MDedge ObGyn

CASE Pregnant patient with concerning symptoms of infection

A 28-year-old primigravid woman at 26 weeks’ gestation requests evaluation because of a 3-day history of low-grade fever (38.3 °C), chills, malaise, myalgias, pain in her upper back, nausea, diarrhea, and intermittent uterine contractions. Her symptoms began 2 days after she and her husband dined at a local Mexican restaurant. She specifically recalls eating unpasteurized cheese (queso fresco). Her husband also is experiencing similar symptoms.

• What is the most likely diagnosis?
• What tests should be performed to confirm the diagnosis?
• Does this infection pose a risk to the fetus?
• How should this patient be treated?

Listeriosis, a potentially serious foodborne illness, is an unusual infection in pregnancy. It can cause a number of adverse effects in both the pregnant woman and her fetus, including fetal death in utero. In this article, we review the microbiology and epidemiology of Listeria infection, consider the important steps in diagnosis, and discuss treatment options and prevention measures.

The causative organism in listeriosis

Listeriosis is caused by Listeria monocytogenes, a gram-positive, non–spore-forming bacillus. The organism is catalase positive and oxidase negative, and it exhibits tumbling motility when grown in culture. It can grow at temperatures less than 4 °C, which facilitates foodborne transmission of the bacterium despite adequate refrigeration. Of the 13 serotypes of L monocytogenes, the 1/2a, 1/2b, and 4b are most likely to be associated with human infection. The major virulence factors of L monocytogenes are the internalin surface proteins and the pore-forming listeriolysin O (LLO) cytotoxin. These factors enable the organism to effectively invade host cells.¹

The pathogen uses several mechanisms to evade gastrointestinal defenses prior to entry into the bloodstream. It avoids destruction in the stomach by using proton pump inhibitors to elevate the pH of gastric acid. In the duodenum, it survives the antibacterial properties of bile by secreting bile salt hydrolases, which catabolize bile salts. In addition, the cytotoxin listeriolysin S (LLS) disrupts the protective barrier created by the normal gut flora. Once the organism penetrates the gastrointestinal barriers, it disseminates through the blood and lymphatics and then infects other tissues, such as the brain and placenta.^1,2

Pathogenesis of infection

The primary reservoir of Listeria is soil and decaying vegetable matter. The organism also has been isolated from animal feed, water, sewage, and many animal species. With rare exceptions, most infections in adults result from inadvertent ingestion of the organism in contaminated food. In certain high-risk occupations, such as veterinary medicine, farming, and laboratory work, infection of the skin or eye can result from direct contact with an infected animal.³

Of note, foodborne illness caused by Listeria has the third highest mortality rate of any foodborne infection, 16% compared with 35% for Vibrio vulnificus and 17% for Clostridium botulinum.^2,3 The principal foods that have been linked to listeriosis include:

• soft cheeses, particularly those made from unpasteurized milk
• melon
• hot dogs
• lunch meat, such as bologna
• deli meat, especially chicken
• canned foods, such as smoked seafood, and pâté or meat spreads that are labeled “keep refrigerated”
• unpasteurized milk
• sprouts
• hummus.

In healthy adults, listeriosis is usually a short-lived illness. However, in older adults, immunocompromised patients, and pregnant women, the infection can be devastating. Infection in the pregnant woman also poses major danger to the developing fetus because the organism has a special predilection for placental and fetal tissue.^1,3,4

Immunity to Listeria infection depends primarily on T-cell lymphokine activation of macrophages. These latter cells are responsible for clearing the bacterium from the blood. As noted above, the principal virulence factor of L monocytogenes is listeriolysin O, a cholesterol-dependent cytolysin. This substance induces T-cell receptor unresponsiveness, thus interfering with the host immune response to the invading pathogen.^1,3-5

Continue to: Clinical manifestations of listeriosis...

Listeria infections may present with various manifestations, depending on the degree of exposure and the underlying immunocompetence of the host (FIGURE). In its most common and simplest form, listeriosis presents as a mild to moderate gastroenteritis following exposure to contaminated food. Symptoms typically develop within 24 hours of exposure and include fever, myalgias, abdominal or back pain, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.⁵

Conversely, in immunocompromised patients, including pregnant women, listeriosis can present as life-threatening sepsis and/or central nervous system (CNS) infection (invasive infection). In this clinical setting, the mean incubation period is 11 days. The manifestations of CNS infection include meningoencephalitis, cerebritis, rhombencephalitis (infection and inflammation of the brain stem), brain abscess, and spinal cord abscess.⁵

In addition to these 2 clinical presentations, listeriosis can cause unusual focal infections as illustrated in the FIGURE. Some of these infections have unique clinical associations. For example, skin or eye infections may occur as a result of direct inoculation in veterinarians, farmers, and laboratory workers. Listeria peritonitis may occur in patients who are receiving peritoneal dialysis and in those who have cirrhosis. Prosthetic joint and graft infections, of course, may occur in patients who have had invasive procedures for implantation of grafts or prosthetic devices.⁵

Listeriosis is especially dangerous in pregnancy because it not only can cause serious injury to the mother and even death but it also may pose a major risk to fetal well-being. Possible perinatal complications include fetal death; preterm labor and delivery; and neonatal sepsis, meningitis, and death.^5-8

Making the diagnosis

Diagnosis begins with a thorough and focused history to assess for characteristic symptoms and possible Listeria exposure. Exposure should be presumed for patients who report consuming high-risk foods, especially foods recently recalled by the US Food and Drug Administration.

In the asymptomatic pregnant patient, diagnostic testing can be deferred, and the patient should be instructed to return for evaluation if symptoms develop within 2 months of exposure. However, symptomatic, febrile patients require testing. The most valuable testing modality is Gram stain and culture of blood. Gram stain typically will show gram-positive pleomorphic rods with rounded ends. Amniocentesis may be indicated if blood cultures are not definitive. Meconium staining of the amniotic fluid and a positive Gram stain are highly indicative of fetal infection. Cultures of the cerebrospinal fluid are indicated in any individual with focal neurologic findings. Stool cultures are rarely indicated.

When obtaining any of the cultures noted above, the clinician should alert the microbiologist of the concern for listeriosis because L monocytogenes can be confused with common contaminants, such as diphtheroids.^5-9

Treatment and follow-up

The treatment of listeriosis in pregnancy depends on the severity of the infection and the immune status of the mother. The TABLE offers several different clinical scenarios and the appropriate treatment for each. As noted, several scenarios may require cultures of the blood, cerebrospinal fluid, and amniotic fluid.^7,9,10

Following treatment of the mother, serial ultrasound examinations should be performed to monitor fetal growth, CNS anatomy, placental morphology, amniotic fluid volume, and umbilical artery Doppler velocimetry. In the presence of fetal growth restriction, oligohydramnios, or abnormal Doppler velocimetry, biophysical profile testing should be performed. After delivery, the placenta should be examined carefully for histologic evidence of Listeria infection, such as miliary abscesses, and cultured for the bacterium.^7-9

Prevention measures

Conservative measures for prevention of Listeria infection in pregnant women include the following^7,10-12:

• Refrigerate milk and milk products at 40 °F (4.4 °C).
• Thoroughly cook raw food from animal sources.
• Wash raw vegetables carefully before eating.
• Keep uncooked meats separate from cooked meats and vegetables.
• Do not consume any beverages or foods made from unpasteurized milk.
• After handling uncooked foods, carefully wash all utensils and hands.
• Avoid all soft cheeses, such as Mexican-style feta, Brie, Camembert, and blue cheese, even if they are supposedly made from pasteurized milk.
• Reheat until steaming hot all leftover foods or ready-to-eat foods, such as hot dogs.
• Do not let juice from hot dogs or lunch meat packages drip onto other foods, utensils, or food preparation surfaces.
• Do not store opened hot dog packages in the refrigerator for more than 1 week. Do not store unopened packages for longer than 2 weeks.
• Do not store unopened lunch and deli meat packages in the refrigerator for longer than 2 weeks. Do not store opened packages for longer than 3 to 5 days.
• If other immunosuppressive conditions are present in combination with pregnancy, thoroughly heat cold cuts before eating.
• Do not eat raw or even lightly cooked sprouts of any kind. Cook sprouts thoroughly. Rinsing sprouts will not remove Listeria organisms.
• Do not eat refrigerated pâté or meat spreads from a deli counter or the refrigerated section of a grocery store.
• Canned or shelf-stable pâté and meat spreads are safe to eat, but be sure to refrigerate them after opening the packages.
• Do not eat refrigerated smoked seafood. Canned or shelf-stable seafood, particularly when incorporated into a casserole, is safe to eat.
• Eat cut melon immediately. Refrigerate uneaten melon quickly if not eaten. Discard cut melon that is left at room temperature for more than 4 hours.

CASE Diagnosis made and prompt treatment initiated

The most likely diagnosis in this patient is listeriosis. Because the patient is moderately ill and experiencing uterine contractions, she should be hospitalized and monitored for progressive cervical dilation. Blood cultures should be obtained to identify L monocytogenes. In addition, an amniocentesis should be performed, and the amniotic fluid should be cultured for this microorganism. Stool culture and culture of the cerebrospinal fluid are not indicated. The patient should be treated with intravenous ampicillin, 2 g every 4 hours for 14 days. If she is allergic to penicillin, the alternative drug is trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, 8 to 10 mg/kg per day in 2 divided doses, for 14 days. Prompt and effective treatment of the mother should prevent infection in the fetus and newborn. ●

CASE Pregnant patient with concerning symptoms of infection

A 28-year-old primigravid woman at 26 weeks’ gestation requests evaluation because of a 3-day history of low-grade fever (38.3 °C), chills, malaise, myalgias, pain in her upper back, nausea, diarrhea, and intermittent uterine contractions. Her symptoms began 2 days after she and her husband dined at a local Mexican restaurant. She specifically recalls eating unpasteurized cheese (queso fresco). Her husband also is experiencing similar symptoms.

• What is the most likely diagnosis?
• What tests should be performed to confirm the diagnosis?
• Does this infection pose a risk to the fetus?
• How should this patient be treated?

Listeriosis, a potentially serious foodborne illness, is an unusual infection in pregnancy. It can cause a number of adverse effects in both the pregnant woman and her fetus, including fetal death in utero. In this article, we review the microbiology and epidemiology of Listeria infection, consider the important steps in diagnosis, and discuss treatment options and prevention measures.

The causative organism in listeriosis

Listeriosis is caused by Listeria monocytogenes, a gram-positive, non–spore-forming bacillus. The organism is catalase positive and oxidase negative, and it exhibits tumbling motility when grown in culture. It can grow at temperatures less than 4 °C, which facilitates foodborne transmission of the bacterium despite adequate refrigeration. Of the 13 serotypes of L monocytogenes, the 1/2a, 1/2b, and 4b are most likely to be associated with human infection. The major virulence factors of L monocytogenes are the internalin surface proteins and the pore-forming listeriolysin O (LLO) cytotoxin. These factors enable the organism to effectively invade host cells.¹

The pathogen uses several mechanisms to evade gastrointestinal defenses prior to entry into the bloodstream. It avoids destruction in the stomach by using proton pump inhibitors to elevate the pH of gastric acid. In the duodenum, it survives the antibacterial properties of bile by secreting bile salt hydrolases, which catabolize bile salts. In addition, the cytotoxin listeriolysin S (LLS) disrupts the protective barrier created by the normal gut flora. Once the organism penetrates the gastrointestinal barriers, it disseminates through the blood and lymphatics and then infects other tissues, such as the brain and placenta.^1,2

Pathogenesis of infection

The primary reservoir of Listeria is soil and decaying vegetable matter. The organism also has been isolated from animal feed, water, sewage, and many animal species. With rare exceptions, most infections in adults result from inadvertent ingestion of the organism in contaminated food. In certain high-risk occupations, such as veterinary medicine, farming, and laboratory work, infection of the skin or eye can result from direct contact with an infected animal.³

Of note, foodborne illness caused by Listeria has the third highest mortality rate of any foodborne infection, 16% compared with 35% for Vibrio vulnificus and 17% for Clostridium botulinum.^2,3 The principal foods that have been linked to listeriosis include:

• soft cheeses, particularly those made from unpasteurized milk
• melon
• hot dogs
• lunch meat, such as bologna
• deli meat, especially chicken
• canned foods, such as smoked seafood, and pâté or meat spreads that are labeled “keep refrigerated”
• unpasteurized milk
• sprouts
• hummus.

In healthy adults, listeriosis is usually a short-lived illness. However, in older adults, immunocompromised patients, and pregnant women, the infection can be devastating. Infection in the pregnant woman also poses major danger to the developing fetus because the organism has a special predilection for placental and fetal tissue.^1,3,4

Immunity to Listeria infection depends primarily on T-cell lymphokine activation of macrophages. These latter cells are responsible for clearing the bacterium from the blood. As noted above, the principal virulence factor of L monocytogenes is listeriolysin O, a cholesterol-dependent cytolysin. This substance induces T-cell receptor unresponsiveness, thus interfering with the host immune response to the invading pathogen.^1,3-5

Continue to: Clinical manifestations of listeriosis...

Listeria infections may present with various manifestations, depending on the degree of exposure and the underlying immunocompetence of the host (FIGURE). In its most common and simplest form, listeriosis presents as a mild to moderate gastroenteritis following exposure to contaminated food. Symptoms typically develop within 24 hours of exposure and include fever, myalgias, abdominal or back pain, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.⁵

Conversely, in immunocompromised patients, including pregnant women, listeriosis can present as life-threatening sepsis and/or central nervous system (CNS) infection (invasive infection). In this clinical setting, the mean incubation period is 11 days. The manifestations of CNS infection include meningoencephalitis, cerebritis, rhombencephalitis (infection and inflammation of the brain stem), brain abscess, and spinal cord abscess.⁵

In addition to these 2 clinical presentations, listeriosis can cause unusual focal infections as illustrated in the FIGURE. Some of these infections have unique clinical associations. For example, skin or eye infections may occur as a result of direct inoculation in veterinarians, farmers, and laboratory workers. Listeria peritonitis may occur in patients who are receiving peritoneal dialysis and in those who have cirrhosis. Prosthetic joint and graft infections, of course, may occur in patients who have had invasive procedures for implantation of grafts or prosthetic devices.⁵

Listeriosis is especially dangerous in pregnancy because it not only can cause serious injury to the mother and even death but it also may pose a major risk to fetal well-being. Possible perinatal complications include fetal death; preterm labor and delivery; and neonatal sepsis, meningitis, and death.^5-8

Making the diagnosis

Diagnosis begins with a thorough and focused history to assess for characteristic symptoms and possible Listeria exposure. Exposure should be presumed for patients who report consuming high-risk foods, especially foods recently recalled by the US Food and Drug Administration.

In the asymptomatic pregnant patient, diagnostic testing can be deferred, and the patient should be instructed to return for evaluation if symptoms develop within 2 months of exposure. However, symptomatic, febrile patients require testing. The most valuable testing modality is Gram stain and culture of blood. Gram stain typically will show gram-positive pleomorphic rods with rounded ends. Amniocentesis may be indicated if blood cultures are not definitive. Meconium staining of the amniotic fluid and a positive Gram stain are highly indicative of fetal infection. Cultures of the cerebrospinal fluid are indicated in any individual with focal neurologic findings. Stool cultures are rarely indicated.

When obtaining any of the cultures noted above, the clinician should alert the microbiologist of the concern for listeriosis because L monocytogenes can be confused with common contaminants, such as diphtheroids.^5-9

Treatment and follow-up

The treatment of listeriosis in pregnancy depends on the severity of the infection and the immune status of the mother. The TABLE offers several different clinical scenarios and the appropriate treatment for each. As noted, several scenarios may require cultures of the blood, cerebrospinal fluid, and amniotic fluid.^7,9,10

Following treatment of the mother, serial ultrasound examinations should be performed to monitor fetal growth, CNS anatomy, placental morphology, amniotic fluid volume, and umbilical artery Doppler velocimetry. In the presence of fetal growth restriction, oligohydramnios, or abnormal Doppler velocimetry, biophysical profile testing should be performed. After delivery, the placenta should be examined carefully for histologic evidence of Listeria infection, such as miliary abscesses, and cultured for the bacterium.^7-9

Prevention measures

Conservative measures for prevention of Listeria infection in pregnant women include the following^7,10-12:

• Refrigerate milk and milk products at 40 °F (4.4 °C).
• Thoroughly cook raw food from animal sources.
• Wash raw vegetables carefully before eating.
• Keep uncooked meats separate from cooked meats and vegetables.
• Do not consume any beverages or foods made from unpasteurized milk.
• After handling uncooked foods, carefully wash all utensils and hands.
• Avoid all soft cheeses, such as Mexican-style feta, Brie, Camembert, and blue cheese, even if they are supposedly made from pasteurized milk.
• Reheat until steaming hot all leftover foods or ready-to-eat foods, such as hot dogs.
• Do not let juice from hot dogs or lunch meat packages drip onto other foods, utensils, or food preparation surfaces.
• Do not store opened hot dog packages in the refrigerator for more than 1 week. Do not store unopened packages for longer than 2 weeks.
• Do not store unopened lunch and deli meat packages in the refrigerator for longer than 2 weeks. Do not store opened packages for longer than 3 to 5 days.
• If other immunosuppressive conditions are present in combination with pregnancy, thoroughly heat cold cuts before eating.
• Do not eat raw or even lightly cooked sprouts of any kind. Cook sprouts thoroughly. Rinsing sprouts will not remove Listeria organisms.
• Do not eat refrigerated pâté or meat spreads from a deli counter or the refrigerated section of a grocery store.
• Canned or shelf-stable pâté and meat spreads are safe to eat, but be sure to refrigerate them after opening the packages.
• Do not eat refrigerated smoked seafood. Canned or shelf-stable seafood, particularly when incorporated into a casserole, is safe to eat.
• Eat cut melon immediately. Refrigerate uneaten melon quickly if not eaten. Discard cut melon that is left at room temperature for more than 4 hours.

CASE Diagnosis made and prompt treatment initiated

The most likely diagnosis in this patient is listeriosis. Because the patient is moderately ill and experiencing uterine contractions, she should be hospitalized and monitored for progressive cervical dilation. Blood cultures should be obtained to identify L monocytogenes. In addition, an amniocentesis should be performed, and the amniotic fluid should be cultured for this microorganism. Stool culture and culture of the cerebrospinal fluid are not indicated. The patient should be treated with intravenous ampicillin, 2 g every 4 hours for 14 days. If she is allergic to penicillin, the alternative drug is trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, 8 to 10 mg/kg per day in 2 divided doses, for 14 days. Prompt and effective treatment of the mother should prevent infection in the fetus and newborn. ●

CASE Pregnant patient with concerning symptoms of infection

A 28-year-old primigravid woman at 26 weeks’ gestation requests evaluation because of a 3-day history of low-grade fever (38.3 °C), chills, malaise, myalgias, pain in her upper back, nausea, diarrhea, and intermittent uterine contractions. Her symptoms began 2 days after she and her husband dined at a local Mexican restaurant. She specifically recalls eating unpasteurized cheese (queso fresco). Her husband also is experiencing similar symptoms.

• What is the most likely diagnosis?
• What tests should be performed to confirm the diagnosis?
• Does this infection pose a risk to the fetus?
• How should this patient be treated?

Listeriosis, a potentially serious foodborne illness, is an unusual infection in pregnancy. It can cause a number of adverse effects in both the pregnant woman and her fetus, including fetal death in utero. In this article, we review the microbiology and epidemiology of Listeria infection, consider the important steps in diagnosis, and discuss treatment options and prevention measures.

The causative organism in listeriosis

Listeriosis is caused by Listeria monocytogenes, a gram-positive, non–spore-forming bacillus. The organism is catalase positive and oxidase negative, and it exhibits tumbling motility when grown in culture. It can grow at temperatures less than 4 °C, which facilitates foodborne transmission of the bacterium despite adequate refrigeration. Of the 13 serotypes of L monocytogenes, the 1/2a, 1/2b, and 4b are most likely to be associated with human infection. The major virulence factors of L monocytogenes are the internalin surface proteins and the pore-forming listeriolysin O (LLO) cytotoxin. These factors enable the organism to effectively invade host cells.¹

The pathogen uses several mechanisms to evade gastrointestinal defenses prior to entry into the bloodstream. It avoids destruction in the stomach by using proton pump inhibitors to elevate the pH of gastric acid. In the duodenum, it survives the antibacterial properties of bile by secreting bile salt hydrolases, which catabolize bile salts. In addition, the cytotoxin listeriolysin S (LLS) disrupts the protective barrier created by the normal gut flora. Once the organism penetrates the gastrointestinal barriers, it disseminates through the blood and lymphatics and then infects other tissues, such as the brain and placenta.^1,2

Pathogenesis of infection

The primary reservoir of Listeria is soil and decaying vegetable matter. The organism also has been isolated from animal feed, water, sewage, and many animal species. With rare exceptions, most infections in adults result from inadvertent ingestion of the organism in contaminated food. In certain high-risk occupations, such as veterinary medicine, farming, and laboratory work, infection of the skin or eye can result from direct contact with an infected animal.³

Of note, foodborne illness caused by Listeria has the third highest mortality rate of any foodborne infection, 16% compared with 35% for Vibrio vulnificus and 17% for Clostridium botulinum.^2,3 The principal foods that have been linked to listeriosis include:

• soft cheeses, particularly those made from unpasteurized milk
• melon
• hot dogs
• lunch meat, such as bologna
• deli meat, especially chicken
• canned foods, such as smoked seafood, and pâté or meat spreads that are labeled “keep refrigerated”
• unpasteurized milk
• sprouts
• hummus.

