User login
Bringing you the latest news, research and reviews, exclusive interviews, podcasts, quizzes, and more.
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack nav-ce-stack__large-screen')]
header[@id='header']
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
div[contains(@class, 'view-medstat-quiz-listing-panes')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-article-sidebar-latest-news')]
COVID emergency orders ending: What’s next?
It’s the end of an era.
The orders spanned two presidencies. The Trump administration’s Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar issued a public health emergency in January 2020. Then-President Donald Trump declared the COVID-19 pandemic a national emergency 2 months later. Both emergency declarations – which remained in effect under President Joe Biden – are set to expire May 11.
Read on for an overview of how the end of the public health emergency will trigger multiple federal policy changes.
Changes that affect everyone
- There will be cost-sharing changes for COVID-19 vaccines, testing, and certain treatments. One hundred–percent coverage for COVID testing, including free at-home tests, will expire May 11.
- Telemedicine cannot be used to prescribe controlled substances after May 11, 2023.
- Enhanced federal funding will be phased down through Dec. 31, 2023. This extends the time states must receive federally matched funds for COVID-related services and products, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. Otherwise, this would have expired June 30, 2023.
- Emergency use authorizations for COVID-19 treatments and vaccinations will not be affected and/or end on May 11.
Changes that affect people with private health insurance
- Many will likely see higher costs for COVID-19 tests, as free testing expires and cost-sharing begins in the coming months.
- COVID-19 vaccinations and boosters will continue to be covered until the federal government’s vaccination supply is depleted. If that happens, you will need an in-network provider.
- You will still have access to COVID-19 treatments – but that could change when the federal supply dwindles.
Changes that affect Medicare recipients
- Medicare telehealth flexibilities will be extended through Dec. 31, 2024, regardless of public health emergency status. This means people can access telehealth services from anywhere, not just rural areas; can use a smartphone for telehealth; and can access telehealth in their homes.
- Medicare cost-sharing for testing and treatments will expire May 11, except for oral antivirals.
Changes that affect Medicaid/CHIP recipients
- Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) recipients will continue to receive approved vaccinations free of charge, but testing and treatment without cost-sharing will expire during the third quarter of 2024.
- The Medicaid continuous enrollment provision will be separated from the public health emergency, and continuous enrollment will end March 31, 2023.
Changes that affect uninsured people
- The uninsured will no longer have access to 100% coverage for these products and services (free COVID-19 treatments, vaccines, and testing).
Changes that affect health care providers
- There will be changes to how much providers get paid for diagnosing people with COVID-19, ending the enhanced Inpatient Prospective Payment System reimbursement rate, as of May 11, 2023.
- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) potential penalty waivers will end. This allows providers to communicate with patients through telehealth on a smartphone, for example, without violating privacy laws and incurring penalties.
What the experts are saying
This news organization asked several health experts for their thoughts on ending the emergency health declarations for COVID, and what effects this could have. Many expressed concerns about the timing of the ending, saying that the move could limit access to COVID-related treatments. Others said the move was inevitable but raised concerns about federal guidance related to the decision.
Question: Do you agree with the timing of the end to the emergency order?
Answer: Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston: “A lead time to prepare and anticipate these consequences may ease the transition, compared to an abrupt declaration that ends the declaration.”
Answer: Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association: “I think it’s time to do so. It has to be done in a great, thoughtful, and organized way because we’ve attached so many different things to this public health emergency. It’s going to take time for the system to adapt. [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] data collection most likely will continue. People are used to reporting now. The CDC needs to give guidance to the states so that we’re clear about what we’re reporting, what we’re not. If we did that abruptly, it would just be a mess.”
Answer: Bruce Farber, MD, chief public health and epidemiology officer at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y.: “I would have hoped to see it delayed.”
Answer: Steven Newmark, JD, chief legal officer and director of policy at the Global Healthy Living Foundation: “While we understand that an emergency cannot last forever, we hope that expanded services such as free vaccination, promotion of widespread vaccination, increased use of pharmacists to administer vaccines, telehealth availability and reimbursement, flexibility in work-from-home opportunities, and more continues. Access to equitable health care should never backtrack or be reduced.”
Q: What will the end of free COVID vaccinations and free testing mean?
A: Dr. Farber: “There will likely be a decrease in vaccinations and testing. The vaccination rates are very low to begin with, and this will likely lower it further.”
A: Dr. Atmar: “I think it will mean that fewer people will get tested and vaccinated,” which “could lead to increased transmission, although wastewater testing suggests that there is a lot of unrecognized infection already occurring.”
A: Dr. Benjamin: “That is a big concern. It means that for people, particularly for people who are uninsured and underinsured, we’ve got to make sure they have access to those. There’s a lot of discussion and debate about what the cost of those tests and vaccines will be, and it looks like the companies are going to impose very steep, increasing costs.”
Q: How will this affect higher-risk populations, like people with weakened immune systems?
A: Dr. Farber: “Without monoclonals [drugs to treat COVID] and free Paxlovid,” people with weakened immune systems “may be undertreated.”
A: Dr. Atmar: “The implications of ongoing widespread virus transmission are that immunocompromised individuals may be more likely to be exposed and infected and to suffer the consequences of such infection, including severe illness. However, to a certain degree, this may already be happening. We are still seeing about 500 deaths/day, primarily in persons at highest risk of severe disease.”
A: Dr. Benjamin: “People who have good insurance, can afford to get immunized, and have good relations with practitioners probably will continue to be covered. But lower-income individuals and people who really can’t afford to get tested or get immunized would likely become underimmunized and more infected.
“So even though the federal emergency declaration will go away, I’m hoping that the federal government will continue to encourage all of us to emphasize those populations at the highest risk – those with chronic disease and those who are immunocompromised.”
A: Mr. Newmark: “People who are immunocompromised by their chronic illness or the medicines they take to treat acute or chronic conditions remain at higher risk for COVID-19 and its serious complications. The administration needs to support continued development of effective treatments and updated vaccines to protect the individual and public health. We’re also concerned that increased health care services - such as vaccination or telehealth – may fall back to prepandemic levels while the burden of protection, such as masking, may fall to chronic disease patients alone, which adds to the burden of living with disease.”
Q: What effect will ending Medicaid expansion money have?
A: Dr. Benjamin: Anywhere from 16 to 20 million people are going to lose in coverage. I’m hoping that states will look at their experience over these last 2 years or so and come to the decision that there were improvements in healthier populations.
Q: Will this have any effect on how the public perceives the pandemic?
A: Dr. Farber: “It is likely to give the impression that COVID is gone, which clearly is not the case.”
A: Dr. Benjamin: “It’ll be another argument by some that the pandemic is over. People should think about this as kind of like a hurricane. A hurricane comes through and tragically tears up communities, and we have an emergency during that time. But then we have to go through a period of recovery. I’m hoping people will realize that even though the public health emergencies have gone away, that we still need to go through a period of transition ... and that means that they still need to protect themselves, get vaccinated, and wear a mask when appropriate.”
A: Dr. Atmar: “There needs to be messaging that while we are transitioning away from emergency management of COVID-19, it is still a significant public health concern.”
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
It’s the end of an era.
The orders spanned two presidencies. The Trump administration’s Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar issued a public health emergency in January 2020. Then-President Donald Trump declared the COVID-19 pandemic a national emergency 2 months later. Both emergency declarations – which remained in effect under President Joe Biden – are set to expire May 11.
Read on for an overview of how the end of the public health emergency will trigger multiple federal policy changes.
Changes that affect everyone
- There will be cost-sharing changes for COVID-19 vaccines, testing, and certain treatments. One hundred–percent coverage for COVID testing, including free at-home tests, will expire May 11.
- Telemedicine cannot be used to prescribe controlled substances after May 11, 2023.
- Enhanced federal funding will be phased down through Dec. 31, 2023. This extends the time states must receive federally matched funds for COVID-related services and products, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. Otherwise, this would have expired June 30, 2023.
- Emergency use authorizations for COVID-19 treatments and vaccinations will not be affected and/or end on May 11.
Changes that affect people with private health insurance
- Many will likely see higher costs for COVID-19 tests, as free testing expires and cost-sharing begins in the coming months.
- COVID-19 vaccinations and boosters will continue to be covered until the federal government’s vaccination supply is depleted. If that happens, you will need an in-network provider.
- You will still have access to COVID-19 treatments – but that could change when the federal supply dwindles.
Changes that affect Medicare recipients
- Medicare telehealth flexibilities will be extended through Dec. 31, 2024, regardless of public health emergency status. This means people can access telehealth services from anywhere, not just rural areas; can use a smartphone for telehealth; and can access telehealth in their homes.
- Medicare cost-sharing for testing and treatments will expire May 11, except for oral antivirals.
Changes that affect Medicaid/CHIP recipients
- Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) recipients will continue to receive approved vaccinations free of charge, but testing and treatment without cost-sharing will expire during the third quarter of 2024.
- The Medicaid continuous enrollment provision will be separated from the public health emergency, and continuous enrollment will end March 31, 2023.
Changes that affect uninsured people
- The uninsured will no longer have access to 100% coverage for these products and services (free COVID-19 treatments, vaccines, and testing).
Changes that affect health care providers
- There will be changes to how much providers get paid for diagnosing people with COVID-19, ending the enhanced Inpatient Prospective Payment System reimbursement rate, as of May 11, 2023.
- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) potential penalty waivers will end. This allows providers to communicate with patients through telehealth on a smartphone, for example, without violating privacy laws and incurring penalties.
What the experts are saying
This news organization asked several health experts for their thoughts on ending the emergency health declarations for COVID, and what effects this could have. Many expressed concerns about the timing of the ending, saying that the move could limit access to COVID-related treatments. Others said the move was inevitable but raised concerns about federal guidance related to the decision.
Question: Do you agree with the timing of the end to the emergency order?
Answer: Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston: “A lead time to prepare and anticipate these consequences may ease the transition, compared to an abrupt declaration that ends the declaration.”
Answer: Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association: “I think it’s time to do so. It has to be done in a great, thoughtful, and organized way because we’ve attached so many different things to this public health emergency. It’s going to take time for the system to adapt. [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] data collection most likely will continue. People are used to reporting now. The CDC needs to give guidance to the states so that we’re clear about what we’re reporting, what we’re not. If we did that abruptly, it would just be a mess.”
Answer: Bruce Farber, MD, chief public health and epidemiology officer at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y.: “I would have hoped to see it delayed.”
Answer: Steven Newmark, JD, chief legal officer and director of policy at the Global Healthy Living Foundation: “While we understand that an emergency cannot last forever, we hope that expanded services such as free vaccination, promotion of widespread vaccination, increased use of pharmacists to administer vaccines, telehealth availability and reimbursement, flexibility in work-from-home opportunities, and more continues. Access to equitable health care should never backtrack or be reduced.”
Q: What will the end of free COVID vaccinations and free testing mean?
A: Dr. Farber: “There will likely be a decrease in vaccinations and testing. The vaccination rates are very low to begin with, and this will likely lower it further.”
A: Dr. Atmar: “I think it will mean that fewer people will get tested and vaccinated,” which “could lead to increased transmission, although wastewater testing suggests that there is a lot of unrecognized infection already occurring.”
A: Dr. Benjamin: “That is a big concern. It means that for people, particularly for people who are uninsured and underinsured, we’ve got to make sure they have access to those. There’s a lot of discussion and debate about what the cost of those tests and vaccines will be, and it looks like the companies are going to impose very steep, increasing costs.”
Q: How will this affect higher-risk populations, like people with weakened immune systems?
A: Dr. Farber: “Without monoclonals [drugs to treat COVID] and free Paxlovid,” people with weakened immune systems “may be undertreated.”
A: Dr. Atmar: “The implications of ongoing widespread virus transmission are that immunocompromised individuals may be more likely to be exposed and infected and to suffer the consequences of such infection, including severe illness. However, to a certain degree, this may already be happening. We are still seeing about 500 deaths/day, primarily in persons at highest risk of severe disease.”
A: Dr. Benjamin: “People who have good insurance, can afford to get immunized, and have good relations with practitioners probably will continue to be covered. But lower-income individuals and people who really can’t afford to get tested or get immunized would likely become underimmunized and more infected.
“So even though the federal emergency declaration will go away, I’m hoping that the federal government will continue to encourage all of us to emphasize those populations at the highest risk – those with chronic disease and those who are immunocompromised.”
A: Mr. Newmark: “People who are immunocompromised by their chronic illness or the medicines they take to treat acute or chronic conditions remain at higher risk for COVID-19 and its serious complications. The administration needs to support continued development of effective treatments and updated vaccines to protect the individual and public health. We’re also concerned that increased health care services - such as vaccination or telehealth – may fall back to prepandemic levels while the burden of protection, such as masking, may fall to chronic disease patients alone, which adds to the burden of living with disease.”
Q: What effect will ending Medicaid expansion money have?
A: Dr. Benjamin: Anywhere from 16 to 20 million people are going to lose in coverage. I’m hoping that states will look at their experience over these last 2 years or so and come to the decision that there were improvements in healthier populations.
Q: Will this have any effect on how the public perceives the pandemic?
A: Dr. Farber: “It is likely to give the impression that COVID is gone, which clearly is not the case.”
A: Dr. Benjamin: “It’ll be another argument by some that the pandemic is over. People should think about this as kind of like a hurricane. A hurricane comes through and tragically tears up communities, and we have an emergency during that time. But then we have to go through a period of recovery. I’m hoping people will realize that even though the public health emergencies have gone away, that we still need to go through a period of transition ... and that means that they still need to protect themselves, get vaccinated, and wear a mask when appropriate.”
A: Dr. Atmar: “There needs to be messaging that while we are transitioning away from emergency management of COVID-19, it is still a significant public health concern.”
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
It’s the end of an era.
The orders spanned two presidencies. The Trump administration’s Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar issued a public health emergency in January 2020. Then-President Donald Trump declared the COVID-19 pandemic a national emergency 2 months later. Both emergency declarations – which remained in effect under President Joe Biden – are set to expire May 11.
Read on for an overview of how the end of the public health emergency will trigger multiple federal policy changes.
Changes that affect everyone
- There will be cost-sharing changes for COVID-19 vaccines, testing, and certain treatments. One hundred–percent coverage for COVID testing, including free at-home tests, will expire May 11.
- Telemedicine cannot be used to prescribe controlled substances after May 11, 2023.
- Enhanced federal funding will be phased down through Dec. 31, 2023. This extends the time states must receive federally matched funds for COVID-related services and products, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. Otherwise, this would have expired June 30, 2023.
- Emergency use authorizations for COVID-19 treatments and vaccinations will not be affected and/or end on May 11.
Changes that affect people with private health insurance
- Many will likely see higher costs for COVID-19 tests, as free testing expires and cost-sharing begins in the coming months.
- COVID-19 vaccinations and boosters will continue to be covered until the federal government’s vaccination supply is depleted. If that happens, you will need an in-network provider.
- You will still have access to COVID-19 treatments – but that could change when the federal supply dwindles.
Changes that affect Medicare recipients
- Medicare telehealth flexibilities will be extended through Dec. 31, 2024, regardless of public health emergency status. This means people can access telehealth services from anywhere, not just rural areas; can use a smartphone for telehealth; and can access telehealth in their homes.
- Medicare cost-sharing for testing and treatments will expire May 11, except for oral antivirals.
Changes that affect Medicaid/CHIP recipients
- Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) recipients will continue to receive approved vaccinations free of charge, but testing and treatment without cost-sharing will expire during the third quarter of 2024.
- The Medicaid continuous enrollment provision will be separated from the public health emergency, and continuous enrollment will end March 31, 2023.
Changes that affect uninsured people
- The uninsured will no longer have access to 100% coverage for these products and services (free COVID-19 treatments, vaccines, and testing).
Changes that affect health care providers
- There will be changes to how much providers get paid for diagnosing people with COVID-19, ending the enhanced Inpatient Prospective Payment System reimbursement rate, as of May 11, 2023.
- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) potential penalty waivers will end. This allows providers to communicate with patients through telehealth on a smartphone, for example, without violating privacy laws and incurring penalties.
What the experts are saying
This news organization asked several health experts for their thoughts on ending the emergency health declarations for COVID, and what effects this could have. Many expressed concerns about the timing of the ending, saying that the move could limit access to COVID-related treatments. Others said the move was inevitable but raised concerns about federal guidance related to the decision.
Question: Do you agree with the timing of the end to the emergency order?
Answer: Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston: “A lead time to prepare and anticipate these consequences may ease the transition, compared to an abrupt declaration that ends the declaration.”
