medicaid covers costs of standard care for cancer patients, people enrolled in the program may have concerns about participating in clinical studies, said Dr. Bertagnolli, chair of the Association for Clinical Oncology, which was established by ASCO to promote wider access to cancer care. Having extra medical expenses may be more than these patients can tolerate.

“Many of them just say, ‘I can’t take that financial risk, so I’ll just stay with standard of care,’ “ Dr. Bertagnolli said in an interview.
 

Equity issues

Medicaid has expanded greatly, owing to financial aid provided to states through the Affordable Care Act of 2010.

To date, 38 of 50 U.S. states have accepted federal aid to lift income limits for Medicaid eligibility, according to a tally kept by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. This Medicaid expansion has given more of the nation’s working poor access to health.care, including cancer treatment. Between 2013 and January 2020, enrollment in Medicaid in expansion states increased by about 12.4 million, according to the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission.

Medicaid is the nation’s dominant health insurer. Enrollment has been around 70 million in recent months.

That tops the 61 million enrolled in Medicare, the federal program for people aged 65 and older and those with disabilities. (There’s some overlap between Medicare and Medicaid. About 12.8 million persons were dually eligible for these programs in 2018.) UnitedHealth, a giant private insurer, has about 43 million domestic customers.

Medicaid also serves many of the groups of people for which researchers have been seeking to increase participation in clinical trials. ASCO’s Association for Clinical Oncology and dozens of its partners raised this point in a letter to congressional leaders on Feb. 15, 2020.

“Lack of participation in clinical trials from the Medicaid population means these patients are being excluded from potentially life-saving trials and are not reflected in the outcome of the clinical research,” the groups wrote. “Increased access to clinical trial participation for Medicaid enrollees helps ensure medical research results more accurately capture and reflect the populations of this country.”

The ACA’s Medicaid expansion is working to address some of the racial gaps in insurance coverage, according to a January 2020 report from the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund.

Black and Hispanic adults are almost twice as likely as are White adults to have incomes that are less than 200% of the federal poverty level, according to the Commonwealth Fund report. The report also said that people in these groups reported significantly higher rates of cost-related problems in receiving care before the Medicaid expansion began in 2014.

The uninsured rate for Black adults dropped from 24.4% in 2013 to 14.4% in 2018; the rate for Hispanic adults fell from 40.2% to 24.9%, according to the Commonwealth Fund report.

There are concerns, though, about attempts by some governors to impose onerous restrictions on adults enrolled in Medicaid, Dr. Bertagnolli said. She was president of ASCO in 2018 when the group called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to reject state requests to create restrictions that could hinder people’s access to cancer screening or care.

The Trump administration encouraged governors to adopt work requirements. As a result, a dozen states approved these policies, according to a November report from the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The efforts were blocked by courts.

Data from the limited period of implementation in Arkansas, Michigan, and New Hampshire provide evidence that these kinds of requirements don’t work as intended, according to the CBPP report.

“In all three states, evidence suggests that people who were working and people with serious health needs who should have been eligible for exemptions lost coverage or were at risk of losing coverage due to red tape,” CBPP analysts Jennifer Wagner and Jessica Schubel wrote in their report.

In 2019, The New England Journal of Medicine published an article about the early stages of the Arkansas experiment with Medicaid work rules. Almost 17,000 adults lost their health care coverage in the initial months of implementation, but there appeared to be no significant difference in employment, Benjamin Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in their article.

For many people in Arkansas, coverage was lost because of difficulties in reporting compliance with the Medicaid work rule, not because of the employment mandate itself, according to the authors. More than 95% of persons who were targeted by Arkansas’ Medicaid work policy already met its requirements or should have been exempt, they wrote.

Democrats have tended to oppose efforts to attach work requirements, which can include volunteer activities or career training, to Medicaid. Dr. Bertagnolli said there is a need to guard against any future bid to add work requirements to the program.

Extra bureaucratic hurdles may pose an especially tough burden on working adults enrolled in Medicaid, she said.

People who qualify for the program may already be worried about their finances while juggling continued demands of child care and employment, she said. They don’t need to be put at risk of losing access to medical care over administrative rules while undergoing cancer treatment, she said.

“We have to take care of people who are sick. That’s just the way it is,” Dr. Bertagnolli said.

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

Congress has ordered the holdouts among U.S. states to have their Medicaid programs cover expenses related to participation in certain clinical trials, a move that was hailed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other groups as a boost to trials as well as to patients with serious illness who have lower incomes.

A massive wrap-up spending/COVID-19 relief bill that was signed into law Dec. 27 carried with it a mandate on Medicaid. States are ordered to put in place Medicaid payment policies for routine items and services, such as the cost of physician visits or laboratory tests, that are provided in connection with participation in clinical trials for serious and life-threatening conditions. The law includes a January 2022 target date for this coverage through Medicaid.