In healthy adults, listeriosis is usually a short-lived illness. However, in older adults, immunocompromised patients, and pregnant women, the infection can be devastating. Infection in the pregnant woman also poses major danger to the developing fetus because the organism has a special predilection for placental and fetal tissue.^1,3,4

Immunity to Listeria infection depends primarily on T-cell lymphokine activation of macrophages. These latter cells are responsible for clearing the bacterium from the blood. As noted above, the principal virulence factor of L monocytogenes is listeriolysin O, a cholesterol-dependent cytolysin. This substance induces T-cell receptor unresponsiveness, thus interfering with the host immune response to the invading pathogen.^1,3-5

Continue to: Clinical manifestations of listeriosis...

Listeria infections may present with various manifestations, depending on the degree of exposure and the underlying immunocompetence of the host (FIGURE). In its most common and simplest form, listeriosis presents as a mild to moderate gastroenteritis following exposure to contaminated food. Symptoms typically develop within 24 hours of exposure and include fever, myalgias, abdominal or back pain, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.⁵

Conversely, in immunocompromised patients, including pregnant women, listeriosis can present as life-threatening sepsis and/or central nervous system (CNS) infection (invasive infection). In this clinical setting, the mean incubation period is 11 days. The manifestations of CNS infection include meningoencephalitis, cerebritis, rhombencephalitis (infection and inflammation of the brain stem), brain abscess, and spinal cord abscess.⁵

In addition to these 2 clinical presentations, listeriosis can cause unusual focal infections as illustrated in the FIGURE. Some of these infections have unique clinical associations. For example, skin or eye infections may occur as a result of direct inoculation in veterinarians, farmers, and laboratory workers. Listeria peritonitis may occur in patients who are receiving peritoneal dialysis and in those who have cirrhosis. Prosthetic joint and graft infections, of course, may occur in patients who have had invasive procedures for implantation of grafts or prosthetic devices.⁵

Listeriosis is especially dangerous in pregnancy because it not only can cause serious injury to the mother and even death but it also may pose a major risk to fetal well-being. Possible perinatal complications include fetal death; preterm labor and delivery; and neonatal sepsis, meningitis, and death.^5-8

Making the diagnosis

Diagnosis begins with a thorough and focused history to assess for characteristic symptoms and possible Listeria exposure. Exposure should be presumed for patients who report consuming high-risk foods, especially foods recently recalled by the US Food and Drug Administration.

In the asymptomatic pregnant patient, diagnostic testing can be deferred, and the patient should be instructed to return for evaluation if symptoms develop within 2 months of exposure. However, symptomatic, febrile patients require testing. The most valuable testing modality is Gram stain and culture of blood. Gram stain typically will show gram-positive pleomorphic rods with rounded ends. Amniocentesis may be indicated if blood cultures are not definitive. Meconium staining of the amniotic fluid and a positive Gram stain are highly indicative of fetal infection. Cultures of the cerebrospinal fluid are indicated in any individual with focal neurologic findings. Stool cultures are rarely indicated.

When obtaining any of the cultures noted above, the clinician should alert the microbiologist of the concern for listeriosis because L monocytogenes can be confused with common contaminants, such as diphtheroids.^5-9

Treatment and follow-up

The treatment of listeriosis in pregnancy depends on the severity of the infection and the immune status of the mother. The TABLE offers several different clinical scenarios and the appropriate treatment for each. As noted, several scenarios may require cultures of the blood, cerebrospinal fluid, and amniotic fluid.^7,9,10

Following treatment of the mother, serial ultrasound examinations should be performed to monitor fetal growth, CNS anatomy, placental morphology, amniotic fluid volume, and umbilical artery Doppler velocimetry. In the presence of fetal growth restriction, oligohydramnios, or abnormal Doppler velocimetry, biophysical profile testing should be performed. After delivery, the placenta should be examined carefully for histologic evidence of Listeria infection, such as miliary abscesses, and cultured for the bacterium.^7-9

Prevention measures

Conservative measures for prevention of Listeria infection in pregnant women include the following^7,10-12:

• Refrigerate milk and milk products at 40 °F (4.4 °C).
• Thoroughly cook raw food from animal sources.
• Wash raw vegetables carefully before eating.
• Keep uncooked meats separate from cooked meats and vegetables.
• Do not consume any beverages or foods made from unpasteurized milk.
• After handling uncooked foods, carefully wash all utensils and hands.
• Avoid all soft cheeses, such as Mexican-style feta, Brie, Camembert, and blue cheese, even if they are supposedly made from pasteurized milk.
• Reheat until steaming hot all leftover foods or ready-to-eat foods, such as hot dogs.
• Do not let juice from hot dogs or lunch meat packages drip onto other foods, utensils, or food preparation surfaces.
• Do not store opened hot dog packages in the refrigerator for more than 1 week. Do not store unopened packages for longer than 2 weeks.
• Do not store unopened lunch and deli meat packages in the refrigerator for longer than 2 weeks. Do not store opened packages for longer than 3 to 5 days.
• If other immunosuppressive conditions are present in combination with pregnancy, thoroughly heat cold cuts before eating.
• Do not eat raw or even lightly cooked sprouts of any kind. Cook sprouts thoroughly. Rinsing sprouts will not remove Listeria organisms.
• Do not eat refrigerated pâté or meat spreads from a deli counter or the refrigerated section of a grocery store.
• Canned or shelf-stable pâté and meat spreads are safe to eat, but be sure to refrigerate them after opening the packages.
• Do not eat refrigerated smoked seafood. Canned or shelf-stable seafood, particularly when incorporated into a casserole, is safe to eat.
• Eat cut melon immediately. Refrigerate uneaten melon quickly if not eaten. Discard cut melon that is left at room temperature for more than 4 hours.

CASE Diagnosis made and prompt treatment initiated

The most likely diagnosis in this patient is listeriosis. Because the patient is moderately ill and experiencing uterine contractions, she should be hospitalized and monitored for progressive cervical dilation. Blood cultures should be obtained to identify L monocytogenes. In addition, an amniocentesis should be performed, and the amniotic fluid should be cultured for this microorganism. Stool culture and culture of the cerebrospinal fluid are not indicated. The patient should be treated with intravenous ampicillin, 2 g every 4 hours for 14 days. If she is allergic to penicillin, the alternative drug is trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, 8 to 10 mg/kg per day in 2 divided doses, for 14 days. Prompt and effective treatment of the mother should prevent infection in the fetus and newborn. ●

Children who were exposed in utero to maternal cancer and treatment do not appear to have any long-term health consequences as a result of this exposure, a nationwide Danish study suggests.

The study evaluated live-born children between January 1978 and December 2018 whose mothers were diagnosed with cancer during pregnancy. Compared with unexposed fetuses, children exposed in utero had no higher overall mortality and no increased risk of congenital malformations.

Researchers also determined that exposure to chemotherapy was not associated with somatic diseases and congenital malformations when compared with in utero exposure to maternal cancer without chemotherapy.

“These findings suggest that fetal exposure to maternal cancer and treatment did not have implications for the long-term somatic and psychiatric health of the children, which is reassuring for the affected families and their health care providers,” the researchers commented.

The paper was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Approached for comment, Katherine Van Loon, MD, MPH, director of the Global Cancer Program at the University of California, San Francisco, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, said the results offer “promising news.”

“In the balance between administering needed oncologic therapy to save a mother’s life versus considering potential risks to the fetus, this data is reassuring that there is not an increased risk of catastrophic outcomes for the fetus,” Dr. Van Loon said. She noted, however, that the exposed children were not prospectively evaluated for adverse outcomes, which may have been more subtle that this study could detect.

The authors used data from the Danish Civil Registration System and Danish Medical Birth Register. They found that of 2,526,163 live-born children, 690 (0.03%) were exposed to maternal cancer in utero. Children born to mothers younger than 15 years or older than 54 years and children with an outcome diagnosis were excluded from the study.

Researchers found that children exposed to maternal cancer in utero did not demonstrate a higher overall mortality than the unexposed reference group; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.8 (95% confidence interval, 0.4-1.5). There was also no excess of congenital malformations (aHR, 1.0 [95% CI, 0.8-1.2]). In addition, there were no excesses of puberty disturbances or respiratory, cardiovascular, urinary tract, or neurologic disease.

Researchers also conducted a subgroup analysis on in utero exposure to chemotherapy, which involved 1,053,109 children born after 2002. There were 378 (0.03%) children exposed to maternal cancer in utero, and 42 (12.5%) who were exposed to chemotherapy. Chemotherapy was given during the second trimester in 73.8% of the mothers and during the third trimester in 26.2%.

No deaths or events of cancer, autism spectrum disorder, ADHD, hearing loss, or suppressed myelopoiesis were identified during follow-up of the 42 children exposed to chemotherapy in utero.

Dr. Van Loon said many cancer treatments are safe during pregnancy but added that every situation is nuanced with a number of variables to consider.

“All treatment decisions must take into account the diagnosis and prognosis of the mother, the gestational age of the fetus, and the potential teratogenic effects of the proposed treatments,” she said.

The study was supported by grants from the Research Fund of Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, Johannes Clemmesen Research Foundation, Helsefonden, Holm Memorial Foundation, and the Danish Cancer Research Foundation. Researcher disclosures are listed in the study paper.
 

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

Children who were exposed in utero to maternal cancer and treatment do not appear to have any long-term health consequences as a result of this exposure, a nationwide Danish study suggests.

The study evaluated live-born children between January 1978 and December 2018 whose mothers were diagnosed with cancer during pregnancy. Compared with unexposed fetuses, children exposed in utero had no higher overall mortality and no increased risk of congenital malformations.

Researchers also determined that exposure to chemotherapy was not associated with somatic diseases and congenital malformations when compared with in utero exposure to maternal cancer without chemotherapy.

“These findings suggest that fetal exposure to maternal cancer and treatment did not have implications for the long-term somatic and psychiatric health of the children, which is reassuring for the affected families and their health care providers,” the researchers commented.

The paper was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Approached for comment, Katherine Van Loon, MD, MPH, director of the Global Cancer Program at the University of California, San Francisco, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, said the results offer “promising news.”

“In the balance between administering needed oncologic therapy to save a mother’s life versus considering potential risks to the fetus, this data is reassuring that there is not an increased risk of catastrophic outcomes for the fetus,” Dr. Van Loon said. She noted, however, that the exposed children were not prospectively evaluated for adverse outcomes, which may have been more subtle that this study could detect.

The authors used data from the Danish Civil Registration System and Danish Medical Birth Register. They found that of 2,526,163 live-born children, 690 (0.03%) were exposed to maternal cancer in utero. Children born to mothers younger than 15 years or older than 54 years and children with an outcome diagnosis were excluded from the study.

Researchers found that children exposed to maternal cancer in utero did not demonstrate a higher overall mortality than the unexposed reference group; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.8 (95% confidence interval, 0.4-1.5). There was also no excess of congenital malformations (aHR, 1.0 [95% CI, 0.8-1.2]). In addition, there were no excesses of puberty disturbances or respiratory, cardiovascular, urinary tract, or neurologic disease.

Researchers also conducted a subgroup analysis on in utero exposure to chemotherapy, which involved 1,053,109 children born after 2002. There were 378 (0.03%) children exposed to maternal cancer in utero, and 42 (12.5%) who were exposed to chemotherapy. Chemotherapy was given during the second trimester in 73.8% of the mothers and during the third trimester in 26.2%.

No deaths or events of cancer, autism spectrum disorder, ADHD, hearing loss, or suppressed myelopoiesis were identified during follow-up of the 42 children exposed to chemotherapy in utero.

Dr. Van Loon said many cancer treatments are safe during pregnancy but added that every situation is nuanced with a number of variables to consider.

“All treatment decisions must take into account the diagnosis and prognosis of the mother, the gestational age of the fetus, and the potential teratogenic effects of the proposed treatments,” she said.

The study was supported by grants from the Research Fund of Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, Johannes Clemmesen Research Foundation, Helsefonden, Holm Memorial Foundation, and the Danish Cancer Research Foundation. Researcher disclosures are listed in the study paper.
 

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

Children who were exposed in utero to maternal cancer and treatment do not appear to have any long-term health consequences as a result of this exposure, a nationwide Danish study suggests.

The study evaluated live-born children between January 1978 and December 2018 whose mothers were diagnosed with cancer during pregnancy. Compared with unexposed fetuses, children exposed in utero had no higher overall mortality and no increased risk of congenital malformations.

Researchers also determined that exposure to chemotherapy was not associated with somatic diseases and congenital malformations when compared with in utero exposure to maternal cancer without chemotherapy.

“These findings suggest that fetal exposure to maternal cancer and treatment did not have implications for the long-term somatic and psychiatric health of the children, which is reassuring for the affected families and their health care providers,” the researchers commented.

The paper was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Approached for comment, Katherine Van Loon, MD, MPH, director of the Global Cancer Program at the University of California, San Francisco, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, said the results offer “promising news.”

“In the balance between administering needed oncologic therapy to save a mother’s life versus considering potential risks to the fetus, this data is reassuring that there is not an increased risk of catastrophic outcomes for the fetus,” Dr. Van Loon said. She noted, however, that the exposed children were not prospectively evaluated for adverse outcomes, which may have been more subtle that this study could detect.

The authors used data from the Danish Civil Registration System and Danish Medical Birth Register. They found that of 2,526,163 live-born children, 690 (0.03%) were exposed to maternal cancer in utero. Children born to mothers younger than 15 years or older than 54 years and children with an outcome diagnosis were excluded from the study.

Researchers found that children exposed to maternal cancer in utero did not demonstrate a higher overall mortality than the unexposed reference group; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.8 (95% confidence interval, 0.4-1.5). There was also no excess of congenital malformations (aHR, 1.0 [95% CI, 0.8-1.2]). In addition, there were no excesses of puberty disturbances or respiratory, cardiovascular, urinary tract, or neurologic disease.

Researchers also conducted a subgroup analysis on in utero exposure to chemotherapy, which involved 1,053,109 children born after 2002. There were 378 (0.03%) children exposed to maternal cancer in utero, and 42 (12.5%) who were exposed to chemotherapy. Chemotherapy was given during the second trimester in 73.8% of the mothers and during the third trimester in 26.2%.

No deaths or events of cancer, autism spectrum disorder, ADHD, hearing loss, or suppressed myelopoiesis were identified during follow-up of the 42 children exposed to chemotherapy in utero.

Dr. Van Loon said many cancer treatments are safe during pregnancy but added that every situation is nuanced with a number of variables to consider.

“All treatment decisions must take into account the diagnosis and prognosis of the mother, the gestational age of the fetus, and the potential teratogenic effects of the proposed treatments,” she said.

The study was supported by grants from the Research Fund of Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, Johannes Clemmesen Research Foundation, Helsefonden, Holm Memorial Foundation, and the Danish Cancer Research Foundation. Researcher disclosures are listed in the study paper.
 

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

A statewide quality initiative can improve severe maternal morbidity (SMM) and reduce the incidence of maternal morbidity and mortality from postpartum hemorrhage (PPH), a modeling analysis found. Such measures could potentially provide savings to birthing hospitals, according to the California cost-effectiveness study, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

A team led by Eric C. Wiesehan, MHA, MBA, a PhD candidate in health policy at Stanford (Calif.) University, examined the effects of the safety initiative of the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative (CMQCC) in a theoretical cohort of 480,000 births across a mix of hospital settings and sizes. The CMQCC developed a PPH toolkit and quality-improvement protocol to increase recognition, measurement, and timely response to PPH.

Drawing retrospectively on a large 2017 California implementation study, the simulation estimated that collaborative implementation of the CMQCC added 182 quality-adjusted life-years (0.000379 per birth) by averting 913 cases of SMM, 28 emergency hysterectomies, and one maternal mortality. Additionally, it saved $9 million ($17.78 per birth) owing to avoided SMM costs.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, pregnancy-related maternal deaths in the United States have increased from 7.2 per 100,000 live births to 16.9 per 100,000 live births over the past 20 years, making it the only country in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development with rising rates of maternal mortality. PPH accounts for 11% of maternal deaths.

As to the study’s broader applicability, Dr. Wiesehan said in an interview, “findings of effectiveness in terms of reducing PPH-related SMM are well known outside of California. In terms of costs, however, it is more of an unknown how much is generalizable. It would go a long way if another state quality care collaborative implementing such a project recorded costs prospectively. Prospective costing, particularly microcosting, would be optimal to precisely place where the most, or least, value of this quality improvement project is achieved.”

Studies of PPH safety programs in other U.S. jurisdictions showing reductions in blood transfusions and maternal morbidities suggest the current findings are relevant to a range of hospital settings and regions. “With state perinatal collaboratives already in 47 states, examination of implementation of the PPH-SMM reduction initiative within additional collaboratives would add further robustness to our findings,” the authors wrote.

In 2022, a New York City hospital study reported that learning collaboratives that optimize practice and raise staff awareness could be important tools for improving maternal outcomes.

Still to be answered, said Dr. Wiesehan, are questions about the long-term effectiveness and sustainability of the quality initiative project beyond the early pre/post periods. 

The authors indicated no specific funding for the study and had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

A statewide quality initiative can improve severe maternal morbidity (SMM) and reduce the incidence of maternal morbidity and mortality from postpartum hemorrhage (PPH), a modeling analysis found. Such measures could potentially provide savings to birthing hospitals, according to the California cost-effectiveness study, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

A team led by Eric C. Wiesehan, MHA, MBA, a PhD candidate in health policy at Stanford (Calif.) University, examined the effects of the safety initiative of the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative (CMQCC) in a theoretical cohort of 480,000 births across a mix of hospital settings and sizes. The CMQCC developed a PPH toolkit and quality-improvement protocol to increase recognition, measurement, and timely response to PPH.

Drawing retrospectively on a large 2017 California implementation study, the simulation estimated that collaborative implementation of the CMQCC added 182 quality-adjusted life-years (0.000379 per birth) by averting 913 cases of SMM, 28 emergency hysterectomies, and one maternal mortality. Additionally, it saved $9 million ($17.78 per birth) owing to avoided SMM costs.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, pregnancy-related maternal deaths in the United States have increased from 7.2 per 100,000 live births to 16.9 per 100,000 live births over the past 20 years, making it the only country in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development with rising rates of maternal mortality. PPH accounts for 11% of maternal deaths.

As to the study’s broader applicability, Dr. Wiesehan said in an interview, “findings of effectiveness in terms of reducing PPH-related SMM are well known outside of California. In terms of costs, however, it is more of an unknown how much is generalizable. It would go a long way if another state quality care collaborative implementing such a project recorded costs prospectively. Prospective costing, particularly microcosting, would be optimal to precisely place where the most, or least, value of this quality improvement project is achieved.”

Studies of PPH safety programs in other U.S. jurisdictions showing reductions in blood transfusions and maternal morbidities suggest the current findings are relevant to a range of hospital settings and regions. “With state perinatal collaboratives already in 47 states, examination of implementation of the PPH-SMM reduction initiative within additional collaboratives would add further robustness to our findings,” the authors wrote.

In 2022, a New York City hospital study reported that learning collaboratives that optimize practice and raise staff awareness could be important tools for improving maternal outcomes.

Still to be answered, said Dr. Wiesehan, are questions about the long-term effectiveness and sustainability of the quality initiative project beyond the early pre/post periods. 

The authors indicated no specific funding for the study and had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

A statewide quality initiative can improve severe maternal morbidity (SMM) and reduce the incidence of maternal morbidity and mortality from postpartum hemorrhage (PPH), a modeling analysis found. Such measures could potentially provide savings to birthing hospitals, according to the California cost-effectiveness study, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

A team led by Eric C. Wiesehan, MHA, MBA, a PhD candidate in health policy at Stanford (Calif.) University, examined the effects of the safety initiative of the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative (CMQCC) in a theoretical cohort of 480,000 births across a mix of hospital settings and sizes. The CMQCC developed a PPH toolkit and quality-improvement protocol to increase recognition, measurement, and timely response to PPH.

Drawing retrospectively on a large 2017 California implementation study, the simulation estimated that collaborative implementation of the CMQCC added 182 quality-adjusted life-years (0.000379 per birth) by averting 913 cases of SMM, 28 emergency hysterectomies, and one maternal mortality. Additionally, it saved $9 million ($17.78 per birth) owing to avoided SMM costs.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, pregnancy-related maternal deaths in the United States have increased from 7.2 per 100,000 live births to 16.9 per 100,000 live births over the past 20 years, making it the only country in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development with rising rates of maternal mortality. PPH accounts for 11% of maternal deaths.

As to the study’s broader applicability, Dr. Wiesehan said in an interview, “findings of effectiveness in terms of reducing PPH-related SMM are well known outside of California. In terms of costs, however, it is more of an unknown how much is generalizable. It would go a long way if another state quality care collaborative implementing such a project recorded costs prospectively. Prospective costing, particularly microcosting, would be optimal to precisely place where the most, or least, value of this quality improvement project is achieved.”

Studies of PPH safety programs in other U.S. jurisdictions showing reductions in blood transfusions and maternal morbidities suggest the current findings are relevant to a range of hospital settings and regions. “With state perinatal collaboratives already in 47 states, examination of implementation of the PPH-SMM reduction initiative within additional collaboratives would add further robustness to our findings,” the authors wrote.

In 2022, a New York City hospital study reported that learning collaboratives that optimize practice and raise staff awareness could be important tools for improving maternal outcomes.

Still to be answered, said Dr. Wiesehan, are questions about the long-term effectiveness and sustainability of the quality initiative project beyond the early pre/post periods. 