Answer: Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association: “I think it’s time to do so. It has to be done in a great, thoughtful, and organized way because we’ve attached so many different things to this public health emergency. It’s going to take time for the system to adapt. [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] data collection most likely will continue. People are used to reporting now. The CDC needs to give guidance to the states so that we’re clear about what we’re reporting, what we’re not. If we did that abruptly, it would just be a mess.”
Answer: Bruce Farber, MD, chief public health and epidemiology officer at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y.: “I would have hoped to see it delayed.”
Answer: Steven Newmark, JD, chief legal officer and director of policy at the Global Healthy Living Foundation: “While we understand that an emergency cannot last forever, we hope that expanded services such as free vaccination, promotion of widespread vaccination, increased use of pharmacists to administer vaccines, telehealth availability and reimbursement, flexibility in work-from-home opportunities, and more continues. Access to equitable health care should never backtrack or be reduced.”
Q: What will the end of free COVID vaccinations and free testing mean?
A: Dr. Farber: “There will likely be a decrease in vaccinations and testing. The vaccination rates are very low to begin with, and this will likely lower it further.”
A: Dr. Atmar: “I think it will mean that fewer people will get tested and vaccinated,” which “could lead to increased transmission, although wastewater testing suggests that there is a lot of unrecognized infection already occurring.”
A: Dr. Benjamin: “That is a big concern. It means that for people, particularly for people who are uninsured and underinsured, we’ve got to make sure they have access to those. There’s a lot of discussion and debate about what the cost of those tests and vaccines will be, and it looks like the companies are going to impose very steep, increasing costs.”
Q: How will this affect higher-risk populations, like people with weakened immune systems?
A: Dr. Farber: “Without monoclonals [drugs to treat COVID] and free Paxlovid,” people with weakened immune systems “may be undertreated.”
A: Dr. Atmar: “The implications of ongoing widespread virus transmission are that immunocompromised individuals may be more likely to be exposed and infected and to suffer the consequences of such infection, including severe illness. However, to a certain degree, this may already be happening. We are still seeing about 500 deaths/day, primarily in persons at highest risk of severe disease.”
A: Dr. Benjamin: “People who have good insurance, can afford to get immunized, and have good relations with practitioners probably will continue to be covered. But lower-income individuals and people who really can’t afford to get tested or get immunized would likely become underimmunized and more infected.
“So even though the federal emergency declaration will go away, I’m hoping that the federal government will continue to encourage all of us to emphasize those populations at the highest risk – those with chronic disease and those who are immunocompromised.”
A: Mr. Newmark: “People who are immunocompromised by their chronic illness or the medicines they take to treat acute or chronic conditions remain at higher risk for COVID-19 and its serious complications. The administration needs to support continued development of effective treatments and updated vaccines to protect the individual and public health. We’re also concerned that increased health care services - such as vaccination or telehealth – may fall back to prepandemic levels while the burden of protection, such as masking, may fall to chronic disease patients alone, which adds to the burden of living with disease.”
Q: What effect will ending Medicaid expansion money have?
A: Dr. Benjamin: Anywhere from 16 to 20 million people are going to lose in coverage. I’m hoping that states will look at their experience over these last 2 years or so and come to the decision that there were improvements in healthier populations.
Q: Will this have any effect on how the public perceives the pandemic?
A: Dr. Farber: “It is likely to give the impression that COVID is gone, which clearly is not the case.”
A: Dr. Benjamin: “It’ll be another argument by some that the pandemic is over. People should think about this as kind of like a hurricane. A hurricane comes through and tragically tears up communities, and we have an emergency during that time. But then we have to go through a period of recovery. I’m hoping people will realize that even though the public health emergencies have gone away, that we still need to go through a period of transition ... and that means that they still need to protect themselves, get vaccinated, and wear a mask when appropriate.”
A: Dr. Atmar: “There needs to be messaging that while we are transitioning away from emergency management of COVID-19, it is still a significant public health concern.”
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
Decoding endometriosis: Recent research fosters hope
Roughly 4 decades after she first started menstruating, Elizabeth Flanagan finally underwent surgery to repair damage wreaked on her body by endometriosis. She’d spent years struggling with a variety of seemingly random symptoms, from migraines to excruciatingly painful periods to fatigue and irritable bowel syndrome. She’d worried about abnormal labs, including “extremely high” ANA, creatinine, and BUN blood test results that had been out of normal range for more than 10 years.
She was diagnosed with endometriosis in 2016, at age 47, after surgery to remove an ovarian cyst. Still, it took 5 more years before she landed in the office of a surgeon with the proper training to excise the lesions that continued to cause her so much anguish. That physician, Matthew Siedhoff, MD, at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, explained why her creatinine and BUN results were so far out of range: The endometriosis was impinging on her ureters.
The appointment left Ms. Flanagan with a range of emotions. “I was shocked that no doctor had identified this before, relieved knowing that I was finally in the hands of an expert who understood my condition, and saddened by the dearth of knowledge and proper treatment of endometriosis,” she wrote in an email.
Although the disease afflicts at least 1 out of every 10 women, endometriosis remains a conundrum for patients and their physicians. It often masquerades as other problems, from mental health issues such as anxiety and depression to physical issues such as irritable bowel syndrome. It often coexists with autoimmune conditions. Short of performing surgery, it can be a diagnosis of exclusion. And the existing, state-of-the-art treatment – hormone therapy that shuts down the reproductive system – doesn’t work for every woman every time.
“It is no wonder that it takes 10 years on average, from the time someone has symptoms of endometriosis, until they get a definitive diagnosis,” said Hugh Taylor, MD, chair of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “It’s a combination of [physicians] not taking painful menses seriously and getting distracted by all these other manifestations of the disease throughout the whole body.”
Endometriosis, he said, “is a whole-body disease.”
But recent genetic research offers the tantalizing prospect of new diagnostic tools and treatments. In 5-10 years, scientists say, physicians may be able to diagnose the disease with a simple blood test, and treat it, for example, by preventing a gene receptor from initiating a cascade of inflammatory effects, or crafting treatments tailored to the molecular makeup of a patient’s disease.
“Tomorrow’s therapies will target specifically the molecular defects of endometriosis and be nonhormonal,” Dr. Taylor said.
Guidelines published last year by the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology detail the latest standards for diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis.
According to the guidelines, physicians should consider the diagnosis of endometriosis in individuals presenting with the following cyclical and noncyclical signs and symptoms: dysmenorrhea, deep dyspareunia, dysuria, dyschezia, painful rectal bleeding or hematuria, shoulder tip pain, catamenial pneumothorax, cyclical cough/hemoptysis/chest pain, cyclical scar swelling, and pain, fatigue, and infertility.
A clinical exam should be considered, as well as imaging such as ultrasound and/or MRI, the guidelines state, although negative findings should not rule out a diagnosis. Laparoscopy is also an option, particularly for patients who desire a definitive diagnosis or cannot be diagnosed any other way, “although negative histology [of endometriotic lesions] does not entirely rule out the disease,” the guidelines state.
To treat the pain associated with endometriosis, the guidelines advise, as a first-line therapy, beginning with NSAIDs and combined hormonal contraceptives (in oral, vaginal, or transdermal form). Another option is progesterone, including progesterone-only contraceptives, with a recommendation to prescribe a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system or an etonogestrel-releasing subdermal implant to reduce endometriosis-associated pain.
However, progestins and low-dose oral contraceptives are “unsuccessful in a third of women,” Dr. Taylor and his coauthors wrote in a paper published in 2021 in The Lancet.
Until recently, the gold standard for second-line treatment of endometriosis was oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists. These manage the disease by inducing medical menopause – they downregulate pituitary GnRH receptors to create a hypoestrogenic state characterized by low serum levels of luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH). GnRH agonists may be administered nasally, or through daily, monthly, or trimonthly injections. But the Food and Drug Administration advises that, when used for longer than 6 months, GnRH agonists be paired with add-back hormone replacement therapy to reduce the risk of bone loss associated with the plunge in hormone levels. Also, treatment may not be appropriate for patients who, when suddenly forced into menopause, suffer from bothersome symptoms.
The latest treatment, GnRH antagonists, are new options for patients who either do not respond adequately to progestins and low-dose contraceptives or develop progesterone resistance, and want to avoid some of the risks and/or symptoms associated with GnRH agonists. Two advantages of GnRH antagonists for patients, Dr. Taylor said, are that they have a fast onset of action and are oral rather than injectable.
“These drugs [GnRH antagonists] cause competitive blockage of the GnRH receptor and hence dose-dependently suppress production of FSH and LH and inhibit secretion of ovarian steroid hormones without inducing a flare-up effect,” Belgian physicians and researchers Jacques Donnez, MD, and Marie-Madeleine Dolmans, MD, PhD, wrote in a paper published last year in the Journal of Clinical Medicine. “The mechanism is different from that of the GnRH agonist which, after a first phase of stimulation, desensitizes GnRH receptors, leading to full suppression of LH and FSH production and subsequently to complete suppression of [estrogen] to levels similar to those observed after bilateral oophorectomy.”
Patients who took Elagolix, the first oral nonpeptide GnRH antagonist available for the treatment of moderate to severe endometriosis-associated pain, had fewer vasomotor side effects and less bone density loss than those on the GnRH agonist leuprorelin, according to a 2018 study in Obstetrics and Gynecology. However, without add-back hormone-replacement therapy, GnRH antagonist use may need to be limited to 24 months, because of loss of bone density, a study in Cell Reports Medicine reported in 2022.
Attempting to explain the pathogenesis of endometriosis, and frustrated by the shortcomings of currently available therapies, researchers have turned to genetics for insight. A team of scientists led by Thomas Tapmeier, PhD, now a senior research fellow at Monash University in Australia, and Prof. Krina Zondervan at the University of Oxford, ran genetic analyses of families with a history of endometriosis, as well as rhesus macaques that spontaneously developed endometriosis. The research, published in Science Translational Medicine, identified NPSR1, the gene encoding neuropeptide S receptor 1, as one commonly associated with endometriosis. In trials with mouse models, they found that the NPSR1 inhibitor SHA 68R was able to reduce endometriosis-related inflammation and pain.
“It’s important to stress that there is no single gene that is responsible for endometriosis,” Dr. Tapmeier said in an interview. “This gene just has a higher frequency in people with endometriosis.”
The next step, then, would be to try to find a compound that would inhibit NPSR1 at some point, or a competitor to the ligand that binds to the receptor and blocks it, he said.
“We’re currently looking at compounds that might be able to inhibit the receptor signaling,” he said.
Such a therapy could potentially reduce the symptoms of endometriosis without interfering with the menstrual cycle and without introducing hormones that cause undesirable side effects in some patients.
“This might be a way to treat the pain and inflammation that goes with endometriosis, as well as leaving the possibility of pregnancy open,” he said.
Other researchers are searching for biomarkers of the disease, both to provide a definitive, nonsurgical diagnostic tool, and for potential, individualized treatment.
In a study published in Nature Genetics, researchers at Cedars-Sinai created a “cellular atlas” of endometriosis by analyzing nearly 400,000 individual cells from 21 patients, some of whom had the disease and some of whom did not. A new technology, single-cell genomics, allowed the scientists to profile the multiple cell types contributing to the disease.
“So the initial question we wanted to ask was about understanding how the cells look in endometriosis, compared to endometrium,” said Kate Lawrenson, PhD, an associate professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Cedars-Sinai, and co–senior author of the study. “We know that they resemble the cells of the womb, but we really don’t understand if they behave the same. We had a good inkling that they would behave differently.”
It turned out they did: Cells of endometriosis interacted atypically with female hormones, compared with cells in the uterus, Dr. Lawrenson said.
“That helps us understand how, even when patients take contraceptive pills, which is a commonly prescribed therapy, it doesn’t always work, or sometimes it stops working after a while,” she said. The next step for researchers, she said, will be to pinpoint the specific causes of these altered interactions.
Meanwhile, the current research also points to diagnostic possibilities. “We were quite excited to see that multiple cell types and endometriosis are upregulating the same sets of genes,” she said. “That makes us optimistic that hopefully there are some protein gene products that are being made in abundance, and hopefully we can detect them in the blood stream. It might be that we could use that information to develop new biomarkers, or even risk stratification tools.”
In the future, a simple blood test could identify signs of endometriosis in at-risk patients and get them “fast-tracked to a specialist for evaluation,” she said. “Whereas now, they might go from PCP to gynecologist to a different gynecologist over the course of 5-10 years before they get that referral.”
This discovery, that endometrial cells use genes differently and cross-talk with nearby cells differently, presents new treatment possibilities. Maybe we can physically block how cells interact with nearby cells, Dr. Lawrenson said. One model for doing that, she said, would be antibody-based therapy, similar to the therapies now changing the treatment of cancer.
What’s most exciting, looking ahead 5-10 years, is that treatment for endometriosis in the future may be significantly more individualized, and less hormone-based, than it is today.
“What we need for endometriosis is more options for patients and something that is tailored to the molecular makeup of their disease rather than a process of trial and error,” she said.
Roughly 4 decades after she first started menstruating, Elizabeth Flanagan finally underwent surgery to repair damage wreaked on her body by endometriosis. She’d spent years struggling with a variety of seemingly random symptoms, from migraines to excruciatingly painful periods to fatigue and irritable bowel syndrome. She’d worried about abnormal labs, including “extremely high” ANA, creatinine, and BUN blood test results that had been out of normal range for more than 10 years.
She was diagnosed with endometriosis in 2016, at age 47, after surgery to remove an ovarian cyst. Still, it took 5 more years before she landed in the office of a surgeon with the proper training to excise the lesions that continued to cause her so much anguish. That physician, Matthew Siedhoff, MD, at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, explained why her creatinine and BUN results were so far out of range: The endometriosis was impinging on her ureters.
The appointment left Ms. Flanagan with a range of emotions. “I was shocked that no doctor had identified this before, relieved knowing that I was finally in the hands of an expert who understood my condition, and saddened by the dearth of knowledge and proper treatment of endometriosis,” she wrote in an email.
Although the disease afflicts at least 1 out of every 10 women, endometriosis remains a conundrum for patients and their physicians. It often masquerades as other problems, from mental health issues such as anxiety and depression to physical issues such as irritable bowel syndrome. It often coexists with autoimmune conditions. Short of performing surgery, it can be a diagnosis of exclusion. And the existing, state-of-the-art treatment – hormone therapy that shuts down the reproductive system – doesn’t work for every woman every time.
“It is no wonder that it takes 10 years on average, from the time someone has symptoms of endometriosis, until they get a definitive diagnosis,” said Hugh Taylor, MD, chair of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “It’s a combination of [physicians] not taking painful menses seriously and getting distracted by all these other manifestations of the disease throughout the whole body.”
Endometriosis, he said, “is a whole-body disease.”
But recent genetic research offers the tantalizing prospect of new diagnostic tools and treatments. In 5-10 years, scientists say, physicians may be able to diagnose the disease with a simple blood test, and treat it, for example, by preventing a gene receptor from initiating a cascade of inflammatory effects, or crafting treatments tailored to the molecular makeup of a patient’s disease.
“Tomorrow’s therapies will target specifically the molecular defects of endometriosis and be nonhormonal,” Dr. Taylor said.
Guidelines published last year by the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology detail the latest standards for diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis.
According to the guidelines, physicians should consider the diagnosis of endometriosis in individuals presenting with the following cyclical and noncyclical signs and symptoms: dysmenorrhea, deep dyspareunia, dysuria, dyschezia, painful rectal bleeding or hematuria, shoulder tip pain, catamenial pneumothorax, cyclical cough/hemoptysis/chest pain, cyclical scar swelling, and pain, fatigue, and infertility.
A clinical exam should be considered, as well as imaging such as ultrasound and/or MRI, the guidelines state, although negative findings should not rule out a diagnosis. Laparoscopy is also an option, particularly for patients who desire a definitive diagnosis or cannot be diagnosed any other way, “although negative histology [of endometriotic lesions] does not entirely rule out the disease,” the guidelines state.
To treat the pain associated with endometriosis, the guidelines advise, as a first-line therapy, beginning with NSAIDs and combined hormonal contraceptives (in oral, vaginal, or transdermal form). Another option is progesterone, including progesterone-only contraceptives, with a recommendation to prescribe a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system or an etonogestrel-releasing subdermal implant to reduce endometriosis-associated pain.
However, progestins and low-dose oral contraceptives are “unsuccessful in a third of women,” Dr. Taylor and his coauthors wrote in a paper published in 2021 in The Lancet.