Medicare and other large insurers already pick up the tab for these kinds of expenses, leaving Medicaid as an outlier, ASCO noted in a press statement. ASCO and other cancer groups have for years pressed Medicaid to cover routine expenses for people participating in clinical trials. Already, 15 states, including California, require their Medicaid programs to cover these expenses, according to ASCO.

“We believe that the trials can bring extra benefits to patients,” said Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. Dr. Bertagnolli has worked for years to secure Medicaid coverage for expenses connected to clinical trials.

Although Medicaid covers costs of standard care for cancer patients, people enrolled in the program may have concerns about participating in clinical studies, said Dr. Bertagnolli, chair of the Association for Clinical Oncology, which was established by ASCO to promote wider access to cancer care. Having extra medical expenses may be more than these patients can tolerate.

“Many of them just say, ‘I can’t take that financial risk, so I’ll just stay with standard of care,’ “ Dr. Bertagnolli said in an interview.
 

Equity issues

Medicaid has expanded greatly, owing to financial aid provided to states through the Affordable Care Act of 2010.

To date, 38 of 50 U.S. states have accepted federal aid to lift income limits for Medicaid eligibility, according to a tally kept by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. This Medicaid expansion has given more of the nation’s working poor access to health.care, including cancer treatment. Between 2013 and January 2020, enrollment in Medicaid in expansion states increased by about 12.4 million, according to the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission.

Medicaid is the nation’s dominant health insurer. Enrollment has been around 70 million in recent months.

That tops the 61 million enrolled in Medicare, the federal program for people aged 65 and older and those with disabilities. (There’s some overlap between Medicare and Medicaid. About 12.8 million persons were dually eligible for these programs in 2018.) UnitedHealth, a giant private insurer, has about 43 million domestic customers.

Medicaid also serves many of the groups of people for which researchers have been seeking to increase participation in clinical trials. ASCO’s Association for Clinical Oncology and dozens of its partners raised this point in a letter to congressional leaders on Feb. 15, 2020.

“Lack of participation in clinical trials from the Medicaid population means these patients are being excluded from potentially life-saving trials and are not reflected in the outcome of the clinical research,” the groups wrote. “Increased access to clinical trial participation for Medicaid enrollees helps ensure medical research results more accurately capture and reflect the populations of this country.”

The ACA’s Medicaid expansion is working to address some of the racial gaps in insurance coverage, according to a January 2020 report from the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund.

Black and Hispanic adults are almost twice as likely as are White adults to have incomes that are less than 200% of the federal poverty level, according to the Commonwealth Fund report. The report also said that people in these groups reported significantly higher rates of cost-related problems in receiving care before the Medicaid expansion began in 2014.

The uninsured rate for Black adults dropped from 24.4% in 2013 to 14.4% in 2018; the rate for Hispanic adults fell from 40.2% to 24.9%, according to the Commonwealth Fund report.

There are concerns, though, about attempts by some governors to impose onerous restrictions on adults enrolled in Medicaid, Dr. Bertagnolli said. She was president of ASCO in 2018 when the group called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to reject state requests to create restrictions that could hinder people’s access to cancer screening or care.

The Trump administration encouraged governors to adopt work requirements. As a result, a dozen states approved these policies, according to a November report from the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The efforts were blocked by courts.

Data from the limited period of implementation in Arkansas, Michigan, and New Hampshire provide evidence that these kinds of requirements don’t work as intended, according to the CBPP report.

“In all three states, evidence suggests that people who were working and people with serious health needs who should have been eligible for exemptions lost coverage or were at risk of losing coverage due to red tape,” CBPP analysts Jennifer Wagner and Jessica Schubel wrote in their report.

In 2019, The New England Journal of Medicine published an article about the early stages of the Arkansas experiment with Medicaid work rules. Almost 17,000 adults lost their health care coverage in the initial months of implementation, but there appeared to be no significant difference in employment, Benjamin Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in their article.

For many people in Arkansas, coverage was lost because of difficulties in reporting compliance with the Medicaid work rule, not because of the employment mandate itself, according to the authors. More than 95% of persons who were targeted by Arkansas’ Medicaid work policy already met its requirements or should have been exempt, they wrote.

Democrats have tended to oppose efforts to attach work requirements, which can include volunteer activities or career training, to Medicaid. Dr. Bertagnolli said there is a need to guard against any future bid to add work requirements to the program.

Extra bureaucratic hurdles may pose an especially tough burden on working adults enrolled in Medicaid, she said.

People who qualify for the program may already be worried about their finances while juggling continued demands of child care and employment, she said. They don’t need to be put at risk of losing access to medical care over administrative rules while undergoing cancer treatment, she said.

“We have to take care of people who are sick. That’s just the way it is,” Dr. Bertagnolli said.

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

Congress has ordered the holdouts among U.S. states to have their Medicaid programs cover expenses related to participation in certain clinical trials, a move that was hailed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other groups as a boost to trials as well as to patients with serious illness who have lower incomes.