The authors indicated no specific funding for the study and had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

A program to increase the use of magnesium sulfate to reduce the risk of cerebral palsy is effective, say researchers. Giving magnesium sulfate to women at risk of premature birth can reduce the risk of a child having cerebral palsy by a third, and costs just £1 per dose.

However, the authors of the new observational study, published in Archives of Disease in Childhood – Fetal and Neonatal Edition, pointed out that in 2017 only around two-thirds (64%) of eligible women were being given magnesium sulfate in England, Scotland, and Wales, with “wide regional variations.”

To address this, in 2014 the PReCePT (Preventing Cerebral Palsy in Pre Term labor) quality improvement toolkit was developed by both parents and staff with the aim of supporting all maternity units in England to improve maternity staff awareness and increase the use of magnesium sulfate in mothers at risk of giving birth at 30 weeks’ gestation or under. PReCePT provided practical tools and training to support hospital staff to give magnesium sulfate to eligible mothers.

The pilot study in 2015, which involved five maternity units, found an increase in uptake from 21% to 88% associated with the PReCePT approach. Subsequently, in 2018, NHS England funded the National PReCePT Programme, which scaled up the intervention for national roll-out and provided the PReCePT quality toolkit – which includes preterm labor proforma, staff training presentations, parent information leaflet, posters for the unit, and a learning log – to each maternity unit.
 

Improvement ‘over and above’ expectation

For the first evaluation of a U.K. universally implemented national perinatal quality improvement program to increase administration of an evidence-based drug, researchers, led by University of Bristol, England, set out to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the National PReCePT Programme in increasing use of magnesium sulfate in preterm births.

Using data from the U.K. National Neonatal Research Database for the year before and the year after PReCePT was implemented in maternity units in England, the researchers performed a before-and-after study that involved 137 maternity units within NHS England. Participants were babies born at 30 weeks’ gestation or under admitted to neonatal units in England, and the main outcome measure was magnesium sulfate uptake before and after the implementation of the National PReCePT Programme. In addition, implementation and lifetime costs were estimated.

During the first year, post implementation of the program, uptake increased by an average of 6.3 percentage points (to 83.1%) across all maternity units in England, which the authors explained was “over and above” the increase that would be expected over time as the practice spread organically. The researchers also found that after adjusting for variations in when maternity units started the program, the increase in use of magnesium sulfate was 9.5 percentage points. “By May 2020, on average 86.4% of eligible mothers were receiving magnesium sulfate,” they said.

Professor John Macleod, NIHR ARC West Director, professor in clinical epidemiology and primary care, University of Bristol, and principal investigator of the evaluation, said: “Our in-depth analysis has been able to demonstrate that the PReCePT program is both effective and cost-effective. The program has increased uptake of magnesium sulfate, which we know is a cost-effective medicine to prevent cerebral palsy, much more quickly than we could have otherwise expected.”

From a societal and lifetime perspective, the health gains and cost savings associated with the National PReCePT Programme generated a “net monetary benefit of £866 per preterm baby,” with the probability of the program being cost-effective being “greater than 95%,” the authors highlighted.

The researchers also estimated that the program’s first year could be associated with a lifetime saving to society of £3 million – which accounts for the costs of the program, of administering the treatment, of cerebral palsy to society over a lifetime, and the associated health gains of avoiding cases. “This is across all the extra babies the program helped get access to the treatment during the first year,” they said.

The authors highlighted that in the five pilot sites, the improved use of magnesium sulfate has been “sustained over the years” since PReCePT was implemented. As the program costs were mostly in the first year of implementation, longer-term national analysis may show that PReCePT is “even more cost-effective over a longer period,” they postulated.
 

Accelerate uptake

Uptake of new evidence or guidelines is often “slow” due to practical barriers, lack of knowledge, and need for behavior change, and can “take decades to become embedded” in perinatal clinical practice, expressed the authors, which in turn comes at a “high clinical and economic cost.”

Karen Luyt, professor in neonatal medicine, University of Bristol, said: “The PReCePT national quality improvement program demonstrates that a collaborative and coordinated perinatal implementation program supporting every hospital in England can accelerate the uptake of new evidence-based treatments into routine practice, enabling equitable health benefits to babies and ultimately reductions in lifetime societal costs.”

The authors said the PReCePT model “may serve as a blueprint for future interventions to improve perinatal care.”

Professor Lucy Chappell, chief executive officer of the National Institute for Health and Care Research, said: “This important study shows the impact of taking a promising intervention that had been shown to work in a research setting and scaling it up across the country. Giving magnesium sulfate to prevent cerebral palsy in premature babies is a simple, inexpensive intervention that can make such a difference to families and the health service.”

Prof. Macleod added: “We are pleased to have played a part in helping get this cheap yet effective treatment to more babies.”

This work was jointly funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration West and the AHSN Network funded by NHS England. The Health Foundation funded the health economics evaluation. The authors declare that the study management group has no competing financial, professional, or personal interests that might have influenced the study design or conduct.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

A program to increase the use of magnesium sulfate to reduce the risk of cerebral palsy is effective, say researchers. Giving magnesium sulfate to women at risk of premature birth can reduce the risk of a child having cerebral palsy by a third, and costs just £1 per dose.

However, the authors of the new observational study, published in Archives of Disease in Childhood – Fetal and Neonatal Edition, pointed out that in 2017 only around two-thirds (64%) of eligible women were being given magnesium sulfate in England, Scotland, and Wales, with “wide regional variations.”

To address this, in 2014 the PReCePT (Preventing Cerebral Palsy in Pre Term labor) quality improvement toolkit was developed by both parents and staff with the aim of supporting all maternity units in England to improve maternity staff awareness and increase the use of magnesium sulfate in mothers at risk of giving birth at 30 weeks’ gestation or under. PReCePT provided practical tools and training to support hospital staff to give magnesium sulfate to eligible mothers.

The pilot study in 2015, which involved five maternity units, found an increase in uptake from 21% to 88% associated with the PReCePT approach. Subsequently, in 2018, NHS England funded the National PReCePT Programme, which scaled up the intervention for national roll-out and provided the PReCePT quality toolkit – which includes preterm labor proforma, staff training presentations, parent information leaflet, posters for the unit, and a learning log – to each maternity unit.
 

Improvement ‘over and above’ expectation

For the first evaluation of a U.K. universally implemented national perinatal quality improvement program to increase administration of an evidence-based drug, researchers, led by University of Bristol, England, set out to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the National PReCePT Programme in increasing use of magnesium sulfate in preterm births.

Using data from the U.K. National Neonatal Research Database for the year before and the year after PReCePT was implemented in maternity units in England, the researchers performed a before-and-after study that involved 137 maternity units within NHS England. Participants were babies born at 30 weeks’ gestation or under admitted to neonatal units in England, and the main outcome measure was magnesium sulfate uptake before and after the implementation of the National PReCePT Programme. In addition, implementation and lifetime costs were estimated.

During the first year, post implementation of the program, uptake increased by an average of 6.3 percentage points (to 83.1%) across all maternity units in England, which the authors explained was “over and above” the increase that would be expected over time as the practice spread organically. The researchers also found that after adjusting for variations in when maternity units started the program, the increase in use of magnesium sulfate was 9.5 percentage points. “By May 2020, on average 86.4% of eligible mothers were receiving magnesium sulfate,” they said.

Professor John Macleod, NIHR ARC West Director, professor in clinical epidemiology and primary care, University of Bristol, and principal investigator of the evaluation, said: “Our in-depth analysis has been able to demonstrate that the PReCePT program is both effective and cost-effective. The program has increased uptake of magnesium sulfate, which we know is a cost-effective medicine to prevent cerebral palsy, much more quickly than we could have otherwise expected.”

From a societal and lifetime perspective, the health gains and cost savings associated with the National PReCePT Programme generated a “net monetary benefit of £866 per preterm baby,” with the probability of the program being cost-effective being “greater than 95%,” the authors highlighted.

The researchers also estimated that the program’s first year could be associated with a lifetime saving to society of £3 million – which accounts for the costs of the program, of administering the treatment, of cerebral palsy to society over a lifetime, and the associated health gains of avoiding cases. “This is across all the extra babies the program helped get access to the treatment during the first year,” they said.

The authors highlighted that in the five pilot sites, the improved use of magnesium sulfate has been “sustained over the years” since PReCePT was implemented. As the program costs were mostly in the first year of implementation, longer-term national analysis may show that PReCePT is “even more cost-effective over a longer period,” they postulated.
 

Accelerate uptake

Uptake of new evidence or guidelines is often “slow” due to practical barriers, lack of knowledge, and need for behavior change, and can “take decades to become embedded” in perinatal clinical practice, expressed the authors, which in turn comes at a “high clinical and economic cost.”

Karen Luyt, professor in neonatal medicine, University of Bristol, said: “The PReCePT national quality improvement program demonstrates that a collaborative and coordinated perinatal implementation program supporting every hospital in England can accelerate the uptake of new evidence-based treatments into routine practice, enabling equitable health benefits to babies and ultimately reductions in lifetime societal costs.”

The authors said the PReCePT model “may serve as a blueprint for future interventions to improve perinatal care.”

Professor Lucy Chappell, chief executive officer of the National Institute for Health and Care Research, said: “This important study shows the impact of taking a promising intervention that had been shown to work in a research setting and scaling it up across the country. Giving magnesium sulfate to prevent cerebral palsy in premature babies is a simple, inexpensive intervention that can make such a difference to families and the health service.”

Prof. Macleod added: “We are pleased to have played a part in helping get this cheap yet effective treatment to more babies.”

This work was jointly funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration West and the AHSN Network funded by NHS England. The Health Foundation funded the health economics evaluation. The authors declare that the study management group has no competing financial, professional, or personal interests that might have influenced the study design or conduct.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

A program to increase the use of magnesium sulfate to reduce the risk of cerebral palsy is effective, say researchers. Giving magnesium sulfate to women at risk of premature birth can reduce the risk of a child having cerebral palsy by a third, and costs just £1 per dose.

However, the authors of the new observational study, published in Archives of Disease in Childhood – Fetal and Neonatal Edition, pointed out that in 2017 only around two-thirds (64%) of eligible women were being given magnesium sulfate in England, Scotland, and Wales, with “wide regional variations.”

To address this, in 2014 the PReCePT (Preventing Cerebral Palsy in Pre Term labor) quality improvement toolkit was developed by both parents and staff with the aim of supporting all maternity units in England to improve maternity staff awareness and increase the use of magnesium sulfate in mothers at risk of giving birth at 30 weeks’ gestation or under. PReCePT provided practical tools and training to support hospital staff to give magnesium sulfate to eligible mothers.

The pilot study in 2015, which involved five maternity units, found an increase in uptake from 21% to 88% associated with the PReCePT approach. Subsequently, in 2018, NHS England funded the National PReCePT Programme, which scaled up the intervention for national roll-out and provided the PReCePT quality toolkit – which includes preterm labor proforma, staff training presentations, parent information leaflet, posters for the unit, and a learning log – to each maternity unit.
 

Improvement ‘over and above’ expectation

For the first evaluation of a U.K. universally implemented national perinatal quality improvement program to increase administration of an evidence-based drug, researchers, led by University of Bristol, England, set out to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the National PReCePT Programme in increasing use of magnesium sulfate in preterm births.

Using data from the U.K. National Neonatal Research Database for the year before and the year after PReCePT was implemented in maternity units in England, the researchers performed a before-and-after study that involved 137 maternity units within NHS England. Participants were babies born at 30 weeks’ gestation or under admitted to neonatal units in England, and the main outcome measure was magnesium sulfate uptake before and after the implementation of the National PReCePT Programme. In addition, implementation and lifetime costs were estimated.

During the first year, post implementation of the program, uptake increased by an average of 6.3 percentage points (to 83.1%) across all maternity units in England, which the authors explained was “over and above” the increase that would be expected over time as the practice spread organically. The researchers also found that after adjusting for variations in when maternity units started the program, the increase in use of magnesium sulfate was 9.5 percentage points. “By May 2020, on average 86.4% of eligible mothers were receiving magnesium sulfate,” they said.

Professor John Macleod, NIHR ARC West Director, professor in clinical epidemiology and primary care, University of Bristol, and principal investigator of the evaluation, said: “Our in-depth analysis has been able to demonstrate that the PReCePT program is both effective and cost-effective. The program has increased uptake of magnesium sulfate, which we know is a cost-effective medicine to prevent cerebral palsy, much more quickly than we could have otherwise expected.”

From a societal and lifetime perspective, the health gains and cost savings associated with the National PReCePT Programme generated a “net monetary benefit of £866 per preterm baby,” with the probability of the program being cost-effective being “greater than 95%,” the authors highlighted.

The researchers also estimated that the program’s first year could be associated with a lifetime saving to society of £3 million – which accounts for the costs of the program, of administering the treatment, of cerebral palsy to society over a lifetime, and the associated health gains of avoiding cases. “This is across all the extra babies the program helped get access to the treatment during the first year,” they said.

The authors highlighted that in the five pilot sites, the improved use of magnesium sulfate has been “sustained over the years” since PReCePT was implemented. As the program costs were mostly in the first year of implementation, longer-term national analysis may show that PReCePT is “even more cost-effective over a longer period,” they postulated.
 

Accelerate uptake

Uptake of new evidence or guidelines is often “slow” due to practical barriers, lack of knowledge, and need for behavior change, and can “take decades to become embedded” in perinatal clinical practice, expressed the authors, which in turn comes at a “high clinical and economic cost.”

Karen Luyt, professor in neonatal medicine, University of Bristol, said: “The PReCePT national quality improvement program demonstrates that a collaborative and coordinated perinatal implementation program supporting every hospital in England can accelerate the uptake of new evidence-based treatments into routine practice, enabling equitable health benefits to babies and ultimately reductions in lifetime societal costs.”

The authors said the PReCePT model “may serve as a blueprint for future interventions to improve perinatal care.”

Professor Lucy Chappell, chief executive officer of the National Institute for Health and Care Research, said: “This important study shows the impact of taking a promising intervention that had been shown to work in a research setting and scaling it up across the country. Giving magnesium sulfate to prevent cerebral palsy in premature babies is a simple, inexpensive intervention that can make such a difference to families and the health service.”

Prof. Macleod added: “We are pleased to have played a part in helping get this cheap yet effective treatment to more babies.”

This work was jointly funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration West and the AHSN Network funded by NHS England. The Health Foundation funded the health economics evaluation. The authors declare that the study management group has no competing financial, professional, or personal interests that might have influenced the study design or conduct.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Emergency department (ED) encounters for sexual assault increased before the COVID-19 pandemic, decreased immediately after lockdowns were implemented, and fluctuated as the pandemic continued, an analysis of more than 10,000 such visits in Canada’s most populous province shows.

“In 2020, we hoped that the COVID pandemic would only last a few months. However, as it continued, we became increasingly concerned about limited health care access for survivors of sexual assault throughout the ongoing crisis,” study author Katherine A. Muldoon, PhD, MPH, a senior clinical research associate at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute in Ontario, told this news organization.

“Unexpectedly, we found a 20%-25% increase in the number of survivors of sexual assault presenting for emergency care before the lockdown protocols were enacted,” she added. “After lockdown, the numbers dropped by 50%-60% and fluctuated throughout ... the pandemic.”

As they develop new lockdown protocols, public health officials and governments should incorporate warnings of the risks of violence and state that survivors should still present for urgent care when needed, said Dr. Muldoon. “COVID-19 lockdown protocols have limited access to health care for survivors worldwide, and barriers are likely greater in low-resource settings and those heavily affected by COVID-19.” 

The study was published in JAMA Network Open.
 

Both sexes affected

The researchers analyzed linked health administrative data from 197 EDs in Ontario from January 2019 to September 2021. They used 10 bimonthly time periods to compare differences in the frequency and rates of ED visits for sexual assault in 2020-2021 (during the pandemic), compared with baseline prepandemic rates in 2019.

Sexual assault was defined by 27 ICD-10 procedure and diagnoses codes.

More than 14 million ED presentations occurred during the study period, including 10,523 for sexual assault. The median age was 23 years for female patients and 15 years for males. Most encounters (88.4%) were among females.

During the 2 months before the pandemic (Jan. 11 to Mar. 10, 2020), the rates of ED encounters for sexual assault among females were significantly higher than prepandemic levels (8.4 vs. 6.9 cases per 100,000; age-adjusted rate ratio [aRR], 1.22), whereas during the first 2 months of the pandemic (Mar. 11 to May 10, 2020), rates were significantly lower (4.2 vs. 8.3 cases per 100,000; aRR, 0.51).

Among males, rates were higher during the 2 months before the pandemic, but not significantly different, compared with prepandemic levels (1.2 vs. 1.0 cases per 100,000; aRR, 1.19). However, the rates decreased significantly during the first 2 months of the pandemic (0.5 vs. 1.2 cases per 100,000; aRR, 0.39).

For the 12 months starting July 11, 2020, rates were the same as in 2019. In the final time period (July 11 to Sept. 10, 2021), however, the rates were significantly higher than during prepandemic levels (1.5 vs. 1.1 cases per 100,000; aRR, 1.40).

Further analyses showed a similar pattern for all age groups, community sizes, and income quintiles. Rates were predominantly above prepandemic levels for the 2 months leading up to the pandemic and below expected levels from the beginning of the pandemic onward. However, from July 11 to Sept. 10, 2020 (during a trough in the summer, when sexual assaults are generally higher), and from May 11 to Sept. 10, 2021 (also during a trough and the summer), the rates returned to prepandemic levels.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has caused many changes to society and health care delivery and access,” the authors wrote. “We recommend that the decision-making regarding the management of the COVID-19 pandemic include antiviolence considerations to evaluate how policies and protocols affect the risk of violence and ensure that those who need health care can access services without concern.”

“Specialized and trauma-informed clinics are the best solution for encouraging survivors to come for urgent care following a sexual assault,” said Dr. Muldoon. “Clinicians should be prepared and trained to provide the best possible care for survivors of violence and ensure that getting care is not retraumatizing. Fostering conversations about the common experience of violence and destigmatizing those exposed to violence remain the most important ways to create safer spaces and societies.”
 

Dedicated care pathways

Commenting on the study, Samuel A. McLean, MD, MPH, director of the Institute for Trauma Recovery and professor of emergency medicine, psychiatry, and anesthesiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said, “This important work documents a reduction in visits by sexual assault survivors for emergency care and forensic evidence collection during times of pandemic surge. It’s impossible to know for certain if this reduction in visits is entirely due to a reduction in sexual assaults, but a number of lines of circumstantial evidence make this unlikely.”

The results highlight the importance of ensuring that sexual assault care is maintained during surges in emergency care volume, added Dr. McLean, who was not involved with the current study. “This can be done via methods such as dedicated care pathways that avoid prolonged survivor wait times for care, and public health messaging that informs the public of the continued ready access to care during surges. Evidence, including data cited by the authors, suggests that these same care-seeking reductions are occurring in the United States and elsewhere.”

The study was supported by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care Applied Health Research Question Fund. Dr. Muldoon, study coauthors, and Dr. McLean report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Emergency department (ED) encounters for sexual assault increased before the COVID-19 pandemic, decreased immediately after lockdowns were implemented, and fluctuated as the pandemic continued, an analysis of more than 10,000 such visits in Canada’s most populous province shows.

“In 2020, we hoped that the COVID pandemic would only last a few months. However, as it continued, we became increasingly concerned about limited health care access for survivors of sexual assault throughout the ongoing crisis,” study author Katherine A. Muldoon, PhD, MPH, a senior clinical research associate at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute in Ontario, told this news organization.

“Unexpectedly, we found a 20%-25% increase in the number of survivors of sexual assault presenting for emergency care before the lockdown protocols were enacted,” she added. “After lockdown, the numbers dropped by 50%-60% and fluctuated throughout ... the pandemic.”

As they develop new lockdown protocols, public health officials and governments should incorporate warnings of the risks of violence and state that survivors should still present for urgent care when needed, said Dr. Muldoon. “COVID-19 lockdown protocols have limited access to health care for survivors worldwide, and barriers are likely greater in low-resource settings and those heavily affected by COVID-19.” 

The study was published in JAMA Network Open.
 

Both sexes affected

The researchers analyzed linked health administrative data from 197 EDs in Ontario from January 2019 to September 2021. They used 10 bimonthly time periods to compare differences in the frequency and rates of ED visits for sexual assault in 2020-2021 (during the pandemic), compared with baseline prepandemic rates in 2019.

Sexual assault was defined by 27 ICD-10 procedure and diagnoses codes.

More than 14 million ED presentations occurred during the study period, including 10,523 for sexual assault. The median age was 23 years for female patients and 15 years for males. Most encounters (88.4%) were among females.

During the 2 months before the pandemic (Jan. 11 to Mar. 10, 2020), the rates of ED encounters for sexual assault among females were significantly higher than prepandemic levels (8.4 vs. 6.9 cases per 100,000; age-adjusted rate ratio [aRR], 1.22), whereas during the first 2 months of the pandemic (Mar. 11 to May 10, 2020), rates were significantly lower (4.2 vs. 8.3 cases per 100,000; aRR, 0.51).

Among males, rates were higher during the 2 months before the pandemic, but not significantly different, compared with prepandemic levels (1.2 vs. 1.0 cases per 100,000; aRR, 1.19). However, the rates decreased significantly during the first 2 months of the pandemic (0.5 vs. 1.2 cases per 100,000; aRR, 0.39).

For the 12 months starting July 11, 2020, rates were the same as in 2019. In the final time period (July 11 to Sept. 10, 2021), however, the rates were significantly higher than during prepandemic levels (1.5 vs. 1.1 cases per 100,000; aRR, 1.40).