Until recently, the gold standard for second-line treatment of endometriosis was oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists. These manage the disease by inducing medical menopause – they downregulate pituitary GnRH receptors to create a hypoestrogenic state characterized by low serum levels of luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH). GnRH agonists may be administered nasally, or through daily, monthly, or trimonthly injections. But the Food and Drug Administration advises that, when used for longer than 6 months, GnRH agonists be paired with add-back hormone replacement therapy to reduce the risk of bone loss associated with the plunge in hormone levels. Also, treatment may not be appropriate for patients who, when suddenly forced into menopause, suffer from bothersome symptoms.
The latest treatment, GnRH antagonists, are new options for patients who either do not respond adequately to progestins and low-dose contraceptives or develop progesterone resistance, and want to avoid some of the risks and/or symptoms associated with GnRH agonists. Two advantages of GnRH antagonists for patients, Dr. Taylor said, are that they have a fast onset of action and are oral rather than injectable.
“These drugs [GnRH antagonists] cause competitive blockage of the GnRH receptor and hence dose-dependently suppress production of FSH and LH and inhibit secretion of ovarian steroid hormones without inducing a flare-up effect,” Belgian physicians and researchers Jacques Donnez, MD, and Marie-Madeleine Dolmans, MD, PhD, wrote in a paper published last year in the Journal of Clinical Medicine. “The mechanism is different from that of the GnRH agonist which, after a first phase of stimulation, desensitizes GnRH receptors, leading to full suppression of LH and FSH production and subsequently to complete suppression of [estrogen] to levels similar to those observed after bilateral oophorectomy.”
Patients who took Elagolix, the first oral nonpeptide GnRH antagonist available for the treatment of moderate to severe endometriosis-associated pain, had fewer vasomotor side effects and less bone density loss than those on the GnRH agonist leuprorelin, according to a 2018 study in Obstetrics and Gynecology. However, without add-back hormone-replacement therapy, GnRH antagonist use may need to be limited to 24 months, because of loss of bone density, a study in Cell Reports Medicine reported in 2022.
Attempting to explain the pathogenesis of endometriosis, and frustrated by the shortcomings of currently available therapies, researchers have turned to genetics for insight. A team of scientists led by Thomas Tapmeier, PhD, now a senior research fellow at Monash University in Australia, and Prof. Krina Zondervan at the University of Oxford, ran genetic analyses of families with a history of endometriosis, as well as rhesus macaques that spontaneously developed endometriosis. The research, published in Science Translational Medicine, identified NPSR1, the gene encoding neuropeptide S receptor 1, as one commonly associated with endometriosis. In trials with mouse models, they found that the NPSR1 inhibitor SHA 68R was able to reduce endometriosis-related inflammation and pain.
“It’s important to stress that there is no single gene that is responsible for endometriosis,” Dr. Tapmeier said in an interview. “This gene just has a higher frequency in people with endometriosis.”
The next step, then, would be to try to find a compound that would inhibit NPSR1 at some point, or a competitor to the ligand that binds to the receptor and blocks it, he said.
“We’re currently looking at compounds that might be able to inhibit the receptor signaling,” he said.
Such a therapy could potentially reduce the symptoms of endometriosis without interfering with the menstrual cycle and without introducing hormones that cause undesirable side effects in some patients.
“This might be a way to treat the pain and inflammation that goes with endometriosis, as well as leaving the possibility of pregnancy open,” he said.
Other researchers are searching for biomarkers of the disease, both to provide a definitive, nonsurgical diagnostic tool, and for potential, individualized treatment.
In a study published in Nature Genetics, researchers at Cedars-Sinai created a “cellular atlas” of endometriosis by analyzing nearly 400,000 individual cells from 21 patients, some of whom had the disease and some of whom did not. A new technology, single-cell genomics, allowed the scientists to profile the multiple cell types contributing to the disease.
“So the initial question we wanted to ask was about understanding how the cells look in endometriosis, compared to endometrium,” said Kate Lawrenson, PhD, an associate professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Cedars-Sinai, and co–senior author of the study. “We know that they resemble the cells of the womb, but we really don’t understand if they behave the same. We had a good inkling that they would behave differently.”
It turned out they did: Cells of endometriosis interacted atypically with female hormones, compared with cells in the uterus, Dr. Lawrenson said.
“That helps us understand how, even when patients take contraceptive pills, which is a commonly prescribed therapy, it doesn’t always work, or sometimes it stops working after a while,” she said. The next step for researchers, she said, will be to pinpoint the specific causes of these altered interactions.
Meanwhile, the current research also points to diagnostic possibilities. “We were quite excited to see that multiple cell types and endometriosis are upregulating the same sets of genes,” she said. “That makes us optimistic that hopefully there are some protein gene products that are being made in abundance, and hopefully we can detect them in the blood stream. It might be that we could use that information to develop new biomarkers, or even risk stratification tools.”
In the future, a simple blood test could identify signs of endometriosis in at-risk patients and get them “fast-tracked to a specialist for evaluation,” she said. “Whereas now, they might go from PCP to gynecologist to a different gynecologist over the course of 5-10 years before they get that referral.”
This discovery, that endometrial cells use genes differently and cross-talk with nearby cells differently, presents new treatment possibilities. Maybe we can physically block how cells interact with nearby cells, Dr. Lawrenson said. One model for doing that, she said, would be antibody-based therapy, similar to the therapies now changing the treatment of cancer.
What’s most exciting, looking ahead 5-10 years, is that treatment for endometriosis in the future may be significantly more individualized, and less hormone-based, than it is today.
“What we need for endometriosis is more options for patients and something that is tailored to the molecular makeup of their disease rather than a process of trial and error,” she said.
Roughly 4 decades after she first started menstruating, Elizabeth Flanagan finally underwent surgery to repair damage wreaked on her body by endometriosis. She’d spent years struggling with a variety of seemingly random symptoms, from migraines to excruciatingly painful periods to fatigue and irritable bowel syndrome. She’d worried about abnormal labs, including “extremely high” ANA, creatinine, and BUN blood test results that had been out of normal range for more than 10 years.
She was diagnosed with endometriosis in 2016, at age 47, after surgery to remove an ovarian cyst. Still, it took 5 more years before she landed in the office of a surgeon with the proper training to excise the lesions that continued to cause her so much anguish. That physician, Matthew Siedhoff, MD, at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, explained why her creatinine and BUN results were so far out of range: The endometriosis was impinging on her ureters.
The appointment left Ms. Flanagan with a range of emotions. “I was shocked that no doctor had identified this before, relieved knowing that I was finally in the hands of an expert who understood my condition, and saddened by the dearth of knowledge and proper treatment of endometriosis,” she wrote in an email.
Although the disease afflicts at least 1 out of every 10 women, endometriosis remains a conundrum for patients and their physicians. It often masquerades as other problems, from mental health issues such as anxiety and depression to physical issues such as irritable bowel syndrome. It often coexists with autoimmune conditions. Short of performing surgery, it can be a diagnosis of exclusion. And the existing, state-of-the-art treatment – hormone therapy that shuts down the reproductive system – doesn’t work for every woman every time.
“It is no wonder that it takes 10 years on average, from the time someone has symptoms of endometriosis, until they get a definitive diagnosis,” said Hugh Taylor, MD, chair of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “It’s a combination of [physicians] not taking painful menses seriously and getting distracted by all these other manifestations of the disease throughout the whole body.”
Endometriosis, he said, “is a whole-body disease.”
But recent genetic research offers the tantalizing prospect of new diagnostic tools and treatments. In 5-10 years, scientists say, physicians may be able to diagnose the disease with a simple blood test, and treat it, for example, by preventing a gene receptor from initiating a cascade of inflammatory effects, or crafting treatments tailored to the molecular makeup of a patient’s disease.
“Tomorrow’s therapies will target specifically the molecular defects of endometriosis and be nonhormonal,” Dr. Taylor said.
Guidelines published last year by the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology detail the latest standards for diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis.
According to the guidelines, physicians should consider the diagnosis of endometriosis in individuals presenting with the following cyclical and noncyclical signs and symptoms: dysmenorrhea, deep dyspareunia, dysuria, dyschezia, painful rectal bleeding or hematuria, shoulder tip pain, catamenial pneumothorax, cyclical cough/hemoptysis/chest pain, cyclical scar swelling, and pain, fatigue, and infertility.
A clinical exam should be considered, as well as imaging such as ultrasound and/or MRI, the guidelines state, although negative findings should not rule out a diagnosis. Laparoscopy is also an option, particularly for patients who desire a definitive diagnosis or cannot be diagnosed any other way, “although negative histology [of endometriotic lesions] does not entirely rule out the disease,” the guidelines state.
To treat the pain associated with endometriosis, the guidelines advise, as a first-line therapy, beginning with NSAIDs and combined hormonal contraceptives (in oral, vaginal, or transdermal form). Another option is progesterone, including progesterone-only contraceptives, with a recommendation to prescribe a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system or an etonogestrel-releasing subdermal implant to reduce endometriosis-associated pain.
However, progestins and low-dose oral contraceptives are “unsuccessful in a third of women,” Dr. Taylor and his coauthors wrote in a paper published in 2021 in The Lancet.
Until recently, the gold standard for second-line treatment of endometriosis was oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists. These manage the disease by inducing medical menopause – they downregulate pituitary GnRH receptors to create a hypoestrogenic state characterized by low serum levels of luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH). GnRH agonists may be administered nasally, or through daily, monthly, or trimonthly injections. But the Food and Drug Administration advises that, when used for longer than 6 months, GnRH agonists be paired with add-back hormone replacement therapy to reduce the risk of bone loss associated with the plunge in hormone levels. Also, treatment may not be appropriate for patients who, when suddenly forced into menopause, suffer from bothersome symptoms.
The latest treatment, GnRH antagonists, are new options for patients who either do not respond adequately to progestins and low-dose contraceptives or develop progesterone resistance, and want to avoid some of the risks and/or symptoms associated with GnRH agonists. Two advantages of GnRH antagonists for patients, Dr. Taylor said, are that they have a fast onset of action and are oral rather than injectable.
“These drugs [GnRH antagonists] cause competitive blockage of the GnRH receptor and hence dose-dependently suppress production of FSH and LH and inhibit secretion of ovarian steroid hormones without inducing a flare-up effect,” Belgian physicians and researchers Jacques Donnez, MD, and Marie-Madeleine Dolmans, MD, PhD, wrote in a paper published last year in the Journal of Clinical Medicine. “The mechanism is different from that of the GnRH agonist which, after a first phase of stimulation, desensitizes GnRH receptors, leading to full suppression of LH and FSH production and subsequently to complete suppression of [estrogen] to levels similar to those observed after bilateral oophorectomy.”
Patients who took Elagolix, the first oral nonpeptide GnRH antagonist available for the treatment of moderate to severe endometriosis-associated pain, had fewer vasomotor side effects and less bone density loss than those on the GnRH agonist leuprorelin, according to a 2018 study in Obstetrics and Gynecology. However, without add-back hormone-replacement therapy, GnRH antagonist use may need to be limited to 24 months, because of loss of bone density, a study in Cell Reports Medicine reported in 2022.
Attempting to explain the pathogenesis of endometriosis, and frustrated by the shortcomings of currently available therapies, researchers have turned to genetics for insight. A team of scientists led by Thomas Tapmeier, PhD, now a senior research fellow at Monash University in Australia, and Prof. Krina Zondervan at the University of Oxford, ran genetic analyses of families with a history of endometriosis, as well as rhesus macaques that spontaneously developed endometriosis. The research, published in Science Translational Medicine, identified NPSR1, the gene encoding neuropeptide S receptor 1, as one commonly associated with endometriosis. In trials with mouse models, they found that the NPSR1 inhibitor SHA 68R was able to reduce endometriosis-related inflammation and pain.
“It’s important to stress that there is no single gene that is responsible for endometriosis,” Dr. Tapmeier said in an interview. “This gene just has a higher frequency in people with endometriosis.”
The next step, then, would be to try to find a compound that would inhibit NPSR1 at some point, or a competitor to the ligand that binds to the receptor and blocks it, he said.
“We’re currently looking at compounds that might be able to inhibit the receptor signaling,” he said.
Such a therapy could potentially reduce the symptoms of endometriosis without interfering with the menstrual cycle and without introducing hormones that cause undesirable side effects in some patients.
“This might be a way to treat the pain and inflammation that goes with endometriosis, as well as leaving the possibility of pregnancy open,” he said.
Other researchers are searching for biomarkers of the disease, both to provide a definitive, nonsurgical diagnostic tool, and for potential, individualized treatment.
In a study published in Nature Genetics, researchers at Cedars-Sinai created a “cellular atlas” of endometriosis by analyzing nearly 400,000 individual cells from 21 patients, some of whom had the disease and some of whom did not. A new technology, single-cell genomics, allowed the scientists to profile the multiple cell types contributing to the disease.
“So the initial question we wanted to ask was about understanding how the cells look in endometriosis, compared to endometrium,” said Kate Lawrenson, PhD, an associate professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Cedars-Sinai, and co–senior author of the study. “We know that they resemble the cells of the womb, but we really don’t understand if they behave the same. We had a good inkling that they would behave differently.”
It turned out they did: Cells of endometriosis interacted atypically with female hormones, compared with cells in the uterus, Dr. Lawrenson said.
“That helps us understand how, even when patients take contraceptive pills, which is a commonly prescribed therapy, it doesn’t always work, or sometimes it stops working after a while,” she said. The next step for researchers, she said, will be to pinpoint the specific causes of these altered interactions.
Meanwhile, the current research also points to diagnostic possibilities. “We were quite excited to see that multiple cell types and endometriosis are upregulating the same sets of genes,” she said. “That makes us optimistic that hopefully there are some protein gene products that are being made in abundance, and hopefully we can detect them in the blood stream. It might be that we could use that information to develop new biomarkers, or even risk stratification tools.”
In the future, a simple blood test could identify signs of endometriosis in at-risk patients and get them “fast-tracked to a specialist for evaluation,” she said. “Whereas now, they might go from PCP to gynecologist to a different gynecologist over the course of 5-10 years before they get that referral.”
This discovery, that endometrial cells use genes differently and cross-talk with nearby cells differently, presents new treatment possibilities. Maybe we can physically block how cells interact with nearby cells, Dr. Lawrenson said. One model for doing that, she said, would be antibody-based therapy, similar to the therapies now changing the treatment of cancer.
What’s most exciting, looking ahead 5-10 years, is that treatment for endometriosis in the future may be significantly more individualized, and less hormone-based, than it is today.
“What we need for endometriosis is more options for patients and something that is tailored to the molecular makeup of their disease rather than a process of trial and error,” she said.
The long-range thrombolysis forecast calls for tiny ultrasonic tornadoes
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but clots will never hurt me
You’ve probably seen “Ghostbusters” or at least heard the theme song. Maybe you even know about the Discovery Channel’s “Mythbusters.” But now there’s a new buster in town, and it eats platitudes for breakfast: Meet Cliche-busters, LOTME’s new recurring feature.
This week, Cliche-busters takes on “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” Yum.
We start with blood clots, which are bad. Doctors go to a lot of trouble to get rid of the things because they are dangerous. A blood clot, then, is a bodily function gone wrong.
Tornadoes are also bad. Out there in the world, these violently rotating columns of air can destroy buildings, toss large objects long distances, and inspire mediocre action movies. They are examples of nature gone wrong.
Seemingly, these two wrongs – blood clots and tornadoes – are not about to make a right. Has Cliche-busters bitten off more than it can chew?
Not according to Xiaoning Jiang of North Carolina State University, Raleigh, and his team of researchers. They’ve figured out a way to use a tiny ultrasonic tornado to break down clots in the brain. “Our new work uses vortex ultrasound, where the ultrasound waves have a helical wavefront. In other words, the ultrasound is swirling as it moves forward,” he said in a statement from the university.
Their new tool’s single transducer is small enough to fit in a catheter, and its “vortex ultrasound-induced shear force has the potential to break down clots safely and improve the efficacy of thrombolysis,” they explained in the open-access journal Research.
The investigators used cow blood in a 3D-printed model of the cerebral venous sinus for the proof-of-concept study and were able to dissolve an acute blood clot in less than 30 minutes, compared with the 15-30 hours needed with a pharmaceutical intervention, according to the written statement.
Can you hear the sound of two wrongs making a right? We can, and that closes the curtain on this cliche.
With age does not come wisdom
We’ve all met this person before. The sort of person who takes a 10-minute IQ test on a shifty-looking website and then proceeds to brag about a 180 IQ until the heat death of the universe. The one who worships at the altar of Mensa. Yeah, that guy. They’re never as smart as they think they are, but they’ll never, ever admit it.
It’s not exactly a secret that IQ as a measurement of intelligence is highly overrated. A lot of scientists doubt we should bother measuring it at all. That said, a higher IQ is associated with greater success in academic and financial endeavors, so it’s not absolutely worthless. And if we’re stuck with it, we may as well study it.