A massive wrap-up spending/COVID-19 relief bill that was signed into law Dec. 27 carried with it a mandate on Medicaid. States are ordered to put in place Medicaid payment policies for routine items and services, such as the cost of physician visits or laboratory tests, that are provided in connection with participation in clinical trials for serious and life-threatening conditions. The law includes a January 2022 target date for this coverage through Medicaid.

Medicare and other large insurers already pick up the tab for these kinds of expenses, leaving Medicaid as an outlier, ASCO noted in a press statement. ASCO and other cancer groups have for years pressed Medicaid to cover routine expenses for people participating in clinical trials. Already, 15 states, including California, require their Medicaid programs to cover these expenses, according to ASCO.

“We believe that the trials can bring extra benefits to patients,” said Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. Dr. Bertagnolli has worked for years to secure Medicaid coverage for expenses connected to clinical trials.

Although Medicaid covers costs of standard care for cancer patients, people enrolled in the program may have concerns about participating in clinical studies, said Dr. Bertagnolli, chair of the Association for Clinical Oncology, which was established by ASCO to promote wider access to cancer care. Having extra medical expenses may be more than these patients can tolerate.

“Many of them just say, ‘I can’t take that financial risk, so I’ll just stay with standard of care,’ “ Dr. Bertagnolli said in an interview.
 

Equity issues

Medicaid has expanded greatly, owing to financial aid provided to states through the Affordable Care Act of 2010.

To date, 38 of 50 U.S. states have accepted federal aid to lift income limits for Medicaid eligibility, according to a tally kept by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. This Medicaid expansion has given more of the nation’s working poor access to health.care, including cancer treatment. Between 2013 and January 2020, enrollment in Medicaid in expansion states increased by about 12.4 million, according to the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission.

Medicaid is the nation’s dominant health insurer. Enrollment has been around 70 million in recent months.

That tops the 61 million enrolled in Medicare, the federal program for people aged 65 and older and those with disabilities. (There’s some overlap between Medicare and Medicaid. About 12.8 million persons were dually eligible for these programs in 2018.) UnitedHealth, a giant private insurer, has about 43 million domestic customers.

Medicaid also serves many of the groups of people for which researchers have been seeking to increase participation in clinical trials. ASCO’s Association for Clinical Oncology and dozens of its partners raised this point in a letter to congressional leaders on Feb. 15, 2020.

“Lack of participation in clinical trials from the Medicaid population means these patients are being excluded from potentially life-saving trials and are not reflected in the outcome of the clinical research,” the groups wrote. “Increased access to clinical trial participation for Medicaid enrollees helps ensure medical research results more accurately capture and reflect the populations of this country.”

The ACA’s Medicaid expansion is working to address some of the racial gaps in insurance coverage, according to a January 2020 report from the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund.

Black and Hispanic adults are almost twice as likely as are White adults to have incomes that are less than 200% of the federal poverty level, according to the Commonwealth Fund report. The report also said that people in these groups reported significantly higher rates of cost-related problems in receiving care before the Medicaid expansion began in 2014.

The uninsured rate for Black adults dropped from 24.4% in 2013 to 14.4% in 2018; the rate for Hispanic adults fell from 40.2% to 24.9%, according to the Commonwealth Fund report.

There are concerns, though, about attempts by some governors to impose onerous restrictions on adults enrolled in Medicaid, Dr. Bertagnolli said. She was president of ASCO in 2018 when the group called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to reject state requests to create restrictions that could hinder people’s access to cancer screening or care.

The Trump administration encouraged governors to adopt work requirements. As a result, a dozen states approved these policies, according to a November report from the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The efforts were blocked by courts.

Data from the limited period of implementation in Arkansas, Michigan, and New Hampshire provide evidence that these kinds of requirements don’t work as intended, according to the CBPP report.

“In all three states, evidence suggests that people who were working and people with serious health needs who should have been eligible for exemptions lost coverage or were at risk of losing coverage due to red tape,” CBPP analysts Jennifer Wagner and Jessica Schubel wrote in their report.

In 2019, The New England Journal of Medicine published an article about the early stages of the Arkansas experiment with Medicaid work rules. Almost 17,000 adults lost their health care coverage in the initial months of implementation, but there appeared to be no significant difference in employment, Benjamin Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in their article.

For many people in Arkansas, coverage was lost because of difficulties in reporting compliance with the Medicaid work rule, not because of the employment mandate itself, according to the authors. More than 95% of persons who were targeted by Arkansas’ Medicaid work policy already met its requirements or should have been exempt, they wrote.

Democrats have tended to oppose efforts to attach work requirements, which can include volunteer activities or career training, to Medicaid. Dr. Bertagnolli said there is a need to guard against any future bid to add work requirements to the program.

Extra bureaucratic hurdles may pose an especially tough burden on working adults enrolled in Medicaid, she said.

People who qualify for the program may already be worried about their finances while juggling continued demands of child care and employment, she said. They don’t need to be put at risk of losing access to medical care over administrative rules while undergoing cancer treatment, she said.

“We have to take care of people who are sick. That’s just the way it is,” Dr. Bertagnolli said.

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