Further analyses showed a similar pattern for all age groups, community sizes, and income quintiles. Rates were predominantly above prepandemic levels for the 2 months leading up to the pandemic and below expected levels from the beginning of the pandemic onward. However, from July 11 to Sept. 10, 2020 (during a trough in the summer, when sexual assaults are generally higher), and from May 11 to Sept. 10, 2021 (also during a trough and the summer), the rates returned to prepandemic levels.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has caused many changes to society and health care delivery and access,” the authors wrote. “We recommend that the decision-making regarding the management of the COVID-19 pandemic include antiviolence considerations to evaluate how policies and protocols affect the risk of violence and ensure that those who need health care can access services without concern.”

“Specialized and trauma-informed clinics are the best solution for encouraging survivors to come for urgent care following a sexual assault,” said Dr. Muldoon. “Clinicians should be prepared and trained to provide the best possible care for survivors of violence and ensure that getting care is not retraumatizing. Fostering conversations about the common experience of violence and destigmatizing those exposed to violence remain the most important ways to create safer spaces and societies.”
 

Dedicated care pathways

Commenting on the study, Samuel A. McLean, MD, MPH, director of the Institute for Trauma Recovery and professor of emergency medicine, psychiatry, and anesthesiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said, “This important work documents a reduction in visits by sexual assault survivors for emergency care and forensic evidence collection during times of pandemic surge. It’s impossible to know for certain if this reduction in visits is entirely due to a reduction in sexual assaults, but a number of lines of circumstantial evidence make this unlikely.”

The results highlight the importance of ensuring that sexual assault care is maintained during surges in emergency care volume, added Dr. McLean, who was not involved with the current study. “This can be done via methods such as dedicated care pathways that avoid prolonged survivor wait times for care, and public health messaging that informs the public of the continued ready access to care during surges. Evidence, including data cited by the authors, suggests that these same care-seeking reductions are occurring in the United States and elsewhere.”

The study was supported by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care Applied Health Research Question Fund. Dr. Muldoon, study coauthors, and Dr. McLean report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Emergency department (ED) encounters for sexual assault increased before the COVID-19 pandemic, decreased immediately after lockdowns were implemented, and fluctuated as the pandemic continued, an analysis of more than 10,000 such visits in Canada’s most populous province shows.

“In 2020, we hoped that the COVID pandemic would only last a few months. However, as it continued, we became increasingly concerned about limited health care access for survivors of sexual assault throughout the ongoing crisis,” study author Katherine A. Muldoon, PhD, MPH, a senior clinical research associate at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute in Ontario, told this news organization.

“Unexpectedly, we found a 20%-25% increase in the number of survivors of sexual assault presenting for emergency care before the lockdown protocols were enacted,” she added. “After lockdown, the numbers dropped by 50%-60% and fluctuated throughout ... the pandemic.”

As they develop new lockdown protocols, public health officials and governments should incorporate warnings of the risks of violence and state that survivors should still present for urgent care when needed, said Dr. Muldoon. “COVID-19 lockdown protocols have limited access to health care for survivors worldwide, and barriers are likely greater in low-resource settings and those heavily affected by COVID-19.” 

The study was published in JAMA Network Open.
 

Both sexes affected

The researchers analyzed linked health administrative data from 197 EDs in Ontario from January 2019 to September 2021. They used 10 bimonthly time periods to compare differences in the frequency and rates of ED visits for sexual assault in 2020-2021 (during the pandemic), compared with baseline prepandemic rates in 2019.

Sexual assault was defined by 27 ICD-10 procedure and diagnoses codes.

More than 14 million ED presentations occurred during the study period, including 10,523 for sexual assault. The median age was 23 years for female patients and 15 years for males. Most encounters (88.4%) were among females.

During the 2 months before the pandemic (Jan. 11 to Mar. 10, 2020), the rates of ED encounters for sexual assault among females were significantly higher than prepandemic levels (8.4 vs. 6.9 cases per 100,000; age-adjusted rate ratio [aRR], 1.22), whereas during the first 2 months of the pandemic (Mar. 11 to May 10, 2020), rates were significantly lower (4.2 vs. 8.3 cases per 100,000; aRR, 0.51).

Among males, rates were higher during the 2 months before the pandemic, but not significantly different, compared with prepandemic levels (1.2 vs. 1.0 cases per 100,000; aRR, 1.19). However, the rates decreased significantly during the first 2 months of the pandemic (0.5 vs. 1.2 cases per 100,000; aRR, 0.39).

For the 12 months starting July 11, 2020, rates were the same as in 2019. In the final time period (July 11 to Sept. 10, 2021), however, the rates were significantly higher than during prepandemic levels (1.5 vs. 1.1 cases per 100,000; aRR, 1.40).

Further analyses showed a similar pattern for all age groups, community sizes, and income quintiles. Rates were predominantly above prepandemic levels for the 2 months leading up to the pandemic and below expected levels from the beginning of the pandemic onward. However, from July 11 to Sept. 10, 2020 (during a trough in the summer, when sexual assaults are generally higher), and from May 11 to Sept. 10, 2021 (also during a trough and the summer), the rates returned to prepandemic levels.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has caused many changes to society and health care delivery and access,” the authors wrote. “We recommend that the decision-making regarding the management of the COVID-19 pandemic include antiviolence considerations to evaluate how policies and protocols affect the risk of violence and ensure that those who need health care can access services without concern.”

“Specialized and trauma-informed clinics are the best solution for encouraging survivors to come for urgent care following a sexual assault,” said Dr. Muldoon. “Clinicians should be prepared and trained to provide the best possible care for survivors of violence and ensure that getting care is not retraumatizing. Fostering conversations about the common experience of violence and destigmatizing those exposed to violence remain the most important ways to create safer spaces and societies.”
 

Dedicated care pathways

Commenting on the study, Samuel A. McLean, MD, MPH, director of the Institute for Trauma Recovery and professor of emergency medicine, psychiatry, and anesthesiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said, “This important work documents a reduction in visits by sexual assault survivors for emergency care and forensic evidence collection during times of pandemic surge. It’s impossible to know for certain if this reduction in visits is entirely due to a reduction in sexual assaults, but a number of lines of circumstantial evidence make this unlikely.”

The results highlight the importance of ensuring that sexual assault care is maintained during surges in emergency care volume, added Dr. McLean, who was not involved with the current study. “This can be done via methods such as dedicated care pathways that avoid prolonged survivor wait times for care, and public health messaging that informs the public of the continued ready access to care during surges. Evidence, including data cited by the authors, suggests that these same care-seeking reductions are occurring in the United States and elsewhere.”

The study was supported by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care Applied Health Research Question Fund. Dr. Muldoon, study coauthors, and Dr. McLean report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved another Tdap vaccine option for use during pregnancy to protect newborns from whooping cough.

The agency on Jan. 9 licensed Adacel (Sanofi Pasteur) for immunization during the third trimester to prevent pertussis in infants younger than 2 months old.

The FDA in October approved a different Tdap vaccine, Boostrix (GlaxoSmithKline), for this indication. Boostrix was the first vaccine specifically approved to prevent a disease in newborns whose mothers receive the vaccine while pregnant.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend that women receive a dose of Tdap vaccine during each pregnancy, preferably during gestational weeks 27-36 – and ideally toward the earlier end of that window – to help protect babies from whooping cough, the respiratory tract infection caused by Bordetella pertussis.

Providing a Tdap vaccine – tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis vaccine, adsorbed – in the third trimester confers passive immunity to the baby, according to the CDC. It also reduces the likelihood that the mother will get pertussis and pass it on to the infant.

One study found that providing Tdap vaccination during gestational weeks 27-36 was 85% more effective at preventing pertussis in infants younger than 2 months old, compared with providing Tdap vaccination to mothers in the hospital postpartum.

“On average, about 1,000 infants are hospitalized and typically between 5 and 15 infants die each year in the United States due to pertussis,” according to a CDC reference page. “Most of these deaths are among infants who are too young to be protected by the childhood pertussis vaccine series that starts when infants are 2 months old.”

The Food and Drug Administration has approved another Tdap vaccine option for use during pregnancy to protect newborns from whooping cough.

The agency on Jan. 9 licensed Adacel (Sanofi Pasteur) for immunization during the third trimester to prevent pertussis in infants younger than 2 months old.

The FDA in October approved a different Tdap vaccine, Boostrix (GlaxoSmithKline), for this indication. Boostrix was the first vaccine specifically approved to prevent a disease in newborns whose mothers receive the vaccine while pregnant.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend that women receive a dose of Tdap vaccine during each pregnancy, preferably during gestational weeks 27-36 – and ideally toward the earlier end of that window – to help protect babies from whooping cough, the respiratory tract infection caused by Bordetella pertussis.

Providing a Tdap vaccine – tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis vaccine, adsorbed – in the third trimester confers passive immunity to the baby, according to the CDC. It also reduces the likelihood that the mother will get pertussis and pass it on to the infant.

One study found that providing Tdap vaccination during gestational weeks 27-36 was 85% more effective at preventing pertussis in infants younger than 2 months old, compared with providing Tdap vaccination to mothers in the hospital postpartum.

“On average, about 1,000 infants are hospitalized and typically between 5 and 15 infants die each year in the United States due to pertussis,” according to a CDC reference page. “Most of these deaths are among infants who are too young to be protected by the childhood pertussis vaccine series that starts when infants are 2 months old.”

The Food and Drug Administration has approved another Tdap vaccine option for use during pregnancy to protect newborns from whooping cough.

The agency on Jan. 9 licensed Adacel (Sanofi Pasteur) for immunization during the third trimester to prevent pertussis in infants younger than 2 months old.

The FDA in October approved a different Tdap vaccine, Boostrix (GlaxoSmithKline), for this indication. Boostrix was the first vaccine specifically approved to prevent a disease in newborns whose mothers receive the vaccine while pregnant.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend that women receive a dose of Tdap vaccine during each pregnancy, preferably during gestational weeks 27-36 – and ideally toward the earlier end of that window – to help protect babies from whooping cough, the respiratory tract infection caused by Bordetella pertussis.

Providing a Tdap vaccine – tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis vaccine, adsorbed – in the third trimester confers passive immunity to the baby, according to the CDC. It also reduces the likelihood that the mother will get pertussis and pass it on to the infant.

One study found that providing Tdap vaccination during gestational weeks 27-36 was 85% more effective at preventing pertussis in infants younger than 2 months old, compared with providing Tdap vaccination to mothers in the hospital postpartum.

“On average, about 1,000 infants are hospitalized and typically between 5 and 15 infants die each year in the United States due to pertussis,” according to a CDC reference page. “Most of these deaths are among infants who are too young to be protected by the childhood pertussis vaccine series that starts when infants are 2 months old.”

The ‘scheme’ in the name should have been a clue

Retirement. The shiny reward to a lifetime’s worth of working and saving. We’re all literally working to get there, some of us more to get there early, but current research reveals that early retirement isn’t the relaxing finish line we dream about, cognitively speaking.

FatCamera/Getty Images

Researchers at Binghamton (N.Y.) University set out to examine just how retirement plans affect cognitive performance. They started off with China’s New Rural Pension Scheme (scheme probably has a less negative connotation in Chinese), a plan that financially aids the growing rural retirement-age population in the country. Then they looked at data from the Chinese Health and Retirement Longitudinal Survey, which tests cognition with a focus on episodic memory and parts of intact mental status.

What they found was the opposite of what you would expect out of retirees with nothing but time on their hands.

The pension program, which had been in place for almost a decade, led to delayed recall, especially among women, supporting “the mental retirement hypothesis that decreased mental activity results in worsening cognitive skills,” the investigators said in a written statement.

There also was a drop in social engagement, with lower rates of volunteering and social interaction than people who didn’t receive the pension. Some behaviors, like regular alcohol consumption, did improve over the previous year, as did total health in general, but “the adverse effects of early retirement on mental and social engagement significantly outweigh the program’s protective effect on various health behaviors,” Plamen Nikolov, PhD, said about his research.

So if you’re looking to retire early, don’t skimp on the crosswords and the bingo nights. Stay busy in a good way. Your brain will thank you.
 

Indiana Jones and the First Smallpox Ancestor

Smallpox was, not that long ago, one of the most devastating diseases known to humanity, killing 300 million people in the 20th century alone. Eradicating it has to be one of medicine’s crowning achievements. Now it can only be found in museums, which is where it belongs.

J. Nakano, USCDCP/Pixnio

Here’s the thing with smallpox though: For all it did to us, we know frustratingly little about where it came from. Until very recently, the best available genetic evidence placed its emergence in the 17th century, which clashes with historical data. You know what that means, right? It’s time to dig out the fedora and whip, cue the music, and dig into a recently published study spanning continents in search of the mythical smallpox origin story.

We pick up in 2020, when genetic evidence definitively showed smallpox in a Viking burial site, moving the disease’s emergence a thousand years earlier. Which is all well and good, but there’s solid visual evidence that Egyptian pharaohs were dying of smallpox, as their bodies show the signature scarring. Historians were pretty sure smallpox went back about 4,000 years, but there was no genetic material to prove it.

Since there aren’t any 4,000-year-old smallpox germs laying around, the researchers chose to attack the problem another way – by burning down a Venetian catacomb, er, conducting a analysis of historical smallpox genetics to find the virus’s origin. By analyzing the genomes of various strains at different periods of time, they were able to determine that the variola virus had a definitive common ancestor. Some of the genetic components in the Viking-age sample, for example, persisted until the 18th century.

Armed with this information, the scientists determined that the first smallpox ancestor emerged about 3,800 years ago. That’s very close to the historians’ estimate for the disease’s emergence. Proof at last of smallpox’s truly ancient origin. One might even say the researchers chose wisely.
 

The only hall of fame that really matters

LOTME loves the holiday season – the food, the gifts, the radio stations that play nothing but Christmas music – but for us the most wonderful time of the year comes just a bit later. No, it’s not our annual Golden Globes slap bet. Nope, not even the “excitement” of the College Football Playoff National Championship. It’s time for the National Inventors Hall of Fame to announce its latest inductees, and we could hardly sleep last night after putting cookies out for Thomas Edison. Fasten your seatbelts!

National Inventors Hall of Fame

• Robert G. Bryant is a NASA chemist who developed Langley Research Center-Soluble Imide (yes, that’s the actual name) a polymer used as an insulation material for leads in implantable cardiac resynchronization therapy devices.
• Rory Cooper is a biomedical engineer who was paralyzed in a bicycle accident. His work has improved manual and electric wheelchairs and advanced the health, mobility, and social inclusion of people with disabilities and older adults. He is also the first NIHF inductee named Rory.
• Katalin Karikó, a biochemist, and Drew Weissman, an immunologist, “discovered how to enable messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) to enter cells without triggering the body’s immune system,” NIHF said, and that laid the foundation for the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna. That, of course, led to the antivax movement, which has provided so much LOTME fodder over the years.
• Angela Hartley Brodie was a biochemist who discovered and developed a class of drugs called aromatase inhibitors, which can stop the production of hormones that fuel cancer cell growth and are used to treat breast cancer in 500,000 women worldwide each year.

We can’t mention all of the inductees for 2023 (our editor made that very clear), but we would like to offer a special shout-out to brothers Cyril (the first Cyril in the NIHF, by the way) and Louis Keller, who invented the world’s first compact loader, which eventually became the Bobcat skid-steer loader. Not really medical, you’re probably thinking, but we’re sure that someone, somewhere, at some time, used one to build a hospital, landscape a hospital, or clean up after the demolition of a hospital.

The ‘scheme’ in the name should have been a clue

Retirement. The shiny reward to a lifetime’s worth of working and saving. We’re all literally working to get there, some of us more to get there early, but current research reveals that early retirement isn’t the relaxing finish line we dream about, cognitively speaking.

FatCamera/Getty Images

Researchers at Binghamton (N.Y.) University set out to examine just how retirement plans affect cognitive performance. They started off with China’s New Rural Pension Scheme (scheme probably has a less negative connotation in Chinese), a plan that financially aids the growing rural retirement-age population in the country. Then they looked at data from the Chinese Health and Retirement Longitudinal Survey, which tests cognition with a focus on episodic memory and parts of intact mental status.

What they found was the opposite of what you would expect out of retirees with nothing but time on their hands.

The pension program, which had been in place for almost a decade, led to delayed recall, especially among women, supporting “the mental retirement hypothesis that decreased mental activity results in worsening cognitive skills,” the investigators said in a written statement.

There also was a drop in social engagement, with lower rates of volunteering and social interaction than people who didn’t receive the pension. Some behaviors, like regular alcohol consumption, did improve over the previous year, as did total health in general, but “the adverse effects of early retirement on mental and social engagement significantly outweigh the program’s protective effect on various health behaviors,” Plamen Nikolov, PhD, said about his research.

So if you’re looking to retire early, don’t skimp on the crosswords and the bingo nights. Stay busy in a good way. Your brain will thank you.
 

Indiana Jones and the First Smallpox Ancestor

Smallpox was, not that long ago, one of the most devastating diseases known to humanity, killing 300 million people in the 20th century alone. Eradicating it has to be one of medicine’s crowning achievements. Now it can only be found in museums, which is where it belongs.

J. Nakano, USCDCP/Pixnio

Here’s the thing with smallpox though: For all it did to us, we know frustratingly little about where it came from. Until very recently, the best available genetic evidence placed its emergence in the 17th century, which clashes with historical data. You know what that means, right? It’s time to dig out the fedora and whip, cue the music, and dig into a recently published study spanning continents in search of the mythical smallpox origin story.

We pick up in 2020, when genetic evidence definitively showed smallpox in a Viking burial site, moving the disease’s emergence a thousand years earlier. Which is all well and good, but there’s solid visual evidence that Egyptian pharaohs were dying of smallpox, as their bodies show the signature scarring. Historians were pretty sure smallpox went back about 4,000 years, but there was no genetic material to prove it.

Since there aren’t any 4,000-year-old smallpox germs laying around, the researchers chose to attack the problem another way – by burning down a Venetian catacomb, er, conducting a analysis of historical smallpox genetics to find the virus’s origin. By analyzing the genomes of various strains at different periods of time, they were able to determine that the variola virus had a definitive common ancestor. Some of the genetic components in the Viking-age sample, for example, persisted until the 18th century.

Armed with this information, the scientists determined that the first smallpox ancestor emerged about 3,800 years ago. That’s very close to the historians’ estimate for the disease’s emergence. Proof at last of smallpox’s truly ancient origin. One might even say the researchers chose wisely.
 

The only hall of fame that really matters

LOTME loves the holiday season – the food, the gifts, the radio stations that play nothing but Christmas music – but for us the most wonderful time of the year comes just a bit later. No, it’s not our annual Golden Globes slap bet. Nope, not even the “excitement” of the College Football Playoff National Championship. It’s time for the National Inventors Hall of Fame to announce its latest inductees, and we could hardly sleep last night after putting cookies out for Thomas Edison. Fasten your seatbelts!

National Inventors Hall of Fame

• Robert G. Bryant is a NASA chemist who developed Langley Research Center-Soluble Imide (yes, that’s the actual name) a polymer used as an insulation material for leads in implantable cardiac resynchronization therapy devices.
• Rory Cooper is a biomedical engineer who was paralyzed in a bicycle accident. His work has improved manual and electric wheelchairs and advanced the health, mobility, and social inclusion of people with disabilities and older adults. He is also the first NIHF inductee named Rory.
• Katalin Karikó, a biochemist, and Drew Weissman, an immunologist, “discovered how to enable messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) to enter cells without triggering the body’s immune system,” NIHF said, and that laid the foundation for the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna. That, of course, led to the antivax movement, which has provided so much LOTME fodder over the years.
• Angela Hartley Brodie was a biochemist who discovered and developed a class of drugs called aromatase inhibitors, which can stop the production of hormones that fuel cancer cell growth and are used to treat breast cancer in 500,000 women worldwide each year.

We can’t mention all of the inductees for 2023 (our editor made that very clear), but we would like to offer a special shout-out to brothers Cyril (the first Cyril in the NIHF, by the way) and Louis Keller, who invented the world’s first compact loader, which eventually became the Bobcat skid-steer loader. Not really medical, you’re probably thinking, but we’re sure that someone, somewhere, at some time, used one to build a hospital, landscape a hospital, or clean up after the demolition of a hospital.

The ‘scheme’ in the name should have been a clue

Retirement. The shiny reward to a lifetime’s worth of working and saving. We’re all literally working to get there, some of us more to get there early, but current research reveals that early retirement isn’t the relaxing finish line we dream about, cognitively speaking.

FatCamera/Getty Images

Researchers at Binghamton (N.Y.) University set out to examine just how retirement plans affect cognitive performance. They started off with China’s New Rural Pension Scheme (scheme probably has a less negative connotation in Chinese), a plan that financially aids the growing rural retirement-age population in the country. Then they looked at data from the Chinese Health and Retirement Longitudinal Survey, which tests cognition with a focus on episodic memory and parts of intact mental status.

What they found was the opposite of what you would expect out of retirees with nothing but time on their hands.

The pension program, which had been in place for almost a decade, led to delayed recall, especially among women, supporting “the mental retirement hypothesis that decreased mental activity results in worsening cognitive skills,” the investigators said in a written statement.

There also was a drop in social engagement, with lower rates of volunteering and social interaction than people who didn’t receive the pension. Some behaviors, like regular alcohol consumption, did improve over the previous year, as did total health in general, but “the adverse effects of early retirement on mental and social engagement significantly outweigh the program’s protective effect on various health behaviors,” Plamen Nikolov, PhD, said about his research.