That brings us neatly to new research published in Brain and Behavior. Most studies into IQ and self-estimated intelligence have focused on younger adults, and the author of this study was curious if the stereotype of young men inflating their IQ, a stereotype backed up by research, persisted into older adulthood. So she conducted a survey of 159 younger adults and 152 older adults to find out.
The results in younger adults were not surprising: Younger men overestimated their actual IQ by 5-15 points, which tracks with previous research. We’re in for a bit of a surprise with the older adults, though, because the older men were more humble about their intelligence, with their estimation falling in line with their actual IQ. Older women, however, not so much. In fact, they overestimated their intelligence just as much as the younger men.
In addition, older women who perceived themselves as more attractive reported the highest self-estimated intelligence of all. That isn’t how intelligence works, but honestly, if Grandma’s out and about thinking she looks good and has the brains to go and win “Jeopardy!” do you really have the heart to tell her otherwise?
Fight temptation with empathy … and shoes
Relationships are tough. They all go through their respective ups and downs, but what happens when one person is feeling so down in the partnership that cheating comes to mind? Is there any way to stop it from happening?
Well, a recent study suggests that there is, and it’s as simple as putting yourself in the other person’s shoes. By observing 408 heterosexual, monogamous participants in a series of experiments, psychologists in Israel and New York found that practicing empathy and “perspective taking” doesn’t necessarily stop people from cheating but it does reduces the desire.
People cheat on their significant others for many different reasons – men for a lack of sexual needs being met and women for shortfalls regarding emotional needs – but prioritizing the other person’s perspective gives the idea of being unfaithful a different view and could make one act differently, the investigators said.
Perspective taking also promotes other positive attributes to the relationship, such as the promotion of compassion and the feeling of being understood, lead author Gurit Birnbaum of Reichman University in Herzliya, Israel, said in a written statement. These things ultimately help couples navigate the rough patches and strengthen bonds, making them even less likely to cheat.
The researchers noted that even people in satisfying relationships do cheat, but this approach does encourage people to stop and think before they act. It could ultimately prevent what might be a huge mistake.
Think before they act. Hmm, that’s kind of like look before they leap, right? Sounds like a job for the Cliche-busters.
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but clots will never hurt me
You’ve probably seen “Ghostbusters” or at least heard the theme song. Maybe you even know about the Discovery Channel’s “Mythbusters.” But now there’s a new buster in town, and it eats platitudes for breakfast: Meet Cliche-busters, LOTME’s new recurring feature.
This week, Cliche-busters takes on “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” Yum.
We start with blood clots, which are bad. Doctors go to a lot of trouble to get rid of the things because they are dangerous. A blood clot, then, is a bodily function gone wrong.
Tornadoes are also bad. Out there in the world, these violently rotating columns of air can destroy buildings, toss large objects long distances, and inspire mediocre action movies. They are examples of nature gone wrong.
Seemingly, these two wrongs – blood clots and tornadoes – are not about to make a right. Has Cliche-busters bitten off more than it can chew?
Not according to Xiaoning Jiang of North Carolina State University, Raleigh, and his team of researchers. They’ve figured out a way to use a tiny ultrasonic tornado to break down clots in the brain. “Our new work uses vortex ultrasound, where the ultrasound waves have a helical wavefront. In other words, the ultrasound is swirling as it moves forward,” he said in a statement from the university.
Their new tool’s single transducer is small enough to fit in a catheter, and its “vortex ultrasound-induced shear force has the potential to break down clots safely and improve the efficacy of thrombolysis,” they explained in the open-access journal Research.
The investigators used cow blood in a 3D-printed model of the cerebral venous sinus for the proof-of-concept study and were able to dissolve an acute blood clot in less than 30 minutes, compared with the 15-30 hours needed with a pharmaceutical intervention, according to the written statement.
Can you hear the sound of two wrongs making a right? We can, and that closes the curtain on this cliche.
With age does not come wisdom
We’ve all met this person before. The sort of person who takes a 10-minute IQ test on a shifty-looking website and then proceeds to brag about a 180 IQ until the heat death of the universe. The one who worships at the altar of Mensa. Yeah, that guy. They’re never as smart as they think they are, but they’ll never, ever admit it.
It’s not exactly a secret that IQ as a measurement of intelligence is highly overrated. A lot of scientists doubt we should bother measuring it at all. That said, a higher IQ is associated with greater success in academic and financial endeavors, so it’s not absolutely worthless. And if we’re stuck with it, we may as well study it.
That brings us neatly to new research published in Brain and Behavior. Most studies into IQ and self-estimated intelligence have focused on younger adults, and the author of this study was curious if the stereotype of young men inflating their IQ, a stereotype backed up by research, persisted into older adulthood. So she conducted a survey of 159 younger adults and 152 older adults to find out.
The results in younger adults were not surprising: Younger men overestimated their actual IQ by 5-15 points, which tracks with previous research. We’re in for a bit of a surprise with the older adults, though, because the older men were more humble about their intelligence, with their estimation falling in line with their actual IQ. Older women, however, not so much. In fact, they overestimated their intelligence just as much as the younger men.
In addition, older women who perceived themselves as more attractive reported the highest self-estimated intelligence of all. That isn’t how intelligence works, but honestly, if Grandma’s out and about thinking she looks good and has the brains to go and win “Jeopardy!” do you really have the heart to tell her otherwise?
Fight temptation with empathy … and shoes
Relationships are tough. They all go through their respective ups and downs, but what happens when one person is feeling so down in the partnership that cheating comes to mind? Is there any way to stop it from happening?
Well, a recent study suggests that there is, and it’s as simple as putting yourself in the other person’s shoes. By observing 408 heterosexual, monogamous participants in a series of experiments, psychologists in Israel and New York found that practicing empathy and “perspective taking” doesn’t necessarily stop people from cheating but it does reduces the desire.
People cheat on their significant others for many different reasons – men for a lack of sexual needs being met and women for shortfalls regarding emotional needs – but prioritizing the other person’s perspective gives the idea of being unfaithful a different view and could make one act differently, the investigators said.
Perspective taking also promotes other positive attributes to the relationship, such as the promotion of compassion and the feeling of being understood, lead author Gurit Birnbaum of Reichman University in Herzliya, Israel, said in a written statement. These things ultimately help couples navigate the rough patches and strengthen bonds, making them even less likely to cheat.
The researchers noted that even people in satisfying relationships do cheat, but this approach does encourage people to stop and think before they act. It could ultimately prevent what might be a huge mistake.
Think before they act. Hmm, that’s kind of like look before they leap, right? Sounds like a job for the Cliche-busters.
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but clots will never hurt me
You’ve probably seen “Ghostbusters” or at least heard the theme song. Maybe you even know about the Discovery Channel’s “Mythbusters.” But now there’s a new buster in town, and it eats platitudes for breakfast: Meet Cliche-busters, LOTME’s new recurring feature.
This week, Cliche-busters takes on “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” Yum.
We start with blood clots, which are bad. Doctors go to a lot of trouble to get rid of the things because they are dangerous. A blood clot, then, is a bodily function gone wrong.
Tornadoes are also bad. Out there in the world, these violently rotating columns of air can destroy buildings, toss large objects long distances, and inspire mediocre action movies. They are examples of nature gone wrong.
Seemingly, these two wrongs – blood clots and tornadoes – are not about to make a right. Has Cliche-busters bitten off more than it can chew?
Not according to Xiaoning Jiang of North Carolina State University, Raleigh, and his team of researchers. They’ve figured out a way to use a tiny ultrasonic tornado to break down clots in the brain. “Our new work uses vortex ultrasound, where the ultrasound waves have a helical wavefront. In other words, the ultrasound is swirling as it moves forward,” he said in a statement from the university.
Their new tool’s single transducer is small enough to fit in a catheter, and its “vortex ultrasound-induced shear force has the potential to break down clots safely and improve the efficacy of thrombolysis,” they explained in the open-access journal Research.
The investigators used cow blood in a 3D-printed model of the cerebral venous sinus for the proof-of-concept study and were able to dissolve an acute blood clot in less than 30 minutes, compared with the 15-30 hours needed with a pharmaceutical intervention, according to the written statement.
Can you hear the sound of two wrongs making a right? We can, and that closes the curtain on this cliche.
With age does not come wisdom
We’ve all met this person before. The sort of person who takes a 10-minute IQ test on a shifty-looking website and then proceeds to brag about a 180 IQ until the heat death of the universe. The one who worships at the altar of Mensa. Yeah, that guy. They’re never as smart as they think they are, but they’ll never, ever admit it.
It’s not exactly a secret that IQ as a measurement of intelligence is highly overrated. A lot of scientists doubt we should bother measuring it at all. That said, a higher IQ is associated with greater success in academic and financial endeavors, so it’s not absolutely worthless. And if we’re stuck with it, we may as well study it.
That brings us neatly to new research published in Brain and Behavior. Most studies into IQ and self-estimated intelligence have focused on younger adults, and the author of this study was curious if the stereotype of young men inflating their IQ, a stereotype backed up by research, persisted into older adulthood. So she conducted a survey of 159 younger adults and 152 older adults to find out.
The results in younger adults were not surprising: Younger men overestimated their actual IQ by 5-15 points, which tracks with previous research. We’re in for a bit of a surprise with the older adults, though, because the older men were more humble about their intelligence, with their estimation falling in line with their actual IQ. Older women, however, not so much. In fact, they overestimated their intelligence just as much as the younger men.
In addition, older women who perceived themselves as more attractive reported the highest self-estimated intelligence of all. That isn’t how intelligence works, but honestly, if Grandma’s out and about thinking she looks good and has the brains to go and win “Jeopardy!” do you really have the heart to tell her otherwise?
Fight temptation with empathy … and shoes
Relationships are tough. They all go through their respective ups and downs, but what happens when one person is feeling so down in the partnership that cheating comes to mind? Is there any way to stop it from happening?
Well, a recent study suggests that there is, and it’s as simple as putting yourself in the other person’s shoes. By observing 408 heterosexual, monogamous participants in a series of experiments, psychologists in Israel and New York found that practicing empathy and “perspective taking” doesn’t necessarily stop people from cheating but it does reduces the desire.
People cheat on their significant others for many different reasons – men for a lack of sexual needs being met and women for shortfalls regarding emotional needs – but prioritizing the other person’s perspective gives the idea of being unfaithful a different view and could make one act differently, the investigators said.
Perspective taking also promotes other positive attributes to the relationship, such as the promotion of compassion and the feeling of being understood, lead author Gurit Birnbaum of Reichman University in Herzliya, Israel, said in a written statement. These things ultimately help couples navigate the rough patches and strengthen bonds, making them even less likely to cheat.
The researchers noted that even people in satisfying relationships do cheat, but this approach does encourage people to stop and think before they act. It could ultimately prevent what might be a huge mistake.
Think before they act. Hmm, that’s kind of like look before they leap, right? Sounds like a job for the Cliche-busters.
Running does not cause lasting cartilage damage
Running does not appear to cause sustained wear and tear of healthy knee cartilage, with research suggesting that the small, short-term changes to cartilage after a run reverse within hours.
A systematic review and meta-analysis published in the most recent issue of Osteoarthritis and Cartilage presents the findings involving 396 adults, which compared the “before” and “after” state of healthy knee cartilage in runners.
Running is often thought to be detrimental to joint health, wrote Sally Coburn, PhD candidate at the La Trobe Sport & Exercise Medicine Research Centre at La Trobe University in Melbourne and coauthors, but this perception is not supported by evidence.
For the analysis, the researchers included studies that looked at either knee or hip cartilage using MRI to assess its size, shape, structure, and/or composition both in the 48 hours before a single bout of running and in the 48 hours after. The analysis aimed to include adults with or at risk of osteoarthritis, but only 57 of the 446 knees in the analysis fit these criteria.
In studies where participants underwent MRI within 20 minutes of running, there was an immediate postrun decrease in the volume of cartilage, ranging from –3.3% for weight-bearing femoral cartilage to –4.1% for tibial cartilage volume. This also revealed a decrease in T1 and T2 relaxation times, which are specialized MRI measures that reflect the composition of cartilage and which can indicate a breakdown of cartilage structure in the case of diseases such as arthritis.
Reversal of short-term cartilage changes
However, within 48 hours of the run, data from studies that repeated the MRIs more than once after the initial prerun scan suggested these changes reversed back to prerun levels.
“We were able to pool delayed T2 relaxation time measures from studies that repeated scans of the same participants 60 minutes and 91 minutes post-run and found no effect of running on tibiofemoral joint cartilage composition,” the authors write.
For example, one study in marathon runners found no difference in cartilage thickness in the tibiofemoral joint between baseline and at 2-10 hours and 12 hours after the marathon. Another showed the immediate post-run decrease in patellofemoral joint cartilage thickness had reverted back to prerun levels when the scan was repeated 24 hours after the run.
“The changes are very minimal and not inconsistent with what’s expected for your cartilage which is functioning normally,” Ms. Coburn told this news organization.
Sparse data in people with osteoarthritis
The authors said there were not enough data from individuals with osteoarthritis to be able to pool and quantify their cartilage changes. However, one study in the analysis found that cartilage lesions in people considered at risk of osteoarthritis because of prior anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction were unchanged after running.
Another suggested that the decrease in femoral cartilage volume recorded at 15 minutes persisted at 45 minutes, while a separate study found significantly increased T2 relaxation times at 45 minutes after a run in those with knee osteoarthritis but not in those without osteoarthritis.
Senior author Adam Culvenor, PhD, senior research fellow at the La Trobe Centre, said their analysis suggested running was healthy, with small changes in cartilage that resolve quickly, but “we really don’t know yet if running is safe for people with osteoarthritis,” he said. “We need much more work in that space.”
Overall, the study evidence was rated as being of low certainty, which Dr. Coburn said was related to the small numbers in each study, which in turn relates to the cost and logistical challenges of the specialized MRI scan used.
“Study of a repeated exposure over a long duration of time on a disease that has a long natural history, like osteoarthritis, is challenging in that most funding agencies will not fund studies longer than 5 years,” Grace Hsiao-Wei Lo, MD, of the department of immunology, allergy, and rheumatology at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said in an email.
Dr. Lo, who was not involved with this review and meta-analysis, said there are still concerns about the effect of running on knee osteoarthritis among those with the disease, although there are some data to suggest that among those who self-select to run, there are no negative outcomes for the knee.
An accompanying editorial noted that research into the effect of running on those with osteoarthritis was still in its infancy. “This would help to guide clinical practice on how to support people with osteoarthritis, with regard to accessing the health benefits of running participation,” write Jean-Francois Esculier, PT, PhD, from the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and Christian Barton, PhD, with the La Trobe Centre, pointing out there were a lack of evidence-based clinical recommendations for people with osteoarthritis who want to start or continue running.
It’s a question that PhD candidate Michaela Khan, MSc, is trying to answer at the University of British Columbia. “Our lab did a pilot study for my current study now, and they found that osteoarthritic cartilage took a little bit longer to recover than their healthy counterparts,” Ms. Khan said. Her research is suggesting that people with osteoarthritis not only can run, but even those with severe disease, who might be candidates for knee replacement, can run long distances.
Commenting on the analysis, Ms. Khan said the main take-home message was that healthy cartilage seems to recover after running, and that there is not an ongoing effect of ‘wear and tear.’
“That’s changing the narrative that if you keep running, it will wear away your cartilage, it’ll hurt your knees,” she said. “Now, we have a good synthesis of scientific evidence to prove maybe otherwise.”
Ms. Coburn and Dr. Culvenor report grant support from the National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia, and another author reports grant support from the U.S. National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The authors, as well as Dr. Lo and Ms. Khan, report relevant financial relationships.
Running does not appear to cause sustained wear and tear of healthy knee cartilage, with research suggesting that the small, short-term changes to cartilage after a run reverse within hours.
A systematic review and meta-analysis published in the most recent issue of Osteoarthritis and Cartilage presents the findings involving 396 adults, which compared the “before” and “after” state of healthy knee cartilage in runners.
Running is often thought to be detrimental to joint health, wrote Sally Coburn, PhD candidate at the La Trobe Sport & Exercise Medicine Research Centre at La Trobe University in Melbourne and coauthors, but this perception is not supported by evidence.
For the analysis, the researchers included studies that looked at either knee or hip cartilage using MRI to assess its size, shape, structure, and/or composition both in the 48 hours before a single bout of running and in the 48 hours after. The analysis aimed to include adults with or at risk of osteoarthritis, but only 57 of the 446 knees in the analysis fit these criteria.