So if you’re looking to retire early, don’t skimp on the crosswords and the bingo nights. Stay busy in a good way. Your brain will thank you.
 

Indiana Jones and the First Smallpox Ancestor

Smallpox was, not that long ago, one of the most devastating diseases known to humanity, killing 300 million people in the 20th century alone. Eradicating it has to be one of medicine’s crowning achievements. Now it can only be found in museums, which is where it belongs.

J. Nakano, USCDCP/Pixnio

Here’s the thing with smallpox though: For all it did to us, we know frustratingly little about where it came from. Until very recently, the best available genetic evidence placed its emergence in the 17th century, which clashes with historical data. You know what that means, right? It’s time to dig out the fedora and whip, cue the music, and dig into a recently published study spanning continents in search of the mythical smallpox origin story.

We pick up in 2020, when genetic evidence definitively showed smallpox in a Viking burial site, moving the disease’s emergence a thousand years earlier. Which is all well and good, but there’s solid visual evidence that Egyptian pharaohs were dying of smallpox, as their bodies show the signature scarring. Historians were pretty sure smallpox went back about 4,000 years, but there was no genetic material to prove it.

Since there aren’t any 4,000-year-old smallpox germs laying around, the researchers chose to attack the problem another way – by burning down a Venetian catacomb, er, conducting a analysis of historical smallpox genetics to find the virus’s origin. By analyzing the genomes of various strains at different periods of time, they were able to determine that the variola virus had a definitive common ancestor. Some of the genetic components in the Viking-age sample, for example, persisted until the 18th century.

Armed with this information, the scientists determined that the first smallpox ancestor emerged about 3,800 years ago. That’s very close to the historians’ estimate for the disease’s emergence. Proof at last of smallpox’s truly ancient origin. One might even say the researchers chose wisely.
 

The only hall of fame that really matters

LOTME loves the holiday season – the food, the gifts, the radio stations that play nothing but Christmas music – but for us the most wonderful time of the year comes just a bit later. No, it’s not our annual Golden Globes slap bet. Nope, not even the “excitement” of the College Football Playoff National Championship. It’s time for the National Inventors Hall of Fame to announce its latest inductees, and we could hardly sleep last night after putting cookies out for Thomas Edison. Fasten your seatbelts!

National Inventors Hall of Fame

• Robert G. Bryant is a NASA chemist who developed Langley Research Center-Soluble Imide (yes, that’s the actual name) a polymer used as an insulation material for leads in implantable cardiac resynchronization therapy devices.
• Rory Cooper is a biomedical engineer who was paralyzed in a bicycle accident. His work has improved manual and electric wheelchairs and advanced the health, mobility, and social inclusion of people with disabilities and older adults. He is also the first NIHF inductee named Rory.
• Katalin Karikó, a biochemist, and Drew Weissman, an immunologist, “discovered how to enable messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) to enter cells without triggering the body’s immune system,” NIHF said, and that laid the foundation for the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna. That, of course, led to the antivax movement, which has provided so much LOTME fodder over the years.
• Angela Hartley Brodie was a biochemist who discovered and developed a class of drugs called aromatase inhibitors, which can stop the production of hormones that fuel cancer cell growth and are used to treat breast cancer in 500,000 women worldwide each year.

We can’t mention all of the inductees for 2023 (our editor made that very clear), but we would like to offer a special shout-out to brothers Cyril (the first Cyril in the NIHF, by the way) and Louis Keller, who invented the world’s first compact loader, which eventually became the Bobcat skid-steer loader. Not really medical, you’re probably thinking, but we’re sure that someone, somewhere, at some time, used one to build a hospital, landscape a hospital, or clean up after the demolition of a hospital.

The mission of OBG Management is to enhance the quality of reproductive health care and the professional development of obstetrician-gynecologists and all reproductive health care clinicians. As we celebrate the beginning of our 35th anniversary year, we recommit to our mission, providing the highest quality reproductive health information in both print and electronic portals. Guiding all our actions is our deep commitment to being worthy of the trust of our readers.

OBG Management is one of the most widely-read publications dedicated to obstetrician-gynecologists. We recognize that it is difficult for clinicians to keep up with the vast and growing corpus of information that is relevant to clinical practice. A priority goal of OBG Management is to ensure our readers are aware of practice-changing information. The OBG Management Board of Editors guide all aspects of the editorial work at OBG Management, alerting us to upcoming practice-changing discoveries, including new research findings, new medications, and important guidelines. As we begin our 35th anniversary year, we would like to highlight our distinguished Board of Editors. Of note, this year, Dr. Cheryl B. Iglesia was named as Deputy Editor, with an expanded responsibility to curate the gynecology content for OBG Management.

We wish all our readers a wonderful New Year and the best health possible for our patients.

Arnold P. Advincula, MD

I serve on the executive board that oversees the Fellowships in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery (FMIGS), and in January 2023 will transition into the role of President. I bring to this leadership role nearly 25 years of surgical experience, both as a clinician educator and inventor. My goal during the next 2 years will be to move toward subspecialty recognition of Complex Gynecology. 

Linda D. Bradley, MD

My passion is diagnostic and operative hysteroscopy, simple procedures that can both evaluate and treat intrauterine pathology. Recently, I was thrilled to coauthor an article on office hysteroscopy for Obstetrics & Gynecology (September 2022). I will have a chapter on operative hysteroscopy in the 2023 edition of TeLinde’s Textbook of Gynecology, and I am an author for the topic Office and Operative Hysteroscopy in UpToDate. Locally, I am known as the “foodie gynecologist”—I travel, take cooking classes, and I have more cookbooks than gynecology textbooks. Since Covid, I have embraced biking and just completed a riverboat biking cruise from Salamanca, Spain, to Lisbon, Portugal.

Amy L. Garcia, MD

I am fellowship trained as a minimally invasive gynecologic surgeon (MIGS) and have had a private surgical practice since 2005. I am involved with The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), AAGL, and international surgical education for office hysteroscopy and related practice management. I am passionate about working with start-up companies in the gynecologic medical device arena and innovation in gynecologic surgery.

Steven R. Goldstein, MD, NCMP, CCD

I just completed my term as President of the International Menopause Society. This culminated in the society’s 18th World Congress in Lisbon, attended by over 1,700 health care providers from 76 countries. I delivered the Pieter van Keep Memorial Lecture, named for one of the society’s founders who died prematurely of pancreatic cancer. I was further honored by receiving the society’s Distinguished Service Award. I am very proud to have previously received the NAMS Thomas B. Clarkson award for Outstanding Clinical and Basic Science Research in Menopause. I also have one foot in the gynecologic ultrasound world and was given the Joseph H. Holmes Pioneer Award and was the 2023 recipient of the William J. Fry Memorial Lecture Award, both from the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, having written the second book ever on vaginal ultrasonography.

On a personal level, I love to play golf (in spite of my foot drop and 14 orthopedic surgeries). My season tickets show some diversity—the New York City Ballet and St. John’s basketball.

Cheryl B. Iglesia, MD

I am the 49th president of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons, the 5th woman to hold this position, and the first of Filipino-American descent. I recognize that it is only through extraordinary mentorship and support from other giants in gynecology, like Drs. Andrew Kaunitz (fellow OBG Management Board member), Linda Brubaker, and Dee Fenner and the love, support, and encouragement of my parents, husband, and daughters that I have been able to reach this milestone. A feather in my cap is the recent appointment to Deputy Editor of Gynecology for this journal, under the tutelage of Dr. Robert Barbieri. Over the past 31 years, I have had the privilege of learning from the best experts and gynecologic surgeons and the honor of working with skilled partners as we pass on our collective knowledge to our fellows, residents, and medical students. The passion in this next generation of ObGyns is so invigorating!

PS—In the spirit of continually learning, I want to add the Argentine tango to my dancing repertoire and go on an African safari; both are on my bucket list as the pandemic eases.

Andrew M. Kaunitz, MD, NCMP

Since starting with the University of Florida College of Medicine-Jacksonville in 1984, I have enjoyed caring for patients, training residents and medical students, and being involved with publications and research. My areas of focus are menopause, contraception, gyn ultrasound and evaluation/management of women with abnormal uterine bleeding. In 2020, I received the North American Menopause Society/Leon Speroff Outstanding Educator Award. In 2021, I received the ACOG Distinguished Service Award. I enjoy spending time with my family, neighborhood bicycling, and searching for sharks’ teeth at the beach. 

Barbara Levy, MD

I have been privileged to serve on the OBG Management Editorial Board for several decades. I am passionate about delivering the best possible care for the patients we serve, and helping women’s health care professionals provide that care. Through positions at AAGL, ACOG, and the American Medical Association, I have worked hard to champion best practices and to support fair, equitable, and accessible care for our patients and reimbursement for our services. My true north is to base patient care on reliable, valid, and properly interpreted data.

Continue to: David G. Mutch, MD...

David G. Mutch, MD

I am ending my 6-year term as Chair of the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) gynecologic cancer steering committee. That is the committee that vets all NCI-sponsored clinical trials in gynecologic oncology. I am on the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Cancer committee, Co-Chair of the American Joint Committee on Cancer gyn staging committee and on the Reproductive Scientist Development Program selection committee. I also am completing my term as Chair of the Foundation for Women’s Cancer; this is the C3, charitable arm, of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology. We have distributed more than $3.5 million to young investigators to help start their research careers in gynecologic oncology.

Errol R. Norwitz, MD, PhD, MBA

I am a physician-scientist with subspecialty training in high-risk obstetrics (maternal-fetal medicine). I was born and raised in Cape Town, South Africa, and I have trained/practiced in 5 countries on 3 continents. My research interests include the pathophysiology, prediction, prevention, and management of pregnancy complications, primarily preterm birth and preeclampsia. I am a member of the Board of Scientific Counselors of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. I am currently President & CEO of Newton-Wellesley Hospital, a comprehensive community-based academic medical center and a member of the Mass General Brigham health care system in Boston, Massachusetts.

Jaimey Pauli, MD

I am the Division Chief and Professor of Maternal-Fetal Medicine (MFM) at the Penn State College of Medicine and Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center. I had exceptional mentoring throughout my medical career, particularly by a former member of the Editorial Board, Dr. John T. Repke. One of the biggest perks of my job is that our division provides full-scope MFM care. While I often serve as the more traditional MFM consultant and academic educator, I also provide longitudinal prenatal care and deliver many of my own patients, often through subsequent pregnancies. Serving as a member of the Editorial Board combines my passion for clinical obstetrical care with my talents (as a former English major) of reading, writing, and editing. I believe that the work we do provides accessible, evidence-based, and practical guidance for our colleagues so they can provide excellence in obstetrical care.

JoAnn Pinkerton, MD, NCMP

I am a Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Division Chief of Midlife Health at the University of Virginia (UVA) Health. Passionate about menopause, I am an executive director emeritus of The North American Menopause Society (NAMS) and past-President of NAMS (2008-2009). Within the past few years, I have served as an expert advisor for the recent ACOG Clinical Practice Guidelines on Osteoporosis, the NAMS Position Statements on Hormone Therapy and Osteoporosis, and the Global Consensus on Menopause and Androgen Therapy. I received the 2022 South Atlantic Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Lifetime Achievement Award for my expertise and work in menopause and the NAMS 2020 Ann Voda Community Service Award for my biannual community educational symposiums. I remain active in research, currently the lead and UVA principal investigator for the Oasis 2 multicenter clinical trial, which is testing a neurokinin receptor antagonist as a nonhormone therapy for the relief of hot flashes. Serving on the OBG Management Editorial Board is an honor that allows me to use my expertise in menopause management and hormone therapy to provide practical, evidence-based guidance for clinicians.

Joseph S. Sanfilippo, MD, MBA

I feel honored and privileged to have received the Golden Apple Teaching Award from the Universityof Pittsburgh School of Medicine. I am also fortunate to be the recipient of the Faculty Educator of the Month Award for resident teaching. I have been named Top Doctor 20 years in a row. My current academic activities include, since 2007, Program Director for Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility Fellowship at the University of Pittsburgh and Chair of the Mentor-Mentee Program at University of Pittsburgh Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences. I am Guest Editor for the medical malpractice section of the journal Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology. Recently, I completed a patient-focused book, “Experts Guide to Fertility,” which will be published in May 2023 by J Hopkins University Publisher and is designed for patients going through infertility treatment. Regarding outside events, I enjoy climbing steep hills and riding far and wide on my “electric bike.” Highly recommend it!

James Simon, MD, CCD, IF, NCMP

It’s been an honor serving on the OBG Management Board for many years, as a board-certified obstetrician/gynecologist/reproductive endocrinologist, certified menopause practitioner, and sexuality counsellor. Nicknamed “The Menopause Whisperer” by Washingtonian Magazine, my solo, private practice, IntimMedicine Specialists®, one of the few such practices remaining in Washington, DC, is about 6 blocks from the White House. By virtue of my practice’s location, I care for women at the highest levels of government seeking personalized gynecological, menopause, and sexual medicine care. Some high-powered patients believe they have all the answers even before I open my mouth, so I just fall back on my experience as both the President of NAMS, and The International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health, or principal investigator on more than 400 clinical research trials, or Chief Medical Officer of a pharmaceutical company, or author of more than 800 publications. I love what I do every day and cannot imagine slowing down or stopping. ●

The mission of OBG Management is to enhance the quality of reproductive health care and the professional development of obstetrician-gynecologists and all reproductive health care clinicians. As we celebrate the beginning of our 35th anniversary year, we recommit to our mission, providing the highest quality reproductive health information in both print and electronic portals. Guiding all our actions is our deep commitment to being worthy of the trust of our readers.

OBG Management is one of the most widely-read publications dedicated to obstetrician-gynecologists. We recognize that it is difficult for clinicians to keep up with the vast and growing corpus of information that is relevant to clinical practice. A priority goal of OBG Management is to ensure our readers are aware of practice-changing information. The OBG Management Board of Editors guide all aspects of the editorial work at OBG Management, alerting us to upcoming practice-changing discoveries, including new research findings, new medications, and important guidelines. As we begin our 35th anniversary year, we would like to highlight our distinguished Board of Editors. Of note, this year, Dr. Cheryl B. Iglesia was named as Deputy Editor, with an expanded responsibility to curate the gynecology content for OBG Management.

We wish all our readers a wonderful New Year and the best health possible for our patients.

Arnold P. Advincula, MD

I serve on the executive board that oversees the Fellowships in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery (FMIGS), and in January 2023 will transition into the role of President. I bring to this leadership role nearly 25 years of surgical experience, both as a clinician educator and inventor. My goal during the next 2 years will be to move toward subspecialty recognition of Complex Gynecology. 

Linda D. Bradley, MD

My passion is diagnostic and operative hysteroscopy, simple procedures that can both evaluate and treat intrauterine pathology. Recently, I was thrilled to coauthor an article on office hysteroscopy for Obstetrics & Gynecology (September 2022). I will have a chapter on operative hysteroscopy in the 2023 edition of TeLinde’s Textbook of Gynecology, and I am an author for the topic Office and Operative Hysteroscopy in UpToDate. Locally, I am known as the “foodie gynecologist”—I travel, take cooking classes, and I have more cookbooks than gynecology textbooks. Since Covid, I have embraced biking and just completed a riverboat biking cruise from Salamanca, Spain, to Lisbon, Portugal.

Amy L. Garcia, MD

I am fellowship trained as a minimally invasive gynecologic surgeon (MIGS) and have had a private surgical practice since 2005. I am involved with The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), AAGL, and international surgical education for office hysteroscopy and related practice management. I am passionate about working with start-up companies in the gynecologic medical device arena and innovation in gynecologic surgery.

Steven R. Goldstein, MD, NCMP, CCD

I just completed my term as President of the International Menopause Society. This culminated in the society’s 18th World Congress in Lisbon, attended by over 1,700 health care providers from 76 countries. I delivered the Pieter van Keep Memorial Lecture, named for one of the society’s founders who died prematurely of pancreatic cancer. I was further honored by receiving the society’s Distinguished Service Award. I am very proud to have previously received the NAMS Thomas B. Clarkson award for Outstanding Clinical and Basic Science Research in Menopause. I also have one foot in the gynecologic ultrasound world and was given the Joseph H. Holmes Pioneer Award and was the 2023 recipient of the William J. Fry Memorial Lecture Award, both from the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, having written the second book ever on vaginal ultrasonography.

On a personal level, I love to play golf (in spite of my foot drop and 14 orthopedic surgeries). My season tickets show some diversity—the New York City Ballet and St. John’s basketball.

Cheryl B. Iglesia, MD

I am the 49th president of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons, the 5th woman to hold this position, and the first of Filipino-American descent. I recognize that it is only through extraordinary mentorship and support from other giants in gynecology, like Drs. Andrew Kaunitz (fellow OBG Management Board member), Linda Brubaker, and Dee Fenner and the love, support, and encouragement of my parents, husband, and daughters that I have been able to reach this milestone. A feather in my cap is the recent appointment to Deputy Editor of Gynecology for this journal, under the tutelage of Dr. Robert Barbieri. Over the past 31 years, I have had the privilege of learning from the best experts and gynecologic surgeons and the honor of working with skilled partners as we pass on our collective knowledge to our fellows, residents, and medical students. The passion in this next generation of ObGyns is so invigorating!

PS—In the spirit of continually learning, I want to add the Argentine tango to my dancing repertoire and go on an African safari; both are on my bucket list as the pandemic eases.

Andrew M. Kaunitz, MD, NCMP

Since starting with the University of Florida College of Medicine-Jacksonville in 1984, I have enjoyed caring for patients, training residents and medical students, and being involved with publications and research. My areas of focus are menopause, contraception, gyn ultrasound and evaluation/management of women with abnormal uterine bleeding. In 2020, I received the North American Menopause Society/Leon Speroff Outstanding Educator Award. In 2021, I received the ACOG Distinguished Service Award. I enjoy spending time with my family, neighborhood bicycling, and searching for sharks’ teeth at the beach. 

Barbara Levy, MD

I have been privileged to serve on the OBG Management Editorial Board for several decades. I am passionate about delivering the best possible care for the patients we serve, and helping women’s health care professionals provide that care. Through positions at AAGL, ACOG, and the American Medical Association, I have worked hard to champion best practices and to support fair, equitable, and accessible care for our patients and reimbursement for our services. My true north is to base patient care on reliable, valid, and properly interpreted data.

Continue to: David G. Mutch, MD...

David G. Mutch, MD

I am ending my 6-year term as Chair of the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) gynecologic cancer steering committee. That is the committee that vets all NCI-sponsored clinical trials in gynecologic oncology. I am on the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Cancer committee, Co-Chair of the American Joint Committee on Cancer gyn staging committee and on the Reproductive Scientist Development Program selection committee. I also am completing my term as Chair of the Foundation for Women’s Cancer; this is the C3, charitable arm, of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology. We have distributed more than $3.5 million to young investigators to help start their research careers in gynecologic oncology.

Errol R. Norwitz, MD, PhD, MBA

I am a physician-scientist with subspecialty training in high-risk obstetrics (maternal-fetal medicine). I was born and raised in Cape Town, South Africa, and I have trained/practiced in 5 countries on 3 continents. My research interests include the pathophysiology, prediction, prevention, and management of pregnancy complications, primarily preterm birth and preeclampsia. I am a member of the Board of Scientific Counselors of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. I am currently President & CEO of Newton-Wellesley Hospital, a comprehensive community-based academic medical center and a member of the Mass General Brigham health care system in Boston, Massachusetts.

Jaimey Pauli, MD

I am the Division Chief and Professor of Maternal-Fetal Medicine (MFM) at the Penn State College of Medicine and Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center. I had exceptional mentoring throughout my medical career, particularly by a former member of the Editorial Board, Dr. John T. Repke. One of the biggest perks of my job is that our division provides full-scope MFM care. While I often serve as the more traditional MFM consultant and academic educator, I also provide longitudinal prenatal care and deliver many of my own patients, often through subsequent pregnancies. Serving as a member of the Editorial Board combines my passion for clinical obstetrical care with my talents (as a former English major) of reading, writing, and editing. I believe that the work we do provides accessible, evidence-based, and practical guidance for our colleagues so they can provide excellence in obstetrical care.

JoAnn Pinkerton, MD, NCMP

I am a Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Division Chief of Midlife Health at the University of Virginia (UVA) Health. Passionate about menopause, I am an executive director emeritus of The North American Menopause Society (NAMS) and past-President of NAMS (2008-2009). Within the past few years, I have served as an expert advisor for the recent ACOG Clinical Practice Guidelines on Osteoporosis, the NAMS Position Statements on Hormone Therapy and Osteoporosis, and the Global Consensus on Menopause and Androgen Therapy. I received the 2022 South Atlantic Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Lifetime Achievement Award for my expertise and work in menopause and the NAMS 2020 Ann Voda Community Service Award for my biannual community educational symposiums. I remain active in research, currently the lead and UVA principal investigator for the Oasis 2 multicenter clinical trial, which is testing a neurokinin receptor antagonist as a nonhormone therapy for the relief of hot flashes. Serving on the OBG Management Editorial Board is an honor that allows me to use my expertise in menopause management and hormone therapy to provide practical, evidence-based guidance for clinicians.

Joseph S. Sanfilippo, MD, MBA

I feel honored and privileged to have received the Golden Apple Teaching Award from the Universityof Pittsburgh School of Medicine. I am also fortunate to be the recipient of the Faculty Educator of the Month Award for resident teaching. I have been named Top Doctor 20 years in a row. My current academic activities include, since 2007, Program Director for Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility Fellowship at the University of Pittsburgh and Chair of the Mentor-Mentee Program at University of Pittsburgh Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences. I am Guest Editor for the medical malpractice section of the journal Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology. Recently, I completed a patient-focused book, “Experts Guide to Fertility,” which will be published in May 2023 by J Hopkins University Publisher and is designed for patients going through infertility treatment. Regarding outside events, I enjoy climbing steep hills and riding far and wide on my “electric bike.” Highly recommend it!

James Simon, MD, CCD, IF, NCMP

It’s been an honor serving on the OBG Management Board for many years, as a board-certified obstetrician/gynecologist/reproductive endocrinologist, certified menopause practitioner, and sexuality counsellor. Nicknamed “The Menopause Whisperer” by Washingtonian Magazine, my solo, private practice, IntimMedicine Specialists®, one of the few such practices remaining in Washington, DC, is about 6 blocks from the White House. By virtue of my practice’s location, I care for women at the highest levels of government seeking personalized gynecological, menopause, and sexual medicine care. Some high-powered patients believe they have all the answers even before I open my mouth, so I just fall back on my experience as both the President of NAMS, and The International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health, or principal investigator on more than 400 clinical research trials, or Chief Medical Officer of a pharmaceutical company, or author of more than 800 publications. I love what I do every day and cannot imagine slowing down or stopping. ●

The mission of OBG Management is to enhance the quality of reproductive health care and the professional development of obstetrician-gynecologists and all reproductive health care clinicians. As we celebrate the beginning of our 35th anniversary year, we recommit to our mission, providing the highest quality reproductive health information in both print and electronic portals. Guiding all our actions is our deep commitment to being worthy of the trust of our readers.

OBG Management is one of the most widely-read publications dedicated to obstetrician-gynecologists. We recognize that it is difficult for clinicians to keep up with the vast and growing corpus of information that is relevant to clinical practice. A priority goal of OBG Management is to ensure our readers are aware of practice-changing information. The OBG Management Board of Editors guide all aspects of the editorial work at OBG Management, alerting us to upcoming practice-changing discoveries, including new research findings, new medications, and important guidelines. As we begin our 35th anniversary year, we would like to highlight our distinguished Board of Editors. Of note, this year, Dr. Cheryl B. Iglesia was named as Deputy Editor, with an expanded responsibility to curate the gynecology content for OBG Management.

We wish all our readers a wonderful New Year and the best health possible for our patients.

Arnold P. Advincula, MD

I serve on the executive board that oversees the Fellowships in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery (FMIGS), and in January 2023 will transition into the role of President. I bring to this leadership role nearly 25 years of surgical experience, both as a clinician educator and inventor. My goal during the next 2 years will be to move toward subspecialty recognition of Complex Gynecology. 

Linda D. Bradley, MD

My passion is diagnostic and operative hysteroscopy, simple procedures that can both evaluate and treat intrauterine pathology. Recently, I was thrilled to coauthor an article on office hysteroscopy for Obstetrics & Gynecology (September 2022). I will have a chapter on operative hysteroscopy in the 2023 edition of TeLinde’s Textbook of Gynecology, and I am an author for the topic Office and Operative Hysteroscopy in UpToDate. Locally, I am known as the “foodie gynecologist”—I travel, take cooking classes, and I have more cookbooks than gynecology textbooks. Since Covid, I have embraced biking and just completed a riverboat biking cruise from Salamanca, Spain, to Lisbon, Portugal.

Amy L. Garcia, MD

I am fellowship trained as a minimally invasive gynecologic surgeon (MIGS) and have had a private surgical practice since 2005. I am involved with The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), AAGL, and international surgical education for office hysteroscopy and related practice management. I am passionate about working with start-up companies in the gynecologic medical device arena and innovation in gynecologic surgery.

Steven R. Goldstein, MD, NCMP, CCD

I just completed my term as President of the International Menopause Society. This culminated in the society’s 18th World Congress in Lisbon, attended by over 1,700 health care providers from 76 countries. I delivered the Pieter van Keep Memorial Lecture, named for one of the society’s founders who died prematurely of pancreatic cancer. I was further honored by receiving the society’s Distinguished Service Award. I am very proud to have previously received the NAMS Thomas B. Clarkson award for Outstanding Clinical and Basic Science Research in Menopause. I also have one foot in the gynecologic ultrasound world and was given the Joseph H. Holmes Pioneer Award and was the 2023 recipient of the William J. Fry Memorial Lecture Award, both from the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, having written the second book ever on vaginal ultrasonography.

On a personal level, I love to play golf (in spite of my foot drop and 14 orthopedic surgeries). My season tickets show some diversity—the New York City Ballet and St. John’s basketball.

Cheryl B. Iglesia, MD

I am the 49th president of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons, the 5th woman to hold this position, and the first of Filipino-American descent. I recognize that it is only through extraordinary mentorship and support from other giants in gynecology, like Drs. Andrew Kaunitz (fellow OBG Management Board member), Linda Brubaker, and Dee Fenner and the love, support, and encouragement of my parents, husband, and daughters that I have been able to reach this milestone. A feather in my cap is the recent appointment to Deputy Editor of Gynecology for this journal, under the tutelage of Dr. Robert Barbieri. Over the past 31 years, I have had the privilege of learning from the best experts and gynecologic surgeons and the honor of working with skilled partners as we pass on our collective knowledge to our fellows, residents, and medical students. The passion in this next generation of ObGyns is so invigorating!

PS—In the spirit of continually learning, I want to add the Argentine tango to my dancing repertoire and go on an African safari; both are on my bucket list as the pandemic eases.

Andrew M. Kaunitz, MD, NCMP

Since starting with the University of Florida College of Medicine-Jacksonville in 1984, I have enjoyed caring for patients, training residents and medical students, and being involved with publications and research. My areas of focus are menopause, contraception, gyn ultrasound and evaluation/management of women with abnormal uterine bleeding. In 2020, I received the North American Menopause Society/Leon Speroff Outstanding Educator Award. In 2021, I received the ACOG Distinguished Service Award. I enjoy spending time with my family, neighborhood bicycling, and searching for sharks’ teeth at the beach. 

Barbara Levy, MD

I have been privileged to serve on the OBG Management Editorial Board for several decades. I am passionate about delivering the best possible care for the patients we serve, and helping women’s health care professionals provide that care. Through positions at AAGL, ACOG, and the American Medical Association, I have worked hard to champion best practices and to support fair, equitable, and accessible care for our patients and reimbursement for our services. My true north is to base patient care on reliable, valid, and properly interpreted data.

Continue to: David G. Mutch, MD...

David G. Mutch, MD

I am ending my 6-year term as Chair of the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) gynecologic cancer steering committee. That is the committee that vets all NCI-sponsored clinical trials in gynecologic oncology. I am on the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Cancer committee, Co-Chair of the American Joint Committee on Cancer gyn staging committee and on the Reproductive Scientist Development Program selection committee. I also am completing my term as Chair of the Foundation for Women’s Cancer; this is the C3, charitable arm, of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology. We have distributed more than $3.5 million to young investigators to help start their research careers in gynecologic oncology.

Errol R. Norwitz, MD, PhD, MBA

I am a physician-scientist with subspecialty training in high-risk obstetrics (maternal-fetal medicine). I was born and raised in Cape Town, South Africa, and I have trained/practiced in 5 countries on 3 continents. My research interests include the pathophysiology, prediction, prevention, and management of pregnancy complications, primarily preterm birth and preeclampsia. I am a member of the Board of Scientific Counselors of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. I am currently President & CEO of Newton-Wellesley Hospital, a comprehensive community-based academic medical center and a member of the Mass General Brigham health care system in Boston, Massachusetts.

Jaimey Pauli, MD

I am the Division Chief and Professor of Maternal-Fetal Medicine (MFM) at the Penn State College of Medicine and Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center. I had exceptional mentoring throughout my medical career, particularly by a former member of the Editorial Board, Dr. John T. Repke. One of the biggest perks of my job is that our division provides full-scope MFM care. While I often serve as the more traditional MFM consultant and academic educator, I also provide longitudinal prenatal care and deliver many of my own patients, often through subsequent pregnancies. Serving as a member of the Editorial Board combines my passion for clinical obstetrical care with my talents (as a former English major) of reading, writing, and editing. I believe that the work we do provides accessible, evidence-based, and practical guidance for our colleagues so they can provide excellence in obstetrical care.

JoAnn Pinkerton, MD, NCMP

I am a Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Division Chief of Midlife Health at the University of Virginia (UVA) Health. Passionate about menopause, I am an executive director emeritus of The North American Menopause Society (NAMS) and past-President of NAMS (2008-2009). Within the past few years, I have served as an expert advisor for the recent ACOG Clinical Practice Guidelines on Osteoporosis, the NAMS Position Statements on Hormone Therapy and Osteoporosis, and the Global Consensus on Menopause and Androgen Therapy. I received the 2022 South Atlantic Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Lifetime Achievement Award for my expertise and work in menopause and the NAMS 2020 Ann Voda Community Service Award for my biannual community educational symposiums. I remain active in research, currently the lead and UVA principal investigator for the Oasis 2 multicenter clinical trial, which is testing a neurokinin receptor antagonist as a nonhormone therapy for the relief of hot flashes. Serving on the OBG Management Editorial Board is an honor that allows me to use my expertise in menopause management and hormone therapy to provide practical, evidence-based guidance for clinicians.

Joseph S. Sanfilippo, MD, MBA

I feel honored and privileged to have received the Golden Apple Teaching Award from the Universityof Pittsburgh School of Medicine. I am also fortunate to be the recipient of the Faculty Educator of the Month Award for resident teaching. I have been named Top Doctor 20 years in a row. My current academic activities include, since 2007, Program Director for Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility Fellowship at the University of Pittsburgh and Chair of the Mentor-Mentee Program at University of Pittsburgh Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences. I am Guest Editor for the medical malpractice section of the journal Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology. Recently, I completed a patient-focused book, “Experts Guide to Fertility,” which will be published in May 2023 by J Hopkins University Publisher and is designed for patients going through infertility treatment. Regarding outside events, I enjoy climbing steep hills and riding far and wide on my “electric bike.” Highly recommend it!

James Simon, MD, CCD, IF, NCMP

It’s been an honor serving on the OBG Management Board for many years, as a board-certified obstetrician/gynecologist/reproductive endocrinologist, certified menopause practitioner, and sexuality counsellor. Nicknamed “The Menopause Whisperer” by Washingtonian Magazine, my solo, private practice, IntimMedicine Specialists®, one of the few such practices remaining in Washington, DC, is about 6 blocks from the White House. By virtue of my practice’s location, I care for women at the highest levels of government seeking personalized gynecological, menopause, and sexual medicine care. Some high-powered patients believe they have all the answers even before I open my mouth, so I just fall back on my experience as both the President of NAMS, and The International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health, or principal investigator on more than 400 clinical research trials, or Chief Medical Officer of a pharmaceutical company, or author of more than 800 publications. I love what I do every day and cannot imagine slowing down or stopping. ●

You discuss and decide on the best course of treatment for your patients, write prescriptions, and recommend lifestyle modifications to enhance treatment outcomes and overall wellness. But once they leave your office, following through is up to the patient. What happens when they don’t listen?

The term “nonadherent” has gradually replaced “noncompliant” in the physician lexicon as a nod to the evolving doctor-patient relationship. Noncompliance implies that a patient isn’t following their doctor’s orders. Adherence, on the other hand, is a measure of how closely your patient’s behavior matches the recommendations you’ve made. It’s a subtle difference but an important distinction in approaching care.

“Noncompliance is inherently negative feedback to the patient, whereas there’s a reason for nonadherence, and it’s usually external,” said Sharon Rabinovitz, MD, president of the Georgia Academy of Family Physicians.
 

Why won’t patients listen?

The reasons behind a patient’s nonadherence are multifaceted, but they are often driven by social determinants of health, such as transportation, poor health literacy, finances, and lack of access to pharmacies.

Other times, patients don’t want to take medicine, don’t prioritize their health, or they find the dietary and lifestyle modifications doctors suggest too hard to make or they struggle at losing weight, eating more healthfully, or cutting back on alcohol, for instance.

“When you come down to it, the big hindrance of it all is cost and the ability for the patient to be able to afford some of the things that we think they should be able to do,” said Teresa Lovins, MD, a physician in private practice Columbus, Ind., and a member of the board of directors of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

Another common deterrent to treatment is undesired side effects that a patient may not want to mention.

“For example, a lot of patients who are taking antidepressants have sexual dysfunction associated with those medications,” said Dr. Rabinovitz. “If you don’t ask the right questions, you’re not going to be able to fully assess the experience the patient is having and a reason why they might not take it [the medication].”

Much nonadherence is intentional and is based on experience, belief systems, and knowledge. For example, the American Medical Association finds that patients may not understand why they need a certain treatment (and therefore dismiss it), or they may be overloaded with multiple medications, fear dependency on a drug, have a mistrust of pharmaceutical companies or the medical system as a whole, or have symptoms of depression that make taking healthy actions more difficult. In addition, patients may be unable to afford their medication, or their lack of symptoms may lead them to believe they don’t really need the prescription, as occurs with disorders such as hypertension or high cholesterol.

“In my training, we did something called Balint training, where we would get together as a group with attendings and discuss cases that were difficult from a biopsychosocial perspective and consider all the factors in the patient perspective, including family dynamics, social systems, and economic realities,” said Russell Blackwelder, MD, director of geriatric education and associate professor of family medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

“That training was, for me, very helpful for opening up and being more empathetic and really examining the patient’s point of view and everything that impacts them.”

Dr. Lovins agreed that it’s crucial to establish a good rapport and build mutual trust.

“If you don’t know the patient, you have a harder time asking the right questions to get to the meat of why they’re not taking their medicine or what they’re not doing to help their health,” she said. “It takes a little bit of trust on both parts to get to that question that really gets to the heart of why they’re not doing what you’re asking them to do.”
 

How to encourage adherence

Although there may not be a one-size-fits-all approach for achieving general adherence or adherence to a medication regimen, some methods may increase success.

Kenneth Zweig, MD, an internist at Northern Virginia Family Practice Associates, Alexandria, said that convincing patients to make one small change that they can sustain can get the ball rolling.

“I had one patient who was very overweight and had high blood pressure, high cholesterol, back pain, insomnia, and depression, who was also drinking three to four beers a night,” Dr. Zweig said. “After a long discussion, I challenged him to stop all alcohol for 1 week. At the end of the week, he noticed that he slept better, lost some weight, had lower blood pressure, and had more energy. Once he saw the benefits of this one change, he was motivated to improve other aspects of his health as well. He improved his diet, started exercising, and lost over 50 pounds. He has persisted with these lifestyle changes ever since.”

A team-based approach may also increase treatment understanding and adherence. In one older study, patients who were assigned to team-based care, including care by pharmacists, were significantly more adherent to medication regimens. Patients were more comfortable asking questions and raising concerns when they felt their treatment plan was a collaboration between several providers and themselves.

Dr. Lovins said to always approach the patient with a positive. “Say, what can we do together to make this work? What are your questions about this medication? And try and focus on the positive things that you can change instead of leaving the patient with a negative feeling or that you’re angry with them or that you’re unhappy with their choices. Patients respond better when they are treated as part of the team.”

Fear of judgment can also be a barrier to honesty between patients and their doctors. Shame creates a reluctance to admit nonadherence. Dr. Lovins said in an interview that it’s the physician’s responsibility to create a blame-free space for patients to speak openly about their struggles with treatment and reasons for nonadherence.
 

When should you redirect care?

Ultimately, the goal is good care and treatment of disease. However, if you and your patient are at an impasse and progress is stalling or failing, it may be appropriate to encourage the patient to seek care elsewhere.

“Just like any relationship, some physician-patient relationships are just not a good fit,” said Dr. Blackwelder. And this may be the reason why the patient is nonadherent — something between the two of you doesn’t click.

While there are ethical considerations for this decision, most medical boards have guidelines on how to go about it, Dr. Blackwelder said in an interview. “In the state of South Carolina, we have to be available to provide urgent coverage for at least 30 days and notify the patient in writing that they need to find somebody else and to help them find somebody else if we can.”

Just as with care, a clear conversation is the best practice if you’re proposing a potential shift away from a physician-patient relationship. You might say: We’re not making the kind of progress I’d like to see, and I’m wondering if you think working with another doctor may help you.

“The most important thing is being very honest and transparent with the patient that you’re concerned you’re not making the appropriate strides forward,” said Dr. Rabinovitz. Then you can ask, ‘Am I the right doctor to help you reach your goals? And if not, how can I help you get to where you need to be?’ ”

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

You discuss and decide on the best course of treatment for your patients, write prescriptions, and recommend lifestyle modifications to enhance treatment outcomes and overall wellness. But once they leave your office, following through is up to the patient. What happens when they don’t listen?

The term “nonadherent” has gradually replaced “noncompliant” in the physician lexicon as a nod to the evolving doctor-patient relationship. Noncompliance implies that a patient isn’t following their doctor’s orders. Adherence, on the other hand, is a measure of how closely your patient’s behavior matches the recommendations you’ve made. It’s a subtle difference but an important distinction in approaching care.

“Noncompliance is inherently negative feedback to the patient, whereas there’s a reason for nonadherence, and it’s usually external,” said Sharon Rabinovitz, MD, president of the Georgia Academy of Family Physicians.
 

Why won’t patients listen?

The reasons behind a patient’s nonadherence are multifaceted, but they are often driven by social determinants of health, such as transportation, poor health literacy, finances, and lack of access to pharmacies.

Other times, patients don’t want to take medicine, don’t prioritize their health, or they find the dietary and lifestyle modifications doctors suggest too hard to make or they struggle at losing weight, eating more healthfully, or cutting back on alcohol, for instance.

“When you come down to it, the big hindrance of it all is cost and the ability for the patient to be able to afford some of the things that we think they should be able to do,” said Teresa Lovins, MD, a physician in private practice Columbus, Ind., and a member of the board of directors of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

Another common deterrent to treatment is undesired side effects that a patient may not want to mention.

“For example, a lot of patients who are taking antidepressants have sexual dysfunction associated with those medications,” said Dr. Rabinovitz. “If you don’t ask the right questions, you’re not going to be able to fully assess the experience the patient is having and a reason why they might not take it [the medication].”

Much nonadherence is intentional and is based on experience, belief systems, and knowledge. For example, the American Medical Association finds that patients may not understand why they need a certain treatment (and therefore dismiss it), or they may be overloaded with multiple medications, fear dependency on a drug, have a mistrust of pharmaceutical companies or the medical system as a whole, or have symptoms of depression that make taking healthy actions more difficult. In addition, patients may be unable to afford their medication, or their lack of symptoms may lead them to believe they don’t really need the prescription, as occurs with disorders such as hypertension or high cholesterol.

“In my training, we did something called Balint training, where we would get together as a group with attendings and discuss cases that were difficult from a biopsychosocial perspective and consider all the factors in the patient perspective, including family dynamics, social systems, and economic realities,” said Russell Blackwelder, MD, director of geriatric education and associate professor of family medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

“That training was, for me, very helpful for opening up and being more empathetic and really examining the patient’s point of view and everything that impacts them.”

Dr. Lovins agreed that it’s crucial to establish a good rapport and build mutual trust.

“If you don’t know the patient, you have a harder time asking the right questions to get to the meat of why they’re not taking their medicine or what they’re not doing to help their health,” she said. “It takes a little bit of trust on both parts to get to that question that really gets to the heart of why they’re not doing what you’re asking them to do.”
 

How to encourage adherence

Although there may not be a one-size-fits-all approach for achieving general adherence or adherence to a medication regimen, some methods may increase success.

Kenneth Zweig, MD, an internist at Northern Virginia Family Practice Associates, Alexandria, said that convincing patients to make one small change that they can sustain can get the ball rolling.

“I had one patient who was very overweight and had high blood pressure, high cholesterol, back pain, insomnia, and depression, who was also drinking three to four beers a night,” Dr. Zweig said. “After a long discussion, I challenged him to stop all alcohol for 1 week. At the end of the week, he noticed that he slept better, lost some weight, had lower blood pressure, and had more energy. Once he saw the benefits of this one change, he was motivated to improve other aspects of his health as well. He improved his diet, started exercising, and lost over 50 pounds. He has persisted with these lifestyle changes ever since.”

A team-based approach may also increase treatment understanding and adherence. In one older study, patients who were assigned to team-based care, including care by pharmacists, were significantly more adherent to medication regimens. Patients were more comfortable asking questions and raising concerns when they felt their treatment plan was a collaboration between several providers and themselves.

Dr. Lovins said to always approach the patient with a positive. “Say, what can we do together to make this work? What are your questions about this medication? And try and focus on the positive things that you can change instead of leaving the patient with a negative feeling or that you’re angry with them or that you’re unhappy with their choices. Patients respond better when they are treated as part of the team.”

Fear of judgment can also be a barrier to honesty between patients and their doctors. Shame creates a reluctance to admit nonadherence. Dr. Lovins said in an interview that it’s the physician’s responsibility to create a blame-free space for patients to speak openly about their struggles with treatment and reasons for nonadherence.
 

When should you redirect care?

Ultimately, the goal is good care and treatment of disease. However, if you and your patient are at an impasse and progress is stalling or failing, it may be appropriate to encourage the patient to seek care elsewhere.

“Just like any relationship, some physician-patient relationships are just not a good fit,” said Dr. Blackwelder. And this may be the reason why the patient is nonadherent — something between the two of you doesn’t click.

While there are ethical considerations for this decision, most medical boards have guidelines on how to go about it, Dr. Blackwelder said in an interview. “In the state of South Carolina, we have to be available to provide urgent coverage for at least 30 days and notify the patient in writing that they need to find somebody else and to help them find somebody else if we can.”