In studies where participants underwent MRI within 20 minutes of running, there was an immediate postrun decrease in the volume of cartilage, ranging from –3.3% for weight-bearing femoral cartilage to –4.1% for tibial cartilage volume. This also revealed a decrease in T1 and T2 relaxation times, which are specialized MRI measures that reflect the composition of cartilage and which can indicate a breakdown of cartilage structure in the case of diseases such as arthritis.
Reversal of short-term cartilage changes
However, within 48 hours of the run, data from studies that repeated the MRIs more than once after the initial prerun scan suggested these changes reversed back to prerun levels.
“We were able to pool delayed T2 relaxation time measures from studies that repeated scans of the same participants 60 minutes and 91 minutes post-run and found no effect of running on tibiofemoral joint cartilage composition,” the authors write.
For example, one study in marathon runners found no difference in cartilage thickness in the tibiofemoral joint between baseline and at 2-10 hours and 12 hours after the marathon. Another showed the immediate post-run decrease in patellofemoral joint cartilage thickness had reverted back to prerun levels when the scan was repeated 24 hours after the run.
“The changes are very minimal and not inconsistent with what’s expected for your cartilage which is functioning normally,” Ms. Coburn told this news organization.
Sparse data in people with osteoarthritis
The authors said there were not enough data from individuals with osteoarthritis to be able to pool and quantify their cartilage changes. However, one study in the analysis found that cartilage lesions in people considered at risk of osteoarthritis because of prior anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction were unchanged after running.
Another suggested that the decrease in femoral cartilage volume recorded at 15 minutes persisted at 45 minutes, while a separate study found significantly increased T2 relaxation times at 45 minutes after a run in those with knee osteoarthritis but not in those without osteoarthritis.
Senior author Adam Culvenor, PhD, senior research fellow at the La Trobe Centre, said their analysis suggested running was healthy, with small changes in cartilage that resolve quickly, but “we really don’t know yet if running is safe for people with osteoarthritis,” he said. “We need much more work in that space.”
Overall, the study evidence was rated as being of low certainty, which Dr. Coburn said was related to the small numbers in each study, which in turn relates to the cost and logistical challenges of the specialized MRI scan used.
“Study of a repeated exposure over a long duration of time on a disease that has a long natural history, like osteoarthritis, is challenging in that most funding agencies will not fund studies longer than 5 years,” Grace Hsiao-Wei Lo, MD, of the department of immunology, allergy, and rheumatology at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said in an email.
Dr. Lo, who was not involved with this review and meta-analysis, said there are still concerns about the effect of running on knee osteoarthritis among those with the disease, although there are some data to suggest that among those who self-select to run, there are no negative outcomes for the knee.
An accompanying editorial noted that research into the effect of running on those with osteoarthritis was still in its infancy. “This would help to guide clinical practice on how to support people with osteoarthritis, with regard to accessing the health benefits of running participation,” write Jean-Francois Esculier, PT, PhD, from the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and Christian Barton, PhD, with the La Trobe Centre, pointing out there were a lack of evidence-based clinical recommendations for people with osteoarthritis who want to start or continue running.
It’s a question that PhD candidate Michaela Khan, MSc, is trying to answer at the University of British Columbia. “Our lab did a pilot study for my current study now, and they found that osteoarthritic cartilage took a little bit longer to recover than their healthy counterparts,” Ms. Khan said. Her research is suggesting that people with osteoarthritis not only can run, but even those with severe disease, who might be candidates for knee replacement, can run long distances.
Commenting on the analysis, Ms. Khan said the main take-home message was that healthy cartilage seems to recover after running, and that there is not an ongoing effect of ‘wear and tear.’
“That’s changing the narrative that if you keep running, it will wear away your cartilage, it’ll hurt your knees,” she said. “Now, we have a good synthesis of scientific evidence to prove maybe otherwise.”
Ms. Coburn and Dr. Culvenor report grant support from the National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia, and another author reports grant support from the U.S. National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The authors, as well as Dr. Lo and Ms. Khan, report relevant financial relationships.
Running does not appear to cause sustained wear and tear of healthy knee cartilage, with research suggesting that the small, short-term changes to cartilage after a run reverse within hours.
A systematic review and meta-analysis published in the most recent issue of Osteoarthritis and Cartilage presents the findings involving 396 adults, which compared the “before” and “after” state of healthy knee cartilage in runners.
Running is often thought to be detrimental to joint health, wrote Sally Coburn, PhD candidate at the La Trobe Sport & Exercise Medicine Research Centre at La Trobe University in Melbourne and coauthors, but this perception is not supported by evidence.
For the analysis, the researchers included studies that looked at either knee or hip cartilage using MRI to assess its size, shape, structure, and/or composition both in the 48 hours before a single bout of running and in the 48 hours after. The analysis aimed to include adults with or at risk of osteoarthritis, but only 57 of the 446 knees in the analysis fit these criteria.
In studies where participants underwent MRI within 20 minutes of running, there was an immediate postrun decrease in the volume of cartilage, ranging from –3.3% for weight-bearing femoral cartilage to –4.1% for tibial cartilage volume. This also revealed a decrease in T1 and T2 relaxation times, which are specialized MRI measures that reflect the composition of cartilage and which can indicate a breakdown of cartilage structure in the case of diseases such as arthritis.
Reversal of short-term cartilage changes
However, within 48 hours of the run, data from studies that repeated the MRIs more than once after the initial prerun scan suggested these changes reversed back to prerun levels.
“We were able to pool delayed T2 relaxation time measures from studies that repeated scans of the same participants 60 minutes and 91 minutes post-run and found no effect of running on tibiofemoral joint cartilage composition,” the authors write.
For example, one study in marathon runners found no difference in cartilage thickness in the tibiofemoral joint between baseline and at 2-10 hours and 12 hours after the marathon. Another showed the immediate post-run decrease in patellofemoral joint cartilage thickness had reverted back to prerun levels when the scan was repeated 24 hours after the run.
“The changes are very minimal and not inconsistent with what’s expected for your cartilage which is functioning normally,” Ms. Coburn told this news organization.
Sparse data in people with osteoarthritis
The authors said there were not enough data from individuals with osteoarthritis to be able to pool and quantify their cartilage changes. However, one study in the analysis found that cartilage lesions in people considered at risk of osteoarthritis because of prior anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction were unchanged after running.
Another suggested that the decrease in femoral cartilage volume recorded at 15 minutes persisted at 45 minutes, while a separate study found significantly increased T2 relaxation times at 45 minutes after a run in those with knee osteoarthritis but not in those without osteoarthritis.
Senior author Adam Culvenor, PhD, senior research fellow at the La Trobe Centre, said their analysis suggested running was healthy, with small changes in cartilage that resolve quickly, but “we really don’t know yet if running is safe for people with osteoarthritis,” he said. “We need much more work in that space.”
Overall, the study evidence was rated as being of low certainty, which Dr. Coburn said was related to the small numbers in each study, which in turn relates to the cost and logistical challenges of the specialized MRI scan used.
“Study of a repeated exposure over a long duration of time on a disease that has a long natural history, like osteoarthritis, is challenging in that most funding agencies will not fund studies longer than 5 years,” Grace Hsiao-Wei Lo, MD, of the department of immunology, allergy, and rheumatology at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said in an email.
Dr. Lo, who was not involved with this review and meta-analysis, said there are still concerns about the effect of running on knee osteoarthritis among those with the disease, although there are some data to suggest that among those who self-select to run, there are no negative outcomes for the knee.
An accompanying editorial noted that research into the effect of running on those with osteoarthritis was still in its infancy. “This would help to guide clinical practice on how to support people with osteoarthritis, with regard to accessing the health benefits of running participation,” write Jean-Francois Esculier, PT, PhD, from the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and Christian Barton, PhD, with the La Trobe Centre, pointing out there were a lack of evidence-based clinical recommendations for people with osteoarthritis who want to start or continue running.
It’s a question that PhD candidate Michaela Khan, MSc, is trying to answer at the University of British Columbia. “Our lab did a pilot study for my current study now, and they found that osteoarthritic cartilage took a little bit longer to recover than their healthy counterparts,” Ms. Khan said. Her research is suggesting that people with osteoarthritis not only can run, but even those with severe disease, who might be candidates for knee replacement, can run long distances.
Commenting on the analysis, Ms. Khan said the main take-home message was that healthy cartilage seems to recover after running, and that there is not an ongoing effect of ‘wear and tear.’
“That’s changing the narrative that if you keep running, it will wear away your cartilage, it’ll hurt your knees,” she said. “Now, we have a good synthesis of scientific evidence to prove maybe otherwise.”
Ms. Coburn and Dr. Culvenor report grant support from the National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia, and another author reports grant support from the U.S. National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The authors, as well as Dr. Lo and Ms. Khan, report relevant financial relationships.
Washington medical board charges doctor with spreading COVID misinformation
Doctors and professional organizations are standing guard, hoping to protect patients from any harm that results from mistruths spread by colleagues.
Case in point: Several physicians and the American Board of Pathology filed complaints with Washington and Idaho medical boards alleging that Ryan Cole, MD, a board-certified pathologist who practices in Boise, Idaho, but who also holds a license in Washington, has spread antivaccine and pro-ivermectin statements on social media. Dr. Cole is one of the founders of America’s Frontline Doctors, a right-wing political organization. Dr. Cole did not respond to a request for comment.
Gary W. Procop, MD, CEO, American Board of Pathology, told this news organization that “as physicians and board-certified pathologists, we have a public trust, and we must be accountable to patients, society, and the profession. Misinformation can cause real harm to patients, which may include death. Misinformation diverts patients away from lifesaving vaccination and other preventive measures, promotes viral transmission, and recommends ineffective therapies that may be toxic instead of evidence-based medical care.”
Cavalcade of complaints
Several doctors also chimed in with formal complaints alleging that Cole is spreading unreliable information, according to a report from KTVB News. For example, a Boise doctor wrote in his complaint that Dr. Cole is “a major purveyor of misinformation” and called it “amazing” that the physician was continuing to publicly support debunked information about COVID-19 more than a year into the pandemic. The doctor also stated, “Cole is a health menace, abusing his status as a physician to mislead the public.”
As a result of such complaints, the Washington medical board has charged Cole with COVID-19–related violations. It is unclear whether or not the Idaho medical board will sanction the doctor. At least 12 medical boards have sanctioned doctors for similar violations since the start of the pandemic.
The statement of charges from the Washington medical board contends that since March 2021, Dr. Cole has made numerous misleading statements regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines, the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, and the effectiveness of masks.
In addition, the statement alleges that Dr. Cole treated several COVID-19 patients via telemedicine. During these sessions, he prescribed ivermectin, an antiparasite drug that has not been found to have any effectiveness in treating, curing, or preventing COVID-19. One of the patients died after receiving this treatment, according to the complaint.
Citing a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Procop pointed out that use of ivermectin, which is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat COVID-19, is particularly troubling.
“There is a concern whenever an ineffective treatment is prescribed when more effective and scientifically proven therapies are available. Therapeutics have potential side effects, and toxicities have been associated with the use of ivermectin,” Dr. Procop said. “The benefits of therapy should always outweigh the risks of treatment.”
If the Washington medical board finds that Dr. Cole has engaged in unprofessional conduct, possible sanctions include revocation or suspension of his license. Washington state law also provides for a range of other possible sanctions, including restriction or limitation of his practice, requiring that he complete a specific program of remedial education or treatment, monitoring of his practice, censure or reprimand, probation, a fine of up to $5,000 for each violation, or refunding fees that his practice has billed to and collected from patients. Dr. Cole had until January 30 to respond to the medical board’s statement.
“The American Board of Pathology supports the actions of the Washington State Medical Board regarding their inquiries into any physician that holds license in their state who makes false and misleading medical claims, or provides medical care beyond their scope of practice, as indicated by their training,” Dr. Procop said.
Law in limbo
While medical boards are seeking to sanction professionals who spread falsehoods, the pause button has been hit on the California law that allows regulators to punish doctors for spreading false information about COVID-19 vaccinations and treatments.
The law went into effect Jan. 1 but was temporarily halted when U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb of the Eastern District of California granted a preliminary injunction against the law on Jan. 25, according to a report in the Sacramento Bee.
Mr. Shubb said the measure’s definition of “misinformation” was “unconstitutionally vague” under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. He also criticized the law’s definition of “misinformation” as being “grammatically incoherent.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Doctors and professional organizations are standing guard, hoping to protect patients from any harm that results from mistruths spread by colleagues.
Case in point: Several physicians and the American Board of Pathology filed complaints with Washington and Idaho medical boards alleging that Ryan Cole, MD, a board-certified pathologist who practices in Boise, Idaho, but who also holds a license in Washington, has spread antivaccine and pro-ivermectin statements on social media. Dr. Cole is one of the founders of America’s Frontline Doctors, a right-wing political organization. Dr. Cole did not respond to a request for comment.
Gary W. Procop, MD, CEO, American Board of Pathology, told this news organization that “as physicians and board-certified pathologists, we have a public trust, and we must be accountable to patients, society, and the profession. Misinformation can cause real harm to patients, which may include death. Misinformation diverts patients away from lifesaving vaccination and other preventive measures, promotes viral transmission, and recommends ineffective therapies that may be toxic instead of evidence-based medical care.”
Cavalcade of complaints
Several doctors also chimed in with formal complaints alleging that Cole is spreading unreliable information, according to a report from KTVB News. For example, a Boise doctor wrote in his complaint that Dr. Cole is “a major purveyor of misinformation” and called it “amazing” that the physician was continuing to publicly support debunked information about COVID-19 more than a year into the pandemic. The doctor also stated, “Cole is a health menace, abusing his status as a physician to mislead the public.”
As a result of such complaints, the Washington medical board has charged Cole with COVID-19–related violations. It is unclear whether or not the Idaho medical board will sanction the doctor. At least 12 medical boards have sanctioned doctors for similar violations since the start of the pandemic.
The statement of charges from the Washington medical board contends that since March 2021, Dr. Cole has made numerous misleading statements regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines, the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, and the effectiveness of masks.
In addition, the statement alleges that Dr. Cole treated several COVID-19 patients via telemedicine. During these sessions, he prescribed ivermectin, an antiparasite drug that has not been found to have any effectiveness in treating, curing, or preventing COVID-19. One of the patients died after receiving this treatment, according to the complaint.
Citing a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Procop pointed out that use of ivermectin, which is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat COVID-19, is particularly troubling.
“There is a concern whenever an ineffective treatment is prescribed when more effective and scientifically proven therapies are available. Therapeutics have potential side effects, and toxicities have been associated with the use of ivermectin,” Dr. Procop said. “The benefits of therapy should always outweigh the risks of treatment.”
If the Washington medical board finds that Dr. Cole has engaged in unprofessional conduct, possible sanctions include revocation or suspension of his license. Washington state law also provides for a range of other possible sanctions, including restriction or limitation of his practice, requiring that he complete a specific program of remedial education or treatment, monitoring of his practice, censure or reprimand, probation, a fine of up to $5,000 for each violation, or refunding fees that his practice has billed to and collected from patients. Dr. Cole had until January 30 to respond to the medical board’s statement.
“The American Board of Pathology supports the actions of the Washington State Medical Board regarding their inquiries into any physician that holds license in their state who makes false and misleading medical claims, or provides medical care beyond their scope of practice, as indicated by their training,” Dr. Procop said.
Law in limbo
While medical boards are seeking to sanction professionals who spread falsehoods, the pause button has been hit on the California law that allows regulators to punish doctors for spreading false information about COVID-19 vaccinations and treatments.
The law went into effect Jan. 1 but was temporarily halted when U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb of the Eastern District of California granted a preliminary injunction against the law on Jan. 25, according to a report in the Sacramento Bee.
Mr. Shubb said the measure’s definition of “misinformation” was “unconstitutionally vague” under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. He also criticized the law’s definition of “misinformation” as being “grammatically incoherent.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Doctors and professional organizations are standing guard, hoping to protect patients from any harm that results from mistruths spread by colleagues.
Case in point: Several physicians and the American Board of Pathology filed complaints with Washington and Idaho medical boards alleging that Ryan Cole, MD, a board-certified pathologist who practices in Boise, Idaho, but who also holds a license in Washington, has spread antivaccine and pro-ivermectin statements on social media. Dr. Cole is one of the founders of America’s Frontline Doctors, a right-wing political organization. Dr. Cole did not respond to a request for comment.
Gary W. Procop, MD, CEO, American Board of Pathology, told this news organization that “as physicians and board-certified pathologists, we have a public trust, and we must be accountable to patients, society, and the profession. Misinformation can cause real harm to patients, which may include death. Misinformation diverts patients away from lifesaving vaccination and other preventive measures, promotes viral transmission, and recommends ineffective therapies that may be toxic instead of evidence-based medical care.”