Just as with care, a clear conversation is the best practice if you’re proposing a potential shift away from a physician-patient relationship. You might say: We’re not making the kind of progress I’d like to see, and I’m wondering if you think working with another doctor may help you.

“The most important thing is being very honest and transparent with the patient that you’re concerned you’re not making the appropriate strides forward,” said Dr. Rabinovitz. Then you can ask, ‘Am I the right doctor to help you reach your goals? And if not, how can I help you get to where you need to be?’ ”

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

You discuss and decide on the best course of treatment for your patients, write prescriptions, and recommend lifestyle modifications to enhance treatment outcomes and overall wellness. But once they leave your office, following through is up to the patient. What happens when they don’t listen?

The term “nonadherent” has gradually replaced “noncompliant” in the physician lexicon as a nod to the evolving doctor-patient relationship. Noncompliance implies that a patient isn’t following their doctor’s orders. Adherence, on the other hand, is a measure of how closely your patient’s behavior matches the recommendations you’ve made. It’s a subtle difference but an important distinction in approaching care.

“Noncompliance is inherently negative feedback to the patient, whereas there’s a reason for nonadherence, and it’s usually external,” said Sharon Rabinovitz, MD, president of the Georgia Academy of Family Physicians.
 

Why won’t patients listen?

The reasons behind a patient’s nonadherence are multifaceted, but they are often driven by social determinants of health, such as transportation, poor health literacy, finances, and lack of access to pharmacies.

Other times, patients don’t want to take medicine, don’t prioritize their health, or they find the dietary and lifestyle modifications doctors suggest too hard to make or they struggle at losing weight, eating more healthfully, or cutting back on alcohol, for instance.

“When you come down to it, the big hindrance of it all is cost and the ability for the patient to be able to afford some of the things that we think they should be able to do,” said Teresa Lovins, MD, a physician in private practice Columbus, Ind., and a member of the board of directors of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

Another common deterrent to treatment is undesired side effects that a patient may not want to mention.

“For example, a lot of patients who are taking antidepressants have sexual dysfunction associated with those medications,” said Dr. Rabinovitz. “If you don’t ask the right questions, you’re not going to be able to fully assess the experience the patient is having and a reason why they might not take it [the medication].”

Much nonadherence is intentional and is based on experience, belief systems, and knowledge. For example, the American Medical Association finds that patients may not understand why they need a certain treatment (and therefore dismiss it), or they may be overloaded with multiple medications, fear dependency on a drug, have a mistrust of pharmaceutical companies or the medical system as a whole, or have symptoms of depression that make taking healthy actions more difficult. In addition, patients may be unable to afford their medication, or their lack of symptoms may lead them to believe they don’t really need the prescription, as occurs with disorders such as hypertension or high cholesterol.

“In my training, we did something called Balint training, where we would get together as a group with attendings and discuss cases that were difficult from a biopsychosocial perspective and consider all the factors in the patient perspective, including family dynamics, social systems, and economic realities,” said Russell Blackwelder, MD, director of geriatric education and associate professor of family medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

“That training was, for me, very helpful for opening up and being more empathetic and really examining the patient’s point of view and everything that impacts them.”

Dr. Lovins agreed that it’s crucial to establish a good rapport and build mutual trust.

“If you don’t know the patient, you have a harder time asking the right questions to get to the meat of why they’re not taking their medicine or what they’re not doing to help their health,” she said. “It takes a little bit of trust on both parts to get to that question that really gets to the heart of why they’re not doing what you’re asking them to do.”
 

How to encourage adherence

Although there may not be a one-size-fits-all approach for achieving general adherence or adherence to a medication regimen, some methods may increase success.

Kenneth Zweig, MD, an internist at Northern Virginia Family Practice Associates, Alexandria, said that convincing patients to make one small change that they can sustain can get the ball rolling.

“I had one patient who was very overweight and had high blood pressure, high cholesterol, back pain, insomnia, and depression, who was also drinking three to four beers a night,” Dr. Zweig said. “After a long discussion, I challenged him to stop all alcohol for 1 week. At the end of the week, he noticed that he slept better, lost some weight, had lower blood pressure, and had more energy. Once he saw the benefits of this one change, he was motivated to improve other aspects of his health as well. He improved his diet, started exercising, and lost over 50 pounds. He has persisted with these lifestyle changes ever since.”

A team-based approach may also increase treatment understanding and adherence. In one older study, patients who were assigned to team-based care, including care by pharmacists, were significantly more adherent to medication regimens. Patients were more comfortable asking questions and raising concerns when they felt their treatment plan was a collaboration between several providers and themselves.

Dr. Lovins said to always approach the patient with a positive. “Say, what can we do together to make this work? What are your questions about this medication? And try and focus on the positive things that you can change instead of leaving the patient with a negative feeling or that you’re angry with them or that you’re unhappy with their choices. Patients respond better when they are treated as part of the team.”

Fear of judgment can also be a barrier to honesty between patients and their doctors. Shame creates a reluctance to admit nonadherence. Dr. Lovins said in an interview that it’s the physician’s responsibility to create a blame-free space for patients to speak openly about their struggles with treatment and reasons for nonadherence.
 

When should you redirect care?

Ultimately, the goal is good care and treatment of disease. However, if you and your patient are at an impasse and progress is stalling or failing, it may be appropriate to encourage the patient to seek care elsewhere.

“Just like any relationship, some physician-patient relationships are just not a good fit,” said Dr. Blackwelder. And this may be the reason why the patient is nonadherent — something between the two of you doesn’t click.

While there are ethical considerations for this decision, most medical boards have guidelines on how to go about it, Dr. Blackwelder said in an interview. “In the state of South Carolina, we have to be available to provide urgent coverage for at least 30 days and notify the patient in writing that they need to find somebody else and to help them find somebody else if we can.”

Just as with care, a clear conversation is the best practice if you’re proposing a potential shift away from a physician-patient relationship. You might say: We’re not making the kind of progress I’d like to see, and I’m wondering if you think working with another doctor may help you.

“The most important thing is being very honest and transparent with the patient that you’re concerned you’re not making the appropriate strides forward,” said Dr. Rabinovitz. Then you can ask, ‘Am I the right doctor to help you reach your goals? And if not, how can I help you get to where you need to be?’ ”

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Sandeep Jauhar, a practicing cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwell Health, a frequent New York Times op-ed contributor, and highly regarded author of the upcoming book “My Father’s Brain: Life in the Shadow of Alzheimer’s.”

We are here today to discuss the rationale for age competency exams for practicing physicians.

Sandeep Jauhar, MD: Thanks for having me.

Dr. Glatter: Your recent op-ed piece in the New York Times caught my eye. In your piece, you refer to a 2020 survey in which almost one-third of licensed doctors in the United States were 60 years of age or older, up from a quarter in 2010. You also state that, due to a 20% prevalence of mild cognitive impairment in persons older than 65, practicing physicians above this age should probably be screened by a battery of tests to ensure that their reasoning and cognitive abilities are intact. The title of the article is “How Would You Feel About a 100-Year-Old Doctor?”

How would you envision such a process? What aspects of day-to-day functioning would the exams truly be evaluating?

Dr. Jauhar: A significant number of people over 65 have measurable cognitive impairment. By cognitive impairment, we’re not talking about dementia. The best estimates are that 1 in 10 people over age 65 have dementia, and roughly 1 in 5 have what’s called MCI, or mild cognitive impairment, which is cognitive impairment out of proportion to what you’d expect from normal aging. It’s a significant issue.

The argument that I made in the op-ed is that neurocognitive assessment is important. That’s not to say that everyone over age 65 has significant cognitive impairment or that older doctors can’t practice medicine safely and effectively. They absolutely can. The question is, do we leave neurocognitive assessment to physicians who may possibly be suffering from impairment?

In dementia, people very often have impaired self-awareness, a condition called anosognosia, which is a neurological term for not being aware of your own impairment because of your impairment.

I would argue that, instead of having voluntary neurocognitive screening, it should be mandated. The question is how to do that effectively, fairly, and transparently.

One could argue a gerontocracy in medicine today, where there are so many older physicians. What do we do about that? That really is something that I think needs to be debated.

Dr. Glatter: The question I have is, if we (that is, physicians and the health care profession) don’t take care of this, someone’s going to do it for us. We need to jump on this now while we have the opportunity. The AMA has been opposed to this, except when you have reason to suspect cognitive decline or are concerned about patient safety. A mandatory age of retirement is certainly something they’re not for, and we know this.

Your argument in your op-ed piece is very well thought out, and you lay the groundwork for testing (looking at someone’s memory, coordination, processing speed, and other executive functions). Certainly, for a psychiatrist, hearing is important, and for a dermatologist, vision is important. For a surgeon, there are other issues. Based on the specialty, we must be careful to see the important aspects of functioning. I am sure you would agree with this.

Dr. Jauhar: Obviously, the hand skills that are important for ophthalmological surgery certainly aren’t required for office-based psychological counseling, for example. We have to be smart about how we assess impairment.

You describe the spectrum of actions. On the one hand, there’s mandatory retirement at the age of 65 or 70 years. We know that commercial pilots are mandated to essentially retire at 65, and air-traffic controllers must retire in their late 50s.

We know that there’s a large amount of variability in competence. There are internists in their 80s with whom I’ve worked, and I’m absolutely wowed by their experience and judgment. There are new medical resident graduates who don’t really seem to have the requisite level of competence that would make me feel comfortable to have them as my doctor or a doctor for a member of my family.

To mandate retirement, I think the AMA is absolutely right. To not call for any kind of competency testing, to me, seems equally unwise. Because at the end of the day, you have to balance individual physician needs or wants to continue practicing with patient safety. I haven’t really come across too many physicians who say, “There’s absolutely no need for a competency testing.”

We have to meet somewhere in the middle. The middle is either voluntary cognitive competency testing or mandatory. I would argue that, because we know that as the brain changes we have cognitive impairment, but we’re not always aware that we need help, mandatory testing is the way.

One other thing that you mentioned was about having the solution imposed on us. You and I are doctors. We deal with bureaucracy. We deal with poorly thought-out solutions to issues in health care that make our lives that much more difficult. I don’t want that solution imposed on us by some outside agency. I think we need to figure this out within medicine and figure out the right way of doing it.

The AMA is on board with this. They haven’t called for mandatory testing, but they have said that if testing were to occur, these are the guidelines. The guidelines are fair and equitable, not too time-consuming, transparent, and not punitive. If someone comes out and doesn’t test well, we shouldn’t force them out of the profession. We can find ways to use their experience to help train younger doctors, for example.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to segue to an area where there has been some challenge to the legality of these mandatory types of age restrictions and imposing the exams as well. There’s been a lawsuit as well by the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission], on behalf of Yale. Basically, there’s been a concern that ageism is part of what’s going on. Yale now screens their providers beginning at age 70, and they have a program. UCSD [University of California, San Diego] has a program in place. Obviously, these institutions are looking at it. This is a very small part of the overall picture.

Health care systems overall, we’re talking about a fraction of them in the country are really addressing the issue of competency exams. The question is, where do we go from here? How do we get engagement or adoption and get physicians as a whole to embrace this concept?

Dr. Jauhar: The EEOC filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Yale medical staff that argued that Yale’s plan to do vision testing and neurocognitive screening – there may be a physical exam also – constitutes age discrimination because it’s reserved for doctors over the age of 70. Those are the physicians who are most likely to have cognitive impairment.

We have rules already for impaired physicians who are, for example, addicted to illicit drugs or have alcohol abuse. We already have some of those measures in place. This is focused on cognitive impairment in aging physicians because cognitive impairment is an issue that arises with aging. We have to be clear about that.

Most younger physicians will not have measurable cognitive impairment that would impair their ability to practice. To force young physicians (for example, physicians in their forties) to undergo such screening, all in the name of preventing age discrimination, doesn’t strike me as being a good use of resources. They’re more likely to be false positives, as you know from Bayesian statistics. When you have low pretest probability, you’re more likely to get false positives.

How are we going to screen hundreds of thousands of physicians? We have to make a choice about the group that really is more likely to benefit from such screening. Very few hospitals are addressing this issue and it’s going to become more important.

Dr. Glatter: Surgeons have been particularly active in pushing for age-based screening. In 2016, the American College of Surgeons started making surgeons at age 65-70 undergo voluntary health and neurocognitive assessments, and encouraged physicians to disclose any concerning findings as part of their professional obligation, which is pretty impressive in my mind.

Surgeons’ skill set is quite demanding physically and technically. That the Society of Surgical Chairs took it upon themselves to institute this is pretty telling.

Dr. Jauhar: The overall society called for screening, but then in a separate survey of surgical chairs, the idea was advanced that we should have mandatory retirement. Now, I don’t particularly agree with that.

I’ve seen it, where you have the aging surgeon who was a star in their day, and no one wants to say anything when their skills have visibly degraded, and no one wants to carry that torch and tell them that they need to retire. What happens is people whisper, and unfortunately, bad outcomes have to occur before people tend to get involved, and that’s what I’m trying to prevent.

Dr. Glatter: The question is whether older physicians have worse patient outcomes. The evidence is inconclusive, but studies have shown higher mortality rates for cardiovascular surgeons in terms of the procedures that they do. On the flip side, there are also higher mortality rates for GI surgery performed by younger surgeons. It’s a mixed bag.

Dr. Jauhar: For specialized surgery, you need the accrual of a certain amount of experience. The optimal age is about 60, because they’ve seen many things and they’ve seen complications. They don’t have a hand tremor yet so they’re still functioning well, and they’ve accrued a lot of experience. We have to be smart about who we screen.

There’s a learning curve in surgery. By no means am I arguing that younger surgeons are better surgeons. I would say that there’s probably a tipping point where once you get past a certain age and physical deterioration starts to take effect, that can overshadow the accrual of cognitive and surgical experience. We have to balance those things.

I would say neurocognitive screening and vision testing are important, but exactly what do you measure? How much of a hand tremor would constitute a risk? These things have to be figured out. I just want doctors to be leading the charge here and not have this imposed by bureaucrats.

Dr. Glatter: I was reading that some doctors have had these exams administered and they can really pass cognitive aspects of the exam, but there have been nuances in the actual practicing of medicine, day-to-day functioning, which they’re not good at.

Someone made a comment that the only way to know if a doctor can do well in practice is to observe their practice and observe them taking care of patients. In other words, you can game the system and pass the cognitive exam in some form but then have a problem practicing medicine.

Dr. Jauhar: Ultimately, outcomes have to be measured. We can’t adopt such a granular approach for every aging physician. There has to be some sort of screening that maybe raises a red flag and then hospitals and department chairs need to investigate further. What are the outcomes? What are people saying in the operating room? I think the screening is just that; it’s a way of opening the door to further investigation, but it’s not a witch hunt.

I have the highest respect for older physicians, and I learn from them every day, honestly, especially in my field (cardiology), because some of the older physicians can hear and see things on physical exam that I didn’t even know existed. There’s much to be learned from them.

This is not intended to be a witch hunt or to try to get rid of older physicians – by any means. We want to avoid some of the outcomes that I read about in the New York Times comments section. It’s not fair to our patients not to do at least some sort of screening to prevent those kinds of mistakes.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to go back to data from Yale between October 2016 and January 2019, where 141 Yale clinicians who ranged in age from 69 to 92 years completed cognitive assessments. Of those, 18 clinicians, or about 13% of those tested, demonstrated cognitive deficits that were “deemed likely to impair their ability to practice medicine independently.” That’s telling. These are subtleties, but they’re important to identify. I would love to get your comment on that.

Dr. Jauhar: It’s in keeping with what we know about the proportion of our older citizens who have cognitive impairment. About 10% have dementia and about 20% have at least mild cognitive impairment. That’s in keeping with what we know, and this was a general screening.

There are certain programs, like in San Diego, for example, where physicians are referred, and so there’s a selection bias. But this was just general screening. It’s worrisome. I’m an aging physician myself. I want fairness in this process because I’m going to be assessed as well.

I just don’t really understand yet why there’s so much circling of the wagons and so much resistance. It seems like it would be good for physicians also to be removed from situations where they might get into potential litigation because of mistakes and physical or visual impairment. It seems like it’d be good for patients and physicians alike.

Dr. Glatter: It’s difficult to give up your profession, change fields, or become administrative at some point, and [decide] when to make that transition. As we all get older, we’re not going to have the ability to do what we did in our 20s, 30s, and so forth.

Dr. Jauhar: Much of the resistance is coming from doctors who are used to high levels of autonomy. I’m certainly sympathetic to that because I don’t want anyone telling me how to practice. The reason this is coming up and hasn’t come up in the past is not because of loss of autonomy but because of an actual demographic change. Many physicians were trained in the 1960s, ’70s, or ’80s. They’re getting to retirement age but they’re not retiring, and we can speculate as to why that is.

In America’s educational system, doctors incur a huge amount of debt. I know physicians who are still paying off their debt and they’re in their 50s and 60s, so I’m very sympathetic to that. I’m not trying to force doctors out of practicing. I just want whoever is practicing to be competent and to practice safely. We have to figure out how to do that.

Dr. Glatter: The fact that there is a shortage of physicians forecast in the next 10-15 years makes many physicians reluctant to retire. They feel like they want to be part of that support network and we don’t want to have a dire situation, especially in the rural areas. We’re not immune from aging. We’re human beings. We all have to realize that.

Dr. Jauhar: I know that the ACC is starting to debate this issue, in part because of my op-ed. My hope is that it will start a conversation and we will institute a plan that comes from physicians and serves our patients, and doesn’t serve some cottage industry of testing or serve the needs of insurers or bureaucrats. It has to serve the doctor-patient relationship.

Dr. Glatter: In some random surveys that I’ve read, up to 30%-40% of physicians do support some type of age-based screening or competency assessment. The needle’s moving. It’s just not there yet. I think that wider adoption is coming.

Dr. Jauhar: Data are coming as more hospitals start to adopt these late practitioner programs. Some of the data that came out of Yale, for example, are very important. We’re going to see more published data in this area, and it will clarify what we need to do and how big the problem is.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you again for your time and for writing the op-ed because it certainly was well read and opened the eyes of not only physicians, but also the public at large. It’s a conversation that has to be had. Thank you for doing this.

Dr. Jauhar: Thanks for inviting me, Robert. It was a pleasure to talk to you.

Dr. Glatter is assistant professor of emergency medicine, department of emergency medicine, at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y. Dr. Jauhar is director of the heart failure program, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New Hyde Park, N.Y. Neither Dr. Glatter nor Dr. Jauhar reported any relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Sandeep Jauhar, a practicing cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwell Health, a frequent New York Times op-ed contributor, and highly regarded author of the upcoming book “My Father’s Brain: Life in the Shadow of Alzheimer’s.”

We are here today to discuss the rationale for age competency exams for practicing physicians.

Sandeep Jauhar, MD: Thanks for having me.

Dr. Glatter: Your recent op-ed piece in the New York Times caught my eye. In your piece, you refer to a 2020 survey in which almost one-third of licensed doctors in the United States were 60 years of age or older, up from a quarter in 2010. You also state that, due to a 20% prevalence of mild cognitive impairment in persons older than 65, practicing physicians above this age should probably be screened by a battery of tests to ensure that their reasoning and cognitive abilities are intact. The title of the article is “How Would You Feel About a 100-Year-Old Doctor?”

How would you envision such a process? What aspects of day-to-day functioning would the exams truly be evaluating?

Dr. Jauhar: A significant number of people over 65 have measurable cognitive impairment. By cognitive impairment, we’re not talking about dementia. The best estimates are that 1 in 10 people over age 65 have dementia, and roughly 1 in 5 have what’s called MCI, or mild cognitive impairment, which is cognitive impairment out of proportion to what you’d expect from normal aging. It’s a significant issue.

The argument that I made in the op-ed is that neurocognitive assessment is important. That’s not to say that everyone over age 65 has significant cognitive impairment or that older doctors can’t practice medicine safely and effectively. They absolutely can. The question is, do we leave neurocognitive assessment to physicians who may possibly be suffering from impairment?

In dementia, people very often have impaired self-awareness, a condition called anosognosia, which is a neurological term for not being aware of your own impairment because of your impairment.

I would argue that, instead of having voluntary neurocognitive screening, it should be mandated. The question is how to do that effectively, fairly, and transparently.

One could argue a gerontocracy in medicine today, where there are so many older physicians. What do we do about that? That really is something that I think needs to be debated.

Dr. Glatter: The question I have is, if we (that is, physicians and the health care profession) don’t take care of this, someone’s going to do it for us. We need to jump on this now while we have the opportunity. The AMA has been opposed to this, except when you have reason to suspect cognitive decline or are concerned about patient safety. A mandatory age of retirement is certainly something they’re not for, and we know this.

Your argument in your op-ed piece is very well thought out, and you lay the groundwork for testing (looking at someone’s memory, coordination, processing speed, and other executive functions). Certainly, for a psychiatrist, hearing is important, and for a dermatologist, vision is important. For a surgeon, there are other issues. Based on the specialty, we must be careful to see the important aspects of functioning. I am sure you would agree with this.

Dr. Jauhar: Obviously, the hand skills that are important for ophthalmological surgery certainly aren’t required for office-based psychological counseling, for example. We have to be smart about how we assess impairment.

You describe the spectrum of actions. On the one hand, there’s mandatory retirement at the age of 65 or 70 years. We know that commercial pilots are mandated to essentially retire at 65, and air-traffic controllers must retire in their late 50s.

We know that there’s a large amount of variability in competence. There are internists in their 80s with whom I’ve worked, and I’m absolutely wowed by their experience and judgment. There are new medical resident graduates who don’t really seem to have the requisite level of competence that would make me feel comfortable to have them as my doctor or a doctor for a member of my family.