Cavalcade of complaints
Several doctors also chimed in with formal complaints alleging that Cole is spreading unreliable information, according to a report from KTVB News. For example, a Boise doctor wrote in his complaint that Dr. Cole is “a major purveyor of misinformation” and called it “amazing” that the physician was continuing to publicly support debunked information about COVID-19 more than a year into the pandemic. The doctor also stated, “Cole is a health menace, abusing his status as a physician to mislead the public.”
As a result of such complaints, the Washington medical board has charged Cole with COVID-19–related violations. It is unclear whether or not the Idaho medical board will sanction the doctor. At least 12 medical boards have sanctioned doctors for similar violations since the start of the pandemic.
The statement of charges from the Washington medical board contends that since March 2021, Dr. Cole has made numerous misleading statements regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines, the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, and the effectiveness of masks.
In addition, the statement alleges that Dr. Cole treated several COVID-19 patients via telemedicine. During these sessions, he prescribed ivermectin, an antiparasite drug that has not been found to have any effectiveness in treating, curing, or preventing COVID-19. One of the patients died after receiving this treatment, according to the complaint.
Citing a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Procop pointed out that use of ivermectin, which is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat COVID-19, is particularly troubling.
“There is a concern whenever an ineffective treatment is prescribed when more effective and scientifically proven therapies are available. Therapeutics have potential side effects, and toxicities have been associated with the use of ivermectin,” Dr. Procop said. “The benefits of therapy should always outweigh the risks of treatment.”
If the Washington medical board finds that Dr. Cole has engaged in unprofessional conduct, possible sanctions include revocation or suspension of his license. Washington state law also provides for a range of other possible sanctions, including restriction or limitation of his practice, requiring that he complete a specific program of remedial education or treatment, monitoring of his practice, censure or reprimand, probation, a fine of up to $5,000 for each violation, or refunding fees that his practice has billed to and collected from patients. Dr. Cole had until January 30 to respond to the medical board’s statement.
“The American Board of Pathology supports the actions of the Washington State Medical Board regarding their inquiries into any physician that holds license in their state who makes false and misleading medical claims, or provides medical care beyond their scope of practice, as indicated by their training,” Dr. Procop said.
Law in limbo
While medical boards are seeking to sanction professionals who spread falsehoods, the pause button has been hit on the California law that allows regulators to punish doctors for spreading false information about COVID-19 vaccinations and treatments.
The law went into effect Jan. 1 but was temporarily halted when U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb of the Eastern District of California granted a preliminary injunction against the law on Jan. 25, according to a report in the Sacramento Bee.
Mr. Shubb said the measure’s definition of “misinformation” was “unconstitutionally vague” under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. He also criticized the law’s definition of “misinformation” as being “grammatically incoherent.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pandemic pregnancy-linked deaths up 35% from 2019
Pregnancy-associated deaths, including drug-related deaths and homicide, were up 35% in 2020, compared with prepandemic 2019, new research indicates.
The data also show a 7.1% decrease in pregnancy-related suicides in 2020 from 2019.
The study, led by Claire E. Margerison, PhD, with the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at Michigan State University, East Lansing, included 4,528 pregnancy-associated deaths. The rate of deaths per 100,000 live births from April to December 2020 was 66.9 (95% confidence interval, 63.9-70.1). The comparative rate from April to December 2019 was 49.6. Researchers looked at that time period because the pandemic started in March 2020.
The findings were published online in JAMA Open Network.
Drug-related deaths up 55.3%
During the study period, drug deaths increased 55.3% and deaths from homicide increased 41.2%. Deaths from obstetric and other causes (mainly vehicle crashes) increased 28.4% and 56.7%, respectively, according to Dr. Margerison's group.
“Although pregnancy-associated deaths increased over time, increases from 2019 to 2020 were substantially larger than increases from 2018 to 2019,” the authors wrote.
The findings align with deaths in the general population in that time frame, they added.
Another study – this one looking at all-cause and cause-specific mortality from 2019 to 2020 in recently pregnant women, also published in JAMA Network Open, found significant racial and ethnic disparities in rates and cause of death.
According to the study, “Compared with non-Hispanic White women, mortality rates were three- to fivefold higher among American Indian or Alaska Native women for every cause, including suicide. Likewise, these findings suggest that non-Hispanic Black women experienced significantly higher mortality rates across causes, with the highest rates for homicide.”
Dr. Margerison and colleagues did not try to answer what caused the increases but pointed to the fentanyl epidemic, the murder of George Floyd, and COVID-19–related economic strain as potential stressors. They also suggest fewer screenings during the pandemic may have played a role.
Prevention opportunities missed
“Although pregnancy is considered an opportunity for screening and prevention related to physical, mental, and behavioral health, our data suggest that such opportunities were missed for hundreds of pregnant people during the pandemic,” the authors wrote.
Researchers analyzed cross-sectional U.S. death certificates from Jan. 1, 2018, to Dec. 31, 2020, for female U.S. residents ages 15-44 years. They then obtained the count for live births for the same population and time frame from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention WONDER database.
They were able to identify pregnancy-associated deaths as the 2003 Revised Death Certificate contains a standardized pregnancy checkbox that asks whether the person was pregnant at the time of death, within 42 days of death, or within 43 days to 1 year of death.
Researchers also included deaths with ICD-10 codes linked with death from obstetric causes.
Deaths from overdose, suicide, and homicide are making up large and growing proportions of all deaths during pregnancy and in the first year postpartum, the authors report.
Dr. Margerison and coauthors, in research published in 2022, reported that these causes account for more than one-fifth of all pregnancy-related deaths. They also reported that drug-related deaths and homicides in this population have increased over the past 10 years.
“Substantial racial and ethnic inequities in these deaths exist,” they wrote in that paper.
The authors concluded in the current research: “Our study findings suggest that there is a need for prevention and intervention efforts, including harm-reduction strategies, tailored to pregnant and postpartum women, particularly during times of population stress and decreased utilization of preventive care, such as a pandemic.”
Dr. Margerison and coauthors reported receiving grant support from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development during the study. One coauthor received personal fees from the World Health Organization and Population Reference Bureau outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving grant support from the National Institutes of Mental Health during the study.
*This story was updated on 2/1.
Pregnancy-associated deaths, including drug-related deaths and homicide, were up 35% in 2020, compared with prepandemic 2019, new research indicates.
The data also show a 7.1% decrease in pregnancy-related suicides in 2020 from 2019.
The study, led by Claire E. Margerison, PhD, with the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at Michigan State University, East Lansing, included 4,528 pregnancy-associated deaths. The rate of deaths per 100,000 live births from April to December 2020 was 66.9 (95% confidence interval, 63.9-70.1). The comparative rate from April to December 2019 was 49.6. Researchers looked at that time period because the pandemic started in March 2020.
The findings were published online in JAMA Open Network.
Drug-related deaths up 55.3%
During the study period, drug deaths increased 55.3% and deaths from homicide increased 41.2%. Deaths from obstetric and other causes (mainly vehicle crashes) increased 28.4% and 56.7%, respectively, according to Dr. Margerison's group.
“Although pregnancy-associated deaths increased over time, increases from 2019 to 2020 were substantially larger than increases from 2018 to 2019,” the authors wrote.
The findings align with deaths in the general population in that time frame, they added.
Another study – this one looking at all-cause and cause-specific mortality from 2019 to 2020 in recently pregnant women, also published in JAMA Network Open, found significant racial and ethnic disparities in rates and cause of death.
According to the study, “Compared with non-Hispanic White women, mortality rates were three- to fivefold higher among American Indian or Alaska Native women for every cause, including suicide. Likewise, these findings suggest that non-Hispanic Black women experienced significantly higher mortality rates across causes, with the highest rates for homicide.”
Dr. Margerison and colleagues did not try to answer what caused the increases but pointed to the fentanyl epidemic, the murder of George Floyd, and COVID-19–related economic strain as potential stressors. They also suggest fewer screenings during the pandemic may have played a role.
Prevention opportunities missed
“Although pregnancy is considered an opportunity for screening and prevention related to physical, mental, and behavioral health, our data suggest that such opportunities were missed for hundreds of pregnant people during the pandemic,” the authors wrote.
Researchers analyzed cross-sectional U.S. death certificates from Jan. 1, 2018, to Dec. 31, 2020, for female U.S. residents ages 15-44 years. They then obtained the count for live births for the same population and time frame from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention WONDER database.
They were able to identify pregnancy-associated deaths as the 2003 Revised Death Certificate contains a standardized pregnancy checkbox that asks whether the person was pregnant at the time of death, within 42 days of death, or within 43 days to 1 year of death.
Researchers also included deaths with ICD-10 codes linked with death from obstetric causes.
Deaths from overdose, suicide, and homicide are making up large and growing proportions of all deaths during pregnancy and in the first year postpartum, the authors report.
Dr. Margerison and coauthors, in research published in 2022, reported that these causes account for more than one-fifth of all pregnancy-related deaths. They also reported that drug-related deaths and homicides in this population have increased over the past 10 years.
“Substantial racial and ethnic inequities in these deaths exist,” they wrote in that paper.
The authors concluded in the current research: “Our study findings suggest that there is a need for prevention and intervention efforts, including harm-reduction strategies, tailored to pregnant and postpartum women, particularly during times of population stress and decreased utilization of preventive care, such as a pandemic.”
Dr. Margerison and coauthors reported receiving grant support from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development during the study. One coauthor received personal fees from the World Health Organization and Population Reference Bureau outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving grant support from the National Institutes of Mental Health during the study.
*This story was updated on 2/1.
Pregnancy-associated deaths, including drug-related deaths and homicide, were up 35% in 2020, compared with prepandemic 2019, new research indicates.
The data also show a 7.1% decrease in pregnancy-related suicides in 2020 from 2019.
The study, led by Claire E. Margerison, PhD, with the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at Michigan State University, East Lansing, included 4,528 pregnancy-associated deaths. The rate of deaths per 100,000 live births from April to December 2020 was 66.9 (95% confidence interval, 63.9-70.1). The comparative rate from April to December 2019 was 49.6. Researchers looked at that time period because the pandemic started in March 2020.
The findings were published online in JAMA Open Network.
Drug-related deaths up 55.3%
During the study period, drug deaths increased 55.3% and deaths from homicide increased 41.2%. Deaths from obstetric and other causes (mainly vehicle crashes) increased 28.4% and 56.7%, respectively, according to Dr. Margerison's group.
“Although pregnancy-associated deaths increased over time, increases from 2019 to 2020 were substantially larger than increases from 2018 to 2019,” the authors wrote.
The findings align with deaths in the general population in that time frame, they added.
Another study – this one looking at all-cause and cause-specific mortality from 2019 to 2020 in recently pregnant women, also published in JAMA Network Open, found significant racial and ethnic disparities in rates and cause of death.
According to the study, “Compared with non-Hispanic White women, mortality rates were three- to fivefold higher among American Indian or Alaska Native women for every cause, including suicide. Likewise, these findings suggest that non-Hispanic Black women experienced significantly higher mortality rates across causes, with the highest rates for homicide.”
Dr. Margerison and colleagues did not try to answer what caused the increases but pointed to the fentanyl epidemic, the murder of George Floyd, and COVID-19–related economic strain as potential stressors. They also suggest fewer screenings during the pandemic may have played a role.
Prevention opportunities missed
“Although pregnancy is considered an opportunity for screening and prevention related to physical, mental, and behavioral health, our data suggest that such opportunities were missed for hundreds of pregnant people during the pandemic,” the authors wrote.
Researchers analyzed cross-sectional U.S. death certificates from Jan. 1, 2018, to Dec. 31, 2020, for female U.S. residents ages 15-44 years. They then obtained the count for live births for the same population and time frame from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention WONDER database.
They were able to identify pregnancy-associated deaths as the 2003 Revised Death Certificate contains a standardized pregnancy checkbox that asks whether the person was pregnant at the time of death, within 42 days of death, or within 43 days to 1 year of death.
Researchers also included deaths with ICD-10 codes linked with death from obstetric causes.
Deaths from overdose, suicide, and homicide are making up large and growing proportions of all deaths during pregnancy and in the first year postpartum, the authors report.
Dr. Margerison and coauthors, in research published in 2022, reported that these causes account for more than one-fifth of all pregnancy-related deaths. They also reported that drug-related deaths and homicides in this population have increased over the past 10 years.
“Substantial racial and ethnic inequities in these deaths exist,” they wrote in that paper.
The authors concluded in the current research: “Our study findings suggest that there is a need for prevention and intervention efforts, including harm-reduction strategies, tailored to pregnant and postpartum women, particularly during times of population stress and decreased utilization of preventive care, such as a pandemic.”
Dr. Margerison and coauthors reported receiving grant support from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development during the study. One coauthor received personal fees from the World Health Organization and Population Reference Bureau outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving grant support from the National Institutes of Mental Health during the study.
*This story was updated on 2/1.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Difficulty fitting family into career: Female oncologists
In a survey of just over 1,000 female oncologists, 95% said their career plans were at least somewhat associated with the timing of when to start a family.
The most striking finding was that one third of respondents had miscarried and another one third reported difficulty with infertility that required fertility counseling and/or treatment.
One third reported experiencing discrimination during pregnancy, and another third said they experienced discrimination for taking maternity leave, and having more than one child increased the likelihood of this.
The most common negative factor associated with family planning was long work hours and heavy workload (66.6%),
These findings suggest there are systemic changes needed not only in the healthcare setting but in society as a whole around women in the workplace and their choices of childbearing, say the authors.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open and led by Anna Lee MD, MPH, from the department of radiation oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
In an invited commentary, Mona Saleh, MD, and Stephanie Blank, MD, from the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive science at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, suggest that cultural changes are needed that go beyond women in medicine.
“These cultural values are so deeply pervasive (one could also say invasive) that they affect even these most educated and wealthy professional women, such as those who participated in this survey,” the editorialists write.
“[The researchers] advocate for early education on assisted reproductive technology (ART) risks, benefits, and success rates, but this is not getting at the underlying issue: Pregnancy discrimination and unfair distribution of childbearing responsibilities are a reflection of a larger problematic culture rather than an issue specific to women in medicine,” they add.
Survey details
The survey comprised a novel 39-item questionnaire distributed to 1,004 U.S. female oncologists from May 7 to June 30, 2020, via email and social media channels.
Most respondents (84.4%) were married, and 71% were currently working full-time.
About one-third (35%) worked in radiation oncology, another third (34.3%) in medical oncology, 18.4% in surgical oncology, and 9.1% in pediatric oncology.
A total of 768 respondents (76.5%) had children, and of these, 415 (41.3%) first gave birth during postgraduate training and 275 (27.4%) gave birth in years 1-5 as an attending physician.
Of all respondents who had been pregnant, approximately two-thirds (65.7%) had some type of pregnancy complication. About one-third of respondents (31.7%) reported having experienced a miscarriage after a confirmed pregnancy; of those, 61.6% reported one miscarriage, while the remainder had two or more miscarriages (38.4%).
Approximately one-third (31.4%) of respondents reported difficulty with infertility that required fertility counseling and/or treatment.
The questionnaire also asked about assisted reproductive technology, and 164 participants (16.3%) reported the use of fertility medications, and 53 (5.3%) reported cryopreservation of eggs. Nearly 13% reported the use of intrauterine insemination and 13.2% reported the use of in vivo fertilization. Among those who experienced fertility concerns, 36.6% (232 of 634) reported facing financial burdens because of fertility or pregnancy that was in some way associated with their career choice.
When asked on the survey if fertility preservation should be discussed with women during medical school and/or residency, 65.7% of respondents stated that it should.
However, the editorialists suggest that “encouraging formal and directed education regarding the infertility risks specifically toward female physicians (which Lee et al. recommend) could be perceived as a blanket recommendation that it is best for women in medicine to delay childbearing and pursue ART.”
“Medical schools and residency and fellowship training programs should instead focus their energy on creating a framework and culture that normalizes conception during these points in training while also subsidizing and supporting trainees and physicians who prefer to use ART and delay fertility until after training,” they suggest.
The editorialists also emphasized that women may choose to become pregnant at any point during the years that it takes to go from being a medical student to resident/fellow to attending physician, and they should be supported by their workplace on their decisions.
The study was funded by grants from National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center.
Dr. Lee and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Blank reported receiving grants from AstraZeneca, Aravive, Akesobio, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Seattle Genetics outside the submitted work. Dr. Saleh reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a survey of just over 1,000 female oncologists, 95% said their career plans were at least somewhat associated with the timing of when to start a family.