To mandate retirement, I think the AMA is absolutely right. To not call for any kind of competency testing, to me, seems equally unwise. Because at the end of the day, you have to balance individual physician needs or wants to continue practicing with patient safety. I haven’t really come across too many physicians who say, “There’s absolutely no need for a competency testing.”

We have to meet somewhere in the middle. The middle is either voluntary cognitive competency testing or mandatory. I would argue that, because we know that as the brain changes we have cognitive impairment, but we’re not always aware that we need help, mandatory testing is the way.

One other thing that you mentioned was about having the solution imposed on us. You and I are doctors. We deal with bureaucracy. We deal with poorly thought-out solutions to issues in health care that make our lives that much more difficult. I don’t want that solution imposed on us by some outside agency. I think we need to figure this out within medicine and figure out the right way of doing it.

The AMA is on board with this. They haven’t called for mandatory testing, but they have said that if testing were to occur, these are the guidelines. The guidelines are fair and equitable, not too time-consuming, transparent, and not punitive. If someone comes out and doesn’t test well, we shouldn’t force them out of the profession. We can find ways to use their experience to help train younger doctors, for example.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to segue to an area where there has been some challenge to the legality of these mandatory types of age restrictions and imposing the exams as well. There’s been a lawsuit as well by the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission], on behalf of Yale. Basically, there’s been a concern that ageism is part of what’s going on. Yale now screens their providers beginning at age 70, and they have a program. UCSD [University of California, San Diego] has a program in place. Obviously, these institutions are looking at it. This is a very small part of the overall picture.

Health care systems overall, we’re talking about a fraction of them in the country are really addressing the issue of competency exams. The question is, where do we go from here? How do we get engagement or adoption and get physicians as a whole to embrace this concept?

Dr. Jauhar: The EEOC filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Yale medical staff that argued that Yale’s plan to do vision testing and neurocognitive screening – there may be a physical exam also – constitutes age discrimination because it’s reserved for doctors over the age of 70. Those are the physicians who are most likely to have cognitive impairment.

We have rules already for impaired physicians who are, for example, addicted to illicit drugs or have alcohol abuse. We already have some of those measures in place. This is focused on cognitive impairment in aging physicians because cognitive impairment is an issue that arises with aging. We have to be clear about that.

Most younger physicians will not have measurable cognitive impairment that would impair their ability to practice. To force young physicians (for example, physicians in their forties) to undergo such screening, all in the name of preventing age discrimination, doesn’t strike me as being a good use of resources. They’re more likely to be false positives, as you know from Bayesian statistics. When you have low pretest probability, you’re more likely to get false positives.

How are we going to screen hundreds of thousands of physicians? We have to make a choice about the group that really is more likely to benefit from such screening. Very few hospitals are addressing this issue and it’s going to become more important.

Dr. Glatter: Surgeons have been particularly active in pushing for age-based screening. In 2016, the American College of Surgeons started making surgeons at age 65-70 undergo voluntary health and neurocognitive assessments, and encouraged physicians to disclose any concerning findings as part of their professional obligation, which is pretty impressive in my mind.

Surgeons’ skill set is quite demanding physically and technically. That the Society of Surgical Chairs took it upon themselves to institute this is pretty telling.

Dr. Jauhar: The overall society called for screening, but then in a separate survey of surgical chairs, the idea was advanced that we should have mandatory retirement. Now, I don’t particularly agree with that.

I’ve seen it, where you have the aging surgeon who was a star in their day, and no one wants to say anything when their skills have visibly degraded, and no one wants to carry that torch and tell them that they need to retire. What happens is people whisper, and unfortunately, bad outcomes have to occur before people tend to get involved, and that’s what I’m trying to prevent.

Dr. Glatter: The question is whether older physicians have worse patient outcomes. The evidence is inconclusive, but studies have shown higher mortality rates for cardiovascular surgeons in terms of the procedures that they do. On the flip side, there are also higher mortality rates for GI surgery performed by younger surgeons. It’s a mixed bag.

Dr. Jauhar: For specialized surgery, you need the accrual of a certain amount of experience. The optimal age is about 60, because they’ve seen many things and they’ve seen complications. They don’t have a hand tremor yet so they’re still functioning well, and they’ve accrued a lot of experience. We have to be smart about who we screen.

There’s a learning curve in surgery. By no means am I arguing that younger surgeons are better surgeons. I would say that there’s probably a tipping point where once you get past a certain age and physical deterioration starts to take effect, that can overshadow the accrual of cognitive and surgical experience. We have to balance those things.

I would say neurocognitive screening and vision testing are important, but exactly what do you measure? How much of a hand tremor would constitute a risk? These things have to be figured out. I just want doctors to be leading the charge here and not have this imposed by bureaucrats.

Dr. Glatter: I was reading that some doctors have had these exams administered and they can really pass cognitive aspects of the exam, but there have been nuances in the actual practicing of medicine, day-to-day functioning, which they’re not good at.

Someone made a comment that the only way to know if a doctor can do well in practice is to observe their practice and observe them taking care of patients. In other words, you can game the system and pass the cognitive exam in some form but then have a problem practicing medicine.

Dr. Jauhar: Ultimately, outcomes have to be measured. We can’t adopt such a granular approach for every aging physician. There has to be some sort of screening that maybe raises a red flag and then hospitals and department chairs need to investigate further. What are the outcomes? What are people saying in the operating room? I think the screening is just that; it’s a way of opening the door to further investigation, but it’s not a witch hunt.

I have the highest respect for older physicians, and I learn from them every day, honestly, especially in my field (cardiology), because some of the older physicians can hear and see things on physical exam that I didn’t even know existed. There’s much to be learned from them.

This is not intended to be a witch hunt or to try to get rid of older physicians – by any means. We want to avoid some of the outcomes that I read about in the New York Times comments section. It’s not fair to our patients not to do at least some sort of screening to prevent those kinds of mistakes.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to go back to data from Yale between October 2016 and January 2019, where 141 Yale clinicians who ranged in age from 69 to 92 years completed cognitive assessments. Of those, 18 clinicians, or about 13% of those tested, demonstrated cognitive deficits that were “deemed likely to impair their ability to practice medicine independently.” That’s telling. These are subtleties, but they’re important to identify. I would love to get your comment on that.

Dr. Jauhar: It’s in keeping with what we know about the proportion of our older citizens who have cognitive impairment. About 10% have dementia and about 20% have at least mild cognitive impairment. That’s in keeping with what we know, and this was a general screening.

There are certain programs, like in San Diego, for example, where physicians are referred, and so there’s a selection bias. But this was just general screening. It’s worrisome. I’m an aging physician myself. I want fairness in this process because I’m going to be assessed as well.

I just don’t really understand yet why there’s so much circling of the wagons and so much resistance. It seems like it would be good for physicians also to be removed from situations where they might get into potential litigation because of mistakes and physical or visual impairment. It seems like it’d be good for patients and physicians alike.

Dr. Glatter: It’s difficult to give up your profession, change fields, or become administrative at some point, and [decide] when to make that transition. As we all get older, we’re not going to have the ability to do what we did in our 20s, 30s, and so forth.

Dr. Jauhar: Much of the resistance is coming from doctors who are used to high levels of autonomy. I’m certainly sympathetic to that because I don’t want anyone telling me how to practice. The reason this is coming up and hasn’t come up in the past is not because of loss of autonomy but because of an actual demographic change. Many physicians were trained in the 1960s, ’70s, or ’80s. They’re getting to retirement age but they’re not retiring, and we can speculate as to why that is.

In America’s educational system, doctors incur a huge amount of debt. I know physicians who are still paying off their debt and they’re in their 50s and 60s, so I’m very sympathetic to that. I’m not trying to force doctors out of practicing. I just want whoever is practicing to be competent and to practice safely. We have to figure out how to do that.

Dr. Glatter: The fact that there is a shortage of physicians forecast in the next 10-15 years makes many physicians reluctant to retire. They feel like they want to be part of that support network and we don’t want to have a dire situation, especially in the rural areas. We’re not immune from aging. We’re human beings. We all have to realize that.

Dr. Jauhar: I know that the ACC is starting to debate this issue, in part because of my op-ed. My hope is that it will start a conversation and we will institute a plan that comes from physicians and serves our patients, and doesn’t serve some cottage industry of testing or serve the needs of insurers or bureaucrats. It has to serve the doctor-patient relationship.

Dr. Glatter: In some random surveys that I’ve read, up to 30%-40% of physicians do support some type of age-based screening or competency assessment. The needle’s moving. It’s just not there yet. I think that wider adoption is coming.

Dr. Jauhar: Data are coming as more hospitals start to adopt these late practitioner programs. Some of the data that came out of Yale, for example, are very important. We’re going to see more published data in this area, and it will clarify what we need to do and how big the problem is.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you again for your time and for writing the op-ed because it certainly was well read and opened the eyes of not only physicians, but also the public at large. It’s a conversation that has to be had. Thank you for doing this.

Dr. Jauhar: Thanks for inviting me, Robert. It was a pleasure to talk to you.

Dr. Glatter is assistant professor of emergency medicine, department of emergency medicine, at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y. Dr. Jauhar is director of the heart failure program, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New Hyde Park, N.Y. Neither Dr. Glatter nor Dr. Jauhar reported any relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Sandeep Jauhar, a practicing cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwell Health, a frequent New York Times op-ed contributor, and highly regarded author of the upcoming book “My Father’s Brain: Life in the Shadow of Alzheimer’s.”

We are here today to discuss the rationale for age competency exams for practicing physicians.

Sandeep Jauhar, MD: Thanks for having me.

Dr. Glatter: Your recent op-ed piece in the New York Times caught my eye. In your piece, you refer to a 2020 survey in which almost one-third of licensed doctors in the United States were 60 years of age or older, up from a quarter in 2010. You also state that, due to a 20% prevalence of mild cognitive impairment in persons older than 65, practicing physicians above this age should probably be screened by a battery of tests to ensure that their reasoning and cognitive abilities are intact. The title of the article is “How Would You Feel About a 100-Year-Old Doctor?”

How would you envision such a process? What aspects of day-to-day functioning would the exams truly be evaluating?

Dr. Jauhar: A significant number of people over 65 have measurable cognitive impairment. By cognitive impairment, we’re not talking about dementia. The best estimates are that 1 in 10 people over age 65 have dementia, and roughly 1 in 5 have what’s called MCI, or mild cognitive impairment, which is cognitive impairment out of proportion to what you’d expect from normal aging. It’s a significant issue.

The argument that I made in the op-ed is that neurocognitive assessment is important. That’s not to say that everyone over age 65 has significant cognitive impairment or that older doctors can’t practice medicine safely and effectively. They absolutely can. The question is, do we leave neurocognitive assessment to physicians who may possibly be suffering from impairment?

In dementia, people very often have impaired self-awareness, a condition called anosognosia, which is a neurological term for not being aware of your own impairment because of your impairment.

I would argue that, instead of having voluntary neurocognitive screening, it should be mandated. The question is how to do that effectively, fairly, and transparently.

One could argue a gerontocracy in medicine today, where there are so many older physicians. What do we do about that? That really is something that I think needs to be debated.

Dr. Glatter: The question I have is, if we (that is, physicians and the health care profession) don’t take care of this, someone’s going to do it for us. We need to jump on this now while we have the opportunity. The AMA has been opposed to this, except when you have reason to suspect cognitive decline or are concerned about patient safety. A mandatory age of retirement is certainly something they’re not for, and we know this.

Your argument in your op-ed piece is very well thought out, and you lay the groundwork for testing (looking at someone’s memory, coordination, processing speed, and other executive functions). Certainly, for a psychiatrist, hearing is important, and for a dermatologist, vision is important. For a surgeon, there are other issues. Based on the specialty, we must be careful to see the important aspects of functioning. I am sure you would agree with this.

Dr. Jauhar: Obviously, the hand skills that are important for ophthalmological surgery certainly aren’t required for office-based psychological counseling, for example. We have to be smart about how we assess impairment.

You describe the spectrum of actions. On the one hand, there’s mandatory retirement at the age of 65 or 70 years. We know that commercial pilots are mandated to essentially retire at 65, and air-traffic controllers must retire in their late 50s.

We know that there’s a large amount of variability in competence. There are internists in their 80s with whom I’ve worked, and I’m absolutely wowed by their experience and judgment. There are new medical resident graduates who don’t really seem to have the requisite level of competence that would make me feel comfortable to have them as my doctor or a doctor for a member of my family.

To mandate retirement, I think the AMA is absolutely right. To not call for any kind of competency testing, to me, seems equally unwise. Because at the end of the day, you have to balance individual physician needs or wants to continue practicing with patient safety. I haven’t really come across too many physicians who say, “There’s absolutely no need for a competency testing.”

We have to meet somewhere in the middle. The middle is either voluntary cognitive competency testing or mandatory. I would argue that, because we know that as the brain changes we have cognitive impairment, but we’re not always aware that we need help, mandatory testing is the way.

One other thing that you mentioned was about having the solution imposed on us. You and I are doctors. We deal with bureaucracy. We deal with poorly thought-out solutions to issues in health care that make our lives that much more difficult. I don’t want that solution imposed on us by some outside agency. I think we need to figure this out within medicine and figure out the right way of doing it.

The AMA is on board with this. They haven’t called for mandatory testing, but they have said that if testing were to occur, these are the guidelines. The guidelines are fair and equitable, not too time-consuming, transparent, and not punitive. If someone comes out and doesn’t test well, we shouldn’t force them out of the profession. We can find ways to use their experience to help train younger doctors, for example.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to segue to an area where there has been some challenge to the legality of these mandatory types of age restrictions and imposing the exams as well. There’s been a lawsuit as well by the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission], on behalf of Yale. Basically, there’s been a concern that ageism is part of what’s going on. Yale now screens their providers beginning at age 70, and they have a program. UCSD [University of California, San Diego] has a program in place. Obviously, these institutions are looking at it. This is a very small part of the overall picture.

Health care systems overall, we’re talking about a fraction of them in the country are really addressing the issue of competency exams. The question is, where do we go from here? How do we get engagement or adoption and get physicians as a whole to embrace this concept?

Dr. Jauhar: The EEOC filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Yale medical staff that argued that Yale’s plan to do vision testing and neurocognitive screening – there may be a physical exam also – constitutes age discrimination because it’s reserved for doctors over the age of 70. Those are the physicians who are most likely to have cognitive impairment.

We have rules already for impaired physicians who are, for example, addicted to illicit drugs or have alcohol abuse. We already have some of those measures in place. This is focused on cognitive impairment in aging physicians because cognitive impairment is an issue that arises with aging. We have to be clear about that.

Most younger physicians will not have measurable cognitive impairment that would impair their ability to practice. To force young physicians (for example, physicians in their forties) to undergo such screening, all in the name of preventing age discrimination, doesn’t strike me as being a good use of resources. They’re more likely to be false positives, as you know from Bayesian statistics. When you have low pretest probability, you’re more likely to get false positives.

How are we going to screen hundreds of thousands of physicians? We have to make a choice about the group that really is more likely to benefit from such screening. Very few hospitals are addressing this issue and it’s going to become more important.

Dr. Glatter: Surgeons have been particularly active in pushing for age-based screening. In 2016, the American College of Surgeons started making surgeons at age 65-70 undergo voluntary health and neurocognitive assessments, and encouraged physicians to disclose any concerning findings as part of their professional obligation, which is pretty impressive in my mind.

Surgeons’ skill set is quite demanding physically and technically. That the Society of Surgical Chairs took it upon themselves to institute this is pretty telling.

Dr. Jauhar: The overall society called for screening, but then in a separate survey of surgical chairs, the idea was advanced that we should have mandatory retirement. Now, I don’t particularly agree with that.

I’ve seen it, where you have the aging surgeon who was a star in their day, and no one wants to say anything when their skills have visibly degraded, and no one wants to carry that torch and tell them that they need to retire. What happens is people whisper, and unfortunately, bad outcomes have to occur before people tend to get involved, and that’s what I’m trying to prevent.

Dr. Glatter: The question is whether older physicians have worse patient outcomes. The evidence is inconclusive, but studies have shown higher mortality rates for cardiovascular surgeons in terms of the procedures that they do. On the flip side, there are also higher mortality rates for GI surgery performed by younger surgeons. It’s a mixed bag.

Dr. Jauhar: For specialized surgery, you need the accrual of a certain amount of experience. The optimal age is about 60, because they’ve seen many things and they’ve seen complications. They don’t have a hand tremor yet so they’re still functioning well, and they’ve accrued a lot of experience. We have to be smart about who we screen.

There’s a learning curve in surgery. By no means am I arguing that younger surgeons are better surgeons. I would say that there’s probably a tipping point where once you get past a certain age and physical deterioration starts to take effect, that can overshadow the accrual of cognitive and surgical experience. We have to balance those things.

I would say neurocognitive screening and vision testing are important, but exactly what do you measure? How much of a hand tremor would constitute a risk? These things have to be figured out. I just want doctors to be leading the charge here and not have this imposed by bureaucrats.

Dr. Glatter: I was reading that some doctors have had these exams administered and they can really pass cognitive aspects of the exam, but there have been nuances in the actual practicing of medicine, day-to-day functioning, which they’re not good at.

Someone made a comment that the only way to know if a doctor can do well in practice is to observe their practice and observe them taking care of patients. In other words, you can game the system and pass the cognitive exam in some form but then have a problem practicing medicine.

Dr. Jauhar: Ultimately, outcomes have to be measured. We can’t adopt such a granular approach for every aging physician. There has to be some sort of screening that maybe raises a red flag and then hospitals and department chairs need to investigate further. What are the outcomes? What are people saying in the operating room? I think the screening is just that; it’s a way of opening the door to further investigation, but it’s not a witch hunt.

I have the highest respect for older physicians, and I learn from them every day, honestly, especially in my field (cardiology), because some of the older physicians can hear and see things on physical exam that I didn’t even know existed. There’s much to be learned from them.

This is not intended to be a witch hunt or to try to get rid of older physicians – by any means. We want to avoid some of the outcomes that I read about in the New York Times comments section. It’s not fair to our patients not to do at least some sort of screening to prevent those kinds of mistakes.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to go back to data from Yale between October 2016 and January 2019, where 141 Yale clinicians who ranged in age from 69 to 92 years completed cognitive assessments. Of those, 18 clinicians, or about 13% of those tested, demonstrated cognitive deficits that were “deemed likely to impair their ability to practice medicine independently.” That’s telling. These are subtleties, but they’re important to identify. I would love to get your comment on that.

Dr. Jauhar: It’s in keeping with what we know about the proportion of our older citizens who have cognitive impairment. About 10% have dementia and about 20% have at least mild cognitive impairment. That’s in keeping with what we know, and this was a general screening.

There are certain programs, like in San Diego, for example, where physicians are referred, and so there’s a selection bias. But this was just general screening. It’s worrisome. I’m an aging physician myself. I want fairness in this process because I’m going to be assessed as well.

I just don’t really understand yet why there’s so much circling of the wagons and so much resistance. It seems like it would be good for physicians also to be removed from situations where they might get into potential litigation because of mistakes and physical or visual impairment. It seems like it’d be good for patients and physicians alike.

Dr. Glatter: It’s difficult to give up your profession, change fields, or become administrative at some point, and [decide] when to make that transition. As we all get older, we’re not going to have the ability to do what we did in our 20s, 30s, and so forth.

Dr. Jauhar: Much of the resistance is coming from doctors who are used to high levels of autonomy. I’m certainly sympathetic to that because I don’t want anyone telling me how to practice. The reason this is coming up and hasn’t come up in the past is not because of loss of autonomy but because of an actual demographic change. Many physicians were trained in the 1960s, ’70s, or ’80s. They’re getting to retirement age but they’re not retiring, and we can speculate as to why that is.

In America’s educational system, doctors incur a huge amount of debt. I know physicians who are still paying off their debt and they’re in their 50s and 60s, so I’m very sympathetic to that. I’m not trying to force doctors out of practicing. I just want whoever is practicing to be competent and to practice safely. We have to figure out how to do that.

Dr. Glatter: The fact that there is a shortage of physicians forecast in the next 10-15 years makes many physicians reluctant to retire. They feel like they want to be part of that support network and we don’t want to have a dire situation, especially in the rural areas. We’re not immune from aging. We’re human beings. We all have to realize that.

Dr. Jauhar: I know that the ACC is starting to debate this issue, in part because of my op-ed. My hope is that it will start a conversation and we will institute a plan that comes from physicians and serves our patients, and doesn’t serve some cottage industry of testing or serve the needs of insurers or bureaucrats. It has to serve the doctor-patient relationship.

Dr. Glatter: In some random surveys that I’ve read, up to 30%-40% of physicians do support some type of age-based screening or competency assessment. The needle’s moving. It’s just not there yet. I think that wider adoption is coming.

Dr. Jauhar: Data are coming as more hospitals start to adopt these late practitioner programs. Some of the data that came out of Yale, for example, are very important. We’re going to see more published data in this area, and it will clarify what we need to do and how big the problem is.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you again for your time and for writing the op-ed because it certainly was well read and opened the eyes of not only physicians, but also the public at large. It’s a conversation that has to be had. Thank you for doing this.

Dr. Jauhar: Thanks for inviting me, Robert. It was a pleasure to talk to you.

Dr. Glatter is assistant professor of emergency medicine, department of emergency medicine, at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y. Dr. Jauhar is director of the heart failure program, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New Hyde Park, N.Y. Neither Dr. Glatter nor Dr. Jauhar reported any relevant conflicts of interest.

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