The most striking finding was that one third of respondents had miscarried and another one third reported difficulty with infertility that required fertility counseling and/or treatment.
One third reported experiencing discrimination during pregnancy, and another third said they experienced discrimination for taking maternity leave, and having more than one child increased the likelihood of this.
The most common negative factor associated with family planning was long work hours and heavy workload (66.6%),
These findings suggest there are systemic changes needed not only in the healthcare setting but in society as a whole around women in the workplace and their choices of childbearing, say the authors.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open and led by Anna Lee MD, MPH, from the department of radiation oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
In an invited commentary, Mona Saleh, MD, and Stephanie Blank, MD, from the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive science at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, suggest that cultural changes are needed that go beyond women in medicine.
“These cultural values are so deeply pervasive (one could also say invasive) that they affect even these most educated and wealthy professional women, such as those who participated in this survey,” the editorialists write.
“[The researchers] advocate for early education on assisted reproductive technology (ART) risks, benefits, and success rates, but this is not getting at the underlying issue: Pregnancy discrimination and unfair distribution of childbearing responsibilities are a reflection of a larger problematic culture rather than an issue specific to women in medicine,” they add.
Survey details
The survey comprised a novel 39-item questionnaire distributed to 1,004 U.S. female oncologists from May 7 to June 30, 2020, via email and social media channels.
Most respondents (84.4%) were married, and 71% were currently working full-time.
About one-third (35%) worked in radiation oncology, another third (34.3%) in medical oncology, 18.4% in surgical oncology, and 9.1% in pediatric oncology.
A total of 768 respondents (76.5%) had children, and of these, 415 (41.3%) first gave birth during postgraduate training and 275 (27.4%) gave birth in years 1-5 as an attending physician.
Of all respondents who had been pregnant, approximately two-thirds (65.7%) had some type of pregnancy complication. About one-third of respondents (31.7%) reported having experienced a miscarriage after a confirmed pregnancy; of those, 61.6% reported one miscarriage, while the remainder had two or more miscarriages (38.4%).
Approximately one-third (31.4%) of respondents reported difficulty with infertility that required fertility counseling and/or treatment.
The questionnaire also asked about assisted reproductive technology, and 164 participants (16.3%) reported the use of fertility medications, and 53 (5.3%) reported cryopreservation of eggs. Nearly 13% reported the use of intrauterine insemination and 13.2% reported the use of in vivo fertilization. Among those who experienced fertility concerns, 36.6% (232 of 634) reported facing financial burdens because of fertility or pregnancy that was in some way associated with their career choice.
When asked on the survey if fertility preservation should be discussed with women during medical school and/or residency, 65.7% of respondents stated that it should.
However, the editorialists suggest that “encouraging formal and directed education regarding the infertility risks specifically toward female physicians (which Lee et al. recommend) could be perceived as a blanket recommendation that it is best for women in medicine to delay childbearing and pursue ART.”
“Medical schools and residency and fellowship training programs should instead focus their energy on creating a framework and culture that normalizes conception during these points in training while also subsidizing and supporting trainees and physicians who prefer to use ART and delay fertility until after training,” they suggest.
The editorialists also emphasized that women may choose to become pregnant at any point during the years that it takes to go from being a medical student to resident/fellow to attending physician, and they should be supported by their workplace on their decisions.
The study was funded by grants from National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center.
Dr. Lee and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Blank reported receiving grants from AstraZeneca, Aravive, Akesobio, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Seattle Genetics outside the submitted work. Dr. Saleh reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a survey of just over 1,000 female oncologists, 95% said their career plans were at least somewhat associated with the timing of when to start a family.
The most striking finding was that one third of respondents had miscarried and another one third reported difficulty with infertility that required fertility counseling and/or treatment.
One third reported experiencing discrimination during pregnancy, and another third said they experienced discrimination for taking maternity leave, and having more than one child increased the likelihood of this.
The most common negative factor associated with family planning was long work hours and heavy workload (66.6%),
These findings suggest there are systemic changes needed not only in the healthcare setting but in society as a whole around women in the workplace and their choices of childbearing, say the authors.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open and led by Anna Lee MD, MPH, from the department of radiation oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
In an invited commentary, Mona Saleh, MD, and Stephanie Blank, MD, from the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive science at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, suggest that cultural changes are needed that go beyond women in medicine.
“These cultural values are so deeply pervasive (one could also say invasive) that they affect even these most educated and wealthy professional women, such as those who participated in this survey,” the editorialists write.
“[The researchers] advocate for early education on assisted reproductive technology (ART) risks, benefits, and success rates, but this is not getting at the underlying issue: Pregnancy discrimination and unfair distribution of childbearing responsibilities are a reflection of a larger problematic culture rather than an issue specific to women in medicine,” they add.
Survey details
The survey comprised a novel 39-item questionnaire distributed to 1,004 U.S. female oncologists from May 7 to June 30, 2020, via email and social media channels.
Most respondents (84.4%) were married, and 71% were currently working full-time.
About one-third (35%) worked in radiation oncology, another third (34.3%) in medical oncology, 18.4% in surgical oncology, and 9.1% in pediatric oncology.
A total of 768 respondents (76.5%) had children, and of these, 415 (41.3%) first gave birth during postgraduate training and 275 (27.4%) gave birth in years 1-5 as an attending physician.
Of all respondents who had been pregnant, approximately two-thirds (65.7%) had some type of pregnancy complication. About one-third of respondents (31.7%) reported having experienced a miscarriage after a confirmed pregnancy; of those, 61.6% reported one miscarriage, while the remainder had two or more miscarriages (38.4%).
Approximately one-third (31.4%) of respondents reported difficulty with infertility that required fertility counseling and/or treatment.
The questionnaire also asked about assisted reproductive technology, and 164 participants (16.3%) reported the use of fertility medications, and 53 (5.3%) reported cryopreservation of eggs. Nearly 13% reported the use of intrauterine insemination and 13.2% reported the use of in vivo fertilization. Among those who experienced fertility concerns, 36.6% (232 of 634) reported facing financial burdens because of fertility or pregnancy that was in some way associated with their career choice.
When asked on the survey if fertility preservation should be discussed with women during medical school and/or residency, 65.7% of respondents stated that it should.
However, the editorialists suggest that “encouraging formal and directed education regarding the infertility risks specifically toward female physicians (which Lee et al. recommend) could be perceived as a blanket recommendation that it is best for women in medicine to delay childbearing and pursue ART.”
“Medical schools and residency and fellowship training programs should instead focus their energy on creating a framework and culture that normalizes conception during these points in training while also subsidizing and supporting trainees and physicians who prefer to use ART and delay fertility until after training,” they suggest.
The editorialists also emphasized that women may choose to become pregnant at any point during the years that it takes to go from being a medical student to resident/fellow to attending physician, and they should be supported by their workplace on their decisions.
The study was funded by grants from National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center.
Dr. Lee and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Blank reported receiving grants from AstraZeneca, Aravive, Akesobio, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Seattle Genetics outside the submitted work. Dr. Saleh reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Citing workplace violence, one-fourth of critical care workers are ready to quit
A surgeon in Tulsa shot by a disgruntled patient. A doctor in India beaten by a group of bereaved family members. A general practitioner in the United Kingdom threatened with stabbing. A new study identifies this trend and finds that 25% of health care workers polled were willing to quit because of such violence.
“That was pretty appalling,” Rahul Kashyap, MD, MBA, MBBS, recalls. Dr. Kashyap is one of the leaders of the Violence Study of Healthcare Workers and Systems (ViSHWaS), which polled an international sample of physicians, nurses, and hospital staff. This study has worrying implications, Dr. Kashyap says. In a time when hospital staff are reporting burnout in record numbers, further deterrents may be the last thing our health care system needs. But Dr. Kashyap hopes that bringing awareness to these trends may allow physicians, policymakers, and the public to mobilize and intervene before it’s too late.
Previous studies have revealed similar trends. The rate of workplace violence directed at U.S. health care workers is five times that of workers in any other industry, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The same study found that attacks had increased 63% from 2011 to 2018. Other polls that focus on the pandemic show that nearly half of U.S. nurses believe that violence increased since the world shut down. Well before the pandemic, however, a study from the Indian Medical Association found that 75% of doctors experienced workplace violence.
With this history in mind, perhaps it’s not surprising that the idea for the study came from the authors’ personal experiences. They had seen coworkers go through attacks, or they had endured attacks themselves, Dr. Kashyap says. But they couldn’t find any global data to back up these experiences. So Dr. Kashyap and his colleagues formed a web of volunteers dedicated to creating a cross-sectional study.
They got in touch with researchers from countries across Asia, the Middle East, South America, North America, and Africa. The initial group agreed to reach out to their contacts, casting a wide net. Researchers used WhatsApp, LinkedIn, and text messages to distribute the survey. Health care workers in each country completed the brief questionnaire, recalling their prepandemic world and evaluating their current one.
Within 2 months, they had reached health care workers in more than 100 countries. They concluded the study when they received about 5,000 results, according to Dr. Kashyap, and then began the process of stratifying the data. For this report, they focused on critical care, emergency medicine, and anesthesiology, which resulted in 598 responses from 69 countries. Of these, India and the United States had the highest number of participants.
In all, 73% of participants reported facing physical or verbal violence while in the hospital; 48% said they felt less motivated to work because of that violence; 39% of respondents believed that the amount of violence they experienced was the same as before the COVID-19 pandemic; and 36% of respondents believed that violence had increased. Even though they were trained on guidelines from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 20% of participants felt unprepared to face violence.
Although the study didn’t analyze the reasons workers felt this way, Dr. Kashyap speculates that it could be related to the medical distrust that grew during the pandemic or the stress patients and health care professionals experienced during its peak.
Regardless, the researchers say their study is a starting point. Now that the trend has been highlighted, it may be acted on.
Moving forward, Dr. Kashyap believes that controlling for different variables could determine whether factors like gender or shift time put a worker at higher risk for violence. He hopes it’s possible to interrupt these patterns and reestablish trust in the hospital environment. “It’s aspirational, but you’re hoping that through studies like ViSHWaS, which means trust in Hindi ... [we could restore] the trust and confidence among health care providers for the patients and family members.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A surgeon in Tulsa shot by a disgruntled patient. A doctor in India beaten by a group of bereaved family members. A general practitioner in the United Kingdom threatened with stabbing. A new study identifies this trend and finds that 25% of health care workers polled were willing to quit because of such violence.
“That was pretty appalling,” Rahul Kashyap, MD, MBA, MBBS, recalls. Dr. Kashyap is one of the leaders of the Violence Study of Healthcare Workers and Systems (ViSHWaS), which polled an international sample of physicians, nurses, and hospital staff. This study has worrying implications, Dr. Kashyap says. In a time when hospital staff are reporting burnout in record numbers, further deterrents may be the last thing our health care system needs. But Dr. Kashyap hopes that bringing awareness to these trends may allow physicians, policymakers, and the public to mobilize and intervene before it’s too late.
Previous studies have revealed similar trends. The rate of workplace violence directed at U.S. health care workers is five times that of workers in any other industry, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The same study found that attacks had increased 63% from 2011 to 2018. Other polls that focus on the pandemic show that nearly half of U.S. nurses believe that violence increased since the world shut down. Well before the pandemic, however, a study from the Indian Medical Association found that 75% of doctors experienced workplace violence.
With this history in mind, perhaps it’s not surprising that the idea for the study came from the authors’ personal experiences. They had seen coworkers go through attacks, or they had endured attacks themselves, Dr. Kashyap says. But they couldn’t find any global data to back up these experiences. So Dr. Kashyap and his colleagues formed a web of volunteers dedicated to creating a cross-sectional study.
They got in touch with researchers from countries across Asia, the Middle East, South America, North America, and Africa. The initial group agreed to reach out to their contacts, casting a wide net. Researchers used WhatsApp, LinkedIn, and text messages to distribute the survey. Health care workers in each country completed the brief questionnaire, recalling their prepandemic world and evaluating their current one.
Within 2 months, they had reached health care workers in more than 100 countries. They concluded the study when they received about 5,000 results, according to Dr. Kashyap, and then began the process of stratifying the data. For this report, they focused on critical care, emergency medicine, and anesthesiology, which resulted in 598 responses from 69 countries. Of these, India and the United States had the highest number of participants.
In all, 73% of participants reported facing physical or verbal violence while in the hospital; 48% said they felt less motivated to work because of that violence; 39% of respondents believed that the amount of violence they experienced was the same as before the COVID-19 pandemic; and 36% of respondents believed that violence had increased. Even though they were trained on guidelines from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 20% of participants felt unprepared to face violence.
Although the study didn’t analyze the reasons workers felt this way, Dr. Kashyap speculates that it could be related to the medical distrust that grew during the pandemic or the stress patients and health care professionals experienced during its peak.
Regardless, the researchers say their study is a starting point. Now that the trend has been highlighted, it may be acted on.
Moving forward, Dr. Kashyap believes that controlling for different variables could determine whether factors like gender or shift time put a worker at higher risk for violence. He hopes it’s possible to interrupt these patterns and reestablish trust in the hospital environment. “It’s aspirational, but you’re hoping that through studies like ViSHWaS, which means trust in Hindi ... [we could restore] the trust and confidence among health care providers for the patients and family members.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A surgeon in Tulsa shot by a disgruntled patient. A doctor in India beaten by a group of bereaved family members. A general practitioner in the United Kingdom threatened with stabbing. A new study identifies this trend and finds that 25% of health care workers polled were willing to quit because of such violence.
“That was pretty appalling,” Rahul Kashyap, MD, MBA, MBBS, recalls. Dr. Kashyap is one of the leaders of the Violence Study of Healthcare Workers and Systems (ViSHWaS), which polled an international sample of physicians, nurses, and hospital staff. This study has worrying implications, Dr. Kashyap says. In a time when hospital staff are reporting burnout in record numbers, further deterrents may be the last thing our health care system needs. But Dr. Kashyap hopes that bringing awareness to these trends may allow physicians, policymakers, and the public to mobilize and intervene before it’s too late.
Previous studies have revealed similar trends. The rate of workplace violence directed at U.S. health care workers is five times that of workers in any other industry, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The same study found that attacks had increased 63% from 2011 to 2018. Other polls that focus on the pandemic show that nearly half of U.S. nurses believe that violence increased since the world shut down. Well before the pandemic, however, a study from the Indian Medical Association found that 75% of doctors experienced workplace violence.
With this history in mind, perhaps it’s not surprising that the idea for the study came from the authors’ personal experiences. They had seen coworkers go through attacks, or they had endured attacks themselves, Dr. Kashyap says. But they couldn’t find any global data to back up these experiences. So Dr. Kashyap and his colleagues formed a web of volunteers dedicated to creating a cross-sectional study.
They got in touch with researchers from countries across Asia, the Middle East, South America, North America, and Africa. The initial group agreed to reach out to their contacts, casting a wide net. Researchers used WhatsApp, LinkedIn, and text messages to distribute the survey. Health care workers in each country completed the brief questionnaire, recalling their prepandemic world and evaluating their current one.
Within 2 months, they had reached health care workers in more than 100 countries. They concluded the study when they received about 5,000 results, according to Dr. Kashyap, and then began the process of stratifying the data. For this report, they focused on critical care, emergency medicine, and anesthesiology, which resulted in 598 responses from 69 countries. Of these, India and the United States had the highest number of participants.
In all, 73% of participants reported facing physical or verbal violence while in the hospital; 48% said they felt less motivated to work because of that violence; 39% of respondents believed that the amount of violence they experienced was the same as before the COVID-19 pandemic; and 36% of respondents believed that violence had increased. Even though they were trained on guidelines from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 20% of participants felt unprepared to face violence.
Although the study didn’t analyze the reasons workers felt this way, Dr. Kashyap speculates that it could be related to the medical distrust that grew during the pandemic or the stress patients and health care professionals experienced during its peak.
Regardless, the researchers say their study is a starting point. Now that the trend has been highlighted, it may be acted on.
Moving forward, Dr. Kashyap believes that controlling for different variables could determine whether factors like gender or shift time put a worker at higher risk for violence. He hopes it’s possible to interrupt these patterns and reestablish trust in the hospital environment. “It’s aspirational, but you’re hoping that through studies like ViSHWaS, which means trust in Hindi ... [we could restore] the trust and confidence among health care providers for the patients and family members.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Feds charge 25 nursing school execs, staff in fake diploma scheme
The U.S. Department of Justice recently announced charges against 25 owners, operators, and employees of three Florida nursing schools in a fraud scheme in which they sold as many as 7,600 fake nursing degrees.
The purchasers in the diploma scheme paid $10,000 to $15,000 for degrees and transcripts and some 2,800 of the buyers passed the national nursing licensing exam to become registered nurses (RNs) and licensed practice nurses/vocational nurses (LPN/VNs) around the country, according to The New York Times.
Many of the degree recipients went on to work at hospitals, nursing homes, and Veterans Affairs medical centers, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida.
Several national nursing organizations cooperated with the investigation, and the Delaware Division of Professional Regulation already annulled 26 licenses, according to the Delaware Nurses Association. Fake licenses were issued in five states, according to federal reports.
“We are deeply unsettled by this egregious act,” DNA President Stephanie McClellan, MSN, RN, CMSRN, said in the group’s press statement. “We want all Delaware nurses to be aware of this active issue and to speak up if there is a concern regarding capacity to practice safely by a colleague/peer,” she said.
The Oregon State Board of Nursing is also investigating at least a dozen nurses who may have paid for their degrees, according to a Portland CBS affiliate.
The National Council of State Boards of Nursing said in a statement that it had helped authorities identify and monitor the individuals who allegedly provided the false degrees.
Nursing community reacts
News of the fraud scheme spread through the nursing community, including social media. “The recent report on falsified nursing school degrees is both heartbreaking and serves as an eye-opener,” tweeted Usha Menon, PhD, RN, FAAN, dean and health professor of the University of South Florida Health College of Nursing. “There was enough of a need that prompted these bad actors to develop a scheme that could’ve endangered dozens of lives.”
Jennifer Mensik Kennedy, PhD, MBA, RN, the new president of the American Nurses Association, also weighed in. “The accusation that personnel at once-accredited nursing schools allegedly participated in this scheme is simply deplorable. These unlawful and unethical acts disparage the reputation of actual nurses everywhere who have rightfully earned [their titles] through their education, hard work, dedication, and time.”
The false degrees and transcripts were issued by three once-accredited and now-shuttered nursing schools in South Florida: Palm Beach School of Nursing, Sacred Heart International Institute, and Sienna College.
The alleged co-conspirators reportedly made $114 million from the scheme, which dates back to 2016, according to several news reports. Each defendant faces up to 20 years in prison.
Most LPN programs charge $10,000 to $15,000 to complete a program, Robert Rosseter, a spokesperson for the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN), told this news organization.
None were AACN members, and none were accredited by the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education, which is AACN’s autonomous accrediting agency, Mr. Rosseter said. AACN membership is voluntary and is open to schools offering baccalaureate or higher degrees, he explained.
“What is disturbing about this investigation is that there are over 7,600 people around the country with fraudulent nursing credentials who are potentially in critical health care roles treating patients,” Chad Yarbrough, acting special agent in charge for the FBI in Miami, said in the federal justice department release.
‘Operation Nightingale’ based on tip
The federal action, dubbed “Operation Nightingale” after the nursing pioneer Florence Nightingale, began in 2019. It was based on a tip related to a case in Maryland, according to Nurse.org.
That case ensnared Palm Beach School of Nursing owner Johanah Napoleon, who reportedly was selling fake degrees for $6,000 to $18,000 each to two individuals in Maryland and Virginia. Ms. Napoleon was charged in 2021 and eventually pled guilty. The Florida Board of Nursing shut down the Palm Beach school in 2017 owing to its students’ low passing rate on the national licensing exam.
Two participants in the bigger scheme who had also worked with Ms. Napoleon – Geralda Adrien and Woosvelt Predestin – were indicted in 2021. Ms. Adrien owned private education companies for people who at aspired to be nurses, and Mr. Predestin was an employee. They were sentenced to 27 months in prison last year and helped the federal officials build the larger case.
The 25 individuals who were charged Jan. 25 operated in Delaware, New York, New Jersey, Texas, and Florida.
Schemes lured immigrants
In the scheme involving Siena College, some of the individuals acted as recruiters to direct nurses who were looking for employment to the school, where they allegedly would then pay for an RN or LPN/VN degree. The recipients of the false documents then used them to obtain jobs, including at a hospital in Georgia and a Veterans Affairs medical center in Maryland, according to one indictment. The president of Siena and her co-conspirators sold more than 2,000 fake diplomas, according to charging documents.
At the Palm Beach College of Nursing, individuals at various nursing prep and education programs allegedly helped others obtain fake degrees and transcripts, which were then used to pass RN and LPN/VN licensing exams in states that included Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio, according to the indictment.
Some individuals then secured employment with a nursing home in Ohio, a home health agency for pediatric patients in Massachusetts, and skilled nursing facilities in New York and New Jersey.
Prosecutors allege that the president of Sacred Heart International Institute and two other co-conspirators sold 588 fake diplomas.
The FBI said that some of the aspiring nurses who were talked into buying the degrees were LPNs who wanted to become RNs and that most of those lured into the scheme were from South Florida’s Haitian American immigrant community, Nurse.org reported.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Department of Justice recently announced charges against 25 owners, operators, and employees of three Florida nursing schools in a fraud scheme in which they sold as many as 7,600 fake nursing degrees.
The purchasers in the diploma scheme paid $10,000 to $15,000 for degrees and transcripts and some 2,800 of the buyers passed the national nursing licensing exam to become registered nurses (RNs) and licensed practice nurses/vocational nurses (LPN/VNs) around the country, according to The New York Times.
Many of the degree recipients went on to work at hospitals, nursing homes, and Veterans Affairs medical centers, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida.
Several national nursing organizations cooperated with the investigation, and the Delaware Division of Professional Regulation already annulled 26 licenses, according to the Delaware Nurses Association. Fake licenses were issued in five states, according to federal reports.
“We are deeply unsettled by this egregious act,” DNA President Stephanie McClellan, MSN, RN, CMSRN, said in the group’s press statement. “We want all Delaware nurses to be aware of this active issue and to speak up if there is a concern regarding capacity to practice safely by a colleague/peer,” she said.
The Oregon State Board of Nursing is also investigating at least a dozen nurses who may have paid for their degrees, according to a Portland CBS affiliate.
The National Council of State Boards of Nursing said in a statement that it had helped authorities identify and monitor the individuals who allegedly provided the false degrees.
Nursing community reacts
News of the fraud scheme spread through the nursing community, including social media. “The recent report on falsified nursing school degrees is both heartbreaking and serves as an eye-opener,” tweeted Usha Menon, PhD, RN, FAAN, dean and health professor of the University of South Florida Health College of Nursing. “There was enough of a need that prompted these bad actors to develop a scheme that could’ve endangered dozens of lives.”
Jennifer Mensik Kennedy, PhD, MBA, RN, the new president of the American Nurses Association, also weighed in. “The accusation that personnel at once-accredited nursing schools allegedly participated in this scheme is simply deplorable. These unlawful and unethical acts disparage the reputation of actual nurses everywhere who have rightfully earned [their titles] through their education, hard work, dedication, and time.”
The false degrees and transcripts were issued by three once-accredited and now-shuttered nursing schools in South Florida: Palm Beach School of Nursing, Sacred Heart International Institute, and Sienna College.
The alleged co-conspirators reportedly made $114 million from the scheme, which dates back to 2016, according to several news reports. Each defendant faces up to 20 years in prison.
Most LPN programs charge $10,000 to $15,000 to complete a program, Robert Rosseter, a spokesperson for the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN), told this news organization.
None were AACN members, and none were accredited by the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education, which is AACN’s autonomous accrediting agency, Mr. Rosseter said. AACN membership is voluntary and is open to schools offering baccalaureate or higher degrees, he explained.
“What is disturbing about this investigation is that there are over 7,600 people around the country with fraudulent nursing credentials who are potentially in critical health care roles treating patients,” Chad Yarbrough, acting special agent in charge for the FBI in Miami, said in the federal justice department release.
‘Operation Nightingale’ based on tip
The federal action, dubbed “Operation Nightingale” after the nursing pioneer Florence Nightingale, began in 2019. It was based on a tip related to a case in Maryland, according to Nurse.org.
That case ensnared Palm Beach School of Nursing owner Johanah Napoleon, who reportedly was selling fake degrees for $6,000 to $18,000 each to two individuals in Maryland and Virginia. Ms. Napoleon was charged in 2021 and eventually pled guilty. The Florida Board of Nursing shut down the Palm Beach school in 2017 owing to its students’ low passing rate on the national licensing exam.
Two participants in the bigger scheme who had also worked with Ms. Napoleon – Geralda Adrien and Woosvelt Predestin – were indicted in 2021. Ms. Adrien owned private education companies for people who at aspired to be nurses, and Mr. Predestin was an employee. They were sentenced to 27 months in prison last year and helped the federal officials build the larger case.
The 25 individuals who were charged Jan. 25 operated in Delaware, New York, New Jersey, Texas, and Florida.
Schemes lured immigrants
In the scheme involving Siena College, some of the individuals acted as recruiters to direct nurses who were looking for employment to the school, where they allegedly would then pay for an RN or LPN/VN degree. The recipients of the false documents then used them to obtain jobs, including at a hospital in Georgia and a Veterans Affairs medical center in Maryland, according to one indictment. The president of Siena and her co-conspirators sold more than 2,000 fake diplomas, according to charging documents.
At the Palm Beach College of Nursing, individuals at various nursing prep and education programs allegedly helped others obtain fake degrees and transcripts, which were then used to pass RN and LPN/VN licensing exams in states that included Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio, according to the indictment.
Some individuals then secured employment with a nursing home in Ohio, a home health agency for pediatric patients in Massachusetts, and skilled nursing facilities in New York and New Jersey.
Prosecutors allege that the president of Sacred Heart International Institute and two other co-conspirators sold 588 fake diplomas.
The FBI said that some of the aspiring nurses who were talked into buying the degrees were LPNs who wanted to become RNs and that most of those lured into the scheme were from South Florida’s Haitian American immigrant community, Nurse.org reported.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Department of Justice recently announced charges against 25 owners, operators, and employees of three Florida nursing schools in a fraud scheme in which they sold as many as 7,600 fake nursing degrees.
The purchasers in the diploma scheme paid $10,000 to $15,000 for degrees and transcripts and some 2,800 of the buyers passed the national nursing licensing exam to become registered nurses (RNs) and licensed practice nurses/vocational nurses (LPN/VNs) around the country, according to The New York Times.
Many of the degree recipients went on to work at hospitals, nursing homes, and Veterans Affairs medical centers, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida.
Several national nursing organizations cooperated with the investigation, and the Delaware Division of Professional Regulation already annulled 26 licenses, according to the Delaware Nurses Association. Fake licenses were issued in five states, according to federal reports.
“We are deeply unsettled by this egregious act,” DNA President Stephanie McClellan, MSN, RN, CMSRN, said in the group’s press statement. “We want all Delaware nurses to be aware of this active issue and to speak up if there is a concern regarding capacity to practice safely by a colleague/peer,” she said.
The Oregon State Board of Nursing is also investigating at least a dozen nurses who may have paid for their degrees, according to a Portland CBS affiliate.
The National Council of State Boards of Nursing said in a statement that it had helped authorities identify and monitor the individuals who allegedly provided the false degrees.
Nursing community reacts
News of the fraud scheme spread through the nursing community, including social media. “The recent report on falsified nursing school degrees is both heartbreaking and serves as an eye-opener,” tweeted Usha Menon, PhD, RN, FAAN, dean and health professor of the University of South Florida Health College of Nursing. “There was enough of a need that prompted these bad actors to develop a scheme that could’ve endangered dozens of lives.”
Jennifer Mensik Kennedy, PhD, MBA, RN, the new president of the American Nurses Association, also weighed in. “The accusation that personnel at once-accredited nursing schools allegedly participated in this scheme is simply deplorable. These unlawful and unethical acts disparage the reputation of actual nurses everywhere who have rightfully earned [their titles] through their education, hard work, dedication, and time.”
The false degrees and transcripts were issued by three once-accredited and now-shuttered nursing schools in South Florida: Palm Beach School of Nursing, Sacred Heart International Institute, and Sienna College.
The alleged co-conspirators reportedly made $114 million from the scheme, which dates back to 2016, according to several news reports. Each defendant faces up to 20 years in prison.
Most LPN programs charge $10,000 to $15,000 to complete a program, Robert Rosseter, a spokesperson for the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN), told this news organization.
None were AACN members, and none were accredited by the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education, which is AACN’s autonomous accrediting agency, Mr. Rosseter said. AACN membership is voluntary and is open to schools offering baccalaureate or higher degrees, he explained.
“What is disturbing about this investigation is that there are over 7,600 people around the country with fraudulent nursing credentials who are potentially in critical health care roles treating patients,” Chad Yarbrough, acting special agent in charge for the FBI in Miami, said in the federal justice department release.
‘Operation Nightingale’ based on tip
The federal action, dubbed “Operation Nightingale” after the nursing pioneer Florence Nightingale, began in 2019. It was based on a tip related to a case in Maryland, according to Nurse.org.
That case ensnared Palm Beach School of Nursing owner Johanah Napoleon, who reportedly was selling fake degrees for $6,000 to $18,000 each to two individuals in Maryland and Virginia. Ms. Napoleon was charged in 2021 and eventually pled guilty. The Florida Board of Nursing shut down the Palm Beach school in 2017 owing to its students’ low passing rate on the national licensing exam.
Two participants in the bigger scheme who had also worked with Ms. Napoleon – Geralda Adrien and Woosvelt Predestin – were indicted in 2021. Ms. Adrien owned private education companies for people who at aspired to be nurses, and Mr. Predestin was an employee. They were sentenced to 27 months in prison last year and helped the federal officials build the larger case.
The 25 individuals who were charged Jan. 25 operated in Delaware, New York, New Jersey, Texas, and Florida.
Schemes lured immigrants
In the scheme involving Siena College, some of the individuals acted as recruiters to direct nurses who were looking for employment to the school, where they allegedly would then pay for an RN or LPN/VN degree. The recipients of the false documents then used them to obtain jobs, including at a hospital in Georgia and a Veterans Affairs medical center in Maryland, according to one indictment. The president of Siena and her co-conspirators sold more than 2,000 fake diplomas, according to charging documents.
At the Palm Beach College of Nursing, individuals at various nursing prep and education programs allegedly helped others obtain fake degrees and transcripts, which were then used to pass RN and LPN/VN licensing exams in states that included Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio, according to the indictment.
Some individuals then secured employment with a nursing home in Ohio, a home health agency for pediatric patients in Massachusetts, and skilled nursing facilities in New York and New Jersey.
Prosecutors allege that the president of Sacred Heart International Institute and two other co-conspirators sold 588 fake diplomas.
The FBI said that some of the aspiring nurses who were talked into buying the degrees were LPNs who wanted to become RNs and that most of those lured into the scheme were from South Florida’s Haitian American immigrant community, Nurse.org reported.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Biden to end COVID emergencies in May
Doing so will have many effects, including the end of free vaccines and health services to fight the pandemic. The public health emergency has been renewed every 90 days since it was declared by the Trump administration in January 2020.
The declaration allowed major changes throughout the health care system to deal with the pandemic, including the free distribution of vaccines, testing, and treatments. In addition, telehealth services were expanded, and Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program were extended to millions more Americans.
Biden said the COVID-19 national emergency is set to expire March 1 while the declared public health emergency would currently expire on April 11. The president said both will be extended to end May 11.
There were nearly 300,000 newly reported COVID-19 cases in the United States for the week ending Jan. 25, according to CDC data, as well as more than 3,750 deaths.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Doing so will have many effects, including the end of free vaccines and health services to fight the pandemic. The public health emergency has been renewed every 90 days since it was declared by the Trump administration in January 2020.
The declaration allowed major changes throughout the health care system to deal with the pandemic, including the free distribution of vaccines, testing, and treatments. In addition, telehealth services were expanded, and Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program were extended to millions more Americans.
Biden said the COVID-19 national emergency is set to expire March 1 while the declared public health emergency would currently expire on April 11. The president said both will be extended to end May 11.
There were nearly 300,000 newly reported COVID-19 cases in the United States for the week ending Jan. 25, according to CDC data, as well as more than 3,750 deaths.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Doing so will have many effects, including the end of free vaccines and health services to fight the pandemic. The public health emergency has been renewed every 90 days since it was declared by the Trump administration in January 2020.
The declaration allowed major changes throughout the health care system to deal with the pandemic, including the free distribution of vaccines, testing, and treatments. In addition, telehealth services were expanded, and Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program were extended to millions more Americans.
Biden said the COVID-19 national emergency is set to expire March 1 while the declared public health emergency would currently expire on April 11. The president said both will be extended to end May 11.
There were nearly 300,000 newly reported COVID-19 cases in the United States for the week ending Jan. 25, according to CDC data, as well as more than 3,750 deaths.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.